Power Lab Report

ENME 371 Section 0205

April 4, 2015

Team 26
Name; Ryan Hamilton

Contributors:
Barnes, Chris
Chu, Chris
Keya Gemechu
Scott Gilmour
Brent Oursler

Table of Contents
Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................3
Mechanical Characterizations..........................................................................................................4
Torque Measurements..................................................................................................................5
Speed Measurements...................................................................................................................5
Power Required to Sink a Screw.................................................................................................6
Electrical Characterization...............................................................................................................8
Description of Process.................................................................................................................8
Start Up........................................................................................................................................8
Steady State................................................................................................................................11
Application................................................................................................................................12

Correlating Test Results.................................................................................................................14

Start-Up Test..............................................................................................................................14
Steady State Test........................................................................................................................19
Application Test.........................................................................................................................20
Evaluation of different motor options............................................................................................23
Gear reduction...........................................................................................................................23
Analysis.....................................................................................................................................23
Comparison:...............................................................................................................................25
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................27
Extra Credit:...................................................................................................................................28

Executive Summary
We evaluated the power characteristics of the DW272 in lab and compared our test
results against performance data results provided by DEWALT. In order to correlate test results
to theoretical calculations, we came up with assumptions, and linked engineering principles to
obtain speed, power, and torque information about the performance characteristics of the tool We
calculated the torque, power, and energy associated various stages of the tools operation and
compared them to estimate losses within the tool. We found that the tool uses much more energy
to overcome energy losses and inertial effects of its internal components than it uses to actually
drive a screw into wood and drywall.

Mechanical Characterizations
Why We Should Study the Task?
Studying the task of driving a screw into drywall and the stud behind is incredibly
important for engineers. The problemdriving a screwmust be fully understood before one
can move forward to find the best solution or any solution at all. Using the information we
gathered in this and previous labs, we now have a deeper understanding of how these screw guns
work. In addition, we have gained more knowledge of the engineering characteristics required
for the task. These findings allowed us to prioritize the design aspects of the tool and gauge
which ones are critical for the overall success of the task. This prioritization is essential for
organizing design criteria that should be met, as well as deciding which criteria are more trivial.
Since not all design solutions are obvious upon initial inspection, this is very important.

Torque Measurements
Our team used a manual torque driver to measure the torque required to drive a screw.
Our method consisted of steady, slow rotation of the torque driver through every revolution,
stopping to record the reading off of the dial face at the top of every turn. We recognize that this
invited static friction into our test, but rotation had to be stopped in order to ensure a correct
reading from the dial. Because there is a difference in the static and kinetic friction between the
screw and wood, the screw requires more torque to turn when stationary; this is something that is
nonexistent when using a continuous motor. We hypothesized that this static friction likely led to
an over-estimation of the torque required for each turn.

Figure 1-1 shows our data for the torque per revolution to drive a screw. As we can see
from the graph, the required torque increases as the screw sinks deeper into the wood.

Figure 1-1

Speed Measurements
One method that could be used to accurately measure the speed versus time of driving a
screw would be to record the event with a high-speed camera. We would mark the screw with a
highly visible thin line and record with the camera while the screw gun is driving the screw into
the drywall in order to easily count the revolutions. We would need a camera with a very high
frame rate to capture multiple frames of each rotation. This high speed camera has to have a
sampling frequency that is at least twice as the frequency of the tool. This will enable us to avoid
aliasing, which is recording the wrong frequency. We can figure out the frequency the camera
needs to operate at, we can use the RPM range of the tool from the performance sheet and use
the highest possible RPM value. Using a known frame rate, we could count the number of frames
required for each revolution. This method would allow us to find the average speed for each
revolution.
We attempted to record a video on an iPhone 4 of driving screws using our method.
However, we found that the frame rate was not high enough to accurately capture the mark on
the screw. Therefore, due to inadequate equipment, we simply timed the entire event of driving a
screw for several trials and recorded our data. We found an average time of 0.35 seconds over the
10 revolutions (1rev/thread, screws had 10 threads), which correlates to an average speed of
10
sec
60
1714 RPM. Due to our limited RPM data, we were forced to assume an
.35 sec
min

equal period for each screw revolution. Our resulting plot for our torque vs time can be seen in
Figure 1-2.

Figure 1-2

Power Required to Sink a Screw

The power required to sink a screw can be expressed as the torque multiplied by the
angular velocity. Again, we are forced to assume an equal period and angular speed for all
revolutions. Solving for this produces the data shown in the figure below.

Figure 1-3

The energy can be expressed as the integral of power. Therefore, for these data points, we
estimated the energy using the Riemann midpoint sum method to integrate power. In doing this,
we calculated that the task of completely driving a screw would take around 22 J of energy to
complete. The graph for this can be seen in Figure 1-4.

Figure 1-4

Electrical Characterization
Description of Process
The current data was measured for each test using an AC current probe. This device was
clamped around a pigtail harness that was connected to the cord of the screw gun. The clamp was
only placed around the positive terminal wire because the net electric flux through both the
positive and negative wires will always be zero. The readings were transmitted from the clamp to
an oscilloscope where they could be saved. The output values for the clamp were in volts, so a
known constant of 10mV per Amp was used to convert these values. Voltage from the wall was
assumed to have a constant RMS value of 120V. Three trials were done for each test to ensure
that data was consistent.

Start Up
The start up test was performed under no load by quickly pulling the trigger and holding
it until the data-recording limit was reached by the oscilloscope. The calculated current can be
seen in figure 2-1.

Figure 2-1
Our RMS current was determined by first examining the sampling frequency of the
probe relative to our AC sinusoid. We determined that eight data points were taken for every half

wavelength of current. In order to find the RMS current, we used the equation

x 21+ x 22 +... x 28
1

8
I RMS =

, where x is the converted current readings recorded by the oscilloscope. Figure

2-2 shows the RMS current during our test.

Figure 2-2
The RMS values decay exponentially from initial trigger pull to near steady state.
Therefore, we calculated the time constant ( ) of this curve to be 0.104 seconds. We decided on a
range of 5 when steady state is reached because in a typical exponential relationship, this will
yield a value that is 99.5% of the steady state value. The power draw over time was then
calculated from the RMS current and an assumed constant RMS voltage of 120V. We found the
average power draw from steady state use to be 309 W, so this was subtracted in order to produce
only the additional power that is required to initiate full speed rotation. Figure 3 shows the
additional power draw from the wall during the start-up test.

Figure 2-3
Electrical energy was integrated from our calculated power using the Riemann midpoint
sum method. We used a period of 5 , or 0.52 sec, to find the total additional energy required for
the start-up. From our data, we determined this to be 187 J.

Figure 2-4

Steady State
The steady state test was also performed under no load conditions. The trigger was pulled
several seconds before recording data to ensure that maximum motor speed was reached. The
same method was used to find the RMS current and power for steady state use. Across our three
trials, we found an average RMS current (Figure 2-5) of 2.55 A and an average power draw
(Figure 2-6) of 309 W.

Figure 2-5

Figure 2-6

Application
The application test consisted of driving a screw into drywall and wood using the
continuous operation mode. The trigger was pulled and continuous operation was activated
several seconds before recording data to ensure that maximum motor speed was reached. The

RMS current (Figure 2-7) and power (Figure 2-8) were found using the same method as the other
two tests. We found that the increase in RMS current and power was very small when the load
was applied.

Figure 2-7

Figure 2-8
We considered the entire event of driving a screw to be complete after the average time
we found (.35 s) using our previous test had passed. Therefore, we again subtracted the power
draw of steady state operation from our calculated power values. This gave us the additional
power that is needed to drive a screw. Integrating this with the Riemann midpoint sum produced

the total additional energy required for the task. The beginning of the event was assumed to be at
the instant of the large spike in Figure 9. Because the duration of the trials were so short and the
data does not signify a clear end to the task, we used the data from our previous time recording
of 0.35 seconds for the total period. Upon inspection of our data, we found the total energy to
drive a screw to be 55 Joules. However, we can see that if no-load operation continues, it will
require a total of 70 additional Joules to reach steady state.

Figure 2-9

Correlating Test Results

Start-Up Test
To further study the characteristics of the DW272, our team consulted the DeWalt ramp
test performance data sheet for this tool. As seen in figure 3-1, we examined the correlation
between bit tip speed and current draw from the wall by plotting the two. Upon doing so, we
found an approximately linear relationship between these variables for our range of data.

Figure 3-1
We then plotted the RPM of our motor with respect to our own RMS current from the
start-up test we performed. To convert from motor speed to bit-tip speed, we multiplied all the
RPM values of the motor plot by 6/47, the inverse of the gear ratio between the motor and the bit
tip. Figure 3-2 shows the relationship between bit tip speed, motor speed, and time. As expected,
the graph shows an exponential increase for both.

Figure 3-2
We then created a plot for the motor torque over time. In doing so, we first used our
assumed RMS Voltage of 120V and RMS Current values to get power. Because power is torque
multiplied by the angular velocity, we simply divided the calculated power values by the motor
speed from the previous plot.

Figure 3-3
To find the motor and bit-tip speeds via strictly mechanical equations, we started with the
free body diagram as seen in figure 3-4. To simplify our calculations, we made several
assumptions about the masses within the system. We lumped all moving parts into three
cylinders of estimated mass and radius based off relative size and mass of the original parts.
These sections were the motor/armature, 47-tooth gear, and clutch/bit assembly (figure 3-5). We
chose to ignore the mass of the 6-tooth gear because we found it to have a negligible moment of
inertia compared to the rest of the components. From there, we took the sum of moments on each
rotating mass, assuming no-slip conditions and assuming that the forces between the
motor/armature and 47-tooth gear were equal and opposite.

Figure 3-4

Figure 3-5
We then integrated the calculated angular acceleration to find the angular velocity of the
motor. To get the angular velocity of the bit-tip, we multiplied the motor angular velocity values

by the inverse of the gear ratio: 6/47. A graph of these two relationships can be seen in Figure 36.

Figure 3-6
We found that the mechanical equations yielded slightly slower speeds and torques than
what was found using the data sheet. Since all the original current values were measured at the
power cord of the DW272, the mechanical equations would assume all the energy from the
power cord to be transformed into mechanical energy. This cannot be true since we know 100%
efficiency is impossible with todays technology. Errors in lumped mass calculations may have
also produced inaccurate results for our mechanical calculations. Revisiting this again with a
Solidworks model capable of providing precise moments of inertia may prove necessary for a
reliable calculation.

Steady State Test

Because the DW272 is not a perfectly efficient system, there will always be energy losses
associated with its use. Even in steady state use, with a dis-engaged clutch, energy is still lost
between the wall outlet and the first clutch gear. Although some energy is converted to noise, the
majority of it is converted to heat. This can occur both from friction, and electrical resistance.
Some of the contributing losses could be a rotational imbalance in the armature, friction
throughout internal components (ball bearings, imperfect bit component connections, etc.),
viscous effects of grease, electrical resistance in wires, air resistance on the fan, kinetic energy
lost during gear meshing, electrical energy lost during the rapid switching mechanism in the

trigger, or imperfect timing in the current change during motor rotation, heat build-up within the
power cord as current runs through it. There are likely many other causes of energy loss within
the tool, but these are the most prevalent. In the case of no-load operation, based on the
mechanical definition of efficiency (Work out of the system divided by work into the system),
the efficiency is zero because no work is being done on a screw.

Application Test
From the application test we performed, we determined the maximum electrical power
from the wall required for the DW272 to sink a screw to be 480 W, and the average power to be
305 W. From our torque test, we found the maximum mechanical power required to sink a screw
to be 192 W, and the average to be 72 W. Using these, we calculated both average efficiency and
efficiency at maximum power draw.
Efficiency

Average = 72W/305W = .236 x 100 = 23.6%

Maximum = 192W/480W = 0.4 x 100 = 40.0%

These sets of values have a relatively large difference, hinting at major losses between
electrical input and mechanical output. Energy losses and inefficiencies of this magnitude are not
uncommon for a mechanical device such as the DW272, and they can likely be contributed to the
sources mentioned in the previous section.
Using the DeWalt Performance Datasheet, we were able to produce the plot seen in figure
3-7 of the efficiency vs. current. This set of data has a maximum efficiency of 54.59%.

Figure 3-7
Theoretically, this should be much closer to our calculated value of 40.0%. As we
speculated, it is very likely that our torque results do not accurately reflect the total power
required to sink a screw because static friction likely played a major role in our results.
To form our plot of bit-tip and motor speeds, we performed the same method we used for
figure 3-2. We plotted the RPM vs. current curve based on the DW272 Performance Datasheet.
After pulling a linear trend line from that curve, we plotted our bit-tip speed as a function of our
RMS current values. The motor speeds were formed by taking our bit-tip speeds and multiplying
them by the gear ratio of the transmission: 47/6.

Figure 3-9
Using our RMS current data from the application test, we were able to calculate what the torque
at the bit should be assuming a system with no losses.

Figure 3-10
Looking at our conclusions from the torque test we performed, we can see that our
approximation for the speed of the bit-tip during application (1714 RPM) is close to the data in
our graph. There is a clear dip from the steady state speed (approx. 3500 RPM) into application
(1673 RPM) and back up to steady state. The only notable difference occurs at the lowest RPM,
where the speed is approximately 670 RPM. This phenomenon occurs when a lot of the screw is
embedded into the wood and a much greater force is needed to drive the screw. Because of our
limited testing technology and lack of funding for a high-speed camera, we were only able to
measure the average RPM for the entire screw-sinking task during the first section of our report.
Regarding torque, our approximation is completely different than our experimentally
determined torque. Our torque graph shows a consistent maximum value of around 1.05 N-m
while our approximated torque using our application test data reaches close to 3.6 N-m. This
result is due to the fact that the latter torque is calculated assuming no energy losses from the
cord to the bit tip. We know that our 1.05 N-m is likely even higher than the actual torque
experienced by the screw gun, so this result speaks for the amount of energy loss that occurs
within the tool.

Evaluation of different motor options

Gear reduction
If two gears are in mesh, then the product of speed and teeth is conserved.
RPM 1Teeth 1=RPM 2Teeth 2
Teeth 1 RPM 2 30,337
Gear reduction=
=
=
=7.5843( Motor A)
Teeth 2 RPM 1 4,000
Therefore the gear reduction for Motor B is1 :7.5843=> 0.13185
Teeth 1 RPM 2 31,210
=
=
=7.0825( Motor B)
Teeth 2 RPM 1 4,000
Therefore the gear reduction for Motor B is1 :7.0825=> 0.12816
Gear reduction=

Teeth 1 RPM 2 28,879

=
=
=7.21975( Motor C)
Teeth 2 RPM 1 4,000
Therefore the gear reduction for Motor B is1 :7.21975=> 0.13851
Gear reduction=

Analysis
Because of the gear reductions of the motor, their motor power output will change with
varying angular velocity as follows:
Power ouptut of motor : P output =

Angular Velocity :=

RPM2
60

revolution
2 radians
minute
1 minute
radians
revolution
Unit analysis :
=
second
60 seconds

Since the output power changed because of the gear reduction, we will also see changing
efficiency levels from all the motor as follows:
Efficency ( ) : =

P out
100
P

POWER VS. OUTPUT TORQUE

60
50
40
POWER (WATTS)

Motor A
Motor B
Motor C

30
20
10
0
0.00000 0.02000 0.04000 0.06000
TORQUE (N*m)
Figure 4-1

EFFICENCY VS. OUTPUT TORQUE

8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00

Motor A
Motor B
Motor C

EFFICENCY(%) 4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.00000

0.02000

0.04000

TORQUE (N*m)
Figure 4-2

0.06000

SPEED VS. OUTPUT TORQUE

4500
4000
3500
3000
Motor A
Motor B
Motor C

2500
SPEED (RPM) 2000
1500
1000
500
0
0.00000

0.02000

0.04000

0.06000

TORQUE (N*m)
Figure 4-3
*Note: all calculations for new efficiency, angular velocity, output torque and power are
performed in excel.

Comparison:
Looking at the alternate motor options data, we are able to compare certain aspects of the
motors that may be relevant to users. From the data of the three motors we are able to compare
the system efficiency, output speed during application (time to complete the application), total
energy consumption and torque levels of the motors. The efficiency of the system is relevant to
the user because it determines the amount of power the user will get in relation to the amount of
power put into the system. A more efficient system will a better use of energy consumption
compared to less efficient tools. The speed aspect of the system is relevant because it determines
the amount of time it will take the system to complete a given application. Then when it comes to
torque, this is relevant to the user because it determines if the systems ability to drive the screw
into the drywall. Lastly, the power shows the product of the motor speed and torque produced,
and helps the user determine the overall energy consumption and efficiency of the system.

From our torque measurement test we saw that the all the tools are able to surpass the
required amount of torque level to drive in the screw into the drywall. Although the ability of the
motor to deliver the required amount of torque to drive the screw into the drywall, we see that all
of the motors have the ability to surpass this level, even at their lowest efficiency. Therefore, the
user should not very concerned on the specific amount of torque delivered. Rather, they should
look at other aspects that are affected by the torque, like power. In addition, since we used
different gear ratio for each motor, it will not be useful to compare against torque because they
will have different multiplications to get an ending output.
When it comes to power, we have to consider both the speed and the torque output of the
motors. As shown in the data, we see that all the motors produce enough torque to pass the
required amount of torque to complete the screwing application. As long as the torque meets the
required amount to drive the screw, it is the speed of the motor that determines the amount of
time it takes to complete the application. From visual inspection, we see that in the operating
range of torque levels, Motor B has higher motor speed than its competitors near 2357 RPM.
Following Motor B, it is evident Motor A beats its other competitor at the speed of 2031 RPM.
When looking at the system efficiencies, as shown in Figure 4-2 Motor B maintains higher
system efficiency within the operating range of the torque. Then followed by Motor C, lastly
motor A has the least amount of efficiency. Finally when we observe the time to complete the
application, we see again Motor B outperforming the other two competitors. Motor A comes in
second place when we compare the speed, lastly we see from our data, Motor C has the slowest
motor speed.
From all of our comparisons, we see that Motor B has performed better than its
competitors in all aspects, power, efficiency, and speed. Then Motor A performs better than
Motor C when it comes to power and speed, but it sacrifices efficiency. In the operating range we
see that Motor C has better efficiency and it has the lowest performance levels in other areas.
When users choose tools they it is important they understand what aspects they should compare,
because, even though some features of a tool may be better than other competing products that
feature may not be relevant when it comes to getting the job done. For example, if user chooses a
tool based on high torque level which is more than enough to complete, but has lower efficiency
or power, they will be sacrificing speed and efficient energy consuming tool.

Conclusion
After studying the characteristics of the task of DW272 and the means by which is
accomplishes this task, we now have a greater understanding of the power consumption of the
tool, as well as its overall efficiency. Through our torque measurements, we became aware of the
relative torque involved with sinking a screw into wood and drywall. In comparison with the
power draw characteristics of the DW272, we learned that only a fraction of the total power is
used toward overcoming the frictional torque of the screw. Most of the energy that the tool
receives is put towards mitigating energy losses and the rotational inertia of its own components.
This also means that the torque at the motor is most likely higher than what should be
experienced at the bit under normal gear reduction.
We have hypothesized that although some energy is converted to noise, most is converted
to thermal energy through friction and electrical resistance. We still do not know the magnitudes
or locations of each of these sources. Using our knowledge of the internal components of the
DW272 and basic principles of heat transfer, we believe that by studying the thermal
characteristics of a tool in steady-state operation, we will be able to approximate the causes and
locations of energy losses within the tool.

Extra Credit:
Tool is activated for 5 seconds:
o Start-Up = 187 J + (309 W) x (0.52 sec) = 348 J
o Steady State Conditions = (309 W) x (5 0.52 sec) = 1384 J
User pushes screw into the wall:
o Since the screw gun continues for an extra 2 seconds after the screw is sunk, we
will use the 70 J we made assuming steady state operation after sinking.
User keeps the tool running for an additional 2 seconds, then turns tool off:
o Steady State Conditions = (309 W) x (2 seconds) = 618 J
Under these conditions, the user would deplete roughly 2420 J of energy for each screw he sunk.
Assuming similar efficiency and 100,000 J of available energy from the battery, we can assume
that the user would have enough energy to sink

100,000 J
= 41 screws.
2,420 J