Q1: /n Task Sheet 1 Role/Responsibility Matrix (in the case of 4 students) No. Student Name 1 Student ID Task Sheet No. 2b, 2c, 3 Role/Responsibility (person assigned with role takes the lead) • • Identifying environmental/usage conditions Identifying reliability requirements and goal Benchmarking Swansea University Prifysgol Abertawe Skills needed Researching - Data collection/analysis - Systematic analysis 2 4,5,6 • 3 7a, 7b • 4 8, 9a, 9b LO 5 NA NA 2a, 10 • (Group task) (Group task) • • • QFD Programme risk assessment HAZOPS Block Diagram Analysis (BDA) Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) • FMEA Load (stress) - Strength Analysis - Calculation - Systematic assessments (quantitative/qualitative) - Data analysis - Calculation - Systematic assessment - Systematic assessment - Calculation & analysis Failure Classification, degree and causes of failures of the current design - Critical evaluation - Material selection • Design (propose at least one improved design) - Conceptualisation - Sketch, drafting and design Task Sheet 2a Failure classification, degree and causes of failures *If necessary, add/delete the number of rows and pages for references No.* 1 2 3 4 LO CO 6 Name of Unit(s) 7 80 Failure classification (system/component) Degree of failure (complete/partial) Causes of failure Swansea University Prifysgol Abertawe Remarks (e.g. references) Task Sheet 2b Identifying environmental/usage conditions *If necessary, add/delete the number of rows and pages for references No.* 1 2 3 4 5 CO 6 7 8 Name of Unit(s) Swansea University Prifysgol Abertawe Environmental condition Usage condition Task Sheet 2c Identifying reliability requirements and goal *If necessary, add/delete the number of rows and pages for references No.* Name of Unit(s) Reliability requirements (e.g. in terms of design, installation, maintenance, operation and test) Swansea University Prifysgol Abertawe Other requirements (e.g. performance, size, shape, mass, cost, manufacturing, standards, government regulations, IP requirements, sustainability, etc.) Goal (% reliability improvement) 1 2 3 4 LO 5 CO 6 7 8 Task Sheet 3 Benchmarking *If necessary, add/delete the number of rows and/or columns, and pages for references Company/Competitor*| Performance Characteristics* Swansea University Prifysgol Abertawe 'Our Company' Competitor 1 Competitor 2 Competitor 3 Competitor 4 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( Competitor 5 )/n EG-M36: Systems Monitoring, Control, Reliability, Survivability, Integrity and Maintenance Assignment 2023-24 (Design for Reliability exercise) [Introduction] By default, the completed assignment must be prepared and submitted by the group (4-5 students per group) [Assessment] The assignment will be assessed in total of 20 marks: • - Completed task sheets (individual effort) Understanding the concept: 4 marks 10 marks Relevance and accuracy: 3 marks Presentation (text, images, drawings, etc.): 3 marks Completed task sheets (group effort) 10 marks - Critical evaluation of the current design: 2 marks Improved design(s): 8 marks TOTAL 20 marks [Assignment Description] It is an opportunity for students to build and enhance their ability to apply practical reliability engineering techniques learnt throughout the lectures with examples. The assignment activity is centred around the Design for Reliability (DFR) especially the first two steps: - Identify (reliability requirements, environmental usage conditions, benchmarking, Quality Function Deployment (QFD), risk assessment); and Design (design activities, reliability predictions, Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), Block Diagram Analysis (BDA), Failure Modes and Effect Analysis (FMEA), load (stress) – strength analysis, Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOPS)) EG-M36 Assignment 2023-24 Page 1 It is also important to pay particular attention on Reliability of Systems (covered in the Lectures 5 and 6), i.e. the 'Key Concepts' wherever relevant and applicable. Some of the items may overlap with the DFR steps: (a) Element/component selection (b) Stress-strength relation (c) Environment (d) Minimum complexity (e) Redundancy (f) Diversity (g) System reliability [DFR Objective and Scope] Examine the chosen product/system in view of quality & reliability engineering. The main objective and scope of this DFR exercise are to improve the unit's reliability to an optimum level, i.e. at least to the area of 'intrinsically reliable region', whilst improving or maintaining its system reliability (as defined in the supplementary document). Wherever relevant and applicable, provide reasonable assumptions for calculating the system reliability and/or unreliability. Bear in mind that the improved design(s) should consider the aspects on: Cost of reliability (e.g. achieving the optimum balance between 'initial cost' and 'post implementation cost'), and recall that Quality = fitness for use. Quality and reliability in production (e.g. reducing the manufacturing cost components in view of the variability in quality of bought-in materials and components, or the variability of the production process). [Product/System] 1. Smartphone shell Smartphone shell tends to fail e.g. permanent crack and fracture, after the sudden impact loading (see supplementary document for details). 2. Car braking system Typical braking system comprises of disc, disc pads, wheel bearing, alloy wheel & tyre, wheel studs and caliper assembly. The rotor disc in particular needs to be redesigned in order to improve its reliability (see supplementary document for details). 3. Marine propulsion system Propeller needs to be redesigned in order to reduce its manufacturing cost while retaining its high reliability (see supplementary document for details). 4. Wind turbine system Wind turbine system comprises of foundation, tower, nacelle (drive-train), rotor blade, hub and transformer. Rotor blade needs to be redesigned in order to improve its reliability (see supplementary document for details). [Requirements] Each of the group is required to provide the following completed Task Sheets: (Electronic copy of the task sheet template in PPT is available via Canvas site) EG-M36 Assignment 2023-24 Page 2 Task Sheet 1) Role/Responsibility Matrix Task Sheet 2) 2a) Failure classification, degree and causes of failure 2b) Identifying environmental/usage conditions 2c) Identifying reliability requirements and goal Task Sheet 3) Benchmarking Task Sheet 4) QFD (if Excel template is used, then submit the Excel file instead) Task Sheet 5) Programme Risk Assessment Task Sheet 6) HAZOPS Task Sheet 7) 7a) BDA and FTA (current design) 7b) BDA and FTA (improved design) Task Sheet 8) FMEA Task Sheet 9) - 9a) Load (stress) – Strength Analysis (SM and LR calculations) - 9b) Load (stress) – Strength Analysis (current design vs improved design) Task Sheet 10) Design (if SolidWorks modelling/drafting is used, then utilise the SolidWorks template and submit the drawing(s) in PDF) Please be reminded of the University's regulations for Plagiarism/Collusion/Academic Misconduct. Penalties will apply. Note: Late submission will receive zero marks EG-M36 Assignment 2023-24 Page 3 [Marking Scheme - DFR] Criteria Completed task sheets (Individual effort) i) Understanding the concept 0-10% (Poor) Individual failed to understand the DFR. Incomplete task sheet(s). 20-30% (Deficient) Clear deficiency in understanding DFR and steps involved to evaluate the design, propose changes and estimate quality/reliability levels. ii) Relevance and accuracy Info inaccurate and irrelevant to DFR. Some info provided but clear deficiency in completing the task iii) Presentation (text, images, drawings) (Group effort) i) Critical evaluation of the current design Poorly presented. No images, drawings or references to support the text. Missing. No evidence of any group effort. ii) Improved design Missing. No evidence of any group effort. 40% (Mediocre) 50% (Adequate) Minimal understanding on Adequate understanding DFR. Mediocre effort in completing the task sheet(s). Misses important details. Minimal effort in carrying out the task sheet(s). Inappropriate execution of sheet(s) with relevant DFR DFR steps to evaluate the steps. Badly presented. Disorganised task sheets. No references. Clear lack of preparation. Group has failed to critically evaluate the current design in view of quality and reliability engineering. Group has failed to show understanding of DFR. Improvements are not derived from or linked to the outcomes of DFR steps. quality/reliability. Inconsistency between the task sheet(s). Minimal effort in carrying out the DFR steps. Written text at times incorrect or unclear. Some structure but improvements possible. Minimal effort in evaluating the current design as a group. Task sheet not fully completed. Misses some important points on failure classification, degree of failure, and causes of failure. Minimal effort in producing the improved design as a group. Limited understanding of DFR. Misses some important points on cost of reliability and/or quality and reliability in production. on DFR. Moderate amount of effort shown to complete the task sheet(s). Adequate relevance and accuracy presented in the task sheet(s). Evidence of some inconsistencies between the task sheet(s). 60% (Competent) Good understanding on DFR. Most of the main points, assumptions or details have been covered in the task sheet(s) but improvements possible. Good effort. Appropriate execution of DFR steps to evaluate the quality/reliability. Only occasional lapses in providing relevant and accurate information. Adequate effort in carrying Good effort. Clear out the DFR steps. images/drawings and Reasonable structure. Text accurate text with or images/drawings unclear at times. Most of the main parts have been evaulated and covered but improvements possible. Adequate effort shown to identify the critical area(s) for improvement. references. Only occasional mistake, ambiguity or inconsistencies. Clear evidence of critically evaluating the current design, covering all the parts with respect to failure classification, degree of failure and causes of failure. Clear logical steps taken to identify the critical area(s) for improvement. Most of the main points or Clear evidence of concepts have been covered but improvements possible. Adequate effort shown to come up with the improved design(s). understanding of DFR reflected in the improved design, incl. justification on cost of reliability, quality and reliability in production. Clear logical steps taken to achieve the objective. 70-80% (Very Good) Very good understanding on DFR. Clear evidence that the task sheet(s) contain systematic quality/reliability analysis and evaluation. Very good effort and consistency shown throughout. Some minor mistakes or errors in stating the assumptions and/or providing calculations. 90-100% (Excellent) Excellent understanding on DFR and steps involved to evaluate the design, propose changes and estimate quality/reliability levels. Excellent effort and consistency shown throughout. Faultless execution of DFR steps to complete all the task sheet(s) with relevance and accuracy. Very good effort. Clear and Excellent effort. logical descriptions in light Professional use of text of DFR concepts. Very well written and structured. Some minor mistakes or typos. Very good group effort. Professional standard in writing and presenting the info. Clear evidence that the possible/potential failure(s) are all covered and correctly evaluated with extra effort to provide additional info. Very good group effort. Professional standard. Clear evidence that the improved design illustrates the relevant DFR steps (identify and design), and covers the aspects on cost of reliability, quality and reliability in production. writing, high quality images/drawings and well structured presentation. No improvement possible. Excellent group effort. Clear understanding and demonstration of quality and reliability engineering fundamentals. Group has gone extra mile to research and critically evaluate the current design. Faultless. Excellent group effort. Clear understanding and demonstration of DFR steps (identify and design). Integrated approach that fully covers the aspects on cost of reliablity, quality and reliability in production. Faultless. TOTAL Mark /4 /2 8 /20 EG-M36 Assignment 2023-24 Page 4 Rev. Location(s) NA ?? First release (23-Feb-2024) End of document EG-M36 Assignment 2023-24 Change Record Change Description(s) of Change Code ?? NA Page 5See Answer
READ MORE >>
