1. Senior Design Project Cirrus Design AEM 4331 Jon Anderson Mike Asp Kyle Bergen Ejvin Berry Cody Candler Jim Forsberg Mike Gavanda Alex Messer Dan Poniatowski www.cirrusdesign.com

2. Agenda Introduction –Problem Overview –Requirements and goals –Program Plan Wing Trade Study Overview and Results Cargo Pod Design Overview and Results FMEA and Conclusion

3. Problem Overview Wing Trade Study –Improve wing performance and design high lift devices that maintain current stall performance. Cargo Pod Design –Design a cargo pod for the SR-22 that is able to carry two golf bags or two pairs of skis.

4. Wing Trade Study Requirements –New wing design shall increase lift by 300 pounds at all flight conditions. –High lift devices shall allow for the same stall speed as the current wing. Goals –No increase in drag –No increase in wing area –No increase in wingspan

5. Cargo Pod Design Requirements –Pod shall not interfere with the safe operation of the SR-22. –Pod shall be designed for optimum user utility. –Pod shall not move the aircraft out of its intended center of gravity limits. –Pod shall be at least 8 inches from the exhaust. Goals –Less than 15% drag increase –Pod is capable of holding two golf bags or two pairs of skis. –Pod is stylish and has good aesthetics

6. Program Plan

7. Program Plan Continued

9. Wing Trade Study Requirements: Lift 300 more pounds of payload Fly at same cruise speed and stall speeds Results: We were able to provide several solutions based on hand calculations. Our original approach using CFD failed.

10. Belly Pod design Requirements: 2 sets of skis with equipment 2 sets of golf clubs (with drivers) Fishing poles Results: Have a design that meets these goals

11. Alex Messer FlowWorks Validation 90 hrs

12. Simulation in FlowWorks Goal: Reproduce data found from wind tunnel test in FlowWorks Method: Build the same bodies that were tested in the wind tunnel in SolidWorks Simulate various ways of building the same object Simulate the same angles of attack and airspeeds used in the wind tunnel Test different mesh resolutions Compare resulting forces

13. Models Open Return Tunnel:Closed Return Tunnel:

14. Pressure differences between models

15. Varying Reynolds Number Re = 3.0x10 5

16. Re = 3.4x10 5 Varying Reynolds Number

17. Re = 4.0x10 5 Varying Reynolds Number

18. Varying Mesh Resolution

21. What can we learn? FlowWorks does not give realistic lift results Drag results are reasonable What can be done? Numerical approximation Xfoil Wind tunnel tests Conclusions

22. Raymer, Daniel P. Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 4 th ed., AIAA education series, Blacksburg VA, 2006 Conclusions

23. Baseline Wing

24. Derived requirements Current Cl in landing configuration at sea level at 60 knots is 1.98 We want to carry 300 extra pounds, so we need a Cl of 2.16 Must increase Cl by.18. From Raymer, we can calculate the increase in Cl due to the current high lift system being used on the SR-22.

25. Derived requirements From the current wing design at 60 knots, we have From Raymer, using a fowler flap Therefore, So we need to design a high lift system that will increase Cl by.83

26. Fowler flap Jonathan Anderson Hours: 100 Designed a fowler flap system which produces the required

27. Fowler flap Ways to increase Cl Extend the offset hinge distance Increase the flap deflection angle Change the flap shape Change the flap cove shape Use a track system instead of an offset hinge Experiments have shown that increasing the flap deflection angle to 40 degrees will produce the greatest in many different airfoils, (with a chord of.3c to.4c.) Planes using flaps with 40 degrees deflection Cessna 150, 172, 206, DHC Beaver, Otter Piper Seneca, Cherokee The shape of the flap cove and the flap itself will also play a role in determining the maximum flap deflection angle and. Much of my time was spent looking for the right shapes in Floworks.

28. Fowler flap If we increase offset distance to 16 inches, and flap deflection angle to 36 degrees, we get a c’/c = 1.178. In increasing the flap deflection angle to 36 degrees, will also increase above 1.3. It is possible to get at least 1.5 depending on the design. More investigation of these ideas will be shown, but the actual number (1.5) is based on technical reports using Reynolds numbers within 10%. With these considerations, we can solve for using We find that

29. Fowler flap This requires a flap that is 111.2 inches long 5.2 inches longer than the current flap Would impede on aileron Need to move aileron down by about 5.2 inches. This is possible because there is 18 inches of room for the aileron to move. Notes: if the same flap span were to be used, the hinge offset distance below the wing would have to be 19 inches for a deflection of 36 degrees. If the current flap—12 inch offset distance, 32 degrees deflection—were to be extended, it would need to be 145 inches long, pushing the aileron all the way to the tip and shrinking it 37% in length.

30. Fowler flap Offset hinge length is 16 inches Flap deflection angle is 36 degrees Length of flap is 111.2 inches Aileron is moved 5.2 inches toward tip

31. Some Fowler flap systems referanceCleanDirtydCldeflection Slotted11.73.41.735 non-slotted21.273.171.930 non-slotted31.43.4230 3 "Wind tunnel tests of the GA(W)-2 airfoil with 20 aileron, 25 slotted flap, 30 Fowler flap and 10 slot-lip spoiler ", Wentz, W. H., Jr., 1977, NASA, ID#19790001850 4 "wind tunnel tests on model wing with fowler flap and specially developed leading edge slot", Weick and Platt, Langley, 1933, ID#19930084816 5 "Lift and Drag tests of three airfoil models with fowler flaps", Abbott and Turner, Langley, 1941, ID#19930092770 Figure on right is from reference 1, Reynolds number of 2.2e6

32. Slotted flap design guidelines Optimum position of flap leading edge depends primarily on the shape of the slot, and is best determined by experiment In general, moves inward when lip is increased but is generally about.01c forward of lip Usually a slot opening on the order of.01c or slightly more is best. Best Cl’s are achieved using flaps with a wing shape. Avoid flaps with a blunt leading edge. from “Theory of wing sections”, Ira H. Abbott and Albert E. von Doenhoff, p. 212-213. Dover Publications, NY, 1959. (reference 4)

33. Slotted flap design Two different shapes of slots with different flap shapes. The one on the left is a smooth slot with max cl=2.535, the one on the right has a small lip with max cl=2.57. For this experiment, Cl clean at the same (or near) angle of attack is about 1.3, and Reynolds number was about 8e6.

34. Slotted flap design Slot with a larger lip and with a maximum Cl=2.65. from “Wind-tunnel investigation of an NACA 23012 airfoil with various arrangements of slotted flaps”, Wenzinger, Carl J; Harris, Thomas A, Langley Research Center, 1939, ID: 19930091739 (reference 5)

35. Remark: It is possible to get a higher than 1.5, provided a detailed study of the flap cove shape, flap shape, and location are optimized, therefore 1.5 seems like a reasonable value, but experiments must be performed to confirm this. Conclusions The design will produce the required extra lift to carry 300 more pounds The aileron needs to be moved by about 5 inches If aileron can’t be moved, then the offset hinge must be 19 inches long track system seems more practical in this case

36. Jim Forsberg Hours worked: 107 Designed a Plain Flap with leading edge slats system that achieved the required Designed a Fowler Flap with leading edge slats system that achieved the required

37. Plain Flap and Slat

38. Fowler and Slat

39. Extend chord length, by changing position of slat. Increase deflection angle (around ) on the Fowler and Plain flap. Modify the shape of the Flap and Slat What will be considered to increase

40. Technical Reports In these graphs is around 1.4 for.16c Schwier, W., “Lift increase by blowing out air, tests on airfoil of 12 percent thickness, using various types of flap,” NACA Deutsche Luftfahrtforschung, Forschungsbericht, 1947

41. From looking at the table and other technical reports it is reasonable to estimate that: At a 16% chord increase Technical Reports (continued) Quinn, John H. Jr., “Tests of the NACA 641A212 airfoil section with a slat, a double slotted flap, and boundary layer control by suction,” NACA Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory, Langley Field, VA, 1947

42. Plain Flap and Slats Using this relationship: With and an increase in chord of 16%, our = 5728 in^2 This requires the Flap Span to be 118 in.; 12 in. longer than the current flap span Note: slat gets in the way of the transition cuff

43. Fowler and Slats Based on Raymer, the optimal for slats is 0.4. Looking at technical reports, and interpolating, the slats need to produce around a 12% chord increase to get this. Using the same relationship as before but now having be 0.18. This requires the slat span to be 92.6 in. long and the Fowler Flap to remain at 106 in.

44. Drawback to having Slats Known to create some drag compared to a non-slotted wing at cruise. Thus reducing the cruising speed. Heavier and more complex than other leading edge devices (slots). Deicing gets more complicated

45. Conclusion Both the designs will produce the required 300 more pounds. The Plain Flap and Slat system require to have 12 in. more span than the current span. Moving the Aileron toward the tip and getting in the way of the cuff. The Fowler with Slat system requires no change in span of the current wing and that the slat span does not interfere with the transition cuff.

46. Conclusion Going further: Experiment with the Fowler and Slat system, to get a more accurate position for the Slat. Continued research in finding a more precise for the Plain Flap and Slat system.

47. Michael Asp Hours Worked 105 I was in charge of designing a flapperon that would meet the design requirement for C L.

48. Current Wing Configuration

49. Best Flapperon Configuration

50. Mechanical Configuration Option 1 Option 2 *This would be investigated if we had more time to determine which set-up is more effective

51. Comparison of Various Flapperon Systems Table of Flap Spans Needed to Achieve Necessary Lift Coefficient Degrees of Flap Deflection Type of Flap20 deg25 deg30 deg35 deg40 deg Plain Flaps 268.8 in. (not possible) 208.1 in.182.9 in.167.2 in.208.1 in. Fowler Flaps 163.7 in. 161.5 in. 159.4 in. Slotted Plain Flaps 166.4 in.

52. Conclusions The best design will require: –Removal of Flaps and Ailerons on current wing –Implementation of an integrated (Flaps and Ailerons combined) Flapperon that has a span of 159.4 in. –Flapperon begins at the 36 in. Indentation from the root chord already in place with current wing.

53. Drawbacks Adverse Yaw Effect at landing when flaps are deployed and pilot tries to bank plane –Can be overcome by pilot compensation Pilot does not deploy flaps part until lined up with runway on final approach

54. Overall Wing Design Conclusion The system which requires the least amount of complexity and further investigation is the extended fowler flap. This requires: 5 inches more flap span Longer offset hinge 4 degrees greater flap deflection Experimentation in flap shape and flap cove

56. Cargo Pod Design Kyle Bergen Ejvin Berry Cody Candler Mike Gavanda

57. Design Concept Ejvin Berry 96 hours Tasks –Initial Aerodynamics Optimization –Quick Prototype Modeling –Final Concept Modeling

58. Cirrus SR22 Cargo Pod

59. Cargo Pod Guidelines With 2 passengers (including pilot), 4 hours of fuel, carry one of the following: 2 sets of skis with equipment –Required volume of 12in x 6in x 77 in 2 sets of golf clubs (with drivers) –Required volume of 35in x 11in x 50in Minimum 8” offset from firewall –Exhaust Clearance

60. Pod on Fuselage

61. Clearance Envelope

62. Bottom View

63. Attachment View

64. Front Fairing (2) Rear Fairing

65. Conclusions Demonstrates –Practicality Meets required tasks, loads –Ease of Operation Location specific, ease of entry –Aesthetic Quality –Aerodynamics

66. Recommendations Study feasibility of manufacturing contoured pod surfaces to mesh with fuselage. –Increased capacity –Fit CG envelope better –Aerodynamics Improved

67. Attachment Methods Individual Report by Kyle Bergen 80 hours worked

68. Attachment to Longerons Three points of attachment for stability and ease of attachment Use longerons as hard points to anchor mounting brackets which extend to belly. One piece assembly screwed to belly attachment. Bolts secure attachment pieces together from embedded pieces in pod fiberglass

69. Front Mounting Brackets (Two)

70. Rear Mounting Bracket (one)

71. Under belly attachment from bracket to Pod (three)

72. Embedded in Top of Pod Slides into underbelly attachment

73. Belly Plugs when Pod is not attached

74. General Analysis Cosmos Express in Solid Works was used to diagnose the stresses on parts Maximum forces were used with total weight of Pod with load (120 lbs), with 4 G’s applied and safety factor of 1.5. Total force of 720 lbs. C.G. of front loaded pod (two golf bags) calculated 216 lbs on each front attachment and 288 lbs on rear attachment.

75. General Analysis Cont. Total force in the direction of drag is estimated at 150 lbs. For 50 lbs on each attach point. As seen later this is 3.75 times the actual. Means large safety factor. All bolts to the longerons and to the pod/belly attachments are ¼ in. Screws to the belly bracket attachments are in.

76. Allowable Loads Allowable Load=(Allowable Stress/Safety Factor)(Area) For Bolts and Screws of 304 Stainless Steel, Tensile Strength Yield is used as 31200 psi, a shear strength of half the yield is used, 15600 psi, though online sources show it much higher, I will use a low number. Bolts through under belly attachments are in double shear so we see an allowable load of 2297 lbs. Screws in Tension see the yield strength of 31200 psi, we see allowable load of 2297 lbs as well. (since in double shear we use twice the area and Yield strength is twice the shear strength we see the same result.) These allowable loads are well above what the pod would see.

77. Stresses in bolts to longerons Since there are two bolts into the longerons on each front attachment we take the Total force on each bolt to be 216/2 on the front for a force of 108 lbs. For the rear bracket each bolt sees 72 lbs. These bolts have a smaller area so we see an allowable load of 510.5 lbs in shear for each bolt. These requirements are met by the 304 Stainless Steel bolts of ¼ inch diameter.

78. Deformation Picture of front attachment Multiplied many times for show Safety factor of 2.47

79. Statistics Piece was run with both 304 S.S. and Alloy 2018. 2018 is chosen because of lower weight and higher yield Weight of Piece is.22 lbs Max Stress in Piece 18560 psi Max Displacement is.005 inches at base.

80. Deformation Picture of Rear Attachment Lowest Factor of Safety in design is 4.82

81. Statistics Piece was run with both 304 S.S. and Alloy 2018. 2018 is chosen because of low weight (3 times less) and higher yield Weight of piece is 1.4 lbs Max Stress in piece is 13880 psi Max Displacement is.005 inches

82. Deformation in Under belly attachment to pod piece Safety Factor of 1.95

83. Statistics Piece was run with both 304 S.S. and Alloy 2018. 2018 is demonstrated here Data taken was for 288 lbs, so pieces are not exclusive to one attach point, three identical pieces. Weight of piece is.31 lbs Max Stress in piece is 1798 psi Max Displacement in piece is.00005 inches

84. Displacement of Embedded Pod Piece Safety Factor 25.48

85. Statistics The piece was run testing both 304 Stainless and Alloy 2018. 2018 is recommended because of its slightly higher yield strength and much less weight Weight of piece is.32 lbs Max Stress in piece is 1804 psi Max displacement is.00005 inches.

86. Pod Statistics We would use a fiber glass pod, with 10 plies. Which would be a thickness of.099 inches. To show an example model of deflection We were not able to accurately run this with fiberglass, this is using 2018 at.1 inches thick, max deflection is.02 inches.

87. Final Statistics Total weight of the attachment method is 3.73 lbs 304 SS would have worked for all pieces as well, and even reduced some of the displacement, however, the weight would have been significantly increase. 304 SS is used for bolts since that is a primary use of 304 SS. Alloy 2018 is chosen because it is a high strength alloy. It is very easily machined and is a tough alloy that can be used for heavy duty structural parts.

88. Conclusions The attachment methods as designed work for the support of the cargo pod. Front attachments are placed on the inside of the longerons at 19 inches behind firewall and rear attachment is placed between longerons at 69 inches behind firewall. Inspection of longerons looked to be good placement. Would have liked to do further analysis on the Longerons and get more accurate dimensions. Wish we would have nailed down a design sooner since a lot of the semester was spent on investigation of workable/do-able pod designs. Further work would include optimization of current design pieces and trying different designs. I would like to thank my team and Steve Hampton for all the support throughout the project!

89. Individual Report Mike Gavanda 70 hours Worked on –Ground clearance –Tail strike clearance –Size requirements –Pod access

90. Solid works attached Pod model 9:05 AM

91. Clearance 9:05 AM

92. Solid Works model 9:05 AM

93. Clearance/ Tail Strike Envelope

94. Pod wheel Clearance 9:05 AM

95. Golf Bag Width10 in Height Bag34 in Height with clubs50 in Average Golf Bag Size 9:05 AM

96. Golf Bag Clearance 9:05 AM

97. Skis Length (cm)173180 Side cut tip(mm)130135 Waist (mm)9699 Tail (mm)124125 Weight (g for one ski)19702210 http://www.salomonski.com/us/products/XW-Sandstorm-1-1-1-788918.html 9:05 AM

98. Skis and pod

99. Access

100. Access Seal *www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/hapages/camloc4002.php **www.trimlok.com/detail.aspx?ID=933 Camloc 4002 Studs* 2600 and 2700 series made of steel Shear: 1050 lbs. (ultimate) Tensile strength: 700 lbs. (rated) Rated to 450° F Example of watertight hatch seal**

101. Conclusion Meets clearance and size goals –Clears fully loaded landing –Clears tail strike –Safe distance from exhaust –Fits a pair of golf bags or 2 pairs of skis Easy access

102. Recommendations Find more on how the exhaust affects pod See if clearance can be increased for landing and tail strike More study of water tight seal on access door

103. Individual Report Cody Candler 75 Hours Tasks –Location of the center of gravity Ensure it meets ground requirements –Aerodynamics Analysis –Range Optimization

104. Reference points of the front and back of the cargo pod while attached (Figure 6-1 out of the Cirrus Manual)

105. C.G. of the aircraft with the pod attached Sample Loading Pilot – 200 lbs Passenger – 200 lbs Fuel – 486 lbs (full tank) Cargo Pod – 100 lbs Center of Gravity Limits No Luggage Luggage – 25 lbs Luggage – 50 lbs C.G. of pod located at FS 148.0 Moment Limits

106. Used Component Buildup Method out of Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach by Raymer Approach used: Find flat-plate skin-friction drag coefficient (C f ) –Assumed complete turbulent flow Find the component “form factor” (FF) –estimates the pressure drag due to viscous separation –assumed the pod to be a fuselage where –A max is the maximum cross-sectional area of the pod which is 3.224 ft 2 –l is the length of the cargo pod (6.583 ft) Estimate C D for cargo pod

107. C D Estimate cont… Determine interference effects on the component drag (Q) –Raymer says if the component is mounted less than one diameter away from the fuselage then the Q factor is 1.3 Find the wetted area (S wet ) –Total exposed surface area Calculate total component drag S ref of SR-22 wing is 144.9 ft 2 Result: C D = 0.002577

108. Extra power needed with pod attached Use general power required equation P R = T R V ∞ In steady, unaccelerated flight T R = Drag (in our case, drag is increased drag from pod) For each altitude, I used the cruise performance data from the Cirrus manual –I only used data where engine was operating at 2700 RPM since the engine has a rating of 310 hp at 2700 RPM –This gives a conservative estimation of the additional power needed to travel at the same velocity with the pod attached as when it isn’t attached Percent Power Increase

109. Effects on Velocity Calculate an approximate C D of the SR-22 using the cruise performance data out of the Cirrus manual Add the cargo pod component drag coefficient to the total aircraft drag coefficient At 2700 RPM and same power, calculate velocity of aircraft with the pod attached and without the pod attached Result 7% decrease in velocity with the pod attached

110. Sample Pressure Distribution on Pod

111. Sample Pressure Distribution on the pod with a crosswind Crosswind

112. Maximum Speed with Cargo Pod Attached Conditions: Get to a location as fast as possible 4 hours endurance 81 gallons of usable fuel Weight: 3400 lbs Take off from sea-level No wind Results w/o Pod: Optimal Cruise Altitude: 12000 ft Fuel to taxi: 1.5 gal Fuel to climb: 4.4 gal Fuel to cruise: 59.8 gal @ 15.4 GPH 45 min IFR fuel reserve: 9.8 gal Airspeed: 178 KTAS Range: 785 nautical miles Adjusted results for attached cargo pod: Airspeed: 166.4 KTAS (7% reduction) Range: 730 nautical miles Endurance of 4.3 hours

113. Maximum Range with Cargo Pod Attached Conditions: Maximum range 81 gallons of useable fuel Weight: 3400 lbs Takeoff from sea level No wind Results w/o Pod: Optimal Cruise Altitude: 14000 ft Fuel to taxi: 1.5 gal Fuel to climb: 5.3 gal Fuel to cruise: 57.8 gal @ 11.3 GPH 45 min IFR fuel reserve: 9.8 gal Airspeed: 169 KTAS Range: 1006 nautical miles Adjusted results for attached cargo pod: Airspeed: 143.7 KTAS (7% reduction) Range: 935 nautical miles Endurance of 5.8 hours

114. Conclusions Due to the restriction of the center of gravity of the cargo pod (FS 148.0) a weight of at least 25 lbs must be added to the luggage compartment for the SR-22 to be safe to fly A 4 – 8% increase in power is needed to travel at the same speed with the cargo pod attached as it would without the pod attached The cargo pod decreases the velocity of the SR-22 by approximately 7% when attached The maximum range of the SR-22 with a full tank of fuel and the cargo pod attached is 935 miles The customer would need to sacrifice range or use more fuel when operating with the cargo pod attached

115. Recommendations Mesh top of pod to the bottom of the fuselage to reduce the drag area and increase performance –Free up room to move the pod further back on the fuselage, which would move the C.G. aft and maybe eliminate the need for a requirement of 25 lbs of luggage Spend more time studying pressure hot spots –Contour the front of the pod more to further reduce drag –Revise the back half of the pod to prevent flow separation and reduce drag

116. Individual Report Dan Poniatowski 86 hours of work Accomplishments –Documented and managed schedule and Gantt Chart –Documented requirements –Facilitated communication between the team and the sponsors –Coordinated trips to the Cirrus factory in Duluth –Facilitated FMEA and Environmental/Societal Impact analysis –Produced a Design Summary for the belly pod consistent with Cirrus’ method of documentation

117. ProblemProbabilitySeverityMitigation High Lift Device Flutter due to failureLowHighPull Parachute. High Lift Device Flutter due to aerodynamicsMediumHigh Test for natural frequencies. Avoid frequencies of prop and install dampening. Cable/Mechanical FailureLowHighPull Parachute. High Lift Device Extension/Retraction FailureLow Install mechanical indicator to inform pilot. Spin EntryMedium Install warning placards and mandate anti-spin pilot training. High Lift Device DetachmentLowHighDesign fasteners to release when a partial failure occurs. Pull Parachute. IcingHighVariesIncorporate existing deicing equipment into new design. Collision DamageMedium Reinforce leading edge. Pull Parachute. Wing DetachmentLowVery HighPull Parachute. Internal Fuel LeakLowMedium Install fluid detector and warning device. Instruct pilot to deactivate electronics and land immediately. External Fuel LeakLow Instruct pilot to land immediately. Lightning StrikeMedium Install dissipating mesh in the wing and high lift devices. Heat DamageMediumLowList warnings in Pilot's Operating Handbook. ProblemProbabilitySeverityMitigation Pod hits the groundMediumLowFasteners designed to shear off and release pod. Partial Attachment FailureLowHighRemaining attach points designed to shear off. Foreign Object CollisionMediumLowReinforce the nose of the pod. Front End OverheatingHighMediumAttach a metal heat sheild to the nose. High G FailureMediumHighDesigned to withstand a 3G manuever. CG Out of Balance Due to LoadingHigh Warn the pilot in the Pilot's Operating Handbook and install placards. Failure Modes and Effects Analysis

118. ProblemCategorySeverityMitigation High performance wing causes society to distrust general aviation as a result of accidents.SocietyLowPress releases on the advantages of the new wing design. Wing performs well enough to edge competitors out of the market.GlobalLowSharing of new wing technology. Complexity of high lift device design deters new pilots.SocietyLowSimplification of pilot interface. ProblemCategorySeverityMitigation Pod is used for smuggling drugs.SocietyLow Pod is used by terrorists to deliver weapons.SocietyHigh Pod is used as a chemical distribution tank.EnvironmentMedium Additional power required for use of pod consumes more fuel.EnvironmentVery LowMake pod easy to remove when not in use. Environmental, Societal, and Global Impacts

119. Pod Design Summary Follows Cirrus’ Method of Documentation Documents design requirements and goals. Documents the design concepts along with pros, cons, risks and mitigation. Documents the design process to provide insight to further investigation.

120. Pod Design Summary

123. Conclusions and Recommendations Gantt chart was useful for planning purposes Wiki was useful for common file sharing Requirements were recorded in a common location, a more stringent process would be useful. Schedule more time for risk mitigation Schedule more reviews during the design process Be more aggressive in achieving results and ensuring metrics are being met.