FAKULTI KEJURUTERAAN MEKANIKAL

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING (HONOURS) MECHANICAL

(EM220)
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN 1(MEC531)
(EMD5M3A)
PHASE 1 REPORT

LECTURERS NAME: EN.YAKUB BIN TALIB

GROUP MEMBERS: 1)DANIAL BARR BIN ABDUL AZIZ (2010270214)
2)NOORADINAN BIN NOORDIN(2010409088)
3)FARITH BIN JASMI(2011985677)
4)MUHAMMAD ASYRAF BIN AHMAD(2011116869)
5)MUHAMMAD FARIED BIN ABDUL RAZAK
(2011799785)

























Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3
2.0 Main Body ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4
2.1 Identifying problems------------------------------------------------------------------ 4
2.2Gathering information----------------------------------------------------------------- 5
2.3Concept generation------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
2.4 Concept evaluation------------------------------------------------------------------ 7
3.0 Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 14

































Introduction
Hovercraft, as we know them today, have been around for about half a century, since the
1950's, but have somehow never managed to get into the mainstream use of transportation. This
has been for various reasons. Its inability for precise maneuvering control and its relatively high
maintenance and noise levels compared to the automobile have been sufficiently difficult to
overcome to keep the air cushion vehicle at the fringe of modern transport. It also came along well
over fifty years after the automobile was accepted as the standard means of transport in its many
guises as car, truck, recreation vehicle and so forth.
The fact that hovercraft technology was classified as secret after World War 2 also didn't
encourage it into the mainstream of vehicle construction companies. And even after it became
declassified in the 1960's problems with wear and tear of the rubber skirt, salt intake by the fans and
other technical difficulties all contributed to keep the hovercraft and other air cushion vehicles in the
domain of specialized vehicles and hobbyists. Furthermore, the inability of governments to classify
the air cushion vehicle - it's neither a car nor a boat, apparently, although it is usually considered a
boat didn't make it easier for general acceptance.
That is not to say that its independence from established roads and the need for a smooth road
surface is not one of these reasons as well. It is easy to imagine that road construction companies as
well as (local) governments, law enforcement agencies and the military would be against such a
vehicle. But is it justified?
In our overcrowded road systems strict order and driving regulations are necessary. Having
everyone drive in vehicles, like hovercraft, that can go just about anywhere would not only
complicate traffic tremendously, it could also cause irreversible damage to our already struggling
environment. The many hovercraft clubs around the world prove that this air cushion vehicle is only
beginning its rise to popularity, and the ready availability of plans and materials to construct your
own hovercraft show that there is a growing interest in this modern technology the world over.
The last ten years has seen a significant increase in the construction and use of air cushion
and WIG-craft with many of the old difficulties solved or greatly improved. Modern air cushion
vehicles are more trustworthy, more controllable, are fuel-efficient and eco-friendly and often low-
cost compared to the automobile.And even if you can't get a full-sized hovercraft for your personal
enjoyment, there's no need to go without this fun pastime. Model sized hovercraft are very popular
as a remote control hobby.

But that is only one side of the argument. Modern cars, especially the all-terrain vehicles
that are so popular nowadays, have almost the same ability as do hovercraft; to go most anywhere
outside the road system. And so do motorcycles and other off-road vehicles. More than that even
because where hovercraft have difficulty, as with slopes, ATV's and motorcycles do not.
Trillions of dollars could have been saved on expensive road surfaces and maintenance
worldwide if hovercraft had been adopted as the standard transport vehicle instead of the car. But
again, the road construction companies would have been against such a development. And they do
have a powerful voice in many places. Hovercraft work perfectly well on grass, imagine if all the
highways and roads we have were made of grass instead of concrete and asphalt? Just add a simple
attachment at the bottom and we'd be cutting the grass as we travel over it.

Hovercraft also have difficulty on steep slopes, something which a wheeled or caterpillared vehicle
has less or no problem with. But if as much money was spent on research and development of
hovercraft as is being spent on regular road vehicles, these problems too would have been a thing of
the past long ago.
Either way, hovercraft enthusiasts have not given up their struggle to make this vehicle a
popular one, even if only for recreational use and, since a decade or two, hovercraft have been
widely used by the military and commercial companies such as boat ferries, rescue vehicles and park
ranger transport, to name but a few.





















Identifying Problems
Background
A hovercraft, also known as an air-cushion vehicle or ACV, is a craft capable of travelling over land,
water, mud or ice and other surfaces both at speed and when stationary. Hovercraft are hybrid
vessels operated by a pilot as an aircraft rather than a captain as a marine vessel.
The first practical design for hovercraft derived from a British invention in the 1950s to 1960s. They
are now used throughout the world as specialised transports in disaster relief, coastguard, military
and survey applications as well as for sport or passenger service. Very large versions have been used
to transport hundreds of people and vehicles across the English Channel whilst others have military
applications used to transport tanks, soldiers and large equipment in hostile environments and
terrain.
Despite their versatility, hovercraft have surprisingly enough found very little use in the civilian
sector. Instead, it has primarily seen use in the military field or in search and rescue operations,
while the only remotely civilian applications are for ferrying people to and from remote locations
such as in Alaska.
Other than the aforementioned applications, hovercrafts have also seen use as a recreational or
hobby vehicle. However, they only cater to a select group of enthusiasts as the kits required to build
them are rather costly, and require significant handicraft skills to construct. Though there exists
cheap production models, those are rather crude compared to their kit-based counterparts. As a
result, they have only seen limited use in said field.
The purpose of this project is to see how we can design a cost effective hovercraft, at least for
recreation purposes, with more refined characteristics which would be easy to produce and would
appeal to the general public. The following report will detail the steps we have taken in Phase 1 to
research and analyze the various design methodologies that we could apply to our hovercraft design.

Problem Statement
As mentioned before, current civilian use hovercraft have several problems which prevents their use
from becoming widespread. Hence, before we are to begin our deliberation on the design issues, we
will first identify the problems inherent in current production model hovercraft.
-Inconvenient to operate;
Many of the cheaper production model recreation only have one engine which directly powers the
thrust fan, with the lift pressure being siphoned from the thrust stream, this simultaneously
decreases performance and limits the size and payload capacity of the craft, allowing only one
person to ride it at any one time. This causes it to lose some of its versatility. In addition, this system
also means that the craft is unable to remain stationary without deflating its air cushion.


-Expensive;
Recreational hovercraft in general, production models or kit based constructs, are rather expensive.
For kit based constructs this is partially justified based on its more refined features, however, in the
case of the production models, this is somewhat unjustified as the craft produced are rudimentary,
yet, due to low demand, prices get ramped up over the materials and finishing.
-low maneuverability;
Most of the production models are controlled only by basic control surfaces. This, combined with
the low friction of the air cushion, means that they become more prone to skidding and sliding when
turning.

Objectives
In light of the problems stated in the previous statement, we have set several objectives to achieve
through this phase of the design process. These are namely;
-to improve the overall cost efficacy of the design
-to improve performance by revising the drive train and related power systems, and integrating the
designs found in more advanced hovercraft into the design.
-to improve maneuverability by utilizing better control surfaces/methods in the design.

Scope of Project
The scope of this project encompasses the entirety of the design of a hovercraft. By breaking down
the hovercraft into its primary components, we intend to redesign it from the ground up as a more
cost effective yet capable recreational vehicle compared to its predecessors. We will determine,
through the proper selection methods, which alternative would serve as the best candidate for the
related component and formulate a preliminary design. This would serve as our foundation for the
second phase.

Significance of project
The significance of this project is that the redesign of this recreation purpose hovercraft would make
it accessible to more of the public, or so we hope. In that sense, the hovercraft might be able to be
brought out of its once niche role and be made more available, much like cars or motorcycles. But
more importantly, this project serves as a testbed on which we, as students of the engineering
discipline get to test and refine our designing abilities in preparation for our working futures.


Gather Information
A.References
http://www.academicjournals.org/ijps/pdf/pdf2011/2Sept/Amiruddin%20et%20al.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hovercraft
http://iet-journals.org/archive/2013/march_vol_3_no_3/85272135453771.pdf
http://hovercrafthomepage.blogspot.com/p/hovercraft-design-calculator.html
http://www.hovercollege.com/industrial/hovercraft_skirt/index.htmhttp://cheaphovercraft
s.tripod.com/id2.html
http://www.seas.columbia.edu/mece1/Team%20LevTech/Site_files/Hovercraft%20and%20
Airboat%20Engines,%20Propellers,%20Fans,%20Supplies.htm
http://www.hovercraftconsultants.co.uk/products/asp/prodtype.asp?prodtype=63&ph=cat
&keywords=&recor=&SearchFor=&PT_ID=&PT_MasterCategory=n
http://www.ehow.com/info_8747604_materials-use-make-hovercraft-skirt.html
http://www.seair.com/hovercraftdetails.htm
http://cheaphovercrafts.tripod.com/id3.htmlHomemade
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~clpadget/hoverblog.html
http://amasci.com/amateur/hovercft.html

B. Journals

A.K .Amiruddin , S.M. Sapuan and A.A Jaafar ( 2011, September 2) International Journal of
the Physical Sciences Vol 6(17) ,Development of a hovercraft prototype with an aluminium
hull base.
Carlos Camoesas (1991) Hovercraft Design Journal
P. FitzPatrick (2009) Hovercraft Club of Great Britain (S.E.Branch) , The Principle of
hovercraft design .
T.J.R.Longley T Eng(CEI) AMRAeS (1999, May) An Integrated System of Control For
Hovercraft Using Differentially Acting Elevons .
P. FitzPatrick (2009) Understanding and Selecting Lift Fans.
The Right of L.yun and A.Bliault(1999, August) Theory and Design of Air Cushion Craft .
Okafor, B.E. , Department of Mechanical Engineering, Fed. University of Technology.,
Owerri-Nigeria (2013, March 3) , Development of a Hovercraft Prototype.

C.Articles

DAILY MAIL REPORTER (2012, August 25 ) The 21st century hovercraft: Designers create
sports car-inspired design
Mary Bellis (n.d) Hovercraft.
Rashel Dan , (n.d) A Design Plan For Building A Hovercraft That Works
Natasha Gilani, eHow Contributor (n.d) , Hovercraft Design Basics



D. Patents

Ian Desberg (2010, November 10) Patent no . D0646198 MerchSource, LLC.
Matthew James Del Duke,Justin Discoe,Chow Ming Lau,Chun Wah Lee,Robert Paul
Spalinski(2006, April 25 ) Patent no . US7032698 B2 , UNITED STATE .
Albert Blum,Hartmut Stiegler (1996 , April 10 ) Patent no . EP0644839 B1 , EP0644838 B1 .
Olof Bjorn-Ake (1989 , May 9) Patent no . US4828058 A , UNITED STATE .









































Concept Generation














































Skirt
Nylon
Conven
tional
rubber
Reinfor
ced
rubber
Drive
train
1 I.C motor
for lift and 1
electric
motor
1 I.C motor
power lift
and
propulsion
where
power
divided by
transmission
2 I.C
motor
power the
lift and
propulsion
1 I.C motor
to power
propulsion
and lift
where the
lift directed
from fan to
the skirt by a
flow pipe
Propulsi
on
2
ducte
d fan
Nozzle
Chassis
Wood
Fibreg
lass
wood
Fibreg
lass
kevlar
Marin
e
grade
alumi
nium
Control
system
Mecha
nical
control
system
Electr
onic
analo
gue
syste
m
Hovercraft
Morphological chart
Function Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 Design 4
1.Drive
train
1 I.C motor power lift and
propulsion where power
divided by transmission

1 I.C motor to power
propulsion and lift where
the lift directed from fan
to the skirt by a flow pipe

2 I.C motor power
the lift and
propulsion

1 I.C motor for lift
and 1 electric motor

2.Chasis

Fibreglass wood

Treated Wood

Fibreglass Kevlar

Marine grade
aluminium
3.Propus
ion

Air distributed with two
ducts c/w one fan

1 Ducted Fan

Nozzle

2 Ducted Fan
4..Skirtin
g

Reinforced Rubber

Nylon
Conventional
Rubber
Synthetic Canvas
Cloth
5.Control
System

Electronic Analogue
Control

Mechanical

Flyby wire

Electronic Analogue
Control














Concept Evaluations
PUGH CHART
Pugh Chart Comparison Criteria and Values

DESIGN 1 DESIGN 2 DESIGN 3 DESIGN 4
Criteria ++ + N -
Manufacturability Used a high quality
of component
Uses moderately
numerous and
complex
components
Uses few, simple
components
Uses a low
quality of
material
Safety Positively
contributes to a user
safety
Safety to used It can be risk after a
several time of
usage
Is a source of
risk
Portability Is lightweight or
facilitates movement
Lightweight Heavy or bulky Heavy
Need/Market Current solutions
are non-existent or
unpopular
Has a market but is
not a necessity
Niche market Do not follow a
market
requirement
Reliability A good protection
from outside force
and not easily break
Moderately in good
condition
Good reliability for a
chassis but not for it
skirting material
Good reliability
for a chassis but
not for it skirting
material
Life Longest it
operational system
operation compare
to others
Less than design 1
but longer than
design 2 and design
3
Moderate
operational system
cycle
Short
operational
system cycle
Cost Low cost for the part Moderate for it cost High cost High cost











DECISION MATRIX EVALUTION (for each part)
Drive Train
Criteria Cost Performance Ease of
construction/Maintenance

Weightage

Types
7 8 8 TOTAL SKETCHING
1) 1 Engine
power
propulsion &
Lift
+ N + 15

2) Internal
Combustion
engine
power lift
and Electric
motor power
propulsion
_ + + 9

3) 2 Internal
Combustion
engine
power lift
and
propulsion
_ + + 9

4) Internal
Combustion
engine
power lift
&propulsion
power
divided by
transmission
N + + 16








Chassis
Criteria Cost Durability Availability Ease of
fabrication


Weightage

Type
7 8 6 8 TOTAL SKETCHING
1)Wood and
Fibreglass
+ + + + 29


2)Marine
grade
aluminium
- + - N -5
3)Fibreglass
and Kevlar
- + - + 3
4)Treated
wood
+ N + + 21


Propulsion System
Criteria

Cost

Performance

Maintenance

Reliability



Weightage


Type
7 8 6 8 TOTAL SKETCHING
1)One
ducted
Fan
+ N + + 21

2)Two
ducted
Fan
- + - N 8
3)Air
distributed
with two
ducts c/w
one fan
+ + N + 23
4)Air
distributed
with
nozzle c/w
one fan
(multi
directional
nozzle)
- + - + 16


Skirting
Criteria Cost Availability Durability

Weightage

Types
7 7 9 TOTAL PICTURE OF MATERIAL
1)
Conventional
Design
(Reinforced
Rubber)
+ + + 24

2) Nylon _ + + 16

3)
Conventional
Rubber
+ + _ 14

4) Synthetic
Canvas
Cloth
+ + _ 14










Control System
Criteria


Cost

Availability

Reliability

Weightage


Types
7 6 8 TOTAL SKETCHING
Electronic
Analogue
Control
N + + 12

Fly-by-wire
digital
control
system
- - + 7

Mechanical

+ + N 12













Conclusion

Our initial design, as visible in the sketches included, will be built based on the results of the decision
matrix. The criteria with the highest evaluations will be utilized in the preliminary design and will
also be the basis upon which the following phases are conducted.

The vehicle will be powered by a single engine, with a transmission system dividing the output to the
thrust and lift systems. Its body will be built out of a wood and fibreglass composite, which helps to
keep the cost down while at the same time helps the unit withstand sun and rain. It would also help
to reduce the overall weight of the craft. Its propulsion system will consist of a single ducted fan
whose thrust will be vectored out through nozzles, allowing a more diverse application of control
surfaces with which the craft can be controlled, thus increasing maneuverability.Its skirting will use
a conventional but durable rubber, which would be easier to source. Its control system however,
will consist of two possible contingencies, a pure mechanical system, or ae electronic analog control
system. Both scored evenly on the decision matrix and both are reliable enough for the task, hence,
both will be kept un der observation until further study of the basic plan eliminates uone in favour of
the other.

With this preliminary design, we hope that our objective can be fullfilled. With that we would like to
put the first phase of our design project to a close.