Caroustorage
Designed, prototyped, and tested an under-the-bed dorm storage solution attached to a Twin XL bed frame, consisting of carousel-like rotating cubbies
Overview
Introduction to Engineering (ENGS 21) is a project-based class where student groups of 4 people are expected to apply engineering principles of analysis, experimentation, and design to a real problem of their choice, from initial concept to final recommendations. My team addressed the following problem statement:
Residence halls do not provide ample or diverse enough in-room storage space for students’ many needs, leading them to purchase storage solutions that use available space inefficiently, are difficult to store when students are off-campus, and may not even be compatible with their future room(s).
After picking our problem statement, we determined our specifications, went through a long prototyping process, tested the product we designed against the benchmark, analyzed the efficiency of our solution, performed ethics and sustainability assessments, and came up with a business plan.
Design Considerations
We started our design process by identifying the potential users and purchasers of our solution. We targeted college students, specifically Dartmouth College students, who live in dorms as our user profile. Students, their parents and guardians, and perhaps colleges and universities were all among potential purchasers of our product.
Our next step was to research the existing patents and literature on dorm storage solutions. We found five applicable patents and investigated these more thoroughly; we made sure to note both the shortcomings and the advantages of each idea. During our research process, we also examined commonly used convenient storage systems with applications different than dorm rooms. Some examples we thought about were suitcases, roof racks, table and desk organizations, and storage beds. One common element shared by all of these solutions is that they target spaces that otherwise are not actively used by people. Below are some outcomes from our divergent brainstorming and prototyping stage:
Closet embedded in the wall that you can push in/pull out
Closet that it is attached to the ceiling
Spinning under the bed “cubbies”
Sideways rotating storage attached to the wall (ferris wheel)
Individual cubbies hanging from the ceiling which can be pulled down/sent back up
Customizable desk attachment that uses strong magnets
We made a specifications table to easily quantify our metrics of success and rate potential solutions.
Spinning under the bed cubbies, that we named Caroustorage scored the most points according to these metrics. This solution was advantageous as it targets the one consistent piece of furniture every dorm room has—a twin bed. After surveying 21 Dartmouth undergraduates, we realized that current under-the-bed storage options only use the front half of the available space under the bed to avoid students crouching to retrieve belongings. In our survey, we found that 75% of the students said they would be interested in alternative under-the-bed-storage options.
Caroustorage works as a rotating storage carousel that fits underneath the bed and gives students easy access to the space in the back of the frame, utilizing 100% of the space available under the bed. We considered multiple implementations of our idea including a circular lazy-suzan, an elliptical shower-curtain-type structure, an elliptical rockler ceiling track equivalent, and carving into an elliptical PVC tube track. We went through multiple prototypes using foam-core and SolidWorks, as well as testing rapid rough prototypes. Our final solution was a Rockler ceiling track system that we customized by attaching the rollers to cubbies, connecting the rollers to one another using a string in tension to ensure that all cubbies move simultaneously when one of them is pushed, and adding spread-out metal clamp attachment points between the track and the standard DartmouthTwin-XL bed frame.
Testing and Analysis
We performed quantitative user-tests and analyses on all of our specifications. We maintained consistency between benchmark testing procedures and user-testing procedures to ensure an accurate and meaningful comparison. All findings were compared to either benchmark testing results or our specifications
User Testing (n = 11 students)
-
We loaded the cubbies with 5 pairs of shoes, timed how long it took participants to retrieve shoes from cubbies and how long it took them to retrieve only the furthest shoes. We also asked participants to rank the ease of operation. Our product passed one test and failed the other.
-
We unscrewed one corner attachment, and timed how long it takes for users to reassemble. Then asked participants to rank ease of assembly. Average time it took participants (7.75 min) was less than our goal (10 min).
-
Asked users to score the customizability of different components of our design. The feedback suggested the need for improvement.
Analyses
-
0 permanent damage to the room.
-
Caroustorage takes up 43% of the volume available under the bed as opposed to a benchmark of 28%.
-
All components cumulatively weigh less than 40 lbs.
-
Our prototype cost $206 which did not meet our specification of $35 but according to our calculations, a mass-produced ideal product would cost $30.08.
-
Disassembled pieces fit in a 18x18x24 in box along with some flat pieces shorter than 5 in.
