1 / 73

Detailed Design Phase Review: P14415

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.

egan
Télécharger la présentation

Detailed Design Phase Review: P14415

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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 • 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

  22. Design 1 - Rebar Design

  23. Design 1 - Rebar Length Optimization

  24. Design 1 - Rebar Length Optimization

  25. Design 1 - Proof of CR/ER Overview

  26. 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?)

  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. Design 1 - Proof of CR/ER: Dimensional (.61m)

  37. Design 1 - Proof of CR/ER: Dimensional (.15m) (.23m)

  38. Design 1 - Proof of CR/ER: Costs

  39. 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)

  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

More Related