1 / 63

Cost-Effective Portable Eye Wash Sprayer Redesign Project

Explore the redesign project for a portable eye wash spray fixture to reduce costs while meeting ANSI requirements. Follow the design process, from problem identification to validation and comparison with the existing design through rapid prototyping. See how innovative solutions like pull-off straps and redesign changes optimize flow regulation and cost-effectiveness.

isadora-figueroa
Download Presentation

Cost-Effective Portable Eye Wash Sprayer Redesign Project

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

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SE-4000 Portable Eye WashSpray Fixture The Speakman Company University of Delaware Team: Wes Doyle Nate Griffith Matt Jaskot Jason McKnight

  2. Overview • Present the problem • State our goals • Reveal the project constraints • Traverse the design process • Reveal the problem solution • Validate the problem solution

  3. Existing design • Complicated and expensive brass valve • Many parts high assembly labor costs • Significant room for cost reduction in spray arms

  4. Current Design Components

  5. Sponsor’s Problem • High cost model in a low cost Market • Seeks to reposition eyewash at appropriate cost level More Features- Higher Cost Low Cost Commodity competition

  6. Our Task • Reduce cost of Spray-Arm Assembly under $15 • Maintain compliance with ANSI flow requirements

  7. Sponsor’s Wants • Utilize existing tank tooling • Aesthetic appeal • Minimize changes to shipping container • One year Return on capital expenditure

  8. ANSI Requirements • Minimum flow of 0.4 GPM for 15 minutes • Hands free operation • Nozzles protected from airborne contaminants • “On to Off” in 1 second or less • Nozzle at least 6” from nearest obstruction • Must not leak & operate reliably every time • Both eyes flushed simultaneously at safe water velocities

  9. Design Subsystems 3 Subsystems Spray-Arms perform: • - Regulation of flow on/off (valve) • - Direction of flow to user’s eyes (nozzles) • - Attachment to tank (threaded nut) • Any new design must perform these 3 functions at low cost • - Attachment to tank and flow direction are relatively easy to do • - Focus on flow regulation

  10. Concept generation - Initial ideas for flow regulation Ball Valve Linear Valve Snap-on Nozzle Caps - Low-cost design easy to prototype quickly, cheaply

  11. Ball Valve Prototype • Estimated Cost ~$30 (ball valve expensive, assembly costs) • One Attachment Point, Low Strength • Ugly.

  12. Pull-Off Caps Prototype • Estimated Cost Near $15 Target • Attached with Bolts / Screws (Stronger) • T-Handle Connected to Caps • Sharp Metal Edges • Plastic Molded Design • (it is a safety product)

  13. Design changes

  14. Design changes

  15. Design changes

  16. Design changes

  17. Design changes

  18. Design changes

  19. Design changes

  20. Design changes

  21. Pull-Off Strap Design • Angled rubber strap • Allows for user to easily grab onto handle • Expensive to mold due to complex shape • Cheaper, effective alternative?

  22. Pull-Off Strap Design • Straight rubber strap • Less expensive mold • Smaller surface area for user to grab onto • $6800 Tooling • $3.50 Piece price • Cheap, ergonomic alternative?...

  23. Pull-Off Strap Design • Inverted rubber strap • Inexpensive • Prominent • Peeling effect • Other alternative? • Widen the space between nozzles for more room

  24. Rapid prototyping/final design • Final Design • Rapid Prototyping using Stereolithography

  25. Cost • Reduced Unit Cost • Cheaper materials • Fewer parts • Easier to assemble

  26. Current/Proposed Design Comparison

  27. Testing • Flow Requirements Met

  28. t = 0 min t = 0 min

  29. t = 1 min t = 1 min

  30. t = 2 min t = 2 min

  31. t = 3 min t = 3 min

  32. t = 4 min t = 4 min

  33. t = 5 min t = 5 min

  34. t = 6 min t = 6 min

  35. t = 7 min t = 7 min

  36. t = 8 min t = 8 min

  37. t = 9 min t = 9 min

  38. t = 10 min t = 10 min

  39. t = 11 min t = 11 min

  40. t = 12 min t = 12 min

  41. t = 13 min t = 13 min

  42. t = 14 min t = 14 min

  43. t = 15 min t = 15 min

  44. t = 16 min t = 16 min

  45. t = 17 min t = 17 min

  46. t = 18 min t = 18 min

  47. t = 19 min t = 19 min

  48. t = 20 min t = 20 min

  49. t = 21 min t = 21 min

  50. t = 22 min t = 22 min

More Related