Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Executive Summary
ACME Tool Company has acquired an outstanding reputation in their tool department with the sales of their cordless drills, saws, and sanders and therefore wishes to expand their product line with the addition of a cordless vacuum. In response to ACMEs desire to expand their tool product line to include a cordless handheld vacuum, the following detailed design report will explain the design process carried out by three mechanical engineers, studying at Pennsylvania State University. The final product will provide ACME with the quality product they desire and maintain their reputation as a reliable customer service company. Benchmarking, gathering customer needs, and concept generation initially allowed our team to acquire the necessary consumer information to design the appropriate, yet affordable product that ACME requires. Net Present Value and environmental effect studies have allowed us to design an affordable and responsible product. More specifically, the Net Present Analysis shows a profit of $3, 4256,800 after the first five years and additionally shows the company will have paid all outflow costs and break even during the third quarter of the second year of production. Most importantly, keeping the safety of our costumer as being crucial, our sealed chambers completely enclosed design, ensures the users all around safety. Designing the product to be made of lightweight and cost effective material will allow ACME to outsource their manufacturing and mass produce this product in a cost effective manner. As can be seen in the theoretical analysis, this cordless handheld vacuum will produce the necessary pressure drop between the nozzle and fan to allow for high volumetric flow rate, while enabling easy waste removal in the bottom end of the nozzle, through innovative centrifugal technology and a dual collection chamber. Our design sought out the most energy efficient techniques using friction reducing bearings and backward curving blades to not only save the consumer in purchasing cost, but in the cost for power consumption. In addition, the two filters (one placed before the fan and one after) assure the user of not only a tightly sealed filtration system which will effectively trap all the debris, but also fan durability by protecting the blades from being struck by particles, allowing our vacuum design to be one which will last for years. This revolutionary concept of a vacuum attachment provides current customers with a cost effective yet powerful solution to their cleaning needs, and for those looking into getting their first power tools, our product gives the customer both a cordless drill and a cordless vacuum at one affordable price. After combining ACMEs needs for an affordable yet desirable new product for their tool company line with the customers needs for a portable, cordless vacuum that will clean all types of messes, no one will want to miss out on such a valuable product.
Page 1 of 41
ME340.5
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Problem Statement .............................................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Background info.................................................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Project Planning .................................................................................................................................. 4 2. Customer Needs and Specifications .......................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Identification of Customer Needs ....................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Design Specifications.......................................................................................................................... 5 3. Concept Development .............................................................................................................................. 6 3.1 External Search ................................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Problem Decomposition...................................................................................................................... 6 3.3 Concept Generation ............................................................................................................................ 7 3.4 Concept Combination ......................................................................................................................... 8 3.5 Concept Selection ............................................................................................................................... 8 4. System Level Design ................................................................................................................................ 9 4.1 Overall Description ............................................................................................................................. 9 4.2 Preliminary Theoretical Analysis...................................................................................................... 10 4.3 Preliminary Economic Analysis........................................................................................................ 11 5. Detailed Design ....................................................................................................................................... 11 5.1 Modifications to Proposal Sections................................................................................................... 11 5.2 Final Theoretical Analysis ................................................................................................................ 12 5.3 Component and material selection process for mass production ...................................................... 13 5.4 Fabrication processes for the mass production unit .......................................................................... 13 5.5 Industrial Design ............................................................................................................................... 14 5.6 Detailed Drawings ............................................................................................................................ 14 5.7 Economic Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 18 5.7.1 Unit Production Cost.................................................................................................................. 18 5.7.2 Business Case Justification ........................................................................................................ 18 5.8 Safety ................................................................................................................................................ 19 6. Testing .................................................................................................................................................... 19 6.1 Test procedure and plan .................................................................................................................... 19 7. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 20 8. References ............................................................................................................................................... 21 Appendices.................................................................................................................................................. 21 A. Project Management .......................................................................................................................... 21 B. Customer Survey and Reviews........................................................................................................... 22
Page 2 of 41
ME340.5
C. QFD Matrix ........................................................................................................................................ 25 D. Problem Decomposition ..................................................................................................................... 26 E. Concept Generation ............................................................................................................................ 27 F. Concept Combination ......................................................................................................................... 28 G. Concept Scoring Matrix ..................................................................................................................... 29 H. Patents ................................................................................................................................................ 30 I. Dirt Devil Test Results ........................................................................................................................ 33 J. Motor Test Data................................................................................................................................... 34 K. Battery Test Data ............................................................................................................................... 35 L. Detailed Drawings .............................................................................................................................. 35 M. Bill of Material and Net Present Value ............................................................................................. 39
1. Introduction
1.1 Problem Statement
ACME has given us the task of designing a cordless handheld vacuum with a target retail price of $50. The company already has a line of power tools, and we are to design our vacuum so that it is able to run off the same 18 volt battery and motor platform, which their other power tools are built around. All other parts of the drill are not required to be used in the design of the cordless vacuum. The final prototype (beta) must contain at least one component that has been fabricated using rapid prototyping, water jet, or CNC processes. Our spending limit on materials and components is $30. The ultimate goal is to design an economically viable consumer product while adhering to the previously mentioned constraints. An economically viable vacuum cleaner is a necessity for many households, with a potential global market for this product.
ME340.5
in fluid flow analysis. Not only do our team members have practical experience and are certified in machining parts, but we also have a solid theoretical background. Our team members have gained valuable knowledge over the years as mechanical engineering students at Penn State. Each member has the required technical background in fluid mechanics, heat transfer, electrical engineering, and machine design. Using this knowledge, the team has been able to study the design of many handheld vacuum cleaners in the market to identify any weaknesses and seek a market opportunity. In addition, we have conducted surveys and researched customer reviews and patents. All of which strengthens our arsenal in building an efficient, practical, and cost effective cordless handheld vacuum cleaner.
ME340.5
the noise level to be low, the weight to be reasonable, and the appearance to be acceptable; however, they would be willing to sacrifice these criteria for increased suction and the other previously stated primary needs. After full evaluation of our customer input, metrics were created through Quality Function Deployment (QFD) as seen in Appendix C. Both the customer need interpretations and QFD were then ultimately used in the weighting process of our design specifications.
Criteria High Suction Sufficient Battery Life Easy Waste Removal Reasonable Noise Level Reasonable Weight Acceptable Appearance Easy Maneuverability Sealed Filtration Area Durability
Weight 0.2 0.1 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.1
Description Suction power of the cordless vacuum is strong Battery life is sufficient for the need task Waste removal compartment is simple to use The cordless vacuum is not annoyingly loud The cordless vacuum is light enough to move with ease The cordless vacuum is pleasing to the eye The cordless vacuum can reach corners easily No waste will penetrate the filter; only air The housing and fan will not break deform easily
Page 5 of 41
ME340.5
3. Concept Development
3.1 External Search
After collecting consumer information and ranking needs for the final vacuum design, we began to gather information for design concepts. Our patent searches were conducted using Google Patent Search and the United States patent search. The patents of interest found are: a blade for a vehicle engine cooling fan assembly, two types of centrifugal fans, an axial flat fan, three different types of handheld vacuum cleaners, a portable electric vacuum cleaner, and a dust cup. These patents can be found in Appendix H. We also performed benchmarking tasks by gathering technical information on vacuum cleaners which are already in production. These two external searches provided us with many technical specifications, performance goals, and design concepts which we were able to incorporate into our design.
Table 2: Benchmarking against market leaders
Description Dyson DC32 Cordless: 2.92lbs; 12x8x4; Lithiumion battery; cyclonic action; bagless; similar to drill handle trigger Retail Price: $127.49
Description Shark Rotator Cordless: 2Speed w/ 10 positioning nozzle; 3-stage filtration; Easy-empty system
Description Eureka The Boss Cordless: 33.5V rechargeable power; 4x17x6; Clean air system helps protect motor; fingertip on/off switch Retail Price: $54.33
ME340.5
ME340.5
Finally after discussing all of the performance aspects we decided to analyze different housings and cosmetic ideas. Our two basic ideas were to either keep the original drill, or to remove the drill housing and to build a new one to hold the new equipment.
ME340.5
matrix. The highest total, which turned out to be our second concept, is the concept we will follow through with. Our first concept, a tubular axial fan with post fan filter received a high ranking in weight due to the fact that this concept would not incorporate the whole drill in its design. However, drill weight was not one of our highly rated specifications. It received low ratings in high suction due to the axial fan choice over a centrifugal fan, and durability as a result of being filter-less before the waste particles hit the fan. Lacking a filter before the fan, certain particles could chip the fan blades over time. These low ratings in durability and suction caused this concept to lose the overall competition. Our second concept, a drill body centrifugal fan with pre-fan filter, was the concept that ultimately won final concept selection. This concept received low ratings in weight and appearance as a result of the actual drill body being a necessary attachment in order for the vacuum to run. However, the centrifugal fan and pre-fan filter placement resulted in high ratings for suction and durability, respectively. Since, according to our customer needs interpretations, suction and durability are much more important than weight and appearance, this concept had a much higher score than concept one. Concept three was much similar to concept two besides the fact that the filter in concept three was placed after the fan, similar to concept one. This filter placement negatively affected concept threes rating in durability because of possible fan damage over time as a result of the waste particles entering the fan system instead of being filtered out beforehand. This lower rating in durability resulted in concept twos total score being higher. After the final scores of each of the three concepts, it can be seen that concept two was the winner. However, as a group we realized that it is a good idea to have a filter after the fan as well as before, acting as a backup filter. Ultimately, we decided on a combination of concept two and three, including both a pre-fan and post-fan filter, as our final concept.
ME340.5
material which may have made it through the first filter. This helps to contain the maximum possible amount of material. An exploded view of our preliminary concept design can be seen below in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Exploded view of our concept design for the handheld vacuum cleaner
Where, subscript 1 refers to our fan & 2 refers to the Dirt Devil vacuum cleaners fan From our test we obtained, Assuming our fans diameter ( ) ( and our motors most efficient speed ) ( ) ,
So, by having a larger radius fan blade, we can make up for decrease in the volumetric flow rate caused by the slower rotational speed of the motor. In order to get a better understanding, other factors must be taken into account such as number of blades, angles of blades, duct size, etc. All of which will be included as we get into our detailed design phase.
Page 10 of 41
ME340.5
Component Fan Blade Fan Housing Two filters Nozzle/body/housing Fan/Drill connection piece Motor Battery TOTAL
BILL OF MATERIALS Process Injection molding Injection molding Buy from vendor Plastic mold Buy from vendor ACME ACME
Labor: Assume 5 workers assembling drills at minimum wage at $7.25/hour @ approximately 40 hours a week for 52 weeks. This will be the labor cost for one year; 5 workers*$7.25/hr*40hrs/wk*52wks/yr = $75,400 Drills at retail price = $50/unit*100,000(units sold in 1 year) = $5,000,000.00 Profit = $5,000,0000 - $2,200,000 - $75,400 = $2,724,600/yr
5. Detailed Design
5.1 Modifications to Proposal Sections
The team has performed slight modifications to the proposal as constructive feedback has been received in addition to the experience and knowledge gained by working on the project further ever since. The following modifications have been made: The concept generation section has been modified to incorporate more details on the process, which have not been explained in sufficient details in the proposal. This should serve to clear confusion and provide a better flow of information to the reader. The Theoretical Analysis section has been expanded and more detailed calculations have been made to incorporate dimensions of fan and volumetric flow rate (See section 5.2 below). The Economic Analysis section has been expanded as well to incorporate the Business Case Justification. The Gant Chart that plans the teams schedule has been modified to accommodate the changed schedules of team members (See Appendix A).
Page 11 of 41
ME340.5
Based on our drill testing, Using Affinity Law to determine the diameter of the fan, ( )
Using the following expression for the volumetric flow rate, the dimensions of the outlet of the fan can be determined:
( )
Where,
And, Where,
( )
( ) )( )
With this analysis, we the team has obtained approximate dimensions for the fan and an expected performance of the fan with the motor chosen. As the team begins the building process, given its iterative nature, these numbers might change accordingly.
Page 12 of 41
ME340.5
DFE Assessment Factor Material Chemistry Recycled Content Disassembly Recyclability Overall Score
Page 13 of 41
ME340.5
Exploded View:
Page 14 of 41
ME340.5
Back Plate:
Our fan attachment system utilizes a solid back plate for our housing. This plate will be created using plastic injection molding. This allows us to manufacture the part at extremely low costs; it also allows us to maintain a lightweight yet strong structure. The bearing will be mounted in the hole in the back of the housing.
Bearing:
A bearing, which will be mounted in the back plate, will give the fan the ability to rotate freely in the housing. A closed, steel ball bearing will be used to provide a sturdy interface, while creating a minimum amount of friction, allowing the fan to rotate without losing a significant amount of energy to friction.
Page 15 of 41
ME340.5
Fan: Our design incorporates a centrifugal fan with backwardcurved blades. Backward-curved blades are the most efficient style of blades, and are used for high power applications. A model will be created using a 3D printer. From this a mold will be made, and in production the fan will be created using a plastic injection molding process.
Housing Body:
The Body of our housing is made from by injection molding. This allows us to easily create this complex curve in a cost effective manner. Creating a solid plastic piece also allows for an increase in strength.
Front Plate:
Page 16 of 41
ME340.5
This part is located at the front of our housing assembly. It is used to enclose the fan, and to create another structural feature to maintain rigidity. This part will be made using plastic injection molding.
Collection Chamber: 3 1 The next part in the assembly is the collection chamber. A primary filter is placed on the hole of the front plate. The sand and other debri will hit this filter and fall down into the long slit at the front of the chamber (1). After the fan, air exits in through the extruded hole (2), and then through a second filter located on the end of the part (3). In this way all of the debri is collected in one location. This chamber is detachable from the vacuum for easy waste disposal. This part will be manufactured using plastic injection molding.
Nozzle:
The final piece in our vacuum assembly is the nozzle. This part utilizes a nozzle with a reducing radius to create a smaller opening diameter, increasing the localized suction. This part will be created through plastic injection molding.
NOTE: For the detailed drawing for each of the parts which will be used for the production specifications please see appendix section L. Team 10 Detailed Design Report Page 17 of 41
ME340.5
The unit production cost began with an updated bill of materials. This BOM included every part needed to assemble the vacuum attachment. Since the idea of our design team is to have our vacuum act as an attachment to drill, the user must also purchase the drill if it is not owned yet. Together, the bill of materials came out to be reasonably close to the assumed price of $30.00 per unit. Without the drill included in the unit price, the bill of materials is very cheap. This is because the customer would only be purchasing an attachment, which would not include the battery or motor needed to operate the vacuum. As can be seen in the BOM, the injection molding manufacturing process of the fan, housing, waste compartment, and nozzle will all have an individual material, tooling, and production cost that all sum up to a unit a price. These will be manufactured at the plant in Singapore by the technicians and engineers. These prices were all calculated on an online site with an assumed production rate of 100,000 units. Along with the assumed 100,000 units, the calculation took into account that the material is ABM thermoplastic, the area and volume of each individual part, and the precision to which the part should be made. As a result, we believe these unit prices are very accurate. On the other hand, there is no material, production, and tooling costs associated with the screws, bearing, and filters. This is due to the fact that the plant will not be manufacturing these components but instead buying them from other vendors. Therefore, only a single unit price has been provided in the bill of materials. The last cost taken into account was the labor costs. Assuming it takes a technician twenty minutes to assemble a vacuum; then on an 8 hour workday 24 drills could be assembled by one technician. Also figuring out that at a pace of 100,000 drills per year, 385 drills would need to be assembled per day. This led to a total of 16 technicians with their salary of $10,000 a year provided to us. Lastly, it was assumed efficient to provide the plant with 3 engineers as well to overlook the processes. These previously mentioned salaries result in a labor unit cost of $1.60 for technicians and $0.90 for engineers. As previously mentioned, adding the labor costs to the unit cost in the BOM in Appendix M along with the cost of the drill results in a very similar unit price of the assumed $30.00 which was used for our Net Present Value analysis in the following section. The specifics of the previous labor cost calculations can also be found in Appendix M.
5.7.2 Business Case Justification
After calculating the period cash flow by quarters over the first five years, it was found that our product would create a Net Present Value of $3,425,680 at a ten percent discount rate. However, the outflows to get production started would not be subsided until the third quarter of year two. The outflows, including development costs, ramp-up costs, and marketing costs are all variables that can be altered depending on the companies needs and wants.
Page 18 of 41
ME340.5
However, salaries must be considered in ramp-up costs when production has started but the ramp-up process has not yet been completed. Since the company was expected to make 50,000 products the first year, a lot of consideration was given to balancing out production and startup. Our team decided the first two quarters to solely have outflows with no inflows in order to build the factory and start the rampup process. The third quarter would then start production with a quarter of the needed units while the fourth quarter producing the rest of the 50,000 units. At this time, the marketing outflow cost would also start up because this cost normally goes hand-in-hand with production. After the first year, the company would produce 25,000 units a quarter to meet the quota of 100,000 units per year for the next four years. This production would result in $350,000 per quarter before the discount rate is applied. This can be seen in the NPV table in Appendix M. Lastly, our NPV table in Appendix M also shows the results when the product would be at discount rate of 15%. With this discount, a profitable NPV would still be the result: $2,895,170. It can also be noted the company would still break even in the same quarter as the 10% discount rate.
5.8 Safety
The safety standards will be done after the beta prototype has been tested and shown to work. This additional safety review will be done after acceptance of the final report by a consultant yet to be hired.
6. Testing
6.1 Test procedure and plan
Testing is critical to the success of any design project. The purpose of testing our prototype is to understand how the vacuum cleaner is going to operate under various conditions and allow the team to detect any unexpected phenomena. In addition, data obtained from different types of testing can provide the team with information regarding the expected performance with respect to the performance of the Dirt Devil under the same conditions. This could result in possible modifications in our design if needed. The team has developed a testing plan that will test the vacuum cleaners air flow, noise level and battery life under the same conditions that the Dirt Devil has been tested on. The Dirt Devil test involved measurements of Air Flow using an anemometer and noise level measurements using the Extech Sound Level meter at various distances. The team seeks to perform the same tests on the prototype of the vacuum cleaner to better understand how the design compares to the Dirt Devil. The setup and results of each test done on the Dirt Devil can be seen in Appendix I. The following is the test plan to be performed once the prototype has been built: Air Flow: o Air flow will be measured by using an anemometer 2 inches from the inlet of the fan. We expect our fan to produce an air flow of , which is the value obtained from the Dirt Devil test.
Page 19 of 41
ME340.5
Noise Level: o Noise level will be measured by using the Extech Sound Level Meter 10, 20, and 30 inches away from the center of the fan. We expect our fan to be within the range of , which is the range obtained from the Dirt Devil Test.
Furthermore, two tests were performed on the motor and battery of the drill. Drill motor data was measured using a dynamometer to give the team a basic understanding of the torque output of the motor in the given drill. This data was used in order to find the most optimal motor speed for the production model, determined to be . The motor test data can be seen in Appendix J. The Battery Life test was conducted in class using the specialized PC provided which generated the battery life curves needed. The battery can be operated for 21 minutes at a constant current of 2.6 Amps. The generated curve can be seen in Appendix K.
7. Conclusion
Our team was tasked with developing an economically viable vacuum which can be efficiently incorporated into a companys current line of products. In our short period of work on this product, we began our task by identifying customer needs through various types of surveying methods. After compiling the survey data, we then conducted additional research through patent searches, benchmarking, and internal concept generation. Combining these concepts, we identified four designs which would satisfy the concept requests for our product. Using our determined customer needs hierarchy, we were able to determine the most viable design option. Our product is fully designed to specific dimensions on a 3D CAD software, some performance testing has been done, a complete theoretical analysis including all performance numbers have been calculated, and a Net Present Value analysis has been calculated to prove our design is economically profitable. Specifically, in the third quarter of the second year of production, our design will begin bringing in profits for the buyer of our cordless vacuum. Also, since our profit from our NPV analysis is so high, the buyer could also decide to put more money into development costs, ramp up costs, and especially marketing if decided. Our handheld vacuum design is especially unique due to its optional attachment style, which allows it to be incorporated into any cordless drill platform. This allows our resources to be allocated towards increased suction which rivals that of more expensive vacuums, while still entering the market at the lower end of the price spectrum. This design, due to its unique nature, and extremely low cost of production, is marketable to nearly every household in search of an inexpensive alternative with ample suction. Our team has worked rapidly and efficiently in order to develop this economically viable product, which is ready to be prototyped for testing.
Page 20 of 41
ME340.5
8. References
Ulrich, Karl T., and Steven D. Eppinger. Product Design and Development. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2008. Print. engel, unus A., and ohn M. Cimbala. Fluid Mechanics Fundamentals and Applications. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2010. Print. http://www.shoppingnexus.com/for-the-home/pr/dyson-dc34-cordless-vacuum-cleaner-refurbished.html http://www.gadgetgrid.com/2010/07/27/black-decker-18-volt-pivoting-nose-cordless-energy-starhandheld-vacuum-cleaner/ http://www.ebay.com/itm/Eureka-Boss-Cordless-Rechargeable-Handheld-Vacuum-Cleaner-79B/330733528197?pt=US_Vacuum&hash=item4d01412485 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_fan
Appendices
A. Project Management
Team Roles David Role: Scribe and Speaker Qualifications: Organization, Leadership, and Attention to Detail Sean Role: Team Leader Qualifications: Leadership, Computer Skills Ali Role: Time Keeper and Pusher Qualifications: Logical These are the overall roles of our team. However each team member is the group leader for the task he is responsible for according to our Gantt chart below.
Page 21 of 41
ME340.5
Gantt chart
Question
(1) What do you think is an acceptable price for a cordless handheld vacuum? (2) How long would you I would expect to get 1-2 hours until expect the battery life to be in next recharge. a cordless vacuum until next recharge?
Interpretation The cordless vacuum (CV) can be bought for under $75. The CV has good battery life.
Page 22 of 41
ME340.5
(3) How light would you expect a cordless vacuum to be? (4) Any aesthetic preferences that would better your chances of buying a cordless vacuum?
Weight is not important to me; but I guess less than 7 lbs. I like bag-less vacuums; easy turn ability; attachment for corners; and good suction power.
The CV weight has no effect. -The CV has bag-less disposal -The CV turns easily -The CV has available attachments. -The CV has good suction. The (CV) can be bought for under $50. The CV has exceptional battery life. The CV is light. -The CV has easy waste removal compartment. -The CV has light source on front. The (CV) can be bought for under $50. The CV battery lasts 15 minutes. The CV is light. -The CV contains sealed filtration system. -The CV has suitable battery life. -The CV has good suction. -The CV has easy waste removal compartment. The (CV) can be bought for under $50. The CV has exceptional battery life. The CV is light. -The CV includes a shoulder strap. -The CV has good suction. ME340.5
CUSTOMER 2 I would pay $50 I would expect to get 2 weeks of daily use until next recharge. Less than 5 lbs. I would like a light on the front, and that it is easy to empty.
CUSTOMER 3 I would pay $50 15 minutes would be an acceptable battery life. I would want the CV to be around 35 lbs. I would definitely want a good filtration system, battery life to complete task, good suction power and that it is easy to empty.
CUSTOMER 4 I would pay up to $100 2 weeks of battery life. Between 3-8 lbs would be a good weight. I would like a shoulder strap and good suction.
Page 23 of 41
Email Interviews
Question Price Weight Waste collection Noise level color Key feature Price Weight Waste collection Noise level Key feature Price weight Waste collection Noise level Key feature Criteria Price Weight Battery life Key Features Desired Noise Level
Quote Id pay around $65 Since you have to carry it Id want it to be pretty light I always prefer bags, it helps with allergies Noise does not really matter The color does not make a difference to me Most important is suction, and can it take a charge I would only pay $40 I go to the gym I dont care how heavy it is I dont want to have to worry about a bag as long as the dirt cant get out It cannot be extremely loud It must suck really well I would pay up to $75 I would want it to be light, like 5 lbs For a handheld I would want bagless if it still collected the waste well I dont care how loud it is as long as it has high suction Lots of suction Quotes I dont mind paying an extra 20-30$ for quality I wouldnt want to carry a heavy vacuum even if its the best in its class Excellent suction but unfortunately very short battery life Wish it was easier to empty the dust cup Powerful and light vacuum but sounds like a jet engine!
Interpretation Price does not matter Lighter weight preferred Sealed waste collection area Noise level not important Color is unimportant Suction is crucial, battery life important Needs to be economically viable Weight is not important Sealed waste collection area Noise level fairly important Suction crucial Price does not matter Lightweight Efficient and complete waste removal Noise level is unimportant Suction is crucial Interpretation Quality of vacuum is more important than price Weight is crucial Battery life is crucial Easy waste removal is desired Low noise is desired
Online reviews
Page 24 of 41
ME340.5
C. QFD Matrix
10 Filter Placement X 11 X Waste Storage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 X X Nozzle Size 9 Filter Shape
Detachable/Appearance
Needs 1 High Suction 2 Sufficient Battery Life 3 Easy Waste Removal 4 Reasonable Noise Level 5 Reasonable Weight 6 Acceptable Appearance 7 Easy Maneuverability 8 Sealed Filtration System
X X X X X X X
Nozzle Shape
Metrics
Sleek
Page 25 of 41
ME340.5
D. Problem Decomposition
Input
Energy Air/Impurities Signal
Figure 2: Black box of vacuum cleaner
Output
Input
Energy
Air/Impurities
Filter
Fan Blades
Filter
Air
Signal
On/Off Signal
Cleaning
Waste
Page 26 of 41
ME340.5
E. Concept Generation
General idea: This sketch represents the ultimate goal we are trying to achieve for our prototype. Using the drill housing, the fan will be attached to the chuck along with the filter.
Different suction mechanisms: This sketch represents the types of fans and suction mechanism that we investigated.
Different Nozzles: This sketch represents the different shapes of nozzles that we investigated.
Filter location and Housing: This sketch represents the locations of dust filter and the shape of the housing.
Page 27 of 41
ME340.5
F. Concept Combination
Suction Mechanism Dust to vacuum interface Dust Collection Appearance
Tubular Nozzle Converging Nozzle Diverging Nozzle Rectangular Nozzle Pre- Fan Drill Body
Post - Fan
New Housing
Page 28 of 41
ME340.5
Selection Criteria High Suction Sufficient Battery Life Easy Waste Removal Reasonable Noise Level Reasonable Weight Acceptable Appearance Easy Maneuverability Sealed Filtration Area Durability
Weight 0.2 0.1 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.1 Total Score Rank Continue ?
Page 29 of 41
ME340.5
H. Patents
Page 30 of 41
ME340.5
Page 31 of 41
ME340.5
Page 32 of 41
ME340.5
Anemometer
2 inches
Figure I.1: Schematic of the test setup
Table I.1: Measured and calculated data for Dirt Devil Air Flow Test
Distance (in) 2
Make and Model: Dirt Devil GatorTM Measured Data Rotation Speed (rpm) 1030
Noise Level
Distance
Figure I.2: Schematic of the test setup
Table I.2: Measured and calculated data for Dirt Devil Noise Level Test
Distance (in) 10 20 30
Make and Model: Dirt Devil GatorTM Measured Data Noise Level (dB) 75.6 71.2 67.9
Page 33 of 41
ME340.5
Figure J.1: Schematic of the setup Table J.1: Measured and calculated data for Black & Decker 2009-21-58-11 Drill dynamometer test conducted on 02/13/2013
Drill Make and Model: Black & Decker 2009-21-58-11 Measured Data Speed (RPM) 1002.00 1111.00 1088.00 1044.00 971.00 889.10 Load Torque (oz-in) 0.00 25.00 50.00 80.00 110.00 170.00 Input Voltage (Volts) 119.40 119.60 119.40 119.10 117.60 118.50 Input Current (Amps) 1.68 1.64 1.72 1.93 2.05 2.54 Electrical Power (Watts) 200.59 196.14 205.37 229.86 241.08 300.99 Load HP 0.27 0.26 0.28 0.31 0.32 0.40
Test Date: 02/13/2013 Calculated Data Mechanical Power % Output Efficiency (Watts) 0.00 0.00 20.54 0.10 40.23 0.20 61.76 0.27 78.98 0.33 111.77 0.37
Figure J.2: Plot of various parameters vs Load Torque (oz-in) for the Black & Decker 2009-2158-11 Drill dynamometer test
Figure J.3: Plot of various parameters vs Load Torque (oz-in) for the Black & Decker 2009-2158-11 Drill dynamometer test
Page 34 of 41
ME340.5
L. Detailed Drawings
Page 35 of 41
ME340.5
Page 36 of 41
ME340.5
Page 37 of 41
ME340.5
Page 38 of 41
ME340.5
Page 39 of 41
ME340.5
Labor Cost Evaluation: -Assumption made the drill assembly takes technician approximately 20 minute.
-This shows our plant will need to manufacture 385 drills every workday in order to meet the 100,000 quota. Then, at 20 minutes to make a drill, 1 worker can make 24 drills in one day. Based off of these two calculations:
-Then, we assumed 3 engineers to oversee the processes would be sufficient. -Then at salaries of $10,000 and $30,000 for the technicians and engineers respectively: Technician
Engineer
***NOTE: In the following NPV analysis, we chose to use the assumed production cost of $30 dollars per drill because our previous BOM does not include the drill due to the fact we are making it an attachment part.***
The Net Present Value in the following table was found with the formula:
Where r is the discount rate and n is the total number of payment period i.
Team 10 Detailed Design Report Page 40 of 41
ME340.5
Page 41 of 41
ME340.5