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

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

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

4. Current Design Components

5. 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

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

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

8. 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

9. 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

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

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

12. 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)

13. Design changes

21. 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?

22. 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?...

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

24. Rapid prototyping/final design Final Design Rapid Prototyping using Stereolithography

25. Cost Reduced Unit Cost Cheaper materials Fewer parts Easier to assemble

26. Current/Proposed Design Comparison

27. Testing Flow Requirements Met

28. t = 0 min

29. t = 1 min

30. t = 2 min

31. t = 3 min

32. t = 4 min

33. t = 5 min

34. t = 6 min

35. t = 7 min

36. t = 8 min

37. t = 9 min

38. t = 10 min

39. t = 11 min

40. t = 12 min

41. t = 13 min

42. t = 14 min

43. t = 15 min

44. t = 16 min

45. t = 17 min

46. t = 18 min

47. t = 19 min

48. t = 20 min

49. t = 21 min

50. t = 22 min

51. t = 23 min

52. t = 24 min

53. t = 25 min

54. t = 26 min

55. t = 27 min

56. t = 28 min

57. t = 29 min

58. t = 30 min

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

60. Molding Results

61. 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

62. Before Now Future Development

63. THANK YOU Questions?