You are on page 1of 3

Project Title: Hydrogen Fuel Cell For Motorcycle

Author: Blace Jacobus
Class Code: IE 655
Date: 09/27/16
eLearning Pack ID: IE655-FALL 2016-33-27
Collaborative Companies:

Harley-Davidson (Motorcycle Company)
CEP Life Cycle Assessment (Chemical Engineering Progress)
iWWD (Industrial Water & Waste Digest)
LaVision Automotive (Measurement Technologies for Automotive)

Main Body
1) Develop FMEA model.
a. See Excel file
2) Show main process failure models and solutions
a. An example I would like to select is the Examine the Fuel Cell System.
This is because this process is of the highest concern for my company.
We have to ensure that the fuel cell system is the safest component on
the motorcycle due to the high risks it carries. That is why we will
devote significant resources to ensure the detection of any problem
before it would occur. Even with these high effort levels it is still a
potential risk so we have selected a detection level of 8 & 9 but a low
occurrence level. We feel confident that this is an accurate
representation of the potential risk and the calculator shows that this is
an acceptable level of risk at a RPN of 64 and 90. After accounting for
the various factors that affect the implementation of the inspection
process it was determined to be a low risk. This means we have
properly handled the severity of the very risky process. If something
were to go wrong with the fuel cell it would almost certainly be
catastrophic to the customer and thus devastating to our company but
in that worst case scenario dthe plan would be to immediately recall
the product and get them all off the road until we are 100% certain the
problem could not happen again.
3) Explain what engineering decisions will be made from this analysis
a. Above was an example of a successfully handled process that has a
low risk and nearly no alterations needed to the process to keep it
safe. Not all the processes are so well handled however. After using
this calculator it is clear that we have severely overlooked the Examine
the Accessories process. We will have to add resources to this
department to allow for more time on inspection as well as better
jigging and electrical engineers to make a more robust system. That
will not be all the effects of the calculator. We will also use the risk
values provided to allocate other resources to improving processes. Yes
the program says a low risk for most of our processes but that does not

mean we should not attempt to improve the process. Continual process
improvement will make our inspections cheaper and more reliable over
time. This savings and reliability can then be passed down to the
customer and make us a better company.
4) Ch4 imj1684 to img1704 describe potential failure modes(1 page)
a. The underwater housing is said to have many design flaws such as
bulky, difficult to use, and poorly toleranced. As stated in the text this
is the building blocks for the failure of a company/product. The
designer of this product must know that the product will be used for
underwater filming as that is the purpose of this product. That being
the case the designer should have the strength and waterproofing of
the rig as the highest concern. Other factors are critical to making a
nice product that the customers will enjoy but they will not lose their
camera due to a failure in the underwater housing. That being the
case an agile camera rig is a must! Moving a large boxy object
underwater is not an easy task and will add unwanted difficulty to the
dive. Since water is so much denser than air the smaller profile the
better. Also a hydrodynamic design would help. I see a lot of clamps
and bolts on the outside profile that would increase drag. With the
large profile be said that brings on the issue of the fogging. I would
hope that if you are designing an underwater camera rig you would
take into account that warm air trapped in the housing is going to cool
and condense once submerged. They could have opted for a tighter
fitting profile but maybe the geometry would not have been as strong
so a method for removing some air/moisture could have been
incorporated. My next concern with the design is the controls. They
seem really bad! Rubber tipped metal slides with poor toleranceing is a
complete failure! If the outside controls cannot accurately control the
cameras buttons the entire enclosure is useless. What if the user
couldn’t even press record?! Being a designer myself and knowing the
importance of well thought out toleranceing this is painful to even
think that a product could be released with such an oversight. I also
wonder how many different cameras this box could be used for. If all
the controls positions are locked in place I assume this is a very
specialized enclosure, only fitting a few camera models. If that is true
why didn’t they add some foam inserts to more securely hold the
camera, protect the camera, and remove air from the box while
keeping the strong geometry? Lastly I want to touch on assembly. I
have not personally assembled the camera but I would like a product
that I could just slide into the box, close the hatch, and rest easy
knowing its safe. All of these design failures lead to a product failure.
The product might not fail in terms of actually operating but a product
that a customer does not enjoy will lead to the product not selling well
and failing on the market.
5) Rankey-Weibull calculator reliability related risk with worksheet.
a. See Excel
6) How will calibration occur
a. Now that we have built such a descriptive PFRA we can meet with the
calibration companies and hash out all of the concerns. Since each of
them specialize in the different fields of this project it would be best to

communicate the concerns with the respective companies. For
example the concerns with the frame breaking prematurely would be
handled by Harley-Davidson. The fuel cell processes would be worked
on with CEP Life Cycle Assessment. We would then need the LaVision
Automotive and iWWD to help ensure we a achieving the efficiency
goal. Since these companies are experts in what they do I would also
like them to have a look at our analysis program and review our
values. Since we are a new company would could be mistakenly
reporting lower severity values or a higher detection value. Even
though we have performed a failure analysis without accurate values it
does not mean anything. Relaying on past experience of others is a
good place to start in a new field.