the crank slider crusher

24
College of Engineering and Computer Science Department of Mechanical Engineering ME 330 Dr. Mike Kabo The Crank Slider Crusher Cynthia Sosa Joseph Sarhadian Due: July 07, 2015 Submitted: July 07, 2015

Upload: joseph-sarhadian

Post on 09-Feb-2017

127 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: The Crank Slider Crusher

College of Engineering and Computer Science

Department of Mechanical Engineering

ME 330

Dr. Mike Kabo

The Crank Slider Crusher

Cynthia Sosa

Joseph Sarhadian

Due: July 07, 2015

Submitted: July 07, 2015

Page 2: The Crank Slider Crusher

1

Executive Summary

The use of a can crusher enables the manual working of a machine with less outsourced

power. The input force of the crusher is 30lbs. Other than the high efficiency realized from this

concept, the safety of the user is assured. The modified design used the Crank Slider Mechanism

where the shape, materials, and some equipment used to manage the process were altered to

create a new mechanism for crushing the cans. Here five consecutive designs were applied. The

complexities, maintenance, manufacturing, performance, safety measures, and servicing of all

designs were analyzed and compared.

Four alternative designs have been analyzed alongside the original design. There

is intended to withhold the cans with a circular base. When using this design, the process of

crushing is carried out inside a shield. In the second method, there are two sections involved in

the process that is carried out in a sequential manner. In this method, a cylinder and a piston

work jointly in crushing the can. This process is relatively safe as it takes place inside the

machine. The third method, on the other hand, involves a long track that acts as a passage for

cans. The width of the track can only allow one can pass. This prevents cans from jamming the

track. Besides, the track is surrounded by a column preventing cans from falling off. The

process is carried out in a place surrounded by boundaries. This boundary is meant to protect the

operator from the moving parts. This, in turn, makes it safe to operate. The fourth method

presents an advanced application of the can-crushing mechanism. In this respect, automated arms

are used in the process. One arm inserts the can inside the crusher while the other crushes it.

Once the can has been crushed, it slides out of the exit that is designed by the user. Since the

process is carried out by an operating system, the safety of the operator is assured.

Page 3: The Crank Slider Crusher

2

For all the designs a load of 600lbs was applied. There were no injuries reported

in all the tasks. The modified version was noted to have numerous advantages. Notably, the high

efficiency, coupled with a reduced risk of injury, is a major improvement over the older version.

Original Design Thoughts

The Mounted Crusher:

The can crusher concept was intended to make a safe human-powered can crusher

(Mau’s). This concept helped in designing the Mounted Crusher, which works on the lever

mechanism by the application of an axial load to crush the can or bottle. The complexity of use is

reduced to zero as the machine uses a lever only. The lever is lifted for the bottle or can to be

placed and then lowered to crush it. The drawer facilitates pulling out the bottom surface and

transferring the can or bottle to the disposal container. The lever has a concave surface cover that

protects the operator from injuries while crushing cans. The mounted crusher sits on the storage

container. The storage bin has a door to allow for easy collection.

We modified the design by shifting from a lever mechanism to a slider crank mechanism.

The change was aimed at increasing the efficiency of the machine. The Crank Slider mechanism

would result in a greater output force given the same input force of 30lbs. The linkages are

designed to convert the rotational motion into reciprocating motion. This was done using a crank

that rotates about a center. The crank is connected to the connecting rod with hinge support that

moves in the translation and angular direction. A connecting rod was attached to a piston using a

piston rod with a hinge support between them. This resulted in a reciprocating motion of the

piston. However, the mechanical advantage of the lever in the mounted crusher was not enough

Page 4: The Crank Slider Crusher

3

to crush the largest plastic bottle. The mechanism was fixed over a rectangular box of size 24’’x

36’’x 46’’ because the length of the crusher is long and narrow. As such, it would be hard to fit it

over a cuboid. Given this limitation, a rectangular prism was found to be a better alternative for

this crusher. The prism also serves as the container for collecting the crushed items.

Design Alternatives

Design 1 – Clash of Cans and Bottles:

Design 1 is a copy of the mechanism used for holding parts in the machine vise

(Johnson). Using that mechanism with modification as per project requirements to crush the cans

helped in reaching the goal. The design has a plate attached to a long threaded screw. The screw,

on the other hand, has a handle to rotate. The design is also fitted with a hollow rectangular box

with an opening on the top to place cans and bottles. Rotating the screw pushes the plate forward

and crushes the inserted item. Once the can has been crushed, it falls into the storage container

through the thin gap between the surface where the bottle is placed and the back of the machine.

Crushing requires the operator to apply torque. One of the major strengths of this design is user

safety. On this note, crushing takes place inside the machine. As such, the risk of getting pressed

by the machine is eliminated. For higher efficiency, lubrication of the screw should be done

weekly. Lubrication is aimed at reducing the friction force of the threaded screw. Also, it reduces

wear and tear. As explained by Bynoe-Arthur, the lubrication of the moving parts in a machine is

essential to ensuring higher efficiency and longevity of the machine. These benefits are realized

from reduced wear and tear, as well as the little force required to operate the moving parts

(Bynoe-Arthur 116).

Page 5: The Crank Slider Crusher

4

Design 2 – The Pedal Crusher:

This crusher design is derived from the Finkelstein Fred invention, the dumpster lid

opening system. The concept of the dumpster lid opening system is then modified to fit the can-

crushing context. This results in a β€œpedal crusher”. The mechanism consists of two systems: a

sewing system and a reciprocating system. The main component of the sewing is a pedal. The

operator of the machine applies force on the pedal. With the help of the linkages in the machine,

the sewing motion is transferred to the wheel of the reciprocating system. The wheel converts the

rotary motion into reciprocating motion. The conversion is enabled by the piston rod, connecting

rod, and linkages. The piston is responsible for crushing cans. On this note, the operator applies

force to the piston, which in turn crushes the can. Similar to the case in the first design, the safety

of the operator is enhanced, as the components of the machine – cylinder, piston, and mechanism

– are located inside a box.

Design 3- Can Squeezer:

The Can Squeezer design is derived from the concept of the pedal crusher as explained

above. Although the design works in a similar fashion as the pedal crusher design, fewer

mechanisms are involved in the process. The design works best when the machine is mounted on

a wall. Bottles and cans are placed on top of one another in a manner that the can being crushed

is at the bottom of the pile. On this note, the can crusher is made up of a column, plunger, and a

lever. Cans are placed in the column on top of each other. Once a can is crushed, it drops into the

storage container, thus giving room for other cans to be crushed. A long column gives ample

room for placing many cans at once. Besides, it prevents the cans from falling off in the case of

uneven force application. This design presents several benefits. First, the operator is safe to

Page 6: The Crank Slider Crusher

5

operate the machine, as the moving parts are not exposed. Second, the can crusher operates

efficiently. The operator does not need to place a can repeatedly.

Design 4 – Jack Crank:

The Jack Crank design is derived from the idea and working of the scissor-type jack used

in automotive. The jack has two arms attached to a crank. A screw is used to move the arms up

and down. The lower arm of the jack crank is attached to a ramp that is responsible for crushing

the cans or bottles kept below the ram on the surface of the container. The jack crank is fixed in

the container and has a door at the base to remove the crushed objects. It consists of a scissor

jack, bearings, a container, and a ramp. The maintenance requires the inspection of the crank and

periodic lubrication. As noted earlier, lubrication is necessary for reducing the friction between

moving parts.

Analysis of the Alternative Designs

To summarize the relative effectiveness of the alternative designs, an analysis has been

carried out. The analysis seeks to address the major characteristics that define a good machine.

Six characteristics have been identified: safety, complexity, maintenance, performance,

manufacturability, and serviceability. Each feature was evaluated for the five machines and their

average scoring determined. Machines with a higher score have high effectiveness. The first

feature to be determined was safety. Safety was evaluated based on the frequency and severity of

injuries to the operator. On the other hand, the complexity feature was measured by evaluating

how easily the operation of the machine could be understood. Third, maintenance scores were

based on how often each machine required undergoing maintenance procedures. The

Page 7: The Crank Slider Crusher

6

performance component was measured based on the efficiency of each model to crush the cans.

Assigning scores for the fifth feature, manufacturability, entailed assessing the complexity of the

components required to make the machine. Machines requiring simple components were

accorded higher scores. Lastly, serviceability was measured based on the time and effort required

to operate a machine, including the retrieval of crushed cans.

Scores of one to five were assigned to each of the features under consideration. It is

assumed that each feature is of equal importance when determining the effectiveness of each

design. Since all the features were accorded equal weights, the relative effectiveness of each

design was determined by calculating the mean score of the cumulative score. High scores were

associated with better models. Based on the analysis, the Mounted Crusher design attained the

highest score while the Jack Crank design scored lowest among the alternative designs. Safety

was the only feature that had three machines scoring the highest attainable score. On the other

hand, the designs scored lowest in the maintenance feature, as two designs scored 2, and none

scored 5.

Page 8: The Crank Slider Crusher

7

Table 1: An analysis of the can four designs:

Design 1: Clash of Cans and Bottles

Design 2: Mounted Crusher

Design 3: The Pedal Crusher

Design 4: The Can

Squeezer

Design 5: Jack

Crank

Safety 5 5 5 4 3

Complexity 3 5 3 3 2

Maintenance 3 4 2 3 2

Performance 3 4 3 3 3

Manufacturability 4 5 3 3 4

Serviceability 4 5 3 3 3

Average 3.7 4.7 3.2 3.2 2.8

Design Matrix Rubric:

Safety:

1- Person operating machine is severely wounded

3- Person operating machine receives minor injury

5- No one was injured while operating machine

Complexity:

1- Person does not know how to operate the machine; extreme confusion

3- Person needs to read instructions

5- Person operating machine understands how it is used; straightforward

Page 9: The Crank Slider Crusher

8

Maintenance:

1- Daily attention

3- Routine check

5- Long lifespan

Performance:

1- The machine does not crush the can or bottle at all

3- The machine somewhat crushes the can or bottle

5- The machine crushes the can or bottle without any problem

Manufacturability:

1- Mostly complex components

3- Some simple components and some complex components

5- Mostly simple components

Serviceability:

1- Time consuming and a lot of effort

3- Some time and effort required

5- Serviceman can easily access can or bottles without any obstacles

Page 10: The Crank Slider Crusher

9

Design Selection

Since the last update, a few modifications have been made in order to optimize the Crank

Slider Cracker design. The shape of the container housing the piston has changed from a hollow

rectangular box to a hollow cylinder. Ball bearings have been added to smoothen the back and

forth movement of the piston through the piston housing. Bhatnagar explains that ball bearings

enhance the efficiency of a machine by reducing the friction force. On this note, rolling friction

is considerably lower than sliding friction. When using ball bearings, less input force is required

to move an object (Bhatnagar 68). A needle was also included in the latest design. Material

properties have also changed from stainless steel 304 to stainless steel 301(AISI 301). AISI 301

is one of the most common and affordable stainless alloys. It has a high tensile strength and

exhibits good resistance to corrosion (Peninsula Spring Corporation).

Page 11: The Crank Slider Crusher

10

The Crank Slider Crusher can crush a can or bottle (up

to 59oz.) by a human powered mechanism. The user will open the small door located on the top

face of the cylinder to load the can or bottle. Once the can has been loaded, the operator should

rotate the handle 180 degrees in the clockwise direction. A minimum force of 30lb is required to

create a torque of 150lb-in. This torque will transfer the force from the axle to the crankshaft,

then to the connecting rod, and lastly to the piston rod. The piston, which is welded to the end of

the piston rod, will move forward to crush the can or bottle. A needle welded to the crushing face

of the piston allows air to escape from plastic bottles. A 3-inch gap between the end of the

cylindrical surface and the back surface allows the can or bottle to fall in once it has been

crushed. Two springs attached to the back surface of the piston and the front face of the

Page 12: The Crank Slider Crusher

11

cylindrical container will return the piston and handle back to their initial position. The door

located on the side of the unit will allow the collection of the crushed cans and bottles. For

machines intended for crushing a large volume of cans, the compartment should be enlarged. The

door in front of the unit is a complementary area for more storage.

The operation of the Crank Slider is simple. In this regard, the input force is applied to

the handle and the circular rotation causes the pins to rotate. This, in turn, makes the connecting

rod move forward. As the piston moves forward, it crushes the can in the compartment. The

piston connected to the connecting rod can move forward and backward through the cylindrical

housing with five times the force applied. Thus, the machine has a mechanical advantage of five.

The piston applies the crushing force on the can or bottle, which compresses them to a width of

three inches. Given the 3-inch gap between the cylindrical surface and the back surface, the

crushed object falls freely into the storage bin once the 3-inch width has been attained.

The selection of dimensions of the parts were done with a consideration of the maximum

bottle or can size that will fit in the cylinder for crushing. These dimensions also took into

account the factor of safety of 4 and the load of 150lbs, which is the minimum necessary force to

crush the largest bottle.

The selection of the material is essential in ensuring high system performance. Crushing

requires a material that is both stiff and strong. Materials that can easily break or bend would

lead to increased maintenance costs given the higher frequency of breakdowns. Given these

factors, Stainless Steel 301 was selected as the most appropriate material for making the

connecting rod. The selection of this material was done due to its stiffness and strength. Besides,

the material has demonstrated better performance over a wide range of temperatures when

Page 13: The Crank Slider Crusher

12

compared to other materials (Stainless Steel 301). Also, Stainless Steel 301 was selected as the

most appropriate material for making the piston. The material was preferred for its weight, yield

strength, non-corrosive nature, and heavy load bearing capacity (Peninsula Spring Corporation;

Materials). The use of this material is aimed at reducing the cost and frequency of maintenance.

On this note, the intense movement of these parts may lead to breakages or bending if the

material used is fragile or of low strength.

Prior to the selection of the materials to be used in making the different components of the

machine, an analysis of different factors was conducted. In this respect, the safety and yield

strength of the material used were evaluated. The analysis included mathematical calculations,

which are included in the appendix.

On visualizing the forces exerted on the parts of the Crank Slider, we realized the connecting rod

undergoes maximum stress in compression and tension. We thus contended that the first avenue

for failure was the connecting rod. A spreadsheet is made to calculate the factor of safety by

analyzing the connecting rod’s strength under various loads. The spreadsheet takes the input as

the load and the modulus of elasticity of the material and calculates the safety factor based on the

diameter of the rod. For a load of 600lbs, a factor of safety of 246 was achieved. This implies

that the design is strong enough to bear the load of 600lbs. The rest of the machine parts will thus

have a higher strength as per the load bearing condition. Thus, they cannot fail, as the connecting

rod has been found to withstand the force applied to it.

Page 14: The Crank Slider Crusher

13

Challenges and Avenues for Improvement

At first, we had problems calculating the stresses involved in the whole mechanism and

judging the first part failure. Since the failure first takes place in the hinge or the bolt, it was very

challenging to make the stress analysis around the circumference of the hinge and to find out its

failure. This challenge was solved when we resolved that the connecting rod was the first part to

fail. This was essential in understanding how the machine fails when various loads are applied.

The equation for the buckling derived for the connecting rod and the calculation made

based on the load and deformation of the connecting does not concur with the analysis of the

cosmos SolidWorks. Further analysis requires the crank slider parts undergoing forces to be

analyzed in the software to minimize the error by obtaining a more accurate calculation.

SolidWorks cosmos allows you to analyze the parts based on the given load and defined fixture

of the part(s) or assembly. The hand calculations need to be done by considering the stresses

generated in the hinge, piston rod, and the bolt so that they match with the results from the

SolidWorks cosmos static or buckling analysis.

Page 15: The Crank Slider Crusher

14

Work Cited

1. Anderson, P S L and Patek S N. "Mechanical sensitivity reveals evolutionary dynamics

of mechanical systems." Proceedings B 282.1804 (2015).

2. "Mechanical Advantage of Simple Machines." CPO Science. n.d. Web. 18 January 2016.

3. Aspen Fasteners. "Stainless Steel Fasteners." Aspen Fasteners. n.d. Web.18 January

2016.

4. Bhatnagar, V. P. The Art of Comprehension. New Delhi: Pitambar Publishing Company

(P) Ltd., 1999.

5. Bynoe-Arthur, Donna. Integrated Science: A Concise Revision Guide for CXC.

Cheltenham, U.K: Nelson Thornes, 2004.

6. Johnson, F. Vise grip. United States: Patent 1439822 A. 7 May 1920.

7. Mahadevan, K. and K. Balaveera Reddy. Design Data Hand Book: For Mechanical

Engineers. New Delhi: CBS Publishers & Distributors, 1984.

8. Azo Materials. "Stainless Steel - Grade 301 (UNS S30100)." Azo Materials. 11 April

2014. Web. 18 January 2016.

9. MatWeb. "Tensile Property Testing of Plastics." MatWeb. n.d. Web. 18 January 2016.

10. Mau’s, Karl Heinz. Can Crusher. United States: Patent 0293944 A2. 7 December 1988.

11. Peninsula Spring Corporation. "Stainless Steel." Peninsula Spring Corporation. n.d.

Web. 18 January 2015.

12. Rajput, R K. Strength of Materials. New Delhi: S. Chand & Co., 2006.

Page 16: The Crank Slider Crusher

15

Appendix

Page 17: The Crank Slider Crusher

16

Free Body Diagram

Page 18: The Crank Slider Crusher

17

Page 19: The Crank Slider Crusher

18

Calculations

Mechanical Advantage:

𝑀𝐴 =π‘€β„Žπ‘’π‘’π‘™ π‘Ÿπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘–π‘’π‘ 

π‘Žπ‘₯𝑙𝑒 π‘Ÿπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘–π‘’π‘ 

𝑀𝐴 =5𝑖𝑛

1𝑖𝑛

𝑀𝐴 = 5

[11]

Axial:

𝐹 =πœ‹2𝐸𝐼

(𝐾𝐿)2

𝐼 =πœ‹ βˆ— 𝐷4

64=

πœ‹ βˆ— 24

64= 0.785398

πΈπ‘†π‘‘π‘Žπ‘–π‘›π‘™π‘’π‘ π‘  𝑠𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑙 301 = 29732.700 𝑙𝑏

𝑖𝑛2

Crankshaft:

πΎπΆπ‘Ÿπ‘Žπ‘›π‘˜π‘ β„Žπ‘Žπ‘“π‘‘ = 0.7

𝐹 =πœ‹2βˆ—29732700βˆ—0.785398

(0.7βˆ—6.5)2 =11132.715𝑙𝑏

𝑖𝑛2

Connecting Rod:

πΎπΆπ‘œπ‘›π‘›π‘’π‘π‘‘π‘–π‘›π‘” π‘…π‘œπ‘‘ = 1.0

𝐹 =πœ‹2 βˆ— 29732700 βˆ— 0.785398

(1.0 βˆ— 8.5)2= 3189.965

𝑙𝑏

𝑖𝑛2

Page 20: The Crank Slider Crusher

19

Piston Rod:

πΎπΆπ‘œπ‘›π‘›π‘’π‘π‘‘π‘–π‘›π‘” π‘…π‘œπ‘‘ = 1.0

𝐹 =πœ‹2 βˆ— 29732700 βˆ— 0.785398

(0.5 βˆ— 15.27)2= 3953.719

𝑙𝑏

𝑖𝑛2

Force of Friction:

𝐹𝑓 = πœ‡πΎ βˆ— 𝑁

πœ‡πΎπ‘†π‘‘π‘’π‘’π‘™βˆ’π‘†π‘‘π‘’π‘’π‘™(π‘Šπ‘–π‘‘β„Ž πΏπ‘’π‘π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘π‘Žπ‘‘π‘–π‘œπ‘›)= 0.15

𝑁 = 150 𝑙𝑏

𝐹𝑓 = 0.15 βˆ— 150 𝑙𝑏 = 22.5 𝑙𝑏

Bending:

𝜎 =𝑀𝑐

𝐼𝑝𝑖𝑛

𝐼 =πœ‹ βˆ— 𝐷4

64=

πœ‹ βˆ— 14

64= 0.04908 𝑖𝑛4

𝜎 =600 𝑙𝑏 βˆ—

4.52 𝑖𝑛 βˆ—

12 𝑖𝑛

0.04908𝑖𝑛4= 13753.1

𝑙𝑏

𝑖𝑛2

Torsional Shear:

πœπ‘šπ‘Žπ‘₯ =π‘‡π‘Ÿ

𝐽

𝐽 =πœ‹ βˆ— 𝐷4

32=

πœ‹ βˆ— 24

32= 1.5708𝑖𝑛4

πœπ‘šπ‘Žπ‘₯ =600 𝑙𝑏. 𝑖𝑛 βˆ— 1.0 𝑖𝑛

1.5708𝑖𝑛4= 381.967𝑙𝑏

Page 21: The Crank Slider Crusher

20

Spring:

𝐹𝑁𝑒𝑑 = βˆ’π‘˜π‘₯

𝐹𝑁𝑒𝑑 = 𝐹𝐼𝑛𝑝𝑒𝑑 βˆ’ πΉπ‘‡π‘œπ‘‘π‘Žπ‘™

πΉπ‘‡π‘œπ‘‘π‘Žπ‘™ = 𝐹𝑓 + πΉπ‘ƒπ‘–π‘ π‘‘π‘œπ‘›

πΉπ‘œπ‘Ÿπ‘π‘’π‘ƒπ‘–π‘ π‘‘π‘œπ‘› = π‘Šπ‘’π‘–π‘”β„Žπ‘‘π‘ƒπ‘–π‘ π‘‘π‘œπ‘› = π‘€π‘Žπ‘ π‘ π‘ƒπ‘–π‘ π‘‘π‘œπ‘› βˆ— πΊπ‘Ÿπ‘Žπ‘£π‘–π‘‘π‘¦

π‘€π‘Žπ‘ π‘ π‘ƒπ‘–π‘ π‘‘π‘œπ‘› = π‘‰π‘œπ‘™π‘’π‘šπ‘’π‘ƒπ‘–π‘ π‘‘π‘œπ‘› βˆ— π·π‘’π‘›π‘ π‘–π‘‘π‘¦π‘†π‘‘π‘Žπ‘–π‘›π‘™π‘’π‘ π‘  𝑆𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑙

π‘‰π‘œπ‘™π‘’π‘šπ‘’πΆπ‘¦π‘™π‘–π‘›π‘‘π‘’π‘Ÿ = πœ‹ βˆ— π‘Ÿ2 βˆ— β„Ž = πœ‹ βˆ— (72) βˆ— 2 = 307.87 𝑖𝑛3

π·π‘’π‘›π‘ π‘–π‘‘π‘¦π‘†π‘‘π‘Žπ‘–π‘›π‘™π‘’π‘ π‘  𝑠𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑙 301 = 0.282877𝑙𝑏

𝑖𝑛3

πΉπ‘œπ‘Ÿπ‘π‘’π‘ƒπ‘–π‘ π‘‘π‘œπ‘› = 307.87𝑖𝑛3 βˆ— 0.282877𝑙𝑏

𝑖𝑛3= 87.0893 𝑙𝑏

πΉπ‘‡π‘œπ‘‘π‘Žπ‘™ = 22.5 𝑙𝑏 + 87.0893 𝑙𝑏 = 109.6 𝑙𝑏 = 110 𝑙𝑏

𝐹𝑁𝑒𝑑 = 150 𝑙𝑏 βˆ’ 110 𝑙𝑏 = 40 𝑙𝑏

40 𝑙𝑏 = βˆ’π‘˜ βˆ— βˆ’12 π‘–π‘›π‘β„Ž

𝐾 = 3.3333

Storage:

Volume of the container

(24𝑖𝑛)(24𝑖𝑛)(36𝑖𝑛) = 20736𝑖𝑛3

Volume of the largest plastic bottle

𝑣 = πœ‹π‘Ÿ2β„Ž

𝑣 = πœ‹(5.93)2(9.671)

𝑣 = 1068.39 𝑖𝑛3

30% of bottle volume

Page 22: The Crank Slider Crusher

21

1068.39(0.3) = 320.517 𝑖𝑛3

Number of bottles

𝑉𝑏𝑖𝑛

π‘‰π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘‘π‘’π‘π‘’π‘‘=

20746 𝑖𝑛3

320.517𝑖𝑛3= 64.69 π‘π‘œπ‘‘π‘‘π‘™π‘’π‘ 

About 64 59oz. bottles crushed to 30 % of its original volume can be stored in the container

Volume of the piston

𝑣 = πœ‹π‘Ÿ2β„Ž

𝑣 = πœ‹ βˆ— (3.5𝑖𝑛)2 βˆ— (2𝑖𝑛)

𝑣 = 76.969𝑖𝑛3

Volume of Piston Rod

𝑣 =πœ‹ βˆ— (2𝑖𝑛)2

4(19.27𝑖𝑛)

𝑣 = 60.54𝑖𝑛3

Volume of Connecting Rod

𝑣 =πœ‹ βˆ— (2𝑖𝑛)2

4(12.50𝑖𝑛)

𝑣 = 39.3𝑖𝑛3

Volume of Crankshaft

𝑣 =πœ‹ βˆ— (2𝑖𝑛)2

4(8𝑖𝑛)

𝑣 = 25.133𝑖𝑛3

Volume of Handle

Page 23: The Crank Slider Crusher

22

𝑣 =πœ‹ βˆ— (2𝑖𝑛)2

4(7𝑖𝑛)

𝑣 = 21.99𝑖𝑛3

Volume of Piston Container

𝑣 = (21 βˆ— 9.70 βˆ— 4.85) + (

πœ‹ βˆ— 8.702

42

βˆ— 21)

𝑣 = 1612.14 𝑖𝑛3

Volume of Trash Can

𝑣 = (46𝑖𝑛) βˆ— (28𝑖𝑛) βˆ— (36𝑖𝑛)

𝑣 = 46368 𝑖𝑛3

Stainless Steel 301

Young's Modulus 27992.2761 psi

Density 488.811

𝑙𝑏

𝑓𝑑3

Tensile Strength 74694.4 psi

Shear Modulus 11312900 psi

Elastic Limit 29732.700 psi

[7]

Page 24: The Crank Slider Crusher

23

Cost

Part Quantity Price

Piston 1 $13

Connecting Rod 1 $19

Crankshaft 1 $12

Sheets 6 $45

Piston Rod 1 $87

Handle 1 $128

Axle Support 1 $244

Spring 2 $4

Labor Time (Hour) Cost (Dollar)

Machining 1 $50

β„Žπ‘Ÿ

Welding 2 $50

β„Žπ‘Ÿ

Total Cost: $931

[1]