Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Matthew

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design  Matthew Sheppard October 19 th, 2018 Advisor: Dr. Gregory Mocko Committee: Dr. Georges Fadel; Dr. Scott Mason Department of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Abstract 2/36 2018. 10. 19 Goal: Understand the role of physical and virtual prototyping in product design development Product Development Evaluated: Bore Inspection Rover msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Problem Introduction 3/36 2018. 10. 19 l Customer: Eastman Chemical Company l Need: Ability to analyze deep blind extruder bores l Problem: l – Existing technology is difficult to use at large depths. – Requires manual entry of measurements/manual calculations – Inconsistency in data – Unable to accurately calculate runout Importance: Bores must be analyzed for consistency: – Runout – Circularity – Diameter msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Process Analysis msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar [14] 4/36 2018. 10. 19

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Process Analysis [6] Idea Phase Preliminary Assessment Concept Testing Development Trial Launch msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar 5/36 2018. 10. 19

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Prototyping 6/36 2018. 10. 19 “Prototype” -- approximation of the product along one or more aspects of interest. [14] Virtual l Theoretical l Analytical Physical l Functional – – – l Proof of Concept Complete Product Small Subcomponent Tangible – – Look Feel msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Process Analysis [6] 7/36 2018. 10. 19 Common Denominators of A Successful Product Launch recognition of a technical opportunity a need (market) recognition proficient internal R&D management well-executed venture decisions ample development funds a technical entrepreneur Common Denominators of A Weak Product Launch underestimated competitive strength overestimated number of potential users product's price set too high technical difficulties/deficiencies with product msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Progression of Design msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar 8/36 2018. 10. 19

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Day In the Life l Introductions to Team l Role Familiarity l Establishment of Communication l Identification of Needs l Identification of Equipment msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar 9/36 2018. 10. 19

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design 10/36 2018. 10. 19 Available Equipment Romer Absolute Arm 7 -Axis [4] Romer Compact Arm [4] Manual Bore Gage msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar Faro Quantum Arm [1] Faro Ion Tracker [8]

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Extruder Bore Example 11/36 2018. 10. 19 Dia. (mm) Depth (cm) 39. 69 96. 52 47. 63 132. 08 92. 08 327. 66 msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design l l Current Technology 12/36 2018. 10. 19 Manual Bore Gauge FARO Ion Laser Tracker Extension Rods Bore Gauge Measuring Tip Digital Output msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar Printer Photo Credit: Matthew Sheppard

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design l l Current Technology 13/36 2018. 10. 19 Manual Bore Gauge FARO Ion Laser Tracker Tip Style Measurement Range (cm) Fine 0. 7 -1. 4" Medium 1. 4 -2. 4" Standard 2. 4 -12. 4" msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar Photo Credit: Matthew Sheppard

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design l l Current Technology 14/36 2018. 10. 19 Manual Bore Gauge FARO Ion Laser Tracker Y Z X Photo Credit: [8] msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design FARO Laser Tracker Balls Diameter 0. 500” 0. 875” 1. 500” 15/36 2018. 10. 19 Mass 5. 9 grams 28. 9 grams 144. 9 grams Photo Credit: Matthew Sheppard msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Dia/Leng. Current Process Matrix 0. 7 -1. 4" 1. 4 -2. 4" 2. 4 -6" 6 -12. 4" 16/36 2018. 10. 19 12. 4 -24" 0 -6" 6 -12" Faro w/ Magnet 12 -18" Faro 18 -36" Manual--S Tip 36 -60" 60 -96" Manual--M Tip Manual--LG Tip 96 -144" 144 -200" msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar Faro w/ Magnet

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design l Challenges and Opportunities 17/36 2018. 10. 19 Manual gauge is operator-dependent – – Accuracy is often lost because manual bore gauge is difficult to control at a depth of several feet Manual gauge requires quite a few interconnected pieces: l Gauge, Extensions, Display box, Printer, Foot Pedal, AC Power – – Gauge probe catches in bore crevices Measurements must be written and uploaded manually msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Challenges and Opportunities 18/36 2018. 10. 19 Eliminate: manual readings l Reduce: analysis time l bore entries by half number/weight of equipment necessary to travel with l Create: simple, repeatable, accurate process msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Benchmarks 19/36 2018. 10. 19 [16] [9] [10] msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar [15]

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Specification Chart msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar 20/36 2018. 10. 19

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design l Ideation Process 21/36 2018. 10. 19 Possible Opportunities: – Manual measuring device that travels in/out of bore l l – Capable of calculating how far it has traveled into the bore Outputs measurements electronically Rover that carries FARO ball and simply positions it for ION Tracker l l ION knows how far the rover has traveled ION can electronically manage readings msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design First Iteration Prototype 22/36 2018. 10. 19 Features: l l Based on Pipe Rover Micro controlled Spring-Loaded Legs Onboard Power Pitfalls: l l l Slip Ring Reliability Complexity Legs Demonstrated Snag Risk msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar [13]

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Second Iteration Prototype Features: l l l l Glides on Bore Overlap Adafruit Trinket Controller Stepper to Place Ball Motor Driver 5 v System High-RPM Drive Motor Li-Ion Batteries Pitfalls: l l Ball Placement Complexity Drive Motor Configuration Connection Ports on Microcontroller Too Few Remote Buttons msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar 23/36 2018. 10. 19

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Second Iteration Prototype 24/36 2018. 10. 19 Components: [2] [3] msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar [12]

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Third Iteration Prototype Features: l l Spring-Loaded Ball Placement Battery Cavity (AAA) Motors with Brass Gearbox Adafruit Trinket Pro Pitfalls: l l l Short Top Glide Small Wheel Axles Programming Trouble Semi-Hollow Body Stepper Programming msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar 25/36 2018. 10. 19

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Fourth Iteration Prototype Features: l l Longer Top Glide External Power via Cable Pitfalls: l l Top Glide Fitment Ball Placement Fitment msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar 26/36 2018. 10. 19

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Fifth Iteration Prototype Features: l l l Bottom Glide Rail Rubberized Printed Wheels Magnetic Ball Placement Pitfalls: l l Top Glide Fitment Rubbing in Small Bore Bulky Ball Placement Programming Issues – – Drive Motor Driver Stepper Compatibility msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar 27/36 2018. 10. 19

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Sixth Iteration Prototype Features: l l l Friction-Reduction Edges Servo Ball Placement Modular Components – – – Battery Cage Spring Strut Spring Coil Glide msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar 28/36 2018. 10. 19

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Sixth Iteration Prototype Components: msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar 29/36 2018. 10. 19

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Testing and Validation Sample Bore Diameter: 40. 19 mm Diameter of Smallest Bore in Use: 39. 69 mm msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar 30/36 2018. 10. 19

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Lessons Learned Cross-Collaborate Involve Experts Order Parts Early and Often Prototype Subsystems in Parallel Simplicity Allows for Refinement Virtual Prototyping Reduces Total Time Rapid Prototype for Every Virtual Prototype msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar 31/36 2018. 10. 19

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design l – Fundamentally different models that obtain the same goal can be prototyped [18] Parameters such as size can be reduced to optimize prototyping process [23] Subsystem Isolation – l Iterative Design improves outcome [19] [20] Simple design leads to higher quantity of iterations [21] Scaling – l 32/36 2018. 10. 19 Parallel Concepts – l [7] Iteration – l Other Design Optimizing Methods Subsystems can be optimized independently before the whole system is modeled [21] Requirement Relaxation – Certain parameters can be eliminated in prototyping phase [17] msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design l Current Process: – – – l Complete Measurement Process Cleaning Set-up Measurement/Data Collection Sheet Switch Bore Side & Repeat Pack Up Computer Processing Future Process: – – Cleaning Set-up Measurement/Data Collection Pack Up msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar 33/36 2018. 10. 19

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Project Deliverables Deliverable Metrics: l Usage – – Three extruder bores are measured twice annually. 10 -12 more are checked as-needed ( ~ every other year) l Time Savings l ~ 1 hour per reading l Hidden Savings – – Improved Accuracy Less supplies to travel with Extension to other applications Reduction in process downtime msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar 34/36 2018. 10. 19

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Links to Images 35/36 2018. 10. 19 [1] “FARO PLATINUM, TITANIUM AND QUANTUM ARM, ” Manchester Metrology Ltd, 2018. [Online]. Available: http: //manchester-metrology. co. uk/knowledge-base/faroplatinum-titanium-quantum-arm/. [2] “SIMPLE RF M 4 RECEIVER - 315 MHZ MOMENTARY TYPE, ” Adafruit, 2017. [3] “KEYFOB 4 -BUTTON RF REMOTE CONTROL - 315 MHZ, ” Adafruit, 2017. [Online]. Available: https: //www. adafruit. com/product/1095. [4] “Romer Absolute Arm Top Features, ” Hexag. Manuf. Intell. , 2015. [5] a. Vandevelde, R. Dierdonck, and B. Clarysse, “The role of physical prototyping in the product development process, ” Vlerick Leuven Gent Manag. Sch. Work. Pap. Ser. , no. January 2001, 2001. [6] R. G. Cooper, “A process model for industrial new product development, ” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. , vol. EM-30, no. 1, pp. 2– 11, 1983. [7] B. Dunlap, E. D. K. Street, C. Hamon, E. D. K. Street, M. Green, and D. Jensen, “A Systematic Method for Design Prototyping, ” vol. 137, pp. 111– 128, 2011. [8] “TIGHTER TOLERANCES FOR TUNNEL LONGEVITY, ” FARO Technologies, 2018. [Online]. Available: https: //www. faro. com/en-gb/case-studies/tighter-tolerances-fortunnel-longevity/. [9] “Request: Cad model of pipeline inspection robot/crawler, ” Grab. CAD, 2015. [Online]. Available: https: //grabcad. com/library/request-cad-model-of-pipeline-inspectionrobot-crawler-1. [10] “Pipe Vision System, ” Carnegie Mellon University, 2017. [Online]. Available: https: //www. rec. ri. cmu. edu/solutions/energy/pipe-vision-system. html. [11] “NMB PERMANENT MAGNET (PM) STEP MOTORS, ” NMB Technol. Corp. , 2017. [12] “ADAFRUIT PRO TRINKET - 5 V 16 MHZ, ” Adafruit, 2018. [Online]. Available: https: //www. adafruit. com/product/2000. [13] “Gee. Bat Mini Capsule Electrical Slip Ring, ” Amazon. com, 2018. [Online]. Available: https: //www. amazon. com/Gee. Bat-Capsule-Electrical-CIRCUITSx 2 Amonitor/dp/B 01 N 2 GO 9 ZR/ref=pd_cp_23_1? _encoding=UTF 8&psc=1&ref. RID=PAB 6 RX 58 CJXZTFVNV 8 X 2&dp. ID=41%252 BIRX 7 DB 0 L&pre. ST=_SY 300_QL 70_&dp. Src=detail. [14] and S. D. E. Ulrich, Karl T. , Product design and development , 1 st Editio. New York: Mcgraw-Hill, 1995. [15] “Fun With Basic Robot, ” Basic. Robot, 2009. [Online]. Available: http: //basicrobot. blogspot. com/2009/03/pipe-inspection-robot-4. html. [16] R. Smith, “Robotic Crawlers: The Smart Approach to Pipeline Integrity Management, ” Innova Magazine, 2017. [17] S. H. Thomke and D. E. Bell, “Sequential Testing in Product Development, ” Manag. Sci, no. 47(2), pp. 308– 323, 2001. [18] M. Badri, A. Mortagy, D. Davis, and D. Davis, “Effective Analysis and Planning of R&D Stages: A Simulation Approach, ” no. Int. J. Project Manage. , 15(6), pp. 351– 358, 1997. [19] S. P. Dow, K. Heddleston, and S. R. Klemmer, “The Efficacy of Prototyping Under Time Constraints, ” Des. Think. Understand—Improve— Apply, Underst. Innov. , pp. 111– 128, 2011. [20] V. K. Viswanathan and J. Linsey, “Design Fixation in Physical Modeling: An Investigation on the Role of Sunk Cost, ” no. ASME Paper No. DETC 2011 -47862, 2011. [21] J. Drezner and M. Huang, “On Prototyping: Lessons from RAND Research, RAND Corporation, ” 2009. [22] R. Smith, “Robotic Crawlers: The Smart Approach to Pipeline Integrity Management, ” Innova Magazine, 2017. [23] E. Christie et al. , “Prototyping Strategies: Literature Review and Identification of Critical Variables, ” 2012. msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar

Physical and Virtual Prototyping in Product Design Thank You For Your Attention Questions ? msheppa@g. clemson. edu http: //www. clemson. edu/ces/cedar 36/36 2018. 10. 19