It is a project propasal which is supposed to be done with a group

Project 2 - Proposal - Manufacture of a metal multi-tool

SEM313 Due Date – Thursday 4th September 2014

Written reports should be uploaded either as word docs or pdf’s to the appropriate dropbox on DSO.

Introduction

The selection and operation of manufacturing processes requires careful consideration of many factors. Key considerations include the following:

1. Achievability – is the process possible for the selected material? 2. Cost – what is the process cost and is it the most cost effective of the alternatives? 3. Microstructure change – how will the process create the microstructure needed to achieve

the final properties? 4. Dimensional accuracy – how close will the dimensions be to specification and how will this

be achieved? 5. Defects – what is the likelihood of introducing defects and what defects might arise? 6. Surface – what does the process do to surface condition/appearance and what can be done

about this? 7. Controllability – how consistent is the process likely to be and how can consistency be

assured? 8. Integration – what issues, if any, need to be considered that impact on subsequent

processing steps?

This assignment requires that you propose and justify a series of sequential production processes to turn a block of metal into the multi-tool illustrated below in Figure 1 with key properties as close as possible to those currently on offer. In your proposal, you will need to show you have considered each of the issues above – using your logic and with reference to texts and available literature.

Figure 1 - Multi-tool to be manufactured.

Project specification

In this assignment students will be required to work in groups of 5 (the same groups as project 1). Each group will provide a detailed proposed manufacturing route for four prototype multi-tools, each made from a different material (note this means you will likely require a different manufacturing route for each material):

• Budget model 1 – medium carbon steel. • Budget model 2 – high carbon steel. • Premium model 1 – stainless steel. • Premium model 2 – titanium.

The starting material will be a block slightly larger in length and width to the final multi-tool dimensions but approximately 15 mm thick. The final internal slots and fine edge shaping will be performed using wire cutting. The challenge for this assignment is to select and specify the operating parameters for primary and secondary processing steps to arrive at a blank with the same outer dimensions as for the multi-tool in Figure 1.

In the next assignment you will select one Budget model and one Premium model to manufacture so the processing steps in your proposal manufacturing routes should be achievable with Deakin resources and within the timeframe of the Unit.

Project proposal requirements

While the work will be conducted as a team, each student must submit their OWN proposal. Individual reports should be approximately 2500 words and include sections addressing the following:

• A description of the target dimensions, material properties and surface condition for your multi-tools – you will obtain this by inspection, analysis, measurement and with data provided to you by staff.

• Identify other material properties that are likely to be important, even if these may not be able to be practically measured within the scope of the Unit.

• A description of material composition, grade specification, microstructure and main likely hardening mechanism used for the current model multi-tool provided to you.

• A description of the initial composition, microstructure and dimensions of each of the four prototype materials provided.

• An explanation of the main hardening mechanisms that you aim to exploit for each of the four prototype materials and how, in general terms, this will be achieved during manufacture. (Trust us, the currently available multi-tool is really hard so achieving this will be challenging.)

• A clear and detailed flow chart highlighting each step of the designed process routes. • Justification of the choice of each processing step with reference to each of the eight issues

listed in the Introduction along with specifications for operating conditions – with reference to literature, texts, charts, theory and, where possible, supported by calculation.

• An explanation of the tests that would be ideally conducted to prove the target properties were met – some, but not all, of these must be achievable in the Deakin labs.

• Evidence of the individual student’s contribution to the project proposal (in an appendix) • Individual reflection (~ 250 words) – this should be an honest individual reflection on how

the team performed (including an update on any negative aspects that were identified in the first project and whether these were improved) as well as an assessment on what parts of the proposal you were least confident in and why (it is often necessary go with the best information available, even when you know it is not perfect – it is also important to recognise when you do this so that backup plans can be in place). Note - this reflection should not include other individual team member’s names.

Team members may share raw information sources (such as journal articles); however, reports must be written individually.

Each team will also have a Cloud Deakin group site that they are required to use for the project. ALL information found should be uploaded to the site, including team meeting minutes, details of websites, journal articles or textbook information as they are found, as well as questions or problems encountered by the team. It is up to each individual in the team to PROVE their contribution to the project.

Assessment criteria:

• Degree of completion of each of the requested sections of the proposal. • Demonstration of fundamental knowledge in justifying ALL decisions in manufacturing

process variable selection (i.e. not just citing a paper or website that used a particular variable, but actually explaining why that exact value was chosen based on material behaviour)

• Appendix containing proof of your individual contribution to the proposal (this can be done in different ways including proof of attendance at team meetings, uploading literature to the group Cloud Deakin site along with a summary of how the literature can be useful, etc.)

• Demonstration of insight in the individual reflection in relation to both an understanding of the limitations of potential uncertainties in the approach taken, as well as in the performance and of the team.

• Quality of written report – structure, grammar and presentation

References should be cited using an approved style and avoiding plagiarism (see link below). This means you are expected to write the assignment in your words, and not use those of the references you find.

http://www.deakin.edu.au/current-students/study-support/study-skills/handouts/refer-plag.php

Note a more detailed marking criteria rubric for the individual reports will be provided on Cloud Deakin