Testing rack

Improvement of the L3 Testing Rack

By:

Aakash Balaji

Susmit Sukthankar

Product Evaluation

• What in the testing rack can affect the amount of weight stress outputted by this product onto it’s handler?

• Size?

• Shape?

• Amount of Parts?

Product Evaluation

• Materials used?

• Method of Carry?

• Amount Handled at One Time?

Important Constraints

• While working through our new design there were a few design constraints we needed to keep in mind:

• Number of Plugs must be ≥ 99.

• Size must be within a fixed area.

• Non-magnetic material with the exception of hardware must be used.

• Constant distance between units.

• Heat and Cold Resistance

Product Improvement

Points of Contention:

• Steel Base: Wobbly & Heavy

• Material Use: Could it be lighter?

• Use of Screws and other Parts: Can these be cut down on so only essential parts add to the overall weight?

Research into Possible Design Options

How may we manipulate shape to reduce weight?

The manipulation of the shape of the rack may have allowed us to trim weight.

Different Shapes Considered:

• Elliptical Rings

• Circular

• Square

Research into Possible Design Materials

• How may we manipulate material to reduce weight?

The manipulation of the material usage of the rack may have allowed us to trim weight.

Different Materials Considered:

• Garolite

• Various Magnesium Alloys

• Various Aluminum Alloys

• Plastic Polymers

The Decision Matrix

Ideas

# of plugs that can be accommodated.

Predicted mass.

Difficulty of manufacturing.

Estimated cost of Material.

Level of difficulty to use. Totals

2 oval plug configuration and made entirely of Garolite.

1

3

1

3

3

11

Testing rack without base and made entirely of Garolite.

2

3

3

2

2

12

Add extra bar on the top of the base and make entirely out of Garolite.

3

2

2

2

1

10

These criteria were measured on a different scales and each idea was evaluated fully under this criteria.

Our Decision

• We decided to remove the steel base of the testing rack. It added unnecessary weight.

• We created a storage unit for the testing racks in which 4 could be carried or stored at a time reducing overall weight.

• We also replaced many Aluminum and Steel parts with Garolite because of the lower density

2.70 g/cm³VS.

1.73 g/cm³

Mass Analysis of the Testing Rack (Before)

PART MATERIAL MASS (lbs) AREA (in²) VOLUME (in³ )

Backplate Phenolic .767 496.741 15.394

Plastic Plug Plastic 0.011 4.517 .280

Rectangular Blocks

Steel .356 11.888 1.221

Vertical Bar Aluminum .702 53.328 7.171

Base of Test Rack

Steel 4.270 130.317 14.628

Baseboard Screw

Steel .004 .455 .014

Corner Boxes Aluminum .047 4.434 .475

Handle Steel .241 10.473 .824

Front Board Screw

Steel .020 1.357 .072

Handle Screw Steel .005 .526 .018

Horizontal Bar Aluminum .324 43.085 3.310

Final Mass:

12.427 lbs.

Mass Analysis of the Testing Rack (After)

Backplate Phenolic .767 496.741 15.394

Plastic Plug Plastic 0.011 4.517 .280

Vertical Bar Garolite .448 53.328 7.171

Corner Boxes Garolite .030 4.434 .475

Handle Steel .241 10.473 .824

Front Board Screw

Steel .020 1.357 .072

Handle Screw Steel .005 .526 .018

Horizontal Bar Garolite .207 43.085 3.310

Final Mass:

5.456 lbs.

Visual Representation of our Design

THE END