Additive and Customizable Hardware Mount

EDSGN 100 Page 1 of 26
Circuit Card Mount Spring 2018
ADDITIVE AND CUSTOMIZABLE

HARDWARE MOUNT
Jeffrey Mitchell, Michael Maloney, Alejandro Magana, Taylor Wegelin

College of Engineering
Hammond Building
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA
Prepared for
Lockheed Martin
27 April 2018
The Pennsylvania State University

University Park, PA 16802
ABSTRACT
The current hardware mounts that are used today lack certain aspects that
Lockheed Martin requires in order to sufficiently fulfill their needs. The aspects
Lockheed is looking for are the ability to easily manufacture the product, adjustability to
allow a wide variety of circuit board shapes and sizes, and finally to avoid cumbersome
mass. Through multiple renditions we decided on a product that we feel best satisfies
Lockheed's needs. Our product, "Rubber Rails", allows for full accessibility from all
angles, 3-D printing, and moveable rails to adjust from medium to small sized circuit
boards. We drafted this product through Solidworks and tested it in a more hypothetical
manner. Through our testing we decided the product will do everything we ask of it.
Therefore, the product successfully accomplishes all needs by iterating off of past
research and previous models.

CONTENTS
1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 6

1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Identification ........................................................................................................ 6
1.3 Circuit Card Mounts .............................................................................................. 6
1.4 Additive Manufacturing ....................................................................................... 10
1.5 Stakeholder Analysis ......................................................................................... 11
1.6 Summary ........................................................................................................... 11
2 METHODS ................................................................................................................ 11
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 11
2.2 Concept Generation ........................................................................................... 11
2.3 Ideas................................................................................................................... 12
2.4 Summary ............................................................................................................ 17
3 DATA ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 18
3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 18
3.2 Prototype ............................................................................................................ 18
3.3 Testing ................................................................................................................ 19
3.4 Testing Vs. Reality .............................................................................................. 22
3.5 Summary ............................................................................................................ 22
4 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................ 22
4.1 Development ...................................................................................................... 22
4.2 Success of the Product ....................................................................................... 23
4.3 Further Research................................................................................................ 23
5 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 25
6 GAANT CHART......................................................................................................... 26
List of Figures
No. Title Page
1 Panavise pg.
7
2 Quadhands pg. 7
3 Magnifying pg. 8
4 Aven pg. 8
5 Sliding Frame Axonometric Drawing pg. 13
6 Snap Grid Axonometric Drawing pg. 14
7 Leaf Frame Axonometric Drawing pg. 15
8 Pop and Pull Frame Axonometric Drawing pg. 15
9 Rubber Rail Axonometric Drawing pg. 16
10 Front, Side, and Axonometric View of Model pg. 18
11 Model in Standard Position pg. 20
12 Model Being Tilted pg. 20
13 Model showing 360° Rotation pg. 21
14 Model with Circuit Board attached pg. 21

List of Tables
No. Title page
1 Description of Current Circuit Board Times pg.

8
2 Scoring Table for New Ideas and Control Variable pg. 16
3 GAANT Chart pg. 26

1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
1.1 Introduction
In the existing conditions section, the following will be discussed: who we are,
why we picked our situation out of the situations presented by Lockheed Martin, the
tabulation of existing circuit card mount features to identify key specifications of design,
the state of Additive Manufacturing, and the improvements we need to make to existing
features of circuit card mounts to meet Lockheed Martin's needs of adjustability and 3D
printing capability.
1.2 Identification
We are four students at the Pennsylvania State University enrolled in
Engineering Design 100. We have varying majors within the engineering program, two
Aerospace, one Biomedical, and one Electrical. We chose to deliver a resolution to the
"Additive Hardware Mount" problem, presented by Lockheed Martin, because three of
our group members have experience soldering. We picked it because we had the
highest level of familiarity with this situation. Lockheed Martin's requirements are, that
the mount must be adjustable for a circuit card of any shape and size and that the
design can be rapidly manufactured by 3D printing.
1.3 Circuit Card Mounts
The existing circuit board mounts all have certain features from which we found
what desirable attributes of a mount are.

This model from Panavise has features including 90-degree
tilt and 360-degree rotation as well as single control knob that locks
the holder firmly in place. It comes with a solder station and parts
tray with sponges (Panavise).
Figure 1: Panavise
(http://www.panavise.com/index.html?pageID=1&page=full&--
eqskudatarq=3)
This design includes flexible metal helping hands to
position the card however you want, and the base is hefty
enough that it will not tip over. The mount comes equipped
with rubber feet to reduce sliding and the alligator clamps
have silicon covers. (QuadHands Helping Hands Third
Hand Soldering Tool and vise)
Figure 2: Quadhands (https://www.amazon.com/QuadHands-Helping-Hands-Third-
Soldering/dp/B00GIKVP5K/ref=pd_lpo_vtph_328_tr_t_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refR
ID=N2Z6ES3BK91PGAGS0Q9C)
This product has a heavy cast iron base and holds
the card on alligator clamps attached to four-way swivels.
The adjustable clips and joints allow for movement in all
directions and angles. It comes with a 4x magnifying glass
for precision work. (Eddiestore).
Figure 3: Magnifying (https://www.ebay.com/itm/4X-Stand-Helping-Hand-Magnifier-
Magnifying-Glass-With-2-Clamp-Jeweler-Watch-Tool-
/190926241358?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2c74173e4e)
Aven's model is retractable to accommodate
boards of varying sizes, the clamps allow for 360-degree
rotation, and it has a rigid metal structure and rubber feet
to ensure stability. (Aven).
Figure 4: Aven (https://www.amazon.com/Aven-17010-Adjustable-Circuit-
Holder/dp/B00Q2TTQEE)
From the products features we compiled the following chart to see how each
product achieved each need, we saw recurring features and picked the ones that
seemed important to the mount design and which we could apply to our design.
Table 1: Description of Current Circuit Board Times.
Holding Stability Movement/ Extras

Flexibility
Panavise Long clamps Thick metal base Ball and joint allow -Solder Station
that go along the with a single for 90-degree tilt -Sponge
edge of the knob-controlled and 360-degree -Parts tray
board and lock on ball and rotation
tighten by knob. joint to keep
holder firmly
stationary.
QuadHands Flexible metallic Uses rubber feet Quad hands allow - Silicon Coating
arms with and a heavy for easy mobility of to reduce clamp
alligator clamps base to avoid the circuit card damage
sliding and arms and the hands can
are connected to be easily
base by magnets positioned to the
required areas.
Alligator clamps
can be rotated 360
degrees.
Magnifying Alligator clamps Cast iron base Alligator clamps -Magnifying
very heavy to are on four-way glass for
avoid movement swivel to allow precision when
arms to move 180- working with
degrees small
horizontally and components
360-degrees
vertically
Aven Metal Clamps Uses rubber feet Retractable -Full rotation to
and rigid clamps for varying allow front and
materials board sizes and back visibility
clamps rotate 360-
degrees
From the chart we see that multiple models use rubber feet for stability. This might be
because it is harder for a rubber base to move. To hold the board, we saw a split
between alligator clamps and flat edge clamps that tighten and squeeze the edge of the
board. All models had some degree of rotation allowing the board to be in different
orientations most spinning 360-degrees. Some extra features we found important were
sponges, a solder station for the pen, and a parts tray to keep a unified workspace.
Magnification also seems important to working on small boards were precision is
important. From the chart we determined the most important features when designing a
mount are stability, movement, and precision. Existing products achieve stability with
mass but our model needs to achieve the same result and remain light. Current designs
are flexible only to orientation with 360-degree rotation and at least 90-degree tilt so that
the user can work on any component of the board with ease, but they are not very
adaptable to the size of the card. There also needs to be some sort of magnification to
work on small boards with precision, this work requires minute adjustments so stability
and minimizing vibration is needed to mitigate human error.
1.4 Additive Manufacturing
To begin 3D printing a model an electronic design file is configured by using a
CAD or scanner. Then the software being used to 3D print will slice the model into
cross-sectional layers that will allow for a print. The design is then sent to the 3D printer
where the printing process will begin. We intend to use a mix of metal and rubber in our
model, metal specifically has some requirements though. Due to the current state of
metal 3D printing it is important to minimize the amount of sharp turns when possible
because acceleration and deceleration can cause height variations in the model. The
height of the nozzle for depositing the material also is important because if it is too high
the molten metal solidifies before it reaches the surface which will ruin the structural
integrity of the model (Vayre, 633).

As described in a 2017 article, "An additive manufacturing-oriented design approach to
mechanical assemblies", there are four characteristics that additive manufacturing has.
They are shape, hierarchical, material, and functional complexity. In the article
functional interfaces (FI) are discussed this interface allows for two things to be
recognized as functional components. They come together to form one component.
1.5 Stakeholder Analysis
Lockheed Martin needs a tool that can adjust to hold circuit cards or other
mechanical objects of any size or shape. It also needs to be capable of quick and easy
manufacturing, while the design needs to be light and capable of also holding hardware
for soldering, reflow, cleaning, and coating. (Mittan, P. (2018)).
1.6 Summary
So far, we have discussed the existing designs of circuit card holders, we
inferred desirable traits by visual observation and their listed features, we compared
them in a table picking out trends to determine the most important aspects of a circuit
card holder, we identified the basic process and stipulations of 3D printing, and we
highlighted the needs of Lockheed Martin.
2 METHODS
2.1 Introduction
In Methods we will explain how we came up with our ideas for a new model,
discuss the functionality of each idea, present detailed annotated sketches of each
concept, create a scoring system using what we assumed to be the best existing model
as a benchmark, and then the scoring system will allow us to pick out the highest
scoring model to develop, based off weight categories we will assign.
2.2 Concept Generation
Before we started to generate concepts we first looked at the existing conditions
and what needs were met and what needs were not from the requirements Lockheed
Martin provided us with. Then we established what features of existing conditions were
important to keep and sketched assemblies of these components with different
modifications to meet the adjustability requirement. After that we created as many ideas
as possible to meet the specifications. To narrow down our concepts we went out to
seek professional help. A group member's older brother is an established electrical
engineer, so he was able to show us what concepts were superior to others, specifically
that a continuous backing was not desirable. The continuous backing was not desirable
because it prevented the user from being able to easily access any component of the
board on either side of the board, and if the backing was metal could damage
components of the board. This confined our designs to a top five concepts. Our final
process to narrow our concepts was using a scoring system, that is shown in Table 2.
Using this method, the "Rubber Rails" concept, which is explained in the next section,
had the highest score and was what we used for prototyping
2.3 Ideas
The "Sliding Frame" idea came from the desire for a modular design and its ease
to 3D print, which is what Lockheed Martin was looking for. It is adjustable for circuit
boards from 18” x 10” and can slide down to deal with any size chip. The frame is made
up of many connected pieces that can be removed and shrank to the desired size. Each
piece has a track cut into it for the circuit card to rest on. Stability of this model depends
on different materials used and how much money the manufacturer would like to spend.
Figure 5: Sliding Frame Axonometric Drawing
The "Snap Grid Frame" can easily add on modules to make for a bigger area to
work on but can also take modules off for a smaller working area. This model can adapt
to many sizes and shapes while avoiding being a bulky piece of equipment. Because
this mount is alterable, there are spare parts that will need to be stored when not in use.
This particular model would be very stable no matter the material used.
Figure 6: Snap Grid Axonometric Drawing
The "Leaf Frame" has a clean simple look to it and can adjust to any size.
This model is a similar idea to a "leaf" dining table. A middle piece can be added by
pulling the main mount apart for bigger projects or, can be taken off and the mount can
be pushed together for smaller projects. This would be a very stable mount because of
its table like nature but may not be the best because you would need to make unique
middle pieces for different board sizes.

Figure 7: Leaf Frame Axonometric Drawing
The "Pop and Pull Frame" is a sleek design that can be used with almost any
material. It has full functionality with multiple tiles that can pop and fold under the center
to make different sizes as needed. Unlike the snap grid which removes pieces from the
base these tiles fold underneath so that all the components are connected. The user
can use the middle piece for simple boards or he/she can have four tiles for something
larger, and up to six or nine tiles depending on the size of the project.
Figure 8: Pop and Pull Frame Axonometric Drawing

The “Rubber Rail” is a design which pulls the most attractive features of existing
circuit card mounts and adds adaptability. We are using a base that is near identical to
the Panavise because the movement of the ball and joint is very desirable. To modify to
our requirements, we made a track on the upright posts that allows two metal bars with
rubber slits to slide closer together and farther apart for adaptability to circuit card size.
The circuit board will rest in the rubber slits, we decided on rubber because of its friction
which will reduce movement of the board, an idea we took from the rubber feet on the
Quad hands device.
Figure 9: Rubber Rail Axonometric Drawing

Table 2: Scoring Table for New Ideas and Control Variable.
Functionality Stability Manufacture Cost (10%) Movement Total

(30%) (20%) Ease (20%) Efficiency (20%)
Panavise 0 0 0 0 0 0
(benchmark)
Sliding Frame +1 -1 +1 +1 0 .4
Snap Grid 0 +1 +1 -1 0 .3
Frame
Leaf Frame -1 +1 +1 +1 -1 0
Pop and Pull +1 0 0 -1 0 .2

Frame
Rubber Rails +1 0 0 +1 +1 .6
From our existing conditions we decided that the Panavise was the most well
rounded current product to be used as a control or bench mark because it has a nice
balance between stability and movement. For the benchmark we gave every category a
score of zero and then for our other models we compared them to the benchmark and if
we felt they were better suited for the client's needs in a category they received a +1
and if we felt they displayed a disadvantage for the client, they received a –1. We
chose categories based off the needs of the client: functionality was for the need of
adjustability, stability was for the need of keeping the card stationary, manufacturing
ease was for 3D printing capability, cost efficiency was to be financially responsible for
our client, and movement was for the need to access any component on the circuit
board. We assigned weight to each category, functionality received 30% because it is
the main goal of this project that the model be adaptable to boards of varying size and
shape. Stability received 20% because there needs to be little movement when making
miniature adjustments, ease of manufacturing also received 20% because the client
specified that it needed to be capable of being 3D printed. Movement received 20%
because it was a key feature of existing models and our product should be just as
capable. Finally cost efficiency received 10% because a business cost is obviously a
factor but is flexible if it is a high-quality product. We took these weights as fractional
multipliers and multiplied them by the score in the respective category for each concept.
We totaled the weighted scores for each concept and the highest total was the concept
we chose to be our model. The rubber rails concept had the highest score of .6 out of 1
so it is the one we will develop into a prototype.
2.4 Summary
In the Methods section we discussed how we developed original ideas from
existing conditions, narrowed down the concepts to the best ideas, fully described the
functionality of the selected concepts providing annotated sketches of each, detailed a
scoring system in order to select a concept to develop into a prototype, benchmarked
against what we recognized as the best existing model, and then shared the result of
the table.
3 DATA ANALYSIS
3.1 Introduction
In this section we will describe the prototype we developed in detail from sketch
to a physical product, we will state how it works and depict testing on it to verify its
operation, and then we will state the shortcomings of our model and how a life size
model may function differently.
3.2 Prototype
Figure 10: Front, Side, and Axonometric View of Model.
Our prototype is a 3D model produced in SolidWorks and has a base almost
identical to the existing Panavise model because we liked the split ball idea for
movement, and the parts trey for a unified workspace. The prototype is produced from
the rubber rail concept detailed in section 2.3 that uses two sliding horizontal bars with
rubber slits to hold a circuit card in place. The bars lock in place using a screw and a
wingnut and the rubber keeps the card from sliding within the track when it is rotated.
Also, the ball and joint also has a hole for a wingnut screw to be tightened locking it in
place. We could not 3D print the model because of the limitations 3D printers we had
available to us. The 3D printer could not do multi-material printing and plastic was the
only material option. It also could not print at the desired scale.
3.3 Testing
The model has the desired movement features, we can rotate it 360 degrees,
however, it does not tilt a full 90 degrees but this was because of the design of the ball
and joint we chose. We did not know how to make a split ball lock in solid works so we
had to modify our concept in a way we could print it. The rails lock by a wingnut screw
that tightens to the upright posts to hold the rail in place. The ball and joint also use a
wingnut screw set up to essentially clamp the ball into a fixed position.
Figure 11: Model in Standard Position.
Figure 12: Model Being Tilted.

The hand and the arrow demonstrate the degree of tilt the model is capable of
and how it can move on the ball and joint. From this angle you can also see the rubber
track that the board would rest in cut into the rail.
Figure 12: Model showing 360° Rotation.
The uprights were rotated demonstrating the 360-degree rotation along the path
of the arrow. The hand is then shown tightening the screw to lock the ball in place.
Figure 12: Model with Circuit Board Attached.

This image shows how the rails can be moved apart for a larger board and
shows a hand tightening a screw to hold the rails in place.
3.4 Testing Vs. Reality
If this product was made in a Lockheed Martin facility they would have better 3D
printing equipment being able to print multiple materials on one assembly, so that the
rubber rails could be printed. They also would presumably be able to 3D print screws
and wingnuts so the ball and joint along with the rails would have functional locking
mechanisms. Also, if they were able to use the split ball lock from the Panavise model it
would be able to tilt a full 90 degrees. We would want to print metal for a thicker more
stable base as well, and Lockheed Martin would have access to metal printing. We were
hindered by the quality of the 3D printers we had access to and were not able to make
our model into a 3D print. Lockheed Martin would be able to take our prototype and
develop it into a real product.
3.5 Summary
In Data Analysis we discussed which concept we developed into our prototype,
we used images and clipart along with directional text to show the movement of our
model and how it would work, then we talked about what Lockheed Martin could
improve on if they took our concept and developed it for real.

4 CONCLUSIONS
4.1 Development
We started by looking at the existing circuit card mounts and analyzed their
features to derive important components for a mount. We made a table to establish
what features we should keep from current mounts and decided that the most important
aspects were stability, movement, and precision. We then established that Lockheed
Martin needed a mount that could be adjustable to hold any card up to 18in x 10in and
could also be 3D printed for rapid build.
Starting with the features we liked from current models we modified the existing
models to fit the requirement of adjustability. We focused less on the 3D printing
because with current technology it is possible to print almost anything and it was more
important to us that we had a solid prototype. Some insight from a group members
brother who is an electrical engineer allowed us to identify that a continuous backing
was undesirable which scrapped a lot of our concepts. From there we made a table with
weighted categories of functionality, stability, movement, ease of manufacturing, and
cost efficiency and used a scoring system to narrow down the remaining five concepts
to one that we would prototype.
4.2 Success of the product

The concept we chose to develop was our rubber rail idea detailed in section 2.3.
We used SolidWorks to model it in 3D but the printer available to us had limited
capabilities so we were unsuccessful in printing the model. We showed the functionality
through a combination of SolidWorks screenshots and clipart with a hand adjusting the
card mount to fit two different sized cards. Theoretically our intervention was successful
in offering a solution to the problem of adjustability the model if successfully printed
should function as desired and our design in SolidWorks can show the movement it will
have. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful in creating a physical printable product due
to development constraints. However, Lockheed Martin has the printing capability and
3D modeling knowledge to develop our model into a fully functional product.
4.3 Further Research

If we had more time we would do further research into Additive Manufacturing to
ensure that the difficulties we encountered with not being able to print our model was a
fault of the printer and not the model. We would try to make the file more accessible so
that it could be manufactured on any type of hardware. We would also look into
vibrational damping because precision is required when soldering and we think the size
of our mount would lead to noticeable vibration that could interfere with the users work.
We also did not focus on the requirement for the mount to be lightweight so we would
try to find out how to reduce mass while keeping the same degree of stability. We would
want to get user feedback before presenting our idea to Lockheed Martin to see if the
design is user-friendly and easy to work on. We would want to verify our scoring system
through these user reviews, making sure that the weights we assigned to each category
were appropriate and maybe develop more concepts based on the feedback. Having
subjects use our product would also verify if we were successful in creating a solution to
Lockheed Martin's needs.

5 REFERENCES
References List
Aven 17010 Adjustable Circuit Board Holder [Digital image]. (n.d.). [Figure 4] Retrieved
March 27, 2018, from https://www.amazon.com/Aven-17010-Adjustable-Circuit-
Holder/dp/B00Q2TTQEE
Eddiestore2008. (n.d.). [4X Stand Helping Hand Magnifier Magnifying Glass With 2
Clamp Jeweler Watch Tool] [Figure 3]. Retrieved March 27, 2018, from
https://www.ebay.com/itm/4X-Stand-Helping-Hand-Magnifier-Magnifying-Glass-
With-2-Clamp-Jeweler-Watch-Tool-
/190926241358?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2c74173e4e
Panavise. (n.d.). Model: 324 Electronics Work Center [Figure 1]. Retrieved March 22,
2018, from http://www.panavise.com/index.html?pageID=1&page=full&--
eqskudatarq=3
Mittan, P. (2018). Penn State Intro To Engineering Design: Factory Of The Future[PPT].
Lockheed Martin.
QuadHands Helping Hands Third Hand Soldering Tool and Vise [Digital image]. (n.d.).
[Figure 2] Retrieved March 27, 2018, from https://www.amazon.com/QuadHands-
Helping-Hands-Third-
Soldering/dp/B00GIKVP5K/ref=pd_lpo_vtph_328_tr_t_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=
1&refRID=N2Z6ES3BK91PGAGS0Q9C
Sossou, G., Demoly, F., Montavon, G., & Gomes, S. (2017). An additive manufacturing
oriented design approach to mechanical assemblies. Journal of Computational
Design and Engineering,5(1), 3-18. doi:10.1016/j.jcde.2017.11.005

Vayre, B., Vignat, F., & Villeneuve, F. (2012). Designing for Additive Manufacturing.
Procedia CIRP,3, 632-637. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2012.07.108
6 APPENDIX
Table 3. GANTT Chart

Additive and Customizable Hardware Mount

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Additive and Customizable Hardware Mount

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EDSGN 100 Page 1 of 26

Circuit Card Mount Spring 2018

ADDITIVE AND CUSTOMIZABLE

Jeffrey Mitchell, Michael Maloney, Alejandro Magana, Taylor Wegelin

The Pennsylvania State University

research and previous models.

1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 6

No. Title Page

5 Sliding Frame Axonometric Drawing pg. 13

6 Snap Grid Axonometric Drawing pg. 14

7 Leaf Frame Axonometric Drawing pg. 15

8 Pop and Pull Frame Axonometric Drawing pg. 15

9 Rubber Rail Axonometric Drawing pg. 16

10 Front, Side, and Axonometric View of Model pg. 18

11 Model in Standard Position pg. 20

12 Model Being Tilted pg. 20

13 Model showing 360° Rotation pg. 21

14 Model with Circuit Board attached pg. 21

No. Title page

1 Description of Current Circuit Board Times pg.

2 Scoring Table for New Ideas and Control Variable pg. 16

3 GAANT Chart pg. 26

We are four students at the Pennsylvania State University enrolled in

"Additive Hardware Mount" problem, presented by Lockheed Martin, because three of

design can be rapidly manufactured by 3D printing.

1.3 Circuit Card Mounts

what desirable attributes of a mount are.

This model from Panavise has features including 90-degree

tray with sponges (Panavise).

This design includes flexible metal helping hands to

with rubber feet to reduce sliding and the alligator clamps

have silicon covers. (QuadHands Helping Hands Third

Hand Soldering Tool and vise)

Figure 2: Quadhands (https://www.amazon.com/QuadHands-Helping-Hands-Third-

This product has a heavy cast iron base and holds

the card on alligator clamps attached to four-way swivels.

The adjustable clips and joints allow for movement in all

directions and angles. It comes with a 4x magnifying glass

for precision work. (Eddiestore).

Figure 3: Magnifying (https://www.ebay.com/itm/4X-Stand-Helping-Hand-Magnifier-

Aven's model is retractable to accommodate

boards of varying sizes, the clamps allow for 360-degree

rotation, and it has a rigid metal structure and rubber feet

to ensure stability. (Aven).

Figure 4: Aven (https://www.amazon.com/Aven-17010-Adjustable-Circuit-

Table 1: Description of Current Circuit Board Times.

Holding Stability Movement/ Extras

Magnification also seems important to working on small boards were precision is

and minimizing vibration is needed to mitigate human error.

1.4 Additive Manufacturing

To begin 3D printing a model an electronic design file is configured by using a

integrity of the model (Vayre, 633).

As described in a 2017 article, "An additive manufacturing-oriented design approach to

recognized as functional components. They come together to form one component.

1.5 Stakeholder Analysis

for soldering, reflow, cleaning, and coating. (Mittan, P. (2018)).

So far, we have discussed the existing designs of circuit card holders, we

highlighted the needs of Lockheed Martin.

scoring model to develop, based off weight categories we will assign.

2.2 Concept Generation

Before we started to generate concepts we first looked at the existing conditions

important to keep and sketched assemblies of these components with different