Microscope Holding Mechanism

Design and Fabrication of a
Miniature Tensile Load frame for a

Scanning Electron Microscope
Senior Design Team 04-004

Preliminary Design Report
February 20, 2004
Robert Rinefierd – Team Manager, Mechanical Engineer

Evan Kastner – Lead Engineer, Mechanical Engineer
Nicholas Currier – Mechanical Engineer
Blaine Stuart – Mechanical Engineer
Kennedy Mogwai – Industrial Engineer
Evan Brunner – Computer Engineer
Executive Summary
The tensile load frame is part of a series of projects funded by the Mechanical
Engineering Department to construct specialized lab equipment. The purpose of this
project was to design and construct a load frame for the scanning electron microscope
(SEM) in the CIMS Materials Science Lab. Mechanical Engineering faculty and students
will use the machine for research of metallographic structures during tensile testing.
Most tensile load frames will not fit within a small vacuum chamber, which makes this
design unique. In addition, most microscopes will not allow for dynamic analysis of
bonds, welds, or other areas of interest during a tensile test.
In addition to fitting inside the narrow packaging envelope in the vacuum
chamber, the load frame must operate safely in a vacuum environment. Many
mechanical constraints of the chamber limit the usable space to an envelope of 10 inches
long, 9 inches wide, and 3 inches high. All components must be vacuum-rated to avoid
contamination and outgassing. Also limiting the design is a maximum cost of $5,000.
Several concepts were evaluated, including a design using two power screws and
a motor inside the vacuum chamber, a hand driven design with a removable crank, a
design using a single driving screw and an internal motor, and a two screw design with a
motor mounted externally to the chamber. The two-screw design with an internal motor
was the recommendation from feasibility assessments and the design was developed.
The test samples will be standard ASTM cylindrical geometry with threaded ends.
Loads will range from 200 lb in compression to 2000 lb in tension, but 1000 lb is
acceptable. After calculating the torque required to raise the tension to 2000 lb from a
static condition, motors, gearboxes, and drivetrain components were researched to create
a mechanism to apply the necessary torque to the power screws. The design utilized a
mounting point on the existing SEM position fixture, necessitating a cantilever design,
where the two power screws support the free crosshead.
The driving source is a stepper motor using a controller with load feedback and a
position estimate. Load and position data will be recorded in Matlab and a user interface
will be designed to run the load frame from a laptop computer.
The design will be analyzed in ANSYS for stress and deflection analysis before
production begins. A functional assembly should be complete by May.
ii
Table of Contents
1 Recognize and Quantify the Need...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Mission Statement........................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Product Description .................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Scope Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 2
1.4 Stakeholders ................................................................................................................................ 2
1.5 Key Business Goals ..................................................................................................................... 2
1.6 Top Level Critical Financial Parameters.................................................................................... 3
1.7 Financial Analysis....................................................................................................................... 3
1.8 Preliminary Market ..................................................................................................................... 3
1.9 Secondary Markets ...................................................................................................................... 3
1.10 Order Qualifiers .......................................................................................................................... 3
1.11 Order Winners............................................................................................................................. 4
1.12 Innovation Opportunities............................................................................................................. 4
1.13 Background Research.................................................................................................................. 4

1.13.1 Describe the Need.............................................................................................................. 4
1.13.2 Categorize the Need........................................................................................................... 4
1.13.3 Constraints ......................................................................................................................... 5
1.13.4 Existing Products ............................................................................................................... 5
2 Concept Development......................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Overview of Tensile Testing Equipment ...................................................................................... 7
2.2 Integrating the Product with the Current Fixture ....................................................................... 9
2.3 Concept Design Proposals ........................................................................................................ 11
2.4 Concept 1 – Internal Motor with Two Driving Screws.............................................................. 14

2.4.1 Concept Overview ................................................................................................................ 14
2.4.2 Design Features .................................................................................................................... 14
2.4.3 Preliminary Bill of Materials ................................................................................................ 15
2.5 Concept 2 – Internal Motor with Single Driving Screw ............................................................ 17

2.5.2 Design Features .................................................................................................................... 17
iii
2.6 Concept 3 – Manually Driven Load Frame............................................................................... 21

2.6.2 Design Features .................................................................................................................... 21
2.7 Concept 4 - Exterior Motor with Two Driving Screws.............................................................. 24

2.7.2 Design Features .................................................................................................................... 24
3 Feasibility Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 26
3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 26
3.2 Evaluation of design concepts ................................................................................................... 26
3.3 Pugh Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 27
3.4 Weighted Concept Evaluation ................................................................................................... 27
3.5 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 29
3.6 Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 32
4 Objectives and Specifications........................................................................................................... 33
4.1 Design Objectives...................................................................................................................... 33
4.2 Performance Specifications....................................................................................................... 33
4.3 Design Specifications/Implementation ...................................................................................... 34
4.4 Evaluation Criteria.................................................................................................................... 34
4.5 Safety Standards ........................................................................................................................ 35
5 Analysis and Synthesis...................................................................................................................... 36
5.1 Design Structure Matrix (DSM) ................................................................................................ 36

5.1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 36
5.1.2 Problem Statement................................................................................................................ 36
5.1.3 Results analysis..................................................................................................................... 36
5.2 Motor and Gearbox Selection ................................................................................................... 37
5.3 Drive Train Component Selection ............................................................................................. 38
iv
5.4 Gripping Mechanism................................................................................................................. 41
5.4.1 The Need for Grips: .............................................................................................................. 41
5.4.2 Specifications of the Grips: .................................................................................................. 41
5.4.3 Specimen Size....................................................................................................................... 42
5.4.4 Purchased or Machined?....................................................................................................... 42
5.4.5 Final Design of Grips: .......................................................................................................... 43
5.4.6 Calculations: ......................................................................................................................... 43
5.5 Base and Frame......................................................................................................................... 44
5.6 Control and Display .................................................................................................................. 44
5.7 Vacuum Interface ...................................................................................................................... 46
5.8 Testing the Product for Reliability ............................................................................................ 47

5.8.1 What is A Test Plan .............................................................................................................. 47
5.8.2 Types of Test Plans............................................................................................................... 48
5.8.3 Objectives and Requirements of the Test Plan ..................................................................... 48
5.8.4 Test Integration Plan Contents.............................................................................................. 49
5.8.5 Detailed Test Plans and Procedures...................................................................................... 49
5.8.6 Test Report Requirements .................................................................................................... 50
5.8.7 Development, Demonstration, and Verification Tests.......................................................... 50
5.8.8 Program Scheduling ............................................................................................................. 50
5.8.9 Summary............................................................................................................................... 51
5.8.10 SEM Tensile Testing System Integrated Test Plan.......................................................... 51
5.8.11 Test Integration ................................................................................................................ 52
5.8.12 Individual Test Plans ....................................................................................................... 53
5.8.13 Components or Parts Processing...................................................................................... 53
5.8.14 Subassemblies Testing ..................................................................................................... 54
5.8.15 Deployment Testing......................................................................................................... 54
6 Preliminary Design ........................................................................................................................... 56
6.1 Part Numbers for Pro Engineer files......................................................................................... 56
6.2 Included Drawings .................................................................................................................... 56
v
1 Recognize and Quantify the Need
1.1 Project Mission Statement
The mission of this senior design team is to design and construct a tensile stage
for the scanning electron microscope (SEM) in the CIMS Materials Science Lab. The
tensile stage must be lightweight, affordable, and easy to carry.
1.2 Product Description
A scanning electron microscope (SEM) allows for high-powered magnification of
the surface or near-surface structure of specimens. Images are produced when a beam of
electrons is reflected off of the surface. A detector monitors the radiation and the
electrons scattered by the surface. Scattered energy and electrons form a surface profile,
which is mapped to a cathode ray tube and the image is formed. Apertures and magnets
act to focus the beam in much the same way that a lens would. However, the image is
not controlled by lenses, amplified only by changing the size of the raster, the area
scanned by the electron beam. Scanning electron microscopes are capable of much
higher levels of magnification than ordinary light microscopes, reaching magnifications
of 25,000X. In comparison, a typical light microscope may reach a maximum
magnification of 2000X. The most important characteristic of a scanning electron
microscope is that it has a large depth of field, allowing the image to stay in focus across
a rough surface. This is why the machine is ideal for examining fracture surfaces.
Currently, samples may only be evaluated without a load in the CIMS scanning
electron microscope. The surface analysis can only be performed on a sample before or
after testing. A load frame would allow the surface behavior of a sample to be monitored
under tensile loads. Distortion and elongation can be monitored dynamically on a
microscopic level while a tensile load is being applied. Applications for this project
would be to monitor local stress fields in welds, bond sites, or high stress areas. The
tensile stage is to be designed specifically for the SEM used in the CIMS Materials
Science Lab. Though opportunities may exist for incorporating product features into
future designs in industry, the product will be a single unit with no plans for mass
production.
1
1.3 Scope Limitations
The tensile stage must be designed and manufactured within 22 weeks of the
winter and spring quarters 2003-04. Sponsor Dr. Elizabeth DeBartolo will own the
tensile stage upon completion and it will be stored in the mechanical engineering
facilities. The National Center for Remanufacturing and Resource Recovery (NCR³),
owner of the SEM in the CIMS Materials Science Lab, has no current interest in the
product and will not be using it. Therefore, the product will need to be transported easily
to the CIMS building from the Engineering building.
The microscope has a position fixture, which is adjustable in X, Y, Z, tilt, and
rotation. A load frame would need to be positioned to scan the desired area, necessitating
a positioning mechanism. Due to the logistics of replacing the existing setup and the
expense of building an additional module, the design will use as much of the existing
fixture as possible. It is not feasible to construct a new position fixture and incorporate it
with the load frame and is therefore beyond the scope of the project.
1.4 Stakeholders
Major stakeholders in the project are Dr. DeBartolo and faculty members of the
Mechanical Engineering Department who may be performing materials research.
Additional stakeholders would include any thesis students or undergraduate students who
wish to perform advanced materials research with a scanning electron microscope.
1.5 Key Business Goals
This project is part of a series of projects funded by the Mechanical Engineering
Department, the goal of which is the design and construction of lab equipment for use by
mechanical engineering students and faculty. With financial constraints limiting the
ability to purchase new equipment, some highly specialized equipment that may not be
widely used will be designed and constructed with funding from the Mechanical
Engineering Department. Ultimately, the goal is to design for the production of one load
frame. If the design is innovative and successful, it may be presented at an ASTM
conference in the spring with other student designs. A possibility exists to market the
design to various manufacturers at such conferences, but this is not a requirement.
2
1.6 Top Level Critical Financial Parameters
(Add things here)
1.7 Financial Analysis
The product is tentatively limited to an overall cost of $5,000. This number is
subject to change, pending department approval and expenses of purchased components.
In addition to the purchased components, raw material cost is the only other major
expense. Use of the College of Engineering machine shop is free and manufacturing time
is not a monetary expense. Also, the necessary software packages (Pro Engineer and
ANSYS) are already available in the Mechanical Engineering labs, so no software costs
exist.
1.8 Preliminary Market
As the project is funded by the Department of Mechanical Engineering, the
preliminary markets for this product are the students and faculty of the department who
may be performing metallographic research with the SEM in the CIMS Materials Science
Lab. The market will be very selective, as all users shall obtain permission from the lab
supervisor in CIMS as well as a faculty advisor before using the machine.
1.9 Secondary Markets
The secondary markets for this product are students of other disciplines of
engineering and possibly their faculty. In addition, manufacturers of mechanical testing
equipment may be approached with the results of this project. Though they currently
have no interest in the product, engineers in the CIMS Materials Science Lab may find
applications for it if a successful product is developed. This module may lead to new
NCR³ research projects involving the SEM.
1.10 Order Qualifiers
The product shall be modular, easy to install, and lightweight. It should be simple
to manufacture, consisting of components that can be machined and assembled during
spring quarter. It shall have at least one working set of grips to accommodate either flat
or cylindrical specimens. Most importantly, it will have a position and load display,
allowing the samples to reach the correct tensile loads. The machine will meet the
sponsor’s minimum load capacity of 1000 lb.
3
1.11 Order Winners
The frame shall fit inside the SEM chamber; this distinguishes it from the
standard laboratory load frames. Most importantly, the load frame shall not interfere
with the functionality of the SEM, allowing for dynamic analysis of a sample in tension.
Tension can be adjusted while the chamber is at vacuum pressure, so multiple images
may be created at varying tensile loads. It will accommodate loads ranging from 2000 lb
in tension to 200 lb in compression.
1.12 Innovation Opportunities
Though this is a single product not intended for major production or design
improvements, some innovation opportunities exist. The possibility exists for using
interchangeable grips. The use of threaded grips, v-grips, and flat grips would
accommodate almost any test sample that fits within the SEM chamber and load frame.
Cylindrical and rectangular samples could be analyzed. Design ideas may also be
marketed at an ASTM conference in the spring. Future senior design projects could
adapt the product for high temperature testing and testing microscale structures. Other
projects might involve the design of a tensile fatigue load frame roughly based on the
tensile frame developed in the project.
1.13 Background Research
1.13.1 Describe the Need
A description of the customer’s needs was prepared using sketches and various
written ideas. The manager’s ideas were compared with the customer’s needs. In the
span of three initial meetings, the customer provided feedback and contributed additional
ideas towards the Needs Assessment.
1.13.2 Categorize the Need
Category 4. New Problem, No Process or Product.
The SEM currently analyzes samples with no loading. Though reasonable
observations may be made with no applied load, much can be learned about the material
by its dynamic behavior under various tensile loads. RIT does not own a product capable
of applying tensile or compressive loads within the microscope’s vacuum chamber.
Relatively recent technology led to the development of other SEM tensile stages and only
a few designs currently exist. Though a load frame might be available for purchase, the
4
cost would be prohibitive. As a result, the project will allow for the design and
development of a cheaper customized product to meet the research needs of the customer.
1.13.3 Constraints
The major constraints of the design process are the size limitation, material cost,
time for design and development, and time for manufacture. The fixture must fit within
the vacuum chamber and any electrical or mechanical connection must be properly
sealed. Port doors are replaceable with custom doors or windows and the seal must be
strong enough to withstand the vacuum pressure. The load frame must stay within an
envelope 3” high, 9” wide, and 10” deep. Components may extend outside the chamber
if the protruding parts are properly sealed.
As the fixture is intended for the private non-commercial use of students and
faculty, it will not have any applicable industry standards or regulatory agencies to
govern the design, installation, or service of the product. However, it will meet the
approval of the SEM’s owner before installation. The product is a single unit of
production, customized for the microscope and position fixture in the CIMS Materials
Science Lab and will not be sold. Market prices are not important, but cost must be kept
within the allotted budget. The design is therefore not under as many constraints as a
marketed product, and it is a new problem. Though no product exists, designs may be
based on similar existing products.
1.13.4 Existing Products
Two existing products were identified which provided some ideas for the design.
The design created by Lehigh University (Figure 1.1) was not patented, but a detailed
photograph allowed for analysis of the drivetrain setup and provided the team with an
idea with which to begin the design process. It was the basis for the idea of a two-screw
motor-driven design. The design employs two power screws with spur gears on the ends
of each screw. A position sensor and load sensor are included. A motor and gearbox
combination drives the system. A series of gear reductions occur with the help of a
worm/worm gear pair and some spur gears.
The other product was a US patent and was not as helpful in creating the design.
In both cases, the budgets seemed to be considerably higher than that of this team, so
5
only the basic layout and some machine functions could be adopted into this design.
However, this discovery confirmed that such a fixture could be designed and built.
Figure 1.1 - Lehigh University concept
6
2 Concept Development
Initial concepts were designed after a period of research, capturing a wide variety
of ideas from all team members. Beginning with background research on existing tensile
testing equipment, the design team reviewed existing full-scale load frames. Full-scale
machines provided the team with ideas for the initial concept designs. Brainstorming
sessions were performed for the more serious design concerns, including the integration
of the load frame into the existing scanning electron microscope and determining a basic
setup for the electronic control system. A series of team proposals were made for various
combinations of modules and for a general machine layout. The top four proposals were
developed with detailed concept sketches, a short report, a preliminary bill of materials,
and a preliminary cost analysis. Team members reviewed each concept proposal and
contributed ideas towards the robust development of each design in preparation for the
feasibility assessment.
2.1 Overview of Tensile Testing Equipment
Uniaxial tensile testing is one of the most frequently performed mechanical tests.
On a full-scale machine, this type of test generally involves gripping a specimen at both
ends and subjecting it to an increasing axial load until it breaks. Collection of load and
elongation data during the test allows the operator to determine several characteristics
about the mechanical behavior of the material. Tensile-testing equipment consists of
several types of devices that apply a controlled tensile load to test specimens. The
equipment is capable of varying the rate of load and accurately measuring the forces,
strains, and elongations applied to the specimen.
Tensile-testing equipment has evolved from purely mechanical or
electromechanical machines to sophisticated instruments that employ advanced
electronics and microcomputers. The current technology of tensile testing equipment
primarily consist of the force application, moving crosshead, gripping mechanism, fixed
base, control and display panels. (see Figure 2.1).
The load frame for this project was designed to work within the chamber of a
scanning electron microscope (SEM), allowing for microstructure analysis during tensile
tests. Most full-scale load frames will not fit within a microscope chamber. This
machine will allow analysis of microstructures during the tensile tests. The load frame is
7
scaled-down, but will still include some of the technological advances of a modern tensile
load frame.
Figure2.1 – Diagram of Tensile Testing Equipment
Tensile Testing
Equipment
Servo hydraulic Electromechanical
Control & Gripping Fixed Driving High-Torque

Crosshead
Display Method Base screws Motors
Screw Wedge Button Pneumatic

2 Screws 4 Screws
Action Type head Action
8
2.2 Integrating the Product with the Current Fixture
Some of the most critical and difficult design decisions involved the incorporation
of the load frame within the existing microscope chamber. The scope of the project does
not involve designing a position fixture with the load frame, and as a result, the load
frame must be designed to fit the constraints of the existing position fixture. Early in the
concept development process, a brainstorming session identified most of the potential
problems that must be overcome to integrate the load frame into the existing SEM. The
twenty problems are listed in Table 1. Each group member placed four votes for the
problems that they deemed the most important to overcome. The more important issues
were identified: maintaining a vacuum seal for wires and/or components that may pass
through the chamber, the size and location constraints of the chamber, the ability to
control the applied force and position, and the portability of the module. Though not
identified as an initial concern, cost grew in importance as research progressed on grips,
motors, and other purchased components. Also growing in importance was the vacuum
rating of all components.
9
Table 2.1 Brainstorming results for development problems.
Problems that must be overcome to integrate load stage with SEM Votes Rank
Maintaining vacuum seal / sealing methods 5 1
Size and location constraints of the chamber 5 1
Ease of assembly 0 NR
Grounding of sample (electrically) 2 5
Ease of installation 0 NR
Removing part of existing fixture / disconnecting wires 0 NR
Don’t interfere with electron gun 0 NR
No electrical interference 0 NR
Meets approval of machine owner (Mike H.) 1 6
Displaying load 0 NR
Portable 3 3
Lightweight 0 NR
Control of applied force and position 3 3
Control of grips 0 NR
Wire interface through door 0 NR
Cleanliness / no oil or impurities 0 NR
Securing load frame 1 6
Mechanical losses in motor 0 NR
Cost limit ~ $5,000 0 NR
Vacuum rating of components 0 NR
Distribution of load evenly in samples 0 NR
Since the team is composed of four mechanical engineers and one industrial
engineer, incorporating an electrical control system was a major challenge for the team.
In order to further analyze the interaction of the tension control system, an empathy
session was performed. Bob performed the role of the power screws, while Evan
performed the role of the motor. Blaine performed the role of the grips, Nick acted as the
control/display module, and Kennedy performed the role of the test sample. An operator
10
(not portrayed) places the sample inside of the grips (Blaine) and tightens them manually.
Once the sample is sufficiently tight, the operator turns a dial on the control box (Nick) to
apply the tension. The control box sends a signal to the motor to rotate at a specified
torque based on the desired tension. The motor (Evan) needs a drivetrain (not portrayed)
to interact with the screws (Bob). As the screws turn, the sample (Kennedy) gradually
stretches. A load cell (not portrayed) is needed to transmit force data and a position
sensor (not portrayed) is needed for transmitting position data to the controller. When the
sample reaches its specified tension, the control box needs to cut the power on the motor
and lock position at the desired tension. The screws are self-locking and hold the sample
at the desired tension. Simply cutting the power to the motor is a sufficient solution (see
Figure 2.?).
Several issues present themselves during the empathy session. One major issue
was supplying power to the motor and controls. Also, if the control box needs to interact
with the motor in addition to load and position sensors, the module must be customized
and have some programming functionality. The module may have to interpret signals
and convert them to a desired output. In order to prevent sample slipping, the grips
should be threaded, knurled, or grooved. The screws should not elongate or deflect in
bending. Fine pitch screws would provide the best position control and minimize
backlash. Most importantly, the motor’s torque output should be sufficiently high to
avoid stalling, a problem with potentially disastrous results.
2.3 Concept Design Proposals
The initial concept design proposals involved various load frames based around
the same concept with different features. Four design choices were made for each design,
as the machine already had several constraints and would not allow radically different
concepts. Grip types were varied, including screw-driven, self-locking wedge grips, and
motor driven. Motors were varied between stepper motors and torque motors. The
support structure was either sliding or cantilever. The cantilever would have a fixed grip
and a moving grip that is supported only by the driving screws. A sliding support would
have a plate with runners to support the moving grip. Screws, gears, and belts were
considered as drivetrain options. Each group member had a maximum of four votes, but
did not have to use all of them.
11
Table 2.2 - Initial Concept Proposals
Grip Type Motor Type Support Drivetrain Votes Rank
1 Screw grips Torque motor Sliding base Screws/gears 5 1
2 Screw grips Stepper motor Sliding base Screws/gears 1
3 Self locking Torque motor Sliding base Screws/gears 3 2
4 Motor grips Torque motor Cantilever Gears/shafts 0
base
5 Motor grips Torque motor Cantilever Screws/gears 1
base
6 Motor grips Torque motor Sliding base Screws/gears 2 3
7 Screw grips Torque motor Cantilever Screws/gears 2 3
base
8 Screw grips Torque motor Sliding base Gears/shafts 1
9 Motor grips Torque motor Cantilever Gears/shafts 1
base
10 Self locking Torque motor Sliding base Belts 0
11 Self locking Stepper motor Sliding base Gears/shafts 1
12 Motor grips Stepper motor Sliding base Gears/shafts 0
13 Motor grips Stepper motor Sliding base Screws/gears 0
14 Screw grips Torque motor Sliding base Belts 0
15 Screw grips Torque motor Sliding base Hydraulics 0
The initial brainstorming session led to several design choices. Belts and
hydraulics would not be considered as options for the drivetrain. Hydraulics would not
be feasible because of the vacuum pressure and possible leakage of hydraulic fluid. In
addition, the price of a hydraulic system would be prohibitive. Due to the small size of
the system, belts would not achieve the necessary speed reduction. A good gearbox
should be sufficient to achieve the necessary speed reduction from the motor to the
screws. The top four concepts had many similar features. Distinguishing between a
design decision and a completely different concept design is difficult. Purchased
components, such as the motor, gearbox, grips, and load cell dramatically increase cost.
12
Choices must be finalized after various concept proposals incorporate the components in
different configurations. As a result, the group reconvened and proposed a new set of
designs. The set of concepts was more general and focused on the creation of a generic
load frame varying the style and location of the drivetrain.
Table 2.3 - Final Concept Development Proposals

Concept Description Votes Rank
1 2 drive screws with internal motor and gearbox 5 1
2 1 drive screw with internal motor and gearbox 5 1
3 2 drive screws with mechanical hand crank/gearbox 5 1
4 2 drive screws with an external motor/gearbox 4 1
5 1 drive screw with an external motor/gearbox 0 NR
6 4 drive screws with an internal motor/gearbox 0 NR
7 4 drive screws with an external motor/gearbox 0 NR
8 2 drive screws with motor and no gearbox 1 5
Concepts 1-4 were chosen for development and analysis in further detail.
Concept development studies focused on a concept overview, design features, a
preliminary bill of materials and some initial assembly sketches to work out the basic
logistics of the design and obtain a cost estimate.
13
2.4 Concept 1 – Internal Motor with Two Driving Screws
2.4.1 Concept Overview
Concept 1 is an internal motor driven, two-screw, cantilever load frame contained
within the vacuum chamber of the SEM. The main features of this concept are screw-
tightened grips; a gearbox to screw drivetrain powered either a torque or stepper motor,
and a cantilever mounting setup. The specific type of motor to be used (aside from
discussion of its maximum power capabilities), and the method through which it is
controlled is still a topic of speculation (heated discussion among unknowledgeable
parties). As long as the grips are light and the screws are of sufficient size, deflection
shouldn’t be an issue with this design. All fabricated parts within the SEM will be
machined from AISI 304 stainless steel or an equivalent alloy. If the screws bend too
much, loading would not be pure axial tension and force readings would not be accurate.
The weight of the support on the fixed end should be fairly small, as the gearbox weighs
less than 2 pounds. Grips could be purchased, but another cost-reduction option is a
custom set of grips to fit the exact specifications of the chamber. As a result, weight and
size are minimized.
2.4.2 Design Features
On the fixed end, the gearbox and one grip will be fastened to an L-shaped
support. The support will be stiff, strong, and corrosion resistant. The two power screws
will support the free end and drive it while applying tension or adjusting position before
gripping. As stated above, stainless steel will be the material of choice for the screws and
both grip supports because of its strength and corrosion resistance in the lubricant free
environment. All machined surfaces must be free of any cutting oils and contaminants
before installation to avoid contamination of the vacuum chamber.
Turning a screw on the jaw modules will loosen and tighten grips. Ideally, grips
will be purchased from Tinius Olsen, MTT, Instron, or another leading competitor. The
cost of a vacuum rated motor and gearbox, vacuum-sealed electrical feed-through, not to
mention the load cell, leave little budget left for grips, and fabricating a set that will work
to perfection in a laboratory is cause for concern. Tinius Olsen has set a current standard
with a set of grips that meet the design requirements, although a bit larger in size than
preferred, for $2000. Instron may be able to provide a set of smaller remanufactured
14
acceptable grips for considerably less money. The grips will have a wedge mechanism,
moving the jaws closer together as a screw is tightened. The fixed grip will incorporate a
load cell to measure tensile force in the sample.
A small display box will incorporate a live display for tension and position.
Position display will be absolute and of mostly cosmetic benefit, however, the extremes
of travel will be entered into the control logic to keep the free end within its specified
limits. Wires will run through an existing port in the microscope chamber and connect to
a position sensor on the motor and a load cell in the fixed grip.
A feasible design could be created for $6,000-8,000, but several decisions must
first be made. Grips could be machined, but the issue would become incorporating the
load cell in the grips. The aim of this design is to provide a cost-effective solution to the
expressed wishes of the customer without major compromise, respecting that cost-
effective may still exceed the original budget allowance.
2.4.3 Preliminary Bill of Materials
Qty Description Purchased or Price
Machined (estimated)
1 Vacuum rated motor Purchased $1200
1 Vacuum-rated gearbox Purchased $2400
1 Additional Gearing Worm/ Idler/ Mount to Screw Purchased $100
2 Power Screws Machined $50
1 Load cell Purchased $500
1 Live display for load/position Both $100
1 Fixed end – grip support Machined $100
1 Free end – grip support Machined $50
1 Set (2) of wedge acting grips Purchased $2000
1 Set of assorted wires for electronic controls Purchased $5
50 Assorted sizes of cap screws Purchased $5
1 Vacuum Sealed Electrical Interface Purchased $500
1 Control module for motor Both $100
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $6000
15
Figure 2.2 - Concept 1 sketch – top view (upper) and front view (lower)
16
2.5 Concept 2 – Internal Motor with Single Driving Screw
Concept 2 is similar to Concept 1, except that it has a single driving screw. This
concept will consist of six modules: high-torque motor, driving screws, a mounting
frame, grips, vacuum interface, and display and control for load and position. The
gripping module will employ a set of wedge-type grips. One grip will be fixed to the
mounting frame. The free end’s grips will connect to the motor drive shaft through a
plate guided by a keyway (in the mounting frame) to transform rotational motion into
linear motion. The size of the torque motor and position of the grips result in a difficult
challenge: handling the space restrictions of the chamber. With this in mind, the plan is to
purchase the following modules: motor, grips and drive screws. The other modules will
be fabricated to fit the purchased components.
MODULE Action and Feature
Gripping ¾ Purchase
¾ Method of fastening
o Self locking
Power ¾ Purchase
o Torque motor
Mounting/Frame ¾ Fabricate
¾ Fixed base
¾ 1 Sliding Grip
Control/Display ¾ Fabricate/Purchase
¾ External
o Load
o Position
o Start
17
o Stop
Drive Train ¾ Purchase

¾ Drive Screws
o 1
Interface ¾ Vacuum
¾ Clearance
Based on Test Specimens that will be approximately 3 inches long with a gage
length of 1 inch, a set of Action Wedge grips will be suitable. Their cost is not known,
but they come in various sizes and load ratings. The grips will have a load capacity of
1,000 to 60,000 lb, with flat or V-style inserts, movable grip body, stationary inserts, and
a hand wheel activated sure-grip unit configured for quick attachment and removal. The
body will be made of high-strength aluminum, or a steel alloy with anodizing or an oxide
finish.
For the force application module, the concept will utilize a frameless limited
angle torque motor. The details of the motor are shown in the supporting documents
attached. The cost of the motors varies with size and rating.
A Control/Display module box will incorporate a live display of the force and
position of the grips. A closed loop servo drive system will be considered (funds
permitting), that will control the crosshead (free-end grip) motion. Because of the high
forces involved, the drive train will be machined to close tolerances to eliminate
backlash, friction and tear. All components enclosed in the vacuum chamber will be
vacuum-safe and free of interference.
18
Qty Description Purchased Price
or Machined (estimated)
1 Torque Motor Purchased $2000
1 Motor Shaft Purchased $50
1 Lead Screw Purchased $100
1 Transfer plate Machined $100
1 Bearing and pre load nut Machined $100
1 Set (2) of Wedge grips Purchase $2500
1 Optical Encoder Purchased $250
1 Mounting Frame Machine $100
20 Cap screws (Assorted sizes) Purchased $20
1 Interface circuitry Purchased $50
1 Control/Display Panel and Accessories Both $400
19
Figure 2.3 - Concept sketch - single screw internally driven
20
2.6 Concept 3 – Manually Driven Load Frame
Concept 3 is a mechanically driven load frame with a drivetrain inside the
microscope chamber. The main features of this concept are screw-tightened grips, a
gearbox to screw drivetrain powered by a hand crank, and a cantilever mounting setup.
The potential benefit of this design is a lighter and cheaper frame, as no plates would be
used for sliding guides. Friction would be reduced without runners or a support plate. As
long as the grips are light and the screws are stiff and strong, bending deflection
shouldn’t be an issue with this design. However, if the screws bend too much, loading
would not be pure axial tension and force readings would not be accurate. As a result the
load must be kept uniaxial. The weight of the support on the fixed end should be fairly
small, as the gearbox weighs less than 2 pounds. Grips could be purchased, but another
cost-reduction option is a custom set of grips to fit the exact specifications of the
chamber. As a result, weight and size are minimized.
Similar to other potential concept designs, some of the major components will be
purchased. A generic “black box” version will represent the purchased components until
decisions are finalized in the feasibility assessment. Further analysis will be done on the
gearbox and the other “black box” components after they are selected for the system.
On the fixed end, the gearbox and one grip will be fastened to an L-shaped
support. The support will be stiff, strong, and corrosion resistant to avoid contamination
of the vacuum chamber. The two power screws will support the weight of the free end
and drive it while applying tension or adjusting position before gripping. Stainless steel
will be the material of choice (maybe AISI 304) for both grip supports because of its
corrosion resistance. All machined surfaces will be free of any cutting oils and
contaminants before installation to avoid contamination of the vacuum chamber.
Turning a screw on the jaw modules will loosen and tighten grips. Ideally, grips
will be purchased from Tinius Olsen, MTT, Instron, or another leading competitor.
Should the motor be eliminated from the design, grips can be purchased without
adversely affecting the budget. Tentative prices are around $2,000 for a set of Tinius-
Olsen grips that is ideal for this fixture. The grips will have a wedge mechanism, moving
21
the jaws closer together as a screw is tightened. The fixed grip will incorporate a load
cell to measure tensile force in the sample. Money saved from eliminating the motor can
be spent on the load and position sensors or possibly a vacuum seal through the chamber
door for an external crank.
A small display box will incorporate a live display for tension and position.
Functions within the display will allow both tension and position to be zeroed. Wires
will run through an existing port in the microscope chamber and connect to a position
sensor on the motor and a load cell in the fixed grip. .
Cost is the major factor in this design. A feasible design could be created for
$4,000-5,000, but several decisions must first be made. Grips could be machined, but the
issue would become incorporating the load cell in the grips. The potential shortcoming
with this conceptual design is the 15-20 minutes necessary to depressurize the chamber
after each load adjustment. A possible solution is to feed a flexible vacuum-sealed
driveshaft through the chamber wall, allowing tension to be adjusted dynamically. If the
cost limit is not exceeded, this design should be acceptable.
1 Vacuum-rated gearbox Purchased $1000
1 Stainless steel for crank mechanism Machined $40
1 Load cell Purchased $500
1 Live display for load/position Both $100
1 Fixed end – grip support Machined $100
1 Free end – grip support Machined $50
1 Set (2) of wedge acting grips Purchased $2000
50 Cap screws (assorted sizes) Purchased $5
1 Control module for motor Both $100
22
Figure 2.4 - Concept 3 sketch (top)
Figure 2.5 - Concept 3 sketch (side)
Figure 2.6 - Concept 3 gearbox and crank interaction
23
2.7 Concept 4 - Exterior Motor with Two Driving Screws
The main feature of Concept 4 is that the motor supplying the tension is mounted
on the outside of the machine. The potential benefits of this design are more space within
the chamber for the rest of the load frame and the avoidance of problems with the motor
overheating. In a vacuum, air cooled motors will overheat if they are operated too long.
The main challenge for this design is maintaining a good driving torque as the load frame
moves.
Most of the major components will be purchased. Depending on the price and
size constraints, sizes and locations may change somewhat. As a result, a generic black
box will represent the purchased components until decisions are finalized in the
feasibility assessment. Further analysis will be done on the motor and the other “black
box” components after they are selected for the system.
A vacuum interface for the motor and shaft will be mounted on the door. Because
of tight tolerances, this product must be purchased. A potential solution costs $2625.00,
which is expensive, but may eliminate some other costs in the process. The shaft in the
chamber is rated to 150 ounce-inches torque. (http://files.n-c.com/pdf/catalogs/8-
sample_transfer.pdf page 10) The shaft will be connected to a gearbox that will provide a
torque sufficient enough to apply the desired tensile force to the sample. The motor will
power the driving screws, the means of applying tension.
A control box will incorporate a live display for tension and position. The control
box on this motor may aid in controlling the system. Buttons on the live display will
allow both tension and position to be zeroed. An additional wire port will be added if a
load cell is necessary. The wire pass-through costs about $80.
24
1 Motor & Pass-Through (vacuum) Purchased $2750
1 Load cell & Wire Pass-Through Purchased $600
2 Grip supports Machined $200
1 Set (2) of wedge acting grips (Tinius Olsen) Purchased $2000
50 Cap screws (assorted sizes) Purchased $5
1 Gearbox Both $800
Figure 2.7 - Concept 4 - similar to other concept designs, except for the external motor.
25
3 Feasibility Assessment
3.1 Introduction
Evaluation is a critical part of the design process. It is a decision-making activity.
Original design works is evaluated at the concept stage and after the details of a machine
has been finalized. Different evaluation methods are required for different activities.
Methods used for assessing detailed design are generally inappropriate for the evaluation
of design concepts because the details of the purchased equipment are not yet available at
the concept stage. In many cases, proprietary equipment will be selected and incorporated
into a larger design scheme. Therefore methods for comparing equipment are needed.
Small items of proprietary equipment can be evaluated in great detail, but to carry out
very detailed assessment of large machines would be extremely time consuming and, in
most cases, inappropriate. Also, there will be times when only a limited amount of
detailed information is available about some proprietary equipment. Therefore, the
evaluation of equipment needs to be considered with respect to the particular case under
consideration and appropriate methods adopted. Qualitative and quantitative methods
may be used according to the requirements of individual cases.
In this case, a range of evaluation methods and principles will be used to
qualitatively and quantitatively assess the four concepts. The attributes to be included in
this evaluation are resource, economical, schedule, and technical feasibilities.
3.2 Evaluation of design concepts

For this project a weighted evaluation is used side by side with a Pugh evaluation.
In each case the resource feasibility is broken down into sufficient skills, sufficient
equipment, sufficient number of people, and availability of purchased components.
Components of the schedule feasibility include the chances of meeting the intermediate
mileposts, chances of meeting the PDR requirements, and chances of meeting the CDR
requirements. Economical feasibility will be scaled by the percentage of total required
funds allocated. Technical feasibility will be based on distinguished levels as depicted in
the evaluation worksheets.
26
3.3 Pugh Evaluation
This method is similar to the ‘paired comparison’ method of evaluation used in
creative problem solving. The method is a qualitative evaluation in which design
concepts are compared to a reference design concept. The reference concept is a
derivative of the generic tensile testing configuration, scaled down to size to fit in the
SEM chamber. An evaluation matrix is constructed as shown in worksheet 1, comprising
the four concepts, which are arranged against the assessment attribute, or criteria. The
reference concept is then chosen as the datum. Each concept is then compared with the
datum with respect to each assessment criterion, or attribute, independently. If a concept
is deemed better than the datum with respect to a certain attribute then a “+” is inserted
into the matrix for that concept against that attribute, if a concept is worse than the datum,
then a “–“ is inserted, and if it is the same as the datum, or if no judgment whatsoever can
be made, then a “0” is inserted. Thus the matrix is completed with “+”, “-“ and “0” points
and the “+”, “-“ and “0” ratings are totaled for each concept.
The matrix highlights the strength and weakness of concepts. The objective is to
eliminate week concepts and to identify those strong concepts that are suitable for further
design work.
3.4 Weighted Concept Evaluation

Also known as the systematic quantitative method, the weighted concept
evaluation is performed in six steps; define the assessment criteria, set the value
judgment, determine relative importance of criteria, performance prediction, converting
the performance to score values, and computing the overall value.
The assessment criteria resemble that of the Pugh evaluation except that they
estimate relative importance of attributes. Weights are developed through a comparison
of row attributes and column attributes and tallying the row, column, and “row + column”
totals. The relative weights or importance of each attribute are computed by dividing each
of the attribute “row + column” values by the total of the “row + column” values.
Horizontal arrows signify row attributes are more important than column
attributes, vertical arrows signify column attributes are more important than row
27
attributes, and a diagonal arrow signifies no significant difference between row and
column attributes. Refer to Figures 1A and 2. Figure 1A depicts attributes and figure 2
depicts the modules.
Value judgment is set by defining a range of performance from an upper value of
perfectly acceptable performance to a lower limit that defines the threshold of complete
unacceptability. A value score of 5 is given to the perfectly acceptable or much better
than the datum, or reference concept, and a value of 4 is given for better than reference
concept, value of 3 implies same as reference concept, a value of 2 is given for worse
than reference concept, and a value of 1 is given when a concept is much worse than the
reference concept.
The overall performance value is computed by the summation of the product of
the percentage importance weight value with attribute score for each concept. The design
concept with the greatest overall value is the preferred choice. However, if concepts are
very close in score, the designers may not choose the best concept from the feasibility
assessment.
28
3.5 Results
S.E.M. Tensile Stage 04004

Pugh Evaluation Worksheet
Baseline Concept Internal motor/gearbox -2 screws
ATTRIBUTE CONCEPT 1 CONCEPT 2 CONCEPT 3
Reource Feasibility
R1 Sufficient skills 0 - +
R2 Sufficient equipment 0 0 +
R3 Sufficient number of people 0 - +
R4 Availability of purchased components 0 - +
R5
Economical Feasibility $5,690.00 $6,460.00 $4,000.00

E1 % of total required funds we have 0 - +
E2
E3
Schedule Feasibility
S1 Chances of meeting the intermidiate mileposts 0 - +
S2 Chances of meeting the PDR requirements 0 - -
S3 Chances of meeting the CDR requirements 0 - -
S4
Technical Feasibility**
T1 fFeasibility Level (L0, L1, L2, L3, L4) 0 0 0
T2
T3
Scores 0 7 4
Number of Pluses 0 0 6
Number of zeros 9 2 1
Number of negatives 0 7 2
29
Figure 3.1 - Relative Weights for Module Importance to overall design
Figure 3.2 - Weighted importance of modules for concept proposals
Figure 3.3 - Relative weights for Weighted Concept Evaluation
30
S.E.M. Tensile Stage 04004
Weighted Evaluation Worksheet
Baseline Concept Internal motor/gearbox -2 screws
RELATIVE CONCEPT CONCEPT CONCEPT

ATTRIBUTE WEIGHT# 1 2 3
Reource Feasibility
R1 Sufficient skills 0.083 3 2 4
R2 Sufficient equipment 0.097 3 3 4
R3 Sufficient number of people 0.014 3 2 4
R4 Availability of purchased components 0.153 3 2 4
R5
Economical Feasibility
E1 % of total required funds we have 0.194 3 1 5
E2
E3
Schedule Feasibility
S1 Chances of meeting the intermidiate mileposts 0.028 3 1 4
S2 Chances of meeting the PDR requirements 0.167 3 1 2
S3 Chances of meeting the CDR requirements 0.194 3 1 2
S4
Technical Feasibility**
T1 Feasibility Level (L0, L1, L2, L3, L4) 0.069 3 3 3
T2
T3
RAW SCORE 2.997 1.581 3.399
NORMALIZED SCORE 0.999 0.527 1.133
31
3.6 Conclusion
Based on the results of the two evaluation methods, two concepts will be
considered for future development. The main focus, however, will be devoted to the
datum or reference concept, which yielded the greatest overall performance value of 3.
This concept will consist of six modules. The module will use a machined set of threaded
grips, an internally mounted stepper motor, a twin-screw drive train, external mounted
control and display panel, a fixed mounting frame, and a vacuum friendly interface for
wires. There is a similar working model (in terms of size) at Lehigh University.
The other concept, with the second largest overall performance value of 2.931, is concept
3, which differs from the latter by employing manual power instead of the torque motor.
The concept will be pre-loaded by a hand crank prior to closing the SEM Chamber. This
concept will also serve as a backup plan, depending on the economical feasibility of
stepper motors and other purchased components for the preferred concept.
32
4 Objectives and Specifications
4.1 Design Objectives
The design objectives for the S.E.M. Load Frame, the key purposes and goals for
this project, must be met while taking into effect the constraints of the vacuum chamber.
The load frame must fit within the scanning electron microscope’s vacuum chamber. As
the load frame must work inside the vacuum chamber of the electron microscope
compartment all components of the frame must be designed to work safely within the
vacuum environment. While inside the vacuum chamber, the load frame must not
interfere with the electron gun or the detector. Such interference would compromise
image quality and possibly damage the machine if components come into contact with
each other. At least one set of working grips will be included in the load frame’s design
and be able to handle at least 2000 lbs of tension. These main grips will hold cylindrical
specimens with threaded ends. Samples will be easy to install, since the work needed to
install a sample will be minimal.
As the load frame will be the property of Dr. DeBartolo, it will have to be
modular and easy to install and remove from the load frame. In addition, the module will
be stored in the mechanical engineering facilities, but used at the CIMS building. As a
result it must be lightweight and easy to carry between buildings.
4.2 Performance Specifications
The load frame must meet several performance criteria. In order to meet the
customer’s minimum needs, the machine must support a load of at least 1000 lb in
tension and 200 lb in compression. For safety and logistical reasons, the machine must
have the capability of both position and load control, with a switch that allows the
operator to select either option. Position control is needed for adjusting the movable grip
and securing the test specimen. Load control will drive the sample during the tensile test,
but in the event of a fracture, position control may be used to halt motion of the grip.
Because the customer desires a display for load and specimen deflection an
automated control system will incorporate live displays for load and position. The
control system will remain outside of the chamber and will have a power source separate
from the SEM.
33
4.3 Design Specifications/Implementation
Due to the design of the existing SEM position fixture, the load frame will be
customized to that specific machine. The position fixture contains several stepper motors
that control x, y, z, tilt, and rotation. Budget and time constraints prohibit designing a
new position fixture to accommodate the load frame. As a result, the rotation module
will be removed to make room for the load frame and provide a mounting location for the
load frame without removing the position fixture. To allow for easy mounting, the design
must be modular, consisting of several components that easily assemble.
The operation of the machine involves a series of mechanical devices to achieve
appropriate sample tension. The drive train consists of a stepper motor, which couples to
a gearbox, driving a series of spur gears, which in turn drive a pair of ACME thread
power screws. One grip will remain fixed while the two ACME screws drive the other
grip. Custom designed grips will accommodate threaded cylindrical samples with a 1”
gage length. The motor control is located outside of the SEM vacuum chamber, so the
wires must pass through a vacuum-tight feed-through in the chamber door.
4.4 Evaluation Criteria
Before installation of the product, it must meet a set of evaluation criteria. All
part designs will be verified by modeling in Pro Engineer and stress analysis calculations
in ANSYS. Fatigue calculations will ensure that the power screws and any fasteners will
hold for the lifetime of the module (104 to 105 cycles should be sufficient). In addition,
torque calculations for the power screws will ensure that the motor will meet its
performance standards and avoid stalling. After verifying the performance capability
through simulation, the load frame will be tested outside of the vacuum chamber by
loading a sample specimen to maximum tensile and compressive loads.
Other important criteria for the machine’s performance that must be met are as
follows: If a sample fails in the vacuum chamber, there will be safety constraints to
ensure that the sample will not damage the microscope. The drive train must handle the
specified loads of 1000 lb tension and 200 lb compression. Samples will be tightly
secured and should not loosen during operation. The module must fit in the chamber and
be easy to install. The surfaces of all parts must be corrosion resistant and free of any
impurities and oils to avoid contamination of the vacuum chamber. The automatic
34
controls must function while the chamber is sealed and provide a live load and position
feedback within reasonable accuracy.
4.5 Safety Standards
Though no ASTM standard exists for vacuum tensile tests, several safety
precautions must be implemented in the design of the load frame. Vacuum environments
can be damaging to an air-cooled motor if it is operated for a long time, so motor use
must be limited. A regular motor may also experience out gassing in a vacuum, but a
vacuum rated motor would ensure no out gassing. Parts must be secured to the position
fixture inside the vacuum chamber. Due to the vacuum pressure and sensitivity of the
equipment, the system may take a few minutes to pump back to atmospheric pressure
before the chamber can be opened. Therefore it would be impossible to stop the pump
and immediately retrieve a loose part without inflicting any damage.
The effects of the electron beam may result in two problems, grounding and
overheating. As electron beams are fired at the surface, the load frame may become
charged during operation. It is important to note that a grounded connection must be
established with the fixture. To ground the load frame, an existing grounding clip from
the rotation module will be attached to the base of the tensile frame’s support structure.
As long as the motor is kept from overheating, heat will not be a problem for the fixture.
The electron beam will not cause a significant temperature change. The operators of the
machine stated that plastics and other insulators may have problems with melting because
they absorb the energy of the beam, but metallic structures will not experience a
considerable temperature change.
The existing position fixture was not designed to support heavy loads, and weight
must be minimized. Using the analysis features in Pro Engineer, weight can be
monitored for individual parts and for the entire assembly. The load frame’s weight must
not hinder the functionality of the existing position fixture. Most importantly, it must not
damage the position fixture.
35
5 Analysis and Synthesis
5.1 Design Structure Matrix (DSM)
5.1.1 Introduction
We can use a DSM based model of a process to quantify a process configuration,
expected cost and duration, and their variation. Cost, duration or schedule, and variances
in both are largely a function of the number of iterations required in the process execution
and the scope, or impact, of those iterations. Since iterations may or may not occur
(depending on a variety of variables), this model treats iterations stochastically, with a
probability of occurrence depending on the particular package of information triggering
rework.
This model characterizes the design process as being composed of activities that
depend on each other for information. A change in that information causes rework. Thus,
rework in one activity can cause a chain reaction through supposedly finished and in-
progress activities. Activity rework is a function of the probability of a change in inputs
and the impact of a change in inputs. The model also assumes independent activities can
work concurrently.
5.1.2 Problem Statement
The goal of this procedure is to map the whole picture of systems and parameter
relationship to aid in understanding the implications of changing any parameter to the
others. It will be limited to the scope of the project in two respects; first it is used after a
number of parameters have been established and second it is a new technology that needs
to be tried and tested in the project due to high dependencies of parameters associated
with this project.
5.1.3 Results analysis
A total of nineteen system attributes were mapped out and inserted in the DSM.
After three iterations it was realized that the dependencies are of high nature and no
further candidates were available to complete the bottom half as expected. It was noted,
however, that only sample size, load cell and applied loads could be addressed
independently with minimal impact of rework on other parameters. That being the case
further tearing of the DSM was halted, as no iteration would produce the required results.
36
In that case the remaining attributes with feed forward dependencies will be treated one at
a time by assuming desired parameters and adjusting the rest of the others accordingly.
5.2 Motor and Gearbox Selection

The selection process for the motor and gearbox required the resolution of the
following issues: vacuum compatibility, torque requirement, size constraints, power
requirements, and cost. Vacuum compatibility greatly limited the field. Contact with 25
different motor manufacturers – makers of low force linear actuators excluded – yielded
referrals to three companies: Danaher Motion, Empire Magnetics, and Bay Side Motion.
Danaher was unable to assist the team as they did not make vacuum rated equipment, but
offered Empire Magnetics as a referral. While Bay Side is able to provide gearboxes
suitable to the laboratory vacuum, they do not manufacture motors with the capability or
gearboxes beyond a 100:1 ratio in the size range required. Also, the minimum pressure
of Bay Side’s vacuum rating is still in question. Cost served to eliminate the servomotor
as an option. With servomotors, the necessary onboard components are expensive to
dissipate large quantities of heat from the motor in a vacuum environment. Size and cost
constraints make the selection of a NEMA 17 frame stepper motor coupled with a 100:1
gearbox and worm gearing favorable to a NEMA 43 setup with less reduction.
37
However, space constraints proved to be so severe that the worm and bevel
gearing necessary with a 100:1 gearbox (see next section) is next to impossible to fit,
without even considering how to handle axial thrust control of the gears. Empire
Magnetics makes a 700:1 three stage gearbox in both NEMA23 and NEMA17 sizes. The
NEMA17 can only transmit a maximum of 600 lb-in continuously; loading over 600 lb-in
will severely shorten gearbox life and it could fail at any time. The NEMA23 can
transmit 1040 lb-in before its life is threatened. It is possible to adapt a NEMA17 motor
to a NEMA23 gearbox. The difference between adaptor cost and motor savings is $400.
There are other advantages to using a NEMA17 motor instead of a NEMA23. With a
maximum torque output of 2 lb-in and a gearbox efficiency of 0.72, it is impossible for
the NEMA17 motor to damage the NEMA23 gearbox. Also the slimmer size of the
NEMA17 allows for positioning such that a 2.5:1 cylindrical gear ratio can be used while
keeping the center lines of the motor, gearing, and power screws in the same plane,
saving material cost and simplifying the machining costs. While it is possible to purchase
a method of stepper motor current control to transform logic signal voltages to 12, 24, or
36 volts, it is also possible for the team to manufacture this component at negligible cost.
It is important to underscore the value of a three-stage continuous 700:1 gearbox.
With a 100:1 ratio, the number of independent gears outside of the gearbox would
number at least 6, and require the use of bevel and/ or worm gearing to provide additional
reduction. The efficiency losses and axial thrust created with these gearing combinations
have not even been fully calculated, because, to date, we have been unable to find a
combination to even meet the space constraints and preserve the safety of gear shafts. It
is important to consider limitations of skill and budget. Each complexity in the power
train introduces additional possibility of error, additional complexities of manufacture,
and additional tolerances on the precision of such manufacture. A 700:1 gearbox requires
the precision alignment of three holes and precision thickness of the base housing. These
parts are easily machinable by the team in RIT's machine shop.
5.3 Drive Train Component Selection
The fundamental problem for this design was to determine how to apply a
maximum tensile load of 2000 lb to the test sample. Most mechanically driven tensile
testers use some form of a power screw, usually ACME power screws. ACME power
38
screws were chosen for this design because of their self-locking capability. When the
motor is turned off, the screws will hold their position, avoiding any unnecessary loads
on the motor. In order to provide the axial tension in the test sample, the screws must be
in compression to balance the forces. Provided that the two screws are the same size,
they will share the load equally. Thus, a maximum compressive load of 1000 lb will be
applied to the power screws when the sample is loaded to 2000 lb tension. A torque must
be transmitted to the power screw to obtain the axial load in the sample, so a system of
gears was devised to couple the power screws with the motor and gearbox, obtaining the
necessary speed reduction. The motor provides a maximum torque output of 2 in-lbs, and
the required torque to turn the collared screws is 1300 in-lb. Equation 5.1 was used to
determine this torque to raise the load to 2000 lb, the maximum possible torque that the
screw will experience during operation. W is the load on each screw (1000 lb), dm is the
pitch diameter of the screw, the coefficient of friction is f for dry friction (.78), L is the
lead, and αn is the lead angle. The second term of the equation accounts for the frictional
losses in the collar, where dc is the mean collar diameter and µc is the coefficient of
friction of the collar with no lubrication.
Equation 5-1 – Torque to raise or lower the power screws.
W ⋅ d m f ⋅ π ⋅ d m ± L ⋅ cosα n W ⋅ µ c ⋅ d c
TR ,L = ⋅ +
2 π ⋅ d m cosα n m f ⋅ L 2
In order to fit within the available space in the SEM chamber (9” wide, 3” high,
10” long), the drivetrain must make a 90° bend around the fixed crosshead of the load
frame. Frictional losses in the collar and efficiency in the gearbox (72%) necessitate a
gear reduction ratio of 1400:1 to achieve the necessary torque in the power screws. With
a 100:1 gearbox, the additional reduction needs to be 14:1, which would be impossible
with just a combination of spur gears to connect the gearbox output to the spur gears on
the power screws given the narrow space constraints. A 90° gearbox was ruled out
because the size (5”x5”) would not fit within the 4.5” envelope on either side of the
centerline of the module. A potential solution used two bevel gears to turn the corner,
with a 1 inch gear connected to the output shaft of the gearbox and a 0.5 inch mating gear
connected to a worm and worm gear pair. The worm gear would turn a 2.25 inch spur
39
gear for one power screw. The other screw would be driven from the spur gear on the
other power screw. However, the torque in the shaft of the smaller bevel gear would be
400 lb-in, resulting in a shear stress of 300 ksi. Failure is certain, considering that the
yield strength is 30 ksi for stainless steel.
Using the 700:1 gearbox instead of the 100:1 gearbox, an additional 2.5:1
reduction by spur gears is sufficient to reach the maximum torque and include a factor of
safety of 2. The maximum motor torque is 2 and an overall maximum torque that could
be output to the screws is 2500 in-lb. With an efficiency of 72% and a design torque of 1
in-lb, the maximum torque in the system will be 1260 in-lb. Equation 5-2 was used to
determine the maximum torque, where Tmax is the maximum torque, Ng is the gear ratio
of the gearbox, and Ns is the gear ratio of the spur gears. The spur gears on the power
screws (2.5 inches) are connected to the gearbox by a 1 inch diameter spur gear. For the
spur gears, they will survive the maximum load. The maximum stress per tooth is around
140 ksi when the machine is operating at maximum capacity. After computing gear
stresses, shear stresses were computed for the shafts using Equation 5.3. The stress on
the output shaft can be found using equation 5.3.
Equation 5-2 – Maximum Torque in the system

Tmax = N g ⋅ η g ⋅ N s
Equation 5-3 – Shear stress in gear shafts

16 ⋅ T
τ=
π ⋅d3
The major problem with the drive train was connecting the spur gears and collars
to the power screws. Machining the component from a single piece was not even a
possibility, considering the expense of cutting an ACME thread and the time required to
machine a 2.5” diameter shaft (needed for the spur gears) down to a 3/4” power thread.
An estimated cost would be $4,000-5,000 for the two power screws. The best solution
was to purchase an ACME threaded rod, spur gears, and fabricate the collars. The
method of joining these parts came under much scrutiny. A square broach, a pin, and a
key were considered as methods of fastening. The pin would be the simplest design.
Cutting the thread off of the end of the ACME rod and drilling a matching hole in the
collar, the components will be inserted into each other and a hole will be drilled for a
40
dowel pin. Keys are good at transmitting torque, but are weak in axial loading. A broach
is functional, but the square hole would be costly to machine with wire EDM (electrical
discharge machining). The pin was able to transmit the torque from the gear to the collar
and from the collar to the shaft. The stresses in the pins were 45 ksi and 34 ksi for the
gear/collar and collar/thread, respectively. However, to achieve a safe pin, the diameter
was ¼ inch with a 1 inch power screw. Collar length would increase to allow more
thickness to account for the hole. The final solution was to drill through the center axis
of the gear, collar, and power screw and use a self-locking shoulder bolt to hold the
assembly together. The 3/16 inch diameter shoulder section would lightly clear the hole
in the gear and collar and the screw will thread into the end of the ACME power screw.
An added benefit of this design is that the ¾ diameter ACME screws are sufficient,
saving the use of 1 inch screws.
Stress in the power screw was not a problem. Axial stress in the screw was -3.74
ksi at the root diameter. Bearing stress in the thread is about 22 ksi, not lubricated, and
about 7 ksi lubricated, which are both below the yield strength of 30 ksi for AISI 316
stainless steel.
5.4 Gripping Mechanism
5.4.1 The Need for Grips:
One of the most crucial components in the design of the SEM Tensile Stage is a
set of grips to secure the metallic specimen under investigation. Griping is crucial to
provide stability and safety. A multi-million dollar machine is potentially damaged if a
sample is released while under load. The sample cannot slip during testing and it cannot
leave the grip while it is under a load. Without a firm grip the tensile test results would
be null and void. Therefore, allotting the proper time to design a strong and useful set of
grips is pertinent to the design of the overall device. It is in the best interests of the
design team to properly analyze the gripping problem and design a viable solution.
5.4.2 Specifications of the Grips:
Grip specifications were determined by the environment and stress conditions
under which the grips will be expected to operate. As with the design of other
components within the SEM tensile stage, it was important to design for a vacuum
pressure of 10-7 torr, and this component was no exception. Therefore it was important to
41
come up with a set of grips that would be able to work in such an environment and not
outgas. Also, it is very important that the grips do not contain any grease or oil to avoid
contamination of the SEM chamber. Since the design specifications require the tensile
stage to load a specimen in a max of 2000 lbs tension and 200 lbs compression, it would
be best to design the grips to be able to withstand a tensile of force of 3000 lbs, a factor
of safety of 1.5. Most importantly, the grips must also be small enough to fit within the
narrow packaging envelope of the tensile stage.
5.4.3 Specimen Size
When designing the grips a major decision was whether the grips should be
designed for predetermined specimen geometry or if the specimen should be designed
based on the grips. This was an easy decision. It was determined that since a standard
ASTM specimen exists for a wide variety of sizes, samples could easily be acquired from
a manufacturer. As a result, the grips were to be designed first and the specimen
geometry then designed to fit the grips.
5.4.4 Purchased or Machined?
With a number of purchased components already in the design, the team faced
mounting costs. The original idea was to purchase a set of small, flat, grips. Initially, it
was decided that these grips should be purchased instead of designed and machined
because it would just be too time constraints and machining issues. It became evident,
unfortunately, that the specific type of grips that were needed would be too expensive and
consume too much of the budget (see Table 5.1).
Table 5.1 - Grips available for purchase

Manufacturer and Type Load Capacity (lb) Cost
MTT – Flat Wedge Action Grips 5000 $4,800
2250 $1,910
Tinius Olsen – Flat Wedge Action Grips
Instron – Remanufactured Wedge Action Grips 5000 No response
With prices that consumed nearly 40% of the budget, it was unreasonable to
purchase the grips. Several ideas were considered, including self-locking grips and a
custom design that would take a flat dog bone specimen, but the designs didn’t allow for
42
the samples to be examined across both width and thickness. Therefore, the team decided
to design and manufacture a set of grips for a cylindrical sample with male threaded ends.
This design was met with approval from the team because it solved three major problems.
The grips would be very easy to make. A cylinder of stainless steel could be drilled and
tapped with the sample’s thread size. Given a small height envelope of 3 inches, the size
of these grips (diameter?) is reasonable. The cost to manufacture these grips would be
much less than buying the wedge acting flat grips that were originally in mind, freeing up
funds for other design features.
5.4.5 Final Design of Grips:
The final design of the grips is very simple. One grip is created from a small,
cylindrical piece with a female threaded through hole on the center axis. The diameter is
to be 1 inch and the length about 1 inch as well. The hole will be tapped with a 5/8-24
thread. This thread size was chosen because that is the same size of thread used on the
Futek load cell that is designed to handle up to 3000 lbs. The fixed end will have a fixed
cylindrical grip that connects to the load cell. The sample will be threaded into the other
end of the grip and the free end’s grip will be threaded onto the sample. Also, the outer
surface of the grips will be knurled for easier turning. The material choice is stainless
steel because of its corrosion resistance.
5.4.6 Calculations:
As with any design, the decisions must be verified through calculations. To just
trust the thread specifications for the Futek load cell is not enough to ensure that the
threads are safe. It is advisable to check stresses to make sure the threads can withstand
the force being applied to the grips. This is the only calculation that is of any concern to
the grips because the weakest part of the grips is going to be the threads. The following
equation gives the stress applied to one thread, given an applied load:
Equation 5-4 - Stress in the thread of the load cell.

4⋅P p
σ = ⋅
π ⋅ (d − d i ) t
2 2
P is equal to the force applied to the threads, which in this case is 2000 lbs, and
d²-di² is the tensile area of the ¾-24 thread. The variable t/p is the number of threads in
which the load is being applied. For this case the length of the male end of the specimen
43
fitting into the grip is designed to be 9/16 inches. At 24 threads per inch, a total of 13.5
threads are in contact. Therefore, the average stress per thread is around 6.75 ksi, which
is safely below the yield strength of the material (30 ksi) of the grips.
5.5 Base and Frame
The base of the load frame must serve three purposes: 1) to act as a platform to
support the load frame, 2) to act as an apparatus to hold the SEM’s longitudinal position
resolver so that the sample can be positioned under the microscope, and 3) to act as a
means to connect the test specimens to the SEM’s grounding path.
For the first purpose, that of connecting our design, this base will be made of a
stainless steel plate. It will have pattern of holes will match the SEM’s base plate and
another set of holes for mounting the fixed end.
For its second purpose, holding the position resolver, it will have a mount on the
side of the base which the position resolver will be attached to. With the position
resolver mounted here, the control system for the existing position control stage will
believe that the sample is always dead center.
For its third purpose, providing a path to ground, being made of sufficiently
conductive steel is all that is required here. It is an important facet, however, because
without a path to ground the electron gun would charge up the specimen quickly and a
discharge could damage the equipment inside the SEM.
5.6 Control and Display
The sponsor has requested that the device be controllable via both position and
load. That is to say that if the user desires some position or a specific load, this can be
entered in some fashion and the device will respond accordingly. These ideas flushed out
as follows.
Position control will be open-loop. The advantage of using a stepper motor is that
it allows relatively precise position movement. Thus, position can be precisely controlled
through the inherent characteristics of the device. No feedback is needed; the current
position of the device can be determined relative to some origin. This origin will be user
defined while the system is external to the vacuum. As long as the torque required to
cause movement remains less than the torque supplied by the motor; as long as no
slippage occurs, the position will be known to be within so expected envelope of error.
44
Load control will be closed loop. The digital control mechanism will be
implemented in the microcontroller. In this manner the fastest response possible will be
available for interpretation of the feedback signal from the load. This mechanism will
most likely be a purely proportional response. As the system is already stable this should
be sufficient for control. A proportional integral, or PI, control could be implemented to
avoid steady state error, but it because of the nature of the digital control, there may be an
opportunity to eliminate the error through software. As there is no adequate model of the
system at the moment, the method of control can only be an inference based on estimates.
The electrical system will consist of several different essential parts: the motor,
the motor’s internal temperature sensor, the motor driver hardware, the load cell, the
conditioning circuits for the sensor signals, the micro controller, power supplies and the
user terminal.
Figure 5.1 - LabView controls
45
Figure 5.2 - Control setup
Figure 5.3 – Software control diagram
5.7 Vacuum Interface

When you are designing an electromechanical system to work in a vacuum and
maintain the vacuum integrity, one of the things you must consider how to transmit the
power and signals from outside the chamber to within it. The owners of the SEM have
allowed us a port for the necessary electrical feed-throughs. There are a few companies
that make the kinds of feed-throughs that we need. We decided to focus on Nor-Cal
46
Products, Inc. (www.n-c.com) and MDC Vacuum Products Corporation (www.mdc-
vacuum.com) because of there generally superior selection.
The port we have selected in the SEM had a hole with a diameter of 1 ¾ inches.
After viewing several schematics looking for what flange size accommodates this
diameter it was found that we need a 2 ¾ inch flange. We have determined that we need
at least 8 wires passed through (four for the stepper motor, two for the thermocouple, and
two for the load cell.) After looking through the two sites mentioned above three
possibilities were apparent.
The first option is from MDC. It is a ten pin feed-through model number IF10-
275. It protrudes into the chamber with 3.14 inch pins. It has a shorter IF10-275-S which
only protrudes 2.45 inches. Both would fit the needs, however with either one at $350
this is not a likely candidate. A reason for choosing this feed-through would be the
possible upgrading of our design with the inclusion of a position encoder. The extra two
pins could be used for the encoder. This is a feature that the other feed-throughs do not
have.
The second option is also from MDC, model number D9-275. It is a 9 pin Type-
D connector. With a standard Type-D connection ease of installation of the stage into the
SEM would be increased. The other advantage is that by having a standard connector,
accessories are easier to find and it will also easier for possible future design teams to
follow the notes in our wiring. The down side to this feed-through is the cost of $295. It
is cheaper than the first option but still quite expensive.
The third option is from Nor-Cal. Model number IFT-150-8P. From the
diagrams that are available online and a quick comparison this seems very similar to the
IF10-275 only with only 8 pins, a 1.63 inch protrusion, and a $150 expected cost. While
this feed-through does not have any special features that qualify it above what we need its
low price tag make it the winner unless the customer decides that they want to pay for
more options
5.8 Testing the Product for Reliability
5.8.1 What is A Test Plan
The explosive advance of industrial, military, and aerospace technologies has
given rise to entirely new scientific function - that of test and evaluation engineering.
47
What once, not too long ago, was an afterthought of general operations has now matured
into an integral part of the product development process. Product testing and evaluation
is no longer performed to find out what has been designed but, instead, the design is
based on data systematically derived from the test and evaluation function. The main
thesis is that the product test and evaluation function is an autonomous activity
comprising a vital link in the product development cycle and therefore requires the
application of concepts that are commensurate with its role.
The establishment of a product test and evaluation function will allow assurance
or proof that component, subassemblies, modules and the overall system meet contract
provisions and legal requirements. Testing and evolution should be performed for the
sake of increasing product value as perceived by the customer and to reduce to a
minimum down time cost, both during design, manufacture and use.
5.8.2 Types of Test Plans
The integrated test program concept is the most comprehensive method of mating
the planning and the required tests, and correlates the resulting test data. Key attributes in
this method are defining constraints, objectives, responsibilities, and techniques for
implementing, monitoring, and controlling the test. Further, the method will evaluate the
product as well as provide test data and also considers team policies and capabilities of
the team.
A typical test tree is shown in Figure1IntegratetestingTree.doc. The program is
defined by collating the product test and evaluation management information
requirements. There are three phases consisting of planning, implementation and
correlation. The planning phase involves documentation which has three inputs namely a
detailed plan, test procedure, and report requirements. The implementation phase covers
development demonstration and verification tests while the correlation phase accounts for
the product test and evaluation correlation. Input data to the correlation phase are
collection and analysis, corrective action, and report dissemination. The complete scope
of the test program is achieved by incorporating the schedule to the test plan.
5.8.3 Objectives and Requirements of the Test Plan
Careful coordination is required to achieve a timely, efficient, and economical
implementation of the test. On a company level scope, the test plan serves as a road map
48
for staffing, defines and governs all testing parameters as well as satisfies a dozen of
objectives. Listed below is a brief objective description.
1. Early detection
2. Realistic operation environment test
3. Eliminate redundancy of test effort
4. Anticipate inevitable changes
5. Monitor operation of critical test items
6. Orderly progression
7. Optimization of specimen
8. Monitor specimen configuration
9. Correlation and utilization data
10. Establish logic, sequence and interrelation of test
11. Account for discrepancies
12. Incorporate requirements and procedures in parallel with hardware development.
5.8.4 Test Integration Plan Contents

A formal control plan must be written to fulfill the requirements and objectives.
This plan establishes what must be tested for, who must do it, and when it should be
performed. The products to be tested are defined in detail and the test environment is also
established to mimic the real world conditions the component will face in use through to
the disposal or retire phase and the test schedule.
Integrated test plan formats will vary, depending on the individual project need
and organization structure. However, successful integration will resemble the basic test
tree shown in figure 1 so as to guide development of necessary documentation.
5.8.5 Detailed Test Plans and Procedures
Detailed specifications for the item and test program plan depend on the type of
test and the availability of information and usually consist of the following five elements
given below:
1. Introduction. States the purpose of the test, cites applicable reference documents,
identifies by part number and describes the intended function and operation as
well as the number of test specimens.
2. Requirements. Cites the applicable specifications, performance, functional and
environmental test requirements.
3. Test Procedure. List and describes in detail how the inspection and bench test
measurements will be made. It specifies instruments, fixtures, circuit diagrams
and performance measurement methods. This section describes the method and
sequence of the individual environmental test, test setups, and test facilities.
Evaluation method after environmental test is completed to capture the effects of
exposure and can be either destructive or nondestructive.
49
4. Evaluation. The criteria for evaluation are stated to establish a scoring system,
which may resemble a no-go basis, or may require demonstration of a confidence
level from statistical analysis of data.
5. Appendixes. To provide illustration of test sample data sheets, details of fixtures,
setups, circuit diagrams, and other relevant material.
5.8.6 Test Report Requirements

Test reports are prepared for each test or group of related tests in each test
category. These reports are based on the results of all analyses performed on data
recorded during testing. It emphasizes the results of testing relative to the each test
objective and whether compliance with design specification has been achieved, and
provide recommended changes to design and reliability improvements.
All pertinent data, graphs, charts, photographs, and references are included and
thus a total technical justification is presented to support the analysis and
recommendations in order to utilize the test results and improve component and system
reliability.
5.8.7 Development, Demonstration, and Verification Tests
Correlating the actual testing into the overall integrated test program must be done
judiciously in coordination with the organizations that will be cognizant for test
performance. To implement the plan the following types of testing are recommended:
1. Design and development testing to select materials and parts and to improve
designs.
2. Qualification testing to demonstrate design and reliability of prototypes.
3. Receiving inspection to assure quality of purchased or subcontracted items.
4. In-process acceptance testing to assure satisfactory workmanship.
5. Final operational production testing to maintain design capability and reliability
and to assure satisfactory workmanship.
6. Production monitoring to check workmanship and performance characteristics.
5.8.8 Program Scheduling
Test effectiveness in terms of hardware, facility, and personnel availability matters and
should be scheduled to capture the following elements:
1. Deliver data for the test specimen.
2. Release date of detail test plan.
3. Starting and completion dates of the test specimen.
4. Release date of test reports.
50
The availability of manpower and test facilities governs the starting dates of test
and takes into account the complexity and number of functional and passive performance
measurements. An overall completion date is thus established for an entire test program
based upon the detailed completion date. Scheduling may be accomplished by
rearranging the blocks of figure 1 and adding the time requirements or by a simple
program evaluation review technique (PERT) system.
5.8.9 Summary
The integrated test program approach to product testing will result in the most
comprehensive system development and operational verification. Of particular
importance is the systematic approach to definition and the correlation of the detailed
plans and test. Things to pay attention to include application of prior experience, test
facilities and product knowledge and, at the same time, produce substantial savings in
total evaluation cost and time.
5.8.10 SEM Tensile Testing System Integrated Test Plan

The SEM tensile test machine involves development of six modules, which need
to be tested for technical design specification and customer requirements as well as safety
requirements associated with incorporating the system in the SEM platform. The scope of
testing will be limited by the project duration, budget allocation and technical
competency of the design team. It should be noted that this project involves the design
and commissioning of the tensile testing system and will differ from commercial projects
by virtue of the constraints governing the size and user requirement, making it a unique
case never attempted anywhere.
The focus of the test plan will take into account the developmental process, from
the mission needs statement to production and deployment. It should be noted however,
that there are two primary approaches to this kind of testing; one is to test during
development and second during operation. It is possible to run the two procedures
concurrently for well-funded complex projects or programs involving sophisticated
subsystems and involving high-risk catastrophic failures. Since the scope of this project
terminates with deployment, it is reasonable to integrate a test plan to cover the
51
development of the system, which will have a test planning team (TPT) consisting of the
customer and the other stakeholders as the owners of the SEM machine (CIMS).
5.8.11 Test Integration
The purpose of an integrated test planning has two fundamental tasks. The first is
to select the right test for which need is greatest and second to ensure that the selected
tests are done in a way that maximizes the payoff from invested resources. In doing so,
the project will increase confidence with available resources and minimize risk associated
with components, subsystems and module failure and flaws.
The integrated test planning adopted will be built around a test planning form that
serves as a checklist to remind the testing team of issues that need decisions, as shown in
figure 2. The overall flow aids the test planner in several ways:
Test policies and ground rules establish fundamentals that the test must
comply with.
The test planning forms summarize test objectives, test hardware, support
equipment, and facility requirements.
The condensed description of each test on the planning forms simplifies
communication and integration with interfacing stakeholders.
The planning forms provide a visible bridge from project objectives to the
test that implements them.
Forms make the cost-versus-risk trade-off more objective.
Test planning assessments from a total project perspective by the TPT
ensure that project constraints and milestones are satisfied.
Project Office Test Planning Team Individual Test
Planners (CIMS)
Test Integrated
Special Studies Test Planning
Policies Test Plan
Test integration Forms
and Management
Project direction
Ground Summary and
Contract negotiation
Rules Status Vol.1
Specifications
Vol.2
Vol.3
Summary
Test Performers
Test reports Test procedures
52
Figure 2 Planning flow for Integrated Test
(Defense Systems Management College. Test & Evaluation Management Guide. Fort
Belvoir, VA: DSMC, March 1988, p.2-8)
5.8.12 Individual Test Plans
The Development Test and Evaluation for this project will be categorized into
three parts. The first part will cover individual components or parts, the second part will
cover sub assemblies, and the third part will cover deployment testing. The first two
categories will also be incorporated into the concept feasibility assessment phase. The
team members on their respective assigned modules of the design will conduct testing.
Most of this part of testing will be completed after the preliminary design review and will
verify that components or subsystems satisfy the customer needs and technical
specifications.
5.8.13 Components or Parts Processing
It is anticipated that some parts will be sourced from vendors and once in charge
they will be routed depending on whether they are stock or ready to assemble
components without further work to be done on them prior to assembly. For stock, the
first check will be to verify the material specifications, as stated in the order form, assign
a part number according to the developed scheme, and record and route to manufacturing
for further processing. Otherwise if the part is found to be defective at this stage, they
will be sent back to the supplier for replacement accordingly.
During manufacturing, the part will be processed to generate features that may
require specialized operations and multiple set-ups. For each part routed for
manufacturing processing, the detailed processing requirements will depend on the type
of operation required and the availability of facilities and machines. It is anticipated that
most of the parts will require normal machine operations like milling, boring, etc, which
will generate scrap. In light of this undesirable situation, the stock is to be ordered with
this in mind to minimize scrap and reduce processing times. Tolerances and dimensions
53
will be recorded and compared to the specification requirements and further action taken
depending on whether the specifications are satisfied or not. Finally, the part will either
advance to assembly or otherwise will be routed for re-work or scraped. The parts that do
not require manufacturing prior to assembly will be routed directly to assembly after
capturing the part numbers and recording and comparing specifications as per the order
specifications.
5.8.14 Subassemblies Testing
Once parts have met and satisfied the entire test as components, they will then be
routed for subassembly integration. During this phase individual components will be
joined to others with special techniques that have been out lined in the feasibility
assessment analysis. The operations to be carried out will vary depending on each
subassembly requirement and it has been decide to verify parts interaction and tolerances
at this stage to eliminate any undesirable conditions that may arise before integrating into
respective modules. Each subassembly will have it own set of instructions as per the
specifications depicted in the feasibility assessment phase. For components that did not
require manufacturing processing, but need to be integrated into subassemblies any
discrepancies encountered will be compensated by re-work of parts that have been routed
through manufacturing.
5.8.15 Deployment Testing
If all components and subassemblies have satisfactorily met all the requirements,
all parts are received, and all manufacturing processing is complete, subassemblies will
be incorporated into their respective modules. During this phase, all stakeholders will be
invited for a complete system run. This run will be conducted with the system outside the
operating chamber with a test specimen. Data to be recorded will include maximum force
read by the load cell and displacement to verify against customer specifications. Safety
features will be tested at this phase and calibration will be finely adjusted as need be. The
test will be later verified in the chamber once all safety requirements are met and at this
point the system should be ready to hand over to the customer. Documentation that will
be made available to the customer will include assembly manuals and a trouble shouting,
or failure mode, analysis report that will be developed during the final test phase.
54
Reference List
1. Integrated Product Testing & Evaluation. H. Gilmore, H.Schwartz. New York 1986.
2. Testing to Verify Design & Manufacturing Readiness, Mc Graw – Hill, Inc 1993.
55
6 Preliminary Design
6.1 Part Numbers for Pro Engineer files

-1st digit =1 if component, =2 if assembly
-2nd digit =0 if purchased, =1 if manufactured
-3rd digit = module number (1=motor/gearbox, 2=drivetrain, 3=grips, 4=base/frame,
5=control, 6=vacuum interface, 7=miscellaneous
- 4th and 5th digits=component number within module (01, 02, etc.)
6.2 Included Drawings

20001 – SEM load frame (2 sheets)
10101 – Motor
10102 – Gearbox
10103 – Adaptor (motor/gearbox)
10201 – Right handed ACME
10202 – Left handed ACME
10204 – 2.5” helical gear
10205 – 1” spur gear
10206 – ACME threaded nut
10307 – Load cell
10701 – Cap screws
10702 – Shoulder screws
11203 – Collar for ACME screw
11301 – Cylindrical fasteners
11302 – End fitting (free)
11303 – End fitting (fixed)
11304 – Compression collar (top)
11305 – Compression collar (bottom)
11306 – Specimen
11401 – Fixed end
56
11402 – Free end
11403 – Base
57

Microscope Holding Mechanism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Microscope Holding Mechanism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design and Fabrication of a

Miniature Tensile Load frame for a

Senior Design Team 04-004

Robert Rinefierd – Team Manager, Mechanical Engineer

1 Recognize and Quantify the Need...................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Mission Statement........................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Product Description .................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Scope Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 2

1.4 Stakeholders ................................................................................................................................ 2

1.5 Key Business Goals ..................................................................................................................... 2

1.6 Top Level Critical Financial Parameters.................................................................................... 3

1.7 Financial Analysis....................................................................................................................... 3

1.8 Preliminary Market ..................................................................................................................... 3

1.9 Secondary Markets ...................................................................................................................... 3

1.10 Order Qualifiers .......................................................................................................................... 3

1.11 Order Winners............................................................................................................................. 4

1.12 Innovation Opportunities............................................................................................................. 4

1.13 Background Research.................................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Overview of Tensile Testing Equipment ...................................................................................... 7

2.2 Integrating the Product with the Current Fixture ....................................................................... 9

2.3 Concept Design Proposals ........................................................................................................ 11

2.4 Concept 1 – Internal Motor with Two Driving Screws.............................................................. 14

2.5 Concept 2 – Internal Motor with Single Driving Screw ............................................................ 17

2.6 Concept 3 – Manually Driven Load Frame............................................................................... 21

2.7 Concept 4 - Exterior Motor with Two Driving Screws.............................................................. 24

3 Feasibility Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 26

3.2 Evaluation of design concepts ................................................................................................... 26

3.3 Pugh Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 27

3.4 Weighted Concept Evaluation ................................................................................................... 27

3.5 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 29

4 Objectives and Specifications........................................................................................................... 33

4.1 Design Objectives...................................................................................................................... 33

4.2 Performance Specifications....................................................................................................... 33

4.3 Design Specifications/Implementation ...................................................................................... 34

4.4 Evaluation Criteria.................................................................................................................... 34

4.5 Safety Standards ........................................................................................................................ 35

5 Analysis and Synthesis...................................................................................................................... 36

5.1 Design Structure Matrix (DSM) ................................................................................................ 36

5.2 Motor and Gearbox Selection ................................................................................................... 37

5.3 Drive Train Component Selection ............................................................................................. 38

5.5 Base and Frame......................................................................................................................... 44

5.6 Control and Display .................................................................................................................. 44

5.7 Vacuum Interface ...................................................................................................................... 46

5.8 Testing the Product for Reliability ............................................................................................ 47

6 Preliminary Design ........................................................................................................................... 56

6.1 Part Numbers for Pro Engineer files......................................................................................... 56

6.2 Included Drawings .................................................................................................................... 56

Figure 1.1 - Lehigh University concept

Figure2.1 – Diagram of Tensile Testing Equipment

Servo hydraulic Electromechanical

Control & Gripping Fixed Driving High-Torque

Screw Wedge Button Pneumatic

Table 2.3 - Final Concept Development Proposals

MODULE Action and Feature

Drive Train ¾ Purchase

Figure 2.5 - Concept 3 sketch (side)

Figure 2.6 - Concept 3 gearbox and crank interaction

3.2 Evaluation of design concepts

3.4 Weighted Concept Evaluation

S.E.M. Tensile Stage 04004

Baseline Concept Internal motor/gearbox -2 screws

ATTRIBUTE CONCEPT 1 CONCEPT 2 CONCEPT 3