BSIT-POGI #1

1

Modified Rotator Type Pipe Holder

A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Industrial Technology

Don Honorio Ventura Technological State University

In partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology

By

Infante, Richard Mark M.

Andaya, John Jerome

Medina, Rafael Jr

Pabericio, Jenson

Waji, Mark Bren

September 2014

2

APPROVAL SHEET

This undergraduate thesis entitled “MODIFIED ROTATOR TYPE PIPE HOLDER”, prepared and submitted by Richard Mark Infante, John Jerome Andaya, Rafael Medina Jr, Jenson Pabericio, Mark Bren Waji, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology, has been examined and found in order and hereby recommended for acceptance and approval for the ORAL EXAMINATION.

LEODRIGO SICAT ADRIANO B. SINGIAN Academic Adviser Technical Adviser

THESIS COMMITTEE

BENIGNO LEGAMIAChairman

REGINO G. PUNOCo-Chairman

PANEL OF EXAMINERS

Approved by the committee on Oral Examination with a grade of ______ on _____________.

FORTUNATO C. CORTEZChairman

ROMMEL MALIT ADRIANO B. SINGIAN Member Member

Accept and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Industrial Technology.

BENIGNO LEGAMIA Thesis Chairman

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Foremost, we would like to gratefully recognize the continuous support of our advisers, Dr. Benigno Legamia and Mr. Adriano Singian. Their guidance helped us throughout the time of checking the manuscript and the prototype.

The completion of this study would not be possible without the support and guidance provided by our Professors especially to our Chairman of Thesis Committee, Mr. Benigno Legamia and Co-Chairman Mr. Regino Puno.

We are forever thankful for all the personals in Welding Technology who allow us to make our project. Thank you for Mr. Fortunato C. Cortez who believes in our ability to finish our thesis. We would like to express our sincerest gratitude to Mr. Benigno Legamia and Mr. Adriano Singian for helping us to complete our survey in WELDERS.

We would like to thank our parents in supporting us and being our inspiration. Thank you for all the hardships that you have done to provide our needs. We are fortunate for having a supportive and caring family.

Most importantly, we would like to give thanks and praise to our God who blessed us a loving family, supportive friends, helpful advisers and understanding Professors. This would not be happen without his purpose. We’re very thankful for all the blessings that he gave to us.

The Proponents:Infante, Richard Mark M.

Andaya, John Jerome Medina, Rafael Jr. S.Pabericio, JensonWaji, Mark Bren

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE ………………………………………………… i

APPROVAL SHEET ………………………………………………… ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ………………………………………………… iii

ABSTRACT ………………………………………………… iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………… v

APPENDICES ……………………………………...………… viii

LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………… ix

LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………… x

Chapter

1. THE PROBLEM AND REVIEW OF RELATEDLITERAURES……………………………………………………….1

1.1Introduction…………………………...………………………11.2 Related Literatures …………………………………………4

1.3.1 Foreign Literature ………………………...…..41.3.2 Local Literature …………...………………..6

1.3 Related Studies ………………………………………….71.3.1 Foreign Literature ……………...……………..71.3.2 Local Literature ……………………………..81.4 Synthesis ………………...…………………………..9

1.5 Conceptual Framework ………………………………….101.6 Statement of the Problem ………………………………....11

1.6.1 General Problem …………………………...…....111.6.2 Specific Problems ………………………...………11

1.7 Assumptions……..………………………………………….11

1.8Significance of the Study…………………………………...131.8.1 Educational Significance……………………....13

5

1.8.2 Technological Significance……………………141.8.3 Economic Significance…………………….…..141.8.4 Social Significance…………………………….14

1.9 Scope and Delimitations……………………………………...141.10 Operational Definition of Terms……………………………...15

2. METHOD2.1 Types of Research2.2 Respondents of the Study2.3 Sampling Technique and Procedures2.4 Research Instruments

2.4.1 Questionnaires2.4.2 Interview2.4.3 Library Research2.4.4 Internet Research

2.5 Administration of the Instruments2.6 Analysis of Data2.7 Methods Used in Developing the System

2.7.1 Planning Phase2.7.2 Analysis Phase2.7.3 Design Phase2.7.4 Implementation Phase2.7.5 Operation and Support Phase

3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION3.1Design of the Project3.2 Prototype of the Project3.3 Cost and Benefit Analysis3.4Assessment of the Marketability of the Project

4. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS4.1 Summary4.2 Conclusions4.3 Recommendations

REFERENCES

APPENDIX

6

APPENDICES

Appendix A Gantt Chart

Appendix B Letters

Appendix C Questionnaires

Appendix D Curriculum Vitae

Appendix E User Manual

Appendix F Sample Source Code

7

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Table 1: What do you like most about our new product?

Table 2: What changes would most improve our new product?

Table 3: What do you like about competing products currently available from other companies?

Table 4: What changes would most improve competing products currently available from other companies?

Table 5: How important is price to you when choosing this type of product?

Table 6: If you would not like to use our product, why not?

Table 7: What made you use our new product?

Table 8: If our new product is available today, how would you like use it instead of the other competing product from other companies?

Table 9: How would you like to recommend our new product to a friend or colleague?

Table 10: Overall, are you satisfied with your experience using our new product?

8

CHAPTER 1

The Problem and Review of Related Literature

Introduction

A self-centering chuck, also known as a scroll chuck, uses dogs (usually called jaws), interconnected via a scroll gear (scroll plate), to hold onto a tool or work piece. Because they most often have three jaws, the term three-jaw chuck without other qualification is understood by machinists to mean a self-centering three-jaw chuck. The term universal chuck also refers to this type. These chucks are best suited to grip circular or hexagonal cross-sections when very fast, reasonably accurate centering is desired.

Self-centering three-jaw chuck and key with one jaw removed and inverted showing the teeth that engage in the scroll plate. The scroll plate is rotated within the chuck body by the key, the scroll engages the teeth on the underside of the jaws which moves the three jaws in unison, to tighten or release the work piece.

Drill Press

The drill has been a staple in the arsenal of woodworkers, carpenters, and machinists for many years, and the versatility of this tool has only increased in recent decades. When accuracy is key to success, professionals will turn to a drill press, or a vertical drill that is fixed to a tabletop, workbench, or to the floor. Also known as a bench drill, it is capable of drilling accurately spaced holes at specific depths, widths, and straightness.

This tool is made up of a base, column, spindle, and drill head. The base can be a tabletop or it can be built-in legs made of metal; every one includes a table, or a surface to rest the materials to be drilled. It is positioned below the drill spindle and head, which spin and hold the bit respectively. A bench drill press is smaller and more portable, but a floor model is typically more powerful and has more accessory options.

The drill press has a three-armed handle attached to the head that raises and lowers the drill bit. These arms give the user more control over the movement of the bit and make it easier to use. A depth-stop may be used to prevent the bit from moving past a certain point, allowing the user to make uniform-depth holes in various locations on whatever material is to be drilled.

Pipe

A PIPE is a tubular section or hollow cylinder, usually but not necessarily of circular cross-section, used mainly to convey substances which can flow — liquids and gases (fluids), slurries, powders, masses of small solids. It can also be used for structural applications; hollow pipe is far stiffer per unit weight than solid members.

9

In common usage the words pipe and tube are usually interchangeable, but in industry and engineering, the terms are uniquely defined. Depending on the applicable standard to which it is manufactured, pipe is generally specified by a nominal diameter with a constant outside diameter (OD) and a schedule that defines the thickness. Tube is most often specified by the OD and wall thickness, but may be specified by any two of OD, inside diameter (ID), and wall thickness. Pipe is generally manufactured to one of several international and national industrial standards. While similar standards exist for specific industry application tubing, tube is often made to custom sizes and a broader range of diameters and tolerances. Many industrial and government standards exist for the production of pipe and tubing. The term "tube" is also commonly applied to non-cylindrical sections, i.e., square or rectangular tubing. In general, "pipe" is the more common term in most of the world, whereas "tube" is more widely used in the United States.

Both "pipe" and "tube" imply a level of rigidity and permanence, whereas a hose (or hosepipe) is usually portable and flexible. Pipe assemblies are almost always constructed with the use of fittings such as elbows, tees, and so on, while tube may be formed or bent into custom configurations. For materials that are inflexible, cannot be formed, or where construction is governed by codes or standards, tube assemblies are also constructed with the use of tube fittings.

1.3 Related Literature

1.3.1 Foreign Literature

A drill press is preferable to a hand drill when the location and orientation of the hole must be controlled accurately. A drill press is composed of a base that supports a column; the column in turn supports a table. Work can be supported on the table with a vise or hold down clamps, or the table can be swiveled out of the way to allow tall work to be supported directly on the base. Height of the table can be adjusted with a table lift crank than locked in place with a table lock. The column also supports a head containing a motor. The motor turns the spindle at a speed controlled by a variable speed control dial. The spindle holds a drill chuck to hold the cutting tools (drill bits, center drills, debarring tools, etc.).

Drill press, also called Drilling Machine,   device for producing holes in hard substances. The drill is held in a rotating spindle and is fed into the work piece, which is usually clamped in a vise resting on a table. The drill may be gripped in a chuck with three jaws that move radically in unison, or it may have a tapered shank that fits into a tapered hole in the spindle. Means are always provided for varying the spindle speed and on some machines for automatically feeding the drill into the work piece.

10

1.4 Conceptual Framework

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

Figure 1 Paradigm of the Study

As shown in Figure 1, the proponents of this project started by conducting initial brainstorming as to what project will be developed. This is through researching, reviewing some related literatures, and gathering the materials needed. The next step is designing the project and what it will look like; and also, doing other processes to come up with the output.

1.5 Statement of the Problem

This section shows the different problems experienced by the welders on how to center immediate the iron using the local rotator type.

1.5.1 General Problem

Many accidents happened in the world of industry causing a disruption of the fingers, hands, legs, or any other part of the body. The main problem in using the normal Pipe Rotator Type is, you have to center first the iron that makes it hard to use and it slows the fabrication of time in order to make good quality product.

*Preliminary brainstorming*Reading of related literatures

*Preparation of design of the machine

*Fabrication of the Machine

*Perform initial testing

*Apply changes if needed

*Finalize the machine

*Conduct a survey

*Collate data and write the results and recommendation

*DEVELOPOMENT OF ROTATOR TYPE PIEP

HOLDER

11

1.5.2 Specific Problem

Specifically, the project sought answer of the following questions:

1. How may the Pipe Rotator Type solve the problems concerning on how to immediate center the iron?

2. How will the Pipe Rotator Type be easier and safer to use than the rotator type?

1.6 Significance of the Study

This section presents the objectives of the study that will respond to the current safety needs of the users of Pipe Rotator Type.

1.6.1 General Objectives:

The main objective of the study is to introduce a Pipe Rotator Type with 3 Universal Jaws and Adopter for welders and shop owners to provide them an easy to use pipe rotator and to further facilitate the work and make a good quality product.

1.6.2 Specific Objective

This section states the detailed objectives of the study. These specific objectives are the solutions for the specific problems mentioned:

1. Improved the Pipe Rotator Type; and,2. To launch a new and improved device in the market that will surely be patronized

by the people.

1.7 Assumptions

This section states the assumption of the proposed improved Pipe Rotator Type with 3 Universal Jaws and Adopter.

1. The proposed project will be of importance in improving the effectiveness of the Pipe Rotator Type.

2. The proposed project will be providing safety to the users.3. The proposed project will be accepted by the industry.

1.8 Significance of the Study

This section presents the significance of the proposed improved Pipe Rotator Type with 3 Universal Jaws and Adopter.

12

To the Welders and Shop Owners, who will be directly benefitting from this study. Through the use of the developed pipe rotator type, they can easily center the iron in lesser time to further smooth the progress of the work.

To the Private Companies, that will be apparently benefiting from this project as this study of an advanced and developed pipe rotator will help them lessen the casualty of workers welding in construction.

To the Government Institutions, as the developed pipe rotator will help accomplishing fast-tracked projects of the government constructing new buildings and other related works in welding that will accelerate time in welding.

To the School, Colleges and Universities, this will help them lessen casualties and time consumed in constructing new buildings as the product of this study will help the welders.

1.9 Scope and Limitations

This project is only limited to the improvement of the existing Pipe Rotator Type by introducing a 3 Universal Jaws and Adopter.

1.10 Definition of Terms

This section presents some terms which are not widely known to different individuals of whose field is not Industrial Technology.

3 Universal Jaws - a chuck, as for a lathe, has jaws which can be moved simultaneously so as to grasp objects of various sizes.Drill Press - a powered vertical drilling machine in which the drill is pressed to the work automatically or by a hand lever.Pipe - (fluid conveyance), a hollow cylinder following certain dimension rules

13

CHAPTER II

MATERIALS AND METHOD

This chapter of the study illustrates the materials and methodology or approach used by the researchers to develop the project and collect data. Included in this part are the discussions of the following: the sampling technique or how the respondents were chosen, instruments used and procedure how this study progressed.

2.1 Type of Research

The study was approached in a mixed experimental and descriptive manner and utilizes questionnaires that the respondents in this study answered. With this mixed method, the researchers were able to explore an existing technology and incorporate new features to it and evaluate whether the added feature really helped and improved what the technology is primarily intended to, thus the degree of acceptance of the possible end users on the developed product is evaluated.

2.2 Respondents of the Study

A total of fifty (50) respondents was the target number of samples of the researchers where data were gathered from.

2.3 Sampling Technique and Procedure

These 50 respondents were selected through purposive sampling. Respondents were practitioners from various machine shops, instructors and selected students on technical schools who were directly involved in the mechanical technology programs or operation.

2.4 Research Instruments

The sources of data in this study were as follows:

2.4.1 Questionnaire

The proponents formulated questions that seek to measure the marketability and usefulness of the Developed Rotator Type Pipe Holder.

2.4.2 Library Research

The library research undertaken by the researchers were shown on the different defined terminologies and related literatures and studies of this study. They were a great help to the researchers because they serve as guide in the development of the study.

14

2.4.3 Internet Research

Supplemental research using available professional sites in the internet was also undertaken by the researchers for this study.

2.5 Analysis of Data

Data gathered were tabulated and analysed using frequency and present distribution to assess the marketability and usability of the DEVELOPED ROTATOR TYPE PIPE HOLFER.

2.6 Technical Aspect of the Project

The step by step processes on how the researchers develop the DEVELOPMENT OF A ROTATOR TYPE PIPE HOLFER:

2.6.1 Specification of the Project;

2.6.2 Working drawing of the project drawn to scale on the following perspectives: front view, top view, side view and other views;

2.6.3 Bill of Materials of the equipment, tools, supplies and materials to be used;

The project requires a total cost of Php.11.919 broken down as follows:

MATERIAL QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL

3Universal Jaw 1 P6,810 P6,810

Drill Press 1 P3,000 P3,000

Pipe 3inc. Dia. 1 P180 P180

Welding Rod 2 P50 P100

Grinding Disk 2 P55 P110

Cutting Disk 2 P110 P220

Angular Bar 3 P280 P840

Screw and Nut 7 P17 P119

Mild Steel 1 P180 P180

Pipe 3 ½ Inc. dia.

1 P360 P360

P11,919

15

2.6.4 Marketing aspect of the project which describes the target market, supply and demand analysis, projected sales;

2.6.5 Financial aspect of the project which describes the overall financial viability, overhead expenses, project cost, profit and loss, and the like; and,

2.6.6 Work plan of the project which includes a brief description in chronological order, each activity will be undertaken.

A. Designing PhaseFirst, the group brainstormed on the design to be used for the project. Each member

was asked to share his views about the design and finally agreed with the common design. Said design was presented to the technical adviser for critiquing.

B. Fabrication of prototype

After the approval of the final design, development of the prototype followed. Procedures include the following:

First, the proponents make the base of the project by the use of angle bar. Second, the body of the project which is the drill press we put a screw and

connect it to the base. Third, the proponents make the pipe and by its angle. Lastly, the proponents put the main part which is the 3universal jaw chuck.

C. Testing

After the fabrication of the prototype, series of testing were conducted by the group. Initial presentation to the technical panellists was undertaken which severed as basis for the improvement of the projects.

D. Improvement of prototype

The first machine that we have created does not have wheels and change the locking system. As part of the improvement, we put wheels and added the new locking system.

E. Final Product Development

After all the testing, improvement and re-testing, the final product was developed as shown below:

Schedule of major activities are hereby presented in Gantt chart form, to wit:

16

1st Design, Development, Testing of the Machine

Activity NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR

Project Planning

Data Gathering

Canvas of Materials

Project Making

Preliminary Testing

Finalization

The Gantt Chart II

This chart represents the activities to be undertaken in order to finish the final prototype. It indicates the proposed dates when the project will be done.

Activities June July August SeptemberDesigning of the Improved Device as suggested by the

ExpertsDevelopment/Fabrication of

the Final Device

Pre-Test/Post-TestMarket Study

Final Presentation

CHAPTER III

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

17

This chapter presents the scholarly discussion of the results of the study. Results are presented sequentially based on the order of the stated objectives of the study. It includes detailed presentation of the completed machine or project as well as the result, analysis and the interpretation of information and data gathered from the survey conducted to 50 selected practitioners, teachers and students of welding technology using purposive sampling method to determine the marketability and usability of the developed product. The result is presented using the technical drawings or picture of the machine, tabular and textual presentations.

A. The Development of a Rotator Type Pipe Holder:The first component of the study is the design and development of the

Rotator Type Pipe Holder. The project was developed following the step by step processes such as designing and fabrication of the prototype. After which, series of testing were undertaken to determine the efficiency of the proposed machine. Testing results led to the fabrication of the final machine.

The original design of the machine does not have wheels and change the locking system. As part of the improvement, we put wheels and added the new locking system.

The final product is shown below:

TOP VIEW

FRONT VIEW

18

LEFT SIDE VIEW

RIGHT SIDE VIEW

B. The Market Study

19

The second component of the study is the analysis on the marketability and usability of the machine. A survey instrument was developed and administered to 50 respondents selected thru purposive sampling method which focused on the following questions:

1. What do you like most about our new product?2. What changes would most improve our new product?3. What do you like about competing products currently available in the

market? (If applicable)4. What changes would most improve competing products currently

available in the market?5. How important is price to you when choosing this type of product?6. If you are not likely to use our product, Why not?7. What would make you more likely to use our new product?8. If our new product is available today, how likely would you be to use

it instead of competing in the market?9. How likely is that you would recommend our new product to a friend

or colleague?10. Overall, are you satisfied with your experience using our new product?

Table 1: What do you like most about our new product?

ITEMS RESPONSES % RANKWorks Faster 49 37.98 1Much safe to use 46 35.66 2More durable 34 26.36 3Total 129 100

Table 1 shows that the liked most feature of the new product answered by the respondents is the item “works faster” which got the highest with 37.98% while “more durable” got the lowest rank with only 26.36%. It only means that the potential buyers of the product put more importance on the efficiency above all other features of the product.

Table 2: What changes would most improve our new product?

ITEMS RESPONSES % RANKImprove the design 41 45.56 1Lower price 32 35.56 2Use light materials 17 18.88 3Total 90 100

20

Table 2 shows the perception of the respondents on what changes would most improve the new product. Based on the data gathered, “improve the design” got the highest rank with 45.56%. On the other hand, 18.88% of the respondents choose “use light materials” with the lowest rank. It can be deduced that potential buyers want further improvement of the current design and lowered price of the product to make it more marketable.

Table 3: What do you like about competing products currently available from other companies?

ITEMS RESPONSES % RANKLarger 32 44.45 1Cheaper 23 31.94 2Heavier 17 23.61 3Total 72 100

Table 3 shows the perceptions of the respondents on what they like about competing products currently available from other companies. Data revealed that “larger” got the 1st rank with 44.45%, followed by “cheaper”, “heavier”, with 31.94% and 23.61%, respectively. This means that respondents prefer large yet cheap products.

Table 4: What changes would most improve competing products currently available from other companies?

ITEMS RESPONSES % RANKMake it hydraulic 28 35.90 2Make it safe 36 46.15 1Reduce price 14 17.95 3Total 78 100

Table 4 shows the perception of the respondents on what they want to improve about the safety of the competing product currently available from other companies. Data revealed that “make it safe” got the 1st rank with 46.15%.This followed by “make it hydraulic”, “reduce price”, with 35.90 and 17.95 on the other hand 17.95% of the respondents choose “reduce the price” with the lowest. It can be deduced that potential buyers gave more importance on the safety of the people who will use the product and to make it more appealing and marketable.

It can be deduced that potential buyers put more emphasis on the safety of the products that they purchase in the market. Generally, the consumers desired some

21

satisfaction on the quality of product especially that which deviates from the traditional like hydraulic or automatic type which added high value to the product.

Table 5: How important is price to you when choosing this type of product?

ITEMS RESPONSES % RANKExtremely important 16 32 2Quite important 24 48 1Moderately important

8 16 3

Slightly important 2 4 4Not at all important 0 0 5Total 50 100

Table 5 shows the perception of the respondents on how important to them is the price when choosing a product. The data indicates that the price is an important aspect being considered in choosing this type of product with 48%, followed by “extremely important”, “moderately important”, and “slightly important” with 32%, 16% and 4%, respectively.

Table 6: If you are not likely to use our product, why not?

ITEMS RESPONSES % RANKDo not need a product like this 11 22 3Do not want a product like this 5 10 4Satisfied w/ competing product currently available

17 34 1

Cannot pay for a product like this 17 34 1Not willing to pay for a product like this 0 0 5Total 50 100

Table 6 shows the perception of the respondents on the question, “If you are not likely to use our product, why not?”, The data indicates that the items “Satisfied w/ competing product currently available” and “Cannot pay for a product like this” got the highest rank with 34% each while “Do not want a product like this” got the lowest rank with 10%. This only implies that respondents are already satisfied with the products currently available in the market which may possibly hinders the introduction of new related item if not manufactured competitively with the products in the market.

22

Table 7: What would make you use our new product?

ITEMS RESPONSES % RANKEasy to use 37 39.78 2Make work faster 42 45.16 1Long lasting use 14 15.06 3Total 93 100

Table 7 shows the responses of the respondents on “what would make you use our new product?” the item “make work faster” got the highest rank with 45.16% on the other hand 15.06% of the respondents choose “long lasting use” with the lowest. It can be deduced that potential buyer gave more importance about the fastness of the product to make it more appealing and marketable.

Table 8: If our new product is available today, how would you like to use it instead of other competing products from other companies?

ITEMS RESPONSES % RANKExtremely like 15 30 3Quite like 18 36 1Moderately like 16 32 2Slightly like 1 2 4Not like at all 0 0 5Total 50 100

Table 8 shows the responses of the respondents on how would the respondents like to use it instead of other competing products from other companies? Based on the data gathered “Quite like” got the highest rank with 36% on the other hand 0% of the respondents choose “Not like at all” with the lowest.

Table 9: How would you like to recommend our new product to a friend or colleague?

ITEMS RESPONSES % RANKExtremely like 12 24 3Quite like 21 42 1Moderately like 16 32 2Slightly like 1 2 4Not like at all 0 0 5Total 50 100

23

Table 9 shows the responses of the respondents on how would they like to recommend our new product to a friend or colleague. Based on the data gathered “Quite like” got the highest rank with 42% on the other hand 0% of the respondents choose “Not like at all” with the lowest. It can be deduced that potential buyers gave more importance to recommend our new product to a friend or colleague to make it more appealing and marketable.

Table 10: Overall, are you satisfied with your experience using our new product?

ITEMS RESPONSES % RANKExtremely satisfied 14 28 2Quite satisfied 16 32 1Moderately satisfied 13 26 3Slightly satisfied 7 14 4Not satisfied at all 0 0 5Total 50 100

Table 10 shows the responses of the respondents if they are satisfied with their experience using our new product. Based on the data gathered “Quite satisfied” got the highest rank with 32% on the other hand 0% of the respondents chose “Not satisfied at all” with the lowest. It means that the potential buyers are satisfied with our product, and it is more appealing and marketable.

CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This part presents brief and concise terms of the following: reiteration of the main problems; specific problems; method; and, narrative summary of findings.

SUMMARY

A self-centering chuck, also known as a scroll chuck, uses dogs (usually called jaws), interconnected via a scroll gear (scroll plate), to hold onto a tool or work piece. Because they most often have three jaws, the term three-jaw chuck without other qualification is understood by machinists to mean a self-centering three-jaw chuck.

The drill has been a staple in the arsenal of woodworkers, carpenters, and machinists for many years, and the versatility of this tool has only increased in recent

24

decades. When accuracy is key to success, professionals will turn to a drill press, or a vertical drill that is fixed to a tabletop, workbench, or to the floor.

A PIPE is a tubular section or hollow cylinder, usually but not necessarily of circular cross-section, used mainly to convey substances which can flow — liquids and gases (fluids), slurries, powders, masses of small solids. It can also be used for structural applications; hollow pipe is far stiffer per unit weight than solid members.

These machines, however, are too costly which are not affordable to ordinary citizens particularly those who are engaged in welding works. This prompted the proponents to develop a smaller and cheaper yet efficient machine called Rotator Type Pipe Holder.

This study aimed to develop a Rotator Type Pipe Holder that can be used to easily center the iron to further facilitate the work and make good quality product.

Specifically, the study sought answers to the following questions:

1. What is the process to be used in developing the Rotator Type Pipe Holder?

2. How will the Rotator Type Pipe Holder be described in terms of :2.1 Design;2.2 Efficiency;2.3 Practicality; and2.4 Cost?

3. What are the recommendations for further improvement of the machine?

The study was approached in a mixed experimental and descriptive manner and utilized questionnaires that the respondents in this study answered. With this mixed method, the researchers were able to explore an existing technology and incorporate new features to it and evaluate whether the added feature really helped and improved what the technology is primarily intended to; thus, the degree of acceptance of the possible end users on the developed product is evaluated. A total of fifty (50) served respondents of the study selected through purposive sampling. Respondents were practitioners from various machine shops, instructors and selected students on technical schools who were directly involved in the mechanical technology programs or operation.

Summary of finding are as follows:

1. Concerning the question “What do you like most about our new product?” data revealed that the item “works faster” got the highest with 37.98% while “more durable” got the lowest rank with only 26.36%.

2. On the question, “What changes would most improve our new product” it can be noted that the item “improve the design” got the highest rank with 45.56%. On

25

the other hand, 18.88% of the respondents chose “use light materials” with the lowest rank.

3. Regarding the question, “What do you like about competing products currently available from other companies?” data revealed that “larger” got the 1st rank with 44.45%, followed by “cheaper”, “heavier”, with 31.94% and 23.61%, respectively.

4. About the question, “What changes would most improve competing product currently available from other companies?” data revealed that “make it safe” got the 1st rank with 46.15%.This followed by “make it hydraulic”, “reduce price”, with 35.90 and 17.95 on the other hand 17.95% of the respondents choose “reduce the price” with the lowest.

5. Concerning the question “How important is price to you when choosing this type of product?” the data indicates that the price is “quite important” as an aspect being considered in choosing this type of product with 48%, followed by “extremely important”, “moderately important”, and “slightly important” with 32%, 16% and 4%, respectively.

6. As regard to the question, “If you are not likely to use our product, why not? The data indicates that the items “Satisfied w/ competing product currently available” and “Cannot pay for a product like this” got the highest rank with 34% each while “Do not want a product like this” got the lowest rank with 10%.

7. Concerning the question “What would make you more likely to use our new product?” based on the data gathered “make work faster” got the highest rank with 45.16% on the other hand 15.06% of the respondents choose “long lasting use” with the lowest.

8. With regards to the question “If our new product is available today, how would you like to use it instead of other competing products from other companies?” it is revealed that the item “Quietly like” 36% and the least is “Not at like at all with 0%.

9. Table 9 that corresponds to the question, “How would you like to recommend our new product to a friend or colleague?” it was revealed that the item “Quite like” 42% and the least is “Not like at all” 0%.

10. Table 10 shows the responses of the respondents if they are satisfied with their experience using our new product. Based on the data gathered “Quite like” got the highest rank with 32% on the other hand 0% of the respondents choose “Not like at all” with the lowest.

Conclusions:

1. It only means that the potential buyers of the product put more importance on the efficiency above all other features of the product.

26

2. It can be deduced that potential buyers want further improvement of the current design and lower price of the product to make it more marketable.

3. It can be concluded based on the data gathered that respondents prefer large yet cheap products.

4. It can be deduced that potential buyer gave more importance on the safety of the people who will use the product and to make it more appealing and marketable.

5. It can be construed from the data that the practicality of buyers pertains to the pricing of product as a key element in deciding whether to buy or not.

6. This only implies that respondents are already satisfied with the products currently available in the market which may possibly hinders the introduction of new related item if not manufactured competitively with the products in the market.

7. It can be deduced that potential buyers pay more importance on the fastness of the product to make it more appealing and marketable.

8. It means that the potential buyer like our product.9. It can be deduced that potential buyer gave more importance to recommend

our new product to a friend or colleague to make it more appealing and marketable.

10. It means that the potential buyers are satisfied with our product, and it is more appealing and marketable.

CONCLUSION:

Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn:

To make the new product acceptable in the market, there is a need to improve

the design and make the price in accordance to its quality and materials used.

The new product is easy to use; however, safety feature can still be improved

to prevent minor accident to happen.

Generally, acceptability of the new product was evident with the respondents’

claim that it is “safe to use” and “portable”.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings and conclusions drawn, the following are recommended:

27

To further improve the quality of the product to make it more marketable;

To consider reducing cost of the project to make it more affordable to the end

users; and,

Further study is recommended to determine critical features that will increase

efficiency of the product.

REFERENCES

Cavallari, Dan (2014). “What is a Drill Press?” Retrieved from http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-drill-press.htm.

Cubberly, W. (1989). Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook. Society of

Manufacturing Engineers. p. 23‐16. ISBN 978-0-87263-351-3. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_(engineering).

 Porter, Catherine. Porter: Gravy Train Cuts Mean More Lead In Our Water, Toronto Star, January 26, 2011. Retrieved from TheStar.com website, Jan. 26, 2011.

28

Robles, PE, Daniel (2012). "Potable Water Pipe Condition Assessment For a High Rise Condominium in The Pacific Northwest". GSG Group Inc., Community Engineering Services. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipe_(fluid_conveyance).

Whitney, Gregory (Feb–Mar 2011). "How to make an inexpensive "exact adjust" 5C collet chuck". Machinist's Workshop (Traverse City, MI, USA: Village Press Inc) 24 (1): 11–15. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_(engineering).

“Drill Press”. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved fromhttp://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/171629/drill-press.