GE-Healthcare Environmentally Friendly C-Arm Shipping Assembly
Team: Spencer Clark, Bowen Cluff and Steven Koski
Problem Description
GE Healthcare currently uses foam to support and protect their C-arm assembly during shipping. The foam takes up a large volume of space and must be stored during use of the C-arm machine. Additionally, at product end of life it is difficult to dispose of the foam in a way that is not harmful to the environment. We have been tasked with addressing both the size and recyclability of the internal packaging. The ideal solution should be able to decrease volume for ease of storage and increase recyclability.
Design Description
To making this into a more environmentally friendly packaging system we decided to tackle two parts in the system where foam can be removed without damaging the system. First is the cap piece; the cap was covered with Expanded Polystyrene; we decided to remove the EPS and replace it with cardboard boxes. Secondly is the cradle piece; this piece had a block of foam at the bottom; we replaced some of the foam with a cardboard matrix
Cap Piece
C-Arm Machine
Cradle and Matrix
| Requirement/Constraint/Goal | Target | Threshold |
|---|---|---|
| Foam Replacement is Biodegradable/Recyclable | N/A | Yes |
| Fits Current Pallet Design | 48in x 40in | Yes |
| Reduce Foam Volume | 5.5 ft³ | 5 ft³ |
| Survives the Impact of 5 Packing/Shipping Cycles | N/A | Passes GE Impact Tests |
| Maintains Performance in all Environments | N/A | Pass GE Environmental Tests |
| Matrix Type | Effective Area (in²) | Max Force (lbf) | Max Stress (lbf/in²) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single Wall - 1 cell (3in) | 2.4 | 313.47 | 130.61 |
| Single Wall - 1 cell (2in) | 2.4 | 332.02 | 138.34 |
| Single Wall - 4 cell | 3.6 | 502.14 | 139.48 |
| Double Wall - 1 cell (3in) | 4.0 | 621.97 | 155.49 |
| Double Wall - 1 cell (2in) | 4.0 | 614.48 | 153.62 |
| Double Wall - 4 cell | 6.0 | 843.78 | 140.63 |
Performance Review
These threshold estimates were taken from the current design and how much foam we think we can get rid of. GE also has their own tests that their packaging needs to pass, we considered their criteria as well. We did compression testing on the foam and on the matrices. For the boxes on the cap, we used the Box Compression Test formula to verify the load it can handle.
Conclusion
In conclusion there were some setbacks throughout this design process. But, with a thorough understanding of the problem allowed us to produce a design that meets all the requirements. One of the biggest takeaways we made was the importance of realistic scheduling and planning. In the future, more time should be added for more iterative testing and unexpected issues.
Effective and clear communication with the team and sponsor was essential for the success of this project
Future work will include designs for other models of the C-arm. We’d also like to do more testing on contact points so we can remove more material.