KGCOE MSD Technical Review Agenda P11213: Land Vehicle for Education : Modular Student Attachment

Transcription

1 KGCOE MSD Technical Review Agenda P11213: Land Vehicle for Education : Modular Student Attachment Meeting Purpose: 1. Overview of the project 2. Confirm Engineering Specifications and Customer Needs 3. Review concepts 4. Propose a design approach and confirm its functionality 5. Cross-disciplinary review: generate further ideas Materials to be Reviewed 1. Project Description 2. Work Breakdown Structure 3. Customer Needs 4. Customer Specifications 5. Function Diagram 6. Current System Design Schematic 7. Concept Development and Proposed Design 8. Project Plan 9. Risk Assessment Meeting Date: January 20, 2011 Meeting Location: Meeting time: 1:00 3:00 pm Last edited by: J.Wolff

2 Project # Project Name Project Track Project Family LVE : Modular Student Attachment Vehicle Systems Land Vehicle For Education Start Term Team Guide Project Sponsor Doc Rev Phil Bryan Dr. Hensel 1 Project Description Project Background: The land vehicle for education, or LVE, is a vehicle designed specifically for use by first year mechanical engineeringg students. The objective for those students is to design a system to complete a certain task. By using the LVE and specifically designing portions of the Modular Student Attachment, or MSA, students will gain valuable design, CAD and machining experience. Problem Statement: To develop a small robotic vehicle used by freshmen as a portion of a project as part of a first year course. This course emphasizes the design aspect of mechanical engineering. Specifically for the MSA: To develop a platform/ system that will be the focus of the design for the first year students. Objectives/Scope: Ensure MSA compatibility with the overall design of the LVE Design an example MSA to exhibit a possible outcome of student design Deliverables: Instruction for MSA design/use Development of possible future uses Example MSA Implementation Expected Project Benefits: The LVE, and more specifically the MSA, will help mechanical engineering professors teach first year students the basic principles of design and fabrication. The LVE and MSA should be designed in such a manor to cause others to emulate its design. Core Team Members: Dylan Rider Oyetunde (Dan) Jolaoye Andrew Komendat Jared Wolff Strategy and Approach Assumptions & Constraints: The team should have a good understanding of the first year course that this project will be ultimately used in. The team must also be cognizant of the budget constraints imposed upon the project. Above all, this project must be completed and be ready to be used by Fall Issues & Risks: Open ended design that must accommodate future possible projects. The interface (mechanical and electrical) between the LVE chassis and controls Ensuring that the design of the MSA can be altered by first year ME students. Last edited by: J.Wolff

3 P11213 Customer Needs Customer Need # Importance Description Comments/Status 1 1 The MSA must teach first year RIT Mechanical Engineering students design principles The MSA must require use of CAD modeling skills The MSA must utilize in house facilities for the manufacturing for MSA components The MSA must involve simple calculations a first year student is capable of The MSA must incorporate the use of the design process. 2 2 The MSA must be easy enough to be used by first year students The Must must be designed with standard geometric dimensions and tolerances The Must must provide clear user and manufacturing instructions. 3 1 The MSA must be low cost The MSA must have low upkeep cost for quarterly project designs The MSA must have low manufacturing costs The MSA must be designed with the use of off the shelf parts when possible. 4 2 The MSA must be producible in large quantities. 5 1 The MSA must enable student creativity to have multiple solutions for the same problem The MSA must be made of modular components. 6 1 The MSA must provide enough content for students in a group to have an effective learning experience. 7 1 The MSA must be safe to use. 8 2 The MSA must easy to store. 9 1 The MSA must be easily removable, such that other MSA projects can be used in its place The MSA must be able to withstand multiple years of use and abuse The MSA must be impressive, such that other programs and schools want to emulate it The MSA must attach to the Land Vehicle for Education (LVE) The MSA must allow all different group's parts to be manufactured within house facility capabilities. Importance: Sample scale (1=must have, 2=nice to have, 3=preference only), or see Ulrich exhibit 4-8. Comment/Status: allows tracking of questions, proposed changes, etc; indicate if you are meeting the need ("met") or not ("not met")

4 P11213 Engineering Specifications Need Spec Type Metric Value Target 1.1 MSA shall require each student to manufacture between 1 and 3 parts. Value Components MSA shall require CAD modeling design of between 1 and 3 components per student. Value Components MSA shall require CAD modeling assembly of between 5 and 15 components per team. Value Components MSA shall require between 1 and 4 hours to design per student group. Value Hour 1 to MSA shall require between 0.1 and 0.5 hours to machine per part per student group. Value Hour 0.1 to MSA shall require between 0 and 0.5 hours to assemble per student group. Value Hour 0 to MSA shall require between 0.5 and 2 hours to teach per class. Value Hour 0.5 to MSA shall require between 0.5 and 2 hours to test per student group. Value Hour 0.5 to MSA shall include a how to use instruction manual for its components and operation. Binary Yes 2.7 MSA shall include an assembly instruction manual for its components in manufacturing. Binary Yes 2.8 MSA shall incorporate the use of standard dimensions in intervals of 0.01 in. or a multiple of.01 in. Value Inches MSA shall have mechanical tolerances for student design components of at least in. Value % Tolerance >= MSA shall cost less than 100 dollars per unit in production. Value Dollars < MSA shall cost less than 100 dollars per unit for prototype development. Value Dollars < MSA shall cost less than 10 dollars per student to incorporate per semester of use. Value Dollars < MSA shall require less than 5 repairs during MSA lifetime. Value Repairs < MSA shall have parts that can be obtained or replaced in less than 21 days. Value Days MSA shall produce less than 1 pound of waste material durng production. Value Pounds of Waste <= MSA shall produce less than 0.25 pounds of waste material per student during manufacturing. Value Pounds of Waste <= MSA shall have less than 10 custom made parts Value Parts < MSA shall have at least 10 feasible solutions for the project objective. Value Solutions >=10 Infinite 5.2 MSA shall incude at least 5 components. Value Components >= MSA shall be controllable by the student group. Binary Yes 6.1 MSA shall involve the participation of 3-4 students. Value Student MSA shall require between 3 and 15 hours of student work to complete. Value Hours 3 to MSA shall never exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Value Degrees F MSA shall have 0 sharp edges. Value Sharp edges MSA shall comply with OSHA, FCC, and FDA specifications. Binary Yes 8.1 MSA shall have all components be stored within the allowed storage space. Value Feet 8'x4'x2' 6'x3'x1' 8.2 MSA shall not exceed 5 pounds, including all payloads. Value Pounds <= MSA shall allow removal from the LVE without removing permanent LVE parts. Binary Yes 10.1 MSA shall have components that do not break when assembled and dropped from a height of 2 feet. Value Feet MSA shall have a lifetime of at least 60 hours of operation. Value Hours MSA shall receive the approval of a large majority of mechanical engineering professors in the RIT engineering college. Value Approval Percentage MSA shall be attachable to the Land Vehicle for Education. Binary Yes 13.1 MSA shall require that all groups components be manufactured within the allowed 3 weeks of lab classes without added instructor setup time required. Value Lab Sessions 3 2

5 P11213 Work Breakdown Structure MSA System Power Control (Dan & Jared) Control/ Data Transmission (Jared) Motor/Actuators (Dan &Jared) Mechanical Structure (Andrew & Dylan) Power System Design Data Transmission Technology Control/Motor Interface Design Mechanical Structure Design Motor/Structure Interface Design Power System Test Design of communication Interface Control/Motor Interface Test Student Component Design Motor/Mechanical Interface Test Communication interface test Student Component Feasibility and Test

6 MSA Functional Architecture Allows creative design and manufacturing of a dynamic operational student attachment to the Land Vehicle for Education (LVE) Creation of a new design Interacts with main control board Allows for a range of designs Connects to the LVE Design Process Controllable Project Numerous Components Control Board Communicatio n Component Attachment Cad Modeling Mechanical Components Dynamic Components LVE Attachment Machining Educational Process Modular Attachment

7 Copncepts Selection: Implementation of Lifting Device Component Type -> Robotic Arm Crane Rotational Arm 4-Bar Linkage Lever Arm Counterweighted Arm Selection Criteria Weight Rating Notes Wtd Rating Notes Wtd Rating Notes Wtd Rating Notes Wtd Rating Notes Wtd Rating Notes Wtd Ease of Design/Assembly Cost Lower 27 1 *Massive Level of Machinability Safe *Pinch points. 3 3 *Pinch points Creative Student Analysis Total Copncepts Selection: Implementation of Writing Device Component Type -> Mill-like lead screw driven writing Rack and Pinion Wall Writing Device Robotic Arm (See Lifting Device) 4-Bar Linkage (See Lifting Device) Selection Criteria Weight Rating Notes Wtd Rating Notes Wtd Rating Notes Wtd Rating Notes Wtd Ease of Design/Assembly Cost Level of Machinability Safe Creative Student Analysis Total Additional Information: Weighting Scale: 1-3 Weighting Rating Scale: 1,3,9 Rating 9 Rating: Completely Fullfills Criteria 3 Rating: Adequately Fullfills Criteria 1 Rating: Does Not Fullfill Criteria Selection Process: Total scores will aid the selection of the best choice/choices. Copncepts Selection: Implementation of Item Delivery Component Type -> Planer Arm Device Lifting Delivery Device Robotic Arm (See Lifting Device) Selection Criteria Weight Rating Notes Wtd Rating Notes Wtd Rating Notes Wtd Ease of Design/Assembly Cost Level of Machinability Safe Creative Student Analysis Total Copncepts Selection: Implementation of Item Collection Component Type -> Bucket Scooper Over-hanging Selection Criteria Weight Rating Notes Wtd Rating Notes Wtd Ease of Design/Assembly Cost Level of Machinability Safe Creative Student Analysis Total Copncepts Selection: Implementation of Catapult Component Type -> Servo Drivent Catapult Side Routed Driven Catapult Selection Criteria Weight Rating Notes Wtd Rating Notes Wtd Ease of Design/Assembly Cost Level of Machinability Safe 1 3 *Flying objects! Creative Student Analysis Total 47 51

8 Design 8 Motor 2 Arm 3 Motor 1 Cla w Chassis I/O MSA Control Board

9 Design 8 Comments Simple design includes identical length Arms 1 and 2 so the Arm 3 is always parallel to the ground Equal spacing between pinned joints All joints are pinned locations Maximum torque occurs at the lowest point of travel, simplest to analyze of all designs

10 Motor 2 Design 9 Motor 1 Cla w Chassis I/O MSA Control Board

11 Design 9 Comments Contains a longer Arm 2 than Arm 1 Allows picking up objects from a higher surface

12 Design 10 Motor 2 Motor 1 Cla w Chassis I/O MSA Control Board

13 Design 10 Comments Contains a longer arm 1 than arm 2 Allows picking up objects from a lower surface

14 P11213 Robotic Arm Analysis 3 Motor Case: -Based on mechanical calculations for arm -Assuming 932 oz/in holding torque for motor 1 -Assuming 434 oz/in holding torque for motor 2 (i.e. worse case operation for motors locked holding a load) Typical Servo Current: 830 ma no 6V ma max 6V Calculations: Max I = 3A + 3A = 6A+ If constantly in use, we need a battery that can at least 0.5 C of discharge for a 12 Ah battery to get 2 hours of use (just the arm)

15 P Bar Analysis 1 Motor Case: -Based on mechanical calculations -Using a servo with 200 oz in stall torque -Assuming max torque from setup 100 oz in Typical Servo Current: 285 ma no 6V 3000 ma max 6V Calculations: Max I =~ 1000 ma If constantly in use, we need a battery that can at least handle.25 C of discharge for a 4 Ah battery to get 4 hours of use (just the MSA)

16 P11213 IC to IC Communication Analysis UART Case: Highest speed for ATMega with External 16 MHz : 31 kb/s (~15.5 kb/s for internal 8 MHz) 1 byte (8 bits) per packet UART UART Data communication packet structure:\ Max Message Latency: Time through USART: 7B / 31kBps = 225us Time through USART: 7B / 15.5kBps = 450us

17 P11213 IC to IC Communication Analysis UART Case: Same instruction set used through the RF for the controls board: UART UART Forward Backward Left Right M1 + M1 - M2 + M2 - M3 + M3 - M4 + M4 - M5 + M5 - M6 + M6 - M7 + M7 - M8 + M8 5 bit: instruction bit: speed 0-15 X bit: redundancy 5 instructions at once (5+4+9)*3= 54 bits/instruction set

18 Task Start End Effort Dec 2010 Jan 2011 Feb ) Establish Project Objectives 11/29/10 8:00 12/2/10 12:00 1w 4h 2) Review PRP 11/29/10 8:00 11/30/10 5:00 2d 3) Meet with Team and Guide 12/1/10 8:00 12/1/10 12:00 4h 4) Introduction To LVE 12/1/10 1:00 12/2/10 12:00 5) Identify Team Roles 11/29/10 8:00 11/29/10 5:00 6) Team values and Norms 11/29/10 8:00 11/30/10 5:00 2d 7) Needs and Specs 12/2/10 1:00 12/21/10 2w 2d 6.5h 8) Customer Needs 12/2/10 1:00 12/14/10 1w 3d 9) Identify Stakeholders 12/2/10 1:00 12/8/10 12:00 4d 10) Interview Stakeholders 12/8/10 1:00 12/13/10 12:00 3d 11) Compile list of Customer Needs 12/13/10 1:00 12/14/10 12:00 12) Engineering Specs 12/14/10 1:00 12/21/10 4d 6.5h 13) Convert Needs to Engineering Specs 12/14/10 1:00 12/17/10 10:30 2d 6.5h 14) Determne Measurable Value for Metric 12/17/10 10:30 12/20/10 10:30 15) Consider Method of Test for Metrics 12/20/10 10:30 12/21/10 10:30 16) Needs and Specs 12/21/10 10:30 12/21/10 10:30 17) Project Planning and Execution 12/21/10 12/23/10 2d 18) Project Plan 12/21/10 12/23/10 2d 19) Identify Deliverables and Critical Path 12/21/10 10:30 12/22/10 10:30 20) Develop Gantt Chart 12/22/10 10:30 12/23/10 10:30 21) MSD 1 Project Plan 12/23/10 10:30 12/23/10 10:30 22) Concept Development 12/21/10 1/6/11 11:00 2w 2d 0.5h 23) Concept Generation and Evauation 12/21/10 1/5/11 11:00 2w 0.5h 24) Cultivate Multiple concepts for layout and form 12/21/10 10:30 1/5/11 11:00 2w 0.5h 25) Concept Review and Selection 1/5/11 11:00 1/6/11 11:00 26) Select one concept for evaluation phase 1/5/11 11:00 1/6/11 11:00 27) System Level Design 1/6/11 11:00 1/14/11 3:00 2w 2h 28) System Analysis 1/6/11 11:00 1/10/11 11:00 2d 29) Analyze design choice 1/6/11 11:00 1/7/11 11:00 30) Compare analysis to eng. specs 1/7/11 11:00 1/10/11 11:00 31) System Design 1/10/11 11:00 1/14/11 3:00 1w 2h 32) Visual Layout of selected design 1/10/11 11:00 1/14/11 3:00 4d 3h 33) Highlight integration locations and compnents 1/11/11 1:00 1/13/11 11:00 7h 34) Risk Assessment 1/6/11 11:00 1/10/11 11:00 2d 35) System Level Design Review 1/14/11 3:00 1/14/11 3:00 36) Detailed Design 1/14/11 3:00 2/17/11 5:00 9w 2d 5.5h 37) Bill of Materials 1/14/11 3:00 1/28/11 10:30 1w 4d 4.5h 38) Drawings and Schematics 1/26/11 1:00 2/17/11 5:00 5w 3d 2.5h 39) Organize final design in CAD 1/28/11 10:30 2/17/11 5:00 2w 4d 5.5h 40) Organize final schematics 1/26/11 1:00 2/15/11 9:00 2w 3d 5h 41) Feasibility Analysis 1/14/11 3:00 1/28/11 1:30 1w 4d 6.5h 42) Perform Calculation to support design and specs 1/14/11 3:00 1/28/11 1:30 1w 4d 6.5h 43) Detailed Design Review 2/17/11 5:00 2/17/11 5:00

19 MSA Risk Management Risk # Risk Item Effects Cause Likelihood Severity Importance Action to Minimize Risk Owner 1 MSA parts damaged Deadline may be missed Hinges are too flexible Proper hinges with adequate tolerances should be used Dylan, Andrew Structure is not rigid MSA fabrication material should be strong enough to withstand abuse Dylan, Andrew Joints are not welded properly Joints should be checked after welding for strength Dylan, Andrew Too much power to the motors Power ratings of the motors should be strictly adhered to Dan, Jared Rubbing mechanical parts Have enough tolerances on the dimensions of the parts Dylan, Andrew 2 Wrong micro-controller MSA does not function I/O ports not properly checked Number of I/Os should be properly checked before buying a micro-controller Jared Flawed design Make sure that micro-controller can handle the processing needed. Jared 3 Micro-controller board does not fit Project will be delayed Bad design Good communication with the chassis team Dylan, Andrew, Jared 4 Weak structure MSA won't withstand weight of payload Weak fabrication materials Strong material should be used to fabricate the MSA Dylan, Andrew Small number of parts are used Adequate number of parts should be used for a stronger MSA Dylan, Andrew 5 MSA does not fit to the chassis Delayed Project Poor interface management Interface managers must always share information Andrew Wrong fasteners Fasteners should be properly checked Dylan, Andrew 6 MSA parts do not fit More customized parts will be used Bad design of parts All designs should be checked by every member of the group Dylan, Andrew Not enough tolerance Enough tolerance should be included Dylan, Andrew Bad communication between members Interface manager of the team should bring all design elements together. Dylan, Andrew, Jared, Dan 7 Less in-house materials used Customer would not be happy Availability of materials Before building, materials should be checked for availability Dylan, Andrew 8 Inadequate time Deadline may be missed Overboard design time Design should be done as at when due Dylan, Andrew, Jared, Dan Overboard fabrication time Fabrication should be done as at when due Dylan, Andrew, Jared, Dan Slacking Team mate Team needs to invoke the team ethics Dylan, Andrew, Jared, Dan Delay delivery time of materials Materials should be ordered well in advance Dylan, Andrew, Jared, Dan Error correction All members should contribute to error correction Dylan, Andrew, Jared, Dan Multiple errors Designs should be inspected thoroughly every time Dylan, Andrew, Jared, Dan 9 Unavailability of parts Deadline may be missed Parts not in stock Multiple vendors should be researched before hand Dylan 10 Unavailability of machines Deadline may be missed Occupied by other teams Arrangement should be made to use machines in time Dylan 11 MSA is bulky Adds too much weight to chassis Too much parts Non important parts should not be used Dylan, Andrew 12 MSA can't be stored Customer will order less Did not meet storage unit dimensions Storage unit should be properly measured Dylan, Andrew Did not follow needs/specifications needs/specification on storage should be adhered to Dylan Andrew 13 Design is not appealing Others would not emulate it Important parts are purchased Important parts should be made in-house Dylan, Andrew, Jared, Dan 14 Hard to Fabricate Loss of time in completing the project Complicated design Design should be made less complicated Dylan, Andrew, Jared, Dan 15 Expensive parts Quality may be compromised Complicated design Multiple part options should be researched Dylan, Andrew, Jared, Dan 16 Over budget Project does not get completed Lots of purchased parts Off the shelf parts should be used where possible Dylan 17 Motors do not get enough voltage Motors do not function Regulators do not work well Voltage calculations should be thoroughly checked Jared, Dan 18 Regulator does not work as expected motors get little or no voltage Bad design of regulators Design of regulators should be properly checked Jared, Dan 19 Motors are connected wrongly motors may get damaged Poor connections All connections should always be double checked Jared, Dan 20 Wrong motors are used MSA does not function Wrong motors are purchased Right motors should be purchased and checked Jared, Dan 21 Late change in project direction Less time to meet deadline New sense of direction Meetings with guide should be frequent Dylan, Andrew, Jared, Dan 22 Miscommunication among teammates Poor communication Team ethics and norms are not followed Team needs to invoke the team ethics Dylan 23 Arguments between teammates Poor communication Team ethics and norms are not followed Team needs to invoke the team ethics Dylan 24 MSA not strong enough to lift objects Inability to complete projects effectively Inaccurate calculations, poor interaction Agree upon a maximum weight of object the MSA should be able to manipulate Dylan, Andrew Likelihood scale 1 Unlikely to happen 2 Feasible 3 Very likely to happen Impact on project is minute or not in existence Impact on project is noticeable Impact on project is severe and should be taken seriously Severity scale