Table of contents

Reframing of design brief .................................................Page 1

Metrics and Criteria .........................................................Page 2

Conceptual design solution 1 ...........................................Page 3

Conceptual design solution 2 ...........................................Page 4

Conceptual design solution 3 ...........................................Page 5

Analysis of best alternative ..............................................Page 6

Prototype sketches ...........................................................Page 8

References ......................................................................Page 11

Reframing of design brief:

1) Overview:

The design brief that is assigned to our team is called "Revolutionizing the Efficiency of Dishwashing". It is evident in the title of this design brief that the problem highlighted is related to personal efficiency and dishwashing. To be more specific, the design brief team wants our team to design a product that can be used in small spaces to wash dishes by hand or automatically. For the purpose of conceptual design, our team is going to present product designs that are both manual and mechanical. In addition, our team has reframed and modified some of the objectives, constraints and criteria that are presented in the original design brief. This report discusses in detail alternative design solutions to the problem that are presented in the design brief.

2) Problem defined:

The design brief team has done a good job in describing the problem they want our team to address but it requires a little more detail. Firstly, the design brief team does not present their definition of 'personal efficiency' in their design brief which could have helped our team better understand the problem presented. Therefore, our team has decided to use our own definition of personal efficiency for this conceptual design report. Our team’s definition of personal efficiency is described as completing a task (related to personal needs) in the least amount of time with the least amount of effort. The design brief team has specifically outlined in their problem definition that our team needs to "design a product which reduces the time and/or effort it requires to wash a load of dishes by hand...". By looking at the extract from the design brief, it is evident that the design brief team's view of personal efficiency is very similar to ours, which makes the problem definition easier to comprehend. For this design brief, our team will be designing products that do not completely eliminate the use of hands for dishwashing but reduce the effort people have to take to wash dishes by hand.

1

3) Issues in design brief:

Firstly, the design brief team does not impose feasible constraints in the design brief, which makes our team's task of designing a product that actually meets these constraints very difficult. For example, one of the constraints in the design brief clearly stated that the "use of the product should not cause the use of more than 10% of the usual water use for the load of dishes. The example constraint does not take into account the different amounts of water used by people to wash different loads of dishes. It also gives a very bad estimate of a limit to the usage of water by the designed product. Our team has decided to modify this constraint to state that the designed product will reduce the average amount of water used for dishwashing an average load of dishes. According to Statistics Canada, the average size of a family in 2007 was 3 members, which gives us a good approximation of the dish load we are designing for [1]. In addition, the design brief team specified that the sound produced by the designed product should not be more than "50 decibels". In our team's opinion, this constraint is unfeasible because the design brief team did not specify a source as to where they made this claim. This noise level can be referenced but is not relevant to this conceptual design report because our team will be designing the product and not actually building it. Therefore, noise is one of the characteristics of our team's products that can only be determined after the product is developed. Lastly but most importantly, the design brief team specified "a footprint of 36×30 cm" for the product designed which is not realistic due to the wide range of sizes for dishes. Therefore, our team has decided to change this constraint to design a product that is 50×30 cm, which is more reasonable.

Metrics and Criteria:

1) Effort/Time reduction:

As described in the design brief, the product has to save a lot of effort and time for washing dishes by hand. The product designs that are in this report all reduce the time it takes to wash dishes compared to washing dishes manually and also saves effort. The time it takes to wash a certain amount of dishes by hand in uncertain as all individuals have different speed and styles of dishwashing. Therefore, the product designs presented in this report will aim to reduce dishwashing time, but not setting a specific time constraint..

2) Economical product:

In addition, the design brief also mentions that the product solutions must be as economical as possible so that they can be afforded by a low-income family. The conceptual design solutions presented in this report all aim to cost less than a counter-top dishwasher, which, as mentioned in the design brief, is less than $300. The materials used to build the product should have fairly reasonable cost and the products themselves should be energy efficient.

3) Size of product:

One of the objectives mentioned in the design brief was that the size of the product should be reasonable so that it could fit in for instance, a student's residence room at a university. Therefore, the footprint constraint for the designs in this report is about 50 × 30 cm, which is reasonable as most conventional countertops are about 65 cm from front to back [8]? This footprint also makes the designed products easily portable.

4) Water usage:

The water usage cannot be determined numerically but the design should aim to reduce the average amount of water used in hand dishwashing. In addition, the designed products should incorporate some water conserving mechanisms if necessary.

5) Accommodation of different types and sizes of dishes:

The product designs described should be able to accommodate different types and sizes of dishes used by a common user. The type of utensils to be washed may vary, such as plates, cups, pots etc, but it can be assumed that their size is within the footprint constraint of the design. The product is assumed to be designed for a small to average family, so it is not required to accommodate very large kitchen utensils, such as large pots and oversized dishes.

2

Conceptual design solution #1:Name: Crank-&-Clean

To improve counter top dish washing procedure, concepts from outside the kitchenware discipline are considered. There are many effective methods of washing large batches of items in the industry. The following dish washing concept evolves from the automated car wash procedure. The commercial car wash procedure involves a conveyor system moving cars through a predetermined and automated procedure: soaping, scrubbing, rinsing, and finally drying [2]. This method is very efficient as multiple cars can be in different washing stages at one time. This concept is transferred to the following dish washing design. The automated car wash equipment is shrunk to fit the kitchen countertop and is modified to accommodate dishes, cups, and other kitchen utensils. The diagram below is a conceptual drawing of this design:

On the left is the side view of the device and on the right is the view from the front of the device. On the side view, the conveyor is labeled as “1”. There are small clamps attached to the conveyor belt, and can be shrunk or enlarged to firmly grip different kitchen utensils of different sizes. The dishes are attached to the conveyor at “1” and moves from left to right through the device. The conveyor is attached to the lever,

labeled “6”, via a gear system shown in the front view. The first stage is the soaping stage, labeled as “2”. As dishes press against the nozzle, soap is released onto the dishes. The second stage is the scrubbing stage, labeled “3”. A 2x2 array of vertical scrubbers are shown in both views. These scrubbers press against the dishes while spinning, and are soft enough to let the dishes pass through while moving on the conveyor belt. The scrubbers are also attached to the lever via a gear system. They spin as the lever rotates. The third stage is the rinsing stage, labeled “4”. A pair of nozzles is placed side by side. They are connected to an external water source. Water sprays onto the dishes to clean them. To save water, a mechanical switch can be attached to the nozzle from the conveyer, so that the nozzle is closed when the conveyer is motionless. This would prevent water from flowing when the operator is adding or removing dishes from the device. The conveyor belt is simply a skeletal frame with clamps attached to it. Water and soap falls through the conveyor belt into the tank below, labeled as “5”. A pipe is connected to the tank at “7” to dispose dirty water back to the sink.

The entire device is powered by the user via turning the lever, which moves the conveyor slowly to the right and spins the scrubbers. The lever is connected directly to the conveyer via a single gear, which sets the speed of the conveyer appropriately. A set of gears and axels also connect the lever to the gearbox at location “3” in the front view. The central gearbox is connected to 4 smaller gears, which are connected to each scrubber. The sizes of these gears determine the speed of rotation of the scrubbers relative to the conveyor belt.

The device can be modified to be powered by electricity. Electric motors can replace the lever. The user can operate the device effortless, and also have both hands to handle the kitchen utensils. However, adding electric motors complicates the device and could exceed the cost constraint for the design. Improving personal efficiency is the primary goal of this design. The operation of this device can be compared to the procedure of manual dishwashing. Since multiple dishes can be washed at the same time, and the only disruption to the process is adding or removing utensils to the device, washing time can be significantly reduced. Furthermore, aside from adding or removing dishes, the operator is only required to rotate the lever, which is an improvement to the effort required to wash dishes by hand. The design team considers the reduction in time and effort as improvement of personal efficiency. This design satisfies both criteria of personal efficiency, making it a viable concept candidate for this project.

3

Figure 1: Manual dishwasher with staging setup. The design is made using a drawing tool and is described in detail in the following section below. (large picture on page 8)

Conceptual design solution # 2: Name: Magic Glove

One approach to the problem is to increase the efficiency with which people hand wash dishes, rather than using a machine. Hand washing can be broken down into three main parts: soaping, scrubbing and scraping. Combining the three different products that someone may use for the tasks into one product can significantly increase efficiency. We propose a glove that combines a regular sponge, an iron wire kitchen sponge and a soap dispenser into one.

The glove is manufactured out of neoprene to protect the users hand from hot water. Neoprene is a heat resistant and waterproof rubber used in a wide variety of products from wetsuits to oven mitts. It is very flexible and would protect the users hand from the heat of the water [3]. The glove will be designed to fit the average hand, which is glove size 7.5-9.5 [4]. To accommodate as many people as possible, two sizes should be manufactured, a small (size 7) and a large (size 10). The glove size corresponds to the measurement (in inches) obtained when wrapping a measuring tape around the upper palm (knuckles). The glove will extend approximately 3 inches past the wrist to provide protection and prevent water from entering the glove. A light elastic band at the entrance to the glove will also help prevent water from entering and hold the glove in place. A strong, waterproof adhesive will hold the different components on to the glove.

The palm and inside of the fingers of the glove will be coated with a soft foam sponge approximately 1 cm thick. The sponge can be used for general cleaning of all materials. Having this material on the palm and inside of the fingers of the glove allows for easy manipulation of the sponge; the user simply rubs their hand over their dishes to clean them. Also, since the sponge is attached to the glove control is not lost when it is soapy. At the wrist of the glove is a small plastic box. This box is connected by three tubes to

nozzles embedded in the glove as shown. The box will be filled with dish soap so that when the user squeezes it with their other hand, soap will be dispersed throughout the palm sponge. The three nozzles will have one-way valves so that soap can exit the tube, but water cannot enter.

The above features allow for general cleaning of all dishes. However, there is often “stuck-on” food that is hard to remove with a sponge. The typical tool used for this is a metal wire kitchen sponge. The wires allow for easy removal of stuck-on food but may damage some materials. The glove will have four of these wire sponges between the knuckles of the back of the fingers, as shown. They are placed here so that they are out of the way when washing delicate materials, but are still readily available and easily usable for removing difficult messes.

This product increases personal efficiency by combining three products into one. When washing dishes, a person typically has to repeatedly pick up and replace the sponge, wire sponge and soap bottle. With this product, that time is no longer wasted. The user has all three tools in their hand at all times, while still being able to control each one independently. The placement of the two sponges makes use of the product simple and intuitive. Overall, this product will reduce the amount of time and effort required to was a load of dishes by hand.

There is a somewhat similar product on the market right now called LushLife sponge dishwashing glove [5]. This glove is similar in that it has a sponge on the palm, but that is the only connection. Our product is far superior as it adds the soap dispenser and iron wire sponges to the glove to increase efficiency. The LushLife product does not provide anywhere near the same efficiency, as it is essentiallyjust a sponge that fits your hand.

4

Figure 2: This figure represents a rough sketch of the design. Detailed explanations of the design of this glove are present in the section shown below. (large diagram on page 9)

Figure 3: LushLife sponge dishwashing glove.

Conceptual design solution # 3:

Name : Compact wash

The original design brief aimed at designing a product that cleans utensils for apartments with single sinks, similar to most university residences. University students live a busy lifestyle, and may not have time to clean long piles of dishes. This design is specifically aimed at cleaning dishes and cups, which makes up the majority of the dishwashing load for the type of lifestyle we are concerned with.

DescriptionThe product below excels at washing flat dishes, as well as cups and glasses – the utensils used most by students. Its size is as big as a 50.0cm x 30.0cm x16.2cm drawer.The product comes with a drawer rail set to install in place of a drawer and a mounting set to mount it in the cabinet space if a cabinet is available. The product uses a set of revolving and side-sprinklers to clean utensils with high-pressurized water. It is connected to a water and drainage supply of the sink and the tap, as well as electricity supply,

Specifications:1) The slot of the product is closed by a set of lead-free, BPA-free Silicone 3mm sheets constricting any water spillage and allowing the insertion of utensils into the dishwasher.BPA-free Silicone is a temperature-resistant, flexible, clear and easy-clean material that meets the FDA standards. Bisphenol A (BPA) is a widely produced chemical used primarily for the production of polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins and has been linked to cancer, diabetes, obesity and genetic mutations, which is why it is important to eliminate this substance from the silicone. [6]2) Buttons allow the user to select the desired program, which allows proper and efficient cleaning of dishes of different stain level. It also allows the user to choose which sprinkler system to use: Cup for the side-centered revolver, Dish for the top revolver and side sprinklers. 3) A sensor-eye is fitted in the base and although the product is activated with buttons, the sensor promotes safety of the user and water-conservation as it can only start when

the sensor detects the presence of a utensil. Another motion sensor behind the silicone cover ensures that the program terminates if any person inserts his hand during the wash.The PIR works with a Solenoid Valve, powered by 6V power supply to detect and trigger the sprinklers system such in the same way as tap sensors are triggered. When the sensor detects the presence of an object, it sends a signal to the solenoid valve to initiate the flow of water. When the object is no longer present, the infrared unit sends an electronic signal to the solenoid valve again to terminate the flow of water, with a few seconds of delay.[7]4) The sides contain static sprinklers for the high stain program.5) The top contains the main revolver tube features a dynamic sprinkler adjusted at an angle of 20 degrees to the vertical. 6) The back side contains a secondary revolving sprinkler that’s only activated on choosing the 'cup' program and is adjusted at 5 degrees to the horizontal.7) The rectangular indent in the base allows the placement of any glass/cup on its side with its open end facing the sprinkler.8) The cartridge is pulled out and a small amount of wash-gel is placed into it, which is later mixed with the water sprinkled.

How it worksA dish is inserted into the slot and pushed inside, and then a program is selected which runs the wash which takes from 5-15 seconds depending on the program. A small amount of gel is mixed with the water stream. The main-revolver and the side sprinklers then spray the soapy water at the dish with the revolver spinning above the dish to remove any greasy stains. In case of a cup or a glass it's placed on its side in the low plane and the side sprinklers clean the sides as the secondary revolver sprays the interior of the glass cleaning it. A surface slope allows water to flow out of the cup.

5

Figure 3: This figure shows a representation of a side view of the product design. The product is designed to be efficient and work for multiple kinds of dishes. (Large picture on page 10)

Page 6 of 12

Analysis of best alternative:

The three distinct designs that were previously presented are all valid design candidates for the objectives in the design brief. These designs meet the criteria listed in the revised brief to different extent. They must be closely compared to each other in order to determine the best design. Therefore, each design will be analyzed and rated based on each criterion. Furthermore, criteria are weighted to emphasize it importance and significance against other criteria. How well these designs score against each criterion will determine which design is the best candidate.

Objective Effort/Time Cost Size

ResourceEfficiency

Versatility Simplicity Total Weight

Effort/Time - 1 1 1 1 1 5 0.33Cost 0 - 1 1 1 1 4 0.27Size 0 0 - 1 0 1 2 0.13ResourceEfficiency

0 0 0 - 0 1 1 0.07

Versatility 0 0 1 1 - 1 3 0.13Simplicity 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0.07Total 15 1

In the table above, we calculated the weight of each criterion. A 1 indicates that the criterion in the row is more important than the criterion in the column, and a 0 indicates the opposite. The total of all of the points a criterion received is divided by the total number of points (15) to find the relative weight. In the final table (shown on page 7), each product is given a score from 0 to 4 (4 being the best) for each of the criteria. These scores are multiplied by the criterion’s relative weight and then summed to obtain the product’s final score. Whichever product receives the highest overall score will be the product we choose

The first design candidate is the Crank and Clean, conceived from the design of automated car wash tunnels. The first criterion demands a decrease in time and effort spent by the operator. Under the circumstances of peak performance, the device meets this criterion. Multiple dishes can roll through the process at the same time, much faster than the normal dish washing procedure. Effort is also reduced, as the operator is limited to one cranking

motion of the lever, and adding and removing dishes from the device. The scrubbing motion is completely eliminated. However, if the device does not manage to clean a dish or cup completely in one cycle, extra effort and time is required to clean it. Also, with passing time, gears inside the device may lose quality and lubrication, and effort will be increased. This means the rating for effort and time would be capped at 2/4. The device is purely mechanical, which implies that the internal parts may be more complex, but the cost will not be as high as less crammed devices with electrical circuits. This is particularly important, as extra cost would go into water protection if this were an electrical device. This would result in a 3/4 for cost, since assembling lots of mechanical parts into a device with size constrains would result in extra cost in manufacturing. This is also a 3/4 for resource efficiency, as no electricity is required, and a water saving feature is implemented. Furthermore, the trade off to mechanical devices is that mechanical parts take up more space, increasing the complexity of the entire system. The abundance of mechanical parts would mean the walls of the device must be thicker to allow room for gears and axles. This would put pressure on the size criteria. Furthermore, despite having a footprint within the criterion bound, the height of the device is very tall, due to the 20cm deep tank beneath. In fact, the size of the device barely fits the criteria in the brief, making the size rating and the simplicity rating a 2/4. This device is also very versatile, being able to handle utensils of all types that fit into the 25cm x 30cm intake. It will have some issue handling cups however, as dirty water may collect in the cup, and remain in the cup as it exits the device. Therefore, the versatility rating of this device is a 3/4. The final rating of this device with consideration of the weight of each rating, is 2.47/4.

The second candidate design is the Magic Glove. The first criterion it was judged on is how well it reduces effort and time. Compared to hand washing, the Magic Glove is much more efficient, combining three jobs into one. However, it still only cleans one dish at a time and takes more time and effort than an electronic dishwasher. As such it was awarded a score of 2/4 in this category. In terms of cost, the Magic Glove scores very highly. The materials used to make it are relatively cheap and as there are no mechanical parts, manufacturing is easy. It was given a score of 4/4 for cost. The Magic Glove is very small compared to other proposed and existing products, so it also received a 4/4 for size. The next score – in resource efficiency – is hard to determine for the Magic Glove. As it is a manual product, its electricity usage is zero. Its water usage is impossible to determine, but would be comparable to that of normal hand washing. Based on this, the Magic Glove was given a score of 2/4 for resource efficiency. The different tools that are a part of the glove allow it to clean all materials and sizes of dishes. Its shape allows for cleaning inside cups, bowls, etc. It is a very

6

Page 7 of 12

versatile product, and was given a score of 4/4 in that category. Finally, the glove is an extremely simple product to make and use. However, it does not make cleaning dishes much simpler than it ordinarily would be. It was awarded a score of 3/4 in simplicity. Taking into account the weight of each criterion, the Magic Glove received a final score of 3.13/4.

The final design candidate is the Compact Wash. It is the only electrical device among the candidate designs. By using automated systems, this device is designed to cut significant time and effort from traditional manual dishwashing, and also avoiding piling up of dishes to wait for a full load. The device cleans dishes and cups in a matter of seconds, earning itself a 4/4 for effort and time rating. Furthermore, it is very user friendly and simple to use. The usage simplicity of this device exceeds that of all the other candidates, but with a more complex electrical design. The simplicity rating is therefore 3/4. The downside of having an electrical device is the additional cost that must go into the manufacturing of the parts. Electrical circuits are more expensive to create than mechanical ones, and extra cost must go into water proofing to prevent short circuits. This would bring the cost of the device very close to the design constraint of $300. The highest cost rating for this device can only be a 2/4. Being an electrical device, it requires energy to function. In fact, it requires extra electricity to pressurize water to the point of cleaning dishes in a matter of seconds. Furthermore, pressurized nozzles release water in high quantities in a given time. Considering that the device cleans utensils one at a time, it is not very resource efficient in energy and water. Its rating for this criterion can only be a 1/4 when compared to how the other designs were judged. The versatility of this device is also an issue when choosing the best candidate. The design did not consider the insertion of small utensils such as forks and knives. These objects would rattle around the inside of the device if the user tries to insert them. This deficiency means that the versatility rating scores only a 1/4. Finally, the size of the device pushes on the limits listed in the design criterion, at 50cm x 30cm. But having the capability to fit the entire device inside the space of a drawer, the size rating of the Compact Wash should be a 3/4. After considering the weight of each rating, the final rating for the Compact Wash is 2.66/4.

Weight Crank-&-Clean Magic Glove Compact WashEffort/Time 0.33 2 2 4Cost 0.27 3 4 2Size 0.13 2 4 3Resource Efficiency

0.07 3 2 1

Versatility 0.13 3 4 1Simplicity 0.07 2 3 3Weighted Total - 2.47 3.13 2.66

Conclusion

In conclusion, the design that received the highest overall rating is the Magic Glove. Although it received mediocre scores in Effort/Time and Resource Efficiency, it received full points in Cost, Size and Versatility. This resulted in an overall score significantly higher than that of the other two proposed designs. The Crank-&-Clean’s relative lack of weaknesses was matched by its lack of strength in any of the predetermined categories, as it received a 2 or 3 in all criteria. Although the Compact Wash received a 4 in Effort/Time, it scored very lowly in many other categories (Cost, Resource Efficiency, Versatility) resulting in an overall score slightly above the Crank-&-Clean. Of the three designs proposed in this report (and comparable products currently on the market) the Magic Glove is the best overall. To obtain maximum personal efficiency and maintain/improve cost efficiency, resource efficiency, versatility and simplicity with as small a product as possible, we recommend the implementation of the Magic Glove design.

7

Page 8 of 12

8

Conceptual design solution # 1: Crank-&-Clean

Page 9 of 12

9

Page 10 of 12

10

Page 11 of 12

References:11

Page 12 of 12

ResourcesReferences

1. Statistics Canada, "Census families, number and average size". Internet: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil40-eng.htm, Sep 19, 2007 [Nov 12, 2012]

2. M. Ali, "Automatic Car Washing system", Internet: http://www.transformia.info/pages/seminar_reports/2_automatic_car_washing_system.pdf, Nov 5th, 2010 [Nov 16th, 2012]

3. Thomas Publishing Company, “Neoprene Traits and Applications, last modified Nov. 12th, 2012 [retrieved November 12th, 2012]. Available from World Wide Web: <http://www.thomasnet.com/articles/plastics-rubber/traits-applications-neoprene>

4. Hand And Glove, “Glove Size Chart” [online], 2012 [retrieved November 12th , 2012]. Available from World Wide Web: <http://www.handandglove.com/page.cfm//SIZE.html>

5. Apartment Therapy, “LushLife Sponge Dishwashing Gloves”, last modified 2012, [retrieved November 15th, 2012]. Available from World Wide Web: <http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/lushlife-sponge-8936>

6. MedicineNet.com, 'What is Bisphenol A'. Internet: http://www.medicinenet.com/plastic/page4.htm#bisphenol [Nov 16th , 2012]

7. ' How automatic tap works?' Internet: http://www.autotaps.com/how-automatic-tap-work.html [Nov 16th, 2012]

8. 'Dimensions info'. Internet: http://www.dimensionsinfo.com/kitchen-countertop-dimensions/ [Nov 18th, 2012]

12