Productivity Improvement of the Hydraulic Motor...

© 2004 RIT-VALEO Preliminary Design Report Page 1 of 134

Productivity Improvement of the Hydraulic Motor Assembly Line at Valeo

Stefan Enjem - EIEI Joe Van Hofwegen - EIEI

Young Lee - EIEI Luis Garcia - EEEE

Walter Freitag - EMEM Jason Zion - EMEM Joe Pecht - EMEM

Industrial and Systems Engineering 81 Lomb Memorial Drive

Rochester, NY 14623


Executive Summary

Our team’s primary objective is to increase the quantity per person, per hour for the hydraulic motors produced by Valeo’s Prodel Line process. This will be done without sacrificing quality of safety. The team’s improvements will demonstrate a 4-6% overall improvement in efficiency. All monies spent will be justified based on Valeo’s 2-year payback standard. This will be accomplished through:

(1) Procedural Improvements (2) Preventative Maintenance Schedule (3) Improvement of the End of Line Tester (4) Improve on bottlenecks and problem stations (5) Identify improved system configurations through simulation

Better procedures will be identified to increase the quantity of parts per person. These improvements will be made in the areas of workplace instruction and preventative maintenance. Another area of concentration will include the End of Line Tester, as it is the largest bottleneck on the assembly line. There is much room for increased reliability. Other bottleneck stations will also be improved in order to increase output. Other improvements on the line will be with the stations associated with causing the most significant amount of downtime. The team will also develop a simulation to identify the problems with queuing, line speed, and number of pallets. The simulation output will be used to prove the increases made in production through the above concept.


Table of Contents Executive Summary Table of Contents 1 Recognize and Quantify the Need .............................................................................. 7

1.1 Project Mission Statement .................................................................................. 7 1.2 Product Description ............................................................................................ 7 1.3 Scope Limitations ............................................................................................... 7 1.4 Key Business Goals ............................................................................................ 8 1.5 Financial Parameters........................................................................................... 8 1.6 Primary Market ................................................................................................... 8 1.7 Secondary Market ............................................................................................... 8 1.8 Minimum Specifications..................................................................................... 9 1.9 Customer Availability......................................................................................... 9 1.10 Customer Assistance........................................................................................... 9

2 Project Planning ........................................................................................................ 10 2.1 Scope and Resource Distribution...................................................................... 10 2.2 Scheduling......................................................................................................... 10 2.3 Communication................................................................................................. 10

3 Description of Prodel Line System........................................................................... 11 3.1 Flow Block Diagram......................................................................................... 14

4 Controls..................................................................................................................... 15 5 Data Collection and Analysis.................................................................................... 15

5.1 Cycle Times ...................................................................................................... 15 5.2 Identify the Bottlenecks .................................................................................... 16 5.3 Micro-stops ....................................................................................................... 16 5.4 Identifying QPPH (Quantity of Parts Per Person, Per Hour)............................ 17 5.5 Pareto Chart Analysis of Problem areas ........................................................... 17 5.6 Regression Analysis - Production vs. Man Power............................................ 18 5.7 Stat Fit Manual Stations to Distributions.......................................................... 20

5.7.1 Station 90 .................................................................................................. 20 5.7.2 Station 100 ................................................................................................ 21 5.7.3 Station 160 ................................................................................................ 22 5.7.4 Station 180 ................................................................................................ 23 5.7.5 Station 190 ................................................................................................ 23

6 Design Concepts ....................................................................................................... 24 6.1 Preliminary Concept Development................................................................... 24

6.1.1 Increase the Reliability of the End of Line Tester .................................... 24 6.1.2 Setting the Pace of assembly line.............................................................. 25 6.1.3 Goal Based Bonus incentives for Workers ............................................... 25 6.1.4 Staffing Optimization................................................................................ 25 6.1.5 Increase Speed of Stations ........................................................................ 26

6.2 Redefined Concepts for Development .............................................................. 26 6.2.1 End of Line Tester Efficiency Enhancements .......................................... 27

6.2.1.1 Reject Conveyor.................................................................................... 28 6.2.1.2 Initial Feasibility ................................................................................... 28


6.2.1.3 Mating Problems................................................................................... 29 6.2.1.3.1 Design Concepts for Mating Problems ........................................... 30

6.2.1.3.1.1 Mating Concept 1..................................................................... 30 6.2.1.3.1.2 Mating Concept 2..................................................................... 31 6.2.1.3.1.3 Technical Feasibility Analysis for Mating Concepts............... 32

6.2.1.4 Analysis & Synthesis ............................................................................ 32 Synthesis: .......................................................................................................................... 34

6.2.1.4.1 Finite Element Analysis.................................................................. 35 6.2.1.5 Motor Mounting Concepts.................................................................... 36

6.2.1.5.1 Motor Mounting Concept 1 ............................................................ 37 6.2.1.5.2 Motor Mounting Concept 2 ............................................................ 37 6.2.1.5.3 Motor Mounting Concept 3 ............................................................ 37 6.2.1.5.4 Technical Feasibility Analysis for Mounting Concepts.................. 38

6.2.1.6 EOLT Resource and Schedule Feasibility Analysis ............................. 38 6.2.1.7 EOLT Modifications Economic Feasibility Analysis........................... 40

6.2.2 Automation of Manual Stations ................................................................ 42 6.2.2.1 Feasibility Assessment.......................................................................... 42

6.2.3 Procedural Enhancements......................................................................... 43 6.2.3.1 Feasibility Assessment (see Web Chart – Appendix K)....................... 43 6.2.3.2 Analysis and Synthesis ......................................................................... 45 6.2.3.3 Action Plan............................................................................................ 47

6.2.3.3.1 Feasibility........................................................................................ 47 6.2.3.3.2 Bill of Materials .............................................................................. 48

6.2.3.4 Preventative Maintenance..................................................................... 48 6.2.3.4.1 Feasibility Assessment.................................................................... 48 6.2.3.4.2 Analysis and Synthesis ................................................................... 50

6.2.4 Manual Stations & Bottlenecks ................................................................ 52 6.2.4.1 Station 90 .............................................................................................. 52

6.2.4.1.1 Feasibility Assessment (See Appendix K)...................................... 53 6.2.4.1.2 Analysis and Synthesis ................................................................... 55 6.2.4.1.3 Bill of Materials: ............................................................................. 58

6.2.4.2 Station 100 ............................................................................................ 58 6.2.4.2.1 Feasibility Assessment.................................................................... 58 6.2.4.2.2 Analysis and Synthesis ................................................................... 59

6.2.4.3 Stations 180 and 190............................................................................. 60 6.2.4.3.1 Feasibility Assessment.................................................................... 61 6.2.4.3.2 Analysis and Synthesis ................................................................... 61

6.2.4.4 Station 160 ............................................................................................ 62 6.2.4.4.1 Feasibility........................................................................................ 63 6.2.4.4.2 Bill of Materials .............................................................................. 64

6.2.4.5 Production Board .................................................................................. 64 6.2.4.5.1 Feasibility Assessment.................................................................... 64 6.2.4.5.2 Bill of Materials .............................................................................. 65

6.2.5 Problematic Stations ................................................................................. 65 6.2.5.1 Station 210 ............................................................................................ 65

6.2.5.1.1 Feasibility Analysis for Station 210 (See Appendix K).................. 67


6.2.5.1.2 Analysis and Synthesis for Station 210 .......................................... 71 6.2.6 Material Handling ..................................................................................... 73

6.2.6.1 Designated Operator ............................................................................. 73 6.2.6.1.1 Feasibility........................................................................................ 73

6.2.6.2 Divide washer conveyor belt to either side of assembly....................... 74 6.2.6.2.1 Feasibility........................................................................................ 74

6.2.6.3 Reduce time spent replenishing material .............................................. 74 6.2.6.3.1 Feasibility........................................................................................ 75

6.2.6.4 Designated locations for tools and inventory (5S)................................ 75 6.2.6.4.1 Feasibility........................................................................................ 76

6.2.6.5 Concept Assessments for Material Handling Concepts........................ 76 6.2.7 Simulation Concepts ................................................................................. 78

6.2.7.1 Simulation as a means to determine the best utilization of operators... 78 6.2.7.1.1 Feasibility........................................................................................ 79

6.2.7.2 Determine the optimal number of pallets circulating through the system and speed of the conveyor belt. ................................................................ 80

6.2.7.2.1 Feasibility........................................................................................ 80 6.2.7.3 Simulation Concept Assessments ......................................................... 81

7 Project Feasibility Assessment ................................................................................. 82 7.1 Initial Overall Project Feasibility (See Appendix K)........................................ 82

7.1.1 The results from the initial feasibility assessment (See Appendix K) ...... 83 7.2 Project Estimation of Relative Importance of Attributes.................................. 84 7.3 Feasibility of Implementing Design Concepts.................................................. 84

8 ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS............................................................................... 85 8.1 System Dependencies ....................................................................................... 86

9 Performance Objectives and Specifications.............................................................. 88 9.1 Deliverables ...................................................................................................... 88

9.1.1 Did we create standardized procedures and demonstrate the improvements made by them? .......................................................................................................... 88

9.1.1.1 Order Qualifier: Overall Procedures..................................................... 88 9.1.1.2 Order Winner: Overall Procedures ....................................................... 89

9.1.2 Did we improve preventative maintenance schedule?.............................. 90 9.1.2.1 Order Qualifier...................................................................................... 90 9.1.2.2 Order Winner ........................................................................................ 90

9.1.3 Did we set production goals based on manpower for the improved system? 90 9.1.4 Did we make recommendations to improve problems on the Prodel line and implement those solutions approved by customer? ........................................... 90

9.1.4.1 Order Qualifier for Station 210............................................................. 90 9.1.4.2 Order Winner for Station 210 ............................................................... 91

9.1.5 Did we make recommendations to improve the efficiency of the End of Line Tester and implement those approved by customer?........................................ 91

9.1.5.1 Order Qualifier...................................................................................... 91 9.1.5.2 Order Winner ........................................................................................ 91

9.1.6 Did we identify improved system configurations through simulation?.... 92 9.1.6.1 Order Qualifier...................................................................................... 92


9.2 Performance Specifications .............................................................................. 92 9.2.1 Did we demonstrate a two year payback period for our recommendations? 92 9.2.2 Did we demonstrate a 4-6% overall improvement in the efficiency of the Prodel line? ............................................................................................................... 92

9.3 Industrial Standards .......................................................................................... 92 9.3.1 Clean Room .............................................................................................. 92 9.3.2 QS - 9000 .................................................................................................. 93 9.3.3 Valeo Production Time ............................................................................. 94

10 Future of Project ................................................................................................... 95 10.1 Schedule............................................................................................................ 96

11 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 97 11.1 Concepts to be Completed ................................................................................ 97 11.2 Tentative Bill of Materials and Estimated Cost................................................ 99 11.3 Total Payback.................................................................................................. 100 11.4 Improvements of Total System shown through Simulation ........................... 101

12 References........................................................................................................... 102 13 Appendices.......................................................................................................... 103

13.1 APPENDIX A - Work Breakdown Structure: ................................................ 103 13.2 APPENDIX B - Gantt Chart:.......................................................................... 104 13.3 APPENDIX C – Yahoo! Groups© ................................................................. 106 13.4 APPENDIX D – Station Cycle Times ............................................................ 107 13.5 APPENDIX E – Bottleneck Ranking ............................................................. 108 13.6 APPENDIX F – Micro-stop Data & Summaries ............................................ 109 13.7 APPENDIX G – Motor Count Log (# of good parts)..................................... 112 13.8 APPENDIX H - Production/Downtime Report .............................................. 113 13.9 APPENDIX I – Pareto Analysis ..................................................................... 115 13.10 APPENDIX J – Production/Downtime Reports ......................................... 116 13.11 APPENDIX K – Feasibility Web Charts .................................................... 120 13.12 APPENDIX L. FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT FOR PROJECT.............. 127 13.13 APPENDIX M – CAD DRAWINGS FOR IMPROVEMENTS................ 128 13.14 APPENDIX N - ESTIMATION OF RELATIVE IMPORTANCE ATTRIBUTES ............................................................................................................ 131 13.15 APPENDIX O – Anthropometric Data....................................................... 132 13.16 APPENDIX P – Finite Element Analysis................................................... 133 13.17 APPENDIX Q – Clean Room Standards .................................................... 134


1 Recognize and Quantify the Need

1.1 Project Mission Statement The mission of this design team is to increase the quantity per person, per hour (QPH),

for the hydraulic motors produced by Valeo’s Prodel line process. The team will analyze

and recommend improvements for the hardware, documentation and workplace

instructions. They shall provide cost justification for all monetary expenditures and

detail the expected gains from monies spent. Finally, they shall demonstrate what

changes were made and the effect each change had on the process.

1.2 Product Description The hydraulic motors being manufactured are for use in high-end vehicles like the Jeep

Grand Cherokee, the Dodge Viper, and the Dodge Ram SRT-10. The motors’ parts are

washed before assembly and are assembled in a clean room environment to prevent any

foreign debris from affecting the motor’s operation. The motors are being attached to the

power steering pump, so contamination becomes a safety issue.

1.3 Scope Limitations The limitations to the design team are minor. Any changes made in the process must

produce an increase in production. Along the same lines, any costly changes made must

produce a payback period of two years, as it is the company policy. If the spending can

be justified, Valeo will provide the funding. Also, any process change that increases

productivity, but creates potential safety concerns or product failures, is not acceptable.

This hydraulic motor manufacturing unit has not produced a single defective part since its

introduction. Furthermore, the lead-time given to Valeo to manufacture the hydraulic

motors is short, so any modifications made to the line must permit reliable line operation.


1.4 Key Business Goals A major business goal is to make changes in the specified manufacturing process to

deliver a significant increase in QPH of hydraulic motors produced, while maintaining

the quality of the product and safety of the line employees. Another is to proceed

professionally with the project to further multidisciplinary senior design and maintain a

good relationship with an outside sponsor such as Valeo.

1.5 Financial Parameters Funding is determined based on the implemented change’s payback period. Funding will

be approved pending financial justification. Valeo’s company policy is that any costly

changes must have under a two-year payback period. No other financial restrictions apply

for the team.

1.6 Primary Market This consists of the Valeo hydraulic motor manufacturing facility. If possible, the

changes implemented on the manufacturing line could be applied to other manufacturing

processes. The line employees must be considered as well. The changes introduced must

permit safe working conditions.

1.7 Secondary Market The customers of the products produced on this line make up the secondary market. Any

changes made in the manufacturing process that has an impact on the quality or quantity

of motors produced will influence Valeo’s ability to meet their clients’ demands. Major

changes will need to be reported and verified by the customer. Furthermore, an increase

in QPH can reduce overall part cost, allowing Valeo to produce a product with a more

competitive price.


1.8 Minimum Specifications Our target percentage of improvement for the Prodel line process will be an increased

efficiency of 4-6%.

1.9 Customer Availability The customer is readily available to answer questions and lend resources to aid the design

team. The team will be given clean room suits along with space in house to conduct

work. The main contact is Rich Guerin (HDFS Director), but Paul VanDeursen (Controls

Engineer) is also available if assistance is needed.

1.10 Customer Assistance The team will be provided access to the facility and machinery to be analyzed. Valeo

will provide the team with any and all existing documentation of the line employees’ job

descriptions. Furthermore, all information that has been accumulated detailing line

efficiency, production and downtime will be provided to the team for assessment. The

team will also be provided with training in the Valeo Production System and Clean Room

Protocol. Any necessary equipment will be provided (camera, measurement instruments,

etc). Valeo, of an amount pending, will provide the project’s budget.


2 Project Planning

2.1 Scope and Resource Distribution

Due to the large scope of this project, it would have been difficult to manage without a

work breakdown structure to organize and delegate responsibility. This WBS provided

each team member with specific tasks and deliverables for which they were ultimately

responsible. The main topics were defined, based on the perceived efficiency gains that

would result from them. Each member was assigned to take the lead on the concept that

they chose to develop. (See Appendix A)

2.2 Scheduling

To keep the project on schedule a Gantt chart was established. This chart helped to

define the project’s critical path. By plotting out deadlines and dates the objectives of the

project were scheduled to be completed on time. Access to this chart was made available

through the Yahoo Web Group©. (See Appendix B)

2.3 Communication

A Yahoo© Web Group was created to allow access to all files relating to the project. The

site included meeting minutes, on site visit notes, Gantt chart, work breakdown structure,

deliverable information, and contact information. This tool proved to help speed up the

progress of our project objectives. (See Appendix C)


3 Description of Prodel Line System Valeo is an automobile company, which provides vehicle manufacturers with global

solutions that meet fundamental consumer-driven market needs related to comfort, safety,

security, reduced fuel consumption and emissions, and driving pleasure.

Within this structure exists a branch specializing in thermal systems, which offers

solutions to reduce fuel consumption and emissions through engine thermal management.

Valeo is dedicated to developing an engine cooling system, which provides increased

trailer towing capacity, reduced grill openings, improved fuel economy and reduced

alternator loading. This innovative development is powered by the vehicle's existing

steering pump, thus reducing the parasitic losses associated with fan clutches.

The department in charge of this task is called HDFS (Hydraulically Driven Fan

Systems). The design involved to achieve such demandable tasks uses the latest

technology and requires that every part used in the construction of these fans have a

tolerance in the microns range. At this level of accuracy, the environment needed to

manufacture these motors has to be much cleaner than in a regular environment.

To achieve this environment, Valeo implements the clean room technique in which

people who work in it must wear special protective clothing that does not give off lint

particles and prevent human skin and hair particles from entering the room's atmosphere.

Prodel builds the production line. Each plug-and-play module of the Prodel system is

entirely self-contained and interchangeable. The modules are joined together to form a


system-level conveyance. Work modules or stations, both manual and automatic serve as

the workhorses for assembly operations. Each station performs quality checks before and

after the part has been operated on. After the motor has gone through all the stations,

sequentially, the motor is ready to be installed onto the fan mold. Prior to this step, the

motor has to pass all tests performed on the end of line tester (EOLT).

[Figure 1]

The EOLT takes the part out of the conveyor belt and places the motor onto a test table.

The motor is coupled to hoses and the PCV (pressure control valve), as it would be

connected onto the car. The EOLT runs a series of tests on the motor, which tests start-

up, speed of the motor, torque, idle state speed and proper steering flow and pressure. If

the motor does not meet any of the parameters established, to ensure the correct function


of the fan, the motor will fail the test and be taken out of the line to be repaired by a

technician.

[Figure 2]


3.1 Flow Block Diagram This diagram shows the flow through the previously described system. Each station must

operate on the part in a sequential manner. The pallets are started at station 90 and the

final operation is the testing, which is completed at the end of line tester.

[Figure 3]


4 Controls Changes made to the end of line tester and some of the changes made to the line need to

be done performing programming changes to the actual programs installed on the system.

The electronics components which control the operation of the system do not need to be

changed since their performance has never been found to be the reason for failures. Any

mechanical changes can only be applied following the parameters set on the

programming language that exists on the system. This can be different depending on the

section of the line.

The EOLT alone is controlled by two different programming codes. Lab-view controls,

the sequence of events to test the motor, and an Allen Bradley PLC program are what

control the motions to place the motor onto the test table. The optical sensors placed

throughout the line use a third control program that is exclusive for the DMV cameras.

Changes to the EOLT will require the use of sensors to provide a feedback system that

will increase accuracy and reliability. The completion of the project would not be

possible without the mutual collaboration of all the engineers involved in this project.

5 Data Collection and Analysis

5.1 Cycle Times The cycle times for each station were taken, in a standard way, with a stopwatch

measured in seconds. (See Appendix D) For the automated stations, the time was taken

from the instant the pallet stopped in front of a process to the instant the pallet began to

move again. Getting times for the manual stations was a more difficult task since each


operator worked according to their own style and experience. For our purposes, we timed

them from the moment they picked their first piece to the moment the pallet started to

move away from the cell.

5.2 Identify the Bottlenecks The Prodel line consists of 16 stations, where 23 processes take place to create a

hydraulic motor. Each of the 23 assembly operations take a different amount of time to

complete and must take place in sequential order. Therefore, a bottleneck can develop if

a station cannot keep up with the line. Bottlenecks are undesirable since they cause a

buildup of unfinished parts in front of a production station and because the overall

productivity of the system declines.

The layout of the Prodel Line is such that the pallets containing the motors revolve

around a central island in the shape of a long rectangle with the corners rounded off. As

the pallets move along the conveyor belt, it enters stations as necessary. If a stations

queue is full, a pallet may need to revolve around the center island numerous times before

a spot opens.

From the cycle time data, we determined the EOL tester to be the biggest bottleneck (See

Appendix E). The top three bottlenecks within the Prodel line itself are manual stations

90, 160, and 100 respectively. (See Appendix E)

5.3 Micro-stops Micro-stops are Valeo’s term for the downtime of a station that lasts for less than 5

minutes. Anything above 5 minutes is considered a breakdown and does not qualify as a


micro-stop. (Appendix F provides a summary of the top 5 stations that experience the

most number of micro-stops).

5.4 Identifying QPPH (Quantity of Parts Per Person, Per Hour) The QPPH (Quantity per person, per hour) is the figure we are attempting to improve

through this project. The QPPH is measured by dividing the total number of good parts

by the number of operators that were required to produce those parts. From the historical

production data provided by Valeo, the average QPPH was determined to be 72.08 good

parts per person, per shift (10.2/hour) (See Appendix H). To verify this, mechanical

counters were installed at the exit gate of the clean-room to count the number of good

parts going to assembly and the number of rejected parts re-entering the clean room. We

took the difference between these two numbers to determine the true count of good

motors produced. According to the counters, the true average is 60.53 parts per person,

per shift (8.6/hour). (See Appendix G)

5.5 Pareto Chart Analysis of Problem areas Pareto charts were used to illustrate where the major problems exist on the Prodel line

system. It is similar to a histogram but it also ranks the stations from the most to the least

occurrence. A Pareto chart also includes a cumulative line representing the cumulative

sum of the problem areas. A steep cumulative line implies that the first few problems

account for the majority of the problems, while a straight line indicates that the problems

have roughly an equal weight.

The Pareto chart derived from our “Micro-stop Top 20 by Substation” (See Appendix F)

indicates that Station 210 is the most troublesome station. The Pareto chart that we


derived from the “Top 5 Micro-Stop by Stations” data indicates that Station 210A is the

station that experiences the most problems.

5.6 Regression Analysis - Production vs. Man Power A linear regression analysis was conducted on the data collected on manpower and

motors produced per shift. The objective of the analysis was to correlate the number of

operators working during a shift and the number of parts produced.

Using Minitab the following regression analysis and graph was produced from the data: The regression equation is C1 = 35.5864 + 107.094 C2 - 10.4901 C2**2 S = 77.2157 R-Sq = 42.7 % R-Sq(adj) = 35.0 % Analysis of Variance Source DF SS MS F P Regression 2 66511 33255.5 5.57766 0.015 Error 15 89434 5962.3

Manpower vs. Motors Out

y = -10.49x2 + 107.09x + 35.586R2 = 0.4265

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Manpower

Mot

ors

Out

[Figure 4]


Given the few number of data points the R^2 value was not as low as expected. This

regression analysis will continue to become more accurate over time as Valeo has

recently begun to collect data at our request.

Next, we can find the marginal parts produced per person and determine the optimal

number of people working in the clean room at a given time. The regression equation

was used to obtain Parts/Shift based on number of operators. QPH was based on the

number of operators and estimated output per person.

[Figure 5]

Therefore, using the marginal parts produced, per person, we determined that the optimal

number of people to staff the clean room is five. At six people a negative return occurs

with more people.

The following graph depicts Manpower vs. QPH and its respective equation of best fit.

An R^2 of 0.59 demonstrates a fairly good correlation (1 being a strong correlation).

Number of Operators Parts/Shift

QPH (8hr shift)

Marginal Parts Produced per

person 0 0 0 1 115 14.361 115 2 204 12.7595 89 3 268 11.158 64 4 306 9.5565 38 5 318 7.955 12 6 305 6.3535 -13 7 266 4.752 -39


Manpower vs. QPH y = 1.8564x2 - 30.104x + 160.97R2 = 0.5938

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

180.00

200.00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Manpower

QPH

[Figure 6]

5.7 Stat Fit Manual Stations to Distributions Using ProModel’s Stat:Fit software the distribution functions were found for each of the

manual station. The commentary on each distribution was also obtained from the

software. These distributions were found to better understand the process time of the

manual stations and to estimate the time to account for within the simulation.

5.7.1 Station 90 The distribution for station 90 is: Pearson 5 (29, 2.56, 13.3)

The Pearson 5 distribution is a continuous distribution with a bound on the lower side.

The Pearson 5 distribution is sometimes called the Inverse Gamma Distribution due to

the reciprocal relationship between a Pearson 5 random variable and a Gamma random

variable.


The Pearson 5 distribution starts slowly near its minimum and has a peak slightly

removed from it, as shown below. With decreasing alpha, the peak gets flatter [see

vertical scale] and the tail gets much broader.

The Pearson 5 distribution is useful for modeling time delays where some minimum

delay value is almost assured and the maximum time is unbounded and variably long,

such as time to complete a difficult task, time to respond to an emergency, time to repair

a tool, etc. Similar space situations also exist such as manufacturing space for a given

process.

[Figure 7]

5.7.2 Station 100 The distribution for station 100 is: Weibul (-14.5, 6.14, 39.4)


The Weibull distribution is a continuous distribution bounded on the lower side.

Because it provides one of the limiting distributions for extreme values, it is also referred

to as the Frechet Distribution and the Weibull-Gnedenko distribution.

[Figure 8]

5.7.3 Station 160 The distribution for station 100 is: Pearson 5 (12.2, 4.44, 82.8)

[Figure 9]


5.7.4 Station 180 The best distribution for station 180 is: Lognormal (12.3, 1.47, 0.904)

[Figure 10]

5.7.5 Station 190 The best distribution for station 190 is: Inverse Weibull (6.91, 4.95, 0.141) The Inverse Weibull distribution is a continuous distribution with a bound on the lower

side. It is uniquely zero at the minimum x, and always positively skewed. In general,

the Inverse Weibull distribution fits bounded, but very peaked, data with a long positive

tail.

[Figure 11]


6 Design Concepts Concept development for this project was an iterative process. The first concepts were

developed during a group drawing session. Original ideas ignored any feasibility or

project constraints. It was important that all alternatives were investigated to determine

where the largest gains in quantity of parts, per person, per hour will be made.

After the initial group concept development, the topics were narrowed down based on

which ones were viewed as the most important. Each member voted on the proposed

concepts in order to determine which ideas would be further developed. Based on these

votes, a second concept development group session was held. During this session, a

more formalized development of the previous concepts was established. These major

concepts led to an in depth investigation of the feasibility and improvement gains that

would be gained from each concept.

6.1 Preliminary Concept Development

6.1.1 Increase the Reliability of the End of Line Tester

The EOLT suffers from severe reliability problems. One of the main areas of concern, as

far as reliable performance, is concerned with the hydraulic connection that is made with

the motor prior to testing. If a successful mate is not made, the test can not be run and it

typically results in hydraulic fluid being spread throughout the inside of the tester.

If we can improve the EOLT, and lessen the interaction between the clean room staff and

the machine, both the output of the machine, and overall room output will be improved.

Overall room output will benefit due to the fact that more attention can be placed on

assembly, as opposed to troubleshooting/maintenance with the EOLT.


6.1.2 Setting the Pace of assembly line

One objective is to improve the flow through the system. Pallets are currently placed on

the line, at station 100, based on the operators pace. This concept involves adding a new

conveyor belt that will release pallets into the system at an optimal pace. The operator at

station 100 begins the process by placing the manifold on the pallet; this is the first

assembly point for the part. Other possible options could be in adjusting the speed of the

conveyor belt, or modifying the number of parts each operator creates, before moving to

the next manual station.

6.1.3 Goal Based Bonus incentives for Workers

Operators do not always stay focused or have a vested interest in achieving high

standards of production. We will provide an incentive for workers to consistently and

effectively work in the production of the HDFS. We will give gifts/vouchers based on

the number of parts produced per hour. Other ideas include paid lunch at Valeo (i.e.

Pizza or whatever they choose) or other rewards.

Group efforts can also be recognized. Provide a competitive environment in which

operators strive to do their best. Look at the highest ratio of parts/shift and reward

accordingly. Also have a continually updated board where production targets and results

are posted.

6.1.4 Staffing Optimization

We need to optimize the number of people on the line based on bottlenecks. By

combining job tasks and standardizing the way the operators work we can reach an


optimal staffing. We should know how many parts need to be produced and be able to

predict production based on staffing. A possible opportunity for improvement could be

having people specialize in certain tasks. That has a potential to increase production but

if the specialized person is not available, then the level of production could be lowered to

detrimental levels. Another solution is to have training on the off shifts, so production

will not be sacrificed based on inexperience.

Adding people to the line will not necessarily solve the problem. There is a point where

adding operators actually lowers production numbers.

6.1.5 Increase Speed of Stations

The Prodel line is made up of 5 manual work stations and 10 automatic work stations.

Five out of 10 work stations use 1 or more robotic arms to pick and place a work piece

onto the assembly. The robotic arm picks its piece, places its part on its respective

position of the part and then returns to the home position. At this point, the arm waits for

the next assembly before picking up another piece. While in the home position, the

robotic arm’s gripper remains empty. Re-program the robotic arms so that the robotic

arms’ gripper remains full at the home position could potentially save wasted time.

6.2 Redefined Concepts for Development Using the original ideas as a starting point, the team described their ideas through

drawings, which demonstrated how each idea could be implemented on the production

line. Each member took time to analyze each drawing and make adjustments. During the


creation of the drawings, members were not allowed to talk. All thoughts had to be drawn

and communication was limited to the pictures only.

After the initial assessment, there was a team meeting to create more formal drawings of

our concepts. These drawings can be found in the concept development section of the

team binder. Each of the concepts developed were put into one of seven major

categories: (1) End of Line Tester Efficiency Enhancements, (2) Automation of Manual

Stations, (3) Procedural Enhancements, (4) Manual Stations and Bottlenecks, (5)

Problematic Stations, (6) Material Handling, and (7) Simulation. Each concept within

these categories was evaluated for feasibility (including cost analysis). A bill of materials

was also created as well as an analysis and synthesis if necessary.

6.2.1 End of Line Tester Efficiency Enhancements Through data collection and observation, it was discovered very early that the end of line

tester (EOLT), in the clean room, is a major bottleneck. There are currently large

problems with reliability and performance. The machine suffers from a large amount of

down time and it consumes a large portion of the clean room personnel’s time. The

problem areas have been identified through observation of the clean room and

investigating historical downtime data. A new tracking method was implemented to find

data and trends for areas that were currently not being recorded. According to data

collected, the EOLT averaged 11 micro-stops per shift (failed motors, connection

problems, etc). For calculations, micro-stops were assumed to take an average of 3

minutes to clear and resume testing. The data also showed that the EOLT averaged 1395

minutes of total downtime per month, for the periods observed.


6.2.1.1 Reject Conveyor Initial observations lead to the development of several concepts to potentially solve

several of the recognized problems. The reject conveyor concept was developed to help

lessen the interaction required between clean room personnel and the EOLT. When a

motor fails a test, an operator must leave their station and remove the failed motor from

the EOLT before any additional tests can be run. The same is true for any motor that has

a false failure and needs to be retested. By implementing an automated way of removing

the failed test motors, clean room efficiency and output will be improved. This will be

achieved due to decreased operator interaction, and decreased micro-stop time associated

with removing the failed or false failure motors, which will allow the EOLT to process

more motors per shift.

6.2.1.2 Initial Feasibility Feasibility assessments were performed on each of the concepts for the EOLT. First, the

initial concepts were evaluated to determine which direction the efforts should go in. The

concepts that were compared were mating improvements, motor mounting, and a reject

conveyor. A web chart was used to assess the overall feasibility of each concept (See

Appendix K). The results of this exercise allowed the ruling out the reject conveyor as a

probable solution to our problems.

The mating improvements and motor mounting scored very similarly in all aspects of the

evaluation. While the mating improvements would be more technically challenging than

the motor mounting, it would provide a greater increase in efficiency. The modifications

required in each area, would have very similar requirements as far as cost, skills, time and

availability of personnel.


The Reject conveyor was ruled to not be as feasible as the other possibilities. The reject

conveyor would require a very similar skill set and time. The main assessment that did

not qualify this concept for feasibility was the fact that the potential efficiency

improvement would not be nearly as high as with the other concepts. The other two

concepts will be complimentary to each other. Together, they will create a much greater

improvement than if one was chosen over the other.

Once the concepts for improvements had been chosen, concepts were developed to use as

possible solutions for each situation.

6.2.1.3 Mating Problems One of the main problems with the current End of Line Tester (EOLT) is that the

hydraulic connections, required for the testing, are prone to failure and unexpected

operation. The current connections are off the shelf, pneumatically actuated opening jaws

that lock with the threads in the motor’s hydraulic ports. The system causes misalignment

between connectors and repeatedly produces EOLT downtime and false motor failures

(retests). If a proper hydraulic seal is not made, hydraulic fluid will spill into the rest of

the tester. This will eventually cause more downtime and increased operator interaction

by causing damage to other parts, such as the pneumatics. The current connector types

have no way of aligning themselves. If the connectors are not aligned, with the motor’s

hydraulic ports, the motion associated with the mate will cause the motor to move and not

achieve an optimal seal. The most common problem is the contamination of the

pneumatic lines with the hydraulic fluid. This prevents the equipment from working

properly as well as skewing test results. It is possible to notice when filters become dirty


or lines become contaminated by watching trends in the values returned by the EOLT.

There is currently no alarm that sounds when a mating problem occurs.

6.2.1.3.1 Design Concepts for Mating Problems By improving the mating system, existing in the EOLT, reliability will be improved.

Increased reliability will affect line performance on multiple levels. By increasing the

uptime associated with the EOLT, it will be able to process a higher number of motors

per shift. By decreasing the operator interaction, the clean room personnel will be

allowed to spend more time producing motors and doing other necessary tasks, which

will directly affect clean room motor output. This would also decrease maintenance costs

through lower downtime and a cleaner running EOLT. There are three main concepts that

were investigated with regards to improving the EOLT hydraulic connections.

6.2.1.3.1.1 Mating Concept 1 The first concept is the modified balancer cell concept. This idea involves utilizing

existing technology in the Valeo plant. In the assembly cells outside of the clean room, an

alternate connection method has been used with a great deal of success. The main benefit

of this idea is the fact that we would have a concept that would not require us to start

entirely from scratch.

The connection in the balancer cell is made using tapered connections with an o-ring that

is forced into place, linearly via a spring. Once in place, they are locked in the forward

position so they do not back off during the test. Using this type of connection will allow

the connectors to account for any misalignment between the tester and the motor that may

occur due to variances in either manufacturing or motor placement. As opposed to the


balancer cell, the connections used in the EOLT would be both extended and retracted

pneumatically. The reason that they are not currently this way is in an effort to help

isolate the balancer table, which will prevent any sort of outside input from affecting the

fan balancing results.

The existing connections would be used as the basis for the new design as many

modifications would be required to use this technology in the EOLT. The space

constraints in the EOLT are much tighter than in the balancer cell and this would need to

be considered.

In the modified assembly cell balancer mating concept, a support bar is used to lock the

connections forward once they successfully mate with the motor. This bracket is to

prevent the connectors from backing off when the hydraulic pressure has been started.

6.2.1.3.1.2 Mating Concept 2 The second proposed concept, for solving the mating problems on the EOLT, is the

threaded connection concept. This concept calls for the use of a threaded connection

system to make all the hydraulic connections. This will allow the system to be self-

aligning and create a tight seal. The fittings used with the motor are self-sealing and do

not require any additional sealant to create a tight seal. A rotational actuation would be

required to drive the connector forward and thread it into the motor. A sensor would be

required to ensure that the threads were fully engaged and would not leak. It may be

possible to drive this motion pneumatically, but it would most likely require and electric

drive.


6.2.1.3.1.3 Technical Feasibility Analysis for Mating Concepts When the two concepts for improving the mating problems were investigated, it became

clear that there were several differences. The most difficult aspects of the threaded

connection concept would be the actuation of the threads, and ensuring that it repeatedly

created a reliable and effective seal. It was determined that modifying the balancer cell

connections for the higher pressure, would be more technically feasible than creating a

new connection type.

Of the two concepts, the modified balancer cell concept proved to be much more feasible

than the proposed threaded connector idea. While providing similar benefits, the threaded

connection would have greater technical requirements. Modifying existing proven

technology already in the plant could also save a great deal of development time.

6.2.1.4 Analysis & Synthesis The end of line tester (EOLT) currently suffers from reliability problems that are derived

from issues that occur with the hydraulic mating between the EOLT and the motor

assembly.

Known Information:

The hydraulic mating system currently in use in the EOLT is prone to connection

problems. The hydraulic mating system currently in use in the assembly cell balancer is a

reliable method of connection. The hydraulic system in the balancer operates at 800psi as

opposed to the 1800psi in the EOLT. In order to utilize the same system in the EOLT,

modifications must be made.

Desired Information:


What type of pneumatics will be required to use the balancer style connectors with the

1800psi hydraulics encountered in the EOLT?

Assumptions:

1) Operating pressure: 160psi

Data:

1) Springs:

a. Spring Rate : 36 lb/in

b. Free Length: 5in.

c. Solid Length : 2.5

d. Part Number LC-135M-8-M

2) Air Cylinder:

a. Balancer

i. Bore: 2 in.

ii. Stroke: 1.5 in.

iii. Part Number F1AL-01-I 13 D-E 1A (Numatics)

b. Concept

i. Bore: 2.5 in.

ii. Stroke: 1.5 in.

iii. Part Number FO-501.500 (Bimba)

Analysis:

The balancer connectors are forced forward linearly, via the springs, and retracted with

the pneumatics. The force used to create the seal can be calculated using the data from

the springs.


Spring Force:

Fs = ½ * k * x2 = 112.5 lbs

Connection Force – Two Springs:

FT = 2 * Fs = 223 lbs

Scaled Force

( 800 psi ) / ( 223 lbs ) = ( 1600 psi ) / (x lbs)

x = 446 lbs

In order to create a forced seal, the pneumatic cylinder must exert enough

pressure to overcome the force from the 1800psi hydraulic fluid. A load safety factor of

%25 is required to account for frictional and other losses.

Load Safety Factor - %25

FR = (446 * .25) + 446 = 557 lbs

Concept Cylinder

F = pi * 1.252 * 160 = 785 lbs

From Bimba Supplied Power Factor (pf = 5)

F = 5 * 160 = 800 lbs

Cylinder Safety Factor

( 557 lbs ) / ( 800 lbs ) = 1.44

Synthesis:

According to the analysis of the pressures and forces encountered in the two hydraulic

systems, these modifications will be possible. The new air cylinder will be able to

provide more than adequate force to withstand the 1800psi hydraulic fluid. The new


cylinder has an additional safety factor of 1.44 beyond the calculated value, which

already included a %25 increase in the load for unaccounted for losses.

By implementing the new connection system, it should mate properly and not fail due to

connection problems. The new cylinder is a compact design and will fit the tight space

constraints of the EOLT. The new cylinder also comes at a low cost.

6.2.1.4.1 Finite Element Analysis A finite element analysis was performed on the support bar that was designed to be used

with the assembly cell balancer modified connectors. It was necessary to ensure that the

part would not fail under the loads it would encounter, but more so, to ensure that it

would not deflect enough to cause a gap which would cause a potential problem with the

mating.

I-DEAS was used to model the part and perform the analysis. The bar was

assumed to be made out general isotropic steel. The Von Mises stress for the system

results were less than 1% of the ultimate and yield strengths. The part would be in no

danger of failing.

The deflection was shown to be 1.26 E -02 inches. This value is very small and

can be assumed negligible when compared to the amount of compression that will be

absorbed by the o-ring during the mate. Different materials and geometries may be

investigated in the future to provide even better results. The results are displayed in figure

12. (See Appendix P for more details)This shows graphically the Von Mises stress

distribution throughout the part, and a representation of the scaled displacement versus

the un-deformed part.


[Figure 12]

6.2.1.5 Motor Mounting Concepts The movement of the motor during the connection can lead to a poor mating of the EOLT

and the motor to be tested. Currently, when the connectors are pushed forward into the

mated position, the force of the connection causes the motor to move because it is not

secured. The motor only uses pins to locate it on the testing platform, and not to secure

the motor to prevent motion. This problem is directly related to problems with mating.

By improving the mounting system, with which the motors are held for testing in the

EOLT, efficiency will be improved by removing one of the causes for EOLT hydraulic

connection problems. Improvements in this area will create better connection

performance and aide the overall performance in the same way that the mating concepts


will. Three main concepts were developed as possible methods of securing the motor

assemblies to the test table in the EOLT.

6.2.1.5.1 Motor Mounting Concept 1 The modified balancer cell concept called for using a system similar to that which is

currently used in the assembly cell balancer. The balancer cell has two right angle

brackets which extend up from the table, then rotate to position themselves over the

existing motor’s reference datums. The arms are then retracted downward to secure the

motor. For use in the EOLT, all three reference datums will be utilized in order to provide

for secure mounting of the motor. The mechanics that are currently being used to control

the motion of the arms would have to be replaced as they are too large to be utilized in

the EOLT.

6.2.1.5.2 Motor Mounting Concept 2 The circular mounting collar concept uses a system in which a collar with chamfered

guides, on the inside, would rotate around the motor. When the motor is in place, it will

exert a downward pressure on the datums, due to the geometry of the collar.

6.2.1.5.3 Motor Mounting Concept 3 The linear slide concept would utilize clamps that move into position in a 1 dimensional

linear motion. C-shaped clamps would engage both, the top of the reference datums and

the bottom of the table, providing a secure hold on each motor. Using the bottom of the

table as a support would help alleviate any strain being placed on the pneumatics that

could be transferred from the motor.


6.2.1.5.4 Technical Feasibility Analysis for Mounting Concepts Feasibility analyses were performed on the three motor mounting concepts that were

developed. All of the concepts scored similarly in respect to efficiency improvements,

down time, requirements of Valeo personnel and time required to implement. (See

Appendix K)

The linear slide mount was determined to be the most feasible concept based on its

results. The balancer cell mounting technique scored poorly due to the extensive

modifications that would be required to make it work. The mounts were driven by

equipment that was much too large to fit in the space available. An alternative method for

controlling the motion would have been excessively complex.

The circular collar was ruled out, due to the fact that it would require a great deal more

technical adaptation and work than the linear slide. The circular collar would also require

more equipment, which is not readily available through Valeo. The skill required for both

the circular collar and the balancer cell have a higher requirement than the linear slide

mount.

The linear slide mount proved to provide the greatest gain with the most well matched

requirements and costs. It was chosen to be the main concept for development to improve

the motor mounting of the EOLT.

6.2.1.6 EOLT Resource and Schedule Feasibility Analysis Feasibility exercises have lead to the concepts that needed to be developed to propose a

proper solution. Once the concepts were chosen, it needed to be ensured that the required


resources would be available to us. Scheduling is very important in this project and it was

important to lay out the major tasks and their required personnel to determine how much

time each task would require.

Using the existing parts lists for the EOLT and the Cell Assembly Balancer; an initial

BOM was created for the purpose of providing cost estimation. Once the equipment has

been selected, the electrical engineer needs to investigate the requirements for integrating

the new parts with the existing EOLT. It also needs to be determined what modifications

and additions will be required for the controls aspect of implementation. This is estimated

to take 6 man-hours.

Once the parts are chosen, preliminary detailed sketches need to be developed to identify

any additional areas to be looked into before a final design is created. The EOLT needs to

be checked to ensure that the concepts will fit without causing interference and that the

required support equipment is available. Dimensions and tolerances must be developed

for any points that will be used to locate the motor on the table. This includes the position

and thickness of the mounting points, as well as reference dimensions for the

connections. This work will take approximately 10 man hours.

The final design needs to be modeled and created in CAD; this will take approximately

30 hours. A prototype must be created, for testing, to validate the claims made in respect

to reliability and performance. Developing the prototype will take a minimum of 15 hours

not including associated machining time. A test station must be created that is capable of


simulating the conditions that will be present in the EOLT to test the prototype part; this

will also take a minimum of 10 hours not including the time required for machining.

It must also be ensured that sufficient personnel will be available for all required tasks.

Mechanical engineers will be required for new component design and modifications, as

well as CAD work and validation of the performance of the proposed changes. An

electrical engineer will be required to handle the controls, programming, and interfacing

with the existing components of the EOLT.

Industrial engineers will be required to perform the necessary analyses to predict and

validate the production enhancements. It will also be necessary to have access to

machinists for creation of any physical parts, tradesmen for implementation, final

assembly, and any additional personnel required for the purchasing and budgeting of the

project.

6.2.1.7 EOLT Modifications Economic Feasibility Analysis An economic feasibility exercise was performed to determine if the proposed concepts

for the EOLT were feasible. To meet the Valeo payback standard, the increase in

production would need to meet the cost of modifications within 2 years.

Using the data provided and collected for the Prodel line, it was shown that the EOLT

had an average down time of 1065 minutes per month, plus an average of 11 micro stops

per shift. Using these numbers, the EOLT is down for approximately 6 hours per week

with a two-shift workday.


The estimated cost of the mating and mounting improvements to the EOLT is $7700.

This includes purchased parts and the costs associated with machining all of the required

parts. The modifications are estimated to save $6165 in overtime costs per year. This

would allow the modifications to be paid off within 63 weeks which is well within the

100 week period. With the current downtime, the maximum project cost to meet the two

year payback goal, based on manpower, is $12,331.

Data Downtime - 1 month (minutes) 1065.00 Average Micro-stops Per Day 11.00 Assiciated Downtime (seconds ) 180.00 Total Downtime per week (minutes) 1395.00 Costs Materials $2,500.00 Machining Rate $26.00 Machining Hours $100.00 Machining Cost $2,600.00 Air Cylinders ($150 * 4) $600.00 Additional Parts $2,000.00 Total: $7,700.00 Timeline Paid Off in (weeks) 63 Maximum cost for 2 year payoff $12,331.80

[Figure 13]

End of Line Tester – Economic Feasibility Data


6.2.2 Automation of Manual Stations

One of the first concepts to be developed was to eliminate a manual station, and replace it

with automated devices instead. Theoretically, that would decrease the overall time of

the line, since automated stations were inherently faster than manual stations. It would

also decrease the number of people needed in the clean room. An overall increase in

output per person per hour appeared to be inevitable, so a closer look into this concept

was required.

Many of the manual stations on Valeo's Prodel line were made manual stations due to

their complexity. Most of the procedures completed at these stations would be very

difficult to automate, except for one. That station is station 190. Station 190's

procedures are basic, and could easily be done by a machine, and part of the station is

done mechanically. The basic design plans was to install an automatic bolt feeder like

the ones found in the assembly cells outside the clean room, and automate the machine

that secures the top of the motor assembly. This would fully automate the station, as well

as eliminate the bolt torque procedure in the proceeding station, and inevitably save time.

6.2.2.1 Feasibility Assessment The feasibility of executing this concept was poor. First of all, the automatic bolt-feeding

device used in the assembly cells was dirty with grease, dust, and oil. This would be very

difficult to bring into a clean room and not make a mess. Second, out of all the manual

stations, this one happened to have one of the quickest cycle times, so improving the time

on this station would have a minimal effect on the entire system which was already filled

with bottlenecks. Third, and by far the most important factor in the analysis was the cost.


After a little research and a few calculations, the implementation of automating an entire

station was very expensive. Comparing to the automation of other stations, the machines

that would be needed to do the job would cost between $100,000 and $200,000. This

does not include the loss of income due to downtime of the line and other design charges.

Implementation would not be completed before the end of this project, so the actual

results would be unknown. With the combination of lack of time, dirtiness, and

extremely high costs, which would only resulting in a small increase in production; this

concept is not feasible. There are smaller improvements that can be made on other

stations, primarily the bottleneck stations, which appear to be much more effective and

feasible for this project.

6.2.3 Procedural Enhancements Detailed procedures will be developed for each station in the clean room. Presently there

are procedures written for operating the stations but they are not detailed. The new

procedures state exactly what the operator is to do at each station, allowing the assembly

to be built as efficiently as possible. It contains procedures for filling part bins at stations,

procedures for building parts at the station, procedures for rotation from station to station,

and procedures for fixing failures at automated stations. The new procedure packet

consists of all procedural improvements that the Valeo team will make to the Prodel line

during the course of the senior design project.

6.2.3.1 Feasibility Assessment (see Web Chart – Appendix K) Implementing detailed procedures is technically feasible because the technology is

mature. Many of the procedures are already in place but are not detailed and easy to

follow. Developing a detailed procedure packet for the Prodel line will take


approximately 20 hours. Most of the information needed for this packet is in the clean

room but needs to be documented so that all workers will follow the same procedures.

Suggestions from production workers and supervisors will be used and their permission

will be needed on all procedural changes. The detailed procedures will allow for better

efficiency and production of more parts per person per hour than the current procedures.

They reduce confusion in the clean room, thereby creating more time for production.

Minimal cost is involved with creating the detailed procedures so it is economically

feasible.

Developing and producing the procedures will cost approximately 91 dollars. It requires

30 minutes of training for all 7 people in the clean room at a rate of 26 dollars an hour.

This correlates to approximately 3.5 hours of overtime. Based on our data 8.59 (See

Appendix G) hydraulic motor assemblies are built per person per hour, over the course of

a half an hour, 4.30 motor assemblies are built. If a 5 percent improvement is gained, by

implementing detailed procedures, approximately .43 more parts per person, per hour will

be made. After 10 hours of work, the increased productivity will pay for his/her training.

Since the production workers are involved in creating the new procedures a 30-minute

training seminar is sufficient. The detailed procedures will be posted in the clean room

and the workers will be given access to written copies. The new procedures do not

contain any complicated tasks and are similar to the procedures currently being followed,

so the workers should be able to pick up and implement the new procedures

instantaneously.


6.2.3.2 Analysis and Synthesis

The current procedures in place are not detailed and allow for confusion in the clean

room. What detailed procedures can be created and implemented to increase the

productivity of the Prodel Line?

Known Information:

The current operating procedures are complicated to read and seldom used by workers in

the clean room. There is a lot of uncertainty between workers about who should be doing

what in the clean room.

Many of the manual stations can be improved to increase productivity.

Desired information:

1. What ideas do the production workers have for improvements?

2. Do the production workers think the concepts that the Valeo team has developed will

increase productivity?

Analysis:

Time trials were performed at each station to determine which stations were bottlenecks.

(See Appendix E) From this data it was determined that stations 90, 100, and 160 were

the manual stations creating the biggest bottlenecks. These stations require the greatest

amount of time for a pallet to enter, have the assembly performed, and then exit. Based

on this information, procedural improvements will be made to each of these stations. By

producing detailed procedures consistent work will be done and the time for assembly at

the stations will not vary much based on the worker. This will allow for a better flow of

parts along the line and increase output. All workers will be involved in the process of


creating the new detailed procedures and will be given access to the written document.

Since none of the stations require complex assemblies few problems should arise during

implementation.

During visits to Valeo it was observed that when a failure occurs at an automated station

many minutes may pass before a worker gets to the station and fixes the problem. Many

times the workers assume someone else is going to fix the failure and this causes the line

to get backed up. By implementing procedures for failure response this problem can be

minimized. The person working at the station closest to the beginning of the line will be

in charge of responding to failures. This way bottlenecks won’t occur farther down the

line. It is not beneficial for this person to keep producing parts if they are going to get

bottlenecked further down the line. Since many of the failures at the automated stations

take seconds to fix the affect felt on the line will be minimal.

Synthesis:

Based on the analysis implementing procedures will reduced wasted time, create more

production time, and allow more parts per person per day to be built. Since the operators

will be involved in all decisions made about procedures very few problems should be

found when they are put in place.


6.2.3.3 Action Plan

Create better procedures to include station priorities, so operators know where to build if

a station is down. Using the simulation, it will be proven how many parts should be

made at each of the manual stations before they move to the next station.

When there are only 2-3 people working inside the clean room, the manual stations are

often neglected. This results in the emergence of bottlenecks and a slow down in

production. This happens because the operators spend too much time on one station –

usually until they run out of pallets - when they should move around to the other stations

regardless of how many pallets are coming in the station. By moving between stations, at

a more effective rate, there is the potential for more motors to be produced.

To address this issue, a set of timers can be installed at each manual station that could let

the operators know when it is time to move on to the next station. The timers would

countdown and sound an alarm to let the operator know its time to move.

The time that the operators spend on each manual station will be determined by the

number of people working inside the clean room.

6.2.3.3.1 Feasibility

The timers will be initiated via the toggle switch used for visual inspection. Therefore,

any costs associated with the timers will be the timers, installation and implementation.


The implementation of this concept will improve production rates by placing workers

where they are needed to be at the right time. The installation would require less than 3

hours per station totaling 15 hours.

6.2.3.3.2 Bill of Materials • 5 - Countdown timers with large easily readable numbers

• 5 sets - Mounting Hardware

6.2.3.4 Preventative Maintenance A preventative maintenance schedule will be developed. Currently no schedule is in

place so maintenance is only done when a machine fails. A list is in the process of being

created which will contain all of the PM that needs to be completed and when it needs to

be completed. This way the workers will know exactly what tasks need to be finished and

wasted time will be minimized. Two people will come in on an off day (Saturday or

Sunday) every week and work for 6 hours. During this shift the belts, pallets, and stations

will be cleaned and vacuumed. Any parts that need to be replaced in the automated

stations will be replaced during this time.

6.2.3.4.1 Feasibility Assessment The team and Valeo have sufficient skills to implement this change. It involves talking

with the coordinator and determining what maintenance needs to be performed and its

frequency. Jim Ely is a valuable resource at Valeo, he is the new coordinator and has only

been working at Valeo for 3 weeks but he has 9 years of experience working with Prodel

lines. Once he has more experience with the line he will be able to determine what needs

to be done and how frequently. He has learned what PM needs to be done to the conveyor

but is still learning about the PM that needs to be completed at each individual station.


There is sufficient equipment to perform the preventative maintenance because most this

maintenance is currently being completed after failures occur. By implementing this, we

are reorganizing their current way of performing maintenance. The PM schedule can be

completed in 1 hour once all the information is obtained.

Implementing this concept will add 12 hours (2 people for 6 hours) of paid work per

week. This will be overtime pay at 26 dollars an hour and will cost $312.00 extra dollars

per week. With the cost of parts used for maintenance, we will assume an average cost of

500 dollars a week (Rich from Valeo said this is a safe assumption). This will be paid off

by the reduction of wasted time during production hours, preventing micro stops, and

preventing catastrophic failures. By reducing wasted time and increasing efficiency, the

overtime that is currently being used to produce parts will be reduced and cover the cost

of implementing this PM.

If 500 dollars a week is spent on PM and Valeo is open for 50 weeks a year, PM will cost

approximately $25,000 a year. A way to justify this cost is to consider the profit on each

motor. The profit for each motor is approximately $60; therefore, approximately an

additional 8 motors will have to be produced each week to cover the cost. This number

will be obtained through increased uptime and productivity of the line, caused by PM

measures.


6.2.3.4.2 Analysis and Synthesis Analysis:

There are no current Preventative Maintenance procedures in place.

What PM can be scheduled and implemented to increase the

productivity of the Prodel Line?

Known Information:

No PM is currently being done. Maintenance is done once failures occur in machines.

Most of the PM is predictable and can be scheduled. Most of the PM that will be done is

cleaning of equipment and the clean room.





3. Will Valeo be able to implement PM with their current work schedule?

Analysis:

The maintenance in the clean room is fairly predictable but nothing is in place to perform

it. Many of the stations and the Prodel Line are not working at maximum efficiency

because they are dirty, and have oil embedded in them. Preventative Maintenance will

allow for stations to work more efficiently by minimizing normal wear and tear. It will

also reduce the frequency of breakdowns, which will allow more uptime of the line and

reduce the cost associated with fixing them. Valeo currently posses all tooling required to

implement PM. The costs that will arise are from personal and replenishment of parts.


Having 12 hours devoted to PM every week will allow for sufficient time to perform

routine maintenance such as cleaning, vacuuming, and inspecting stations. The 12 hours

will also allow for drastic PM such as replacing a worn part in an automated station

without causing downtime to the line.

Over the course of the next few months Valeo is going to be operating the Prodel Line 7

days a week to meet the demand for the hydraulic motors. This is going to prevent PM

from being introduced before April but with a schedule made and the concept introduced

a smooth transition will be made.

Quality Review:

After having discussions with Valeo personnel it was decided that implementing PM is

needed. It is agreed that in the long run PM will reduce down time and make the line

more efficient. All aspects of PM have been covered and any modifications that are done

to the Prodel Line can easily be implemented into the PM schedule.

Synthesis:

Based on the analysis it was determined that although PM will not be introduced for

several months that setting up the schedule and procedures should be done to allow for a

smooth implementation. The PM schedule has to be flexible to account for any

unforeseen maintenance that may arise from machine failures but it must contain routine

maintenance that will help reduce wear and increase the life and efficiency of stations. By

having 2 workers perform the maintenance you eliminate having one person becoming an

expert in it and then running into problems when this person takes a day off. Having 2

workers also increases the amount of PM that can be done on a weekly basis.


6.2.4 Manual Stations & Bottlenecks

6.2.4.1 Station 90 Move the 6 part bins located on station 90 to a height that is approximately waist high

and in front of the operator (see figure 14) and allow 2 PVC assemblies to be pressed

together simultaneously. By doing this the worker can work with both hands and not have

to reach across his/her body to get parts. These improvements will decrease the time

required to assemble each part and reduce wasted time.

The number of each part box corresponds to the order of operation. The part in box 1 is

assembled with the part in box 2. The part in box 3 is then added to the previous

assembly. This continues until all 6 parts are assembled into the PVC assembly.

[Figure 14] Ergonomic and Anthropometric considerations: In order to re-design station 90, it was necessary to consider ergonomics and

anthropometry. Since the average person should be able to comfortably work at station

90, it is necessary to build around the average person. (See Appendix O)

Tester

1 2

3 4

5 6Worker


Male (Inches)

Female (Inches) Average

Elbow Height 43.3 39.8 41.55 Knuckle Height 29.7 27.6 28.65 Shoulder Height 56.2 51.6 53.9

Arm Length 26.5 24 25.25 [Figure 15]

The average heights for men and women – as seen above - were used to determine the

optimal height of the bins. The design should also include bins that are angled toward the

operator for ease of reach inside the bins.

Since the bins will be located on either side of the operator, we investigated reach

distances for the average Man and Woman. This is assuming that the operator will reach

for parts at an angle of 45 degree. We calculated the optimal distance from the operator

to the bins to be 13.26”. Equal motion for both sides of the body was considered.

6.2.4.1.1 Feasibility Assessment (See Appendix K)

Moving the 6 part bins to the center of the workstation is more technically feasible than

moving the part bins to the right and left of the production worker. The design of the

racks used to support the part bins, on the left side of the workstation, can be used to

support bins, on the right side of the workstation, but the station monitor prevents the

bins from being placed at the same height as those found on the left. Moving this monitor

would be difficult because there is no other area that offers proper support and this is the

most user-friendly location. The right side of the workstation is also used to exhaust the

heat developed by the testing machine. If the part bins were to be placed there, a new way

to exhaust the heat would have to be developed. With the part bins placed in front of the

production worker only minor supports are needed to hold the square plastic part bins. A

greater efficiency will occur by moving the 6 part bins to the center of the workstation


and directly in front of the worker. This efficiency will occur because the workers arm

will be relaxed and hanging at the approximate height of the bins. Preventing the worker

from having to reach up to grab the parts used for assembly. Having the part bins ordered

in the sequence described above will also increase efficiency. This will allow the operator

to work with both hands and assemble in the center of his/ her body.

Moving the 6 part bins to the center of the work station will allow for a greater payback

because it will cost less to implement and will allow for a greater output of parts. It will

also require less skill and time to implement compared to moving 3 of the bins to the

right side of the workstation. The greatest difference between these two ideas is the

amount of time the line will be down for implementation. It will take less time

(Approximately 1 hour to build and implement) to place bins in the center of the

workstation because the supports and design can be set up outside of the station and then

brought in and implemented during off hours.

A quote for $6,910.00 was obtained from Cavalry Automation Systems for parts and

installation of the new concept. When a 3 second per part reduction in assembly time is

used for analysis we find: Based on time trials, it takes approximately 37 (See Appendix

E) seconds to build this part. For every 12 PCV assemblies made approximately 1 more

will be produced after implementation of this concept. When 1200 PCV assemblies are

assembled an hour of labor is saved. For every hour labor is reduced approximately 26

dollars is saved. After approximately 318,923 PVC assemblies are completed this

concept would be paid back. From the data collection (See Appendix G) 1494 motor


assemblies were built during the week of 1/26/04. Based on this information

approximately 74,700 (1494* 50 weeks) motor assemblies are produced each year. This

improvement would be paid for after approximately 4.3 years. Valeo has agreed to

implement this change even though their 2-year payback standard is not satisfied by this

analysis.

If a profit analysis is completed for the proposal a different result is found.

Approximately $60 of profit is obtained from every completed hydraulic motor assembly.

With assembly time reduced by 3 seconds 13.587 extra parts are produced per hour at

station 90. This will result in an additional profit of approximately $815 per hour worked

at station 90. After approximately 8.5 hours of work at station 90 the concept will be paid

for. This analysis meets the requirements of Valeo’s 2-year payback.

6.2.4.1.2 Analysis and Synthesis A production worker assembles 6 different parts into a PVC assembly at this station.

What improvements can be made at the station to decrease the time required to assemble

a PVC assembly?

Known Information:

There are 6 part bins located to the left of the worker. The worker must use those 6 parts

to assemble the PVC assembly.

Based on our time trial data it takes approximately 37 seconds to put together 1 PVC

assembly.

The monitor at the station is fixed. It cannot be moved.

The right side of the station needs to be open so that heat can exhaust the testing machine.






Analysis:

Current Design:

[Figure 16]

Proposed Concept:

[Figure 17]

Tester

1 2

3 4

5 6Worker

Part Bins

Tester

Worker


With this new design, the workers will have a systematic way of obtaining the parts used

for assembly. Obtaining the first part from part bin 1 with their left hand and assembling

it with the second part from part bin 2, which was obtained with their right hand. This

trend will continue until all 6 parts are assembled into the PVC assembly. By using both

sides of the body, the ergonomics of assembly will be improved. This design also allows

for the monitor to stay in its current location and the heat to exhaust from the right of the

workstation. With the part bins located in front of the workers the wasted time that

occurred from reaching for parts is eliminated.

Quality Review:

After talking to production workers and considering the constraints of the workstation it

was decided that placing the 6 part bins in front of the worker would allow for the most

comfort and maximize the reduction in wasted time. The workers agree that this new

design will allow workers to work with both hands in a systematic way and eliminate

reaching across their bodies to obtain parts. This will reduce wasted time and increase the

time used for producing of parts. The production workers and supervisors at Valeo

believe this design is more efficient than the current design and the workers will be able

to reduce the amount of time that is needed to build a PVC assembly.

Synthesis

Based on the analysis, it was determined that placing the 6 part bins in front of the worker

is an ideal concept. The production workers at Valeo helped create the idea and believe

that this could drastically reduce the amount of time to build each PVC assembly.


6.2.4.1.3 Bill of Materials: The quote received from Cavalry Automation Systems is for all parts and installation. It

does not contain a part list but is the cost for Cavalry Automation Systems to come to

Valeo and complete the job.

6.2.4.2 Station 100 Make sure sufficient amounts of manifolds are placed on the left conveyor so the worker

does not have to frequently leave the assembly area to replenish the supply of parts. This

conveyor does not hold many manifolds so the worker wastes assembly time when he/she

has to frequently leave the station to load it. A procedure will be introduced to fill the

conveyor to its maximum. The bins with motor manifolds are going to be stacked 2 high

rather than 1 high. This allows for twice as many manifolds to be built before reloading

of the conveyor is needed.

6.2.4.2.1 Feasibility Assessment The team has sufficient skill to implement this change. It will require writing up a

detailed procedure and meeting with the workers and explaining to them the new

procedures. Writing the detailed procedure will take approximately 1 hour to complete

and explaining it to the staff can be done during their morning meeting.

Implementing this concept will not cost any money. It is a procedural change and will not

involve changing any physical parts. Once the procedures are written up they will be

conveyed to the workers and then implemented. It will reduce wasted time and allow the

worker to assemble more parts per hour.


6.2.4.2.2 Analysis and Synthesis A production worker has to frequently reload the conveyor with motor manifolds while

assembling and station 100. What improvements can be made at the station to decrease

the frequency of reloads that occur?

Known Information:

The conveyor that holds the motor manifolds is approximately 3.5 feet long and replacing

it is not a practical idea.

The conveyor is made of steel and can withstand a great amount of weight.





Analysis:

By double stacking the motor manifold bins the storage of the conveyor doubles. This

cuts the frequency of reloads in half. Valuable time will be saved from implementing this

procedure.

Quality Review:

Some of the production workers already use this technique of stacking but it is not a

standard. By implementing this concept it will become a standard and the reduction in

time will occur no matter which worker is working at the station.

Synthesis:


Based on this analysis no changes will have to be made to our initial design. This simple

procedural change will reduce wasted time on the Prodel Line and allow for more parts to

be assembled at station 100 per person per hour.

6.2.4.3 Stations 180 and 190 Moving the bolt plate and bolts racks between station 180 and 190. Currently the racks

are sticking out into the aisle. By rotating the bolt plate rack and moving the bolt rack

(See Figure 18) the walking distance between stations can be reduced. The

implementation of these concepts while taking into consideration the various cell layout

factors that may arise, will make it possible to reduce the travel time between the two

cells by a significant amount which can then be related to QPH, our ultimate goal for this

project.

BEFORE

[Figure 18]


AFTER

[Figure 19]

6.2.4.3.1 Feasibility Assessment The team has sufficient skill to implement this change. The racks are on wheels and

moving them can be done easily. This change can be implemented by the CDR because it

requires no technical changes and can be implemented in a matter of minutes. The new

procedures for the operator will be written up and announced at a morning meeting.

6.2.4.3.2 Analysis and Synthesis

When the clean room is understaffed a production worker has to frequently move from

station 180 to 190 to keep the Prodel Line from getting clogged. What improvements can

be made at the station to decrease the time required to move from station 180 to 190?

Known Information:

The stations are located next to each other but racks that are used to hold parts are in

between the stations.


The racks have wheels on them and can be moved easily.





Analysis:

By moving the bolt rack for station 190 to the right of the station and then rotating the

bolt plate rack, room is available so that the worker can move horizontally from station

180 to 190. This will take less time than walking around the racks and allow for an

increase in production time. The moving of these racks will not affect current operating

procedure because the parts on these racks are removed from the racks and placed in bins

located in the building area of the manually station.

Synthesis:

Based on the analysis it was determined that this change will not affect production

procedures but will reduce time that is wasted walking between stations 180 and 190.

Although this concept only gives improvements when the clean room is understaffed

based on the team’s observations and data it was determined that the change should be

introduced because it costs little to no money to implement.

6.2.4.4 Station 160 Station 160 is a manual station that involves placing a white mark with a marker onto a

specific spot on the assembly for verification purposes.

The operator must pick up an oily pen, uncap it, place a mark on the assembly, re cap the

pen and place the pen back to an undesignated spot.


The station needs to have it so that the operator does not have to constantly uncap and

recap a slippery pen coated with oil (oil on pen is a result of the residual oil from another

part that goes onto the assembly in the same station). Mount the pen cap somewhere on

the station with a permanently attached cap. Keep the pen uncapped and dipped in ink or

another solution so that it does not dry out.

6.2.4.4.1 Feasibility

The implementation of this concept will take away no more than 15-30 minutes away

from production time of station 160.

The implementation and use of this concept will save 2-5 seconds per part. According to

the analysis below, an increase of 2.87% - 16.20% is possible for this station with a fully

staffed shift.

Given Information

Number of seconds per shift 25380

Station 160 Cycle Time 35.86 Theoretical parts per shift 707.75

Projected Savings based on Time Savings

Time Savings (sec) Number of parts assembled per

fully staffed shift

Difference from original

Percent Increase

1 728.06 20.31 2.87% 2 749.56 41.81 5.91% 3 772.37 64.62 9.13% 4 796.61 88.86 12.56% 5 822.42 114.67 16.20%

[Figure 20]


6.2.4.4.2 Bill of Materials 1 set – Mounting hardware

6.2.4.5 Production Board By developing a production board, the team will have a way to show and justify any

improvements that are made to the production line. It is also a way to post goals and give

the workers incentive to work. The board will be used to document current production

output and compare it to past output. From this information it is easier to determine if any

flaws have developed on the line.

6.2.4.5.1 Feasibility Assessment

The Valeo team has sufficient skill to implement this change. It will require choosing the

proper size board and finding the proper place to hang it. The production board will be

implemented by the CDR because it requires no technical or physical changes to the

stations. A production board was chosen over a computerized sign because it costs less to

implement and can be updated easily throughout the day.

Implementing this concept costs $119.45. The production board is not a big factor in

increasing parts per person per hour but it is needed to convey messages from the

supervisors to the workers. It clarifies questions that workers may have and will reduce

time wasted by workers that must find their supervisor for answers. It will also be used as

a way to document historical background. This is beneficial to the engineers and

supervisors when they need data for forecasting output of the line and quoting new

orders.


6.2.4.5.2 Bill of Materials

1) 3’ by 5’ non-magnetic dry erase board from Staples. (Item # 518936) - $119.45

6.2.5 Problematic Stations

6.2.5.1 Station 210 After collecting data and making observations, it was found that the cause of downtime

on station 210 was due to a false failure that occurred on the optical check of the snap

ring. A later collection of data showed that the station was recently having a lot of trouble

with false leak test failures.

The source of the optical problem was investigated, and it was found that the pictures

obtained from the camera, presented shining sections that the software mistakenly labels

as the holes in the snap ring. The test would then use these false holes in the measurement

between snap ring holes to be at the wrong distance, and therefore fail the part.

The bright sections on the snap ring occur because the light that is shined on the snap

holes approaches the ring diagonally and therefore reflect glare to the lens creating a false

hole in the program interpretation. Also the finish of the spacer ring, underneath the snap-

ring, changes from one shipping order to the next making hard to set a specific value of

light to identify as the hole.


[Figure 21]

Different solutions were evaluated by the group included pre-painting the rings prior to

installation to produce a standard colored ring for the program to recognize,

reprogramming the software to identify the position of dark areas instead of bright areas,

and redirecting the light approaching the snap ring to reduce glare in the camera lens via

a two way mirror.

As for the leak test failure problem, workers would tend to the failed part, clean off the

connectors and motor by running their fingers around the mating parts, and then re-run

the test which would then pass the next few parts before the same error occurred again. It

was determined that the rubber connectors, which press onto the motor, were the cause of

the false failures. The connectors were old, and it could not be determined the last time

they were replaced.


The solution to this problem was simple. Replace the rubber connectors on the machine,

and schedule this procedure into part of the preventative maintenance routine.

6.2.5.1.1 Feasibility Analysis for Station 210 (See Appendix K)

The first concept of pre-painting the rings prior to installation appears to be the easiest fix

in this situation. However, the web diagram shows a different story. There are two

major problems with this concept. One, it is not technically feasible because the paint

could contaminate the motor, as well as exceed already very tight tolerances. Also, the

plant does not currently have the proper equipment for painting a large number of parts,

so equipment would have to be purchased. The contamination of the motor is enough to

discard this concept.

Reprogramming the software to find dark areas instead of bright areas is a good second

concept, which has one major drawback that can be seen on the web diagram (See

Appendix K). The personnel needed to make this change are not readily available. A

specialist with experience, with the programming, would have to be called in to make the

changes, which would be rather costly. If the reprogramming can be done, it would be

installed and working on the line with very little downtime. However, compared with the

third concept, reprogramming is not the best route to take in this case.

Installing a two-way mirror in front of the camera lens is the concept chosen for this

situation. It excels in every category on the web diagram. Valeo has everything needed

to implement this modification with no downtime of the line required to do so. Since this


concept appears to be the best in this situation, further analysis has been done to ensure

that it is a feasible concept.

Making the mirror modification to the station began with checking the dimensional and

availability constraints within the station’s space. Since the station has few moving parts,

and is in the open, there is no problem in this area. Next, mounting points had to be

determined to integrate the mirror in front of the camera lens. From there, sketches were

made with call outs to the parts that would need to be purchased. The tradesman could

then modify the design so that all components worked well together. Finally, the two-

way mirror will be ready to be integrated into the station during line downtime, which

would occur at night or on a weekend. This installation process will not take long. Once

the two-way mirror is in place, the station could be used when the line is running. After a

week of use, the downtime sheets will be collected along with the pictures taken by the

camera. These will be analyzed to observe the improvements made by the modification.

Slight adjustments in the mechanical setup, as well as the software may need to be done

to optimize the performance of the station.

Enough personnel will be available to complete this concept. A mechanical engineer

from the team was put in charge of the concept design, mounting specifications, and will

be needed for validation of the modification once it’s implemented. The industrial

engineers, on the team, were used to perform analyses to predict and validate the product

enhancements. The will also be responsible for including the replacement of the rubber

connectors into the preventative maintenance schedule. Valeo tradesmen will be


building, ordering the needed parts, and installing the finished product into the station.

Valeo's supervisor will be needed to oversee the purchasing and budgeting of this

concept.

As for the replacement of the rubber connectors used in the leak test, since this should be

a preventative maintenance issue, it is completely feasible to make this change.

Quantification of results can be analyzed by taking the average number of micro-stops

per week due to false failures of the optical snap ring test, 22, and the rapidly increasing

average number of micro-stops per week due to false leak tests, 12, and multiply the

average downtime of the station when a failure occurs, 60 seconds. The result of this

shows that on average downtime for station 210 is 2040 seconds, or 34 minutes per week.

The average cycle time of a part entering the station is 17.7 seconds. Theoretically, if the

two errors set out to be fixed at this station were solved completely, 115 more motors can

be produced per week, or 23 motors per day. A more realistic output would assume that

the station is working at 85% efficiency, and that would give an increase in motor output

of 97 per week, and 19 per day. Due to the fact that this improvement is dependent on

the rest of the system, this is not a realistic estimate. The maintenance and modifications

to station 210 will improve the reliability of the station and will ultimately decrease the

downtime. By reducing downtime, more motors will be passed along to the end of line

tester, and more productivity will be made at the manual stations since the workers will

not have to take time to reset the machine for false errors. Improvements on this, and


each of the other problem stations, will create a ripple effect throughout the clean room,

and an overall increase of output will be seen.

From the quantifications of the expected results, and the bill of materials, a cost analysis

can be done to determine if this project meets the requirement of a two year pay back

period. From the bill of materials, the two way mirror, light source, and power supply

were quoted at $1050. The rubber connectors were at most $60, an estimated $100 for

fabrication costs. Labor, quoted at 26 dollars per hour for an estimated 6 hours, is $156.

The total cost would be roughly $1536. One method to determine payback was to use the

estimated time being saved by improvements, and multiply that by the average overtime

wage. As seen above, an estimated 34 minutes per week could be saved. When taking

the average overtime wage of a worker, $26 per hour, which would be saved by this

concept, the total savings would be $14.73 per week. The project would pay for itself in

almost 104 weeks, which just meets the two year's required for payback.

Calculations

Estimated $1536 dollars will be needed to implement the concept. (see feasibility)

2 Year(100 Week)payback period to justify costs

Estimated 26 dollars per hour for overtime.

1536 dollars x _1 hour_ x 60 minutes = 35.45 Minutes saved per Week to justify 100 weeks 26 dollars 1 hour

According to the feasibility analysis of this concept, it meets all time, personnel, and cost

requirements that will help increase efficiency of the line. Therefore, this concept will


be implemented into station 210, and post-implemented data will give real improvement

results.

6.2.5.1.2 Analysis and Synthesis for Station 210 A production worker is required to leave their station to check this automated station

when it shuts down. An alarm sounds due to a failed test; that is often one of two false

failures that frequently occur. What improvements can be made to this station to

decrease the number of false failures that occur?

Known Information:

The two false failures that occur at this station are an optical test that measures the

distance between two holes in a snap ring to determine if the ring is seated in the correct

position, and an air leak test which is performed to ensure the motor will not leak

Desired Information:

What ideas do members of the team, or the Valeo HDFS staff, have for improvement?

Are there any reasons why the concepts we propose should not be implemented?

Analysis:

The reason the optical test fails is because of glare during the picture taking process that

the software believes is a location of one of the snap ring holes. Since it is measuring the

distance to a "false hole" the measurement is wrong, and the test fails, even though the

snap ring is seated correctly. By reducing the glare picked up by the camera, done by

placing a two-way mirror in front of the lens, accurate readings will take place and false

failures will be eliminated.


The cause for the air leak test false failures is the rubber connectors, which are pressed

against the motors, are old and worn. Imperfections in the connectors create the leaks,

not the motors. By replacing the connectors, the problem should be solved and false

failures will be eliminated.

Synthesis:

Due to the simplicity of the changes proposed, these concepts can be implemented

quickly with no major changes to the system. Changes made, can be modified or

removed easily, if needed. By decreasing the number of false failures, production

workers will not have to leave their stations, the station will not be shut down, and more

parts can be made per person per hour.


6.2.6 Material Handling Part of increasing the QPH per person includes minimizing or eliminating unnecessary

travel time. All materials used in the assembly of the motor go through a washer and

then queue on a conveyor. As material is needed material is removed from the conveyor

and brought to its respective station. This travel time could be reduced allowing the

operator to spend more time at the manual assembly stations rather than moving material.

Several concepts were developed in order to facilitate the handling of incoming material

and reduce the time spent by the operator.

6.2.6.1 Designated Operator The first concept includes a designated operator who is accountable for restocking all

material throughout the line. This person will have other responsibilities as the

restocking of material should not require a fully dedicated person to that task. He/she

could have other responsibilities. However, they would be held accountable for

inventory control.

6.2.6.1.1 Feasibility Schedule, technical, economic and performance feasibilities should not be an obstacle if

it is decided to follow through with this concept. The task of scheduling an operator will

not require technical know how or a fixed price. Performance feasibility is not an issue

as the part itself is not affected throughout this change.


Responsibility will be fixed and no station time would be lost, due to material shortage.

However, because of limited Valeo manpower this concept will not be feasible.

6.2.6.2 Divide washer conveyor belt to either side of assembly The second concept involves the conveyor line originating from the washer and

branching off in two directions. The conveyor would branch on either side of the

elliptical assembly line. This would reduce the time required for an operator to walk to

the conveyor belt and pick up the necessary parts. Any time an operator can focus

his/her time to assembly there is the possibility of raising the QPH per person.

6.2.6.2.1 Feasibility The time required to implement and develop this concept would be too great when

compared to its benefits. The technical aspect of developing a new conveyor line would

be extremely time consuming and its implementation would require a minimum of ½ a

shift of downtime. The concept is technically feasible but would take resources from

concepts which would have a greater impact on the overall improvement of the system.

Assuming material handling at the washer station is the main culprit behind wasted time,

the concept could result in increased production. However, given the short distances

traveled by the material handler and the high cost of implementing a new conveyor belt

this concept is not preferred.

6.2.6.3 Reduce time spent replenishing material There is quite a bit of redundancy during material handling. Eliminating some these

redundancies could lead to a more efficient operator. At stations 110 and 170 parts

originating from the washer are brought to their respective stations after which the parts

are manually moved one by one to the new location. At station 100, for example, small


plungers arrive on trays from which they are moved one by one to a similar tray to be

inserted into the Prodel station. These plungers, or rings in the case of station 170, could

be moved differently to cut down on the time the operator spends on non assembly tasks.

Station 100 could utilize a device which would clamp multiple plungers at once to

transfer them from one tray to another. Station 170 could use a bar sliding through the

rings to transfer an entire row at a time (there are 3 rows with 10 rings each) from one

tray to another.

6.2.6.3.1 Feasibility The concept requires the development of a fixture to move material from one tray to

another. The development of this fixture would not interfere with the current system and

as such would not affect production in a negative way during its development. It would

be a tool to speed the transfer of materials. However, scheduling a group member to a

task which could result in minimal returns, on production efficiency, could strain our

resources. The concept is technically feasible given the skills of the group members and

further brainstorming would be required for a detailed concept development.

Implementation costs for this concept would be quite low. The fixtures to move material

from one tray would need to be built at a minimal cost (no more than $300).

6.2.6.4 Designated locations for tools and inventory (5S) We can utilize a 5S concept, ‘shadowing’, to keep track of all tools used at a station.

Shadowing essentially involves having a designated place for everything (i.e. tools, bins).

For example, all tool will have a silhouette marking there designated location. This will


hopefully eliminate the need for operators to look for tools. After using a tool it should

be put back in its location; if this is not done it will be easy to see that it is missing.

6.2.6.4.1 Feasibility Schedule, technical, economic and performance feasibilities should not be an obstacle if

it is decided to follow through with this concept. The time required to implement this

concept should be minimal given the simplicity of the task. However, 5S can be a

misleading term in this concept as 5S is a continuous process and technically

improvements can and should always be made. The focus will be on performing 5S in

individual areas and less on the system as a whole. The technical feasibility is most

definitely available from both the Valeo team members and the Valeo operators.

Creating a system, in which all tools are accounted for, would cost almost nothing

(possibly a role of tape and some paper). However, the result would be a more efficient

operator which does not waste time looking for tools. The results would be minimal but

given the simplicity involved in its implementation and coupled with other concepts the

result would be a favorable one. However, due to Valeo team member availability and

other concepts being pursued which require more time, 5S will not be implemented. 5S

initiatives will however be suggested to Valeo.

6.2.6.5 Concept Assessments for Material Handling Concepts Looking over the radar chart (See Appendix K) produced from the aforementioned

concepts it is clear that concept 2 (dividing the washer) is not a desirable concept for

further development. Feasibility assessment of concept 2 also showed this was not a

favorable concept to pursue.


Concepts 1 (designated operator) and 4 (5S) are two concepts which require no

investment in order to implement and could be further developed. As demonstrated in

the radar chart, they do not require a lot of time for development or implementation.

However, Concept 1 is dependent on other concepts being developed and should only be

considered if the simulation model supports the allocation of an operator to material

handling. One of the main obstacles faced by the Valeo group is ensuring that their time

is spent on the most impacting concepts. One of 5S’s pillars is ‘sustaining’. Given the

constant attention required to sustain a 5S initiative this concept will not be further

developed based on schedule feasibility.

Concept 3 (reduce replenishment time) should not be further developed. Although it

would eliminate wasted time replenishing material, it will lead to a poor resource

allocation of Valeo group members. Valeo may wish to look into developing this

concept on their own.

Therefore, based on the above mentioned feasibilities and conclusions the material

handling concepts will not be further developed. However, material handling is still an

important concept to keep in mind and thus will be addressed through the procedural

enhancements.


6.2.7 Simulation Concepts In order to study Valeo’s HDFS Prodel Line a simulation model was created in Arena. A

simulation model is a powerful approach to understanding the current system and the

implications of alternative designs, concepts or policies. A model makes it possible to

study the existing system as it is today and compare it to a series of “what-ifs” which

otherwise would be too expensive, time-consuming, disruptive, or dangerous to

reproduce directly.

This model usually takes the form of a set of assumptions concerning the operation of the

system. Potential changes to the system can first be simulated in order to predict their

impact on system performance. Thus, simulation modeling can be used both as an

analysis tool for predicting the effect of changes to existing systems and as a design tool

to predict the performance of new systems under varying sets of circumstances.

Several aspects of the Prodel line were studied through the simulation model including:

operator allocation and utilization, number of pallets in the system, line speed, bottleneck

locations, blocking of pallets and overall problem stations.

6.2.7.1 Simulation as a means to determine the best utilization of operators

The Arena simulation model will provide a means to move operators around and look for

the optimal sequence of jobs they should follow. The model will be able to simulate

different scenarios in which operators are utilized in different aspects of the assembly

process. For example, an operator can be allocated to an assembly station for a


predetermined amount of time before continuing to another assembly station. Using the

model the most effective resource (operators) allocations should be determined.

6.2.7.1.1 Feasibility Schedule feasibility should pose no problem in the implementation of the concept. The

most time consuming aspect of this concept is the time required to make the simulation

model. However, the end conclusions from the analysis of the model will require little

time to be implemented. Operators will need to be instructed on how to use their time

most efficiently and on the sequence of tasks they must work on.

Economically this concept has the potential to make a significant impact of the QPH per

person at no cost at all, other than the team’s time. The concept will require no

investment and neither will its implementation.

The Prodel line will be unaffected by the concept’s implementation. As the concept deals

with the operator, at no point should the part being produced be affected in a negative or

positive way. No quality issues should arise or any alterations to the part itself should be

made. The end result will be a more efficient operator and will keep the same part

quality/characteristics.


6.2.7.2 Determine the optimal number of pallets circulating through the system and speed of the conveyor belt.

A well balanced system will eliminate/reduce bottlenecks and utilize all its resources

effectively. Typically the Prodel line uses 40-45 pallets in the system. The Simulation

model will provide a means of analyzing the system using more or less pallets and

determine the optimal number of pallets in the system. The number of pallets will affect

a number of aspects including bottlenecks, queue sizes, and production rates. It will also

help to avoid blocking by other pallets to the incoming stations. In conjunction to the

number of pallets in the system the speed of the conveyor belt will be determined. The

speed of the conveyor belt will focus on the same issues addressed when determining the

number of pallets in the system. Essentially, the optimal ‘pace’ at which the line will run

will be identified. The number of pallets and speed of the system could affect production

because it will not overwhelm the operator, at a given station, and will provide for a

better balanced line.

6.2.7.2.1 Feasibility Similar to concept 1 (distribution of operators), the feasibility looks quite favorable.

There is no cost associated to the simulation model itself. The only cost will be the team

members’ time, involved in producing the model. This concept uses existing resources

and finds the optimal way to utilize them. If the model demonstrates that the line will run

more efficiently with more pallets, the only cost would be associated with purchasing

more pallets at a cost of $/pallet. Also similarly to concept 1, the technical know how is

available.


6.2.7.3 Simulation Concept Assessments Further assessment of the concepts was done using a radar chart (See Appendix K). The

radar chart clearly showed favorable risk and benefits associated with each concept. Both

concepts demonstrated strong scores in all aspects of the feasibility criteria. Both

concepts would drastically improve the efficiency of the line and should be developed

further.


7 Project Feasibility Assessment

7.1 Initial Overall Project Feasibility (See Appendix K) Feasibility was a major concern of this project. There are many improvements that can

be made to the Prodel Line, so it needed to be determined as to which concepts would

give the largest improvement.

Before looking into individual concept feasibility, the project needed to be put into

perspective. It needed to be determined as to what aspects of the overall system were

most important, and which ones could possibly slow our progress. The areas of

importance, for the overall project, were determined to be resource, economic, schedule

and technical feasibility. Questions were developed to determine the team’s confidence

in each of these areas. Every question was then rated on a 1-5 scale, with 5 being high

confidence.

Resource Feasibility

• Are there sufficient skills to increase the production per person per hour?

• Is there sufficient equipment?

• Are there a sufficient number of people?

• Are the Valeo Workers available to work with us?

• Is the assembly line running enough so that we can observe it?

Economic Feasibility

• Are there enough required funds to finish the project?

• Can we have a 2-year payback on all costs?


Schedule Feasibility

• Can the intermediate mileposts be met?

• Can the PDR requirements be met?

• Can the CDR requirements be met?

• Is there enough overall time to complete the project?

• Technical Feasibility

• Does the technical ability to complete the project exist?

7.1.1 The results from the initial feasibility assessment (See Appendix K)

Using the chart supplied, it was determined that payback carried the most weight. If the

payback to Valeo can’t be verified, the ideas will not be implemented. The chart also

showed that meeting the CDR deadline is a significant attribute of the project. If this

deadline is not met then the project is a failure. So there will be strict milepost deadlines

and an updated schedule kept to make sure that we accomplish this goal. This chart also

made it relevant that the uptime of the Prodel line will be very important to our initial

progress. Without the line being up and running it cannot be determined as to where the

problems are occurring. Bottlenecks will need to be established and historical data will

need to be collected in order to validate any improvements that we claim in the future.


7.2 Project Estimation of Relative Importance of Attributes

A method was used in order to estimate the importance of the project attributes in relation

to each other. (See Appendix L) The results were much the same as that of the initial

project feasibility assessment. Payback, Meeting the CDR requirements and the uptime

of the line were our top concerns with the feasibility of the overall project.

7.3 Feasibility of Implementing Design Concepts Based on each concepts’ feasibility analysis and the perceived improvement of

efficiency, it has been decided which concepts, within the 7 major categories, will be the

most effective in reaching the main objective of increasing the quantity of parts, per

person, per hour.


8 ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS

The major objective of increasing the quantity of parts, per person, per hour will be

reached through the previously proposed design concepts. The most evident

improvements will be demonstrated through the End of Line Tester design

improvements. Perceived improvements for each of the 7 major concept categories can

be found in the Performance Objectives and Specifications Section of this report (See

Section 8).

All known information, for our concept improvements, has been collected. Most of the

needed information had to be personally recorded based on observations, by the team, of

the system.

Desired information has been communicated to the customer and in some instances,

procedures have been put into place to collect this information. An example of this, is the

counters we implemented for parts going into and out of the clean room. This gave us the

true number of good parts being produced per person per shift.

All assumptions were stated for data collection, as well as concept development,

feasibility, and analysis and synthesis. Standardized methods were discussed to create a

format that would be understandable by all members of the team.


All deliverables that were derived from the concepts were discussed and reviewed by the

customer.

8.1 System Dependencies A Design Structure Matrix was created to evaluate the interdependencies among our

designated areas of improvement. The first matrix (no tearing) shows how each of our

concepts for improvement are dependent upon each other. The main dependency appears

to be the procedural enhancements. Each concept is directly dependent upon the

procedures that are practiced within the clean room environment. Material handling is

also a major factor that directly influences the output of our other concepts. The output

gathered from the simulation will directly influence many of the ways in which each of

the concepts, except the end of line tester, will be handled. Our anticipated efficiency

improvements may be effected by these interdependencies.

End

of L

ine

Test

er Im

prov

emen

ts

Oth

er B

ottle

neck

Sta

tions

Pro

blem

Sta

tions

Out

put o

f Sim

ulat

ion

Mat

eria

l Han

dlin

g

Pro

cedu

ral E

nhan

cem

ents

1 2 3 4 5 6End of Line Tester Improvements 1 1 1 1 1Other Bottleneck Stations 2 1 2 1 1 1 1Problem Stations 3 1 1 3 1 1 1Output of Simulation 4 1 1 4 1 1Material Handling 5 1 1 1 5 1Procedural Enhancements 6 1 1 1 1 1 6

[Figure 23]

The DSM below shows the results if the End of Line Tester was considered an

independent operation. Based on our observations and data collection, this is a very


realistic assumption. The end of line tester, to the extent of our studies, has rarely ever

been starved for parts. Based on this assumption we will be able to reach our anticipated

output in improvement for the End of Line Tester.

Oth

er B

ottle

neck

Sta

tions

Pro

blem

Sta

tions

Out

put o

f Sim

ulat

ion

Mat

eria

l Han

dlin

g

Pro

cedu

ral E

nhan

cem

ents

End

of L

ine

Test

er Im

prov

emen

ts

2 3 4 5 6 1Other Bottleneck Stations 2 2 1 1 1 1 Problem Stations 3 1 3 1 1 1 Output of Simulation 4 1 1 4 1 1 Material Handling 5 1 1 1 5 1 Procedural Enhancements 6 1 1 1 1 6 End of Line Tester Improvements 1 1 1 1 1

[Figure 24]


9 Performance Objectives and Specifications

9.1 Deliverables

9.1.1 Did we create standardized procedures and demonstrate the improvements made by them?

9.1.1.1 Order Qualifier: Overall Procedures A 3 to 5% increase in production will be found if detailed procedures are successfully

implemented. The procedural and station set up improvements made to station 90 will

reduce time required to assemble PVC assemblies and allow for more assemblies to be

inserted into the Prodel Line. Station 90 is the first part used in the Hydraulics motor

assembly and the operations at this station take the most time to complete. By creating

procedures that allow for a quicker assembly at station 90 stations farther down the line

will not be starved for parts. Procedural improvements to station 160, 180 and 190 will

reduce the time required to perform the assemblies at each station and allow for a better

flow of pallets through the line.

Having failure response procedures will increase assembly time. Currently minutes will

pass before workers leave their station and fix the failure that is occurring at an

automated station. During the time between failure and worker response assemblies

aren’t being built at this station and a bottleneck is being created. By creating procedures

workers will no longer assume that someone else is going to fix the failure and will react

when the failure siren first goes off. Over the course of 1 month Stations 140,170,200,210

and 230 had a total of 320 micro-stops. (See appendices) These are the 5 stations that

have the most micro stops. If implementing failure response procedures saves 10 seconds

per micro-stop, a total of 53 minutes of extra assembly time will occur each month, from


these 5 stations. If implemented less time will be wasted, confusion will be reduced and

parts will be assembled more efficiently.

9.1.1.2 Order Winner: Overall Procedures An optimal improvement of 6-8% could be found if all workers follow these procedures

routinely and do not go back to habits that were formed before the procedures were

implemented. The other improvements made to the stations (EOLT, Station 210, etc) and

the line will also affect the improvements based on procedures. If the automated stations

become more reliable less failures will occur and time wasted walking to the station to fix

the failure will be reduced, this will allow for more production time.

• Order Qualifiers vs. Order Winners: Station 90

By implementing this change 2 seconds of assembly time will be saved per PVC

assembly. This reduction in assembly time will result from the worker not having to

continuously reach across his/ her body and being able to press 2 assemblies together

simultaneously.

A savings of 5 seconds per assembly may be found if being able to work with both hands

and testing the assemblies is simultaneously is more efficient than anticipated.

• Order Qualifiers vs. Order Winners: Station 100

A one-minute per hour worked at station 100 savings will be found by implementing this

procedure. A savings of up to 1.5 minutes per hour worked at this station may be found if

all workers working the station follow the procedures.

• Order Qualifiers vs. Order Winners: Station 180 and 190

Wasted time of approximately 1 minute per hour worked at these stations will be found.

A reduction of up to 2 minutes per hour worked at these stations may be found depending


on staffing of the clean room. If the clean room is understaffed and workers have to move

from station 180 to 190 frequently more savings will be found.

9.1.2 Did we improve preventative maintenance schedule?

9.1.2.1 Order Qualifier An increase of 1 % in production if successfully completed. The stations will become

more reliable and down time will be reduced. It will also allow the line to run more

efficiently.

9.1.2.2 Order Winner An optimal improvement of 4% could be found if we are able to eliminate a drastic

amount of down time and increase the efficiency of the pallets on the line. Micro stops

will be reduced and catastrophic failures will be eliminated.

9.1.3 Did we set production goals based on manpower for the improved system?

This deliverable will be used as a baseline to help measure the percent improvement of

the overall system. In order to quantify actual results there needs to be a baseline set in

which to compare. This baseline will measure the current number of parts based on

manpower. From this baseline a new baseline will be created, which reflects the

improvements made on the system.

9.1.4 Did we make recommendations to improve problems on the Prodel line and implement those solutions approved by customer?

9.1.4.1 Order Qualifier for Station 210 Approximately 400 motors per day are currently produced. This assumes that the station

works independently.


Proposed 19 more motors per day (@85% efficiency) after improvements (See Feasibility

6.2.5.1.1)

7/400 = 1.75% increase in output for station 210

9.1.4.2 Order Winner for Station 210 Approximately 400 motors per day are currently produced. This assumes that the station

works independently.

Proposed 19 more motors per day (@85% efficiency) after improvements (See Feasibility

6.2.5.1.1)

_19_ = 4.75% increase in output for station 210 400

9.1.5 Did we make recommendations to improve the efficiency of the End of Line Tester and implement those approved by customer?

9.1.5.1 Order Qualifier An increase of 2.5% in potential output of the EOLT will be a successful completion of

these modifications. This number comes from a goal of achieving a 50% of the ideal

improvement. This would represent a potential output increase of 10 motors per day.

9.1.5.2 Order Winner

An increase of 5% is the ideal expected increase in potential output. These numbers are

based on the potential of creating a reliable EOLT that performs well without downtime,

yet still accounts for the potential micro stops associated with removing failed motors

from the tester. This would represent a potential output increase of 20 motors per day.


9.1.6 Did we identify improved system configurations through simulation?

9.1.6.1 Order Qualifier

Based on improvements, in the area of blocking, which will result from defining the

optimal number of pallets and the optimal line speed through simulation, there is a

perceived increase of 1% in overall efficiency.

9.2 Performance Specifications Our deliverables must meet the following two criteria:

9.2.1 Did we demonstrate a two year payback period for our recommendations?

Based on our calculations, under each deliverable, payback was measured and proven to

be within the two-year constraint. The total payback and net present value is calculated

in the conclusion of this report. (Section 11)

9.2.2 Did we demonstrate a 4-6% overall improvement in the efficiency of the Prodel line?

Based on our calculations of percent improvement, the total improvements made to the

Prodel line will meet and exceed our 4-6% objective. Dependencies are considered in

Section 8. In the conclusion of this report this 4-6% overall improvement is justified.

(Section 11.4)

9.3 Industrial Standards

9.3.1 Clean Room The clean room which houses the Prodel line is classified under the Federal Standard 209

as a class 100,000 clean room which means that the maximum number of particles

greater than or equal to .5 micrometers per cubic foot is 100,000. For comparison, a class


1 clean room allows only 1 particle greater or equal than .5 micrometers per cubic foot.

(See Appendix Q)

Compliance with the Federal Standard 209 class 100,000 cleanliness level is strictly

enforced by Valeo. Anyone entering the room is required to wear the proper attire to

keep the clean room free of unwanted particles. Bouffant head covers, coverall’s, nitrile

gloves and disposable shoe covers are required when entering the clean room. Other

supplies such as tack mats on either side of doors, and special paper are used inside the

changing room and the clean room to minimize the number of particles within the clean

room.

9.3.2 QS - 9000 QS-9000 is a style of management that places emphasis on following strict quality related

guidelines for improved productivity and workmanship. Valeo and its suppliers must

maintain a level of quality in their workmanship, productivity, and their product to satisfy

the goals of QS-9000.

QS-9000 was developed by Daimler-Chrysler, Ford and General Motors for the continual

improvement, defect prevention, and waste reduction in the automotive industry. QS-

9000 is a proven method of maintaining a high level of quality within the automotive

industry and basically saves companies who implement QS-9000 money.


9.3.3 Valeo Production Time Valeo’s Union has a strict time schedule for production. The table below illustrates the

Union’s standard for work time. Calculations, unless otherwise noted, were based on

these working conditions.

Break Schedule Event Weekly (Min) Daily (Min)

Total Time Within Building 2550 510 Unpaid Lunch 150 30

Break ( 2 - 18 minute breaks) 180 36 Contractual Job Prep and Cleanup 50 10

Daily Meeting 25 5 Weekly meeting 30 6

Total Production Time 2115 423 [Figure 25]


10 Future of Project At this point, the team is now ready to begin firming up and ordering from the bill of

materials. The more complex design concepts (i.e. end of line tester) are ready to be

created, prototyped, tested and implemented. Other concepts, that take little or no

resources or money, can begin implementation during week one of our second semester.

The first six facets have been completed. The facets ahead are the creation of

engineering models, detailed design, production planning, product design, pilot

production, commercial production and product stewardship.

The team plans to implement the ‘quick fix’ concepts within the first few weeks. These

concepts include procedural enhancements, material handling, manual station

improvements, and suggestions made through the simulation.

The other concepts will take more time to implement over the course of the semester.

These concepts include such things as the end of line tester mating problem and the

problem station fixes.

A preliminary schedule has been developed in order to complete the team’s concept

implementations by the end of the second semester.


10.1 Schedule

This top level schedule will be used to keep the team on track through the upcoming

weeks.

Engineering Models: Hardware and Software 5 days? 3/8/2004 8:00

3/12/2004 17:00

Detailed Design: DFx 5 days? 3/22/2004 8:00

3/26/2004 17:00

Production Planning and Tooling Design 6 days? 4/9/2004 8:00

4/16/2004 17:00

Pilot Production 6 days? 4/19/2004 8:00

4/26/2004 17:00

Transition to Commercial Production 14 days? 4/27/2004 8:00

5/14/2004 17:00

Product Stewardship 5 days? 5/17/2004 8:00

5/21/2004 17:00

Critical Design Review 5 days? 5/17/2004 8:00

5/21/2004 17:00

[Figure 26]


11 Conclusion The design team has completed the first six facets of the Valeo Project. These facets

include needs assessment, concept development, feasibility assessment, specification

requirements, analysis and synthesis and the preliminary design report. Each facet was

done as a team and it will take even more teamwork for the implementation phase during

the next semester.

All of the above facets, that have been proven feasible and meet the 2-year payback

standard, will be implemented by the end of May pending the customer’s approval. Each

deliverable has been reviewed with the customer and they are enthusiastic to help the

team accomplish the tasks that are ahead.

Design changes are anticipated once the concepts have reached the implementation phase

and time has been buffered to compensate for these changes.

The majority of the time spent will be put into the concepts that will demonstrate the

greatest amount of improvement. Other concepts will be completed, but they will be on a

strict time schedule.

11.1 Concepts to be Completed Based on schedule, economic, resource, and technical feasibility, some original concepts

have been eliminated from the implementation phase of this project. The concepts that

will be implemented are the ones proven feasible in the categories of:


(1) The End of Line Tester, (2) Procedural Enhancements, including but not limited to,

stations 90, 100, 160, 180, 190) (3) Preventative Maintenance, (4) Problematic Station

210, (5) Concepts proven through the Simulation, such as improvements in blocking, line

speed and an action plan for operators.

A few discussed concepts that will not be further developed are the ideas for material

handling. Valeo may want to look into these procedures to increase the output in there

area. The team for this project will not be considering these improvements, based on the

previously proven feasibility analysis.


11.2 Tentative Bill of Materials and Estimated Cost

Bill of Materials*

Station Part # Quantity Unit Description Price ($) per Each

Production Board 518936 1 Each 3' by 5" Dry erase Board 119.45

1 Each 1foot of stock aluminum In House 2 Each Machined steel block to hold marker cap In House Station

160 3 Each Bracket Hardware to support cap holder 10.00

INRD-50 1 Each DVT Doal light source, 50mm 800.00

INOO-S12 1 Each DVT Doal light source Power Supply 250.00 Station 210

1 Each Rubber connector 60.00 - - Required Mounting Hardware In House

EOLT FO-501.500 4 Each Bimba Pnuematic Air Cylinder 150.00 2 Each Custom Motor Mounting Plate In House 2 Each Custom 1/2" Motor Mounting Bracket In House 2 Each Custom 3/4" Motor Mounting Bracket In House 2 Each Custom 1" Motor Mounting Bracket In House

MM-C

6498K266 6 Each Spring-Return Pivot-Mount Cylinder 13.56 --------- 2 Each Press Fit Connector Assembly 700 2 Each Custom Connector Base Plate In House 2 Each Custom Connector Plate In House - - Required Hydraulic/Pneumatic Plumbing 400 - - Require Mounting Hardware In House

5 Each EDI Digital counters 345 Timer 5 Each Mounting brackets for timer In House

* Tentative Bill of Material Station 90: Cavalry Automation Systems has been awarded the contract to implement the improvements being made to this system at a cost of $6,910.

[Figure 27]


11.3 Total Payback In accordance with Valeo, anything over $1000 needs to be formally cost justified. The

chart below shows the justifications that have been previously proposed.

Improvement Cost OT Saved (After 2yrs)EOLT 7,700.00$ 12,331.80$ Preventative Maintenance 50,000.00$ 144,000.00$ Station 210 1,536.00$ 1,500.00$ Procedures 91.00$ Production Board 120.00$ Manual Stations (not including 90) 1,900.00$ Total 61,347.00$ 157,831.80$

[Figure 28]

Net Present Value has also been calculated for the whole system, in order to justify the

incurred costs for improvement.

Interest Rate 10%

Total Cost ($61,347.00)Return After 1 Year 78,915.90$ Return After 2 Years 157,831.80$

Net Present Value $70,467.71

[Figure 29]


11.4 Improvements of Total System shown through Simulation

When the current system’s model is run with 40 pallets, including downtime and micro-

stop data, the number of parts per shift is 489. After the minimum percent improvements

have been implemented into the model the total number of parts increases by 4%, which

matches our 4% minimum improvement requested by the company.

After the maximum percent improvements were implemented into the model the resulting

percent increase was only 2%. This is due to an increase in blocking. When the number

of pallets area reduced to 38, the total number of parts made increases by 8%. This

exceeds our 6% request by Valeo. Therefore, the optimal number of pallets based on our

improvements is 38. The chart below shows the percent improvements, for when each

station is entered into the model independently. These quantifications will be more

accurate and verified in the upcoming semester.

Station MIN MAXEOLT 549 553Station 210 479 473Station 90 440 469Station 100 517 538Station 180 517 517Station 190 491 517

[Figure 30]

The chart below shows the correlation of percent improvements for the overall system.

SYSTEM MIN % Improvement MAX % Improvement Original System40 Pallets 508 4% 499 2% 48938 Pallets 530 8% 533 8% 489

[Figure 31]


12 References

• Staples. 3' x 5' Commercial Melamine Dry-Erase Board w/Aluminum Frame. <http://www.staples.com/Catalog/Browse/Sku.asp?PageType=1&Sku=518936>

• Niebal & Freivalds. Methods, Standards and Work Design 10th ed. New York:

McGraw Hill, 1999

• Prodel. The system catalog. <http://prodel.net/prodel/groupe_prodel.htm>

• DVT sensors. Doal-50-led. <http://www.dvtsensors.com/shopcart/specs/INRD-50.pdf>

• DVT sensors. FrameWork 2.6.3. Installation Program.

<http://www.dvtsensors.com/support/DownloadsManager.php?KW=Release>

• Bimba Stainless. How proper mounting prevents premature cylinder wear. <http://www.bimba.com/techctr/techcenter.htm>

• Eugene A. Avallone and Theodore Baumeister III. Mark’s Standard Handbook

for Mechanical Engineers. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996.

• McMaster-Carr. Linear Pneumatics Actuators. <http://www.mcmaster.com/>

• MIT DSM Tutorial, Excel Spreadsheet.

<http://web.mit.edu/dsm/Tutorial/tutorial.htm>

• MyDesignPlanner. http://designserver.rit.edu. P.Stiebitz & E.Hensel.

• Kelton, Sadowski R., Sadowski Deborah. Simulation with Arena. New

York: McGraw-Hill 2002


13 Appendices

13.1 APPENDIX A - Work Breakdown Structure:


13.2 APPENDIX B - Gantt Chart: PRODEL LINE - INCREASE QUANTITY/PERSON PER HOUR 112 days?

12/5/2003 8:00

5/21/2004 17:00

Recognize and Quantify the Need 11 days 12/5/2003 8:00

12/19/2003 17:00

Gain understanding for Prodel Process 17 days 12/19/2003 8:00

1/23/2004 17:00

Concept Development 20 days 1/5/2004 8:00

1/29/2004 17:00

Data Collection & Analyzing 20 days 1/5/2004 8:00

1/29/2004 17:00

Research End of Line Tester 11 days 1/12/2004 8:00

1/23/2004 17:00

Procedures 14 days 1/19/2004 8:00

2/5/2004 17:00

Station Enhancements 10 days 1/19/2004 8:00

1/30/2004 17:00

Simulation 9 days 1/23/2004 8:00

2/4/2004 17:00

Material Handling 2 days 1/19/2004 8:00

1/20/2004 17:00

Feasibility Assessment 11 days 1/9/2004 8:00

1/22/2004 17:00

Team Building 17 days 12/18/2003 8:00

1/22/2004 17:00

Meetings at School 35 days 1/5/2004 8:00

2/19/2004 17:00

Meetings at Valeo 32 days 1/12/2004 8:00

2/23/2004 17:00

Design Objectives and Performance Specs 1 day 1/29/2004 17:00

1/30/2004 17:00

Preliminary Design Documents 9 days 2/6/2004 8:00

2/18/2004 17:00

Preliminary Design Review 2 days 2/19/2004 8:00

2/20/2004 17:00

Engineering Models: Hardware and Software 5 days? 3/8/2004 8:00

3/12/2004 17:00

Detailed Design: DFX 5 days? 3/22/2004 8:00

3/26/2004 17:00

Production Planning and Tooling Design 6 days? 4/9/2004 8:00

4/16/2004 17:00

Pilot Production 6 days? 4/19/2004 8:00

4/26/2004 17:00

Transition to Commercial Production 14 days? 4/27/2004 8:00

5/14/2004 17:00

Product Stewardship 5 days? 5/17/2004 8:00

5/21/2004 17:00

Critical Design Review 5 days? 5/17/2004 8:00

5/21/2004 17:00



13.3 APPENDIX C – Yahoo! Groups©


13.4 APPENDIX D – Station Cycle Times

Designates Manual Station Designates Automated Station

Note: Times were taken from when the pallet stops at a process to when the pallet begins to move again.

Station Cycle Times 90 – 150B Station # Trial

90 100 110A 110B 120A 120B 130 140A 140B 150A 150B 1 33.56 22.14 14.20 22.00 16.22 18.94 6.30 21.71 17.41 13.11 14.96 2 32.59 26.80 14.40 21.17 16.39 19.26 6.62 21.12 17.66 12.82 14.97 3 33.08 24.55 14.79 20.84 16.52 19.72 5.76 21.05 17.20 13.00 14.98 4 32.74 21.51 15.20 19.20 14.77 20.53 5.30 21.37 17.37 13.53 14.94 5 31.00 11.25 19.72 18.49 15.23 19.62 5.80 21.22 17.24 13.54 15.33 6 44.97 10.00 13.99 17.81 15.52 20.78 6.74 21.11 17.48 12.39 15.02 7 33.05 32.13 13.95 17.15 16.37 20.50 5.95 20.77 16.54 12.74 15.30 8 35.06 19.54 14.31 20.90 15.66 19.07 6.23 19.99 17.27 12.47 15.25 9 43.73 22.50 14.11 19.40 16.11 18.95 7.31 20.58 17.18 13.30 15.18 10 36.06 25.58 15.50 21.00 15.89 18.87 6.32 19.62 17.00 12.91 15.05 11 44.00 18.05 13.78 27.40 15.55 18.24 6.81 20.99 16.47 12.83 15.00 12 43.34 32.16 14.55 20.64 16.11 21.42 6.34 20.61 17.53 12.80 14.90

Avg 36.93 22.18 14.88 20.50 15.86 19.66 6.29 20.85 17.20 12.95 15.07 Min 31.00 10.00 13.78 17.15 14.77 18.24 5.30 19.62 16.47 12.39 14.90 Max 44.97 32.16 19.72 27.40 16.52 21.42 7.31 21.71 17.66 13.54 15.33

Stdev 5.39 6.94 1.61 2.63 0.53 0.95 0.54 0.58 0.37 0.37 0.15

Station Cycle Times 160 - EOL Station # Trial

160 170A 170B 180 190 200A 200B 205 210 230A 230B EOL 1 57.34 21.00 11.00 18.30 18.00 15.57 20.51 16.69 18.20 11.35 11.77 40.00 2 47.87 22.12 10.89 13.54 12.63 14.77 22.27 16.46 18.42 10.39 11.62 38.00 3 31.98 21.57 14.00 21.80 12.65 16.10 21.30 16.85 17.58 10.21 11.60 40.00 4 22.43 22.00 13.00 14.48 14.62 14.93 20.74 16.06 17.30 11.96 11.57 38.00 5 57.82 19.40 11.60 22.20 14.82 17.06 21.28 15.89 18.01 11.58 10.96 41.00 6 30.10 21.50 13.50 13.86 12.91 15.64 21.39 16.20 17.29 9.85 11.28 40.00 7 28.55 21.35 13.10 15.31 13.77 14.45 20.00 16.28 17.91 10.56 11.53 49.25 8 30.43 20.95 10.70 15.48 14.40 14.16 19.80 17.35 17.98 10.18 11.39 47.73 9 32.00 21.45 10.00 13.85 13.74 14.34 20.64 17.63 16.78 10.85 11.44 48.46 10 21.89 21.31 10.30 23.62 19.78 14.06 20.21 17.91 18.12 11.23 11.57 48.21 11 34.10 19.50 10.52 16.80 16.10 13.95 20.50 16.86 16.98 10.45 11.29 48.85 12 31.25 21.83 11.21 12.94 16.70 14.23 21.00 16.15 17.91 10.78 11.71 49.37

Avg 35.48 21.17 11.65 16.85 15.01 14.94 20.80 16.69 17.71 10.78 11.48 44.07 Min 21.89 19.40 10.00 12.94 12.63 13.95 19.80 15.89 16.78 9.85 10.96 38.00 Max 57.82 22.12 14.00 23.62 19.78 17.06 22.27 17.91 18.42 11.96 11.77 49.37

Stdev 12.18 0.88 1.37 3.76 2.24 0.96 0.69 0.65 0.51 0.63 0.22 4.87


13.5 APPENDIX E – Bottleneck Ranking Bottleneck Ranks

Rank Station Avg Cycle

Time 1 EOL 44.07 2 90 36.93 3 160 35.48 4 100 22.18 5 170A 21.17 6 140A 20.85 7 200B 20.80 8 110B 20.50 9 120B 19.66

10 210 17.71 11 140B 17.20 12 180 16.85 13 205 16.69 14 120A 15.86 15 150B 15.07 16 190 15.01 17 200A 14.94 18 110A 14.88 19 150A 12.95 20 170B 11.65 21 230B 11.48 22 230A 10.78 23 130 6.29

Please note: This information is derived from data from Appendix D


13.6 APPENDIX F – Micro-stop Data & Summaries

Micro-Stops

Week of 1/12/2004 Total Tally Station Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Weekend Totals Station Instances

110(A&B) 1 14 15 110(A&B) 35 120(A&B) 14 30 44 120(A&B) 67 140(A&B) 4 23 7 17 39 90 140(A&B) 159 150(A&B) 0 150(A&B) 16

170 0 170 22 200(A&B) 6 10 5 1 1 23 200(A&B) 88

210 7 5 5 8 6 31 210 134 230(A&B) 8 2 5 15 230(A&B) 83

Totals 31 76 19 32 60 0 218 Total 604

Week of 12/15/2003 Station Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Weekend Totals

110(A&B) 2 6 6 2 2 18 120(A&B) 8 1 7 16 140(A&B) 5 2 5 7 3 8 30 150(A&B) 2 13 15

170 16 5 1 22 200(A&B) 14 4 5 5 7 35

210 14 3 3 11 24 55 230(A&B) 4 5 3 2 6 20

Totals 63 21 22 34 63 8 211


110(A&B) 0 120(A&B) 0 140(A&B) 1 11 VAC VAC VAC 12 150(A&B) 0

170 0 200(A&B) 5 1 VAC VAC VAC 6

210 8 10 VAC VAC VAC 18 230(A&B) 5 7 VAC VAC VAC 12

Totals 19 29 0 0 0 0 48


110(A&B) 0 2 0 2 120(A&B) 1 4 2 7 140(A&B) 8 3 16 27 150(A&B) 1 0 0 1 200(A&B) 9 9 6 24

210 14 9 7 30 230(A&B) 7 14 15 36

Totals 40 41 46 0 0 0 127


Top 5 Micro-Stop by Stations Rank Sub

Station Station Total #

of Micro-stops

Micro-stops Problem

210A 89 Snap Ring not fully seated in Endframe - false failure1 210A

210 137 48 Leak failure - okay on retest

140B 29 Vision failed after stake / false reject 140B 25 Vision failed after Retainer load / false reject

140A 18 Vision failed Manifold Thrust Washer check / false reject

140A 15 Vacuum fault 2

140

140 95

8 Ran out of parts (Thrust Washers, Check Balls, Retainers)

230A 53 Label did not transfer to applicator head 3 230A

230 75 22 Printer faulted

200B 16 Bolt torque or angle failure 200A 13 Snap Ring not fully seated in Endframe

200B 11 Failed to engage bolt at 6:00 position (tally all that apply)

200 10 Ran out of Snap Rings

4

200B

200 59

9 Re-torque bolts - pass at retest 170A 31 Robot stopped unexpectedly 5 170A

170 54 23 Robot overload during Steel Ring placement

The above chart shows the ranking of the top 5 worst performing Stations. Micro-stop equals downtime of less than 5 minutes

The above chart includes data from Valeo - "Micro-Stop Collection" Sheets Dates included Week of: 11/24 Week of: 12/15 Week of: 12/22 Week of: Unknown


Micro-stop Top 20 by Substation Rank Sub

Station Problem Total # of Micro-stops

1 210A Snap Ring not fully seated in Endframe - false failure 89

2 230A Label did not transfer to applicator head 53 3 210A Leak failure - okay on retest 48 4 120B Driver did not engage front SAE Plug 40 5 170A Robot stopped unexpectedly 31 6 140B Vision failed after stake / false reject 29 7 140B Vision failed after Retainer load / false reject 25 8 170A Robot overload during Steel Ring placement 23 9 230A Printer faulted 22

10 140A Vision failed Manifold Thrust Washer check / false reject 18

11 200B Bolt torque or angle failure 16

12 110B Plunger insertion fault (either Plunger, robot went home) 15

13 140A Vacuum fault 15 14 150B Pin insertion failed 13 15 200A Snap Ring not fully seated in Endframe 13

16 200B Failed to engage bolt at 6:00 position (tally all that apply) 11

17 200 Ran out of Snap Rings 10 18 200B Re-torque bolts - pass at retest 9

19 140 Ran out of parts (Thrust Washers, Check Balls, Retainers) 8

The above chart shows the ranking of the top 20 problems that result in a micro stop.

Micro-stop equals downtime of less than 5 minutes

The above chart includes data from Valeo - "Micro-Stop Collection" Sheets Dates included Week of: 11/24 Week of: 12/15 Week of: 12/22 Week of: Unknown

Please note that the data includes micro-stop information for the dates of 11/24/03 to 12/22/03. Weekly

tallies were used to record micro-stop information. This helped to determine which stations were the

most troublesome.


13.7 APPENDIX G – Motor Count Log (# of good parts) Motor Count Log

Date Shift Motors Out

Motors Back

In Total Manpower QPPH

1/26/03 B 54 4 50 2 3.551/27/03 A 237 0 237 7 4.801/27/03 B 246 1 245 2 17.381/28/03 A 280 2 278 7 5.631/28/03 B No Info No Info 1/29/03 A 172 3 169 6 4.001/29/03 B 210 2 208 2 14.751/30/03 A 310 3 307 5 8.711/30/04 B 234 1 233 2 16.521/31/04 A 121 1 120 4 4.262/1/04 A 94 1 93 4 3.302/1/04 B No Info No Info 2/2/04 A 245 3 242 7 4.902/2/04 B 90 2 88 1 12.482/3/04 A 322 5 317 7 6.422/3/04 B 138 5 133 2 9.432/4/04 A 400 4 396 7 8.022/4/04 B 163 3 160 2 11.352/5/04 A 432 3 429 7 8.692/5/04 B 151 5 146 2 10.35

Average 216.61 2.67 213.94 4.22 8.59


13.8 APPENDIX H - Production/Downtime Report Production/Downtime Report by Number of Personnel

Logged Downtime (Min)

Date

Total Good Prodel Built

Total EOL Good

Total EOL

Rejected

Total EOL

FFT%

Total EOL Built

Code 1

Code 2

Code 3

Code 4

Code 5

Code 6

Code 7

Code 8

Code 9

Total Downtime

11/14/03 191 433 54 1 487 86 86 11/24/03 254 226 6 1 232 66 30 8 104 11/21/03 273 299 18 1 298 85 65 65 6 221* 11/20/03 281 369 15 1 384 81 35 35 16 167 11/11/03 201 212 3 1 215 81 60 73 11 225 11/3/03 176 209 38 1 247 66 90 15 34 205 11/26/03 193 190 31 1 221 36 180 15 8 239 11/26/03 240 216 28 1 244 36 36 11/21/03 266 139 6 1 145 96 60 156 11/20/03 240 630 46 1 686 98 98 11/19/03 192 370 17 1 390 91 125 216 11/18/03 232 227 19 1 246 96 96 11/17/03 339 471 102 1 573 90 45 135 11/13/03 193 262 18 1 280 90 33 123 11/11/03 166 170 31 1 201 15 15 36 66 11/10/03 258 248 21 1 267 103 39 142 11/7/03 239 327 11 1 338 81 60 40 40 21 242** 11/6/03 336 284 21 1 305 90 40 130 11/5/03 269 269 16 1 285 96 50 146 11/4/03 286 245 4 1 249 98 98 11/4/03 449 430 15 1 445 81 45 45 55 226 11/3/03 303 304 0 1 304 75 60 47 182 11/24/03 334 320 10 1 330 36 5 60 18 119 11/6/03 382 314 3 1 317 81 130 43 254 Totals 5575 6206 455 6672 0 1616 290 595 0 188 60 100 451 3057


Production/Downtime Report Summary

Production/Downtime Report by Number of Personnel Averages

Shift

Personnel

Total Good Prodel Built

Total EOL Good

Total EOL

Rejected

Total EOL

FFT%

Total EOL Built

Total Downtime

Total Good Per Person (Calculated)

A 0 191.00 433.00 54.00 0.89 487.00 0.00 Ommited A A A A A

3 237.00 263.00 16.00 0.94 275.20 175.13 79.00

B B B B B B B B B B A B B B A B

4 262.56 298.88 24.13 0.93 323.69 139.17 65.64

B A

5 358.00 317.00 6.50 0.98 323.50 186.50 71.60

Average 72.08

Please note: This information was compiled from Valeo charts for the month of November.


13.9 APPENDIX I – Pareto Analysis

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Snap

Rin

g no

t ful

lyse

ated

in E

ndfra

me

-fa

lse

failu

re

Labe

l did

not

tran

sfer

toap

plic

ator

hea

d

Leak

failu

re -

okay

on

rete

st

Driv

er d

id n

ot e

ngag

efro

nt S

AE P

lug

Rob

ot s

topp

edun

expe

cted

ly

Visi

on fa

iled

afte

r sta

ke/ f

alse

reje

ct

Visi

on fa

iled

afte

rR

etai

ner l

oad

/ fal

sere

ject

Rob

ot o

verlo

ad d

urin

gSt

eel R

ing

plac

emen

t

Prin

ter f

aulte

d

Visi

on fa

iled

Man

ifold

Thru

st W

ashe

r che

ck /

fals

e re

ject

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Station 210 Station 140 Station 230 Station 200 Station 170


13.10 APPENDIX J – Production/Downtime Reports

Production/Downtime Report Logged Downtime (Min) Date

(Not in order)

Total EOL Built

Total EOL Good

Total EOL

Rejected

Total EOL

FFT%

Total Good Prodel Built Code

1 Code

2 Code

3 Code

4 Code

5 Code

6 Code

7 Code

8 Code

9

Total Downtime

11/5/03 285 269 16 94.39% 269 96 50 146

Missing 304 297 7 97.70% 300 66 45 90 45 246

11/4/03 249 245 4 98.39% 286 97.5 97.5

11/4/03 445 430 15 96.63% 449 81 45 45 55 226

11/3/03 304 304 0 100.00% 303 75 60 47 182

11/3/03 247 209 38 84.62% 176 66 90 15 34 205

11/1/03 Missing 201 60 30 60 60 210

Missing Missing 61 81 165 90 30 105 75 546

11/14/03 487 433 54 88.91% 191 86 86

11/13/03 280 262 18 93.57% 193 90 33 123

Missing 235 66 35 70 45 15 231

11/14/03 Missing 229 60 270 15 345

11/11/03 201 170 31 84.58% 166 15 15 36 66

11/11/03 215 212 3 98.60% 201 81 60 72.5 11 224.5

11/10/03 267 248 21 92.88% 258 103 39 141.5

11/6/03 317 314 3 99.05% 382 81 130 43 254

Missing 440 391 49 88.86% 408 81 120 60 120 9 390

11/7/03 Missing 167 96 96

11/7/03 338 327 11 93.50% 239 81 60 40 40 21 242**

11/6/03 305 284 21 93.11% 336 90 40 130

11/26/03 221 190 31 85.97% 193 36 180 15 8 239

11/26/03 Changeover 194 66 60 90 30 41 287

11/26/03 244 216 28 88.52% 240 36 36

11/15/03 225 214 11 95.11% 207 66 115 45 75 301

11/24/03 330 320 10 96.97% 334 36 5 60 18 119

11/24/03 232 226 6 97.41% 254 66 30 8 104

11/21/03 145 139 6 95.86% 266 96 60 156

11/21/03 298 299 18 94.50% 273 85 65 65 6 221*

11/20/03 686 630 46 94.50% 240 97.5 97.5

11/20/03 384 369 15 96.09% 281 81 35 35 16 167

11/19/03 390 370 17 94.87% 192 91 125 216


11/19/03 Missing 247 57.5 30 300 387.5

11/18/03 246 227 19 92.28% 232 96 96

Missing 239 232 7 97.07% 216 81 255 12 348

Logged Downtime (Min) Date (Not in order)

Total EOL Built

Total EOL Good

Total EOL

Rejected

Total EOL

FFT%

Total Good Prodel Built Code

1 Code

2 Code

3 Code

4 Code

5 Code

6 Code

7 Code

8 Code

9

Total Downtime

11/17/03 573 471 102 82.20% 339 90 45 135

Totals 8897 8298 607 8758 0 2633 665 1905 175 628 105 340 647 6634.5

Note: Total Good Prodel Built are parts that come off of the line and into the EOL queue .

Total EOL Built are parts that have been tested and moved into the assembly cells.

** Produced for Viper and 2080 therefore production numbers were combined

* Produced for Viper and 2137 therefore production numbers were combined

Codes Comments/Opinion

Code 1 Under-Loading Plan stop or Code 2 seems to be the main reason why production is halted.

Code 2 Plan Stop

Code 3 Quality Schedule people so that there are at least the minimum number of people inside to continue working.

Code 4 Break Down For example if there are 4 workers on shift A, a sample schedule could look like this

Code 5 Adjust or Calibrate 1

Code 6 Change Over 2

Code 7 Short Labor 3

Code 8 Short Material 4

Code 9 Micro-Stop Downtime Blanks represent breaks


Downtime by Machine (1 Month, 11/1/03 - 11/26/03) Date

Total Downti

me (Min)

Down Time Machine Code Nature of Problem

11/1 50 5 Ran Master (EOL) Clean oil up, did prodel checks run 80 failure meters

11/7 ALL DAY 5 Working on EOL (Program Change)

11/11 60 7 EOL - Coupling Problems

11/11 60 3 Ran EOL Masters and Rejects, Prodel Checks, Then ran PCV Machine

11/12 240 4 parts wont couple up on EOL test being worked on 11/19 35 3 Prodel, EOL checks

11/19 4 Pin Snapped on EOL Conveyor that holds pallets in place for the EOL

11/20 35 4 Motor Stuck in Collect 11/21 30 4 Wouldn’t Couple 11/21 35 4 Replacing Pin? 11/25 45 5 Ran EOL Master, Checks on Prodel, Oil cleaned up 11/26

620

30

EOL

4 Not Coupling 5-Jan 120 3 Master Checks 6-Jan 45 3 Checks and clean up 7-Jan 120 4 Down 7-Jan 45 4 Nest B 8-Jan 45 4 Down 9-Jan 90 4 Nest B down 10-Jan 45 4 Down 12-Jan 90 4 Nest A and B down 13-Jan 360 4 Down 14-Jan 15 4 Nest B Problem 15-Jan 10 4 Tester Blow up, Shut down Nest B 15-Jan 15 4 Nest B down 16-Jan 30 4 Nest A and B down 16-Jan 30 4 Nest B down 20-Jan 120 4 Down 20-Jan 30 4 Nest B down 21-Jan

1510

300

EOL

4 Nest A and B down 11/3 70 4 Emergency stop was hammered 11/4 45 3 Quality Checks on Prodel and EOL - Wiped up Oil

11/7 60 3 Prodel checks, EOL checks, wiped oil off of pallets and floor

11/7 40 8 no parts from washer 11/7 105 6 change over to 2137

11/11 60+ 6 Change Over to Regular Manifolds w/ New PCV 11/12 15 6 Change over 2164 11/20 35 3 Prodel and EOL checks 11/21

525

60

Various

6 Changeover


11/21 45 6 Changeover 11/21 20 6 Changeover 11/26

30

6 Change over to Viper 11/6 105 4 230 - Label machine down wont label

11/17 45 4 Label Machine down 11/25 25 4 Labeler 11/25 90 4 Labeler wont print label 11/26 20 4 Labeler 11/26

340

55

230

4 Labeler 11/11 95 7 Station 205 11/19

220 125

205 4 Robot Crash

11/3 15 4 Robot Crashed(170) 11/26

195 180

170 4 Oil spill

11/1 30 6 Change back over to "80" motor not (100) 11/1 15 8 No Manifolds washer down washing by hand, all day (100)11/5

135 90

100 8 manifolds

11/24 30 Prodel Line 4 Prodel belt broke in Two, East end of Prodel

11/3 120

90 ALL 3 11/12 30 4 Machine 140 losing pressure 11/19 60

140 4 Robot Stopping Unexpectedly

11/19 90 205/210 4 Jamming Pallets at 205 and 210 11/20

90

205/EOL 4 11/24 60 60 180 8 Ran out of parts : Oil Seal 11/6 25 25 230B 4 230B - Exit conveyor switch no good

11/24 5 5 110 4 PCV Problem

Rank of Downtime

Rank Code Min Hours Code Definition

1 Code

2 1852.50 30.88 Planned Stop

2 Code

4 690.00 11.50 Break Down

3 Code

9 465.00 7.75 Change Over

4 Code

3 290.00 4.83 Quality Issues

5 Code

6 252.50 4.21 Micro Stops

6 Code

8 100.00 1.67 Short Labor

7 Code

7 60.00 1.00 Short Material

8 Code

1 0.00 0.00 Under Loading

9 Code

5 0.00 0.00 Adjust or Calibrate


13.11 APPENDIX K – Feasibility Web Charts

E1: Efficiency Improvement, E2: payback, R1: Sufficient Skills, R2: Sufficient Equipment, R3: Availability of Valeo Personnel

T1:technical feasibility: controls,mechanical, S1: Time line will be down, S2: time to implement,

EOLT Initial Concepts T1 E1 E2 R1 R2 R3 S1 S2 Concept 1:Mating Improvements 4 6 4 5 5 4.5 4 4 Concept 2: Securing Motor To Tester 5 5 4 5.5 5 4.5 4 4 Concept 3: Reject Conveyor 4.5 3 4 5 4 4.5 4 4

Feasibility Assessment : EOLT Initial Concepts

0

2

4

6T1

E1

E2

R1

R2

R3

S1

S2Concept 1:MatingImprovements

Concept 2: Securing MotorTo Tester

Concept 3: Reject Conveyor


EOLT: Mating Concepts T1 E1 E2 R1 R2 R3 S1 S2 Concept 1: Modified Balancer Cell 5 5 4 4.5 5 4.5 4 4 Concept 2: Threaded Connection 5 5 3 3 3.5 3.5 4 4

Feasibility Assessment : Mating Concepts

0

2

4

6T1

E1

E2

R1

R2

R3

S1

S2 Concept 1: ModifiedBalancer CellConcept 2: Circular MountingCollar

EOLT: Mounting Concepts T1 E1 E2 R1 R2 R3 S1 S2 Concept 1: Balancer Cell Mounting 3.5 5 4 4.5 5 4.5 4 4 Concept 2: Circular Mounting Collar 3 5 4 4 4 4.5 4 4 Concept 3: Linear Slide Mount 5 5 5 5 5 4.5 4 4

Feasibility Assessment : Mounting Concepts

0

2

4

6T1

E1

E2

R1

R2

R3

S1

S2 Concept 1: Balancer CellMounting

Concept 2: Circular MountingCollar

Concept 3: Linear SlideMount


PROCEDURE CONCEPTS T1 E1 E2 R1 R2 R3 S1 S2Concept 1: For each manual station create procedures that are more detailed than those currently used 5 3.5 3 5 5 5 4 4 Concept 2: Create procedures for the entire clean room. Procedures for each station, loading parts, and dealing with failures 5 4.5 4.5 5 5 5 4 4 Concept3: Use current procedures 5 0 2 5 5 5 5 5

Feasibility Assessment

012345T1

E1

E2

R1

R2

R3

S1

S2

Concept 1: For eachmanual station createprocedures that aremore detailed thanthose currently used

Concept 2: Createprocedures for theentire clean room.Procedures for eachstation, loading parts,and dealing with failures Concept3: Use currentprocedures


STATION 90 CONCEPTS 1 & 2 T1 E1 E2 R1 R2 R3 S1 S2

Concept 1: Move 3 of the part bins from the left side of the work station to the right side. 4.5 4 4 4 5 5 3.5 4

Concept 2: Put the 6 part bins under the tester and in front of the operator. 3 3 3 4 3 5 2 2


01

2

3

4

5T1

E1

E2

R1

R2

R3

S1

S2

Concept 1: Move 3 ofthe part bins from theleft side of the workstation to the right side. Concept 2: Put the 6part bins under thetester and in front of theoperator.


SIMULATION CONCEPTS T1 E1 E2 R1 R2 R3 S1 S2Concept 1: Simulation as a means to determine best utilization of operators. 4.5 4 4 4 5 5 5 5

Concept 2: Establish the optimal number of pallets circulating through the system. 4.5 3 3 4 4.5 5 4.5 5


0

1

2

3

4

5T1

E1

E2

R1

R2

R3

S1

S2

Concept 1: Simulationas a means todetermine bestutilization of operators. Concept 2: Establishthe optimal number ofpallets circulatingthrough the system.


Material Handling T1 E1 E2 R1 R2 R3 S1 S2 Concept 1: Designated Operator 5 3 2 4.5 5 4 5 4.5Concept 2: Divide washer conveyor belt to either side of assembly 3 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 Concept 3: Reduce time spent replenishing material 4 3 4 4 3.5 4 5 3.5Concept 4: Designated locations for tools and inventory (5S) 5 2 4 5 5 4 4.5 4.5


012345T1

E1

E2

R1

R2

R3

S1

S2

Concept 1:Designated Operator

Concept 2: Dividewasher conveyor beltto either side ofassemblyConcept 3: Reducetime spentreplenishing material

Concept 4:Designated locationsfor tools andinventory (5S) Concept 1:Designated Operator


Station 210 T1 E1 E2 R1 R2 R3 S1 S2 Concept 1 2 5 5 5 2 5 6 5 Concept 2 5 5 4 4 5 2 6 6 Concept 3 6 5 5 6 6 6 6 5

Feasibility Assessment : Station 210 (Optical Check)

0

2

4

6T1

E1

E2

R1

R2

R3

S1

S2Concept 1:Pre-painting ringsbeforeinstalation

Concept 2: ReprogrammingSoftw are

Concept 3: Tw o Way Mirror


13.12 APPENDIX L. FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT FOR PROJECT

Attribute

Low Confidence

(1) 2 Medium

Confidence (3) 4 High

Confidence (5) Supporting evidence

Resource Feasibility

Sufficient Skills x We are capable engineers

Sufficient Equipment x

Encountered resistance to purchase stop watches

Sufficient People x We have 7 team members

Availability of Valeo Personal x

People are usually at Valeo from 6:30 am till

11pm

Uptime of Production

Line x

Line is not always running and breaks down

frequently

Economic Feasibility

Required funds to complete

project x

Potential to spend what we need as long as we

can justify it

Can we make 2 year payback x

Unsure of total costs and ways to justify

Schedule Feasibility Chances of

meeting intermediate

mileposts x We need to decide on concepts to implement

Chances of meeting PDR requirements x

We are on schedule and are all organized

Chances of meeting CDR requirements x

Unforeseen circumstances could lead to problems

Overall time for project x

We are good at planning and doing what it takes to

stay on schedule

Technical Feasibility x

Nothing is too technically complex


13.13 APPENDIX M – CAD DRAWINGS FOR IMPROVEMENTS Station 210


Concept 1 Concept 2



13.14 APPENDIX N - ESTIMATION OF RELATIVE IMPORTANCE ATTRIBUTES

Estimation of Relative Importance of Attributes

Row attribute is more important than column attribute

Column attribute is more important than row attribute

No significant difference between row and column attribute

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 E1 E2 S1 S2 S3 T Row Total

Col Total

Row + Col

Relative Weights Rank

R1 Sufficient Skills

6 0 6 0.109 5

R2 Sufficient Equipment 4.5 0 4.5 0.082 7

R3 Sufficient # of People 1.5 0 1.5 0.027 10

R4 Availability of Valeo Personnel 4 2.5 6.5 0.118 4

R5 Uptime of Line 4 3 7 0.127 3

E1 % of required funds 1.5 1.5 3 0.055 8

E2 Payback 3 5.5 8.5 0.155 1

S1 Meeting intermediate goals 1 0.5 1.5 0.027 10

S2 Meeting PDR 1.5 4 5.5 0.1 6

S3 Meeting CDR 0.5 7.5 8 0.146 2

T Technical Feasibility 0 2.5 2.5 0.045 9 Column Total 0 0 0 2.5 3 1.5 5.5 0.5 4 7.5 2.5 55 Estimation of Relative Importance of Attributes


13.15 APPENDIX O – Anthropometric Data


13.16 APPENDIX P – Finite Element Analysis


13.17 APPENDIX Q – Clean Room Standards Federal Standard 209E Class Limits

Class Limits

Class Name >= 0.1µm >=0.2µm >= 0.3µm >= 0.5µm >=5.0µm

Volume Units

SI English m3 ft3 m3 ft3 m3 ft3 m3 ft3 m3 ft3 M 1 350 9.91 75.7 2.14 30.9 0.875 10 0.283 M 1.5 1 1240 35 265 7.5 106 3 35.3 1 M 2 3500 99.1 757 21.4 309 8.75 100 2.83 M 2.5 10 12400 350 2650 75 1060 30 353 10 M 3 35000 991 7570 214 3090 87.5 1000 28.3 M 3.5 100 26500 750 10600 300 3530 100 M 4 75700 2140 30900 875 10000 283 M 4.5 1000 35300 1000 247 7 M 5 100000 2830 618 17.5 M 5.5 10000 353000 10000 2470 70

M 6 1000000 28300 6180 175

M 6.5 100000 3350000 100000 24700 700

M 7 10000000 283000 61800 1750

Date post:	08-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dangngoc
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times