Thursday 29 April 2010

Final Conclusions:

Following discussion and observation of the other presentations, the following points were brought forth for future consideration when conducting a similar project.

- Much of the research, analysis and development of our design provided a sound basis for our tender proposal.
- However, following our presentation of the proposal it was evident that certain elements had not been fully developed.
  • Our costings did not take labour, production and profit margins into account, and as a  result were incomplete leading to a misleading quote for the price of our crane.
  •  In retrospect the crane, although fulfilling the brief, could have been more ingenious in solution, unfortunatly the analysis of some of the more complex designs initially left us confused, and contained many mistakes, so the simplest option was seen as the most logical choice as it could be pursued to its full potential. 
-  On a positive note, the group did work well together, the group members worked to their strengths with romi and andy focussing on the basic design and stress analysis elements of the process, allowing the other group members to complete separate tasks such as further research to assist the analyses and solve problems encountered as we went along.
- The schedule was kept on top of with regular meetings, and individual taskings, ensuring that the project at no point fell behind its originally planned timescale.

A. Compton.
J. Collins.

Conclusion

The actual crane design was good but the beams that were going to be used did not have standard dimensions. This made it difficult to get an accurate costing of the beams and would have meant a factory would not have been needed to manufacture the customised beam designs. The use of actuators for the sidebars would help the crossbar to move horizontally but not much tought was given as to how they were going to be fixed to the beams. Overall the basic design of the crane was good but there was not enogh time to think about the more detailed parts of the crane such as the pins and screws.

Tuesday 27 April 2010

New Crossbar Design

The new crossbar has a triangular face with a base of 125mm and a height of 90mm

nb. it should be 5mm thick

Minutes: 27/04/2010

Tasks achieved:
Stress Analysis completed for final design. (R. Dhillon & A. Daniels)
CAD Modelling of Crane complete, engineering drawings, animations and rendered images were also produced for insertion into the presentation. (J. Collins)
Tender Presentation almost complete, awaiting financial analysis, tasked to A. Dhillon, other constituent parts have all been given to A. Compton for compilation. (A. Compton)


Tasks identified:
Final Presentation Group Rehearsal
Conclusions/Final Analysis of project from group members?

Attendees:

J. Collins
A. Daniels
A. Compton
R. Dhillon

Future Meetings:
Final tender presentation - 10am - Rm 568

CAD

Close up of the end of the crane, showing detail of position of pins, beam end caps and telescopic legs.



Crane with legs collapsed



Crane with legs extended



Short video showing an animation of the components of the crane being exploded.

Monday 26 April 2010

New Leg Design

During the stress analysis we didn't realise how thin the walls were in the crane legs at just 1mm so a new design was made. The walls are now 10mm thick so during the new stress analysis a larger second moment of area was calculated.

I = 1.0479e-6 m^4
P(critical) = 55,862N
mass = 7.53kg

Project Schedule

  • Initial Group Meeting Tues 09.03.10 - 10.30am
  • Project Meeting [loft] 11.03.10 - 1pm
  • Project Meeting [loft] 16.03.10 - 10am
  • Project Meeting [loft] 18.03.10 - 10am
  • Project Meeting [loft] 22.03.10 - 10am
  • Project Meeting [loft] 25.03.10 - 1pm
  • Project Meeting [loft] 19.04.10 - 10am
  • Project Meeting [loft] 22.04.10 - 1pm
  • Tender Proposal Due - 23.04.10
  • Project Meeting [loft] 26.04.10 - 9.00am
  • Project Meeting [loft] 28.04.10 - 08.00am
  • Tender Presentation [mb 568] 28.04.10 - 10am
  • Group Blog Deadline - 28.04.10 - 23.59