memo - edgeedge.rit.edu/edge/p10008/public/concept design review.docx · web viewalter assembly...

KGCOE MSDI Concept Design ReviewP10008: ArcWorks Fill Vent Closure Line Improvement

Meeting Purpose:

Initial overview of project.

Validate customer needs and specifications

Review sonic weld test fixture concepts and confirm functionality

Review rubber cap assembly station fixture design and confirm functionality

Generate further ideas through review of materials

Materials Reviewed:

• Assembly Line Layout

Customer Needs Table

Engineering Specification Table

Pugh Concept Selection Process and Selected Concept

High Level System Diagram

Risk Analysis

Meeting Date: January 15, 2010 from 10:30AM to 12:00PM room 09-1515

Meeting Timeline

Start Time Discussion Topics

10:30 Project introduction

10:35 Overview of Layout

10:40 Initial Observations

10:45 Customer Needs Table

10:50 Engineering Specification Table

11:00 Preliminary Concepts for Leak Test Station

11:05 Pugh Concept Selection for Leak Test Station

11:10 Air Flow Diagrams for Finalists

11:15 Risk Assessment of Finalists

11:20 Discussion of Finalists

KGCOE MSD of 15 Technical Review

Meeting Timeline

Start Time Discussion Topics

11:30 Pugh Concept Selection for Rubber Cap Assembly

11:35 Hand Tool Concept and Risks

11:40 Discussion of Concept

11:50 Project Risks

11:55 Project Gantt Chart

Senior Design Project Data Sheet

Project # Project Name Project Track Project Family10008 ArcWorks Cap Tube

AssemblyAssistive Devices Biomedical Systems and

Technology

Start Term Team Guide Faculty Consultant Doc. Revision20101 Dr. Marshall Sanjay Palit Orig.

Project Description:

Project Background:The Fill Vent Closure line is located at

ArcWorks of Monroe County. Currently, the assembly line has room for major improvement, primarily in the current testing of the integrity of the ultrasonic weld performed on site. The weld connects the threaded portion of the cap to the actual tube assembly. The current test utilizes a container filled with water and compressed air, this process is very time consuming and labor intensive. In addition, there are secondary assembly and packaging steps.

Problem Statement:The primary goal of this project is to

design a fixture that can consistently and accurately test the integrity of the weld on the cap assembly. This fixture will utilize the current resources available at ArcWorks, but will use a

simpler indicator for leaks than the current water set up. In addition, a device for applying rubber caps to the tube assembly that is easier to handle and more ergonomic is to be designed. Any other modifications to the assembly line process that increases efficiency and daily output will be implemented.

Objectives/ Scope:• Improve system that tests integrity of weld.• Ensure accurate and consistent testing.• Improve method of attaching rubber caps.• Expedite product assembly and packaging.• Alter assembly line process to improve

functionality.

Deliverables:• Design fixture to test weld integrity.• Design device to attach rubber caps.


• Test fixture for reliability and troubleshooting.

• Documentation for improvements to process.

Expected Project Benefits:The primary goals of the deliverables are

to expedite the assembly line process of the cap tube assembly.

Core Team Members:• Adam Janicki• Andrew Lawlor• Chris Somers• John Zeffer

Strategy & Approach

Assumptions & Constraints

The team must construct a robust system to test the integrity of the weld, utilizing the current resources available at ArcWorks and remain within budget limits. The test system must be intuitive enough to use so that current operators need little or no training. In addition, team must maintain current space constraints.

Issues & Risks

• Design system to allow current operators to use fixture with little training

• System must have simple indications for pass/failure

Work Breakdown Structure

Current Layout


Customer Needs

Customer Specifications Table


KGCOE MSDI Concept Design ReviewP10008: ArcWorks Fill Vent Closure Line ImprovementConcepts for Leak Test Station


Single Fixture VacuumPress Tester

Lever Pressurizer

Double Fixture Vacuum

Threaded Pressure Fixture

Table Air Pressure Tester

KGCOE MSDI Concept Design ReviewP10008: ArcWorks Fill Vent Closure Line ImprovementRound 1

Round 2


ConceptsA B

Lever PressurizerSelection Criteria

Water Pressure Test

Air Flow Diagrams

Press Tester Diagram

Single Fixture Vacuum Diagram


3D Representation of the Press Tester and Single Fixture Vacuum

Press Tester Risks

ID Risk Item Effect Cause

Likelihood

Severity

Importance Action to Minimize Risk Owner

1Operator fails to place cap on fixture correctly

Air escapes from under cap, test would fail.

Deformation of top or improper instruction.

2 3 6 Grooves on fixture make improper placement difficult

Drew

2

Operator fails to keep cap on fixture for whole duration of test

The test may fail with gap between fixture and cap.

The force to hold cap on fixture is too strong.

2

3 6Test turns off since plate is no longer initiating the test and pressing button. John

3

Pressure of air is stronger than operator is able to press on fixture.

Possibility of cap coming off of fixture.

Air pressure is set to high or settings were changed. 1 3 3

Keep maximum air pressure limited with a dial on fixture. Adam

4

Leak is detected from operator pulling cap off prematurely. Test turns off.

Initiation is no longer achieved since the plate is not down. 3 1 3

Test will turn off since plate is no longer initiating the test and pressing button. Chris

5

Manufacturer changes pressure required to test cap.

Current air pressure is no longer adequate.

System was set to only one pressure. 2 3 6

Have dial on side of fixture to change test pressure. Drew

Single Fixture Vacuum Risk


i Risk Item Effect Cause

Pugh Concept Selection for Rubber Cap Assembly

Round 1

Round 2


ConceptsA B C

Selection Criteria

Hand Assembly

Vacuum Suction Assembly

Use of Hammer in assembly

DDrill Press Cap

Assembly

Hand Tool Concept and Risks

i Risk Item Effect Cause

Like

lihoo

d

Seve

rity

Impo

rtan

ce

Action to Minimize Risk

1

The handtool doesn't work

The output does not change

The rubber stoppers aren't going on the tubes

2 3 6

Make the design so that the handtool puts the rubber stoppers on each time

2

The collar pinches the operator

Injury to the operator

When collar is depressed on the handtool the operator's finger is pinched in the collar

2 2 4

Make the tool long enough for the operator's hand to fit properly on the tool and away from the moving piece

3

The rubber stopper doesn't fit in the designed collar

The stoppers cannot be placed on the tubes by the handtool

The rubber stoppers are different sizes 2 3 6

Make adaptable parts for each size rubber stopper

4

The handtool does not make the process faster than the previous method

The output does not improve

It is a slower process than manually placing each cap

1 3 3

Make sure the tool is a quicker solution to the capping process



ID Risk Item Effect Cause

Like

lihoo

d

Seve

rity

Impo

rtan

ce Action to Minimize Risk Owner

1

Sensors fail to indicate leak in ultrasonic weld.

A bad part gets to customer.

Sensor is not accurate enough for scope of job. 2 2 4

Purchase sensors that are accurate and precise enough to catch any leaks that may occur in the ultrasonic welding process.

Chris

2

Parts for design do not come on time or are incorrect.

Causes delays in project time line subsequently causing tardiness of the project.

Supplier company making an error.

2 3 6

Call company and double check the order and status of the parts.

Drew

3

Customer changes specifications.

Project gets delayed due to new specifications.

Customers customer changes specifications. 2 2 4

Keep close connections with customer and create design that is flexible to many scenarios.

Drew

4

Design fails to complete customer specifications.

Project not implemented and project failed.

No close understanding of customer specifications of needs.

2 3 6

Keep contact with customer on all changes and design possibilities.

Drew

5

Gantt chart for project plan is incorrect.

Project gets behind and team fails to deliver project on time.

Team does not take time to make a detailed Gantt chart.

1 1 1

Meet as a team and spend time together ensuring a complete and thorough Gantt chart.

Team

6

Customer changes project timeline.

Project gets behind and team fails to deliver project on time.

Unknown customer changes

1 2 2

Stay in contact at all times with customer to ensure any changes will be known immediately.

Drew

7

Budget is cut. Design must be changed to accommodate a different set of parts.

Funding is unavailable at a certain time. 1 2 2

Keep in contact with guide to ensure budget stays steady.

Team

8

Team does not order items with a long lead-time at appropriate time.

Project gets behind. Not being detailed when ordering parts. 2 2 4

Have one team member be in charge and responsible for ordering parts to ensure the long lead-time parts are ordered on time.

John

9

Design does not work as originally intended.

Must re-design a fixture and still be under budget.

Tightens budget and can cause lateness in the project.

2 2 4

Team must do research and meet with company to thoroughly understand design concept.

Adam

10

Operators do not find design easy to

Failure on deliverables

Team not communicating 2 2 4

Meet with operators and supervisors to ensure

Team


use. with operators to ensure good design.

they are involved in the design process.

12

Cup isn’t always secured while test is being conducted

Not a sufficient test could send a defective part to customer.

Design does not create a singular method to test product

2 2 4

Effectively design so that test can only be performed with a secure hold in place.

Chris

13

Pressure standards change

Design may become obsolete

Pressure needs to change due to testing standards

1 2 2Design the ability to change the pressure of the testing device

Chris

14

Product changes Design may become obsolete

Product needs to change due to industry standards

2 2 4Design the ability to change the interface of the testing device

Chris

15

Lots of custom parts General maintenance becomes too expensive

Design is over complicated 1 2 2

Make the design with common parts

Adam

16

The pass/fail indication is not simple enough

Operator is not sure what the device is telling them

Pass/fail indication is more complex than it needs to be 1 2 2

Keep the design a Boolean level of complexity

Adam

17

The total operation of test has too many steps

The total run time of the capping system increases

Operation adds more steps to the process

3 2 6Operation of system should be limited to 4 total steps

Team

18

The group’s ability to meet together

The team may fall behind deadlines

Group member’s schedules do not coincide appropriately

1 2 2

Make a set time beforehand to meet so that the team will not schedule something during that set time.

Drew

19

The device does not meet requirements

Customer cannot use device in process

Design/Build fails to meet requirements 2 2 4

Make sure design falls within requirements and build to match the design inside of the tolerance

John

20

Team falls behind schedule

Device is not finished before end of the spring quarter

The team does not meet and schedule well enough to complete job

1 2 2

Project manager makes sure schedules are set and deliverables are completed on, or ahead, of schedule

Drew

21

Device does not speed up overall process

The device acts more of a hindrance than a benefit for the customer

Device may have too many steps, be too complicated or just runs slowly

3 2 6

Make sure design of device will increase the production of the end product

Chris

22

Space is not utilized Device gets in the way of other steps in production

Device is oversized and takes more space than originally given

1 2 2

Design a device that is small enough to fit in an area predetermined by the customer

Adam

23

Need outside help to finish

Spend money for another company to finish device

Team is too far behind schedule

2 2 4 Plan accordingly so the team stays on track to complete the device by the 5th week of spring quarter

Drew



Project Gantt Chart for MSDI


memo - edgeedge.rit.edu/edge/p10008/public/concept design review.docx · web viewalter assembly...

Documents