Material selection of shark resistant chainmail gloves based on best material for gloves and not mass production.

1. Material
Selection
for
Shark
Resistant
Chainmail
Gloves
By:
Zack
Davison
Cody
Potyczka
Juho
Vaittinen
Joel
Lappalainen

2.
Our
goal
was
to
create
a
high
quality
chainmail
glove,
specifically
geared
toward
scuba
divers.
This
product
is
mainly
to
protect
against
manageable
sharks,
which
would
be
up
to
6
feet,
which
one
could
come
into
contact
with
while
in
the
ocean.
The
goal
of
the
glove
is
keep
appendages
from
being
torn
off
or
removed
from
the
sharpness
and
abundance
of
teeth
that
sharks
have
in
the
event
of
a
shark
attack.
Our
target
demographic
is
chosen
based
on
people
that
are
part
of
dive
clubs,
since
only
experienced
and
serious
scuba
divers
have
a
real
need
for
a
product
such
as
this.
This
is
projected
to
range
between
148,000
to
482,000
divers
per
year
as
the
average
amount
of
people
who
become
certified
each
year
sits
around
500,000.
The
worldwide
population
of
divers
is
about
3
to
6
million.
The
quality
is
excellent
for
this
product,
which
only
means
that
the
cost
will
be
high,
but
also
worth
the
money.
Throughout
the
report
you’ll
find
the
material
that
we
selected
and
how
we
decided
to
choose
it.
These
gloves
can
be
fitted
to
the
user
in
a
small
variety
of
general
sizes.
(Courtesy
of
www.stephenfrinkphoto.com)

3. Benchmark
material
We
chose
304
stainless
steel
for
our
benchmark
material
because
it
is
most
widely
used
grade
of
stainless
steel
on
the
market.
It
has
excellent
corrosion
resistance
so
it
can
be
used
in
sea
water
conditions
and
has
excellent
forming
properties
to
bend
the
wire
to
the
desired
ring
form.
304
stainless
steel
also
has
great
welding
properties
to
keep
the
rings
together.
304
can
be
bought
for
about
$1.30
a
pound,
so
it’s
fairly
cheap
considering
the
quality
we
want
in
our
product.
We
decided
that
corrosion
resistance
is
a
priority
so
it
needed
to
be
excellent.
304
stainless
has
a
shear
strength
of
36.6
ksi
which
we
thought
was
a
little
more
than
we
needed
so
we
lowered
it
to
25
ksi.
The
wire
that
we
are
forming
is
only
1-­‐3mm
in
diameter,
which
makes
it
easy
to
bend.
304
stainless
has
a
40%
elongation
to
break
so
we
decided
to
lower
it
to
20%
because
the
wire
is
so
thin
and
we
are
using
a
machine
to
close
the
rings.
304
stainless
has
a
hardness
of
70
Rockwell
B
scale
but
we
placed
our
target
value
a
little
lower
because
it
was
more
than
we
needed.
Weldability
in
304
is
excellent
but
we
don’t
need
it
to
be
better
than
“good”
so
we
lowered
our
target
to
“good”
weldability.
Weight
for
our
product
was
somewhat
important
of
a
factor
and
304
stainless
has
a
density
of
0.289lb/in³
so
we
only
lowered
that
to
0.250lb/in³.
The
304
stainless
wire
has
a
yield
strength
of
31,200
psi
which
is
much
more
than
what
we
needed
so
we
lowered
that
to
20,000
psi.
Our
final
factor
was
cost,
which
wasn’t
that
important
because
our
product
was
meant
to
be
high-­‐end
shark
resistant
gloves
which
are
sold
to
mostly
experienced
divers
because
of
their
reliability
to
resist
shark
attacks.
The
304
stainless
is
fairly
cheap
so
we
decided
to
increase
the
price
to
$2,500
per
ton
to
put
higher
quality
metals
in
the
mix.
The
304
stainless
steel
wire
we
chose
is
used
to
manufacture
a
similar
glove
so
it
our
choice
will
be
fairly
close
to
that
or
better.

4. Manufacturing
Process
Start
with
coiled
wire
from
supplier.
The
diameter
can
range
from
1
to
2.3
mm.
Place
the
end
of
the
wire
into
the
former
(smooth
bar
with
a
hole
through
it
and
crank
on
the
end)
and
wrap
tightly
around
and
together
until
the
former
is
full.
The
former
can
range
from
2-­‐5
mm
and
dictates
the
inside
diameter
of
the
ring.
(Mandrel
Courtesy
of
metalsmithing.wonderhowto.com)
The
rings
are
then
joined
Remove
the
coiled
up
wire
from
the
together
by
way
of
a
“4
in
1”
former
and
cut
through
all
of
the
coils
pattern
where
1
ring
has
4
so
that
the
rings
are
all
open.
attached
to
it.
A
ring
mesh-­‐joining
machine
squeezes
the
(Ring
mesh
joiner
Courtesy
of
Azon.com)
desired
ring
together
and
welds
it
at
the
same
time,
which
is
controlled
by
the
operator
as
well
as
the
pace
of
the
work.

5. Material
Screening
Matrix
304
Stainless
Characteristic
Import
Benchmark
Target
(Property)
Rating
Corrosion
10
Resistance
Shear
9
(1/2
UTS)
Formability
7
(Ductility)
Abrasion
Wear
7
(Rockwell
B)
Weldability
6
Weight
(Density
4
lb/in3)
Bending
(YS)
3
Cost
2
($
per
ton)
Marine
Grade
Aluminum
Value
Pure
Grade
Austenitic
Titanium
Stainless
Steel
Matl
Ind.
Matl
Ind.
Matl
Ind.
Value
Value
Rate
Score
Rate
Score
Rate
Score
Good
Excell.
Excell.
10
100
Excell.
10
100
Good
7
70
36600
25000
21000
5
45
25000
10
90
37500
10
90
40%
20%
22%
10
70
20%
10
70
55%
10
70
70
Rb
65
Rb
44
Rb
4
28
70
Rb
10
70
95
Rb
10
70
Excellent
Good
Good
10
60
Fair
6
36
Excell.
10
60
0.289
lb/in3
.250
lb/in3
.096
lb/in3
10
40
.163
lb/in3
10
40
.291
lb/in3
5
20
31200
20000
21000
10
30
50000
10
30
30000
10
30
$1,000
$2,500
$1,500
10
20
25,000
1
2
$2,500
10
20
Overall
Score
393
Overall
Score
438
Overall
Score
430

6. Specific
Material
Matrix
Grade
1
Grade
2
Grade
3
Grade
4
Characteristic
Matl
Matl
Matl
Matl
Value
Value
Value
Value
(Property)
Rate
Rate
Rate
Rate
Corrosion
Good
2
Good
2
Excellent
4
Good
2
Resistance
Shear
17500
1
25000
2
32500
3
40000
4
(1/2
UTS)
Formability
25%
4
20%
3
18%
2
15%
1
(Ductility)
Abrasion
Wear
(Rockwell
B)
70
1
80
2
90
3
100
4
Weldability
Excellent
4
Excellent
4
Good
2
Good
2
Bending
(YS)
25000
1
40000
2
55000
3
70000
4
$25
3
$40
1
$30
2
Cost
$23
4
($
per
kg)
Gr1
17
Overall
Score
Gr2
18
Gr3
18
Gr4
19

7. Material
Chosen
We
chose
Pure
Titanium
Grade
4
as
our
winning
candidate
and
the
decision
was
very
close
between
the
four
different
grades.
Titanium
may
have
been
expensive,
but
since
it
wasn’t
a
cost
issue
but
a
performance
battle
with
strength
and
corrosion
resistance,
which
for
this
product,
titanium
is
excellent.
The
manufacturing
process
was
our
biggest
dilemma
in
choosing
our
material
because
titanium
is
so
strong
and
hard
to
form
and
weld,
but
pure
grade
titanium
is
much
easier
to
work
with
and
has
perfectly
adequate
qualities.
Prototype
Testing
Shark
gloves
are
not
intended
to
protect
the
user
from
getting
their
hand
bit
off
in
the
rare
case
of
a
fully-­‐grown
great
white
attack.
The
gloves
are
designed
to
protect
only
against
smaller
sharks,
and
the
gloves
would
mainly
protect
the
fingers.
The
shark
makes
it’s
damage
with
biting
in
two
ways;
first
there's
the
actual
impact
and
pressure
of
teeth
cutting
to
the
object
of
biting,
and
then
there's
the
back
and
forth-­‐type
of
movement
by
its'
jaws
it
generates
to
cut
through
the
flesh.
Product
testing
There's
basically
only
one
main
purpose
for
this
glove
to
fill
its'
required
function,
the
testing
of
this
glove
would
test
just
that
ability
–
ability
to
resist
a
shark's
bite.
The
ultimate
simulation
of
shark's
jaws,
the
shark-­‐bite-­‐machine
would
do
the
final
testing.
The
glove
would
be
put
onto
artificial
hand,
and
the
hand
would
be
put
into
the
machine.
The
machine
bites
the
jaws
together
and
moves
its'
jaws
back
and
forth
to
simulate
a
real
shark
bite.
The
idea
is
to
resist
the
penetration
from
the
teeth.
(Picture
from:
http://loadoutroom.com/wp-­‐content/uploads/2012/05/NTI-­‐LOADOUTROOM-­‐dot-­‐com-­‐e1335930849516-­‐
764x1024.jpg
)

8. Manufacturing
Testing
Although
the
method
of
manufacturing
will
have
a
reasonable
tolerance
for
the
rings,
there's
still
a
chance
that
the
rings
could
come
out
different
sizes
in
the
manufacturing
process.
Before
going
to
the
Ring
Mesh
Joining
machine,
the
metal
rings
would
be
tested
for
their
size
every
so
often
to
make
sure
they
are
similar
sizes,
which
determines
how
close
the
rings
stay
together.
The
closer
they
are
together
the
more
protection
from
teeth
they
will
give.
The
test
would
include
measuring
the
inner
and
outer
diameter.
There
would
be
a
pin
that
acts
as
a
go-­‐gage
that
all
the
rings
would
be
put
through
to
ensure
the
right
diametrical
size.
After
coming
from
the
Ring
Mesh
Joining
machine
and
before
going
to
the
final
product
test,
there
will
be
a
stretching
test
to
make
sure
the
welds
are
holding
up.
This
method
would
include
pulling
a
single
ring
in
separate
directions
until
destruction.
This
is
a
good
way
to
see
how
well
the
Ring
Mesh
Joining
machine
is
operating
with
its
welds.
Executive
Summary
Our
findings
have
shown
that
the
best
material
for
shark
resistant
chainmail
gloves
is
Pure
Titanium
Grade
4.
Although
Marine
Grade
Aluminum
and
Austenitic
Stainless
Steel
are
also
both
great
choices,
which
is
shown
in
our
matrices,
but
they
didn’t
quite
have
the
qualities
that
we
were
looking
for.
304
Stainless
Steel
was
our
benchmark
material
as
this
is
the
ideal
metal
for
this
material
based
on
cost
and
our
desired
properties.
We
wanted
a
higher
quality
material
so
we
cut
cost
out
of
the
equation
and
came
up
with
titanium.
It’s
lighter
and
stronger
and
has
great
corrosion
resistance.
Our
manufacturing
process
includes
buying
wire
by
the
coil
at
the
desired
diameter
and
creating
the
links
by
hand
with
a
simple
mandrel
machine,
which
will
save
money.
A
Ring
Mesh
Joining
machine
is
how
we
will
accomplish
“sewing”
all
of
the
rings
together
to
form
the
glove.
Our
projections
for
the
target
demographic
of
experienced
divers
is
somewhere
in
between
148,000
and
482,000
and
we
believe
this
process
will
suffice
for
the
amount
of
gloves
we
will
sell.
Lastly,
we
will
be
testing
the
product
during
the
manufacturing
process
and
after
the
product
is
finished.
The
manufacturing
testing
will
involve
testing
the
individual
rings
for
weld
strength
and
rigidity.
The
product
testing
will
involve
using
a
“shark
bite”
machine,
which
will
simulate
a
shark
latching
it’s
jaws
on
to
the
user’s
hand
and
seeing
how
the
overall
glove
stands
up
to
puncture
into
an
artificial
hand.

9. References
"All
About
Stainless
Steel."
Berkley
Point.
N.p.,
Web.
3
Dec.
2013.
<http://www.berkeleypoint.com/learning/stainless.html>.
"Charleston
Aluminum
Marine
Products."
.
Charleston
Aluminum,
LLC,
2013.
Web.
20
Nov
2013.
<http://www.charlestonaluminum.com/marine_products.php>.
"Ring
Mesh
Joining
Machine."
www.azon.com.
Azon
Corporation,
n.d.
Web.
3
Dec
2013.
"Titanium
Grade
1."
.
ASM
Aerospace
Specification
Metals
Inc.,
n.d.
Web.
19
Nov
2013.
<http://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MTU010>.
"Titanium
Grade
Overview."
.
Titanium
Specialists,
2013.
Web.
20
Nov
2013.
<http://www.supraalloys.com/titanium-­‐grades.php>.
"Titanium
and
Titanium
Base
Alloys."
.
Dynamic
Metals
International
LLC,
2005.
Web.
20
Nov
2013.
<http://www.dynamicmetals.net/titanium.html>.
Alibaba.com,
2013.
Web.
3
Dec
2013.
<http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/grade-­‐1-­‐
titanium-­‐sheet.html>.
Australian
Stainless
Steel
Development
Association
(ASSDA).
ASSDA,
Oct.
1996.
Web.
10
Nov.
2013.
<http://www.assda.asn.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=170
&Itemid=152>.
Blackwell,
Paul,
and
Trevor
Barker.
Butted
Mail:
A
Mailmaker's
Guide
4th
Edition.
Ed.
Robert
F.
John.
N.p.,
2
Apr.
2001.
Web.
10
Nov.
2013.
Nelson,
Bryan.
"Which
Shark
Species
Has
the
Strongest
Bite?."
www.discovery.com.
Discovery
Communications,
LLC,
21
Oct
2012.
Web.
3
Dec
2013.
Webb,
Brandon.
RDT&E
Look:
The
Neptunic
Combat
Multi-­‐Purpose
Glove.
N.p.,
2
May
2012.
Web.
3
Dec.
2013.
<http://loadoutroom.com/1979/rdte-­‐look-­‐the-­‐neptunic-­‐
combat-­‐multi-­‐purpose-­‐glove/>.