L17 - Tihanyi ECP Lecture MIE315 Feb 6 2014

Creating an effective Consulting Report

Deborah TihanyiEngineering Communication Program

February 6, 2014

Wednesday, 12 February, 14

Today, we’ll look at• Creating introductions

• Using graphics

• Elements of argument

• Getting to the point at every level

• Unpacking the rubric


What should an introduction do?



ContextBackground information necessary to understand

the problem

“Gap” or ProblemDefine the problem/

question(s) you’re trying to answer

How you’ll fill the gap or solution

Your approach to the problem/questions

Overview of report structure

How you’ll proceed in the document



ContextBackground information necessary to understand

the problem

“Gap” or ProblemDefine the problem/

question(s) you’re trying to answer

How you’ll fill the gap or solution

Your approach to the problem/questions

Overview of report structure

How you’ll proceed in the document

So how is this different from an Executive Summary?


Introductions vs. Executive Summaries

Introduction Executive Summary

Purpose Sets up the rest of the documentThe document in miniature: a

stand-alone part of the document

Audience All readers of the report Generally management

ContentProblem being addressed, how

you’ll address it (includes preview of structure)

All key information, with an emphasis on bottom line

Form

First section of body of report: paragraphs, might have further

subsections (e.g. functions, objectives, constraints)

Maximum one page, paragraphs, no section divisions


Using graphics• Should you use them?

• Where should they go?

• Why are graphics important?

• What types of graphics work for what types of information?


Matching types of graphics to engineering actions

Engineering Action Type of Graphic

Describe, Design, BuildIllustration• Schematic• Photograph

Determine, which implies Analysis & Comparison

Data Collation• Graphs• Tables• Charts

Apply, Use, Model Conceptual Visuals• Process Diagrams


Illustrative graphicA visco-elastic foam as head restraint material – experiments and numerical simulations using a biorid model

© Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0294 343 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 4

2002), the neck displacement criterion (NDC) (Viano andDavidsson 2001) and the bending moment My weredetermined. Recent work by Kullgren et al. (2003) andEriksson and Kullgren (2003) show that particularly theNICmax and the Nkm correlate well with the AIS1 neckinjury risk. For practical reasons, the sled tests could onlybe made at room temperature.

The head restraint of the seat is ring-shaped and cannotbe adjusted in height. The padding material is a standardpolyurethane (PU) foam. In a first set of tests, the PUfoam was replaced with the new VE foam while thegeometry of the head restraint remained unchanged. Thefabric cover of the head restraint was reused. Furthermore,tests with a modified design of the head restraint weremade. Thereby, the outer contour of the head restraintremained unchanged but the inner part was filled withfoam and the head restraint was thicker. Thus the headrestraint was no longer ring-shaped and the head to headrestraint distance was reduced by 15 mm.

Numerical simulation

To assess the protective potential of the new VE foam athigher changes of velocities than used in the sled tests, athree-dimensional mathematical model was developed(Figure 2). The simulation was based on a multi-bodysystem model using MADYMO software (TNO 2001)and consisted of the seat and a BioRID II model (Eriksson2002a,b). The geometry of the seat was derived from theseat tested in the sled tests. The seat base, the seat backand the head restraint are modelled as facet surfaces. Inaddition to the original head restraint, a version withthe modified shape as described above was generated(Figure 3). The material properties of the PU and the VEfoam were derived from dynamic testing (Schmitt et al.2003b) and included in the model. Properties of otherseat components like the recliner were obtained from thedynamic sled tests as well as from additional static tests.

To validate the simulation model, it was subjected tothe same crash pulse as recorded in the according sled

test. The validation was performed for both, the standardPU and the VE foam. Further simulations with a higherdelta-v than used in the sled tests were computed.Trapezoidal shaped crash pulses were obtained by scalingfrom the pulse used in the sled tests and resulted in delta-v values of 20 km/h, 30 km/h, and 40 km/h, respectively.

RESULTS

Sled tests

Results from the sled tests are presented in Table 1. TheNICmax values were slightly reduced when using visco-elastic foam in combination with the modified and thusthicker head restraint design. Keeping the geometric designbut changing the foam from PU to VE, reproduced theNICmax values. Similar results were observed for themaximum Nkm values. Replacing the foam only did notmuch influence the maximum Nkm value, but increasingthe head restraint thickness strongly did. However allmaximum Nkm values determined were below the proposedthreshold of 1.0.

As to be expected, the head contacted the head restraintearlier in time for the thick head restraint. The bendingmoment showed a strong reduction in flexion when usingthe thick head restraint; the extension moment was not

45.6°

B

36.00°

H

RRA

C

T4

T3

T2

P

B2

B1TT1

T12

T11D

Figure 1 Principle of the test set-up for the sled testsincluding the measurement targets on the seat and theBioRID dummy.

Figure 2 The three-dimensional numerical model representsa BioRID II and a car seat. The seat geometry and the postureof the dummy are similar to those used in the sled tests.

Figure 3 Numerical model showing the original head restraintgeometry (left) and the modified version that reduces thehead to head restraint distance (right).

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 14:54 26 February 2010

A visco-elastic foam as head restraint material – experiments and numerical simulations using a biorid model

© Woodhead Publishing Ltd doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0294 343 IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 4

2002), the neck displacement criterion (NDC) (Viano andDavidsson 2001) and the bending moment My weredetermined. Recent work by Kullgren et al. (2003) andEriksson and Kullgren (2003) show that particularly theNICmax and the Nkm correlate well with the AIS1 neckinjury risk. For practical reasons, the sled tests could onlybe made at room temperature.

The head restraint of the seat is ring-shaped and cannotbe adjusted in height. The padding material is a standardpolyurethane (PU) foam. In a first set of tests, the PUfoam was replaced with the new VE foam while thegeometry of the head restraint remained unchanged. Thefabric cover of the head restraint was reused. Furthermore,tests with a modified design of the head restraint weremade. Thereby, the outer contour of the head restraintremained unchanged but the inner part was filled withfoam and the head restraint was thicker. Thus the headrestraint was no longer ring-shaped and the head to headrestraint distance was reduced by 15 mm.


To assess the protective potential of the new VE foam athigher changes of velocities than used in the sled tests, athree-dimensional mathematical model was developed(Figure 2). The simulation was based on a multi-bodysystem model using MADYMO software (TNO 2001)and consisted of the seat and a BioRID II model (Eriksson2002a,b). The geometry of the seat was derived from theseat tested in the sled tests. The seat base, the seat backand the head restraint are modelled as facet surfaces. Inaddition to the original head restraint, a version withthe modified shape as described above was generated(Figure 3). The material properties of the PU and the VEfoam were derived from dynamic testing (Schmitt et al.2003b) and included in the model. Properties of otherseat components like the recliner were obtained from thedynamic sled tests as well as from additional static tests.

To validate the simulation model, it was subjected tothe same crash pulse as recorded in the according sled

test. The validation was performed for both, the standardPU and the VE foam. Further simulations with a higherdelta-v than used in the sled tests were computed.Trapezoidal shaped crash pulses were obtained by scalingfrom the pulse used in the sled tests and resulted in delta-v values of 20 km/h, 30 km/h, and 40 km/h, respectively.

RESULTS

Sled tests

Results from the sled tests are presented in Table 1. TheNICmax values were slightly reduced when using visco-elastic foam in combination with the modified and thusthicker head restraint design. Keeping the geometric designbut changing the foam from PU to VE, reproduced theNICmax values. Similar results were observed for themaximum Nkm values. Replacing the foam only did notmuch influence the maximum Nkm value, but increasingthe head restraint thickness strongly did. However allmaximum Nkm values determined were below the proposedthreshold of 1.0.

As to be expected, the head contacted the head restraintearlier in time for the thick head restraint. The bendingmoment showed a strong reduction in flexion when usingthe thick head restraint; the extension moment was not

45.6°

B

36.00°

H

RRA

C

T4

T3

T2

P

B2

B1TT1

T12

T11D

Figure 1 Principle of the test set-up for the sled testsincluding the measurement targets on the seat and theBioRID dummy.

Figure 2 The three-dimensional numerical model representsa BioRID II and a car seat. The seat geometry and the postureof the dummy are similar to those used in the sled tests.

Figure 3 Numerical model showing the original head restraintgeometry (left) and the modified version that reduces thehead to head restraint distance (right).


Fig. 1. Principle of test setup for sled tests [1] Fig. 2. Three dimensional numerical model representing BioRID II and car seat [1]


Illustrative graphic

! In-line mixing of powder and polyol! Foaming new foam! Adjusting the chemical formulation [27,29]

Other regrind technologies include impact disk mill,cryogenic grinding and extruder [27–29].

2.2. Re-bonding

Re-bonding is most widely used recycling processfor more than 30 years [18]. In the rebond process(Fig. 5), recycled foam flakes originating from flex-ible slab stock foam production waste are usuallyblown from storage silos into a mixer that consistsof a fixed drum with rotating blades or agitators,where the foam flakes are sprayed with an adhesivemixture. In rebonding we are able to achieve new

properties of PU i.e., higher density and lighterhardness [18].

In re-bonding of PU waste, to the 90.0% PUscrap, 10.0% binder (NDI) is added. Waste is shred-ded and mixed with binder, dyes can also be added,and the mixture is then compressed. Steam is pro-vided (Fig. 5) to complete the binding [18]. PUrecyclate granules used as filler in polyester mould-ing compounds and gives added toughness to mate-rial. Re-bonding yields a variety of paddingproducts, such as carpet underlay and athletic mats,from recovered pieces of flexible polyurethane foam.Flexible foam bonding utilizes foam pieces andadheres them together to make padding type prod-ucts (Fig. 6). The rebond process incorporates botha surprising amount of flexibility and a wide vari-ability in the mechanical properties of the final

Fig. 5. Schematic of flexible foam re-bonding [18].

Fig. 6. Rebonded foam: homogeneous distribution of the flake binder mixture [18].

680 K.M. Zia et al. / Reactive & Functional Polymers 67 (2007) 675–692

Fig. 3. Rebonded foam: homogeneous distribution of flake binder mixture [2]


Data collation

K U Schmitt, F Beyeler, M Muser and P Niederer

IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 4 344 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0294 © Woodhead Publishing Ltd

much affected. The maximum acceleration of the headand the T1 were decreased when using the VE foamcompared to the PU foam with the same design. Withrespect to the neck displacement criterion (NDC, Figure4), all foams were rated “good” with the VE made headrestraint performing slightly better than the PU made

and the thick head restraint clearly obtaining the bestresult.


The numerical model was validated using data from thesled tests performed with the original head restraint designfor both the PU and the VE foam. The acceleration of thehead, the first thoracic vertebra T1 and the pelvis as wellas injury criteria, like the NICmax, were determined. Table2 and Figure 5 present the results of the simulations incomparison to those of the sled tests. While the absolutevalues for the accelerations calculated correspond wellwith the results measured, the maximum T1 accelerationwas observed earlier in time in the simulation than in thesled tests. This difference in timing caused higher NICmaxvalues.

Subjecting the model to crash pulses that correspondto delta-v values of 20 km/h, 30 km/h and 40 km/h, theinfluence of changing the head restraint design and thepadding material was analysed. The results of thecomputation are presented in Table 3. It can be seen, thatthe use of VE foam instead of PU foam clearly reducesthe maximum head acceleration. The higher the delta-v,the larger the difference between the peak headaccelerations. However, as the maximum T1 accelerationand the timing of the occurrence of the maximumaccelerations do not alter much, the resulting NICmax valuesshow only small differences between head restraints ofthe different foams.

Additionally, the influence of increasing the headrestraint thickness was simulated. Figure 6 illustrates theeffect of using a thick head restraint at a delta-v of 30km/h. Due to the reduced head to head restraint distance,the head is accelerated earlier in time. For the VE foamthis initial increase is even more pronounced, because ofthe higher initial strength of the material. In general, thecomparison with the original head restraint design showsthat increasing the thickness reduces the maximum headacceleration significantly even if keeping PU as padding

Table 1a Results from the sled test experiments: head to head restraint distance, time of head contact, NICmax and Nkm max

Head restraint design, Distance Head NICmax Nkm maxfoam contact

[mm] t [ms] NICmax [m2/s2] t [ms] Nkm max [ms]

Original, PU 80 74 15.1 65 0.52 109Original, VE 80 70 15.1 63 0.56 106Thick, VE 65 62 13.4 63 0.24 101

Table 1b Results from the sled test experiments: bending moments

Head restraint design, My

foam max. flexion [Nm] t [ms] max. extension [Nm] t [ms]

Original, PU 25.9 106 6.5 147Original, VE 24.5 103 8.2 139Thick, VE 5.2 62 5.5 121

x (mm)

Acceptable

PUVE

VE, thickGood

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Excellent

20

10

0

–10

–20

–30

–40

NDC Omega vs. x

z (m

m)

x (mm)

Acceptable

PUVE

VE, thick

Good

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Excellent

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

–10

–20

–30

–40

Om

ega

(deg

)

Figure 4 Results from the sled test experiments: the NDCfor vertical distance (top) and for the head rotation (bottom).Increasing the head restraint thickness improved the NDCoutcome.

NDC z vs. x


Table 1. Results from sled test experiments: bending moments [1]


Data collation

severity.15,16 These costs include the monetary value ofthe loss of health plus all of the other costs resulting froma serious injury.

We used the published cost estimates,15,16 becausethey mirror the official values used in regulatory analysisby NHTSA but computed at a 3% rather than a 4%discount rate. They draw on data from 1992–1994 Civil-ian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Ser-vices data for physician and emergency department fees,1994–1995 data on hospital costs in Maryland and NewYork (the only 2 states where costs, not charges orpayments, were known), and 1987 National MedicalExpenditure Survey and 1979–1987 National Councilon Compensation Insurance data on the percentage ofcosts that occur !6 months postinjury.

The published estimates based short-term parentalwork loss on the assumption that the lowest paid parentwould stay home to care for an injured child on any daythat an adult with a comparable injury would not work.Information on the probability that an employed personwould lose work for a specific injury came from the CDS1993–1999. Information on the days of work lost perperson who lost work came from the US Bureau of LaborStatistics 1993 Survey of Occupational Injury and Ill-ness.17 Mean probabilities of work loss were estimatedfrom just those CDS records that had the relevant infor-mation, which frequently was missing. Sample size con-siderations drove the decision to pool several years ofCDS data. Long-term productivity loss by diagnosis wasbased on 1979–1987 National Council on CompensationInsurance Detailed Claims Information data on the prob-ability that injuries would cause permanent partial/totaldisability and 1997 Detailed Claims Information data onthe percentage loss of earning power for partially dis-abled injury victims.

The published estimates included a variety of otherdirect costs. Among them were emergency services, in-surance claims administration, legal and court costs, andworkplace disruption costs. These estimates used insur-ance data and data from previous NHTSA studies.

Following earlier studies,5,18 the published estimatesbased quality of life loss (QALY) on physicians’ estimatesof the functional capacity lost over time by injury diag-nosis and a systematic review of the survey literature onthe loss in value of life that results from different func-tional losses. These losses were costed based on a meta-analysis examining what people pay for small changes infatality risk and surveys on what they state they arewilling to pay. Recognizing that monetizing the value ofquality of life is controversial, we provide analyses withboth unmonetized and monetized QALYs.

The savings from booster seat use have 2 components:injury prevention and injury severity reduction. We val-ued injury prevention by multiplying the probability of aserious injury for a child aged 4 to 7 years who travelsbelted (.000704 annually) by the sum of booster seateffectiveness (59%) times the average cost per seriouslyinjured belted child estimated using the published unitcosts ($851 745). We valued severity reduction at 41%(100%–59%) of the difference in the average cost of aserious injury to a child in a belt versus a child in abooster seat ($851 745 vs $402 139). In compact form,the calculation was as follows:

Annual costs averted " 0.000704 # [0.59 # $851 745 $0.41 # ($851 745 % $402 139)]

RESULTSEach booster seat in use can avert $484 {0.000704 #[0.59 # $851 745 $ 0.41 # ($851 745 % $402 139)]} ininjury costs annually. The present value of savings over4 years is 3.8286 times this amount or $1854 (Table 1).The savings include $245 in medical spending, $161 inother resource costs, $433 in work losses, and QALYsvalued at $1015. The estimated net savings per boosterseat is $1824 ($1854 % $30). The benefit-cost ratio for abooster seat is 61.8 ($1854/$30). The savings in medicaland other resource costs from a booster seat exceed itspurchase price by $376. Thus, it offers net cost savingsof $348 543 per QALY. If parental time expenditures are

TABLE 1 Savings per Booster Seat From Injury Reduction and Cost-Benefit Ratios

Variable Not Including Installation, Maintenance,or Cost of Passing and Enforcing a Seat

Use Mandate

Including Installationand Maintenance

Including Installation, Maintenance, andCost of Passing and Enforcing a Seat Use

Mandate

Present value of savings per seat, $ 1854 1854 1854Medical spending 245 245 245Other resource costs 161 161 161Work loss 433 433 433Monetized QALYs 1015 1015 1015

Booster seat costs, $ 30 197 216Net savings per seat, $ 1824 $657 1638Seat costs per QALY saved, $ 27 809 182 614 199 780Net savings per QALY saved, $a 348 543a 193 738a 176 572a

Cost-benefit ratio 61.8 9.4 8.6a Booster seats and booster seat laws yield resource cost savings that exceed their implementation and maintenance costs. They offer net cost savings.

1996 MILLER et al by on February 26, 2010 www.pediatrics.orgDownloaded from

Table 2. Savings per booster seat from injury reduction and cost-benefit ratios [3]


Data collation

K U Schmitt, F Beyeler, M Muser and P Niederer

IJCrash 2004 Vol. 9 No. 4 344 doi:10.1533/ijcr.2004.0294 © Woodhead Publishing Ltd

much affected. The maximum acceleration of the headand the T1 were decreased when using the VE foamcompared to the PU foam with the same design. Withrespect to the neck displacement criterion (NDC, Figure4), all foams were rated “good” with the VE made headrestraint performing slightly better than the PU made

and the thick head restraint clearly obtaining the bestresult.


The numerical model was validated using data from thesled tests performed with the original head restraint designfor both the PU and the VE foam. The acceleration of thehead, the first thoracic vertebra T1 and the pelvis as wellas injury criteria, like the NICmax, were determined. Table2 and Figure 5 present the results of the simulations incomparison to those of the sled tests. While the absolutevalues for the accelerations calculated correspond wellwith the results measured, the maximum T1 accelerationwas observed earlier in time in the simulation than in thesled tests. This difference in timing caused higher NICmaxvalues.

Subjecting the model to crash pulses that correspondto delta-v values of 20 km/h, 30 km/h and 40 km/h, theinfluence of changing the head restraint design and thepadding material was analysed. The results of thecomputation are presented in Table 3. It can be seen, thatthe use of VE foam instead of PU foam clearly reducesthe maximum head acceleration. The higher the delta-v,the larger the difference between the peak headaccelerations. However, as the maximum T1 accelerationand the timing of the occurrence of the maximumaccelerations do not alter much, the resulting NICmax valuesshow only small differences between head restraints ofthe different foams.

Additionally, the influence of increasing the headrestraint thickness was simulated. Figure 6 illustrates theeffect of using a thick head restraint at a delta-v of 30km/h. Due to the reduced head to head restraint distance,the head is accelerated earlier in time. For the VE foamthis initial increase is even more pronounced, because ofthe higher initial strength of the material. In general, thecomparison with the original head restraint design showsthat increasing the thickness reduces the maximum headacceleration significantly even if keeping PU as padding

Table 1a Results from the sled test experiments: head to head restraint distance, time of head contact, NICmax and Nkm max

Head restraint design, Distance Head NICmax Nkm maxfoam contact

[mm] t [ms] NICmax [m2/s2] t [ms] Nkm max [ms]

Original, PU 80 74 15.1 65 0.52 109Original, VE 80 70 15.1 63 0.56 106Thick, VE 65 62 13.4 63 0.24 101

Table 1b Results from the sled test experiments: bending moments

Head restraint design, My

foam max. flexion [Nm] t [ms] max. extension [Nm] t [ms]

Original, PU 25.9 106 6.5 147Original, VE 24.5 103 8.2 139Thick, VE 5.2 62 5.5 121

x (mm)

Acceptable

PUVE

VE, thickGood

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Excellent

20

10

0

–10

–20

–30

–40

NDC Omega vs. xz

(mm

)

x (mm)

Acceptable

PUVE

VE, thick

Good

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Excellent

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

–10

–20

–30

–40

Om

ega

(deg

)

Figure 4 Results from the sled test experiments: the NDCfor vertical distance (top) and for the head rotation (bottom).Increasing the head restraint thickness improved the NDCoutcome.

NDC z vs. x


Fig. 4. Results from sled test experiments: head rotation. Increasing head restraint thickness improved NDC (neck displacement criterion) outcome [1]


Conceptual Visual

weight will be disposed (maximum) to landfill. Thepolyurethane industry is committed to meeting thecurrent needs of today without compromising theneeds of tomorrow. The continued development ofrecycling and recovery technologies [12–14], invest-ment in infrastructure necessary to support them,the establishment of viable markets and participa-tion by industry, government and consumers areall priorities.

Years of research, study and testing have resultedin a number of recycling and recovery methods forpolyurethanes that can be economically and envi-ronmentally viable [15]. The four major categories[16] are mechanical recycling, advanced chemical& thermo chemical recycling, energy recovery andproduct recycling (Fig. 1). Each method providesa unique set of advantages that make it particularlybeneficial for specific locations, applications orrequirements [12,13]. Mechanical recycling (i.e.,material recycling) involves physical treatment,chemical & thermo chemical recycling (i.e., feed-stock recycling) involves chemical treatment thatproduces feedstock chemicals for chemical processindustry, and energy recovery (including waste-to-energy) involves complete or partial oxidation ofthe material [17], producing heat and power and/or gaseous fuels, oils and chars besides by-productsthat must be disposed of, such as ashes [9]. Due tothe typically long lifetime of PU-containing prod-ucts the fourth option of product recycling or‘‘closed loop” recycling (Fig. 2), is limited [8,18],because markets change rapidly and the conceptof ‘‘down cycling” or ‘‘open loop” recycling stronglyapplies to products based on bulk chemicals such asPU.

Mechanical, chemical & thermo chemical recy-cling and energy recovery, are all ways to recyclepolyurethane [19]. Mechanical recycling is done byregrinding polyurethane foams into powders allow-

ing them to be reused in the production of new foamas filler. The methods of reuse are flexible foambonding, adhesive pressing, and compression mold-ing [18]. Flexible foam bonding utilizes foam piecesand adheres them together to make padding typeproducts. Adhesive pressing is where the polyure-thane granules are coated with a binder (glue) thencured under heat and pressure to make parts likefloor mats for cars or tire covers. Compressionmolding is where the polyurethane granules aremolded under high heat and pressure to create rigidor hard parts such as pump and motor housing.Energy recovery is a method in which polyurethanecan be burned e!ciently resulting in a total con-sumption of the material. Chemical & thermo chem-ical recycling has several di"erent methods such as:glycolysis, hydrolysis, pyrolysis, hydrogenation, etc.Glycolysis [20,21] is where polyurethane is chemi-cally mixed and heated to 200 !C and produce

Fig. 1. Overview of options for polyurethane recycling [16].

Fig. 2. Closed loop polyurethane recycling as proposed byISOPA [18].

K.M. Zia et al. / Reactive & Functional Polymers 67 (2007) 675–692 677

Fig. 2. Overview of options for polyurethane recycling [2]


Conceptual Visual

be useable as hydroxyl-containing components insecondary PU synthesis, including foams, sealantsand adhesives [39]. PUF dissolution depends onthe molecular weight of glycol. Dipropylene glycoland tetra ethylene glycol dissolved PUF in theshortest time among polypropylene glycols andpolyethylene glycols, respectively. PUF dissolutiontime was reduced to one-half for each 10 !C rise inthe range of 170–200 !C. Also PUF dissolution timewas inversely proportional to KOH (catalyst) con-centration. Dibutyltindilaurate concentration hadless influence on PUF dissolution time than KOHconcentration. Smaller PUF particles dissolved in

a shorter time. Especially, the initial glycolysis con-version of PUF was proportional to the total sur-face area of PUF particles [40].

Members of the European Diisocyanate and Pol-yol Producers Association (ISOPA) and indepen-dent researchers have optimized single-phaseglycolysis [18]. Split-phase glycolysis [12], (Fig. 13),where the product separates in two phases, has beendeveloped up to pilot scale for MDI flexible foams.The viability of glycolysis appears to be in the areaof recycling production waste as opposed to post-consumer waste.

Scheirs [12] distinguishes two approaches, wherein(1) a single polyol is recovered or (2) flexible andrigid polyols components are recovered. An exam-ple of a process where a single polyol is recoveredis the alcoholysis process developed by GetznerWerksto!e Austria. A process for double recoveryof polyols was developed by ICI, referred to as thesplit-phase glycolysis (SPG) process, as shown inFig. 13. In the SPG process scrap PU foam, prefer-ably based on MDI, is reacted with DEG producinga two product phases in the reactor. The lighterlayer contains the flexible polyol, the heavier layercontains the MDI-derived compounds that are con-verted into a rigid polyol using propene oxide. Therecovered polyols can be used to produce new PURand PUF foams. Reaction times, at 200 !C, are sev-eral hours. PU foam waste densified to around1100 kg/m3 is used. The SPG process is sensitiveto contamination by styrene-acrylonitrile (SAN)[12,41]. In the presence of hexamethylenetetramine(HMTA) the glycolysis of water-blown PUF foamsin ethylene glycol (EG) yields the polyol and asolution of urea carbamates and amines in the EG.

Fig. 11. Chemistry of glycolysis of PU results in the formation of ether polyol [12].

Fig. 12. Schematic of glycolysis process for PU foam recycling[9,18].

684 K.M. Zia et al. / Reactive & Functional Polymers 67 (2007) 675–692

Fig. 3. Glycolysis process for polyurethane foam recycling [2]


Elements of ArgumentGrounds Conditions that allow for the claim

Claim Assertion - the point of the argument

Justification Logical justification for the claim - the “because” statement

Evidence Facts/evidence that support the logic behind the justification

Qualifier Emphasis/limitation/condition on the claim - “in this particular situation,” “perhaps”

Rebuttal Situation that suspends the claim - “unless,” “except when”




Justification Logical justification for the claim - the “because” statement


Qualifier Emphasis/limitation/condition on the claim - “in this particular situation,” “perhaps”


Many of you will stop here ...




WarrantLogical justification for the claim - the “because” statement


QualifierEmphasis/limitation/condition on the claim - “in this particular situation,” “perhaps”





WarrantLogical justification for the claim - the “because” statement


QualifierEmphasis/limitation/condition on the claim - “in this particular situation,” “perhaps”


These are all types of evidence - but where do they come from?


Evidence comes from research• Peer-reviewed/scholarly sources

• Industry sources

• “The Web”

• All things we covered in the library workshop


How do you use the evidence?

Polyurethanes are one of the most versatile materials in the world today.

Text example taken from [2].



Polyurethanes are one of the most versatile materials in the world today. Their many uses range from flexible foam in upholstered furniture, to rigid foam as insulation in walls, roofs and appliances to thermoplastic polyurethane used in medical devices and footwear, to coatings, adhesives, sealants and elastomers used on floors and automotive interiors.


Multiple examples of uses lend credibility to “most versatile” claim



Polyurethanes are one of the most versatile materials in the world today. Their many uses range from flexible foam in upholstered furniture, to rigid foam as insulation in walls, roofs and appliances to thermoplastic polyurethane used in medical devices and footwear, to coatings, adhesives, sealants and elastomers used on floors and automotive interiors [1,2].


Sources, along with being necessary, also add credibility



Polyurethanes are one of the most versatile materials in the world today. Their many uses range from flexible foam in upholstered furniture, to rigid foam as insulation in walls, roofs and appliances to thermoplastic polyurethane used in medical devices and footwear, to coatings, adhesives, sealants and elastomers used on floors and automotive interiors [1,2].


Sources, along with being necessary, also add credibility

This is a fairly simple argument


Qualifying claims can create a more nuanced argument

In general, head restraints were found to be beneficial in reducing the incidence of neck injuries. Several studies performing crash tests, sled tests, and mathematical simulations found a decrease in whiplash injury incidence with increasing head restraint height (Eichberger et al. 1996, Ferrari 1999, Hell 1998). Also a small head to head restraint distance was found to be an indicator for a smaller injury risk(Ferrari 1999, Hofinger et al. 1999,Viano and Davidsson 2001). Recently it seems as if these geometric properties of head restraints improve (IIHS 2001), i.e. head restraints become higher and closer to the head. However, a good head restraint geometry does not necessarily guarantee a minimum occupant loading when the seat is dynamically impacted.


Claim



In general, head restraints were found to be beneficial in reducing the incidence of neck injuries. Several studies performing crash tests, sled tests, and mathematical simulations found a decrease in whiplash injury incidence with

increasing head restraint height (Eichberger et al. 1996,

Ferrari 1999, Hell 1998). Also a small head to head restraint distance was found to be an indicator for a smaller injury risk(Ferrari 1999, Hofinger et al. 1999,Viano and Davidsson 2001). Recently it seems as if these geometric properties of head restraints improve (IIHS 2001), i.e. head restraints become higher and closer to the head. However, a good head restraint geometry does not necessarily guarantee a minimum occupant loading when the seat is dynamically impacted.


Backing - note how it also qualifies the claim



In general, head restraints were found to be beneficial in reducing the incidence of neck injuries. Several studies performing crash tests, sled tests, and mathematical simulations found a decrease in whiplash injury incidence with increasing head restraint height (Eichberger et al. 1996, Ferrari 1999, Hell 1998). Also a small head to head restraint distance was found to be an indicator for a smaller injury risk(Ferrari 1999, Hofinger et al. 1999,Viano and Davidsson 2001). Recently it seems as if these geometric properties of head restraints improve (IIHS 2001), i.e. head restraints become higher and closer to the head. However, a good head restraint geometry does not necessarily guarantee a minimum occupant loading when the seat is dynamically impacted.


Summation of the qualifying conditions for the claim



In general, head restraints were found to be beneficial in reducing the incidence of neck injuries. Several studies performing crash tests, sled tests, and mathematical simulations found a decrease in whiplash injury incidence with increasing head restraint height (Eichberger et al. 1996, Ferrari 1999, Hell 1998). Also a small head to head restraint distance was found to be an indicator for a smaller injury risk(Ferrari 1999, Hofinger et al. 1999,Viano and Davidsson 2001). Recently it seems as if these geometric properties of head restraints improve (IIHS

2001), i.e. head restraints become higher and closer to the head. However, a good

head restraint geometry does not necessarily guarantee a minimum occupant loading when the seat is dynamically impacted.


Rebuttal anticipates arguments against even a qualified claim



However, a good head restraint geometry does not necessarily guarantee a minimum occupant loading when the seat is dynamically impacted. The constitutive structures of the seat, like seat back and recliner joint, contribute by the extent of rotation of the seat back during impact to the effective distance between head and head restraint. Studies have analysed approaches to change the basic properties of a seat, like for example the stiffness. A general consensus whether it is better to increase or to decrease the seat stiffness was not reached (Svensson et al. 1993, Håland et al. 1996, Song et al. 1996, Muser et al. 2000). The head restraint stiffness has also received a controversial discussion with some advocating a stiffer head restraint for whiplash protection (Dippel et al. 1997) and others recommending a decreased head restraint stiffness (Jakobsson et al. 1993).


The rebuttal - in itself another claim - now gets a justification ...



However, a good head restraint geometry does not necessarily guarantee a minimum occupant loading when the seat is dynamically impacted. The constitutive structures of the seat, like seat back and recliner joint, contribute by the extent of rotation of the seat back during impact to the effective distance between head and head restraint. Studies have analysed approaches to change the basic properties of a seat, like for

example the stiffness. A general consensus whether it is better to increase or to decrease the seat stiffness was not reached (Svensson et al. 1993, Håland et al. 1996, Song et al. 1996, Muser et al. 2000). The head restraint stiffness has also received a controversial discussion with some advocating a stiffer head restraint for whiplash protection (Dippel et al. 1997) and others recommending a decreased head restraint stiffness (Jakobsson et al. 1993).


... with further evidence that breaks down the arguments against


Getting to the point at all levels• Avoid mystery - state claims early (at the

document, section and paragraph levels)

• Avoid filler - consider whether or not the information you’re providing is necessary to your argument

• Avoid wordiness/passive voice - these can all cause a reader to lose the thread (subject and action) of a sentence


Unpacking the rubric criteria

• Appropriate

• Verified

• Justified



•Appropriate

• Verified

• Justified

• Sound judgment in• selection of points of analysis• selection & application of

methods of analysis• Level of detail for client’s

needs



• Appropriate

•Verified

• Justified

• Logical method•Corroborating, credible

source



• Appropriate

• Verified

• Justified• Persuasive engineering

argument•Avoid “sales” language• Sound argument structure


Additional Resources

• Engineering Communication: From Principles to Practice, 2nd ed. (Irish & Weiss, 2013)

• 1st ed. (2009) online at: http://search.library.utoronto.ca/details?8441319&uuid=ffa71d20-bed8-4ced-b77d-7e28e6052b54

• Make an appointment with an ECP tutor; go to http://www.engineering.utoronto.ca/Directory/students/ecp/booking.htm

• E-mail me at [email protected] with questions


http://search.library.utoronto.ca/details?8441319&uuid=ffa71d20-bed8-4ced-b77d-7e28e6052b54






http://www.engineering.utoronto.ca/Directory/students/ecp/booking.htm






mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

References[1] K. U. Schmitt, F. Beyeler, M. Muser, P. Niederer, “A visco-elastic foam as head restraint material - experiments and numerical simulations using a biorid model,” International Journal of Crashworthiness, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 341-348, 2004.[2] K. M. Zia, H. N. Bhatti, I. A. Bhatti, “Methods for polyurethane and polyurethane composites, recycling and recovery: A review,” Reactive and Functional Polymers, vol. 67, pp. 675-692, 2007.[3] T. R. Miller, E. Zaloshnja, D. Hendrie. (2006, Nov.) Cost-Outcome Analysis of Booster Seats for Auto Occupants Aged 4 to 7 Years. Pediatrics. [Online]. 118(5), pp. 1994-1998. Accessed February 26, 2010. Available: http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/118/5/1994


http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/118/5/1994

http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/118/5/1994

Documents

L17 - Tihanyi ECP Lecture MIE315 Feb 6 2014