Slide 1

68K Blade Process HandlingTeam 9

Michael Brantley2, Ryan Ferm2, Nadia Siddiqui2, Jason Newton1, Reginald Scott1

1Department of Mechanical Engineering, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL2Department of Industrial Engineering, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL

OutlineBackgroundProblem statementTools Concept generationMechanism ContainerStorage Conclusion

2

BackgroundTECT PowerThomasville, Georgia Boeing, Pratt & Whitney, GE68k blades2000 68k/ Year, 7-8 per dayWeighs 45lbs

BackgroundProblem StatementConcept GenerationConclusion37-8 blades require a large number of machine transfersAs a forging, before broaching3Plant Layout

STORAGEBROACHINGINSPECTIONPOLISH/ CONTOURINGSHIPPINGRECEIVINGBackgroundProblem StatementConcept GenerationConclusion4CANNOT CHANGE PLANT LAYOUT; DEALING WITH SHIPPING/RECEVING, STORAGE TO BROACHING, SHIPPED IN SAME CONTAINER AS STORED IN; BREIFLY TALK ABOUT OTHER PREOCEDURES

4

Broaching MachineRaised Oil Bed8 inches high

5BackgroundProblem StatementConcept GenerationConclusion

5Problem StatementBlades arrive unorganized 5-12 blades per containerNestedOperators manually lift blades from receiving container Lift a minimum of 30 in. From cart onto milling fixture

BackgroundProblem StatementConcept GenerationConclusion65-12 blades per container No separation mechanism between indv. Blades; blades moved to storage, where container is placed on the groundTherefore, Min of 30 in lift to get over container wallMention: potentially harmful; lots of bending; DEMO: jason/RYAN

6ObjectivesEliminate manual liftingRedesign the receiving methodsRedesign storage area (optional)Design and fabricate a blade handling mechanism Easy maneuverability StabilityConstraints

BackgroundProblem StatementConcept GenerationConclusion7Eliminate lifting: by process and or mechanismRedesign shipping methods because they come from their Cleveland facility Container will be suited to mechanism Hold blade securely while processedConstraints: no industrial lifting devices, bc they do have some cranes that increases processing/setup time, and sometimes is responsible for scrapping blades.

7 Voice of the CustomerBackgroundProblem StatementConcept GenerationConclusion8Figure 4.2 depicts the subsidiary problem classifications that were revealed when optimizing the stated objectives. For example, the primary objective of reducing the amount of physical lifting fell under the larger category of reducing injury risk; subsequently, this category also includes making the process more ergonomic. Additional factors were uncovered when discussing the issues inherent in designing a mechanism. These factors include cost, quality, and ease of implementation, each of which branch into subcategories.

VOC breaks down the main problem into smaller components. So eliminating manual lifting actually falls under the larger category of reducing risk of injury. Additional factors that were uncovered when discussing the issues inherent in designing a mechanism or container were cost, quality, and ease of implementation. And as you can see, these can be further specified.8

House of QualityDirection of Improvement: Increase Decrease 0 Negligible BackgroundProblem StatementConcept GenerationConclusion9(S)(M)(W)In making the house of quality, customer and technical requirements are specified based on the voice of the customer. The relationship matrix between the two indicates the strength of association using a scale of 1, 3 or 9; the highest association would be rated a 9. To quantify the importance, a range of 1-5 is used, 1 being the lowest level for the customer requirements. The correlation matrix displays the effects of one category upon another, and their magnitude. After calculating the technical weights, its easier to determine the highest level of importance. In Figure 4.3, the results are displayed. The strongest relationships between customer and technical requirements have the highest technical weights and are therefore a priority. For example, minimizing the amount of lifting is strongly related to the range of height a device can achieve. With a technical weight of 45, these conditions must be placed before others. Illustrated in the correlation matrix are the positive and negative relationships among the technical requirements; additionally, it exhibits the desired direction of improvement. This is significant because challenges in this project are revealed. For instance, the strength and weight requirements have a positive correlation but oppose each other in direction of improvement; as a result, it is integral to find a way to optimize both requirements. 9

RULA Worksheet BackgroundProblem StatementConcept GenerationConclusion10Rapid upper limb assessment, shows what movements the operator goes through and rates them to determine the level of risk. 10

BackgroundProblem StatementConcept GenerationConclusion11The scale is from 1 to 7, 7 being the worst. Means high risk and change immediately11

Mechanism Concept 1: Cart-in-CartBladeBladeBladeBladeOil BedOil BedLoHL< LoLVariable Inner Cart HeightExtendable Inner CartVertically Hinging PlatformBackgroundProblem StatementConcept GenerationConclusion12L0 is maximum height ofinner cartH is the outer cart heightVariable Height for Loading/UnloadingExtendable to reach milling fixtureVertically Rotating Holder12

BladeBladeBladeBladeMechanism 1: Cart-in-CartConsOnly holds one bladeUni-axial elevationDesign complexity

ProsHighly maneuverableThree axis controlBackgroundProblem StatementConcept GenerationConclusion13Mechanism 2: Conveyor

STORAGEBROACHING`Conveyor system suspended above broaching and storage

Loaded in storage

Off loaded at each machine

Continuous rotation of parts14BackgroundProblem StatementConcept GenerationConclusionMechanism 2: ConveyorExtended for loadingRetracted for relocationExtended for milling

LoadingTransferUnloadingBladeBladeBladeMilling FixtureStorage Container15BackgroundProblem StatementConcept GenerationConclusionMechanism 2: ConveyorConsExpensiveHigh MaintenanceRequires constant loadingIncreased time loading/unloadingIncreased risk due to elevated bladesFailure prevents further blade processing

ProsDoes not hinder factory trafficCould have holders for vertical and horizontal mounting

16BackgroundProblem StatementConcept GenerationConclusion

Mechanism 3: Vehicle LiftRear mounted lift on small vehicleApproximately 360 of rotationHolds entire blade container

17BackgroundProblem StatementConcept GenerationConclusion17Mechanism 3: Vehicle LiftConsCostVery low maneuverability Could hinder access to other machines

ProsEasy to ImplementHolds large number of bladesCould hold horizontally or verticallyCould be used for other needs

BackgroundProblem StatementConcept GenerationConclusion18Front - ViewSide - Viewh1Extendable insert to reach milling fixtureProsRotational blade elevationHolds multiple blades

D1Mechanism 4: Revolving BarrelSTORAGE BINBackgroundProblem StatementConcept GenerationConclusionConsWeight of payload may decrease maneuverability

= 1 blade19Storage Container Design 1Individual compartments

Horizontal orientation

Blades slide out onto the mechanism= 1 bladeFRONT VIEWBackgroundProblem StatementConcept GenerationConclusion20Storage Container Design 2Vertical orientation

Blade will be picked up from top and pulled out

Individual compartmentsSIDE VIEW= 1 bladeBackgroundProblem StatementConcept GenerationConclusion21Half lid idea; 21Storage Container Design 3Diagonal orientationOpen structureLess restriction from the sidesBlades can be accessed in multiple waysSIDE VIEW= 1 bladeBackgroundProblem StatementConcept GenerationConclusion22Storage Container Design 4Horizontal orientationRemoved from side or from top= 1 bladeSIDE VIEWTOP VIEW= 1 bladeSingle Layer

BackgroundProblem StatementConcept GenerationConclusion23Similar benefits to prior ideas i.e. separation, slides out for easy attachment to mechanism23Storage areaNew layout proposed for better organizationMechanism requires more accessibility than current layout allowsElevated table with rollers

BackgroundProblem StatementConcept GenerationConclusion

24Selection Matrix25FactorsWeightCart-in CartConveyorVehicleBarrelMinimize Lifting0.457.67.89.68.9Ease of implementation0.17.74.658.3Cost0.058.61.63.27.76Maneuverability0.158.690.957.8Efficiency0.17.34.44.19.4Durability/Maintenance0.157.8488.2TOTAL (max 60)147.631.430.8550.36BackgroundProblem StatementConcept GenerationConclusion 2 3 4 1 Conclusion Reduce risk of injuryHOQ, RULA to interpret VOCProposed concept ideasMechanismContainersBackgroundProblem StatementConcept GenerationConclusion26Next: we chose the best concept design; measure things that can be improved.26Future WorkAnalyze the designs furtherSelect the most feasible designMeasure phaseTime studyRecommended Weight LimitFBD for force measurements27BackgroundProblem StatementConcept GenerationConclusion27http://www.gti-power.com/turbine_package_parts.aspxhttp://www.chinahydraulicjacks.com/autorepairtools199861-1000lbcapacitypickuptruckcrane.htmhttp://www.lincolnservice.com/Modules/Webstore/Images/17/Ez-Go%20Industrial%20Utility%20Vehicle%20881.jpghttp://www.tectcorp.com/scope/tect-power/http://www.tectpower.com/company-overview/locations-and-contact/http://www.titanconveyors.com/assets/images/Assembly-1.jpg

28SourcesQuestions?

29