Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Weekly Progress Report Jan 29

VIEWS: 6 PAGES: 3

  • pg 1
									                                                          Weekly Progress Report
                                                     Dan W., Paul G., Riyaz D., Pui C.
                                                                             Team 9
                                                                            1/29/09

               Light Weight Low Cost Composite Electronic Chassis

Previous Work:

        Successful meshing was accomplished in a non-solver program, Gambit. A
table comparing the weight differences of uniform thickness honeycomb panels
versus the original design. A dip-brazing manufacturer was contacted for initial
feasibility.

Progress:
        All simplified CAD drawings were successfully meshed and a trivial proof-of-
concept temperature solution was accomplished. Dip brazing continues to slip as a
concrete solution as more contacted manufacturers recommend against it. Two
backup plans were looked at more deeply. Sand casting an aluminum oxide to form
the chassis was found undesirable due to the likelihood of increasing the weight.
Welding the aluminum honeycomb panels prove to only be high cost in labor and may
be a viable solution.

Individual Contribution:

       Dan successful meshed four different CAD drawings, one for each of the two
chassis without the electronic chips and one for each chassis with the electronic
chips. Each mesh was able to be refined to a higher degree. From here Dan tried to
gather a solution with certain heat generation from the chips but all that was
produced was errors. To simplify he, applied a constant temperature load to a wall
and got successful results and a solution, but the uniform color of the plotted
temperature results was trivial. Heat generation loads are still yet producing a
solution without errors.

        Pui called more companies about the dip brazing technique, most of the
companies don’t suggest dip brazing aluminum honeycomb. We were thinking to
use aluminum oxide by sand casting technique. Did some research on sand casting
technique and aluminum oxide. Most of the aluminum oxide costs $0.90/lb, and has
the density of 4g/cm^3. The cost of the aluminum oxide is very similar to the pure
aluminum, but the weight is heavier. We were also thinking to weld the aluminum
honeycomb together, but before doing this, we need to ask the machine shop staff, is
it possible to do so.

        This week Paul tried multiple times to contact Kevin at Hamilton Sundstrand.
After unsuccessfully contacting him through his email, his work phone number, and
the main Hamilton Sundstrand office phone number, he called Kevin's cell phone.
After leaving a voicemail on the cell phone, Kevin called Paul back. However, Paul
did not answer because he was in class, so Kevin left a voicemail. Kevin explained
that he had been very busy at Hamilton after returning from the holidays, due to
many meetings and setting up work for the new year. Paul called him back Friday
morning and received lots of helpful information. Kevin provided contact
information for a local machine shop and also some feedback on our current design
idea. He also provided us some more information on the circuit board sizes,
vibration isolators, and also sample comparison tables.

Paul also spent some time trying to figure out Ansys. He found a helpful tutorial
online that was simulating thermal results of a similar problem for a heat sink. He
was able to help to get a working mesh and try to get some thermal results, however
a strange error occurred and he was unable to figure out a solution.

Paul also did some research online for backup methods for the chassis design. One
idea suggested during the peer review process was using aluminum oxide and sand
casting to produce the chassis. Initial research showed that while aluminum oxide is
a very strong material and sand casting is a cheap process, aluminum oxide is a
more dense material then the aluminum alloys we are looking at to use in our
honeycomb design. This means that the weight of the chassis would increase, which
is undesirable.

He also did some research into welding in case dip brazing is not possible. He found
that the majority of the cost in welding is due to labor. The other costs in welding,
the electrode needed to weld and the gas to protect the material, are very cheap and
can be had for under $20 according to estimates he found. If it is possible to weld
the chassis panels in the machine shop by ourselves, then we would save a lot of
money in the manufacturing process.

Next Steps:

Find analytical thermal solutions and plots to meshed CAD drawings.

Set up for possible solutions in vibration analysis.

Confirm or deny the dip-brazing manufacturing technique as a possible solution.

Estimate prices for welding with and without labor charges
     Sept.       Oct.       Nov.       Dec.       Jan.      Feb.       Mar.       Apr.     May

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11




             1) Research
             2) Meet with Hamilton Sundstrand to clarify goals
             3) Analytically test current aluminum chassis design (using
                software/calculations)
             4) Choose primary and secondary design process and material/structure for
                both chassis
             5) Test the requirements for primary design analytically
             6) Test the requirements for secondary design analytically
             7) Order primary chassis and wait for shipment
             8) Experimentally test current alumninum chassis
             9) Experimentally test ordered (primary) chassis
             10)Compare experimental results
             11)Summary Report

                *If necessary, order/experimentally test/compare secondary design before
                summary

								
To top