3C - Edited - Creating A Composting Solution

2016
Creating a Composting Solution

EWB CHALLENGE REPORT 2016

CHARLES STURT UNIVERISTY ENGINEERING
TEAM TWO GOOD TO WASTE:
Rebecca Willcox
Adrian Hickey
Lachlan Hicks
Amber Thomas
EWB CHALLENGE – 2016 TEAM TWO GOOD TO WASTE

Executive Summary
The Engineers Without Borders (EWB) challenge for 2016 focuses on creating sustainable living
systems for the refugee camp and new resident settlements of Mayukwayukwa. With support
from their community partner, United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), EWB has
outlined in the design brief that there are no formal waste management systems in the
community. This report will address design area 6.1; Organic Waste Management Systems.
Currently, organic waste is being thrown into surrounding bushlands, leading to unauthorised
landfills attracting wild animals to the community, damaging the eco-system and presenting
health concerns for the children who play in these areas. To combat this issue, a composting
system that can be implemented in a family home has been designed as the solution. This report
will provide a solution for both the sustainable management of organic waste as well as
combatting high malnutrition levels in Mayukwayukwan children.
As families move into the resettlement area, it will be vital they utilise organic waste as a resource
to ensure sustainability in their lifestyle. The families that use a composting system will be able to
compost their food waste and green waste from agricultural activities. Green waste includes dried
leaves and stems, green weeds and plant off cuts. Waste will then break down and become an
organic fertiliser which can then be used in a small, family sized vegetable garden. This fertiliser
will be able to increase the fertility of the soil to increase the diversity of vegetables that can be
grown and incorporated into the family’s diet.
The design of the composting system is a rotating plastic drum on a horizontal axis. The drum will
be supported by a wooden frame to provide a stable platform for rotation. These materials will all
be sourced locally in the Western Zambia region, with second hand products and waste being
repurposed where possible. The design accommodates for key composting necessities, such as
the ability to maintain a 40 to 60 percent moisture content, for successful composting, whilst
remaining easy to operate.
The manufacturing and implementation of the design will focus on utilising and developing the
community’s strengths and resources. Incorporating the vocational training trade schools and the
primary schools sustainable gardening program, this inclusiveness will allow for a positive
community approach to adapt the design into the family’s lifestyles.
In order for this solution to be feasible within the Mayukwayukwan context, the costs of
materials, transports and labour must be kept to a minimum. This was achieved by sourcing
everything locally. The total cost of materials for the system is 60ZMW. Another 70ZMW is
needed for construction and transport costs if the families are unable to barter and share for
these services. This cost will be less than five percent of a new farming family’s income.
This design solution will resolve the environmental issues caused by the unauthorised landfills as
well as addressing the issue of excessive organic waste not being utilised to improve the quality of
soil in Mayukwayukwa. The composting system will provide families with the opportunity to
produce organic fertilisers to assist in providing a more diverse diet, as well as combatting the
issues currently presented by a lack of formal organic waste management systems in
Mayukwayukwa.
Page | 1


Team Reflection
Reflecting on the limitations, setbacks and successes that the EWB challenge has presented to us
over the past few months. As our team endeavoured to tick off our design requirements, we
would often find that there would need to be a compromise such as a different material, or a
building technique due to cost constraints.
The biggest challenge our team faced was avoiding design fixation. As a team, we would all get
fixed on the idea of a perfect decision matrix, a perfect first prototype as well as the idea of
having the cheapest solution possible. For our team, this meant that a lot of time was spent
ideating around only one idea or action item as opposed to exploring different aspects of
engineering. As a team, following as best as we could to a project timeline reminded us to keep
moving forward to ensure we didn’t fall behind.
Common goals for our team and clearly defined design requirements allowed us to solve
disagreements easily as we had strong project foundations to fall back on. We feel that this
contributed to how well our team got along both on a professional and social level. The strong
teamwork led to an enjoyable experience as everyone understood their role within the team.
Throughout the challenge, our team kept the human impact of our solution constantly in our
minds. This allowed us to understand the culture and the strengths of the community, whilst
reflecting on how key stakeholders would adapt to the technology. As our team moved forwards
into the prototyping phase, we continued to consider the human impact as we approached
usability and safety issues. We had to focus on who would use our design, how they would use it,
and how they could use the system safely.
Moving on from this challenge, we all have a higher appreciation for the importance of an
iterative design process. We learnt more by solving failures in the design and addressing flaws and
all understand how reflecting and learning from failures is a necessary part of any design process.
The most enjoyable experience for the team as a whole, was seeing the final prototype come
together. All of the different iterations of critical functions and explorations of different materials
allowed us to present the most feasible design within our constraints and requirements. To see
the project finally hit a tangible outcome brought a sense of pride to the team. The milestone
brought the team together as we approached the final weeks of the project.
The EWB challenge as a whole has opened our eyes to humanitarian engineering and the positive
impacts it can have on communities. We have been challenged to step outside of our own culture
and create a design solution that would be viable in a different community to our own. From this
experience, our team is now able to move forward to other projects recognising that engineering
is more than just creating a design; it’s about utilising communities strengths, combined with
engineering principles to provide a solution that will improve a person’s life in some small way.
Page | 2


Contents
Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………1
Team Reflection…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………2
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………………………….........……………….3
List of Figures………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………….5
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………….7
1 Defining the Problem ..................................................................................................................... 8

1.1 Problem Scope .................................................................................................................. 8
1.2 Technical Review ............................................................................................................... 8
1.3 Composting Principles ....................................................................................................... 9
1.4 Design Requirements ...................................................................................................... 10
Design Alternatives .......................................................................................................................... 11
1.5 Design Options ................................................................................................................ 11
Detail of Option One ................................................................................................... 12
Detail of Option Two .................................................................................................. 13
Detail of Option Three ................................................................................................ 14
1.6 Design Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 15
Evaluating the ideas .................................................................................................... 15
Comparison of Results ................................................................................................ 15
Justification of selected option ................................................................................... 16
Design Description ........................................................................................................................... 17
1.7 Summary of Design ......................................................................................................... 17
1.8 Detailed Description ....................................................................................................... 18
Design Feature Analysis .............................................................................................. 18
Function Analysis ........................................................................................................ 24
Functional Description ................................................................................................ 25
1.9 Cost Analysis ................................................................................................................... 26
Yearly income for the average Farmer ....................................................................... 26
Materials Cost ............................................................................................................. 26
Transport and Labour Costs ........................................................................................ 27
Discussion of Costs ..................................................................................................... 27
Manufacturing, Implementation and Operation .............................................................................. 28
1.10 Manufacturing Plan ......................................................................................................... 28
Manufacturing Overview ........................................................................................ 28
Maintenance .......................................................................................................... 29
Page | 3


Building Instruction Material .................................................................................. 29

Versatility of Design ............................................................................................... 30
Bill of Materials ...................................................................................................... 30
Safety Considerations for Manufacturing .............................................................. 31
1.11 Implementation Plan ...................................................................................................... 32
Implementation Overview ..................................................................................... 32
Component List ...................................................................................................... 32
Implementation Procedure .................................................................................... 33
Additional Uses ...................................................................................................... 33
1.12 Operation of Compost Drum .......................................................................................... 34
Instructions for Operation ...................................................................................... 34
Safety Considerations for Operation ...................................................................... 34
Discussion of Final Design ................................................................................................................ 35
1.13 Strengths and Weaknesses ............................................................................................. 35
1.14 Future Recommendations .............................................................................................. 35
Appendices ....................................................................................................................................... 37
Appendix A – Full Cost Analysis ........................................................................................................ 37
Appendix B – Building Construction Manual .................................................................................... 42
Appendix C – Complete Decision Matrix .......................................................................................... 54
References ........................................................................................................................................ 56

Page | 4


Table of Figures
Figure 0-1 - The human centred design process ................................................................................ 7
Figure 2-1 - Empty decision matrix ................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2-2 - A three stage system constructed from mud bricks ..................................................... 12
Figure 2-3- A pile of compost for the community ............................................................................ 13
Figure 2-4- Rotating barrel design .................................................................................................... 14
Figure 2-5 - Completed Decision Matrix ........................................................................................... 15
Figure 3-1- An Inventor representation of the final design .............................................................. 17
Figure 3-2- A sketch of the compression ring ................................................................................... 18
Figure 3-3- Opening on the metal drum ........................................................................................... 18
Figure 3-4 - Second iteration of lid design........................................................................................ 19
Figure 3-5 - A screws only approach to the joints ............................................................................ 19
Figure 3-6 - Using the half lap joint .................................................................................................. 20
Figure 3-7 - A combination of screws and the half lap joint ............................................................. 20
Figure 3-8 - Sketch of option one ..................................................................................................... 21
Figure 3-9 - Sketch of option two ..................................................................................................... 21
Figure 3-10 - Sketch of option three ................................................................................................ 21
Figure 3-11 - Horizontal orientation barrel ...................................................................................... 22
Figure 3-12 - Vertical orientation barrel ........................................................................................... 22
Figure 3-13- Design of different support for the frame ................................................................... 23
Figure 3-14 - Final Design of composting system ............................................................................. 23
Figure 3-15 - Functional Block Diagram ........................................................................................... 24
Figure 3-16 - Estimation for yearly income ...................................................................................... 26
Figure 3-17 - Materials costs ............................................................................................................ 26
Figure 3-18 - Transport and labour costs ......................................................................................... 27
Figure 4-1 - Example of image from construction manual ............................................................... 28
Figure 4-2 - Example of the strengths of raw materials ................................................................... 29
Figure 4-3 - Optional three stage system design .............................................................................. 30
Figure 4-4 - Bill of Materials ............................................................................................................. 30
Figure 5-1 - Human centred design process ..................................................................................... 36
Figure 6-1 - Yearly income for new settlement farmers .................................................................. 37
Figure 6-2 - Materials Costs .............................................................................................................. 37
Figure 6-3 - Calculations of wood slat A ........................................................................................... 38
Figure 6-4 - Calculation of wood slat B ............................................................................................. 38
Figure 6-5 - Calculations of wood slat B ........................................................................................... 39
Figure 6-6 - Calculations of screw price ........................................................................................... 39
Figure 6-7 - Transport and labour costs ........................................................................................... 40
Figure 6-8 - Bill of Materials ............................................................................................................. 42
Figure 6-9- Images of materials ........................................................................................................ 42
Figure 6-10 - Tools required ............................................................................................................. 43
Figure 6-11- Tips for chiselling out the wood ................................................................................... 44
Figure 6-12 - Chiselling out of wood ................................................................................................ 44
Figure 6-13 - Initial state of piece A ................................................................................................. 45
Figure 6-14 - Step one for A ............................................................................................................. 45
Figure 6-15 - Step two for A ............................................................................................................. 46
Figure 6-16 - Step three for A ........................................................................................................... 46
Figure 6-17- Step four for A1 ............................................................................................................ 47
Page | 5


Figure 6-18 - Step four for A2 ........................................................................................................... 48

Figure 6-19 – Step one for piece B ................................................................................................... 48
Figure 6-20 - Step one for C1 ............................................................................................................ 49
Figure 6-21 - Step one for C2 ............................................................................................................ 49
Figure 6-22 - Image of D1 ................................................................................................................. 50
Figure 6-23 - Image of D2 ................................................................................................................. 50
Figure 6-24 - Image of E1 ................................................................................................................. 51
Figure 6-25 – Step one and two for F1 ............................................................................................. 52
Figure 6-26 - Step two and three for F1 ........................................................................................... 52
Figure 6-27 - Construction of frame ................................................................................................. 53
Figure 6-28- Assembly of drum and frame ....................................................................................... 53
Figure 6-29- Assembly of frame ....................................................................................................... 53

Page | 6


Introduction
In this report, a design solution for organic waste management systems is presented. The present
state of organic waste management in Mayukwayukwa, a refugee camp located in Western
Zambia, is non-existent and possesses high malnutrition rates and poor soil quality. This presents
a huge opportunity to enhance the quality of life for the people and hence the design was created
through a human centred design process.
This report identifies the issues that associate with their organic waste management and explores
how the resource can be harnessed in the form of compost to improve soil quality. There are
sections that convey the process of narrowing down the top design ideas and how they ultimately
led to the final design.
The final design of the rotating drum ensures a simple, cost effective design that incorporates all
aspects that result in a successful composting system. The materials and labour can all be sourced
locally for the manufacturing, creating opportunities for new industry. This report will also outline
the various implementation phases that will ensure that the design solution will be embraced by
the community and is effective for the family orientated society.
Throughout the design process, a human centred approach (as seen in the figure below) has been
used, identical to the process EWB uses with respect to their project. This approach allows for
engineers to understand the impact their design will have on the people that use it. This process is
referenced throughout the report as it has been an integral part of this project.

Figure 0-1 - The human centred design process
Page | 7


1 Defining the Problem

In the following section, the details of the identified issue of this project will be discussed. A
detailed overview of the context and pre-existing technologies will be provided as well as an
outline of the essential design requirements relevant to our project, a composting system.
1.1 Problem Scope

Currently in the Zambian refugee settlement of Mayukwayukwa, there is no formalised system of
managing waste. As the community’s primary industry is agricultural, there are large amounts of
organic waste that is currently not being utilised. This waste accumulates within the settlement in
the style of unauthorised landfills. These landfills present health concerns for the locals, as well as
attracting wild animals to the community. The scope of this project will focus on organic waste
management systems (Design area 6.1, 2016) and the new residents of Zambia moving into the
new settlement.
1.2 Technical Review

There are approximately 11 000 refugees residing in Mayukwayukwa; 6 000 being of Angolan
background (Zambian Demographic and Health Survey, 2015) with the rest of the refugees
coming from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi and Rwanda (United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees, 2015a). In efforts made to give refugees a permanent lifestyle, the
Zambian Government has looked to voluntary repatriation, the returning of refugees to their
home country, or local integration.
The second solution to allowing the refugees to lead a permanent lifestyle is local integration.
Local integration allows refugees to become independent of government support and become
permanent residents. The first Angolan refugee was granted permanent residency in December of
2012 (UNHCR, 2012). Local integration allows refugees to resettle anywhere in Zambia, however it
is anticipated that they will wish to settle close to the current refugee settlements (UNHCR,
2015b). As part of this process, the government has developed farming settlement areas around
Mayukwayukwa and Meheba (another refugee settlement in Zambia). The provision of farming
plots will allow the new residents to farm for a profit as opposed to subsistence farming. As part
of this new resettlement area, UNHCR has recognised that there are many opportunities to
develop sustainable living practices.
UNHCR and the charity of CHARITA (Humanitarian Aid and Development Co-operation) has also
allocated funds to establish a vocational training system in Mayukwayukwa, similar to one
established in Tanzania (Lyby, 2011). This system allows for refugees to progress to skilled
professions such as carpentry, book-keeping and fabrication. It has also been identified that these
vocational schools often work on community projects to not only improve their skills, but to also
give back to the community. (CHARITA, 2014)
On average, the people of Mayukwayukwa produce 56 grams of organic waste per day, per
person (Hoornweg, Bhada-Tata, 2012). Over the course of a year, an individual will produce 20kg
of waste, and in a family of five, this results in 100kg of organic material being wasted per year.
This organic waste is being discarded into surrounding bushlands presenting health and safety
concerns to the family when alternatively, this waste could be used in a composting system to
increase the fertility of the soil.
Page | 8


The design solution will greatly increase the sustainability of the current organic waste
management systems. At the current stage, EWB has identified that there is a lack of formal
waste management with respect to solid and organic waste. The focus of this project is on the
issue of organic waste being thrown into out skirting bushland (EWBa, 2016). This behaviour is
unsustainable and is causing damage to the natural eco system. EWB has also identified issues
with the fertility of soil in the Mayukwayukwa area; the soil is of a sandy consistency and only
allows basic crops such as cassava and maize to be grown (EWBb, 2016). Research into similar
projects regarding soil quality in Zambia showed that successful, fertile soils were commonly
improved by the addition of compost (ISFM, Zambia).
Whilst searching for pre-existing technologies, a UNHCR project implemented within primary
schools to develop a sustainable vegetable garden (UNHCR Innovation, 2016) was found. The
program was implemented as a part of a campaign to improve the nutritional value of children’s
diets. It was found that due to a lack of micronutrients, 36% of children under the age of five in
the Western province had stunted growth (Zambian DH&S, 2015) To increase the amount of
micronutrients in children’s diets, UNHCR has developed a vegetable garden in 2
Mayukwayukwan primary schools which not only provides a wider variety of vegetables for
consumption, but also teaches students sustainable farming techniques, such as composting. To
combat the issue of unfertile soil, UNCHR created a composting system for the schools to produce
organic fertilisers. The students have already been trained in how to compost.
Although the students had the knowledge and skills to compost, there are currently no formal
systems in place at their homes to enable composting to occur. Composting is regarded highly
within the community as it has led to positive health developments for the students of
Mayukwayukwa (UNHCR Innovation, 2016). With such large positive support for sustainable
composting, it is imperative that as part of the design, it is not only a sustainable system, but is
also cost efficient in both its implementation, operation and maintenance phases of the design.
1.3 Composting Principles

Composting is a simple and effective way to add nutrients into soils which can then be used to
enhance plant growth. It also restores vitality to the depleted soils. It is free, easy to make and has
no negative impacts on the environment. Composting involves combining different types of
organic waste such as kitchen scraps and dried leaves in a contained area whilst providing the
correct conditions to encourage breakdown. The decomposition process is fuelled by micro-
organisms that repurpose the contents into rich and organic fertilisers. Composting is a natural
process which can be strengthened by providing the proper conditions which will be discussed
below.
The microbes that naturally break down in a composting system require moisture to survive. It is
important to achieve a moisture content between 40 to 60% in order for the composting process
to be effective (Vinje, 2012). Too much water will result in a pile of oversaturated green waste
and kitchen scraps. If there is not enough water though, the compost will be too dry and the
micro-organisms will not survive.
It is important that the micro-organisms that are living in the compost require proper ventilation.
The design of a compost solution should allow for proper aeration. This may include an open
styled system, a system with holes, or a system that could be manually turned.
As the microorganisms break down, they produce heat. This leads to the compost maintaining a
constant high temperature. A healthy temperature range for compost is between 60 and 70
degrees celcius.
Page | 9


When adding materials to a compost heap, it is important to not squash the materials. This
behaviour will squeeze the air out of the system and will not give the micro-organisms a fair
chance of survival. This means that the composting process will not be effective. It is important to
try to add a mixture of brown fibrous ingredients and green waste as well as kitchen scraps. A
compost pile requires a “balanced” diet, this will ensure the breakdown process happens as
quickly as possible. Also, a compost heap can shrink up to 70% when it is finished decomposing.
1.4 Design Requirements

For the system to be suitable for the context it must meet all design requirements to be a
successful solution.
Design requirements include:
• Affordability: The average worker of Mayukwayukwa makes 17,000ZMW over a year and
supports a family of five, hence the system must not be too expensive. The implemented
solution must also produce a return for the initial investment, whether that be of
monetary value, or a return of goods.
• Culturally Relevant: It is vital that the system is adopted by the community and this will
only be achieved if the design is simple and not too westernised. It must also be a system
which reflects the community culture appropriately.
• Capacity: The average person of Mayukwayukwa creates 56 grams of organic waste a day
and for a family of five, that is approximately 100kg of waste per year that must be
stored. The capacity of the system must be able to at least accommodate for this amount
of organic waste.
• Sustainability: If a system was to last for six months before becoming unusable or needed
constant maintenance, then there would not be any added benefit to adopting the
system. Families would also be better off to not have a system in the first place.
• Limited Resources: Zambia, as a developing country, has a limited access to recources,
therefore the system must be built locally, with materials sourced locally.
Page | 10


Design Alternatives
In order to provide a solution for organic waste management in Mayukwayukwa, there would first
need to be different design solutions to evaluate. In this section, possible design options, features
and the evaluation methods are discussed.
1.5 Design Options

To decide on what solutions would be feasible for the context, the saturate and group technique
was used. All ideas, regardless of their quality, were listed and sorted through until it was
narrowed down to the most feasible three ideas. With the goal of creating an organic fertiliser
from available organic waste matter through composting, these ideas have been evaluated
through the decision matrix (fig. 2-1) to reflect on what was believed to be the most important
criteria.
Categories Multisystem Pile Barrel

Complexity/Cost to Make (12)
Complexity/Cost to Maintain (9)
Effectiveness (8)
Safety (8)
Durability (7)
Simplicity of Operations (5)
Capacity (5)
Adaptability (4)
Area Required (2)
Total out of 60 -/60 -/60 -/60
Figure 0-1 - Empty decision matrix
In the above table, the different categories each represent a different criterion that must be met
with the design. For full description and scoring requirements for these categories, please see
Section 6.3.
Page | 11


Detail of Option One

The first option that was considered was a multi section composting system that used a
production line styled process to create compost. It features three sections, as shown in figure 2-
2, that provide the user a continuous stream of compost.
The first section is where food scraps and green waste is deposited until the storage area has
reached capacity. The second and third sections will be then utilised to start new piles whilst
waiting for the original compost to break down. This design requires manual turning by an adult
which requires a high level of physical strength. A consideration which would need to be
addressed in further designs is preventing this system from being water logged and having a high
moisture content. Possible preventions is a covering over the top of the compost, or raising the
piles off the ground to allow for drainage of excess water.
This system requires mud bricks constructed with five centimetre spacing between the bricks to
allow for aeration of the compost.

Figure 0-2 - A three stage system constructed from mud bricks
Page | 12


Detail of Option Two

Design option two is a simple landfill style solution to be used by the community. This design
option is included to explore the possibility of a communal system for managing organic waste.
It is essentially a pile of compost lifted off of the ground by logs or pipes. It can be located away
from homes and properties.
Zambian soil is sandy and has a high porosity level. This means that even though the compost is
slightly lifted off of the ground, there is a high chance of compost slipping away or contaminating
the water table if a storm was to occur. If this design option is selected, an investigation into how
this could be prevented would be needed.
A communal compost pile works well in the sense that there are many contributions allowing for
a greater yield of compost. This may not be a fair system of managing waste though and could
cause tension in the community. For example, if a farmer was to contribute green waste from his
10 hectare plot as opposed to an elderly couples kitchen scraps, would they both receive the
same amount of compost fertiliser back?
During the tropical storm season, there is a possibility that since the ground is now retaining large
amounts of water, the compost will retain a high moisture content, preventing effective compost.
Optimally, compost should remain in a contained environment to allow the micro-organisms to
continue to break down and compost into an organic fertiliser.
Until the pile is filled and covered, the organic waste is an attractive food source to wild animals.
This is another consideration that will require attention so that this solution solves the issue of
wild animals entering the community.
Figure 0-3- A pile of compost for the community
Page | 13


Detail of Option Three

The rotating barrel represents another viable solution which could integrate into the
Mayukwayukwan community. It is able to complement the school education program with a
design that could integrate into the student’s home, allowing the skills taught at school to be put
into practice.
This design uses two A-frames that are braced together which hold a barrel. The enclosed barrel
provides the optimal environment to allow for a quick break down time as well as protecting the
compost from wild animals. Manual labour involved is limited to spinning the barrel and emptying
once the process is finished. This design could be extended with the addition of multiple barrels
on a longer frame or having separate systems working simultaneously due to the time required
for compost to breakdown without any new additions of waste.
It is able to be constructed with local resources or recycled materials and can easily be built by a
guided handyman or local vocational school. This design is widely used in western society with
exceptional results and a design such as this would be able to fill a void that is currently in the
community.
Figure 0-4- Rotating barrel design
Page | 14


1.6 Design Evaluation

To find which design best meets the needs of the people of Mayukwayukwa most effectively, a
decision matrix and evaluation discussions were employed to compare between the different
designs across a range of criteria. This section will discuss how the final design option was chosen.
Evaluating the ideas

This decision matrix has been purposefully created as a tool to allow the best design to be
selected for the people of Mayukwayukwa. This has been broken down into nine different
categories that have been weighted to represent the needs of the people.

Category Multisystem Pile Barrel

Complexity/Cost to Make (12) 5 12 9
Complexity/Cost to Maintain (9) 3 8 4
Effectiveness (8) 4 2 7
Safety (8) 8 3 7
Durability (7) 7 2 6
Simplicity of Operations (5) 2 5 3
Capacity (5) 4 4 2
Adaptability (4) 2 3 4
Area Required (2) 1 1 2
Total out of 60 36/60 40/60 44/60
Figure 0-5 - Completed Decision Matrix
Comparison of Results
The multisystem scored averagely across the board showing that it is more than capable however
not suited to needs of the people of Mayukwayukwa.
Option two (pile) scored highly in complexity and cost to make and maintain as well as simplicity,
however, fell down in major categories such as effectiveness, safety and durability. Comparing the
rotating barrel and the pile in effectiveness shows how the pile is suited to communal composting
as opposed to household composting.
Overall option three (barrel) scored highest with a broad range of categories well represented by
the design. It scored highly in effectiveness, adaptability and durability. These areas reiterate the
effectiveness of a design with multiple design requirements covered.

Page | 15


Justification of selected option

The rotating barrel option was selected as it is an idea that will best meet the different needs of
the Mayukwayukwan people.
Compared to a pile and multiple stage compost system, the barrel is the most viable option to be
created by people in the community. It requires knowledge of one wooden joint (half lap joint)
and basic materials that can be locally sourced.
Although it has the smallest capacity, the compost held in the barrel is protected from water
logging and local fauna which both the pile design and multi staged design are susceptible to, this
allows the entire Rotating Barrel’s green waste to become compost.
When the barrel spins it becomes a hazard. When at full capacity, it take a sizable effort to initiate
motion. This can be addressed by increasing the moment arm length of the system.
Page | 16


Design Description
In this section, the key features of the design and the total cost will be discussed; going into depth
regarding the prototyping process that was used to decide on the final design, as well as how the
cost estimates were calculated.
1.7 Summary of Design

The design is a plastic drum that has been repurposed to hold organic waste and encourage the
breakdown of waste by the micro-organisms. The drum is placed on a wooden frame made out of
milled kiaat timber to allow for the drum to be rotated on an axis. The ability to rotate the drum
ensures that the compost will be aerated, meaning its breakdown time is accelerated. The design
allows for all members of the family to be a part of the composting process. The joints between
the wood slats and braces are a combination of half lap joints and screws to increase the
structural integrity of the system.

Figure 0-1- An Inventor representation of the final design

Page | 17


1.8 Detailed Description

In this section, the design features and functions of the system will be examined and justified for
their inclusion in the final design.
Design Feature Analysis

Lid
The compression ring band (Fig. 3-2) would be the most effective solution in meeting the design
requirements. It allows full access to the top of the barrel, is strong and would be able to hold its
contents under strain. However, until research indicated that a compression ring barrel could
definitely be sourced in or around Mayukwayukwa a substitute solution needed to be found.

Figure 0-2- A sketch of the compression ring

The first iteration of prototyping placed the opening of the barrel, on the barrels side walls. This
opening was fixed with hinges. This is an ineffective design due to the weakening of the barrel
walls after its cut (the larger the opening, the weaker the wall), the small openings’ inability to
handle large or awkwardly shaped material, the complexity of cutting the opening and fixing the
hinges as well. This design also presents the risk of the sharp edges on the lid cutting the family
members hands that use it.

Figure 0-3- Opening on the metal drum

Page | 18


The second iteration of prototyping used the top of the barrel as the opening. A slot would be cut
at either edge of one end and a plate would be slotted between these creating the lid. This
addressed the problem of what size waste was able to be added, however again poses the risk of
sharp edges. In addition, the lid was difficult to operate and due to being an imperfect seal, would
allow for spillage.

Figure 0-4 - Second iteration of lid design
Joints

Initially the wooden slats were screwed together however this created an uneven shaped frame
that required extra blocks to realign the frame. The ability to have a joint that didn’t require
screws was also favoured to minimise cost. This design is demonstrated in fig 3-5.

Figure 0-5 - A screws only approach to the joints

Page | 19


Looking at old wood working techniques and joints it was identified that the half lap joint would
suit the requirements of the design. When prototyped the half lap allowed the frame to be
straight as well as strong under load.

Figure 0-6 - Using the half lap joint
A flaw identified with the half lap joint was that when lateral force was applied, the frame fell
apart. A combination of half lap joints and screws presented the most stability. The half lap joint
allowed a solid connection between the two slats allowing the frame to hold under load as well as
the screws supporting the joint when lateral forces are applied.

Figure 0-7 - A combination of screws and the half lap
joint

Page | 20


Braces
The braces were added to give the frame stability and strength. The choices of braces were
between three options, these were built and tested to see which brace would provide the best
support.
Option One: A-frame to A-frame halfway between ground

and midpoint
This brace was positioned high enough from the ground to

prevent contact with the ground yet low enough as to not
impede the rotation of the barrel. Fixed at each end to the
slats of wood with half lap joints and reinforced with wood
screws. However, this created a smaller contact with the
ground as well as adding complexity to the manufacturing
process.
Figure 0-8 - Sketch of option one

Option Two: A-frame to A-frame at ground
This brace was screwed between the feet of both sets of

A-frames. This provided a solid footing however was not
effective as it placed a large strain on the screws once
under load. The A-frame would not be as strong when
placed under lateral force, which, could crack around the
screws after a prolonged period of time.

Figure 0-9 - Sketch of option two

Option Three: Two supports on the short side, one long

support across the middle between
This brace used the middle of the brace between the A

frame slats and ran along the middle of the frame.
Minimising the materials cost. However, the single
support isn’t as strong due to the A-frames being able
to twist. Also, placing the A frame braces lower would
require longer slats, requiring more materials to be
purchased, adding to the total cost.
Figure 0-10 - Sketch of option three
After investigating each option, option one was selected due to its combination of strength as
well as structural support, also it does not have contact with the ground.
Page | 21


Orientation of Barrel
The horizontal barrel approach was trialled in tandem with the first iteration of the lid opening. It
was found that the horizontal barrel had a small moment arm. This became difficult to operate
when an operator went to turn it. Possible solutions for this problem were the addition of a
handle or lever which would create a mechanical advantage.

Figure 0-11 - Horizontal orientation barrel

The second solution was to rotate the barrel to a vertical state. In practice this second iteration of
the barrel being vertical had a larger moment arm, as well as allowing the use of a compression
ring barrel or any barrel that opened at the top. This system would require holes through the
centre of the barrel to allow for a pivot point, along with drillings at the top and bottom to supply
ventilation and to control moisture content.

Figure 0-12 - Vertical orientation barrel
Page | 22


Design of Frame
It was identified that the frame must use as little material as possible yet be as strong as possible.
An A-frame was picked due to its simplicity and low material cost. The steel pole will rest upon
the crossed section where the two slats meet, providing a pivot point for the barrel.

Figure 0-13- Design of different support for the frame
It was decided the frame would be made of wood as it is easy to use in manufacturing as well as
availability. The wood selected is kiaat, a native hardwood to Zambia; it is fire and termite
resistant as well as having the added property that it will not swell or contract when in contact
with water.
Final Design
Below in Fig. 3-13, is an image of the final prototype constructed with all the critical design
features described.

Figure 0-14 - Final Design of composting system
Page | 23


Function Analysis
The designs main function is to provide a secure storage space for organic waste to breakdown.
Secondary to this, the drum is able to rotate which allows for a more effective way of composting
aiding mixing and aeration.
Another function of the design is in the wood slats itself. A section of all wooden slats has been
cut out, allowing for the slats to interlock, providing more structural strength for the system.
Below, in Fig. 3-14, is a functional block diagram, demonstrating the different inputs, outputs and
components of the system.

Figure 0-15 - Functional Block Diagram
Page | 24


Functional Description
Rotating drum: The steel pole within the drum, is not connected to the drum or wooden frame.
This was decided as it allows for simple construction and reduces the number of materials
required. The weight of the drum on the two frame points pushes the frame down and helps the
two slats of wood interlock with each other. With the drums weight applying a force to the frame,
there is no necessary need to have any connection between the steel pole and other materials.
Wood slat joinery: The cut out in the slats are approximately 90mm wide (vary due to angle) and
20mm deep. When the two cut-outs are interlocked with each other they lock together and when
weight is applied they get stronger. When the weight is applied directly on top, the design is
strong. However, when the frame is pushed in a lateral direction, the half lap joints do not hold.
To combat this, screws were added to reinforce the structure.
Side braces: The side slats are included to join the two A-frames together. They are cut at a length
that allows for the drum to rotate without being obstructed by the wood slats. The positioning of
the braces also allows for easy emptying of the barrel when the compost has completed its cycle.
Page | 25


1.9 Cost Analysis

In this section, a summary of the yearly income, materials costs as well as transport and labour
costs is included. For the full cost analysis with where materials are sourced and their derived
costs, please see Section 6.1.
Yearly income for the average Farmer

With support from other teams in the cohort, an approximate estimation for the yearly income
for an average maize farmer has been established. Fig. 3-15 below works through the calculations
to present the final income estimate.
Action Calculation Units

Maize sale price 2 ZMW/kg
Maize crop density 15 Kg/ha
Plot Size 5 Ha
Estimated Seed Cost 150 ZMW
Average Yield of Maize 2 000 Kg/ha
Estimated yield of Maize 10 000 kg
Household consumption per year 1 022 kg
Estimated crop for sale 8 978 kg
Estimated Income (before farming costs) 17 956 ZMW
Farming Expenses 150 ZMW
Estimated Income 17 806 ZMW
Figure 0-16 - Estimation for yearly income
*Estimations made with reference to (Food and Agricultural Organisation, n.d.)

This income translates to approximately 2250 AUD. This figure is important, as it allows for all
costs to be related back to the yearly income. This ensures that the total cost of this system will
be appropriate for the context, in this case, a family in the western province in Zambia.
Materials Cost
In Fig. 3-16, a summary of the total costs for materials is provided. Aside from the wood slats, the
other materials are being sourced second hand. All estimates have been derived in ZMW, as this is
the main currency for where the design solution will be implemented.
DIMENSIONS UNITS TOTAL COST FOR TOTAL COST FOR

REQUIRED MATERIAL (ZMW) MATERIAL (AUD)
Wood Slat A 1030X750X40mm 4 24 3
Wood Slat B 820X750X40mm 2 10 1.20
Wood Slat C 520x750x40mm 2 6 0.80
Screws 50mm 20 0.4 0.05
Steel Pole 920X50mm 1 17 2.20
Drum 205L 1 Free [1] Free
TOTAL COST OF MATERIALS 57.40 7.25
Figure 0-17 - Materials costs
[1]
- The estimated price for the drum is free, as the assumption has been made that agricultural companies
who use similar drums to our design are able to donate them to UNCHR to be repurposed. The following
companies all specialise in processing and distributing agricultural based products and use similar drums -
Lynx Zambia, Chankwaka, Shirman Zambia
Page | 26


Similar situations of drums from agricultural companies being donated to charity in neighbouring countries;
this is why it is believed that this would be a feasible solution in the Zambian context. With the assumption
that these drums have a limited usability life within the companies before they are deemed unfit and
thrown out, the projects aim is to recycle and reuse the drums. As the drums will have been thrown out as
opposed to being used, the cost of the drums has been valued at 0ZMW (free).
Transport and Labour Costs

In Fig. 3-17, the costs associated with the implementation of the composting system are provided.
Mode of Approximate Cost Approximate Cost

Transport/Type of (ZMW) (AUD)
Labour
Transporting Materials Delivered from Kaoma Delivery cost
to Mayukwayukwa incorporated into
Transported to the materials cost
settlement by UNHCR Free
Transporting the Ox Cart 40[2] 5.15
constructed drums to
their respective home
Manufacturing the Vocational Schools 30[3] 3.85
drums and frames Trade Workshop
(Mayukwayukwa)
TOTAL COST IN ZMW 70 9
Figure 0-18 - Transport and labour costs
*with reference to (EWBd, 2016)

[2] – This price is referenced from the construction list from the EWB which lists the cost of transporting
materials for a home at 350ZMW. Assuming that 7 drums would fit on an ox cart, and that only one round
trip would be made to deliver the drums, an approximate cost of 40ZMW per drum is reasonable.
There is also the option with the ox cart service that the users of the drums could also barter other goods or
services in return for the transport to waive this transport fee.
[3] – The drums will be manufactured (cleaned and drilled) in the vocational schools vocational workshop,
as this was the only guaranteed place to have all the required tools. However, as a team it was
acknowledged that some farmers will have the tools and skills to construct the composting system on their
own, which again, would waive the manufacturing cost.
Discussion of Costs
Combining the costs of materials and the flat rate for the required services, the total cost of a
singular system rounds off to 130 ZMW (17AUD). The design life of this system is estimated to be
between four to six years. Dividing the total cost by four, the total cost per year for the system is
approximately 33ZMW. Referencing 33ZMW back to the yearly income of the farmers, it works
out to be less than 2% of their yearly income.
Through discussion, it was established that this is definitely a reasonable cost for a system which
will not only help clean up surrounding bushlands, but also increase the nutritional value of the
family’s diets that will use the compost in their vegetable garden.
Page | 27


Manufacturing, Implementation and Operation

In this section, the details relating to the manufacturing, implementation and operation of
the device will be discussed.
1.10 Manufacturing Plan

This section will outline the UNHCR vocational training programs that will be harnessed to build
the design and the measures taken to ensure a process that delivers an easily maintained and
built design. It will cover the materials used, how raw materials can be substituted as well as the
designs versatility.
Manufacturing Overview
The manufacturing of the rotating drum assembly will take place in the local Vocational Training
programs that are funded by the UNHCR. Since January 2002, the UNHCR have been providing
training in areas such as carpentry, metal fabricating and traditional crafts. These training
programs will be essential for the manufacturing phase as the educational framework provided by
the UNHCR is utilised to lower the cost of the labour. A full instruction manual will be provided to
the vocational training schools as a part of the manufacturing process to create a structured
system that enables a consistent result. This manufacturing plan can be found in section 6.2.
The framework structure for the design is made out of simple wooden parts, with two being
predominately the same, as shown in Fig. 4-1. In having a limited amount of parts, each can be
potentially mass produced creating an efficient way to lower labour costs and enable a faster
turnover of units.

Figure 0-1 - Example of image from construction manual
Page | 28


Maintenance
The ease of maintenance is a key feature of the design as well as its ability to use raw materials to
repair the system on site. These features will be critical in allowing for lower maintenance costs as
well as an extended design life.
The systems maintenance is kept to a minimum, only requiring an advised check every six months
of screw tightness and monitoring of any cracks forming in the wooden parts. In the event of any
broken legs the design allows for the substitution of the milled kiaat timber, for the use of a raw
wooden leg that can be constructed by following the same steps for that specific part (see
building instruction manual). This system has been tested at 100kg and rotated. (see Fig. 4-2). In
addition to the raw timber used in repairing the frame, locally made ropes can be used to lash the
joints together as a substitute for screws.

Figure 0-2 - Example of the strengths of raw materials
Building Instruction Material

As a part of the manufacturing process the building instruction manual provides step by step
guidance for the students and mentors of the vocational training schools. It outlines how to
manufacture each individual part and assemble the design as a whole. This reduces the risk of
misconstruction and allows for consistency across the design builds. There are diagrams to give a
visual representation of each individual step, with colour coding outlining where the material is
being removed or what parts are being assembled.
Notes for reading the building instruction manual:
• All drawings are not to scale.

• Do not measure off drawings.
• Measurements in millimetres (mm).
• Dotted lines are obstructed from view.
• Red lines are materials being removed from that particular step.
Page | 29


Versatility of Design
The system can be built to accommodate as many drums as needed and only requires a longer
steel pipe, longer side trimmers and additional A frames. (See figure below).
A three stage system is preferable, as it allows for continuous composting. With only one barrel,
there can only be one active pile of compost breaking down, meaning that any other organic
waste must be stored until the barrel can be cleared and refilled. A two or three stage system will
be more effective in producing compost for the family.

Figure 0-3 - Optional three stage system design
Bill of Materials
Quantity Size Description

4 40x75x1030mm Wooden cross struts
2 40x75x820mm Wooden side trimmer
2 40x75x575mm Wooden A brace
1 205L Plastic compression ring drum
1 50dx4x915mm Steel pipe
20 50mm Screws
Figure 0-4 - Bill of Materials
Kiaat timber:
The designed frame will be made from milled kiaat timber which is a native tree commonly used
in the building of furniture and boats. Kiaat has the following qualities that benefit the design:
• Hardwood
• Termite and borer resistance
• Doesn’t shrink or swell
• Works well with hand tools
Compression Ring Drum:

The compression ring design allows for easy access for both the addition of waste and removal of
compost. In Africa they are commonly used for agricultural packaging. Steel drums can be used,
however plastic is preferable as they will not rust over time.

Page | 30


Steel Pipe:
The steel pipes will be bought off a local demolition company in Kaoma and provide the point that
the drum pivots about its axis. The dimensions and thickness given, allow for adequate strength
and will not be a weak point of the design.
Screws:
Screws will be used instead of nails because nails tend to work themselves out over time, whereas
screws have a thread that will eliminate this trait.
Safety Considerations for Manufacturing

In constructing the rotating drum system there are several safety precautions that need to be
considered:
• At all times protective clothing and enclosed shoes must be worn.

• When grinding or drilling eye and ear protection must be worn.
• Keep combustible liquids at a distance when grinding or drilling.
• Ensure that there are no trip hazards (power cords, off cuts, tools)
Page | 31


1.11 Implementation Plan

In this section, the intended implementation plan will be discussed. The implementation plan has
been carefully thought out to ensure that it will be successfully adopted by the community.
Implementation Overview
To begin with, the composting system will be first deployed in the new settlement with the
possible option of implementation in the refugee camp. This will first begin as a part of the
student vegetable garden at the primary schools, where the students will continue to build on
their knowledge of composting. Next, the building instruction manual will be sent to the local
vocational schools, where the teaching of construction procedures and manufacturing of the
drums will be completed. After these educational phases are completed, the next step is to
distribute the manufactured drums to the families where ongoing training and support will be
provided to ensure that the composting system remains effective.
In order to ensure the implementation of the system is successful, community consultation will be
required. Below are steps that can be used to convey the need for change to receive and evaluate
feedback.
1. Communicate the rationale behind the need for change
For the families who will use the drum to understand the importance of its use,
they must understand how the drum will solve their waste management issues,
and the benefits that will arise from the system.
2. Implement the change in phases
Change is generally best received when you implement it in small, manageable
phases. Most change can be broken down into different sections and doing this
allows for more critical monitoring and evaluation of each section.
3. Evaluate, review and report on the change
It is important to monitor how the implementation is going and measure the
impact it is actually having, as well as the success of the system.

Component List
A list of all the components needed:
• Education in the school
• Education in the workshops
• Trucking company
• Agriculture companies to donate drums

Page | 32


Implementation Procedure
The first step in the implementation process is approaching the schools and understanding how
the schools are currently teaching composting to the students. From this, there will be a stronger
understanding of how compost will be an effective solution in Mayukwayukwa. This consultation
phase with both the community and the agencies working in the area will ensure that it becomes
a shared project to ensure cultural appropriateness is maintained.
Whilst this is occurring, a training program will be implemented at the vocational schools to teach
them how to properly assemble the wooden frames. This training will also include how to
construct these frames without wasting too many materials.
Once these procedures have been fully implemented and assuming the community is on board
with the change, the second phase will then be implemented.
The second phase will be to bring the required materials for construction to the vocational
schools. The drums and frames will then be constructed by the vocational school with accordance
to the construction manual. Once this occurs the compost system will then be ready to be
delivered to the new homes by ox carts.
During the operation phase, it is important to remember that when the drum is empty it won’t be
very heavy, but once there is a small amount of compost in the drum, it will become quite heavy.
Once the compost drum is filled halfway, it is recommended that children under the age of 12 do
not rotate the drum. This is mainly due to the likelihood and consequence of the drum causing
serious injury to the children.
Additional Uses
The design creates rich, organic compost which can then be used to improve the fertility of the
soil. This will allow the families to increase the diversity of crops that can be grown on a small
scale. It will also improve the quality of the environment as it will prevent organic waste from
building up in the surround bushland, preventing further damage to the eco-system.
This composting system will also be used to support the education of sustainable farming that is
currently being completed within the Mayukwayukwan primary schools.
Page | 33


1.12 Operation of Compost Drum

In this section, details on the operation and safety considerations have been completed.

Instructions for Operation

This design is very simple and easy to use. The following steps outline the recommended use of
this composting system:
Step 1: Unlock the compression ring, remove the ring and then remove the lid
Step 2: Add your organic waste
Step 3: Assess the moisture content. If your compost is too dry, add some water. If your compost
is too wet, shake the barrel around and let the excess water fall out the holes.
Step 4: Once everything has been added put the lid back on and secure it with the compression
ring.
Step 5: Spin the barrel.

It is important to spin the barrel at least twice a week. This will allow for the compost to have
time to sit and decompose as well as still have adequate aeration.
Safety Considerations for Operation

During the operation phase, it is important to remember that when the drum is empty it won’t be
very heavy, but once there is a small amount of compost in the drum, it will become quite heavy.
Once the compost drum is filled halfway, it is recommended that children under the age of 12 do
not rotate the drum. This is mainly due to the likelihood and consequence of the drum causing
serious injury to the children.
Page | 34


Discussion of Final Design

In this section, the design has been evaluated with respect to its current strengths and
weaknesses, as well as future recommendations that could be investigated to improve the design.
1.13 Strengths and Weaknesses

The strength of this design lies within its ability to be easily constructed and maintained. The
system is effective in a home context due to its ability to give purpose to organic waste, allowing
the operator to create highly fertile compost to aid the fertility of the soil which will support
higher nutrient plant growth for consumption.
The design is limited in capacity however this can be offset by having multiple drums working
together. To accommodate having amounts of compost available all year round, or, having larger
amounts of compost available at the end of composting periods, with multiple systems working
simultaneously.
A usability weakness that has been discovered is when the system is full it has significant weight,
making it more difficult for children and the elderly to operate the turning of the drum, thus the
recommendation is it is only operated by fully abled adults.
The rotating drum has the added advantage of being raised off the ground countering the
possibilities of the compost becoming waterlogged, which affects the effectiveness of the
composting process. The rotating drum is well protected from any local fauna that would be
inclined to eat any organic waste.
1.14 Future Recommendations

Areas that would need further investigation and a technical review are both the longevity of the
system as well as different safety aspects.
The spinning barrel does pose a safety hazard to children due to the barrel, when fully loaded,
swinging with force. It has been highlighted that this needs to be addressed to protect children
from injuries. A T piece of metal can act as a pin which prevents the barrel from engaging a full
swing in which its weight takes over being the driving force. The T piece would be positioned just
above the pole so that if the barrel is rotated the T piece is stopped by the supporting slats of the
A frame. This prevents the barrel from engaging and subsequently, any children getting hurt.
The feet of the frame have also been deemed ineffective due to their contact with the ground,
this can cause wood rot and deterioration of the wood. One solution is to use old plastic bottles
and nailing them to the feet so they are enclose and won’t hold water if it rains. This solution
protects the longevity of the feet ensuring a strong frame for a long time.
Page | 35


Conclusion
We have used a human centred design approach has been used to ensure that the final solution is
both culturally relevant and technically feasible.
In the discover and empathise phases, EWB and UNHCR defined the problem and provided
context of pre-existing technologies within Mayukwayukwa. This allowed our team to develop a
strong understanding of the issues related with not having a formal organic waste management
system. These created the design requirements that the final design was created upon.
Moving forward to the ideate and prototype phases, different ideas and iterations of these
solutions were investigated and tested to ensure that the key features were technically correct
and usable. These iterations were then incorporated into the final design, being a rotating barrel.
As the project progressed through the design phases, it was essential that both the manufacturing
plan and implementation plan were tailored to the community’s needs. Both plans incorporate
local resources and labour to not only keep the costs to a minimum, but to increase community
involvement.
As student engineers working in a humanitarian context, it is important to remember that this

composting system design is not the key aspect of the report; this report highlights the holistic
approach that has been utilised to ensure that the community will truly benefit from these
technologies. The solution ultimately looks at providing a platform for the community to develop
their capacity for growth and sustainability.

Figure 0-1 - Human centred design process
Page | 36


Appendices
Appendix A – Full Cost Analysis

Approximation of a farmers yearly income:
*Calculations based on yearly crop yield
Action Calculation Units

Maize sale price 2 ZMW/kg
Maize crop density 15 Kg/ha
Plot Size 5 Ha
Estimated Seed Cost 150 ZMW
Average Yield of Maize 2 000 Kg/ha
Estimated yield of Maize 10 000 kg
Household consumption per year 1 022 kg
Estimated crop for sale 8 978 kg
Estimated Income (before farming costs) 17 956 ZMW
Farming Expenses 150 ZMW
Estimated Income 17 806 ZMW
Figure 0-1 - Yearly income for new settlement farmers
Figures sourced from (FAO, n.d.)
Per year, it is estimated that a farmer will receive 17 806ZMW from a full crop of maize.

Cost of Materials
DIMENSIONS UNITS TOTAL COST FOR TOTAL COST FOR
REQUIRED MATERIAL (ZMW) MATERIAL (AUD)
Wood Slat A 1030X750X40mm 4 24 3
Wood Slat B 820X750X40mm 2 10 1.20
Wood Slat C 520x750x40mm 2 6 0.80
Screws 50mm 20 0.4 0.05
Steel Pole 920X50mm 1 17 2.20
Drum 205L 1 Free Free
TOTAL COST OF MATERIALS 57.40 7.25
Figure 0-2 - Materials Costs
Wood Slats
Cost of providing wooden planks is approximately 2000ZMW for a m3 (Kiaat timber price, 2016)
From this information, the following calculations were used to approximate how many wooden
slats of the set dimensions could be created.
Page | 37


Wood Slat A

Figure 0-3 - Calculations of wood slat A
Multiplying the 6ZMW by the required units (4), gives a total combined unit cost of 24ZMW.
Wood Slat B

Figure 0-4 - Calculation of wood slat B
Multiplying the individual price by the required units (2), gives a combined unit cost of 10ZMW.
Page | 38


Wood Slat C

Figure 0-5 - Calculations of wood slat B
Multiplying the individual price by the required units (2), gives a combined unit cost of 6ZMW

Screws – Quote from M&F Packaging Industry Ltd. Lusaka, Zambia (April 2016)
The quote for screws was for a 50kg bag. The total cost was 680ZMW for the bag. Our team
worked on the assumption that a screw weighed 2g. The following calculations is how we
developed a cost for the screws.
50kg = 50 000 grams

Number of screws in the bag
!"#$%& () *+$ 12 222
= = 25 000 screws
!"#$%& () ,-."/ 3

Number of groups of 20 that are in the bag
31 222
= 1 250 groups
32
Cost of a group of 20 screws

-(,& () &%" *+$ <=2
= = 0.5ZMW
89:*". () $.(9;, > 312

Figure 0-6 - Calculations of screw price
Steel Pole – Quote from M&F Packaging Industry Ltd. Lusaka, Zambia (April 2016)
For a 6m length pole, the total cost is 102ZMW. The required length for one pole is approximately
a metre, therefore the unit price is 17ZMW
Page | 39


Another member of our student cohort, Joel Cummings, sourced a materials quote list from this
Zambian business.

Drum – Lynx Zambia, Chankwaka, Shirman Zambia
The above listed companies all specialise in processing and distributing agricultural based
products (excluding agrichemicals).
The companies all use plastic drums with desired dimensions within Zambia. With the assumption
that these drums have a limited usability life within the companies before they are deemed unfit
and thrown out, our team will aim to recycle and reuse the drums. As the drums will have been
thrown out as opposed to being used, the cost of the drums has been valued at 0ZMW (free).
Transport and Labour Costs (Implementation costs)
The following transport and labour costs for the Mayukwayukwa resettlement area have been
sourced with thanks from the Habitat for Humanity. Prices are current as of July 2015.
This information has been sourced from the EWB resource section.
Mode of Approximate Cost Approximate Cost

Transport/Type of (ZMW) (AUD)
Labour
Transporting Materials Delivered to Kaoma Delivery cost
to Mayukwayukwa incorporated into
Transported to the materials cost
settlement by UNHCR Free
Transporting the Ox Cart 40[1] 5.15
constructed drums to
their respective home
Manufacturing the Vocational Schools 30[2] 3.85
drums and frames Trade Workshop
(Mayukwayukwa)
TOTAL COST IN ZMW 70 9
Figure 0-7 - Transport and labour costs
[1] – This price is referenced from the construction list from the EWB which lists the cost of
transporting materials for a home at 350ZMW. Assuming that 7 drums would fit on an ox cart, and
that only one round trip would be made to deliver the drums, an approximate cost of 40ZMW per
drum is reasonable.
There is also the option with the ox cart service that the users of the drums could also barter
other goods or services in return for the transport to waive this transport fee.
Page | 40


[2] – The drums will be manufactured (cleaned and drilled) in the vocational schools trade
workshop, as this was the only guaranteed place to have all the required tools. However, as a
team it was acknowledged that some farmers will have the tools and skills to manufacture the
system on its, which again would waive the manufacturing cost.
Combining the costs of materials and the flat rate for the required services, the total cost of the
system rounds off to 130 ZMW
Operational Costs
Once the composting systems have been placed in their homes, it is intended that there will be no
extra costs to operate the system.
The only additional costs on top of the manufacturing and implementation, would be
maintenance costs. The team has considered the use of raw materials such as branches to replace
broken timber supports. Raw materials will be able to be sourced in the local bushland and will
not be an addition cost.
Page | 41


Appendix B – Building Construction Manual

Bill of Materials:
Quantity Size Description

A 4 40x75x1030 wooden cross struts
B 2 40x75x820 wooden side trimmer
C 2 40x75x575 wooden A brace
D 1 205L plastic compression ring drum
E 1 50dx4x915 steel pipe
F 20 2” screws
Figure 0-1 - Bill of Materials
Figure 1
Figure 0-2 - Images of materials
Page | 42


Tools Required:

Name Picture
Hand Saw

Wood Chisel

Hammer

Drill bits
50mm hole saw
Power Drill
Angle Grinder

Tape measure
T Square

Ruler

Permanent

Maker

Figure 0-3 - Tools required
Page | 43


Safety Precautions:
In constructing the rotating drum system there are several safety precautions that need to be
considered:
- At all times protective clothing and enclosed shoes must be worn.

- When grinding or drilling eye and ear protection must be worn.
- Keep combustible liquids at a distance when grinding or drilling.
- Insure that there are no trip hazards (power cords, off cuts, tools etc.)
Tips:
These are photos that can provide easy tips to manufacture the parts for assembly.
Copying angles.

Figure 0-4 - Tips for chiselling out the wood
Chiselling out evenly spaced cuts.
Figure 2

Figure 0-5 - Chiselling out of wood

Page | 44


Note:
• All pictures not to scale.

• Do not measure off drawing.
• Measurements in millimetres (mm).
• Dotted lines are obstructed from view.
• Red lines materials being removed from that particular step.

Figure 0-6 - Initial state of piece A
A: (A1 and A2)
1.1 Mark a line from 977mm on the upper side to the end of the lower side of the top face.
1.2 Cut with a hand saw straight through to the bottom.
Figure 0-7 - Step one for A
Page | 45


2.1 Measure 825mm along the side face and then a further 75mm. Mark straight across at these
points.
2.2 Cut straight down these lines 15mm deep on each side with a hand saw.
2.3 Saw a further three evenly spaced lines in between these points straight down to make it
easier to chisel out the section.
2.4 Chisel out the section.
Figure 0-8 - Step two for A
3.1 Mark in 187mm and 267mm in from the left upper side of the top face. Now mark in 160mm
and 240mm in from the left under side of the top face.
3.2 Make a line from the marks at 187mm to 160mm and 267mm to 240mm.
3.3 Cut straight down both lines with a hand saw and a further three evenly spaced cuts in
between to make it easier to chisel out the section at a depth of 20mm.
Figure 0-9 - Step three for A
Page | 46


A1
4.1.1 Mark in 370mm and 460mm on the upper and lower side of the top face.
4.1.2 Make a line from the 370mm upper to the 370mm lower and the 460mm upper and the
460mm lower.
4.1.2 Cut straight down both lines with a hand saw and a further three evenly spaced cuts in
4.1.3 Chisel out the section.
Figure 0-10 - Step four for A1
A2
(Notice that the top view has been flipped in comparison to past views and for this step I will refer
this image)
4.2.1 Mark in 370mm and 460mm on the upper and lower side of the top face.
4.2.2 Make a line from the 370mm upper to the 370mm lower and the 460mm upper and the
460mm lower.
4.2.3 Cut straight down both lines with a hand saw and a further three evenly spaced cuts in
4.2.4 Chisel out the section.
Page | 47


Figure 0-11 - Step four for A2
B:
1.1 Mark in 40mm and 80mm from the upper left and the upper right side on the top face.
1.2 Make a perpendicular line from each point to the lower edge.
1.3 Cut straight down the lines with a hand saw and three evenly spaced parallel lines between
the lines at points 40mm and 80mm at a depth 15mm to make it easier to chisel out the
section.

Figure 0-12 – Step one for piece B

Page | 48


C:
1.1 Mark in 52.5m from each side on the upper side of the top face.
1.2 Draw a line from the two points to the ends of the lower side of the top face.
1.3 Cut straight down these lines.

Figure 0-13 - Step one for C1

Mark in 92.5mm from the left and right on both the upper and lower side of the top face.
2.1 Connect the marks of the left side together and the right side together.
2.2 Cut straight down the lines with a hand saw and three evenly spaced cuts from the lines back
to the edge at a depth of 15mm to make it easier to chisel out the section.
Figure C2
Figure 0-14 - Step one for C2

Page | 49


D:
1.1 Find a centre axis of the drum from the top view. This is easiest by using the cast marks.
1.2 Mark a centre point 465mm from the bottom of the drum upwards on the cast mark. Repeat
this step on the other side of the drum.
1.3 Use a drill and a 50mm hole saw to drill through each point.
Figure 0-15 - Image of D1
2.1 On both the lid and the underside of the drum find the centre. Measure at equal angles of 45
degrees 245mm from the centre and draw a mark.
2.2 At all these marks drill a 10mm hole.
Figure 0-16 - Image of D2
Page | 50


E:
1.1 It is advised to drill several 10mm holes evenly spaced throughout the pole.

Figure 0-17 - Image of E1
Page | 51


Assembly of manufactured parts:

This section outlines how the previously manufactured parts are assembled to give the final
product ready for use.
This symbol is for screws.
Step 1: (Repeat for other side)
1.1 Join parts A1 and A2 together.

1.2 Screw in two self-tapping screws 15mm in from the join from both sides.

Figure 0-18 – Step one and two for F1

2.1 Join part B to parts A1 and A2.
2.2 Screw in two self-tapping screws at 15mm from the top and bottom and 45mm from the side.
Repeat on opposite side.
Figure 0-19 - Step two and three for F1
Page | 52


3.1 Measure 15mm from top and bottom of Part B and in 20mm from Part A and mark.
3.2 Screw in two self-tapping screws.
3.3 for all joins of Part B.

Figure 0-20 - Construction of frame

Assembly of frame Assembly of drum and frame
Figure 0-22- Assembly of frame
Figure 0-21- Assembly of drum and frame
Page | 53


Appendix C – Complete Decision Matrix

Category Multisystem Pile Barrel

Complexity/Cost to Make (12) 5 12 9
Complexity/Cost to Maintain (9) 3 8 4
Effectiveness (8) 4 2 7
Safety (8) 8 3 7
Durability (7) 7 2 6
Simplicity of Operations (5) 2 5 3
Capacity (5) 4 4 2
Adaptability (4) 2 3 4
Area Required (2) 1 1 2
Total out of 60 36/60 40/60 44/60

Complexity and Cost to make: (12) Effectiveness: (8)

Score 1 - No local materials Score 1 - Extended breakdown time
- 15+ materials and tools required - Ineffective breakdown of waste
- Takes a week+ to build - Insufficient capacity (requires several
- Skilled professional required to build units)
- Would require an investment to build it (5+% of - No weather protection
the yearly income) Score 3/4 – Regular breakdown time
Score 4 – 2-3 local materials - Adequate breakdown of waste
- 10 to 15 materials and tools - Moderate capacity (at the limits of its
- 4 to 7 days required to build capacity)
- Vocational training required to build - Minimal weather protection
- Small investment of yearly income (3-5% Score 8 - Accelerated breakdown time
Score 8 – Mainly comprised of local materials - Full breakdown of waste
- 7 to 10 materials and tools - Ultimate capacity (doesn’t exceed limits
- 3 to 4 days required to build of capacity)
- A handyman could build it - Weather protected
- Small cost (1 -3% of yearly income)
Score 12 – All local materials
- Less than 7 materials and tools
- Can be built in a day
- Most abled people could build
- The cost of 1USD
Simplicity of Operations: (5) Complexity and Cost to maintain: (9)

Score 1 - Requires strenuous manual operation or Score 1 - Expensive cost for replacement parts
machinery - Complex maintenance (requires skilled
- Requires training on how to operate person)
- Regular human interactions - Requires regular maintenance
Score 2/3 - Requires moderate manual operation Score 4/5 - Moderate cost for replacement parts
- Require operational information - Handyman required to repair
- occasional human interactions needed - Requires occasional maintenance
Score 5 - Minimal or zero manual operation Score 9 - Free parts (doesn’t require parts)
- No operational information needed - Most able people can repair
- minimal or zero human interactions - Minimal maintenance

Capacity: (5) Area Required: (2)
Page | 54


Score 1 – Holds less than 2 months’ worth of waste Score 1 – Larger than a 2x2m plot
Score 3 – Holds 4 – 8 months’ worth of waste - If the size of the plot needs to constantly
Score 5 – Holds 8+ months’ worth of waste expand to sustain the system
Score 2 – Smaller than a 2x2m plot
- Fixed size
Durability: (7) Safety: (8)

Score 1 - Low weather resistance Score 1 – 4+ items of PPE required
- Low strength - High risk of injury (likelihood and
- High maintenance consequence)
- Low operational time per unit - Unsuitable to leave lying around
Score 3/4 - Moderately weather resistant - Unsafe for children to be around it
- Mid strength Score 4 – 1-3 items of PPE required
- Low maintenance - Mid risk of injury
- Reasonable operational time per unit - Children can be around it if supervised
Score 7 - Weather proof Score 8 – PPE is not needed
- High strength - Low risk of injury
- Minimal to no maintenance - Safe for kids to use it, play with and be
- Long lasting operation per unit unsupervised
Adaptability: (4)
Score 1 – Completely westernised system with no
collaboration with the community
Score 4 – system blends into pre-existing systems and
technology within the community
Page | 55


References
Design area 6, Waste (n.d). Retrieved April 27, 2016, from
http://www.ewbchallenge.org/unhcr-zambia/waste
Central Statistical Office, Zambia (March, 2015). Zambian Demographic and Health Survey
Retrieved from http://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR304/FR304.pdf
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (January, 2015). UNHCR Zambian Operations
[Fact sheet]. Retrieved from http://www.ewbchallenge.org/challenge/1351/node/1401
UNCHR (December 2012). Zambia begins granting Angolan refugees permanent residency
Retrieved April 29, 2016 from http://www.unhcr.org/50e162899.html
Engineers Without Borders (n.d). Retrieved April 27, 2016, from

http://www.ewbchallenge.org/unhcr-zambia/local-integration-program
Lyby, E (n.d) Vocational training for Refugees, a case study from Tanzania. [Extract]
Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://www.unhcr.org/3b8a1b774.pdf
Charita (2014). Apprentice and Entrepreneur Training. Retrieved May 4, 2016, from
http://svet.charita.cz/en/where-we-help/africa/zambia/apprentice-and-entrepreneur-
education/
Hoornweg, D. Bhada-Tata, P (2012). What a Waste. Retrieved May 19, 2016, from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/336387-
1334852610766/What_a_Waste2012_Final.pdf
Introduction to Mayukwayukwa (2016). Retrieved June 1, 2016 from

http://www.ewbchallenge.org/unhcr-zambia/introduction-mayukwayukwa
UNHCR Innovation (n.d). School Gardening Project. Retrieved May 12, 2016, from
http://innovation.unhcr.org/labs_post/school-gardening-project/
Shitumbanuma, V. Simfukwe, P. Kalala, D. Kaninga, B. Gondwe, B. Nambala, M. … Mutegi, J.

(2012). Integrated Soil Fertility Management in Zambia. Retrieved May 6, 2016 from
http://ssa.ipni.net/ipniweb/region/africa.nsf/0/F7501955BAE1F4F085257F080026F963/$
FILE/Zambia%20ISMF%20Module.pdf
Vinje, E (2012). Managing moisture in compost. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from
http://www.planetnatural.com/moisture-in-compost/
Planet Natural (n.d.). Composting 101 – How Composting Works. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from
http://www.planetnatural.com/composting-101/how-it-works/
Kiaat timber, Plantsaw (n.d). Retrieved May 21, 2016, from

http://www.plantsaw.co.za/timber/kiaat.html
Kiaat Timber Price Wholesale (n.d). Retrieved May 25, 2016 from
https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Kiaat-Mukwa-Pterocarpus-
angolensis_140996738.html?spm=a2700.7724857.29.81.iglSQQ
Page | 56

3C - Edited - Creating A Composting Solution

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3C - Edited - Creating A Composting Solution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016

Creating a Composting Solution

1 Defining the Problem ..................................................................................................................... 8

Building Instruction Material .................................................................................. 29

Figure 6-18 - Step four for A2 ........................................................................................................... 48

1 Defining the Problem

1.1 Problem Scope

1.2 Technical Review

1.3 Composting Principles

1.4 Design Requirements

Design requirements include:

1.5 Design Options

Categories Multisystem Pile Barrel

Detail of Option One

Figure 0-2 - A three stage system constructed from mud bricks

Detail of Option Two

Figure 0-3- A pile of compost for the community

Detail of Option Three

Figure 0-4- Rotating barrel design

1.6 Design Evaluation

Evaluating the ideas

Category Multisystem Pile Barrel

Justification of selected option

1.7 Summary of Design

1.8 Detailed Description

Design Feature Analysis

Figure 0-6 - Using the half lap joint

Option One: A-frame to A-frame halfway between ground

This brace was positioned high enough from the ground to

Option Two: A-frame to A-frame at ground

This brace was screwed between the feet of both sets of

Option Three: Two supports on the short side, one long

This brace used the middle of the brace between the A

Figure 0-10 - Sketch of option three

Figure 0-12 - Vertical orientation barrel

1.9 Cost Analysis

Yearly income for the average Farmer

Action Calculation Units

*Estimations made with reference to (Food and Agricultural Organisation, n.d.)

DIMENSIONS UNITS TOTAL COST FOR TOTAL COST FOR

Transport and Labour Costs

Mode of Approximate Cost Approximate Cost

*with reference to (EWBd, 2016)

Manufacturing, Implementation and Operation

1.10 Manufacturing Plan

Building Instruction Material

Notes for reading the building instruction manual:

• All drawings are not to scale.

Quantity Size Description

Compression Ring Drum:

Safety Considerations for Manufacturing

• At all times protective clothing and enclosed shoes must be worn.

1.11 Implementation Plan

1.12 Operation of Compost Drum

Instructions for Operation

Step 5: Spin the barrel.

Safety Considerations for Operation

Discussion of Final Design

1.13 Strengths and Weaknesses

1.14 Future Recommendations

As student engineers working in a humanitarian context, it is important to remember that this

Appendix A – Full Cost Analysis