Final

Design Report


May 10, 2015

Team 26: Ryan Hamilton

Contributors:

Brent Oursler
Keya Gemechu
Scott Gilmour
Chris Chu
Chris Barnes

Executive Summary

Our team evaluated the motor subsystem and improved upon the fan design to cut cost and
save material. Using a back plate and backward swept fan blades, we were able to increase
fan efficiency by 26%, which resulted in a material savings of 13.8%. Our new fan design
would cut manufacturing cost by 8% and would save DeWalt $11,000 per one million units.
However, implementing this new fan design would likely not be cost effective because of
the price for a new mold cavity to be made. We have estimated that a demand for at least 2
million more fans would be needed in order to see a cost benefit from this redesign.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.............. 2
Description of the Motor Subsystem....... 4
Design Question........... 5
o Physics of the Unmet Need... 5
o Modeling of the Proposed Solution..... 6
o Remodeling of the Proposed Solution... 12
o Feasibility Analysis and Evidence of Value..... 13
Expected Performance...... 13
Manufacturing Analysis........ 18
Cost Analysis........... 19
o Final Recommendation.......... 20
Concluding Observations............ 22
References............... 24

I. Description of the Motor Subsystem

The motor subsystem is comprised of the spinning armature; where copper wire

loops, laminated stacks of steel, a copper commutator, and a plastic fan are all attached to a
metal shaft with a woven plastic wrapped around it to isolate the electrically charged
components of the armature from the user. The motor subsystem is where the power that
drives a screw is converted from electrical energy to rotational energy that can spin the bit
tip. This task is accomplished through reverse variable polarity of current through copper
coils on the field and armature. The copper wire loops are wrapped horizontally around the
top and bottom of the stationary stator, located on the inside of the motor housing, as well
as around the laminated stacks of steel on the armature. Each of these is fed with sinusoidal
AC current. Current in wire loops induces a magnetic field that, when paired with another
magnetic field at an opposing angle, produces a force. The loops on the armature and stator
are situated in a way that imparts an optimum torque on the armature, causing it to spin.

Two carbon brushes on the motor touch the commutator on the rear end of the

armature to provide current flow between the power cord of the motor and the copper
coils on the armature. Carbon is used because it is a reasonable conductor and will not
wear down the more expensive commutator. The brushes are fed through metal slots to
contact the armature using rotational springs. The carbon brushes wear down eventually
due to friction with the commutator, so they are made to be easily replaceable in the event
they need to be. The brushes are also used to transmit current to each separate section of
the commutator, which they are connected to their own separate copper wire loop. These
separate loops ensure that the magnetic fields from the stator and armature loops are
always producing a net torque on the armature. The torque from the 47-tooth gear in the
DW272 is transmitted to the motor through meshing with a 6-tooth spline gear. This allows
the armature to rotate much faster than the speed needed to drive a screw and reach a
power dense, high speed of over 31,000 rpm. Two ball bearings are also used at each end of
the armature to reduce frictional forces during rotation.

At the front of the armature is a centrifugal fan, the only active component of

thermal management in the DW272. Spinning at the same speeds as the motor, the fan

draws air through the top of the screw gun, through a top channel to the back of the motor
housing where the air flows over the brushes, commutator, and laminated stacks; drawing
heat off of them via convection. The air is then pulled through the inner blades of the fan
and, as the fan the spins, forced radially out the vertical vents at the front of the motor
housing. The fan is made using plastic injection molding and its original design is very
basic. The 40 blades are parallel to the axis of rotation. They are not angled in any direction
at any point on the blades.

Figure 1.1: DW272 Fan

II. Design Question

Physics of the Unmet Need

After conducting the Thermal Lab for this class and becoming familiar with the

overall use of the DW272, we found that the current fan on the screw gun was adequate but
could be further optimized. The current fan in the DW272 draws 36.8 W of heat out of the
tool calculated, which is calculated by:
= !
Q = (0.00870 kg/s) x (1007 J/kg-K) x (303.2 K - 299 K)
Q = 36.8 W

By introducing a fan that increases the mass flow rate (), we can cool the screw

gun a greater amount. A cooler screw gun will make the customer more comfortable and
decrease the chance of failure within the screw gun. Likewise, a more efficient fan that
removes the same amount of heat but does so with less material could cut manufacturing
costs. If this design were chosen, it must still prevent the tool from exceeding minimum
critical temperatures that were measured inside the screwgun during steady state
continuous operation in the thermal lab.

We determined that this final design should most likely remain the same material

because of its strength and thermal properties. The Ultramid used for the current fan has
an appropriate melting temperature that can be easily exceeded for plastic injection
molding, but will not be approached while operating inside the tool. This material also
must have the required strength to resist deflection from air resistance as well as to remain
intact after being pressed onto the armature shaft. We performed a mock stress analysis of
our new design to ensure that there were not any weak areas that did not exist in the
original fan. Figure 2.1 shows a deflection pattern that could occur under a load from air
resistance.

Figure 2.1

Modeling of the Proposed Solution


A large portion of our new design inspiration came from our competitors. Upon
comparing the DeWalts fan design to its competitors, specifically the Milwaukee screw
gun, it became clear that there is more than one option for fan choice in the DW272. The

Milwaukee screw gun utilizes a centrifugal fan with backward facing blades and a back
plate.

Figure 2.2: Milwaukee Fan

After carefully analyzing and researching many different types of centrifugal fans, we
arrived at three modifications to the current model of the DW272 armature fan that we
wanted to implement in our final design. The first change was altering the shape of the
blades, the second change was adding a back plate to the fan, and the third was reducing
the number of blades.

After studying multiple possibilities of fan blade selections (forward curved,

straight/radial, and backward curved) we chose to proceed with backward swept fan
blades. We were first able to eliminate the forward curved fan blade from our selection
because of its unstable properties. This is especially true at the speeds of the DW272
motor, which reach over 31,000 rpm. Forward-curved fan blades have problems with
instability because of pressure rise near the tips. Also, with forward curved fan blades, the
efficiency decreases exponentially as the flow rate increases, as opposed to radial and
backward curved fans (Okamoto). According to Okamoto, backward curved fan blades have
high efficiency and a more stable operation. The curved blades have operational stability

because the pressure difference inside the housing of the tool would decrease as flow rate
increases, making it more efficient (Okamoto). We also found that backward swept fan
blades project air at a greater angle from the tangential than either radial or forward swept
blades, as shown in figure 2.3 (Fluid Mechanics 2004). This feature is favorable to the
positioning of the DW272 outlet vents, which are located along the perimeter of the fan
blades.

Figure 2.3

Let us briefly consider the flow rate of the DeWalt from our test during the thermal

lab, which was 0.0756 mm3/s. We found that for a typical centrifugal fan with backward
swept blades and a flow rate of 0.0756 mm3/s, the power efficiency was around 22%.
Under these same conditions a typical radial fan will only operate at an efficiency of around
15% (Burmeister 1998). Therefore, incorporating backward angled blades in our fan
design should increase efficiency and airflow for steady state operation.

Another modification to our proposed model is adjusting the number of blades to

maximize the amount of air circulated through outlet vents of the motor housing. Through
our research, we found that the flow rate is directly related to the number of blades on the
fan. Keeping other dimensions such as width and length of blades constant, increasing
number of blades will equate to a higher amount of hot air removed by the fan (Robert,
1998, p. 21). Although this is favorable to heat dissipation, an increased number of blades
correlates to an increased cost to manufacture. For this reason, our team sought to

investigate if the 40 blades that are featured on the DW272 are completely necessary for
safe operation of the tool.
We found that having a back plate on the fans will reduce turbulent flow from
incoming air. It creates a relatively smooth channel from the armature shaft to the outlet
vents for the air to flow. Additionally, the back plate serves to trap air against the fan
blades. If the back were left open, incoming air would pass through the blades and contact
the gear case where it would not be directly forced to exit the tool. It does add an additional
material cost, but our team felt that the increased performance it offered was worth the
slightly greater volume.
The inner ring was kept to smooth the airflow and reduce the gap in the tool from
the motor casing to the fan. This also served as a structural member to reduce the
deflection of the edges of the fan blades.
Finally, our team decided to remove the inner blades from the fan because we found
that blades located out toward the perimeter have a much greater effect on the airflow than
ones toward the center. We felt that this material could best be used as additional outer
blades.

Figure 2.4

Figure 2.5

As shown in Figures 2.4 and 2.5, we were able use Soliworks to come up with

prototypes of the fan designs that we predicted would give us better performance than the

original fan. We were then able to print our models for testing using a Makerbot 3D printer.
Our printed fans were built with the modifications mentioned above: back-plates, curved
blades and the removal of the short intake blades toward the center of the fan. The only
variable between these designs is the number of blades, which varies from 10, 18, and 25.
This was the only feature whos performance we could not justify or quantify by any other
means. For this reason, we felt that testing each one was the best solution for determining
an optimum number of blades. An engineering drawing of the top fan portrayed in figure
2.4 can be seen below in figure 2.6

Figure 2.6
For the trial and error testing process, we decided to attach our 3D printed fan
prototypes directly to the DeWalt screwgun. The planned tests were the thermal test with
thermistors, a flowrate test with an anemometer, and a power test with the osciliscope and

10

AC current probe. Our intention was to see the effect that each of our fan prototypes had on
heat dissipation and mass flow rate. Live testing in the lab seemed to be more practical
than trying to test our experiment on a computer using FEA tests because the small scale
and high-speed flow of the experiement would have been difficult and unreliable to model.
Besides the varying fans, we planned to keep as many constants between the tests as
possible. For the testing process, we made sure to represent an actual user application of
the screwgun under continous operating conditions.
Test Results

The initial test results did not yield any useable information because each fan broke

during the first few seconds of each testing session. At first, we were not able to put any
fans perfectly perpendicular on the shaft, and so the fans brushed up against other objects
inside the screwgun during the tests. We eventually fit our last fan prototype almost
perfectly on the shaft, but still ran into the problem of the fan breaking during the first few
seconds of the test. What we realized was that the 3D printed fans curved blades were
hollow and much weaker than we expected due to the 3D print process (figure 2.7).

Figure 2.7

The fans we created werent strong enough to withstand the force from air resistance
inside the screwn gun despite the 3D printing material being slightly stronger than the
orinigal Ultramid fan. Since we were not able to get any heat dissipation or mass flow rate
information, we were forced to seek other means of coming to a final design decision.

11

ReModeling of the Proposed Solution

Due to the catastrophic results of our prototype tests, we were forced to explore

other ways of investigating the performed of backward swept fan blades in a screw gun
application. We revisited the Milwaukee fan design, which was very similar to ours, and
noticed that the screw gun itself was also very similar. As can be seen in figure 2.8, the only
real differentiable factors from our fan are the number of blades and the exclusion of the
outer intake ring.

Figure 2.8

After further analysis of the internal components and airflow characteristics of the

Milwaukee, we concluded that a test of the thermal characteristics of this screw gun could
yield useable data to make a conclusion about the fan characteristics. The only significant
difference between the airflow paths is the rear vents of the Milwaukee. This would allow
the air to experience slightly less resistance from friction as it moves through the tool.
However, we found this force to be negligible, especially when considering that the
Milwaukee actually has a 3.2% smaller air inlet area and a 12.4% smaller outlet area. As
seen in figure 2.9, the positioning of the inlet and outlet vents of the Milwaukee made it
impossible for us to conduct an airspeed test to calculate mass flow rate.

12

Figure 2.9: Milwaukee 2015

Therefore, we sought out to measure the energy that was used during steady state

continuous operation, as well as the energy being dissipated by the fan. Since no work is
being done by the screw gun, we can infer that aside from the small amount being
converted to noise and being used to push air, all energy is being converted to heat. By
finding the energy dissipated by the fan, we will be able to find the efficiency of the new fan
design compared to the DW272. We recognize that in order to conclusively find the
efficiency of our new design, tests must be performed inside an actual DW272. However,
based upon our analysis of design similarities, we believe that these test results will
strongly indicate performance characteristics that will allow us to design an improved fan.

Feasibility Analysis and Evidence of Value

Expected Performance

The power test was conducted using a pigtail harness and an oscilloscope. Data was

recorded and converted from voltage readings to current using a known conversion
constant. We then found the RMS current and used an assumed constant voltage of 120V to
calculate the consumed power at each point. The mean value was then found to determine
the average power consumption of each tool.

13

Milwaukee

Figure 2.10

DeWalt

Figure 2.11

As we can see from our results, these tools share similar power draws under

continuous operation. The DeWalt consumes 309W of power, while the Milwaukee actually
consumes slightly more at 320W. This data shows a difference of only 3.4% between the

14

two screw guns, and indicates that fan performance should be accurately reflected by the
results of our thermal tests.

When testing for temperature, we chose to monitor the inlet and outlet

temperatures in order to compare heat transfer, as well as the temperature of the brushes
because we found them to contain the most heat within the screwgun. Thermocouples
were calibrated by recording voltage outputs at room temperature and a known water
temperature before being attached at each point of the screw gun previously mentioned.
The screw gun was then placed in a vice and left to run in continuous operation mode while
data was taken at a frequency of 1 Hz until steady state temperatures were reached. Figure
2.12 shows the set-up of our experiment and Figures 2.13 and 2.14 show the data that we
obtained for each tool.

Figure 2.12

DeWalt

Figure 2.13

15

Milwaukee

Figure 2.14

Milwaukee

DeWalt

Brush Temp (oC)

31.3

32.9

1.6

23%

Outlet Temp (oC)

29.1

30.2

1.1

26%

26

26

Inlet Temp (oC)

Difference Increased Heat Removal

Table 2.1

We found that the Milwaukee was able to keep the tool cooler at both the air outlets

and at the brushes. The difference in the inlet and brush temperatures was 26% less and
the difference in the inlet and outlet temperatures was 23% less for the Milwaukee. Since
the power consumptions for the two tools are so similar, we can assume that the energy
dissipated by each of them is approximately equal. Therefore, we can compute the
theoretical mass flow rate for the Milwaukee fan:
Q = !"# !,!"# (!"#,!"# !"#,!" )
!"#$%& = !"#$%&'((
!"#,! !,!"#,! (!"#,!"#,! !"#,!",! ) = , !,!"#,! (!"#,!"#,! !"#,!",! )
, = [!"#,! !,!"#,! (!"#,!"#,! !"#,!",! )] / [!,!"#,! (!"#,!"#,! !"#,!",! )]
, = [!"#,! (!"#,!"#,! !"#,!",! )] / [(!"#,!"#,! !"#,!",! )]

16

!"

, = [0.00870 ! x (30.2 26)oC] / [29.1 26] oC

, = 0.01178
!"

!"

Increased Flow Rate = [0.00870 ! ] / [0.01178 ! ] x 100 = 26%

We can see from these calculations that the Milwaukee fan removes 26% more air

than the original DeWalt fan. It is assumed that if the Milwaukee fan were placed in the
DeWalt screwgun, it would experience the same flow rate because the airflow paths of the
tools are very similar, as well as the angular velocity of the motors.

Design Decision:

Since the temperature difference between the two fans was not drastic, our team

felt that a reduction of 1.6oC at the brushes and 1.1oC at the outlet vents would not be
benefits that would be felt by DeWalt, the user, or any other components of the DW272.
Therefore, we instead chose to focus our final design decision on implementing the
backward curved fan blades and the back plate while reducing the number of fan blades to
cut cost.

Upon further research, we found that, for small changes in blade number, the outlet

airflow of centrifugal fans is theoretically directly proportional to the number of blades on

that fan compared to a similarly shaped fan of different blade number. For example, a fan
with 8 blades should have a mass flow rate that is 100% greater than a fan with 4 blades
(Guebara 2004). The flow rate of the Milwaukee fan was 26% more than that of the
DW272. Therefore, we chose to reduce our number of fan blades by 26%, arriving at a final
design with 30 blades as opposed to the original 40. A computer rendering and engineering
drawing of this design can be seen in the figures below.

Figure 2.15

17


Figure 2.16
Manufacturing Analysis
To produce the new design, its best to continue using the plastic injection molding
method as used on the current fan design. This method is highly favorable for mass
production. The complex design of the fan makes this method a much stronger choice than
3D printing because it does not require any additional time or labor to produce for
increasing complexity once the cavity has been made. Additionally, plastic injection
molding allows the manufacturer to run the injection machines 24 hours a day with no
human interaction or added labor cost aside from changing the cavities once they are worn.
The most advantageous aspect of plastic injection molding is the speed at which parts are
created. These machines can generate hundreds of fans a day whereas a 3D printer will
struggle to make ten. This speed also lowers the cost of this process per part, and for large-
scale orders such as that of the DW272, this method is extremely cost effective. The only
drawback for this method is the need to design a part around a feasible cavity shape. Our

18

final design did not feature the center ring like our original because we discovered that this
feature could not be produced using plastic injection molding. The Milwaukee fan also
neglected to include this feature, so our design should still remain structurally sound.

When we 3D printed our designs, we found that 3D printing wasnt quite as accurate

as we had hoped, which may cause more failures of the fan. The most notable printing flaw
we found was the inability of the 3D printer to replicate the forward facing inner ring to
mount on the armature shaft as seen in figure 2.18. Since this feature was recessed more
that the outer diameter of the fan, the 3D printer essentially tried to print the mounting
ring onto thin air as opposed to a stable surface. This error prevented our fans from being
properly concentrically mounted on the shaft. The printer also made our blades hollow in
the center because their width was between two and three filament widths. Therefore, the
machine was not able to fill the center with a third filament layer. It also took nearly two
hours to produce each fan, which severely limits how many DW272s would be produced
per day. Thus, 3D printing is a poor choice in comparison to plastic injection molding.

Figure 2.18

Cost Analysis
Material Savings:

By replicating the DW272 fan on Solidworks, we were able to find its volume to be

roughly 8000 mm3. By decreasing the number of fan blades to 30, sweeping them
backwards, removing the intake ring, and adding the back plate, we were able to shave the
fan volume down to approximately 6900mm3. The back plate showed an increase of 700
mm3 and the reduction of the fan blades and intake ring removed about 1800 mm3. Overall,
we see a 13.8% reduction in material usage.

19

Final Cost:

Modified

DeWalt

Material

$0.069

$0.08

Labor

$0.03

$0.03

Cavity Tooling

$0.03

$0.03

Total:

$0.129

$0.14

Cost Saved: $0.011

Total Savings for one million units: $11,000





Table 2.2

The original cost to produce the DW272 fan was $0.14 (Stanley B&D). We used a

free quote from a reputable manufacture (customparts.net) to break down the cost
structure of each of our fans. We found that $0.03 would be the cost for both labor and
cavity tooling, while the remaining $0.08 is the material cost of the DW272 fan. The only
cost that would differ from the new fan design would be this material cost. Based on our
calculated material reduction, we estimated this new cost to be $0.069 per fan. If we
assume the same cost of labor and cavity tooling of the new fan, we end up with a $0.129
per fan cost to produce our concept during full-scale production. This brings us to a $0.011
cost reduction per fan. In other words, after one million units are sold, DeWalt would save
$11,000 on the DW272. This, of course, neglects the cost for additional cavity tooling.

Final Recommendation
Advantages:
The tool will use less material overall. Having less material starts a cascade of other
advantages for the tool such as less weight, less cost, and more efficiency. Having less
material clearly correlates to less weight. With less weight, theres less of a moment on the
users wrist, reducing the amount of strain on the user and allowing the user to work for a
longer amount of time. The change in weight will be very small, but it does contribute to an
overall lighter tool. Less material also leads to a reduction in cost to produce as well. With a
lower cost to produce, DeWalt can possibly reduce the overall cost of the tool. With a
lighter and more efficient fan, the motor requires less work to rotate about its axis. DeWalt

20

could reduce some of the power draw from the tool in order to maintain its 4000-rpm,
leading to a more efficient tool.
Disadvantages:
Unfortunately, because the fan design has changed conceptually, DeWalt would be
required to create a brand new cavity mold for the new design. We estimated a $22,000
cost for the new cavity design mold based on the complexity of the fan design (Rex
Plastics). Also, switching over to the new cavity could take some time as new molds can
take two to twelve weeks to produce. (Rex Plastics). Additionally, there would likely be
some delay in tool assembly as the new fan is transitioned into the production line.
Our Recommendation:

With all of the factors included, we believe that it is not worth changing to a new fan

design in the DW272, even if its material costs are less. If we estimate $22,000 for the cost
of a new cavity tool, that would require approximately two million screw guns sold just to
break-even. Beyond that, it would take another several million units to show a substantial
increase in profit. Had the DW272 been a very new tool, only then would it be a reasonable
idea to have a new fan design.

However, before a final decision can be made, it is necessary for further testing to be

done. Many assumptions were made to arrive at our final performance analysis of the new
fan design, and a 26% efficiency increase is not a substantial margin when the possible
errors in these assumptions are considered. To start, our prototype designs failed within
the DW272 due to faulty assembly, so we used a competitors tool, the Milwaukee, to bring
us to our design choice. It has a slightly different power draw, internal dimensions, motor
speed, and intake configuration than the DW272. Assumptions were also made about the
dissipated thermal energy of the Milwaukee in order to arrive at our airflow for its fan.
Experiments to test the power draw, thermal properties, and mass flow rate of our actual
final fan design must take place within the DW272 before any conclusive decision can be
made about how to proceed with our design.

21

III. Concluding Observations

This course has not only broadened our knowledge of engineering product

development, but has also taught us about experimentation and analysis, provided us with
critical thinking skills, showed us real-world engineering practices, and has given us
valuable teamwork experience.

During lecture, we have learned how to identify customer needs and functional

requirements, how to convert these into engineering characteristics, and how to prioritize
these based off the importance of each compared to the customer requirements. We have
also learned how to generate tolerances and critical dimensions for various parts and
assemblies. Additionally, we have learned about material selection and the complexities
involved with choosing the best material for an application. We were taught about
engineering codes standards, how they came to be, and the significance and application of
each. Finally, we became familiar with different manufacturing processes and the various
costs and design variables associated with each of them.

In our lab section, we studied common experimental techniques from thermal

analysis to power draw measurements. We became familiar with lab equipment such as
thermocouples, anemometers, oscilloscopes, machining and tooling, computer modeling,
and 3D printing. During the benchmarking lab, we learned how to perform a statistical
analysis to either confirm or reject the statistical significance of data. We were able to use
our critical thinking skills to solve an open-ended design problem using these experimental
methods. Our team also became proficient in organizing and writing reports. We are now
able to effectively merge various ideas and writing styles into a single, fluent report.

Our group became aware of the meticulous design choices that are involved in

product development, and we have since learned to question product characteristics for
further insight into these design choices. Likewise, we are also now skeptical of these
design choices and are able to suggest alternate methods for design improvement in some
cases. Experience with labs has also given us tools for testing and analyzing design
characteristics in an attempt to improve upon them.

Through our field trip and guest lectures, our team was also given a valuable peek at

how a real engineering company uses the engineering practices we have been learning

22

about and implementing in our labs. Not only have they provided us with information
about how DeWalt specifically functions, but they have also portrayed a wide variety of
behaviors that are shared amongst engineering companies. These range from patent law, to
designing for the customer and making difficult design decisions based upon improving
technology.

Finally, possibly the most useful teaching lesson that has occurred through this

course is the improvement of teamwork skills. At the beginning of the semester, we were
thrown into groups against our will without any knowledge of the other members
strengths, weaknesses, or time commitments. We were forced to organize and meet around
everyone schedules, and as was usually the case, pick times that only a majority of the team
could meet. Initially having no real knowledge of the expected report outcomes, as well as
each others working habits and strengths, we had to learn as we went and discover what
the best action plan was for each report in order to produce the best possible result. This
was a learning experience for all members of the group and certainly developed us into
more well rounded members of any team going forward.

23

References

"Electrical Conductivity of Materials." - Blue Sea Systems. Web. 1 May 2015.

"Online Metals." Online Metals. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Apr. 2015. <"Melting Points of Various
Metals." Online Metal Store. Web. 7 May 2015. .>.

Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering UF. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 May 2.
<http://www2.mae.ufl.edu/designlab/Class%20Projects/Background%20Information/Ele
ctric%20DC%20motors_files/image008.jpg>.

"Fluid Mechanics." N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2015. <Department of Mechanical & Aerospace
Engineering UF. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 May 2. .>.

"Tools Forum." Yungan Tools. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 May 2015.
<http://www.yungantools.com/discuss/discuss_detail.asp?id=13&cid=1&Page=11>.

"Cost Estimator." Injection Molding. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 May 2015.
<http://www.custompartnet.com/estimate/injection-molding/>.

Guebara, Silvia. "The Basics of Axial Flow Fans." JANMANUAL (n.d.): n. pag. Hudson Products
Corporations. Web. 04 May 2015.
<http://www.hudsonproducts.com/products/tuflite/flowfans.pdf>.

"Fan Engineering: information and recommendations for the Engineer." n.d. Aerovent. Web
Document. 3 May 2015. <http://www.aerovent.com/docs/fan-engineering-topics/fan-
performance-characteristics-of-axial-fans---fe-2300.pdf?Status=Master>.

"Introduction to Fan Selection." n.d. Norman S. Wright/Airelink Mechancial Equipment,
LLC. Web document. 1 May 2015. <http://www.nsw-
airelink.com/Website%20PDFs/FanSelection.pdf>.

Okamoto, Nicole. "Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering- Fan Perfomance
and Selection." n.d. San Jose State University. 02 May 2015.
<http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/ndejong/Fan%20Performance%20and%20Selection.pdf>.

Robert, Monroe. "Hudson Products Corporation." 1998. The Basics of Axial Flow Fans.
Document. 01 May 2015.
<http://www.hudsonproducts.com/products/tuflite/flowfans.pdf>.

24


The Eningeering ToolBox. n.d. Website. 07 May 2015.
<http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fan-types-d_142.html>.

"Drywall Screwdriver." Milwaukee. N.p., 2015. Web. 10 May 2015.
<http://www.milwaukeetool.com/power-tools/corded/6742-20>.

Burmeister, and Prentice Hall. "Fan Performance and Selection." Fan Performance and
Selection (1998): n. pag. Engr. Web. 9 May 2015.
<http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/ndejong/Fan%20Performance%20and%20Selection.pdf>.

25

Task Assignments and Point Distributions

Scott Gilmour (20): Section I and part of Section IIA

Keya Gemechu (21): Part of Section IIA and Part of Section IIB


Chris Chu (16): Part of Section IIB


Brent Oursler (23): Part of Section IIB, Section IICa, Concluding Observations, Executive


Summary, editing and formatting


Chris Barnes (20): Section IICb, IICc, and IID

26