Tookany Creek Feasibility StudyTookany Creek Feasibility Study
Feasibility Assessment.doc
-
Upload
iram-chavira -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of Feasibility Assessment.doc
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
1/28
Facet 3: Feasibility Assessment02001 Sentry Safe
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
2/28
Feasibility Assessment
This section will focus on the feasibility of the concepts identified in the concept
development facet of the project. All of the concepts identified have been scored below
from 0-3 with regard to specific questions. 0 being unfeasible, being worse than the
baseline concept, ! being equal to the baseline concept, and 3 being better than the
baseline concept.
TECHNICAL QUESTINS 1:
Does the team (with Sentrys assistance) have the skills and resources
necessary to implement all aspects of technologies for these concepts?
T!" #!$ement #et%!&s
C!n$ey!r Assist After Fill 'baseline( ) 2
The conveyor assist after fill is the baseline design. The team is capable of performing
e"isting technology research, flow calculations, collection of time study data, and
implementation of this baseline conveyor configuration.
C!n$ey!r *r!" 'a+t!mate&( ,ef!re Fill ) 0
The conveyor automated drop before fill is the same layout as the baseline design,
however all automated technologies for this system have been restricted by #entry. The
team is capable of performing e"isting technology research, flow calculations, collection
of time study data, and implementation of this conveyor configuration if necessary.
C!n$ey!r *r!" 'a+t!mate&( After Fill ) 0
The conveyor automated drop before fill is the same layout as the baseline design,
however all automated technologies for this system have been restricted by #entry. The
team is capable of performing e"isting technology research, flow calculations, collection
of time study data, and implementation of this conveyor configuration if necessary.
C!n$ey!r Assist ,ef!re Fill ) 3
The conveyor operator assist after fill is the same layout as the baseline design. The team
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
3/28
is capable of performing e"isting technology research, flow calculations, collection of
time study data, and implementation of this conveyor configuration.
#an+al #!$ement 'c+rrent( ) 1
$urrently e"isting technology, the lids have to be manually moved from one location to
another. %ith a simple conveyor e"tension, the entire step of pic&ing up and moving the
lid to the body will be eliminated, increasing potential throughput.
Fillin- #et%!&s
#etere& Fillin- 'baseline( ) 2
The team is capable of producing a metered filling devise or installing an e"isting
metering devise depending on the method chosen and the current technology available.
.ent+ri Fillin- ) 2
'enturi filling utili(es a plastic tube leading from the spout of the filling devise bac& into
the chamber producing a vacuum that controls the actuation of a flow valve. The team is
capable of producing such a method and incorporating it into the design, however the
consistency of the cement may ma&e this option difficult and less li&ely to succeed.
*+al H!se Fillin- ) 3
)f metered filling is possible and implemented, post fill concrete consistency *#entry+
may limit the flow rate of the fluid into the base causing a less feasible outcome. This
option is easier to perform than the baseline because it simply requires addition an
additional hose to the concrete drops. )f this solution is possible the outcome is definitely
advantageous.
*+al Safe Fillin- ) 3
This option is easier to implement than the baseline concept because it simply requires
adding an additional hose to the concrete drops.
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
4/28
#an+al Fillin- 'c+rrent( ) 1
This is the current method of procedure, limits efficiency and cleanliness while adding to
an already ergonomically ha(ardous wor&ing environment.
Ca" *ri$in- #et%!&s
/+bber Hammer 'baseline( ) 2
The team is capable of performing any calculations, design drawings, e"periments, and or
trials to implement a rubber hammer into the process.
ne+matic +n ) 0
The team is capable of researching e"isting pneumatic cap guns and implementing them
into the process, however if this technology is unavailable the necessary time to fully
design, develop, and test such a product is more then the team is able to allocate.
/!ller ress ) 3
The team is capable of performing any calculations, design drawings, e"periments, and or
trials to implement this type of technology. )f current technology for this equipment does
not e"ist the team would have the necessary tools to develop such a product.
Hy&ra+lic ress ) 0
The team is capable of performing any calculations, e"periments, and or trials to
implement this type of technology. Although the technology does e"ist #entry safe has
eliminated this option due to the possible buc&ling effect of the press on the safe.
renc% ) 2
The team is capable of performing any calculations, design drawings, e"periments, and or
trials to implement a wrench into the process.
#an+al ressin- 'c+rrent( ) 1
This is the current process and is obviously an accomplishable tas&, but ergonomic
ha(ards involved require the need for a new method of capping.
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
5/28
St!""in- #et%!&s
%!t!electric Sens!r 'baseline( ) 2
This technology e"ists and is in use currently. The team is capable of researching newsensors and stopping devises for implementation on the system.
ei-%t Sens!r ) 0
This technology currently e"ists and the team is capable of researching and
implementation of such technology, however, water concentrations vary between
different batches of concrete, and therefore a weight sensor would not be a feasible
option.
Si Lift ,ar ) 2
The team is capable of researching e"isting stopping devises and implementing them
accordingly.
#an+al ,+tt!n ) 2
The team is capable of researching e"isting stopping devises and implementing them
accordingly.
#an+al St!""in- 'c+rrent( ) 1
There is current technology a.&.a. the operator is a doable method to stop the safes, but
due to the ergonomic ha(ards of this procedure it is not a feasible solution.
SCHE*ULE QUESTIN 1:
How much time will it take to bring this concept to the customer?
T!" #!$ement #et%!&s
C!n$ey!r Assist After Fill 'baseline( ) 2
esearch, design, and implementation are feasible within the timeframe.
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
6/28
C!n$ey!r *r!" 'a+t!mate&( ,ef!re Fill ) 0
The conveyor automated drop before fill is the same layout as the baseline design, and is
capable of being implemented in the timeframe, however all automated technologies for
this system have been restricted by #entry.
C!n$ey!r *r!" 'a+t!mate&( After Fill ) 0
The conveyor automated drop before fill is the same layout as the baseline design, and is
capable of being implemented in the timeframe, however all automated technologies for
this system have been restricted by #entry.
C!n$ey!r Assist ,ef!re Fill ) 2
esearch, design, and implementation are feasible within the timeframe.
#an+al #!$ement 'c+rrent( ) 3
$urrently, e"isting technology, the lids have to be manually moved from one location to
another.
Fillin- #et%!&s#etere& Fillin- 'baseline( ) 2
The team is capable of producing a metered filling devise and or installing an e"isting
metering devise depending on the method chosen by sentry and the current technology
available in the timeframe.
.ent+ri Fillin- ) 2
The consistency of the cement may ma&e this option difficult and less li&ely to succeed,
however, research, design, and implementation are feasible within the timeframe.
*+al H!se Fillin- ) 3
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
7/28
ual hose filling will use two hoses of the chosen filling method. esearch, esign, and
implementation are feasible within the timeframe, and #entry roup currently has the
hoses and control valves in stoc&.
*+al Safe Fillin- ) 3
This concept has the e"act same requirements as dual hose filling, and therefore would
receive the same rating.
#an+al Fillin- 'c+rrent( ) 3
This is the current method of procedure, which limits efficiency and cleanliness while
adding to an already ergonomically ha(ardous wor&ing environment.
Ca" *ri$in- #et%!&s
/+bber Hammer 'baseline( ) 2
/re-e"isting tool. esearch, design, and implementation are feasible within the
timeframe.
ne+matic +n ) 0
"cessive design and testing required for this device, implementation not probable within
the timeframe.
/!ller ress ) 2
esearch, design, and implementation are feasible within the timeframe.
Hy&ra+lic ress ) 0
esearch, design, and implementation are feasible within the timeframe, however sentry
has elected to not e"plore this option due to safe buc&ling under pressure.
renc% ) 2
esearch, design, and implementation are feasible within the timeframe.
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
8/28
#an+al ressin- 'c+rrent( ) 3
This is the current process.
St!""in- #et%!&s
%!t!electric Sens!r 'baseline( ) 2
This is the current process. esearch, design, and implementation are feasible within the
timeframe.
ei-%t Sens!r ) 2
This technology currently e"ists and research, design, and implementation are feasible
within the timeframe.
Si Lift ,ar ) 2
esearch, design, and implementation are feasible within the timeframe.
#an+al ,+tt!n ) 2
esearch, design, and implementation are feasible within the timeframe.
#an+al St!""in- 'c+rrent( ) 3
This operation can be implemented in the system at any time.
ECN#IC QUESTIN 1:
How much will it cost to bring this concept to the customer?
#entry has informed us that our budget could be over 10,000 dollars, so basically all of
our concepts were feasible.
T!" #!$ement #et%!&s
C!n$ey!r Assist After Fill 'baseline( ) 2
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
9/28
The conveyor assist would require an additional length of gravity-fed conveyor to guide
the safe lids to the bodies. 0-foot sections of gravity-fed conveyors sell for an average
of 2300 dollars.
C!n$ey!r *r!" 'a+t!mate&( ,ef!re Fill ) 1
The conveyor drop would require a separate stopper for the safe bottoms, as well as an
e"tra ! to 3 feet of automated conveyor. %hile no conveyor systems identical to the
rubber band drive conveyor presently owned by #entry could be found, similar systems
with lengths of 3 feet cost on average !0 dollars. Also, installation costs would depend
on how quic&ly the installers could get the equipment wor&ing. An estimate of 4 hours
would be appropriate in this case, and assuming their own wor&ers would do the
installing at their average wage, of !.10 per hour that would be 00 dollars.
C!n$ey!r *r!" 'a+t!mate&( After Fill ) 1
This is the same as the automated conveyor drop before filling, and would cost
appro"imately !0 dollars per 3 feet plus labor costs to install the system.
C!n$ey!r Assist ,ef!re Fill ) 2
This is the same system as the baseline with regard to equipment.
#an+al #!$ement 'c+rrent( ) 3
This is their current process so implementing this would cost nothing.
Fillin- #et%!&s
#etere& Fillin- 'baseline( ) 2
To determine the cost of this process we would first have to decide how we wanted to
measure the filling process, whether it is by flow, various sensors, or even by measuring a
predetermined amount of cement. #entry is currently reviewing the various options with
regard to concrete because of their e"tensive e"perience with it.
.ent+ri Fillin- ) 1
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
10/28
'enturi filling requires a hose that does not currently e"ist in the mar&etplace, so one
would have to be made. Assuming that the specifications for all necessary equipment are
&nown building one would be costly.
*+al H!se Fillin- ) 3
#entry roup currently has e"tra hose and valves, so this wouldn5t cost them any
additional money to implement.
*+al Safe Fillin- ) 3
This concept has the e"act same requirements as dual hose filling, and therefore would
receive the same rating.
#an+al Fillin- 'c+rrent( ) 3
This is the current process and no changes would be necessary to implement this, thus no
money would have to be spent.
Ca" *ri$in- #et%!&s
/+bber Hammer 'baseline( ) 2
ne+matic +n ) 1
The pneumatic gun would be much more e"pensive than the hammer. 6ecause the caps
are custom made, no such device e"ists, and therefore this device would have to be
developed from scratch. This development process would be very costly.
/!ller ress ) 1
This concept would require a series of rollers of different si(es attached to a frame. 7ne
place that sold conveyors sold replacement rollers of different si(es from appro"imately
dollars American *converted from 6ritish pounds+ up to 31 dollars American. Also a
frame could be assembled from scrap metal for a very low price. An estimate of labor
costs is 4 hours or 00 dollars.
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
11/28
Hy&ra+lic ress ) 1
The specifications for the hydraulic press are not &nown e"actly, however research shows
that they cost an average of 2!,300.
renc% ) 1
This would not require much capital to purchase, however, because of the level of
ergonomic improvement required, an estimate of 2!0 can be made.
#an+al ressin- 'c+rrent( ) 3
This is the current process and no changes would be necessary to implement this, thus no
money would have to be spent.
St!""in- #et%!&s
%!t!electric Sens!r 'baseline( ) 2
A photoelectric sensor which can be found in garage doors, can be found at hardware
stores for !!.882. )nstallation of this type of sensor should not ta&e long at all, however,
a system to &eep it clean may be necessary, but not yet &nown.
ei-%t Sens!r ) 2
%eight sensors can cost minimal amounts of money, however, installation times are not
&nown.
Si Lift ,ar ) 2
The cost of a s&i lift bar should not be much in the way of materials, as only a metal bar
and simple electrical system is needed, but again installation times are not &nown.
#an+al ,+tt!n ) 2
This should not cost much to implement, as they already have the equipment to do it,
however, installation will be the most e"pensive part of this, depending on the desired
setup.
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
12/28
#an+al St!""in- 'c+rrent( ) 3
This is the current process and would cost nothing to implement.
ECN#IC QUESTIN 2:
ill this concept have a return investment of less than or e!ual to " year?
The combination of new top movement method, a new filling concept, new cap driving
method, and a new stopping system will in total result in the reduction of to !
wor&ers from the system. )n rating these methods the cost of each was
weighed against the saving of 10,000-200,000 dollars per year, because none
of these concepts alone could generate those savings.
T!" #!$ement #et%!&s
C!n$ey!r Assist After Fill 'baseline( ) 2
As stated in economic question 9 the cost of this concept is far less than the year
savings of 10,000 dollars, and thus this concept will have a return investment of less than
one year.
C!n$ey!r *r!" 'a+t!mate&( ,ef!re Fill ) 3
This is the same as the previous question in that the cost of e"tra conveyor plus
installation will be far less than the amount saved. :owever, because of the e"tra
automation, it would have a slower 7) than the baseline
C!n$ey!r *r!" 'a+t!mate&( After Fill ) 3
This is the same as the conveyor drop before filling.
C!n$ey!r Assist ,ef!re Fill ) 2
This is the same as the conveyor assist after the fill.
#an+al #!$ement 'c+rrent( ) 2
This is the current process.
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
13/28
Fillin- #et%!&s
#etere& Fillin- 'baseline( ) 2
;etered filling, as shown in the first economic question costs far less than the 10,000dollars that will be saved in one year.
.ent+ri Fillin- ) 3
)t is not &nown what the e"act costs of venturi filling will be, however, estimates put it
far less than 10,000 dollars. )t is believed that this could potentially eliminate an
additional operator, and would therefore have a faster 7) than the baseline.
*+al H!se Fillin- 4 3
This process will cost much less than the 10,000 dollars as shown in economic question
, and it could potentially speed up production as well, resulting in less man hours needed
to do the same job.
*+al Safe Fillin- ) 3
This concept has the e"act same requirements as dual hose filling, and therefore would
receive the same rating.
#an+al Fillin- 'c+rrent( ) 3
This is the current process.
Ca" *ri$in- #et%!&s
/+bber Hammer ) 2
This will cost far less than 10,000 dollars.
ne+matic +n ) 1
The pneumatic gun as shown in the previous question will cost far less than the 10,000
dollars in savings, but will have a slower 7) than the baseline.
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
14/28
/!ller ress ) 1
This concept will also cost far less than the 10,000 dollars, but will have a slower 7)
than the baseline.
Hy&ra+lic ress ) 1
This concept while somewhat e"pensive will also generate a return on investment in one
year. :owever it will be much slower than the baseline
renc% ) 2
This tool will easily generate a return on investment of less than one year. )t is estimated
that the 7) will be very similar to the baseline.
#an+al ressin- 'c+rrent( ) 3
This is the current process and costs nothing to implement.
St!""in- #et%!&s
All stopping methods are very cheap and will generate a return on investment of far less
than one year.
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
15/28
T!" #!$ement #et%!&s
C!n$ey!r Assist After Fill 'baseline( ) 2
C!n$ey!r *r!" 'a+t!mate&( ,ef!re Fill ) 2C!n$ey!r *r!" 'a+t!mate&( After Fill ) 2
C!n$ey!r Assist ,ef!re Fill ) 2
#an+al #!$ement 'c+rrent( ) 2
The above concepts for top movement methods do not provide the ability to increase or
decrease the production schedule if this fle"ibility is necessary.
Fillin- #et%!&s
#etere& Fillin- 'baseline( ) 2
.ent+ri Fillin- ) 3
The 'enturi
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
16/28
Ca" *ri$in- #et%!&s
/+bber Hammer 'baseline( ) 2
ne+matic +n ) 3A pneumatic gun would insert the caps individually at a faster rate than the baseline
method.
/!ller ress ) 3
A roller press would perform the cap driving operation without an operator present. The
press would insert all four caps at once decreasing the time required for this operation.
Hy&ra+lic ress ) 3
A hydraulic press would perform the cap driving operation without an operator present.
The press would insert all four caps at once decreasing the time required for this
operation.
renc% ) 2
A wrench would require each cap to be inserted separately by an operator. This is
equivalent to the baseline.
#an+al ressin- 'c+rrent( ) 2
;anually pressing the caps into the safe body requires each cap to be inserted separately
by an operator. This is equivalent to the baseline.
St!""in- #et%!&s
%!t!electric Sens!r 'baseline( ) 2
ei-%t Sens!r ) 2
Si Lift ,ar ) 2
#an+al ,+tt!n ) 2
#an+al St!""in- 'c+rrent( ) 2
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
17/28
The above concepts for stopping methods do not provide the ability to increase or
decrease the production schedule if this fle"ibility is necessary.
E/F/#ANCE QUESTIN 2:
How does this concept affect potential throughput?
T!" #!$ement #et%!&s
C!n$ey!r Assist After Fill 'baseline( ) 2
C!n$ey!r *r!" 'a+t!mate&( ,ef!re Fill ) 2
The conveyor drop before fill should be equal to the baseline concept because the
processes is only slightly rearranged, but for all intensive purposes, the same with regard
to throughput
C!n$ey!r *r!" 'a+t!mate&( After Fill ) 3
The conveyor drop after fill is better than the baseline concept because a human operator
will be able to move at a potentially faster pace than the automated conveyor. The
baseline concept would have to stop and ma&e sure the safes were properly aligned
before the lid could be slid onto the body. %ith the operator sliding the lid on, less
precision is needed with base location on the conveyor.
C!n$ey!r Assist ,ef!re Fill ) 3
The conveyor drop before fill is better than the baseline concept because a human
operator will be able to move at a potentially faster pace than the automated conveyor.
The baseline concept would have to stop and ma&e sure the safes were properly aligned
before the lid could be slid onto the body. %ith the operator sliding the lid on, less
precision is needed with base location on the conveyor.
#an+al #!$ement 'c+rrent( ) 1
$urrently, the lids have to be manually moved from one location to another. %ith a
simple conveyor e"tension, the entire step of pic&ing up and moving the lid to the body
will be eliminated, increasing potential throughput.
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
18/28
Fillin- #et%!&s
#etere& Fillin- 'baseline( ) 2
.ent+ri Fillin- ) 2'enturi filling would be equal to metered filling because both methods will essentially
ta&e the same time. The operators will start the flow of concrete and be able to move
onto additional value-added activities while the safe is filling.
*+al H!se Fillin- ) 3
This could potentially double the rate at which safe bodies are filled, thereby increasing
throughput to appro"imately twice of the current process.
*+al Safe Fillin- ) 3
This concept could also potentially double the rate at which safe bodies are filled, thereby
increasing throughput to appro"imately twice of the current process.
#an+al Fillin- 'c+rrent( ) 1
The current process would be worse than the baseline concept. Although the safe would
be filled in the same amount of time, the other value-added activities that the operator
could potentially due won5t be able to be performed until after the safe is filled.
Ca" *ri$in- #et%!&s
/+bber Hammer 'baseline( ) 2
ne+matic +n ) 3
The pneumatic gun would be better than the baseline concept because with the baseline
concept, the caps still need to be set on the holes and properly aligned before they can be
driven in. The pneumatic gun would be able to align and drive the cap all at the same
time, thereby speeding up the process.
/!ller ress ) 3
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
19/28
This would be better than the baseline concept because the operator would only have to
align the caps onto their holes as opposed to aligning and driving them in with the
baseline concept.
Hy&ra+lic ress ) 3
This would be much better than the baseline concept because all caps could be inserted
simultaneously by a single device instead of having to drive them in individually as is the
case with the baseline concept.
renc% ) 1
This would be worse than the baseline concept because the operator would have to insert
the caps into the wrench and then align them and insert them one by one. The e"tra time
that will be needed to insert the caps into the wrench could significantly slow down the
process.
#an+al ressin- 'c+rrent( ) 3
This is the current process and involves operators pressing the caps in with their hands.
This is slightly better than the baseline concept because the operator aligns and inserts the
caps all in one motion, instead of aligning the caps and then driving them in.
St!""in- #et%!&s
%!t!electric Sens!r 'baseline( ) 2
ei-%t Sens!r ) 2
This is equal to the baseline concept because both the weight sensor and the baseline
concept have sensors that operate in a similar fashion. =amely, stopping the safe when it
is in the proper location by way of an electrical interrupt.
Si Lift ,ar ) 2
This is equal to the baseline concept because the s&i lift bar would also stop the safe in a
certain spot. The only difference is that the s&i lift bar uses a mechanical interrupt as
opposed to an electrical interrupt.
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
20/28
#an+al ,+tt!n ) 2
Although this has some operator interaction, the push button would also stop the safe by
means of an electrical interrupt, and therefore would ta&e the same amount of time as the
baseline concept.
#an+al St!""in- 'c+rrent( ) 2
This would be equal to the baseline because the operator simply stops the safes by
grabbing them as they pass. This should ta&e no longer than it would ta&e for the
baseline concept to stop the conveyor via the sensors.
E/F/#ANCE QUESTIN 3:
$s this concept capable of meeting all regulatory re!uirements?
T!" #!$ement #et%!&s
C!n$ey!r Assist After Fill 'baseline( ) 2
C!n$ey!r *r!" 'a+t!mate&( ,ef!re Fill ) 2
The automated conveyor drop before fill meets regulatory requirements in a manner
equivalent to the baseline.
C!n$ey!r *r!" 'a+t!mate&( After Fill ) 2
The automated conveyor drop after fill meets regulatory requirements in a manner
equivalent to the baseline.
C!n$ey!r Assist ,ef!re Fill ) 2
The conveyor assist before fill meets regulatory requirements in a manner equivalent to
the baseline.
#an+al #!$ement 'c+rrent( ) 1
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
21/28
;anual transfer of the safe doors is worse than the baseline. The current process is close
to e"ceeding the =)7#: >ifting uidelines.
Fillin- #et%!&s#etere& Fillin- 'baseline( ) 2
.ent+ri Fillin- ) 2
*+al H!se Fillin- ) 2
*+al Safe Fillin- ) 2
#an+al Fillin- 'c+rrent( ) 2
The above concepts for filling methods all meet regulatory requirements in a manner
equivalent to the baseline.
Ca" *ri$in- #et%!&s
/+bber Hammer 'baseline( ) 2
ne+matic +n ) 2
/!ller ress ) 2
Hy&ra+lic ress ) 2
renc% ) 2
#an+al ressin- 'c+rrent( ) 2
The above concepts for cap driving methods all meet regulatory requirements in a
manner equivalent to the baseline.
St!""in- #et%!&s
%!t!electric Sens!r 'baseline( ) 2
ei-%t Sens!r ) 2
Si Lift ,ar ) 2
#an+al ,+tt!n ) 2
#an+al St!""in- 'c+rrent( ) 2
The above concepts for stopping methods all meet regulatory requirements in a manner
equivalent to the baseline.
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
22/28
E/F/#ANCE QUESTIN 5:
How does this concept affect the ergonomics of the work cell?
T!" #!$ement #et%!&s
C!n$ey!r Assist After Fill 'baseline( ) 2
C!n$ey!r *r!" 'a+t!mate&( ,ef!re Fill ) 3
The conveyor drop before fill is better than the baseline concept because it has no
operator interaction at all. Therefore, no ergonomic issues are present.
C!n$ey!r *r!" 'a+t!mate&( After Fill ) 3
The conveyor drop after fill is better than the baseline concept because it has no operator
interaction at all. Therefore, no ergonomic issues are present.
C!n$ey!r Assist ,ef!re Fill ) 3
6ecause the safe is moved while it is still empty, it is much lighter and therefore better
ergonomically. The lighter weight puts less stress on the arm, shoulder muscles, and
joints while the lid is being slid onto the safe body.
#an+al #!$ement 'c+rrent( ) 1
The ergonomics are much worse in the manual movement. The operator must pic& up
each > lid and place them onto the safe bodies. This e"erts strain on the muscles of
the bac&, arms, and fingers. The strain is much lower in the baseline concept.
Fillin- #et%!&s
#etere& Fillin- 'baseline( ) 2
.ent+ri Fillin- ) 2
'enturi filling would be equal to metered filling because both methods require minimal
operator interaction. The filling process would require the operator to simply start the
process by putting the hose into the proper hole and starting the flow of concrete.
*+al H!se Fillin- ) 1
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
23/28
ual hose filling would be slightly worse than metered filling because it would require
the operator to load ! hoses into the proper holes, as well as continuously monitor the
flow of concrete by manipulating the on-off valve. The hoses have potential to be very
heavy, so proper counter balances would need to be implemented.
*+al Safe Fillin- ) 1
ual safe filling would be slightly worse than metered filling because it would require the
operator to load ! hoses into the proper holes, as well as continuously monitor the flow of
concrete by manipulating the on-off valves. The hoses have potential to be very heavy,
so proper counter balances would need to be implemented.
#an+al Fillin- 'c+rrent( ) 1
The current process would be worse than the baseline concept because the hoses have to
be loaded and unloaded and the flow of concrete must be manipulated continuously to get
the correct amount of concrete.
Ca" *ri$in- #et%!&s
/+bber Hammer 'baseline( ) 2
ne+matic +n ) 3
The pneumatic gun would be better than the baseline concept because all the operator
needs to do is aim the gun and squee(e the trigger to drive the caps. This e"erts much
less strain on the operator5s shoulder and arm.
/!ller ress ) 3
This would be much better than the baseline concept because there would be no operator
interaction, and therefore no ergonomic issues.
Hy&ra+lic ress ) 3
This would be much better than the baseline concept because there would be no operator
interaction, and therefore no ergonomic issues.
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
24/28
renc% ) 1
This would be worse than the baseline concept because the wrench would require the
wrist to be coc&ed at e"treme angles to manipulate the caps. This would provide greater
ergonomic stress than the hammer5s simple swinging motion.
#an+al ressin- 'c+rrent( ) 1
This is the current process and involves operators pressing the caps in with their hands.
This is much worse than using a hammer. There is currently unnecessary
contact stress on the hands or thumbs, depending on which methods the
operators use to press in the caps. The operators also have to use some of
their body weight to drive the caps.
St!""in- #et%!&s
%!t!electric Sens!r 'baseline( ) 2
ei-%t Sens!r ) 2
This is equal to the baseline concept because there is no operator involvement, and
therefore there are no ergonomic issues.
Si Lift ,ar ) 2
This is equal to the baseline concept because there is no operator involvement, and
therefore there are no ergonomic issues.
#an+al ,+tt!n ) 2
Although this has some operator interaction, the simple tas& of pushing a button does not
subject the operator to any unnecessary ergonomic stress and therefore is equal to the
baseline concept
#an+al St!""in- 'c+rrent( ) 1
This is much worse than the baseline concept because the operator must manually stop
and advance the safes. This subjects the operator to unnecessary ergonomic stress in
their shoulder and arm.
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
25/28
E/F/#ANCE QUESTIN 6:
How does this concept affect product !uality?
T!" #!$ement #et%!&s
C!n$ey!r Assist After Fill 'baseline( ) 2
This concept is not very different from the current concept *see manual movement below+
with regard to product quality. The only major difference is that the safe lids are filled
much closer to the finished safe bodies. This could have a negative effect because
concrete could be spilled onto the finished safe bodies.
C!n$ey!r *r!" 'a+t!mate&( ,ef!re Fill ) 16ecause the lids are automatically dropped onto the safe bodies, there is potential for
surface scratching on the bodies. This concept also has the same issues with concrete
spillage as the baseline. Therefore this concept is worse than the baseline
C!n$ey!r *r!" 'a+t!mate&( After Fill ) 1
6ecause the lids are automatically dropped onto the safe bodies, there is potential for
surface scratching on the bodies. This potential for scratching is also increased because
of the weight of the lids when they are full. This concept also has the same issues with
concrete spillage as the baseline. Therefore this concept is worse than the baseline
C!n$ey!r Assist ,ef!re Fill ) 1
6ecause the lid is being filled on the safe body, there is potential for scratching. This is
because the operator must sha&e the lid to ensure proper filling. Therefore, this concept
is worse than the baseline.
#an+al #!$ement 'c+rrent( ) 3
The current method is better than the baseline because, while the placing of the lid on the
safe is done by the operator in each, there is less potential for concrete spillage on the
safes.
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
26/28
Fillin- #et%!&s
#etere& Fillin- 'baseline( ) 2
%ith metered filling, there is a small potential for overfilling or underfilling. )f theoperator had the switch set at the wrong safe si(e, then e"cess concrete could be e"pelled
by the hose, or not enough concrete would be given.
.ent+ri Fillin- ) 3
%ith 'enturi filling, there would never be any chance of safe overflow *provided the
system was wor&ing correctly+. This would be because when the concrete reached the
top of the safe and touched the no((le, the flow would automatically shut off. Therefore,
this is better than the baseline concept.
*+al H!se Fillin- ) 1
This would be worse than the baseline concept, because there is a potential for voids in
the concrete if the bodies are filled to fast.
*+al Safe Fillin- ) 1
6ecause of the fact that ! no((les are being used, there will be less of a chance for
operators to freely swing the filling mechanism out of the way to let any e"cess concrete
drain. )n this case, the concrete may end up being released over the safe, and would have
to be wiped off.
#an+al Fillin- 'c+rrent( ) 1
This is worse than the baseline, because there is an increased possibility that the operators
will spill concrete onto the safe bodies. This already happens frequently, and the
concrete must then be wiped off.
Ca" *ri$in- #et%!&s
/+bber Hammer 'baseline( ) 2
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
27/28
There is the potential of damage being done to the safe if a rubber hammer were used to
drive in the caps because the safe bodies are quite thin.
ne+matic +n ) 2
There is also potential of damage being done with this concept. 6ecause the caps are
driven with force, denting would be a major concern
/!ller ress ) 1
6ecause of the harsh environment in which the roller press would be operating it, there is
no doubt that concrete pieces would contaminate the rollers. This could then lead to
scratching of the safe bodies as the caps were driven in.
Hy&ra+lic ress ) 2
This has similar issues to the rubber hammer and pneumatic gun. 6ecause of the force
needed to drive the caps in, the press could dent the safe bodies.
renc% ) 3
The wrench would be better than the baseline concept. The potential for denting and
surface scratches would be eliminated
#an+al ressin- 'c+rrent( ) 3
This would be better than the baseline because there is no potential for damaging the
safes bodies.
St!""in- #et%!&s
%!t!electric Sens!r 'baseline( ) 2
There should be no potential for positively or negatively affecting product quality,
because there is no additional contact on the safe besides the rollers already in place.
ei-%t Sens!r ) 2
There should be no potential for positively or negatively affecting product quality,
because there is no additional contact on the safe besides the rollers already in place.
-
8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc
28/28
Si Lift ,ar ) 1
The bar could potentially scratch or dent the safes if concrete because to accumulate on it.
Therefore, this concept is worse than the baseline.
#an+al ,+tt!n ) 2
The manual button would simply stop the rollers, so there should be no potential for
positively or negatively affecting product quality, because there is no additional contact
on the safe besides the rollers already in place.
#an+al St!""in- 'c+rrent( ) 2
There should be no potential for positively or negatively affecting product quality,
because the only contact on the safe besides the rollers is the operators hand.
Selecti!ns:
6ased on the above ratings and the radar charts attached, the follow tentativeselections
have been made. :owever, each of these is subject to approval and analysis by #entry
group, and it is e"pected that some changes will be made.
T!" #!$ement #et%!&@ $onveyor Assist 6efore or After