Design Project 1.5

7/29/2019 Design Project 1.5

1/15

Spring 20111

DESIGN PROJECT #1

Cardboard Furniture DesignIntroduction to Engineering Design

EDGSN 100 Section 003

Work Horse Design and Production

Design Team #1

Jonathan Harcourt,[email protected],http://www.personal.psu.edu/jxh488/

Eun Mok Chung,[email protected],http://www.personal.psu.edu/evc5060/

(Left: Jonathan Harcourt; Right Eun Mok Chung)

Submitted to: Prof. Berezniak

Date: 02/21/11
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.personal.psu.edu/jxh488/http://www.personal.psu.edu/jxh488/http://www.personal.psu.edu/jxh488/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.personal.psu.edu/evc5060/http://www.personal.psu.edu/evc5060/http://www.personal.psu.edu/evc5060/http://www.personal.psu.edu/evc5060/mailto:[email protected]://www.personal.psu.edu/jxh488/mailto:[email protected]


2/15

Spring 20112

Xtreme Throne

Table of Contents1.0 Introduction. Page 3

2.0 Mission Statement. Page 3

3.0 Customer Needs Analysis.. Page 3

4.0 External Research.. Page 4

4.1 Library/online... Page 4

4.2 Patent research. Page 4

4.2 Benchmarking.. Page 5

5.0 Target Specification.... Page 6

6.0 Concept Generation.... Page 6

7.0 Concept Selection. Page 8

8.0 Final Specification.. Page 11

9.0 Final Design Page 12

10.0 Conclusions Page 1511.0 References Page 15

List of TablesTable 1 Customer Needs Importance Table. Page 4

Table 2 Benchmarking of Three Products.. Page 5

Table 3 Target Specifications.. Page 6

Table 4 Structural Element Testing. Page 9

Table 5 Concept Screening Matrix.. Page 10

Table 6 Concept Selection Matrix Page 10

Table 7 Final Specifications.. Page 11

List of FiguresFigure 1 Competitive Product A.... Page 5

Figure 2 Competitive Product B.... Page 5

Figure 3 The Wiggle Chair..... Page 6

Figure 4 Cardboard Lounge... Page 6

Figure 5 Design Sketches.... Page 7

Figure 6 Manila Folder Model.... Page 11

Figure 7 Final Design..... Page 12

Figure 8 The 6 Parts of the Chair..... Page 13Figure 9 Multi-view Projection of Final Design Page 14


3/15

Spring 20113

AbstractThe objective of this project was to provide a safe, structurally sound, compact, cheap,

and easy to use piece of cardboard furniture. The target customers for this product are young

adults that live in tight quarters, for example college students living in a dorm. Based on the

needs most important to the customer, a cardboard chair was chosen over a table for this

project.

1.0 IntroductionCardboard is believed to have been invented in 15

thCentury China, though it wasnt

used to make the commercial boxes that we often associate with cardboard until the 19th

Century. Before its use as a cheap and effective commercial box, cardboard was used for a

large variety of purposes, which include providing structural support in stovepipe hats. Since it

was first used for commercial packaging, cardboard has been in such a surplus it has been a

major problem.

During 2007 in the United States alone, 897 tons of cardboard were recycled. This

statistic raises two major questions. First, if 897 tons were recycled, then how many tons werejust thrown away? And second, could there be a better use for used cardboard than simply

recycling it? In this project we explore an option for reducing the extreme surplus of cardboard

and creating a product that is in demand. This option is making furniture from cardboard.

Our design process started with discovering and analysing the needs of our target

customer. The target customers for this project are young adults that live in tight quarters, for

example college students living in a dorm. This customer base was decided because it is

comprised mainly of people that need cheap furniture that doesnt take up too much room;

cardboard furniture can easily fit these needs. After the customer needs were well known, our

design team produced several possible designs. A structural element crush test was performed

to help select the design with the most structural integrity.

2.0 Mission StatementThe mission of this project was to provide a safe, structurally sound, compact, cheap,

and easy to use piece of cardboard furniture.

3.0 Customer Needs AnalysisThe customer needs were collected in a two part process that involved an interview

followed by a survey. The first part was an interview that was used to establish the major

needs of the customer. The interviews were between 10 and 20 minutes; and the customer

was asked to formulate a list of needs that they would have for a piece of furniture. From thelists collected during the interviews, a list of constantly recurring needs was formulated for a

survey. The second part was a survey where the customer was asked to rank the importance of

each need.


4/15

Spring 20114

Table 1: Customer Needs Importance Table

No. Need Imp.

1 Cardboard chair The chair should be comfortable to sit in 5

2 Cardboard chair/

cardboard table

The piece of furniture should be safe to use and

structurally sound

5

3 Cardboard chair/

cardboard table

The piece of furniture should be compact so that it

doesnt take up too much space

5

4 Cardboard chair/

cardboard table

The piece of furniture should be environmentally

friendly

3

5 Cardboard chair/

cardboard table

The piece of furniture should be easy to move 3

6 Cardboard chair/

cardboard table

The piece of furniture should be simple and easy to use 3

7 Cardboard chair/

cardboard table

The piece of furniture should be made from only non-

toxic materials

2

8 Cardboard chair/

cardboard table

The piece of furniture should be aesthetically pleasing 3

Importance scale 1-5; 5 is highly important, 1 is not very important

4.0 External ResearchTo research cardboard, our team scanned the internet extensively to find the most informative

and reliable sources.

4.1 Literature SearchFrom the internet our team found a brief history of cardboard, pictures of cardboard

furniture, specifications of cardboard chairs being sold, the price of wood glue, and

patents for cardboard furniture.

4.2 Patent Search

United States Patent 4934756Improved cardboard furniture comprising a structural core of periodically slotted

cardboard sheets interlocked in a criss-crossing, egg crate divider type assembly with

external stabilizing cardboard surfaces made from cardboard sheets having their

perimeter periodically slotted such as to form tabs that fold, insert and engage in the

openings of the egg crate divider type assembly. Such cardboard furniture can be

provided in a kit form that is readily hand assembled, without special tools, adhesives or

other fasteners into structurally stable and anatomically correct light weight furniture.


5/15

Spring 20115

United States Patent 5516384Furniture and furniture parts are formed with support bodies of cardboard laminate.

The winding is formed from a cardboard which is pressed into the appropriate shape. If

desired, the winding is divided into pieces. Parts of upholstered pieces of furniture, such

as armrests, backrests and seat parts can be manufactured.

Lattice

4.3 BenchmarkingcThe results from this section will come from your investigation of similar products in

the literature/patent search. Discuss how you did your benchmarking and the results of

the benchmarking (where your product falls in the ranking and what you might do to

improve the product). Use a benchmarking table like the one shown below. It is best to

use EXCEL and import the table using the method as described in the TIPS section of

this document. Recall that multiple tables may be required, as a single table should not

be split over multiple pages.

Figure 1: Competitive Product A

Figure 2: Competitive Product B

Table 2: Benchmarking of Three Products

This table shows that our product will be quite competitive if it conforms to our target

specifications.

Selection

Criteria

Wt

%

Target Specifications of Our

ProductCompetitive Product A

Figure 2: Competitive Product B

Value Point

Score

Wted

Score

Value Point

Score

Wted

Score

Value Point

Score

Wted

Score

Weight

supported

(lbs)

25% 250+ 1 .25 132 .528 .132 160 .64 .16

Cost ($) 15%


6/15

Spring 20116

5.0 Target SpecificationBriefly discuss how and why you set your targets. Show your Target Specification as defined

prior to concept generation. See Chapter 4 of Introduction to Engineering Design. An example

table is shown below.Table 3: Target Specifications

FeatureCurrent Specs

(Folder Model)

Target Specs

(Half Scale Model)

Target Specs

(Full Scale Model)

Ideal Marginal Ideal Marginal

Cost (Building) $10.00


7/15

Spring 20117

After seeing what works we came up with 8 designs. We conscientiously started with a

large number of designs, so that we could weigh the benefits and disadvantages of each design;

and possibly improve a design using aspects of other designs.

Figure 5: Design Sketches

Design A

Design B

Design C

Design D

Design E

Design F

Design G

Design H


8/15

Spring 20118

Design A is a basic chair design composed of 4 parts that would side together to form

the chair. This design would require thick laminated parts for structural integrity, since the seat

on the would experience large amounts of stress and strain. In addition the sides of the would

need to support the customers weight as a point force.

Design B is similar to Design A with the addition of a X-shaped support on the bottom of

the chair. This added feature closely resembles the early Roman designs for chairs. This designwould reduce the stress on the chairs sides but not the actual seat.

Similar to Design B, Design C is an improved form of Design A. In Design C the X in the

X-shaped addition can only be properly seen from the bottom rather than the front. This

design allows forces from the seat to be evenly distributed through most of the chair. It will

reduce the stress on both the sides and seat of the chair. This means that the seat would

require much less lamination than the previous designs. Since there are many cardboard

intersections in the chair, Design C will be very strong.

Design D is a basic chair design that utilizes the strong L-shaped structural elements.

This design would be strong but the center of the seat would have a lot of stress. This design,

like Design A and B, would require thick lamination on the seat to handle the stress.

Design E is a 3-legged stool, which would ideally be able to fold together. This design

would require a complex mechanical system for the ability to fold. The flimsy legs would also

pose a structural problem.

Design F is a solid cylindrical stool that would be 1 foot in diameter. This design would

be very strong since it would be a solid block of cardboard and glue, but it also would not be

very compactible since it would be solid.

Design G is similar to Design F with the addition of a back to make it a chair rather than

a stool. This design would also be very strong but not compactible.

Design H would be a cardboard chair that is created using a complex lattice structure.

This design would be strong, but very difficult to produce. In addition, it would not be practical

for customers, since its assemble/disassemble would be complicated and take a long time.

7.0 Concept SelectionWe started our concept screening with the aspect of the chair that we believed to be most

important, the structural integrity of the chair. Early in the design process the class built many

structural elements and tested their structural integrity. There were three types of structural

elements L-shaped, circular, and square shaped. Of all of the structural elements the circular

shaped ones were by far the least strong. From this piece of information, we inferred that

corners and intersections added strength to a cardboard structure. To confirm this the square

shaped elements were the strongest, this seems to be because the square had the most

corners. This is why the complex lattice type of cardboard furniture is still strong without

extensive lamination.


9/15

Spring 20119

Table 4: Structural Element Testing

Using our new understanding of structural integrity of cardboard forms and our own

opinions, we were able to create a screening matrix and rank the designs on 8 different aspects.

The designs were ranked on their projected comfort, aesthetics, ergonomics, cost, ease of use,

weight, strength, and construction difficulty. The basis that was chosen for the ranking system

was design D, since it is the basic design for a normal chair.

2 x 8 L 2 x 82 x 8

Minimum 127 69 279 lbs.Maximum 209 235 285 lbs.

Range (Max-Min) 82 165 6 lbs.Average Load 168 152 282 lbs.

Range/Average 49% 109% 2%Use Safety Factor = 2.00 2.00 2.00

Safe Design Load = 84 76 141 lbs.

2 x 16 L 2 x 162 x 16



Range/Average 8% 55% 5%Use Safety Factor = 2.00 2.00 2.00

Safe Design Load = 95 80 141 lbs.

2 x 24 L 2 x 242 x 24



Range/Average 17% 16% 2%

Use Safety Factor = 2.00 2.00 2.00Safe Design Load = 128 104 136 lbs.

SF

Info: http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/waynehalesblog/posts/post_1229459081779.html
http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/waynehalesblog/posts/post_1229459081779.htmlhttp://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/waynehalesblog/posts/post_1229459081779.html


10/15

Spring 201110

Table 5: Concept Screening Matrix

Concepts

Selection

Criteria

A B C D E F G H

Comfort +1 +1 +1 0 -2 -2 -1 +2

Aesthetics 0 +1 +1 0 +1 +1 -1 +2

Ergonomics +2 +2 +2 0 -1 -2 0 +2

Cost 0 -1 -1 0 +1 +2 +1 -4

Ease of use -1 -1 -1 0 +1 +2 +2 -4

Weight 0 0 0 0 +2 -2 -2 -1

Strength -1 +1 +2 0 -4 +2 +2 +2

Construction

difficulty

0 -1 -1 0 -2 +2 +1 -4

Sum +s 3 5 6 0 5 9 5 8

Sum 0s 4 1 1 8 0 0 1 0Sums 2 3 2 0 9 6 4 13

Net Score

Rank 1 2 4 0 -4 3 1 -5

The screening matrix revealed two possible candidates for our final design, designs C and F.

Since they were so close in Net score rank we decided to weigh their traits using a selection

matrix.

Table 6: Concept Selection Matrix

Selection

Criteria

Wt

%

Target Specifications Concept C Concept F

Value Point

Score

Wted

Score

Value Point

Score

Wted

Score

Value Point

Score

Wted

Score

Weight

supported

(lbs)

25% 250+ 1 .25 250+ 1 .25 250+ 1 .25

Cost ($) 15%


11/15

Spring 201111

Figure 6: Manila Folder Model

This is the manila folder model of Design C, which was the design selected for our final design.

8.0 Final SpecificationThe target specifications were our goal for our final specifications. In some ways we were able

to surpass our own expectations for the chair; for example, we were able to make the chair less

than 5lbs in weight. In other ways we were unable to see how well we met the target

specifications; for example, we never tested the chairs weight capacity to structural failure,and we dont know the chairs mass production cost. In other ways we were simply unable to

reach the ideal target specifications; for example, the time that it takes to assemble and then

disassemble the chair was about 1.5 times longer than what we wanted. The current specs are

the specifications that the chair currently meets, while the ideal specs are the specifications

that we believe our design will be able to meet after minor modification and during mass

production.

Table 7: Final Specifications

Feature Current Specs Ideal Specs

Cost $198.79


12/15

Spring 201112

8.1 Cost CalculationEach, of the 6 pieces to the chairs final design, have a surface area of about 1 sq. ft. and

5 layers of lamination. This required about 5oz of wood glue, to laminate. The entire

production time of the final design was about 12 hours for one worker.

We made the following assumptions for the calculating the production price of the final

design. First, we assumed that we would use 120% of the cardboard need to produce the chair.

Second, we assumed that cardboard cost $0.10 per square foot. Third, we assumed that the

cost of labor would be $16.20 per hour. Last of all, we assumed that wood glue costs $0.15625

per oz. which is based on the cost of a gallon ofTitebond II Premium Wood Glue.

Using our data and assumptions we found that the final design would have a production

cost of $198.79. The expense that drove this production cost so high was the labor cost, which

was $194.40. This is about 97.8% of the total production cost. Our team decided that the labor

cost would be greatly reduced if the chair was put in mass production, because the parts have

simple designs that could easily be cut in large volumes using a machine. Since the materials

cost for the chair is $4.39, the chairs mass production cost should be well under $50.00.

9.0 Final Design

Figure 7: Final Design

The image on the left is the isometric view of the final design for our project, from Solidworks.

The image on the right is the final design.


13/15

Spring 201113

Figure 8: The 6 Parts of the Chair

Left Side Right Side

The Seat The Back

X-Bottom X-Top

These six parts are all of the parts to the final design of our chair. They were purposely made

simply, so that they would be easy to use for the customer.


14/15

Spring 201114

Figure 9: Multi-view Projection of Final Design

This is the multi-view projection of the final design for our project. It shows the front, top,

right, and isometric views of the design, as well as the dimensions of its parts.

The final design of our chair was Design C, which has a total of six parts that fit together to form

the chair. Each part was laminated to have a total of five layers of cardboard each. This

lamination increases the structural integrity of each piece, and consequently the chair. In

addition, the design has a special X-shape design on the bottom to help evenly distribute the

forces that would act on the chair, while it is in use. This X-shape is the secret to the success of

this design.


15/15

Spring 201115

10.0 ConclusionsOur prototype was successful, because we were able to make a cardboard chair that is safe,

structurally sound, compact, cheap, and easy to use. We believe that our product not only

meets the requirements of the project, but it surpasses these requirements. The weight

capacity of our final design is over 220 pounds, which is more that 275% of the required weight

capacity. We were very pleased with the weight capacity of our final design; the designs

exceptional weight capacity can be attributed to its unique X-shaped design. The product was

supposed to disassemble to no more than 12 inches in height; well our product disassembles to

about 3.5 inches, which is less than 30% of the required maximum height. One thing that we

would change to improve our product would be to find a way to reduce the labor costs for the

chairs production.

11.0 References

DIY Cardboard Child Chair L. Muji. http://www.muji.us/store/holiday-gift-selections/diy-

cardboard-child-chair-l.html

David Graas presents to you the Cardboard Lounge. WhollysBlog.com.

http://whollysblog.com/wordpress/david-graas-presents-to-you-the-cardboard-lounge/

Cardboard The Paper That Lasts. The Art of Cardboard.

http://www.theartofcardboard.com/cardboard-the-paper-that-lasts/

Titebond II Premium Wood Glue. Wurth Wood Group.

http://www.wurthwoodgroup.com/Titebond-II-Premium-Wood-Glue-P41195.aspx

Solid & Durable Children Kids Table & 2 Chair Set. Amazon.com.

http://www.amazon.com/Solid-Durable-Children-Table-

Chair/dp/B000MP7J2U/ref=sr_1_1?s=home-garden&ie=UTF8&qid=1299872108&sr=1-1
http://www.muji.us/store/holiday-gift-selections/diy-cardboard-child-chair-l.htmlhttp://www.muji.us/store/holiday-gift-selections/diy-cardboard-child-chair-l.htmlhttp://whollysblog.com/wordpress/david-graas-presents-to-you-the-cardboard-lounge/http://whollysblog.com/wordpress/david-graas-presents-to-you-the-cardboard-lounge/http://www.theartofcardboard.com/cardboard-the-paper-that-lasts/http://www.wurthwoodgroup.com/Titebond-II-Premium-Wood-Glue-P41195.aspxhttp://www.amazon.com/Solid-Durable-Children-Table-Chair/dp/B000MP7J2U/ref=sr_1_1?s=home-garden&ie=UTF8&qid=1299872108&sr=1-1http://www.amazon.com/Solid-Durable-Children-Table-Chair/dp/B000MP7J2U/ref=sr_1_1?s=home-garden&ie=UTF8&qid=1299872108&sr=1-1http://www.amazon.com/Solid-Durable-Children-Table-Chair/dp/B000MP7J2U/ref=sr_1_1?s=home-garden&ie=UTF8&qid=1299872108&sr=1-1http://www.amazon.com/Solid-Durable-Children-Table-Chair/dp/B000MP7J2U/ref=sr_1_1?s=home-garden&ie=UTF8&qid=1299872108&sr=1-1http://www.wurthwoodgroup.com/Titebond-II-Premium-Wood-Glue-P41195.aspxhttp://www.theartofcardboard.com/cardboard-the-paper-that-lasts/http://whollysblog.com/wordpress/david-graas-presents-to-you-the-cardboard-lounge/http://whollysblog.com/wordpress/david-graas-presents-to-you-the-cardboard-lounge/http://www.muji.us/store/holiday-gift-selections/diy-cardboard-child-chair-l.htmlhttp://www.muji.us/store/holiday-gift-selections/diy-cardboard-child-chair-l.html

Design Project 1.5

Documents

Transcript of Design Project 1.5