1. Project Review Presentation Project #10715 5/14/10
Flip Label
Project Review Presentation
Project #10715
5/14/10

2. Project Team Helen Jervey (ISE), Project Lead
Charles Nicolosi (ME), Chief Engineer
Ian Baker (ME)
Ben Bouffard (EE)
Brandon Sbordone (ME)
George Kilger (EE)
Advised by John Kaemmerlen (ISE)
Rev 02

3. Project Review Agenda Project Overview & Goals
Customer Needs & Project Specifications
System Design Summary
System Testing Plan
Objective System Evaluation
Project Budget & Justification
Project Risk Assessment
Future Project Progress
Ideas for Future Work
Rev 02

4. Project Overview & Goals
Problem Statement
The Flip-Label project goal is to reduce direct labor requirements for the flip/label meat package process sequence in the Wegmans Culinary Innovation Center.
Currently an operator is needed to manually flip and align meat packages to enter the x-ray inspection machine.
One or more operators are needed to label packages after they exit the inspection machine depending on product type and process speed.
Objectives
Implement devices to flip and arrange meat packages in optimal configuration on conveyor for inspection by x-ray scanner
Reduce direct labor needed to label packages at current takt
Rev 02

5. System Design
Rev 02

6. Customer Needs Need The Product Needs to Imp. N 1.1
Product integrity is maintained
Meet specifications 5
N 1.2
Equipment satisfies USDA Regulations as well as the AMI checklist
N 1.3
OSHA Safety requirements are met 4
N 2.1
Reallocate direct flipping labor
Decrease man-hours
N 2.2
Reallocate direct alignment labor
N 2.3
Reallocate direct labeling labor
N 2.4
Camera labeling system is low priority
Control project scope
N 3.1
Maintain or decrease takt time
Decrease processing time
N 3.2
All packages get scanned by the x-ray at desired belt speed
Scan all packages 3
N 4.2
Keep allocation of floor space constant
Fit within specified area
N 3.3
Control flow to scaling operation(Control flow-rate variance)
Minimize variance
N 4.1A
Label is in proper orientation and position relative to the package
Be aligned
N 4.1B
All packages are centered in the x-ray beam
Scan entire package
N 3.3A
Packages must flow in a format that works with the X-ray
Meet specification 2
N 4.1
Packages are in the proper orientation
N 4.1Ba
Packages are conveyed in single-file
N 1.3A
Remove ergonomic issues and concerns
Minimize risks 1
Rev 02

7. Engineering Specifications
Engr. Spec. #
Imp.
Need Met
 Specification (description)
Unit of Measure
Marginal Value
Ideal Value
ES1 3
N 4, 13
Flow Rate
pc/min 7
>7
ES2 2
N 9, 10, 12, 13, 14
Pc. Alignment
in. from center
+/- 1 in
ES3
N 9, 12
Perpendicularity
(deg)
90 +/- 10
90 +/- 3
ES4
Label Orientation
ES5 5
N 1, 2
FDA/USDA Specs
Pass/Fail
pass
ES6
N 1, 2, 15
AMI Safety Specs
ES7
N 1, 3
OSHA Specs
ES8 4
Flip Angle
ES9
N 4, 8
Belt Speed (X-Ray)
m/s or ft/s
Current
ES10
N 6, 7
Direct Flip/Align Man Hours
hrs.
<75% of current
<50% Current
ES11
N 5
Direct Label Man Hours
ES12
N 1
Keep Product Integrity
Yes/No
Yes
ES13
N 15
Ergonomic Risk
CIC Risk Units
<24
ES14 1
N 11, 14
Flow Rate Variance
% of rate
⁻₊25%-50%
0%-25%
ES15
N 16
Floor Space Allocation
Sq. Ft.
Current +/- 18 in
Current +/- 6 in
ES16
N 9
Label Position
Coordinate (x,y)
Center +/- 0.5 in
+/ in
Rev 02

8. Systems Design
Rev 02

9. System Design-Flip
Rev 02

10. System Design-Flip
Rev 02

11. System Design-Align
Rev 02

12. System Design-Align
Rev 02

13. System Design-Sensors
42CM LaserSight Photoelectric Beam Sensor
Digital beam sensor
Detects when a package breaks the projected beam
45BPD Laser Measurement Sensor
Analog distance sensor
Outputs a function-dependant voltage based on the distance between the sensor and the package
Rev 02

14. System Design-Controls
Micrologix 1100
Receives all data from sensors
Outputs control signals to motors
PanelView Plus Compact Panel
Touch screen interface
Allows quick, easy control of line
PowerFlex 4 AC Drive
Controls the belts
Requires no input
Rev 02

15. System Design-Labeler
Cal-Pak
Automated labeling system researched and a design was agreed upon
Implementation delayed until all other subsystems completed
Label Assist
Short-term solution
Increases labeling speed while
decreasing ergonomic stress
Rev 02

16. Results
Rev 02

17. Test Plan Example
Rev 02

18. Objective System Evaluation
Engr. Spec. #
Imp.
Need Met
 Specification (description)
Unit of Measure
Marginal Value
Ideal Value
Status
ES1 3
N 4, 13
Flow Rate
pc/min 7
>7
ES2 2
N 9, 10, 12, 13, 14
Pc. Alignment
in. from center
+/- 1 in
ES3
N 9, 12
Perpendicularity
(deg)
90 +/- 10
90 +/- 3
ES4
Label Orientation
ES5 5
N 1, 2
FDA/USDA Specs
Pass/Fail
pass
PASS
ES6
N 1, 2, 15
AMI Safety Specs
ES7
N 1, 3
OSHA Specs
ES8 4
Flip Angle
ES9
N 4, 8
Belt Speed (X-Ray)
m/s or ft/s
Current
CURRENT
ES10
N 6, 7
Direct Flip/Align Man Hours
hrs.
<75% of current
<50% Current
ES11
N 5
Direct Label Man Hours
ES12
N 1
Keep Product Integrity
Yes/No
Yes
ES13
N 15
Ergonomic Risk
CIC Risk Units
<24
ES14 1
N 11, 14
Flow Rate Variance
% of rate
⁻₊25%-50%
0%-25%
ES15
N 16
Floor Space Allocation
Sq. Ft.
Current +/- 18 in
Current +/- 6 in
+ 18”
ES16
N 9
Label Position
Coordinate (x,y)
Center +/- 0.5 in
+/ in
Key
Pass
Fail
In Progress
Not Yet Tested
Rev 02

19. Project Budget & Justification
System Summary
Subsystem
Parts Total
Labor Est
Subsystem Total
Flipper
$2,736
$1,040
$3,776
Flipper Controls
$5,131 $0
Aligner
$4,657
$1,280
$5,937
Aligner Controls
$2,618
Conveyors
$13,482
System Total
$30,944
Helen add more
Rev 02

20. Project Risk AssessmentID
Risk Item
Effect
Cause
Proposed
Actual
Action to Minimize Risk
Owner
Likelihood
Severity
Importance 2
Team member has extended absence
Critical chain affected
Illness, personal issues 9 1
Thorough documentation during absence to reduce “catch up” time; team will communicate as much as reasonable during absence
All
Illness
Team used and other forms of communication. Documentation was completed and distributed. 4
Parts delayed from supplier
Critical chain affected, deliverables delayed
Special parts, clerical errors, parts lost 3 27 81
Use approved vendors, have multiple vendors, use off-the-shelf parts PM
Critical chain affected, infeasible to complete deliverables
Clerical errors(?), parts lost(?), ???
Contacted vendors, escalated problems. 6
Insufficient risk assessment
Slow response to problems, critical chain affected, deliverables delayed
Insufficient thought process
Constantly reexamine project and technical risks to ascertain changes
Ordering mishaps
adsf
Insufficient risk assessment covers other issues in part procurement
E.g.: delayed engineering drawings from Lipe delayed critical chain tasks
Rev 02

21. Future Project Progress
Continue system manufacturing and assembly
Test individual subsystems
Integrate subsystems
Test complete system
Debug and refine process
Secondary line replication
Rev 02

22. Ideas for Future Work Ergonomics
Develop secondary standardized system for assessing risk for hand motions/non-lifting tasks
Paper recommended by Dr. Matt Marshall (ISE) 2/8/10
“Development and evaluation of an observational method for assessing repetition in hand tasks”. Wendi A Latko; Thomas J Armstrong; James A Foulke; Gary D Herrin; et al. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal; Apr 1997; 58, 4; ABI/INFORM Global. pg. 278
Marinated Meats Line Simulation Project
Discrete event simulation of entire marinated meats line
Possibly using ARENA software
Scope may necessitate Senior Design Project (primarily ISE) or multiple ISE co-ops
Recommended in conversation with Professor John Kaemmerlen (ISE) 5/30/10
Rev 02

23. Questions or comments?
Rev 02