preksha kashyap jeffrey peng burak gökcan hovercrafts inc

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:Gantt Chart - Detailed

7

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


13

CH

I. De

sig

ns

Projectile LaunchCrank wind-up Spring loaded


14

CH

I. De

sig

ns

Retrofit DroneReuse quadcopter


15

CH

I. De

sig

ns

Balloon

Sideways BalloonUpright Balloon


16

CH

I. De

sig

ns

Hybrid

Upright Balloon and Horizontal 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

Product Functional Decomposition

19

CH

I. De

sig

ns

P-Diagram

20

CH

I. De

sig

ns

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


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


Running Experiments


RunLatitude


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


Running Experiments


RunLatitude


Control Factor A:Added mass

Control Factor C:Hemisphere part

Control Factor B: Base funnel height

Running Experiments

28

CH

I. De

sig

ns


Running Experiments


RunLatitude


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


Running Experiments


RunLatitude


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


Running Experiments


RunLatitude


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


Running Experiments


RunLatitude


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


Running Experiments


RunLatitude


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


Running Experiments


RunLatitude


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


Running Experiments


RunLatitude


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


Running Experiments


RunLatitude


Tolerance Analysis

36

CH

I. De

sig

ns


Running Experiments


RunLatitude


Tolerance Analysis

37

CH

I. De

sig

ns


Running Experiments


RunLatitude


Crafty Hovercrafts Inc.

38

CH

I. De

sig

ns

Thank you!

Please enjoy our hovercraft

demonstration…

preksha kashyap jeffrey peng burak gökcan hovercrafts inc

Documents