5/16/2014

Raising the
Omelette Bar
Team Won

Ben Kulbago, Tyler Miller, Dustin George, Sailesh Kadam

ROSE-HULMAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Omelette Bar Proposal 1

Executive Summary
The major problem with the current omelette bar is ingredients mixing, which affects
those with allergies or are abstaining from certain foods for various reasons. Additionally, there
is a problem with the time it takes to place an order. Oftentimes there is a long line at the
omelette bar waiting to place an order. This can create problems not just with the omelette bar
but with access to surrounding food areas as well. It also is frustrating for patrons of the
omelette bar who want to order their omelettes quickly so they can get other food while they
wait for the omelette to cook.
The proposed design for the omelette bar fixes the problem of ingredients mixing by
placing the ingredients in their own individual containers so they cannot mix whatsoever. The
proposed design also increases the speed and efficiency of the omelette bar by allowing the
students to select their own ingredients, thereby allowing the cooks to focus on cooking the
omelettes.
The containers would be placed on a rack on the countertop where the omelette bar is
currently placed. Workers will no longer have to spend time cleaning the countertops of spilled
ingredients when they could be cooking food. The drawer allows for students to dispense a
predetermined portion of ingredients into their bowl. The lid on top allows for easy refilling of
ingredients while the rack allows ample space for students to place their bowl underneath and
move down the line and get the ingredients they want without having to wait to tell someone,
further streamlining the omelette creation process.

Omelette Bar Proposal 2

Table of Contents
Executive Summary

Page 1

Problem Definition
Scope

Page 3

Background

Page 3

Prior Art

Page 3

Criteria

Page 4

Design Description
Summary

Page 5

Detailed Description

Page 6

Evaluation
Criteria-Based Test Results

Page 8

Pros and Cons

Page 9

Solutions to Potential Problems

Page 10

Documentation of the Design Process

Surveys and Results

Page 11

Alternative Designs

Page 12

Materials Selection

Page 15

Performance Modeling

Page 16

Manufacturing Plan

Page 16

Cost

Page 17

Eco Audit

Page 17

References

Page 19

Omelette Bar Proposal 3

Problem Definition
Scope
The omelette bar is a part of the ARA and is located in the Hulman Memorial Union. At
the Rose-Hulman omelette bar, students may get freshly made omelettes, breakfast burritos,
egg sandwiches and waffles. According to survey data, nine out of every ten students that visit
the omelette bar notice mixing of ingredients to some degree (see Surveys and Results, page
11). The current setup of the omelette bar has led to dissatisfied students, specifically upsetting
students with dietary restrictions or certain food preferences are directly affected by the issues
presented by the current omelette bar. Our goal is to change the way that the omelette bar
operates in a way that is cheap to implement, easy to use, and beneficial to everyone that uses
it.

Background
Every day, students visit the omelette bar for their egg related needs. In fact, over sixty
percent of the students and faculty that were surveyed use the omelette bar at least twice a
week. Almost ninety percent of students that used the omelette bar noticed mixing to some
degree. Mixing of ingredients not only affects picky eaters, but people with dietary restrictions
relating to allergies or religious affiliation as well (Surveys and Results, page 11). Users of the
omelette bar also complained about how the spilling of ingredients elongated the time it took to
complete an order; the omelette bar staff had to take the time to clean up the spillage, which
causes a backup of users. After taking measurements of time spent waiting at the omelette bar
during different times of the day, the average waiting time was found to be 5 minutes. This is
how long it takes from the time the order is taken until the time that the omelette is received.

Prior Art
The current setup of the omelette bar consists of two workers, a stove, and a table with
eleven containers that each hold one vegetable, meat, or cheese. The setup is meant to be
easy for the workers to access, but the speed at which the workers grab ingredients results in
ingredients being spilled into other containers (Figure 1a). During a typical meal time, a line of
students forms at the omelette bar. Students can go up to one of the two workers at the station
and ask for either an omelette, scrambled eggs, a breakfast burrito or a variety of eggs. The
students specify which ingredients they want and how they want their eggs cooked and the

Omelette Bar Proposal 4

workers prepare the meals. Students are then free to leave their tray on the counter and grab
drinks or other foods for their meal or stay and wait for their eggs to be cooked. Eggs are always
returned to students in the order that the orders were received.

Figure 1a - The current setup of the omelette bar results in a large mess and a lot of ingredients
mixing.

Criteria
In order to meet the needs of our stakeholders, certain criteria must be followed:

Simplicity
The design must be easy for students or workers to use. They should not need extra
training or have much difficulty transitioning from the old setup to the new one. The new setup
cannot be less efficient than the previous setup; i.e. lines should move faster if at all possible.

Cost
Installation should not be too costly. What this means is that changing from the old setup
to the new setup should not require a lot of work. The new design should be something that also
reduces the amount of food that is lost by being dropped or spilled by omelette bar workers.

Omelette Bar Proposal 5

Sustainability
The new setup should help reduce waste of food due to dropping. Currently food is
spilled on the countertop and generally just gets thrown out. The new setup should reduce or
eliminate this. The new setup should also use as much recycled material as possible while still
minimizing cost. Ideally, 100% recycled material would be used depending on the cost. If using
recycled material is not at all possible, the material used should be recyclable.

Health and Safety

Students with allergies or any sort of dietary restriction should not need to worry about
mixed ingredients. No juices from meats should have any ability to mix with vegetables. The
container should not allow for the spread of bacteria, and should be able to keep food from
spoiling as it sits during the day. If the omelette bar is stocked in the morning, any ingredient
should be able to last until the dinner meal time ends at approximately 7:00 PM (about eleven
hours total).The design should also be easy to clean, and all parts of the design should be able
to be cleaned. There should not be any spaces on the design in which mold or bacteria can
easily accumulate. No materials used in the design should be toxic to humans. Portion sizes
should be predetermined and set at a healthy amount depending on the type of food being
taken.

Space Efficiency and Customizability

The new setup of the omelette bar should not use up more space than is currently being
used. The new setup should be easy to move if necessary; e.g. if the omelette bar has to move
for any reason, it should not require a lot of effort to move with the newly implemented setup.

Design Description
Summary Description
The drawer dispenser was designed with the goal of delivering a predetermined amount
of ingredients while speeding up the process of assembling the omelettes and eliminating the
potential for ingredients to mix. The design uses gravity and an applied horizontal force to
dispense ingredients into a bowl held beneath the dispenser. The entire unit is designed to be
easily assembled and disassembled to make cleaning easy. The drawers and containers are
made out of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), a polymer used in thermoforming.

Omelette Bar Proposal 6

Figure 2a - The rack holds eleven separate containers for the eleven RHIT ARA ingredients.

Detailed Description
The container (Figure 2b) is designed to hold approximately forty servings of food, as
defined by the American Heart Association. The width of each container is sized so that eleven
containers may fit side-by-side in the current counter space. It has two rods going through the
center to support the removable ramp that pushes food into the opening of the drawer. The
containers will be made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), a food safe plastic. It also has a
plastic lid on the top, which can be removed by the workers to allow for adding extra ingredients.

Omelette Bar Proposal 7

Figure 2b - The unit is made of transparent PET. The lid includes recessions for a
secure grasp. An incline moves all ingredients to the front of the dispenser.

The drawer has a two-faced hole through it so that food may fall into it from the top and
then fall through when it is pulled out (Figure 3a). A stainless steel blade is inserted into the
inner edge of the containers front wall to cleanly slice through any stuck ingredients to prevent
an operation jam. The drawer has a handle attached to it to make it easy to open and close. It is
made of copper for its antiseptic properties. The handle is attached to the drawer by two screws.
When the design needs to be cleaned, the drawer can be pulled completely out of the container.

Figure 3a - The handle is made of copper to resist pathogens and is attached by two screws.
The steel blade can be seen on the edge opposite of the handle.

The rack (Figure 4a) is assembled from stainless steel for a sleek, clean appearance.
The rack holds all of the containers approximately eight inches above the countertop which is
the spacing needed for comfortable clearance. The user will place the bowl under the front of
the container in preparation for the dispensing of food. The rack additionally has tall sides to
prevent the containers from tipping over.

Omelette Bar Proposal 8

Figure 4a - The stainless steel rack supports the dispensers to be eight inches off the ground to
provide adequate spacing to place a bowl underneath.

Evaluation
Criteria Based Test Results
Cost
Money is saved by eliminating the food waste caused by workers dropping food on the
counter. No continual cost has been incurred (not considering cost of ingredients), so the only
cost is the initial investment into the system. The overall cost is approximately $1200 (Costs,
page 17).

Sustainability
The solution is made from polyethylene terephthalate plastic (PET), which may be
recycled after use. The elimination of workers spillage, as well as pre-determined portion sizes,
prevents excessive waste of food.

Omelette Bar Proposal 9

Simplicity
The design has only two moving parts, which reduces the likelihood of it breaking. It also
makes our design easy to clean, because there are no complex surfaces. The design is also
simple enough that students and workers will be able to quickly learn how to use the design.

Health and Safety

Copper acts as an anti-bacterial shield because copper has antiseptic properties,
helping to eliminate pathogens on contact. This feature is extremely important in a food oriented
environment, which is why we used copper for our handle. No materials used in the solution are
considered toxic or harmful to humans. The entire solution is easily disassembled and able to fit
in a sink for easy cleaning. There are not any crevices that are difficult to clean or allow for easy
accumulation of juices that can allow for bacteria to grow and flourish. Predetermined portion
sizes assure the average omelette bar user gets an accurate serving size of each ingredient as
defined by the American Heart Association. The modularity of the design keeps each ingredient
completely isolated from the next, preventing cross-contamination and allergic reactions.

Availability
The entire solution is tailored to be compact and use the vertical space around it, which
saves space. A student can easily take extra servings or even less than a whole serving, which
allows this solution to tailor to a students individual tastes. Allowing multiple units to store in a
single space allows the operator of the unit to expand the selection of ingredients as necessary.

Pros and Cons

Pros
The body was created to be compact and easy to mate to other units. This allows the
maximum variety of ingredients to be stored in a single compact space. It is also easy to clean,
and delivers precise amounts of ingredients to each patron. It also prevents ingredients mixing,
and is quick and easy to use. It can dispense all of the ingredients at the omelette bar easily and
without any specialized modification for specific ingredients.

Cons
The current design may be top heavy, due to most of the ingredients being stored inches
above the base as well as the bases small footprint. However, this was fixed by grouping the

Omelette Bar Proposal 10

units together into one single unit which effectively acts as a much larger footprint. Polyethylene
may crack or break if handled carelessly, so the user should exercise some caution when
transporting or handling the unit. A typical omelette bar user (student or faculty that visits about
3-4 times a week) should also be aware of the limitations of the drawer mechanism, as pulling
the drawer completely out would result in a large spill of ingredients.

Solutions to Potential Problems

An implemented locking mechanism would be advised as to prevent the complete
withdrawing of the drawer during meal times. Juices from any of the various foods begin to leak
and contaminate the area. In order to prevent this incident from occurring, a non-toxic caulking
solution should be used to seal any possible leaks in the design.

Next Steps
After approval of the design, the ARA omelette bar will be vacated and slightly
remodeled with a flat stainless steel surface. Everything removed from the archaic omelette bar
will be recycled through a local plant. The modular base will be mounted to the surface via
stainless steel screws, and the unit will be placed atop the base. This base will be custom fit to
eleven units; this assures the same variety of ingredient choices as before, however it does not
allow room for expansion.
To counteract this, the second post-step will be to remodel the base and make it
adjustable for any number of dispensing units. Contracts with companies and institutions will be
made to house our product. This is a major part of the commercialization process. Should the
product go global, it may be used at other campuses, restaurants, and hotel buffets as well as
the RHIT dining hall.
The model will be reevaluated and improved through feedback; the end result should be
a highly desirable product which still displays the core values of simplicity and sustainability
while preventing the issue of mixing ingredients.

Omelette Bar Proposal 11

Documentation of the Design Process

Surveys and Results
We surveyed approximately fifty Rose-Hulman students to learn what they thought of
ingredients mixing at the omelette bar. Students were asked how often they used the omelette
bar, whether or not they had noticed ingredients mixing at the omelette bar, and if they
considered this to be problematic. Through our surveys we discovered that over 60% of Rose
students use the omelette bar at least once a week on average (Figure 5a). We also learned
that over 90% of them had noticed that ingredients at the omelette bar tend to mix together,
confirming that this was a common occurrence (Figure 5b).

Figure 5a- The majority of Rose students (62%) use and are affected by the omelette bar. It is
estimated that the average student uses the omelette bar 2 times per week, and the regular
omelette bar customer uses the bar over 3 times per week.

Figure 5b- Of the 37 students we polled who used the omelette bar, all but 4 said that they have
noticed ingredients at the omelette bar mixing- nearly 90%.

Omelette Bar Proposal 12

Figure 5c - The usual opinion of students is that self-serving would be just as efficient as the
current method, if not more efficient.

We also asked students whether they felt that the omelette bar could be sped up if the
students manually selected their ingredients, i.e., selected their ingredients directly without
having to relay an order to the chef. As can be seen in Figure 5c, the vast majority of students
agreed that this would make sense. This was therefore something we decided to include in our
final design.

Alternative Designs
Archimedes Screw
We considered several different designs before we made our final decision. One design
was an Archimedes screw mechanism (Figure 6a), which would use an Archimedes screw to
deliver the ingredients from a container. The person getting an omelette would then place their
bowl beneath the outlet to receive their ingredients. The advantage of this design was that it
would deliver the ingredients cleanly and without any mixing. It also allowed students to control
their portion sizes. The downside was the difficulty with regards to how to clean the device, and
the increased cost of manufacture due to the complex shape.

Omelette Bar Proposal 13

Figure 6a- The handle on top of the lid would be used to dispense ingredients. Lack of storage
space as well of complexity in cleaning led this idea to being rejected.

Paddle Wheel
Another design that we strongly debated using was a similar mechanism that used a
paddle wheel to deliver the ingredients (Figure 6b). The ingredients were stored in a hopper,
which rested on top of the paddlewheel. Students could turn a knob, which dispensed
ingredients in the same manner as the above design. This design offered all the advantages of
the Archimedes screw concept, but with the benefit of being simpler to make and easier to
clean. However, it was still more complicated than our final design because it involved different
types and different sizes of paddles to accommodate different types of foods. Spinach, for
example, would have to use brushes that are more widely spaced. Also the design did not really
take into account ingredients getting lodged in the space between the hopper and the paddle.

Omelette Bar Proposal 14

Figure 6b- The gray wheel in front is the knob which the students
would turn to dispense ingredients. The darker wheel in back is the
actual paddlewheel. This model was rejected as it would damage
ingredients.

Raised Surface
A different idea that was also considered was altering the
current surface of the omelette bar where the ingredients are held. The idea was to create a
raised edge around the containers where the ingredients were held, preventing ingredients from
being swept in (Figure 6c). The main advantage of this design was that it would not require any
altering of how the omelette bar worked, allowing for easy integration, meaning workers would
not be required to learn a different process to make omelettes. It would also be cheap to install,
because none of the equipment other than the surface would need to be replaced. The design
could be placed right on top on the original setup and the remainder of the original setup could
remain in place. However, this design was rejected because it would not have been able to
prevent all mixing from occurring because ingredients could still be dropped in accidentally by
the workers. The possibility of adding lids was considered, but was deemed too difficult to
manage without causing additional problems with workers trying to quickly access the
ingredients.

Omelette Bar Proposal 15

Figure 6c- This surface would have been placed on top of the existing surface as a cheap and
effective solution; however it did not completely solve the issue of mixing ingredients.

Advantages of Chosen Design

Our design was chosen over our alternatives for various reasons. First, all the
advantages mentioned in the Pros and Cons section (Page 9) were improvements over the
current setup. As compared to our alternatives, the drawer design we used maximized the
advantages mentioned, such as simplicity of manufacture, ease of cleaning, and portion control.
These were problems with our design based on the Archimedes Screw design. It also is
compact, and can handle all the different types of ingredients, including the leafy vegetables.
This latter problem was the main reason the paddle wheel design was ultimately rejected, in
addition to the difficulty of manufacturing the more complex shape and the difficulty with
cleaning it. And of course, it completely prevents ingredients mixing, which was the main
objective in our design. This gave it the advantage over our raised surface design. Overall, the
proposed design succeeds more in cleanliness, ease of use, efficiency, and solving the original
problem of mixing than the other designs do.

Omelette Bar Proposal 16

Material Selection
We based our choice of material for our design on two criteria: price and machinability.
The material used has to be cheap, while also being easy to manufacture. Strength of the
material is not a major concern because the design is relatively light and because there is very
little external load on the design.

20

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)

10

Price (USD/lb)

0.5

0.2
2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.2

Machinability

As can be seen from the Edupack graphs, the only type of materials that fit our criteria
were polymers. We chose polyethylene because it was the second cheapest polymer listed
behind PVC, and because it is food safe, whereas PVC is generally not. Polyethylene is also
commonly used in kitchen containers, which reassures our selection.

Performance Modeling
One main concern of our device was whether or not it would contain enough food to
dispense adequate servings without the need to refill too often. For our criteria, we decided that
our containers must contain approximately 40 servings of each ingredient based on the
standards from the American Heart Association website (2-3 ounces for meat, cup for nonleafy vegetables). Therefore, we needed to create a device that would hold the appropriate
amount of food while also fitting in the current size of the omelette bar.

( ) = ( )( )

Omelette Bar Proposal 17

"
. "
Based on these parameters, we decided on dimensions of 8 in. deep x 10 in. tall x 4 in.
wide and a thickness t of in. This results in an interior volume of 263 cubic inches which is
enough for 36 servings of vegetables and 48 servings of meat.

Manufacturing Plan
To manufacture the units, we will use thermoplastic vacuum forming. The container will
be made out of a single piece of PET, and the drawer will be a separate piece. The entire
module will be manufactured in Indianapolis, Indiana and transported to Rose-Hulman by truck.
These processes are all accounted for in the Eco-Audit, both for carbon content and energy
consumption.

Part

Number

Weight (lbs.)

Drawer

11

4.74

Container

11

23.0

Cost
The approximate costs of material and labor will change, depending on various
uncontrollable factors. Currently, the breakdown of costs is as follows:
Part

PET Vol

PET

Other Mtl.

Other Mtl.

Manufacture

Net Cost

Name

(in^3)

Cost ($)

Vol (in^3)

Cost ($)

Cost ($)

($)

Drawer

15.00

3.85

2.25

3.30

0.69

7.84

Container

79.29

20.34

1.23

21.57

Lid

19.06

4.89

0.25

5.14

7.03

1.80

0.14

1.94

Ramp

Omelette Bar Proposal 18

Rack (11)

Total

120.38

$ 30.88

116.55/11 =

18.88/11 =

4.59/11

23.47/11

10.60

1.72

= 0.42

= 2.14

12.85

$ 5.02

$ 2.73

$ 38.63

From a materials and labor standpoint, each unit would cost approximately $38.63 to
manufacture. However, the first units would not be manufactured on a large scale since they are
being built specifically for the RHIT ARA. As such, the first eleven units would be somewhere
approximately in the $60.00 - $200.00 range each. For that reason, it is crucial to move the
operation to a large scale manufacturing in order to minimize costs per unit. It should also be
noted that these calculations do not take into account the costs of transportation since it is hard
to determine an average cost for something so unpredictable.

Eco-Audit
For our product, we chose to model it as PET produced by polymer molding because
this most closely represents our design process. We have a fairly high carbon footprint, and
fairly high energy costs. This is one of the downsides to our choice of product, especially
because we cannot regain as much energy by recycling.

Omelette Bar Proposal 19

Omelette Bar Proposal 20

References
Annie Bond. Which Plastics Are Safe? Care2.com. Care2. Web. 6 May 2014.
States the most commonly used plastics and which are considered nontoxic.
CES EduPack 2013. Granta Design Limited. Version 12.2.13. Database. 6 May 2014.
EduPacks databases have been used to find the density, costs, and strengths of
various materials used in our solution.
Thermoform Plastic Sheets for Vacuum Forming. Widgetworksunlimited.com. Widget Works
Unlimited. Web. 6 May 2014.
Ready-to-buy sheets of polyethylene terephthalate for use in vacuum forming.
What is a Serving? Heart.org. American Heart Association, 24 July 2013. Web. 6 May 2014.
Gives the recommended serving sizes of the five main food groups.