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 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

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

23. Design 1 - Rebar Length Optimization

25. Design 1 - Proof of CR/ER Overview

26. 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)

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. (.61m)

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

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

39. 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:

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

51. Design 2 - Prototype

52. Design 2 - Proof of CR/ER Overview

53. Main Concern is deflection Deflection between supports Deflection of supports What is comfortable?

54. Design 2 - Proof of CR/ER Overview Deflection between supports Deflection of Supports

55. Design 2 - Proof of CR/ER Overview 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

56. Design 2 - Proof of CR/ER Overview

60. 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:

61. Design 2 - Cost Breakdown Cont. Material Cost: Shipping Cost: Labor Cost:

62. Design 2 - Summary Cost in lots of 1000: $40.86 Weight per base: 22.9lbs Worst case deflection:.44in Simple Construction

63. Test Plan

65. Highlighted Risks Risks 1.Not adoptable: high cost 1.Prototype fails tests 1.Unable to manufacture in Haiti 1.Unacceptable deflection Mitigation Strategy 1.Optimize cost through iteration 2.Modify design accordingly 1.Manufacture in the US 1.Increase the number/material of ribs

66. Limitations On campus manufacturability: machine may be unable to form 1/4in sheets Advanced deadlines in MSDII Mold making capabilities Shipping capabilities

67. Future Project Recommendations Reiterate with only vacuum formed plastic, without any added supports o Work with Faro Industries Reiterate with a focus on recycled materials

68. Future MSD Recommendations Less lecture content early on and more work time 15 minutes for Subject Matter Expert meetings is much too short

69. Learning Experience Importance of project planning and documentation Iterative design process

70. MSDII Critical Path and Milestones

71. Moving Forward Tasks Determine mold making capabilities Order raw materials Manufacture mold Assemble Prototypes

72. 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

73. Questions?