Professional Documents
Culture Documents
th
Chester Whinery, Michael Kopetzky, Lukas Vaznonis, Brandon Haas, Eric Farmer, Jeramie Chlumsky
July 25 , 2012
th
INTRODUCTION
COMPANY OVERVIEW
Bentley Baths is a relatively small family owned and operated company located in Denver, CO. They specialize in Walk In style bathtubs. These tubs differ from standard tubs because they are equipped with an access door and a low floor. These tubs provide easy access in and out which allows the elderly and other less mobile people to maintain a safer and more independent lifestyle.
PRODUCTION OVERVIEW
The current lines of bathtubs are made mostly from a fiber glass composite. The shell of the tub is made of fiberglass and is supported by a wood or steel frame. The composite manufacturing process used is a wet layup of fiberglass mat, all done by hand. This hand laid process is cheap and efficient, and works well for Bentley Baths current production of 15-20 bathtubs per month. This low cost
marketing strategy that demonstrates a clearly superior product. For Bentley Baths
to provide this superior product a lot of research must be done in order to design the most durable, accessible, and easy to use tubs at an affordable price. They are currently developing a prototype tub and the engineering focus has been on two primary design goals, lowering the bottom of the entry door while maintaining or increasing structural integrity. In order to make this prototype tub a success a lot of engineering analysis will be necessary. The information contained in the remainder of this report summarizes the research done in the areas of composite material
July 25 , 2012
th
METHODOLOGY
As the team conferenced on what process to take, the team personnel making the drawing in Solid Works decided to measure everything from the top point of the tub in order to make easy lines to sweep in the drawing software. First, the Top view was made, in which just lengths of different contours and extensions were measured. The drawing was made very rough and many pictures were taken in order to understand each little bath tub contour. Next, the different depths of the tub were measured, with this process; the team used the top surface of the bath tub and ran a construction square across the top, making sure it was level. Next, we took the tape measure and measured points of depth on the seat, floor, drain, contours in the seat, and the angles the walls were oriented. The main point of dimensioning was to have these points in a line, that way the drawing in Solid Works was easier to make by sweeping and connecting linear points in the tubs drawing. As the team focused on the high stress points within the tub, the door frame was the main part to key on.
AREAS OF CONCERN
Bentley Batch Co. wanted to redesign the entrance to the door as stated in the Design Development section above, the key being lowering the required step-up into the tub. This feature would not only increase the users ease in getting into the tub, but place a stress riser right where the consumer steps in.
July 25 , 2012
th
RECCOMENDATIONS
The teams recommendation is to get a professional to laser scan the final tub, or get a CMM (Coordinate Measuring Machine) to get every contour and precise dimension again once the final product is produced. Overall, the team simply used a measuring tape to dimension the tub. Another recommendation for Bentley Batch Co. would be to do some research analysis on whether or not the tub frame would support the lowest entrance level possible without compromising the tubs strength at this point. This is of course just an analysis on the frame, the thickness of the composite, as well as the best composite material lay-up for the flooring will also be talked about further in this report. As the tub was successfully dimensioned, the team wanted to give some recommendations, some stated above, but mainly for Bentley Bath Co. to be able to take this tub and widely manufacture it, once the final tub product is produced, the tub will need to have a controlled process to guarantee part interchangeability
with the door, and any other special features such as jets, heaters, and hoses.
July 25 , 2012
th
July 25 , 2012
th
edgewise compression, and the 2 part foam constraints added an additional 13.8
[lbs/in] where applicable. All the models were tested with full hydrostatic loading.
The model was fit with a coarse mesh which represented roughly 4 nodes for each two inches square for a total of 4100 nodes, and about 40000 degrees of freedom in the model. This size was chosen to facilitate rapid modeling time, and reasonable accuracy.
RESULTS
Complete results and the accompanying data are available in the appendix of this report, though by way of summary the tub performed well under the tested conditions. No section exceeded the 18,000[psi] ultimate strength of the material, and a rough safety factor of 4 was maintained throughout. A total maximum Von Mises stress of 4551 [psi] and maximum deflection near .06[in] were recorded in the Hydrostatic + Standing test, where a 300[lb] load was applied over a 10[in ] spot on the floor in addition to the water loading.
2
RECOMMENDATIONS
The models demonstrate that it would be advisable to strengthen the base of the door
frame and the rear top of the door frame as they demonstrate high stress
concentrations, though neither is in jeopardy of failure based on these tests.
SAMPLE TESTING
Two tests were performed on the samples. First, a fatigue test was used to investigate the strength of the samples as they were subject to cyclical loading conditions. Second, a tensile test was performed to determine the ultimate strength of the material as it was pulled apart. The test setup and the results for each test are outlined below.
FATIGUE TESTING
The first test was the fatigue test. This test was performed by applying a cyclical load to the center of the sample while the sample was supported at two of its edges. The picture below gives a visual depiction of the test setup.
Taking data from each test and comparing the increase in deflection for each sample shows that the all-mat sample had a 20.6% increase in deflection, the woven fabric displayed a 6.8% increase, and the mix sample increased by 16.4%. Initially the Mat sample showed the greatest stiffness, followed by the Mix sample while the woven fabric had the lowest stiffness initially deflecting 0.08[in], though their resistance to deflection over time was reversed.
TENSILE TESTING
The second test was a tensile test. This test was performed using the same machine as the fatigue test only the force applied in this case was a pulling force instead of a compression force. Each of the three samples were cut to resemble an hour glass. The reduced midsection helped to provide a predictable separation point. The samples were then clamped by the jaws of the machine and pulled apart.
[Woven Sample]
[Mat Sample]
[Mix Sample]
their lifetime. For cost analysis the final weights of the fabrics and resins are used and
will be compared by percentage with reference to the original. The original sample consists of 7 layers of E-Glass fiberglass mat and polyester resin. The second sample is 1 layer of 1.5oz mat, and 15 layers of .94oz twill woven E-glass fabric. The Third sample is 2 layers of woven and 6 layers of mat. All Mat (Current) $0.01 N/A $0.04 N/A $0.05 N/A 20.55% N/A 18.38KSI N/A 1 Mat / 15 Woven $0.08 450% $0.01 -63% $0.09 75% 6.81% -67% 35.99KSI 96% 6 Mat/ 2 Woven $0.02 57% $0.03 -24% $0.05 -2% 16.40% -20% 25.17KSI 37%
Fiber $/[in2] % Difference in Cost Resin $/[in2] % Difference in Cost Composite Cost % Difference in Cost Fatigue Deflection % Difference in Deflection Stress to Failure % Difference Stress
Since only 3 samples were made, outliers must be strongly considered. The data found shows that at nearly identical cost, the mixture of 6 Mat and 2 Woven layers surpasses the original layup of 7 mat layers quite well with respect to cost. The samples tested went through 7500 cycles to test fatigue life, and deflection is listed as a difference from cycle 1 to cycle 7500. The (6m2w) layup had an impressively higher resistance to fatigue, at 20% less than the (7m). Its stress to failure was also an impressive 37% higher than (7m).
This brings us to look at the sample consisting of (1m15w). The fabric cost is 450% higher than all mat, however since fabric uses far less resin, there is a 63% reduction in cost of resin. Resin is also the more expensive component, therefore when combined, the total cost of (1m15w) is 75% greater than (7m). Woven fabrics are stiffer than mats, however they consist of less resin, which introduces more flexibility. The deflection from cycle 1 to 7500 is 67% less than (7m) and the Stress to failure is an incredible 96% higher than all mat. At this point however, even with the impressive results, it is difficult to justify the +75% cost of (1m15w) as it yields little improvement over the (6m2w) with respect to the requirements of a bath tub. It may be justifiable however if a linear relationship is assumed between layers and stress qualities. Here
we can see the possible reduction in cost while maintaining the standards of the
original and currently used all mat layup. Given are a couple of many possible combinations to achieve a very close Stress to failure value. The approximate stress each layer of Mat withholds is 2.62KSI, each woven layer is at 2.22KSI. To our surprise, the woven fabric is only a bit weaker at just half the thickness. Since the original layup is all Mat and in total held up to 18.38KSI, this becomes our reference goal.
Possible Composition
Stress to Failure Percent Difference Stress New Cost (Reinforcement+Resin) New Cost Percent Difference
Seen here is that while maintaining a very close stress to failure value, we can actually use far less woven fabric for a combination of (1m7w) and in the end save 9.6%. Another alternative is (5m2w), which provides a 19% cost reduction.
As mentioned above, we did not quite see a linear relationship between transverse stiffness and the amount of layers used. With that considered and the data seen earlier, the cost of a majorly woven fabric composite is not the best value for a bath tub even though it yields the greatest stress to failure and fatigue values in this case. For a product such as the bath tub, fatigue life is most important along with stiffness to provide a solid feeling product. The 5mat 2 woven layer composite is a great balance between cost, stiffness, and fatigue life. Since a bath tub will rarely be loaded
to a point of failure, we recommend using the (5m2w) layup. Our layup of (6m2w)
surpassed our expectations and we believe the layup order of
[M/M/M/W/M/M/M/W] helped tremendously with fatigue life due to being imbedded in the middle of the layup and on the outside, providing an allowable amount of flex and in the end, less deflection. Among cost benefits, we believe a bathtub with a woven backing also appears to be of much higher build quality and can be used as a selling point.
CONCLUSIONS
We learned a great deal with regard many aspects of composite engineering on this project, and it was a singular honor to assist in the development of Bentley Baths new venture, and would like to thank George and Edgar who provided invaluable assistance to us along the way.
FEA ANALYSIS
The analysis demonstrated that the design foundation is very strong and will likely withstand the rigors for which it was intended. More accurate measurements may provide more insight, though at present the smoothly curved shapes of the tub seem to have shed stress very well, and allowed for a more or less equal dispersion of both stress and deflection.
http://www.mscd.edu/et/