Introduction to the Project
There is an increasing portion of work environments where employees are required to wear shoe covers. This means that employees must put on shoe covers and take them off several times a day. This can cause from hand contamination if removed by hand to back pain. The process of manually removing the shoe covers uses company time and can cause employees to become unstable which may result in a workplace injury. Without the help of technology, this process is slow, inefficient, and even dangerous. Furthermore, in the current market, there are very few patented shoe cover removers and they can remove only porous shoe covers. This is a problem because a wide variety of shoe covers cannot be removed with proposed methods. Our design will solve this problem by removing the shoe cover in a timely, effective, safe, and efficient manner. The pedal-clamp mechanism removes any sort of shoe cover, porous or non-porous.
Shoe cover removers are a commodity in the workplace, and there are several corporations in the industry besides Shoe Inn that seek to profit from this product. Current deigns functions mostly on a vacuum extraction system, however, the vacuum extraction system has several shortcomings. For instance, the design necessitates electrical power, which means that it has to be placed near a power outlet or generator. Also, as previously mentioned, vacuum shoe cover remover does not work with all types of shoe covers, due to the fact that the vacuum extraction system cannot remove porous shoe covers, which contain holes that allow air to pass through. Most of the current solutions on the market function similarly, and do not readily incorporate a mechanical advantage such as a pedal-clamp system.
Phase I Design Inputs
The first step in the design was to determine the hazardous related to the product , The team focused in meeting all ethics requirements holding the user’s safety as the first priority of the apparatus. Some identified hazardous are:
- Shoe damage: Damage to shoe may be inflicted
- Trip hazard: The user may fall, which may cause injuries. The user may fall, which may cause injuries. Components may break, thus resulting in damage to the user’s feet.The user not wearing shoes during removal could cause harm to the foot/ user misinterpreting and using remover to remove socks etc.
- Maintenance: Injury due to broken, sharp objects. Objects, such as springs, could be projected and hit the user and cause cuts or injuries
- Accuracy: Clamping mechanism can cause injuries to the user in being inaccurate
- Cleaning: Jam due to dust or dirt may cause injuries.
After all hazard were identified we proceed to evaluate the product requirement as this must be accomplished without incurring any hazardous situation. The main requirement were:
- Fully mechanical: The product must be fully mechanical and utilize 0 volts to function. The apparatus should be easy to use with only 5 minutes of training. The product should be user friendly ( easy to use).The apparatus should be easy to use with only 5 minutes of training.The product should be easy to install and set‐up, and a short survey for satisfaction will be issued to check easy installation.
- Removes porous and non-porous booties: The label should clearly indicate the placement of the heel of the shoe in order o remove the shoe cover.
- Limited moving parts:Upon using and maintaining the device, no user or mechanic should sustain injuries to person. Shoes should be able to fit in the pedal without being damaged by the removal of the shoe.The apparatus should accommodate shoe sizes ranging from 5‐12 US size.
- Durable:Polymers of high resistance or other material capable of withstanding the wearing of the rotating shaft on the walls should be used.
- Incorporates existing frame: Labels should be placed on the device indicating that shoes must be used and the sole purpose of the apparatus is to remove booties only. Product to cost less than $300 per unit.
Once the hazardous and the requirements were clearly identified, we proceed to make the concept selection. Concept analysed were: Pedal-clamp, Inverse magnet and rollers.
Fig.1 Inverse magnets design consisted of two magnets that will clamp the booties in the back
We considered several alternatives, but ultimately did not choose them for several reasons. The first alternative that we considered was the “Inverse magnet”, presented above. We considered this design but did not choose to pursue it because of several flaws. First, the magnet needed for it to work and the configuration of the apparatus had a great likelihood of jamming. Also we might need electricity which goes against of the requirements.
Fig.2 The rollers design consisted of a set of rollers that will such the booties by the cation of the rollers
The second alternative that we considered was the “rollers” (Fig. 11). We were inclined to proceed with this design, but there were several problems associated with it that could not be ignored. First, the rolls would need to be replaced and bought for a number of times which would ultimately not make the design cost-effective. Furthermore, we analyzed the rolls force relative to the force needed to remove the shoe cover, and we decided that it was not enough to do so. Also, the covered foot would be pulled back and might have caused the user to become unstable, so we decided not to proceed with this alternative.
Fig.3 The Pedal-clamp design was the chosen concept because of its functionality.
In this figure we see the exploded view of the design with all its components. The handle bar proportions support for the user, while the outer shell and frame assures the product recognition for our sponsor. This was the design chosen, because of its functionality and low likelihood of jamming. Moreover, this design incorporates the existing frame and mitigates the hazardous related with removing the shoe cover.
Phase II Design Outputs
Challenges and decisions
The team encountered several Design Challenges along the process. This challenges as well as the decisions taken are presented in the upcoming table.
Table 1: Challenges faced by the team and the decisions that lead the team to success
The Design has three main components/ assemblies, the stationary clamp, the pedal-catch and the locking mechanism. These are incorporated to the existing frame as follows:
Fig.4 The Stationary clamp is set up at 2.4 inches from the pedal and determines the max rotation of the system.
The designed holders to the clamp are attached at 3/4” from the top of the frame and have a drilled hole in order to fasten the stationary clamp. the stationary clamp was designed with a 35 degree angle to match the rotation of the pedal and assure a pressure fit once the shoe cover is remove.
Fig.5 The Pedal-catch assembly is the users interface with the device
The shaft is press fitted to the support bars and the pedal. The rubber rings are then press fitted at both sides of the pedal to fasten the pedal in place. The support bar are attached to the frame by screws. The releasing mechanism holder is placed in the frontal part of the pedal attached by screws. The restoring springs are placed in the back of the pedal fastened by screws to the pedal and to the bottom plate of the outer shell.
Fig.6 The locking mechanism is a key component it allows the lock and the resetting of the device
The locking mechanism support was epoxied to the frame while the place holder and the system holder were screwed to the support. Furthermore the releasing mechanism was epoxied to the system locker. Coating was them used in all wood pieces and they were painted black.
Phase III Verification and Validation
The verification and validation phase was principally comprised of test protocols, test reports, and the regulatory plan.The purpose of this phase was to demonstrate and ensure that the team’s product would meet applicable standards and be effective at removing shoe covers, which was what the team outlined as its primary goal. The test plan is shown below, and regulations are included in this particular version of the test plan.
Fig.7 Copy of the most recent version of the test plan, this organizes and outlines all testing processes and procedures.
This document allowed a framework to test and verify that the product was functioning efficiently and well. The regulatory plan also highlights the effective standards that the shoe cover remover will comply to. Furthermore, there were several test protocols that were drafted and created to test validations for 07.PRS.1.1, 07.PRS.3.1, 07.PRS.5.1, etc. These validations ranged in complexity. For instance, in order to test whether or not the shoe cover remover could withstand 180 lbs. of force on the pedal, Ivan Biondi was tasked with standing on the pedal on one leg and testing the strength of the pedal by observing the response of the system to the input. The pedal succeeded in holding the desired weight.
The most intensive validation was determining whether or not the shoe cover remover could effectively remove 6 different types of shoe covers; three types were porous and 3 types were non-porous. The test results, which contained 30 iterations of each type of shoe cover, are summarized below in Table 2.
Table 2: Test Results for Removal of Porous and Nonporous Shoe Covers Disregarding Shoe Cover Size
The table demonstrates that the success rates are very high for all types of shoe covers. The lowest percentage is a 90% for individual shoe covers and the highest for individual type of shoe covers is 100%. The total percentage removed is 96.7%, which is within the suitable limit outlined in the test protocols. The team hoped for a total removal percentage of 95% or above, and the group achieved this goal. Furthermore, the next figures illustrate the removal with different shoe sizes, and these results are also very suitable for the product.
The Automatic Shoe Cover Remover underwent a thorough testing procedure to determine if the shoe cover was successfully removed per use. The apparatus was tested by three users all of whom varied in shoe sizes and experience with the remover designed by the Bootie Bunch. User 1 had a shoe size of 12 men’s, User 2 had a shoe size of 7 women’s, and User 3 was an individual with an average shoe size that had no prior experience using the shoe cover remover. A total of six types of shoe covers were used: three styles of non porous shoe covers and three styles of porous shoe covers. The user repeated the removal process 30 times with each different type of shoe cover and a member of the bootie bunch recorded if each individual removal was a success or fail. The user alternated between his/her right and left foot to include the variability of each foot removal. Overall, the testing total concluded to 540 individual removal tests. The second portion of testing was to determine the average time to remove one bootie. A member of the Bootie Bunch began the timer at the instant the user placed his/her hand on the handle bar. The timer was stopped once one bootie was removed and the user removed their hand from the handle bar.
Fig.8 Overall men test results
Fig.9 Overall women test results
Fig.10 Overall inexperienced test results
Phase IV Introduction Into Manufacturing
The purpose of this process is to start the fabrication process of the final design based upon the design synthesis history. Once all the design entities and specifications from phases one through three were finished, combined, and analyzed, the Bootie Bunch started fabricating the design. A shoe cover dispenser was acquired from Shoe Inn and striped of the internal parts. The frame, outer shell, and handrail were kept intact so the new shoe cover remover internals could be installed. The internals consisted mainly of low-carbon steel, nylon plastic, sandpaper, and rubber. The first part of the process was completed by machining a large brick of nylon plastic down to the specified size. Low-carbon steel supports were then cut to size, drilled, and reamed in order to properly implement the pedal support shaft. The steel supports were drilled to fit brass screws that were used to fasten the support bars to the frame. A wooden bar was machined to fit a latch mechanism that causes the system to lock once the user applies pressure to the pedal. This part was bonded to the frame using epoxy. Lastly, a small wooden L-shaped bar was machined and bolted to the latch mechanism to act as the “kick-release” device.
Fig.11 Testing of pedal initial assembly with the frame
All of the technologies that were utilized in the design fabrication process are low-cost, highly machinable, and easy to obtain. One of the key components of the design is the latch mechanism. This latch mechanism is a simple cabinet latch that was obtained locally and slightly modified in order to fit the proper design requirements.
Fig.12 Ruben machining the nylon brick to create the pedal and stationary clamp parts
Fig.12 Jerad drilling the pedal in order to fit the pedal support shaft
Fig.13 Jerad drilling the steel support bars to implement the shaft and the fastener screws.
Fig.14 Ruben cutting the wood bar for the latch mechanism.
The Bootie Bunch made a successful shoe cover remover. The prototype is faster, easier, and safer than the traditional method of removing your shoe covers. The prototype eliminates the need of bending down and balancing on one leg. This process keeps your hands clean, eliminates injuries, and increases company productivity.
The shoe cover remover can be improved by adding a trash bag to store the booties. A vacuum and sensors could be added to the product to make the prototype completely automatic. In the future a very economical solution would be to unite the shoe cover dispenser and shoe cover remover into one product. These are some future possibilities that could save the company that uses our product time money and space.
The simplicity of the pedal-clamp design installed in the Shoe-Inn dispenser body allows for fast,easy, safe and successful shoe cover removal. The initial objectives of the Shoe Cover remover was that it was to function mechanically, remove porous and non-porous shoe covers. Team 7’s design fulfills these objectives by the pedal-clamp design which was designed after narrowing down various concepts, constructing of the model, and final assembly. This model excels in the aspect of its uniqueness against the competition where the shoe cover remover can be stored anywhere in the room without limitations of need of electricity. Also, the design can remove porous and non-porous shoe covers due to the implantation of the pedal-clamp mechanism, which no current design have. There is also no risk of work injury from “bootie hopping”, because of implementation of the safety handle. The design reduces risk of contamination from handling while offering comfortable removal and handling. It allows for brand recognition and reduces manufacturing costs. Furthermore, it is intended to be used in work environment such as: cleaning rooms, surgery rooms, food processing among others. We succeed in creating a fully mechanical apparatus that requires less than 2 minutes of training and meets all major requirements of our sponsor.
Meet The Team
- Jerad Hershewe – Leader: Oversee assigned tasks of each group member. Responsible for
carrying out disciplinary actions after communicating and agreeing upon the action with the
entire group. Responsible for maintaining full disclosure of tasks and progress of all group
- Ruben Pineda – Recorder and Organization Manager: Responsible for recording and
delivering meeting minutes via email a day following the scheduled meeting.
If needed, responsible for reserving a room for team meetings. Responsible for keeping the
team on track and arranging weekly agendas.
- Ivan Biondi – Communication Manager: Responsible for turning in all assignments after each
team member submits assigned portion. Directly speaking by email and phone to Sponsor
about project ideas discussed and agreed by all members of Team 7.
- Olivia Dillon – Parts Manager: Responsible for processing orders of products agreed upon by
group members. Responsible for receiving items and notifying team of delivery. Responsible
for storing product and maintaining a good condition of product.
- Juan Jaimes-Diaz – Treasurer/ Budget Manager: Responsible for formulating and managing
a budget agreeable to team members. Responsible for documenting records of progressing
expenses and remaining balances of project.
Our team would like to recognize some individuals that have been extremely helpful to the success of our project. Dr. Matteo Aureli supported us by giving us feedback on our ideas and also gave us new ideas that were instrumental to the pedal-clamp mechanism. Shoe Inn’s representative Jeff Foster has been a great support and gave us prompt feedback for our tasks. He has also helped us financially to support the project. We also want to take time to recognize and thank the honors program, for prompting outstanding work. We would like to thank Mr. King our instructor for allowing us to pursue creativity and work in a team, which is not something that every class at the university can offer us. Also, we want to thank Patrick Stampfli for the corrections on Tasks which served as a base for our continued success on future developments. We acknowledge all of you and thank you again for your continued support. This project would not have been a reality without all your help and guidance.