Redesigning The Learning Factory 

-Later Process-

EDSGN 100H Mikayla Cunningham

December 15th, 2018 Bennett Brown
Kyle McFerran
Fiorella Arroyo Calderon
Summary:
This report outlines the design of a new Learning Factory with a focus on the later
process needs of the students using the space. The final design has all of the later process
machinery and spaces on the lower level of the Learning Factory with the different types of
spaces split into different rooms. These include a wood shop, a metal shop, a welding room, an
electronics room, a paint booth, and a testing room. This design was created by integrating the
concepts of this design team’s work with the work of the other teams designing the new
Learning Factory to create one unified space that connects all the different aspects of the
design process along with the classroom. This design allows for not only the ability to create a
good final prototype using the machines and spaces outlined in this design report, but also easy
transition to and from this aspect of the design process because of the included early process
and technology spaces.

The floorplan of the first floor of the new Learning Factory

Introduction:
The objective of this design team was to focus on the later process part of the design
process that students will use at the new Learning Factory. After making the first prototype out
of cardboard and/or wood, the next step is to create another final working prototype. Most of the
time, students need specific resources to complete their projects. Some students might need
access to the metal shop equipment, wood shop equipment, electronic equipment, CNC
machines, paint booths, and testing equipment. At Penn State, there are various resources
offered to students; however, they are scattered across campus making it difficult for students to
complete one project in one place. Many other institutions have one big makerspace with all the
necessary resources to complete projects in one place. Penn State students need a more
effective space that will allow them to complete the design process starting in an ideation space
or the classroom and finishing on a shop floor with machines that satisfy their prototyping
needs.
Benchmarking at PSU:
In order to better understand the needs of this design that fall within this group’s focus of
the later process, benchmarking was conducted of both the existing Penn State solutions and
other universities solutions. For Penn State, the different makerspaces on campus were
examined with a focus on what equipment Penn State currently has. For other institutions, a
general understanding of what the space is like such as size and floor layout was first gathered,
and then a closer examination into the equipment that they have was conducted. Different
resources were consulted for these benchmarking efforts including visiting Penn State locations,
websites of makerspaces, and documents that summarize other efforts to better understand
existing makerspaces. The results were organized into a table that is broken into the main
categories (metal shop, wood shop, electronics, paint booth, and testing) that summarized the
later process needs of the design.

Architecture Building:
Some of the machines featured in the architecture building were table saws, sanders,
bandsaws, planars, sanding belts, drill presses. CNC Machine (for contours), metal bandsaw,
drill press, plastic cutters, forgery, welding. Not all machines were in one area as others were
featured upstairs in a different room. This makerspace featured the use of wood and metal
materials and utilized wooden stools that were stacked on top of the tables to clear up space.
The tools hang on racks that are attached to shelves attached to a wall. The overall floor plan
was very open, with a lot of space between the relatively new machines.

Current Learning Factory:

The current learning factory consists of the following machines: CNC, milling machine,
lathes, waterjets, drill press, brake, roller, shear, grinder, sander, and bandsaws. It lacks an
area to use wood and is congested on the machine side. Compared to the architecture shop,
the machines of the current learning factory are very old and stubborn to use. Natural lighting
was a big benefit to the architectural shop along with the more open floor plan. The open floor
plan was made possible by the more modern machines that didn’t take up as much space.
Other Institutions Surveyed for Benchmarking:
Georgia Tech- Invention Studio
It is an open makerspace that functions 24 hours everyday in a 3,000-square feet facility.
There are over 500 users per month. They have separate spaces for each type of project (ex.
metal shop, wood shop). They have CNC machines, mills, lathes, bench grinder, metal breaks,
waterjets. Their woodshop is a separate room equipped with a table saw, planer, sanders, drill
press, and a bandsaw.

Purdue- AFL
AFL is designed to provide hand-on experience in manufacturing to students with
focuses on engineering, technology, and entrepreneurship. They are open 7 days a week, but
with limited hours each day, and are split into five spaces. An artisan lab for working with wood,
plastics, and more. A fabrication lab for working with metals. An unclean room for paint and
glue. A demonstration studio for creating CAD models and simulations. A prototyping studio
with rapid prototyping machines.

NC State- DH Hill Library

The D H library is a innovative making space at NC State. The maker space has an
orientation to be able to use the tools. They have numerous softwares on their computers meant
for designing. They also have electronics 3D printing, 3D scanning, Cutting and milling tools in
their lab. On top of this they have a few textile machines.

Overall, numerous different versions of the idea of the learning factory were looked at.
Most spaces had upsides and downsides. All places that were looked at had tools to work with
metal and they also had similar sets of tools for wood. Most labs have computers and 3D
printers for final parts of projects. Not that many places have machines to work on textiles. It
seems the most complete makerspaces was the learning factory space at PSU but this may be
 due to lack of information on the other learning spaces. The metal and wood shop tools seem to
be constant throughout makerspaces but on the less common end are CNC versions of the
lathe and mill and also the water jet.

Makerspace Metal Shop Welding Wood Shop Electronics Paint Booth Testing

PSU CNC, Milling TIG, MIG, Mill, Lathe, Paints, masks Hardness Tester,
Machine, Oxyacetylen Grinder, Hydraulic Press,
Lathes, Water e, Ar gas Bandsaw, Drill Arbor Press
jets, Drill Press, Press, Hydraulic
Brake, Roller, Press, Manual
Shear, Grinder, Press, Sander,
Sander, Shear, Break
Bandsaw

Georgia Sheet Metal Table Saw, Waveform

Tech Brake, Bench Planer, Orbital Generator,
Grinder, Water Sander, Miter Soldering Iron,
jets, CNC Saw, Drill Press, Power Supply,
Bandsaw Oscilloscope,
Multimeter

Purdue Laser Cutter, TIG Table Saw, Drill Ventilation

Drill Press, Press, hood
Vertical Band Horizontal and
Saw, CNC Vertical Band
Lathes and Saw, Belt and
Mills, Surface Disk Sander,
Grinder CNC Router,
Waterjet Cutting
Machine, Planer

NC State Laser Cutter, Laser Cutting, Arduino,

Milling Milling Circuit
Playground,
3D printers

Metal Machines Approx. Cost Average Space

CNC Lathe $15,000 5’ x 10’

CNC Mill $5,000 50” x 100”

CNC Laser Cutter $5,000 51.18” x 98.42”

Drill Press $1000 5.5’ tall, 10” x 20”” base

Bandsaw $500 73” tall x 32" width x 32" depth

Surface Grinder $5000 66" width x 43" depth x 64" height

Water Jets $20,000 4’ x 4’

Shear $5,000 75" x 33" x 55"

Foot Brake $2,000 27” x 100” x 24”

Roller $2,000 53" x 18" x 29"

Bench Grinder $50 13.25” tall x 12.75” depth x 9” width

Lathe

Mill

Electronics Approx. Cost Average Space

Voltage Tester $20-30 7” x 3” x 1.5”

Soldering Iron $60-100 16” x 14” x 19”

Power Supply $100 7” x 3” x 6”

Waveform Generator $1000-2000 9” x 4” x 20”

Oscilloscope $300 12” x 6” x 5”

Multimeters $30 9” x 5” x 2”

Wood Machines Average Cost Average Space

Vertical Bandsaw $600 20’’ x 20’’

Horizontal Bandsaw $600 20’’ x 20’’

Drill Press $300 18’’ x 10’’

Belt sander $200 11’’ x 21’’

Disk sander $200 18’’ x 10’’

Planer $300 24’’ x 24’’

 Table saw $400 23’’ x 25’’

CNC Router $10,000 50’’ x 100’’

Lathe $2,000 20’’ x 60’’

TIG Welding Equipment Average Cost Average Space

Power Supply + Welding Torch $1000 14” x 10” x 19”

Electrodes $30

Shielding Gas (Argon) $230 7” x 7” x 17”

Welding rods (5kg Pack) $50 14”

Safety Equipment $320

Needs and Specs:

Through benchmarking, interviews, and observations the design team created a list of
needs that the final concept must fulfill. These centered around the many ways that students
need to be able to manipulate materials on the shop floor, but also included needs that make
the space functional and appealing to work in. The benchmarking of existing makerspaces
provided the background to convert these needs into specs by providing insight into the number
of machines that are needed in a good makerspace. These specs were revised throughout the
process to create even more realistic and effective numbers to compare the concepts to.

Qualitative needs: Quantitative Specs:

To bend material At least one way to bend material

To cut material At least five ways to cut material

To weld At least one way to weld

To test projects At least three ways to test projects

To smooth material At least two ways to sand/smooth

To have some modern machines At least four automated machines

To paint At least one way to paint material

Easy to find hand tools At least two areas for hand tools

Enough space to assemble projects At least four different work spaces

 Enough space to work comfortably with machines Enough space for two people to walk comfortably
down aisle

Needs Metrics Matrix:

At least At At least At At least At least At least At least At least Enough
one least one least two four one way two four space for
way to five way to three ways to automa to paint areas different two people
bend ways weld ways sand/s ted material for hand work to walk
materia to cut to test mooth machin tools spaces comfortably
l materi project es down aisle
al s

To bend material X X

To cut material X X

To weld X X

To test projects X X

To smooth X X
material

To have some X
modern machines

To paint X X

Easy to find hand X X X

tools

Enough space to X X X
assemble projects

Enough space to X X X X X X X
work comfortably
with machines

Concept generation:
Several concept generation techniques were employed that produced both main
concepts that focused on the layout of the entire Learning Factory, and individual concepts that
focused on one particular aspect of the later process parts of the Learning Factory design.
Some of these concepts are outlined below.

Main Concept 1: Different floors for each material

Having different floors for different material such as wood and metal would be an ideal
option for the new learning factory. With 35,000 square feet to work with two or three floors
would be options. This would allow for different safety and maintenance equipment to be put in
necessary rooms. In addition to this it would keep different types of projects and parts of the
design process in different areas.
Main Concept 2: Same floor, different rooms for each material; windows
Splitting the learning factory into different sections on one floor would be effective
because it would make working through the design process easy. This would be a good solution
because it would separate the different materials into rooms from early process materials and
ideas to later process materials such as wood and metal, students would be able to quickly
switch back and forth due to the close proximity to all fabrication parts of the design process.
The hard part of this is that wood, early process and metal area must be spilt properly so that
the dust from the early process is isolated from the precise metal and technology areas.

Main Concept 3: Having different floors for the early process and late process
This concept would be ideal because the early process would get the attention it
deserves. Along with the tools to work with cardboard, foam and other early process materials
the early process floor could contain whiteboard tables and walls for concept development and
the other parts of the early process. On the later process floor there could be separated areas
for the wood and metal areas to keep the dust from imperfecting metal and technological work.

Individual Concepts:
Besides the overall floor plan concept the team devised many smaller concepts that
dealt with the later process work in the new learning factory. For the hand tools there were
numerous ideas such as hanging them out on the wall so they were all visible and having
cabinets in the walls or along them to keep most of the tools in a smaller area. Another idea was
to have the tools in drawers which are clearly labeled. Overall the main need these concepts
address is the neatness and organization of the tools. Another priority is visibility for the tools
which the hanging on the wall design satisfies best.
The team formulated numerous concepts about the placement of the machines in the
shop. Some of the most important ones were having the similar or duplicate machines next to
each other, splitting the wood and metal areas into separate rooms and visible chart on all the
machines for ease of use. Another concept was arranging the small machines around the edge
of the room and the bigger machines lined up across the middle of the work area to maximize
the space in the rooms.
Along with the metal shop concepts, there should be numerous standards for the paint
booth. The paint booth should have its own separate room and have two ways of painting,
specifically hand and spray paint. It should also be near the metal section as it follows the metal
work in the normal design process.
Finally one part of the design process that seems to be missed to often is the testing
phase. The testing phase is the final step to see if your prototype and solution to the problem is
actually effective. Testing needs its own room in the learning factory so it gets more focus. In
the room there should be machines to test prototype hardness, weight, thickness and volume.
There should also be ample space for groups to finalize their large capstone projects and see if
they work.
Many of the concepts are important but some of the most important are the separate
testing room, visible tools, and separate rooms for wood and metal.
The best overall floor plan concept for the machining is splitting the early and later
process into two floors. This is effective because it allows for both parts to get ample attention
and resources will be divided between floors that need them.
 Concept Selection Matrix:
Concepts

Needs Same floor; Different Machines:

Tools: Machines:
Weight Different different floors for similar/ Paint
easily visible charts
floors for rooms for the early Tools: in duplicate booth:
visible & on every
each each process cabinets machines separate
organized; machine for
material material; and late in the room
on the wall settings
windows process same area

To bend
10 10 8
material

To cut
10 10
material

To weld 10 10

To test
10 10
projects

To smooth
10 7
material

To have some
modern 15 10 10
machines

To paint 10 10

Easy to find
15 10 5 10
hand tools

Enough space
to assemble 20 10 9 10 10
projects

Enough space
to work
20 10 9 10 10
comfortably
with machines

TOTALS 400 360 400 150 75 450 750 300

Due to there being several groups each being designated with a specific part of the
learning factory, it was tough to come forward with one straight forward design for the later
process. Because one of the specific groups was assigned the task of coming up with the
environment/aesthetics of the learning factory, it was difficult to come up with a plan without
knowing what the layout of the shop would be. As a result, the concepts developed above were
more individual within the overall later process. This narrowness made it difficult to make a
scoring matrix that was useful.
Prototype:
The final concept came about through the collaboration of 5 separate groups who all had
different focuses and different needs they were focusing on. This caused a lot of give and take
which was strenuous at times but allowed for an overall better design. The design meets many
important needs for all groups. It included all parts of the later process and was laid out in a
methodical order mirroring the design process. To create a model of the vision, poster board
and glass walls were used. This allowed for a good representation of which walls will be glass in
the building and let in the most natural light.

Final Concept:
The final concept chosen for the later process aspect of the overall product was to have
the first floor dedicated to machinery. In that floor, there are different rooms for specific
purposes, such as testing, paint booth, welding, wood shop, metal shop, and electronics.
Having these areas separated in different rooms was an important aspect to have everything
more organized with a better flow. This setting also ensures to only allow access to certain
areas to the students who have the necessary training. The metal and wood shop are the bigger
sections in the final product because the research showed that most students used those areas
the most when completing projects. Both areas will have different types of machines to
manipulate material in many ways. Thus, the final concept accommodates all of the specs
created for the number of machines despite not directly addressing them. This discrepancy
between the final concept and the specs is due to the integration between each design team
leading to a floor plan, not a machine list, as the main final concept. There is a medium welding
area next to the metal shop; since that is the area that requires the most training, it is not as
easily accessible as the other areas. There are also two designated areas for materials and
tools to make it easier for students to find what they are looking for. This accomplishes the need
and spec for tools to be easily accessible. Another crucial need and spec that was addressed
was to have enough space for students to assemble their projects. Each section has many big
tables that students can use to put together their projects and do some group work as well.
Further, the rooms are large enough to hold all the machines and tables without impeding
walking room which was another important need. Overall, all of the specs created were either
met or the final design accommodates them.

Conclusion:
In this project, all of the objectives were met. The design team was able to arrange a
substantial floor plan that was accordant with the concepts of the other teams. The final concept
was chosen because it was the most efficient. It has multiple sections with swipe access to
make sure only students with training enter the area, and it has a good flow overall. One of the
most valuable need met was having enough space to assemble projects in each area along,
and a generous space for storage.
This project was essential on improving the skills of the team members. Working in a
small team and a bigger team had its pros and cons. It was difficult to work with other groups to
get the final design since all the teams wanted to have their ideas in the final design, but
sometimes it wasn’t feasible. However, the teams were able to compromise and agree in a final
design that met most of the needs and specifications. It was also good to work in a big team
because all the teams had great ideas that complemented each other to get to a final design.
Apart from agreeing on a final design, all the teams contributed to build the prototype on time.