MSU, MANKATO – MET 489

4/30/15

Process Analysis & Improvement: Painting at JMP

STUDENT: Christopher Boote

FACULTY ADVISORS: Dr. Agarwal

PROJECT SPONSORS: Jones Metal Products

David Olson

ABSTRACT The purpose of this report is to outline and discuss our analysis of the painting process at Jones Metal Products. Our team was assigned to study the process as a whole, and implement lean manufacturing principles. Our method of execution involved several time studies, observations of the processes as they unfolded, and placing all of the data into a current state value stream map. After analyzing the data and coming up with new ways to improve upon the process used by JMP, we followed with a future state value stream map. INTRODUCTION Originally, our project had been centered on how to apply the usage of PLM software to simulate factory operations. However, with the guidance of Dr. Kuldeep Agarwal, we drifted more towards the idea of how to apply Lean Manufacturing principles in a certain area of the factory. In our new project, we would take days to observe the workers in the painting area. We’d talk with them, ask vital questions about how they would work in their stations (approach to certain pieces, steps to perform, etc.), the tools they would use and how they worked, and other questions about how and what they did. We would perform other quantitative studies (discussed later) to measure each stage of the process. After analyzing the process, we would then apply lean methods to suggest improvement for the future.

MAIN SECTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Background Jones Metal Products (or JMP) was founded in 1942 by Mildred M. Jones. The company was started originally as Jones Sheet Metal and Roofing Company to support KATO engineering, and also provide roofing services to the community. Down the road, more emphasis was placed on metal fabrication, which led to the multitude of

industries they cater to today. Our team worked specifically on analyzing the painting process at JMP.

Problem Definition Currently, the paint process at JMP is pretty efficient. However, they are looking to continuously improve the process, in order to stay competitive in the industry. There are certain areas that create a bottleneck, or slow the process down. Overall, they are looking to cut down on waste, both product and time. Our team was to explore the paint process, and find these areas that could use improvement. Once found, we could apply lean methods and suggest ways to cut down on waste, and reduce time spent in the paint area. Objectives The main objective was to analyze the painting process at Jones Metal Products. Afterwards, we would use that analysis and understanding to suggest areas of improvement in that area using lean principles. In order to do so, we needed to have specific objectives:

• Define product of study • Observe the process in entirety, exploring all

steps toward finished product • Take time studies of the product through each

step of the process • Construct a Value Stream Map (VSM) of the

painting process • Construct a future Value Stream Map • Suggest improvement based on future VSM

Constraints The production would be constrained by size of the product or products. It would also be constrained by the type of paint used, how the product needed to be treated, according to specifications of the customer. For us, our constraints in the project were centered around time. Specifically, it was whether or not we could talk to certain people, our own availability and theirs. Design Function

The function of value stream map was to take time data analyzed by us, put it into the VSM, and after careful analysis by us, determine where time was being wasted and what could be done to eliminate the muda. Design Alternatives After creation and analysis of the VSM, we would create a future state value stream map. In this future VSM, we would group certain processes together, and make changes to streamline the process. More information on this is provided later in the report. PROJECT EXECUTION Define Product Before we could analyze the paint process at JMP, we needed to define the product of study. We chose to work with custom enclosures, one of Jones’ main products. These enclosures are made for a variety of different purposes, depending on the customer. However, the enclosures that we looked at were “outlet boxes” that housed internal components for generators. These boxes are meant to offer protection from electrical connections or other moving parts of a generator. The main customer in our case was KATO engineering. Since these enclosures are made according to the customer’s specification, they can range from small scale, to very large (as shown below).

 Figure 1: Large Heat Exchanger (finished)

Below is another style of enclosure (outlet box), and its corresponding drawing:

Figure 2: Outlet Box (before paint)

Figure 3: Outlet Box Drawing

Process Analysis - Painting Once we had defined the product of study, the next step was to analyze the painting process from start to finish. This would set up the next part of the project, which was taking time studies at each step. With the guidance of a few employees in the paint area, as well as a detailed map of the shop floor (Appendix D), we were able to fully understand the painting process. The paint process has 3 main steps: Wash, Paint, and Dry. More detail on each of these steps is provided below. Wash  The first step that any part requiring paint will go through is the wash process. The purpose of washing is to remove any contaminants on the part that may inhibit the paint from adhering correctly. Paint doesn’t usually like to stick well to bare metal, so washing will “etch” the part, also promoting adhesion. There are two different wash areas: one is a spray wash for large parts, the other is a system of 5 dip tanks.

Spray Wash Area

Figure 4: Spray Wash Station

The spray wash area is used for large parts that wouldn’t normally fit in the roughly 4’ x 7’ x 4’ dip tanks. Here they use a mixture of water and a metal wash/prep (named GF Seal Prep) through a pressurized wash. The amount of time spent washing a part here depends on the size of the part and the operator. We were told that the operator would know when the part was fully clean by the bluish tint on the metal (pictured below).

Figure 5: Finished Sprayed Part

Tank Wash Area

Figure 6: Tank Wash Station

Figure 7: Tank Wash Showing Crane

Right next to the Spray Wash station is the more commonly used Dip Tank station. All of the smaller parts produced by JMP come through this station, usually in large batches. Multiple parts are placed on a rack that is about the length and width of the tanks and moved between each one using an overhead crane. This area produces the most consistent parts, since each tank is temperature regulated, as well as time. Tanks 1 through 5 are as follows:

1. Ultrax 92D – Cleaner (5 to 15 minutes) 2. Rinse Water 3. Zircobond 4200D – Metal Etch (2 minutes) 4. Rinse Water 5. Hot Rinse Water (used to speed up drying time

by ~10 minutes)

After tank 5, the parts are set out to dry before they go in for paint. If the operator has time, they will spray the parts thoroughly with compressed air, to speed up the drying even further.

Figure 8: Visual Aid and Thermometer for Tank 3

The images above are examples of the process control of each tank. The poster gives information such as the chemical in the tank, target temperatures (thermometer in figure 8), and how much time the part(s) can spend in that particular tank. All five wash tanks have both of these objects, ensuring a perfect wash every time, as long as the operator follows guidelines. Paint After all of the parts in the batch are dried off, we move to the next step: painting. There are two different methods of painting at JMP: hot pot and p-mix. Hot Pot

 Figure 9: Hot Pot Paint Booth

The Hot Pot system of painting requires the operator to manually mix a batch per order size or parts to be painted. The Hot Pot system is primarily used for short production runs or small orders that require a special color. The products that we observed for our time studies used this paint method, because there was only an order

for 40, so only 40 were painted at that time. For our example, the mix was 1 gallon of primer to 1 gallon of catalyst (or hardener). As with the p-mix system, parts generally travel along a system of conveyors, controlled by the painter. These conveyors are equipped with hooks, so the painter can reach every angle of the part. Once done painting, the painter can move the painted parts to the drying/shipping area with the touch of a button.

Figure10: Drying / Shipping Area (Hot Pot side)

If parts are in a hurry to get out of the door, the two heat lamps (shown above) are used to speed up the curing of the paint. P-Mix

Figure 11: P-Mix Paint Booth

The other method of painting at JMP is the P-Mix system. The P-Mix paint is generally used for long production runs with one color, as opposed to the Hot Pot system. In this system, each color is already mixed in huge barrels in a back room and then fed to the spray gun. Colors are changed with the touch of a button outside the paint booth (pictured below):

Figure 12: P-Mix Control Panel

This one touch of a button gives the operator ease of use, and full control over the paint system. This system is optimal for JMP’s big customers that request the majority of their parts in one color. A couple of customers that fit the criteria are KATO Engineering and Caterpillar. Similar to the Hot Pot system, most parts that get the P-Mix travel along a conveyor. In our case, the size of enclosure would determine whether it traveled along conveyor, or painted on a stand.

Figure 13: Enclosure After Paint

Drying After paint comes drying, and you would think that would be pretty straightforward. However, Jones Metal uses a few methods to dry the finished product.

 Figure 14: Drying Area  

The first option is air drying. If the product is on or ahead of schedule, regular drying would suffice. This method is simple, letting the parts dry by hanging on the hooks.

Figure 15: Heat Lamps

The second option, touched on a little bit previously, is using heat lamps. These lamps use high intensity infrared light to speed up the paint’s curing process. These lamps are located on the Hot Pot side, where they are mainly used.

Figure 16: Drying Oven

On the other side, the conveyors from the p-mix side travel into the big metal box pictured above. This is a giant oven used for rapid curing of painted products. Parts will generally travel through this oven if they are in a hurry to get out the door. This is a very efficient process in terms of drying, but as far as energy costs go-probably not. Time Studies After analyzing the entire painting process from start to finish, it was time for the actual data part. In order to construct a proper value stream map, we had to find out the amount of time the product spent in each stage.  Methodology  For our time studies, we would be observing a certain product from the moment it arrived to be washed, all the way to the finished product to be shipped. Ideally, we would’ve liked to observe enclosures being painted, but our schedules never lined up right to the enclosures in paint. Instead, we observed another product (Appendix I) through the entire paint line, and took our time studies that way. We chose to split the times up by stage: Washing, Painting, and Drying. We used a simple phone stopwatch, and had somebody record times on a notepad. Afterwards, we were able to calculate the time per square inch, and compare that time to the rough surface areas of the enclosures. The surface area of the observed part was 1734.13 sq. in. Results  Our studies started at the wash tanks. We measured time starting from the moment the operator placed the parts onto the rack. For this study, 18 parts were washed at a time (for space purposes). The complete list of times is attached in the appendix, but this section will give a brief overview. We were able to conclude that the full wash process, arrival to dried part, took a total of 36 minutes. We observed that the parts in Tank #1 were in for much longer than spec. (13 minutes, when the spec is 5 minutes max) shown below:

Figure 17: Tank #1 Specification

The extra time in the wash seemed to have no adverse effects on the product, but adhering strictly to the specification could cut wash time down significantly. The next step to observe was the actual paint process. We were told that the down time between washing and paint depends on the order size and color to be painted. For our studies, the order size was 40 parts, so the paint process did not start until the full order was through the wash process and ready for paint. Once the parts were in the paint area, the painter would then do a final scuff and wipe down of the piece, further ensuring good quality. For the 40 parts we observed, 79 minutes were spent on prepping the parts alone. Once the paint got rolling, parts traveled quickly along, with an average of 35 seconds per part. The total time spent in the paint area was 49 minutes, including the time moving the conveyor, and random down times. The conveyor was advanced every 4 parts, and added 30 seconds each time it was moved. There were 3 instances of down time: one was a problem in the back paint room, one part had to be cleaned again, and the paint ran out at the 37th part. These down times totaled 15 minutes. Upon completion of the time studies, we found the time per sq. inch to be 0.111 seconds. This number includes both prepping and paint. We then used that number to calculate the amount of time per enclosure. The small outlet boxes (768.125 sq. in.) came out to be roughly 1.5 minutes per box. The medium enclosures (10,158.33 sq. in.) calculated out to be about 18 minutes per part. Remember these times include both prep and paint of each enclosure. As for the drying process, once again our schedules could not accommodate observing such a long process. Because of the schedule conflicts, we were not able to take time studies of the drying process. However, the paint has a curing time of 15-30min touch dry, or 72 hours fully cured  (at 77°F (21°C)). The addition of the oven or the infrared lamps speed the drying process considerably, but since most parts are air-dried, our focus was mainly there.

Value Stream Mapping In our value stream map, we decided to label the shipping part of Jones Metal Products as the customer and the previous processes (welding, metal bending, and cutting) as the supplier. Times will vary given the quantity of parts, or size, but for our purposes, and the sake of similar data, we decided to create our current map on a single product. Our value stream map, in its current state, starts of in washing.

Figure 18: Wash Process VSM

After receiving the product from the previous stations, we either spray wash the product (large generator covers usually receive this kind of treatment), or they are sent into a chemical bath treatment (Wash).

Figure 19: Drying Process #1 VSM

After the treatment, they are then sent to the first drying station (Drying 1).

Figure 20: Painting Process VSM

After the parts are dried and residual chemicals are removed from the surfaces, the products are hooked onto a conveyer belt and sent into the painting area (painting). This process involves pull over push since it’s the painter who will call for the products from drying and

start the process.

Figure 21: Drying Process #2 VSM

The next step varied depending on time constraints, and the drying properties of the paint. If there is time, and/or the customer allows for it, the preferred method of drying the paint is to let it be air dried. They will also put the finished products under infrared light to help speed up the process (Drying 2 process 1). If there is a lack of time, and/or the customer demands it, they will go with the alternative method, which involves sending the pieces through the oven. This method does dry the product faster, but is very costly. Also, some paints don't behave the same way as others and may not dry in the desired way for the product. After the final drying process, the products need to be held in inventory for a minimum of 72 hours for the painted product to be completely cured. In this current state value stream map, all recorded times are in minutes. The full VSM can be found in Appendix F.

Figure 22: Takt Times

Shown above is calculated Takt time for all of the steps in the painting process. This showed us that the processes we needed to focus on were the washing,

painting, and second drying processes. Future Value Stream Mapping The improvements to the painting process include integrating the drying 1 and painting process into a manufacturing cell. What we will do here is the moment the parts come out of the final wash, instead of letting them sit and be blown for drying; we will use the conveyor belt to pull parts out of the washing as needed. We will need to add fans and Infrared lights (which are already purchased and used) to dry the parts as they are hung. This will allow the parts to be ready for pulling into the next station. We could possibly extend the conveyor system to come closer to the wash station. This would allow the operator to put parts directly onto the paint line from washing with minimal movement and effort. There will also be a supermarket before the washing process which uses a Kanban system of pulling parts. Another change that we will make in order to reduce the down time on the washing station is to add covers to the final wash station. This is necessary because we have seen instances where the whole process, which depends on the baths being at a certain temperature, could not be started because the last bath was too cold to start the process. We don’t know the exact time improvement adding these covers will make, but we expect it to make an impact. BUDGET

Aside from labor hours, this project of analysis and improvement had no budget. RESULTS Based on our observations of the paint process, and analysis of the future state VSM, we were able to come up with a few ideas to improve the process. These improvements start with the lean principles described in the previous section. Aside from the lean principles, there are a few physical upgrades that could be made, one being an extension of the conveyor system. Extending the conveyor over to the wash area would allow an easy transition of parts from washing to drying to painting. With this system, there would be no inventory sitting between the washing and painting processes. This would also allow the wash operator to wash more parts in the time it would’ve taken them to blow dry the washed parts. Some parts with small crevices would likely still need to be blow dried a bit, but the time would still be reduced. Another improvement we thought of was having the conveyor constantly moving at a slow pace. This would eliminate the 30 seconds or so that the painter has to stop painting in order to advance the parts on the conveyor. However, we would need to keep the speed low enough (~0.15 ft/s) so that it does not interfere with the painter. We could see a significant reduction in time using the moving conveyor. Last, as

stated before, covering the wash tanks when not in use would improve the process by keeping the wash in its effective temperature. In order to provide constant results, the wash tanks need to stay in spec. temperature. CONCLUSIONS

From our study and analysis of the painting process at JMP, we were able to grasp a great understanding of the methods used. This understanding helped us to construct a Value Stream Map, and also to come up with potential improvements. The Value Stream Map was a very helpful tool in showing us areas in need of improvement. The current process used by Jones Metal Products is a good one, however it could stand to use a few upgrades. For starters, we decided to extend the conveyor belt so it would eliminate the need for a second inventory before going to the paint station. We also decided on adding fans and infrared lights along the conveyer belt to speed up the drying process after the products leave the washing station. In the paint station, we decided to make the conveyer belt slow moving so the painter would only need to focus on painting instead of having to stop and move the line after finishing every 4 or more products. Overall, we learned a lot about how even a well-working process can be improved upon using lean techniques. In the future, we can see even our suggestions being superceded by others, since lean manufacturing is an ever changing process. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Dr. Agarwal and Dr. Jones for steering us in the right direction, and coming up with a feasible project to complete on such short notice. Also, we would like to thank Dave Olson for setting aside his time to work with us and help us through this project, as well as the employees at JMP for their cooperation. Also, we would like thank Jesus Contreras Villegas for all of his help in gathering information about the paint process. APPENDIX INDEX

A: Small Outlet Box CAD Drawing B: Medium Outlet Box CAD Drawing C: Large Heat Exchanger CAD Drawing D: Paint Area Shop Floor Drawing E: Time Study Data F: Value Stream Map G: Primer Sealer Spec.

H: Future-State Value Stream Map I: Observed Product (Rhino Hybrid 44”)

APPENDIX A: SMALL OUTLET BOX CAD DRAWING

APPENDIX B: MEDIUM OUTLET BOX CAD DRAWING

APPENDIX C: LARGE HEAT EXCHANGER CAD DRAWING

APPENDIX D: PAINT AREA SHOP FLOOR DRAWING

APPENDIX E: TIME STUDY DATA

Time  Studies  -­‐  Painting  Process  

WASH   (18  parts)    Step   Time   Total  

Parts  arrive   9:50  AM   10  min  Wash  start/Tank  #1   10-­‐10:13     3  min  

Tank  #2   10:14   38  sec  

Tank  #3  10:16-­‐10:18   2  min  

Tank  #4  10:19-­‐10:20   1  min  

Tank  #5   10:20   39  sec  

Drying  10:20-­‐10:26   6  min  

Total   9:50-­‐10:26   36  min        PAINT   (40  parts)    Step   Time   Total  

Set-­‐up/Prep   10:35  AM    

Finish  Prep   11:54   79  min  

LUNCH  BREAK  12-­‐12:30pm   30  min  

Start  Paint   12:39    

Finish  Paint   1:28   49  min  

Total      128  min  

     PAINT  DOWN  TIME      Issue   Time    

Problem  back  room   7  min    

Re-­‐clean  part   1  min    Mix  paint  -­‐  ran  out  @37  parts   7  min    

Total   15  min    

APPENDIX F: VALUE STREAM MAP

APPENDIX G: PRIMER SEALER SPEC

http://www.diamondvogel.com/prod_data/PG 1http://www.diamondvogel.com/prod_data/PG-1236HDPCPI.pdf

APPENDIX H: FUTURE STATE VALUE STREAM MAP

APPENDIX I: OBSERVED PRODUCT (TIME STUDIES)