Posted: September 13th, 2017

Crash Sled Ted

Paper, Order, or Assignment Requirements

 

i would like you to please do it exactly as it is on the PDF file that i will upload later on my account, there are two deadlines one is on the 10th of March which is the (A3 poster) and the second deadline would be on the 10th of April (essay report) and please get them ready 5 days before their deadline.

PS; the PDF file contains two subjects ( Crash Sled Ted ) and ( Gorkha Region, Nepal ) Crash Sled Ted is the subject we chose so please ignore the (Gorkha Region, Nepal).

Department of Mechanical, Automotive and Manufacturing Engineering (Proposed) Coursework Brief Module Title Design Cohort (Sept/Jan) Sept Module Code 103MAE Coursework No. / Title PHASE TEST (INVITATION) Hand out date: 26/01/14 10/12/14 Lecturer Due date: 13/04/15 12/01/2015 Estimated Time (hrs) 20 Coursework type: Written report Extensions allowed: By prior application via Reception/Registry. % of Module Mark 50% Submission arrangements: Online via Moodle. Task and Quality Mark distribution: Marking will be completed using Marking Criteria and grades awarded in the specific areas. Students will also be required to complete the online Peer Assessment (WebPA) assessment for individual marks to be assigned based on individual contribution. Module Learning Outcomes Assessed: 1) Investigate and define a problem and identify constraints including environmental and sustainability limitations, health and safety and risk assessment issues [IMechE_D1]. 2) Understand customer and user needs and the importance of considerations such as aesthetics [D2], and cost drivers [D3]. 3) Use creativity to establish innovative solutions [D4] and consider stages of the design process and organise ideas to evaluate outcomes [D6]. 4) Ensure fitness for purpose for all aspects of the problem including production, operation, maintenance and disposal [D5]. 5) Apply appropriate codes of practice and industry standards [P6]. Employability Skills Covered: Planning and organising, Self-management For group work, individual grades will be determined as follows (tick) peer assessment tutor assessment log book observed engagement presentation/viva individual elements Academic Conduct Statement: The task requires an individual effort and virtually all work to be original. Where inclusions are taken from other sources, appropriate referencing must be used. Mark allocation guidelines 0-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ 80+ Work mainly incomplete and /or weaknesses in most areas Most elements completed; weaknesses outweigh strengths Most elements are strong, minor weaknesses Strengths in all elements Most work exceeds the standard expected All work substantially exceeds the standard expected Feedback arrangement: Feedback will be accessed via Moodle by review of the Phase Test. July 2014Martin Lander 15 Group Project – Globally Conscious Engineer PROJECT Using the design tools available to you plan your project using a design model (Pahl and Beitz, MAE) to fully investigate the brief and develop a solution to the problem. This is to help develop your Global Awareness in Engineering and to help defining the problem. LEARNING OUTCOMES ASSESSED 1. Investigate and define a problem and identify constraints including environmental and sustainability limitations, health and safety and risk assessment issues [IMechE_D1]. 2. Understand customer and user needs and the importance of considerations such as aesthetics [D2], and cost drivers [D3]. 3. Use creativity to establish innovative solutions [D4] and consider stages of the design process and organise ideas to evaluate outcomes [D6]. 4. Ensure fitness for purpose for all aspects of the problem including production, operation, maintenance and disposal [D5]. 5. Apply appropriate codes of practice and industry standards [P6]. DETAILS You must find yourself a group WITHIN your seminar group. No alternatives. As soon as you have, read the Brief for both projects and within your group decide on which project you would like to complete, no LATER than 09/02/15. BRIEF Crash Sled Ted (Imagineering STEM Educational project) In your teams of 3-4 (not 5), produce plans for a stowable version of Ted’s Crash Sled (and track) using modern materials, technology and techniques. The item must be manufacturable using the resources on site at Coventry University and must be of an affordable cost but of a grade of construction that will allow for 4-5 year’s use. Gorkha Region, Nepal (EWB CHALLENGE) In your teams of 3-4 (not 5), produce plans for an innovative communal water delivery station to allow villagers that cannot access a clean water supply to fill a 10 or 20 litre receptacle. It must be protected from flash flood during monsoon season and from buffalo attempting to drink from it and allow inclusive access for children and disabled. 103MAE – Design Martin Lander – [email protected] Project Title CW2 – Group Project – Globally Conscious Engineer Project Submission Details – THIS IS TO BE SUBMITTED ONLINE THROUGH MOODLE in PDF. – Submission 13/04/15 (2355). – 50% of Module Mark – late submissions will receive a mark of 0%.Martin Lander 15 Group Project – Globally Conscious Engineer ADVANCED BRIEF Crash Sled Ted · Design a Sled for Ted that uses a seat big enough for him to comfortably sit in and not fall from during launching phase. · The device used to provide the propulsion must be variable (and measureable) to allow changes in Ted’s acceleration. · The device must be safely armed using a controlled method such as a motor to retract the sled or a ratchet system that will safely allow the device to be armed. · There should be a stop for the Sled causing Ted to crash. · Launching Ted should be done from a remote location. · The entire device should attach safely to a normal table similar to the video. · The Sled must use the following data; o Length – 1200mm o Width of Tracks – 3-400mm o Ted’s sitting/standing height – 260mm/430mm o Ted’s Mass – 0.84 kg o Width of sled seat – 320mm o Variable acceleration – optional rate o Acceleration required – velocity must be enough to launch an unrestrained Ted 250mm min to 1200 mm max from point of impact. o Overall mass of Sled Rig (excluding Ted) – < 20kg Gorkha Region, Nepal · Design a concept for a device to supply water to approx. 500 households per day based on an individual guideline stated in the WHO and SPHERE standards. · The device must allow 24hr access whereby people can pay for only the amount of water they use by way of some kind of coin slot operated system. · The device must not use electronics in the form of solar panels as they are a target for thieves and vandals. Plastic parts are also preferred for this reason as steel has a high resale value. · Where possible it should use freely available plumbing components that may be available locally. · Assume the locale are confident in manufacturing concrete buildings. · Assume the water is delivered from a clean water pipe from the utility company, it has a pressure of 1-1.5 bar, however it is inconsistent and may be cut-off without notice as a result of landslip in the area. · It must be secure from vandals and allow access only to an attendant. · It should require minimal servicing and have easily repairable parts such that · It should where possible protect against contamination against infection, ie. Users should have minimal contact with nozzles and/taps which may harbor infection. · It should wherever possible be assembled on site avoiding specialist equipment by unskilled laborers overseen by a professional engineer. · Instructions of common breakages should be included bearing in mind the language barrier. MORE QUESTIONS? Data within this project will be completely open, if you require questions answered please use the relevant forum on Moodle, they will be answered using an FAQ system. If you don’t want the rest of the class to know you question, you’ll need to keep it to yourself.Martin Lander 15 Group Project – Globally Conscious Engineer “I DON’T SEE THE POINT SIR.” Fundamental engineering science underpins these projects. Consider your engineering science in regards to beam bending and shear stress diagrams and calculations to consider if certain materials will withstand a certain load. Think of the items you’ve been drawing for your portfolio. Also calculate forces involved in the system so you know if any of the equipment you’ve considered in your concept will fail. You should research similar systems that work in the same way, and if you think there’s nothing in the world that will do the job, think again. The iPhone did not exist at some point, but that is nothing more than a new combination of old ideas. Microchips have been around since we put a man on the moon. Google will not provide you with an answer. You must show evidence and use Pugh to show you have developed your chosen concept ( a concept is not a final design) provide detail to produce a viable solution. You should define exactly which mechanical components and fastenings will be used (recommended). You should structure your project correctly using the MAE Report Writing Guide on Moodle. You should plan the project using the MAE Design Model, also on Moodle. Follow the L1 sections to help guide you through the process. Marks will be lost for not using the model. The submission requirements are laid out below and which section of the MAE Design Model they fit into. Watch this video for more details on Crash Sled Ted. Watch this video for more details on Gorkha Region, Nepal . Actually, it’s unrelated but this exceptional young lad made this from scrap look what he can do!! “You’ve been telling me you’re a genius since you were seventeen”, (Steely Dan, 1972) “Prove it”, (Martin Lander, 2014) RULES AND REGULATIONS – All drawings are to be drawn on A3, you will need to find university facilities that allow you to scan this size into your document. Use Adobe Acrobat to collate them. – All drawings to use BS8888 technical drawing standard. As part of the final drawing package, as a minimum I would expect to see; One isometric assembly drawing (with annotations). One orthographic assembly drawing (with annotations of finishes, movements assembly dimensions etc). All concept drawings should be in isometric. You can use CAD if you wish, however you must allow yourself the time to model the product as well, so it won’t necessarily be easier or quicker to use CAD. You are not constrained to using CATIA, you may use any CAD package you’re comfortable with, Google Sketchup or Autodesk Inventor are recommended.Martin Lander 15 Group Project – Globally Conscious Engineer TO ACHIEVE HIGHER MARKS ON THE DRAWING SECTION · Work hard. · 2D drawings could include a suitable, necessary detail drawing ( ie, not just one for the sake of trying to obtain more marks, it has to be there for a reason). · Use correct lines and linetypes. · Dimensioned efficiently and thoughtfully (find examples in library to learn from). WHAT YOU SHOULD SUBMIT Submission A Poster – 10/03/15 (Online submission, formative feedback given only) Content of posters: A digital A3 poster should explain points derived from problem definition process, highlighting major constraints and criteria, preliminary concepts and indication as to how the project will progress and a rough overview of costing. These will be added to a facebook-style gallery so you may view and comment on your peers’ posters, to give them formative feedback on their work. Yours will also receive feedback. =================================================================== Submission B – 13/04/15 (Online (group) submission) 2000 word report +/- 10% (wordcount excl. references, figures and charts) Additional requirements 1. The appendix of the report MUST also contain a PDF print-out of results page from the GAP Quiz, included for EVERY member of the group. It will not affect the overall group mark, but INDIVIDUALS will be penalised by 20% if they fail to submit. 2. You must also complete the WebPA (peer assessment) tool (link on Moodle), there is an additional 20% INDIVIDUAL penalisation for non-completion. Design Model Stage (The areas highlighted in the Rubric would be an excellent way of structuring your report into sub-chapters within the overall structure of the report. Planning · Gantt Chart. Clarification · Market/Literature review. Examples of contributing technology. · Understand system and calculations of forces involved eg. using FBDs Concept · Constraints and Criteria. · Three unique concepts. · Pugh Matrix. · Selected concept and justification. Embodiment · Structural Distillation of new design using FBDs. Detail · Drawing package of final design to manufacturable quality and BS8888, rendered image of final design. (Google Sketchup may be used). · Discussion of final design including aesthetics, materials and ease of functionality ~300 words. See detailed marking criteria from next page onwards.RFamily Name:«Surname» Email:. SID:.«ID_number» % 0-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 70+ Section Mark % General Note: If you have received a zero for any of your grades, it is because there was no work received that matched that given criteria. Quality of written English, including grammar, spelling and syntax. Brevity, clarity and structure. 10 Poorly structured report with many details poorly presented and little attention to detail making for uneasy reading. No evidence of having used the MAE Report Writing Guideline. Satisfactory structure and presentation. Limited use the MAE Report Writing Guideline and poorly presented. Some details could be improved. Good structure and presentation. Awareness of having used the MAE Report Writing Guideline and adequate presentation format. Some errors in flow of narrative. Very good attention to detail and structure of report, well presented. Good use of MAE Report Writing Guidelines with moderately logical flow of narrative, and structured as per the MAE design model. Outstanding attention to detail and structure, very clearly presented. Excellent use of MAE Report Writing Guidelines with logical flow of narrative, and structured as per the MAE design model. An outstandingly professional presentation. «M1» Referencing appropriate in style. 5 Little evidence of wider reading with no in-text citations. List of References shows little evidence of research with very few sources being used. References are not to CU Harvard style. Little evidence of wider reading with little or no statements supported by in-text citations. List of References is limited with a few sources being used. References in CU Harvard style. Moderate evidence of wider reading with few statements supported by in-text citations. List of References shows evidence of research with a few sources being used (less than ten). References in CU Harvard style, some image left unreferenced. Very good evidence of wider reading with many statements supported by in-text citations. List of References shows evidence of research using a variety of sources (more than ten). All references (including images) in CU Harvard style. Outstanding evidence of wider reading with all statements supported by in-text citations. List of References shows evidence of thorough research using a large variety of sources (more than ten). All references (including images) in CU Harvard style. «M2» Gantt Chart. 5 Poor level of detail and limited understanding of the function of a Gantt chart. Limited level of detail and limited understanding of the function of a Gantt chart. An good level of detail understanding of the function of a Gantt chart. Presented neatly using appropriate software with all upcoming deadlines included to help balance time effectively. An good level of detail and clear understanding of the function of a Gantt chart. Presented neatly using appropriate software with all upcoming deadlines included to help balance time effectively. An outstanding level of detail with task logically broken down using Objective Tree Diagram and clear understanding of the function of a Gantt chart. Presented very neatly using appropriate software with all upcoming deadlines included to help balance time effectively. «M3»Examples of similar devices. 10 Little or no review of existing similar devices. Poorly presented. Little or no evidence of comparison of existing devices and project aim. Limited review of existing similar devices. Data poorly presented. Little evidence of comparison of existing devices and project aim. Limited review of existing similar devices. Indication of data collection and comparison such that information can be used later. Comments on safety. Review of existing similar devices comparing similarities governing BS and ISO standards (where relevant). Indication of structured data collection presented suitably such that information can be used later. Comments on safety. Thorough review of existing similar devices comparing similarities governing BS and ISO standards (where relevant). Clear indication of data collection presented suitably such that information can be used later. Comments on safety. «M4» Understand system and calculations of forces involved using FBDs. 10 Little evidence of understanding of existing scenario understood. No evidence of hand calcs. or mathematical modelling. Existing scenario understood. Poor use of Objective tree diagram to break project into sections. Existing scenario understood. Use of Objective tree diagram to break project into sections and indication of which features require further mathematical modelling but nothing applied. Little evidence of wider reading on systems of calculations and existing scenario understood. Use of Objective tree diagram to break project into sections and indication of which features require further mathematical modelling using FBDs, beam and shear stress diagrams. Evidence of wider reading on systems of calculations and existing scenario understood. Excellent use of Objective tree diagram to break project into sections and clearer indication of which elements require further mathematical modelling using FBDs, beam and shear stress diagrams. «M5» Constraints and Criteria. 5 Little or no list of unfounded ‘must haves’ and ‘could haves’. Small list of ‘must haves’ and ‘could haves’, respectively. Little connection to evidence gained from FBDs and Market Review. Limited list of ‘must haves’ and ‘could haves’, respectively. Vague links back to evidence gained from FBDs and Market Review. Well considered list of ‘must haves’ and ‘could haves’, respectively. Clear links back to evidence gained from FBDs and Market Review. Comprehensive list of ‘must haves’ and ‘could haves’, respectively. Clear links back to evidence gained from FBDs and Market Review and organised into a QFD which clearly shows measureable Target Values. «M6» Three Concepts. 10 Little or poor presentation of ideas. Difficult to understand and not understandable and clear. Student has taken a poor photo with an Ephone and inserted it into document. Poorly presented considerations of ideas. Drawn in appropriate style, understandable and clear. Images scanned and inserted into documents at a suitable contrast level, not squashed or skewed. Less than three well-drawn, annotated, realistic considerations of ideas. Details drawn from data collected in previous stages. Drawn in appropriate style, understandable and clear. Images scanned and inserted into documents at a suitable contrast level, not squashed or skewed. Three unique, well-drawn, annotated, realistic considerations of ideas. Details drawn from data collected in previous stages. Largely drawn in isometric or appropriate style, but evidence of laziness in not attempting; understandable and clear. Images scanned and inserted into documents at a suitable contrast level, not squashed or skewed. Some images photographed. Three unique, extrememly well-drawn, annotated, realistic considerations of ideas to an excellent level. Details drawn from data collected in previous stages. All drawn in isometric or appropriate style, understandable and clear. Images scanned and inserted into documents at a suitable contrast level, not squashed or skewed. Student has not taken a poor photo with an Ephone and inserted it into document. «M7» Pugh Matrix (Concept generation in line with MAE Design model). 5 Pugh’s Matrix has not been applied. Pugh’s Matrix has been applied but inappropriately with a little criteria taken from previous research. Pugh’s Matrix has been applied appropriately with a little criteria taken from previous research. Results have not been fabricated to support previous arguments. Pugh’s Matrix has been applied appropriately with a few criteria taken from previous research. Results have not been fabricated to support previous arguments. Pugh’s Matrix has been applied appropriately with a large number of criteria taken from previous research. Results have not been fabricated to support previous arguments. «M8»Selected concept, justification and development. 5 Very poor presentation made with little or no evidence of links back to the data collected in previous stages. Little evidence of concept development to final design. Poor presentation made with little evidence of links back to the data collected in previous stages. Little evidence of concept development to final design. Logical conclusions drawn but concept shows little development to a manufactureable stage. Good presentation made with links back to the data collected in previous stages. Justification supported by concept development to final design to help support the description. Logical conclusions drawn but concept shows little development to a manufactureable stage. Very good presentation of chosen concept, made with clear links back to the data collected in previous stages. Justification offered against original criteria, supporting statements offered. Good concept development to final design stage, showing clear improvement and consideration of the process; text appropriately interspersed with appropriately presented images to help support the description. Logical conclusions drawn and concept developed but missing vital manufacturing detail. Excellent presentation of chosen concept, made with clear links back to the data collected in previous stages. Evaluations within justification against original criteria, supporting statements offered. Excellent concept development to final design stage, showing clear improvement and consideration of the process; text appropriately interspersed with appropriately presented images to help support the description. Logical conclusions drawn and concept developed to a manufactureable stage considering component parts, OEM item and Limits and Fits specified. «M9» Structural Distillation using FBDs. 10 Little of no evidence or appreciation of validation of the final design. Doesn’t consider input values and FBDs do not have numbers applied to them. Poor awareness of the necessity of FBDs to validate the forces present in the final design. Doesn’t consider input values and FBDs do not have numbers applied to them. Awareness of the necessity of FBDs to validate the forces and mechanisms present in the final design. Doesn’t consider realistic input values and FBDs do not have numbers applied to them. Awareness of the necessity of FBDs to validate the forces and mechanisms present in the final design. Good consideration of input values with FBDs having numbers applied to them. Excellent awareness of the necessity of FBDs to validate the forces and mechanisms present in the final design included diagrams and descriptions of user interaction. Excellent consideration of input values with FBDs having numbers applied to them. «M10» Drawing Package (BS8888). (See Appendix A for full details). 10 Very poorly presentation. Little evidence of drawing in line with appropriate number of views to BS8888 standard. Poor presentation. Little evidence of drawing in line with appropriate number of views to BS8888 standard. Good presentation, scanned, rotated, in A3 and adjusted the contrast. Little evidence of drawing in line with appropriate number of views to BS8888 standard. Good presentation, scanned, rotated, in A3 and adjusted the contrast. All drawn with appropriate number of views to BS8888 standard. Appropriate number of drawings as per Appendix A. Excellent presentation, scanned, rotated, in A3 and adjusted the contrast. All drawn with appropriate number of views to BS8888 standard. Appropriate number of drawings as per Appendix A. «M11» Build Manual (presented as a standalone document appended to report). 10 Nothing presented. An appropriate ‘Lego/Ikea’ style build manual to be presented to the client to manufacture the item. Poor detail appreciation of logic structure and clarity, too much text. A good ‘Lego/Ikea’ style build manual to be presented to the client to manufacture the item. Good appreciation of logic structure and clarity, too much text used language with poor imagery to help with understanding. A very good ‘Lego/Ikea’ style build manual to be presented to the client to manufacture the item. Very good appreciation of logic structure and clarity, minimal use of language reliant on very good imagery to help with understanding. An excellent ‘Lego/Ikea’ style build manual to be presented to the client to manufacture the item. Excellent appreciation of logic structure and clarity, minimal use of language reliant on excellent imagery to help with understanding. «M12»Discussion of final design including aesthetics, materials and ease of functionality. 5 Little or no discussion presented poorly. Does not highlights problems encountered based on data collected at previous stages. Includes reflection and discussion. Highlights problems encountered based on data collected at previous stages. Approx. 0.5 pages, including images and reflection and discussion. Highlights problems encountered and draws conclusions based on data collected at previous stages. Approx. 0.5 pages, including images and appropriate reflection and discussion. Highlights problems encountered and draws logical conclusions based on data collected at previous stages. Approx. 0.5-1 page (s), including images where necessary showing mature and appropriate reflection and discussion. Highlights problems encountered and draws logical conclusions based on data collected at previous stages. «M13» 100 Final Mark before peer assessment. «Weighted_Mark» Less 20% penalty for not completing WebPA. 1 = no penalty. 0.8 = penalty incurred. «Less_Penalty» Less 20% penalty for not GAP Quiz. 1 = no penalty. 0.8 = penalty incurred. «Less_Penalty» THIS IS THE ONLY ONE YOU REALLY NEED TO CONSIDER, THIS IS THE MARK THAT WILL BE USED TO CALCULATE YOUR MODULE MARK. Overall Mark for CW2 – Global Engineer. «CW2» NOTE; If you HAVE NOT achieved a minimum of a 35% mark for this component you will need to resit. See the relevant section on Moodle approx.. 8th May for full details. You do not need to contact me requesting details of resits, all information is on Moodle.