Project Proposal and Feasibility Study Team 12: Iron Man Allen Bosscher Andrew Vriesema Lukas Woltjer Calvin College ENGR 339/340 Senior Design Project Winter 2013
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Project Proposal and Feasibility Study
Team 12: Iron Man
Allen Bosscher
Andrew Vriesema
Lukas Woltjer
Calvin College ENGR 339/340 Senior Design Project
Winter 2013
COPYRIGHT
© 2013 Team 12. All Rights Reserved
Executive Summary
This report outlines and describes the preliminary design and research for the running cart prototype.
Team 12, Iron Man, has decided to design and build an off-road capable running cart that can be easily
collapsible and transported. For this design, the team will make the vehicle as light as possible while
maintaining the necessary strength to carry a teenage passenger. The team has specifically designed the
running cart with a disabled passenger in mind. The important aspects for this design that needed
significant engineering focus were the collapsibility, quick-wheel change, overall passenger comfort, and
maneuverability of the running cart. The team will also attempt to make the design as inexpensive as
possible for future manufacturing and business possibilities. Through the research and analysis presented
in this report, Team 12 has concluded that creating an off-road running cart is feasible.
Page i
Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Team Members ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Definition .................................................................................................................. 2
2. Project Management .............................................................................................. 3
2.1 Team Organization ................................................................................................................ 3
2.1.1 Team Member Roles ...................................................................................................... 3
2.1.2 Team Documents ............................................................................................................ 3
2.2 Schedule Management .......................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Budget ................................................................................................................................... 4
2.4 Method of Approach ............................................................................................................. 4
3. Requirements ......................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Physical Requirements .......................................................................................................... 5
3.1.1. Strength .......................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.2. Portability ...................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.2.1. Size .......................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.2.2. Weight ..................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.3. Capabilities .................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Cost Requirements ................................................................................................................ 6
3.2.1 Material Costs ................................................................................................................. 6
3.2.2. Manufacturing Costs...................................................................................................... 6
4. Research ................................................................................................................. 7
4.1 Material Options .................................................................................................................... 7
4.2 Similar Projects ..................................................................................................................... 7
4.3 Resources .............................................................................................................................. 8
4.4 Safety Requirements ............................................................................................................. 8
5. Task Specifications and Scheduling ...................................................................... 9
5.1 Project Categories ................................................................................................................. 9
5.2 Task Completion Level ......................................................................................................... 9
6. Design ..................................................................................................................11
6.1. Design Criteria ................................................................................................................... 11
6.2 Frame Material .................................................................................................................... 11
6.2.1 Frame Material Design Criteria .................................................................................... 11
Page ii
6.2.2 Frame Material Alternatives ......................................................................................... 12
6.2.3 Frame Material Design Decisions ................................................................................ 13
6.3 Quick Change Wheel Design .............................................................................................. 14
6.3.1 Quick Change Wheel Design Criteria .......................................................................... 14
6.3.2 Quick Change Wheel Design Alternatives ................................................................... 15
6.3.3 Quick Change Wheel Design Decisions ....................................................................... 16
6.4 Collapsible Design .............................................................................................................. 17
6.4.1 Collapsible Design Criteria .......................................................................................... 17
6.4.2 Collapsible Design Alternatives ................................................................................... 18
6.4.3 Collapsible Design Decisions ....................................................................................... 18
6.5 Block Diagram .................................................................................................................... 19
6.6 Preliminary Design .............................................................................................................. 20
7. Testing Plans ........................................................................................................24
8. Business Analysis ................................................................................................25
8.1 Marketing Study .................................................................................................................. 25
8.1.1 Competitive Analysis ................................................................................................... 25
8.1.1.1 Existing Competitors ............................................................................................. 25
8.1.1.2 Potential Competitors............................................................................................. 25
8.1.2 Target Markets .............................................................................................................. 25
8.1.2.1 Handicapped Clients .............................................................................................. 26
8.1.2.2 Caretakers .............................................................................................................. 26
8.1.2.3 Health Organizations ............................................................................................. 26
8.2 Cost Estimate....................................................................................................................... 26
8.2.1 Development ................................................................................................................. 26
8.2.2 Production ..................................................................................................................... 27
8.2.2.1 Fixed Costs............................................................................................................. 27
8.2.2.2 Variable Costs ........................................................................................................ 28
8.2.2.3 Financial Summary ................................................................................................ 29
9. Conclusion ...........................................................................................................30
10. Acknowledgements ............................................................................................31
11. References .........................................................................................................32
Appendix A. Work Breakdown Schedule ................................................................34
Appendix B. Pro-forma Financial Statements .........................................................35
Page iii
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Team Picture.................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2: Quick Release Skewer Examples .................................................................................. 15
Figure 3: Quick Release Hitch Pin................................................................................................ 16
Figure 4: Block Diagram .............................................................................................................. 19
Figure 5: Initial Sketch of Running Cart....................................................................................... 20
Figure 6: Initial Frame Design ...................................................................................................... 21
Figure 7: Forces Acting on the Frame of the Cart ........................................................................ 22
Figure 8: Simulation Results ......................................................................................................... 23
Page iv
Table of Tables Table 1: Task Completion Levels ................................................................................................. 10
Table 2: Frame Material Design Criteria ...................................................................................... 11
Table 3: Frame Material Alternative Properties ........................................................................... 13
Table 4: Frame Material Decision Matrix .................................................................................... 13
Table 5: Quick Wheel Change Design Criteria ............................................................................ 14
Table 6: Collapsibility Design Criteria ......................................................................................... 17
Table 7: Team Budget ................................................................................................................... 27
Table 8: Estimated Fixed Costs .................................................................................................... 27
Table 9: Estimated Variable Costs ................................................................................................ 28
Table 10: Pro-forma Statement of Income.................................................................................... 35
Table 11: Pro-forma Statement of Cash Flows ............................................................................. 36
Table 12: Break-Even Analysis .................................................................................................... 37
Table 13: Break-Even Analysis (continued) ................................................................................. 38
Table 14: Iron Man Corporation Budget ...................................................................................... 38
Page 1
1. Introduction
Team 12 (Iron Man) is composed of three senior engineering students, all pursuing a degree in
engineering with a mechanical concentration. Each member provides a variety of experiences, skills, and
background to this project. The team consists of: Allen Bosscher, Lukas Woltjer, and Andrew Vriesema.
1.1 Team Members
Figure 1: Team Picture
Allen Bosscher
Allen was born and raised in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He is a senior engineering student at Calvin
College and expects to graduate in May 2014 with a Bachelor of Science in Engineering degree with a
mechanical concentration. Allen has interned at Rapid-Line, a metal fabrication company, for the past
three years. Through this internship he has learned valuable insight into production and design
engineering. He plans on entering the workforce upon graduating.
Lukas Woltjer
Lukas was born in Nashville, Tennessee and has lived in Washington State and Portland, Oregon. He is a
senior engineering student at Calvin College and expects to graduate in May 2014 with a Bachelor of
Page 2
Science in Engineering degree with a mechanical concentration. Lukas has interned at Calvin College as a
student researcher, Cascade Engineering as a renewable energy intern, and Oregon State University as a
technical lab assistant. He plans on entering the workforce upon graduating.
Andrew Vriesema
Andrew was born and raised in North Haledon, New Jersey. He is a senior engineering student at Calvin
College and expects to graduate in May 2014 with a Bachelor of Science in Engineering degree with a
mechanical concentration. Andrew has interned at Rapid-Line for the past six months. He plans on
entering the workforce upon graduating.
1.2 Project Definition
The project the design team is pursuing is the research, design, construction, and testing of a running cart,
usable by a person with moderate physical disabilities. Goals of this project include: a light-weight
design, ease of use by the runner and the passenger, the ability to travel well on various surfaces, and ease
of transportation through a collapsible design.
To achieve these goals, the team will work closely with people with experience in helping disabled
people. The team will use best practices in machine design and structural analysis to ensure the safety of
the passenger and runner, and to ensure reliable performance of the cart.
Page 3
2. Project Management
2.1 Team Organization
2.1.1 Team Member Roles
Many of the tasks associated with the design project will be completed as a team, although a specific team
member will be in charge of particular responsibilities. Allen Bosscher is in charge of the research and
customer relation aspects of the project. He will coordinate with the rest of the team about which areas of
the project will need to be researched more in depth as the project proceeds and will be in charge of
compiling all collected research. Allen is also in charge of communicating with the customer and other
entities that could provide assistance and direction as the project develops. He is also in charge of
maintaining the team’s schedule. Lukas Woltjer is the webmaster and is responsible for updating and
maintaining the team’s website. Lukas is also the primary lead on the design computer modeling aspect of
the project. He is in charge of how the design options will be modeled and analyzed through a variety of
methods such as finite element analysis (FEA). Andrew Vriesema is in charge of managing the design
options and delegating which team member should focus on what. He is also in charge of manufacturing
the prototype and troubleshooting issues that emerge with this process.
2.1.2 Team Documents
All electronic documents are saved on Calvin College’s “Shared Drive” through the file path
S:\Engineering\Teams\Team12. Additionally, hard copies of research documents and important
correspondence are compiled by Allen Bosscher and are available upon request. The design team also has
a team website located at the following URL: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/engineering/2013-14-
team12/index.html. This is maintained by Lukas Woltjer and will contain important documents and
general team information.
2.2 Schedule Management
The team has decided to dedicate one hour at the beginning of the first meeting of each week on
reviewing the schedule of tasks. The team will update the schedule as needed as new issues and other
project necessities arise. Allen Bosscher is the primary schedule coordinator, and will update the rest of
the team on what tasks should be completed first and the deadlines associated with them. Allen is also in
charge of submitting the necessary assignments as part of the senior design course in which the team is
enrolled. Priority is assigned to tasks which require immediate response, which include unforeseen issues
Page 4
and customer relations. The design team will strive to minimize the amount of unforeseen issues,
allowing the team to focus on important yet non-urgent tasks. This was suggested by Professor David
Wunder, as urgent and important tasks are large time sinks and force the team to deviate from the
predicted schedule.
2.3 Budget
Lukas Woltjer is the primary budget coordinator, and is in charge of maintaining the budget and adjusting
it as the design progresses. Adjustments which add to the budget will be made with team consensus, and
will need to reflect an important and necessary need that requires the allocation of funds. The revised
budget will then be approved by the team’s faculty advisor. Increase of the budget will be avoided when
possible, but the team will make sure there is a contingency which will allow for unforeseen costs to be
covered. This budgeting method was suggested by Professor Matthew Heun, and has been successfully
implemented in many critical projects. Because the budget is indicative of the overall cost of the running
cart, great care will be taken to ensure it is accurate and that costs are kept low. The detailed budget
appears in the business analysis section of the report.
2.4 Method of Approach
The team's approach is to break the project down into four stages, which may involve iteration and
overlap at some stages. The first stage is to research currently available and similar projects, to see how
the team can differentiate the final design product and provide a unique service or experience to the end
user.
Page 5
3. Requirements
3.1 Physical Requirements
Our goal for the running cart is to allow a teenage handicapped child to be able to get outdoors and
experience nature in a way that they would not normally be able to. This means that the running cart will
need to have several physical requirements. The first of which is strength. The cart needs to be strong
enough to carry a teenage child, as well as be able to handle potentially tough terrain. Another
requirement for the cart is to have it be comfortable to ride in. This will allow the customer to enjoy
using the cart, and let them focus on what is going on around them and not on how the ride feels.
3.1.1. Strength
The strength of the cart is an important aspect of the design. The biggest challenge when it comes to
strength will be supporting the weight of the person that the cart is transporting. The cart will also have to
be strong enough to withstand the force of the person pushing the cart. Other forces that the cart will
have to overcome include dynamic forces from the cart going over obstacles on rough terrain such as
gravel or small tree roots.
3.1.2. Portability
Another requirement for the cart is that it needs to be transportable. This means that the cart will be able
to fold up or easily come apart in some way that a person could lift it up and place it in the back of a van.
3.1.2.1. Size
The size of the cart should be big enough so that it is strong enough to comfortably support its passenger,
yet small enough to be easily maneuverable in use. One factor that will affect the size of the cart will be
whether or not the cart is collapsible, or if it breaks apart into sections. If the cart is able to break apart it
can be larger than if it was just collapsible because the sections could be made light enough to be
transported.
3.1.2.2. Weight
The goal for the weight of the cart has not been determined yet. The cart should be light enough for
someone to be able to push it and transport it without taking away from the strength of the cart. The
design weight that will be used in the analysis of the cart is approximately 200lbs.
3.1.3. Capabilities
The capabilities of the cart include being able to be easily transported from one place to another, and
being able to travel off-road over terrain that a normal wheelchair would not be able to traverse. As
previously stated the cart should be able to be placed and transported from one place to another. The cart
Page 6
should also be able to handle different kinds of terrains. To do this the design team has considered
making the cart capable of easily changing the tires to allow the cart to go from one terrain to the next.
For example, the customer should be able to easily change the wheels to go from asphalt to sand.
3.2 Cost Requirements
Due to medical costs related to disabilities, many families with physically disabled members don’t have
the opportunity to purchase expensive equipment. This is the primary reason for why a crucial aspect of
this project is to aim to keep the total product cost low.
3.2.1 Material Costs
The design team will design the product in a method that will minimize materials costs in order to keep
the selling price as low as possible. To do this, material options are limited to commonly available metals
and polymers, despite having to make weight sacrifices to maintain necessary strength. The design team
will also carefully select components such as bearings, fittings, and shafts in commonly available sizes
and tolerances to reduce costs.
3.2.2. Manufacturing Costs
Manufacturing costs for the budget given to Calvin College are preliminarily $0, because the team plans
to do all welding, machining, and assembly in-house. For the business plan, the manufacturing costs will
be approximated as assembly hours times a machinist's hourly rate.
Looking beyond prototype manufacturing, the design team will need to keep manufacturing costs low
without requiring large volumes. The market for a running cart exists, but more information will need to
be obtained on how large and accessible said market is. Of particular interest is what portion of families
with disabled persons would be interested in purchasing a cart. These ideas are discussed in greater detail
in the business analysis section of the report.
Page 7
4. Research
4.1 Material Options
Following the constraints imposed in section 3.2.1, the design team found four material options for the
frame. These options are detailed in the frame material design section of the report. Seat and cushion
material options are being researched. Similar applications or appropriate materials could be bicycle seats,
outdoor furniture, and automotive applications. The design team is interested in materials that will
withstand mold and mildew due to sweat and water and will maintain integrity when exposed to sunlight
repeatedly. Other desirable characteristics include comfort and durability (tear resistance).
4.2 Similar Projects
While the team has a goal of designing and delivering a novel idea, the team does not want to ignore
similar projects. Researching these projects will enable the team to observe areas of improvement and
issues that should be avoided through the entire design process. With this in mind, the design team was
able to find several similar projects that provided a baseline for which to build the project upon.
The first similar idea researched was the project known as “Team Hoyt.” This is a father and son duo who
participate in various marathons and triathlons. The son, Rick Hoyt, has cerebral palsy and is limited to
riding in a special boat during the swimming portion, the front of a special bicycle during the bike
portion, and a special wheelchair during the running portion of the triathlons. This idea is quite similar to
the team’s design, as the primary goal of both designs are to enable a parent or family member to more
easily involve a disabled or motion-limited child in outdoor endeavors. The physical differences the team
plans on incorporating are the collapsible design and the quick-change wheels. The design team also
desires to make the running cart more affordable than the “running chair” that Team Hoyt uses.
The second similar idea is known as His Wheels. This is a non-profit Christian organization which
focuses on providing people with lower-body disabilities hand-pedaled “trikes” for transportation. Their
focus is mainly overseas, where the effects of polio are still common, and where many have no means of
transportation or assistance, and must pull themselves around with their hands. His Wheels, although
producing a somewhat similar product, are focusing on a much different need.
The third similar idea is known as myTEAM TRIUMPH (mTT). This is an organization that provides
resources and equipment for disabled “Captains” to participate in long-distance events with the assistance
Page 8
of their “Angels”. However, mTT does not manufacture equipment and is therefore not a competitor to
the Iron Man Corp. The team has yet to determine the source of running chairs that mTT offers at events.
4.3 Resources
The team has established several contacts as resources for the project. The primary knowledge the team
hopes to learn from resources are the specific needs and requirements of a disabled person that pertain to
the running cart design. The following paragraphs describe the contacts made and the information gained.
The first contact identified was His Wheels International. The team is in contact with His Wheels mostly
pertaining to the ergonomics of the design. His Wheels will also assist the team due to their extensive
experience with people with physical disabilities, and will be a vital resource for any specific needs
corresponding to that. The primary contact with His Wheels is Alice Teisan, the founder and executive
director.
The second contact identified was Becky Van Zanen. She is a part-time caretaker for a disabled client,
and has extensive experience using a running cart. She provided the team with extremely valuable
information regarding the importance of various features of a running cart, and represented her client’s
needs thoroughly. We will maintain contact with her during the design and testing of the cart, and use her
input to tailor the design to meet the needs of many disabled people.
The third contact identified was myTEAM TRIUMPH (mTT). This is a contact highly recommended by
Becky Van Zanen, and it provides equipment and resources for disabled participants of long-distance
events. The team has initiated contact with the CEO of mTT, and will hope to meet and gain information
from him regarding ergonomics, competitors, and other design considerations.
4.4 Safety Requirements
To ensure the safety of the passenger and runner, the design team needs to consider methods to preventing
any possible form of injury. The possible injury scenarios considered include: roll-over, passenger
ejection, collision with stationary objects, collision with vehicles or pedestrians, abrasion from asphalt
contact, injury by moving components, skin irritation/damage from unsuitable materials, cuts or skin tears
from cart entry/exit, neck or head injury from excessive vibration and/or shock, and bruises and cuts to
the runner due to insufficient leg clearance. The design team cannot foresee all potential hazards, but it is
necessary to thoroughly test the cart and minimize the likelihood and severity of injuries sustained from
use of the cart. Through communicating with the team’s resources the team learned that round tubing
would be preferred on any surface that the passenger would possible come into contact with. The
resources expressed this is of greater importance with handicapped passengers, as they are more likely to
injure themselves.
Page 9
5. Task Specifications and Scheduling
5.1 Project Categories
The design team has split the design aspect of the project into five main areas: the collapsible nature of
the design, strength of the design, transportability of the design, easy of assembly and quick wheel change
design, and all-terrain aspect of the design. Each of these areas have specific requirements as defined
earlier.
5.2 Task Completion Level
The team is currently still in the research and project development stage of the design. The research at this
stage in the project is centered on outlining the preliminary objectives and requirements, as well as
building a foundation of similar ideas and novel concepts that could work within the scope of the project.
The design team’s first semester work schedule, including accomplished and planned work, can be
viewed in Appendix A. The team has reached out to several resources, which have assisted the team in
defining necessary requirements and outlining features that they would like to see in the designed product.
The team has constructed a SolidWorks 3D CAD file of the designed frame, and have performed finite
element analysis to determine the strength of the design. The team has also researched methods by which
to achieve the quick wheel change, and have selected the material that will be used for the frame and seat.
The team is on schedule according to the schedule outlined in the team’s Gantt chart. The table below
outlines the tasks needed to complete the project, and lists the percentage complete for each task.
Page 10
Table 1: Task Completion Levels
Task Percentage Complete
(%) Task
Percentage Complete
(%)
Define Project 100 Budget (continued) 80
Resources 75 Cutting and Approval 100
Gather Resources 75 Source out Suppliers 75
Survey to Understand Features 75 Secondary Design 25
Handicapped Concerns 75 Present to Resources 25
Research 60 Make Adjustments 25
Material Options 100 Final Design 0
Wheel Design 60 Construction of Design 0
Similar Projects 80 Gather all material 0
Jointed/collapsibility 50 Build Frame 0
Preliminary Design 80 Attach wheels and brakes 0
Initial Sketch 100 Testing and Modification 0
Detailed First Design 100 Strength Testing 0
SolidWorks 3D Model 80 Collapsibility Testing 0
Finite Element Analysis 80 Quick-wheel Change Testing 0
Budget 80 Ease of Assembly 0
Initial Sourcing 100 Present Final Product 0
Tasks that have provided the most difficulty and required more work than expected were the resources
and research tasks. Issues emerged in communicating between the several resources that have been
gained, as schedules would typically not overlap. Issues that emerged throughout the research phase were
finding similar projects and potential collapsible or jointed designs. However, the team was able to
overcome these issues and remain on schedule. Looking forward, the team plans on beginning
construction of the design on February 10. The team plans on finishing construction and beginning testing
and modification on March 10.
Page 11
6. Design
6.1. Design Criteria
The team is following several criteria when it comes to the design of the running cart. The first of which
is that the team is making the design as simple as possible. This will allow for easy assembly of any
prototypes, and make any future repair work easy and inexpensive. Another design criteria for the
running cart will be making the cart as light as possible, while still maintaining the necessary strength
needed to carry a teenage passenger. The cart needs to be light so that a person can pick it up and
transported to wherever the need to go. Also, the team will design the cart in such a way that the cart can
be folded up, or taken apart to make transporting the cart easy. The cart needs to be strong so that the
customers will feel comfortable using the cart without worrying about a failure of the cart. The cart will
also be designed to have interchanging wheels that will be easy for the customer to switch between
depending on the terrain they want to travel on. The following sections will describe each component in
the system in detail, with sections on the component’s design criteria, alternatives, and design decision.
6.2 Frame Material
6.2.1 Frame Material Design Criteria
The first system component the team analyzed was the material which would be used for the frame. The
criteria the team used to decide upon the final material appears in the table below.
Table 2: Frame Material Design Criteria
Criteria Weight
Cost 25
Strength 25
Manufacturability 20
Durability 15
Stewardship 5
Trust 5
Integrity 5
As shown in the table above, the cost and strength of the frame material were designated to be the most
important design criteria. This is due to these criteria directly affecting the design requirements. One of
the primary goals the team is designing towards is to maintain a low cost product, while still maintaining
the necessary strength requirements. The manufacturability of the frame material was also designated to
Page 12
be an important design criteria. This takes into consideration the ease of purchasing the material, the ease
of machining the material using the tools provided in Calvin College’s metal shop, as well as the ease of
welding. Durability takes into consideration the long term material properties, as well as relative ease of
fixing issues that occur several years into the product’s lifespan. Finally, the team identified three design
norms that are directly applicable to the frame material design. As Christians, the team ought to design in
such a way as to carefully use the earth’s resources. In this way, the team is called to be stewards of the
earth. Therefore, the team has included the design norm stewardship as a design criteria, as the frame
material chosen must consider the availability of earth’s resources. Economic and environmental concerns
of the material chosen are also included in this criteria. The next design norm is trust. This criteria is
rather straightforward. The team needs to choose a frame material that will be credible, dependable, and
reliable. Potential users of the product should not be concerned with the frame’s design at first glance.
Integrity is the final design norm that applies to the frame design. The frame needs to be designed so that
it is pleasing and intuitive to use. The material chosen needs to accomplish these goals, so that the
passenger and runner are not uncomfortable with the product.
These design criteria have the potential to be in tension. Maintaining the low cost of the frame while still
reaching the necessary strength and integrity requirements could prove challenging.
6.2.2 Frame Material Alternatives
The design team researched potential frame material options and narrowed the list down to four: 4130
alloy steel, 6061 aluminum alloy, 3AL-2.5V titanium alloy, and carbon fiber. The other material options
that were researched were ultimately eliminated due to the availability of the material as well as the
amount of information available. These material options were not commonly used on similar projects and
would have added a large amount of difficulty in procuring and using said materials.
The team selected 4130 alloy steel as a potential frame material as it is a very common material in frame
constructions. This alloy of steel is also easy to machine and weld, which were important to the design
team due to limited welding experience. Steel would also be the easiest material to purchase due to its
large presence in the manufacturing realm.1
The team selected 6061 aluminum alloy as a potential frame material as it is commonly used in bicycle
frames which are similar to the team’s design. Aluminum has a better strength-to-weight ratio than steel,
and result in a stiffer frame than steel. Aluminum is also a very common material in the manufacturing
realm, so procuring the material would not prove to be difficult.2
The team selected 3AL-2.5V titanium alloy as a potential frame material due to its high strength-to-
weight ratio and excellent resistance to corrosion. This titanium alloy is 3.5% aluminum and 2.5%
vanadium by weight, which are added to the material in heat treatment processes to result in a higher
Page 13
strength product. Titanium is more expensive than steel and aluminum and would provide manufacturing
issues.3, 4
Carbon fiber is the final potential frame material considered by the team. Carbon fiber is gaining
popularity in bicycle frames, mostly due it its light-weight yet corrosion-resistant and high strength
properties. Carbon fiber is the most expensive material option, but has the largest strength-to-weight ratio.
Beyond the monetary issue, carbon fiber also is more difficult to repair then the other options, as fatigue
failure occurs more readily in carbon fiber. Repairing cracks and other fatigue in the frame would require
more time and effort than the other options.5
The table below summarizes the material properties for all four material options.
Table 3: Frame Material Alternative Properties6
Material Yield Strength
(MPa)
Specific Strength
(kNm/kg)
Density
(g/cm3)
Tensile Modulus
(GPa)
4130 Steel 910 254 7.84 200
6061 Aluminum 270 214 2.71 69
3AL-2.5V Titanium 930 288 4.63 110
Carbon Fiber 4000 2457 1.75 250
The material properties displayed above clearly show the differences between each material. As
mentioned, carbon fiber is clearly the strongest yet lightest, whereas aluminum yields at a much smaller
force.
6.2.3 Frame Material Design Decisions
In order for the team to decide which material would be the best option for this design project, a decision
matrix was created. This decision matrix listed the design criteria mentioned earlier and assigned a 1-10
value for each material, with 1 being the lowest and therefore least preferred. This decision matrix
appears below.
Table 4: Frame Material Decision Matrix
Design Criteria Cost Strength Manufacturability Durability Stewardship Trust Integrity
Op
tio
ns
Weight 25 25 20 15 5 5 5 Total
4130 Steel 10 8 10 10 8 8 10 930
6061 Aluminum 8 6 8 7 8 7 10 740
3AL-2.5V Titanium 5 6 5 5 5 6 7 540
Carbon Fiber 1 10 3 3 3 8 4 455
The above decision matrix clearly shows that 4130 steel is the best frame material option for this project.
Therefore, the team has chosen 4130 steel as the frame material.
Page 14
6.3 Quick Change Wheel Design
6.3.1 Quick Change Wheel Design Criteria
The second system component the team analyzed was the quick wheel change method. The team is
designing the product in a manner in which the wheels could be quickly and easily removed, so that
different wheel options could be used. This would allow the product to easily traverse the applicable
terrain options. The team hopes to achieve this result on the following terrains: road asphalt, sidewalk
concrete, compacted dirt bicycle path, sand, and grass. The criteria the team used to decide upon the final
quick wheel change method appears in the table below.
Table 5: Quick Wheel Change Design Criteria
Criteria Weight
Cost 25
Ease of change 25
Change-over time 20
Durability 15
Trust 5
Transparency 5
Integrity 5
As shown in the table above, the cost and relative ease of changing the wheels were designated to be the
most important design criteria. This is due to these criteria directly affecting the design requirements. One
of the primary goals the team is designing towards is to maintain a low cost product, while still enabling
the end users to quickly and easily change tire options. Durability takes into consideration the long term
potential for the designs, as well as relative ease of fixing issues that occur several years into the
product’s lifespan. The team has also identified three design norms that are directly applicable to this
component. Similar to the frame material, trust is a design norm for the quick wheel change method. The
team needs to design this feature in such a way that it is readily apparent to the end users how to operate
and change. The end design for the quick wheel change will need to be reliable and easily repeatable. This
also factors in to the next design norm, transparency. The quick wheel change design must be
understandable to someone without extensive technical knowledge, as well as being consistent. The
design team does not want to create confusion in the end users concerning this feature, as that will
effectively eliminate the use of the feature. Integrity is the final design norm that the design team has
determined applies to this component. The design team recognizes that this feature in particular will need
to be pleasing and intuitive to use. If the end users do not feel comfortable with the quick wheel change
Page 15
design, they will most likely not use it. This results in a product that will not perform to adequate levels
on the various terrains, leading to a larger potential for damage and even personal injury to occur.
These design criteria have the potential to be in tension. Maintaining the low cost of the quick wheel
change method while still reaching the necessary time and ease of assembly requirement could prove
challenging.
6.3.2 Quick Change Wheel Design Alternatives
The team researched potential quick wheel change designs, and were able to determine two main options
for the product. The first quick wheel change option has commonly been used on bicycles ever since its
creation in 1927 by Tullio Campagnolo, and is commonly referred to as a quick release skewer.7 This
design is shown in the figure below.
Figure 2: Quick Release Skewer Examples 8
The quick release lever is tightened while in use, which secures the wheel and axle to the bicycle’s fork.
To remove a wheel equipped with a quick release skewer, the user must simply loosen the quick release
lever. This quick wheel change method has both positives and negatives. It is very common in the bicycle
realm, so procuring the components would be relatively simple. Additionally, the installation and use of
said design is straightforward, minimizing the potential for the end user to become frustrated with the
design. However, this method leaves the wheels to be susceptible to theft, as the release mechanism is
quite quick and easy. The potential for the wheel to become disengaged while the product is in use is also
larger than other designs, so care would need to be taken to ensure that it is properly tightened.
The second quick wheel change option that the team researched was quite similar to the quick release
skewer idea, but is less complex. This design option is simply referred to as a quick release hitch pin
system. The design option is displayed in the figure below.
Page 16
Figure 3: Quick Release Hitch Pin9
This design option is very inexpensive and quite common, so purchasing this would be straightforward.
However, the potential for the end user to incorrectly use this design alternative is larger than with the
quick release skewer. This design would also take longer to remove than the skewer and would not be as
reliable or understandable to the end user.
6.3.3 Quick Change Wheel Design Decisions
In order for the team to determine which quick wheel change method would be the best option for this
design project, a decision matrix was created. This decision matrix listed the design criteria mentioned
earlier and assigned a 1-10 value for each option, with 1 being the lowest and therefore least preferred.
The decision matrix for this component appears below.
Design Criteria Cost Ease of
Change
Change-over
Time
Durability Trust Transparency Integrity
Op
tion
s
Weight 25 25 20 15 5 5 5 Total
Skewer 8 8 10 5 8 7 7 785
Hitch Pin 10 6 7 6 4 5 4 695
The above decision matrix clearly shows that the quick release skewer design alternative is the best quick
wheel change option for this project. Therefore, the team has chosen to use this option in the preliminary
design. However, this decision is not to be considered final, as the team is still researching other methods
by which to achieve a quick wheel change. In addition to this research, the team will also discuss with the
team’s resources what they would prefer to have as the quick wheel change method, and will update the
final design and prototype as needed.
Page 17
6.4 Collapsible Design
6.4.1 Collapsible Design Criteria
The final system component the team analyzed was the collapsible aspect of the design. The team is
designing the product in a manner in which it could be easily collapsed and moved, so that the user could
easily transport the product in the back of a small car. This would allow the product to be used more often
and for more varied purposes. The criteria the team used to decide upon the collapsible nature of the
product appears in the table below.
Table 6: Collapsibility Design Criteria
Criteria Weight
Ease of use 30
Cost 20
Risk to user 20
Durability 15
Trust 5
Transparency 5
Integrity 5
As shown in the table above, the ease of use for the collapsible design was designated as the most
important design criteria. This design feature was the only one in which cost was not the most important
design criteria, as the design team concluded that designing a low cost collapsible design was not as
important as creating a design which would be easy to use and understandable to the end user. The
potential risk to the end user was also one of the most important design criteria, as the collapsible feature
of the design must attempt to eliminate or minimize all potential possibility of personal injury to the end
user. The design team does not want the collapsible aspect of this product to present additional risk to the
end user, as this could greatly increase the possibility of lawsuits and negative public image. Additionally,
if the end user believes this feature to be potentially dangerous, then they would most likely not end up
using it, effectively nullifying all of the design team’s work on this design feature. Once again, durability
also is a criteria that the design team took into consideration in its design. This criteria considers the life
span of the design, as well as the cost to repair. Finally, the team has also identified three design norms
that are directly applicable to this component. Trust is once again a design norm for this component. The
team needs to design the collapsible nature of the product in such a way that it is readily apparent to the
end users how to use. The end design will need to be reliable and safe. The collapsible feature of this
product will also need to be transparent to the end users. It must minimize the potential to injure the end
Page 18
users, as well as be readily understood. The design team does not want the collapsibility of the product to
confuse the end users, as that will effectively eliminate the use of the feature, as well as increase the
injury potential. Integrity is the final design norm that the design team has determined applies to this
component. Similar to the quick wheel change, if the end users do not feel comfortable collapsing the
product, they will most likely not use it. This would result in a product that would not be as easily
transported. Additionally, the potential for the end user to be injured would increase if the collapsible
feature was not used, as handling the final design would be too burdensome otherwise.
These design criteria do have the potential to be in tension. While most of the design criteria focus on
making the product easier to use and understand, the cost criteria will force the design team to consider
the cost of such safety concerns. The design team will not sacrifice the safety of the design in order to
minimize the cost, which is reflected in the relative weight of the design criteria.
6.4.2 Collapsible Design Alternatives
The design team is still in the research phase for collapsible design options. However, the design team has
found two broad collapsible method types that will be pursued in greater detail over the following
semester. These options are to collapse the product by: detaching the product into distinct parts, or a
jointed assembly, which would allow the product to be folded up to occupy a smaller area.
The detaching collapsible option would consist of designing the prototype in such a way as to allow it to
be taken apart into three separate parts. This would be achieved through a design which would use clips
and fasteners to attach the three parts together. This option would allow the highest maneuverability and
transportability of the design, as the three separate parts would be able to be positioned separately.
The second collapsible option would involve jointed features, allowing the design to fold up. This would
minimize the space required to transport the design, and minimize the size of the product, enabling it to be
more easily maneuvered and picked up. This design is commonly used strollers, a smaller scale similar
product.
6.4.3 Collapsible Design Decisions
The design team is still researching collapsible design options and has not reached a definitive conclusion
as to which would be preferred. This conclusion will be reached by creating a decision matrix for this
feature, which would use the aforementioned design criteria. The design team will also remain in close
communication with the resources that have been gained so far, as they will greatly assist the team in
realizing what option would be preferred.
Page 19
6.5 Block Diagram
The block diagram below will be used to ensure all necessary considerations will be taken into account in
the design process. It will serve as a “map” for the design team as they work on designing and assembling
individual components of the cart together, so that all needs are addressed and all requirements are met.
Figure 4: Block Diagram
Page 20
Figure 5: Block diagram showing design interactions and components.
6.6 Preliminary Design
The team began the design phase with a rough sketch of what the running cart would look like, which can
be seen below.
This sketch, while very basic in nature, does display several of the features that the team decided were
integral to the project’s success. The general appearance of the design shown above is the approximate
idea of what the team views to be the final design. The green lines in the figure above correspond to the
collapsible nature of the design, which was initially thought to involve a system of cranks. The red lines
in the figure correspond to the very basic seat design. It should be noted again that this was the initial
design that the team created, so this sketch only reflects the very basic ideas about the project.
Once the team had come up with the initial sketch, it looked for ways to improve the design of the cart.
To do this the team conducted research and talked to the contacts that it had made. The next step in the
design of the cart was to determine what the frame of the cart would look like. The initial frame that the
team has come up with was drawn using the 3D modeling program SolidWorks, and can be seen below.
Figure 5: Initial Sketch of Design
Page 21
Figure 6: Initial Frame Design
This frame design was modeled using 4130 steel as the material, which was the material that the design
team concluded was the best option for this project. This frame is still basic in nature, but does display the
overall idea of the frame that the design team is considering.
Once the cart had been drawn in SolidWorks, the team modeled the effects of the forces that would occur
from a person sitting on it using the program Autodesk Simulation Multiphysics 2012. The figure below
shows the distribution of the forces on the frame of the cart.
Page 22
Figure 7: Forces Acting on the Frame of the Cart
The team modeled the cart assuming a downward force of 200 lbs. This downward force of the passenger
is represented by the arrows pointing down in the figure above, and is distributed over the area in which
the seat is planned to be and ultimately where the passenger will be sitting. The arrows pointing up in the
figure represent the reactionary force on the frame of the cart and are located where the wheels would be
attached to the cart. The reactionary force that was used was also 200 lbs. After placing these forces onto
the frame design the team then ran the simulation program, which displayed the stress values on the
frame. The results of this simulation are shown in the figure below.
Page 23
Figure 8: Simulation Results
The simulation determined that the highest stress applied to the cart is 1202 Pa. The team compared this
to the yield strength of 4130 Steel, which was found to be 910 MPa. The yield strength of the cart is
much greater than the applied stress on the cart due to a 200 lb. force. This result showed the team that
the designed frame is strong enough to support a person of 200lbs or less. The simulation also shows the
team where the stress would be concentrated in the cart. This is shown by the yellow and red areas on the
figure above, with the stress increasing as the color goes from yellow to red. The team plans to continue
modifying and improving on the above cart design to achieve its objectives.
Page 24
7. Testing Plans
The design team plans on beginning construction of the prototype in early February, 2014. The design
team has a month budgeted for the initial construction. Once this construction is complete, the team will
begin testing and prototype optimization as needed. The design team will test the prototype in five
primary aspects: the rigidity, transportability, ease of assembly, maneuverability, and ability to travel on a
variety of terrains. Each testing area has been budgeted to last a week in duration. These tests will be
performed in coordination with the design team’s resources, allowing these resources to have direct input
into which areas of the prototype need further work. The rigidity of the prototype will be tested through
stress and strain calculations through the use of strain gauges when loading the prototype with varying
loads. This will enable the design team to determine the upper limit of the transportable weight. The
transportability of the prototype will be tested using a team member’s car, in order to determine whether
or not the design can fit within the designed size constraints. The ease of assembly of the prototype will
also be tested during this time, as the difficulty of disassembling and assembling the prototype under real
life conditions with test subjects will be determined. The weight of the design will also be tested and
optimized at this point, which will assist the design team in determining whether the design is simple and
light-weight for the end user to understand and easily handle. Finally, the maneuverability and all-terrain
versatility of the prototype will be tested in the field through several methods. The prototype will be
tested at the minimum on the following surfaces: road asphalt, sidewalk concrete, compacted dirt bicycle
path, sand, and grass. The force needed to start, stop, and maintain a set speed will be recorded on each
terrain, enabling the team to determine which tires are best for which surface and which terrains the
design team should be focused on.
Page 25
8. Business Analysis
8.1 Marketing Study
8.1.1 Competitive Analysis
8.1.1.1 Existing Competitors
Companies that could be considered competitors to Iron Man include wheelchair manufacturers, custom
running cart makers, high-end running cart makers, and other athletic wheelchair manufacturers. Very
few companies with an online presence make a product similar to what the Iron Man team will be
producing. These competitors are generally well focused in their respective market, and make a decent
product; their products are both comfortable and reliable. Their biggest strength over Iron Man is their
name recognition. However, these competitors also have weaknesses. Iron Man has found very few
competitors that are effectively targeting the normal family with a disabled child/adult. Such existing
products have some design flaws that make it difficult for the caretaker, and hard on the passenger.
Products that do not include these design flaws are prohibitively expensive to the normal family, or
perform well in some areas while being impractical for storage or poor in comfort.
8.1.1.2 Potential Competitors
Companies that could be considered competitors to Iron Man are mostly start-up companies that see the
team’s product and want to make it cheaper, or believe they can provide a superior product or the same
design at a better profit margin. Large companies that produce wheelchairs or similar products may desire
to enter the market, and would present significant competition with their extensive capital for marketing
and production. As long as Iron Man’s business continues to build name recognition and maintains a good
brand name, competition will likely not be able to take the team’s market share. There appears to be a
significantly larger market than the team’s planned capacity, so some competition would most likely not
directly affect the customer base Iron Man has built up. Iron Man has to stay competitive in design, cost,
and customer support to avoid being put out of business if a large company were to enter the market.
8.1.2 Target Markets
An estimated 3.3 million American citizens are bound to a wheelchair. 10 Not all of them are limited to the
extent that they would benefit from our running chair, but if even 1% was, that gives us a market of
33,000. In addition, it is reported that about 11,000 new spinal cord injuries occur each year, resulting in
paraplegia (loss of lower body function), and quadriplegia (loss of function in arms and legs) 11, 12. Based
upon this research, the design team has identified physically handicapped clients, caretakers, and health
organizations as the primary potential target markets.
Page 26
8.1.2.1 Handicapped Clients
The product designed and produced by Iron Man would allow handicapped clients to experience nature in
a way that they would not otherwise be able to. Making this product affordable is extremely important to
handicapped clients, because they generally have more expenses to cover with a comparably smaller
income than others in their age demographic. These clients will be looking for comfort as a primary
product feature, as well as features that are targeted towards caretakers.
8.1.2.2 Caretakers
Caretakers will be able to better care for their clients by being able to take them out more often and with
greater ease. Dependability, light weight, ease of maneuverability, ease of client transfer, and
transportability are features that were identified which would be important to caretakers. These features
would also benefit the handicapped clients, because it would make it easier for their caretakers to take
them outside for a run.
8.1.2.3 Health Organizations
Health organizations would be looking for a product with low cost and high dependability. Using this
product, they could offer a wider variety of activities to their clients, increasing their reputation and client
base.
The design team surveyed each of these three demographics in order to gauge what features were most
desirable and what price they would be expecting to pay for the product. Through these conversations it
was clear to the design team that the overall cost of the product was the primary concern in all three target
markets. Following this, the dependability and passenger comfort were emphasized. The need for this
product was shown in each of the three target markets, as all of the potential clients that were surveyed
expressed the desire to purchase the product. The price of the product varied between the clients,
according to what features they mentioned were necessary. The average price from all three surveyed
markets came out to roughly be $1,500. This correlates nicely with the design team’s estimated
production cost.
8.2 Cost Estimate
8.2.1 Development
The development budget for Iron Man is limited to the funds provided through the senior design course at
Calvin College as well as any external grants that the team was able to secure. The design team is not
currently seeking out donors for the project, as the budget submitted by the team to Calvin College was
approved. This budget is listed in the table below, which details the estimated cost of all necessary items
to produce the design.
Page 27
Table 7: Team Budget
Item Estimated Cost [$]
Metal for frame 150
Bolts and joint fasteners 25
Wheels (all) 100
Brake component 50
Seat materials and padding 40
Sheet metal for passenger deck 20
Bearings 20
Forks/wheel mounts 50
Handles 15
Brake hardware (lever, cable, etc.) 10
Paint 30
Suspension 75
Total 585
The budget approved by Calvin College was $665, which enables the group a fifteen percent leeway in
the overall cost of the design. This will hopefully solve any as of now unforeseen budgetary issues that
will emerge as the design progresses.
8.2.2 Production
8.2.2.1 Fixed Costs
The estimated complete development costs appear in the table below. Overhead costs are also included.
Table 8: Estimated Fixed Costs
Item Cost ($)
Total Development Budget 30,585
Design Time ($100/hr) 30,000
Prototype 585
Tooling and Manufacturing 36,400
CNC Band Saw 25,000(13)
MIG Welder 2,400(14)
Knee Mill 9,000(15)
Other Capital Expenditures 480,000(16)
Manufacturing Plant 400,000
Offices 80,000
Overhead 20,600
Page 28
Advertising 5,000
Legal Fees 5,000(17)
Interest Fees 10,000
Electricity 4,600(18)
Total 567,585
8.2.2.2 Variable Costs
The variable costs for the product sold by Iron Man are based upon the estimated market and annual sales.
These estimations are described in the financial summary section of the report, and are detailed in the pro-
forma financial statements in Appendix C. The estimated complete variable costs, on a per-unit basis,
appear in the table below.
Table 9: Estimated Variable Costs
Item Cost ($/unit)
Machined Components 245
Frame 150(19)
Passenger Deck 20(20)
Suspension System 75(20)
Purchased Components 340
Brake System 60 (21, 22, 23)
Bolts and joint fasteners 25(24)
Wheels (three per unit) 100(25)
Bearings 20(26)
Seat Cushion 40(27)
Paint 30(28)
Forks/wheel mounts 50(29)
Handles 15(30)
Packaging 17
Cardboard 10(31)
Poly-foam 4(32)
Instruction Manual 3
Labor 200
Saw operator 40
Mill operator 40
Welder 80
Assembly 40
Distribution 0
Total 802
Page 29
8.2.2.3 Financial Summary
The estimated retail price of the running cart produced by Iron Man is roughly $1,000. This retail price is
based off of market data collected by the team, which surveyed the three main target markets,
handicapped clients, caretakers, and health organizations. These markets are described in the target
markets section of the report. The price anticipated by these clients for such a product averaged around
$1,500. The full product cost that the design team expects is roughly $800. The difference between the
full product cost and the estimated retail price is the expected profitability per unit for Iron Man. This
profitability is therefore $200 per unit. Based upon the pro-forma financial statements prepared by the
team this product is therefore expected to be profitable. These statements appear in Appendix C. The
break-even point computed by the team will occur in the first year with the 644th unit sold. The expected
annual units sold is estimated to be 1,000 units. The design team based these break-even results according
to the expectation that Iron Man will have a first year sales revenue of roughly $1,000,000. This is
reasonable, as at the expected retail price of $1,000 only 1000 units would have to be sold. As mentioned
earlier, roughly 3.3 million American citizens are bound to a wheelchair. Selling 1000 units to this market
would correspond to only a 0.03% target market acceptance. Targeting individual American citizens
would most likely be the most time consuming and challenging, especially with a start-up company. The
design team would therefore achieve these desired annual sales by aggressively targeted the wealthiest
target market first, the health organizations. Advertising to this target market would allow name
recognition to grow quicker than pursuing the other target markets. There are ten open hospitals in Kent
County, Michigan. These would be the first health organizations targeted by the design team due to their
close proximity to Calvin College. There are 5,724 hospitals in the United States. The design team
estimates that an average of two running carts will be purchased by all interested hospitals, which means
to achieve the anticipated annual units sold, 417 hospitals would need to purchase Iron Man’s product.
The team anticipates achieving the annual sales volume by selling to each target market.
Page 30
9. Conclusion
Now that the preliminary design and design research has been completed, the design team has concluded
that this project is feasible. There is a lot more work that needs to be accomplished on this project, but the
research and preliminary designs completed so far have allowed the team to narrow its focus for the
upcoming semester. More detailed designs will need to be created and in-depth finite element analyses
will be used in order to refine the product. The team plans on completing this design and analyses next
semester, as well as purchasing all necessary material and constructing the prototype. Extensive testing
will then take place, during which the team will optimize and refine the prototype as needed, while
staying within the allotted budget.
Page 31
10. Acknowledgements
The design team would like to thank the entire Calvin College engineering department, in particular
Professor Nielsen, who served as the team’s advisor for the duration of the project. The team would also
like to thank Alice Teisan, the primary contact from the organization His Wheels for her support and
advice on design options. Thanks to Curtis Kortman for his initial involvement in the project and for
initiating contact with the potential customer. Thanks to Ronald Robb of mTT for meeting with us.
Thanks to Becky and Robert Van Zanen for providing many design considerations and initial design
ideas. Finally, the team would like to thank Phil Jasperse for his support in the metal shop and throughout
the construction of the design.
Page 32
11. References
“CDC FastStats Disabilities Page.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 30 May 2013. Web. 10
Nov. 2013.
Brault, Matthew W. "School-Aged Children With Disabilities in U.S. Metropolitan Statistical Areas:
2010." American Community Survey Briefs (2011). Web. 10 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-12.pdf>.
Global Trikes. His Wheels International, Nov. 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.hiswheels.org/global-trikes/>.
Lee, Amy F. Statistics of Children with Special Needs. The Inclusive Church, 3 June 2013. Web. 10 Nov.
2013. <http://theinclusivechurch.com/2013/06/03/statistics-of-children-with-special-needs/>
Riley, William F., Leroy D. Sturges, and Don H. Morris. "Material Properties and Stress-Strain
Relationships." Mechanics of Materials. 6th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, 2007. 153-73. Print.
VanderLeest, Steven. Engineering 339. Calvin College, Grand Rapids. 4 Oct. 2013. Lecture.
Wunder, David. Engineering 339. Calvin College, Grand Rapids. 25 Sept. 2013. Lecture.
1. Gunton, Neil. "The Art of Bicycle Touring." N.p., 1 Nov. 2003. Web. 8 Dec. 2013.
2. Brown, Sheldon. "Frame Materials for the Touring Cyclist." Frame Materials for the Touring Cyclist.
N.p., Aug. 2010. Web. 08 Dec. 2013.
3. Vydehi Arun Joshi. Titanium Alloys: An Atlas of Structures and Fracture Features. CRC Press, 2006.
4. "Supra Alloys Inc. - Titanium Grades." Titanium Grades Information. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2013.
5. Johnson, Todd. "Carbon Fiber Basics." About.com Composites / Plastics. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec.
2013.
6. Riley, William F., Leroy D. Sturges, and Don H. Morris. "Average Properties of Selected
Engineering Materials." Mechanics of Materials. 6th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, 2007. N. pag.
Print.
7. Frank Berto (2009). The Dancing Chain (3rd ed.). Van der Plas Publications. pp. 140–141.
8. "Bicycle Tutor." The Bicycle Tutor RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2013.
9. "Eberl Iron Works, Inc." Quick Release Pin for Parking Lot Sign Kit. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2013.
10. "Disability in America Infographic." Disabled World. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2013.
11. "Spinal Cord Injury Facts & Statistics." Spinal Cord Injury Facts & Statistics. N.p., n.d. Web. 08
Dec. 2013.
12. "Types of Paralysis - Quadriplegia (Tetraplegia) and Paraplegia." Quadriplegia Paraplegia
Tetraplegia and Types of Paralysis. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2013.
Page 33
13. "W.F. Wells W-9-14A CNC Automatic Bandsaw FREE Shipping." EBay. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec.
2013.
14. "Lincoln Power MIG 256 (208/230) - (K3068-1)." Lincoln Power MIG 256 (208/230). N.p., n.d.
Web. 08 Dec. 2013.
15. "Metalworking Tools, Lathes, Drill Presses, Saw Blades, Drill Bits, Reamers, Threading, End Mills."
Global Industrial. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2013.
16. “RSMeans’ Dollar-per-square-foot Construction Costs for Four Industrial-type Buildings." RSMeans’
Dollar-per-square-foot Construction Costs for Four Industrial-type Buildings. N.p., n.d. Web. 08
Dec. 2013.
17. "How Much Are Legal Fees to Launch a Startup Company?" Startup Lawyer. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec.
2013.
18. "Household Electricity Bills Skyrocket." USATODAY.COM. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Dec. 2013.
19. "1015 Steel Square Structural Tubing." Zoro Tools Industrial Supplies. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2013.
20. "Metals Depot - America's Metal Superstore!" MetalsDepot®. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2013.
21. "Novara Brake Cable Kit." REI. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2013.
22. "Shimano R451 Long Reach Caliper Bicycle Brake- BR-R451." Www.bikesomewhere.com. N.p., n.d.
Web. 08 Dec. 2013.
23. "Avid FR-5 Brake Levers." Jensonusa.com/. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2013.
24. “Hex Nut Assortment, Standard, Steel, Zinc, Number of Pieces 216." EBay. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec.
2013.
25. "Northern Industrial Tools Tire/Wheel - 26in., Spoked." Amazon.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2013.
26. "Zipp 950 Disc Wheel Rear Wheel Bearing Set Bicycle Ball Bearings." VBX Ball Bearings. N.p., n.d.
Web. 08 Dec. 2013.
27. "Carex Memory Foam Seat Cushion." Walmart.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2013.
28. “Dupli-Color BSP304 Paint Shop Finishing System Candy Apple Green Paint." Auto Body Tool
Mart. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2013.
29. "700 Steel Fork 1 1/8" Threadless Black Thread Less BIKE ROAD CRUISER FIXIE." EBay. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2013.
30. “2012 RITCHEY WCS TRUE GRIPS BLACK MTB BIKE." EBay. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2013.
31. “Staples® Corrugated Shipping Boxes." Staples.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2013.
32. “Charcoal Pick & Pluck Foam." OnlineFabricStore.net. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2013.
Page 34
Appendix A. Work Breakdown Schedule
Page 35
Appendix B. Pro-forma Financial Statements
Table 10: Pro-forma Statement of Income
The Iron Man Corporation
Pro-forma Statement of Income
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Sales revenue
1,000,000
1,100,000
1,210,000
Variable Cost of Goods Sold
553,080
608,180
668,790
Fixed Cost of Goods Sold
190,000
190,000
190,000
Depreciation
7,202
12,772
9,978
Gross Margin
249,718
289,048
341,232
Variable Operating Costs
70,000
77,000
84,700
Fixed Operating Costs
37,600
37,600
37,600
Operating Income
142,118
174,448
218,932
Interest Expense
7,966
14,182
10,682
Income Before Tax
134,152
160,266
208,250
Income tax (40%)
53,661
64,107
83,300
Net Income After Tax
80,491
96,160
124,950
Page 36
Table 11: Pro-forma Statement of Cash Flows
The Iron Man Corporation
Pro-Forma Statement of Cash Flows
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Beginning Cash Balance
-
800,293
1,391,625
Net Income After Tax
80,491
96,160
124,950
Depreciation expense
7,202
12,772
9,978
Invested Capital (Equity)
535,400
535,400
535,400
Increase (decrease) in borrowed funds
227,600
(50,000)
(50,000)
Equipment Purchases
(50,400)
(3,000)
(3,000)
Ending Cash Balance
800,293
1,391,625
2,008,953
Page 37
Table 12: Break-Even Analysis
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Sales revenue
1,000,000
1,100,000
1,210,000
Less: Variable Costs:
Variable Cost of Goods Sold
553,080
608,180
668,790
Variable Operating Costs
70,000
77,000
84,700
Total Variable Costs
623,080
685,180
753,490
Contribution Margin
376,920
414,820
456,510
Less: Fixed Costs
Fixed Cost of Goods Sold
190,000
190,000
190,000
Fixed Operating Costs
37,600
37,600
37,600
Depreciation
7,202
12,772
9,978
Interest Expense
7,966
14,182
10,682
Total Fixed Costs
242,768
254,554
248,260
Income Before Tax
134,152
160,266
208,250
Page 38
Table 13: Break-Even Analysis (continued)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Total Fixed Costs 242,768 254,554 248,260
Contribution Margin % 38% 38% 38%
Break Even Sales Volume 644,084 675,013 658,025
Break Even Unit Volume 644 675 658
Table 14: Iron Man Corporation Budget
Equipment Depreciation
Purchases Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Equipment Purchases Year 1
50,400
7,202
12,343
8,815
Equipment Purchases Year 2
3,000
429
735
Equipment Purchases Year 3
3,000
429
7,202
12,772
9,978
MACRS Rates (7-year recovery period) 0.1429 0.2449 0.1749
Interest Expense:
Annual interest rate on debt 7%
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Average debt balance
113,800
202,600
152,600
Interest expense
7,966
14,182
10,682
Related Documents
