1. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Award No. BES-0527358. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Team Members: Eric Meinecke Stephen Morey Shawn O’Hern David Perkins James Salerno Faculty Guides: Dr. Matthew Marshall Dr. Elizabeth DeBartolo

2.  Project Description  Customer Needs  Current Process  Redesign  Process Results  Floor Plan Redesign  Team Dynamics

4.  Design automated process to assemble closure and adaptor assemblies  Minimize movement of materials on assembly line  Reduce ergonomic stresses on operator  Minimizes rework and defective parts  Make process simple to perform

5. Left, various closure sizes. Center, assembly of closure/straw adapter subassembly. Right, manual arbor press currently employed at ArcWorks.

6.  Process  Machine requires high dexterity to insert adapter  Manual machine  Requires high force from operator  50+lbs  Can only do one assembly at a time  Cycle Time=6 seconds  Automated machine  Inaccurate and damages product  Defect Rate=3%  Floor Layout  Inefficient  Materials travel over 90ft and cross paths multiple times  Confusing  Crossing paths make knowing what set products are in difficult

7.  Should be able to handle all closure sizes  Capable of accepting all 5 closure sizes  Should not damage product during assembly  Defect Rate no higher than 5%  Should be able to handle large volumes of product  Cycle time must be under 5 seconds  Should not require large amounts of force  Force exerted by operator must be less than 1N

8. Adapter Press Fixture Closure Stand

11. $1650.00 $50.00 $1000.00 $600.00Metal Testing Pneumatics Total

12.  Handle five closure sizes  Have a cycle time no more than 5 seconds  Have defect rate no more than 5%  Force required to perform task

13.  Met Goal of 5 second cycle time  Currently running at 4 seconds  Balanced line  2 CTA machines run same volume of product as our one machine  Limited force required to assemble part  2 ounces force required to press buttons  Low defect rate  Met and exceeded 5% defect rate limit  Tested to.5% defect rate  Overall test results Overall test results

14.  High movement distances  About 90ft  Material Paths  Cross over of paths can be confusing during working hours

15.  Reduction in material movement  Travel cut to 45ft  Linear process path  Allows supervisor to tell which process material is in base on location.

16.  Successes  Gained addition skills outside own discipline  Machining  Concept generation  On the fly problem solving  Ball detent failed during production, had to fix quickly  Set Backs  Pneumatic design flaws  CNC breakdown  Ball detent failure  Strong personalities  Pressure requirements were not consistent

17.  Steven Kosciol  Robert Kraynik  Dave Hathaway  Paul Gaylo  Dr. Matthew Marshall  Dr. Elizabeth DeBartolo  John Syrkin  Dennis Helzer  Greg Poole  National Science Foundation