1 / 54

Restoration of One-Piece Flow To Lincoln Industries

Stephen Hassler Jeffrey Troester University of Nebraska – Lincoln Department of Industrial & Management System Engineering Presented on April 15, 2009. Restoration of One-Piece Flow To Lincoln Industries. Contributors. Adventure Manufacturing, Inc. (OK) Franek Laser & Fab Systems (MN)

keiran
Download Presentation

Restoration of One-Piece Flow To Lincoln Industries

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Stephen Hassler Jeffrey Troester University of Nebraska – Lincoln Department of Industrial & Management System Engineering Presented on April 15, 2009 Restoration of One-Piece Flow To Lincoln Industries

  2. Contributors • Adventure Manufacturing, Inc. (OK) • Franek Laser & Fab Systems (MN) • Duane Franek – Owner • Hotsy Equipment Co. (NE) • Roy Gage – Sales Representative • Dennis Klingemann – Sales Representative • Lincoln Industries (NE) • Bill Hancock – Area Leader, Fabrication • Eric Jacobs – Development Engineer • North American Cutting Systems (CA) Images: www.adventureinmetals.com, www.franeklaser.com, www.hotsy.com

  3. Company Profile, Project Field, Problems, & Objective Introduction

  4. Company Profile • In 1952, Lincoln Industries was founded in Lincoln, NE as a small job shop for custom electroplating. • The company has grown to become Lincoln’s largest water user and North America’s largest metal finisher. • In its 500,000 square feet of production and warehouse space, approximately 500 people are employed. • Annual revenues have grown rapidly over the past decade and now exceed $100 million. Images: www.lincolnindustries.com

  5. Project Field • Lincoln Industries (LI) is best known as North America’s largest metal finisher.  However, the company’s operations are diverse and our team took a look at their fabrication activities.  At a facility in Air Park (Lincoln, NE), LI fabricates exhaust stacks for semi-trailer trucks. Images: www.lincolnchrome.com

  6. Original Problem • Unfortunately, after the production line was designed, installed, and operating, quality issues arose.  A set of operations occurring early in the production sequence was causing damage to the parts.

  7. Original Remedy • A quick solution was developed by LI and another operation was added to the production process, though it occurred on a workstation off of the main production line.

  8. Consequential Problem • By locating the workstation off of the main line, one-piece flow was disrupted.  As a result, material handling became excessive, processing time increased, and quality control declined.

  9. Project Objective • It is the goal of the investigating team to develop a cost-effective proposal that remedies these undesirable byproducts and restores one-piece flow to the production line.

  10. Analysis Method & Findings Study Details

  11. Four Step Analysis Method • Understand Problem and Magnitude • Visual Aids, Quality Inspection, Time Studies • Develop Alternatives • Seek Expert Opinions, Creative Brainstorming • Verify Feasibility of Alternatives • Examine Attributes and Costs, Design Experiments • Evaluate Alternatives • Economic Analysis, Discuss Qualitative Factors

  12. Understand Problem and Magnitude • Visual Aids • The team developed a simple facility layout diagram to convey the problematic nature of the current arrangement. • Photographs and video were taken to document the process and highlight production issues.

  13. Current Layout SAW BEND DEBUR WASH EMPTY AREA (90 FT2) CARTS ≈ 100 FT

  14. Lean Issues • Four of the Seven Wastes of the Toyota Production System (TPS) were glaringly obvious as a result of the current layout. • Waste of Transportation • Waste of Waiting • Waste of Inventory • Waste of Motion

  15. Photographs RAW MATERIAL LOADING SAW DEBURR MACHINE SAW Images: www.lincolnchrome.com

  16. Photographs CHIPS CHIPS CARTS CART

  17. Photographs WASH WASH BEND MACHINE UNLOADING BENDER Images: www.lincolnchrome.com

  18. Understand Problem and Magnitude • Quality Inspection • Though inefficient, the current wash operation sufficiently removes chips from the tubes. • Chips are being introduced from various sources such as material handling carts, gloves, rags, and tools.

  19. Understand Problem and Magnitude • Time Studies • Surprisingly, the inefficient wash operation is not typically the bottleneck of the production line. • However, when the wash operation becomes congested, it definitely has the ability to function as the bottleneck.

  20. Saw and Deburr Operation • Time Study Results • Mean/Median/Mode Unit Times = 49 s / 43 s / 44 s • Minimum/Maximum Unit Times = 34 s / 82 s • Key Observations • Excessive Work-in-Process (WIP) Buildup (25+ Tubes) • Operator Sets Operation Pace • Insignificant Operator Idle Time • Not Typically the Bottleneck Operation

  21. Wash Operation • Time Study Results • Unit Times = 36 s (for 25) / 43 s (for 15)

  22. Wash Operation • Key Observations • Excessive Idle Time • Frequently Congested Workstation • Operator Sets Operation Pace • Potentially the Bottleneck Operation

  23. Bend Operation • Time Study Results • Mean/Median/Mode Unit Times = 88 s / 82 s / 68 s • Minimum/Maximum Unit Times = 66 s / 133 s • Key Observations • Machine Sets Operation Pace • Minimal Operator Idle Time • Potentially the Bottleneck Operation

  24. Develop Alternatives • Seek Expert Opinions • The first technique for developing alternatives was to conduct interviews with LI management and assemble the ideas that had already been considered. • LI management had considered two types of solutions. Those that washed parts and those that did not generate chips in the first place. • Two wash systems included power washing cabinets and power washing conveyor systems. • To eliminate chips altogether, laser cutting, abrasive water jet cutting, and precision saws were considered.

  25. Develop Alternatives • Creative Brainstorming • The second technique for developing alternatives was to do some “thinking outside of the box”. The team considered several unorthodox chip removal procedures. • The team considered only solutions that washed parts. • Use of vacuums and magnets were considered. Both in handheld and fixed configurations. Also, a simple water bath with drying fans was considered.

  26. Develop Alternatives • Seek Expert Opinion – Idea List • Power Washing Cabinet • Power Washing Conveyor System • Laser Cutting (No Chips) • Abrasive Water Jet Cutting (No Chips) • Precision Saw (No Chips) • Creative Brainstorming – Idea List • Vacuum (Handheld or Fixed) • Magnets (Handheld or Fixed) • Water Bath with Drying Fans

  27. Verify Feasibility of Alternatives • Examine Attributes and Costs • The team first considered whether or not each alternative would accomplish the intended purpose. • Cost data was then used to eliminate some alternatives. Due to current economic conditions (including recent layoffs at LI), most high cost alternatives were deemed infeasible. • Design Experiments • The team was forced to design experiments in some cases to verify alternative feasibility.

  28. Power Washing Cabinet • Attributes • Sufficiently Cleans Parts (Prior Testing at LI) • Fits in Space between Saw and Bend Operation • No Labor to Dry Parts, Flash-Dry (60 s) • Smaller Batches • Drawbacks • Purchase Price = $10,650 • Still Batching Parts • Operating Costs, Consumables, Maintenance

  29. Power Washing Conveyor System • Attributes • Fits in Space between Saw and Bend Operation • Transports Parts from Saw to Bend Operation • Pure One-Piece Flow • Drawbacks • Purchase Price = $20,000 to $30,000 • Unlikely to Effectively Clean Tube Interior • Operating Costs, Consumables, Maintenance • Labor to Dry Parts • Slip Hazards

  30. Photographs POWER WASHING CABINET POWER WASHING CONVEYOR SYSTEM Images: www.adventureinmetals.com, www.globalspec.com

  31. Laser Cutting • Attributes • No Metal Chips • Eliminates Need for Deburr Operation • Eliminates Need for Wash Operation • Precision Cuts • Cuts Harder Materials (Stainless Steel) • Drawbacks • Purchase Price = $300,000 to $400,000 • Operating Costs, Consumables, Maintenance • Hazardous Fumes

  32. Abrasive Water Jet Cutting • Attributes • No Metal Chips • Eliminates Need for Deburr Operation • Eliminates Need for Wash Operation • Drawbacks • Purchase Price = $200,000 to $300,000 • Operating Costs, Consumables, Maintenance • Slower than Laser Cutting • Requires Abrasive Particles in Water to Cut • Abrasive Particles Necessitate Machine Cleaning

  33. Photographs ABRASIVE WATER JET CUTTING LASER CUTTING Images: www.advancedwaterjet.com, www.alspi.com

  34. Precision Saw • Attributes • No Metal Chips • Eliminates Need for Deburr Operation • Eliminates Need for Wash Operation • Cuts Harder Materials (Stainless Steel) • Drawbacks • Purchase Price = $400,000+ • Operating Costs, Consumables, Maintenance

  35. Verify Feasibility of Alternatives • List of Experiments Designed • Vacuum (Handheld or Fixed) • Magnets (Handheld or Fixed) • Water Bath with Drying Fans

  36. Photographs WATER BATH VACUUM MAGNETS

  37. Verify Feasibility of Alternatives • Results of Experiments • Vacuum – Time Consuming, Only Fair Cleaning • Magnets – Time Consuming, Poor Cleaning • Water Bath and Drying Fans – Poor Cleaning, Slow Drying

  38. Verify Feasibility of Alternatives

  39. Evaluate Alternatives • Economic Analysis • Cost savings are likely to result from reduced labor (drying tubes), reduced overall processing time (from elimination of idle time), reduced WIP, potentially improved quality, and a cleaner, more orderly work space. • Will the savings from the installation of a power washing cabinet justify its expense?

  40. Description & Benefits Proposal Details

  41. Proposal • Purchase the Power Washing Cabinet • Install it in the Empty Space between the Saw and Bend Operation • Wash the Tubes in Batches of 5 • Wash the Tubes for 120 s • Let the Tubes Dry for 60 s • Spend Minimally on Consumable, Only Enough to Inhibit Washer Rusting

  42. Photographs POWER WASHING CABINET HOTSY MODEL 7663 Images: www.hotsy.com

  43. Current Layout SAW BEND DEBUR WASH EMPTY AREA (90 FT2) CARTS ≈ 100 FT

  44. Proposed Layout SAW BEND DEBUR WASH WASH CARTS ≈ 10 FT

  45. Rationale • Moving water seems to remove chips from the tubes better than other methods. For a relatively low cost, the team believes that LI can achieve significant savings with the installation of a power washing cabinet. However, the efficiency of the machine is dependent upon some batching. Therefore, pure one-piece flow will not be achieved.

  46. Proposal Quote from Hotsy • Purchase Cost • $10, 650 • Tube Fixtures (5) • $1,250 • Consumables • $1,200 / Year • TOTAL – YEAR 1 • $13,100

  47. Proposed Process • Power Washing Cabinet • Batch Size: 5 Tubes • Wash Phase: 120 s • Dry Phase: 60 s • Unload Phase: 50 s • Key Assumptions • Saw Operation Unit Time Increases (5 s) for Added Material Handling • Bend Operation Unit Time Increases (10 s) for Added Material Handling

  48. Processing Time Comparison • Current Process • 25 Tubes 72 min + Wash Station Idle Time • 15 Tubes 45 min + Wash Station Idle Time • Proposed Process • 25 Tubes 74 min • 15 Tubes 45 min • Key Observations • Excessive Idle Time at Wash is Controlled • No Significant Changes to Ideal Processing Times

  49. Labor Savings • Key Assumptions • Labor Expense (Hourly)= $15 • Source of Labor Savings • Labor Reduction at Wash Operation (1 Operator) • Idle Time Avoidance at Wash Operation (3 Operators) • Projected Labor Savings • Labor Reduction per Wash = 13 min = $3.35 • Idle Time per Wash = 6 min * 3 = 18 min = $4.50 • Total per Wash = $7.85 • Total per Day = $7.85 * 5 = $39.25 • Payback Period = 334 Workdays = 16 Months • Salvage Value Not Considered, Likely Substantial

  50. Labor Savings Robustness • Calculated Savings are Intentionally Conservative • Using 6 Washes per Day or Idle Time Avoidance of 10 min Significantly Improves Expected Payback Period

More Related