INITIAL PROJECT SUMMARY A Tool for Phase Zero Page 1 of 4



TEAM DROPITON

1. PROJECT OVERVIEW

1.1 Stakeholders:

Sponsor: Itron, Inc.

Client: Brian Priest (Senior Test Engineer; Itron Inc.)

Advisor/Capstone Instructor: Steve Beyerlein

Consultants: Mark Zurfluh (Senior Test Technician; Itron Inc.), Greg Paulitz (Principal Product Quality Engineer; Itron Inc.)

1.2 Project Background:

Itron, Inc. needs a testing station that can perform MIL STD 81 OF drop testing on a variety of products with accuracy and repeatability. The testing station must be able to drop various handheld meters from varying heights (18 to 60 inches) onto different surfaces. There should be both a flat “table” side that can hold up to 25 pounds, and a “pinching” side that can hold up to 10 pounds at potentially awkward angles. Each side should be separately controllable.

1.3 Deliverables:

➢ Final Report communicating decision-making process behind the design

➢ Test Station with documented performance

➢ Operating manual that supports self-directed use

➢ CAD drawings, electrical schematics, parts list, and manufacturing plan required for duplicating the device without need for team consultation

2. Project Justification

2.1. Needs:

The client has a need for more reliable/repeatable testing in order to better understand how their meters will perform in the field. Itron will benefit from reliable testing, and some automation of their testing process. Accurate, instrumented, reproducible testing will also allow Itron to gain credibility with their clients and help achieve certification.

2.2. Benefits:

Itron Benefits: Itron will be able to more accurately identify any imperfections in meter design so they can produce more durable meters.

Test Technician Benefits: The technician conducting the drop tests will save time through real time data entry and a less labor intensive testing apparatus.

Benefits to Itron Customers: Companies who purchase Itron’s meters will benefit from more rugged meter design and from increased confidence in the meter’s durability.

University of Idaho Capstone Program Benefits: The program will maintain a close working relationship with Itron which may sponsor future capstone design projects.

Team Member Benefits: The team members will have a great opportunity to gain experience working as part of an interdisciplinary design team on a real-world project.

2.3. Investments & Costs:

Investments:

• Financial contribution of the client: $6000

($3000 allotted to project, $3000 to capstone program.)

Costs:

• To be estimated in next phase.

2.4. Return on Investment (ROI):

Itron will receive a reproducible and accurate test method that will give them more credibility with their customers.

3. TEAM FORMATION

Goal: To create a product that exceeds the expectations of Itron and the Capstone Advisors and to learn the design process.

Expectations: We all want to have a good working team relationship with good communication and trust. We want a team where everyone is a valuable contributor to the final design.

Accountability: We will probably use an informal system combining good communication, guilt trips and small financial punishments (i.e. buying pizza etc.).

Roles:

➢ Team Contact: Deatly

➢ Webmaster: Mark Clouse

Assessment: We plan to have a meeting where we devote time specifically to assessment of teamwork after each completed phase of the project.

Rules:

➢ Meet your deadlines

➢ Be open-minded

➢ Give notice to decline or schedule a meeting

4. EXPLORING THE PROJECT

4.1. Client and Stakeholder Interview Questions:

• People:

➢ Q: Who do we deal with? Just Brian or anyone else?

A: Brian Priest and Mark Zurfluh

➢ Q: Who at Itron makes decisions if we have questions?

A: Brian Priest and Mark Zurfluh

➢ Q: Who will use/run the station?

A: Mark Zurfluh

• Need:

➢ Q: What is done now to test? Can you show us?

A: We saw the process (non-repeatable hand dropping)

➢ Q: What are the problems with the current method?

A: It can’t be repeated, it takes up too much space, and data logging is all done by hand.

➢ Q: How often are the tests done?

A: Testing may be done constantly for days on end, or may not be done at all for long periods of time.

➢ Q: What type of data collection do you use now? What do you want? Any Video?

A: Hand recorded, then entered in Excel or Lab View is the current data logging method. Simplified computer entry is preferred. There is currently a rough video capture setup with a tripod and typical handheld digital video camera.

➢ Q: Is the goal to save employee time, or just create a repeatable test?

A: Mainly repeatability is desired, time savings would be a bonus, and taking more time is acceptable if it is not a significant increase.

➢ Q: What/how many shapes and sizes are to be tested?

A: Several sizes are ready now, with “infinite” future possibilities. There is a possibility of PDA size in the future.

➢ Q: Is there anything else you would like to change about the procedure?

A: Nothing specific.

➢ Q: What type of interface do you want?

A: Excel, Lab View: could have GPIB, Ethernet, Serial, Wireless, Bluetooth, 802.11B options.

• Constraints:

➢ Q: What is the available footprint?

A: 4 ft. X 4 ft. max

➢ Q: Is there a location picked out? If so, can we see it?

A: Yes, we saw it.

➢ Q: What is the power source? 110, 220?

A: 110V, 240V, 208V, 460V, Compressed Air, and Vacuum all available.

➢ Q: How much can it weigh?

A: Whatever one person can wheel around.

➢ Q: How mobile should it be?

A: Should be fairly easy for one person to move safely.

➢ Q: Are there noise constraints?

A: Mild concern, but nothing too extreme.

• Functions:

➢ Q: How many meters would you like to test at once?

A: Only one needs to be tested at a time.

➢ Q: Should the station pick up the meter?

A: Would be nice, but not necessary. It shouldn’t automatically do the next drop because the meter needs to be checked between drops.

• Functions Continued:

➢ Q: How much physical setup is acceptable?

A: Some is acceptable.

➢ Q: How often are the meters checked (after how many drops)?

A: Visual inspection and power on check after each drop. RF testing after full cycle.

➢ Q: What are the checks that the meter goes through?

A: Visual inspection, and RF checks.

➢ Q: What data is taken after each drop?

A: Pass/Fail type data. Shock measurement would be nice.

➢ Q: Is each part (table and pincher) supposed to hit all 26 drop points?

A: The two parts must hit all 26 when combined.

➢ Q: What types of surfaces do you drop on, and how is it changed?

A: 2 inch plywood over concrete. The ply is covered with truck bed liner.

➢ Q: How much time would you like a testing cycle (all 26 drops) to take?

A: 30 minutes or so for a cycle that had no problems.

➢ Q: Are multiple meters tested in the same position before switching positions?

A: Not typically.

➢ Q: Why are a table and a pincher necessary?

A: Just to be capable of handling several shapes and sizes.

➢ Q: Should the test eliminate the “post impact tumble”?

A: Would be nice to have both. Tumble is a must if only one is possible.

• Scope:

➢ Q: How much will it be used?

A: Occasionally.

➢ Q: How much can it cost?

A: Team Budget.

➢ Q: Is there a need for multiple stations?

A: Maybe someday, not now.

➢ Q: Does every meter get tested?

A: No, just every model.

• Existing knowledge:

➢ Q: What design ideas do you have for the improved test station?

A: Check out the Toughbook video.

➢ Q: Do you know of similar devices we should look at?

A: Panasonic Toughbook testing system.

➢ Q: Can we see some of the documentation you use?

A: Some info burned to CD.

➢ Q: How long have you been using your current test method?

A: Years.

➢ Q: Do you have an official copy of the MIL STD 81 OF, Method 516.5 Procedure IV that you use in your drop testing?

A: Yes, printed off for us.

• Expectations:

➢ Q: Of the design requirements you’ve cited which are ‘musts’ and which are ‘shoulds’?

A: Must be height adjustable, accurate, repeatable, portable, 18”-48”, one button minimum. Nice to have data communication, impact testing etc.

➢ Q: How often would you like progress updates?

A: Weekly, or Bi-Weekly.

➢ Q: Web page desires?

A: Nothing specific.

➢ Q: Is there anything else we’ve forgotten to address that you can think of?

A: No.

4.2. Research & Learning Needs:

• Technical Knowledge:

➢ Read MIL STD document.

➢ Research other drop testing stations

➢ Learn Lab View Program for data acquisition/control

5. Client Interview

Current Procedure

Testing procedure is done completely manually thereby introducing many opportunities for human error. In a tour of the facilities we were able to view a demonstration of the current procedure which is conducted by having a person hold the test specimen at approximately 48 inches and releasing it in attempt to impact a specific edge. We were able to observe the obvious imprecision of this method as specimen rotation was introduced due to lack of ability to release without causing rotation. Inaccurate drop results are still recorded to avoid dropping the specimen over the prescribed 26 drops. The specimen is tested for functionality after each drop and RF tested after complete drop cycle.

Desired Procedure

The main focus is to design a test fixture that will allow precise, accurate and repeatable drops as specified. Brian hinted towards designing a drop test fixture but does not require that the test will save time or labor. The station will need to be portable and take up the least possible footprint. No exact space limitations are given. Another requirement is that the test fixture is height adjustable from 18 to 60 inches. Some other desires of the client are: high speed video or photography to capture specimen at impact, station for logging observations in real time, other data acquisition including acceleration and force at impact and ease of user controls.

6. Assessment of Phase Zero

6.1 Strengths

Good Questions: We had numerous precise questions that were helpful in obtaining customer needs. Our questions were helpful in making the client interview productive.

Good interview communication: We had good communication and listening skills throughout phase zero. Our communication was the best in organizing and conducting the client interview. This interview will serve to be a solid foundation for future communication throughout the project.

6.2 Improvements

Better organization: During the client interview there were times when we were slightly unorganized. During the beginning of the interview we were supposed to just watch the current testing method being conducted, yet we were asking several questions that should have been saved for the question portion of the interview.

Productivity: We could make our meeting time more productive when we are together. There were times when we met when we weren’t getting any work done. Our team should come into each meeting with a specific set of goals and try to focus on meeting those goals throughout the meeting. We should start using the meeting agenda.

6.3 Insights

Overview of Project: We learned the main goal and specific requirements of the project. Basically we learned why we are even doing this project, which is going to make their drop test more credible.

Project Concept: The concept became clear to us during the interview and we were able to visualize the difference between the pincher and table-top ideas. Once we saw the environment and visualized a basic design, the ideas started coming into our heads.

Criteria Clarification: We were able to develop criteria for the apparatus, which also cleared up a lot of questions we had. One thing we were not sure of was if it was necessary to retain the “post drop tumble” effect, but Brian has cleared this up for us so that we now understand that he wants the tumble to simulate a real life drop. This will play a dominant role in many development ideas.

7. Phase Zero Signoff

Preliminary review/assessment by Capstone Instructor/Technical Advisor: Sept 27th

Approval of final draft by team: Sept 30th

Final review/approval of Capstone Instructor/Technical Advisor: Steve Beyerlein

Team Approval:

Capstone Instructor/Faculty Advisor: Steve Beyerlein

Chris Dux (10-04-2005)

Deatly Butler (10-04-2005)

Mark Clouse (10-04-2005)

Kris Honas (10-04-2005)

Drew Stephens (10-04-2005)

Shaun Scott (10-04-2005)

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download