 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
 |
Engineering
ME476
College Of Engineering and Technology
November 16, 2000
Table Of Contents
3.1 Customer Input Requirements
The objective of this document is to define the Wired Bliss Camming Device problem statement, requirements, scope of work, project approach, and schedule.
The ME486 project team for this project is presenting its self as GM3. GM3 is comprised of four senior level mechanical engineering students. Dr. David Hartman is the faculty advisor for this team. The following table lists the team members and contact information:
Table 1 – GM^3 team members.
|
Member
Name |
Phone
Number |
Email |
|
Sky Moule |
523-2137 |
Sam8@dana.ucc.nau.edu |
|
Karl Martinson |
522-9372 |
Kfm3@dana.ucc.nau.edu |
|
Zane Miller |
773-9119 |
|
|
Mike Greene |
773-9119 |
Mg35@dana.ucc.nau.edu |
|
*Dr. David Hartman |
|
David.Hartman@nau.edu |
The objective of the Wired Bliss Camming device project is to design and build a working prototype of an active protection device for rock climbing.
An active protection device refers to a classification of rock climbing gear that uses mechanical action (i.e. springs) to hold its self in position before a load is applied. An example of an active protection device is the various “camming” devices available on the market.
The delivered product must be adaptable to fit cracks up to a maximum thirteen centimeters (five inches) wide. It must be designed to support a dynamic load of up to 13kN. Design considerations include weight, production cost, portability, and ease of use. The design should not be substantially heavier than comparable items on the market. Nor should it have a production cost higher than current production costs far and equivalent sized cam (about thirty four dollars). The device should be easy to carry on a standard climbing harness, and allow for one-handed operation. In addition the device should be compatible with all standard climbing equipment (i.e. standard sized carabineers, webbing, ropes, and harnesses).
The following list summarizes
the design requirements:
·
Design
should function properly in cracks up to five-inch wide.
·
Support
loads up to 13kN
·
Lightweight (200-350 grams)
·
Cost effective
to produce (about $34 each)
·
Easy to
carry
·
Allow
for one-handed operation
·
Compatible
with standard climbing equipment
The solution to the design problem includes designing, building, and testing a prototype active protection device for rock climbers. While in the design phase mechanical drawings will be made for the assembled prototype and all components, which are to be manufactured specifically for this project. Mechanical assembly drawings will be made showing how the components fit together to form the assembled prototype. Critical components and the assembled prototype will be analyzed using finite element analysis (FEA) software. The build phase will include materials acquisition, parts manufacture, and assembly. It is expected that some components of the prototype will be unique and unavailable. These parts will be fabricated manufactured. The prototype will be tested after full assembly in accordance with EN12276 ( or some equivalent). Test data will be recorded and reported. If testing fails, the prototype will be redesigned, rebuilt, and retested twice. A maximum of three prototypes will be built.
This project will have the best chance for success when the team working to solve the problem has the client onboard. The most valuable asset offered by Wired Bliss is market experience and climbing equipment familiarity. Existing climbing cam components are available from Wired Bliss for use in the prototype construction. Parts that require machining will be manufactured through sources normally used by Wired Bliss. Wired Bliss will cover the expenses for machined parts. Wired Bliss will reimburse GM3for all billable project items. Billable project items include all materials required for the construction and testing of three prototypes.
This project will be a full success when Wired Bliss is satisfied with the working prototype created by GM3 before the end of next semester.
The first step we will take
to tackle our design problem is to research the current climbing equipment
and look at the pros and cons of the current designs. Then based upon our findings we will brainstorm and come up with
several unique solutions. After
discussing the advantages and disadvantages of our preliminary ideas we
will narrow the group down to two or three solid design ideas.
Our two or three ideas will
then be taken to our client, Gene Hacker, and thoroughly explained. Rough drawings will be included if necessary.
Mr. Hacker will then let us know which of our ideas he believes is
the most marketable or feasible to build and use.
If he deems more than one idea usable we can then discuss the possibility
of pursuing multiple ideas through the next design stage where we will be
able to better assess the design.
After we have chosen one (or
two) designs we will start to optimize the design by using the engineering
skills we have learned. Some of
the skills that might prove necessary are finite element analysis, design
of machinery and statics. Once the
proportions and load distributions are determined AutoCAD drawings will
be made showing the device from several angles and in different positions.
At this point we will build a fully operational prototype of our design. The AutoCAD drawings will be kept up to date, if changes are necessary the drawings will be altered and the mathematical analysis will also be kept updated. Once the fully working prototype is built we will perform tests on the prototype. We will analyze the strengths of the design and how well it performs in a crack. Based on the results of the test, changes to the design will be made and more prototypes will be made as necessary and all calculations and drawings will be kept up to date. We will also keep our client informed of all activity and decisions regarding the design of the device.
To ensure the success of the
project, GM^3 has projected a schedule for the 2000-2001 school year. The following table indicates the task name,
start and finish date, current status and the personnel assignment.
Table 4.1 – GM3 Project
Schedule for 2000-2001.
|
Task Name |
Start Date |
End Date |
Status
|
Personnel Assignment |
|
Contact Client |
9/18/00 |
- |
Complete |
Sky Moule |
|
Requirements Gathering |
9/18/00 |
10/16/00 |
Complete |
Sky Moule |
|
SOTA Research |
9/18/00 |
12/8/00 |
In Progress |
Karl Martinson |
|
Project Presentation |
10/30/00 |
- |
Complete |
|
|
Website Development |
10/16/00 |
12/8/00 |
In Progress |
Zane Miller |
|
Build Testing Device |
10/16/00 |
10/30/00 |
Complete |
Zane Miller, Mike Greene |
|
Initial Proposal |
10/30/00 |
11/13/00 |
Complete |
Mike Greene |
|
Refine Proposal |
11/14/00 |
11/29/00 |
In Progress |
Karl Martinson |
|
Proposal Presentation |
12/4/00 |
- |
In Progress |
Sky Moule |
|
Acceptante Document |
12/8/00 |
- |
In Progress |
Mike Greene |
|
Prototype Design |
12/18/00 |
1/18/01 |
In Progress |
Sky Moule |
|
Prototype Preparation |
1/18/01 |
2/9/01 |
- |
Karl Martinson |
|
FEA Analysis |
1/22/01 |
2/23/01 |
- |
Zane Miller |
|
Prototype Testing |
2/19/01 |
2/20/01 |
- |
Karl Martinson |
|
Redesign Prototype |
1/29/01 |
3/16/01 |
- |
Zane Miller |
|
Finalize Design |
2/8/01 |
4/18/01 |
- |
Mike Greene |
|
Design Review Presentation |
2/27/01 |
3/1/01 |
- |
Sky Moule |
|
Design Review Report |
3/2/01 |
- |
- |
Karl Martinson |
|
Design Presentation |
4/24/01 |
4/26/01 |
- |
Sky Moule |
|
Finalize Web Page |
12/18/01 |
4/20/01 |
- |
Zane Miller |
|
Final Report |
4/20/01 |
- |
- |
Mike Greene |
 |
 |
 |
design proposal