LORD Corporation designs and manufactures multiple vibration isolators and shock dampers for use in downhole fracking drills. Currently, LORD is sending their product to the customer to undergo necessary testing. Ideally, LORD would like to have more control over the testing process by bringing the testing in-house. This means easy access to an onsite testing apparatus which will provide the necessary drilling simulation equipment. The testing facility will include hardware to expose the components to various environments representative of downhole conditions. This will give LORD a competitive advantage by allowing them to sell validated and pre-tested parts.
LORD is looking for a recommendation for a test facility design. This feasibility study will include a thorough cost analysis and 3D models. The cost analysis is to include the cost of parts along with the cost of utilities needed to run the simulator. The test simulator will be developed for a wide range of users at an in-house facility. The limitations and constraints for the test stand will be determined and reported during the project.
Link to project readiness package: PRP
Link to one page project overview: Project Summary
Phase 1 Review Meeting Objective
- Review current project progress.
- Develop plan for scope re-evaluation and development.
- Evaluate engineering and customer requirements.
|Aug 29, 2016||Kieth Ptak, Mike Brown||Primary Customer, LORD Project Engineer||Questions||Meeting Notes|
|Sep 13, 2016||Kieth Ptak||Primary Customer||---||Meeting Notes|
|Sep 14, 2016||Kieth Ptak, Dave DiGello, Cortland Chapman||Primary Customer, LORD Tool Designer, LORD Test Engineer||---||Meeting Notes|
|LORD||Keith Ptak & Zach Fuhrer||Primary Customer|
|RIT||Gary Werth (Guide)||MSD Sponsor|
|Design Engineer||Mike Brown||Interest Group|
|Test Engineer||Cortland Chapman||End User|
|Lab Technician||End User|
|Marketing||Adam Keithly||Interest Group|
|Business Development||Interest Group|
Project Goals and Key Deliverables
- System Feasibility Proposal:
- Concise description of "drill hole tests" that can be conducted-what can it do.
- Block diagram of system showing key elements and details needed to convey the complexity of the test system.
- CAD model of the entire system; size, volume, weight,
- 3D printed scale model of test system.
- Energy / Power Consumption for various test procedures
- Proposed timing diagrams for actuators, sensors, key process parameters, key states of LORD products
- Feasibility Test Hardware: it is possible through the journey that the student team may build some discovery and exploration hardware to help understand basic engineering mechanisms involved with this project.
- Project Realization proposal with MSD student teams in design/build cycles over several years.
- Standard MSD EDGE website which will include: All design documents: Analysis, decision summaries, benchmarking
- Conference level Technical paper summarizing the system feasibility proposal including compliance matrix to ERs
- Project Progress meetings with some Presentation every three weeks.
- Poster conveying the overall feasibility proposal; suitable for use at ImagineRIT 17
- All teams finishing during the spring term are expected to participate in ImagineRIT 17
Customer Requirements (Needs)
Link to the live document here
Engineering Requirements (Metrics & Specifications)
House of Quality
We will be benchmarking various sources against their completion of our engineering requirements. The preliminary list of sources is as follows:
- Catoosa Drilling Facility (Hallett, OK)
- C-FER Technologies (Alberta, CA)
- US Patents
- LabWorks Inc., LW127.123-500
- Keystone pneumatic shock machine
- EPSI - High Pressure
- Instron Tensile Load Machine
- Journal of Vibration and Sound
- Large number of articles on testing methods
- Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering
- Large number of articles on testing methods
Likelihood and Severity are ranked on a 1, 3 or 9 scale with 1 being low and 9 being high.
A link to the most up-to-date risk management spreadsheet can be found here.
- The team will delegate tasks by using a excel spreadsheet, outlining each team member's tasks, by week, by phase. This will be created based off of the subsystems after the scope re-definition.
Individual 3 week plans:
Team Values and NormsThe following values are agreed upon as appropriate team behaviors for each of our members.
Each team member will be prompt and arrive at the team meetings on time. If an unexpected conflict comes up, the absent team member will notify at least one team-mate prior to the expected absence. An absent team-member should confirm that a team-mate has received their message (in person, voice mail, email, etc).
Each team member will complete their tasks thoroughly and completely, so that the work does not have to be re-done by a peer on the team. If a member does not know how to complete a task, feels overwhelmed, or needs assistance then the member notifies peers, and seeks assistance either from a peer, the faculty guide, a faculty consultant, or another person.
Each team member completes their work accurately and in a way that can be easily checked for accuracy by peers and the faculty guide. All work is fully documented and easy to follow.
Professional and Ethical
Each team member gives credit where credit is due. All work completed includes citations to appropriate literature, or sources of assistance. If a team member has gotten assistance from a publication or individual, then that assistance or guidance is fully documented in the reports prepared. Each team member is honest and trustworthy in their dealings with their peers.
Each team member will contribute an equal share to the success of the project.
Each team member must follow all team standards, listed here:
- All documents should be uploaded as both editable files and .pdf files. Pdf files should be in the final document location and the editable file should be in the working documents directory.
- All documents should include a date to ensure revision control.
- All communication with a customer should be forwarded to the group or otherwise communicated to everyone.
- If individual tasks have been assigned, members are responsible for providing the group with updates on progress of assignments to ensure project fluidity.
- If a team member requires assistance on an assignment, they should be up-front and let other members be aware of their need as soon as possible.
- Final documents must be approved by all group members before they are considered final.
- Peer reviews will be sent to the guide by no later than midnight the day of the phase review.
Full Team Values and Norms breakdown here
Design Review Materials
Phase I: Problem Definition Agenda - Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 12:45 pm to 1:15pm
- Introduce Team
- Problem Statement
- Meeting Objectives
- Customer Interview
- Use scenarios
- Customer Requirements
- Engineering Requirements
- House of quality
- Benchmarking Plan
- Risk management
- Project Plan/WBS
- Next steps
- Values and Norms