Friday, 30 April 2010
Project Manager's Weekly (Summary Edition)
1. The Maintainence of the Blog
This was mostly spearheaded by myself with weekly updates ongoing throughout the project. The general upkeed of the blog was well organised and although we did not disclose the goings-on of every meeting, the main objectives of each meeting we're posted onto the blog. Eventhough we do not have as many single post numbers as some other groups, we feel this is exemplary of the saying ' Quality Not Quantity' and that the posts that we have uploaded are very relevant and straight to the point with no need for hundreds of download images from google or waffled copy and pasted information everywhere.
2. The presentation
The group presentation went extremely well and I thought that our group set the bar at a high standard being one of the first groups to present its tender. We answered questions directly and gave good answers to what may have been viewed by onlookers as potential short-comings in the design. In hinsight I would have liked to organise maybe one more practise session of the whole presentation as the interchanges from person to person were not the smoothest, but never-the-less the presentation was a success. I think what helped was the fact that we had a very innovative and original design but it was also solid in its approach and technique, and therefore provided us with a strong base on which to present our case. I feel the price that we came in at was very competitive and the concept was reasonably strong. This means that at a 20% reduction at wholesale value, for 100 units the price was:
(1339.99 *0.8) *100 =
£107,120
This is very affordable to NGO's and is well below some of the other groups where even 10 units would have cost this amount.
3. The Group
The group tended to work well together and had quite regular interaction. We managed to distribute work well with no member feeling overwhelmed with his/her workload and I think everyone understood their position in the group and the project as a whole. From a personal standpoint I tried to give direction when possible but was also like an 'assistant' to everyone, helping out in every area from design to finance and stress analysis. I think the project was a success and I walk away having learned a great deal, and with very few negatives.
4. The Improvements
If I had the chance to do certain things again here is a list of what they would include:
- Improved communication between all members of the group. As often it seemed that other group members were constantly meeting and working on the project and others were not.
- Allow people to choose their own group. I feel in situations like these, allowing students to choose their own group would help them flourish as they would be more comfortable and know the limitations of their group members. Of course you could argue that the whole point of the exercise is to work with people from a range of backgrounds you may not have worked with before, and quite a valid point it is.
- More structure. I feel that sometimes it was unclear as to what exactly needed to be done due to the lack of information given to us throughout the task. I think a few more structured deadlines set by Dr thompson for things such as, finance calculations etc would have probably provided more direction in times of uncertainty, although we did managed to gather ourselves and draw the tender to an efficient close.
Thursday, 29 April 2010
Labour Costs
Finished Product
Saturday, 24 April 2010
Friday, 23 April 2010
Predict Advantages.
. It would be moved easily by just a Land rover in its roof rack.
. We do not need the electrical or hydraulic power to use it as it will be used in a desaster environment.
. It can be manipulate easily by hand by 2 or 4 people.
. It will be used mostly over rough terrain.
. It will be strong as it is manufactured in metal (Carbon steel and Aluminium).
. It will load a minimum of 1000kg for about 4 m of distance.
. It should be easy to maintain or repair.
Choosing a winch
faillure to select correct winch and incorrect operation can potentially reduce the life cycle of our winch and result in premature faillure.
Winches used under certain conditions i.e. Salvage, recovery and off road applications will require a winch high rated winch than that of less frequently used winch.
selection of winch capacity for loading needs to be careffuly considered. It should be powerful enough to pull our charge overcoming the resistance caused by obstacles such as moving gradients, mud, sand or stone.
When choosing a winch we should know the maximum effort that the winch can exert on a single line on the first layer of the winch drum.As the layers of cable build up on the winch drum, the overall cable speed increases, however the rated line pull decreases at the same rate.
I think by using snatch block to obtain a double line pull we can in effect almost double the pulling capacity of our winch, whilst approximately halving the overall recovery speed.
Thursday, 22 April 2010
Final Objectives
Final Assembly Drawing
Final Design Assembly
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
Leg Design
The above illustrations show the fixings that will be used to connect the base to the crane legs. This will be done by a standard bolt bolted through the lower base and the legs at eacg of the four intersections as shown. The Upper base will not have any direct connections with the legs as this will allow for the rotation of the plate through the ball bearings between the Upper and Lower bases.
Saturday, 17 April 2010
Materials Update
Project Manager's Weekly- Finish
Friday, 16 April 2010
I Beam Support
Having carried out the test with the I beam in both set-ups as shown above, it was eveident that the beam was more structurally sound if the load was applied across the flange. The beam was under a lot more stress with a load applied along its width and therefore the flange was the best solution. When both the load and support where applied from the flange the stress anaylsis showed that the structure was not under any major stress. as shown I modelled the structure as fixtured on two surfaces (bottom of beam and support) which is where the structure would be bolted to the base. A load of 5070N (10140N halved between two beams) was applied at a point where the cable would pass through and the result shown was the van Mises stresses remaing in a comfortable zone.
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Material Choices
Many groups looked at using 7075 but we chose 7075-O in particular because it is un-heat treated has maximum tensile strength of no more than 276 MPa, and maximum yield strength of 145 MPa. This is more than enough for our crane. The material has elongation of 10% and therefore stretches before ultimate failure.
We decided to go with a mild carbon steel for pretty much the rest of the design but quite a lightweight carbon steel because of its cost benefits and strength. We did undergo stress analysis using aluminium but it was consistently failing and so we decided to go with the stronger, cheaper alternative. The graph above illustrates how much stronger steel is than other materials we considered.
Type Of Beams To be Used
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
The Big BOOM
Monday, 12 April 2010
Toppling
The main problem with a hoist crane is the need for large counter weights. There will be an allocated zone for the counter weight that can be picked up from the disaster area. A counter weight is only needed when lifting over 650kg (711kg actual); in a case where over 1000kg (up to 1200kg) is lifted a counter weight of 600kg is needed. Iron counter weights will be supplied but debris can be used. The table below shows the counter weight required when lifting larger masses:
Saturday, 10 April 2010
Project Manager's Weekly - Fastenings
Saturday, 3 April 2010
Wheel vs Plugs update
Pin Cad
Friday, 2 April 2010
Analysing Stress on Main Beam
For the team to decide on a material we need to know which criteria need to be met. The design involves a large beam that will take the majority of the load and will be supported by cables and smaller beams. In some cases the calculations can be made and a suitable material can be found, or the type of beam can be used with a single material chosen first. As the material specialist has not been available to aid this decision the team have worked together and decided on plain carbon steel for the build. Plain carbon steel is a very versatile and cost effective material. We can reduce the size of the beams without compromising strength and hence reduce weight.
To carry out the initial stress analysis I have used SolidWorks, however, the loads have been exaggerated to account for material defects, modelling errors and over working. The results show that the main beam will take the load with a stress of 220.59GPa where the yield stress of steel is about 280GPa. The final design will have support beams and cables so the maximum experienced stress will be noticeably smaller.
Final testing will be carried out by Onwell, the design engineer.
After testing various beam types and size from the SolidWorks ‘Toolbox’, this beam (dimensions below, found on http://www.franklinsteelplc.co.uk/steel/unibeam.htm) is the best suited for the task.