1. Sponsor Preview Final Presentation Advisor: Dr. James L. Glancey Sponsor Contacts: James Brooks, Chris Nagele, and Jeff Mlynarski Team Superior Tube 12/06/2013

2. Agenda Introduction……………………………………………Stanley Anderson Scope………………………………………………………….Mingze Niu Wants, Needs, and Metrics…..…………………………..…Mingze Niu Proposed Solution……………………………………...Kenneth Manley Prototyping………………………………………...…Nicolette Grannum Financial Overview…………………………………...Stanley Anderson Path Forward……………………………………...…….Kenneth Manley

3. Introduction Company produces cold drawn tubes Tubes must be cleaned to sell to clients Long tubes are loaded into a basket and into the solvent

4. The Problem Solvent is n-Propyl Bromide or nPB –Aggressive solvent and hazardous at boiling A refrigerated boundary layer keeps solvent vapors contained Heated basket breaks the barrier causing solvent loss

5. Project Scope The team is to design a basket that will reduce solvent loss throughout the degreasing process when compared to the current basket design. The team is to have significant testing and/or a model to prove that the design will work as proposed.

6. Ranked Wants and Needs RankWantTotal Percentage 1Safety31.3 2Prevent nPB Loss18.9 3Absorbs less heat15.3 4Increase throughput13.8 5Profitability8.6 6Cost of device5.8 7Strongback Compatibility4.5 8Stable through prolonged use1.0 9Ease of use0.5 10 Weighs less than current device0.3 Total100.0

7. Metrics CriteriaMetricsUnitsTarget Values Consistent dimensions Length ft44.5 Width ft1.5 Heightft1.5 Below maximum weightWeightlb<6000 Equivalent product loadWeightlb>2000 DurableTimeyears>20 Decreases nPB loss Weightlb<current Absorbs less heat Total HeatBtu<current Heat Capacity>current Thermal Conductivity <277 Safe to useFactor of SafetyN/A>3 Increased through put Weight (total)lb>3000 Decreased wait time TimeMinutes<current Cost of DeviceMoneyUSD-$<50,000 Strongback Compatibility BinaryN/Ayes Ease of useSubjectiveScale 1-5 1- easy

8. Proposed Solution

9. How It Translates Prototype ChangesTranslation Decrease basket weight Decrease strain on motor Increase lot number Decrease thermal conductivityLess disruption of cold boundary layer Decrease basket temperatureDecrease solvent vapor loss

10. Prototype Testing and Goals Outcomes –Confirm material selection –Determine practicality of insulation Limitations –Test with temperature only, not actual solvent –Structural components and shape will not be tested CriteriaMetricsUnitsTarget Value Equivalent product load Weightlb>2000 Decrease nPB lossWeightlb<current Safe to UseFactor of Safetydimensionless>3

11. Material Testing Finite Element Analysis (FEA) validated structure, but cold barrier information is limited Scale test using hot plate, water, and metal samples to show effectiveness of both material change and insulation These samples were cross referenced and a general assumption that less heat released in the cold barrier would lead to decreased nPB loss Shown above: Titanium sample covered with a sample of Aerogel insulation and sealed with a rubber coating

12. Material Test Results The insulation reduced heat transfer by over eighty percent Based on the design, energy deposited in the boundary layer is reduced Reduction in nPB losses, creating a huge opportunity for savings SampleInitial Temperature (ºF)Final Temperature (ºF)Mass (lb)Heat Absorbed (kJ) Steel Block731614.5194 Titanium Block73161293.4 Test Block7393221.2

13. Fabrication Process Basket material available from titanium supplier Transportation to and from the machinist is offered by supplier From there the welding contact can fabricate the basket

14. Financial Overview - Background Overview of estimated solvent savings Scenarios generated with the following assumptions –Two barrier breaks per dip –Losses per dip were the same –Low cost of capital –Fiver percent production growth rate

15. Financial Overview – Analysis Short term prospects for single baskets are dismal Effect of the increased product load removes run time losses After two years, the baskets will more than pay for themselves If pursued, two baskets will be the best prospect ScenarioNPV, 2 Year ($mm)NPV, 5 Year ($mm)NPV, 10 Year ($mm) Current-0.979-1.974-3.690 Final, One Basket-0.367-0.709-1.299 Final, Two Baskets-0.409-0.762-1.368 Vs. Current Final, One Basket0.6121.2642.391 Final, Two Baskets0.5701.2122.323

16. Financial Overview – Continued Relative Financial Data Solvent Loss PercentRun CostTotal Cost Percent Current100% Final, One Basket34%100%91% Final, Two Basket48%71%66% From here, the need for two baskets is apparent The total savings counters the increased emissions The scenario facilitates increased production

17. Path Forward Determine loading conditions of side and end meshes Recommendation of the basket fabrication strategy Develop more comprehensive financial strategy Pursue design and implement the basket in facility

18. Questions?