SOLUTIONS

FARMS FINAL
PROPOSAL

3/19/15

Presented by the Awkward Pontiffs

Our client is Kevin Gorham, Farm Manager of Solutions Farms, which
is located in Vista, California.
The Awkward Pontiffs is composed of these outstanding members:
Vincent Pham, Brandon Whang, Diana Wu, Edward Matios, Fumika
Takazawa & Wayne Yang.

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Our project is based around Solutions Farms, an aquaponics initiative, located in
Vista, California. The Farm Manager, Kevin Gorham, contacted Global TIES and the
ENG 100D: Design for Development course to help create an efficient, productive
and sustainable mechanism to transfer plants from a high-density raft to a low
density raft. Kevin Gorham works under a larger parent organization called Solutions
for Change, which emphasizes meaningful worker reintegration into the workforce
through a program called Solutions University. Thus, a more efficient means to move
plants from a high to low density raft would provide the workers the opportunity to
do work that was not menial and unproductive towards the large goal of Solutions
Farms. Our team, the Awkward Pontiffs, made two site visits and corresponded
through e-mail with Gorham to ideate and prototype our final design the
Triangular Rail System (TRS). This design incorporates the rectangular preference of
Gorham and also the qualities of a product he was looking for. The TRS maximizes
the rectangular bed space by using incremental angle increases of one-way rails,
which move plants along at 5 inches per day. The angle of each rail and the daily
movement account for the area of growth needed for plants to reach their full
maturation by the harvest period (6-8 weeks after germination). This design has only
achieved a design prototype phase, whereas a physical prototype has yet to be
made. We hope that our ideas, our descriptions and detail of our original TRS can be
of future use to Gorham and Solutions Farms.

Page 1i

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL

PROPOSAL
Executive Summary

Meet the Team

12

Introduction

Problem Statement

45

Design Specifications

67

Technical Approach

89

Project Management

10 12

Design Concepts Considered

13 14

Recommended Solution

15 22

Technical Implementation Overview

23

Economic Analysis

24

Socio-cultural and Environmental

25 26

Sustainability Assessment
Ethical Issues

27

After Thoughts

28

Appendix A

29 32

Appendix B

33-34

Page 2
ii

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

MEET THE TEAM

Vincent Pham Team Lead

Major - Political Science

Contact - vnp003@ucsd.edu
Project Roles - Team organization, team meetings, presentation creator,
script contributor
Transferrable Experience: Former Lifestyle Editor and current Training
and Development Manager for The Guardian

Wayne Yang Client Liaison

Major - Nanoengineering
Contact way001@ucsd.edu
Project Roles Primary conctact with Kevin Gorham and Johnathan Tran,
materials research, cost analysis
Transferrable Experience: Barista at Peets Coffee and Tea at RIMAC
Annex, constant communication with managers and customers.

Edward Matios Primary Imagineer

Major Nano-Engineering
Contact - ematios@ucsd.edu
Project Roles Solution Design, Engineering Analysis, Data Management
Transferrable Experience: Environmental Engineering and Environmental
System Research Experiences

Brandon Whang Primary Imagineer

Major Electrical Engineering

Contact - bwhang@ucsd.edu
Project Roles Solution Design, Engineering Analysis, Data Management
Transferrable Experience: Proficient in Trigonometry, CSE 11

Page 1

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

Diana Wu Project Management, Imagineer

Major Environmental Engineer

Contact diana28wu@gmail.com
Project Roles Project Management, Risk Analysis, Gantt Chart, Work
Breakdown Structure
Transferrable Experience: Project Management (MGT 172), Team
Leadership Experience, and Assistant Philanthropy Chair for Sigma Kappa

Fumika Takazawa Project Management, Imagineer

Major Environmental Engineering

Contact - ftakazaw@ucsd.edu
Project Roles - Project Management, Risk Analysis, Gannt Chart, Work
Breakdown Structure
Transferrable Experience: Receptionist experience, MAE 3, CAD, ESW
Engineering Brigades, Historian for AOII

Page 2

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

INTRODUCTION
Our team, the Awkward Pontiffs, is working with Farm Manager Kevin Gorham of
Solutions Farms. Solutions Farms is an aquaponics initiative in Vista, California. An
aquaponics initiative is an innovative and self sustaining approach to traditional
farming. Aquaponics uses a soil-less medium to grow plants and fish culture to
supply nutrients to a tank of water, which the plants are floating in. The plants, in
turn, filter the water by removing the fish waste (nitrates and ammonia) and the water
is pumped back into the fish tank. Solutions Farms is a branch of a larger
organization called Solutions for Change. Solutions for Change is a community
centered organization which aims to solve family homelessness. Solutions for
Change has a program called Solutions University, which spans over 1,000 days and
takes in families, providing housing and adequate resources to the families to
reshape their lives. The program also provides health care, job training, childcare
and counseling. Solutions for Change has produced a 93% success rate of
participants not returning to homelessness and 77% of participants are able to find
full-time careers. Solutions Farms, by extension, has been integral to this successful
model for workforce reintegration. This is the background to our project, as Farm
Manager Gorham is looking for a way to maximize his workers time so that they may
work towards the goal of Solutions for Change. This context gives all the more reason
to produce an effective design that will not only help Solutions Farms become a more
successful aquaponics initiative, but to further empower the workers and help
transform their lives.

Page 3

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

PROBLEM STATEMENT
Solutions Farms, an aquaponics initiative that employs homeless families for
reintegration into the workforce, needs a labor and time saving mechanism to
facilitate plant growth so that workers will be able to focus on skill developing work.

OUR CLIENT
Our client Kevin Gorham, Farm Manager of Solutions Farms, needs a new method of
moving plants from high to low density growth, in which time and labor or
minimized. He has several showcase systems in his farm buildings, but the simple
styrofoam raft system is the most cost and output efficient and thus the implemented
system at the moment. Gorham is looking for a new method because he is expanding
his farm by three times. If he maintains the current raft schematic, the time spent on
moving plants from one raft to another is only compounded and thus will take more
time. To meet the goals of his parent organization, Solutions for Change, Gorham
wants to deviate from the menial labor of moving plants monotonously from one raft
to another, to work that provides more opportunity to learn and develop transferable
work skills. This is the larger goal for Gorham and Solutions Farms, and more is
outlined for the workers below. Gorham has the capacities of space for his farm and
also is open to ideas. What limits Gorham is primarily funds to expand in ways that
have been proven on the market and that are productive.

OUR END USER

Our end user will be the Solutions Farms workers, whos needs and aspirations
coincide with Gorhams. To work at Solutions Farms, the workers must have enrolled
in a larger program called Solutions University, which is under Solutions for Change.
This comprehensive 1,000 day program aims to provide employment skills, health

Page 4

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

care, housing and accountability development for the participants. Thus, if the
workers are able to utilize an efficient mechanism of plant transfer, then they
themselves will be able to focus on other tasks that will help them reintegrate into
the workforce after their completion of Solutions University. Ultimately, just as
Gorham wishes, the end users do not want to spend a full day of work moving plants.
This process may be productive for the farm, but is not a productive task for the
workers in regards to their skill and job development.

STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
High Power

Keep Satisfied

Manage Closely

Awkward Pontiffs

Kevin Gorham
Solutions Farms

Low Power

Monitor (Minimum

Keep Informed

Effort)

Solutions Farms Workers

Solutions for Change

Jonathan Tran (ESW)

Low Interest

High Interest

PREVIOUS WORK DONE

From our knowledge, know group has undertaken this particular project. But,
Jonathan Tran, as shown in our stakeholder analysis, is part of Engineers for a
Sustainable World (ESW) and has experience working with Kevin to rebuild the
germination beds for maximum productivity. Our projects align in mission and
client, but are not directly related. Engineers for a Sustainable World has tossed
ideas around in hopes of also redesigning the rafts, but was not able to gain interest
within the club, and thus we were left to begin from our own thought processes.

Page 5

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Solutions Farms provides a learning environment through a thriving aquaponics farm
for the homeless community in Vista, California. Currently, the farm has allocated
$170,000 of grant funds toward construction for an expansion that triples the current
farm size. Solutions Farms hopes to boost productivity via increased area and
operational efficiency during this transformation. Our team focus is to ameliorate the
laborious plant transportation process between high to low density rafts within the
$11,000 budget allocated for new rafts, with consideration to the $90,000 annual
budget and the restrictions provided.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
The expansion area of 196 by 640 inches is sloped, and thus Kevin prefers to
continue growing in rectangular beds that can keep level growth on the sloped
grounds of the farm. His current rafts are rectangular fit to float in 16.5 by 52.5 feet
beds, which allow him to produce 400 pounds of vegetables per week. The farm uses
2 inch round net pots, but it hopes to move to that of 1 inch to match industry
standards. At the end of the growing stage, lettuce for instance requires an 8 inch
diameter for maturity. Our design productivity of must meet current productivity, if
not increase it, to maximize profit.

ECONOMIC CONSTRAINTS
Solutions Farms currently sells all produce to Vista Unified School District. VUSD
gets to support a humanitarian cause while Solutions Farms maximizes profit - this
mutualistic relationship has created great demand for Solutions Farms crops, and
Kevin estimates VUSD will buy out crops up to four times the current harvest.

Page 6

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

SUSTAINABILITY CONSTRAINTS
The aquaponics farm, hence the name, uses only tilapia to nourish its USDA-certified
organic crops. To match the needs of increased plants, Solutions Farms has allocated
$80,000 to install 16 new fish tanks ranging from $1,600 to $3,600 apiece. For a longlasting and environmentally friendly investment, Solutions Farms currently utilizes
reusable, sustainable, and budget-friendly Styrofoam rafts which last approximately
3 years. The materials of our proposed design must be of similar cost and lifespan.

CONCLUSION
The constraints present give our team a unique situation to approach the problem
and also the opportunity work within these constraints to form a more viable solution.
Although these aspects prevent some market solutions to be used, we took it as an
opportunity to be innovative and develop unique alternatives.

Page 7

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

TECHNICAL APPROACH
In an ideal human centered design process, as shown in Figure 1, engineers
empathize with and consider input and feedback throughout the project. In
conventional engineering, on the other hand, engineers apply the same steps they
would to the design process as they would to a math problem, then also prototype
and improve the design until perfection. The takeaway of this lesson was, as CEO of
Design That Matters Timothy Prestero said in a TED talk, Theres no such thing as a
dumb user...just dumb products that were not designed with a human-centered
design process. Developing empathy and a search mentality is fundamental to
effective design.

FIGURE 1

The very first step should have been to empathize the project to understand its
importance and define the problem. We were introduced to the project via a
presentation by the ESW President as well as Aquaponics Project Leader Jonathan
Tran. Solutions Farms needs help developing a labor and time saving mechanism to
facilitate plant growth and worker contribution to tasks other than menial labor. The

Page 8

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

open-ended nature of their description turned our focused primarily onto the
problem, and we overlooked its altruistic mission to solve homelessness and
unemployment. Nonetheless, once all members of the team visited the farm,
interacting with Gorham and the environment allowed us to fully understand the
mission and problem; however, the visits did not occur until week 10.
Since the first meeting, design ideation progressed naturally for our creatively
talented team. With the open-ended project description they provided us, we mainly
brainstormed without heavy research. Throughout these first weeks, we solely based
our ideas on brainstorming during our team meetings, as well as feedback from
Tran. Our three designs were a combination of all the ideas brought up by the team:
the Magnetic, Lunchbox, and Expandable raft. As Week 8 and the Concept Selection
approached, we scheduled a second visit to the farm with the rest of our team
members, and updated Kevin Gorham on our progress.
Gorham lead us to different designs proven on the market. Though our ideations
were impressive, we lacked in market research of proven aquaponics systems.
Gorham expressed interest in the Japanese Granpa Dome, a rail system; meanwhile,
we discovered a vertical system through online research. Tran originally offered to
serve as our liaison with Gorham. However, we should have contacted Kevin directly
from the beginning for input and feedback because Tran similarly lacks in first hand
experience on the farm like members of Team Awkward Pontiffs.
After learning from our lack of communication, we increased contact with Gorham to
test our proposed solutions by user feedback. The following final design
recommendation is based on purely feedback, since our mechanism, a combination
of Gorhams existing system and the Granpa Dome, has never been designed
before.

Page 9

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The main goal of project management is to maximize the efficiency of the project
group and deliver the best results within a period of time. Each project group is
handled differently according to the nature of the project, as well as the nature of the
group dynamic. Within a week of the assignment we identified the project statement
and the project scope. These helped us quickly assess the needs of the client and
develop a concrete plan for the execution of the project. The tasks were delegated
accordingly in terms of interest and schedule availability. The details of the
procedure will be explained below.
This project is considered a small, non-financial benefit group work that seeks to
improve the working structure of a humanitarian organization- Solutions Farms. We
are looking at a simple model that doesnt require marketing and financial
constraints on our part. With the help of project management tools, we were able to
identify the specific tasks as well as the time frame to complete them. We used the
Work Breakdown Structure to establish the 4 main tasks (Research, Design, Testing
and Presentation) and to determine the specific subtasks needed to carry out to
ensure the success of the project. Once the specific tasks were identified, we used
the Gantt Chart (see Figure 2) to set a time frame for each of these tasks, setting up a
timeline from the start to the end of the project time period.
The primary phase was the research phase. This included a wide range of analysis
from cost, materials, environment constraints to plant productivity. Since none of us
were familiar with the field of aquaponics we also allocated a great amount of time
understanding the different structures of aquaponic systems and exploring their
market.

Page 10

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

The design phase was concurrently run with the research phase. As we learned more
about the different options, we designed alterations to fit the environment constraint.
This process required frequent communication with the client, in order to make sure
that our newly improved designs aligned with the clients needs and expectations.
Our initial expectation of the design and testing phase, consisted on redesigning the
rafts and making a final prototype for the client. However as the research
progressed, as well as the clients growing interest in larger scale rail systems, the
project scope was reevaluated and the criteria for the design and testing phases
along with their timeline were readjusted. In the end, the project evolved into a
innovative, prolonged process of design. We consulted a top hydroponics farm in
Japan (the Grandpa Dome) and we successfully delivered a design that would help
the client achieve maximum efficiency with the incorporation of similar system.
Our testing phase involved a series of analysis and establishment of baselines to
help measure the impact of our design on the profitability of the farm. We have also
created animations to help visualize the concept of the design. We wanted to make
sure our client understands the potential impact of the product, as well as its
potential cost.
At last, the presentation phase ran concurrently with all of the phases above. The
main tasks of the presentation phase were given by the requirements of the class.
We delivered our thought progress, new findings and newly improved designs
through each Work In Progress presentations, along with our Concept Selection.
Through the constructive criticism and evaluation of each assignment, we took
concrete actions to improve upon our flaws and we hope to deliver a great final
presentation.

DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES

Page 11

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

As mentioned before, the tasks were delegated according to the interest of each
team member and our schedule availability. We have a total of 6 members in the
Awkward Pontiffs group that have taken upon the task to deliver the best solution for
Solutions Farms aquaponics system. Our team lead, Vincent Pham, is in charge of
leading weekly team meetings, allocating members on more time pressing tasks,
making sure the project progress aligns with the initial objectives and bringing
creative, risk-taking ideas and improvements. Vincent is most familiar with the
clients background and the problem statement. Our client liaison, Wayne Yang, is in
charge of maintaining biweekly communication with the client as well as the cost
analysis and market research. Wayne helps deliver our new ideas and questions to
the client and makes sure that the client stays up to date with our design process.
Edward Matios and Brandon Whang are our design geniuses, they are in charge of
exploring new designs while coping with the clients opinion and environment
constraints. Brandon and Edward have been consistently delivered improved
designs over the past 8 weeks. Diana Wu Wong and Fumika Takazawa, our project
managers, are in charged of planning out the project, keeping up with the timeline,
ensuring the quality of the tasks delivered, and assisting other members on
miscellaneous tasks.

Page 12

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

FIGURE 2 (PREVIOUS PAGE)

DESIGN CONCEPTS
CONSIDERED
Labor

Algae Prevention

Unspecified

Concept Name

Constraint Met

Constraint Met

Constraints Met

Expandable Raft

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No. Too Complex,

Magnetic Raft

High and low

density beds not
connected
Yes

No

Lunchbox Raft

No. Has potential

to cause
salmonella

Vertical System

No

Yes

Yes

(See Appendix B for visual representations)

1. EXPANDABLE RAFT
This was the first and most intuitive solution. The raft would be modified to support
expansion along the x and y axis allowing the user to simply pull the edges of the raft
to lower the plant density allowing without the time consuming re-potting process.
However if you look carefully at the diagram, you will notice that the expandable raft
leaves a space in the middle and fails to cover the entirety of the waters surface and
therefore fails to meet our second constraint.

2. MAGNETIC RAFT

Page 13

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

This was our most creative solution. The magnetic rafts will use a magnetic grid built
into the water beds to dictate where the it would settle. It is a form of semiautomation that would simply require the user to un-anchor the rafts individual
parts. The rafts will flow into the low density bed using the grid to designate
placement, without human labor. Although this design would meet all the constraints
laid out above, it requires infrastructure, such as a connecting waterway between
high and low density beds, that is not currently in place and would be too difficult to
implement.

3. LUNCHBOX RAFT
This was our solution of choice. It would operate much like a lunch tray in that the
rafts would stack on top of each other. Each raft would have a lower individual
density, that when stacked on top of each other would form a larger raft of ideal high
density. This was a simple solution that would require little modification and allow for
swift transition to lower density beds, simply requiring the user to lift and move the
raft to a new bed (already at target low density). However this solution failed to meet
the constraint of light, as it leaves a vast majority of the water uncovered.
Furthermore, Kevin brought to our attention of a previously unknown constraint,
salmonella. Since the water is using fish feces as nutrients, having that water drip
onto the plants as you lift the top raft carried the risk of giving our product
salmonella.

4. VERTICAL SYSTEM
This system is not one we thought of, rather it was one Kevin suggested to us. The
basic principle of the vertical system was to utilize 3 dimensional space to get more
effective growing space and therefore higher production rates. If you had a 10 meter
by 10 meter plot of land, you could use that land to produce towers effectively
allowing you to plant on a 10 meter by 10 meter by 5 meter area/volume giving you
more plants for the same amount of surface area. Though it has been proven on the

Page 14

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

market, unfortunately it is both labor intensive and largely not preferable from
Kevins perspective so we did not continue on with this idea.

RECOMMENDED
SOLUTION
The Rail System design was chosen to be the recommended solution. The existing
rail system we looked to as an example, the Grandpa Dome, operates on circular
water beds to achieve maximum efficiency, since circular geometry provides a
smooth and gradual space gain for the plants as they move radially outward. Hence,
the major design challenge was to capture the essences of efficient circular-oriented
rail system design and implement them into a rectangular water bed.

PROTOTYPE 1.0
The initial rectangular-oriented rail system design efficiently moves plants from high
density region to low density region gradually by increasing the space between rails
1 inch per week. In order to produce fully grown plants by the harvest time, Solutions
Farms plants such as lettuce, require an initial 2 inch growing space and final 8 inch
growing space. The average growing time for Solutions Farms plants is 6 weeks (5
weeks for summer and 7 weeks for winter). Therefore, by having the pre-calculated
space-time gradient of 1 inch per week, the plants can gain extra growing space in a
systematic way throughout the growing process. Please refer to Figure 3 8 for this
explanation.

Page 15

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

FIGURE 3: OVERALL SYSTEM SETUP

FIGURE 4: SPACE COVERING RAFT LIFTED

FIGURE 5: OLDEST PLANTS HARVEST DOWNSTREAM

Page 16

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

FIGURE 6: PLANT RAFT MOVED

FIGURE 7: REFILLING NEW 1ST WEEK OLD PLANTS' RAFTS

FIGURE 8: REPLACED IN SPACE COVERING RAFT

Page 17

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

As shown by the figures above, the colorful space covering rafts are used to better
visualize the weekly growing space gain, and each colorful bar strip represents
inch width. Plants are being spatially manipulated to gain 1 inch extra growing space
per week, starting at 2 inch growing diameter on week 1, 3 inch growing diameter on
week 2, and so on until finally reaching 8 inch growing diameter on week 6. The
design was shown to Kevin during our farm visit, and he provided high approval on
the design. According to Kevin, our prototype 1.0 can yield higher productivity than
the existing raft system. However, some improvements can still be implemented as
prototype 1.0 has the major constraint in 1-dimentional expansion. Subsequently, a
prototype 2.0 was generated to improve upon the constraint of 1-dimension
expansion. Per Kevins suggestion, prototype 1.0 schematic is included in this design
record as a valuable template for potential alternation and improvement.

PROTOTYPE 2.0
The final solution is an improvement upon prototype 1.0 to resolve its major
constraint in 1-D expansion: prototype 2.0 triangular rail design (refer to Figure 9). A
triangular rail system, a design that is capable of expanding plants growing space in
2-dimensional pathway gradually with the predesignated space-time gradient, was
created to resolve the issue of 1-dimensional expansion. The triangular rail system is
designed to operate manually to achieve space arrangement flexibility, reduce
mechanical maintenance, and most importantly to maintain labor force requirement
for Solutions Farms principle of assisting homeless individuals with job training
opportunities. However, it is ultimately up to Solutions Farms to decide whether or
not to implement this design in a fully automatic way or a manually operated fashion.
Prototype 2.0 operates much like prototype 1.0 in terms of providing plants with
extra growing space as time passed, also in the gradient of 1 inch growing space
gain per week.

Page 18

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

FIGURE 9: TRIANGULAR RAIL DESIGN SIMPLIFIED SCHEMATIC DRAWING

DESIGN CONSTRAINTS RESOLVED BY PROTOTYPE 2.0

Prototype 2.0 has managed to successfully resolve many of the design constraints
outlined in our project plan. The design is based on Solutions Farms existing
rectangular waterbeds infrastructure for minimum system alteration. The dimensions
of the waterbed, 640 inches long and 196 inches wide, is used in the design
specification of triangular rail system. The 18 inches waterbed depth was taken into
account of the railing material design, such as PVC piping, that can produce
buoyancy force to sustain plants weight on water surface. More specifically, railing
system constructed of buoyancy property material, such as PVC piping or even
environmentally friendly recycled fiber material, can allow plant roots to dangle into
water while maintain the main plant body above water for maximum growth
productivity. In order to maintain the title of an organic certified farm, the material
usages are limited to food safe material approved by the USDA, (no potential toxic
materials can come in contact with the plants/water in order to maintain the organic

Page 19

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

certification). The proposed material of PVC is approved by USDA and a common

material used in aquaponic systems; a recommended solution is the implementation
of eco-friendly and bio-based material to avoid plastic usage in the first place. The
proposed material of PVC also eliminates the issue of Styrofoam contamination from
the existing raft system. The issue of algae blooms are resolved by the space
covering material alongside the railing system, leaving the water underneath nonexposed to sunlight. Most importantly, the initial design challenge was to utilize the
known experimental data and knowledge of plant root growth rate of around 1 inch
radial-ward per week, and the fact that aquaponic plants in general require a
minimum an 8 inch diameter around them in order to achieve full growth. Hence the
information of plants growth rate and plants size provided us with a distance and
time to transport the plants to in an efficient pattern for gradual increasing growing
space, in this case 1 inch per week gradient.

ENGINEERING ANALYSES FOR PROTOTYPE 2.0

Page 20

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

FIGURE 10: (PREVIOUS PAGE) CAD DRAWING ON A SCALED DOWN PROTOTYPE 2.0 FROM
ABOVE VIEW. DRAWING ONLY SHOWS 1 OF THE 2 COMPLEMENTARY RAIL GROUPINGS

As shown by figure 10, the actual water bed width of 196 inches is scaled down to
match with the 2 inches space increment on the initial stage on the left side and 8
inches space increment on the right side. The angles are measured with respect to
the system boundary at the bottom. As one can observe in the Figure 10, the rail
tilting angle increases as the system progresses in order to gain a gradual space
gain from 2 inches to 8 inches. So is the rail length increases as moving up the
system with the increasing tilting angle. Theoretically, total number of railings is
calculated by 640 inches (water bed length) divided by 10 inches (2 inches initial
space + 8 inches final space), therefore 64 rails, on one side of the bed. Because the
triangular rail system operates in a complementary fashion where the other half of
the water bed would require the exact same dimensions to produce a supplementary
counterpart, as demonstrated by Figure 9, there will be a total of 128 railings in one
water bed (64 rails per system per bed times 2 systems per bed).Tilting angle 1 (1
from Figure 10) is calculated by taking the inverse tangent of opposite length of 6
inches (8 inches minus 2 inches) over adjacent length 196 inches (the width of water
bed) equaling 1.75 degree.
Subsequently, titling angle 2 (2 from Figure 10) is calculated by taking the inverse
tangent of opposite length of 12 inches (16 inches minus 4 inches) over adjacent
length 196 inches (the width of water bed) equaling 3.5 degree. Next, railing length
is calculated by the right triangle property: rail 2s length is derived by the square
root of 196 inches square plus 6 inches (8 inches minus 2 inches) equaling 196.09
inches; rail 3s length is derived by the square root of 196 inches square plus 12
inches (16 inches minus 4 inches) equaling 196.37 inches, so on. In order to calculate
the tilting angle and railing length of each rail efficiently, a computer programing

Page 21

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

language of applied trigonometry was used to calculate all the subsequent angles
and railing length, and the table data is displayed in Appendix A.
Please refer to Appendix A for the calculation table
The feasibility of implementation prototype 2.0 is now solidified. With the
projections for total number of 128 rails in one water bed (64 occupying half the
space), tilting angles for each rail, rail height with respect to bottom system
boundary, and the rail lengths, we calculated the theoretical plant production in both
weight and quantity. Each rail is capable of carrying a total of 24 plants (196 inches
rail horizontal projection length divided by 8 inches growing space) for prototype
2.0 in order to maintain a radial space separation from 2 inches to 8 inches.
Therefore, the total plant quantity production is 128 rails per bed multiplied by 4
beds (total beds in Solutions Farms) multiplied by 4 plants per rail harvested weekly
(plants harvested every 6 weeks lead to 1/6 multiplied by 24 plants per rail yielding
4 plants harvested weekly) which equates to around 2,000 plants or 3,000 pounds
(assuming average weight is 1.5 pounds per plant). It is important to note that these
are theoretical production estimate and it is often an overestimate. It is necessary to
conduct on-site experiment and data collection to confirm these plant production
estimations.

Page 22

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

TECHNICAL
IMPLEMENTATION
Our team has completed the research, design, and presentation phase. In the event
that one may choose the implement this solution, the next step is to test prototypes
on a small scale to reduce economic, functional, financial risks. Especially because
our design is original, the theoretical results may not match the actual. If applied to
this expansion phase of Solutions Farms, the ideal time limit for completion of
prototyping and testing will be prior to the end of construction.
First we begin with acquiring necessary materials of the raft. This includes primarily
PVC boards, nails, and motors if desired. To construct the rails, line them at the
specified angles carefully as shown in Appendix A: Prototype 2.0 Rail Angle and Rail
Length Calculation. The thoroughness with which the angle and position of rails are
implemented will be a large risk; one rail that misses its position will affect the next
rail and so on. This process should not be rushed nor given to untrained workers.
After construction, insert a small amount of germinated seeds, for experimentation
purposes, into the net pot and move them every 5 days across the rail. At the end of
the 4 to 6 week maturity period, harvest the plants by pushing them off to the end.
The triangular rail system that will maximize production and minimize labor is now
complete.

Page 23

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Working with Kevin's current growbed dimensions of 196 by 640 inches, the raw
materials cost of our PVC rail implementation for a single waterbed totals $1,817.11.
This pricing ultimately varies on what brand and dimensions of white PVC board is
used. We used a cost-conscious standard of a white PVC expanded sheet board with
dimensions of 0.236 by 48 by 96 inches from Interstate Plastics to calculate the
materials cost1. A total of 35 of these standard PVC boards will give us sufficient
material for a single growbed, and sums up to the price above with excess PVC to
use for additional growbeds (Interstate Plastics offers a 5% high-volume pricing
discount).
One of the future challenges includes the labor costs of cutting the PVC boards to fit
the rail design. With the rather large dimension of the grow bed, custom quotes for a
single PVC sheet of ~870 square feet were unfavorable due to mere size and
shipping difficulties. We had to scale down the dimensions for our standard order
size. This constraint will need to be addressed in the future should this design be
utilized for Solutions Farm's waterbed expansions.
The economic impact of using white PVC boards for our design, which substitutes
the use of Styrofoam rafts, costs Solutions Farms a significant investment. Solutions
Farms has an annual budget of $90,000 from government grants and private
donations, not including salaries and labor cost. Thus the cost of implementing PVC
as a new material fits well within the budget. The true benefit of our team
1

https://www.interstateplastics.com/Pvc-Expanded-White-Sheet-

PVCWX.php?sku=PVCWX&vid=201503180310-7p
&dim2=48&dim3=96&thickness=0.236&qty=35&recalculate.x=109&recalculate.y=12

Page 24

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

designating a significant amount of money towards PVC boards to generate a rail

design will provide Kevin's interns the time they need to develop fundamental work
ethics. Conclusively, the capital for this venture is well invested.
Labor costs for the implementing the rail system itself has not been addressed;
seeing as how this is an entrepreneur project and given our time constraints we were
unable to fabricate a cost of labor, since most time was delegated towards
researching and innovating a new raft design that fits Solutions Farms constraints.
However, outside of the rail design, the cost of labor for installing the greenhouse
and climate controls is $70,000 as quoted by Kevin. The $70,000 will be used to
implement control devices for 4 additional greenhouse structures, averaging out to
$17,500 per structure, more specifically $4,375 per grow bed, making the cost of
implementation $6,192.11 per future grow bed with our proposed PVC rail design.

SOCIO-CULTURAL AND
ENVIRONMENTALLY
SUSTAINIBILITY
ASSESMENT
The extent of our project only goes as far as a design, as time constraints did not
provide us the opportunity to physically prototype. From our research of potential
materials that could be used, aside from the entire climate monitoring equipment
already owned by Gorham, we project that the most environmentally damaging
material will be the use of PVC pipes. PVC, or polyvinyl chloride, is a synthetic

Page 25

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

plastic polymer. It is well known and widely used due to its biological and chemical
durability, for example in sewage systems. Thus, though synthetic, PVC pipes are an
environmentally friendly material to be used on an aquaponics farms. Gorham has
also identified he uses PVC pipes in his grow beds already, giving us more reason to
choose this as a primary material.
Aquaponics farms themselves tend to be self-sustaining, and our Triangular Rail
System will follow in line with that ideology. Depending on the extent in which
Gorham wants to implement the idea we have proposed, it can range from a manual
method of progressing plants down the rails or using an automated system, which
would use electricity and thus fossil fuels to operate. This offset of a carbon footprint
would most likely be minimal compared to environmentally friendly greenhouses
and self-sustaining aquaponics system. That said, it is still an important aspect to
consider when implement this system.
We predict that the PVC pipe itself will be durable and not need frequent
maintenance or replacement, thus creating a one-time if not relatively low cost for
implementation of the rail system. If the Triangular Rail System can be produced
with high quality material and construction, we predict that the environmental
impact of producing the piping will be negligent due to the long lasting use of the
pipe.
Hence, short term impacts would come with implementation while long term impacts
would actually produce positive outcomes, as an aquaponics system is more
sustainable in general. In the context of Californias current water sustainability, it is
important to note that aquaponics farms are on average 97 percent more water
efficient than its traditional counterparts, meaning a drought stricken California
could invest more into innovative farming techniques.

Page 26

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

Ethical Issues
Solutions Farms is a non-profit organization that promotes the rehabilitation and
reintegration of people back into the workforce. However, being a relatively new
aquaponics farm, it falls short of its goals. According to Kevin the farms plants
produced per square feet is unable to keep up with the rising demand of his
expanding market. He also regrets the fact that a significant amount of time the
workers spend on his farm is invested in menial labor instead of work that could
possibly further benefit and prepare them for the workforce. Although the goal is to
increase efficiency and production, over productivity and hyper efficiency hold the
possibility of derailing solutions Farms from its original purpose.
It is vital to keep in mind that Solutions Farms is a for-profit organization that devotes
all proceeds towards the benefit of others. If we make a system that requires no
labor, the system loses its value in rehabilitating people. Furthermore, if in doing so
we make the system extensively more productive than the current one, the
administrators of the farm could be tempted to switch from to a profit-focused farm.
As far as mitigation strategies go, we should not implement any. Any system can be
abused by the people in power. We have faith in Solutions Farms and Solutions For
Change, and hope that they use whatever benefits we provide towards improving
their system and expanding their capacity, possibly allowing them to take in more
people into their rotation.

Page 27

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

Afterthoughts
As the project Awkward Pontiffs comes to an end, we look back at the growth and
progress of this project. We started as a group of individuals trying to solve a simple
raft problem to a team striving to deliver innovative designs centered around our
client's needs and preferences, a human-centered design. As we encountered our
many road bumps we learned to work together as a team and to face the problems
together. We grew more understanding and compassionate about the client and the
end user of this design. Although the design is still in its primitive stage, if our client
shows interest in the further development of it, we would be more than willing to
follow up with this project and eventually see it succeed.
We would like to first thank Brandon and Denali for their guidance. We have grown
and improved every week with their constructive criticisms and encouragements.
We would also like to thank our client Kevin along with ESW liaison Jonathan, for
giving us the opportunity to work in this project and at last, we would like to thank
each one of the members who made the Awkward Pontiffs, for the hard work and
great collaboration this quarter.

Page 28

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

Appendix A

Prototype 2.0 rail angle and rail length calculation

Angle

Initial Height

Final Height

Rail Length

Rail #

(degree)

(inch)

(inch)

(inch)

1.753

196

3.504

16

196.092

5.247

24

196.367

6.981

32

196.825

8.702

10

40

197.464

10.408

12

48

198.283

12.095

14

56

199.279

13.761

16

64

200.449

15.403

18

72

201.792

10

17.021

20

80

203.303

11

18.61

22

88

204.978

12

20.171

24

96

206.814

13

21.701

26

104

208.806

14

23.199

28

112

210.95

15

24.664

30

120

213.242

Page 29

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

16

26.095

32

128

215.676

17

27.493

34

136

218.248

18

28.856

36

144

220.952

19

30.184

38

152

223.786

20

31.477

40

160

226.742

21

32.735

42

168

229.817

22

33.959

44

176

233.006

23

35.149

46

184

236.305

24

36.304

48

192

239.708

25

37.427

50

200

243.212

26

38.517

52

208

246.812

27

39.575

54

216

250.503

28

40.601

56

224

254.283

29

41.597

58

232

258.147

30

42.563

60

240

262.092

31

43.5

62

248

266.113

32

44.409

64

256

270.207

33

45.291

66

264

274.372

34

46.146

68

272

278.604

Page 30

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

35

46.975

70

280

282.899

36

47.779

72

288

287.256

37

48.559

74

296

291.671

38

49.316

76

304

296.142

39

50.05

78

312

300.666

40

50.763

80

320

305.241

41

51.454

82

328

309.864

42

52.125

84

336

314.535

43

52.776

86

344

319.249

44

53.409

88

352

324.006

45

54.023

90

360

328.804

46

54.62

92

368

333.641

47

55.199

94

376

338.514

48

55.763

96

384

343.424

49

56.31

98

392

348.368

50

56.842

100

400

353.344

51

57.36

102

408

358.352

52

57.863

104

416

363.39

53

58.352

106

424

368.456

Page 31

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

54

58.829

108

432

373.551

55

59.292

110

440

378.671

56

59.744

112

448

383.818

57

60.183

114

456

388.988

58

60.611

116

464

394.183

59

61.028

118

472

399.4

60

61.434

120

480

404.638

61

61.83

122

488

409.898

62

62.216

124

496

415.177

63

62.592

126

504

420.476

64

62.959

128

512

425.793

Table 1: Each angle is measured with respect to bottom system boundary (referred to Figure 10);
initial and final heights are referred to rail position with respect to bottom system boundary (referred
to Figure 10).

Page 32

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

Appendix B
(Considered design concept pictures)

Vertical System

Lunchbox Raft Schematic

Magnetic Raft Schematic

Page 33

SOLUTIONS FARMS FINAL PROPOSAL

Expandable Raft Schematic

Page 34