1. Team INASAD Members: Jose Medina Joseph Leone Andrew Merk Alex Sanders Michael Fox

2. 22 Past Events Post Mid-Term Review Layout Drawings Current Events Engineering Analysis Future Events Part Drawings Agenda:

3. 33 Past Events Group met Wednesday 2/25 to discuss Types of analysis to be done Areas/parts to analyze Group met and worked on analysis of selected parts Project part drawings were updated accordingly to reflect new design ideas

4. 4 Types of Engineering Analysis 1. Material Selection 2. Strength of Materials 3. Stability During Operation 4. Kinematic Analysis 5. Spring Selection Analysis 6. Fatigue Analysis 7. Human Interface 8. Tolerances 9. Performance Analysis

5. 5 Material Selection Baseline weight found using Aluminum Baseline load calculations preformed (using Al as material) Part most likely to fail was Bowing Mechanism Locking Pin Stress = 441.3 psi x safety factor 0f 3 = 1323.8 psi Used CES EduPack 2008 Parameters Yield Stress > 1323.8 psi Low Ductility Elongation of 1020 HR steel = 36% High Hardness Material Chosen Polystyrene (20% Glass Fiber)

6. 6 Material Selection Polystyrene (20% Glass Fiber) Yield strength (elastic limit) 8 kpsi (55.2 MPa) Tensile strength 10 kpsi (69 MPa) Elongation 1 - 1.3 % Hardness - Rockwell R 113 – 125 Fatigue strength at 10 7 cycles 3.9 kpsi (26.6 MPa) Overall cost of material for entire tool body $58

7. 7 Material Selection Polystyrene (20% Glass Fiber) vs. Polystyrene Polystyrene Elongation = 10-20% Rockwell Hardness R = 75-95 Polystyrene (20% Glass Fiber) Elongation = 1-1.3% Rockwell Hardness R = 113-125 93.5 % decrease in elongation (lower ductility) 33.6% increase in hardness

8. 8 Strength of Materials Parts more prone to Failure 1. Rotation shaft 2. Bowing mechanism lock pin 3. Bowing mechanism top tilt pin 4. Bowing mechanism bottom tilt pin 5. Tilt plate teeth 6. Adjustable tilting bar

9. 9 Strength of Materials Rotation shaft A B 36 in 7/8 in 3.125 in

10. 10 Strength of Materials Bowing mechanism lock pin 0.294 in 0.20 in 0.25 in

11. 11 Strength of Materials Bowing mechanism top and bottom tilt pin 0.294 in 0.25 in 0.773 in 13.3 in

12. 12 Strength of Materials Tilt plate teeth 0.489 in 0.356 in 60 °

13. 13 Strength of Materials Adjustable tilting bar 28.8 in 14.3 in A

14. 14 0.546 in 0.84 in Strength of Materials Spring Loaded Pin Edge

15. 15 Strength of Materials Tilt Support Pin

16. 16 W base = 54.6 lbs (needed not to tip) W actual, base = 8.7 lbs. W added to base = W base - W actual, base = 45.9 lbs Stability During Operation y x z 28.8 in O 90° x y x y y x z 28.8 in O 90°

17. 17 Kinematic Analysis Distance the sled needs to travel to rotate the bulb 90 ° S=Rθ S=arc length R=radius of race θ=90° S=2.3 in.

18. 18 Spring Selection Stretchable distance > 2.3 in. Outer Diameter < 2.4 in. Max Load > 2 lb F = k(Δx) k >.8695 lbs./in. Spring Choice Century Spring Corp. Stock #MaterialO.D. Wire DiameterLength Spring constant Max Deflection Max Load --(in.) lbs./in.(in.)(lbs.) 80255 Music Wire0.240.0221.380.752.82.3

19. 19 Fatigue Analysis Gerber Failure Criterion 3 Coil Fatigue Coil Yielding End-Hook Bending Fatigue End-Hook Tensional Fatigue

20. 20 Fatigue Analysis Coil Fatigue Coil Yielding

21. 21 Fatigue Analysis End-Hook Bending Fatigue End-Hook Tension Fatigue

22. 22 Human Interface Tilt Support Adjustment 4 bars using a parallelogram concept to bow All 4 bars move together Two areas to adjust 2 hands on the sides 1 hand in the middle

23. 23 Tolerances Standard Tolerances International Tolerance 9 (IT9) International Tolerance 7 (IT7) for: Top and Bottom Tilt supports inner and outer diameters All holes and pins apart of the tilt supports Basic SizesIT7IT9 0-0.120.00040.0010 0.12-0.240.00050.0012 0.24-0.400.00060.0014 0.40-0.720.00070.0017 0.72-1.200.00080.0020 1.20-2.000.0010.0024 2.00-3.200.00120.0029 Source: Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering, Design 8 th Edition pp. 1004

24. 24 Suction Cup Performance and Analysis Force to turn a light bulb to the removal position Pulling Perpendicular to object Pulling Parallel to Object TrialOn WallOn BulbOn WallOn Bulb (lbf.) 16.02.02.51.5 25.04.02.52.0 35.03.02.01.5 average5.33.02.31.7 F F Analysis When pulling parallel suction cups tended to slide To avoid this suction cups need: Smaller diameter Deeper well

25. 25 Light Bulb Removal Performance and Analysis Force to turn a light bulb to the removal position 1. 2.5 lbf 2. 3.0 lbf 3. 3.0 lbf Average force needed = 2.8 lbf Analysis Needed force is reasonable Force needs to use center of bulb as axis of rotation

26. 26 Future Part Drawings Subassembly Layout Drawings

27. 27 INASAD Fluorescent Light Changing System