Designing and Manufacturing an Appropriate Technology Shredder in a Developing Country

Jeffrey P. Weiss

An Engineering Project submitted to the faculty of the School of Engineering in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Masters of Manufacturing Systems Engineering degree

University of St. Thomas St. Paul, Minnesota December 2005

Abstract
The focus of this project was to redesign a simple manual shredding machine used to shred breadfruit for the Republic of Haiti. A breadfruit shredder previously designed by a student senior design team was used as the basis for this project. The objective was to apply manufacturing principles, such as Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA), to simplify and reduce the cost of this machine so that it would be more accessible to poor farmers in Haiti. Each part of the shredder was examined using the DFMA methodology to determine if it could be eliminated or redesigned to simplify it while still making a quality product that met the performance criteria. The limitations of manufacturing a product in a developing country were also taken into consideration and played a key role in the outcome of the design. The result was a design that had a reduced number of parts, was more robust, easier to clean, simpler to build in a developing country, used materials that were more commonly available, and cost less to make.

Revised Tommy Breadfruit Shredder

Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge and send my sincerest thanks to my Project Committee of Dr. Camille George, Dr. Fred Zimmerman, and Mr. John Walker. They contributed numerous ideas during both the project phase and during the writing process. This resulted in a much better product that will hopefully improve the lives of people around the world. Dr. George also spent a great deal of time correcting and critiquing the writing of someone who was unaccustomed to writing in the academic thesis style.

Many other people also lent a voice to the project during the research and design review phases. This would include Karl Mueller, Bruce Humphrey, Hank Garwick, Dave Elton, John Schevenius, Gary Olmstead, Fred Hegele, Pat O'Malley, Troy Pontgras, Yvonne Ng, and Clay Solberg. These people took the time to help and offered ideas that had previously been missed, resulting in a better product.

I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of Dr. Mike Hennessey at the University of St. Thomas and the work of five of his undergraduate students. Justin Jackelen, Michael Boston, Angela Wachira, Keli Lais, and Matt Ellision took on the task of turning the revised breadfruit shredder drawings into computer animated Solidworks models. This contributed greatly to the visual understanding of the project and presentation. They also provided the fabrication prints that accompany this paper.

Table of Contents
Chapter I: Introduction....................................................................................................... 1 The Haitian Situation ...................................................................................................... 2 Breadfruit ........................................................................................................................ 3 The Tommy Shredder ..................................................................................................... 5 The Beneficiaries ............................................................................................................ 5 Project Motivation .......................................................................................................... 6 Chapter II: Research and Prior Work................................................................................. 7 UST Senior Design Team Work..................................................................................... 7 Literature Search............................................................................................................. 9 Compatible Technology, International ......................................................................... 11 Institutional Libraries.................................................................................................... 15 Research and International Organizations .................................................................... 15 Expert Inquires.............................................................................................................. 17 Chapter III: Project Proposal ........................................................................................... 18 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................... 18 Alternative Methods ..................................................................................................... 20 Project Constraints........................................................................................................ 21 Project Budget............................................................................................................... 23 Financial Justification ................................................................................................... 23 Chapter IV: Findings and Results .................................................................................... 24 Redesign Process .......................................................................................................... 25 Design for Manufacture and Assembly Process ........................................................... 25 Alternative Designs....................................................................................................... 29 Design Reviews ............................................................................................................ 30 Design Modifications.................................................................................................... 33 Fabrication Lessons ...................................................................................................... 38 Design Variations ......................................................................................................... 40 Shredder Blade Project ................................................................................................. 41

Testing the Redesigned Shredder ................................................................................. 45 Redesign Results........................................................................................................... 47 Schedule........................................................................................................................ 50 Final Budget.................................................................................................................. 51 Chapter V: Discussion and Ramifications ........................................................................ 52 Project Dissemination ................................................................................................... 52 Implementing the Shredder in Developing Countries .................................................. 53 Project Obstacles........................................................................................................... 54 Bibliography: .................................................................................................................... 57 Appendices........................................................................................................................ 60 Appendix 1: Revisions 1 and 2 ..................................................................................... 60 Appendix 2: Revisions 3 and 4 ..................................................................................... 61 Appendix 3: Revisions 5 and 6 ..................................................................................... 62 Appendix 4: Revision 7 and 8....................................................................................... 63 Appendix 5: Breadfruit Shredder Exploded Layout ..................................................... 64 Appendix 6: Bill of Materials Breadfruit Shredder ................................................... 65 Appendix 7: Frame Plate Fabrication .......................................................................... 67 Appendix 8: Drive Shaft Fabrication............................................................................ 69 Appendix 9: Feeder Tube Fabrication .......................................................................... 70 Appendix 10: Blade Mount Fabrication ....................................................................... 71 Appendix 11: Shredder Press Weight Fabrication........................................................ 73 Appendix 12: Shredder Assembly Instructions ............................................................ 74 Appendix 13: Original Project Schedule ...................................................................... 77 Appendix 14: Revised Project Schedule....................................................................... 78 Appendix 15: Preliminary Sketch by John Walker ...................................................... 79 Appendix 16: Contributions by Karl Mueller............................................................... 80 Appendix 17: Drawing #001 Frame Plate ................................................................. 82 Appendix 18: Drawing #002 Drive Shaft .................................................................. 83 Appendix 19: Drawing #003 Feeder Tube ................................................................ 84 Appendix 20: Drawing #004 Drive Shaft Bearing .................................................... 85 Appendix 21: Drawing #005 Handle ......................................................................... 86

Appendix 22: Drawing #006 Blade Mount................................................................ 87 Appendix 23: Drawing #007 Center Divider............................................................. 88 Appendix 24: Drawing #008 Center Divider Spacer Tube........................................ 89 Appendix 25: Drawing #009 Shredder Press Weight................................................ 90

Table of Figures
Figure 1: Map of the Republic of Haiti (CIA Fact Book, 2005)......................................... 3 Figure 2: Fruit of the Breadfruit Tree (www.breadfruit.org)............................................. 4 Figure 3: Senior Design Team Shredder............................................................................. 8 Figure 4: Garwick/Elton Breadfruit Shredder................................................................... 13 Figure 5: Garwick/Elton Bicycle Drive Mechanism ........................................................ 14 Figure 6: Original Tommy Shredder Exploded View....................................................... 28 Figure 7: Handle/Drive Shaft Changes ............................................................................. 34 Figure 8: Drive Shaft Bearing Changes ............................................................................ 35 Figure 9: Frame Plate Changes ......................................................................................... 35 Figure 10: Center Divider Changes .................................................................................. 36 Figure 11: Blade Mount Changes ..................................................................................... 37 Figure 12: Combined Feeder Tube Hoop and Spacer...................................................... 38 Figure 13: Alignment of Bushing Supports ..................................................................... 39 Figure 14: Wooden Bushing Variation ............................................................................. 41 Figure 15: Shredder Blade Profile Die, Profile Punch, and Hole Template ..................... 43 Figure 16: Fabricated Blade............................................................................................. 45 Figure 17: The Revised Tommy Shredder........................................................................ 48

Table of Tables
Table 1: Haiti Facts (CIA Fact Book, 2005)....................................................................... 2 Table 2: Proposed Budget................................................................................................. 23 Table 3: Shredder Punch Hole Test .................................................................................. 44 Table 4: Final Budget........................................................................................................ 52

Chapter I: Introduction
This project will focus on redesigning for manufacture a simple breadfruit shredder for the Republic of Haiti. As one of the poorest nations in the Western hemisphere, Haiti is a country that lacks a stable government, education system, manufacturing base, or infrastructure. Malnutrition is a problem to the extent that the United States Department of State estimated that the child malnutrition rate was 22 percent in 2000 (www.state.gov). Breadfruit is a natural food resource that is underutilized because it rots quickly and is difficult to store using traditional methods. Drying breadfruit can extend its shelf life and this process is best done when the shreds are even and consistent. A simple manual shredder was developed to produce consistent shreds for the inhabitants of Haiti by a group of senior engineering students at the University of Saint Thomas (UST) in conjunction with Compatible Technology International (CTI), an international non-profit organization. The student version of the shredder was designed and tested and found to meet all of the criteria that they had established. Despite meeting the requirements, the machine had the potential to be optimized to better reflect the manufacturing capabilities available in a developing country. This paper will document the redesign process and look at the manufacturing principles that drove this process. The end result was a machine that was simpler to build with the basic machine tools that would normally be found in a developing country such as Haiti, used materials that were more commonly available, had a reduced number of parts, was more robust, was easier to clean, and had a reduced cost.

The Haitian Situation Haiti is considered to be the poorest and most destitute country in the Western hemisphere (CIA Fact Book, 2005). A majority of its population lives in poverty and relies on subsistence farming for survival. It has a long history of political upheaval and unrest since it gained its independence from France in 1804. The rotation of various governments and civil wars has hindered investment in the country and led to high unemployment and dismal living conditions for its inhabitants. The education system is broken or non-existent and there has been an exodus of knowledge from the island as people flee the dire conditions and turmoil.

Table 1: Haiti Facts (CIA Fact Book, 2005)

Population (Estimate, 2004): Land Area: Average Life Expectancy: Population Below Poverty Line: Percentage of Population in Agriculture: Unemployment Rate (no formal job): Average Literacy Rate:

8,121,622 27,750 sq km 53 years 80% 66% 66% 52%

Figure 1: Map of the Republic of Haiti (CIA Fact Book, 2005)

Most of the original Haitian forests have been cut down for fuel and the desire to cultivate more land. The weak governments have been unable or unwilling to confront this problem and it has continued unchecked. This deforestation has resulted in massive land erosion in the mountainous country and a net loss of arable land (CIA Fact Book, 2005). Breadfruit trees are abundant throughout the island and are one of the few trees that have survived the deforestation process.

Breadfruit Breadfruit is an important food source and has become a staple for the inhabitants of warmer islands in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. It has some nutritional value and

a high starch content (Adebowale, 2005). Typical ways of preparing breadfruit are grilling, roasting, adding it to soups, and mashing.

Figure 2: Fruit of the Breadfruit Tree (www.breadfruit.org)

One of the unique properties of breadfruit is its limited shelf life. Once it ripens and comes off of the tree, it will last between one and three days (www.breadfruit.org ). The breadfruit trees of Haiti produce fruit twice a year for a three week period (six weeks per year). Much of the fruit rots on the ground because of the inability to consume it all for the short time that it is in season (Capecchi, 2005). Typical preservation methods for fruit, such as canning, can be done but these value-adding processes are not common in Haiti and will increase the price of the food. A more economical way of preserving the breadfruit needed to be developed to utilize its potential to alleviate long-term hunger on the island.

The Tommy Shredder The development of a breadfruit harvesting process was taken on by two groups of senior mechanical engineering students as their Senior Design Projects in the 2003-2004 academic year. The first team attempted to devise a solar drier to quickly dehydrate the shredded breadfruit. The drying project showed that the shredded fruit could be successfully air-dried with an optimal shred size of wide (Emiliusen, Mauritzen, McGruder, and Torgerson, 2004). The dried product can be stored for up to a year.

The second team worked on developing a small, economical shredder that could efficiently and quickly process the breadfruit down into shreds so that it could be dried (Anderson, Fox, Rick, and Spah, 2004). The concept and methodology for the basic shredder design was done by the senior design team as was the testing to prove out the final design and will not be repeated in this paper. The purpose of this project was to examine and simplify the design, focusing primarily on its manufacturability.

The Beneficiaries The target beneficiaries of this shredder will be womens cooperative groups based in Haiti. CTI, whose mission is to bring appropriate technologies to help increase food supplies and storage capacities in the developing world, has been working with the Methodist Church missions in Haiti on preserving breadfruit. Dried breadfruit can be ground into flour and local CTI volunteers have created several recipes using this breadfruit flour as the bulk material. UST teamed up with CTI to develop a simple shredder that could be used to shred the breadfruit. The goal of this joint project was to

create a shredder that was simple to use and economical to manufacture so that local versions could be bought with micro-loans managed by the Methodist Church of Haiti. CTI also planned on helping set up a program to buy the shredded/ground breadfruit and process it into a cereal for Haitian school children (Capecchi, 2004). The plan was to take a resource, preserve it and add value, and then process it to create a commercial good. The objective of this undertaking is to give the womens co-ops a starter model shredder that would allow them to generate some income from a readily available raw material.

This shredder is also capable of processing a variety of different produce. There have been inquiries into its ability to shred cassava, sweet potatoes, and red peppers. The alternative uses of the shredder will not be explored here but the final design for this project will be made readily available and has potential uses worldwide. It will also be submitted to appropriate technology journals to broaden its dissemination.

Project Motivation The author of this masters engineering project has spent time in developing countries and realized that there are often raw materials that are not fully utilized and exploited. The people generally lack the knowledge to manufacture items in large volumes and have limited manufacturing equipment, start-up money, a reliable source of power, or an infrastructure to transport the goods (Obi, 1999). However, these people are extremely creative and will adapt what they have on hand to work in almost any situation (Humphrey, 2005). The motivation for this project was to help the people develop their

own economy and hopefully raise their standard of living. This project will not only benefit the women of Haiti, it will help the local machine shops, provide work at the processing plant, and give the children of Haiti a stable, year around diet.

Chapter II: Research and Prior Work

The research for this project consisted of searching major journals, books on manufacturing in developing countries, contacting major research libraries, and personal contacts with experts in various fields. Many avenues for help were explored to gather information to improve the final design. The research phase of this project found that the work done by the UST senior design team was one of the few to address the issue of constructing a simple shredder for manufacture and use in a developing country.

UST Senior Design Team Work This project is based on the work previously done by a University of Saint Thomas (UST) senior engineering design team whose goal was to develop the original breadfruit shredder based on the needs of the country of Haiti and the criteria established by Compatible Technology, International (CTI). The purpose of the original project was to find the most efficient means of mechanically shredding breadfruit to best prepare the fruit for the drying process (Anderson et al, 2004). The team developed concepts and tested many different methods of shredding the breadfruit and the mechanical actuators that would be needed for each prototype. The concepts were evaluated and ranked and the team chose the method best suited for their needs. The Tommy Shredder developed

by the student senior design team is shown in Figure 3 and their paper can be found on the UST website at http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/cmgeorge/breadfruit_shredder/.

Figure 3: Senior Design Team Shredder

The senior design team had originally planned on testing the shredder in its target environment of Haiti but that country was not accessible at the time due to political unrest. A prototype shredder was built and brought to the Caribbean island of St. Vincent where there was an ample supply of breadfruit and established contacts. On the island of St. Vincent, the design was field-tested using breadfruit and the results recorded. The shredder met all of the target criteria established by CTI and the design team. It produced an average shred rate of 200 pounds/hour and cost less than $100 dollars U.S. to build (Anderson et al, 2004). This shredder became the baseline for the current project.

Literature Search A literature search done using the Compendex database at the University of Minnesota found several articles that were possibly related or relevant to the design of the breadfruit shredder. These articles were retrieved and analyzed with the result being that a majority were not related or did not contain information relevant to the design of an appropriate technology machine. Many of the applicable articles are referenced throughout this paper while those with less relevance to the project are cited in this section.

In Functional Properties of Native, Physically and Chemically Modified Breadfruit (Artocarpus Artilis) Starch, Adebowale, Olu-Owolabi, Olawumi, and Lawal (2005) dealt with extracting starch from breadfruit. In the Rediscovery of Local Raw Materials: New Opportunities for Developing Countries, El-Mously (1997) discussed ways that developing countries could use local, undervalued resources to reduce their dependence on foreign imports. Breadfruit would be an undervalued resource on most Caribbean islands but the article did not provide information that would be relevant to the design of a shredder or this project. In the Framework for Selecting and Introducing Appropriate Production Technology in Developing Countries, Bruun and Mefford (1996) looked at working with the culture and education of developing countries when setting up a production facility. These are issues that will not be dealt with in this paper. In the Role of Materials in Developing Countries, Villas-Boas (1990) discussed the lack of use of new, high-tech materials in developing countries due to their cost and availability. Every effort was made to design the shredder using only common materials that would typically

be available in a poor, developing country. In the Supplier Selection in Developing Countries: a Model Development, Motwani, Youssef, Kathawala, and Futch (1999) discussed issues involving selecting or qualifying vendors to produce a product. This will be the responsibility of the organization having the shredder built, and is beyond the scope of this project.

A search of the Internet using the Google Advanced Scholar provided more papers that had some relevance. Thakur, Varma, and Goldey (2001) in the Perceptions of Drudgery in Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Operations: A Gender Analysis From Haryana State, India discusses the fact that women in developing countries spend much more time working in agriculture than men and the tasks given to them are more monotonous and tedious. The article supports the need for a device like the breadfruit shredder that has the potential to lift them out of that situation. In A Framework for Implementing Appropriate Manufacturing Systems in Developing Economies, Obi (1999) looked for explanations on why the Industrial Revolution passed by most developing countries and explored ways that these countries can start utilizing their vast manpower resources. He discusses the need to change workers attitudes. Finally, in Meeting a Pressing Need, Hynd and Smith (2004) discuss a simple oilseed ram press as an appropriate technology device for small scale extracting of oil from seeds and nuts. They examine some of the cultural issues that were associated with implementing the oilseed ram. The insights of this article could be used as a guide for undertaking the next phase of the shredder project; implementation into the Haitian culture. They briefly talk about some of the

10

manufacturing difficulties, such as poor quality, associated with producing goods in a developing country.

The best book relating to appropriate technology equipment used in developing countries is the Appropriate Technology Sourcebook compiled by Darrow and Saxenian (1993). It is considered The Bible by people in the appropriate technology field, such as those at CTI (Humphreys, 2005). The book is a resource listing appropriate technology machine books and papers that are available for purchase from other sources. It does not contain any designs of its own, but it does give a brief description of the contents of the papers and designs that are available for order. A search of this book and the updated website did not reveal any designs for manual shredders or grinders (www.villageearth.org/atnetwork/atsourcebook/index).

Compatible Technology, International Compatible Technology, International (CTI) (www.compatibletechnology.org) is an excellent local resource for dealing with appropriate technology in developing countries and has extensive connections throughout the world. It is an organization dedicated to using simple devices to improve food production and storage in the third world. They are a stakeholder in the design and development of the original shredder. The director of CTI is Bruce Humphreys who granted an interview on issues dealing with manufacturing in developing countries (2005). Some of the key points that he brought up were:

11

Manufacturers in developing countries do not necessarily build parts to a fabrication print. Everything is custom and will look similar to what is desired, but is not quite the same. Creativity is not rewarded in many cultures and there is a desire to continue doing things the old way. Expectations in quality and standards will probably not be met. They do not typically produce to the same quality as is expected in the U.S. There are cultural norms and practices that will be slow to change and may not be overcome. This would primarily relate to the target market of women. Women tend to not use machines, thus the design must be easy to use and relatively tool free.

These assertions by Mr. Humphrey were reinforced in other literature relating to the topic (Obi, 1999).

Hank Garwick and Dave Elton are the two CTI volunteers who are most closely tied into the Haiti mission. They have made several trips to Haiti on humanitarian missions associated with both CTI and the Methodist Church. The two offered insight into the Haitian mindset, manufacturing capabilities in Haiti, and experience in shredding breadfruit. Their comments on the manufacturing capabilities in Haiti were that we would be lucky to find someone who could read a print, and even if they can they probably wont follow it (Garwick, 2005).

12

Garwick and Elton were not satisfied with the work of the UST senior design team and continued to develop the shredder after the senior design teams project ended. They made several small modifications to the design, built a prototype, and brought it down to Haiti to be tested (Fig. 4). The Garwick/Elton version of the shredder did not work as well as intended and did not produce the desired shred rate found by the UST engineering team (Garwick, 2005). It is unclear why this was the case. Several of the better design changes that they made to their shredder were incorporated into the current shredder design. These would include the sheet metal center divider and ideas on the retainer for the shredding blade.

Figure 4: Garwick/Elton Breadfruit Shredder

13

Garwick and Elton believed strongly that the prime power for the operation of the shredder should be a leg driven bicycle type mechanism instead of the current hand powered crank. Figure 5 shows a bicycle drive assembly that they added to a shredder (Garwick, 2005). This project is focused on producing a shredder for the poorest of people in Haiti and it was felt that a bicycle type mechanism would significantly add to the cost of the machine while making it unnecessarily complex. It is expected that this shredder will only be fully utilized for several weeks a year during the breadfruit harvest and would not justify the higher cost. The current design is one such that a bicycle type drive could be added to the shredder at a later date if desired by the user.

Figure 5: Garwick/Elton Bicycle Drive Mechanism

14

Institutional Libraries The United States Military Academy at West Point has an extensive library relating to military manuals and papers. The U.S. military routinely performs operations in developing countries and the units typically tasked with helping the local population are the Civil Affairs units and the Special Operations Forces. These units are often involved in nation building and community development and have close contact with the people. Daniel Prichard, a research librarian at the library, was contacted about any pamphlets, articles, or papers that the library may have on a shredder or appropriate technologies in developing countries. Mr. Prichard found nothing relevant at the Academys library (Prichard, 2004).

A search of the University of St. Thomass and the University of Minnesotas library systems found no books or on-site literature that was relevant to the design of the breadfruit shredder.

Research and International Organizations The Hawaiian Breadfruit Institute is an organization based in Hawaii whose mission is to promote the study and use of Breadfruit for food and reforestation (www.breadfruit.org ). It tracks and propagates the 120 known varieties of breadfruit found on the islands of the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea. Dr. Diane Ragone, director of the Hawaiian Breadfruit Institute, was contacted regarding the shredding of breadfruit and the possible existence of similar devices. Dr. Ragone responded that she had not heard of any similar processing methods for breadfruit. Her primary concern for this was

15

that the latex found naturally in breadfruit would gum-up the machine and clog the shredding blade (Ragone, 2005). This issue was raised with Hank Garwick of CTI and he stated that most of the latex in breadfruit was found in the skin. The skin is removed before processing so this did not appear to be a concern for the shredder. The field tests in St. Vincent by the senior engineering student team did not report any excessive latex build up on the blades.

The International Research Development Centre (IRDC) is a Canadian based organization whose purpose is to build healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous societies (www.irdc.ca ). An e-mail was sent to IRDC explaining the project and asking about any information that they might have on shredders. The response was a link to their website which brought up nothing of value. A similar search of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) provided no additional information (www.undp.org).

Research was done with the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to see if there were requirements or recommendations for the food industry regarding food processing equipment or the components used in them. The purpose was to find out which materials were considered Food Grade and suitable for food contact. The goal is to make the shredder as sanitary and safe as possible regardless of the standards that may be present in a developing country. It was found that the FDA does not keep a list of recommended materials, but has established a list of requirements that manufactures must meet in order to state that it is a material approved for food contact. The premise of the

16

requirements are that if any of the material could migrate to the food, it must not pose a threat to humans (FDA, 1999).

Expert Inquires The Minneapolis/St. Paul area is home to several large food producing companies such as General Mills. Food Safety personnel at General Mills were contacted to ask about standards for their food production equipment and any suggestions that would help to make the shredder more sanitary and suitable for food contact. These inquiries covered guidelines that are typical of the food processing industry. Gary Olmstead, Food Safety Instructor at General Mills stated that equipment should be durable and easy to clean (Olmstead, 2005). General Mills avoids having any pieces of equipment over the product because of the risk of parts falling into the food. Fred Hegele, also part of food safety at General Mills, was concerned about the durability of any plastics used in the equipment. He emphasized that the machine cannot have any recessed pockets or hard to clean areas. These would trap bacteria and make it unsafe and unsanitary (Hegele, 2005). John Schevenius, a former General Mills Engineer and founder of CTI, was contacted about suggestions for the shredder. Although he was familiar with the breadfruit program, he could not offer any suggestions for improvement (Schevenius, 2005).

The research done here showed that there is a lack of availability of information regarding the design of an appropriate technology machine. The design methodology varies from organization to organization and no standardized process appears to have been completed and published in a major journal regarding the topic. Appropriate

17

technology generally falls outside of the realm of modern manufacturing because it has a tendency to take a step back in time and is unlikely to utilize current materials or manufacturing methods. The practices used are generally driven by the situation on the ground, forcing the researcher to rely on personal testimony and experience. This leaves the designer with a great deal of latitude and requires ingenuity.

Chapter III: Project Proposal

Project Objectives The basic premise of this paper is to look at the existing design and develop ways to optimize it for manufacture in developing countries using established manufacturing practices and expert opinion. The objectives behind the redesign of the shredder were to: Reduce the part count. Make it easier to manufacture in a developing country. Reduce the final cost of the equipment. Make it easier for the user to operate, clean, and repair. Accomplishing these tasks will lead to a more robust machine that has a higher probability of being accepted by the Haitian end-users.

Reducing the part count can be the easiest way to reduce the cost of the machine. The revised part must not be complex and end up costing more than the combined sum of the replaced parts. The process used to do this was Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DFMA) as laid out in Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly (1994) by Boothroyd, Dewhurst, and Knight.

18

A goal of this engineering project was to create a shredder that was simple enough that it can be made at a local Haitian machine shop and sold at a reasonable price. Some shops will have achieved a high level of proficiency and can make most of the parts that a typical machine shop in the United States could do; others will have very few trained or skilled workers (Obi, 1999). The redesign process utilized many of the principles established by Ulrich and Eppinger in Product Design and Development (2004) to examine the parts and how they would be manufactured. This included changing the orientation of the parts to ease fabrication, making parts self-aligning, and reducing processing steps. The end state was to have all of the parts made on equipment typically found in a small shop; such as a drill, saw, welder, and lathe.

The United States is Haitis largest trading partner (CIA Fact Book, 2005) and for a price the people there can get just about any product that is available in America (Garwick, 2004). Despite this, efforts were made to use materials that would commonly be found on the island at a reasonable cost. These would include common hot-rolled steels, typical poly-vinyl chloride (PVC) plastics, and small, easily interchangeable purchased parts. Reducing the final cost of the machine will involve examining the materials used in the shredder and asking if alternatives materials can be utilized that are less expensive and still provide the same level of performance. In addition, the DFMA principles were used to determine if the types of material can be reduced. One of the key cost reductions will be finding an alternative to the professional stainless-steel shredder blade that currently accounts for about one third of the cost of the shredder.

19

Making the shredder easier to operate, clean, and repair will benefit the end user by increasing their satisfaction with the machine and making a more robust design. It will also reduce some of the health concerns associated with unsanitary food processing equipment. This was done by utilizing typical practices in the food equipment industry. An effort was made to eliminate recessed pockets that would hold food particles (Hegele, 2005) and to use durable materials that could not migrate into the food (Olmstead, 2005). Making the machine easy to disassemble and clean will greatly increase the chances that the user will do this.

Accomplishing these goals would add significant value to the machine and benefit the end-user by giving them a cheaper and more durable product that is better suited to their needs. There are many excellent appropriate technology devices out there that never gained acceptance with the intended population for one reason or another (Darrow, 2004). The goal here was to make this shredder as cost effective as possible with a high level of user satisfaction so that it can realize its potential to help alleviate some of the malnutrition in Haiti.

Alternative Methods There were several alternative methods for examining this project and reaching the stated objectives. The alternative methods presented here were either cost or time prohibitive or not as thorough as the approach taken. These alternative methods were:

20

A) Test in St Vincent: The University of St. Thomas sent four shredder test models to various people on the island of St. Vincent for the purpose of life cycle testing and design analysis. This was to allow user feedback on the design from real users. It does not appear that the people of St. Vincent use much shredded breadfruit and never fully utilized the machine. An early trip to St. Vincent to discuss the use and design of the shredder was cancelled because of a lack of response from the users on the island. B) Field Design in Haiti: This would involve several trips to Haiti and modifying the shredder after each trip to the island to take into account lessons learned. Haiti has been unstable for quite some time and travel is not advised because of the dangers involved. The cost of this method would also have been excessive. C) Design in Conjunction with Haitian School of Engineering: This would also have involved several trips to Haiti and communications would be difficult. This would have been a good exercise for the Haitian student engineers but their desires may not have been in-line with those of the target audience.

Project Constraints The project was looked at from both a manufacturing point of view and the probable realities of manufacturing a product in a developing country. Many of the constraints listed below are addressed specifically as objectives for this project.

21

The shredder would have to be easy to build with limited manufacturing equipment. This affected the design in several ways that became apparent during fabrication. The operating instructions would have to be at the level of an illiterate person with limited experience. For this reason, the instructions will have to be very graphic with lots of supplementing pictures. The materials used in the shredder would have to be flexible. It is unrealistic to believe that a small machine shop will order special materials and wait for the parts to come in. They will likely adapt what is on hand and make that work. Sanitation must be built into the shredder so that it is easy to clean and does not take a significant amount of time. Disassembly was taken into consideration so that all of the parts in contact with the food were easy to take off and could be quickly cleaned with soap and water. The target users of this shredder are the poor women of Haiti. There are several cultural issues in dealing with women in developing countries (Thilmany, 2005) such as: Acceptability of a woman operating machines Movements that the women must make to operate the machine Culturally prohibited use of tools by women in some societies and Women who have little experience repairing equipment

22

Project Budget The budget for this project was generously donated by Larry Mathews with the desire of improving the lives of those less fortunate than himself. The contribution from him was $5,000 to be used as needed. The greatest expense in this project would be any required travel to Haiti or another Caribbean island. Donations of materials were solicited whenever possible. All machining and shop time was done at the UST student machine shop. The estimated budget was:

Table 2: Proposed Budget

Air travel to/from Port-a-Prince Haiti (two people) Lodging in Haiti (5 nights) Food in Haiti Transportation in Haiti (local taxi) Interpreter Services (4 days) Misc. travel expenses Materials for building shredder (actual cost offset by donations) Misc. expenses (test material, phone calls, etc) Proposed Budget:

$1,800 $400 $100 $100 $150 $200 $50 $50 $2,850

Financial Justification The potential financial ramifications for this project will not benefit either the author or the University of St. Thomas. It is hoped that the end product will benefit the women of Haiti and people of all developing countries by providing them with a means to improve

23

their lives. This will be done by giving them a method of preserving food while it is abundant and storing it until needed. This will lead to a better quality of life by creating a stable food source and potentially ease malnutrition.

The financial justification for this project is to enable CTI and the Methodist Church to develop womens cooperatives in Haiti. These cooperatives would be given a small business loan to purchase locally made breadfruit shredders. The shredded and dried breadfruit would be purchased by a Haitian company associated with the Methodist Church and then turned into breadfruit flour to be used in several recipes. This would create a market for an underutilized raw material, a means of producing that material, and a market for a finished product made from the material. This has the potential to create a micro-economy and benefit everyone involved. It is unclear if and when CTI and the Methodist Church will fully implement this plan.

Chapter IV: Findings and Results

This chapter will discuss the redesign process that was undertaken and document the changes that were made. The process of redesigning and modifying the breadfruit shredder involved several different iterations and made use of accepted manufacturing principles to create a better machine. Input and suggestions were sought from all available sources: those familiar with the project to those who had no previous knowledge of the shredder. All suggestions were considered and analyzed for their value and cost effectiveness. Several of these ideas were incorporated into the redesigned

24

shredder. The result was a more user-friendly device that is simpler, more economical, and met the objectives established for the project.

Redesign Process The process of shredding breadfruit can be done in many different ways with many possible shredding styles. Four different approaches were documented by the senior design team and the process chosen by them rated the highest against the criteria that they had established (Anderson et al, 2004). It was also a design that was simple; which was critical for the environment where it would be made. The existing design concept for this project was solid and had been tested and proven to meet their criteria. Figure 6 shows an exploded view of the Tommy shredder done by the senior design team (Anderson et al, 2004). It was decided to stay with this basic concept but analyze it from a manufacturing viewpoint with the objective being to make it easier to manufacture in a developing country and to reduce its cost using the principles of DFMA (Boothroyd et al, 1994).

Design for Manufacture and Assembly Process The Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DFMA) methodology as described by Boothroyd, Dewhurst, and Knight (1994) was used to examine each function of an assembly to determine if it could be eliminated or combined with another part and if there are simpler ways to meet the performance criteria without sacrificing quality. Analyzing an assembly using the DFMA process typically results in a simpler, better quality, lower cost and more reliable product.

25

The process of going through the methodology focuses on the existing design build sequence and bill of material. The first of two analyses generates a design that envisions an ideal assembly. All fasteners are designated to be eliminated and any process that could simplify the assembly is incorporated. Minimum part guidelines are applied to all components and three questions are asked of all adjacent parts in order to reduce the part count: Does the part move relative to other parts already assembled? Must the part be of a different material or isolated from other parts in the assembly? Does the part need to be separate from others for assembly and disassembly purposes?

If the answer to these three questions is no then the two parts should be combined into one. On completion of this ideal analysis a second analysis is carried out. This analysis reviews the first analysis with the reality of the actual situation that will exist for the build of the assembly: quantity, rate of production, funding available, environment, material availability, and economics (Walker, 2005). Additional questions that must be asked are: What is the cost of each material piece used? Will an alternative material work equally well while reducing cost? What is the availability of each different material? Is it realistically available in a developing country?

26

Are the welded parts easy to fixture so that a part can be made accurately and repeatable? Is there commonality of parts? Can parts with similar functions be made to work in multiple places? Is there excess material on a part? Is it needed?

This results in an optimized design that fits the envisioned assembly process and would include changing the orientation of the parts to ease fabrication, making parts selfaligning, and reducing processing steps. Not all fasteners may be eliminated or improvements made, but it represents the best situation at the time of analysis. The result of the analysis was incorporated directly into part sketches and proven by making iterations of actual hardware to build a prototype machine.

27

Figure 6: Original Tommy Shredder Exploded View

28

Alternative Designs The redesign process during this project involved several successive iterations; each one building on the previous design while changing different aspects. Appendices 1, 2, 3, and 4 shows eight variations to the shredder developed and improved upon during the current redesign process leading up to its present form. These eight variations used the same basic concept while making slight design changes to the original Tommy Shredder. Most of the variations looked at different ways of mounting the bucket, bushings and blade support utilizing the DFMA process to simplify the fabrication of the machine. Each of these changes was analyzed for functionality, durability, cost effectiveness, and simplicity. It was determined that many of these ideas did not lead to improvements or could be further modified. More radical changes were analyzed but are not documented here.

The project was looked at from the viewpoint of trying to keep the materials costeffective and as locally available as possible. One idea that was explored was to use a typical five-gallon plastic food bucket for the feeder tube. These buckets are made for storing commercially prepared food and are common almost anywhere that bulk food is consumed. The concept was that a bucket could be procured locally; the bottom cut out for the produce to fall through, and then clamped into the shredder assembly.

Several of these buckets were acquired from the UST food service center and tested. It was found that these buckets are made from high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and are relatively thin walled. When the hole was cut into the bottom, the bucket became

29

unacceptably flimsy. It was determined that the food bucket would be difficult to firmly clamp to the shredder because of its flexibility. The thin walled material would also wear out quickly and need to be replaced often. This would lead to frustration by the end-user who would have to keep replacing the buckets. Durability is one of the keys to successfully implementing an appropriate technology device in a developing country (Hynd, 2004). The bucket version, while being a cost reducer, did not meet the durability test.

Design Reviews The design reviews addressed here were extremely helpful in getting different perspectives on how things could be done. Some of these were formal design reviews and others were ideas from knowledgeable people who were asked for their input. All of the suggestions were considered valid and were analyzed for their ability to reduce cost, make it easier to manufacture, and be more user-friendly.

Karl Mueller, the machine shop supervisor at the University of St. Thomas, assisted Dr. Camille George in building the four test units that were sent to the island of St. Vincent. This happened in the summer of 2004 after the senior design team had finished their work and submitted a final design for the breadfruit shredder. During the build process Mr. Mueller implemented several changes to the design of the breadfruit shredder that made it easier to build and reduced the cost. These changes are discussed in Appendix 16. Mr. Mueller also made further suggestions to the revised drive assembly to eliminate

30

the clamp collars and handle pins by replacing them with welded-on washers. This eliminated several parts while reducing drilling operations.

Mr. John Walker, Associate Professor at the University of St. Thomas, did an initial analysis of the breadfruit shredder in September 2004 before the author was involved with this project. Mr. Walker had looked at the shredder and sketched up several ideas that he had on improving the machine (Appendix 15). These were excellent ideas and many of them were used in the redesign process. An example of this would be his ideas for redesigning the drive shaft and bushing assemblies.

The welding required for the shredder was examined in August 2005 by Clay Solberg who is a Master Welder at Progressive Systems, Inc. Mr. Solberg assisted in welding the redesigned breadfruit shredder and was asked for suggestions on the shredder frame and the blade support. He was concerned about the welding of the frame. The thick back piece could bend from the heat when the other pieces were being welded on. He suggested using a skip-weld to reduce the amount of heat that the plate was subjected to. The skip weld is common in this type of application and is considered strong enough to support the tubes.

The Project Review Committee of Dr. Camille George, Dr. Fred Zimmerman, and Mr. John Walker looked at the final product in August 2005. Overall they were happy with the changes that had been made to the shredder. Suggestions were made concerning the mounting of the center divider in the basket. A previous design had the lower part of the

31

center divider bent to slide over one dowel pin. This was changed to a flat piece of sheet metal that slid between two dowel pins in the lower part of the feeder tube. The punch and die for making the shredder blade were also discussed.

An effort was made to have a review done by people involved with operations in Haiti. Mr. Pat OMalley of the Haitian Relief Services looked at the device in August 2005. Haitian Relief Services is an organization that builds simple houses for Haitis poor. Although Mr. OMalley was not familiar with the project, he was interested in potentially integrating it into his projects in Haiti. He stated that the people of Haiti are very good at making things work and suggested that the final product have lots of diagrams and manufacturing procedures for them to follow.

Engineering expertise from the outside was brought in to examine and comment on the shredder. A review with Yvonne Ng, Mechanical Engineer and Instructor at the University of St. Catherine, and Troy Pongratz, Design Engineer, in August 2005 proved very helpful in getting a different perspective on the project from people who where not familiar with it. Some of their suggestions focused on the user interface with the machine such as making pins easier to pull out and possible catch point for hands or clothing. They also talked about possible alternatives to the components for the shredder such as suggestions for reworking the tamper and the feeder tube. Ms. Ng also recommended making it cute so that women would like it more. The aesthetic appearance of the shredder had previously not been explored but would contribute to user acceptance within the target market.

32

Design Modifications All of the major components of the existing design were modified and updated for easier manufacturing, sanitation, or material availability. The changes were based on design analysis, design reviews, and material types. It should be noted that some of the design modifications resulted in more parts being used. An example of this would be the shredder blade mount and the shaft bearing blocks. The increase in parts is justified by the fact that some of the old parts may not be easily available in a developing country as was the case with the oil-impregnated bushings holding the shaft. The shredder blade mount design added parts and material but greatly increased the strength and stability of the assembly.

The pictures documenting the changes show the student senior design team version on the left and the updated version on the right. Handle/Drive Shaft: The previous handle assembly consisted of nine parts and some time consuming machining to create the clamping arrangement on the upper handle piece. The redesigning of the handle used DFMA (Boothroyd, 1994) principles to reduce the part count from nine to four and the only fabrication necessary was a simple hole and some welding (Fig. 7). Instead of attempting to clamp the handle to the drive shaft, a single piece of steel shafting was bent into a one piece handle assembly. The clamp collars to support the assembly were replaced with a welded-on washer. A piece of plastic tube is slipped over the top part of the handle for rotational purposes and is supported on the bottom by a

33

weld-on washer. The bending of the shaft was easily done by heating with a torch and bending in a vise.

Figure 7: Handle/Drive Shaft Changes

Drive Shaft Bearings: The previous design used an oil-impregnated sintered bronze bushing to retain the drive shaft and provide for easy turning. The bronze bushings are something that may not be readily available in a developing country and will also slowly degrade, dropping bronze particles into the food. This was redesigned to be a round piece of nylon with two holes drilled through it (Fig. 8). One hole is for a bolt to hold it onto the frame plate and the drive shaft is inserted through the other hole. The part is symmetrical so that when the drive shaft begins to wallow out its hole, the part can be flipped around and the holes switched. This will give them twice the life out of the same piece.

34

Figure 8: Drive Shaft Bearing Changes

Frame Plate: The mount for the bearing had to be redesigned to hold the nylon bushings (Fig. 9). A round piece of tube was used in place of the square tube and the nylon bushing was slipped into one end of it. A saw-cut slit was put into the end of the tube along with a bolt hole. This way the retainer bolt could be tightened, causing the tube to clamp onto the nylon bushing. The spacing of the bushings was increased so that they would better support the drive shaft.

Figure 9: Frame Plate Changes

Center Divider: The center divider was two pieces of flat PVC plate that were glued together and screwed inside of the feeder tube. The flat PVC was difficult to get even in the United States and the attachment method left large cracks and gaps between the inside of the barrel and the divider. The divider was not

35

removable, so these cracks would collect food and bacteria that would be hard to clean out. This divider was remade to be easily removable so that it could be cleaned. A piece of sheet steel was used instead of the flat PVC (Fig. 10). A slot was cut into the top of the feeder tube to secure the center divider and four dowel pins protruding through the lower part of the feeder tube were used to hold the bottom of the center divider. This secured the divider on both the top and the bottom and made the part easy to remove by pulling it out thru the top. The divider and feeder tube could then be washed separately.

Figure 10: Center Divider Changes

Blade Mount: One of the hardest pieces to fabricate on the previous design was the blade mount. The design did not hold the blade flat and appeared weak. The mount was redesigned using a support ring that was the same size as the blade (Fig. 11). Four of the mounting slots on the blade could then be used so that it 36

would lay flat and retain its shape better. All eight mounting holes in the blade were initially used to mount the blade but it was found that the warped nature of the shredder blade made it difficult to put on. Four mounting holes to secure the blade was just as effective and much easier to use. The manufacturing principles for assembly were utilized (Boothroyd et al, 1994) so that the assembly could be easily fixtured and welded. The center boss for mounting to the drive shaft was made to be square instead of round. It was much easier to weld on the support arms to a flat edge as compared to a round hub. The support arms were also changed from round shaft to rectangular bars. The end result was a blade mount that was much easier to manufacture and did a better job of supporting the blade. The new design used more material, but it is felt that this was an acceptable tradeoff for the reduced fabrication time and better support provided by the new design.

Figure 11: Blade Mount Changes

37

Fabrication Lessons The parts required for the redesigned shredder were all fabricated by the author in the UST machining lab. This provided excellent feedback on the manufacturability of the parts and offered insight into what things could be changed to improve the final product. Some of the design changes made and lessons learned are discussed here.

An early design revision incorporated the feeder tube stand-off into the barrel hoop on the frame plate (Fig. 9). The stand-off is needed to space the blade away from the mounting post but it was hoped that the part count and material needed could be reduced by combining the two into one piece (Fig. 12). It was found that a simple sheet metal roller cannot do sharp bends and the welded standoff had to be added again. The stand-off material was changed to the same steel tubing used for the bushing support to reduce the types of materials needed.

BEND HOOP TO ELIMINATE SPACER

Figure 12: Combined Feeder Tube Hoop and Spacer

38

The drive shaft bushings (Fig. 8) were originally redesigned to have to two holes at 90 degrees to each other. This was done to reduce the wallowing out of the mounting hole and make the retaining screws easily accessible. During fabrication, it was found that 90 degree holes were difficult to accurately place and that in-line holes were much easier to layout, mark, and drill. This had the added advantage in that the holes in the steel tubing supporting the bushings on the frame plate (Fig. 9) also had to be rotated and made parallel to the drive shaft. The steel tubing could now be easily aligned during welding by inserting a rod through the holes in the tubing (Fig. 13). This would fit into Ulrich and Eppingers (2004) method of making parts easy to assembly by making alignment simple.

Figure 13: Alignment of Bushing Supports

Manufacturers in resource scarce areas may not have draw-over-mandrel (DOM) tubing on hand for the steel bushing supports on the frame plate (Fig. 9) and may use hot-rolled steel (HRS) tubing in its place. During fabrication it was found that the HRS tubing has raised weld lines on the inside of the tube that hinder the insertion of the bushing. The bushings (Fig. 8) were modified to account for the raised welds. The modification

39

involves slightly flattening the area where the weld lines are so that the bushing will slide into the tube.

The fabrication of the one-piece steel handle/drive shaft was easier than expected (Fig. 7). It involved heating a section of the steel with a torch and bending in a shop vice. This further supported the design change as reducing the cost of the part by reducing fabrication time.

Design Variations Every effort was made to design the breadfruit shredder using materials that should be readily available world-wide. Despite this, there will be problems with getting parts. The following suggestions are alternative design variations that may be substituted for the shredder.

The feeder tube is round because it is easy to clamp and the shape makes the most sense with its interaction with the rotating shredder blade. If round PVC tube is not available, an alternative would be to use a square or octagonal box made out of wood or sheet metal. This may not be as efficient, but would work and is easy to build.

Sheet metal is common world-wide but may be more expensive in certain areas. A wooden center divider was used on the Garwick/Elton version of the shredder (Garwick, 2005). This works well but was not used here because it has the potential to trap bacteria and is not as sanitary as sheet metal.

40

Nylon is the suggested material for the drive shaft bushing. There are many alternatives to this to include ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMW), hard wood, or another plastic. Hardwoods, such as maple, have long been used as a bearing material in simple applications (Fig. 14).

Figure 14: Wooden Bushing Variation

These are all valid ideas that were not used because it was determined that they were not as efficient or as sanitary as the components in the final design. These alternatives are all possible options available to the manufacturer when building this device if the specified material is not available.

Shredder Blade Project The shredder blade is the most expensive part of the breadfruit shredder and the one that would be hardest to obtain in a developing country. The specified blade is a stainless steel commercial blade made by Hobart Company and the cost makes up about a third of the total cost of the shredder. The senior design team had used this blade because it fit their application and was available. A search for another blade did not lead to any

41

compatible replacements that would significantly reduce the cost. The Garwick/Elton shredder tested a less expensive blade but found it to warp easily (Garwick, 2005).

The option of creating a simple blade for the shredder was explored as a way to reduce the cost of the machine. It was determined that if a punch and die assembly could be devised for manufacturing the blade, a fabrication shop could make their own blades when they made the shredder. The punch and die assembly would not need to have the exact same cutting profile as the Hobart blade but one requirement was that any fabricated blade must be interchangeable with the mounting holes on a Hobart blade. This would give the end-user the option of using either one.

The task of creating a punch and die assembly was taken on by an engineering student, Hezbon Mose, at the University of St. Thomas. Mose used a manual milling machine, lathe, and grinder to create a simple four-row die and a matching punch (Fig. 15). The punch and die created by Mose was tested and found to be moderately effective. The profiles were somewhat erratic and often the thinner sheet metal began to tear the profile when a small pre-drilled hole was used.

42

Figure 15: Shredder Blade Profile Die, Profile Punch, and Hole Template

The factors affecting the forming of the cutting profiles seemed to be the size of the predrilled hole and the thickness of the sheet metal. Table 3 shows the average results of testing using three different holes sizes and metal thicknesses. The height value is the distance that the sheet metal was deformed from the die. The commercial Hobart Blade has a height of 0.150 inches and was used as a baseline to determine acceptable punches. From the testing, it was found that the 0.437 (7/16) inch diameter hole provide the best looking profile that most closely matched the Hobart blade. The material thickness of 0.24 inches was also satisfactory.

43

Table 3: Shredder Punch Hole Test

Metal Thickness (in) 0.021 Hot Rolled Steel (HRS) 0.021 HRS 0.021 HRS 0.024 HRS 0.024 HRS 0.024 HRS 0.030 STAINLESS STEEL 0.030 STAINLESS STEEL 0.030 STAINLESS STEEL

Pre-Drilled Hole Size (in) 0.375 (3/8) 0.438 (7/16) 0.500 (1/2) 0.375 (3/8) 0.438 (7/16) 0.500 (1/2) 0.375 (3/8) 0.438 (7/16) 0.500 (1/2)

Deformed Height (in) 0.138 0.155 0.151 TORE MATERIAL 0.160 0.100 0.162 0.150 0.095

The process for creating a shredder blade required that the corresponding hole pattern be pre-drilled into the sheet metal first using a standard drill and bit. This was done by creating a hole template (Fig. 15) to use for determining the location and spacing of the holes. The sheet metal is clamped between the hole template and a piece of wood so that the holes can be drilled through the template with a standard drill bit. The sheet metal would then be placed on the die and the slicing profiles pounded into the sheet metal using the punch. The slicing profiles can then be sharpened with a small round file. The Hobart blade has a raised lip around the outside that was used to stiffen the blade. The fabricated blade was found to be relatively stiff without the raised lip but deformed slightly from the fabrication process (Fig. 16). In addition, the redesigned shredder mount holds the blade at four mounting holes and supports it on the entire perimeter

44

whereas the previous mount only held the blade at two holes and had two additional support arms. Based on these factors, it was determined that the raised lip was not needed on the fabricated blade.

Figure 16: Fabricated Blade

Testing the Redesigned Shredder The redesigned shredder was tested for both functionality and performance against the original Tommy shredder. The first test was a timed trial between the redesigned shredder and the original shredder using the same amount of butternut squash, the same commercial Hobart blade, and one operator was used to keep the rotation rate and feed rate consistent between the two shredders. A second timed trial was conducted using the redesigned shredder to compare the shred time between the Hobart blade and the fabricated blade (Fig. 16). The anticipated time results for the first test between the new and old shredder were expected to be about the same. The basic design was similar and there were no obvious factors except for the blade support that would make a significant 45

difference between the two machines. It was also expected that the second test would show the purchased Hobart blade outperforming the fabricated blade. Both of these assumptions were proven wrong.

Each test was done using four pounds of butternut squash that had been cut into quarters. The original shredder shredded this amount in 5 minutes and 15 seconds. This works out to about 46 pounds of squash per hour. The redesigned shredder shredded the same amount of squash in 4 minutes and 10 seconds. This works out to about 58 pounds of squash per hour. The one observation that would explain this 25 percent difference would be the center divider. The original shredder used two pieces of PVC glued together and screwed into the middle of the feeder tube. This took up about a 1-1/2 inch space in the middle of the feeder tube. The smaller product space tended to cause the squash to become wedged in the feeder tube and slowed down the shredding process. The redesigned shredder used a piece of thin sheet metal which left larger openings in the feeder tube for the squash. The redesigned feeder tube is also longer, which allowed more squash to be placed in it, eliminating some loading time. It is unknown whether different sizes of product would significantly change the results. There are too many variables in this test, such as operator experience, product size, product type, and limited run time, to say that the redesigned shredder will shred 25 percent more product. It does show that the redesigned shredder will work as good as or possibly better than the original shredder design.

46

The second test was done to compare the effectiveness of the fabricated blade against the commercial Hobart Blade. Four pounds of butternut squash were again cut up into quarters for this test. The fabricated blade was put onto the redesigned shredder and completed the test in about four minutes and 20 seconds. This works out to about 55 pounds of squash per hour. The fabricated blade performed much better than expected and had a similar shred rate to the purchased Hobart blade. One possible reason for this was that the rough edges on the fabricated blade had more of a cutting effect on the squash. These test results show that the fabricated blade is an acceptable replacement for the Hobart blade.

The redesigned shredder will need to be tested with breadfruit to see if the senior engineering design teams average of 200 pounds per hour can be duplicated or exceeded. The simple test done with butternut squash does validate both the redesign of the shredder and the fabricated blade. They should be considered equal to or possibly better than the original Tommy shredder.

Redesign Results The redesign process using the principles of manufacturing, such as DFMA, made the breadfruit shredder simpler and more robust. Figure 17 shows the revised breadfruit shredder. By simplifying the design, it also became easier to manufacture in a developing country and the reduced cost will make the shredder more accessible to the people. The final design for the breadfruit shredder consists of assembly drawings, detail prints, and pictures showing the pieces and assemblies. Computer-Aided Design (CAD)

47

models have been drawn on Solidworks and the parts rendered into solid views to aid in fabrication. These prints, the Bill of Materials, and fabrication instructions are shown in the Appendix section of the paper.

Figure 17: The Revised Tommy Shredder

The original objectives of this project were to: Reduce the part count. Make it easier to manufacture in a developing country. Reduce the final cost of the equipment. Make it easier for the user to operate, clean, and repair.

48

Redesigning the handle and drive assembly reduced the fabricated parts of this machine. The simple bent piece of round steel replaced the drive rod, handle crank, and handle post. The types of raw material needed were also reduced by eliminating the flat steel on the handle crank and changing the spacer for the feeder tube hoop from a steel block to the same steel tubing material as the bearing supports. All of the fabrication work done to manufacture the shredder was done with tools that would typically be found in a small machine shop. These tools would be a drill, saw, hammer, welder, and a lathe.

Several of the purchased materials used in the original Tommy Shredder were potentially more difficult to get in a developing country. This included the flat PVC plate used for the center divider, the oil-impregnated bronze bushings, and the clamp collars. These were replaced with more common materials such as sheet metal for the center divider and plastic or wood for the bushings. A common flat washer replaced the clamp collars.

The final cost of the machine will be reduced by the changes made to the design. While several things such as the sturdier blade support added cost, most were cost reducers. The elimination of the expensive flat PVC and less machining for the drive assembly will result in less material cost and quicker fabrication time. The most significant cost reducer will be fabricating a shredder blade instead of purchasing a Hobart blade. It is estimated that it will take a person about half of a day to fabricate a shredding blade using the die, punch, and template described in the previous section. Using the senior design teams labor rate of 8 dollars per day for Haiti and a material price of 4 dollars, the blade

49

will cost about 8 dollars to make. This is a significant savings over the Hobart blade that costs 26 dollars and would likely need to be special ordered from outside the country.

The user satisfaction with the machine was increased in two ways. The sanitation and cleanliness of the shredder were greatly improved by making the center divider removable. The removable center divider allows the feeder tube and divider to be cleaned separately and eliminated closed pockets that trapped food. The former blade support was weak and did not hold the blade securely or keep it flat while in operation. The new heavier duty blade support will improve the quality of the device while making it more durable and better supporting the blade during the shredding process.

Schedule The schedule for this project was established in January 2005 and was revised several times. The original schedule had the project completed in June of 2005 and is shown in Appendix 13. It became apparent that this was an aggressive schedule that needed to be revised. Appendix 14 shows the revised schedule which had the project completion date in October 2005. This schedule was again moved back and the project completed in December 2005.

The project plan included a trip to St. Vincent to document the life-cycle testing on the four units that were sent to the island. Repeated inquiries to the recipients of the breadfruit shredder on the progress of the testing yielded very few replies. Based on the meager response, the trip was cancelled.

50

A trip to Haiti to test out the revised breadfruit shredder was also planned for this project. This trip was cancelled several times due to the political instability in advance of the country-wide elections. The United States Department of State advised no travel to Haiti by Americans and removed its entire staff except for emergency personnel. It is hoped that the political situation in Haiti will calm down after the elections, which have been pushed back to February of 2006.

Final Budget The money required for this project was significantly less than the amount budgeted for. In the original budget of 2,850 dollars, 2,750 dollars were related to a trip for two people to Haiti. This trip never happened because of the political unrest in the country that was occurring during the time span of this project. It is hoped that this money can be used for a future trip to Haiti when the situation in the country stabilizes. This trip would be used to introduce the Haitians to the Tommy Shredder, work on developing local recipes from dried breadfruit, and obtain more user feedback on the machine.

The expenses associated with this project are shown in Table 4. Local fabrication shops donated most of the materials used to build the test shredder with the remainder being purchased. All machining and fabrication was done by the author in the UST student machine shop.

51

Table 4: Final Budget

Materials for building shredder and blade Hardware for shredder (screws, nuts, etc.) Misc. expenses (test material, phone calls, etc) Final Budget:

$21 $5 $9 $35

Chapter V: Discussion and Ramifications

The project resulted in a better machine that was more suited to the environment in which it will be built and used. The redesign process and final product as detailed above are the first steps in making the Tommy Breadfruit Shredder a success. The difficult part of this project will be disseminating the information out to those in need of it and to work with them to gain acceptance and realize the potential that it has.

Project Dissemination

The Tommy Shredder has the potential to help reduce malnutrition in Haiti and other developing countries. Several avenues will be taken to accomplish this task and distribute the shredder plans to people who are working in developing countries. It is hoped that the initial developer of the shredder will be Compatible Technology, International (CTI). They are a stakeholder in the project and are in the best position to implement this device in Haiti. It is unclear whether the original plan of working with

52

the Methodist Church to make a breakfast cereal from breadfruit flour will be fully realized or not.

There are several journals focused on the topic of appropriate technology with the mission of spreading information to the people who are most in need of it. One of these, the Magazine of the Associated Country Women of the World (www.acww.org.uk) works with rural women in developing countries to better their life. This, and related journals, will be sent articles with information regarding the purpose and uses of the Tommy Shredder along with how to obtain plans for it.

The fabrication prints for the shredder along with copies of this engineering project, the senior design teams shredder project, and the senior design teams breadfruit drying project, will be accessible over the internet at: http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/cmgeorge/breadfruit_shredder/.

Implementing the Shredder in Developing Countries Implementing the Tommy Shredder into the lives and cultures of people in developing countries will be the greatest challenge. The authors personal experience and interviews with Bruce Humphreys of CTI (2005) confirm that people in these countries think differently than Americans. The typical Western mindset generally cannot be applied to these cultures with the expectation of having the same results. As Bruce Humphreys stated, There is an inertia for doing things the old way and that change is slow and not always accepted. Darrow and Saxenian in their book, Appropriate Technology

53

Sourcebook (1996), discuss many excellent appropriate technology projects with good intention that never caught on for one reason or another. By making the machine simpler and easy to disassemble for cleaning, it is hoped that some of the obstacles involved will be lowered.

The author believes that the breadfruit shredder will need a concerted effort on the ground in Haiti to gain acceptance. This will involve working closely with the local people through several breadfruit harvests to show them the benefits of their labors. The dried breadfruit and flour will have to be adapted so that it relates to their culture and daily dietary habits. If they can use it in a way that they are familiar with, it is much more likely that they will accept the use of dehydrated breadfruit. It has been shown many times that change is hard and that it takes a long time to change a culture (Humphreys, 2005).

The ramifications for the Haitian, once accepted, can be great. Taking an underutilized food source and preserving it until needed can ease malnutrition and promote sustainable agriculture. It may also lessen their dependence on imported foreign food sources and perhaps generate an income.

Project Obstacles The redesigning of the breadfruit shredder initially seemed like it should be far simpler than it turned out to be. The biggest underestimation of the project was the time involved to do it right. The original project schedule called for completion of the project in June

54

2005. This was invariably bumped back several times until it was completed in December 2005. The estimation errors occurred in the time that it took to finish tasks. The machine initially took longer to build than expected, people responded much slower than expected, and scheduling was always a problem. What was needed was a more flexible schedule that was able to work around interferences and accomplish tasks during the workday.

The difficulties of working with a developing country are well known by any person who has had to deal with them. Time is not important and responses are slow. On the positive side, they are often very friendly people who are willing to help out. An example of this would be the four shredder units that were sent to the island of St. Vincent for testing. Although the recipients willingly said that they would use the machines to shred breadfruit, it is questionable as to whether they did or not. Their reaction was to not respond to questions about it. This mentality is frustrating but can be understood in the context that they may not have had much of a need for the shredder and timelines are not as important. This needed to be a bigger factor when planning the timeline for the project.

Political unrest in any developing country is a possibility at any time. Unfortunately, it was occurring in Haiti for the entire length of this project. It is a factor that is a possibility, but is rarely accounted for in the schedule or planning phase. This hindered the testing of the shredder and did not allow any feedback from the target audience of Haitian women. Haiti is unique in that it is one of the poorest countries in the Western

55

Hemisphere and its inhabitants often depend on the harvest cycle of breadfruit for basic sustenance needs. People on other Caribbean islands do not share this pattern of poverty and political unrest for such a prolonged period. Despite this, contacts should have been established earlier with other islands so that some testing could have occurred.

The obstacles faced by anyone trying to introduce a new technology into a culture can be great. It is hoped that the good people of Haiti will be able to overcome these and at least give the Tommy shredder a chance to work in their lives. With some effort and acceptance, the people of Haiti will use this to become self-sustaining for food and can begin working on other issues that face the country.

56

Bibliography:
Adebowale, K.O., Olu-Owolabi, B.I., Olawumi, E.K., & Lawal, O.S. Functional Properties of Native, Physically and Chemically Modified Breadfruit (Artocarpus Artilis) Starch. Industrial Crops and Products, Vol. 21, Issue 3, May 2005, 343351. Anderson, M., Fox, B., Rick, B., and Spah, A., Design of a Manually Operated Food Shredder for the Developing World. St. Paul: University of St. Thomas School of Engineering, May 2004 Boothroyd, G., Dewhurst, P., & Knight, W. (1994). Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York. Bruun, P., & Medfford, R.N., A Framework for Selecting and Introducing Appropriate Production Technology in Developing Countries. International Journal of Production Economies, Vol. 46-47, December 1996, 197-209. Capecchi, C. Engineer Turns Wasted Fruit Into Hunger Fighter for Haiti. The Catholic Spirit, Vol. 10, No. 23, June 23, 2005. CIA World Fact Book 2005. Republic of Haiti Facts and Map, Retrieved September 2005 from http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ha Darrow, K., Saxenian, M. (1993). Appropriate Technology Sourcebook: A Guide to Practical Books for Village and Small Community Technology. Stanford: Volunteers in Asia. Darrow, K., Saxenian, M. (2005). Appropriate Technology Sourcebook: A Guide to Practical Books for Village and Small Community Technology. Updated version retrieved from www.villageearth.org/atnetwork/atsourcebook/index. El-Mously, Hamed. The Rediscovery of Local Raw Materials: New Opportunities for Developing Countries. Industry and Environment, Vol. 20, No. 1-2, Jan-Jun, 1997. Emiliusen J., Mauritzen T., McGruder, R., & Torgerson, K. The Design of a Novel Breadfruit Dehydration System Utilizing Solar Energy: A Record of YearLong Result. St. Paul: University of St. Thomas School of Engineering, May 2004. Eppinger, S., Ulrich, K. (2004). Product Design and Development. McGraw Hill, 3rd Edition, New York.

57

The Breadfruit Institute. Fruit of the Breadfruit Tree, Retrieved November 2005 from http://www.breadfruit.org Futch, E., Kathawala, Y., Motwani, J., & Youssef, M. Supplier Selection in Developing Countries: A Model Development. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 10, No. 3-4, 1999, 154-161. Garwick, Hank and Elton, Dave. Compatible Technology, International. Interview with author, May 26, 2005. Interview notes available. George, Camille, Walker, John and Zimmerman, Fred. University of St. Thomas. Review with author, August 4, 2005. Review notes available. Goldey, P., Thakur, S., & Varma, S.K. (2001). Perceptions of Drudgery in Agricultural and Animal Husbandry Operations: A Gender Analysis From Haryana State, India. Journal of International Development, 1165-1178. Hegele, Fred. General Mills, Inc. Interview with author, April 18, 2005. Interview notes available. Humphrys, Bruce. Compatible Technology, International. Interview with author, December 28, 2004. Interview notes available. Hynd, A., & Smith, A. Meeting a Pressing Need: Project Appraisal of the Oilseed Ram Press and Approaches to Implementation. Design for Developing Countries Case Study Series, Issued October 20, 2004. International Development Research Centre. Electronic correspondence with the author May 18, 2005 at www.irdc.ca. Correspondence notes available. Ng, Yvonne and Pontgratz, Troy. Review with author, August 19, 2005. Review notes available. Obi, S. A Framework for Implementing Appropriate Manufacturing Systems in Developing Countries. Journal of Industrial Technology, Vol.15, No. 2, Feb. 1999. Olmstead, Gary. General Mills, Inc. Interview with author, March 18, 2005. Interview notes available. OMalley, Pat. Haitian Relief Services. Review with author, August 16, 2005. Review notes available. Prichard, Daniel. U.S. Military Academy Library. Discussion with author, August 4, 2004. Interview notes available.

58

Ragone, Diane. Hawiian Breadfruit Institute. E-mail correspondence with author, May 8, 2005. Correspondence notes available. Schevenius, John. General Mills, Inc. (retired). Interview with author, March 30, 2005. Interview notes available. Solberg, Clay. Progressive Systems, Inc. Design review with author, August 1, 2005. Review notes available. Thilmany, J. Managing Across Cultures: How Do You Design Food-Processing Equipment if You Know Next to Nothing About the Culture in Which it Will Be Used?. Mechanical Engineering-CIMA, Vol. 127, No. 2, February 2005. United Nations Development Program. Website accessed in May 2005 at www.undp.org. United States Department of State, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs. Republic of Haiti Statistics, Retrieved November 2005 from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/1982 Villas-Boas, R.C. Role of Materials in Developing Countries. Materials and Society, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1990, 105-116. Walker, John. University of St. Thomas. Design analysis of original Tommy Shredder. September 2004. Walker, John. University of St. Thomas. Summary of Design for Manufacture and Assembly process. December 2005.

59

Appendices
Appendix 1: Revisions 1 and 2

MODIFIED MOUNT FOR PLASTIC BUCKET

PLASTIC BUCKET FOR FEEDER TUBE

60

Appendix 2: Revisions 3 and 4

CHANGED BLADE SUPPORT

CHANGED BACK TO PVC FEEDER TUBE

CHANGED FEEDER TUBE SUPPORT

61

Appendix 3: Revisions 5 and 6

CHANGED BLADE SUPPORT

CHANGED BLADE & FEEDER TUBE SUPPORT

62

Appendix 4: Revision 7 and 8

MODIFIED DRIVE SHAFT AND HANDLE

MODIFIED FRAME PLATE

63

Appendix 5: Breadfruit Shredder Exploded Layout

- Not Shown

12 4

2 11

1 12 10

8 3 7

16 6 13
Note: Numbers in Balloons Refer to the Item Number in the Bill of Materials Shown in Appendix 6

14

15

64

Appendix 6: Bill of Materials Breadfruit Shredder Bill of Materials

Item 1 FRAME PLATE
0.25" X 6.0" X 8.0" MILD STEEL PLATE 1.50" INSIDE DIAMETER X 0.13" WALL X 4.50" LONG STEEL TUBING 1.50" INSIDE DIAMETER X 0.13" WALL X 1.0" LONG STEEL TUBING 0.13" X 1.75" X 31.0" MILD STEEL

Description

Drawing Number Qty: 001

1 2 1 1

DRIVE SHAFT
0.50" DIAMETER X 44.0" LONG HOT ROLLED STEEL SHAFT FLAT WASHER FOR 1/2" BOLT, SAE STANDARD

002
1 2

FEEDER TUBE
8.75" OUTSIDE DIAMETER X 9.0" LONG X 0.38" WALL PVC (POLYVINYL CHLORIDE) TUBE

003
1

4 5

DRIVE SHAFT BEARING

1.50" DIAMETER X 4.0" LONG NYLON PLASTIC ROD

004
2

2 1
1

HANDLE
0.63" INSIDE DIAMETER X 1.0" OUTSIDE DIAMETER X 6.0" LONG POLYVINYL CHLORIDE TUBE

005

BLADE MOUNT
0.25 X 0.50" X 4.0" MILD STEEL 1.0" X 1.0" X 1.0" MILD STEEL 0.13 X 9.50" X 9.50" MILD STEEL MACHINE SCREW, #10-32 FINE THREAD, PAN HEAD

006
4 1 1 4

7 8

CENTER DIVIDER
8.50" X 8.75" X 20 GAUGE (0.036 THICK) SHEET STEEL

007
1

1 1
1

CENTER DIVIDER SPACER TUBE

0.63" INSIDE DIAMETER X 1.0" OUTSIDE DIAMETER X 3.0" LONG PVC (POLYVINYL CHLORIDE) TUBE

008

SHREDDER PRESS WEIGHT

1.0" OUTSIDE DIAMETER X 0.13" WALL X 7.75" LONG STEEL TUBING 1.0" OUTSIDE DIAMETER X 0.13" WALL X 6.0" LONG STEEL TUBING 0.38" X 3.50" X 5.50" MILD STEEL PLATE 1.0" X 2.0" X 5.0 MILD STEEL

009
2 1 1 2

10 11 12 13

BOLT, 3/8-16 COURSE THREAD X 1-1/2" LONG, HEX HEAD BOLT, 3/8-16 COURSE THREAD X 2-1/4" LONG, HEX HEAD WING NUT, 3/8-16" COURSE THREAD DOWEL PIN, 3/16" DIA X 5/8" LONG LINCH PIN, DIA X 1-3/4 LONG WITH RETAINING RING 14 (HILLMAN INC., #4259-H) 15 LANYARD, STAINLESS STEEL WIRE, 1FT LONG (REID #CBL-17) SHREDDER BLADE (PURCHASED), STAINLESS STEEL, 1/2" 16 DIAMETER HOLES (HOBART #VS12SD12)

1 2 3 4 1 1 1

65

OPTIONAL COMPONENTS FOR FABRICATING A SHREDDER BLADE:

17 SHREDDER BLADE (FABRICATED)

24 GAUGE (0.024" THICK) X 9.50" X 9.50" STAINLESS STEEL SHEET

010
1

1 1
1

18 BLADE HOLE TEMPLATE

0.25" X 4.50" X 10.00" MILD STEEL PLATE

011 012
1

19 BLADE PROFILE DIE 20 BLADE PROFILE PUNCH

1 1
1

013

66

Appendix 7: Frame Plate Fabrication

Frame Plate Components:

HOOP BUSHING SUPPORT

HOOP SPACER BASE Figure A: Frame Plate Components Reference Drawing #001 (FRAME PLATE) for fabrication specifications. Fabrication Procedures: 1). Cut Base material to size and drill mounting holes as shown on fabrication print. 2). Cut Bushing Supports and Hoop Spacer tubing to length shown on fabrication print. 3). Cut Hoop material to size as shown on fabrication print. 4). Drill holes in Bushing Supports as shown on fabrication print (Figure B). 5). Cut slot in Bushing Supports with a saw to the depth shown on the fabrication print (Figure B). 6). Bend Hoop to the dimensions shown on the fabrication print using a sheet metal roller or round forming die (See Figure C.) 7). Weld the Bushing Supports onto the Base by placing in the locations shown on the fabrication print. Ensure that the holes in the Bushing Supports are lined up by inserting a rod through both sets of holes as shown in Figure D. Weld to the Base using a Skip Weld as shown in Figure E. Too much heat to the Base will warp it. 8). Weld the Hoop Spacer to the Base using the location shown on the fabrication print using a Skip Weld (See Figure F). 9). Center the Hoop on the Hoop Spacer and weld. The Hoop must be lined up with the centerline of the part as shown in the top view of the fabrication print.

67

Saw - Cut Slot

Drill Holes

Figure B: Bushing Support Roll Hoop into circle and then bend tabs out

Alignment Rod

Figure C: Partially Rolled Hoop

Figure D: Alignment of Bushing Supports before welding

Skip-Weld

Figure E: Skip-Welding of Bushing Supports

Figure F: Weld on Spacer and Hoop

68

Appendix 8: Drive Shaft Fabrication Support Washers

Figure A: Drive Shaft Components

Drive Shaft Rod

Reference Drawing #002 (DRIVE SHAFT) for fabrication specifications Fabrication Procedures 1). Cut Drive Shaft Rod to length as shown in the fabrication print. 2). Mark bend distances from fabrication print onto Drive Shaft rod. 3). Clamp Drive Shaft Rod into a sturdy shop vise with first bend line slightly above top of vise. 4). Heat bend area of Drive Shaft Rod near the first bend line with a torch until red hot. 5). Bend Drive Shaft Rod to a 90 degree angle (Figure B). 6). Remove from vise and re-clamp so that the second bend line is slightly above top of vise. 7). Heat bend area of Drive Shaft Rod near second bend line with a torch until red hot. 8). Bend Drive Shaft Rod to a 90 degree angle (Figure B). 9). Lay bent Drive Shaft Rod on a flat surface to check for alignment of bends. Fix alignment with a large mallet or by re-heating and bending shaft. 10). Mark locations of Support Washers from fabrication print on bent Drive Shaft Rod. 11). Secure Support Washers to Drive Shaft Rod by welding on inside only (away from where washer contacts other parts) (Figure C) 12). Drill hole in bottom of Drive Shaft Rod as shown on the fabrication print. 13). Put chamfer on bottom of Drive Shaft Rod as shown on the fabrication print. Weld on this side Vise

90 Degree Bends Figure B: Bending in Vise 69 Figure C: Weld area on Washers

Appendix 9: Feeder Tube Fabrication Reference Drawing #003 (FEEDER TUBE) for fabrication specifications. Fabrication Procedures 1) Cut Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) tube to length as shown on fabrication print. 2) Mark center axis line across top of feeder tube. 3) Mark center axis line across bottom of feeder tube. The top axis and bottom axis must be in the same radial position on the tube. 4) Cut slot in top of tube as shown in the drawing using a saw. The slot will be offset to one side as shown on the print (Figure A). 5) Mark hole positions in bottom of tube as shown in fabrication print. The holes will be off to one side and should be in-line with the slots on the top of the tube. 6) Drill the four holes through the PVC tube using a 3/16 (.187) diameter drill bit. 7) Press 3/16 dowel pins (Item #13) into the holes in the tube. Pins will be pushed through and extend to the inside of the tube (Figure B). Pins should fit tightly into holes. 8) Slide the Center Divider (Drawing # 007) into the center of the Feeder Tube. The extended sections of the Center Divider will slide into the slots on the top of the Feeder Tube and the lower part of the Center Divider will fit between the dowel pins (Figure C). Ensure that Center Divider fits into the Feeder Tube. Slots Dowel Pins in line with slots

Figure A: Slots in top

Figure B: Dowel Pin Locations

Figure C: Feeder Tube with Center Divider

70

Appendix 10: Blade Mount Fabrication

Support Hub

Support Arms

Support Ring Figure A: Blade Mount Components Reference Drawing #006 (BLADE MOUNT) for fabrication specifications. Fabrication Procedures 1). Cut the Support Arm material as shown in the fabrication print. 2). Cut the Support Ring material to the dimensions shown on the fabrication print. A hand-operated Jig Saw works well for cutting the inside diameter. 3). Cut the Support Hub material as shown on the fabrication print. 4). Drill holes in the Support Hub as shown on the fabrication print. 5). Lay the Support Hub on a flat surface with the large hole facing up and the small cross-hole on top. 6). Position the Support Arms around the Support Hub as shown on the fabrication print. 7). Weld the Support Arms to the Support Hub. 8). Center the welded Support Hub/Support Arms on top of the Support Ring with the Support Hub facing up. 9). Weld the Support Arms onto the Support Ring. 10). Mark the four holes onto the Support Ring as shown on the fabrication print. The center point of the four holes will be the large hole in the Support Hub. Lay the Shredder Blade (Item #16) over top of Support Ring and ensure that the four holes marked on the Support Ring line up with the mounting holes and center hole of the shredder. 11). Drill the four holes into the Support Ring. 12).Tap the four holes as shown on the fabrication print. 13). Screw four pan head screws into the top of the Support Ring. Leave a space of 0.06 inches between the bottom of the screw head and the top of the Support Ring. 14). Check to see that the Shredder Blade fits easily over screw heads and locks into place. Adjust screw head distance if needed.

71

15). Weld pan head screws in place from the bottom of the Support Ring with a small amount of weld. This is to keep the screws from turning out. 16). Attach the Lanyard (Item 15) to the bottom of the Blade Mount (Figure B). The lanyard attachment method may vary depending upon the type of lanyard purchased. Ensure that the lanyard does not interfere with the operation of the shredder and allows the blade to be easily put onto the Blade Mount. 17). Attach the Linch Pin (Item 14) to the Lanyard (Figure B). Make sure that the Linch Pin will fit easily into the hole on the side of the Hub Support block.

Figure B: Blade Mount with Lanyard and Linch Pin

72

Appendix 11: Shredder Press Weight Fabrication Top Plate

Handle

Press Feet Figure A: Shredder Press Weight Components Reference Drawing #009 (SHREDDER PRESS WEIGHT) for fabrication specifications. Fabrication Procedures 1). Cut Press Feet, Press Legs, Top Plate, and Handle to dimensions shown on fabrication print. 2). Position individual Press Legs onto Press Feet as shown in the fabrication print and Figure B. Weld in place. 3). Space Press Feet apart as shown in the fabrication print (Figure B). 4). Position Top Plate onto Press Legs as shown in the fabrication print and Figure C. 5). Weld one of the Press Legs onto the Top Plate. 6). Check the distance between Press Feet and ensure that they are straight. 7). Weld on the second Press Leg to the Top Plate. 8). Position Handle onto top of Top Plate as shown in the fabrication print and Figure D. 9). Weld Handle onto Top Plate. Weld Legs onto Top Plate Weld Legs onto Feet Press Feet Spacing Figure B: Press Feet and Legs Washers Figure C: Weld area on

Angle Handle as shown and weld Figure D: Press Handle 73

Appendix 12: Shredder Assembly Instructions Reference Bill of Materials and Individual Drawings Assembly Instructions 1) Mount the Frame Plate (Item #1) to a secure post.

Frame Plate Post

2) Slide the Drive Shaft Bearings (Item #4) into the tubes on the Frame Plate and secure with a screw and wing nut. Insert the screw for the Frame Plate hoop into the clamp holes on the hoop. Drive Shaft Bearings (2) Screw for Drive Shaft Bearing

Screw for Hoop

3) Insert the Center Divider (Item #7) into the Feeder Tube (Item #3). Slide the Feeder Tube Assembly into the hoop on the Frame Plate (the slots on the Feeder Tube will be on top). Tighten the screw on the Frame Plate hoop to hold the Feeder Tube in place.

74

Feeder Tube with Center Divider

4) Slide the Drive Shaft (Item #2) through the holes in the Drive Shaft Bearings from the top. Insert the Center Divider Spacer tube (Item #8) over the Drive Shaft. Continue to slide the Drive Shaft down until its stop washer rests on the top of the Drive Shaft Bearing. Slide the Handle (Item #5) over the top of the Drive Shaft. Slide the Feeder Tube Assembly up until the Center Divider spacer contacts the bottom of the lower Drive Shaft Bearing. Handle Drive Shaft stop washer

Drive Shaft

Center Divider Spacer Tube

Feeder Tube Assembly

5) Position the Hobart Blade or the fabricated Shredder Blade (Item #16) over the top of the Blade Mount (Item #6). The teeth of the blade should be facing up. Align the keyhole slots of the blade over the extended screws on the Blade Mount. Lock the blade into place.

75

Keyhole slots of Blade Blade Teeth up

6) Slide the Blade Mount with Shredder Blade over the lower end of the Drive Shaft. The teeth on the blade should be toward the Feeder Tube. Line up the lower mounting hole on the Blade Mount with the hole on the end of the Drive Shaft. Slide the pin (Item #14) through Blade Mount and Drive Shaft holes to the other side. Lock pin in place. Feeder Tube

Slide Pin into lower hole 7) Assembled Shredder

Blade Mount

76

Appendix 13: Original Project Schedule

Name Pre-Trip Work Appropriate Technology Issues UST Manufacturing Experts CTI Manufacturing Experts Develop Contacts Plan Schedule/Make Appointments Work at St. Vincent St. Vincent Vo-Tech Life Cycle Testing Ergonomic Issues Safety Issues Cleaning & Sanitation Issues Finalize Design Search for economical grater Investigate Grater Mfg Standards for food processing Finalize Design Support For Final Design Design into CAD Rework Assembly Instructions Complete Cost Analysis Complete BOM Develop MFG Process Finalize SS version BOM for SS version Cost Analysis of SS version Write Instruction Manual Work in Haiti Evaluate ease of use Evaluate MFG process Evaluate design costs Units in Production Update final design Translate Instructions Release design for production Publish design in AT journal

Start_Date 1/11/2005 1/11/2005 1/28/2005 2/3/2005 1/28/2005 2/8/2005 2/25/2005 2/25/2005 2/25/2005 2/25/2005 2/25/2005 2/25/2005 1/28/2005 1/28/2005 3/7/2005 2/3/2005 3/10/2005 2/25/2005 3/15/2005 3/30/2005 2/25/2005 3/17/2005 3/30/2005 4/1/2005 4/8/2005 4/12/2005 4/1/2005 4/16/2005 4/16/2005 4/16/2005 4/16/2005 4/20/2005 4/21/2005 4/20/2005 5/10/2005 5/23/2005

Finish_Date 2/23/2005 2/23/2005 2/18/2005 2/18/2005 2/23/2005 2/23/2005 2/27/2005 2/27/2005 2/27/2005 2/27/2005 2/27/2005 2/27/2005 3/14/2005 3/5/2005 3/14/2005 3/12/2005 3/14/2005 4/14/2005 3/29/2005 4/7/2005 3/30/2005 3/23/2005 4/13/2005 4/7/2005 4/10/2005 4/14/2005 4/13/2005 4/19/2005 4/18/2005 4/18/2005 4/19/2005 5/31/2005 5/6/2005 5/31/2005 5/31/2005 5/31/2005

Duration 32 days 32 days 16 days? 12 days 19 days 12 days 2 days 2 days? 2 days 2 days 2 days 2 days 33 days 27 days 6 days 28 days 3 days 37 days 11 days 7 days 25 days 2 days 12 days 5 days 2 days 3 days 10 days 3 days 2 days 2 days 3 days 30 days 12 days 30 days 16 days 7 days

77

Appendix 14: Revised Project Schedule

Name Start Date Pre-Trip Work 1/11/2005 Appropriate Technology Issues 1/11/2005 UST Manufacturing Experts 1/28/2005 CTI Manufacturing Experts 2/3/2005 Develop Contacts 6/29/2005 Search for economical grater 1/28/2005 Investigate Grater Mfg 3/7/2005 Standards for food processing 2/3/2005 Finalize Design 3/15/2005 Concept design changes 3/15/2005 Evaluate Design Concepts 4/27/2005 Finalize Design 7/1/2005 Build and test working model 6/15/2005 Complete Cost Analysis 7/18/2005 Complete BOM 7/11/2005 Develop MFG Process 7/18/2005 Plan Schedule/Make Appointments 7/6/2005 Work in Haiti 7/30/2005 Travel To/From Haiti 7/30/2005 Evaluate ease of use 8/1/2005 Evaluate MFG process 8/3/2005 Evaluate design costs 8/4/2005 Get Units into production 8/8/2005 Update final design 8/8/2005 Rework Assembly Instructions 8/15/2005 Write Instruction Manual 8/16/2005 Translate Instructions 8/23/2005 Develop website for shredder prints 9/16/2005 Publish design in AT journal 9/16/2005 Thesis Work 5/24/2005 Conduct literature search 5/24/2005 Write Chapters 1 & 2 6/8/2005 Write Remaining Chapters 6/30/2005 Review with Advisors 9/8/2005 Update Thesis 9/16/2005 Review with UST writing Center 9/27/2005 Review with Advisors 10/3/2005 Write final Thesis 10/7/2005 Defense 10/13/2005 Submit to UST 10/17/2005 78

Finish Date 7/21/2005 2/23/2005 5/24/2005 5/26/2005 7/21/2005 3/5/2005 3/14/2005 3/30/2005 8/1/2005 7/13/2005 7/6/2005 7/13/2005 7/20/2005 7/22/2005 7/15/2005 8/1/2005 7/28/2005 8/6/2005 8/6/2005 8/4/2005 8/5/2005 8/5/2005 9/29/2005 8/15/2005 8/22/2005 8/22/2005 9/15/2005 9/29/2005 9/26/2005 10/20/2005 7/20/2005 6/29/2005 9/7/2005 9/16/2005 9/26/2005 9/30/2005 10/7/2005 10/12/2005 10/13/2005 10/20/2005

Duration 141 days 32 days 86 days 84 days 17 days 27 days 6 days 41 days 103 days 89 days 51 days 9 days 26 days 5 days 5 days 12 days 17 days 7 days 7 days 4 days 3 days 2 days 39 days 6 days 6 days 5 days 18 days 10 days 7 days 110 days 42 days 16 days 52 days 7 days 7 days 4 days 5 days 4 days 1 day 4 days

Appendix 15: Preliminary Sketch by John Walker

79

Appendix 16: Contributions by Karl Mueller Karl Mueller, the student machine shop supervisor, worked with Dr. Camille George to fabricate the four units that were sent to the island of St. Vincent for life cycle and user interface testing. These units were fabricated entirely from stainless-steel which required several modifications to the final student design. The more notable changes carried out by Mr. Mueller were: The center divider in the feeder tube was made from flat steel that was welded into the feeder tube and had a support tab for the lower part of the drive shaft. This was changed to a removable center divider. The feeder tube was supported by two hoops instead of one. It was found that only one support hoop was necessary for the final version. His version of the blade support had pins with retainer clips to hold down the Hobart blade instead of screws. This idea made the blade easy to remove but added parts and complexity. The drive shaft was supported by two clamp collars. This idea was carried through into the project but was later replaced by flat washers welded in place; another suggestion by Mr. Mueller.

While these ideas were creative and contributed to the knowledge of the project, most were designed out during the redesign process. The Figures A and B show models of the shredders that Mr. Mueller made.

80

Figure A: Stainless-Steel Shredder showing center divider and two hoops

Figure B: Stainless-Steel Shredder with pins holding the blade on

81

Appendix 17: Drawing #001 Frame Plate

82

Appendix 18: Drawing #002 Drive Shaft

83

Appendix 19: Drawing #003 Feeder Tube

84

Appendix 20: Drawing #004 Drive Shaft Bearing

85

Appendix 21: Drawing #005 Handle

86

Appendix 22: Drawing #006 Blade Mount

87

Appendix 23: Drawing #007 Center Divider

88

Appendix 24: Drawing #008 Center Divider Spacer Tube

89

Appendix 25: Drawing #009 Shredder Press Weight

90

Appendix 26: Drawing #010 Shredder Blade (fabricated)

91

Appendix 27: Drawing #011 Blade Hole Template

92