KGCOE Senior Design
Systems Level Design Review Agenda
Meeting Purpose:
1. Project Overview
2. Confirm Engineering Specs & Customer Needs
3. Concept Review
4. Review proposed design
5. Generate further ideas
Materials Reviewed:
1. Project Description
2. Customer Needs
3. Engineering Specifications
4. Functional Decomposition
5. Proposed System Design
6. Concept Selection Review
7. Risk Assessment
Attendees (name and discipline / role of all participants):
Professor Raisanen – IT Collaboratory – Guide
Mr. Phillip Vallone – ITT – Primary Customer
Mr. John Fasick – ITT
Professor P. Venkataraman – ME
Professor Kempski – ME
Mr. Dave Hathaway – ME Shop
Mr. Steve Kosciol – ME Shop
Professor Linda Barton – Physics
Meeting Date: 10/8/10
Meeting Time: 11:00 – 12:30pm
Meeting Location: 09-4435
Start
Time
11:00
Meeting Timeline
Topic
Project Description
11:05
11:10
Project Background
Customer Needs
11:15
11:20
Key Engineering Specs
Questions / Concerns
11:30
11:35
Concept Generation
Concept Selection
11:45
11:50
Questions / Concerns
Project Schedule
11:55
12:00
Risks and Roles
Questions / Concerns
Required Attendees
Raisanen, Vallone, P. Venkataraman,
Kempski, Barton
Raisanen, Vallone, P. Venkataraman,
Kempski, Barton, Hathaway, Kosciol
Raisanen, Vallone, Kempski, Barton
KGCOE Senior Design
Systems Level Design Review Agenda
Project #
Project Name
Project Track
Project Family
P11566
ITT Magnetic
Dampener
Imaging and Printing
Start Term
Team Guide
Project Sponsor
Doc. Revision
20101
Dr. Alan Raisanen
ITT - Phillip Vallone
New
Project Description
Strategy & Approach
Project Background:
Assumptions & Constraints:
ITT created a solid-state Eddy Current vibration
dampening system for space applications. They
developed a prototype that exceeded their
analytical model by a factor of 2 and they are
unsure of the specific cause.
1.
2.
3.
Problem Statement:
ITT would like a model of a solid-state Eddy
Current damping system. They would like a
prototype that closely follows the analytical model
4.
5.
Objectives/Scope:
1.
2.
3.
Develop system model that accurately
models behavior
Develop prototype with space applications in
mind
Test prototype to compare with model
Issues & Risks:



Deliverables:




Eddy current dampener prototype
Analytical system model
Test fixture
Documentation to assist future development
Expected Project Benefits:


Further understand magnetic damping
Understand
the
correlation
between
analytical model and real world application
Core Team Members:




Tom Sciotto – IE Project Manager
Tiffany Heyd – ME Simulation Engineer
Jake Norris – ME Fabrication Engineer
Ben Hensel – ME Test Engineer
It is assumed the damper will be used for
space, but that analogous materials for the
prototype are acceptable at this time.
The lifecycle of the product is approximately
158,000 cycles.
More important to develop a prototype that
matches the analytical model than a
prototype that strictly follows the engineering
specifications.
Assume inputs of 1Hz and 100Hz
simultaneously for main case.
Budget: $2000




Long lead times for rare earth metal magnets
No one on the team has strong magnetic
background, so analysis will most likely need
outside consultation
Fabrication of the magnets onto the
prototype could be dangerous and difficult
due to the intensity of the magnets
Rubbing of the conductor against the
magnets could occur
Ensuring the magnets are properly fixtured
Exact alignment of the rod holes in the
flexures
No one on the team has welding experience
KGCOE Senior Design
Figure 1: Function Tree
Systems Level Design Review Agenda
KGCOE Senior Design
Systems Level Design Review Agenda
KGCOE Senior Design
Systems Level Design Review Agenda
KGCOE Senior Design
Systems Level Design Review Agenda
KGCOE Senior Design
Systems Level Design Review Agenda
Major Risks




Rubbing may occur, meaning that stick slip would be generated in the model and
this is difficult to model accurately.
i. We are trying to design a flexure diaphragm that would prevent
this from happening. It will be important to test this design
concept early in the fabrication stage so any problems can be
identified early
Maintaining a consistent gap between the conductor and magnets is crucial for
consistent magnetic field strength, thus consistent dampening constant.
i. The flexure diaphragm in the previous stage is also going to keep
this from becoming an issue (hopefully)
Fabrication of the prototype may be difficult because of the proposed fixtures
needed to hold the rare earth magnets.
i. During detailed design manufacturability and machineability will
be kept in mind. Dr. Cormier will be consulted if a complex
geometry is necessary
No one on the team has strong magnetic background, so analysis will most likely
need outside consultation
i. Identify key experts early, schedule meetings in advance of
problems
Minor Risks



Long lead times for rare earth metal magnets
o Order parts before break to guarantee adequate time for test
Fabrication of the magnets onto the prototype could be dangerous and difficult
due to the intensity of the magnets
o Consciously be safe. Thinking about safety makes things safer.
o Use wax shims or explore other creative positioning methods
Exact alignment of the rod holes in the flexures