Spring 20113
Abstract
This report analyzes the design steps used in the design of a cardboard chair. Surveys of
potential customers showed the chair needed to be easy to assemble ad move, as well as
simple to store. Structural elements in “L” “O” and ““ shapes were then tested. We developed
several concepts, eventually choosing a concept with two flat sides cut into the profile of a chair
with cardboard tubes connecting them, forming the back and seat.
1.0 Introduction
Chairs are used by nearly everybody nearly every day. We sit in them while we’re in class, we
relax on them to watch television, and use them to do work in the office. We are so used to
having chairs around all the time that we never stop to think about them. Our design takes the
average chair and makes it a little more unique. The design we used made use of tubes for the
seating and back portions, a unique design feature that makes our chair interesting and
aesthetically pleasing. Our design process involved interviewing and surveying potential
customers to gain a better idea of what they would like to see in a chair (See 3.0 Customer
Needs Analysis). Our target consumer is the college-‐age student, who needs comfort on a
budget, without sacrificing quality and usability. We used the data we learned from our surveys
and from research to create several prototype designs, which we narrowed down to one final
design (See 6.0 Concept Generation). We believe the engineering design process helped create
a chair design that is both unique and functional.
2.0 Mission Statement
The goal of Team 3 was to create a cardboard chair that was functional in a dorm or student
environment. The chair was to be easy to store and assemble/disassemble, but also cheap
enough for students to purchase.
3.0 Customer Needs Analysis
Customer needs were established through the use of surveys and interviews of potential
customers. Individuals were questioned on what they think would be a good feature of a
cardboard chair and asked to explain how their ideas would be useful to buyers of the chair.
The needs established by the potential customers were then compiled and used in the early
design stages of the cardboard chair.
Spring 20114
Table 1
Customer Needs Importance Table
No. Need Imp.
1 Cardboard chair has a supportive, strong, and comfortable back 5
2 Cardboard chair can safely hold the weight of an average person 5
3 Cardboard chair is easy to disassemble and store 4
4 Cardboard chair looks aesthetically pleasing 3
5 Cardboard chair has a low cost 4
6 Cardboard chair is durable in an indoor environment 5
7 Cardboard chair is hard to tip over 4
8 Cardboard chair can be easily repaired or fixed 2
9 Cardboard chair Is environmentally-‐friendly 3
10 Cardboard chair creates minimal amount of waste during construction 2
11 Cardboard chair can be easily cleaned 3
4.0 External Research
Our search for chair designs yielded many original and unique designs. Many variations of the
“generic chair” are available for purchase. The typical chair design features a back, seat, and
four legs, and some have armrests. External research consisted of Literature Search, Patent
Search, and Benchmarking chairs available on the market.
4.1 Literature Search
Chairs have been with humans for a very long time. Today we use them daily.
The chair cannot be attributed to one person, as different people and cultures formed
their own type of “chair” simultaneously. Early “chairs” could have included rocks, or
simple structures made from logs. Some of the earliest chairs–using the word as we
know it today–appeared in the Egyptian era, around 3000 BCE to 500 BCE. These chairs
were influenced by designs originating from Asia and Europe.
Chairs vary very much in their designs. The word “chair” encompasses anything
that is essentially a seat that can be moved. In earlier times, chairs were reserved not
for common people, but for higher classes such as kings, bishops, lords, and pharaohs.
The majority of people were relegated to using stools or benches–usually without a
back. The name “chair” comes from the latin word cathedra which shows the distinct
relation between chair and the cathedral, or church. The simplest and earliest chair
Spring 20115
designs originated from X-‐shaped chairs (similar to today’s folding chairs) that appeared
during the Roman era.
The French are credited with the earliest designs of what we see today as a
chair. They were the first to implement designs that were largely designed to be
functional. The chairs from France were simple and easy to build. They worked hard to
make the chair into something that would be comfortable and useful, while also being
somewhat stylish. It was around this time that chairs with fabric seats began to appear,
and designs began to incorporate fancy designs that were aesthetically pleasing, and
also comfortable.
Soon after the French redesigned the chair it became popular and construction
moved to the factory around the 18th century. These chairs were handcrafted and often
very ornate. They required a large amount of material, often involving large solid pieces
of wood necessary for carving the design elements. These chairs became the basis for
the modern chair, which as evolved considerably. Today chairs are made of many
materials, even plastics and metals. Chairs now have many designs, some made for use
in the office and some made more for display than seating.
4.2 Patent Search
A basic search for chair patents yields approximately 134 chairs. The patents all cover
basic variations of chairs. The majority share the same features, with a simple back and
seat, with four legs and arm rests. Some more creative designs do appear in the patents,
though not many.
4.3 Benchmarking
For our benchmarking portion of development, the chair was compared to two chairs
currently on the market, the Ikea Poang Chair and the Ikea Bernhard chair. We
compared the specifications of each chair, and ranked them on a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being
the best. Our chair came in second place, which is decent considering the other two are
commercial products made out of metals and plastics, as opposed to cardboard. Patent
search yielded chairs of similar design and specifications to the Ikea chairs. Emphasis in
the Benchmarking was placed on the weight supported and cost, with lesser emphasis
placed on the other design features. Our design prototype fared well against the
commercial comparison products.
Spring 20117
5.0 Target Specification
Our target specifications included design features that would be most relevant to the user.
Cost, capacity, and quality were the most important factors in our target specifications. For
cost, we exceeded the ideal price. In capacity, our estimated capacity (a conservative estimate)
exceeds the marginal value, but does not exceed the ideal value. Other target specifications are
exceeded in our design, including the dimension specifications. The target specifications
represented a goal for our design to achieve, and a benchmark for us to meet.
Table 3
Target Specifications
Target Specs
Feature Current Specs
Ideal Marginal
Cost $78.00 <$85.00 <$100
Capacity 160lbs >180lbs >140lbs
Height 36" >32" >30"
Width 21" >18" >16"
Depth 27 5/8" >24" >22"
Ease of use 5 >4 >3
Quality rating 4 4 3
Aestetics
rating
4 4 3
Lifetime 2 years (est) 18 months 1 year
6.0 Concept Generation
Concept development began with “boxing out” the basic chair shape. We decided on a simple
chair, consisting of four legs and a back. Our first concepts just outlined the general shape. In
Figure 4, the basic chair measurements were drawn. The dimensions of the seat and back were
approximated, which we used in designing the general shape later in the development process
(See Figure 5). The general shape design for our final concept is illustrated in Figure 5, where
we started to develop what would become the basis for our two-‐sided chair with the back and
seat formed out of cardboard tubes. Our sketches were instrumental in producing the first
Spring 20118
manila folder models which were used to develop the half-‐scale mock-‐up. These sketches aided
us in developing what would become our final design.
Figure 4: Concept Sketches
Spring 20119
Figure 5 Concept Sketches
Spring 201110
7.0 Concept Selection
Each of our group members presented their design to the group. The three different concepts
were largely similar, which helped in narrowing down the final design. Figure 6 shows an
example of one of our designs, which was used as the basis for our final design. We analyzed
each concept and looked at both the positive and negative aspects of it. We tried to use the
positive aspects from each to produce a final design that would be a well-‐rounded product,
featuring a strong, aesthetically pleasing, and original design. Two of our main concepts had
slight variations, meaning we had a total of five different model concepts (See Table 4 and 5
below). The concept selection process allowed us to narrow down our final design, which we
then modeled in SolidWorks and produced using cardboard.
Figure 6 Concept Model
Spring 201111
Table 4
Concept Screening Matrix Concepts
Selection
Criteria
A B C D E
Height -‐ + -‐ -‐ -‐
Width -‐ 0 0 + 0
Depth + 0 0 0 -‐
Aesthetics 0 + -‐ + +
Ergonomics 0 + + -‐ -‐
Cost 0 0 + -‐ 0
Ease of use + 0 + 0 0
Quality 0 + 0 0 0
Sum +’s 2 4 3 2 1
Sum 0’s 4 4 3 3 4
Sum –‘s 2 0 2 3 3
Net Score 0 4 1 -‐1 -‐2
Rank 3 1 2 4 5
Continue? Yes Yes Yes No No
Spring 201112
Table 5
Concept Selection Matrix
Wt Team 3 Cardboard Chair Concept A Concept B
% Wt’ed Wt’ed Wt’ed
Selection
Criteria
Ranking Value
Score
Ranking Value Score
Ranking Value Score
Weight
supported
(lbs)
20% 3 ~160lbs 0.6 2 ~180lbs 0.4 3 ~160lbs 0.6
Cost ($) 20% 4 ~$80 0.8 3 ~$100 0.6 4 ~80 0.8
Ergonomics 20% 4 4 0.8 3 3 0.6 3 3 0.6
Ease of Use 20% 5 5 1 4 4 0.8 4 4 0.8
Aesthetics 10% 5 5 0.5 3 3 0.3 4 4 0.4
Quality 10% 5 5 0.5 4 4 0.4 5 5 0.5
Total Score 4.2 3.1 3.7
Rank 1 3 2
Continue? Yes No No
8.0 Final Specifications
The target specifications were the guidelines for creating our final specifications. We took the
most important aspects of the design, which we put into Table 6. We wanted to keep cost as
low as possible since the average college student does not have excess money to spend on a
chair. Our product weight was kept low due to the usage of cardboard, a naturally light
material. The overall size dimensions are similar to those of the average desk chair. The
incorporation of tubes for the seat and back provides a unique difference between our chair
and the typical chair available on the market. The capacity of our chair is similar to chairs
available on the market.
Table 6
Final Specifications
Feature Current Specs New Specs
Cost $79 <$70.00
Weight Approx. 5lbs 5lbs
Tube Diameter 3” 3”
Width 21” 21”
Height 36” 36”
Depth 27 5/8” <28”
Capacity ~160lbs ~180lbs
Spring 201113
9.0 Final Design
The final design features a cardboard chair composed of two sides and tubes forming the seat
and back. The usage of strong cardboard sides provides the vertical support necessary to have a
chair the same height as an average chair, while also providing the aesthetically pleasing looks
of the chair. Using tubes, we were able to make a seating surface that is unique from most
chairs available today. The tubes also serve to provide the horizontal structure that sustains the
load of a person sitting on the chair. In addition, the tubes add to the aesthetic appeal of the
chair.
Figure 7 Top View
Spring 201114
Figure 8 Front View
Figure 9 Right-‐side View
Spring 201116
Figure 12 – Tube Drawings
Figure 13 – Chair Side Drawings
Spring 201117
Figure 14 – Final Prototype
Figure 15 – Final Prototype
Spring 201118
10.0 Conclusions
Our project was successful. Our prototype design represents the culmination of design work
and perfection. A full-‐scale model could be built using our plans and drawings. We believe our
chair meets the design requirements set forth in the project, as well as the specifications we
intended it to meet. Theoretically, we believe this design could be sold on the market, and
possibly adapted to other materials for easy marketability. We were able to successfully utilize
the design process to research and learn about cardboard chair design. Using the ideas we
formed from our research, we were able to create concepts that were then used to make our
final concept, which developed into our final design. This design was utilized in creating a ½
scale model for presentation purposes.
11.0 References
Berry, Jennifer. "The Revival of the Cardboard Chair." earth911.com. N.p., 2/11/2011. Web. 18
Feb 2011.
Blackburn, Graham. "A Short History of Chairs." FineWoodWorking.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 20
Feb 2011.
"Cardboard Chairs 101." Instructables.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Feb 2011.
"Cardboard Folders." DesignBoom.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Feb 2011.
"History's 40 Chairs." SawDustMaking.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb 2011.
Bobislaw
Arkusze
Dokumenty
Spring 20111 DESIGN PROJECT #1 Cardboard Furniture Design Introduction to Engineering Design EDGSN 100 Section 003 PSU Engineers Design Team 3 Zachary Farr, personal.psu.edu/zaf5003, zaf5003@psu.edu Kevin Grim, personal.psu.edu/kdg5101, kdg5101@psu.edu Adam Johnson, personal.psu.edu/ajj5113, ajj5113@psu.edu Submitted to: Professor Berezniak Date: 2/23/2011
Spring 20112 DESIGN PROJECT 1 – CARDBOARD FURNITURE DESIGN Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………. Page 3 2.0 Mission Statement…………………………………………………………………………. Page 3 3.0 Customer Needs Analysis……………………………………….………………………. Page 3 4.0 External Research………………………………………….………………………………. Page 4 4.1 Library/online………………………………………….…………………….……. Page 4 4.2 Patent research………………………………………………….………………. Page 5 4.3 Benchmarking…………………………………….………………………………. Page 5 5.0 Target Specification……………….……………….……….……………………………. Page 7 6.0 Concept Generation………………………..…………….………………………………. Page 7 7.0 Concept Selection…………………………………………………………………..………. Page 10 8.0 Final Specification………………………………………………………………………..…. Page 12 9.0 Final Design……………………………………………………………………………….…… Page 13 10.0 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………… Page 18 11.0 References…………………………………………………………………………………… Page 18 List of Tables Table 1 Customer Needs Importance……….………………….……..…..… Page 4 Table 2 Benchmarking of Three Products…………………………………..… Page 6 Table 3 Target Specifications……………………………………………….……..… Page 7 Table 4 Concept Screening Matrix……………………………………….……..… Page 11 Table 5 Concept Selection Matrix……………………………………….……..… Page 12 Table 6 Final Specifications……………………………………….………………..… Page 12 List of Figures Figure 1 Cardboard Chair Prototype …………….………………….………..… Page 6 Figure 2 Ikea Poang Chair…..…………………………………………….………..… Page 6 Figure 3 Ikea Bernhard Chair.……….………………………………….………..… Page 6 Figure 4 Concept Sketches……………………………………………….………..… Page 8 Figure 5 Concept Sketches………………………………………………….………..… Page 9 Figure 6 Concept Model…………………………………………………….………..… Page 10 Figure 7 Top View….………………………………………………………….………..… Page 13 Figure 8 Front View………………………………………………………….………..… Page 14 Figure 9 Right Side View…………………………………………………….………..… Page 14 Figure 10 Isometric View…………………………………………………….………..… Page 15 Figure 11 Assembly Drawing……………………………………………….………..… Page 15 Figure 12 Tube Drawings…………………………………………………….………..… Page 16 Figure 13 Chair Side Drawing……………………………………………….………..… Page 16 Figure 14 Final Prototype…………………………………………………….………..… Page 17 Figure 15 Final Prototype…………………………………………………….………..… Page 17
Spring 20113 Abstract This report analyzes the design steps used in the design of a cardboard chair. Surveys of potential customers showed the chair needed to be easy to assemble ad move, as well as simple to store. Structural elements in “L” “O” and ““ shapes were then tested. We developed several concepts, eventually choosing a concept with two flat sides cut into the profile of a chair with cardboard tubes connecting them, forming the back and seat. 1.0 Introduction Chairs are used by nearly everybody nearly every day. We sit in them while we’re in class, we relax on them to watch television, and use them to do work in the office. We are so used to having chairs around all the time that we never stop to think about them. Our design takes the average chair and makes it a little more unique. The design we used made use of tubes for the seating and back portions, a unique design feature that makes our chair interesting and aesthetically pleasing. Our design process involved interviewing and surveying potential customers to gain a better idea of what they would like to see in a chair (See 3.0 Customer Needs Analysis). Our target consumer is the college-‐age student, who needs comfort on a budget, without sacrificing quality and usability. We used the data we learned from our surveys and from research to create several prototype designs, which we narrowed down to one final design (See 6.0 Concept Generation). We believe the engineering design process helped create a chair design that is both unique and functional. 2.0 Mission Statement The goal of Team 3 was to create a cardboard chair that was functional in a dorm or student environment. The chair was to be easy to store and assemble/disassemble, but also cheap enough for students to purchase. 3.0 Customer Needs Analysis Customer needs were established through the use of surveys and interviews of potential customers. Individuals were questioned on what they think would be a good feature of a cardboard chair and asked to explain how their ideas would be useful to buyers of the chair. The needs established by the potential customers were then compiled and used in the early design stages of the cardboard chair.
Spring 20114 Table 1 Customer Needs Importance Table No. Need Imp. 1 Cardboard chair has a supportive, strong, and comfortable back 5 2 Cardboard chair can safely hold the weight of an average person 5 3 Cardboard chair is easy to disassemble and store 4 4 Cardboard chair looks aesthetically pleasing 3 5 Cardboard chair has a low cost 4 6 Cardboard chair is durable in an indoor environment 5 7 Cardboard chair is hard to tip over 4 8 Cardboard chair can be easily repaired or fixed 2 9 Cardboard chair Is environmentally-‐friendly 3 10 Cardboard chair creates minimal amount of waste during construction 2 11 Cardboard chair can be easily cleaned 3 4.0 External Research Our search for chair designs yielded many original and unique designs. Many variations of the “generic chair” are available for purchase. The typical chair design features a back, seat, and four legs, and some have armrests. External research consisted of Literature Search, Patent Search, and Benchmarking chairs available on the market. 4.1 Literature Search Chairs have been with humans for a very long time. Today we use them daily. The chair cannot be attributed to one person, as different people and cultures formed their own type of “chair” simultaneously. Early “chairs” could have included rocks, or simple structures made from logs. Some of the earliest chairs–using the word as we know it today–appeared in the Egyptian era, around 3000 BCE to 500 BCE. These chairs were influenced by designs originating from Asia and Europe. Chairs vary very much in their designs. The word “chair” encompasses anything that is essentially a seat that can be moved. In earlier times, chairs were reserved not for common people, but for higher classes such as kings, bishops, lords, and pharaohs. The majority of people were relegated to using stools or benches–usually without a back. The name “chair” comes from the latin word cathedra which shows the distinct relation between chair and the cathedral, or church. The simplest and earliest chair
Spring 20115 designs originated from X-‐shaped chairs (similar to today’s folding chairs) that appeared during the Roman era. The French are credited with the earliest designs of what we see today as a chair. They were the first to implement designs that were largely designed to be functional. The chairs from France were simple and easy to build. They worked hard to make the chair into something that would be comfortable and useful, while also being somewhat stylish. It was around this time that chairs with fabric seats began to appear, and designs began to incorporate fancy designs that were aesthetically pleasing, and also comfortable. Soon after the French redesigned the chair it became popular and construction moved to the factory around the 18th century. These chairs were handcrafted and often very ornate. They required a large amount of material, often involving large solid pieces of wood necessary for carving the design elements. These chairs became the basis for the modern chair, which as evolved considerably. Today chairs are made of many materials, even plastics and metals. Chairs now have many designs, some made for use in the office and some made more for display than seating. 4.2 Patent Search A basic search for chair patents yields approximately 134 chairs. The patents all cover basic variations of chairs. The majority share the same features, with a simple back and seat, with four legs and arm rests. Some more creative designs do appear in the patents, though not many. 4.3 Benchmarking For our benchmarking portion of development, the chair was compared to two chairs currently on the market, the Ikea Poang Chair and the Ikea Bernhard chair. We compared the specifications of each chair, and ranked them on a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being the best. Our chair came in second place, which is decent considering the other two are commercial products made out of metals and plastics, as opposed to cardboard. Patent search yielded chairs of similar design and specifications to the Ikea chairs. Emphasis in the Benchmarking was placed on the weight supported and cost, with lesser emphasis placed on the other design features. Our design prototype fared well against the commercial comparison products.
Spring 20116 Table 2 Benchmarking of Three Products Weight PSU Engineers -‐ Cardboard Chair Prototype Ikea Poang Chair Ikea Bernhard Chair Selection Criteria % Ranking Value Weighted Score Ranking Value Weighted Score Ranking Value Weighted Score Weight supported (lbs) 20% 3 ~160 lbs 0.6 5 375 lbs 1 4 200 lbs 0.8 Cost ($) 20% 3 $78 0.6 2 $99 0.4 1 $139 0.2 Quality 10% 4 4 0.4 5 5 0.5 4 4 0.4 Aesthetics 10% 3 3 0.3 5 5 0.5 3 4 0.3 Weight 10% 5 5 lbs 0.5 3 23 lbs 0.3 4 16 lbs 0.4 Height 10% 5 36" 0.5 5 30 3/8" 0.5 5 30 3/8" 0.5 Depth 5 27 5/8" 0 5 32 1/4" 0 5 19 5/8" 0 Width 10% 5 21" 0.5 5 26 3/4" 0.5 5 17 3/4" 0.5 Total Score 3.4 3.7 3.1 Rank 2 1 3 Figure 1 Cardboard Chair Prototype Figure 2Ikea Poang Chair Figure 3 Ikea Bernhard Chair
Spring 20117 5.0 Target Specification Our target specifications included design features that would be most relevant to the user. Cost, capacity, and quality were the most important factors in our target specifications. For cost, we exceeded the ideal price. In capacity, our estimated capacity (a conservative estimate) exceeds the marginal value, but does not exceed the ideal value. Other target specifications are exceeded in our design, including the dimension specifications. The target specifications represented a goal for our design to achieve, and a benchmark for us to meet. Table 3 Target Specifications Target Specs Feature Current Specs Ideal Marginal Cost $78.00 <$85.00 <$100 Capacity 160lbs >180lbs >140lbs Height 36" >32" >30" Width 21" >18" >16" Depth 27 5/8" >24" >22" Ease of use 5 >4 >3 Quality rating 4 4 3 Aestetics rating 4 4 3 Lifetime 2 years (est) 18 months 1 year 6.0 Concept Generation Concept development began with “boxing out” the basic chair shape. We decided on a simple chair, consisting of four legs and a back. Our first concepts just outlined the general shape. In Figure 4, the basic chair measurements were drawn. The dimensions of the seat and back were approximated, which we used in designing the general shape later in the development process (See Figure 5). The general shape design for our final concept is illustrated in Figure 5, where we started to develop what would become the basis for our two-‐sided chair with the back and seat formed out of cardboard tubes. Our sketches were instrumental in producing the first
Spring 20118 manila folder models which were used to develop the half-‐scale mock-‐up. These sketches aided us in developing what would become our final design. Figure 4: Concept Sketches
Spring 20119 Figure 5 Concept Sketches
Spring 201110 7.0 Concept Selection Each of our group members presented their design to the group. The three different concepts were largely similar, which helped in narrowing down the final design. Figure 6 shows an example of one of our designs, which was used as the basis for our final design. We analyzed each concept and looked at both the positive and negative aspects of it. We tried to use the positive aspects from each to produce a final design that would be a well-‐rounded product, featuring a strong, aesthetically pleasing, and original design. Two of our main concepts had slight variations, meaning we had a total of five different model concepts (See Table 4 and 5 below). The concept selection process allowed us to narrow down our final design, which we then modeled in SolidWorks and produced using cardboard. Figure 6 Concept Model
Spring 201111 Table 4 Concept Screening Matrix Concepts Selection Criteria A B C D E Height -‐ + -‐ -‐ -‐ Width -‐ 0 0 + 0 Depth + 0 0 0 -‐ Aesthetics 0 + -‐ + + Ergonomics 0 + + -‐ -‐ Cost 0 0 + -‐ 0 Ease of use + 0 + 0 0 Quality 0 + 0 0 0 Sum +’s 2 4 3 2 1 Sum 0’s 4 4 3 3 4 Sum –‘s 2 0 2 3 3 Net Score 0 4 1 -‐1 -‐2 Rank 3 1 2 4 5 Continue? Yes Yes Yes No No
Spring 201112 Table 5 Concept Selection Matrix Wt Team 3 Cardboard Chair Concept A Concept B % Wt’ed Wt’ed Wt’ed Selection Criteria Ranking Value Score Ranking Value Score Ranking Value Score Weight supported (lbs) 20% 3 ~160lbs 0.6 2 ~180lbs 0.4 3 ~160lbs 0.6 Cost ($) 20% 4 ~$80 0.8 3 ~$100 0.6 4 ~80 0.8 Ergonomics 20% 4 4 0.8 3 3 0.6 3 3 0.6 Ease of Use 20% 5 5 1 4 4 0.8 4 4 0.8 Aesthetics 10% 5 5 0.5 3 3 0.3 4 4 0.4 Quality 10% 5 5 0.5 4 4 0.4 5 5 0.5 Total Score 4.2 3.1 3.7 Rank 1 3 2 Continue? Yes No No 8.0 Final Specifications The target specifications were the guidelines for creating our final specifications. We took the most important aspects of the design, which we put into Table 6. We wanted to keep cost as low as possible since the average college student does not have excess money to spend on a chair. Our product weight was kept low due to the usage of cardboard, a naturally light material. The overall size dimensions are similar to those of the average desk chair. The incorporation of tubes for the seat and back provides a unique difference between our chair and the typical chair available on the market. The capacity of our chair is similar to chairs available on the market. Table 6 Final Specifications Feature Current Specs New Specs Cost $79 <$70.00 Weight Approx. 5lbs 5lbs Tube Diameter 3” 3” Width 21” 21” Height 36” 36” Depth 27 5/8” <28” Capacity ~160lbs ~180lbs
Spring 201113 9.0 Final Design The final design features a cardboard chair composed of two sides and tubes forming the seat and back. The usage of strong cardboard sides provides the vertical support necessary to have a chair the same height as an average chair, while also providing the aesthetically pleasing looks of the chair. Using tubes, we were able to make a seating surface that is unique from most chairs available today. The tubes also serve to provide the horizontal structure that sustains the load of a person sitting on the chair. In addition, the tubes add to the aesthetic appeal of the chair. Figure 7 Top View
Spring 201114 Figure 8 Front View Figure 9 Right-‐side View
Spring 201115 Figure 10 Isometric View Figure 11 – Assembly Drawing
Spring 201116 Figure 12 – Tube Drawings Figure 13 – Chair Side Drawings
Spring 201117 Figure 14 – Final Prototype Figure 15 – Final Prototype
Spring 201118 10.0 Conclusions Our project was successful. Our prototype design represents the culmination of design work and perfection. A full-‐scale model could be built using our plans and drawings. We believe our chair meets the design requirements set forth in the project, as well as the specifications we intended it to meet. Theoretically, we believe this design could be sold on the market, and possibly adapted to other materials for easy marketability. We were able to successfully utilize the design process to research and learn about cardboard chair design. Using the ideas we formed from our research, we were able to create concepts that were then used to make our final concept, which developed into our final design. This design was utilized in creating a ½ scale model for presentation purposes. 11.0 References Berry, Jennifer. "The Revival of the Cardboard Chair." earth911.com. N.p., 2/11/2011. Web. 18 Feb 2011. Blackburn, Graham. "A Short History of Chairs." FineWoodWorking.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb 2011. "Cardboard Chairs 101." Instructables.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Feb 2011. "Cardboard Folders." DesignBoom.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Feb 2011. "History's 40 Chairs." SawDustMaking.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb 2011.