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

Meeting Timeline Start Time Topic Required Attendees 11:00 Project Description Raisanen, Vallone, P. Venkataraman, 11:05 Project Background Kempski, Barton 11:10 Customer Needs 11:15 Key Engineering Specs 11:20 Questions / Concerns 11:30 Concept Generation Raisanen, Vallone, P. Venkataraman, Kempski, Barton, Hathaway, Kosciol 11:35 Concept Selection KGCOE Senior Design Systems Level Design Review Agenda

11:45 Questions / Concerns 11:50 Project Schedule Raisanen, Vallone, Kempski, Barton 11:55 Risks and Roles 12:00 Questions / Concerns

Project # Project Name Project Track Project Family P11566 ITT Magnetic Imaging and Printing Dampener Start Term Team Guide Project Sponsor Doc. Revision 20101 Dr. Alan Raisanen ITT - Phillip Vallone New

Project Description  Understand the correlation between analytical model and real world application Project Background: ITT created a solid-state Eddy Current vibration Core Team Members: dampening system for space applications. They developed a prototype that exceeded their  Tom Sciotto – IE Project analytical model by a factor of 2 and they are Manager unsure of the specific cause.  Tiffany Heyd – ME Simulation Engineer Problem Statement:  Jake Norris – ME Fabrication ITT would like a model of a solid-state Eddy Engineer Current damping system. They would like a  Ben Hensel – ME Test prototype that closely follows the analytical model Engineer Objectives/Scope: Strategy & Approach 1. Develop system model that accurately models behavior Assumptions & Constraints: 2. Develop prototype with space applications in mind 1. It is assumed the damper will be used 3. Test prototype to compare with model for space, but that analogous materials for the prototype are acceptable at this time. 2. The lifecycle of the product is Deliverables: approximately 158,000 cycles.  Eddy current dampener 3. More important to develop a prototype prototype that matches the analytical model than a prototype that strictly follows the engineering Analytical system model  specifications.  Test fixture 4. Assume inputs of 1Hz and 100Hz  Documentation to assist future simultaneously for main case. development 5. Budget: $2000

Expected Project Benefits: Issues & Risks:  Further understand magnetic  Long lead times for rare earth metal damping magnets KGCOE Senior Design Systems Level Design Review Agenda

 No one on the team has strong  Exact alignment of the rod holes in the magnetic background, so analysis will most flexures likely need outside consultation  No one on the team has welding  Fabrication of the magnets onto the experience 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 KGCOE Senior Design Systems Level Design Review Agenda

Figure 1: Function Tree 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