Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

3/2/2012

TEAM DOZEN

PHASE II HOVERCRAFT DESIGN REPORT

Daryn Freier, Team Leader

Phillip Pearson, Technical Secretary

Dr. Paul E. Labossiere MECH 2012

Steve Thomasson, Design Lead

Kirk Calvadores, Research and Development

Page |1
Clint Kaminshi, Materials Specialist

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

Table of Contents
Table of Figures .............................................................................................................................................................3 1.0 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................4 1.1 Background..........................................................................................................................................................5 2.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................6 2.1 Purpose Statement ..............................................................................................................................................6 2.2 Problem Definition ..............................................................................................................................................6 2.3 Goals ....................................................................................................................................................................6 3.0 Research ..................................................................................................................................................................7 3.1 What Others Have Done .....................................................................................................................................7 3.1.1 Commercial Use ...........................................................................................................................................8 3.1.2 Military Use ..................................................................................................................................................8 3.1.3 Personal Use ................................................................................................................................................9 3.2 Fundamental Equations and Analysis..................................................................................................................9 3.2.1 Lift ................................................................................................................................................................9 3.2.2 Thrust .........................................................................................................................................................10 3.2.3 Drag ............................................................................................................................................................11 4.0 Design Space ..........................................................................................................................................................12 4.1 Client Needs ......................................................................................................................................................12 4.2 Target Specifications .........................................................................................................................................14 5.0 Preliminary Conceptual Designs ............................................................................................................................15 6.0 Conceptual Development ......................................................................................................................................17 6.1 Hull/Deck Concepts ...........................................................................................................................................18 6.2 Skirt Concepts....................................................................................................................................................18 6.3 Lift System Concepts .........................................................................................................................................18 6.4 Thrust System Concepts ....................................................................................................................................19 7.0 Concept Screening and Scoring .............................................................................................................................19 7.1 Concept Screening .............................................................................................................................................19 7.2 Concept Scoring.................................................................................................................................................24 8.0 Detailed Design ......................................................................................................................................................36 9.0 Summary ................................................................................................................................................................47 10.0 Recommendation ................................................................................................................................................49 11.0 References ...........................................................................................................................................................50

Page |2

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

Table of Figures
Team Dozen Logo....1 1.1 SR.N1 General Arrangement [4].......5 3.1 Typical Skirt Designs [5].......7 5.1 5.8 Preliminary Concepts......15 5.9 5.15 Preliminary Concepts....16 6.1 Major components [12] ...17 7.1 Concept A Top Isometric View30 7.2 Concept A Front View..30 7.3 Concept A Rear Orientation Isometric View31 7.4 Concept F Top Isometric View.32 7.5 Concept F Front View...32 7.6 Concept F Rear Orientation Isometric View33 7.7 Concept G Top Isometric View34 7.8 Concept G Cross-Section Side View34 7.9 Concept G Bottom Isometric View...35 8.1 Final Design Isometric View....36 8.2 Final Design Front View...37 8.3 Final Design Side View37 8.4 Final Design Section View...38 8.5 Final Design Detailed View..39 8.6 Final Design Component View.40

Page |3

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

1.0 Executive Summary

The goal of the design process is to produce and present a functional hovercraft that performs better than its competitors. The hovercraft must travel in a straight trajectory, have a minimal cost, be aesthetically appealing, operate with no external interference, be user friendly and safe, easily manufactured, while being faster than its competitors. Things taken were into consideration when designing the hovercraft are the effect of aerodynamic forces, selection of appropriate materials, shape and size of the hovercraft, arrangement of components, and the manufacturing cost. After extensive research we configured a series of concept scoring charts that aided us in narrowing down our concepts. Through this screening process we came up with ten concepts that integrated the information we learned into their designs. As a result of further concept screening and research from various sources we were able to narrow all of our design styles to the following three concepts. From these three concepts we developed a final concept that was a combination of the three designs, the reason for this was to reduce manufacturing costs, increase speed and meet the client needs as much as possible. The final concept has the following design, materials and constraints: A fan hub with a fin attached on the back, both made from plastic, that has integrated aerodynamic contours to increase air control to desired direction, custom propulsion fan to increase thrust output, a custom lift fan for compatibility with the thickness of the hull while maintaining required thrust output, nine cell NiCd battery for the thrust fan, six cell NiCd battery for the lift fan, a tear drop shaped hull made with a two layer high density foam, a bag skirt made of tarpaulin bond between the two layers of high density foam, the motor for the propulsion fan is CN12-R-XC which has 25500 rpm and the motor used for the lift fan is the CN12-R-LC and has 15200 rpm. We found that our final design showed better theoretical performance capability than any other considered design. However the design was restricted by its relatively high manufacturing cost, so research alternative manufacturing processes are needed before further development and production of the hovercraft.

Page |4

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

1.1 Background
Figure 1.1 SR.N1 General Arrangement [4] Over the years, hovercrafts have been used in many different areas. From personal use, to public transit, to military applications, the concept has received a lot of attention. The first mention of hovering crafts was in 1716 by Swedish scientist Emanuel Swedenborg [1] but it wasnt until 1915 that the first aircushion vehicle was proposed by Dagobert Mller von Thomamuehl [2]. The year 1931 marked the recognition of the first true hovercraft by Finnish aero engineer Toivo J. Kaario [3]. After World War II, many groups began developing air-cushion vehicles. However, due to lack of funding and interest, advancement in this field was limited. Finally in the late 1950s, Sir Christopher Cockerell designed and developed the SR.N1 [3] which set the standard for the hovercrafts we see today.

Page |5

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

2.0 Introduction
2.1 Purpose Statement
The purpose of this design report is to gain a better understanding of the Engineering design process. From the problem definition, to selecting the appropriate manufacturing process and everything in between, we will learn what truly goes into fulfilling our clients needs. Our creativity, knowledge, ability to work in teams and technical skills will be tested and presented in a fully developed, formal report, documenting the entire design process.

2.2 Problem Definition

The problem we have been presented with is to design and manufacture a functional hovercraft that is fast (forward motion) and travels in a straight direction without user input, while maximizing cost efficiency. The hovercraft is to be produced using obtainable materials and manufacturing methods.

2.3 Goals
We have determined the following list of goals for our hovercraft design: Cost Effective We aim to develop a design that requires inexpensive materials and low production costs. Visually Appealing The design should catch the consumers eye without compromising functionality. Linear Velocity The vehicle must be able to compete in a drag race-like setting. Lightweight A lightweight design will reduce the amount of material required and will increase portability. Durable In the event of a collision, the craft must remain intact or be easily repairable. Safe Above all else, our design should not put the user or observer in harms way.

Page |6

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

3.0 Research
3.1 What Others Have Done
As the design of hovercrafts developed over time, new features and modifications were added to existing models, a major one being the addition of the skirt. The initial design was an extension of the hull, made of rigid material that was perpendicular or angled to the ground. When it was found that this only allowed for low clearance and the inability to clear obstacles, a change was made. It was proposed to use a flexible, durable, and most often, waterproof material to create the skirt. This skirt would replace the rigid bottom of the hovercraft as the section of the unit that filled with air. The skirt of the hovercraft is typically made from neoprene coated nylon, thick vinyl sheeting or synthetic canvas cloth. Thick vinyl sheeting is fairly inexpensive and good for light duty applications. Neoprene coated nylon is the recommended choice, but synthetic canvas cloth can be used for light duty hovercraft usage as well. Initially, a double wall design was proposed where air travelled between two layers of material creating a channel of air. With this design, it was found that upon contact with an obstacle, the walls would collapse at the point of contact, restricting air flow. Later, the two wall design evolved to a single wall that was more forgiving when coming into contact with obstacles because deformation of the skirt at one point would be compensated at another. The design of a hovercrafts skirt is determined by its applications. Popular designs include the wall shirt, bag skirt, jupe skirt and finger skirt. A bag or wall skirt is a tube of material that covers the perimeter of the hull. Bag and wall skirts are ideally suited for larger/slower moving hovercrafts. Finger skirts are made up of many individual segments that press together when inflated and are typically used for speed. The jupe skirt is several cone-shaped tubes, attached to the bottom of the hull, surrounded by a wall of material around the perimeter. When designing a skirt, the height should always be considered. The higher the skirt, the larger the obstacles the hovercraft can clear. However, if it is too tall, the hovercraft will slide off the cushion of air, resulting in deflation of the skirt and causing the vehicle to become extremely unstable.

Figure 3.1 Typical Skirt Designs [5]

In addition to skirt design, the shape of the hull was modified as well. Once again, this is dependent on the use of the vehicle. The hull is usually made from a combination of plastic, plywood, fiberglass, aluminum, and Styrofoam. The components of the hovercraft have to be well balanced on the body to prevent one side of the hovercraft from dragging and possibly letting the air cushion escape from the opposite side deflating the skirt. Models used for carrying cargo will normally have a flat deck with an oval, or rectangular with rounded corners, shape. These models are usually for
Page |7

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

commercial or military use. Smaller models that have narrower hulls, with possibly chamfered decks, are normally used for speed. These models would be for personal use with applications such as racing, search and rescue and patrolling. Hovercraft models also vary in the quantity and use of fans. Military or commercial hovercrafts may have as many as six fans for lift and two for thrust. Smaller models will either use a single fan for thrust and lift, called an integrated system, or a separate fan for both. In an integrated system, air is diverted from the thrust fan to fill the skirt with air. Fins have been implicated with thrust fans in order to control air flow. Fins prevent the air from coning after passing through the fan and focus it in straight channels maximizing forward momentum. Along with fins, rudders are used for steering. Normally attached to the fans, rudders control the direction of the air flow and therefore the direction of the hovercraft. Apart from fans, some hovercrafts are propelled by jet engines. Jet engines provide much more speed than fans, due to concentrated air flow, but similarly require much more power. Hovercraft power systems vary by scale and usage. As mentioned previously, hovercrafts are typically propelled by fans or jet engines. The main use of commercial or military hovercrafts is for moving large amounts of cargo. As the weight of the cargo, and the vehicle itself, increases, more power is required to lift it off the ground and move it forward, thus introducing the power-to-weight ratio. The amount of clearance between the skirt and ground is determined by the power-to-weight ratio. The thrust systems operate more efficiently when the ground clearance is high, but if the ground clearance is too high the hovercraft will become unstable. Due to this power requirement, large hovercrafts rely on combustion engines. Smaller hovercrafts may run on combustion engines as well but some can rely on electric power depending on scale and desired speed.

3.1.1 Commercial Use The commercial hovercraft is used for many different tasks such as mass transportation. The first commercial hovercraft able to carry passengers was the Vickers VA-3 and began service in the summer of 1962. In the English Channel, commercial hovercrafts are used as transport ferries for passengers, automobiles and goods. The capacity of the commercial passenger hovercraft has increased over the years, for example in 1965 a SR.N6 carried 38 passengers and in 1983 the AP1-88 carried 98 passengers and more recently in 2007 the BHT130 carried 130 passengers. Scandinavian airline (SAS) used a hovercraft for a charter between airports in Denmark and Sweden. In Alaska, the U.S. Postal Service uses a hovercraft to transport mail, freight and passengers to remote towns with no road access. Also in Alaska, there is a cargo hovercraft, the Suna-X, that can carry up to 47 passengers and 47500 lbs of cargo and is used for transport between small remote communities. 3.1.2 Military Use The hovercraft is well suited for military use because of the hovercrafts ability to move over different terrains quickly. The military uses hovercrafts to transport equipment and soldiers across land and water. Most military hovercrafts are armed with gun turrets and/or grenade launchers and are also armoured for protection. The Soviet Union designed and built the worlds largest hovercraft the Zubr. The first use of military hovercraft application was with the SR.N1
Page |8

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

and was built in England by Saunders-Roe and the United Kingdom joint forces used this hovercraft. The military hovercraft is included in the navy sector of a countries military force. 3.1.3 Personal Use The personal hovercraft can be used to describe search and rescue, racing, model, and homemade hovercrafts. The personal hovercraft is used for search and rescue because of the hovercrafts ability to ride over any terrain which no other ATV can. The hovercraft is used for search and rescue in Finland and the UK to rescue people from thick mud. The hovercraft is also used in Canada and the US for water and ice rescues. Also the hovercraft has a low impact on life beneath the water it hovers over which makes the hovercraft a good fit for research on sensitive water systems. The personal hovercraft is also used as a means to inspect shallow bed offshore wind farms. The personal hovercraft is also used for racing on a land and water track. The drivers of racing hovercrafts have to wear helmets as well as a flotation device in case of a crash on the water. Model hovercrafts and R/C hovercrafts are typically made of plastic and are considered to be more of a hobby than any other hovercraft. Homemade hovercrafts are also considered more of a hobby and are typically made from relatively cheap and lightweight materials.

3.2 Fundamental Equations and Analysis

In this section we will be analyzing three forces that will allow us to theoretically maximize the performance of our hovercraft. First we will be analyzing the lift force produced by our hovercraft. Creating this force reduces the friction between the hovercraft and the surface it is on; essentially allowing it to hover. We will also be analyzing the thrust produced by the hovercraft. Thrust is the force that allows the hovercraft to move forward. Lastly in this section we will evaluate how the drag force affects the hovercrafts performance. This is a force that opposes the forward movement of the hovercraft, essentially slowing it down. Ultimately in this section we will be considering these forces when designing the hovercraft so that we can maximize/minimize them for optimal performance of our hovercraft. 3.2.1 Lift The lift force that we want to produce in our hovercraft is a force that is equal to or greater than the weight of the hovercraft. Lift is produced by blowing air into the hovercrafts skirt, creating a high pressure pocket. Since the pressure in the skirt is greater than the pressure produced by the weight of the hovercraft, an upward force is created. Ideally, we want the lift force produced to be equal to the weight of the hovercraft in order to maximize efficiency. If the lift produced is greater than the weight, air will escape the skirt through the bottom, thus lowering the lift force until equilibrium is obtained. The lift force can be calculated using the equation: [8]

Page |9

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

Where A is the cross-sectional area of the skirt in m2, PC is the air cushion pressure within the skirt in Pa, and the lift, FL in N, should be equal to the weight of the hovercraft. When designing our hovercraft we need to take lift into consideration. The cross sectional area and the weight of the hovercraft will determine how much lift our hovercraft will need to produce. Therefore, considering the lift required is essential when determining the size and weight of our hovercraft. We must also design our skirt so that it contains the air, but also allows air to escape from the bottom when the pressure is too high. To ensure perfect balance, we must control the hovercrafts pitch, vertical movement of the nose, and yaw, horizontal movement of the nose. It is vital that the pressure is distributed evenly throughout the skirt and that the center of mass of the hovercraft is properly supported so that no unwanted moment will be created. 3.2.2 Thrust Thrust, which is created by the propulsion system, is the force which pushes the hovercraft forward. Having maximum thrust is critical for our hovercraft, as we are designing it so that it may travel a certain distance in the smallest amount of time. The momentum of an object is given by:

Where Q is the objects momentum in kgm/s, m is the mass of the object in kg and v is the velocity of the object in m/s. According to Newtons Second Law, the force acting on an object is proportional to the rate of change of the objects momentum. The force on an object can therefore be written as:

Where t is time in seconds. Mass, m, over time, t, is equal to mass flow rate, . For a fluid:

Where is measured in kg/s, is the fluid density in kg/m3 and A is the cross-sectional area of the propulsion system, such as a fan, in m2. The thrust force can then be written as: [9] Where vi is the entrance velocity and ve is the exit velocity, to and from the propulsion system, in m/s. When the thrust is produced, we must insure that the force is applied collinearly to the center of mass of the hovercraft to prevent any unwanted yaw, thus allowing the hovercraft to go straight. In selecting a propulsion system, we must consider these equations. As an example, if we were to use fans for thrust, we would have to consider in our design, the area of the fan, and how fast we can make the propellers turn. This will increase the velocity of the air exiting the fan, thus increasing the thrust.
P a g e | 10

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

3.2.3 Drag Drag must also be considered when designing our hovercraft. Assuming that our design produces enough lift to essentially make the surface frictionless, drag is the only force that opposes the hovercrafts forward motion. However, we can reduce this force. The drag is caused when the hovercraft moves through a fluid, such as air. The drag force can be calculated using the following equation: [10] Where is the density of the fluid, is the velocity of the hovercraft relative to the fluid, A is the cross-sectional area of the hovercraft, and is the coefficient of drag. The coefficient of drag is a unit-less ratio between the drag force and the dynamic pressure times the area. This coefficient is usually found through experiment and can be calculated through the equation: [11] From these equations, we can determine that drag must be considered when designing the hovercrafts body shape and size. Our goal is to make our hovercraft design more aerodynamic by reducing the cross-sectional area of the reference face and eliminating any flat surfaces perpendicular to the flow of air. Selecting a streamlined design with a thinner tail end will reduce the wake produced by our hovercraft. A smaller wake means less drag produced and therefore, lower opposing forces, resulting in a faster hovercraft.

P a g e | 11

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

4.0 Design Space

4.1 Client Needs
We have determined the following client needs for the hovercraft design. They are listed below in order of priority: Able to Hover The ability to hover defines a hovercraft. The vehicle must be able to generate and maintain lift to even be considered a hovercraft. Self-Propelled The vehicle must have its own propulsion system. From the point of activation, the vehicle must operate without any interaction from the user. Linear Trajectory Once activated, the vehicle is required to travel in a straight line in order to stay on course. Following any other path could result in collision with obstacles or disqualification. Speed The hovercraft will be raced against other models and therefore must be fast. Safe to Use Indoors The hovercraft race will be located in a public place and there is the possibility of people observing or being in proximity. Under no circumstances, should the hovercraft be able to hurt one of those individuals. Safety is a top priority. Made From Attainable Materials and Processes When designing a prototype, there are hundreds of materials and manufacturing processes that can be used. However, our resources are limited and our designs must take into account these limitations. Lightweight Two main goals of the design are lift and speed. A heavy vehicle will make both of these objectives more difficult. A vehicle that is light will be easier to lift and propel and may reduce material costs as well.

P a g e | 12

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

Durable/Robust The hovercraft must be made of strong materials and of a solid design. The vehicle has to be able to complete multiple runs and withstand collisions and impact. Cost Effective Ideally, the cost of materials and manufacturing should be low in order to reduce cost. This will decrease production costs and therefore, be more affordable for the consumer. Designed for Manufacturing The design should take into consideration, the manufacturing process. Complex geometry often requires expensive machining processes and extended production times. The design should be simple and relatively easy to manufacture. Self-Contained The hovercraft is to be of a single piece design. Once assembled, no addition or removal of parts should be required; excluding an interchangeable power source. No parts may separate from the vehicle upon collision or impact. Portable The hovercraft should be small and light enough to transport from finish line to start line, for repeated runs, or from one race location to another. Aesthetically Pleasing Although the main requirement of our design is function, the hovercraft should be visually appealing. In the event that a tie occurs during the race component of evaluation, the determining factor could be presentation. We want our design to catch the consumers eye.

P a g e | 13

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

4.2 Target Specifications

We have determined the following target specifications for the hovercraft design. They are listed below in order of priority: Cost The main goal of this project is to design and manufacture a hovercraft prototype while minimizing cost. The budget for this project has been set to a maximum of one hundred dollars. This includes all materials, machining costs, components and power supplies. Desired Distance Travelled The hovercraft models will be raced against each other. It has been determined that the distance from the starting line to the finish line will be thirty meters and our design is required to travel this distance in each trial. Desired Speed The winner of each trial will be the first vehicle to cross the finish line. We have determined the minimum speed obtained by our hovercraft to be three meters per second. A maximum speed has not been set in order to not impose any restrictions. Our goal is to win. Weight In order to obtain faster speeds, we have established a maximum total weight of five kilograms. The lighter the vehicle, the easier it will be to accelerate and achieve maximum velocity. The total weight refers to our hovercraft being race-ready. Fuel Source The fuel source for our hovercraft must be reusable or interchangeable. The fuel source must be recharged or changed/swapped in less than five minutes in order for the hovercraft to be ready for another trial. Dimensions Our hovercraft design is to be less than three tenths of a meter wide and less than one meter long. Reducing the size of the vehicle will reduce material cost, weight, drag and the power required to obtain and maintain lift.

P a g e | 14

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

5.0 Preliminary Conceptual Designs

This section contains sketches depicting our preliminary concepts. These drawings mark the beginning of our conceptual development. Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2

Figure 5.3

Figure 5.4

Figure 5.5

Figure 5.6

Figure 5.7

Figure 5.8

P a g e | 15

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

Figure 5.9

Figure 5.10

Figure 5.11

Figure 5.12

Figure 5.13

Figure 5.14

Figure 5.15

P a g e | 16

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

6.0 Conceptual Development

To initiate the formal design process, we identified four major components that are essential for a hovercraft to function properly. By dividing the hovercraft into different sections, it allowed us to brainstorm ideas for individual features instead of taking on the burden of proposing complete designs. This way, we were able to present designs that were made up of a combination of concepts from each component section. The four main components are: 1. The Hull/Deck This is the main body of the hovercraft, the foundation. All other components are mounted to the hull. 2. The Skirt Attached to the underside of the hull, the skirt fills with air and houses the high pressure air cushion that maintains the hovercrafts lift. 3. The Lift Mechanism Mounted to the hull, this system generates the air that fills the skirt with air, therefore creating the air cushion. 4. The Thrust Mechanism Located at the tail end of the hovercraft, this system generates the high pressure air stream responsible for the vehicles forward momentum. These components are illustrated in the following figure: Figure 6.1 [12]

The following page contains a list of concepts we brainstormed for each major component.

P a g e | 17

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

6.1 Hull/Deck Concepts

Ellipse shaped Rectangular Standard shape (rectangle + semicircle) Triangular Rhombus shaped Circular Cylindrical Teardrop shaped Elongated Turtle shell shaped Think hull Thin hull Chamfered edges Fillet edges

Hull/Deck Material Options

Wood Plywood Particle board High density foam Low density foam Carbon fiber Fiberglass Cardboard Plastic Aluminum Titanium Plexiglass Rubber

6.2 Skirt Concepts

Rigid wall skirt, extension of hull Flexible wall skirt Finger skirt Jupe (cell) skirt C skirt Porous bag skirt Vented bag skirt Enclosed bag skirt Thick/High skirt Thin skirt

Skirt Material Options

Hull material Coated fabric Neoprene fabric Plastic Nylon Tarpaulin Rubber

6.3 Lift System Concepts

Single motor, vertical fan Dual motors with dual vertical fans Air diverted from propulsion system Single power source for propulsion and lift systems Inverted hockey table design Wings attached to hull Nose design Magnetic field Angled fins attached horizontally to propulsion system

P a g e | 18

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

6.4 Thrust System Concepts

Single horizontal fan Dual horizontal fans Triple horizontal fans Single horizontal turbine Dual horizontal turbines Sails Jet engine Water jet Compressed air CO2 canisters Balloons Roman candles Rockets

7.0 Concept Screening and Scoring

7.1 Concept Screening
As a result of the brainstorming performed for the Section 6.0, we formulated a list of specific design concepts for each major component of the hovercraft. These design concepts were composed of combinations of features and materials. Examples of which include a C shaped skirt made of rubber and an ellipse shaped hull made of high density foam. In total, we developed eighty-three design concepts. In order to identify which of these design concepts would be the most beneficial, we presented them in a table. In this table, we screened each concept against the client needs of the hovercraft design, outlined in Section 4.1. A design concept was assigned a +1 if it would have a positive effect on the corresponding client need. A -1 was assigned to a concept that effected a client need negatively and a 0 was assigned to concepts that had a neutral or no effect on the given need. The assigned values were tallied for every design concept, resulting in a final score for the given concept. Positive final scores represented beneficial design concepts, which would be given more consideration, and negative scores were dismissed because they would not benefit our design. The higher or lower the score, the greater benefit or detriment the concept would respectfully contribute to our design. We refer to this process as Concept Screening and it is presented in Table 7.1.

P a g e | 19

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

Table 7.1 - Concept Screening NEEDS

SKIRT CONCEPTS
Rigid Wall Skirt, Extension of Hull Material Flexible Wall Skirt made of Coated Fabric Flexible Wall Skirt made of Neoprene Fabric Finger Skirt made of Plastic Finger Skirt made of Nylon Jupe (Cell) Skirt made of Nylon "C" Skirt made of Rubber Porous Bag Skirt made of Plastic Vented Bag Skirt made of Nylon Vented Bag Skirt made of Plastic Enclosed Bag Skirt made of Tarpaulin Enclosed Bag Skirt made of Plastic Thick/High Skirt for Clearing Obstacles Thin Skirt for Stability Safe Operation Durable Light Weight Cost Effective Manufacturable Trajectory Speed SelfPropelled SelfContained Material Hovers Portable Aesthetics Total Score

0 0

0 0

1 1

1 1

-1 1

-1 0

-1 0

0 0

1 0

1 1

-1 0

0 1

-1 0

-1 5

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1

1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 0 1

1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1

-1 1 1 0 -1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1

1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1

-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1

1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1

0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1

2 2 5 3 2 3 5 3 9 6 -3 10

P a g e | 20

Phase II Design Report

HULL/DECK CONCEPTS
Ellipse Shaped Rectangular Standard Triangular Diamond Shaped Circular Cylindrical Teardrop Shaped Elongated Turtle Shell Shaped Thick Hull Thin Hull Chamfered Edges Fillet Edges Made of Wood Made of Plywood Made of Particle Board Made of High Density Foam Made of Low Density Foam Made of Carbon Fiber Made of Fiberglass Made of Cardboard Made of Plastic Made of Aluminum Made of Titanium Safe Operation Light Weight Cost Effective

Team Dozen
SelfPropelled SelfContained

3/2/2012
Total Score

Durable

Manufacturable

Trajectory

Speed

Material

Hovers

Portable

Aesthetics

0 0 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 -1 -1

0 0 0 -1 -1 1 0 0 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 0 1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 1 0 0 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 1 -1 -1 0 0 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1

-1 1 0 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 -1 -1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 0 1 1 1

1 -1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 0 0 1 1 -1 1 1 1

1 -1 1 0 1 2 1 1 -6 2 -2 5 0 0 4 2 3 7 3 2 2 3 6 -2 -2

P a g e | 21

Phase II Design Report

Made of Plexiglass Made of Stiff Rubber

Team Dozen 1 1
Durable

3/2/2012 0 0 0 0
SelfPropelled

0 1
Safe Operation

-1 -1
Light Weight

-1 -1
Cost Effective

1 0
Manufacturable

0 0
Trajectory

0 0
SelfContained

0 0
Material

0 0
Hovers

1 0
Portable

1 -1
Aesthetics

2 -1
Total Score

LIFT SYSTEM CONCEPTS

Independent Motor and Vertical Fan Dual Motors and Vertical Fans Air Diverted from Propulsion System Single Power Source for Propulsion and Lift Rigid Flat Base with Small Holes like a Hockey Table Wings on Hull Nose Design Magnetic Field Horizontal Fins Attached to Propulsion System

Speed

0 0 0

0 0 0

1 -1 1

0 -1 1

0 0 -1

0 0 0

0 0 -1

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

1 1 1

0 0 0

0 1 1

2 0 2

-1

1 -1 0 -1

1 -1 0 0

1 -1 0 -1

1 -1 -1 -1

-1 -1 -1 -1

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0

0 -1 0 -1

0 0 0 -1

1 1 1 1

0 0 0 -1

1 1 1 1

5 -4 0 -4

0
Safe Operation

-1

0
Light Weight

0
Cost Effective

0
SelfPropelled

-1
SelfContained

1
Total Score

PROPULSION SYSTEM CONCEPTS

Single Horizontal Fan Dual Horizontal Fans Triple Horizontal Fans Single Horizontal Turbine

Durable

Manufacturable

Trajectory

Speed

Material

Hovers

Portable

Aesthetics

0 0 0 -1

0 0 0 0

1 0 -1 0

1 0 -1 -1

1 1 1 -1

1 1 1 1

0 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0

1 1 1 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 1 1 1

6 6 4 1 P a g e | 22

Phase II Design Report

Dual Horizontal Turbines Sails Jet Engine Water Jet Compressed Air CO2 Canisters Balloons Roman Candles Rockets

Team Dozen 0 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1
Light Weight

3/2/2012 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
SelfPropelled

-1 1 -1 0 -1 -1 1 -1 -1
Safe Operation

-1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1
Cost Effective

-1 1 -1 -1 0 -1 1 0 -1

1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1

1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1
SelfContained

0 1 -1 -1 0 0 1 0 -1

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 -1 -1 -1 0 1 0 0

1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1

0 2 -2 -6 -2 -2 6 -1 -5
Total Score

POWER SOURCE CONCEPTS

NiCad Battery Lithium Battery Fuel Cell AC/DC Hamster Wheel Monkey Crank Gasoline Combustion Diesel Combustion Hydrogen Combustion Solar Steam Coal Burning Elastic/Stored Explosive Rocket Fuel Nuclear Compressed Air Hydraulic Water Methane

Durable

Manufacturable

Trajectory

Speed

Material

Hovers

Portable

Aesthetics

1 1 1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 1 -1

1 1 1 1 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1

1 0 0 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 1 -1

1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1

0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 0 1 1 -1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 0 -1 1 1 1 -1

1 1 1 0 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 0 1 -1 -1 -1 1 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 -1 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1

0 0 0 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 -1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0

9 9 8 -2 -9 -11 0 0 -2 3 0 -2 5 -7 -3 -7 4 -1 6 1 P a g e | 23

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

7.2 Concept Scoring

The Concept Screening process carried out in Section 7.1 was extremely beneficial in determining which component concepts should be incorporated into our final design. From the information we obtained from Table 7.1, we were able to identify our best ideas. Using this knowledge, we developed ten potential hovercraft designs. Each design is presented below with its key features outlined.

Concept A: Standard hull shape constructed from high density foam o Flat deck o Approximately 3/4 thick o Can be cut by hand on a band saw or CNC machined for higher accuracy Chamfered edges to remove sharp edges and increase aerodynamics o Cut by hand (low cost, low tolerance) o Cut by CNC (increased cost, high tolerance) Enclosed bag skirt made of Tarpaulin o Material can be cut by hand, low tolerance required o Anchored between pieces of foam Single lift fan embedded in the middle of the hull o Independent power supply Dual thrust fans mounted at the rear of the vehicle o Enclosed to focus air stream o Both motors powered by a single power supply o Vertical fins centered behind each fan to prevent air from coning

Concept B: Standard hull design constructed from durable, light weight plastic o Flat deck o Approximately 1/8 thick o Can be cut by hand on a band saw or CNC machined for higher accuracy Thin deck reduces amount of material and need for chamfering Porous bag skirt made of plastic (garbage bag material) o Material can be cut by hand, low tolerance required o Holes are made in material by hand o Skirt is fastened to perimeter and bottom of hull to enclose air pocket Dual thrust fans mounted at the rear of the vehicle o Enclosed to focus air stream o Independent power supply for each motor o Vertical fins located in-between and on the outside edge of each fan to maintain a straight air flow Integrated system o Air diverted from thrust fans through channels to inflate skirt

P a g e | 24

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

Concept C: Shell shaped hull made of fiberglass o Manufactured using a mold and laying up material o Curved surface o Streamlined design Finger skirt made of nylon o Material can be cut by hand, low tolerance required o Individual air chambers allow use over may different terrains o Fastened to hull using an adhesive material Single lift fan attached to the middle of the hull o Independent power supply Single thrust fan located at the rear of the vehicle o Independent power supply o Enclosed to focus air stream o Crosshair fins attached behind fan to prevent air from coning Concept D: Shell shaped hull made of carbon fiber o Manufactured using a mold and laying up material o Curved surface o Streamlined design Enclosed bag skirt made of plastic (garbage bag material) o Material can be cut by hand, low tolerance required o Anchored to hull with use of adhesive Single lift fan attached to the middle of the hull o Independent power supply Single thrust fan located at the rear of the vehicle o Independent power supply o Enclosed to focus air stream o Dual vertical fins located on either side of the fan to maintain straight air flow Concept E: Teardrop shaped hull made of high density foam o Large rounded end is the front of the craft o Flat deck, chamfered edges o Can be cut by hand on a band saw or CNC machined for higher accuracy o Approximately 3/4 thick o Streamlined shape Wall skirt made of nylon o Material can be cut by hand, low tolerance required o Anchored between pieces of foam Single lift fan embedded in the hull o Located towards the front of the craft near the centre of mass o Independent power supply Single thrust fan located at the rear of the vehicle o Independent power supply o Enclosed to focus air flow o Crosshair fins attached behind fan to prevent air from coning

P a g e | 25

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

Concept F: Bloated Triangle shaped hull made of high density foam o Triangular with rounded vertices o Single vertex is the nose end of the craft o Flat deck, chamfered edges o Streamlined shape o Approximately 3/4 thick o Can be cut by hand on a band saw or CNC machined for higher accuracy C shaped skirt design made of rubber o Material can be cut and formed by hand o Acts as a bumper, can collide with objects o Anchored between pieces of foam Dual thrust fans mounted towards the rear of the vehicle o Enclosed to focus air stream o Independent power supply for each motor o Vertical fins centered on each fan to prevent air from coning Large vertical fin located in-between thrust fans o Helps maintain linear direction of travel o Adds artistic appeal Integrated system o Air diverted from thrust fans through channels to inflate skirt

Concept G: Ellipse shaped hull made of high density foam o Flat deck o Approximately 3/4" thick o Aerodynamic shape o Cut by hand with difficulty, complex geometry o Cut by CNC machine, increased production time Chamfered edges to increase aerodynamics o Can be cut by hand, low tolerance o Can be cut by CNC, high tolerance Inverted hockey table skirt o Extension of hull material o Air passes through small holes in a flat surface o Uniform lift air distribution Single lift fan embedded in the hull o Located at the origin of the ellipse to evenly distribute air o Independent power supply Single thrust fan located towards the rear of the vehicle o Independent power supply o Enclosed to focus air flow o Crosshair fins attached behind fan to prevent air from coning

P a g e | 26

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

Concept H: Ellipse shaped hull made of durable, lightweight plastic o Flat deck o Approximately 1/8" thick o Cut by hand with difficulty, complex geometry o Cut by CNC machine, increased production time Thin deck reduces amount of material and need for chamfering o Lower manufacturing costs C shaped skirt design made of rubber o Material can be cut and formed by hand o Acts as a bumper, can collide with objects o Bonded to hull with use of adhesive Single lift fan attached to the deck o Located towards the front of the craft o Independent power supply Dual thrust fans mounted towards the tail end of the vehicle o Enclosed to focus air stream o Single power supply to run both motors o Vertical fins centered behind each fan to prevent coning of air

Concept I: Circular hull made of high density foam o Flat deck o Approximately 3/4" thick o Aerodynamic shape o Can be cut by hand with low tolerance o Can be CNC cut with high tolerance Chamfered edges to increase aerodynamics o Can be cut by hand, low tolerance o Can be cut by CNC, high tolerance Inverted hockey table skirt o Extension of hull material o Air passes through small holes in a flat surface o Uniform lift air distribution Single lift fan embedded in hull o Located at the origin of the circle to evenly distribute air o Independent power supply Dual thrust fans mounted centrally on either side of the lift fan o Enclosed to focus air stream o Single power supply to run both motors o Crosshair fins attached behind each fan to prevent air from coning

P a g e | 27

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

Concept J: Circular hull made of durable, lightweight plastic o Flat deck o Approximately 1/8" thick o Can be cut by hand with low tolerance o Can be CNC cut with high tolerance Thin deck reduces amount of material and need for chamfering o Lower manufacturing costs Enclosed bag skirt made of plastic (garbage bag material) o Material can be cut by hand, low tolerance required o Anchored to hull with use of adhesive Dual thrust fan mounted centrally on the deck o Enclosed to focus air stream o Independent power supply for each motor o Vertical fins centered behind each fan to prevent coning of air Large vertical fin located in-between thrust fans o Helps maintain linear direction of travel o Adds artistic appeal Integrated system o Air diverted from thrust fans through channels to inflate skirt

In order to get closer to our goal of presenting a single hovercraft design, these ten potential designs had to be further reduced. To accomplish such a task, we focused on what was truly important. This involved reviewing the client needs outlined in Section 4.1 and the order in which we ranked them. The higher the priority we assigned to the client need, the greater the consideration we gave the given need when selecting a design. To represent this thought process, we listed concepts A through J in a table, along with the client needs. The client needs were given a multiplying value, or weighted value, between 0.1 and 1.0, corresponding to its priority. A client need was given a weight 1.0 if we felt that it was one of, if not, the most important aspect of our design. A client need received a weight closer to 0.1 if, in our opinion, wasnt as important to the overall design of our hovercraft. Each concept was scored from one to ten in every client need category. A score of ten was assigned to a concept if it was the best idea in a client need category. Best could imply best performance, highest level of safety, highest material availability, etc. Every client need category was considered and ranked independent of the other client needs. The score awarded to the concept in each category, multiplied by the weighted value, produced a weighted score in that category. The weighted scores were summed for each concept and resulted in a total weighted score. The total weighted score determined the concepts that would be presented in the following section. We refer to this process as Concept Scoring and it is depicted in Table 7.2. In actuality, this process was a result of many in-depth brainstorming sessions. We critiqued our designs according to logic, previous knowledge and information we gained from researching what has been done in terms of hovercraft design. The table below is merely a numerical representation to communicate our thought to the reader.

P a g e | 28

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

Table 7.2 - Concept Scoring

Able to Hover SelfPropelled Linear Trajectory Safe to Use Indoors Made From Attainable Materials and Processes Durable/ Robust Cost Effective Designed for Manufacturing SelfContained Aesthetically Pleasing

Speed

Lightweight

Portable

Total

A B C D E F G H I J

7 6 5 7 4 7 10 8 10 6

7 6 5 7 4 7 10 8 10 6

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

8 9 8 8 7 10 8 8 6 8

7.2 8.1 7.2 7.2 6.3 9 7.2 7.2 5.4 7.2

9 8 5 5 5 8 5 10 7 10

8.1 7.2 4.5 4.5 4.5 7.2 4.5 9 6.3 9

10 9 8 8 10 10 10 8 10 8

8 7.2 6.4 6.4 8 8 8 6.4 8 6.4

10 8 6 6 10 10 10 6 10 10

7 5.6 4.2 4.2 7 7 7 4.2 7 7

6 5 9 10 8 7 8 4 6 7

3.6 3 5.4 6 4.8 4.2 4.8 2.4 3.6 4.2

10 6 8 7 9 10 10 8 10 7

5 3 4 3.5 4.5 5 5 4 5 3.5

9 9 5 5 6 6 8 8 7 7

3.6 3.6 2 2 2.4 2.4 3.2 3.2 2.8 2.8

9 9 4 4 7 7 5 5 6 6

2.7 2.7 1.2 1.2 2.1 2.1 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.8

8 8 9 9 8 8 10 8 10 8

1.6 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 2 1.6 2 1.6

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

7 7 10 10 9 8 8 8 6 6

0.7 0.7 1 1 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6

65.3 59.5 53.5 55.6 56.9 65.1 64.8 59.1 63.3 60.9

As outline in Table 7.2, we selected concepts A, F and G out of our proposed ten. Up until this point, we made our selections based on theoretical performance and aesthetics. We wanted to choose an idea based on the best design and not be restricted by manufacturing and material costs. This allowed us to maximize our creativity without limitations. Concepts A, F and G were modeled in SolidWorks and rendered to communicate visual representations of the designs. These images and a description of why we choose each concept are included below.

P a g e | 29

Total Weighted Score

Concept

Weighted Score10 (0.3)

Weighted Score11 (0.2)

Weighted Score12 (0.1)

Weighted Score13 (0.1)

Weighted Score1 (1.0)

Weighted Score2 (1.0)

Weighted Score3 (0.9)

Weighted Score4 (0.9)

Weighted Score5 (0.8)

Weighted Score6 (0.7)

Weighted Score7 (0.6)

Weighted Score8 (0.5)

Weighted Score9 (0.4)

Score10

Score11

Score12

Score13

Score1

Score2

Score3

Score4

Score5

Score6

Score7

Score8

Score9

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

Concept A
Figure 7.1: Concept A Top Isometric View

Figure 7.2: Concept A Front View

P a g e | 30

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

Figure 7.3: Concept A Rear Orientation Isometric View

Concept A
This hovercraft was chosen over the various other designs brainstormed because of the following benefits: The shape of the hull is standard; this means that it can be cut out by hand without the use of machinery or expertise of a machinist, this will reduce cost generously. Its made out of high density foam which will meet the strength requirements while drastically reducing the cost in comparison to using a carbon fiber body or even one forged from metal. The hulls edge perimeter is to be chamfered instead of filleted, this will reduce cost because less machining time is needed; only one pass of the bit rather than multiple passes. The bag skirt is made of a tarpaulin material which is not only cheap but also is very durable and adds aesthetic appeal. There is also one lift fan powered by a single Ni-Cad battery and two thrust fans that are powered by a single lithium ion battery; this will ensure its speed is unrivaled. Overall this concept was chosen as one of the top three design concepts because it is cost effective, plausible, designed for manufacturing, fast and aesthetically appealing.

P a g e | 31

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

Concept F
Figure 7.4: Concept F Top Isometric View

Figure 7.5: Concept F Front View

P a g e | 32

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

Figure 7.6: Concept F Rear Orientation Isometric View

Concept F
This concept was selected as the one of the top three, because of its combination of great components. To start the hull of this hovercraft made of high density foam is a teardrop shape which is aerodynamic as well as visually appealing. The reason for using high density foam for the hull is because the foam is lightweight, strong, and easy to cut by hand or by using a CNC for more accuracy. The skirt of the hovercraft is made of thin rubber and is in the form of a C shape. The reason for using rubber as the skirt material is because the rubber will act as a bumper if the hovercraft collides with anything and also because rubber can easily be cut and formed by hand. The skirt is also anchored between the double layer hull so that air does not leak from the top of the skirt and so the skirt is firmly attached and will not fall off. The propulsion system is composed of dual thrust fans located at the rear of the hovercraft. Each thrust fan motor is powered by its own lithium ion battery for maximum output as opposed to a less powerful Ni-Cad battery. The fans are also enclosed in a housing to increase their thrust power and focus the air stream. An integrated system is used to supply the lift for the hovercraft, because this way there is no need for a separate lift fan and battery pack to power it. The integrated system diverts air from the thrust fans through a channel to inflate the skirt. One other feature of this concept is the large vertical fin that runs lengthwise along the hull; this fin is not only artistically appealing, but also helps to stabilize the hovercraft and keep it going in a straight line. The fin would be made of high density foam and run between the two thrust fans. For these reasons concept F was chosen as one of the top three hovercraft design concepts to meet the required needs.
P a g e | 33

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

Concept G
Figure 7.7: Concept G Front Isometric View

Figure 7.8: Concept G Cross-Section Side View

P a g e | 34

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

Figure 7.9: Concept G Bottom Isometric View

Concept G
This concept was chosen in the top three designs over the others because of its cost, manufacturing, and features. The cost of this design is lower than most other designs because the material used for the hull of the hovercraft is high-density foam. Using highdensity foam as the hull material has a much lower cost than carbon fiber or fiber glass. The manufacturing of this hovercraft is also easy and cost effective. This design requires CNC machining only for two features, the elliptical shape of the hull and the chamfered edges. All other features on the design can be done by hand. The design uses two fans, one to provide lift for the inverted Air-hockey-table skirt powered by a Ni-Cad battery and the other fan to produce thrust powered by a lithium ion battery. Having a skirt as an inverted air hockey table will create a pocket of air that would produce lift for the hovercraft. For these main reasons Concept G was picked as one of the top three hovercraft design concepts. The representation of these concepts clearly indicates our conceptual development. We took everything we knew and proposed designs based on that information. In the following section, we put together our collective knowledge, including materials and manufacturing processes, and developed a single design for recommendation.
P a g e | 35

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

8.0 Detailed Design

The hovercraft design process began with researching what had been done by others. We looked at the progression of the hovercraft design throughout history and the applications of todays models. That research was followed by analyzing the key equations that must be considered when designing and operating a hovercraft. With this information, we began brainstorming specific design features and we identified the ones that we would consider for our design. We used the condensed list of features to develop ten formal hovercraft designs. From these ten, we selected three designs according to theoretical performance abilities, complexity and aesthetics. As we became more familiar and educated with the different manufacturing processes available to us, we were able to refine our design. We learned of tolerances, their importance in the design process and the level of tolerance obtained from the different manufacturing processes. Incorporating this information into our concept selection allowed us to refine our design. We developed a single, well thought out, hovercraft design concept according to available materials and manufacturing processes. The details of this design and a preliminary manufacturing process are as follows.

Final Design Overview

Figure 8.1: Final Design Isometric View

P a g e | 36

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

Figure 8.2: Final Design Front View

Figure 8.3: Final Design Side View

P a g e | 37

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

Figure 8.4: Final Design Section View

Final Design Components

Table 8.1 Final Design Components Component Description Hull Two layer system in order to fasten skirt material Made of Quick-Recovery Natural Gum Foam Rubber Skirt Enclosed Bag Skirt Made from Tarpaulin Lift System Ducted Lift Fan and Motor Assembly Lift System 7.2V 900 mAh NiMH Battery Power Source 6 Cell Shrink wrapped in plastic Thrust System Housing for securing thrust system Mount Linear Trajectory Fin Thrust System Dusted Thrust Fan and Motor Assembly Thrust System 10.8V 650 mAh NiMH Battery Power Source 9 Cell Shrink wrapped in plastic Shell Carbon Fiber shell that provides an aerodynamic shape to our design Manufacturing Process Computer Numerical Control

Cut manually Purchased fully assembled Purchased

Rapid Prototyping Purchased fully Assembled Purchased

Vacuum Forming
P a g e | 38

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

Figure 8.5: Final Design Detailed View

P a g e | 39

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

Figure 8.6: Final Design Component View

P a g e | 40

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

Final Design Cost Analysis

Table 8.2 Final Design Component Cost Component Cost 10.8V Battery [15] $17.99 Thrust Fan [15] $11.73 Lift Fan [15] $11.14 7.2V Battery [15] $17.99 Total: $58.85 Table 8.3 Final Design Material Cost Material Cost Foam Sheet $16.80 (36 x 12 x 0.5) [13] Tarpaulin Sheet $7.19 (10 x 12) [14] Carbon Fiber Sheet $57.43 (12 x 12 x 1/16) [13] Resin for Carbon Fiber [13] $28.89 Total: $123.49 Table 8.4 Final Design Manufacturing Cost Process Cost CNC [16] $71.13 Rapid Prototyping [16] $79.90 Vacuum Forming [16] $5.28 Total: $156.31 Total Design Cost: $338.65

Final Design Manufacturing Breakdown

Computer Numerical Control Cost: The shape of our hull must be done by CNC due to its complex geometry. The cost for using a CNC for the deck can be calculated with the following equation: [16] Our hull design consists of two pieces of high density foam. Since the hovercraft designs are not controlled by the user, we rely on symmetry to provide even air distribution. In order to obtain this, the CNC process must be used to get the required tolerance. The first part is the top piece of our design. It is a tear drop shape, with a profile consisting of a semi-circle and spline, which has
P a g e | 41

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

an approximate area of 0.0387 m2. Excess material must be removed from the stock piece and three holes added to the surface. These holes are for the two battery compartments and the lift fan housing. The cost of this machining process would be:

The second piece is the bottom of the hull and is of the same material and shape as the previous one. This implies that the same amount of area must be cut out. This piece has a hole in the surface for the lift fan housing and two pockets for the remainder of the battery compartments. The cost for this piece would be:

Our design includes a carbon fiber shell of complex geometry to be produced using the vacuum forming process. The CNC process must be used to manufacture a mold for this process. The mold has an approximate area of .022 m2 and 6 slits that we classified as holes. It is made from the same material as the hull. The cost for the mold would be as follows:

$18.24

The total cost for our use of the CNC is as follows:

Our decision to CNC the body of the hovercraft was influenced by multiple factors. We found that having the best possible tolerance for the most important components (hull and the shell) of the hovercraft was necessary. The hull, which holds the hovercraft together, must be of the best quality, and the shell is what protects the components of the hovercraft. The shell adds a major aerodynamic feature to our design and is therefore very important. By using the CNC process for manufacturing parts, the complex geometry we defined is maintain, the tolerance of the parts is high and our overall quality is increased, resulting in a more aesthetically appealing design.

P a g e | 42

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

Rapid Prototyping Cost: Our design has three parts that require rapid prototyping; the fin behind the fan, the fan housing and the housing mount. We will be using the digital light printer process, the Zbuilder Ultra Machine, for each of these parts. Fin: [16]

Fan Housing:

Fan Housing Mount:

The total cost for rapid prototyping is: $79.90

During our design process we were shown rapid prototyping and it appeared to be a valid option. Initially, with lack of knowledge in the subject, we thought we believed rapid prototyping would be more cost efficient and a quicker than other processes. The tolerance for rapid prototyping is extremely high. However, when we considered rapid prototyping above, we found that the cost was too high and the production time was quite lengthy [17]. Through other resources we found an alternative method that would be more cost effective. The process we were informed of still involved three components but produced from very different manufacturing methods. This process is as follows [18]: Laser-cutting the linear trajectory fin from a piece of fiber board would be much more cost effective than rapid prototyping. The thrust fan housing could be cut from a stock tube of our required diameter. The material would be ABS plastic and could be cut on a lathe. CNC could be used to machine the thrust fan housing support out of an acrylic material. The three components would be bonded with an adhesive to produce the required piece.

P a g e | 43

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

This process, from a reliable source [18], was an interesting alternative and a great way to reduce the manufacturing cost of our design.

Vacuum Forming: The shell that encloses our hull design and its exposed components could be manufactured using the vacuum forming process. It is made out of carbon fiber and will be formed to the mold described previously in the CNC section. The shape will be set and strengthened with the use of a resin. The cost will be as follows: [16]

The total cost for vacuum forming is: $5.28 For our design, we selected carbon fiber for the material for the shell. However, through our expert resources [18] we found that alternative material would be much cheaper and more efficient. We wanted a strong material for the shell that looked aesthetically appealing; which is what was found in carbon fiber. We initially chose to vacuum form the material because of the complex geometry of our design and we believed it was a fairly simple and cost effective process. By vacuum forming the carbon fiber, it would allow for high tolerances, as it takes the shape of the mold produced in the CNC process section. With laying up carbon fiber over highdensity foam, the mold would be a onetime use only as it is bonded to the carbon fiber with an adhesive. This is inefficient, and other alternatives would be better. By using ABS plastic as the material for the shell and medium density fiber board for the mold, the mold could be used multiple times [17]. Having a reusable mold would allow us to produce multiple shells as required for mass production or in the event of a crash and a replacement was needed. Ultimately, the manufacturing costs that we have presented in this section are merely a preliminary estimate based on guidelines provided to us. We have made reference to some alternatives to our initial thoughts on the manufacturing process, and without a doubt, many more exist. Through more research, expert advice and testing, a much more thorough, cost effective manufacturing process could be determined and outlined for our proposed design.

P a g e | 44

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

Performance Analysis
To begin applying the formulas found in section we first must calculate the mass. The mass of the total hovercraft is calculated by adding all of the components individual masses. Mass of hovercraft body Mass of lift fan Mass of 6 cell Ni-Mh battery Mass of thrust fan Mass of 9-cell Ni-Mh battery Total Hovercraft Mass 13.28oz. +0.95oz. +4.6oz. +1.1oz. +4.3oz. 24.23oz. = 0.68736kg

The masses of the components are given in the descriptions of the specs for the product online [15]. The mass of the hovercraft body was drawn on solid works and we were able to get the value for the mass from the program. With the mass we can calculate the amount of pressure that the lift fan must produce so that the hovercraft can perform effectively. [8]

The next force that must be analyzed is the thrust force. This force will give us an idea of how much force will be pushing the hovercraft forward, and how fast it will go. It is calculated through the following equation: [9] The thrust of the hovercraft cannot be calculated without observing the performance of the hovercraft. However the theoretical thrust that the fan will produced is given in the description of the fans specifications. The thrust that is produced is: = 90.0 g

P a g e | 45

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

The final force that we must calculate is the drag force, which is calculated through the equation: [10]

Calculating the drag force allows us to see how much thrust force must be produced. By assessing if the drag is too high we can alter our design so that it will be minimized. Our calculation is restricted by the calculation of the velocity and coefficient of drag. Both of these cannot be determined without performing any experimental analysis, so they are left as variables. The coefficient of drag can be calculated by the following formula: [11] The calculations performed in this section are preliminary calculations that give us an idea of how our hovercraft will perform. It should be noted that these numbers are rough and will not reflect the actual numbers that the hovercraft will produce. The rough estimate for performance allows us to analyze our design and see what need to improved or changed for optimal performance of the hovercraft.

P a g e | 46

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

9.0 Summary
In the outlined report we were able to define several concepts of a hovercraft that met the clients specific needs constraining the hovercraft to being faster than its competitors, travels in a straight line, minimal cost, maximum aesthetic appeal, no external interference on the hovercraft during competition, user friendly and safe, meanwhile designing for manufacturability. Drag, power-toweight ratio, lift, appropriate materials, shape that encourages aerodynamics and the cost to achieve all of the above were covered in detail in the report. The included tables had the following focal points: lift/system concepts, skirt concepts, hull/deck concepts, power source concepts, and propulsion system concepts. Through this screening process we came up with ten concepts that integrated, the useful information we learned, into the design itself. We also learned, through various resources, that when manufacturing a small scale hovercraft, one propulsion fan will meet the speed requirements because if more than one is used, for the given size, there will be too much thrust for forward propulsion and there will be a loss of directional control. The fins help direct the airflow to maintain moderate control. Having a propeller hub increases thrust significantly by also directing airflow into a constant flow. Using a curved shape on the front of the hull has less drag then a more square design because it cuts the air smoothly rather than coming against it, chopping the air with a flat edge. Lastly it was deduced that a bag skirt using a material such a tarpaulin was the best choice overall, this is because tarpaulin is a cheap, easy to acquire material, that is durable, forms to desired shape if manipulated appropriately and is very easy to assemble as part of the hovercraft. We were able to reduce our list of potential design styles to three concepts. Concept A, the design is a standard hull with a flat deck that is approximately 3/4 (two layers, each 3/8 thick) thick made of high density foam, this can be cut by hand on a band saw or CNC machined for higher accuracy. We decided on chamfered edges for increased aerodynamics without the extra cost of fillets. Concept A has an enclosed bag skirt made from tarpaulin and attached by using an adhesive placed in between the two layers of the hull. A single lift fan is used in this concept with an Electrify T370 motor powered by a NiCad battery. Dual thrust fans using an Electrify T370 motor for each, powered by one lithium ion battery provide the thrust. The next design chosen was Concept F. This includes a tear drop shaped hull made from high density foam that is approximately 3/4 (two layers, each 3/8 thick) thick, this can be cut by hand on a band saw or CNC machined for higher accuracy. The skirt chosen was a C shaped skirt that is made from rubber, which acts as a bumper if collision occurs. A single lift fan located in between thrust fans powered by a single NiCad battery does the lift portion for the hovercraft. Dual thrust fans are used and are each enclosed by a fan hub to increase thrust output, each motor is powered by a lithium ion battery. Lastly Concept G has an ellipse shape hull made of high density foam that is approximately 3/4 thick, this can be cut by hand on a band saw or CNC machined for higher accuracy. Chamfered edges were chosen for part of the hull design to increase aerodynamics and reduce drag. The design for the skirt is an inverted hockey table skirt, which is simply an extension of the hull
P a g e | 47

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

shape material. A single lift fan provided all the lift thrust needed to perform the hovering. A single thrust fan was made responsible for the forward motion of the hovercraft, to which it was operated by Electrify T370 motor powered by a single lithium ion battery. The final concept that we decided upon was a combination of the last three designs, the reason for this was to reduce manufacturing costs, increase speed and meet the client needs as much as possible. The final concept has the following design, materials and constraints: A fan hub with a fin attached on the back, both made from plastic, that has integrated aerodynamic contours to increase air control for desired flow, a custom propulsion fan to increase thrust output, a custom lift fan for compatibility with the thickness of the hull while maintaining required thrust output, a nine cell NiCad battery for the thrust fan, a six cell NiCad battery for the lift fan, a tear drop shaped hull made from two layers high density foam, a bag skirt made of tarpaulin bonded between the foam, the motor for the propulsion fan is CN12-R-XC which has 25500 rpm and the motor used for the lift fan is the CN12-R-LC and has 15200 rpm. The next step is the actual manufacturing and assembling of the hovercraft. Our superiors will choose the best six designs and we will commence the manufacturing process.

P a g e | 48

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

10.0 Recommendation
In our design process we found that one particular design for our hovercraft was better than the rest. Although we did not cover the details of the other hovercraft concepts and designs in as much depth, we found that the final design that we chose is superior in many ways. We selected this design over the others because it showed that its features would allow it to perform better than the other designs. Features such as its aerodynamic design, propulsion system, and lift system showed more promising results than the other designs when we applied the force equations to the hovercraft. Also, we found that the material composition of this design was superior to the others. The materials were attainable and relatively cost efficient. Most parts of the design are easily fixed or replaced, and it is not costly to do so. We also found that the materials used in this design are exactly what we needed for the hovercrafts purposes. Main materials such as carbon fiber, high density foam, and tarpaulin are light, which will allow the hovercraft to achieve lift and speeds greater than the other designs. The materials are also sturdy and will be able to absorb any impact that might occur, allowing the hovercraft to make multiple runs. The power source of the design was superior to others because it is able to supply the amount of power that we need, as opposed to being too much or too little, which is what was found to be problematic in the other designs. Not only is the designs theoretical performance superior to the other designs; we found that it is much more aesthetically appealing. The smooth streamlined design gives the hovercraft a slimmer and more aesthetic appeal. The hovercrafts shape is unique to other designs, aiding in its aesthetical appeal. Although the hovercraft is much more promising than any other design that we have considered, it has flaws and must be further evaluated. The materials for the hovercraft are relatively cost efficient, however the manufacturing cost for many of the hovercrafts features are much more expensive than many of our other designs. Because it has a streamlined design many of the parts have to be produced by a CNC, which allows for better tolerances, but it increases its cost for manufacturing. In our report, we chose to rapid prototype and vacuum form various parts for better tolerances and higher quality products. These two processes drastically increased the manufacturing cost, and the cons of the processes outweighed the pros. In spite of the major flaws, we found through other sources that these prices can be significantly reduced by using alternative materials, which would provide us the same functionality as the current, and by using alternative manufacturing process which would be more cost efficient for specific parts. Ultimately the designs specifications are promising and show exceptional theoretical performance. The hovercraft is also more aesthetically pleasing and unique than any other design we have considered. However, the designs manufacturing cost is way too high and must be reduced significantly. Since alternative manufacturing processes show that the manufacturing cost can be significantly reduced, our recommendation would be to perform more research on these processes and materials before proceeding with the development and production of our design.

P a g e | 49

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

11.0 References
[1] (May 1968). Hovercraft Bill [Online]. Available: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1968/may/16/hovercraft-bill [February 18 2012]. [2] E. Bilzer, E. Sieche (1981, Nov 17). VersuchsgleitbootThe Worlds First Hovercraft [Online]. Available: http://homepages.thm.de/~hg6339/data/ah/minor-crafts/1915_ahgleitboot/tec_versuchsgleitboot-1.htm [February 17 2012]. [3] Hovercraft [Online] Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hovercraft [February 20 2012]. [4] SN.R1 [Online] Available: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/SRN1_General_Arrangement.jpg [February 19 2012]. [5] Mark Porter (2006). Paper presented to The Hovercraft Society [Online]. Available: http://www.model-hovercraft.com/thspaper.html [February 17 2012]. [6] Military hovercraft [Online]. Available: http://links999.net/hovercraft/mem_hov/hovercraft_military.html [February 18 2012]. [7] Hovercraft in use [Online]. Available: http://links999.net/hovercraft/mem_hov/hovercraft_in_use.html [February 16 2012]. [8] Hovercraft: Lift Using Air Only [Online]. Available: http://www.hovercraftcentral.com/article/only_air.html [February 19 2012]. [9] General Thrust Equation [Online]. Available: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/thrsteq.html [February 20 2012]. [10] The Drag Equation [Online]. Available: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/drageq.html [February 20 2012]. [11] The Drag Coefficient [Online]. Available: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/dragco.html [February 20 2012]. [12] J. Benini (2004). Why A Hovercraft Hovers: Pressure and Lift [Online]. http://www.discoverhover.org/infoinstructors/guide4.htm [February 14 2012]. [13] McMaster-Carr [Online]. Available: http://www.mcmaster.com
P a g e | 50

Phase II Design Report

Team Dozen

3/2/2012

[14] Orange Tarpaulin, 10 x 12-ft [Online]. Available: http://www.canadiantire.ca/AST/browse/5/SportsRec/Camping/Tarpaulins/PRDOVR~0405000P /Orange+Tarpaulin%2C+10+x+12-ft.jsp?locale=en [February 27 2012] [15] Hobby Fever [Online]. Available: http://www.hobbyfever.com [16] N. Balakrishnan, PHASE II: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REPORT: CNC AND RP COSTING ANALYSIS, unpublished. [17] C. Laing, Expert, In-person communication, March 2012. [18] N. Balakrishnan, Expert, In-person communication, March 2012.

P a g e | 51