Rashed Al-Rashed

Elastically Averaged Polymer Molding

Motivation:
My elastically averaged coupling was designed to try and solve a
persistent problem I’ve dealt with. Over the course of my Master’s thesis, I casted a few
hundred disks (diameter: 3”, thickness: ¼”) of PDMS, a silicon-based polymer. These
disks were cast through a miniature army of simple acrylic molds which would take turns
holding liquid polymer in an oven until fully cured (75°C for 24hr). Of the 60+ acrylic
molds I used over the past few years, there were a few “bad eggs” that resulted in
polymeric disks of inconsistent thickness – there was a clear, visible taper on the disks,
with the thickness varying by up to 30% across the disk in the worst cases.

As shown in the image above, the polymeric disks that result from the process
can vary in thickness across the disk. This stems from a number of possible issues
(warping of the bottom plate, gunk buildup along the bottom surface, etc). At the time, I
skirted the issue by discarding faulty molds. For this week’s assignment, I wanted to see
if I could leverage elastic averaging to improve disk thickness consistency without
adversely affecting my usual workflow. An elastically averaged mold, combined with a
level, flat wedge of aluminum in place of the typical oven rack, could save me hours per
week.
Functional Requirements:
I started by first qualitatively identifying my overall goals:
• The resulting coupling needed to serve as a repeated-use PDMS mold – the
material had to be sufficiently heat resistant, non-reactive to PDMS, and allow for
easy disk removal.
 • The process of making these molds had to be on the same order of convenience
of manufacturability as my current mold making procedure. I would be making
dozens of these molds, and would need to make more over time. Spending hours
fabricating the One Perfect Mold, or designing around using a Sink EDM (or
some other tool I did not have consistent access to), would not help.
• The coupling had to have sufficient stiffness in the linear z-direction and angular
X and Y directions. It needed to be able to handle the weight of one polymeric
disk (30g), and to allow for uneven distribution of liquid polymer weight during the
pouring process.
• I identified a maximum variation in thickness of 2.5% across a produced
polymeric disk as my desired goal.
This rough list of requirements was developed and given quantitative values,
resulting in the FRDPARRC seen in the associated spreadsheet (“2 - FRDPARRC,
Analysis, and Data.xls”). Most notably, I determined an angular repeatability of within
0.12° as my most critical requirement (analysis documented in spreadsheet).
Initial design:

With a fleshed out FRDPARRC in hand, I started to explore various elastic

averaging systems. Most of the methods of elastic averaging I was exposed to (multiple
pin joints or pin-between-flexure joints) were most easily used to ensure repeatability in
the X-Y plane, and adapting them to impact rotation around the X and Y axes appeared
cumbersome and difficult to manufacture. I thought of using flexures as the elastic
averaging method, as they could easily provide elastic averaging in the correct direction
and directly interface with any flat surface. I then wrote up a spreadsheet to validate this
(Sheet “B – Stiffness & Error Analysis”). I modeled each member as a cantilever beam
experiencing a point load caused by contact with the ground, with the total load on the
system distributed between the number of members. When my first order calculations
proved fruitful, I started to consider manufacturing methods and material choice.
• Based on my initial sketches, I most closely considered milling and laser. My
rough first order calculations (see FRDPARRC sheet) showed that milling would
lead to a much longer manufacturing time than allowed by my FRDPARRC,
leaving laser cutting as my leading option.
• With respect to material choice, my functional requirements helped me narrow
the choice down to Acrylic and Delrin, both of which would perform well as molds
while allowing for multiple manufacturing options.
With this more focused direction, I further developed my spreadsheet in order to
compare different geometries and material choices, resulting in Sheet “C – Concept
Comparison”.

Using this, I identified a geometry that comfortably fulfilled my functional

requirements. An accompanying error analysis also determined the number of
members necessary to achieve my desired repeatability (4 members). While both
Acrylic and Delrin sufficiently fulfilled my functional requirements, Delrin’s higher
density and lower modulus of elasticity made it so that the system’s fixed loading
(weight of the top plate + weight of the polymer disk, 2N) was enough to deform all
members to ensure full contact with the ground, eliminating the need for additional
sources of preload.
The end result of detailing the FRDPARRC and resulting design process was a
plate with a number of flexures attached to the bottom that interface with the ground.
 With a verified geometry and material choice, I developed my CAD model and
drawings.

My model consisted of three main components –a “top plate” attached to a “ring” to

provide a cavity for the polymer disk, along with a number of flexures that provided the
top plate with contact to the ground/oven wedge (which, in a sense, acts as the “other
half” of the coupling). To assemble the mold, I first used an adhesive (Loctite Plastic
Bonder) to attach the ring to the top half. I then placed each of the flexures into one of
the slots in the top plate, and then used the same adhesive on the other side of the slot
to secure the flexures before leaving the adhesive to dry.
 Test assembly (left) and functional final assembly (right).
Testing:
While developing my CAD model, I also designed a “tester plate” which would
replace the top plate + ring portion of the original assembly (as seen in the image
above). This tester plate had a number of holes to allow for the mounting of a laser for
repeatability testing, and the attachment of a spring scale for stiffness testing. The laser
mount was weighted appropriately to ensure that a total load of 2N was still applied
across the members (accounting for the lack of ring piece or load from the polymeric
disk).
I first performed a stiffness test using a dial indicator and spring scale (full
procedure and data recorded in sheet “D- Stiffness Data”), resulting in a measured
stiffness of 9.11 N/mm. This was acceptably close to the predicted stiffness of 9.34
N/mm. The discrepancy could be explained by issues when manufacturing the flexures.
Some flexures exhibited visible warping. While there were enough flexures that were
comfortably within the desired tolerance, it is possible that the high heat has affected
the structural integrity of the members.
 I then performed a repeatability test using a mounted laser (see above, for data
and full procedure, see sheet “E – Repeatability Data”). My testing resulted in an
angular repeatability of 0.05° about the X (and, by symmetry, Y) axis. This result is
puzzling, as it is significantly better than my predicted repeatability of 0.12°. My first
guess would be that the discrepancy is due to an oversight in my error calculation
(which is likely, as I am still gaining familiarity/experience with this sort of error analysis).
This would be at the top of the list of things to ask about at our next peer review
meeting!
As part of his feedback, Professor Slocum was concerned that friction would
dominate this system. To see if this were the case, I repeated my tests for stiffness and
repeatability on a variety of surface conditions. I performed both tests on a steel surface
laid bare, covered with a layer of paper, and coated in cutting oil lubricant (precise
methodology detailed in spreadsheet), the idea being that these test results should vary
with the static frictional coefficient if the system is indeed friction dominated. While I do
not know the exact static frictional coefficient of delrin on all the materials tested, I can
estimate the range tested to be between µs = 0.15 – 0.6 based on known values for
delrin and other materials. Since the goal is to first evaluate if friction is a factor, and
not to determine the exact effect of friction on the system, knowledge of the rough range
of coefficients tested was sufficient at this stage.
Surface Stiffness [N/mm] Angular Repeatability [°]
Steel 9.11 0.047
Paper 9.26 0.043
Steel, lubricated 9.22 0.044
Predicted 9.34 0.12

There is little variance across both stiffness and angular repeatability when
switching between surfaces, indicating that friction might not be a significant factor in
this system. Additionally, the experimentally found and predicted stiffness agree closely
(within 5%), suggesting that my beam bending analysis was sufficient. On the other
hand, there is a wider gap between the experimentally found and predicted values for
angular repeatability – the setup was found to be twice as repeatable as predicted. My
best guess as to the reason behind this disparity would be a mistake in my error
analysis.