160 likes | 241 Views
Value Comparison of Combination Wrenches. MECH 309 WSU Vancouver Department of Mechanical Engineering. Team B Jay Lui Todd May Cameron Muller Tony Nguyen Mason O’Lennick Alex Paradis Daniel Peterson Patrick Phillips Trevor Pope Jonathan Shaffer. Testing Procedures.
E N D
Value Comparison of Combination Wrenches MECH 309 WSU Vancouver Department of Mechanical Engineering Team B Jay Lui Todd May Cameron Muller Tony Nguyen Mason O’Lennick Alex Paradis Daniel Peterson Patrick Phillips Trevor Pope Jonathan Shaffer
Testing Procedures Criteria for Comparison: • Cost • Microstructure Observations • Oxidization • Hardness • Tolerance • Bending/Failure
Cost Combination Wrench Manufacturers Tested:
Microstructure Pittsburgh: Master Mechanic: Husky Pro: Craftsman: Snap-on:
Microstructure Pittsburgh: Master Mechanic: Craftsman: Snap-on: Husky Pro:
Open-End Testing The Amount of Play in the Open-End of Each Wrench Correlated to Slippage Torque Applied via Torque Wrench Along Wrench to Maintain Line of Action Each Wrench Head Plastically Deformed Around Test Bolt Preventing Fracture
t Handle Failure Results Pittsburgh Snap-on Husky Craftsman Master Mechanic
Conclusions • Husky • Best value, good toughness and low-cost • Warranty may not be as good as high-cost wrenches • Snap-on • Performed well but the high cost makes it a lower value • Has excellent warranty and highest failure points • Craftsman • Best choice if failure is a concern • Good value and lifetime warranty • Master Mechanic • Performed adequately • But for $2 more, the best value wrench, Husky, could be purchased instead • Pittsburgh • Low-cost was evident with its low failure points and inconsistency