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?