INTRODUCTION

1.1 SUSTAINABILITY
Sustainability is based on a simple principle: Everything that we need for our survival and
well-being depends, either directly or indirectly, on our natural environment. Sustainability
creates and maintains the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in
productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic and other requirements of
present and future generations. Sustainability is important to making sure that we have and
will continue to have, the water, materials, and resources to protect human health and our
environment.-EPA(United States Environmental Protection Agency)
[1]
. The definition says it all.
Sustainable products
Sustainable products are those products providing environmental, social and economic
benefits while protecting public health, welfare, and environment over their full commercial
cycle, from the extraction of raw materials to final disposition.
Reduce, reuse and recycle 3Rs of Sustainability
Reduce, reuse and recycle is a concept that people everywhere are starting to understand
and apply to everyday life. Its principles are quite basic, but are a necessity for maintaining
a sustainable life. To remain productive, reducing ones intake of energy and materials is
vital. The toxicity of trash is at an all time high and the only way to stop this is by preventing
waste from the very beginning of its life.
The concept of reuse is applied by reinventing items after their initial life and avoiding
additional waste by all means necessary. Though the concept of reuse is very important to
the lifecycle of a material, there are times when a second life simply cannot be created for a
certain item. However, when one does have to throw an item away; an important proactive
strategy is to buy products that can be recycled or, at the very least, determine in advance
the product is an alternative to a similar, less recyclable material.
Recycling is the process of turning items considered to be waste into a valuable resource.
The more often individual users partake in this practice by consciously making themselves
aware of an items recyclability, the easier the entire process will be for the rest of the
world. This ease will simply create a higher demand for recycled products and will be more
of an incentive for large companies and corporations to use and buy recycled products,
making the entire process more successful and stress free. These simple ideas of reduce,
reuse, recycle are just the beginning of challenging ourselves in preserving our environment,
but extremely essential in ensuring the success of conservation.
1.2 NEED OF THE STUDY
Plastic causes serious damage to environment during its production process and during its
disposal process. So the only way to reduce the hazards of plastic pollution is to reduce the
use of plastic and thereby force a reduction in its production. The major chemicals that go
into the making of plastic are highly toxic and pose serious threat to living beings of all
species on earth. Some of the constituents of plastic such as benzene and vinyl chloride are
proved to cause cancer, and other gases and liquid hydrocarbons spoil earth and air. The
noxious substances emitted during the production of plastic are synthetic chemicals like
ethylene oxide, benzene and xylenes
[3]
. Besides hitting hard the ecosystem which is already
fragile, these chemicals can cause an array of maladies ranging from birth defects to cancer,
damage the nervous system and the immune system and also adversely affect the blood
and the kidneys. And, many of these toxic substances are emitted during recycling of plastic
too.
The only way to overcome the deadly and lasting danger of plastic pollution is to cut down
the use of plastic, if possible avoid it altogether. That is why there was a need to study the
various alternatives possible to plastic products and look for a sustainable material which
can be used in future as an excellent replacement.
1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY
As students of a fashion institute, we looked on areas in apparel or garment field where use
of plastics can be eliminated or minimized by replacing them by alternatives. Thus we did a
study on plastic hangers used in industries as well as retail stores and compared them with
alternative materials for replacement.

1.4 OBJECTIVES
Primary objective
To minimize the use of plastic in apparel sector by replacing them with sustainable
alternative.
Sub objectives
To make a sustainable hanger having following key features--
o Eco friendly
o Cheap
o Durable
o compact
o LEEDS RATING compliant
o 100% FSC Certified
To promote brand sustainability in retail platform, and using hangers as a
communication & marketing tool.


LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 SUSTAINABLITY
Sustainability is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. As far as corporations are
concerned, there is an emergence in defining sustainability based upon three pillars:
1. Economic sustainability is fundamental to financial success in that basic survival requires
that expenditure not exceed income.
2. Social sustainability embodies the humanitarian context of business, relating to issues of
poverty and income inequality; disease; access to health care, clean water, and sanitation;
education; and broader issues associated with the business impact of globalization on
economic development.
3. Environmental sustainability considers the impact of business on the quality and
quantity of natural resources, the environment, global warming, ecological concerns, waste
management, reductions in energy and resource use, alternative energy production, and
improved pollution and emissions management.
Aside from the ultimate global benefits, investing in sustainability has proven immediate
results for the organizations and has been linked to positive corporate performance,
competitive advantage, customer loyalty, enhanced company image and goodwill, and
improvements in employee recruitment and retention.
Sustainability is changing the competitive landscape and reshaping the opportunities and
threats that companies face. Business strategies are shifting more and more each day as
sustainability takes its position as a global priority.
2.2 PLASTICS
In spite of their short history, synthetic polymers, particularly plastics, have gained wide
popularity as the material of choice in a wide range of packaging, building, and other
applications. The popularity of plastics in packaging and other applications is attributed to
the unique, useful characteristics of the material. These include light weight, excellent
mechanical strength (tensile properties, tear resistance, and impact resistance), readily
controllable and superior optical properties (clarity, gloss, and color), biological inertness,
easy processability, low cost, and outstanding durability
[4]
. Because they are synthetic
materials, plastic compositions might be "tailor made," within limits, to obtain specific
useful characteristics. As a response to historically consistent consumer demand for
stronger and longer lasting plastics, the industry has continually improved the durability of
plastics,especially for outdoor exposure conditions.
There are numerous types of plastics, each serving a specific purpose. Different chemical
formulae give the material different mechanical, chemical or thermal properties. For the
sake of disposal, plastics are placed into seven different groups and given a recycling code
based on the material. Figure shows the different types of plastic and their corresponding
codes. Most services can recycle plastic with any recycling code, and the number can be
found on any plastic container.


Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) has the recycling code of 1, and is used to make peanut
butter containers, food trays, water bottles, and other types of bottles. It can be recycled
into fleece jackets, tote bags, furniture, carpeting and occasionally new containers. The
recycling rate for PET is around 20%.
High density polyethylene (HDPE) is the number 2 plastic. It is commonly used for rigid
bottles for products such as detergents, shampoo, milk and juice. HDPE can be recycled into
detergent bottles, drainage piping, and lumber, among other things.
Figure 2.1Different types of plastic and their recyclingcodes
[5]

process.

The number 3 plastics are vinyls, or polyvinylchloride. They can be found in window cleaner
bottles, shampoo and cooking oil bottles and clear food packaging. PVC can be recycled into
paneling, flooring, mudflaps, and similar items. Since PVC contains chlorine, it can release
dangerous chemicals when broken down, so it should not be burned, and if used for
cooking, it should not touch the food.
The fourth plastic is low-density polyethylene. It can be found in squeezable bottles, and is
commonly used to make plastic shopping bags. LDPE can be recycled into liners for garbage
cans, lumber, paneling and floor tile. Until recently, LDPE has not been easily recyclable
through curbside programs, but services are increasing the ability to do so.
Polypropylene, recycling code 5, can be found in yogurt containers, syrup bottles, straws
and medical bottles. PP can be recycled into signal lights, battery cables, brooms, ice
scrapers and bicycle racks. Recyclers are gradually accepting more polypropylene.
Polypropylene also has a high melting point, so it is ideal for containers that must hold hot
liquids.
Polystyrene has recycling code 6, and is commonly used for egg cartons; carry out
containers, meat trays and compact disc cases. It can be recycled into insulation, foam
packing, or back into egg cartons and carry out containers. PS is known to be difficult to
recycle, and should not be microwaved because recent studies have shown that it may
release toxins.
The seventh recycling code contains all miscellaneous plastics. Some examples are bullet-
proof materials, sunglasses, DVDs, computer cases and nylon. These plastics can be recycled
into plastic lumber and custom products. Polycarbonate is a number 7 and is a potential
harm because studies have shown that it may release hormone disruptors.
Plastic causes serious damage to environment during its production process and during its
disposal process. So the only way to reduce the hazards of plastic pollution is to reduce the
use of plastic and thereby force a reduction in its production. The major chemicals that go
into the making of plastic are highly toxic and pose serious threat to living beings of all
species on earth. Some of the constituents of plastic such as benzene and vinyl chloride are
proved to cause cancer, and other gases and liquid hydrocarbons spoil earth and air. The
noxious substances emitted during the production of plastic are synthetic chemicals like
ethylene oxide, benzene and xylenes. Besides hitting hard the ecosystem which is already
fragile, these chemicals can cause an array of maladies ranging from birth defects to cancer,
damage the nervous system and the immune system and also adversely affect the blood
and the kidneys. And, many of these toxic substances are emitted during recycling of plastic
too.
Like in the case of all other chemical substances, disposal of plastic is a myth. Once plastic
is produced, the harm introduced is almost permanent. Plastic defies any kind of attempt at
disposal, be it through recycling, burning or land filling. When you recycle a hazard, you
pave way for another hazard. Recycling of a plastic merely puts it back into the market place
and eventually into the environment, thereby making no reduction in its use. The recycled
plastic degrades in quality and necessitates the production of more new plastic to make the
original product.
When plastic is burned, it has its own disadvantages. When burned, plastic releases a host
of poisonous chemicals including dioxin into the air. Apart from these dangers, recycling of
plastic is very uneconomical, dirty and labor intensive as has been revealed by studies
conducted by many 'Public Interest Research Groups. Recycling of plastic is associated with
skin and respiratory problems resulting from exposure to and inhalation of toxic fumes,
especially hydrocarbons and residues released during the process.
Plastic wastes clog the drains and thus hit especially urban sewage systems. The plastic
wastes being dumped into rivers, streams and sea contaminate the water, soil, marine life
and also the air we breathe. Choked drains provide excellent breeding grounds for
mosquitoes besides causing flooding during the monsoon. Since plastic does not undergo
bacterial decomposition, land filling using plastic would mean preserving the poison forever.
Any attempt to get rid of plastic through landfills is also dangerous. Apart from toxic
seepage from the landfill resulting in the contamination of precious water sources, the
waste mass impedes the flow of ground water. Landfills are also prone to leaks. The wastes,
especially cadmium and lead in the wastes, invariably mix with rain water, then seep
through the ground and drain into nearby streams and lakes and other water bodies.



2.3 HANGERS
A clothes hanger, is a device in the shape of:
Human shoulders designed to facilitate the hanging of a coat, jacket, sweater, shirt, blouse
or dress in a manner that prevents wrinkles, with a lower bar for the hanging of trousers or
skirts
[6]
.
Size of hangers


Shape of hangers
A hangers shape should be considered before purchase and the two basic choices are flat
hangers or contoured hangers. Flat hangers are best for saving space because they fit snugly
together. Curved, or contoured, hangers should be used for suits, coats, and dresses. The
design mimics the curvature of the shoulders, helping these more delicate items to keep
their shape.
Use of hangers
Hangers are usually designed with a specific function in mind. Pants hangers, shirt or top
hangers, cascading hangers, suit hangers with a pant bar, and skirt hangers all have different
designs that work best with their intended articles of clothing. Padded hangers are perfect
for lingerie and other lightweight garments. They are covered in satin which prevents snags
Figure 2.2 Sizes of hangers with their measurements
[7]
process.

and some have buttons near the edges to prevent straps from slipping off. Using hangers
for their specific purpose will help to protect clothing from wrinkling, slipping, and damage.
Needs
Hangers should fulfill the space and display needs of the closet or clothing rack. Metal
hangers are stronger than wire hangers and save just as much space. Flat hangers that are
made to save space can be really helpful in closets that are cramped. If you need to display
or store suits and coats, then contoured wooden hangers are a better choice. Consider the
parameters of the space that the hangers will be used in before you decide.
Style
Style is a personal choice. Department stores and boutiques should choose hangers that
reflect the image of their store. Wood hangers can really make a closet look beautiful and
can be purchased with a variety of finishes. For a more contemporary look, consider
chrome metal hangers. Those looking for an economical option find that plastic hangers
fulfill their needs. Cedar hangers protect and refresh by absorbing moisture and odours and
maintain garment shape at the same time and are also natural pest repellents..
Existing products



Figure 2.3Different parts of a coat hanger
process.

Existing hangers used in clothing shop come in many different shapes but there are
definitely some governing features such as slight angle on the shoulder pads and the overall
triangular shape due to the hook. Even though there are variations depending on the
store, the amount of time required for users to handle them does not vary at all. This is
mainly because of the way the hanger is shaped; the hanger must have a hook extending
out from the neck-opening of the clothing articles while still supporting the clothes by
applying force on the shoulder area.
Due to a requirement that clothes must be suspended in a vertical manner, the clothes
hanger must be shaped like shown above. While this shape is optimal for hanging clothing
articles, it is not very friendly for inserting and removing the hanger in and out of clothes
rapidly. This hanger is also notoriously troublesome to use if the clothes have inflexible, thin
neck area such as sweaters and even some shirts.
Secondly, it is the construction of the existing hangers, which has made it a monotonous
sector, never explored before. For Example, for an adult mans coat with 19 inch
measurement, a hanger of 17 inch is used. But, is it really a good idea to be a beast of
burden while carrying along your hanger to places, and giving out an unpleasant impression
about your personality. Or, how acceptable is it for people to carry off their suits and shirts
worth more than 10000 on a garment hanger that is unflattering in appearance & a
perennial figure in your wardrobe?
But, before getting any much deeper into the technical designing perspective of the hangers
(which will be covered at a later stage in the document), we should first have an idea about
the various possible products existing in the market.
WOOD / BAMBOO
PLASTIC ( 7 Different Low Grade Plastics are used for this)
Wire Hangers (Either Galvanised or Plastic Coated)

2.4Plastic Hangers
An estimated one hanger for every person on the planet ends up in landfill every year -
thats more than 6 billion hangers per year!
--Survey done by Green Heart Global
We all love clothing shopping. Its a way to wind down and to buy something nice. The shirt
or blouse or pair of pants we buy and take home. The hanger we dont.
So where does that ubiquitous plastic and wire hanger go after you buy your shirt? Probably
tossed into a cardboard box under the counter along with the previous sales hangers. And
where does the box go at the end of the day? 85% of the time it gets thrown into the
dumpster behind the store. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of hangers dailyper store. And
where do the hangers in the dumpster go? Carted off into our municipal landfills.
Repeat that in thousands of clothing stores and outlets and youve got upwards of 8 billion
polystyrene and polycarbonate hangers clogging our landfills every year. 8 billion
hangers--Its enough to fill the Empire State building from basement to observation deck
4.6 times!
Within the last several years a new trend has become standard in the clothing industry
called floor ready garment systems. That means hangers are put on clothing overseas at
the factory and shipped to the store already on hangers. Its cheaper to do it there then it is
to do it here. Since every article of clothing has its own hanger, theres no use for hanger
once the article is sold. The reality is the clothing companies dont really pay for the
hangers. Its the clothing manufacturer that pays for the hanger and includes it in the price
of making the clothing. The cheaper the hanger, the more profit they make. So clothing
manufacturers in China, Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Israel, Northern Africa, Central and South
America send their clothing on their version of the cheapest hanger. They all look alike, but
theyre made of up to 7 different types of low-grade plastic: polystyrene (6), polycarbonate
(7), K-resin (7), polypropylene (5)all together in one retail store.

2.5PROBLEM WITH PLASTIC HANGERS
Even if theyre thrown into a recycling bin at the job of clothing retailers recycling them are
difficult if not impossible. Separating the different types of plastic is not practical on a
rapidly moving recycling line (typically moving a foot a second). Since they all look alike (a
requirement of a certifications system for hangers called VICS-Voluntary Inter-Industry
Commerce Solutions) its impossible to see what the number is on the hanger without
picking up each one and searching for its tiny number. (And since the hangers are made all
over the world, lots of them dont have numbers on them at all.)
The material in the hanger is cheap too i.e. Low-grade plastic and low-grade metal. And
theres all this other stuff to separate like non-slip rubber pads or gripper clips or paper
labels. Its a headache for recyclers who are in the separations business to make a profit.
The hangers gum up the machinery, break into parts along the way and are made of
multiple, low-grade materials
.
Thus, no one wants to deal with that. So hangers are typically
banned from recycling centers. Theyre the Kryptonite of the recycling world.
Polystyrene, the most common material used to make hangers, leaches benzene, a
carcinogen, into drinking water
[8]
. Benzene is the active ingredient in cigarette smoke.
Polycarbonate, another popular material of hangers, leaches bisphenol-A, a hormone
disrupter, into the ground water. Polycarbonate was recently banned in Canada for use in
making water and baby bottles. Bisphenol-A has become a very prominent concern from
health officials, whose testing has shown that the vast majority of people have this chemical
in their bodies, most likely from plastic sources.
It is estimated that it would take from 800-1000 years for these plastics to break down in
anaerobic landfills, and possibly longer. Thats 40 generations necessary to break down
these plastics

.
2.6FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is a type of computer program that uses the finite element
method to analyze a material or object and find how applied stresses will affect the material
or design. FEA can help determine any points of weakness in a design before it is
manufactured. FEA programs are more widely available with the spread of more powerful
computers, but are still mostly used in aerospace and other high-stress applications. The
analysis is done by creating a mesh of points in the shape of the object that contains
information about the material and the object at each point for analysis. In addition to
determining the reaction to stress upon an object, FEA can also analyze the effect of
vibrations, fatigue, and heat transfer.
For a hanger, Finite element analysis was used to determine where the maximum stress will
occur. After locating the maximum stress, it is possible to efficiently redesign something as
common as a clothes hanger.
2.7SUCCESS CRITERIA OF A HANGER
Braiform, world leader in garment hangers, recently very clearly lays down that when it
comes to garment hanger performance, the success criteria are varied:
In-store impact and innovation
User-friendly display: garment access and size navigation
In-store space economy
Garment and brand enhancement
Garment protection: in transit and in-store
Transport efficiency
Compatibility with automatic sortation equipment
Durability
Versatility: adaptive design for all weights and sizes, single or multi-layers etc.
Environmental sustainability: inputs and materials that optimise recycling and reuse
opportunities
Cost competitiveness.



3.1 METHODOLGY


Project brief on sustainable concept, i.e
Sustainable Hanger.
SELECTION OF
PROBLEM PHASE
Secondary data collection related to plastic
Hangers and thier alternatives.
The libraries and knowledge bases across
internet would add to the research
framework.
COLLECTION OF
LITERATURE PHASE
Data on plastic hangers,,alternatives and then
sourcing.
Testing of alternatives for sustainability.
PRIMARY DATA
COLLECTION
Comparison of alternatives with plastic
Selection of best alternative.
DATA ANALYSIS
PHASE
Design, Construction of costing of Hanger
DEVELOPMENT
PHASE
Limitations if any would be identified.
Scope for futher research will be identified.
CONCLUSION PHASE
Documentation of the work done DOCUMENTATION
Hanger
Plastics Wooden Wire
4.1 HANGERS
Every day 15.2 plastic hangers are sent to landfills in the United States. Every year 8 billion
hangers go into landfills around the world. 8 billion hangers would fill 4.6 Empire State
Buildings every year!
Once in landfills they dont lay there quietly either. Polystyrene hangers (6), the most
common hanger material, leach benzene into the drinking water

. Hangers that use
Polycarbonate leach bisphenol-A into the ground water. And they do it for a very, very
(very) long time.




Wooden & Bamboo hangers seem environmental, but are not. Both are made from non
FSC certified forested material and cannot be recycled or composted.

4.2 EXISTING MATERIAL MAPPING







Figure 4.1 : Relative comparison of different materials w.r.t time taken to degrade.
Figure 4.2: Different types of hangers existing in market.
4.2.1 PLASTIC HANGER

7 different types of low-grade plastic: polystyrene (6), polycarbonate (7), K-resin (7),
polypropylene (5)all together in one retail store

.
800-1000 Years for These Plastic Hangers to Break Down In Anaerobic Landfills

.
Even if theyre thrown into a recycling bin at the clothing retailers, recycling them is
difficult if not impossible.
4.2.2 WOODEN HANGER
4 Different types of woods are preferred to manufacture hangers, based on the
benefits & drawbacks of all the available wood material.
Pinewood: -This is the most affordable wood used in wood hangers thus making it
accessible and popular. Pine is strong but the wood tends to be soft and can dent
with slight pressure. After a long while, you may begin to notice dents and scrapes
on the hangers

.
Walnut Wood: -Unlike pine, this tends to be harder and stronger. Walnut hangers
can last for years and still look new. Other than that, this hanger can add class and
sophistication to your closet because of its deep red or dark brown colour.
Bamboo Wood: -This is the most environment friendly type of wood for hangers. A
good number of individuals like this type of hanger because it is lightweight and
strong. The small wood grains on the surface also make it attractive
.

Cedar Wood: -This wood possesses an attractive red wood grain on the surface and
does not require paint or varnish. In addition to that, it also absorbs odour and
moisture thus keeping your closet smelling good and fresh. This is the most popular
type of wood used in wooden hangers
.

For almost all kinds of wood, the moisture content (MC) marking the onset of
shrinkage and the lumber's greatest dimensions -the fibre saturation point- is about
30%. As moisture content falls below 30%, wood shrinks by about 1/30 of its total
potential shrinkage for each one percentage point change in moisture content.



4.2.3 METAL HANGER
The composition of the hangers depends on the type of garment.
For example, shirt, blouses and jackets are hanged on metal hangers with or
without paper protection; while pants and skirts are hanged on hangers with
cardboard tubes.
Consequently, samples of at least three types of hangers need to be analysed for
unit weight, paint content by weight, lacquer content by weight, and paper and
cardboard weight.
Uses Low Grade unrecyclable metal & petroleum based spray coatings.
But because of the low percentage of steel the recyclers do not prefer the metal hangers in
these days. In addition because of low or no steel materials, there is always chance to get
rust on the metal hangers and thats why the preferences are getting reduced.
4.3 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF HANGERS
A few prototypes based on the FEA study were developed, and tests of one of the many
possible alternatives, in a material, which is sustainable in nature, were done.
Along with doing all the necessary tests to testify whether the proposed product in Green
in nature, a scientific study was also done, to determine, the ideal slant angle of the hanger,
and to explore which other factors are directly related to it.
To account to the innate analysis, the weight component acting perpendicular to the
surfaces that hold the garment was calculated. Any tangential force was disregarded
because the hanger exerts a negligible tangential reaction on shirts, t-shirts and coats
instead; tensile forces in the garment oppose the tangential component of the weight.


Figure 4.3 : Analytical determination of perpendicular component of garment
weight
The angle between the perpendicular component of weight to the angle normal to the slight
angle of hanger has been referred as .

Thus,




After carefully examining the various plastic hangers (ranging from Mainnetti to several
other world leaders in the garment hanger sector) & wooden hangers available in
showrooms, a startling fact came into existence. No hanger manufacture ever considers the
formula proposed above.
And, when the angle formed by the arms of the hangers existing were measured in testing
labs, it was found, it ranged marginally between 15-18
However, the final prototype that was proposed, does take care well of the angle and is
precisely as accurate to 26
The stress calculations are more difficult to assess. After all, any stress that doesnt cause
the hanger to fail is technically possible. The stress were between zero and the value for
paperboard yield stress, so they were within the range of possible values. The stress
distribution also was not especially surprising. The coat loading shows the largest stresses in
the three way join of the hanger. Again this is consistent with common sense: when the
two legs of the triangular part of the hanger were loaded, the most stress should be located
where it is constrained. Here, the three-way joint connects to the hook, which is
constrained, and most of the stress is located in it. And, probably this could be considered as
an area of concern, and future research to strengthen the three-way joint in the proposed
hanger, by using some finish on the Grey Board.
One aspect of the results that was not expected was that the hanger rotated slightly under
the loads. This was realized after making one attachment to hold the neck of the hanger,
with no eased space for rotation. And, the results were quite better than expected. And, this
led to development of another attachment of 15mm in thickness, and a diameter of 37mm,
to fit exactly in between the neck, and also providing a free space of about 9mm for rotation
under stress. Initially this rotating was considered an error (it wasnt very noticeable in real
world test) and tried to correct it by changing the constraint pattern and double checking
Pressure Force = Distributed Load X Cosine

the loads to make sure they were symmetrical about the vertical axis of the hanger. Even
with two points on the vertical axis held in place and perfectly symmetrical distributed
loads, the hanger still rotates slightly. Therefore, it was believed that this result is correct.
Initially there was confusion because it seemed logical that any shape, as long as it was
considered constrained and loaded symmetrically, would necessarily deform symmetrically.
However, the fact was overlooked that, in irregular geometries, even symmetrical loads are
not necessarily translated symmetrically. Where the geometry becomes asymmetrical, the
forces will, as well.
This point can be proven using statics analysis of a usual plastic hanger. The figure below is
the mock-up of a hanger in pants loading, assuming reaction forces equal the distributed
load, shows no net force or moment. On first review, it appears as though all deflection
should occur in y-direction.



Now, cut the segment contained in the box.


Figure 4.4: Free-body diagram of hanger in pants loading
weight
Figure 4.5: Free body diagram with cut location shown

weight
Balancing forces and moments reveals a non - zero internal moment, which causes the
hanger to slightly rotate in bending. This accounts for the rotation of the constrained hanger
in both pants and coat configurations, even though these loading are symmetrical about the
vertical axis that bisects the hanger.





Since the statics analysis indicates a bending moment in the member which connects the
hook to the triangular section of the hanger, we are confident that finite element analysis is
correct. Both analyses are consistent, indicating that the hanger should rotate slightly in
bending. To improvise, we did away with any three way sharp joint in our prototype, and
tried utmost to make it as symmetrical as possible, at the same time, giving enough strength
to the neck of the hanger, and even, maintaining the centre of mass, exactly in the centre,
so that no arm of the product, is ruptured any soon while loading.

Figure 4.6: Cut hanger member showing internal forces and moments

weight
4.4 PROPOSED MATERIALS MAPPING
4.4.1 Paperboard

Advantages: -
Easily available in proximity
Manufactured by recycled the corrugated boxes
It is one of the cheapest materials around and also one of the most versatile.
Gives the earthly appearance
Disadvantages: -

Lower Vertical Load Strength
Intensive Usage of cellulose & vegetable soy inks to bind the material does make it
much susceptible to fungus & microbes.

4.4.2 MB board

Advantages: -
Manufactured out of recycled paper, recycled bags, as its raw materials
Very High Tensile Strength, and Young Modulus
High Absorption Index
Fungus unsusceptible

Disadvantages: -
Heavy in weight
Bleeds black colour from the board.
If catches fire, does disposes off itself, even after extinguishing the fire.
Application of Use:
Used, in the bottom of the bag, to provide shape and stability
Used in Slates, in Indian Villages.
Used as a shoe in-sole,(indigenous Indian brands) to provide comfort & elevate height.
Used as a lining to provide shape and stiffness to ladies clutch at times.

4.4.3 MDF Board

Advantages: -
It is dense, flat, and stiff, has no knots and is easily machined.
Because it is made up of fine particles it does not have an easily recognisable surface
grain.
Because MDF has no grain it can be cut, drilled, machined and filed without
damaging the surface.
MDF may be dowelled together and traditional woodwork joints may even be cut.
MDF may be glued together with PVA wood glue.
Oil, water-based paints and varnishes may be used on MDF.
Veneers and laminates may also be used to finish MDF.
Disadvantages: -
MDF contains a substance called urea formaldehyde, which may be released from
the material through cutting and sanding.
Urea formaldehyde may cause irritation to the eyes and lungs. Proper ventilation
is required when using it and facemasks are needed when sanding or cutting MDF
with machinery.
The dust produced when machining MDF is very dangerous.
Due to the fact that MDF contains a great deal of glue the cutting edges of your
tools will blunt very quickly.
MDF can be fixed together with screws and nails but the material may split if care
is not taken. If you are screwing, the screws should not be any further than 25mm
in from the edge.
Urea formaldehyde is always being slowly released from the surface of MDF.
When painting it is good idea to coat the whole of the product in order to seal in
the urea formaldehyde. Wax and oil finishes may be used as finishes but they are
less effective at sealing in the urea formaldehyde.
Any outside coating or painting would add up much more rapidly to the cost of
final product.


4.4.4 Grey board

Advantages: -
Resistant to Fire, Heat, Cold, Corrosion, Moisture.
Due to its material composition, it is Fungus unsusceptible.
Due to its, smooth surface, printing can be directly done on it, and doesnt require
additional liner paper for printing
!00% FSC certified material
Formaldehyde Free
Made from 100% recycled material, this makes the board recyclable too.
Grey board is tested to withstand the effects of several aggressive liquids and
scratching
Disadvantages: -
The prices are eventually high, due to mechanised manufacturing and drying
process.
Application of Use:
Used in furniture making.
Used as Point Of Purchase displays.
Picture frame backs





4.5 HANGER SYSTEM FAILURE ANALYSIS

Once the strength of material tests of the garment hanger are done, the analysis of the
broken mechanical components is requisite, to understand & find out, if the hanger failed as
a result of fatigue, brittleness, excessive load, and so on. When during the failure analysis
determining process, it is confirmed that the failed component conforms to the drawing,
was fabricated from the correct material out of possible alternatives, did not experience any
out of specification loads, and so on, it should assess if the component design is adequate.

During the design process, the intent is usually to make the component stronger than the
load it will experience, thereby assuring it will not fail. To do this, development engineers
analyse loads, and convert them into stresses. The development engineers then determine
the maximum stress the component material can withstand and design the components
such that the stress levels are substantially lower than the component strength. The
concept is to have an adequate difference between the load & the component strength.

A typical approach for doing so is to design the component so that the strength is 1.5 times
greater than the maximum anticipated load. The 1.5 factor is referred to as a safety factor.
In some applications, the safety factor can be higher. For other applications (especially
where weight is a consideration), the safety factor may be lower (e.g., on high
performance aircraft). In some cases, instead of simply making the component strength 1.5
times greater than the maximum anticipated level, development engineers characterize the
load & component strength distribution. After defining the means & standard deviations of
each deviation, development engineers can then design the component such that its
strength is several standard deviations higher than the load.

For components that will be subject to repeated stress reversals, engineers consult
material specific stress number of cycles (S N) diagrams to ensure that the component
will have an acceptably long life. The S N diagram plots stress reversal magnitude levels
against the number of stress reversal cycles. As the stress reversal magnitude increases,
the part fails with fewer stress reversal cycles.

4.6 RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT: STOCHASTIC FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

It is not simple to satisfy the basic design requirements in the presence of uncertainty.
Figure below shows a simple case considering two variables (on relating to the demand on
the system, e.g., load on the structure, S, and the other relating to the capacity of the
system, e.g., resistance of the structure, R). Both S and R are random in nature; their
randomness is characterized by their means
S
and
R:
standard deviations,
S
and
R
; and
corresponding probability density functions, (s) and (r), as shown in figure below. It
also identifies the deterministic values of these parameters, S
N
and R
N
, used in a
conventional safety factor based approach. The concept of risk based design was
introduced by Freudenthal (1956) and was summarized by Freudenthal, Garrelts, and
Shinozuka (1996). The concept has matured since then and is presented in the paragraphs
below.




From figure above, design safety is ensured in a deterministic approach by requiring that
R
N
be greater than S
N
with a specified margin of safety as

Nominal SF = RN
SN


Figure 4.7: Fundamentals of Risk Evaluation

weight
Conceptually, the allowable stress design methods use a safety factor to compute the
allowable stresses in members from the ultimate stress, and a successful design ensures
that the stresses caused by the nominal values of the loads do not exceed the allowable
stresses. In other words, referring to the equation & image shown before, R
N
is divided by a
safety factor to compute the allowable resistance R
a,
and safe design required that
condition S
N <
R
N
be satisfied. In this case, the safety factor is used for the resistance only.

The intent of these conventional approaches can be explained by considering the area of
overlap between the two curves (the shaded region in Figure), which provides a qualitative
measure of the probability of failure. This area of overlap depends on three factors:
1. The relative positions of the two curves. As the distance between the two curves
increases, reducing the overlapped area, the probability of failure decreases. The
position of the curves may be represented by the means (
S
and
R
) of the two
variables.
2. The dispersion of the two curves. If the two curves are narrow, then the area of
overlap and the probability of failure are small. The dispersion may be characterized
by the standard deviation (
S
and
R
) of the two variables.
3. The shapes of the two curves. The shapes are represented by the probability density
functions (s) and (r).
The objective of safe design in deterministic design procedures can also be achieved,
perhaps more comprehensively, by selecting the design variables in such a way that the area
of overlap between the two curves is as small as possible, so that the underlying risk is not
compromised, within the constraints of economy.
Conventional design approaches achieve this objective by shifting the positions of the
curves through the use of Safety Factors. Another rational approach would be to compute
the risk based design concept (the information on the probability density functions of the
resistance and loads is usually difficult to obtain, and engineers must formulate an
acceptable design methodology using only the information on means and standard
deviations).



4.7 STRENGTH OF MATERIAL TESTS

Following is a tabulated comparative finding of the strength of the different materials
considered during the product development of a garment hanger.
To exact out the strength of the material and the product, two different tests were
performed, firstly on a proposed shape of hanger, with a special attachment (37mm wide,
and 15mm deep mild steel round surface), to act as a virtual rod upon which the hanger
would be used, and then, test the everyday usage tests, and find out the breaking load
strength and other tests necessary to be performed upon it, determining the strength of the
garment hanger.




Mild Steel Attachment (37dia) to
perform the test of hanger on
wardrobe rod.
Fig 4.8: Placement of Mild steel attachment for the test.

weight



RUPTURE
POINT
MILD
STEEL RING
FREE CLEARANCE OF 12MM
FOR ROTATION OF HANGER
UNDER VERTICAL PULL
4.8 STRENGTH OF THE PRODUCT

Tensile strength is the stress at which a material fails (breaks)under tension.
For a material subjected to pure axial tension, the breaking strength is equal to the force
applied to cause the failure divided by the smallest cross-sectional area of the material.
This is normally expressed as;
S = F/A
S = the breaking strength (stress)
F = the force applied that caused the failure
A = the least cross- sectional area of the material
In case of the tested hanger, the least cross sectional area of the material is:
A = 19mm (Hanger Neck Girth) x (Thickness of Boards)


Grey board
Hanger
MB Board Hanger
Paperboard
Hanger
MDF Sheet
Hanger
Maximum Breaking
Load (lbf)
15 15 13 23
Tensile Extension (mm) 37 36 32.5 46
Youngs Modulus 800 810 730 1,100
Breaking Load Stress
(lbf./inch
2
)
170.45 170.45 194.02 223.30
Cross sectional Area
(sq. inch)
0.088 0.088 0.067 0.103
Breaking Load Stress
(Kg/cm
2
)
11.98 11.98 13.64 15.69





Table 4.1: Test results for strength of different hangers

weight
4.9STRENGTH OF THE MATERIAL BOARD TEST

After having found out, the strength of hangers, if proposed in four different sustainable
alternatives, we must find out the strength of material used, by cutting out specimens in the
shape as defined out by the test specimen for isotropic materials.





Following are the readings of different material templates.

Grey board MB Board Paperboard MDF Sheet
Maximum Breaking
Load (lbf)
470 710 320 600
Tensile Extension
(mm)
2.5 6 3 3
Youngs Modulus N.A 2,00,000 N.A N.A
Breaking Load Stress
(lbf./inch
2
)
28.85 42.06 25.41 31.69
Breaking Load Stress
(Kg/cm
2
)
2.02 2.95 1.78 2.22
Cross sectional Area
(sq. inch)
16.29 16.88 12.59 18.93





Fig 4.9: Test specimen for cutting the required shape of material

weight
Table 4.2: Test results for different materials used for making hangers

weight
4.10 MATERIAL TEST MAPPING
Before zeroing down to the final material selection for the final product development, a
relative comparison needs to be done amongst the various probable for the sustainable
hanger.
The tests will eventually ensure quality in the selection of the material, and will justify the
selection scientifically considering all the pros and cons.
The selection of the tests depends upon the crucial physical &physio-chemical
characteristics of the hanger & materials considered.
Following is a list of the various tests which have to be performed before finalizing the
product development.
The list of tests requisite to be performed for analysing the garment hanger has been
innately reviewed by Dr R K Raina, Senior Scientist, Research & Development, Shriram
Institute for Industrial Research, Delhi.
4.10.1 Conditioning:
All the samples of the hangers need to be kept in the conditioned chamber at 27 1 C, 65
2% Relative Humidity for 24 hours before tests. This is required to condition the sample at
a constant temperature & relative humidity.
4.10.2 Grammage Of Each Ply:
It is the mass of paper or board per unit area. It is basically the weight of paper in GSMs per
square meter area. It is also called as substance of paper or board. For each ply, different
grammage may be specified. Hence it may require measuring the grammage of it.
Methodology:
General procedure followed as per IS: 7063. The plies should be separated by dipping the
Corrugated Fibre Board in hot water and then dried and grammage is measured after
conditioning. For other sheets, same steps follow, sans dipping in hot water.
Smurfit Kappa TimBoard, being produced in Europe and the best substitute for wood in
sustainable manner, is measure in thickness (mm) and not in GSM.
Significance:
Paper & paper boards are purchased on the basis of weight. The deviation from the ideal
weight will affect the strength of the hanger. Besides this, the increase in the GSM will
increase bursting strength of material.
4.10.3 Type of Adhesive:
Adhesive should be starch or modified starch. It is possible to identify the type of adhesive.
Method:
Potassium Iodide is added in water to make potassium iodide solution and then few
pallet of iodide is added on it. Iodine will dissolve on it.
Phenolphthalein is added in methanol to make ready methanol phenolphthalein
solution.
Bluish or black colour indicates starch adhesive. If the colour is pink or red, then the
presence of silicate will be identified.
Significance:
The silicate adhesive is highly hygroscopic. The use of silicate may give instant rigidity but it
will collapse when it is exposed to moisture & humidity. Starch or modified starch adhesive
is recommended adhesive for gluing the bottle cap into the groove.

4.10.4 Moisture Content
Paper is hygroscopic material. Hence, the moisture has a big role in the paper strength.
Method:
Take 5-6 gms of sheet pieces and dry it in a glass weighing bottle at 103 1 C temperature
for two hours. Moisture content may be determined by taking the difference in weight after
heating divided by the weight of the specimen.
M.C = W3-W2X 100
W2-W1
W1 = Weight of Bottle
W2 = (Bottle + Specimen Pieces) before heating
W3 = (Bottle + Specimen Pieces) after heating
Standard:
IS 1060 Part 1966
Significance:
The moisture content above 10% will reduce the rigidity of the hanger. Hence, it should be
limited to below or within 10%. At the same time (in case of CFB sheet) if it is less than 6%,
then the specimen sheet cracks along the creasing line. So, the moisture content is very
much crucial.
4.10.5 Water Absorbency Test
Method:
Same as IS: 1060 (Part I 1986) for paper. Test has to be done on paperboard pieces for 30
minutes exposure in water of 250cc volume. The water absorbed by the exposed
paperboard is calculated.
Unit:gm/m
2
for 30 min COBB
Standard: IS: 1060
Significance:
Un-sized paper gives high Cobb Value. Proper sized paper given in the outer line helps
reduce the water absorbency. CFB & Paperboard used for hanger, when exposed to rain
should not allow penetration from one side to the other side. Cobb value should be below
150gm/m
2
.
4.10.6 Tear Strength

Method 1:
Known thickness specimen, after making a notch using a die is placed in the grips. Load
applied at 51mm/min rate of grip separation. Load at which complete rupture has taken
place is noted.
Standard:ASTM D 1004
Significance:
Initial tear resistance is a complex function of its ultimate resistance to rupture.
Method 2: Known thickness specimen is placed in tear resistance mechanism. Where from
a height a sharpened probe falls to tear.
F = [w x h] + w
l
w = weight of carriage (Kg)
l= Length of tear in mm
h = height from which carriage falls in mm
Standard: ASTM D 2582

Significance:
Puncture propagation of tear resistance measures the resistance material to snagging
(dynamic puncture).
4.10.7 Fungus Resistance Tests:
All materials used in the fabrication of hanger should be tested for fungus resistance.
Method:
10ml distilled water containing approximately 0.005% dioctyl sodium sulfacuccinate is
introduced directly into each culture.
The culture is then raked with a sterile wire and agitated to ensure a well sported
suspension. The test item is then placed in a humidity chamber and exposed to a relative
humidity of 25% and a temperature of 86 F for 28 days.
If, at the end of 28days, 25% or less of the samples or test items have fungus growth on
more than 4% of their exposed surface, the material is considered to be fungus nutrient.
If 2% or less of the exposed surface is covered, the material is considered to be inert for
fungal growth.
Result:














Fig 4.10:Fungus growth on Paperboard Sheet = <2% Fig 4.11: Fungus growth on MB Sheet = <2%

Fig 4.13:Fungus growth on MDF Sheet = <2%

Fig4.12 :Fungus growth on Grey Board = <2%

Material Nomenclature:
Sheet 1: CFB (Corrugated Fibre Board) Sheet
Sheet 2:MB Board Sheet
Sheet 3: Paperboard Sheet
Sheet 4: Cardboard Sheet (Coated with Keekur Glue)
Sheet 5: Cardboard Sheet (Coated with Keekur Glue)
Sheet 6: Medium Density Formaldehyde Sheet
Sheet 7: Grey Board
Test Protocol:
All the sheets were moistened in mineral salt solution for 5 minutes and then inoculated
with fungal disc of 8 mm each and incubated at 50% moisture
Sub - Experiment 1: For checking the microbial load on sheets
Before introducing the test sample to the inoculated fungal disc, the reading of the
microbial load was determined by first conditioning the test samples for 48 hours, into
atmospheric conditions of 18-23*c, and Relative Humidity of 50%, and then by keeping the
test specimens in the BOD.
Initially, the reading by the BOD, determined the microbial load level in the testing lab was
893-894, viz., around 300 times more microbiological levels than the levels existing in open
air, under sunlight.
After, 2 days of keeping the specimens under BOD, the reading increased very slightly to =
895-902
When observed after the 3
rd
day of keeping the specimens, the microbiological load level
grew to =912-919
The 4
th
day, again showed very slight growth in the microbial load, and the reading were
recorded at = 920-928
5
th
day, the overall comparison of the sheets was done, at that time , the microbial load was
recorded to be = 929-930


Sub - Experiment 2: For checking the biodegradability
997-1003 = growth of microorganism (soft rot fungi) on cardboard sheets (All the sheets
were moistened in mineral salt solution for 5 minutes and then inoculated with fungal disc
of 8 mm each and incubated at 50% moisture)
Note: Same experiment was carried out with dried sheets but no growth was observed in
any of the sheet under the similar conditions.
Thus, all the samples tested are biodegradable yet, not an issue to worry about, when kept
in showrooms & homes to display & hang garments under dry conditions.


Fig 4.14: Test for checking the microbial load on sheets

Fig 4.15: Test for checking the biodegradability

Experiment 3: Total carbohydrate content in all the sheets
Sheet 1 = 80 %


Sheet 2 = 80%


Sheet 3 = 78%


Fig 4.16: Total carbohydrate content in sheet 1

Fig 4.17: Total carbohydrate content in sheet 2

Fig 4.18: Total carbohydrate content in sheet 3

Sheet 4 = 76%


Sheet 5 = 76%


Sheet 6 = 60%


Fig 4.19: Total carbohydrate content in sheet 4

Fig 4.20: Total carbohydrate content in sheet 5

Fig 4.21: Total carbohydrate content in sheet 6

Sheet 7 = 74%


Note: It is universally assumed that higher the carbohydrate content higher will be the
susceptibility of the substrate for microbial contamination.








Fig 4.22: Total carbohydrate content in sheet 7

Fig 4.23: Samples and effect of fungus growth on them.

4.10.8 TORQUE TEST Bottle Caps
Digital Cap Torque Testers present a simple, accurate, and economical solutionfor manual
cap torque testing. These testers are ideal for lab or production use forclosure
manufacturers, bottlers, food and beverage companies, and others.
Method:
The cap torque tester captures peak readings for application and removal torques.
Place the sample between the posts or jaws of the tester, and tighten, using the knob. Posts
can be placed in any of the holes on the sliders (see Figs. 1 & 2below). Ensure that the
sample is gripped firmly. However, excessive tightening of thin-walled closures may result in
sample deformation, possibly affecting test results. When the sample is secured, gradually
exert torque by hand. Sudden torque application may produce incorrect readings.










Result:
CAP Diameter in mm Closing Torque Opening Torque
30 15 LB IN 7 LB IN
Fig 4.24: Optional jaws offer
alternative gripping methods
Fig 4.25: Posts can easily br moved
between holes
Table 4.3: Closing and opening torque for a plastic bottle

4.10.9 CHNS ANALYSIS
The determine the total %composition of different elements ( Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen
& Sulphur), CHN Test is performed on CHNS mode.
Name Weight
(mg)
Carbon
Content
(%)
Hydrogen
Content
(%)
Nitrogen
Content
(%)
Sulphur
Content
(%)
MB Board 13.99 37.05 5.807 0.627 0.316
Grey board 18.051 37.60 5.350 0.195 0.048
Paperboard 12.142 38.80 6.950 0.185 0.171
MDF Board 6.3010 37.32 5.528 0.717 0.018

Graphical depiction of Elemental Analysis
Image Source: www.elementalanalysis.com/#chns
4.11 BIODEGRADATION OF MATERIALS

Biodegradation potential of tested liner papers

Two commercial barrier coated liner- papers (i.e., internally sized uncoated board and one
side coated bitumen liner) were examined for biodegradation using a soil burial approach
on a laboratory scale
[11]
. It was observed that the liner papers were fully biodegradable in a
matter of days, and the board liners were found also to be recyclable following a simple
procedure of re- slushing and screening.
Biodegradation & recycling potential of barrier coated paperboards

To understand the recycling and biodegradability potential of the differently coated
paperboards, a literature was reviewed, which talked about four commercial barrier coated
boards (i.e. , internally sized uncoated board, one side polyethylene coated board,
double side polyethylene coated board, and multilayer laminated board) were examined
for biodegradation using a soil burial approach on a laboratory scale. It was observed that
the base boards were fully biodegradable in a matter of weeks or months, and the
degradation process could be accelerated either by sample size modification or enrichment
of the soil microbial population. The boards examined were also found to be recyclable
following a simple procedure of re-slushing and screening. The base boards became almost
fully separated from the polyethylene coated material without any special pre-treatment.
Thus, even if all the examined and considered alternatives in our research project do
separate out from the polyethylene, still, the biggest advantage of using an internally sized
uncoated board (Timboard) is, that it would not contribute to plastics and its derivatives in
the nature, and thus, can be sustainable and much more eco-friendly product for the
masses.
Biodegradation of Paperboards

The influences of paperboard texture, sample size, freezing pre-treatment and microbial
population on biodegradation were all investigated. The changes in both weight and tensile
strength were used to estimate the extent of the biodegradation process.
Figure Below shows the residual weight of large sample v/s burial time, where it can be seen
that the weight of the samples decreased with burial time. The weight loss for uncoated and
on side coated boards was approximately equal, and occurred at a much faster rate than
the other two samples.
The uncoated board sample degraded fully after seven weeks, as the samples at this time
could not be retrieved for further examination. The one side coated boards were still
retrievable after 7 weeks due to polyethylene coating. The residual weight of the one side
PE coated boards after 20 weeks of burial was almost the entire weight of the coating
material (5.7%), while the residual weight of the double sided PE coated board and liquid
packaging board were 26.3% and 52.05%, respectively. Degradation of double side coated
and LPK boards suggest that the enzymes diffused into the boards through the edges to
degrade the unprotected cellulose.




Biodegradation was also estimated by following changes in tensile strength of the boards
during burial. As Figure below indicates, the tensile strength of the boards deteriorated with
an accelerated pace. Tensile strength of the samples (regardless of the board category) was
reduced by about 90% in four weeks, while weight loss at the same time 90% level needed
about 12 weeks to occur. The failure of a specimen in the tensile test occurs at the weakest
point. Therefore, tensile strength may potentially become severely decreased by having a
very small decayed portion along the axis of the test specimen.

Figure 4.26 :Weight loss of paperboard samples
[11]





The change in tensile strength in plotted versus weight loss for the samples in figure on next
page. The data demonstrates that 50% to 80% of the tensile strength was lost during the
first week of the burial process, whereby the corresponding loss in weight is about 10 20%
for the samples. This result suggests that having a small number of decayed sections along
the test specimen has no real effect on weight loss.
Sample weight loss is due to migration of degraded material out of the substrate. This
migration is possibly of course as long as the degraded materials do not encounter any
barriers along the pathway. Thus, a coating on the sample can represent a significant barrier
to the migration process. This is speculated to be one of the reasons for the slow pace of
weight loss of coated samples during the burial process.


Figure 4.2:Tensile strength of paperboards v/s burial time
[11]


Figure4.27 :Relation between tensile strength and weight loss
[11]


Identification
Idealization
Mathematical Modelling
Interpretation
4.12 ENGINEERING ANALYSIS
The Four Stages in General Engineering Analysis













Stage 1: Identification of the physical problem specification of the problem:
Intended application
Possible geometry and size (dimensions)
Materials for all components
Loading: range in normal and overloading; nature of loading
Other constraints and conditions, e.g., space, cost, government regulations

Example: Design a coat hanger for hanging an overcoat
up to 6 pounds
Given assumed geometry and dimensions:
Selected material: Grey board, MB Board, Paperboard,
MDF Board with allowable tensile strength @ 10Kg/cm
2

26
Fig 4.28: Stages in General Engineering Analysis
Stage 2: Idealization of actual physical situations for subsequent
mathematical analysis:
On geometry


On loading condition:


On boundary conditions:


Stage 3: Mathematical modeling and analysis:

Derive or search for suitable mathematical formulations to obtain solution on the specific
engineering problem.
In the case of coat hanger design, the solution required is:
Will the assumed geometry and size of the hanger withstand the specified maximum
weight of the coat? Physical statement
The required solution is to keep the maximum stress in coat hanger induced by the
expected maximum load (the weight of the coat) BELOW the allowable limit (the maximum
tensile strength) of the hanger material (500 psi), as given
With the idealization in Stage 2, the maximum stress in the hanger can be computed
from the formula on simple beam theory available from strength of materials textbooks
or a handbook for mechanical engineers

26
26
M
m
=max. Bending moment, C = radius of frame rod,
I = moment of inertia of the frame rod X-section=0.0001916 in
4



Stage 4: Interpretation of results a tricky task:

Result from analysis in Stage 3 normally is in the form of NUMBERS
Require ways to interpret these numbers into physical senses, e.g.
Can the coat hanger with the assumed geometry and dimensions carry a 15-lb coat?
Various ways available for such translation
For the case of structure-related design problems, one would use the following criterion:
The Max. Stress,
m
<
a
where
a
= allowable stress = Maximum tensile strength/Safety
Factor (SF)
The SF in an analysis relates to the extent engineers can make use of the strength of the
material
There are a number of factors determining the SF in a structure design;
The degree of sophistication of the analysis the less idealization made in Stage 2
the low the value of SF, i.e., less material is needed
The potential consequence of the
For the case of coat hanger design, the
m
= 302 psi <
a
= 500 psi with SF = 1.
Physically, it means the coat hanger with the assumed geometry and dimensions CAN carry
a 6-pound coat. If not, Engineer will either adjust the assumed dimensions of the hanger, or
reduce the weight of garment for the hanger to carry.

4.13 HANGER APPLICATION GUIDELINE

The Hanger Application guideline is intended to reduce the supplier-to-retailer pipeline
costs by minimizing order-to-sales-floor cycle time. The guideline provides for continuity of
presentation within retail stores through colour consistency; facilitates supplier application
by reducing hanger stock keeping units (SKUs); and enables cost reductions associated with
mass production, re-use, and application of the hanger.
Overview
Today's retail practices dictate that many products be displayed on hangers on the retail
selling floor. For this to occur, a hanger that is acceptable to the retailer must be placed on
the garment prior to moving it to the retail selling floor.
Simultaneously, many manufacturing processes are built around processing and storing
goods with hangers pre-attached.
In this scenario, millions of hangers used by these suppliers are removed and immediately
discarded by retailers in order to place a hanger on the garment that they deem acceptable
on their selling floor. This results in unnecessary labor for both trading partners as well as
delays in flowing merchandise to the selling floor.
For other product categories, suppliers are willing to insert retailer-approved hangers prior
to merchandise shipment. However, the multitude of different hangers requested creates
extreme inventory and handling challenges for the supplier. This, too, results in unnecessary
labor costs and merchandise flow interruption as well as excessive inventory and space
costs.
This guideline addresses these problems so total handling costs and pipeline times can be
minimized to benefit suppliers, retailers, and, ultimately, consumers.
Benefits
A reduction in the order-to-sales-floor cycle time (based on a January 1993 study
conducted by an international management consulting firm),
A decrease in stock outs on high selling replenishment items requiring hangers (based on
a January 1993 study conducted by an international management consulting firm),
A significant reduction of "trash hangers" generated by the supplier-retailer pipeline,
A reduction of hanger SKUs required to be inventoried by any given supplier,
"Flow through" retail distribution centres and/or direct store shipments,
Suppliers identifying hangers that best display their merchandise, and
Certain suppliers inserting hangers for use on the retail selling floor at point of
manufacture.
Hanger Rationale
The outcome of the research project provides alternatives for retailer/vendor/hanger
resource partnerships to develop business models which include recycling/reuse, reducing
hanger weight, and using more sustainable raw materials in producing new hangers. The
results, as highlighted before, can have a positive impact on the carbon footprint, while not
compromising hanger performance standards or aesthetic value at retail.
4.14 HANGER PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS
Specified below are series of tests and performance standards intended to assure buyers
and users of hangers that these hangers will meet expectations for quality and performance.
The tests and specifications may be employed several ways, as agreed upon by trading
partners. The most common applications of the tests and specifications include: use by
retailers and/or garment manufacturers to evaluate and qualify hanger providers and their
products, use by retailers and/or garment manufacturers to audit hanger providers and
their products on an on-going basis, and use by hanger providers to evaluate product
designs and confirm ongoing quality assurance effectiveness.
Successful completion of the tests - which apply at the time of purchase/delivery - will
provide a degree of confidence that the hangers will perform as expected when properly
applied under normal display and transportation conditions.
Unusual applications may cause excessive loads and result in unexpected failures or other
problems. They should be reviewed in advance with the hanger provider to avoid any
inconvenience and derive the maximum value from the hanger purchase.
Regardless of which organization conducts the tests, they are to be performed on
representative samples of the product. Tests are to be performed by qualified personnel
using calibrated equipment of suitable precision. Test results are to be documented and
provided upon request to the customer or provider as appropriate.


1. PROPERTIES & DEFINATIONS
High temperature creep
Hangers should be manufactured from materials that retain mechanical integrity at
elevated temperatures reasonably expected to be encountered in transit. Elevated
temperature creep properties will be evaluated using bottoms hangers. A 1 pound
load will be clamped normally within the pad (see figure below).
Garment thickness will be between 0.1 and 0.2 (2.54 and 5.08mm). The loaded
hanger will then be heated to a temperature of approximately 140F (60 C) and
maintained at that temperature for a period of 48 hours. The hanger will be judged
acceptable if the load garment is not released by the hanger within the 48 hour test
period.

Low temperature impact resistance
Hangers should be manufactured from materials that retain shatter resistance at low
temperatures reasonably expected to be encountered in transit. Cold impact
resistance of the hanger will be evaluated by first refrigerating tops or bottoms
hangers to a temperature of approximately 32F (0 C) for at least 2 hours. The chilled
hanger will then be slid from a table or other suitable surface from a height of
approximately 3 feet (91.4cm) on to a concrete floor. Separate hangers will be
dropped in various orientations so that various parts of the hanger impact the floor.
The hanger shall be judged acceptable if it does not fracture.
Fracture/shatter resistance
A fracture is defined as a crack propagating throughout the entire thickness of any
givensection, or a complete separation into two or more pieces.
Warp and distortion
Hanger warp is measured by placing the unloaded hanger curved side down on a flat
surface.
The gap is to be measured at its greatest point. If the gap exceeds 1 hanger thickness,
where thicknessis measured at the thickest hanger cross section, then the hanger is
considered to be warped.


2. METAL PARTS
Hooks, spring clips or any other metal components will be silver in appearance, clean
and shiny. An appropriate finish to prevent red rust or significant oxidation when
exposed to conditions of 95 F(35 C), 95% relative humidity for a period of 48 hours
(ASTM B117.03)shall be provided. The expected brightness is to be comparable to a
bright Zinc plated finish. All metal components of hangers shall comply with all State and
local laws governing the use of heavy metals as defined by a Restricted Substance List
(RSL). Restricted substances include, but are not limited to specified maximum trace
amounts of Lead, Mercury and Chromium.
Hanger wire specifications
To assure uniform appearance, the nominal wire diameter shall be 0.118 -.004/+.020
(0.114/0.138).
Hook strength
Hook stiffness and insertion into the hanger body shall be adequate to prevent excessive
deformation and premature failure under normal use. Strength, loaded at the 12:00
position will be measured using a universal load frame by positioning the hook on a 1/2"
(12.7mm) diameter hardened steel pin and gripping the plastic hanger. Load will be
applied at a constant rate of approximately 2"(50.8mm) per minute until a load of 20
pounds (9.1kg) is reached.



The hook will be considered acceptable unless one of the following occurs:
The hook fractures or separates from the hanger
The hook deforms so that it falls off of the pin.
The hook experiences permanent deformation in excess of .060 measured at the
top of the hook after the load is removed.
3. FLAT, CLEAR (DEPARTMENT STORE) TOPS HANGERS
Hangers shall be consistent in dimensions and outline to provide consistent appearance at
the point of sale. Hanger dimensions are specified using VICS full scale hanger profile
drawings(templates).
Acceptable hangers are those that meet the following criteria:
o Are completely enclosed within the outer perimeter of the appropriate size profile.
o Completely cover the appropriate inner profile.

Tops hanger normal load capacity
Tops hangers less than or equal to 15 in nominal length shall be suitable for use in
transporting and displaying garments weighing up to 1.5 pounds (0.68kg). Tops hangers
greater than15 long and up to 19 long shall be suitable for use in transporting and
displaying garments weighing up to 2.0 pounds (0.91kg).
Tops hanger capacity is confirmed by an impact test intended to simulate a garment
shipping box falling off the back of a truck at a height 4 feet (122cm). The impact test is
performed using a test garment with evenly distributed weights, three in back three in front,
hung over the hanger. The hanger is hooked to a test device which retains the hook. The
loaded hanger is then dropped 15 (38cm)in free fall to a rigid stop. The hanger and the
weight vest must remain hanging on the test fixture after the impact test and there must be
no permanent warp of the hanger for it to be considered acceptable.

Sweater/knit hanger normal load capacity
Sweater/Knit hangers 15 in nominal length shall be suitable for use in transporting and
displaying garments weighing up to 1.5 pounds. Sweater/Knit hangers greater than 15 long
and up to19 long shall be suitable for use in transporting and displaying garments weighing
up to 2.0 pounds.
Sweater/Knit hanger capacity is confirmed by an impact test intended to simulate a garment
shipping box falling off the back of a truck at a height 4 feet (122cm). The impact test is
performed using a test garment with evenly distributed weights, three in back three in
front, hung over the hanger. The hanger is attached to a test device which retains the hook.
The loaded hanger is then dropped 15 (38.1mm) in a free fall to a rigid stop. To be
considered acceptable, the hanger and test garment must remain hanging on the test
fixture after the drop and there must be no permanent warp of the hanger
Tops hanger proof load capacity
Hangers shall be designed and fabricated to meet specified proof or overload conditions.
Static proof load will be evaluated using a universal load frame. The hook end will be
attached to a1/2" (12.7mm) diameter pin. The hanger will be loaded at two points located
at the recessed points through the top of the hanger using a rigid "Y" cable. The length of
each leg of the "Y" cable shall be15"(38.1cm). The load will be applied at a rate of 2"
(50.8mm)per minute until any type of failure occurs. Hanger strength shall be judged
acceptable if the hanger does not fractureat a load of 6 pounds (2.72kg) for hangers 15 or
shorter, or 12 pounds (5.45kg) for hangers 17 or longer.






Sweater/knit hanger proof load capacity
Sweater/Knit hangers shall be designed and fabricated to meet specified proof or
overload conditions. Static proof load will be evaluated using a universal load frame. The
hook end will be attached to a 1/2" (12.7mm) diameter pin. The hanger will be loaded at
two points on the shoulders on the top of the hanger arms equidistant from the centre of
the hook using a rigid "Y" cable. The length of each leg of the "Y" cable shall be 15"
(38.1mm). A vertical load will be applied at a rate of 2"(50.8mm) per minute. Minimum
acceptable hanger strength shall beat a load of 6 pounds for hangers 15 or 12 pounds for
hangers 17 or longer.
Tops hanger flexibility/rigidity
Flexibility or resistance to shatter will be confirmed using a Bend test. Bend testing will be
performed using a 3 point bend fixture and a universal load frame. The arms will be
supported by 1/2diameter rods. The support span will be 12" for hangers 14 or more in
length. The support span will be 8 for hangers less than 14 in length. The center of the
hanger will be gripped with a 1(25.4mm)wide support plate. The load will be applied at mid
span at a rate of approximately 2"(50.8mm)per minute until either failure or yield occurs.
The hanger will be considered acceptable if either of the following events occurs:
The hanger is pulled through the support bars without fracturing, or
A load of 20 pounds is applied without fracturing the hanger.




Sweater/knit hanger flexibility/rigidity
Flexibility or resistance to shatter will be confirmed using a Bend test. Bend testing will be
performed using a 3 point bend fixture and a universal load frame. The arms of the hanger
are supported by 1/2 (12.7mm) diameter rods. The support span is 12" (30.5cm) for
hangers 16 or more in length and 8 (20.3cm) for hangers less than 15 in length. The
centre of the hanger is to be clamped securely using a 1 (25.4mm) wide support plate. A
load will be applied at mid span at a rate of 2" (50.8mm) per minute until either failure or
yield occurs. The hanger will be considered acceptable if either of the following events
occurs:
The hanger is pulled through the support bars without fracturing, or
A load of 20 pounds (9.08kg) is applied without fracturing the hanger.








Coordinate loop feature dimensions
The coordinate loop shall be sized to support the secondary garment at a reasonably
consistent height and shall be located on the under-side of the hanger, opposite the hook,
and substantially centered. The loop shall support a second hanger hook between 2.0 and
2.38 (50.8 and 60.5mm) from the top of the hanger (measured from the base of the hook
boss to the bottom of the coordinate loop). The coordinate loop shall allow a hook of
diameter specified above to run substantially parallel to the axis of the hanger so that it
does not protrude through the front or back planes of the top hanger.
Coordinate loop feature strength
Strength of the coordinate loop shall be adequate to support the secondary garment under
normal transit and display conditions. It will be evaluated using a universal load frame. The
hanger body will be gripped below the hook and the load will be applied through the loop
using a pin the same diameter as the hook. Load will be applied at a constant rate of 2"
(50.8mm) per minute. The loop will be considered acceptable if a load of 25 pounds (11.4kg)
does not result in fracture of the loop.



DATA ANALYSIS

5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES

A comparative analysis is being done below, to assess how badly do the different hangers
available in market, fair, in terms of their environmental score-sheets.
There had been 3 hangers prevalent in market, pictured below. The common standards on
which we will be evaluating the 3 different hangers available in market are:
TOXICITY MATERIALS RECYCLABLE OFF-
GASSING
100% LAND
FILLED
PROPOSED
HANGER
100% Non-Toxic 100% Recycled
Paper, Starch
Based
Adhesives &
Vegetable
Based Inks
100%
Recyclable
No Off-
Gassing
0% to Landfills
Uses Toxic
Petroleum Based
Spray Coating
And Lacquers
Uncertified,
Non FSC Wood
& Petroleum
Spray Coatings
Not Recyclable
Or
Compostable
Anywhere
Off Gasses
Petroleum
Based Coating
Sprays &
Stains
100% Go to
Landfill. Not
Recyclable or
Compostable
Polystyrene Off-
Gasses benzene/
Polycarbonate
And, Leaches
Bisphenol A
Uses Petroleum
based
Polycarbonate
and
Polystyrene
Not Accepted
By Recycling
Programs
Off-Gases
Benzene &
Leaches
Bisphenol A
85% goes into
landfills. 8
Billion sent to
landfills
every year
Low Grade metal
& toxic
petroleum based
spray coatings &
lacquers
Uses Low
Grade
unrecyclable
metal &
petroleum
based spray
coatings
Not accepted
by recycling
programs
Off Gasses
petroleum
based coatings
& sprays
3.5 Billion sent
to landfills
every year



Table 5.1Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of different hangers
process.

5.2 PROBLEM: GARMENT ON HANGERS (GOH)










PLASTIC HANGER GOH SYSTEMS
GOH systems use one hanger per garment. The problem: what to do with
all those hangers at the end of the day.

An estimated 8 billion hangers go into landfills every year.
85% of all hangers are being used once and thrown away. 15.5 million Plastic
retail hangers are land filled in the US every day!

Using the right GOH hanger is critical in this linear one-way system.








SIMPLE,
COST EFFECTIVE,
POTENTIALLY
VERY WASTEFUL
GOH is becoming a growing industry trend that
outsources the hanger to the garment
vendor.
GOH lowers total costs, simplifies shipping and
gives higher security.
5.3 THE SOLUTION: GARMENT ON HANGERS (GOH)










SOLVING
THE UNRECYCLABLE
HANGER PROBLEM
PERMANENTLY
A hanger designed for GOH: from
factory to the customers home. No
waste, 100% recyclable, and your logo in
your customers
closet. GOH problems solved!

5.4 ANALYSIS OF STRENGTH OF ALTERNATIVES


Grey board
Hanger
MB Board
Hanger
Paperboard
Hanger
MDF Sheet
Hanger
Maximum Breaking
Load (lbf)
15 15 13 23
Tensile Extension
(mm)
37 36 32.5 46
Youngs Modulus 800 810 730 1,100
Breaking Load Stress
(lbf./inch
2
)
170.45 170.45 194.02 223.30
Cross sectional Area
(sq. inch)
0.088 0.088 0.067 0.103
Breaking Load Stress
(Kg/cm
2
)
11.98 11.98 13.64 15.69


5.5 ANALYSIS OF STRENGTH OF THE MATERIAL BOARD

Grey board MB Board Paperboard MDF Sheet
Maximum Breaking
Load (lbf)
470 710 320 600
Tensile Extension
(mm)
2.5 6 3 3
Youngs Modulus N.A 2,00,000 N.A N.A
Breaking Load Stress
(lbf./inch
2
)
28.85 42.06 25.41 31.69
Breaking Load Stress
(Kg/cm
2
)
2.02 2.95 1.78 2.22
Cross sectional Area
(sq. inch)
16.29 16.88 12.59 18.93

Table 5.4 Comparative analysis of strength of alternatives.
process.

Table 5.5 Comparative analysis of strength of material required in hanger
process.

MARKET ANALYSIS

6.1 MARKET RESEARCH

Primary Objective:
To zero down to prime factors of concern for consumer, while buying garment
hangers.
Sub Objective:
To determine if market needs a change in design aspect of hangers, and
To determine whether hangers can be a tool of visual merchandising , as well as
marketing in Retail Store, as well as in consumers home
Sample Size: A survey was conducted with a sample size of 110 consumers, pertaining to
varied demographic locations majorly, associated with Indian Sub-Continent).
Methodology:
Initially to start with, consumers were intrigued about their favorite brand name, and the
frequency of visiting respective showrooms. After, gaining a basic understanding about
brand quotient of the respondent of the survey, they were asked, if they were happy
personally with present showroom experience, of if they wanted to seek change.
Once there retail understanding was tested using the questionnaire, they were then asked
about the type of hangers they use in their closet, with their preference scale, of
1 Most Important 3 Moderately Important 5 Least Important
They also shared their opinion of the factors of concern while shopping hangers, and about
how often do they shop for hangers. The respondent was further given few choices, out of
which the most crucial factors were checked out, considering the scope of exiting metal,
plastic, or wood hangers.
Having had them share their opinion about garment hangers, the respondent consumer was
finally asked, if they are up & willing for a significant change in the retail sector, and were
proposed an option of being given free hangers, at the Point Of Sale (POS), and if they
welcome this very idea.


DATA FINDINGS & ANALYSIS
When a sample size of 110 was questioned to check their retail brand quotient, and how
often do they visit showrooms to do shopping. It was found that out of the sample size,
about 41% people do visit stores in less than 3 month time. Followed very closely by another
39% visiting in 3-6 month time and amounting to a total of 80% thus checking out whats
new in store in every 3-6 months.



Having asked the shopping frequency of the respondents, startling yet pleasing figures were
deciphered, that 77% people were happy with their shopping experience at the showrooms.
While just there being 18% lot, who were not happy with present scenario, and wanted to
be the game changers.



After developing the basic understanding about the questionnaire and retail into the minds
of the respondent people, they were then redirected with questions asking about their
frequency of buying garment hangers.


The above asked questions does analysis, that strength & durability is few of the prime
factors in the development of a hanger, as, longevity drives the sale of hangers. Thus, any
hanger developed in the research project has to last a bare minimum of 1-3 years of time
span.
After determining the age expected of the final product, the respondents were further
asked, about their preference of choice between various options of hangers available in
market, on a scale of 1 to 5. This eventually will help in doing an innate comparative
analysis of the various alternatives, and then highlighting the drawbacks of them on the
environment, and the developing a material, sans all the revealed out flaws.



Upon analysis of the above histograms, it was found out that when asked about the
preference of users choice, for being the most suitable hanger of their daily needs in
homes, plastic hangers did fair better relative to wooden and metal hanger. Thus, it could
be stated if the proposed product of the research project has to be a success, then it will
have to capitalize on the drawbacks of the plastic hangers, and be sustainable in nature,
while costing cheap to the end consumer, as out of all the available hangers, plastic ones are
a mass hit, not because of their construction, but because of their commercial viability.



To further re-assure the findings of the above asked questions, the respondents were then
mind mapped about what does a consumer look forwards to when shopping a garment
hanger. And, the results were no different, as they chose significantly durability over brand
loyalty. The significant 42% did show the consumer was open to new products, and wanted
to have durability being considered as a pre-requisite over their look, and didnt even reject
the proposal of change in the sector of Floor Ready Merchandise.






Having found out the primary factor in the development of the hangers, the secondary
factors were then unearthed by giving the respondents a set of options, and then if asked
the future scope of improvement, out of the proposed alternatives, they did choose design
aesthetics over all the other factors like being monotonous & boring, importable in nature,
and non eco friendly nature.



The above histogram does also show that the respondents are open to any revolutionary
product in the hangers, which could aesthetically compliment your closet every time you
add a new garment to it. And, could be disposed of, after 2 3 years, when the garment too
would be disposed and writ-off out of the closet.


The future demand & viability of the product hanger is re-affirmed from the above pie chart,
showing the consumer base is open to any new proposal of being offered hangers at the
purchase desk by the respective brand along with carry bag, to accentuate your garment
with an aesthetically appealing hanger, so that you are able to fit your garment in the exact
size of hanger, and to dis-courage the future use of plastics, metals, or wooden hangers,
from the supply chain. And to check that, the below listed pie-chart was analyzed, with the
result that the world is hopeful to do their bit by contributing to the environment, by
inhibiting the usage of non eco friendly products.

6.2 MARKET ACCEPTANCE
To analyse the market acceptance of the product, a handful of 22 prototype hangers were
produced, and then showcased in Blue Buddha Showroom, namely at Alpha One Mall, and
also at Iscon Mall, Ahmedabad. The purpose to check the market acceptance was to
understand the viability of the product, and to decide the niche market where the proposed
garment hangers should be ideally used. The using of hangers, did testify the longevity of
the proposed hangers, by having kept in a showroom for 1 month, as a part of live testing
and consumer response.
The consumer approach to the new product was analyzed by using Structured Observation
Method, wherein the response of the consumer was checked, whether the hangers were
able to draw attention, interest & questions about the EGO Hangers (Eco friendly
Garment On Hangers).
Following is a set of questions being devised to acutely understand the psychology of the
consumer towards a particular product, by the means of observing his / her actions in -
store.
The surveyor undertaking the Structured Observation Method doesnt have to ask any
questions in personal to the consumer, rather, just Tick Out or Strike Down a set of
questions on the basis of the consumers reaction to In Store commodities, for example.
STRUCTURED OBSERVATION METHOD
a. Number of People Visited Store: _______
b. Did the customer show any concern regarding Visual Merchandising?
c. Did the consumer, went to seek assistance from In-Store personnel?
d. Were the mannequins strong enough to draw attention of the consumer?

e. Did the consumer, check the new arrivals section of the store?
f. Did the consumer, ask the sales personal to take off the garment from the hanger?
g. Did the consumer differentiate between the two types of hangers present in the
showroom?
h. Did the consumer, went to check out the area where the sample testing hangers were
hung?
i. Did the consumer, ask for the details & intricacies of the new proposed hangers?
j. Did the consumer, ask the price of the hangers?
k. Does the consumer, ask the vendor if the hangers are up for sale?
l. Did they share their contact information in lieu of promise to be home delivered a
hanger?
m. Did the consumer, welcome the idea of hanger being given free at the point of sale?
Did the consumer, ask the price of the hangers?
Hangers As:
Marketing Tool: 1 2 3 4 5
Commercially Viable: 1 2 3 4 5
Value for Money (eco-friendly) 1 2 3 4 5
Branding Tool: 1 2 3 4 5
Date: __________ Time: ____________
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
7.1 DESIGNS FOR HANGERS
After carefully analysing the results of the finite element analysis at IIT Delhi, Applied
Mechanics Lab, the product was proposed, which was environmental friendly, a potion for
the existing retail sector by being a retail branding platform, and at the same time, sans all
the technical design drawbacks of the existing plastic hangers.
The final hanger product is the 1
st
of its kind of hanger, which knocks down in size, and
packs flat (works on the USP of IKEA furniture). Non only does it unlock and is dis-mendable
(retractable), but, is even thin enough to consume a space ~ 3 times less than that of a
conventional coat hanger, used to display shirts, dresses, or t-shirts. Also, it is ~ 2 times
slimmer than that of usual plastic or wire hangers, installed inside stores.
The major USP of this product is it can help any retail brand earn carbon credits, as our
product is completely in compliance to the LEEDS Ratings.
The caps from the used disposed water bottles, have been to wind up the two arms of the
hanger, and to equally balance the pressure when subject upon the hanger overall. Our
design is a boon for the garments with neck closing too tight. And, after inserting one arm of
the hanger inside the neck, the other can be easily pulled down slightly, and den allowing
the hanger weight to precisely close down the bottle cap, under the vertical weight of the
garment.

Figure 7.1The final prototype of hanger
process.

7.2 PROTOTYPE EVOLUTION
Having conceived the design of the hanger, the actual final product came into existence
after a grueling brainstorming & multiple refinements in the design of the hanger. The
hanger underwent about 4 thoughtful design considerations, but since improvement is a
perpetual process, after numerous refinements, and tumultuous sessions, the final design
was prototyped.
But, to decipher the drawbacks of the designs previously proposed, a prototype was made
for each of them. The quest to zero down to the final design is highlighted using images of
the prototypes made. And, also by highlighting the drawbacks which eventually inspired for
further improvements.
Prototype 1:



Limitations:
The locking mechanism was not able to bear the shearing forces, which a hanger
might have to undergo on shop floor.
The locking mechanism also wasnt error proof, and moreover, to provide ample
strength, the auxiliary blades employed had to be wedged deep, and required large
cross sectional area. Thus, resulting in wastage of logistics & floor space. Ultimately
failing miserably in the concept of retail sustainability & floor ready merchandise.
Ambiguity about use of whether 1 ply or 2 ply board sheet on the arm of the hanger,
and a design which accentuates the hanger, at the same time consuming bare
minimum space.
Figure 7.2Prototype 1
process.

Prototype 2:




Limitations:
Persistence of ambiguity about use of 1 ply or 2 ply board sheet at arms, and to
devise a design which actually fits into the shoes of both, giving strength to the arms
as well as to the neck.
Innate analysis of the relation of strength with the length of the neck, and the shape
of the neck revealed, neck was still an area to be improved to offer better strength.
General engineering analysis, laid forward that the slant angle of the angle needs to
be work upon.
Inefficient locking mechanism in hanger, comprising of arms with 1 ply of board
sheet.


Figure 7.3Prototype 2
process.

Prototype 3:




Limitations:
Shifted center of mass of the product, resulted in displaced weight.
Inability to hold down the two surfaces of the hanger, and knock up, so that, under
vertical load, the implications doesnt result in backward failure of the hanger, of
into irregular asymmetrical forces.
The slant angle could be engineered so as to vitalize the hanger to withstand
maximum possible weight, without witnessing warpage or distorted necks at minor
hanging weights of 5lbs etc.
A missing groove to improve the viability of the product, and accommodate dress
and womenswear tops & dresses.

Figure 7.4Prototype 3
process.

Prototype 4:




Limitations:
Excessive usage of board sheet & high cost of production.
Not a minimalist design, failing to employ ideas to knock down & fold, in a cheaper
yet, aesthetically appealing manner.
Ambiguity between where to use how many ply of board sheet.







Figure 7.5Prototype 4
process.

Prototype 5:




Advantages:
A slant angle of 26 to dissipate the weight in a scientific manner while efficiently
lowering the pressure applied.
Low cost design, having employed 1 ply of Grey board (high strength material used
for wind proofing), and using groove mechanism in the form of stopper to ease the
load applied on the bottle caps.
Perfectly balanced center of mass, and thus avoiding any displacement of the
garment.
Neck shape is proposed to as to avoid chances of any coming off of the hanger, off
the rails.
Ample space for marketing, and using sized material board, also decreasing the
material & operations cost, and direct printing could thus be achieved effectively.
Figure 7.6Prototype 5
process.

RECENT RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENTS
Design 1:




Design 2:


Design 3:



Design 4:


Design 5:


Overview:


YOUR REPLY IS VALUABLE FOR US.

All data covered in this scholarly document, is intellectual property owned in
the name of Nishant Fogaat.
Any publication of the same or reproduction (or any part of it), is strictly
discouraged by the owner without due consent.

THANKS.
--Nishant Fogaat--