System Level Design Review Hilltop Business Services at the Arc of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

System Level Design Review

Hilltop Business Services at the Arc of Livingston-Wyoming

Window Latch Assembly Automation

Agenda

• System Design Phase Goal
• Customer Requirements
• System functional decomposition
• Concept development
• Concept feasibility
• Morphological chart
• Process Improvements
• Risk assessment
• System Architecture
• Future plan

System Design Phase Goal

The goal of this phase was to assess the required functions of the process, develop concepts for solutions to the customer and engineering requirements, as well as to start refining these concepts based on our analysis of their feasibility.

Problem Definition Systems Design Preliminary Detailed Design Detailed Design Build and Test Prep Subsystem Build and Test Integrated System Build and Test Customer Handoff

Customer Requirements

• Increase production by 35 to 50%
• Reduce takt time down to 3 seconds
• Reduce labor by at least 75%
• Ensure that the final product is safe for customers
• Maintain safety of operators
• Maintain current quality standard
• Thorough documentation of machine and/or new process

Functional Decomposition

• Primary function: Assemble Window Latches
• Sub-functions:
• Prepare for Assembly
• Correctly Orient Part
• Move part from Start to Finish (Unassembled parts to finished goods)
• Connect/Assemble Parts
• Inspect for Quality

Concept Development

Utilize Functional Decomposition Break down functions/tasks How to accomplish task Feasibility Brainstorm Create designs Benchmark Available resources Automated Manual Deliverable concept

Morphological Chart

• This is what the concept development

leads to

• Visual aid to for what can be utilized

per task

• Methods are a mixture of automation

and manual

• Can be used to generate final concept

ideas

Concept Feasibility Scoring

1.

Cost and time to build

Working with a very limited time frame and budget

• 2. Effectiveness of concept

Measures the repeatability and reliability of the concept and how well it meets customer and engineering requirements

List of Functions

• Sort and feed parts
• Transform/orient parts
• Insert and rotate cam into carrier
• Fasten lock in carrier
• Inspection/in process quality
• Transport parts through assembly process
• Secure parts

Sorting Parts

Feasibility Go/No Go Gauge Visual Inspection Weight Scale No Sorting Tunnel of Nominal Dimensions Cost and Time Feasibility

4 3 3 5 4

Meets Requirements

4 5 2 5 4

Weighted Feasibility

16 15 6 25 16

• No sorting received the highest weighted feasibility score of 25

Feeding Parts

Feasibility Manual Carry Rollers Hopper Conveyor Belt Cost and Time Feasibility

5 4 4 3

Meets Requirements

3 4 4 5

Weighted Feasibility

15 16 16 15

Transform/Orient Parts

Feasibility Manually Vibrating Platform + go/no-go tunnel Vibratory Bowl Feeder Flipper Cost and Time Feasibility 5 2 2 3 Meets Requirements 3 5 4 4 Weighted Feasibility 15 10 8 12

Insert Cams

Feasibility Manually Robotic Arm “Gun Barrel” “Cam Feeder” Cost and Time Feasibility

5 1 4 4

Meets Requirements

2 4 5 3

Weighted Feasibility

10 4 20 12

Rotate Cams

Feasibility Rotating fixture

• cam

Manually Drill-like tool Rotating fixture

• carrier

Created tool Cost and Time Feasibility

3 5 3 4 5

Meets Requirements

4 3 4 3 3

Weighted Feasibility

12 15 12 12 15

Fasten Lock to Assembly

Feasibility Manually “Staple gun” “Guided Lock Punch” Cost and Time Feasibility 5 3 2 Meets Requirements 3 4 5 Weighted Feasibility 15 12 10

Inspection/In Process Quality

Feasibility Sensors Visual Go/No-go Gauge Cost and Time Feasibility 3 5 4 Meets Requirements 3 5 3 Weighted Feasibility 9 25 12

Transport Through Assembly Process

Feasibility Manual Rollers Conveyor belt Rotary Index Table Cost and Time Feasibility 5 4 3 2 Meets Requirements 3 4 5 4 Weighted Feasibility 15 16 15 8

Securing Parts

Feasibility Fixture/Vice Shields Pneumatic Arms Cost and Time Feasibility

4 4 2

Meets Requirements

4 5 4

Weighted Feasibility

16 20 8

Automated Process Flowchart

Process Improvements

Current State:

• Entire assemblies built individually
• Multiple sets of parts per table
• Bin for finished parts for each

assembler

• 1-bin system: full finished parts bin (63

pcs) emptied onto weight scale

• ~30 second cycle time
• Room for improvement and standard

work

Process Improvements

Proposed state: Assembly line

Process Flow Process Improvements

• Assembly lines of 3

people

• Parts move in single

stream

• 1-2 tasks of a complete

assembly per person

• ~4-5 second takt time
• Improved parts

presentation

• Two-bin system
• Standard work &

procedures

• Assembly tool

utilization

Process Improvements

Operator #3

Fasten lock & place in finished parts bin

Operator #2 Rotate cam in carrier Operator #1 Place cam in carrier

Process Improvements

Full bin is collected and empty bin pulled forward Full bin brought to scale and parts are removed Empty bin brought back to assembly area and put behind

• ther bin

1 2 3

Two-bin system Benefits:

• Allows assembly to continue

while foreman is occupied

• Reduces waiting time
• Increases throughput

Parts Presentation

• Reduces cycle time
• Proper parts presentation supports efficient assembly operations
• Example: Cam and carrier presentation
• Improves consistency and standard work

Assembly Tool

• Implement tool for rotating the cam in the carrier
• Observed significant variation for this task in both how its done and task time
• One operator used a make-shift tool to rotate the cam and resulted in faster cycle times
• Make new standard for use a tool to rotate cam

Process Improvements

Current Process Flowchart

Process Improvement Flowchart

Process Improvements

Proposed state flow Current state flow

Process Improvements - Demonstration

Process Improvement – Results

Setup Cycle time (s)

• No. of
• perators

System Throughput (parts/minute)

• Assy. Line - Sorted parts

3 3 20

• Assy. Line - Non-sorted parts

4 3 15 Current state 30 3 6 4 8 5 10 6 12 7 14 8 16 9 18 10 20 12 24

Compare todays process producing 20 parts/minute or 3 second takt time:

3 second takt time

• 70%

workforce

Partial Automation Results

If partial automation is chosen, operators would still be required, thus the system takt time is constrained by operator cycle time Auto Process 1 Insert/rotate cam in carrier 2.5 s Auto Process 1 2 System takt time: 5 s Fasten lock in carrier

• No. of operators

System takt time Required automated process takt time 1 5.0 s 5 s 2 2.5 s 2.5 s 3 1.67 s 1.67 s

Risk Assessment

Automated System

Risk Assessment

Implementing Process Improvements

Next Phase

• Meet with

Subject Matter Expert

• Prototyping
• Test simulations
• Preliminary

drawings of design

• Bill of Materials

Questions/Feedback