P14417: B9 Plastics - Particle FilterDetailed Design Review

Dan Anderson / Thomas Heberle / Perry Hosmer / Karina Roundtree / Kelly Stover

December 10, 2013

Agenda

• Problem Definition (5 minutes)

• Updated Design and Bill of Materials Justification (15

minutes)

• Assembly Procedure (5 minutes)

• Technical Analysis of Design (20 minutes)

• Test Plans (20 minutes)

• Project Management (10 minutes)

Problem Definition

Problem Statement

Current State:

• In order to use the Better Water Maker (BWM) users must first pour the water through a

cloth before being treated.

Desired State:

• The device should clear particles from water to allow the BWM to operate more effectively.

• The device should be simple to use and operable by both women and children.

Project Goals:

• Analyze the design selected by P13418

• Decrease Turbidity and Total Suspended Solidso Improve the effectiveness of the Better Water Maker

Notable Constraints:

• Must be usable by both women and children

• Only locally available materials may be consumed

• Must not negatively impact the smell and taste of water

Project Scope & Deliverables

• Project Scopeo Eliminate particles greater than 5 microns in size

o Produce a design that is economically viable for use in developing countries

o Design the device to be reusable, and use only consumable parts that are

locally available

• Deliverables to dateo Functional prototype

o Bill of Materials

o Design Drawings

o Assembly and manufacturing plan

o Test plan and results

Customer RequirementsCustomer

Requirement

Category Description Importance

CR1 Ease of Use Easy to prepare for use 9

CR2 Ease of Use Lightweight for user transport / shipping 3

CR3 Ease of Use Has a minimal startup period 3

CR4 Ease of Use Operates using only naturally available energy 9

CR5 Economics Inexpensive 9

CR6 EconomicsUsable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years without full replacement

9

CR7 EconomicsRequires no consumables for operation (other than cheap and locally available materials)

9

CR8Functionality

Improves UV transmission 9

CR9Functionality

Decreases turbidity 9

CR10Functionality

Decreases total suspended solids 9

CR11Functionality

Does not negatively affect taste 3

CR12 Safety Does not negatively affect safety of water 9

CR13Functionality

Filters enough water for a family of 5, daily 3

Engineering RequirementsCategor

yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina

lTarget

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use

Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user

- 2 1

Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up

Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket

seconds 30 10

Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)

Doesn't need power source

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20

Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement

Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure

# of uses 730 3650

Economics 9

Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)

Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0

Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity

Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

9 Decreases total suspended solids

Total suspended solids decreased

Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water

No negative taste of water

Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better

% >50% >75%

Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Functionality 3 Use Scenarios

Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309

Updated Design and Bill of Materials

Updated Drawing – CAD Drawing

Updated Drawing – Exploded BOM

1

2

4

3

No. Item Vendor

1 Bottomless bucket The Cary Company2 Lid The Cary Company

3 5 Micron Mesh Macro Specialty Steel

4 Bucket The Cary Company

Bottomless Bucket

Bottomless Bucket

• Bucket in BOM chosen was inexpensive

• Most buckets would work

No. Item Vendor Vendor item number/description

Qty Price per item

price per unit

tools to make

1 Bottomless bucket The Cary Company 57WCU5 1.00 2.97 2.97 saw to cut out hole

Lid

Lid

• Matches bucket bottom, reusable

• Inexpensive

No. Item Vendor Vendor item number/description

Qty Price per item

price per unit

tools to make

2 Lid The Cary Company 57WCUP 1.00 1.47 1.47 drill for holes

5 Micron Mesh

5 Micron Mesh

• Stainless steel- limits corrosion

• Material often used in filters

No. Item VendorVendor item

number/descriptionQty

Price per item/Sq

ft

price per unit

tools to make

3 5 Micron Mesh Macro Specialty Steel200x1400 Twill Dutch

Weave 316ss1.00 11.75 6.32 cut to size

Bucket

Bucket

• Inexpensive

• 5 gallon deemed a good size

• Same as bottomless bucket

No. Item Vendor Vendor item number/description

Qty Price per item

price per unit

tools to make

4 Bucket The Cary Company 57WCU5 1.00 2.97 2.97 N/A

Spacer

Rod

Spacer and Rods

• Used to seal in mesh in assembly and to provide space

between mesh and lid

No. Item VendorVendor item

number/descriptionQty

Price per item/Sq

ft

price per unit

tools to make

6 Spacers N/AMade from cut out

portion of bottomless 44.00 0.00 0.00 Some type of shear to cut

7 Rods N/AMade from cut out

portion of bottomless bucket

20.00 0.00 0.00 Some type of shear to cut

Indented BOMNo. Item Vendor

Vendor item number/description

QtyPrice per item/Sq

ft

price per unit

tools to make

1 Bottomless bucket The Cary Company 57WCU5 1.00 2.97 2.97 saw to cut out hole2 Lid The Cary Company 57WCUP 1.00 1.47 1.47 drill for holes

3 5 Micron Mesh Macro Specialty Steel200x1400 Twill Dutch

Weave 316ss1.00 11.75 6.32 cut to size

4 Bucket The Cary Company 57WCU5 1.00 2.97 2.97 N/A

5 Nylon Brush Home DepotQuickie Original Iron

Handle Curved Plastic Scrub Brush

1.00 2.19 2.19 N/A

6 Spacers N/AMade from cut out

portion of bottomless 44.00 0.00 0.00 Some type of shear to cut

7 Rods N/AMade from cut out

portion of bottomless bucket

20.00 0.00 0.00 Some type of shear to cut

total 15.92

Assembly Procedure

Technical Analysis of Design

Mesh Corrosion

• Stainless steel is in a family of alloy steels containing a minimum of

10.5% chromium. All stainless steels have a higher resistance to

corrosion than their mild steel counterparts.

• This resistance to attack is due to the naturally occurring chromium-rich

oxide film formed on the surface of the steel.

• The film is rapidly self-repairing in the presence of oxygen. Damage by

abrasion, cutting or machining is quickly repaired.

Stress Analysis

• Establisho Contact Regions

o Pressure and Structural Support

• Mesho Establish and then Refine

• Von Mises

• Displacement

Contact Regions

Pressure and Supports

Mesh

Von Mises

Displacement

Engineering Requirements

Engineering RequirementsCategor

yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina

lTarget

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use

Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user

- 2 1

Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up

Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket

seconds 30 10

Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)

Doesn't need power source

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20

Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement

Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure

# of uses 730 3650

Economics 9

Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)

Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0

Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity

Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

9 Decreases total suspended solids

Total suspended solids decreased

Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water

No negative taste of water

Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better

% >50% >75%

Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Functionality 3 Use Scenarios

Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309

Time to Clean

• Pilot study: select 30 participants, provide cleaning instructions,

time the process

• Hypothesis test (95% confidence) on the average time to clean

product

o H0: µ >= 5 minutes

o HA: µ < 5 minutes

• Adjustments in sample size (i.e. additional observations) may be

necessary depending on the variance in the observed results

• If the cleaning time is over the target value of 5 minutes, test for

marginal success of 10 minutes

Category

Score Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Marginal

Target

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use

Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user

- 2 1

Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up

Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket

seconds 30 10

Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)

Doesn't need power source

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20

Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement

Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure

# of uses 730 3650

Economics 9

Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)

Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0

Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity

Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

9 Decreases total suspended solids

Total suspended solids decreased

Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water

No negative taste of water

Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better

% >50% >75%

Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Functionality 3 Use Scenarios

Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309

Engineering Requirements

Number of Tools Required for Cleaning

• Count of tools required

• Nylon sponge or brush is best material to clean stainless

steel mesh

Engineering RequirementsCategor

yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina

lTarget

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use

Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user

- 2 1

Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up

Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket

seconds 30 10

Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)

Doesn't need power source

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20

Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement

Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure

# of uses 730 3650

Economics 9

Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)

Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0

Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity

Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

9 Decreases total suspended solids

Total suspended solids decreased

Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water

No negative taste of water

Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better

% >50% >75%

Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Functionality 3 Use Scenarios

Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309

Weight

Component Quantity Weight/assembly (lbs)

Bucket 2 3.60

Lid 1 .38

5 micron mesh 1 .35

Total 4.33

Engineering RequirementsCategor

yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina

lTarget

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use

Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user

- 2 1

Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up

Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket

seconds 30 10

Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)

Doesn't need power source

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20

Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement

Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure

# of uses 730 3650

Economics 9

Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)

Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0

Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity

Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

9 Decreases total suspended solids

Total suspended solids decreased

Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water

No negative taste of water

Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better

% >50% >75%

Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Functionality 3 Use Scenarios

Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309

Start-up Time

• Pilot study: collect 30 observations of start up time

• Hypothesis test (95% confidence) on the average start up

time

o H0: µ >= 10 seconds

o HA: µ < 10 seconds

• Adjustments in sample size (i.e. additional observations)

may be necessary depending on the variance in the

observed results

• If the cleaning time is over the target value of 10 seconds,

test for marginal success of 30 seconds

Engineering RequirementsCategor

yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina

lTarget

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use

Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user

- 2 1

Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up

Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket

seconds 30 10

Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)

Doesn't need power source

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20

Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement

Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure

# of uses 730 3650

Economics 9

Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)

Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0

Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity

Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

9 Decreases total suspended solids

Total suspended solids decreased

Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water

No negative taste of water

Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better

% >50% >75%

Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Functionality 3 Use Scenarios

Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309

No Power Source Needed

Engineering RequirementsCategor

yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina

lTarget

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use

Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user

- 2 1

Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up

Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket

seconds 30 10

Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)

Doesn't need power source

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20

Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement

Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure

# of uses 730 3650

Economics 9

Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)

Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0

Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity

Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

9 Decreases total suspended solids

Total suspended solids decreased

Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water

No negative taste of water

Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better

% >50% >75%

Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Functionality 3 Use Scenarios

Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309

Labor Cost Estimations

• Machining Bucketo Cut out bottom of bucket: ~5 minutes

o Drilling holes (with template): ~ 5 minutes

• Cutting Mesh: ~ 1 minute

• Hot air welding: ~ 5 minutes

• Total time: 16 minutes

• Assuming a $15 / hr wage, total cost is $4

Total Cost of Components

Component Quantity Cost/assembly

Bucket 2 $5.94

Lid 1 $1.47

5 micron mesh 1 $6.32

Brush 1 $2.19

Labor Cost n/a $4.00

Total $19.92

Engineering RequirementsCategor

yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina

lTarget

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use

Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user

- 2 1

Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up

Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket

seconds 30 10

Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)

Doesn't need power source

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20

Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement

Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure

# of uses 730 3650

Economics 9

Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)

Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0

Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity

Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

9 Decreases total suspended solids

Total suspended solids decreased

Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water

No negative taste of water

Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better

% >50% >75%

Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Functionality 3 Use Scenarios

Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309

Mean Time to Failure

Engineering RequirementsCategor

yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina

lTarget

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use

Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user

- 2 1

Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up

Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket

seconds 30 10

Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)

Doesn't need power source

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20

Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement

Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure

# of uses 730 3650

Economics 9

Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)

Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0

Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity

Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

9 Decreases total suspended solids

Total suspended solids decreased

Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water

No negative taste of water

Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better

% >50% >75%

Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Functionality 3 Use Scenarios

Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309

Operating Costs

• All components will last longer than the required 2 years.

• Operating costs will be $0/year

Engineering RequirementsCategor

yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina

lTarget

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use

Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user

- 2 1

Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up

Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket

seconds 30 10

Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)

Doesn't need power source

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20

Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement

Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure

# of uses 730 3650

Economics 9

Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)

Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0

Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity

Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

9 Decreases total suspended solids

Total suspended solids decreased

Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water

No negative taste of water

Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better

% >50% >75%

Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Functionality 3 Use Scenarios

Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309

Turbidity

• Turbidity is caused by particles suspended or dissolved in

water that scatter light making the water appear cloudy or

murky

• Particulate matter such as clay, silt, and fine organic and

inorganic matter contribute to a high turbidity value

• Turbidity measurements are often made using optical

equipment in the field or lab

• Sediment often tops the list of substances or pollutants

causing turbidityhttp://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=7854

Percentage Decrease in Turbidity

• Pilot study: collect 30 observations of turbidityo Collect before/after, compute % difference

• Hypothesis test (95% confidence) on the average % difference

o H0: µ >= .75

o HA: µ > .75

• Adjustments in sample size (i.e. additional observations) may be

necessary depending on the variance in the observed results

• If turbidity does not meet target, test at 50% for marginal

success

Engineering RequirementsCategor

yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina

lTarget

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use

Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user

- 2 1

Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up

Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket

seconds 30 10

Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)

Doesn't need power source

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20

Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement

Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure

# of uses 730 3650

Economics 9

Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)

Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0

Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity

Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

9 Decreases total suspended solids

Total suspended solids decreased

Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water

No negative taste of water

Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better

% >50% >75%

Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Functionality 3 Use Scenarios

Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309

Percentage Decrease in Total Suspended Solids• Pilot study: collect 30 observations of TSS

o Collect before/after, compute % difference

• Hypothesis test (95% confidence) on the average % difference

o H0: µ >= .75

o HA: µ > .75

• Adjustments in sample size (i.e. additional observations) may be

necessary depending on the variance in the observed results

• If turbidity does not meet target, test at 50% for marginal

success

Engineering RequirementsCategor

yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina

lTarget

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use

Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user

- 2 1

Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up

Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket

seconds 30 10

Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)

Doesn't need power source

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20

Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement

Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure

# of uses 730 3650

Economics 9

Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)

Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0

Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity

Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

9 Decreases total suspended solids

Total suspended solids decreased

Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water

No negative taste of water

Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better

% >50% >75%

Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Functionality 3 Use Scenarios

Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309

Taste of Water

• Recruit at least 100 RIT students

• Have each drink tap water that has not been treated with

the filter and water that has been treated by the filter

(blind)

• Ask each student if the water tastes better, worse, or about

the same

• Target: 75% respond with better or about the same

• Marginal: 50% respond with better or about the same

Engineering RequirementsCategor

yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina

lTarget

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use

Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user

- 2 1

Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up

Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket

seconds 30 10

Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)

Doesn't need power source

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20

Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement

Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure

# of uses 730 3650

Economics 9

Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)

Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0

Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity

Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

9 Decreases total suspended solids

Total suspended solids decreased

Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water

No negative taste of water

Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better

% >50% >75%

Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Functionality 3 Use Scenarios

Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309

Hazardous Releases

Engineering RequirementsCategor

yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina

lTarget

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use

Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user

- 2 1

Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5

Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up

Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket

seconds 30 10

Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)

Doesn't need power source

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20

Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement

Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure

# of uses 730 3650

Economics 9

Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)

Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0

Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity

Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

9 Decreases total suspended solids

Total suspended solids decreased

Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%

Functionality

3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water

No negative taste of water

Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better

% >50% >75%

Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added

Binary (Yes/No) - - No

Functionality 3 Use Scenarios

Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309

Mock Up Flow Testing

• Water was collected and used at different times from the

Genesee River to drive flow in a replica gravitational, 5-

gallon filter

• In an effort to replicate the flow of river water through the

particle filter, a mock up was made to see how effective the

mesh is

• The created mockup uses a mesh diameter of

approximately 2.5 in with 18 fl ounces of water put in the

filter

• The max pressure scenario here is about that of 2.5 gallon

over an 8.5 in diameter mesh

Mock Up Flow Testing

Mock Up Flow Testing

Low Turbidity Flow Calculations

oz/minfor

D=2.5infor D=8.5in

4.50 0.13 1.597.50 0.22 2.658.76 0.26 3.10

Flow Rate (L/min)

Some leakage between underside of mesh and jar

No leakage at all

Max pressure scenario in testing is only represntative of about 2.5 gallons over 8.5 inch

diameter mesh.

Notes:

Mock Up Flow Testing

High Turbidity Flow Testing

• In a very high turbidity scenario, the water put into the

system had a turbidity value of 210 NTU, about 7 times the

worst water turbidity used in the low turbidity flow testing.

• The flow rate in this scenario was 0.61 ounces per minute,

which extrapolates to 0.22 L/min, which still meets our

marginal flow rate target.

• The final turbidity was reduced by about 85 percent, in

this scenario, which meets our target requirement.

Flowrate

• Pilot study: collect 30 observations of the flow of 5 gallons of

water through the filtero Collect time elapsed to filter all 5 gallons, compute flow rate in lpm

• Hypothesis test (95% confidence) on the flow rate

o H0: µ >= .6309 lpm

o HA: µ > .6309 lpm

• Adjustments in sample size (i.e. additional observations) may be

necessary depending on the variance in the observed results

• If turbidity does not meet target, test at .0394 lpm for marginal

success

Project Management

Risk Assessment

ID Risk Item Importance Action to Minimize Risk Owner Date OpenedDate Closed (or expected)

1 Cleaning is difficult 9 Supply cleaning instruction, minimize number of parts, error-proof up/down instructions. Tom 9/17/13 2/14/14

2 Costs more than $25/unit 9 Cost is < $20. Kelly 9/17/13 11/28/133 Stress concentration 6 Spread load out around edge of filter Perry 9/17/13 11/21/134 Load Bearing Capacity 6 Calculate necessary force rating Perry 9/17/13 11/21/13

5 Flow rate is too slow 6Increase surface area of filter, find more porous materials, define minimum flow rate to test against (use scenario) Test Plan Perry 10/1/13 2/25/14

6 User not detecting tear in filter4

Instruct user to inspect both sides of the filter and closely examine the filtered water. Dan 10/1/13 2/17/14

7 Corrosion 3 Stainless steel is not going to corrode. Karina 9/17/13 10/16/138 Weight is too much 3 At under 5lbs, weight is not a risk item. Kelly 9/17/13 10/21/13

9Incorrect usage, sandwich inserted upside-down 3 Use visuals whenever possible, minimize text, poka-yoke Dan 10/3/13 12/5/13

10 Stability issues with bucket 2Design proper attachments, make sure surface is level prior to use, worse case - will the bucket withstand that? Prototype will be tested. Dan 9/17/13 3/3/14

11Filter introduces bad taste to water

2 Design is made of non-corrosive materials, test plan will determine taste results. Perry 10/24/13 3/7/14

12 Leakage 1 Hot-Air Welding significantly reduces the likelihood of leakage occuring Perry 9/17/13 11/19/13

Plan for MSD II

Next Steps

Immediate Actions from DDR

• Address by Tuesday, 12/10/13Review & Finalize Prototype

BOM

• Already completed, pending DDR feedback 12/10/13

Complete & Submit Purchase Orders for

Prototype

• By or before Wednesday, 12/11/13

Continue Experiments & Testing

• Through the start of break

Begin Statistical Analysis of Experimental & Test Data

Best Case Scenario

• To have all the components for a prototype by January 28th. (Start of

next semester)

• Have prototype built by by Friday, 2/14/13. (End of Week 3)

We feel this timeframe is feasible, due to the highly available components that make

up our Bill of Materials. In addition, our experiences from testing and

experimentation show that the machining and assembly is not very time consuming.

• By having a completed prototype by this date, we have plenty of time to

experiment with it and get real usage information to compare to our

Engineering Metrics and Specifications.

Senior Design Process & Lessons Learned

Possible Improvements

• Accessing SMEs sooner would have been helpful

• Clearer expectations at times would have helped

• More planned workshop time for groups during class in the beginning

Positives

• Guides gave plenty of feedback, both good and bad

• Overall structure is well-organized

Follow-On Suggestion

• Start working on mock ups sooner and order parts as soon as possible

• Encourage groups to contact industry professionals

Action ItemsItems Owner Due Date

Post DDR Feedback Action Items Kelly Stover 12/10/13

Finalize Prototype Bill of Materials Thomas Heberle 12/10/13

Complete Purchase Orders Kelly Stover 12/12/13

Statistical Analysis of Collected Data Daniel Anderson, Kelly Stover Continuous

Continuing Turbidity & Total Suspended Solids Testing Perry Hosmer Continuous

Continuing Mesh Durability and Cleaning Testing Karina Roundtree Continuous

Build Prototype Thomas Heberle 2/14/13

Update assembly drawings Thomas Heberle  12/12/13

Define “clean” Kelly Stover, Karina Roundtree  12/15/13

Work with Kate to better define B9 assembly operation Daniel Anderson  1/27/14

FMECA on assembly  Daniel Anderson 1/27/14

Life analysis of entire assembly  Karina Roundtree 2/11/14

Life analysis of nylon brush  Karina Roundtree  2/11/14

Include temp of hot air weld on the assembly procedure Daniel Anderson  12/12/13

Include cleaning instructions in assembly procedure Daniel Anderson  12/12/13

Add probability of water circumventing mesh to FMEA Daniel Anderson  12/12/13

Add an engineering requirement for shipping cost Kelly Stover  12/12/13

Talk to Liz from P14418 for cheaper buckets and lids  Kelly Stover 12/18/13Cost/Benefit of using screwcap vs snap fit bucket lid (durability wise) Karina Roundtree 3/1/14

Create Risk Curve Daniel Anderson, Kelly Stover 1/27/14

Questions