Summary of Problem StatementCurrent State
- Rudimentary test fixture in which the load is applied manually in one static direction, and is read on an LED display.
- Involves a lot of tedious adjustments when performing the test.
- Entire process of testing can take longer than 8 hours.
- A functioning device capable of applying forces to hobbing machine frame in order to replicate the loading seen during the hobbing process.
- The load is applied by a force applicator in the X, Y, and Z directions.
- Analyze the current design
- Create a device that can apply a load of 400-1000 lbs.
- Simple to use and with easy installation.
- Device should be smaller than 1000 cubic inches and less than 50 lbs.
- Fits within Gleason 400 hobbing machine.
- Completed by Imagine RIT.
- Costs less than $4000.
Updates Since Last Review
- Updated Customer Requirements:
- Re-weighted Customer Requirements to provide more variation.
- Changed D3 to reflect excessive length of current process.
- Updated Engineering Requirements:
- Updated load requirments in S1 per meeting with Mike Walker.
- Removed TBD in S6.
- Changed wording in S14 to reflect use of device.
- Wednesday September 16th: Visited Gleason Works facility and observed current force applicator process.
- Tuesday September 22nd: Met with Dr. Liu, RIT professor that has been working on several projects with Gleason Works. Identified him as a new stakeholder of our project.
Includes associated Engineering Requirements (SXX).
Pugh Chart Analysis
Pugh Chart Round One
Pugh Chart Round Two
Pugh Chart Round Three
Pugh Chart Round Four
After Conducting Pugh Chart Analysis, we have determined that the best design is the Pivel Swivot.
Final Concepts Selected
Feasibility: Prototyping, Analysis, SimulationThis area is devoted to specific areas of concern. We've highlighted certain aspects of the project and talk about how we would like to address them in the future:
Question 1: How will we measure the force applied to the hobber?
- We will find the force applied instantaneously.
- Inconsistencies with measured data and actual data are negligible.
- The device used will not affect overall load.
How is the question best answered?: Benchmarking
- Currently Gleason uses a load cell in series with the load applicator. That device is directly connected to an LED display to show the output.
- LabView and DAQ device may be used to apply a desired force without manually entering it every time.
- There are devices that measure load in up to 3 axes, these could be used in the future if need be.
Question 2: How will we apply the force?
- We will use either pneumatic, hydraulic, or screw actuators.
- The source will be contained in the volume prescribed by the ERs.
- Energy source will not be contained in the volume prescribed by the ERs.
- One source will be able to apply the max load indicated in the ERs.
How is the question answered? Benchmarking and Calculations
- Discussion with Thomson Linear Motion Systems indicated that any motor driven screw system capable of the forces required will exceed the available space.
- Pneumatic rams have a max operating pressure of 250 psi, while it is towards 4000 psi for hydraulic. This indicated that a hydraulic system would be ideal as it would provide the smallest volume for the force.
Question 3: How will we know if the device can withstand the stress?
- CAD models of products purchased are readily available or can be made.
- Material properties of the materials that we use are known.
How is the question best answered?: Failure Analysis and ANSYS
- Once a design is decided upon, we will create our concept into a CAD software. From there we can measure load at different angles and test whether or not our device can withstand those loads.
Question 4: How do we know the force is being applied to the hobbing machine, and not just the device?
- We are able to measure the strain applied to the hobbing machine with the current process or our own tools.
How is this question best answered?: ANSYS or Prototyping
- We can design our device and the basic components of the hobbing machine into ANSYS and test whether or not the load is being applied to the device or the actual hobbing machine.
- When a prototype is developed we can compare the results from a known function (the current method) and compare it to the device that we make and then make adjustments.
Test Plan - First Cut
Risk Assessment From Project Definition Phase
Risk Assessment Form System Design Phase
Summary of System-Level Design PhaseObjectives
- Show that our requirements flow down to our functions.
- Show that these functions map back to our system architecture.
- Find out if we are missing anything critical in our design.
- Explain how we developed our concept via morphological charts/Pugh charts.
- Explain how different deliverables of our device can be achieved through feasibility analysis.
- Show that we have an idea of how will test our device along the way.
- Show that we understand potential risks that we have ahead of us.
Overarching Goal: Propose a design to be accepted by the customer to move forward.
Moving Forward to Subsystem Design Phase
Subsystem Design Phase Gantt Chart
Click here for GanttProject Gantt Chart File
Click here for Gantt Chart PDF
Goals for Subsystem Design Phase
- Take any feedback provided to us and make appropriate modifications to our system design.
- Show that our requirements flow down to our subsystems.
- Show proof that our concept should feasibly work by using CAD modeling and failure/ANSYS analysis.
- Redefine our test plan to more accurately reflect our design.
- Review risk management assessment and determine more ways to mitigate risks.