MECH 309 WSU Vancouver Department of Mechanical Engineering Team B Jay Lui Todd May Cameron Muller Tony Nguyen Mason O’Lennick Alex Paradis Daniel Peterson Patrick Phillips Trevor Pope Jonathan Shaffer

Testing Procedures Criteria for Comparison: Cost Microstructure Observations Oxidization Hardness Tolerance Bending/Failure

Cost Combination Wrench Manufacturers Tested: ManufacturerPrice Pittsburgh$1.25 Master Mechanic$6.00 Husky Pro$8.00 Craftsman$10.00 Snap-on$25.25

Microstructure Pittsburgh: Master Mechanic: Husky Pro: Craftsman: Snap-on:

Microstructure Pittsburgh:Master Mechanic: Husky Pro: Craftsman:Snap-on:

Pre-Oxidation

Post-Oxidation

Hardness

Open-End Testing Torque Applied via Torque Wrench Along Wrench to Maintain Line of Action Each Wrench Head Plastically Deformed Around Test Bolt Preventing Fracture The Amount of Play in the Open-End of Each Wrench Correlated to Slippage

Open-End Tolerance

Open-End Failure Results

t t Handle Failure Results Pittsburgh Snap-on Craftsman Master Mechanic Husky

Handle Failure Results

Conclusions Husky Best value, good toughness and low-cost Warranty may not be as good as high-cost wrenches Snap-on Performed well but the high cost makes it a lower value Has excellent warranty and highest failure points Craftsman Best choice if failure is a concern Good value and lifetime warranty Master Mechanic Performed adequately But for $2 more, the best value wrench, Husky, could be purchased instead Pittsburgh Low-cost was evident with its low failure points and inconsistency

Questions