SE-4000 Portable Eye Wash Spray Fixture The Speakman Company University of Delaware Team: Wes Doyle Nate Griffith Matt Jaskot Jason McKnight

Overview Present the problem State our goals Reveal the project constraints Traverse the design process Reveal the problem solution Validate the problem solution

Existing design – Complicated and expensive brass valve – Many parts high assembly labor costs – Significant room for cost reduction in spray arms

Current Design Components

Sponsor’s Problem High cost model in a low cost Market Seeks to reposition eyewash at appropriate cost level More Features- Higher Cost Low Cost Commodity competition

Our Task Reduce cost of Spray- Arm Assembly under $15 Maintain compliance with ANSI flow requirements

Sponsor’s Wants Utilize existing tank tooling Aesthetic appeal Minimize changes to shipping container One year Return on capital expenditure

ANSI Requirements – Minimum flow of 0.4 GPM for 15 minutes – Hands free operation – Nozzles protected from airborne contaminants – “On to Off” in 1 second or less – Nozzle at least 6” from nearest obstruction – Must not leak & operate reliably every time – Both eyes flushed simultaneously at safe water velocities

Design Subsystems 3 Subsystems Spray-Arms perform: - Regulation of flow on/off (valve) - Direction of flow to user’s eyes (nozzles) - Attachment to tank (threaded nut) Any new design must perform these 3 functions at low cost - Attachment to tank and flow direction are relatively easy to do - Focus on flow regulation

Concept generation - Initial ideas for flow regulation Ball ValveLinear Valve Snap-on Nozzle Caps - Low-cost design easy to prototype quickly, cheaply

Ball Valve Prototype Estimated Cost ~$30 (ball valve expensive, assembly costs) One Attachment Point, Low Strength Ugly.

Pull-Off Caps Prototype Estimated Cost Near $15 Target Attached with Bolts / Screws (Stronger) T-Handle Connected to Caps Sharp Metal Edges Plastic Molded Design (it is a safety product)

Design changes

Pull-Off Strap Design Angled rubber strap – Allows for user to easily grab onto handle – Expensive to mold due to complex shape – Cheaper, effective alternative?

Pull-Off Strap Design Straight rubber strap – Less expensive mold – Smaller surface area for user to grab onto – $6800 Tooling – $3.50 Piece price – Cheap, ergonomic alternative?...

Pull-Off Strap Design Inverted rubber strap – Inexpensive – Prominent – Peeling effect Other alternative? – Widen the space between nozzles for more room

Rapid prototyping/final design Final Design Rapid Prototyping using Stereolithography

Cost Reduced Unit Cost Cheaper materials Fewer parts Easier to assemble

Current/Proposed Design Comparison

Testing Flow Requirements Met

t = 0 min

t = 1 min

t = 2 min

t = 3 min

t = 4 min

t = 5 min

t = 6 min

t = 7 min

t = 8 min

t = 9 min

t = 10 min

t = 11 min

t = 12 min

t = 13 min

t = 14 min

t = 15 min

t = 16 min

t = 17 min

t = 18 min

t = 19 min

t = 20 min

t = 21 min

t = 22 min

t = 23 min

t = 24 min

t = 25 min

t = 26 min

t = 27 min

t = 28 min

t = 29 min

t = 30 min

Manufacturing Concerns -Fixture Molding method -Rotomolding Accommodates short production runs Low tooling cost compared to blow molding Tradeoff-High piece price

Molding Results

Route to finished product Path forward to a marketable product – Packaging – Customer Assembly? – Contour – Precision measurements – Decals – Removing current and replacing – Assembly Jigs – Handle Manufacturing

Before Now Future Development

THANK YOU Questions?