Process Improvement for Drill Bit Blanks For MN Twist Drill

1. Process Improvement for Drill Bit BlanksFor MN Twist Drill University of Minnesota Duluth Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering The Three Orienteers Scott Anderson – Project Leader Andy Johnson – Mechanical Engineer Tony Niemczyk – Industrial Engineer Report Number UMDMIE-CD-2006WPDK12

2. Problem Statement • Blanks are coming off of machine without orientation • Manually sorted to bins • Blanks manually moved approximately 10 feet to coning machine • Manually loaded into coning machine

3. Problem Statement

4. Scope of Project • Orientate drill bit blanks from cut-off machine • Directly feed blanks into coning machine • Increase throughput • Reduce work in progress

5. Functional Requirements • Require little maintenance, less then $2,000/year • Reduces manual handling labor • Simple in design • Utilizes gravity as much as possible • Maintains or improves throughput • Adaptable to varying lengths and diameters • Efficient • Implemented with little risk due to offline testing

6. Constraints & Limitations • The speed of the cutting and coning machines which for the cuttingmachine is 200 parts per minute • Budget is a 2 year payback on a $20,000 a year salary based on the reallocation of labor • Material type being cut which includes cobalt and various types of steel. • Drill bit diameter and length varying from 1/4” to 1/2” and 2 ½” to 6” respectively

7. Constraints & Limitations • Set up time as it relates to throughput for the entire system • Control Systems which include a PLC and relays • Space available • Factors that involve the safety of the workers and the plant. • Type of power supplied (AC/DC, Mechanical, etc) • Weight of the drill bits

8. Project Organization • Scott Anderson – Project Leader • Andy Johnson – Mechanical Engineer • Tony Niemczyk – Industrial Engineer • Work in parallel whenever possible • Crucial decisions made as group • Frequent group meetings

9. Design Concepts & AlternativesAlternative 1: Vibratory Feeder • Ability to orientate blanks • Remove blanks that do not meet specifications • Can Handle up to 200 parts per minute • Automatic feed of blanks into coning machine

10. Design Concepts & AlternativesAlternative 1: Vibratory Feeder Design of Alternative 1

11. Design Concepts & AlternativesAlternative 2: Vibratory Table • Slight vibration from a vibratory motor would break binding • Vibration agitates the drill bits so that gravity brings them into alignment • Would not allow relocation of labor

12. Design Concepts & AlternativesAlternative 2: Vibratory Table Design of Alternative 2

13. Design Concepts & AlternativesAlternative 3: Vibratory Table + Rail System • A vibratory table aligns and feeds blanks into a movable transport hopper • Transport hopper feeds directly into the coning machine • Eliminates the handling of blanks • Many possibilities for automation

14. Design Concepts & AlternativesAlternative 3: Vibratory Table + Rail System Design of Alternative 3

15. Design Concepts & AlternativesAlternative 4: Conveyor Methods • Conveyor takes blanks directly off cut-off machine or from vibratory hopper • Allows for automatic rejection of parts • Provides blanks sequential order of alignment • Requires little operator interface

16. Design Concepts & AlternativesAlternative 4: Conveyor Methods Design of Alternative 4

17. Design Concepts & AlternativesAlternative 5: Chute & Hopper • Blanks orientate on vibratory hopper and slide down channels to coning hopper • Coning hopper uses rake mechanism • Logic senses when blanks are in hopper waiting to be fed into coning machine

18. Design Concepts & AlternativesAlternative 5: Roofing & Hopper Design of Alternative 5

19. Preliminary Design Recommendations • Preliminary recommendation was the hopper and rail system • Met all functional requirements and was simple in concept and design • Reduced labor intensity but did not enable relocation of personnel • Blanks still needed to be loaded into hoppers and hoppers removed when emptied

20. Design Evaluation • Previous concepts were broken down into features • Features were given a quantitative value and weight • Feature values and weights of each alternative were summarized and options were compared • Hopper and chute was determined to be the best option

21. Evaluation Scores

22. Economics • Installed Cost: $10,297.55 • Annual Benefits of: • System by itself: $37,070.00 • System with reduced setup time: $747,070.00 • Annual Maintenance (10% of installed cost): $1,029.76 • Payback Period of: • System by itself: 108 working days • System with reduced setup time: 5 working days

23. Mechanisms • Vibratory Hopper • The first step in aligning the blanks from the existing conveyor • Half cylinder shaped hopper attached to a base plate that has a vibratory motor attached • The shape of the hopper and the vibrations from the motor will force the blanks to align • The hopper will align the bits • Hopper serves as a place for the blanks to build up if the coning machine stops

24. Mechanisms:Vibratory Hopper

25. Mechanisms • Chute • Provides channels for the blanks to slide down • Provide further alignment of the blanks • The optimized angle of the chute was experimentally determined to be 30°

26. Mechanisms:Chute

27. Mechanisms • Coning Hopper • Aligns blanks for feeding to the coning machine • When blanks enter the hopper they need to be aligned by pneumatic actuator and “rake.” • Allows for full range of blanks without any insert in the hopper • Gates on bottom regulated by the PLC slide open and shut

28. Mechanisms:Coning Hopper

29. Procedures • Setup procedures for when: • Both coner and cut-off are off • Cut-off machine is running • Both coner and cut-off are running • Cut-off machine has completed coil • Both machines have completed coil

30. Procedures • Programmable Logic Controller Procedure • Sensors in the system check the system for out of control circumstances • Ensure that the hoppers never overflow with material • Determine the operation of the slider plates

31. PLC Flowchart

32. Testing Procedure • Build the physical components one at a time starting with the coning hopper • Test the coning hopper • Build the chute and the vibratory hopper • Send blanks through the system

33. Testing Procedure • Attach the system to the coning machine itself • Test the feeding of the blanks into the coning machine • Connect the PLC and the sensors to the system • Check that the correct timings occur • Check that Out of boundary conditions do not occur

34. Implementation Procedure • Build all support structures for the system • Make modifications to the coning machine • Remove all connections to the coning machine • Move coning machine to its new location

35. Implementation Procedure • Reestablish all connections to the coning machine • New system should be attached and powered up for use • All elements should be tested for proper running conditions and for proper safety precautions

36. Setup Improvements • A standard process for setup would be very beneficial to process flow • Identify external operations • Identify internal operations

37. Acknowledgments • We would like to thank Matt Mattson for contacting the University of Minnesota Duluth with a senior design project and for accommodating all of the needs of the group in a respectful and timely manner • We would like to thank Scott Allison for giving Matt Mattson the capabilities to go to the University and finance the project • Finally we would like to thank our professor’s Dave Keranen and Bill Pedersen for all of their help and advice in the development of the project and for guiding us to not only get the project to completion, but also in a manner to help us learn new skills on our own

38. MN Twist Drill Questions Comments