blender redesign

Design for Manufacture & Environment Final Paper – Redesigning Blender

Name: Pratham Shah

Due Date: 12/13/2013

- Energy

- Signal

- Material

Function Structure – Blender

Energy – Manual;

putting ingredients

in the jar

Energy – Electrical;

through power supply

Establish connection

between motor shaft

and blades inside jar

Material -

Ingredients

Signal – start button

is pressed

Convert electrical

energy to rotational

Energy – Manual;

pushing power button

Store ingredients

Rotating blades cuts

the ingredients

De-establish connection

between motor shaft

and blades inside jar

Clean the jar

Chopped

ingredients

Cleaned jar

Energy – Manual;

place jar on to the

holder

Energy – Manual;

pushing power button

Signal – off button

is pressed

Sound

Vibration

Heat

Filled jar Filled jar

Rotating blades

Filled jar with

ingredients chopped

Dirty jar

Signal – user notices then

ingredients are chopped

Function Structure

Assumptions

Conversion of electrical energy to rotational also produces waste energy in the form of heat, vibration and sound.

Jar needs to be cleaned after use.

The on and off buttons are pressed only once per use. No pulse input is given.

Design Changes The jar shape is like a rectangular cuboid. These can be converted to a cylindrical (more like conical) shape as shown in fig1.

For same volume of these two shapes, the surface area for a cylinder is less than a cuboid and can save material by about 11%.

The environmental impact (eco indicator pointer - 510) of production of polycarbonate (PC) is significantly higher than other

materials. Instead of using polycarbonate for making, glass can be used. Production of glass has significantly lower

environmental impact (eco indicator pointer - 58).

The feeder cap can be eliminated by using a feeder slider (fig2) that is a part of the jar lid. These helps to save material (PC)

used in making the feeder cap.

The base housing is also a bit large compared to all the components that are inside it. There is space wasted inside the housing.

The housing can be made cylindrical in shape (fig3) and can still accommodate all the internal components. This can help in

saving housing material (ABS).

For normal use of 10 minutes per week, a big fan is not required. The fan can be made smaller such that it is sufficient for

providing the necessary cooling ventilation (fig 4). It not only helps in reducing the amount of fan material used, but also

reduce the housing material used.

The highest environmental impact for blender parts comes from steel production (eco indicator pointer - 910). Instead of steel,

the fan can be made of ABS (eco indicator pointer - 400) which has significantly lower environmental impact than steel.

The highest environmental impact of the blender comes from the use of electricity. Electricity can be saved by used of a better

motor with higher efficiency that produces same 450W of power, however with consuming less electricity. A small percentage

of electricity use will be reduced by the smaller and lighter fan made of ABS instead of steel. Suppose the electricity usage can

be reduced by 15% by these methods. Thus, instead of using 19.5 kWh, the new blender will use 16.58 kWh electricity during

its life cycle.

The polycarbonate threaded jar nut is made of ABS to slightly improve the environmental impact.

Bill of Materials (BOM)

ID DESCRIPTION QUANTITY MATERIAL MANUFACTURING

PROCESS FINISH PRIMARY FUNCTION(s)

1 Leak-proof lid 1 Polyethylene Injection Molded None Covering the glass jar

2 Jar 1 Glass Blow Molding None Holding the ingredients

3 Sealing Ring 1 Silicone Rubber Extruded and then cut None Avoid spilling

4 Blade 2 Stainless Steel Stamped Grinding Cutting / blending ingredients

5 Blade Holder 1 Stainless Steel Drawn, Stamped None Mounting blades

6 Threaded Jar Nut 1 ABS Injection Molded None Mounting blades and plastic

jar

7 Oster Label 1 Laminated Paper Printed None Branding, Labeling buttons

and their purpose

8 Bottom Housing 1 ABS Injection Molded None Enclosure, surface for in-mold

marking

9 Rubber Feet 4 Silicone Rubber Casting None Support blender, reduce

vibrations

10 Bottom Cover 1 ABS Injection Molded None Enclosure

11 Screws 3 Stainless Steel Cut from bar stock,

pressed and threaded Zinc

Plated Joining

12 Cooling Fan 1 ABS Injection Molded None Removing heat

13 Hexagonal Screws 4 Hardened Steel Cut from bar stock,

pressed and threaded None Joining

14 Motor 1 Various Materials Assembled None Rotating blade

15 Washer 1 Stainless Steel Stamped None Distribute load

16 Nut 1 Stainless Steel Cold Formed and

threaded None Joining

17 Shaft Screw 1 Stainless Steel CNC None Joining

18 Shaft Disc 1 Stainless Steel Stamped and Pierced None Distribute load on shaft screw

19 Plastic Washer 4 Polyethylene Extruded and then Cut None Reducing Vibrations

20 Circuit Board 1 Various Materials Assembled None Controlling electricity

21 Circuit Board & Buttons Mount 1 Polyethylene Injection Molded None

Mounting circuit board and buttons

22 Buttons 6 ABS Injection Molded None Controlling motor speed

23 Wires 4 Copper, PVC

insulation Extruded copper None Passing electric current

Eco-indicator 99

Purpose

The product being analyzed is an Oster branded 8 speed blender and not any other

branded from the same or different brand.

The blender has a 5 year lifespan, during which it is operated 1 time/week for 10 min per

use.

The purpose of the analysis is to study the environmental impacts of different aspects of

blender including the materials, processes, usage and disposal in order to recognize the

aspects that can be improved upon considering the environmental impact.

In addition, the environmental impact of new design is compared with the old design to

see the improvements.

Assumptions

Only electricity is considered as part of usage

Blender power - 450 W

Electricity used per blender - 16.58 kWh

All steels are high alloy steel.

PCB, motor, label and wirings are ignored.

All plastic resins are injection molded and all metal parts are stamped.

For approximating weight, all plastics and metal density are considered 0.94 gms/cm3 and

8 gms/cm3 respectively. Volume of the materials are estimated using rough dimensional

measurements.

All disposal is through municipal waste.

Mass area ratio of corrugated cardboard – 0.05 gms/cm2. Packaging material area = 1300

cm2. Thus, its weight – 65 gms

Glass density is 2.5 gms/cm3. The method of preparation is assumed as injection molded.

Old Design

Production

Material Amount Indicator Result

Polyethylene (LDPE) 80 gms 360 28.8

Polycarbonate 185 gms 510 94.35

Silicone Rubber 7 gms (too less quantity) Ignored 0

ABS 310 gms 400 124

Steel 270 gms 910 245.7

Injection Molding PE,ABS 690 gms 21 14.49

Injection Molding PC 184 gms 44 8.09

Stamping Steel 3000 mm2 (assumed) 0.00006 0.18

Cardboard 65 gms 69 4.49

Total (mPt) 520.1

Use


Electricity 19.5 kWh 37 721.5

Disposal

Material & Process Amount Indicator Result

Municipal waste PE 80 gms -1.1 -0.09

Municipal waste PC 195 gms 10 (assumed as of PVC) 1.95

Municipal waste ABS 610 gms -1.1 (assumed as of PE) -0.67

Municipal waste steel 270 gms -5.9 -1.59

Municipal waste cardboard 65 gms 0.64 0.04

Total (mPt) -0.36

Total (mPt) = 520.1 + 721.5 - 0.36 = 1241.24

Life-cycle

Glass

325 gms

PE

85 gms

ABS

350 gms

Silicone

Rubber

7 gms

Steel

110 gms

Injection Molding

Stamped

Assembled

Packaged

Use

Blender

Cardboard

65 gms

Electricity

16.58 kWh

New Design

Production


Polyethylene (LDPE) 85 gms 360 30.6

Silicone Rubber 7 gms (too less quantity) Ignored 0

ABS 350 gms 400 140

Steel 110 gms 910 100.1

Glass 325 gms 58 18.85

Injection Molding PE,ABS 840 gms 21 17.64

Stamping Steel 3000 mm2 (assumed) 0.00006 0.18

Cardboard 65 gms 69 4.49

Total (mPt) 311.86

Use


Electricity 16.58 kWh 37 613.46

Disposal

Material & Process Amount Indicator Result

Municipal waste PE 85 gms -1.1 -0.09

Municipal waste Glass 325 gms -15 -4.88

Municipal waste ABS 350 gms -1.1 (assumed as of PE) -0.39

Municipal waste steel 110 gms -5.9 -0.65

Municipal waste cardboard 65 gms 0.64 0.04

Total (mPt) -5.97

Total (mPt) = 311.86 + 613.46 – 5.97 = 919.35

Improvement over previous design = (1241.24 – 919.35) / 1241.24 = 26 %

Results

The use of electricity has highest environmental impact and thus redesign the blender

needs to focus on reducing the electrical consumption.

The substitution of PC with glass for the jar has significantly reduced the environmental

impact of production.

Overall 26 % improvement have been brought in environmental impact by the new

design.

The performance or usability of the new designed blender has not been compromised in

any way compared to the old design.

blender redesign

Documents