COMPACT MOBILE LIFTING DEVICE

1. COMPACT MOBILE LIFTING DEVICE Innovative Lifting Solutions Team 99.03 Michael Shaffer, Ken Kammerer, Dave Geesaman, Jin Ko Sponsor: Jim Adkins, Fraunhofer Advisor: Dr. Michael Keefe

2. Hot Press • Thermal Technology Inc. • Loaded / Unloaded daily

3. Injection Molding Machine • Arburg AllRounder S-Series • Loaded/Unloaded roughly once per month

4. Mission and Approach • Mission: • To design and build a mobile device which will aid a user in lifting, moving, and placing heavy molds into an injection molding machine and a hot press. • Approach: • After examining existing positioning, transporting, and lifting methods, we designed a custom system which met the unique wants and constraints at Fraunhofer.

5. Customers • James Adkins Lab Coordinator • Don Kupp Supervisor • Michelle Mattera Lab Technician • Brandon Fichera Lab Technician • Bernie McGuinness Lab Technician • Thermal Technologies, Inc. Equipment Manufacturer • Arburg Manufacturing Equipment Manufacturer • Bishamon Lift Manufacturer

6. Wants Description Relative emphasis • Versatility 46% • Fast Operation 35% • Minimal the amount of manual lifting 17% • Easily Maneuverable 13% • Minimal Reaction Forces on Machines 7% • Low Prototype Cost 5% • Low Cost of Manufacture 2% • Low Maintenance Cost 1%

7. Constraints Our Solution must... • load the objects without failure • fit in working areas adjacent to machines • maneuver through doors, hallways on premises • reach injection molder at 46” (max. height) • reach mold storage rack at 26” (min. height) • have safety locks on all moving parts • be operable by a single user • withstand use in a commercial situation • not damage objects being manipulated

8. PrimaryWants and their Metrics Versatile: Interfaces with all devices (Target: Yes) Fast operation: Time to load & unload (Target: 15 minutes) Time to convert between modes of operation (Target: 0 sec) Minimal Lifting: Power input by user (Target: 0 H.P.) Maneuverable: Pushing forces (Target: 20 pounds) Overall weight (Target: 400 pounds) Minimize forces on Machines: Forces (Target: 0 pounds)

9. Primary Wants and their Metrics Minimize cost of prototype: No. of standardized parts (Target: All) Minimize cost of Manufacture: No. of standardized parts (Target: All) Minimize cost of Maintenance: No. of standardized parts (Target: All) Cost to replace failure-sensitive components (Target: $0)

10. Top SixMetrics Description Relative Emphasis • Time to convert between modes 12.8% • Number of Commercially available parts 10.6% • Time to move object into position 9.2% • Power input by user 8.5% • Number of machines device can interface with 7.8% • Overall weight 6.4%

11. Benchmarking Devices Key Points • Lift carts • Chain Hoists • Drawer Slides • Linear Bearing Systems • Lifting • Maneuvering • Swiftness • Low user effort • Commercially available • Compact

12. ConceptGeneration • Interface with both machines: • Fork system • Lifting: • Scissors lift, fork lift, hoists • Maneuverability: • Caster wheels, air cushion • Positioning: • Drawer slides, linear bearings, UHMWP

13. Concept1: SlidingForklift • Strengths: • Forks provide versatility • Time to convert is low • Commercially available parts • Drawer slides / linear rails allow • positioning • Hydraulic lift cart provides lifting • and mobility via caster wheels

14. Concept2: Fold-outLow-FrictionTabletop • Strengths: • Versatile • Commercially available parts • Fast positioning via UHMWP • Hydraulic lift cart provides lifting • and mobility via caster wheels

15. Concept Selection • Final Concept:Hybrid • 1) Mobility: Caster Wheels • Low cost, commercially available, adequate maneuverability • 2) Lifting: Hydraulic Scissors Lift • Precise height control, good extension / overall size ratio • 3) Positioning: Modular Fork • Low-Friction Platform • Linear Bearings • Modular design offers compatibility with current and future applications

16. Analysis / Theory Elastic Solid Mechanics, Static Analysis • Design Criteria: • Deflection • Stress-life Design • Bearing Design • Analysis Methods: • Beam Model with Stress Concentration Factors • Beam Model using TK Solver • Finite Element Analysis (COSMOS/Works)

17. Prototype Commercially Purchased Parts: • Bishamon LPM-50 Lift Table • Thomson DB Series Linear Rails • Screw - down clamps (locks) • Custom Machined Parts: • Structural Forks and Platforms (6061-T6 Aluminum) • Low-Friction Sheeting (UHMW Polyethylene) • Assembly: • Allen Cap Screws, Flat-head Machine Screws, nuts, washers • Dowel Pins

18. Testing and Results Interfacing with all machines and molds Deflections of loaded members and assembly Stability / Tipping forces Conversion time Loading and unloading time Maneuverability Forces required by user for operation Wheel locks found insufficient Cart not level

19. Budget • Off-the-Shelf or Commercially Available items • · Hydraulic scissors lift cart $795 • · Linear bearings $1156 • · Fasteners (nuts, bolts, washers, etc.) $100 • Raw Materials • · Aluminum Stock $190 • Wooden Model $60 • Machining Time (33 hours) $0 • Engineering Development (400 hours) $0 • Miscellaneous $90 • TOTAL: $2391 Fraunhofer Project Budget Goal: $3000

20. Recommendations: • Forks made from alternative materials • Additional fork(s) for interfacing with future machines • Improved wheel locking system • Motorization and control of lifting and positioning • Accessories bin for on-board parts storage