redesign of the cabinet system for dryerspaul/vefinalmabe.pdf · 2011. 11. 29. · 1950, mabe began...

MCGILL UNIVERSITY

Redesign of the Cabinet System for Dryers

Presented to: MABE Canada This report is compiled by McGill University’s Value Engineering Team for MABE Canada. By applying principles of Value Engineering, the team managed to generate proposals in order to help MABE Canada improve the value of their dryer’s cabinet system.

VALUE ENGINEERING TEAM MEMBERS

Daniel Mok

Wahaj Aslam

Sabih Fayyaz

Adrien Gerbe

Benjamin Harris

Chulhyuk Chang

11/21/2011

of 51

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The project which was brought to us by Mabe Canada was to reduce the costs of the dryer subsystem called ‘the cabinet system’. The objective was to reduce the overall costs by reducing material cost, labour costs and manufacturing time by applying value engineering methodology. At the same time, quality, reliability, safety, and performance needed to be improved.

Two engineers from Mabe Canada, who attended our sessions, assisted us during our meetings. They were essential in providing information, especially during the organization phase and functional analysis. In order to have a solid understanding of the assembly process, our group also visited the manufacturing plant. After applying value engineering methodology, 18 proposals were introduced.

After in‐depth analysis on each components and evaluating financial and design constraints and consultation with our clients, our team introduced final proposals which are feasible with the lowest investment and risk and the highest saving. By introducing our proposals, it is estimated that Mabe will be able to save around 100,000 ‐ 200,000 per year while improving reliability, quality and serviceability of the products.

of 51

Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Methodology................................................................................................................................................. 4

Organization Phase ................................................................................................................................... 5

Study ..................................................................................................................................................... 5

Goals ..................................................................................................................................................... 5

Scope and Limits ................................................................................................................................... 5

Team members ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Information Phase..................................................................................................................................... 6

Function and Cost Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 7

Functional Analysis................................................................................................................................7

Cost Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 8

Creativity session ...................................................................................................................................... 9

Ideas proposed during the brainstorming session .............................................................................10

Evaluation and Development phase .......................................................................................................12

Proposed Solutions .....................................................................................................................................13

Solution Scenarios.......................................................................................................................................36

Cost Reductions ......................................................................................................................................36

Reducing Assembly Time/Complexity.....................................................................................................36

Maximizing Performance ........................................................................................................................36

Cost‐Merit Analysis .....................................................................................................................................37

Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................37

APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................................................40

FAST Diagram............................................................................................................................................ 1

Functional Criteria Diagram ...................................................................................................................... 1

Cost Breakdown ......................................................................................................................................48

of 51

Introduction Mabe is global company which designs, produces and distributes appliances to more than 70 countries around the world. Mabe started out as a small kitchen manufacturing shop in Mexico City in 1946. In 1950, Mabe began manufacturing various appliances such as gas ranges and refrigerators. In 1986, Mabe entered into a joint venture with General Electric to produce appliances for the U.S. market. The collaboration between Mabe and GE led to strong sales for both companies and by the middle of 1990s more than 65% of all gas ranges and refrigerators imported into the United States were designed and manufactured by Mabe in Mexico. In 2005, Mabe acquired Camco to consolidate its continental operations. This led to the formation of Mabe Canada.

In the last two decades, Mabe’s sales have increased from $ 100 million USD to $ 2700 million USD. The strong financial performance is primarily due to expansion in Latin America, United States and Canada. In 1983, the company sold nearly 2300 million units. Today the magnitude of sales is hovering around 13,600 million units. Mabe has a strong presence in each of markets across North and South America. Mabe boasts a 17% market share in Canada and a staggering 47% market share in Mexico.

Mabe Canada manufactures cloth dryers with two capacities 6 cubic feet and 7 cubic feet. Our goal in this project is to learn and apply the principles of Values Engineering to reduce the cost of cabinet system within the cloth dryer. While proposing new ideas to reduce cost, we must ensure the high quality of cloth dryers manufactured by Mabe. This means that we need to make sure that our final proposals are not only practical from an engineering point of view but also comply with various industry regulations. In addition, our proposals should be able to facilitate maintenance in an easy manner. At Mabe, special attention is paid to customer safety. Customer safety should be one of our main priorities during the design and implementation of any ideas to reduce the cost of cabinet system.

Mabe Canada is a market leader for cloth dryers. However, the long term sustainability of this position depends on their ability to continuously reduce costs and increase sales and profits in a competitive market environment yet providing customers with a top quality product.

of 51

Methodology The following Value Engineering Job Plan was used to outline a strategic approach to problem solving:

1. Organization Phase

2. Information Phase

3. Function and Cost Analysis

4. Creativity Phase

5. Evaluation Phase

6. Development Phase

of 51

Organization Phase The objectives of this phase are to:

• State the objective of the study and reasons for it • Define goals and stakes • Define scope and limits • Identify constraints, means, team members and duration

Study The objective of this study is to reduce costs of the dryer subsystem called ‘the cabinet system’ in order to reduce material cost, reduce labour costs and manufacturing time, facilitate assembly while improving quality, reliability and structural integrity. By understanding the functions of all cabinet system components, different parts can be integrated into fewer pieces, new assembly process can be introduced and new material can be used. This process will ultimately lead to reduced material cost, reduced labour cost, optimized assembly process, improved quality, reliability and serviceability. This cost reduction will give our client not only increased profit but also its competitiveness. Further it will boost our client’s market share.

Goals Reduce the cost of the dryer by:

• Redefining the function of each component

• Looking for an alternative design of components

• Finding alternative assembly mechanism

• Looking for an alternative material

• Facilitating assembly process

Scope and Limits • Must be kept within the scope of the VE course

• Should not lower the performance of the dryer

• Price reduction

• Should not undermine safety of the dryer

• Satisfy all safety regulations.

Team members • Daniel Mok

• Sabih Fayyaz

• Wahaj Aslam

• Adrien Gerbe

• Benjamin Harris

• Chulhyuk Chang

of 51

Information Phase Like every project, the first step is always to gather information. With the objectives in mind, the team managed to extract some useful information through various methods. The team was introduced with the actual parts of the cabinet system so that they can be analysed and evaluated in order to come up with some modifications. Also, it gave a better understanding of what the company reps were trying to tell us. Further detailed information was provided by the clients through CAD drawings and the working pictures of different parts of the dryer. This enabled us to visualize how each component is attached to the dryer. The CAD drawings proved quite useful when selecting new components or parts for the cabinet system.

Since changes were imminent to the system, the company reps also provided an agency requirements file including different requirements which need to be met in order for a new system to be installed. An example of one requirement is for grounding, where at least one screw is required to attach any component in order to achieve safety and reduce the risk of electrocution. This became a basis of each idea proposed.

The team also visited the company’s assembly plant, to get a better understanding of the assembly time and processes which take place in order to assemble the dryers. Through this, the number of workers required for a particular task, (e.g. attaching the door assembly to the front cabinet), was analysed. Also the total assembly time for the complete dryer was also noted. Since there was a constraint on making major modifications to the system, the only way to go about the project was mostly based around the reduction in assembly time and/or the number of workers assigned to a particular task.

Some of the concerns came up regarding the change in the material of some parts of the system. In order to look into this, temperature profile graphs were also provided which enabled the team to select a different material if any, based on those graphs.

Finally, the cost break‐down was provided in percentages which were used to evaluate any new idea proposed, to check for a profit or a loss. This also helped the team to go through the function and cost analysis phase which is discussed in the next section.

of 51

Function and Cost Analysis

Functional Analysis The functional analysis phase is the first step towards analyzing the information gathered in the previous phase. By dissecting the problem into its simplest form, we can better determine how to improve the value. During the Value Engineering workshop, functions were described using a verb and a quantifiable noun. This kept the functions clear and simple. It also helped to reduce confusion when analyzing which functions the solutions must fulfill. The function analysis procedure utilized 6 approaches to determine all the possible functions:

1. Intuitive Research This method utilizes the existing knowledge and instinct of the group to identify functions which the dryer cabinet performs.

2. Environmental Analysis By considering the interaction between the dryer cabinet and the surrounding environment in which it must perform, more functions were determined.

3. Sequential Analysis

Describing the entire process of using the dryer, functions were established based on the actions which the cabinet must perform.

4. Standards and Regulation Since the dryers are designed under CSA, UL and GE standards, constraints and limitations on functions were identified.

After aggregating all the functions, they were organized into a FAST Diagram. This technique utilizes a tree in which all the functions are placed. They are organized according to the diagram below.

Function Why ? How ?

FAST Diagram Organization Method

Moving from left to right, the question “How?” is asked to get from one function to another. Similarly, going backwards, the question “Why?” should be answered by the subsequent function. On the furthest right side, the solution for the function is provided. On the far left side, the main purpose of the product was found to be “Attract Customer”.

of 51

Cost Analysis From the information phase, the client provided a percentage breakdown in terms of cost for each component. Then, by assuming a total cost of $50 per unit for the 7 cubic ft. model, the price of each component was calculated. This can be seen in the Cost Breakdown Table. From these prices, the information was used for a Cost‐Function Analysis.

This tool is important for determining if any cost mismatches are present. A cost mismatch occurs when the amount of money invested in a function does not align with the importance of the function. From the Cost function Analysis, it was seen that there was only one cost mismatch. This occurred in the function of “Facilitate Maintenance” at only $0.11. Since improving the ease of maintenance was one of the goals provided by the client, this could be improved.

of 51

Creativity session One of the most important parts of any Value Engineering session comes when the problem has been clearly defined and the client’s expectations are well known and understood. This is when creativity is needed to bring new ideas to the table. In order to increase the value of any product or project, it is important to try and look at the project from an outside point of view. The creativity of the team will be stimulated in order to come up with more efficient ways to fulfill the client’s requirements and needs.

If the main concern is cost reduction, then every aspect of the project needs to be considered in a monetary way in order to generate cheaper ways to achieve the same or a better result. If the concern is more focused on efficiency and performance, the project has to be seen in a light where efficiency and performance are the most important aspects. And so on for each of the client’s requirements.

Using such a procedure helped stimulate creativity within the team, and led us to proposing over two dozen ideas regarding various components of the dryer’s cabinet, but all related to our client’s main requirement: reducing production costs of the cabinet.

One of the main reasons why we came up with these ideas is because we had a clear understanding of the cabinet as well as what comes into account when considering the production costs. Thanks to a visit of the MABE dryers’ production line, it was a lot easier to visualise the functioning of the dryers as well as the number and the complexity of the steps required to assemble them.

With a better understanding of our problem we started brainstorming about possible ideas to reduce costs while maintaining the same level of performance and safety as the current design. We focused on every part of the cabinet, from the front door assembly to air flow generation, as well as heat insulation and steps required for assembly. Every member of team brought his point of view on the problem and it helped us move forward in idea generation.

With team work and good preparation, we had a successful creativity session and came up with the following 32 ideas, all numbered on the following page.

of 51

Ideas proposed during the brainstorming session 1. Combine top and side panels into one piece

2. Clipping mechanism for front door assembly to front panel

2.1 ‐ Clips made out of plastic

2.2 ‐ Using same clipping mechanism as bottom to side connection

2.3 ‐ Change the hinge design to have two tabs and one screw

2.4 ‐ Slide n’ lock mechanism

3. Combine heat shield with bottom cover in one part (plastic/metal)

4. Change the material for bottom cover and heat shield

5. Combine the rear panel and the back panel

6. Use locking mechanism for top panel instead of screws

7. Change the material for levelling legs

8. Change the coating for the bottom cover

9. Reduce thickness of all the panels

10. Reduce number of screws on the back panel

10.1 ‐ Using same mechanism as bottom/rear panel connection

10.2 ‐ Slide in from side and screw the rest

10.3 ‐ Slide in from side and clip it in

10.4 ‐ Clip it in

11. Door assembly optimization

11.1 ‐ Fold it out in one piece

11.2 ‐ Tab that locks in

11.3 ‐ One piece instead of front and back

12. Combining side panels and base.

13. Combine rear heat shield with rear panel (7 cubic feet)

13.1 ‐ Snap it on

of 51

13.2 ‐ Stamp it in one piece

14. Drum vibration reduction

15. Redirect the heat by insulating the heater on top and eliminating the heat shields

16. Changing orientation of the heating element to have the gap at the top

17. Change the chassis material (thinner existing material?)

18. Eliminate the use of galvanized steel

19. Combining the rear bearing and the heater into one part (Currently in progress)

20. Clip the heater to the rear panel

21. Alternate seal material

22. Alternate door form to get rid of gasket

23. Change the safety switch position (Can be combined with hinge re‐examination, #2)

23.1 ‐ At the top

23.2 ‐ On the hinge side

24. Make the door open from the top to the bottom

25. Clip on for the terminal block cover to eliminate the screw

26. Isolate the harness better to prevent fires

27. Change location of the heater

28. Combine bottom cover with back panel

29. Incorporate the top bearing plastic into the front panel form

30. Viewing window on the front door assembly (research material ***) (exists for Perfect Match platform)

31. Eliminate one of the latches clips

32. Look into the option of automating the transfer of bottom/rear assembly to conveyor belt as to save an operator.

of 51

Evaluation and Development phase When came the time to go over our ideas and see which ones were a more viable alternative, we simply relied on our logic as well as the advices of the two engineers working with us, since they had greater knowledge and experience in this domain.

In order to have a fair evaluation for each of the generated ideas, we decided that every member of the team would go over each idea and say what advantages and disadvantages were found regarding the particular. We were also asked to give a rating from 1 to 10 for each idea, while taking into account feasibility, costs, investments required, and any other aspect related with the implementation of the suggested idea. This rating was mostly based on the “gut” feeling of the team members, to roughly sort through the ideas and see which ones we should spend more time focusing on.

After our initial sorting of the ideas was done, we split different ideas between the team members so we could search and go into more detail of specific concepts and ideas. Through research and problem analysis, we further evaluated each idea, leaving some that seemed unpromising and developing new ones based on initial concepts. Based on discussion with the MABE engineers, we came to the conclusion that certain ideas were not compatible with the facilities and required too great of an investment, but that others were very promising and that prototyping and testing should be done in order to implement these ideas into the actual dryer’s design.

The following pages show the selected proposals in detail. The proposals focus on the four main objectives previously described in the report.

of 51

Proposed Solutions

of 51

Project: Redesign of the cabinet system Prepared By: McGill Value Engineering Team Proposal No: 1 Date: 21st November 2011 Presented to: Mabe Canada Actual Design The door assembly is attached to the front panel by means of two hinges. Each hinge requires four screws to be astened in order to keep the assembly intact. The current design is shown in the picture below: f

aFig: Door assembly ttached by Hinges means of Proposed Design Instead of using the two hinges, two spring plungers can be attached. In order for this to work, two holes (one on

Twotop and one on bottom of the door assembly) will be required. The holes have to be 0.5 inches in diameter in order to press fit the spring plungers. more holes will also be required to be drilled in the front panel to support the spring plungers. Once everything is done, the door can easily be fitted. The spring plunger is shown below along with the drawing. Fig: A typical Spring Plunger Note: All dimensions are in inches Discussion Pros and Cons

• Reduction in assembly time • Reduction in current labour costs • Very little training of staff required • Removal of the 8 screws and the 2 hinges permanently • Satisfactory design life • Minimum time required for implementation • Extra machining for the holes on top and bottom of the door assembly • Extra cost of the spring shaft mechanism • May not agree with the agency’s policy for grounding • Vibrations may occur

Yearly estimates assuming current production of 900,000 dryers per year. Proposal Not Viable

Material Labour Initial Investment Total Current $900,000 $320,000 ‐ $1,220,000 Proposed $2,700,000 $240,000 $1,000 $2,941,000 Difference ($1,800,000) $80,000 ‐ ($1,721,000)

Project: Redesign of the cabinet system Prepared By: McGill Value Engineering Team Proposal No: 2 Date: November 21st 2011 Presented to: Mabe Canada Actual Design The current design uses two metal hinges and 8 screws. The two hinges are screwed to the front door assembly and to the front panel, and are used to allow opening and closing of the door. This arrangement provides a rigid structure that reduces vibrations of the front door and ensures rigidity of the front door.

Fig: Door assembly attached by means of hinges Proposed Design Replace the existing hinges by plastic or metal hinges which would use spring clips to attach to the front door assembly and front panel. The spring clips would be pushed in the holes in the front panel and front door assembly, allowing the parts to be maintained securely in place. The hinges would be made of two parts, a male and a female part that would connect together by pushing it in. The female part would attach to the front panel while the male part would attach to the front door assembly.

Fig: Hinge Assembly

Fig: Male Part of Hinge Fig: Female Part of Hinge

of 51

Discussion

• Feasibility: Not a concern since it only requires new hinges (to be made in‐house or outsourced) and minor modifications of front door assembly and front panel molds to change the holes sizes.

• Assumptions: It is assumed that the new hinges will provide the same level of vibrations dampening as the current ones. It is also assumed that sufficient testing will be made on the hinges to ensure their rigidity and resistance. We assume that the hinges will maintain proper grounding of the front door.

• Pros: Reduced assembly time, elimination of 8 screws, and easier disassembly of front door. • Cons: New hinges more expensive, possible fatigue failure of hinges, complexity of hinge’s manufacturing. • Risks: Possibility that the hinges might come undone under excessive force applied. • Implementation conditions: Modifications of the front door assembly and front panel molds required.

Testing of the hinges is mandatory.

Material Labour Initial Investment Total Current $418,500 $160,000 ‐ $578,500

of 51

Project: Redesign of the cabinet system Prepared By: McGill Value Engineering Team

Proposal No: 3 Date: 21st November 2011 Presented to: MABE Canada Actual Design Current design consists of a standard hinge design requiring 4 screws. Proposed Design By altering the design of the hinge as below, matching slots must be punched in the Front panel. Discussion Feasibility: The change to the tooling will be very reasonable. Since the changes to the hinge tool will be required from the supplier. There is no additional work required by Mabe outside of providing drawings. Assumptions: $0.01 per screw $10,000 initial investment for tool changes Material cost for proposed hinge is the same as original hinge Pros: 4 screws reduced Reduced assembly complexity Reduced assembly time for operator Cons: Requires testing to ensure strength of part Impacts and risks: Further communication will be needed with the supplier to ensure material cost does not change.

of 51

Cost Summary Material Labour Initial Investment Total Original Cost $342,000 $80,000 ‐ $422,000 Proposed Cost $306,000 $80,000 $10,000 $386,000 Savings $36,000 $0 ‐ $36,000

Yearly estimates assuming current production of 900,000 dryers per year. Proposal Viable

of 51

Project: Redesign of the cabinet system Prepared By: McGill Value Engineering Team Proposal No: 4 Date: November 21st 2011 Presented to: Mabe Canada Actual Design The front door assembly is currently made of an inner and outer door section. They are held together by the screws used to attach the hinges to the front door assembly on one side, and simple screws on the other side. The door handle as well as plastic gaskets are added to the respective outer and inner door sections independently of the door assembly.

Fig: Front Door Assembly Proposed Design Couple the inner and outer door section to make it out of one stamped piece. The parts would be similar except for the fact that a metal tab would link the inner and outer door sections. Once the piece is stamped, it will be folded in two to create the same front door assembly as the one currently used. The gasket as well as door handle can be installed the same way they currently are.

Fig: New One‐Piece Front Door

of 51

Discussion

• Feasibility: Investigation needed regarding feasibility of part bending and tooling investments. • Assumptions: We are assuming that the tooling changes will be relatively minimal and that there will be

no space restrictions since the new part will be twice as big as the previous parts. • Pros: Reduced assembly time, elimination of 4 screws, and easier assembly of front door. • Cons: New tooling required, new part would take up more space • Risks: Possibility that the tooling changes might be too expensive. • Implementation conditions: New tooling required. Would be ideal if implemented in parallel with

proposal 2. • Alternative: Consider the possibility of having dents on inner door section. It would secure the inner and

outer door sections without the need for screws. Would be as efficient as this proposal in reducing assembly time.


Material Labour Initial Investment Total Current $0 $160,000 ‐ $160,000 Proposed $0 $80,000 $40,000 $80,000 Difference $0 $80,000 ‐ $80,000

of 51


Proposal No: 5 Date: 21st November 2011 Presented to: MABE Canada Actual Design The original design includes a planar bottom‐cover with a stainless steel heat‐shield placed on top. The purpose of the heat shield is to reduce the exposure of electrical wiring to intense heat generated within the dryer and prevent melting of wire insulation. The contact surface of the heat shield is at a lower temperature than the bottom‐cover. This allows the electrical wiring to be maintained at a relatively lower temperature during operation and thus, serves to protect the wiring from excessive heating. Proposed Design An alternative design would be to eliminate the heat‐shield placed on top of bottom‐cover. This could be achieved by covering the required area of bottom‐cover with a thermal insulation sheet/pad.

Implementation For this proposal, the thermal insulation sheet would be shaped into a (4” X 8”) rectangular piece with simple machining tools. The thermal insulation sheet could be easily shaped with simple metal working tools that are most of the time already in use at the manufacturing facility. The rectangular piece could then be fixed on the bottom‐cover with the help of an industrial adhesive such as glue. Discussion Pros

• Reduction in machining cost to manufacture the heat‐shield • Reduction in labor cost to machine heat shield • Reduction in raw material cost required to build the shield • Reduction in installation time • Low Thermal Conductivity (0.27 W/m.K for thermal insulation sheet compared to ~16 W/m.K for

Stainless Steel) • Reduction in heat Loss • Helps Control Temperature • Easily shaped to required size

Cons

• Initial investment required to provide the operator with suitable training • Machining cost to cut thermal insulation sheet of proper size • Labor cost incurred to machine sheet of appropriate size • Additional cost to purchase the glue required to paste the sheet on the bottom‐cover

of 51

Cost Analysis • All costs are in Canadian Dollars

Material Labour Initial Investment Total Current Cost (6cu. ft) $ 187,200 NA NA $ 187,200 Current Cost (7cu. ft) $ 340,200 NA NA $ 340,200 Proposed Cost (6cu. ft) $ 1,501,200 NA NA $ 1,501,200 Proposed Cost (7cu. ft) $ 2,251,800 NA NA $ 2,251,800 Savings (6cu. ft) $ (1,314,000) NA NA $ (1,314,000) Savings (7cu .ft) $ (1,911,600) NA NA $ (1,911,600)

Yearly estimates assuming current production of 900,000 dryers per year. Technical Specification Sheet

Proposal Not Viable

of 51


Proposal No: 6 Date: 21st November 2011 Presented to: MABE Canada Actual Design The bottom‐cover is covered with E‐Coat to prevent corrosion and increase durability of the bottom‐cover. In its essence, the E‐Coat consists of two coats: Vectrogard (900 Gray) and Vectrogard (900 Emulsion). Through these coats a film is built over complex and sharp metal shapes to reduce their sharpness and thus, the likelihood to injure the operator. This enables us to increase the safety. Proposed Design A suitable alternative to the E‐Coat would be to coat the bottom‐cover with POR‐20‐Aluminum paint.

Fig: POR‐20 Heat Resistant Paint

Discussion Feasibility Any alternative to the E‐Coat must be able to resist corrosion, reduce sharp edges and be functional in the for temperature range of 300 – 500 F. The POR‐20‐Aluminum finish is able to resist corrosion. It helps to reduce sharp edges and helps maintain the high safety standard of the product. Finally, the paint is able to function at extreme temperatures of up to 1400. Therefore, it would be a suitable choice to replace the E‐Coat. Pros

• Reduces painting costs as only one coat would be need of POR‐20 compared to the two coats required by the E‐Coat

• Resists weather, salt and moisture • Resists corrosion • Prevents cracking, chipping, peeling

Cons

• Relatively lower ability to reduce sharp edges compared to E‐Coat

Cost Analysis • All values are in Canadian Dollars

Material Labour Initial Investment Total Current (6 cu. ft) $ 4320 NA NA $ 4320 Current (7 cu. ft) $ 8100 NA NA $ 8100 Proposal (6 cu. ft) $ 435,600 NA NA $ 435,600 Proposal (7 cu. ft) $718,200 NA NA $718,200 Savings (6 cu. ft) $ (432,000) NA NA $ (432,000) Savings (7 cu. ft) $ (707,400) NA NA $ (707,400)


of 51


Proposal No: 7 Date: 21st November 2011 Presented to: Mabe Canada Actual Design Multiple screws used to attach back panel to side panels. Multiple screws mean higher production costs and a longer production time. At least one screw is still needed for grounding considerations. Proposed Design Reduce number of screws to minimum required by UL 2158. This can be done by using slots in the side panels, where the back panel can enter and using one screw on the other side to attach the other side of the back panel, while meeting the grounding requirements. Discussion Pros and Cons

• Reduced labour • Reduced Screws • Easier Assembly / Disassembly • May not be as durable, resulting in higher maintenance

costs • Depending on design, may result in more difficult

disassembly • Need to put side panels on first on assembly line

Cost Calculations: Cost of implementing new design, including reorganisation of the assembly line (side panels must be installed first). Cost associated with adding snap‐fits to back panel, or tracks on side panels. Calculation of Savings: Could result in reduction of 1 operator on assembly line, who used to install side panels into the chassis (1 person = $80,000). Reduced number of screws (1 cent/screw*#of screws removed*# of machines produced each year). Increased productivity on line.

• Feasibility: May be of concern depending on the ability to redesign assembly process. Need for the installation of side panels before attaching the rear panel

• Assumptions: It is assumed that the new design will meet grounding requirements as well as stand up to current levels of rigidity.

• Risks: Possibility that the back panel may come off with failure of screw.

Material Labour Initial Investment Total Current $144,000 $160,000 ‐ $304,000 Proposed $36,000 $80,000 ‐ $116,000 Difference $108,000 $80,000 ‐ $188,000


Figure 1: Back Panel

of 51

Project: Redesign of the cabinet system Prepared By: McGill Value Engineering Team Proposal No: 8 Date: November 21st 2011 Presented to: Mabe Canada Actual Design The back panel is currently attached to the control panel using 6 screws. The control panel and side supports plastic molds are comprised of holes to allow screw attachment. This arrangement allows for sufficient vibration dampening as well as proper grounding due to the screw (circled in yellow).

Fig: Back Panel Attachment

Proposed Design Modify the plastic molds for the control panel and side supports by incorporating a plastic clip that would clip in the back panel. Modify the back panel mold by increasing holes sizes to allow the plastic clips to attach. The plastic clip system is currently used to attach wiring to the rear panel, which means it would require only slight modifications to adapt to the proposed situation. The middle screw at the bottom of the back panel (circled in yellow above) will have to be kept to ensure proper grounding of the back panel.

Represents the location of the current screw holes, and where the plastic clips above would be incorporated.

Figs: Plastic clips

of 51

Discussion

• Feasibility: Depends on the current plastic injection tooling available, as well as the cost of modifications to be done to the current molds.

• Assumptions: It is assumed that the plastic clips will provide sufficient vibration dampening. It is also assumed that it will be possible to mold the plastic clips directly on the existing parts by modifying the molds.

• Pros: Reduced assembly time, elimination of 5 screws, easier disassembly of back panel, no possible loss of screws.

• Cons: New plastic injection molds required for the parts, failure of the clips would result in no support for the back panel.

• Risks: If the clips were to fail, there would be no way to maintain the back panel attached. • Implementation conditions: Modifications of the control panel and side supports plastic molds required.

Modification of the back panel mold required. Fatigue testing of the clips required.

Yearly estimates assuming current production of 900,000 dryers per year. 1 Estimated weight of plastic clip: 0.382g Price of resin (flexible PVC): $0.865/lb2 5 plastic clips and 1 screw: (0.382*5*0.865*0.0022 + 0.01)*900,000 ≈ $12,300/year 2 http://www.ides.com/resinpricing/Secondary.aspx Proposal Viable

Material Labour Initial Investment Total Current $54,000 $160,000 ‐ $214,000 Proposed $12,3001 $80,000 $40,000 $92,300 Difference $41,700 $80,000 ‐ $121,700

of 51


Proposal No: 9 Date: 21st November 2011 Presented to: Mabe Canada Actual Design The back panel and bottom cover are currently separate pieces. Proposed Design Make both the back panel and bottom cover out of a single piece of metal. This is then pressed into the proper shape. The bottom cover must still withstand heat and isolate components. The new piece must also prevent electrocution, reduce sharp edges and resist corrosion. Finally, the part must disassemble easily. Discussion Pros and Cons

• Reduced material (hardware/screws) • Reduced labour • Improved grounding • Reduced Complexity • Higher initial costs • Weaker design at bend (higher stress in that

area) • Difficult assembly

Cost Calculations: Cost associated with introducing new die, storage and transportation of larger parts. Calculation of Savings: Reduction of 1 operator in assembly line for installation of bottom cover and back panel ($80,000). Reduced number of screws (1 cent/screw*#of screws removed*# of machines produced each year). Increased productivity on line.

• Feasibility: May be of concern considering the back panel does not have an E‐coat, whereas the high initial costs associated with implementing large dyes, as well as, transporting large pieces of sheet metal during manufacturing process

• Assumptions: It is assumed that the new piece will resist corrosion, and dissipate heat to the same ability as previous design. It is also assumed that it will meet all grounding requirements.

• Risks: Higher risk of worse dissipation of heat • Implementation conditions: Necessitates new dyes for customized piece, also need same back panel for 6

cubic feet and 7 cubic feet models.


Material Labour Initial Investment Total Current $36,000 $160,000 ‐ $196,000 Proposed $0 $80,000 $40,000 $80,000 Difference $36,000 $80,000 ‐ $116,000

of 51


Proposal No: 10 Date: 21st November 2011 Presented to: Mabe Canada Actual Design Side panels and chassis are each separate pieces in the assembly. A worker connects the side panels to the chassis. No screws are used. Proposed Design Have a die that can make the chassis and side panels into one piece. Then fold up side panels into proper shape. Chassis and side panels must comply with minimum thickness of materials as stated by UL 2158. The new part must still enclose all components, reduce heat and prevent electrocution. The new part must also resist corrosion, noise and vibrations. It is also important that it resist denting and retain its colour and texture. Discussion Pros and Cons

• Reduction in material • Reduced labour • Reduced complexity • Reduced Complexity • May result in weaker design, less rigidity • Initial costs for new die • Storing Large pieces of metal in factory • Higher replacement costs

Cost Calculations: Increased initial costs associated with new die, storage and transportation of larger parts. Calculation of Savings: Could result in reduction of 1 person on assembly line, who used to install side panels into the chassis. (1 person = $80,000). Increased productivity on line (based on reduction of time needed to produce 1 dryer)

• Feasibility: May be of concern considering the high initial costs associated with implementing large dyes, as well as, transporting large pieces of sheet metal during manufacturing process

• Assumptions: It is assumed that the new piece will resist corrosion, scratches and dissipate heat to the same ability as previous design.

• Risks: Greater risk of high maintenance costs • Implementation conditions: Necessitates remodelling of assembly line, where side panels are installed

before back panel.


Material Labour Initial Investment Total Current ‐ $160,000 ‐ $160,000 Proposed ‐ $80,000 $60,000 $80,000 Difference ‐ $80,000 ‐ $80,000

Figure 2: Chassis and Side Panels

of 51


Proposal No: 11 Date: 21st November 2011 Presented to: MABE Canada Actual Design Currently levelling feet for dryers are produced on site. Although these parts do not cost much (0.72% of the total cost) they play significant roles as they ensure levelness of the dryer, reduce vibration and noise, provide stability to guarantee performance and lastly distribute weight evenly. Although this small part do not have high stake in the production cost, lowering the cost will be overall beneficial. Current cabinet system employ industrial grade nylon 6/6, 33% fibreglass, heat stabilized and lubricated. This type of nylon is tough, has good electrical insulating properties and noise dampening characteristics. Also it has very high tensile strength, excellent abrasion, chemical and heat resistance, and low coefficient of friction. However, the cost can be reduced by looking for a replacement.

Proposed Design There are many other competitive suppliers which manufacture various sizes of levelling foot. Two possible suppliers are: Chang Mei Co., Ltd. This company produces below levelling feet for less than $0.50 depending on the quantity you order Material : aluminum Parts can be manufactured as requested. Parts are manufactured with nylon pad. Hebei Liancheng Machine Tool Accessories Co., Ltd This company manufactures adjustable legs with a nylon pad which can provide better stability with reduced noise. The bolt is aluminum. Each piece costs less than $0.50 depending on the quantity ordered. Discussion Feasibility This is very feasible since we do not require any significant change in design. Assumptions The costs for this new part including logistics will be lower than the current parts. New supplier will deliver parts without any defects or delay. New legs will be compatible to all requirements.

of 51

Pros and Cons

• Overall, aluminum is far durable than Nylon 6‐6. • Aluminum has higher tensile strength, yield strength, sheer strength and melting point than Nylon 6‐6

which means it will withstand stress and heat better than Nylon 6‐6. • In case of overheating, aluminum will endure up to at least 600C, making replacement unnecessary. • Nylon padding at the bottom will reduce vibration and noise and provide even weight distribution

Impacts By reducing the cost by 30%, the total percentage of the cost for levelling legs drops to 0.504%(legs are 0.72% of the entire cost : 0.72%*30% = 0.236%). Therefore, the production costs drops about 0.236% (0.74%‐0.504%). Assuming that 1% of the total cost of the cabinet system for the 7ft3 dryers is about $200,000 savings per year, saving 0.236% of the total cost would result in $47,200 saving per year Potential Risks

• The quality is not guaranteed. • Shipping cost may increase the overall cost of the parts. • May not satisfy all requirements.

Implementation conditions To ensure the quality of the new product and professionalism of the new parts, it is essential that we perform a quality test on this part alone and on the dryer with this part installed. New parts must satisfy all requirements and regulations.

New supplier will provide parts without any delay or interruption. Yearly estimates assuming current production of 900,000 dryers per year. Proposal Viable

Properties Nylon 6‐6 Aluminum Melting Point 255C 660C Ultimate Tensile Strength

70MPa 276MPa

Yield Strength 71MPa 26GPa Compressive Yield strength

47.6MPa 75GPa

Sheer Strength 60.6MPa 207MPa

Material Labour Initial Investment Total Current $144,000 ‐ ‐ $144,000 Proposed $100,800 ‐ ‐ $100,800 Difference $43,200 ‐ ‐ $43,200

of 51


Proposal No: 12 Date: 21st November 2011 Presented to: Mabe Canada Actual Design Current design has the problem of an overheating Bottom cover panel, leading to the risk of melting wires and customer injury. This is alleviated by strategically placed heat shields. However, these are costly and add to assembly time. Proposed Design In the space between the heater and the Bottom cover, a batt of insulation is situated with a layer of PSA. This will alleviate the heat that reaches the Bottom cover and possibly improve performance as the heat is retained in the heater area. Thus, the heat shield can be eliminated. Discussion Feasibility: This proposal is simple in that a rectangular piece of insulation can be used. The proposed situation will reduce the number of parts needed (heat shields), assembly time and complexity. However, there may be added cost due to the insulation price being high. There will also be new tooling required to cut the batts into shape. Testing time to ensure performance improvement and that the dryer meets standards will also be costly. As a result, other options should be considered in conjunction with this suggestion. The size of insulation needed is approximately 10 x 30 cm based on CAD models of the bottom cover. Assumptions: Insulation will provide adequate heat resistance Cost for insulation: $600.00 per sheet (4608 in2) of 0.25in thickness

of 51

Pros: Installation will be simplified Reduced assembly time Reduced parts (heat shield and screws) Cons: Insulation too expensive Not feasible: Insulation too expensive Cost Summary Material Labour Initial Investment Total Original Cost $770,400 $80,000 ‐ $422,000 Proposed Cost $54,000,000 $80,000 $10,000 $4,080,000 Savings ($53,229,600) $0 ‐ ($53,229,600)


of 51

Project: Redesign of the cabinet system Prepared By: McGill Value Engineering Team Proposal No: 13 Date: November 21st 2011 Presented to: Mabe Canada Actual Design Current design has a screw securing the terminal block cover. Proposed Design By removing the screw and replacing the method of fastening with two spring loaded tabs that will fit in the extraneous slots, the cost of the screw can be saved as well as extra components adding to assembly complexity. The increased amount of material was calculated to be 3.2 grams. Discussion

Feasibility: The change to the tooling can be easily done. Manufacturing the proposed piece poses no considerable challenges. Assumptions: Number of units that are American: 800,000 per year $0.01 per screw Tooling Changes: $6,000 Cost of steel: $185/tonne1 Pros: The proposed situation will reduce the number of parts needed (1 screw), the complexity of assembly (no tools required), and complexity for the end user. Cons: Difficulty stacking part for storage

of 51

Impacts and risks: Minimal return for investment If cost of steel rises relative to screws, benefit negated Vibration may occur from cover Grounding path may not be adequate after testing (UL 2158 Clause 27.4.1) Feasible Solution Cost Summary Material Labour Initial Investment Total Original Cost $207,040 $80,000 ‐ $287,040 Proposed Cost $199,514 $80,000 $10,000 $279,514 Savings $7526 $0 ‐ $7526

Yearly estimates assuming current production of 900,000 dryers per year. 1‐ http://www.worldsteelprices.com/ for Oct. 2011 Proposal Viable

http://www.worldsteelprices.com/

of 51

Project: Redesign of the cabinet system Prepared By: McGill Value Engineering Team Proposal No: 14 Date: November 21st 2011 Presented to: Mabe Canada Actual Design There is currently no airflow generated inside the cabinet besides the natural convection of the heat produced by the coils. There are concerns with the accumulation of heat on the bottom cover, which is the reason why the heat shield is required.

Fig: Current rear end of drum Proposed Design Using the main rotating element inside the dryer, the drum, we plan on increasing the airflow inside the dryer’s cabinet. The addition of flaps at the rear of the drum would enable for sufficient airflow to cool the bottom cover, eliminating the need for the bottom cover heat shield. The idea is to cut flaps in the drum’s rear section and bend them out towards the outside. To cover those holes, the size of the diffuser inside the drum would be increased to cover the entire rear of the drum. By shaping the flaps in a certain way, we might be able to increase the performance of the dryer through increased airflow inside the drum.

Actual surface area of diffuser

Increased surface area of diffuser to cover flaps holes.

Fig: Change in diffuser area Fig: Location of flaps to be bent on rear of drum

It is important to consider the available space in between the drum and the heating element. This space is 3.5cm at its maximum. This will determine the size of the flaps to be cut out of the rear of the drum.

of 51

Discussion

• Feasibility: Very feasible. Some research needs to be done regarding costs of tooling changes to be made. • Assumptions: We are assuming that the tooling changes will be relatively minimal and that there will be

no significant increase in the price of the diffuser for the increased area. • Pros: Reduced assembly time, elimination of 2 screws, elimination of heat shield, reduction of heat inside

assembly. • Cons: New tooling required, increased size of diffuser. • Risks: Possibility that the tooling changes might be too expensive. • Implementation conditions: New tooling required. Clearance from the heating element is vital to good

functioning of the machine. Rigorous testing needs to be done to ensure no possible failure. • Alternative: Consider the possibility of introducing a small fan to increase airflow.


Material Labour Initial Investment Total Current $1,116,000 $160,000 ‐ $1,276,000 Proposed $1,036,000 $80,000 $30,000 $1,116,000 Difference $80,000 $80,000 ‐ $160,000

of 51

Solution Scenarios Specific scenarios can be formed by grouping certain proposals together. These groupings are based on logical combinations, where one goal is put into focus. In the case of redesigning the cabinet system, the three scenarios are based on reducing the cost of the cabinet system, reducing assembly time and increasing performance of the dryer. Each scenario will be detailed below.

Cost Reductions One of the main objectives of this Value Engineering Workshop was to reduce the production costs for the dryer cabinet. The proposals shown in this scenario were based on changes on the design, manufacturing or assembly, and focused primarily on reducing the production costs. Although these proposals focus essentially on cost reduction, they also introduce reduction in complexity and assembly time. The proposals number 7, 8, 9 and 14 present the greatest savings in term of production costs. These proposals focus on different aspects of the dryer cabinet and relate on various parts. This means that the different proposals could eventually be implemented together to maximize the possible savings.

Reducing Assembly Time/Complexity Some of the highlighted areas that may be changed in order to reduce the complexity include the hinges, which have been outlined in proposals number 3 and 4. These proposals eliminate much of the assembly time and reduce the number of screws quite drastically. Along with the hinges of the door, the door itself may be simplified, as outlined by proposal number 5, into one piece, thus eliminating the need to put the inner and outer door together. Proposal number 10 follows a similar idea by combining the chassis with the side panels, thus removing the need for an operator to put them on separately. Finally proposal number 8 focuses on reducing the number of screws, thus reducing the assembly time. The proposals combined could result in a total reduction of up to 5 workers on the assembly line, as well as a total saving of $397,000 per year.

Maximizing Performance Proposal number 14, where the addition of flaps at the rear of the drums is studied, would possibly lead to increased airflow inside the dryer’s cabinet. This would maximize the evaporation of vapor and ultimately increase the performance particularly when the drum is at its maximum capacity. As evaporation increases with increased airflow, this would reduce the drying time, effectively increasing the performance of the dryer.

It should be noted that our proposals focus mainly on cost‐savings regarding the dryer cabinet rather than maximizing performance. Therefore, our proposals are more focused on cost‐reductions.

of 51

CostMerit Analysis

For our cost‐merit analysis, we decided to go over the proposal instead of the proposed scenarios since we felt it would be more appropriate for our project. The three scenarios presented previously are viable but do not represent the scope of our project. We felt that a comparison between the different proposals would better showcase the merit vs. Cost aspect of each proposal.

To have a better idea of which proposal should be prioritized, we decided to evaluate each proposal with respect to the following criteria:

• Cost‐reduction

• Quality : Maintain or increase current quality of product

• Facilitate Maintenance

• Implementation risks

• Safety

In order to appropriately evaluate the merit of each proposal, we applied the following coefficients to each of the evaluation criteria:

• Cost‐reduction: 8

• Quality : 4

• Facilitate Maintenance : 3

• Implementation risks : ‐6 (negative since the greater the risks, the worst the proposal is)

• Safety : 10

For each of the criteria, a grade between 1 and 10 will be given and this grade will be multiplied by the coefficient assigned to the criteria. These steps will be done for each of the proposals in order to evaluate each proposal independently and have a basis for comparison.

In the following pages, a comparison table and a cost‐merit graph are shown to give a clear idea of which proposal has the best cost to merit ratio.

For the comparison table, the last line will show the initial investment required for the specific proposal. The values will be indexed on a scale from 0 to 100 in order to avoid dollar values.

of 51

Prop. 2 Prop. 3 Prop. 4 Prop. 8 Prop. 9 Prop. 10 Prop. 11 Prop. 13 Prop. 14 Cost‐Reduction 9 3 5 7 6 5 3 1 9

Quality 5 8 8 4 6 6 8 8 8

Facilitate Maintenance

1 7 5 8 3 1 5 9 5

Implementation Risks

7 2 5 6 5 5 2 2 4

Safety 4 8 8 4 8 7 8 8 6

TOTAL 93 145 137 100 131 107 139 135 155

Investment 50 17 67 67 67 100 0 17 50

of 51

Conclusion

In order to come up with the different proposals in the report, the value engineering methods

were used by performing analysis on the cabinet system. The VE method allowed for a structured and

systematic approach of a complicated design problem. Our team’s proposed scenario should be strongly

considered and potentially provide higher productivity and return on investment. All calculations were

based on information given by Mabe Inc., but further study is needed to determine the specific cost of

implementing these ideas, and a more accurate calculation of the return on investment. This was an

excellent learning experience for all team members, and hopefully our client can benefit from the ideas

included in this report. It is our belief that the VE method should be applied to future design problems

involving the dryer manufacturing process.

of 51

APPENDIX

of 51

Attract Customer

1Satisfy Customer

1.1Maintain Structural

Integrity

1.2Facilitates

Serviceability

1.3Ensure Reliability

1.1.2Proper Fitting

1.1.1Protect Components

1.1.3Proper Rigidity

1.1.1.1Isolate Components

1.1.1.1Side 22.91%, base 7.92%, top 11.24%, rear panels13.75%

1.1.3.1Door assembly 20%

FAST Diagram

1.2.1Easily Accessible

1.2.1.1Reduce Components

1.2.1.2Reduce Complexity

1.2.2.1Reduce Components

1.2.2Easily Disassembled

1.2.2.2Reduce Complexity

1.3.2Resists Corrosion

1.3.3Reduce noise/

vibration

1.3.1Resist Denting

1.3.1.1Material Thickness and

properties

1.3.2.1Reduce Heat

1.3.2.2Reduce Humidity

1.3.3.2Reduce Looseness

1.3.3.1Distributing Weight

1.3.3.3Material Thickness and properties

1.3.2.1.1Dissipate heat

1.3.2.1.1.1Direct heat flow Rear heat shield

1.3.2.1.1.2Increase reflectivity

1.3.2.1.1.3Increase

conductance

1.3.2.1.1.3.1Material Properties

1.3.3.1.1Assure Levelness

1.3.3.1.1.1Leveling Legs 0.72%

1.3.3.2.1Provide Proper

Fastening

of 51

Number Function Criteria Level Flexibility Comments

Functional Criteria Diagram

Page 45 of 51

1.3.3.1 Distribute weight

Weight acting on legs

205N F1 The wet load is 18 lbs for the 7 ft2 and 16 lbs for the 6 ft2 (extreme conditions)

2.2.1 Reduce sharp edges

Level of the burr

10% of material thickness F0

Sharp edges/ projections

An enclosure, frame, opening must not cause risk of injury

F1 As per UL 2158 (clause 20.5.1)

Finger tip test

After passing finger on surface, no black surface must be visible

F0 Finger used in test, made up of 2 layers (black-represents tissue, beige- represents skin)

2.3.1 Contain fire No flames outside box

No burns/fire caught by cheesecloth F0 Dryer is wrapped in cheesecloth, if cloth burns or catches fire then the dryer is not containing flames (fail)

2.3.2 Reduce heat

Temperature Critical temperature test: Temp. Below 150F when in contact with user

F0 PVC rating is 105C, insulation on wires when in contact with harness

2.4 Prevent electrocution

Resistance Lower than 0.1 ohms F0 As per 27.4.1 ( UL 2158)

Spacing btw back panel and current carrying part

not less than 6.3mm F0 UL2158 clause 29.5c and Table 9

High-Pot test

1400V applied for 1-3 secs, acceptance criteria: No breakdown ( 8 mA treshold)

F0 Simulate lighting

1.1.1 Provide Squareness

impact of structural variation on dryer functioning normally

No abnormal behaviour (Qualitative) F1 As per ETP112C008

ETP 921 - Transport test

No visible damage compared to baseline F1

1.1.2 Proper fitting

Dimension and tolerances

Respect drawing tolerances within 6 sigma

F1 F1 due to tolerances on the drawings

of 51

1.1.3 Provide rigidity

Frame mechanical strength

thickness not less than 0.66mm F1 As per 21.1.3 if surface is reinforced thickness can be subjective

Strength of Back Panel

Must withstand continuous force of 110N applied through 51mm steel ball for 1min at any location

F0

1.2.1 Easily Accessible

Service review approval

Comparison to baseline. Must be equally similar or better

F1

1.2.2 Easily Disassemble

Service review approval

Comparison to baseline. Must be equally similar or better

F1 Reduce number of parts / complexity of assembly / common sense

1.3.1 Resist denting

visible damage

Comparative test of standard steel ball dropped from various heights until visible dents

F1 ETP #512C414

1.3.2 Resist corrosion

No rust for visual/subjective rust for non visual

Salt Spray test: Visual part 500 hours with no rust appearance/ Non visual qualitative baseline comparison

F1 (non-visual)/ F0 (visual)

Very subjective

No rust for visual/subjective rust for non visual

Life test: 4000 hours with no rust appearance

F1 (non-visual)/ F0 (visual)

Very subjective

1.3.3 Reduce noise/vibration

Extent of noise/vibrations

Swept vibration test F1


Life test: 4000 hours with no noise issues F1


Sound Jury Panel (subjective test: 5 people and 3/5 should vote no noise issues)

F1

1.4.1 Ensure performance

Time to dry load

GE performance test F0

of 51

1.5.1 Retains Colour & Appealing texture

Consistency in appearance

Apply detergent for 120 hours - no change appearance

F1 E9C25 ( Empis)

Surface finish

Comply with F50LB44B (GE specifications)

F1

1.5.4 Resist scratches

Surface finish

compare with baseline F1 E9B2C3

of 51

Cost Breakdown

7 cu.ft. electric GTDP200EMWW

4‐Oct‐11

Description Mabe Part # qty per dryer % of cabinet system total cost

bottom cover (E‐coat) 234D1315P001 1 4.16% leveling foot 248C1123P002 4 0.72%

door panel 234D1388P001 1 7.85%

inner door assembly 212D1037G01 1 10.74% inner door panel 212D1037P001 1 10.21% gasket door 248C1005P004 1 0.14%

glue 17738 102A3159P164 1 0.38%

hinge 267A3218P012 2 0.77% front panel 134D6256P029 1 17.43% rear panel 7 cu.ft 212D1831P001 1 13.75%

Chassis(base) 212D1674P001 1 7.92% cover 572D399P004 1 11.24% side panel 234D1213P001 2 22.91% rear heat shield 248C1127P001 1 0.91%

terminal block cover 248C1061P001 1 0.62%

bottom cover heatshield 212D1737P001 1 1.25%

TOTAL COST 100%

of 51

Cost Function Analysis

Components Assure

Levelness Provide a box Enclose

Components Isolate

Components

Reduce Sharp Edges

Reduce heat

prevent electricution

provide squareness

Provide Rigidity

Easily Accesible

Easily Disassembled

Resists denting

Resists Corrosion

Reduce

noise/Vibration

Ensure performance

Retains

colour/texture

Resists Scratches

Total cost

Bottom cover (E‐coat) 30% 10% 15% 4% 10% 30% 1% 100% Levelling Foot 80% 4% 1% 15% 100%

Inner Door Assembly 15% 25% 5% 4% 4% 15% 1% 1% 5% 4% 1% 15% 3% 2% 100%

Front Panel 20% 20% 5% 1% 1% 1% 28% 5% 5% 2% 4% 3% 3% 2% 100%

Rear Panel 15% 20% 5% 10% 5% 1% 15% 15% 10% 2% 2% 100% Chassis (base) 20% 10% 10% 3% 3% 20% 20% 2% 10% 2% 100%

Top Panel (Cover) 23% 22% 5% 5% 5% 8% 8% 1% 5% 5% 2% 5% 1% 3% 2% 100%

Side Panel 17% 17% 5% 5% 5% 15% 17% 1% 5% 2% 5% 1% 3% 2% 100% Terminal

Block Cover 50% 5% 40% 1% 1% 1% 2% 100% Bottom cover heatshield 10% 5% 60% 15% 10% 100%

of 51

Components Assure Levelnes

s Provide a box

Protect Components

Isolate Components

Reduce Sharp Edges

Reduce heat

prevent electricution

provide squareness

Provide Rigidity

Easily Accesible

Easily Disassembled

Resists denting

Resists Corrosion

Reduce

noise/Vibration

Ensure performance

Retains

colour/texture

Resists Scratches

Total cost

Bottom cover (E‐coat)

0 0 0 0.624 0.208 0.312 0.0832 0.208 0.624 0 0.0208 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.08

Levelling Foot 0.288 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0144 0 0.0036 0.054 0 0 0 0.36

Inner Door Assembly

0 0.8055 1.3425 0 0.2685 0.2148 0.2148 0 0.8055 0.0537 0.0537 0.2685 0.2148 0.0537

0.8055 0.1611

0.1074 5.37

Front Panel 0 1.744 1.744 0 0.436 0.0872 0.0872 0.0872 2.4416 0 0.436 0.436 0.1744 0.3488

0.2616 0.2616

0.1744 8.72

Rear Panel 0 1.0305 1.374 0 0.3435 0.687 0.3435 0.0687 1.0305 0 0 1.0305 0.687 0.1374

0.1374 0 0 6.87

Chassis (base) 0.792 0.396 0.396 0 0.1188 0 0.1188 0.792 0.792 0 0 0 0.0792 0.396 0.0792 0 0 3.96

Top Panel (Cover)

0 1.2903 1.2342 0 0.2805 0.2805 0.2805 0.4488 0.4488 0.0561 0.2805 0.2805 0.1122 0.2805

0.0561 0.1683

0.1122 5.61

Side Panel 0 1.9465 1.9465 0 0.5725 0.5725 0.5725 1.7175 1.9465 0 0.1145 0.5725 0.229 0.5725

0.1145 0.3435

0.229 11.45

Rear Heat Shield

0 0 0.225 0 0.0225 0 0.18 0 0 0.0045 0.0045 0.0045 0.009 0 0 0 0 0.45

Terminal Block Cover

0 0 0 0.031 0.0155 0.186 0.0465 0 0 0 0 0 0.031 0 0 0 0 0.31

redesign of the cabinet system for dryerspaul/vefinalmabe.pdf · 2011. 11. 29. · 1950, mabe began...

Documents