As was mentioned in the introduction, the project consisted of 6 phases:

· 1.1 Project Planning

· 1.2 Google Site Creation

· 1.3 Mechanical Design

· 1.4 Prototype Creation

· 1.5 Final Product Design

· 1.6 Final Presentation and Report

The following section outlines the steps and actions the Veggie Blaster Team took to complete each phase of the project and accomplish each milestone associated to its respective phase. The first phase of the project was completed as follows.

1.1 Project Planning

The first phase of the project involved the initial planning stages including the scope statement, initial budget, Gantt Chart, etc. The following activities were completed by the team with assistance from Professor Volkening and using any resources posted to Fanshawe Online (FOL) and Capstone Project Webpage.

Task: 1.1.1 Pool of Ideas

The first deliverable the team completed was the Pool of Ideas. This document outlines the initial ideas that the team brainstormed for the various components and aspects of the device. Using the outline discussed in class via Zoom presented by Professor Volkening the team compiled multiple ideas and came to a decision on the power source, cutting implementation, method of use, input method, and ejection method. Please refer to Figure 2. Pool of Ideas below for a detailed look at the various ideas the team compiled.

Decisions:

The team made the decision to have a manual rotating crank for the power source, and a reciprocating blade housed in a bracket for the cutting implementation. For the method of use, the team decided on an A-Frame base to hold the cutting chute and house the drive mechanism. For both the input method and ejection method, gravity was used as the primary driving force to move the vegetables down the chute, through the cutting blade and ejected from a slot cut beneath the blade that resembles a cheese grader.

Task: 1.1.2 Project Sketch

After completing the initial pool of ideas and coming to a decision on the various main components of the Veggie Blaster Device, the team then moved on to creating Project Sketches. These sketches were made for the key components of the device to show proof of concept to management. The components were: the main assembly, the frame, the Cutting Deck, the Drive Bracket, and the Crank Handle including the spur gears used for driving the mechanism. The team was instructed that all sketches were required to be hand-drawn so with the use of graph paper and the team’s artistic abilities the Project Sketch was completed. The completed project sketches can be seen in Figure 3. posted below.

Decisions:

Initial device design in the project sketch had the main drive shaft extending across the underside of the cutting blade, after submitting the document, the team decided to alter the shaft so that it would extend to the drive mechanism on the front side and no further. The decision was made to eliminate any sanitary issues caused by the vegetables falling on to the shaft after they had been cut and to eliminate the chance of the vegetables sticking to the shaft potentially causing the user to remove them resulting in an injury. Along with that, the team made the decision to adjust the overall design of the motion of cutting, initially in the pool of ideas the team wanted to have the cutting chute reciprocate across the blade but during sketching the team noticed the drive mechanism would have been too involved and opted for a simpler mechanism to drive the blade underneath the chute.

Task: 1.1.3 Project Scope Statement

Before the project could move forward to the next phase the Veggie Blaster team was required to complete the scope statement and to gain approval from Professor Volkening. The scope includes the deliverables the team was expected to complete along with outlining the purpose and description of the device. Using the outline provided in the Capstone Project webpage the team completed all required components and met Professor Volkening February 10, 2022 and gained signatures and approval. Please find the Project Scope Statement below (Figure 4.).

Task: 1.1.4 Project Budget

After completing the Project Scope Statement, the team then moved on to completing the initial Project Budget. Using the initial Gantt Chart completed in parallel with the Project Scope, the team transferred the tasks into an Excel file and assigned a monetary value to each task in terms of hourly labour costs. A final cost for labour was calculated to be $10 496.00. The budget also consisted of costs related to materials needed for the device and the total calculated value was $399.28. The total cost of the budget in initial planning was calculated out to be $10 895.28, any variances between this value and the final actual value is discussed in the Project Management section of this report. Below the Initial Budget is posted for review (Figure 5.).

Task: 1.1.5 Project Risk Assessment

In order to mitigate any risks the team would encounter throughout the length the project, the team created the Project Risk Assessment to outline the risks and to assess the severity these risks would have on the success of the project. Using past experiences along with certain circumstances involving the COVID-19 pandemic the team successfully created the document. In some instances, the team did encounter the impacts from these risks unfolding and accommodations needed to be made. As with variances in the initial and actual budget, the impact these risks made on the project are discussed in further detail in the Project Management section of the report. Figure 6. Risk Assessment posted below is the completed document, please refer to for any questions.

Milestone: 1.1.7 Project Scope Statement Approved/Submitted

On February 11, 2022, the Project Scope package was submitted to Fanshawe Online (FOL) for review by Professor Volkening. All of the above tasks and documents were submitted in the package along with the Initial Gantt Chart. This milestone was accomplished on time and in full on the required date outlined by MGMT-3074 submission dates. The team then moved on to the next phase of the project.

1.2 Google Site Creation

All teams completing the Capstone Project were required to create a Google Site to house all of the required documents and deliverables, along with all project updates and all EVA values throughout the project. There were 4 main updates required for completion of this phase as well as weekly updates to the website when a task had been completed and the documents associated were posted to the Google Site. This phase and all the tasks were completed in parallel with the remaining phases of the project up until the project end date (please refer the Initial Gantt Chart for more details on parallel completion).

Task: 1.2.1 Project Website Creation

Using advice from Professor Volkening along with forums and instructional webpages online the team was able to complete the initial setup of the Google Site. The outline for site components outlined having a landing or “home” page, an EVA page to post all EVA updates throughout the project, a Document page to house all documents completed for the project, a Project Update page to post all 3 formal project updates required during completion of the project, a List of Tasks and Decisions page, and finally a page dedicated to showcasing the Team Members that are a part of the Veggie Blaster Team. On February 18, 2022 the Google Site was published and URL was submitted to the submission page for COMM-3069 and MGMT-3074. Along with the required site pages, all of the tasks completed in the Project Planning phase of the project were posted to their respective pages on the site.

Task 1.2.2 Google Site Update #1

The first major update to the Google Site occurred on March 04, 2022. This update included the first formal Project Update submitted to COMM-3069 along with the first two EVA updates of the project for the dates of February 25, 2022 and March 04, 2022. Below are the two EVA updates uploaded in this site update (Figure 7. and Figure 8.).

Task 1.2.3 Google Site Update #2

The second major update occurred March 18, 2022. The main components added to the Google Site during this update were all the Engineering Drawings including the Tolerance Stack-up, and Bill of Materials. The Design Evaluation completed for the Cutting Deck and Drive Bracket was also completed and uploaded to the site for this update. The next two EVA updates had been added for the dates of March 11, 2022 and March 18, 2022. With all the previous content mentioned the update Google Site was published for viewing. Figure 9. and Figure 10 posted below were added to the site for EVA progress in this update.

Task 1.2.4 Google Site update #3

The next major update occurred on April 03, 2022. This update included the Low Volume Process Planning document completed by the team that evaluated the Cutting Deck. The next two EVA updates for the dates of March 25, 2022 and April 03, 2022 were posted as well. Once the completed documents were posted and reviewed this update was published. Below, Figure 11. and Figure 12. show the EVA progress for this update.

Task 1.2.5 Google Site Final Update

The final update to the Google Site occurred April 15, 2022. The team presented the Final Presentation on April 05, 2022 and the presentation was uploaded to the site on the following day. Pictures of all machined components were posted to show progress in physical component creation. The two final EVA updates for April 08, 2022 and April 15, 2022 were added to the EVA page. Finally, this Report was posted to the site for final submission on April 16, 2022. Figure 13. and Figure 14. below showcase the final two EVA updates added to the site.

Milestone: Google Site Complete

After maintaining all deadlines for content to be uploaded to the Google Site, the team successfully completed this milestone. As was stated above, this phase was completed in parallel to next 4 phases of the project and completion of the previously mentioned documents and deliverables is discussed in detail in the following phases.

1.3 Mechanical Design

This phase of the project involved designing the device in complete form including all components, assemblies, and bill of materials. All components and assemblies were created on SolidWorks and any simulations were run as well. Before the team could move into the next phase, engineering drawings were required to purchase necessary materials and to complete evaluations based on the key components. Issues in this phase made the greatest impact on the schedule deadlines and they will be discussed in more detail in the Project Management section of the report.

Task: 1.3.1 Part Modelling

Every component of the device required detailed Engineering Drawings before any materials could be purchased or machined. Certain components were downloaded from McMasterCarr and drawings were completed for any modifications needed for the component. Once all components were created on SolidWorks the team could then move on to creating an assembly of the device. All component Engineering Drawings are posted in the document below (Figure 15.).

Decisions:

After beginning work on the drawings, the team noticed that the initial design of the drive mechanism was overly complicated and would not be feasible. The initial design had the drive mechanism using two spur gears with teeth only on half of each gear contacting each gear rack at different points to move the cutting deck forward and then backward. This design was altered so that only one gear would be necessary, contacting a top rack and bottom rack and the crank handle would be rotated counter-clockwise for forward motion and clockwise for backward motion. The other decision made in this task was to move from 3D printed gear racks and gear to purchasing these components from McMasterCarr and modifying them for use in the device.

Task 1.3.2 Product Assembly Drawing

After completing the component models, focus was then shifted to completing a mechanical assembly of the device using SolidWorks as well. Unfortunately, it was during this task the team encountered the greatest setback to the project. All initial models of the component were completed using SolidWorks 2021 off-campus. The team met on February 13, 2022 on campus to work together on the assembly modelling using SolidWorks 2022 on the school computers. After completing the assembly model, the team then moved off-campus to continue work on creating the drawings for the assembly, however as result of using a newer version of SolidWorks none of the model or drawing files would open in an older version of Solidworks. After trying to adjust dates the files were created all the files became corrupt and essentially all of the work on modelling done up to this point had been lost. The team had to restart this phase of the project 3 days before the deadline. As a result of the setback, the team completed the assembly drawings on March 08, 2022. Please refer to the document below (Figure 16.) to see the main assembly of the device along with all other sub-assemblies.

Decisions:

Initial talks for the design of the A-Frame base had it manufactured out of 1x1 Hollow Steel Tubing welded together. After modelling the assembly of the device and evaluating Mass Properties, the overall weight of device was greater than 25.0 lbs. The team decided that this was too heavy for a countertop device and moved to creating the A-Frame from 1x1 Solid Aluminum Tubing. This modification cut down the overall weight to approximately 11.22 lbs. Well within a reasonable weight for the device to be moved freely around a kitchen.

Task 1.3.3 Drawing and Tolerance Stack-Up

While completing the final Engineering Drawings the team completed a Tolerance Stack-Up on all key components involved in proper alignment of the device. There were two methods required to complete the Tolerance Stack-Up outlined in the document posted to the Capstone Project webpage. The two methods of choice were the Worst-Case Method and Root Sum Squared (RSS) method. If a component had greater than 6 dimensions involved in one tolerance chain, then the RSS method had to be used. All the Veggie Blaster’s components had less than 6 dimensions involved in a tolerance chain, so the Worst-Case method was used to calculate the Tolerance Stack-Up for the key dimensions of the device. Most key dimensions were overall length, width, and height of the component. Below you can find the completed Tolerance Stack-Up for the key components (Figure 17.).

Task: 1.3.4 Bill of Materials

After completing all the component modelling, Engineering Drawings, and Tolerance Stack-Up the final Bill of Materials was ready for review. This task was necessary before purchasing any material for machining or purchasing components through McMasterCarr or other suppliers. Using the assembly model on SolidWorks, the team completed the Bill of Materials, and it was added to the main page of the Assembly Drawing. Please refer to the document posted in Task 1.3.2.

Milestone: Mechanical Design Approved

After dealing with setbacks with technical difficulties with SolidWorks the team was able to accomplish completion of this milestone on March 11, 2022. It was completed behind schedule, but all required tasks were completed in full.

1.4 Prototype Creation

This phase of the project was the greatest impacted out of all the phases of the project because of the setbacks incurred during the previous phase with SolidWorks. Initial plans included creating a working prototype in this phase but because of the shortened timeline the team was not able to complete assembly of a working prototype. The main activities involved in this phase were researching suppliers for material and completing the Design Evaluation for two key components, the Cutting Deck and Drive Bracket. Below the listed tasks are detailed on completion.

Task 1.4.1 Material Research

To manufacture the components needed for assembly the team completed research on various suppliers to purchase materials needed. Aluminum plates were needed for most components used in the drive mechanism, hardened steel was needed for the cutting blade, and solid aluminum tubing was needed to construct the main A-Frame. After researching various suppliers, Metal Supermarkets in London, ON was chosen to supply all the material needed for machining. URL for the company’s website is posted here: https://www.metalsupermarkets.com/location/london/.

Task 1.4.2 Supplier Contacts

After choosing a supplier competent enough to supply all the material needs of the project based on information posted on the company website, the team contacted Metal Supermarkets to confirm they were able to supply the team with the material needed. After talks with the company, they confirmed they were able to supply the team with the necessary materials and this task was completed.

Task 1.4.3 Design Evaluation

After research to purchase material needed the team then moved forward to the Design Evaluation. Using documents uploaded to the Capstone Project webpage that included various values for costs and times the team then completed this document. The Design Evaluation document evaluated the costs associated to manufacturing two key components of the device with various processes. For the components of the device not purchased through McMasterCarr the most feasible processes were Manual Machining and CNC Machining to manufacture the necessary parts. Costs were calculated based on shop rates for use of machines, material costs, and rates of material removal based on tooling used were used to calculate the time needed for manufacturing. Below the completed document is available for review (Figure 18.).

Decisions:

After completing the Design Evaluation, the results yielded a preference for manual machining of the first components used for prototyping. Given these results, the decision was made by the team to manually machine the components. Timeslots for the Machining Lab opened after Reading Week of the winter semester and the team booked 3 total slots to machine as many components as time would allow.

Milestone: Prototype Creation

This was the first milestone of the project not completed in full by the Veggie Blaster Team. As a result from the constricted schedule, the team was not able to create a working prototype of the device. Despite failures in physical creation of products, all the required documents were completed in entirety and on time.

1.5 Final Product Design

The second last phase of the project involved purchasing the material needed to produce key components along with completing the Low Volume Process Planning evaluation for the Cutting Deck of the device.

Task 1.5.1 Purchase Material for Machining

After researching and choosing a supplier in the last phase, the team was then able to purchase material for machining. The team had decided to purchase material for the Cutting Deck first to machine and went forward with the purchase. When purchasing the material, the supplier was not able to provide the proper thickness needed for the component, so the team was forced to alter designs of the assembly to accommodate the variance in thickness. The device design called for a thickness of 0.500” for the Cutting Deck but the team was only able to secure a piece of 0.250” thickness. For prototyping purposes, the team deemed this acceptable and went forward with the purchase of the material.

Decisions:

As the team was unsure as to what level of completion the machining of components would be able to achieve the decision was made to purchase material for one component at a time to avoid purchasing material and not having time to machine and create the part.

Task 1.5.2 Low Volume Process Planning

One of the requirements for technical deliverables outlined was to complete a Low Volume Process Planning evaluation for producing various batches of 50 pieces of a certain component of the device. The team had focused on the Cutting Deck in all previous documents, so the decision was made to use this device in this deliverable. Using the values calculated in the Design Evaluation the team calculated the costs and time needed to produce a single batch of 50 pieces along with a production run of 4 batches consisting of 15 pieces per batch with a maximum 50 pieces produced. The costs and times were calculated based on lead times necessary by each process outlined in the design evaluation. Below you can find both the raw data used in the calculations (Figure 20.) along with the final report (Figure 19.) with the team’s recommendation to management on which options to choose.

Milestone: Final Product Complete

In terms of the technical deliverables required in this phase the team was able to successfully complete this phase of the project on time and in full. Material was purchased for the cutting deck and a Low Volume Process Planning evaluation was completed for the Cutting Deck.

1.6 Final Presentation and Final Report

The final phase of the project involved machining as many components as time would allow, along with creating and presenting the final status of the project and finally creating and submitting the two versions of the final report.

Task: 1.6.1 Machining Components

At this point in the project the team had completed all documents required and focus was put on machining as many key components for device as possible. Project requirements outlined by the Capstone Webpage called for machining of 2 key components of the device so the team chose to machine the Cutting Deck, the Upper and Lower Plate Spacer, and the Drive Bracket. Please find pictures of the machined components below.

Component: Cutting Deck

Component: Plate Spacer

Task: 1.6.2 Final Presentation

For the final presentation, the teams involved in the project were given a choice of two dates to present, April 05, 2022, and April 12, 2022. With the workload involved with end-of-semester activities the team decided to opt for the earlier date of presentations. The final presentation required the team to present the status of the project, and everything completed up until that point. The team compiled all documents completed and the machined Cutting Deck and prepared the presentation. Using the Final Presentation Rubric on the COMM-3069 FOL page the team completed the presentation with the required sections and presented the project on April 05, 2022.

Task 1.6.3 Final Report

For the final report, two dates were set for submission. A submission of the Final Report in an edited and complete state was required to submit on April 08, 2022. After receiving feedback from Professor MacDonald, the team then made changes the Final Report and prepared it for final submission on April 16, 2022.

Milestone: Project End

After completing machining on require key components, presenting the final status of the project, and submitting the Final Report, the project was closed out. The team believes the project was overall a success despite limited production of physical components. All required technical documentation deliverables were completed in full and on time.

Individual Content

Team Member: Jake Hall

In the Project Planning Phase of the project, Jake was responsible for completing the Project Scope Statement, the Project Gantt Chart, the Project Sketches with a combined effort between Jake and Sean Michelich, and the Project Budget was completed with a combined effort from Daniela Cruz. During the Mechanical Design Phase of the document, Jake along with a combined effort from Daniela and Sean, created the all the part models in SolidWorks, Jake created the Assembly Model and Drawings, the Tolerance Stack-Up Document, and the Bill of Materials. When the team moved to the Prototype Creation Phase of the project, Jake completed the work on the Design Evaluation. Once in the Final Product Phase, Jake completed the Low Volume Process Planning Evaluation. Finally, during the last phase of the project, Jake and Sean combined to machine the required components, and Jake completed the Final Report.

Team Member: Daniela Cruz

During the completion of this project, Daniela contributed as much as she could with any document that the team needed to submit such as the Budget along with Jake Hall. Daniela created a chart where the team could provide the right information so anyone who wanted to read the document could have the data of what the team expected the project and what it actually was. Together with Jake Hall, they were able to create the document that is posted to the website.

Daniela was responsible for creating the presentation for the zoom class and the in person final presentation, creating a format that was well organized and with the right amount of text and graphics so the team was able to have the best tool to communicate the product and how the project was as up to date. As she did in the presentation; designing a format that would be formal and presentable with almost every document with the layout and colors of the document, as simple as it could sound this really makes the difference to have the same format with all the documents in the project. As a result, whenever someone visits the website, it could find organization and same project format to make it look more professional.

Team Member: Sean Michelich

During the Project Planning Phase of the project, Sean was responsible for completing the Risk Assessment, Pool of Ideas, and with a combined effort with Jake Hall, the Project Sketches. During the Google Site Creation Phase, Sean created the initial setup of the Google Site, and during the project, working with Jake Hall, uploaded documents to the site and kept it up to date. In the Mechanical Design Phase, Sean helped create models on SolidWorks for the device assembly. Sean completed the Material Research, and contacted the suppliers during the Prototype Creation Phase. Sean also purchases material for machining in the Final Product Design Phase and with assistance from Jake, machined the components in the Final Presentation and Final Report Phase.