ME 492CAPSTONE DESIGN PROJECT

GROUP MEMBERS

Ben Samms

Travis Ellis

Mark Goss

Abdulkareem Al-Yami

Introduction

Background• Bulking Process

The paint consolidated into 55 gal. drums (bulking) entails the following process:

– The paint cans collected are sorted in metal wire cages (dimensions vary).

– Cages are positioned into the bulking room for processing.

– Staff No. 1 removes the cans; opens the cans (1 gallon cans with an opener, 5 gallon cans by prying) and passes the cans on to Staff No. 2.

– Staff No. 2 pours off liquid into the two provided drums and passes it on to Staff No. 3.

– Staff No. 3 loads the cans into a hydraulic crusher and crushes the cans and separates solid material from the cans. Once crushed the cans are removed and disposed off.

Introduction

Problems & Issues• Ergonomic Issues: Several staff members have experienced repetitive motion injury and stain

induced injury due to this process.

• The current process leaves the staff vulnerable to potential injuries due to heavy loads being lifted, pushed, and without proper ergonomic considerations.

• Close proximity of the staff members, congestion of the process, and the volatility of the chemicals require that the process allow for the expedient evacuation of all personnel in the event of an incident.

Design Brief

Our objective is to re-design the benchmark process to minimize the potential for injury and also increase the flow of the process minimize staff risk for exposure to hazardous chemicals and potential fire. We intend to look at the present layout and design with the main focus on ergonomic issues, load handling, and limited space utilization. In our design we must account for the exposure of any equipment to hazardous chemicals, explosive environment, as well as varying load sizes of cans and containers (worst environment possible).

The project gives room for the use of hydraulic and pneumatic equipment, however, it is recommended that we try to avoid incorporating electricity in the operation of our design due to the volatility of the chemicals.

Since the scope of the bulking room problems is too large to fulfill in only two quarters, our team will focus its attention on the transportation of the containers from the cages to placing them in the hydraulic crusher.

Bulking Process

5 Gallon Bucket Cage

Handling 5 Gallon Containers

Carrying 5 Gallon Containers

Lid Removal of 5 Gallon Containers

Opening 1 Gallon Containers

Pouring the Liquid Off

Loading Crusher

Bulking Room Entrance

Product Design Specifications(PDS)

Performance:

Capable of lifting full five-gallon containers (up to 200 lb.) from ground level. Requires free 2-dimensional movement (x-y axis) as well as z-displacement (lift) with minimum z-displacement of crusher door height from ground.Product should be compact and easily storable for convenience and optimal space saving.Product is required to roll across floor grating (if not permanently mounted).Product should clear all floor gradients in facility (if not permanently mounted).Final product should be usable in current operating environment as well as future expanded operation as applicable.Minimal design should lift and move cans while optimum design would allow pouring off of liquids between lifting and loading. Also desirable but not required is the ability to incorporate use with 1 gallon containers into design.Product should be operable by one person.Load area is 36.5 in. x 19 in. (crusher door) .Lift speed should be comparable to human processing speed.Though not required, it is desirable to incorporate a mechanism to open or puncture the container to allow pouring of the 5 gal. Containers

Benchmark

Analysis of Customer Survey

Since this product is primarily a special one-time application, the customer we concerned ourselves with was the Metro operation. The future may yield more customers in similar facilities but at present, these operators are the only resource for this specialized need.

1) On Friday, January 14th, the contact engineer (Dawit Solomon) and site supervisor (Kim Liebich) met with the design team to narrow the scope of the project. The team was presented with the problem statement divided into appropriate sized sub-problems for the team to focus on. The areas were as follows:

– I) Move 5 gal. bucket from loaded cages, pass to (II)

– II) Receive 5 gal. bucket, remove lid, pour-off liquid contents, load into crusher

– III) crushing action (w/ associated problems), and material removal (difficult)

As per meeting on 1/14/00, the group (along with Metro contacts) decided to address issues I and II in order to achieve the greatest immediate benefit to Metro employees.

It was agreed that lid removal is a secondary problem and was not required.

Analysis of Customer Survey(Cont.)

2) An open ended survey among current employees yielded the following key elements in the design of the new bulking process:

– Lifting/moving of five gallon containers is too difficult*

– turning motion in pouring/hand-off is causing injury*

– crush plate on crusher has periodic alignment issues

– grating on crusher becomes too packed with viscous materials (hinders operation)

– pulling material stuck in grating is difficult

– cages provide awkward lifting angles and distances*

– removing lids from 5 gal. containers is difficult/time consuming*

* This corresponds to the desires of the customer’s main concerns when operators were asked to prioritize the problems. The decision made in part 1 is based on this survey.

QFD

Wa

ste

Ha

nd

ler

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

En

gin

ee

ring

Grip

pe

r cl

osi

ng

forc

e (

lbs)

Lift

Ca

pa

city

(lb

s.)

Lift

sp

ee

d (

in/s

)

Ran

ge o

f can

dia

met

ers

that

can

be

grip

ped.

(in

)

Ro

tatio

n R

an

ge

of A

rm(D

eg

ree

s)

Ro

tatio

n r

an

ge

of e

nd

effe

cto

r (d

eg

ree

s)

Ma

xim

um

ext

en

de

d le

ng

th (

Ft)

Tota

l ve

rtic

al r

an

ge

of m

otio

n (

in)

Ma

xim

um

lift

he

igh

t(in

)

Exp

losi

on

pro

of o

ptio

n

Lid

pu

nct

urin

g a

bili

ty

Nu

mb

er

of c

on

tro

ls

Th

e r

eq

uire

d n

um

be

r o

f pe

op

le to

pro

cess

a c

an

.

Cu

rre

nt s

yste

m

Alu

ma

-Lift

Wa

rne

r Air

lift A

O6

0

Functional performanceDurable 10 3 4 3 1 3 4

Explosion Proof 13 13 2 9 3 5 3 5Fit Present Facility 11 4 1 9 3 5 3 4

Pour Liquids Off Of Solids 9 11 12 9 3 5 5 5Promotes Recycling 12 12 13 3 5 5 5

Handle 5-Gallon Cans 1 5 6 9 9 9 1 5 5Human Factors

Safe To Use 8 1 5 3 3 9 3 3 3 1 3 4Easy To Clean 2 2 10 1 1 1 5 2 4

Large Control surfaces 6 9 8 3 4 4Limited Operator Lifting 3 6 9 9 3 3 3 1 5 5Simple Control Structure 5 7 7 9 5 3 4

Reduced operator Movements 4 8 11 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 4

Interface With Crusher

Works With Crusher 7 10 3 3 3 9 5 3 4

Current Method n/a 45 18 high 2 48 48 Y 0 3Aluma-Lift n/a 250 6 9--24 0 90 2 60 72 yes no 2 2Warner Ail lift AO60 n/a 200 6 9--24 180 180 5 60 72 yes no 2 2Target ? 200 6 6--13 180 270 9 60 60 yes yes 3 1

33

9 1

11

1

1 3

Project Plan

Team Members And Expertise

Ben Samms Travis Ellis-Ten Years Working with SEH-America - Interned at Stanley Hydraulics

Where he held the position of Engineering - Mechanical Engineer at

Technician. Credence System Inc .

Mark Goss Abdulkareem Al-Yami-Four Years with Edward Consulting -Summer Intern for OSM

Consulting Engineers -Lab Testing Technician PSU

Project Time Line

Identification of Tasks

Tasks: Come up with a design product that satisfies the ergonomic needs of the operators with regards to

lifting as well as space constraints.

Robustness should be a key feature in our design due to the environment of operation.

In designing the lifting apparatus, we must account for the fact that the cans/containers are to be unloaded from steel cages that may or may not need to be modified to fit our specific needs.

Our design must also comply with safety codes and not obstruct emergency evacuation paths at any time.

All elements of the project should be null spark due to the volatility of the environment.

The lifting device must incorporate the position of the hydraulic crusher as well as its dimensions and loading features.

We should keep in mind the possibility of incorporating the function of emptying a can during the lifting operation before it is placed in the hydraulic crusher.

The staff members must be able to operate our piece of equipment while wearing protective gear that does not allow them a high level of dexterity.

Economic Analysis

Currently the Metro facility has placed no spending limit on this project. This is in part due to the substantial safety concerns that are associated with it. Current intention is for Metro to review the suggestions and recommendations that our group provides and to determine the feasibility of those suggestions, if the suggestions are good and sound, Metro intends to manufacture and/or install the proposed equipment.

Metro has provided the following information based on OSHA reports and information from the current management staff.

Statistics from OSHA 200 report for both hazardous waste facilities:

Location Emp. class # of Incidents Days Lost Days restricted 1998 Metro South R 4 0 18 Metro South T 1 0 0 Metro Central R 1 17 7 1999 Metro South R 5 0 0 Metro Central R 2 0 0

R = regular T = temp

Economic Analysis(Cont.)

Extrapolated figures from the above two years suggest the following.

Total as a result of lost days: $ 2,942.31 Temp replacement: $52,415.57 Average per year $27,678.94

Also, note that in these cases Metro is continuing to pay the regular employee their wages for performing duties other than they were hired for. These figures also do not include the medical costs that are incurred. Therefore, the average per year can be

substantially higher, depending on the number, types, and severity of incidents.