FA2015

Metal Shelving System Design for

Generation Y

Zachary Bartemy, Meredith Penney, Hunter

Heavner, Cole Click
James Madison University, Engr 314
FA2015

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Key Terms .................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................................. 4
1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.0 Mission Statement & Technical Questioning ............................................................................................ 6
3.0 Literature .............................................................................................................................................................. 6
3.1 Marketing to the Consumer ................................................................................................................................ 6
3.2 Benchmarking ...................................................................................................................................................... 10
3.2.1 Material research.......................................................................................................................................................... 12
3.2.2 Product research........................................................................................................................................................... 13
3.2.3 Assembly research ....................................................................................................................................................... 15
3.3 Significance of Metal Properties in Design ................................................................................................ 16
4.0 Importance and Impacts ............................................................................................................................... 18
4.1 Eight Key Questions............................................................................................................................................ 19
4.2 A Need for Sustainability: Recycling of Metals ......................................................................................... 20
4.3 The Product Life Cycle Impact ........................................................................................................................ 21
5.0 Understanding and Satisfying the Customer ......................................................................................... 22
5.1 Information Gathering on the Consumers and Market ......................................................................... 23
5.2 Questionnaire and Survey................................................................................................................................ 23
5.3 Results & Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 25
5.4 Customer Need Statements ............................................................................................................................. 26
5.5 Functional Modeling .......................................................................................................................................... 29
6.0 System Requirements .................................................................................................................................... 30
7.0 Material Selection ........................................................................................................................................... 32
7.1 Translation of Requirements for Material Selection.............................................................................. 33
7.2 Manufacturing Requirements: Cast vs Wrought Products ................................................................... 33
7.3 Comparison of Metals for Selection .............................................................................................................. 33
7.3.1 Ferrous.............................................................................................................................................................................. 35
7.3.1.3 Stainless Steel ............................................................................................................................................................. 35
7.3.2 Nonferrous ...................................................................................................................................................................... 35
7.3.2.1 Aluminum Alloys ....................................................................................................................................................... 36
7.5 Ecological Audit ................................................................................................................................................................ 36
7.6 Material Selection from Material Testing................................................................................................... 39
8.0 Concept Generation ........................................................................................................................................ 41
8.1 Design Alternative One ..................................................................................................................................... 44
8.2 Design Alternative Two..................................................................................................................................... 46
8.3 Design Alternative Three ................................................................................................................................. 48
8.4 Design Alternative Four .................................................................................................................................... 50
9.0 Concept Evaluation ......................................................................................................................................... 51
10.0 Final Design .................................................................................................................................................... 53
11.0 3-D Prototyping ............................................................................................................................................. 55
12.0 Product Assembly ......................................................................................................................................... 55
13.0 Statistical Analysis; Metals vs. Polymers .............................................................................................. 57

13.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 57

13.2 Scope ..................................................................................................................................................................... 57
13.3 Testing .................................................................................................................................................................. 57
13.4 Results .................................................................................................................................................................. 57
13.5 Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................ 59
13.6 Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 59
14.0 Future Work ................................................................................................................................................... 61
15.0 References ....................................................................................................................................................... 63
16.0 Appendices ...................................................................................................................................................... 67

Executive Summary
An engineering team at James Madison University was hired into the Research &
Development Department of GP, a world leader in home furniture appealing to the
mass market. GP is interested in determining which material properties will be best
suited a shelving system that meets the needs of young adults moving out of on their
own. Four design teams were hired in order to cover the four main classifications of
materials; metals, polymers, ceramics, and hybrids. The following portfolio contains
the design process used in the design of a metal shelving system. Undergraduate
study of engineering design at James Madison University allowed the design team to
complete a systematic design process. The design team was thoughtful in
understanding user needs that would be translated into system requirements.
Specific system requirements allowed for success criteria to be determined for
evaluation of material selection and mechanical analysis of multiple design
alternatives; iteration of the different designs into a final design for manufacturing
based on evaluation of different comparative matrixes.
To begin the process the team needed to understand the problem statement as well
as the material they were assigned. Before the team could narrow the project further
they needed to understand the market as well as the different types of metals that are
available. This was done through information gathering and compiled into a
literature matrix. The team also wanted to see what types of shelves were already out
on the market and how they were performing. To do this the team did some more
information gathering and some surface level benchmarking, helped the team see
what they were competing with and what shelves of this type were selling for. All of
this can be found in section 3.0
As engineers it is required that the team adheres to a specific code of ethics and
standards. During this project the team needs to keep in mind all of impacts that
they are having during each step. The importance and impacts pertaining to this
project are outlined in section 4.0.
The next step of the design process is to identify the customer and what the customer
wants out of a shelf. This was done with the use of a survey that was distributed to
the target market that was identified and taking the feedback to come up with
customer needs and then translated into system requirements. From this concept
generation was able to commence. These steps in the process are explained further
in sections 5.0, and 6.0
The material selection process was done by utilizing CES software as well as other
sources to cross check the values given on the CES database. The materials were
slowly narrowed down based on properties of the materials. Section 7.0 explains the
steps taken. The concepts that were created in section 8.0 are further evaluated in
section 9.0. Each design was then analyzed from a mechanical standpoint to see if
they could withstand that amount of load the team deemed necessary.

Once one concept was chosen, with the help of computer software, the team was
able to model the design and create a 3D representation of their final product, thus
completing the design process. The final product is described in section 10.0
followed by the 3D printing process in section 11.0.
To wrap up, section 13.0 depicts how the consumer would put the shelf together, as
well as section 14.0 describes the product lifecycle. The final sections, 15.0 explains
how polymer and metals are statistically different while 16.0 explains future work.

Key Terms
The following terms defined are defined from Engineering Material, sixth edition.
Tensile strength (ultimate strength)- The ratio of the maximum load in a tension test
to the original cross-sectional area of the test bar.
Yield strength- The stress at which a material exhibits a specified deviation from
proportionality of stress and strain.
Compressive strength- The maximum compressive stress that a material is capable of
withstanding.
Modulus of elasticity- The ratio of stress to strain in a material is loaded within its
elastic range; a measure of rigidity.
Flexural strength- The outer fiber stress developed when a material is loaded as a
simply supported beam and deflected to a certain value of strain.
Shear Strength- The stress required to fracture a shape in a cross-sectional plane that
is parallel to the force application.
Percent reduction in area- In tensile testing, the difference, expressed as a
percentage of original area, between the original cross-sectional area of a tensile
test specimen and the minimum cross-sectional area measured after fracture.
Hardness- The resistance of a material to plastic deformation.
Percent Elongation- In tensile testing, the increase in the gage length measured after
the specimen fractures within the gage length.

Acknowledgements
A special thanks to John Wild and Scott Padgett of CISE Lab Operations for assistance
with the teams procurement, testing, and prototyping. Also, Dr. Robert Prins and Dr.

Kyle Gipson, for the leading and mentoring of mechanical and material science for
design. In addition we would like to thank Ryan Taylor and Nizar Kamel for their
assistance in the 3D printing lab.

1.0 Introduction
The following report walks through the steps the team took in order to produce a
final concept. In order to do so many aspect of the design process came into play as
well as the team's knowledge in material selection and mechanical analysis. In the
end the group decided on one final concept that was then 3D printed to serve as a
visual prototype.

2.0 Mission Statement & Technical Questioning

The design team is tasked with research and development of a metal shelving
system that meets the needs of a Generation Y, while not compromising the needs of
future generations. Generation Y is the population of young adults currently in their
early to mid-twenties, where a large portion are attending college or entering the
workforce. Many will begin living in their own place of residence, usually a dorm or
small apartment no longer maintained by their parents. The specific design problem
needed to consider these social aspects of our customer along with economic and
environmental aspects as well, forming the triple bottom line of sustainability.
These along with the technical needs will all be addressed to provide a form of
organization and storage for common bedroom objects of college students.
The shelf needs to be non-freestanding, meaning that it can have no supports off of a
flat surface touching the shelf. It must be able to hang a distance X of the ground. The
exact height of the shelf was not stated, this variable is explained further in following
sections. The thickness of the shelf is left up to the team to determine. Figure 2.1
below summaries the information that was taken from the problem statement.

Requirements
Develop a shelf system for the home market.
Design for college age market who rent or own.
Design shelf and ancillary components
Shelf must be 45 wide.
Shelf may not be free standing.
Figure 2.1: Summary of requirements taken from problem statement
While the problem statement helped the team understand what was being asked of
them, there was still much to be determined. The following sections walk through
how the team came to a specific material and design with specified dimensions and
functions.

3.0 Literature
3.1 Marketing to the Consumer
There are an estimated 20.2 million college students enrolled in college at the current
time6. Of the college population, a census shows that roughly 10% of that college
population lives strictly in college dormitories and the remaining students live in
college affiliated housing7. The dormitories on almost all college campuses as well as
some off campus housing prohibit the alteration to the room which includes drilling

into the walls. With the inability to drill into the walls or alter the room, students
living in college dormitories lack certain conveniences such as a shelf, while they
remain the ability to attain common necessities such as a bed, closet, and a desk.
Students can typically install additional shelving that is free standing; however such
furniture addition takes up the already limited space in dormitory rooms. A shelf that
can be used for college supplies such as books, clothes, and small items that would be
mounted off the floor would be less likely to take up space and more beneficial to
students. The shelf design would need to be manufactured with relatively low
complexity and assembly would be required to be minimal due to the fact college
students will be a wide variety of backgrounds of people, as well as the inability to
have tools in their dormitory.
To construct a product that is useful and necessary, a product must have relevance
to customer needs. The products effectiveness and success in a practical sense is the
dependent on the knowledge of customer and supplier roles. The journal by Luisa
Andrea provides a great sense of how to not only identify the roles of both customer
and supplier, but also goes into how to determine the roles within certain situations
and product productions. The products that are being produced have no purpose if
there is not a customer basis or need for the product. If products are made blindly
and simply guess at the needs of consumers, the product most likely will not fit the
needs of customers and will fail. The roles consist of firstly the need of a product
being generated. This can be through customers identifying the need, or suppliers
searching for the need of a product that would be useful to the customer. The
searching process must not be an assumption however. It must include consulting
with consumers to thoroughly understand the purpose for a desired product. The
roles play an important part due to the consumers role to identify the need of a
product, and the supplier to provide a product that resolves the need. When the
roles are followed is when success is achieved. The article provides a process called
the Values Creation Process, which is a structure to help understand the process of
providing the valuable information needed for a product's success2. Figure 3.1
represents the Value Creation Process.

Figure 3.1: Value Creation Process Design

Manufacturing and assembly is how each of the individual components are produced
and how each component is joined together to complete the product. The term design
for manufacture (DFM) means that the design for the ease of the manufacture of parts
will form the product after the assembly. Design for assembly (DFA) means the
design of the product for the ease of assembly. The design for manufacture and
assembly (DFMA) is used for three main activities. It provides guidance to the design
team in that it simplifies the product structure, reduces the manufacturing and
assembly costs, and quantifies the improvements9. It is also used as a benchmarking
tool the study different competitors products which quantifies manufacturing and
assembly difficulties. The third activity it is used for is as a should-cost tool to help
negotiate suppliers contracts.
Following the identification of the customer and supplier roles, the production of the
product can be considered. The manufacturing process of products must entail
consideration of many aspects such as assembly, material, time of production, cost
of material, labor hours, and the distribution of the product. A study performed by
Geoffrey Boothroyd showed results from a workshop performed on the production
and assembly of brackets. The results show that the assembly process allowed for
much time savings. It was found that the number of parts could reduce assembly
time up to 20%, number of operations could reduce up to 20%, and the labor hours
were associated with 25%1. These values show the emphasis that can be placed on
the assembly process of a product associated with the time at the manufacturing
facility as well as when the user receives the item. It is a desirable trait of an item for
the consumer to not have to follow an extensive assembly process which is valuable
information received from this study to ensure minimal assembly time is required
due to the fact that assembly time can be a costly resource.

Product success in a competitive market can be attributed to many aspects.

Functionality is the top priority, however when there are multiple products that
perform the same function, customers must chose an alternative aspect to determine
which product they select. A larger factor of the product that is selected is the
appearance of the product. A study composed on the Wiley online Library covers the
relationship between fashion and furniture. The study showed the increased in the
way the fashion industry and fashion designers have affected the designs in the
furniture industry to increase the interest in furniture appeal to consumers. The
clothing industry was impacted majorly by the fashion industry in the 1980 when
clothing became a concern of how it looks as well as the functionality. Since that
impact, the fashion industry has noticed increased sales and success in the clothing
production simply because consumers enjoy the nice appearance that is produced in
the modern clothes. The fashion industry began to take interest in furniture because
much like clothing, consumers use furniture daily and would prefer it to look nice.
The fashion industry has since became a major factor in the success of furniture
production and clearly represents that the appearance or finish of products can
majorly impact if consumers will be interested in that product.
3

In addition to the fashionable products success, the manufactures must look at ways
to enhance the success of the company as a whole. This can be done in many ways,
however, advancements over the competition is one way that many manufactures
succeed. The Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services provided results from a
study that was performed to relate the new and advanced tactics to increase success
as a supplier in the furniture market. The article resulted that the majority of
success is likely due to the consumers ability to accurately determine customer
needs and desires. The success also is contributed being able to stay ahead of what
is already being manufactured4. This means to target the ability to present the latest
and greatest. In the furniture industry, the basics are already created which can limit
the ability to introduce new and innovative products, however the key to leading the
consumer interest is to create the products in a way that make them appear as if
they do not already exist as well as make them appealing and attractive to the
consumer. The attractive designs and appealing new finishes are what make the
consumer desire products due to the fact that they will have a product the view as
new even though it serves the same function as the items they already have.
4

The ability of a company to generate new and innovative design ideas that are original
and useful for the consumer, will directly impact the companys ability to be
successful and competitive in industry. The article by Gerda Gemser provides
information on the benefits of a companys ability to generate successful ideas. The
design ideas must not only be useful but also be something that can be
manufactured with todays technology in a process that is time and cost effective.
The Company must have a method to generate the designs as well as means to
produce the designed products. The means must be cost and time effective because
the company should minimize production costs and time of production so the
resources expended are minimal which will get the price point of the product low
5

enough to be competitive in the market place5. The leaders of the competitive

market are the companies that live successful and long lives as market leaders and
gain control over the sales and market image.
A products production and a company's success with a product goes beyond the
customer, due to the way that the processes must be sustainable and effective. A
journal by Lennart Y. Lungberg discusses how to develop and produce more
sustainable products. He also discusses materials selection and different models for
design based on a sustainable society. The four problems to solve in material
selection are over consumption, resource utilization, pollution, and overpopulation.
Overconsumption is a problem that has caused higher energy consumption around
the world. There will be serious impacts in the long run if nature cannot sustain
todays growth rate. Resource utilization is a problem because human productivity
has not been able to co-operate with sustainability. For example, a lot of the energy
and the material are lost during production and transportation. This includes waste
material and emissions and is an issue especially for non-recycled products. Pollution
has been so bad over the years that even if pollution stopped right now, the earth
would still be affected by the emissions thus far. The overpopulation of earth is also
a big problem. It is projected that the world could have over 10 billion people by
20258.This will cause less sustainability and more environmental impact. It wouldnt
even matter if products become more environmentally friendly due to the fact that
they cannot reduce the total amount of materials used by the big population increase.
8

3.2 Benchmarking
Benchmarking of current solutions was necessary to understand the solution space
that fits within customer needs. When benchmarking, the team began to look at
many different sources that our consumer may look to when purchasing a shelving
system. It was identified that our customers are influenced by convenience when
purchasing products. They also do not look to spend large amounts of money on
home furnishing. College students are used to their parents providing them with
household furnishing throughout their life, and they are now on their own for the
first time. Their parents may be with them when moving into their dorm room or
apartment, yet a large number of students within our surveying identified that they
are not aware of the need for purchasing a shelving unit for their living space. If they
do realize the need for extra storage, the shelving system needs to be readily
available, at a low cost, and easy for anyone to purchase and assemble.
The competition for these types of storage systems are found at retailers such as
Walmart, Ikea, and online retailers mainly Amazon. Retailer outlets such as Walmart
and Ikea are available in majority of college towns and regions, and generally well
known for low cost products. Online retailers such as Amazon provide large
inventory of products with convenient packaging and fast shipping directly to the
customer's address.

To generate ideas for a product that could jump to the top of the competition for
storage systems, particularly wall shelving, the design team needed to understand
what was on the market and the current problems with the products on the market.
Some products may be able to meet one or two of the customer needs, but fail to meet
other customer needs.
The product must be able to stand out amongst products offered by competitive
companies known for low-cost and convenient service. Young adults, specifically
college students, setting out to purchase extra storage may already have a good idea
where to start. Companies such as Wal-Mart, Ikea, and Target are well known stores
across the world that supply a wide variety of household furniture products. These
are high interest stores for college students as they tend to be conveniently located
near many universities. With 4177 Wal-Mart stores in the United States15, 51 IKEA
store locations in the United States16 and 1799 Target store locations in the United
States17, students should have many options to shop for products in these chain
stores. Consumers can take a short trip to the store with a general idea of need, and
be provided with an assortment of different qualities. Products may be cheap and
simple, or they may possess more sophistication and cost.
In addition to the retail stores, another important outlet that is popular amongst
young adults is the online shopping market. With 191.1 billion online shoppers in the
United States, online shopping is a huge form of shopping18. Students away from
home may not have the resources, i.e. time or transportation, to go to the store to
make a purchase, therefore they are likely culprits for online shopping. One major
online shopping resource is Amazon.com which provides an online retail outlet for a
large selection of products and services for every gender and age. The process of
purchasing online through Amazon allows for an account to be set up to establish
shopping carts, compare products, and track purchases. The package is quick to
arrive at the doorstep of the buyer. Amazon offers Prime subscriptions that target
college students, providing access to millions of songs, movies, and books along with
account19. With all forms of entertainment and service needs in one location, the user
buying experience is simplified which creates an attraction of shoppers towards the
online resources. Customer need data indicated that the users of the intended
product need a shelf system that is low-cost, convenient, and easy to assemble. These
needs are seen in the potential retailers. The retailers are conveniently located or
conveniently deliver the product.
IKEA is the worlds top furniture retailer and sells their products worldwide. In
order to minimize the cost of transporting the products that IKEA carries, they use
flat packaging. The flat packing means that the product contained inside the
package is not assembled fully so that is lays in a compact manner to reduce the size
of the package. There are many reasons IKEA does this, but the main reason is to
reduce cost of transporting the goods through smaller packages that allow for more
packages to be transported at once. The small packaging however, requires the
consumer to perform a minor assembly action prior to using the product purchased.
IKEA appeals to their customers with this small package transportation in the way
6

that it reduces the overall cost for the customer, but they also include small tools
with each package that will provide the necessary assistance in assembly of the
product. IKEA not only has sales to retail stores, but also functions as an online
retailer where consumers can shop and purchase products online. The online option
is an option that gains IKEA a customer base that simply may not be near a retail
store, but also appeals to those who are not able to go to the store and pick up
products, such as college students.
Walmart functions in a competitive manner to IKEA in the way that Wal-Mart has
retail store locations where consumers can shop in store, as well as Wal-Mart
functions as a large online retailer. Walmart has 4177 store locations in the United
States which makes a Wal-Mart a more readily accessible store in most locations
than an IKEA15. In addition to the retail locations, Wal-Mart offers their products on
their online store. Wal-Marts big selling point is their everyday low prices as they
advertise. They reduce prices through their logistics as well as the way that the large
chain is able to carry such a large quantity of each product. The low prices Wal-Mart
apply to their thousands of different products which makes the company a prime
place for any shopper to purchase many of their goods at one place.
Amazon.com is a leading e-commerce company that functions as an online retailer in
the United States as well as on an international level20. Amazons products are from
sellers, meaning that the sellers can set up an account or Amazon can fulfill orders
through the sellers own website20. This works so well because Amazon has a large
vast range of sellers meaning the selection of products that can be purchased
through Amazon is large and not limited. The vast selection of products allows for
amazon to tend to many different customer groups varying in age, gender, and other
aspects that influence products needed and desired by consumers. Amazons vast
range of products allows for many sellers to compete on prices of the same product
which provides consumers with a place to shop where prices are already being
checked and lowered to sell the products. In addition to the competitive prices,
Amazon has many different options for shipping so that the consumer can find the
best option for their needs. The options for shipping very from standard shipping, to
free same-day delivery21. The free and expedited shipping options are achieved by
setting up an Amazon Prime account. The account is on that the consumer pays for,
however the account not only saves money on shipping, but includes regular special
offers that make paying for an account justifiable for those who shop frequently.
Amazon also includes a small parcel shipping classification. To meet this
classification, packages must have no side longer than 258. The benefit of the
smaller packages is to reduce shipping costs on transporting the product to the
consumer. Through the large assortment of products that can be acquired through
Amazon.com, the competitive product pricing, and the executive offers through
setting up a prime account, Amazon is a highly used source of shopping for
consumers.
3.2.1 Material research

The team started the search for the materials that could possibly be used to construct
the design by initially keeping all options open and exploring the range of materials
classified as metals. With open minds, the team researched metals and many metals
sorted themselves from the list quickly. Such metals include gold and silver simply
because of the metals prices that are significantly higher than what is reasonable to
consider making a shelf out of for the consumers that are the target 25. With further
research, the team was able to begin applying more criteria that is required for the
metals to be considered such as the availability, cost, and material properties of each
metal. The team utilized CES software and cross-referenced with online sources to
determine material properties of the materials that remained in consideration. The
properties that the team compared between materials included the density, cost,
youngs modulus, yield strength, tensile strength, elongation, hardness, fracture
toughness, melting point, heat capacity, resistance value, and the thermal
conductivity. These aspects were determined for each of the materials of
consideration which include high carbon steel, low carbon steel, stainless steel,
copper, aluminum, tin, and zinc. From the materials in consideration and the
properties of each in mind, the team preceded the material research by consulting
Material Connexion to look into more options and aspects to take into consideration
while meeting the customer needs.
Material Connexion suggested many material options to consider during the design.
A woven wire mesh that could be produced from up to 75% recycled material made
from either stainless steel or brass came into consideration29. The mesh of both
materials is 100% recyclable and can be used in many different instances of design.
Another material consideration included the aluminum laminate. This laminate is
made of aluminum however offered different assortments of colors and finishes that
may be attractive to consumers upon using the shelf as decoration. The aluminum
laminate resists scratching and corrosion similar to that of the pre-anodized
aluminum sheet. The aluminum sheet however has a coating that can prolong the life
of the metal making it last longer29. An additional sheet metal that was discovered
was a stainless steel sheet. This stainless steel sheet is aesthetic as well as the finish
prevents scratches and dents that may occur29. This stainless steel sheet provides
more strength than that of the aluminum sheet while maintaining an appealing finish.
3.2.2 Product research
The team researched many shelf designs that are currently on the market. The
research focused on seeing common trends that were within shelves currently
manufactured. The focus was also on trying to determine the pros and cons within
each design that could be beneficial to meeting our customer needs. The research
was focused on shelves that are not freestanding, constructed of mostly metal, and
around the same 45 specification of the design requirements. The research showed
a common trait that was found in each shelf being the weight capacity for shelves of
that size, the weight capacity of the majority of the shelves were over 50 pounds.

Some shelves were rated to support a load up to 125 pounds23. The designs that
supported more weight, tend to cost more where the weaker shelves are more
inexpensive. The upper end of the standard shelves that supported 125 pounds was
$80.0023. The research also lead to different methods of mounting the shelf that is
not free standing. One way that is most commonly used is to fasten the shelf to a
wall through the use of screws or bolts23. This method is very effective and long
term, however the method is destructive due to the holes produced in the walls
which may not be permitted in some situations such as college students living in on
campus housing. The final major aspect that the team found through researching
current products is the type of shelf surface that is used. This surface is the surface
that is the shelf where the consumer will place items to be stored on the shelf. Many
options exist for this solution, and it is reliant on the use of the shelf as to which
shelf surface serves the purpose best. The shelf surfaces commonly seen were a wire
mesh and a flat solid surface. The wire mesh surface is a very light-weight design
that provides a surface that will support large objects, but limited to the minimum
size that can be supported due to the objects falling through mesh24. The wire mesh
surface has benefit as well though in the way that the wire mess allows for hooks to
be hung from under it, as well as is allows for a sense of ventilation if there were
moist objects placed upon it to dry. Most commonly, the wire mesh is made from a
metal material. The solid smooth surface for the shelf design is slightly more
common. The solid surface is seen in many different materials from wood, to metals
and even marble. The solid shelf surface is as it sounds in the way that it is solid and
allows for objects even down to the smallest size to be stored on the surface 23. This
shelf surface can use a little more material and be slightly heavier than the wire
mesh, however it depends on the design. There are ideal applications for both types
of shelf surfaces such as the wire mesh in a closet where item may be stored and
hang from the shelf, and the solid surface where pictures may be place or keys or
books in a living room.
Once the team explored the various shelf design options and functions, the need
arose to determine what determined the success of one shelf over another on the
market when both shelves perform the same function. Through the research there
were multiple factors that relate to the success of one product over another when
the need of the customer is met by both solutions. The factors are price of the
product, ease of assembly and use, and appearance of the final product. The price of
the product can be impacted by many aspects however the main are the material,
the process, and the quality. The material of the final product is directly related to
the cost in the way that certain materials are more expensive than other such as the
way aluminum is more expensive than tool steel25. The higher the cost of material,
the higher the cost to produce a product of that material which leads to a higher sale
price. The material relates to the process and quality as well. The process is how the
material must be handled to create the desired product, while the quality can be
determined as the ability of the end product to perform the desired function when
compared to a similar design of a different material. The higher the quality end
product can lead to higher prices through the material used, as well as the design
process that achieved the end product. It is dependent of the use of the shelf, that
depicts how high or low of quality of shelf is produced, while still meeting the needs

of the customer. The factor of ease and use entails how ease or strenuous it is for the
consumer to receive the product and put it to use. Results show that consumers of
the product the team will be designing are limited with the access to tools and know
how as to constructing a product, therefore the easier a product is to begin using,
the more likely they are to purchase the product. The final factor of appearance led
to be a major factor depending on the consume base. This meant that if the shelf is
used in a tool shed, appearance impacted the purchase a lot less than if the shelf is
used in a home. The was a product looks within the environment it is placed in can
immediately impact the way consumers are either attracted to or repelled away
from a product26. The products that will be seen in consumers eyes on a daily basis
and in their home, are preferred to be aesthetically appealing. Consumers desire
products that make their homes flow and fit together nicely and not those that stand
out and do not look welcoming26. This result indicates that for a product to be
successful when there are other products performing the same function, appearance
can strongly persuade a consumer.
3.2.3 Assembly research
As assembly is a factor that depicts whether a consumer purchases a product or not,
the team researched shelf assembly options that are on the market currently. The
results show that the easier a shelf is to assemble and requires as few tools as
necessary, the better chance it has at being successful. The different options on the
market currently display two assembly steps. The first step is to assemble the actual
product. The second step is mounting the product to the wall or fixture. Both steps
may or may not require tools, however the steps are present in many designs. The
process of assembling the shelf varies greatly amongst different designs. Some
shelves come assembled and only need to be mounted27 while other shelves need to
be assembled through the use of tools and additional hardware23. The feasibility of a
shelf that is large in size to be shipped and transported in one piece, is simply a
difficult task, therefore larger shelves require some assembly as they are taken apart
to be less a space demanding for shipping. Since larger shelves require some
assembly, it is ideal for consumer purposes to keep the assembly minimal as well as
the parts required. Such designs include the necessary hardware such as bolts and
nuts, and use components that are tool less to install such as a wing nut28. The
minimization of the process to assemble the shelf is a beneficial process because it is
enticing to the consumer as well as it minimizes the need for a more extensive user
manual and assembly guide. The second stage of assembly is where the shelf is
mounted to the fixture at which it will be used. This in almost all shelves requires
tools and hardware in the form of a drill and screws. There are different systems
that can be used to mount the shelf, however most are damaging to the wall or
fixture. One system that is common is the use of a track that is mounted to the
fixture and then the shelf mounts on the track23. The more common method for
mounting a shelf is the form of simply mounting the shelf to the fixture using screws
where the shelf has brackets attached to it27. In both methods for mounting, tools
are required, the fixture is damaged, and there is a need to find a stud if mounting to
drywall or additional hardware such as anchors may be necessary. It is seen that

both methods are demanding and can require a small amount of knowledge with
tools, which may challenge some consumers.
3.3 Significance of Metal Properties in Design
Within any design of a product, the material at which the final product is constructed
from has a large impact on the performance of the final product. The selection of the
final material is an extensive process where there are many aspects that must be
accounted for that are associated with the impact of using each prospective material.
Within this design, the team was constrained to only the materials classified as
metals. Metals make up the majority of the elements and are connected through the
metallic bonds that occur15. The importance of the selection the proper metal
material is due to the fact that each metal has different material properties that can
benefit or impact a design depending on the desired properties required to meet the
needs. The different metals have differing properties due to the structure of the metal
as well as the defects that are within the metal15.
Different properties associated with the different metals include the materials
properties through the mechanical, optical, electrical, thermal, chemical, and
magnetic properties. Depending on the use of the final product, different properties
have more importance than others, however for the shelf design, properties such as
flexural strength, yield strength, hardness, and electrical resistivity have more
impact on the final design than the optical properties. However, all properties that
are relevant and have an affect on the performance of the material must be
considered. For the design it is important to consider the different materials that are
available and how they will benefit or constrain the design. The requirements of the
design must be considered in this process to ensure that the proper material is
selected. An example of how this is important is the way that if a light product it to
be produced, then aluminum will better fit the requirements than cast iron due to
the material densities. There are areas within a design however that can be affected
by material differences, such as if the aluminum is lighter than cast iron, however
the cast iron is stronger, less cast iron material is required than the amount of
aluminum that is required to provide the same strength. The situations such as this
must be considered for all prospective materials for the final design to ensure that
the best material is selected to meet the needs of the design.
In addition to the properties that are associated with each individual material, the
processes that are required to produce a final product of each material must be taken
into account. The different processes can include casting and machining. 15 The
reason the processes are required to be aware of is due to the fact that certain
materials are going be easier to produce a product using a certain process compared
to others. Some materials flow better when heated, some are harder, some are more
ductile, and others are simply more difficult to form. This is important to keep in mind
through the design process because the form at which the final material must take
must be achievable by that material.

4.0 Importance and Impacts

Today, it is important that engineers and designers design for sustainability and
protect the earths environment. No product will last forever and engineers need to
consider an end-of-life strategy for each product. They need to design for
recyclability, and design to minimize harm to the environment. Sustainable
development is known as growth done in a way that is compatible with the
environment31. Engineers need to think of the future of this planet for many
lifetimes to come and not just their own.
Professionalism is defined as the conduct, aims, or qualities that characterize or
mark a professional person. A profession is defined as a calling requiring
specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation.33 Key
topics to what professionalism represents include having specialized knowledge,
having competency, being honest, creating a good image. Professionals have
degrees and certifications that serve as a foundation of their knowledge. They also
need to keep this knowledge up-to-date to continue to convey the best work
possible. Professionals must also be reliable to come through with their promises
and get the job done at a high quality standard. It is also very important to create an
image that people would associate with a professional. This shows confidence and
respect points are earned33. Improving each of these characteristics will help build
towards being a true professional in the workplace that will be easily recognized by
others.
The role of an engineer is very important in society. It is important that engineers
also know the role of scientist. Scientists are always discovering new things but it is
the engineers job to work out how these new advancements can be used to benefit
the people. Engineering is looked at as the overlap between scientific knowledge
and societal need. More specifically, the domain of engineering is the applying
scientific knowledge to meet the needs of the society. An engineer must be able to
design and solve problems using the scientific tools and methods with reasonable
assumption within reasonable error.34
Engineers have a code of ethics that are very important in that they have a direct
impact on the quality of life for all people. Engineers must perform under the
professional behavior that abide by the highest principles of ethical conduct. There
are three fundamental principles that all engineers must uphold and advance the
integrity, honor, and dignity of the profession of engineering. The three fundamental
principles include using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human
welfare, being honest and impartial, and serving with fidelity to their clients and the
public, and striving to increase the competence and prestige of the engineering
profession. Also, engineers need to consider the safety, health, and welfare of the
public in the performance of their professional duties.35

4.1 Eight Key Questions

Ethical reasoning is guided at James Madison University by eight key questions. The
questions are associated with fairness, outcomes, responsibilities, character, liberty,
empathy, authority, and rights. These eight key questions can be used to analyze the
ethical dimensions of a problem. The questions can be asked in a way that they can
assist in leading to an ethical solution.
Fairness is very important because it is, the heart of ethical reasoning. It is very
important that everyone in a company is being treated equally regardless of race,
gender, religion, etc. The key question should be asked in a way that it should be
how a person or group can act equitably and balance all interests. Through
balancing interests of the parties associated, there is an equal distribution that leads
to fairness.
When looking at outcomes, companies need to come up with ways that will achieve
the best short and long-term outcomes for themselves and all of the other people.
When assessing this aspect, the question needs to be asked in a way of how longterm
and short-term outcomes will be impacted by all possible actions that can be taken.
The responsibilities are associated with the expectations and requirements that
decision makers have. Companies have duties that they owe to other human beings
and animals. This also includes the environment in the way that they are to keep in
mind the best interest of those who are impacted and affected by the decisions that
are made.
Character has to do with the ideal self. This means the decisions that are made should
take steps towards the image that a decision maker wants to be seen as. The question
should be what actions does a person take to become the person they want to
become? If the people in charge make good decisions, think for the long-term, and
try and preserve the environment, then people will follow in their footsteps and they
will be viewed as a positive influence.
Liberty entails the fact that certain decisions cannot be made due to restrictions and
limitations of other's freedom. Companies need to make sure that the decisions they
are making arent hurting any others in obvious ways through their choices and
actions. This question must include the way that the decisions made must ensure that
human rights are not being impacted by the decision at hand.
Empathy is the way that others react when someone other than themselves are
involved. The company heads have to put themselves in the shoes of employees.
They have to make sure theyre happy to get the best out of production. The
empathy allows the decision makers to see the decision from other perspectives and
really take in whether it is ethical for all involved.
Authority is the expectations of higher forces that are imposed upon people. Rules
are there for a reason but sometimes the ethical decision might be to break the
rule. The companies better be able to explain the justifications for that authority
and determine legitimacy in all cases, especially those that go against the actions
that are expected of them.
Rights are the givens that are associated with the situation. This means that there are
certain aspects such as human rights that just cannot be altered. The companies have

to think about which rights each person has. People need to stay in their place and
respect others rights.

4.2 A Need for Sustainability: Recycling of Metals

Recycling is the process of converting waste into reusable materials. It is a good
sustainable way to minimize waste and to help preserve the planet for the future.
While reducing the consumption of waste has a better impact to the environment,
recycling is still a much better option than filling up a landfill. The recycling methods
of both aluminum and steel need to be compared to one another to determine which
material is the more sustainable option. A very common way that aluminum is
recycled is through beverage cans. During the manufacturing process, some of the
aluminum is lost when the can is being shaped and trimmed. This excess scrap can
be reused to make other aluminum beverage cans. A high percentage of the cost of
aluminum cans comes from the energy used to make the aluminum. Using the
recycled aluminum to make other cans can save as much as 95% of the total energy
cost.40 Recycling aluminum requires 95% less energy than aluminum production.
This also produces 95% fewer greenhouse gasses. In essence, recycling aluminum is
better for the environment and saves money for businesses.40
The worlds most recycled metal is steel. Just in the U.S., 86 million tons of steel was
recycled in 201141. For every ton of recycled steel, there is 2500 pounds of iron ore,
1400 pounds of coal, and 120 pounds of limestone saved. Using recycled steel can
use as little as 26% of the energy that is required to manufacture from natural
materials. There are two different main processes that are used to create steel. One
is using the basic oxygen furnace (BOF) and the other is the electric arc furnace
(EAF). They both use recycled scrap steel to produce new steel to be used.41
After going over the recycling process for both steel and aluminum, aluminum
appears to be the best option. Recycled aluminum requires only 5% of the energy to
produce when compared to manufacturing aluminum while steel uses 26% of the
energy.
There are both pros and cons to recycling aluminum cans. Recycling aluminum
creates many jobs at recycling factories. People can also collect cans and sell them
to the factories to make some extra money. Recycling conserves energy and also
protects the environment. While there are many benefits to recycling aluminum,
there are also some drawbacks. The sorting of aluminum is time consuming, but
also creates some low paying jobs. Impurities in the aluminum are created each
time it is recycled. Unless new technologies are created for the recycling process,
then over time the aluminum will have limited uses.
There are also both pros and cons to recycling steel. Steel is the worlds most recycled
material. A big advantage is that steel is very earth friendly. The risk of polluting the

earth is greatly reduced and it is much cheaper to recycle steel instead of extracting
the raw material40. A disadvantage is that recycling steel creates fewer jobs than
extracting the natural resource, in this case the advantages outweigh the
disadvantages.
4.3 The Product Life Cycle Impact
The beverage can lifecycle shows the complete step-by-step process of the life of an
aluminum can. The process starts with customer manufacturing. This is where the
aluminum is manufactured into cans to be used for beverages. The cans are then
used by the consumers to consume the beverage and then it is thrown away. About
63% of used cans are recycled39. The used cans and aluminum scraps are then
smelted and then used to ingot castings.

5.0 Understanding and Satisfying the Customer

One of the most important steps in the design process is to understand the customer
and why there is a need for a new product. To begin, the market and users are first
established, and then through research, polls and surveys the interest in the product
is gaged. The product must accommodate to when and where there is a need. The
form is designed based on how there will be integration with current trends. Finally,
what is to be specifically designed to provide an upgrade from current solutions is
established. The gathering of this information is deemed a necessary step in order to
deliver a product that will appeal to consumers and thus sell on the market. If the
product does not address the needs of its potential users and/or remove frustrations
with current solutions, it was believed that the customers would lack motivation to
purchase the product. The what, when, where, why, and how is done by gathering
related information through consumer and market analysis, surveys, and competitive
benchmarking.
For this particular case, the department supervisor provided the design team with
the job of designing a metal shelving system for customers in their early to
midtwenties. Information was identified on characteristic traits, trends, and
statistical data to generalize the customer.
Designing a metal shelving system for college students world-wide requires a diverse
range of behaviors to be considered in the needs. This is the age right after becoming
legally designated as an adult, where you begin to assume many new responsibilities.
One of these responsibilities is maintaining your own living space away from mom
and dad. These young adults will need to pack up all of their favorite bedroom objects
as well as acquire additional appliances, textbooks, and other common goods. These
users will be fighting to establish a presence in a fastpaced world either through
education or entering the workforce. Their schedules may be time and resource
demanding, attempting to compete or even maintain in a world with a growing
population. With a growing presence of technology and online media and content, a
home-based office for school or work is an ideal location for many of these young
adults with work consuming a lot of time and resources. An organization system that
doesnt consume already limited space can reduce time of work processes. By
establishing a base for regularly used resources, such as; textbooks, coffee pots, and
radios, time will no longer be wasted looking for material or spreading yourself thin.
After a conclusion of the consumer, the market, and the potential product, specific
customer responses were still needed to infer specific customer needs. In order to
get a better understand the team developed a survey that was distributed to a
sample of college students through online media. Approximately 30 students
responded to the survey questions. Questions, distributed to a sample representing
the users in the market, ranged from general information on living conditions, rules
and regulations of the establishments they were living in, and current relationship

with the product to be designed. From the results, explained below in 5.1, the team
was able to validate assumptions in previous consumer analysis.
5.1 Information Gathering on the Consumers and Market
The company funding this project is stated to be GP, who is the world leader in shelf
innovation. Due to time and budget constraints the team deemed it most necessary
to design a shelf for college students as well as people in their 20s renting their own
place, here in America, more specifically the Shenandoah valley. Although it is a
smaller market, the team believes if done correctly much of the information as well
as the shelf design itself can be used as a starting point for shelves made elsewhere.
Branding loyalty amongst this age group tends to be weaker than that of older
consumers. This means that even though GP is world leader in shelf innovation, it no
longer has a step up on newer companies offering other similar products. GP will have
to work just as hard as the other companies to get word out about new products such
as the one being designed here.
5.2 Questionnaire and Survey
The following survey was distributed as a means of confirming assumptions made in
initial customer analysis, and how they may potentially benefit from a new shelving
system, the full survey can be seen below in figure 5.1

Figure 5.1: Survey of Potential Customers

The survey starts general asking question to define the demographics of the market.
The questions get more specific as to what the functions the market would want the
shelf to have, including where it would be positioned as well as how much weight
would be put on the shelf. One of the questions asked if the place they live at allows
them to put holes in the walls or not. The team originally identifies this problem being
college students themselves understand the struggle of dorm and lease rules. The
questions were posed to define limitations regarding the shelf design. The
questionnaire was released for a span of two days and got a total of 32 responses.
Once the results of the survey came in the group decided that it lacked some
important information and another one needed to be sent out asking more specific
questions. This survey can be seen below in figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2: Follow up Survey of Potential Customers

With this survey there was a total of 70 responses. This survey allowed the team to
justify a price point in which the target market would pay for a shelf as well as if
they set money aside for home furnishings.
5.3 Results & Analysis
After the survey was closed, the data was evaluated and analyzed. Here the relevant
questions that allowed the team to create customer needs are discussed. As a result
of benchmarking the team found that there are many metal shelves on the market
today that are around the same price point and have the same capacity. The team
wanted to make something different that would stand out and appeal to students. The
biggest thing the team realized early on is that whether students live on or off campus,
putting holes in the wall are either not allowed or the holes must be filled in when the
lease is expired. This idea was backed up with data from the survey having more than
half of the response responded with either not being allowed to put holes on the wall
or having to fill them in when they are done. The next thing that was of interest to the
team was all but 2 responders to the survey said that they had dry wall. The problem
with drywall is that drywall tends to not be rigid and sturdy on its own. This means
that if a screw is placed in the drywall and a load is applied, the drywall may allow

the screw to strip out and fall. There are two solutions to the problem that provide a
secure fasten to the drywall which are drywall anchors or fastening to the studs in
the wall. A drywall anchor is an insert that goes in a drilled hole in the drywall that
expands when a screw is placed in it. To find the studs in the wall, there are different
methods that can be used such as a stud locator, however if the stud is missed then
there is a need to re-drill. Both of these problems lead the team to the idea of a shelf
that does not require putting holes in the wall.
Also gathered from the survey was the intended use of the shelf including and
approximate weight. It was discovered that potential users would use the shelf form
mostly framed photos, books, and toiletries. The users went on the estimate the
amount of weight they would be putting on it. The most common response was
010lbs but the highest amount came in at 70 lbs.
From all of this information as well as some information gathered during
benchmarking the customer requirements were generated. These are discussed
further in the following section.
5.4 Customer Need Statements
The designer, based on what the customer has expressed and deemed necessary to
be interest in the product, generates customer need statements. A summary of the
customer needs statements can be seen below in table 5.1.

Customer Needs

Must be a non-free-standing shelving system

Must be 45 in length
Must be able to hang in dorm rooms and apartments
Must be aesthetically appealing to males and females
Must be strong/stiff enough to be able to support textbooks, clothing, appliance, small
misc. objects
Must be safe enough to avoid failure caused by loading of textbooks, apparel,
appliances
Must be easy to assemble
Should be lightweight

Must be affordable for college students compared to current market

Must be able to last at least four years with almost no maintenance
Should minimize packaging size
Should be durable for shipment
Should be easily marketable/ distinguishable
Table 5.1: Customer Needs Statements
As seen above, these customer needs statements have been gathered from different
sources and have different justifications. These justifications will be explained
below.
The first three customer needs statements, must be a non-freestanding shelving
system, must be 45 in length, and must be able to hang in dorm rooms and
apartments were gathered from the project description. The boss of the company
gave them; if they are not met then the project has not been completed as desired by
the company.
The next customer need statements read as must be aesthetically appealing to males
and females. This is to ensure that the largest market can be capture. If the product
were tailored to just men or just women, the company would be missing out on
nearly half of the potential market. Possibly the most important customer need
follows stating that the shelf needs to be stiff enough and strong enough to hold the
desired needs. If the shelf does not hold the intend need the system could fail and
result in injury or even death. As an engineering design team according to the code
of ethics the team must hold paramount the safety of the public. This requirement
also flows into the next one of being safe enough to avoid failure. Since the users will
be taking things on and off of the shelf, it is required that there is some sort of safety
factor to ensure that the system will not fail. This means that if the shelf is said to
hold 100 pounds it should be designed to hold at least 200, if not more depending
on the deemed safety factor.
The next customer needs relate to the market of college-aged students otherwise
known as generation Y, ages 18-26. They are as follows, the product must be easy to
assemble, should be lightweight, must be affordable for college students compared to
current market, and must be able to last at least four years with almost no
maintenance. The first one being easy to assemble is a very important one, for many
students this is their first time living away from home and their handy-man or handywomen skill can vary dramatically. In order to again capture the largest market it is
required that the assembly of the product be as simple and straightforward as
possible. The product should also be lightweight, again this is related to the varying
strengths of college students as well as decreasing the shelfs weight would allow it

to be hung in more places. Finally the shelf needs to last four years will little to no
maintenance. This is due to the average amount of time spent living in a dorm or
apartment.
The last three customer needs are stated as should minimize packaging size, should
be durable for shipment, and should be easily marketable/ distinguishable. The
minimization packaging size would allow for more units to be shipped simultaneous
which would cut down on the transportation cost. The product should also be
durable for shipment which will ensure the product will get to the user in the
desired condition decreasing c returns and thus more transportation cost. Finally
the product should be easily marketable and distinguishable. For a product to do
well on the market consumers need to know it is out there and want to have it. This
goes into branding. Once the shelf is design and in production it is GPs best interest
to hiring a marketing team to get the word out there and make the product
desirable.
After understanding the customer needs and justification it was necessary for the
team to determine metrics. The following table relates the customer need to the
metrics created by the team.

Customer Needs
Must be a non-free-standing shelving
system

Metric
Must have no more than 0 points of
contact with the floor.

Must be 45 in length

Must be exactly 45 long.

Must be able to hang in dorm rooms and

apartments

Must hang from at least one item in

dorm rooms and apartments.

Must be aesthetically appealing to males Must appeal to at least one male and one
and females
female.
Must be strong/stiff enough to be able to
support textbooks, clothing, appliance,
small misc. objects

Shelf must not deflect more than 0.125

Must be safe enough to avoid failure

caused by loading of textbooks, apparel,
appliances

Flexural stress must not exceed the yield

strength divided by the safety factor of 2

Must be easy to assemble

Must assemble with no more than 0

tools.

Should be lightweight

Must weigh less than the maximum

supported load

Must be affordable for college students

compared to current market

Must cost no more than $100.

Must be able to last at least four years

with almost no maintenance

Must last at least 4 years without failing

Should minimize packaging size

The product must fit in a package

smaller than the functioning size

Should be durable for shipment

The product must not be easily damaged

in shipping.

Table 5.2: Customer Need Statements Translated into Design Metrics

5.5 Functional Modeling
Understanding the material and energy flows throughout the system was the first
step in this process, breaking the product into a flow of individual functions and
subsystems throughout its life-cycle with a functional model. System requirements
were then created for individual subsystems, identifying detailed constraints that
would narrow down to potential solutions in a concept space. The large family of
metals and their alloys also needed to be narrowed down based on these
requirements. Below in the black box model the team used to begin understanding
the system.

Figure 5.3: Black Box Model of Shelving System

As seen above the system does not use up anything. Every input in turn becomes an
output including the artifacts that are placed on the shelf as well as the packaging.
To dig deeper into the shelving system a functional model was created.

Figure 5.4: Functional Model of Shelving System

The function model starts with the same inputs of the black box but instead of going
right to outputs the model walks through how the inputs are used and the processes
each of them follows. From this the team was able to have a better understanding of
the functions the shelf needed to accomplish.

6.0 System Requirements

The design team investigated the customer needs and translated them into a set of
design requirements for the final product. The design requirements established the
function, constraints, objectives, and free variable for the design of the shelf system.
The system requirements allowed for the functional aspects of the system to be
modeled by limiting solution space, as well as provide criteria for the evaluation of
potential success for each design alternative. Functional modeling was used to
determine a system boundary that would allow for control of inflow and outflow of
materials and energy over the products entire lifecycle. A black box model, depicted
above in Figure 5.3, was the first tool used to visually define what materials and
energy go in and out of our system boundary in order to perform the products
intended function. A functional model could then be used to specify how the
materials and energy will flow within the system, where new subsystems are
identified. Figure 5.4 is a representation of the functional model, beginning with
material and energy imported into the system, and ending with materials and
energy entering into the system. An ideal solution should control the inflows and

outflows in order to reduce waste while being environmentally and socially

responsible. Each individual subsystem is related to an individual function that
needs to be achieved for the product Different means for achieving each individual
function in the model was explored and combined into different concepts, using
ideas from benchmarking of current design solutions. The design concepts should be
constructed of the metal with the most ideal combination of material properties for
matching customer needs. The metal family was narrowed down to three materials
that can be further tested to determine and evaluate specific material properties.
Surveying of potential customers in our intended market identified that they find
the need for extra storage of small miscellaneous objects, picture frames, textbooks,
and apparel in their bedrooms. Therefore the design team concluded that the
product should be able to store and organize all common bedroom objects. Although
the product is constrained to be made out of metal at a specified length of 45 inches.
It must not be freestanding, in order to not consume already limited floor space. It
must also be aesthetically appealing to both males and females in order to capture
the largest share of the market.

Function
Constraints

Student storage shelving system

Specified shelf length of 45
Must be manufactured with a member of Metals family
Final Product must not exceed 40 lb.
Shelf must provide stiffness to not exceed a deflection length/360.
Must be strong enough to support 100 lb. without exceeding a
flexural stress of the materials yield strength divided by a safety
factor of 2.

Objective

Minimize retail cost

Free
Variables

Choice of metal
Form of shelf ( panel, rods, wire mesh, beam)
Thickness of shelf panel/beam OR number of rods and diameter OR
wire mesh specifications
Form and dimensions of supporting components

Figure 6.1: Function, constraints, objective, & free variables of the system
Based on the previously stated customer needs and system requirements, the
product could take on various forms and functions within the system. Customer
needs are translated into system requirements that determine an appealing final
product for the intended market. The design team intends on delivering a final
product that best meets the needs of their intended market, while considering the
needs of all future children of every species.

7.0 Material Selection

The shelving system being designed was specified from a detailed list of customer
need statements. Before the project, the team was not clear on why anyone may need
another shelving system on the market to choose from. Specifically assigned with
college-aged students in their twenties, an assumption was made to classify the users
as Generation Y. Customer need statements were generated from a clear definition
of the intended users, supported statistics and analysis of the consumer and market,
two surveys, and review of peer-reviewed articles.
From these need statements; the products form must perform to deliver its
intended function. The customer need statements allowed the design team to
understand what the shelving system must do and why. The shelving system must
provide storage and organization of necessary objects of college students, while
saving floor space.
The system boundary as defined as any component or material that will be used for
the final assembly of the shelving system. Packaging materials were included because
they play an important role in how the product is delivered to the users. Innovative
methods of packaging and shipping can be innovated to conserve resources and
reduce energy consumption throughout the lifecycle of the product. Materials and
energy must flow in and out of the shelving system to function as intended. The design
is limited to the metal family, per the supervisor in the Research and Development
Department at GP. Within the family, three metal classifications are selected as the
potential material choices. Further testing on the three metals for the properties
relevant to the design. Energy is not consumed during the product use stage,
therefore must only be considered at the beginning and end of life. The beginning of

the life is the metal components being introduced as an assembly member of the
product. Each component has an energy and cost associated for manufacturing. At the
end of life, the consumer no longer has an intended use for the product and disposes
of the material. The material can either be re-used or recycled back into base metal,
based on the content. Otherwise it will sit in a landfill other forms of waste not being
used. Information related to the amount of recycled content available in each type of
metal was discussed in the importance and impacts section and was used in
evaluation of a manufactured shelf using the three different potential materials.
The design must not only meet the needs of the users, but must consider the needs
of every child of every species. This is referring to a sustainable design process,
Cradle-to-Cradle, presented in William McDonoughs Ted Talk on Cradle-to-cradle
design30.

7.1 Translation of Requirements for Material Selection

Developing a product that will be adopted in the intended market, as the top of
competition requires that the material used to manufacture the final product is
compatible with customer needs and system requirements. Therefore, the material
must have the best combination of low density, low price, and high stiffness. The
material must also be readily available, easily manufactured into our desired
components, and not present any ethical dilemmas.
Material Connexion provided a source of 7000 materials used in innovative designs.
The database of materials could be narrowed into abundant metals that are stiff and
recyclable. Around 40 results consisted of different finishes of stainless steel and
aluminum sheets. Benchmarking also identified these as common metals used in
general consumer shelving products. Low carbon steel is also a viable option for
design of the shelving system as it generally provides the lowest cost of all metals in
terms of manufacturing capabilities.
7.2 Manufacturing Requirements: Cast vs Wrought Products
When manufacturing the final design, the materials may be cast or wrought products
depending on the requirements for form and function. The team needed to decide on
which product to use for their analysis due to potential differences in the material
properties.
7.3 Comparison of Metals for Selection
An established set of design requirements were used to highlight material properties
of interest. The designers needed to clearly understand the application of the product,

how it must be fabricated, and how will the functions behave. Then requirements
were set to limit the large family of metals to potential material for application. By
understanding the application of the product, location of use would be understood to
identify environmental factors. Environmental factors can include exposure to dirt,
chemicals, moisture, excess heat or cooling, damaging light and electrical charges.
Materials have mechanical, thermal, chemical, electrical, optical, and magnetic
properties that can be affected by the application of the product. Mechanical
properties will be of most apparent significance, as the metal shelving system will be
subject to a variety of forces over its lifetime that can cause deformation and lead to
failure. Mechanical properties can be found in a large number of reference manuals
and databases. The mechanical properties may also be tested by the manufacturers
with relative ease through tensile and hardness tests. ASTM lists commonly used
standards associated with these tests, along with guides and standards to other
commonly used guides, practices, and test for each of the material properties. ASM
Handbook Volume 20 was used as a guide for initial study of metal classifications and
their use in design.
Ferrous and Nonferrous metals represent the two potential broad classifications of
metals that may be used in design.
Ferrous metals consist of iron, and are generally known as steels. You can have steel,
cast iron, low carbon, medium carbon, high carbon, and high alloy. Low carbon is
found at the greatest quantities. It can be strengthened with cold work, possesses
outstanding ductility and toughness, and can be produced fairly inexpensive
compared to all of the other steels
Medium carbon is a plain heat treated steel, while high carbon is a plain steel used in
tools. The steel that is high alloy is called your stainless steel. This steel provides a
high resistance to corrosion due to the chromium present. Cast irons provide the
most convenient fabrication technique, being easily melted and amenable to casting.
This ferrous metal is very brittle though, not possessing much ability to plastically
deform before failure.
When using ferrous alloys in design, it must be considered that they will have a
higher density, a low electrical conductivity, and some may be more susceptible to
degradation depending on the environment.
Nonferrous alloys represent the other broad classification of metal that must be
considered for the design. You have cast alloys as well as wrought alloys. Cast alloys
will tend to be more brittle and cannot be manufactured with appreciable
deformation. Wrought alloys provide an option that is more amenable to mechanical
deformation.
Aluminum Alloys represent an important segment of nonferrous alloys. These metals
have a low density, while conducting electricity and heat well. They are also resistant
to corrosion in ambient environments like the ferrous stainless steel. They have a
high ductility, represented by a smaller slope of stress vs strain compared to steel.
This shows that they are more able to deform plastically before sudden failure. These
alloys will be able to sustain larger loading scenarios compared to steels based on

their weight, but the disadvantage would be the cost in order to manufacture these
alloys.
7.3.1 Ferrous
A ferrous metal is derived from raw material extracted from an iron ore (Ms
Engineering Guide Ref). Iron is the major element in ferric materials, which are also
referred to as steels. The properties of steel are highly dependent on the
composition of the elements and how they are arranged. Phase diagrams represent
the composition of these systems at different temperatures. Different compositions
will result at different temperatures based off of the phase diagrams. Processes such
as heat-treatment and cold-working have major effects on material properties based
on the results from phase diagrams of the system.
7.3.1.1 Cast Iron
Cast iron has one of the low costs for use in design, where stiffness and strength are
considered. Cast iron is found to be heavy in most uses depending on the design due
to the high density of the material.
7.3.1.2 Carbon and Alloy Steel
Carbon steels are steels that contain carbon in them to receive the desired
mechanical properties that the metal should have. The carbon content with steels
are typically low, around 0.3%, with some containing up to 2% carbon in the steel.38
The carbon impurities in the steel can increase hardness and strength which is ideal
in some areas of use. The carbon also increases the brittleness of the steel. The
amount of carbon that is right for the steel is solely dependent on the metals use and
ideal properties.

7.3.1.3 Stainless Steel

Austenitic stainless steels have a face-centered cubic structure with compositions of
chromium and nickel that may provide attractive properties for design. Specifically
304 or 18-8 stainless steel, with properties that allow it to be used in applications
where strength, toughness, and environmental conditions must be considered. Parts
of the shelving system structure may require welding as a means of joining members
of proper form. This classification of stainless steel contains between 8-20 %
Chromium and 8- 10.5 % Ni (ASM REFERENCE).
7.3.2 Nonferrous
Nonferrous metals are defined as the metals that do not contain iron37.These metals
include aluminum, gold, and brass just to list a few. They differ from the ferrous

metals in their material properties such as the way that the nonferrous metals are
typically more maleable37. The desired use of the metal decides if the nonferrous
metals are a better final material. Nonferrous metals are typically used in electrical
wiring due to the fact that the nonferrous metals are non-magnetic.
7.3.2.1 Aluminum Alloys
Aluminum 6061 is a widely used aluminum alloy used in design. This is a heattreated
aluminum alloy, and readily available for use in different environments. Some
strength is compromised compared to other aluminum alloys to achieve these
qualities, but not enough to prevent use in design of a structural system.
7.4 Material Selection
Studies on the market and its consumers provided information necessary to
understand what was needed by the new product, set limits for the performance
behavior required of the materials. The shelving system must be able to withstand
loads of 50-100 lbs. acting normally to shelf surface. Bending stresses will be
introduced from sagging caused by object weights. Stiffness is defined as the force
due to object weight divided by the amount of deflection due to the weight, meaning
how likely it will resist sagging between supports.
Components will be required to support the shelf and mount for use. These
members may act as a column, experiencing buckling and bending. They may also
support from the top, and experience tension and bending to stabilize and support
the shelf. Other combinations of stresses may occur and need to be correctly
addressed.
7.5 Ecological Audit
The performed an ecological audit of the materials that were selected to be
considered as the final design material. The three materials that the eco-audit
focused on included 6061 aluminum alloy, 1020 low carbon steel, and 304 stainless
steel. The eco-audit was performed through the CES software which takes into
account many different criteria to ensure an accurate result is achieved. The criteria
includes the mass of the product, material used for the product, the recycled
content, the transportation of the product, the end life of the product, and the
product use.
The criteria that was entered into the software quantity of the product was 500,000
units for each material. The specific values for the transportation was that the
product must travel 1000 miles by 32 tonne truck as provided in the project
description. The life of the product was set as 4 years due to that is how long typical
college students attend school, and the use was given to be in North America. These
values were set the same for all the materials. The difference began with the

entering of the specific material as well as the mass of the material used for the
design.
Results

The results for the eco-audit are displayed below for each material. The tables 7.17.3
display the energy and CO2 footprint for each of the three materials.
Table 7.1: Results from 304 Stainless Steel

Table 7.2: Results from 1020 low carbon steel

Table 7.3: Results from 6061 Aluminum Alloy

The results display that the 6061 aluminum alloy requires the least amount of
energy to manufacture, use, and dispose of. The results also show that the end of life
potential for the 6061 aluminum alloy was the highest negative number which
means it has the highest potential to be used after the product life. The carbon
footprint of the three materials was lowest in the 6061 aluminum alloy and highest
in the 304 stainless steel. The results from the eco-audit are plotted for a visual
comparison of the materials energy as well as the footprint of each.

Figure 7.1: Energy consumption of three metal materials

Figure 7.2: CO2 Footprint for three metal materials

The eco-audit results display clearly that stainless steel required much more energy
consumption for the steps throughout its life, as well as it had a much higher carbon
footprint. From the results it is found that 304 stainless steel is not the ideal option
compared to the other two metals. The 6061 aluminum alloy had the more ideal
values in both the energy and carbon footprint, however the 1020 low carbon steel
was not far behind and contains very different mechanical properties than the 6061
aluminum alloy.

7.6 Material Selection from Material Testing

This section includes the results from the material testing that the team performed to
assist in determining the material that best fit the requirements of the design.
7.6.1 Electrical Resistivity Test
The electrical property of each of the final three materials is tested to determine the
electrical resistivity value for the selected materials. The tests performed will provide
a resistance value that can in turn be calculated to determine the resistivity value of
the given material. The resistivity value can be directly related to the ability of
electricity to flow through the metal which is important to understand the potential
risk associated with the use of each material. The three metals that are to be tested
include 1020 low carbon steel, 6061 aluminum alloy, and 304 stainless steel.
Electrical resistivity is relative to the design of a metal shelf in the way that the
resistivity of a material is related to the ability of an electrical current to pass through
the material. The shelf should be as safe as possible meaning that it should possess
the minimal risk for shock to occur through the shelf material which means the
resistivity value of the material selected should be as high as possible to increase the
safety of the final design.
The results from the test show that the 304 stainless steel has the highest resistivity
compared to the other two metals. The 6061 aluminum had the lowest resistivity
value of the three materials tested. A visual comparison of the resistivity values is
displayed on figure 7.6.1.

Figure 7.6.1: Resistivity value comparison of three metals tested

From the figure shown, there is a significant difference in the value of resistivity of
the 304 stainless steel and the 6061 aluminum alloy as well as the 1020 low carbon
steel. The exact values for the resistivity of each material determined from the
experiment is displayed in table 1. Also in table 1 are the values of resistivity for each
of the selected materials determined from the CES software for comparison.

Table 7.6.2: Comparison of experimental to CES resistivity values

As the values in table 7.6.2 show, the experimental values for the resistivity all fell
within the range of values from the CES software. Although the ranges provided are
quite broad, the test shows values that are accurate with the range. The values show
that the aluminum has the lowest resistivity value meaning that it will allow the
flow of electricity through the material easier than that of the other two metals. The
304 stainless steel possessed the highest resistivity value which provides the fact
that electricity will be less likely to flow through the stainless steel than the
aluminum material.

8.0 Concept Generation

When beginning conceptual design the team was unclear on the width and height to
be used for the self. Understanding the customer needs revealed the potential need
for storing of textbooks. Averaging the dimensions of thirty textbooks available from
team members, the team found the width to be about 8 inches. The team decided that
a width of 8 -12 inches would satisfy the necessary storage need.
With a specified length of 45 inches and an estimates of potential widths for the
shelving system from customer needs, the team began to generate concepts. The shelf
can be designed with the use of different metals, which can take many different forms
and finishes. A solid sheet would be used in all concepts, as this would deliver a
product that could serve as a storage place for all size items without concern for gaps
in support that would cause small items to fall through.
Evaluation of each concept in terms of mechanical design and material selection is
highlighted, serving as justification for the final product recommendation. Deflection
and flexural stress of the material in use deemed most important by the design team.
The product must not fail when loaded by consumers. A loaded shelf was modeled by
the team as a beam with transverse loads, causing the shelf to sag. The amount of sag
can be measured by deflection in the y- direction. A shelf specified at 45 and
supported at each end is allowed a .125 of sag, found using equation 8.1 shown
below. This value is determined by a standard that maximum deflection is equal to
the length of the beam divided by 360. As this beam deflects due to different loading
scenarios, flexural stress will also be created that could lead to potential design
failure. A material may be loaded and unloaded without any permanent deformation
until it reaches its yield strength.
The thickness and type of metal sheet chosen for design will play an important role
in the amount of deflection and stress created when loaded. The design must not be
too thick because material cost and weight will increase along with it, decreasing
attractiveness to the potential customers.

Equation 8.1: Maximum Deflection Calculation

Table 8.1 is a summary of maximum deflection allowed for different panel lengths
supported at each end. The results are intuitive, showing that as the panel length
decreases, so does the allowed deflection. Each concept will use different
combinations of panel lengths, and the tradeoffs will be compared.

max, 45 in (in)

0.125

max, 22.5 in (in)

0.0625

max, 15 in (in)

0.0417

max, 11.25 in (in)

0.0313

max, 5.625 in (in)

0.015625

Table 8.1: Maximum Deflection Allowed for Possible Shelf Panel Lengths
In Table 8.2 the Maximum Moment values of each panel length are listed. It was
assumed that the panels could be modeled as simply supported beams. Analysis was
performed to calculate these values with the maximum point load placed at the
center. A point load was used to represent the loading scenario because it would
cause a greater deflection compared to a distributed load. This was another measure
of safety used in the design.

Moment max, 45 in (in)@ 22.5in (lbf*in)

1125

Moment max, 22.5 in (in) @11.25 in (lbf*in)

282

Moment max, 15 in (in) @ 7.5 in (lbf*in)

125

Moment max, 5.625 in (in) @ 0 in (at fixed support) (lbf*in)

35

Table 8.2: Maximum Moment Present in Shelf Panel during Maximum Loading
Scenarios.
From the determined values for the maximum moment present for the options of
how to construct a shelf bed from one, two, three, or four panels, it needed to be
determined how many options there are to support the panels as well as construct
the shelf. To do this, benchmarking was performed on related patents and current
products to gain an understanding of the benefits and disadvantage of past
solutions. By doing this, current specifications, dimensions, and assembly methods
were documented and compared to the customer needs and system requirements of
the intended market. The team conducted brainstorming sessions motivated by
results from benchmarking, generating ideas for creating the best new solution to
the design problem. These ideas were documented into a concept space that would
serve as the starting point for generating design alternatives.
The concept generation phase is used to produce ideas for a design that meet the
needs and requirements that are outlined by the customer. This part of the design
phase is where designs are constructed that will meet the needs of the customer and
perform the desired tasks. Within concept generation, multiple designs are
constructed and compared to each of the other designs through the comparison of
how well each concept meets the customer needs. The different concepts that were
generated for each aspect of the shelf design are represented below in Figure 8.1.
Figure 8.1: Morphological Matrix for Concept Generation

8.1 Design Alternative One

The first generated concept highlights the use of a single 45 inch panel with two fixed
cantilever supports at each end. A 3D model of this concept is seen in Figure
8.1.

Figure 8.1: 3D SolidWorks Model of Concept Alternative 1

Mechanical analysis quickly lead to rejection of this concept. A maximum load of 100
lb. concentrated at the center will produce the maximum deflection at that point. A
commonly referenced beam table shows maximum deflection to be calculated by
equation 8.1. Analyzing the shear and moment diagram of the shelf, assuming it to
be a simply supported beam, identified the maximum internal moment occurring in
the center at 22.5 from the left support. Flexural stress produced in the shelf
needed to be calculated using equation 8.2. Analyzing this equation shows that
stress is directly related to the internal moment. Therefore the maximum stress will
occur at the center, and must not exceed the yield strength divided by a factor of
safety of 2 to produce a design that will not fail during use.

Equation 8.2: Calculation of Minimum Panel Thickness for Design Alternative One

Imin, AL

1.52E-01

Imin, 1020 Lc

5.06E-02

Imin, 18-8 S.S

5.42E-02

Table 8.3: Minimum Required Second Area Moment of Inertia for Panel Cross-Section
Using the previously mentioned equation,

Width (in)

Minimum Panel Thicknesses Aluminum

10

12

0.609

0.567

0.533

Minimum Panel Thicknesses Low Carbon Steel

0.423466 0.393111 0.369931811

Minimum Panel Thicknesses Stainless Steel

0.433318 0.378538 0.378537945

Table: 8.4: Minimum Panel Thickness of Concept 1 for Each Selected Material, Based off
of Maximum Allowed Deflection

Equation 8.3: Flexural Stress Equation

Width (in)
8

10

12

Minimum Panel Thicknesses Aluminum

0.205396 0.183712 0.167705098

Minimum Panel Thicknesses Low Carbon Steel

0.164978 0.147561 0.167705098

Minimum Panel Thicknesses Stainless Steel

0.216506 0.193649 0.176776695

Table 8.5: Minimum Panel Thickness of Concept 1 for Each Selected Material, Based off
of Maximum Allowed Flexural Stress
Using Excel Spreadsheets, the relevant data and equations were organized to solve
for minimum required shelf thickness based on requirements for maximum allowed
deflection and stress. These values are summarized in Table 8.5.The results indicated
larger values of panel thickness required to meet the deflection requirement.
Therefore the limiting factor in design of this concept is stiffness. The selected
material must provide enough stiffness to not sag past .125. The values of thickness
required for each material are summarized in table 9.1 using widths of 8, 10, and 12
inches.
8.2 Design Alternative Two
Figure 8.2 is a visual representation of concept 2. Instead of using a single 45 panel,
the design uses two 22.5 panels pinned to supports at each end. The hangers used in
this concept hang down 12, provided with a bracket at the top to pin the truss to the
panel. The panel will sit on a fixed bracket that will secure the panel into place. In
contrast to concept 1, the support system will place each truss in tension. Each panel
will use two supports, making up four total supports. If the shelf is loaded to 100 lbf,
each support truss will be subjected to 25 lbf downward. Normally, tension would be
due to forces in the axially direction, which would only represent a component of the
25 lbf. It was assumed that all 25 lbf would act in tension, and with a safety factor of
2, the required load to support was determined to be 50 lbf. This result was

determined as a result of uncertainty of design scenarios, and would provide a

necessary measure of safety.

Figure 8.2: 3D SolidWorks Model of Concept Alternative 2

Width (in)
8

10

12

Minimum Required Panel Thickness

Aluminum

0.384745 0.357165 0.336105356

Minimum Required Panel Thickness Low

Carbon Steel

0.266767 0.247645 0.233042438

Minimum Required Panel Thickness Stainless

Steel

0.272973 0.253406 0.238463962

Table 8.6: Minimum Panel Thickness of Concept 2 for Each Selected Material, Based off
of Maximum Allowed Deflection

Equation 8.4: Calculation for Tensile Strength

Minimum Required Rectangular

Cross Sectional Area of Support
Ties (in2)

Aluminum
Alloy 6061

1020
Low
Carbon Steel

18-8
Stainless
Steel

.0025

.001613

.0028

Table 8.7: Minimum Required Rectangular Cross Sectional Area of Support Ties for
Three Potential Metals used in Design Alternative Two
8.3 Design Alternative Three
The third generated concept divides the 45 shelf span into three 15 panels,
supported at each end. This idea was driven by the need to reduce thickness
required to avoid excessive deflection. Four hangers are used to accomplish this,
with fixed to truss supports acting as columns under the panel. In contrast to
Design Alternative Two, each support will be loaded under compression instead of
tension. The same load of 50 lbf for the support was used again for safety in design.
This would correlate with the critical load of each member, calculated using
Equation 8.5. Any load above the critical load will result in failure due to buckling.

Figure 8.3: 3D SolidWorks Model of Concept Alternative 3

Width (in)
8

10

12

Minimum Thicknesses Aluminum

0.203527

0.188938

0.177797227

Minimum Thicknesses Low Carbon Steel

0.141118

0.131002

0.123277712

Minimum Thicknesses Stainless Steel

0.144401

0.13405

0.126145658

Table 8.8: Minimum Panel Thickness of Concept 3 for Each Selected Material, Based off
of Maximum Deflection

Equation 8.5: Calculation for Critical Load of Column Support

Minimum Rectangular Cross Sectional Area of Columns

Aluminum Alloy

0.106053966

Low Carbon Steel

0.073533713

Stainless Steel

0.075244409

Table 8.9: Minimum Panel Thickness of Concept 3 for Each Selected Material, Based off
of Maximum Deflection
8.4 Design Alternative Four
Design alternative four again attempted to reduce the dimensions required for shelf
in order to meet system requirements. Instead of simply supporting each panel, they
are instead fixed in the center. The design team assumed this to represent each panel
as two fixed cantilever beams, supporting a distributed load. The hangers were
modeled different from the other concepts in hopes to bring potential versatility and
aesthetic appeal.

Figure 8.4: 3D SolidWorks Model of Concept Alternative 4

Width (in)
8

10

12

Minimum Thicknesses Aluminum

0.138678

0.128737

0.12114642

Minimum Thicknesses Low Carbon Steel

0.096154

0.089261

0.083998236

Minimum Thicknesses Stainless Steel

0.098391

0.091338

0.08595238

Table 8.10 Minimum Panel Thickness of Concept 4 for Each Selected Material, Based off
of Maximum Deflection

9.0 Concept Evaluation

The design concepts mentioned in Sections 8.1-8.4 were evaluated against each
other to determine the most suitable design option to move forward with. The
design concepts were evaluated mechanically for each material option. Mechanical
properties of importance for the shelf are flexural strength and stiffness. The shelf
will be loaded by the user, where object weights will act as transverse loads. Once

the stress in the shelf exceeds the yield strength of the material, the shelf will fail.
Yielding will occur throughout the material, and will no longer recover its original
form. In Section 8.0, maximum deflection allowed for each potential panel length
was identified. Minimum required thicknesses to not exceed these deflections were
then calculated. It was also important to understand the types of support for each
concept. Depending on the form used for the support, different mechanical analysis
was performed. A truss loaded in tension will be subject to tension forces, producing
a tensile stress that will cause the support to fail if exceeding yield strength.
Concept evaluation must be based off of justified weightings in order to judge
expected performance of each concept. Selection criteria to be used in evaluation of
design were chosen based off of customer needs and system requirements. Figure
9.1 shows a pairwise-comparison chart used to rate each criteria against each other.
The resulting score allowed the design team to assign weightings of importance for
each. This allowed for a weighted decision matrix to be used as an effective way of
comparing each design while considering the customer needs as a determinant of
customer success. To perform the concept evaluation process using a decision
matrix, the customer needs must be arranged in a table as shown in Figure 9.2.

Figure 9.1: Pairwise-Comparison Chart

Figure 9.2: Weighted decision matrix

Figure 9.2 displays the customer need and an associated weight to each need due to
importance that the design meets the need. The weighting of all the customer needs must
sum to 100% due to the fact that all the customer needs must combine to make one final
product. The most weighting for such design is placed on safety due to the importance to
hold paramount the safety of the public. The weighting from this point is placed on the
customer need of easy to assemble. This is important to college students due to the lack
of tools and assistance through such work. The remaining weightings were distributed to
the customer needs of affordable, lightweight, and appealing design appearance. The
remaining three each weighted the same due to the importance to the customer. The results
from the decision matrix show that concept 3 and concept 4 are rated the highest when
compared to customer needs. In addition to the decision matrix, the team analyzed the
total prices of each shelf concept according to the material the concept is constructed from.
The results are shown in Figure 9.3.

Figure 9.3: Comparison of concept and material prices

10.0 Final Design

The results from the evaluation matrixes allowed for reflection on the concept
generation process. The design team discussed the features of each concept that
attributed to higher rankings. These features were iterated into a SolidWorks model
that could allow for geometry and static analysis. SolidWorks also estimated weight
and cost figures for different material choices.

Figure 10.1: Iterated SolidWorks Model

This shelf surface is solid due to the fact that the wire shelf surfaces would allow for
smaller objects to fall through the holes and not hold certain items that customers
would like to place on the shelf. The solid surface will hold any item that fits on the
shelf. The solid surface is mounted to 4 brackets. The 4 brackets are supporting
from the bottom side for maximum strength of the system, as well as the lower
support providing a way that the shelf will not rock when loaded due to the brackets
maintaining a steady support from below. 4 supports provide more support than the
designs with only two supports that act as a simply supported beam. The shelf will
still be loaded in flexural bending, however, the 4 supports will minimize the
bending between supports. The design incorporates the mounting hooks. This
design is favorable due to the customer basis not being able to damage walls or
mounting structures in dorm rooms. The hook design will be allowed for the shelf to
be versatile and easily mounted to many structures. The assembly of the shelf is
minimal due to the minimal parts. There is a shelf surface and 4 hooks and the shelf
surface will mount to the hooks with the use of bolts and wing nuts to prevent the
need of tools to assemble the shelf for use.

11.0 3-D Prototyping

At this point in the process the team had decided on a final design and was able to
move forward in the prototyping stage. The design has already been made in
Solidworks, but due to time constraints as well as the capabilities of the 3D printing
machine available to the team, the model was simplified to lower the time required
to print. The final product can be seen below in figure 11.1.

Figure 11.1: Final 3D printed prototype

First the 4 hooks were printed on the same print bed, and then each individual panel
was printed. In order to create a better representation of how the shelf would work,
the team created a mock set up in the woodshop.

12.0 Product Assembly

The following is a product assembly manual that will be included in each packaging
of the product.
Assembly Manual
Contents
Part #1-4 Hooks
Part #2- 3 Panels
Part #3- 12 Bolts
Part #4-12 Bolts
Part #5- 12 Washers

Figure 12.1: Assembly Diagram

1) To begin the assembly process, remove all elements of shelving system from
box.
2) Next lay out the four hooks labeled part 1. Each panel and hook is labeled with
the corresponding part number followed by a letter. For example the first
hook is labeled 1-A and the first panel is labeled 2-A.
3) Attach panel 2-A to hook 1-A by inserting a bolt through both the panel and
the hook and secure with the washer and wing bolt shown below
4) Moving to the other side of panel 2-A, finish securing the panel 2-A by
attaching it to hook 1-B in the same fashion as seen above.
5) Moving forward take panel 2-B and connect it to the remaining holes in hook
1-B with a bolt, washer and wing nut.
6) Continue this process for the remaining hooks and panels such that hook 1-C
has panels 1-B and 1-C attached to it and hook 1-D has panel 1-C attached to
it.
7) Once complete, go back over each bolt and wing nut to ensure they are secured
tightly.
8) Hang shelf and enjoy!

13.0 Statistical Analysis; Metals vs. Polymers

13.1 Introduction
The final material selected for the design, 1020 low carbon steel, was mechanically
tested and compared to a material from a different family to determine if the
materials were statistically different. The material family selected to test in
comparison to the 1020 low carbon steel was the polymer family, and the particular
material selected was clear polypropylene. The mechanical test performed to
determine the difference between these two materials was the hardness test. In order
to determine the statistical difference between these materials with a 95%
confidence interval, 30 trials were performed on both the 1020 low carbon steel and
the clear polypropylene.
13.2 Scope
The hardness test was performed on the two materials in order to place a qualitative
value on each material determined from the test. The materials are assumed to be
different, however a test that provides data is the only certain way to determine the
difference of the material as well as to associate a confidence with the difference. The
data is collected from a Rockwell hardness tester in HHS lab 0207.
13.3 Testing
To perform the test, a sample of each material was placed in the hardness tester. The
scale for the 1020 low carbon steel was set to HRB. For the hardness testing of the
polypropylene, a digital durometer, model number 15-137-3 was used with the D
scale. The test was performed on each material for 30 trials each with each
providing a value for the harness.
13.4 Results
The results showed that the 1020 low carbon steel and the polypropylene have
different hardness values. The average hardness values for each along with their
standard deviations, t-value, average error, and d min values are shown in table
13.1, and the average hardness value for each material is displayed on the plot 13.2.

Table 13.1: Values from test and analysis

Plot 13.2: Bar graph of average hardness values for 1020 low carbon steel and
polypropylene
The results from the data show that the 1020 low carbon steel has a higher value for
hardness than the polypropylene. In addition to this, the materials are statistically
different due to the fact that the average difference between the hardness values of
the two materials is greater than the dmin value with 95% confidence.

13.5 Analysis
In order to determine the values in table 13.1, the following equations were used to
calculate average hardness, standard deviation, margin of error, Sp value, and the
dmin value.
Equation 13.1:
Average Hardness = n
Where:
N = the number of trials.
Equation 13.2
Standard Deviation(s) = (x-x(avg))2n-1
Where:
x = the value of hardness of the trial.
X(avg) = the average hardness value.
Equation 13.3
Margin of Error = t(sn)
Where: s = the standard
deviation.
T = the t value from excel for 95% confidence interval.
Equation 13.4
Sp = ((s1)2+(s2)22)12
Where:
s1 = the standard deviation of polypropylene trials.
S2 = the standard deviation of 1020 low carbon steel trials.
Equation 13.5
= (t)(Sp)(sn)

dmin

13.6 Summary
Through the use of the 62Rockwell hardness test to take 30 trials of both 1020 low
carbon steel and polypropylene, it is found that the materials are statistically
different with 95% confidence. This finding is based on the fact that the tested

values for the average hardness have a difference of 31.27 which is larger than the
dmin of 0.762.

14.0 Future Work

On Tuesday December 9th, 2015, the team presented the final design as well as the
process they took to get there, to the stakeholder of the company. From this they
were able to get a good idea of where there was still room for improvement and
what steps need to be taken in order to complete the project and get the shelf into
production.
The first thing the team hopes to improve upon is the placement of the shelf in a
dorm room or apartment. The team had originally described their shelf to be hung
over a door, side of a bed, or any other place the user sees fit. The issue that comes
up with this is that if the user was to close door quickly, things may fall off of the
shelf, posing safety threat to the user. To resolve this problem the team had
proposed a layer of rubber placed upon the panel to increase friction and thereby
decreasing the chances something falls off.
Another problem that came across is the overall weight of the shelf. Material
selection was limited to metals in this specific case but moving forward the team
would let to keep the metal hangers but replace the panels with a lighter material,
such as a plastic. The last thing that was discussed is possibly removing the hanger
idea all together and connecting it directly to the wall, this will increase the
assembly required but will cut back on the weight and increase the overall safety.
Moving forward the team would like to conduct more testing and build a prototype
to scale to see how well their idea would actually work. Possibly having some
students in the target market take it home and try it out. With the results of the testing
the team could then make adjustments and refine the prototype to come to a final
design to send into production.

[1] Leslie and S. Reimer, Restructuring the Furniture Commodity Chain. Area, 35, in Fashioning Furniture,
2003, p. 427437.
[2] J. S. Vanick, Cast Iron, in Access Science. McGraw-Hill Education, 2014.
[3] R. U. Ayres, Metals Recycling: Economic and Environmental Implications, Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 145-173, 1997.
[4] B. Byrne, Defining the Value of Shelving, Foodservice Equipment & Supplies, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 61-61,
2003.
[5] A. S. &. University, Value Criteria, vol. 84, Academic Search Complete, May 2012, pp. 30-33.
[6] Andreu, I. sanchez and C. Mele, Value co-creation among reatilers and cunsumers: New insights into the
furniture market., Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 241-250, 2010.
[7] G. Gemser and M. Leenders, How Integrating Industrial Design in the Product Development Process
Impacts on Company Performance, Journal of Product Innovation, vol. 18, pp. 28-38, 2001.
[8] R. A. Frosch and N. E. Gallopoulos, Strategies for Manufacturing., Scientific American , vol. 261, no. 3, pp.
144-151, 1989.
[9] A. S. Russell and T. H. J. Sanders, Aluminum Alloys, in AccessScience. McGraw-Hill Education, 2014.
[10] T.-R. Hsu, MEMS & Microsystems: Design, Manufacture, and nanoscale engineering, John Wiley & Sons,
2008.
[11] S. Kalpakjian, Manufacturing Engineering and technology, Pearson Education India, 2001.
[12]Y. Ljungberg, Materials Selection and Design for Development of Sustainable Products, Materials & Design,
vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 466-479, 2007.
[13] B. G. Thomas, Continuous Casting (Metallurgy, in AccessScience. McGraw-Hill Education, 2004.
[14] W. D. Nix, J. C. Gibeling and K. J. Hemker, Creep (Materials), in AccessScience. McGraw-Hill Education,
2014.
[15] The
Statistics
Portal.
Walmart
Stores
in
the
US:
2012-2015.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/269425/total-number-of-walmart-stores-in-the-united-statesbytype/ (accessed November 1, 2015).
[16] IKEA. About the IKEA Group: Inside Our Company. http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_US/thisisikea/company-information/ (accessed November 1, 2015).
[17] A Bullseye View. Corporate Fact Sheet: Target. http://pressroom.target.com/corporate (accessed
November 2, 2015).
[18] The Statistics Portal. Online Shoppers: 2014. http://www.statista.com/topics/871/online-shopping/
(accessed November 29, 2015).
[19] Amazon Sign up. Amazon Student. http://www.amazon.com/gp/student/signup/info (accessed
November 29,2015).
[20] Reuters. Amazon online Transactions: Amazon Incorporated (AMZN.O)
http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyProfile?symbol=AMZN.O#KUC00pTUjUhBjkVH.97
(accessed December 3, 2015).

[21] Amazon. Online selling: Shipping and Routing Requirements.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_bc_nav?ie=UTF8&nodeId=200243260
(accessed December 3, 2015).
[22] Amazon. Online Help and Customer Service: Shipping and Delivery.

15.0 References

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=468520 (accessed December 3,

2015).
[23] Online. Products: Shelving and Storage. http://www.uline.com/Product/Detail/H4876/IndustrialShelving/Wall-Mount-Shelving-48-x-12-x12?pricode=WY642&gadtype=pla&id=H4876&gclid=Cj0KEQiAkIWzBRDK1ayoYjt38wBEiQAi7NnP3iA_sfqPsD6Ee13OQqyy337vwULSyOwFscve3hYP4AaAtNF8P8HAQ&gclsrc=aw.ds
(accessed December 3, 2015).
[24] Lowes. Home: Storage and Organization. http://www.lowes.com/pd_283796-3153D2900WHT_1z0y4hy__?productId=3055511&pl=1 (accessed December 4, 2015).
[25] Metal Prices. Metal Index: An Argus Media Service. http://www.metalprices.com/p/metal_index (accessed
December 4, 2015).
[26] Your
Business.
The
Impact
of
Visual
Merchandise
on
Sales.
http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/impactvisual-merchandising-sales-12961.html (accessed December 4,
2015).
[27] The Home Depot. Wallscapes: Storage and Organzation.
http://www.homedepot.com/p/WallscapesGallery-White-Shelf-with-Silver-Bracket-Shelf-Kit-PriceVaries-By-Size-GA12030WHKIT/100388236 (accessed December 4, 2015).
[28] ThomasNet. Wing Nut Suppliers: Fastener Solutions. http://www.thomasnet.com/products/wingnuts54540208-1.html (accessed December 4, 2015).
[29] Material ConneXion. http://www.materialconnexion.com/ (accessed November 10, 2015).
[30] McDonough, Willam. "Cradle to Cradle Design." Lecture, TED Talk, February 1, 2005.
[31] Dieter, George E.. (1997). ASM Handbook, Volume 20 Materials Selection and Design. ASM International.
[32] Dieter, G.; Schmidt, L. C. Engineering design, 5th ed.; McGraw Hill Higher Education: New York, 2012.
[33] Mind, the. Professionalism: Developing this vital characteristic
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/professionalism.htm (accessed Nov 5, 2015).
[34] Professional responsibility: The role of engineering in society
http://www.me.utexas.edu/~srdesign/paper/ (accessed Nov 5, 2015).
[35] ASME https://www.asme.org/getmedia/9EB36017-FA98-477E-8A7377B04B36D410/P157_Ethics.aspx
(accessed Nov 5, 2015).
[36] Norgate, T. E.; Rankin, W. J. The role of metals in sustainable development
http://www.unigaiabrasil.org/pdfs/picoMetais/CSIRO_Paper_LCA_Sust.pdf (accessed Nov 5, 2015).
[37] Alton materials. Scrap industry resources and insights. http://www.altonmaterials.com/thedifferencesbetween-ferrous-and-non-ferrous-scrap-metal/ (accessed December 10, 2015).
[38] Capudean, Bob. Metallurgy Matters: Carbon content, steel classifications, and alloy steels.
http://www.thefabricator.com/article/metalsmaterials/carbon-content-steel-classifications-andalloysteels (accessed December 10, 2015).

[39] Boston University Sustainability. Facilities Management & Planning: Recycle.

http://www.bu.edu/sustainability/campus-resources/reduce-reuse-recycle/ (accessed December 10,
2015).

[40] Seattlepi. Aluminum can recylcing. http://education.seattlepi.com/aluminum-can-recycling-proscons4443.html (accessed December 9, 2015)

[41] Greener ideal. Pros and Cons of Extracting Metal Versus Recycling Scrap Metal.
http://www.greenerideal.com/business/0818-pros-and-cons-of-extracting-metal-versus-recycling-scrap-metal/

December 9, 2015).
[42] Schroer,
J.

William.

Generations

X,
Y,
Z
and
http://www.socialmarketing.org/newsletter/features/generation3.htm (accessed December 10, 2015).

the

(accessed
Others.

16.0 Appendices
Appendix X: Defining General Types of Materials within the Metal Family
This figure depicting various metals was generated using CES Edu Pack 2015 Level 1
database. The database groups all materials within their associated material family.
For the metal family, these are the general types of metals and alloys that may be
used for manufacturing of the shelving system.

Appendix X: Material Property Selection Chart for a Light, Stiff Beam

Appendix X: Material Property Selection Chart for a Low-cost, Stiff Beam

Appendix : Collection of Textbook Dimensions and Average Values

Book Height (in.)

10
9.75
9

Book Width (in.)

8.125
8
7.5

Book Thickness (in.)

1.875
1.875
1.5

9.5
9.875
9
7.75
8.5
8.75
11.5
10
10.5
8.75
9.75
9.75
8.75
11.5
10.5
10.75
10
9.75
10.25
9.25
6
7.5
8
10
9.5
7
8.75

7.5
8.25
11
8.125
7.5
7.75
8.5
9
7
6.5
7
7.5
7
8
8.125
7.75
8.25
8.25
7.75
8.5
8.125
6.5
7
7.125
8.125
7.75
7

1.25
1
0.5
0.5
1.25
1
0.75
0.75
2
2.5
2
1.25
1.125
1.125
1.75
1.5
1
0.75
1
0.5
1.25
1.875
1.75
1.25
2
1
1.5

Average Book Height

(in.)
9.33

Average Book Width

(in.)
7.82

Average Book Thickness

(in.)
1.31

Average Volume (in.^3)

Average Volume (ft.^3)

95.71

0.0554

Density of Paper and Cardboard

(lb*ft^3)

Average Density of Paper and

Cardboard (lb*ft^3)

30-53.7

41.85

Average Mass Per TextBook (lb)

2.32

Number of Books Fit on Shelf (1in clearance on each side, span 43 in)
*stacked by thickness
32.8

Appendix: Concept 1 Shear and Moment Diagrams

Appendix: Determining Minimum Required Panel Thickness for Design

Alternative 1

Appendix: Concept 2 Shear and Moment Diagrams

2 - 22.5 panels
3- 12 hanger over door
pinned-pinned truss (tension)

Appendix: Determining Minimum Required Panel Thickness for Design

Alternative 2

Appendix: Concept 3 Shear and Moment Diagrams

3- 15 panels

4 hanger

Appendix: Determining Minimum Required Panel Thickness for Design

Alternative 3

Appendix: Concept 4 Shear and Moment Diagrams

Appendix: Determining Minimum Required Panel Thickness for Design

Alternative 4

Appendix: Hardness Testing Report Appendix: Three Point Flexural Bend Testing
Report Appendix: Electrical Resistivity Testing Report

Contents

Introduction.. 2
Problem... 2
Background.. 2
Objective. 2
Apparatus. 3
Procedures. 4
Results/ Discussion.. 5
Conclusion.. 5
Acknowledgements. 5
References. 5

Introduction
The electrical property of each of the final three materials is tested to determine the
electrical resistivity value for the selected materials. The tests performed will provide
a resistance value that can in turn be calculated to determine the resistivity value of
the given material. The resistivity value can be directly related to the ability of
electricity to flow through the metal which is important to understand the potential

risk associated with the use of each material. The three metals that are to be tested
include 1020 low carbon steel, 6061 aluminum alloy, and 304 stainless steel.

Problem
The problem associated with this experiment is that the resistivity value of
the given materials is not a value that is directly give or measured. It is a value that
must be calculated through the use of values that are measured such as current,
voltage, and the cross sectional area of the specimen being tested. The resistivity
value is a value that does not change within a material where the measured
resistance of a material can change due to the size of the sample being tested.

Background
Electrical resistivity is relative to the design of a metal shelf in the way that the
resistivity of a material is related to the ability of an electrical current to pass through
the material. The shelf should be as safe as possible meaning that it should possess
the minimal risk for shock to occur through the shelf material which means the
resistivity value of the material selected should be as high as possible to increase the
safety of the final design.

Objective
The objective of this experiment is to determine the value of resistivity of each
of the material samples tested through the process of measuring values such as
voltage when the sample is connected in a circuit that will allow for the material to
serve as a resistor that the value of resistance can be found and translated into
resistivity. The values of each material resistivity will be used and compared to the
range of resistivity values for the same materials that are found in the CES software.

Apparatus
To perform this experiment, the equipment required includes a power supply, wire
leads, a digital multimeter, and sample of each of the materials to be tested. To set
up the circuit that will provide readings, The wire leads must be connected to the
power source and complete the circuit by connecting the wire leads to each end of
the sample of material to be tested. The digital multimeter should be connected to
each end of the sample material as well and should be set to read voltage (mV). This
schematic is shown in Figure 1 where R is the sample of material acting as the
resistor in the circuit.

Figure 1: Schematic of circuit

As shown in the schematic, the voltmeter is connected in parallel to the sample of
material so that the voltage drop across the sample is being measured.
Procedures
To perform this experiment, the power supply must be powered on. There should be
a low voltage applied to the system with the current that is starting around 5.0
amps. The voltmeter should be powered on and set to read voltage in millivolts
(mV). The initial values of the current, voltmeter reading, the cross sectional area of
the specimen being tested, and the distance between leads should all be recorded.
With the initial values recorded, the current in the system should be increased
slowly. Periodically through the increase of current, the values of current and the
value displayed on the voltmeter should be recorded. Once 30 sample values are
recorded, the power can be disconnected from the system and the remaining
samples can be placed into the circuit in the same arrangement as the original. Once
all the values for each sample are recorded, the analysis of the data can be
performed.
The analysis of the data can begin with the determining of the resistance of each
material sample at each different voltage and current reading measured. This can be
done through the use of Ohms law shown in equation 1.

Where:

R= resistance value of sample

V= Voltage reading from voltmeter
I= Current input through circuit
From Ohms law, a resistance value for each trial of each sample specimen will be
provided. The numerous trials within a given sample should provide similar values
for the resistance of the sample; however an average value should be determined
prior to moving forward. To do this, equation 2 must be used.

Where:
R= Average resistance value for a sample
Rs= The value for each individual trial of a sample
n= The number of trials
The average value for the resistance of each sample will be determined and this
value will be used to determine the resistivity value of each material. To determine
the resistivity, equation 3 must be used.

Where:
= resistivity value
R= Average material sample resistance value
L= Measured distance between the leads on sample
A= Measured cross sectional area (base X height)
Results/ Discussion
The results from the test show that the 304 stainless steel has the highest resistivity
compared to the other two metals. The 6061 aluminum had the lowest resistivity
value of the three materials tested. A visual comparison of the resistivity values is
displayed on figure 2.

Figure 2: Resistivity value comparison of three metals tested

From the figure shown, there is a significant difference in the value of resistivity of
the 304 stainless steel and the 6061 aluminum alloy as well as the 1020 low carbon
steel. The exact values for the resistivity of each material determined from the
experiment is displayed in table 1. Also in table 1 are the values of resistivity for each
of the selected materials determined from the CES software for comparison.

Table 1: Comparison of experimental to CES resistivity values

As the values in table 1 show, the experimental values for the resistivity all fell within
the range of values from the CES software. Although the ranges provided are quite
broad, the test shows values that are accurate with the range. The values show that
the aluminum has the lowest resistivity value meaning that it will allow the flow of
electricity through the material easier than that of the other two metals. The 304
stainless steel possessed the highest resistivity value which provides the fact that
electricity will be less likely to flow through the stainless steel than the aluminum
material.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the resistivity values that were experimentally determined for 6061
aluminum alloy, 1020 low carbon steel, and 304 stainless steel, were all found to be

within the accurate range defined by the CES software. The values of resistivity of
each material were compared to each other which resulted in 304 stainless steel
yielding the highest resistivity value. This high resistivity value yield that the 304
stainless steel is most likely to resist the hazard of a shock through the material
conducting electricity.
Acknowledgements
The team would like to send a special thank you to the CISE laboratory operations
and lab staff.