2025
Lever-Action Bottle Opener
ME 4175 DESIGN TERM PROJECT REPORT
SPRING 2025 SEMESTER
DATE: APRIL 30, 2025
TEAM LEAD:
MARK DANIELS
TEAM MEMBERS:
MAX HORNQUIST
AUGUSTUS ENGLAND
DEVAN ARTHUR
INSTRUCTOR: PROFESSOR JONG B. LEE, PHD
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.0
Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 3
2.0
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 6
3.0
Design ...................................................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Requirements and Specifications .................................................................................................................. 8
3.1.1 Functional Requirements ...................................................................................................................... 9
3.1.2 Non-Functional Requirements............................................................................................................... 9
3.1.3 Design Constraints................................................................................................................................ 9
3.1.4 Mechanism Selection ............................................................................................................................ 9
3.1.5 Cost and Manufacturability Considerations ........................................................................................... 9
3.2 Modeling and Simulations .......................................................................................................................... 10
3.2.1 Bottle Opener/Slider Assembly Modeling............................................................................................ 10
3.2.3 Bottle Opener Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 11
3.2.4 Bottle Opener Force Calculation ......................................................................................................... 12
3.2.4.1 Assumptions .................................................................................................................................... 13
3.2.5 Bottle Opener SolidWorks Analysis..................................................................................................... 15
3.2.6 Bottle Opener Results Summary.......................................................................................................... 16
3.2.7 Mounting Screw Analysis ................................................................................................................... 17
3.2.8 Force Experienced by Screw Calculation............................................................................................. 18
3.2.8.1 Screw Results Summary................................................................................................................... 19
3.2.9 Front and Back Plates ......................................................................................................................... 19
3.2.10 Cup Holder ....................................................................................................................................... 21
3.3 Full Assembly ............................................................................................................................................ 22
3.3.1 Degrees of Freedom Diagrams ............................................................................................................ 22
3.3.2 Exploded View of Model .................................................................................................................... 23
3.3.3 Full Assembly View of Model ............................................................................................................. 24
3.4 Potential Improvements .............................................................................................................................. 24
4.0 Material Selection ........................................................................................................................................... 25
4.1 Requirements and Specifications ................................................................................................................ 25
4.1.1 Mechanical Properties ......................................................................................................................... 25
4.1.2 Selection Criteria ................................................................................................................................ 25
4.1.3 Performance Needs ............................................................................................................................. 26
4.1.4 Environmental Impact ......................................................................................................................... 26
4.1.5 Manufacturing Constraints .................................................................................................................. 27
4.2 Material Evaluations .................................................................................................................................. 27
4.2.1 Bottle Opener and Slider ..................................................................................................................... 28
4.2.2 Mounting Plates (Front and Back) ....................................................................................................... 29
4.3 Final Selection ........................................................................................................................................... 32
4.3.1 Bottle Opener and Slider ..................................................................................................................... 33
1|Page
4.3.2 Mounting Plates (Front and Back) ....................................................................................................... 33
4.3.3 Bottle Holder ...................................................................................................................................... 33
4.4 Final Justifications ..................................................................................................................................... 34
4.4.1 Long-Term Viability ........................................................................................................................... 34
4.6.2 Future Improvement ........................................................................................................................... 34
5.0 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 0
References ............................................................................................................................................................. 2
2|Page
1.0 Summary
Most standard bottle openers are handheld and rely on wrist movement and grip strength to remove
caps. This creates a challenge for users with limited mobility or reduced hand strength, as these
tools can be difficult to operate. The goal of this project was to create a fixed design that made it
easier to remove bottle caps and could be used by a wider range of people. The proposed solution
features a wall-mounted, lever-operated mechanism with a fixed bottle holder and adjustable
vertical slider, allowing for low-effort, consistent operation using a simple downward motion.
The final design has three main components: a lever arm, an adjustable vertical slider mechanism,
and a holder. The bottle is placed into the holder, while the slider allows the lever arm to move up
and down to accommodate different bottle sizes. Once in place, a downward force is applied, and
the cap is removed from the bottle. This design uses leverage to eliminate the need for high grip
strength while minimizing the force required to use the opener.
SolidWorks was used to model the assembly and perform structural FEA on some of the
components. The lever, screws, and structural plates were tested analytically under typical and
worst-case loading conditions. FEA of the lever arm revealed maximum von Mises stresses well
below the yield strength of the chosen material, with stress concentrations localized to non-critical
internal corners. Mesh refinement confirmed that stress concentrations were minimal and would
not compromise the integrity or function over time. There were minor deformations in the lever,
but they were located in areas with no effect on overall performance. Due to their location and
magnitude, these deformation values were disregarded.
The mechanical advantage of the lever arm was essential in meeting the performance goal of
removing a cap from a bottle. A typical bottle cap requires around 22.48 lbf of vertical force to be
removed. To lower the required applied force, the lever was designed to provide an 11:1
mechanical advantage—five times the required advantage. As a result, the bottle opener can be
operated using as little as 10 lbf of input force, well within the capabilities of most users, including
those with physical limitations. This increased advantage allows for consistent, reliable operation,
even in non-ideal scenarios such as slippery hands or misaligned bottles.
Force distribution throughout the system was a primary design consideration. The combined
weight of the device and a full bottle was approximately 4.56 lbf. Using four mounting screws,
3|Page
each screw is expected to carry a maximum load of approximately 28.97 lbf under full applied
force, well within the capabilities of the chosen stainless steel fastener size. These calculations,
supported by hand and CAD analysis, demonstrate that the system will remain secured to its
mounting surface even during frequent, high-force operations.
Material selection was influenced by a combination of performance requirements, cost,
availability, and environmental considerations. The bottle opener and slider were manufactured
from 304 stainless steel. This material offers excellent tensile strength, hardness, and corrosion
resistance—important for components exposed to repeated stress, metal-on-metal contact, and
potentially wet environments. Stainless steel provides a clean, professional aesthetic that enhances
its suitability for residential and commercial use.
5052 aluminum was selected for the mounting plates because of its balance of rigidity,
machinability, and resistance to oxidation. While other materials such as cold-rolled steel offered
higher strength, they required additional surface treatments and were heavier, making them less
desirable. The aluminum plates not only reduce the system's overall weight but also simplify
production and reduce overall production costs. This specific alloy is easy to fabricate using
blanking or CNC milling methods, enabling high-precision mass production.
The bottle holder was made from injection-molded polycarbonate due to its excellent impact
resistance and overall stability. This component plays a key role in user safety and stability. It holds
the bottle securely in place, protecting against tipping, shattering, and injury. Polycarbonate also
resists cracking under sudden load changes or collisions and maintains its structural integrity in
humid or spill-prone environments. Unlike some plastics that may degrade under UV exposure or
frequent cleaning, polycarbonate maintains its strength and appearance over time.
Manufacturability was considered at every stage of the design process. By limiting the number of
unique parts and relying on standard materials and fasteners, the assembly can be produced costeffectively using readily available processes. The opener arm and mounting plates were designed
for blanking or CNC machining, minimizing scrap while allowing for mass production
capabilities. The bottle holder was injection-molded, ideal for high-volume production while
maintaining a reasonable price point. Fasteners were selected from McMaster-Carr to minimize
assembly time while providing sufficient clamping force and corrosion resistance.
4|Page
Improvements can always be made, especially for a design that aims to improve the life of the user
such as this one. For the opener and slider, weight savings could be achieved through high-strength
aluminum alloys or titanium. The mounting plates could be manufactured from coated or
galvanized steels, which offer increased cost reductions while maintaining necessary corrosion
resistance. Accessible additions, such as rubberized grips or contoured surfaces, could increase
usability and satisfaction, particularly in fast-paced or commercial settings.
Environmental responsibility is required for all designs. While the current materials are durable
and, in some cases, recyclable, future iterations may explore the use of bioplastics or postconsumer recycled materials, especially for non-load-bearing parts like the bottle holder.
Additionally, optimizing wall-mounting systems with adhesives or tool-less fasteners could reduce
installation barriers and packaging waste.
5|Page
2.0 Introduction
Bottle openers are mechanical tools designed to remove metal caps from beverage bottles. Most
traditional openers rely on a user’s hand strength, grip stability, and wrist mobility to operate
effectively. These designs are typically compact, handheld devices made from materials such as
stainless steel, aluminum, or plastic. A standard bottle opener features a flat or curved opening
with a lip designed to fit beneath the cap. When force is applied, the opener uses leverage to pry
the cap away from the bottle.
Although this mechanism works for most users, it presents challenges for individuals with reduced
hand strength, arthritis, or other limitations. In addition to user limitations, most commercially
available openers fail to accommodate variations in bottle height or cap position. Wall-mounted
openers offer an alternative, but they still face many of the same issues as handheld models.
The objective of this project was to develop an improved wall-mounted bottle opener that reduced
the need for manual force, enhanced user safety, and increased accessibility for users of varying
physical abilities. The proposed design consisted of an adjustable vertical slider paired with a fixed
bottle holder and a lever-action opener. This system allowed the user to place a bottle into a secure
holder, adjust the lever’s position to align the opener mouth with the cap, and remove the cap by
pressing the lever downward in a controlled motion. This design eliminated the need for excessive
hand strength or awkward wrist rotation, providing a simpler, low-effort opening process.
The adjustable slider mechanism allowed the device to accommodate different bottle heights,
making it more versatile for both residential and commercial use. The inclusion of a fixed bottle
holder further improved stability and minimized the risk of glass breakage or injury during use.
The design was created using SolidWorks, a computer-aided design (CAD) program widely used
for engineering and product development. SolidWorks enabled the creation of accurate 3D models,
part fit verification, and a visual representation to ensure the design functioned as intended.
Since no physical prototype was built, the design was evaluated using theoretical force calculations
and material selection based on ideal properties to predict long-term performance. This approach
provided a clear understanding of the design’s strength and function.
In addition to mechanical performance, the design process loosely considered aesthetic qualities
and material longevity to better match modern kitchen, bar, and commercial environments. The
6|Page
ultimate goal was to create a product that was functional, inclusive, reliable, and visually
appealing.
7|Page
3.0 Design
This section details the design and analysis process carried out to create wall-mounted, one-handed
bottle opener assembly that focuses on functionality, manufacturability, and user accessibility.
The design included five primary components: a bottle opener lever, slider, cup holder, front plate,
and back plate, all modeled in SolidWorks. Key functional requirements include compatibility
with standard bottle sizes, one-handed use, and secure wall mounting. Non-functional
requirements center on safety, with all components made from food-safe, readily machinable
materials such as steel. The mechanism employs a fixed opener and a vertically translating slider
to guide bottle placement, ensuring consistent alignment during use.
A force analysis of the opener arm revealed a mechanical advantage of 11, allowing the design to
exert over 111 lbf—far exceeding the 22.48 lbf needed to remove a cap. Finite Element Analysis
(FEA) confirmed the structural integrity of the lever, with stresses well below the material’s yield
strength and only minor localized deformation. Mounting was achieved using four standard 0.25inch diameter screws, each analyzed to support both static and operational loads. The front and
back plates provide structural support, while the cup holder adds functionality by holding bottles
when not in use. The final assembly features two degrees of freedom: the lever arm’s rotation and
the slider’s vertical translation, creating a robust and user-friendly bottle opening experience.
3.1 Requirements and Specifications
The requirements and specifications define the criteria guiding the development of the bottle
opener assembly. Functional requirements include the ability to hold standard-sized bottles,
support one-handed operation, and be mounted to a wall to save counter space. Non-functional
requirements focus on material safety, requiring food-safe components suitable for use with
beverage containers. Design constraints call for at least three mechanical components and the use
of machinable, readily available materials such as steel and standard fasteners. The mechanism
selection consists of a wall-mounted slider paired with a fixed opener to ensure proper alignment
and ease of use. Cost and manufacturability considerations emphasize minimizing production
expenses through the use of common materials, off-the-shelf components, and efficient fabrication
methods.
8|Page
3.1.1 Functional Requirements
The cup holder must be capable of holding most standard-sized bottles by itself, ensuring that it
can accommodate a variety of bottle types. It should also allow for one-handed operation,
making it easy to use with just one hand. The design must be wall-mounted, providing
convenient access while saving counter space.
3.1.2 Non-Functional Requirements
The materials and components used must be food-safe, ensuring the bottle opener is safe to use
with beverage containers.
3.1.3 Design Constraints
The design must include at least three mechanical components, satisfying the need for multiple
interacting parts. Material selection is essential, as the design must make use of easily
machinable and commonly available materials, such as steels and standard fasteners.
3.1.4 Mechanism Selection
The mechanism features a bottle opener paired with a wall-mounted slider. This design allows
for easy alignment during use, ensuring the user can operate the opener with minimal effort.
3.1.5 Cost and Manufacturability Considerations
To keep production costs low, the design utilizes commonly available materials and easily
machinable parts. The use of standard fasteners further ensures that the product can be
manufactured efficiently and economically.
9|Page
3.2 Modeling and Simulations
This section outlines the design and analysis of key components in the bottle opener assembly,
including the lever arm, slider, mounting hardware, structural plates, and cup holder. A simplified
mechanical analysis was performed to evaluate the forces involved in typical use and confirm that
each component could withstand expected loads. Design decisions prioritized ease of use,
manufacturability, and durability, with a focus on maximizing mechanical advantage and ensuring
reliable performance across all parts of the assembly.
3.2.1 Bottle Opener/Slider Assembly Modeling
The goal of this design was to develop a functional and manufacturable bottle opener that could
be paired with a sliding mechanism to fit any standard size bottle. The assembly was designed in
SolidWorks and consists of two main components: the bottle opener (Figure 1)
Figure 1: 3D Rendering of the Bottle Opener
and the slider (Figure2).
10 | P a g e
Figure 2: 3D Rendering of the Slider
3.2.3 Bottle Opener Analysis
This section outlines the force analysis and simulation of the bottle opener lever. The component
was simplified into a rectangular prism for hand calculations, and forces involved in typical use
were estimated based on literature values. Key assumptions included ideal material behavior and
geometric simplifications for load-bearing elements. A mechanical advantage of 11 was achieved
using a 5.5-inch handle, allowing the opener to exert up to 111.32 lbf—well above the 22.48 lbf
needed to remove a cap. Finite Element Analysis (FEA) in SolidWorks confirmed the design’s
structural integrity, showing stress levels safely below yield and only minimal, localized
deformation.
3.2.3.1 Geometric Simplification
The bottle opener (lever arm) was simplified into a basic rectangular prism, as shown below. The
prism's envelope dimensions represent the maximum overall dimensions of the actual bottle
opener design.
11 | P a g e
Figure 3: Schematic Drawing of the Bottle Opener
3.2.3.2 Bottle Opener FBD
Figure 4: Free Body Diagram of the Bottle Opener
3.2.4 Bottle Opener Force Calculation
For the force calculations, the applied force was estimated based on the typical effort required to
remove a bottle cap. According to Barnes et al. (2022), dislodging a standard bottle cap typically
requires a vertical force of approximately 100 N [22.48lbf] applied under the edge of the cap.
The recommended maximum force that can comfortably be applied by one hand is around 45 N
[10.12lbf] (Barnes et al., 2022).
12 | P a g e
3.2.4.1 Assumptions
The assumptions made in this analysis assumed ideal behavior for the materials and components
involved. It was assumed that all materials are free of imperfections, deform uniformly and
perfectly, and that they will yield precisely at the stated yield strengths and fail at the specified
ultimate strengths. Geometric simplifications were applied to the components experiencing
significant forces, reducing them to basic shapes that approximate their size and reactions for the
purposes of hand calculations. These assumptions were intended to simplify the analysis while
maintaining accuracy in the evaluation of the load-bearing elements.
3.2.4.1.1 Material Properties Assumptions
•
Material is free of imperfections.
•
Material will deform “perfectly” and uniformly.
•
Material will yield exactly at the stated yield strengths and will fail at the stated ultimate
strengths.
3.2.4.1.2 Geometric Simplifications
For the purpose of hand calculations, geometric simplifications were made to the components
expected to experience significant forces during operation. These parts were reduced to basic
shapes that approximate their overall size, allowing for a simpler, more straightforward analysis
while still representing the general observed behavior due to the load. It’s important to note that
these simplifications were used solely for analytical hand calculations, the detailed 3D CAD model
used the true geometry of each component for accurate representation.
3.2.4.1.3 Boundary and Loading Conditions
There are three primary forces generated or experienced during operation: the force applied by the
operator (Fapplied) the force required to remove the bottle cap (Fcap), and the weight of the assembly
(W).
Using a reference axis centered at the interface between the lever arm and the wall of the slider
groove, the applied force is located 7 inches to the right of the origin, while F cap is located 1 inch
to the right.
13 | P a g e
A key point of interest is the fulcrum, represented by the green dot in Figure 4. This point, where
the edge of the lever arm contacts the bottle cap, is located ½ inch to the right of F cap.
3.2.4.2 Force Exerted by Bottle Opener
The design of the bottle opener arm focused on achieving the necessary mechanical advantage
(MA) to remove a bottle cap with a required output force of 100 N (22.48 lbf). The mechanical
advantage was determined by using:
MA =
Force Required
Force Available
Given the available input force, the minimum required MA was calculated to be 2.22. To add a
factor of safety and improve reliability during use, the mechanical advantage was rounded up to
2.25.
The relationship between mechanical advantage and the lever arm geometry is given by:
MA =
darm
dfulcrum
where:
•
darm is the distance from the fulcrum to the point where the input force is applied,
•
dfulcrum is the distance from the fulcrum to the point where the force is exerted on the
bottle cap.
Rearranging the equation gives the required handle length:
darm = (MA)dfulcrum
Using a fulcrum distance of 0.5 inches, the minimum required lever arm length was calculated to
be 1.125 inches.
However, to enhance usability, and accessibility of the product, particularly for individuals with
grip strength limitations or physical disabilities, the final handle length was increased to 5.5
inches. This longer lever arm improves ease of use by requiring less input force from the user.
With the increased handle length, the new mechanical advantage is:
14 | P a g e
MA =
5.5in
= 11
0.5in
The maximum force that the opener can generate at the bottle cap is:
Favail = Fmax = (MA)(Force Required)
which results in a maximum output force of 111.32 lbf — almost five times greater than the force
needed to remove the bottle cap
3.2.5 Bottle Opener SolidWorks Analysis
To ensure that the lever could withstand the expected loads experienced during use, an FEA
simulation was performed on the bottle opener.
Setup:
o
Fixed supports were applied at the fulcrum point
o
A 22.48lbf force was applied at the handle end to simulate user input.
o
The contact point with the bottle cap was modeled as a load reaction area.
o
Mesh refinement was used at regions of high stress concentration.
Results:
The FEA simulation showed that the maximum von Mises stress (8.828 ksi) occurred at the
inside corner of the pry edge, with additional stress concentrations near the hole at the mid-cap
contact point. All stresses remained below the material’s yield strength, indicating the opener is
structurally sound under expected loading. Results are shown in Figure 3.
Figure 5: von Mises stress distribution of the bottle opener under a 22.48 lbf applied force.
15 | P a g e
Minor deformation was observed near the cap engagement region. However, due to its small
magnitude, it was considered negligible, as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 6: SolidWorks FEA—Minor deformation near the cap engagement region
3.2.6 Bottle Opener Results Summary
The following table provides a summary of the results obtained from the force analysis and FEA
simulations.
Table 1: Bottle Opener Analysis Summary
Mechanical
Advantage
Arm Length (in)
Force(lbf)
Von Mises
(kpsi)
Deformation
(in)
11
5.5
111.32
8.828
Negligible
16 | P a g e
3.2.7 Mounting Screw Analysis
The chosen screw was a 0.25-inch diameter, 2.5-inch long, partially threaded screw sourced from
McMaster-Carr.
Figure 7: McMaster Carr 3D Rendered Screw
3.2.7.1 Geometric Simplification
There are four screws in the assembly that are expected to experience a non-negligible amount of
force. The analysis focuses on the main body of each screw, as the heads do not carry any
significant load. As a result, the screws were simplified into basic cylinders (shown below) using
envelope dimensions based on the full length of the screw and the diameter of the threads.
Figure 8: Schematic Drawing of the Screw
17 | P a g e
3.2.7.2 Screw FBD
Figure 9: Screw Free Body Diagram
3.2.7.3 Boundary and Loading Conditions
For the screw analysis, a separate reference axis is used, centered at the leftmost point of the
diagram. Relative to this axis, the weight of the assembly acts at a location 2.5 inches to the right
of the origin. From Figure 10, W represents the weight of the entire assembly plus the added force
required to remove the bottle cap.
3.2.8 Force Experienced by Screw Calculation
The mounted bottle opener assembly must also account for the forces transmitted through its
fasteners. The screws experience forces from both the weight of the assembly and the maximum
user-applied force. The force on each screw was calculated using:
𝐹𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑤 =
1
(𝑊
+ 𝐹𝑚𝑎𝑥 )
4 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑙𝑦
Where:
•
Wassembly is the combined weight of the front plate, back plate, slider, cup holder, lever, and
a full bottle,
18 | P a g e
•
Fmax is the maximum applied force during operation,
•
The load is evenly distributed across the four mounting screws.
The total assembly weight was calculated to be 4.56 lbf. Combining this with the maximum applied
force(111.32 lbf) and distributing evenly across each of the four screws, the load on each individual
screw was determined to be approximately 28.97 lbf.
This ensures that the selected fasteners can safely support both operational and static loads without
risk of failure.
3.2.8.1 Screw Results Summary
The following table provides a summary of the results obtained from the force analysis.
Table 2: Screw Analysis Summary
Diameter(in)
Length (in)
Force(lbf)
0.25
2.5
28.97
3.2.9 Front and Back Plates
The front and back plates were key structural components of the design, providing support and
housing for the other mechanical parts. The front plate, shown in Figure 10, includes mounting
holes for the bottle opener and slider mechanism.
Figure 10: 3D Rendering of the Front Plate Model
19 | P a g e
The back plate, shown in Figure 11, serves as the base for wall mounting the entire assembly.
Figure 11: 3D Rendering of the Back Plate Model
Both plates are designed to be lightweight yet durable, with careful attention to their thickness and
material selection to ensure strength and rigidity. Standard fasteners are used for assembly,
simplifying the manufacturing process and keeping it cost-effective.
20 | P a g e
3.2.10 Cup Holder
The cup holder, shown in Figure 12, adds functionality to the design by providing a place to rest
a bottle or container when not in use. Mounted through both the front and back plates, it is
positioned for easy access, allowing users to place and retrieve items with minimal effort. The
holder is designed to securely fit standard drink containers. Durability and manufacturability were
prioritized in the material selection, ensuring the cup holder is both cost-effective and long-lasting.
Figure 12: 3D Rendering of the Cup Holder
21 | P a g e
3.3 Full Assembly
This section reviews the final designs and degrees of freedom of the final assembly. The assembly
includes two moving components: the slider (purple) and the lever arm (green), each with one
degree of freedom. Together, they form a system with two degrees of freedom—vertical
translational motion in the y-direction and rotational motion about the z-axis, while being
constrained in the x-direction. Figures 13, 14, and 15 offer detailed views of the assembly,
including a degrees of freedom diagram, an exploded CAD model showing component
positioning, and the final 3D rendered assembly with a bottle placeholder to demonstrate the fit
between the cap and the lever arm.
3.3.1 Degrees of Freedom Diagrams
There are two moving components within the lever opener assembly: the slider (shown in purple)
and the lever arm (shown in green). Each component has one degree of freedom; however, since
they are mechanically connected, they can be considered a single system with two degrees of
freedom. This combined body exhibits vertical translational motion in the y-direction (shown in
red) and rotational motion about the z-axis (shown in blue), while remaining constrained in the xdirection.
Figure 13:Schematic Drawing of the Degrees of freedom of the Assembly
22 | P a g e
3.3.2 Exploded View of Model
Figure 14: 3D Rendering of the Exploded Assembly
Figure 14 shows the exploded CAD assembly model, illustrating how the assembly is constructed
and where each component is positioned.
23 | P a g e
3.3.3 Full Assembly View of Model
Figure 15: 3D Rendering of the Complete Assembly Model
Figure 15 shows the final model of the Lever-Action Bottle Opener assembly. The bottle included
in the figure is a standard model from McMaster-Carr, used as a placeholder to demonstrate the fit
between the cap and the opener’s lever arm.
3.4 Potential Improvements
Several design refinements could improve both usability and durability of the assembly. For the
bottle opener, rounding the external edges would enhance ergonomics and make the device more
comfortable to use. Adding radii to internal corners, particularly around high-stress areas, could
help reduce stress concentrations and extend the life of the component. For the cup holder,
introducing a small notch at the top front edge could make it easier to place bottles quickly and
securely, particularly in one-handed operation scenarios.
24 | P a g e
4.0 Material Selection
Material selection was essential to ensure each component had the highest and best available
performance, durability, manufacturability, and cost-efficiency. This section outlines the design
requirements, evaluates available material options, and provides justification behind the final
material choices for each component.
4.1 Requirements and Specifications
The material selection process focused on maintaining a balanced combination of performance and
durability while also considering cost-efficiency and practicality for the average consumer. Each
component needed to withstand the mechanical stresses of regular, repeated use while also
resisting wear corrosion during prolonged exposure to damp environments.
4.1.1 Mechanical Properties
The assembly includes five primary components:
•
Bottle opener
•
Slider
•
Mounting plates (front and back)
•
Cup holder
•
Fasteners
Each part must meet different, unique mechanical demands based on its function.
4.1.2 Selection Criteria
The material selections for the bottle opener, slider, mounting plates, and bottle holder were
influenced by performance, environmental impact, and manufacturing constraints. For the bottle
opener and slider, high tensile strength, hardness, and corrosion resistance were the main focus to
ensure durability and functionality under repeated mechanical stress.
The mounting plates needed a balance between rigidity and weight, with an emphasis on corrosion
resistance and ease of machining. The bottle holder required a material that could withstand
repeated impacts and constant exposure to moisture.
25 | P a g e
Environmental considerations required selecting recyclable materials that reduce waste and energy
use, as well as choosing durable materials that extend the product's lifespan. From a manufacturing
perspective, precision machining methods such as CNC and blanking were suitable for the opener
and mounting plates, while injection molding was preferred for the bottle holder due to its ability
to create complex shapes with high accuracy and minimal waste.
4.1.3 Performance Needs
The bottle opener and slider were the most mechanically demanding parts of the design. These
components require high tensile strength to resist deformation during use, and a high level of
hardness to preserve the shape of the prying edge against the steel bottle caps. Wear resistance is
also important to ensure long-term functionality. These demands require a durable, corrosionresistant metal to prevent rust and maintain structural integrity over time.
The mounting plates serve as the structural base for the assembly, bearing the weight of the
components while anchoring the system during operation. However, they do not experience the
same repeated mechanical stress as the opener. As a result, the material for the plates needed
sufficient rigidity to prevent flexing while also being lightweight enough to reduce overall material
weight and cost.
The bottle holder required material that could withstand regular contact with bottles, including
sudden impacts during placement and removal. Resistance to moisture was also important, as the
component may frequently be exposed to condensation or spilled liquids. The ideal material will
be a lightweight, durable plastic with excellent impact strength and moisture resistance.
4.1.4 Environmental Impact
While performance and manufacturability are the two main components for material selection,
environmental impact is a required consideration for any project—especially for a consumer
product designed for repeated use in residential or commercial bar settings.
For the bottle opener and slider, durability is especially important. Selecting a material that can
handle repeated mechanical stress without frequent replacement reduces waste. Materials that are
both strong and recyclable offer the best balance between function and sustainability.
The bottle holder was designed similar to those at a sports stadium. These holders, while often
made from polymers, should ideally be constructed from materials with long service lives. While
26 | P a g e
many polymers are not easily recycled, their durability can help offset this by reducing the need
for replacement over the product's lifespan.
4.1.5 Manufacturing Constraints
The bottle opener and slider components require a moderate level of precision and durability, so
machinability plays an important role in material selection. These parts need to handle repeated
mechanical loading while also being manufactured efficiently and accurately. CNC machining is
the preferred method for the slider since it offers the precision and tight tolerances needed for
smooth operation.
For the bottle opener, blanking is the best choice because it produces consistent shapes with
uniform thickness at high speeds and low waste. It also reduces the need for secondary operations,
making it both time- and cost-efficient. The mounting plates should also be blanked for the same
reasons. Their flat, uniform shape makes them easy to produce quickly and with minimal material
waste.
Injection molding is ideal for the bottle holder. It works well with materials like polycarbonate and
provides great dimensional accuracy and surface finish. This method also minimizes waste and
allows for efficient high-volume production.
4.2 Material Evaluations
The material selection process involved evaluating and ranking options for each component based
on strength, hardness, corrosion resistance, and manufacturability. For the bottle opener and slider,
304 stainless steel ranked highest due to its durability and corrosion resistance, followed by 1095
steel for its strength but lower corrosion resistance, and 6061-T6 aluminum, which lacked the
hardness needed for repeated use. For the mounting plates, 5052 aluminum was the top choice for
its light weight, machinability, and corrosion resistance. 304 stainless steel offered strong
performance but was excessive for the application, while 1020 steel was the least preferred due to
its need for protective coatings. For the bottle holder, polycarbonate stood out for its impact
resistance and environmental durability, with ABS as a decent alternative and HDPE ranking
lowest due to its lower strength and UV resistance. Fasteners were evaluated by function: socket
head cap screws for high-stress areas, flat head screws for flush surfaces, and self-tapping screws
for plastic components. This ranking guided material decisions to balance performance and ease
of manufacturing.
27 | P a g e
4.2.1 Bottle Opener and Slider
The bottle opener and the slider work together to remove bottle caps. The bottle opener applies a
prying force to the cap, while the slider allows the slider to move vertically to accommodate
different bottle heights..
Requirements:
•
High tensile strength to resist deformation.
•
High hardness to withstand contact and repeated use.
•
Good wear resistance to prolong service life.
•
Excellent corrosion resistance for exposure to moisture.
304 stainless steel is the ideal material for the bottle opener assembly due to its yield strength (215
MPa), ultimate tensile strength (505MPa), and excellent corrosion resistance, making it highly
durable in contact with moisture. This ensures both functionality and longevity for the product.
1095 steel is a strong secondary option. It has a high yield strength (570 MPa) and ultimate tensile
strength (965MPa), but its poor corrosion resistance requires protective coatings, increasing
production cost and making it less favorable compared to 304 stainless steel.
Aluminum 6061-T6 is a lightweight choice with good corrosion resistance, but its low yield
strength (276 MPa) and ultimate tensile strength (310MPa) make it less suitable for handling the
mechanical stresses and wear involved in repeated use.
The following table summarizes the mechanical properties and suitability of the materials
considered for the bottle opener and slider components based on the requirements outlined earlier.
This comparison helps to evaluate the strengths and limitations of each material for their intended
function.
28 | P a g e
Table 3: Material Comparison for the Bottle opener and slider components
Material
Yield Strength
UTS
Corrosion
(MPa)
(MPa)
Resistance
Notes
Well-balanced-good mix of
304 Stainless
215
Steel
505
lightweight and high strength;
Excellent
Resistant to rust due to prolonged
humidity exposure
1095 Steel
6061-T6
Aluminum
570
965
276
310
Poor (requires
Strong but vulnerable to rust without
coating)
treatment
Good
Lightweight--vulnerable to failure
under repeated loads
4.2.2 Mounting Plates (Front and Back)
The front and back mounting plates support the entire assembly and experience consistent,
repeated loading during operation. Material selection for these components must prioritize
structural integrity and long-term durability.
Requirements:
•
High rigidity to prevent flex while operating the lever
•
Good corrosion resistance to increase life of product,
•
Good machinability to create part
5052 aluminum is an excellent choice for the mounting plates due to its lightweight nature,
corrosion resistance, and ease of machining. It offers a strong balance between performance and
cost, making it a practical option for this application.
1020 cold-rolled steel provides strong mechanical performance and is easy to fabricate. However,
its poor corrosion resistance requires protective coatings, which can increase cost and
maintenance, making it less favorable compared to aluminum.
29 | P a g e
304 stainless steel is also a viable material. It has high yield strength and excellent corrosion
resistance. However, for a relatively simple component like a mounting plate, its performance
exceeds the actual requirements and needlessly increases material and processing costs.
The following table summarizes and compares the mechanical properties and overall suitability of
the materials considered for the mounting plates, based on the requirements outlined above.
Table 4: Material comparison for the front and back plates
Material
Yield Strength
UTS
Corrosion
(MPa)
(MPa)
Resistance
89.6
193
Excellent
350
420
215
505
5052 Aluminum
1020 Steel, Cold
Rolled
304 Stainless
Steel
Notes
Lightweight, cost-effective, good
strength
Poor (requires
Strong but vulnerable to rust
coating)
without treatment
Excellent
High strength—excessive for
needs of design
4.2.3 Bottle Holder
The bottle holder was designed to hold the bottle in place during the opening process to
prevent slipping or tipping. The holder must withstand the forces applied during use without
deforming or damaging the bottle. This function requires materials that offer high strength,
stability, and resistance to wear over repeated use.
Requirements:
•
Resist cracking/breaking under load
•
High impact resistance
•
High resistance to moisture
Polycarbonate (PC) is the top choice for the bottle holder. It has high impact resistance (30–105
MPa), high yield strength (40–154 MPa), and strong resistance to heat and chemicals. It is also
UV-stable, making it suitable for outdoor and bar environments. While PC is more expensive, its
30 | P a g e
mechanical performance and environmental durability make it the most suitable material for this
application.
ABS (Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene) is a solid secondary option. It has good impact resistance
(24–138 MPa) and excellent moldability, allowing for more cost-effective mass production.
However, its limited resistance to moisture and UV exposure reduces its effectiveness in outdoor
and bar settings.
HDPE (High-Density Polyethylene) has acceptable impact and chemical resistance, but its lower
tensile strength (11–43 MPa) and modulus of elasticity (0.565–1.5 GPa) result in reduced rigidity
and durability under stress. Its poor UV resistance also limits its use in outdoor environments,
making it less suitable for the bottle holder.
The following table summarizes and compares the mechanical properties and overall suitability of
the materials considered for the bottle holder, based on the requirements outlined above.
Table 5: Material Comparison for Bottle Holder
Yield
Material
Strength
(MPa)
Polycarbonate (PC),
molded
Impact Grade, ABS,
molded
HDPE, injection
molded
UTS
Corrosion
(MPa)
Resistance
Notes
Susceptible to stress-crack with
40-154
30-105
Good
organic solvents; not ideal for harsh
chemical exposure.
Resists most mild chemicals; may
22.1-93.1
24-138
Good
degrade with prolonged exposure to
strong acids or solvents.
11-43
7.6-43
Excellent
Excellent resistance to a wide range
of chemicals
4.2.4 Fasteners
Socket head cap screws are ideal for high-stress applications such as the bottle opener and slider.
They offer a strong, clean appearance and are perfect for environments that require a reliable
fastening solution capable of handling repeated mechanical stress. The head design allows for easy
installation with tools like Allen wrenches, making them a practical choice for secure connections.
31 | P a g e
Flat head screws are the second choice for fasteners, mainly used for the mounting plates. Their
design allows them to sit flush with the surface, which is ideal for maintaining a smooth,
streamlined exterior. This aesthetic feature is particularly important for the mounting plates, which
are visible and contribute to the overall appearance of the product.
Self-tapping screws are third in line and are particularly useful for plastic components like the
bottle holder. They are designed to cut their threads during installation, which eliminates the need
for pre-threading, making the assembly process more efficient. These screws are particularly
beneficial for polymers that can handle the threading action without compromising the integrity of
the material.
4.3 Final Selection
The final selection of materials for the bottle opener and slider, mounting plates, and bottle holder
was based on a balance of performance, environmental impact, and manufacturability. The opener
and slider required high strength, hardness, and wear resistance to withstand repeated loads, while
the mounting plates prioritized rigidity, lightweight design, and ease of machining. The bottle
holder focused on impact and moisture resistance.
Environmental considerations focused on durability and recyclability to reduce waste, while
manufacturability was guided by the need for efficient, cost-effective production methods such as
blanking, CNC machining, and injection molding.
The following table provides a comprehensive summary of mechanical properties for each of the
selected materials.
Table 6: Final Material Properties Summary
32 | P a g e
4.3.1 Bottle Opener and Slider
304 stainless steel was selected for the bottle opener and slider due to its high yield and tensile
strengths, wear and corrosion resistance, and general hardness. While 1095 steel offers greater
overall strength and hardness, its poor corrosion resistance and need for protective surface
treatments make it less suitable for long-term use. Aluminum 6061-T6, though lightweight and
highly corrosion-resistant, lacks the durability required for high-use, high-wear parts like the
opener and slider.
304 stainless steel provides a clean, professional finish with minimal maintenance. Its low
production cost makes it a practical, cost-effective choice, especially for residential and bar
environments where reliability and affordability are important.
4.3.2 Mounting Plates (Front and Back)
5052 Aluminum was selected for the mounting plates because of its mechanical strength, corrosion
resistance, and low weight. It provides the required rigidity to maintain structural integrity while
keeping the assembly manageable and cost-effective. Its natural corrosion resistance makes it
especially suitable for the intended environments, such as residential kitchens or bars, where
humidity and spills are common.
While 1020 cold-rolled steel and 304 stainless steel also offer high strength, they are less ideal for
this specific application. Steel requires additional protective treatment to prevent rust, and stainless
steel adds cost and weight that aren’t necessary for this application.
4.3.3 Bottle Holder
Polycarbonate was selected for the cup holder due to its exceptional impact resistance, rigidity,
and lightweight properties. Its natural resistance to moisture makes it well-suited for environments
where exposure to liquids and humidity is frequent. Given the product’s intended use in residential
and bar environments, polycarbonate offers an excellent balance of durability, strength, and
affordability. While it may not be ideal for heavy industrial applications, its properties make it a
reliable and cost-effective choice for a product that must perform well in everyday settings.
.
33 | P a g e
4.4 Final Justifications
The material selection for each component of the design aims to achieve the highest and best
possible results in durability, reliability, and functionality of the assembly. Stainless steel,
aluminum, and polycarbonate were chosen for their respective strengths, corrosion resistance,
structural integrity, and general impact resistance. Future improvements may focus on reducing
weight, exploring more cost-effective materials, and increasing sustainability through eco-friendly
alternatives.
4.4.1 Long-Term Viability
The long-term performance of this design relies on the durability and resilience of each component.
The bottle opener and slider offer high tensile and yield strengths, along with excellent moisture
and corrosion resistance. These properties are essential for withstanding repeated prying forces
and resisting surface wear from metal-on-metal contact with bottle caps. Over time, this helps
ensure that the prying edge retains its shape and the slider mechanism continues to operate
smoothly.
The mounting plates are lightweight with good tensile and yield strengths, minimizing the risk of
fatigue failure while reducing the overall load on the assembly. Their natural corrosion resistance
and ease of fabrication further contribute to long-term reliability, especially in environments where
moisture exposure is expected.
The bottle holder was designed to withstand sudden impacts and resist cracking or warping. Its
toughness allows it to absorb the force of frequent use, such as bottle insertion and removal,
without losing its shape or affecting its ability to function properly.
4.6.2 Future Improvement
Future improvements should focus on material changes, ease of manufacturing, and enhancing the
user experience. Potential changes include using titanium alloys or high-strength aluminum for
weight reduction, or exploring more cost-effective materials like galvanized or powder-coated
steel.
4.6.2.1 Bottle Opener and Slider
• Weight Reduction: titanium alloys or high-strength aluminum could provide a lighter
design while maintaining necessary strength.
34 | P a g e
•
Coatings: Applying anti-wear or non-stick coatings could reduce friction and extend the
component's life.
4.6.2.2 Mounting Plates
• Cost Reduction: galvanized or powder-coated steel, could reduce costs. While slightly
heavier, these materials could provide improved corrosion resistance and are lower cost.
•
Simplified Installation: Modifying the design to incorporate snap-fit or modular mounting
systems could improve production and reduce assembly time.
4.6.2.3 Bottle Holder
•
Eco-Friendly Options: bioplastics or recycled polymers could be used as more sustainable
alternatives to traditional polycarbonate.
35 | P a g e
5.0 Conclusion
After an extensive, analytical design process that included multiple iterations, refinements, and
design changes, the final product now fully and confidently meets all the requirements and goals
that were established at the project's inception. The final design includes a combination of fixed
components, adjustable elements, and effective use of leverage, all of which significantly reduce
the physical effort required to remove bottle caps. Compared to traditional openers, this design
provides far greater ease of use. It improves access for a wider range of individuals, especially
those with reduced grip strength, limited dexterity, or other physical challenges. This addresses a
basic, often overlooked task in a way that makes a small but meaningful difference in everyday
life.
Functionality, durability, and manufacturability remained central priorities throughout the design
process. A complete and detailed assembly was developed using SolidWorks, which enabled
accurate virtual simulations and structural analyses to be conducted. Finite Element Analysis
(FEA) was used to evaluate how the design performed under various loading scenarios. The results
were compared with hand calculations to ensure structural integrity and confirm the design’s safety
margins. Early hand calculations based on simplified force models established a reliable
foundation for the FEA and guided the early phases of material selection. Using both analytical
and simulation-based methods, several materials were quantitatively evaluated based on stress
tolerance, deformation limits, cost, and long-term reliability. The force analysis also showed that,
at the specified design length, the mechanical advantage of the lever significantly exceeded the
required threshold. This ensures that users can remove bottle caps with very little effort, improving
both usability and consistency. Additionally, the minimal or non-existent deformations observed
in the simulations supported the conclusion that the mechanical components would hold up under
frequent, repeated use without sacrificing safety or performance.
Material selection was one of the most impactful parts of the design process. Each material was
chosen based on how well its mechanical properties matched the specific demands of its role in
the assembly. 304 stainless steel was selected for the lever and the slider because of its high
mechanical strength, corrosion resistance, and proven durability under repetitive loading. These
properties make it an ideal choice for components expected to withstand frequent physical use.
5052 aluminum was used for the mounting plates due to its balance of strength, low weight, ease
of fabrication, and cost-effectiveness—key factors for components that provide structural support
but benefit from reduced mass. For the bottle holder, polycarbonate was selected for its high impact
resistance, moisture resistance, and excellent formability, especially for large-scale manufacturing.
These materials, when combined, resulted in a product that is durable, easy to produce, lightweight,
and well-suited for long-term everyday use. Overall, the final product is high-quality, costefficient, and designed with both user needs and practical manufacturing considerations in mind.
36 | P a g e
References
Barnes, J. E., Coyne, J., Cummings, C., & Meyer, J. (2022). Opening the discussion: How the humble bottle opener
demonstrates the importance of requirements in AM. Metal AM Magazine. Retrieved from
https://www.metal-am.com/articles/opening-the-discussionhow-the-humble-bottle-opener-demonstratesthe-importance-of-requirements-in-am/
ChatGPT. (2025, April 27). Response on sentence structure and paragraph flow. OpenAI. Personal communication.
Lee, J. B. (n.d.). Machine Design [Lecture slides]. University of Minnesota-Duluth, Department of Mechanical and
Industrial Engineering.
McMaster-Carr. (n.d.). Multipurpose 304 stainless steel. McMaster-Carr.
https://www.mcmaster.com/products/stainless-steel/stainless-steel-1~/multipurpose-304-stainless-steel-6/
McMaster-Carr. (n.d.). Polycarbonate. McMaster-Carr. https://www.mcmaster.com/products/polycarbonate/
McMaster-Carr. (n.d.). 5052 aluminum sheets. McMaster-Carr.
https://www.mcmaster.com/products/sheets/material~5052-aluminum/
McMaster-Carr. (n.d.). Super-corrosion-resistant 316 stainless steel socket head screws. McMaster-Carr.
https://www.mcmaster.com/products/screws/socket-head-screws-2~/super-corrosion-resistant-316stainless-steel-socket-head-screws/ Retrieved April 11, 2025.
MatWeb, LLC. (n.d.). Stainless steel 304; UNS S30400; EN 1.4301; ISO 15510 X5CrNi18-10. MatWeb Material
Property Data. Retrieved April 9, 2025, from https://www.matweb.com
MatWeb, LLC. (n.d.). AISI 1095 steel, as rolled. MatWeb Material Property Data. Retrieved April 9, 2025, from
https://www.matweb.com
MatWeb, LLC. (n.d.). Aluminum 6061-T6; 6061-T6 material properties. MatWeb Material Property Data. Retrieved
April 9, 2025, from https://www.matweb.com
MatWeb, LLC. (n.d.). 5052 aluminum. MatWeb Material Property Data. Retrieved April 9, 2025, from
https://www.matweb.com
MatWeb, LLC. (n.d.). 1020 cold rolled steel. MatWeb Material Property Data. Retrieved April 9, 2025, from
https://www.matweb.com
MatWeb, LLC. (n.d.). Polycarbonate (PC), unfilled, natural, extruded, and injection molded. MatWeb Material
Property Data. Retrieved April 9, 2025, from https://www.matweb.com
MatWeb, LLC. (n.d.). ABS (Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene) plastic. MatWeb Material Property Data. Retrieved
April 9, 2025, from https://www.matweb.com
MatWeb, LLC. (n.d.). High-density polyethylene (HDPE), injection molded. MatWeb Material Property Data.
Retrieved April 9, 2025, from https://www.matweb.com
The Cary Company. (n.d.). 12 oz. (355 ml) Amber Long Neck Beer Bottle, Pry-Off Crown. Retrieved April 9, 2025,
from https://www.thecarycompany.com/beer-bottle-dimensions
36 | P a g e