Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byStuart Wilkinson Modified over 9 years ago
1
Detailed Design Phase Review: P14415 Patrick Morabito John Wilson Michael Coffey Nathan Conklin Samuel Svintozelsky
2
Agenda Requirements Review Prior Design 1 Design 1 Design 2 Test Plan Risks Moving Forward
3
Customer Requirements
4
Engineering Requirements
5
Functional Decomposition Upper Level
6
Functional Decomposition Mid Level
7
Functional Decomposition Mid Level
8
Functional Decomposition Mid Level
9
Functional Decomposition Mid Level
10
Functional Decomposition Sub System level
11
Design 1 - Prior Design Iteration Overly Conservative Analysis Model Failed Worst Case Loading (6180psi): +150% of Ultimate Strength (4100psi) Value too high to justify moving forward (Arrows denote failure location)
12
Design 1 - Manufacturing Process Full production and prototype tooling costs for large dimension (32in x 32in) base too expensive to proceed. Prototype costs range in the $8,000 + range Full production run costs for lots of 100 = $50.00 o still relatively large for simplicity of part Have contacted Faro Industries for additional vacuum forming support. Possibility to re- quote prototype using wooden mold. *Discussed in more detail later in powerpoint Wooden mold for large dimension part could cost ~ $3,000
13
Design 1 - Vacuum forming at R.I.T
14
Design 1 - Plastic Material Selection Material Selected: HDPE Acrylic: Brittle Polycarbonate: Expensive relative to HDPE (2x the cost for most sheets) ABS: Poor UV resistance
15
Design 1 - Selected Design
16
Design 1 -Assembly Drawing
17
Design 1 -Lid Assembly Drawing
18
Design 1 - Mold
19
Design 1 -Mold Drawing
20
Design 1 -Mold Assembly Drawing
21
Design 1 - Rebar Design
23
Design 1 - Rebar Length Optimization
25
Design 1 - Proof of CR/ER Overview
26
Design 1 - Proof of CR/ER: Strength (Insert link to detailed calculations here?) 29600 Cycles => ~3.86 years (Family of 7, 3 times per day, 365 days a year)
27
Design 1 - Analysis Assumptions Rebar supported by edge of hole Load applied across 4in diameter circle Modified Goodman Failure Theory Rebar is hot-rolled
28
Design 1 - Ansys Analysis - Stress 270lbs
29
Design 1 - Ansys Analysis - Displacement 270lbs
30
Design 1 - Ansys Analysis - Stress 120lbs
31
Design 1 - Ansys Analysis - Displacement 120lbs
32
Design 1 - Ansys Analysis - Stress 270lbs
33
Design 1 - Ansys Analysis - Displacement 270lbs
34
Design 1 - Analysis Summary Average Loading (120lbs): Infinite Life & No Yield High Loading (270lbs): Finite Life (29600 cycles) & No Yield; 3.86 years Largest Unsupported Plastic Section Won’t Fail Actual Design Stronger: Loading Distributed by Plastic & Ribbing
35
Design 1 - Proof of CR/ER: Dimensional
36
(.61m)
37
Design 1 - Proof of CR/ER: Dimensional (.23m) (.15m)
38
Design 1 - Proof of CR/ER: Costs
39
Design 1 - Cost Breakdown: Shipping Assumptions: -One day storage before loading and after unloading (2 days total) -Weight does not affect shipping cost -Arborloo will be assembled in Haiti (i.e. only raw material is shipped) Cost to ship: 20’ Shipping Container Dimensions:
40
Design 1 - Cost Breakdown Cont. Material Cost: Shipping Cost: Labor Cost:
41
Design 1 - Proof of CR/ER: Weight
42
Design 1 - Proof of CR/ER: Assembly ●Finished Purchased Product: Does not require on-site assembly ●On-site installation requires the removal of surrounding surface to allow the product to sit in the ground ●No complex tools required at use location
43
Design 1 - Estimated Process Time Approximately 66 minutes
44
Design 1 - Proof of CR/ER: Static coefficient of friction
45
Design 1 - Proof of CR/ER: Misc ●Ease of Cleaning: Detachable lid, non porous material, lightweight dumpable design, smooth surface ●Aesthetically Pleasing: Pending focus group review
46
Design 1 - Additional Customer Requirement: Possible Shelter Attachment
47
Design 1 - Summary Cost in lots of 1000: $23.86 Weight per base: 22.2lbs Infinite life for rebar at average load (120lbs) 3.86 years for rebar at high load (270lbs)
48
Design 2: Deck-Loo - Overview Design Advantages ●Robust material ○Designed for use outdoor ○Designed as walking surface ●Simple Construction ○Pre cut pieces can be assembled with screws alone ●Lightweight Design ○22.9 lbs
49
Design 2 - Material Selection 100% Recycled High Density Polyethylene High Ultimate Strength Excellent environmental stress crack resistance High Ductility
50
Design 2 - Manufacturing Process Delivery of “Kitted” plastic lumber to village craftsman Assembled by screwing lumber together Purchased in village and carried to use sight fully assembled
51
Design 2 - Prototype
52
Design 2 - Proof of CR/ER Overview
53
Main Concern is deflection Deflection between supports Deflection of supports What is comfortable?
54
Design 2 - Proof of CR/ER Overview Deflection between supports Deflection of Supports
55
Design 2 - Proof of CR/ER Overview This analysis is conservative because of point load assumption, so deflection should be less Based on current Haitian sanitation solutions, the team agrees this deflection is sufficient. However, we have ordered more supports than needed, so we can adjust if necessary
56
Design 2 - Proof of CR/ER Overview
60
Design 2 - Cost Breakdown: Shipping Assumptions: -One day storage before loading and after unloading (2 days total) -Weight does not affect shipping cost -Arborloo will be assembled in Haiti (i.e. only raw material is shipped) Cost to ship: 20’ Shipping Container Dimensions:
61
Design 2 - Cost Breakdown Cont. Material Cost: Shipping Cost: Labor Cost:
62
Design 2 - Summary Cost in lots of 1000: $40.86 Weight per base: 22.9lbs Worst case deflection:.44in Simple Construction
63
Test Plan
65
Highlighted Risks Risks 1.Not adoptable: high cost 1.Prototype fails tests 1.Unable to manufacture in Haiti 1.Unacceptable deflection Mitigation Strategy 1.Optimize cost through iteration 2.Modify design accordingly 1.Manufacture in the US 1.Increase the number/material of ribs
66
Limitations On campus manufacturability: machine may be unable to form 1/4in sheets Advanced deadlines in MSDII Mold making capabilities Shipping capabilities
67
Future Project Recommendations Reiterate with only vacuum formed plastic, without any added supports o Work with Faro Industries Reiterate with a focus on recycled materials
68
Future MSD Recommendations Less lecture content early on and more work time 15 minutes for Subject Matter Expert meetings is much too short
69
Learning Experience Importance of project planning and documentation Iterative design process
70
MSDII Critical Path and Milestones
71
Moving Forward Tasks Determine mold making capabilities Order raw materials Manufacture mold Assemble Prototypes
72
Acknowledgements A big thank you to Sarah, Pedro, Kevin, Johnny, Dr. Thorn, Dr. Lam, Dr. Debartolo, and Dr. Boedo, Dr. Humphrey, and all other parties that have assisted us
73
Questions?
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.