Team 10

Cordless Vacuum Detailed Design Report

Ali Alnuaimi, David Manley and Sean Rooney

The Pennsylvania State University March 29 2013

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.

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

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

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

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.

1.2 Background info

The main component of any vacuum cleaner on the market is the fan. Many fan types are used to create pressure drop that is needed to implement the suction mechanism. The stronger the pressure drop the stronger the suction will be. The dissection of various types of handheld vacuum cleaners exposed the team to the different fans used in vacuum cleaners such as axial and centrifugal fans. The completed research has given the team a strong sense of the specifications and parameters that should be incorporated in our design. By investigating existing patents, our team is capable of recreating and modifying existing vacuum cleaners to satisfy the guidelines for this project. In addition, our team, with its practical and theoretical knowledge, is determined to improve the existing line of handheld vacuum cleaners and identify market opportunities. Since the design of the vacuum cleaners deals mainly with fluid flow, we are confident that our team will be able to succeed in building a cordless vacuum cleaner due class experience
Team 10 Detailed Design Report Page 3 of 41

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.

1.3 Project Planning

With such a long and in-depth design process ultimately leading to the actual manufacturing of our cordless vacuum, our team has created a Gantt chart (Appendix A) to keep the group on pace and to assign individual tasks. The Gantt chart provides us with due dates of for each step in the process and delineates the task specific group. This process divides the responsibility within the group as well as keeps the group as a whole on pace to meet each deadline. The Gantt chart is updated at every group meeting to ensure the team is focused and on track with the design process.

2. Customer Needs and Specifications

2.1 Identification of Customer Needs
In order to determine our customer needs we decided to gather information from various sources. We used face to face interviews, electronic mail interviews, and consumer response information to gather data for our needs. The quotes of the customers and the interpretation of their needs can be seen in Appendix B. As a result of this data we were able to determine the customers major desires and needs. The most important need that we discovered was that the vacuum had to achieve high levels of suction. This is extremely crucial because it affects the performance of the vacuum which, as our survey results showed, was the most important feature. Next we discovered that a sealed filtration area was very important. Consumers desired this feature highly because suction of material is futile if the material cannot be contained properly. The customer needs that were established next in our hierarchy were that of easy waste removal and easy maneuverability. A nozzle needs to be properly designed which allows the vacuum to easily reach waste material which may be located in areas such as hard to reach corners. After the material is suctioned into the machined and stored in a contained area, it is essential that the waste material is easily removed from the vacuum so that it can be disposed of efficiently. If this feature is not designed properly the waste material could easily be spilled. In order to allow for the execution of all the other processes, the vacuum has to have a battery which is powerful enough to allow for the cleaning of a large area without recharging. For this reason battery life was our next highest need, however, consumers did not really care how long the battery life was as long as it allowed sufficient time for cleaning. Finally our three lowest customer needs were: reasonable noise level, reasonable weight, and acceptable appearance. The customers stated that they would like
Team 10 Detailed Design Report Page 4 of 41

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.

2.2 Design Specifications

Once we collected all our customer input and categorized this data into what we thought were the ultimate customer needs, the design specifications were made. A total of nine different design specifications were developed. Each design received a specific weight in correspondence to its stressed importance from our costumer interviews. After evaluating what each customer thought to be important when using a portable cordless vacuum, each design criteria was weighted so that the total of all the weights summed up to one. Below, Table 1 describes why each specification was weighted the way it was, mostly resulting from our customer input. It is obvious to see, as stated above in our customer interpretation, that suction power, waste removal process, and excellent filtration are the most important factors we need to keep in mind as we move through the design process. Therefore, Table 1 tells us we must strive for strong suction, an easy waste removal system, and a completely reliable filtration system when continuing on through concept selection. Also, we realize from the weighted specifications that noise level, weight, and appearance are the factors we should consider throughout the concept generation process. As seen in Appendix G, the weights derived in Table 1 are further used in the concept selection scoring matrix.

Table 1: Criteria Weighting Table

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

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

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

Retail Price: $50.00

3.2 Problem Decomposition

In order to break down the vacuum into various systems to be analyzed, our team developed a black box diagram. The inputs into the system are energy, air and impurities, and a signal to the vacuum. The energy enters the system and is stored in the battery. Next, the trigger sends a signal which converts the electrical energy into mechanical energy through the motor. The motor in turn runs the fan which pulls impurities in through the filter. The outputs of the system are energy in the form of heat, noise, and vibration, air which had been filtered, and the waste material collected in the filter. The flow chart of our problem decomposition can be found in Appendix D.
Team 10 Detailed Design Report Page 6 of 41

ME340.5

3.3 Concept Generation

The team conducted an external search to better familiarize ourselves with the current market of handheld cordless vacuum cleaners. We also looked at several heavy cordless vacuum cleaners in the market to seek ideas that can be implemented in our design using methods of scaling and similarity. Once the team was familiar with physical principles and the operation of fans, we brainstormed and identified some unique design concepts. We then generated some task specific product ideas and broke them down into sub-systems that consist of the fan, the nozzles, the housing, and the filter compartment. Sketches can be found in Appendix Section E. The first set of designs that we sought to generate was pressure difference generating devices. These designs consisted of using varying types of fans to create the desired pressure difference. Two different types of fans could have been applied: axial and centrifugal. An axial fan is the simplest design to construct since air is simply pulled linearly through the fan and straight out the back. The second type of fan, the centrifugal fan, draws air in through the front of the fan and then sends it out at a ninety degree angle after centrifugal force sends the air radially outward. This type of fan is able to produce a greater pressure per unit volume of air. In the category of centrifugal fans that we researched, three different types of blades were found. The first type of centrifugal fan was one with radial blades. This is the simplest design and is most suited for low volume and high pressure application. The downside to this design is that it produces a large amount of noise as compared to its alternatives. The second type of centrifugal fan incorporated forward curving blades. This design is generally used for high flow and low pressure applications. The final type of centrifugal fan that we generated had backward curving blades. This design is generally used for high pressure and medium flow applications. Also this design is much more efficient than the other previously mentioned designs. After exploring the options of traditional fans to create a pressure difference, we looked into alternative designs. A pneumatic pump is utilized in one of our designs. This pump is driven up and down to create a pressure difference. The next concept incorporated a pressurized tank and two separate tubes. The air in the tank is rapidly released and flows over the opening of another tube, creating a pressure difference, and drawing air through the lower pipe thereby creating suction. Finally we took the previously generated idea of incorporating two tubes, but used a fan system instead of a pressurized tank. Next, our team considered different nozzle designs. The first design is a tubular design, in which the nozzle is the same diameter the whole way along its length. This would be the simplest option to produce. The second consideration was a rectangular pipe. The pipe would have the same size opening across the whole length. This would also be simple to produce but may inhibit the flow of particles due to the corners. The third type of nozzle we generated incorporated a converging end to the nozzle. This would cover more surface area, creating a strong suction power. Due to this realization we generated our final design which incorporates a diverging end to the nozzle, ultimately creating the greatest amount of suction per unit area at the end of the nozzle. After generating concepts for creating a pressure difference, and varying nozzle designs, we generated concepts which approached filter locations in two different ways. Our initially generated idea for the filter was to have it at the outlet of the fan to catch the debris which exits the fan. However, after investigating this design we determined that this would allow the collected debris to hit the fan blades therefore leading to part degradation.
Team 10 Detailed Design Report Page 7 of 41

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.

3.4 Concept Combination

After creating the various concepts we began our concept combination phase. In this phase we began by creating four main categories, or tasks, which the vacuum needs to accomplish. The first category that we chose was suction design. In this category we listed our conceptual ideas for, an axial fan, a centrifugal fan, a pump, an air tank, and a two tube design (Note these items were previously discussed and sketched). The next category that we selected was the dust to vacuum interface. In this section we listed our various designs for nozzles, such as, a tubular nozzle, a converging nozzle, a diverging nozzle, and a rectangular nozzle. After this we established the category of dust collection. In this section we only had two options, pre fan, or post fan. Finally in our last section we discussed appearance. For this we simply had the decision to keep the drill body, or to create a new housing. After setting up the combination tables we further selected four concept systems which we believed could be possible solutions to the assigned task. For our first design we went with our most simple concept. This design looks as if it is simply a long tube with a handle on the back of it. Starting from the front, the vacuum has a circular nozzle. This nozzle design is simple to manufacture and leaves a broad path for the collection of particles. The next component in this design is the simple axial fan, which is used to create suction by moving air rapidly, creating a pressure difference. Behind the fan is a filter to catch the waste. Our next system of designs features a nozzle with a diverging tip. This tip creates a smaller opening which increases the suction over a smaller area. Behind this nozzle there is an expanded chamber with a filter at the back. This chamber allows the particles to slow down and drop into the collection area at the bottom of the chamber. A centrifugal fan behind this section allows for an increased air flow rate of air, as compared to its axial counterpart. We also decided to keep the drill body to lower the cost of production, and to allow for the possibility of a vacuum attachment to the drill which slips directly into the chuck. Our third design incorporates much of the second design, with only minor adjustments. The only difference in this design is that waste is not filtered out before it hits the fan, instead the waste, along with the air, is directed out of the vacuum by the fan. In this way the particles actually hit the fan blade, and the blades assist in pushing the particles into the collection area adjacent to the blades. Our fourth and final design is once again based off of the original drill body to save money. A circular nozzle is once again being used in this design. However, unlike concept number 1, the waste is filtered out by the vacuum before it hits the axial fan in the rear.

3.5 Concept Selection

In order to finalize the concept selection stage and carry on with the process with an ultimate design, we created a weight scoring matrix as seen in Appendix G. This matrix used an in depth process of evaluating our final three concepts and ultimately proving one as the best concept. The scoring matrix uses the earlier created design specifications and their weights. In addition, each of our final three concepts was given a rating of one through five, five being the best, for each of the nine specifications. Each concept rating of one through five was multiplied with the previously assigned weights to the specifications and then summed up as seen in the
Team 10 Detailed Design Report Page 8 of 41

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.

4. System Level Design

4.1 Overall Description
After weighing the features of our four design combinations, the results were clear that concept number two was the most viable option for several reasons. To begin, with the low budget that our team has been given, while still being tasked with integrating this product into the current line, the most cost efficient option was to use the current drill body. Using the current body also gives us the option of making the vacuum a drill attachment, which would cut costs even further and completely integrate our design with their existing products. For the nozzle design we selected the diverging nozzle tip, with either a rectangular or oval shaped tip. This design gave us the largest width for the cleaning path, while still creating a small enough opening to increase suction. This design will also aid in reaching into corners that you would be unable to do with a traditional circular tip due to the larger radius. After the nozzle, the tube opens up into a larger chamber. This design helps aid in the collection of waste by slowing down the particles and allowing them to be more easily filtered out by the filter at the rear, and also to drop into the collection area at the bottom of the chamber. Finally we selected the centrifugal fan design. After researching this design and that of the axial fan, we discovered that the centrifugal fan is able to achieve higher levels of suction than that of the axial fan. As a final feature we added a second filter at the exit of centrifugal fan with a finer filter which is able to catch
Team 10 Detailed Design Report Page 9 of 41

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

4.2 Preliminary Theoretical Analysis

Our team tested the Dirt Devil cordless vacuum cleaner presented in class, and decided to utilize fans affinity laws to perform preliminary analysis. One of the laws states that, ( )

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.

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

Page 10 of 41

ME340.5

4.3 Preliminary Economic Analysis

Table 3: Economic Analysis for our handheld cordless vacuum cleaner

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

Unit Cost after Mass Production $2 $2 $0.50 $5 $3 $4 $5 $22 $2,200,000

GRAND TOTAL (@ 100,000 vacuums/yr)

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).

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

Page 11 of 41

ME340.5

5.2 Final Theoretical Analysis

In this section the performance of the fan is analyzed theoretically. In order to obtain an approximate value for the volumetric flow rate, the dimensions of the fan and housing have to be determined first. By using Fan Affinity laws, the team was able to scale the dimensions relative to the Dirt Devil Cordless Vacuum cleaner tested in class. The following calculations were made: For Dirt Devil (DD),

Based on our drill testing, Using Affinity Law to determine the diameter of the fan, ( )

Using the same diameter ratio as the Dirt Devil,

Using the following expression for the volumetric flow rate, the dimensions of the outlet of the fan can be determined:
( )

Where,

And, Where,
( )

Width of the outflow area becomes,

( ) )( )

Area of out flow area is,

(

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.

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

Page 12 of 41

ME340.5

5.3 Component and material selection process for mass production

As a result of our vacuum acting as an attachment to our drill, it will contain fewer components, most of which can be injection molded. Keep in mind however, that if the user does not own a cordless drill, it will need to be purchased separately in order for the fan attachment to be inserted into a chuck. Furthermore, our team has chosen to use Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABM) as the main material. This material is a common thermoplastic that is inexpensive but is tough and impact resistant. The fan, nozzle, veneer, front housing, back housing, and waste collection compartment will all be manufactured with this ABM thermoplastic by injection molding (explained below). Since thermoplastics are easily recycled, our ABM plastic will also be environmentally friendly. Aside from material choice, the other aspects of our products life cycle were also considered. For example, simple manufacturing steps result in less byproduct produced by the factories. As a result, our team approached the project with a simple but efficient design. Also, with respect to distribution, we strove to make the smallest design as possible therefore allowing more units to be shipped in one transportation process. Other materials, such as our filters, steel ball bearing, epoxy and screws will need to be bought already manufactured. Buying these components will raise the costs of them slightly, but we believe that since they are minor components in the design, avoiding additional manufacturing costs would be beneficial. Lastly, since the battery and motor will already be a part of the drill our vacuum attaches to, they are not a worry in our component selection process.
Table 4: Design for Environment Weighted Table

DFE Assessment Factor Material Chemistry Recycled Content Disassembly Recyclability Overall Score

Cordless Vacuum Score 40% 10% 85% 80%

Factor Weight 33.3% 8.4% 33.3% 25% 100%

Weighted Score 13.32% 0.84% 28.31% 20% 62.47%

5.4 Fabrication processes for the mass production unit

Injection molding was our choice of manufacturing for mass production for a couple of reasons. First off, this type of manufacturing is ideal for high volumes of the same object and furthermore the most common modern method. Since our mass production will reach over a hundred-thousand products a year, our team believes injection molding is the correct choice. The plant will be in Singapore, where the fan, nozzle, veneer, front housing, back housing, and waste collection compartment will all be injection molded with the ABM thermoplastic. Once the parts are molded, this process will move to an assembly line that has been designed to be not only efficient but also environmentally friendly. Sixteen technicians and three engineers will be present at the plant. The technicians will assemble the parts together with provided tools, while the engineers will overlook the processes. Since the filters, bearing, and screws will be purchased in bulk outside of the plant, they are not a concern when considering the fabrication process but will be shipped to the plant for assembly after being purchased.

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

Page 13 of 41

ME340.5

5.5 Industrial Design

The aesthetics of our design fit our target audience, ACME power tool users. The teams goal is to achieve the best ratio of aesthetics, efficiency and durability. The ACME consumers are likely to purchase a portable vacuum cleaner that looks like a power tool which the team as accomplished by incorporating the drill body. In addition, the red and black colors chosen demonstrate the industrial feel that satisfies the ACME power tools line. Ergonomics is the study of designing equipment and devices that fit the human body, its movements, and its cognitive abilities. From an ergonomic standpoint, the vacuum cleaner will have the ability to adjust to different angles, easy battery replacement location, lightweight, and the ability to reach tight spots for cleaning. Furthermore, the handle of the drill used in the vacuum cleaner design increases the portability and ergonomics. Also the centrifugal fan is easy to disassemble because of the use of screws and rods.

5.6 Detailed Drawings

Isometric View:

Exploded View:

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

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.

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

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:

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

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

5.7 Economic Analysis

The economic analysis in this report is one of the most important sections because it will tell the designers if the product is economical. More importantly, it will tell the potential investors how much how profit is to be expected if they invest in the proposed design. A quarterly analysis over the first five years based on the calculated unit price can be found in Appendix L.
5.7.1 Unit Production Cost

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.

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

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

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

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.

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

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.

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

Page 21 of 41

ME340.5

Gantt chart

B. Customer Survey and Reviews

Face to Face Interviews

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?

Statement CUSTOMER 1 I would pay up to $75

Interpretation The cordless vacuum (CV) can be bought for under $75. The CV has good battery life.

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

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

(1) (2) (3) (4)

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.

(1) (2) (3) (4)

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.

(1) (2) (3) (4)

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.

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

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

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

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

Volumetric Flow Rate = 275 (ft^3/min)

Life of Battery = 15 (mins)

Noise Range = 50-80 (dB)

Weight Less than 8 (lbs)

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

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

Page 25 of 41

ME340.5

D. Problem Decomposition

Input
Energy Air/Impurities Signal
Figure 2: Black box of vacuum cleaner

Output

Cordless Vacuum Cleaner

Energy (Heat, Noise, Vibration) Collected Impurities

Input
Energy

Output Battery Motor

Energy (Heat, Noise &Vibration)

Air/Impurities

Filter

Fan Blades

Filter

Air

Signal

On/Off Signal

Cleaning

Waste

Figure 3: Functional Decomposition

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

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.

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

Page 27 of 41

ME340.5

F. Concept Combination
Suction Mechanism Dust to vacuum interface Dust Collection Appearance

Axial Fan Centrifugal Fan Pump Air Tank 2-Tube Design

Tubular Nozzle Converging Nozzle Diverging Nozzle Rectangular Nozzle Pre- Fan Drill Body

Post - Fan

New Housing

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

Page 28 of 41

ME340.5

G. Concept Scoring Matrix

(1) Tubular Axial Fan with Post Fan Filter Weighted Rating Score 1 0.2 3 3 3 4 3 2 2 2 2.25 3 No 0.3 0.45 0.15 0.2 0.15 0.2 0.4 0.2 Concepts (2) Drill Body Centrifugal Fan with Pre-Fan Filter Weighted Rating Score 4 0.8 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 4 3.2 1 Yes 0.3 0.45 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.4 (3) Drill Body Centrifugal Fan with Post-Fan Filter Weighted Rating Score 4 0.8 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2.85 2 No, but combine back filter with Concept (2) 0.3 0.3 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.2

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 ?

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

Page 29 of 41

ME340.5

H. Patents

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

Page 30 of 41

ME340.5

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

Page 31 of 41

ME340.5

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

Page 32 of 41

ME340.5

I. Dirt Devil Test Results

Air Flow

Dirt Devil Vacuum

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

Test Date: 03/01/2013 Volumetric Flow Rate (ft3/min) 250

Noise Level

Dirt Devil Vacuum

Sound Level Meter

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

Test Date: 03/25/2013

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

Page 33 of 41

ME340.5

J. Motor Test Data

Tachometer Power Supply Voltmeter/Ammeter Drill Dynamometer Control Tool

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

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

Page 34 of 41

ME340.5

K. Battery Test Data

L. Detailed Drawings

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

Page 35 of 41

ME340.5

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

Page 36 of 41

ME340.5

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

Page 37 of 41

ME340.5

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

Page 38 of 41

ME340.5

M. Bill of Material and Net Present Value

Figure M1: Complete Bill of Materials

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

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:

= 16 technicians at the plant

-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

Figure M.2: Net Present Value Analysis

Team 10 Detailed Design Report

Page 41 of 41

ME340.5