Large Degree of Freedom

Handheld Vacuum
Aleksey Ryzhakov, Nicholas
Gunther, Josh Jacoboski,
Michael Ganci
This proposed design allows the user to clip the body of the
vacuum cleaner to the arm, freeing the wrist to perform any
type of motion with the movable suction cup. This allows
for a natural, “table cloth wiping” motion while vacuuming.

The Pennsylvania State

University

Team 3

DETAIL PROPOSAL

ME 340

11/3/2010
0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Our team was tasked with developing a hand-held vacuum cleaner to be marketed towards the general
public within a three month time window. Some initial design problems/questions the team asked
themselves were in regard to overall performance, durability, ergonomics and power output. The
customer needs gave passage into the concept development, which gave way to the system-level design.
This proposal will begin by describing how the customer needs were gathered and organized. The next
section explains the concept development phase the team took, including the ranking system for our
ideas. The system-level design will show solid models of our design and the scoping calculations used to
show parameters of the performance. Appendices will be included to hold relevant charts and tables that
are referenced in the body.

Page | 1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION 3
2.0 CUSTOMER NEEDS AND SPECIFICATIONS 3
3.0 CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT 4
3.1 External/Internal Search 4
3.2 Concept Generation 5
3.3 Concept Selection 5
4.0 SYSTEM LEVEL DESIGN 7
5.0 DETAILED DESIGN 9
5.1 Components 9
5.2 Material Selection 10
5.3 Fabrication Process 10
5.4 Bill of Materials 11
5.5 Economic Analysis 12
5.6 Calculations 13
5.7 Product Testing 14
6.0 CONCLUSION 16 (for 14 pages total)
APPENDIX-A-1 – Team Roles 17
APPENDIX-A-2 – Gantt Chart 18
APPENDIX-B-1 – Metrics and QFD 19
APPENDIX-C-1 – Problem Decomposition 20
APPENDIX-C-2 – Concept Sketches 21
APPENDIX-C-3 – Selection Matrices 22
APPENDIX-D-1 – Matlab Program 23
APPENDIX-D-2 – Detail Drawings 25
APPENDIX-D-2 – Electrical Diagram 36
APPENDIX-E-References 37

Page | 2
1. INTRODUCTION
The ACME Tool Company is looking to add a cordless vacuum to add to their arsenal of 18V hand-held
tools. ACME is opening up their doors to any company that creates a strong concept and prototype that
they feel is appealing enough to put into production. For the project, each team is given a cordless drill
to dissect and pick apart and use any part that they please. The requirement is that the motor and the
rechargeable 18V battery pack be used in the vacuum to make it fit into their line of cordless tools.

Using knowledge of mechanical engineering and product design, our team has gone through the
development process to ensure that all requirements and customer needs are met. The project began with
planning. Team roles and project timeline have been laid out in APPENDIX-A-1– Team Roles and
APPENDIX-A-2– Gantt Chart, respectively. The first action item was gathering information regarding
what consumers look for in a hand-held vacuum cleaner. Every identified need and concept has been put
into consideration to give the team a better perspective of the job at hand. The customer needs have been
organized to group similar needs together. They were then placed into a hierarchy to aim the team’s
attention to the needs that are the most important and which need to be addressed in our design. The
needs were then converted into target specifications that will become the building blocks for the concept
development phase. Afterwards, concepts were generated and grouped. Using selection matrices,
specific concepts were picked.

Using the generated concepts, a graphical model of the prototype was created. Throughout the project,
iterative development has been used heavily to select and refine various systems.

2. CUSTOMER NEEDS AND SPECIFICATIONS

This list of customer needs was compiled by researching consumer responses to other cordless vacuums
on the market and analyzing what more the customers wanted from their vacuum. Also the team
surveyed friends and family members to see what they look for when purchasing and operating a hand-
held vacuum. A list of customer needs has been compiled by the team to direct the path of the concept
development (Table 1.0).
1. Contains Adaptable Suction Pad for rough 11. Can be used lifted in various ways
surfaces (ordinary vac & large DOF vac)
2. Has an LED light for visibility 12. Interchangeable Suction Pads
3. Is Lightweight 13. Drying pad for spills
4. Allows Large DOF for movement 14. Motor does not get in the way
5. Allows for reduction in wrist bending 15. Has a Blockage indicator
6. Is Usable for Dusting 16. Safeguards against burn out
7. Provides less strain on elbow joint 17. Does not produce a lot of noise
8. Left & Right Handed 18. Can pick up things ranging from dust to
9. Used with only one hand bolts
10. Has an extension for hard to reach places 19. No Disposable Filters
20. Easily Cleanable
21. Recharge Dock
Table 1.0: Customer Needs
Many of these needs were addressed in the concept development phase of the process. These needs were
reviewed by the team and placed into hierarchy tables (Table 2.0). These hierarchy tables were
organized to the team’s interpretation of how strongly the consumers’ needs were expressed.

Page | 3
 Has Material Retrieval & Storage Accounts for Versatility

 Contains Adaptable Suction  Has an LED light for visibility

Pad for rough surfaces  Allows Large DOF for
 Interchangeable Suction movement
Pads  Capable of Dusting
 Drying pad for spills  Has an extension for hard to
 Can pick up things ranging reach places
from dust to bolts  Can be lifted in various
 No Disposable Filters ways

Contains Good Handle Design Case and Motor Perform Well

 Allows for reduction in wrist  Is Lightweight

bending  Motor does not get in the
 Provides less strain on way
elbow joint  Has a Blockage indicator
 Left & Right Handed  Safeguards against burn out
 Used with only one hand  Does not produce a lot of
noise
 Easily Cleanable
Table 2.0: Hierarchy
Metrics and units have been developed to better define the customer needs and how they will be
incorporated into our design. The metrics and the customer needs list have been placed into a Quality
Function Deployment (QFD) chart to show the relation of the needs to the specifications. The QFD
shows the relations of the needs to the correlating metric. Both the metrics and the QFD may be found in
APPENDIX-B-1 –metrics and QFD.

3. CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT

3.1 External Search

Prior to delving into the full concept generation phase, the team examined external sources as means for
developing ideas. By addressing several of the primary needs of the vacuum (power output, pressure
differential, overall suction, weight distribution and ergonomics) the team had a well-defined directional
path for exploring external literature. In performing a patent search, the team members were able to
determine prior art with a specific focus on
hand-held vacuum cleaner designs that had already been established. The following patents were
closely examined for concept generation/design purposes.

Patent D480846S described a design for a detachable suction cup. One of our proposed designs
incorporated a detachable suction cup at the front end of the vacuum cleaner, though it was determined
that this design would limit the range of motion of the user. Patent 5970572 explored the addition of a
cleaning liquid spray to the front end of the vacuum cleaner. This unique design added a feature that
helped initiate enhanced cleaning. After much consideration the team chose not to incorporate the
Page | 4
cleaning liquid spray into the vacuum design, mainly because of the primary design goal of maximizing
suction. Patent 5020187 detailed a filter assembly for a hand held vacuum cleaner that positioned the
collection chamber in the rear of the vacuum. While this patent documentation was helpful, we
eventually decided on having the filter chamber closest to the front of the vacuum where it would be
directly attached to the suction hose.

3.2 Concept Generation

To better understand customer needs, user functional decomposition and black box decomposition tools
were used. Both may be found in APPENDIX-C-1 – problem decomposition. Throughout the initial
phase of generating concepts, the team brainstormed concepts of all aspects. These stage one ideas were
all developed on note cards by each member and organized in such a way that relative concepts were
grouped together. When a concept was pitched to the group, each member listened carefully to the
design and reserved subjective judgment which enabled all ideas to be heard and analyzed on a level
design field. In lieu of concept combination charts, concepts were combined by stacking cards on top of
each other to represent a wish-list final design. The rough concept sketches that were originally drawn
on the note cards have been recreated by hand (see APPENDIX-C-2 – concept sketches).

3.3 Concept Selection

For concept selection, selection matrices were used to pick concepts. The matrices may be found in
APPENDIX-C-3– selection matrices. Their explanations are below. The rankings for the selection
matrices were generated by asking customers to discuss relative importance of each weight.

The final weights were:

Ease of manufacture (cost) - 4 Performance –5
Ease of integration into assembly (cost) - 3 Durability – 3
Ease of use (functional ergonomics) - 6 Performance (ergonomics - comfort) – 5
Appeal – 3 Functional Performance (suction) – 6
From this pool, 4 applicable weights were picked for each concept.

Shell Design

Final Pick: Plastic mold clamshell (for final prototype), reinforced high strength cardboard (for beta).

In analyzing the durable plastic clamshell model, the team determined that it would be fairly easy to
manufacture. A solid model could be prototyped into a working model and the overall design would
fare well. Being a two-piece shell, the mold would fit together well since its attachments would be
minimal and would be easily integrated together. Visually, the plastic shell design would be
aesthetically pleasing to the customer since all components could be fit to the mold and reduce the
amount of material used. It would be sleek and the texture of the plastic mold would provide comfort to
the user.

While the sheet metal shell design would be aesthetically pleasing it would be more difficult to
manufacture. Attaining complex curvature would be harder to form with sheet metal than with a plastic
moldable material or cardboard. For this, the ease of manufacture was rated at a below average level.
The ease of integration with sheet metal would be difficult as well, being that the shell would have to be

Page | 5
molded properly first in order for the design to fit together (and not be of a box-like structure). The
durability of sheet metal, however, is considerable.

The team explored the cardboard model design the most in the alpha mock-up design phase. The use
of cardboard increased formability and gave way for a quick-to-build and test process to occur. In terms
of manufacturing, the cardboard method was the easiest in regard to building the shell allowed for the
team to make insertions and establish relative spacing with ease. Integrating the cardboard model with
the other parts is above average in the ranking system, though its integration would require adhesives as
primary attachment materials. Visually, the cardboard model would look somewhat unprofessional and
perform below average in that category. The cardboard would have to be coated with spray paint in
order for it to look presentable.

Shell Ergonomics

Final Pick: arm clipping with free-to-move wrist concept, with an optional rigid mode.

The designs that the team analyzed ranged from standard handle models to slightly more advanced arm
clipping designs. The first concept incorporated a standard grip handle design for the customer to
hold on to while performing the cleaning. This model was pitched more for the purpose of a direct
comparison to what most hand-held vacuum cleaners have in the current market. This would be the
easiest to manufacture and integrate into the rest of the vacuum though it is much less appealing to the
arm clip models the team explored. When focusing on durability, it was determined that the standard
handle design would perform better that the other models since less parts are involved and there exists
more rigid fixtures.

The second concept had the revolutionary arm clipping design-one with a rigid suction cup, the other
with a flexible hose. This design would take some more effort to manufacture since there would be
additional fittings for the attachments which is why it rates above average in that category. Again, this
would not to be that difficult to integrate since it has a fixed suction cup at the end and the arm
clippings. When compared to the standard handle design, the arm clipping would provide much more
range of motion though it has the potential to be less secure since it is relying on the strength of the
clippings. This design would be much more appealing than the standard handle since it increases
mobility, though the fixed suction cup limits the range of area covered. Increasing the degrees of
freedom by having a rotatable cup would be much more appealing to the customer; these are explored in
the next two designs.

The final design has combined rigid and a mobile suction cup modes, with a retractable hose that is
attached to the suction cup for maximum mobility. Of all the designs, this would be the most
ergonomically appealing to the customer since it provides them with exceptional range of motion and
multiple forms of variations of use. The rigid attachment turns the vacuum into the fixed suction cup
design while extending the retractable hose enables the multi degree of freedom mode.

Hose and Airway

Final Pick: Flexible hose that collapses for rigid mode

Page | 6
The three concepts for the type of hose are directly related to how much range of motion customer will
have. The first concept the team analyzed was the rigid pipe idea. All three designs would be relatively
easy to manufacture, given that the hose and/or piping will be bought from McMaster-Carr at some
point in the near future. The pipe would be the most durable since it is formed out of a solid plastic
material. The functionality is decreased immensely with the use of a rigid pipe since the range of
motion directly depends on the location of the pipe.

The regular hose idea increases the range of motion and allows for higher mobility. With this design, a
side-shell hose holster (or some type of hose attachment) would be required since the hose would not be
retractable. While this would be more satisfying to the customer (compared to rigid pipe), it would
increase the size of the vacuum and its external parts with the addition of a regular hose. The durability
would be above average though not as exceptional as a solid material build. This is one of the main
trade-offs that were considered in this design selection process.

The best concept for the hose and airway design is a retractable hose. This design takes the
functionality of a multi degree of freedom device and makes it more compact. By having a retractable
hose one would be able to extend the end as far as you needed and could still utilize the vacuum cleaner
in compact manner. The durability would rank slightly less than the regular hose since there would be
constant retraction and extension in this design. This may cause tearing of the hose in the long run, but
the interchangeable design would allow for the user to replace the hose.

Fan Design

Final pick will be selected after performance ratings.

Preliminary Pick: Centrifugal Pump with Backward angled, curved blades.

The fan designs that are specified in the selection criteria will be tested upon further prototyping and
manufacturing. Scoping and preliminary design of the fan is described in the next section. All
performance calculations and testing will be described in full extent in the detail and final reports. The
preliminary pick was the centrifugal backward angled pump due to the calculations discussed in the next
section.

4. SYSTEM LEVEL DESIGN

The proposed alpha design is presented in Figure 4.0.

Large DOF Feature:

The defining characteristic of the design is shown in Figure 5.0: the vacuum cleaner can be clipped onto
the arm, allowing the wrist itself to hold a suction cup that attaches, through a retractable hose, to the
collector. This feature allows for an unprecedented number of degrees of freedom for wrist motion.
The user is able to clean surfaces using the same hand motions as cleaning using a tablecloth—perfectly
natural motion, which removes wrist strain problems that may be caused by conventional rigid handle
design.

Page | 7
If, however, a rigid handle design is
preferred by some users, a rigid
connector piece can be inserted between
the collector and the suction cup, fixing
the suction cup in place. (Figure 6.0).

LED Dust Scanner feature:

Upon searching for better ways to make

dust more visible, we remembered the
following phenomena: when light
strikes dust particles on a horizontal
angle, the light tends to be reflected
mostly backward—right into the user’s
eye. This drastically highlights dust
particles (this effect can be seen if one Figure 4.0: Proposed Design
takes a flashlight and puts it flat on the
table. Less of the table is lit up, but the dust particles become much more visible than if the flashlight
was pointed straight down on the table). This feature is simple-- it requires nothing more than two
LEDs that are horizontal. Note: the purpose of the LEDs is not so much to “light up” the table as it is to
make the light reflect off of the dust particles directly into the user’s eyes.

Refer to APPENDIX-D-2 detail drawings for more detail.

Figure 5.0: Flexible hose suction pad mode Figure 6.0: Rigid connection mode

Page | 8
5. DETAILED DESIGN

5.1 Components

The detailed design contains many different components for the final assembly. To see detailed
drawings for each part, see to APPENDIX-D-2 detail drawings. This section will discuss some of the
more important design choices

Overall Shape and Appearance (Shell and Collector)

Early in the design process it was realized that the final design requires a smooth shape for outward
appearance in order to create a presentable design. Three different shell models have been iteratively
created in 3D. This iterative technique allowed customer and group member input on the outward
appearance, and the final design (shown throughout this document) is a summation of various inputs on
vacuum appearance. It is critical to note, however, that while the black/red color scheme (primary and
secondary colors respectively) is the default color scheme (designed to fit the drill color scheme), it is
suggested that the final production include white/blue and dark red/dark red color schemes.

Straps

The three straps (two on main body and one on suction cup) have been designed to fit variable arm sizes.
They are to be made out of Velcro® fabric for easy and quick adjustment and secure fit.

Handle & Rigid Piece Attachment

The handle is to be located on the side of the vacuum. It has been designed such that the handle does
not interfere with Large DOF mode use (Figure 5.0). However, if Large DOF mode is not preferable,
the rigid mode attachment can be mated to the collector in place of the hose. This attachment turns the
vacuum on its side, and the handle side now becomes the ―top plane‖ of the vacuum (Figure 6.0).

Filter

The filter has been designed in a cone shape. This shape allows the incoming particles to strike the
surface of the filter at a glancing angle (instead of at a normal angle), deflecting them into the collector
and preventing them from accumulating on the filter itself.

Hose, Airway, and Suction Cup

The hose has been designed to be smaller in radius than the fan inlet itself. This converts the large head
produced by the fan into fast fluid velocities that drive the dirt particle flow. The suction cup design
itself has been inspired by a computer ―mouse‖, allowing for comfortable feel while permitting free
motion.

The fan design is discussed in the calculations section.

Page | 9
Electrical Routing and LED

Included in the design are two LED lights mounted on the suction cup (for dust incidence highlighting
feature – refer to section design for description of this new feature). To determine the best design we
remembered the cleaners on the market today; these vacuums include ―plug junctions‖ that allow
extensions to have electrical features. The electrical routing diagram is in APPENDIX-D-3 Electrical
Diagram. The design includes interchangeable junctions which require nothing more than simple
copper wires with end plugs to connect different extensions.

5.2 Material Selection

The materials for the vacuum have been selected to reduce the cost of production and assembly. The
shell and accessories will be made of injection molded ABS (Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene). ABS is a
low cost thermoplastic with good mechanical properties. Use of this material will produce accurate
parts that are very inexpensive for a 100,000 unit/year run. The accuracy of injection molded ABS
allows the internal assemblies to be positioned with aligning features. These assemblies are then locked
into place when the upper casing is attached with screws.

The fan is also injection molded, but Glass Filled Nylon was selected for its superior mechanical
properties over ABS. The Nylon construction allows the fan to withstand much larger stresses. This
reduces the probability of injury to the customer and increases reliability by preventing a critical failure.
Glass Filled Nylon is more expensive than ABS, but the cost increase is well justified by reliability
improvement that it offers.

5.3 Fabrication Process

The vacuum has been designed for easy assembly. This has been accomplished by carefully considering
the placement of all essential components so that the vacuum may be assembled from the bottom up.
The lower casing (all casting would be purchased from outside vendors) fixes the motor assembly,
battery, wires, and ducting. Then the upper casing is lowered onto the entire assembly and fastened with
five screws. This assembly strategy reduces the number of operations and repositioning necessary to
build the body of the product. This process could be automated, but at this time, the team believes that
hand assembly would be more cost effective due to the high initial cost of an automated assembly line.
The vacuum is completed by attaching the accessories.

The accessories are attached to the Labor Cost per Unit at $15/hr. Wage
Time
body in the same manner as the Operation (sec) Quantity Total Time Required
customer would when they use and
Snap 5.9 12 70.8
maintain the product, therefore this
process must be performed by hand. Screw 10.3 5 51.5
The filter is snapped into the dust Wiring 20 1 20
collector frame before the filter Repositioning 110 1 110
housing is slid into position. The
filter housing attaches to the body Time to Assemble 1 Unit 252.3
with integrated snap connections. Labor Cost per Unit $1.05
The suction cup assembly is attached
to the filter housing by connecting

Page | 10
the hose, or attaching the rigid connection piece. The arm straps are also easily attached to the case with
snaps. The completed product is then sent to the test station to verify proper operation.

As shown in Table 3.0, the estimated time for the assembly of a single unit is approximately 252
seconds (the time has been approximated by assembling the vacuum using a solid works model and
adding a 50% safety time to account for the fact that real world assembly is not entirely lean-compliant).
This time has been reduced by utilizing a pancake construction for the vacuum body and reducing the
number of mechanical fasteners to a minimum while still preserving the structural integrity of the unit.
Attaching the accessories does require some repositioning, but this has been reduced by designing a
product that is easily maintained.

5.4 Bill of Materials

The bill of materials for

the vacuum are listed in BOM per unit at 100k units produced
Item Molded? Volume
Table 4.0. The cost of Item Name Qty Cost ($)
# Y/N (in^3)
the injection molded
1 18V DC Motor 1 N -
parts was approximated $10
using three sources. 2 18V Battery 1 N -
Ulrich’s (237) provides a 3 Molded Shell - Top 1 Y-1 cavity 27 1.85
table to estimate the cost 4 Molded Shell-Bottom 1 Y-1 cavity 50 2.07
to produce several 5 Fan 1 Y-4 cavity 1.33 1.06
example parts of various 6 Dust Collector 1 Y-2 cavity 6.4 1.02
size and complexity. 7 Hose (1.2 in dia) 1 N - 0.55
The calculator that was 8 Suction Cup 1 Y-2 cavity 4.5 1.36
used to estimate the 9 Filter Insert 1 Y-8 cavity 1.7 0.43
molding and tooling cost 10 1/8 in screws 5 N - 0.07
was created by Dr. 11 Rigid Attachment 1 Y-4 cavity 3 0.63
David O. Kazmer, a
12 Flat Extension 1 Y-4 cavity 2 0.35
Professor of Plastics
13 Strap 2 N - 1.04
Engineering at
University of 14 Switch 1 N 1 0.27
Massachusetts. The cost 15 LED 2 N 2 0.02
estimates that were 16 Wiring Assembly 1 N 1 0.28
generated by the Cost of
$21.00
calculator were then Materials
compared with reference Labor Cost
$1.05
parts of similar geometry Table 4.0: Bill of Materials per Unit
and complexity that have Total Cost $22.05
been produced in the
past (8). The list of these parts was found on the website custompartnet.com. The estimated price to
produce our parts agreed with the examples that they provided.

Page | 11
5.5 Economic Analysis

After calculating the net present value at estimated salaries of 38 total employees working on the
product, the current NPV for a four-year timespan correlates to $1,569,945 (Table 5.0). With this
metric, the assumption is that all 400,000 units (100,000 per year over 4 years) will be sold. To account
for potential market trends, the team analyzed what would happen if only 85% of the units were sold at
$45 per vacuum. The new NPV in this case came out to equal $115,421. We also determined what
would happen if the price had to be reduced in order to compete with other products. The team reduced
the price to $40 and the NPV with that consideration came out to be $492,520. The projected market
trend is never an exact estimation which is why the team analyzed different scenarios where the sales
price would need to be reduced or the number of units sold would decrease. Both of these cases yielded
a positive net present value.

YEAR 1 YEAR 2
Period 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Quarter 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Values are in $
Development Cost -300,000 -300,000 -300,000 -300,000
Ramp-up Cost -450,000 -450,000
Marketing and Support Cost -146,250 -146,250 -146,250 -146,250
Production Cost -551,250 -551,250 -551,250
Prodution Volume 25,000 25,000 25,000
Unit Production Cost -22.05 -22.05 -22.05
Sales Revenue 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,125,000
Sales Volume 25,000 25,000 25,000
Unit Price 45 45 45

Period Cash Flow -300,000 -300,000 -300,000 -750,000 -596,250 427,500 427,500 427,500
PV Year 1, r = 10% -300,000 -292,683 -285,544 -696,450 -540,173 377,848 368,632 359,641
YEAR 3 YEAR 4
Period 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Quarter 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Values are in $
Development Cost
Ramp-up Cost
Marketing and Support Cost -146,250 -146,250 -146,250 -146,250 -146,250 -146,250 -146,250 -146,250
Production Cost -551,250 -551,250 -551,250 -551,250 -551,250 -551,250 -551,250 -551,250
Prodution Volume 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
Unit Production Cost -22.05 -22.05 -22.05 -22.05 -22.05 -22.05 -22.05 -22.05
Sales Revenue 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,125,000 1,125,000
Sales Volume 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
Unit Price 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45

Period Cash Flow 427,500 427,500 427,500 427,500 427,500 427,500 427,500 427,500
PV Year 1, r = 10% 350,869 342,311 333,962 325,817 317,870 310,117 302,553 295,174
Projected NPV 1,569,945
DISCOUNT RATE/4 = 0.0250 Table 5.0: NPV

Page | 12
The unit production cost was obtained from Table 4.0. All of the other NPV related costs were
estimated using approximated salary values (divided by 4 for each quarter). The related costs are
summarized in Table 6.0. Note: to account for overhead, all values were multiplied by 3 in the NPV
table.

Marketing accounting 2 $65,000 $130,000

Marketing
BS Engineers 4 $75,000 $300,000
Development
PE 1 $100,000 $100,000
Development
HR 1 $65,000 $65,000
Marketing/Support
Ramp
Manufacturing 30 $20,000 $600,000 up/Production
$1,195,000
Overhead (~300% direct) (Each x3)
Table 6.0: Production Costs

5.6 Calculations
Motor Performance
The primary technical aspect of the vacuum 0.02 4

cleaner is the suction power. According to X: 680

Y: 3.84
Dr. Cimbala’s textbook, backward inclined,
curved blade centrifugal impellers are the
most efficient. Consequently, that is the
Torque (N-m)

design chosen for this project. With

Power (W)
backward inclined blade design it is 0.01 2

necessary to determine the most optimal

outer blade angle. Therefore, this section
will focus on calculating this angle using
example 14-5 in the aforementioned
textbook.
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Motor data used: V = 19.2 V, I = 700mA Rotational Speed (rad/s)

(Measured using Multimeter). Using this

data, maximum motor power output was Figure 1.0: Extrapolated Performance Curve
calculated by assuming that the motor Angle vs. Fan Performance
0.018 40
operates at 40% efficiency. The
rotor rotational speed was measured to be
13000 rev/min. Using these initial 0.016 35
Volumetric Flow Rate (m3/s)

conditions, and assuming an ideal DC motor

Head (Meters Air)

performance curve, motor performance was 0.014 30

extrapolated for the entire curve range

(Figure 1.0). Refer to Matlab code in 0.012 25

APPENDIX-D-1 Matlab calculations for

detailed calculations. 0.01 20

The fan would operate through the entire

0.008 15
range of this curve (depending on airway 10 20 30 40
Alpha 2 Angle (Deg)
50 60 70

Page | 13
Figure 2.0: volumetric flow rate and head
blockage). However, for the blade design, the peak power range (3.84W, 6500 rpm) was picked for
optimization. Using those values, and using a 2.8 in diameter fan, Matlab was used to iterate volumetric
flow rate and head for a wide range of blade angles to obtain a relationship curve (Figure 2.0) (Refer to
APPENDIX-D-1 Matlab calculations for detailed calculations). Blade angle of 42.75 degrees was
chosen. This angle gives a good balance between generated head, and volumetric flow rate.

The estimated output for the peak performance point on motor performance curve is:

P = 3.84 W Volumetric Flow Rate: 0.016 m^3/s

Rpm = 6500 rpm Pressure Head: 28.3 meters-air

Battery life at 0.7 A drain (Specs: 1.2 Ah battery):

1.2 Ah/0.7 A = 1.7 Hours
Current Rating: 0.7 A

According to Johan Gullich in his Centrifugal Pumps

book, the optimal blade count for a fan is 7 (375).

Taking everything into consideration, the final fan

design is shown in figure 3.0.

5.7 Product Testing Figure 3.0: Proposed Fan Design

To assure that our vacuum design is up to the standards that the consumer is looking for, several tests
will be conducted to test different aspects and parameters of our vacuum design. These tests will allow
us to gain the knowledge we need from the alpha design to implement the best ideas into the final beta
design. Many different instruments and tools will be used to aid in performing these tests and will assure
that we are getting accurate results. The tests that will be conducted will give us better knowledge of the
battery life, heat generation, durability, flow rate, suction, and the ergonomics of our design.

One of the first tests that will be conducted is testing the battery life. This will give a timeline of how
long the vacuum will be at optimum power and when the power begins to decrease. This will allow for
the team to give information to the user to allow them to keep their vacuum charged enough for their
liking. This test will be done by simply running the motor, with the fan attached, and using a voltmeter
to measure the amperage. The time the battery sustains a rotating motor will be measured.

One of the tests that will need to be done to the alpha design is the heat generated by the motor. This
test needs to be done to measure how much heat is transferred from the motor to the shell surrounding
the internal parts. The heat generation test is important because we need to assure that the distance from
the motor and the surfaces of the shell are adequate enough so that the shell doesn’t get damaged or the
outside surfaces get too hot. This test will be conducted using an infrared thermometer to measure the
temperatures of the inside surfaces near the motor, the outside surfaces of the shell to figure the
conduction through the shell, and the surface of the motor itself. Since the material of the alpha is
weaker and more flammable than the material that will be used for the beta design, if the alpha is
determined to be safe with the produced temperatures, then the beta will have no problem.

Another test that will need to be conducted on the alpha design is a durability test. Since the material
for the alpha is slightly weaker than that of the beta, this test will be used to assure that the shell design
Page | 14
gives the vacuum the most durable shape. If the reinforced cardboard can withstand this test, then the
beta will be well over the requirements for our design. A durability test will be done to test the overall
flexibility of the design. This will give us data on how much deformation the shell can withstand without
breaking. This part of the test will be done with a fish scale and a ruler to measure the force and the
displacement. Another part of this test will be a drop test. This part of the test will demonstrate how high
of a fall the vacuum can withstand and remain intact. This will simply be done with a measuring tape
and a ladder to allow us to mimic the vacuum from a defined height.

Once the vacuum has been fully assembled, the strap strength and comfort will be tested. Once the
straps have been attached, quick tests will be performed to assure that the straps adjust enough to
different size arms and that the straps hold to the user’s arm while holding the weight of the vacuum.
This part of the test will be done with the straps themselves, different strap sizes and material will be
used to allow us to determine the ideal strap for our design. Also, with the vacuum fully assembled, the
overall weight will be tested. The shell obviously needs to be able to hold all the parts in place as it’s in
use. Once it’s concluded that the alpha design can hold the weight of all the parts and keep it in place, it
will show us that the beta will be more than durable.

One of the main variables that determines the critical success or failure of a vacuum cleaner is the flow
rate and overall suction performance. Vacuums that produce little or no suction cannot be effective
so we must test the flow rate against the theoretical value. The team will evaluate this variable by
testing mass flow rate (kg/s). Flow rate can be extrapolated by determining a relationship with inlet
velocity. The team will use a pitot tube to measure the high end velocity. The difficult task will be
attempting to measure velocity at various points within the hose, therefore we will interpolate the data to
estimate the velocity at intermediate points. The goal of the vacuum cleaner is to pick up one cup of rice
in a short time.

In order for fan performance to be maximized the fan must rotate symmetrically and not come in
contact with the shell or any other surface that would cause frictional resistance. This problem can be
avoided with the correct spacing and tolerance between the fan blade and any part in close contact with
the blade. This test will consist of the mounting of the fan onto the shaft and observing its rotation
and/or potential friction.

The final vacuum model must be ergonomically suitable to the customer for them to want to use it on a
regular basis, and will therefore be tested for ergonomic comfort. Comfort and functionality both come
in to play when considering how the vacuum will fare in the customer’s eyes and it is important to get
the their direct opinion on the performance of the final product. The primary means for testing for
ergonomics will be held in controlled focus groups where individuals physically test the model.
Variables that will be tested during this stage are as follows: mobility, comfort, weight balance and ease
of use. This actual procedure will begin with the distribution of the product to a lead user in a controlled
area. The goal is to provide the customer with a comfortable and durable end product and to get detailed
information the team will observe how the individual uses the vacuum. Questions that are asked to the
user will be rated on a ―strongly disagree‖ – ―disagree‖ – ―average‖ – ―agree‖ – ―strongly agree‖ scale,
in a similar method to how concepts were selected. The following are examples of these feedback
statements: “The product satisfies my individual needs in performing tasks. The weight of the overall
vacuum assembly is balanced. The hose is a much needed feature that gives me more mobility”. When
these factors are tested, the data will be interpreted to see where strengths can be identified and where
potential areas of improvement lie.

Page | 15
6. CONCLUSION

The team is making consistent progress with the design and production of the hand-held vacuum cleaner
and has maintained the schedule of the Gantt chart up to now. Thus far, we have a working solid model
of the overall design of the vacuum cleaner with each part assembled in its projected position. The
model allows us to analyze the functionality of the vacuum and address conflicting spacing issues. After
analyzing several fan/blade designs, the team has begun to equate flow rate and suction to power
distribution. We are aggressively testing the performance of the motor and its relationship to the
projected power output that will drive the fan and provide the vacuum with air flow.

The NPV value of the project is a large positive value showing that economically speaking, this project
holds much potential. Additionally, uncertainty analysis was conducted by lowering sales quantity and
prices. Even with these adjustments, the NPV remained positive. However, it is our belief that the
unique features of this design will push the demand for this product beyond the 100,000/yr volume,
boosting the NPV even more. We see this novel design as a profitable endeavor that will benefit both the
manufacturer and the end user alike.

Page | 16
APPENDIX-A-1 Team Roles

Project Management

Project Timeline Manager:

Nicholas Gunther

Design Manager:
Aleksey Ryzhakov

Co-managers: Michael Ganci, Josh Jacoboski

Financial Officers

Production Cost Analysis

Michael Ganci

Alpha and Beta Prototype Cost Analysis/Record

Josh Jacoboski / Aleksey Ryzhakov

Record Keeper

Nicholas Gunther

Safety Officer

Josh Jacoboski

Page | 17
APPENDIX-A-2 Gantt Chart

This Gantt Chart is complete, with all the dates included. However, the visual bars are not included due
to large size. If needed, the gantt chart original file can be provided upon request.

Page | 18
APPENDIX-B-1– metrics and QFD

Page | 19
 APPENDIX-C-1 – problem decomposition

User Action Decomposition Process

1. Grasp vacuum 2. Adjust hand 3. Turn on 4. Locate area

with hand. size/comfort vacuum via that is to be
via strap. on/off switch. cleaned.

5 (a) Apply 5 (b) Detach

7. Repeat process 6. Remove filter
suction cup external hose to
if necessary when full, then
and position locate finer area or
clean and replace.
to clean area. objects of greater
distance.

8. Finish cleaning
when task is deemed
complete.

Functional Decomposition

Convert Stored Energy

Energy Electrical Storage Heat
to Kinetic Energy

Switch Flip Create Current Accelerate Dirt

Exhaust
Matter

Store Dirt Matter

Dirt Matter

Page | 20
APPENDIX-C-2 – concept sketches

Page | 21
APPENDIX-C-3 – selection matricies

CONCEPTS - SHELL MANUFACTURE

A) Clamshell D) Cardboard
B) Piping C) Sheet
Selection Criteria (Moldable Sc
with motor
Sc
Metal
Sc (High Sc
wt Matl) Quality)
Ease of Manufacture 4 3 12 4 16 2 8 5 20
Ease of Integration 3 4 12 4 12 2 6 4 12
Appeal (Visual) 3 5 15 1 3 5 15 2 6
Performance (Expected) 5 5 25 4 20 4 20 3 15

Sum 64 51 49 53
Rank 1 3 4 2
CONCEPTS - SHELL ERGONOMICS
B) Arm C) Arm D) Mixed -
A) Standard Clipped w/ Clipped with Arm Clipepd
Selection Criteria Handle
Sc
Rigid Suction
Sc
large DOF
Sc
Large DOF w/
Sc
wt Cup (Hose) Cup Rigid Option
Ease of Manufacture 4 5 20 4 16 4 16 4 16
Ease of Integration 3 3 9 3 9 4 12 3 9
Durability 3 4 12 3 9 3 9 3 9
Ease of Use (Customer Appeal) 6 1 6 3 18 4 24 5 30

Sum 47 52 61 64
Rank 4 3 2 1
CONCEPTS - HOSE & AIRWAY
B) Regular C) Accordion
Selection Criteria wt A) Rigid Pipe Sc
Hose
Sc
Collapsible
Sc
Ease of Manufacture 4 4 16 4 16 4 16
Ease of Integration 3 5 15 4 12 4 12
Durability 3 5 15 4 12 3 9
Function Performance 6 2 12 4 24 5 30

Sum 58 64 67
Rank 3 2 1
CONCEPTS - FAN **Incomplete - Need Performance Test

A) Axial B) Axial Angled C) Centrifugal D) Centrifugal

Selection Criteria Angled Flat
Sc
Curved
Sc
Angled Capped
Sc
Angled Open
Sc
wt
Ease of Manufacture 4 3 12 3 12 2 8 3 12
Ease of Integration 3 3 9 3 9 2 6 2 6
Durability 3 3 9 2 6 5 15 4 12
Performance (Actual Tested) 5 3 15 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

Sum 45 27 29 30
Rank

Page | 22
APPENDIX-D-1 – matlab program

%% Aleksey Ryzhakov, Fan Performance Calculations:

clc
clear

% The following Motor Specs were measured and obtained from the manual
V = 19.2; %V
I = 0.5; %mA

% Knowing that power = V*I, the maximum ideal power of our motor is
Pmax = V*I;

%Using tachometer, the maximum RPM of our motor was calculated to be

wmax = (13000*2*pi)/60; %rad/s

% At maximum efficiency, w = 1/2 wmax and torque = 1/2 t_stall

% Therefore,
Meff = 0.4; % Maximum Motor Efficiency --ASSUMED VALUE

Pp = Pmax * Meff; % peak power

% Using IDEAL DC MOTOR curve equations from

% http://lancet.mit.edu/motors/motors3.html (9)
% We get the following equations:

wp = wmax/2; % w at peak power

Tp = Pp/wp; % Torque at peak power
Ts = 2*Tp; % Stall Torque

w = 0:10:wmax; %define w

T = Ts - w*Ts/wmax; %
P = -(Ts/wmax)*w.^2+Ts*w;

figure(1)
[AX2, H12, H22]=plotyy(w,T,w,P);
set(get(AX2(1),'Ylabel'),'String','Torque (N-m)')
set(get(AX2(2),'Ylabel'),'String','Power (W)')
xlabel('Rotational Speed (rad/s)')
Title('Motor Performance')

% For fan design - ITERATE

z = 0;

angle_delta = 50; % Degree change of normal vectors of blade curvature from

Page | 23
%inlet to outlet (Blade curvature dependent variable).

% THE FOLLOWING CALCULATIONS WERE PERFORMED USING EXAMPLE 14-5 FROM

FLUID
% DYNAMICS BOOK WRITTEN BY DR. John Cimbala

for ALPH2 = 10:1:70

z = z+1;
alpha2 = (ALPH2)*pi/180; %Outer Air Velocity Angle
alpha1 = (ALPH2-angle_delta)*pi/180; % Inner Blade Air Velocity Angle

r1 = 0.75*2.54/100; %Inner Radius

r2 = 1.5*2.54/100; %Outer Radius
b1 = 0.8*2.54/100; %Inner Blade Thickness
b2 = 0.5*2.54/100; % Outer Blade Thickness
g = 9.81; % Gravity
rho = 1.2; % air density at stp

for Vdot = 0.001:.0001:.03

V1n = Vdot/(2*pi*b1*r1);
V1t = V1n*tan(alpha1);
V2n = Vdot/(2*pi*b2*r2);
V2t = V2n*tan(alpha2);
H = wmax/g*(r2*V2t-r1*V1t);
bhp = rho*g*Vdot*H;
if bhp>Pp
break
end
end

bhpselect(z) = bhp;
hselect(z) = H;
vselect(z) = Vdot;
alphaselect(z) = ALPH2;
angledelta(z) = angle_delta;
end

disp(vselect(angle_delta))

figure(2)
[AX, H1, H2]=plotyy(alphaselect,vselect,alphaselect,hselect);
set(get(AX(1),'Ylabel'),'String','Volumetric Flow Rate (m^3/s)')
set(get(AX(2),'Ylabel'),'String','Head (Meters Air)')
xlabel('Alpha 2 Angle (Deg)')
Title('Angle vs. Fan Performance')

Page | 24
APPENDIX-D-2 – DETAIL DRAWINGS

ILED
DRAWINGS

Page | 25
Page | 26
Page | 27
Page | 28
Page | 29
 GLASS NYLON

GLASS NYLON

Page | 30
Page | 31
Page | 32
Page | 33
Page | 34
Page | 35
APPENDIX-D-3 ELECTRICAL DIAGRAM

Junction Junction

Rl

Switch

Vl
V motor ed
V+
Vin
V-
Battery
Collector Hose/Suction Cup LED
Rigid Piece/Suction Cup
Housing
LED

Page | 36
APPENDIX-E–REFERENCES

(1) U.S. Patent No. D480846S (issued Oct. 14, 2003).

(2) U.S. Patent No. 5970572 (issued Dec 10, 1997).

(3) U.S. Patent No. 5020187 (issued March 19, 1990).

(4) Cimbala, John. Fluid Mechanics. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2010.

(5) Gülich, Johann. Centrifugal Pumps. Berlin: Springer, 2010.

(6) Ulrich K, Eppinger S. Product Design and Development. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2008.

(7) University of Massachusetts Lowell [Internet]. Lowell (MA): Dr David O. Kazmer: c2010 [cited
2010 Oct 18]. Available from: http://kazmer.uml.edu/Software/JavaCost/index.htm

(8) CustomPart.net Part Gallery [Internet]. Olney (MD): CustomPartNet: c2009 [cited 2010 Oct 18].
Available from: http://www.custompartnet.com/

(9) ―D.C. Motor Torque/Speed Curve Tutorial:: Understanding Motor Characteristics." Lancet
WWW Server. Web. 20 Oct. 2010. <http://lancet.mit.edu/motors/motors3.html>.

Page | 37