Materials for FRC

[lbarger]

Originally Posted by Siri

Hello all,
I've volunteered to help R.C. (and whoever else would like to join) organize this project. Currently, we're trying to determine a layout/organizational structure. Thus far, people have mentioned the following:

That is the whole reason I started this thread!

The knowledge of the CD community is much more vast than the knowledge of any single individual. However, having no experience with open documents and being a registered Professional Engineer, I am curious to learn how one can ensure the accuracy of information provided by 'the public'. If the information is not accurate, it could be worse than useless. It could be harmful.

I strongly encourage a white paper format versus a presentation. Done correctly, there would be just too much information to throw at people in one sitting. Besides, most people would only need information on a select few materials. Its just that there are so many material available, each with good and bad qualities. One or more presentations could be condensed from the white paper once it has a good selection of material.

The outline I have is divided into chapters based on material types. Within each chapter, the paper would discuss the different variants available in more detail. Based on input I've seen thus far and my own ponderings, the guide is looking something like...

Chapter I: Aluminum
Chapter II: Steel
Chapter III: Plastics
Chapter IV: Composites
Chapter V: Wood and Fibers (non-composites)
Chapter VI: Lubricants
Chapter VII: Rubber/Elastomers?
Chapter VIII: Misc (If it doesn't fit anywhere else...)

Within each material class, we should highlight the most commonly used variants and variants with unusually good characteristics. (A Variant would be a specific aluminum or steel alloy, specific plastic or wood, etc.)
1) General Description and Identification Techniques
2) Mechanical Properties
3) Electrical Properties
4) Thermal Properties
5) Available forms (i.e. u channel, bar, rod, tube, powder, corrugated. t-slots, cable), sources and cost
6) Rating on forming, machining, welding, gluing, etc.
7) Links to application notes & additional technical data
8) Uses/Tips and tricks for use within FRC (1 hour repairs?, safety, fasteners and tools)
9) Application Examples
10) When to avoid use? (probably under safety)

I hesitate on including correlations (Strength vs. Cost, Strength vs. Weight and Stiffness vs. Weight) as these involve both material properties and geometric forms. This could/should be a complete white paper in itself.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by lbarger

That is the whole reason I started this thread!

The knowledge of the CD community is much more vast than the knowledge of any single individual. However, having no experience with open documents and being a registered Professional Engineer, I am curious to learn how one can ensure the accuracy of information provided by 'the public'. If the information is not accurate, it could be worse than useless. It could be harmful.

Lee,
Firstly, are you not invited on the Google Doc? (Apologies, I thought you were.) If you'd like to be, I think R.C. can fix that. Sorry

Public Editing: Good question. Google Docs is actually pretty good about this. Currently, the working document is private, so it's only editable to people (or rather, email addresses) who are expressly given permission. However, the presentation itself can be made visible (not editable) to the general public, if desired. This reduces the danger of 'publicly provided' information to that of any other well-informed CD discussion. Does that seem suitable? Of course, it can also be exported in a variety of formats and published on CD-Media as well.

Originally Posted by lbarger

I strongly encourage a white paper format versus a presentation. Done correctly, there would be just too much information to throw at people in one sitting. Besides, most people would only need information on a select few materials. Its just that there are so many material available, each with good and bad qualities. One or more presentations could be condensed from the white paper once it has a good selection of material.

I'd like to see this end up as a white paper as well. It's easy enough to create a Google text document, either in tandem with the presentation or afterward. However, Google Docs has some trade-offs for presentations versus text documents. Personally, I've found that presentations are easier to keep organized with multiple editors, given the different actual slides. Text docs are just one long sheet, though you can insert horizontal lines or even make multiple documents. Presentations can to be nicer to photos/graphs as well, though they tend to crash the longer they get and the more people edit them simultaneously (more so than text docs).

Given this, I'd wonder if we don't want a text document for each chapter, with the presentation having the "gloss" version R.C. was looking for. Actually, I usually make section-by-section 'scrapsheet' documents and then open 'final' doc(s) once all the information is mostly gathered. (It really aids with organization.) Feel free to correct me: Google Docs I'm pretty good with, but I'm no P.E.

Originally Posted by lbarger

The outline I have is divided into chapters based on material types. Within each chapter, the paper would discuss the different variants available in more detail. Based on input I've seen thus far and my own ponderings, the guide is looking something like...[list]...Within each material class, we should highlight the most commonly used variants and variants with unusually good characteristics. (A Variant would be a specific aluminum or steel alloy, specific plastic or wood, etc.)...[list]

This is about what I was thinking (sans lubricants, that's a good idea). Would you like me to make these chapter documents, or should I hold off?

Originally Posted by lbarger

I hesitate on including correlations (Strength vs. Cost, Strength vs. Weight and Stiffness vs. Weight) as these involve both material properties and geometric forms. This could/should be a complete white paper in itself.

Good point. Personally, I haven't really thought about a length limit (or a number-of-papers limit, for that matter). If there's interest in pursuing this angle, I think it'd be useful, but need not be in the same paper. Honestly, I was just going to link to whatever charts I found, but I don't really know enough about the analysis to expound much further anyway.

[lbarger]

Siri,

I was out of town this past weekend and had not responded to RC to with regards to getting invited to join the Google document. That has now been resolved.

I am very happy to see there are others interested in moving this project forward. I look forward to working with you, RC and anyone else that may have time to help and/or knowledge of materials of particular interest within FRC.

Is there a good resource available for tires and/or tread materials? Do we want to include that as well?

[,4lex S.]

Originally Posted by lbarger

I hesitate on including correlations (Strength vs. Cost, Strength vs. Weight and Stiffness vs. Weight) as these involve both material properties and geometric forms. This could/should be a complete white paper in itself.

This is why I need to take MODS...

Anyways, I like the two pronged approach for this one. The presentation idea will make the idea accessible for now, and allow information to be gathered, but it would definitely be beneficial to have a white paper (preferably one that evolves with new editions). The key to all of this is making it accessible to all levels of FRC participants and still useful to everyone.

The encyclopedia style setup would be good for FRC. I personally find handbooks of this style more valuable than textbooks.

Originally Posted by lbarger

However, having no experience with open documents and being a registered Professional Engineer, I am curious to learn how one can ensure the accuracy of information provided by 'the public'. If the information is not accurate, it could be worse than useless. It could be harmful.

The privacy of the open document has been confirmed I think, but it is good to hear we have a PEng involved in the project. Before anything is released, it should probably be reviewed by you (lbarger) and whomever else of similar qualification is willing to take a look. The last thing we want to do is release unreliable information to the FRC community.

[JamesCH95]

One could always include an annotated bibliography. It would be really good if someone with the ASM handbooks for steel, aluminum, and composites would get involved. I only have one for titanium, but any technical library should have them.

I have read portions of ASM handbooks on these topics, and what you're making sounds like a distilled version. This is not a bad thing, in fact it's a good thing, because ASM handbooks can be intimidating and over the heads of most HS students. They cover everything: strengths, proper fabrication, economics, good design practices, etc.

I use titanium as a design material quite frequently at my job, and my titanium handbook has proven invaluable. Need minimum practicable dimensions for casting? In the handbook. Need machining feeds and speeds? In the handbook. Need corrosion data in seawater? In the handbook. Need heat-treated properties? In the handbook. Need welding guidelines for different processes? In the handbook.