1. January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review System Level Design Review Senior Design I Low Energy Printing Project P09505

2. January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review Agenda Team Introductions (1 minutes) Project Background (3-4 minutes) Customer Requirements (2 minute) Engineering Metrics (3-4 minutes) –EMs and Technical Targets –Pareto Analysis –Pareto Analysis Findings Concept Generation (10 minutes) Concept Selection (20-30 minutes) Engineering Analysis (10 minutes) Risk Assessment (10 minutes) Action Items (10 minutes) Questions (5 - 10 minutes) 2

3. Project Team, Faculty, & Customer Project Team: –Project Lead: Joshua Jones (ME – Year 5) –Team Members: Whitney Domigan (ME – Year 4) Jenna Kilroy (ISE - Year 5) Andrzej Lubaszka (EE – Year 5) Faculty: –Consultant Marcos Esterman (ISE) Customer: –Xerox Corp – Marking Elements & Integration Lab John Knapp January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review3

4. Project Background Xerographic digital printers are very energy intensive, specifically the fusing sub-system. This is largely due to the fact that during the fusing process toner is heated to well above its melting point, to enable heat flow, and allow the toner to adhere to the paper. Senior Design Project as Stated on Edge: “Re-consider the design of an extremely low power, non-thermal fusing system” January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review https://edge.rit.edu/content/P09505/public/Home 4

5. January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review Project Scope The purpose of this project is develop a fusing sub-system that uses pressure instead of thermal energy to fuse toner to paper. The new design should fit into the current Xerox Workcentre 245/55 Pro printer, however if due to design constraints the new design in unable to be fit internally it my be externally attached to the Xerox Workcentre 245/55 Pro printer. 5

6. How a Fusing Sub-System Works January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review Traditional Toner Fusion: Temperature + Pressure + Heat = Fused, Adhered Toner Discrete, loose toner Heat Pressure Fused, adhered toner Image by: David Thompson, Xerox Corp. Information by: David Thompson, Xerox Corp. and Dinesh Tyagi, Eastman Kodak Company 6

7. January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review Customer Requirements 3 Most Important Customer Requirements: Paper is not damaged Fit into current Xerox Workcentre 245/55 Pro Use pressure only to fuse toner to paper 7

8. January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review Engineering Metrics 8

9. Engineering Metrics – Pareto Analysis January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review Engineering Metrics - Pareto Analysis 9

10. Pareto Analysis - EM January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review Findings of Pareto Analysis: –By designing for only 40% of the EMs we will gain 60% of the advantage of designing for all the EMs. –The most important EMs are: Speed of Process Paper Damage or Other Negative Effects on Paper Quality Durability of Fix 10

11. January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review QFD - Correlation Matrix House of Quality (QFD) - Excel Document 11

12. January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review Breakdown of Concept Generation Brainstorm Designs Using Whiteboard Develop PUGH Matrix for First Round Designs Evaluate First Round Designs Brainstorm Ways to Apply Pressure Using Rollers Develop PUGH Matrix for Pressure Designs Evaluate Pressure Designs 3 Roller Designs Selected Design Selected 4 Roller System Concept Selection PUGH 1 Concept Selection PUGH 2 12

13. Assumptions Made in Concept Selection Deflection in bottom roller is negligible. By adding additional rollers on top of the second (“top”) roller we will be able to alleviate the deflection of the “top” roller. Additional rollers placed on top of the “top” roller will increase the uniformity of pressure. January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review13

14. Concept Selection – Round 1 January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review Design Concept Rating Scale: (++) = Concept is Much Better Than Datum Concept (+) = Concept is Better Than Datum Concept (s) = Concept is the Same as Datum Concept (--) = Concept is Much Worse Than Datum Concept (-) = Concept is Worse Than Datum Concept 14

15. Concept Selection – Round 1 January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review Top 3 Design Concepts Based on PUGH Analysis Bottom 3 Design Concepts Based on PUGH Analysis Concept Selection PUGH 1 15

16. Concept Selection – Round 1 Designs which received a positive score were chosen, all others were thrown out. Round 1 PUGH Analysis Findings: –A system which uses rollers to apply pressure is ideal based on scoring. Next Steps: –Identify how many rollers to use. –Determine how to load the system. January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review16

17. Concept Selection – Round 2 January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review Key Criteria for Comparison: Potential for Compact Size Uniformity of Pressure Simplicity of Design Low Individual Spring Force Stability of Loading Minimize Damage Print-Making Rollers Minimal Friction Created 17

18. Concept Selection – Round 2 January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review Designs which received a positive score were chosen, all others were thrown out. Round 2 PUGH Analysis Findings: –Only one design received a positive score. –A four roller system was the only design to receive a positive score. 18

19. January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review Concept Selection 4 Roller System Spring Loaded Base Roller is Fixed to Frame 12 inches 3 inches 4 inches Key: Springs 19

20. Roller Analysis Two symmetrical rollers with 3 materials each and applied loads: January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review E 1 – Material 1 (Outer) E 2 – Material 2 (Middle) E 3 – Material 3 (Inner) R i = Inner Radius R m = Mid Radius 0.5t = Outer thickness R T = Total Radius = R m + 0.5t F = Force Applied 20

21. Roller Analysis Estimation of Rollers with paper January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review E 1 – 24 lb Paper E 2 – Variable (steel) E 3 – negligible R i = Inner Radius ~ 0 in R m = Radius Roller 0.5t p = Half Paper Thickness R T = Total Radius = R m + 0.5t p F = Force Applied 21

22. Roller Analysis Assumptions: –2-D Model –Uniform Loading Materials Used: –Steel –24 lb paper January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review RollerPaper MaterialSteel24 lb paper E (Mpsi)290.5 Radius (in)0.75-- Thickness (in)--0.0025 Results 22

23. Roller Deflection Calculations 2b = nip width F = force needed to achieve desired pressure. Y_max = maximum deflection in top roller See calculator in Excel chart January 16, 2009 23 Senior Design I - System Level Design Review

24. Roller Deflection January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review Roller Deflection Calculations 24

25. January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review Power Calculations Assumptions: –Each page requires 1.5 page lengths to include a gap between the pages, in order to print one page, 16.5” of roller will have to pass through the nip. –Roller diameter of 2”, passing 1.5 page lengths through the printer requires 2.54 revs of the roller. To achieve 35 pages per minute, a rotational velocity of 88.9 rpm would be required. Using an estimation of 17 Newton-meters for the torque required to turn a steel roller system, a very rough calculation for power can be obtained. 25

26. January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review Risk Assessment How are we going to load the springs? –Use screws to tighten springs Will rollers fit in Workcentre Pro? How are we going to drive the rollers? –Will not be able to use drive train from printer. –Do we have room to fit another motor in the printer? 26

27. January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review Action Items PUGH Concept Generation for loading system Choice of materials Drive train design Bill of Materials Detailed mechanical drawings Stress calculations in end plates FEA analysis FMEA analysis 27

28. Questions January 16, 2009Senior Design I - System Level Design Review28