Systems Level Design Review
Project #10715
1/15/09
Rev 01
1

Helen Jervey (ISE), Project Lead
Charles Nicolosi (ME), Chief Engineer
Brandon Sbordone (ME)
George Kilger (EE)
Ian Baker (ME)
Ben Bouffard (EE)

Advised by John Kaemmerlen





Rev 01
2




Provide background information about the
current system at the Culinary Innovation
Center
Detail the progress made by the team from
RIT
Receive feedback from faculty and Wegmans
staff
Discuss the next steps in the process
Rev 01
3
Customer Needs
Engineering Specs
Rev 01
4


Wegmans is a food market with more than 70
stores in five states
The Culinary Innovation Center, or CIC,
provides all premade sauces and marinated
meat products to Wegmans stores
Rev 01
5



The current factory line requires seven people
performing repetitive, injury prone tasks
Injuries have cost Wegmans more than
$20,000 in the marinade area since the
opening of the CIC
Unreliable labeling technology leads to
rework, wasting the time of the employees
Rev 01
6

Reallocate direct labor from flipping, labeling
◦ Allow employees to move to other areas of the CIC



Reduce ergonomic risks on line
Perform all work within safety and quality
standards
Rev 01
7

Primary
◦ Meet AMA, OSHA, USDA and other relevant
standards
◦ Maintain integrity of product

Secondary
◦ Reallocate direct labor from flipping, aligning
◦ Automate or improve flipping, aligning, and
labeling processes
◦ Maintain or improve takt time
Rev 01
8
◦ Need 1: Product & Process are Safe
 Need 1.1: Product integrity is maintained
 Need 1.2: Equipment satisfies USDA Regulations as
well as the AMI Checklist
 Need 1.3: OSHA Safety requirements are met
 Need 1.3A: Remove ergonomic issues and concerns
◦ Need 2: Reallocate Direct Labor
 Need 2.1: Reallocate direct flipping labor
 Need 2.2: Reallocate direct alignment labor
 Need 2.3: Reallocate direct labeling labor
Rev 01
9
◦ Need 3: Improve Processing Time
Need 3.1: Maintain or decrease takt time
Need 3.2: All packages get scanned by the x-ray at desired
belt speed
 Need 3.3: Control flow to scaling operation. (Control flowrate variance)


 Need 3.3A: Meet x-ray specs of one piece at a time in
machine
◦ Need 4: Control orientation and flow-mechanics

Need 4.1: Packages are in the proper orientation
o
Need 4.2: Avoid impact on other projects
 Need 4.1A: Label is in proper orientation position relative to
the package
 Need 4.1B: All packages are centered in the x-ray beam
 Need 4.1C: Packages are conveyed in single-file
 Need 4.2A: Keep allocation of floor space constant
Rev 01
10
and Feasibility Analysis
Rev 01
11

Constraints
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Space
Feasibility
Alignment
Efficiency
Mechanical/“Intelligent”
Align
Flip
XRay
Label
Rev 01
12
System Concept Selection
Rev 01
13





Mechanical Process
Allows for basic single file flow
Engineered for product inconsistencies
Will need future testing for jam concerns
Basic frictional analysis shows it is feasible
Concept
Improvement
(Though Testing)
• Rollers
• Belts
• Actuated
Rev 01
14
Frictional Feasibility Analysis
Rev 01
15





Mechanical process
Reliably performs a uniform flip
Handles different package sizes and configurations
Handles constant stresses of use
Need component life cycle analysis
Concept
Improvement
(Through Testing)
• Adjustable Tray
• Motor Choice
• Tray Angle
Rev 01
16





Must consistently apply identifyer label
Controlled label orientation and position
Imaging/sensing system
Implementation and modification of current
labelers to fit project
Research has found feasible camera systems in
industry
Concept
Improvement
• Professor Meetings
• Camera Selection
Rev 01
17
Rev 01
18
Align
Flip
X-Ray
Label
•Align product
mechanically
•Flip product
mechanically
•Guide rails or
rollers
•Offset belt
system (upper
and lower)
•Fully/partially
automated or
manual
•Flipper arm or
tray
•Ability to
reorient based
on product
angle and
displacement
offsets
•Push products
to center of
conveyor
•Automatic
accept/reject
•Add identifier
label
•One piece at a
time
Rev 01
19
Adjustable,
offset guides
Pieces align
with belt
friction
Pieces enter
in 2 or 3 wide
Actuated guides to
align
pieces/accelerate
alignment process
Laser sensor
for piece(s)
entering guide
path
Guide actuates
and pushes
pieces to
center
Proximity/contact
sensors to ensure
guide return
Rev 01
20

Fixed/Adjustable Guides
◦ Solid rail
◦ Roller guide
◦ Belt guide

Powered/Adjustable Guides
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Solid rail/roller guide
Hinge mount for guide
Actuator/Actuators
Proximity sensors
Laser sensors for track
Rev 01
21
Automated Flipper
Piece flows
into flip tray
Laser sensor
indicates
piece in tray
Stop arm for
next piece
Motor/actuat
or rotates flip
tray
Piece is pushed
out of tray
Stop arm
retracts
Motor/actuator
rotates flip tray
Sensor
indicates no
piece in tray
Rev 01
22



Flipper Tray
◦ Grated
◦ Solid
Stop Arm
◦ Actuator
◦ Hinge
◦ Proximity Sensor(s)
Flipper
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Motor/Actuator
Mounting/Hinges
Piece sensor (laser)
Proximity sensors (up/down)
Product pusher


Fixed
Mechanical


Proximity sensor
Actuator
Rev 01
23
Identifier Label Applicator
Single piece
enters
Laser sensor
(possibly
stops belt
and)
activates
vision
system
Vision system
identifies
package
System
outputs θ and
offset (x,y)
Motors align
label head
based on
output
Label
application
Label head
retracts/
Returns to home
Rev 01
(Belt
resumes)
24

Vision System
◦ Laser product sensor
◦ Visual comparator system
 Camera
 Comparison logic controller

Label Applicator system
◦
◦
◦
◦
X-axis motor
Y-axis motor
θ motor
Label applicator head
 Head actuator
 Labeler
 Foam presser
◦ Label loader

Belt motion controller
Rev 01
25
Pieces
From
Multivac
Trip Laser
sensor(s)
Stop arm
retracts
Guide
actuator(s)
activate
Piece
leaves
beam
Tray
rotates
up
Piece prox.
Trigger off
Piece
through
x-ray
Piece
trips
laser
Belt
stops
Guide
Returns
Trigger
push
prox.
Single
file flow
to flip
Piece
enters
flip tray
Tray
rotates
down
Tray
actuator
trigger
Piece prox.
sensor
trigger
Stop arm
actuates
Piece to
lower
conveyer
Camera
shoots
image
Calculate
s θ, x, y
Labeler
assembly
offsets x
Labeler
assembly
offsets y
Labeler
assembly
offsets θ
Belt
resumes
Label
head
retracts
Rev 01
Remove
label from
spool
Label head
actuates
down
26
Rev 01
27
1 Upstream process
changes downstream
variables
Cause
Importance
Effect
Severity
Risk Item
Likelihood
ID
Action to Minimize Risk
Owner
Engineering specs
become obsolete,
device may no longer
meet customer
requirements
2 Device requires many on- Deliverables not met,
floor adjustments
client may discontinue
use of device
P10711
1
2
2
Project managers meet to
discuss changes several times
during quarter (week 4, rest
TBD)
PM
Wide package spec
range, overly
specialized device
2
2
4
ME, ISE
3 Modified work tasks are
ergonomically risky
Frequent, repetitive
tasks; lifting; flipping
2
2
4
2
3
6
3
3
9
Device will be set to one, “best”
setting; if not possible team will
devise as few as possible device
settings and develop easy-to-use
documentation
Proposed tasks evaluated using
ergo risk assessment tool; tasks
modified to be less than 24 on
scale
AMI Sanitary Design Checklist used
to drive all applicable design
decisions; device designed to work
with current sanitizing methods
Packages beyond dimensions of
product range will be tested (TBD)
2
3
6
4 Device does not meet
cleanliness standards
Workers are injured,
slowed production
Device cannot be used Inappropriate
by client
materials used,
incompatible with
cleaning methods
5 Device does not work with Device cannot be used Weak design,
lightest or heaviest
by client
inappropriate
packages
materials
6 Device cannot perform at Device cannot be used Weak design,
current takt (6 sec)
by client
mechanical
limitations
Helen
Helen
ME
Device will be tested at quicker takt All
(TBD)
Rev 01
28
Cause
Importance
Effect
Severity
Risk Item
Likelihood
ID
Action to Minimize Risk
Owner
All
7 Device damages or
compromises packages
Device cannot be used Excessive
by client
speed/force; sharp
edges; pinch points
2
3
6
Device tested at range of speeds
and forces; test package puncture
force?
8 Labeler jams frequently
Slowed production,
rework
Inadequate
hardware
2
3
6
Weak design;
inadequate
hardware
Weak design;
inadequate
hardware
2
2
4
2
2
4
Sensing system tested at wider
EE
range of speeds and package sizes
than expected
Sensing system tested at wider
EE
range of speeds and package sizes
than expected
Sensing system tested at wider
Brandon
range of speeds and package sizes
than expected
Weak design;
inadequate
hardware
Weak design;
inadequate
hardware
2
3
6
2
2
4
Weak design;
inadequate
hardware
3
2
6
9 Labeler applies misaligned Added visual
labels frequently
inspection, rework
10 Flipping task frequently
misaligns package
11 Flipper jams frequently
12 Aligner frequently places
packages outside x-ray
beam
13 Aligner jams frequently
Slowed production,
direct manual labor, xray misses parts of
package
Slowed production,
direct manual labor
Slowed production,
direct manual labor, xray misses parts of
package
Slowed production,
direct manual labor
Sensing system tested at wider
Brandon
range of speeds and package sizes
than expected
Sensing system tested at wider
Charlie
range of speeds and package sizes
than expected
Sensing system tested at wider
Charlie
range of speeds and package sizes
than expected
Rev 01
29
Risk Item
Effect
Cause
Severity
Importance
1
Team member has
extended absence
Critical chain affected
Illness, personal
issues
3
1
3
2
Resource over-allocated
Deliverables delayed or
contain errors
3
1
3
3
Parts delayed from supplier
2
2
4
4
Customer priorities change
1
3
3
5
Insufficient risk assessment
2
2
4
6
Team member leaves MSD
Critical chain affected,
deliverables delayed
Customer needs, specs
become obsolete
Slow response to
problems, critical chain
affected, deliverables
delayed
Critical chain affected,
deliverables delayed
Improper resource
allocation, overvolunteering
Special parts, clerical
errors, parts lost
Business environment
change
Insufficient thought
process
Illness, personal
issues
1
3
3
7
End users unhappy with
device
Customer needs not
met, device cannot be
used by client
3
3
9
8
Budget changes during
project
Engineering specs may
be infeasible, customer
needs change
User input not
considered during
design, design not
suited to users
Business environment
change
1
3
3
Likelihood
ID
Action to Minimize Risk
Owner
Thorough documentation during
absence to reduce “catch up” time;
team will communicate as much
as reasonable during absence
PM will check in with all team
members weekly to ensure workload
is balanced
Use approved vendors, have multiple
vendors, use off-the-shelf parts
Constant communication with
customers regarding needs
Constantly reexamine project and
technical risks to ascertain changes
All
PM
PM
All
All
None. Keep in communication with all PM
team members to plan for
reallocation ASAP
Include end user input in all phases of All
design; practice active listening; ask
“Why?” when concerns are raised to
find root cause
Adjust project goals, demonstrate
PM
cost savings of project and return on
investment
Rev 01
30
Rev 01
31

Evaluate analyzing methods for the labeling device
Gather data on packaging durability
Research optimal methods of flipping and aligning
Draft circuit designs for controls and sensors
Draft schematics for mechanical devices
Investigate costs of long lead time devices
Physically implement designs
Test "first run" designs on product
Revise and improve designs

Detailed Design Review: Friday 2/12 (4 weeks)








Rev 01
32
Rev 01
33