Contents

Introduction: 4

Motivation: 4

Function: 4

Requirements: 4

Engineering Merit: 4

Success Criteria: 4

Scope of device: 4

DESIGN & ANALYSIS. 5

Approach: 5

Design Description: 5

Benchmark: 5

Performance Predictions: 6

Description of Analysis: 6

Scope of Testing and Evaluation: 6

Analyses: 6

Device Styling: 8

Devise Assembly: 8

Tolerances: 8

Technical Risks Analysis: 8

Safety Factors: 9

Operation Limits: 9

Methods and Construction. 9

Construction: 9

Drawing Tree: 10

Manufacturing Issues: 11

Testing Method: 11

Introduction: 11

Methods/ Approach: 12

Test procedure: 12

Lab testing procedure: 12

Real life testing procedure: 12

Compare data: 13

Budget: 13

Proposed Budget: 13

Outsourcing rates: 13

Labor: 13

Estimate of total project cost: 13

Funding source: 13

Project Schedule: 14

Human resources: 14

Physical Resources: 14

Conclusion: 14

Acknowledgements: 15

APPENDIX A- Analyses. 16

APPENDIX B- Drawings. 32

APPENDIX C- Parts List 39

APPENDIX E- Schedule. 40

Appendix F – Expertise and Resources. 41

APPENDIX G – Evaluation sheet 42

APPENDIX H – Testing Report 43

APPENDIX I – Testing Data. 44

Appendix J –Resume. 45

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Figures

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1a Split Board linking device. 5

Figure 2 Non Complete Assembly Rendering. 10

Figure 3 Drawing Tree. 10

Figure 4 Analysis 1. 15

Figure 5 Analysis 2. 16

Figure 6 Analysis 3. 17

Figure 7 Analysis 4. 18

Figure 8 Analysis 5. 19

Figure 9 Analysis 6. 20

Figure 10 Analysis 7. 21

Figure 11 Analysis 8. 22

Figure 12 Analysis 9. 23

Figure 13 Analysis 10. 24

Figure 14 Analysis 1. 25

Figure 15 Anakysis 12. 26

Figure 16 Material Properties Mat Lab. 27

Figure 17 Assembly. 29

Figure 18 Top View Toe Buckle. 30

Figure 19 Side View Toe Buckle. 31

Figure 20 Buckle Retainer 32

Figure 21 Toe Wire. 33

Figure 22Coupling Beam.. 34

Figure 23 Top View Coupling Beam.. 35

Figure 24 Coupling Beam Bottom View.. 36

Figure 25 Coupling Beam Sectional View.. 37

Figure 26 Side & Front View of Coupling Beam.. 38

Figure 27 Mounting Plate. 39

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction:

 

Motivation:

The motivation to design such a binding started with a prototype designed 2 years ago, this design was slow to clip boots in, heavy and prone to jamming. Therefor this concept of a binding system needs to be engineered to solve these issues.

 

 Function:

A device is needed to accept alpine touring ski boots using AT (Alpine Touring) ski binding so that it can be used on a split board. It must be adjustable for different size AT boots. It must be able to link the two halves of a split board together for structural soundness.  

 

 Requirements:

A device is needed that has the following:

 

< >This device must be under 600 grams for each binding.It must cost less than $500 to produce.It must not permanently deform during a 35 mph crash.  It must be adjustable from a size 10-12 US.Engineering Merit:

A calculation of the forces that will be present on the binding and fixture plates at 35mph and dropping from 15’ with a .5 second impulse and estimated mass of  must first be calculated using Impulse=Mass x total change in velocity). Then the design can be analyzed using the buckling “critical stress” equation  to establish the minimal amount of material needed. Establishing the minimal amount of material needed will also require finding an acceptable moment of inertia (resistance to bending).  Also finding the min. amount of material will require analyzing the stress concentrations present on the device using the equation  

 

Success Criteria:

A successful design will incorporate the requirements such as weight, production cost. The video with show this device taking a 15ft vertical drop with rider onto compact snow and sustain a 35mph crash on compact snow.

 

Scope of device:

            The scope of this effort is on the split board binding and it’s fastening components.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DESIGN & ANALYSIS

Approach:

Aspects of the device such as functionality, durability and weight are the major contributors to the design and are the primary objectives. Secondary objectives of the devise are to include safety, price and adjustability. With the primary aspects in mind an approach to the problem can be started such as designing. And with a design one can analyze this device with standard statics, and strengths calculations.

 

Design Description:

The device will be a split board binding that will have two pre fastened brackets for the split board system that will be angled enough to accommodate for boot angle. It will weigh less than 350 grams each. The binding will be adjustable from a US size 10-12 boot using fastening components using machined holes where a heel and toe wire will clip in at these sizes as seen in Figure 1a. Tolerances must be within +/- .005” due to AT boot fitment for vibrations such as split board chatter and responsiveness. Refer to Appendix B for Figure 1a individual part drawings.

 

 

Figure 1a Split Board linking device

 

Benchmark:

There are split board bindings that are AT ski boot adaptable, however they are not ultralight in design and do not accommodate for ski boot angle. The models on the market utilize a Dynafit Speed Turn 2.0 or other similar toe piece that would lighten the weight of each step taken since the Dynafit toe piece allows the AT ski boot to pivot without adding weight to each step. The closest production binding is the Spark R&D Dyno it weighs approximately .86lbs not including the mounting plates as seen in Figure 1. The goal is to design a binding that is not over built nor under built in terms of strength and yet still be lighter than the Spark R&D Dyno.

 

 

Figure 1 Benchmark standard

 

Performance Predictions:

This design will work and perform better than the benchmark designs due to the light weight and flexibility.

 

Description of Analysis:

The analysis will be segmented off these requirements: the amount of the stress provided by the rider, gear on the binding at 35mph crash with a .5 sec impulse and from a 15 ft vertical drop onto 2ft soft snow. The analyses will be where the binding mates to the mounting brackets. Analysis will be on the mounting surface between the split board top and the mounting brackets held by 2 M6 bolts with stainless steel washers. Analysis will be on the binding plate where the heel and toe wires tie into the coupling beam and on the buckle that clamps the boot to the coupling beam.

 

Scope of Testing and Evaluation:

The scope of the testing will be done by first assembly and fitment and then by testing using strain gauges and a mobile data logger on the rider while being used in a real world mountain decent. The test data will then be tabulated to see how much stress/strain has been put on the binding devise and its fastening components and evaluated on the criteria of actual results versus the calculated results.

 

Analyses:

The first analysis as shown in Figure 2 Appendix A is the total amount of force provided by the rider onto the binding. First an impact at 35mph with a .5 second impulse was calculated, since in a real life event unless hitting a solid concrete wall there would be a longer impulse time in which the force would be slightly dissipated through the softness of the snow, rider and shock absorbed by the split board. Since this device will be in conditions where it is critical it can take a harsh crash miles and possibly days away from a repair shop the goal is to emphasize an impact in the worst case scenario of a .5 second impulse. The impulse force is.

 

The second analysis as shown Figure 3 is finding the impact force from a 7.5ft drop off a cliff into 2 feet of powder with an impulse of .5 seconds due to the velocity going forward and the board surface area on the snow spreading out the weight distribution as well as the human legs acting like a dampener much like a spring under pressure. The impact force is  .

 

The third analysis as shown in Figure 4 is finding the cross sectional area of the mounting plates. There are 4 mounting plates total with equal distributions of weight and force. The calculated cross sectional area was  however due to machining capabilities and calculation uncertainties the actual cross sectional area will be

 

The fourth analysis as shown Figure 5 is of finding the required thickness at the section AA in the Figure. There are two supporting cross sectional areas. The material for use is Aluminum 7075 T6 Aluminum. Due to a combined loadings multiple calculations of bending and shear were used. However there will be more stress on the ends of the mounting plates so there will be a stress concentration at .2in from the edge. The calculated area was based by using .2in length know of area to solve for thickness. The resulting thickness is .1875in/ 2 sections gave a required thickness of .09375in.

 

The fifth analysis in Figure 6 is of finding the cross section thickness at BB in the figure. Much like the fourth analysis this was a secondary analysis to back up the calculations of section AA with different solving techniques. The resulting cross sections were at BB to be .205in and at AA to be .1027in.

 

The sixth analysis in Figure 7 is to make sure the buckle at cross section B in the figure will not break having the dimensions of .25in x 1in in cross section. The analysis concludes that the buckle will not break at cross section B as the resulting stress is 1/10 of the yield of Aluminum 7075 T6. However this thickness will have geometry changes above the hinge point and will have to be welded so additional material will be needed in this process to control heat issues such as distortion and blow through.

 

The seventh analysis in Figure 8 is to verify that 3/16 diameter Stainless 410 rod will hold up to the shear points where they pivot in the coupling beam. The highest yield strength is 47 ksi on the toe wire and 45 ksi on the heel wire. As these calculations are at the extremes of the binding the alloy 410 Stainless Steel has a 45 ksi yield strength. There for 3/16” rod using 410 Stainless Steel will work.  

 

The eighth analysis in Figure 10 is to find the mounting angle at which the mounting plates should be machined. The angle was found to be 7.4 degrees.

 

 

 

 The ninth analysis in Figure 11 is to find the bending stress on the coupling beam.

The bending stress was determined using the flexture formula, the moment was determined then Solid works was used to compute the C value and inertial values to determine that the design was within the limits. The resulting bending stress from bending is 67 ksi and the yield strength of 7075 T-6 aluminum is 73ksi, therefor the design is within the limits.

 

Analysis ten was used to determine the clamping force to make sure a ski pole would be able to push it down to clamp the boots in place. A resulting force of 30.3 lbs. was determined to be acceptable.

 

Analysis eleven was used to determine the cross sectional thickness given the width was 1 inch. The resulting thickness was based on a safety factor of 3 and was determined that a thickness of .165” thick would be sufficient. The formula used was the flexture formula in determining the resulting stress of 70 ksi at the cross section BB in the analysis.

 

Analysis 12 was used to determine what cross sectional thickness would work at the hinge point. This was determined using a stress concentration factor of 2.53 determined by the geometry changes at this cross section. Then the safety factor was multiplied by the flexture formula to obtain a stress number of 31ksi determining that this buckle will not fail at this pivot point.   

 

 

 

 

Device Styling:

The shape of the devise is of functionality and meeting the requirements. Physical appearance has nothing to do with the design besides the color it will be anodized to be.

 

 

 

 

 

Devise Assembly:

 

Tolerances:

Of primary issue when designing is stacking tolerances as the stacking of the tolerances, if the tolerances are too tight parts will not fit and if too loose parts will not function as intended.

 

Technical Risks Analysis:

Risks involved in the manufacturing of this device will be the machining of the part since more than likely it will be machined from Titanium which is financially risky since this material is so expensive to purchase and machine. Machining is usually done with coated carbides since, however this can be minimized using HSS (high speed tool steel) for such a low run number of parts. The first batch of parts will be machined from aluminum to dial in the manufacturing since it is readily available and it is cheap compared to that of titanium.

 

Safety Factors:

The safety factors are by the component rather than that of the system. Pieces such as the retaining pin will have a safety factor of 2 due to wear and spikes in pressures causing fatigue while the rest of the components will have a safety factor of 1.5 since they will experience less fatigue and wear. I chose 1.5 due to the fact that if this design fails there is an increased risk of injury for the rider and increase risk the rider may not be able to get out of the mountains.

 

Operation Limits:

Limits of the devise will be the size of the ski boot size 10-12 US. The type of impact the binding will experience will be limited to impacts of 732lbs per binding and to 15ft vertical of drop onto 2ft of soft snow. Temperature limitations are to -30 Celsius as at this point other factors such as the split board’s construction will be compromised.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Methods and Construction

 

Construction:

This devise is composed of 22 total pieces not including fasteners. The 11 pieces will complete one coupling beam assembly of the two needed. The split board binding is composed of 11 pieces: Part # C1 (Coupling Beam), Part # T1 (Tow wire), Part # B3 (Toe Buckle), Part # B1 (Buckle Retainer), Part # B2 (Binding Pin), Part # H1 (Heel Wire), and Part # R1 (Retaining Rings). The fastening of C1 (Coupling Beam) is by means of part M1 (Mounting Plates). In Final assembly C1 will slide over M1 and retain it from movement once P1 (Locking Pin) is inserted thru C1 and M1 retaining holes.

 

The materials used by part number:

< >M1 TI AL6-4VB3 AL 7075 T6B2 Stainless Steel 410T1 Stainless Steel 410H1 Stainless Steel 410R1 Spring SteelC1 AL 7075 T6B1 AL 7075 T6 

 

 

 

Figure 2 Non Complete Assembly Rendering

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drawing Tree:

 

 

Figure 3 Drawing Tree

 

Manufacturing Issues:

Issues that will come up will be the tooling to manufacture the components on the 3 axis CNC Mill. These tooling issues may control the size of the end product as some dimensions may not be able to be cut by the mill such as inside square corners and some of the slots depending on the available tooling for the machine.

 

 

Testing Method:

Introduction:

Testing of the split board binding device will compose primarily of testing through the use of strain gauges to calculate the amounts of stress and strain on the devices to warrant it does not exceed the Titanium or Aluminums elastic limits causing permanent deformation or breakage. The strain gauges will be used for calculating torsion and axial loading and compression loading.

 

These strain gauges will be hooked up to a multiple channel data logger and be put through various tests using a hydraulic press with a psi gauge read out on it to calculate compressive forces axially. There will be two jigs made one for compressive force in the vertical Y axis and to test in the horizontal x axis. The data that is logged will be put into excel and plugged into conversion formulas using the resistance provided by the strain gauges. The final test will be what the actual amount of these forces is with a rider testing it on the mountain. There will be a comparison among the laboratory testing, rider testing and calculated analysis to fully analyze the design and functionality of the device.

 

Methods/ Approach:

The approach to this testing analyses will use the calculated perimeters to test verse the actual perimeters of torsion, stress, and strain found during laboratory testing and actual testing. Tools needed for analyses will include the following:

< >12 Strain gauges (Thin Film Type with Epoxy)Mobile multiple channel Data LoggerCalipersDouble acting Hydraulic press with PSI gauge2 roles of thin Nickle based wire to link strain gauges to data loggerSolder gun and Solder1oz of Epoxy8” of 6x6x.5” angle Iron for jig.Split BoardGPS capable of recording speedThe test environment will be both at room temperature and in the snow tested in the morning being the most stable of temperature between first light for 2 hours after or until the temperature changes by 3-5 degrees. The device will need one jig to test both vertical and horizontal loadings to the specified impact forces in Figure 1 Appendix A.

 

Test procedure:

Lab testing procedure:

< >Vertical Y axis testing:Load the AT Boot into the bindings and place the device with Jig 1.Load boot into press in vertical upright position and zero the data logger and record temperature.The testing with be in 50lb increments record to 850lb of force.Download data into excel and delete data logger. < >Horizontal X axis loadingLoad the AT Boot into the binding and place the device into Jig 1.Load boot in the horizontal X direction and zero the data loggerThe testing will be in 50lb increments with loading in the middle between the toe piece and the heel clip.Record to 400lbs of force. Download data into excel and delete data logger. 

Real life testing procedure:

< >Record temperature and verify 2ft of powder for 15ft vertical drop or 1ft and 7.5ft of drop.Assemble the Bindings into the puck plates and clip board together at the tipsZero the data logger and clip AT boots into bindings. Ride the split board aggressively and intentionally crash at 35mph with the GPS as a reference for speed.Ride off either a downhill cliff 15ft with 2ft of dry powder snow or 7.5ft and 1ft of powder snow. Download data into excel and delete data logger. 

Compare data:

Make graphs of strain gauge readings in lab vs real life testing and calculated results.  

 

 

Budget:

Proposed Budget:

The budget for this project will be under $500 not including labor or tooling costs. Refer to Appendix D for budget costs of parts and coatings.

 

 

Outsourcing rates:

Parts need anodizing which cost a minimum of $65. This is the only thing that needs to be outsourced.

Labor:

This product will have $0 of labor involved as the designer is a machinist and fabricator and all work is in house, besides anodize rates.

Estimate of total project cost:

The total cost of the project without donations will be in the ball park of $475.

 

Funding source:

           

Funding sources for this project are out of pocket, primarily composed of private and personal funding.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

            Project Schedule:

Out lined by the schedule in Appendix E the Gantt chart is the primary source of scheduling for the project to management. The schedule shows project completeness and hours needed to complete the projects design, analysis, rendering, and projected manufacturing of parts. The Gantt chart also keeps track of timing issues conflicts and deadlines in which the project must meet to be on track with the progress of this product. The total projected time for completion of the proposal is 59 days. Within the 59 day period scheduled to get the proposal done it will take  

 

Human resources:

Primary human resources are those found at the CWU Mechanical Engineering dept. for student development through engineering practices.

Contributors to this project have been: Dr. Johnson, Ted Bramble, Matt Burvee, Charles Pringle.

 

            Physical Resources:

            Hogue Laboratories on Central Washington University campus in Ellensburg WA.

 

Conclusion:

This project is expected to be a successful due to design requirements such as weight, manufacturability of the components and experience of the machinist making the parts.

 

The weight will make this design successful due the weight reduction of this model of split board binding compared to that of the benchmark. Weight is of primary concern do to the alpine climbing style of today’s split boarder seeking the lightest gear on the market.

 

The manufacturability will also make this project a success due to the limited use of expensive and tough materials such as titanium and stainless steel. Aluminum is the primary metal used in terms of volume of material being removed due to the high level of machinability and time to remove material from stock.

 

 The experience of the machinist making the parts will make this project a success as he has 2 years of CNC programming and manual machining experience using CNC mills, manual mills, CNC Lathes and manual lathes. The Machinist is also an experienced fixture fabricator as he has 6 years of welding and fabricating experience.

 

Because of the weight and machinability of the product and the experience of the manufacture, this project is projected to be a success when completed in spring of 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

Acknowledgements:

< >Matt Burvee’s support regarding machinery and tooling.Dr. Johnson’s support regarding the metallurgy and senior project critique.Charles Pringle’s support for project and design critique.Central Washington Universities support for the shop use, machinery use, CAD program use. Ted Brambles support regarding help with CNC machinery and manual machinery and programming knowledge of CAD/CAM software.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A- Analyses

 

 

Figure 4 Analysis 1

 

Figure 5 Analysis 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6 Analysis 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7 Analysis 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 8 Analysis 5

 

 

Figure 9 Analysis 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 10 Analysis 7

 

 

 

Figure 11 Analysis 8

 

 

 

Figure 12 Analysis 9

 

 

 

Figure 13 Analysis 10

 

Figure 14 Analysis 1

 

Figure 15 Anakysis 12

 

Figure 16 Material Properties Mat Lab

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B- Drawings

 

Figure 17 Assembly

 

 

Figure 18 Top View Toe Buckle

 

 

 

Figure 19 Side View Toe Buckle

 

Figure 20 Buckle Retainer

 

 

 

 

Figure 21 Toe Wire

 

 

 

Figure 22Coupling Beam

 

Figure 23 Top View Coupling Beam

 

Figure 24 Coupling Beam Bottom View

 

Figure 25 Coupling Beam Sectional View

 

 

Figure 26 Side & Front View of Coupling Beam

 

 

Figure 27 Mounting Plate

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C- Parts List

 

< >Parts List:Split board                Part # SPLT1M6x6mm                  Part # F14)  Mounting Plates        Part # M1

2)  Heel Wires                 Part # H1

2) Binding Pins               Part # B2

2) Buckle                         Part # B3

2) Toe Wires                    Part # T1

4) Retaining Snap Rings  Part # R1

                        2) Coupling Beams         Part # C1

                          2) Buckle retainers        Part #B1

 

 

 

 

 

 

< >Cost and Substantive cost: 

Titanium Material Tial6

Source: WWW.Thomasnet.Com

$300

Hardware

Source: Fastenal

$30

Stainless Steel Rod

Source: Harvestco Fabricators

$10

Anodize (Including Shipping)

Source: Spokane Coatings

$75

Aluminum (Demo Model)

Source: Harvestco Fabricators

$40

Steel Angle Iron

Source: Harvestco Fabricators

$20

Total-

$475

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E- Schedule

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX G – Evaluation sheet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX H – Testing Report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX I – Testing Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix J –Resume

 

JARED VANPUTTEN

2904 N Airport Rd. Ellensburg, WA

Cell (509)760-8027 Email: Jradvanputten@gmail.com

 

 

 

Objective:  To obtain a Mechanical Engineering Technology Position.

Work History:

Nov 2013   Welder Fabricator, CAD Design

To                Harvestco Fabricators

Present       Ellensburg, WA

 

                Working here as a Welder and Fabricator as well as some Solid Works modeling and Auto CAD design.  Here I build hay equipment and fabricate and design for custom jobs involving forklift masts, hay clamping equipment. Everything is built in shop and machined in shop.  I have minimal machine experience running mills and lathes here as my position was as a welder.  Items to be made or fixed were made from blue prints and or orthographic drawings.  I was head of heavy metal fabrication, cast iron welding, on sight welding and painting.  Welding processes used include TIG, MIG, ARC, and FCAW on various ferrous and non-ferrous metals. Tools used for fabrication include; AIR ARC, sheet metal breaks, metal sheers, PLASMA cutters, propane and acetylene torches, Iron workers, hydraulic presses, porta graphs and much more.

 

< >Assembled Hydraulic systemsInstalled Hay squeezes Tig welded custom hydraulic cylindersRedrew preexisting AutoCad Files into Solid Works Models. Head Welder  

 

Jun 2011    Welder / Fabricator / Painter

To                 Western Metal Product

Apr 2013    Ellensburg, WA

 

                Fabricated and fixed structures, handrails, parts, equipment and maintained machinery.  Items to be made or fixed were made from blue prints and orthographic drawings.  I was head of heavy metal fabrication, cast iron welding, on sight welding and painting.  Welding processes used include TIG, MIG, ARC, and FCAW on various ferrous and non-ferrous metals. Tools used for fabrication include; AIR ARC, sheet metal breaks, metal sheers, PLASMA cutters, propane and acetylene torches, Iron workers, hydraulic presses, porta graphs and much more.

 

< >Head PainterHead of heavy metal fabricationObtained a 3g & 4g FCAW welding cert. 

 

Dec 2010   Welder/Fabricator

To                Central Washington University        

Jun 2011     Ellensburg, WA

 

                I was hired to assist both students and professors in the fabrication of metal objects.  This also included setting up student labs, CNC equipment. Job ended due to lack of government funding to school.

 

< >Successfully kept labs and equipment maintainedAided as help for students who needed advice in machining and weldingKept an accurate inventory 

 

EDUCATION

 

Sep 2010              Central Washington University

To                           Ellensburg, WA

Present                 Mechanical Engineer of Technology

 

I am currently a senior in my MET program at CWU, but plan to finish the program this year in 5 months. The program is both hands on and theory based. This program is a mix of CAD software, CNC equipment, physics, thermal dynamics, hydraulics, and chemistry.  I have taken the CNC programming courses as well as basic machining courses which is the course I want to take my career.

 

 

Sep 2006              Moses Lake High School

To                           Moses Lake, WA

Jun 2010               Obtained High School Diploma

 

Software Skills

 

Microsoft Word 2007 & 2010       G-Code Programming

Microsoft Excel                                    Master Cam

Microsoft Power Point

Auto CAD

Solid Works

 

References

 

Ryan Fletcher                                  Alonzo Galegoes                Matt Burvee                                       

Western Metal Product                Genie Industries              Central Washington University    

Ellensburg , WA                                Moses Lake, WA              Ellensburg, WA

(509) 760-8027                                   (509) 750-6482                   (509) 510-8616

 

Erik Duncan

Dave Duncan & Sons

Ellensburg, WA

(509) 607-0964