README.md 13.1 KB
Newer Older
Jake Read's avatar
spec!  
Jake Read committed
1 2
# micro Stress vs Strain Machine

Ruben Castro's avatar
Ruben Castro committed
3
## uSSM #3 
Ruben Castro's avatar
Ruben Castro committed
4

Ruben Castro's avatar
Ruben Castro committed
5
![img](images/ussm3_chassis.jpg)
Ruben Castro's avatar
Ruben Castro committed
6

Ruben Castro's avatar
Ruben Castro committed
7 8 9 10 11 12
Theres a few new criteria that ussm-3 aims to achieve:
- Manufactured only using simple shop tools, PLA 3d printers, and a standard bed size (24'x 24') laser cutter. 
- Pulling force of around 600N

In order to be laser cuttable, acryllic and delrin were the main two materials considered. Delrin was the go to option to avoid shattering.

Ruben Castro's avatar
Ruben Castro committed
13
This design uses mainly the following adapted gantry system: [gantry](https://gitlab.cba.mit.edu/jakeread/rctgantries) along with this beam design: [beam](https://gitlab.cba.mit.edu/jakeread/rctgantries/tree/master/beams) for rigidity.
Ruben Castro's avatar
Ruben Castro committed
14

Ruben Castro's avatar
Ruben Castro committed
15
The main idea is to attach a beam to the linear axis and use it as a carriage to hold fixturing for tensile testing on the top half and compression testing in the bottom half. The gantry system shown above does not supply enough torque, so an adapted version was made shown below.
Ruben Castro's avatar
Ruben Castro committed
16

Ruben Castro's avatar
Ruben Castro committed
17 18 19 20
![u3_carriage](images/motorcarriage_vertical.jpg)

The uSSM #3 design takes advantage of the beam design by attaching 4 different beams to a larger "O-face", with webs in the corners to prevent torsion. The larger face itself is split into a bottom and top in order to make assembly easier, make each piece smaller to fit into laser cutter bed, and to have the possibility of changing top for larger specimens. The beam design also utilizes custom joinery talked about in the [beam](https://gitlab.cba.mit.edu/jakeread/rctgantries/tree/master/beams) repository. This makes the machine take some time to build, but it allows delrin sheets to be used, allowing many fabs with laser cutters to be able to make this machine.

Ruben Castro's avatar
Ruben Castro committed
21
![u3_corner](images/uSSM3_corner.jpg)
Ruben Castro's avatar
Ruben Castro committed
22

Ruben Castro's avatar
Ruben Castro committed
23
### fixturing
Ruben Castro's avatar
Ruben Castro committed
24 25 26 27
Fixturing is being designed to use mainly 3D printed parts. First up, PLA is being in the jaws to see if it can withstand the 600N load alongside a few other McMaster parts.
![u3_fixturing]( images/USSM3_fixturing.jpg)


Jake Read's avatar
Jake Read committed
28 29
## Drawingboard Return

Jake Read's avatar
Jake Read committed
30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
With \#2 feeling somewhat unloved ('both overdesigned and underdesigned'), I'm back at the basics for \#3. There's a few major selections, and decisions to make:

### Material Selection

-> ALU, FR4(G10), Acrylic?

While aluminum is my go-to for machine design, and is ostensibly possible to mill on a shopbot by a motivated user (see [jens](https://github.com/fellesverkstedet/fabricatable-machines/wiki/Fabricatable-axis)), there is some hesitation to use it.

38
| Material | Young's Modulus (GPA) | Specific Young's | Cost for 6mm x 24x24" | Machinability |
Jake Read's avatar
Jake Read committed
39
| --- | ---: | ---: | --- | --- |
40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
| ABS | 2 | ? | 52 | Not Dimensionally Stable, but OK to Machine |
| Nylon 6 | 3 | 2.5 | 130 | Painful |
| HDPE | 1 | ? | 23 | Easy |
| Acetal (Delrin) | 2.8 | ? | 89 | Breezy, also lasers, and non-cracking |
| Cast Acrylic | 3.3 | 2.8 | 46 | Breezy, esp. w/ Lasers |
| 6061 ALU | 69 | 22 | 87 | Breezy with WJ, Painful on Shopbot |
| FR1/CE (Canvas / Phenolic) | 6 | ? | 81 | TBD, probably WJ Pain and Ease on SB |
| FR4/G10 (Fiberglass) | 22 | ? | 98 | Painful on a WJ, Slightly Easier on a Shopbot |
Jake Read's avatar
Jake Read committed
48 49 50 51 52 53 54

[data](http://www.acculam.com/data-chart.html)

That said, ALU lands pretty well 1 order of magnitude above Canvas Phenolic ('FR1' or 'CE') for strength, while costing a similar amount of dollars. Fiberglass is a nice candidate, so machining G10 is likely a worthwhile experiment. However, both composites have anisotropic-ness and are sensitive to the size of local features (and to localized loads), making them less favourable.

!TODO: beam equations for the above, to size req' depth
!TODO: shear forces for the same,
55 56
!TODO: cost not-mcmaster, and acrylic, some composite like hydrostone w/ fiber
 - ... composite vendors at fabclass website
Jake Read's avatar
Jake Read committed
57 58 59 60

### Transmission Design

#### How Many kNs ?
Jake Read's avatar
spec!  
Jake Read committed
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

We want lots of force, with very fine control of position. This means a nice linear transmission. To estimate the forces we might want to see, I wrote a quick table of forces required to rip apart ~ 3mm square (0.001mm^2) samples of a few materials.

| Material | Yield (MPA) | F at Break (N) |
| --- | ---: | ---: |
| ABS | 40 | 360 |
| Nylon 6 | 70 | 630 |
| HDPE | 15 | 135 |
| 6061 ALU | 310 | 2790 |
| 4140 Stainless | 655 | 5895 |
| 6AL-4V Ti | 950 | 8550 |

Jake Read's avatar
Jake Read committed
73
Brinell hardness tests range from 10N through to 30kN (for steel and cast iron) but non-ferrous materials normally see 5kN only.
Jake Read's avatar
spec!  
Jake Read committed
74

Jake Read's avatar
Jake Read committed
75
So, a ballpark of ~ 10kN would be ideal - this is a big number - off the bat I'm going to estimate that 5kN will be a more reasonable target. 1kN is enough for a complete set of plastics, but that's only allowing for a realtively small sample.
Jake Read's avatar
spec!  
Jake Read committed
76

Jake Read's avatar
Jake Read committed
77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91
-> Ballscrews, Belt Rack and Pinion, Rack and Pinion

Generating kNs of force is no easy feat, especially when we want to do it *very smoothly* while displacing very small amounts.

I will start by mentioning that this is dead easy with ballscrews. With a 1605 ballscrew, (16mm diameter, 5mm per turn) and a NEMA23 with 3Nm of torque, we can generate about 3kN of linear force (per motor) - to land at 5kN total no problem.

However, these are somewhat cumbersome and expensive - and they land in fixed sizes. Towards more parametric machines, we can look at a rack and pinion type axis.

[ballscrew maths](http://www.nookindustries.com/LinearLibraryItem/Ballscrew_Torque_Calculations)

Because tooth geometry very sensitively affects linear-ness of drive, especially where (down below the mm) we will be driving an entire instron test-cycle inside of one tooth-phase, I want to discount a traditional rack and pinion right off.

I am curious about a belt-driven rack, similar to [this design](https://gitlab.cba.mit.edu/jakeread/rctgantries/tree/master/n17_linearPinion).

!TODO: compare by transmission ratios (abstract from motor) and cost of parts.
Jake Read's avatar
Jake Read committed
92
!TODO: belt spec for hight (huge) load belts: tooth shear, and stiffnesses.
Jake Read's avatar
Jake Read committed
93 94 95

#### Motor Torques

Jake Read's avatar
spec!  
Jake Read committed
96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107
To generate the force required, we're going to need some motor / transmission oomph. Here's a list of typical NEMA size motors, and the torques they can generate. The [atkstepper](https://gitlab.cba.mit.edu/jakeread/atkstepper23) can supply enough current to power any of these.

| Motor | kg | Nm |
| --- | ---: | ---:|
| N23 56mm | 1.2 | 1.3 |
| N23 100mm | 1.8 | 3.0 |
| N34 68mm | 1.8 | 3.4 |
| N34 156mm | 5.4 | 13.0 |
| N42 150mm | 10.9 | 22.0 |

### Racks and Pinions

Jake Read's avatar
Jake Read committed
108
We'll be using two linear stages (one on either side of the platform), so, from our N34 156mm motor with 13Nm of torque we'll need 26, 5.2 and 2.6mm lever arms respectively for 1, 5 and 10kN total force.
Jake Read's avatar
spec!  
Jake Read committed
109

Jake Read's avatar
Jake Read committed
110
Considering practical limits on pinion diameter (with a shaft of 14mm, and 19 3mm-pitch teeth, we'll have an 18mm diameter pinion - 9mm lever arm) we will only realistically achieve 1.44kN of linear force per motor with direct-drive rack and pinion on a Nema 34 size motor. This makes a 3kN machine, but to add some safety factor we're at at 2kN goal with this approach.
Jake Read's avatar
spec!  
Jake Read committed
111 112 113

The next step would be to check against tooth shear stress for 3mm pitch.

Jake Read's avatar
Jake Read committed
114
From reasonable WEDM (time) and Waterjet (washout) limits, I expect the thickness of any fabricated pinion to have a limit around 12mm. To make this all simple, I'll say 10mm. For the waterjet, this is a bit of a stretch (get it?)...
Jake Read's avatar
spec!  
Jake Read committed
115

Jake Read's avatar
Jake Read committed
116
To guess at resolutions, we'll take our sample above in aluminium having a length of 100mm - with elongation at break being 12%, we're interested in a 12mm 'long' stress / strain curve. For 1000 pts on this curve, we're interested in a step size of 12 microns.
Jake Read's avatar
spec!  
Jake Read committed
117

Jake Read's avatar
Jake Read committed
118
From our 18mm diameter pinion having a circumference of 56mm, this means 4667 counts per revolution. In a 200-step motor, we would need 32 microsteps per revolution - most drivers will go to 256 - but microstepping isn't exactly linear. To do this really well, we will want to finish work on closed loop stepper driving, where we can use a 14-bit encoder to control around ~ 4096 counts reliably.
Jake Read's avatar
spec!  
Jake Read committed
119 120 121

All in, a direct rack and pinion drive can land us at a 2kN machine with some desired resolution, but we're at or near most of the limits here.

122 123 124 125
### Belts

![img](images/belts.jpg)

Jake Read's avatar
Jake Read committed
126
Since I was spinning this up to test on a belt-driven gantry system, I was able to confirm that this is a bad idea. We defeat the elastic stretch of the belt by measuring at the specimen (not through the machine's structural loop) but a meagre GT2 belt profile skips teeth pretty quickly as we approach any tens of kilos of load.
127

Jake Read's avatar
spec!  
Jake Read committed
128 129 130 131
### Ball or Leadscrews

Racks aside, a ballscrew is the obvious way to do this. Ballscrews can be had for less than hundereds of dollars. Besides transmitting motion smoothly, their ratios are favourable. For example, with a 5mm pitch ballscrew having an efficiency of 85%, we can drive 14kN with our 13Nm motor - so 28kN for the machine.

Jake Read's avatar
Jake Read committed
132
For the same ballscrew, to achieve 12 micron resolution we'll only need 416 steps in each rotation - this is easy to get.
Jake Read's avatar
spec!  
Jake Read committed
133

Jake Read's avatar
Jake Read committed
134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141
## Design Spec / Notes

The goal here is to design and build a machine, which can be fabricated in $250k size fab labs, that can generate stress-strain curves for a wide set of materials as well as perform hardness testing.

To ballpark, I'd like to see 100mm diameter plates having a total travel from 0mm separation -> 500mm, this leaves enough room for fixturing etc.

Sam's note: the ballscrews should be 'pulling' in all cases. Against their fixed, driven side. This is a good note, thank you sam.

142 143 144 145 146 147
### Phoning Home

Samples are ~ < 1mm thick, and data from Materiom shows loads all falling well under 100N. IMO, the machine should be spec'd somewhere positive of 500N pulling force, so that we can reasonably pull apart big plastic samples. That said, 500N < 5kN.

Down here, once-reduced belt-and-pinion rack drives feel good. Since I'm looking for a medium high-force actuator to solve a 3D Printing-Bed problem elsewhere, I'm going to try to combine work here again, and develop a 3d-printing + laser-cutter friendly high force linear system. Conservative spec will allow me to even do this with N17 motors,

Jake Read's avatar
Jake Read committed
148 149
---

Jake Read's avatar
spec!  
Jake Read committed
150 151 152 153 154 155
## Step Two: Force Measurement

For load measurement, Sam has worked through a great [loadcell](https://gitlab.cba.mit.edu/calischs/loadcell) design.

![cell](images/sam-as5011-loadcell.jpg)

156 157 158 159
Ok, doing this with a wheatstone-bridge type load cell now.

I believe I want my ADC to have the green line 'on top' and white on the bottom, of a differential channel.

Jake Read's avatar
Jake Read committed
160 161
---

Jake Read's avatar
spec!  
Jake Read committed
162 163
## Fixturing

164 165
![img](images/jaws.jpg)

Jake Read's avatar
Jake Read committed
166
! important
Jake Read's avatar
Jake Read committed
167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206

---

# uSSM \#2

![img](images/20190429-DSC04334.jpg)

**status** machine is designed, fabricated, waiting for adaption of fixturing from 'the generalist' and for squid works controllers.

## Dedicated uSSM

Here I'm using some
- Ballscrews, SFU2005 C7 700mm Long [ebay, $150](https://www.ebay.com/itm/SFU2005-Rolled-Ballscrew-C7-Anti-Backlash-Ballnut-L300-350-400-450-500-600-1000/202274175696?hash=item2f187afad0:m:m2SEqt9q_ykYYkrO5ZM9deA:rk:1:pf:0)
- Nema 23 Motors w/ .25" Shaft
- GT2 5mm 6.35mm Bore Pulley 12T for 15mm Belt 'A 6A55-012DF1508'
- GT2 5mm 12mm Bore Pulley 48T for 15mm Belt 'A 6A55M048NF1512'
- GT2 5mm 15mm Belt with 55T 'A 6R55M055150'

- http://shop.sdp-si.com/catalog/product/?id=A_6R55M055150 55T 15mm Closed GT2 Belt
- http://shop.sdp-si.com/catalog/product/?id=A_6A55-012DF1508 12T 0.25" bore Pulley 15mm
- http://shop.sdp-si.com/catalog/product/?id=A_6A55M048NF1512 48T 12mm Bore
- http://shop.sdp-si.com/catalog/product/?id=A_6A55M044NF1512 44T
- http://shop.sdp-si.com/catalog/product/?id=A_6A55M050NF1512 50T

## FEA

I ran a quick simulation to see that this flexure was OK. Here it is loaded in the direction it is meant to be stiff in, with 2.5kN applied vertically. There are two of these members being tested so this would be equivalent to 5kN of force, about where I expect this thing to top out. Displacing about 40uM (I'm looking at the face-to-face distance between the loaded zone and the fixed zone, not that rotation that appears from my non-rigorous fea constraints) with 70MPa stress maximum.

![fea](images/uSSM-v15-beamfea-5kn.png)
![fea](images/uSSM-v15-beamfea-5kn-faceon.png)

And out of plane, with 250N applied, about 20uM displacement. So 1/10th the load and 1/2 of the displacement, it's at least 5x stiffer in one DOF than the other. Is that grounds for a decent flexure?

![fea](images/uSSM-v15-beamfea-500n.png)
![fea](images/uSSM-v15-beamfea-500n-faceon.png)

---

# uSSM \#1: Generalist does uSSM

207
To test requisite parts for a small stress and strain machine, I attached some jaws and a load cell to [this 'generalist' machine](https://gitlab.cba.mit.edu/jakeread/mothermother).
Jake Read's avatar
Jake Read committed
208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225

![machine](images/ussm-at-mm.jpg)

I used [automatakit](https://gitlab.cba.mit.edu/jakeread/automatakit) network controllers and [atkapi](https://gitlab.cba.mit.edu/jakeread/atkapi) to program the beginnings of a materials testing system: here I'm just stepping the axis along 25 steps at a time and capturing a photo on each step. No data yet.

![cam](images/ussm-1-camera.jpg)
![bone](images/ussm-2-bone.jpg)
![neck](images/ussm-3-neck.jpg)

![gif](video/first-pull.mp4)

We're going to try to track the endpoints with CV, rather than fancy encoders etc. Sam has done some prior work on this, [here](https://gitlab.cba.mit.edu/calischs/subpixel_tracking).

---

# Microphone Stiffness Testing

[Alysia did this in FabAcademy](http://archive.fabacademy.org/2017/fablabsantiago/students/356/project.html) and it would probably be a fun piece of kit / example for the NIST Project. Looks pretty simple... and compelling.