Frugal engineering of a jaw crusher using the factor-of-frugality, a modern version of the safety-factor

Aditya Krishnan; Balkrishna C Rao

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0325503

. 2025 Jun 24;20(6):e0325503. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0325503

Frugal engineering of a jaw crusher using the factor-of-frugality, a modern version of the safety-factor

Aditya Krishnan ¹, Balkrishna C Rao ^1,^*

Editor: Sunny Narayan²

PMCID: PMC12186939 PMID: 40554520

Abstract

Businesses are increasingly keen on going frugal due to increasing demand for sustainable and low-cost products that do not sacrifice quality. However, there is a dearth of tools for the systematic design and engineering of frugal products from scratch in the industry. Accordingly, a new approach has been applied in this paper for the formal design of a frugal jaw crusher for the mining industry. Consequently, this paper uses the factor of frugality (F of F^N) which is a composite number that combines the safety factor (N) with fractions of material saved in various stages of product-development. In doing so, this work has iteratively applied the factor of frugality to the relevant components of a jaw crusher. And rigorous design procedures are adopted, for maintaining quality, due to the use of lower safety factors in making the product frugal. Contemporary concepts like generative design, design for manufacturing and biomimetics have been explored to achieve frugality in the relevant “bulky” components of a jaw crusher. Accordingly, factors of frugality of 1.87^1.79, 1.76^1.68 and 1.63^1.33 have been obtained for the flywheel, the Pitman and the rear wall, respectively, based on the frugal approach. Therefore, use of the new frugal design approach has resulted in material savings of 8%, 7% and 30% and increases in factor of safety of 35%, 71% and 18% in the flywheel, the Pitman and the rear wall, respectively, over their base values. Such savings in materials have been accompanied by moderate cost reductions with improvement in functionality and this trio of features is typical of an advanced frugal product.

Introduction

In recent years, frugal products consuming lesser resources have appeared in a range of sectors. While frugal products are generally considered to be a grassroots phenomenon [1–3,28], the concept of engineered frugality is perhaps best explained by Rao, [2,3,28] Zeschy et al. [4] and Rosca and Bendul, [5] who suggest that frugal products can be developed by industry through introduction of measurable constraints on resources in the product development process. These constraints are primarily exercised on raw materials and costs which in turn influence different aspects of product development process including manufacturing, supply chains etc. Consequently, an engineered frugal product differs from an improvised or makeshift one with the former being identified as an Advanced Frugal Innovation (AFI) [2,3,28]. Moreover, the constraints that lend themselves to designing AFIs are also influential in designing an environmentally sustainable product [6,7]. Therefore, frugal products and in particular AFIs, are sustainable by nature [7–12]. This is because AFIs are defined to consume minimal amounts of resources while giving good functionality affordably. Minimal consumption of resources will typically have a beneficial effect on the environment and the low-cost with good functionality can uplift living standards. Both the positive environmental impact and affordable quality of AFIs sit in well with the tenets of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) [13].

The adoption of frugality in design and manufacturing is key to efforts of industries in rich and emerging markets for complying with environmental norms while also competing on cost, demand and quality [10,14]. There are several methodologies that can be used to frugally engineer a product. The approach called design for manufacture and assembly (DFMA) by Boothroyd and Dewhurst [15] is focused on reducing assembly complexity while also making components easier to manufacture by following well-established design principles. Another related work pertains to measurement of frugality by Kumar and Agarwal [16] where their quantification uses a frugal manufacturing index based on lean principles. Although this effort is exhaustive and covers some product development aspects, it excludes design that is the most crucial step for generating frugality. Other approaches including design for recycling and design for quality are also geared to frugal engineering of a product in that any methodology that reduces resource consumption also promotes frugality. In fact, Micaëlli et al. [17] propose use of the term design for frugality (DFF) to cover any methodology that promotes frugality. Hitherto, the quantification of frugality has been carried out by measuring and comparing various design alternatives using cost. While low cost is undoubtedly a primary attribute of a frugal product, the exclusion of resource-consumption and quality [17] would significantly hinder creation of a truly advanced frugal product. Against this backdrop, a more general approach has been detailed by Rao [12] that uses a three-step methodology to systematically engineer an advanced frugal product from scratch. Rao’s approach [12] uses the factor of frugality in designing an AFI by accounting for every stage of product development [3,18,19,28] The factor of frugality is a composite number based on the factor of safety and the fractions of material saved in the various stages of product development. In particular, the safety factor is fixed at the lowest feasible value for maximum material-savings, while searching for yet more savings in materials at all stages of product development. This design approach considers direct material savings – and hence proportionate cost savings – as the primary objective for frugalization rather than reducing costs through other avenues such as labor and supply chains [3]. The traditional approach of designing products with a high factor of safety is eschewed in favor of well-engineered products where the level of uncertainty is minimized and material savings are maximized. In other words, the factor of frugality is based on executing rigorous design procedures with the best of theoretical models and accurate data to compensate for uncertainties arising from lower safety factors [3,18,19].

Therefore, this paper addresses the novelty of applying frugal engineering principles to a jaw crusher by focusing on:

1. Frugal design is quantified using the factor of frugality. This allows the quantification of frugality in any product, including the jaw crusher, using a metric that hews to the three features of frugal engineering, i.e., low-cost, low-resource, and better quality.
2. The impact of the factor of frugality based design has been studied using the metrics of performance and cost.
3. The factor of frugality has been formulated for design of individual components of a given product. Consequently, a method of determining the overall factor of frugality of an assembly based on this formulation has been introduced in this effort.
4. This paper is the first instance of the methodical application of the factor of frugality to an actual industrial product. Accordingly, this paper presents the different versions of the product resulting from the iterative application of the factor of frugality while converging onto the final design. The advantages and limitations of the frugal methodology will become apparent in the process of designing this industrially relevant product.

Methods

Selection of a suitable industry level product

The factor of frugality approach can be applied to any product in any sector, irrespective of safety requirements since it is based on rigorous design procedures. In other words, safety is never sacrificed in arriving at a frugal product by employing rigorous design procedures using current data and models that are accurate with minimal uncertainty [18] Accordingly, a jaw crusher, a typical resource-consuming product from the mining industry has been selected to bring out the efficacy of this approach. Therefore, this paper will focus on redesigning relevant “bulky” components from this product using the factor of frugality approach.

A jaw crusher is an equipment used in the mining industry for primary crushing of minerals. It works by breaking rocks under compression and impact between a fixed- and a moving-jaw. A Blake-type single toggle jaw crusher [20] has been selected in this paper whose major components have been illustrated in Fig 1.

For this particular study, the components from the moving jaw assembly were considered, see Table 1. Of these, the top three heaviest components were taken up for redesign. The components are: Pitman frame, Rear wall and Flywheel. Referring to Table 1, the weights have been obtained from the initial designs of these components, based on data from computer aided design (CAD) models. The initial designs were created by adopting dimensional and technical data available on manufacturers’ websites [21–26]. The final specifications of the machine were arrived at by using the methods outlined by Gupta and Yan [20].

Table 1. List of components in moving jaw assembly.

Name of the component	Mass (Kg)	Mfg. method	Qty.
Pitman frame	2932	Casting	1
Rear wall	1209	Casting	1
Shaft	1098	Forging	1
Wedge assembly	834	Casting	1
Liner	826	Casting	1
Flywheel	627	Casting	2
Motor frame	504	Fabrication	1
Flange	391	Casting	2
Toggle plate	258	Casting	1
Bearing	112	Various	2
Pitman protection plate	107	Casting	1
Other components	477	Various	–

Open in a new tab

Use of the factor of frugality

The factor of frugality is a new metric for design and, engineering in general, that achieves best functionality under resource-and-cost constraints by subsuming the classical safety factor while also focusing on individual stages in product development. It is a modern version of the factor of safety that focuses on safety, resource, cost and quality in design.

The factor of frugality approach is initiated by fixing N at a low value of 1.5, as seen in Fig 2 [3]. The low value of N is arbitrary in that it should be lowest possible value commensurate with the current body of knowledge in a given area of engineering. Subsequently, the material saving schemes pertaining to stages of product development, i.e., design & materials, manufacturing and salvaging, are applied at this constant value of N.

Fig 2 brings out the working of the factor of frugality, i.e., F of F^N, for a shaft which is a workhorse of many engineering applications. As seen in Fig 2, a low value of N, at 1.5, is fixed throughout the frugal product development process. Such a low value of N generally results in lower material consumption and subsequent stages of product development are examined for more material savings in addition to that for this low value of N. Consequently, the material saved (MS) parameters account for weight of material saved in the design, materials and manufacturing stages with focus on salvaging or recycling. Therefore, low-resource consumption and, hence lower costs, are made possible from both low N and individual stages of product development. The quality is maintained at the highest level by hewing to the rigor of most accurate design and engineering principles.

However, some changes with this idealized setting of the factor of frugality are in order. It should be noted that although N is ideally fixed, it will be observed to vary slightly between various versions of a real time jaw crusher studied in this work. Even small changes in design may add to the complexity of the overall shape but can have a significant impact on material cost [18,27]. It is therefore important to design structures keeping in mind its manufacturability to avoid escalation of cost. Structural features can be optimized and redesigned to reduce resource utilization without compromising functionality [7]. The baseline for a given problem will typically be an existing “bulky” design that is commonly available. A systematic approach [3] is undertaken wherein the baseline is put through an iterative process of improvement using the factor of frugality which is computed for each component at every iteration, as shown in Fig 3. The notation for the factor of frugality is F^N where F is calculated as:

F = N + \sum_{i = 1}^{5} {M S}_{i}

(1)

where,

N = the factor of safety

MS_i = the fraction of material saved using the i^th material savings scheme, see Fig 3

As shown in Fig 3, equation (1) is iteratively applied for creating successive versions of a design, that improve upon the baseline by improving F, to arrive at an advanced frugal product [3]. More details on the theory and application of the factor of frugality (F^N) can be found in Rao’s works [18,19,28,29].

The frugal design approach (FDA) outlined above saves material through various schemes including manufacturing. In this regard, design for manufacturing (DFM) is used as an important tool in each iteration with F^N to make the design suitable for manufacturing and exploit the material-properties for creating resilient and robust structures [30,31]. Use is made here of the principles of frugal manufacturing which aims for ideally zero waste from a low-cost single-pass process that produces products with excellent quality [19]. This goes well with considerations of sustainability where better functionality, lower costs, reduction of material consumption, waste reduction and energy reduction are important goals [32].

The FDA also incorporates modern design concepts like biomimetics and generative design to achieve the best results. Generative design is used in this work since it tends to create natural-looking structures due to its evolutionary working principle [33]. Biomimetics and hence, bio-inspiration has been linked to sustainability and reported to produce innovative and frugal products [18,33–36]. The effect of such techniques on the frugality of the product design is studied, compared and contrasted using F^N in the sections to follow.

Numerical modeling

The development of 3D models of components and their subsequent stress analysis were carried out using a CAD software, Autodesk® Inventor®. A linear static analysis for studying stress distributions was implemented in all cases. The materials were simulated within their Hookean domain since plastic flow is detrimental to product-functionality. The load inputs for the analyses were calculated using previously established methods and formulae [37]. The loads and constraints were then identically applied to all versions of a given component. The details of the finite element analysis are tabulated in Table 2.

Table 2. General mesh and convergence details for stress analysis.

Component	Flywheel	Pitman frame	Rear wall
Mesh average element size (mm)	14.3	22.8	13.5
Minimum element size (mm)	2.86	4.56	2.7
Mesh type	10-Node Tetrahedral
Grading Factor	1.5
Maximum turn angle	60°
Convergence criterion (Von Mises stress)	5%
h-refinement threshold/ No. of refinements	0.75/ 3

Open in a new tab

Results

The crusher is designed for a power of 110 kW at a shaft-speed of 230 RPM with a feed acceptance of 600 mm [20–26]. The material to be crushed is granite. Some basic assumptions to calculate the forces on each component using this data are:

The incoming rock geometry is assumed to be cubical with a side of 600 mm.
The rock is assumed to be loaded in a 3-point bending configuration due to the corrugated nature of the liner plates.
The modulus of rupture of granite is approximately 25 MPa. [38]

Using the formula for Modulus of Rupture [39] ( $σ$ ) given by equation (2), the force required to break the rock is calculated.

σ = \frac{3 P L}{2 b d^{2}}

(2)

where,

P is the necessary breaking-force or load applied

L is the length of the specimen

B is the breadth of the specimen

D is the depth of the specimen

For L = b = d = 0.6 m and a σ of 25 MPa in equation (2), the force (P) required to break the rock is determined to be 6 × 10⁶ N. This value when used with the equations for a single toggle jaw crusher [37] results in a torque of 170586 N-m for breaking the rock. Of this total torque, 87577 N-m is delivered from the driven-flywheel which is connected to the motor.

The toggle plate is designed to fail at a force of 1.5 × 10⁶ N, which according to Eqn (2), corresponds to a cubic rock of side 0.3 m being broken at the lower portion of the crusher, assuming the rock has fallen to about 75% of the length of the pitman liner.

The toggle’s failure load is taken as the loading criterion for the pitman as well as the rear wall. Equations for a single toggle jaw crusher were again used to calculate the load applied on the face of the Pitman frame. This value was found to be 1.77 × 10⁶ N. The torque and load values were used in the finite element analyses (FEA) of relevant components.

Flywheel

A flywheel uses inertia to store energy through its rotation. In the context of a jaw crusher, it is used to provide the extra energy required to crush rocks during the crushing stroke. A frugal design of a flywheel is challenging as a flywheel needs mass to increase its rotational moment of inertia (I). Hence, the component must be designed such that the mass is reduced while keeping the moment of inertia unchanged. This entails moving mass that is near the hub of the flywheel to the periphery while increasing the strength of the design. The flywheel is to be designed for a peak torque of 87577 N-m and a belt tension of 14.1 kN, which are cyclical loads. The required moment of inertia of the flywheel is fixed at 183 Kg-m², calculated from the torque. The material chosen for casting the flywheel is ASTM A48, as it is known to have good shock-absorption properties. The 3D models for each version are put through stress analysis in Autodesk® Inventor® under the same loading conditions and constraints.

Version 1, shown in Fig 4, is a simple design of flywheel featuring a flat profile for ease of manufacturing. Stress analysis shown in Fig 5 reveals that there is stress concentration at the base of each spoke. The torque applied at the periphery is transferred to the hub via the spokes. As the distance to the hub decreases, there is an increase in the bending moment and subsequently the stress value. As seen in Table 3, this version of flywheel-design had the highest peak stress value and the lowest endurance strength of the three designs that were assessed.

Table 3. Summary of results for flywheel design.

Version	1	2	3
Mass (Kg)	627	597	578
Endurance Strength (MPa)	49.05	50.3	54.71
Peak Stress (MPa)	37.1	30.2	30.6
N (Peak stress/Endurance strength)	1.32	1.67	1.79
ΣMS	0	0.05	0.08
F	1.32	1.72	1.87
F^N	1.32^1.32	1.72^1.67	1.87^1.79

Open in a new tab

Version 2, shown in Fig 4, is a result of generative design. Symmetry constraints were applied on mutually perpendicular planes passing through the axis of the flywheel, while preserving the rim and hub geometry to run generative design. A rounded rectangular cross section with width to height ratio of 2:1 was adopted to achieve lower stresses considering the fact that arms of the flywheel predominantly undergo bending. The tapered profile of the arms is also fashioned like beams of uniform strength [40]. Subsequent stress analysis reveals that there is a concentration of stress at the base of each spoke like Version 1 but significantly reduced in magnitude. The stress contour plot in Fig 5 also shows that there are areas of very low stress where more material can be removed. Since Version 2 uses only a simple design scheme to reduce mass, MS₁= 0.05 and ΣMS = 0.05, as shown in Table 3.

Version 3, shown in Fig 4, is an improvement over Version 2 where the same petalled structure is maintained but distinct branching, seen in trees, has been introduced. The cross section of the spokes, similar to Version 2, is a rounded rectangle with a width to height ratio of 2:1, but with a smaller cross-section. The cross section of the trunk increases closer to the hub. This particular arrangement has been shown to improve the damping and load bearing properties in trees [41,42]. An increase in branching tends to reduce overall stress and improves damping properties. The odd number of spokes and the curved design, as per recommendation in [31], lend themselves to reduced residual stresses during manufacturing. A five-spoke-arrangement was chosen, as it is a common shape found in nature, that improves upon the previously designed four-spoke structure, distributing the stress more evenly, as shown in Fig 5. As per the data in Table 3, there is also a significant increase in the value of endurance strength, owing to the reduced section thickness. Stress analysis reveals that there is a reduction in overall stress and a more uniform distribution in the component, as seen in Fig 5. Since Version 3 uses the same design principles as Version 2, MS₁= 0.05. Additionally, biomimetics contributes to more material savings, giving MS₅= 0.03. Therefore, ΣMS = 0.05 + 0.03 = 0.08, as shown in Table 3.

It should be noted that N in all these cases is the fatigue-based value. It is the ratio of peak stress to endurance strength. Endurance changes with change in thickness and is calculated using standard procedure [43]. A summary of results and calculated values of F and F^N for all versions can be seen in Table 3.

Pitman frame

The pitman frame performs the vital function of providing mounting surfaces for the crusher’s mechanism. As a result, the Pitman frame is subjected to high levels of loading. Accordingly, the material selected is ASTM A352 (alloy steel). To protect the Pitman, a toggle plate acts as a fuse during load spikes and breaks before any damage occurs to the Pitman. Hence, the design load of the toggle plate is taken as an input for the stress analysis of the Pitman frame, see Fig 6. The 3D model for each version is analyzed for stresses and their distribution through Autodesk® Inventor® with loading and constraints kept constant for each version.

Fig 6 — F1 is the reaction force due to the toggle plate, F2 is the crushing force and F3 is the spring load from the toggle mechanism.

Version 1, shown in Fig 7, is a simple design satisfying assembly and packaging constraints. Basic manufacturing feasibility has been accounted for, but an in-depth DFM was not performed on this initial version. The stress analysis, shown in Fig 8, reveals that the stress is concentrated near the base of the casting where the section is inadequate or improperly designed. Furthermore, the ribs at the rear also carry a significant amount of stress that could be attributed to the overall geometry.

Version 2, shown in Fig 7, incorporates elements of DFM to a greater extent. The overall weight is kept low due to weight reduction features and design changes, particularly the cavities on the vertical walls and cavities in the bottom portion. Other improvements include better fillets and rounded edges to help with the casting process [30]. The geometry of the bottom of the Pitman frame was modified to accommodate a webbed-rib design to facilitate easier core removal and to give better strength to the casting. Improvements made to improve castability also had a significant impact on the stress values seen in Fig 8, while also reducing the weight of the casting. As shown in Table 4, these improvements increased the value of F by a considerable amount. Since Version 2 utilizes DFM to leverage manufacturing processes, MS₃= 0.06 and ΣMS = 0.06, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Summary of results for the Pitman frame design.

Version	1	2	3
Mass (Kg)	2932	2764	2720
Yield strength (MPa)	276	276	276
Peak Stress (MPa)	281.4	186.2	164.1
Max displacement (mm)	2.081	1.876	1.63
N (Peak stress/ Yield strength)	0.98	1.48	1.68
ΣMS	0	0.06	0.08
F	0.98	1.54	1.76
F^N	0.98^0.98	1.54^1.48	1.76^1.68

Open in a new tab

Version 3, shown in Fig 7, is a biomimetics-design based on the structure of the jaws of carnivores. Consequently, the measurements of several jaws of carnivores were taken into consideration [44]. The ratio of jaw length to jaw height was plotted against the ratio of calculated bite force to jaw length. This number was close to 2 for animals that had the strongest bite force per unit length of their jaw. Also, this version of the Pitman frame has a ratio of 2.1 between the length up to the toggle seat and total height of the Pitman frame, which is ideal as per the observations on the measurements of animal jaws. Accordingly, a twin wall structure was implemented inspired by the shape of the lower jawbone. The side walls extend from the bearing location to the toggle seat, incorporating a beaded rib design due to its load-bearing capacity [30]. Although this design resulted in a slight decrease in weight of the casting, it improved the component’s strength largely by reducing the peak stress value as seen in Table 4. Other small changes like rounding off the corners of cavities also reduced stresses in the load path, see Fig 8. As seen in Table 4, the resulting increase in the value of N, contributed to the increased value of F for this version of the design. Since Version 3 also uses the same design principles as Version 2, MS₃= 0.06. Additionally, biomimetics contributes to material savings, giving MS₅= 0.02. Therefore, ΣMS = 0.06 + 0.02 = 0.08, as shown in Table 4.

Rear wall

The rear wall of a jaw crusher holds one of the ends with the other being held by the front wall. The rear wall also performs the function of conducting the crushing forces through the structure and into the foundation. The rear wall is also subjected to high levels of loading like the Pitman and thus the same material, i.e., ASTM A352, is used for this casting. Since the toggle acts as a fuse between the Pitman and the rear wall, the design load of the toggle plate is again taken as an input for the stress analysis of the rear wall casting. The toggle seat is accordingly loaded with 1.5 MN of force. A separate analysis was done on the motor frame to determine the reaction forces on the bolts connecting the rear wall and this frame. These values were small compared to the 1.5 MN toggle force and did not have a significant impact on the overall analysis. An additional force of 0.12 MN corresponding to loading from the tension spring is added at the respective assembly point. The 3D models for the different versions were put though a stress analysis in Autodesk® Inventor® with the same loading and constraints.

Version 1, shown in Fig 9, is a simple design based on the available geometrical constraints. Cavities were introduced where necessary to reduce weight, but DFM was not fully utilized in this version. The results of the stress analysis, shown in Fig 10, reveal that the stress is concentrated near the bosses where the rear wall is assembled with the side walls. This can be easily addressed by increasing the root radius of the boss. However, the wall thickness of Version 1 is higher in some regions, and this leads to a rigid and heavy casting. Therefore, application of the frugal design approach entails mass removal where the stress is low.

Fig 10 — Front view with arrows indicates the insets of high stress areas.

Version 2, shown in Fig 9, exploits the casting process by introducing some degree of complexity in the shape and reducing unwanted material. In particular, a ribbed design with fillets [30] was adopted for effective usage of material. Cavities were also made in the casting including hollow, ribbed sections in the internal structure and weight saving holes at the top of the component. Material was removed wherever the component was not loaded. The general wall thickness of the casting was also maintained uniformly. The resulting structure was more stressed at the center than Version 1, but it was under an acceptable level, see Fig 10. The peak stress was much lower due to better distribution of stress along with fillets made around the mounting bosses. The large amount of savings in material and the lower peak stress contribute to a high F value, as seen in Table 5. Since Version 2 utilizes DFM to leverage manufacturing processes, MS₃= 0.3 and ΣMS = 0.3, as shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Summary of results for rear wall design.

Version	1	2
Mass (Kg)	1209	841
Yield strength (MPa)	276	276
Peak Stress (MPa)	243.4	207.4
N (Peak stress/ Yield strength)	1.13	1.33
ΣMS	0	0.3
F	1.13	1.63
F^N	1.13^1.13	1.63^1.33

Open in a new tab

Discussion

A summary of the iterative process of FDA through design refinement of the chosen components is shown in Fig 11. The three components, i.e., flywheel, the Pitman and the rear wall, were designed using the frugal design approach shown in Fig 3. In all three cases, the initial design had a factor of safety (N) lower than 1.5. The theoretical model for the F^N approach fixes the value of N at 1.5. However, when dealing with complex structures, occurring in real time, such as those in this paper, it is difficult to start off or finish with an exact value of N. Therefore, all the components were initially designed with an N value lower than 1.5 in order to keep material usage at a minimum. The approach, based on the results of stress analyses, was to remove material from the low stress zones while tackling high-stress zones with design changes. In the process of design refinement, care was taken not to weaken the structure while removing the material or modifying the design. Such rigorous and careful execution of the design process yielded an increase in the factor of safety together with material savings. Overall, the next version of a design was selected based on material savings along with the final N value being as close to 1.5 as possible. A comparison of the N, F and MS values of each design version is shown in Fig 12.

A brief analysis on how iterative changes in design affected the F value of each component now follows. As shown in Fig 12, the F value of the flywheel increased from 1.32 to 1.72 in the first iteration. This is attributed to the application of generative-design and DFM principles. In particular, engineering the arms of the flywheel to better handle bending reduced the stress concentration, thereby enabling material reduction through stronger design. Further refinement in the second iteration was achieved by following again, DFM rules specific to flywheel-manufacturing and, by using principles of biomimetics for mimicking the structure of trees. The details of these design changes have been covered under the section on results. Consequently, additional branching and tapered profile of the flywheel-arms resulted in a stronger structure with lesser material, which has been captured in the final F value of 1.88, see Fig 12.

Similarly, the first iteration of design for the Pitman frame, shown in Fig 12, increased the F value from 0.98 to 1.54. This can be attributed to the change in design of the lower half of casting, wherein a webbed rib was adopted with larger fillets. This allowed saving on weight while improving strength. The second iteration of the Pitman sees an increase in F value from 1.54 to 1.76. The focus in this iteration was on the structure of the frame itself. A twin-wall structure with a beaded rib was adopted for design. As outlined in the section on results, this design leverages the combined advantages of biomimetics and traditional engineering concepts. As for the rear wall, the casting went through a single iteration where the F value increased from 1.13 to 1.63, see Fig 12. The design change involved removal of material in regions of low stress where the material was redundant. Such material reduction combined with larger fillets resulted in a lower peak stress and uniform stress distribution, as shown in Fig 10 and Table 5. The combination of material savings and stronger design contributed to the significant uptick in F-value of the rear wall.

The quantification of “frugality” in designs stemming from both lower safety factors and extraneous material saving schemes was accomplished using the factor of frugality. For the jaw crusher considered in this paper, F^N is 1.87^1.79, 1.76^1.68 and 1.63^1.33 for flywheel, the Pitman frame and rear wall, respectively. The flywheel has the highest F value among the three components. This is due to the higher N value of the flywheel that can be attributed to the adoption of biomimetics-based design and also the increase in endurance strength of the final version due to reduction in section thickness. At 1.68, the final N value of the Pitman is very close to and above the recommended value of 1.5, which is ideal. The N value of the rear wall comes close to the recommended value of 1.5 but is lower at 1.33. The difference between the F and N values is highest in the rear wall, indicating a high degree of material savings, [18] due to the initial design being bulkier compared to the other components.

Impact on cost

The components of the redesigned jaw crusher have saved 678 Kg of material compared to the initial or baseline design. Accordingly, cost-benefit accrues from the use of lesser material and reduced expenditures associated with the casting process. As for the latter, a lighter casting leads to proportional savings through reduction of wastage. This is because the weight of runners and risers, i.e., gating system necessary for molding a casting, is proportional to the weight of the casting itself. Moreover, since the refined components do not change in size or in the processing and machining required for their fabrication, it can be assumed that change in other manufacturing costs is insignificant. Therefore, based on materials and energy, the total cost savings can be expressed as: [45]

S_{t o t a l} = S_{m a t e r i a l} + S_{e n e r g y}

(3)

S_{m a t e r i a l} = C_{m e t a l} \times W_{m e t a l} \times 1.1

(4)

S_{e n e r g y} = C_{e n e r g y} \times E_{m e l t i n g} \times W_{m e t a l} \times 1.3

(5)

Where,

$S_{t o t a l}$ = Total cost saved

$S_{m a t e r i a l}$ = Material cost savings

$S_{e n e r g y}$ = Energy cost savings

$C_{m e t a l}$ = Price of metal

$W_{m e t a l}$ = Weight of metal

$C_{e n e r g y}$ = Energy price

$E_{m e l t i n g}$ = Energy required for melting

In the above formulations, the energy required for holding the melt has been ignored, assuming the melt is poured into the mold directly after melting. The factor of 1.1 in equation (4) accounts for any loss of the metal while 1.3 in equation (5) accounts for proportionate savings in risers and gates. The energy price is taken as $0.08/kWh (6.9 INR/kWh) [46] and the melting-energy is taken to be 0.58 kWh/Kg [45].

As seen in Table 6, the total saving in costs based on equations (3) to (5) is estimated to be $650.70 for the entire assembly. It is implicitly assumed that manufacturing has been carried out in a cost-effective way in India [47].

Table 6. Details of cost savings.

Component	Qty	Material	Price/ Kg^* (USD)	Wt. saved (Kg)	Saving in material costs (USD)	Saving in energy costs (USD)	Total cost savings (USD)
Flywheel	2	Cast iron	0.60	98	58.80	5.91	64.71
Pitman	1	Alloy steel	0.95	212	201.40	12.79	214.19
Rear wall	1	Alloy steel	0.95	368	349.60	22.20	371.80
Total				678	609.80	40.90	650.70

Open in a new tab

Price/Kg can be found in the SIAM commodity price data [48]. Rates have been converted at an exchange rate of 86 INR = 1 USD and rounded to two decimal places.

Impact on performance

The frugal design approach was used in improving the design of critical components including flywheel, the Pitman and rear wall. The components were designed based on the significance of the toggle plate to the jaw crusher. The toggle plate thus formed the basis for applying loading to the components. This in turn determines the maximum size or the hardness of the material that can be crushed, as per Equation (2). Of the three components studied in this work, the rear wall has the least N value of 1.33. Accordingly, if the toggle plate and the shaft are designed to accommodate 33% higher loads, i.e., designed with the same factor of safety, the size of the input material can be increased from 0.6 m to 0.69 m. This is based on using granite with a modulus of rupture of 25 MPa. The throughput of the jaw crusher is directly proportional to the gap between the jaws of the crusher, and therefore the feed size [20]. For the same reduction ratio, the improved frugal design of the jaw crusher results in 15% higher throughput owing to accommodation of a higher feed size. Alternatively, the jaw crusher would theoretically be able to handle materials with a modulus of rupture of 33 MPa for the same dimensions.

Although testing is required to validate these numbers, the design methodology, based on the factor of frugality, shows the ability to improve performance while also saving on material use. Therefore, the potential of this framework for the systematic design of advanced frugal products, such as the jaw crusher, has been demonstrated in this paper.

Calculation of the factor of frugality for assemblies

Previous works on the factor of frugality [3,18,19] were focused on quantifying frugality for an individual component. However, a method for aggregating the factor of frugality of an assembly of frugal components has not been reported. This paper proposes quantification of the overall frugality of an assembly through a linear combination of individual frugality factors with the individual weights being dependent on the initial masses of the components. In doing so, heavier components contribute more to the overall frugality vis-à-vis lighter ones. Accordingly, the total value of F can be determined from the following equation.

F_{A S S E M B L Y} = \frac{\sum_{j = 1}^{n} {(M_{1} \times F)}_{j}}{\sum_{j = 1}^{n} {{(M}_{1})}_{j}}

(6)

where,

n = number of parts in the assembly

M₁ = Mass of the initial model of the j^th part

F = Factor of frugality of the j^th part

F_ASSEMBLY = Total factor of frugality of the assembly

The flywheel, the Pitman and rear wall were selected and redesigned due to their major contribution to the weight of a jaw crusher. Therefore, the composite F_ASSEMBLY for the jaw crusher will account for their actual F values. A value of 1.5 will be assigned to the remaining components listed in Table 1, as per the initial value recommended for the frugal design process [3]. This is assuming that these remaining components satisfy the basic functional requirements and are not put through the frugal design process. The calculation of F_ASSEMBLY is listed in Table 7. Accordingly, F_ASSEMBLY is determined, from Equation (6) and Table 7, to be 1.74 for the final, frugally engineered jaw crusher. In contrast, the F_ASSEMBLY of the initial design of the jaw crusher is lower at 1.37. Therefore, for ~27% increase in F_ASSEMBLY, the jaw crusher can accommodate 33% higher loading and 15% bigger feed.

Table 7. Calculation of F_ASSEMBLY.

Name of the component	M₁ (Kg)	F_initial	F_final	Qty.	M₁* F_initial	M₁* F_final
Pitman	2932	0.98	1.76	1	2873.36	5160.32
Rear wall	1209	1.13	1.63	1	1366.17	1970.67
Flywheel	627	1.32	1.87	2	1655.28	2344.98
Other components	4607	1.5	1.5	–	6910.50	6910.50
Sum Total	9375	–	–	–	12805.31	16386.47

Open in a new tab

Conclusions

This paper presents an advanced frugal version of a jaw crusher by utilizing lesser material while providing better and robust performance. This has been made possible through a new frugal design approach, based on the factor of frugality, that systematically saves material while aiming for both quality-performance and robustness, at low cost.

The design approach based on the factor of frugality yielded material savings in the range of 7% − 30%. In all cases, material savings have been achieved between the iterations. It also increased the factor of safety by at least 18% in the components studied. The factor of safety in the final iteration is slightly higher than the targeted value of 1.5, thereby leaving room for further material savings through design optimization.
Fixing the safety factor at 1.5 was difficult for complex parts. Hence the approach was tweaked by starting between 1 and 1.5. Subsequent design iterations yielded a final factor of safety close to 1.5, i.e., 1.25 to 1.75.
The factor of frugality-based design-approach yields significant material savings. This translates to significant cost savings, including expenditures from attendant energy consumption. The case for lower costs is further strengthened when components are frugally manufactured in emerging markets like India.
The factor of frugality goes beyond the classical factor of safety in looking for more material savings while maintaining performance-quality at low-cost. Therefore, the factor of frugality is a modern version of the traditional factor of safety that will help designers engineer their parts/products for low-cost and low-resource in addition to safety through best performance.

Notation

Acronyms
AFI	Advanced Frugal Innovation
DFF	Design For Frugality
FMI	Frugal Manufacturing Index
CAD	Computer-Aided Design
DFM	Design for Manufacturing
SDG	Sustainable Development Goals

Open in a new tab

Symbols

Symbol	Description	Units
N	factor of safety	Dimensionless
MS _i	Fraction of material savings using the i^th material savings scheme	Dimensionless
F ^N	factor of frugality	Dimensionless
F _ASSEMBLY	Assembly factor of frugality	Dimensionless
σ	Modulus of Rupture	MPa
P	Force	N
L	Length	m
b	Breadth of the specimen	m
d	Depth of the specimen	m
I	Mass moment of inertia	Kg-m ²
S _total	Total cost saved	INR
S _energy	Energy cost savings	INR
S _material	Material cost savings	INR
C _metal	Price of metal	INR/Kg
W _metal	Weight of metal	Kg
C _energy	Energy price	INR/kWh
E _melting	Energy required for melting	kWh/Kg

Open in a new tab

Data Availability

All the data necessary are given in the manuscript.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

1.Bhatti YA. What is frugal, what is innovation? Towards a Theory of Frugal Innovation. SSRN Journal. 2012. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2005910 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
2.Rao BC. Advances in science and technology through frugality. IEEE Eng Manag Rev. 2017;45(1):32–8. doi: 10.1109/emr.2017.2667219 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
3.Rao BC. The science underlying frugal innovations should not be frugal. R Soc Open Sci. 2019;6(5):180421. doi: 10.1098/rsos.180421 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Zeschky M, Widenmayer B, Gassmann O. Frugal Innovation in Emerging Markets. Research-Technology Management. 2011;54(4):38–45. doi: 10.5437/08956308x5404007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
5.Rosca E, Bendul J. Combining frugal engineering and effectuation theory: Insights for frugal product development in entrepreneurial context. In: Proceedings of the 14th R&D Management Conference, Pisa (Italy), 2015. 23–6. [Google Scholar]
6.Stevels A. The Journal of Sustainable Product Design. 2001;1(2):143–4. doi: 10.1023/a:1014419800521 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
7.Delaney E, Liu W, Zhu Z, Xu Y, Dai JS. The investigation of environmental sustainability within product design: a critical review. Des Sci. 2022;8. doi: 10.1017/dsj.2022.11 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
8.Albert M. Sustainable frugal innovation - The connection between frugal innovation and sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019;237:117747. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117747 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
9.Liefner I, Losacker S, Rao BC. Scale up advanced frugal design principles. Nat Sustain. 2020;3(10):772–772. doi: 10.1038/s41893-020-0585-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
10.von Janda S, Kuester S, Schuhmacher MC, Shainesh G. What frugal products are and why they matter: A cross-national multi-method study. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020;246:118977. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118977 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
11.Pradel P, Adkins DA. Towards a design for frugal: review of implications for product design. In: Emerging Practices: Design Research and Education Conference, 2014. [Google Scholar]
12.Rao BC. How disruptive is frugal?. Technology in Society. 2013;35(1):65–73. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.03.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
13.Pedersen CS. The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a Great Gift to Business!. Procedia CIRP. 2018;69:21–4. doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2018.01.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
14.Hossain M. Frugal innovation: A review and research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018;182:926–36. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.091 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
15.Knight WA. Product design for manufacture and assembly. 2010. [Google Scholar]
16.Agrawal MK, Kumar S. Performance Index of Frugal Manufacturing System. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 2019. Nov 1;Vol. 691(No. 1):012057. IOP Publishing. [Google Scholar]
17.Micaëlli J-P, Forest J, Bonjour E, Loise D. Frugal innovation or frugal renovation: how can western designers adopt frugal engineering? Journal of Innovation Economics & Management. 2016;n°21(3):39–56. doi: 10.3917/jie.021.0039 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
18.Rao BC. Revisiting classical design in engineering from a perspective of frugality. Heliyon. 2017;3(5):e00299. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2017.e00299 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Rao BC. Frugal manufacturing in smart factories for widespread sustainable development. R Soc Open Sci. 2021;8(12):210375. doi: 10.1098/rsos.210375 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Gupta A, Yan DS. Mineral processing design and operations: an introduction. Elsevier. 2016. [Google Scholar]
21. https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/mclanahan.com/files/Resources/Brochures/Dry/Universal_Jaw_Crusher_NA_Imperial.pdf [Google Scholar]
22.https://www.metso.com/portfolio/nordberg-c-series/. [Google Scholar]
23. https://www.flsmidth.com/-/media/brochures/brochures-products/crushing-and-sizing/2023/jaw-crusher-eb-09-07_datasheet.pdf [Google Scholar]
24. https://www.terex.com/docs/librariesprovider8/spec-sheets/static/jw-series-specification-sheet.pdf?sfvrsn=37f5c4de_44 [Google Scholar]
25.CJ411 Jaw Crusher. https://www.rockprocessing.sandvik/en/products/stationary-crushers-and-screens/stationary-jaw-crushers/cj411-jaw-crusher/#product-data.
26. https://www.propelind.com/wp-content/themes/propel/brochure/jaw-crusher.pdf [Google Scholar]
27.Norton RL. Machine design an integrated approach. Pearson Education ASIA. 2000. [Google Scholar]
28.Rao BC. Frugal engineering: advent, design and production of frugal products. 1st ed. Springer, 2024. [Google Scholar]
29.Rao BC. Design and engineering for frugal product development. Handbook on Frugal Innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing. 2023. p. 239–48. [Google Scholar]
30.Stefanescu DM. ASM Metals Handbook-Casting Technology. 2001;15:2002. [Google Scholar]
31.Bralla JG. Handbook of product design for manufacturing: a practical guide to low-cost production. McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1986. [Google Scholar]
32.Santolaya JL, Lacasa E, Biedermann A, Muñoz N. A practical methodology to project the design of more sustainable products in the production stage. Res Eng Design. 2019;30(4):539–58. doi: 10.1007/s00163-019-00320-w [DOI] [Google Scholar]
33.du Plessis A, Broeckhoven C, Yadroitsava I, Yadroitsev I, Hands CH, Kunju R, et al. Beautiful and Functional: A Review of Biomimetic Design in Additive Manufacturing. Additive Manufacturing. 2019;27:408–27. doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2019.03.033 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
34.Cohen YH, Reich Y. Biomimetic design method for innovation and sustainability. Berlin, Germany: Springer. 2016. [Google Scholar]
35.Kennedy E, Fecheyr-Lippens D, Hsiung B-K, Niewiarowski PH, Kolodziej M. Biomimicry: A Path to Sustainable Innovation. Design Issues. 2015;31(3):66–73. doi: 10.1162/desi_a_00339 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
36.O’Rourke JM, Seepersad CC. Toward a Methodology for Systematically Generating Energy- and Materials-Efficient Concepts Using Biological Analogies. Journal of Mechanical Design. 2015;137(9). doi: 10.1115/1.4030877 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
37.Oduori MF, Munyasi DM, Mutuli SM. Analysis of the Single Toggle Jaw Crusher Force Transmission Characteristics. Journal of Engineering. 2016;2016:1–9. doi: 10.1155/2016/1578342 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
38.Dai F, Xia K, Zuo JP, Zhang R, Xu NW. Static and Dynamic Flexural Strength Anisotropy of Barre Granite. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2013;46(6):1589–602. doi: 10.1007/s00603-013-0390-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
39.ASTM C99/C99M-09. Standard test method for modulus of rupture of dimension stone. ASTM International. 2009. [Google Scholar]
40.Avallone E, Baumeister T, Sadegh A. Marks’ Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers. 10 ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 2006. [Google Scholar]
41.Theckes B, Langre E de, Boutillon X. Damping by branching: a bioinspiration from trees. Bioinspir Biomim. 2011;6(4):046010. doi: 10.1088/1748-3182/6/4/046010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.James KR, Haritos N, Ades PK. Mechanical stability of trees under dynamic loads. Am J Bot. 2006;93(10):1522–30. doi: 10.3732/ajb.93.10.1522 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Budynas RG, Nisbett JK. Shigley’s mechanical engineering design. New York: McGraw-Hill. 2008. [Google Scholar]
44.Christiansen P, Adolfssen JS. Bite forces, canine strength and skull allometry in carnivores (Mammalia, Carnivora). Journal of Zoology. 2005;266(2):133–51. doi: 10.1017/s0952836905006643 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
45.Iraola-Arregui I, Ben Youcef H, Trabadelo V. Cost Estimation Tool for Metallic Parts Made by Casting: A Case Study. Metals. 2023;13(2):216. doi: 10.3390/met13020216 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
46. https://www.tangedco.org/static/tangedco/assets/files/tariff/2023/TO630062023.pdf [Google Scholar]
47. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/cheap-manufacturing-costs [Google Scholar]
48.SIAM Commodity Price. Sept 2023. Available from: https://www.siam.in/publications.aspx?mpgid=42&pgidtrail=44 [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. 2025 Jun 24;20(6):e0325503. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0325503.r001

Author response to Decision Letter 0

24 Feb 2025

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0325503.r002

Decision Letter 0

Gaurav Bhaduri

PONE-D-25-09992Frugal engineering of a jaw crusher for extractive industriesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rao,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 25 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Gaurav Ashok Bhaduri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

The American Journal Experts (AJE) (https://www.aje.com/) is one such service that has extensive experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. Please note that having the manuscript copyedited by AJE or any other editing services does not guarantee selection for peer review or acceptance for publication.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)”

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Authors

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS One. I do feel that the manuscript needs major revisions in order to be accepted for publication in PLOS One, based on the recommendations of the referees.

Please find the comments of the referees for your perusal and necessary amendments. Please resubmit the manuscript by 06/05/2025.

Kind Regards

Gaurav

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. The title “Frugal engineering of a jaw crusher for extractive industries” is too general. It is necessary to specify the unique aspect of the study, for example, mention “factor of frugality” or “bio-inspired design”.

2. Similarly, it is worth adding more specialized keywords.

3. The abstract gives a good overview of the study, but could be improved by adding quantitative results (for example, percentage weight reduction or increase in safety factor) for greater credibility. It is important to immediately indicate how much more “economical” the new design is in numerical terms.

4. The introduction well justifies the relevance of frugal engineering, but lacks a clearer statement of the problem that this article solves. What is the specific “disease” of current solutions that the authors want to “cure”? Also, it would be worthwhile to expand the literature review on frugal engineering in the mining industry to demonstrate the novelty of the approach.

5. “Use of the factor of frugality” – the very concept of “factor of frugality” requires a more detailed explanation. How is it calculated, what parameters are taken into account, why these particular ones? In formula (1), it is necessary to explain what “i” (index) is and what specific “material savings schemes” are implied.

6. The numerical modeling section lacks information on model validation. How is the adequacy of the finite element analysis model used confirmed? References to relevant standards, experimental data, or comparison with other known models are needed.

7. Version 1 (the basic design) is described as “simple”, but there is no detailed explanation of why this particular design was chosen as a starting point. Version 2 is created using the generative design method. However, there are few details about the parameters and constraints used in the generative design. Version 3 is bio-inspired, but the connection to specific natural objects is not obvious.

8. Tables 3, 4, and 5 present the results for each version of the components. However, there is no detailed analysis of these results. Why do some parameters improve while others deteriorate? What are the reasons for these changes? It is necessary to relate the results to the specific design features of each version.

9. It is important to show that the “factor of frugality” is not just an abstract value, but actually reflects resource savings and increased safety. What is the correlation between the “factor of frugality” and other performance indicators (e.g. production cost, service life, reliability)?

10. The presented cost savings calculation is too simplified. It does not take into account the costs of developing new designs, making prototypes, conducting tests, and possible changes in the technological process. Formulas (4) and (5) use coefficients 1.1 and 1.3 to account for metal losses and savings on sprues. It is necessary to justify the choice of these coefficients with references to literature or your own calculations.

11. All indicators are highly dependent on the material. It would be good to consider other materials and compare the indicators.

Reviewer #2: Although this paper represents a very interesting topic to the field and probably considered all processes, however it relies on granite as the crushed material while in nature the granite as raw material may be found mixed with other material particles such as iron. It’s recommended to take that into consideration.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Jun 24;20(6):e0325503. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0325503.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 1

5 May 2025

Frugal engineering of a jaw crusher using the factor-of-frugality, a modern version of the safety factor

At the outset we would like to thank the reviewers for their positive and valuable comments regarding this research effort. We also thank them for taking the time to point out meticulously issues pertaining to the content of this work. We have accordingly answered the various queries and revised the initial manuscript. Please find answers to the questions raised by the reviewers in the pages to follow. These useful comments have been used to revise the initial draft of our manuscript, which will be uploaded alongside these comments. Please note that the edited portions of the manuscript appear in red font in the revised manuscript (and which are underlined here). Also, some edits such as capitalizing certain words in the manuscript (shown in red-colored font) are not documented here for clarity and brevity.

REVIEWER 1

Comment 1: The title “Frugal engineering of a jaw crusher for extractive industries” is too general. It is necessary to specify the unique aspect of the study, for example, mention “factor of frugality” or “bio-inspired design”.

Response: The authors thank the reviewer for this suggestion.

Action Taken: Page 1, Line 1-2: Frugal engineering of a jaw crusher using the factor-of-frugality, a modern version of the safety factor

Comment 2: Similarly, it is worth adding more specialized keywords.

Response: The authors thank the reviewer for this suggestion and keyword listing has been changed.

Action Taken: Page 1, Line 22-23: Jaw crusher, Factor of frugality, Sustainability, Frugal engineering, Frugal design, Frugal manufacturing, Biomimetics, Advanced frugal product

Comment 3: The abstract gives a good overview of the study, but could be improved by adding quantitative results (for example, percentage weight reduction or increase in safety factor) for greater credibility. It is important to immediately indicate how much more “economical” the new design is in numerical terms.

Response: The authors thank the reviewer for this suggestion. And we have also added some minor content for a better reading of the abstract.

Action Taken: Page 1, Lines 15-19: Numbers indicated in the discussion and conclusion sections have been added in the abstract, as below.

Accordingly, factors of frugality of 1.871.79, 1.761.68 and 1.631.33 have been obtained for the flywheel, the Pitman and the rear wall, respectively, based on the frugal approach. Therefore, use of the new frugal design approach has resulted in material savings of 8%, 7% and 30% and increases in factor of safety of 35%, 71% and 18% in the flywheel, the Pitman and the rear wall, respectively, over their base values.

Minor content: Page 1, Lines 5-16:

Comment 4: The introduction well justifies the relevance of frugal engineering, but lacks a clearer statement of the problem that this article solves. What is the specific “disease” of current solutions that the authors want to “cure”? Also, it would be worthwhile to expand the literature review on frugal engineering in the mining industry to demonstrate the novelty of the approach.

Response: The authors thank the reviewer for this suggestion. However, the authors would like to point out the following real-world problems that have been addressed in the paper:

1. Instead of quantifying the ‘frugality’ of a product purely using cost, a factor-of-frugality based approach is used, which captures the characteristics of going frugal, i.e., low-resource-consumption and better quality in addition to low-cost.

2. The focus of frugalization involving cost-reduction has also been shifted from the traditional avenues of labor and supply chain. Instead, frugal engineering principles have been applied at the design stage to directly influence material and cost savings while maintaining top quality. The application at design stage significantly helps in involving frugality in all stages of product development.

3. Up until now, the factor of frugality formula was developed to frugally engineer a single component of a system. A method to quantify the frugality of an entire assembly has been introduced in this paper.

In the introduction, it is also noted that this paper presents the first-ever instance of applying the factor-of-frugality based approach to an industrial product. Literature review of frugal products in the mining industry did not yield any results as products in the mining industry are typically characterized by bulky designs where robustness is more important than cost. Hence the absence of literature on frugal design from mining area which does not exist. In the interest of material savings and sustainability, a novel frugal design approach is adopted.

Action Taken: Accordingly, the issues that the paper addresses have been explicitly mentioned in the introduction with inclusion of previous content under point number 4.

Page 3, line 76-91:

Therefore, this paper addresses the novelty of applying frugal engineering principles to a jaw crusher by focusing on:

1. Frugal design is quantified using the factor of frugality. This allows the quantification of frugality in any product, including the jaw crusher, using a metric that hews with the three features of frugal engineering, i.e, low-cost, low-resource, and better quality.

2. The impact of the factor of frugality based design has been studied, using performance and cost as metrics.

3. The factor of frugality has been formulated for design of individual components of a given product. Consequently, a method of determining the overall factor of frugality of an assembly based on this formulation has been introduced in this effort.

4. This paper is the first instance of the methodical application of the factor of frugality to an actual industrial product. Accordingly, this paper presents the different versions of the product resulting from the iterative application of the factor of frugality while converging onto the final design. The advantages and limitations of the frugal methodology will become apparent in the process of designing this industrially relevant product.

Comment 5: “Use of the factor of frugality” – the very concept of “factor of frugality” requires a more detailed explanation. How is it calculated, what parameters are taken into account, why these particular ones? In formula (1), it is necessary to explain what “i” (index) is and what specific “material savings schemes” are implied.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Since this is a new factor with a new concept, we have provided details on pages 5-8 and Figures 2 &3. We have added new content to make this clear. We feel that the existing and added content on this new factor makes this concept clear. But the interested reader can look, if needed, for more details into Rao’s works that are referenced in the paper.

Action Taken: Accordingly, the following lines have been added.

Page 5, Lines 120-123 : The factor of frugality is a new metric for design and, engineering in general, that achieves best functionality under resource-and-cost constraints by subsuming the classical safety factor while also focusing on individual stages in product development. It is a modern version of the factor of safety that focuses on safety, resource, cost and quality in design.

Page 5, Lines 124-126: The factor of frugality approach is initiated by fixing N at a low value of 1.5, as seen in Fig 2 [3]. The low value of N is arbitrary in that it should be lowest possible value commensurate with the current body of knowledge in a given area of engineering.

Page 6, Lines 129-138: Fig 2 brings out the working of the factor of frugality, i.e, F of FN, for a shaft which is a workhorse of many engineering applications. As seen in Fig 2, a low value of N, at 1.5, is fixed throughout the frugal product development process. Such a low value of N generally results in lower material consumption and subsequent stages of product development are examined for more material savings in addition to that for this low value of N. Consequently, the material saved (MS) parameters account for weight of material saved in the design, materials and manufacturing stages with focus on salvaging or recycling. Therefore, low-resource consumption and, hence lower costs, are made possible from both low N and individual stages of product development. The quality is maintained at the highest level by hewing to the rigor of most accurate design and engineering principles.

Page 6, Line 141: However, some changes with this idealized setting of the factor of frugality are in order.

Comment 6: The numerical modeling section lacks information on model validation. How is the adequacy of the finite element analysis model used confirmed? References to relevant standards, experimental data, or comparison with other known models are needed.

Response: Page 9, Table 2 furnishes details about the type of mesh used and convergence criteria used. The h-refinement of the mesh is stopped once max stress deviation is within 5% of that of the previous iteration. This is done so that a mesh independent result is achieved. This gives sufficient confidence for the convergence of the result. Furthermore, all analyses are done within the Hookean domain, with none of the analyses exceeding the yield strength of the material. This has been specified in the paper.

We understand the reviewer’s concern on model validation. This is the first part of a study that aims to build and use such a frugal jaw crusher. We hope to publish these results when they become available.

Action Taken: Some minor modification was carried out.

Page 8, Line 182: …domain since plastic flow is detrimental…

Comment 7: Version 1 (the basic design) is described as “simple”, but there is no detailed explanation of why this particular design was chosen as a starting point. Version 2 is created using the generative design method. However, there are few details about the parameters and constraints used in the generative design. Version 3 is bio-inspired, but the connection to specific natural objects is not obvious.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The base model (Version 1) is a concept that is made in CAD based on machines observed in the field. This base design is chosen as a starting point because these designs have a low factor of safety, less than or equal to 1.5, as recommended by the frugal design methodology specified in Rao’s works. Subsequent design iterations aim to reduce material without decreasing this factor of safety. In Version 2 of the flywheel, which employs generative design, it is mentioned that symmetry constraints were applied on mutually perpendicular planes passing through the axis of the flywheel (Page 11, line 249-250). This results in a symmetric design. In all three versions, a torque and a belt tension force are also applied as loads on the rim of the flywheel (Page 10, line 225). These are the constraints and boundary constraints that are required to simulate loads on a flywheel. As for the connection to biomimetics, the connection to trees and branching etc have been briefly explained and the interested reader can refer [41,42] under Version 3 on page 12. We believe that relevant biomimetic features have been briefly explained here.

Comment 8: Tables 3, 4, and 5 present the results for each version of the components. However, there is no detailed analysis of these results. Why do some parameters improve while others deteriorate? What are the reasons for these changes? It is necessary to relate the results to the specific design features of each version.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Tables 3, 4 and 5 are meant to be observations. An analysis of these results can be found in the ‘Discussion’ section. The changes between each subsequent iteration of the design is necessitated by the frugal design methodology shown in Figure 3. The details of these changes with reference to the numbers shown in the tables can be found in the ‘Results’ section, refer Page 9 – 17. However, we have added two paras to account for this comment as follows.

Action Taken: Page 19 -20, lines 397 – 420:

A brief analysis on how iterative changes in design affected the F value of each component now follows. As shown in Fig. 12, the F value of the flywheel increased from 1.32 to 1.72 in the first iteration. This is attributed to the application of generative-design and DFM principles. In particular, engineering the arms of the flywheel to better handle bending reduced the stress concentration, thereby enabling material reduction through stronger design. Further refinement in the second iteration was achieved by following again, DFM rules specific to flywheel-manufacturing and, by using principles of biomimetics for mimicking the structure of trees. The details of these design changes have been covered under the section on results. Consequently, additional branching and tapered profile of the flywheel-arms resulted in a stronger structure with lesser material, which has been captured in the final F value of 1.88, see Fig. 12.

Similarly, the first iteration of design for the Pitman frame, shown in Fig. 12, increased the F value from 0.98 to 1.54. This can be attributed to the change in design of the lower half of casting, wherein a webbed rib was adopted with larger fillets. This allowed saving on weight while improving strength. The second iteration of the Pitman sees an increase in F value from 1.54 to 1.76. The focus in this iteration was on the structure of the frame itself. A twin-wall structure with a beaded rib was adopted for design. As outlined in the section on results, this design leverages the combined advantages of biomimetics and traditional engineering concepts. As for the rear wall, the casting went through a single iteration where the F value increased from 1.13 to 1.63, see Fig. 12. The design change involved removal of material in regions of low stress where the material was redundant. Such material reduction combined with larger fillets resulted in a lower peak stress and uniform stress distribution, as shown in Fig. 10 and Table 5. The combination of material savings and stronger design contributed to the significant uptick in F-value of the rear wall.

Comment 9: It is important to show that the “factor of frugality” is not just an abstract value, but actually reflects resource savings and increased safety. What is the correlation between the “factor of frugality” and other performance indicators (e.g. production cost, service life, reliability)?

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have explained these features in bringing out the concept underlying the Factor of Frugality on pages 5 to 8. We have also added new content to explain the theoretical underpinnings of this new design-metric that captures both the resource savings and safety of a frugally engineered product while keenly focusing on cost and top quality. This has also been explained in detail in Rao’s works [2,3,12,18,19, 28].

As for the application to an industry grade jaw crusher, an increase in factor of safety from design iteration

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0325503.s002.docx^{(52.1KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0325503.r004

Decision Letter 1

sunny narayan

Frugal engineering of a jaw crusher using the factor-of-frugality, a modern version of the safety-factor

PONE-D-25-09992R1

Dear Dr. Rao,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

sunny narayan

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: thank you for your response, but it is very important point and may effect the whole process in sites so I think you might take this point into consideration in future research.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #2: No

**********

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0325503.r005

Acceptance letter

sunny narayan

PONE-D-25-09992R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rao,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. PLOS Manuscript Reassignment

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0325503.s002.docx^{(52.1KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All the data necessary are given in the manuscript.

[pone.0325503.ref001] 1.Bhatti YA. What is frugal, what is innovation? Towards a Theory of Frugal Innovation. SSRN Journal. 2012. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2005910 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref002] 2.Rao BC. Advances in science and technology through frugality. IEEE Eng Manag Rev. 2017;45(1):32–8. doi: 10.1109/emr.2017.2667219 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref003] 3.Rao BC. The science underlying frugal innovations should not be frugal. R Soc Open Sci. 2019;6(5):180421. doi: 10.1098/rsos.180421 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref004] 4.Zeschky M, Widenmayer B, Gassmann O. Frugal Innovation in Emerging Markets. Research-Technology Management. 2011;54(4):38–45. doi: 10.5437/08956308x5404007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref005] 5.Rosca E, Bendul J. Combining frugal engineering and effectuation theory: Insights for frugal product development in entrepreneurial context. In: Proceedings of the 14th R&D Management Conference, Pisa (Italy), 2015. 23–6. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref006] 6.Stevels A. The Journal of Sustainable Product Design. 2001;1(2):143–4. doi: 10.1023/a:1014419800521 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref007] 7.Delaney E, Liu W, Zhu Z, Xu Y, Dai JS. The investigation of environmental sustainability within product design: a critical review. Des Sci. 2022;8. doi: 10.1017/dsj.2022.11 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref008] 8.Albert M. Sustainable frugal innovation - The connection between frugal innovation and sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019;237:117747. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117747 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref009] 9.Liefner I, Losacker S, Rao BC. Scale up advanced frugal design principles. Nat Sustain. 2020;3(10):772–772. doi: 10.1038/s41893-020-0585-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref010] 10.von Janda S, Kuester S, Schuhmacher MC, Shainesh G. What frugal products are and why they matter: A cross-national multi-method study. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020;246:118977. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118977 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref011] 11.Pradel P, Adkins DA. Towards a design for frugal: review of implications for product design. In: Emerging Practices: Design Research and Education Conference, 2014. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref012] 12.Rao BC. How disruptive is frugal?. Technology in Society. 2013;35(1):65–73. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.03.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref013] 13.Pedersen CS. The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a Great Gift to Business!. Procedia CIRP. 2018;69:21–4. doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2018.01.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref014] 14.Hossain M. Frugal innovation: A review and research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018;182:926–36. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.091 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref015] 15.Knight WA. Product design for manufacture and assembly. 2010. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref016] 16.Agrawal MK, Kumar S. Performance Index of Frugal Manufacturing System. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 2019. Nov 1;Vol. 691(No. 1):012057. IOP Publishing. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref017] 17.Micaëlli J-P, Forest J, Bonjour E, Loise D. Frugal innovation or frugal renovation: how can western designers adopt frugal engineering? Journal of Innovation Economics & Management. 2016;n°21(3):39–56. doi: 10.3917/jie.021.0039 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref018] 18.Rao BC. Revisiting classical design in engineering from a perspective of frugality. Heliyon. 2017;3(5):e00299. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2017.e00299 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref019] 19.Rao BC. Frugal manufacturing in smart factories for widespread sustainable development. R Soc Open Sci. 2021;8(12):210375. doi: 10.1098/rsos.210375 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref020] 20.Gupta A, Yan DS. Mineral processing design and operations: an introduction. Elsevier. 2016. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref021] 21. https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/mclanahan.com/files/Resources/Brochures/Dry/Universal_Jaw_Crusher_NA_Imperial.pdf [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref022] 22.https://www.metso.com/portfolio/nordberg-c-series/. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref023] 23. https://www.flsmidth.com/-/media/brochures/brochures-products/crushing-and-sizing/2023/jaw-crusher-eb-09-07_datasheet.pdf [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref024] 24. https://www.terex.com/docs/librariesprovider8/spec-sheets/static/jw-series-specification-sheet.pdf?sfvrsn=37f5c4de_44 [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref025] 25.CJ411 Jaw Crusher. https://www.rockprocessing.sandvik/en/products/stationary-crushers-and-screens/stationary-jaw-crushers/cj411-jaw-crusher/#product-data.

[pone.0325503.ref026] 26. https://www.propelind.com/wp-content/themes/propel/brochure/jaw-crusher.pdf [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref027] 27.Norton RL. Machine design an integrated approach. Pearson Education ASIA. 2000. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref028] 28.Rao BC. Frugal engineering: advent, design and production of frugal products. 1st ed. Springer, 2024. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref029] 29.Rao BC. Design and engineering for frugal product development. Handbook on Frugal Innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing. 2023. p. 239–48. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref030] 30.Stefanescu DM. ASM Metals Handbook-Casting Technology. 2001;15:2002. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref031] 31.Bralla JG. Handbook of product design for manufacturing: a practical guide to low-cost production. McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1986. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref032] 32.Santolaya JL, Lacasa E, Biedermann A, Muñoz N. A practical methodology to project the design of more sustainable products in the production stage. Res Eng Design. 2019;30(4):539–58. doi: 10.1007/s00163-019-00320-w [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref033] 33.du Plessis A, Broeckhoven C, Yadroitsava I, Yadroitsev I, Hands CH, Kunju R, et al. Beautiful and Functional: A Review of Biomimetic Design in Additive Manufacturing. Additive Manufacturing. 2019;27:408–27. doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2019.03.033 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref034] 34.Cohen YH, Reich Y. Biomimetic design method for innovation and sustainability. Berlin, Germany: Springer. 2016. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref035] 35.Kennedy E, Fecheyr-Lippens D, Hsiung B-K, Niewiarowski PH, Kolodziej M. Biomimicry: A Path to Sustainable Innovation. Design Issues. 2015;31(3):66–73. doi: 10.1162/desi_a_00339 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref036] 36.O’Rourke JM, Seepersad CC. Toward a Methodology for Systematically Generating Energy- and Materials-Efficient Concepts Using Biological Analogies. Journal of Mechanical Design. 2015;137(9). doi: 10.1115/1.4030877 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref037] 37.Oduori MF, Munyasi DM, Mutuli SM. Analysis of the Single Toggle Jaw Crusher Force Transmission Characteristics. Journal of Engineering. 2016;2016:1–9. doi: 10.1155/2016/1578342 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref038] 38.Dai F, Xia K, Zuo JP, Zhang R, Xu NW. Static and Dynamic Flexural Strength Anisotropy of Barre Granite. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2013;46(6):1589–602. doi: 10.1007/s00603-013-0390-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref039] 39.ASTM C99/C99M-09. Standard test method for modulus of rupture of dimension stone. ASTM International. 2009. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref040] 40.Avallone E, Baumeister T, Sadegh A. Marks’ Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers. 10 ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 2006. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref041] 41.Theckes B, Langre E de, Boutillon X. Damping by branching: a bioinspiration from trees. Bioinspir Biomim. 2011;6(4):046010. doi: 10.1088/1748-3182/6/4/046010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref042] 42.James KR, Haritos N, Ades PK. Mechanical stability of trees under dynamic loads. Am J Bot. 2006;93(10):1522–30. doi: 10.3732/ajb.93.10.1522 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref043] 43.Budynas RG, Nisbett JK. Shigley’s mechanical engineering design. New York: McGraw-Hill. 2008. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref044] 44.Christiansen P, Adolfssen JS. Bite forces, canine strength and skull allometry in carnivores (Mammalia, Carnivora). Journal of Zoology. 2005;266(2):133–51. doi: 10.1017/s0952836905006643 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref045] 45.Iraola-Arregui I, Ben Youcef H, Trabadelo V. Cost Estimation Tool for Metallic Parts Made by Casting: A Case Study. Metals. 2023;13(2):216. doi: 10.3390/met13020216 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref046] 46. https://www.tangedco.org/static/tangedco/assets/files/tariff/2023/TO630062023.pdf [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref047] 47. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/cheap-manufacturing-costs [Google Scholar]

[pone.0325503.ref048] 48.SIAM Commodity Price. Sept 2023. Available from: https://www.siam.in/publications.aspx?mpgid=42&pgidtrail=44 [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Frugal engineering of a jaw crusher using the factor-of-frugality, a modern version of the safety-factor

Aditya Krishnan

Balkrishna C Rao

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Selection of a suitable industry level product

Fig 1. Major components of a jaw crusher.

Table 1. List of components in moving jaw assembly.

Use of the factor of frugality

Fig 2. Working of the factor of frugality.

Fig 3. Iterative frugal design process.

Numerical modeling

Table 2. General mesh and convergence details for stress analysis.

Results

Flywheel

Fig 4. Comparison of Versions 1, 2 and 3 of flywheel design.

Fig 5. Stress analysis of flywheel.

Table 3. Summary of results for flywheel design.

Pitman frame

Fig 6. Loads and constraints acting on the Pitman frame.

Fig 7. Versions 1, 2 and 3 of the design of the Pitman frame.

Fig 8. Stress analysis of the Pitman frame – Rear view shown in insets.

Table 4. Summary of results for the Pitman frame design.

Rear wall

Fig 9. Versions 1 and 2 of the design of rear wall.

Fig 10. Stress analysis of rear wall.

Table 5. Summary of results for rear wall design.

Discussion

Fig 11. Summary of design evolution, using Factor of Frugality, of relevant components of a jaw crusher.

Fig 12. Evolution in N, F and MS. This figure quantifies different design-versions for flywheel, the Pitman and rear wall.

Impact on cost

Table 6. Details of cost savings.

Impact on performance

Calculation of the factor of frugality for assemblies

Table 7. Calculation of FASSEMBLY.

Conclusions

Notation

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 0

Gaurav Bhaduri

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 1

sunny narayan

Roles

Acceptance letter

sunny narayan

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases

Table 7. Calculation of F_ASSEMBLY.