Department of Engineering HNC Computer Aided Draughting and Design Unit Title: Graded Unit 2 Unit No: F328

35 Candidates Name: Liam McCann Project Title: Miniature Steam Traction Engine

Verification Strategy

For this project a number of verification strategies will be used to ensure that the best possible design, with the greatest design potential is chosen for further development and production. The verification strategy must be chosen that, while it delivers enough data that a reasonable choice in design can be made, it is not so vigorous that the process of verifying which design to proceed with negatively impacts on the rest of the design process. It is important to find this balance to ensure the project is completed efficiently and to a standard that is acceptable. To ensure a suitable and robust strategy was chosen for implementation, research was first carried out to identify a suitable approach to verify that out of a number of concept designs only the best will be chosen. This research was carried by searching the internet to find suitable sites. Sites visited included Wikipedia, www.eetimes.com, www.engineeredsoftware.com and www.cs.york.ac.u. These sites cover a variety of disciplines, from the computer and automobile industry to a rough guide on design verification strategies. They were chosen to give both a good rough outline of how a verification strategy should be carried out, but also to see how such a strategy is implemented in other complex projects, such as computer processor design, and in similar products to the project like the automobile industry.

Other research included looking at previous projects carried out and accessing how well their verification process where in choosing the best designs. These projects included work carried out by the author individually and in groups, as well as works undertaken by colleagues individually and in groups. From this research a number of verification strategies have been identified as being suitable for use in this project. They include a mix of strategies to enable a shotgun approach to verification and ensure that a good result is achieved. These strategies have a mix of group, individual and self examination of the concept designs. The strategies chosen are peer review by classmates and peers, Weighted Objective method, Professional Critique and group review by the medium of the internet. To ensure a good result in the verification process each review has been chosen to enable good data to be gleaned on particular aspects of the design. For example the aesthetics of the project do not need to be reviewed under the weighted objected method, as aesthetics taste vary from person to person, so a simple peer review will just as readily show which design is most aesthetically pleasing to the majority of people. Each verification technique will hence provide good data on particular aspects of each individual design, while also covering a small variety of different design aspects. Professional review The professional review is included to help determine the best technical qualities of each design. This will help show the best arrangement of devices used in locomotive operation and the best technologies to implement in the design. He will also be invited to propose alternates to help improve the design at this stage in the projects life. The following is an example table of the main aspects of each design that the professional will be asked to review;

Design Aspect Boiler Firebox Wheels Power Transfer Materials Steam Controls Suspension

Score

Alternates

The primary function of the professional review is too ensure that the best combination of technologies is chosen for the final design. He/She will also help to determine the optimal layout of the components in relation to each other, to help produce a buildable efficient machine. This is a task best suited to a professional engineer as they have the experience and our trustworthy to deliver good feedback.

Group/Peer Review This method will be utilized to allow a large amount of feedback in a short period of time. The group will be shown the concept designs and asked to review them on a number of points, e.g. aesthetics, functionality etc. They will also be asked to give their personal opinion on each design to help build a better picture of which design is preferred and to catch any issues that may not have been noticed by the designer. The group that will be asked to review the designs will be vetted; however, to help eliminated any feedback that is deliberately negative or contrived.

Weighted Objective Method The Weighted Objectives Method is an evaluation method for comparing design concepts based on an overall value per design concept. The biggest disadvantage of some other verification strategies is that the scores per design aspect cannot be compiled into an overall score of the design alternative. This makes a direct comparison of the different designs difficult. The Weighted Objectives Method does exactly this: it allows the scores of all criteria to be summed up into an overall value and show the best possible design.

The designs will be evaluated against a number of different design criteria, each aspect will be assigned a weight which will show the best design, as well as showing the best features of each design which can be aggravated into a hybrid design, incorporating the best aspects of each concept design. This verification process will be carried out by the designer as well as a number of volunteers to ensure good and accurate data and a large range to help prevent statistical irregularities i.e. lots of people like one design whether or not is technically the best.

Internet Review The internet review will simply be another group and peer review, but with a much larger catchment area and with the possibility of vast amounts of data. As the internet is not the most reliable of sources, and the qualifications of those taking part cannot be verified it will be of most use to indentify the best design in general and those the design with the most appealing aesthetics. Specific targeting of how takes part in the review can be undertaken to improve the quality of data gleaned, but for our purposes this is unnecessary and wasteful, as adequate data can be reached by the other methods utilized in this verification strategy. Each part of this review will show up the best aspects of each design and will help guide the products further development during the course of the project. The different verification strategies taken signally will not provide enough information to overcome statistical anomalies but together they will provide a very clear picture of the best design.

Signature:

(Lecturer)

Approval date: