BETTER DISPENSER

 

 

 

 

 

              

 

 

 

Group 3:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part I: Problem Definition

            With over 100 different lotion manufacturers in the United States, and the average American purchasing anywhere from 6-12 bottles of lotion a year, it is no surprise that over 1 million bottles of lotion are sold on a yearly basis. This news is wonderful for lotion manufacturers because it clearly illustrates the demand that exists for their product.  Many Americans are either blind to, or have become complaisant with, the fact that current lotion packaging technology eliminates the possibility of using ALL the lotion contained. The current bottle designs could be a deliberate attempt on the part of the lotion manufacturers to force individuals to prematurely dispose of non-empty bottles of lotion. This would require more frequent lotion purchases. Whether or not the bottles are the result of unethical business practices or a faulty design concept, the inability to easily access all bottle contents is an issue.

             The popular pump-bottle design that is currently being employed facilitates lotion extraction. Unfortunately, this technology also makes it inherently impossible to obtain lotion that is out of reach of the opening of the pump tube. Residual lotion can be found either stuck to the side of the bottle or stuck to the pump tube. The thicker and more viscous the lotion, the worse this problem becomes. As a result of this inevitability, many individuals are forced to remove the pump tube and look for additional ways to obtain the constituents of the bottle. Some alternative methods for accessing residual lotion include, tapping the bottom of the bottle erratically, or inserting fingers into the miniature opening at the top of the bottle. Both makeshift attempts can result in unwanted injury to ones fingers and palms. Depending on the value of the lotion itself, some have even considered cutting the bottle open in order to gain free access to its inner walls. Accessing a product that has already been paid for should not be this difficult. The goal of this project is to come up with a new design concept for a lotion bottle that provides for easy access to ALL lotion contained within.

            As stated before, the types of lotion containers that are currently available include cup-style containers, tube containers, squeeze containers and pump-bottle containers. These containers come in disposable or non-disposable types. Cup-style containers allow for maximum lotion extraction because of its wide opening and shallow depth. Tube containers also allow for maximum lotion extraction because the contents are able to be squeezed out in the same manner as toothpaste. Squeeze bottles, on the other hand, have the same limitations as pump bottles because the lotion contained is extracted via a squeezing mechanism. The major difference between a squeeze bottle and a tube container is the pliability of the container used. A tube container is made from a material with minimal stiffness that easily deforms under pressure. A squeeze bottle is made of a material with high stiffness that does not deform greatly under pressure. As a result of this, no matter how hard you squeeze a squeeze bottle, you will not be able to extract material that is stuck to the side and bottom walls. Although tube and cup containers are available, surveys administered to the general public show that a majority of people prefer the design and ease of pump bottles and thus purchase lotions that are housed in these types of containers.

            The aim of the current design project is to improve on the already existing pump bottle technology that is widely used by a majority of individuals. A mechanism to ensure the extraction of residual lotion while maintaining the general appeal of a pump bottle is where this project is currently headed. The pumping mechanism that results in the extraction of lotion will not be done away with or altered in any way. No new polymers or materials will be introduced into the design concept. The material and manufacturing constraints that are already in place for the manufacture of pump bottles will be adhered to.

Identification of Customer Requirements and Needs

 

The device specified is required to remove most of the remaining residue of lotion from the sides of a container. Most lotions are very viscous and behave like Bingham fluids that require an initial force to move. This property usually accounts for the difficulty experienced while attempting to acquire the last portions of lotion.

Based on the data collected from administered surveys, there is an evident need for a dispensing device with certain design specifications. The device must not leak any of the contents and must be refillable. It should also be durable, easy to clean and hold an adequate volume.  In order to appeal to customers the device must also be aesthetically pleasing, cost efficient and lightweight. The device should be effective in achieving its primary function which is to dispense lotion easily and entirely.

There are many current products on the market that contain and dispense lotion. Usually there is a central hose that pulls in the lotion through a central nozzle which subsequently dispenses it. This method is not totally efficient, hence illustrating the need for this project. On the other hand, standard lotion bottles do provide a baseline for performance.

 

 

 

 

 

Engineering Characteristics

 

            The evaluation of survey results identified a list of consumer needs and requirements. This list was then put into the Quality Function Deployment (QFD) for the proposed product and a house of quality was generated. With this house of quality engineering characteristics are correlated to the identified consumer requirements and the relevant importance of each is then determined.

            The QFD presented in this report, displays several indicators of importance: the absolute importance, relative importance, and the relative weight index. The QFD relative weight index identifies operation, storage, and durability as the most important consumer requirements for a product. The engineering characteristics associated with these are identified by the relative and absolute importance indexes. These characteristics are determined to be the ease of dispensability, percentage of dispensability, container toughness, UV stability, corrosion resistance, and container inertness. With the use of this QFD, proper product specifications can be matched to the most important consumer needs and requirements. Therefore, providing for the engineering characteristics with the highest absolute and relevant importance ensures that consumer needs and requirements will be satisfied with the new design.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quality Function Deployment for New Dispenser Design

 

5=Strong 3=Moderate 1=Weak

Toughness of container

Ease of servicing

Dispenses 85-95% of contents

Transportable

UV stable

Inert

Corrosion resistant

Available in different colors

Size & Shape

Cost of Manufacturing

Customer Importance

 Dispensers on market

Proposed product

Improvement ratio

Sales Points

Importance ratio

Relative weight

Operation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Easy to dispense contents

 

 

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

3

5

1.7

1.0

8.5

0.07

Dispenses most of content

 

 

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

2

5

2.5

1.5

18.8

0.16

Bathroom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coordinates with bathroom décor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

4

 

3

2

4

2.0

1.5

12.0

0.1

Fits in bathroom space

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

 

4

3

3

1.0

1.0

3.0

0.03

Storage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Easy to be refilled

 

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

2

5

2.5

1.5

18.8

0.16

Easy to clean

 

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

2

5

2.5

1.5

18.8

0.16

Holds adequate volume

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

 

4

4

4

1.0

1.0

4.0

0.03

Functionality

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Easy to use

 

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

5

5

1.0

1.0

5.0

0.04

Light weight

 

 

 

5

 

 

 

 

5

 

4

3

3

1.0

1.0

3.0

0.03

Durability

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Will not break

5

 

 

 

5

5

4

 

 

 

5

3

5

1.7

1.5

12.8

0.11

Will not leak

5

 

 

 

5

5

4

 

 

 

5

4

5

1.3

1.5

9.8

0.08

Cost

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Low Price

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

5

5

5

1.0

1.0

5.0

0.04

Absolute importance

0.99

1.44

1.15

0.15

0.95

0.95

0.76

0.50

0.85

0.20

7.94

 

 

 

 

119.5

16.9

Relative importance

0.12

0.18

0.14

0.09

0.12

0.12

0.10

0.06

0.11

0.03

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SURVEY

 

Please circle the response that best represents your sincere opinion. You can elaborate if necessary.

 

 

  1. Have you ever tried with much effort to remove the remains of lotion from a bottle?

 

Yes                                                No                                Other   

 

 

  1. Do you think there is a need for a device that enables you to use all or most of the lotion in a container?

 

Yes                                                                        No        Other

 

  1. If such a device did exist would you buy it?

 

Yes                                                                        No        Other

 

 

  1. How much would you be willing to pay for a dispensing device that lasted a lifetime?

                 

                  $5                     $10                   $15                   $16+

                 

 

  1. Would you prefer this device to have a metallic polymeric or ceramic finish?

 

___________________________________

 

 

  1. What are the major characteristics that you expect from a lotion dispenser?

 

_______________________________

 

 

Thank You for your time and honesty

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part II: TRIZ Matrix and Preliminary Solutions

 

 

 

 

 

1

2

4

10

15

16

23

26

32

35

36

37

 

 

weight of moving object

weight of nonmoving object

length of nonmoving object

force

durability of moving object

durability of nonmoving object

waste of substance

amount of substance

manufacturability

adaptability

complexity of device

complexity of control

1

weight of
moving object

 

 

 

8,10,
18,37

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

weight of
nonmoving object

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19,6,
18,26

 

 

 

 

4

length of
nonmoving object

 

35,28,
40,29

 

 

 

 

10,28,
24,35

 

 

 

 

 

10

force

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14,29,
18,36

 

 

 

 

15

durability of
moving object

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16

durability of
nonmoving object

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23

waste of
substance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26

amount of
substance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

32

manufacturability

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35

adaptability

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

36

complexity
of device

26, 30,
34,36

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27,26,
1,13

 

 

15,10,
37,28

37

complexity
of control

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weight of Moving Object vs. Force Produced by Object

 

In order to increase the force that an object can deliver, its weight must be increased as well.

 

A.        Solution:  Segmentation (1)

 

The solution proposed in this situation is to divide the object into multiple parts. This not only makes the object easier to transport from one location to the next, but it also diminishes the weight of the object as a whole. With respect to our lotion container, the proposed idea is to design a bottle that is comprised of two parts: an upper portion and a lower portion. The upper portion, as can be seen is the schematic, consist of the pump nozzle and its outer covering. This design is very similar to the conventional pump tubes that are currently on the market. The pump nozzle will be able to screw into and out of the opening at the top of the bottle, as is the case with regular pump bottles. The lower portion of our proposed lotion design is simply the bottom two inches of the container. This part of the bottle will be “clicked-in” into the top portion of the bottle and will be able to be easily removed. There is one reason for lotion failing to come out of the pump nozzle: the lotion is simply out of reach of the opening of the pump tube. Lotion is out of reach because it is stuck to the side walls of the container or is collected at the bottom of the container where the pumping force is not sufficient enough to pull it through the length of the pump tube. The proposed design, because it is able to be disassembled into two parts, allows for easy access to the lotion that is stuck at the bottom of the container and the lower side walls which could otherwise be inaccessible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

B.         Solution: Segmentation (1)

 

Another proposed solution that uses the segmentation idea is shown in the schematic below. In this design concept, the simplicity of cup style lotion containers is employed. The container is comprised of three individual sections or compartments that neatly snap one on top of the other. Lotion is independently contained in each of the three compartments. You can think of this design as being three mini-lotion containers fitted one on top of the other. Once the lotion in the top-most compartment has been used up and only residual lotion is remaining, the user can easily snap off the top compartment and attach the pump nozzle to the second compartment. The top compartment, once the pump nozzle is removed, is converted into a cup style lotion container and the user is able to access all the residual lotion contained within. This design not only allows for the use of all lotion contents but it is a fun for children because the container can be used as a stacking toy when the contents are finished. This segmented container can also allow manufacturers to sell a variety of lotion to the customer and use one main container to do so.

 

 

C.        Solution: Anti-Weight (8)

 

The solution proposed in this situation is to compensate for the weight of an object by merging it with other objects that provide lift. The schematic for the proposed design is shown below. This design is a unique take on the traditional pump tube container. Although the proposed design does not provide additional lift it does diminish the need for the moving portion of the container to be weighted since the force of the moving part is external and provided by the user herself. The top portion of the container (the lid, the pump mechanism, the nozzle and the pump tube) is screwed into the bottom half of the container. It is proposed that the container material be transparent so that the user is able to gauge how much lotion is being used up. The pump mechanism is held up by the volume of lotion contained within the container and a pair of springs. As the lotion gets used up and its volume decreases, the plate connected to the pump mechanism slowly moves down the length of the tube. Attached to the plate is a rubbery material (analogous to the material with which windshield wipers are made) that makes scraping more efficient. As the plate moves down the length of the tube, it slowly scrapes residual lotion off the side walls of the container. The user is also able to lift the pump and push it back down to allow for manual scraping of the side walls.

 

Complexity of Device vs. Weight of Object

 

The more complex a device becomes the more parts it is comprised of and thus the more weight it contains.

 

 

D.        Solution: Flexible Shells and Thin Films (30)

 

Another proposed solution that incorporates the idea of flexible membranes or films involves the pump tube itself. Since the primary problem with residual lotion is the fact that is it out of reach of the opening of the pump tube, increasing the number of pump tube openings will result in increased lotion uptake. The proposed design for the new pump tube is shown below. In order to allow for the easy insertion and removal, the tube will be made up of a flexible, elastomeric type material. The increase number of tube openings will allow for maximum lotion uptake at several locations within the container. This will help to minimize residual lotion volume. 

 

E.         Solution: Flexible Shells and Thin Films (30)

 

The solution in this case is to use flexible shells or thin films instead of three dimensional structures. In the proposed design concept the lotion bottle is comprised of an inner flexible membrane within the traditional plastic container. The schematic is shown below. The pump nozzle and pump tube are contained within the flexible membrane. The flexible membrane is filled with lotion and as the lotion is pumped out of the membrane, the membrane shrinks due to the pressure gradient that is produced and a vacuum effect is created. When all the lotion has been removed, the inner membrane will have shrunk to a diameter that allows for its removal via the opening at the top of the container. Because the membrane is flexible, when it is removed the residual lotion can be manually retrieved via squeezing. This design concept, although somewhat more complex than the traditional pump bottle, does not add significant weight because the inner membrane is thin and flexible. Because the membrane shrinks as lotion is removed the length of the pump tube can be significantly shorter than the length of the container. This also provides a means for minimizing the weight of the container.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Length of Stationary Object vs. Weight of Object

 

The longer an object is the more material it contains and weight is directly proportional to amount of material. 

 

F.         Solution: Parameter Changes (35)

 

This solution calls for a change in the degree of flexibility of the object or some of its constituent parts. The primary problem with residual lotion is its lack of proximity to the opening of the pump tube. There are two ways in which this problem can be addressed. The first involves physically moving the lotion to a location that is proximal to the opening of the tube, and the second involves increasing the number of tube openings. This solution involves the former. Increasing the flexibility and pliability of the lotion container allows the user to be able to manually squeeze out residual lotion. The proposed design concept, shown in the schematic below, is comprised of two parts, the lotion holder and the lotion container. The lotion container is made out of a flexible and pliable material which can be inserted into the lotion holder in order to keep it upright. Once in the lotion holder, the container behaves as would a traditional pump tube container. When the user notices the lotion can no longer be extracted via the pump tube, he or she can then remove the top of the container and manually squeeze the residual lotion out. This design concept minimizes the weight of the lotion container because a light weight, flexible material is used instead of the conventional hard plastic.

 

 

Complexity of Device vs. Manufacturability

 

In order to be able to manufacture device easier and cheaper, the complexity has to be reduced.

 

G.        Solution: Segmentation (1)

 

For ease of manufacturing, most of the large and small parts of the product can be fabricated as separate components (see Figure 1). Figure 1 shows that the cap, reservoir, and nozzle straw can all be manufactured as individual parts and then fit together. To make product easy to disassemble the reservoir portion will be threaded so that the cap can be screwed onto it.

 

                                  Figure 1

 

 

H.        Solution: Cheap short-living objects (26)

 

Some of the parts requiring less structural rigidity can be manufactured from a polymer and mated to metallic objects. This would ease the complexity of the manufacturing process. The cap can be fabricated from a polymer, while the reservoir of the dispenser could be a metal (Figure 2). Since all internal parts are protected from the external environment by the body of the dispenser, then such parts could be comprised of polymer materials to ease manufacturability.

 

                                                   Figure 2

 

Complexity of Device vs. Complexity of Control

 

The complexity of the device should not be such that it increases the complexity of its control.

 

I.          Solution: Dynamics (15)

 

Instead of having a cap and threaded reservoir, the dispenser can be fabricated to have a collapsible design. In this design, the user would press and slide the upper portion of the dispenser relative to the lower portion (Figure 3). When the contents of the dispenser have been emptied out the upper and lower parts can be readjusted to the original height and contents can be refilled.

 

                                  Figure 3

 

 

 

Length of Non-moving Object vs. Waste of Substance

 

The longer the length of the nonmoving object the more area is available for wasted lotion.

 

J.          Solution: Preliminary Action (10)

 

In order to achieve more customer satisfaction and to deplete the waste of substance some preliminary action can be taken. For example, the designed dispenser could be assembled prior to sale. This would reduce not only extraneous packaging material but also unnecessary work and confusion for the customer. The assembled dispenser would also be more aesthetically pleasing and its primary appeal would be apparent. The customer would immediately be aware of exactly what they are purchasing.

K.        Solution: Intermediary (24)

 

Many liquid dispensable objects have a tendency to leak accidentally and during transport. One possible solution for eliminating wastage would be to design an intermediary device that prevented unwanted spills. There are various ways this can be achieved. One way would be to have a cover that protects the final dispensing area. Another possibility that would require less material but perhaps more machining is to design a part that obstructs the dispenser and is easily removable. It should be a large enough piece that is not easily lost. The intermediary device could also dwell within the container itself. It could be a switch that when in a certain position prevents the material from leaking.

 

 

Weight of Nonmoving Object vs. Amount of substance

 

Increasing the amount of substance present in the device also increases the weight of the nonmoving object undesirably.

 

L.         Solution: Universality (6)

 

If the part of the dispenser that allowed the release of material also removed all the lotion from the sides and bottom of the container, it would be more universal because it would perform two functions. This would also reduce the complexity of the dispenser. Contrary to the present design of a central hose that pulls in substance, this ingenuity could be employed. There could be central region on which pressure can be applied to sweep the sides of the container and purge out lotion through a small opening. With every use the lotion level would deplete and all the residues would be swept out. This dispensing part is not necessarily the outer portion of the dispenser. It could be contained within the dispenser. There would be no need for a central hose but there is a need for a hose that is designed in the container and runs longitudinally along it. The hole through which the material is dispersed would need to be strategically placed as well. If the dispensing part was the top outer portion it could be placed on a spring like material that gently releases in response to pressure. If the hole was centered on this top portion the lotion could be retrieved easily and there would be no need for any hoses.

 

M.        Solution: Copying (26)

 

To reduce cost to the customer the dispenser could be made of inexpensive materials such as poly Propylene or poly Ethylene. This would allow for disposal after each use without much dismay. Polymers are a great choice because they are inert to lotions and will not break easily. They are easily molded and this would allow for a wider variety of dispenser design.

 

 

 

 

Force vs. Amount of Substance

 

Unfortunately more force needs to be applied with more substance present.

 

N.        Solution: Spheroidality (14)

 

Instead of employing a rectilinear design to the dispenser it may be easier to employ a more spherical one. With a rounder geometry there would be no odd corners or angles to obstruct the flow and release of the lotion. Both the container and the dispensing portion can be of a smooth circular shape. The smooth design would allow for a clean and easy swipe along the walls of the container.

 

O.        Solution: Pneumatics and Hydraulics (29)

 

To ensure that the part within the dispenser which removes all residues does so effectively, pressurized gas could be added above it to maintain a pressure that forces it down. The lotion would have to be viscous enough to maintain an equilibrium force environment that prevents lotion from seeping through to the area containing the gas. There would also need to be a tight seal to prevent intermixing of the different phases.

 

 

Part III: Final Design Concept Solution

 

 

Pugh Matrix

 

 

 

            The overall objective of this project was to design a new container capable of dispensing lotion entirely and efficiently.  In addition, the container must be easy to use, aesthetically pleasing, refillable, leak-proof, and be able to hold adequate volume. As illustrated in the figure bellow the device is composed of three main components: the container, the dispensing press, and the holder.

 

            The device is designed to dispense its contents upon the actuation of the dispensing press.  When the user pushes down on the dispensing press, the resulting pressure forces the lotion through a nozzle at the bottom of the container. The bottom of the dispensing press is composed of a plate that sweeps the sidewalls of the container, allowing for all of the residual lotion to be dispensed. To ensure optimum accessibility to all the contents of the container, the bottom lid is detachable. In order for the container to be refillable, the top lid can also be removed. The entire assembly is supported in place by a holder.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part IV: Performance Index Determinations

 

 

Most lotions are very viscous and behave like Bingham fluids which require an initial force in order to start flowing. This property usually accounts for the difficulty experienced when one attempts to acquire residual lotion. Based on the data collected from administered surveys, there is an evident need for a dispensing device with certain design specifications. The device must not leak any of the contents and must be refillable. It should also be durable, easy to clean and hold an adequate volume.  In order to appeal to customers, the device must also be aesthetically pleasing, cost efficient and lightweight. The device should be effective in achieving its primary function which is to dispense lotion easily and entirely. The proposed design will need to meet these requirements. In order to determine the materials that will be best suited for this design, performance indices were deduced using desired objective functions and required constraints. The following illustrates the methodology used to determine the performance index for the components that make up the dispensing press.

 

Item: Dispensing Press and Holder Stand

 

Objective Function à Minimize Mass = M = ρ*π*d2*L

                                                                                4

 

Constraint                à Critical Load for Buckling = Fcr = π2*E*I    where I = π*d4

                                                                                             (L/2)2                      64

 

Free Variable         à Diameter (d)

 

Fixed Variable       à Length (L)

 

 

Calculations:

 

d4 =  16* Fcr*L2       therefore   d2 = 4* Fcr1/2*L

          π3*E                                           π3/2*E1/2          

 

Plugging back into objective function…

 

M =    ρ*π*L*4*Fcr1/2*L        =  ρ*L2*Fcr1/2              

               4*π3/2*E1/2                    π1/2*E1/2   

 

M1 = Performance Index =  E1/2           

                                              ρ

 

 

Item: Container

 

Objective Function à Minimize Mass = M = L*2*π*r*t*ρ

 

Constraint                à Hoop Stress = sh = P*r  <  sf

                                                                      t

Free Variable         à Thickness (t)

 

Fixed Variable       à Length (L)

 

 

Calculations:

 

sf =  P*r      therefore   t = P*r

           t                                sf

 

 

Plugging back into objective function…

 

M = L*2*π*r*ρ*P*r  =  L*2*π*r2*P * ρ

                  sf                                         sf

 

M2 = Performance Index = sf

                                             ρ

 

 

Item: Dispensing Plate (Lotion Swiping Portion)

 

Objective Function à Minimize Mass = M = t2*r*ρ

 

Constraint à Compliance = C = δ =   F*r3       =    r3        where I =  t4

                                                     F   F*3*E*I      3*E*I                    12

 

Free Variable         à Thickness (t)

 

Fixed Variable       à Width (w)

 

 

Calculations:

 

t4 =      4 12*r3_           therefore   t2 =    2*r(3/2)_     

          1 3*E*C                                      E(1/2)*C(1/2)

 

Plugging back into objective function…

 

M = r*ρ*2*r(3/2)  =  r*r(3/2)*2  *   ρ__

        E(1/2)* C(1/2)         C(1/4)       E(1/2)

 

 

M2 = Performance Index = E(1/2)

                                               ρ

 

 

E1/2/ρ
 

 

 

 

Based on the given performance index, aluminum was chosen as the material of choice for the dispensing press as well as for the dispensing plate (lotion swiping portion). Low-carbon steel was chosen as the material of choice for the holder stand because of its higher density. A weightier material for the holder is needed to ensure that the device does not topple over under its own weight. 

 

 

 

sf/ρ
 

 

 

Based on the devised performance index, aluminum was chosen as the material of choice for the container. An additional incentive for choosing aluminum was to keep the device as uniform as possible. Even though other materials including certain polymers fit the performance index derived, our product is designed for continued use and metals are more durable than polymers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part V: Manufacturing and Cost

 

 

Manufacturing

 

Material selection has outlined that the product in question needs to be manufactured in steel and aluminum alloy components. It is ideal that the product be fabricated as four separate components: dispenser press, container, holder stand, and stand bottom. The overall dimensions of each part are outlined in Table 1.

 

                  Table 1

component

radius (cm)

height (cm)

wall thickness (cm)

dispensing press:

 

 

 

column

0.2

15.24

solid

upper disk

3.81

0.5

solid

container

5.08

15.24

0.3

holder stand

3.3

30.48

solid

stand bottom

7.62

0.5

solid

 

 

The estimated costs per component and the total cost per unit based on raw material costs are summarized in Table 2. The costs of aluminum and steel alloys are based on commodity market average prices and are therefore subject to variation by changes in market forces. As of March 2006, the average price of aluminum alloy is $0.0012 per gram, while steel alloy is $0.0027 per gram.  With considerations of dimensions and commodity spot prices the total cost per complete unit is near $5.84.

 

Table 2

 

component

material

density (g/cm3)

mass/unit (g)

volume(cm3)

material cost ($/g)

component cost ($)

unit cost ($)

dispenser press

Al alloy

2.7

67

24.8

0.0012

0.01

 

container

Al alloy

2.7

243.8

90.22

0.0012

0.3

 

holder stand

Al alloy

2.7

2917

1042.7

0.0012

3.5

 

stand bottom

steel alloy

8

729.7

91.2

0.0027

1.97

5.78

 

To ensure cost effectiveness, each component needs to be manufactured by a die casting method, involving a 300 ton automated die casting machine. Machine operating costs are kept low by high production rates and are assumed to be a function of total output. Table 3 summarizes the cost of operating such a machine. Realistically, each die cast machine is able to produce 200 components per hour. Running each machine in a production rotation whereby only one type of component is produced per day for 5 days, yields a total of 8,000 individual components (2,000 completely assembled units) per week. Based on these numbers it is calculated that the total annual output of complete units will stand at 104,000 units at a total cost for all units at  $607,360.

Table 3

machine

cost

rate (components/hr.)

weekly production (units)

annual production (units)

annual production cost

300 ton die cast

$500,000

200

2,000

104,000

$607,360

 

Based on the figures mentioned above, the annual cost of production for the first annual cycle stands at $1,107,360. It is worth noting that this number does not take into account the cost of any salaried or waged employees. This figure includes the estimated cost of tooling and the total cost of producing 104,000 complete product units only.

 

 

Cost

 

Aluminum cost:  bulk= $0.12/100g= 0.0012/g,  $2,539 per mton, $1.13/lb as of March 06

Al density= 2.702g/cm^3

Steel density= 8.00g/cm^3

Steel: $2700 per metric ton = $0.0027/g

 

Assuming thickness of container to be .3 cm

Volume of container = pi(h)(Ro^2-Ri^2)= 15.24(2)(25.80-22.84)= 90.22 Cm^3

Surface Area of container =  2 pi r 2 + 2 pi r h= 648.58 cm^2

Height= 15.24cm

Radius= 5.08 cm

 

Stand leg:

Radius= 3.30 cm

Height= 30.48 cm

Volume= 1042.7 cm^3

 

Stand Bottom:

Radius =7.62 cm

Height =0.50 cm

Volume= 91.21 cm^3

 

Dispenser Press:

(Columns) radius= .2cm, height 15.24cm, volume x 2= 2 cm^3

(Upper disk) radius= 3.81, height= .5cm, volume= 22.80 cm^3

 

Cost per unit:

 

Container: 243.77g= $0.293

Stand leg+ cup holder: 2917.59g= $3.50

Stand bottom: 729.66g= $1.97

Dispenser Press Assembly= 67.00g= $0.08

Total= $5.84

 

Part VI: Product Liability

 

 

There are various aspects of the dispenser that may become a liability because of material failure or general wear and tear. For instance, though the dispenser is built to be leak proof, if not properly tightened leaks can occur and cause damage to the holder or surrounding furniture. Since the base of the holder will not be aluminum it is less resistant to corrosion and can oxidize in the presence of substances found in lotion. Likewise, though very unlikely, furniture like wood can become damaged from lotion.

The majority of foreseen liability lies within the material chosen for use. Though Aluminum is relatively cheap, easily fabricated, lightweight and resistant to most types of corrosion because of its oxidized layer and possible anodic protection, it is still liable to defects. When Aluminum is subjected to hydrogen it can slowly become embrittled. This leads to stress corrosion cracking (SCC), a major defect in the material. Hydrogen embrittlement may proceed slowly because Al has a FCC closed pack structure, but it is still possible with salt water or highly humid air. To reduce the probability of SCC or general discoloration and corrosion abrasive pads should not be used. Abrasive pads and heavy duty detergents may erode the oxidized layer of Al or disrupt the anodized layer. Strong acids or bases should also not be stored or used in the dispenser. Acids increase the chance of SCC and even mild bases like baking soda can discolor Aluminum. In general, for best results the dispenser should be stored in a cool, dry area, and cleaned with water, a soft pad and mild detergent. The dispenser should also be dried immediately when cleaned to eliminate the possibility of water spots. In addition, care should be taken so as not allow water to store between the low carbon steel and aluminum components because galvanic corrosion may develop.

If a product is properly maintained and found to be defective within one year of purchase, it will be replaced free of charge including shipping and handling. Following this protocol, with a 5 % probability of failure, $15 per unit, $5 shipping and handling fee, and 2 million initial products it is estimated that up to $2,000,000 can be lost in liabilities.

Risked $$ = 0.05 * 2E6 * 20 = $2,000,000.

References:

http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/MatSelect/corraluminalloys.htm

http://www.teskoenterprises.com/aluminum.html