CORDLESS HANDHELD VACUUM CLEANER

Melissa Buydash Brad Miles David Runyan

December 14, 2010

Team 2B

Executive Summary
The objective of this project was to construct a low cost, high capacity, high performance, durable and aesthetically pleasing cordless handheld vacuum cleaner that will be available by November 15, 2011 and meet the needs of consumers. Because of the current saturation of the cordless handheld vacuum cleaner market, this design was innovative in order to be successful. The proposed design is an ergonomic drill-like design with a motor, a filter, an impeller, a nozzle, and plastic casing created through injection molding. This proposed vacuum design will retail at $40 and provide a profit of $15.50 per cordless handheld vacuum cleaner sold, or $2,364,130 at 100,000 units sold per year over four years.

Table of Contents 1. Introduction1 2. Problem Definition ......................................................................................... 1 3. Customer Needs Assessment........................................................................... 1 3.1. Gathering Customer Input........................................................................... 1 3.2. Weighting of Customer Needs..................................................................... 2 4. Benchmarking and Market Analysis........... 3 4.1. External Search Sources...... 3 4.2. Market Segments.... 3 4.3. Competing Products.4 4.4. Benchmark Analysis... 4 5. Engineering Specifications.............................................................................. 4 5.1. Establishing Target Specifications.............................................................. 4 5.2. Relating Specifications to Customer Needs................................................ 5 5.3. Revised Problem Statement......................................................................... 5 6. Concept Generation.......................................................................................... 6 6.1. Design Concepts...........................................................................................6 7. Concept Selection............................................................................................. 7 8. Final Design...................................................................................................... 8 9. Detailed Design 8 9.1. System Performance Calculations8 9.2. Test Procedure1 0 9.3. Construction and Testing of Alpha Prototype1 0 9.4. Refinements for Beta Prototype. 1 0 9.5. Construction of Beta Prototype.. 1 1 9.6. Beta Prototype Refinement 1 2 9.7. Beta Prototype Test Results... 1 2 9.8. Differences Between Prototype & Production Model... 1 3 9.9. Material Selection Process. 1 4 9.10. Components and Component Selection. 1 4 9.11. Materials and Fabrication Process. 1 4 9.12. Bill of Materials. 1 5 10. Economic Justification... 1 5 11. Industrial Design.1 6 12. Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................... 1 6 13. References...................................................................................................... 1 8 14. Appendix A: Customer Interview Questions and Analyses........................... 19 15. Appendix B: Competitors... 2 0 16. Appendix C: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Matrix............................... 2 2

17. 18. 19. 20.

Appendix D: Dimensioned SolidWorks Drawings 2 3 Appendix E: Concept Advantages/Disadvantages. 2 7 Appendix F: Economic Viability Calculations....................... 2 8 Appendix G: Detailed Performance Calculations.. 29

1.

Introduction

Background Due to the economic success of ACME Tool Companys 18V cordless drill, expansion of the product line to include cordless handheld vacuums has been recommended. The product will be evaluated on its economic potential, aesthetics, ergonomics, performance, and overall satisfaction of customer needs. It is very important that the design is affordable, yet performs at or above the level of competitors in the cordless handheld vacuum cleaner market. Basic Inner Workings of a Vacuum Cleaner: Vacuum cleaners work by use of an electric motor that drives a fan, causing an influx of air into the vacuum. This influx is sent through a filter that removes debris and then a second opening allows an efflux of the remaining air [1]. Making the Transition to Cordless Handheld Vacuums: Cordless handheld vacuums are used to clean up various small spills, usually in tight, hard-toreach spaces. The first patent for a vacuum cleaner was filed in 1860, but a cordless vacuum was not available on the market until 1979 [2]. Advances in rechargeable battery technology fostered the development of cordless vacuums, while the ability to make the inner workings of the vacuums smaller allowed them to become handheld. Most cordless handheld vacuums use two portions: one that contains the motor and one that can be separated from the base to empty waste and debris [1]. This removable container can either be connected by a hinge or be completely detached from the base [3]. Task Description The task was to design and construct a cordless handheld vacuum using one 18V cordless drill. The proposed design has the greatest economic potential and performance, as evaluated through external research, a customer needs assessment, creation of product specifications, and concept generation and selection. The economic potential of the final vacuum design was evaluated through its satisfaction of the established customer needs as well as a detailed economic analysis.

2.

Problem Definition

The problem faced was how to design a vacuum that is relatively inexpensive to produce, yet has the ability to perform all tasks that consumers expect. Constraints included that the prototype used the original drills motor, original battery connector, and original battery pack. Understanding of these constraints was crucial to the economic viability of the product, as the magnitude of the market for cordless handheld vacuum cleaners is broad and presents an opportunity for a large monetary profit if successful.

3.
3.1.

Customer Needs Assessment

Gathering Customer Input

To ensure that the most viable product was created, eight men and eight women were interviewed (two students at The Pennsylvania State University and six adults from various parts of Pennsylvania in each group). Interview questions and response analyses (Appendix A) showed that the customer needs fell within the hierarchal list of primary and secondary needs shown in Table 1. 1

1. 2.

3. 4. 5.

Table 1: Hierarchal Customer Needs Obtained from Interviews Capacity The vacuum holds enough waste Weight The vacuum can be maneuvered with one hand The vacuum is lightweight The vacuum fits in small spaces Durability The vacuum can be used repeatedly and not break Low cost Performance The vacuum picks up dirt and hair The suction power does not change throughout cleaning The vacuum can run long enough to clean up the mess

3.2.

Weighting of Customer Needs

Table 2 lists the five most critical customer needs and their corresponding weights of importance. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) matrix showed that low cost and performance are equally the most important criteria to be considered when designing the cordless handheld vacuum (Appendix C). This made qualitative sense because the cordless handheld vacuum cleaner market is saturated with acceptable products. As a result, this design needs to be superior to current cordless handheld vacuum cleaners in one or both of these categories. The durability of the vacuum was the next most heavily weighted criterion since customers will want the investment put into their vacuums to last for multiple uses (at least 600 hours of use, as later shown in Table 4). The matrix also showed that capacity and weight, while still necessary to consider, carry the least weight in terms of importance. This makes qualitative sense because they have more to do with convenience, while the other three categories are directly related to the monetary value of the product. If the most heavily weighted needs are satisfied, the product will be successful.

Table 2: Weighted Customer Needs for Cordless Handheld Vacuum Customer Need Weight Percent (from AHP) Capacity 6 Weight 6 Durability 18 Low Cost 35 Performance 35 Capacity (6%)Capacity refers to the volume of waste material that the cordless handheld vacuum cleaner is able to hold before needing to be emptied. Weight (6%)Weight refers to the weight of the entire cordless handheld vacuum cleaner. Durability (18%)Durability defines the ability of the vacuum motor and batteries to function adequately after 600 hours (see Table 4). Low Cost (35%)Low cost defines the actual monetary price of the cordless handheld vacuum cleaner. Performance (35%)Performance refers to the power and suction produced by the cordless handheld vacuum cleaner. 2

4.
4.1.

Benchmarking and Market Analysis

External Search Sources

Since the flow of air into the vacuum cleaner significantly influences its performance, impeller design was crucial. There are two types of fans: centrifugal and axial. Figure 1 illustrates the direction of air flow in the two different fan types. Centrifugal fans pull in air and subsequently eject it in the radial direction. Axial fans, conversely, Figure 1: Direction of air flow in centrifugal (left) and axial (right) fans [5]. move air parallel to the shaft in the same way as a standard household fan. Centrifugal fans are characterized by their ability to produce greater suction than axial fans when spun at a high speed [4]. This fact made a centrifugal fan design better for use inside a cordless handheld vacuum cleaner. Also, there are three basic types of centrifugal impellers that could usedclosed, open, and semi-open (see Figure 2). Closed impellers are extremely efficient, but they cannot be adjusted if problems occur and are very difficult to clean. The drill contains a motor that runs at over 20000 RPM, but it is expected that the impeller will not experience wear quickly because the blades only come into contact with air. Conversely, open impellers are less costly to build, easy to clean, and can be modified during the design process to increase performance. They are, however, less efficient than closed impellers. Semi-open impellers operate more efficiently than open impellers and can be built at a lower cost than fully closed impellers [5]. Because customers identified low cost and performance as the most important design factors, a semi-open impeller was the best choice for the cordless handheld vacuum cleaner when the trade-offs were considered.

Figure 2: Open (left), closed (middle), and semi-open (right) impellers [5].

4.2.

Market Segments

The market for cordless handheld drills is divided into high end, middle range, and low end products. Since the drill that was used to create the cordless handheld vacuum is a lower to middle range drill, it makes sense that the cordless handheld vacuum should be marketed toward the lower end of the market as well. A typical low-end cordless handheld vacuum costs $30-$50, while higher end models (such as the Dyson DC31 cited in Appendix B) can cost over $200 [6]. This higher price is generally justified by more powerful motors, but run times are fairly consistent across the market segments at approximately five to fifteen minutes. However, the more powerful motor also tends to increase the weight of the product. 3

4.3.

Competing Products

Three consumer top-rated cordless handheld vacuums were used for benchmarking in Table 3 [6]. Pictures can be seen in Appendix B. The Dyson DC31 is in the high end portion of the marketing segment and is thus not a direct competitor. However, benchmarking proposed designs against it is beneficial in comparison to a best in class cordless handheld vacuum cleaner. Also, the ergonomic design of the Dyson DC31 is one that will be considered for emulation (picture in Appendix B). The Dirt Devil Kurv and Black & Decker PHV1800CB are more directly competitive cordless handheld vacuum cleaners. Since, the Black & Decker PHV1800CB model uses the same battery as the proposed design does, the Black & Decker model will be utilized as a competitor for performance. Conversely, the Dirt Devil Kurv presents a cheaper and more aesthetically innovative model, which was also used for performance and cost benchmarking. Trade-offs were made between all three designs to produce the most economically viable product.

4.4.

Benchmark Analysis

Table 3 summarizes the performances of the three top-rated vacuum cleaners which were used to benchmark the proposed design. Relevant patents to the vacuum cleaners used for benchmarking are as follows: Patent No. 4,670,701; Patent No. D575,013 (Dirt Devil); Patent No. D552,309 (Black & Decker).

Table 3: Customer Needs Relationship to Metrics and Values Specification Dyson DC31 Dirt Devil Kurv Black & Decker (2 settings) PHV1800CB Motor 38 watts/65 watts 30 watts 35 watts Bag NO NO NO Filtration Standard Standard Standard Weight 2.90 pounds 2 pounds 3.25 pounds Cost $219.99 $59.99 $116 Usage Time Between 10 minutes/6 minutes 10 minutes 10 minutes Charge Wall Mountable NO NO YES

5.
5.1.

Engineering Specifications
Establishing Target Specifications

Table 4 showed that customer needs have been associated with primary metrics and a quantitative target values, which were established through competitive benchmarking information. The hours of use metric of 600 hours was obtained through estimation based on customer needs (Appendix A). It was estimated that the vacuum be used every day for ten minutes over ten years.

Table 4: Customer Needs Relationship to Metrics and Values Customer Need Primary Metric Value Durability Hours of use 600 hours or more Performance Power provided 10 watts or more Weight Scale weight 6 pounds or less Capacity Volume 1 cup or more Size Longest length 14 inches or less Battery Life Minutes Lasting 5 minutes or more Low Manufacturing Cost U.S. Dollars Cost $30 or less Low Consumer Cost U.S. Dollars Cost $50 or less

5.2.

Relating Specifications to Customer Needs

The QFD shown in Table 5 established that all customer needs had been considered while developing engineering specifications. The ability for the cordless handheld vacuum cleaner to run for a long time is directly related to the durability target metric of 600 hours or more of run time, but it is also related to the power provided and the battery life. The weight of the cordless handheld vacuum is related directly to the weight metric, but is also related to the dimensions and battery life (inversely). Ease of use is related to all metrics except manufacturing cost, which makes sense since those metrics were determined from customer needs. Finally, suction power is related to power provided, container capacity, and battery life (inversely).

Table 5: Quality Function Deployment (QFD)

Cordless Handheld Vacuum Cleaner QFD Maneuverability Ability to Clean Dirt/Hair Use Time Between Charges Capacity Weight Size Cost Durability Easy to Use Suction Power Maintained Run Maximum Watts of Total Waste Container Longest Battery Life Manufacturing Time Power Provided Weight Capacity Dimension (One Charge) Cost X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

5.3.

Revised Problem Statement

Cordless handheld vacuums encompass uses as varied as their aesthetic appearances [6]. They are used by all demographics to clean hard-to-reach places, pet hair, and unexpected messes. Due to their battery-powered nature, however, they often run no more than fifteen minutes and with limited power relative to corded models [6]. The need for a superior cordless handheld vacuum in these areas drove the development of this redesign. Target specifications that dictated the redesign included: ability to run for 600 hours or more, at least 10 Watts of provided power, weight of 6 pounds or less, waste container capacity of at least 1 cup, length at longest dimension of 14 inches or less, battery life of at least five minutes, and a cost of $30 or less to manufacture (purchasing cost of $50 or less). 5

6.

Concept Generation

6.1. Design Concepts

Figures 3-6 detail four of the nine total concepts generated. Other concepts were eliminated based on similarity or were combined into the depicted concepts. See Appendix E for detailing of each concepts advantages and disadvantages. Modified Craft: This design utilizes the design of a craft cleanup vacuum to pick up spills. Its core features include a battery pack within the handle and a motor and impeller within the head. The waste compartment is located behind the head at the top of the handle. Attachment: This designs core feature is its ability as an attachment for the pre-existing drill. The attachment includes a base, an impeller, a hanging waste container for easy removal, and a long nozzle to reach into small spaces.

Figure 3: Modified Craft Design

Figure 4: Attachment Design

Figure 5: Roll Behind Design

Roll Behind: This design is similar to typical cordless handheld vacuum cleaners. However, it features the ability to roll across surfaces for increased portability. The motor, impeller, battery, and waste container all reside within the base. Drill-Like: This design is similar in appearance to the drill, but not in function. A waste container is connected to the battery-powered base, and a small nozzle is connected to ease cleaning. A motor within the base is used to power the impeller. This design emulates the Dyson DC31 design ergonomically. 6

Figure 6: Drill-Like Design

7.

Concept Selection

Table 6 showed that the five criteria and weights obtained from the AHP made the Drill-Like design the best. Table 6 also showed that the Drill-Like design satisfied customer needs even more than the three vacuum cleaners used for benchmarking. The Drill-Like design has a total score 22.4% higher than the next highest score. This result is statistically significant, especially considering the Drill-Like designs high scores in all categories. The Roll-Behind design did score higher in durability, so its design features were considered for integration into the Drill-Like design as the design process continued. The results in Table 6 made qualitative sense, as the Drill-Like design required little modification of the original drill design. Since the Attachment design had the aesthetic appeal of the Dyson DC31, aesthetic features from the Attachment design were used as well. Like the Attachment design, the DrillLike design involves a separate piece which connects to the drill. However, unlike the attachment design, the Drill-Like design removed the gear reduction in the drill and allowed the impeller to move the maximum amount of air. Thus, the Drill-like design was the cheapest to manufacture due to its use of the pre-existing product, yet it still presented the potential for high performance as a cordless handheld vacuum.

Table 6: Concept Selection Matrix (Weighted)

Criteria Weight Weight 0.06 Low Cost 0.35 Capacity 0.06 Performance 0.35 Durability 0.18 Total Continue?

A B C Modified Craft Attachment Roll Behind Rating Weighed Rating Weighed Rating Weighed 4 0.24 4 0.24 1 0.06 2 0.7 4 1.4 2 0.7 1 0.06 2 0.24 4 0.24 3 1.05 1 1.4 4 1.4 2 0.36 2 0.72 4 0.72 2.41 2.47 3.12 No No No

Concept D E F G Drill-Like Dyson DC31 Dirt Devil Kurv Black & Decker PHV1800CB Rating Weighed Rating Weighed Rating Weighed Rating Weighed 4 0.24 4 0.24 4 0.24 1 0.06 4 1.4 1 0.35 3 1.05 2 0.7 4 0.24 3 0.18 3 0.18 3 0.18 4 1.4 5 1.75 3 1.05 4 1.05 3 0.54 4 0.36 3 0.36 4 0.36 3.82 2.88 2.88 2.35 Yes No No No

8.

Final Design

Figure 7: Proposed Design Based on results, the Drill-Like design was refined and used to create a final design (Appendix D). Injection molding will be used to create the casings, nozzle, and waste container, as it will be inexpensive in the extended manufacturing of the product. An estimate based on a four-cavity mold (Appendix F) was used to estimate the economic viability of the product [7]. Since the target manufacturing cost of the vacuum cleaner was $30, the total cost of $24.50 was well under the target cost, demonstrating definite economic viability (Appendix F). It was estimated that it would take one year from November 1, 2010 to build the injection mold, complete the production phase, and refine the product [8]. This put the target availability date at November 1, 2011 and exceeded the product release date by nearly two weeks.

9.

Detailed Design

9.1 System Performance Calculations

Motor performance analysis and conservation of angular momentum principles were used to calculate the mass flow rate of air intake under free operating conditions for the cordless handheld vacuum. Conservation of energy was used to calculate the stagnation vacuum of the vacuum when the intake is blocked, and motor analyses were used to calculate the expected battery life. Calculations from conservation of momentum showed that the axial force on the shaft was small enough to eliminate the need of a thrust bearing.
As a result, a simple roller bearing was used in the final design to support the rotary shaft. Calculations from conservation of angular momentum provided an equation of torque versus speed for the impeller.

(Nm)

Next, a motor analysis was performed, which led to another equation of torque versus speed for the motor. = -0.0003 + 5.294 (Nmm)

When coupled with the torque versus speed equation for the impeller, the vacuum could be analyzed. Figure 26 (Appendix G) shows the two equations graphed on the same plot. The intersection between these two graphs represents the operational speed of the vacuum (approximately 12,500 rpm) and was used to predict the mass flow rate of the system.

The battery life was also analyzed. Figure 25 was used to determine the current at the operational speed of 12,500 rpm (approximately 14 A). The batteries in the drill provide 1.2 Ah, so: Battery Life=1.2Ah/14A=0.0857 hours=5.14 minutes Finally, Bernoullis Principle was used to calculate the stagnation pressure for the cordless handheld vacuum.

In general, the calculations showed that a smaller inlet hole in the impeller cover plate increases the velocity of incoming air (and thus the stagnation pressure), but it also increases the torque on the shaft. By Figure 26, this increase in torque leads to a smaller operational speed, which is not ideal for vacuum design. Based on values of approximately 0.2 psi for stagnation pressure of marketed vacuums, the vacuum was designed to have a 1 inch diameter inlet for the impeller to create a stagnation pressure comparable to cordless handheld vacuums on the market. Also, the maximum power occurs at about 50% of the maximum speed, but the maximum efficiency occurs at a higher speed. A compromise was made between these two maxima to create the most effective design. Detailed calculations can be found in Appendix G. Table 7 summarizes the results. Table 7: System Performance Theoretical Predictions Parameter Theoretical Prediction Flow Rate of Air Intake (g/s) 9.97 Stagnation Vacuum (psi) 0.2126 Expected Battery Life (minutes) 5.14 9

9.2 Test Procedure

Prior to mass production of the cordless handheld vacuum presented in this report, flow rate of air intake, stagnation vacuum when the intake is blocked, and expected battery life were measured and compared to the theoretical predictions presented in Appendix G. To measure flow rate of air intake, a flowmeter was used during free operating conditions. The stagnation vacuum was measured by blocking the intake and connecting the cordless handheld vacuum to an airtight box connected to a pressure gauge. Finally, expected battery life was determined by fully charging the cordless handheld vacuum cleaner and recording the time that elapsed before the battery died.

9.3 Construction and Testing of Alpha Prototype

The alpha prototype contained an impeller made out of cardboard and cardstock. The backing for the semi-open impeller and the cover were made of cardboard, while the impeller blades themselves were made out of cardstock. Duct tape and epoxy were used to attach the impeller to a 3/16 outer diameter and 1/15 inner diameter nylon spacer. The nylon spacer was then press fit onto the rotary shaft to allow the impeller to properly spin. The housing was made of PVC pipe, and a filter was made out of a piece of window screening. Permanent connections of any pieces were avoided to allow for design modifications. During testing, the impeller moved enough air to stir pieces of rice at a medium motor speed but was unable to pull rice into the waste container. If the speed was raised above approximately half of its maximum, the impeller imbalance began to make the vacuum unusable. This imbalance was due to slightly off-center impeller placement and flexibility of the shaft which connected the motor to the impeller. Multiple cardboard impellers of various sizes were created. Testing with these different impellers showed that blade angle had little effect on overall air flow and suction. The testing also showed that a larger impeller moved much more air (observations verified by calculations in Appendix G).

9.4 Refinements for Beta Prototype

The beta prototype used a 1/8 steel impeller shaft to mitigate the imbalance problem that the alpha prototype experienced at high speeds. A nylon spacer was still used to connect the impeller shaft to the rotary shaft. The beta prototype also used a rapid prototyped impeller 3.5 inches diameter. The accuracy of the rapid prototype machine made the impeller much better balanced than the cardboard one used in the alpha prototype. There was a bearing around the shaft on the back side of the impeller, which took stress off of the bushings in the electric motor and ensured the longevity of the vacuum. The alpha prototype showed that larger impellers are more effective at moving air and creating better suction. As a result, the overall impeller diameter was increased by 0.5 inches from the alpha prototype. Blade angle appeared to show minimal changes to performance during alpha prototype testing and was left to the 30 degrees originally designed for the alpha prototype. The beta prototype had plates around the impeller made out of Plexiglass instead of cardboard and a screw-top jar as a waste container instead of PVC. These changes were made because the 10

PVC pipes chosen for the alpha prototype were extremely heavy and not very ergonomic for consumer use. Small PVC pipes created a nozzle that led directly into the waste container. Window screening was used as a filter due to its effectiveness in the alpha prototype. Multiple pieces were layered during construction to observe effect on performance due to smaller mesh filters. Significant changes in suction power were observed beyond layering two pieces of window screening and led to the decision to market the vacuum for the cleaning of particles larger than the size created by this layering (half the size of the window screen pores or 1 millimeter).

9.5 Construction of Beta Prototype

The first construction step was to create the waste container (Figure 8). To do so, two PVC pipes were purchased (one to lead back to the impeller and one to act as a shortened nozzle). A drill press was used to drill a 1 inch hole and a 13/16 inch hole in the lid of the jar. The window screen was attached with epoxy to the lid over the 1 inch hole to act as a filter. The grey PVC pipe was then threaded into the 13/16 inch hole and a PVC nut was used to attach it securely. The white PVC that led to the impeller (Figure 8) was attached to the lid over the window screen filter using epoxy.

The impeller was made using the Dimension rapid prototyping (RP) machine. A mold of the impeller was attempted but failed due to the porosity of the impeller material, which caused the mold to adhere to the impeller. After spending two hours removing the mold, it was decided that, due to time constraints, another mold should not be attempted. The Epilog laser cutter was used to cut the plates that surrounded the impeller out of 1/8 Plexiglass. Four 1/8 hex head bolts were placed through four Figure 9: Front and side views of the impeller setup. holes in the Plexiglass (Epilog laser cutter). The back impeller plate had a diameter hole left in the center to secure a 1/8 inner diameter and outer diameter bearing meant to support the 1/8 diameter shaft. The front impeller plate had a 1 diameter hole left in the center for air intake. Three nuts per

Figure 8: Waste container showing attached window screen filter and nozzle made of PVC pipe. Bottom right corner photo is of PVC that led to the impeller.

11

hex head bolt were used to secure the plates together around the impeller and tightened around the impeller plates securely using pliers (Figure 9). A Plexiglass circle 1/4 in thickness and two inches in diameter was cut using the Epilog laser cutter and epoxied to the side of the back impeller plate closest to the vacuum base. Because the circle was slightly larger than the diameter of the opening left from removing the drill chuck, the clamshell pieces could be secured around the circle to hold the impeller system in place. A hole was also cut in the center of this circle piece to allow connection of the impeller shaft to the rotary shaft. The 1/8 impeller shaft was cut using a hand saw to be 1.25 in length, and a 3/16 outer diameter and 1/15 inner diameter nylon spacer was used to press fit the rotary shaft and the impeller shaft together. Epoxy was used at all junctions for added rigidity.

9.6 Beta Prototype Refinement

Refinements were also made during construction of the beta prototype. After the plates surrounding the impeller were made, it was discovered that the Plexiglass piece connecting the back plate to the vacuum was preventing the vacuum clamshell pieces from closing properly. This caused excessive movement of the entire motor, including the shaft connected to the impeller and resulted in the impeller moving forward during operation and rubbing against the front impeller plate. To correct this issue, epoxy was used to rigidly attach the motor to one side of the vacuum clamshell. Figure 10: Fully constructed beta prototype after use. When compared to the performance of the alpha prototype, the beta prototypes performance was far superior. The beta prototype was easily able to pick up over one cup of rice. It was also tested picking up heavier objects like bolts and washers and remained successful in doing so within a reasonable amount of time. Considering that the alpha prototype was only able to swirl air and did not even provide enough suction to pull rice into its container, this was a significant improvement.

9.7 Beta Prototype Test Results

A flowmeter inside a sealed box with an outer diameter of 7 centimeters and an inner diameter of 3 centimeters was used to measure the flow rate of the cordless handheld vacuum in ft/min. The proposed design registered 460 ft/min, or 0.00734 m3/s. Multiplying this by the density of air (1.1839 kg/m3) gave the actual mass flow rate of the cordless handheld vacuum (8.69 g/s). This value was relatively close to the calculated value of 9.97 g/s (detailed in Appendix G). 12

A pressure gage inside a sealed box was used to measure the stagnation pressure of the cordless handheld vacuum and recorded a value of 0.11 psi. This was approximately half of the calculated value of 0.2126 psi. A possible explanation for this disparity is the possibility that the cordless handheld vacuum was not running at full speed while the measurement was taken. It is also possible that the box containing the pressure gage was not fully sealed, causing some leakage of air. Finally, the calculation assumption that the flow inlet to the impeller does not allow for swirling air could also be causing a discrepancy since there was about 1/4 of space between the front of the impeller and the flow inlet hole of the front impeller plate. Finally, the cordless handheld vacuum was run until the battery died. The battery life was approximately ten minutes, which was twice the calculated value. This is likely due to an error in measuring the stall current. Throughout multiple measurements, various stall currents were obtained. If the stall current had been recorded at one of the lower measured values, the current at 12,500 rpm would also be smaller and would lead directly to a longer battery life prediction. However, both the theoretical prediction and measured value meet the established target metric.

Table 8: Theoretical Predictions vs. Measured Values Parameter Theoretical Prediction Measured Value Flow Rate of Air Intake (g/s) 9.97 8.69 Stagnation Vacuum (psi) 0.2126 0.11 Expected Battery Life (min) 5.14 10

9.8 Differences Between Prototype & Production Model

Due to budget and time constraints, many components of the cordless handheld vacuum cleaner prototype will be different from the production model. One major difference is the aesthetic housing. The final design uses injection molding to create the housing, impeller and nozzle pieces. Since the resources necessary to create these pieces properly was not available during beta prototype construction, the prototype was instead created from Plexiglass, PVC pipe, and a plastic jar to save on building costs. The nozzle of the production model will be much more aesthetically pleasing and slightly longer. This can be done cheaply through the use of injection molding. Also, the vented casing that would prevent user injury from the impeller was omitted in the prototype due to lack of proper materials and manufacturing. In the production model, this would also be made through injection molding. The window screen filter used in the prototype also differs from the production model, which would instead be a finer filter that can capture particles down to 1 millimeter in diameter. Testing at this filter size showed no significant decrease in product performance (as discussed in Refinements for Beta Prototype). These changes will allow the company to produce the proposed aesthetic design efficiently and at a low cost of $24.50 per vacuum (Appendix F).

13

9.9 Material Selection Process

A design was chosen for cost efficiency and ease of assembly. The nozzle, casings, impeller and container for waste will be made using clear polypropylene in an injection molding process (assuming that machines are available for use). Polypropylene was chosen for these parts because it is low in cost, lightweight, and durable. Clear polypropylene was chosen to allow the consumer to view the inside of the cordless handheld vacuum cleaner without disassembling it. The steel shaft for the impeller, the bearing used to support the shaft, and the filter will be purchased from a vendor. To help reduce manufacturing costs, all parts purchased from vendors will be purchased in bulk.

9.10 Components and Component Selection

The components for the vacuum were chosen for efficiency, low cost, and ease of assembly. The impeller utilizes the simple semi-open design. This design includes eight blades arced at 30 degrees and equally spaced from one another. The semi-open design was chosen for the impeller because it is easy to manufacture and it is made of less material than the closed impeller design. Therefore, it is less expensive in mass production. The container for waste has remained unchanged. It is a simple cylindrical shaped container that is connected to the casing. The container is easily detachable through unscrewing to allow for removal of waste from the vacuum. The nozzle has also retained the same design conceived previously. The nozzle resembles the traditional design of most vacuums--a cylindrical shaped object which connects to the housing on one end and is tapered to a smaller diameter on the other end. The inlet diameter is designed smaller than the outlet diameter to allow for more suction and to act as a filtration system (at the larger diameter) along with a physical filter. This is because the volumetric flow rate will remain unchanged regardless of nozzle size. Therefore, a smaller nozzle area will directly correlate to an increase in velocity. Based on Bernoullis Principle, this will result in a higher stagnation pressure (see Appendix G for verification). The housing has also remained unchanged as a simple, ergonomic, cylindrical shaped container that protects the impeller, is connected to both the nozzle and waste container, and permits the outflow of air.

9.11 Materials and Fabrication Process

For mass production of the cordless handheld vacuum, polypropylene was chosen for many parts because of its low cost, durability, and low weight. The hollow shape of the nozzle makes it a good candidate for injection molding. Because injection molding is ideal for producing thinwalled plastic objects, the housing and waste container will be made using injection molding as well. The impeller will be constructed by using the rapid prototype machine due to its complex geometry. A mold will then be made of the part produced by rapid prototyping. This mold will allow the final impeller to be produced using the injection molding process as well. The steel 14

shaft for the impeller, bearings, and filters will be bought in bulk from vendors and attached during assembly.

9.12 Bill of Materials

Table 9 details the material costs necessary to produce 100,000 units of the proposed cordless handheld vacuum cleaner design. These prices are referenced from sources in Appendix A. Detailed calculations for polypropylene usage per part can be found in Appendix F. To get the total cost for 100,000 units of each component, the quantity was multiplied by the material cost. Then, total cost for 100,000 units was calculated to be $416,495.50. Table 9: Bill of Materials
Part Number NA NA NA NA 1327K44 57155K355 N/A Description Housing Nozzle Waste Container Impeller Shaft Bearings Filter Material Clear polypropylene Clear polypropylene Clear polypropylene White polypropylene Steel (each 3 ft.) Steel Filter Quantity 100000 100000 100000 100000 8350 100000 100000 Material Cost 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 16.33 1.50 1.50 Total Cost Total Cost 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 136,355.50 150,000.00 150,000.00 $416,495.50

10.

Economic Justification

A targeted selling price for the project was set to $40. This price was determined by making connections between customer needs (Appendix A) and the net present value (NPV) table (Table 10) in order to obtain significant profits. The material and assembly costs of the NPV table were determined from the Bill of Materials (Table 9). This information showed that the cost per unit would be $24.50, assuming production of 100,000 units over four years (Appendix F). If 100% of the models are sold, the projected net profit value is $2,364,130 after four years of production with an interest rate of 10% (Table 10). However, the company would be able to break even by only selling slightly more than 50% of the vacuums. Thus, the product is extremely viable economically.

15

Table 10: Economic Net Present Value Calculations 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years Development Cost -2,500,000 Ramp-up Cost -750,000 Marketing -250,000 Production Cost -2,150,000 -2,150,000 -2,150,000 Volume 100,000 100,000 100,000 Unit Cost -24.50 -24.50 -24.50 Sales Revenue 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 Sales Volume 100,000 100,000 100,000 Unit Price 40 40 40 Period Cash Flow PV Year 1, r=10% Project NPV -3,500,000 -3,500,000 2,364,130 1,850,000 1,681,835 1,850,000 1,528,840 1,850,000 1,389,905

5 Years

-2,150,000 100,000 -24.50 4,000,000 100,000 40 1,850,000 1,263,550

11. Industrial Design

A key feature of the design was to create an ergonomic cordless handheld vacuum that emulated the much more expensive Dyson DC31. To do this, the drill casing was left mostly intact to allow the consumer to hold the vacuum in a more natural position than is seen in many other vacuums (including the other two vacuums benchmarked against). The housing, though not built, would enclose all of the mechanical and electrical components of the beta design. The housing would have a cylindrical shape that would be vented over the impeller to allow an efflux of air and would seal around the hoses, the top of the waste container, and the filter. To determine whether the product was aesthetically attractive and easy for consumers to use, 13 of the original 16 customers surveyed were shown Figure 7 and asked to use the beta prototype to clean a cup of rice. The customers were told the selling price of the cordless handheld vacuum, and 13 out of the 13 customers said that the product was attractive, 11 out of the 13 customers said that it was easy to use, and 11 out of the 13 customers said that they would buy the vacuum for $40 based on their observations and the projected final design. Because these were the customers originally surveyed to establish customer needs and target metrics, this demonstrated that the proposed product met the identified customer needs. The two customers that were not pleased with the cordless handheld vacuum cleaner cited the desire to have an on/off switch for easier use instead of needing to constantly press a button in order for the vacuum to function.

12. Conclusions and Recommendations

This design is aesthetically pleasing and includes minimal parts. It meets or exceeds customer needs and could be manufactured at low cost through use of injection molding technology and purchases from vendors in bulk (Appendices C and F). Because of its manufacturing ease, 16

overall cost, and use of the pre-existing product, the design is viable economically at a retail cost of $40, with a profit of approximately $15.50 per product (dependent upon sales volume). Development of the beta prototype demonstrated all aspects of this report. However, there are many changes that could improve the design. First, a full housing would help explain the final design more sufficiently. Second, using screws to attach the back impeller plate to the clamshell pieces would make the design much easier to modifythe epoxy is very permanent and not particularly pleasing aesthetically. A foreseen issue would be the impeller moving on the inner shaft. As the vacuum continued to be used, it was observed that the movement of the impeller back and forth gradually became more exaggerated. Though it did not cause any immediate issues, it can be imagined that, over the 600 hour time use specified in the target metrics, the impeller might move so much that it makes the vacuum unusable. A possible way to mitigate this issue would be to add another bearing support or to more rigidly attach the impeller to the rotating shaft of the motor through use of a clamped steel spacer instead of a press-fit nylon spacer. Also, the impeller could be tapped and the impeller shaft threaded to provide a more secure attachment over epoxy. Going forward with the product, it is recommended that a housing is injection molded for better simulation of the product in mass production. It is also recommended that the impeller shaft is threaded and the impeller center tapped to allow better attachment. Finally, to satisfy the remaining customers, including an on/off switch would significantly improve the ease of use of the cordless handheld vacuum cleaner.

17

13. References
[1] Daniel Bone and Mark Stratford, Handheld Vacuum Cleaner. Patent 5966774. 19 October 1999. September 2010. [2] Phil Ament, Vacuum Cleaner. 2007. The Great Idea Finder, 27 April 2007. September 2010. http://www.ideafinder.com. [3] Mark Stratford, Handheld Cordless Vacuum. Patent 509930. 9 September 2005. September 2010. [4] Harold Brochmann. Vacuum Cleaner Specifications. Shaw. http://www.members.shaw.ca/FLYAWAYTOO/Miscellaneous/vacuum-1.00.html. [5] Lawrence Pumps, Inc. Choosing the Right Impeller Style Part I. Run Times. August 2004. October 2010. http://www.lawrencepumps.com/newsletter/news_v02_i1_Jan05.html. [6] Consumer Search, Handheld Vacuums: What To Look For. Consumer Search, 2010. September 8, 2010. http://www.consumersearch.com/handheld-vacuums/important-features. [7] Cost of Injection Molding Plastic Parts. 2010. Epsilon Industries. September 2010. http://epsilonindustries.com/pricing/cost-of-plastic-part-production/. [8] Deltron Designs. Injection Molding FAQs. ProMoldPlastics: Custom Injection Molding and Moldmaking. September 2010. http://www.promoldplastics.com/. [9] Deerso. 2010. September 2010. http://www.deerso.net/. [10] Dirt Devil. Cordless Handheld Vacuums. Royal Appliance Manufacturing Company. 2010. September 2010. http://www.dirtdevil.com/.

18

Appendix A: Customer Interview Questions and Analyses

Q: How much would you be willing to spend on a cordless handheld vacuum?

Figure 11: Cost Responses Q: For how long would you like a cordless handheld vacuum to run without needing to be charged?

Figure 12: Run Time Responses Q: What do you usually use a cordless handheld vacuum to clean?

Figure 13: Use Responses 19

Q: Have you had any problems with previous cordless handheld vacuums?

Figure 14: Previous Problems Responses Q: What weight would you like a cordless handheld vacuum to be?

Figure 15: Weight Responses Q: What lifespan would you expect a cordless handheld vacuum to have?

Figure 16: Lifespan Responses

20

Appendix B: Competitors

Figure 17: Dyson DC31 [6]

Figure 18: Dirt Devil Kurv [10]

Figure 19: Black & Decker PV [6] 21

Appendix C: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Matrix

Table 11: Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Scale of Relative Importance Scale Value Explanation 1 3 5 Equal importance; 2 alternatives are similar Experience and judgment moderately favor one alternative over the other Experience and judgment strongle favor one alternative over the other Table 12: Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Criteria Capacity Weight Durability Low Cost Performance Capacity 1.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 Weight 1.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 Durability 0.33 0.33 1.00 3.00 3.00 Low Cost 0.20 0.20 0.33 1.00 1.00 Performance 0.20 0.20 0.33 1.00 1.00 Sum Total 2.73 2.73 7.67 15.0 15.0 43.13 Weight 0.06 0.06 0.18 0.35 0.35 1.00

Table 13: Weighted Hierarchal Customer Needs Obtained from Interviews 1. Capacity (0.06,0.06) 1.1 The vacuum holds enough waste (0.6,1.0) 2. Weight (0.06,0.06) C.1 The vacuum can be maneuvered with one hand (0.02,0.33) 2.1 The vacuum is lightweight (0.03,0.33) C.2 The vacuum fits in small spaces (0.02,0.33) 3. Durability (0.18,0.18) a. The vacuum can be dropped repeatedly and not break (0.18,1.0) 4. Low cost (.35,.35) 5. Performance (.35,.35) F.1 The vacuum picks up dirt and hair (0.05,0.14) 5.1 The suction power does not change throughout cleaning (0.15,0.43) 5.2 The vacuum can run long enough to clean up the mess (0.15,0.43)

22

Appendix D: Dimensioned SolidWorks Drawings

Figure 20: Vacuum Bin

23

Figure 21: Vacuum Housing

24

Figure 22: Vacuum Back

25

Vacuum Impeller

Figure 23: Vacuum Impeller

26

Appendix E: Concept Advantages/Disadvantages

Concept: Advantages Table 14: Concept Advantages and Disadvantages Modified Craft Attachment Roll Behind Ergonomic, small size, low weight, low cost Utilizes premade drills, easy to manufacture, ability to expand into a line of products, high performance Possibility of high molding costs, is not a stand-alone product Highly durable, ability for multiple attachments, high performance High weight, too similar to current products on the market Drill-Like Ergonomic, small size, low weight, low cost

Disadvantages

May be difficult to market as a vacuum, low performance

May be difficult to market as a vacuum, low performance

27

Appendix F: Economic Viability Calculations

Table 15: Economic Viability of Injection Molding Cavities Five Material Cycle (per part) Cost Per Part Base Drill Cost: $18.00 [9] Filter, Bearing, Shaft Cost: $5.00 Total Cost: 5x$0.30+$18+$5=$24.50 Projected Profit=$40-$24.50=$15.50/product Time of Manufacture: 3 months (design refinement)+6 months (obtaining necessary materials)+3 months (production) = 1 year 0.10 0.20 0.30

28

Appendix G: Detailed Performance Calculations

CONSERVATION OF MOMENTUM
( )

Since the impeller control volume is operating at a steady state:

Since air velocity at the inlet does not depend on the area of the inlet:

Due to relative velocity principles: Changing to a cylindrical coordinate system:

Assuming that air is ejected tangent to the blade angle (): This implies that: Assuming that Vo is a constant and that is a constant:

Since is a function of cosine, its integral over an entire revolution is 0, which implies:

This implies that the force on the shaft comes from the axial direction. However, the low density of air in this calculation shows that the value would be very small and thus eliminates the need for a thrust bearing on the shaft.

29

CONSERVATION OF ANGULAR MOMENTUM

( )

Since impeller control volume is operating at a steady state: ( )

Utilizing cylindrical coordinates again: For the semi-open impeller design: ( )( ( ( ) ) )

So as the relative velocity of the air at the outlet increases, so does the overall velocity of the air. Since only tangential velocity components contribute to the torque, assuming that changes in density are negligible, and since (VA)inlet=(VA)outlet: Since v=R :

For the semi-open impeller, Rinlet is 0.5 inches (0.0127 m) and Routlet is 1.75 inches (0.04445 m). The density of air is . Assuming air velocity is negligible: 2(0.04445m)(0.0127m)

T=((0.04445 m)2 (0.0127 m)2)(0.04445 m)(

This equation is plotted in Figure 26 along with the torque vs. speed curve obtained through motor analysis to couple motor and impeller calculations for more detailed predictions. The intersection of the two graphs shows that, when supplied with 18V, the vacuum will run at approximately

30

Using

) rad/rev)*(1 min/60 s) = 9.97 g/s

=(0.000007619 kg)*(12,500 rev/min)*(2

This equation was plotted versus the equation obtained from motor calculations (see Motor Analysis section). The intersection of the two graphs represents the rotational speed at which the cordless handheld vacuum operates (approximately 12,500 RPM). At this RPM, the current is approximately 14 A. Thus: Battery Life=1.2Ah/14A=0.0857 hours=5.14 minutes

31

MOTOR ANALYSIS
Table 16: Motor Calculations
Name Applied Voltage (Va) Stall Current (Is) Stall Torque (Ts) No Load Current (In) No Load Speed (n) Peak Efficiency Speed at Maximum Efficiency Torque Constant (Kt) Torque Constant (Kt) Back EMF Constant (Ke) Coil Resistance (Ra) Drag Torque (Td) Stall Power Loss Value 18 V 36 A 30 N*mm 0.96 A 20000 rpm 72% 1700 rpm 0.151 Nmm/A 0.147 Nmm/A 0.145 mVs/rad 0.5 ohms 0.145 N*mm 648 watts

Equations Used:

See Figures 25-28 for motor performance graphs. Figure 26 couples the motor analysis and the impeller analysis to make more detailed predictions. The torque versus speed curves for both components are known, so where they cross on Figure 26 is the operating speed of the vacuum when the motor is supplied with 18 Volts.

32

Figure 25: Current vs. RPM

Figure 26: Torque vs. RPM 33

Figure 27: Power vs. RPM

Figure 28: Efficiency vs. RPM

34

CONSERVATION OF ENERGY
Since the fluid is compressible:

Assuming that the system is adiabatic and elevation change is negligible, this reduces to: ( ) ( )

To calculate stagnation vacuum (i.e. vinlet=0): ( ) ( )

Since the working fluid is air, =1.4:

For the semi-open impeller design: ( )( ( ( ) ) )

So as the relative velocity of the air at the outlet increases, so does the overall velocity of the air. If (i.e. is a gage pressure) and air is at room temperature (25 degrees C):

This calculation shows that a larger impeller creates a larger stagnation pressure and vice versa. For the impeller designed, R=1.75 inches=0.04445 meters:

35