Umbrella 2
From DDL Wiki
(→Design for Environment (DFE) Analysis) |
|||
Line 253: | Line 253: | ||
==Design for Environment (DFE) Analysis== | ==Design for Environment (DFE) Analysis== | ||
- | When | + | When designing any product, engineers must address the potential impact on the environment during the product development process, use phase and its recyclability. We conducted a Design for Environment analysis or DFE, to discover the ways in which umbrellas affected factors like gas emission and waste production. We aimed to identify the environmental impacts by utilizing an input-output product life cycle assessing tool,(EIO-LCA), of an economic sector defined as "Other fabricated metal manufacturing". Furthermore, we strove to determine the impact on the cost of production if Congress were to pass a tax on CO2 emissions. This was accomplished using Carnegie Mellon’s EIO-LCA website. We recorded the greenhouse gas emission levels and toxic releases associated with our product's production sector, assuming 1 million dollars of economic activity was used in the sector: #33299C: Other fabricated metal manufacturing. We concluded that this sector best represents our product as it includes the main material used in its life cycle, the product's majority raw and processed material being aluminum. Although our product does contain a textile component, we chose not to include the textile manufacturing sector in our analysis as the umbrella contains mostly aluminum by weight, and after preliminary research it seemed that the production costs and gas emission were negligible relative to the aluminum's impact in those categories. During our analysis, we concluded that there were no real external energy inputs during the use phase of the umbrella, as personal use is arbitrary and up to the individual. Therefore, we have chosen to disregard an examination on the potential impacts on the environment from umbrella usage. |
- | The results | + | The results of the EIO-LCA website analysis are summarized in the following tables. The energy, in units of TeraJoules (TJ), emission of greenhouse gases in metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2E), and toxic releases from the top 5 contributors of the production phase are displayed below. |
===Energy=== | ===Energy=== | ||
- | The table below shows that | + | The table below shows that for every additional 1 million dollars spent in the sector, "Other fabricated metal manufacturing", there is a corresponding energy increase of 12.5 TJ. |
[[Image:Team10-Umbrella-EnergyTable.jpg|center|alt=alt|Steps]] | [[Image:Team10-Umbrella-EnergyTable.jpg|center|alt=alt|Steps]] | ||
- | + | These results show that the primary component of this increased energy is due to Power Generation & Supply which accounts for approximately 25% of the increased energy. | |
[[Image:Team10-Umbrella-EnergyGraph.jpg|center|alt=alt|Steps]] | [[Image:Team10-Umbrella-EnergyGraph.jpg|center|alt=alt|Steps]] | ||
Line 283: | Line 283: | ||
====DFE Conclusion==== | ====DFE Conclusion==== | ||
Based on the results of the Life Cycle Assessment, | Based on the results of the Life Cycle Assessment, | ||
+ | We concluded that most of any life cycle improvements would be in the manufacturing processes, and specifically in the amount of, and methods used to manipulate, the aluminum components. This conclusion seemed reasonable, as we assume that there will always be some sort of canopic textile, and that umbrellas will presumably not begin to utilize noticeable energy during their use phase. However, in choosing to ignore the end life processing, we believe that a significant difference can be effected through the implementation of a recyclable design, or a more durable overall design, that GHG emissions can be lowered. If more umbrellas stay in use, then less will be purchased, and presumably demand decrease will necessitate supply decrease and less manufacturing means less power usage and consequently emissions, while also easing the burden on landfills, and raw materials gathering. |
Revision as of 15:17, 6 February 2011
Contents |
Executive Summary
Major Stakeholders and Product Needs
Consumers
- Consumers
- Appealing
- Durable
- Lightweight
- Effective
- Safe
- Easy to use
- Portable
- Inexpensive
- Comfortable to hold
- Easy to clean/dry
Retailers
- Ease of storage
- Cost/Profit
- Durability
- Customer Satisfaction
Product Function
The operation of this particular umbrella was very simple. The pictures below depict the general use of an umbrella.
The umbrella consists of a handle which is connected to a telescoping shaft. The telescoping shaft is a mechanism that extends in order to expand several mechanical arms, or spokes, outward when the umbrella is in use. The extension of these spokes serves to expand the canopy, made of polyester, producing a dome shape. This dome shape deflects rain and snow from reaching the user. The concentric tube is located at the top of the shaft. It holds the spokes firmly together and is used to extend the telescoping shaft. There is a locking mechanism also located at the top of the telescoping shaft so that the canopy does not close when the user is holding the umbrella. To collapse the umbrella, the concentric tube is pulled downwards to shorten the telescoping shaft and contract the spokes. The umbrella is then stored.
To use an umbrella the following steps are taken:
Usability Study
After using this particular umbrella, numerous issues have been encountered. The polyester material is very loosely connected to the spokes. This results in an ineffective umbrella where the area of coverage from preciptation is decreased. Furthermore, the spokes of the umbrella was observed to have many moving parts. The outcome is a sacrifice in strength. A common outcome is bending of the spokes due to excessive winds. We noted that a stronger mechanical design for the spokes was needed for the umbrella. Additionally, precipitation contacted the user during use when high winds was present. During our study, snow reached the user in a direction perpendicular to the position of the umbrella. This also diminished the effectiveness of the umbrella. Finally, storing and cleaning the product was a major issue. It was observed that after use, many users commonly shake off the excess water from the umbrella onto the floor of the location they enter.
Bill of Materials
Assembly Diagram
The image below depicts the major components of the product.
The image below shows a more detailed look at the more intricate portion of our product.
Design for Environment (DFE) Analysis
When designing any product, engineers must address the potential impact on the environment during the product development process, use phase and its recyclability. We conducted a Design for Environment analysis or DFE, to discover the ways in which umbrellas affected factors like gas emission and waste production. We aimed to identify the environmental impacts by utilizing an input-output product life cycle assessing tool,(EIO-LCA), of an economic sector defined as "Other fabricated metal manufacturing". Furthermore, we strove to determine the impact on the cost of production if Congress were to pass a tax on CO2 emissions. This was accomplished using Carnegie Mellon’s EIO-LCA website. We recorded the greenhouse gas emission levels and toxic releases associated with our product's production sector, assuming 1 million dollars of economic activity was used in the sector: #33299C: Other fabricated metal manufacturing. We concluded that this sector best represents our product as it includes the main material used in its life cycle, the product's majority raw and processed material being aluminum. Although our product does contain a textile component, we chose not to include the textile manufacturing sector in our analysis as the umbrella contains mostly aluminum by weight, and after preliminary research it seemed that the production costs and gas emission were negligible relative to the aluminum's impact in those categories. During our analysis, we concluded that there were no real external energy inputs during the use phase of the umbrella, as personal use is arbitrary and up to the individual. Therefore, we have chosen to disregard an examination on the potential impacts on the environment from umbrella usage. The results of the EIO-LCA website analysis are summarized in the following tables. The energy, in units of TeraJoules (TJ), emission of greenhouse gases in metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2E), and toxic releases from the top 5 contributors of the production phase are displayed below.
Energy
The table below shows that for every additional 1 million dollars spent in the sector, "Other fabricated metal manufacturing", there is a corresponding energy increase of 12.5 TJ.
These results show that the primary component of this increased energy is due to Power Generation & Supply which accounts for approximately 25% of the increased energy.
Greenhouse Gases
The table below shows that an additional 1 million dollars spent will result in an increase of 839 metric tons of CO2 Equivalent (MTCO2E).
The results indicate once again, the large role of the Power Generation & Supply sector. This sector is responsible for nearly 31% of the increased emissions. However, the sector that contains our product has a smaller role. The Other fabricated metal manufacturing sector contributes about 7% of the increased emissions.
Toxic Releases
An additional 1 million dollars spent in the sector, Other fabricated metal manufacturing, will also result in an increase in toxic releases by 703 kg.
Results of our analysis indicate that the Gold, silver, and other metal mining sector is responsible for an overwhelming 91% of the increase in amount of toxic releases. The sector, Other fabricated metal manufacturing, is only responsible for approximately 1% of the increased toxic releases.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
The emissions associated with umbrella manufacturing from the sector: #33299C: Other fabricated metal manufacturing are presented in the table below. The table also shows what the implied CO2 tax will be assuming Congress passes a tax of $30 per metric ton equivalent of CO2. Again, we concluded that there are no known energy inputs during the use phase of the life cycle assessment, aside from that of the user. Therefore, we have chosen to disregard umbrella usage from the life cycle assessment.
DFE Conclusion
Based on the results of the Life Cycle Assessment, We concluded that most of any life cycle improvements would be in the manufacturing processes, and specifically in the amount of, and methods used to manipulate, the aluminum components. This conclusion seemed reasonable, as we assume that there will always be some sort of canopic textile, and that umbrellas will presumably not begin to utilize noticeable energy during their use phase. However, in choosing to ignore the end life processing, we believe that a significant difference can be effected through the implementation of a recyclable design, or a more durable overall design, that GHG emissions can be lowered. If more umbrellas stay in use, then less will be purchased, and presumably demand decrease will necessitate supply decrease and less manufacturing means less power usage and consequently emissions, while also easing the burden on landfills, and raw materials gathering.