This document describes a student design project to create a platform for secure microfluidic experiments. The problem is that microfluidic devices can become displaced during experiments due to tube movement or equipment handling. The objective is to design a platform that securely holds microfluidic chips and prevents external disturbances. Several solution concepts are generated and evaluated against criteria like robust structure, cost, and chip movement. Solution 1, a steel fixed box structure with bolt clamping, is selected as the best design. Final assembly drawings and cost analysis indicate it meets the design constraints.

1. Clemson University
Department of Mechanical Engineering
ME8700-Advanced Design Methodology
Design of a platform for Lab-on-a-Chip devices for secure
Microfluidic experimentations
By:
Monsur Islam
Sunnykumar Patel
Shyamal Satodia

2. Design of a platform for Lab-on-a-Chip devices for secure
experimentation
Problem Statement:
Microfluidics and Lab-on-a-chip is one of the most researched areas in scientific community in present
days due to its wide range of application. But a little problem that the microfluidics researcher often
ignore is that during the experiment the microfluidic device sometimes gets displaced or interrupted
due to the movement of the tubes attached with the device or the handling the equipment (e.g. syringe
pump, power source). Hence sometimes expected results don't come out and consumes more time to
perform the experiment. Hence, our idea is to design a platform where we can place our microfluidic
chips securely and perform experiments without any external disturbance.
Objective:
Our idea is to design a platform where we can place our microfluidic chips securely and perform
experiments without any external disturbance.

3. Criteria
Robust structure
Stable enough with the handling of other
equipment
Flexible with dimension of the chips -
45×25 mm
Safe interaction of chip with the platform
Flexible with the tubing at the inlet and
outlet of the chip
Provision for other accessories
Constraint
The displacement of the chip should not
be greater than 0.5mm
Low Cost (not more than $70)
The top of the platform should not have
any extrusion higher than 10 mm
Box size - 150×150×80 mm
Should have place to manoeuvre the
microscope eyepieces over the platform
(3mm on either sides of the chip)

4. EXISTING SETUP

5. A stable, easy to handle Platform for microfluidic
experiments
Safety
Environment
Electrically
Insulated
No
contamination
User
Cost
Installation
Manufacturing
Materials
Maintenance
Repair
Replacement
Flexible
Flexible with the
size of the chip
Easy to Handle
Easy
replacement of
chip
Easy to clean
Easy to move
Connections
Electrical
Connection
Connection with
chip
Connection with
source
Fluidic
Connection
Inlet connection
Outlet
connection
Robust
structure
Chip steadiness
Platform rigidity
Vibration
resistance
OBJECTIVE TREE

6. MORPHOLOGICAL CHART
Function Solution 1 Solution 2 Solution 3 Solution 4 Solution 5
Platform
rigidity
High density
fixed plate
Thick fixed
plate
Detachable
box
Fixed box-
type structure
Vibration
resistance
(Clamping
the chip)
Bolt
Mechanism
Four clamps
Lever
mechanism
Spring
mechanism
Rubber
supports
Flexibility of
size of chip
Spring
Mechanism
Bolted
Mechanism
Flexibility of
the
structure
Slotted box
Manual
setting of chip
Detachable
box
Costs
(platform)
Wood Steel Carbon fiber

7. SOLUTIONS
Solution 1
Solution 2
Solution 3
Solution 4
Solution 5
Re-evaluating the solutions
• We applied different criteria to draw two best solutions.
• The criteria which are violated by the solutions are:
1. Vibration resistance – Solution 3 and Solution 5.
Spring may undergo displacement if the vibrational force is very high.
– Solution 4.
The rubber supports cannot restrict the movement of chip. The chip would displace
more than 0.5mm. Also, wood is a lighter material and it wouldn’t resist the
displacement of the assembly.

8. Re-evaluating the solutions (continue..)
2. Cost – Solution 3
Carbon fiber, though light and very suitable, cannot be used because it is very expensive.
3. Handling of the structure – Solution 4
Since the box is detachable it becomes time consuming and hectic to change chips
frequently. Also, detachable box might require it’s own clamping.
• After eliminating two solutions, we are left with Solution 1 and Solution 2.
Solution 1 – A steel fixed box-type structure with bolt mechanism.
Solution 2 – A steel fixed plate platform with clamping mechanism.
• Further we compared the solutions using weighted analysis method to get the best result.

9. Rigidity of
platform
Damping Flexibility of the chip Flexibility of the
structure
Cost
Solution 1 9 8 9 8 8
Solution 2 7 9 9 8 8
Weight 10 10 8 6 6
Total
Solution 1 90+80+72+48+48=338
Solution 2 70+90+72+48+=320
WEIGHTED ANALYSIS METHOD
Solution 1 is the best among all.

10. DESIGN
1.Chip Holder 1 2.Chip Holder 2
3.Base Plate (Steel)

11. DESIGN (Continue..)
4.PCB with electric connections 5.Pipe holder
6.Aluminum rod

12. DESIGN (Continue..)
Final assembly
4
6
5
3
1,2

13. SOLUTION 1
• The overall cost of the assembly will be around 45-50 $ inclusive of the manufacturing cost.
( ½ ф – 1 feet Aluminum rod for legs – 3.19$ )
( 1’ X 0.5’ X 7/8” Low Carbon Steel Plate - 9.29$ )
( 0.5’ X 0.5’ X 6’Acrylic Plate – 4.46$ )
( Fasteners – 2$ )
(All the above rates are available from www.mcmaster.com )
• Since, we are using the chip holders, protrusion from the top of the platform would be not
more than 5 mm.
• The size of the assembly is within limit as it is coming around 122mm X 62mm X 72mm.
• Since, the stand for holding the pipes is stand alone, enough space is available to maneuver
eyepiece over the chip.
FULFILMENT OF CONSTRAINTS AND CRITERIA

14. LEARNING & INFERENCES
1. There are not many instruments available in the market for microfluidic experiments, we have
attempted a new design incorporating design theories like Pahl and Beitz, Weighted Method,
Pairwise Comparison for comparing multiple solution to the design problem posed.
2. More improvements can be brought by changing the material of construction.
3. Initial proposed design was eliminated as it was not providing flexibility with the size of chip.
4. Lastly, as this project serves as a tool in microfluidic research, we got to learn something about
the microfluidics world.

15. THANK YOU!