headrest group 2 update
Thomas R Cash
Gentleman,
The teams progress is as follows.
Thomas: Materials have arrived, one piece is on back order. Testing will begin within the week
Daniel: Continuation on report edits
Rob: Reevaluated equations and sized step down in pipes
Tyler: FEA preliminary design completed
Andrew: Test bench constructed
Questions:
What would be a reasonable material cost for production unit.
Best way to present real testing vs. FEA comparisons
Thank you gentleman, see you tomorrow.
Sincerely,
Thomas R. Cash
Senior Mechanical Engineering Student
Clemson University
Phone: (864) 650-4804
E-mail: thomas...@gmail.com
Daniel Eils
I decided to revisit the headrest safety standards tonight because of the thoughts from this morning.
First, nowhere in the energy adsorption section does it say that the headrest must come out unaffected. It only specifies that the acceleration should be limited to 80gs, which should be easy. I guess we should probably limit the deformation to 12 degrees as specified later in the standards.
To make matters a little worse (but better in many ways) I found this statement hidden in the print
“To satisfy the ultimate strength requirement, the head restraints must be capable of providing resistance to an 890 N load for a period of 5 seconds.”
So. There’s a number to work toward Tyler. Yikes!!
I guess we now have some parameters to work around. That thin aluminum tubing may well be enough!
On another note, reading through more carefully I found the 500N test is supposed to be applied vertically to make sure the adjustment mechanisms hold well. The other static test is done on the backside of the headrest and should be the equivalent of 373 Nm ( which should be around 500 N anyway for our case). The only effect this should have on us would be to beef up the bottom connection mechanism.
Reading through also brought up another variable that I think we forgot about. The backset requirement is supposed to be 50 mm. I think this is even more important for Mrs. Alexander’s case because the braces in her neck will not allow her to flex backward like that. I think that a functional-adjustable (forward/back as well as up/down) head restraint is key to any patent argument they would like us to make. Thomas, I know you may have been thinking of this all along, but I would like to know what your thoughts are on the forward/back adjustment.
I hope this email did not sound too pessimistic. I think all of this is well within our abilities, and if we implement all these standards well into our design, there will be no questioning left for the advisors.
Sorry that I did not look through and catch this stuff earlier.
A special apology to Tyler for being gay.
Daniel