DESIGN AND TESTING OF A COMPOSITE MATERIAL

UNDERWATER HOCKEY FIN

Mechanical Project 478 Final Report

Reynard Heath
19868197

Prof Albert Groenwold

2019

Department of Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering

Departement Meganiese en Megatroniese Ingenieurswese
Privaat Sak X1, Private Bag X1, Matieland, 7602
Tel: +27 21 808 4204 | www.eng.sun.ac.za
Plagiarism declaration
I have read and understand the Stellenbosch University Policy on Plagiarism and
the definitions of plagiarism and self-plagiarism contained in the Policy
[Plagiarism: The use of the ideas or material of others without
acknowledgement, or the re-use of one's own previously evaluated or published
material without acknowledgement or indication thereof (self-plagiarism or text-
recycling)].

I also understand that direct translations are plagiarism, unless accompanied by

an appropriate acknowledgement of the source. I also know that verbatim copy
that has not been explicitly indicated as such, is plagiarism.

I know that plagiarism is a punishable offence and may be referred to the

University's Central Disciplinary Committee (CDC) who has the authority to expel
me for such an offence.

I know that plagiarism is harmful for the academic environment and that it has a
negative impact on any profession.

Accordingly all quotations and contributions from any source whatsoever

(including the internet) have been cited fully (acknowledged); further, all
verbatim copies have been expressly indicated as such (e.g. through quotation
marks) and the sources are cited fully.

I declare that, except where a source has been cited, the work contained in this
assignment is my own work and that I have not previously (in its entirety or in
part) submitted it for grading in this module/assignment or another
module/assignment.

I declare that have not allowed, and will not allow, anyone to use my work (in
paper, graphics, electronic, verbal or any other format) with the intention of
passing it off as his/her own work.

I know that a mark of zero may be awarded to assignments with plagiarism and
also that no opportunity be given to submit an improved assignment.

Signature: ........................................................

Name: ................................................ Student no: ................................

Date: ................................................

i
Executive Summary

Executive Summary
Title of Project
Design and testing of a composite material underwater hockey fin.
Objectives

2.1 Design and construct two concept fins from a chosen composite material.

2.2 Test and evaluate the performance of each prototype fin.

Which aspects of the project are new/unique?

Two light weight prototype type blades featuring a unique blade shape
that were developed to be durable and strong.

What are the findings?

The two prototype fins survived the fatigue testing and video analysis
results seem to suggest the unique curve feature on the blade did
improve performance.

What value do the results have?

The unique design of the blade improves fin performance and the
fatigue testing proved that the fins are durable. The more strenuous
fatigue test allow for better testing and development for future projects.
If more than one student is involved, what is each one's
contribution?
---
Which aspects of the project will carry on after completion?
There are more designs that can be explored and tested. Future
projects can build on the current design and make further
improvements.
What are the expected advantages of continuation?
Designing improved foot pockets that generate more even more thrust
while maintaining durability.
What arrangements have been made to expedite continuation?
---

ii
ECSA Exit Level Outcomes

Table 1: ECSA Outcomes

ECSA Outcome Addressed in sections

ELO 1. Problem solving: Demonstrate competence to 3,4,5,6
identify, assess, formulate and solve convergent and
divergent engineering problems creatively and innovatively.
ELO 2. Application of scientific and engineering 4
knowledge: Demonstrate competence to apply knowledge
of mathematics, basic science and engineering sciences
from first principles to solve engineering problems.
ELO 3. Engineering Design: Demonstrate competence to 3,4,5,6
perform creative, procedural and non-procedural design
and synthesis of components, systems, engineering works,
products or processes.
ELO 5. Engineering methods, skills and tools, including 4,6
Information Technology: Demonstrate competence to use
appropriate engineering methods, skills and tools, including
those based on information technology.
ELO 6. Professional and technical communication: Project Proposal Progress
Demonstrate competence to communicate effectively, both Report
orally and in writing, with engineering audiences and the Preliminary Draft
community at large. Final Report
Oral Presentation
Project Poster
Communication with
suppliers
ELO 8. Individual, Team and Multidisciplinary Working: All aspects of the project
Demonstrate competence to work effectively as an
individual, in teams and in multi-disciplinary environments
ELO 9. Independent Learning Ability: Demonstrate 4,5,6
competence to engage in independent learning through
well-developed learning skills.

iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the following people for their support and contribution to
the completion of this project.

Professor Groenwold:

Thank you professor for your guidance throughout the project and providing me
with the necessary feedback and direction to deliver a project I can be proud of.

Laboratory and workshop technicians:

A special thank you to Mr C. Zietsman and Mr F. Zietsman for the friendly

support and help regarding the facilities and that were used for manufacturing
and testing of the fins. A special thank you also to Maurisha Galant, Juian and
Nhati for your friendly help and assistance throughout the project.

Le Roux Breytenbach:

A special thank your Mr. Le Roux for all your help with manufacturing the moulds
and fins. The skills and knowledge you taught me are invaluable and I will for
always be grateful to you.

Dean van Tonder and Joanne van Tonder:

A special thank you to you for opening your home to me and allowing me to test
for the period I needed to. You helped me in a crucial stage of the project and
the successful completion of the project is largely due to your kindness and
generosity.

Friends and family:

Finally a special thank you to my parents and my family for all the prayers and
emotional and physical support throughout this project. I am fortunate to be
blessed with you and appreciate all that you do for me. Special thanks as well for
all my friends as well supporting me when I needed an extra hand or just some
good conversation.

iv
Table of contents
Page

Plagiarism declaration ....................................................................................... i

Executive Summary .......................................................................................... ii

ECSA Exit Level Outcomes ............................................................................... iii

Acknowledgements......................................................................................... iv

Table of contents ............................................................................................. v

List of figures ................................................................................................. vii

List of tables ................................................................................................... ix

List of symbols ................................................................................................. x

1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background .............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Objectives ................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Motivation ............................................................................................... 1

2 Literature Study......................................................................................... 3
2.1 Composite Material ................................................................................. 3
2.1.1 Carbon Fiber ................................................................................ 3
2.1.2 Fiberglass ..................................................................................... 5
2.2 Fin Performance and Efficiency ............................................................... 5

3 Concept Generation .................................................................................. 8

3.1 Design Targets ......................................................................................... 8
3.2 Possible Solutions .................................................................................... 9
3.3 Evaluation of Existing fins ...................................................................... 10
3.3.1 Fins4u 'K8' Carbon ..................................................................... 10
3.3.2 WaterWay Nemo Fins ............................................................... 10
3.3.3 Mares Avanti Quattro Power .................................................... 11
3.4 Problem Definition ................................................................................ 11
3.5 Feasibility Analysis ................................................................................. 12
3.5.1 Blade Material ........................................................................... 12
3.5.2 Type of Foot Pocket ................................................................... 12
3.5.3 Blade Shape and Size ................................................................. 13

v
 3.6 Concept Fins .......................................................................................... 14

4 Design Procedure .................................................................................... 16

4.1 Analysis of a Composite Laminate ........................................................ 16
4.2 In-Plane Material Testing ...................................................................... 18
4.2.1 Specimen Preparation ............................................................... 18
4.2.2 Testing Procedure and Data Analysis ........................................ 19
4.2.3 Tensile Testing Results .............................................................. 20
4.3 Cantilevered Beam Calculation ............................................................. 21
4.4 Finite Element Analyses ........................................................................ 24
4.4.1 Assumptions .............................................................................. 24
4.4.2 Modelling Process ..................................................................... 25
4.4.3 Design One................................................................................. 26
4.4.4 Design Two ................................................................................ 28

5 Manufacturing ........................................................................................ 29
5.1 Mould .................................................................................................... 29
5.1.1 Material ..................................................................................... 29
5.1.2 Process ....................................................................................... 29
5.2 Fins ........................................................................................................ 31
5.2.1 Materials .................................................................................... 31
5.2.2 Process ....................................................................................... 31

6 Testing and Evaluation ............................................................................ 34

6.1 Deflection Test ...................................................................................... 34
6.2 Fatigue Testing ...................................................................................... 36
6.2.1 Experimental Setup ................................................................... 37
6.2.2 Results ....................................................................................... 39
6.3 Video Analysis........................................................................................ 40
6.3.1 General Velocity Profile ............................................................. 40
6.3.2 Profile Comparison .................................................................... 43

7 Conclusion............................................................................................... 46

8 Recommendations .................................................................................. 47

Appendix A Techno-economic Analyses ...................................................... 48

Appendix B CAD Drawings .......................................................................... 54

Appendix C Safety Reports.......................................................................... 57

9 References .............................................................................................. 69

vi
List of figures
Page
Figure 1: Different types of fiber orientation in composites: a) unidirectional; b)
random; c) bidirectional; d) multi-directional ...................................... 4
Figure 2: Forces Experienced by the Ankle Joint for Several Swimming Fins
(Guillaume Nicolas a, 2010) .................................................................. 6
Figure 3: Fins4U 'K8' Carbon Fiber Fins (Fins4, n.d.).............................................. 10
Figure 4: WaterWay Nemo Fins (Hockey Nemo Fins, n.d.) ................................... 11
Figure 5: Mares Avanti Quattro Fins (Avanti Quattro, n.d.) .................................. 11
Figure 6: Blade Shape ............................................................................................ 14
Figure 7: 3D view of Concept 1 .............................................................................. 14
Figure 8: 3D view of Concept 2 .............................................................................. 15
Figure 9: Composite Laminate ............................................................................... 16
Figure 10: Tensile Test Setup, 1) Instron Testing Machine; 2) 100 kN Load Cell; 3)
Test Sample; 4) Extensometer ............................................................ 19
Figure 11: Stress versus Strain Tensile Test Results .............................................. 20
Figure 12: Cantilever beam loading condition ....................................................... 21
Figure 13: Woven Structure of the Material (Merlin Barschke1, 2008) ................ 24
Figure 14: Applied Load Case (Merlin Barschke1, 2008) ...................................... 24
Figure 15: Idealized model ..................................................................................... 25
Figure 16: Draping pattern .................................................................................... 25
Figure 17: Boundary and Load Conditions Applied to Design One ....................... 26
Figure 18: Deflection Predicted by FEM Model Design One ................................. 27
Figure 19: Boundary and Load Conditions Applied to Design One ....................... 28
Figure 20: Deflection Predicted by FEM Model Design Two ................................. 28
Figure 21: Mould manufacturing with micro fiberglass strengthening ................. 30
Figure 22: Final moulds .......................................................................................... 30
Figure 23: Vacuum Bagging Process ...................................................................... 32
Figure 24: Rubber foot pocket ............................................................................... 33
Figure 25: Experimental Setup: 1) Quarter Bridge; 2) Strain Gauge; 3) Carbon
Fiber Fin; 4) Weights ........................................................................... 34

vii
Figure 26: PLC Flow Diagram ................................................................................. 37
Figure 27: PLC Wiring Diagram .............................................................................. 38
Figure 28: Fatigue Results Prototype 1 .................................................................. 39
Figure 29: Fatigue Results Prototype 2 .................................................................. 40
Figure 30: Fin Tip Velocity Profile of Prototype 1 .................................................. 41
Figure 31: Phase 1 .................................................................................................. 41
Figure 32: Maximum Deflection ............................................................................ 42
Figure 33: Phase 3 .................................................................................................. 42
Figure 34: Phase 4 .................................................................................................. 43
Figure 35: Velocity Profile of Each Fin ................................................................... 44
Figure 36: Projected Costs versus Actual Costs ..................................................... 50
Figure 37: Original Planned Schedule .................................................................... 51
Figure 38: Actual Project Schedule ........................................................................ 51

viii
List of tables
Page
Table 1: ECSA Outcomes ......................................................................................... iii
Table 2: Engineering Specifications ......................................................................... 8
Table 3: Morphological Chart .................................................................................. 9
Table 4: Recommended Sample Geometry from ASTM D3039 ............................ 18
Table 5: Tensile Testing Results ............................................................................. 21
Table 6: Fin Parameters and Condition under Design Loading ............................. 23
Table 7: Mould Materials ....................................................................................... 29
Table 8: Fin Manufacturing Consumables ............................................................. 31
Table 9: Deflection Comparison Prototype 1 ........................................................ 35
Table 10: Strain Comparison Prototype 1.............................................................. 35
Table 11: Deflection Comparison Prototype 2 ...................................................... 36
Table 12: Strain Comparison Prototype 2.............................................................. 36
Table 13: Mechanical Leg Components ................................................................. 37
Table 14: Transition Time Comparison .................................................................. 45
Table 15: Project Costs .......................................................................................... 48
Table 16: Capital Cost of Materials Purchased for Manufacturing ....................... 49
Table 17: Material Costs per Pair of Fins ............................................................... 52
Table 18: Labour Costs per Pair of Fins.................................................................. 53
Table 19: Testing equipment ................................................................................. 61
Table 20: Fatigue testing equipment ..................................................................... 66

ix
List of symbols
Area
Average stiffness matrix
Width of blade
Elastic modulus
Elastic modulus x-direction
Elastic modulus y-direction
Tensile chord modulus
Stroke Frequency
Shear modulus
Height of blade
Second moment of inertia
Length of blade
Characteristic length
Moment
Number of samples
Point load
Force at the ith data point
Stiffness matrix
Reaction force
Strouhal number
Standard deviation
Volume fraction
Horizontal speed
̅ Sample mean
Stress in the x-direction
Stress in the y-direction
Stress at the ith data point
Change in normal stress
Shear stress
Strain in the x-direction
Strain in the y-direction
Change in strain
Shear strain
Maximum deflection

x
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Underwater Hockey was invented by The British Navy in the 1950’s to keep their
divers fit and to improve their skills and ability to manoeuvre efficiently under
water. The game is played at the bottom of a swimming pool by two teams
consisting of six players each and the aim is to score a goal at the opposing
team’s end by shooting a puck into a goal tray using an underwater hockey stick.
Players are required to wear a mask, snorkel, headgear, fins and a protective
glove during playtime. As with any sport, players are always looking for a
competitive edge that will lift them above the competition and one way to
achieve this is by enhancing their gear. Players want to accelerate quickly and
maintain high speeds over short distances using the least amount of energy
possible and for these purposes the fins that they use play a major role.

The project proposed is the design, testing and evaluation of a composite

underwater hockey fin to enhance performance, increase durability and improve
comfort. The project was proposed in 2013 by the coach of the National Junior
Underwater Hockey team and builds on previous studies and will be undertaken
by Mr RJ Heath as part of Mechanical Project 488.

This document provides objectives, motivation and planning for the project. The
steps planned, expected costs and time scales are also outlined.

1.2 Objectives
As mentioned above, the aim of the project is to design a composite material
underwater hockey fin to enhance performance, increase durability and improve
comfort. The objectives are therefore to:

2.1 Design and construct two prototype fins from a chosen composite material.

2.2 Test and evaluate the performance of each prototype fin.

1.3 Motivation
Underwater hockey requires players to be agile and accelerate quickly while
maintaining high speeds over short distances. To achieve this players rely not
only on their own strength but also on the fins that they use. Hockey players
tend to prefer a short stiff fin, however most commercially available fins are
designed for the recreational scuba diver and are not necessarily suited for the

1
sport. Players have also found that their fins tend to break at the front of the
foot pocket after about a seasons use. This is typically due to the high strain that
the fins are placed under during play. The design and evaluation of prototype fins
in this project would therefore provide solutions to these problems and deliver a
fin specifically for underwater hockey usage.

2
2 Literature Study
For the design of a strong, durable and effective underwater hockey fin several
design considerations needed to be taken into account. Underwater hockey
players require fins that would combine speed and manoeuvrability as well as
comfort.

2.1 Composite Material

Two composite materials were considered for the design namely Carbon Fiber
and Fiberglass.

2.1.1 Carbon Fiber

Carbon Fiber is the composition of carbon atoms bonded together in the form of
long chains and is a very desirable material due to the properties it holds. The
material has a high strength to weight ratio as well as a high stiffness to weight
ratio. Carbon fiber can be purchased in a variety of different forms namely yarns,
weaves and braids and is therefore very useful for manufacturing of various
components (Bhatt & Goe, 2017).

A desirable property of carbon fiber includes the resistance of the material to

fatigue failure, however when the material does fail it results in catastrophic
failure usually without much warning. Tests have shown that fatigue failure is
unlikely when cyclic stresses coincide with fiber orientation. The material also
has good tensile strength meaning the material can withstand large forces before
yielding or failing and failure of the material is usually the result of excessive
strain. Carbon Fiber is also very resistant to corrosion and chemically stable and
the matrix in which the carbon fiber is imbedded in is usually the determining
factor for reaction to outside elements such as sunshine and other chemicals
(Bhatt & Goe, 2017).

The Anisotropic properties of carbon fiber makes it ideal for various loading
conditions under which components may operate and the fiber orientation plays
a significant role in the properties of the composite material. Fiber orientation is
mainly dependent on loading condition and four variations are often seen
namely bidirectional, random, unidirectional and multi directional as seen in the
figure below. (Alhashmy, 2012)

3
 Figure 1: Different types of fiber orientation in composites: a)
unidirectional; b) random; c) bidirectional; d) multi-directional

The unidirectional orientation provides the greatest strength when the load
applied is aligned with the fibers, its strength decreases however when loads are
applied in other directions and in those cases are more dependent on the matrix
material. The bidirectional orientation provides a lower ultimate strength but
provides additional strength in two directions. The more distributed the direction
of the fibers in the matrix, the lower the ultimate strength becomes, however
the properties become more uniform in all loading directions (Alhashmy, 2012).

Carbon Fiber components are usually subjected to cyclic loads and therefore it is
important to understand the fatigue load characteristics of the material. Various
studies have shown that the fatigue behaviour of composite materials are highly
dependent on stress ratio (minimum stress/maximum stress). Petermann and
Schulte observed that the damage evolution for ±45 angle-ply laminates
constructed with carbon-epoxy in tension-tension fatigue testing was dominated
by creep at high stress ratios and maximum stresses below the endurance limit
(Petermann & Schulte, 2002).

Defects in the composite material can occur during the manufacturing process as
well as in service. A common defect that occurs during the manufacturing
process is porosity in the material. Porosity occurs when small voids form in the
matrix material and is mostly caused by incorrect curing parameters in terms of
curing duration, temperature, pressure or vacuum bleeding of the resin. Porosity
levels need to be taken into account since they will affect mechanical
performance measurements of the material. Other defects due to manufacturing
can be fiber misalignment, both in-plane and out of plane, as well as poor bonds
at the skin-to-adhesive interface or core-to-adhesive interface. Service damage is
usually the cause of impacts. These can result in matrix cracking or delamination
of ply layers. Core crushing can also occur when impact energy is absorbed by
the core. The material usually returns to its original shape but with weakened
compressive strength (Smith, n.d.).

4
2.1.2 Fiberglass

Glass fibers are available in various forms and each possesses unique properties
which can be used for various applications. Common types of glass fibers include
A-glass, E-glass and S-glass. E-glass was originally developed to cover electrical
equipment but is now the most commonly used fiber glass material. E-glass is a
high strength and high electrical resistive material and used in various
applications ranging from aerospace to marine applications (TP Sathishkumar).

Fiber glass can be purchased in various forms such as longitudinal woven mat,
chopped fiber and chopped mat depending on the desired mechanical
properties. Various manufacturing processes can be used to manufacture
components from fiber glass such as hand lay-up followed by compression
moulding, dry hand lay-up and hot press technique to name but a few (TP
Sathishkumar). The fiberglass fabrics can easily be shaped inside of moulds and
are therefore ideal for manufacturing of complex components.

Similarly to carbon fiber, glass fibers have excellent properties such as high
strength, flexibility and stiffness. Fiber glass is however less stiff than carbon
fiber but is also far less expensive. The Fibers can also be laid up in various forms
such as bidirectional, unidirectional and random. Aramide et al, investigated the
effect of different fiber volume fractions of woven-mat fiber glass
reinforcements. The tensile strength, modulus of elasticity and elastic strain
increased as the glass fiber volume fraction increased, however the impact
strength decreased with an increase in volume fraction.

2.2 Fin Performance and Efficiency

Fins act as passive locomotor tools during swimming by increasing the speed of
progression and improving energy economy (Zamparo P, 2002). In order to
design an effective fin it is necessary to analyse what performance parameters
need to be evaluated for the design. Design considerations usually include
geometry, mass, density and stiffness. By adjusting these parameters various
performance characteristics can be accomplished. These performance
characteristics are however difficult to measure. The main difficulty in measuring
the performance of fins is distinguishing between the subject’s influence and the
mechanical influence of the fins (Guillaume Nicolas a, 2010).

Hydro mechanical efficiency is a common parameter used to measure the

performance of fins. Guillaume Nicolas a, used an automated system called
HERMES to replicate the swimming motion of a person in order to measure the
efficiency of various swim fins. The fins were tested for various Strouhal numbers

5
which is a dimensionless parameter controlling the formation of vortices in the
wake of a body.

Where is characteristic length, the stroke frequency and the horizontal

speed of the body. They found that optimal hydromechanical efficiency was
found for a range of Strouhal numbers between 0.3 and 0.45 and their study
concluded that this range depended mainly on the shape of the fin. They also
found that the stiffest blade induced the highest forces at the ankle joints and
that the less stiff fins induced lower forces at the ankle joints. They therefore
drew a hypothesis that the stiffness of the blade may be a governing factor for
the user’s comfort. Figure 2 shows the thrust generated by various swimming
fins with different stiffness’s and lengths that were tested and indicates that the
largest amount of thrust is generated in the downward phase as opposed to the
upward phase (Guillaume Nicolas a, 2010).

Figure 2: Forces Experienced by the Ankle Joint for Several Swimming Fins
(Guillaume Nicolas a, 2010)

Apart from hydro mechanical efficiency another parameter used to measure the
effectiveness of swimming fins is the energy cost of underwater swimming
measured in litres of Oxygen consumed per minute. In a study which evaluated
the performance of underwater fins using empirical tests (Pendergast) they
found that the energy cost of swimming had a negative correlation with fin
surface area but not with flexibility and that maximum speed was also negatively
correlated to flexibility. They also found that the type of material, winglets, split

6
vents or ribs alone did not influence the energy consumption of swimming. The
study tested various aspects of fin design namely drag versus efficiency, kick
frequency versus velocity, maximum thrust as well as body position.

Comparing drag and efficiency it was found that the more rigid fins had higher
drag than the less rigid fins and this was due to a greater kick depth. The kick
frequency of the less rigid fins was however higher due to the lesser kick depth
and therefore had a lower efficiency. The comparison revealed that in order to
minimise the energy consumption of swimming it was necessary to optimise kick
depth (rigidity) and kick frequency (efficiency). (Pendergast)

To measure the relationship between kick frequency and velocity the distance
covered per kick was analysed for each test fin. The maximum distance per kick
increased as a function of stiffness and at maximum velocity the distance per kick
also increased linearly with stiffness.

The study concluded that the more flexible fins needed to be kicked at higher
frequencies due to the lesser kick distance. The maximum velocity was therefore
limited by the distance per kick, which is related to thrust. The highest thrust was
generated by the stiffest fins as these fins covered the largest distance per kick.
When relating body position to the stiffness of the fins it was found that the hip
angle increased as the stiffness increased, due to greater kick depth and lower
frequency of kicks. (Pendergast)

A common characteristic in all the fins that were tested was that the thrust was
significantly reduced during the transition phase from the recovery stroke to the
power stroke and vice versa. During the transition phases the pressure gradient
between the attacking and leeward surfaces are lost and this reduces the
potential for forward propulsive thrust. Therefore to improve the performance
of a fin it is necessary to minimise the time taken during transition.

7
3 Concept Generation
3.1 Design Targets
Two main objectives of an underwater hockey player are to be fast and agile
during play. For these purposes the player would require a fin that is lightweight
yet strong therefore the use of a composite material for the design of
underwater hockey fins is ideal since these materials offer high strength to
weight ratios. To take other factors such as the shape, size and stiffness of the
fins, that also influence performance, into account it was necessary to create a
set of measureable engineering specifications. The specifications of table 2 were
used throughout the design procedure as parameters to design along and as
objectives that needed to be achieved during testing.

Table 2: Engineering Specifications

Client needs Engineering specifications

1. The fin must be light
weight.
2. The fin must be powerful.
3. The blade needs to be
durable.
4. The fin should be
comfortable during play.
5. Move efficiently.
6. The fin needs to be stiff.
Blade material + foot pocket < 1.8 kg per fin.
Each fin must generate 80 N of thrust.
Blade must survive 100 000 kick cycles without
significant fatigue.
Foot pocket dependant.
Blade length < 400 mm
Blade width < 210 mm
Maximum tip deflection of 180 mm.

The values in table 2 were derived from previous studies done on the project as
well as studies from section 2.2. The values from these sources were simply used
as a guideline and none of the values were directly used as a design parameter.

8
3.2 Possible Solutions
For the design of an underwater hockey fin there were various solutions that
could be analysed including blade material, type of foot pocket and shape of the
blade. The connection between the foot pocket and the blade was also
considered since this area is the common point of failure for composite fins and
the type of connection could possibly have had an influence on that aspect. A
morphological chart, seen in table 3, was created to map out possible solutions
that were considered.
Table 3: Morphological Chart
Function/means 1 2 3
Blade material

Carbon Fiber Fiber glass

Type of foot
pocket

Continuous Closed heel Open heel

Connection
between blade Continuous Screw set Adhesive
and foot pocket
Blade shape

Convex High aspect Flat

ratio

Table 3 indicates that only carbon fiber and fiber glass were considered as
materials. These two are the most commonly used commercial material for
diving fins and are within an allowable price range. The type of foot pockets were
seen from various existing fins as well as the type of connection.

9
3.3 Evaluation of Existing fins
The aim of this section was to evaluate existing fins by observing the blade
material, size, shape and general performance enhancing methods used by
commercial manufacturers.

3.3.1 Fins4u 'K8' Carbon

The Fins4u ‘K8’ blades in figure 3 are manufactured from carbon fiber and have a
total length (including the foot pocket) of 620 mm and a blade width of 240 mm.
The weight of a single blade is reported to be 0.63 kg per fin making it a light and
versatile fin. The fins are fitted with Pathos foot pockets by means of mechanical
bonding (screw set) and the fin has a predominantly flat shape at the tip. To
improve the performance of the fin, T-shaped edging has been added to improve
the flow of water over the fin. The tip is also covered as required to avoid injury
to other players (Fins4, n.d.).

Figure 3: Fins4U 'K8' Carbon Fiber Fins (Fins4, n.d.)

3.3.2 WaterWay Nemo Fins

The WaterWay Nemo fins are also manufactured from carbon fiber and come in
two options for blade length of 450 mm and 500 mm respectively. The fins can
also be purchased with three different stiffness options ranging from soft,
medium and hard. This makes it ideal for a larger range of players. The fin shape
is concave at the tip. The fins are fitted with purchased foot pockets and
presumably to increase the stiffness the edges of the foot pocket are attached
more to the center of the blade seen in figure 4 (Hockey Nemo Fins, n.d.).

10
 Figure 4: WaterWay Nemo Fins (Hockey Nemo Fins, n.d.)

3.3.3 Mares Avanti Quattro Power

The Avanti Quattro Power fins in figure 5 are not manufactured with a composite
material but with a rubber material. It is however a very popular fin amongst
players. The blade length is approximately 400 mm excluding the foot pocket
which is continuous on the blade with an adjustable strap. The tip of the blade is
convex and to enhance the performance of the fin Mares have inserted channels
to the tip of the blade which is said to maximise the generated thrust by moving
a larger amount of water for the same amount of effort (Avanti Quattro, n.d.).

Figure 5: Mares Avanti Quattro Fins (Avanti Quattro, n.d.)

3.4 Problem Definition

Composite material fins tend to break near the front at the foot pocket region.
Failure occurs due to excessive bending as the fin experiences fatigue. It could
however be argued that the discontinuity between the rubber and the composite

11
material is the main reason for failure and not necessarily the type of bonding.
The rubber at the front of the foot pocket is often times very rigid and it is
suspected that this strong rubber creates a pivot point. The rubber foot pockets
have tendons that attach to the blade and these tendons provide added
stiffness. As the fin is being used these rubber tendons lose strength and more
bending is experienced by the composite blade.

The argument is therefore that fatigue on the blade is accelerated when the
blade starts to bend around the rigid rubber until failure eventually occurs. By
using a softer rubber material for the foot pocket this may be avoided and the
use life of the fin extended. To reduce the possibility of stress concentrations
that may be formed by a screw set an adhesive bonding would also rather be
used.

3.5 Feasibility Analysis

To design a fin that will meet the specified design targets it was necessary to first
analyse existing solutions. New and unique designs could then be measured
against existing methods to determine their feasibility.

3.5.1 Blade Material

The blade represents the component of the fin that is attached to the foot
pocket and that generates the largest portion of thrust. Composite blades are
normally constructed with three different composite materials namely carbon
fiber, fiberglass and Kevlar. Composite materials are ideal for the design of an
underwater Hockey fin due to their high strength to weight ratio as noted in
earlier sections.

Kevlar is very expensive therefore it is rarely used as a blade material. Fiberglass

offers the least expensive choice but is however less preferred than carbon fiber.
The stiffness offered by carbon fiber is more than fiberglass and is therefore the
preferred material. A problem often faced with carbon fiber fins is their ability to
absorb shocks. Existing fins make use of rubber edging to aid shock absorbance
otherwise fiberglass offers a better solution as material.

3.5.2 Type of Foot Pocket

There are three main types of foot pockets namely continuous, closed heel and
open heel. The continuous foot pocket involves a design that directly integrates
the foot pocket and the blade and they are of the same material. To incorporate
a continuous foot pocket design on a composite material will be challenging from
a comfort and manufacturing perspective. The closed heel and open heel foot
pockets can be bought off the shelf and are made of rubber and they can be
screwed onto the blade or attached with an adhesive. Both designs have tendons

12
stretching from the base of the pocket that latch onto the blade when it is
inserted. These tendons direct water over the surface off the blade and prevents
excessive flow over the edges but also provide structural support to the blade.

If the tendons are not stiff enough then the blade may experience excessive
bending near the base that may cause failure. However if the tendons are too
stiff the fit of the foot pocket on the players foot becomes critical in order to
avoid foot fatigue. The closed heel foot pockets provide more stiffness from the
heel than the open heel design and if it fits correctly will enable the diver to
perform powerful strokes. The open heel designs are however often adjustable
allowing the player to loosen or stiffen the fit of the foot pocket as they desire
and should decrease the weight of the foot pocket due to less material.

3.5.3 Blade Shape and Size

Agility and speed has been mentioned to be major design aims for the composite
fins. Three possible designs for the blade tip are a convex shape, a concave shape
with high aspect ratio and a flat shape. The evaluation of existing fins in section
3.1 reveals that no particular shape is observed to provide a performance edge
and is mainly dependent on the choice of the manufacturer. A study conducted
by George V. Lauder et al, tested various foil shapes to determine whether any
specific shape held a distinct performance advantage. Amongst the shapes that
were tested were the flat shape and a concave shape. The results showed that
the flat shape delivered slightly more speed than the concave shape. There are
however other factors that influence the performance of a fin such as the length
and stiffness and the complex relationship between all these factors make it
difficult to identify one specific shape that performs best.

Observations made in nature are that many aquatic mammals and fish have
concave, high aspect ratio fins. It must be noted that these mammals and fish are
able to flap/kick at much higher frequencies than humans, therefore it may be
more beneficial for humans to have a fin that is shaped to displace more water
per kick. As discussed in section 2.2 the maximum velocity is limited by the
distance per kick, which is related to thrust, with a larger surface area the
distance covered per kick may be maximised.

13
3.6 Concept Fins
Two concept fins were proposed as possible designs. Each concept attempts to
address issues identified in section 2 and 3, but also to compare other common
fin characteristics.

Figure 6: Blade Shape

Each concept has a distinctive curve to the blade surface area. Pendergast
identified that fin performance can be improved by reducing transition time in
the kick stroke, the aim of the curve was therefore to reduce the transition time
between strokes. An added advantage could also be increased thrust in the
already more powerful downward stroke. Each concept also has the same blade
shape as in figure 6. There is no distinctive performance advantages identified
between different blade shapes, therefore the shape was chosen to increase the
blade area interacting with the water. In figures 7 and 8 the two concept fins that
were developed are shown.

Concept one:

Figure 7: 3D view of Concept 1

14
Concept two:

Figure 8: 3D view of Concept 2

The difference between concept one and concept two is an 18 degree bend in
the foot pocket region of the blade. The purpose of the bend is to better align
the fin with the swimmers body. The motivation for the bend was based on free
diving fins. Although the requirements are different for free diving, it was
decided to use the concept on an underwater hockey fin and determine if there
were any performance advantages to be gained. The blade section of the fins
were 300 mm and 200 mm in length and width respectively thus meeting the
requirements of specification 5 in section 3.1.

15
4 Design Procedure
In this section the process of creating a finite element model of each fin is
documented. A composite laminate was analysed with the chosen material
layup, material tests were then performed to determine necessary material
properties. To determine the required thickness of the fins, calculations on a
fixed cantilever beam were performed and finally with the attained information
a finite element analysis was performed on each of the concept fins.

4.1 Analysis of a Composite Laminate

Y

y
X

Figure 9: Composite Laminate

In the analysis of a composite laminate shown in figure 9, both the local co-
ordinate system (x, y) indicating the fiber orientation and the global co-ordinate
system (X, Y) indicating the applied stress system need to be taken into account.
A lamina has a modulus value of Ex in the x-direction and Ey in the y-direction and
corresponding Poisson’s ratios of vx and vy, therefore a lamina is considered to be
orthotropic. Rewriting Hooke’s Law into matrix form stress and strain can be
related as seen in equation (4).

{ } [ ]{ } (4)

[Q] Is called the stiffness matrix. To determine the stiffness of a lamina in the
global X and Y direction with fibers orientated at an angle of 0 and 90 to the
global direction a set of equations are derived from PP Benham.

16
 [ ] (5)
[ ] (6)
[ ] (7)
[ ] (8)

[ ] (9)
[ ] (10)
[ ] (11)
[ ] (12)

Where = (1-vxvy). Considering a laminate consisting of 10 layers stacked

bidirectionally at 0 and 90 the stiffness matrix of the entire laminate can be
determined with equation (13).

∑ (13)

Where vi is the volume fraction of material in the ith lamina. Since there are 5
layers of each the volume fraction for each direction is 0.5. Using equation (14)
the stiffness matrix can be computed.

[ ] [ ] (14)

Inverting matrix [A] to find [a], the Young’s modulus and shear modulus of the
entire laminate in the global coordinate system can then be determined with
equations (15), (16) and (17).

(15)
(16)
(17)

For a bidirectional laminate it is then clear from the values of a11 and a22 that the
Young’s modulus in the global X and global Y direction are equal.

17
4.2 In-Plane Material Testing
Structured material tests were conducted on Carbon Fiber samples to determine
the material properties under loading. The previous project had data on material
testing, however the results of the previous tensile test were inconsistent
therefore the tensile test was repeated. This section provides information
regarding the manufacturing of the testing samples, the testing procedure and
the analysed results. The tests were performed using instructions from The
ASTM D3039 Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Polymer Matrix
Composite Materials.

4.2.1 Specimen Preparation

The samples were prepared using bidirectional carbon fiber 200 GSM twill weave
fabric that was purchased from AMT Composites. For statistically significant data
The ASTM D3039 Standard requires that at least 5 samples are tested for a
specific fiber orientation. The standard provides specimen geometry
recommendations for specific fiber orientations and can be seen in table 4. The
Standard requires that all the test specimens have a constant rectangular cross-
section with a width tolerance of 1% and a length tolerance of 4%.

Table 4: Recommended Sample Geometry from ASTM D3039

Fiber orientation Width Overall length Thickness

[mm] [mm] [mm]
0 unidirectional 15 250 1
90 unidirectional 25 175 2
Balanced and symmetric 25 250 2.5
Random-discontinuous 25 250 2.5

Square cross sections were cut out of the carbon fiber fabric and 10 layers were
required to meet the recommended thickness. The layers were stacked on a
graphite plate that was treated with Ramwax release agent, each layer was then
covered with epoxy resin and a standard hardener before a single layer of
release film and bleeder material was added. The entire lay-up was then covered
with a vacuum film and sealed for leaks with sealant tape. The lay-up was placed
under vacuum and left to cure for 12 hours. Five samples were then extracted
from the finished plate using and angle grinder and finishing on the width and
length was done with sandpaper. The samples were accurately cut out against a
90 degree ruler that was securely clamped onto the plate and a work table. The
samples were measured to be thicker than expected at 3 mm, however, each
layer in a composite laminate experiences the same amount of strain and it was
decided to proceed with the test.

18
4.2.2 Testing Procedure and Data Analysis

The tensile tests were conducted using the 100 kN Instron electromechanical
5900 series testing machine provided by the University. The force was measured
using two 100 kN load cells and the strain was measured using an extensometer.
Five samples were tested in the 0° direction at a rate of 2 mm/min and
measurements were taken in 0.02 s intervals. The data was recorded in a text file
and exported to a Microsoft Excel spread sheet and analysed using Matlab. The
test setup is shown in figure 10.

3
4

Figure 10: Tensile Test Setup, 1) Instron Testing Machine; 2)

100 kN Load Cell; 3) Test Sample; 4) Extensometer

Equation (18) was used to calculate the stress at each data point where Pi is the
load at the ith data point in Newtons and A the average cross section in mm
Equation (19) is then used in turn to determine the tensile chord modulus of
elasticity where is the difference in the applied tensile stress and is the
nominal strain range which is 2000 provided by the standard.

19
4.2.3 Tensile Testing Results

The resulting stress versus strain plot from the tensile tests is shown in figure 11.
The results were more consistent than the previous year therefore the tests
were deemed to be successful. The gradient of the stress versus strain plot for
each sample was very similar as well as the region where failure occurred. Before
failure occurred the epoxy resin could be heard to crack and strands of fibers
were also visible until the sample eventually failed. The failure was brittle in
nature and failed according to a failure mode specified by the standard as LAT
which is lateral at the grip near the top.

Figure 11: Stress versus Strain Tensile Test Results

The sample mean and standard deviation was then calculated using equation
(20) and (21) respectively and tabulated as seen in table 5.

̅ ∑

√ ∑ ̅

20
 Table 5: Tensile Testing Results

Sample Number Modulus of Elasticity [GPa]

1 32.908
2 36.984
3 36.311
4 37.178
5 35.684
Sample Mean 35.813
Standard Deviation 1.728

The sample mean in table 5 is then the elastic modulus in the Global X-direction
and therefore also the global Y-direction as proved in section 4.1. A standard
deviation of 1.728 also indicates that the test results were very consistent.

4.3 Cantilevered Beam Calculation

To determine the thickness of the fin it is necessary to estimate the forces
experienced by the fin. Design target 6 in section 3.1 required that the fin tip
deflection be less than 180 mm for a design thrust of 180 N. Due to the rigid
connection between the foot pocket and the blade it is assumed that all the
deflection occurs across the blade surface area. To determine the thickness the
fin was modelled as a fixed end cantilevered beam. The fin was assumed to have
a constant rectangular cross section and the design thrust was implemented
using a representative point load. Figure 12 displays the loading condition as well
as the position of the point load.

𝑷
𝑙
B

A
𝐿

𝑀𝐴
𝑣𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑
𝑅𝐴

x
Figure 12: Cantilever beam loading condition

21
The Euler equation was applied to the beam in figure 12.

M represents the bending moment, E the elastic modulus determined in section

4.2 and I the second moment of inertia of the fin. Solving the moment equation
the bending moment is found in equation (23).

The bending moment at A is simply the product of the point load, P, and the
moment arm, , in equation (24) and the reaction force at A is also equal to the
point load P written in equation (25). The reaction moment and force in
equations (24) and (25) are then substituted into equation (23) to find:

Equation (26) is then integrated.

( )

Substituting in the boundary conditions, , then Equation

(27) is then further integrated. At , therefore . Equation (28)
then relates the deflection as a function of x along the length of the beam.

The maximum deflection is then determined by substituting in the full length of

the beam

22
Under the assumption that the fin has a constant rectangular cross-section the
second moment of inertia can be calculated as.

At this stage it is clear that there are two unknown variables, the thickness of the
beam and the deflection at B. The width of the beam was chosen as 200 mm and
the length 300 mm in order to meet design target 5 from section 3.1. The fins
were designed to develop a 180 N of thrust, assuming that the fin itself was
responsible for 75% of the thrust and that each fin delivered the same amount of
thrust, the load P was determined to be 67.5 N. To calculate the height a
deflection value was chosen and substituted into equation (31).

The tip deflection was chosen as 140 mm, which is within the required range
specified by design target 6 in section 3.1. In table 6 the fin parameters are
shown.

Table 6: Fin Parameters and Condition under Design Loading

Fin parameters
Length of the blade (mm) 300
Width of the blade (mm) 200
Height of the blade (mm) 1.74
Conditions under loading
Tip deflection (mm) 145

The height was calculated to be 1.74 mm. According to data from the supplier
approximately 8 layers would therefore be needed to meet the minimum
thickness requirement.

23
4.4 Finite Element Analyses
The exact conditions that the fin would experience during a kick cycle were
difficult to replicate and wasn’t the main objective of the project. The aim of the
finite element analyses was therefore to gain an estimate of how the fin would
react under the design loading conditions.

4.4.1 Assumptions

Assumption 1: The material behaves isotropic

Although carbon fiber is anisotropic material the bidirectional weave chosen for
the design was assumed to behave as an isotropic material. The composition of
the material in figure 13 is extracted from Merlin Barschke.

Figure 13: Woven Structure of the Material (Merlin Barschke1,

2008)
The force associated with a point load may create shear and tension forces inside
the laminate as in figure 14. According to Barschke in order to model these
forces with directional material properties in the x- and y directions, the
elemental coordinate systems would need to be straightened in a uniform
direction. The problem can be simplified by assuming that for fiber reinforced
materials with fiber orientations of 0 , 45 , 90 and 135 , the material has nearly
isotropic material properties in the xy plane (Merlin Barschke1, 2008).

Figure 14: Applied Load Case (Merlin Barschke1, 2008)

24
4.4.2 Modelling Process

The geometry for each fin was created using Autodesk inventor and was then
imported to the Siemens NX Nastran solver package where the finite element
models were created. A mid-surfacing tool was used to simplify the geometry
and reduce the computational time required. An isotropic material with an
elastic modulus of 35.813 GPa from the tensile tests, a shear modulus of 3404.70
GPa and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.1 (NJ Markram, 2018) was then created. The mesh
was then made with shell elements with a size of 1 mm. Figure 15 shows the
idealized model of concept 1. A smaller section reserved for the foot pocket was
created using a split body function, the boundary conditions would be applied
onto this section in later phases of the process.

Foot pocket
section

Figure 15: Idealized model

The next step was to create a laminate. The shell elements were replaced with
laminate elements and a global lay-up using a short hand method of [0/90]4s
was created and the layers were assigned a thickness of 0.22 mm. For the
laminate a woven solver was used to define the draping and figure 16 shows the
draping pattern of each layer.

Figure 16: Draping pattern

25
Once the draping pattern was completed the model was ready to continue to
simulation. As mentioned in section 4.4 the exact conditions experienced by the
fins during a kick cycle were difficult to replicate therefore simplifying conditions
were set in place. The properties of the rubber for the foot pocket and the exact
design of the foot pocket were still unknown at this stage therefore only the fin
blade was used for the simulation. The discontinuity between the foot pocket
and the blade does however normally create a very rigid connection therefore
user defined boundary conditions restricting the blade from movement in the x,
y and z direction were applied onto the foot pocket section. The blade was
restricted for rotation around the y and z-axis as well.

A previous project looked at replicating the deformation of a fin under loading

using a point mass. In section 4.3 it was found that for a pair of fins generating a
thrust of 180 N approximately 67.5 N is directly generated by a single fin itself.
This would correlate to a point mass of 6.88 kg. It was determined that later in
the design process the point mass could be tested using a G-clamp and adding
weights as necessary. Due to the curve on the surface of the blade it was not
possible to accurately replicate a load therefore an alternative method was
needed. Instead of modelling a point mass the design thrust was converted to
pressure across the surface of the blade. With a blade surface area of 54 414
mm2 a pressure load of 1.2 kPa was expected for 67.5 N of thrust.

4.4.3 Design One

Design 1 was modelled using the process discussed in section 4.4.2 and figure 17
shows the boundary conditions as well as the loading conditions that were
placed on the model.

Figure 17: Boundary and Load Conditions Applied to Design One

26
According to the design targets a deflection of no more than 180 mm was
desired. The results of the finite element analysis on design 1 indicated a tip
deflection of approximately 145 mm in figure 18. This value was within the
desired range therefore the process could proceed to manufacturing.

Figure 18: Deflection Predicted by FEM Model Design One

27
4.4.4 Design Two

The modelling process described in section 4.4.2 was once again used to create a
finite element model of design 2. The same boundary and load conditions were
applied onto the blade seen in figure 19 and the results were similar to those of
design one.

Figure 19: Boundary and Load Conditions Applied to Design One

A deflection of 116 mm over the load area and a tip deflection of 143 mm were
measured from the deflection results in figure 20. The deflection was within the
allowable range therefore the process could proceed to manufacturing.

Figure 20: Deflection Predicted by FEM Model Design Two

28
5 Manufacturing
5.1 Mould
5.1.1 Material

For specialised composite parts the mould is very important. The quality of the
mould directly influences the quality of the products that are manufactured
using the mould, therefore the process of manufacturing a mould is very tedious
and time consuming. Mould materials often include casting foams, polyurethane
foams or even other composite materials and the type of material and
manufacturing process of the final product is the determining factor for the
mould material. Certain composites such as pre-impregnated carbon fiber sheets
need to be manufactured at high temperatures for long periods of time and
require a mould material that can accommodate those manufacturing
conditions. The materials that were used for the manufacturing of the moulds in
this project are listed in table 7.

Table 7: Mould Materials

Materials
1. Polyurethane foam
2. Micro fiberglass
3. Woven fiberglass sheets
4. High density casting foam
5. Ampreg 30 resin
6. Ampreg standard hardener

5.1.2 Process

The first step in the manufacturing of the moulds was to create CAD drawings of
the final concepts in section 3.6 and the drawings can be viewed in appendix C.2
and C.3. The drawings were used to accurately replicate the desired shape by
shaping rectangular sections of polyurethane foam with sand paper to match the
shape of the drawings. Three identical sections were created and connected with
other small sections of the same foam. Another larger flat layer of foam was then
laid on top of the three shaped sections and pinned in place with needles and a
glue gun until the foam adopted the desired shape. Micro fiberglass was then
mixed with Ampreg 30 resin and hardener to form a thick paste. The paste was
applied onto the corners of the mould in figure 21 to serve two purposes, firstly
securing the mould in the desired position and secondly to add additional
strength.

29
The micro fiberglass was allowed to set over a 12 hour period and once the micro
fiberglass had set another flat layer of polyurethane foam was fixed with more
micro fiberglass paste to the bottom of the mould. Holes were then drilled into
the bottom layer and filled with high density casting foam. The casting foam was
necessary to prevent the bottom layer from caving in when placed under
pressure from the vacuum during manufacturing of the fins.

Figure 21: Mould manufacturing with micro fiberglass

strengthening

A wet lay-up was then performed on the top layer of the mould with two woven
fiberglass sheets. The fiberglass strengthened the top layer in order for the
mould to maintain a flat surface and improve the quality of the fin. During the
next phase the entire top surface was covered with another layer of micro
fiberglass paste and polished to complete the mould manufacturing process. The
polished micro fiberglass layer ensured a smooth surface finish. In figure 22 the
final moulds are seen.

Figure 22: Final moulds

30
5.2 Fins
5.2.1 Materials

There are several manufacturing methods for carbon fiber including wet lay-up
manufacturing, vacuum resin infusion and oven curing with pre-impregnated
carbon fiber. The most suitable method is determined by the type of component
as well as the complexity of the component being manufactured. For this project
a bidirectional carbon fiber twill weave was used to manufacture the fins. The
twill weave offered better drapability than a plain weave and therefore ensured
a better quality product. The consumables that were used for the manufacturing
of the fins are listed in table 8.

Table 8: Fin Manufacturing Consumables

Materials
1. Thin plastic sheet
2. Carbon fiber twill weave
3. Nylon Peelply
4. Bleeder material
5. Ampreg 30 resin
6. Ampreg standard hardener
7. Vacuum bag
8. Sealant tape
9. Neoprene rubber
10. Adhesive

The manufacturing process was similar to the process used in section 4.2 for the
manufacturing of the tensile test samples, however the Ramwax release agent
was replaced with thin layers of static plastic to save time and simplify the
process.

5.2.2 Process

The method that was used for the manufacturing of the fins was a combination
between a wet lay-up and vacuum resin infusion. According to supplier data a
single layer of carbon sheet with the correct amount of resin was expected to
have a thickness of 0.22 mm therefore 8 carbon fiber sheets were cut into
rectangular pieces of 500x250 mm each. The fin plastic layer was placed onto the
mould and held in position with masking tape. The Ampreg 30 resin was then
mixed with the hardener according to the ratio of 100:26 g as per instruction.
The epoxy resin was then draped onto each layer with a paint brush and roller as

31
would be performed with a wet lay-up. After each layer was applied and draped
with epoxy a single layer of nylon peelply was added on top and smoothened
with the roller. Two layers of bleeder material were applied to protect the
vacuum pump against sucking in the epoxy resin. The lay-up was then ready for
vacuum bagging. The vacuum nozzle was positioned near the edge of the mould
on top of the two layers of bleeder material. The excess resin could be more
effectively removed from the carbon fiber layers by positioning the nozzle onto
the bleeder material itself. The mould was placed inside a vacuum bag and
sealed with sealant tape. The vacuum pump was then switched on and a vacuum
pressure of 95 kPa was developed extruding all excess resin from the carbon
sheets. The vacuum pressure was maintained for a total period of 12 hours to
allow the epoxy resin to set and harden. The process is shown in figure 23.

Rectangular
layers placed Nylon peelply
on mould

Bleeder Lay-up under

material vacuum

Figure 23: Vacuum Bagging Process

32
After 12 hours the plates were removed from the moulds and an angle grinder
was then used to cut the profile of the fins out of the carbon fiber plate. The next
step in the process was to add a foot pocket onto the blades. The foot pockets
were manufactured with 4 mm thick neoprene rubber and attached onto the
blade with an adhesive. The neoprene rubber was much heavier than the carbon
fiber therefore in order to reduce the weight of the fin a simple single loop
design was used with 30 mm wide Velcro strips for an adjustable foot pocket.
When the foot was slid into the foot pocket the rubber would stretch and apply
pressure onto the bridge of the foot securely keeping the foot connected to the
blade. The final foot pocket is shown in figure 24.

Figure 24: Rubber foot pocket

During the manufacturing of fin 1 the final sheet of carbon fiber was damaged on
the work table surface and was not usable anymore. To prevent the epoxy resin
from hardening to much in the remaining layers only 7 layers were used for
prototype 1. The delay however still had an effect and the thickness of prototype
1 was 1.72 mm presumably due to the epoxy resin having set a bit. Prototype 2
had a thickness of 1.8 mm as predicted from supplier data. The final weight of
each prototype was 0.289 kg and 0.305 kg respectively for prototype 1 and
prototype 2 successfully meeting the design target of less than 1.8 kg.

33
6 Testing and Evaluation
6.1 Deflection Test
A simple experiment was performed to determine the accuracy of the finite
element models created in section 4.5. Strain gauges were attached onto each
blade near the foot pocket section to measure the strain in this area. The base of
the blade was then clamped onto a rigid surface to replicate the boundary
conditions used in the finite element models. Loads were added near the tip of
the blade, the blade deflection as well as the strain was then measured and
documented. Figure 25 shows the experimental setup that was used to record
the strains and measure the deflection.

1
2

Figure 25: Experimental Setup: 1) Quarter Bridge; 2) Strain Gauge; 3)

Carbon Fiber Fin; 4) Weights

The finite element model for prototype one needed to be modified for the tests
due to the problem that occurred during manufacturing. Once the geometry had
been changed, the same modelling process of section 4.4.2 was repeated and
the boundary conditions were replicated as close as possible.

34
The clamp that was used for the testing had a weight of 0.639 kg. The original
displacement due to the clamp was measured and then subtracted from each
value for more concise data.

Prototype One:

Prototype one had an average deflection difference of 5.954 mm and an average

strain difference of 132.20 mm/mm calculated from table 9 and 10
respectively. As mentioned in previous sections the boundary conditions largely
influence the data values obtained therefore larger differences between the two
sets of data may be a result of measurement errors.

Table 9: Deflection Comparison Prototype 1

Weight (kg) Deflection (mm)

Actual fin FEM model
1 49 42.11
2 75 67.08
3 95 93.63
4 116 119
5 135 145.59
Average Difference
(mm) 5.954

Table 10: Strain Comparison Prototype 1

Weight (kg) Strain (mm/mm)

Actual fin FEM model
1 716 650
2 1375 1173
3 1915 1759
4 2340 2318
5 2730 2945
Average Difference
(mm/mm) 132.2

35
Prototype Two:

Prototype 2 had an average deflection difference of 4.198 mm and an average

strain difference of 98.912 mm/mm as calculated in tables 11 and 12.

Table 11: Deflection Comparison Prototype 2

Weight (kg) Deflection (mm)

Actual fin FEM model
1 38 30.99
2 56 51.65
3 73 72.31
4 90 93.08
5 108 113.86
Average Difference
(mm) 4.198

Table 12: Strain Comparison Prototype 2

Weight (kg) Strain (mm/mm)
Actual fin FEM model
1 785.89
2 1485 1327.09
3
4 2350 2300.30
5 2720 2851
Average Difference
(mm/mm) 98.912

6.2 Fatigue Testing

Design target 3 in section 3.1 was to design a durable fin and the fins would be
classified durable if they survived 100 000 kick cycles each. A common fault with
composite underwater hockey fins are that they tend to break after about a

36
season’s use, by surviving the fore mentioned amount of kick cycles it would be
safe to assume that the fins would survive a season’s use.

6.2.1 Experimental Setup

In 2014 a mechanical leg, which mimics the kicking action of a person, was
designed to test prototype fins. The leg was used in the past for the development
of a fin to deliver maximum thrust as well as for fatigue testing. For this project
the leg was used to perform fatigue tests on the prototype fins as well as a video
analysis. Listed in table 13 are the components that were used during the fatigue
testing of the fins.

Table 13: Mechanical Leg Components

Components
Mechanical leg
SIMATICS S7-200 PLC
DC power bench
1/8” single solenoid valve
Pneumatic cylinder
Reed switches
Air compressor

The mechanical leg was operated using a SIMATICS S7-200 Programmable logic
controller, powered by a DC power bench set to 24V, with the SIMATICS STEP7-
Micro/WIN software package. The kicking sequence was achieved by using the
PLC flow diagram in figure 26.

Figure 26: PLC Flow Diagram

37
The leg was originally designed to operate with two pneumatic cylinders,
simulating the hip joint and knee joint movements respectively. According to
information from the previous project the leg was only able to achieve a kick
cycle speed of 2 kicks per second. Underwater hockey is a high intensity sport
and played at pace therefore a higher kick cycle speed was desired. To achieve a
higher kick cycle speed only one cylinder was used instead of both. The smaller
cylinder that simulated the knee movement was the only cylinder used and
although this didn’t exactly mimic a kicking action of a person it was a more
strenuous test on the fins.

DC Power
bench

2
111

Figure 27: PLC Wiring Diagram 1) Solenoid; 2)

Reed Switch; 3) Switch
In figure 27 the wiring diagram of the PLC is shown. A switch (I0.0) activated the
motion of the leg. Air was distributed to the cylinder by a 24 V DC 1/8” single
solenoid valve (Q0.0) and an air compressor. The two reed switches (I0.1 and
I0.2) were positioned onto the exterior of the cylinder. The reed switches were
used to control the range of motion of the kick cycles, by providing feedback to
the PLC regarding the position of the cylinder. When the cylinder activated a
reed switch the solenoid would switch the direction of the air flow to the
cylinder and continue to do so until 25 000 kick cycles were performed. After
25 000 cycles the fins were removed from the leg and tested for deflection.

38
6.2.2 Results

As mentioned after 25 000 kicks the fins were removed from the mechanical leg
and tested for the tip deflection. The deflection was tested using the same
method as described in section 6.1. Three 1 kg weights were used each time and
the G-clamp had a weight of 0.536 kg. The deflection of the clamp was
subtracted from each data point. In figure 28 there is a definitive trend in the
measured data, the prototype fin is seen to deflect more after each increment of
kicks. The change in tip deflection was approximately 11 mm after 100 000 kicks.
The prototype therefore did indicate signs of fatigue however the blade did not
fail and the foot pocket was still in a useable condition. The prototype therefore
met the requirement of design target 3 in section 3.1 by surviving 100 000 kick
cycles.

Figure 28: Fatigue Results Prototype 1

The same trend of prototype 1 is seen in the data of prototype 2. Prototype 2

also showed indications of fatigue but did not fail and although prototype 2 was
slightly thicker than prototype 1 the data also indicated an average change in
deflection of 11 mm after 100 000 kick cycles. The blade succeeded in meeting
the requirements of section 3.1, however the foot pocket experienced a tear and
would have failed had the test been continued past the allotted amount of kick
cycles. It is presumed that the failure occurred on prototype 2 due to larger
forces acting on the foot pocket, since the blade was stiffer. The fatigue testing

39
results of prototype 2 is shown in figure 29. It should be noted the data point at 2
kg and 75 000 kick cycles could be a measurement error.

Figure 29: Fatigue Results Prototype 2

6.3 Video Analysis

To evaluate the fins a video analysis was performed on each prototype fin to
determine if there were any noticeable performance advantages held by any of
the fins. A velocity profile of the fin tip was created for this purpose and the
velocity profile of each would also be compared with an existing commercially
available fin.

6.3.1 General Velocity Profile

The footage was taken during the fatigue testing and was analysed using Tracker
video software. Calibration was done using a measuring stick in line with the fin
and the tip of the fin was followed manually using a point mass for
approximately five kick cycles. Figure 30 displays the velocity profile of the y-
component of design 1. The kick cycle was broken down into four phases that
would be analysed.

40
 2

Figure 30: Fin Tip Velocity Profile of Prototype 1

Phase 1:

Figure 31: Phase 1

Phase one represents the transition from the upstroke to the more powerful
down stroke. The calf muscle is contracted in this position as the ankle joint
accelerates downwards. The velocity of the tip shown in figure 31 is

41
approximately 0 m/s and is therefore representative of the point where the tip
of the fin changes direction. Observation of the fin indicates that the bend across
the surface of the blade was maintained and the desired effect was achieved.

Phase 2 (maximum deflection):

Figure 32: Maximum Deflection

Although the tip of the fin changes direction during phase one, the maximum
deflection seen in figure 32 is achieved during phase two just before the tip
reaches its maximum velocity. By the time the tip has reached its maximum
velocity the ankle joint has changed direction once again and the tip starts to
slow down as it transcends into phase three.

Phase 3:

Figure 33: Phase 3

During phase three the tip of the fin is once again transitioning from the down
stroke into the up stroke. The tip velocity is again approximately 0 m/s in figure
33 representing the point at which the tip changes direction again. The calf
muscle is now extended and the ankle joint is accelerating upwards.

42
Phase 4:

During phase four the tip of the fin is moving upwards at a relative constant
velocity for a short period of time until the ankle joints changes direction once
again. The change of direction causes the tip of the fin to create a snap action
generating a short burst of acceleration before also changing direction. This
motion is seen to occur repeatedly over the measured period. The sequence of
the ankle changing directions is shown more clearly in figure 34.

Figure 34: Phase 4

6.3.2 Profile Comparison

In figure 35 the velocity profiles of each fin are shown and were very similar in
general form however there was one noticeable difference observed during
phase three. During phase three the tip velocity of design two seemed to stall for
a brief period. This was seen to occur during each of the five kick cycles that
were observed therefore it was assumed to occur on a constant basis. The
difference was too small to observe purely using eye sight and the period over
which it occurred was also very small therefore the impact this may have on the
overall performance was considered to be negligible. It was however necessary
to determine the cause of the difference.

43
 Figure 35: Velocity Profile of Each Fin

Another analysis was therefore performed on a pair of existing commercially

available Leader fins and the same observation was made but to a larger degree.
The Leader fins were however much stiffer than both of the prototypes
predominately due to the design of the foot pocket. Since prototype 2 was also
stiffer than prototype 1 it could be argued that the difference between the two
velocity profiles is due to the stiffness and not necessarily the design. The
average transition time between strokes was measured as the time between the
change in direction of the ankle joint and the tip of the fin for the kick cycles of
figure 35. The tip of the fin was considered to have changed direction when the
velocity profile passed through 0 m/s.

44
Table 14 shows the transition times of both prototypes as well as the transition
times recorded from the Leader fins.

Table 14: Transition Time Comparison

Fin Transition time (s)

Design 1 0.183
Design 2 0.167
Leader fin 0.158

Based on the results in table 14 the Leader fins have the better transition time
but are however, as mentioned, much stiffer and require far more energy to
achieve the same kick cycle speed. The difference between the transition time of
prototype 2 and the Leader fin is 9 ms. Based on this small difference it could be
argued that the curve on the blade surface did have the desired effect and does
in fact reduce the transition time. Further testing would however be required to
confirm if the curve shape does improve performance.

45
7 Conclusion
The main objectives of the project were to design, test and evaluate two
prototype fins from a chosen composite material that improve performance and
durability. This was done by first creating a list of engineering specifications in
order to guide the design process.

Two unique concept fins were developed by evaluating various existing

commercially available underwater hockey fins. A morphological chart was then
created to explore a range of possible solutions followed by a problem
identification section where a problem with current composite fins was
identified and addressed. Finally a feasibility analysis was performed to discuss
possible solutions further.

In section 4 the design procedure was documented. A composite laminate was

first analysed using fundamental mathematics followed by structured material
tests to determine material properties for the chosen material, namely carbon
fiber. The deflection experienced by a fin under loading was simplified by
assuming the fin behaved similar to a cantilevered beam with a representative
point load. By performing calculations on the cantilevered beam, keeping the
design targets in mind, the thickness of the blades was determined. A finite
element analysis was then performed on each fin to confirm the design
parameters and dimensions were correct before manufacturing proceeded.

There were three phases followed to manufacture the fins. A mould was
manufactured for each fin and then used to manufacture the fins. The final step
was to manufacture a foot pocket for the fin. Once manufactured the fins were
tested for deflection and compared to the finite element models. The process
then proceeded to fatigue testing of the fins. A mechanical leg designed during a
previous project was used to test the fatigue properties of the fins by subjecting
each fin to 100 000 kick cycles. Both prototype fins survived the fatigue testing
therefore were considered to meet the durability requirement.

A video analysis of the fins during a kick cycle was performed and compared with
an existing fin to determine if the curve on the blade surface held a performance
advantage. The results showed that the transition time between strokes seemed
to improve therefore achieving the desired effect.

The main objectives of the project were achieved in that two prototype fins were
successfully designed and tested, furthermore both of the prototype fins met all
the requirements set out in section 3.1 of this document.

46
8 Recommendations

For future projects it is recommended that attention be given to the

improvement of the foot pocket. A possible improvement could be the use of
straps to tighten the foot pocket over the bridge of the foot as is often seen on
gym bicycle pedals. This would ensure that the foot does not roll inside the foot
pocket which will allow the user to generate a lot more thrust. The foot pocket
can also be made more durable in this way. The blades could be made slightly
larger and even stiffer without increasing the weight by still incorporating a
simple foot pocket design as recommended. Every design project will feature
new and unique designs however the designs in this project could be useful to
the development of new fins for future projects.

47
Appendix A Techno-economic Analyses
A.1 Budget
The predicted cost at the beginning of the year was R223 700 and the total
project cost at the end of the project was R171 600. The junior engineer tariff
was set at R350 per hour and resulted in a total cost of R163 800. There were
unforeseen events that led to a slight delay in the material testing, the tests had
to be repeated therefore the process took longer than expected.

Table 15: Project Costs

Activity Junior Running Facility Capital TOTAL

Engineering costs use costs
Time
hours R R R R R
Literature 40 14000 100 0 0 14100
study
Concept 60 21000 0 0 0 21000
generation
Concept fins 60 21000 0 0 0 21000
Design 128 44800 500 600 800 46700
Procedure
Material 40 14000 500 600 800 15900
testing
Mathematical 8 2800 0 0 0 2800
model
Finite element 80 28000 0 0 0 28000
analyses
Manufacturing 60 21000 600 300 4500 23300
Mould 30 10500 300 0 400 11200
manufacturing
Fin 30 10500 300 300 1000 12100
manufacturing
Performance 100 35000 1100 100 0 36200
testing
Deflection test 8 2800 0 100 0 2900
Fatigue testing 80 28000 1000 0 0 281000
Video analyses 12 4200 0 0 0 4200
Final report 100 35000 100 0 0 35100
TOTAL 468 163800 2400 1000 4400 171600

48
Table 15 provides information regarding project cost for the junior engineer
tariff, running costs, facility use and capital costs. The capital cost in table 15 was
calculated from table 16 where the costs of materials purchased for the project
is shown.

Table 16: Capital Cost of Materials Purchased for Manufacturing

Item Quantity Price per Tax (R) TOTAL

unit (R) (EXCL)
RAM WAX - RUN IN 400ml TIN 1 80 12 80
RELEASE FILM 500-B28-P3/ 1 9.50 1.43 9.50
1.5/250/125C
VACFILM 200-O-50-0.9/250 2 30.5 4.58 61
SEALANT TAPE B1192 1 95 14.25 95
10X2MMX22.5M /22
AIRBLEED 100/1.8M X 50M 3 42 6.30 126
PEELPLY NYLON 85G/LTX/PS 2 25.10 25.10 50.20
1000MM
CARBON 200T/100 3K HSC 7 295 221.25 2065
AMPREG 30 RESIN (1 KG) 2 160 48 320
AMPREG 3X STANDARD 2 72.16 21.65 144.32
SHEET NEOPRENE 4mm CH 1 331 49.65 331
ADHESIVE 500ml SUPER 65 1 80 12 80
Other expenses - 1000 150 1000
TOTAL (R) 566.21 4353.02

Figure 36 provides a cost comparison for the actual project versus the projected
costs at the start of the project. In the early stages of the project more time was
spent on the concept generation due to frequent changes in the design in the
early stages. The design procedure also took more time than expected due to the
tensile test having to be repeated. This doubled the amount of time taken to
obtain material properties and consequently work on the finite element model
was delayed. Time was recovered during the manufacturing and testing of the
prototype fins. The manufacturing proceeded smoothly and by increasing the
speed of the kick cycles for the fatigue testing the time needed was nearly
halved. The projected cost for the project was approximately R223 700 and the
actual cost was R176400, therefore the final cost of the project was under
budget.

49
R60 000,00
R50 000,00
R40 000,00
R30 000,00
R20 000,00
Projected cost
R10 000,00
Actual cost
R0,00

Figure 36: Projected Costs versus Actual Costs

50
A.2 Project Schedule

Gantt Chart - Planned Activities

25-Feb 16-Apr 05-Jun 25-Jul 13-Sep 02-Nov

Literature study

Concept generation

Material selection

detail design and development

Construction of prototype fins

testing and evaluation of protype fins

Optimise and construct a final design

Testing and evaluation of final design

Compare results

Final report

Figure 37: Original Planned Schedule

Figure 38: Actual Project Schedule

Figure 37 and 38 shows the planned schedule and actual schedule respectively. The project
started later than planned and the lost time needed to be recovered later in the project. The
Gantt chart in figure 38 only represents the period over which the activities were performed. To
make up time certain activities could be overlapped. During the concept generation phase it was
possible to perform material tests that were part of the design procedure. Also when the
concepts were finalised the manufacturing of the moulds could also be done. The final report was
written over a period stretching through most of the project. It should also be noted that the
original activities proposed in the beginning of the year have changed as the project developed
further.

51
A.3 Technical Impact
The work done the previous year to repair the mechanical leg as well as provide
code for the PLC provided a good foundation for further work this year. The PLC
code and physical setup of the leg was changed to increase the speed of the kick
cycles and provide a more compelling test for fatigue. Future projects will
therefore be able to build on this testing and design fins that are even stronger
and more durable. The fins itself survived the fatigue testing and therefore will
last more than a season’s use. The video analysis revealed that a curved blade
does improve the transition time and while weighing less than commercially
used fins enhances the performance of the fin.

A.4 Return on Investment

There are two costs involved for the manufacturing of a pair of fins namely the
labour costs for physical manufacturing and the material costs. The material
costs are listed in table 17.

Table 17: Material Costs per Pair of Fins

Item Quantity Price per TOTAL/PAIR

used/pair unit (R) (R)
of fins
RAM WAX - RUN IN 400ml TIN 0.01 80 0.8
RELEASE FILM 500-B28-P3/ 0.25 9.50 2.375
1.5/250/125C
VACFILM 200-O-50-0.9/250 0.25 30.5 7.625
SEALANT TAPE B1192 0.05 95 4.75
10X2MMX22.5M /22
AIRBLEED 100/1.8M X 50M 0.3 42 12.6
PEELPLY NYLON 85G/LTX/PS 0.25 25.10 6.275
1000MM
CARBON 200T/100 3K HSC 0.35 295 103.25
AMPREG 30 RESIN (1 KG) 0.25 160 40
AMPREG 3X STANDARD 0.25 72.16 18.04
SHEET NEOPRENE 4mm CH 0.1 331 33.1
ADHESIVE 500ml SUPER 65 0.2 80 16
Other expenses - 300 300
TOTAL (R) 544.80

52
 Table 18: Labour Costs per Pair of Fins

Activity Duration (hr) Cost (R)

Mould manufacturing 8 140
Lay-up process 6 120
Vacuum bagging 24 100
Foot pocket 12 100
TOTAL 50 460

Combining the labour costs in table 18 per pair of fin with the material cost, a
pair of fins would cost approximately R1010 to manufacture. Most of the less
expensive commercially available fins are priced in the region of R2000 therefore
if the fins were to be sold at this price a profit of R990 is expected per pair of fins
sold. The process has potential to be simplified further in order to reduce costs
therefore there is potential for commercialisation.

53
Appendix B CAD Drawings

B.1 Tensile test specimen

54
B.2 Concept Blade 1

55
B.3 Concept blade 2

56
Appendix C Safety Reports

C.1 Silicon lab safety report

Silicon Laboratory
Student Safety Report
Date: 11 July 2019
Student: Mr. RJ Heath
Supervisor: Prof. A Groenwold
Head of Safety: Mr. C Zietsman

Contact Room no. Work no.

Mr Cobus Zietsman - 021 808 4275
Prof Groenwold 021 808 4028
Campus Security - 021 808 2333
Fire brigade - 021 808 8888
Ambulance - 021 883 3444

Carbon Fiber Sample Manufacturing

Signatures

__________________________
Lab Engineer: Mr. David Ellis

___________________________
Operator: Mr. RJ Heath

___________________________
Supervisor: Prof. A Groenwold

57
 ___________________________
Head of Safety: Mr. C Zietsman

Introduction

Carbon fiber test specimens are to be tested under a tensile load until failure.
The tensile test is performed for the purposes of obtaining material properties
for the evaluation of a FEA model. The purpose of this report is to outline the
risks and mitigating actions associated with the manufacturing process of the
carbon fiber samples. The equipment to be used, the personal and equipment
risks as well as the associated mitigating actions and correct procedures will be
outlined in this document.

Manufacturing

The carbon fiber samples are to be manufactured by means of a combination

between a wet lay-up and vacuum resin infusion. The samples will be made on a
graphite plate that has been treated with Ramwax release agent. Rectangular
layers will then be stacked and draped individually with Ampreg 30 epoxy resin
mixture. A layer of peelply will then be applied along with a layer of airbleed
bleeder material. The lay-up will then be sealed with sealent tape and a vacuum
bag and then placed under vacuum pressure and left to set for 12 hours.

Equipment

1. Vacuum Pump
2. Carbon 200T/100 3K HSC
3. Ram Wax release agent
4. Peelply
5. Vacuum film
6. Sealant tape
7. Airbleed
8. Ampreg 30 epoxy resin
9. Ampreg 30 3x standard hardener

58
General lab Safety

1. All equipment that has been used must be returned to its relevant storage on
completion of the testing session.
2. Any damage or equipment anomalies that are noted must be reported to the
relevant responsible person. Please report if something goes wrong irrelevant of
the cause as faulty equipment may lead to severe injuries of subsequent users.
3. Do not leave specimens in the lab. Specimen quality will degrade and it is bad
housekeeping. Storage solutions are provided in the form of sample cabinets.
4. No eating or drinking in the labs.

Risk Assessment

P = Personal

E = Equipment

Activity Risk Risk Mitigating steps

Type
Moving in the lab - Tripping over P/E - Be aware of
objects surroundings.
Hand lay up of - Skin/eye contact P - Avoid rubbing eyes
carbon fiber injuries after laying up layers
sheets - Flammable - Wear latex gloves.
substances - No open flames near
materials.
- Wear safety goggles
Operating the - Hand getting P - Avoid contact with
vacuum pump caught up in belt
rotating belt
Tidying lab - Tripping P/E - Be mindful of
- Cuts surroundings.
- Be wary of sharp
objects.
Lose cords and - Tripping over P/E - Be aware of
vacuum hoses cords or hoses surroundings.
Handling of sharp - Cuts P - Wear latex gloves
cutting tools - Handle with caution.

59
C.2 Tensile Test

Mechanical Testing
Laboratory
Student Safety Report
Date: 11 July 2019
Student: Mr. RJ Heath
Supervisor: Prof. A Groenwold
Head of Safety: Mr. C Zietsman

Contact Room no. Work no.

Mr Cobus Zietsman - 021 808 4275
Prof Groenwold 021 808 4028
Campus Security - 021 808 2333
Fire brigade - 021 808 8888
Ambulance - 021 883 3444

100 kN Instron Tensile Testing Machine

Signatures

__________________________
Laboratory Technician

___________________________
Operator: Mr. RJ Heath

___________________________

60
 Supervisor: Prof. A Groenwold

___________________________
Head of Safety: Mr. C Zietsman

Introduction

Carbon fiber test specimens are to be tested under a tensile load until failure.
The tensile test is performed for the purposes of obtaining material properties
for the evaluation of a FEA model.The purpose of this report is to outline the
risks and mitigating actions associated with the tensile testing that is to be
performed. The equipment used, personal and equipment risks as well as the
associated mitigating actions and correct procedures are outlined in the
document

Types of testing

The following equipment is available for use during the test.

Table 19: Testing equipment

Type of Test Equipment Student Signature

Tensile test MTS Criterion 44 Model C
Universal Testing Machine
Serial number: 05000076
Computer software:
Unilab
MTS LPS.304 force transducer
100 kN load cell
Serial number: 376349
Mess-& Feinwerktechnik
GmbH MFA25 extensometer

61
Geometry

Tensile testing

7 carbon fiber samples are to be tested for the material tensile and shear
properties. The data obtained from the testing will be used in a FEM analysis and
will assist in the design and construction of an underwater hockey fin.The test
will be conducted on a tensile testing machine provided by the University
(Stellenbosch). The deflection will be measured using an extensometer. The
samples will be manufactured by using prepreg carbon fiber hand-laid and cured
in an oven under vacuum. The standard will follow instructions outlied in the
ASTM D 3039 standard for testing on composite materials.

Equipment

1. 100 kN Instron electromechanical 5900 series

2. Extensometer
3. Carbon fiber samples

General lab safety

1. All equipment that has been used must be returned to its relevant storage on
completion of the testing session.
2. Any damage or equipment anomalies that are noted must be reported to the
relevant responsible person. Please report if something goes wrong irrelevant of
the cause as faulty equipment may lead to severe injuries of subsequent users.
3. Safety report must be visible at all times

62
4. No eating or drinking in the Structures lab
5. Closed shoes must be worn always

Risk assessment

P = Personal
E = Equipment

Activity Risk Risk Mitigating steps

Type
Clamping - Clamping hand - Be mindful of hand
specimen in the machine P/E placement.
- Over clamping - Do not excessively
of the specimen tighten the vice
grips

Operating the - Crushing hand P - Stand clear of

tensile testing machine during
machine testing.
- Be clear on location
of emergency
switch

Moving around in - Tripping over P/E - Be aware of

the lab objects surroundings.
Tidying lab - Tripping P - Be mindful of
- Cuts surroundings
- Be wary of sharp
objects
Fracturing of test - Pieces flying P - Wear protective
specimen into eyes glasses
Reversing the - Breaking of E - Be aware of the
testing direction specimen or emergency stop
machine - Double check
settings before
conducting test.
Extensometer - Damaging E - Ensure the
falling off equipment extensometer is
attached to a safety
chord.
Lose plugs - Shock P/E - Be aware of plug at
- Tripping all times
- Act with caution

63
 near plug

Conclusion
The tensile tests will be conducted keeping the above safety regulations in mind.
All equipment will be stowed away once finished and the station will be cleaned
when testing has finished. This document covers the use of the mechanical
testing laboratory. Task specific risks of personal injury and equipment damage
specific to the testing has been analysed and discussed with the lab technician.

64
C.3 Mechanical Leg

Mechanical Testing
Laboratory
Student Safety Report
Date: 11 July 2019
Student: Mr. RJ Heath
Supervisor: Prof. A Groenwold
Head of Safety: Mr. C Zietsman

Contact Room no. Work no.

Mr Cobus Zietsman - 021 808 4275
Prof Groenwold 021 808 4028
Campus Security - 021 808 2333
Fire brigade - 021 808 8888
Ambulance - 021 883 3444

Underwater Mechanical Leg

Signatures

__________________________
Laboratory Technician

___________________________
Operator: Mr. RJ Heath

___________________________

65
 Supervisor: Prof. A Groenwold

___________________________
Head of Safety: Mr. C Zietsman

Introduction
Carbon Fiber underwater hockey fins are to be tested for fatigue under cyclic
loading using a mechanical leg. The purpose of the test is to determine how
much fatigue the fins experienced after a 100 000 kick cycles.

Types of testing
The following equipment is available for use during the test.

Table 20: Fatigue testing equipment

Type of Test Equipment Student Signature

Fatigue testing Mechanical leg
Simatics step 7 PLC
24 V DC power source

Fatigue testing

Two underwater hockey fins are to be tested for fatigue. The fins will be placed
under a 100 000 kick cycles each by a mechanical leg. The difference in tip
deflection will serve as an indicator to the amount of fatigue the fins have
experienced.

Equipment

1. Mechanical leg
2. 2x Pneumatic cylinders
3. Simatics step 7 PLC
4. 2x solenoids
5. 4x reed switches

General lab safety

66
1. All equipment that has been used must be returned to its relevant storage on
completion of the testing session.

2. Any damage or equipment anomalies that are noted must be reported to the relevant
responsible person. Please report if something goes wrong irrelevant of the cause as
faulty equipment may lead to severe injuries of subsequent users.

3. Safety report must be visible at all times

4. No eating or drinking near the testing equipment

5. Closed shoes must be worn always

Risk assessment

P = Personal

E = Equipment

Activity Risk Risk Mitigating steps

Type
Moving heavy - Back injuries P - Do not attempt to lift
equipment - Losing balance P heavy equipment
- Accidentally P/E alone.
dropping - Be mindful of
equipment surrounding area.
- Carry less equipment
at a time when
moving equipment.
Operating the - Injuries from P - Stay clear of the leg
mechanical leg moving parts. when testing is taking
- Splashing E place
P - Protect all equipment
- Electrical shock P/E from splashing water
- Ensure wires are
waterproof and kept
- Loose parts clear of water.
- Ensure all parts are
secured properly.
Unsupervised - Individuals E/P - Place warning signs
Equipment messing with or restricting tape.
equipment
Idle equipment - Rust developing E - Do not leave
on equipment equipment in the
water for large
amounts of time.
Calibrating - Damaging E - Do not exceed
pneumatic equipment calibration limits.
movements

67
Conclusion

The fatigue tests are to be conducted keeping the above safety regulations in mind. All
equipment will be stowed away once finished and the station will be cleaned upon
finishing of the test. This document covers the use of the mechanical testing equipment.
Task specific risks of personal injury and equipment damage specific to the testing has
been analysed and discussed with lab technician. This document is to be used in
conjunction with the standards safe equipment procedures presented during the
equipment inductions.

68
9 References

Alhashmy, H. (2012). Fabrication of Aluminium Matrix Composites (AMCs) by

Technique Using Carbon Fiber as Reinforcement. (February), 1–83.

Bhatt, P., & Goe, A. (2017). Carbon Fibres: Production, Properties and Potential
Us
Aramide FO, A. P. (n.d.). Mechanical properties of a polyester fiber glass
composite. Int J Compos Mater.
Avanti Quattro. (n.d.). Retrieved from Mares.
Fins4. (n.d.). Fins4u 'K8' Carbon fins. Retrieved from Fins4u.
Guillaume Nicolas a, n. B. (2010). A
newsystemforanalyzingswimfinpropulsionbasedonhuman.
JournalofBiomechanics.
Hockey Nemo Fins. (n.d.). Retrieved from finswimworld.
J Schuster, Q. P. (2014). Processability of Biobased Thermoset Resins and Flax
Fibres Reinforcements Using Vacuum Assisted Resin Transfer Moulding.
Merlin Barschke1, D. U. (2008). Finite Element Modeling of Composite Materials
using Kinematic Constraints.
Pendergast, D. (n.d.). Evaluation of fins used in underwater swimming. Center for
Research and Education in Special Environments1.
TP Sathishkumar, S. S. (n.d.). Glass fiber-reinforced polymer. Journal Of
Reinforced Plastics And Composites.
Zamparo P, P. D. (2002). How fins affect the economy and efficiency of human. J
Exp Bio.

e. Material Science Research India, 14(1), 52–57.

https://doi.org/10.13005/msri/140109

Petermann, J., & Schulte, K. (2002). The effects of creep and fatigue stress ratio
on the long-term behaviour of angle-ply CFRP. Composite Structures.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-8223(02)00084-3

Smith, R. A. (n.d.). MATERIAL SCIEMCE AND ENGINEERING-VOL-III, Composites

Defecrs and Their Detection. III. Retrieved from
http://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c05/e6-36-04-03.pdf

69