Download
1 / 73
780 likes | 1.03k Views
Detailed Design Phase Review: P14415. Patrick Morabito John Wilson Michael Coffey Nathan Conklin Samuel Svintozelsky. Agenda. Requirements Review Prior Design 1 Design 1 Design 2 Test Plan Risks Moving Forward. Customer Requirements. Engineering Requirements.
E N D
Detailed Design Phase Review: P14415 Patrick Morabito John Wilson Michael Coffey Nathan Conklin Samuel Svintozelsky
Agenda • Requirements Review • Prior Design 1 • Design 1 • Design 2 • Test Plan • Risks • Moving Forward
Functional Decomposition Upper Level
Functional Decomposition Mid Level
Functional Decomposition Mid Level
Functional Decomposition Mid Level
Functional Decomposition Mid Level
Functional Decomposition Sub 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 • 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 - Plastic Material Selection Material Selected: HDPE Acrylic: Brittle Polycarbonate: Expensive relative to HDPE (2x the cost for most sheets) ABS: Poor UV resistance
Design 1 - Proof of CR/ER: Strength 29600 Cycles => ~3.86 years (Family of 7, 3 times per day, 365 days a year) (Insert link to detailed calculations here?)
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 - 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 (.15m) (.23m)
Cost to ship: 20’ Shipping Container Dimensions: 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)
Design 1 - Cost Breakdown Cont. Material Cost: Shipping Cost: Labor Cost:
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 Time Approximately 66 minutes
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 - 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
Design 2 - Material Selection 100% 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
