Date post: | 02-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | stephen-wells |
View: | 219 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Research & Development ProposalResearch & Development Proposal
ETM5121-Capstone Project
NPI Concept Application R&D
Larry Cochran – Spring 2004
Oklahoma State University
Opening Proposal RequestOpening Proposal Request
Authorization and Budgeting is requested for the research, testing and development of a new travel-limiter device for the 2004 X-Brand light duty truck concept-unit
Oklahoma State University
Introduction - Initial DetailsIntroduction - Initial Details
2004 X-Brand truck front McPherson Strut OEM expects to produce 800,000+
vehicles in FY2004 Replacement curve depicts growth to
40,000 units annually within 6-years Due to vehicle model, long life-cycle is
expected First year this design has been used on
any Domestic light-duty truck
Oklahoma State University
A Look at Potential SalesA Look at Potential Sales
2004 X-Brand Potential Unit Sales
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
Val
ue
in $
Total Revenue Net Income
A graphic look at potential sales, based on known volumes and initial cost / price projections
10-year sales
$15.4-M Revenue
$5.6-M Net Income
420-K units
Oklahoma State University
Problem StatementProblem Statement
Our top specialty customer has requested coverage for this vehicle
– Insufficient quantity in itself to warrant development– New development will provide working solution to
broader coverage for all customers– Current travel-limiter is insufficiently strong enough for
this application, regardless of customer– OEM manufacturer is projecting use of the new design
across all truck platforms for the foreseeable future
Oklahoma State University
Measures of the ProblemMeasures of the Problem
Our current welded travel-limiter design is constructed to withstand a 4400-9500-lb. axial load– We have not designed McPherson struts for light truck
applications before– Initial Calculations show that the X-Brand truck can
potentially exert up to 10,000-lbs axial force onto the limiter
– As the travel-limiter’s (rod-stop) survival is considered a critical characteristic, the rod-stop must be designed in such a way as to survive 10,000-lbs minimum force
Oklahoma State University
Project ObjectivesProject Objectives
To deliver a viable alternative, the following conditions must be met within the new design:
– It must prove to be of durable design in the field– It must be simple in overall design– It must work integral to all other designs and systems, so that
incorporation to all other related components causes minimal manufacturing difficulties
– Ideally, it should be non-directionally oriented, to reduce the risk of improper manufacturing assembly
– It must be a cost-effective solution• Easily sourced at competitive costs• It must not significantly increase the overall cost of the unit• Easily moved to alternative suppliers if needed (non-proprietary to supplier)
– It must meet customer quality and safety expectations for this heavy-duty application
Oklahoma State University
Specific DeliverablesSpecific Deliverables
The new rod-stop must not fail to axial loads below 10,000-lbs. It will be composed of as few components and processes as possible It must not significantly increase the overall unit complexity It must not compromise the structural integrity of the overall piston-rod
assembly In selection, it must take into account supply-logistics for necessary
components– Stocking and re-order points for components must be established during startup
– It must source from existing, approved suppliers
– Teamwork with suppliers must be established, so that the final component can be made within specification, taking into account their process-capabilities
Design-for-Manufacture must be observed to the limits possible Must maintain all related DFMEAs, PFMEAs, ECRs/ECOs, Benchmarking
data, and Project Engineering Reports Coordination of PPAP for all initial components through quality process
Oklahoma State University
Considered AlternativesConsidered Alternatives
Several designs to be considered– Must pass critical requirements 100%– Only designs which can do so will be
considered further– Those which pass all empirical tests will be
compared based on their durability, cost, simplicity, and ease-of-manufacture
– The final selected design will be prototyped into assembly for full unit testing, and upon approval, manufacture
Oklahoma State University
Alternative #1Alternative #1
Press-Fit crenellate-filled design– Single-piece design– Requires special tooling– Currently used by OEM tier-1 suppliers– Requires rod modification (groove)
• Eliminates differed-differentiation• Increases costs
– Is this patented? (patent research)– Is feasible for application
Oklahoma State University
Alternative #2Alternative #2
Free-Floating Rod-Stop with Snap-Ring Retainer– 2-piece design– Requires grooved rod
• Eliminates differed-differentiation• Increases Costs
– Generic machine design• No patent issues
– Is feasible design
Oklahoma State University
Alternative #3Alternative #3
Split-Diameter (ground-shoulder) piston-rod– No-pieces required– Rod uses compound diameters– Significant rod cost increase– No known existing applications– Highest Strength, Fail-safe– Feasibility depends on rod-grinding process
availability
Oklahoma State University
Alternative Evaluation CriteriaAlternative Evaluation Criteria
Accepted Alternative required to pass all empirical testing– Withstand axial load minimum of 10,000-lbs.– Must not compromise rod bend resistance of .315” deflection at 9000-
10,000-lb load, applied to rod resting on 8.00” center-rests with 2” radii– Must be cost-competitive– Must be able to source from existing approved suppliers– Must be able to manufacture with minimal tooling costs– Must be durable in application– Must pass standard approval process
• Peer-Engineer review• Director of Engineering approval• Plant Manager approval• Quality approval• Customer approval
– Must be able to integrate with existing components to the maximum extent possible
Oklahoma State University
Project Start ProcessProject Start Process
Collect Initial Data– Benchmark known processes and components– Make inquiries into available processes and
knowledge-bases internally– Contact suppliers regarding their process
capabilities– Create all relevant prints– Hold first meeting to detail pending design
• Review meeting feedback• Provide tentative timeline for departmental actions
Oklahoma State University
Start Process (continued)Start Process (continued)
Evaluate Alternatives– Develop initial prototypes for testing– Begin component testing for strength, durability and manufacturability– Document all testing– Maintain testing samples– Submit prototype prints for purchasing to retrieve component quotes
on– Calculate per-unit costs as assembled
• Compile CIP for tooling and NPI, if required• ROI• IRR• DTR• Tooling Amortization, if required• Start-Up expense (suppliers, production, etc.)
– Complete and publish lead-time analysis
Oklahoma State University
Start Process (continued-2)Start Process (continued-2)
Develop and Present Recommendation– Call 2nd management meeting to
formally present design– Take feedback– Present alternatives (if applicable and
required)– Initiate action plan
Oklahoma State University
Project PlanningProject Planning
The overall scope of this project is to develop and implement a new travel limiter with heavy-duty capacity significantly in excess of our current component
The initial project team is composed of:– Primary Design Engineer (and Project Champion)– Tooling-Process Engineer– Sales Representative (customer advocate)– Director of Engineering– Plant Manager
Planning for all forthcoming actions will be presented through this core group
Oklahoma State University
Project ExecutionProject Execution
Confirmation of all feasibility considerations must first be conducted
Prototypes of all alternatives to be created and empirically tested
Tests and all documentation to be reviewed, with consideration to:
– Manufacturability– Costs– Strength, durability, safety, customer satisfaction– Component Logistic considerations– Time-to-Market timeline considerations
Selection of alternative to take to market Delegation of new assembly to standard manufacturing
protocol
Oklahoma State University
Project ClosureProject Closure
Closure occurs upon 1st lot acceptance by customer By business structure, post project reviews only occur if
customer brings discrepancy/complaint issues to the attention of engineering (not a good thing)
Ideal situation is to NOT hear more about the given component once implemented into manufacturing
– Casual follow-ups with customer do occur– 1st customer of new introduction may elect to perform detailed testing
to their requirements upon initial receipt– The customer is strongly urged to work with our Quality department
regarding any issues which they find require attention – so that quick resolutions can be implemented
We are rated every day on our performance – By sustaining long-time customers and their continued patronage!
Oklahoma State University
Projected Timeline (part 1 of 2)Projected Timeline (part 1 of 2)
Oklahoma State University
Project Timeline (part 2 of 2)Project Timeline (part 2 of 2)
Oklahoma State University
Course CreditsCourse Credits
I would like to give credit to a few classes I am currently taking at OSU, which have helped in the successful execution of this project. They have proven to be a valuable information source to help improve the quality of not only this project presentation, but the actual project itself:
Benchmarking– This course brought to light several things which I had not paid sufficient attention to
before, especially the precept of clearly defining your specific benchmark goal before attempting to acquire data on the objective.
Supply Chain Analysis– An excellent course with a strong technical text, ‘Designing and Managing the Supply
Chain’, especially chapter 4, which covers the trade offs between lot size, inventory & lead times versus costs. A significant consideration when many of our suppliers are foreign, with long logistical lines. A bad design which requires revisions may catch thousands of components in-transit, purchased but never useable.
Intro to Strategy, Technology & Integration– The knowledge gained through the course texts and presentations has provided a better
understanding of what drives new technology and invention in corporate business, as well as what corporations are looking for in new concepts.
Oklahoma State University
ReferencesReferences
Burgelman, Robert A. & Sayles, Leonard R. Inside Corporate Innovation. New York, NY. The Free Press. 1988.
Bossidy, Larry & Charan, Ram. Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done. New York, NY. Crown Business. 2002.
Camp, Robert C. Business Process Benchmarking: Finding and Implementing Best Practices. Milwaukee, WI. ASQ Quality Press. 1995.
Simchi-Levi, David; Kaminsky, Philip; Smichi-Levi, Edith. Designing & Managing the Supply Chain: Concepts, Strategies & Case Studies. New York, NY. McGraw-Hill. 2003.