1. Manufacturing Work Cell Redesign for Sentry Group of Rochester (02001) Kyle HagadornJacob Feldman Julie AllenChris Isaacson Carolyn StrockErik Tracy

2. Presentation Format Introduction and Needs Assessment Problem Identification Developed Concepts Flow Analysis Financial Analysis Conclusions

3. Needs Assessment Sentry Group charged our design team with eliminating all ergonomic problems associated with their fireproof safe filling work cell The design team was also charged with improving the production flow and production flexibility (meeting the same demand with fewer operators) of this cell

4. Introduction and Needs Assessment Current Work Cell

5. Ergonomic Problem #1 Lid Transport Workers must manually lift and transport full safe lids from one line to another Filled safe lids can weight up to 34 pounds

6. Ergonomic Problem #2 Cap Driving Operators must drive in 4 caps for each safe body by hand Operator Complaints Methods Used Push Forces Measured & Upper Limit Eliminate 1 or 2 Punches in Safe Design Push Forces (lbf.) Current Caps (gray) 75 72.5 62.5 67.5 70 Average: 69.5

7. Ergonomic Problem #3 Manual Safe Advancement Operators Manually Advance The Full Safe Bodies After They Have Been Filled Traverse/Lateral Force Used To Advance Safes Effect Of This Type Of Force & Upper Limit Overall Push Force Average Push Forces Body (lbf.) AFS type cement 0.81.21.62.0 32.5313232.5 353032.533 32.5333034 32.53433.532.5 33.12532 33 Average 32.5312 35Maximum Push Force

8. Ergonomic Problem #1: Lid Transport Lid Weights 0.81.21.62 Lid AFS15212934 Lid BSF10141923 Workers were manually lifting and placing lids weighing up to 34 lbs.

9. NIOSH Lifting Equation Recommended Weight Limit (RWL): 14.2 lbs

10. Solutions Partially Automated Conveyor Assist Method Automated Conveyor Transport System

11. Implementation A servo-driven push arm will advance the safe lids to the safes, eliminating the operator and all of the ergonomic risks factors associated with the advancement

12. Developed Concepts: Caps (Existing Caps) Existing Cap Off The Shelf Cap

13. Developed Concepts: Caps (Redesigned Cap) Less Material Allows For Elastic Deformation Causing Easier Insertion

14. Original Cap Push Forces

15. Redesigned Cap Push Forces Sentry Safe Design Caps for Caplugs Cap Angle Test Angle "deg."20304050607080120 Trial 1. "lbs"30 35.535363938.559 Trial 2. "lbs"283532.5293240 69 Trial 3. "lbs"2833354035394075 Trial 4. "lbs"30333532.5354048.569.5 Average2932.7534.534.12534.539.541.7568.125 NOTE: 1. 120 degree cap is original cap without cuts.

16. Redesigned Cap

17. Redesigned Cap Push Forces Angle to Force Relationship by Quadratic Equation Degree3334353637383940 Lbs31.405331.467831.538531.617431.704531.799831.903332.015 NOTE: 1. 32 lbs is max force operator is allowed to exert per cap. Optimizing Final Cap Design Angle

18. Developed Concepts: Safe Filling Dual Safe/Dual Hose Filling Method

19. Developed Concepts: Safe Filling Dual Safe/Dual Hose Filling Method 80% Automated, Manual Top Off At Later Date (Christmas)

20. Developed Concepts: Safe Filling Step-By-Step Assembly Instructions Manual

21. Production Flow New concepts analyzed via Arena simulation software Dual safe filling Inline safe body filling Fill and cap lids with one operator Automatic movement of lids onto bodies 80 percent fill of bodies with top off Combinations of the concepts

22. Simulation Output (Results) Current SystemInline Filling

23. Simulation Output Continued 80% Fill w/ Top offDual Hose Fill

24. Flow Conclusions Servo pusher arm allows one operator to more efficiently produce lids than 2 operators could previously produce. 80 percent filling of bodies with top off has fastest throughput times. Dual hose and 80% fill times would most likely decrease with more practice and operator acceptance. Dual hose and 80% fill allow for a 21% increase in production numbers, provided that the servo pusher arm can operate fast enough.

25. Developed Concepts: Layout Original Layout

26. Developed Concepts: Layout Dual Safe/Dual Hose Filling Layout Design

27. Financial Analysis Because the implementation of many of these concepts is an ongoing process, costs can only be estimated. A one-time investment of approximately $9,000 will yield an annual savings of $65,000-$85,000 Future implementation of the 80% fill and top off could lead to an additional annual savings of $50,000-$65,000 Total annual savings will be $115,000 - $150,000 if all aspects are implemented

28. Conclusions All ergonomic problems identified will have been eliminated or reduced to acceptable limits pending final implementation by Sentry Group Production throughput and flexibility will also improve significantly pending implementation of 80% fill and top off method

29. Questions?