Flip Label

1. Flip Label Detailed Design Review Project #10715 2/12/10 Rev 01

2. Project Team • Helen Jervey (ISE), Project Lead • Charles Nicolosi (ME), Chief Engineer • Ian Baker (ME) • Ben Bouffard (EE) • Brandon Sbordone (ME) • George Kilger (EE) • Advised by John Kaemmerlen (ISE) Rev 01

3. Goals of this Presentation • Detail progress made by RIT team • Present final design changes • Receive feedback from faculty and Wegmans staff • Discuss next steps Rev 01

4. System Design Customer Needs Engineering Metrics Projected System Cost Rev 01

5. Customer Needs Hierarchy • Need 1: Product & Process are Safe • Need 1.1: Product integrity is maintained • Need 1.2: Equipment satisfies USDA Regulations as well as the AMI Checklist • Need 1.3: OSHA Safety requirements are met • Need 1.3A: Remove ergonomic issues and concerns • Need 2: Reallocate Direct Labor • Need 2.1: Reallocate direct flipping labor • Need 2.2: Reallocate direct alignment labor • Need 2.3: Reallocate direct labeling labor • Need 2.4: Camera labeling system is low priority • Need 3: Improve Processing Time • Need 3.1: Maintain or decrease takt time • Need 3.2: All packages get scanned by the x-ray at desired belt speed • Need 3.3: Control flow to scaling operation. (Control flow-rate variance) • Need 3.3A: Packages must flow in a format that works with the X-ray • Need 4: Control orientation and flow-mechanics • Need 4.1: Packages are in the proper orientation • Need 4.1A: Label is in proper orientation position relative to the package • Need 4.1B: All packages are centered in the x-ray beam • Need 4.1Ba: Packages are conveyed in single-file • Need 4.2: Keep allocation of floor space constant Rev 01

6. Sorted Customer Needs Importance Scale: 5 = Most Important, 1 = Preference Only Rev 01

7. Sorted Customer Needs Importance Scale: 5 = Most Important, 1 = Preference Only Rev 01

8. Engineering Metrics Rev 01

9. Projected System Cost Rev 01

10. Design Updates Problem Definition Changes Justification Compromises Revised Footprint Rev 01

11. Problem Definition • Flow Rate • With current layout the flip must occur in 2/3 second • Footprint • With current proposal system footprint would force the X-ray back 18in • Need to include an secondary transport belt 6 sec 2/3 sec Rev 01

12. System Changes Previous: Now: Rev 01

13. Justification • Flow Rate • With new layout the flip must occur in 4 seconds • Trailing edge/leading edge • Footprint • Removes secondary flip belt • Allows for a more compact flip angle • Removes wall clearance issues • Flipper Feed • Take advantage of the MultiVac step output Rev 01

14. Compromises • X-Ray machine location • Move the X-ray back maximum 6in • Drop the X-ray to lowest height setting • Flip will be located on MultiVac side of the wall Rev 01

15. Footprint Layout Rev 01

16. System Isometric View Rev 01

17. Flipping Problem DefinitionOptions Proposal Risks Flipper Assembly Controls Bill of Materials Rev 01

18. Problem Definition • Currently, packages from the MultiVac are flipped by hand – this requires excessive labor and presents an ergonomic issue. The flipper must complete the task of flipping packages that come off of the MultiVac in a safe manner to the operators and the product. • Customer needs addressed: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 3.1, 4.2 Rev 01

19. Options • High speed flipper after the alignment • Keeps old process path • Flips the product so quickly that it will be unsafe • Lower speed, higher load and capacity flipper before the alignment process • Flipper will be heavier, but move slower • Slower motion will be much safer and easier to control • Lower risk of damaging the packaging Rev 01

20. Proposal • Flipping mechanism similar to what was shown last week. • As product is sent off the MultiVac conveyer 2 pieces at a time, they slide onto the flipper tray. The tray then actuates via two pneumatic cylinders. • The product rotates about a point slightly below the mass center of the packages well past vertical onto the lower dual conveyer belts. • Once the packages clear the flipper, it returns to the original position to accept the next 2 packages. • Product entering the tray, flipping, exiting and return occurs within a 4 second timeframe. Rev 01

21. Risks • Risk 1: The flipper cannot handle the load • Solution: The flipping tray and hinge mechanisms are robust enough to handle higher loads. Dual ¾” air cylinders are utilized to provide a uniform load. • Risk 2: The flipper moves packages in such a manner that the motion is uncontrolled • Solution: Control the actuation rate such that is slow enough that a minimal force is applied to the package. The product rotates about or near to its center of gravity, so that a minimal rotational force is applied. • Risk 3: The package does not exit the flipper • Solution: The exit side of the flipper is less than ½ the length of the shortest package, providing enough surface area for all of the packages to be pulled off by the exit belt. • Risk 4: The packages slide off the flipper or become misaligned • Solution: Guards are placed on either side of the flipper to maintain their alignment throughout the flipping process. • Risk 5: The flipper becomes jammed or disabled • Solution: An emergency stop will evacuate all air from the system, allowing the flipper to be moved freely by hand. • Risk 6: Air pressure is lost or the product does not need to be flipped • Solution: A bypass slide can be placed over the flipping mechanism when it is in the retracted position that will allow the product to slide from the upper to lower conveyer without assistance. Rev 01

22. Flipper Assembly Rev 01

23. Flipper Drawing Rev 01

24. Welded Flipper Assembly Rev 01

25. Displacement Under Loading Rev 01

26. Flipper Controls Block Diagram Laser beam broken Positive solenoid activates for short time Laser beam reconnects Negative solenoid activates for short time Rev 01

27. Current Control Specifications • Standalone system that controls flipper • Inputs: Supply voltage, emergency stop, sensor output • Outputs: Two control voltages to external relays • External relays each cost about $40 • 2 separate voltage rails must be provided, both capable of delivering high current • At least 2 amps estimated, more than most IC’s can output Rev 01

28. Possible Control Implementations • MSP430 • Advantages: Fully programmable with materials at RIT, comes with board • Disadvantages: $60, requires external relays • 555 Timer • Advantages: $5, easy to construct • Disadvantages: May degrade over time, requires a prototyping board, no software components, requires external relays Rev 01

29. Possible Control Implementations • CS82C54Z96 • Advantages: Fully programmable, $7, stand alone • Disadvantages: Requires external relays, programming device not yet located at RIT • Z2681 • Advantages: Fully programmable via USB, will not need external relays • Disadvantages: $105, relatively large device Rev 01

30. Rev 01

31. Rev 01

32. Aligning Rev 01

33. Aligning - Proposed Solution Rev 01

34. Variable Speed Twin-Belt Conveyor System • Outside vendor to supply conveyor system • Possible Vendors: • Kleenline Corporation • Lipe Automation • Lead Time: Unknown • Capabilities: Full/Half-width product • Cost: Unknown Rev 01

35. Pusher System • Electric linear actuators are triggered by object detection beam. • Sliding pusher-plate contacts product and gently pushes to center of conveyor. • Logic controller allows for use on all product lines. • Products end up in single file line, to safely continue through x-ray detection. • Very compact system Rev 01

36. System Integration and Occupancy • Pusher System has marginal impact on space constraints • Variable speed twin belt conveyor system Rev 01

37. Preliminary BOM for Pusher System Rev 01

38. Pusher Side Profile Rev 01

39. Human Resource Requirements Rev 01

40. Risks • Risk 1: TheAligner cannot handle the load • Solution: The current actuators operate with a factor of safety of 10. • Risk 2: TheAligner moves packages in such a manner that the motion is uncontrolled • Solution: Control the actuation rate such that is fast/slow enough that a minimal force is applied to the package, but product is aligned at a sufficient rate to have desired flow rate. • Risk 3: Product aligning improperly • Solution: Actuator control devices will minimize the risk of over or under pushing product. • Risk 4: Jamming of product • Solution: An emergency stop will evacuate air from the system, allowing thealignerto beretracted byhand. • Risk 5: Air pressure is lost and aligning process is delayed • Solution: The emergency relief system will allow aligner to return to its retracted position and the product can be aligned with manual assistance. • Risk 6: Pinch points regarding moving parts • Solution: Protective covers in place over all moving components. The emergency relief system will allow aligner to be stopped immediately should a pinch occur. • Risk 7: Aligner system is not serviceable • Solution: Standard parts and components have been specified from preferred suppliers and the assembly has been designed an a manner that allow maintenance easy access to system. Rev 01

41. Labeling Problem Definition Options Fully Automated System Partially Automated System Cal-Pak Rev 01

42. Problem Definition • Current method of hand labeling can be time consuming and has the potential to cause ergonomic problems • Development of a fully or partially automated labeling system would eliminate or alleviate these issues Rev 01

43. Options • Fully automated labeling system • Uses optical system to determine position of package • Applies label to package • Partially automated label assist system • Removes label from backing paper roll Rev 01

44. Fully Automated System Rev 01 • Cost: TBD • Meeting with Cal-Pak set up for Thursday 2/18 • Benefits • Current labor required to hand label product can be reallocated • Need 2.3 • Increased speed • Need 3.1 • Ergonomic issues of process removed • Need 1.3A

45. Fully Automated System Rev 01 • Risks • Loss of air pressure could effect system • System would need to be made to handle area cleaning procedures • Possible safety concerns need to be addressed

46. Partially Automated System Rev 01 • Cost: ~$660 • Benefits • Improves speed of labeling • Need 3.1 • Ergonomic improvement • Need 1.3A • Fast implementation • Controls backing of removed labels

47. Partially Automated System Rev 01 • Shortfalls • Does not allow for complete reallocation of required labor • Need 2.3 • Risks • Enclosure would need to be made to handle area cleaning procedures

48. Who is Cal-Pak? • Founded 1993, based in North Andover, Massachusetts • Designers of packaging equipment including automatic labelers • Current contacts • Tom Coburn, representative in MA • Ted Trump, local representative • Meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 18 Rev 01

49. Test Plan • CAD automation • Individual component test builds • Prototype construction • Lifecycle testing • Strength test • Functionality test • Statistical analysis • Component integration • Flow rate • Functionality testing • Statistical analysis • More detailed document week 11 Rev 01

50. Next Steps • Order parts • Preliminary testing • Build prototype • Final prototype testing • Product implementation Rev 01