Engineering Design II - Conceptualization and Realization Course

From DDL Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(→Spring 2011 Course Schedule)
(→Student Projects)
Line 140: Line 140:
=Student Projects=
=Student Projects=
The links below contain a history of projects with links to project wiki reports.
The links below contain a history of projects with links to project wiki reports.
 +
 +
==Spring 2011==
 +
The spring 2011 theme is to analyze an existing product chosen by student teams under a set of selection guidelines. Each team is assigned to study the design of the existing product, identify unmet needs, and then either redesign the existing product or design a new product to address an unmet need.
 +
 +
{| class="wikitable" border="1"  cellspacing="0"
 +
|-
 +
! Team !! Competitor !! Concept !! Innovation !! Team Members
 +
 +
|-
 +
| 1 ||  ||  ||  ||
 +
 +
|-
 +
| 2 ||  ||  ||  ||
 +
 +
|-
 +
| 3 ||  ||  ||  ||
 +
 +
|-
 +
| 4 ||  ||  ||  || 
 +
 +
|-
 +
| 5 ||  ||  ||  ||
 +
 +
|-
 +
| 6 ||  ||  ||  ||
 +
 +
|-
 +
| 7 ||  ||  ||  || 
 +
 +
|-
 +
| 8 ||  ||  ||  || 
 +
 +
|-
 +
| 9 ||  ||  ||  || 
 +
 +
|-
 +
| 10 ||  ||  ||  || 
 +
 +
|-
 +
| 11 ||  ||  ||  ||
 +
 +
|}
==Fall 2009==
==Fall 2009==

Revision as of 16:44, 3 January 2011

Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Mechanical Engineering

Course 24-441 / 24-442

Contents

Course Objectives

In this course, students will gain hands-on, practical experience applying engineering principles, theories, thought processes, and problem-solving approaches to the design and prototyping of a physical product. Students will develop skills for working in teams, working with open-ended problems, and making appropriate engineering assumptions. Students are expected to research the topic area, identify opportunities and design criteria, generate creative concepts, synthesize detailed design of the concept, analyze the design on a number of criteria to make improvements, and prototype and communicate the final solution.

While most courses in the mechanical engineering curriculum focus on structured transfer of theoretical knowledge in analysis of mechanical phenomena, this course aims to provide students with a chance to build complimentary experiential knowledge in application and synthesis. Topics covered include design process, project planning, product dissection, design for manufacturing and assembly, engineering ethics, failure mode and effects analysis, life cycle assessment, design for environment, market research, concept generation and concept selection techniques, quality function deployment, intellectual property, detailed design, engineering drawings, prototyping, professional communication, design optimization, machine component design, and engineering economics.

Learning to design is a bit like learning to write. It is not the case that you will enter the course without knowing how to design and exit the course knowing the formula for design. Like writing, there is typically no unique “right” answer in design – but some answers are better than others, and some are more well-justified than others. You will learn through experience, feedback, interaction, failure, and iteration about how to conduct a more robust, thoughtful, systematic, and objective-focused process for making decisions and justifying those decisions through analysis in the design and development of an engineered product.

Fall 2009 Syllabus

Class

  • MWF 12:30-2:20
  • SH-125 Lecture, SH-324 Team Meetings

Instructor

Teaching Assistant

Administrative Assistant

  • Nancy Beatty
  • SH-422
  • (412)268-2908
  • nlbeatty@andrew.cmu.edu


Text Book

Required

  • Dieter, G. and L. Schmidt, Engineering Design, 4th edition, McGraw-Hill, 2009.

Recommended Additional Reading

  • Ullman, D., The Mechanical Design Process, 3rd edition, McGraw-Hill, 2002.
  • Ulrich, K. and S. Eppinger, Product Design and Development, 3rd edition, McGraw-Hill, 2003.
  • Shigley, J. C. Mischke and R. Budynas, Mechanical Engineering Design, 7th edition, McGraw Hill, 2004.
  • Cagan and Vogel, Creating Breakthrough Products, Financial Times Prentice Hall, 2002.
  • Otto, K. and K. Wood, Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development, Prentice Hall, 2001.
  • Papalambros, P. and D. Wilde, Principles of Optimal Design, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
  • Hendrickson, C., L. Lave and H.S. Matthews, Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Goods and Services: An Input-Output Approach, RFP Press, 2006.

Resources

  • The machine shop on the Hamerschlag C-level is available to students who have taken the safety course. All 24441 students are required to pass the course. The shop contains basic machines, hand tools, a 5-axis CNC machine, rapid prototyping equipment, and some storage. Some materials and components are available for use.
  • The tool room in Hamerschlag B-134 is available to students on a pre-arranged basis and under supervision of the TA. The room is locked and may not be used without a TA present. Students are responsible for cleaning and returning all tools to their proper places after using the room. The room also contains shelving for project storage.

Websites

Course Websites

All class material will be posted to the course website on the Blackboard Learning System: http://www.cmu.edu/blackboard. Students are expected to check the website regularly for announcements and schedule changes. In addition, the Design Decisions Wiki (http://ddl.me.cmu.edu/ddwiki) will be used for submission of some student reports, as discussed in class and specified in individual assignments.


Meetings

Each team will meet with the instructors on a weekly basis, except where indicated on the schedule. Teams are expected to bring a progress report to each meeting listing the team name and members and detailing in bullet list form: 1) progress since the last meeting, 2) planned next steps, and 3) questions and items for discussion. Meetings are intended to check in with team progress and provide guidance, advice, feedback and clarification as needed. Students are expected to be proactive in setting an agenda for each meeting that best fits with the needs of the project.

In addition, the TA will be available to meet with teams to answer questions and provide feedback on preliminary student work during TA office hours or by appointment. This is a good opportunity for seeking detailed feedback and advice beyond what is possible in the weekly team meetings.

Design Project

This course is centered around one major open-ended design project for each team (teams will be assigned during the first week). Topics covered in class, as well as general mechanical engineering knowledge expected of seniors, will be applied in the design and development of the product. By nature, each team will have somewhat different tasks and areas of emphasis, and each will use different subsets of mechanical engineering analysis skills. However, all projects will address the criteria and guidelines described in the reports and assignments, and teams will be graded on their ability to select the appropriate and relevant scopes, areas, and levels of analysis necessary to complete the design of a new product and justify all major decisions. Details and guidelines on the design project are available on the blackboard website.

Prototyping Budget

A budget of up to $500 will be reimbursed to each team for project costs including cost to obtain an initial product for dissection and prototyping expenses beyond those covered by the machine shop. Valid receipts for each purchase are needed to process reimbursement – receipts should be submitted to Nancy Beatty at the end of the semester according to the guidelines available on the blackboard website. Students are welcome to use their own funds if they wish to build a more expensive prototype; however, prototype expectations are based on the allocated budget, and contribution of additional funds is not necessary for achieving strong marks. Carnegie Mellon cannot reimburse sales tax. If the item to be purchased is costly, the team may ask Nancy to purchase it for them to avoid being charged for tax.

Course Expectations

Students are expected to attend and participate in all lectures and all team meetings. Students are also expected to keep up with the readings, which are listed on the schedule. Lecture times are MWF 12:30pm-2:20pm; however, many of the Wednesday and Friday times will be used for team meetings with the instructors rather than lecture (see schedule), and teams are strongly encouraged to use these blocks of time for team meetings and team project work. The course is twelve units, so each student should spend about twelve hours per week working primarily on the project. With a team of four members, this is over 650 person-hours, with the majority devoted to the project.

Design Notebooks

Each student should maintain a bound design notebook used exclusively for this class for ideas, sketches, notes, and thoughts. Entries should be dated in order to record the process and provide a support mechanism from a legal standpoint to protect intellectual property. The notebook will also help teams to compile their reports, document their process, and write a provisional patent application draft.

Teamwork and Peer Review

The experience of working in teams on this project will serve as preparation for teamwork in industry. Each team will be asked to explicitly assign roles, such as team leader. Tasks can and should be divided among team members for efficiency; however, consistent meeting for debriefing and determining team direction and individual tasks is essential. A good model is to meet as a group every week before meeting with the instructors to review progress, execute tasks that must be performed as a team, identify next steps, and assign individual tasks. Each student can then work somewhat independently or in small groups to complete tasks for the next meeting. This process will help to ensure that all team members have a strong understanding of the state of knowledge of the project and justification for decisions made without requiring all members to be together in order to make progress. On certain days, team members will be selected at random to present the team’s project. All team members are responsible for making sure each member is informed and involved.

Some teams may experience an imbalance in team member contributions, effort, or reliability. The course instructors are available to provide advice and intervene as necessary to resolve team inequity and conflict; however, students should view this time as a learning experience: Such situations occur with regularity in the industrial world as well. If you experience challenges within your team, it is a good chance to develop strategies and figure out how you will address such challenges in the future. Addressing challenges within the team, when possible, is the most beneficial learning experience, and the instructors are available to provide guidance in doing so. My general advise is to bring everything out into the open and on the table – share perceptions, personal goals, needs, levels of commitment, and expectations to understand where one another is coming from. Construct a common vision, and then figure out the best way to achieve the vision given the needs of each team member. One common question asked at job interviews is: “Describe a time when you experienced difficulties working in a team or experienced a team failure. What did you do about it?” This is a good chance to build a strong answer to this question. While projects are graded as a unit, each team member will receive an individual course grade based in part on participation, attendance, and contributions. Teams are asked on each report to itemize individual team member contributions, and it is not uncommon for members of a design team to receive different grades.

Several mechanisms will be used for peer review.

  • Between Teams: Each team will receive feedback from other teams in design review sessions and/or presentations scheduled prior to the due date of each report. These sessions will sharpen communication skills, help to catch oversights and simple mistakes, and identify possible new ideas or areas for improvement in order to strengthen the project.
  • Within Teams: Every student is required to turn in peer evaluations with each report for each member of their team (including themselves). These reports are primarily to help the instructors identify difficulties and miscommunications, and they will also be used as information for grading.

Final Project Exhibition

The final design exhibition will take place on Wednesday, December 9th, in the University Center Wean Commons and Connan Room. Faculty, local industry members, media, and campus and community members will be invited to see student projects. The exposition has received media coverage in the past. Teams will have tables and poster easels for displaying and communicating their design solutions. All students are expected to attend the exhibition except during conflicts with a scheduled course or final exam.

Evaluation

This course is of an open-ended nature. Rather than check student solutions to predefined problems against a solution key, students are asked to participate in defining the problem and justifying decisions – skills that are critical in post-undergraduate work. As such, general evaluation criteria include:

  • Completion of Assignment Requirements: Is each requirement defined in each assignment adequately addressed at a level expected of a young practicing engineer? What is the quality of the final product?
  • Process: Did the team consciously follow a purposeful design process that captures essential elements? Did the student extend appropriate effort, attend class and meetings, participate in discussion?
  • Well-Justified Choices: Are decisions backed up with evidence and clearly defined rationale? Does the report clearly document analysis and rationale for decisions?
  • Communication and Professionalism: Is the design fully defined? Does the report provide sufficient context and explanation for the client to understand? Have the students drawn appropriate conclusions from the analyses and summarized findings? Is the report written properly for the intended audience?

Most students who put effort into their project and complete assignments receive A’s and B’s, although some students have failed the course in the past due to lack of effort and responsibility. The best way to think about this course is that it is your chance to show off what you can do while preparing yourself for industrial expectations.

The final grade breakdown is expected to be approximately as follows. The instructor reserves the right to make adjustments to assignment weighting to better reflect student effort, performance, and demonstration of knowledge.

  • Report 1 Product Analysis: 15%
  • Report 1 Responses to Client: 5%
  • Report 2 Opportunity: 15%
  • Design Analysis Memo: 5%
  • Prototypes: 10%
  • Final Report: 30%
  • Small Assignments and Participation: 20%

Late Policy

Late assignments will not be accepted.

Policy on Electronic Devices

Electronic devices such as cellular phones, blackberries, laptops, music players, and other devices that may create a distraction are not permitted in class.

Policy on Recording

No student is permitted to record or tape any classroom activity without the express written consent of the instructor. Photographs of product dissection activities are permitted. If a student believes that he/she is disabled and needs to record or tape classroom activities, he/she should contact the Office of Disability Resources to request an appropriate accommodation.

Spring 2011 Course Schedule

The Spring 2011 course schedule can be found here. Due dates on the wiki schedule are approximate and serve to show the general timeline of the course. Official assignment requirements including due dates, times, and format are available on Blackboard. Major changes will be announced on the Blackboard website. It is possible to sign up for RSS feeds or email alerts to receive notifications of changes to this wiki page. Students should refer to the course Blackboard website for assignment details.

Design Project Guidelines

Project Overview

This course is centered around one major open-ended design project for each team (teams will be assigned during the first week). Topics covered in class, as well as general mechanical engineering knowledge expected of seniors, will be applied in the design and development of the product. By nature, each team will have somewhat different tasks and areas of emphasis, and each will use different subsets of mechanical engineering analysis. However, all projects will address the criteria and guidelines described in the reports and assignments, and teams will be graded on the criteria of completion of assignment requirements, process, well-justified choices, and communication professionalism, as described in the syllabus.

This semester, each design team will select and obtain an existing mechanical product or system. We will spend approximately the first one-quarter of the semester analyzing the design of the existing product. Each team will then use this knowledge to create a new product to address an opportunity unaddressed by the existing product and/or make significant changes to the existing product to improve it. The following guidelines should be used in selecting a product. All products must be approved by the instructor:

  • Mechanical System: The product should involve multiple mechanical components that interact.
  • Moving Parts: In almost all cases, the system should involve moving parts.
  • Moderate Scope and Complexity: The system should involve a sufficient level of complexity (number of parts, number of functions, geometric constraints, etc) to provide challenges in studying the product and to leave open opportunities for making design improvements. The system should not involve so much complexity that the project cannot be reasonably completed in one semester. Some students may choose to study a family of products that share components as a way to introduce design complexity. Be ambitious – it is usually easy to limit scope later if it becomes necessary.
  • Cost: Each team will be given a budget of $500 to be reimbursed at the end of the semester for valid receipts (tax cannot be reimbursed – contact Nancy Beatty if you have a large purchase). This budget is intended to cover cost to attain the product and to develop prototypes for a redesign or new design. Therefore, it is best if the product itself can be attained at low cost to leave a significant budget for prototyping.
  • Portability: Teams will need to store the product and bring it to campus as needed.
  • Safety: You will be disassembling and working with the product during the class, so products with compressed gas, explosive or corrosive materials, or other significant safety issues should be avoided.

Examples: Wheelchair, can or jar opener, bicycle derailleur, staple gun, electric toothbrush, weed whipper, vacuum, coffeemaker, paper towel dispenser, food processor, paintball gun, umbrella, sewing machine, VCR or DVD player, toaster, printer, hair clippers, electric trimmer, auto components, shredder, office chair, drill, card shuffler, camera


Student Projects

The links below contain a history of projects with links to project wiki reports.

Spring 2011

The spring 2011 theme is to analyze an existing product chosen by student teams under a set of selection guidelines. Each team is assigned to study the design of the existing product, identify unmet needs, and then either redesign the existing product or design a new product to address an unmet need.

Team Competitor Concept Innovation Team Members
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Fall 2009

The fall 2009 theme was to analyze an existing product chosen by student teams under a set of selection guidelines. Each team was assigned to study the design of the existing product, identify unmet needs, and then either redesign the existing product or design a new product to address an unmet need. Some of the new design reports are not available here due to intellectual property considerations.

Team Report 1: Competitor Report 2: Concept Report 3: Innovation Team Members
1 Doughnut maker Doughnut maker redesign Automatic grill cleaner Sara Whitby, Meng Yee Chuah, Michael Barako, Katie McManus, Sam Powers
2 Nerf gun Nerf gun redesign Rapid Fire Needler Ian Norman, Scott Ridel, Greg Valvik, Tracey Ziev, Natty Zaharia
3 Keg tap Keg tap redesign Low-foam keg tap Dan Boljonis, Abby Morrell, Keith Haselhoff, Julia Weirman
4 Leaf blower Leaf blower redesign Leaf blower cart Eric Couphos, Scott Moorby, Jason Huber, Nicholas Burkholder
5 Paper towel dispenser Paper towel dispenser redesign Paper towel dispenser innovation Eric Totong, Li-Yang Lee, Chang Keun Jung, Nishan Kulatilaka
6 Steering rack Steering rack redesign Steering rack redesign Eric Blood, Andrew Charters, Graydon Loar, Andrew Simmons
7 Snowboard binding Snowboard binding redesign Fold-out snowboard binding Michael Li, Sean Hamilton, Kaila Santiago, Spiro Karoubalis
8 Dishwasher Dishwasher redesign Portable dishwasher Brian Gaudio, Jacob Coffelt, Paul Desiderio, Kevin DeVos, Matt LaTorre
9 Microphone with stand Microphone redesign Modular microphone toy Nakul Gupta, Daniel Liptz, Luo Xing Ni, Justin Yi
10 Automatic pet feeder Automatic pet feeder redesign Web-interface pet feeder redesign James Langhauser, Lauren Walch, Gary Lee, Jason Calaiaro
11 Apple peeler Apple peeler redesign Automatic apple peeler Po-Yu Chou, Ming-I Chou, Haruhiko Okamoto, Yung-King Leo Ma

Fall 2008

The fall 2008 theme was to analyze an existing product chosen by student teams under a set of selection guidelines. Each team was assigned to study the design of the existing product, identify unmet needs, and then either redesign the existing product or design a new product to address an unmet need. The links below show study of the existing product. Some links also show new product design, but many of the new designs were completed offline because of intellectual property concerns.

Team Competitor Product Innovation Members
1 Toaster Fold-out toaster Jon Goettler, Leigh Fortenberry, Akshay Jayaram, Ian Price
2 Post hole digger Lead-screw post hole digger Clay Crites, Rich Pantaleo, Nick Roche, Jeff Wang
3 Umbrella Umbrella check-out system Mark Fuge, Changho Oh, Michael Cushman, Ben Berkowitz
4 Baby stroller Intelligent self-locking baby stroller Brad Hall, Nick Selman, Madhur Paharia, Sixiao Joy Liu
5 Lamp stand mechanical arm Modular desk assistant Ella Swearingen, Raysel Martinez, Adam Aaron, Gwendolyn Barr
6 Guitar bridge Cartridge guitar bridge Jeremy Ozer, Michael Harrison, Jonathan Kyle, Aaron Marks
7 Ski boot walking attachment initial Ski boot walking attachment Jarrett Valeri, Randyka Pudjoprawoto, Takahiro Matsuura, Brandon Perry
8 Exercise bike Exercise bike iPod charger Abe Alexander, Cason Male, Shobhit Tandon, Madhu Bhagavatula
9 Self propelled lawnmower Lawnmower carrier Graham Bannantine, Alex Kalberer, Dave Torres, Richard Zuckerman
10 Ice cube maker Thermal release ice maker Erica Dorfman, Eleanor McDaniel, Andrew Moore, and Nick Smarto
11 RC rock crawler truck RC rock crawler conversion kit Brad Henderson, Zahoor Rahimtoola, Mike Ricci, Alex Timmons
12 Weed whacker One-handed weed whacker Timothy Andersen, Wesley Chu, Koji Ito, and Michael Menchaca

Fall 2007

The fall 2007 theme was to analyze an existing product chosen by student teams under a set of selection guidelines. Each team was assigned to study the design of the existing product, identify unmet needs, and then either redesign the existing product or design a new product to address an unmet need. The links below show study of the existing product. Some links also show new product design, but many of the new designs were completed offline because of intellectual property concerns.

Team Competitor Product Innovation Members
1 Airsoft gun Airsoft gun ammunition counter Luke Miller, Charles Yee, Terry Chau
2 Windshield wiper assembly Removable windshield scraper blade Kevin Lipkin, Anne Marie Lewis, Erika Bannon, Justine Rembisz
3 Oscillating fan Flex-fan Robert Cavagnaro, Alex Malkin, Gil Palmon, Samantha Schultz
4 Blender Blender redesign Julie Cone, Jason Jura, Jen Campos, Vince Chiodo
5 Ratcheting screwdriver Screwdriver bit storage handle Chris Cavanaugh, Rob Gimson, Rich Hauffe, Jon Bodnar
6 Aquarium pump Siphon starter Sarah Biltz, John Bistline, Kim Lord
7 Paintball gun Paintball sentry gun Adam Seibert, Dave Urban, Neel Nayak, Matt Eager
8 Vacuum cleaner Track outlet and plug Art Douglass, Jon Brown, Chris Uhrinek
9 Babyproof door knob lock Babyproof door knob lock redesign Allison Oguh, Chia-Pei Hsu, Erica Pratt
10 Remote control tarantula Remote control tarantula redesign Jehan Azad, Chris Sullivan, Jordan DeVries, Tim Cheung
11 Ice cream maker Ice cream maker redesign Joel Bergstein, Brian Kim, Sarat Mikkilineni, Jack Bowler
12 Fire extinguisher Fire extinguisher redesign Craig Cramer, Adam Haag, Cihan K., Shane McGuire, Michael Rem
13 Microphone stand Welding assistive device Brian Shyu, Sarah Marmalefsky, Noah Lorang, Bryan Springer

Spring 2007

The spring 2007 theme was analysis and redesign of an existing product or mechanical system chosen by student teams under a set of selection guidelines. Each team was assigned to study the design of the existing product, identify unmet needs, and then either redesign the existing product or design a new product to address an unmet need. The links below show study of the existing product. Some links also show new product design, but many of the new designs were completed offline because of intellectual property concerns.

Team Competitor Product Innovation Members
1 Ceiling-mounted bicycle lift Ceiling-mounted storage lift Jeff Polack, Kevin Pruzinsky, Davey Quinn, Russel Verbofsky
2 Cordless drill Cordless drill redesign Mark Rockwell, Ming Huo, Scott Miller, Vashesh Nandedkar
3 Staple gun Staple gun redesign Kristine Falletta, Kacy Hess, Galen Mullins, Joshua Schmieder
4 Automatic card shuffler Automatic card shuffler redesign Banji Adebayo, Kevin Pham, Albert Lin, Edward Huang
5 Automatic can opener Automatic can opener redesign John Diroll, Jackson Cheung, Mark Davis, Charles Demattia
6 Rotating tie rack Rotating shoe rack Jenna Colbaugh, Megan Hughes, Cora Lannelongue, Devaki Saran
7 Paper shredder Paper shredder feeder Justin Feig, Jarema Malinowski, Michael Tanzini, Alan Teets
7 Car jack Lighted breaker bar Alberto Guzman and Matthew Wasserman
8 Bicycle light generator Bicycle light generator redesign Michael Kuo, Jing Dun Lam, Yun Han Luo, Gary Wu
9 Paintball marker Shotgun paintball marker Anthony Fazzini, Rory Kaclik, Ali Khan, Andrew Serdy
10 Inkjet printer Ink cartridge refilling station William Yao, Thornell Hudson III, Liam Bucci
11 Active climbing cam 'Wedgie' climbing wedge anchor Siddartha Butalia, Roberto Cabrera, Julie Schoenfeld, Khairan Kassim
Retrieved from "http://wiki.ece.cmu.edu/ddl/index.php/Engineering_Design_II_-_Conceptualization_and_Realization_Course"
Personal tools