preksha kashyap jeffrey peng burak gökcan hovercrafts inc
TRANSCRIPT
Crafty Hovercrafts Inc.
Valina Sintal Fiona Au
Reshmanth MopedeviPreksha Kashyap
Jeffrey PengBurak Gökcan
1
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Hover vertically
Travel 20+ ft Travel as fast as possible
Travel along straight path
CH
I. De
sig
ns
2
Constraints
Material
Battery
1 3V
2 AA
2 AAA
1 (V
Motor
2 DC
Motors
Body of
Hovercraft
Plastic
Wood
Metal
Foam
Rubber
Styrofoam
Other
Balloon
Max. Size
h= 6”
w= 12”
l=12”
MUST
BE
CHILD
-SAFE
3
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Economic Feasibility
4
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Description of Expense Cost (USD)
Material
costs per
unit
1 X 9V battery $1.00
2 X Fans $1.60
0.5 m Copper wire $0.10
1 X Injection molded chassis $10.00
Labour costs per unit $1.02
Total Production Cost per unit $13.72
197 120 units
Per Quarter sales
Per unit Per Quarter
Production
Cost
$13.72 $2 704 486.40
Total Sales $30.24 $5 960 908.80
Revenue $16.52 $3 256 422.40
5
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Project timeline = 3 years
Economic Feasibility
Project Plan: Phase 1
Project Schedule
BenchmarkConcept
GenerationConcept Selection
6
PFDP-
DiagramFMEA
Math Model
IDEA
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Project Schedule:Simplified Project Lifespan
8
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Production Development Product Sales and Support
Project Schedule:Simplified Year 1 Plan
9
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Jan2017
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan 2018
Market Research
Functional Design
Engineering Validation – Proof of concept
Design Validation – Test Prototype
Production Validation Leeway time
Benchmark
10
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Hover Q
4M Hovercraft
Acmer6649
Zhi Lun6653
Microgear EC10285
X-Craft
CUSTOMER
NEEDS
TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATIONS
Affordable < $45 CAD
Size H=<6”, W=<12”,
L=<12”
Long Operation
Time
>10 Min
Speed 2.5 M/S
Visual Looks Colourful
Straight Traveling >20 Ft.
Mass <200 Grams
Safety Fan Safety Covers
Benchmark Table
Customer NeedsW
eig
ht Zhi Lun 6653 4M
Hovercraft
X-Craft
Hovercraft
Microgear
EC10285
HOVER Q Acmer 6649
AFFORDABLE 9 xx xxx x xx xxxxx xxx
AMPHIBIOUS 6 xxxxx x xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx x
RC 3 xxxxx x xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
SIZE 6 xx xxx xxx xxx x xxxx
LONG OPERATION TIME 9 xxx xx xxx xxxxx x xxx
SPEED 9 xxx xxx xxxxx xxx x xxx
VISUAL LOOKS 9 xxxx x xxxxx xxxxx xx xxxx
STRAIGHT TRAVELING 6 xxxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
MASS 3 x xxxx x xx xxxxx xxx
SAFETY 9 xxxx xx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
SCORE 228 156 255 258 201 11
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Concept Generation:Concept 1
12
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Fan Propulsion
Vertical Fan Horizontal Fan Dual Fans Angled Fan
Concept Selection:Primary Pugh Matrix
17
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Co
ntr
ol
Am
ou
nt
of
lift
Ho
rizo
nta
l
trav
el
Kid
saf
e
Ve
loci
ty
Co
st
effe
ctiv
en
ess
Ease
of
man
ufa
ct
uri
ng
Op
era
tio
n
tim
e Mas
s
SCO
RE
Weight 4 3 5 4 3 2 1 1 2Concept 1: Fan
Propulsion+ + + - + - - + - 7
Concept 2: Projectile
Launch+ + - - + - - - - -5
Concept 3: Retrofit
Drone+ + + - + - - + - 7
Concept 4: Balloon + 0 + 0 + - - 0 - 7Concept 5: Hybrid + 0 + - + - - 0 - 3Toy balloon (Ref) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Concept Selection:Secondary Pugh Matrix
18
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Co
ntr
ol
Am
ou
nt
of
lift
Ho
rizo
nta
l
trav
el
Spe
ed
Co
st
eff
ect
ive
ne
ss
Ease
of
man
ufa
ctu
rin
gLi
ght
we
igh
t SCORE
Weight 4 3 5 3 2 1 2
a. One Vertical Fan (Ref) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
b. One Horizontal Fan - + - - 0 - 0 -10
c. Dual Fans 0 + + + - - - 5
d. One Angled Fan - + - - 0 0 0 -9
FMEA Scales
21
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Severity Scale Occurence Scale Detection Scale
SCALEDescription Description
Occurences Per 1000
Description
1Failure exists, but customer doesn't notice; product
appears to meet all specsNever 0
Program design process will detect failure
2Failure exists, customer notices, but there is little to no impact on customer satisfaction; product still useable,
performs well and meets most to all of the specsOccasionally 1
Program design process is likely to detect failure
3Failure noticed by customer and somewhat impacts
functionality and cutomer satisfaction; product mostly meets specs and expected functionality
Frequently 10Program design process may detect
failure
4Failure causes moderate effect on customer satisfaction;
product is an inconvenience to use/doesn't meet a number of specs
Very Frequently
100Program design process unlikely to
detect failure
5Failure causes major effect on functionality and customer satisfaction; customer very annoyed and product doesn't
work/meet most or all specsAlways 1000
Program design process will not detect failure
FMEA
22
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Item FunctionPotential
Failure Mode
Potential Causes
Mechanism of Failure
Severity (Rate 1 - 5) 5=highest
Occurrence (Rate 1 -
5) 5=highest
Detection (Rate 1 - 5) 5 = lowest
RPMExisting Design
ControlsRecommended
Actions
RESP. / Target Due
Date
Revised Values
S' O' D' RPM`
Hovercraft moves forward, in straight line
Horizontal fan blades break
Customer abuse 5 3 3 45Sample testing
(quality control)
Exclude customer abuse from
warranty
PK4/11/17
5 1 3 15
Fan propulsion insufficient
Addition of external weights
to hovercraft overcomes
ability of fan to propel body
4 3 5 60
Robust design that enables a specified
amount of extra weight to be carried
Provide disclaimer that external
objects should not be placed on fan
PK4/11/17
4 2 5 40
Hover craft has vertical lift/hovers above ground
Vertical fan blades break Poor choice of
material 5 5 2 50
Theoretical calculations that would meet the
standard, expected operating conditions/
impact
Conduct material test protocols
PK4/11/17
3 5 2 30
Air pressure leaks through
crack in hovercraft's
body, preventing force from
being exerted properly
Poor choice of material; not
robust enough and develops
cracks
5 5 2 50Sample testing
(quality control)
Implement an automated
pressure check test on the production
line
PK4/11/17
5 2 1 10
Math Model for Hovering
23
CH
I. De
sig
ns
F = pAv
•F =Lift Force
•P =density of air
•A = Area of Flow at skirts of hovercraft
•v= Velocity of Air
W= mg
•W = hovercraft weight
•m = mass
• g= gravity
V > mg/pA
•Lift Force > Hovercraft Weight
Hovercraft
z
x
F
W
Project Plan: Phase 2
Experimental Selection
Running Experiments
Data Analysis
24
Verification Run
Latitude Development
Tolerance Analysis
FINAL
PRODUCT
CH
I. De
sig
ns
25
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Experimental Selection
Running Experiments
Data AnalysisVerification
RunLatitude
DevelopmentTolerance Analysis
Experiment Selection
3 Control Factors
2 Noises
Limited time and money
L9 Taguchi experiment conductor
Experimental Section
26
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Experimental Selection
Running Experiments
Data AnalysisVerification
RunLatitude
DevelopmentTolerance Analysis
Control Factors
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
A - Added Mass (grams)
0 7.45 14.9
B - Base Funnel
Height (cm)3.8 6.3 8.8
C -Hemisphere
Part (degrees)
No part
15 30
Noises
Hardwood floor
Parchment paper
Experimental Section
27
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Experimental Selection
Running Experiments
Data AnalysisVerification
RunLatitude
DevelopmentTolerance Analysis
Control Factor A:Added mass
Control Factor C:Hemisphere part
Control Factor B: Base funnel height
Running Experiments
28
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Experimental Selection
Running Experiments
Data AnalysisVerification
RunLatitude
DevelopmentTolerance Analysis
L9 Taguchi experiment
Run
Control Factor Levels Noise 1 - Hardwood Noise 2 - Parchment Paper Overall Values
A -Weight
(# of popsicle sticks)
B - Base Height (cm)
C -Hemisphere Part (Degree)
Noise 1 Noise 1Noise 1 Mean
Noise 1 Noise 1Noise 2 Mean
Overall Mean
StdDeviation
S/N
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 1 Trial 2
1 1 1 1 2.210 3.500 2.855 2.150 2.980 2.565 2.710 0.145 25.432
2 1 2 2 3.880 4.570 4.225 4.170 3.690 3.930 4.078 0.148 28.832
3 1 3 3 8.320 8.630 8.475 7.920 8.210 8.065 8.270 0.205 32.115
4 2 1 4 3.580 3.650 3.615 3.480 3.570 3.525 3.570 0.045 37.989
5 2 2 5 4.000 3.870 3.935 3.750 3.620 3.685 3.810 0.125 29.680
6 2 3 6 5.480 5.270 5.375 4.960 5.000 4.980 5.178 0.198 28.371
7 3 1 7 4.150 4.100 4.125 3.820 3.640 3.730 3.928 0.198 25.971
8 3 2 8 4.640 5.020 4.830 4.550 4.780 4.665 4.748 0.083 35.200
9 3 3 9 3.730 3.820 3.775 3.670 3.600 3.635 3.705 0.070 34.474
Average 4.444 0.135 30.896
Data Analysis
29
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Experimental Selection
Running Experiments
Data AnalysisVerification
RunLatitude
DevelopmentTolerance Analysis
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
1 2 3
Tim
e (s
)
CF Levels
Mean A
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
1 2 3
Tim
e (s
)
CF Levels
Mean B
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
1 2 3
Tim
e (s
)
CF Levels
Mean C
27.00
28.00
29.00
30.00
31.00
32.00
33.00
1 2 3
S/N
Rat
io
CF Levels
S/N A
28.50
29.00
29.50
30.00
30.50
31.00
31.50
32.00
1 2 3
S/N
Rat
io
CF Levels
S/N B
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
1 2 3
S/N
Rat
io
CF Levels
S/N C
Objective: fastest hovercraft i.e. smallest mean travel time
Data Analysis
30
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Experimental Selection
Running Experiments
Data AnalysisVerification
RunLatitude
DevelopmentTolerance Analysis
MeanMean A Mean B Mean C
1 5.019 3.403 3.4082 4.186 4.212 4.3943 4.127 5.718 5.529
Delta 0.892 2.315 2.121Rank 3rd 1st 2nd
S/NS/N A S/N B S/N C
1 28.793 29.797 29.8622 32.013 31.238 27.7253 31.882 31.653 35.101
Delta 3.220 1.856 7.377Rank 2nd 3rd 1st
Data Analysis
31
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Experimental Selection
Running Experiments
Data AnalysisVerification
RunLatitude
DevelopmentTolerance Analysis
Noise 1 - Hardwood Noise 2 - Parchment Paper Overall Values
Noise 1Trial 1
Noise 1Trial 2
Noise 1 Mean
Noise 1Trial 1
Noise 1Trial 2
Noise 2 Mean O
vera
ll M
ean
Std
Dev
iati
on
S/N
2.42 2.53 2.475 2.3 2.24 2.27 2.373 0.103 27.290
3.62 3.83 3.725 3.34 3.45 3.395 3.560 0.165 26.679
Data Analysis
32
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Experimental Selection
Running Experiments
Data AnalysisVerification
RunLatitude
DevelopmentTolerance Analysis
Tmean = 4.444 and Ts/n = 30.896.
S/N = Ts/n + (A2-Ts/n) + (B2-Ts/n) + (C2-Ts/n)
= 30.896 + (32.013-30.896) + (31.238-30.896) + (27.725-30.896) = 29.184 dB
Mean = Tmean + (A2-Tmean) + (B2-Tmean) + (C2-Tmean)
= 4.444 + (4.186-4.444) + (4.212-4.444) + (4.394-4.444) = 3.904 seconds
S/N = Ts/n + (A3-Ts/n) + (B1-Ts/n) + (C1-Ts/n)
= 30.896 + (31.882-30.896) + (29.797-30.896) + (29.862-30.896) = 29.749 dB
Mean = Tmean + (A3-Tmean) + (B1-Tmean) + (C1-Tmean)
= 4.444 + (4.127-4.444) + (3.403-4.444) + (3.408-4.444) = 2.05 seconds
Verification Run
33
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Experimental Selection
Running Experiments
Data AnalysisVerification
RunLatitude
DevelopmentTolerance Analysis
Predicted Verified DifferencePercentage Difference
Baseline Setting –Mean (seconds)
3.904 3.560 0.344 seconds 8.81%
Baseline Setting -S/N (dB)
29.184 26.679 2.505 dB 8.58%
Optimal Setting –Mean (seconds)
2.05 2.3725-0.3225 seconds
-15.73%
Optimal Setting -S/N
29.749 27.290 2.459 dB 8.27%
Latitude Development
34
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Experimental Selection
Running Experiments
Data AnalysisVerification
RunLatitude
DevelopmentTolerance Analysis
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0
PASS
/FA
IL
MASS (G)
LATITUDE STUDY
13 popsicles = 19.37 g = upper limit
Tolerance Analysis
35
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Experimental Selection
Running Experiments
Data AnalysisVerification
RunLatitude
DevelopmentTolerance Analysis
Tolerance Analysis
36
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Experimental Selection
Running Experiments
Data AnalysisVerification
RunLatitude
DevelopmentTolerance Analysis
Tolerance Analysis
37
CH
I. De
sig
ns
Experimental Selection
Running Experiments
Data AnalysisVerification
RunLatitude
DevelopmentTolerance Analysis