DFM Reverse Engineering

University of Colorado Boulder
Design for Manufacturability

MCEN 5045
Reverse Engineering - Camera Stabilizer
Authors
Roger Carter
JT Abate
Danny Straub
Kyle Thatcher
October 28, 2019

DFM Reverse Engineering Camera Stabilizer
Contents
1 Project Schedule 4
2 The Product - Camera Stabilizer 5

2.1 Black Box Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Glass Box Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.1 Camera Mount Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.2 Shaft Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.3 Base Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.4 Adjustment Screw Assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Fishbone Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4 Disassembly Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5 Patent Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.5.1 Patent 1 - US9052573 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.5.2 Patent 2 - US5243370 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.5.3 Patent 3 - US2945428 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3 Design for Assembly Analysis 11

3.1 DFA Complexity Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2 Functional Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3 Error Proofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.4 Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5 Inserting Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.6 Secondary Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4 Engineering Specifications and Design Requirements 13
5 Economic Analysis of Original Product 14

5.1 Economic Analysis Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2 Economic Analysis Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3 Results of Economic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6 Materials Analysis 18
6.1 1012 Main Shaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.2 Material Selection for Remaining Aluminum Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.3 1006 Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.4 1042 Camera Mounting Plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7 Drawing Package 22
7.1 Parts BOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.2 Assemblies BOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8 Professional, Ethical, and Safety Issues 24

8.1 Knock-Off Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.2 Quality of Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
8.3 Small Parts and Choking Hazard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8.4 Corporate Social Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Page 1 of 88
9 Recommended Redesign and Analysis 25

9.1 Overview of Suggested Redesigns and Engineering Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
9.2 Redesign Renderings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9.3 Design for Assembly Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.3.1 DFA Complexity Factor - Redesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.3.2 Functional Analysis - Redesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
9.3.3 Error Proofing - Redesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.3.4 Handling - Redesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.3.5 Inserting Parts - Redesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.3.6 Secondary Operations - Redesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.4 BOM of Redesigned Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
9.4.1 Parts BOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9.4.2 Assembly BOM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
9.5 Material Selection for Redesigned Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
9.6 Material Selection for Rest of Redesigned Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9.7 Manufacturing Process Analysis for Redesigned Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9.8 Economic Analysis of Redesigned Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
10 Conclusions 35
Appendices 37
A Disassembly Process 37
B Drawing Package - Initial Design 40
C Drawing Package - Redesign 75
D Costs of Initial Design 84
E Manufacturing Process Selection Tables 86
List of Figures
1 Screenshot of the Gantt chart used for management of the project . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 This image shows the full assembly of the camera stabilizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3 The Black Box diagram to show inputs and outputs of device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4 The Glass Box diagram shows how the product takes inputs and generates outputs . . . . 6
5 The Fishbone diagram shows how the subassemblies assemble together and in what order 7
6 This pictures shows almost all components disassembled and labeled . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
7 Photo description of the handheld camera stabilizer patent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8 Photo description of the "folded ladder"-style stabilizer patent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9 Photo description of the shoulder-mounted camera stabilizer patent . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
10 Diagram of device with x,y,z direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11 Coordinate convention used for moment calculations in SolidWorks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12 Strength verse Density Ashby chart for the main shaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
13 Material Cost verse Material Ashby chart for the main shaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
14 Strength verse Relative Cost per Unit Volume for the Calibration Weight . . . . . . . . . 20
15 Material Cost verse Material Ashby chart for the calibration weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
18 Various other products similar to the YaeCCC S60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
19 Amazon reviews of the YaeCCC S60 Camera Stabilizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Page 2 of 88
20 A comparison of the full assembly before and after redesign. Figure 20a . . . . . . . . . . 26
21 A comparison of the initial and redesigned Extension Rods. Figure 21a . . . . . . . . . . 27
22 A comparison of the Adjustment Coupler Screw assembly before and after redesign. Figure
22a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
23 A comparison of the base assembly before and after redesign. Figure 23a . . . . . . . . . . 27
24 Strength verse Density Ashby chart for redesigned base plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
25 Cost verse Material chart for the redesigned base plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
26 This figure shows what manufacturing methods can be used based on the mass of the part 33
27 This figure shows what manufacturing methods can be used based on the sectional thick-
ness of the part . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
List of Tables
1 This table shows the DFA analysis of the initial design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2 This table shows the summary of the costs of the intial design. Refer to Appendix D for
the full cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3 Assembly BOM and Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4 High Level Assembly BOM and Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5 DFA analysis spreadsheet for redesigned product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6 Part BOM of the redesigned device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
7 Assembly BOM of the redesigned device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
8 Summary of cost analysis for redesigned device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Page 3 of 88
Abstract
The goal of this project is to redesign a mechanical camera stabilizer to improve its Design for
Manufacturability (DFM) and/or Design for Assembly (DFA) characteristics. Many times improving
the DFM is a tradeoff for DFA, and vice versa, but the goal is to find the equilibrium point between
the two to ultimately design an economically viable product. The camera stabilizer product contains
almost eighty parts, and the DFM and DFA can be significantly improved by reducing the part
count. This report explains the initial design and describes the analysis of the product to redesign it to
better align with DFM and DFA principles. The analysis includes identifying possible manufacturing
processes, selecting material, and costs. A full CAD model of the initial and redesigned product was
built and a drawing portfolio of each part and assembly is provided, as well as a full BOM.
1 Project Schedule
Figure 1: Screenshot of the Gantt chart used for management of the project
To complete the project efficiently, a list of the work necessary for completing the project was created.
Tasks were then aligned on a timeline according to their dependencies and expected duration starting
with the first week of class and ending with a presentation in class on October 28th. This timeline is
shown below [fig 1] and follows the general form of getting to know the product at first to then taking
it apart for more in depth analysis and generating a CAD model. Afterwhich assembly, manufacturing,
and economic analysis will take place to better understand how the product was likely produced and to
gain a baseline for comparison to possible redesigns. Finally, redesign for improvement will take place
and all project work distilled into a final report and presentation.
Page 4 of 88
2 The Product - Camera Stabilizer
Figure 2: This image shows the full assembly of the camera stabilizer
The YaeCCC S60 Handhold Camera Stabilizer was chosen because it incorporates some interesting
engineering design and appears to have a reasonable amount of parts. The device is a mechanical camera
stabilizer that can be used to filter out camera movements to give a steady shot or video. During use,
the handle of the device is held like a coffee mug, filtering out external disturbances in all six degrees of
freedom using counterweights and bearings. It acts as an inverted pendulum and a mechanical bandpass
filter. To calibrate the stabilizer, the camera is mounted to the top, and while holding the device’s
handle, the counterweights can be tediously adjusted to adapt to the weight and size of the camera.
The device features adjustable components to support various cameras (DSLR, camcorders, etc.)
with a 3/8" or 1/4” mounting point and a weight of three pounds or less. It includes a quick release
plate for camera mounting, a bidirectional and adjustable camera mounting plate system, a base plate
with adjustable counterweights, high-precision bearings, and an extendable shaft to adapt to the weight
of the camera. The device is made of Aluminum 6061, anodized for durability, and weighs a total of 6.6
pounds.
Considering the machining time and material costs, it is surprising the price is only set at $40. Many
of the other similar camera stabilizer products are in the $60-100 range, which is what would be expected
from a simple 1:3:9 estimation (Refer to Economic Analysis section for explanation). The device has 46
unique parts, and 80 parts in total, 30% of which are fasteners. The manufacturer most likely shares
parts between this product and others because the fasteners are a mix between metric and English
threads. From a DFA perspective, the assembly can be made more efficient by reducing the number of
fasteners and standardizing them throughout the device. Reducing fasteners may be a tradeoff to the
“ease” of calibration of the device as many of the fasteners are implemented to add adjustability. It
would be difficult to lower the price of the device while maintaining the usability, however, in general,
reducing the number of parts, or redesigning them, will significantly improve both the manufacturability
and assembly of the device.
Page 5 of 88
2.1 Black Box Diagram
Figure 3: The Black Box diagram to show inputs and outputs of device
A Black Box diagram of the product can be generated and used as an analysis tool to further understand
the functionality of the product. After redesigning the product, it is important to verify that the device
functions similarly and provides the same output of the initial design. From Figure 3, the inputs consist of
the load of the camera (weight and geometry), user-inputted disturbances (pitch, roll, yaw, translation),
and the initial calibration and adjustments needed to balance the device. The output of the system is
steady footage.
2.2 Glass Box Diagram
Figure 4: The Glass Box diagram shows how the product takes inputs and generates outputs
The Glass Box diagram is used to determine how the system works and how each subassembly functions
to give the output of the device. In this device, there are four subassemblies: Camera Mount, Shaft
(handle, bearings), Base and counterweights, and the Adjustment Screw assembly. Each subassembly
plays an integral part in outputting the desired steadiness of the camera. Refer to Figure 4 for the Glass
Box diagram.
2.2.1 Camera Mount Assembly

The camera mount assembly consists of five major parts: the threaded part that interfaces between the
first plate and the top of the main shaft, the first dovetail plate, the flat plate, the second dovetail plate,
and the mounting plate. The series of plates gives bidirectional control of the camera position relative to
the shaft. The first and second dovetail plates are mounted perpendicularly, relative to each other, and
allow the interfacing plates to slide in the respective direction. The mounting plate interfaces directly
with the camera. The function of this subassembly is to ensure the center of gravity of the camera is
centered on the main shaft, and from there, calibration can then be tweaked to balance the stabilizer.
Page 6 of 88
2.2.2 Shaft Assembly

The shaft assembly consists of the main shaft, extension rod, the handle, and bearings. The extension
rod telescopes out from the main shaft to increase the moment induced by the base plate assembly,
counteracting the moment of the camera load. The handle mounts to the center of gravity of the device
and acts as the focal point of the rotation. There are four ball bearings in total: the main shaft bearing,
flanged bearing to connect the handle to the wishbone bracket, and two bearings to connect the wishbone
bracket to the main bearing. The bearings are used to reduce friction in the respective interfaces, and
allows the device to self-adjust more easily.
2.2.3 Base Assembly

The base assembly consists of the base plate, counterweights, and weight bolts. The base plate serves as
a surface to set the device down, but also features two slots to allow the counterweights to be moved in
the z-direction to filter out roll disturbances. The weight bolts thread through the cylindrical weights,
and are secured by the tri-thumb nut. The base assembly as a whole creates an extended mass to provide
the moment of inertia needed to resist the rotation of the device in any of the directions.
2.2.4 Adjustment Screw Assembly

The adjustment screw assembly is used to lock the extension rod in place as it is extended or inserted
into the main shaft. It is broken into its own assembly because it contains five parts: a threaded rod with
a hexagonal feature and a threaded hole; a conical spring; an E-style retaining ring; a flathead screw;
and the adjustment lever. The adjustment screw assembly is threaded through the coupler and main
shaft, and bottoms out on the vertical slot of the extension rod, fixing the position of the extension rod
relative to the shaft.
2.3 Fishbone Diagram
Figure 5: The Fishbone diagram shows how the subassemblies assemble together and in what order
The Fishbone diagram in Figure 5 is used to visualize how the subassemblies interface, and delineates
which parts are used for which subassembly. It also shows how the subassemblies are assembled and
in what order. Refer to the Glass Box section or Appendix B for the assembly and part BOMs and
descriptions.
Page 7 of 88
2.4 Disassembly Process
Figure 6: This pictures shows almost all components disassembled and labeled
Figure 6 above shows the disassembled device. Note that some of the parts remain assembled such as the
Adjustment Screw assembly, as it would have been difficult to show each part in the photo. When taking
it apart, it was increasingly obvious that many parts were left over from another design or product and
that no DFA principles had been implemented. There are many unnecessary parts, and the assembly
and disassembly processes each take about 20-30 minutes. For the first few disassemblies, videos were
taken to ensure no parts were omitted.
There are ten different types of fasteners with all different types of drives (hex head bolt, Philips,
SHCS, etc.). A set of metric hex keys, flathead and Phillips #2/#3 screwdrivers, and a pair of slip joint
and needle nose pliers are required for assembly and disassembly. Many of the parts require two hands
to orient in place and are difficult to fasten together.
In terms of order of disassembly, the Camera Mount, Adjustment Screw, and Base assemblies should
Page 8 of 88
be removed from the main shaft and disassembled separately in any order. The shaft assembly starts
with removing the set screw from the coupler and loosening the shaft coupler. The shaft coupler can
slide to the bottom of the extension rod, and the hard stop screw and washer can be removed from the
top of the extension rod. From there, the bearing and handle system can be removed in any order, and
separated from the main shaft. All the other assemblies can be disassembled in any order. Refer to
Appendix A for the process of disassembly.
2.5 Patent Research

Patent research helps to benchmark other devices with similar functionality. In the case of the camera
stabilizer, there are many designs that effectively produce the same results. Some of the other devices
are better suited for heavier cameras than the YaeCCC S60. Three patents were found that incorporate
the gimbal technology, all for different applications. Patent 1 describes the handheld stabilizer that is
suited for home use, where Patent 2 and 3 are suited for production-quality equipment and both support
heavier cameras.
2.5.1 Patent 1 - US9052573
Figure 7: Photo description of the handheld camera stabilizer patent
This camera stabilizer uses gimbal technology and an extension shaft with counterweights for adjust-
ments. The camera sits at the top of the device, and the handle is connected to the gimbal so the device
can be moved. This type of device is usually used or smaller cameras (about 3lb). This design is usually
carried like a cup of coffee[1].
Page 9 of 88
2.5.2 Patent 2 - US5243370
Figure 8: Photo description of the "folded ladder"-style stabilizer patent
This design uses three masses, one of which is the camera, connected by a frame. The length of each
shaft increases the moment of inertia to filter out unwanted torques in the respective degrees of freedom.
The handle is connected to the center of gravity of the device so the user has full control of the frame.
This device is used for larger cameras, and is much larger than the design above. It is carried like a
collapsed ladder[2].
2.5.3 Patent 3 - US2945428
Figure 9: Photo description of the shoulder-mounted camera stabilizer patent
This design incorporates a frame that rests on the user’s shoulders. It also features a gimbal mechanism
and uses counterweights for adjustment. The camera is mounted in the middle of the frame giving the
user the ability to look through the camera lens. This device is also used for larger movie-production
cameras[3].
Page 10 of 88
3 Design for Assembly Analysis
Table 1: This table shows the DFA analysis of the initial design
Page 11 of 88
The goal of DFA is to make the assembly process more efficient. The above table can help identify which
parts need to be redesigned or removed from the assembly to achieve the desired efficiency. The table
does have bias as most of the inputs are either 1 or 0, however the bias is distributed evenly meaning
the values are relative to each other, which in turn provides reliable conclusions.
3.1 DFA Complexity Factor

The full assembly contains 80 parts with 150 interfaces. The DFA complexity factor is 109.5, which is
given by the square root of the total number of parts multiplied by the total number of interfaces. The
goal complexity factor is 50, which requires a large part reduction and/or interface reduction. The main
camera mounting plate (PN1042), the bottom interface plate (PN1034), and the base plate (PN1001)
have 14, 10, and 11 interfaces, respectively. To reach the complexity factor goal, some or all of these
parts need to be addressed. In general, the remaining parts have 1-3 interfaces, so a large part reduction
would help with the target goal.
3.2 Functional Analysis

The goal of this metric is to identify which parts can be eliminated and if another part can be designed to
take on the unneeded part’s functionality. The device has 12 theoretical minimum parts and 31 practical
minimum parts, which is 15% and about 40% of the total parts, respectively. The goals for the redesign
is to reach a theoretical efficiency of 40% and a practical efficiency of 60%. This can be achieved by
removing or combining 30 parts into the remaining 50 parts.
3.3 Error Proofing

Another way to improve DFA is to ensure parts cannot be oriented the wrong way or omitted during
assembly. This can be done a number of ways including designing symmetric parts so orientation is
insignificant. There were 11 parts that could have been omitted by the assembler and 7 parts that could
be assembled in the wrong direction. Most of these parts are either fasteners or aesthetic parts. Because
a lot of the fasteners in the design are used for adjusting and calibrating the device, they could easily
be omitted. Many of the aesthetic parts could be assembled in the wrong way. The metric for error
proofing is the total number of parts, in this case 18, divided by the theoretical minimum part count.
The metric was 1.5 with a target value of 1.3. This can be achieved by standardizing the fasteners and
adding some features to the mating parts of the aesthetic components so the part can be dropped in.
3.4 Handling
This metric is used to determine if parts can tangle with other like parts in storage, if the part is fragile,
slippery, or sharp, or if the part is too small to handle. In this device, 4 parts were likely to tangle, 7 were
slippery, and 5 were too small to handle. The total of these parts divided by the theoretical minimum is
1.33; the goal metric is 1.10. Some of the parts that tangle are springs which offer useful functionality,
however some of the parts are small and unneeded. Removing these smaller parts can help meet the goal
metric.
3.5 Inserting Parts

This metric is used to determine if a part is difficult to align, if there is resistance to inserting the part,
if the part needs to be fixed before insertion, or if it is difficult to see where the part goes. These criteria
can increase assembly time and difficulty. A total of 50 parts fit into one of those categories, giving a
metric of 4.17. The goal is to reduce this number down to 3.00, meaning 14 of the 50 parts need to be
redesigned or removed from the design.
Page 12 of 88
3.6 Secondary Operations

This metric is used to determine how many parts need a secondary operation such as re-orienting the
work piece, screwing or crimping, gluing, painting or lubing, or testing. A total of 46 parts fell into one
of these categories, giving a metric of 3.83 relative to the number of theoretical minimum parts. Of these
46 parts, 28 of them including screwing, as there are many fasteners in the assembly. Another 15 of these
parts needed to be re-oriented for assembly. The goal metric is 2.5 and can be reached by eliminating
many of the fasteners and using snap fits and other methods of calibrating the device. To reduce the
number of re-oriented parts, an assembly jig and protocol could be designed, which is not considered in
this project.
4 Engineering Specifications and Design Requirements
Figure 10: Diagram of device with x,y,z direction
This assembly is designed to be compatible with Nikon, Cannon, Sony, and Panasonic cameras weighing
up to 3 pounds. Its quick release plate is compatible with both both 1/4" and 3/8" cameras. These
specifications effectively outline the key requirements of the design, however, fail to outline the extent
to which the center of gravity of the camera may be displaced from the axis of the shaft. There are
a number of ways that the camera’s weight could be distributed about the mounting plate, so it was
decided that it would be most helpful to look at the assembly’s characteristic moments of inertia to
bound requirements of the system. The moment of inertia was taken about the coordinate system in
SolidWorks shown in Figure 11. It was found that when the weights of the assembly were placed as far
to one side as possible, a moment of 127 lb·in was generated about the effective center of the rotational
axis in the direction that the assembly may be adjusted. This was used as a baseline for the redesign
efforts.
Other requirements for the system include the ability to set the assembly down and not have it slip,
and a need for easy adjustability. Despite the use of three wing thumb screws, it was found that the
weights are difficult to move. Other parts of the assembly were easier to adjust. However, Amazon
reviewers complained that it was hard to adjust due to the number of possible adjustment places and
too much sensitivity.
Page 13 of 88
Figure 11: Coordinate convention used for moment calculations in SolidWorks
5 Economic Analysis of Original Product

After the engineering specifications and assembly analysis, further analysis into the economic costs
associated with manufacturing was executed to gain further insight into the financial side of the product,
providing a baseline to which design changes could be compared.
5.1 Economic Analysis Process

A spreadsheet was used to consolidate the information discovered in economic analysis. The cost analysis
included an Order of Magnitude Estimate (OME) using the 1:3:9 rule, an online estimator (Custom-
Part.net), and a more in depth manufacturing cost estimate, which are further described below.
• Order of Magnitude Estimate (OME) - The 1:3:9 rule can be used to quickly estimate cost
of a part/product based on its material and mass. With a general estimate of material cost per
unit weight, the material cost can be established. Multiplying the material cost by three gives the
manufacturing cost, and multiplying by 3 again gives the sales price. This is the most rudimentary
method for estimating product cost.
• Online Estimator - CustomPart.net was used as the secondary estimation method. The website
takes into account a part’s material, size, complexity of features, batch size, and manufacturing
method to estimate a cost per part. This was mainly used as a sanity check to which the more
in-depth estimation could be compared.
• Manufacturing Cost Spreadsheet - a table was created to tabulate each parts material, labor,
tooling, capital equipment, and overhead cost to estimate its break even sales price for a certain
batch size.
5.2 Economic Analysis Table

Notes and assumptions regarding the Economic Analysis Table 2:
Page 14 of 88
• This is a summarized table. See Appendix D for the full table with all custom parts of the original
product.
• Only custom parts for this product are investigated in this table, as the true cost of off-the-shelf
components like fasteners, bearings, washers, etc. can be found through various vendors.
• The second column listed shows whether a row is set based on an assumption/reference or calculated
using other values in the table. If the value was calculated using other values, the Excel formula is
given.
• The middle columns are a collection of parts of varying materials/manufacturing methods to sum-
marize the assumptions made for these different methods described below.
• The final column shows a total for each row for all custom parts in the original product.
• Material Mass - Because all parts were modeled in SolidWorks with the correct material applied,
mass values were taken from there.
• Cost of Material - The product was determined to be made of only aluminum 6061-T6, butyl
rubber, ABS plastic, and carbon steel with each material coming with a different manufacturing
process. Assumptions based on material are listed below.
– Aluminum 6061-T6 - Cost of aluminum was estimated to be $2.50/lb. All Aluminum parts
are considered to be machined and noted by their high scrap material fractions.
– Butyl Rubber - Cost of material was estimated to be $0.75/lb. Parts of this material are
also assumed to be injection molded which is noted by their high tooling cost and low scrap
material fractions.
– 1010 Steel - Cost of material was estimated to be $0.40/lb based on online resources. Parts
of this material are assumed to be machined noted by their low tooling cost.
– ABS Plastic - Cost of material was estimated to be $0.41/lb based on online resources. Parts
of this material are assumed to be injection molded noted by their high tooling cost and low
scrap material fraction.
• Scrap Material Fraction - Represents the loss of material during fabrication to better calculate
the true cost of material for making a part. Machined parts will have a higher material fraction
whereas injection molded parts will have a lower loss.
• Material Cost - Takes into account material mass, cost, and scrap fraction as shown by formula
in Table 2.
• Hourly Cost of Wages - The manufacturing is assumed to take place outside of the US with
semi-skilled workers who are generally charged at $20/hr.
• Parts Per Time - Represents how many parts a semi-skilled laborer could produce in an hour.
Size, complexity, material, and manufacturing process was taken into account when determining
these values. Machined parts values varied greatly based on size and complexity and are far lower
than the high values associated with injection molding/casting.
• Labor Cost - Takes into account wages and parts per time to calculate labor cost per unit
• Cost of Making Tooling - Low values in the hundreds were used for machined parts as only
conventional tooling would be required and possibly using scrap material for a jig. The most
affordable injection molds can be about $5,000. It is assumed that these could be used as the
injection molded parts are of small size and complexity.
• Tooling Wear Factor - Represents how many sets of tooling would be required per batch
Page 15 of 88
• Entire Production Run - Represents the number of parts made in a batch. For this analysis, a
batch size of 5,000 products was considered. For parts that are used multiple times per product,
their quantity is taken into account here, noted by the occasional different batch sizes per part.
• Tooling Cost - Takes into account cost of tooling, wear factor, and batch size to calculate tooling
cost per unit as per the formula shown.
• Cost of Capital Equipment - Represents the cost of equipment used in manufacturing, such as
a mill, lathe, or injection molder. The cost of these machines was estimated to be $0.5 million.
• Load Time - Represents the fraction of time a machine is working per 24/7 calendar year. The
analysis assumes 20hrs of operation per day for 355 days out of the year to yield a load fraction of
0.82.
• Capital Write Off Time - Represents the amount of time associated with depreciation and taxes
on industrial equipment. Industrial manufacturing equipment write off time was found to be 7
years according to the IRS, yielding to 61320 hrs as noted in Table 2.
• Fraction of Shared - Represents the fraction of work a machine spends on producing the analyzed
part over its lifetime. A value of 0.01 was used because it assumed these machines will make many
more parts other than the ones analyzed here over their 7-year lifetimes.
• Capital Equipment - Takes into account cost, load fraction, write off time, and sharing of
equipment to determine Capital Equipment cost on a per part basis as noted by the formula
shown.
• Overhead Hourly Rate - Represents cost of overhead per time a part is being made. Costs
of overhead include maintaining facilities and compensation for persons not directly involved in
manufacturing. This was assumed to be $20/hr.
• Overhead Cost - Represents overhead cost per unit based on time to make part, batch size, and
rate as shown in formula.
• Total Cost - Our end result for the most in-depth economic estimation takes into account all
other factors discussed above on a per unit basis.
• Hours of Operation - Represents how long the machine or process must run to complete a batch
• Fixed Cost - Represents the cost associated with production no matter the batch size
• Variable Cost - Represents additional cost on a per unit basis

• Break Even Sales Price - The price at which part or product must be sold at in order to cover
cost of production. Conveniently, this is equivalent to the Total Cost per unit because overhead
was taken into account.
• OME (1:3:9 rule) - Estimation of unit cost based on material cost as explained in Economic
Analysis Process section. This was used as a sanity check for the in-depth estimation.
• CustomPartNet.com - Estimation of unit cost from online source as described in Economic
Analysis Process section.
Page 16 of 88
5.3 Results of Economic Analysis
Table 2: This table shows the summary of the costs of the intial design. Refer to Appendix D for the
full cost.
From the summary table shown above and the full table listed in Appendix D, it can be shown that
all of the estimation methods end up at a similar total cost for our product (excluding off-the-shelf
components). With OME 1:3:9 rule coming in at $79.71, Custompartnet.com at $72.66, and in depth
analysis at $67.32.
The camera stabilizer under investigation was listed at $99.99 from Amazon and purchased at a price
of $49.50. If conservatively estimated, the added cost of off-the-shelf components including fasteners,
bearings, washers, springs, and bubble levels to be $10.00 or less. All of the estimates still fall within
Amazon’s listed sales price. So, the estimation makes for a good baseline. Furthermore, important
realizations from the economic analysis that will be taken into consideration during redesign are:
• For machined parts, how quickly a part can be made has substantial effect on its cost because
labor and overhead (two of the most expensive rates) are directly related to it. So for machined
parts, which constitutes the majority of our product, efforts should be made to simplify wherever
possible to shorten fabrication time.
• When casting or injection molding is used, the most significant contributor to cost becomes tooling.
For redesign, casting and injection molding should only be used when the extra tooling cost is
offset by the decrease in machine time and scrap material fraction. Meaning, these high volume
manufacturing methods should be considered for any parts that appear in high quantity throughout
the camera stabilizer.
• Because the batch size is small (5,000 parts) and the equipment used is expected to fulfil many
other functions over its lifetime, Capital Equipment costs are steady and insignificant. Efforts
should be taken to avoid designing parts that require specialized equipment that can’t be used
elsewhere.
Page 17 of 88
6 Materials Analysis
Analysis of the materials used in the original product was done to gain insight into possible improvements
for redesign. To do so, key functions of a camera stabilizer and its respective components were considered
and material properties associated with such functions were analyzed using Ashby charts[4].
6.1 1012 Main Shaft

The main shaft is the base of the product to which everything attaches. Essential qualifications of a
camera stabilizer, and thus the main shaft, are that it must be light and strong. Light weight is important
since the user will be carrying or holding it out for extended periods of times while shooting. Strength is
crucial so that it won’t bend or break while filming. Lightness is dependent on a materials density, and
a materials resistance to bending/breaking is dependent on yield strength.
Figure 12: Strength verse Density Ashby chart for the main shaft
Knowing the part is currently made of aluminum and meets strength/density requirements already, it
serves as a decent starting point (blue star) for comparing other materials. The middle guideline 2/3 /⇢
is used because the strength and density are equally important (purple line). The above Figure 12 shows
that some polymers, composites, and other metals could serve to replace the aluminum part. Natural
materials like wood can be excluded even though they lie above the purple line. Wood would not be
acceptable because it is not easily formed into the shape necessary for our part. Similar limitations apply
to foam, and also a foam camera stabilizer could be considered unmarketable. To further narrow the
material selection, cost can be considered since the product should be built with the most affordable
material possible if it meets the engineering requirements. The YaeCCC S60 stabilizer was most likely
built out of anodized aluminum for marketability, and to improve the feel of it from an industrial design
standpoint.
Page 18 of 88
Figure 13: Material Cost verse Material Ashby chart for the main shaft
None of the Ceramics that meet the strength/density requirements also lie below the cost line drawn
in the Figure 13. Therefore, they can be excluded. Same goes for the composites family. When it comes
to the metals, Zinc alloys are a suitable material as they meet the strength/density requirements and
are of equivalent, or even more inexpensive than aluminum alloys. PP also fulfills the same requirements
from the Polymer family. It is important to note that while many polymers and metals meet the strength
to density requirements, few are more affordable at a cost per unit mass metric than aluminum. In the
end it was found that Zinc alloys, Aluminum alloys, and Polypropylene are suitable materials for the
main shaft. This will be taken into account during redesign and manufacturing process analysis.
6.2 Material Selection for Remaining Aluminum Parts

Because weight and strength are a key factor for the entire product, it is fair to extrapolate the materials
analysis results of the main shaft to other parts which serve a similar function and are exposed to similar
stresses. Included in this group of parts are:
• 1001 Bottom Plate
• 1009 Extension Rod
• 1010 Shaft Coupler
• 1013 Handle Bracket

• 1016 Main Bearing Cup
• 1017 Main Bearing Top
• 2026 Main Bearing Compressor

• 1034 Dovetail Plate
• 1038 Bubble Level Knob
• 1041 Dovetail Clamp
• 1042 Camera Mounting Plate
Page 19 of 88
6.3 1006 Weight

Calibration weights are used on the base plate to dampen camera oscillations. The cost of the material
used in the weights can be compared to the strength to find other inexpensive materials that can be used
as a weight. From this Ashby chart in Figure 14, the least strength-dependent slope is chosen 1/2 /C,
as the strength of the weight is less significant than cost. The current material is considered to be low
carbon steel.
Figure 14: Strength verse Relative Cost per Unit Volume for the Calibration Weight
According to the Ashby chart above, some carbon steels, wood, or concrete could be used. However,
because the weight should be a small volume, density must also be considered; this excludes wood. While
Concrete meets the strength, density, and cost requirements, it is far too brittle and difficult to form in
a part of this size, and therefore can also be excluded. Next, cost is considered to choose between the
remaining materials.
Page 20 of 88
Figure 15: Material Cost verse Material Ashby chart for the calibration weight
From this chart in Figure 15 it appears alloy steel, low carbon steel, or cast iron are affordable.
Because Cast Iron is slightly more affordable than steel, a dense material, and easily casted, it can be
considered the ideal material for the calibration weights on a camera stabilizer.
6.4 1042 Camera Mounting Plate

Of all parts on a camera stabilizer, the part where strength is of the most importance is where the user
attaches their camera. It would be tragic if the user’s camera fell off of the mount. The part also cannot
deflect during use, so Young’s modulus is analyzed.
Because the current mount is made of aluminum and operates properly, it can be used as a starting
Page 21 of 88
point for considering other materials. Because this part is likely not of the highest grade, it was chosen
as the starting point on the lowest strength side of the aluminum alloy bubble noted by the star on the
chart above in Figure 16. The purple line was then drawn vertically to mark the strength requirement,
as only materials that are as strong, or stronger are considered. Note that while many materials meet
the strength requirement, few have a higher Young’s modulus. To further narrow down the material
choice, cost per unit mass is also considered.
Notice that PP and Butyl rubber are the only polymers that can compete with aluminum on the cost
side. While they meet the strength requirement, their Young’s moduli are too low and would deflect too
much for the function, and therefore can be ruled out. No ceramics that meet the cost requirement also
meet the strength requirement, so they can be ruled out. Lead Alloys, low alloy steels, carbon steels,
and cast irons can compete with aluminum on the cost side, and all of them also meet our strength
requirement. However, these materials are much heavier than aluminum and because low density is also
a priority, they are not feasible options for this part. Aluminum alloys would be the ideal material for
the camera mount because of its strength, resistance to deflection, affordable cost, and relatively low
density.
7 Drawing Package
7.1 Parts BOM
Table 3 shows a breakdown of part numbers, description, and quantity. Refer to Appendix B for engi-
neering drawings and a BOM with thumbnail document previews.
Page 22 of 88
Table 3: Assembly BOM and Descriptions
7.2 Assemblies BOM

Table 4 shows the high level assembly BOM. Refer to Appendix B for engineering drawings and a BOM
with thumbnail document previews.
Page 23 of 88
Table 4: High Level Assembly BOM and Descriptions
8 Professional, Ethical, and Safety Issues

The YeaCCC S60 Camera Stabilizer appears to be a typical knockoff product, produced in attempts to
undercut competitors. In achieving this, it utilizes a mismatch of hardware taken from other products
which reduces the quality of manufacturing and finishing. Additionally, the product does not provide
any safety warnings or considerations. This speaks to the motivation of the producer and may imply a
lack of corporate social responsibility (CSR).
8.1 Knock-Off Product

A quick search of camera stabilizers reveals that the YeaCCC S60 is not a unique product. However, it
is one of the least expensive, as they range from $32-$160. Each product has some uniquely identifying
feature which is usually the color of the handle and thumbscrew, or a slightly different length and storage
case.
Figure 18: Various other products similar to the YaeCCC S60
8.2 Quality of Product

The extreme measures taken in reducing costs of the product affect many aspects of user perceived
quality. Most notably is the wide variety of varying types of hardware throughout the product. This
includes mixing imperial and metric threads of varying sizes; hex head, socket head, button head, and flat
head screws types; hex, hex key, standard, and Philips drives; and zinc plated, nickel plated, black-oxide
coated, and bare stainless steel hardware finishes. Not only is this chaotic aesthetically, it complicates
assembly, multiplies inventory SKU count, and displays a complete lack of consideration, and can be
extremely inconvenient for the customers who use and service the product.
In addition to the variety of hardware in the assembly, there are many instances of poorly machined
and finished parts. Some parts have sharp burred edges remaining, posing cut hazards; feature locations
that should be centered or square vary greatly; rough tool marks are visible on many surfaces; and
anodizing is extremely thin and purely aesthetic. User feedback on Amazon also reflects this. Refer to
Figure 19 for some of the Amazon reviews.
Page 24 of 88
Figure 19: Amazon reviews of the YaeCCC S60 Camera Stabilizer
8.3 Small Parts and Choking Hazard

As the YeaCCC S60 is not a professional camera stabilizer, it is safe to assume home use is the intended
market for this product, such as family home video. Due to the overly adjustable nature of the product,
it contains 23 small parts that present a choking hazard for children. Granted, the product’s intended
users are not children, however, given the likelihood of use around small children, and use by children
under 12, warrants some sort of choking hazard warning.
8.4 Corporate Social Responsibility

Given the fact that the producer of this knock-off product looks to be cutting manufacturing costs in
the attempt to undercut competition, it is reasonable to expect that other cost were minimized as well.
Primarily, worker compensation and safe working conditions factor in to the labor-intensive assembly
and low product cost. It is not conclusive, however, but the most likely way to make a profit on the
product is with the lowest possible labor and overhead cost. Consequently, this means the company most
likely has poor working conditions, pays very little, has a high environmental impact, and does not give
back to its community. In other words, the company has no corporate ethic strategy.
9 Recommended Redesign and Analysis

9.1 Overview of Suggested Redesigns and Engineering Analysis
The redesign recommendations focus on component reduction, resulting in assembly simplification. The
first focus of this redesign was the base plate. It currently is composed of 7 components, with significant
adjustability. However, the functionality of this assembly is effectively to offset a large lens, or camera
with an offset center of mass. This sort of adjustability is likely not needed for true functionality of the
component, and may actually result in a more difficult product for the user to operate.
The original assembly, when fully adjusted to adapt to a camera load has a moment of inertia about
it’s main axis of roughly 126 lb·in. All components of the base plate were removed, and replaced them
with a single, adjustable weight that once adjusted for size was able to induce a moment of inertia about
the same axis of 127 lb·in. See the next section for process selection on this component.
The second aspect of redesign was removal of the rubber feet on which the assembly stands. The
feet were replaced with a single piece of cut rubber with a sticky back. This allowed for reduction of
eight components down to one, while achieving the same purpose and no notable functional change.
Page 25 of 88
The rubber mat can be stamped out of a rubber sheet with an adhesive back. Refer to Figure 23 for a
rendering of the new assembly.
The third redesign focused on the extension rod. The initial design includes a hard stop washer and
bolt to prevent the extension rod from sliding all the way out of the main shaft. The new design has
a shoulder incorporated to eliminate the hard stop parts. This will slightly change and simplify the
assembly process but should have no functional change, however, may add to the manufacturing efforts.
Refer to Figure 21 for a rendering of the new part.
The fourth redesign was to remove a complicated thumbscrew assembly that is used to locate the
sliding aspect of the shaft with a simple thumbscrew. The initial design Adjustment Screw assembly
features a compression spring that allows ratcheting of the thumb screw. As the thumb screw does not
interfere with any other feature, this ratcheting functionality is not needed. This reduced part number
and assembly complexity without functional change. Refer to Figure 22 for a rendering of the new part.
9.2 Redesign Renderings

Below are renderings of the redesigned device. Notice the device appears to be the same, and theoretically
would function the same, but contains fewer parts. Reference the BOM with thumbnails in Appendix C
for images of the individual redesigned parts. Figure 20 compares the Full assemblies before and after
redesign, Figure 21 compares the extension rod, Figure 22 compares the Adjustment Coupler Screw
assemblies, and Figure 23 compares the Base assemblies.
(a) Full assembly of initial design (b) Full assembly of final design
Figure 20: A comparison of the full assembly before and after redesign. Figure 20a
is the assembly of the initial design, and Figure 20b is the assembly after the redesign.
Page 26 of 88
(a) Initial design of Extension Rod (b) Redesigned Extension Rod
Figure 21: A comparison of the initial and redesigned Extension Rods. Figure 21a
is the initial design of the Extension Rod, and Figure 21b redesigned extension rod. Notice the
elimination of the hardware in the redesign.
(a) Adjustment Coupler Screw assembly of initial design (b) Adjustment Coupler Screw assembly of final design
Figure 22: A comparison of the Adjustment Coupler Screw assembly before and after redesign. Figure
22a
is the assembly of the initial design, and Figure 22b is the assembly (1 part) after the redesign. Notice
the reduction in part quantity.
(a) Base assembly of initial design (b) Base assembly of final design
Figure 23: A comparison of the base assembly before and after redesign. Figure 23a
is the assembly of the initial design, and Figure 23b is the assembly after the redesign. Notice the
reduction in part quantity.
Page 27 of 88
9.3 Design for Assembly Analysis
Table 5: DFA analysis spreadsheet for redesigned product
The redesigned product has 50 parts, down from 80, in total with 108 interfaces. Almost all of the cate-
gories were improved and the design goal metrics were met. Refer to the sections below for comparisons
of the initial verse redesigned product. Refer to Table 5 for the redesigned device’s DFA analysis table.
9.3.1 DFA Complexity Factor - Redesign

The DFA complexity factor of the redesigned product is 73.5, down from 109.5. This is largely due to
the reduction of part quantity. The goal of a complexity factor of 50 was not quite reached, and would
require further redesign to eliminate more parts and reduce the number of interfaces.
9.3.2 Functional Analysis - Redesign

The redesigned device has 13 theoretical and 26 practical minimum parts. In the original design, there
were 12 theoretical minimum and 31 practical. This number did not change much as most of these parts
are required for the function of the device. However, the theoretical efficiency increased from 15% to
26%, and the practical efficiency increased from 40% to 52%, which is closer to the goal. To increase
these efficiencies further, the device would need to be redesigned from the ground up, incorporating fewer
parts.
Page 28 of 88
9.3.3 Error Proofing - Redesign

There are now only now only 5 parts that could be omitted or replaced, and 4 parts that could be
assembled in the wrong orientation. This is down from 11 and 7, respectively. This improvement will
help minimize assembly mistakes and ultimately speed up the process. The efficiency goal was met,
which was reduced from 1.5 to 0.69, meaning the number of parts that could be assembled in error
divided by the total theoretical parts has decreased. This improvement was also largely contributed to
the reduction in part quantity. The design goal metric was exceeded.
9.3.4 Handling - Redesign

In the redesigned device, there are 2 parts that can tangle, 3 parts that are slippery, and 3 parts that
are too small to handle. This is down from 4, 7, and 5, respectively. The Handling metric is now 0.62,
whereas the original design’s was 1.33. The goal metric was met by eliminating many of the unneeded
small parts. The slippery parts are bearings and are necessary in this design.
9.3.5 Inserting Parts - Redesign

The newly designed product has 39 parts, down from 50 parts, that are difficult to insert, align, or
require holding the mating parts together for assembly. The Insertion metric reduced from 4.17 to 3.00.
The goal metric of 3.00 was met with the redesign. The assembly is difficult due to the shape of a lot of
the components. In other words, it is hard to reduce how many parts need to be fixed during assembly.
The product would need to be redesigned to further reduce this metric; an assembly jig could also be
designed to help with assembly time.
9.3.6 Secondary Operations - Redesign

The redesign has 40 parts, down from 46, that need secondary operations. This is largely due to the
amount of screwing and reorientation of the device during assembly as 37 of the 43 parts fall into either
of these categories. As many of the fasteners are used for adjustability, it was difficult to eliminate many
of them. The new metric is 3.00, down from 3.83, which is evidence of improvement and also meets the
design goal.
9.4 BOM of Redesigned Product

Refer to Appendix C for the drawing package and a BOM with thumbnail previews. Note that the
drawing package of the redesign only includes drawings of the redesigned parts. Refer to Appendix B
for the drawings of the unchanged parts.
Page 29 of 88
9.4.1 Parts BOM
Table 6: Part BOM of the redesigned device
Figure 6 shows the new parts BOM for the redesigned stabilizer. Parts have been redesigned and many
of them have been removed to improve DFA. Refer to Appendix C for the parts BOM with thumbnail
document previews and drawings.
9.4.2 Assembly BOM
Table 7: Assembly BOM of the redesigned device
Page 30 of 88
In Figure 7, the redesigned product’s assembly BOM is shown. The assembly BOM has not changed
since the redesign has the same subassemblies. Refer to C for assembly drawings.
9.5 Material Selection for Redesigned Component

Because the redesign was focused on minimizing parts, only one novel part was created: the new base
plate. Because the base plate was integrated with what used to be the calibration weights, its function
has changed and is therefore up for material revision.
The new base plate’s function is to serve as a slide-able calibration weight, and a base upon which
the device can stand. Like before, this component should not yield or fracture while out on shoot. As
such, strength, density, and cost will be considered for choosing the optimal material. Once again, Ashby
charts are used for this analysis.
Figure 24: Strength verse Density Ashby chart for redesigned base plate
First, the Strength - Density Ashby chart shown above in Figure 24 is examined. Given how forces
are likely to act on this component, the material must be able to withstand 50 MPa Stress noted by
the purple horizontal line. Secondly, because the weight is prioritized over strength, the /⇢ reference
line was used. Materials of consideration that lie above both lines include PC, PA, PEEK, GFRP, MG
alloys, CFRP, Al alloys, some high end ceramics, Ti alloys, and Ni alloys. To further narrow this list,
cost must be considered.
Page 31 of 88
Figure 25: Cost verse Material chart for the redesigned base plate
The chart above visualizes cost per unit mass for common engineering materials with all materials
that met the strength and density requirements circled in blue. Refer to Figure 25. When cost is
considered, aluminum alloys become the obvious choice. The range of aluminum alloys is large, with
many specialized and higher end alloys. However, the part is not exposed to such extreme stresses or
operating temperatures so the most common alloy available will suffice. As such, heat treated Al 6061-T6
was the material of choice for the new base plate.
9.6 Material Selection for Rest of Redesigned Product

As shown in the Materials Analysis section, there was not much room for improvement in regards to
material choice for the original product. The materials analysis showed that most parts were already
made of the ideal material for its function. As such, the remaining parts of the redesigned product will
continue to be made of their original material.
9.7 Manufacturing Process Analysis for Redesigned Component

Due to the need for a heavier, and readily available material on the base plate, aluminum 6061-T6
aluminum was chosen, and the component’s size was designed based off the density of this material.
Therefore, the processes that were compatible with this alloy were considered. Based off an estimated
batch size of 5,000 assemblies, the preferred processes are
• Extrusion
• Low Pressure Casting
• Sand Casting
Page 32 of 88
Figure 26: This figure shows what manufacturing methods can be used based on the mass of the part
The mass of the redesigned base plate is 0.68lb (0.308kg). Refer to Figure 26. This implies that
preferred processes include:
• Conventional Machining
• Electro-machining
• Powder Methods
• Sheet Forming
• Forging
• Low Pressure Casting
• Investment Casting
• Die Casting
Page 33 of 88
Figure 27: This figure shows what manufacturing methods can be used based on the sectional thickness
of the part
The section thickness was roughly 5-38mm, a size that did not eliminate any of the options above. Re-
fer to Figure 27 for the manufacturing processes based on section thickness. The shape B7 is considered,
as it is effectively B2 with features that will need to be added to the component. This allows for elimina-
tion of extrusion as a method. Sand Casting, Coventional Machining (milling), Electro-machining, and
Die Casting are all viable options, so when using the rating of manufacturing process to inspect these,
the data below was found:
Process Cycle Time Flexibility Material Utilization Quality Tooling Costs Totals
Milling 3 5 1 5 4 19
Sand Casting 2 5 2 2 1 12
EDM 1 4 1 5 1 12
Die Casting 5 1 4 2 1 13
This indicates that conventional milling will be the best option from this perspective, despite the
excessive waste produced. Because the material is aluminum, this could be recycled. Refer to Appendix
E for the process selection tables based on spatial complexity of the part.
9.8 Economic Analysis of Redesigned Product

With a reduction in parts, and material choice and manufacturing process nailed down for the redesigned
parts, an economic analysis can once again be performed and compared to the baseline. Economic
Analysis was performed in the same manner as before with the same assumptions. Parts that were
removed no longer contribute to the totals and the three redesigned parts were added. These are shown
in the economic analysis summary table below in Table 8.
Page 34 of 88
Table 8: Summary of cost analysis for redesigned device
While the redesigned parts were able to take on more function, decrease the total part count, and
simplify assembly, they in turn became more costly to manufacture as they became bigger, more complex,
or required more material to be lost in fabrication. The redesigned base plate is the biggest culprit, not
because of its complexity, but because its size and odd shape make for a high scrap material fraction. It
now has the highest material cost of all the parts.
It is important to note that this table only takes custom parts into consideration. Which can justify
the slight increase in estimated price as the redesign focused on part reduction and simplification of
assembly which resulted in a many fasteners and off-the-shelf parts being removed, which is not directly
evident in the cost summary table. In the end, a $3.00 increase in cost to produce all the parts of one
stabilizer assembly is well worth it for the streamlining of assembly and part reduction.
10 Conclusions
The purpose of this project was to find a product to reverse engineer, identify the incorporated DFM
and/or DFA, analyze the economics of the device, determine the manufacturing methods used and
the most ideal material and manufacturing processes that could be used, and finally implement the
design changes to better align with DFM and DFA principles. Even though DFM and DFA can be
inversely proportional, the goal of the project was to find the fine line between them to engineer the
most economically viable design. The tradeoff relationship between DFM and DFA became evident
Page 35 of 88
as some of the redesigned parts became more expensive to manufacture, but simplified the assembly
ultimately decreased the cost of the product as a whole.
The YaeCCC S60 Camera Stabilizer was chosen and dissected. A full CAD model was generated along
with part drawings. The initial design had 80 parts, and the redesigned device has 55 parts. Most of the
DFA design metrics were met, and more efficient manufacturing and materials selection were determined.
In general, the redesigned product better aligns with DFA and DFM principles in comparison with the
original design.
The functionality of the original product was also described, and the assembly was broken down.
Engineering specifications including material composition were derived from available information and
modeling. An economic case was developed for the product and professional, safety and ethical issues
were examined. Redesign possibilities were suggested, and potential results from implementation of these
suggestions have been analyzed. The price tag of the initial product was surprising given the number of
components and operations used. However, it was found that the pricing per unit derived was relatively
close to 1.5 times the manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP).
The redesigned parts will be manufactured with traditional machining techniques, and made out of
Aluminum 6061-T6, which is the same material and process used in the initial design. The aluminum
offers the right strength-weight ratio and is inexpensive relative to other possibilities. The redesign efforts
surely have the potential to save manufacturing costs as proven by the analysis, with little impact to
the product’s functionality. This would be a great product to take to full redesign in the second half
of this course to further implement DFM standards. However, these concepts will be applied to a novel
product which will be designed with DFA and DFM in mind. All in all, to fully adhere to DFM and
DFA principles, the original product should go through a full redesign which could ultimately effect the
shape and size of the device. To keep the product as similar to the original design as possible and due
to time and budget limits of this project, only a few of the redesigns were made.
Page 36 of 88
Appendices
A Disassembly Process
Step No. Procedure Part No. Image
Lay the device down and remove

Base Assy, Loosen hex head bolt
1 1001, 1007, 1008
beneath the plate using slip joing
pliers
Remove Camera Mount Assy

from main shaft, grip the
2 Camera Mount assy with one 1012, 2003
hand, hold the main shaft with
the other and twist
Remove Adjustment Screw Assy

3 from shaft coupler, unscrew the 1010, 2002
Adjustment Screw Assy
Remove shaft coupler by

unscrewing the coupler set
4 screw using 2.5mm hex key, pull 1009, 1010, 1011
extension rod out from main
shaft
Remove hard stop bolt and

5 washer from extension rod using 1009, 1020, 1023
Phillips #2 screwdriver
Remove handle from wishbone

bracket, Phillips #2 screwdriver
6 1013, 1014, 1019, 1022
and needle nose pliers to hold
nylon nut
Remove handle foam from

7 handle, can use needle nose 1018, 1019
pliers or a plastic wedge
Page 37 of 88
Remove wishbone bracket from

8 main bearing using FH 1013, 1021
screwdriver
Remove flanged bearing from

9 wishbone using a screw driver to 1013, 1025
pop it out
Unscrew main bearing top using

10 needle nose pliers while holding 1016, 1017
the bearing cup
Remove threaded compressor

from main bearing using needle
nose pliers while holding main
11 1015, 1016, 1026
bearing cup, the bearing cup and
main bearing will now slide off
the bearing
Remove handle bearings from

12 bearing cup using a screw driver 1016, 1024
or a punch
Remove weights from base plate

13 1004, 1005, 2000
by turning the tri thumb nut
Remove leg screws from base

14 plate using 3mm hex key, the 1003, 2000
rubber legs can then be removed
Page 38 of 88
Remove round threaded part

15 from the 1st dovetail plate using 1033, 1036
2.5mm hex key
Remove 1st dovetail plate by

turning the knurled knob using
16 1038
slip joint pliers, springs and
engraved part will spring open
Remove flat interface plate SCHS

17 1034, 1035
with 3mm hex key
Repeat step 17 to remove the

18 2nd dovetail plate and 1038
components
Remove flat head custom

19 adjustment screws from camera 1045, 1046
mounting plate by turning them
Remove FH screw from

Adjustment Screw Assembly
20 1029, 1031, 2002
with Phillips #2, conical spring
and threaded rod will release
Remove E-clip from threaded rod

21 1028, 1029, 2002
with needle nose pliers
Page 39 of 88
B Drawing Package - Initial Design
DOCUMENT PREVIEW ITEM NO. PART NO. DESCRIPTION Material QTY.
1 1001 BOTTOM PLATE 6061-T6 1
2 1002 RUBBER LEGS RUBBER 4
3 1003 #10-32 X .375 SHCS ALLOY STEEL 4
4 1004 TRI THUMB SCREW ABS PLASTIC BLACK 2
5 1005 1/4-20 X 2 HHMB LOW CARBON STEEL 2
6 1006 WEIGHT CAST IRON 2
5/16 FLAT WASHER (.344ID X

7 1007 .688OD LOW CARBON STEEL 1
X .065THK)
8 1008 5/16-18 X .5 HHMB LOW CARBON STEEL 1
9 1009 EXTENSION ROD ALUMINUM 6061-T6 1
10 1010 SHAFT COUPLER ALUMINUM 6061-T6 1
M5X0.8 X 5 HEX SOCKET SET

11 1011 SCREW LOW CARBON STEEL 1
CUP POINT
12 1012 MAIN SHAFT ALUMINUM 6061-T6 1
13 1013 HANDLE BRACKET ALUMINUM 6061-T6 1
14 1014 1/4-20 X 2 PHILIPS PNMS LOW CARBON STEEL 1
BALL BEARING TRADE NO.

15 1015 STEEL 1
6905-2Z
Page 40 of 88
16 1016 MAIN BEARING CUP ALUMINUM 6061-T6 1
17 1017 MAIN BEARING TOP ALUMINUM 6061-T6 1
18 1018 HANDLE FOAM POLYURETHANE FOAM 1
19 1019 HANDLE ALUMINUM 6061-T6 1
20 1020 #10-24 X .5 HHMS LOW CARBON STEEL 1
21 1021 PIVOT SCREW STAINLESS STEEL 2
22 1022 1/4-20 NYLON LOCKNUT LOW CARBON STEEL 1
1/4 FLAT WASHER (.312ID X

23 1023 .734OD LOW CARBON STEEL 1
X .065THK)

24 1024 440C STAINLESS STEEL 2
105-2Z

25 1025 440C STAINLESS STEEL 1
686-2Z
MAIN BEARING THREADED

26 1026 ALUMINUM 6061-T6 1
COMPRESSOR
27 1027 THUMB PIECE ZINC AC41A 1
SIDE MOUNT EXTERNAL

28 1028 RETAINING 1060-1090 SPRING STEEL 1
RING FOR 3/16 OD SHAFT
29 1029 MAIN SCREW BRASS 1
30 1030 ADJUSTMENT SPRING STEEL 1
Page 41 of 88
31 1031 M3X0.5 X 5 PHILIPS FHMS LOW CARBON STEEL 1
32 1033 THREADED MOUNT ALUMINUM 6061-T6 1
33 1034 DOVETAIL PLATE ALUMINUM 6061-T6 2
34 1035 M4X0.7 X 10 SHCS ALLOY STEEL 4
35 1036 M4X0.7 X 8 HEX DRIVE FHMS ALLOY STEEL 4
36 1038 BUBBLE LEVEL KNOB ALUMINUM 6061-T6 2
37 1039 M6X1.0 X 45 SHCS ALLOY STEEL 2
38 1040 DOVETAIL CLAMP SPRING ALLOY STEEL 4
39 1041 DOVETAIL CLAMP ALUMINUM 6061-T6 2
40 1042 CAMERA MOUNTING PLATE ALUMINUM 6061-T6 1
41 1043 BLACK HANDLE SPACER ABS 1
42 1045 INTERFACE PLATE SCREW STAINLESS STEEL 2
43 1046 FLAT INTERFACE PLATE ALUMINUM 6061-T6 1
Page 42 of 88
C Drawing Package - Redesign
DOCUMENT PREVIEW ITEM NO. PART NO. DESCRIPTION Material Finish QTY.
1 1010 SHAFT COUPLER ALUMINUM 6061-T6 ANODIZED 1
M5X0.8 X 5 HEX SOCKET SET SCREW

2 1011 LOW CARBON STEEL NONE 1
CUP POINT
3 1012 MAIN SHAFT ALUMINUM 6061-T6 ANODIZED 1
4 1013 HANDLE BRACKET ALUMINUM 6061-T6 ANODIZED 1
5 1014 1/4-20 X 2 PHILIPS PNMS LOW CARBON STEEL ZINC PLATED 1
6 1015 BALL BEARING TRADE NO. 6905-2Z STEEL NONE 1
7 1016 MAIN BEARING CUP ALUMINUM 6061-T6 ANODIZED 1
8 1017 MAIN BEARING TOP ALUMINUM 6061-T6 ANODIZED 1
9 1018 HANDLE FOAM POLYURETHANE FOAM NONE 1
10 1019 HANDLE ALUMINUM 6061-T6 ANODIZED 1
11 1021 PIVOT SCREW STAINLESS STEEL NONE 2
12 1022 1/4-20 NYLON LOCKNUT LOW CARBON STEEL ZINC PLATED 1
13 1024 BALL BEARING TRADE NO. 105-2Z 440C STAINLESS STEEL NONE 2
14 1025 BALL BEARING TRADE NO. 686-2Z 440C STAINLESS STEEL NONE 1
MAIN BEARING THREADED

15 1026 ALUMINUM 6061-T6 ANODIZED 1
COMPRESSOR
16 1033 THREADED MOUNT ALUMINUM 6061-T6 ANODIZED 1
Page 75 of 88
DOCUMENT PREVIEW ITEM NO. PART NO. DESCRIPTION Material Finish QTY.
17 1034 DOVETAIL PLATE ALUMINUM 6061-T6 ANODIZED 2
18 1035 M4X0.7 X 10 SHCS ALLOY STEEL BLACK OXIDE 4
19 1036 M4X0.7 X 8 HEX DRIVE FHMS ALLOY STEEL BLACK OXIDE 4
20 1038 BUBBLE LEVEL KNOB ALUMINUM 6061-T6 ANODIZED 2
21 1039 M6X1.0 X 45 SHCS ALLOY STEEL BLACK OXIDE 2
22 1040 DOVETAIL CLAMP SPRING ALLOY STEEL NONE 4
23 1041 DOVETAIL CLAMP ALUMINUM 6061-T6 ANODIZED 2
24 1042 CAMERA MOUNTING PLATE ALUMINUM 6061-T6 ANODIZED 1
25 1043 BLACK HANDLE SPACER ABS NONE 1
26 1045 INTERFACE PLATE SCREW STAINLESS STEEL NONE 2
27 1046 FLAT INTERFACE PLATE ALUMINUM 6061-T6 ANODIZED 1
28 1047 EXTENSION ROD ALUMINUM 6061-T6 ANODIZED 1
29 1048 COUNTERWEIGHT ALUMINUM 6061-T6 ANODIZED 1
30 1049 ADJUSTMENT COUPLER SCREW 360 BRASS NONE 1
31 1050 5/16-18 HEX DRIVE FHMS 316 STAINLESS STEEL PASSIVATED 1
SILICON RUBBER .125

32 1051 FOOT PAD NONE 1
THICK
Page 76 of 88
D Costs of Initial Design
Page 84 of 88
Page 85 of 88
E Manufacturing Process Selection Tables
Page 86 of 88
Page 87 of 88
Citations
[1] Johnston, David. “US9052573B2 - Video Camera Motion Stabilizing Device.” Google Patents, Google,
patents.google.com/patent/US9052573?oq=mechanical%2Bcamera%2Bstabilizer.
[2] Slater, Dan. “US5243370A - Camera Stabilizer.” Google Patents, Google,
[3] Dearborn, Howard K. “US2945428A - Camera Stabilizer.” Google Patents, Google,
[4] Ashby, M. F. Materials Selection in Mechanical Design. 3rd ed. Amsterdam; Boston: Butterworth-
Heinemann, 2005.
Page 88 of 88

DFM Reverse Engineering

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

DFM Reverse Engineering

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

University of Colorado Boulder

Design for Manufacturability

Reverse Engineering - Camera Stabilizer

October 28, 2019

2 The Product - Camera Stabilizer 5

3 Design for Assembly Analysis 11

4 Engineering Specifications and Design Requirements 13

5 Economic Analysis of Original Product 14

8 Professional, Ethical, and Safety Issues 24

9 Recommended Redesign and Analysis 25

B Drawing Package - Initial Design 40

C Drawing Package - Redesign 75

D Costs of Initial Design 84

E Manufacturing Process Selection Tables 86

2 The Product - Camera Stabilizer

2.1 Black Box Diagram

2.2 Glass Box Diagram

2.2.1 Camera Mount Assembly

2.2.2 Shaft Assembly

2.2.3 Base Assembly

2.2.4 Adjustment Screw Assembly

2.3 Fishbone Diagram

2.4 Disassembly Process

2.5 Patent Research

2.5.1 Patent 1 - US9052573

Figure 7: Photo description of the handheld camera stabilizer patent

2.5.2 Patent 2 - US5243370

Figure 8: Photo description of the "folded ladder"-style stabilizer patent

2.5.3 Patent 3 - US2945428

Figure 9: Photo description of the shoulder-mounted camera stabilizer patent

3 Design for Assembly Analysis

3.1 DFA Complexity Factor

3.2 Functional Analysis

3.3 Error Proofing

3.5 Inserting Parts

3.6 Secondary Operations

4 Engineering Specifications and Design Requirements

Figure 10: Diagram of device with x,y,z direction

Figure 11: Coordinate convention used for moment calculations in SolidWorks

5 Economic Analysis of Original Product

5.1 Economic Analysis Process

5.2 Economic Analysis Table

• Variable Cost - Represents additional cost on a per unit basis

5.3 Results of Economic Analysis

6.1 1012 Main Shaft

6.2 Material Selection for Remaining Aluminum Parts

• 1013 Handle Bracket

• 2026 Main Bearing Compressor

• 1042 Camera Mounting Plate

6.3 1006 Weight

6.4 1042 Camera Mounting Plate

Table 3: Assembly BOM and Descriptions

7.2 Assemblies BOM

Table 4: High Level Assembly BOM and Descriptions

8 Professional, Ethical, and Safety Issues

8.1 Knock-Oﬀ Product

Figure 18: Various other products similar to the YaeCCC S60

8.2 Quality of Product

Figure 19: Amazon reviews of the YaeCCC S60 Camera Stabilizer

8.3 Small Parts and Choking Hazard

8.4 Corporate Social Responsibility

9 Recommended Redesign and Analysis

9.2 Redesign Renderings