Mousetrap Racer Assignment

Engineering Technology 2011

Isobel Arbiter

Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 INVESTIGATION WHEEL-AXLE EFFICIENCY 2.1 METAL FATIGUE IN SPRINGS 2.2 MATERIALS TESTING 2.3 3.0 IDEATION MODEL ANALYSIS OPTIMUM SELECTION 4.0 OPTIMUM SELECTION ORTHOGRAPHIC PROJECTION 4.1 MODEL 4.2 5.0 INVESTIGATION DEVELOPING THE SPRING CONSTANT ACTUAL VELOCITY 5.1 THEORETICAL MAXIMUM VELOCITY 5.2 PERFORMANCE 5.3 OTHER MODELS PERFORMANCE 5.4 FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS 5.5

Introduction The primary focus of this paper is to explore the efficiency and limitations of the spring mechanism found in a household mousetrap, and its subsequent effectiveness at powering a model vehicle. In analysing the vehicles efficiency, all factors must be taken in to consideration, and this paper will individually address all components of the spring and vehicle functions to provide a complete evaluation of the mechanics of the entire system. Through assessing wheel-axle efficiency, methods to achieve highest velocity, metal fatigue in springs and innumerable other facets of the operation of a Mouse-Trap Racer, the efficiency and capability of creating an effective model vehicle powered by a spring, and its representativeness of common vehicle inefficiencies, will be gaged.

Investigation 2.1 Wheel-Axle Efficiency of the Mousetrap Racer Table 1: Factors Compromising Wheel-Axle Efficiency Cause Visual Depiction Castor Angle

Camber Angle

Toe

Effect The Castor controls the steering of a vehicle, and must remain in a positive region for efficient steering and straight line driving. When the rear or front of a vehicle is elevated over the other the castor angle is compromised, it results in the axle becoming angled to one side of the car, increasing friction upon the axle bearings and ultimately detracting from the efficiency and safety of the vehicle. For the highest level of wheel efficiency the Camber angle must remain at 0. When there is tilt in either the negative or positive direction, premature wear upon the tires is caused as the increased weight upon the part of the tyre increases road friction. Unaligned wheels also diminish the vehicles straight line driving ability, as the wheel with the most positive camber will lead the vehicle, again increasing axle-bearing friction. Toe is the angle at which the wheels are positioned inwards or outwards from the car. Too great an angle in either direction will compromise safety of steering and premature tire wear. For the greatest level of efficiency, toe angle must remain at a 0 angle.

All images from autorepar.about.com

Analysis In modern vehicle design wheel-axle efficiency is one of the key factors in reducing the effects of friction and allowing the car to function at the highest possible standard. The basis of wheel-axle efficiency lies in wheel alignment. Ideally the car axle is to sit at a 90 angle, with both wheels perfectly parallel to each other. However a number of mechanical factors may influence the integrity of the wheel-axle alignment, as shown in Table 1. The process of wheel alignment is employed by mechanics, to analyse the cause of the vehicles problems and repair them. In this process the angles of the camber, toe and castors are measured, and if found to be extending overly in to positive or negative regions, are adjusted. This practice is crucial to maintaining the effective operation of a vehicle. In recent years engineers have developed new ways to overcome the detrimental force of friction upon axle bearings, in order to allow vehicles to lose minimal amounts of energy. One of the most innovative engineering designs is the differential, an application of 3rd century Chinese mechanical design. In a paper by Michigan Institute of Technology alumni Pearlman, the differential is explained as having two functional requirements, these being Distribute power from car transmission shaft to a pair of LeftRight wheels while allowing wheels to rotate at different speeds, (Pearlman, 2011). The need for the differential is highlighted in Figure 1, displaying the arcs of the wheels when turning, and thus the need for a mechanical device to allow them to turn at different speeds to achieve the correct arc. Without the utilisation of differentials, the wheels would turn at the same speed resulting in both poor steering ability unsafe driving- and increased friction on the axle bearings, which in turn decreases from the efficiency of the vehicle. In conclusion there are a number of methods and mechanical applications that engineers employ to increase wheel-axle efficiency. In short wheel-axle efficiency is the result of reducing all causes of friction. Through wheel alignment the uneven pressure, resulting in friction, upon axle casings is reduced, as shown in Table 1, highlighting the varying methods used in wheel alignments. Applications of mechanical systems, such as the differential, allow for the wheels to move independently of each other and thus decreases wheel-road friction through the skidding that may be caused on a turn where the tyres cannot change speed, wearing down the tract on the tyres and thus having a detrimental effect on the cars safety and axle-bearing friction by reducing uneven pressure caused when the wheels are moving at the same speed. Overall engineers have been very successful in reducing wheel-axle friction that reduces the vehicles efficiency and many of these techniques, in particular wheel alignment, may be applied to the mousetrap racer, to allow for the most efficiency.

2.2 Metal Fatigue in springs Encyclopaedia Britannica defines spring steel as a low alloy, medium carbon steel or high carbon steel with a very high yield strength. The main alloy component of the spring steel alloy is silicon, however other materials such as vanadium and chromium may be included to the alloy to achieve certain other mechanical properties. However despite the alloying of steel with certain metals to produce steel suitable for springs, the spring is still susceptible to forms of fatigue. The Metallurgical Consultancy association defines metal fatigue as, a progressive localized damage due to fluctuating stresses and strains on the material, (http://www.materialsengineer.com/CA-fatigue.htm). European spring and steel specialisation company, Lesjfors, expands upon this idea, noting A spring fatigue problem starts with the development of a micro fatigue crack which grows for every pulsation. When the stress in the remaining material reaches the ultimate tensile strength the spring will break, (http://www.lesjoforsab.com). To prevent stress raisers and such fatigue a variety of methods are employed to protect the spring against potential failure; these range from alloying steel to achieve different mechanical properties to an array of external treatments that provide the spring with desired mechanical properties. Initially, as previously noted, steel may be alloyed with a number of other elements to achieve a certain grade of spring steel, suitable to its chosen application. For example, according to St Hildas Technology Resources textbook, Chromium imparts strength and corrosion resistance, to steel alloys which are important in maintaining the integrity of the spring so that it may continue to effectively function and imparts properties that a mild steel alone cannot provide (St Hildas, Engineering Technology Resources, 2010, p76). Another commonly used metal to alloy in a spring is Molybdenum, which is important in preventing creep, a tendency of metals to deform when withstanding high levels of stress that occur under the yield strength, which may cause deform in springs, compromising their ability to regain work and resist plastic deformation. In his work, Failure Prevention of Plant and Machinery, engineer and author Hattengadi writes that, Springs do not require any maintenance as there is no wear or deterioration if they are designed correctly. It is only necessary to see that there is no corrosion of springs during service, (Hattengadi, 2007, p.141). Therefore to prevent spring fatigue, corrosion preventative methods must be employed. These range from surface treatments to employment of a sacrificial anode, to protect from environmental factors such as wind or rain- or chemical corrosion in certain systems- such as acid wear. In systems where the spring is of high importance, and difficult to perform enduring maintenance on, metal plating may be employed, to provide long term protection from corrosion. A more inexpensive option to be employed for short-term use is surface painting, which also prevents surface corrosion caused by external elements. In larger systems sacrificial anodes may be employed, which prevent rust on the spring itself by being consumed in preference of the spring steel. There are also a number of surface treatments to impart certain mechanical properties unto the spring steel. Heat treatments, such as the processes of

quenching, may improve steels hardness forming martensite. However, generally, these processes are not desirable when working with spring steel, as the increase in hardness decreases the steels toughness, a property integral to its function, which if decreased would surely lead to premature fatigue. The St Hildas Engineering Technology resource book suggests that tempering may serve to increase spring steels toughness through, removing internal stresses from martensitic structures, (St Hildas Engineering Technology Resources, 2010, p236). In the case of steel, an extremely high temperature, of 300o to a dark blue heat is required to produce an effective spring. However, perhaps the most beneficial treatment to spring still, that will impart the mechanical property of hardness, whilst maintaining the toughness of the material, are surface treatments. Carburising is defined as the impregnation of the surface of the material, being ferrous, with sufficient carbon to raise its composition to the eutectoid level. This is achieved through a process of dissociation of carbon monoxide in to carbon dioxide and carbon. As a result of this the surface of the material is hence protected from surface imperfections that may lead to stress raisers and cause failure. Shot Peening is another highly effective method to employ when decreasing steels life cycle, through the process of Figure 2: Relation between spring cold working metal by assaulting the surface through use of fatigue limit and residual stress an air blast or centrifugal blast wheel system. In a joint paper from the Beijing Aeronautical Company and the Nanjing Aeronautics Factory on the effects of shot peening in decreasing spring fatigue, it is stated, shot -peening can not ably improve the fatigue property of compressive coil springs of stainless steel, (Baoo, Zhenhuan, Chunlin, Rehnzi, 1990, p.6). This claim is substantiated in Figure 2, which illustrates the increase of compressive strength in a spring, post shot peening (Naito, Ochi, Takahashi, Suzuki, 1990, p.522). In light of this it can be seen that there are a variety of methods that may be employed to reduce metal fatigue in springs, which will impart the appropriate metal properties unto them, ranging from alloying metals to heat and surface treatments.

2.3 Materials Testing There are a variety of grades of steel or steel alloys that may be employed for commercial use, and here the grade of metal most appropriate for application in this scenario will be found, on the basis of the appropriateness of its mechanical properties. Graph 2: Grades of Steel Stress Strain Diagram

(http://pages.uoregon.edu/)

Graph 1 displays the respective yield and ultimate tensile strengths of High Carbon and Mild Carbon Steel. From this graph it can be seen that the yield strength of High carbon steel far exceeds that of mild carbon steel, meaning that the material is not subject to plastic deformation at higher stress levels, therefore maintaining its shape. By comparison mild steel has a far greater plastic deformation limit, however this makes it unsuitable for spring application. Thus, from graph 1, it can be seen that high carbon steel is the most appropriate grade of steel for spring application, due to its high yield strength and lack of plastic deformation. Table 2: Grades of Spring Steels/Metals and Mechanical Properties Metal Mechanical Properties High Carbon Spring Steel Cost Efficient Easily worked High yield strength Alloy Spring Steel Heat resistance Toughness

Stainless Spring Steel Copper Base Spring Alloy

Nickel Base Spring Alloy

Heat resistance (288o>Temperature) Corrosion resistant Poor cost efficiency Corrosion resistance Conductive Heat resistance Heat resistance Corrosion resistant Poor conductivity

In light of this analysis of the grades of spring metals it appears that high carbon steel will provide the most effective spring for implementation in the mousetrap mechanism. This is due primarily to its cost efficiency, which is appropriate for the mousetrap whose price generally sits around less than $1. The material also imparts high yield strength, ensuring that the spring will not snap under the load being employed in the mousetrap racer system. It is important to note, however, that high carbon spring steel is not corrosion resistant, and therefore if the spring were to be employed long term in such a system where the spring is exposed some form of corrosion resistant coating, (plating, painting) would need to be employed. Testing of Chosen Steel Grade In the engineering industry the primary means of materials testing is through Tensile and Compression Testing. Through this process the chosen material is subjected to tensile loading, and the subsequent reactions of the material are recorded and plotted on a stress-strain diagram such as displayed in Graph 1. It is from such a graph that the mechanical properties of a material can be analysed. Here analysis will be performed upon the stress-strain diagram of high carbon steel. Analysis From Graph 1 it can be deduced that high carbon steel possesses a number of extremely important mechanical properties that make it a suitable material. Primarily the elastic limit of the material is extremely high, as modelled by Hookes law, which dictates that the material will withstand loading without plastic deformation, making it an appropriate spring material. The material also displays high hardness properties, preventing the formation of stress raisers upon the surface, which may cause premature fracture. Conversely, due to the increased hardness of the material, its toughness is extremely low, meaning that it may fail under cyclic loading or shock loading. Therefore to increase the toughness of the material an annealing process may be employed to decrease the internal stresses of the material, making it more appropriate for application. It is in light of this suggestion that it can be asserted that, in conjunction with some form of process to increase the materials toughness, the material, High Carbon Steel, is appropriate for application in the aforementioned scenario.

3.0 Ideation Model 1

Strengths Lightweight structure Simple construction Good wheel sizing ratios Model 2

Weaknesses Lack of extension arm

Strengths Minimal air resistance/friction Good wheel sizing ratios

Weaknesses Difficult construction Frame may not be able to support mousetrap force Lack of extension arm

Model 3

Strengths Extension Arm Simple construction

Weaknesses Heavy frame/Increased friction Poor wheel sizing ratios

Analysis In light of the strengths and weaknesses identified in each model, it is apparent that Model 1 is the most appropriate choice of model for the mousetrap racer vehicle. However its weakness, lack of extension arm, will need to be rectified in order for the vehicle to achieve its maximum velocity. The combination of the chosen model and the addition of the extension arm will provide a potentially, highly effective vehicle whose design features will minimise the effects of friction through methods as explored in unit 2.0.

4.1 Computer Generated Orthographic Projection

Side View

Top View Base View

Isometric View

4.2 Model Visuals Table 3: Images and Corresponding Descriptions of Vehicle Model Description Image of finished model: differing from model chosen in ideation through utilisation of extension arm and length of body. Additional structural supports have been added to ensure that the body stays together.

Focus on mousetrap: Mousetrap mechanism is clearly displayed and the means of connecting the extension arm to the mousetrap arm, through utilisation of grip-ties.

Focus on rear axle: The rear mechanism through which the string passes on the vehicle is displayed. This provides no mechanical advantage, simply secures the string to the axle.

Pro Desktop generated projection of model: displayed in side view, the front to rear wheel ratio is displayed, along with an accurate measure of the size of the car body and design of the front wheel.

Evaluation Developing the Spring Constant There are two primary methods utilised to acquire the spring constant, both centring on the same equation. In this paper the average found through the graphical method has been used, however the algebraic method proves equally as efficient. Method 1 Graphically Table 4: Graphical Method of finding Spring Constant Force (N) Angle () Radian Fr Dcos 3.92 10 0.1745 0.041 0.161 4.41 12 0.209 0.041 0.181 4.9 20 0.349 0.039 0.191 5.39 28 0.489 0.037 0.199 5.88 37 0.646 0.034 0.2 6.37 42 0.733 0.031 0.197 Average Spring Constant Method 2 Algebraically Using the force 4.41N

k 0.923 0.866 0.575 0.407 0.31 0.269 0.554

(This method would then be applied to all forces and averaged) k = 0.554

5.1 Actual Velocity Table 5: Time vs. Distance trials Trial Time (seconds) 1 1.17 2 1.09 3 1.00

Distance (m) 1 1 1

Average Time =

m/s Actual Kinetic Energy Calculation Values for Calculation m= 94g =0.094kg v = 0.92 m/s

5.2 Theoretical Maximum Velocity

Values for Calculation m = 0.094kg x= k = 0.554 M = 18.33g = 0.01833kg n=3

Theoretical Kinetic Energy

Table 6: Kinetic energy and Velocity Values Velocity (m/s) Kinetic Energy (J) Actual 0.92 0.04 Theoretical 6.71 2.115

Energy Lost (%) 98.1 0

Efficiency (%) 13.7 100

5.3 Analysis of difference between Theoretical Maximum Velocity and Actual Velocity Speed (actual) 0.92 m/s ; Speed (theoretical) 6.71 m/s ; Energy Lost 98.1% There are a number of factors that may decrease the mousetrap racers potential to reach its theoretical maximum velocity. These include design faults in the mousetrap, the effects of friction and design faults with the mousetrap body. The primary design fault of the traditional mousetrap, here used to provide spring energy to power the mousetrap racer, is the increased friction in the mousetrap spring. Wheel-axle efficiency may also be the cause of some of the vehicles inefficiency coupled with minimal surface area on the wheels, which caused lack of friction/grip, preventing the vehicle from moving whilst harnessing all of its potential force. Mousetrap Design Fault (Friction) In the mousetrap spring system, the primary hindrance to its ability to achieve its maximum efficiency is the high amount of friction caused by metal on metal contact. Spring steel, used in the traditional snap mouse-trap, has an extremely high coefficient of friction when in contact with another steel, being 0.8. This fault, however, may be easily remedied by utilising a form of lubricant in areas of direct metal on metal contact, which will result in a reduced coefficient of friction, to 0.16. Wheel-Axle inefficiency Due to the nature of the vehicle, proper wheel alignment techniques could not be completely utilised. Thus it can be asserted that the toe and camber angles may have impacted upon the vehicles efficiency. Increased Camber angle in the positive region increased axle-bearing friction, which prevented the axle from freely moving, as well as causing friction between the large rear wheels and car body. In regards to toe angle, while the increased angle in the negative angle would have a negligible impact, as there is no steering involved in the movement of the vehicle, it is important to note that this had some effect upon the integrity of the vehicles directional movement. Lack of Wheel Surface Area Due to the nature of the wheels selected, which had a depth of 1.1mm, the minimal amount of friction created between the wheel and surface prevented the vehicle from moving forward with surface grip. This caused unnecessary spin on the wheels, as traction could not be created.

5.4 Other Model Analysis Heather Wolbers

Speed 0.87 m/s; Energy lost 88% (approx.) Wolbers vehicle was the most inefficient of those studied in this paper. This may be due to design fault, such as poor wheel ratios and increased axle-bearing friction caused by poor wheel alignment during construction. The poor design of the string dispenser, which could not hold nor dispense string correctly, prevented the vehicle from moving the entire 1m distance. It was an amalgamation of these issues that prevented Wolbers vehicle from achieving its complete potential velocity, or even a significant fraction of it. Future improvements that may be suggested are lubrication on the bearings, to reduce frictional energy loss and increasing the size of rear wheels, to improve the wheel-sizing ratio of the car, which will, in turn, allow for a mechanical advantage in the vehicle. Traction on the rear wheels would also be suggested to increase, for a better transfer of energy between the vehicle and the road. Caitlyn Withers

Speed 0.98m/s; Energy lost 85.4% (approx.) Withers vehicle may be considered inefficient for a number of reasons. Primarily, as the spring snapped back in to position, the front wheel was stopped by the arm, halting movement. Inefficiency was also caused by the arms inability to rotate 180o, therefore not allowing it to achieve maximum spring energy/kinetic energy from a complete rotation. Improvements may be made by decreasing traction on the front wheel to reduce frictional resistance and redesign the rotation arm to prevent interaction between arm and front wheel that prevents movement.

Vanina Varnier

Speed 1.16m/s; Energy Lost- 83.4% (approx.) Varniers vehicle was the most efficient of those analysed. This may be attributed to the streamlined shape, reducing air resistance in movement, traction on the rear wheels, efficiently distributing energy between surface and vehicle, and extended extension arm with complete rotational ability, increasing spring energy and resulting kinetic energy. Improvements may be made through decreasing the weight of the vehicle, through exclusion of cardboard body braces and plastic axle, which has increased mass as compared to traditional wooden axles. It must here be noted, however, that due to the laminated surface of the axle, bearing-axle friction is reduced, and thus it must be considered which asset is most valuable; reduced friction verses reduced mass. 5.5 Future Improvements From the information gathered in units 2.0 and 5.0 it is clear that the vehicle constructed is inefficient for a number of reasons. These inefficiencies being wheel-axle inefficiency, lack of wheel surface area and mousetrap design faultmay be easily remedied to create a vehicle with greater efficiency in the future. As noted in 5.3 the coefficient of friction created by the metal-on-metal contact in the mousetrap may be decreased through lubrication, which would allow for smoother movement of the arm and string, resulting in an even force being applied to the axle. In regards to the lack of wheel surface area, while the size of the wheel created a mechanical advantage for the vehicle, the lack of traction caused spin that prevented movement. Thus, to remedy this inefficiency, wheels of the same size with rubber traction (as seen on Withers and Varniers vehicles) may prove to reduce spin whilst maintaining the mechanical advantage. Finally through a rigorous process of wheel alignment and lubrication of the bearings, the friction caused through the wheel-axle inefficiency would be decreased substantially, allowing the axles greater movement.

Bibliography Baoo, Zhenhuan, Chunlin & Rehnzi, (1990) Effect of Shot-Peening on fatigue behaviour of Compressive coil springs, The Shot Peener library, Beijing Naito, Ochi, Takahashi & Suzuki (1990), Effect Of Shot Peening On The Fatigue Strength Of Carburized Steels, The Shot Peener Library, Nippon Pearlman, A, (2011) Differentials, http://web.mit.edu/2.972/www/reports/differential/differential.html St Hildas Engineering Technology Resource book (2010) Spring Fatigue, http://www.lesjoforsab.com, (12/08/11) Metal Fatigue, http://www.materialsengineer.com/CA-fatigue.htm, (11/08/11) Wheel-Axle Efficiency, www.autorepair.com, (11/08/11) Stress/Strain Diagrams, http://pages.uoregon.edu, (21/08/11)