Test Plans & Test Results - Rochester Institute of...

RIT KGCOE MSD Program

P14415 Plastic Arborloo Base

Test Plans & Test Results

Table of contents

1. MSD I: WKS 8-10 PRELIMINARY TEST PLAN ......................................... 2

1.1. Project Background........................................................................................................................ 2 1.2. Sub-Systems/ Functions/ Features ................................................................................................ 2

1.3. Test Strategy ................................................................................................................................... 3

1.4. Test Equipment ............................................................................................................................... 4

1.5. Test Phases ...................................................................................................................................... 5

2. MSD II: WKS 2-4 FINAL TEST PLAN ........................................................ 5

2.1. Setup Instructions ........................................................................................................................... 5

2.2. Data Collection Plan ....................................................................................................................... 7 2.3. Test Procedures .............................................................................................................................. 8

2.4. Test Procedure Schedule .............................................................................................................. 28

3. MSD II: WKS 4-15 TEST VERIFICATION ..................................................... 29

3.1. Test Results Summary ................................................................................................................... 29

3.2. Logistics and Documentation ........................................................................................................ 29

3.3. Definition of a successful Test ....................................................................................................... 29 3.4. Design Summary/ Analysis of Data ............................................................................................... 29


P14415 Plastic Arborloo Base Preliminary Test Plan

1. MSD I: WKS 8-10 PRELIMINARY TEST PLAN

1.1. Project Background 1.1.1. Project Description

The objective of this project is to design an arborloo base that reduces the factors that block adoption by the Haitian people, i.e. it is low cost, plastic, portable, easily constructed, modern looking, and safe to use.

The current arborloo design is difficult to adopt in rural areas due to high cost and transportation difficulties. Furthermore, the time, skills, and tools required to construct the base are preventing widespread adoption.

The intended latrine base designs and prototypes should be consistent with the current arborloo design, while incorporating the use of plastics. The designs need to be portable, easy to assemble, and low cost. This project team will develop 3 to 4 concept designs, ultimately leading to 2 functional prototypes.

This is the second iteration of the project that was established to increase sanitation in Haiti. The initial project team designed and and tested an arborloo base and shelter using any materials they felt necessary. This project phase will result in two arborloo base designs that incorporate plastic with recorded testing and documentation.

1.1.2. Testing Overview

There will be two different designs through this project that will incorporate three major subsystems: material selection, structural supports, and manufacturing processes. Each design will be tested along with its individual components. Data will then be collected and aligned with the engineering requirements.

1.2. Sub-Systems/ Functions/ Features

Major Sub-Systems/ Features/ Function

1. Material Selection

2. Structural Supports

3. Manufacturing Process


1.3. Test Strategy Engr. Req

#

Engr. Requirement (metric)

Unit of Measure Marginal Value Ideal Value Test Plan

ES1 Cost in lots of 1000 $ 100 50 Calculate the cost in lots of 100. Take into account material, manufacturing, labor, and shipping costs

ES2 Force supported by base N >1200 >2000 Perform load testing using ASTM E455 standard for framed floor static load testing

ES3 Arborloo hole is covered by base m 0.45 0.54 Measure outside dimensions

of base

ES4 Maximum squat hole diameter m <=0.25 <=0.25

Verify hole size with World Health Organization: Simple Pit Latrines standard by measuring hole size

ES5 Static coefficient of friction >0.5 >0.6

Perform the ASTM C-1028-96 or something similar where we work with the tools available and create the weight necessary for performing the test.

ES6 Maximum change in level (tripping hazard) mm 6mm (0.25in) 0mm

Perform the ASTM F1637 - 13: Standard Practice for Safe Walking Surfaces standard test

ES7 Time to assemble on site hrs. 4 1 Perform several sample assemblies and record times. Calculate average assembly time.

ES8 Complexity of tools needed at use location

Scale of 1-3 tool

complexity 3 1

Perform several trials of assembly with the use of scale 1 tools to determine if assembly is feasible.

ES9 Weight of largest assembled component N 4320 2160

Weigh the largest assembled piece and compare it to the specification

ES10 Weight of largest unassembled component N 392.6 196.2

Weigh the largest unassembled piece and compare it to the specification

ES11 Ease of cleaning

cleans with soap, water, and abrasive sponge

cleans with water and cloth

Use focus group to identify if they will be able to clean the prototype with the resources they have available.

ES12 Maximum gap size (pest entry) mm 2 1

Measure the gap to ensure the gap size is less than or equal to the maximum


ES13 Life duration Yrs. >3 >5

Identify life of materials used to determine the shortest possible life of the product without unexpected failure. Perform fatigue testing to obtain the number of cycles the product can withstand, then compare that value to the specification.

ES14 Life Cycle Cost/year of service Kwh

Perform a life cycle analysis on the prototype as well as a cost analysis.

1.4. Test Equipment Engr. Req. # Test Equipment/ Resources Needed

ES2 Free weights, Dial Indicator

ES3 Measuring device (tape measure)

ES4 Measuring device (tape measure)

ES5 Horizontal dynamometer pull meter

ES7 Scale 1 tools (Hand tools, no power needed), Stopwatch

ES8 Scale 1 tools(hand tools, no power needed), Stopwatch

ES9 Scale

ES10 Scale

ES11 Focus Group

ES12 Measuring device ((tape measure)


1.5. Test Phases 1.5.1. Components

• Load Support - test structural supports using the established test plan to ensure the product can safely support the required load using free weights and structural analysis.

• Material – test material stress, deflection, and durability with accordance to the respective engineering specifications and analysis.

• Safety – test to ensure the product can be used safely. Test hole size, product weight, etc. and with accordance to the respective engineering specifications.

1.5.2. Assembly

• Assembly Time – measure the average time to assemble using scale 1 tools.

• Weight – measure the weight of largest assembled and non-assembled parts using a scale.

1.5.3. Customer Acceptance

• Aesthetics- consult with focus group to determine the level of aesthetics.

• Cost- reduce the cost for each design while maintaining specifications needed.

2. MSD II: WKS 2-4 FINAL TEST PLAN Introduction: This test plan is to be used as a guideline for the testing procedure required to verify and validate the designs of the Plastic Arborloo Base as defined by Sarah Brownell and the Haitian population.

2.1. Setup Instructions

2.1.1. Generalities

All tests that require setup will be done so in accordance to their corresponding standard documentation. Test # 1 will follow the guideline outlined in ASTM E196-06 documentation, Test #2 will follow the guidelines from ASTM E196, and Test # 5 will follow the guidelines outlined in ASTM F1673 – 13. All other test do not require a specific setup procedure. Please note that design 1 is the vacuum formed plastic supported by rebar frame and design 2 is the plastic lumber deck.


2.1.2. Test Fixtures

For Test #2 there will be a custom loading test fixture consisting of three pieces that will be required to perform the test. These fixtures are pictured below:

Figure 1: Weight Stand

Figure 2: Design 1 Loading Fixture

Figure 3: Design 2 Loading Fixture

While testing each design, only two of the fixture pieces will be used. For testing design 1, the equipment show in Figures 1 and 2 will be used, and for design 2, Figures 1 and 3 will be used.

The shared piece of the fixture shown in Figure 1 is the portion that will contain the weights during the test, which shall be referred to as the “loading platform” for the remainder of this document. The remaining two pieces of the fixture will both be referred to as “base platforms” for the remainder of this document.


2.2. Data Collection Plan

Test # Component/System Tested

Specification Tested

Test Description (refer to test plan in 1.3)

1 Cost Cost ES1 2 Safety: Force

supported by base Force ES2

3 Safety:Arborloo hole is covered by base

Distance ES3

4 Safety: maximum squat hole diameter

Distance ES4

5 Safety: static coefficient of friction

Force ES5

6 Safety: Tripping hazzard

Distance ES6

7 Assembly: assembly time

Time ES7

8 Assembly: complexity of tools

needed

Complexity ES8

9 Material, Safety: product weight

Force ES9

10 Material, Safety: product weight

Force ES10

11 Safety, Aesthetics: cleanability

Complexity ES11

12 Safety:gap size to prevent pest entry

Distance ES12

13 Safety, Aesthetics: product life duration

Use ES13

14 Aesthetics: life cycle assessment

Cost ES14


2.3. Test Procedures 2.3.1. Cost in lots of 1000 (Test 1)

Purpose:

This test is used to identify the cost per arborloo in lots of 1000. The test requires a calculation of the cost in lots of 1000 and needs to consider the costs of the material, manufacturing, labor, and shipping.

Requirements:

This test uses basic calculations and should be performed in Microsoft Excel

Procedure:

1. Using the Bill of Materials, contact suppliers regarding the price in lots of 1000.

2. Estimate labor costs by performing a Therblig analysis to determine the hours of labor needed, then multiply by hourly labor rate.

3. Estimate shipping costs by contacting ports to determine shipping container capacity and costs.

Pass/Fail Requirements:

If the cost per arborloo is below $100, the test passes. The desired cost per arborloo is $50

Data:

Material Cost Breakdown Design 1

Shipping Costs Breakdown design 1

Labor Costs in Haiti for design 1


Materials Cost Design 2

Shipping Costs Design 2

Labor Cost in Haiti Design 2

Conclusion:

Both of the designs pass the cost requirement: The total cost for each design 1 arborloo in lots of 1000 is $22.59 + $0.42 + $1.38 = $24.39, which is below the ideal value of $50.00 and well below the marginal value of $100.Design 2 costs $38.54 + $1.69 + $0.63 = $40.86 and is below the ideal and well below the marginal value.


2.3.2. Force Supported by Base (Test 2)

Purpose:

The purpose of this test is to evaluate whether the designs are capable of supporting the required amount of weight. The designs are intended to support the weight of a person, so this test is to demonstrate their capability to support weight.

Orientation:

For this test, select a flat, open area with a hard surface on which to do the test. For each design, only one base platform test fixture piece will be used for their portion of the test.

For testing either design, their respective base platform should be propped up off of the ground by a support which will have as minimal a deflection as possible, such as cement blocks. Position these supports as close as possible to the edge of the large circular opening in the base platform. Leave a gap between two of the supports several inches wide to allow for the dial indicator to be read during the test.

Place the design being tested on their respective base platform. Design 1’s base platform will automatically center the design. For design 2, the design should be centered in both directions with respect to the hole in the base platform.

Place the dial indicator on the ground under the design. Position the tip of the indicator to be under the location shown for each design in the following diagrams:

Figure 4: Design 1 Dial Indicator Positioning

As shown in Figure 4, the dial indicator should be placed directly under the center of the section of rebar, adjacent to the hole in design 1, and centered with respect to the length of the hole.


Figure 5: Design 2 Dial Indicator Positioning

As shown in Figure 5, the dial indicator should be placed directly under the center of the section of the support, adjacent to the hole in design 2, and centered with respect to the length of the hole.

The tip of the dial indicator should be slightly deflected when placed into the correct location. Zero the dial indicator after it is positioned.

Place the loading platform on top of the design being tested. Orient the loading platform so that the two block “feet” on the bottom side of it straddle either side of the hole in the design being tested. The hole in each design is wider in one direction than the other. Place the feet of the loading platform so that the narrower width of the hole is between them. This will mean that the wider portion of the loading fixture itself will be oriented perpendicularly to the wider dimension of the hole in the design.

Center the loading fixture on either side of the hole in the design with respect to both directions.

Requirements:

This test requires the fixtures depicted in section 2.1.2, a dial indicator, a flat hard surface, stiff supports such as cement blocks, and standard plate athletic lifting weights (4X 5lbs, 2X 10lbs, 2X 25lbs, and 10X 45lbs.)

Procedure:

Measure and record the deflection with the dial indicator from the application of the loading test fixture. The fixture weighs 32lbs.

Place weights in increments of 30lbs onto the loading platform. Load the weight evenly, so each successive load will add 15lbs to each side of the loading platform. There will be sufficient combinations of the weights to ensure that 30lbs can be added each time. Be careful to load the weights evenly, especially when loading the 45lbs plates, to ensure the platform is balanced.

After each new load is applied, measure and record the new deflection with the dial indicator. Continue adding weights in 30lb increments and measuring deflections. Apply loads until either catastrophic failure of the design occurs or all of the weights have been applied.


To pass, the designs must support at least 270lbs of weight. This will amount to the 32lb loading fixture plus an additional 240lbs of plate weights.270lbs is the marginal


value for this test and 450lbs is the ideal value. There are no criteria for deflection values; they are merely collected as a reference.

Data:

The test data shown below was collected on 2/26/14.

The test was performed by Patrick Morabito, John Wilson, and Sam Svintozelsky.

Design 2 Weight Added Load Unit Deflection Unit Specification Pass/Fail

0 lbs 0 in - - 32 lbs 0.063 in - -

30 62 lbs 0.096 in - - 60 92 lbs in - - 90 122 lbs 0.15 in - -

120 152 lbs 0.178 in - - 150 182 lbs 0.202 in - - 180 212 lbs 0.22 in - - 210 242 lbs 0.24 in - - 240 272 lbs 0.265 in 270lbs Pass 270 302 lbs 0.28 in 270lbs Pass 300 332 lbs 0.305 in 270lbs Pass 330 362 lbs 0.325 in 270lbs Pass 360 392 lbs 0.34 in 270lbs Pass 390 422 lbs 0.36 in 270lbs Pass 420 452 lbs 0.375 in 450lbs Pass 450 482 lbs 0.39 in 450lbs Pass 480 512 lbs 0.42 in 450lbs Pass 510 542 lbs 0.435 in 450lbs Pass 540 572 lbs 0.45 in 450lbs Pass

Design 1 Weight Added Load Unit Deflection Unit Specification Pass/Fail

0 lbs 0 in - - 32 lbs 0.03 in - -

30 62 lbs 0.06 in - - 60 92 lbs 0.085 in - - 90 122 lbs 0.11 in - -

120 152 lbs 0.145 in - - 150 182 lbs 0.178 in - - 180 212 lbs 0.2 in - - 210 242 lbs 0.225 in - - 240 272 lbs 0.249 in 270lbs Pass 270 302 lbs 0.27 in 270lbs Pass 300 332 lbs 0.29 in 270lbs Pass 330 362 lbs 0.31 in 270lbs Pass 360 392 lbs 0.325 in 270lbs Pass 390 422 lbs 0.345 in 270lbs Pass 420 452 lbs 0.365 in 450lbs Pass 450 482 lbs 0.385 in 450lbs Pass 480 512 lbs 0.4 in 450lbs Pass 510 542 lbs 0.415 in 450lbs Pass 540 572 lbs 0.435 in 450lbs Pass


Conclusion:

From the results listed above, we can assert that both of the designs will support at least the maximum ideal value for the requirement of approximately 450lbs. Test passed.

2.3.3. Arborloo Hole is Covered by Base (Test 3)

Purpose:

To determine if the outside dimensions of the base will cover the arborloo hole. The arborloo is the hole that holds the waste.

Orientation:

For each design, lay the base on a flat surface to ensure accurate measurements.

Requirements:

The test requires a measuring device to perform the measurements; such as a tape measure.

Procedure:

For each design, measure the minimum width of the base. Perform this measurement 3 times for each design and compute the average for both.


If each base is greater than or equal to 4 inches larger than the diameter of the arborloo hole, the test passes.

Data:

Design Dimension Meas. 1 (in)

Meas. 2 (in)

Meas.

3 (in)

Meas. Avg.

Arborloo

Hole Size (in)

Pass/Fail Performed by

Test Date

1 Width 19.9375 19.875 20 19.9375 18 Pass Patrick, Nate

4/22/14

2 Width 36.06 36 36.06 36.04 18 Pass Patrick, Nate

3/6/14

1 Length 19.9375 20.125 20 20.02 18 Pass Patrick, Nate

4/22/14

2 Length 30.75 30.78 30.75 30.76 18 Pass Patrick, Nate

3/6/14

Conclusion:

Both design 1 and design 2 meet the requirement of covering the arborloo hole.


2.3.4. Maximum Squat Hole Diameter (Test 4)

Purpose: To determine if the hole is too large, introducing safety issues

Orientation: For both design 1 and design 2, place the base on a flat surface to ensure accuracy of measurements.

Requirements:

The test requires a measuring device to perform the measurements; such as a tape measure.

Procedure:

For each design, measure the most extreme edges of the squatting hole (diameter). Perform this measurement 3 times and take the average.


If the measured hole is less than 0.25 meters, the test passes.

Data:

Design Dimension Meas. 1 (in)

Meas. 2 (in)

Meas.

3 (in)

Meas. Avg.

Maximum

Hole Size (in)


Test Date

1 Width 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.84 Pass Patrick, Nate

4/22/14

2 Width 8.09 8.06 8.03 8.06 9.84 Pass Patrick, Nate

3/6/14

1 Length 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.25 9.84 Pass Patrick, Nate

4/22/14

2 Length 10.25 10.25 10.25 10.25 9.84 Fail Patrick, Nate

3/6/14

1 Diagonal 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 9.84 Pass Patrick, Nate

4/22/14

2 Diagonal 12.93 13.03 13.06 13.01 9.84 Fail Patrick, Nate

3/6/14

Conclusion:

Based on the results of this test, design 2 fails the requirement. That being said, it was concluded after a discussion with the customer that this was an acceptable outcome. The requirement itself is based on a recommendation from the World Health Organization for the size of pit latrine holes, not an actual standard. Additionally, in this instance the device may fail, but it fails so that it can be more easily useable and cheaper. The most important requirements for the project are that the device works and is cheap, so these requirements have a priority that trumps this requirement. Additionally, the original arborloo made by Peter Morgan also fails this requirement. Therefore, it was concluded that it was OK to fail this requirement in this instance.

Design 1 meets the specification for squat hole diameter. The squat hole is smaller than the specified target.


2.3.5. Static Coefficient of Friction (Test 5)

Purpose:

To test the friction of the material to prevent the user from slipping when the base is in use.

Orientation:

N/A

Requirements:

N/A

Procedure:

Contact the suppliers of the surface material of each design (in contact with user) to obtain the friction specifications. Select material that is compliant with the coefficient of friction that is desired.


If the coefficient of friction is greater than 0.05N, the test passes.

Data:

Design Supplier Coef. Of

Friction

Desired Coef. Of Friction

Pass/Fail Performed by Test Date

1 0.55 >0.5 Pass John Wilson 4/22/14

2 0.55 >0.5 Pass John Wilson 03/18/2014

Conclusion:

Plastic lumber yard has provided engineering data for recycled HDPE tested according to ASTM standard D2394-83. This data affirms that the HDPE has a static coefficient of 0.55.

2.3.6. Maximum Change in Level (Test 6)

Purpose:

To identify the potential tripping hazards associated with the arborloo base.

Orientation:

Structure must be fully assembled and placed on the ground or table.

Requirements:

Tape measure

Procedure:

The person performing the test will identify any location on the surface of the where a distinct change in level is present. The tester will then use the tape measure to determine the height change present.


If any change in elevation is greater than 6mm (0.0625in), the test fails.


Data:

Design Elevation Change

Measurement 1 (in)

Specification Pass/Fail Performed by

Test Date

1 Surface spot 1 .1875

0.0625 Fail Patrick, Nate

4/22/14

1 Surface spot 2 .0625

0.0625 Pass Patrick, Nate

4/22/14

1 Knob 1.125


4/22/14

2 Surface spot 1 0.046875


3/6/14

2 Surface spot 2 0.0625


3/6/14

2 Knob 1.125


3/6/14

Conclusion:

Both designs fail this requirement because of the handles on the lids. It was determined after a discussion with the customer that this was OK. It was concluded that the handle did not present a significant tripping hazard because it is something the user is actively focusing on when using the device, because they must physically grasp it to lift the lid to use either design. Additionally, the knobs are a different color than the bases, so they should be easier to visually see quickly. It was concluded that the functionality and sanitation gains from having a handle outweighed any potential tripping hazard that the knobs might present. Therefore, it was concluded that failing this requirement for this reason was acceptable, because without the knobs the designs pass.

2.3.7. Time to Assemble on Site (Test 7)

Purpose:

Validate that the arborloo base can be assembled within the required amount of time once at use location.

Orientation:

Arborloo needs to be assembled above a mock hole at least 3 inches deep and 17 inches in diameter.

Requirements:

This test requires a stopwatch, 10 random individuals to perform the assembly trials, and instruction set.

Procedure:

Start stopwatch. Bring arborloo to the mock hole in the ground. Set arborloo following the assembly instructions. Stop stopwatch. Record time.


If the time to assemble the arborloo base(s) is less than 1 hour, the test passes.


Data:

Design Time to Assemble (s)

Requirement Pass/Fail

1 83 <1 hour Pass

2 168 <1 hour Pass

Conclusion:

Both designs 1 and 2 were assembled in less than 3 minutes on site; therefore, both designs pass the test.

2.3.8. Complexity of Tools Needed (Test 8)

Purpose:

Validate that the arborloo base can be assembled easily on site with simple tools. Perform several sample assemblies and record times. Perform 3 trials of assembly. The tools used must be no more complex than scale 1. Scale 1 tools are basic hand tools such as: a screwdriver, hammer, machete, etc.

Orientation:

Arborloo needs to be assembled above a mock hole at least 3 inches deep and 17 inches in diameter.

Requirements:

Hole in ground, and scale 1 tools, assembly instructions

Procedure:

Bring arborloo to the mock hole in the ground. Set arborloo following the assembly instructions


If the time to assemble the arborloo base(s) is less than 1 hour, the test passes.

Data:

Design Time to Assemble (s)

Requirement Pass/Fail

1 83 <1 hour Pass

2 168 <1 hour Pass

Conclusion:

Both designs 1 and 2 were assembled in less than 3 minutes on site using scale 1 tools (i.e. no tools were needed); therefore, both designs pass the test.


2.3.9. Weight of Largest Assembled Component (Test 9)

Purpose:

To determine if the arborloo can be easily and safely transported by one individual.

Orientation:

The arborloo need to be fully supported by the scale

Requirements:

For this test, a scale is needed to weight the arborloo

Procedure:

Place the fully assembled arborloo on the scale. Allow the scale to arrive at the weight of the arborloo, then record the weight. Perform this 3 times and compute the average.


If the arborloo weighs less than 450 lbs, the test passes.

Data:

Design Meas. 1 (lbs)

Meas. 2 (lbs)

Meas.

3 (lbs)

Meas. Avg.

Specification (lbs)


Test Date

1 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 450 Pass Patrick, Sam 4/22/14

2 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 450 Pass Patrick, Nate, John

3/11/14

Conclusion:

Design 2 passes the weight requirement and will be safe to transport.

Design 2 passes the weight requirement and will be safe to transport.

2.3.10. Weight of Largest Unassembled Component (Test 10)

Purpose:

To determine if the arborloo can be easily and safely transported by one individual.

Orientation:

The arborloo need to be fully supported by the scale

Requirements:

For this test, a scale is needed to weight the largest unassembled component arborloo

Procedure:

Weigh all components to see which component weighs the most. Place the largest component on the scale. Allow the scale to arrive at the weight of the arborloo, then record the weight. Perform this 3 times and compute the average.


If the largest component weighs less than 45 lbs, the test passes.

Data:


See 2.3.9.

Conclusion:

Design 2 weighs less than the unassembled requirement when assembled; design 2 passes the largest unassembled component test.

Design 1 weighs less than the unassembled requirement when assembled; design 1 passes the largest unassembled component test.

2.3.11. Ease of Cleaning (Test 11)

Purpose:

To determine if the arborloo can be cleaned easily and without the use of special tools or chemicals.

Orientation:

N/A

Requirements:

Mud soiled arborloo base material. Clean water and cloth.

Procedure:

Use mud mixture to soil a small area on the arborloo base and allow drying. Once dry, use water and cloth to remove mud.


Water and cloth must remove ~95% of soil

Data:

Before Test:


After soiling:

After Cleaning:

Before test:


After soiling:

After cleaning:

Conclusion:

Using only water and a cloth to clean design 2, it was found that a sufficient amount of soil was removed to pass the test.

Using only water and a cloth to clean design 1, it was found that a sufficient amount of soil was removed to pass the test.


2.3.12. Maximum Gap Size (Test 12)

Purpose:

To ensure that bugs and other pests are not easily able to enter the latrine pit.

Orientation:

Arborloo must be fully installed above a latrine hole or acceptable substitute.

Requirements:

Tape measure or calipers

Procedure:

The person administering the test must identify and measure any gaps between the arborloo and the ground that would allow a pest to enter the latrine hole.


Any identified gap must be less than 2 mm (0.078in).

Data:

Design Meas. 1 (in)

Meas. 2 (in)

Meas.

3 (in)

Meas. Avg.

Specification (in)


Test Date

1 .0625 .03125 .0625 0.052 0.078 Pass Patrick, Nate

4/22/14

2 0.0625 0.0625 0.0625 0.0625 0.078 Pass Patrick, Nate, John

3/6/14

Conclusion:

For both design 1 and design 2, the largest gap size of the assembled arborloo is smaller than the specification. This test is safe from pest entry.

2.3.13. Life Duration (Test 13)

Purpose:

The purpose of this test is to identify the life duration of the arborloo. Specifically, the materials being used should have the properties to withstand the environmental and physical conditions when in use.

Orientation:

N/A

Requirements:

Other than the specifications of the material of interest, this test does not have any specific requirements.

Procedure:

Determine the longevity of the materials being used. Using these data, estimate the life of the arborloo.



It is required that the life duration of both designs be greater than 3 years. If this is the case, the designs pass.

Data:

HDPE was selected because of its resistance to environmental conditions. Due to equipment and time limitations we will not be able to fully test the product over its life cycle. The main risk to polymers exposed to the elements is environmental stress cracking. HDPE has one of the best environmental stress cracking resistances of any commonly available polymer.

Ansys analysis was used when crafting design 1. For this analysis, the load was placed on what was determined to be the worst-case loading position: in innermost section of rebar adjacent to the hole in the base. The design was analyzed for the loading requirement of 270lbs applied to the single location chosen, as well as for 120lbs, which was determined to be the typical use scenario weight. These resulted in infinite life for the rebar for the 120lb loading scenario with a factor of safety of 2.02, and 29600 cycles for the 270lb case. At 7 people using the device 3 times a day, that would result in 3.86 years of use before failure.

Ansys analysis was also conducted on the section of HDPE selected, using the 270lb criteria used for the rebar. This resulted in a maximum stress of 2995psii, which is less than the ultimate stress for the material of 4100psi.

Conclusion:

Based on the Ansys analysis discussed above, it was concluded that it was reasonable to predict that the rebar and HDPE used in design 1 would not fail for at least 3 years from use of the device. This is also the case for Design 2 as it is constructed using the same material. Additionally, according to galvanizeit.org (http://www.galvanizeit.org/corrosion/corrosion-process/corrosion-rate) , the corrosion rate or carbon steel is 170 micrometers per year. This is a worst case scenario as it is the upper limit of the corrosion of carbon steel in a marine environment. 170 micrometer translates to0.0067 inches. At this rate, the 0.5 inch diameter rebar will not disintegrate until approximately 73 years after exposure.

2.3.14. Life Cycle Cost/year (Test 14)

Purpose:

The purpose of this test is to identify the impact the arborloo will have on the environment through its use life.

Assumptions:

• Products/materials are shipped from Miami, FL to Port-Au-Prince, Haiti

• Products would be manufactured in Port-Au-Prince region using resources available

• Products are transported from Port-Au-Prince, Haiti to Borgne, Haiti via pick-up truck

• Materials would be sourced within 30 miles from Miami, FL

Orientation:

N/A

Requirements:

The test requires the use of SimaPro, a life cycle assessment tool (software)


Procedure:

Identify the scope of the lifecycle assessment. Using the bill of materials, identify the weight of each material used to create the product and identify the source, manufacturing, and destination location of each. Identify the energy that will be needed in or to create the product as well as during its use life. Determine how the product will be disposed of at the end of its use life. Using SimaPro, insert the information gathered and determine the results.


This test does not pass or fail. The goal is to have the smallest amount of environmental impact as possible. Ideally, the product should have less of an environmental impact compared to Peter Morgan’s Arborloo.


Data:

Figure 6: Environmental impact of plastics designs


Figure 7: greenhouse gas emissions for plastic bases


Figure 8: comparison of plastic arborloo environmental impacts compared to other designs

Conclusion:

The Lifecycle assessment performed indicates that both designs have a significant impact on the environment compared to other non-plastic designs; however, the impacts of the plastic bases are less than those of the standard arborloo base.


2.4. Test Procedure Schedule Component/System

Tested Specification

Tested Eng. Req # Person

Responsible Expected

Completion Date

Cost Cost ES1 Patrick 3/3/14 Load Support Force ES2 Nate 3/3/14

Safety Distance ES3 Nate 3/3/14 Safety Distance ES4 John 3/3/14 Safety Force ES5 Nate 3/3/14 Safety Distance ES6 Nate 3/3/14

Assembly Time ES7 Mike 3/3/14 Assembly Complexity ES8 Sam 3/3/14

Material, Safety Force ES9 Patrick 3/3/14 Material, Safety Force ES10 John 3/3/14

Safety, Aesthetics Complexity ES11 Sam 3/3/14 Safety Distance ES12 Mike 3/3/14

Safety, Aesthetics Use ES13 Mike 3/3/14 Aesthetics Cost ES14 Nate 3/3/14


3. MSD II: WKS 4-15 TEST VERIFICATION 3.1. Test Results Summary

Test # Design Component/System Tested

Specification Tested

Test Description (refer to test plan in 1.3)

Pass (P)/Fail (F)

Test Date

1 2 Cost Cost ES1 Pass 2/26/14 2 2 Load Support Force ES2 Pass 2/26/14 3 2 Safety Distance ES3 Pass 2/26/14 4 2 Safety Distance ES4 Fail 3/4/14 5 2 Safety Force ES5 Pass 3/4/14 6 2 Safety Distance ES6 Fail 3/4/14 7 2 Assembly Time ES7 Pass 5/3/14 8 2 Assembly Complexity ES8 Pass 5/3/14 9 2 Material, Safety Force ES9 Pass 3/6/14 10 2 Material, Safety Force ES10 Pass 3/6/14 11 2 Safety, Aesthetics Complexity ES11 Pass 3/18/14 12 2 Safety Distance ES12 Pass 3/4/14 13 2 Safety, Aesthetics Use ES13 Pass 4/22/14 14 2 Aesthetics Cost ES14 N/A 3/28/14 1 1 Cost Cost ES1 Pass 2/26/14 2 1 Load Support Force ES2 Pass 2/26/14 3 1 Safety Distance ES3 Pass 4/22/14 4 1 Safety Distance ES4 Pass 4/22/14 5 1 Safety Force ES5 Pass 4/22/14 6 1 Safety Distance ES6 Fail 4/22/14 7 1 Assembly Time ES7 Pass 5/3/14 8 1 Assembly Complexity ES8 Pass 5/3/14 9 1 Material, Safety Force ES9 Pass 4/22/14 10 1 Material, Safety Force ES10 Pass 4/22/14 11 1 Safety, Aesthetics Complexity ES11 Pass 4/22/14 12 1 Safety Distance ES12 Pass 4/22/14 13 1 Safety, Aesthetics Use ES13 Pass 4/22/14 14 1 Aesthetics Cost ES14 N/A 3/28/14

3.2. Logistics and Documentation Results for the outlined tests are logged in an excel spreadsheet on the EDGE website.

3.3. Definition of a successful Test A successful test will demonstrate system feasibility and and capabilities of the components being tested. If a specific test has met the criteria located in section 1.3, it is considered to have been successful. If these criteria are not met for a specific test, that test will be considered a failure.

3.4. Design Summary/ Analysis of Data According to the test results, we can conclude that both designs are designed to meet all of the necessary customer requirements and specifications. The failed tests for designs 1 and 2 have been justified and deemed acceptable by the customer. Design 1 failed the maximum change in level test (tripping hazard) due to the application of the knob attached to the lid. Design 2 failed the same test for the same reason. Also, design 2 failed the maximum squat hole diameter test. This was justified due to the fact the requirement itself is based on a recommendation from the World Health Organization for the size of pit latrine holes, not an actual standard. Both designs have passed the remainder of the tests. This concludes that both designs will be cost effective, fully functional, safe to use, and aesthetically pleasing.

Test Plans & Test Results - Rochester Institute of...

Documents

Transcript of Test Plans & Test Results - Rochester Institute of...