FYDP REPORT 2 NAUTIC.
ADAM HUSKISSON B323127.
“
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
“ I would like to thank Dr Steve Summerskill for putting up with my constant moaning and the bombardment of ridiculous questions over the last 8 months. Without his guidance and support the project would not be as it is today. I would also like to thank all those who have participated in user research, testing and evaluation during the project. Their input definitely resulted in a far better and refined final concept than originally proposed. Lastly, I would like to thank my friends and family both at home and our little family we have made at the design school, for the relentless support and friendship over the last 4 (and 22) years without whom I would have definitely failed and dropped out.
CONTENT. CONTEXT & PROPOSAL
PROTOTYPES
MASS MANUFACTURING
PDS EVALUATION
COMPETITOR ANALYSIS
3 7 19 25 35
1 5 11 23 29 36
PART REFERENCES
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
USER EVALUATION
DESIGN CHANGES
FINAL PROPOSAL
REFERENCES & APPENDICES
PART REFERENCES
Display Protector Display Housing Hub Exoskeleton Top Half Hub Handle and Base Left ON/OFF Button Hub Handle and Base Right Hub Exoskeleton Bottom Half
LED Protector
Wearable Exoskeleton Top Wearable Inner Casing
Activation Buttons
Wearable Exoskeleton
2
CONTEXT Onboard a ship the liklihood a crew member will know how to successfully carry out a man overboard (MOB) event varies drastically. The Captain will have the most knowledge and experience and will usually take the lead. Professional crewmates who may be assisting on the vessel will know the procedure of such an event, but are unlikely to have had to carry one outside of training exercises. Guests or ‘Tourist crewmates’ on board may have been educated on the safety procedure verbally but have little previous experience to rely on. When a crewmate has fallen overboard, for every minute they are in the water the likelihood of survival decreases. Therefore, time is of the essence. Any product that can help accurately locate the lost crew member and pull them from the water before signs of hypothermia begin is a vital piece of equipment that all members on board should have.
PROPOSAL
A man overboard system that includes a wearable device that will connect to a main device located on board the ship. They will work in harmony together in detecting when a crewmember may have fallen overboard. The main product will give advice and guidance on how to approach and successfully complete a man overboard manoeuver, according to a number of specific dependencies, such as weather conditions and boat orientation. Additional changes to the proposal: The main product will have double functionality; a chart plotter and a MOB device system with different user interfaces to reflect each mode. This provides an increase in desirability through an additional function, which comes with little manufacturing cost increase. The user interface and information displayed will aim to challenge the predisposition that you need to be an experienced sailor to be able to perform a man over board procedure.
4
Following on from the previous submission at the end of report 1, it was necessary to make a number of changes, some of which were planned in future steps and others driven by Tutor feedback to further refine the concept and design (see logbook 3.51).
UNDERSTANDING EVERY INTERACTION WITH NAUTIC. During tutor feedback it was noted some basic elements to the design had not be accounted for, such as an on/off switch on the hub. This prompted the investigator to produce a storyline of every interaction a user may have with the products, from the day they purchase until disposed. Interactions which may have been overlooked were documented and considered, along with any assumptions made along the way (see logbook 4.23 – 4.24). These assumptions and interactions were then validated by an expert user (see logbook 4.25).
DESIGN JUSTIFICATION FOR WEARABLE ATTACHMENT LOCATION. At the end of the first report there was still some debate over how and where the wearable would be attached to the lifejacket, along with a consideration of how it’s positioning may affect the functionality. Development can be seen in the logbooks to justify its attachment point – Oral Inflation Tube (see logbook 4.17 – 4.21).
450m
18m 28 NE
27˚03'32 S 86˚08'51.3"W
DEVELOPMENT HUB USER INTERFACE. The biggest design development can be seen in the Hub’s visual interactions and user experience. The additional functionality of giving users assisted guidance of how to perform a MOB manoeuver in both bird’s-eye view and first person, is something which users (through testing) have hugely welcomed, giving them the confidence and reassurance of how to approach the situation even, if they have little sailing experience. A number of different methods have been used to reach the end result including sketches, visual mock -ups on Photoshop, rough prototypes made by paper and card, varying degrees of fidelity of wireframes to final clickable detailed prototypes and animations made on Invision and PowerPoint. The process was driven by user research, interviews and testing (see logbook 3.52 – 5.30).
VISUAL ALIGNMENT BETWEEN THE HUB & WEARABLE. It was noted during tutor feedback, as well as through investigator reflection, that there appeared to be a misalignment with the two products from an aesthetic point of view, resulting in a number of different redesigns (see logbook 4.29 – 4.46). Initially there was little success until a style for the wearable device was finalised. This produced a number of style features and contours that needed to also appear in the hub to create a consistent style. This later influenced product branding (see logbook 4.51). Ergonomic data was also taken into consideration, which drove some of the styling of the hub’s handle.
6
PROTOTYPES
Ultimately, the total number of physical rough prototypes produced was fewer than expected. The investigator believes this was for a number of reasons. One reason was that the total redesign needed on both products, as prompted by the feedback, took a lot of time and the resulting amendments needed to ensure both products looked alike in style. Second of all, the concept sketches and CAD models featured large sweeping and often changing radii which would have taken lots of time to model in blue foam, whilst quicker materials to prototype in such as cardboard do not have the qualities needed to produce the curve features. Finally, first versions were planned to be 3D printed on more affordable machines such as a ROBOTMAKER machine. However, because of the large uneven radii, and with advice from Richard Bibb, it wasn’t deemed these machines could produce accurate or valuable prototypes. Never the less, the accuracy and detailing on the CAD models were able to produce accurate useable 3D printed parts on the first go. Both products have a working demo version and an aesthetic model, yet this was not a decision the investigator had planned for. Originally both the hub and wearable prototype would incorporate electronics. However, there was no 15� Circular display that could be purchased anywhere online to prototype with. The investigator believes this was due to its shape and size, a problem which may challenge whether or not the product could actually be mass manufactured without incurring huge R&D costs.
WORKING PROTOTYPE - WEARABLE. The wearable used for the working prototype is actually the first 3D printed version of the intended aesthetic model. This decision was made during a discussion between the investigator and supervising tutor. It was debated whether the wearable could actually be scaled down (30% smaller), yet still house all of the appropriate internals, in the hope it would be more comfortable when fitted to the jacket (see logbook 4.52). The first 3D printed version was extremely difficult to fit onto the oral inflation tube due to a lack of appropriate tolerance, which was resolved for v2 (visual prototype). Due to the issue of not being able to source a working screen of the correct dimensions, a “Wizard of Oz” approach had to be taken. It was determined that a bicycle LED light would produce a sufficient amount of light needed, as well as the desired pulsating effect, to produce the intended appearance that the wearable MOB mode had been activated. This was done by simply pressing down on the wearables soft touch activation buttons located in the top corners of the device. Pages 4.53 – 4.56 document the complex iterations needed to produce a working demo, where the internals fit and held in the correct position to give the desired result. During user testing, one of the wearable’s soft flexible buttons tore from its housing (see logbook 5.09). To prevent this from happening again, the CAD model needed to be redesigned to add extra strength and new part reprinted and fitted (see logbook 5.10, 5.19) to allow for user testing to continue.
WORKING PROTOTYPE - HUB. A number of iterations resulted in the final high fidelity clickable prototype used for user evaluation. Due to the added complexity of the chart plotter feature, all of the once concrete UX flows where now questioned. During this redesign, the concept of a Night/Day mode was generated (see logbook 4.22), much like when a mobile phones automatically adjusts the brightness, or a UI inverts to compensate for the outside environment, to aid visibility.
The final prototype was generated using two different pieces of software to give the most realistic and accurate representation of the hub’s interface software. Due to the displays unusual shape (circle), the more common clickable prototyping tools such as Adobe After Effects/XD and Axure couldn’t be used, as they do not accommodate this shape. This resulted in the main navigation prototype being created in Invision on an Android watch template and then scaled up. The main MOB scenario screens were then prototyped on Microsoft PowerPoint as there needed be moving UI elements to fully simulate what a user would see if mass produced. Both prototypes where presented on an iPad Mini. Having to test two separate but follow on prototypes during the evaluation made the experience disjointed and potentially limited. (see logbook 4.03 - 4.05).
8
AESTHETIC PROTOTYPE - WEARABLE.
AESTHETIC PROTOTYPE - HUB.
10
USER EVALUATION
User evaluation was undertaken in two main phases. The first was a pilot study with two users, which was used to quickly identify problems and gave an opportunity to refine the tasks that participants would be asked to complete during the main study. The second was the real user evaluation tests, conducted with four users with varying sailing experience (see attached memory stick for documented interviews).
Key areas to be explored with each user were: Understand their personal experience of sailing Uer comfort when wearing the jacket and wearable User Interactions and understanding of the Hub’s interface User interactions and understanding of the wearable User Questionnaire about Nautic
12
EXPERIENCE OF SAILING. Participants had a full range of sailing experience from complete beginners to level 3 certified sailors. This was imperative to the study so as to gather a range of user experience, as this would hopefully show that all skill levels can use the device, can comprehend what elements on the screen mean and how to respond appropriately.
“ I’ve been on a boat once in my whole life!
”
COMFORT OF LIFEJACKET. All of the users were asked to try on the lifejacket and discuss its comfort and freedom of movement. All users agreed that it was in fact comfortable to wear with one adding that he believed the jacket was “more comfortable� than ones he had previously worn before.
However, this aim of the task was actually to find out if any of the users had noticed that the wearable was already attached to the lifejacket (via the oral inflation tube). All six participants did not know that it was attached implying the wearable had not limited the jackets comfortability or freedom of movement, something which many other MOB device fail to do.
14
USER INTERACTIONS & UNDERSTANDING THE HUB’S INTERFACE. After interacting with the clickable prototype, participants grasped how the software page hierarchy worked: Left and Right Swipe to stay on that level or Swipe Down to move back. Almost all of the participants were able to easily complete task 3 &4 without any hesitation. Issues with prototyping tools were the main cause of confusion, if and when it occurred. 3 out of 4 participants were confused by task 5. Many did click Chart Plotter >New destination but then became lost by what to do next, with one completely getting stuck and the investigator having to intervene. Most overlooked the “SKIP/CONTINUE >” button at the bottom of the screen or expected to see a pin drop onto the screen. This confusion prompted the investigator to make the appropriate changes to the UI, which are documented in logbook 5.35.
All of the participants correctly identified all the UI elements on the initial chart plotter screen. However, only 50% of participants recognised that they could switch between two different views (bird’s-eye & 1st person) whilst the MOB recovery process had been activated. Although, many of these were noted after being prompted, they may have known this if they had used the system before. Yet, this rushed enactment is similar to that of a real MOB scenario, therefore this insight is extremely useful, prompting further UI changes. All of the participants understand the huge benefit that the two views gave. This was especially true in those interviewees with very little sailing experience. None of the participants correctly worked out how to deactivate the MOB process once the crew member was safety back on board. All four of the participants understood the importance of it being a complex process in order to prevent accidentally cancelling the activation, but thought you would need to interact with both products at the same time.
“ Woah...I wasn’t expecting that
”
16
USER INTERACTIONS & UNDERSTANDING THE WEARABLE. Only one out of the four participants expected the wearable to flash to notify the user, once they had fallen overboard, that the system had detected this. Others expected to hear an audio output and flashing lights simultaneously. When blind folded, all of the users found the two activation buttons quickly and easily, yet there was some confusion as to whether they needed to press both or just one and how long for. One participant commented “in the panic I think I would just do anything until it started flashing again�.
USER QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT NAUTIC - HIGHLIGHTS. All of the participants liked the colour of the Nautic Product set, either agreeing or strongly agreeing with Q1. Piloting was shown to be extremely useful as the final four participants believed completing tasks were far easier than those who piloted (marked as P). Overall opinion on styling and stability of the products was varied, with mostly positive or neutral feedback given. This is something the investigator should resolve before bringing to the market. All of those questioned could see the obvious benefits Nautic has whilst performing an MOB recovery. This statement was further justified by all of the participants disagreeing that one mut be an experienced sailor to use Nautic. All results taken from participant questionnaire (see logbook 5.33).
18
MASS MANUFACTURING Design for Manufacture can be found in Logbook 5.20 – 5.29, 5.37 – 5.41.
VOLUMES.
MASS MANUFACTURING CONSIDERATIONS.
Adding draft angles to allow for easy mould ejection (see logbook 5.24) Location pins added to speed up the assembly process to be more cost efficient (see logbook 5.23)
The product set has been designed for the sailing and yachting industry, which includes tourism, recreational and professional sectors. Over 400,000 ‘yacht’ style boats were registered in the United States in 2015 and the market had an annual revenue of €24Billion in 2017. The yacht market is set to explode by 2020 predicted to triple the revenue of 2017.
Split line consideration to prevent over hangs, ensuring the part can be released from the mould. This also opened up the opportunity to reduce the total volume of polymer needed by addition shelling (see logbook 5.22)
With crew numbers stretching from 3 to 30+ the product has no limit to the total number of wearables that can be connected to the hub at one single time, an advantage of LORAWAN (the technology infrastructure behind the product). From crew member figures the investigator has produced a ‘Nautic Package’ for retail stake which includes one hub and 6 wearable devices, however this package isn’t fixed. The hub is a standalone product so can work with new or pre-owned boats, setting the volume sales at 5000 units which equates for approximately >1% of all ‘Yacht’ style boats worldwide.
Total number of parts reduced to from 4 to 3 on the wearable device, reducing manufacturing and assembly costs without effecting quality of finish (see logbook 5.25)
MATERIALS. Polycarbonate (PC) – Optical Transparency, High Impact Resistance, Lightweight Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene (ABS) UV Stabilised Grade – High Impact Resistance, Good Machinability, Excellent Aesthetic Qualities, Relatively Low Cost, Waterproof Silicon Rubber – Flexible, Soft Touch Texture, Waterproof, Good Machinability See logbook 4.01 - 4.02, 5.26 for justifications.
Internal Webbing to house and hold internal components in place (see logbook 5.24)
PROCESSES. Injection Moulding – Complex ABS parts which include webbing, large radii, and low tolerances with a good quality of finish. With the consideration of the requirements and volumes needed this is the most appropriate manufacturing process (see logbook 5.37) Although some parts such as the hub’s exoskeleton could arguably be compression moulded, the investigator worries this may come at a cost to quality of finish.
20
COSTINGS. A full breakdown of materials, tooling and process cost for each part across each product please refer to the logbook 5.37 – 5.41. The method used across the tables uses the Swift and Booker (2003) method of cost calculation for materials, tooling and assembly. Due to some parts being less easy to source (Circular LCD Display) when compared to standard parts this has significantly affected the manufacturing costs
Component Costings Wearable = £37.92 Component Costings Hub = £84.32 Total Nautic Package (1xHub, 6xWearables) = £311.82 Wearable Assembly Cost = £0.37 Wearable Total Cost (including packaging and shipping) = £48.46 Wearable Wholesale Price (40%) = £67.65 Wearable Retail Price (60% + VAT) = £128.90 Profit per unit = £40.60 Hub Assembly Cost= £0.53 Hub Total Cost (including packaging and shipping) = £104.20 Wearable Wholesale Price (40%) = £145.76 Wearable Retail Price (60% + VAT) = £279.85 Profit per unit = £87.45 Wholesale Price Nautic Package = £551.01 Retail Price Nautic Package = £1057.94 Profit Nautic Package = £330.61
Due to a fairly standard assembly when compared against other electronic devices, the amount of manual assembly is to be as expected (see logbook 5.38). This is significantly higher than the week 11 costing target in the design specification. However, from speaking to an interested potential customer, cost will be unlikely to be the determining factor on purchase. This is because if the product works as explained it will be invaluable to Yacht Holiday goers (see logbook 5.14). Nevertheless the Nautic Product Set is still far cheaper than buying 6 of the market leading MOB devices, which retail at £300 each (see logbook1- 2).
22
DESIGN CHANGES IDENTIFIED During a full consideration and logbook review it became apparent that the product was still lacking a port to plug in a device to update the chart plotter (see logbook 4.23 - 4.24). This was something none of the participants involved in the user evaluation noted or brought to attention. This could have been caused by a lack of sailing expertise. If the port is USB based such as USB C it could be also used as a way of charging the hub if the contact charging fails or is too slow at charging, a known issue with this technology Battery life of the wearable is a concern to the investigator, as although lithium ion button batteries are long life, due to their size they do not last as long as the power source used in competitor products. Furthermore, the wearable is expected to be laser welded to ensure it is watertight which means the battery is no longer able to be replaced when flat. This critical issue must be resolved in the final proposal. One resolution could be to use a watertight twisting lock case over the battery section to allow for replacement.
The hub needs to have a handle strap which would allow the user to let go off the hub during the later stages of the MOB process – bringing the crew member back on board. This was an original design feature, however was put on hold to see if anyone during user testing would bring up this issue. Only two out of six people brought this issue up, yet upon reflection the investigator feels this is a crucial part of successfully engaging in a MOB recovery. Other improvements include minor user interface changes as a result of user evaluation, all of which have been highlighted in report section “Review of the User Evaluation”.
24
EVALUATION AGAINST PDS Criteria
Did it meet the criteria? Yes
No
Comments
N/A
Performance The wearable must relay the message of a MOB (Man over board) scenario back to the boat in less than 30seconds of the person entering the water Activation should be automatic although a manual override is necessary The MOB alert will be communicated in two ways:
X
X
1)Strobe Lighting 2) Audio Alert from the hub The product must have a working range of at least 5km The crew mate should be located and pulled from the water within 15minutes The wearable should last for a number of days without needed to be recharged Connecting new wearable’s to the existing system should take no longer than 5minutes Attachment mechanisms between the hub and hub mount should improve the user experience with the aim to help speed up the process Environment Must be Waterproof - Liquid Ingress Protection Level:7 Impact and Vibration Resistant
Without a working demo it cannot be certain but research regarding LORAWAN and IOT sensors suggests it can.
X
X X
Will work up to 30km is good weather conditions Risk assessment and ethical guidelines prevent this.
X
X
X
X X
Hub mount has not been manufactured therefore hard to say.
Cannot be tested but material selection proves it is
Mechanical Impact Resistance IP X Level:2 Operational temperature must X work within the range of -10°C to 40°C Dust protected – Solid Particle Protection Level:5 Must be able to float in the water
Hub must blend into the environ- X ment of the boat and leave no evidence (residue or scratches) once removed from the surface Cost wearable’s should cost no more than £75 each unit
Cannot be tested but material selection proves it is X X
X
Cannot be tested but material selection proves it is Cannot be tested due to fear of damaging the prototype but manufacturing info proves it will be air tight imply it can float.
Cost to Make = £48.46 Retail Price = £128.90 User Interview suggests the retail price will have little effect on how successful the product is Cost to Make = £104.20 Retail Price = £279.85
Retail Price = £128.90
User Interview suggests the retail price will have little effect on how successful the product is Quantity and Manufacture Batch Manufacturing is the most likely as my market supports less than 10,000 sales per year Materials materials should embody the environment it is placed in The product should be UV resistant Should be Impact resistant and need to be able to with stand standard wear and tear associated – Mechanical Impact Resistance IP Level:2 Materials choice must ensure the products are watertight
X
X X XV
X
26
Materials may enhance the signal strength and minimise interference Pre-planned material selection will improve the user experience with regards to the interaction with the Hub Aesthetics and Ergonomics Hub – Ergonomic considerations are vital to improve user interaction with the product in a MOB event. The hub should be easy to hold and grip in extremely wet cold conditions Wearable – The wearable should comfortably fit over the top of any style of lifejacket shoulder strap without hindering the users experience whilst sailing The wearable part of the system should weigh no more than 300g and approximately no larger than a 30*90*50mm^3 The hub part of the system should weigh no more than 800g and approximately to the dimensions of 165*165*75mm^3 The aesthetics of the product should match that of its surrounds complimenting the environment placed in. Quality and Consistency The products should be of a good quality of finish as to be expected of most sailing products do to the environment and costs involved. Market Constraints
X
Unable to test due to lack of detailed working prototype.
X
X
X
X
X
X
Wearable is slightly larger than the dimension quoted but this because of a styling feature/shape
X
The hub is likely to weigh more than the stated 800g but is hard to confirm unless a more detailed prototype was produced (with internals)
The target market for this type of device when considered specifically for MOB applications is relatively small. However this target audience typically have large disposal incomes therefore the percentage chance of purchase is much higher compared to a standard household product. If endorsed by life insurance or asset insurance companies the product could be used by sailing tourism companies as a means of lowering business insurance premiums The product has the potential to be used in more use cases other than MOB events such as on Offshore oil rigs or Shipping cargo industry which would increase its market reach. Legislation
X
X
X
X Standards X Patents X
28
FINAL DESIGN
N PROPOSAL
30
32
Nautic Product Set Overview The Nautic Hub This is the first of the two main products which make up the Nautic MOB Product Set. “The Hub” is designed to be situated in the helm of the boat, as this is where at least one crew member is located at all times. It is fitted with a 15” Circular LCD touch screen which acts both as a chart plotter and an assistant during an MOB event. The Nautic Wearable The second product in the set is a wearable location beacon. It is fitted to the inside of a lifejacket via the inflation top-up tube, a standard regulated feature on all lifejackets that meet “European Standards and Markings for Buoyancy, Immersion and Diving Suits” (see logbook 4.11). The wearable includes a strong bright pulsating LED which will turn on during a MOB event. This not only indicates to the user the system has been activated, but also can be used a visual aid for the search party in rough stormy conditions. The Nautic System Using LORAWAN technology data including GPS, coordinates can be transmitted regularly, with little energy use over long distances of up to 30km. The wearable devices receive the data and relay the information to the hub, situated at the boat’s helm. A user defined safe zone will be established on initial set up of the product to account for the vessel’s length. If a wearable goes beyond this zone the system will recognise that a crew mate may have fallen overboard, initiating the MOB process. If a man overboard has been detected, the chart plotter user interface on the hub will switch to an alert notification that includes a loud audio output and will show information about person the system believes may be missing. Once started, the system will determine the most efficient manoeuver to recover the missing crew member depending on their location, boat orientation and weather conditions. Users will be given step by step guidance, via the hub’s screen, of how to do this, aiming to assist those with almost no sailing experience in successfully performing the MOB manoeuvre.
34
COMPETITOR ANALYSIS vs Nautic
Ocean Signal MOB1
Cost (per 6)
£1057
£1140
Waterproof
up to 5m
up to 10m
-30C - +70C
-10C - +40C
Working Distance
50km
Infinite
Subscription Cost
No
Yes
Weight
N/A
92g
Yes - Chart Plotter
No
Battery Life (Actived)
6hours
24+hrs
Lifejacket Integration
Yes
Yes
Temperature Range
Additional Features
REFERENCES Swift, K. G., & Booker, J. D. (2003). Process Selection From Design to Manufacture. Oxford: Edward Arnold. Ocean Signal. (2017). MOB1 - Ocean Signal. [online] Available at: http://oceansignal.com/ products/mob1/ [Accessed 17 May 2017].
APPENDICES I)
Enginerring Drawings
II)
Ethics Checklist & Participant Forms
III)
Memory Stick
IV)
User Evaluation Overview Notes
36
16,74
21,9
64,68
25 59,78
R1,5
43,88
R2,
5
27,72
20,58
1
,5 R0
1
79,68
1
54,31
SECTION MID2-MID2
19,71
0,81
0,81
1,08
23,63 6,02
11
,5 R7
R6
Project: FYDP
Unless Otherwise Specified: Dimns: mm 0.1mm 1 Tol: Std: BS8888 Proj: 3rd
Model Name: WEARABLE_BOTTOMCLIPWEBBING_MAN
Group No:
Sheet 1 / 1
Scale: 1,000
Rev:
Sheet Size: A3
Date: May-12-17
Drawn by: Adam Huskisson
LOUGHBOROUGH DESIGN SCHOOL
Title: Wearable_Bottom
R4 ,5
1,8 THICK
28,77 58,83
R2
5
R
84,09
21,51
y0
6 ,4 23 Rx
,8
24,66
1,8
11,64
11,71
11,29
R0, 9
Project: FYDP
Unless Otherwise Specified: Dimns: mm 0.1mm 1 Tol: Std: BS8888 Proj: 3rd
Drawn by: Adam Huskisson
Model Name: BASE_MAN_LEFT
Group No:
Sheet 1 / 1
Scale: 1,000
Rev:
Sheet Size: A3
Date: May-12-17
LOUGHBOROUGH DESIGN SCHOOL
Title: Wearable Exo Top
R24,14
14,45
27 R0 ,
25,71 21,81
11,4
26,16
48,28
23,4
,9 R0
5,03
,5
5 2,
R
8 ,8
7 2,0
R7
,5
29,94 38,07 28,74
8
87 R0,
2,9 R1
SCALE 0,500
Sheet Size: A3
Rev:
LOUGHBOROUGH DESIGN SCHOOL
Drawn by:
Sheet 1 / 1
Group No: Title:
Unless Otherwise Specified: Dimns: mm Tol: 0.1mm 1 Std: BS8888 Proj: 3rd
Date: May-12-17
15
Model Name: BASE_BOTTOM_HALF
Scale: 0.500
12,9 14,4
5
Project:
11,8
R1
R5
1
18,27 0,8
182,5 149,6
0, R2
26,74
105
26,74
SCALE 0,500 2, R1
40
7
61,1
5, R1
59,1
R5 2
R41,0 6
R1
21,87 19,6
1,5
7,54
FYDP LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY 19/05/17