I worked on this project with Linda Delgado, and it was a new experience to collaborate with a partner rather than complete the project alone, like for the apron. However, it made troubleshooting easier as we made fewer errors as we kept each other in check – an internal quality control, and we could help each other navigate any problems that came up together. Overall, I felt a lot of growth during this project, especially with how quickly I was able to adapt to some of the challenges that arose throughout the process, and to mitigate them quite effectively. I am proud of how well our box turned out, even with these challenges emerging, as I think it reflects our troubleshooting and adaptability.

Process

We elected to get pre-cut wood, in order to save some time. We first assembled the bottom layer rectangle, and then routed the edges with the table router (and Fernando’s help!). At this point, we realized it would be easier to route the other wood pieces pre-assembly, as it was slightly more challenging to route the assembled bottom layer and also more dangerous due to the presence of screws in the assembled wood. Therefore, we routed all the wood (except the vertical posts) at this point at once, and sanded the edges down with a course orbital sander so they were all prepared for assembly.

Routing the bottom rectangle

We then added the 3 wooden pieces to comprise the bottom of the box, which went smoothly except we had to remove some material from the sides of the third wooden piece with an orbital sander so that it fit into the remaining space.

The three bottom pieces are not all the same width, but fit the bottom of the crate nicely

The next steps all went fairly smoothly, with the exception of two problems that emerged. First, the vertical posts were fairly rough and had some cracking, so we used wood glue and saw dust together to fill some of the minor cracks in these posts, which helped aesthetically, and the cracks were not so extreme as to affect the crate structure as a whole. Second, fitting the next two rectangular layers over the vertical posts proved challenging for some edges as the rectangles were not wide enough to fit around the posts. To fix this problem, we removed some material from the vertical posts and some from the corners of the wooden rectangles with an orbital sander until they were able to be hammered on with the mallet. This process was done delicately to maintain alignment of the corners with the posts, and to not remove too much material to sacrifice stability of the box structure.

Linda removing some material from the posts with an orbital sander so the third rectangle could be added

Once the box was assembled, we sanded down all of the outside and inside edges and surfaces with the orbital sander to 120 grit, then hand-sanded the outside, bottom, and top surface of the box with up to 320 grit sandpaper with increasing grit with each step, resulting in super smooth and soft surfaces.

Fully assembled and sanded box, ready to be stained

Last, we decided to stain the wood. We stained the top, insides, and outsides first so that the crate could sit on the bottom while drying. However, when we came back to stain the bottom of the crate, the stain we were using was used up, and no similar colors were available. Therefore, we opted to stain the bottom with a black stain (2 coats), and used painters tape to prevent the stain from spreading to the sides (mostly successfully). This worked well overall, but unfortunately the bottom edge stains are not perfectly straight as some stain seeped under the painters tape. The overall aesthetic of the crate was well-maintained, despite this setback.

Initial staining of the inside, outside, and top of the crate

Preparation for staining the bottom of the crate (L), and slightly uneven edges due to stain seeping (R)

       

We ensured that each surface we worked on was left clean for the next user at each step of assembly.

Last surface we worked on, cleaned and cleared (others were working on the far side of the table and to our left at this time)

Cost Model

Cost Type	Cost	Price	Source	Quantity	Total
Materials	1×4 Board, 8 foot length	$2.87	Home Depot	3	$8.61
	Screws (100 pack)	$4.38	AFT Fasteners	60/100 pack	$2.63
	Sand Paper orbital (15 pack) Sand paper sheets (24 pack, assorted)	$9.97 $20.59	Home Depot Home Depot	~4/15 ~3/24	$2.66 $2.58
	Wood stain	$12.98	Home Depot	~0.5 qt	$6.49
Labor	Woodworking Operator	$21/hr	ZipRecruiter	6 hours	$126
	Prototyping Engineer	$36.5/hr	Indeed.com	1 hour	$36.5
Overhead	Facility Cost (Machine Time)	$50/month	TXRX labs	N/A	$50
	Quality Control	N/A
Design	Engineering and Development	~$90/hr	ZipRecruiter, fictiv	1 hour consult	$90
	Iterations	N/A

Total: $325.47

This cost model predicted a considerably more expensive product than I had expected, with much of the cost attributed to labor costs. The materials were additionally more expensive than I expected, although wholesale pricing could almost certainly drive costs down, as Home Depot would still be expected to have a mark-up, and this was apparent when I found a wholesale provider for the screws which resulted in an about 50% reduction in costs compared to Home Depot. If the additional scrap wood could be used in other designs, this would also reduce cost for each crate due to the loss of extra material.

The labor costs are likely consistent regardless of scale of production, although more skilled laborers than I could produce crates more quickly and could also do certain tasks in parallel in an assembly-line style, which would increase speed significantly and therefore drive down labor costs per crate to a great extent. With increased scale and likely testing different box prototypes, the need for additional hours from a prototyping engineer would be expected to drive up costs a bit. Overhead costs for facility use would be expected to drastically increase with increased production scale, as rental of spaces for commercial purposes increases costs, for example TXRX labs charges $250/month for commercial use, and likely this space would not be able to accommodate large scale production depending on production goals, warranting rental from a more expensive facility or purchase of the required instruments. Similarly, consulting with a design consultant for more than the estimated 1 hours would increase costs, as would employing quality control as needed for scaling production up. Iterating through new designs would also result in increased material and labor costs.