MiSteak Inc.

Home Meat Grinder

Group 5
MecE 360 Design

Final Report

Brett Breitkreuz 1448953

Ojaswi Dhoubhadel 1398661
Suey Fong 1439101
Joshua Gamble 1387474
Abigail Hartman 1437638
Colson Schneider 1401621

Submitted to MecE 360 Inc. on

December 10, 2016
Abstract
MiSteak Inc. has completed the design and analysis on the critical elements of a meat

grinder designed for MecE 360 Inc. and Ferraro Inc. The design follows the same design that

was laid out in the previous concept report. The concept is based on the conventional market

design, but the motor is located beside the output shaft to compact the design. This also allows

the hopper to be located directly above the two components. A standard #8 auger drives the meat

where it is ground and cut by a blade located on the auger shaft. The overall design is 318 x 287

x 445 mm in size. The motor selected is an AOSmith GF2054. It outputs 0.5 horsepower at 1725

rpm and uses 115-120 volts, ideal for home use. The gears were designed to produce a 22:1

reduction on the motor to produce a 78.6 rpm output speed. The designed gear train has a 3-stage

reduction utilizing 20 and 56 tooth low carbon steel gears at each stage. Gear 5 is the limiting

gear and is made of a 300 HB steel that will increase the safety factor to 1.57. Each gear is

connected to the shaft using keyways to transfer the torque and an H7/n6 transition fit for

locating the gears on the shaft. The shafts were also analyzed and a minimum shaft diameter of

12 mm was calculated. A diameter of 15 mm was used with a step up to 20 mm to improve gear

selection and to increase the safety factor to 4.1. Shaft D uses a 20 mm shaft and has a safety

factor of 4.9. Each of the two intermediate shafts (B and C) will be supported by 6202-2RSR

FAG ball bearings to minimize cost with a life expectancy of 2705 hours. Shaft D will be

supported by 6204-2RSR ball bearings.

2
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 2
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 7
1.1 Expectations/Design Problem ......................................................................................... 7
1.2 Existing Designs ............................................................................................................. 7
1.3 Legal/Standard Requirements ......................................................................................... 7
2 Design Methodology............................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Design Selection Process ................................................................................................ 7
2.2 Brainstorming Ideas ........................................................................................................ 8
2.3 Decision Matrix .............................................................................................................. 9
2.4 Specifications and Assumptions ..................................................................................... 9
3 Detailed Component Analysis .............................................................................................. 11
3.1 Material Selection ......................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Motor Selection............................................................................................................. 11
3.3 Auger Analysis.............................................................................................................. 11
3.4 Gear Analysis ................................................................................................................ 12
3.5 Shaft Analysis ............................................................................................................... 14
3.6 Bearing Analysis ........................................................................................................... 15
3.7 Connection Analysis ..................................................................................................... 17
3.8 Blade Selection ............................................................................................................. 17
4 Time Management ................................................................................................................ 18
5 Design Results ...................................................................................................................... 21
6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 21
7 Works Cited .......................................................................................................................... 22
Appendix A: Existing Market Designs ......................................................................................... 23
A.1 Skyfood SMG 12 Meat Grinder .................................................................................... 23
A.2 Skyfood PSE-11 Meat Grinder ..................................................................................... 24
A.3 Big Bite Grinder 0.75 hp ............................................................................................... 25
Appendix B: Detailed Design Decisions (Decision Matrix explained) ........................................ 26
B.1 Main Decision Matrix ................................................................................................... 26
B.2 Motor Position Decision Matrix ................................................................................... 27
B.3 Hopper Decision Matrix ............................................................................................... 29

3
Appendix C: Concept Designs ...................................................................................................... 30
C.1 Conventional Grinder.................................................................................................... 30
C.2 Multiple Die Plates ....................................................................................................... 30
C.3 Double Auger ................................................................................................................ 31
C.4 Piston Driven ................................................................................................................ 31
C.5 Gravity Driven .............................................................................................................. 32
C.6 Multiple Plates .............................................................................................................. 32
Appendix D: Motor Selection and Specifications ........................................................................ 33
Appendix E: Auger Analysis ........................................................................................................ 35
Appendix F: Gear Analysis........................................................................................................... 40
Appendix G: Shaft Analysis ......................................................................................................... 58
Appendix H: Bearing Analysis ..................................................................................................... 99
H.1 Bearing Analysis ........................................................................................................... 99
H.2 Bearing Selection ........................................................................................................ 102
Appendix I: Connections Analysis ............................................................................................. 105
Appendix J: Engineering Drawing Package ............................................................................... 106

Word Count: 3161

4
List of Figures
Figure 1: Brainstorming Mind Map ................................................................................................ 8
Figure 2: 3D Model of Selected Auger ......................................................................................... 12
Figure 3:Gear Train with the labels corresponding to the gear numbering system in the analysis
shown in Appendix F ............................................................................................................ 13
Figure 4:Selected Blade for the Meat Grinder .............................................................................. 18
Figure 5: Original Gantt Chart ...................................................................................................... 19
Figure A.1: Skyfood SMG 12 Meat Grinder (Skyfood Equipment, 2016)...23
Figure A. 2: Skyfood PSE-11 Meat Grinder (Skyfood Equipment, 2016) ................................... 24
Figure A. 3: Big Bite Grinder (Lem Products, 2016) ................................................................... 25
Figure C. 1: Preliminary Sketch of Multiple Die Plates Design30
Figure C. 2: Preliminary Sketch of Piston Driven Design ............................................................ 31
Figure F.1: General free body diagram of gears40

5
List of Tables
Table 1: Decision Matrix used to determine most feasible grinder design................................... 10
Table 2: Critical Results from Auger Analysis ............................................................................. 12
Table 3: Gear Results .................................................................................................................... 14
Table 4: Bearing Results ............................................................................................................... 16
Table 5: Connections Results........................................................................................................ 17
Table 6: Distribution of Hours Over Tasks Completed ................................................................ 20
Table B.1: Motor Position Decision Matrix ................................................................................. 27
Table B.2: Hopper Decision Matrix.............................................................................................. 29

6
1 Introduction
1.1 Expectations/Design Problem
MiSteak Inc. is dedicated to creating a safe and efficient meat grinder for household use that
is also convenient to clean and easy to use. The appliance is intended to allow the consumer to
make their own ground meat in the comfort of their own home so that they have control over the
sanitation of the appliance and the product it creates. The grinder accepts raw meat and pushes it
horizontally through a feed tube by way of a rotating auger. The spinning blade cuts the meat
before being pressed through a slotted end-cap, creating the final ground meat product. A single
speed 115-120 V motor powers the meat grinder. This report outlines the brainstorming and
design selection processes, the selected design, and the analyses completed to design a successful
meat grinder.

1.2 Existing Designs

It has been found that most current meat grinders have the same general design. The greatest
discrepancy between household grinders is whether they are electrically or manually powered.
Conversely, they all feature a tray for meat insertion, a rotating auger to move the meat through
the grinder, and a blade to cut the meat into smaller pieces before forcing it through the slotted
end plate. Various models can be seen in Appendix A, along with some specifications for each.
MiSteak Inc. is focused on producing a more compact and easy to move version of these models,
while maintaining the same function and efficiency.

1.3 Legal/Standard Requirements

MiSteak Inc.s meat grinder is designed to follow all CSA safety standards and regulations
for household motor operated appliances. The main concern was standard CSA C22.2 NO 195-
16 section 5.2 specifying that any moving parts that process a hazard must be covered and only
accessible with the use of a tool.

2 Design Methodology
2.1 Design Selection Process
The process for selecting the best design started off with many different designs and was
eventually narrowed down to one. The first step for selecting a design was to generate many
ideas in a brainstorming session. A go/no-go decision was made for each design to narrow the

7
options down to six different designs. The mind map shown in Figure 1 was created to aid in
making these decisions. At this point each group member selected a design to sketch out and
analyze its feasibility. The information from each design, along with the mind map, was then
used to create a decision matrix, as shown in Table 1. The top ranked design after the decision
matrix was the conventional design, which was the starting point for the project.

Figure 1: Brainstorming Mind Map

2.2 Brainstorming Ideas

The brainstorming session for MiSteak Inc. brought a variety of ideas, many of which were
not feasible. Ideas varied from connecting different attachments to improve performance of
conventional meat grinders to concepts that tried to replace the functional elements of
conventional meat grinders. Attachments like meshing gears, single and double grinding augers,
additional blades and saws were considered. Ideas that replaced augers with pistons and a system
without an auger (gravity driven) were also considered. These ideas were considered feasible as

8
it is possible to grind or mince the meat to small chunks (see Appendix C for full descriptions of
brainstorming outcomes). They were all compared to conventional design in the decision matrix
shown on the next page.

2.3 Decision Matrix

The decision matrix below is meant to be an objective way of determining which design is
the best option by assigning a numerical value to each and ranking them based off that value.
The first step in creating the decision matrix was to determine which categories would be used
and the relative weighting of each category. The categories, in descending order of weighting,
are: safety, operational quality, ease of maintenance/cleaning, amount of meat processed in a
given time, cost to produce the meat grinders, and the consistency of operations (does the grinder
get jammed, need to cool etc.). Each design was then given a ranking out of ten for each
category, which was multiplied by the weighting and summed to determine the best design. The
explanation for the ranking of each category is given in Appendix B.

2.4 Specifications and Assumptions

Some assumptions had to be made while going through the design process for the meat
grinder. These assumptions mainly dealt with aspects such as the usage for the device, as well as
the location of its use. The meat grinder that is being developed is one that would typically be
used as a kitchen appliance, which means the expected running time should not exceed three
consecutive hours of run time and be used about once a week. The device is designed to be used
in standard room-temperature environment. The overall dimensions of this device will be that of
a manageable size and weight for a single person to move.
The specifications of this device are derived from the assumptions stated above. The
proposed life expectancy for this device is 5 years with a 3-year warranty given on all parts.
Since it is assumed to be used indoors, the designed operating temperature is in the range of 5C
to 35C. The grinder will be produced and sold in North America, so the electrical connections
will be 115-120V, single phase and 60Hz. The size of the motor was assumed to be a single
speed motor between 0.25 hp and 1.5 hp before further analysis.

9
 Table 1: Decision Matrix used to determine most feasible grinder design

Design Decision Matrix

Conventional Multiple Die
Design Gravity Driven Double Auger Piston Driven Multiple Blades
Grinder Plates
Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating Rating
Criteria Weight Score Score Score Score Score Score
/10 /10 /10 /10 /10 /10
Cost 60 8 480 10 600 4 240 5.5 330 6.5 390 6 360
Maintenance 75 10 750 7.5 562.5 4 300 7 525 8 600 8.5 637.5
Operation 90 10 900 6 540 7 630 9 810 4 360 10 900
Consistency 50 10 500 6 300 7 350 9 450 6.5 325 9.5 475
Output Rate 65 7 455 5 325 10 650 4 260 5 325 8 520
Safety 100 10 1000 7 700 3 300 8 800 5 500 10 1000
Total 4085 3027.5 2470 3175 2500 3892.5
Rank 1 4 6 3 5 2
3 Detailed Component Analysis
3.1 Material Selection
A major aspect of the MiSteak Inc. Meat Grinder was to make it light enough for the average
person to be able to move. Because of this specification, material selection is a critical element of
our design. For the base and shaft supports, 1080 Aluminum alloy was used because it is light,
but still strong enough to support the design. The housing on the meat grinder was selected to
made from ABS plastic for multiple reasons. The ABS plastic can be injection molded into the
required shape which will minimize the production cost per unit. Additionally, ABS plastic is
light, lowering the overall weight of our design. For all parts in contact with the meat (hopper,
feed tube etc.), stainless steel was used because it is hygienic and commonly used in food
production equipment.

3.2 Motor Selection

For the MiSteak Inc. Meat Grinder, an AO Smith Century GF2054 AC electric motor
(TEMCo Industrial, 2016) was selected. This motor was selected since it met all the
requirements for the design. It is powered by a standard 115V outlet and produces 0.5 hp with an
output speed of 1725 rpm. Additionally, the motor is of average size, measuring
9.9x5.56x5.8. Further information on the selected motor can be found in Appendix D.

3.3 Auger Analysis

The auger shown in Figure 2 is the main working part that steadily forces the meat down the feed
tube and toward the blade. It is selected to be made of stainless steel due to its high resistance to
permantant deformation and applied forces. The auger shaft has a total length of 19.7 cm and a
stansard size #8 outlet diameter of 6.35 cm (FAQ about Grinder Plates and Blades, 2016). The
input torque and the rotational speed after gear reduction are 37.6 J and 78.6 rpm, respectively.
The meat grinder is expected to grind 1.59 kg of meat per minute. Force, deflection and stress
analysis were completed based on this expectation. The critical results from the analysis are
shown in Table 2. The deflection and slope were found to be below the maximum allowable
values at the position of bearing. The material properties, analytical approach, and design
constraints were based on information provided by the MecE 360 notes package (Carey, 2016
Edition). The procedure for the auger analysis is presented in Appendix E:

11
 Figure 2: 3D Model of Selected Auger

Table 2: Critical Results from Auger Analysis

Angle of twist: 0.668 deg/m

Angular deflection at bearing: 0.001 rad
Maximum deflection: 0.10 mm
Lifting torque: 714.4 Nmm
Lowering torque: 30.3 Nmm
Tensile Stress: 94.1 kPa
Shear stress: 14.7 kPa
Torsional stress: 1.2104 kPa

3.4 Gear Analysis

The meat grinder was designed to reduce the input speed of the motor as well as increase the
torque to be able to grind meat. The gear analysis was based on the assumed force needed to
grind meat as well as the minimum diameter of the selected shafts. The resulting gear selection
has six standard spur gears sized for a 22:1 gear reduction in the orientation seen in Figure 3.
This gear reduction is achieved by using three 20 tooth gears and three 56 tooth gears with a
tooth pressure angle of 20. The module of all the selected gears is 2. The resulting speed from
this reduction is 78.6 rpm. One advantage of this gear train is that it lowers the manufacturing
cost since most of the gears are the same size and are made of the same material. The free body
diagram in Appendix F shows the tangential force and normal force acting on and by the spur
gears. A force analysis was completed based on this information in Appendix F. The output

12
torque was calculated to be 37.6 J transmitted through the auger. The safety factors for bending
and surface stresses were calculated for each gear based on the correction factors as outlined by
the American Gear Manufacturers Association, (Carey, 2016 Edition) and are shown in Table 3.
The safety factors of the gears as presented in this table were meant to be smaller than the safety
factors of the shafts since they are the cheaper to replace and will cause less damage if failure
occurs. The procedures for the force analysis, gear reduction calculation, gear stress analysis, and
safety factor calculation are presented in Appendix F.

Figure 3:Gear Train with the labels corresponding to the gear numbering system in the analysis shown in Appendix F

13
 Table 3: Gear Results

Gear
Gear 1 Gear 2 Gear 3 Gear 4 Gear 5 Gear 6
Property
190 HB 190 HB 190 HB 190 HB 300 HB 190 HB
Material
steel steel steel steel steel steel

Teeth 20 56 20 56 20 56

Surface
3.5 11.7 1.7 5.8 1.6 2.7
Safety Factor
Bending
7.0 8.7 3.7 4.0 2.2 1.71
Safety Factor

Torque (J) 2.0 5.4 5.4 14.1 14.1 37.6

From this analysis, the limiting gear was found to be gear 5 as it initially had a safety factor
of 0.75 meaning that it would fail if the same material was used for all the gears. For this reason,
the material for gear 5 was changed to be a 300 HB steel to compensate for the higher forces this
gear experiences. Furthermore, due to different shaft size for shaft D, a gear with larger bore size
was needed. Gears 2 and 4 are SDP KS2-56, gears 1 and 3 are SDP KSSA2-20J15, gear 5 is a
SDP KMSGA2-20 and gear 6 is a SDP KSSA2-56J20 which were selected from the QTC Gears
website (Spur Gears, 2016). Gear 5 is the limiting gear with a safety factor of 1.6 and is designed
to fail first.
3.5 Shaft Analysis
Shafts are critical components of any gear train design. The meat grinder design has 3 shafts and
a motor shaft. The torque from the motor shaft (Shaft A) is transmitted to the auger shaft (Shaft
D) via two transmitting shafts (Shaft B and C). The shafts are made of 1020 steel. It is imperative
that shafts do not fail first as a failure of shaft could lead to damage in bearings, as well as gears.
The shaft diameters were designed by choosing a safety factor greater than that of the critical
gear. Furthermore, shafts B and C were stepped to ensure the following deflection criteria were
followed, as per the MecE 360 Notes package (Carey, 2016 Edition):

14
 Deflections at gears to be less than 0.000127 m to ensure proper meshing
Slope between gear axis to be less than 0.03
Maximum angular deflection at bearings between 0.001 and 0.004 rad
Shaft twist to be less than 3/m
The transmission shafts (Shaft B and C) were subjected to similar loading conditions. Both
transmission shafts were supported by two bearings and transmitting torque to subsequent shaft
via two gears. The analysis of the shaft (Appendix G) determined that the shafts needed a
minimum diameter of 12 mm. This minimum diameter was achieved by ensuring a safety factor
of 2. The safety factor was initially chosen as 2 because it would be ideal for gears to fail before
shafts, and the lowest gear safety factor was 1.57 (Appendix F). Since it is critical that shafts do
not fail, the base diameter of the shaft was chosen to be 15 mm. Moreover, a 15 mm shaft size
was also helpful in selecting gears because of a wider selection of gears and bearing with a base
diameter of 15 mm. Overall, the safety factor for shaft B and C were 8.4 and 4.1, respectively.
It was determined that using a shaft of 15 mm would cause significant deflection (over
0.000127 m) between the two gears. To avoid such mishaps, the shaft was stepped between the
two gears in the shaft. This stepping also functions as a locator for the two gears. The stepped
diameter is 20 mm. Overall, the following critical results were realized for the graph:
Base diameter of 15 mm
Stepped diameter of 20 mm
Maximum slope of 0.00037 rad
Maximum deflection of 0.003 mm
Shaft twist of 1.96/m
The loading conditions for shaft D were different than the two transmitting shafts. Shaft D
received torque from Gear 6 and transmitted it to the auger. Using a minimum safety factor of 2,
the minimum diameter was determined to be 15 mm. It was recognized that the shaft would fail
through deflection under such criteria. Using a shaft of 20 mm ended this debacle and
calculations showed the design safety factor to be 4.9.
3.6 Bearing Analysis
The analysis for the bearings was dependent on the diameter of the shaft, the reaction forces,
and the number of cycles. From these three factors, it was found that the shaft diameter was the
limiting factor. Since this meat grinder is a consumer product, ball bearings were chosen to

15
reduce costs and maximize life expectancy. This meat grinder consists of six bearings, four of
which are SFK bearing number 6202-2RSR and two 6204-2RSR bearings. These bearings can all
handle axial loading, have a lifetime lubrication and are designed to have a lifetime of 100
million revolutions with respect to the first shaft. Since different shafts spin at different speeds
each bearing was designed for a lifetime that would be equivalent. Appendix H contains the
analysis done for the selection of the bearings using information from the gear and shaft
analysed in Appendix F, and Appendix G, respectively. The analysis for the bearings was
completed using the forces applied to the critical and output shafts, C and D respectively. The
other limiting factor was the shaft diameter which was 15 mm shafts A, B and C and 20 mm for
shaft D. From the reaction forces a bearing was assumed and then confirmed based on the
dynamic load rating of the bearing. The values for each shaft and bearing are shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Bearing Results

Bearing Bearing Bearing Bearing Bearing
Bearing
Bearing 2 3 4 5 6
1 6202-
Property 6202- 6202- 6202- 6204- 6204-
2RSR
2RSR 2RSR 2RSR 2RSR 2RSR
Shaft Being
Shaft B Shaft B Shaft C Shaft C Shaft D Shaft D
Supported
Axial Loading (N) 0 0 0 0 0 51.8
Resultant Reaction
142.5 40.7 15.9 466.2 284.603 430.552
Force (N)
Number of
100 100 35.7 35.7 12.8 12.8
Revolutions (106)
Calculated
Dynamic Load 661.4 188.9 52.4 1535 665.7 1371
Rating (N)
Bearing Dynamic
8200 8200 8200 8200 13600 13600
Load Rating (N)
Safety Factor 12.4 43.4 157 5.3 20.4 9.9

16
 3.7 Connection Analysis
To connect the selected gears to the designed shafts a combination of keys and interference
fits were used. The keys were designed against shearing and twisting. Brief analysis was done on
the keys to determine the dimensions and stresses that act of each key. The tabulated data is
shown in Table 5. Since keys and keyways only restrict free motion around the shaft transitions
fits were also used between the gear and the shaft to prevent axial movement. Since no axial
force is acting on any gear a transition fit is sufficient to prevent movement caused by shaking
and vibrations. The transition fit that will be used is H7/n6 (Schaeffler Technical Pocket Guide
STT, March 2013).

Table 5: Connections Results

Key
Key 1 Key 2 Key 3 Key 4 Key 5 Key 6
Property
Gear Being
Gear 1 Gear 2 Gear 3 Gear 4 Gear 5 Gear 6
Secured
Dimensions
5x5x7 5x5x7 5x5x7 5x5x7 5x5x7 6 x 6 x 10
W x H x L (mm)
Resultant Reaction
108.0 101.8 284.9 267.8 749.9 704.9
Force (N)

xy (MPa) 4.3 4.1 11.4 10.7 30.0 19.6

x (MPa) 6.2 5.8 15.3 15.3 42.9 23.5

3.8 Blade Selection

The blade (shown below in Figure 4) is the dominant part that performs the actual grinding,
therefore, longlasting and efficiency are some elements in knife selection. The blade has the
same outlet diameter as the auger which is 6.35 cm. It is made of a single piece of stainless steel
that has high ability to hold an edge without frequent resharpening. It is highly durable and
corrosion resistant. The curved 4-arm design and the sharp cutting surface help process meat
consistently and reduce waste from poorly cut and mashed meat. A 9 x 9 mm hole is precisely
cut in the centre to be fitted perfectly with the auger for drive in order to decrease stud and wear.

17
 Figure 4:Selected Blade for the Meat Grinder

4 Time Management
MiSteak Inc. was able to meet the project deadlines set by Hogan Inc. in an efficient
manner. The group initially created a Gantt Chart (Figure 5) to create internal deadlines for the
group. Most of the deadlines set in the Gantt Chart were met in time and Hogan Inc. was notified
about progress through the concept and analysis reports. Furthermore, MiSteak Inc. met
biweekly with a representative of Hogan Inc. to clarify design needs and expectations. Also,
MiSteak Inc. provided a brief presentation on completed work on Nov 5th and a more in depth
presentation on Dec 7th.
Table 6 summarizes the overall hours spent on the task by the group. The hours at the
end of the project correlates with very little discrepancy to the hours expected to complete the
project in Gantt chart. Due to the scope of the project and time constraints, the group was not
able to complete a cost analysis; however, each group member has thoroughly reviewed the
technical analysis.

18
Figure 5: Original Gantt Chart

19
 Table 6: Distribution of Hours Over Tasks Completed

Task Task Description Time Spent

Completed on Task
Brainstorming Creating and listing ideas 17 Hours

Finalizing Compiling decision matrix, deciding the weighing and 20.5 Hours
Design Features deciding the values
Group Meetings Meeting and dividing tasks and reviewing each other's 64 Hours
work
Gear Analysis Iterative gear analysis, selection of gears, design of gear 62 Hours
train and review of analysis
Shaft Analysis Iterative shaft analysis, determining stepping up of shaft 108 Hours
and review of analysis
Bearing Analysis Analysis and selection done for the bearings for each of 11 Hours
the shafts for the gear train

Connection Analysis and selection done on the connections of the 5.5 Hours
Analysis gears to the shaft
Auger and Blade Analysis of the meat grinder auger and selection of the 19.5 Hours
Analysis blade and auger

Solid Modelling Using SolidWorks to 3D model the meat grinder and the 30 Hours
assembly of all parts

Engineering Create engineering drawings for custom engineered parts 18.5 Hours
Drawing and assemblies.

3D Printing Creating a special drawing package and hours for printing 7 hours
the material (external to MiSteak Inc.)

Presentations Putting together the two presentations, practicing, and 62 Hours

presenting
Report Writing Compiling, editing and reviewing the documents presented 72 Hours

Total Time Total time spent on the design of the meat grinder 497 Hours

20
5 Design Results
After thorough analysis of all components, MiSteak Inc. designed a safe and easy to use
household meat grinder. The project began with several brainstorming sessions which resulted in
the conception of six different design concepts. A decision matrix narrowed these concepts down
to one to be analyzed. A conventional design was selected, with specific emphasis placed on
designing a light, compact, and easily moveable device. The following 5 components were
analyzed to ensure success of the grinder: gears, shafts, auger, bearings, and connections.
Operating on a 115-120 V power source, a 0.5 hp motor with an output speed of 1725 rpm was
selected. The resulting gear selection has six standard spur gears sized for a 22:1 gear reduction
achieved by using three 20 tooth gears and three 56 tooth gears with a tooth pressure angle of
20. Each gear is connected to the shaft using keyways to transfer the torque and an H7/n6
transition fit for locating the gears on the shaft. Through an extensive analysis of the shafts, a
minimum shaft diameter was calculated to be 12 mm and selected to be 15 mm. The meat
grinder consists of six bearings: four SFK bearing number 6202-2RSR and two 6204-2RSR
bearings.

6 Conclusion
The objective set before MiSteak Inc. was to design a safe and user-friendly household meat
grinder. This report outlines and explains the design process and the analysis completed to
accomplish this task. MiSteak Inc. created and followed a Gantt Chart to stay on track and keep
up with the deadlines set by Hogan Inc. No major time management issues arose and work was
completed timely and smoothly. MiSteak Inc. is dedicated to creating safe and easy-to-use
products, especially with regards to sanitation and ease of movement. This meat grinder is
designed to be light, compact, safe for the user, and convenient to clean. Overall, MiSteak Inc.
was able to design a meat grinder according to the objectives and requirements set out by Hogan
Inc. and MecE 360, as well as internal goals decided upon by MiSteak Inc.

21
7 Works Cited

Carey, J. (2016 Edition, Fall). Mec E 360 Engineering Design II Class Notes Package. Mec E
360 Engineering Design II. University of Alberta.
FAQ about Grinder Plates and Blades. (2016). Retrieved from One Stop Jerkey Shop:
http://www.onestopjerkyshop.com/faq-about-grinder-plates-and-blades-1/
Lem Products. (2016). Butcher Meat Grinders. Retrieved from Lem Products:
http://www.lemproducts.com/category/butcher-meat-grinders
Schaeffler Bearings. (2016). Retrieved from Deep Groove Ball Bearings 6202-2RSR:
http://medias.schaeffler.com/medias/en!hp.ec.br.pr/62..-2RSR*6202-2RSR
Schaeffler Technical Pocket Guide STT. (March 2013). Schaeffler Technologies AG & Co. KG.
Skyfood Equipment. (2016). Products. Retrieved from Skyfood Equpment LLC:
http://www.skyfood.us/products.php?cd_familia=7
Spur Gears. (2016). (QTC Metric Gears) Retrieved December 07, 2016, from QTC Gears:
http://qtcgears.com/products/spurgears.php
TEMCo Industrial. (2016). Century GF2054 AC Electric Motor M22172. Retrieved from
TEMCo Industrial: https://www.temcoindustrial.com/century-gf2054-ac-electric-
motor.html

22
Appendix A: Existing Market Designs

A.1 Skyfood SMG 12 Meat Grinder

The Skyfood SMG 12 Meat grinder (Figure A.1) is meant for medium production
(Skyfood Equipment, 2016). The energy-efficient motor is what makes this grinder a cheaper
device. The gear train and motor are designed to be used consistently for longer periods of time.
The forward-and-reverse switch allows the user to adjust the consistency of the meat by
reversing the rotation of the mill during the grinding process. This designs main features are its
compact size and ease of cleaning which makes it a great choice of household meat grinder.

Figure A.1: Skyfood SMG 12 Meat Grinder (Skyfood Equipment, 2016)

23
 A.2 Skyfood PSE-11 Meat Grinder

The Skyfood PSE-11 Meat Grinder is designed for medium to high production times
(Skyfood Equipment, 2016). This grinder has a maximum output rate of 440 lbs./h and is
powered by an oversized motor and gear train transmission. The motor housing is made of
stainless steel and has a long life expectancy. This design is excellent for food processing
company that needs medium to high outputs of ground meat, such as supermarkets.

Figure A. 2: Skyfood PSE-11 Meat Grinder (Skyfood Equipment, 2016)

24
 A.3 Big Bite Grinder 0.75 hp

The Big Bite Grinder has a stainless steel motor housing meant to withstand frequent usage
(Lem Products, 2016). It comes with coarse and fine plates also made from stainless steel. Roller
bearings are used to reduce friction between the gears for smoother grinding. This grinder
weighs 45 lbs. and has the ability to reach a maximum production of 111 lbs./min.

Figure A. 3: Big Bite Grinder (Lem Products, 2016)

25
 Appendix B: Detailed Design Decisions (Decision Matrix explained)
B.1 Main Decision Matrix
The following criteria correspond to the decision matrix, shown in Table 1, that narrowed down
the top six concepts to the number one concept to be analyzed.
Safety (Weight = 100): A meat grinder is meant to be used in a home to prepare food. The
design of a meat grinder involves rotating parts, pinch points, and possible sharp edges. For these
reasons it was given the highest weight of all the categories. A score of 10 for safety represents a
very safe design, while a rank of 1 would mean a dangerous design.
Operation (Weight = 90): The meat grinder has to be able to grind meat effectively.
Accordingly, it was given a high weighting. A score of 10 means that the grinder works well, and
a 1 would mean that the grinder does not work.
Ease of Maintenance (Weight = 75): As this is a home product, maintenance will likely be
done by the owner. This means it is important that the meat grinder be easy to disassemble in
order to clean and preform any required service to the parts. A rank of 10 means that the design
can easily and safely be disassembled, cleaned, and reassembled.
Output Rate (Weight = 65): Since this grinder is meant for home use, it is important that it have
a relatively high output rate, since time is often hard to find in a family household. A rank of 10
in this category means that the design has a high output rate.
Cost (Weight = 60): Since this is a consumer product, it is important that the cost be kept low in
order to keep the retail price as low as possible, while still maximizing profit. A score of 10 in
this category means that the design is relatively low cost.
Consistency (Weight = 50): It is important that the meat grinder can run reliably. This includes
areas of does it work of every time, does the meat get jammed or clogged up inside the grinder,
does it need time to cool between use etc. A score of 10 in this category means that the design is
very reliable.

26
 B.2 Motor Position Decision Matrix
The following matrix was used to select position of the motor (explanations of criteria are shown
below):
Table B.1: Motor Position Decision Matrix

Motor Position Decision Matrix

Design Motor Below Motor Vertical Motor Beside Motor Behind
Rating Rating Rating Rating
Criteria Weight Score Score Score Score
/10 /10 /10 /10
Maintenance 30 10 300 6 180 10 300 7 210
Functionality 55 2 110 8 440 10 550 10 550
Balance 80 7 560 7 560 10 800 7 560
Appeal 100 9 900 5 500 8 800 6 600
Total 1870 1680 2450 1920
Rank 3 4 1 2

Maintenance (Weight = 30): With different motor positions the accessibility to the motor itself
or other mechanical parts of the machine could be hindered with different motor positions. A
score of 10 would mean that the motor position allowed easy access to all mechanical and
electrical components with a score of 1 meaning access would be hindered by the motor. The
motor position was one of the major design modifications that we thought could be improved
upon from the typical meat grinders found in stores. The criteria that they were evaluated on
were their ability to be easily accessed for maintenance, their functionality, their ability to add
stability to the device and their appeal. The motor beside the barrel design was chosen due to the
fact the gear box would be easily accessible from the back of the device and its ability to balance
the device by counteracting the weight of the grinding mechanism.
Functionality (Weight = 55): The functionality of the motor must be considered since different
orientations of the motor could limit air flow to the motor making it overheat quicker than others.
The heat that the motor is giving off should also be considered with where it is in respect to the
location of the raw meat being ground.
Balance (Weight = 80): Since the motor is a fairly heavy component of the meat grinder and has
the potential to change the devices center of gravity it was a fairly major component in
determining how the motor should be positioned on the device. A score of 10 would mean that
the motor position would help offset the potential weight of meat on top of the grinder and a
score of 1 would mean it would hinder the balance.

27
Appeal (Weight = 100): The appeal of a meat grinder is a very important aspect when it is being
sold for as a kitchen appliance. Since the functionality was mainly addressed in the major
decision matrix the appeal is a more important aspect when talking about the position of the
motor.

28
 B.3 Hopper Decision Matrix
The following matrix was used to select position of the motor (explanations of criteria are shown
below):
Table B.2: Hopper Decision Matrix

Hopper Decision Matrix

Plate with
Design Flat Plate Funnel Sloped Plate
Funnel End
Rating Rating Rating Rating
Criteria Weight Score Score Score Score
/10 /10 /10 /10
Functionality 100 6 600 10 1000 7 700 9 900
Holding
80 10 800 5 400 10 800 10 800
Capacity
Appeal 40 6 240 10 400 7 280 7 280
Total 1640 1800 1780 1980
Rank 4 2 3 1

Functionality (Weight = 55): The functionality of the hopper must be considered when
modifying the basic flat plate design. The hoppers main purpose is to hold meat while the grinder
is in the process of grinding. A score of 10 would mean that the hopper can hold meat and also
aid in adding more meat to the grinding process without any interaction, and a score of 1 would
mean the hopper cant hold any meat or aid in the grinding process.
Holding Capacity (Weight = 80): The ability for the hopper to hold lots of excess meat while
the device is grinding is an important aspect of the hopper. A score of 10 would mean that the
hopper can hold a maximum amount of meat for the size of it and a score of 1 would mean the
hopper is incapable of holding meat.
Appeal (Weight = 40): The appeal of the hopper is important because it balances the weight of
the holding capacity criterion since a larger hopper is capable of holding more but would have
less aesthetic appeal. A score of 10 would mean that the hopper does not look bad on top of the
grinding mechanism and a score of 1 would mean it takes away from the overall appeal of the
machine.
The hopper was another important design aspect of the meat grinder. The various designs were
evaluated based on their functionality, the amount of meat they could hold and their appeal. The
plate with a funnel end design was chosen based on the decision matrix. The plate with funnel
design however would be able to hold significantly more capacity.

29
 Appendix C: Concept Designs
Below are the descriptions of the top 6 conceptual designs that were considered during the
brainstorming sessions and used in the decision matrix to narrow down to one design.

C.1 Conventional Grinder

The most common design for a household meat grinder is composed of six main
components: a meat tray, feeding tube, hopper, auger, cutting blade, and grinder end plate. The
raw meat is inserted through the top of the tray into the feeding tube and pushed down into the
hopper using a meat pusher if necessary. The hopper contains a rotating auger that cuts the meat
up and pushes it horizontally through the hopper. When the meat reaches the end of the hopper it
is cut again into smaller pieces by a cutting blade. The meat is then pressed through the slotted
end plate. This end cap can be changed based on slot size to produce the desired diameter of
ground meat.

C.2 Multiple Die Plates

The multiple die plate design was designed to help the meat grinder from jamming up in
the grinding process. The design is supposed to avoid this jamming by putting the meat though
various stages of dies that have progressively smaller holes as to pre-grind the meat before it is
forced through the final die plate.

Figure C. 1: Preliminary Sketch of Multiple Die Plates Design

30
 C.3 Double Auger
The double auger design was supposed to have two meshing worm gear style grinders.
The grinders would have been used to crush the meat before grinding it. These grinders would be
driven by the motor and would be placed over the Auger. The biggest disadvantage of this type
of system is the safety of the system. The meshing worm posed several hazards which led to
rejection of the design

C.4 Piston Driven

This piston idea utilizes a linkage mechanism and piston to grind meat. The motor drives
the linkage mechanism which creates the up-and-down motion of the rectangular piston. The
piston then presses the meat through the stainless steel blades like a meat dicer. This design
works for frozen and sliced meat which saves the time of defrosting the meat. Users can control
the size of the minced meat by changing the blade size easily.

Figure C. 2: Preliminary Sketch of Piston Driven Design

31
 C.5 Gravity Driven
The gravity fed design is meant to utilize gravity as the device for feeding the meat into
blades. This design also relies fully on spinning blades to cut and grind the meat. There would be
multiple blades that would cut the meat to the desired consistency. This design would likely have
issues with meat becoming caught in the feeder. To compensate the blades would need to be
angled to push the meat down as it cuts. There would also be a need for a tool to be designed that
pushes the meat down to the blades.

C.6 Multiple Plates

The design of multiple blades was meant to use a series of rotating blades to chop the meat
into small pieces which could then be forced through a grate to grind the meat up. The initial
design used several blender style blades to chop the meat up. This design was not developed
much further since it was not one of the top 3 from the decision matrix.

32
 Appendix D: Motor Selection and Specifications

This appendix contains the data sheet and drawing for the AO Smith Century GF2054 AC
Electric motor used within the MiSteak Inc. Meat Grinder. (TEMCo Industrial, 2016)

33
34
Appendix E: Auger Analysis

35
36
37
38
39
 Appendix F: Gear Analysis

Using FBD diagrams like that shown in Figure F.1 the gears were analyzed for the subjected
load, stress and safety factor. Three gears of 20 tooth and three gears of 56 tooth were used in the
design. The overall gear ratio was 22:1. The larger gears endure less stress than smaller gears.
These three larger gears and the first two smaller gears were made of 190 HB steel. Gear 5,
endured significant stress and required a higher strength material. To ensure reliability of the
gear, 300 HB steel was used. In larger scheme of things, it was determined that gears would
ideally fail before shafts. This meant having gear safety factor lower than that of shaft (Appendix
G) and bearings (Appendix H). Overall, the limiting safety factor of gear was designed for Gear
5, with contact safety factor of 1.57. This appendix includes the complete analysis of all gears.

Figure F.1: General free body diagram of gears

40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
 Appendix G: Shaft Analysis

Detailed analysis was done for each of the shafts. First, free body diagrams were completed
for each shaft. These can be found with the analysis section for each shaft. Initial assumptions for
each the shafts included an initial safety factor of 2 to ensure that the shaft would not fail first.
Torque calculations for each shaft can be found in Appendix D. Using this minimum safety
factor, the following detailed analysis was completed to ensure that the shafts would not fail.
After these calculations were completed the actual safety factor was calculated for each shaft.
Furthermore, calculations were done to make sure that the shaft did not experience slope greater
than 0.03 or deflection greater than 0.127 mm at the gears. Calculations were also done the
check that angular deflection at the bearings was less than 0.004 radians and maximum shaft
twist is less than 3/m. Through this analysis the final design for the shafts were finalized.

58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
 Appendix H: Bearing Analysis
H.1 Bearing Analysis
For the bearing selection process values from the shaft and gear analysis must be used.
Specifically, the shaft diameter and the reaction force are required to properly design the
necessary bearings. The following calculations are based on the specifications from shaft C and
shaft D since those shafts have the largest reaction forces and axial forces respectively.

99
100
101
 H.2 Bearing Selection
The bearings selected were found using the online selection tool from the FAG bearing website
(Schaeffler Bearings, 2016). The bearings selected using the analysis from the previous section
are bearing number 6202-2RSR and 6204-2RSR. The following datasheet is for the 6202-2RSR
bearing:

102
The following datasheet is for the 6204-2RSR bearing:

103
104
 Appendix I: Connections Analysis

The following calculations show the analysis for the keyways used to attach the gears to the
shafts.

105
 Appendix J: Engineering Drawing Package
This appendix includes the drawings of each part of MiSteak Inc.s Meat Grinder as modelled in SolidWorks.

106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117