P17221: FSAE Composite Tube Fabrication
/public/

WBS_Mechanical_Feasibility

Table of Contents

Crossfeed Feasibility Analysis

Addressed Customer Requirements

Addressed Customer Requirements

Addressed Customer Requirements

Addressed Engineering Requirements

Addressed Engineering Requirements

Addressed Engineering Requirements

Updated Morphological Chart

The Morph chart shows a benchmarked design, and 5 alternative designs. The designs are all picked with a specific theme to the design.
Updated Morph Chart

Updated Morph Chart

Updated Pugh Chart

The 5 alternative designs are compared to the benchmark datum to best decide the best solution in the Pugh chart. They are weighted on a plus minus scale to find the best solution.
Updated Pugh Chart

Updated Pugh Chart

Tensioning Feasibility Analysis

Feasibility Analysis

1.1 Technical Feasibility: Will carbon spool packaging form factor allow for simple mounting adapter?

1.2 Feasibility will be determined via benchmarking spools of carbon spool manufacturers to determine general geometry.

1.3 Carbon spool geometries were researched to determine the packaging form factors. Carbon spools were researched from the following carbon fiber manufacturers: Rock West Composites Easy Composites Hexcel Toho Tenax All of these companies used a similar packaging which is a cardboard or plastic tube to support the wrapped filament. This similarity between all carbon spools allows for a simple mounting adapter that spools from different vendors should be able to slip onto.

Tensioning Pugh Chart

Tensioning Pugh Chart

2.1 Cost Feasibility: Will a tensioning mechanism be feasible within a reasonable cost envelope?

2.2 Feasibility will be determined by calculating a rough cost of a worst case number of rollers and tensioning mechanism. Component cost research can be used along with further cost analysis to tackle this financial resource risk.

2.3 Keeping tensioning method completely mechanical with very few components while also using a roller system will keep cost very low. The following components and cost/component (or material) are outlined below. This is a worst case amount of components/materials: Grade 8 nut+bolt+washer for spring loading mechanism Average combined price: $1.00. 3d printing plastic adapter for spool mounting: Free. RIT Makerspace or Brinkman Lab (team provided resource). Rollers, Quantity 10

Worst case: Supplied from vendor, $20 each

Best case: Machined in RIT ME Machine Shop with team provided material, $0 each

Compression spring Average cost: $0.58/spring Spool mounting structure

Worst case: Purchase all material, $9/ft 6061 aluminum Stiffness not an issue so lowest mass of most available material chosen

Best case: Machined and welded in RIT ME Machine Shop with team provided material, $0 total. Total worst-case cost with very conservative material estimations: $211 Just over 10% of project budget. Cost is feasible.

3.1 Technical feasibility: Is a low maintenance tensioning system feasible?

3.2 Feasibility will be determined using logical assumptions based on function and loading of system.

3.3 The spring-loaded method used to apply a spool torque (2lb*spool radius) will be be a very low wear item. The preload (normal force) between the spool adapter and the spring-loaded mechanism will be very low. The runtime of a tube combined with the low spindle speed and preload will cause extremely low abrasive wear, meaning this mechanism will likely not be a wear item. Plus, a longer and softer spring will allow for forgiveness for microns of wear. Rollers will not be a wear item as they will be very lightly loaded and serve the basic function of guiding the fibers.

4.1 Technical Feasibility Will the system be able to hold spool capacity?

4.2 Feasibility will be determined by benchmarking spool weights and logic.

4.3 Carbon spool geometries were researched to determine the expected mass of a spool. Carbon spools were researched from the following leading carbon fiber manufacturers: 12k Rock West Composites-3.3 lbs 12k Easy Composites-10 lbs 12k Hexcel- 8 lbs 12k Toho Tenax-3.1 lbs

Benchmarking shows the heaviest general 12k carbon spool that this machine will have to support is 10lbs. Even with a large factor of safety on this load, supporting the spool will be a non-issue with the materials available for the spool mounting structure. Even with basic aluminum or steel, a simple structure can be designed to hold thousands of pounds, nonetheless 10.

Frame Feasibility Analysis

Feasibility Analysis

Frame Cost Analysis

Frame Cost Analysis

Drive Feasibility Analysis

Feasibility Analysis

Drive Torque Feasibility

Drive Torque Feasibility

Drive Cost Feasibility

Drive Cost Feasibility


Home | Imagine RIT

Problem Definition | Systems Design | Preliminary Detailed Design | Detailed Design

Build & Test Prep | Subsystem Build & Test | Integrated System Build & Test | Integraged System Build & Test with Customer Demo | Customer Handoff & Final Project Documentation

Admin Mechanical Design Electrical Design Assembly/Integration Documentation

Requirements

Planning

Costing

Risk Analysis

Feedback

Feasibility Analysis

Design & Validation

3D Model

Hardware

Prints

Feasibility Analysis

Design & Validation

Hardware

Software

Machining

Mechanical Integration

Electrical Integration

Test Plans

Final Live Documents

Imagine Poster

User Manual