1. Aims, Objectives and Hypotheses Aims/Objectives Aims/Objectives To determine the effects of surrogate meat (rubber) thickness and loading rate on fracture force of surrogate chicken bone (tongue depressor) using three point stress bending in the Instron To determine the effects of surrogate meat (rubber) thickness and loading rate on fracture force of surrogate chicken bone (tongue depressor) using three point stress bending in the Instron Hypotheses Hypotheses Fracture force will increase with increased rubber thickness, and loading rate (within the range of 10mm/min to 1000 mm/min) will significantly affect the fracture force. Fracture force will increase with increased rubber thickness, and loading rate (within the range of 10mm/min to 1000 mm/min) will significantly affect the fracture force. The Effects of Rubber Thickness and Loading Rate on Fracture Force of Surrogate Chicken Bone Group:TA5

2. Methods, Protocol, & Equipment Methods Methods Rubber-depressor system preparation Rubber-depressor system preparation 3-point Instron fixture 3-point Instron fixture Force-displacement for varied thickness Force-displacement for varied thickness  ANOVA test Varied loading rate Varied loading rate  ANOVA test Protocol Protocol Cut out 1/16”, 1/8”, and 3/16” surrogate rubber thicknesses & attach to sides of wood Cut out 1/16”, 1/8”, and 3/16” surrogate rubber thicknesses & attach to sides of wood Use Instron to calculate failure force for three different thicknesses Use Instron to calculate failure force for three different thicknesses Vary 4 different loading rates to measure failure force Vary 4 different loading rates to measure failure force Equipment Equipment Instron Model 4444 Instron Model 4444 NewInstron3.VI NewInstron3.VI 3-point fixture 3-point fixture

3. Average fracture force vs. thickness graph with error bars showing increase in failure force with increase in rubber thickness ANOVA test for average failure forces for all three rubbers showing significant difference Average fracture force vs. loading rate with error bars showing increase in failure force with increase in load rate ANOVA test for the averages of all four loading rates showing a significant difference Proposed Results/Findings/Deliverables Potential Pitfalls Not enough variation between thicknesses of rubber samples Not enough different thicknesses of rubber samples Not enough difference between maximum loading rate (1000mm/min) and minimum loading rate (10mm/min)

4. Materials and Budget & Justification From McMaster-Carr: Masking tape $0.87 per roll Masking tape $0.87 per roll Tongue depressors each 3/4” by 6”, $11.70 for 500 Tongue depressors each 3/4” by 6”, $11.70 for 500 3 types of surrogate rubber (each roll 6” by 36”) 3 types of surrogate rubber (each roll 6” by 36”) thin rubber: 1/16”, $7.60 per roll thin rubber: 1/16”, $7.60 per roll medium rubber: 1/8”, $15.18 per roll medium rubber: 1/8”, $15.18 per roll thick rubber: 3/16”, $22.80 per roll thick rubber: 3/16”, $22.80 per roll each roll is 6” by 36” each roll is 6” by 36” Different thicknesses of rubber used instead of attaching multiple rubber samples of same thickness to eliminate error in assembly Different thicknesses of rubber used instead of attaching multiple rubber samples of same thickness to eliminate error in assembly Using tape instead of glue to avoid potential air pockets and variations due to uneven distribution of glue Using tape instead of glue to avoid potential air pockets and variations due to uneven distribution of glue