Slide 1

Low Cost Insulated Beverage Dispenser Design Using Structural Web Molding X. Qi, E. Moghbelli, C. Steve Suh and H. J. Sue Department of Mechanical Engineering Institute for Innovation and Design in Engineering Polymer Technology Center Texas A&M University

Slide 2

A Successful Teamwork Partnering . Government Bob Bernazzani, Bob Trottier (Natick) Jesse Burns (DLA/CORANET) Industry Chip Jarvis, Fred Gates, Ernie Freeman (Cambro Manufacturing) Academics C. Steve Suh (Institute for Innovation and Design in Engineering, Texas A&M University) H. J. Sue (Polymer Technology Center, Texas A&M University)

Slide 3

A Successful Teamwork Bringing In . Government Needs, Project management, Funding, Design requirements, Test criteria, Evaluations, Field feedback Industry Engineering expertise, In-kind support, Facility, Equipment, On-site training, Mold-tooling, Prototyping Academics Concept development, Configuration design, Material testing, Molding analysis, CAE environment, Design optimization, Tooling design, Rapid-prototyping

Slide 4

Develop a viable alternative IBD design using multinozzle (gas- assisted) structural-web molding to achieve Reduced unit cost Reduced unit cost Faster production cycle Faster production cycle Shorter delivery period Shorter delivery period Improved product performance Improved product performance Developing manufacture-ready tooling Developing manufacture-ready tooling Meeting desired mechanical and thermal characteristics specified in Commercial Item Description A-A-52190A Meeting desired mechanical and thermal characteristics specified in Commercial Item Description A-A-52190A Project Objectives

Slide 5

Scope of Work 1. Perform needed analysis on identifying functional and performance requirements required of IBD 2. Identify underlying design parameters governing structural-web molded IBD 3. Create viable IBD concepts using parameters identified in (2) 4. Identify candidate resin fill materials using results from (2) and (3) 5. Develop IBD computer configurations in SolidWorks using results from (3) and (4) 6. Optimize IBD configurations for thermal, structural and dynamical performances using integrated CAE tools 7. Down-select an optimal IBD configuration for alpha SLA rapid prototyping 8. Test alpha prototype for meeting design requirements 9. Revise alpha prototype to finalize design configuration 10. Design structural-web mold tooling with optimized cavities and nozzle parameters 11. Fabricate tooling using CAM 12. Create structural-web beta prototype for validation of form, fit, function, production run time, and conformance to IAW CID A-A-52190A 13. Revise structural-web mold tooling to be manufacturer-specific and manufacturing-ready 14. Test in manufactures facility to validate (13) 15. Transfer mold tooling to NSC or DLA upon successful completion of (14) Alpha Prototype Beta Prototype

Slide 6

PropertyMarlex 9005* Polyurethane Foam** Elastic Modulus205,000 psi6,000 psi Poissons Ratio0.40.394 Shear Modulus73,214 psi180 psi Mass Density0.034 lb/in 3 0.0057 lb/in 3 Tensile Strength[1]300 psi Compressive Strength[2]200 psi Thermal Conductivity 4.73E-6 Btu/(sinF) 1.54E-7 Btu/(sinF) Specific Heat[3]0.25 Btu/(lbF) Candidate Materials *Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP ** Piping Technology and Products, Inc. [1] [2] [3]

Slide 7

1. Capacity: 5 gallon 2. Must have two handles 3. Stackable with current IBDs: total length (17) cannot be changed 4. Cup room: at least 4 5. Faucet location: lowest point of inner surface 6. Must have a lid and contain foams to comply with thermal requirements 7. Eliminate additional welding 8. Eliminate latches 9. Eliminate gasket Design Requirements

Slide 8

Concept Development Phase I Stage 1 Concept Selection User/Field Input Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3

Slide 9

Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3 Thermal Performance Compared with Baseline IBD:

Slide 10

Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3 MechanicalPerformance Stress Deformation Initial Design Max Stress8.1kPa Max Deformation 0.104 mm Baseline IBD Max Stress8.2kPa Max Deformation 0.131 mm

Slide 11

Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3 Design Revision 1. Dilemma between Gas Blowout and High Gas Percentage Mesh Model Filling Gas Core Low Gas Percentage Poor Thermal Performance High Gas Percentage Gas Blowout Unfinished Product Gas Blowout Region

Slide 12

Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3 Design Revision To resolve the dilemma between blowout and high gas percentage To resolve the dilemma between blowout and high gas percentage To deal with non- uniform distribution of gas core Overflow Well An overflow well is a secondary cavity into which the gas can displace polymer and thereby penetrate further into the part. Constant Thickness Gas always travels along paths of least resistance Overflow Well

Slide 13

Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3 Design Revision 2. Constant Thickness is NOT Enough for Uniform Gas Core Distribution Mesh Model Filling Gas Core Distribution of gas core is still not uniform, no matter where to put gas entrances (nozzles).

Slide 14

Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3 Design Revision To obtain more uniform distribution of gas core Build gas channels to control gas penetration, i.e. make grooves on side walls Gas-assist molding is not proper for flat structures, but works very well for channel-like structures. Initial DesignMesh Model Four evenly distributed overflow wells

Slide 15

Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3 Design Revision Mesh Model Filling Gas Core Side Walls: OK Bottom: Not Covered Side Walls: OK Bottom: Not Covered Side Walls: Not Covered Bottom: OK Grooves and Overflow Well on the Bottom

Slide 16

Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3 Design Revision To account for all side walls and the bottom to obtain a good thermal performance 2-Piece Configuration Initial Design Adhesive Bonding Interfaces

Slide 17

Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3 Gas-assist Molding for 2-Piece Design Mesh Model Filling Gas Core Lower Piece - Update Gravity Gas Entrance Gas Entrances Polymer Entrances Manufacturing Position Filling Time63.5 sec Gas Pressure464 psi Injection Temperature424.4 F

Slide 18

Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3 Gas-assist Molding for 2-Piece Design Mesh Model Filling Gas Core Gravity Gas Entrances Polymer Entrances Manufacturing Position Filling Time20.0 sec Gas Pressure464 psi Injection Temperature662 F

Slide 19

Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3 Design Revision Gas-assist Molding Phase I Stage 2 Phase I Stage 1

Slide 20

Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3 Thermal Performance Compared with Initial Design:

Slide 21

Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3 Mechanical Performance Stress Deformation 2-Piece Design Max Stress9.8kPa (1.4psi) Max Deformation 0.065 mm Initial Design Max Stress8.1kPa (1.2psi) Max Deformation 0.104 mm

Slide 22

Design Revision (Incorporating manufacturing & tooling requirements) To revise previous thick-wall design to thin-wall structures without losing thermal and mechanical performances Construction of multiple thin-wall pieces Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3

Slide 23

Design Revision Advantages: No seam line Bonding interface takes no loads Faster assembly/bonding Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3

Slide 24

Adhesive Test Samples induced cracks with variation in length Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3

Slide 25

Mechanical Testing Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3

Slide 26

Typical loading curves * Extension controlled at 1.0 inch/min Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3

Slide 27

Optical micrographs of fracture area Fracture surfaces Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3

Slide 28

Design Revision Design of Gas Channels and Nozzle Positions 6 inches Gas Channels Nozzle Position Nozzles are placed on the inner surfaces so that they cannot be seen after assembled. Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3

Slide 29

Gas injection pressure1450psi Gas volumetric percentage20% Total Filling time6.3s Molding Analysis Mesh Model Filling Gas Affected Zone Lower Body Nozzle count6 Material temperature 480 F Tool temperature 90 F Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3

Slide 30

Gas injection pressure1590psi Gas volumetric percentage20% Total Filling time9.7s Mesh Model Filling Gas Affected Zone Upper Body Nozzle count6 Material temperature 480 F Tool temperature 90 F Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3 Molding Analysis

Slide 31

Gas injection pressure360psi Gas volumetric percentage20% Total Filling time4.6s Mesh Model Filling Gas Affected Zone Lower Lid Nozzle count3 Material temperature 480 F Tool temperature 130 F Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3 Molding Analysis

Slide 32

Gas injection pressure580psi Gas volumetric percentage20% Filling time (Material)5.2s Mesh Model Filling Gas Affected Zone Upper Lid Nozzle count2 Material temperature 480 F Tool temperature 130 F Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3 Molding Analysis

Slide 33

Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3 Design Revision Manufacture and Tooling Requirement Phase I Stage 3 Phase I Stage 2

Slide 34

Dimensions ParametersThin-wall DesignBaseline Design Width9 Length17 Height2524.5 Phase-I Stage-1 Stage-2 Stage-3

Slide 35

Product Weight PartsBody Lower Body Upper Lid Lower Lid Upper Weight3.6 lbs4.9 lbs0.8 lbs0.7 lbs ProductThin-wall DesignBaseline Design Total Weight