March 2, 2018
INTRODUCTION
The following chapter will explain how the team practiced concurrent engineering in the
design phase to design for manufacturability. This includes designing with regard for
manufacturing and accompanying processes, designing for adjustability, and designing for safety
of the canoe’s pilot. Each of these topics will be explained and build instructions will follow to
From the beginning, Dr. Peters had spoken to the team stressing the importance of
is important to keep in mind during the design phase how feasible a product will be to
For the team’s final design, the cross sections of the foil and struts were developed using
a staggered layering technique. The stepped layers of the foil and struts were smoothed out using
an epoxy filler, ensuring a low drag shape and surface. This technique allowed the cross
sections’ shape to be created without the need for an excessive amount of material removal. This
allowed the team to reduce the amount of material waste which would be created as a result of
sanding the positive, teardrop cross section from a blank rectangular cross section. Additionally,
using a staggering technique reduces the potential for human error in creating a uniform cross
section. An example of the staggered layering technique can be seen in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1 above depicts the layered cross section of one of the struts before epoxy was applied.
Epoxy filler will be used on the “steps” to smooth out the cross section and sanded to shape.
Additionally, the materials selected for the construction of the foil and struts themselves
are an example of concurrent engineering. While a material arrangement such as fiberglass over
a foam core would have had its own benefits, it was deemed that a wooden laminate structure
would be more easily manufactured and could be easily repeated if necessary. If a second
iteration were to be created using wooden laminate layering, the mold could easily be reused,
Seeing that there are several variables at play in testing the design - such as weight and
weather conditions - it is necessary to be able to control the angle of attack, the position of the
foils on the boat, and the position of the pilot within the boat. These adjustments can all be made
using the same apparatus. The angle of attack can be adjusted using a cable and pulley system.
The entire mounting bracket of the foils themselves can be positioned at different locations on
the boat. The pilot can be repositioned so as to redistribute weight appropriately. Sketches and
Figure 2: This side view of the control apparatus depicts the cable and pulley mechanism which
will be used to adjust the angle of attack. This piece of the apparatus will be mounted to the outer
apparatus will be mounted using an angle bracket spaced to hook onto the “lip” of the canoe. The
bracket accommodates the curve of the canoe. This will allow the control apparatus to slide onto
the canoe and be secured in place, maintaining the position of the apparatus while allowing for
The crank will be located by the pilot’s right hand. The pulley system will be implemented such
that both foils will be linked to the same operational system. Therefore, any adjustment which
The hydrofoiling watercraft will have two primary safety features, one centered on the
front hydrofoil and the other on the motor. The front hydrofoil has a mechanism for adjusting the
angle of attack. This mechanism also allows for the implementation of a failsafe in the event of a
control failure. In this scenario, a control failure would result in the angle of attack being set to a
predetermined position. This position would then allow the craft to steadily lower back into the
water.
The other failsafe is a cutoff switch for the motor. In the event of any issue which may
arise, the pulling of this switch will immediately cut power to the motor. This will steadily
decrease the velocity of the canoe and allow for the inherent drag of the craft to bring it to a stop.
The following table is the “Boothroyd and Dewhurst” table to design for assembly. This
table will be used to determine whether or not the parts involved in the final assembly are
essential to the product. Those parts which are not essential may be removed, reduced, or
grouped separately to reduce cost and assembly time. Questions answered are as follows:
2. Is the material of the part different from the majority of the product?
If all answers to the questions are “no” for a part, it could be a candidate for elimination.
Different Removable or
Part Moving?
Material? Modifiable?
Curved Front Foil Yes No No
Vertical Struts Yes No No
Canoe Yes Yes No
Mounting Apparatus (Clamps,
Wooden Structure, Mounting Yes Yes Yes
Points)
Angle of Attack Controls (Cables,
Yes Yes Yes
Pulleys, Crank, Safeties)
Motor Yes Yes Yes
Steering and Throttle Controls
(Controls, Throttle Cable, Steering Yes Yes Yes
Arrangement)
For the sake of simplicity, parts which comprise a separate assembly have been listed as
an assembly in this table. For example, the angle of attack controls explained in the “design for
adjustability” section of this chapter are comprised of a series of pulleys and cables attached to
the mounting apparatus. This system moves dynamically within itself but also affects other
components within the overall design. Each piece of these assemblies has a “yes” in the category
of movement and material, and is essential to a greater system. Since there is not one component
which has “no” in all three columns, there is no component immediately eligible for elimination.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, it was explained how the team took concurrent engineering practices to
heart. The team kept manufacturability and feasibility of manufacturing processes in mind while
establishing a final design. Additionally, the team designed for manufacturability, adjustability,
and safety.