DESIGN PROJECT #1 Cardboard Furniture Design

Introduction to Engineering Design EDGSN 100 Section 003

Work Horse Design and Production Design Team #1 Jonathan Harcourt, jxh488@psu.edu, http://www.personal.psu.edu/jxh488/ Eun Mok Chung, evc5060@psu.edu, http://www.personal.psu.edu/evc5060/

(Left: Jonathan Harcourt; Right Eun Mok Chung)

Submitted to: Prof. Berezniak Date: 02/21/11

Spring 2011

Xtreme Throne Table of Contents

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Introduction. Mission Statement. Customer Needs Analysis.. External Research.. 4.1 Library/online... 4.2 Patent research. 4.2 Benchmarking.. 5.0 Target Specification.... 6.0 Concept Generation.... 7.0 Concept Selection. 8.0 Final Specification.. 9.0 Final Design 10.0 Conclusions 11.0 References Page 3 Page 3 Page 3 Page 4 Page 4 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 6 Page 8 Page 11 Page 12 Page 15 Page 15

List of Tables
Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Customer Needs Importance Table. Benchmarking of Three Products.. Target Specifications.. Structural Element Testing. Concept Screening Matrix.. Concept Selection Matrix Final Specifications.. Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 9 Page 10 Page 10 Page 11

List of Figures
Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Competitive Product A.... Competitive Product B.... The Wiggle Chair..... Cardboard Lounge... Design Sketches.... Manila Folder Model.... Final Design..... The 6 Parts of the Chair..... Multi-view Projection of Final Design Page 5 Page 5 Page 6 Page 6 Page 7 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14

Spring 2011

Abstract
The 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 Introduction
Cardboard is believed to have been invented in 15 th Century China, though it wasnt used to make the commercial boxes that we often associate with cardboard until the 19 th 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 were just 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 doesn t 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 Statement

The 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 Analysis

The 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 the lists 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.

Spring 2011

Table 1: Customer Needs Importance Table

No. 1 2 Need Cardboard chair The chair should be comfortable to sit in Cardboard chair/ The piece of furniture should be safe to use and cardboard table structurally sound 3 Cardboard chair/ The piece of furniture should be compact so that it cardboard table doesnt take up too much space 4 Cardboard chair/ The piece of furniture should be environmentally cardboard table friendly 5 Cardboard chair/ The piece of furniture should be easy to move cardboard table 6 Cardboard chair/ The piece of furniture should be simple and easy to use cardboard table 7 Cardboard chair/ The piece of furniture should be made from only noncardboard table toxic materials 8 Cardboard chair/ The piece of furniture should be aesthetically pleasing cardboard table Importance scale 1-5; 5 is highly important, 1 is not very important Imp. 5 5 5 3 3 3 2 3

4.0 External Research

To research cardboard, our team scanned the internet extensively to find the most informative and reliable sources.

4.1 Literature Search

From 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 4934756 Improved 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.

Spring 2011

 United States Patent 5516384 Furniture 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 Benchmarking
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
cThe

Figure 2: Competitive Product B

Table 2: Benchmarking of Three Products

Selection Criteria Weight supported (lbs) Cost ($) Wt % 25% Target Specifications of Our Product Value Point Wted Score Score 250+ 1 .25 Competitive Product A Value 132 Point Score .528 Wted Score .132 Figure 2: Competitive Product B Value 160 Point Score .64 Wted Score .16

15%

<50 3 5 5 <5

.5 .6 1 1 1 5.1; 85% .885, 88.5% 1

.075 .06 .1 .25 .15

29.5 4 3 1 7.5

.85

.1275

24.99 5 3 1 10

.15

Asthectics 10% Ease of use 10% Compactness 25% Weight (lbs) 15% Total Score Total Weighted Score Rank

.6 .06 .6 .06 .2 .05 .67 .1 3.448; 57.5% .5295; 52.95% 3

1 .1 .6 .06 .2 .05 .5 .075 3.94; 65.7% .595; 59.5% 2

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

Spring 2011

5.0 Target Specification

Briefly 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

Feature Cost (Building) Cost (Retail) Weight Capacity Weight Height Width Depth Ease of use Assemble/ Disassemble time Current Specs (Folder Model) $10.00 $15.00 ~0.5lbs <0.1lbs 2 3 2 easy 60sec Target Specs (Half Scale Model) Ideal Marginal <$50.00 <$100.00 <$75.00 <$150.00 250+lbs 100lbs <5lbs <10lbs 16 16 12 12 12 12 Extremely easy Very easy <30sec <50sec Target Specs (Full Scale Model) Ideal Marginal <$60.00 <$120.00 <$90.00 <$180.00 500+lbs 250lbs <10lbs <20lbs 36 36 24 24 24 24 Extremely Very easy easy <30sec <50sec

6.0 Concept Generation

The first step in the in our concept generation process was to look on the internet to see what types of designs would work. We found two predominate traits in all of the practical designs that we found. The first trait was lamination of the cardboard; almost all of the designs on the internet had multiple layers of cardboard. Some designs, like Frank Gehrys wiggle chair, were just 40+ sheets of cardboard laminated together; this particular strategy seemed impractical for our project because the chair wouldnt be easily disassembled. The other commonly reoccurring trait was having the cardboard fit together to form a complex lattice, like David Graas Cardboard Lounge; this also seemed impractical since it would be too complicated for quick assembly and disassembly. Figure 3: The Wiggle Chair Figure 4: Cardboard Lounge

Spring 2011

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

Spring 2011

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 design would 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 Selection

We 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.

Spring 2011

Table 4: Structural Element Testing

2x8L
Minimum Maximum Range (Max-Min) Average Load Range/Average Use Safety Factor = Safe Design Load = 127 209 82 168 49% 2.00 84

2x8
69 235 165 152 109% 2.00 76

2x8
279 285 6 282 2% 2.00 141 lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.

lbs.

2 x 16 L
Minimum Maximum Range (Max-Min) Average Load Range/Average Use Safety Factor = Safe Design Load = 183 198 15 190 8% 2.00 95

2 x 16
116 204 89 160 55% 2.00 80

2 x 16
275 289 14 282 5% 2.00 141 lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.

lbs.

2 x 24 L
Minimum Maximum Range (Max-Min) Average Load Range/Average Use Safety Factor = Safe Design Load = 234 278 44 256 17% 2.00 128

2 x 24
192 224 32 208 16% 2.00 104

2 x 24
271 275 4 273 2% 2.00 136 lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.

lbs.

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

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.

Spring 2011

Table 5: Concept Screening Matrix

Selection Criteria Comfort Aesthetics Ergonomics Cost Ease of use Weight Strength Construction difficulty Sum +s Sum 0s Sum s Net Score Rank A +1 0 +2 0 -1 0 -1 0 3 4 2 1 B +1 +1 +2 -1 -1 0 +1 -1 5 1 3 2 C +1 +1 +2 -1 -1 0 +2 -1 6 1 2 4 Concepts D E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 -2 +1 -1 +1 +1 +2 -4 -2 5 0 9 -4 F -2 +1 -2 +2 +2 -2 +2 +2 9 0 6 3 G -1 -1 0 +1 +2 -2 +2 +1 5 1 4 1 H +2 +2 +2 -4 -4 -1 +2 -4 8 0 13 -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 Weight supported (lbs) Cost ($) Wt % 25% Target Specifications Value Point Wted Score Score 250+ 1 .25 Value 250+ Concept C Point Wted Score Score 1 .25 Value 250+ Concept F Point Wted Score Score 1 .25

15%

<50 5 5 5 <5

1 1 1 1 1 6; 100% 1, 100% NA

.15 .1 .1 .25 .15

~75 3 3 5 <5

.75

.1125

~50 3 5 1 5+

1 .6 1 .2 .6 4.4; 73% .7; 70% NO

.15 .06 .1 .05 .09

Asthectics 10% Ease of use 10% Compactness 25% Weight (lbs) 15% Total Score Total Weighted Score Continue?

.6 .06 .6 .06 1 .25 1 .15 4.95; 82.5% .8825; 88.25% YES

10

Spring 2011

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 Specification

The 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 Cost Weight Capacity Weight Ease of Use Assembly/Disassembly time Current Specs $198.79 220+lbs 3.5lbs Extremely easy 44sec Ideal Specs <$50.00 250+lbs <3lbs Extremely easy <30sec

11

Spring 2011

8.1 Cost Calculation

Each, 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 of Titebond 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. 12 Spring 2011

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.

13

Spring 2011

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.

14

Spring 2011

10.0 Conclusions
Our 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/diycardboard-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-TableChair/dp/B000MP7J2U/ref=sr_1_1?s=home-garden&ie=UTF8&qid=1299872108&sr=1-1

15

Spring 2011