COMPACT MOBILE LIFTING DEVICE

Team 99.03Michael Shaffer, Ken Kammerer, Dave Geesaman, Jin Ko

Sponsor: Jim Adkins, Fraunhofer Advisor: Dr. Michael Keefe

Innovative Lifting Solutions

Hot Press• Thermal Technology Inc.

• Loaded / Unloaded daily

Injection Molding Machine• Arburg AllRounder S-Series

• Loaded/Unloaded roughly once per month

Mission and Approach

Mission:To design and build a mobile device which will aid a user in lifting, moving, and placing heavy molds into an injection molding machine and a hot press.

Approach:After examining existing positioning, transporting, and lifting methods, we designed a custom system which met the unique wants and constraints at Fraunhofer.

Customers

• James Adkins Lab Coordinator

• Don Kupp Supervisor

• Michelle Mattera Lab Technician

• Brandon Fichera Lab Technician

• Bernie McGuinness Lab Technician

• Thermal Technologies, Inc. Equipment Manufacturer

• Arburg Manufacturing Equipment Manufacturer

• Bishamon Lift Manufacturer

Wants

Versatility 46%

Fast Operation 35%

Minimal the amount of manual lifting 17%

Easily Maneuverable 13%

Minimal Reaction Forces on Machines 7%

Low Prototype Cost 5%

Low Cost of Manufacture 2%

Low Maintenance Cost 1%

Description Relative emphasis

Constraints

• load the objects without failure

• fit in working areas adjacent to machines

• maneuver through doors, hallways on premises

• reach injection molder at 46” (max. height)

• reach mold storage rack at 26” (min. height)

• have safety locks on all moving parts

• be operable by a single user

• withstand use in a commercial situation

• not damage objects being manipulated

Our Solution must...

Versatile:

Primary Wants and their Metrics

Fast operation:

Maneuverable:

Interfaces with all devices (Target: Yes)

Minimize forceson Machines:

Forces (Target: 0 pounds)

Minimal Lifting: Power input by user (Target: 0 H.P.)

Time to load & unload (Target: 15 minutes) Time to convert between modes of operation (Target: 0 sec)

Pushing forces (Target: 20 pounds) Overall weight (Target: 400 pounds)

Primary Wants and their Metrics

Minimize cost of Manufacture:

No. of standardized parts (Target: All)

Minimize cost of prototype:

No. of standardized parts (Target: All)

Minimize cost of Maintenance:

No. of standardized parts (Target: All)Cost to replace failure-sensitive

components (Target: $0)

Top Six Metrics

• Time to convert between modes 12.8%

• Number of Commercially available parts 10.6%

• Time to move object into position 9.2%

• Power input by user 8.5%

• Number of machines device can interface with 7.8%

• Overall weight 6.4%

Description Relative Emphasis

Benchmarking

Devices

• Lift carts

• Chain Hoists

• Drawer Slides

• Linear Bearing Systems

Key Points

• Lifting

• Maneuvering

• Swiftness

• Low user effort

• Commercially

available

• Compact

Concept Generation

Interface with both machines:

•Fork system

Lifting:

•Scissors lift, fork lift, hoists

Maneuverability:

•Caster wheels, air cushion

Positioning:

•Drawer slides, linear bearings, UHMWP

Concept 1: Sliding Forklift

Strengths:

• Forks provide versatility

• Time to convert is low

• Commercially available parts

• Drawer slides / linear rails allow

positioning

• Hydraulic lift cart provides lifting

and mobility via caster wheels

Concept 2: Fold-out Low-Friction Tabletop

Strengths:

• Versatile

• Commercially available parts

• Fast positioning via UHMWP

• Hydraulic lift cart provides lifting

and mobility via caster wheels

Final Concept: Hybrid

1) Mobility: Caster Wheels

• Low cost, commercially available, adequate

maneuverability

2) Lifting: Hydraulic Scissors Lift

• Precise height control, good extension / overall size ratio

3) Positioning: Modular Fork

Low-Friction Platform

Linear Bearings

• Modular design offers compatibility with current and future

applications

Concept Selection

Analysis / Theory

Elastic Solid Mechanics, Static AnalysisDesign Criteria:

• Deflection

• Stress-life Design

• Bearing Design

Analysis Methods:

• Beam Model with Stress Concentration Factors

• Beam Model using TK Solver

• Finite Element Analysis (COSMOS/Works)

PrototypeCommercially Purchased Parts:

• Bishamon LPM-50 Lift Table

• Thomson DB Series Linear Rails

• Screw - down clamps (locks)

Custom Machined Parts:

• Structural Forks and Platforms (6061-T6 Aluminum)

• Low-Friction Sheeting (UHMW Polyethylene)

Assembly:

• Allen Cap Screws, Flat-head Machine Screws, nuts, washers

• Dowel Pins

Testing and Results

Interfacing with all machines and molds

Deflections of loaded members and assembly

Stability / Tipping forces

Conversion time

Loading and unloading time

Maneuverability

Forces required by user for operation

Wheel locks found insufficient

Cart not level

Budget

Fraunhofer Project Budget Goal: $3000

Off-the-Shelf or Commercially Available items· Hydraulic scissors lift cart $795· Linear bearings$1156· Fasteners (nuts, bolts, washers, etc.)$100

Raw Materials· Aluminum Stock$190

Wooden Model $60Machining Time (33 hours) $0Engineering Development (400 hours) $0Miscellaneous $90

TOTAL: $2391

Recommendations:

• Forks made from alternative materials

• Additional fork(s) for interfacing with future machines

• Improved wheel locking system

• Motorization and control of lifting and positioning

• Accessories bin for on-board parts storage