Design Proposal

B e n Z u o - 9 9 6 7 4 1 5 7 5

C h e n g b o ( L u c y ) L i - 9 9 6 7 7 8 9 8 2

X i a n g ( S t e v e n ) Y u - 9 9 6 8 1 4 7 6 4

G r o u p 4 - D E

1 0 / 1 / 2 0 1 2

ESC471 This document outlines the description of the issue that will be solved by this capstone projects. It contains the necessary stakeholder and market research on the design requirements, as well as the current resolution proposed by the team. It also includes project roadmaps which will help the team to achieve our goals.

1

Table of Contents

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Statement of Need ........................................................................................................................ 3

1.2 Problem Identification .................................................................................................................. 3

1.3 Goals ............................................................................................................................................. 4

1.4 Background and Survey ................................................................................................................ 4

1.4.1 Current Impact on Experimental Cost................................................................................... 4

1.4.2 Current Alternative Uses of PASCO® Stress/Strain Apparatus ............................................. 4

1.4.3 Prospective Courses for Apparatus Adoption ....................................................................... 5

1.5 Stakeholder Profiling ..................................................................................................................... 5

2 Objectives and Performance Specifications ......................................................................................... 7

2.1 Design Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Design Constrains .......................................................................................................................... 7

2.2.1 Hardware Constraints ........................................................................................................... 7

2.2.2 Solution constraints .............................................................................................................. 8

2.3 Design Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 9

2.3.1 Course Extension Criteria ...................................................................................................... 9

2.3.2 Sample Compatibility Criteria ............................................................................................... 9

2.3.3 Sample Cost Criteria ............................................................................................................ 10

2.3.4 Sample Quality Criteria ....................................................................................................... 10

2.4 Design Specifications .................................................................................................................. 11

3 Design Attributes and Conceptualization ........................................................................................... 12

3.1 Theories of Operation ................................................................................................................. 12

3.2 Statement of Work...................................................................................................................... 13

3.3 Technical Design – Tooling Component ...................................................................................... 14

3.3.1 Design Assessment .............................................................................................................. 14

3.3.2 Design Concept ................................................................................................................... 14

3.3.3 Tool Feasibility .................................................................................................................... 16

3.3.4 Design Setup ....................................................................................................................... 17

3.4 Experiment Design – Lab Component ......................................................................................... 17

2

3.4.1 Motivation ........................................................................................................................... 17

3.4.2 Experimental Feasibility ...................................................................................................... 19

3.4.3 Course Extension ................................................................................................................. 19

3.4.4 General Lab Procedure ....................................................................................................... 19

3.5 Estimated Funding and Resource Allocation .............................................................................. 20

3.5.1 Funding Overview ............................................................................................................... 20

3.5.2 Funding Detail ..................................................................................................................... 20

3.5.3 Laboratory Resources ......................................................................................................... 21

4 Project Planning .................................................................................................................................. 22

4.1 Team Structure ........................................................................................................................... 22

4.2 Major Deliverables and Milestones ............................................................................................ 22

4.3 Project Timeline .......................................................................................................................... 23

5 Works Cited ......................................................................................................................................... 25

6 Appendix ............................................................................................................................................. 26

3

1 Introduction 1.1 Statement of Need The Material Science and Engineering Department in University of Toronto recently adopted a set of 32 of stress-strain apparatus. It is a manual desktop device that can perform basic mechanical analysis on a given sample. The stress/strain apparatus costs approximately $2,000 each, totaling to $80,000 for the entire acquisition1. Given such a big initial investment, the machine itself is currently used only by students enrolled in MSE101, as one of their lab exercises. Therefore, this set of equipment is unused during the majority of the school term.

Stress/Strain apparatus are very easy to operate and there are numerous courses offered in the undergraduate engineering curriculum that concerns with the mechanical property of materials. Yet other courses are reluctant in adopting it during their lab experiments. After surveying current users of this apparatus, it is discovered that even though the apparatus itself is simple to use, the sample that it takes is extremely limited. The sample that the apparatus requires not only needs to be extremely thin, but it also needs to be in a particular bone shape for it to fit into the customized clamps on the apparatus. As a result, the inability to produce samples within the department forced the instructors to turn to PASCO® and purchase their pre-made samples.

Pre-made samples are limited in its variety. Only a few simple types of metals and plastics are offered, making it undesirable for many advances courses which examine samples made from specific materials after specific treatments.

Pre-made samples are also costly. The cost is amplified due to two main factors. Firstly, the mechanical analysis performed by the apparatus is destructive. Hence, the sample is not re-usable and new one must purchase for each run of the analysis. Depending on the number of students doing the lab and the number of sample each student need, this reoccurring cost quickly accumulate. Secondly, as the sample was not made in house but through PASCO®, there is a margin of profit that PASCO® must earn to maintain the business.

1.2 Problem Identification As the previous sections outlined, there are several problems pertaining to the current stress/strain apparatus acquired by the Material Science and Engineering Department. The major problems that the proposal seeks to resolve are:

• The new stress-strain apparatus purchased by the department is under-used • The new stress-strain apparatus are extremely limited in its usage of sample • The annual cost of MSE101 Labs are too high due to customized samples

1 The value was an estimation provided by Professor S.Ramsay, one of our key stakeholders as well as the instructor for MSE101 course.

4

1.3 Goals The ultimate goal for our capstone design project is:

To increase the usability of the newly acquired PASCO® Stress/Strain apparatus and further extend its practice into other courses offered in the undergraduate curriculum.

In order to achieve this, our design should also aim to:

- Increase the sample compatibility of PASCO® Stress/Strain Apparatus - Decrease the annual reoccurring cost

In doing so, we are also conforming to our design topic of ESC471 to “Design an experiment for the Engineering undergraduate curriculum.”

1.4 Background and Survey

1.4.1 Current Impact on Experimental Cost In 2011, 510 first year students were potentially enrolled in MSE101, with lectures occurring during both the fall and the winter semesters2. MSE101 serves as in introductory course to materials engineering along with useful properties of materials and how to characterize them. This is a fundamental course that builds the basis of understanding amongst the engineering students of the materials that they will encounter in their careers.

The first laboratory experiment conducted in the course utilizes the newly acquired Stress Strain Apparatus from PASCO to plot the stress-strain curves of various metals and alloys. The metals coupons used by this experiment are purchased specifically from PASCO to conform to the apparatus, and as a result, suffer higher cost from its proprietary design. Furthermore, the experiment is heavily limited in sample selections to only the coupons available for distribution by PASCO.

The most recent quote provided by PASCO charged $0.50 per coupon, for 5 different metal and alloy sample types. This quickly leads to escalated costs of operation for the experiment at a class size of over 500.

1.4.2 Current Alternative Uses of PASCO® Stress/Strain Apparatus Aside from MSE101, the PASCO® Stress/Strain Apparatus is also adopted by the nanOntario youth outreach program organized by the Materials Science and Engineering Department3. The reason of adoption is linked by to the simple samples types available.

2 This value was derived from the assumption that every first year student in the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering, excluding the Electric and Computer Engineering, TrackOne and Engineering Science streams are initially enrolled in the course. 3 Discussion with Professor U.Erb, the principal investigator of nanOntario

5

1.4.3 Prospective Courses for Apparatus Adoption As previously mentioned, the cost of the PASCO® Stress/Stain Apparatuses was a large capital investment. Utilized by one lab in one course in the undergraduate curriculum greatly undervalued this investment. There are a number of courses currently offered by the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering in University of Toronto that includes topic specifically on mechanical property of materials, or methods of changing mechanical properties of materials (Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering, 2012). These courses are all potential candidates for future adaptation of PASCO® Stress/Strain Apparatus:

APS104H1 S Introduction to Materials and Chemistry MSE219H1 F Structure and Characterization of Materials MSE245H1 S Organic Materials Chemistry and Properties MSE270H1 F Materials Science MSE316H1 S Mechanical Behaviour of Materials MSE354H1 S Materials in Manufacturing MSE358H1 S Structure and Characterization of Nanostructured Materials MSE419H1 F Fracture and Failure Analysis MSE421H1 S Solid State Processing and Surface Treatment CHM426H1 F Polymer Chemistry MSE459H1 F Synthesis of Nanostructured Materials MSE550H1 S Advanced Physical Properties of Structural Nanomaterials

1.5 Stakeholder Profiling By reducing the annual cost of MSE 101 labs, our project will involve all parties relating to the course:

• Professor Scott Ramsay o Professor Ramsay is the course instructor, and all major decisions should be subject to

his approval • MSE101 teaching assistants

o The teaching assistants are the designated operators of the machine prior to each lab session, and sufficient documentation must be available to provide training for each semester

o The operation of the machine should be a documented process, describing the efforts needed by the teaching assistants to complete the punching process, as well as basic maintenance procedures

• MSE101 students o The student of MSE101 will be the end users who will be interacting with the samples

produced by the punch machine. o The final samples produced must be appropriate for the stress/strain machines such

that the data the students collect will be consistent. o The samples must be safe for them to handle without causing personal harm. o The increased diversity of the experiment, due to the flexibility of the samples, must be

appreciable for the students

6

In re-designing and further adaptation of the stress-strain apparatus, we further extend our stakeholders to:

• Dr. Dan Grozea o Dr. Grozea is the lab technician responsible for all lab equipment and operations.

Therefore, any design changes to the lab would have to undergo feasibility and cost evaluations under his guidance.

o Maintenance of the machine should be outlined in the design documentation to approximate the time and effort of maintaining by someone of his capacity

o Production of consumable parts such as the blades must be within the scope of Dr. Grozea's facilities and well documented

• Extension Course Instructor and Students

7

2 Objectives and Performance Specifications

2.1 Design Objectives As addressed in the Statement of Need [Section 1.1], in order to allow increase the usability of the PASCO® Apparatus, the designed solution need to decrease sample cost, increase apparatus-sample compatibility, and the design solution need to correspond to other course material. The preferable design should also aim to maximize overall criteria.

Figure 2.1: The above shows the necessary requirements outlined. The white conical “funnel” in the figure is the part must be designed by engineers.

2.2 Design Constrains

2.2.1 Hardware Constraints In order to ensure that that the apparatus is usable for a specific lab, it is important to realize its range of operation. The general setup of the PASCO® Stress/Strain Apparatus is shown in Figure 2.2.1. The Apparatus utilizes a tabletop hand crank to generate force, and digital sensors to transmit electronic data of force exerted, and strain observed to laptops equipped with DataStudio.

Wider Adoption of Lab Equipments

Course Extension

Decrease Cost

Increase Compatibility

8

Figure 2.2.1 – The setup of the PASCO® Stress/Strain Apparatus

The force sensor is one of the key limiting factors in this process. For us to increase sample compatibility, it is necessary for the sample to be able to detect by the range of the force sensor. The specifications of the force sensor are provided in Figure 2.2.2. The force sensor has a total detection range of 100 N and is able to collect up to 1000 samples per second. However, because we are only testing the tensile properties of a material, we have 250N of workable range (the sensor by default registers a negative signal for pulling, so the force will range from 0 to -250N for the force sensor during tensile measurements).

Figure 2.2.2.2: Force Sensor Specifications

2.2.2 Solution constraints

1. The need for a sample manufacturing machine is directly related to the use of the Stress Strain Apparatus: it is assumed that the manufacturing process will reach the end of its primary purpose once the experimenting apparatuses are decommissioned. PASCO offers a 5 year warrantee for their Stress Strain Apparatus, which is the basis of assumption that the experiment will continue to be offered to first year students for a minimum of another 3 years,

9

and under the most conservative risk assessment, the sample manufacturing mechanism must recover all costs of investment prior to the end of this grace period.

2. The solution must manufacture samples that are safe for use by student experimenters. Any need for additional protective equipment will impact the logistics of setting up the experiment for such a large volume of students, and detract from the learning experience.

3. The objective of the experiment is to improve the educational value of the tensile testing experiment: sacrificing the accuracy of the existing experiment to increase the variety of sample selection or reducing operational costs detracts from the main design objective. Therefore, the metal or metal alloy should not undergo such major distortions that the experimental values no longer represent actual values. This limitation emphasizes mitigating:

a. Distortions to the grain structure of the metal samples b. Distortions to the work hardening factors of the sample c. Distortions to the sample shape from the original “dog bone” structure

2.3 Design Criteria

2.3.1 Course Extension Criteria As mentioned in the section 1.1 Statement of Need, the stress strain apparatus is currently largely underused throughout the year. Increasing the application of the tabletop tensor testing machine within different courses of the Material Science and Engineering Department will allow for better utilization of the department resource, and increasing the lifespan of the experiment beyond its usage within the MSE101 curriculum. The successful adoption of the stress strain apparatus into different course curriculums is directly related to the useful lifespan of the proposed design solution. Therefore, a component of solution must account for a possible laboratory application of the stress strain apparatus into an upper year course curriculum.

The likelihood of the proposed laboratory application will be determined using the following values

• Coverage of lecture material • Student survey feedback on effectiveness of incorporating tensile testing within the experiment

2.3.2 Sample Compatibility Criteria

A key enabler for the wide spread adoption of the stress strain apparatus amongst other Material Science and Engineering Department courses is the flexibility for the stress strain apparatus to handle materials aside from the basic tensile testing samples sold by PASCO®. The flexibility of sample choice allows course instructors to characterize material that are more relevant to the different curriculums, and gives the instructor an option to use the experiment not simply for the sake of utilizing the equipment. The current hard limitation, explored later in section 2.3 Design Constraints, are the equipment limitation of the force sensors used to measure the stress applied to the metal sample.

10

Replacing the force sensor is not within the scope of the project, and any design solution must account for the limitation of 250N over the sample surface area, to determine the cross-sectional surface area of the sample (50N with 5:1 mechanical advantage).

Flexibility of the sample will be determined based on the following values:

• Flexibility of the input material • Flexibility in the output size and dimension

2.3.3 Sample Cost Criteria The current cost of acquiring enough samples for all the students enrolled in MSE101 to complete five stress strain tests each – one test on each of the five different metal types – is $ 5 508 a year in material and shipping costs, and a negligible value in the procurement process costs. The financial feasibility and effectiveness of the design solution will be gauged using on the break-even financial analysis, where the break-even point is calculated based on the operational savings of the new mechanism, offset by the total cost of manufacturing. The design solution is only relevant to MSE101 curriculum so long as the Stress Strain Apparatus itself is used for the laboratory experiment: hence, this financial analysis highlights the importance of recovering the cost of purchasing the new mechanism in a short timeframe.

When considering the cost the design solution, the following values must be calculated

• Initial setup cost of the manufacturing mechanism (fixed material and labour costs) • Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) of the mechanical parts, as well as replacement costs of

these parts (material and labour costs annually) • New operational costs for manufacturing 510 sets of testing samples, each set containing

annealed steel, cold-roll steel, aluminum, thick brass and thin brass samples(material, shipping and manufacturing labour costs annually)4.

2.3.4 Sample Quality Criteria The purpose of the tensile testing experiment is to demonstrate the various mechanical properties of the metal and metal alloy samples to the first year students. The supplied samples from PASCO are manufactured, such that the characteristics revealed by the stress-strain curves of the experiment reflect the real values of the material, within the margin of tolerance for undergraduate laboratory standards. The samples manufactured from the design solution must therefore behave with similar mechanical characteristics as the purchased solutions, in order to be an applicable replacement.

The ‘similarity’ of the manufactured sample will be measured based on the following values of sample quality:

• Roughness of the sample edge to the skin of experimenters.

4 This is not a limitation on what the machine is capable of manufacturing. It only serves as a baseline to compare cost of solutions against the current alternative.

11

• Standard deviation of the elastic modulus of the samples • Standard deviation of the cross sectional area of the samples

2.4 Design Specifications

Criteria Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 PriorityCoverage of lecture materialThe possible laboratory application must cover lecture material proportional to the amount of laboratory time it consumes

No application was provided or the solution does not followed any applicable course outline

Laboratory application covers disproportionately less lecture material then laboratory time spent

Covered 1/10th of the lecture material

Covered 1/10th of the lecture material, as well as introducing interest to future topics

1

Student feedbackStudents will be asked to rate their interest of their lab upon completion, and its relevance to their studies

Average student response was "unacceptable" to the lab

Average student response was "below standard" to the lab

Average student response was "meets standard" to the lab

Average student response was "outstanding" to the lab

6

Flexibility of materialsThe design solution becomes far more applicable with the flexibility to produce samples of differing materials

The design solution does not successfully produce usable samples

The design solution can only produce certain samples from the original set provided by PASCO

The design solution can produce all 5 of the original PASCO samples

The design solution is not only limited to the original 5 PASCO sample materials

2

Flexbility of sample dimensionsThe design solution should be capable of producing and utilizing samples of different dimensions

The design solution does not successfully produce usable samples of any dimension

The design solution is limited to simple shapes, and cannot produce the standard dog bone design

The solution is limited to only the dog bone sample dimensions

The solution allows for customizable samples to be produced and utlized

8

Roughness of sample edge

Samples produced can cause damange to the skin of experimentors

Samples produced cause irratation to the experimentor over extended use

Samples produced are uneven to the hands

Uneveness cannot be felt by hand on sample produced

4

Standard deviation of the elastic modulus

>50% of mean 50% of mean 10% of mean 5% of mean 5

Standard deviation of the cross sectional areas

>50% of mean 50% of mean 10% of mean 5% of mean 7

Financial break even point Over 3 years Within 3 years Within 2 years Within 1 year 3

12

3 Design Attributes and Conceptualization

3.1 Theories of Operation

For the design team to come up with feasible solution, it is should consider the samples currently used by the apparatus. As previously mentioned in Section 2.2, the force sensor for the apparatus only registers up to 250N. To allow more flexibility in the sample type, a sufficient range of stress must be able to be reached.

A typical stress-strain curve obtained from mechanical characterization is illustrated in Figure 3.1.1. It is evident that in order to obtain high stress, a high force and a small cross-sectional area is required. In the current design, the force is limited to a maximum of 50N. Hence, while we need to increase the flexibility of the sample, it is important to ensure the sample have sufficiently small cross-sectional area.

Figure 3.1.1: a Typical Stress-Strain Curve of a sample

Figure 3.1.2 outlined the current sample coupons used in the lab and its associated mechanical properties. Figure 3.1.3 presents the apparatus to fix the coupon onto the stage during testing. These are important design features to keep in mind as it provide us with the operating range of the apparatus as well as the limitation in sample shape introduced by the clamp. Thus, if the design team wish to introduce flexibility to the sample shape, the clamp will need to be adjusted accordingly.

13

Figure3.1.2 - Current sample coupons and its associated material

Figure 3.1.3: Coupon Clamp that is currently used on stage to hold the sample

3.2 Statement of Work In order to perform the necessary functions as required, the design team proposed solution “DE”, which encompasses a tool component and a lab component. The tool incorporated the usage of different materials and mechanical fabrication methods which seek to produce coupons in the desired shape. The

14

lab component utilizes the coupon producer, and presents an example lab which can adopt the Stress/Strain apparatus (therefore increase its usability) while adding to the overall lab experience of undergraduate students.

3.3 Technical Design – Tooling Component

3.3.1 Design Assessment In order to provide an Analytic Hierarchical Process (AHP), the design team presented a function-mean tree in Figure 3.3.1. This chart outlines the functions and the means to achieve the function if we were to re-design the tooling of the apparatus.

Considering the current industry in die and sheet forming technology, the team has decided that the using a process similar to fine-blanking will be the most lasting solution in terms of ease of operation and increase sample compatibility.

3.3.2 Design Concept Our design solution will focus on designing a fine blanking tool that will have the ability to produce metal coupons in-house from raw materials at minimal cost. Purchasing the sheets of various metals will have enough cost saving effects per coupon manufactured to recover the initial investment of the machinery.

This machine is designed to be operated prior to each experiment session to prepare the samples ahead of time. Given the sheer amount of coupons that need to be produced, our design will have the ability to produce multiple coupons within one punch action to save time and effort. Furthermore, it will also serve to reduce waste material by packing the punched coupons as close together as possible on the sheet without sacrificing quality of the results.

Compatibility Cost

Course Extension

15

Figure 3.3.1 Function-mean tree in order to increase the overall compatibility of the apparatus.

The coupon sample that the machine will be able to produce share similar dimension as those provided by PASCO®. The PASCO® Metal Coupon dimensions are provided in Figure 3.3.2.

Figure 3.3.2 the dimensions of the PASCO® metal coupon. The thickness of the coupon varies from 0.00762 cm (0.003 Inch) for thin coupons and 0.0127 cm (0.005 inch) for thick coupons.

Increase Compatibility of

Apparatus

Increase compatibility of

setup to sample

Modifying Coupon Clamp

Adjustable to Sample Shape

Tight Grip Upon Force

Compatable with current

stage

Increase the compatitbility of sample to

setup

Easy, customization

Sample Production Mechanism

Thinning into Sheets

Purchase

Roller

Form into Bone-Shape

Fine Blanking

Injection Molding

10 cm

1.5 cm

8 cm1 cm 1 cm

0.4 cm0.7 cm0.4 cm

0.6 cm

Normal

Chosen Path

16

3.3.3 Tool Feasibility

Figure 3.3.3.1 Main force components in a fine blanking press

In blanking operations, there are several important factors to take into account. As illustrated in Figure 3.3.3.1, the shearing force is exceptionally crucial in the operation.

Disregard the factors such as friction, the force required for shearing can be modelled by the equation (Groover, 2007):

𝐹 = 𝑆 × 𝑡 × 𝐿

F = Shearing Force t = sheet thickness L = Length of the cutting S = Shear strength of the metal

For our purposes, the shear strength of the metal can be approximated by (Groover, 2007):

𝑆 = 0.7 ∗ 𝑈𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑇𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ

Referring back to the dimensions of the metal coupon as specified in Figure 3.3.2, we can readily calculate this number for Cold-rolled Steel, the material of the highest tensile strength in the samples provided by PASCO®.

Since the team is unable to specify the type of cold-rolled steel used by PASCO®, the team proceeded with the calculation for 1144 (Stressproff-equivalent) Steel. This specific alloy has yield strength of 100,000 psi (higher than the quoted yield strength of PASCO® cold-rolled steel of 90,000 psi). Therefore the force calculated for 1144 alloy will surely produce all the metal samples provided by PASCO®.

The ultimate tensile strength of the 1144 alloy is 115,000 psi (approx. 793 MPa) (Eagle National Steel, 2009). The parameter of the sample is approximately 0.25 m. Thickness of the sample is 7.62*10-5 m

17

(the current MSE101class only uses the 0.003inch-thickness sample). Hence, the approximate force required to shear the metal sheets is:

𝐹 = (0.7 × 793 × 106) × (7.62 × 10−5) × (0.25) ≈ 10,575 𝑁

Fine blanketing machine can easily exert up to a few hundreds tonnage in force in industrial applications. Machines of smaller scale can easily supply the force we needed. A simple desktop arbor press can supply 1 ton of pressure (Greasy Machine) (Michaelson's).

Figure 3.3.3.2 the difference between a punching press and a blanking press

The difference between normal punch operations and blanking operations is that the punched-pieces in blanking operation are the useful component and the surrounding are discard. This introduced precision requirements in designing the die. Clearance shearing in die and punch set ranges from 4% - 8% of the sheet thickness. Considering the thickness of the metal coupon, this precision is hard to be achieved without the assistance from local machine shop.

3.3.4 Design Setup Figure 3.3.3 outlines the main parts of the coupon punching machine and its relative operation. The feasibility was further assessed with the University of Toronto machine shop owners. The tool is definitely able to be fabricated, but there will be a significant cost associated. This is discussed in further detail in section 3.5. The CAD drawing is provided in Appendix. This will be further developed with the assistance from the machine shop.

3.4 Experiment Design – Lab Component

3.4.1 Motivation The utilization of coating to increase in wear resistance, hardness, tensile strength and other mechanical properties are extremely common in the current industry. There are well-established coating techniques which is easy to fabricate, yet introduce tremendous change in a given sample.

18

Figure 3.3.4 Main component of the coupon punching machine and theory of operation

Surface plating is probably one of the most important surface coating technologies in the current industry. Out of the different plating methods, electroless plating are often used to introduce metal composite coatings to increase wear and corrosion resistivity (Djokic, 2002).

This method is preferable in industry due to several reasons. First, it allows deposition in much more complex shapes. Secondly, it allows for metallization of nonconductive surfaces such as glass and

Shearing Punch

Guiding PlateLocator PinsMetal Sheet

Die Plate

Counter Punch

Spring/Cushion Mechanism

Shearing Punch should be slightly larger than the Counter punch, but smaller

than the space provided by the die plate

Cross-sectional View

Bird’s Eye View

Connected lever arm will push the shearing punch downwards

19

ceramics. Thirdly, it allows for simple yet uniform deposition (pore-free) of the coating. Lastly and most importantly, no current source is required for electroless deposition process.

3.4.2 Experimental Feasibility The lack of current source is the main advantage in this method. There are several methods of electroless deposition currently available, for the purpose of the lab; the autocatalytic deposition method is going to be used. This is the most common and widely adopted methodology of electroless deposition. The deposition is controlled by a chemical reaction catalyzed by the metal being deposited.

The current potential deposit candidate for the lab is Ni-P composite. It is widely used and the solution for electroless deposition is relatively easy to obtain. The increase in tensile strength is a variable dependent on the Phosphorous content. The design team will further explore the correct wt% of P necessary to obtain a noticeable difference in the PASCO® apparatus.

3.4.3 Course Extension Some of the common alloys that can be used in electroless coating are provide below in Figure 3.4.3. It is clear that there are a variety of composite coating is available. In addition, because the substrate of the deposit does not have much limitation, the lab can be easily extended to study of composite coating on polymers and ceramics. With the availability of the coupon puncher and the PASCO® Stress/Strain apparatus, similar labs can be developed for other courses.

Figure 3.4.3. List of Electrolessly depositable metal and alloys (Balaraju, 2003)

3.4.4 General Lab Procedure The outline for the lab can be illustrated by the three major steps as presented.

20

3.5 Estimated Funding and Resource Allocation

3.5.1 Funding Overview The current solution requires an approximation of $4000.00 CND in funding. The development team seeks to minimize this amount and a legit record of all fund outsource will be presented at the end of the development course.

The funding is mainly used to cover the cost of machine fabrication and experimental cost. The estimated breakdown is presented in the preceding subsections.

3.5.2 Funding Detail The fabrication of the sample puncher will contribute to the majority of the cost. While the team is able to provide detailed design in how the design should look, we lack sufficient equipment and mechanical knowledge to produce the machine. As a result, the machine fabrication must be done by one of the machine shops available in University of Toronto. Table 3.5.2 contains the quote containing a rough estimation of machine fabrication cost.

Machine Shop Contact Estimated Quote

Estimated Time of Completion

Other Design Details

Mechanical Ryan Mendell

$1,200 - $3,000

2 Weeks after placing an order

- Die requires about 2 Days (14 hours) labour, costing $60 per hour. Totaling $840

- Die material will cost approx. $100 using hardened steel

- Press machine may range from $200 - $500

- Cost may be doubled taken into other labour in assembly, precision making, and material wastes

Chemistry John Ford

$3,000- $5,000

Currently have a backlog, estimated to finish beginning of Dec.

- The die set will cost $2000 - $3000 roughly, with material and labour included

- Tool steel is recommended, cost is based on this assumption

Study Reference

Sample

• Stress/Strain Apparatus

Perform Coating Process

• Mix Solution for electrode deposition

• Coating

Study Coated Sample

• SEM Analysis • Stress/Strain

Apparatus

21

- Press will vary from $1000 - $2000 - The predicted press will allow die

change (for different shapes) - The predicted press will be able to

accommodate most metal samples, with thickness ranging from 0.001” to 0.015” (current sample is at 0.003”)

Physics Peter Hurley

Unable to Provide

The additional funding provided is mainly to take into account the possible materials that will be used in developing the lab, such as chemicals and sample coupons. Though there is a high probability that the department will have these resources, but it is still an indirect cost as a consequence of this design.

3.5.3 Laboratory Resources In addition to what the capstone course is able to provide, all three team members are Engineering Science students majoring in nanoengineering and we have access to common lab equipment as part of our course work. Furthermore, all three members are engaged in thesis topics supervised by a current professor from the Materials and Science Engineering Department. Hence, more sophisticated lab equipment access can be negotiated when necessary.

22

4 Project Planning 4.1 Team Structure The team is composed of three undergraduate students.

First Name Last Name Major Option Year Ben Zuo Engineering Science Nanoengineering 4

Chengbo Li Engineering Science Nanoengineering 4 Xiang Yu Engineering Science Nanoengineering 4

Integration and teamwork are important elements in capstone design. Our team will be working together in major decision making, designing, creating, and testing processes. However, individualized work division can allow more flexibility to fit member’s schedule, and tackle our tasks more efficiently. The rough breakdown of the team organization is as follows, however, each member is expected to understand the overall scope, and to participate and integrate regularly.

Division of Work: Construction of Model/Prototype + Stakeholder Interaction Team Member: Ben Zuo Responsible Tasks:

• Simulate CAD schematics for our design based on theoretical models • Building of the physical prototype • Corresponding with relevant stakeholders through emails and meetings

Division of Work: Testing of Model/Prototype and Deliverable formulating Team Member: Xiang (Steven) Yu Responsible Tasks:

• Testing of the physical prototype using various characterization techniques • Update our current metrics and comparing it against our goals • Illustrate major design justifications and details in major deliverables

Division of Work: Theoretical Modeling of the Prototype and Logistical Tasks Team Member: Chengbo (Lucy) Li Responsible Tasks:

• Calculations involved in designing the necessary parameters of the prototype • Selection of material based on design needs • Ordering and contacting vendors to get appropriate supply, as well as documenting group

expenses and work progress

4.2 Major Deliverables and Milestones Below is a list of major deliverables to be completed in the span of the course. This will serve as a milestone list for the team as we break the entire design work into sub-tasks.

23

Date Description of Milestone Process Product Reflection

17-Sep-12 Pre-critique of proposal draft x 22-Sep-12 Proposal Draft due x 24-Sep-12 Critique of proposal draft x 28-Sep-12 Proposal Due x

15-Oct-12 Pre-critique of preliminary design draft x x 20-Oct-12 Preliminary design draft due x x 22-Oct-12 Critique of preliminary design draft x x 26-Oct-12 Preliminary design due x x

5-Nov-12 Pre-critique of final design x

12-Nov-12 Critique of final design x 19-Nov-12 Design Group Presentations x 6-Dec-12 Design Walkthrough x

21-Dec-12 Final Design Report due x x 21-Dec-12 Record of reflection due x x

4.3 Project Timeline Below is the team’s project timeline throughout the month of September – December 2012. It includes the major tasks associated with each deliverable, and how much time are allocated for each. This act as a roadmap allowing the team to completes desired tasks in a timely manner.

24

25

5 Works Cited Balaraju, J. (2003). Electroless Ni-P Composite Coating. Journal of Applied Electrochemistry, 33:807-816.

Djokic, S. S. (2002). Electroless Deposition of Metals and Alloy. Fort Saskatchewan: The Westaim Corporation.

Eagle National Steel. (2009). Technical Specification of Steel. http://www.eaglesteel.com/download/techdocs/Carbon_Steel_Grades.pdf: Eagle National Steel.

Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering. (2012). Academic Calender 2012-2013. In Course Description (p. 152). Toronto: University of Toronto.

Greasy Machine. (n.d.). Metal Stamping Presses. Retrieved 09 30, 2012, from Machines That Work FOr You: http://www.greasymachines.com/metal-stamping-presses.asp

Groover, M. P. (2007). Fundamentals of Modern Manufacturing, Third Edition.

Michaelson's. (n.d.). Amazon. Retrieved 09 30, 2012, from Arbor Press: http://www.amazon.com/Arbor-Press-1-Ton/dp/B00077KLIW

Stein, J. (2004). Design for Manufacturability Handbook. McGraw-Hill Professional.

26

6 Appendix

27