Final Report on the Design and Construction of a Beam-Based Cardboard

Chair
Adam Catrambone
Zachary Hahn
Dimitri Petrakis
Michael Szczesniak
10/8/15
Corrugated Kings - Group 6

Abstract
Current dormitory chairs are take up a significant portion of the space of an average dorm
room and are constructed of material which is less easy to recycle, resulting in a negative impact
on the environment. The project was undertaken in an attempt to create a dormitory office-style
chair made solely of recycled corrugated cardboard that is still capable of collapsing to under
12 to fit under a dormitory bed. After collecting data on what Penn State dormitory residents
desire in a dorm chair and performing research on both cardboard and chairs, various methods of
idea generation were used to create multiple different interpretations of ways of addressing the
design problem. These ideas were then considered and consolidated into four different
preliminary designs. Each of the four designs had a scale prototype of them constructed, which
aided in the process of paring down ideas. From these, one final concept was chosen to further
pursue. The final design consisted of two flat side structures, consisting of multiple sheets, which
formed the sides of the chair. After being modeled in SolidWorks, a full-scale prototype was
constructed. Triangular beams were strung between the sides in order to both support the chair
and form the structure of the seat. After this chair was built, in proved to be relatively successful
at addressing the various needs, including comfortability and safety, which spurred its creation.

1. Introduction
As people use increasingly more natural resources, the concern of sustainability grows
proportionally larger. Many believe that we need to use earth's resources more effectively by
reducing the use of non renewable resources. One specific way this can be accomplished is by
constructing furniture out of recyclable material. Currently, dormitory chairs at Penn State are
made of wood or a combination of metal and plastic. In order to improve sustainability, the
designed chair was entirely produced out of recyclable cardboard, without any adhesive or other
connecting materials. The chair also had to accommodate the relatively small size of dorm rooms
and their limited storage space. Thus, the chairs were designed to meet the constraint of being
able to collapse to under 12 in order to fit under a typical dormitory bed. This allowed for more
efficient space management at times when the chair is not in use. The value of this feature was
later highlighted during interviews with college students, which revealed that most students
spend little time in their dorm room chairs.
The cardboard chair was created using methods consistent with the general principles of
engineering design. Tasks and schedules were managed through a PMW created at the beginning
of the project and modified throughout. In the problem statement portion of the activity, two
separate methods were used in order to more clearly define the major issues that must be
addressed with the cardboard chair: the 5 Ws (and 1 H) method and vision-issue-method.
Research of cardboard properties and cardboard chair designs was conducted to establish proper
background knowledge and better define the proper qualities of a cardboard chair. In order to
gain a better understanding of customer needs, both surveys and interviews were conducted.
After all objectives, features, and constraints were established and prioritized, idea generation
commenced. Three different strategies were used to generate ideas: the 4-3-3 Method,
brainstorming, and a morphological chart. The four leading ideas were prototyped at scale.
Pugh charts were used to select the final, best idea. Construction of the final prototype began
using SOLIDWORKS to finalize the design and dimension the chair. Afterword the chair was
physically built in full scale using cardboard and a combination of hand and power tools.
Within this report, sections will focus on each step of the engineering design process.
Section one begins with this introduction and also includes an initial problem statement that
defines the cardboard chairs purpose as a product. Section two outlines customer needs and the
relative importance of those needs. Section three revises the problem statement based on
customer needs. Section four details external search information including literature search,
patent search, and benchmarking. Section five shows the techniques and results of concept
generation. Section six focuses on the downselection process and the scale models of the four
leading chair designs. Section seven details the final design. Lastly, section eight concludes the
report.

1.1. Initial Problem Statement

On account of concerns involving environmental sustainability, it was desired that the
wooden and plastic dormitory chairs in the Penn State dorms be replaced with chairs made from
recycled/recyclable material. Introducing cardboard chairs would reduce waste from nonrecyclable chairs thereby conserving Earths limited supply of lumber and petroleum products.
New cardboard chairs could potentially be phased-in as old chairs gradually need to be replaced.

Thus, eventually, all dorm rooms will be equipped with a cardboard chair. Penn State students
rely on dormitory chairs to provide seating for the duration of the school year without breaking.
Students also need to be able to store their dorm chairs as space in dorm rooms is limited. In
order to balance the goals of Penn State administration with the needs of students, we designed,
prototyped, and tested a chair made entirely of cardboard that was capable of supporting the
weight of a person 150 pounds or heavier and could be broken down for storage. Consequently,
the chair would be both environmentally sustainable and practical for use by students in their
dorms.

2. Customer Needs Assessment

Having created a starting problem statement, which allowed the understanding of what
basic goals must be met during the project, a collection of customer needs and desires for the
product is necessary so as to determine what other, more specific, goals customers would wish
for the designed product to fulfill and how to prioritize these desires by comparing the responses
of many individuals. Customer needs data was collected through surveys and partially scripted
interviews design to collect data on different preferences and ways that people sit in their current
dorm chairs. These two methods were selected in order to gather a broader range of data.
Surveys were chosen as they allow the collection of large quantities of data with relative ease.
However, surveys can only collect information their creators can anticipate, which necessitated
the use of interviews as a complement, which allow the potential customer to freely respond with
whatever they desire to say. Nineteen people were surveyed, including 17 males and two
females, who ranged in age from 17 to 21. The five interviews all occurred with males either 18
or 19 years of age. All surveyed or interviewed individuals currently reside in some Penn State
dorm.
The survey consisted of twelve questions (see Appendix A.), excluding basic information
gathering about age and gender, which were either multiple choice or short fill in the blank
responses, excluding a final question which open-endedly allowed respondees to provide
information freely. The questions on the survey can be broken down into a few key groups: a
section in which respondees would rate the importance of various aspects or potential features of
a chair, a section focused on their chair use habits, including how long they typically sit on the
chair, and several specific questions on preferences such as preferred price. While summaries of
numerical data for the survey is included in Appendix B., several key trends emerged. In the free
response section of the survey, nine out of the twelve which answered this question mentioned
the hardness of the current dorm chair and the need for cushioning. Also, only two respondents
named a price higher than $100 that they would wish to pay for a dorm chair that fulfills their
needs, indicating that most potential customers would prefer cheaper chairs even if all their
desires are met.
Each interview would begin with the interviewer having the individual take a seat in their
dorm chair and then asking them to describe what features they first noticed about their chair.
Interviews consisted of five scripted questions (see Appendix C.) from which the interviewer
would branch off depending on the individuals responses. This allowed the collection of
unanticipated and unique responses including the observation that one individual mainly used his
dorm chair as a step stool and would need a chair that could be used as such or an interviewee
requesting a chair with removable armrests so that he could sit some of the time criss-crossapplesauce while still having armrests for work (see Appendix D.. This nicely dovetails with the

design requirement of the chair being disassemblable in order to fit under a dorm bed. Another
individual noted that a wheeled chair would have reduces usefulness in dorm rooms due to their
small size.
Based on the results of the surveys and interviews, as well as the basic requirements of
the project, a list of 19 customer needs were developed (see Table 1.). Most customer needs were
based on overwhelming trends in the data gathered; for instance, a constraint found was having
the chair cost under $100, which was almost unanimous among the takers of the survey.
Table 1. Initial Customer Needs List Obtained from Survey and Interviews.
Adjustable Back
Armrests
Attractive Appearance
Comfortable
Capable of Being Sat in For Long Periods of Time
Capable of Fitting Under a Typical Dorm Room Bed
Compact
Cushioning
Inexpensive
Level Seat
Light Weight
Made of Cardboard
Portable
Removable Armrests
Safe
Stable
Takes up Little Space
These customer needs were divided into objectives (see Table 2.), which ideally should
be maximized or minimized, constraints, which must be met for the chair design to be successful,
and possible features to be implemented into the chair. Objectives are ideal, while constraints
ands functions must be met by the design. The only constraints used were those required by the
initial design, all other customer desires were treated as objectives. Functions were drawn from
aspects of chairs suggested or supported by individuals during the surveys and interviews.

Table 2. Categorized Customer Needs List Obtained from Survey and Interviews.
Objectives:
Stable
Safe
Attractive Appearance
Light Weight
Portable
Comfortable
Level Seat
Compact
Inexpensive
Takes up Little Space
Capable of Leaning Back in
Capable of Being Sat in For Long Periods of Time
Constraints:
Made of Cardboard
Capable of Fitting Under a Typical Dorm Room Bed
Functions:
Adjustable Back
Armrests
Removable Armrests
Cushioning
Categorization of objectives, constraints, and functions allows the streamlining of design
goals; it can also show how multiple needs can be met through one specific design aspect.
Objectives were divided into six overall categories (see Table. 3): Comfortable, Safe, Attractive
Appearance, Portable, Inexpensive, and Compact. Most of the objectives and functions fell
within the comfortable category, as that seemed to be the major complaint by those surveyed
about their current dorm chairs, involving changes to the seat, back, and the armrests. However,
some of the other categories such as safe, as the chair is constructed from a more unusual and
weaker material, and compact, as the chair must fit under a typical dorm bed, are also important
when dealing with the design of this chair. Also, the chair must be attractive and portable, as for
transport and use within the dorm room.

Table 3. Hierarchal Customer Needs List Obtained from Surveys and Interviews.
1. Comfortable
1.1 Level Seat
1.2 Capable of Being Sat in For Long Periods of Time
1.3 Capable of Leaning Back in
F.1 Adjustable Back
F.2 Cushioning
F.3 Armrests
F.4 Removable Armrests
2. Safe
2.1 Stable
3. Attractive Appearance
4. Portable
4.1 Light Weight
5. Inexpensive
C.1 Made of Cardboard
6. Compact
6.1 Capable of Fitting Under a Typical Dorm Room Bed
C.2 Collapsible

2.1. Weighting of Customer Needs

Customer needs are weighed in order to understand what should focused on in the design.
Each of the main category labels were weighed based on the survey responses and interview
responses (see Table 4). The Analytic Hierarchy Process helped determine what attributes of the
chair are more important to the customers than others. After weighing the customer needs (see
Table 5), it was found that the chair designs should focus on comfort most. Safety and expense
were roughly equal in importance. Portability and compactness were also roughly equal, but of a
much lower importance than comfort, safety, and expense. Appearance was regarded as the least
important feature by far. Comfort, safety, and expense should be the main focus of our design.
Determining these weighted customers needs influences the design and how time will be allocate
to optimize specific characteristics. The design should be focused on comfort and safety most,
followed by cost, portability, compactness, and appearance.

Table 4. Analytic Hierarchy Process Data Table

Comparison
Criteria
Evaluated
Comfortable

Attractive
Comfortable Safe Appearance Portable Inexpensive Compact Total Ranking
1

26

0.37

0.33

3 15.33

0.22

0.14

0.2

0.33

0.2

0.33 2.21

0.03

Portable

0.2 0.33

0.33

1 5.87

0.09

Inexpensive

0.2 0.33

5 14.53

0.21

Compact

0.2 0.33

0.2

1 5.73

0.08

Safe
Attractive
Appearance

Table 5. Weighted Hierarchal Customer Needs List Obtained from Surveys and Individual
Interviews
1. Comfortable (0.37)
1.1 Level Seat
1.2 Capable of Being Sat in For Long Periods of Time
1.3 Capable of Leaning Back in
F.1 Adjustable Back
F.2 Cushioning
F.3 Armrests
F.4 Removable Armrests
2. Safe (0.22)
2.1 Stable
3. Inexpensive (0.21)
C.1 Made of Cardboard
4. Portable (0.09)
4.1 Light Weight
5. Compact (0.08)
5.1 Capable of Fitting Under a Typical Dorm Room Bed
C.2 Collapsible (collapses to under 12)
6. Attractive Appearance (0.03)

3. Revised Problem Statement

The college administration and staff of Penn State are concerned about environmental
sustainability and wish to replace the wooden and plastic dormitory chairs in the Penn State
dorms with chairs made from recycled/recyclable material. Introducing cardboard chairs would
reduce waste from non-recyclable chairs thereby conserving Earths limited supply of lumber

and petroleum products. New cardboard chairs will be phased-in as old chairs gradually need to
be replaced. Eventually, all dorm rooms will be equipped with a cardboard chair.
Penn State students rely on dormitory chairs to provide seating for the duration of the
school year without breaking. Students also need to be able to store their dorm chairs as space in
dorm rooms is limited. In order to balance the goals of Penn State administration with the needs
of students, we plan to design, prototype, and test a chair made entirely of cardboard that is
capable of supporting the weight of a person 150 pounds or heavier and can be broken down for
storage. Based on feedback from surveys and interviews, we aim to keep the cost of the chair
under $95, provide reclining options for the chair, and maximize the comfort of the chair. Our
design should allow our chair to be both environmentally sustainable and practical for use by
students in their dorms.

4. External Search
Having performed customer needs, which further defined the problems the design must
address, the external search allows the specifics of these issues to be further researched. The
external search is performed for three purposes: as a way of seeing inherent problems or other
related information, as a way of seeing how similar design problems were solved by others in
order to further this design, and to prevent accidental infringement on the intellectual property of
others. Existant literature was reviewed in order to address the need for important background
information about chairs, cardboard and other factors, while research involving patents was
performed to review cardboard structures and existent chairs.

4.1.

Literature Review

The ergonomics of a piece of furniture are one of the most important features. College
students use their dorm chairs for a variety of activities, such as studying, browsing the web, or
simply lounging around. Because the chair has so many uses, it is vital that it provides support is
is safe to sit in for long durations. Properly sized chairs reduce stress on the lumber and allow for
more comfortable and less distracted work. The best types of chairs are those that are easily
adjustable to fit the specific dimensions of the consumer (Theresa, n.d.). However, because of the
design limitations that cardboard gives us, we must look at fixed chair designs, those that are not
adjustable. Because humans greatly range in height and size, we must look at ranges
measurements for different parts of the chairs. The seat pan depth and width should be no greater
than 43 cm and no less than 45 cm respectively. The accommodate most people, the backrest
should rise up at least 45 cm above the seat pan and be set at an angle minimum 90 degrees to
the seat. The larger the angle, the more relaxed a position the sitter is in, so for a student we will
want to keep the angle with 15 degrees of 90 degrees. The width of the backrest should be more
than 36 cm. The armrest are the most variable part of the chair because arm length is so different
amongst individuals. It is recommended that a fixed armrest be between 17-27 cm and span 46
cm across the seat (Hedge, 2013). Proper armrest position prevents the user from experiencing
muscle fatigue or soreness over prolonged use of the chair (United States Department of Labor,
n.d.). A chair that stays within these restrictions will provide most users with a comfortable
seating experience, even over long periods of time. The design will follow these guidelines and
ranges to make a non-adjustable chair that is ergonomic for the largest portion of the population.

Another important feature of the chair is the material used to assemble it. There are many
different kinds of corrugated cardboard characterized by flute size which is the size of the
corrugation. The C flute is the average size while the A flute is much bigger and the E flute is
much smaller (Popil, n.d.). The E flute is the most compact so it would be the strongest material
for the chair. Flutes can also be combined so that there are multiple layers of corrugation, so
compounding E flutes would yield the strongest building material (Popil, n.d.). A 2x2 sheet of
C flute cardboard can hold 38.5lbs at peak load while a 2x2 sheet of E flute cardboard can hold
85.3lbs (Popil, n.d.). Compounding flutes make the material stronger but also more expensive.
It cost $3.25 for a single walled corrugated C flute in a 44 by 96 size sheet while for the same
size of a double walled corrugated C flute it costs $6.00 per sheet (Boxforless, 2015). The higher
cost makes the double walled corrugated cardboard less economical. Also, the most common
flute size is the C flute and since the building material can only consist of used cardboard, it
would be too difficult to find any other type of flute sized corrugated cardboard (Popol, n.d.).
Because of economic efficiency, and building constraints the C flute corrugated cardboard will
be the building material of the cardboard chair even though it is not as strong.
While cardboard is recyclable, there are several restrictions on what can be recycled. Wet
cardboard cannot be recycled as most machines cannot handle it, while cardboard contaminated
with grease, wax, or other similar substances is not useable; however, some added materials such
as tape or staples can remain as they are filtered out during the recycling process (Waste
Industries USA, 2015). Some research suggests that the recycling of cardboard may not be better
environmentally than simply incinerated it, depending on some specific conditions of the
incineration plant; this would render a chair of recycled cardboard inferior in relation to one
made from recycled plastic, another possible material for dorm chairs (Merrild, 2011). However,
plastic requires the use of fossil fuels in its production unlike cardboard and such research has
been questioned, as varying assumptions made by researchers greatly alter the results
(Villanueva and Wenzel, 2007).
The collected research tends to support the decision to construct a chair made of
cardboard and offers more specific information on some of the benefits, constraints, and possible
drawbacks that cardboard has as a material. Similarly, some of the research illuminates proper
design dimensions for a relatively ergonomic chair, which were closely followed in the design of
the final project. Having collected this general data, more specific data on existing designs were
sought.

4.2.

Patent Search

While the literature review provides general information on important topics such as
chairs and cardboard, it does not supply the specific technical details of a patent search. Patent
searches serve two purposes: they allow one to see how previous designers have solved certain
problems, and, if expired, can be fashioned into a solution in a later project, and prevent
accidental intellectual property violations from occurring during the design process. The patents
described below mainly were for chair designs, though one instead focused on a lode bearing
structure made of cardboard.
Patent #CN 202014857 U (Chair made of corrugated boards, Gao, Xue, 10/26/2011):
This patent outlines a cardboard chair composed of multiple interlocking boards. Each board
consists of four to five cardboard sheets layered on top of one another. The boards interlock via a
system of tabs and sockets. Construction of the larger cardboard boards may requires some form

of adhesive material, which is prohibited by our design constraints. The chair would need to be
entirely disassembled for storage under a bed (Gao, 2011).
Patent #CA 2741160 A1 (Chair from folded cardboard panel, Mourque, Mikael M. M.,
Strappazzon, Salome S. S., Jan/19/2012):
The chair described and claimed as intellectual property by this patent is constructed from a
single, continuous sheet of cardboard. It has multiple handles, which enhance portability. The
sheet of cardboard from which the chair is constructed would need to be fairly thick/rigid in
order to support a persons weight. The seat of the chair is only supported at the edges and may
cave in during use (Mourque, et al., 2012).
Patent #US 3664705 A (Cardboard chairs, Brody, Bruce S., Brody, Irwin L., 5/23/1972):
The patent is intended to make a cardboard chair that doesnt require support beams. The design
also avoids the typical cardboard box structures which it claims to be weaker. However, this
patented cardboard chair is intended to be used only by and for young children, which wouldnt
likely have the strength to meet the requisite weight for a chair ment for college dorm rooms
(Brody, et al., 1972).
Patent #US 4648658 A (Collapsible chair, Calco, Wayne, 3/10/1987):
The chairs patented design is constructed by folding two specifically cut pieces of cardboard.
This design makes the chair easy to assemble, collapse, and transport. There are several problems
which make this design impractical for the purpose of this project. The chair requires a large,
single piece of cardboard, which would likely not be available. Additionally, this sheet would
have to be folded and cut in very specific places.
Recieved from: https://www.google.com/patents/US4648658
Patent #US US4563377 A (High-strength tubular beam of folded corrugated cardboard, Melli,
Ilario, 2/14/1983):
The patent describes a manner of constructing a relatively strong beam by folding a single piece
of cardboard multiple times. This beam can be used to bear loads much greater than cardboard
structures made entirely of unfolded sheets. However, this design would require a large volumes
of cardboard. In addition, large, continuous sheets of cardboard would be needed to construct the
folded supports (Melli, 1983).
The patents above informed the design in primarily two different ways. Four of the
patents were each designs for chairs made of cardboard; several themes reappeared. Multiple
patents, including CA 2741160 (Mourque and Salome, 2012), US 3664705 (Brody, 1972), and
US 4648658 (Calco, 1987) are made from a few large sheets of cardboard that are folded into the
proper shapes. Hower, design is also restricted by the two current patents CN 202014857 (Gao,
2011) and CA 2741160. Three patents, CN 202014857, CA 2741160, and US US4563377 (Ilario,
1983), each outlined a separate method of creating a strong structure with cardboard, which
could be used in order to increase the chairs lode bearing capabilities. Of the three CN
202014857 and CA 2741160 could not be used as the patents have not expired, but the folded
beam structure is legal to utilize (Ilario, 1983). All patents suggest that a box is not a proper load
bearing structure. Overall, these patents show that previous attempts at constructing on folding
large sheets of cardboard, which may pose a problem for this design based on material
constraints and are faced with weight support problems.

4.3.

Benchmarking

4.3.1. Product 1:

Figure 1. Staples Telford II Luxura Managers Chair, Assorted Colors

The Luxura Managers chair (Figure 1) is one of the higher end office chairs on
the market (compared to the current dorm chairs but is still relatively inexpensive
compared to professional office chairs), offered in black or brown. The design is elegant
and higher end, clearly for more business oriented individuals. The chair comes with
wheels for easy mobility but the tradeoff is that the wheels could make the chair slip and
be more unsafe. One issue with the Luxura chair is that some assembly is required. Also
the chair is in a fixed position with no opportunity for reclining and relaxing. The chair is
of good quality so it can hold at least 250 pounds but weighs 34.2 pounds so it cant
easily be picked up. The chair retails for $99 at Staples and $60 on Amazon (Staples,
n.d.).

4.3.2. Product 2:

Figure 2. Deco Dorm Chair

The Deco Dorm chair (Figure 2) is a portable chair meant for a college dorm.
Costing only $25.59, this inexpensive and fully recyclable dorm chair doesnt take up a
lot of space with dimensions of only 35"x 20"x 23" (H x W x D). One of the setbacks of
making a chair entirely out of cardboard is that it is not very ergonomic, made up entirely
of straight lines with essentially zero curves. The chair weighs only 10-20 lbs (estimated
using density of cardboard), so it can be easily tipped and potentially unsafe. The chair
also has no wheels or extra features like armrests and cant recline. Because of the basic
design, it is also not very appealing to the eye and the plain white color will easily decay
overtime and look dirty. It has very few parts with little assembly required and it can
easily be disassembled if space is needed to be made (Dorm Co., n.d.).

4.3.3. Product 3:

Figure 3. Flexiblelove Earth-16

The FlexibleLove Earth 16 chair (Fiugure 3) has a collection of unusual features
which distinguishes it from the other chairs. The expanding cardboard structure allows it
to accommodate up to sixteen individuals of average size and form various shapes in
order to take the place of different sorts of furniture; when fully extended the chair

measures 64cm x 56cm x 720cm. However, the chairs cardboard nature has caused
complaints about several issues, the seat bends and has been reported as uncomfortable.
Also, while little assembly is required on the part of the consumer, the chair requires
more upkeep than a traditional chair would. The chair is also relatively expensive, costing
$600 in countries not a part of the European Union and more there. Also, while the chair
collapses easily for transport, the chair weighs about 63 pounds, much more than the
other chairs found (Pinzaan, 2014).

4.3.4. Product 4:

Figure 4. Vintage Office Chair

The vintage office chair (Figure 4) most resembles current Penn State dorm
chairs. It is made of a high quality hardwood and comes in two colors, cherry and cognac.
The design is simple and made to appeal to the those that like classic looks. The simple
design also means the chair is relatively light (17lb) and can be moved by simply lifting it
up. The design is also sturdy. While no exact numbers could be found with this particular
chair, chairs of similar design and materials easily hold 300lbs. There are no apparent
safety concerns and appears to match the ergonomic requirements of fixed chairs (listed
in literature review). The major downfall to the chair is the fact that it is fixed and cannot
be adjusted to the various sizes of students and faculty. The chair is also meant only for
office use and does not warrant lounging or other sitting positions besides those normally
used to study or type. The chair is targeted towards teens and adults and only avaiable
online at wayfair.com for $124 (Winners Only Inc, n.d.)

Table 6. Benchmarking of Products

Feature or Criteria
(1-5) 5 being best
Staples Telford
II
Luxura
Managers Chair Deco Dorm Chair

FlexibleLove Earth 16

Vintage Office Chair

Aesthetics (multi-color,
etc.)
4

Ease of Assembly

Portability

Quality

Safety

Versatility
(studying,
lounging, etc.)
2

Features (arm rest, foot 3

rest, cup holder, etc.)
armrest,
adjustable seat

1
no notable features

1
extendable

1
no noteable features

Cost (record multiple

Dorm Co.: $25.59 FlexibleLove:
595
values and sources)
Staples:
$99, (only sold by Dorm (European Price), $600
Amazon: $60
Co.)
(Non-European Price)
Wayfair: $124
How long has
product been in
market?
Size of Chair

the
the
Not provided.

Not provided.

Approximately 10 years.

Not provided.

Fully Extended: 64cm x

36.81 x 24.41 x
56cm
x
720cm,
24.41
inches 35"x 20"x 23" (H x W Collapsed: 64cm x 56cm
(HxWxD)
x D)
x 23.6cm
19" W x 20" D x 36" H

Weight of Chair
34.2 lbs

10-20 lbs (estimated

using
density
of
cardboard)
28.5 kg (~62.8 lbs)

17 lbs

Not provided.

Not provided. Estimated at

~300lb by comparing to
similarly design chairs.

Weight chair can hold

250 lbs

1920 kg (~4233 lbs)

4.3.5. Benchmarking Technical Write Up

Benchmarking is important as it both allows one to see how well competitors products
meet up the design needs of the current project and to see both what has been implemented and
what is feasible. Benchmarking also allows one to see what has been successful in the design of
other products (see Table 6).
Four chairs were chosen to be analyzed; one adjustable office chair, two different designs
of cardboard chairs, and one wooden chair similar to Penn States current dorm chairs (see Table
1.). The adjustable Telford II had the highest overall rating amongst our group, being better or
even in aesthetics, portability, quality, and features as shown in the table. This chair is also priced
at $60 on Amazon.com, only to be beaten by the Deco Dorm Chair. The wooden Vintage Office
Chair was considered the safest with its sturdy, classic design. This chair may suffer the same
disadvantages as the current dorm chair with a similar design, such as being uncomfortable over
long periods of time found during customer needs assessment. The cardboard FlexibleLove Earth
16 is by far the most versatile, able to extend out to hold well over ten people, but is much more

expensive ($600) than the other chairs. The cardboard Deco Dorm Chairs advantages come
from its materials. Because it is made of cardboard, it is both cheap ($25.59) and recyclable.
To optimize the chair design, the best qualities of all chairs should preferably mimicked,
though not as to infringe upon intellectual property. However, because the chair is to be
constructed of cardboard, the features of the chair are severely limited; for instance, it would be
challenging to construct wheels or any other sort of rolling structure. Even though the Telford II
was the highest rated chair, many of the features that made it so, including said wheels and an
adjustable seat, would not be feasible in the future designs for this chair. The designs will likely
be more similar to the Deco Dorm Chair and the Vintage Office Chair, one of which was made of
a cardboard-like material and the other have a simple design. Our designs will have be safe and
sturdy, while at the same time still being cost effective and recyclable, as the material
requirements necessitate.

4.4 Design Target

Based on the information gathered from various forms of external search, a general
concept of what would be required for an eco-friendly dorm chair was arrived at. The customer
needs search revealed several important trends within the desires Penn State dormitory residents
have for their office chairs. The individuals surveyed and interviewed, claiming to spend little
time using their dorm chairs, prefered comfortable and safe chairs, caring little about their
appearance. However, though the individuals did not typically bring up concepts for additional
features, they generally expressed enthusiasm for most ideas on which they were asked their
opinion. The literature review most importantly gave the approximate design specifications
necessary for an chair ergonomic to the average individual. The designs, when dimensions were
specified, which were created in later stages of the process, all followed these measurements.
The patent search found four other designs for a cardboard chair, which, while most could not be
used directly on account of intellectual property concerns, influenced general thinking on how a
cardboard chair could be structured. Similarly, a usable patent for a cardboard beam structure,
though not utilized specifically, eventually went on to influence the concept of beam structure
used in the final design. Benchmarking, which compared two existing cardboard and noncardboard chairs currently on the market, both showed how existing manufacturers have weighed
various needs and sacrifices when designing their products and the competition this chair design
would face in the market. This comparison suggested that accessories, while they would likely
benefit the customer enjoyment of the product, are not necessary for a typical office chair. Also,
the high prices of all chairs benchmarked suggests that a market exists for a low price dormitory
chair, which this entirely cardboard design could possibly fulfill. Thus, concept generation was
focused on developing ergonomic chairs as well as possible additional features which could be
implemented.

5. Concept Generation
Once research has been performed on some of the problems that the chair design must
face and how other designs may have addressed these issues, this knowledge is applied in the
process of creating designs to address this problem. Concept generation provides a large quantity
of designs, features, and general ideas for the the product. It is focused on promoting ideas and

exploring innovative solutions without being restricted by feasibility or specifications. Three

different methods for generation initial concepts were used for the cardboard chair.

5.1. 4-3-3 Method

Three methods were used in order to develop possible ideas for the chair design: the 4-33 method with concept sketches, brainstorming, and a morphological chart. The 4-3-3 method, an
adaption of 6-3-5 method adjusted due the number of group members and time constraints, and
brainstorming were both first performed in class. In this case, the four refers to the number of
participants, the first three refers to the number of designs generated each time, and the second
three refers to the time in minutes spent on each of the four rotations. During the performance of
the 4-3-3 method, each group member individually produced three separate designs or aspects of
designs, before exchanging papers among themselves and creating alternate or related designs
(see Figures 5-8). This allowed, over the course of the twelve minutes involved, the creation of
48 relatively unique designs across the group, though some were similar to others and others
were built off of previous designs (see Figures 1-4). Afterwards, these designs were reviewed;
ideas which were decided by group consensus to be possible or influential were kept in mind for
further consideration. As the demanding nature of this task required a set number of designs to be
produced in a time limit, not all the generated ideas were useful and some provided no new
content. Several other possible flaws exist within the 4-3-3 process, as it allows no discussion of
ideas and can cause some individuals to become wedded to certain ideas which they repeat.
However, the 4-3-3 method does allow individuals who would tend to be less active in the group
conversation to share their ideas at on an equal standing. It also encourages collaboration on
ideas as individuals can build off designs made on the sheet before them. Following the
performance of this method, ideas which had resonated with multiple group members, such as
detachable armrests, or were considered significantly original, enforcing a different way of
looking at some problem, such as the matrix based support structure, were discussed further.

Figure 5. 4-3-3 Chart 1.

Figure 6. 4-3-3 Chart 2.

Figure 7. 4-3-3 Chart 3.

Figure 8. 4-3-3 Chart 4.