Lab Eight: Final Project

Team A1
Jacob Beard

Johnny Bubser

Carlos Cuellar

Joseph Eichelman

Sebastian Gutierrez

Carolyn Payne

Lindsay Yee

Honor Pledge:

I pledge on my honor that I have not given or received any

unauthorized assistance on this assignment.

1
Individual Contribution Form

Comments:

Carlos: Section 2 A and F, both presentation and report

Carolyn: Section 2C Modeling and Simulation, Calculations, Section 2D Additional Testing
Jacob: Sections 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, and 3C, and the final editing.
Joe: Section 2 C and E
Johnny: Section I, Section II D,E, Section III, and editing.
Lindsay: Executive Summary, Section 2C and 2F
Sebastian: Worked on Section 2B and 2D

2
Table of Contents
Honor Pledge: 1
Individual Contribution Form 2
I. Executive Summary 4
II. Design Question 5
Section A: Unmet Needs 5
Relevant Customer Requirements: 6
Relevant Engineering Characteristics: 6
Relevant Components: 6
Section B: Physics of the Design Change 7
Motor Temperature and Efficiency 7
Motor Cooling Process 8
Rejected Redesign Ideas 9
Potential Fan Redesigns 10
Section C: Potential Solutions 12
Specific Modification 12
Option 1: 12
Option 2: 12
Constraints 12
Option 1: 13
Option 2: 13
Modeling/Simulation/Analysis 14
Known Parameters and Initial Assumptions 14
Option 1 Modeling: 16
Option 2 Modeling: 17
Specific Designs for Each Option and Justification: 24
Final Decision: 25
Option 1 Further Simulation: 25
Customer Requirements 30
Tracking and Mitigation 30
Section D: Proposed Modeling and Testing 31
Variables to Test 31
Thermal Data Collection 32
Testing Equipment and Data Collection 35
Controlled Variables 35
Expected Results 35
Additional Testing 36
Motor-Torque Temperature & Efficiency: 36
Air Flow: 37
Noise: 37
Vibration: 39
Section E: Manufacturing 39
Current Manufacturing Process 39
Redesign Adjustments 41
Considerations for Assembly and Design for Manufacturing 41
Cost Analysis 46
Section F: Final Recommendation 47
Conditions For Viability: 47
Proposed Methodology for Approval: 48
Trade-Offs: 48
III. Concluding Course Observations 49
Skills and Material Learned 49
Advice to Incoming Students 50
List of Characteristics 51
Task Tracking 53
TABLE 8: Task assignments for final project 53
Works Cited 54

3
I. Executive Summary
The intention of Lab 8 is to identify a specific aspect of the DeWalt DCD701 that could
be redesigned to improve the tool. Using the data from previous labs, Team A1 came to the
consensus that the heat transfer of the drill could be improved. In Lab 7, thermal lab, it was
found that the current design of the drill only expels 70% of the heat to the airflow, which leaves
30% of the excess heat dissipated and trapped elsewhere in the drill. This excess trapped heat
leads to decreased tool efficiency and performance for the customer. Knowing this previously,
Team A1 decided to study the fan and see if there was a way to increase airflow, therefore
decreasing the motor temperature, resulting in a higher efficiency and tool performance for the
customer.
When looking at the current fan design of the DCD701, the customer is looking to have
the highest performance level and usability of the drill, meaning the airflow should allow
significant heat to be transferred into the environment to prevent the tool from being overheated.
In this case, the drill fan redesign should be able to perform more screw insertion and removals
as a result of the change. This increased lifespan would be very useful for customers who use
drills for a long period of time in the workplace, for years to come. With all this said, increasing
the performance and therefore increasing the efficiency of the drill comes with a price. Having
any significant percent change in efficiency will increase the cost of the tool, but by how much?
In order to find out if customers would even be interested in this price increase, the team needs to
conduct a customer survey to see how much customers are willing to pay per percent of added
efficiency.
When researching into the current design of the fan, the team concluded to look into two
main design changes. One design change is to increase the fan diameter by the maximum
allowable measurement of 4.6 mm, which would not affect the housing component of the drill.
The second design change is to increase the number of fan blades from 17 to 35. This would not
impact the fan diameter nor the housing component dimensions and tolerances. The increased
number of blades would double the thickness between each blade, allowing more airflow to be
directed towards the motor, cooling the temperature down.
The proposed redesign the team decided on was to increase the fan’s diameter by 4.6 mm.
After running some simulations, the team determined that the change in temperature from
redesigning the fan’s diameter did not make a significant enough change in the temperature of
the motor to warrant a redesign. The difference in mass transfer, ṁ between the two redesigns
was only about 0.0033 kg/s. When comparing the two design changes, the ṁ of the increased
blades was actually a little bit bigger than the diameter change. Ultimately the team decided that
the increased diameter change was more reliable because in the blade calculations, there were
some assumptions about some of the relationships between velocity and number of blades. If
these assumptions were incorrect, other calculations based on the correlations would prove false.
In the end, with an increased 4.6 mm fan diameter, the new ṁ reduced the motor temperature by
about 0.1 degrees Celsius. This ultimately would not be that beneficial for the customer in the

4
end, so it is not a worthy recommendation design for DeWalt. In this report, Team A1 will
discuss potential improvements for the tool, simulations and tests that can be used to evaluate the
redesigns, impacts of the redesign on manufacturing, and a final recommendation on if the
redesign is worthwhile pursuing.

II. Design Question

Section A: Unmet Needs
An electric motor’s efficiency is defined as its output mechanical energy versus the input
electrical energy. During operation, electric motors generally heat up which causes a decrease in
efficiency. A drill’s motor may have a reduced maximum speed and less power during repeated
use, resulting in decreased and inconsistent performance.
The drill is designed to mitigate heat gain in the motor by blowing air over it. However,
the current design of the drill only expels 70% of the heat to the airflow, leaving 30% of the heat
trapped or dissipated elsewhere. This heat leads to efficiency loss and decreased performance.

FIGURE 1: Heat flow vs time of the DCD701 during one discharge. The area under the curve between 0 and
1145 seconds represents the total heat expelled through force convected air.

5
 SIMPSON'S RULE:
Heat Through Force Convected Air (J): 33467.64
Total Heat Loss (J) 47680.79
Percentage of Heat Expelled (%) 70.19
TABLE 1: A table showing the total heat expelled through force convected air, the total heat lost of the drill,
and the percentage of heat expelled by force convected air. Overall, 70% of the heat in the drill is expelled
using the ventilation system.

Relevant Customer Requirements:

The most relevant customer requirements are the performance, lifespan, usability, and
cost. First, the performance is relevant because it relates to how effective a professional can be at
performing a task. Next, the lifespan refers to how long the user can expect the product to last,
which ties into the perceived value of the drill. The usability of the drill will relate to how
comfortable, natural, intuitive it feels to operate the drill, and is a requirement because a drill that
feels awkward or cumbersome could lead to discomfort or stress injuries over a period of
extended use. Of course, these requirements come at a cost. If a product is prohibitively
expensive, its features are irrelevant as the target customers cannot justify buying it.

Relevant Engineering Characteristics:

The relevant engineering characteristics are the operating temperature and the required
repairs per thousand cycles. As for the operating temperature, this is the metric that the designers
will intend to minimize. More specifically, the goal is to minimize the temperature of the motor.
Doing so will increase the efficiency of the drill and will subsequently increase the battery life of
the drill.
As for the repairs per thousand cycles, a cycle can be defined as a single application,
whether it be inserting/removing a screw, or simply drilling a hole. A motor that runs cooler and
more efficiently is directly correlated to a reduction of repairs per thousand cycles because it
creates less wear on the moving parts. Therefore, reducing the motor temperature will hopefully
increase the drill’s lifespan.

Relevant Components:

The relevant components are the motor, fan, drive shaft, and drill housing. The motor
generates the majority of the heat during operation and is responsible for spinning the drive shaft,
which then spins the fan. The fan blows air out of the drill housing through the latter’s outlet
vents. Air can then enter the housing’s inlet vents, as will be discussed in the following section.

6
Another key consideration is the drill housing’s size, which limits the air flow through the drill
and the maximum size of the fan.

Section B: Physics of the Design Change

Motor Temperature and Efficiency

For the redesign of the drill, the aim is to improve the efficiency of the DeWalt DCD701
motor. The redesign specifically looks at how to improve the efficiency by lowering the total
amount of temperature change the motor experiences during a discharge application. After
conducting some research, it was found that at lower temperatures, the motor can have a higher
power output and reach a higher torque output.

FIGURE 2: Maximum Power Capability at 25 and 125 degrees Celsius vs. Torque [14]

The graph above depicts the power output in relation to the torque of a DC motor. It is
important to note that for the graph above, the motor used was tested without a heatsink or forced
air flow. The initial data was collected using a rapid dynamometer at room temperature. A
consistent load was placed on the motor, and the temperature rose to 125 degrees celsius. While
this change in temperature is much greater than what was measured during the discharge test in
the thermal lab, it is important to note that the purpose of this graph is to demonstrate that there
exists a relationship between the temperature of the motor and its performance. The motor used
in this experiment is different from the motor in the DCD 701, and the max temperature that the
motor reached during the thermal lab was fifty degrees celsius. Nevertheless, it can be seen that
for a DC motor, the temperature of the motor will affect the performance.

7
 It was also found that the power output (which can also be found by multiplying the
torque by the angular velocity) can be divided by the power input to find the efficiency of the
motor. Hence, there is a correlation between the motor temperature and its efficiency.

Motor Cooling Process

The motor is cooled by flowing air from the rear inlet vents over the motor and out
through the outlet vents. This is done to allow cool air from the environment to replace hot air
inside the drill housing, allowing the maximum temperature differential at the surface of the
motor. Thus, the motor loses heat quickly as the air it heats up is constantly being replaced by
new room temperature air.
To accomplish this task, the drill employs a centrifugal fan. A centrifugal fan is one
whose design is to push air out radially (as opposed to most fans which move air mostly axially).
When the motor is turned on, the fan spins and its blades push air in the vicinity radially
outwards and through the outlet vents. As air leaves the drill housing, the inside experiences a
pressure decrease. The pressure differential between the outside environment and inside the drill
housing causes air to enter through the inlet vents. Note: air generally does not re-enter the drill
through the outlet vents because of the strong constant flow of air blowing out of them.
Once the air enters the inlet to the drill housing, it continues to flow to the point of
minimum pressure, right by the fan. It is then expelled by the fan out of the outlet vents, and the
cycle continues. All steps of the air flow cycle happen simultaneously to create a constant cycle
of new air moving from the inlet to the outlet. During the time the air is inside the drill housing,
heat is transferred to it from the motor. Once the air leaves the drill housing via the exit vents, it
is dissipated into the environment which acts as a reservoir of constant-temperature air.

8
 FIGURE 3: A summary diagram showing that air is sucked in and over the motor to allow the motor
to quickly expel heated air out into the environment.

Rejected Redesign Ideas

In determining the best part to focus on when approaching the problem, the team
considered modifying the inlet and outlet vents on the drill housing to increase airflow.
Specifically, the team considered increasing the size of the air vents, increasing the number of air
vents, and moving the air vents inwards (shrinking the diameter of the drill housing at that point).
The team rejected larger air vents because it could be hazardous to get a part of a finger or glove
caught in the fan. The team also rejected increasing the number of air vents because an increased
number of outlet vents could lead to a lack of airflow through each, which in turn could lead to
air flowing in through some of the outlet vents due to the pressure differential at the fan. Lastly,
the team decided to reject moving the air vents closer to the fan after coming to the
understanding that this would restrict the path of the incoming air from the inlet vents.

9
 FIGURE 4: The current design of the outlet vents on the DCD701 housing.

Potential Fan Redesigns

A potential component that can be considered for a redesign is the internal fan. As
mentioned earlier, the fan has a direct correlation with the amount of air that exits the drill at a
given moment. The rate of air leaving the drill also affects the rate of heat transfer out of the
drill. There could exist a correlation between the rate of heat transfer leaving the drill from the
motor housing, and the motor temperature.

10
 FIGURE 5: The CAD model for the internal fan

The fan is 38.96 mm in diameter, with a surface area of 4350.44 mm2 and a maximum
angular velocity of 2998 rad/sec.

Using equations derived from the fan laws for centrifugal fans, a relationship between fan
diameter and volumetric flow rate can be seen. The mass flow rate can be found from volumetric
flow rate using the density of air. From there, the equation for the rate of heat transfer due to
convection can be used to relate mass flow rate to heat transfer rate. To relate the heat transfer
rate to the temperature of the motor, DeWalt would have to conduct a more thorough analysis.
However, we discuss a potential model for these equations later in the report.
Another potential redesign of the fan may involve changing the number of blades. An
article by Tito Mwinuka, titled “Experimental Determination of the Effect of Number of Impeller
Blades on the Air Flow Rate and Power Consumption of Centrifugal Blowers”, discusses the
effects of centrifugal fan blades on volumetric flow rate. Mwinuka works at the Department of
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering at the University of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania. Mwinuka
writes that it is unclear how the number of blades on a centrifugal fan affects the performance of
the fan [11]. He later mentions that no literature dictates a concrete relationship between the
number of fan blades and the flow rate, and he further mentions that to find a relationship would
require experimental testing [11]. For the purposes of the fan within the DeWalt DCD701,
experimental modeling and testing are required to find a relationship between the number of
blades on the fan and the air flow rate leaving the drill. While DeWalt would have to perform this

11
in depth analysis, some data is provided in the mentioned study. A potential model and
calculations for this test are discussed later in this report.

Section C: Potential Solutions

Specific Modification

Option 1:

After examining the current fan design, it was found that there is a small margin in which
the diameter of the fan can be increased before it interferes with the current housing design. The
current fan design has a radius of 39 mm, with the fan blades having a height of 4.6 mm and a
length of 5.82 mm. The team proposed an increase to the diameter of the fan by 4.6 mm. This
increase in diameter would increase the width of each fan blade by 2.3 mm, making the new
height 8.12 mm. This increase in diameter will not increase the width of the overall fan design
and takes manufacturing tolerance into account. This increase will still allow the fan to fit within
the current housing design and be assembled in the same location. The reasoning behind this
redesign was that increasing the overall diameter will allow for a longer fan blade to move more
air, thus allowing the drill to operate at lower temperatures.

Option 2:

During the team’s research of centrifugal fans, it was discovered that there is a
relationship between the number of fan blades and flow rate. When increasing the number of
blades, there is an increase in flow rate. The current fan design is configured with 17 straight
blades that are 0.88 mm thick. It was proposed that the number of fan blades be increased to 35
blades. This would allow for a 1.76 mm gap between blades, allowing air to still flow between
each blade. Because increasing the number of fan blades will not affect the overall diameter or
the thickness of the fan, this design change will still fit within the current housing design. The
concept behind increasing the number of fan blades will lead to an increase in air flow,
decreasing the drills operating temperature.

Constraints
Certain constraints immediately arose when considering the modification options. Design
constraints are strict factors that are unable to be controlled. Starting off, the modification has to
build off of the DeWalt DCD701 platform. Another constraint is that this modification is strictly
related to the performance of the drill; thus, there are also limitations on hardware, software,
interfacing restrictions, and power delivery. Each redesign will encounter distinct constraints as
they are different modifications that will try and improve the same function.

12
Option 1:

Changing the fan diameter will encounter many constraints due to the compact design of
the DCD701 housing. The fan is placed along the shaft of the motor; in between the sun gear and
electric motor. Within the proposed redesign, the position of the fan will not be changed. Without
modifying the housing, there is a limited margin that the diameter can increase. The housing has
a designated diameter of 44 mm with a tolerance of +/- 0.3 mm allocated for the placement of the
fan. The fan has a diameter of 39 mm with a tolerance of +/- 0.1mm. Thus, accounting for the
size of the components and the manufacturing tolerance; the fan can only be increased by 4.6
mm before it starts to interfere with the housing.
Another constraint on increasing the diameter of the fan is the manufacturing cost. This
part is manufactured through injection molding. To keep cost down, this part still needs to be
made from a thermoset as well as made from the injection molding process. Restricting this fan
redesign to fit within the current housing design and in the same location, the only cost will be
the implementation of constructing a new mold. A new mold for injection molding is the second
largest cost, behind the cost of the machine.
Another constraint in this design change is the fan’s angular velocity. It was assumed in this
design change that in steady state the angular velocity does not change from the current design’s
angular velocity. Lastly, there will be no changes regarding the shaft from the fan to the motor,
nor the material of the fan.

Option 2:

One benefit to increasing the number of blades on the fan is that it does not interfere with
the current housing dimensions and tolerances. Adding roughly double the number of blades
does not change the fan diameter; it just affects the distance between the blades.
Changing the number of blades from 17 to 35 impacts the fan manufacturing process.
Injection molding can be very costly when it comes to creating a new mold. A new mold is the
most costly aspect to injection molding, besides the machinery, but once the molds are made,
they can be used for mass production. Injection molding adds in an additional tolerance to
account for due to the use of molds, materials, temperature, and guidelines. This redesign from
17 to 35 blades increases the thickness between from 0.88 mm to 1.76 mm. This addition of
blades allows more airflow to the motor, which helps cool the motor temperature. Since the
number of blades does not affect the fan diameter, the tolerance of the fan diameter should stay
constant.
Similarly to Option 1, another constraint in this design change is the fan’s angular
velocity. It was assumed in this design change that in steady state the angular velocity does not
change from the current design’s angular velocity. Lastly, there will be no changes regarding the
shaft from the fan to the motor, nor the material of the fan.

13
Modeling/Simulation/Analysis

In order to analyze the effects of fan diameter and and number of fan blades on the
temperature of the motor, the team found a relationship between those parameters and the mass
flow rate. Since the temperature of the motor will decrease as the mass flow rate increases,
comparing the mass flow rates for the potential new designs gave insight to which change should
be further investigated.

Known Parameters and Initial Assumptions

A few initial assumptions must be made in order to begin modeling. First, the angular
velocity of the fan is the angular velocity of the motor, which at its maximum; is 2998 rad/s. All
calculations will use a velocity of 2998 rad/s, which may result in an overestimate of the mass
flow rate because the speed would actually decrease when resistance is applied to the drill during
practical applications. The 2998 rad/s speed was found during no-load testing. Finally, the fan is
assumed to act entirely centrifugally with no axial air displacement. The studies and equations
used for the simulations reflect this assumption.
Given below are the key parameters and variables considered in the simulation process.
Some variables were given in lab data, while others are assumed under specific conditions.
Others are calculated from known data. Parameters in which a simulation will need to solve for
are listed as well.

14
Name Variable Value Units Description

Air density ρair 1.184 kg/m3 at 25oC

Specific heat of air cp,air 1007 J/kgoC at 25oC

Motor mass mmotor 0.23 kg From Decomposition Lab

Motor specific heat capacity cmotor 460 J/kgoC Steel [8]

2998 rad/s
Fan angular velocity ωfan No load speed
28.25 krpm

Existing fan diameter D1 0.039 m N/A

New fan diameter D2 N/A m To be optimized

Existing number of fan blades n1 17 N/A N/A

New number of fan blades n2 N/A N/A To be optimized

Existing fan blade thickness tblade 0.88 mm From fan drawings

Existing plenum outlet velocity vout,1 5.2 m/s From Thermal Lab

Existing fan linear velocity vfan,1 58.461 m/s From Power Lab

Existing plenum area A1 0.001294 m2 From Thermal Lab

Existing mass flow rate ṁ1 0.007966 kg/s From Thermal Lab

New mass flow rate ṁ2 N/A kg/s To be calculated

TABLE 2: Known parameters of the fan and air properties

15
Option 1 Modeling:

In order to find the new mass flow rate, ṁ2,of the system based on the change in the
diameter of the fan, D2, the relationship between the two can be derived from the velocity as
follows. Using the desired diameter of the fan and the assumed angular velocity of the fan, the
output linear velocity of the fan can be found.

𝑑2
𝑟2 = 2
ω𝑓𝑎𝑛
ν𝑎𝑖𝑟2,𝑓𝑎𝑛 = 𝑟2

The output linear velocity of the fan must be adjusted to account for the loss in speed
between the fan output and the plenum output. This loss can be attributed to the drag force on the
fan and the overestimate assumption that the drill is operating at its no load speed. In order to
correct the velocity data, it can be multiplied by the ratio between the calculated fan linear speed
and the experimental plenum output speed as found in the Thermal Lab.

ν𝑎𝑖𝑟1,𝑜𝑢𝑡
ν𝑎𝑖𝑟2,𝑜𝑢𝑡 = ν𝑓𝑎𝑛1,𝑜𝑢𝑡
· ν𝑓𝑎𝑛2,𝑜𝑢𝑡

Finally, using the known area of the plenum, A plenum, and the assumed density of the air at
25oC, ρair, the new mass flow rate of the system can be calculated.

ṁ2 = ρ𝑎𝑖𝑟ν𝑎𝑖𝑟2,𝑜𝑢𝑡𝐴𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑚

16
 FIGURE 6: graph of the mass flow rate versus the diameter of the fan

This initial simulation shows the positive increasing relationship between the mass flow
rate and the fan diameter. This supports the initial assumptions and physics related to a change in
fan diameter. With the increase in mass flow rate will come a decrease in motor temperature, and
therefore an increase in efficiency.

Option 2 Modeling:

In order to find the new mass flow rate, ṁ2,of the system based on the change in the
number of fan blades, n2, centrifugal fan studies can be used to estimate the needed data. A study
from the American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences titled
“Experimental Determination of the Effect of Number of Impeller Blades on the Air Flow Rate
and Power Consumption of Centrifugal Blowers” shows that for a given constant angular
velocity, the output velocity and the flow rate increase with the number of blades [11]. Data for
the output linear velocity from the fan is provided for three angular speeds, each at five different
numbers of fan blades [11].

17
Experimental Data [11]

Blower speed (rpm) Number of Blades, n Velocity, V(m/s) Flow Rate, Q = AV

4 3.5 0.0182
5 3.8 0.01976
580 6 3.6 0.01872
7 3.9 0.0203
8 4.2 0.02184
4 7.7 0.04004
5 7.9 0.04108
1496 6 8.1 0.04212
7 8.3 0.04316
8 9.2 0.04784
4 13 0.0676
5 13.9 0.07228
2990 6 14.6 0.07592
7 15 0.078
8 15.5 0.0806
TABLE 3: Experimental data relating rpm to flow rate for different cases

18
 The first step was to derive a line of best fit for the output linear velocity from the fan
versus the fan angular speed at each number of blades.

FIGURE 7: Fan linear velocity as a function of the fan angular velocity

19
 Next a relationship between the fan output linear velocity versus the number of blades at
a fan angular velocity of 28.25 krpm can be found. Using the above lines of best fits provides the
output linear velocity at 28.25 krpm for each of the number of blades. This can be graphed and a
line of best fit can be drawn below.

FIGURE 8: Fan linear velocity as a function of the number of fan blades

20
 This data must be adjusted in order to account for the drag and other loss that would
occur between the fan and the output plenum. This adjustment can be made using the ratio of the
known fan output velocity of 58.46 m/s with the current drill design to the fan linear velocity at
28.25 krpm and 17 blades found from the data. Multiplying the calculated fan output velocities
by this ratio results in a more reasonable and expected set of velocities, as graphed below.

FIGURE 9: Adjusted fan linear velocity as a function of the number of fan blades

21
 Next, these fan output velocities can be converted to the theoretical output velocities at
the plenum. This conversion can be done using the ratio of the experimental plenum output
velocity of 5.2 m/s to the known fan output velocity of 58.46 m/s. Multiplying the data by this
ratio will account for the loss in velocity from the fan to the plenum and can be seen below.

FIGURE 10: Adjusted plenum velocity as a function of the number of fan blades

22
 Finally, the mass flow rate, ṁ2, can be calculated from the plenum velocities, vair2,out, as a
function of the number of blades, n2, as well as using the area of the plenum, A 1, and the density
of air, ρair. The mass flow rate can be found as:

ṁ2 = ρ𝑎𝑖𝑟ν𝑎𝑖𝑟2,𝑜𝑢𝑡𝐴𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑚

FIGURE 11: Mass flow rate as a function of the number of fan blades

This data supports the assumption that the relationship between the mass flow rate and
the number of blades for a fan at a constant velocity, is positive and increasing. However, in
order to arrive at this approximation, several assumptions were made. The data set used to
estimate the data for the given DeWalt fan speed was for lower speeds and lower numbers of
blades [blades tudy]. At these lower speeds and lower number of blades, the relationships are
linear. However, there is not enough current information to assume these relationships are still
linear at much higher speeds or much higher numbers of blades.
Additionally, the relationship between the drag force and the velocity is not linear. Since
the data used in the approximation of the mass flow rate was experimental, it already accounts
for the drag force at these speeds. This does not mean that the relationship is always linear. As
the number of blades increases, the total moment due to the drag force on the blades increases.
The velocity increases with the number of blades, and the drag force increases by the velocity
squared.

23
 2
𝐹𝑑 = 𝐶 𝑑 · 𝐴 · ν

Specific Designs for Each Option and Justification:

The maximum feasible solution for Option 1 is to increase the diameter of the fan to 43. 6
mm. This is a 4.6 mm increase, and is the maximum allowable increase without interfering with
the current housing dimensions. This change would result in a mass flow rate of ṁ2= 0.0089
kg/s., which is an increase of 0.000934 kg/s from the original mass flow rate.
The maximum feasible solution for Option 2 is to increase the number of fan blades to 35
blades. This is an increase of 18 blades over the original design. With 35 blades, there is still
sufficient room between each blade in order to move the air while also being manufacturable.
This change would result in a mass flow rate of ṁ2= 0.0122 kg/s, which is an increase of
0.004234 kg/s from the original mass flow rate.
Using the simulation data, design constraints, and known limitations of the data, a
decision can be made as to which design change is most worthy of further investigation. These
factors assist in the analysis for the most desirable diameter increase and the most desirable fan
blade increase.
When considering design constraints, one of the most important is the current design
dimensions of the housing. Should the fan diameter be increased enough to warrant housing
dimension changes, extensive additional testing would be required to ensure that the drill is still
safe, durable, and comfortable to use. For example, these changes would require new drop
testing to be done, since the fan has increased in size. DeWalt would need to evaluate the
stability of a much larger fan before implementing the change.
The engineering team must take manufacturing and customer requirements into
consideration before choosing a solution. A fan size that requires a larger housing would
complicate the current manufacturing process. New molds would be needed for the drill housing
and for the fan. The molds used for injection molding are the largest cost. An additional
consideration to not change the housing is all the new tests that would need to be conducted for
the housing. The entire upper portion of the drill would need to be tested as the extension to
accommodate the addition to the fan, could protrude the most. This protrusion would need
extensive testing adding to the time till implication and cost of the redesign. Thus it is critical for
both of the fan redesigns to fit within the current housing design. Creating a new mold for the fan
is an expensive process that’s design change may not justify these costs.
For these reasons, it would not be worth further investigating a fan diameter size that
would require a larger housing. This would add too much testing, which would not be cost
efficient. The added time and costs associated with producing new manufacturing equipment
would be too expensive as well. For the diameter simulation, it would only be worthwhile to
investigate the maximum diameter of the fan that would not interfere with the housing.

24
 In order to determine the optimal number of fan blades, the blade thickness and fan
circumference were used to find the maximum number of blades that could be implemented,
which is 139 blades. However, this would result in a solid disk, which would not move air. In
order to provide ample space between blades to create air flow, the maximum number of blades
was divided by four, resulting in 35 blades. This estimation also provides room for
manufacturing tolerances without risking limited airflow.

Final Decision:

Of these two options, the design change outlined in Option 1 to increase the diameter of
the fan by 4.6 mm has the most potential for improvement to the drill. Overall, the Option 1
model is more likely to give reliable results. As discussed, the Option 2 model required a
significant amount of data manipulation and assumptions to be made. Not enough experimental
data, research, or mathematical models exist in order to easily and accurately model this data.
Although Option 2 of increasing the number of fan blades to 35 resulted in a slightly larger mass
flow rate, there is not a large enough difference to justify using a less reliable model.

Option 1 Further Simulation:

In order to relate the temperature of the motor, Tm, to the mass flow rate, ṁ2,a
conservation of heat can be applied. With this model, the overall heat of the system is not
changing. The only heat transfer changing due to the new design would be the amount of heat
that the motor releases to the air.

𝑄𝑎𝑖𝑟 + 𝑄𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟 + 𝑄𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 = 𝑄𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙

𝑄𝑎𝑖𝑟 + 𝑄𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟 = 𝑄𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 − 𝑄𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟

𝑄𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟1 + 𝑄𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟2 = 𝑄𝑎𝑖𝑟2 − 𝑄𝑎𝑖𝑟1

𝑚𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟∆𝑇𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟2 = 𝑚𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟∆𝑇𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟1 − ṁ2 ∆𝑡 𝑐𝑝,𝑎𝑖𝑟 ∆𝑇𝑎𝑖𝑟 + ṁ1 ∆𝑡 𝑐𝑝,𝑎𝑖𝑟 ∆𝑇𝑎𝑖𝑟

𝑚𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟(𝑇𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟2 − 𝑇𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟1) = (ṁ1 − ṁ2) ∆𝑡 𝑐𝑝,𝑎𝑖𝑟 ∆𝑇𝑎𝑖𝑟

(ṁ1−ṁ2) ∆𝑡 𝑐𝑝,𝑎𝑖𝑟 ∆𝑇𝑎𝑖𝑟

(𝑇𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟2 − 𝑇𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟1) = 𝑚𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟

25
 (ṁ1−ṁ2) ∆𝑡 𝑐𝑝,𝑎𝑖𝑟 ∆𝑇𝑎𝑖𝑟
𝑇𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟2 = 𝑚𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟
+ 𝑇𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟1

26
where:
∆𝑇𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 𝑇𝑎𝑖𝑟,𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝑇𝑎𝑖𝑟,𝑖𝑛
𝑇𝑎𝑖𝑟,𝑜𝑢𝑡 and 𝑇𝑎𝑖𝑟,𝑖𝑛 are from Thermal Lab outlet and inlet data
𝑇𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟1is from Thermal Lab motor data
ṁ1is the mass flow rate from the Thermal Lab data, at the plenum
∆𝑡 is the timestep or 1 second between data collection in Thermal Lab
𝑐𝑝,𝑎𝑖𝑟is specific heat capacity of air at 25oC
𝑚𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟is the mass of the motor
𝑐𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟 is the specific heat capacity of the motor

As a result, the relationship between the new temperature of the motor after the design
change and the new mass flow rate is:

(ṁ1−ṁ2) ∆𝑡 𝑐𝑝,𝑎𝑖𝑟 ∆𝑇𝑎𝑖𝑟

𝑇𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟2 = 𝑚𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟
+ 𝑇𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟1

This relationship requires assumptions about the plenum outlet air temperatures to be
made. In order to calculate a theoretical motor temperature at a new mass flow rate, it must be
assumed that the outlet air temperature does not change significantly. Therefore, the outlet air
temperatures from the Thermal Lab can be used in this simulation.
In order to begin rectifying the errors in temperature that this assumption may cause, the
simulation can be run again using adjusted air temperatures. It is expected that an increased mass
flow rate would cause a decrease in outlet air temperature, as the air moves through the drill
faster, allowing less time to heat up. The simulation can be run with outlet air temperature data
sets decreased by 2% and by 5% from the original Thermal Lab data in order to see the effects.
Below are the resulting temperatures from each of the three simulations for the original
air data, the 2% adjustment, and the 5% adjustment. This graph shows the decrease in
temperature of the motor from the original data to the new data at each simulation over the time
of a battery discharge cycle for insertion and removal.

27
FIGURE 12: Difference in motor temperature as a function of time

28
These charts show the maximum temperature of the motor for each simulation in comparison to
the original maximum motor temperature.

Current Air Data

Old Motor Max Temp (C) 50.5
New Max Motor Temp (C) 50.424
Decrease in Motor Temp (C) 0.0760

2% Decrease of Tair Outlet Data

Old Motor Max Temp (C) 50.5
New Max Motor Temp (C) 50.431
Decrease in Motor Temp (C) 0.069

5% Decrease of Tair Outlet Data

Old Motor Max Temp (C) 50.5
New Max Motor Temp (C) 50.441
Decrease in Motor Temp (C) 0.059
TABLE 4: Tables displaying the decrease in motor temperature for different cases

As the heat transfer is accounted for, the potential for a reduced motor temperature
decreases. Overall, the potential reduction in motor temperature is small. However, the
limitations of the data set and the assumptions made may contribute to these temperatures being
an underestimate. Only one set of data was collected for the Thermal Lab. Testing in greater
quantities and with the actual design changes may result in more impactful results. Assumptions
and adjustments were made regarding velocity and outlet air temperature. If real data on these
parameters were to be collected, the true effect of the design changes would be reflected in the
temperature differential.
Finally, motor temperature can be related to efficiency. There is limited information and
data available for the DeWalt DCD701’s 12V brushless DC motor. For this reason, true power
and torque curves as a function of temperature cannot be extracted. However, using a similar DC
motor curve, data can be interpolated to calculate the relative increase in efficiency that the
decrease in motor temperature provides. This provides an estimate in efficiency gain for the
purposes of this simulation. Additional testing would be needed on this motor in order to
determine the true performance metrics of the design change.
Below are two curves interpolated onto an existing DC motor curve [14]. The provided
curve gives data at temperatures of 25oC and 125oC. The yellow drawn curve shows the

29
power-torque relationship for 50.5oC, which is the maximum temperature the motor reaches
during battery discharge application testing for the current DeWalt DCD701 fan design. The blue
drawn curve shows the power-torque relationship for 50.4oC, which is the new maximum
temperature the motor would reach if the fan size was increased by 4.6 mm.

FIGURE 13: Motor curves based on temperature [14]

Motor efficiency can be calculated as a function of the power output, as formerly

mentioned. Furthermore, the change in efficiency can be calculated. The difference in maximum
power output between the 50.50C operation and 50.4oC operation is 0.05 W. For this example
motor curve, the input power is 977 W [14].

(𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡1−𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡2)
η1 − η2 = 𝑃𝑖𝑛

∆η = 0. 00512%
Although this efficiency is insignificant, it is not the true increase in efficiency for the
DeWalt motor. The Dewalt DCD701 motor operates at higher powers, so this change in
efficiency is an underestimate. This estimation is simply shown to demonstrate that a small
temperature change results in a small efficiency change. DeWalt would need to provide motor

30
specifications or do motor testing at elevated temperatures in order to calculate the true
efficiency gain. Since there are still several unknowns about air temperature, air velocity, and
motor efficiency, this change requires further testing and analysis before ruling it out.

Customer Requirements

Changing the fan can result in a conflict with the comfort and ease of use for the user.
The addition of weight may be small; however, the amount of rotating mass is now increased.
While the increased angular momentum could stabilize the drill in some ways, the amount of
torque on the user’s wrist would also increase. This could cause the drill to be shaky during use,
take away from the user accuracy, and cause fatigue more quickly. Also because of the fan
redesign, the fan has the ability to move more air, adding more strain to the motor. Again, this
may be a small change, but the performance and battery life will be affected.
Increasing the amount of air the fan is able to move, coupled with reducing the internal
tolerances, the drill has the ability to be louder. This noise may be distracting to the user, taking
their focus away from the job at hand. As learned from the Benchmarking Lab regarding sound,
the DeWalt DCD701 operates right in the middle of the competition. Allowing the drill to be any
louder would forfeit any leverage over this customer requirement that adds to the overall appeal
of the drill. It is important that the drill is not distracting due to noise level to the customer and
those surrounding. The drill must also comply with OSHA standards. In the long run, noise can
affect the user’s ability to hear and even lead to hearing loss so it is crucial that the noise level
does not increase due to the redesign.

Tracking and Mitigation

During the testing phase of the proposed model, there will be more testing to ensure that
the customer requirements are minimally affected, if at all, due to mitigation. To do this, the
affected customer requirements will be considered, and a measurable quantity will be applied to
allow a new engineering characteristic to be identified or investigated.
Usability and comfort is a key component to the DCD701, and additional tests will be
conducted for vibrations, noise, and heat transfer and drill efficiency. If there is an increase in
vibrations due to the fan, then damping will be added to help absorb the extra energy.
Counterweight can also be added to ensure stability and balance of the drill. Adding a
counterweight may also improve the amount of net torque the user feels on their wrist, improving
comfort. It is crucial to the customer that the drill is safe to use, so it needs to be stable while
stationary and in use. If it is not stable due to increased vibrations from the load, the tool can
injure the customer, which could possibly result in legal action against DeWalt.
When measuring the amount of noise produced by the drill, it will be compared to the

31
existing drill and its competitors, as well as OSHA regulations. If this redesign is in fact louder,
then this can be dealt with by adding sound deadening on walls of housing, such as rubber
bushings. This sound deadening would then absorb some of the ambient noise. The data
collected during the testing phase will be analyzed to ensure that the customer requirements are
fulfilled.

Section D: Proposed Modeling and Testing

There are five tests that should be run in order to consider the 4.6 mm redesign:
1. Thermal
2. Airflow
3. Noise
4. Vibration
5. Motor Torque-Temperature

Thermal tests should be run in order to determine how the redesign affects the
temperature of the motor, as well as other portions of the drill. The redesign is aiming to improve
the airflow of the drill, which needs to be tested. Changing the fan’s size could also impact how
loud the drill performs; thus, testing must be done to ensure the drill still falls within OSHA
regulations. When the drill is operated, the components vibrate, which the user must damp with
their hands resulting in an energy loss. In order to find a more accurate value for the amount of
energy dissipated as heat, it is necessary that the other forms of loss are calculated. Lastly, the
relationship between how fast the motor runs and how hot it gets needs to be measured, as the
two have a direct relationship.

Variables to Test
The independent variable of the testing is the fan’s diameter. This will impact the
volumetric flow rate, which in turn increases the mass flow rate. The change in mass flow rate
will ideally increase the rate of heat transfer, decreasing the overall temperature of components
in the tool. This will let the tool run for longer at lower temperatures, improving its efficiency.
DeWalt will be able to provide more accurate information on the drill’s specifications, especially
component material properties, dimensions, and weights. The approximations performed in
previous labs used some simplifications and estimations, as the team was not privy to the
proprietary information DeWalt has access to.

32
Thermal Data Collection
The thermal data collection will use a similar setup to Lab 7: Thermal. The rig will use
six thermistors to collect temperature data at important portions of the drill. The six locations are
as follows:
1. Inlet
2. Top Outlet
3. Bottom Outlet
4. Motor
5. Battery
6. Grip

FIGURE 14: The Lab 7 Thermal setup. DeWalt will measure the same locations, the measurements
will be more accurate and the setup permanent for mass testing.

Similar to the thermal lab, there will be a calibration section, ensuring thermistor readings
are as accurate as possible. New thermistors will be used, from OMEGA [12]. These thermistors
are probes, and are much more accurate and durable than the ones used in labs. Having readings
accurate to ± 0.01°C [12], compared to the thermal lab’s ± 1.0°C [13] paired with mitigating the
major issues in Lab 7 with faulty, unreliable thermistors, will help ensure the collected data is as
accurate as possible.

33
 FIGURE 15: The new thermistor probes [12].

The data collection process will follow the subsequent procedure. Thermistors will be
attached to the specified components in the testing drill. Next, the thermistors will be calibrated,
ensuring any offsets will be accounted for. Afterwards, testers will begin fully discharging the
drill. The tester will screw in, then screw out a drill, avoiding problematic locations in the wood
such as knots, and avoiding using the same screw multiple times in a row (heating may alter ease
of drilling). The drill will also be oriented in the same manner as used during practical
application. The tester will continue this process until the drill’s battery is depleted. At this point,
the tester will wait for five more minutes before temperature data collection ends. The code to
govern the thermistors is displayed below in a flow chart:

34
 FIGURE 16: Flow chart denoting the collection process for the thermal data.
After the data is collected. Analysis can be performed to determine if the changes in
temperature from the redesign affected the heat transfer rate and overall temperature of the
motor.

35
Testing Equipment and Data Collection
Controlled Variables
During the testing process, there are some variables that should remain constant and
consistent so that the test produces accurate results.
One important factor that should remain constant is the orientation of the drill. The
thermal lab that was conducted earlier in the semester showed that the drill orientation has an
effect on heat transfer via convection. Hence, it is recommended that the drill remain in the same
orientation throughout the testing process.
Another import factor to keep constant is the battery and motor life. For the test, a fresh
battery should be used for the drill, and the motor should have as minimal use as possible on it
before testing. These conditions should allow for testing on the drill when it is at its peak
condition. Hence, the data collected should represent the off the shelf version of the drill.
It is also important that the application for the testing process remains constant as well.
The test consists of the drill inserting a screw, removing it, and then repeating that process with a
different screw until the battery of the drill dies. By using a new screw during each
insertion/removal phase, it minimizes the possibility of the screw affecting the data collected,
and also simulates better how the drill would actually be used by a customer, since it is more
likely that a customer would use the drill on multiple screws rather than the same screw over a
long period of time.
During the testing process, it is important that the user conducting the test does not
change. Looking at data collected from previous labs this semester, it can be seen that there is
variation between the data collected by each of the teaching assistants, even though they all
conducted the same test. This was especially noticeable during the Power Lab when the data that
Lucy collected was drastically different from her peers. For these reasons, it is recommended that
the user conducting the test remains constant.
It is important that the time between the insertion/removal phase of each screw remains
constant as well. Since the test is focused on the thermal properties of the motor, it is vital that
motor and drill do not experience a large temperature change between each screw. If the time
taken for changing screws is too long at any point during the testing process, it will give the drill
and motor a chance to cool down, which would affect the data collected.
The inlet temperature of the drill should also remain constant during the testing process.
The temperature of the air at the inlet vent of the drill should be room temperature. Hence, it
should not change drastically at any point during the test.

Expected Results
It is expected that the results from the testing process will show that the redesign of the
fan will improve the heat transfer rate of the air leaving the drill, and it will improve the
efficiency of the motor. It is important to note that the improvement to motor efficiency is
expected to be fairly small. Nevertheless, it is recommended that DeWalt conducts an analysis of

36
variance (ANOVA) test on the data collected. This would be a one-factor ANOVA test, the factor
being the application: insertion vs. removal.
It is also recommended that DeWalt conducts an analysis of cost. It is important to verify
that changing the diameter of the fan will be worth the expense required to make this change.
Using the results of the tests, as well as the analysis of the data and cost, DeWalt can
decide whether or not it is worth it to further pursue the redesign of the fan. They will need to
quantify the improvement of the drill in a way that helps them make this decision, and they will
also need to find if this redesign aligns with the interests of the customer. In this case, rather than
market the change in fan diameter directly to the customer, it is recommended that DeWalt
presents this change as an improvement in motor performance that would allow the customer to
use the drill properly for a longer period of time.

Additional Testing
Aside from affecting the heat transfer rate and motor temperature, the redesign of the fan
will affect other characteristics of the drill. It is recommended that DeWalt conducts some
additional testing to examine how the redesign of the fan affects other components of the drill.

Motor-Torque Temperature & Efficiency:

The goal for this additional test would be to calculate the motor efficiency as a function
of its temperature. Research conducted earlier in this report shows a relationship between the
temperature of a DC motor and its torque and power output. Specifically, at a constant rpm, it
was found that the torque output would decrease as the motor temperature increases. From
previous labs in this semester it was also found that an increase in torque would give an increase
in efficiency. For this additional test, the data that DeWalt should aim to collect would be the
torque of the drill with the motor at room temperature and the torque of the drill with the motor
at an elevated temperature. During the test, it is recommended that DeWalt uses an advanced
dynamic torque sensor to measure the torque of the drill. It is also recommended that the test is
conducted twice, once with the motor at high temperatures, and once with the motor at low
temperatures. Finally for this test, the drill should be operating at a constant rpm.

37
 FIGURE 17: Hex-Drive Rotary Torque Sensor [10].

Air Flow:
Due to the assumptions and adjustments made in the simulation, it is necessary to collect
air flow data for the new designs. The airflow is directly used to calculate the mass flow rate,
which is a major component of the desired dataset. Additionally, the velocities collected for the
original design in the Thermal Lab are not precise nor accurate. Only one sample was collected,
and the measurement devices used were lower grade than what DeWalt would choose for testing.
It is recommended that DeWalt test the original design, as well as the new design, using a
professionally manufactured plenum. This plenum should be smaller in order to have less loss in
output air speed. It should also be sealed to the drill to reduce air leakage. In order to collect
velocity readings, a higher quality accelerometer should be used. An example of a more
acceptable accelerometer would be from the Omega FMA1000 Series, as this accelerometer has
higher accuracy and response time than what was used in the lab [4].
The testing procedure would be similar to that of the Thermal Lab, but should include a
higher number of trials. The drill should be held at the same orientation as the application testing
in order to provide consistent results.

38
Noise:
It is necessary that the drill emits only a certain level of noise, in decibels (dB), which is
regulated by OSHA. Furthermore, during operation, some energy is lost as energy to sound.
Sound energy can be calculated by multiplying power and time. One can determine power by
multiplying intensity and area, which was solved for in Lab II. Using a stroboscope to measure β,
one can solve for I. By taking the average value over several trials, and at different locations, one
can determine the power, and ultimately energy lost due to sound. Area in the power calculation
approximates the area as the surface area of a sphere, with radius being from the drill to the
location of the stroboscope.

FIGURE 18: The intensity equation, with I0 = 10-12 W/m2.

The DeWalt testing will follow a similar procedure outlined in Lab II. The drill will run
in the same orientation as during operation. The noise of the drill will be taken with an EXTECH
sound level meter [1].

FIGURE 19: EXTECH Sound level meter [1].

The test will be run at variable distances, such as at 1, 3, and 5 meters. Taking the
averages of these tests will allow one to determine how much energy is lost due to sound,
providing a more accurate estimation of the energy lost due to heat, and ultimately a more
accurate heat transfer rate.

39
Vibration:
As previously discussed, additional vibrations due to the increase in the size of the fan
may cause instability or discomfort for the user. In order to evaluate and minimize vibrational
losses of the design change, DeWalt must test the drill with the new fan size. Potential methods
of testing include using piezoelectric sensors or an accelerometer connected to the drill and
collecting data [6]. This test should be done for both the current drill design and the new design
in order to compare the vibrations. It should also be done for both Speed 1 and Speed 2 of the
drill for both designs in order to ensure that the airflow through the fan is sufficient. The test
should be performed with applications, at the same orientation as the application testing.

Section E: Manufacturing

Current Manufacturing Process

The current process used for manufacturing the fan and housing components is injection
molding. Injection molding is a process in which thermosets, in the form of plastic pellets, are
melted into a molten material. This liquefied material then undergoes high pressure so that it can
be injected into a cast. The cast is a hollowed out representation of the manufactured part. The
cast is made of two halves that are hydraulically clamped shut. Once the material has been shot
into the mold, it goes through a cooling process. The molten material has time to solidify, taking
the shape of the mold. The rear section of the mold is connected to the injection unit that will
separate the mold halves. Significant force is required to separate these molds, as the plastic seals
and causes a vacuum to form as the molds are pulled apart. Depending on the application, a
releasing agent can be applied to aid in the removal of the part. Once the part has fully hardened,
the newly manufactured part is ejected and the process can then be repeated.

40
 FIGURE 20: An injection Molding Machine split view [7].

There are several variations of injection molding. For the specified redesigns, it is
necessary that single shot injection molding is used for the fan redesign. Shot injection molding
machines follow the aforementioned process.The fan blades are made out of polyamide-66
(nylon). The redesign would only modify the fan diameter, extending the blade height by 2.3
mm, to improve airflow.

FIGURE 21: A CAD rendition of the DeWalt Fan.

41
Redesign Adjustments

The adjustment needed to accommodate the increase in fan diameter will require the
construction of a new mold. The fan will still utilize the aforementioned process of single shot
injection molding. The current fan design has a diameter of 38.96 mm with a manufacturing
tolerance of +/- 0.1 mm. At the location closest to the fan, the current drill housing has a
diameter of 44 mm with a manufacturing tolerance of +/- .3 mm. Thus, the maximum diameter
of the fan being 39.06 mm and the minimum housing diameter being 43.7 mm. This leads to a
mere 4.64 mm that the fan diameter can be increased before it interferes with the housing. To
allow for the fan to still free spin, the diameter can be increased to 4.6 mm while accounting for
all manufacturing tolerances.
The fan will still be manufactured from the same thermoset plastic used in the current
design. Because of the same material and manufacturing process, the same manufacturing
tolerance will be applied. Larger molds (typically intended for mass production) have the ability
to make several parts during a single injection. Depending on the spacing between each part
within the existing mold, there may be an option to machine the existing mold to fit the proposed
fan design. This would save a lot of time and money if possible and should be further
investigated.

Considerations for Assembly and Design for Manufacturing

Design For Assembly (DFA) will remain unchanged. Only increasing the fan diameter
will not affect other parts like the housing, motor, or gearing. The location of the proposed fan
design will still be assembled in the same location. Having the fan remain in the same position,
allows for the fan to remain attached to the output shaft of the motor the same way. Because of
the fan retaining its location and attachment style, it will not affect the assembly process. A case
could be made that the increase in size of the fan could help the assembly process as it is a larger
part and would be easier to manage during assembly.

42
 The followings guidelines are followed in order to ensure the fan will be designed for assembly:
Guideline Description Associated Relation to redesign
Figure
(below
chart)

Draft Angle Allow part to be removed from the mold. 22 Changing the diameter of the blades
could require a different draft angle.

Thickness Uniform thickness reduces shrinkage, warpage, 23 The fan blades will still keep a
cooling time, and voids. Minimum: 0.6 mm to 2 consistent diameter.
mm.

Gates Minimize surface defects and help with removal. 24 The change in diameter will not affect
changes to the surfaces (assuming none
are used in mold).

Injection Site Machine must be able to inject the liquid 25 Changing the diameter probably will
material into the mold. not require a difference in the injection
site due to the part’s symmetry.

Ribs/Gussets Miniature internal ribs increase the housing’s 26 Ribs/Gussets should not be required
durability and stiffness without using excessive for the change.
material.

Finishes Require more complex molds. Leads to a more 27 There should be no changes to the
refined product. finish.

Temperature Hotter material takes longer to solidify. N/A No changes will be made, as the
material is constant.

Edge Radii Eliminate sharp corners/edges to reduce stress. N/A The edge radii will be longer.
TABLE 5: A table of DFM guidelines

43
FIGURE 22: Draft Angles are necessary to ensure that the object can be removed from the vacuum created
by the part and mold [5].

FIGURE 23: There are minimum thicknesses to ensure parts will hold and are able to be manufactured.

44
FIGURE 24: Certain manufactured parts are made with gates, extra material for support or mass production
[2].

FIGURE 25: The injection site is usually placed in a location that minimizes impact for the drill.

45
 FIGURE 26: Ribs provide support to ensure materials do not deform. This will not impact the fan blade
redesign [9].

FIGURE 27: Different portions of a mold can be made with different materials (such as 2k molding). This
will not impact the redesign as the material is uniform.

The most important components to consider are the draft angle and edge radii, as
changing the diameter will impact these guidelines the most.

46
 Cost Analysis

There are many manufacturing costs associated with injection molding. The primary
costs to consider for changing the fan diameter are the manufacturing machine and the mold
itself. The secondary costs to consider are the change in price per cast, which is dependent upon
the cost of the material.
For the redesign, a single shot injection mold machine is needed. Through research
online, a suitable candidate is the Himalia HM88 Servo, able to work with up to 365x 365 mm
casts. In a similar manner, one casting company listed small molds as costing around $5,000,
with larger ones scaling to up to $80,000. Furthermore, polyamide (nylon) - 66, costs between
$1.30 - 4.20 per kg.

FIGURE 28: Himalia HM88 Servo [3]

Below is a tabulated Bill of Materials needed for the redesign.

Name Model Description Material Cost ($)

Injection molding machine Himalia HM88 Servo Plastic Injection Molding Machine N/A 23,299.99
(14.37’’ x 14.37’’) [3] with Dryer Hopper and Auto-Loader

Polyamide 66 Alibaba Fan material PA-66 1.30-4.20

A6103G
(Nylon) per kg
[16]

Molds N/A Hollow steel composite container Steel/Al 5,000

(small, for fan) used to give shape to molten material

TABLE 6: Bill of Materials

47
 This totals to around $28,300 for primary costs, and about $2.75 (by averaging) per
kilogram of material used. Multiplying by the current weight of the fan blade, 0.00232 kg, nets
the cost per cast to be $ 0.00638, barely rounding to a cent. If the amount of material increased to
1.5 times the current amount, the cost per cast would change to $0.03 cents. This means that the
part would need to be manufactured nearly 800,000 times to warrant a profit. Although this is an
overestimation, it is useful to demonstrate the sheer volume of parts needed to justify a change.
The larger the modification, the more expensive the change becomes.

Section F: Final Recommendation

Conditions For Viability:

● Increase in tool efficiency
● Noise test still results in levels acceptable by OSHA standards
● Vibratory losses do not become significant and do not impact user comfort significantly
● Weight of drill and moment on user’s wrist are not increased too much
● Acceptable cost increase for customers given the benefits

In order to decide if this redesign is worthy of DeWalt to consider, the team derived a set
of conditions to determine if viable. Based on Section 2D modeling and testing, there was a list
of testing needed to see if the redesign proved to improve from the current fan design.
Ultimately, with the redesign the goal was to increase the tool’s efficiency, which is a
result of improved performance. The importance of a sound level test is crucial when it comes to
power tools. Hearing loss and increased noise levels can cause permanent damage long term
when it comes to power tools and construction zones. The sound test for the redesign should still
be within OSHA regulations for power tools and should not increase much from the original
design. User comfort and ease of use should be tested to make sure vibratory losses are not
significant. Any redesign which negatively changes the comfort and ease of drill would cause the
user to be less likely to use the drill or recommend it. Increasing the fan diameter by 4.6 mm will
not impact the current housing dimensions and tolerances. Therefore, there would be little
increase in the overall weight of the drill. There should be little to no difference of torque on the
user's wrist as the weight and center of gravity is not different. The last test is to consider cost per
efficiency for the redesign. A customer survey is needed for additional quantitative results to see
how much customers are willing to pay per a certain percentage of increased efficiency.

48
Proposed Methodology for Approval:

When it comes to adding value for the customer, decreasing the motor temperature levels
is sure to increase efficiency, but more importantly, it relates to an improved battery life. This is
because the increase in efficiency means that less energy from the battery is required per
application, which directly translates to an improvement in battery life.
Recall that the proposed fan design would increase the cost of the drill, so the increase in
cost must be related to the theoretical increase in battery life. From this correlation, the team can
conduct customer surveys to determine how much more a customer is willing to pay for a
percentage increase in battery life. In section 2C, it was calculated that for every 0.1 degree
Celsius decrease in motor temperature as the result of our redesign, the motor efficiency is
increased by 0.00512%. A quantitative survey would be useful to DeWalt in order to test to see
whether a customer is willing to pay for a small increase in efficiency. DeWalt could use these
results to inquire how much a customer is willing to pay per 0.00512% increase in efficiency in
order to weigh out the cost analysis. A higher efficiency means the drill’s performance will be
stronger during applications, resulting in more screw insertions than measured in previous labs.

FIGURE 29: Relationship between an increase in efficiency and the customer satisfaction. Increasing the fan
diameter will increase battery life, but will also increase cost. Both factors will affect customer satisfaction.

If the survey finds that customers are willing to pay more for the increase in battery life, then it
would justify the increase in fan diameter. However, from what was seen in the minimal decrease
in temperature (and subsequently the minimal increase in battery life), it is not recommended to
increase the DeWalt DCD701’s fan diameter by 4.6 mm.

Trade-Offs:
In any redesign change, there are ultimately going to be trade offs that result due to
advancing an aspect of the tool. In this case, increasing the fan diameter by its maximum
allowable dimension without impacting the housing casing, also has some trade offs that result.

49
The ultimate goal is to increase the performance of the DCD701, which would then increase the
efficiency overall. With increased performance comes a longer lifespan due the drill being able
to withstand more power. However these changes can impact the usability of the drill- if it were
any more bulky or weighed more the user could not hold the tool as easily. The redesign does not
make anything more compact or lighter so the ease of use can be a negative factor as a result of
the change. Lastly, with any added increased performance factor comes an increase in cost. Cost
can be seen as a positive or a negative factor in this case. Increased cost will have a higher
performance and efficiency, yet cost can be negative due to customer requirements with wanting
to keep cost level maintained.

FIGURE 30: Relationship between increased performance and its effects on usability and cost.

III. Concluding Course Observations

Skills and Material Learned

The team was grateful to have learned and applied many new skills and course content, as
well as building upon some old ones.
First and foremost, the team gained plenty of experience doing engineering design and
development to solve a problem, especially in the Redesign Lab. It was particularly interesting to
find out how uncommon systems such as the clutch and airflow fan system work at an in-depth
level. These designs in particular are not immediately apparent from the outside and the team
was unfamiliar with their design and purpose prior to taking ENME371.
The team also furthered their understanding of concepts from past courses by
investigating particular systems in the drill such as in the speed selection and drivetrain systems.
The applied mechanics and dynamics calculations allowed the team to realize how much
engineering work ties in directly to products used out in the field.
It was also enlightening to learn about field applications for the drill when determining
customer requirements and use cases. It helped reinforce the team’s understanding of why such

50
compactness was necessary. In doing so, the team also was able to better understand how certain
aspects of regular drills were cut down to minimize the length.
The team was also thankful to learn about the engineering design process and different
tools an engineer could use to come to a decision (for example, a decision matrix to determine
the ideal material for a particular solution). One particularly useful aspect was the differences,
both in definition and practical application, between customer requirements and engineering
characteristics.
Lastly, the team developed invaluable teamwork, organization, and time management
skills in working towards each deliverable. The team gained experience using and presenting
with Zoom to its full potential. The team discovered that pre-scheduled Google calendar events
with matching zoom links are incredibly helpful for maintaining a tight schedule. Teammates
also developed their technical communication and discussion skills while in a virtual
environment. Lastly, the team gained improved communication and time management skills,
keeping each other in the loop about conflicts that emerged and picking up the slack when
necessary.

Advice to Incoming Students

The team developed the following pieces of advice for new students to best complete
their laboratory deliverables:
● As a team, meet often and consistently to avoid miscommunication.
● Use Google Calendar as a convenient place to store meeting times and zoom links.
● Set up a cloud storage system such as google drive to secure and organize files
throughout the semester.
● Put multiple people on each section as a safeguard to keeping people on track and to have
someone else with whom to bounce ideas around.
● Email your lab instructor with questions related to expectations about a deliverable.
● Go to office hours, the TA’s really help clarify nuances for the labs.
● When working on a subteam for a particular part of an assignment, plan when you both
will have time to plan out or work on the task.
● Communicate with your teammates about scheduling conflicts or when dealing with a lot
on your plate.
● When planning out your time, add in extra time as things tend to take longer.
● Set deadlines and stick to them for editing and submitting lab reports.
● Assign leader(s) to ensure meetings keep on track and remain productive.

51
 ● Think of final report ideas early, as lab 8 came up fast.
● Outline sections of reports (determine what is required in a section).
● Make sure to have truth, clarity, and detail in all of what you write/say in your
assignments.
● Be detailed in your reports, you won’t lose points for too many details, but you will lose
some for too few.
● Create a comfortable team environment where members are comfortable sharing ideas.
● Don’t procrastinate
● Practice your presentations and don’t say “Next slide please”.
● Expect to allot lots of hours to this class.
● Preview labs before going to labs (read sections to be prepared for material covered).
● Works on separate documents for each task to avoid parts getting lost or moved around.
Compile the documents at the end.

List of Characteristics
The team added the following to their list of skills that a professional engineer should have: An
understanding of common mechanical systems relevant to the engineer’s field, an understanding
of current developments in the engineer’s field, a strong grasp of underlying physical equations
and concepts, and the ability to communicate technical concepts to someone without a technical
background.
The final list of skills is shown below, deriving most from the same task in Lab 1.
● Good communication skills
● Time management
● Accountability
● Analytical skills
● Problem solving
● Working effectively in a team
● Creativity
● Pressure management
● Leadership
● Organized
● Critical thinking
● Confidence

52
● Professional etiquette
● Understanding of common systems relevant to the engineer’s field
● Motivation to stay up to date with current developments in the engineer’s field
● Strong grasp of underlying physical equations and concepts
● Ability to communicate technical concepts to someone without a technical background

53
Task Tracking
Lab 8 Final Project
Section 1: Executive Summary (5 pts)
(not broken into sections) Johnny Lindsay
Section 2: Design Question (80 pts)
A. "Need" statement Carlos Jacob
B. Physics of the impact driver related to the unmet need Sebastian Jacob
C. Propose potential solution(s) for viable investigation. Lindsay Carolyn Joe
D. Proposed modeling and testing Johnny Carolyn Sebastian
E. Manufacturing within a production setting Johnny Joe
F. Final recommendation determinations about the
redesign idea. Carlos Lindsay
Section 3: Concluding Course Observations (5 pts)
A. key things you have learned in this course Jacob everyone Johnny
B. Advice for new students Jacob everyone Johnny
C. updated list of required skills Jacob everyone Johnny
Section 4: Professionalism (7 pts)
Tentative: Johnny Jacob
Task Tracking (3 pts)
TABLE 7: Task assignments for final project

Name Total Hours

Carlos 13.5
Carolyn 38.5
Jacob 5.5
Joe 17.15
Johnny 22.5
Lindsay 15
Sebastian 19.5

TABLE 8: Task assignments for final project

54
Works Cited
[1] “407730: Digital Sound Level Meter,” Extech. [Online]. Available:
http://www.extech.com/products/407730. [Accessed: 10-May-2021].

[2] Gates and Runners Diagram. CTG, 2019. https://www.ctgasket.com/gates-and-runners/

[3] “Himalia HM88 Servo Motor Plastic Injection Molding Machine with Dryer Hopper
and Auto-Loader,” Toolots, Inc. – Reliable Equipment Fast. [Online]. Available:
https://www.toolots.com/haida-hdjs88-servo-motor-plastic-injection-molding-machine-wit
h-dryer-hopper-and-auto-loader.html. [Accessed: 03-Mar-2021].

[4] “Indicating Air Velocity & Temperature Xtr with I or V Output,” Omega Engineering.
[Online]. Available:
https://www.omega.com/en-us/test-inspection/handheld-meters/anemometers/p/FMA1000-
Series. [Accessed: 09-May-2021].

[5] Injection Molding Draft Angle. 3Space.

https://3space.com/blog/injection-molding-draft-angle/

[6] “Measuring Vibration with Accelerometers,” National Instruments Corporation,

15-Jul-2020. [Online]. Available:
https://www.ni.com/en-us/innovations/white-papers/06/measuring-vibration-with-accelero
meters.html. [Accessed: 09-May-2021].

[7] “Overviews,” Injection Molding Process, Defects, Plastic. [Online]. Available:

https://www.custompartnet.com/wu/InjectionMolding. [Accessed: 03-Mar-2021].

[8] “Specific Heat Capacity of Metals Table Chart,” 11-Jan-2015. [Online]. Available:
https://www.engineersedge.com/materials/specific_heat_capacity_of_metals_13259.htm.
[Accessed: 09-May-2021].

[9] Tall and Multiple Ribs. XCentric Mold and Engineering, 2020.
https://www.xcentricmold.com/2018/09/26/ribs-can-enhance-your-injection-molded-part/

[10] “Torque Measuring Tool: Power Torque Measurement,” FUTEK. [Online]. Available:
https://www.futek.com/applications/Power-Tool-Measurement. [Accessed: 09-May-2021].

[11] T. Mwinuka, “Experimental Determination of the Effect of Number of Impeller Blades

on the Air Flow Rate and Power Consumption of Centrifugal Blowers,” Dept. Mech. &
Inde., Univ. of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 2016.

55
[12] “Transition Joint Style Thermistor Probe, Models TJ36-44004-(*),” Omega
Engineering. [Online]. Available: https://www.omegaeng.cz/pptst_eng/TJ36-44004.html.
[Accessed: 09-May-2021].

[13] “THERMISTOR BASICS,” Wavelength Electronics, 11-Feb-2020. [Online].

Available: https://www.teamwavelength.com/thermistor-basics/. [Accessed: 21-Apr-2021].

[14] “Understanding DC Motor Curves and Temperature: Part 2,” Motion Control Tips,
06-Dec-2013. [Online]. Available:
https://www.motioncontroltips.com/understanding-dc-motor-curves-temperature-part-2/.
[Accessed: 09-May-2021].

[15] “Overviews,” Injection Molding Process, Defects, Plastic. [Online]. Available:

https://www.custompartnet.com/wu/InjectionMolding. [Accessed: 03-Mar-2021]

[16] “Polyamide 66,” Polyamide (nylon 66) Pa66 Material,Virgin Pa Plastic Granule Pa6
Pa66 Pa6.6 Gf35 Gf30 - Buy Virgin Pa Plastic Granule Pa6 Pa66 Pa6.6 Gf35
Gf30,Polyamide (nylon 66) Pa66 Material,Polyamide (nylon 66) Pa66 Material Virgin Pa
Plastic Granule Pa6 Pa66 Pa6.6 Gf35 Gf30 Product on Alibaba.com. [Online]. Available:
https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Polyamide-Pa66-Pa6-Pa6-6-Pa6_60167857166.ht
ml?spm=a2700.7724857.normal_offer.d_image.65a5c87afbeKIz&s=p. [Accessed:
10-May-2021].

56