Work Cell Redesign for Sentry Group Of Rochester
Work Cell Redesign for Sentry Group Of Rochester
Preliminary Design Report
[pic]
By:
Julie Allen, Jacob Feldmen, Kyle Hagadorn, Chris Isaacson, Erik Tracy
For:
Preliminary Design Review Panel
Rochester Institute of Technology
Rochester NY 14625
Table Of Contents
i. Abstract
ii. Introduction
iii. Facet 1: Recognize and Quantify the Need
1. Mission Statement
2. Project Description
3. Scope Limitations
4. Stake Holders
5. Key Business Goals
6. Top Level Critical Financial Parameters & Financial Analysis
7. Primary Markets
8. Secondary Markets
9. Critical Performance Parameters
10. Needs Description
11. Categorizing The Need
12. Constraints
13. Teaser Questions
iv. Preliminary Concept Development
1. Layout Designs
2. Lid Moving Designs
3. Cap Driving Systems
4. Concrete Filling Systems
5. Stopping Systems
6. Miscellaneous
v. Feasibility Assessment
1. Technical Question 1
2. Schedule Question 1
3. Economic Question 1
4. Economic Question 2
5. Performance Question 1
6. Performance Question 2
7. Performance Question 3
8. Performance Question 4
9. Performance Question 5
vi. Design Objectives and Performance Specifications
1. Design Objectives
2. Performance Specifications
vii. Analysis of Problems
1. Formal Problem Solving Method
viii. Current Concepts & Concept Progression
1. Cap Issue
a. Cap redesign
b. Hand Roller
c. Automated Press
2. Safe Body Filling
a. Venturi Filling
b. Dual Hose / Dual Safe Filling
3. Layout Design
a. Conveyor Assist Design
b. Single Shift Design
c. Worker Centered Design
d. Inline Conveyor Design
ix. Financial Analysis
x. Next Steps
1. Description of Future Project Progression
2. Gantt Chart
xi. Conclusion
i. Abstract
This report has been submitted in order to fulfill the grading requirements of R.I.T’s Senior Design Course, and is intended to accurately show the process that has been undertaken over the past 10 weeks. This report will outline all of the steps that have been performed by the design team including the Needs Assessment, Preliminary Concept Development, Feasibility Assessment, Current Concepts, Problem Solving Method, Preliminary Engineering Models, and Future Plans.
ii. Introduction
This project is being conducted for Sentry Group of Rochester. Sentry Group is a leading manufacturer of both fireproof and non-fireproof safes. The Rochester Institute of Technology was contacted to perform an ergonomic and workflow analysis of a work cell at Sentry Group’s Rochester facility. This project was in-turn passed onto the Senior Design group 02001. The purpose of this Preliminary Design Report and Technical Data Package will be to show the progress of the design team as well as to layout the specific details and intricacies of the project. Because Sentry Group is a customer outside of R.I.T., there have been small conflicts with the predefined facets outlined in the senior design syllabus. Rather than try and hold firm to the predetermined facets at the expense of customer satisfaction, the design team has adapted them to meet our customer’s requirements while trying to maintain as much of the original facet outlines as possible.
In the following sections of this Preliminary Design Report, we will describe the specific need of Sentry Safe, outline the original concepts developed by the design team, discuss the feasibility assessment of these concepts, layout the design objectives and performance specifications, outline the design teams formal problem solving method, show a detailed ergonomic and flow analysis, discuss the current status of each of the concepts, present the results of the design team’s preliminary testing, and layout the design team’s plan for the next ten weeks.
iii. Recognize and Quantify the Need
Project Mission Statement
The mission of this design team is to analyze a small production cell at Sentry Group with regard to workflow and ergonomics. The team will then recommend solutions designed to increase flow and flexibility, as well as to alleviate any unnecessary ergonomic stress that the workstation may have. The team may also design a device to be implemented that will alleviate ergonomic issues with a given task, which will increase worker safety and lower the forces that the worker is subjected to.
Product Description
The team will redesign the manufacturing cell to increase throughput and flexibility, while eliminating ergonomic problems found at the workstation. The cell will be implemented at Sentry Group where the operators performing the various jobs will be given the necessary training to perform his/her tasks with an increased throughput rate and decreased risk of ergonomic injury. The work cell redesign will be completed by a team of 5th year mechanical and industrial engineering students who are currently participating in the multidisciplinary Senior Design Course at RIT. The current process involves the operators filling safe housings and lids with concrete.
Scope Limitations
Only 5th year engineering students participating in the winter-spring Senior Design course shall perform the project. The new layout should be designed and potentially implemented by the end of the spring quarter (May 2003). Implementation of the design is dependant upon line shutdown availability. Any devices created must comply with all OSHA and NIOSH regulations. The redesigned cell will have fewer ergonomic issues (i.e. repetitive motion injuries) and at the same time maintain or improve the throughput efficiency with respect to the old cell design while not sacrificing quality. The new cell shall fit into the existing footprint of the current cell.
Stake Holders
Stakeholders on this project are: the students directly participating in the project as well as their families, Kate Marshall, Sentry Group, operators using the equipment, RIT, and Dr. Mathew Marshall
Key Business Goals
This is the first year using multidisciplinary design teams for senior projects. Because of this, it is of critical importance that the projects be both a success for the university, as well as for the clients.
• Develop good relationship between RIT and the Partner Companies.
• Establish Multidisciplinary Senior Design Course as the standard design course.
• Increase senior engineers’ knowledge of other engineering disciplines.
• Prepare senior engineers for “real world” design teams
• Improve Sentry Group’s productivity, flexibility, and ergonomics with regard to the manufacturing of fire proof safes.
Top Level Critical Financial Parameters & Financial Analysis
Students participating in this project shall have an open-ended budget, subject to approval by Sentry. Sentry is willing to “spend $75,000 to make $100,000.” A small budget (probably of around $5,000 with major expenses subject to approval by sentry) will be provided for “minor expenses.” Sentry will deal with any small necessary purchases on a petty cash basis in which reimbursements to the team will be distributed upon the submittal of a receipt. Sentry typically requires a one-year return on investment (ROI), however a longer ROI may still be possible (this is subject to approval by Sentry)
Primary Market
The primary market for this project will be Sentry Group located in Rochester NY. However, additional branches of Sentry Group throughout the country may wish to implement the new cell where similar problems are present.
Secondary Markets
The secondary markets for this device could be companies at which similar processes are being performed. Also, companies with similar ergonomic issues may wish to implement a process similar to Sentry’s, or, if a device is developed, wish to implement this device.
Critical Performance Parameters
The redesigned work cell shall allow equal or better production capability and flexibility while maintaining or improving quality. The redesigned cell shall also have improved ergonomics. The cell shall conform to the allotted budget, and any redesigned portions should be of a robust nature so that it can last for a significant period of time in the harsh environment in which it will be implemented. The new cell will strive to remain flexible to meet the various demand periods and shall not hamper product quality, if possible should improve it. Lastly, the workstation must be profitable for the company.
Describe the Need
The current process used to be entirely automated, with minimal labor involved. Due to the environment, machine design, and numerous other factors, Sentry Group removed the automated processes, and installed manual workers its place. No real design changes were made other than the removal of the machines (although some of the automation remains in place). As a result of removing the automated entities and simply putting in workers, the workspace is not ergonomically correct and the productive efficiency of the process is not at its peak.
Categorize the Need
Companies are always looking for ways to improve their manufacturing processes. Improved throughput translates into higher profit for the company. With new developments in industry, processes such as Lean Manufacturing, Just in Time, Kanban systems, etc. are being implemented at more and more companies to benefit from the redesigning of their manufacturing processes. These and many other industrial and mechanical engineering tools can help companies streamline their manufacturing processes, not only improving performance but helping to improve quality as well. Improving quality will lead to higher customer satisfaction and can lead to increased customer loyalty which will also improve profits.
Ergonomic-related injuries are also a problem for companies throughout the world. The number of injuries directly associated with poor ergonomic design of a tool or task is difficult to quantify, however companies spend large amounts of money every year on disability and other injury-related expenses. Many companies are becoming aware of the large amount of money that can be saved if they could lower their injuries per year and have begun to implement change. In doing so companies are saving money but also are improving the status of the working environment for their employees. Many devices are available today to alleviate the ergonomic stress of many tasks, however there are a great number of tasks that have been neglected. These neglected tasks are an opportunity for companies to further improve their employee’s safety, which will simultaneously save them money. The constraint to these increased savings and safety improvements is of course that these processes cannot hamper the performance of the given process. Due to these potential savings and increased safety benefits, companies have begun actively seeking engineers with ergonomic expertise to analyze and improve their processes.
Constraints
The students shall have an open-ended budget for capital expenses (subject to approval), and shall have a smaller budget for minor expenses. The redesigned cell shall fit in the area of the current cell. The work cell and any devices developed shall also conform to all regulatory agencies’ guidelines. The new cell must also be operator friendly to ensure that production will not suffer, it will therefore be very important to include the current operators in the design process.
Teaser Topics: Questions and Answers
Who will provide training for the operator on the new apparatus?
The students who redesigned the work cell shall provide any necessary training so long as the training is to take place during the project timeline of 20 weeks. Students will train operators on basis of new processes and equipment developed by the team, training sessions will be organized for any fixture/device purchased machinery if needed. Sentry Group will perform any training of operators that falls outside of the project timeline.
How does the past experience of each team member potentially contribute to this problem?
Industrial Engineers will focus on the flow and ergonomic analyses of the existing work cell. Mechanical Engineers will conduct the actual fabrication of any fixture/device as well as help with the design and implementation of the new work cell. Any other past experience will be determined once the team has been formed.
If you could describe the problem in one paragraph, what would it be?
The student team shall perform an analysis of the current manufacturing cell with regard to workflow and ergonomics. Based on this analysis, the students will propose, design, and construct a work cell that will improve the workflow, flexibility, and ergonomics of the existing cell will be developed. The new work cell may also incorporate a device or work fixture designed and fabricated by the team to alleviate the ergonomic stress imposed by analyzed task(s). The company for which the work will be performed is Sentry Group.
What are the 3 most important things that you want to achieve with this project?
1. Improved Ergonomic Working Environment.
2. Quantity Per Hour Improvement
3. Implementation of a Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) Program
What are the tasks to be analyzed?
There are various tasks involved in the analysis, however they will all be dealing with the movement and filling of safe bodies and lids with concrete. In the current process, safe bodies and lids enter the room on separate conveyors where they are filled with various mixes of concrete. The lids are then placed on the bodies, and then they are taken away to racks by conveyors to cure.
Should a patent be developed, who would have the rights to it?
RIT shall have the rights to any patents developed by the Design Team.
What is the final product supposed to do/accomplish?
The redesigned work cell should improve the overall process of filling safe bodies and lids at Sentry Group. This will improve process workflow, which will result in improved throughput potential and better flexibility to deal with the varying demand. The new work cell will also serve to improve the working conditions (from an ergonomic and safety standpoint) of the work cell.
How many students will be in this group?
This group includes 5 students
▪ 3 Industrial and Systems Engineers
▪ 2 Mechanical Engineers
What will the design team be provided with?
The design team will be provided with:
▪ Access to the jobs to be analyzed.
▪ Access to any existing documentation that describes the jobs.
▪ Necessary equipment and supplies (cameras, videotape, measurement instruments) to analyze the jobs.
▪ A technical point of contact at the facility that can provide information about the jobs and processes that will be analyzed.
▪ An open-ended budget with capital purchases subject to approval.
How often will we need to present design reviews to the sponsor throughout the scope of the project?
The team will meet with Dr. Marshall on a weekly basis to review progress and discuss ideas. Meetings with Sentry Group will be conducted on a bi-weekly basis for the first several meetings, specific time is subject to change. Any emergency meetings will be dealt with according to level of importance and availability.
What problems can we identify that the customer does not recognize that they need to have solved?
Some potential safety issues were identified that should be addressed in our redesign. In particular, there is a fall hazard that is not adequately protected.
How much would an alternative solution cost our customer?
There are many different solutions to the problems at hand, and each of these solutions would have different costs associated with it. There are hundreds of different options that could be implemented in the work cell redesign. Because of this, it is impossible to quantify how much other solutions would cost.
What is the expected lifetime of our product?
Our work cell should be of a very robust nature, as well as being very reliable to help reduce downtime. Because of the harsh work environment, this new work cell will have to be very durable. It is expected that the new cell should last indefinitely with proper preventative maintenance.
What do we need to know about the product and who will find this out?
Force Measurement, Distance Measurements, and Work Measurement Times will all be acquired by the design team. Production Forecasts, Organizational Charts, Architectural Floor Plans, Product Specification Sheets, CAD Drawings, and Required Flexibility will all be provided by Sentry Group.
How many tasks will this work cell be used for?
Two tasks will have to be performed in this work cell. These are filling the safe bodies and safe lids with concrete.
What regulatory agencies will have an influence on this design, installation, distribution, service, recall, or disposal of this product?
OSHA
NOISH
Is keeping the timeline on schedule more important or is keeping the budget on track more important?
Keeping the timeline on track is more important.
Is keeping the budget on track more important or is retaining all objectives more important?
Retaining all of the objectives is more important
What will some potential order qualifiers be?
➢ The work cell should be cost effective
➢ The work cell doesn’t hamper operator performance
➢ The work cell shall alleviate most ergonomic issues
➢ The work cell shall increase potential throughput
➢ The work cell shall increase production flexibility
➢ The work cell should have no negative affect on quality
➢ The work cell is robust and durable
What will some potential order winners be?
➢ The work cell improves product quality
➢ The work cell effectively alleviates all ergonomic problems
➢ Any device developed speeds up operator performance
➢ The work cells robustness and durability is proven to be “concrete” and will not cause future problems.
What would you like us to deliver to you at the end of this project?
At the completion of the project, the redesigned work cell shall be implemented. This new work cell will have an equal or better throughput and improved flexibility over the existing work cell, while having no negative impact on quality. The new work cell shall also be more ergonomically sound in relation to the existing cell.
What constraints will drive the initial design process? How can we preclude encountering a brick wall in the future?
1. Time (of analysis, fabrication, and training)
2. Technology (ability of the materials, access to jobs being analyzed)
What will happen to you if we do not meet the delivery deadline?
It is definitely expected that you meet the deadline. However, if an unforeseen circumstance occurs, it would be expected that the group would reaches agreement with Sentry Group about a change in scope, etc.
νFormal Statement of Work:
The design team shall analyze all aspects of their designated area (filling fireproof safes with concrete) with regard to workflow, production flexibility, and ergonomics. The design team shall then provide a list of potential improvements and design recommendations (with regard to the above aspects) to Sentry Group for review. These recommendations shall strive to improve workflow, ergonomics, and production flexibility. These design recommendations should also not negatively affect product quality. These recommendations shall be presented in a Powerpoint presentation at the end of the first ten weeks. The design team shall also keep Sentry Group apprised of its potential recommendations though bi-weekly meetings (subject to change). The design team shall obtain approval from Sentry Group for all capital purchases, and shall make no changes to the work area until Sentry Group has approved them.
After design changes have been approved, the design team shall help with the implementation and installation of these changes during the second 10 weeks with assistance from Sentry Group. The design team will perform all training that is needed as long as the training can be performed during the designated timeline (20 weeks, ending May 23rd). Sentry Group will conduct any training that needs to be done outside of this timeline.
Over the period of 20 weeks, the design team shall be given access to the work cell at Sentry Group via temporary swipe access cards. The design team shall inform Sentry Group of any visits that they plan to make prior to these visits. The main contact for the design team shall be Matt Shafer, and the main contact for Sentry Group shall be Kyle Hagadorn.
ii. Preliminary Concept Development
During the brainstorming session many ideas were thought of. Descriptions of the most promising are listed below. Sketches of selected concepts can be found in both the Technical Data Package and the DesignPlanner binder.
Layouts
Worker Centered Design
This is a layout in which all of the workers are in the center of the work cell. This allows the workers to quickly move between filling stations, which will lead to increased production flexibility, and potential throughput. The workers would be in an inline format as can be seen in the layout drawings.
Inline Design
This is a layout in which all of the operators are in a single line similar to the worker centered design, but now the operators would be on the outside of the conveyor line. This layout requires much less conveyors, and will allow Sentry Group to utilize their automatic conveyors that are already in place to advance the safes. This would eliminate the push force currently required to move the safe. However, there are concerns that the flow would be slightly hampered due to the potential bottleneck. However, this would also allow Sentry to keep their current concrete drops for the safe filling operation. This design would also allow easy operator access to the rack control panel.
Safe Lid Moving Systems
Conveyor Drop - Full
This is a design in which the filled lids are slid directly onto the bodies by the conveyor. This is accomplished by having the lid conveyor raised to the appropriate height so that the lids can be rolled directly off their conveyor onto the save bodies. This would eliminate the unnecessary ergonomic stressor of having to lift the safe lids onto the bodies.
Conveyor Drop - Empty
This is a design in which the empty lids are slid directly onto the bodies by the conveyor. This is accomplished by having the lid conveyor raised to the appropriate height so that the lids can be rolled directly off their conveyor onto the save bodies. The lids would then be filled while sitting on top of the filled safe bodies. This would eliminate the unnecessary ergonomic stressor of having to lift the safe lids onto the bodies. Filling the safe lids while on top of the bodies would also lessen the force required to move the lids onto the bodies.
Conveyor Assist - Full
This is a design in which an operator using a conveyor as a guide to slide the filled lids directly onto the bodies. This is accomplished by having the lid conveyor raised to the appropriate height so that the lids can be rolled directly off their conveyor onto the save bodies by the operator. This would eliminate the unnecessary ergonomic stressor of having to lift the safe lids onto the bodies.
Conveyor Assist - Empty
This is a design in which an operator using a conveyor as a guide to slide the filled lids directly onto the bodies. This is accomplished by having the lid conveyor raised to the appropriate height so that the lids can be rolled directly off their conveyor onto the save bodies by the operator. This would eliminate the unnecessary ergonomic stressor of having to lift the safe lids onto the bodies. The lids would then be filled while sitting on the safe bodies. This would lessen the effort of the operator having to slide the lid onto the body.
Cap Driving Systems
Pneumatic Gun
An air powered, magazine-fed gun would be used to inject the caps into the safe bodies.
Pressure Rollers
After the caps had been positioned over the holes, the safe body would then pass under a series of different sized rollers that would press the caps into the holes.
Hydraulic Press
After the caps had been positioned over the holes, the safe body would pass under a hydraulic press that would be lowered, forcing the caps into the holes.
Mechanical Wrench
A special wrench designed to give the operators a significant mechanical advantage would be used to insert the caps into the holes.
Rubber Mallet
After the caps had been positioned over the holes, the operator would then use a rubber mallet to hammer the caps into place.
Filling Systems
Dual Hose Filling
Two hoses are used to fill the safe body as opposed to the current layout of a single hose. This will enable faster filling of the bodies. The two hoses will be adjustable to accommodate the different safe body sizes.
Metered Filling
This consists of a dial with settings to accommodate the various size bodies and lids. This would allow the operator to set the dial to the proper setting and then press a button that will start the flow of concrete. The concrete will then stop after the predetermined amount has been poured. Currently, operators have to start and stop the flow of concrete manually. Metered filling will allow operators to perform additional value added activities while the safes are being filled.
Venturi Filling
This is a filling device similar to a pump found at any gas station. A small tube is run from the end of the nozzle back into the hose pumping the cement. When the tube comes in contact with the cement (the safe being filled at that point), the pressure differential mechanically shuts of the pump. This would allow operators to simply insert the hose into the safe, start the flow of cement, and move on to perform other value added activities.
Dual Safe Filling
This would involve a system similar to dual hose filling. In this system, two hoses would be used to fill 2 safe bodies at the same time. The two hoses would be adjustable to accommodate the different safe sizes.
Stopping Systems
Photoelectric Sensors
Found in many garage door openers. A light beam is projected between two sensors. When the light beam is cut (an object enters its path), the conveyor stops activate stopping the safe in the correct position.
Weight Sensor
Simple weight sensors that engage the conveyor stops when an object moved onto them. These will also stop the safes in optimal positions.
Ski Lift Bar
Similar to chair lifts at a ski resort, a bar would be used to stop the conveyor when a safe comes into contact with it. This would also stop the safes in optimal positions.
Manually Operated Button
This would stop the conveyor when an operator pushed the button. This would allow for minor adjustments to be made in safe location.
Miscellaneous
Alignment Brushes
These brushes line the sides of the conveyors in key locations and serve to center the safe bodies and lids into consistent locations. This is necessary for the conveyor drop to work.
Grated Flooring
The floor would be sunken and covered with a grate. There would be a constant stream of water passing below the grate to carry away and concrete that falls to the floor. This would keep the floor clean and free of excess concrete.
v. Feasibility Assessment
This section will focus on the feasibility of the concepts identified in the concept development facet of the project. All of the concepts identified have been scored below from 0-3 with regard to specific questions. 0 being unfeasible, 1 being worse than the baseline concept, 2 being equal to the baseline concept, and 3 being better than the baseline concept.
1. TECHNICAL QUESTIONS 1:
”Does the team (with Sentry’s assistance) have the skills and resources necessary to implement all aspects of technologies for these concepts?”
Top Movement Methods
Conveyor Assist After Fill (baseline) – 2
The conveyor assist after fill is the baseline design. The team is capable of performing existing technology research, flow calculations, collection of time study data, and implementation of this baseline conveyor configuration.
Conveyor Drop (automated) Before Fill – 0
The conveyor automated drop before fill is the same layout as the baseline design, however all automated technologies for this system have been restricted by Sentry. The team is capable of performing existing technology research, flow calculations, collection of time study data, and implementation of this conveyor configuration if necessary.
Conveyor Drop (automated) After Fill – 0
The conveyor automated drop before fill is the same layout as the baseline design, however all automated technologies for this system have been restricted by Sentry. The team is capable of performing existing technology research, flow calculations, collection of time study data, and implementation of this conveyor configuration if necessary.
Conveyor Assist Before Fill – 3
The conveyor operator assist after fill is the same layout as the baseline design. The team is capable of performing existing technology research, flow calculations, collection of time study data, and implementation of this conveyor configuration.
Manual Movement (current) – 1
Currently existing technology, the lids have to be manually moved from one location to another. With a simple conveyor extension, the entire step of picking up and moving the lid to the body will be eliminated, increasing potential throughput.
Filling Methods
Metered Filling (baseline) – 2
The team is capable of producing a metered filling devise or installing an existing metering devise depending on the method chosen and the current technology available.
Venturi Filling – 2
Venturi filling utilizes a plastic tube leading from the spout of the filling devise back into the chamber producing a vacuum that controls the actuation of a flow valve. The team is capable of producing such a method and incorporating it into the design, however the consistency of the cement may make this option difficult and less likely to succeed.
Dual Hose Filling – 3
If metered filling is possible and implemented, post fill concrete consistency (Sentry) may limit the flow rate of the fluid into the base causing a less feasible outcome. This option is easier to perform than the baseline because it simply requires addition an additional hose to the concrete drops. If this solution is possible the outcome is definitely advantageous.
Dual Safe Filling – 3
This option is easier to implement than the baseline concept because it simply requires adding an additional hose to the concrete drops.
Manual Filling (current) – 1
This is the current method of procedure, limits efficiency and cleanliness while adding to an already ergonomically hazardous working environment.
Cap Driving Methods
Rubber Hammer (baseline) – 2
The team is capable of performing any calculations, design drawings, experiments, and or trials to implement a rubber hammer into the process.
Pneumatic Gun – 0
The team is capable of researching existing pneumatic cap guns and implementing them into the process, however if this technology is unavailable the necessary time to fully design, develop, and test such a product is more then the team is able to allocate.
Roller Press – 3
The team is capable of performing any calculations, design drawings, experiments, and or trials to implement this type of technology. If current technology for this equipment does not exist the team would have the necessary tools to develop such a product.
Hydraulic Press – 0
The team is capable of performing any calculations, experiments, and or trials to implement this type of technology. Although the technology does exist Sentry safe has eliminated this option due to the possible buckling effect of the press on the safe.
Wrench – 2
The team is capable of performing any calculations, design drawings, experiments, and or trials to implement a wrench into the process.
Manual Pressing (current) – 1
This is the current process and is obviously an accomplishable task, but ergonomic hazards involved require the need for a new method of capping.
Stopping Methods
Photoelectric Sensor (baseline) – 2
This technology exists and is in use currently. The team is capable of researching new sensors and stopping devises for implementation on the system.
Weight Sensor – 0
This technology currently exists and the team is capable of researching and implementation of such technology, however, water concentrations vary between different batches of concrete, and therefore a weight sensor would not be a feasible option.
Ski Lift Bar – 2
The team is capable of researching existing stopping devises and implementing them accordingly.
Manual Button – 2
The team is capable of researching existing stopping devises and implementing them accordingly.
Manual Stopping (current) – 1
There is current technology a.k.a. the operator is a doable method to stop the safes, but due to the ergonomic hazards of this procedure it is not a feasible solution.
2. SCHEDULE QUESTION 1:
”How much time will it take to bring this concept to the customer?”
Top Movement Methods
Conveyor Assist After Fill (baseline) – 2
Research, design, and implementation are feasible within the timeframe.
Conveyor Drop (automated) Before Fill – 0
The conveyor automated drop before fill is the same layout as the baseline design, and is capable of being implemented in the timeframe, however all automated technologies for this system have been restricted by Sentry.
Conveyor Drop (automated) After Fill – 0
The conveyor automated drop before fill is the same layout as the baseline design, and is capable of being implemented in the timeframe, however all automated technologies for this system have been restricted by Sentry.
Conveyor Assist Before Fill – 2
Research, design, and implementation are feasible within the timeframe.
Manual Movement (current) – 3
Currently, existing technology, the lids have to be manually moved from one location to another.
Filling Methods
Metered Filling (baseline) – 2
The team is capable of producing a metered filling devise and or installing an existing metering devise depending on the method chosen by sentry and the current technology available in the timeframe.
Venturi Filling – 2
The consistency of the cement may make this option difficult and less likely to succeed, however, research, design, and implementation are feasible within the timeframe.
Dual Hose Filling – 3
Dual hose filling will use two hoses of the chosen filling method. Research, Design, and implementation are feasible within the timeframe, and Sentry Group currently has the hoses and control valves in stock.
Dual Safe Filling – 3
This concept has the exact same requirements as dual hose filling, and therefore would receive the same rating.
Manual Filling (current) – 3
This is the current method of procedure, which limits efficiency and cleanliness while adding to an already ergonomically hazardous working environment.
Cap Driving Methods
Rubber Hammer (baseline) – 2
Pre-existing tool. Research, design, and implementation are feasible within the timeframe.
Pneumatic Gun – 0
Excessive design and testing required for this device, implementation not probable within the timeframe.
Roller Press – 2
Research, design, and implementation are feasible within the timeframe.
Hydraulic Press – 0
Research, design, and implementation are feasible within the timeframe, however sentry has elected to not explore this option due to safe buckling under pressure.
Wrench – 2
Research, design, and implementation are feasible within the timeframe.
Manual Pressing (current) – 3
This is the current process.
Stopping Methods
Photoelectric Sensor (baseline) – 2
This is the current process. Research, design, and implementation are feasible within the timeframe.
Weight Sensor – 2
This technology currently exists and research, design, and implementation are feasible within the timeframe.
Ski Lift Bar – 2
Research, design, and implementation are feasible within the timeframe.
Manual Button – 2
Research, design, and implementation are feasible within the timeframe.
Manual Stopping (current) – 3
This operation can be implemented in the system at any time.
3. ECONOMIC QUESTION 1:
How much will it cost to bring this concept to the customer?
Sentry has informed us that our budget could be over 50,000 dollars, so basically all of our concepts were feasible.
Top Movement Methods
Conveyor Assist After Fill (baseline) – 2
The conveyor assist would require an additional length of gravity-fed conveyor to guide the safe lids to the bodies. 10-foot sections of gravity-fed conveyors sell for an average of $300 dollars.
Conveyor Drop (automated) Before Fill – 1
The conveyor drop would require a separate stopper for the safe bottoms, as well as an extra 2 to 3 feet of automated conveyor. While no conveyor systems identical to the rubber band drive conveyor presently owned by Sentry could be found, similar systems with lengths of 3 feet cost on average 240 dollars. Also, installation costs would depend on how quickly the installers could get the equipment working. An estimate of 8 hours would be appropriate in this case, and assuming their own workers would do the installing at their average wage, of 12.50 per hour that would be 100 dollars.
Conveyor Drop (automated) After Fill – 1
This is the same as the automated conveyor drop before filling, and would cost approximately 240 dollars per 3 feet plus labor costs to install the system.
Conveyor Assist Before Fill – 2
This is the same system as the baseline with regard to equipment.
Manual Movement (current) – 3
This is their current process so implementing this would cost nothing.
Filling Methods
Metered Filling (baseline) – 2
To determine the cost of this process we would first have to decide how we wanted to measure the filling process, whether it is by flow, various sensors, or even by measuring a predetermined amount of cement. Sentry is currently reviewing the various options with regard to concrete because of their extensive experience with it.
Venturi Filling – 1
Venturi filling requires a hose that does not currently exist in the marketplace, so one would have to be made. Assuming that the specifications for all necessary equipment are known building one would be costly.
Dual Hose Filling – 3
Sentry Group currently has extra hose and valves, so this wouldn’t cost them any additional money to implement.
Dual Safe Filling – 3
This concept has the exact same requirements as dual hose filling, and therefore would receive the same rating.
Manual Filling (current) – 3
This is the current process and no changes would be necessary to implement this, thus no money would have to be spent.
Cap Driving Methods
Rubber Hammer (baseline) – 2
Pneumatic Gun – 1
The pneumatic gun would be much more expensive than the hammer. Because the caps are custom made, no such device exists, and therefore this device would have to be developed from scratch. This development process would be very costly.
Roller Press – 1
This concept would require a series of rollers of different sizes attached to a frame. One place that sold conveyors sold replacement rollers of different sizes from approximately 11 dollars American (converted from British pounds) up to 35 dollars American. Also a frame could be assembled from scrap metal for a very low price. An estimate of labor costs is 8 hours or 100 dollars.
Hydraulic Press – 1
The specifications for the hydraulic press are not known exactly, however research shows that they cost an average of $2,300.
Wrench – 1
This would not require much capital to purchase, however, because of the level of ergonomic improvement required, an estimate of $20 can be made.
Manual Pressing (current) – 3
This is the current process and no changes would be necessary to implement this, thus no money would have to be spent.
Stopping Methods
Photoelectric Sensor (baseline) – 2
A photoelectric sensor which can be found in garage doors, can be found at hardware stores for 22.99$. Installation of this type of sensor should not take long at all, however, a system to keep it clean may be necessary, but not yet known.
Weight Sensor – 2
Weight sensors can cost minimal amounts of money, however, installation times are not known.
Ski Lift Bar – 2
The cost of a ski lift bar should not be much in the way of materials, as only a metal bar and simple electrical system is needed, but again installation times are not known.
Manual Button – 2
This should not cost much to implement, as they already have the equipment to do it, however, installation will be the most expensive part of this, depending on the desired setup.
Manual Stopping (current) – 3
This is the current process and would cost nothing to implement.
4. ECONOMIC QUESTION 2:
”Will this concept have a return investment of less than or equal to 1 year?”
The combination of new top movement method, a new filling concept, new cap driving method, and a new stopping system will in total result in the reduction of 1 to 2 workers from the system. In rating these methods the cost of each was weighed against the saving of 50,000-$100,000 dollars per year, because none of these concepts alone could generate those savings.
Top Movement Methods
Conveyor Assist After Fill (baseline) – 2
As stated in economic question # 1 the cost of this concept is far less than the 1 year savings of 50,000 dollars, and thus this concept will have a return investment of less than one year.
Conveyor Drop (automated) Before Fill – 3
This is the same as the previous question in that the cost of extra conveyor plus installation will be far less than the amount saved. However, because of the extra automation, it would have a slower ROI than the baseline
Conveyor Drop (automated) After Fill – 3
This is the same as the conveyor drop before filling.
Conveyor Assist Before Fill – 2
This is the same as the conveyor assist after the fill.
Manual Movement (current) – 2
This is the current process.
Filling Methods
Metered Filling (baseline) – 2
Metered filling, as shown in the first economic question costs far less than the 50,000 dollars that will be saved in one year.
Venturi Filling – 3
It is not known what the exact costs of venturi filling will be, however, estimates put it far less than 50,000 dollars. It is believed that this could potentially eliminate an additional operator, and would therefore have a faster ROI than the baseline.
Dual Hose Filling - 3
This process will cost much less than the 50,000 dollars as shown in economic question 1, and it could potentially speed up production as well, resulting in less man hours needed to do the same job.
Dual Safe Filling – 3
This concept has the exact same requirements as dual hose filling, and therefore would receive the same rating.
Manual Filling (current) – 3
This is the current process.
Cap Driving Methods
Rubber Hammer – 2
This will cost far less than 50,000 dollars.
Pneumatic Gun – 1
The pneumatic gun as shown in the previous question will cost far less than the 50,000 dollars in savings, but will have a slower ROI than the baseline.
Roller Press – 1
This concept will also cost far less than the 50,000 dollars, but will have a slower ROI than the baseline.
Hydraulic Press – 1
This concept while somewhat expensive will also generate a return on investment in one year. However it will be much slower than the baseline
Wrench – 2
This tool will easily generate a return on investment of less than one year. It is estimated that the ROI will be very similar to the baseline.
Manual Pressing (current) – 3
This is the current process and costs nothing to implement.
Stopping Methods
All stopping methods are very cheap and will generate a return on investment of far less than one year. For the cost of each method see economic question number 1. Only the manual stopping method currently in place will have a faster ROI.
Photoelectric Sensor – 2
Weight Sensor – 2
Lift Bar – 2
Manual Button – 2
Manual Stopping (current) – 3
This is the current process.
5. PERFORMANCE QUESTION 1:
”How does this concept affect production flexibility?”
Top Movement Methods
Conveyor Assist After Fill (baseline) – 2
Conveyor Drop (automated) Before Fill – 2
Conveyor Drop (automated) After Fill – 2
Conveyor Assist Before Fill – 2
Manual Movement (current) – 2
The above concepts for top movement methods do not provide the ability to increase or decrease the production schedule if this flexibility is necessary.
Filling Methods
Metered Filling (baseline) – 2
Venturi Filling – 3
The Venturi Filling allows the body to be filled without the operator being tied to the workstation to turn off the valve when the safe body is full. This would free the operator to perform other activities or perhaps start filling the next safe body.
Dual Hose Filling – 3
Dual hose filling allows the safe bodies to fill in half of the time. This allows for an increased throughput for a larger production schedule if necessary. This also would potentially allow for only one operator filling safes on the lower-demand days.
Dual Safe Filling – 3
This concept has the exact same requirements as dual hose filling, and therefore would receive the same rating.
Manual Filling (current) – 1
Currently, operators are required to start the filling process and are tied to the workstation as the safe fills. The operator is then required to turn off the valve when filling is complete. This prevents operators from performing other tasks while safe bodies fill.
Cap Driving Methods
Rubber Hammer (baseline) – 2
Pneumatic Gun – 3
A pneumatic gun would insert the caps individually at a faster rate than the baseline method.
Roller Press – 3
A roller press would perform the cap driving operation without an operator present. The press would insert all four caps at once decreasing the time required for this operation.
Hydraulic Press – 3
A hydraulic press would perform the cap driving operation without an operator present. The press would insert all four caps at once decreasing the time required for this operation.
Wrench – 2
A wrench would require each cap to be inserted separately by an operator. This is equivalent to the baseline.
Manual Pressing (current) – 2
Manually pressing the caps into the safe body requires each cap to be inserted separately by an operator. This is equivalent to the baseline.
Stopping Methods
Photoelectric Sensor (baseline) – 2
Weight Sensor – 2
Ski Lift Bar – 2
Manual Button – 2
Manual Stopping (current) – 2
The above concepts for stopping methods do not provide the ability to increase or decrease the production schedule if this flexibility is necessary.
6. PERFORMANCE QUESTION 2:
”How does this concept affect potential throughput?”
Top Movement Methods
Conveyor Assist After Fill (baseline) – 2
Conveyor Drop (automated) Before Fill – 2
The conveyor drop before fill should be equal to the baseline concept because the processes is only slightly rearranged, but for all intensive purposes, the same with regard to throughput
Conveyor Drop (automated) After Fill – 3
The conveyor drop after fill is better than the baseline concept because a human operator will be able to move at a potentially faster pace than the automated conveyor. The baseline concept would have to stop and make sure the safes were properly aligned before the lid could be slid onto the body. With the operator sliding the lid on, less precision is needed with base location on the conveyor.
Conveyor Assist Before Fill – 3
The conveyor drop before fill is better than the baseline concept because a human operator will be able to move at a potentially faster pace than the automated conveyor. The baseline concept would have to stop and make sure the safes were properly aligned before the lid could be slid onto the body. With the operator sliding the lid on, less precision is needed with base location on the conveyor.
Manual Movement (current) – 1
Currently, the lids have to be manually moved from one location to another. With a simple conveyor extension, the entire step of picking up and moving the lid to the body will be eliminated, increasing potential throughput.
Filling Methods
Metered Filling (baseline) – 2
Venturi Filling – 2
Venturi filling would be equal to metered filling because both methods will essentially take the same time. The operators will start the flow of concrete and be able to move onto additional value-added activities while the safe is filling.
Dual Hose Filling – 3
This could potentially double the rate at which safe bodies are filled, thereby increasing throughput to approximately twice of the current process.
Dual Safe Filling – 3
This concept could also potentially double the rate at which safe bodies are filled, thereby increasing throughput to approximately twice of the current process.
Manual Filling (current) – 1
The current process would be worse than the baseline concept. Although the safe would be filled in the same amount of time, the other value-added activities that the operator could potentially due won’t be able to be performed until after the safe is filled.
Cap Driving Methods
Rubber Hammer (baseline) – 2
Pneumatic Gun – 3
The pneumatic gun would be better than the baseline concept because with the baseline concept, the caps still need to be set on the holes and properly aligned before they can be driven in. The pneumatic gun would be able to align and drive the cap all at the same time, thereby speeding up the process.
Roller Press – 3
This would be better than the baseline concept because the operator would only have to align the caps onto their holes as opposed to aligning and driving them in with the baseline concept.
Hydraulic Press – 3
This would be much better than the baseline concept because all 4 caps could be inserted simultaneously by a single device instead of having to drive them in individually as is the case with the baseline concept.
Wrench – 1
This would be worse than the baseline concept because the operator would have to insert the caps into the wrench and then align them and insert them one by one. The extra time that will be needed to insert the caps into the wrench could significantly slow down the process.
Manual Pressing (current) – 3
This is the current process and involves operators pressing the caps in with their hands. This is slightly better than the baseline concept because the operator aligns and inserts the caps all in one motion, instead of aligning the caps and then driving them in.
Stopping Methods
Photoelectric Sensor (baseline) – 2
Weight Sensor – 2
This is equal to the baseline concept because both the weight sensor and the baseline concept have sensors that operate in a similar fashion. Namely, stopping the safe when it is in the proper location by way of an electrical interrupt.
Ski Lift Bar – 2
This is equal to the baseline concept because the ski lift bar would also stop the safe in a certain spot. The only difference is that the ski lift bar uses a mechanical interrupt as opposed to an electrical interrupt.
Manual Button – 2
Although this has some operator interaction, the push button would also stop the safe by means of an electrical interrupt, and therefore would take the same amount of time as the baseline concept.
Manual Stopping (current) – 2
This would be equal to the baseline because the operator simply stops the safes by grabbing them as they pass. This should take no longer than it would take for the baseline concept to stop the conveyor via the sensors.
7. PERFORMANCE QUESTION 3:
”Is this concept capable of meeting all regulatory requirements?”
Top Movement Methods
Conveyor Assist After Fill (baseline) – 2
Conveyor Drop (automated) Before Fill – 2
The automated conveyor drop before fill meets regulatory requirements in a manner equivalent to the baseline.
Conveyor Drop (automated) After Fill – 2
The automated conveyor drop after fill meets regulatory requirements in a manner equivalent to the baseline.
Conveyor Assist Before Fill – 2
The conveyor assist before fill meets regulatory requirements in a manner equivalent to the baseline.
Manual Movement (current) – 1
Manual transfer of the safe doors is worse than the baseline. The current process is close to exceeding the NIOSH Lifting Guidelines.
Filling Methods
Metered Filling (baseline) – 2
Venturi Filling – 2
Dual Hose Filling – 2
Dual Safe Filling – 2
Manual Filling (current) – 2
The above concepts for filling methods all meet regulatory requirements in a manner equivalent to the baseline.
Cap Driving Methods
Rubber Hammer (baseline) – 2
Pneumatic Gun – 2
Roller Press – 2
Hydraulic Press – 2
Wrench – 2
Manual Pressing (current) – 2
The above concepts for cap driving methods all meet regulatory requirements in a manner equivalent to the baseline.
Stopping Methods
Photoelectric Sensor (baseline) – 2
Weight Sensor – 2
Ski Lift Bar – 2
Manual Button – 2
Manual Stopping (current) – 2
The above concepts for stopping methods all meet regulatory requirements in a manner equivalent to the baseline.
8. PERFORMANCE QUESTION 4:
”How does this concept affect the ergonomics of the work cell?”
Top Movement Methods
Conveyor Assist After Fill (baseline) – 2
Conveyor Drop (automated) Before Fill – 3
The conveyor drop before fill is better than the baseline concept because it has no operator interaction at all. Therefore, no ergonomic issues are present.
Conveyor Drop (automated) After Fill – 3
The conveyor drop after fill is better than the baseline concept because it has no operator interaction at all. Therefore, no ergonomic issues are present.
Conveyor Assist Before Fill – 3
Because the safe is moved while it is still empty, it is much lighter and therefore better ergonomically. The lighter weight puts less stress on the arm, shoulder muscles, and joints while the lid is being slid onto the safe body.
Manual Movement (current) – 1
The ergonomics are much worse in the manual movement. The operator must pick up each FULL lid and place them onto the safe bodies. This exerts strain on the muscles of the back, arms, and fingers. The strain is much lower in the baseline concept.
Filling Methods
Metered Filling (baseline) – 2
Venturi Filling – 2
Venturi filling would be equal to metered filling because both methods require minimal operator interaction. The filling process would require the operator to simply start the process by putting the hose into the proper hole and starting the flow of concrete.
Dual Hose Filling – 1
Dual hose filling would be slightly worse than metered filling because it would require the operator to load 2 hoses into the proper holes, as well as continuously monitor the flow of concrete by manipulating the on-off valve. The hoses have potential to be very heavy, so proper counter balances would need to be implemented.
Dual Safe Filling – 1
Dual safe filling would be slightly worse than metered filling because it would require the operator to load 2 hoses into the proper holes, as well as continuously monitor the flow of concrete by manipulating the on-off valves. The hoses have potential to be very heavy, so proper counter balances would need to be implemented.
Manual Filling (current) – 1
The current process would be worse than the baseline concept because the hoses have to be loaded and unloaded and the flow of concrete must be manipulated continuously to get the correct amount of concrete.
Cap Driving Methods
Rubber Hammer (baseline) – 2
Pneumatic Gun – 3
The pneumatic gun would be better than the baseline concept because all the operator needs to do is aim the gun and squeeze the trigger to drive the caps. This exerts much less strain on the operator’s shoulder and arm.
Roller Press – 3
This would be much better than the baseline concept because there would be no operator interaction, and therefore no ergonomic issues.
Hydraulic Press – 3
This would be much better than the baseline concept because there would be no operator interaction, and therefore no ergonomic issues.
Wrench – 1
This would be worse than the baseline concept because the wrench would require the wrist to be cocked at extreme angles to manipulate the caps. This would provide greater ergonomic stress than the hammer’s simple swinging motion.
Manual Pressing (current) – 1
This is the current process and involves operators pressing the caps in with their hands. This is much worse than using a hammer. There is currently unnecessary contact stress on the hands or thumbs, depending on which methods the operators use to press in the caps. The operators also have to use some of their body weight to drive the caps.
Stopping Methods
Photoelectric Sensor (baseline) – 2
Weight Sensor – 2
This is equal to the baseline concept because there is no operator involvement, and therefore there are no ergonomic issues.
Ski Lift Bar – 2
This is equal to the baseline concept because there is no operator involvement, and therefore there are no ergonomic issues.
Manual Button – 2
Although this has some operator interaction, the simple task of pushing a button does not subject the operator to any unnecessary ergonomic stress and therefore is equal to the baseline concept
Manual Stopping (current) – 1
This is much worse than the baseline concept because the operator must manually stop and advance the safes. This subjects the operator to unnecessary ergonomic stress in their shoulder and arm.
9. PERFORMANCE QUESTION 5:
”How does this concept affect product quality?”
Top Movement Methods
Conveyor Assist After Fill (baseline) – 2
This concept is not very different from the current concept (see manual movement below) with regard to product quality. The only major difference is that the safe lids are filled much closer to the finished safe bodies. This could have a negative effect because concrete could be spilled onto the finished safe bodies.
Conveyor Drop (automated) Before Fill – 1
Because the lids are automatically dropped onto the safe bodies, there is potential for surface scratching on the bodies. This concept also has the same issues with concrete spillage as the baseline. Therefore this concept is worse than the baseline
Conveyor Drop (automated) After Fill – 1
Because the lids are automatically dropped onto the safe bodies, there is potential for surface scratching on the bodies. This potential for scratching is also increased because of the weight of the lids when they are full. This concept also has the same issues with concrete spillage as the baseline. Therefore this concept is worse than the baseline
Conveyor Assist Before Fill – 1
Because the lid is being filled on the safe body, there is potential for scratching. This is because the operator must shake the lid to ensure proper filling. Therefore, this concept is worse than the baseline.
Manual Movement (current) – 3
The current method is better than the baseline because, while the placing of the lid on the safe is done by the operator in each, there is less potential for concrete spillage on the safes.
Filling Methods
Metered Filling (baseline) – 2
With metered filling, there is a small potential for overfilling or underfilling. If the operator had the switch set at the wrong safe size, then excess concrete could be expelled by the hose, or not enough concrete would be given.
Venturi Filling – 3
With Venturi filling, there would never be any chance of safe overflow (provided the system was working correctly). This would be because when the concrete reached the top of the safe and touched the nozzle, the flow would automatically shut off. Therefore, this is better than the baseline concept.
Dual Hose Filling – 1
This would be worse than the baseline concept, because there is a potential for voids in the concrete if the bodies are filled to fast.
Dual Safe Filling – 1
Because of the fact that 2 nozzles are being used, there will be less of a chance for operators to freely swing the filling mechanism out of the way to let any excess concrete drain. In this case, the concrete may end up being released over the safe, and would have to be wiped off.
Manual Filling (current) – 1
This is worse than the baseline, because there is an increased possibility that the operators will spill concrete onto the safe bodies. This already happens frequently, and the concrete must then be wiped off.
Cap Driving Methods
Rubber Hammer (baseline) – 2
There is the potential of damage being done to the safe if a rubber hammer were used to drive in the caps because the safe bodies are quite thin.
Pneumatic Gun – 2
There is also potential of damage being done with this concept. Because the caps are driven with force, denting would be a major concern
Roller Press – 1
Because of the harsh environment in which the roller press would be operating it, there is no doubt that concrete pieces would contaminate the rollers. This could then lead to scratching of the safe bodies as the caps were driven in.
Hydraulic Press – 2
This has similar issues to the rubber hammer and pneumatic gun. Because of the force needed to drive the caps in, the press could dent the safe bodies.
Wrench – 3
The wrench would be better than the baseline concept. The potential for denting and surface scratches would be eliminated
Manual Pressing (current) – 3
This would be better than the baseline because there is no potential for damaging the safes bodies.
Stopping Methods
Photoelectric Sensor (baseline) – 2
There should be no potential for positively or negatively affecting product quality, because there is no additional contact on the safe besides the rollers already in place.
Weight Sensor – 2
There should be no potential for positively or negatively affecting product quality, because there is no additional contact on the safe besides the rollers already in place.
Ski Lift Bar – 1
The bar could potentially scratch or dent the safes if concrete because to accumulate on it. Therefore, this concept is worse than the baseline.
Manual Button – 2
The manual button would simply stop the rollers, so there should be no potential for positively or negatively affecting product quality, because there is no additional contact on the safe besides the rollers already in place.
Manual Stopping (current) – 2
There should be no potential for positively or negatively affecting product quality, because the only contact on the safe besides the rollers is the operators hand.
Selections:
Based on the above ratings and the radar charts attached, the follow tentative selections have been made. However, each of these is subject to approval and analysis by Sentry group, and it is expected that some changes will be made.
Top Movement Method – Conveyor Assist Before or After Fill
Filling Method – Either Dual hose filling or Dual Safe Filling
Cap Driving Systems – Manual (cap redesign)
Stopping Methods – Mechanical K-Stops (Existing)
Radar Charts
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
[pic]
vi. Design Objectives and Performance Specifications
The purpose of this section is to develop a set of questions to ensure that all of the design objectives have been met, and also to make sure that the system meets all desired performance requirements. These objectives and performance requirements were determined through the Needs Assessment facet of this report and through numerous customer meetings and site visits.
1. Design Objectives
1. Are the overall ergonomics of the new work cell better than the previous version?
2. Does the new work cell fit into the existing footprint?
3. Will this system have a payback of less than 1 year?
4. Is this work cell able to deal with large fluctuations in demand?
5. Are the redesigns implemented of a robust nature so that they may be expected to last for a significant amount of time?
6. Does the work cell meet all regulatory standards?
7. Have the operators been properly trained to use any new devices that have been implemented?
8. Has a Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) program been implemented?
9. Has the project been completed (with regard to Sentry’s demands) by the end of spring quarter?
10. Have the design changes implemented remained within the allotted budget?
11. Has the quality of the products been maintained or improved?
2. Performance Specifications
1. Is the force exerted on the operator while advancing the full safe less than 35 lbs.?
2. Is the force exerted on the operator while having to move the safe lid less than 10, 14, 19, and 23 pounds over a distance of 4 ft. for the different sized safe lids filled with BFS concrete?
3. Is the force exerted on the operator while having to move the safe lid less than 15, 21, 29, and 34 pounds over a distance of 4 ft. for the different sized safe lids filled with AFS concrete?
4. Is for average force exerted while driving the caps into the safe body less than 69.5 pounds x 4 caps (278 pounds total per safe body)?
5. (withheld for proprietary reasons)
6. Does the new work cell have less than 4 operators?
vii. Analysis of Problems
For the Analysis of any problems with the current system and analysis of the proposed concepts, a formal problem solving method was developed based on the Senior Design website (designserver.rit.edu). The steps have been listed below.
Problem Statement
This is the first stage of the formal problem solving method. The problem statement serves to clearly state the problems being analyzed. All of the major questioned that are to be answered are laid out here.
Summary of Known Information
In this step, all of the data that is currently known is presented in a numbered list, which will be used for reference later on in the problem analysis
Summary of Desired Information
In this step, all of the unknowns that the problem is designed to solve are outlined here in a numbered list that will be referred to later in the analysis.
List and Justification of Assumptions
In this step, all of the relevant assumptions are listed. A justification is then presented as to why these assumptions were made and why they are acceptable.
Schematics and Given Data
In this step, all relevant drawings and numerical data needed to support the problem analysis are listed in a table. Drawings will be used whenever possible to help convey the problem being analyzed.
Analysis
This step is where the problem is addressed and solved. All relevant calculations and research performed will be presented here. Any conclusions that are reached will also be presented in this section.
Quality Review
In this section, all conclusions will be re-analyzed to see whether or not they make sense. The person solving the problem will bring their past experiences to bear to see if the conclusions make sense.
Analyses
An ergonomic analysis, preliminary flow analysis, and concrete flow analysis can all be found in the Technical Data Package in the section entitled “Analyses of Problems”
vii. Current Concepts & Concept Progression
Throughout all of the above facets of the project, the design team has maintained constant contact with Sentry Group through emails and bi-weekly meetings. During the bi-weekly meetings, the design team presented the various concepts for analysis by Sentry Group’s engineers and production managers. Sentry group then provided invaluable feedback with regard to each concept. The concepts were then reworked with regard to that feedback and then presented once again. This cycle of development has led to the steady progression of the preliminary concepts into what they are today. For a detailed view of each of the concepts, from it’s original idea to what it has become today, refer to the Technical Data Package section entitled “Drawing Package”
The current system layout in use at Sentry safe has inefficient ergonomic and economic issues that need correction. In order to address these issues several issues were analyzed and concepts were created. This technical section of the report discusses the proposed concerns of Sentry as well as the team and addresses problems and designed concepts in full. This is the basic outline of the addressed problems and proposed concepts:
Outline
1. Cap Issue
A. Cap Redesign
B. Hand Roller
C. Automated Presses
2. Safe Body Filling Design
A. Venturi Filling
B. Dual Hose Filling
3. Layout Design
A. Safe Door Conveyor Redesign
B. Single Shift Design
C. Worker Centered Design
D. Inline Design
Please note that all controls K-stops, optical sensors, conveyor systems and conveyor automation will remain the same as the current system. These are to be considered typical (essentially the Sentry norm), and will be used as needed on all new design concept layouts unless otherwise specified. All programming work and electrical work has been delegated to Sentry as agreed upon at the onset of the project.
1. Cap Issue
Abstract
One of the main ergonomic issues of the current Sentry process involves the manual insertion of plastic caps into the concrete filled, metal safes. At Sentry’s request, analysis and concept designs were desired with intent being to improve the ergonomic issues involved with the manual capping method. After design analysis, the brainstormed concepts that were created include: a redesign of the cap shape, heat and lubrication applications, a hand held rolling device, a roller press, and a hydraulic press. These conceptualized design solutions are illustrated pictorially in the Figures 1-9.
|[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |
Figure 1.
Description and Feasibility
A. Cap Redesign
In order to understand the developed solutions the existing cap must be examined. Figure 1. is the same cap used in the current process. Notice how there is an extended neck, providing guidance into the hole, and an exterior ridge shaped like a barb to lock the cap in place after entering the safe. By modifying the tolerances and diameter of this exterior ridge, less force is necessary to manually press the cap into position. This ridge however, also provides the necessary seal to ensure closure of the cap to the safe. It is important that the tolerances and diameter be examined to prevent normal conveyor vibration from dislodging the seal. Experimentally filing down the diameter of the original cap was feasible. The necessary force applied to the cap decreased form 69.5 lbs to 20.67 lbs in experimentation trials. Experimental data that can be found in the Technical Data Package under the section entitled “Data.” punctuates this fact and also proves that heat and lubrication is not a feasible solution. Both hot water and warm air were used in an attempt to soften the plastic caps, but with out a significant increase in procedural ease the prevailing concept became the modification of the existing cap.
|[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |
Figure 2.
Figure 2. illustrates the original cap with less material present along the securing lower ring. This design is attempting to limit the material that prevents plastic deformation. Without a complete ring, the inner bands of plastic are allowed to flex more freely lowering the force necessary to complete the capping task. In experimental data the force was reduced from 69.5 lbs to either 62.5 lbs or 34.17 lbs depending on the amount of area removed. Both of these methods use less material and are beneficial to the cap manufacturer as well as Sentry. However, there is a possible drawback from altering the geometry of the plastic cap. Sentry currently owns the mold used in the injection molding process of producing the caps and this mold would need to be either altered or fabricated again at Sentry’s expense. If Sentry does not wish to purchase another mold there is a second option. As seen in Figure 3, Sentry has the option of using an off the shelf cap instead of their own custom cap. Figure 3 shows the cross-sectional 3-D designs of the original cap (LHS) and the off the shelf cap (RHS) respectively.
|[pic] |[pic] |
Figure 3.
The tolerance of the exterior lip would still need to be modified but the economic demand created by Sentry for the caps coupled with the plastic saved per cap following modification would be beneficial to the cap manufacturer.
Figure 4.
|[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |
|[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |
Figure 5.
As seen Figures 4 and 5, the off the shelf cap could also be modified to include less material.
B. Hand Roller
The current method for capping the safe bodies is done manually by the operator. The process involves large amount of stress on his/her thumb and/or wrist joints. The operator either pushes the cap directly downward with his thumbs or places the butt of his/her palm on the cap top and using a rolling motion, inserts the cap. The force needed per cap is 69.5 lbs, too great a strain to be repetitively applied to an operator’s wrist or fingers. To prevent stress on the operator’s extremities, a tool to be used to insert the cap was conceptualized. The simple mechanical roller seen in Figure 6 is held in the hand but allows for necessary operator freedom. The operator needs to have the ability to place the caps with the same hand that operates the roller and his other hand needs to be free to control the fill nozzle. If the operator were need set down the roller it must be done so in a way that it is efficient to set down and pick back up. The design, if finalized translates the majority of the stress experienced by the wrist and fingers to the geometry of the roller (the handle vertex and the front roller). This design if implemented would attempt to create a mechanical advantage for the user. This concept needs further calculative analysis, but the basic idea is feasible and is currently being presented to Sentry. Having heard Sentry’s response to the other cap proposals, this concept in conjunction with the cap redesign would most likely result in the most ergonomically stable solution.
|[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |
Figure 6.
C. Automated Presses
The last two concepts focus away from cap geometry and focus on applying the necessary force to seal the cap. Using automated capping machines in the form of a 2 cap roller press concepts and a single hydraulic press can be seen in Figures 7, 8, and 9 respectively. These three concepts save time for the operator filling the safe bodies, and eliminates all detrimental human interaction with the capping process.
The roller press concept, as seen in Figures 7 and 8, implements 1 to 4 cap driving rollers all chain driven by a motor located at the specific safe body heights. Conceptually, the operator who had just completely filled the safe body would seat the caps in the respective holes and send them down the conveyor. At that point, a series of automated K-stops (flow prevention stoppers) would control the flow through the rollers ensuring every safe goes under the rollers uninterrupted. Because the height of the main back roller is set just below the common height of all Sentry’s safes, a pressure is exerted and the caps will lock in place. It is important that the capper’s rollers are automated and oriented such that the angular velocity of the roller, at the point of contact with the safe, is rotating in the same direction that the safe bodies are moving. In doing so, surface damage on the capping surface is much less likely and the rotation of the roller is utilized to force the safe body through the capper. The existing automated line along would not have enough power to force the safe body through the capper.
|[pic] |[pic] |
Figure 7 Figure 8.
The same layout ideas apply for to the hydraulic press in Figure 9 that applied for the automated capper. Following the same cap seating and K-stoppers the safe will enter the pressure zone. Instead of rolling through the pressure zone however, a K-stopper inhibits the safe body’s path before exiting the zone. Here a rubber lined vertical press is hydraulically lowered to apply the load that pushes the caps into the safe. The K-stopper would then lower once the process was completed and the safe would move along same as the roller press.
|[pic] |
Figure 9.
Sentry Feedback
After meeting with the Sentry engineers and involved conversations with Sentry operators, the order in which the fill operators had to cap specified holes during the filling process became an issue. It seems it is necessary for the safe fillers to insert two caps in the diagonal corners from the filling hole during the filling process. This action of in process capping is due to the fluid properties of the concrete in use. Without tapping or somehow vibrating the safe to level the concrete in the safe body during fill, the two adjacent holes fill to the top at a faster rate-creating overflow through the uncapped holes. As a result of not capping the 2 holes during fill further cleaning is required and quality issues may need to be addressed. This brought into question both the roller press and hydraulic press’s feasibility. A press could be installed before and after the filling station to cap the corner holes and the remaining after filling, but this solution is not very realistic. The caps would need to be seated before the filling station by a person or possibly a dual cap placement and press machine, which would be rather expensive. Instead we proposed eliminating the corner holes all together. Examining the onsite press, which in the current process both folds the safe body’s corners and punches it’s holes, it feasible to remove the two-corner dyes. This action would then leave the base fillers with only two holes to manually cap with the redesigned caps. Since there are other processes the safes go through before they reach the fill room it was possible these holes were necessary in other areas of the building. Posing this question to Sentry it was found that the power washers use these holes for draining purposes before entering the oven, but that only one hole was necessary and is provided in the conceptual design.
Conclusion
After testing the various improved caps and watching the workers install the original caps relatively easily, redesigning the current caps was deemed an acceptable solution. This may include the removal of two punch holes from the current process depending on the method chosen for safe body filling, but the force required to insert a single cap does not change regardless of the Number of holes. Providing an automated cap pressing method in this situation would result in modifications to the process that are unnecessary. Lacking the technical drawings of the original cap, calipers were used to dimensionally represent the original cap in the team’s technical drawings to .001 of an inch. These Drawings can be found in the technical drawings section of this report. As seen in these drawings the dimensionality for the exterior lip tolerance and the removal areas are labeled. These drawings are not for production purposes but they do represent the conceptual cap design improvements.
2. Safe Body Filling
Abstract
Sentry’s current safe filling stations utilizes three separate cement hoppers utilizing electrical field sensors to determine the respective fill levels. Each hopper is located on an elevated scaffold above each filling station. In the filling zone a 3 inch diameter hose is connected into one of the 5 cement ports of the hopper and stretched down to a 1 and ¼ inch ball valve. This ball valve controls the flow of the concrete into the safe body, when the ball valve is opened gravity natural causes the cement flow through the hose to the ball valve and then into the safe. This method is not complex and fairly efficient. Each operator has developed general learned knowledge of how long it takes to fill each safe type to about 95 percent capacity. In the time period it takes to fill the safe body the operator caps the two adjacent holes and then waits for the safe body to fill up and then disengages the ball valve. The remaining 5 of the safe body is then filled by quickly opening and closing the ball valve until the desired cement height is visually acquired via the other exposed hole. Once the safe is full the ball valve is closed completely and the excess cement remaining between the ball valve and the nozzle either leaks into the safe or is slopped on the floor. This process is lacking mechanical ingenuity and needs to be improved. Methods of improvement described in this section are Venturi filling and dual hose filling.
Description and Feasibility
A. Venturi Filling
Venturi filling is used in gas station nozzles to ensure the gasoline will not fill up past the lip of the tank. Figure 10 and 11 illustrate such a gas station nozzles. The long tube extending down the outlet nozzle is called a Venturi tube. It provides the vacuum necessary to control the flow of gasoline. When the gasoline level reaches the inlet of the tube, the liquid blocks the vacuum and the pump stops. One concept was to modify this device or its main concept to apply this system to the filling stations. The problem that arises is due to the harsh fluid introduced to this system. Concrete alone creates havoc on small mechanical parts and the fact that the concrete mixtures in use contain ¾ inch long micro diameter fibers (post curing strengthening) the problem becomes all the more evident. However appealing the concept is in theory the problems for this idea became endless. Further investigation showed that size requirements to ensure proper flow through the Venturi also created design problems as the nozzle outlet and Venturi tube would need to be much larger than expected. Had the flowing material been less abrasive this concept may have been more applicable. After pitching the idea to Sentry the concept was abandoned due to its many design requirements.
|[pic] |[pic] |
Figures 10 Figure 11.
B. Dual Hose/Dual Safe Filling.
The dual hose filling concept features a design in which one operator controls two of the current fill nozzles instead of one and in the current design eliminates the need for two safe base filling operators. Concept one displayed in Figure 12, utilizes a U-shaped flow nozzle holding bracket. The U-shaped nozzle holder would be held horizontally such that one distribution nozzle remained fixed at the base of the U, while the other is adjustable to account for varying safe body hole displacements, as seen in figure 12. This bracket allows for the use of two current nozzles at the same fill rate per nozzle as the current system. This design posed two concept scenarios for filling the safe bodies. Scenario one involves the filling of one safe body with two hoses, doubling the fill rate. Scenario two utilizing this design concept involves the filling of two safe bodies simultaneously, again twice the flow safe body flow rate. By doubling the output of one worker, the required number of workers for safe base filling is reduced from two to one, an economic savings of $50,000 per year.
|[pic] |
Figure 12.
Following concept feasibility analysis, it was determined that the dual hose fill concept achieved a high feasibility score and required further analysis. A prototype was created out of wood in order to better visualize possible problems with the design so that before the process went any further the design could be fixed. After analysis and discussion it was determined that the visual alignment necessary to efficiently fill two safe bodies was not accomplishable using the U- shaped design. The design needed to evolve; the fill holes were not easily located. A second concept was developed as a result of this analysis and the revised design can be seen in Figure 13.
|[pic] |[pic] |
|[pic] |[pic] |
Figure 13.
Conclusion
This hand-controlled design has been prototyped and is currently being tested in a time study analysis. After further deliberation with Sentry on this design concept, a third design concept will be created using the current design and but will be a fixed unit. The safe bodies will be directed and aligned according to the orientation of dual hose fill assembly. This design would need to include a lifting mechanism current design ideas the current design idea is comprised of a lever with a cam at its base which when rotated clears the nozzles of out of the path of the moving safe bodies. This lever would need to be ergonomically designed for easy lifting.
3. Layout Design
Abstract
The current flow layout utilizes two operators for the filling, capping, and placement of the safe doors. As seen in Figure 14, the safe doors enter the fill room at point, are transported at a 90 angle to point B where a single operator fills the safe door. This process requires the operator to tip the safe door and its tray at approximately a 30-degree angle, open the flow nozzle and then fill the safe. To ensure that the safe door is filled completely the operator rocks the door back and forth to eliminate the existence of air pockets, creating a faster fill rate. When the door is filled, the operator picks the door up and advances it down the automated conveyor. As a result of the door being topped off to the edge, and its fill holes not being capped, the turbulence of the automated rollers creates a slopping effect. This results in the need for a fairly lucrative cleaning process before the safe is capped and placed on top of its respective safe body by the operator at point C.
|[pic] |
Figure 14.
A. Conveyor Assist Design
To efficiently correct the economic and ergonomic issues of the current door layout, the current process needed to be critically accessed. The ergonomically significant issues with the current system deal with the clean up of the concrete and with the lifting of the filled safe doors. The amount of spilling that occurs during the current door-filling method increases the operator’s exposure to the concrete and this increases the operator’s chances for the unhealthy exposure of concrete to the skin. Concrete can be a very volatile chemical and after prolonged exposure to the skin, excessive drying and cracking occurs. The lifting of filled safe doors to the final destination atop of the respective filled bases is the other major ergonomic issue. Currently the repetitive lifting of the filled doors creates muscle and joint strain on the arms, shoulders, and lower back. Filled safe doors weight up to 34 pounds and lifting these safe lids over the course of an entire shift may result in injury. Ergonomic strain data and results of the current system can be viewed in Technical Data Package in the section entitled “Analysis of Problems: Ergonomic Assessment”.
When the team first arrived at Sentry safe, a design engineer (Matt) had been in the process of designing the layout for a pick and place robot at the end of the door filling process. After learning of the teams’ involvement his design was put on hold in order to see what the team could devise as a solution. After the team learned that a large investment into a completely automated layout had failed due to the harsh working environment, the team chose to not try and implement the pick and place robot in the system. It was decided that an operator-focused design would be a more effective way of addressing a new concept layout and that Sentry would more readily accept an operator-focused concept. By addressing the ergonomic issues mentioned, a proposed concept was created that allows for a great reduction in operator strain and eliminates the need for such a lucrative cleaning process.
As a result in trying to eliminate the poor ergonomic conditions of the current process, the proposed concept was created. The safe door conveyor system is oriented such that a single worker can a) fill the a safe door b) cap the safe door and c) advance the filled safe door and body to the curing room via the pre-existing automated, as seen in Figure 15.
|[pic] |
Figure 15.
This concept is a very feasible conceptual system due to its undeniable positive results. By relocating the conveyor the strain experienced as a result of lifting the safe doors is greatly reduced, resulting in less work required by the operator. From an economic standpoint, the new layout reduces the number of workers from 4 workers per shift to 3, saving $25,000. At two shifts per day a total of $50,000 per year is saved. Also by not implementing the pick and place robot they will be able to save a great deal of money including the cost of development, manufacturing, and implementation. Sentry’s response to the proposed safe door layout redesign was simply put, “and there is the return on our capital investment.” This of course means that the required return on investment (ROI) stated as a mandatory one year for our final design proposal had just become that much more attainable.
B. Single Shift Design
The ultimate ergonomic and economic design package implements two dual hose filling stations, two conveyor drop stations, and some sort of capping innovation albeit the roller, cap redesign, or other and is seen in Figure 16.
|[pic] |
Figure 16.
This design is the optimal conceptual design as it addresses all ergonomic and economic issues. Ergonomically the system layout utilizes both the dual hose filling and the conveyor drop concepts. Economically the system output efficiency is twice as fast, this means that one shift per day and four workers per day is all that is required to match the current system output. The initial estimated immediate cost savings of this system is $200,000 in the first year alone (before cost of new system is subtracted). This layout allows for twice the output. The safe bodies are to be filled two at a time per operator via dual hose filling, automated line feeds the filled bodies to the conveyor drop station, each base fill line will have its own respective top lift off station. After a time study it was determined that the door filling stations always keep up with the feed rate of safe bases as it takes less than half the half the time to fill a door than it does a base. After expressing this concept to Sentry, it was discovered that the required feed rate of safe bodies and safe doors forced by the new layout of would not be attainable due to the overall system capacity. There would be no way to supply the demand required and there would be no storage room for the increased number of safes to cure. So, although this is the optimal concept design layout it is not a feasible solution.
C. Worker Centered Design
This concept design layout requires little change to the existing system conveyor layout, new drive shaft powered conveyor sections need to replace the existing non powered lengths of conveyor between the safe body input line and the safe body fill line. As seen in Figure 17, the pre-existing, dual safe body feed conveyors are in place. This was purposely shown on this drawing such that both the dual hose and single hose fill methods could be visualized in the system. If dual hose filling were to be implemented, the feed conveyor closest to the conveyor drop station would be removed because one operator can do the work of two.
|[pic] |
Figure 17.
The capping method concept depicted in Figure 17. is the capper. Note that any specific capping concept could be implemented in the final design (this particular method was chosen to represent the capping procedure because it is easily visualized). The advantages to this design are simple, they address all ergonomic problems and the use of the conveyor drop method already practically guarantees our ROI. If dual hose filling is also implemented the ROI is sure to be met. The main problem with this design arises when the single hose stations are left in place. The second single hose operator closest to the conveyor drop station represents a possible bottleneck. But if the workers, according to varying skill and speed levels, were strategically placed, flow problems would most likely be of minimal concern.
D. Inline Conveyor
The inline conveyor system alters the current system layout by eliminating the block transfer of safes from one filling station to the other shown in Figure 11. This concept was created by Sentry after the initial concept review meeting, held during the second week of classes this quarter. Sentry is in favor of this inline design due to the inline nature of the system, as seen in Figure 18. As seen in the diagram, one of the initial conveyor drop methods that was done away with is represented. This design requires the operator to lift over the safe body line to grab an empty safe door. This process is ergonomically inefficient and was therefore dismissed as an effective solution by the team.
|[pic] |
Figure 18.
At first glance, the inline design seems to have flow issues, having two safe body fill operators inline. In order for the second safe body filling station to acquire empty safes bodies, the first filling station must pass them by. This adds time not only to the first station, but to the second station as well. This comes about by necessity for the first stations full safes to pass by the second station. The inline design also is affected by the speed at which the fill station operators work. If the operator at the second fill station is working quicker then that of the first station the line flows smoothly. However, if an error occurs and operator two takes longer then normal, a backup of safes is going to occur. Operator one will then not be able to gain access to unfilled safes until the clog is cleared in front of the station. Once the backup is cleared, by hand removing the empty safes between the filling stations and operator 2 is taken out of the line, operator 1 becomes the only filling station and the line functions properly. However, depending on the type of filling station decided upon (the team mainly focusing on dual hose filling), the second operator would no longer exist and the process would flow smoothly. The advantages to the inline design include fast installation and it uses only two transfers, aiding in cleanup time. At Sentry’s request the inline filling design was experimentally tested. By rearranging the fill hose stations and modifying the safe advancement procedure of the current lay out was modified into the inline design format. To simulate the natural flow, the empty safe bodies were hand carried to the first filling station. Here depending on the sequence the first operator would either fill the safe or let it pass to be filled by the second fill station. Once the operators adjusted to the line change the system flowed as normal.
Conclusion
Throughout this section the various layout designs were discussed in depth. Along with Sentry’s assistance and guidance the most feasible and well-engineered layout possible for the given conditions will be delivered. The layout design is an ongoing process and is dependent on the implementation of earlier branches of this report. Once these concepts are chosen for design implementation, further calculative analysis will be performed to maximize the over all performance of said design.
ix. Financial Analysis
The budget for this project is based solely on the amount of expected savings the changes will produce. Our current designs should allow Sentry Group to reduce the number of operators from 4, to between 2-3 depending on production numbers. This will translate into a savings of $50,000 to $75,000 per year (each operator is paid $25,000 per year per shift). Orders are not currently being placed because Sentry Group has insisted on placing all orders. These orders will be placed one final concepts have been decided on and financial approval has been granted (Sentry Group currently has large amounts of excess conveyor and other equipment needed to implement many of these changes, and therefore may be able to use materials that are already in-house).
Sentry has also provided us with a “small purchases” budget of approximately $5,000 dollars, with purchases over $100 subject to approval.
A listing of our purchases to date has been included below:
The home Depot 1/31/03
$1.94 - nuts/bolts
$12.21 - nuts/bolts, 1x2x8 and 1x3x8 strips, 2x2 3/4" Plywood, 1 1/4" screws.
Sams Club 1/10/03
$10.00 - video tapes
RIT Campus Connections
$13.50 - Zip 250 disk
Total
$37.65
x. Next Steps
1. Future Plans
Currently, testing in being conducted at Sentry Group when production numbers allow. A ten-week wrap-up formal presentation is schedule for next week, where we will present our findings to Sentry. Once the testing has been completed, and the formal presentation has taken place, it is expected that Sentry Group will begin it’s decision making process so that orders may be placed as soon as possible (if components need to be ordered)
2. Gantt Chart
A Gantt Chart showing our schedule to date, as well as our schedule for the next ten weeks can be found on the following page.
xi. Conclusions
The design team has been working diligently with various members of Sentry Group to develop the current concepts to a testable stage. These concepts are very promising and Sentry Group is extremely happy with the progress of the project. Assuming that Sentry Group makes their final decisions on which concepts to move forward with on schedule, it is expected that the project will be completed on time and under budget, while meeting all of Sentry Group’s key demands (ergonomic improvement, quantity per hour improvement, and implementation of a total productive maintenance program). The cost savings of this project should be significant, with the magnitude dependent upon the amount of equipment that needs to ordered.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- xfinity cell phones for sale
- cell projects for 7th graders
- the dallas group of america
- synonyms for group of people
- group of companies synonym
- group of people thesaurus
- words for group of people
- word for a group of interesting people
- synonym for large group of people
- slang for group of people
- words for a group of people
- mb of rochester mn