P10511: Miniaturization of Xerography
description
Transcript of P10511: Miniaturization of Xerography
P10511: Miniaturization of Xerography
Derek Meinke (ME, PM)Matthew Liff (ME)
Tony Zhang (EE)Zaw Htoo (ISE)
Customer Requirements Pareto
Allow an
y charg
e devi
ce co
nfig
Easily
chan
geable c
omponents
Allow differe
nt diel
ectric
thick
nesses
Voltage
read
ing acro
ss en
tire dru
m length
Parallel
ESV ax
is with
photorecep
tor
Easy t
o use data
acquisiti
on men
u
Repea
tabilit
y
Data fo
r both al
uminum substr
ate an
d prod. PR
Uniform
pre-ch
arge e
rase
Accurat
e drum sp
eed co
ntrol
Proper
safety
mea
sures
Alignmen
t of c
harger
with photorec
eptor
Accept m
ultiple photorec
eptor d
iamete
rs
Below ta
rget b
udget
Genera
te minim
al ozo
ne0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Weight
Engineering Metrics Pareto
Charger
Gap (1
-2mm)
Surfa
ce Charg
e (-300 to
-800V)
Budget ($
2k)
Drum Size
(24-84mm)
Surfa
ce Sp
eed (≤
1m/s)
Charger
Type (
BCR or Sco
rotron)
Dielectr
ic Thick
ness (~
25µm)
Uniform
Erase
Charge (
-100V)
ESV dista
nce (1-2mm)
Voltage
Input (5
-8kV)
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
Weight
Risk Assessment Pareto
Difficu
lt to ap
ply/iso
late g
round to
photorecep
tor
Hard to
chan
ge co
mponents
Input volta
ge differs
from output v
oltage
Lack o
f Labvie
w skills
et
Length
y lead
time
Deflecti
on occurs
on motor m
ounts due t
o weight
Difficu
lt to opera
te tes
t fixtu
re
ESV/Er
ase La
mp/Charg
er ga
p and al
ignmen
t pro
blems
Faulty
equipmen
t
Subco
mponents a
re inco
mpatible
Inaccurat
e ran
ge of v
oltage
uniform
ity
Inaccurat
e Volta
ge In
tercep
t
Input motor s
peed differs
from output sp
eed
Photorecep
tor miss
es flan
ge on en
dcaps
Tight ti
me constr
aint
Customer
prioriti
es/nee
ds chan
ge
Human er
ror in ca
lculati
on
Not enough
budget
Responsiv
eness
of facu
lty gu
ide
Team m
ember
illness
/absen
t
Photorecep
tor slip
s on en
dcaps
Unsafe fi
xture
-1.00%
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%
8.00%
Weight
Link to Risk Assessment Table rev2
EE Wiring Schematic
Detailed Design Iso
Detailed Design Iso
• Almost all parts are the same thickness for feasibility of manufacture (10mm).
• Vertical components will be mounted onto an aluminum jig plate.
• Vertical components will be supported with L-brackets or gussets.
Detailed Design Charger
Detailed Design Charger
• Interference with charger or charger mount components with photoreceptor end caps.
• Charger wires binding with mount components when sliding for alignment.
• Sliding placement with gapping blocks.
Detailed Design Motor
Detailed Design Motor
• Moment created from heavy photoreceptor motor.
• Interference from photoreceptor motor cradle with smaller ESV motor underneath.
• Collars for photoreceptor motor to shaft and ESV motor to lead screw.
Detailed Design Photoreceptor
Detailed Design Photoreceptor
• Spring selection for correct compression to eliminate slippage.
• Bearing selection
• Angle of V-flanges on endcaps.
• Notch in shaft, notch in endcap, key insert for driven side.
Detailed Design Erase
Detailed Design Erase
• Thin metal bar to support erase light.
• Bend for no interference with endcaps.
• Notches for discrete placement (~1 inch gap).
Detailed Design ESV
Detailed Design ESV
• Bearing selection.
• ESV mount guide design (delrin or aluminum?).
• Lead screw, re-use current part.
BOM
• EE BOM presented at systems design review• ME BOM
– Jig plate– L-Brackets– 10mm thick steel– Bearings– Motor coupler– Delrin/aluminum– Graphite brush
LabVIEW State Diagram
Deliverable (weight) Score in Week (#)
Max. Score Score* Excellent/Very Good Good/Acceptable Barely acceptable Unacceptable Comments, Target,
Date Completed
Bill of Materials (9) 3 BOM is complete, and long lead time items and
vendors have been identified.(3 points)
BOM is partly complete - some specifics still remain to be defined.(1-2 points)
BOM is imcomplete, most items not specified.
(0 points)
Detailed Design
Drawings/Schematics (9) 5 All drawings for parts to be manufactured are
complete, assembly drawings demonstrate that system assembly is feasible.
(5 points)
Most drawings or schematics are complete, assembly drawings are
nearly done.(3-4 points)
Some drawings are complete, others are not done or require modification.(1-2 points)
Few, if any, drawings or schematics exist beyond hand sketches or concept drawings.
(0 points)
Feasibility Analysis (9) 7Significant analysis has been done to
demonstrate feasibility of all systems/components. Appropriate links to the risk
assessment activity are complete.(6-7 points)
Most design features have convincing support, some require further work. Link to risk assessment partly complete.(4-5 points)
Many design features require further analysis to demonstrate feasibility.
(2-3 points)
Little analysis has been done to demonstrate feasibility.
(0 points)
Risk Assessment and actions to minimize risks - Detailed Design phase
(9) 3 As detailed design phase has progressed, the initial list of risks has been reviewed and updated. Actions that could be taken to minimize risks have been taken and documented.(3 points)
Plans are in-place for to monitor and take action on most of the key risks the plans and analyses are missing some key elements.
(1-2 points)
Plans are not in place to reassess and minimize the
impacts of risk.(0 points)
Knowledge & understanding of design (9) 7
Thorough and in-depth understanding is evident of the design (system & relevant subsystems) and
rationale for design decisions and tradeoffs.(6-7 points)
Good understanding is evident of the design and rationale for most design decisions and tradeoffs.(4-5 points)
General comprehension of the design is evident but rationale for decisions is not
solid and tradeoffs are not well understood.(2-3 points)
Superficial understanding of the design is evident at either the system or subsystem level. Rationale for specific design
decisions and tradeoffs is poorly understood, if at all.
(0 points)
Detailed Design
Plan to meet Customer Needs/Engineering Specifications including a Preliminary Test Plan
(9) 7
Sufficient evidence is presented to demonstrate that customer needs and design specs will be
met. This includes development and documentation of a preliminary test plan using the
suggested format(6-7 points)
Team demonstrated that most customer needs and design specs
will be met. Test plan has been developed but could be more
specific(4-5 points)
Team demonstrated that some needs and specs will be met, but others require significant further analysis.(2-3 points)
Many questions remain as to whether needs and specs will be met. There is no test plan
(0 points)
Detailed Design Review execution (9) 5Design Review was very well planned and executed with appropriate attendees. All
subsystems discussed, key issues addressed, notes and action items documented.
(5 points)
Design Review execution was acceptable but was weak in one or more areas: breadth of participants, preparation, thoroughness, or documentation.
(1-4 points)
Design Review was not held or was poorly executed: key
subsystems were not reviewed, key issues were not addressed,
little/no preparation or documentation.
(0 points)
Detailed Design Review represents37% of your MSD 1 Grade
37
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Action Items = Busy Week
• Obtain wireless PCI card from John Wellin.• Make computer functional for LabVIEW code.• Further follow-up with Rob Kraynik on concept
feasibility.• Finish CAD parts: ESV guide, PR shaft key, motor
shaft collars.• Create part drawings.• Create ME Bill of Materials.• Further review Risk Assessment.
Questions?