1. Nucor Tap-Hole Drill
Neda Safaeian, William Rogers-Durham, Peng Chith, Matthew Poppe,
Thusitha Galhenage

2.  Key Specifications
 Customer Attributes
 Shaft and Square End
 Bearings and Couplings
 Motor
 Base Frame
 Shroud

3.  Power
 480 Volts
 3 Phase
 60 Hz
 Weight: design needed to weigh
less then 4000 pounds
 Torque: the design should
produce 1000 ft-lbs
 Motor Power: motor needs to
produce 20 horsepower
 Operation Time: needs to be less
then 30 min
 Axial Force: withstand a peak
axial force of 9,000 pounds
 Radial Force: withstand a peak
radial force of 10,000 pounds

4.  Safe to Use
 Input Power
 480 volts
 3 phase
 60 Hz
 Nucor/American Made
 Easy to Build
 Operation Time < 30 min
 Portable via Zoom Boom
 Dead Man Switch
 Easy to Operate

5.  Axial load: 10000 Ib
 Radial load: 9000 Ib
 Torque: 12000 Ib.in
 Material Used: Steel 1045 cold drawn
 Yield Strength: 77 Kpsi
 Tensile Strength: 91 Kpsi

6. •Six 1045 cold drawn steel plates welded together
•Thickness ½’’
•Length 5’’, width 3’’, height 4’’
•Pin Diameter 1’’
•Chamfer wields
•Torque 12000 in-lb
•Axial force 9000lb
•Radial force 10000lb

7.  The first bearings to be
considered were pillow
block bearings
 Bearings were chosen with
respect to the main shaft
diameter and loadings on
the shaft

8.  The couplings served as
a connector for the main
shaft and motor shaft
 A key slot will be
machined on the inside
diameter to connect the
shafts

9.  The bearings chosen were
a pair of Dodge Type E
Tapered Roller Bearings
 This will accommodate the
2-7/16th inch shaft.

10.  The Kop Flex KD4 Single
Flex Size 153 was chosen to
join the main shaft with the
motor shaft

11.  Features:
 Two sized stepped
shaft
 Large portion hollow
 Thin outer wall to
thick wall at end
 Welded Drill Bit
 Hole on side for
material removal

12.  Features
 Similar to first concept
but with pinned drill
bits for easy
replacement
 Stepped drill head to
shaft connection

13.  Features:
 Single plate for end of
drill head
 Welded on drill bits
 Pin or bolt attachment
to drill head

14. Drill head Weight ~750lb
Torque 12000 in-lb
Axial forces 9000lb
Radial forces 10000lb

15.  Initial : Motor and no gearbox
 Simple
 Easier to build
 In line design
 Did not produce a sufficient
amount of torque for the
weight
 Secondary: Motor and build a
gearbox
 Complicated
 Time consuming
 Designing
 Manufacturing
 Lack of quality
 Allowed for our own
configuration
Final Selection

16. COMPARISON OF MATERIALS
Tap Hole
Material
High Strength
Concrete
Low Strength
Concrete
Composition
(18%
Porous)
(Hibbler 7th
Edition)
(Hibbler 7th
Ed)
Al2O3 (%) 74.4 - -
SiO2 (%) 18.8 - -
Cu (%) 0 - -
Density (lb/ft^3) 165 148.608 148.608
UTS (Mpa) - - -
TYS (Mpa) - - -
USS (Mpa) 38 38 12
 Comparison of ceramic
materials made
 Used material properties of
a similar material to
determine the torque
necessary for drilling
 Determined that 808 ft-
lbs was necessary

17.  Final Design: Purchase Motor/Gearbox combination
 Power: 20 horsepower
 RPM: 105 RPM
 Torque: 1000 ft-lbs
 Weight: 347lbs
 Decided to use a motor and gearbox combination that
produced 1000 ft-lbs to make up for any mechanical
loses during drilling

18.  The following designs show our preliminary concepts and our
current design we have chosen and built

19. Version 1 Beta
Advantages: Relatively small
and light frame. Simple
design, easy to build, plates
could be optional and motor
assembly could be mounted
between supports, multiple
bolt mounting locations can
be supplemented to have an
adjustable drill angle
Disadvantages: Could have
clearance issues with zoom
boom due to short height,

20. Version 1
Advantages: Relative light
weight, Easy to model,
Vertical mountings to make
assembly simple
Disadvantages: Difficult to
build and maintain, Strength
depends on the quality of
the welding, multiple points
of high stress concentrations

21. Version 2
Advantages: Easier to build,
Simpler design, Angled for
aligning with tap hole
Disadvantages: Heavy,
Multiple areas with very
small stress, Could have
clearance issues with
furnace

22. Version 3
This version is nearly the
same as the previous version
except that the mounting
position is on the vertical
side of the base
Advantages: Easier to build,
Simpler design, Vertical to
avoid furnace clearance
issues
Disadvantages: Heavy,
Multiple areas with very
small stress

23. Version 4
Advantages: Eliminate many
weight issues with previous
designs at 550 lbs for only
the base
Disadvantages: Bearing
mount design is just a block
of metal, Strength highly
depend on quality and
placement of welds

24. Version 5
Advantages: Better bearing
mount design than the
previous version,
Comparably lightweight at
450 lbs of only the base,
Easy to build
Disadvantages: Strength
highly depend on quality
and placement of welds, Not
adjustable

25. Final Version
Final Design approved by
Chuck Minter

26. FEA simulation in
SolidWorks
Axial force: 9000 lbs
Torque: 12000lb-in
Radial force on square end:
10000lb in the X direction
Weight of the frame ~741 lb
Weight of the whole
assembly ~ 1900 lb
FOS: 1.5 in worst case
scenario

27.  Prevent all the dust and debris from getting into the motor and
the bearing.
 Material Used: sheet Metal (Thick: 0.035)

28.  Exposure to Real World Situations
 Utilizing Skills Learned in the Classroom
 Solid Works, Design Classes, Lab Classes
 Consulting Experienced Individuals
 Manage Time and Work as a Team
 Learn from Mistakes
 Design Process is a Learning Process