Yoyomato

Lab D1
Sherri Green, Fano Razafindrakoto, Jane Fessenden, Shirley Lu,
Aya Suzuki, Billy Ruschel, Rosa Ruiz

I have had the opportunity to review and provide feedback on this report.

____________________________________

____________________________________

____________________________________

____________________________________

____________________________________

____________________________________

____________________________________
Page 1 of 38

1. Summary of the Final YY Prototype And Its Components

Our yoyo design is inspired by sushi. The sushi yoyo is comprised of two faces, one with
regular sushi fillings and the other, a fish tail. The base, the fillings, and the fish are all injection
molded parts. The sushi fillings are four separate pieces that come together in the center, creating
a quad like structure, that form the shape on one face of the sushi. The other face contains the
fish tail, which also fits inside the inner diameter of the rice. The molds for all three of the
injection molded parts were created using a CNC mill to fabricate two parting planes. The CNC
lathe, CNC mill, and HAAS were used to make the features in each of the molds. The rice
component, where the fillings and the fishtail fit inside, was thermoformed using a 3D printed
mold. The 3D printed mold was manufactured using SLA to get more detail of the rice texture on
the mold than would be possible (or easily manufactured) by machining.
The seaweed base is an injection molded part with a steel shim. The shim serves the
purpose of bringing the center of mass in towards the of the yoyo, so that our yoyo is not
unbalanced because of our asymmetric design. The base has 4 posts with holes in them in the
center for the posts of the fish tail and the sushi fillings to press-fit into. It also has a lip where
the thermoformed rice sits on the edge of the yoyo. On the back side of the base, there is a nut
lodged in the base and a hole for a shaft leading into the nut to allow for assembly with the other
half of the yoyo. As seen in Figure 5, the base has a large groove going around in a circle that
keeps the outer wall thickness more even. The inside wall of the base has a 10 degree draft angle
to allow for the part to come off of the core mold more easily.
The rice is in between the base and the fishtail or fillings, depending on the face. The part
fits into the inner diameter of the base and is held in place by the fillings or the fishtail when
inserted. The rice has a high amount of detail on its exterior surface, highlighting each grain of
rice. The rice’s extreme level of detail was possible due to the 3D printed mold and the high
heating and forming time during its production. The simplicity of the part and its highly flexible
alteration process enabled the part to be changed to accommodate variations in other pieces. This
allowed the overall process of production and design to continue without a bottleneck since
editing of the rice had a fast turnover rate.
The orange and red sushi fillings represent salmon and tuna for the fish components
while the yellow and green pieces are the egg and avocado in the roll. The various textures on
the surface show the distinct pieces. These were achieved by varying the machining path on the
CNC mill. The sushi fillings are injection molded, four at a time, in a multicavity mold. They are
installed easily into the base via a post inserting into a boss. The fillings also serve the function
of holding the thermoformed rice in place.
The fishtail is the opposite face to the sushi filling. The fishtail represents the fish
swimming through the sushi, creating a dark, humorous play on the origins of our food. In CAD,
we used splines and lofts to create a curved surface for the fishtail. We decided to make the
fishtail into two identical halves to make our core and cavity molds. This simplified the
machining process and optimized our production time since we only had one mold.
Page 2 of 38

The overall assembly of the yoyo was tight fit. Though this made the assembly slightly
longer, the tight fit of the parts into each other ensured that the yoyo remains assembled during
use.

Fig 1&2: ​Final Yoyo

Fig 3: ​Parts / Assembly

Fig 4: ​Exploded Assembly

Page 3 of 38

(left to right) Fig 5 & 6 & 7:​ Production of base, fish fillings, and thermoformed rice

Fig 8 & 9: ​Fishtail components and them put together

Page 4 of 38

2. ​Measurement Data

Fishtail​:
a) Run Chart
Our critical dimension was the width of the posts that fit into the base because that
determines how the entire yoyo fit together. We measured along the parting plane in case the two
mold halves were slightly misaligned and caused the two half-cylinders that made up the bottom
posts to be misaligned, since this would cause the posts to be slightly wider at that point. We
wanted to measure the widest point because that determines the fit of the posts into the base.
Page 5 of 38

b) Histogram
The distribution of our measurements approaches a normal distribution. The nominal size
is 0.126”, but due to the shrinkage, the distribution is centered around a smaller number:
0.1245”. With more samples, the distribution would be closer to normal.

c) Shewhart X-bar Chart

A subgroup should be 2-10 pieces, but more is better (according to the textbook) so we
chose 5 pieces as the size of our rational subgroup so we could have enough resolution over time
and see gradual changes, but still be within the recommended 2-10 pieces.
For the x-bar chart, we placed the control limits at 0.1230” and 0.1251”. We found the limits
with
Page 6 of 38

where the grand average was 0.1240”, A​2​ = 0.577 for a sample size of 5, and the average range
within a sample was 0.001825”. Our process is in good statistical control because all the points
fall inside the upper and lower control limits, the points are random with time, and there is no
discernable trend, which means the process is not going out of control over time.

For our disturbance, we increased cooling time from 15 sec to 25 sec at fish #54. We
expected this to decrease the amount of shrinkage because the mold draws heat out of the plastic
better, so the post diameter should have been larger. However, the post dimensions did not
appear to increase: none of the sample averages extended above the control limits. This may
have been because the increase in diameter was too small--in other words, it wasn’t larger than
the pre-existing statistical variation so we couldn’t detect it. So, we should have increased the
cooling time more to make a larger difference that would be more noticeable.
Page 7 of 38

d) Process Capability
The specification for the post diameter is 0.126” +0.001”/-0.000”. We chose a tight
tolerance of +0.001”/-0.000” because the press fit would only work within a narrow range of
sizes, so, USL = 0.127” and LSL = 0.126”. The process standard deviation was 0.00081. Our
process capability is therefore 0.206. Compared to the expectations for mass production, our Cp
is much too low (Cp should be 1.33 for an existing stable process and 1.50 for a new process) so
our specifications are unrealistic. Although our process is statistically healthy, it is not capable
because it does not reach the assigned specs.
Page 8 of 38

Sushi filling:
a) Run Chart
The single critical dimension that we chose to measure was the post diameter of the sushi
fillings since this post diameter must be press fit with the yoyo base in order to hold the
thermoformed rice in. Since our mold produced four sushi filling pieces per cycle, we had four
post diameter measurements per part. Therefore, the average of the four posts was taken and
plotted with the run number. The target post diameter was 0.126 inches.

b) Histogram
The following is a histogram for the data collected in creating the run chart for the post
diameter of the sushi fillings. The distribution is skewed-right with the mode in the second bin.
This is most likely the result of shrinkage in the injection molded parts.
Page 9 of 38

c) Shewhart X-bar Chart

In choosing the size of my “rational subgroup,” I first considered choosing a sample size
of n = 20, because that was roughly the number of cycles that I ran before switching the colors.
In the time that it takes to switch colors (purging and adding new color), the machine likely cools
down and may cause slight variation in the parts since the machine is not continuously running
(not full automatic production) for all 60 parts. Therefore, it would have made sense to group
each sample by the color since this minimizes the variation within each subgroup and allows
variation between subgroups. However, the disturbance in the production run happens on part
numbers 46 through 55 (parts 41 through 60 are all one color). With a sample size of n = 20, the
disturbed parts would be in different subgroups; this would result in an inaccurate control chart.
Therefore, the “rational subgroup” size needs to be refined to isolate the disturbances in their
own subgroups and capture its effect without impacting the rest of the data on the control chart.
As a result, I chose the size of my “rational subgroup” to be n = 5.
I set my control limits according to the statistical-control formulas to make sure that all
parts are within three standards of the mean (three sigma) since the parts are not precision parts.

The following table gives the values of interest for the x-bar control chart:
Grand Average x (in) Average Range R (in) LCL (in) UCL (in)

0.12523 0.00042 0.12499 0.12547

For the disturbance starting at part 46, I increased the cooling time of the part by 5
seconds and kept this parameter change through to part 55. I would expect the post diameter to
Page 10 of 38

be larger since the mold draws heat out of the part faster. However, as seen on both the run chart
and the control chart, the two subgroups that make up the disturbance do not seem consistent
with each other. Therefore, there is no distinct step change that can be detected. This is likely
because the parameter change (13 seconds to 18 seconds) was not significant enough to make a
measurable impact since the post diameter is small (nominally 0.126”, very little shrinkage), and
the calipers are only precise to 0.001”.

d) Process Capability

The above calculation was done with the tolerance of +0.001”/-0.000” on the post
diameter for a snap fit with the yoyo base, as specified in the table of specifications from the
beginning of the semester. Compared to the expectations for mass production, this value is
relatively low. Typically, a good C​p​ would be around 2, which corresponds with six-sigma
quality. The process capability is low since it does not reach the manufacturing standard of
around 2 for production nor does it exceed the recommended minimum process capability for an
existing process (1.33). This means that in mass production, there will be approximately 11 parts
per 10000 that is defective - making it costly and inefficient when the mold could be remachined
to better account for shrinkage.

Base:
a) Run Chart
For the seaweed base’s critical dimension, we decided to measure the inner diameter of
the part as the entire assembly of the yoyo depended on it. The outer diameter of the
thermoformed rice piece sits against the inner diameter of the base piece, so if the inner diameter
is too small the rice piece will not be able to fit. On the other hand, if the inner diameter of the
base piece is too large, the rice piece will not be fully constrained and it will be able to move
around on the radial axes of the yoyo. Figure 1 is a run chart of the measured inner diameter of
the base pieces.
Page 11 of 38

Figure 1​: Run chart of the measured inner diameter of the base pieces, averages were taken
every 5 samples

b) Histogram
Figure 2 is a histogram of the measured base pieces’ inner diameter. It shows a fairly
normal distribution of inner diameter measurements with the mean being around 2.223 in
although our target inner diameter was 2.225 in. This discrepancy is due to our overestimating
the amount of shrinkage that would occur on the outside wall of the yoyo (the inner diameter
gets larger with more wall shrinkage).

Figure 2: A histogram of the measured base pieces’ inner diameter

Page 12 of 38

c) Shewhart X-bar Chart

When we chose the rational subgroup for the base’s inner diameter, we went with n=10,
as this was the about the amount of cycles we could run before having to refill the injection
molding machine with new plastic pellets. Given that the machine is unused for a longer period
of time during the refill, it could be cooler when starting up again, which could lead to variations
in the shrinkage of the final part (which affects the inner diameter). However, we found that at
n=10 there was still a significant amount of variation within each subgroup, so we decided to
change the subgroup to n=5 to refine the data and lower variation within subgroups.
For our disturbance/parameter change, we lowered the cooling time of the base piece
from 45 seconds to 30 seconds. As seen in Figure 3 (the control chart), we did this for runs 51 to
60. The expectation was that with a shorter cooling time, the base piece would experience less
shrinkage, meaning that the inner diameter of the part would be smaller (as the inner diameter
shrinks radially outwards). Looking at Figure 3, the effect of this decreased cooling time was as
expected as the “disturbed” subgroups fall below the grand average. Furthermore the effect is
quite apparent, seeing as none of the “disturbed” parts make it within the control limits.

Figure 3​: X-bar control chart of the bases’ measured inner diameter, GA = 2.2224 in, LCL =
2.2207 in, UCL = 2.2241 in

For our control limits, we set them according to the statistical-control formulas to ensure
that all the parts were within 3 standard deviations of the mean.
Page 13 of 38

Relevant x-bar control chart values:

Grand Average x (in) Average Range R (in) LCL (in) UCL (in)

2.2224 0.0029 2.2207 2.2241

Based on these values and the graph, one can see that the process is not very well
controlled because (even apart from the disturbed subgroup) some subgroups did not fall within
the control limits.

d) Process Capability
The specification for the inner diameter of the base piece is 2.250” with a tolerance of +/-
0.005”. This would set our LSL at 2.255” and our USL at 2.245”. After running the full process,
we had a standard deviation (for the inner diameter of the base piece) of 0.0028” and a process
capability (Cp) of 0.60. Considering the Cp should be at least 1.33 in order for the process to be
suitable for mass production, it can be seen that our process is nowhere close to being ready.
Looking back at the control charts, the fact that 3 of the 20 ​undisturbed ​subgroups do not fall
within control limits (and also the fact that our part does not even meet our initial specifications),
it is not surprising that our Cp is so low.
On the note of not meeting specifications, after running our process and finding
experimentally that many of our base pieces did not have a large enough inner diameter to fit the
thermoform rice part, we decreased the outer diameter of the rice part (by reprinting the mold) to
2.23”, essentially changing our target inner diameter to 2.23”.

Rice​:
a) Run Chart
The single critical dimension for the rice was the height of the rice part from the bottom
of the hollowed section to the top planar surface of the rice, where the rice grains protrude from.
Though both the inner and the outer diameter of the rice are critical to its fit, both of those
dimensions were determined by the cut out press tool, which always gave a consistent measuring
and were not dictated by the thermoforming machine. The height however is crucial to ensure the
fillings and the fishtail can easily fit into the base piece. In figure 1 is a run chart of a 100 part
production. Through run numbers 50 - 60, there was a disturbance input, a change in the heating
time of the plastic.
Page 14 of 38

Figure 1: ​Run chart of the rice component of the yoyo. The critical dimension
measured is the height of the rice piece, referenced from the top surface on the
textured side of the rice, to the bottom of the rice component. Both the averages
and the individual height of each run are featured. The averages are calculated in
a sample size of three.
Page 15 of 38

b) Histogram of the Rice Production

The following is a histogram for the data collected in creating the run chart for the height
of the rice component. The distribution is heavier on the right side of the bin at 0.243 in. Since
the mold was fabricated at a height of 0.250, no part could go over that height. However, due to
variation in vacuum pressure and heating influences, the skewed-right distribution is likely due
to slight shrinkage of the parts and natural variations in the raw material.

Figure 2: ​Histogram of the rice component of the yoyo. The y-axis is the
frequency of occurrence or number of parts at the specified height. The x-axis is
the measurement of height for each piece. The critical dimension measured is the
height of the rice piece, referenced from the top surface on the textured side of the
rice, to the bottom of the rice component. The histogram is created using 25 bins.
The most common height measured was .243.
Page 16 of 38

c) Shewhart X-bar Chart

Figure 3: ​Shewhart X-bar chart of the rice component of the yoyo. The y-axis is
the frequency of occurrence average height. The average height is calculated in a
sample size of 3. The x-axis is a measurement of time, as the process goes from 1
to 100 cycles. The UCL was calculated to be at 0.2454 in. The LCL was
calculated to be at 0.2412 in. The average of the averages, indicated by the solid
black line, was calculated to be .2433 in.

In choosing the size of my “rational subgroup”, it was initially considered to choose a

sample size of n = 6. This is because this was roughly the number of cycles that a single piece of
raw material could turn over before selecting a new slab of plastic from the pile. Due to the high
consistency of thermoforming and the relatively little shrinkage, material factors were the next
largest potential disturbance. This would minimize variation within each subgroup as well as
exemplify the variation between subgroups. However, stock pieces began to vary in size, ranging
from nine to eleven parts per material cycle. Thus, a sample size of a constant 6, would mix these
variations between material. Upon further consultation, it was decided that the “rational
subgroup” size should be refined to minimize the variation within each subgroups and thus
capturing a more accurate control chart. Thus, we set the size of the “rational subgroup” to be
n =3.
Page 17 of 38

The control limits were set according to the statistical-control formula that ensure the
parts are within three standards of the mean since the part is not meant to be a high precision
part. They are found by the following formulas:
U CL = x ​+ A2​ R yields USL = 0.2454
LCL = x ​- A2​ R yields LSL = 0.2412
Where R = 0.002
A​2 =
​ 1.023
The disturbance, which was inputted at part 50 until part 60, was a variation in the
heating time. Instead of the typical 20 second heating time, the time was decreased to 10
seconds, half of the original heating time. In terms of the critical dimension, it was expected that
the part height would decrease, cooling faster before it could full stretch and conform to the
mold’s height. Viewing the control chart and the run chart, it is clear that the heights during the
disturbance are lower, closer to the LCL due to this parameter change. However, most of the
heights are are still within the control limits except for the one average at 0.236 in. The lowest is
likely due to an anomaly in either the raw material or the temperature of plane decreasing due to
the few minutes it took to change the parameters for the disturbance run.

d) Process Capability
The value of Cp we calculated for this process is C p = 2.7365

U SL − LSL
Using the equation C p = 6σ x
Where
USL = 0.260
LSL = 0.240
σ x = .0019

Since this value for Cp is 1.33 as a general guideline, the value of the rice Cp is higher.
The high value of Cp for the rice is likely due to the relatively loose tolerances specified,
σ = .01 in . This value determines the USL and the LSL variation from the intended height of
0.250 in.
For mass production, this value is low. The higher the Cp, the smaller amount of defects
produced during manufacturing. Due to the Cp being relatively par to 6 sigma industry standards,
Cp = 2, this thermoforming process would generate an acceptable amount of defective parts.
However often, if the process produces a Cp greater than 2.5, the production might be
unnecessary and expensive. The overall precision of the rice height was created from the
Thermoform machine and the Formlabs Form 2 3D printer, both of which are not relatively
costly, in comparison to industry standards. Thus, this precision is above par with the overall cost
of production since it surpasses the six-sigma quality.
Page 18 of 38

3. Assembly Line

Assembly: estimated cycle times for each step [seconds]

Fishtail processing: remove sprues, put fish tail halves together 10

Base processing: remove sprues, trim gate 10

Fillings process: remove sprues, trim posts 20

Fit thermoformed rice into processed base 10

Assemble fish tail half (processed fish tail + processed base) 5

Assemble sushi fillings half (processed fillings + processed base) 40

Put the assembled halves together (set screw + spacer + string) 15

Total (to make one yoyo, excluding transport time between steps) 110

To balance the line, I would consider the cycle times of each individual step as well as
the order of assembly (precedence). In the first stage (post-processing of parts), processing the
sushi fillings has the greatest cycle time. In the time that it takes to process one part (four pieces
of sushi fillings), the fish tail and the base can be processed, assuming one operator. Therefore,
initially, to balance the line there should be two times as many operators working on the fillings
processing than the fish tail and the base processing each (2:1 ratio). This evenly distributes the
amount of work at each station. In the most simple case with one operator on each the fish tail
and the base processing and two operators on the sushi fillings processing, at the end of 20
seconds, there will be two of everything, ready for the next stage. Once a buffer of bases has
been created, another operator can begin to fit the thermoformed rice into the bases. For our team
of seven, this means that at the start, there are four members processing the sushi fillings, one
each processing the fish tail and base, and one fitting the rice into the processed base.
Page 19 of 38

Prior to assembling the separate halves, the thermoformed rice must be fit into the
processed base. However, since the cycle time for assembling the fillings half is so much larger
than assembling the fish tail half, the step of fitting the rice into the base can be done
concurrently. By this I mean, multiple operators can be fitting the rice into the base. As soon as a
part is made available, the sushi fillings half can begin to be assembled. Once there is a big
enough buffer that the fish tail line will be running continuously and concurrently with the sushi
fillings line, then there can be only one operator fitting the rice into the base, while the remaining
operators shift to assembling the fish tail as well as the sushi fillings halves.
Once the step of fitting rice into the base is completely finished, that operator should
move to the end of the line, where there should be buffers of both halves, ready to be assembled
via set screw, spacer, and string. By having this operator move directly to the end of the line as
opposed to helping with the sushi fillings line prevents an unnecessary step of learning the
process. This operator would have to spend time learning how to assemble the sushi fillings half,
and not long after would have to learn how to assemble the two halves. This is inefficient since
there will already be a buffer ready to assemble a fully functional yoyo as well as multiple
operators already on the sushi fillings line.
Therefore, in order to maximize efficiency and minimize idle time, none of the stages in
the block diagram are discrete in that the next stage will begin once there is a large enough buffer
and not when the previous stage is completely finished.
Page 20 of 38

4.​ ​Automation and Robotics

A significant design change to enable the use of automation is to modify the mold of the
sushi fillings to eliminate the post-processing step of trimming the posts. This step was added to
our assembly to make the process of fitting the sushi fillings into the base faster and easier, by
essentially making the snap fit less tight. In addition, for mass production and ease of
automation, the surface design of each sushi filling piece would be made identical, but still with
different colors, so there is no need to sort through the parts during assembly.
Starting from the beginning of the assembly process, almost all of the processing steps
can be automated. As seen on the lab tour of Nypro Healthcare, there are injection molding
machines available for mass production that remove the sprues before releasing the part onto the
conveyor belt.
In the context of the robotic manipulators mentioned in 2.008 lectures, a Cartesian robot
with a shear as an end effector can be used to remove the sprues after being ejected by the
injection molding machine. In order for this sprue removal process to be repeatable and accurate,
the parts must be in a set orientation for the Cartesian robot to shear the sprues and runners.
Depending on how the injection molding machine ejects the parts, this can be done using either
rails to catch the ejected pieces to hold them in a set orientation or a Delta robot. In this case, the
Delta robot is chosen because of its high speed and high repeatability, especially for
pick-and-place operations. It would need to have conventional gripper/clamp to pick up the parts
since none of them are flat (unsuitable for vacuum/suction end effector). With automated
removal of sprues, it will not be necessary to have the additional step of trimming the gate on the
base since the automatic shearing will cleanly remove the sprue as opposed to the manual
removal.
The process of sprue removal is ideal for automation because it is repeatable and does not
require vision or the problem solving skills of a manual operator. Similarly, to insert the rice into
the base, a SCARA robot with a vacuum/suction end effector can be used to pick and place the
rice into the processed base. On the other hand, the step of assembling the fish tail by putting the
halves together is not easily automated because it requires vision and articulation. The curved
surface of the fish makes it difficult to be picked up by robotic manipulators. It may be possible
with more advanced end effectors that have high dexterity, but likely not worth the slow speed
and expensive cost.
To automate the next step, after the operators manually assemble the fish tail, they can
place it on a belt that has slots for the posts such that the fish tails can move along a conveyor
belt, constrained so the tail is sticking straight up. This fixed orientation will allow a robot such
as a SCARA robot, to pick up the tail using a conventional clamp as an end effector without
needing vision and secure the tail into the processed base. The SCARA robot would be used for
this step because they are highly accurate with tight tolerances and are very rigid in the vertical
direction, allowing for precise assembly/insertion into the base. The processed bases do not need
Page 21 of 38

to be picked up as they will be in the correct orientation after sprue removal and simply be
traveling down a conveyor belt that will pass in front of this SCARA robot.
As for assembling the sushi fillings half, because the part is small and not a standard
shape, it will not be able to “stand up” on the conveyor belt in an orientation that is easy to pick
up with a robotic manipulator and inserted into the base. Therefore, this step of the assembly
process will likely need to be done by an operator. However, one of the main reasons this step of
the process was slow during our assembly was because the pieces are snap fits with the base,
making the insertion into the base difficult by hand (we used a hammer). This substep of the
process can be easily automated. The operator only needs to manually place the sushi fillings in
the processed base such that it is secure enough to be easily pushed into place by an automatic
press (rigid and only needs to move in the vertical direction).
The last step of assembly is putting the two halves of the yoyo together. Along the
conveyor belt, the sushi fillings half can be flipped over so that the inside is on top. A SCARA
robot can then be used to install the set screw and spacer. Again, a SCARA is used because they
are very precise for assembly/insertion and rigid in the vertical direction. At this point, the
assembled fishtail half is on the conveyor belt with the tail pointing up. Another SCARA robot
with a conventional clamp end effector can be used to pick up the fish tail half and screw it onto
the sushi fillings half. On the line, in between these two SCARA robots will require an operator
to install the string before the fish tail half is screwed on. Installing the string is not easy to
automate since it requires high dexterity; the string needs to be separated at the end and looped
over the spacer. In order to not get the string tangled on the line, they are wrapped up (rubber
banded) - assuming this is done by the string suppliers. Once the yoyo passes through this line of
SCARA robots, it has been fully assembled and ready for packaging.
Page 22 of 38

5.​ ​Specification Comparison

Original Design Specifications:

Measured Specifications:

As seen from the two tables above, three out of four of the critical dimensions decreased
during the manufacturing process. The inner diameter of the base decreased the most from
2.250” to 2.222” and the post diameter of the fish tail shrank from 0.126” to 0.124”. Because the
base and the fish tail are both injection molded, the differences in dimensions of the two parts
were most likely due to uneven cooling times within each part. The difference in the base
dimension can also be attributed to there being less shrinkage than originally expected.
Additionally, the height of the rice decreased from 0.250” to 0.243”, most likely due to the
relatively inaccurate stretching of the plastic sheet during the thermoforming process. We chose
to do the height of the rice as the critical dimension instead of the outer diameter because the
outer diameter was determined by the punch press and not the thermoforming process.
Although the sushi fillings were the closest to the target specifications of 0.126” post
diameter, we think it would be better to change the post diameter to 0.124”, same as the post
diameter of the fish tail. The sushi filling was a much tighter fit into the base than the fish tail,
making it difficult to assemble. Compared to the base, the sushi fillings are much easier to adjust
because the part is much smaller and thus experiences less shrinkage. Although the post diameter
Page 23 of 38

is determined by the diameter of the ejector pins and the premade ejector pins in the lab were
0.126” in diameter, it would be more beneficial for us to make 0.124” diameter ejector pins by
ourselves for mass production. We’ll be able to use the same ejector pins for the sushi fillings
and the fish tail, so tooling cost will not go up significantly.
If we were to use our current molds, our final table of specifications that we will apply to
the mass production of our yo-yo is:

However, if we were to rebuild our molds, our final table of specifications will be:

We can achieve the above specifications by making the following changes:

● Making mold for the inner diameter of the base larger since the base didn’t shrink as
much as expected
● Making the 3D printed mold for the rice a little taller
● Making ejector pins with 0.124” diameter for the sushi fillings and the fish tail
Page 24 of 38

6.​ ​Additive Manufacturing

Fishtail
We would make our fish tail using SLA printing. We would use SLA because the fish
tail’s surface is all curves, and the finer resolution of SLA printing would give a smoother
surface (FFF printing would leave ridges that clearly showed each layer). Additionally, although
with SLA the areas where the supports were can often be seen, which affects the finish, in the
case of the fish tail this would not be a problem because the entire inner concave surface of the
fish is hidden from sight when the yoyo is assembled. We could easily put the supports there so
that the outer cosmetic surface is blemish-free. SLA also is capable of much tighter tolerances,
which is important for the fish tail because we rely on several press fits to hold the fish halves
together and to attach the fish to the base, and because if the two halves do not match up exactly,
it will be very clearly visible and the fish tail will look uneven. SLA is not the best for functional
prototypes (laser sintering can give stronger products), but the fish does not have any stress
applied on it when it sits in the yoyo, so it’s mostly decorative and would benefit more from the
high-quality surface SLA can provide.
We would use Materialise’s TuskXC2700T plastic because it has “strong, ABS-like
specifications.” Being a toy, the yoyo doesn’t have to be extremely durable, and simply reaching
ABS strength should be sufficient. We would also have the finished product painted blue.
From Materialise, this is quoted to cost $76.67 each for two parts, and $62.63 each for
100 parts.

Base:
We would use the polyamide plastic with FDM printing from Materialise. The base is not
under huge loads (and it’s also a toy), so plastic is the reasonable choice -- the strength of metal
is unnecessary. Polyamide can take some impact, which is good in case the base is dropped on
the floor. It can also resist some pressure while being bent, so we don’t think it will break when
we try to push the pins of the sushi fillings into the base for our snap fit.
We chose laser sintering because that is the process used for polyamide. Laser sintering
will work well because no support material is necessary, which means there won’t be difficulty
removing support material from the gaps in the base (the opening for the nut shaft and the gap
ring to maintain even wall thickness) as there would be with SLA. Laser sintering is also very
accurate, which is important so that our holes will be the right size so the pins of the sushi
fillings and the fish tail will fit in accurately.
FDM printing with ABS plastic also would have worked, as with FDM printing, you can
wash away the support material with a chemical bath. We chose laser sintering with polyamide
instead because it was significantly cheaper (by more than 3 times) and also ABS didn’t have the
colors we’d want for the seaweed base.
Gold would also be quite cool, but very unnecessary (and heavy and expensive).
Page 25 of 38

Cost for 2 (dyed green): $30.80

Cost for 100 (dyed green): $1407.00

Sushi Fillings:
The sushi filling inserts would be created using SLA printing in order to create the
various surface textures on the top of the sushi fillings to a high degree of accuracy and
resolution. It is also important to have high precision on the diameter of the posts in order to
allow them to be press fit into the base. From the FDM parts that we did 3D print, we were
unable to press fit any of them into the base. Thus, to keep this critical dimension, SLA printing
is necessary.
Just like the fishtail, the material used for SLA printing will be Materialise’s
TuskXC2700T for much of the same reasons. This is not a part of the yoyo that will have force
applied to it, and it does not need to be extremely durable. Thus, the TuskXC2700T is a good
material for this use case. The parts will have to be painted green yellow orange and red after
they have been printed in order to create the desired color pieces. The quoted cost for two parts
was $189.13 and $89,930 for one thousand parts. Which shows that the cost per part decreases as
the volume of the order increases.

Rice:
For the rice component, the method it would be prototyped would be by Shapeways. This
additive manufacturing method is optimal for a prototype of the rice mold since it captures high
enough detail for the design and tolerances, so that it can fit into the other parts at a fast
turnaround. The part, however, had to be edited to fit within 3D printing specs. A major change
in the part was due to the thickness of the walls, which were originally .02 in but needed to be
thickened to 7mm.
The material for the prototype would be Shapeways’ Strong & Flexible Plastic with ​a
white finish​. This is due to the flexibility and rigidity properties of the material as well as the
strength and feel of the part. The flexibility allows see the fit of the part into the others as well as
tolerances it can withstand at such a flexible material. The weight of the part also matters, to be
able to get a feel for how the yoyo will affect user performance during use. Lastly the strength of
this material allows also to test the wear and durability of the yoyo while it is in use.
For two pieces of the part it costs $16.20. For a hundred rice pieces, it would cost
$810.00​.
Page 26 of 38

7. ​Cost Analysis

Part 1: Prototyping of YoYos using 2.008 Processes and Materials

Methodology and Assumptions:
For the case of using LMP to produce yoyos, we use the constraint that LMP is only open
from 8am-5pm, which gives us a 9 hour long day. We also assume that we only have 1 BOY
injection molding machine, as that is what our team has used this semester. To account for
needing to switch between different molds on the BOY, we say that our machine uptime is 80%.
As we were free labor this semester (or actually, we paid to work), using the 2.008 model, we
don’t account for any labor cost of the students.

Machine Costs
We estimated the cost of the BOY by looking up injection molding machines on alibaba, and
found that a reasonable price for a similarly sized machine was $15,000
(​https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/small-size-plastic-injection-molding-machine_6023871
0880.html​). We also looked for thermoforming machines on alibaba and found a reasonable
price was $35,000
(​http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/FANGYUAN-eps-A-B-vacuum-forming_521526919.ht
ml?s=p​). We estimated the machine lifetime as about 10 years. The other factor in machine cost
is how many parts are made per year, which we used the cycle time to find (cycle time
assumptions described in overhead cost section).
We calculate our machine unit cost as the cost of the machine per part, while factoring in the
lifetime of the machine and also the capacity of the machine -- how many parts it can make per
year, and thus how many machines are necessary to buy. We sum the machine unit cost for the
IM machine with the machine unit cost for the thermoforming machine.

Overhead Cost
To find the unit overhead cost, we added together the labor and instruction hourly cost with the
run time cost of each machine and factored in how long the machines were running for based on
the cycle time of the YY. We found the labor and instruction cost to be $35/hr and the run time
cost of each machine to be $15/hr from the Material and Labor Costs document on Dropbox. For
the injection molding machine, we treated the yoyo as having a cycle time of the sum of the
cycle times of all of the IM parts (2 * base cycle time + 2 * fish half cycle time + sushi filling
cycle time), which is 230 seconds, and used a machine uptime for the IM machine as 80% to
account for time needed to switch the molds in and out of the machine. For the thermoforming
machine, we used the cycle time of the rice to be 30 seconds and said the machine had an uptime
of 90% because no molds needed to be switched in and out, but to account for any necessary
machine downtime.
Page 27 of 38

Material Cost
To estimate the material cost for the yoyo, we used the cost for resin, found in the Material and
Labor Cost document on Dropbox which is $3.9/kg. We used our CAD models to find the
masses of our IM parts, which sum to .048 kg. In addition to the plastic pellets cost, we also
account for the cost of the thermoformed rice with the $.25/each cost for the 5”x5” white HIPS
sheet. We also account for the cost of our shims, which we bought for $6.40 for 10, or $.64 each
(​https://www.mcmaster.com/#3088a438/=14pm376​). We do not account for the decrease in
material cost that would occur with higher volumes. We would be able to find a cheaper /kg cost
for the plastic pellets and we’d be able to find cheaper shims if we bought them at a larger
volume, but we don’t account for this in our cost model.

Tooling Cost
To estimate the cost of tooling, we do a similar calculation again, considering the overhead,
tooling, machine, and material cost involved in making the molds. We calculate the cost of
making each mold individually, as they used different machines: the base core and cavity used
the mill and lathe and both the sushi fillings and the fish tail core and cavity molds used the mill
and HAAS. After looking on alibaba, we estimate the cost of the lathe as $60,000
(​https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Puma-400LMA-price-down-to-eath_60388821117.html
). We use the lecture slides on cost to estimate the cost of the mill as $25,000 and the HAAS as
$210,000. We estimate the uptime of each machine as 90% to account for tool change time and
also any necessary downtime for the machine.
We use the approximate time that each mold spent on each machine as the cycle time on
that machine, and we say that the life of a mold is 50,000 parts. Thus our mold cost changes with
YY production volume. As the production volume increases, the mold unit cost decreases
because it spreads out the cost of the machine over more molds. We don’t account for multiple of
our own molds being machined on the same machine (as in the cost of the fish tail core mold is
not any less because we also machined the sushi core mold on the HAAS), which, along with the
other molds being made by other teams within the same year as well as anything else the
machines get used for would change our costs -- we’re treating them as dedicated machines even
though they aren’t.
Our tooling cost estimate is very approximate. We estimate that for each machine, we use
8 tools. From McMasterCarr, we see that a reasonable price for an end mill on a mill is $20 and
for a lathe a reasonable tool cost is $40. We estimate that the price of a tool cost for the HAAS is
similar to the lathe so we also use $40 for the cost of the tools in the HAAS. We approximated
that the lifetime of a tool would be making about 50 parts -- we would have used Taylor’s tool
wear equation but that involves experimentation, and so we’ve just made an approximation. To
get our tooling cost per YoYo, we find our tooling cost per mold which involves the cost of one
set of tooling and the tool life (keeping into account the number of molds made), and then
factoring in the number of YYs produced (for that number of molds).
Page 28 of 38

Our overhead cost is estimated the same way we did for the IM and thermoforming parts,
using $35/hour as the combined instruction and lights/electricity cost, and factoring in the
number of hours necessary to make the correct volume of molds.
We determined the material cost of each mold to be $9.31, which is half of the price
given in the Materials and Labor Cost document for a pair of molds.
We estimated the cost of making the thermoformed rice mold by getting a quote from
Materialise about how much it would cost for using SLA printing with high detail resin to print
one mold. This cost ended up being $55.90, and we estimate that a 3D printed mold will last
1,000 cycles, as we know that they last far less long than metal molds.
For estimating our total tooling cost for the YY, we added together the overhead,
material, tooling, and machine cost for each mold and then added each mold price/YY together
to get the total tooling cost. At the end of the deliverable, we include the overall spreadsheet used
to calculate the cost [see Appendix].
Page 29 of 38

Part 2 (Additive Manufacturing):

All cost estimates for AM were taken from the Materialise website except for the rice piece,
which was estimated using the Shapeway online estimator. As we would be purchasing the parts
and none of the infrastructure, we don’t need to factor in tooling, machine, and overhead cost.
We chose to go up to 1000 YYs because it intersected with Case 1 at about 700 YYs -- 1000
YYs was a reasonably small number. After that point, the unit cost doesn’t go down anymore as
we’ve hit the asymptotic cost and the other cases have become cheaper options, so it doesn’t
make sense to continue manufacturing them with additive manufacturing.
Page 30 of 38

Part 3 (High Volume Process):

For case 3, the case of producing at a high production volume (100,000), we assumed production
was done in a small factory (and not a small machining shop like the LMP), and that this factory
was open 24 hours a day with a machine uptime of 90% to account for repairs and any mold
swapping that would need to be done (machines are not dedicated). At the end of the deliverable,
we include the overall spreadsheet used to calculate the cost [see Appendix].

Machine Cost
When calculating the machine cost, we assumed that the machines used for 2.008 were not
suitable to be used for such a large production run. After doing some research, we were able to
find replacements for the injection molding and thermoforming machines that were designed for
larger production volumes. For the injection molding machine, we got a quote straight from a
dealer, who told us that the machine would cost about $200,000. After doing some research on
AliBaba, we were able to estimate the cost of a high volume thermoforming machine to also be
about $200,000.
(​http://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?fsb=y&IndexArea=product_en&CatId=&SearchText=ther
moforming+machine​)
In terms of the functionality of each machine, we assumed that they were capable of more things
than the 2.008 machines were. Based on videos from the injection molding lectures, we assumed
that the injection molding machine had multiple sprues in it, and therefore if given the right
mold, could produce multiple parts in one cycle. Based on the maximum mold size that the
machine was rated for and the size of one of our 2.008 molds, we assumed that (given the right
mold), the machine could produce up to 81 parts in one cycle. Using similar reasoning, we made
the assumption that the high volume thermoform machine could handle a 30” by 30” thermoform
sheet and that with this area it could produce up to 36 parts in one cycle.

Overhead Cost
When calculating the overhead cost, we added up the average cost of factory labor ($35/hr) and
the average annual cost to power a small factory in the US. For each machine that we used, we
assumed that it required 2 workers to operate during its uptime. For the energy cost we found
that the average usage of electricity for industrial factories in the US is 95.1 kWh/square foot
(​https://bizenergyadvisor.com/manufacturing-facilities​), where the average square footage of a
small factory is 10,000 square feet
(​http://www.cisco-eagle.com/industries-served/order-fulfillment/the-typical-warehouse​).

Material Cost
We were unable to obtain any sort of concrete data to indicate or even to estimate how the unit
cost of materials varied as the amount of it increased. Therefore, in the calculations, we assumed
that the unit material cost was simply the same no matter how much of the material was bought.
Page 31 of 38

Realistically, the unit cost of materials would probably decrease if one bought enough for
100,000 yoyo units, but because we did not know by what factor this decrease would occur, this
was a good way to set an upper bound on the unit material cost.

Tooling Cost
For the tooling cost, we assumed that machining our own molds for production volumes as high
as 100,000 would be both cost and time inefficient. The molds that we make using 2.008
processes are not rated for many cycles and would require us having to remake molds many
times if trying to produce at such high volume. Furthermore, assuming that we would be using
larger molds for the more industrial machines mentioned in the machining cost section, it would
be impossible to machine those molds using 2.008 machines.
For the reasons above, we instead assumed that the production of the molds would be outsourced
to another company, where we could estimate the costs
(​http://www.custompartnet.com/estimate/injection-tooling/​). In terms of the parameters that had
to be filled in, we assumed that the molds would have to be class 103, meaning that they were
rated for up to 500,000 cycles. Class 104 molds are rated for up to 100,000 cycles, but it is
practically impossible to run 100,000 cycles without having a defective part; therefore, in order
to not have to purchase multiple molds (at a production volume of 100,000), we went with the
class 103 molds.
 Page 32 of 38

b) Comparison
Case Machine Cost Material Cost Tooling Cost Overhead Cost Total Unit Cost

Case 1 (50 YYs) $100/YY $2/YY $2,291.42/YY $2.36/YY $2,395.78/YY

Case 2 (50 YYs) $0/YY $200.20/YY $0/YY $0/YY $200.20/YY

Case 3 (100,000 YYs) $0.4/YY $2/YY $2.25/YY $1.31/YY $5.96/YY

The dominant cost component for case 1 is the cost of tooling. The tooling cost is so high
because it is expensive to machine all of the molds using the 2.008 methods, since we factor in
the machine cost of buying the mill, lathe, and HAAS machine. Because of this, when compared
to case 2, the cost of tooling in case A outweighs the relatively higher cost of material cost in
case 2 vs. case 1 for low volumes of production (50 yoyos). When moving to large scale
production, case 3, it can be seen that the cost of tooling is reduced greatly and the new dominant
cost is machine cost. The tool cost is so low in Case 3 because we estimate that cost using a
tooling cost estimator website (and thus we would be outsourcing the machining of the tooling).
Because we’re outsourcing the tooling, we don’t need to pay the huge costs for the machines,
and we’re dividing the cost by a much larger number of yoyos produced which explains why
Case 3 tooling is so much cheaper than the 2.008 methods. The machine cost is the cost of the
Page 33 of 38

IM and Thermoforming machines which can be used to create these number of parts over its
useful lifetime which is estimated to be around 10 years for both case 1 and 3.
The machine cost is one of the major cost differences between case 1 and case 3 (case 2
would not have a machine cost because you would only be paying for the final parts and not the
machines themselves). There is such a staunch difference between case 1 and case 3 because at a
much higher production volume, one can use different machines that are more suitable for the
larger production volumes. For example, the Boy injection molding machine that we have at the
LMP can only produce one part at a time, whereas larger-scale injection molding machines
(some of which were seen in the lecture videos) have multiple sprues allowing them to create
multiple parts at once. Based on the maximum mold size of some of the larger scaled injection
molding machines that we found, we found that using a multi-part mold, you can injection mold
up to 81 parts at once. This capability of producing multiple parts in one cycle allows us to
operate at the large production volume (100,000 yoyos) without having to purchase multiple
injection molding machines. This larger injection molding machine generally costs significantly
more than the Boy machine in the LMP, but that higher cost is greatly mitigated by the amount
of yoyos that are produced with it at large production volumes, decreasing the ​unit​ machining
cost. The same idea applies to the thermoforming machine; while the larger thermoforming
machines cost more than the one used in the LMP, because of how many parts are being
produced with the machine, the cost of the machine is spread out over a much larger amount of
parts.
The significance of these findings is that at low quantities of yoyos it makes no sense to
create the molds ourselves and create these low volumes of parts instead of having them made
with additive manufacturing. But, for this class, the cost of the mills, lathes, and HAAS (factored
into the tooling cost in cases 1 and 3) are not factored into only our yoyos. Really the price of the
mills and the injection molding machine are factored into each of the groups that create yoyos
during the semester (over several years) as well as any other uses for the rest of the year, though
we do not account for this in our model. If we did not have access to this equipment, it can be
seen in section C that the point where machinery becomes beneficial, as compared to buying
yoyos that were made with Additive Manufacturing is around 700 yoyos.
A significant cost factor in case 3 is the material cost because the cost of materials is just
linearly proportional to the amount of yoyos that is being produced (for example if we doubled
our production volume, the material cost would just double as well). Other costs are fixed or at
least somewhat fixed, such that as you increase the production volume the fixed cost gets spread
over a larger amount of yoyos, decreasing the ​unit​ cost. This is why the material cost of case 1 is
the same as the material cost of case 3. Realistically, however, the cost of materials per unit
weight would probably decrease as you increased the amount of the material that you were
buying in a single order, but we did not include this in our cost model.
Page 34 of 38

C) ​Case 1 vs. Case 2 Crossover:

We can see a clear crossover between the 2.008 Methods and the Additive Manufacturing
options between 600 and 800 yoyos (at about 700 yoyos). The graph is cut off at the top -- the
price for the 2.008 methods for 1 yoyo is on the order of $100,000 (as this involves buying all of
the necessary machinery), so for low volumes, it makes sense that additive manufacturing will be
much cheaper. Additionally this makes sense because the additive manufacturing does not
require the development of any infrastructure -- you’re outsourcing your parts to be made, so the
other company takes the upfront cost of machinery and tooling, and they are able to use their
business model of having a lot of different parts to print to lower the cost and spread the
machinery cost across many different parts. For case 1, the price decreases rapidly as production
volume increases, primarily because the cost of the machines and the tooling (in which the cost
of buying the mill, lathe, and HAAS are included) is now spread out across more yoyos. When
this machine and tooling cost spreads out enough (around 700 YYs), the 2.008 method becomes
more cost effective than additive manufacturing, which evens out to about $200/YY for
production volumes of 100 yoyos and greater.
Page 35 of 38

8. Amazon Comparison

The Amazon yoyo does not have any defects, other than a visible gate and ejector pins (no flash,
weld lines/flow line, or sink). The press fits are very tight, so the yoyo does not rattle and there
are no gaps between pieces. The yoyo is well-balanced and spins very smoothly. The colors are a
bit strange--the yoyo is a translucent off-white, which is not very appealing.

On the other hand, our yoyo has many more components, and thus more opportunities for
imperfect part fitting. There is a small gap between the two halves of the fish (sometimes almost
imperceptible, sometimes larger). Also, the four fish pieces often do not fit perfectly--they do not
always line up perfectly and do not always create a perfectly flat face. However, our fit of rice
into the base is very snug and consistently does not have a gap. Also, our press fits are all very
solid. Defect-wise, our yoyo is not much worse than the Amazon yoyo, with a visible gate and
parting lines of similar size. We do have a bit of visible dishing on the fish. Our yoyo is a little
harder to play with because we focused on aesthetics, not functionality, but it is mostly in
balance and spins smoothly. Our yoyo’s colors are excellent--they are bright and engaging. To
increase the quality enough to sell the yoyo for a similar price as the Amazon yoyo, we would
need to improve the fit of different parts. We could decrease the gap between the two fish halves
by making the press fit posts shorter and a little thinner, so they will press in farther. We could
make the four fish pieces fit together better by taking shrinking into account better and tuning the
mold until it produced parts that fit together perfectly. Finally, we could decrease the amount of
dishing by making thinner boss walls or moving the boss beneath the surface level of the rice.

The Amazon yoyo retails for $10*. If we could improve the quality of our yoyos, we could sell
them for a similar price because our yoyos are complex and have an interesting design. But
because our yoyo will probably never perform as well in tricks (the fishtail is visually fun but
makes the yoyo difficult to grip) we would aim to sell the yoyo for a little less than $10. A quick
look on Amazon shows that “performance” yoyos retail for about $10, but “aesthetic” yoyos for
kids are cheaper, from $2-$10, depending on complexity. Since our yoyos has quite a few parts
(instead of just plastic with a sticker) it would retail on the higher end of this, probably around
$8. If we use the Fulfillment by Amazon program, Amazon takes about 50% of the price, so
we’d need to make our yoyos for $4. However, if we want to make money on the yoyos--let’s
say we also want to have 50% be profit--then we’d have to make the yoyos for $2. According to
our findings for high-volume processes, we need to have a production volume of at least 316,000
yoyos per year.

*​https://shop.yoyoexpert.com/products/duncan-flying-panda-yoyo​ (could not find yoyo on

Amazon)
Page 36 of 38

Appendix
Here we include two of our cost calculating spreadsheets, one for Case 1 and one for Case 3.
There were calculations in other sheets as well, but we did not include those. To see both these
sheets and the sub-sheets to see all of our calculations, our spreadsheet can be accessed here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hQ6368y17gjpIHZSCn5rCEFiRzvB5z_C15mpNn4A6
HM/edit?usp=sharing
Case 3:
Page 37 of 38

Case 1: