1 / 8

Missing Spray Holes in HPI HD Injector Nozzles

Missing Spray Holes in HPI HD Injector Nozzles. Sponsored by: Cummins, Inc. ME 462 Capstone Design – Spring 2008 Design Team: David Graves, Aaron Huesman, Kelly McCormick, Brandon Underwood Advisor: Dr. H. A. El-Mounayri. Reason for Design. HPI HD Injector Nozzles

merritt-davidson
Download Presentation

Missing Spray Holes in HPI HD Injector Nozzles

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. Missing Spray Holes in HPI HD Injector Nozzles Sponsored by:Cummins, Inc. ME 462 Capstone Design – Spring 2008 Design Team: David Graves, Aaron Huesman, Kelly McCormick, Brandon Underwood Advisor:Dr. H. A. El-Mounayri

  2. Reason for Design • HPI HD Injector Nozzles • Partial or Missing Spray Holes Purdue School of Engineering and Technology

  3. Main Requirements and Targets • Implement non-contact method of checking nozzles for correct number of thru holes. • Keep up with current production rates (3900 nozzles per day maximum.) • Identify nozzle part number (ID matrix read) • Pass/Reject nozzle before next manufacturing operation. • Keep current manufacturing process cleanliness (4 micron tolerance). Purdue School of Engineering and Technology

  4. Product Presentation Insert Nozzle Here Matrix Reader Gets Part Number Part Number Sent to AutoID Controller Part is either “OK” or “NG” “NG” Parts are Rejected AutoID Controller Sends Program # to Vision System Purdue School of Engineering and Technology

  5. Product Evaluation(Engineering Targets) • Residue size under 1 µm: None Expected • Footprint under 1 foot2: Within Range • # of Operators Needed 1 or less: 1 • # of Operator Miscues <=1 / 100: None with minimal training. • Less than 2 hours of maintenance per month: Met • Steps required to use <=2: Within Range • Time added to process <=10 sec.: Under Purdue School of Engineering and Technology

  6. Product Evaluation(Engineering Targets) • Minimize cost added: $0.012 per nozzle over the first year. • Number of injuries per year, zero: None expected. • % of nozzles damaged during process, zero: None expected. • % of incorrect identification or pass/fail, zero: None Expected. • % of models capable of being tested, 100: Inconclusive but positive indications. Purdue School of Engineering and Technology

  7. Conclusions and Recommendations • Conclusions • Test unit meets all customer requirements set forth in the design phase • Test unit meets or exceeds all engineering targets. • Recommendations • Automate by incorporating into assembly line • Develop case to house electrical control components • Reinforce test unit housing with stiffening agents Purdue School of Engineering and Technology

  8. Questions/Comments Purdue School of Engineering and Technology

More Related