P18310: Tuned Vibration Absorber Demo System
/public/

Systems Design

Table of Contents

Team Vision for System-Level Design Phase

The objective of Phase II was to brainstorm design concepts using MSD processes such as the Morph chart and Pugh chart. One possible design was superior to the conceived alternative designs and was selected to move forward with.

Meeting Objectives

1) Get feedback on the final design concept and system architecture.

2) Determine if the overall design is limited to the LORD micro mounts or any LORD mount can be chosen from the provided catalog (the micro mounts only support 0.1 lbs).

3) Discuss options for benchmarking waveform generation & sensors.

Updates Since Phase 1

Functional Decomposition

Functional Decomposition

Functional Decomposition

Based on HoQ need to display tech and be easy to operate.

Click here for a link to the active document.

Benchmarking

Benchmarking was conducted to evaluate currently available technology as it applies to the Tuned Vibration Absorber Display. Leveraging available technology will allow the team to avoid redundant work in developing solutions which already exist.

The below screenshot details the benchmarking research conducted on vibration generation systems, data acquisition utilities, and LORD isolator mounts.

Research conducted on three different vibration generation options

Research conducted on three different vibration generation options

Click here for a link to the active document.

Based on the conducted research, our team concluded that the currently available vibration generation technology would not be sufficient for use within this project. The shakers and eccentric vibrators are too expensive and heavy to be used in a relatively cheap and portable display, while the wave drivers are not strong enough to oscillate a heavy mass. The following list summarizes the specific attributes which our team would like to improve on in our design, over that of the available options:

Either of the data acquisition systems could be used in the display, and a decision will have to be made between the two.

The LORD micro mounts will likely be too small for the system we are designing, so the grommet mounts may be a more feasible option.

Feasibility: Prototyping, Analysis, Simulation

Feasibility

Feasibility

Feasible Only

Feasible Only

Click here for a link to the active document.

Click here for a video of a model showing crank and piston motion.

Morphological Chart

The morphological chart was used to organize and categorize the concepts for each specific system we needed to design. We then selected a few possible designs to evaluate further, based on concept selections from the morph chart. The abbreviated morph chart shows the concepts behind each of the three selected design possibilities is pictured below. The full chart is available at the link below.
A simplified version of the morphological chart, showing potential concepts

A simplified version of the morphological chart, showing potential concepts

A simplified version of the morphological chart, showing potential concepts

A simplified version of the morphological chart, showing potential concepts

Click here for a link to the simplified document.

Click here for a link to the non-simplified document.

Shown above are three possible designs. Engineering Requirements were considered during the design phase.

Concept Selection

The below Pugh Decision Matrix was created with our top three designs to determine which was the best overall design and to compare specific attributes of each concept. The selection criteria for the Pugh Chart below was chosen from the Engineering Requirements to fit the system, constraints, schedule, and budget. The Pugh Chart was used to evaluate the individual concepts against each other to discover which design was the most feasible.

Pugh decision matrix of top three designs

Pugh decision matrix of top three designs

Click here for a link to the active document.

Option 1 drawing

Option 1 drawing

Option #1 which was selected as the baseline scored the highest in the Pugh analysis, however, there are certain aspects of the other two options which were better than the corresponding element in option 1. These aspects suggest the below potential improvements to option 1:

Since all of the above improvements are directly related to the dual motors/gearboxes, the team will look into ways to minimize the required size and power of the motors, thereby reducing the power consumption, weight, and footprint. Additionally, the gearbox design could be modified to alter the motor placement, making the design more compact.

System Architecture

System Architectural Drawing

System Architectural Drawing

System Overview Block Diagram.

System Overview Block Diagram.

Risk Assessment

A shortened version of the risk assessment, based on greatest importance. The importance levels were reconsidered to represent actual order of importance.

A shortened version of the risk assessment, based on greatest importance. The importance levels were reconsidered to represent actual order of importance.

Click here for a link to the live full document.

Phase I Recap

Phase 1 Gantt

Phase 1 Gantt

Phase II Plans

Phase 2 Gantt

Phase 2 Gantt

Phase 2 Plan

Phase 2 Plan

Future Plans

Below illustrates an estimated Gantt Chart plan for Phase III of our project:
Phase 3 Gantt

Phase 3 Gantt

Task assignments that each team member is accountable for. Based on past work completed and academic background.

Phase 3 Plan

Phase 3 Plan

Outline of tasks for Phase IV. Due dates to be determined.

Phase 4 Gantt

Phase 4 Gantt

Peer Review Update

Norms and Value

Peer Review Feedback

Team Improvement

Lessons Learned


Home | Planning & Execution | Imagine RIT

Problem Definition | Systems Design | Preliminary Detailed Design | Detailed Design

Build & Test Prep | Subsystem Build & Test | Integrated System Build & Test | Customer Handoff & Final Project Documentation