1 / 32

Feasibility Analysis

Feasibility Analysis. P14415. Thermoforming Quote- CJK. DIY Vacuum Forming. Use kitchen oven to heat plastic Use shop-vac with vacuum box shown Build vacuum box for under $100 Shop-vac costs $69-$299 External Heat source possibility Quote for New and Used Machines.

armen
Download Presentation

Feasibility Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Feasibility Analysis P14415

  2. Thermoforming Quote- CJK

  3. DIY Vacuum Forming • Use kitchen oven to heat plastic • Use shop-vac with vacuum box shown • Build vacuum box for under $100 • Shop-vac costs $69-$299 • External Heat source possibility • Quote for New and Used Machines

  4. Purchasing Vacuum Forming Mach. • Cost: $12,900 • http://www.belovac.com/

  5. ABS vs. Polycarbonate Polycarbonate Pros: •Outstanding toughness •Good optical clarity •Strong and stiff •Easy to fabricate •Easy to solvent bond • • Cons: •Expensive compared to ABS •Good resistance to UV with stabilizers •Thermoforms well after drying ABS Pros: •Outstanding impact resistance •Good machinability •Easy to thermoform •Easy to bond with adhesives •Strong and stiff •Low cost • Cons: •Poor UV resistance •Becomes brittle with UV stabilizers •

  6. Material Eliminations: Acrylic: Brittle Polyethylene (HDPE/LDPE): Poor material strength properties compared to ABS Polycarbonate: Expensive relative to ABS (2x the cost for most sheets) Curbellplastics.com

  7. Material Research References: http://www.morganclaypool.com/doi/pdf/10.2200/S00184ED1V01Y200904MRE001 http://plastruct.com/Pages/Properties.html http://www.toolcraft.co.uk/vacuum-forming-material-specs-abs-hips-hdpe-petg-pp-pvc.htm http://www.machinist-materials.com/comparison_table_for_plastics.htm http://www.curbellplastics.com/technical-resources/plastics-properties-table.asp?cols=&compare=1,2,6,8,16,17,21,23,24&direction=desc

  8. Design 1 Models

  9. Design 1 Models

  10. Design 1 Models

  11. Design 1 Models

  12. Ansys Analysis - Design 1 Summary • Max Stress: ~1.5x Ultimate Strength Values • Too high of stress values for fairly conservative model of worst case • Design is insufficient as is to move forward with • Needs redesign with added strength from additional supports: metal

  13. Ansys Analysis - Modeling Summary • Worst Case and Normal Usage • Multiple Discussions with Dr. Boedo and Dr. Debartolo • Worst Case: Load (270lbs) around hole • Normal Usage: Load (270lbs) across two locations at normal stance width • Only base modeled, without material thinning • Iterative solution modeling

  14. Ansys Analysis - Results Summary

  15. Design 1 - Stresses: Normal Loading Circles denote peak stress locations.

  16. Design 1 - Deflection: Normal Loading

  17. Design 1 - Meshing: Normal Loading

  18. Design 1 - Stresses: Normal Loading Circles denote peak stress locations.

  19. Design 1 - Deflection: Normal Loading

  20. Design 1 - Meshing: Normal Loading

  21. Design 1 Feedback

  22. Ansys Analysis - Conclusions • Stresses too high for a fairly conservative model • Redesign required with additional supports, such as rebar • Debartolo believed analysis and conclusions seemed valid

  23. Design 2 - Analysis Assumptions • Rigid supports for deflection between ribs • Cantilevered rib bending

  24. Design 2 - Analysis Deflection between rigid supports

  25. Design 2 - Analysis Deflection of Ribs

  26. Design 2 - Analysis

  27. Design 2 - Feedback Dr. Debartolo • Assumptions inappropriate • Need to assume ribs pinned, not cantilevered • Need to assume deflection between ribs is cantilevered • Distributed load will reduce deflection between ribs

  28. Design 2 - Moving Forward • Redo calculations with new boundary condition assumptions • Possibly change material based on new analysis

  29. Shipping Costs- Miami To Haiti (Preliminary Analysis) -Analysis of per unit cost if container is filled to capacity -Assumptions: - One day storage before loading and after unloading (2 days total) - Weight does not affect cost - Cost per part is determined by volume

  30. Shipping Costs- Data

  31. Shipping Costs- Calculations

  32. New Risks Risk Chart Entry:

More Related