Annie Hughes • Tristan McLaurin • Shannon Miller • Elaine Phillips • Carly Silvernale • Tiffany Xi

Team Hedgehog hedgehog2008.wordpress.com | teamhedgehog@mit.edu

2.008 FALL 2017

Introduction Tooling Design Process Optimization

Inspiration Key Considerations Injection Molding
• Part alignment/critical dimensions
Our yo-yo design was • Re-machinability for press fits
inspired by the shape • Adding draft for easy ejection
of a hedgehog when it • Scaling for shrinkage
is curled up into a ball. • Machinability and material efficiency

Design Ring Cavity and Core Molds Short shots were eliminated by increasing shot
size, increasing the diameter of the gate,
and/or increasing the injection speed/pressure.

Flash was
eliminated by
decreasing the
shot size.
• Ejector pin holes had to be placed on a step
Our team wanted to design our hedgehog yo-yo due to the large shut-off surface
to be cute and functional. • Cavity mold was re-machined so that ejector A large trapped
pins had more material to push off of and air bubble was
didn’t poke holes eliminated by
Specifications Face Cavity and Core Molds
drilling a small air
vent hole in the
Design Measured
Measured mold.
Part Standard
Specification Mean
Deviation
Base Outer
2.010”±.025” 2.010” 0.0015” Thermoforming
Diameter
Face Inner
1.994”±.025” 1.982” 0.005”
Diameter
Ring Inner 0.010”
1.994”±.025” 1.997”
Diameter
• Cavity mold contained the complicated
Thermoformed
Spikes Outer 1.800”±.025” 1.758” 0.007”
features but not any critical dimensions so
Diameter that it didn’t have to be re-machined
• Core mold was reworked (snap fit edge was
deepened) to eliminate a gap between the
face part and base part
Production Results The thermoforming process naturally shrank
3D-Printed Thermoform Die the part to mate well with the injection
Base Outer Diameter • Mates to be flush with molded ring. Increasing the heating time
Cp = 5.44 Cpk = 5.44 thermoforming machine grip allowed the sheet to melt into more defined
and die cutter features. Increasing forming time and fan
• 16 vacuum holes (8 for delay prevented deformation that would lead
outermost diameter, 8 for to a mating failure with other parts.
definition of “bump” features)

Cost Analysis The Final Product

Additive High Volume

2.008 Process
Manufacturing Process

Number of yoyos 50 50 100,000

Our specification limits are realistic. Unit cost of material $1.83 N/A $1.25
However, our tolerances were wider than they needed to
Unit cost of tooling $2.68 N/A $1.82
be. The measured dimensions did not have much
variation and were accurate to our design specifications. Unit cost of overhead $3.58 N/A $1.48
The base outer diameter dimension was the easiest to Unit cost of equipment $0.63 N/A $0.63
consistently measure due to part geometry.
Total unit cost $8.72 $80.44 $5.18

Assembly Process Lessons Learned

• The snap fits were tight, • Detailed examination of CAD models leads to
so the parts fit together smoother production
very well • Design molds to be easily re-machined if the
• A lot of force was critical dimensions don’t match (taking off
required to snap fit the material is much less time consuming than
ring on the base, which remaking a mold)
made it a rate-limiting • Double-check GCode to make the most out of
step machine run time and material
• Wrapping the string • Thoroughly examine the quality of the
around the shaft of the prototype before running production
yo-yo was rate-limiting • Iteration is very important to ensure secure,
as well consistent snap fits