Table of Contents

Acknowledgements:..............................................................................................................................1

1. Introduction:......................................................................................................................................2

2. Task:..................................................................................................................................................3

3. Methodology:....................................................................................................................................4

3.1 Flow chart:...................................................................................................................................4

3.2 Process flow:................................................................................................................................5

3.3 Spaghetti diagram:.......................................................................................................................6

3.4: Time studies:..............................................................................................................................7

4. Problems:...........................................................................................................................................8

5. Proposals for improvement:..............................................................................................................8

5.1 Press beds:...................................................................................................................................8

5.1.1 Reprogramming the length stop:..........................................................................................8

5.1.2 Moving tools:......................................................................................................................10

5.1.3 Offering overtime:..............................................................................................................11

5.1.4 Has the bottleneck been solved? :......................................................................................11

5.2 Drill:...........................................................................................................................................12

5.2.1 The process:........................................................................................................................12

5.2.2 Production statistics:..........................................................................................................12

5.2.3 Motion control system proposal:........................................................................................12

5.2.4 Work leveling:.....................................................................................................................17

5.2.5 Reducing unnecessary movement:.....................................................................................17

5.2.6 Has the bottle neck been solved? ......................................................................................17

5.3 Press bed tool layout.................................................................................................................17

5.3 Machine Layout.........................................................................................................................18

5.4 Trolley for saw...........................................................................................................................19

6. More proposals:..............................................................................................................................20

i

Main report

List of Figures

FIGURE 1 WAIT TIME DISTRIBUTION 3FIGURE 2: JOB FLOW IN FABRICATION 4FIGURE 3: PROCESS FLOW IN FABRICATION 5FIGURE 4: SPAGHETTI DIAGRAM 6FIGURE 5 GRAPH SHOWING SYSTEM BOTTLE NECKS 7FIGURE 6: FISHBONE DIAGRAM 8FIGURE 7 PA33>546 9FIGURE 8 PA33<=546 9FIGURE 9: FIRST SCREEN 9FIGURE 10: SECOND SCREEN 10FIGURE 11: THIRD SCREEN 10FIGURE 12: CURRENT LAYOUT AND SUGGESTED TOOL LAYOUT 10FIGURE 13 NEW SOP FOR AWNING PRESS 11FIGURE 14: FISHBONE DIAGRAM SUMMARIZING PROBLEMS WITH AUTO DRILL 14FIGURE 15: WAIT TIME DISTRIBUTION 14FIGURE 16: CURRENT PROCESS FLOW 15FIGURE 17: PROPOSED PROCESS FLOW 15FIGURE 18: PROBLEMS SOLVED DUE TO PROPOSED DESIGN 17FIGURE 19: CURRENT AND SUGGESTED TOOL LAYOUT FOR RFRPR02 AND RFRPR01 18FIGURE 20: PROPOSED MACHINE LAYOUT 19

List of Tables

TABLE 1: EXTRUSIONS PROCESSED IN RESIDENTIAL 3TABLE 2: WAIT TIME 7TABLE 3: AUTO DRILL PRODUCTION STATISTICS 12TABLE 4: COST BREAK DOWN FOR AUTO DRILL UPGRADE 16

ii

Main report

iii

Acknowledgements:

I would like to thank the engineering team at Jason windows especially my mentor Murray Brown for his help and guidance throughout these three months. Special thanks go to Kiran and Peter Eddy as well for helping me understands how Jason windows operate from an engineering perspective. Also I would like to thank Ben, Craig and Jaime for their help during my internship and finally I thank Sudeep for explaining to me how the press tools work and are designed.

1

1. Introduction:

Currently Jason window is divided in to four major sections i.e. commercial, residential, sash and screen. Focus in this case is on the residential fabrication. The extrusions being processed in residential currently are the premium door (PD), premium awning (PA), premium window (PW) and residential stacker door (RS). Table 1 shows the code and description for each extrusion and what operations are being performed on it.

Awning Description S P D

PA03 P series awning window jamb 1 1

PA10 Awning frame mullion/transom 1 1 1

PA12 Residential awning head and sill frame 1 1

PA12A Awning frame sill 1 1

PA15 Residential awning glazing hook 1

PA23 Residential awning hinge adaptor 1

PA31 Residential awning window sill fill in 1

PA33 Residential awning sill adaptor 1 1

PA51 Awning face fit adaptor P(25mm) 1

PA53 Awning face fit adaptor P(35mm) 1

PA55 Awning face fit adaptor P(15mm) 1

Door

PD01 Premium sliding door frame head 1

PD02 SD sill frame 1 1

PD03 SD frame jamb 1 1

PD17 Sliding door threshold plate 1 1

PD32 SD sub sill 1

PD46 SD highlight coupler 1

Window

PW01 15 series window frame head 1 1

PW02 15 series window frame sill 1 1

PW03 15 series window frame jamb 1 1

PW04 P series window frame mullion 1

PW10 P series transom standard window frame 1 1

PW12 15 series window fixed lite head and sill 1 1

PW13 P series mullion heavy duty frame 1 1

PW15 Glazing hook window frame 1

PW18 Mullion stiffener window 1 1

PW20 P series transom heavy duty 1

PW29 P series sliding window sill up stand 1

PW40 STD Cladding Ba 135 1

PW41 Standard straight cladding 1

PW42 Cladding corner 1

PW43 Vertical frame coupler male 1

PW45 Sill tray 1

PW51 P series jamb adaptor face fit 20 mm 1

2

PW52 Head and sill adaptor face fit 20mm 1

PW53 P series jamb adaptor face fit 30 mm 1

PW54 Head and sill adaptor face fit 30mm 1

RS

RS01 Stacking door head frame 1

RS02 Sill frame 1 1

RS03 Jamb frame 1 1

RS17 Threshold plate 1 1

Angle

L08 1

Table 1: Extrusions processed in residential

Lean management involves the identification of wasteful activities during the production process and to remove these as much as is practically possible to increase production output. This involves using many powerful tools such as flow charts, process flows, spaghetti diagrams and time studies to identify the wastes and bottlenecks. Once this is done ideas should be put forth for reducing wasteful activities or eliminate these altogether. After this the most suitable option is selected and implemented and finally the whole process is repeated again to identify the next bottle neck. The wasteful activities include transportation, inventory, and motion, waiting, over processing, overproduction and defects.

The main wasteful activities identified are unnecessary transportation, inventory, waiting and defects. The figure below shows the average waiting times before each station.

Door Press 5.37 minutesWindow Press 6.52minutesAwning press 17.70 minutesAuto Drill 20.32 minutes

Figure 1 Wait time distribution

2. Task:

The aim is to create a concept for the Tool and Die Layout with optimized process flows between departments and to implement this as much as possible. This includes a concept for the layout and tooling upgrades. This Documentation will include layout maps and tool designs in order to justify the proposed changes to enable optimized production.

A key part in this concept is to ensure the quality of the product as well as increasing efficiency’s in line with production departments.

Also included in this concept will be the supply chain management and the management of the key supplier. This will include the management of the process as well as creating files and overview for a review of the activities.

3

3. Methodology:

3.1 Flow chart:

The process begins by creating a flow chart of what is actually happening out there on the floor. However observation has revealed that there is no fixed flow with the job going to whatever station becoming available. In addition to this there is no job tracking with the workers grabbing whatever job is in front of them. The most commonly repeated job flows are shown below in figure 2.

Figure 2: Job Flow in Fabrication

4

3.2 Process flow:

Next step is creating process flow. Current process flow is shown below in figure 3.

Figure 3: Process Flow in Fabrication

5

3.3 Spaghetti diagram:

Finally a spaghetti diagram showing movement of jobs and workers is created. This helps in identification of any unnecessary movements. It also shows information flow and current layout of machines. This is shown in Figure 4 below

Figure 4: Spaghetti Diagram

6

3.4: Time studies:

This is followed by carrying out time studies for identification of bottlenecks i.e. the machines in the system holding up the entire process. The machines currently in use in residential fabrication are three saws, five punch beds and one auto drill. The first step is calculating Takt time. Takt time in the context of Jason windows can be defined as the time a trolley should spend at any of the machines. If time spent is less than this machine is overproducing and if it is higher than takt time than that machine is the system bottleneck. A trolley in this context represents one job which is made up of an average of 15 frames.

Table 2 shows the average time a trolley spends at each station. The takt time calculated is 11.25 minutes. Comparison with takt time allow us to identify the system bottlenecks i.e. the points in the system that must be addressed immediately so that process flow can become smoother and throughput can be increased. In this case the bottlenecks are DR02+PR05, Saw, PR04, PR01+PR0, PR02.

Machine Time (Machining time+Waiting time min) AverageSaw 19.4 20.47 11.7 19.61 25.58 12.05 18.135PR01+PR03 7.6645 7.0605 26.82 8.8 20.14 12.19 13.78PR02 12.74 15.76 12.44 9.6795 9.375 13.5 12.25PR04 46.43 16.17 4.6 5.9 16.72 3.8235 15.6DR02+PR05 42.73 18.387 14.99 42.45 24.34 18.92 26.97

Table 2: Wait time

The graph shown below shows which machine is the bottle neck and the severity of that bottleneck

Saw PR01 PR02 PR04 DRILL0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 5: Graph showing system bottle necks

The videos below show how each of the press bed is being used

Y:\Engineering\ENG-Projects\Press bed\Application of lean\DT30-1&DT30-2.mp4

Y:\Engineering\ENG-Projects\Press bed\Application of lean\MT24.mp4

Y:\Engineering\ENG-Projects\Press bed\Application of lean\MT26.mp4

Y:\Engineering\ENG-Projects\Press bed\Application of lean\MT27.mp4

Y:\Engineering\ENG-Projects\Press bed\Application of lean\MT30&MT29.mp4

7

11.25

4. Problems:

Based on the information gathered and figure 4 the following problems have been identified inefficient layout, no trolley for saw operators, press bed tool layout inefficient, drill machine upgrade, no length stops for press beds. The main problems in this case are drill machine and length stop for press beds and will be deal with firstly.

It should be noted that all these problems are interrelated and improving one will lead to improvement in all. For our purpose we will deal with the residential fabrication bottlenecks which should reduce wait time, smooth the process flow and reduce wasteful movement. Figure 6 shows the fish bone diagram.

Figure 6: Fishbone Diagram

5. Proposals for improvement:

5.1 Press beds:

The first step will be devising ways to improve bottleneck PR04. The process can be improved in a number of ways which are as follows

5.1.1 Reprogramming the length stop:

Use length stop mechanism to automate the punching of extrusion PA33 on awning press PR04. If the length of the extrusion is more than 500 then it is punched half way through otherwise when length is less than or equal to 500 the punch is at 273mm. Figures below show location of punch

8

Figure 7: PA33>546

Figure 8: PA33<=546

This will require reprogramming one of the older length stop mechanisms. The biggest advantage of this approach is the absence of any extra expenditure with only reprogramming this mechanism to suit current needs. The three figures below show the step by step procedure for reprogramming the length stop. This involves selection of the correct screen number i.e. screen number 2 (Figure 9), followed by double clicking the oscillating line next to required length (Figure 10) and finally setting the required lower and upper limits to 0mm and 1380mm respectively as well as first operation/2 and second operation -120mm (Figure 11).

Figure 9: First screen

9

Figure 10: Second screen

Figure 11: Third Screen

5.1.2 Moving tools:

Moving the tool MT24 in place of MT26 which will reduce the distance worker has to travel to change length. This approach will require the engineering team to remove, rearrange and put the tools in their new positions. The main cost associated in this case is the engineering team’s time. Figure 12 below shows the current layout and suggested layout. This will reduce the amount of unnecessary movement but will not completely resolve the problem.

Figure 12: Current layout and Suggested tool layout

10

5.1.3 Offering overtime:

Offering overtime is another possible solution i.e. increasing the amount of time the machine is used. This will involve hiring of new personnel to assist the worker on awning press. However this is the least recommended option.

Out of all the above mentioned options reprogramming the length stop is the most feasible one. The length stop has been programmed and mechanism for housing has been designed. The length stop has been installed on the machine and is being run in actual production. Figure 13 shows the standard operating procedure for using the length mechanism. The operator is required to only enter the original value of the extrusion. The length stop will in turn move half of the required distance. In case length of extrusion is less than 546 the value to be entered is always 546 since the punch is at a distance of 273 mm from end of extrusion. Also once the tool has been used a limit switch has been installed which will not allow the operator to move the carriage unless he has entered a value which will move the length stop out of the carriage’s way. This precaution has been taken in case the operator forgets and moves the carriage with the length stop still inside the tool which could significantly damage carriage, tool and length stop.

Figure 13 New SOP for awning press

11

5.1.4 Has the bottleneck been solved? :

Now that the system has been installed a series of jobs will be tracked and times computed again to see whether the bottleneck has been resolved or not. Visual views of the awning press reveal that the worker has now become a lot faster and the process of changing the lengths again and again for PA33 has been resolved using the length stop.

5.2 Drill:

The second bottleneck in the system is the drill DR02.

5.2.1 The process:

Observation of the system has revealed that the process is divided into the following phases

a) Worker measures the length of the extrusion.

b) He places the extrusions on the drill bed.

c) He enters the length and selects the window type.

d) The drill then calculates the positions of the holes to be drilled.

e) The drill moves in position and then descends to drill the required holes. If more than one hole is to be drilled

after drilling the first set of holes the drill will move back up, move into next position and then descend to drill

the next set of holes and so on and so forth.

f) Once the drill moves to home position he removes the extrusions and punches the extrusion PW02. These

punching accounts for an average of 25% of the time the job stays in this system.

5.2.2 Production statistics:

Table 3 below shows the production statistics of the auto drill up till 15/11/2013.

Window type Quantity

2L equal 30114

2L equal+2 Low 14706

2L unequal+ 2 Low 22058

3L equal 5088

3L equal+ 3 Low 2239

3L unequal 11182

3L unequal+3 Low 5614

4L equal 805

4L equal+ 4 Low 181

12

Table 3: Auto Drill production statistics

5.2.3 Motion control system proposal:

Executive Summary

This proposal is for upgrading the Auto Drill RFRDR02 currently used in the Residential Fabrication department.

It is intended to replace the motion control system with a new design to be installed by Sage Automation and Engineering during the Christmas shutdown period.

Current issues with the Auto Drill are causing loss of production time, inaccuracies, higher lead times and rework. This results in a loss of 30 minutes per day of production time which equates to 125 hours of lost production time per year on the Auto drill.

Introducing this new control system will eliminate this lost time by improving movement speed, eliminating the need to move to home position, reducing inaccuracies and smoothing process flow.

Further savings would be made by eliminating lost time encountered in Residential assembly due to these auto drill errors.

The total cost of the upgrade is $28,533. The benefit associated with this upgrade is $39500 and return on investment will be 8 months.

Other options have been considered including a CNC drilling machine, a Robotic controlled machine and Tiger length stop technology. However, none of these alternatives are able to match the production output rates achieved by the Auto Drill and have an estimated cost of $200,000.

We are confident that the proposed upgrade would give us many more years of trouble-free operation.

Introduction

The idea of improving the Auto Drill for increased accuracy and productivity has been investigated during recent years and although significant improvements have been made to the machine, some problems still exist.

The problems currently associated with this machine are:

1) The incremental encoder can only track the position of the drill relative to the home position. In layman’s terms,

the system does not know where the drill actually is.

Ideally it must be homed every time an extrusion is drilled but this would lead to huge losses in production time.

Therefore, currently it is only homed when the window type changes from awning to slider or vice versa. The

process of homing itself is very slow taking around 60 seconds and being carried out approximately 15 times

every day thus equating to a production time loss of 20 minutes per day.

2) In the case of a power spike due to motor load, which happens almost every day on the Auto Drill, the

incremental encoder loses all data and must be homed when the machine is turned on again. This can take 10

minutes per occasion leading to another production time loss. Also, when this happens, the drill must be

manually moved to the home position which is a difficult task owing to the weight of the drill head.

3) Inaccurate drilling of holes is another problem leading to production time loss. This can be attributed to the size

of the operator interface (small keypad) which can be unresponsive to Operator touch. This problem is

exacerbated by the length of time the machine is not moved to the home position causing the incremental

encoder error to increase. If this inaccuracy is detected at the frame assembling phase the Assembler returns to

Fabrication to get the extrusion cut and drilled again. During this time the Assembly cell stops which again, leads

13

to loss in both assembly and fabrication production time. Based on data gathered from assembly relating to drill

holes inaccuracies there is an internal rework of 1 frame every day.

4) The speed of the drill movement is another problem with the drill head taking 6 seconds to move to position and

descend to drill, 3 seconds for the drilling process and a further 3 seconds to ascend. Current time to finish a job

i.e. an average of 15 frames is 6 minutes.

5) Current system accuracy is +- 0.5mm.

6) Finally there are 5 site reworks every month because of the inaccuracies caused by this machine

In conclusion the production time lost on a daily basis is 30 minutes.

The problems are summarized in Figure 14 below.

Figure 14: Fishbone Diagram summarizing problems with auto drill

Figure 15 below shows the waiting time associated with each of the machines currently being used in the Residential Fabrication area. The times are calculated by tracking jobs over a period of seven days as they move through the system. The results show that the major bottleneck in the system is the Auto Drill and problems associated with this need be addressed to make the process flow smoother.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Wait time

Series1

Figure 15: Wait time distribution

14

Proposal

The current process flow for the motion control mechanism is shown below in figure 16

Figure 16: Current process flow

Looking at the current process flow shows that the incremental encoder is attached to the motor and thus only tracks the numbers of pulses send by the servo drive to the motor. In other words system has no way of knowing where it is in real time. Figure 17 below shows the proposed process flow

Figure 17: Proposed process flow

15

In the proposed process flow the encoder is attached to the drilling carriage thereby providing the PLC with real time position of the carriage and thus sending a signal to servo drive which in turn controls the servo motor.

The proposed upgrades in detail are:

1) Replace the incremental encoder with an absolute encoder. This encoder can keep track of the actual position of

the drill head thereby eliminating the need to move the drill head to the home position completely. In addition

this encoder retains its position information in case of a power outage. This should effectively reduce 75% of this

non value adding time.

2) Replace the current motor which is 5000 rpm with a low inertia brushless motor running at 6000 rpm. This will

increase drill head speed by 20% thereby reducing the time it takes to move to required positions and also the

descending and ascending time to drill the actual holes.

3) Combine the PLC and servo drive to reduce communication times and improve control of the servo motor.

4) Replace the current touch screen with new larger one for Operator ease and improved screen responsiveness.

5) Fit the replacement screen on the drill carriage to display actual drill head position. This will also replace the

older magnetic tape measurement system.

6) Improve the system accuracy to +/- 0.1mm.

7) The box housing the PLC, servo drive and motor is currently attached to drill head. This will be repositioned, thus

reducing carriage weight significantly and allowing the drill head to move faster.

Costs

Auto Drill upgrade Cost excluding GST1) New PLC2) 6000 RPM Motor3) Absolute encoder4) Touch screen5) Programing PLC, servo drive and encoder

23500

Material for wiring and cabinets 5033Removing Box to reduce drill carriage wait Internal engineering laborTotal 28533

Table 4: Cost break down for Auto drill upgrade

The system will be designed and installed by Sage Automation and supported by our own Engineering staff

Cost/ benefit analysis

In conclusion the proposed design will lead to greater production output, reduced lead times, improved accuracy, less rework and an increase in value added time.

The current total lost production time is 30 minutes. Applying this upgrade will alleviate these problems and enable the drill to produce an additional 4 trolleys which is an average of 60 frames. Finally the ROI is calculated in the steps below

1) Internal savings= 1 internal rework per day * $100= $100 per day= $24500 per year.

2) External savings=5 external reworks per month*$250=$1250 per month= $15000 per year.

3) Total savings= Internal savings+ External savings= $25000+$15000= $39500.

4) Return on investment= $28533/$39500= 7.22 months i.e. 8 months approximately.

16

Figure 18 below shows the problems that will be either reduced or removed due to proposed changes.

Figure 18: Problems solved due to proposed design

5.2.4 Work leveling:

The punching that is being done at this station if moved to press bed PR02 will reduce amount of time job stays here. This will also reduce the amount of work person working on the drill has to do thereby reducing worker fatigue.

5.2.5 Reducing unnecessary movement:

When drilling more than one set of holes the drill ascends all the way up and then moves forward to drill the second set of holes. Instead of moving all the way back the drill bits should just retract and then the carriage should move to the next position and finally the drill bits can descend to drill the second set of holes.

5.2.6 Has the bottle neck been solved?

17

5.3 Press bed tool layout

Analysis of spaghetti diagram reveals that the tools arrangement for press beds does not currently take into account the distances travelled by operators. For machines PR02 and PR01+PR03 the tool layout is shown below in figures 19.

Figure 19: Current and suggested tool layout for RFRPR02 and RFRPR01

In this case tool MT32 on the door press is moved in place of MT01 and also on the door press MT39 is moved in place of MT29 and MT06 moved in place of tool. Following this arrangement the tools used for carrying out two or more punches are moved closer. This should reduce the distances operators have to walk thereby making the process flow smoother.

5.4 Machine Layout

For the current layout the operators have to walk long distances from saws to press beds and from RFRPR04 or RFRDR02 to assembly. The machines should be placed as close as possible to each other reducing unnecessary transportation distances significantly. Figure 20 below shows the proposed machine layout. Distance between the saws is 2m. Also the awning press RFRPR04 and the window press RFRPR02 have been moved right next to the saws reducing transportation distances significantly. The door press RFRPR01 and RFRPR03 have been moved to the middle as this press has the biggest working envelope with door extrusions as long as 6 m in length. The free space next to window press can be used to accommodate the tools currently being made in engineering for future stacker door project. The free space next to door press should be changed to the assembly exit area as compared to current one near the first saw in the system. Because of this once job is finished worker must take trolley and leave it there representing transportation waste. By making suggested area assembly area will minimize the transportation waste. In other words this proposed layout takes into account the current machines, makes room for future tools or press beds and finally reduces transportation waste making the system more lean and efficient.

18

Figure 20: Proposed machine layout

5.5 Trolley for saw

Presently the saw operators do not have a trolley for carrying the extrusions to and fro from inventory. Currently what they do is read the component cutting list, go to inventory, grab the extrusion, carry it back and then cut it. This walking pattern he will repeat on an average of 12 times with an average time of 369.12 sec which accounts of 33% of the time an average job will stay in this part of the system.

The proposal is updating the cutting list which will tell the operator the exact amount of extrusions he has to carry. This can be done because extrusions purchased from Capral come in a specific size and with the cutting list specifying the exact lengths to be cut it is possible to calculate the number of extrusions required e.g.

1) PA33 purchased from Capral is always 5000 mm in length

2) Suppose the cut list specifies he need to cut 6 extrusions,2*1300+1*1500+3*900=6800 mm

3) Number of extrusions required are 6800/5000= 1.36 i.e. 2 extrusions

He then uses a trolley (the trollies being used for the crane should suffice for this purpose. However these need to be modified a bit to incorporate these with the saw machine. ), goes to the inventory, loads it with the exact number of

19

2M

RFRPR01+RFRPR03

RFRPR02

RFRPR01RFRPR05+DR02

SA04

SA03

SA03

2M

2M

4M

0.5M

3M

6M

3M

3M

extrusions required, comes back and cuts these. This should reduce the worker fatigue, improve safety, reduce rework and allow inventory tracking.

6. More proposals:

Some of the measures that can be looked at in the future to make residential fabrication even more are as follows

1) Instead of measuring the length for every extrusion the length measurement process should be automated.

Using a machine vision system is a possible solution in this regard. If used to its full capacity it can be used to

recognize the type of extrusion as well. Thus all the worker would have to do is load the extrusions on the bed

and just press start to initiate the process.

2) The tiger stops have additional RFID tracking techniques. The saw operator can tag the extrusions used by drilling

and punching which will ensure that none of the extrusions are missed thereby eliminating rework.

3) Usage for awning press and drill can be further increased by continuing working on machines during down times

such as breaks and lunch.

20

21