During my senior year of college (2018-2019), my team and I were tasked with redesigning a finish nailer with the goal of reducing the trigger delay from 200 milliseconds to less than 100 milliseconds. This project was given to us by our stakeholder at Techtronic Industries (TTI). This was considered an industry project where company gives the school an issue that they want fixed or designed. The school then assigns that problem in the form of a project to a group of students to solve the issue. There were a lot of struggles that went into this project, but we were able to overcome them from a team. 

We started by gathering needs from our stakeholder and converted them into stakeholder requirements. These were derived into system requirements and sub-system requirements were derived later on during the design and analysis process. Once we received a sample nailer, we reverse engineered it to understand how all the different components interact and function. This was one of the most important parts of the process because we had to integrate whatever system we designed into their nailer using their given space requirements and current functions. We started brainstorming by each team member coming with different designs. This process took a few weeks in order for us to better understand the problem at hand as well as weed out the implausible ideas. We also developed a Failure Modes, Effects and Analysis (FMEA) table for the stock nailer and our design with mitigation for these failures. After deciding on our final design, we modeled our system using a Computer-Aided Engineering (CAD) software called Autodesk Fusion 360. We ordered the parts required for testing apparatuses. However, during our Preliminary Design Report (PDR) presentation, we encountered a failure mode which we had not thought of. This failure was a vacuum leak and was brought to our attention by our stakeholder. Our design involved holding the kinetic energy until the user was ready to drive a nail in a primed state. This would reduce the trigger delay to only include the delays of the different converters and components in the circuitry. At that moment we decided to research different seal alternatives. We ended up looking into changing the current geometry or material of the seal as well as extended out the current seal. While one sub-team was changing the design to fit the space requirements better and to incorporate a seal, another sub-team was manufacturing our testing apparatuses. The parts were ordered for the prototype including the required electronics. Multiples were ordered of the various parts to ensure we received the parts on time. As team lead I helped with each sub-team by supporting them with whatever help was needed to ensure tasks were done on time as well as having my lead tasks. After our test apparatuses were completed, we started manufacturing the components needed for our prototype nailer. In parallel, another sub-team was working on electronics and testing our stock nailer. The reason for testing the stock nailer was that we required data for the target values on some of our requirements. We manufactured the components necessary for the prototype nailer. Multiples of these components were manufactured in the case that one of the components broke during testing. While the prototype components were being manufactured, the electronics were being wired in a control box for the prototype nailer. The code was also generated. Once the electronics and code was completed, those two were tested together. Debugging took place for a week or two in order in ensure correct functioning of the subsystem. The prototype nailer was then assembled with the electronics and code integrated with the prototype nailer. Testing was done on the prototype nailer in order to debug the electronics and make sure the mechanical components had the correct tolerances. During testing, one of our load bearing components deformed (aluminum) due to repeated loading. Our analysis for deformation was only done for a one time load, not cyclic fatigue. We then re manufactured the component out of steel after redoing the analysis. After ensuring the prototype worked correctly and resolving an issue with the brush-less DC motor and motor controller, we were able to start testing our prototype. We tested the drive power of the nailer, seal effectiveness, maximum priming time and most importantly, trigger delay time. After verifying our requirements for the project and speaking with our stakeholder and adviser, we were able to deem the project a success. 

     I think a part of our success came from me assigning my teammates to specific sub-teams based on their skill set. This increased our efficiency as a team and our communication and teamwork together was fantastic. My teammates and I worked very hard every week in order to keep up with the workload. We stayed on or ahead of schedule due to always trying to push the amount of work we did each week. We were able to finish a week ahead of time while other teams finished last minute, didn't have any time remaining to test or didn't finish their product/project. 

Acknowledgements:

I would like to thank the professors at Florida Tech, our help from Techtronic Industries (TTI), the faculty at Florida Tech and also my great teammates for making this project successful.