1
Bike Shelf Design Project By: August Kim, Enting Liu, Kim Harmon, Valentine Asalu Abstract The primary objective of this design project is to design a bicycle shelf that can be attached to the rear of a bicycle and also be folded up to create a place to store goods. It must also be able to fold out and display the goods that were stored inside. The product is being designed to be very cheap yet durable so traveling merchants can afford and use it for a long period of time. We also decided that the product should be sold in a certain market. An area where there the population of street merchants/vendors is great would be an ideal area to sell the product to. Finally, with this information, our team has the necessary information to produce the most consumer appealing bike shelf. NEEDS Portabil ity User Friendlin ess Aestheti cs Practical ity Total Weight Portabili ty 1 5 5 1 12 .41 User Friendlin ess .33 1 5 1 7.33 .25 Aesthetic s .20 .20 1 .20 1.60 .06 Practical ity 1 1 5 1 8 .28 NEEDS Weight Cost Durabilit y Ease of Assembly Maneuverabilit y Comfort Total Weight Weight 1 .33 .20 5 .33 1 7.86 .12 Cost 3 1 .33 5 .33 .33 10 .16 Durabilit y 5 3 1 5 1 .33 15.3 .24 Ease of Assembly .20 .20 .20 1 .20 .20 2 .03 Maneuvera bility 3 3 1 5 1 1 14 .22 Comfort 1 3 3 5 1 1 14 .22 Figure 2. AHP Pairwise Comparison Chart to Determine Weighting for Main Objective Categories Figure 1. AHP Pairwise Comparison Chart to Determine Weighting for Main Objective Categories Figure 3. Target Market: China Criteria Mohr’s Hardness Norm. Cost (square ft.) Norm. Density Norm. Tota l Weights 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.40 1.00 Polypropyl ene 4 .8 0.22 1 0.855 1.14 8.01 5 Polycarbon ate 5 1 3.00 13.6 1.22 1.6 25.4 2 Wood (Oak) 2 .4 1.75 7.9 0.75 1 13.8 Figure 4. Material comparison Manufactured Use Carbon Footprint M aterial: 32 kg CO 2 Manufacturing: 25 kg CO 2 Use: 0.00 kg CO 2 Transportation: 0.565kg CO 2 Endof Life: 10 kg CO 2 68 kg CO 2 Total Energy Consum ed M aterial: 1000M J Manufacturing: 250 M J Use: 0.00M J Transportation: 6.9 MJ Endof Life: 7.9 MJ 1300 M J AirAcidification Material: 0.065 kg SO 2 Manufacturing: 0.358 kg SO 2 Use: 0.00 kg SO 2 Transportation: 0.018 kg SO 2 Endof Life: 8.2E-3 kg SO 2 0.449 kg SO 2 WaterEutrophication M aterial: 6.0E-3kg PO 4 Manufacturing: 0.014 kg PO 4 Use: 0.00 kg PO 4 Transportation: 1.7E-3kg PO 4 Endof Life: 1.8E-3kg PO 4 0.023 kg PO 4

Bike Shelf Design Project

  • Upload
    salma

  • View
    35

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Bike Shelf Design Project. By: August Kim, Enting Liu, Kim Harmon, Valentine Asalu. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: Bike Shelf Design Project

Bike Shelf Design ProjectBy: August Kim, Enting Liu, Kim Harmon, Valentine Asalu

AbstractThe primary objective of this design project is to design a bicycle shelf that can be attached to the rear of a bicycle and also be folded up to create a place to store goods. It must also be able to fold out and display the goods that were stored inside. The product is being designed to be very cheap yet durable so traveling merchants can afford and use it for a long period of time. We also decided that the product should be sold in a certain market. An area where there the population of street merchants/vendors is great would be an ideal area to sell the product to. Finally, with this information, our team has the necessary information to produce the most consumer appealing bike shelf.

NEEDS PortabilityUser

Friendliness Aesthetics Practicality Total Weight

Portability 1 5 5 1 12 .41

User Friendliness .33 1 5 1 7.33 .25

Aesthetics .20 .20 1 .20 1.60 .06

Practicality 1 1 5 1 8 .28

NEEDS Weight Cost Durability Ease of Assembly

Maneuverability Comfort Total Weight

Weight 1 .33 .20 5 .33 1 7.86 .12Cost 3 1 .33 5 .33 .33 10 .16

Durability 5 3 1 5 1 .33 15.3 .24Ease of

Assembly.20 .20 .20 1 .20 .20 2 .03

Maneuverability

3 3 1 5 1 1 14 .22

Comfort 1 3 3 5 1 1 14 .22

Figure 2. AHP Pairwise Comparison Chart to Determine Weighting for Main Objective Categories

Figure 1. AHP Pairwise Comparison Chart to Determine Weighting for Main Objective Categories

Figure 3. Target Market: ChinaCriteria Mohr’s

HardnessNorm. Cost (square ft.) Norm. Density Norm. Total

Weights 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.40 1.00

Polypropylene 4 .8 0.22 1 0.855 1.14 8.015

Polycarbonate 5 1 3.00 13.6 1.22 1.6 25.42

Wood (Oak) 2 .4 1.75 7.9 0.75 1 13.8

Figure 4. Material comparison

Carbon Footprint

Material: 32 kg CO2

Manufacturing: 25 kg CO2

Use: 0.00 kg CO2

Transportation: 0.565 kg CO2

End of Life: 10 kg CO2

68 kg CO2 Total Energy Consumed

Material: 1000 MJ

Manufacturing: 250 MJ

Use: 0.00 MJ

Transportation: 6.9 MJ

End of Life: 7.9 MJ

1300 MJ

Air Acidification

Material: 0.065 kg SO2

Manufacturing: 0.358 kg SO2

Use: 0.00 kg SO2

Transportation: 0.018 kg SO2

End of Life: 8.2E-3 kg SO2

0.449 kg SO2

Water Eutrophication

Material: 6.0E-3 kg PO4

Manufacturing: 0.014 kg PO4

Use: 0.00 kg PO4

Transportation: 1.7E-3 kg PO4

End of Life: 1.8E-3 kg PO4

0.023 kg PO4

Manufactured Use