Team: Brazing Saddles Page 1 of 75

Team: Brazing Saddles Page 1 of 75

Brazing Saddles

(Team 15)

Client: Parker-Hannifin

Final Design Report

May 21, 2003

Team Members: Melissa Curtin (ME)

Brian Belpanno (IE)

Tom Wild (ME)

Paul Diedrich (IE)

Ethan Bagley (ME)

Charles Gullo (IE)

Table of Contents

1.  Recognize and Quantify the Need………………………………4

1.1 Project Mission Statement…………………………………………………..4

1.2 Facility Description…………………………………………………………...4

1.3 Reliability………………………………………………………………………5

1.4 Cost…………………………………………………………………………….5

1.5 Time…………………………………………………………………………....5

1.6 Market…………………………………………………………………………..5

1.7 Stakeholders…………………………………………………………………..5

1.8 Performance…………………………………………………………………..5

1.9 Key Business Goals………………………………………………………….6

2.  Concept Development……………………………………………..7

2.1 Concept Development: Part Removal System…………………………….7

2.1.1 Task 1: Alternative Solutions………………………………………………..7

2.1.2 Task 2: Build Consensus……………………………………………………8

2.1.3 Task 3: Set Direction…………………………………………………………9

2.1.4 Further Development…………………………………………………………9

2.2 Concept Development: Part Handling System……………………………12

2.2.1 Task 1: Alternative Solutions……………………………………………….12

2.2.2 Task 2: Build Consensus…………………………………………………...12

2.2.3 Task 3: Set Direction………………………………………………………...12

2.2.3.1 Conveyor System……………………………………………………13

2.2.3.2 Cart System………………………………………………………….14

2.2.3.3 Shared Landing Area……………………………………………….15

3.  Feasibility Assessment……………………………………………16

3.1 Part Removal System………………………………………………………..16

3.1.1 Process………………………………………………………………………..16

3.1.2 Results…………………………………………………………………………17

3.2 Part Handling System………………………………………………………...19

3.2.1 Process………………………………………………………………………..19

3.2.2 Results…………………………………………………………………………21

4.  Specifications………………………………………………………..23

4.1 Define Specifications………………………………………………………….23

5.  Analysis and Synthesis…………………………………………….27

5.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………..27

5.2 Boat Design…………………………………………………………………….27

5.2.1  Problem Statement……………………………………………………………27

5.2.2  Analysis………………………………………………………………………..27

5.2.3  Synthesis………………………………………………………………………28

5.2.4  Further Development…………………………………………………………29

5.3 Pneumatic Circuit……………………………………………………………...29

5.3.1  Problem Statement……………………………………..…………………….29

5.3.2  Analysis………………………………………………………………………30

5.3.3  Synthesis……………………………………………………………………..30

5.4 Electrical System……………………………………………………………..30

5.4.1  Problem Statement…………………………………………………………..30

5.4.2  Analysis……………………………………………………………………….31

5.4.3  Further Development…………………………………………………………32

5.4.4  Synthesis………………………………………………………………………34

5.5 System Mounting……………………………………………………………...34

5.5.1  Problem Statement……………………………………………………………34

5.5.2  Analysis………………………………………………………………………..34

5.5.3  Synthesis………………………………………………………………………35

6.  Ergonomics and Safety…………………………………………….36

7. Reliability Testing…………………………………………………..37

7.1 Conditions……………………………………………………………………...37

7.2 Results………………………………………………………………………….37

7.2.1 Experiment 1…………………………………………………………………..37

7.2.2 Experiment 2…………………………………………………………………..38

A. Appendix……………………………………………………………...39

A.1 Cost Analysis for Part Handling System……………………………………40

A.2 Time Savings for Part Handling System……………………………………41

A.3 Material Properties of Cordierite…………………………………………….42

A.4 Material Properties of Alumina Silicate……………………………………..43

A.5 Pneumatic Circuit Diagram…………………………………………………..44

A.6 Electrical Wiring Diagram…………………………………………………….45

A.7 Reliability Experiment 1………………………………………………………48

A.8 Reliability Experiment 2………………………………………………………51

A.9 Reliability Experiment Raw Data…………………………………………….54

A.10 BASIC Stamp2 code………………………………………………………...69

A.11 Final Budget………………………………………………………………….72

A.12 Part Removal Maintenance Procedure……………………………………741. Recognize and Quantify the Need

1.1 Project Mission Statement

The mission of this team is to design a part handling and routing system, which removes parts from a continuous-belt hydrogen braze furnace. The system will then route the parts away from the braze furnace into another area, which will be determined by a work flow analysis. The system will also include a landing area for the parts in the event the operator is not immediately available to retrieve them.

1.2 Facility Description

Parker Hannifin in Clyde, NY, produces fuel nozzles for jet engines, ships, and other industrial uses. On the manufacturing floor, the main operations are welding, brazing, and testing. There are two continuous-belt hydrogen braze furnaces at the plant, this project will focus on one furnace. The various parts are put into part-holders, or “boats”, and then placed onto the belt. The belt moves at 3 inches per minute. It takes approximately 1 hour and 10 minutes for a part to go completely through the furnace to the exit. For safety reasons, 18 inches must be left between each part on the belt. At peak operating times, one part exits the braze furnace every 6 minutes.

The braze operator is responsible for assembling the parts (applying braze paste, braze rings, and putting parts on the holders) as well as inspection. Part removal is currently performed by hand. This means that every six minutes, the operator must walk to the braze furnace exit to pick up the part.

A mechanism, consisting of a pneumatic system, exists already which removes the boats (and parts) from the belt onto a slide, but it is unreliable. Many of the boats become caught on the chain link belt, the mechanism then becomes jammed, and parts fall onto the floor. Parts in the furnace can be worth $1000 or more, so it is undesirable for the parts to fall to the floor.

The new system should consist of a mechanism to remove the parts from the chain-link conveyor belt, and reroute them to another area to be determined by a work flow analysis. A redesign of the boats may also be necessary. It is important that the system be capable of moving and rerouting 10-12 parts at a time, without any operator intervention. This would allow 80 minutes to pass between part unloading cycles. This would also allow an operator to place 10-12 parts on the conveyor belt at the end of a shift in order to increase production between shifts.

The new system will also be heavily dependent on the findings of a work flow analysis. The analysis will determine the placement and design of the routing system and may possibly lead to the redesign of the brazing area, including the possibility of layout changes.

1.3 Reliability

The system must function without loss of working time for the braze furnace. It must be totally autonomous and repeatable. In case of function failure, an operator notification signal must also be integrated.

1.4 Cost

The client has defined the total budget for the project to be under $5,000. Included in this budget will be:

·  Parts for the system.

·  Manufacturing and machining

The client has also indicated that the budget is flexible if justification is available. Ideally, the total cost will be kept to a minimum.

1.5 Time

The client has requested that the system be fully functional by May 23rd, 2003. The preliminary design concept will be presented in early January, and a final design review will be held February 21st, 2003. Parts and manufacturing requests must be placed by February 28th, 2003.

1.6 Market

The primary market for this product is Parker-Hannifin in Clyde, NY. Secondary markets may include other Parker-Hannifin plants and divisions using continuous-belt hydrogen braze furnaces, or similar equipment involving the need for conveyors or part removal.

1.7 Stakeholders

The primary stakeholder is Parker-Hannifin in Clyde, NY. A secondary stakeholder in this project is Rochester Institute of Technology. Additional stakeholders include all the members of the senior design team.

1.8 Performance

The system must be as autonomous as possible. It must have a long lifetime, with the capability of easy repair. The system must meet all OSHA safety regulations. The system must be independent of the braze furnace, such that access to all existing facility equipment is not hindered. The system must be easily adaptable so that it may be implemented on a second brazing furnace with different exit dimensions. The system must fit into a minimal amount of space on the manufacturing floor. The system must rely solely on existing facility support systems.

1.9 Key Business Goals

The Parker-Hannifin facility in Clyde, NY is primarily an assembly plant. The main operations at the plant are welding, brazing, and product-testing. Each nozzle goes through one or more braze cycles, so it is critical that these processes are accurate and efficient.

The key business goals of this project are:

·  Decrease losses by preventing parts from being damaged by improper handling (falling onto the floor).

·  Increase productivity of the brazing furnace operators by eliminating time needed to constantly retrieve parts from the opposite end of the furnace, thereby allowing more time for other tasks.

2. Concept Development

In order to develop a range of concepts that could provide a solution for the current situation at Parker, a brainstorming and concept development session was conducted. Through this activity, many possible solutions were analyzed through a formalized technique, which led to the development of ideas that were agreed upon by the entire group as the most promising. Two concept development sessions were performed, one for the part removal system and one session for the part handling system, each consisting of three main tasks:

1.  Listing alternative solutions

2.  Building a consensus

3.  Setting a direction

2.1 Concept Development: Part Removal System

2.1.1 Task 1: Alternative Solutions

For fifteen minutes, the team members made suggestions for new solutions and processes to meet the needs of the project. The focus for the new solutions centered on different technologies and methods of lifting and/or moving a part. The main objective of this task was to come up with a large quantity of ideas, no matter how outlandish they may seem. At this point, no idea was criticized. The following list consists of the ideas that we came up with as a team, after consolidation, to which everyone contributed:

1.  Catapult

2.  Adjustable Boat

3.  Gravity Powered Conveyor

4.  Pick and Place

5.  Baggage Rotisserie

6.  Hydraulic Part Lifter

7.  Dumbwaiter

8.  Auger/Dual auger (1 for each braze furnace)

9.  Water Wheel

10.  Cooling System

11.  Wheels on boats

12.  Flexible/mobile conveyor

13.  Robotic arm

14.  Spring loaded pusher

15.  Vibrating Table

16.  Pitch back/windmill

17.  Tied to a string

18.  Magnet System

19.  Inflatable airbag

20.  Swing Arm

21.  Modify current ram (redesign)

22.  Part sensing system

23.  Stacking system (place parts in rack)

24.  Forklift design

2.1.2 Task 2: Build Consensus

Through this task the team was able to create a short list of ideas to be considered for further development. Everyone was given the chance to vote on the ideas they thought were the most promising. The number of votes given to each team member was determined by dividing the number of ideas generated (24) by the number of team members (6). Through this calculation it was decided that each member would be able to cast four votes. The voting was individual, and team members were not allowed to attempt to influence the decision making of their peers. The list below shows the results of the voting, with the first initial of the team member representing their vote:

1.  Catapult

2.  Adjustable Boat T E

3.  Gravity Powered Conveyor

4.  Pick and Place P C

5.  Baggage Rotisserie

6.  Hydraulic Part Lifter M C

7.  Dumbwaiter

8.  Auger T E M

9.  Water Wheel

10.  Cooling System

11.  Wheels on boats

12.  Flexible/mobile conveyor P C

13.  Robotic arm F P

14.  Spring loaded pusher

15.  Vibrating Table

16.  Pitch back/windmill

17.  Tied to a string

18.  Magnet System T P

19.  Inflatable airbag

20.  Swing Arm M FE

21.  Modify current ram (redesign)

22.  Part sensing system F

23.  Stacking system (place parts in rack)

24.  Forklift design M ET

This voting process left us with three ideas that received three votes each, and the short list is as follows:

1.  Auger

2.  Swing Arm

3.  Forklift

2.1.3 Task 3: Set Direction

In order to set a direction and to ensure that every team member fully understood each of the proposed solutions on the short list the team participated in a drawing session. Each member was assigned an idea to expand on, and given a sheet of tabloid (11 x 18) paper. Members were then given three minutes to draw how they envisioned the idea panning out; a conceptual level drawing. After three minutes everyone passed their drawing to the person sitting on their left. Each person was then expected to expand upon what the other member had started. This process continued until everyone had a chance to add ideas to every drawing.

2.1.4 Further Development

After the original concept development session, some ideas were further developed:

1.  The forklift concept

2.  Ramp and winch concept

3.  Modified forklift concept

The forklift concept consists of two pushing mechanisms, one to lift the parts and their carriers off of the conveyor belt, and a second to move the parts laterally across the table and into the staging area. The original design involved two sets of interlocking perpendicular forks, as shown in Figure 1 on page 9.

Figure 1

Fork Lift Schematic: Overhead view

A new concept was generated using the general idea of the fork system. The new concept would use a rotating ramp connected to a winch that would sense the parts, and then lift the parts off of the conveyor belt. After being lifted, a pushing mechanism would activate, and slide the parts laterally across the ramp face and into the staging area. An illustration of this concept is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Ramp and Winch Concept: Side View

A third concept involved a single flat lifting plate located parallel to the path of the conveyor belt, and slightly above the belt’s surface. When the part moves onto the lifting plate, a sensor would activate the lifting thrust slide, thereby disengaging the part from the conveyor belt. Once in the final lifted position, a second thrust slide would activate, pushing the part across the lifting plate and off into the staging area. The final forklift concept is show in Figure 3.

Figure 3

Modified Fork Lift Concept Side View

After developing the mechanism to remove the parts from the conveyor belt, it became apparent that modifications would have to be made to the boats which carry the parts through the braze furnace. The existing boats varied in shape and size, and it was decided that a universal carrier should be developed in order to carry the existing boats and their parts through the brazing furnace. Figure 4 shows the original design.

Figure 4

Original Boat Design

2.2 Concept Development - Part Handling Process

The concept development session for the part handling process was conducted in the same manner as for the part removal system.

2.2.1 Task 1: Alternative Solutions

The following is a list of the preliminary ideas:

1.  Conveyor in the middle