P19605 Gate Reviews

Your team will hold a gate review with your guide at the end of each semester. This page should document any information needed for the review, as well as outcomes.

(note that the links are not yet live, and will eventually be file attachments to the wiki page)

MSD I: Readiness to Move to Build & Test

Self Evaluation Results:

Status Review

Requirements: 

• No change. See Detailed Design Review Page for updated customer and engineering requirement documentation. 

Customer Requirements Table:

Engineering Requirements Table:

Action Items from Detailed Design Review:

Verification/Validation Plans for Subassemblies:

• LTS subassembly validation test 
• Strain gauge application/validation
• Motor Failure Verification
• Pump testing in torsion tester 
• Angular encoder
  
  

Updated Purchasing Status:

• Blue items have been ordered
• We currently have Green Items
• Yellow Items still require further inspection to determine if they are necessary.
•  Red items are free or no longer need to be ordered
• Unhighlighted items will be purchased after the summer break. They are short lead time items that are not high priority. 
  
  

Risk Assessment

• Link to DDR risk assessment table. No change since DDR. 

MSD II: Project Close-out

Status Review

Current State of the Project

Performance vs. Requirements

• Testing Summary:
  
  • Unmet/not completed requirements were deemed unnecessary via consultation with customer throughout the testing process. P4 deemed not necessary as it is an intermediate step to determining power efficiency, P2. 
  • P6 was met, but in a less than ideal way. Torsional stiffness was experimentally determined, just not including the fluid system. 
  • Primary test plans of pumping potential and power efficiency were determined and satisfied via customer approval. 
    
    
• Robustness of Design:
  • Final Design of test facility is very robust. No expected wear, easily adjustable to changes in pump length, etc. Pumps were always considered a finite, wearable item, however, one pump tested last over 500+ cycles, much beyond the expected lifecycle. 
  • Project met final budget, with approximately $200 unspent. 
  • Customer was extremely satisfied with the final work and results delivered. The scope of this project, by the customer's own voicing, was extremely large, including pump design and manufacturing as well as integration into a complex test facility. All target for compliant body pumps for testing were based on intuition, so have real results to quantify analytical research was extremely satisfying to the customer. 
• Comparison of Scheduling:
  
  • Project scope did not change in MSDII. Clarification of testing requirements changed once customer was able to visualize test facility and testing potential. I.e. some previous ER's were just intermediate steps to completing the main ER. 
  • MSDII schedule was purposely design by the project manager to be extremely aggressive. Knowing the scope of the project and parts required to be manufactured, tested, and integrated into the electrical system, schedule was designed with all of Phase 4 to be for testing and troubleshooting. Schedule changed in the specific day-to-day often as a result of things taking more or less time than expected, however the major milestones of delivery and finishing parts, or completing testing did not often change as the group knew they must be completed on time to ensure the project got finished. 
  • Major takeaway: schedule things aggressively so when unexpected challenges arise, you have time to fix them. Trust the schedule, even if very aggressive, because during last few weeks, when things are going wrong, at least you have scheduled time to fix it! 
    
    

Team Self Assessment

• Team worked extremely well together. 
• All team members upheld all norms and no issues with team behavior was every present beyond engineering discussion and decision making. 
• All team members made significant contributions to the completion of this project. 
• Communication amongst the team was early, often, and in good spirits. 
• Everyone was willing to devote all the time needed to complete what the project required. 

All team members contributed significantly. Here is a breakdown of major contributions. 

• Elijah: Leadership, scheduling, design, analysis, manufacturing, testing, documentation, problem-solving, troubleshooting. 
• Zach: Testing, documentation, manufacturing, assembly, troubleshooting, system integration.
• Chris: Design, manufacturing, testing, troubleshooting, problem solving, analysis, documentation, drawing package. 
• Joe: Testing, design, manufacturing, analysis, prototyping, documentation, presentations, customer communication.
• Doug: Electronics, circuits, controls, system integration, coding, electrical assembly, schematics, purchasing.

Risk Assessment: 

• All risks addressed and communicated to customer. 
  
  

Deliverables Checklist and Website Status

• Website complete,. 
• Deliverables handed off to customer
• Completing final clean-up of space. 

Future Work

• Create tooling for the winding of several chambers and have several (4+) wound chambers ready to be utilized for testing. 
  • Pump chambers wear and can become leaky after several repeated cycles. Multiple chambers would reduce testing time, not having to rely on 24+ hours for remanufacture of an additional chamber for testing. 
• Integration of torque measurement sensor/method on the designed test facility. 
  • Generate "wet" data for pump torsional stiffness.
  • Could test at various operational frequencies.
• Shim protocol to reduce excess vertical translation of PIG. 

Lessons Learned, etc.