Automated Oiling System
P08351 – Concept Design Review (Pre-read)
Team Member / Discipline / Role / Email addressJim Taylor / IE / Guide /
John Kaemmerlen / IE / Consultant /
John Bonzo / IE / Consultant /
Matt Zapotoski / IE / Project Lead /
Sharif Hdairis / CE / CE/EE support /
Joe Jennings / ME / ME support /
Bob Shackelford / ME / ME support /
Table Of Contents 1.0. Introduction ….…..……………………………………………………………. 3
2.0. Customer Needs ….….….………………………………………………………… 4
3.0. Specifications .….……………………………………………………………….. 5
4.0. External Search Results …………………………………………………….6
5.0. Concept Selection …………………………………………………………….7
5.1 Mechanical Engineering
5.1.1 Loading/ Unloading Mechanism …………………………….8
5.1.2 Oil Application …………………………………………………….9
5.1.3 Cleaning process (before application of oil) ……………………10
5.1.4 Removal of excess oil ……………………………………………11
5.2 Electrical Engineering ……………………………………………………13
5.2.1 Signals ……………………………………………………………14
5.2.2 Variable Speed Drive System ……………………………………14
6.0. Proposed Integrated System ……………………………………………………16
7.0. Future agenda ……………………………………………………………………17
1.0 Introduction
The focus of this project will be the automation of the current manual oiling operation of the toolholding assembly process. This purpose of this operation is to fully lubricate the toolholder, hence preventing the oxidation and rusting of the product, while at the same time improving its appeal aesthetically. Parlec currently applies oil to its parts by hand through a rigorous process involving between two and three operators. The inconsistency of this process has resulted in part quality that does not meet customer expectations. In response, Parlec would like a machine to automate the process. The subsystems of this project were identified and listed. The goal of this project is to design and fabricate a machine that will integrate all of the subsystems illustrated below.
Figure 1.1
2.0 Customer Needs
The establishment and clarification of customer needs is a crucial part of the concept development process. A meeting with the customer was required in order to generate a list of needs. The customer needs were then translated from the voice of the customer to an engineering voice stating what the team will attempt to achieve in order to satisfy each of the individual needs.
N1.0 The product must be safe
N1.1 The product must meet OSHA standards
N1.2 The product must be safe for users and bystanders
N2.0 The product must be durable and robust
N3.0 The product will improve movement of parts after laser operation
N3.1 The product will promote continuous flow
N3.2 The product will help reduce the amount of bottlenecking
N4.0 Maintain cosmetic standards of foreign markets
N4.1 The product ensures high quality, fully oiled parts
N4.2 The product cannot damage tool
N5.0 Human application of work fully removed
N5.1 Amount of human error minimized
N6.0 The end product cannot exceed budget
N7.0 The end product will be attractive to customer
N8.0 The product will be easy to operate
3.0 Engineering Specifications
After the customer needs are defined, it is necessary to translate the needs into quantifiable metrics that the design team can use to establish a design that will satisfy all of the needs of the customer. The specifications developed for the automated oiling system are shown in the figure below. The goal of the team is to satisfy the all of these specifications, understanding that some tradeoff might be necessary due to constraints such as money, space, and time.
Specification Number / Customer Need affected / Design Specification / Unit of measure / Target valueSAFETY:
S1 / 1.1, 1.2 / proper protective guards where necessary / subj. / yes
S2 / 1.2 / closed compartments at beg and end / subj. / yes
S3 / 1.1,1.2 / emergency stop buttons / number / at least 2
DURABILITY:
S4 / 2.0 / The machine will be transportable / subj. / yes
S5 / 2.0,3.1,3.2 / able to support weights of most common toolholders / lbs / 40
OPERATION:
S6 / 3.1, 3.2 / Able to process 1400 parts in an 8 hr shift / units / hr / 200
S7 / 3.1,3.2 / variable speeds feature / subj. / yes
S8 / 3.1,3.2 / two different load/unload stations / subj. / yes
S9 / 3.1,3.2 / will handle most frequently produced parts / Diam (in) / Up to 7
QUALITY:
S10 / 4.2 / part tolerances will be maintained/unaffected / inch / 60 millionths
S11 / 4.1 / Percentage of part that is oiled / % / 100
S12 / 4.1 / The product has to consistently lubricate the tools / subj. / yes
S13 / 5.1 / manually loadable/unloadable / subj. / yes
S14 / 5.1 / oiling process is completely automated / subj. / yes
BUDGET:
S15 / 6.0 / Design and fabrication of the product will be less than budget / $ / 20,000
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
S16 / 7.0 / will have Parlec label on it / subj. / yes
S17 / 7.0 / will fit within floor constraints / ft x ft / 15 x 8
S18 / 8.0 / intuitive control box (es) / subj. / yes
FIGURE 3.1: QFD Diagram
4.0 Internal Search Results
Once the metrics were reviewed and finalized, the team began to examine each subsystem individually. The possible alternatives were gathered, and a preliminary breakdown containing the associated positives and negatives of each possible solution were listed.
SUBFUNCTION / SEARCH RESULTS / POSITIVES / NEGATIVESSIGNALS / Digital / simple to use / more susceptible to noise
Analog / can filter out noise / difficult to design
VSD System / AC drive+AC motor+µcontroller / cheaper, more efficient, eases into acceleration
DC motor+Contactor+µcontroller / shorter engine life, contactors provide full or no power, expensive
custom DC drive + DC engine / expensive, may be too intricate for the process at hand
LOADING / Hooks / easy to place part, simple, cheap, most flexible / capacity, prone to damage part, strength?
Racks / part versatility (size), offers strength and stability / bulky, will require/ take up space
Fixture / flexible in design, holds parts more securely / cost, additional labor/ increased setup time
CLEANING / Air / available in facility, low risk of damaging part / expensive, will contaminate air, noisy
Brushes / cheap, available, single / could fall apart, not thorough coverage, bristles on part?
Rags / cheap, available, single / must be maintained, manually operated
Solvent/Chemicals / will remove all debris / messy, maintained, lengthen process, may not remove all debris
APPLY OIL
coating material / Oil / cheap, uniform coating, easily removed / messy, requires special packaging, requires time to drain oil
Powder / no shelf life, provides durable, protective surface / on permanently, un-uniform coat
NICKEL Coating / very expensive, lasts forever
coating process / Submerge / simplest / uses excess oil, may not coat part completely
Spray / more uniform coat / contaminates air, requires energy, may not fully coat part
Pour / sloppy, difficult to appl full application, slow
Tumble / more thorough (prevent air pockets) / requires additional equipment, potential to damage part
Brush / cheap, versatile / bristles wear out, may brush off onto part
REMOVE EXCESS OIL / Spin / quick, reliability of result, versatile / expensive, potentially dangerous, additional equipment req’d
Hang/Dip / simplest, cheapest / slowest, requires space
Wipe / simplest, cheapest / slow, unreliable
Air / quick, consistent, low maintenance req’d / messy, noisy, expensive
Heat / decreases viscosity / costs money to produce heat
UNLOADING / Hooks / easy to place part, simple, cheap, most flexible / capacity, prone to damage part, strength?
Racks / part versatility (size), offers strength/stability / bulky, will require/ take up space
Fixture / flexible in design, holds parts more securely / cost, additional labor/ increased setup time
Storage / provides extra time(manage/maintain flow) / additional floor space required
ENERGY / Electric / convenient, clean, requires no modifications
High powered air / expensive
FIGURE 4.1: Preliminary solution analysis separated by subsystem
5.0 Concept Selection
· Concept Generation: With the customer needs defined and quantified, the subsystems contributing to the entire system were broken down and brainstorming exercises were conducted to generate possible solutions. In addition, internal searches were conducted, resulting in more results, as well as a more detailed analysis of each possible alternative. Pros and cons associated with each were developed, resulting in the unfeasible alternatives being removed as possible resolutions to the challenge at hand.
· Concept Screening: With the remaining results, each was compared to one another through a screening process known as Pugh’s Method in which a list of selection criteria relevant to the success of the specific subsystem was developed. The different alternatives were scaled against a reference concept (any of the choices in which zeroes were input in each column) the other choices would then be compared to the reference concept and if better in regards to the selection criteria, a plus was input (and a minus for worst qualities).
· Concept Scoring Each of the different criteria was then given weights (a total of 100%) based on their overall significance to successfully attain the needs associated with each individual subsystem. The objective of this method (expansion of Pugh’s method) is to narrow down the possible solutions to one or two concepts for each subsystem. This will then enable us to combine each of the possible solutions with one another to form different combinations for an integrated system.
Note: One downfall of this process is the uncertainties associated with choosing a non-representative set of criteria or incorrectly weighing individual criteria. In the unlikely event that this occurs, the result could be a compromise in the best possible solution for that particular subsystem.
5.1 Mechanical Engineering
The mechanical concept development was divided into four main categories; loading/unloading the tool holders into the system, the application of oil, and the two cleaning processes before and after the oil application. Below are the separate categories pertaining to mechanical engineering have been broken down and expanded upon in separate sections.
There are several challenges that will factor into the concept developed. The tool holders have various geometries, sizes, and mass that will bring forth difficulties in loading, cleaning, oiling, and transporting them throughout the system. The oil has a high viscosity will make it difficult to flow for application and the removal and excess.
5.1.1 Loading/Unloading
Hooks, racks, form fitting fixtures, and magnets were all considered due to their associated qualities involving: ease of manufacture, availability, and cost effectiveness.
SUBFUNCTION / SEARCH RESULTS / POSITIVES / NEGATIVESLOADING / UNLOADING / Hooks / easy to place part, simple, linear, cheap, most flexible / capacity, prone to damage part, strength
Racks / part versatility (size), offers strength and stability / bulky, will require/ take up space
Fixture
Magnets / flexible in design (custom), holds parts more securely
durable, part security / cost, additional labor/ increased setup time
part versatility? , cost
FIGURE 5.1.1: Preliminary analysis for loading/unloading mechanisms
Since the customer opted that the machine is loaded and unloaded manually, the choices analyzed for loading and unloading were inherently narrowed as choices such as robotic arms and a few others would have been otherwise considered.
FixtureSelection Criteria / Weight / Hooks / Magnets / Loose fitting fixture / Tight fitting fixture / Pegs / None
durability / 0.15 / 0 / + / 0 / 0 / 0 / +
part versatility / 0.25 / 0 / 0 / + / - / 0 / +
tolerance protection / 0.5 / 0 / 0 / 0 / + / 0 / -
Fabrication cost / 0.1 / 0 / - / - / - / - / +
Total / 0 / 0.05 / 0.15 / 0.15 / -0.1 / 0
FIGURE 5.1.2: Pugh’s matrix for different L/UL concepts
From the matrix, the results suggest that a tight or loose fitting fixture will be the better options. Magnets could be considered as an add-on feature, but are inadequate by themselves.
5.1.2 Oil Application
The first and foremost objective of this sub function is to consistently oil the whole part.
SUBFUNCTION / SEARCH RESULTS / POSITIVES / NEGATIVESApply
Oil / Dip / simplest / uses excess oil, may not coat part completely
Spray / more uniform coat / contaminates air, requires energy to apply, may not coat part completely (air pockets)
Pour / sloppy, difficult to apply full application, slow
Tumble / more thorough (prevent air pockets) / requires additional equipment, potential to damage part
Brush / cheap, versatile / bristles wear out, may brush off onto part
FIGURE 5.1.3: Preliminary analysis for oil application
Dipping the part in oil, spraying oil on the part, pouring oil over the part, tumbling or rotating the part about one axis while simultaneously submerging the part in the oil, and brushing oil on the part were initially all relevant choices.
Apply OilSelection Criteria / Weight / Dip / Pour / Tumble / Brush / Spray
Part versatility / 0.15 / 0 / - / - / - / -
speed / 0.1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
part coverage / 0.4 / 0 / - / - / - / 0
running cost / 0.05 / 0 / - / 0 / - / -
maintenance / 0.05 / 0 / 0 / 0 / - / -
tolerance protection / 0.25 / 0 / 0 / - / 0 / 0
Total / 0 / -0.6 / -0.8 / -0.65 / -0.2
FIGURE 5.1.4: Pugh’s matrix for different oiling techniques
From the matrix, the results suggest that dipping (submerging) the part in oil would be the best option, followed by spraying. The other options bare a risk of poor part coverage and were inevitably rejected.
5.1.3 Cleaning The goal of the cleaning process is to consistently remove any excess debris that may have not been removed from entire part. The next goal at hand is how accommodating the process is to a variety of different sized parts. Minimal changeovers are a preferred feature.
SUBFUNCTION / SEARCH RESULTS / POSITIVES / NEGATIVESCLEANING / Air / available in facility, low risk of damaging part / expensive, will contaminate air, noisy
Brushes / cheap, available, single / could fall apart, not thorough coverage, bristles on part?
Rags / cheap, available, single / must be maintained, manually operated
Solvent/Chemicals / will remove all debris / messy, lengthen process (drying time req'd), may not remove all debris
FIGURE 5.2.1: Preliminary analysis for cleaning strategies