Designing and Manufacturing an Appropriate Technology

Shredder in a Developing Country

Jeffrey P. Weiss

An Engineering Project submitted to the faculty of the School of

Engineering in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Masters of
Manufacturing Systems Engineering degree

University of St. Thomas

St. Paul, Minnesota
December 2005

Abstract
The focus of this project was to redesign a simple manual shredding machine used to
shred breadfruit for the Republic of Haiti. A breadfruit shredder previously designed by
a student senior design team was used as the basis for this project. The objective was to
apply manufacturing principles, such as Design for Manufacturing and Assembly
(DFMA), to simplify and reduce the cost of this machine so that it would be more
accessible to poor farmers in Haiti. Each part of the shredder was examined using the
DFMA methodology to determine if it could be eliminated or redesigned to simplify it
while still making a quality product that met the performance criteria. The limitations of
manufacturing a product in a developing country were also taken into consideration and
played a key role in the outcome of the design. The result was a design that had a
reduced number of parts, was more robust, easier to clean, simpler to build in a
developing country, used materials that were more commonly available, and cost less to
make.

Revised Tommy Breadfruit Shredder

Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge and send my sincerest thanks to my Project Committee of
Dr. Camille George, Dr. Fred Zimmerman, and Mr. John Walker. They contributed
numerous ideas during both the project phase and during the writing process. This
resulted in a much better product that will hopefully improve the lives of people around
the world. Dr. George also spent a great deal of time correcting and critiquing the writing
of someone who was unaccustomed to writing in the academic thesis style.

Many other people also lent a voice to the project during the research and design review
phases. This would include Karl Mueller, Bruce Humphrey, Hank Garwick, Dave Elton,
John Schevenius, Gary Olmstead, Fred Hegele, Pat O'Malley, Troy Pontgras, Yvonne
Ng, and Clay Solberg. These people took the time to help and offered ideas that had
previously been missed, resulting in a better product.

I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of Dr. Mike Hennessey at the
University of St. Thomas and the work of five of his undergraduate students. Justin
Jackelen, Michael Boston, Angela Wachira, Keli Lais, and Matt Ellision took on the task
of turning the revised breadfruit shredder drawings into computer animated Solidworks
models. This contributed greatly to the visual understanding of the project and
presentation. They also provided the fabrication prints that accompany this paper.

Table of Contents
Chapter I: Introduction....................................................................................................... 1
The Haitian Situation ...................................................................................................... 2
Breadfruit ........................................................................................................................ 3
The Tommy Shredder ..................................................................................................... 5
The Beneficiaries ............................................................................................................ 5
Project Motivation .......................................................................................................... 6
Chapter II: Research and Prior Work................................................................................. 7
UST Senior Design Team Work..................................................................................... 7
Literature Search............................................................................................................. 9
Compatible Technology, International ......................................................................... 11
Institutional Libraries.................................................................................................... 15
Research and International Organizations .................................................................... 15
Expert Inquires.............................................................................................................. 17
Chapter III: Project Proposal ........................................................................................... 18
Project Objectives ......................................................................................................... 18
Alternative Methods ..................................................................................................... 20
Project Constraints........................................................................................................ 21
Project Budget............................................................................................................... 23
Financial Justification ................................................................................................... 23
Chapter IV: Findings and Results .................................................................................... 24
Redesign Process .......................................................................................................... 25
Design for Manufacture and Assembly Process ........................................................... 25
Alternative Designs....................................................................................................... 29
Design Reviews ............................................................................................................ 30
Design Modifications.................................................................................................... 33
Fabrication Lessons ...................................................................................................... 38
Design Variations ......................................................................................................... 40
Shredder Blade Project ................................................................................................. 41

Testing the Redesigned Shredder ................................................................................. 45

Redesign Results........................................................................................................... 47
Schedule........................................................................................................................ 50
Final Budget.................................................................................................................. 51
Chapter V: Discussion and Ramifications ........................................................................ 52
Project Dissemination ................................................................................................... 52
Implementing the Shredder in Developing Countries .................................................. 53
Project Obstacles........................................................................................................... 54
Bibliography: .................................................................................................................... 57
Appendices........................................................................................................................ 60
Appendix 1: Revisions 1 and 2 ..................................................................................... 60
Appendix 2: Revisions 3 and 4 ..................................................................................... 61
Appendix 3: Revisions 5 and 6 ..................................................................................... 62
Appendix 4: Revision 7 and 8....................................................................................... 63
Appendix 5: Breadfruit Shredder Exploded Layout ..................................................... 64
Appendix 6: Bill of Materials Breadfruit Shredder ................................................... 65
Appendix 7: Frame Plate Fabrication .......................................................................... 67
Appendix 8: Drive Shaft Fabrication............................................................................ 69
Appendix 9: Feeder Tube Fabrication .......................................................................... 70
Appendix 10: Blade Mount Fabrication ....................................................................... 71
Appendix 11: Shredder Press Weight Fabrication........................................................ 73
Appendix 12: Shredder Assembly Instructions ............................................................ 74
Appendix 13: Original Project Schedule ...................................................................... 77
Appendix 14: Revised Project Schedule....................................................................... 78
Appendix 15: Preliminary Sketch by John Walker ...................................................... 79
Appendix 16: Contributions by Karl Mueller............................................................... 80
Appendix 17: Drawing #001 Frame Plate ................................................................. 82
Appendix 18: Drawing #002 Drive Shaft .................................................................. 83
Appendix 19: Drawing #003 Feeder Tube ................................................................ 84
Appendix 20: Drawing #004 Drive Shaft Bearing .................................................... 85
Appendix 21: Drawing #005 Handle ......................................................................... 86

Appendix 22: Drawing #006 Blade Mount................................................................ 87

Appendix 23: Drawing #007 Center Divider............................................................. 88
Appendix 24: Drawing #008 Center Divider Spacer Tube........................................ 89
Appendix 25: Drawing #009 Shredder Press Weight................................................ 90

Table of Figures
Figure 1: Map of the Republic of Haiti (CIA Fact Book, 2005)......................................... 3
Figure 2: Fruit of the Breadfruit Tree (www.breadfruit.org)............................................. 4
Figure 3: Senior Design Team Shredder............................................................................. 8
Figure 4: Garwick/Elton Breadfruit Shredder................................................................... 13
Figure 5: Garwick/Elton Bicycle Drive Mechanism ........................................................ 14
Figure 6: Original Tommy Shredder Exploded View....................................................... 28
Figure 7: Handle/Drive Shaft Changes ............................................................................. 34
Figure 8: Drive Shaft Bearing Changes ............................................................................ 35
Figure 9: Frame Plate Changes ......................................................................................... 35
Figure 10: Center Divider Changes .................................................................................. 36
Figure 11: Blade Mount Changes ..................................................................................... 37
Figure 12: Combined Feeder Tube Hoop and Spacer...................................................... 38
Figure 13: Alignment of Bushing Supports ..................................................................... 39
Figure 14: Wooden Bushing Variation ............................................................................. 41
Figure 15: Shredder Blade Profile Die, Profile Punch, and Hole Template ..................... 43
Figure 16: Fabricated Blade............................................................................................. 45
Figure 17: The Revised Tommy Shredder........................................................................ 48

Table of Tables
Table 1: Haiti Facts (CIA Fact Book, 2005)....................................................................... 2
Table 2: Proposed Budget................................................................................................. 23
Table 3: Shredder Punch Hole Test .................................................................................. 44
Table 4: Final Budget........................................................................................................ 52

Chapter I: Introduction
This project will focus on redesigning for manufacture a simple breadfruit shredder for
the Republic of Haiti. As one of the poorest nations in the Western hemisphere, Haiti is a
country that lacks a stable government, education system, manufacturing base, or
infrastructure. Malnutrition is a problem to the extent that the United States Department
of State estimated that the child malnutrition rate was 22 percent in 2000
(www.state.gov). Breadfruit is a natural food resource that is underutilized because it
rots quickly and is difficult to store using traditional methods. Drying breadfruit can
extend its shelf life and this process is best done when the shreds are even and consistent.
A simple manual shredder was developed to produce consistent shreds for the inhabitants
of Haiti by a group of senior engineering students at the University of Saint Thomas
(UST) in conjunction with Compatible Technology International (CTI), an international
non-profit organization. The student version of the shredder was designed and tested and
found to meet all of the criteria that they had established. Despite meeting the
requirements, the machine had the potential to be optimized to better reflect the
manufacturing capabilities available in a developing country. This paper will document
the redesign process and look at the manufacturing principles that drove this process.
The end result was a machine that was simpler to build with the basic machine tools that
would normally be found in a developing country such as Haiti, used materials that were
more commonly available, had a reduced number of parts, was more robust, was easier to
clean, and had a reduced cost.

The Haitian Situation

Haiti is considered to be the poorest and most destitute country in the Western
hemisphere (CIA Fact Book, 2005). A majority of its population lives in poverty and
relies on subsistence farming for survival. It has a long history of political upheaval and
unrest since it gained its independence from France in 1804. The rotation of various
governments and civil wars has hindered investment in the country and led to high
unemployment and dismal living conditions for its inhabitants. The education system is
broken or non-existent and there has been an exodus of knowledge from the island as
people flee the dire conditions and turmoil.

Table 1: Haiti Facts (CIA Fact Book, 2005)

Population (Estimate, 2004):

8,121,622

Land Area:

27,750 sq km

Average Life Expectancy:

53 years

Population Below Poverty Line:

80%

Percentage of Population in Agriculture:

66%

Unemployment Rate (no formal job):

66%

Average Literacy Rate:

52%

Figure 1: Map of the Republic of Haiti (CIA Fact Book, 2005)

Most of the original Haitian forests have been cut down for fuel and the desire to
cultivate more land. The weak governments have been unable or unwilling to confront
this problem and it has continued unchecked. This deforestation has resulted in massive
land erosion in the mountainous country and a net loss of arable land (CIA Fact Book,
2005). Breadfruit trees are abundant throughout the island and are one of the few trees
that have survived the deforestation process.

Breadfruit
Breadfruit is an important food source and has become a staple for the inhabitants of
warmer islands in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. It has some nutritional value and

a high starch content (Adebowale, 2005). Typical ways of preparing breadfruit are
grilling, roasting, adding it to soups, and mashing.

Figure 2: Fruit of the Breadfruit Tree (www.breadfruit.org)

One of the unique properties of breadfruit is its limited shelf life. Once it ripens and
comes off of the tree, it will last between one and three days (www.breadfruit.org ). The
breadfruit trees of Haiti produce fruit twice a year for a three week period (six weeks per
year). Much of the fruit rots on the ground because of the inability to consume it all for
the short time that it is in season (Capecchi, 2005). Typical preservation methods for
fruit, such as canning, can be done but these value-adding processes are not common in
Haiti and will increase the price of the food. A more economical way of preserving the
breadfruit needed to be developed to utilize its potential to alleviate long-term hunger on
the island.

The Tommy Shredder

The development of a breadfruit harvesting process was taken on by two groups of senior
mechanical engineering students as their Senior Design Projects in the 2003-2004
academic year. The first team attempted to devise a solar drier to quickly dehydrate the
shredded breadfruit. The drying project showed that the shredded fruit could be
successfully air-dried with an optimal shred size of wide (Emiliusen, Mauritzen,
McGruder, and Torgerson, 2004). The dried product can be stored for up to a year.

The second team worked on developing a small, economical shredder that could
efficiently and quickly process the breadfruit down into shreds so that it could be dried
(Anderson, Fox, Rick, and Spah, 2004). The concept and methodology for the basic
shredder design was done by the senior design team as was the testing to prove out the
final design and will not be repeated in this paper. The purpose of this project was to
examine and simplify the design, focusing primarily on its manufacturability.

The Beneficiaries
The target beneficiaries of this shredder will be womens cooperative groups based in
Haiti. CTI, whose mission is to bring appropriate technologies to help increase food
supplies and storage capacities in the developing world, has been working with the
Methodist Church missions in Haiti on preserving breadfruit. Dried breadfruit can be
ground into flour and local CTI volunteers have created several recipes using this
breadfruit flour as the bulk material. UST teamed up with CTI to develop a simple
shredder that could be used to shred the breadfruit. The goal of this joint project was to

create a shredder that was simple to use and economical to manufacture so that local
versions could be bought with micro-loans managed by the Methodist Church of Haiti.
CTI also planned on helping set up a program to buy the shredded/ground breadfruit and
process it into a cereal for Haitian school children (Capecchi, 2004). The plan was to
take a resource, preserve it and add value, and then process it to create a commercial
good. The objective of this undertaking is to give the womens co-ops a starter model
shredder that would allow them to generate some income from a readily available raw
material.

This shredder is also capable of processing a variety of different produce. There have
been inquiries into its ability to shred cassava, sweet potatoes, and red peppers. The
alternative uses of the shredder will not be explored here but the final design for this
project will be made readily available and has potential uses worldwide. It will also be
submitted to appropriate technology journals to broaden its dissemination.

Project Motivation
The author of this masters engineering project has spent time in developing countries
and realized that there are often raw materials that are not fully utilized and exploited.
The people generally lack the knowledge to manufacture items in large volumes and have
limited manufacturing equipment, start-up money, a reliable source of power, or an
infrastructure to transport the goods (Obi, 1999). However, these people are extremely
creative and will adapt what they have on hand to work in almost any situation
(Humphrey, 2005). The motivation for this project was to help the people develop their

own economy and hopefully raise their standard of living. This project will not only
benefit the women of Haiti, it will help the local machine shops, provide work at the
processing plant, and give the children of Haiti a stable, year around diet.

Chapter II: Research and Prior Work

The research for this project consisted of searching major journals, books on
manufacturing in developing countries, contacting major research libraries, and personal
contacts with experts in various fields. Many avenues for help were explored to gather
information to improve the final design. The research phase of this project found that the
work done by the UST senior design team was one of the few to address the issue of
constructing a simple shredder for manufacture and use in a developing country.

UST Senior Design Team Work

This project is based on the work previously done by a University of Saint Thomas
(UST) senior engineering design team whose goal was to develop the original breadfruit
shredder based on the needs of the country of Haiti and the criteria established by
Compatible Technology, International (CTI). The purpose of the original project was to
find the most efficient means of mechanically shredding breadfruit to best prepare the
fruit for the drying process (Anderson et al, 2004). The team developed concepts and
tested many different methods of shredding the breadfruit and the mechanical actuators
that would be needed for each prototype. The concepts were evaluated and ranked and
the team chose the method best suited for their needs. The Tommy Shredder developed

by the student senior design team is shown in Figure 3 and their paper can be found on
the UST website at http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/cmgeorge/breadfruit_shredder/.

Figure 3: Senior Design Team Shredder

The senior design team had originally planned on testing the shredder in its target
environment of Haiti but that country was not accessible at the time due to political
unrest. A prototype shredder was built and brought to the Caribbean island of St. Vincent
where there was an ample supply of breadfruit and established contacts. On the island of
St. Vincent, the design was field-tested using breadfruit and the results recorded. The
shredder met all of the target criteria established by CTI and the design team. It produced
an average shred rate of 200 pounds/hour and cost less than $100 dollars U.S. to build
(Anderson et al, 2004). This shredder became the baseline for the current project.

Literature Search
A literature search done using the Compendex database at the University of Minnesota
found several articles that were possibly related or relevant to the design of the breadfruit
shredder. These articles were retrieved and analyzed with the result being that a majority
were not related or did not contain information relevant to the design of an appropriate
technology machine. Many of the applicable articles are referenced throughout this paper
while those with less relevance to the project are cited in this section.

In Functional Properties of Native, Physically and Chemically Modified Breadfruit

(Artocarpus Artilis) Starch, Adebowale, Olu-Owolabi, Olawumi, and Lawal (2005) dealt
with extracting starch from breadfruit. In the Rediscovery of Local Raw Materials: New
Opportunities for Developing Countries, El-Mously (1997) discussed ways that
developing countries could use local, undervalued resources to reduce their dependence
on foreign imports. Breadfruit would be an undervalued resource on most Caribbean
islands but the article did not provide information that would be relevant to the design of
a shredder or this project. In the Framework for Selecting and Introducing Appropriate
Production Technology in Developing Countries, Bruun and Mefford (1996) looked at
working with the culture and education of developing countries when setting up a
production facility. These are issues that will not be dealt with in this paper. In the Role
of Materials in Developing Countries, Villas-Boas (1990) discussed the lack of use of
new, high-tech materials in developing countries due to their cost and availability. Every
effort was made to design the shredder using only common materials that would typically

be available in a poor, developing country. In the Supplier Selection in Developing

Countries: a Model Development, Motwani, Youssef, Kathawala, and Futch (1999)
discussed issues involving selecting or qualifying vendors to produce a product. This
will be the responsibility of the organization having the shredder built, and is beyond the
scope of this project.

A search of the Internet using the Google Advanced Scholar provided more papers that
had some relevance. Thakur, Varma, and Goldey (2001) in the Perceptions of Drudgery
in Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Operations: A Gender Analysis From Haryana
State, India discusses the fact that women in developing countries spend much more
time working in agriculture than men and the tasks given to them are more monotonous
and tedious. The article supports the need for a device like the breadfruit shredder that
has the potential to lift them out of that situation. In A Framework for Implementing
Appropriate Manufacturing Systems in Developing Economies, Obi (1999) looked for
explanations on why the Industrial Revolution passed by most developing countries and
explored ways that these countries can start utilizing their vast manpower resources. He
discusses the need to change workers attitudes. Finally, in Meeting a Pressing Need,
Hynd and Smith (2004) discuss a simple oilseed ram press as an appropriate technology
device for small scale extracting of oil from seeds and nuts. They examine some of the
cultural issues that were associated with implementing the oilseed ram. The insights of
this article could be used as a guide for undertaking the next phase of the shredder
project; implementation into the Haitian culture. They briefly talk about some of the

10

manufacturing difficulties, such as poor quality, associated with producing goods in a

developing country.

The best book relating to appropriate technology equipment used in developing countries
is the Appropriate Technology Sourcebook compiled by Darrow and Saxenian (1993).
It is considered The Bible by people in the appropriate technology field, such as those at
CTI (Humphreys, 2005). The book is a resource listing appropriate technology machine
books and papers that are available for purchase from other sources. It does not contain
any designs of its own, but it does give a brief description of the contents of the papers
and designs that are available for order. A search of this book and the updated website
did not reveal any designs for manual shredders or grinders
(www.villageearth.org/atnetwork/atsourcebook/index).

Compatible Technology, International

Compatible Technology, International (CTI) (www.compatibletechnology.org) is an
excellent local resource for dealing with appropriate technology in developing countries
and has extensive connections throughout the world. It is an organization dedicated to
using simple devices to improve food production and storage in the third world. They are
a stakeholder in the design and development of the original shredder. The director of CTI
is Bruce Humphreys who granted an interview on issues dealing with manufacturing in
developing countries (2005). Some of the key points that he brought up were:

11

Manufacturers in developing countries do not necessarily build parts to a

fabrication print. Everything is custom and will look similar to what is desired,
but is not quite the same.

Creativity is not rewarded in many cultures and there is a desire to continue doing
things the old way.

Expectations in quality and standards will probably not be met. They do not
typically produce to the same quality as is expected in the U.S.

There are cultural norms and practices that will be slow to change and may not be
overcome. This would primarily relate to the target market of women. Women
tend to not use machines, thus the design must be easy to use and relatively tool
free.

These assertions by Mr. Humphrey were reinforced in other literature relating to the topic
(Obi, 1999).

Hank Garwick and Dave Elton are the two CTI volunteers who are most closely tied into
the Haiti mission. They have made several trips to Haiti on humanitarian missions
associated with both CTI and the Methodist Church. The two offered insight into the
Haitian mindset, manufacturing capabilities in Haiti, and experience in shredding
breadfruit. Their comments on the manufacturing capabilities in Haiti were that we
would be lucky to find someone who could read a print, and even if they can they
probably wont follow it (Garwick, 2005).

12

Garwick and Elton were not satisfied with the work of the UST senior design team and
continued to develop the shredder after the senior design teams project ended. They
made several small modifications to the design, built a prototype, and brought it down to
Haiti to be tested (Fig. 4). The Garwick/Elton version of the shredder did not work as
well as intended and did not produce the desired shred rate found by the UST engineering
team (Garwick, 2005). It is unclear why this was the case. Several of the better design
changes that they made to their shredder were incorporated into the current shredder
design. These would include the sheet metal center divider and ideas on the retainer for
the shredding blade.

Figure 4: Garwick/Elton Breadfruit Shredder

13

Garwick and Elton believed strongly that the prime power for the operation of the
shredder should be a leg driven bicycle type mechanism instead of the current hand
powered crank. Figure 5 shows a bicycle drive assembly that they added to a shredder
(Garwick, 2005). This project is focused on producing a shredder for the poorest of
people in Haiti and it was felt that a bicycle type mechanism would significantly add to
the cost of the machine while making it unnecessarily complex. It is expected that this
shredder will only be fully utilized for several weeks a year during the breadfruit harvest
and would not justify the higher cost. The current design is one such that a bicycle type
drive could be added to the shredder at a later date if desired by the user.

Figure 5: Garwick/Elton Bicycle Drive Mechanism

14

Institutional Libraries
The United States Military Academy at West Point has an extensive library relating to
military manuals and papers. The U.S. military routinely performs operations in
developing countries and the units typically tasked with helping the local population are
the Civil Affairs units and the Special Operations Forces. These units are often involved
in nation building and community development and have close contact with the people.
Daniel Prichard, a research librarian at the library, was contacted about any pamphlets,
articles, or papers that the library may have on a shredder or appropriate technologies in
developing countries. Mr. Prichard found nothing relevant at the Academys library
(Prichard, 2004).

A search of the University of St. Thomass and the University of Minnesotas library
systems found no books or on-site literature that was relevant to the design of the
breadfruit shredder.

Research and International Organizations

The Hawaiian Breadfruit Institute is an organization based in Hawaii whose mission is
to promote the study and use of Breadfruit for food and reforestation
(www.breadfruit.org ). It tracks and propagates the 120 known varieties of breadfruit
found on the islands of the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea. Dr. Diane Ragone, director
of the Hawaiian Breadfruit Institute, was contacted regarding the shredding of breadfruit
and the possible existence of similar devices. Dr. Ragone responded that she had not
heard of any similar processing methods for breadfruit. Her primary concern for this was

15

that the latex found naturally in breadfruit would gum-up the machine and clog the
shredding blade (Ragone, 2005). This issue was raised with Hank Garwick of CTI and
he stated that most of the latex in breadfruit was found in the skin. The skin is removed
before processing so this did not appear to be a concern for the shredder. The field tests
in St. Vincent by the senior engineering student team did not report any excessive latex
build up on the blades.

The International Research Development Centre (IRDC) is a Canadian based

organization whose purpose is to build healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous
societies (www.irdc.ca ). An e-mail was sent to IRDC explaining the project and asking
about any information that they might have on shredders. The response was a link to
their website which brought up nothing of value. A similar search of the United Nations
Development Program (UNDP) provided no additional information (www.undp.org).

Research was done with the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to see if
there were requirements or recommendations for the food industry regarding food
processing equipment or the components used in them. The purpose was to find out
which materials were considered Food Grade and suitable for food contact. The goal is
to make the shredder as sanitary and safe as possible regardless of the standards that may
be present in a developing country. It was found that the FDA does not keep a list of
recommended materials, but has established a list of requirements that manufactures must
meet in order to state that it is a material approved for food contact. The premise of the

16

requirements are that if any of the material could migrate to the food, it must not pose a
threat to humans (FDA, 1999).

Expert Inquires
The Minneapolis/St. Paul area is home to several large food producing companies such as
General Mills. Food Safety personnel at General Mills were contacted to ask about
standards for their food production equipment and any suggestions that would help to
make the shredder more sanitary and suitable for food contact. These inquiries covered
guidelines that are typical of the food processing industry. Gary Olmstead, Food Safety
Instructor at General Mills stated that equipment should be durable and easy to clean
(Olmstead, 2005). General Mills avoids having any pieces of equipment over the product
because of the risk of parts falling into the food. Fred Hegele, also part of food safety at
General Mills, was concerned about the durability of any plastics used in the equipment.
He emphasized that the machine cannot have any recessed pockets or hard to clean areas.
These would trap bacteria and make it unsafe and unsanitary (Hegele, 2005). John
Schevenius, a former General Mills Engineer and founder of CTI, was contacted about
suggestions for the shredder. Although he was familiar with the breadfruit program, he
could not offer any suggestions for improvement (Schevenius, 2005).

The research done here showed that there is a lack of availability of information
regarding the design of an appropriate technology machine. The design methodology
varies from organization to organization and no standardized process appears to have
been completed and published in a major journal regarding the topic. Appropriate

17

technology generally falls outside of the realm of modern manufacturing because it has a
tendency to take a step back in time and is unlikely to utilize current materials or
manufacturing methods. The practices used are generally driven by the situation on the
ground, forcing the researcher to rely on personal testimony and experience. This leaves
the designer with a great deal of latitude and requires ingenuity.

Chapter III: Project Proposal

Project Objectives
The basic premise of this paper is to look at the existing design and develop ways to
optimize it for manufacture in developing countries using established manufacturing
practices and expert opinion. The objectives behind the redesign of the shredder were to:

Reduce the part count.

Make it easier to manufacture in a developing country.

Reduce the final cost of the equipment.

Make it easier for the user to operate, clean, and repair.

Accomplishing these tasks will lead to a more robust machine that has a higher
probability of being accepted by the Haitian end-users.

Reducing the part count can be the easiest way to reduce the cost of the machine. The
revised part must not be complex and end up costing more than the combined sum of the
replaced parts. The process used to do this was Design for Manufacture and Assembly
(DFMA) as laid out in Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly (1994) by
Boothroyd, Dewhurst, and Knight.

18

A goal of this engineering project was to create a shredder that was simple enough that it
can be made at a local Haitian machine shop and sold at a reasonable price. Some shops
will have achieved a high level of proficiency and can make most of the parts that a
typical machine shop in the United States could do; others will have very few trained or
skilled workers (Obi, 1999). The redesign process utilized many of the principles
established by Ulrich and Eppinger in Product Design and Development (2004) to
examine the parts and how they would be manufactured. This included changing the
orientation of the parts to ease fabrication, making parts self-aligning, and reducing
processing steps. The end state was to have all of the parts made on equipment typically
found in a small shop; such as a drill, saw, welder, and lathe.

The United States is Haitis largest trading partner (CIA Fact Book, 2005) and for a price
the people there can get just about any product that is available in America (Garwick,
2004). Despite this, efforts were made to use materials that would commonly be found
on the island at a reasonable cost. These would include common hot-rolled steels, typical
poly-vinyl chloride (PVC) plastics, and small, easily interchangeable purchased parts.
Reducing the final cost of the machine will involve examining the materials used in the
shredder and asking if alternatives materials can be utilized that are less expensive and
still provide the same level of performance. In addition, the DFMA principles were used
to determine if the types of material can be reduced. One of the key cost reductions will
be finding an alternative to the professional stainless-steel shredder blade that currently
accounts for about one third of the cost of the shredder.

19

Making the shredder easier to operate, clean, and repair will benefit the end user by
increasing their satisfaction with the machine and making a more robust design. It will
also reduce some of the health concerns associated with unsanitary food processing
equipment. This was done by utilizing typical practices in the food equipment industry.
An effort was made to eliminate recessed pockets that would hold food particles (Hegele,
2005) and to use durable materials that could not migrate into the food (Olmstead, 2005).
Making the machine easy to disassemble and clean will greatly increase the chances that
the user will do this.

Accomplishing these goals would add significant value to the machine and benefit the
end-user by giving them a cheaper and more durable product that is better suited to their
needs. There are many excellent appropriate technology devices out there that never
gained acceptance with the intended population for one reason or another (Darrow,
2004). The goal here was to make this shredder as cost effective as possible with a high
level of user satisfaction so that it can realize its potential to help alleviate some of the
malnutrition in Haiti.

Alternative Methods
There were several alternative methods for examining this project and reaching the stated
objectives. The alternative methods presented here were either cost or time prohibitive or
not as thorough as the approach taken. These alternative methods were:

20

A) Test in St Vincent: The University of St. Thomas sent four shredder test
models to various people on the island of St. Vincent for the purpose of life
cycle testing and design analysis. This was to allow user feedback on the
design from real users. It does not appear that the people of St. Vincent use
much shredded breadfruit and never fully utilized the machine. An early trip
to St. Vincent to discuss the use and design of the shredder was cancelled
because of a lack of response from the users on the island.
B) Field Design in Haiti: This would involve several trips to Haiti and
modifying the shredder after each trip to the island to take into account
lessons learned. Haiti has been unstable for quite some time and travel is not
advised because of the dangers involved. The cost of this method would also
have been excessive.
C) Design in Conjunction with Haitian School of Engineering: This would also
have involved several trips to Haiti and communications would be difficult.
This would have been a good exercise for the Haitian student engineers but
their desires may not have been in-line with those of the target audience.

Project Constraints
The project was looked at from both a manufacturing point of view and the probable
realities of manufacturing a product in a developing country. Many of the constraints
listed below are addressed specifically as objectives for this project.

21

The shredder would have to be easy to build with limited manufacturing

equipment. This affected the design in several ways that became apparent during
fabrication.

The operating instructions would have to be at the level of an illiterate person

with limited experience. For this reason, the instructions will have to be very
graphic with lots of supplementing pictures.

The materials used in the shredder would have to be flexible. It is unrealistic to

believe that a small machine shop will order special materials and wait for the
parts to come in. They will likely adapt what is on hand and make that work.

Sanitation must be built into the shredder so that it is easy to clean and does not
take a significant amount of time. Disassembly was taken into consideration so
that all of the parts in contact with the food were easy to take off and could be
quickly cleaned with soap and water.

The target users of this shredder are the poor women of Haiti. There are several
cultural issues in dealing with women in developing countries (Thilmany, 2005)
such as:
-

Acceptability of a woman operating machines

Movements that the women must make to operate the machine

Culturally prohibited use of tools by women in some societies and

Women who have little experience repairing equipment

22

Project Budget
The budget for this project was generously donated by Larry Mathews with the desire of
improving the lives of those less fortunate than himself. The contribution from him was
$5,000 to be used as needed. The greatest expense in this project would be any required
travel to Haiti or another Caribbean island. Donations of materials were solicited
whenever possible. All machining and shop time was done at the UST student machine
shop. The estimated budget was:

Table 2: Proposed Budget

Air travel to/from Port-a-Prince Haiti (two people)

$1,800

Lodging in Haiti (5 nights)

$400

Food in Haiti

$100

Transportation in Haiti (local taxi)

$100

Interpreter Services (4 days)

$150

Misc. travel expenses

$200

Materials for building shredder (actual cost offset by donations)

$50

Misc. expenses (test material, phone calls, etc)

$50
Proposed Budget:

$2,850

Financial Justification
The potential financial ramifications for this project will not benefit either the author or
the University of St. Thomas. It is hoped that the end product will benefit the women of
Haiti and people of all developing countries by providing them with a means to improve

23

their lives. This will be done by giving them a method of preserving food while it is
abundant and storing it until needed. This will lead to a better quality of life by creating a
stable food source and potentially ease malnutrition.

The financial justification for this project is to enable CTI and the Methodist Church to
develop womens cooperatives in Haiti. These cooperatives would be given a small
business loan to purchase locally made breadfruit shredders. The shredded and dried
breadfruit would be purchased by a Haitian company associated with the Methodist
Church and then turned into breadfruit flour to be used in several recipes. This would
create a market for an underutilized raw material, a means of producing that material, and
a market for a finished product made from the material. This has the potential to create a
micro-economy and benefit everyone involved. It is unclear if and when CTI and the
Methodist Church will fully implement this plan.

Chapter IV: Findings and Results

This chapter will discuss the redesign process that was undertaken and document the
changes that were made. The process of redesigning and modifying the breadfruit
shredder involved several different iterations and made use of accepted manufacturing
principles to create a better machine. Input and suggestions were sought from all
available sources: those familiar with the project to those who had no previous
knowledge of the shredder. All suggestions were considered and analyzed for their value
and cost effectiveness. Several of these ideas were incorporated into the redesigned

24

shredder. The result was a more user-friendly device that is simpler, more economical,
and met the objectives established for the project.

Redesign Process
The process of shredding breadfruit can be done in many different ways with many
possible shredding styles. Four different approaches were documented by the senior
design team and the process chosen by them rated the highest against the criteria that they
had established (Anderson et al, 2004). It was also a design that was simple; which was
critical for the environment where it would be made. The existing design concept for this
project was solid and had been tested and proven to meet their criteria. Figure 6 shows
an exploded view of the Tommy shredder done by the senior design team (Anderson et
al, 2004). It was decided to stay with this basic concept but analyze it from a
manufacturing viewpoint with the objective being to make it easier to manufacture in a
developing country and to reduce its cost using the principles of DFMA (Boothroyd et al,
1994).

Design for Manufacture and Assembly Process

The Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DFMA) methodology as described by
Boothroyd, Dewhurst, and Knight (1994) was used to examine each function of an
assembly to determine if it could be eliminated or combined with another part and if there
are simpler ways to meet the performance criteria without sacrificing quality. Analyzing
an assembly using the DFMA process typically results in a simpler, better quality, lower
cost and more reliable product.

25

The process of going through the methodology focuses on the existing design build
sequence and bill of material. The first of two analyses generates a design that envisions
an ideal assembly. All fasteners are designated to be eliminated and any process that
could simplify the assembly is incorporated. Minimum part guidelines are applied to all
components and three questions are asked of all adjacent parts in order to reduce the part
count:

Does the part move relative to other parts already assembled?

Must the part be of a different material or isolated from other parts in the
assembly?

Does the part need to be separate from others for assembly and disassembly
purposes?

If the answer to these three questions is no then the two parts should be combined into
one. On completion of this ideal analysis a second analysis is carried out. This analysis
reviews the first analysis with the reality of the actual situation that will exist for the build
of the assembly: quantity, rate of production, funding available, environment, material
availability, and economics (Walker, 2005). Additional questions that must be asked are:

What is the cost of each material piece used? Will an alternative material work
equally well while reducing cost?

What is the availability of each different material? Is it realistically available in a

developing country?

26

Are the welded parts easy to fixture so that a part can be made accurately and
repeatable?

Is there commonality of parts? Can parts with similar functions be made to work
in multiple places?

Is there excess material on a part? Is it needed?

This results in an optimized design that fits the envisioned assembly process and would
include changing the orientation of the parts to ease fabrication, making parts selfaligning, and reducing processing steps. Not all fasteners may be eliminated or
improvements made, but it represents the best situation at the time of analysis. The result
of the analysis was incorporated directly into part sketches and proven by making
iterations of actual hardware to build a prototype machine.

27

Figure 6: Original Tommy Shredder Exploded View

28

Alternative Designs
The redesign process during this project involved several successive iterations; each one
building on the previous design while changing different aspects. Appendices 1, 2, 3, and
4 shows eight variations to the shredder developed and improved upon during the current
redesign process leading up to its present form. These eight variations used the same
basic concept while making slight design changes to the original Tommy Shredder. Most
of the variations looked at different ways of mounting the bucket, bushings and blade
support utilizing the DFMA process to simplify the fabrication of the machine. Each of
these changes was analyzed for functionality, durability, cost effectiveness, and
simplicity. It was determined that many of these ideas did not lead to improvements or
could be further modified. More radical changes were analyzed but are not documented
here.

The project was looked at from the viewpoint of trying to keep the materials costeffective and as locally available as possible. One idea that was explored was to use a
typical five-gallon plastic food bucket for the feeder tube. These buckets are made for
storing commercially prepared food and are common almost anywhere that bulk food is
consumed. The concept was that a bucket could be procured locally; the bottom cut out
for the produce to fall through, and then clamped into the shredder assembly.

Several of these buckets were acquired from the UST food service center and tested. It
was found that these buckets are made from high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and are
relatively thin walled. When the hole was cut into the bottom, the bucket became

29

unacceptably flimsy. It was determined that the food bucket would be difficult to firmly
clamp to the shredder because of its flexibility. The thin walled material would also wear
out quickly and need to be replaced often. This would lead to frustration by the end-user
who would have to keep replacing the buckets. Durability is one of the keys to
successfully implementing an appropriate technology device in a developing country
(Hynd, 2004). The bucket version, while being a cost reducer, did not meet the durability
test.

Design Reviews
The design reviews addressed here were extremely helpful in getting different
perspectives on how things could be done. Some of these were formal design reviews
and others were ideas from knowledgeable people who were asked for their input. All of
the suggestions were considered valid and were analyzed for their ability to reduce cost,
make it easier to manufacture, and be more user-friendly.

Karl Mueller, the machine shop supervisor at the University of St. Thomas, assisted Dr.
Camille George in building the four test units that were sent to the island of St. Vincent.
This happened in the summer of 2004 after the senior design team had finished their
work and submitted a final design for the breadfruit shredder. During the build process
Mr. Mueller implemented several changes to the design of the breadfruit shredder that
made it easier to build and reduced the cost. These changes are discussed in Appendix
16. Mr. Mueller also made further suggestions to the revised drive assembly to eliminate

30

the clamp collars and handle pins by replacing them with welded-on washers. This
eliminated several parts while reducing drilling operations.

Mr. John Walker, Associate Professor at the University of St. Thomas, did an initial
analysis of the breadfruit shredder in September 2004 before the author was involved
with this project. Mr. Walker had looked at the shredder and sketched up several ideas
that he had on improving the machine (Appendix 15). These were excellent ideas and
many of them were used in the redesign process. An example of this would be his ideas
for redesigning the drive shaft and bushing assemblies.

The welding required for the shredder was examined in August 2005 by Clay Solberg
who is a Master Welder at Progressive Systems, Inc. Mr. Solberg assisted in welding the
redesigned breadfruit shredder and was asked for suggestions on the shredder frame and
the blade support. He was concerned about the welding of the frame. The thick back
piece could bend from the heat when the other pieces were being welded on. He
suggested using a skip-weld to reduce the amount of heat that the plate was subjected to.
The skip weld is common in this type of application and is considered strong enough to
support the tubes.

The Project Review Committee of Dr. Camille George, Dr. Fred Zimmerman, and Mr.
John Walker looked at the final product in August 2005. Overall they were happy with
the changes that had been made to the shredder. Suggestions were made concerning the
mounting of the center divider in the basket. A previous design had the lower part of the

31

center divider bent to slide over one dowel pin. This was changed to a flat piece of sheet
metal that slid between two dowel pins in the lower part of the feeder tube. The punch
and die for making the shredder blade were also discussed.

An effort was made to have a review done by people involved with operations in Haiti.
Mr. Pat OMalley of the Haitian Relief Services looked at the device in August 2005.
Haitian Relief Services is an organization that builds simple houses for Haitis poor.
Although Mr. OMalley was not familiar with the project, he was interested in potentially
integrating it into his projects in Haiti. He stated that the people of Haiti are very good at
making things work and suggested that the final product have lots of diagrams and
manufacturing procedures for them to follow.

Engineering expertise from the outside was brought in to examine and comment on the
shredder. A review with Yvonne Ng, Mechanical Engineer and Instructor at the
University of St. Catherine, and Troy Pongratz, Design Engineer, in August 2005 proved
very helpful in getting a different perspective on the project from people who where not
familiar with it. Some of their suggestions focused on the user interface with the machine
such as making pins easier to pull out and possible catch point for hands or clothing.
They also talked about possible alternatives to the components for the shredder such as
suggestions for reworking the tamper and the feeder tube. Ms. Ng also recommended
making it cute so that women would like it more. The aesthetic appearance of the
shredder had previously not been explored but would contribute to user acceptance within
the target market.

32

Design Modifications
All of the major components of the existing design were modified and updated for easier
manufacturing, sanitation, or material availability. The changes were based on design
analysis, design reviews, and material types. It should be noted that some of the design
modifications resulted in more parts being used. An example of this would be the
shredder blade mount and the shaft bearing blocks. The increase in parts is justified by
the fact that some of the old parts may not be easily available in a developing country as
was the case with the oil-impregnated bushings holding the shaft. The shredder blade
mount design added parts and material but greatly increased the strength and stability of
the assembly.

The pictures documenting the changes show the student senior design team version on
the left and the updated version on the right.

Handle/Drive Shaft: The previous handle assembly consisted of nine parts and
some time consuming machining to create the clamping arrangement on the upper
handle piece. The redesigning of the handle used DFMA (Boothroyd, 1994)
principles to reduce the part count from nine to four and the only fabrication
necessary was a simple hole and some welding (Fig. 7). Instead of attempting to
clamp the handle to the drive shaft, a single piece of steel shafting was bent into a
one piece handle assembly. The clamp collars to support the assembly were
replaced with a welded-on washer. A piece of plastic tube is slipped over the top
part of the handle for rotational purposes and is supported on the bottom by a

33

weld-on washer. The bending of the shaft was easily done by heating with a torch
and bending in a vise.

Figure 7: Handle/Drive Shaft Changes

Drive Shaft Bearings: The previous design used an oil-impregnated sintered

bronze bushing to retain the drive shaft and provide for easy turning. The bronze
bushings are something that may not be readily available in a developing country
and will also slowly degrade, dropping bronze particles into the food. This was
redesigned to be a round piece of nylon with two holes drilled through it (Fig. 8).
One hole is for a bolt to hold it onto the frame plate and the drive shaft is inserted
through the other hole. The part is symmetrical so that when the drive shaft
begins to wallow out its hole, the part can be flipped around and the holes
switched. This will give them twice the life out of the same piece.

34

Figure 8: Drive Shaft Bearing Changes

Frame Plate: The mount for the bearing had to be redesigned to hold the nylon
bushings (Fig. 9). A round piece of tube was used in place of the square tube and
the nylon bushing was slipped into one end of it. A saw-cut slit was put into the
end of the tube along with a bolt hole. This way the retainer bolt could be
tightened, causing the tube to clamp onto the nylon bushing. The spacing of the
bushings was increased so that they would better support the drive shaft.

Figure 9: Frame Plate Changes

Center Divider: The center divider was two pieces of flat PVC plate that were
glued together and screwed inside of the feeder tube. The flat PVC was difficult
to get even in the United States and the attachment method left large cracks and
gaps between the inside of the barrel and the divider. The divider was not

35

removable, so these cracks would collect food and bacteria that would be hard to
clean out. This divider was remade to be easily removable so that it could be
cleaned. A piece of sheet steel was used instead of the flat PVC (Fig. 10). A slot
was cut into the top of the feeder tube to secure the center divider and four dowel
pins protruding through the lower part of the feeder tube were used to hold the
bottom of the center divider. This secured the divider on both the top and the
bottom and made the part easy to remove by pulling it out thru the top. The
divider and feeder tube could then be washed separately.

Figure 10: Center Divider Changes

Blade Mount: One of the hardest pieces to fabricate on the previous design was
the blade mount. The design did not hold the blade flat and appeared weak. The
mount was redesigned using a support ring that was the same size as the blade
(Fig. 11). Four of the mounting slots on the blade could then be used so that it
36

would lay flat and retain its shape better. All eight mounting holes in the blade
were initially used to mount the blade but it was found that the warped nature of
the shredder blade made it difficult to put on. Four mounting holes to secure the
blade was just as effective and much easier to use. The manufacturing principles
for assembly were utilized (Boothroyd et al, 1994) so that the assembly could be
easily fixtured and welded. The center boss for mounting to the drive shaft was
made to be square instead of round. It was much easier to weld on the support
arms to a flat edge as compared to a round hub. The support arms were also
changed from round shaft to rectangular bars. The end result was a blade mount
that was much easier to manufacture and did a better job of supporting the blade.
The new design used more material, but it is felt that this was an acceptable
tradeoff for the reduced fabrication time and better support provided by the new
design.

Figure 11: Blade Mount Changes

37

Fabrication Lessons
The parts required for the redesigned shredder were all fabricated by the author in the
UST machining lab. This provided excellent feedback on the manufacturability of the
parts and offered insight into what things could be changed to improve the final product.
Some of the design changes made and lessons learned are discussed here.

An early design revision incorporated the feeder tube stand-off into the barrel hoop on the
frame plate (Fig. 9). The stand-off is needed to space the blade away from the mounting
post but it was hoped that the part count and material needed could be reduced by
combining the two into one piece (Fig. 12). It was found that a simple sheet metal roller
cannot do sharp bends and the welded standoff had to be added again. The stand-off
material was changed to the same steel tubing used for the bushing support to reduce the
types of materials needed.

BEND HOOP TO ELIMINATE SPACER

Figure 12: Combined Feeder Tube Hoop and Spacer

38

The drive shaft bushings (Fig. 8) were originally redesigned to have to two holes at 90
degrees to each other. This was done to reduce the wallowing out of the mounting hole
and make the retaining screws easily accessible. During fabrication, it was found that 90
degree holes were difficult to accurately place and that in-line holes were much easier to
layout, mark, and drill. This had the added advantage in that the holes in the steel tubing
supporting the bushings on the frame plate (Fig. 9) also had to be rotated and made
parallel to the drive shaft. The steel tubing could now be easily aligned during welding
by inserting a rod through the holes in the tubing (Fig. 13). This would fit into Ulrich and
Eppingers (2004) method of making parts easy to assembly by making alignment
simple.

Figure 13: Alignment of Bushing Supports

Manufacturers in resource scarce areas may not have draw-over-mandrel (DOM) tubing
on hand for the steel bushing supports on the frame plate (Fig. 9) and may use hot-rolled
steel (HRS) tubing in its place. During fabrication it was found that the HRS tubing has
raised weld lines on the inside of the tube that hinder the insertion of the bushing. The
bushings (Fig. 8) were modified to account for the raised welds. The modification

39

involves slightly flattening the area where the weld lines are so that the bushing will slide
into the tube.

The fabrication of the one-piece steel handle/drive shaft was easier than expected (Fig.
7). It involved heating a section of the steel with a torch and bending in a shop vice.
This further supported the design change as reducing the cost of the part by reducing
fabrication time.

Design Variations
Every effort was made to design the breadfruit shredder using materials that should be
readily available world-wide. Despite this, there will be problems with getting parts.
The following suggestions are alternative design variations that may be substituted for the
shredder.

The feeder tube is round because it is easy to clamp and the shape makes the most sense
with its interaction with the rotating shredder blade. If round PVC tube is not available,
an alternative would be to use a square or octagonal box made out of wood or sheet
metal. This may not be as efficient, but would work and is easy to build.

Sheet metal is common world-wide but may be more expensive in certain areas. A
wooden center divider was used on the Garwick/Elton version of the shredder (Garwick,
2005). This works well but was not used here because it has the potential to trap bacteria
and is not as sanitary as sheet metal.

40

Nylon is the suggested material for the drive shaft bushing. There are many alternatives
to this to include ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMW), hard wood, or
another plastic. Hardwoods, such as maple, have long been used as a bearing material in
simple applications (Fig. 14).

Figure 14: Wooden Bushing Variation

These are all valid ideas that were not used because it was determined that they were not
as efficient or as sanitary as the components in the final design. These alternatives are all
possible options available to the manufacturer when building this device if the specified
material is not available.

Shredder Blade Project

The shredder blade is the most expensive part of the breadfruit shredder and the one that
would be hardest to obtain in a developing country. The specified blade is a stainless
steel commercial blade made by Hobart Company and the cost makes up about a third of
the total cost of the shredder. The senior design team had used this blade because it fit
their application and was available. A search for another blade did not lead to any

41

compatible replacements that would significantly reduce the cost. The Garwick/Elton
shredder tested a less expensive blade but found it to warp easily (Garwick, 2005).

The option of creating a simple blade for the shredder was explored as a way to reduce
the cost of the machine. It was determined that if a punch and die assembly could be
devised for manufacturing the blade, a fabrication shop could make their own blades
when they made the shredder. The punch and die assembly would not need to have the
exact same cutting profile as the Hobart blade but one requirement was that any
fabricated blade must be interchangeable with the mounting holes on a Hobart blade.
This would give the end-user the option of using either one.

The task of creating a punch and die assembly was taken on by an engineering student,
Hezbon Mose, at the University of St. Thomas. Mose used a manual milling machine,
lathe, and grinder to create a simple four-row die and a matching punch (Fig. 15). The
punch and die created by Mose was tested and found to be moderately effective. The
profiles were somewhat erratic and often the thinner sheet metal began to tear the profile
when a small pre-drilled hole was used.

42

Figure 15: Shredder Blade Profile Die, Profile Punch, and Hole Template

The factors affecting the forming of the cutting profiles seemed to be the size of the predrilled hole and the thickness of the sheet metal. Table 3 shows the average results of
testing using three different holes sizes and metal thicknesses. The height value is the
distance that the sheet metal was deformed from the die. The commercial Hobart Blade
has a height of 0.150 inches and was used as a baseline to determine acceptable punches.
From the testing, it was found that the 0.437 (7/16) inch diameter hole provide the best
looking profile that most closely matched the Hobart blade. The material thickness of
0.24 inches was also satisfactory.

43

Table 3: Shredder Punch Hole Test

Metal Thickness (in)

Pre-Drilled Hole Size (in)

Deformed Height (in)

0.021 Hot Rolled Steel (HRS)

0.375 (3/8)

0.138

0.021 HRS

0.438 (7/16)

0.155

0.021 HRS

0.500 (1/2)

0.151

0.024 HRS

0.375 (3/8)

TORE MATERIAL

0.024 HRS

0.438 (7/16)

0.160

0.024 HRS

0.500 (1/2)

0.100

0.030 STAINLESS STEEL

0.375 (3/8)

0.162

0.030 STAINLESS STEEL

0.438 (7/16)

0.150

0.030 STAINLESS STEEL

0.500 (1/2)

0.095

The process for creating a shredder blade required that the corresponding hole pattern be
pre-drilled into the sheet metal first using a standard drill and bit. This was done by
creating a hole template (Fig. 15) to use for determining the location and spacing of the
holes. The sheet metal is clamped between the hole template and a piece of wood so that
the holes can be drilled through the template with a standard drill bit. The sheet metal
would then be placed on the die and the slicing profiles pounded into the sheet metal
using the punch. The slicing profiles can then be sharpened with a small round file. The
Hobart blade has a raised lip around the outside that was used to stiffen the blade. The
fabricated blade was found to be relatively stiff without the raised lip but deformed
slightly from the fabrication process (Fig. 16). In addition, the redesigned shredder
mount holds the blade at four mounting holes and supports it on the entire perimeter

44

whereas the previous mount only held the blade at two holes and had two additional
support arms. Based on these factors, it was determined that the raised lip was not
needed on the fabricated blade.

Figure 16: Fabricated Blade

Testing the Redesigned Shredder

The redesigned shredder was tested for both functionality and performance against the
original Tommy shredder. The first test was a timed trial between the redesigned
shredder and the original shredder using the same amount of butternut squash, the same
commercial Hobart blade, and one operator was used to keep the rotation rate and feed
rate consistent between the two shredders. A second timed trial was conducted using the
redesigned shredder to compare the shred time between the Hobart blade and the
fabricated blade (Fig. 16). The anticipated time results for the first test between the new
and old shredder were expected to be about the same. The basic design was similar and
there were no obvious factors except for the blade support that would make a significant
45

difference between the two machines. It was also expected that the second test would
show the purchased Hobart blade outperforming the fabricated blade. Both of these
assumptions were proven wrong.

Each test was done using four pounds of butternut squash that had been cut into quarters.
The original shredder shredded this amount in 5 minutes and 15 seconds. This works out
to about 46 pounds of squash per hour. The redesigned shredder shredded the same
amount of squash in 4 minutes and 10 seconds. This works out to about 58 pounds of
squash per hour. The one observation that would explain this 25 percent difference
would be the center divider. The original shredder used two pieces of PVC glued
together and screwed into the middle of the feeder tube. This took up about a 1-1/2 inch
space in the middle of the feeder tube. The smaller product space tended to cause the
squash to become wedged in the feeder tube and slowed down the shredding process.
The redesigned shredder used a piece of thin sheet metal which left larger openings in the
feeder tube for the squash. The redesigned feeder tube is also longer, which allowed
more squash to be placed in it, eliminating some loading time. It is unknown whether
different sizes of product would significantly change the results. There are too many
variables in this test, such as operator experience, product size, product type, and limited
run time, to say that the redesigned shredder will shred 25 percent more product. It does
show that the redesigned shredder will work as good as or possibly better than the
original shredder design.

46

The second test was done to compare the effectiveness of the fabricated blade against the
commercial Hobart Blade. Four pounds of butternut squash were again cut up into
quarters for this test. The fabricated blade was put onto the redesigned shredder and
completed the test in about four minutes and 20 seconds. This works out to about 55
pounds of squash per hour. The fabricated blade performed much better than expected
and had a similar shred rate to the purchased Hobart blade. One possible reason for this
was that the rough edges on the fabricated blade had more of a cutting effect on the
squash. These test results show that the fabricated blade is an acceptable replacement for
the Hobart blade.

The redesigned shredder will need to be tested with breadfruit to see if the senior
engineering design teams average of 200 pounds per hour can be duplicated or exceeded.
The simple test done with butternut squash does validate both the redesign of the
shredder and the fabricated blade. They should be considered equal to or possibly better
than the original Tommy shredder.

Redesign Results
The redesign process using the principles of manufacturing, such as DFMA, made the
breadfruit shredder simpler and more robust. Figure 17 shows the revised breadfruit
shredder. By simplifying the design, it also became easier to manufacture in a
developing country and the reduced cost will make the shredder more accessible to the
people. The final design for the breadfruit shredder consists of assembly drawings, detail
prints, and pictures showing the pieces and assemblies. Computer-Aided Design (CAD)

47

models have been drawn on Solidworks and the parts rendered into solid views to aid in
fabrication. These prints, the Bill of Materials, and fabrication instructions are shown in
the Appendix section of the paper.

Figure 17: The Revised Tommy Shredder

The original objectives of this project were to:

Reduce the part count.

Make it easier to manufacture in a developing country.

Reduce the final cost of the equipment.

Make it easier for the user to operate, clean, and repair.

48

Redesigning the handle and drive assembly reduced the fabricated parts of this machine.
The simple bent piece of round steel replaced the drive rod, handle crank, and handle
post. The types of raw material needed were also reduced by eliminating the flat steel on
the handle crank and changing the spacer for the feeder tube hoop from a steel block to
the same steel tubing material as the bearing supports. All of the fabrication work done
to manufacture the shredder was done with tools that would typically be found in a small
machine shop. These tools would be a drill, saw, hammer, welder, and a lathe.

Several of the purchased materials used in the original Tommy Shredder were potentially
more difficult to get in a developing country. This included the flat PVC plate used for
the center divider, the oil-impregnated bronze bushings, and the clamp collars. These
were replaced with more common materials such as sheet metal for the center divider and
plastic or wood for the bushings. A common flat washer replaced the clamp collars.

The final cost of the machine will be reduced by the changes made to the design. While
several things such as the sturdier blade support added cost, most were cost reducers.
The elimination of the expensive flat PVC and less machining for the drive assembly will
result in less material cost and quicker fabrication time. The most significant cost
reducer will be fabricating a shredder blade instead of purchasing a Hobart blade. It is
estimated that it will take a person about half of a day to fabricate a shredding blade using
the die, punch, and template described in the previous section. Using the senior design
teams labor rate of 8 dollars per day for Haiti and a material price of 4 dollars, the blade

49

will cost about 8 dollars to make. This is a significant savings over the Hobart blade that
costs 26 dollars and would likely need to be special ordered from outside the country.

The user satisfaction with the machine was increased in two ways. The sanitation and
cleanliness of the shredder were greatly improved by making the center divider
removable. The removable center divider allows the feeder tube and divider to be
cleaned separately and eliminated closed pockets that trapped food. The former blade
support was weak and did not hold the blade securely or keep it flat while in operation.
The new heavier duty blade support will improve the quality of the device while making
it more durable and better supporting the blade during the shredding process.

Schedule
The schedule for this project was established in January 2005 and was revised several
times. The original schedule had the project completed in June of 2005 and is shown in
Appendix 13. It became apparent that this was an aggressive schedule that needed to be
revised. Appendix 14 shows the revised schedule which had the project completion date
in October 2005. This schedule was again moved back and the project completed in
December 2005.

The project plan included a trip to St. Vincent to document the life-cycle testing on the
four units that were sent to the island. Repeated inquiries to the recipients of the
breadfruit shredder on the progress of the testing yielded very few replies. Based on the
meager response, the trip was cancelled.

50

A trip to Haiti to test out the revised breadfruit shredder was also planned for this project.
This trip was cancelled several times due to the political instability in advance of the
country-wide elections. The United States Department of State advised no travel to Haiti
by Americans and removed its entire staff except for emergency personnel. It is hoped
that the political situation in Haiti will calm down after the elections, which have been
pushed back to February of 2006.

Final Budget
The money required for this project was significantly less than the amount budgeted for.
In the original budget of 2,850 dollars, 2,750 dollars were related to a trip for two people
to Haiti. This trip never happened because of the political unrest in the country that was
occurring during the time span of this project. It is hoped that this money can be used for
a future trip to Haiti when the situation in the country stabilizes. This trip would be used
to introduce the Haitians to the Tommy Shredder, work on developing local recipes from
dried breadfruit, and obtain more user feedback on the machine.

The expenses associated with this project are shown in Table 4. Local fabrication shops
donated most of the materials used to build the test shredder with the remainder being
purchased. All machining and fabrication was done by the author in the UST student
machine shop.

51

Table 4: Final Budget

Materials for building shredder and blade

$21

Hardware for shredder (screws, nuts, etc.)

$5

Misc. expenses (test material, phone calls, etc)

$9
Final Budget:

$35

Chapter V: Discussion and Ramifications

The project resulted in a better machine that was more suited to the environment in which
it will be built and used. The redesign process and final product as detailed above are the
first steps in making the Tommy Breadfruit Shredder a success. The difficult part of this
project will be disseminating the information out to those in need of it and to work with
them to gain acceptance and realize the potential that it has.

Project Dissemination

The Tommy Shredder has the potential to help reduce malnutrition in Haiti and other
developing countries. Several avenues will be taken to accomplish this task and
distribute the shredder plans to people who are working in developing countries. It is
hoped that the initial developer of the shredder will be Compatible Technology,
International (CTI). They are a stakeholder in the project and are in the best position to
implement this device in Haiti. It is unclear whether the original plan of working with

52

the Methodist Church to make a breakfast cereal from breadfruit flour will be fully
realized or not.

There are several journals focused on the topic of appropriate technology with the
mission of spreading information to the people who are most in need of it. One of these,
the Magazine of the Associated Country Women of the World (www.acww.org.uk) works
with rural women in developing countries to better their life. This, and related journals,
will be sent articles with information regarding the purpose and uses of the Tommy
Shredder along with how to obtain plans for it.

The fabrication prints for the shredder along with copies of this engineering project, the
senior design teams shredder project, and the senior design teams breadfruit drying
project, will be accessible over the internet at:
http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/cmgeorge/breadfruit_shredder/.

Implementing the Shredder in Developing Countries

Implementing the Tommy Shredder into the lives and cultures of people in developing
countries will be the greatest challenge. The authors personal experience and interviews
with Bruce Humphreys of CTI (2005) confirm that people in these countries think
differently than Americans. The typical Western mindset generally cannot be applied to
these cultures with the expectation of having the same results. As Bruce Humphreys
stated, There is an inertia for doing things the old way and that change is slow and not
always accepted. Darrow and Saxenian in their book, Appropriate Technology

53

Sourcebook (1996), discuss many excellent appropriate technology projects with good
intention that never caught on for one reason or another. By making the machine simpler
and easy to disassemble for cleaning, it is hoped that some of the obstacles involved will
be lowered.

The author believes that the breadfruit shredder will need a concerted effort on the
ground in Haiti to gain acceptance. This will involve working closely with the local
people through several breadfruit harvests to show them the benefits of their labors. The
dried breadfruit and flour will have to be adapted so that it relates to their culture and
daily dietary habits. If they can use it in a way that they are familiar with, it is much
more likely that they will accept the use of dehydrated breadfruit. It has been shown
many times that change is hard and that it takes a long time to change a culture
(Humphreys, 2005).

The ramifications for the Haitian, once accepted, can be great. Taking an underutilized
food source and preserving it until needed can ease malnutrition and promote sustainable
agriculture. It may also lessen their dependence on imported foreign food sources and
perhaps generate an income.

Project Obstacles
The redesigning of the breadfruit shredder initially seemed like it should be far simpler
than it turned out to be. The biggest underestimation of the project was the time involved
to do it right. The original project schedule called for completion of the project in June

54

2005. This was invariably bumped back several times until it was completed in
December 2005. The estimation errors occurred in the time that it took to finish tasks.
The machine initially took longer to build than expected, people responded much slower
than expected, and scheduling was always a problem. What was needed was a more
flexible schedule that was able to work around interferences and accomplish tasks during
the workday.

The difficulties of working with a developing country are well known by any person who
has had to deal with them. Time is not important and responses are slow. On the positive
side, they are often very friendly people who are willing to help out. An example of this
would be the four shredder units that were sent to the island of St. Vincent for testing.
Although the recipients willingly said that they would use the machines to shred
breadfruit, it is questionable as to whether they did or not. Their reaction was to not
respond to questions about it. This mentality is frustrating but can be understood in the
context that they may not have had much of a need for the shredder and timelines are not
as important. This needed to be a bigger factor when planning the timeline for the
project.

Political unrest in any developing country is a possibility at any time. Unfortunately, it

was occurring in Haiti for the entire length of this project. It is a factor that is a
possibility, but is rarely accounted for in the schedule or planning phase. This hindered
the testing of the shredder and did not allow any feedback from the target audience of
Haitian women. Haiti is unique in that it is one of the poorest countries in the Western

55

Hemisphere and its inhabitants often depend on the harvest cycle of breadfruit for basic
sustenance needs. People on other Caribbean islands do not share this pattern of poverty
and political unrest for such a prolonged period. Despite this, contacts should have been
established earlier with other islands so that some testing could have occurred.

The obstacles faced by anyone trying to introduce a new technology into a culture can be
great. It is hoped that the good people of Haiti will be able to overcome these and at least
give the Tommy shredder a chance to work in their lives. With some effort and
acceptance, the people of Haiti will use this to become self-sustaining for food and can
begin working on other issues that face the country.

56

Bibliography:
-

Adebowale, K.O., Olu-Owolabi, B.I., Olawumi, E.K., & Lawal, O.S. Functional
Properties of Native, Physically and Chemically Modified Breadfruit (Artocarpus
Artilis) Starch. Industrial Crops and Products, Vol. 21, Issue 3, May 2005, 343351.

Anderson, M., Fox, B., Rick, B., and Spah, A., Design of a Manually Operated
Food Shredder for the Developing World. St. Paul: University of St. Thomas
School of Engineering, May 2004

Boothroyd, G., Dewhurst, P., & Knight, W. (1994). Product Design for
Manufacture and Assembly. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.

Bruun, P., & Medfford, R.N., A Framework for Selecting and Introducing
Appropriate Production Technology in Developing Countries. International
Journal of Production Economies, Vol. 46-47, December 1996, 197-209.

Capecchi, C. Engineer Turns Wasted Fruit Into Hunger Fighter for Haiti. The
Catholic Spirit, Vol. 10, No. 23, June 23, 2005.

CIA World Fact Book 2005. Republic of Haiti Facts and Map, Retrieved
September 2005 from http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ha

Darrow, K., Saxenian, M. (1993). Appropriate Technology Sourcebook: A Guide

to Practical Books for Village and Small Community Technology. Stanford:
Volunteers in Asia.

Darrow, K., Saxenian, M. (2005). Appropriate Technology Sourcebook: A Guide

to Practical Books for Village and Small Community Technology. Updated
version retrieved from www.villageearth.org/atnetwork/atsourcebook/index.

El-Mously, Hamed. The Rediscovery of Local Raw Materials: New Opportunities

for Developing Countries. Industry and Environment, Vol. 20, No. 1-2, Jan-Jun,
1997.

Emiliusen J., Mauritzen T., McGruder, R., & Torgerson, K. The Design of a
Novel Breadfruit Dehydration System Utilizing Solar Energy: A Record of YearLong Result. St. Paul: University of St. Thomas School of Engineering, May
2004.

Eppinger, S., Ulrich, K. (2004). Product Design and Development. McGraw

Hill, 3rd Edition, New York.

57

The Breadfruit Institute. Fruit of the Breadfruit Tree, Retrieved November 2005
from http://www.breadfruit.org

Futch, E., Kathawala, Y., Motwani, J., & Youssef, M. Supplier Selection in
Developing Countries: A Model Development. Integrated Manufacturing
Systems, Vol. 10, No. 3-4, 1999, 154-161.

Garwick, Hank and Elton, Dave. Compatible Technology, International.

Interview with author, May 26, 2005. Interview notes available.

George, Camille, Walker, John and Zimmerman, Fred. University of St. Thomas.
Review with author, August 4, 2005. Review notes available.

Goldey, P., Thakur, S., & Varma, S.K. (2001). Perceptions of Drudgery in
Agricultural and Animal Husbandry Operations: A Gender Analysis From
Haryana State, India. Journal of International Development, 1165-1178.

Hegele, Fred. General Mills, Inc. Interview with author, April 18, 2005.
Interview notes available.

Humphrys, Bruce. Compatible Technology, International. Interview with author,

December 28, 2004. Interview notes available.

Hynd, A., & Smith, A. Meeting a Pressing Need: Project Appraisal of the
Oilseed Ram Press and Approaches to Implementation. Design for Developing
Countries Case Study Series, Issued October 20, 2004.

International Development Research Centre. Electronic correspondence with the

author May 18, 2005 at www.irdc.ca. Correspondence notes available.

Ng, Yvonne and Pontgratz, Troy. Review with author, August 19, 2005. Review
notes available.

Obi, S. A Framework for Implementing Appropriate Manufacturing Systems in

Developing Countries. Journal of Industrial Technology, Vol.15, No. 2, Feb.
1999.

Olmstead, Gary. General Mills, Inc. Interview with author, March 18, 2005.
Interview notes available.

OMalley, Pat. Haitian Relief Services. Review with author, August 16, 2005.
Review notes available.

Prichard, Daniel. U.S. Military Academy Library. Discussion with author,

August 4, 2004. Interview notes available.

58

Ragone, Diane. Hawiian Breadfruit Institute. E-mail correspondence with

author, May 8, 2005. Correspondence notes available.

Schevenius, John. General Mills, Inc. (retired). Interview with author, March 30,
2005. Interview notes available.

Solberg, Clay. Progressive Systems, Inc. Design review with author, August 1,
2005. Review notes available.

Thilmany, J. Managing Across Cultures: How Do You Design Food-Processing

Equipment if You Know Next to Nothing About the Culture in Which it Will Be
Used?. Mechanical Engineering-CIMA, Vol. 127, No. 2, February 2005.

United Nations Development Program. Website accessed in May 2005 at

www.undp.org.

United States Department of State, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs.

Republic of Haiti Statistics, Retrieved November 2005 from
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/1982

Villas-Boas, R.C. Role of Materials in Developing Countries. Materials and

Society, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1990, 105-116.

Walker, John. University of St. Thomas. Design analysis of original Tommy

Shredder. September 2004.

Walker, John. University of St. Thomas. Summary of Design for Manufacture

and Assembly process. December 2005.

59

Appendices
Appendix 1: Revisions 1 and 2

MODIFIED MOUNT
FOR PLASTIC BUCKET

PLASTIC BUCKET FOR

FEEDER TUBE

60

Appendix 2: Revisions 3 and 4

CHANGED BLADE
SUPPORT

CHANGED BACK TO
PVC FEEDER TUBE

CHANGED FEEDER
TUBE SUPPORT

61

Appendix 3: Revisions 5 and 6

CHANGED BLADE
SUPPORT

CHANGED BLADE &

FEEDER TUBE SUPPORT

62

Appendix 4: Revision 7 and 8

MODIFIED DRIVE
SHAFT AND HANDLE

MODIFIED FRAME
PLATE

63

Appendix 5: Breadfruit Shredder Exploded Layout

- Not Shown

12
4

2
11

1
12

10

8
3
7

16
6
13
Note: Numbers in Balloons Refer to the Item Number
in the Bill of Materials Shown in Appendix 6

64

14

15

Appendix 6: Bill of Materials Breadfruit Shredder

Bill of Materials
Item
1

Description
FRAME PLATE

Drawing
Number Qty:
001

0.25" X 6.0" X 8.0" MILD STEEL PLATE

1.50" INSIDE DIAMETER X 0.13" WALL X 4.50" LONG STEEL TUBING
1.50" INSIDE DIAMETER X 0.13" WALL X 1.0" LONG STEEL TUBING
0.13" X 1.75" X 31.0" MILD STEEL

DRIVE SHAFT

002

0.50" DIAMETER X 44.0" LONG HOT ROLLED STEEL SHAFT

FLAT WASHER FOR 1/2" BOLT, SAE STANDARD

FEEDER TUBE

003

DRIVE SHAFT BEARING

004

HANDLE

005

BLADE MOUNT

006

CENTER DIVIDER

007

CENTER DIVIDER SPACER TUBE

SHREDDER PRESS WEIGHT

1
1

008

0.63" INSIDE DIAMETER X 1.0" OUTSIDE DIAMETER X 3.0" LONG PVC

(POLYVINYL CHLORIDE) TUBE

1
4
1
1
4

8.50" X 8.75" X 20 GAUGE (0.036 THICK) SHEET STEEL

1
1

0.25 X 0.50" X 4.0" MILD STEEL

1.0" X 1.0" X 1.0" MILD STEEL
0.13 X 9.50" X 9.50" MILD STEEL
MACHINE SCREW, #10-32 FINE THREAD, PAN HEAD

2
2

0.63" INSIDE DIAMETER X 1.0" OUTSIDE DIAMETER X 6.0" LONG POLYVINYL

CHLORIDE TUBE

1
1

1.50" DIAMETER X 4.0" LONG NYLON PLASTIC ROD

1
1
2

8.75" OUTSIDE DIAMETER X 9.0" LONG X 0.38" WALL PVC (POLYVINYL

CHLORIDE) TUBE

1
1
2
1
1

1
1

009

1.0" OUTSIDE DIAMETER X 0.13" WALL X 7.75" LONG STEEL TUBING

1.0" OUTSIDE DIAMETER X 0.13" WALL X 6.0" LONG STEEL TUBING
0.38" X 3.50" X 5.50" MILD STEEL PLATE
1.0" X 2.0" X 5.0 MILD STEEL

10
11
12
13

BOLT, 3/8-16 COURSE THREAD X 1-1/2" LONG, HEX HEAD

BOLT, 3/8-16 COURSE THREAD X 2-1/4" LONG, HEX HEAD
WING NUT, 3/8-16" COURSE THREAD
DOWEL PIN, 3/16" DIA X 5/8" LONG
LINCH PIN, DIA X 1-3/4 LONG WITH RETAINING RING
14 (HILLMAN INC., #4259-H)
15 LANYARD, STAINLESS STEEL WIRE, 1FT LONG (REID #CBL-17)
SHREDDER BLADE (PURCHASED), STAINLESS STEEL, 1/2"
16 DIAMETER HOLES (HOBART #VS12SD12)

65

1
2
1
1
2

1
2
3
4
1
1
1

OPTIONAL COMPONENTS FOR FABRICATING A SHREDDER BLADE:

17 SHREDDER BLADE (FABRICATED)

010

24 GAUGE (0.024" THICK) X 9.50" X 9.50" STAINLESS STEEL SHEET

18 BLADE HOLE TEMPLATE

1
1

011

0.25" X 4.50" X 10.00" MILD STEEL PLATE

19 BLADE PROFILE DIE

1
1

012

1
1

20 BLADE PROFILE PUNCH

013

1
1

66

Appendix 7: Frame Plate Fabrication

Frame Plate Components:

HOOP
BUSHING SUPPORT

HOOP SPACER
BASE
Figure A: Frame Plate Components
Reference Drawing #001 (FRAME PLATE) for fabrication specifications.
Fabrication Procedures:
1). Cut Base material to size and drill mounting holes as shown on fabrication print.
2). Cut Bushing Supports and Hoop Spacer tubing to length shown on fabrication print.
3). Cut Hoop material to size as shown on fabrication print.
4). Drill holes in Bushing Supports as shown on fabrication print (Figure B).
5). Cut slot in Bushing Supports with a saw to the depth shown on the fabrication print
(Figure B).
6). Bend Hoop to the dimensions shown on the fabrication print using a sheet metal roller
or round forming die (See Figure C.)
7). Weld the Bushing Supports onto the Base by placing in the locations shown on the
fabrication print. Ensure that the holes in the Bushing Supports are lined up by inserting
a rod through both sets of holes as shown in Figure D. Weld to the Base using a Skip
Weld as shown in Figure E. Too much heat to the Base will warp it.
8). Weld the Hoop Spacer to the Base using the location shown on the fabrication print
using a Skip Weld (See Figure F).
9). Center the Hoop on the Hoop Spacer and weld. The Hoop must be lined up with the
centerline of the part as shown in the top view of the fabrication print.

67

Saw - Cut Slot

Drill Holes

Figure B: Bushing Support

Roll Hoop into
circle and then
bend tabs out

Alignment Rod

Figure C: Partially Rolled Hoop

Figure D: Alignment of Bushing Supports before welding

Skip-Weld

Figure E: Skip-Welding of Bushing Supports

68

Figure F: Weld on Spacer and Hoop

Appendix 8: Drive Shaft Fabrication

Support Washers

Figure A: Drive Shaft Components

Drive Shaft Rod

Reference Drawing #002 (DRIVE SHAFT) for fabrication specifications

Fabrication Procedures
1). Cut Drive Shaft Rod to length as shown in the fabrication print.
2). Mark bend distances from fabrication print onto Drive Shaft rod.
3). Clamp Drive Shaft Rod into a sturdy shop vise with first bend line slightly above top
of vise.
4). Heat bend area of Drive Shaft Rod near the first bend line with a torch until red hot.
5). Bend Drive Shaft Rod to a 90 degree angle (Figure B).
6). Remove from vise and re-clamp so that the second bend line is slightly above top of
vise.
7). Heat bend area of Drive Shaft Rod near second bend line with a torch until red hot.
8). Bend Drive Shaft Rod to a 90 degree angle (Figure B).
9). Lay bent Drive Shaft Rod on a flat surface to check for alignment of bends. Fix
alignment with a large mallet or by re-heating and bending shaft.
10). Mark locations of Support Washers from fabrication print on bent Drive Shaft Rod.
11). Secure Support Washers to Drive Shaft Rod by welding on inside only (away from
where washer contacts other parts) (Figure C)
12). Drill hole in bottom of Drive Shaft Rod as shown on the fabrication print.
13). Put chamfer on bottom of Drive Shaft Rod as shown on the fabrication print.
Weld on
this side
Vise

90 Degree
Bends
Figure B: Bending in Vise

Figure C: Weld area on Washers

69

Appendix 9: Feeder Tube Fabrication

Reference Drawing #003 (FEEDER TUBE) for fabrication specifications.
Fabrication Procedures
1) Cut Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) tube to length as shown on fabrication print.
2) Mark center axis line across top of feeder tube.
3) Mark center axis line across bottom of feeder tube. The top axis and bottom axis
must be in the same radial position on the tube.
4) Cut slot in top of tube as shown in the drawing using a saw. The slot will be offset to
one side as shown on the print (Figure A).
5) Mark hole positions in bottom of tube as shown in fabrication print. The holes will
be off to one side and should be in-line with the slots on the top of the tube.
6) Drill the four holes through the PVC tube using a 3/16 (.187) diameter drill bit.
7) Press 3/16 dowel pins (Item #13) into the holes in the tube. Pins will be pushed
through and extend to the inside of the tube (Figure B). Pins should fit tightly into
holes.
8) Slide the Center Divider (Drawing # 007) into the center of the Feeder Tube. The
extended sections of the Center Divider will slide into the slots on the top of the
Feeder Tube and the lower part of the Center Divider will fit between the dowel pins
(Figure C). Ensure that Center Divider fits into the Feeder Tube.
Slots

Figure A: Slots in top

Dowel Pins in line with slots

Figure B: Dowel Pin Locations

Figure C: Feeder Tube with Center Divider

70

Appendix 10: Blade Mount Fabrication

Support Arms

Support Hub

Support Ring
Figure A: Blade Mount Components
Reference Drawing #006 (BLADE MOUNT) for fabrication specifications.
Fabrication Procedures
1). Cut the Support Arm material as shown in the fabrication print.
2). Cut the Support Ring material to the dimensions shown on the fabrication print. A
hand-operated Jig Saw works well for cutting the inside diameter.
3). Cut the Support Hub material as shown on the fabrication print.
4). Drill holes in the Support Hub as shown on the fabrication print.
5). Lay the Support Hub on a flat surface with the large hole facing up and the small
cross-hole on top.
6). Position the Support Arms around the Support Hub as shown on the fabrication print.
7). Weld the Support Arms to the Support Hub.
8). Center the welded Support Hub/Support Arms on top of the Support Ring with the
Support Hub facing up.
9). Weld the Support Arms onto the Support Ring.
10). Mark the four holes onto the Support Ring as shown on the fabrication print. The
center point of the four holes will be the large hole in the Support Hub. Lay the Shredder
Blade (Item #16) over top of Support Ring and ensure that the four holes marked on the
Support Ring line up with the mounting holes and center hole of the shredder.
11). Drill the four holes into the Support Ring.
12).Tap the four holes as shown on the fabrication print.
13). Screw four pan head screws into the top of the Support Ring. Leave a space of 0.06
inches between the bottom of the screw head and the top of the Support Ring.
14). Check to see that the Shredder Blade fits easily over screw heads and locks into
place. Adjust screw head distance if needed.

71

15). Weld pan head screws in place from the bottom of the Support Ring with a small
amount of weld. This is to keep the screws from turning out.
16). Attach the Lanyard (Item 15) to the bottom of the Blade Mount (Figure B). The
lanyard attachment method may vary depending upon the type of lanyard purchased.
Ensure that the lanyard does not interfere with the operation of the shredder and allows
the blade to be easily put onto the Blade Mount.
17). Attach the Linch Pin (Item 14) to the Lanyard (Figure B). Make sure that the Linch
Pin will fit easily into the hole on the side of the Hub Support block.

Figure B: Blade Mount with Lanyard and Linch Pin

72

Appendix 11: Shredder Press Weight Fabrication

Top Plate

Handle

Press Feet
Figure A: Shredder Press Weight Components
Reference Drawing #009 (SHREDDER PRESS WEIGHT) for fabrication specifications.
Fabrication Procedures
1). Cut Press Feet, Press Legs, Top Plate, and Handle to dimensions shown on fabrication
print.
2). Position individual Press Legs onto Press Feet as shown in the fabrication print and
Figure B. Weld in place.
3). Space Press Feet apart as shown in the fabrication print (Figure B).
4). Position Top Plate onto Press Legs as shown in the fabrication print and Figure C.
5). Weld one of the Press Legs onto the Top Plate.
6). Check the distance between Press Feet and ensure that they are straight.
7). Weld on the second Press Leg to the Top Plate.
8). Position Handle onto top of Top Plate as shown in the fabrication print and Figure D.
9). Weld Handle onto Top Plate.
Weld Legs onto
Top Plate
Weld Legs
onto Feet
Press Feet
Spacing
Figure B: Press Feet and Legs
Washers

Figure C: Weld area on

Angle Handle as
shown and weld
Figure D: Press Handle
73

Appendix 12: Shredder Assembly Instructions

Reference Bill of Materials and Individual Drawings
Assembly Instructions
1) Mount the Frame Plate (Item #1) to a secure post.

Frame Plate
Post

2) Slide the Drive Shaft Bearings (Item #4) into the tubes on the Frame Plate and secure
with a screw and wing nut. Insert the screw for the Frame Plate hoop into the clamp
holes on the hoop.
Drive Shaft
Bearings (2)
Screw for Drive
Shaft Bearing

Screw for Hoop

3) Insert the Center Divider (Item #7) into the Feeder Tube (Item #3). Slide the Feeder
Tube Assembly into the hoop on the Frame Plate (the slots on the Feeder Tube will be
on top). Tighten the screw on the Frame Plate hoop to hold the Feeder Tube in place.

74

Feeder Tube with

Center Divider

4) Slide the Drive Shaft (Item #2) through the holes in the Drive Shaft Bearings from the
top. Insert the Center Divider Spacer tube (Item #8) over the Drive Shaft. Continue
to slide the Drive Shaft down until its stop washer rests on the top of the Drive Shaft
Bearing. Slide the Handle (Item #5) over the top of the Drive Shaft. Slide the Feeder
Tube Assembly up until the Center Divider spacer contacts the bottom of the lower
Drive Shaft Bearing.
Handle
Drive Shaft
stop washer

Drive Shaft

Center Divider
Spacer Tube

Feeder Tube
Assembly

5) Position the Hobart Blade or the fabricated Shredder Blade (Item #16) over the top of
the Blade Mount (Item #6). The teeth of the blade should be facing up. Align the
keyhole slots of the blade over the extended screws on the Blade Mount. Lock the
blade into place.

75

Keyhole slots
of Blade
Blade Teeth up

6) Slide the Blade Mount with Shredder Blade over the lower end of the Drive Shaft.
The teeth on the blade should be toward the Feeder Tube. Line up the lower
mounting hole on the Blade Mount with the hole on the end of the Drive Shaft. Slide
the pin (Item #14) through Blade Mount and Drive Shaft holes to the other side.
Lock pin in place.
Feeder Tube

Slide Pin into

lower hole

Blade Mount

7) Assembled Shredder

76

Appendix 13: Original Project Schedule

Name
Pre-Trip Work
Appropriate Technology Issues
UST Manufacturing Experts
CTI Manufacturing Experts
Develop Contacts
Plan Schedule/Make Appointments
Work at St. Vincent
St. Vincent Vo-Tech
Life Cycle Testing
Ergonomic Issues
Safety Issues
Cleaning & Sanitation Issues
Finalize Design
Search for economical grater
Investigate Grater Mfg
Standards for food processing
Finalize Design
Support For Final Design
Design into CAD
Rework Assembly Instructions
Complete Cost Analysis
Complete BOM
Develop MFG Process
Finalize SS version
BOM for SS version
Cost Analysis of SS version
Write Instruction Manual
Work in Haiti
Evaluate ease of use
Evaluate MFG process
Evaluate design costs
Units in Production
Update final design
Translate Instructions
Release design for production
Publish design in AT journal

Start_Date
1/11/2005
1/11/2005
1/28/2005
2/3/2005
1/28/2005
2/8/2005
2/25/2005
2/25/2005
2/25/2005
2/25/2005
2/25/2005
2/25/2005
1/28/2005
1/28/2005
3/7/2005
2/3/2005
3/10/2005
2/25/2005
3/15/2005
3/30/2005
2/25/2005
3/17/2005
3/30/2005
4/1/2005
4/8/2005
4/12/2005
4/1/2005
4/16/2005
4/16/2005
4/16/2005
4/16/2005
4/20/2005
4/21/2005
4/20/2005
5/10/2005
5/23/2005

77

Finish_Date
2/23/2005
2/23/2005
2/18/2005
2/18/2005
2/23/2005
2/23/2005
2/27/2005
2/27/2005
2/27/2005
2/27/2005
2/27/2005
2/27/2005
3/14/2005
3/5/2005
3/14/2005
3/12/2005
3/14/2005
4/14/2005
3/29/2005
4/7/2005
3/30/2005
3/23/2005
4/13/2005
4/7/2005
4/10/2005
4/14/2005
4/13/2005
4/19/2005
4/18/2005
4/18/2005
4/19/2005
5/31/2005
5/6/2005
5/31/2005
5/31/2005
5/31/2005

Duration
32 days
32 days
16 days?
12 days
19 days
12 days
2 days
2 days?
2 days
2 days
2 days
2 days
33 days
27 days
6 days
28 days
3 days
37 days
11 days
7 days
25 days
2 days
12 days
5 days
2 days
3 days
10 days
3 days
2 days
2 days
3 days
30 days
12 days
30 days
16 days
7 days

Appendix 14: Revised Project Schedule

Name
Start Date
Pre-Trip Work
1/11/2005
Appropriate Technology Issues
1/11/2005
UST Manufacturing Experts
1/28/2005
CTI Manufacturing Experts
2/3/2005
Develop Contacts
6/29/2005
Search for economical grater
1/28/2005
Investigate Grater Mfg
3/7/2005
Standards for food processing
2/3/2005
Finalize Design
3/15/2005
Concept design changes
3/15/2005
Evaluate Design Concepts
4/27/2005
Finalize Design
7/1/2005
Build and test working model
6/15/2005
Complete Cost Analysis
7/18/2005
Complete BOM
7/11/2005
Develop MFG Process
7/18/2005
Plan Schedule/Make Appointments 7/6/2005
Work in Haiti
7/30/2005
Travel To/From Haiti
7/30/2005
Evaluate ease of use
8/1/2005
Evaluate MFG process
8/3/2005
Evaluate design costs
8/4/2005
Get Units into production
8/8/2005
Update final design
8/8/2005
Rework Assembly Instructions
8/15/2005
Write Instruction Manual
8/16/2005
Translate Instructions
8/23/2005
Develop website for shredder prints 9/16/2005
Publish design in AT journal
9/16/2005
Thesis Work
5/24/2005
Conduct literature search
5/24/2005
Write Chapters 1 & 2
6/8/2005
Write Remaining Chapters
6/30/2005
Review with Advisors
9/8/2005
Update Thesis
9/16/2005
Review with UST writing Center
9/27/2005
Review with Advisors
10/3/2005
Write final Thesis
10/7/2005
Defense
10/13/2005
Submit to UST
10/17/2005
78

Finish Date
7/21/2005
2/23/2005
5/24/2005
5/26/2005
7/21/2005
3/5/2005
3/14/2005
3/30/2005
8/1/2005
7/13/2005
7/6/2005
7/13/2005
7/20/2005
7/22/2005
7/15/2005
8/1/2005
7/28/2005
8/6/2005
8/6/2005
8/4/2005
8/5/2005
8/5/2005
9/29/2005
8/15/2005
8/22/2005
8/22/2005
9/15/2005
9/29/2005
9/26/2005
10/20/2005
7/20/2005
6/29/2005
9/7/2005
9/16/2005
9/26/2005
9/30/2005
10/7/2005
10/12/2005
10/13/2005
10/20/2005

Duration
141 days
32 days
86 days
84 days
17 days
27 days
6 days
41 days
103 days
89 days
51 days
9 days
26 days
5 days
5 days
12 days
17 days
7 days
7 days
4 days
3 days
2 days
39 days
6 days
6 days
5 days
18 days
10 days
7 days
110 days
42 days
16 days
52 days
7 days
7 days
4 days
5 days
4 days
1 day
4 days

Appendix 15: Preliminary Sketch by John Walker

79

Appendix 16: Contributions by Karl Mueller

Karl Mueller, the student machine shop supervisor, worked with Dr. Camille George to
fabricate the four units that were sent to the island of St. Vincent for life cycle and user
interface testing. These units were fabricated entirely from stainless-steel which required
several modifications to the final student design. The more notable changes carried out
by Mr. Mueller were:

The center divider in the feeder tube was made from flat steel that was welded
into the feeder tube and had a support tab for the lower part of the drive shaft.
This was changed to a removable center divider.

The feeder tube was supported by two hoops instead of one. It was found that
only one support hoop was necessary for the final version.

His version of the blade support had pins with retainer clips to hold down the
Hobart blade instead of screws. This idea made the blade easy to remove but
added parts and complexity.

The drive shaft was supported by two clamp collars. This idea was carried
through into the project but was later replaced by flat washers welded in place;
another suggestion by Mr. Mueller.

While these ideas were creative and contributed to the knowledge of the project, most
were designed out during the redesign process. The Figures A and B show models of the
shredders that Mr. Mueller made.

80

Figure A: Stainless-Steel Shredder showing center divider and two hoops

Figure B: Stainless-Steel Shredder with pins holding the blade on

81

Appendix 17: Drawing #001 Frame Plate

82

Appendix 18: Drawing #002 Drive Shaft

83

Appendix 19: Drawing #003 Feeder Tube

84

Appendix 20: Drawing #004 Drive Shaft Bearing

85

Appendix 21: Drawing #005 Handle

86

Appendix 22: Drawing #006 Blade Mount

87

Appendix 23: Drawing #007 Center Divider

88

Appendix 24: Drawing #008 Center Divider Spacer Tube

89

Appendix 25: Drawing #009 Shredder Press Weight

90

Appendix 26: Drawing #010 Shredder Blade (fabricated)

91

Appendix 27: Drawing #011 Blade Hole Template

92