detailed design phase review: p14415

Detailed Design Phase Review: P14415

Patrick Morabito John Wilson Michael CoffeyNathan ConklinSamuel Svintozelsky

PATRICK MORABITO

Consolidate slides 57-61 to look like the cost slides for deisgn 1

PATRICK MORABITO

Again, you mean per day?

SAMUEL SVINTOZELSKY

Like the comment in slide 43, we wouldnt need to purchase/transport the 5.9X8.9 plastic lid, that is cut out from the 2ft x 2ft base, the cover would need to be transported and that is 15.75x15.75

PATRICK MORABITO

Can we also get units on the important end value? I assume it's $?

PATRICK MORABITO

Don't you mean 10 USD per day?

Nathan Conklin

Should i break these down and have a slide about each cost (i.e. slide for shipping, material, and labor)

PATRICK MORABITO

Didn't you do that in the prior slides?

PATRICK MORABITO

Also, can we list the values for lots of 100 or 1000?

JOHN WILSON

Do we want to do cyclical loading analysis here? Dr. Lam seemed to be not worried about this design, and we never really found information on cyclical loading for polymers. I want to delete this slide, let me know what you think

PATRICK MORABITO

We can just say that here?

JOHN WILSON

I'd rather leave it out. My thought is that saying "so and so said we didn't have to" isn't great justification. I'd rather leave it out and then tell someone that it isn't a concern if they ask, but we can talk about it at 4

Agenda• Requirements Review• Prior Design 1• Design 1• Design 2• Test Plan• Risks• Moving Forward

Customer Requirements

Engineering Requirements

Functional DecompositionUpper Level

Functional DecompositionMid Level

Functional DecompositionSub System level

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)

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

Design 1 - Vacuum forming at R.I.T

Design 1 - Plastic Material SelectionMaterial Selected: HDPE

Acrylic: Brittle

Polycarbonate: Expensive relative to HDPE (2x the cost for most sheets)

ABS: Poor UV resistance

Design 1 - Selected Design

Design 1 -Assembly Drawing

Design 1 -Lid Assembly Drawing

Design 1 - Mold

Design 1 -Mold Drawing

Design 1 -Mold Assembly Drawing

Design 1 - Rebar Design

Design 1 - Rebar Length Optimization

Design 1 - Proof of CR/ER Overview

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)

Design 1 - Analysis Assumptions• Rebar supported by edge of hole• Load applied across 4in diameter circle• Modified Goodman Failure Theory• Rebar is hot-rolled

Design 1 - Ansys Analysis - Stress 270lbs

Design 1 - Ansys Analysis - Displacement 270lbs

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

Design 1 - Proof of CR/ER: Dimensional


(.61m)


(.23m)

(.15m)

Design 1 - Proof of CR/ER: Costs

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:

Design 1 - Cost Breakdown Cont.

Material Cost:

Shipping Cost:

Labor Cost:

SAMUEL SVINTOZELSKY

For the cost of the cover, how was that calculated?The cover is actually cut out from the plastic base so it wouldn't be any additional cost, unless its the cost for cutting it out.Also the cost for rebar for lots of 100 and 1000 be split up because we wouldnt be using the full 360in for just one unit. When i calculated the cost for lots of 100/1000, it was $4.73. Unless i am missing aspects calculated into these costs

Nathan Conklin

sam, we will discuss this later, as im not following you completely

Nathan Conklin

it is likely i am leaving something out

Design 1 - Proof of CR/ER: Weight

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

Design 1 - Estimated Process TimeApproximately 66 minutes

Design 1 - Proof of CR/ER: Static coefficient of friction

SAMUEL SVINTOZELSKY

John, can you include that information about the plastic lumber static coefficient of friction in here? since its the same material i think we will be able to justify it that way

JOHN WILSON

I can just added the same little blurb, but its not really a good measure considering the different manufacturing technique

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

Design 1 - Additional Customer Requirement: Possible Shelter Attachment

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)

Design 2: Deck-Loo - OverviewDesign 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

Design 2 - Material Selection100% Recycled High Density Polyethylene

• High Ultimate Strength

• Excellent environmental stress crack resistance

• High Ductility

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

Design 2 - Prototype


JOHN WILSON

For the budget (whoever is working on it) just throw a screenshot into the slide, I'll format it and so on

Michael Coffey

Budget?

JOHN WILSON

I meant BOM


Main Concern is deflection• Deflection between supports

• Deflection of supports

• What is comfortable?


Deflection between supports

Deflection of Supports


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

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:

Design 2 - Cost Breakdown Cont.

Material Cost:

Shipping Cost:

Labor Cost:

Design 2 - Summary

• Cost in lots of 1000: $40.86

• Weight per base: 22.9lbs

• Worst case deflection: .44in

• Simple Construction

Test Plan

PATRICK MORABITO

Maybe it'd be better to highlight some key points here instead of showing the whole table? Maybe a link to it on edge so we can pull it up if someone really cares?

Test Plan

Highlighted RisksRisks

1. Not adoptable: high cost

2. Prototype fails tests

3. Unable to manufacture in Haiti

4. Unacceptable deflection

Mitigation Strategy1. Optimize cost through

iteration2. Modify design accordingly

3. Manufacture in the US

4. Increase the number/material of ribs

PATRICK MORABITO

We should finish this slide

Limitations• On campus manufacturability: machine

may be unable to form 1/4in sheets• Advanced deadlines in MSDII • Mold making capabilities• Shipping capabilities

Future Project Recommendations• Reiterate with only vacuum formed

plastic, without any added supportso Work with Faro Industries

• Reiterate with a focus on recycled materials

SAMUEL SVINTOZELSKY

hey why did we take out the pros/cons of faro industries? is that not something we want to talk about in this DDR?

Future MSD Recommendations• Less lecture content early on and more

work time• 15 minutes for Subject Matter Expert

meetings is much too short

Learning Experience• Importance of project planning and

documentation• Iterative design process

MSDII Critical Path and Milestones

Moving ForwardTasks• Determine mold making capabilities• Order raw materials• Manufacture mold• Assemble Prototypes

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

Questions?

detailed design phase review: p14415

Documents