Rolling suitcase
From DDL Wiki
(→Manufactured Mechanisms) |
(→Purchased Mechanisms) |
||
Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
====Purchased Mechanisms==== | ====Purchased Mechanisms==== | ||
- | Buckle assembly | + | Buckle assembly (part 060): |
- | These buckles fasten the straps (part | + | These buckles fasten the straps (part 061) which secure items in the interior of the main compartment. They are most useful for keeping the contents from shifting during travel when the suitcase is not full. They snap closed and release by squeezing both sides of the buckle simultaneously. |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
Zipper assembly (part ###): | Zipper assembly (part ###): |
Revision as of 23:49, 7 February 2011
Contents |
Executive Summary
For this stage of the analysis, we have disassembled and analyzed a rolling "rollaboard" carryon bag. Our analyses included a usability study to Design for Manufacture (DFM) to Design for Assembly (DFA) to Design for the Environment (DFE) to Failure modes and effects Analysis (FMEA), each of which yielded new insights into the current state of the strengths and weaknesses of the rollaboard bag. Through the disassembly process of the bag, it quickly became apparent that the bag contained an extremely (>100) high number of parts, though most of them were simply fabric pieces cut into varying shapes and sizes and sewn together. That said, DFM and DFA did expose a high level of modularity and subassemblies, both with mechanical components and with pockets. The DFE analysis demonstrated that the highest environmental cost of the suitcase was its manufacture, so extending the lifetime of a bag is the best way to decrease its impact. Finally, FMEA demonstrated that the most concerning failure mode of the product was zipper failure, though some consideration should also be given to the other failure modes, such as wheels breaking, and the bag tipping over. Throughout this report, we will discuss these results in much greater depth, along with the other findings of our product analyses.
Product Stakeholders
We identified many stakeholders in this product. Each stakeholder has his/her own personal needs and wants from rolling luggage. These have been listed in the table below. We have determined that needs are something that must absolutely be included in the product for the stakeholder to use it, whereas wants are features that will benefit the stakeholder, but are not absolutely essential in the use of the product.
Stakeholder Needs and Wants | ||
---|---|---|
Stakeholder | Needs | Wants |
Consumer | Securely hold belongings, Reasonable product lifetime, Stability, Sized for airline storage | Ease of storage, Ease of motion, Protection against impact, Will not smack into heels, Well organized, Easily identifiable |
Security Personnel | Fits onto conveyor belt, Non-explosive | Not metal, Fast inspection |
Baggage Handler | Strong handles, Ease of movement | Balance on handle, Light, Stackable |
Flight Attendant | Good handles | Idiot-proof storage |
Retailers | Works well empty | Looks good, Feels good to use |
Transporters | Small, Light | Smaller, Lighter |
From this, we have determined that the consumer has the most detailed needs and wants, and thus we will focus primarily on their use for our re-designs. However, the other five stakeholders all have interesting points of view which we intend on considering throughout the re-design process.
Product Use Study
Using a rolling suitcase is something that most people have experienced at least once before, but in our usability study we tried to look at the product from the eyes of a novice. Even non-engineers had no difficulties in utilizing the basic functions of the suitcase. We find that using rolling luggage is not really about the luggage itself, but more about the process of traveling with the luggage. We considered usability from the primary user's standpoint, instead of from the viewpoint of one of the other stakeholders. We modeled our use flow chart on a traveler who is carrying the luggage onto an airplane, which requires many more steps to use than checking a bag on an airline or car travel. As is evident, there are many steps, and for the most part they get reversed from the time the user takes the flight.
![]() Rolling Suitcase Use Flow Chart |
![]() Packed Luggage |
One of the most important parts of using the luggage is packing it. For this particular model of suitcase, which is sized to store in an airplane overhead compartment, we were able to put a number of different pairs of pants and shirts into the suitcase, even without utilizing using any of the built in storage features. This suitcase features both interior and exterior pockets in which to place clothes, but from personal experience, we felt that they are rarely used in practice. Once full, the luggage can be zipped up and position can be changed. However, we noticed that after changing the position of the suitcase, the clothing inside the suitcase settled into a pile in the bottom of the suitcase, ruining any potential organization of the folded clothing and causing wrinkling.
![]() Upright Luggage with Handle Extended |
The next important step in luggage use is the process of rolling the luggage. For this action to occur, the suitcase has to be set onto the wheels, the handle has to be extended, and the suitcase has to be tipped towards the user. We found several difficult challenges in this process. First, raising and lowering the handle can be difficult depending on the position of the user in relation to the suitcase. At the wrong angle, for example, off to the side, it could be quite difficult to extend the handle. Also, the most natural hand positions for pushing the handle release button and for actually pulling the luggage were different, which means that the user must change hand positions to roll the suitcase. Additionally, having to tilt the luggage to roll it can be quite cumbersome when only moving a short distance, such as moving forward in the line for security. Of course, the luggage cannot be rolled up the stairs, which means that mobility with rolling is limited.
Another important part of using the luggage is lifting the luggage. This suitcase featured two stationary handles, one on the top and one on the side, which can be used to maneuver the luggage without the wheels. This is how the luggage is carried up the stairs or loaded into the overhead compartment. In the competitor product that we studied, the handles were quite sturdy and well-suited for lifting with. We found that the handles were in a good position to load the bag into specified positions, like the trunk of a car, the cargo bay of an airplane, or an overhead storage bin.
The final part of using the luggage is storing it between trips. This can prove to be quite difficult, because the luggage has a specific, unchanging size and shape. Many families of luggage, with pieces of different sizes, can be stored nested within one another. Other than this, there is no way to compact the bag for storage. The rectangular shape of the bag does allow for it to be stored with other boxes, or stacked with other things. Most pieces of luggage can fit under beds or in closets, but if storage area is limited, it can be quite difficult to find room to store the luggage.
Product Mechanical Function and Parts
Mechanical Functions
Manufactured Mechanisms
Handle Assembly: The handle allows the user to hold the bag while it rolls on the ground without bending over. It is also used to hold the bag still while waiting in lines or on escalators. The handle operates by sliding vertically out of the body of the suitcase. While in either the raised use position or the retracted storage position, the handle is held in place by a release mechanism.
The release is activated by pressing a button (part 015) on top of the handle. This button pushes two plastic sliders (part 020) to pull on two cables (part 028). These cables run around the corner from the handle into the telescoping supports (parts 026 and 027). When the cables are pulled, the release slider (part 032) slides and retracts the locking pin (part 031). There are three return springs in the mechanism. The first two (part 030) are in the bottom of the telescoping support; they pull on the bottom of the release slider and provide tension in the cable. The third return spring (part 017) pushes up directly on the underside of the button. This helps the mechanism return and deals with the problem back-driving the system. There is one more feature in this mechanism: the plastic sliders each have a rack extending out past the center of the button. In between these racks there is a pinion gear (part 019) which forces the two plastic sliders to move opposite each other and release both sides simultaneously.
Wheel Assembly: The wheels on the rolling suitcase allow the user to roll the bag instead of carrying it. They are mounted on fixed axles so that the bag cannot roll sideways, but can turn by moving one wheel farther than the other. Each wheel is supported on the axle (part 043) by two bearings (part 042), giving it support at either edge. The axles are supported by the hard plastic corner pieces (parts 035 and 036) at the bottom of the suitcase.
Purchased Mechanisms
Buckle assembly (part 060): These buckles fasten the straps (part 061) which secure items in the interior of the main compartment. They are most useful for keeping the contents from shifting during travel when the suitcase is not full. They snap closed and release by squeezing both sides of the buckle simultaneously.
Zipper assembly (part ###): The zipper assemblies hold the pockets closed when the suitcase is traveling, and unzip to allow the contents to be accessed. They open and close by pulling the zipper pull along the length of the zipper in either the ‘open’ direction or the ‘close’ direction.
Wheel bearing assembly (part ###): This assembly is a component of the Wheel Assembly.
Sub-Assemblies
The following photos are the sub-assemblies that comprise the rolling luggage. See the Bill of Materials for part information corresponding to the part numbers labeled in the pictures.
The following picture shows the assembly of the main body of the bag itself.
This picture shows the assembly of the mechanical parts of the luggage, including the wheels and the telescoping handle mechanism.
This picture shows the assembly of one of the stationary handles on the bag. There are two of these on the luggage, one on the top of the bag and one on the side.
This images shows an assembly of one of the pockets on the bag. There are a total of five pockets in the bag, but this is a representative sampling of those five.
This shows the internal corner lining of the bag. It is meant to reinforce the corners under the mechanical components.
This shows the final major sub-assembly, which is a cross-sectional view of the piping that trimmed the bag.
Bill of Materials
Bill of Materials
The majority of the suitcase components are comprised of only a few types of fabric, cut to size and sown together. These fabrics are listed first in the table below, with an estimation of the total quantity used. The remainder of the table shows the different mechanical components that make up the handles, telescoping arm, and wheel base. Most of the 200+ scraps of cloth have been omitted from the table for simplicity. However, the assembly section shows how the fabrics are stacked and sown together at seams, often with re-inforcement. These basic seams are repeated many times in the construction of the bag.
Seams
Design for Manufacturing and Assembly
In our analysis of the competitor product, we identified several interesting choices made by the competitor in regards to the design for manufacturing and assembly. While some of the choices on the part of the competitor were useful for cheap and efficient manufacturing and assembly, there were a few choices that we feel can be improved upon for more economical product manufacturing and assembly.
Manufacturing
The biggest success of the competitor’s design for manufacturing was the relative standardization of design features. One of the most prominent examples of this standardization is evident in the corners of the bag. All corners on the bag, including that of the main storage compartment as well as the exterior pockets, were the same radius. This means that the same manufacturing process can be used for the construction of every corner. Another example of standardization of design features is that some parts looked as if they could be interchanged between various models of suitcases. For example, the wheelbase of the suitcase could be assembled for three different widths of suitcase. This allows for larger manufacturing quantities of injection molded parts, thus leading to a lower cost per part. Another notable thing about the manufacturing decisions of the competitor is the choice of material. All of the materials chosen for the product were fairly easy to work with. These include plastic for injection molding and metal for extrusion, which are both inexpensive materials to manufacture with in large quantities. We found a number of competitor manufacturing choices that can be improved upon in order to simplify the manufacturing process. The first major complaint we had about the competitor product is that they used a huge number of different parts. There were a hundred different shapes and kinds of fabric used in the construction of the bag. We feel that many of these layers served little purpose and could be eliminated or replaced with one layer of higher quality material. Additionally, the competitor used a very large variety of different fasteners throughout the product. Depending on how the competitor laid out the assembly process, all of these different fasteners could cause confusion. We hope to eliminate the majority of these fasteners and replace them with parts that snap or slide together.
Assembly
One of the best choices that the competitor made for the assembly of the product was the use of subassemblies. Many of the external pockets on the bag, as well as some of the internal mechanical components of the luggage, were probably assembled separately and then inserted and attached to the final bag. This allows for workers that can be specialized for one assembly function, thus streamlining the assembly process. Another decision made by the competitor that specifically benefits assembly is the use of fastener slots on injection molded parts. These slots are used in the place of holes for attaching two parts together with fasteners. They aid in assembly because they allow some tolerance in the spacing of parts. This saves time used for alignment in the assembly process. Another thing that the competitor designed into their product to help with alignment in assembly was self-centering mechanisms for many of the internal mechanical parts of the bag. For example, the wheelbase for the bag was a subassembly that was assembled to the correct width of the bag, so that it could be inserted into the bag without the need for additional measurement. The bag also features a chamfered opening in this wheel base, which the telescoping handle fits into. Both the wheelbase and these chamfered openings speed up the assembly process. Although there was clearly thought put into design for assembly of the competitor product, there were also clearly areas for improvement. One of the largest problems we identified was the huge quantity of different parts. Having so many parts to assemble quickly becomes costly and cumbersome. Additionally, because of the complexity involved in so many parts, the assembly of the non-mechanical parts is by no means fool-proof. There is a large potential for error in the assembly of the internal clothes holding features, such as the layers of padding, the pockets, and the straps. This complexity could lead to waste, which only increases the costs of manufacturing and assembly. We feel that many of these internal features could be simplified or eliminated without a noticeable difference in usability.
Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
In our analysis of the competitor product, we identified several different potential failure modes in using the competitor product. These are enumerated in the table below. This uses the FMEA method described in Section 14.5 of Dieter and Schmidt’s Engineering Design. Note that we felt that none of the cases were very severe. There is likely a very low chance of injury from using this product.
Failure Modes and Effects Analysis - Rolling Luggage | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Item & Function | Failure Mode | Effects of Failure | S | Causes of Failure | O | Design Controls | D | RPN | Recommended Actions |
Zipper - holds pocket closed | Pull Breaks | Suitcase no longer contains clothes | 3 | Fatigue/Direct Force | 10 | Load testing on zipper pull | 1 | 30 | Choose less fatigue prone pull material |
Teeth Break | 5 | Fatigue/Poor Construction | 8 | Use testing on zipper | 2 | 80 | Use a more expensive zipper | ||
Fabric Caught in Teeth | 3 | User Error/Poor Placement in Design | 10 | Clearance testing around zipper | 1 | 80 | Give more tolerance for zipper installation | ||
Wheel support - holds wheels to bag | Fracture/Plastic Deformation | Bag no longer rolls properly | 5 | Overloading, rough terrain | 4 | Analysis of dynamic loading on wheel base | 2 | 40 | Increase strength of plastic |
Wheel rubber-provides smooth rolling | Adhesive Failure | Wheel rubber falls off, more wear on skid plate | 3 | Adhesive strength too low | 3 | General wheel testing | 2 | 18 | Better control of adhesive application or use of a stronger adhesive |
Entire suitcase | Tips over | Suitcase falls on floor or user\'s foot | 4 | Suitcase is set off-balance | 10 | General stability testing | 1 | 40 | Give the suitcase a wider base or add more mass toward the bottom of the suitcase |
Extendable handle | Jammed open | Telescoping handle won\'t stay up | 4 | Poor handle alignment | 3 | Test handle extension alignment | 2 | 24 | Add handle extension guides to maintain alignment |
Push button | Sticks open or closed | Telescoping handle can no longer be activated | 4 | Poor button alignment | 3 | Test button alignment | 2 | 24 | Use a stronger spring |
From this, it is evident that the highest priority risks involve the zipper. We anticipate using a higher quality zipper in order to address the potential failure of the zipper. Another area of concern seems to be the balance of the bag in general. We plan on exploring different ways to make the bag more stable, both while full and while empty. The final major area of risk that was identified in the competitor product was damage to the wheel support from overloading or wash-board terrain. We believe that strengthening the material of the wheel support will be sufficient to prevent damage, though we are also considering using a different configuration of wheels to prevent fracture.
Design for Environment
While examining the competitor product, we also considered the environmental effects of manufacturing and using this type of product. Using EIO-LCA model developed at Carnegie Mellon University, we estimated the environmental impact of the product manufacturing, as shown below. The analysis was performed using a 2002 purchaser price model for the Other Leather and Allied Product Production sector (Sector 316900). We used the manufacturing of one suitcase as the reference unit, because that is the amount of luggage most people purchase at a time. Only one unit is consumed per product life, and the cost per lifetime is the cost of one unit, estimated to be about $100. From this, we were able to learn the information below.
Production Phase mtCO2e Estimates | |
---|---|
Sector Number | 316900 |
Sector mtCO2e per $1M | 543 |
Implied mtCO2e per product life | 0.00543 |
CO2 tax @ $30/mtCO2e | ~ $0.16 |
As is evident, the carbon dioxide tax on the manufacturing of this product would be negligible for a single bag, and would likely not affect production in any way.
We feel this analysis is fairly inaccurate for our product, because as shown below, the second largest contributor to these values is from the Cattle Ranching and Farming sector, which would be less applicable to the competitor product we studied, which was made almost entirely out of synthetic materials. For more accurate results, a more detailed analysis of the product’s environmental impact would be necessary.
We chose to disregard the use phase, because the primary environmental effect of the use of luggage is a result of the fuel economy of the method of transportation used in travel. We determined that the weight of the actual luggage was negligible in all cases compared to the weight of the user and the items contained within the bag, and thus any change in fuel consumption in the bag is also negligible.
Group Dynamic
Team Leader: Mallory Elbert
Safety Expert: Fritz Langford
Manufacturing Expert: Eric Lawson
Environmental Expert: David Stonestrom
As a team, we have all worked with one another (though not all at the same time) on various other projects, so we already have a good sense of how everyone else thinks and works. We have allotted two weekly meeting times to use as necessary, but because we know eachother outside of the scope of the course, it has been easy to schedule additional time as necessary.
References
Dieter, G. and L. Schmidt, Engineering Design, 4th edition, McGraw-Hill, 2009, pages 707-712.
Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute. (2008) Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA), US 1997 Industry Benchmark model [Internet], Available from:<http://www.eiolca.net> Accessed 7 January, 2011.