Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Finalizeddesignreport
Finalizeddesignreport
Raising the
Omelette Bar
Team Won
Executive Summary
The major problem with the current omelette bar is ingredients mixing, which affects
those with allergies or are abstaining from certain foods for various reasons. Additionally, there
is a problem with the time it takes to place an order. Oftentimes there is a long line at the
omelette bar waiting to place an order. This can create problems not just with the omelette bar
but with access to surrounding food areas as well. It also is frustrating for patrons of the
omelette bar who want to order their omelettes quickly so they can get other food while they
wait for the omelette to cook.
The proposed design for the omelette bar fixes the problem of ingredients mixing by
placing the ingredients in their own individual containers so they cannot mix whatsoever. The
proposed design also increases the speed and efficiency of the omelette bar by allowing the
students to select their own ingredients, thereby allowing the cooks to focus on cooking the
omelettes.
The containers would be placed on a rack on the countertop where the omelette bar is
currently placed. Workers will no longer have to spend time cleaning the countertops of spilled
ingredients when they could be cooking food. The drawer allows for students to dispense a
predetermined portion of ingredients into their bowl. The lid on top allows for easy refilling of
ingredients while the rack allows ample space for students to place their bowl underneath and
move down the line and get the ingredients they want without having to wait to tell someone,
further streamlining the omelette creation process.
Page 1
Problem Definition
Scope
Page 3
Background
Page 3
Prior Art
Page 3
Criteria
Page 4
Design Description
Summary
Page 5
Detailed Description
Page 6
Evaluation
Criteria-Based Test Results
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Alternative Designs
Page 12
Materials Selection
Page 15
Performance Modeling
Page 16
Manufacturing Plan
Page 16
Cost
Page 17
Eco Audit
Page 17
References
Page 19
Problem Definition
Scope
The omelette bar is a part of the ARA and is located in the Hulman Memorial Union. At
the Rose-Hulman omelette bar, students may get freshly made omelettes, breakfast burritos,
egg sandwiches and waffles. According to survey data, nine out of every ten students that visit
the omelette bar notice mixing of ingredients to some degree (see Surveys and Results, page
11). The current setup of the omelette bar has led to dissatisfied students, specifically upsetting
students with dietary restrictions or certain food preferences are directly affected by the issues
presented by the current omelette bar. Our goal is to change the way that the omelette bar
operates in a way that is cheap to implement, easy to use, and beneficial to everyone that uses
it.
Background
Every day, students visit the omelette bar for their egg related needs. In fact, over sixty
percent of the students and faculty that were surveyed use the omelette bar at least twice a
week. Almost ninety percent of students that used the omelette bar noticed mixing to some
degree. Mixing of ingredients not only affects picky eaters, but people with dietary restrictions
relating to allergies or religious affiliation as well (Surveys and Results, page 11). Users of the
omelette bar also complained about how the spilling of ingredients elongated the time it took to
complete an order; the omelette bar staff had to take the time to clean up the spillage, which
causes a backup of users. After taking measurements of time spent waiting at the omelette bar
during different times of the day, the average waiting time was found to be 5 minutes. This is
how long it takes from the time the order is taken until the time that the omelette is received.
Prior Art
The current setup of the omelette bar consists of two workers, a stove, and a table with
eleven containers that each hold one vegetable, meat, or cheese. The setup is meant to be
easy for the workers to access, but the speed at which the workers grab ingredients results in
ingredients being spilled into other containers (Figure 1a). During a typical meal time, a line of
students forms at the omelette bar. Students can go up to one of the two workers at the station
and ask for either an omelette, scrambled eggs, a breakfast burrito or a variety of eggs. The
students specify which ingredients they want and how they want their eggs cooked and the
Figure 1a - The current setup of the omelette bar results in a large mess and a lot of ingredients
mixing.
Criteria
In order to meet the needs of our stakeholders, certain criteria must be followed:
Simplicity
The design must be easy for students or workers to use. They should not need extra
training or have much difficulty transitioning from the old setup to the new one. The new setup
cannot be less efficient than the previous setup; i.e. lines should move faster if at all possible.
Cost
Installation should not be too costly. What this means is that changing from the old setup
to the new setup should not require a lot of work. The new design should be something that also
reduces the amount of food that is lost by being dropped or spilled by omelette bar workers.
Design Description
Summary Description
The drawer dispenser was designed with the goal of delivering a predetermined amount
of ingredients while speeding up the process of assembling the omelettes and eliminating the
potential for ingredients to mix. The design uses gravity and an applied horizontal force to
dispense ingredients into a bowl held beneath the dispenser. The entire unit is designed to be
easily assembled and disassembled to make cleaning easy. The drawers and containers are
made out of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), a polymer used in thermoforming.
Figure 2a - The rack holds eleven separate containers for the eleven RHIT ARA ingredients.
Detailed Description
The container (Figure 2b) is designed to hold approximately forty servings of food, as
defined by the American Heart Association. The width of each container is sized so that eleven
containers may fit side-by-side in the current counter space. It has two rods going through the
center to support the removable ramp that pushes food into the opening of the drawer. The
containers will be made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), a food safe plastic. It also has a
plastic lid on the top, which can be removed by the workers to allow for adding extra ingredients.
Figure 2b - The unit is made of transparent PET. The lid includes recessions for a
secure grasp. An incline moves all ingredients to the front of the dispenser.
The drawer has a two-faced hole through it so that food may fall into it from the top and
then fall through when it is pulled out (Figure 3a). A stainless steel blade is inserted into the
inner edge of the containers front wall to cleanly slice through any stuck ingredients to prevent
an operation jam. The drawer has a handle attached to it to make it easy to open and close. It is
made of copper for its antiseptic properties. The handle is attached to the drawer by two screws.
When the design needs to be cleaned, the drawer can be pulled completely out of the container.
Figure 3a - The handle is made of copper to resist pathogens and is attached by two screws.
The steel blade can be seen on the edge opposite of the handle.
The rack (Figure 4a) is assembled from stainless steel for a sleek, clean appearance.
The rack holds all of the containers approximately eight inches above the countertop which is
the spacing needed for comfortable clearance. The user will place the bowl under the front of
the container in preparation for the dispensing of food. The rack additionally has tall sides to
prevent the containers from tipping over.
Figure 4a - The stainless steel rack supports the dispensers to be eight inches off the ground to
provide adequate spacing to place a bowl underneath.
Evaluation
Criteria Based Test Results
Cost
Money is saved by eliminating the food waste caused by workers dropping food on the
counter. No continual cost has been incurred (not considering cost of ingredients), so the only
cost is the initial investment into the system. The overall cost is approximately $1200 (Costs,
page 17).
Sustainability
The solution is made from polyethylene terephthalate plastic (PET), which may be
recycled after use. The elimination of workers spillage, as well as pre-determined portion sizes,
prevents excessive waste of food.
Simplicity
The design has only two moving parts, which reduces the likelihood of it breaking. It also
makes our design easy to clean, because there are no complex surfaces. The design is also
simple enough that students and workers will be able to quickly learn how to use the design.
Availability
The entire solution is tailored to be compact and use the vertical space around it, which
saves space. A student can easily take extra servings or even less than a whole serving, which
allows this solution to tailor to a students individual tastes. Allowing multiple units to store in a
single space allows the operator of the unit to expand the selection of ingredients as necessary.
Cons
The current design may be top heavy, due to most of the ingredients being stored inches
above the base as well as the bases small footprint. However, this was fixed by grouping the
Next Steps
After approval of the design, the ARA omelette bar will be vacated and slightly
remodeled with a flat stainless steel surface. Everything removed from the archaic omelette bar
will be recycled through a local plant. The modular base will be mounted to the surface via
stainless steel screws, and the unit will be placed atop the base. This base will be custom fit to
eleven units; this assures the same variety of ingredient choices as before, however it does not
allow room for expansion.
To counteract this, the second post-step will be to remodel the base and make it
adjustable for any number of dispensing units. Contracts with companies and institutions will be
made to house our product. This is a major part of the commercialization process. Should the
product go global, it may be used at other campuses, restaurants, and hotel buffets as well as
the RHIT dining hall.
The model will be reevaluated and improved through feedback; the end result should be
a highly desirable product which still displays the core values of simplicity and sustainability
while preventing the issue of mixing ingredients.
Figure 5a- The majority of Rose students (62%) use and are affected by the omelette bar. It is
estimated that the average student uses the omelette bar 2 times per week, and the regular
omelette bar customer uses the bar over 3 times per week.
Figure 5b- Of the 37 students we polled who used the omelette bar, all but 4 said that they have
noticed ingredients at the omelette bar mixing- nearly 90%.
Figure 5c - The usual opinion of students is that self-serving would be just as efficient as the
current method, if not more efficient.
We also asked students whether they felt that the omelette bar could be sped up if the
students manually selected their ingredients, i.e., selected their ingredients directly without
having to relay an order to the chef. As can be seen in Figure 5c, the vast majority of students
agreed that this would make sense. This was therefore something we decided to include in our
final design.
Alternative Designs
Archimedes Screw
We considered several different designs before we made our final decision. One design
was an Archimedes screw mechanism (Figure 6a), which would use an Archimedes screw to
deliver the ingredients from a container. The person getting an omelette would then place their
bowl beneath the outlet to receive their ingredients. The advantage of this design was that it
would deliver the ingredients cleanly and without any mixing. It also allowed students to control
their portion sizes. The downside was the difficulty with regards to how to clean the device, and
the increased cost of manufacture due to the complex shape.
Figure 6a- The handle on top of the lid would be used to dispense ingredients. Lack of storage
space as well of complexity in cleaning led this idea to being rejected.
Paddle Wheel
Another design that we strongly debated using was a similar mechanism that used a
paddle wheel to deliver the ingredients (Figure 6b). The ingredients were stored in a hopper,
which rested on top of the paddlewheel. Students could turn a knob, which dispensed
ingredients in the same manner as the above design. This design offered all the advantages of
the Archimedes screw concept, but with the benefit of being simpler to make and easier to
clean. However, it was still more complicated than our final design because it involved different
types and different sizes of paddles to accommodate different types of foods. Spinach, for
example, would have to use brushes that are more widely spaced. Also the design did not really
take into account ingredients getting lodged in the space between the hopper and the paddle.
Figure 6b- The gray wheel in front is the knob which the students
would turn to dispense ingredients. The darker wheel in back is the
actual paddlewheel. This model was rejected as it would damage
ingredients.
Raised Surface
A different idea that was also considered was altering the
current surface of the omelette bar where the ingredients are held. The idea was to create a
raised edge around the containers where the ingredients were held, preventing ingredients from
being swept in (Figure 6c). The main advantage of this design was that it would not require any
altering of how the omelette bar worked, allowing for easy integration, meaning workers would
not be required to learn a different process to make omelettes. It would also be cheap to install,
because none of the equipment other than the surface would need to be replaced. The design
could be placed right on top on the original setup and the remainder of the original setup could
remain in place. However, this design was rejected because it would not have been able to
prevent all mixing from occurring because ingredients could still be dropped in accidentally by
the workers. The possibility of adding lids was considered, but was deemed too difficult to
manage without causing additional problems with workers trying to quickly access the
ingredients.
Figure 6c- This surface would have been placed on top of the existing surface as a cheap and
effective solution; however it did not completely solve the issue of mixing ingredients.
Material Selection
We based our choice of material for our design on two criteria: price and machinability.
The material used has to be cheap, while also being easy to manufacture. Strength of the
material is not a major concern because the design is relatively light and because there is very
little external load on the design.
20
Price (USD/lb)
0.5
0.2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5.2
Machinability
As can be seen from the Edupack graphs, the only type of materials that fit our criteria
were polymers. We chose polyethylene because it was the second cheapest polymer listed
behind PVC, and because it is food safe, whereas PVC is generally not. Polyethylene is also
commonly used in kitchen containers, which reassures our selection.
Performance Modeling
One main concern of our device was whether or not it would contain enough food to
dispense adequate servings without the need to refill too often. For our criteria, we decided that
our containers must contain approximately 40 servings of each ingredient based on the
standards from the American Heart Association website (2-3 ounces for meat, cup for nonleafy vegetables). Therefore, we needed to create a device that would hold the appropriate
amount of food while also fitting in the current size of the omelette bar.
( ) = ( )( )
"
. "
Based on these parameters, we decided on dimensions of 8 in. deep x 10 in. tall x 4 in.
wide and a thickness t of in. This results in an interior volume of 263 cubic inches which is
enough for 36 servings of vegetables and 48 servings of meat.
Manufacturing Plan
To manufacture the units, we will use thermoplastic vacuum forming. The container will
be made out of a single piece of PET, and the drawer will be a separate piece. The entire
module will be manufactured in Indianapolis, Indiana and transported to Rose-Hulman by truck.
These processes are all accounted for in the Eco-Audit, both for carbon content and energy
consumption.
Part
Number
Weight (lbs.)
Drawer
11
4.74
Container
11
23.0
Cost
The approximate costs of material and labor will change, depending on various
uncontrollable factors. Currently, the breakdown of costs is as follows:
Part
PET Vol
PET
Other Mtl.
Other Mtl.
Manufacture
Net Cost
Name
(in^3)
Cost ($)
Vol (in^3)
Cost ($)
Cost ($)
($)
Drawer
15.00
3.85
2.25
3.30
0.69
7.84
Container
79.29
20.34
1.23
21.57
Lid
19.06
4.89
0.25
5.14
7.03
1.80
0.14
1.94
Ramp
Total
120.38
$ 30.88
116.55/11 =
18.88/11 =
4.59/11
23.47/11
10.60
1.72
= 0.42
= 2.14
12.85
$ 5.02
$ 2.73
$ 38.63
From a materials and labor standpoint, each unit would cost approximately $38.63 to
manufacture. However, the first units would not be manufactured on a large scale since they are
being built specifically for the RHIT ARA. As such, the first eleven units would be somewhere
approximately in the $60.00 - $200.00 range each. For that reason, it is crucial to move the
operation to a large scale manufacturing in order to minimize costs per unit. It should also be
noted that these calculations do not take into account the costs of transportation since it is hard
to determine an average cost for something so unpredictable.
Eco-Audit
For our product, we chose to model it as PET produced by polymer molding because
this most closely represents our design process. We have a fairly high carbon footprint, and
fairly high energy costs. This is one of the downsides to our choice of product, especially
because we cannot regain as much energy by recycling.
References
Annie Bond. Which Plastics Are Safe? Care2.com. Care2. Web. 6 May 2014.
States the most commonly used plastics and which are considered nontoxic.
CES EduPack 2013. Granta Design Limited. Version 12.2.13. Database. 6 May 2014.
EduPacks databases have been used to find the density, costs, and strengths of
various materials used in our solution.
Thermoform Plastic Sheets for Vacuum Forming. Widgetworksunlimited.com. Widget Works
Unlimited. Web. 6 May 2014.
Ready-to-buy sheets of polyethylene terephthalate for use in vacuum forming.
What is a Serving? Heart.org. American Heart Association, 24 July 2013. Web. 6 May 2014.
Gives the recommended serving sizes of the five main food groups.