p14417: b9 plastics - particle filter detailed design review dan anderson / thomas heberle / perry...
TRANSCRIPT
P14417: B9 Plastics - Particle FilterDetailed Design Review
Dan Anderson / Thomas Heberle / Perry Hosmer / Karina Roundtree / Kelly Stover
December 10, 2013
Agenda
• Problem Definition (time?)
• Updated Design and Bill of Materials Justification (time?)
• Test Plans (time?)
• Assembly Procedure (time?)
• Project Management (time?)
Problem Definition
Problem Statement
Current State:
• In order to use the Better Water Maker (BWM) users must first pour the water through
a cloth before being treated.
Desired State:
• The device should clear particles from water to allow the BWM to operate more
effectively.
• The device should be simple to use and operable by both women and children.
Project Goals:
• Analyze the design selected by P13418
• Improve the effectiveness of the Better Water Maker
Notable Constraints:
• Must be usable by both women and children
• Only locally available materials may be consumed
• Must not negatively impact the smell and taste of water
Project Scope & Deliverables
• Project Scopeo Eliminate particles greater than 5 microns in size
o Produce a design that is economically viable for use in developing countries
o Design the device to be reusable, and use only consumable parts that are
locally available
• Deliverables to dateo Functional prototype
o Bill of Materials
o Design Drawings
o Assembly and manufacturing plan
o Test plan and results
Customer RequirementsCustomer
Requirement
Category Description Importance
CR1 Ease of Use Easy to prepare for use 9
CR2 Ease of Use Lightweight for user transport / shipping 3
CR3 Ease of Use Has a minimal startup period 3
CR4 Ease of Use Operates using only naturally available energy 9
CR5 Economics Inexpensive 9
CR6 EconomicsUsable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years without full replacement
9
CR7 EconomicsRequires no consumables for operation (other than cheap and locally available materials)
9
CR8Functionality
Improves UV transmission 9
CR9Functionality
Decreases turbidity 9
CR10Functionality
Decreases total suspended solids 9
CR11Functionality
Does not negatively affect taste 3
CR12 Safety Does not negatively affect safety of water 9
CR13Functionality
Filters enough water for a family of 5, daily 3
Engineering RequirementsCategor
yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina
lTarget
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use
Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user
- 2 1
Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up
Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket
seconds 30 10
Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)
Doesn't need power source
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20
Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement
Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure
# of uses 730 3650
Economics 9
Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)
Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0
Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity
Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
9 Decreases total suspended solids
Total suspended solids decreased
Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water
No negative taste of water
Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better
% >50% >75%
Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Functionality 3 Use Scenarios
Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309
Updated Design and Bill of Materials
Updated Drawing – CAD Drawing
Updated Drawing – Exploded BOM
1
2
4
3
No. Item Vendor
1 Bottomless bucket The Cary Company2 Lid The Cary Company
3 5 Micron Mesh Macro Specialty Steel
4 Bucket The Cary Company
Bottomless Bucket
Bottomless Bucket
• Bucket in BOM chosen was inexpensive
• Most buckets would work
No. Item Vendor Vendor item number/description
Qty Price per item
price per unit
tools to make
1 Bottomless bucket The Cary Company 57WCU5 1.00 2.97 2.97 saw to cut out hole
Lid
Lid
• Matches bucket bottom, reusable
• Inexpensive
No. Item Vendor Vendor item number/description
Qty Price per item
price per unit
tools to make
2 Lid The Cary Company 57WCUP 1.00 1.47 1.47 drill for holes
5 Micron Mesh
5 Micron Mesh
• Stainless steel- limits corrosion
• Material often used in filters
No. Item VendorVendor item
number/descriptionQty
Price per item/Sq
ft
price per unit
tools to make
3 5 Micron Mesh Macro Specialty Steel200x1400 Twill Dutch
Weave 316ss1.00 11.75 6.32 cut to size
Bucket
Bucket
• Inexpensive
• 5 gallon deemed a good size
• Same as bottomless bucket
No. Item Vendor Vendor item number/description
Qty Price per item
price per unit
tools to make
4 Bucket The Cary Company 57WCU5 1.00 2.97 2.97 N/A
Spacer
Rod
Spacer and Rods
• Used to seal in mesh in assembly and to provide space
between mesh and lid
No. Item VendorVendor item
number/descriptionQty
Price per item/Sq
ft
price per unit
tools to make
6 Spacers N/AMade from cut out
portion of bottomless 44.00 0.00 0.00 Some type of shear to cut
7 Rods N/AMade from cut out
portion of bottomless bucket
20.00 0.00 0.00 Some type of shear to cut
Indented BOMNo. Item Vendor
Vendor item number/description
QtyPrice per item/Sq
ft
price per unit
tools to make
1 Bottomless bucket The Cary Company 57WCU5 1.00 2.97 2.97 saw to cut out hole2 Lid The Cary Company 57WCUP 1.00 1.47 1.47 drill for holes
3 5 Micron Mesh Macro Specialty Steel200x1400 Twill Dutch
Weave 316ss1.00 11.75 6.32 cut to size
4 Bucket The Cary Company 57WCU5 1.00 2.97 2.97 N/A
5 Nylon Brush Home DepotQuickie Original Iron
Handle Curved Plastic Scrub Brush
1.00 2.19 2.19 N/A
6 Spacers N/AMade from cut out
portion of bottomless 44.00 0.00 0.00 Some type of shear to cut
7 Rods N/AMade from cut out
portion of bottomless bucket
20.00 0.00 0.00 Some type of shear to cut
total 15.92
Assembly Procedure
Steps…
Engineering Requirements
Engineering RequirementsCategor
yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina
lTarget
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use
Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user
- 2 1
Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up
Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket
seconds 30 10
Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)
Doesn't need power source
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20
Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement
Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure
# of uses 730 3650
Economics 9
Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)
Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0
Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity
Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
9 Decreases total suspended solids
Total suspended solids decreased
Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water
No negative taste of water
Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better
% >50% >75%
Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Functionality 3 Use Scenarios
Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309
Time to Clean
• Pilot study: select 30 participants, provide cleaning instructions,
time the process
• Hypothesis test (95% confidence) on the average time to clean
product
o H0: µ >= 5 minutes
o HA: µ < 5 minutes
• Adjustments in sample size (i.e. additional observations) may be
necessary depending on the variance in the observed results
• If the cleaning time is over the target value of 5 minutes, test for
marginal success of 10 minutes
Category
Score Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Marginal
Target
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use
Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user
- 2 1
Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up
Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket
seconds 30 10
Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)
Doesn't need power source
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20
Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement
Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure
# of uses 730 3650
Economics 9
Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)
Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0
Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity
Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
9 Decreases total suspended solids
Total suspended solids decreased
Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water
No negative taste of water
Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better
% >50% >75%
Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Functionality 3 Use Scenarios
Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309
Engineering Requirements
Number of Tools Required for Cleaning
• Count of tools required
• Nylon cloth is best material to clean this stainless steel
mesh
• Image of brush (KARINA WILL DECIDE THIS)
Engineering RequirementsCategor
yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina
lTarget
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use
Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user
- 2 1
Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up
Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket
seconds 30 10
Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)
Doesn't need power source
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20
Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement
Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure
# of uses 730 3650
Economics 9
Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)
Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0
Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity
Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
9 Decreases total suspended solids
Total suspended solids decreased
Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water
No negative taste of water
Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better
% >50% >75%
Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Functionality 3 Use Scenarios
Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309
Weight
Component Quantity Weight/assembly (lbs)
Bucket 2 3.60
Lid 1 .38
5 micron mesh 0.54 .35
Total 4.33
Engineering RequirementsCategor
yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina
lTarget
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use
Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user
- 2 1
Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up
Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket
seconds 30 10
Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)
Doesn't need power source
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20
Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement
Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure
# of uses 730 3650
Economics 9
Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)
Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0
Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity
Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
9 Decreases total suspended solids
Total suspended solids decreased
Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water
No negative taste of water
Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better
% >50% >75%
Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Functionality 3 Use Scenarios
Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309
Start-up Time
• Pilot study: collect 30 observations of start up time
• Hypothesis test (95% confidence) on the average start up
time
o H0: µ >= 10 seconds
o HA: µ < 10 seconds
• Adjustments in sample size (i.e. additional observations)
may be necessary depending on the variance in the
observed results
• If the cleaning time is over the target value of 10 seconds,
test for marginal success of 30 seconds
Engineering RequirementsCategor
yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina
lTarget
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use
Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user
- 2 1
Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up
Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket
seconds 30 10
Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)
Doesn't need power source
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20
Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement
Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure
# of uses 730 3650
Economics 9
Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)
Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0
Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity
Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
9 Decreases total suspended solids
Total suspended solids decreased
Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water
No negative taste of water
Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better
% >50% >75%
Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Functionality 3 Use Scenarios
Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309
No Power Source Needed
• Show a picture of the design on this page
• “Based on our design, there is no power source necessary”
Engineering RequirementsCategor
yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina
lTarget
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use
Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user
- 2 1
Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up
Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket
seconds 30 10
Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)
Doesn't need power source
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20
Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement
Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure
# of uses 730 3650
Economics 9
Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)
Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0
Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity
Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
9 Decreases total suspended solids
Total suspended solids decreased
Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water
No negative taste of water
Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better
% >50% >75%
Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Functionality 3 Use Scenarios
Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309
Total Cost of Components
Component Quantity Cost/assembly
Bucket 2 $5.94
Lid 1 $1.47
5 micron mesh 0.54 $6.32
Brush
Total
Labor Cost Estimations
• Based on the assembly plans
Engineering RequirementsCategor
yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina
lTarget
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use
Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user
- 2 1
Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up
Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket
seconds 30 10
Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)
Doesn't need power source
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20
Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement
Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure
# of uses 730 3650
Economics 9
Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)
Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0
Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity
Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
9 Decreases total suspended solids
Total suspended solids decreased
Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water
No negative taste of water
Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better
% >50% >75%
Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Functionality 3 Use Scenarios
Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309
Mean Time to Failure
Engineering RequirementsCategor
yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina
lTarget
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use
Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user
- 2 1
Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up
Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket
seconds 30 10
Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)
Doesn't need power source
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20
Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement
Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure
# of uses 730 3650
Economics 9
Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)
Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0
Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity
Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
9 Decreases total suspended solids
Total suspended solids decreased
Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water
No negative taste of water
Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better
% >50% >75%
Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Functionality 3 Use Scenarios
Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309
Operating Costs
• All components will last longer than the required 2 years.
• Operating costs will be $0/year
Engineering RequirementsCategor
yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina
lTarget
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use
Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user
- 2 1
Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up
Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket
seconds 30 10
Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)
Doesn't need power source
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20
Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement
Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure
# of uses 730 3650
Economics 9
Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)
Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0
Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity
Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
9 Decreases total suspended solids
Total suspended solids decreased
Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water
No negative taste of water
Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better
% >50% >75%
Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Functionality 3 Use Scenarios
Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309
Percentage Decrease in Turbidity
• Pilot study: collect 30 observations of turbidityo Collect before/after, compute % difference
• Hypothesis test (95% confidence) on the average % difference
o H0: µ >= .75
o HA: µ > .75
• Adjustments in sample size (i.e. additional observations) may be
necessary depending on the variance in the observed results
• If turbidity does not meet target, test at 50% for marginal
success
Engineering RequirementsCategor
yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina
lTarget
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use
Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user
- 2 1
Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up
Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket
seconds 30 10
Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)
Doesn't need power source
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20
Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement
Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure
# of uses 730 3650
Economics 9
Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)
Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0
Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity
Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
9 Decreases total suspended solids
Total suspended solids decreased
Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water
No negative taste of water
Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better
% >50% >75%
Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Functionality 3 Use Scenarios
Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309
Percentage Decrease in Total Suspended Solids• Pilot study: collect 30 observations of TSS
o Collect before/after, compute % difference
• Hypothesis test (95% confidence) on the average % difference
o H0: µ >= .75
o HA: µ > .75
• Adjustments in sample size (i.e. additional observations) may be
necessary depending on the variance in the observed results
• If turbidity does not meet target, test at 50% for marginal
success
Engineering RequirementsCategor
yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina
lTarget
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use
Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user
- 2 1
Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up
Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket
seconds 30 10
Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)
Doesn't need power source
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20
Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement
Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure
# of uses 730 3650
Economics 9
Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)
Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0
Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity
Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
9 Decreases total suspended solids
Total suspended solids decreased
Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water
No negative taste of water
Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better
% >50% >75%
Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Functionality 3 Use Scenarios
Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309
Taste of Water
• Recruit at least 100 RIT students
• Have each drink tap water that has not been treated with
the filter and water that has been treated by the filter
(blind)
• Ask each student if the water tastes better, worse, or about
the same
• Target: 75% respond with better or about the same
• Marginal: 50% respond with better or about the same
Engineering RequirementsCategor
yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina
lTarget
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use
Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user
- 2 1
Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up
Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket
seconds 30 10
Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)
Doesn't need power source
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20
Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement
Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure
# of uses 730 3650
Economics 9
Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)
Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0
Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity
Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
9 Decreases total suspended solids
Total suspended solids decreased
Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water
No negative taste of water
Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better
% >50% >75%
Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Functionality 3 Use Scenarios
Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309
Hazardous Releases
• Review of the design
Engineering RequirementsCategor
yScore Customer Requirement Function Metric Units Margina
lTarget
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / rechargeEasy to prepare for use Time to clean minutes 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use
Number of tools required for cleaning by the end user
- 2 1
Ease of Use 3 Lightweight for transportMinimize weight of filter Weight in lbs lbs 10 5
Ease of Use 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start-up
Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket
seconds 30 10
Ease of Use 3Operates using only energy available naturally (gravity, human power, etc.)
Doesn't need power source
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Economics 3 Filter is inexpensive Minimize cost of filter Total cost to produce US $ 25 20
Economics 3Usable by a family of 5, for 2-5 years w/out full replacement
Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To Failure
# of uses 730 3650
Economics 9
Requires no consumables for operation, except for very cheap & locally available materials (salt, soap, sand, etc.)
Minimize cost to maintain Annual cost to operate US $ 2 0
Functionality 9 Decreases turbidity
Turbidity is decreased Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
9 Decreases total suspended solids
Total suspended solids decreased
Percentage Decrease % >50% >75%
Functionality
3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water
No negative taste of water
Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better
% >50% >75%
Safety 3 No hazardous releasesDoesn't produce hazardous release, no chemicals added
Binary (Yes/No) - - No
Functionality 3 Use Scenarios
Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flowrate lpm 0.0394 0.6309
Flowrate
• Pilot study: collect 30 observations of the flow of 5 gallons of
water through the filtero Collect time elapsed to filter all 5 gallons, compute flow rate in lpm
• Hypothesis test (95% confidence) on the flow rate
o H0: µ >= .0394 lpm
o HA: µ > .0394 lpm
• Adjustments in sample size (i.e. additional observations) may be
necessary depending on the variance in the observed results
• If turbidity does not meet target, test at .6309 lpm for marginal
success
Project Management
Risk Assessment
Risk Curve
Plan for MSD II
Lessons Learned
The Senior Design Process
Action Items
Items Owner Due Date
Thank Yous