Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- report:dvp [2026/06/12 17:23] – [7.4.3 Structure] team4
+++ report:dvp [2026/06/18 20:09] (current) – [7.6.4 Tests & Results] team4
@@ Line 167: / Line 167: @@
 <figure fig:smartblock3>
 |{{ :report:foto3.5.1.png?600 |}}| {{ :report:foto3.4.jpeg?600 |}} |
-<caption>Final variation of the smartblock assembly.</caption>
+<caption>Final Smart Module assembly.</caption>
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
@@ Line 174: / Line 174: @@
 <figure fig:smartblock3.1>
 {{ :report:gemini_generated_image_et4dm5et4dm5et4d.png?600 |}}
-<caption>Final variation of the smartblock.</caption>
+<caption>Final Smart Module.</caption>
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
-In Figure {{ref>fig:Structural drawing modular block}} you can see the technical drawings of the smartlogger attachement and the reef module.
+In Figure {{ref>fig:Structuraldrawingmodularblock}} you can see the technical drawings of the Reef Block and the Smartlogger attachment.
 <WRAP centeralign>
-<figure fig:Structural drawing modular block>
+<figure fig:Structuraldrawingmodularblock>
 |{{:report:schermafbeelding_2026-06-11_093818.png?600|}}|{{:report:schermafbeelding_2026-06-11_101357.png?600|}}|
 <caption>Structural drawings</caption>
@@ Line 187: / Line 187: @@
 </WRAP>
-To protect the smartlogger we designed a protecting roof so algea won't be growing on the smartlogger that much. In Figure {{ref>fig:roof}} you see the roof attached to the Smartlogger
+To protect the smartlogger we designed a protecting roof so algea won't be growing on the smartlogger that much. In Figure {{ref>fig:roof}} you see the roof attached to the Smartlogger.
 <WRAP centeralign>
 <figure fig:roof>
-{{:report:01312cb0-669c-4600-b130-48574042503b.jpg?600|}}
+{{ :report:01312cb0-669c-4600-b130-48574042503b.jpg?600 |}}
 <caption>Roof</caption>
 </figure>
@@ Line 204: / Line 204: @@
 **Stress test concrete block**
 <WRAP centeralign>
-<figure fig:simulation 1>
+<figure fig:simulation1>
-{{:report:afbeelding1.png?600|}}
+{{ :report:afbeelding1.png?600 |}}
 <caption>Simulation concrete block stress test.</caption>
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
-The simulation indicates that the basalt fabric reinforced concrete structure can withstand the applied underwater load case. With an external water pressure of approximately 300,128 N/m² on all sides and gravity included, the maximum von Mises stress is about 0.801 MPa, which is significantly lower than the assumed yield strength of 6.0 MPa. This gives an estimated factor of safety of approximately 7.5, meaning the structure remains well within the safe range. The highest stresses occur near the connection between the cone-shaped supports and the central beam, which is expected because these areas act as stress concentrations. However, the stresses remain below the material limit, so the design appears structurally safe for this simplified underwater pressure load case. Keep in mind that for concrete-based materials, it is also useful to check the maximum principal tensile stress, because cracking usually starts due to tensile stresses rather than yielding.
+The simulation (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation1}})indicates that the basalt fabric reinforced concrete structure can withstand the applied underwater load case. With an external water pressure of approximately 300,128 N/m² on all sides and gravity included, the maximum von Mises stress is about 0.801 MPa, which is significantly lower than the assumed yield strength of 6.0 MPa. This gives an estimated factor of safety of approximately 7.5, meaning the structure remains well within the safe range. The highest stresses occur near the connection between the cone-shaped supports and the central beam, which is expected because these areas act as stress concentrations. However, the stresses remain below the material limit, so the design appears structurally safe for this simplified underwater pressure load case. Keep in mind that for concrete-based materials, it is also useful to check the maximum principal tensile stress, because cracking usually starts due to tensile stresses rather than yielding.
 **Displacement test concrete block**
 <WRAP centeralign>
-<figure fig:simulation 2>
+<figure fig:simulation2>
-{{:report:afbeelding2.png?600|}}
+{{ :report:afbeelding2.png?600 |}}
 <caption>Simulation concrete block displacement test.</caption>
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
-The displacement result shows that the structure deforms only very slightly under the applied underwater pressure and gravity. The maximum resultant displacement is approximately 2.706 × 10⁻³ mm, which is only 0.0027 mm. This is extremely small, meaning the structure remains very stiff under the simulated load case. The largest displacement occurs near the upper edges of the cone-shaped supports, especially around the openings, while the lower areas show almost no displacement. This deformation pattern is expected because the upper parts are less constrained and can move slightly more than the base regions. Overall, the displacement result confirms that the structure experiences negligible deformation at a depth of approximately 30 meters, so from a stiffness point of view the design appears safe for this simplified underwater loading condition.
+The displacement result shows (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation2}}) that the structure deforms only very slightly under the applied underwater pressure and gravity. The maximum resultant displacement is approximately 2.706 × 10⁻³ mm, which is only 0.0027 mm. This is extremely small, meaning the structure remains very stiff under the simulated load case. The largest displacement occurs near the upper edges of the cone-shaped supports, especially around the openings, while the lower areas show almost no displacement. This deformation pattern is expected because the upper parts are less constrained and can move slightly more than the base regions. Overall, the displacement result confirms that the structure experiences negligible deformation at a depth of approximately 30 meters, so from a stiffness point of view the design appears safe for this simplified underwater loading condition.
 **Strain test concrete block**
 <WRAP centeralign>
-<figure fig:simulation 3>
+<figure fig:simulation3>
-{{:report:afbeelding3.png?600|}}
+{{ :report:afbeelding3.png?600 |}}
 <caption>Simulation concrete block strain test.</caption>
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
-The strain result shows that the structure experiences very low deformation under the applied underwater pressure and gravity. The maximum strain is approximately 1.419 × 10⁻⁵, which is very small and indicates that the material is only slightly stretched or compressed. The highest strain occurs around the transition zones between the cone-shaped supports and the central beam, especially near the lower connection areas. This matches the stress result, where the same regions also showed the highest stress concentrations. However, the strain values remain low, meaning the structure is not deforming significantly and the material is behaving safely within the assumed load case. Overall, this strain plot supports the conclusion that the design is structurally stable under the simplified 30-meter underwater pressure condition.
+The strain result (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation3}}) shows that the structure experiences very low deformation under the applied underwater pressure and gravity. The maximum strain is approximately 1.419 × 10⁻⁵, which is very small and indicates that the material is only slightly stretched or compressed. The highest strain occurs around the transition zones between the cone-shaped supports and the central beam, especially near the lower connection areas. This matches the stress result, where the same regions also showed the highest stress concentrations. However, the strain values remain low, meaning the structure is not deforming significantly and the material is behaving safely within the assumed load case. Overall, this strain plot supports the conclusion that the design is structurally stable under the simplified 30-meter underwater pressure condition.
 **Factor of safety concrete block**
 <WRAP centeralign>
-<figure fig:simulation 4>
+<figure fig:simulation4>
-{{:report:afbeelding4.png?600|}}
+{{ :report:afbeelding4.png?600 |}}
 <caption>Simulation concrete block factor of safety.</caption>
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
-The factor of safety plot confirms that the structure remains safe under the applied underwater pressure and gravity load case. The minimum factor of safety is approximately 7.49, which is well above the usual minimum requirement of 1.5–2.0 for many static structural checks. This means that the maximum stress in the structure is still far below the assumed material strength. Although most of the model appears red, this does not mean failure; it only means these areas have the lowest safety factor within the selected color scale. Since the minimum value is still around 7.5, the structure has a large safety margin. The most critical region is again located near the connection between the cone-shaped support and the central beam, which matches the stress and strain results. Overall, the design appears structurally safe for this simplified 30-meter underwater loading condition.
+The factor of safety (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation4}}) plot confirms that the structure remains safe under the applied underwater pressure and gravity load case. The minimum factor of safety is approximately 7.49, which is well above the usual minimum requirement of 1.5–2.0 for many static structural checks. This means that the maximum stress in the structure is still far below the assumed material strength. Although most of the model appears red, this does not mean failure; it only means these areas have the lowest safety factor within the selected color scale. Since the minimum value is still around 7.5, the structure has a large safety margin. The most critical region is again located near the connection between the cone-shaped support and the central beam, which matches the stress and strain results. Overall, the design appears structurally safe for this simplified 30-meter underwater loading condition.
 **Strength test full structure**
 <WRAP centeralign>
-<figure fig:simulation 5>
+<figure fig:simulation5>
-{{:report:afbeelding5.png?600|}}
+{{ :report:afbeelding5.png?600 |}}
 <caption>Simulation full structure strength test.</caption>
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
-The von Mises stress locally exceeds the assumed yield strength, but since the material is concrete-based, von Mises stress and yield strength are not the most appropriate failure criteria. This result should therefore not be interpreted directly as failure. Instead, the maximum principal tensile stress should be checked, because cracking in concrete usually starts due to tensile stress. In addition, the compressive strength should also be evaluated to verify whether the material remains safe under compression. The high von Mises value mainly indicates a local stress concentration, most likely near a connection or constrained area. If the maximum principal tensile stress stays below the tensile strength and the compressive stress stays below the compressive strength of the material, the structure can still be considered acceptable for this simplified load case.
+The von Mises stress (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation5}}) locally exceeds the assumed yield strength, but since the material is concrete-based, von Mises stress and yield strength are not the most appropriate failure criteria. This result should therefore not be interpreted directly as failure. Instead, the maximum principal tensile stress should be checked, because cracking in concrete usually starts due to tensile stress. In addition, the compressive strength should also be evaluated to verify whether the material remains safe under compression. The high von Mises value mainly indicates a local stress concentration, most likely near a connection or constrained area. If the maximum principal tensile stress stays below the tensile strength and the compressive stress stays below the compressive strength of the material, the structure can still be considered acceptable for this simplified load case.
 **Tensile strength test full structure**
 <WRAP centeralign>
-<figure fig:simulation 6>
+<figure fig:simulation6>
-{{:report:afbeelding6.png?600|}}
+{{ :report:afbeelding6.png?600 |}}
 <caption>Simulation full structure tensile strength test.</caption>
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
-The maximum principal tensile stress is approximately 2.998 MPa, which is lower than the assumed tensile strength of 6.0 MPa. This gives an estimated safety factor of about 2.0 against tensile cracking. Since concrete-based materials are more likely to fail by cracking than by yielding, this result is more relevant than the von Mises stress. The result indicates that the structure remains acceptable in tension for this simplified load case. However, the compressive stress should also be checked separately by evaluating the third principal stress or compressive stress result.
+The maximum principal tensile stress (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation6}}) is approximately 2.998 MPa, which is lower than the assumed tensile strength of 6.0 MPa. This gives an estimated safety factor of about 2.0 against tensile cracking. Since concrete-based materials are more likely to fail by cracking than by yielding, this result is more relevant than the von Mises stress. The result indicates that the structure remains acceptable in tension for this simplified load case. However, the compressive stress should also be checked separately by evaluating the third principal stress or compressive stress result.
 **Compressive strength test full structure**
 <WRAP centeralign>
-<figure fig:simulation 7>
+<figure fig:simulation7>
-{{:report:afbeelding7.png?600|}}
+{{ :report:afbeelding7.png?600 |}}
 <caption>Simulation full structure compressive strength test.</caption>
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
-The third principal stress was evaluated to check the compressive behavior of the concrete-based material. The maximum compressive stress is approximately 6.404 MPa, which is significantly lower than the assumed compressive strength of 55 MPa. This gives an estimated safety factor of about 8.6 against compressive failure. Therefore, the structure appears safe under compression for this simplified load case. Combined with the first principal stress result, which remains below the tensile strength, the structure can be considered acceptable from both a tensile cracking and compressive strength point of view.
+The third principal stress (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation7}}) was evaluated to check the compressive behavior of the concrete-based material. The maximum compressive stress is approximately 6.404 MPa, which is significantly lower than the assumed compressive strength of 55 MPa. This gives an estimated safety factor of about 8.6 against compressive failure. Therefore, the structure appears safe under compression for this simplified load case. Combined with the first principal stress result, which remains below the tensile strength, the structure can be considered acceptable from both a tensile cracking and compressive strength point of view.
 **Displacement test full structure**
 <WRAP centeralign>
-<figure fig:simulation 8>
+<figure fig:simulation8>
-{{:report:afbeelding8.png?600|}}
+{{ :report:afbeelding8.png?600 |}}
 <caption>Simulation full structure displacement test.</caption>
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
-The displacement plot shows that the maximum resultant displacement is approximately 5.141 × 10⁻² mm, or 0.0514 mm. This is a very small deformation, so the structure remains quite stiff under the applied load case. The largest displacement occurs locally near one of the upper support/connection areas, while most of the structure stays in the lower displacement range. This is expected because the connected structure can deform slightly more at the upper and less constrained regions, while the fixed lower supports remain almost stationary. Overall, the displacement result is acceptable and confirms that the structure does not experience significant deformation under the simulated underwater pressure and gravity loading.
+The displacement plot shows (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation8}}) that the maximum resultant displacement is approximately 5.141 × 10⁻² mm, or 0.0514 mm. This is a very small deformation, so the structure remains quite stiff under the applied load case. The largest displacement occurs locally near one of the upper support/connection areas, while most of the structure stays in the lower displacement range. This is expected because the connected structure can deform slightly more at the upper and less constrained regions, while the fixed lower supports remain almost stationary. Overall, the displacement result is acceptable and confirms that the structure does not experience significant deformation under the simulated underwater pressure and gravity loading.
 **Strain test full structure**
 <WRAP centeralign>
-<figure fig:simulation 9>
+<figure fig:simulation9>
-{{:report:afbeelding9.png?600|}}
+{{ :report:afbeelding9.png?600 |}}
 <caption>Simulation full structure strain test.</caption>
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
-The strain plot shows a maximum strain of approximately 6.962 × 10⁻⁵. This is still a very small strain value, meaning the structure only deforms slightly under the applied underwater pressure and gravity loading. The highest strain occurs locally near one of the beam-to-support connection zones, which is consistent with the previous stress and displacement results. Most of the structure remains in the blue region, indicating low strain levels overall. Together with the principal stress results, this suggests that the structure behaves in a stable way and does not experience excessive deformation in this simplified load case.
+The strain plot (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation9}}) shows a maximum strain of approximately 6.962 × 10⁻⁵. This is still a very small strain value, meaning the structure only deforms slightly under the applied underwater pressure and gravity loading. The highest strain occurs locally near one of the beam-to-support connection zones, which is consistent with the previous stress and displacement results. Most of the structure remains in the blue region, indicating low strain levels overall. Together with the principal stress results, this suggests that the structure behaves in a stable way and does not experience excessive deformation in this simplified load case.
 **Factor of safety test full structure**
 <WRAP centeralign>
-<figure fig:simulation 10>
+<figure fig:simulation10>
-{{:report:afbeelding10.png?600|}}
+{{ :report:afbeelding10.png?600 |}}
 <caption>Simulation full structure factor of safety test.</caption>
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
-This FOS plot gives a minimum factor of safety of approximately 0.78, which means that according to the standard SolidWorks FOS calculation, the local stress is higher than the assumed allowable/yield value. However, because this material is concrete-based, this result should not be interpreted in the same way as for a metal. The FOS plot is based on the selected strength criterion, often related to von Mises/yield strength, which is not the most suitable failure criterion for concrete. For this structure, the principal stress results are more relevant: the maximum principal tensile stress was about 2.998 MPa, which is below the assumed tensile strength of 6.0 MPa, and the maximum compressive stress was about 6.404 MPa, which is far below the assumed compressive strength of 55 MPa. Therefore, even though the standard FOS plot shows a local value below 1, the concrete-specific checks suggest that the structure remains acceptable for this simplified load case. The low FOS mainly indicates a local stress concentration and should be used as a warning point, especially near the beam-support connections, rather than as direct proof of failure.
+This FOS plot (see Figure {{ref>fig:simulation10}}) gives a minimum factor of safety of approximately 0.78, which means that according to the standard SolidWorks FOS calculation, the local stress is higher than the assumed allowable/yield value. However, because this material is concrete-based, this result should not be interpreted in the same way as for a metal. The FOS plot is based on the selected strength criterion, often related to von Mises/yield strength, which is not the most suitable failure criterion for concrete. For this structure, the principal stress results are more relevant: the maximum principal tensile stress was about 2.998 MPa, which is below the assumed tensile strength of 6.0 MPa, and the maximum compressive stress was about 6.404 MPa, which is far below the assumed compressive strength of 55 MPa. Therefore, even though the standard FOS plot shows a local value below 1, the concrete-specific checks suggest that the structure remains acceptable for this simplified load case. The low FOS mainly indicates a local stress concentration and should be used as a warning point, especially near the beam-support connections, rather than as direct proof of failure.
 **General conclusion**
@@ Line 531: / Line 531: @@
 ==== 7.5.3 Packaging ====
-The packaging design was planned separately for the smartlogger and the modular habitat unit because these parts have different sizes, weights, and protection needs. The smartlogger is the complete removable monitoring unit, including the metal support frame and the smart box. The smart box contains the electronic components, battery, SD card, and sensors. Therefore, the smartlogger needs protection from shock, dust, moisture, and vibration during transport. On the other hand, the modular habitat unit is much heavier and does not require the same type of protective case, so its transport solution must focus more on stability, safe handling, and movement prevention.
+The packaging design was planned separately for the Smart Module and the Reef Block because these parts have different sizes, weights, and protection needs. The Smart Module includes the Smartlogger and the Smartlogger attachment. The Smartlogger contains the electronic components, battery, SD card, and sensors. Therefore, the Smart Module needs protection from shock, dust, moisture, and vibration during transport. On the other hand, the Reef Block is much heavier and does not require the same type of protective case, so its transport solution must focus more on stability, safe handling, and movement prevention.
-Figure {{ref>fig:sensor_box_packaging}} shows the packaging concept for the smartlogger. The design is inspired by reusable waterproof hard cases, such as the NANUK 935 Pro Photo Kit. This type of case is suitable for sensitive equipment because it is designed to protect the contents from impact, dust, water, and vibration during transport [(NANUK935)]. The NANUK 935 case is made with a lightweight NK-7 resin shell and is described as impact-resistant and shock-absorbent, which makes it appropriate for transporting electronic monitoring equipment [(NANUK935Kit)].
+Figure {{ref>fig:sensor_box_packaging}} shows the packaging concept for the Smart Module. The design is inspired by reusable waterproof hard cases, such as the NANUK 935 Pro Photo Kit. This type of case is suitable for sensitive equipment because it is designed to protect the contents from impact, dust, water, and vibration during transport [(nanuk935)]. The NANUK 935 case is made with a lightweight NK-7 resin shell and is described as impact-resistant and shock-absorbent, which makes it appropriate for transporting electronic monitoring equipment [(nanuk935)].
-Inside the case, the smartlogger is placed in a custom EVA foam insert. EVA foam was selected because it is lightweight, durable, moisture-resistant, and able to absorb shock. Its closed-cell structure gives it low water absorption, and its cushioning properties make it suitable for protecting sensitive components during transport [(EVAFoam)]. The foam insert is shaped around the smartlogger to reduce movement inside the case and to keep the smartlogger and assembly instruction card organized.
+Inside the case, the Smart Module is placed in a custom EVA foam insert. EVA foam was selected because it is lightweight, durable, moisture-resistant, and able to absorb shock. Its closed-cell structure gives it low water absorption, and its cushioning properties make it suitable for protecting sensitive components during transport [(eva_foam)]. The foam insert is shaped around the Smart Module to reduce movement inside the case and to keep the Smart Module and assembly instruction card organized.
-The sensors and electronic components are integrated inside the smart box, which is part of the smartlogger. Therefore, no separate sensor set or external sensor cables are included in this packaging concept. An assembly instruction card is included to show how the smart box is attached to the metal support frame and how the protective lid is added before deployment. The EVA foam insert is not considered a single-use material in this concept because it can be reused with the same hard case for storage, deployment, maintenance, and retrieval operations.
+The sensors and electronic components are integrated inside the Smartlogger, which is part of the Smart Module. Therefore, no separate sensor set or external sensor cables are included in this packaging concept. An assembly instruction card is included to show how the Smartlogger is attached to the Smartlogger attachment and how the protective lid is added before deployment. The EVA foam insert is not considered a single-use material in this concept because it can be reused with the same hard case for storage, deployment, maintenance, and retrieval operations.
-Figure {{ref>fig:modular_unit_packaging}} shows the transport concept for the modular habitat unit. Since this part is heavy and mainly made of concrete, it is transported separately on a wooden pallet instead of being placed inside the blue hard case. Wooden pallets are suitable for transporting heavy goods because they provide a stable load carrier and allow handling with forklifts [(EPALPallet)]. The modular habitat unit is fixed to the pallet using straps to keep the load stable and reduce movement during transport [(PalletStraps)]. This solution reduces unnecessary packaging material while keeping the concrete block stable during handling and transport.
+Figure {{ref>fig:modular_unit_packaging}} shows the transport concept for the Reef Block. Since this part is heavy and mainly made of concrete, it is transported separately on a wooden pallet instead of being placed inside the blue hard case. Wooden pallets are suitable for transporting heavy goods because they provide a stable load carrier and allow handling with forklifts [(epal_pallet)]. The Reef Block is fixed to the pallet using straps to keep the load stable and reduce movement during transport [(pallet_straps)]. This solution reduces unnecessary packaging material while keeping the concrete block stable during handling and transport.
-The packaging also considers reuse. The waterproof hard case can be used repeatedly for storage, deployment, maintenance, and retrieval of the smartlogger. The pallet can also be reused for several transports if it remains in good condition. For the final version, the foam inserts should be replaced only when damaged. In this way, the packaging can protect the product while also reducing unnecessary waste.
+The packaging also considers reuse. The waterproof hard case can be used repeatedly for storage, deployment, maintenance, and retrieval of the Smart Module. The pallet can also be reused for several transports if it remains in good condition. For the final version, the foam inserts should be replaced only when damaged. In this way, the packaging can protect the product while also reducing unnecessary waste.
 These packaging images are concept visuals, so the final packaging may still change after testing. In the next stage, handling and transport tests should be carried out to check whether the hard case, EVA foam insert, pallet, and straps can properly protect the components under real transport conditions.
@@ Line 548: / Line 548: @@
 <figure fig:sensor_box_packaging>
 {{ :report:smartlogger.png?nolink |}}
-<caption> AI-generated packaging concept for the smartlogger transport case </caption>
+<caption> AI-generated packaging concept for the Smart Module transport case </caption>
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
 <WRAP centeralign>
 <figure fig:modular_unit_packaging>
 {{ :report:modularunit.png?nolink |}}
-<caption> AI-generated transport concept for the modular habitat unit </caption>
+<caption> AI-generated transport concept for the Reef Block </caption>
 </figure>
 </WRAP>
 ==== 7.6 Prototype ====
@@ Line 578: / Line 578: @@
 These changes are made to simplify prototype construction and enable early testing of the system concept before developing the final full-scale solution.
+== 7.6.1.1 Reef block ==
+For the prototype of the reefblock we wanted to make it out of concrete. This meant we first had to design a mold (see Figure {{ref>fig:Mold}}) and afterwords put the concrete in the mold. The entire mould exists out of 4 different pieces, a right part, a left par, a top cone and a bottom cone.
+<WRAP centeralign>
+<figure fig:Mold>
+{{ :report:mal.png?600 |}}
+<caption>Mold</caption>
+</figure>
+</WRAP>
+**How to Make the Prototype**
+__Step 1:__
+First, the cement mixture is prepared. This mixture consists of 2 kg of cement and 250 ml of water. It is important to mix it thoroughly until a smooth and consistent paste is formed (see Figure {{ref>fig:Mixture}}).
+<WRAP centeralign>
+<figure fig:Mixture>
+{{ :report:making_pastry.jpeg?600 |}}
+<caption>Making of the cement mixture.</caption>
+</figure>
+</WRAP>
+__Step 2:__
+After preparing the cement mixture, the mold has to be prepared. First, a plastic film is placed on top of the mold. Then, another plastic sheet is applied on top of the film and covered with oil. This makes it easier to remove the prototype from the mold afterwards (see Figure {{ref>fig:Film}}).
+<WRAP centeralign>
+<figure fig:Film>
+{{ :report:film_oil.jpeg?600 |}}
+<caption>Applying film.</caption>
+</figure>
+</WRAP>
+__Step 3:__
+Next, the cement mixture is placed into the mold, as shown in Figure {{ref>fig:Input}}. During this process, it is important not to add too much mixture at once, because the inserts still need to fit properly. After placing the inserts, the entire mold can be tapped gently on the table a few times to make sure the mixture is evenly distributed.
+<WRAP centeralign>
+<figure fig:Input>
+|{{:report:pastry_input.jpeg?600|}}|{{:report:mold_with_inserts.jpeg?600|}}|
+<caption>Filling the mold with the cement mixture.</caption>
+</figure>
+</WRAP>
+At this point, one half of the prototype is finished. Repeat the same process to create the second half. Once both halves are ready, they can be glued together.
+After completing these steps, the prototype should be left to cure for at least 3 to 4 days. Since the prototype is scaled down, the middle section is very thin and can break easily, but this can be fixed with the same glue that is uses to glue to two halves together.
 === 7.6.2 Hardware ===
@@ Line 766: / Line 816: @@
 <WRAP centeralign>
 <figure fig:flowchart>
-{{ :report:flowchart.jpeg?nolink |}}
+{{ :report:maris_habitats_flowchart.png?nolink&600 |}}
 <caption>Software flow chart</caption>
 </figure>
@@ Line 806: / Line 856: @@
 <WRAP centeralign>
 <figure fig:StoredData>
-{{ :0:skaermbild_2026-06-11_194629.png?1000 }}
+{{ :0:skaermbild_2026-06-11_194629.png?800 }}
 <caption>Stored data in Excel</caption>
 </figure>
@@ Line 812: / Line 862: @@
 ==== 7.7 Summary ====