1. P15660 9/30/14 System Level Design Review Reciprocating Friction Tester Tuesday, September 30th, 2014

2. P15660 9/30/14 P15660: Armature Subsystem Eric Kutil (ME): Project Manager Specialty: Solid Modeling and Machining Chris Karamanos (IE): Data Manager Specialty: Process Improvement Reba Conway (ME): Note Taker Specialty: Solid Modeling and GD&T Kolby Irving (EE): Gatekeeper Specialty: Lab-View Software Emeka Okoye (EE): Supply Manager Specialty: Electronic Hardware Gary Werth: Project Guide

3. P15660 9/30/14 Agenda ●Review o Project Background o Stakeholders o Problem Statement & Project Deliverables o Customer Needs o Engineering Requirements o House of Quality o Risk Assessment ●Action Items and Interviews o Research Student Interview o Welling Interview o Interface with base team ●System Design o Analysis - Functional Decomposition ●Concept & Architecture Development o Benchmarking of all functions o Morph Charts of Options 1-5 o Pugh Chart o Engineering Analysis o Proposed Design o Secondary Design ●Test Plan ●Project Plan

4. P15660 9/30/14 Review

5. P15660 9/30/14 Project Background ●Tests the wear and friction of materials ●Design a reciprocating sliding contact friction test rig o Ball-on-plate FRICTION TESTER PROJECT TWO TEAM COLLABORATIVE BUILD Group A Armature Subsystem P15660 Group B Reciprocation Subsystem P15661

6. P15660 9/30/14 Stakeholders Dr. Iglesias Victoria ●Primary stakeholder, sponsor and customer Other important stakeholders ●Friction tester reciprocating team (P15661)! o Communication between teams is key for success ●Research students using Dr. Iglesias’s Lab o Will be operating the friction testers as well

7. P15660 9/30/14 Problem Statement & Project Deliverables Current State: ●The reciprocating friction testers are too expensive, or not the current testing application Desired State: ●Fully functional reciprocating friction tester by the end of MSDII! Project Goals: ●Design and build an armature which will be attached to the reciprocating base made by P15561 team Constraints: ●The armature must provide constant & accurate vertical Normal Force o Weight of armature can’t affect normal force ●Single point contact force variable from 0N to 20N ●All data obtained must be stored and displayed ●Budget of $1500, $2500 shared between both teams

8. P15660 9/30/14 Customer Needs & Requirements

9. P15660 9/30/14 Engineering Requirements

10. P15660 9/30/14 House of Quality

11. P15660 9/30/14 Risk Assessment

12. P15660 9/30/14 Completed Action Items and Important Interviews

13. P15660 9/30/14 Action Items and Open Items from Last Review ●Met with Research Student to discuss operation and ease of use ●Scheduled a meeting with Prof. Wellin to discuss LabView options ●Discussed system interaction with Reciprocating Team (P15661) Defined interface on base Confirmed Responsibility of Functions and Designing

14. P15660 9/30/14 Research Student Interview Met with the current research student in the lab to discuss ease of use and operation of the current rotating friction tester. Below is what we learned from the interview: Discussed likes about armature ●Armature motion o Rotate about base o X translation for easy adjustability o Pin holder (set screws), quick and easy Possible design concerns ●Using weights with open slots o Could slide off due to vibration ●Motor capabilities o Not powerful enough to quickly accelerate Improvements ●LABView interface o Difficult to use, clumsy

15. P15660 9/30/14 John Wellin Interview Had an interview with Professor Wellin and Dr. Iglesias to discuss LABView and other electrical components of the friction tester. Some key learnings: Computer Hardware and Software ●A single LABView interface can feasibly control both the rotating disk and reciprocating friction test stations, however not simultaneously Sensors to measure Friction Force ●Strain gauges aren’t ideal o Budget, need signal conditioner and DAQ hardware to convert signal to force o Accuracy o Needs to be installed in perfect orientation, very difficult ●Mr. Wellen recommended different sensors o Torque cell o Load cell

16. P15660 9/30/14 Interface with Reciprocating Team Discussed and finalized interface between teams and who is responsible for certain functions. Mounting Interface Constraints ●Reciprocating base team will mount and fix their subsystem to the foundation base plate in a predefined location. o Min/max height from top of specimen to foundation plate provided by base team o Based on final design, distance from center of bolt hole pattern to location of the ball holder will be provided to base team Design Responsibility ●Armature team will be designing friction tester safety cover ●Base team is in charge of LABView programming and software o Will provide and send voltage output signal that represents friction force to base team ●Creo software will be used by both teams

17. P15660 9/30/14 System Design

18. P15660 9/30/14 Analysis: Functional Decomposition

19. P15660 9/30/14 Armature Functions

20. P15660 9/30/14 Concept Development

21. P15660 9/30/14 Benchmarking: Mounting Armature to Base Plate Feasible designs ●Screws ●Bolts Not Feasible Designs ●Welding ●Rivets

22. P15660 9/30/14 Benchmarking: Load Application Feasible designs ●Test stand ●Stackable weights, option B and C Not feasible designs ●Threaded screw tensile test system ●Stackable weights, Option A

23. P15660 9/30/14 Benchmarking: Counterbalance Feasible designs ●Weight on fine threaded rod ●Triple Beam Balance Not Feasible Designs ●Stackable Weights

24. P15660 9/30/14 Benchmarking: Pin Holder Feasible designs ●Set Screw ●Drill Chuck ●Collet ●Clamps Not feasible designs ●Magnets

25. P15660 9/30/14 Benchmarking: Recording Friction Force Load Cell is best for our setup Load Cell Data LoggerPC (LABView)

26. P15660 9/30/14 Benchmarking: Safety Cover Pin Style Style 1 Style 7

27. P15660 9/30/14 Morph Chart Based off Benchmarking

28. P15660 9/30/14 Morph Chart: Option 1 (Datum) Option 1 which is the datum, is identical to the rotating friction tester located in the lab.

29. P15660 9/30/14 Option 1 (Datum) Design Stackable Weights to Apply Normal Force Weight on fine Threaded Screw to Counterbalance Set Screw to Secure Holder Bolts to secure Armature to Foundation Crank Wheel to Adjust in X Free Standing Cover

30. P15660 9/30/14 Morph Chart: Option 2 Key Differences to Datum: ●Safety cover with hinges and magnets ●Drill chuck to secure specimen ●Y axis Adjustment Pros 1.Cover is easier to use and safer 2.Adjustable in Y axis 3.Quick way to secure holder Cons 1.Slightly more expensive due to drill chuck 2.Slightly more complex design

31. P15660 9/30/14 Morph Chart: Option 3 Key Differences to Datum: ●Safety cover with access door ●Drill chuck to secure specimen ●Triple-beam counterbalance ●Y axis Adjustment Pros 1.Cover is easier to use and safer 2.Adjustable in Y axis 3.Quick way to secure holder 4.More accurate counterbalance Cons 1.More expensive due to key differences 2.More complex design 3.Larger armature size due to triple- beam counterbalance

32. P15660 9/30/14 Morph Chart: Option 4 Key Differences to Datum (Almost Identical): ●Safety cover with hinges and magnets ●Y axis Adjustment Pros 1.Cover is easier to use and safer 2.Adjustable in the Y axis 3.Cheapest option besides Datum 4.Lowest risk

33. P15660 9/30/14 Morph Chart: Option 5 Key Differences to Datum : ●Safety cover with access door ●Y axis Adjustment ●Completely different normal force application design Pros 1.Cover is easier to use and safer 2.Adjustable in the Y axis 3.Very easy way to apply load 4.Wide range of loads 5.No counterbalance necessary 6.Simple and smaller design Cons 1.More expensive due to extra force gauge and test stand 2.May be difficult to incorporate strain gauge, moderate risk

34. P15660 9/30/14 Pugh Chart Based off our Pugh chart, the winner with our chosen criteria is option 5. This option may have many positives but also has a moderate risk and high cost. Option 4 is the runner up due to its similarity to the rotating friction tester, low risk.

35. P15660 9/30/14 Proposed Design Reciprocating base Loud/Torque Cell

36. P15660 9/30/14 System Architecture

37. P15660 9/30/14 Engineering Analysis

38. P15660 9/30/14 Min/Max Friction Force Coefficient of Friction Lubricated Test (Min) = 0.01 u Dry Test (Max) = 0.8 u Testing load ranges Minimum Force = 0.5 N Maximum Force = 20 N

39. P15660 9/30/14 Test Plan Outline Test Load Cell ●Verify that cell can measure friction within percent error desired ●Make sure that cell can measure min and max friction force ●Test vibration is system so that it does not affect friction force Test User interface ●Verify ease of use ●Make sure data on LABView is correct and accurate Test counter balance methods ●Verify counterbalance accuracy ●Verify the amount of normal force load is correct and accurate Detection Systems Test

40. P15660 9/30/14 Project Plan

41. P15660 9/30/14 Problems Encountered ●Defining gauge type o Strain gauge to load cell ●Determining weights for normal force ●Set screws vs. Drill chucks

42. P15660 9/30/14 Action Items Continue researching and selecting sensors for recording friction force ●Also determine sensor integration Interview with Iglesias to determine which design and aspects she prefers Email Test Stand Load Applicator manufacturer for minimum and maximum loads. ●Needs to exert accurate normal force from 0.5N to 20N

43. P15660 9/30/14 Questions?

44. P15660 9/30/14 Extraneous Information

45. P15660 9/30/14 Feasibility Questions to Answer 1.Can the system counterbalance the armature with a Normal Force from 0- 20 N? (Analysis/Prototyping) 2.Will the pin holder supply enough force to allow for approximately zero motion in the pin? (Analysis) 3.Will the armature be able to accurately measure friction within a certain percent error using the gauges and sensors previously discussed? (Benchmarking) 4.Which guard is the easiest for the user to use? (Benchmarking/Prototyping) 5.How fast of a moving speed can our sensor accurately measure? (Benchmarking/Analysis)