ME 492
CAPSTONE DESIGN PROJECT
GROUP MEMBERS
Ben Samms
Travis Ellis
Mark Goss
Abdulkareem Al-Yami
Introduction
 Background
• Bulking Process
The paint consolidated into 55 gal. drums (bulking) entails the following process:
– The paint cans collected are sorted in metal wire cages (dimensions vary).
– Cages are positioned into the bulking room for processing.
– Staff No. 1 removes the cans; opens the cans (1 gallon cans with an opener, 5 gallon cans
by prying) and passes the cans on to Staff No. 2.
– Staff No. 2 pours off liquid into the two provided drums and passes it on to Staff No. 3.
– Staff No. 3 loads the cans into a hydraulic crusher and crushes the cans and separates
solid material from the cans. Once crushed the cans are removed and disposed off.
Introduction
 Problems
•
•
•
& Issues
Ergonomic Issues: Several staff members have experienced repetitive motion injury and stain
induced injury due to this process.
The current process leaves the staff vulnerable to potential injuries due to heavy loads being
lifted, pushed, and without proper ergonomic considerations.
Close proximity of the staff members, congestion of the process, and the volatility of the
chemicals require that the process allow for the expedient evacuation of all personnel in the
event of an incident.
Design Brief
Our objective is to re-design the benchmark process to minimize the potential for injury and also
increase the flow of the process minimize staff risk for exposure to hazardous chemicals and
potential fire. We intend to look at the present layout and design with the main focus on ergonomic
issues, load handling, and limited space utilization. In our design we must account for the exposure
of any equipment to hazardous chemicals, explosive environment, as well as varying load sizes of
cans and containers (worst environment possible).
The project gives room for the use of hydraulic and pneumatic equipment, however, it is
recommended that we try to avoid incorporating electricity in the operation of our design due to the
volatility of the chemicals.
Since the scope of the bulking room problems is too large to fulfill in only two quarters, our team will
focus its attention on the transportation of the containers from the cages to placing them in the
hydraulic crusher.
Bulking Process
5 Gallon Bucket Cage
Handling 5 Gallon Containers
Carrying 5 Gallon Containers
Lid Removal of 5 Gallon
Containers
Opening 1 Gallon Containers
Pouring the Liquid Off
Loading Crusher
Bulking Room Entrance
Product Design Specifications
(PDS)
Performance:
Capable
of lifting full five-gallon containers (up to 200 lb.) from ground level.
Requires free 2-dimensional movement (x-y axis) as well as z-displacement (lift) with minimum zdisplacement of crusher door height from ground.
Product should be compact and easily storable for convenience and optimal space saving.
Product is required to roll across floor grating (if not permanently mounted).
Product should clear all floor gradients in facility (if not permanently mounted).
Final product should be usable in current operating environment as well as future expanded operation as
applicable.
Minimal design should lift and move cans while optimum design would allow pouring off of liquids
between lifting and loading. Also desirable but not required is the ability to incorporate use with 1 gallon
containers into design.
Product should be operable by one person.
Load area is 36.5 in. x 19 in. (crusher door) .
Lift speed should be comparable to human processing speed.
Though not required, it is desirable to incorporate a mechanism to open or puncture the container to
allow pouring of the 5 gal. Containers
Benchmark
Air manipulator (Unidex):
Requires spark resistant
modification for controls
Roll Handler (Alum-a-Lift Inc.):
requires compatible storage
cage/modified wheels to roll on
grating/inclines
Analysis of Customer Survey
Since this product is primarily a special one-time application, the customer we concerned ourselves
with was the Metro operation. The future may yield more customers in similar facilities but at
present, these operators are the only resource for this specialized need.
1)
On Friday, January 14th, the contact engineer (Dawit Solomon) and site supervisor (Kim Liebich) met
with the design team to narrow the scope of the project. The team was presented with the problem
statement divided into appropriate sized sub-problems for the team to focus on. The areas were as
follows:
– I) Move 5 gal. bucket from loaded cages, pass to (II)
– II) Receive 5 gal. bucket, remove lid, pour-off liquid contents, load into crusher
– III) crushing action (w/ associated problems), and material removal (difficult)
As per meeting on 1/14/00, the group (along with Metro contacts) decided to address issues I and II
in order to achieve the greatest immediate benefit to Metro employees.
It was agreed that lid removal is a secondary problem and was not required.
Analysis of Customer Survey
(Cont.)
2)
An open ended survey among current employees yielded the following key elements in the design of
the new bulking process:
– Lifting/moving of five gallon containers is too difficult*
– turning motion in pouring/hand-off is causing injury*
– crush plate on crusher has periodic alignment issues
– grating on crusher becomes too packed with viscous materials (hinders operation)
– pulling material stuck in grating is difficult
– cages provide awkward lifting angles and distances*
– removing lids from 5 gal. containers is difficult/time consuming*
* This corresponds to the desires of the customer’s main concerns when operators were asked to
prioritize the problems. The decision made in part 1 is based on this survey.
QFD
1
1
1
1
9
10
13
11
9
12
1
3
13
4
11
12
5
4
2
1
12
13
6
9
8
2
6
3
5
4
1
2
9
6
7
8
5
10
8
9
7
11
7
10 3
3
9
9
3
9
3
9
3
9
3
9
3
3
3
3
9
3
1
3
1
3
3
1
3
9
3
3
3
3
3
Warner Air lift AO60
Aluma-Lift
Current system
3
Number of controls
Lid puncturing ability
Explosion proof option
Maximum lift height(in)
Total vertical range of motion (in)
Maximum extended length (Ft)
Rotation range of end effector (degrees)
Rotation Range of Arm(Degrees)
Range of can diameters that can be gripped. (in)
Lift speed (in/s)
Lift Capacity (lbs.)
Gripper closing force (lbs)
Engineering
Management
Waste Handler
Functional performance
Durable
Explosion Proof
Fit Present Facility
Pour Liquids Off Of Solids
Promotes Recycling
Handle 5-Gallon Cans
Human Factors
Safe To Use
Easy To Clean
Large Control surfaces
Limited Operator Lifting
Simple Control Structure
Reduced operator Movements
1
The required number of people to process a can.
3
3
1
5
5
5
5
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
4
5
4
5
5
5
1
5
1
5
1
3
2
4
5
3
3
4
4
4
5
4
4
5
3
4
Interface With Crusher
Works With Crusher
Current Method
Aluma-Lift
Warner Ail lift AO60
Target
3
n/a
n/a
n/a
?
45
250
200
200
3
18 high
2
6 9--24 0
90 2
6 9--24 180 180 5
6 6--13 180 270 9
9
48
60
60
60
48
Y 0
72 yes no 2
72 yes no 2
60 yes yes 3
3
2
2
1
Project Plan

Team Members And Expertise
Ben Samms
-Ten Years Working with SEH-America
Mechanical Engineer at
Technician.
Mark Goss
-Four Years with Edward Consulting
Consulting Engineers
Travis Ellis
- Interned at Stanley Hydraulics
Where he held the position of Engineering Credence System Inc .
Abdulkareem Al-Yami
-Summer Intern for OSM
-Lab Testing Technician PSU
Project Time Line
Identification of Tasks
Tasks:

Come up with a design product that satisfies the ergonomic needs of the operators with regards
to lifting as well as space constraints.

Robustness should be a key feature in our design due to the environment of operation.

In designing the lifting apparatus, we must account for the fact that the cans/containers are to
be unloaded from steel cages that may or may not need to be modified to fit our specific needs.

Our design must also comply with safety codes and not obstruct emergency evacuation paths
at any time.

All elements of the project should be null spark due to the volatility of the environment.

The lifting device must incorporate the position of the hydraulic crusher as well as its
dimensions and loading features.

We should keep in mind the possibility of incorporating the function of emptying a can during
the lifting operation before it is placed in the hydraulic crusher.

The staff members must be able to operate our piece of equipment while wearing protective
gear that does not allow them a high level of dexterity.
Economic Analysis

Currently the Metro facility has placed no spending limit on this project. This is in part due to the substantial safety
concerns that are associated with it. Current intention is for Metro to review the suggestions and recommendations
that our group provides and to determine the feasibility of those suggestions, if the suggestions are good and sound,
Metro intends to manufacture and/or install the proposed equipment.

Metro has provided the following information based on OSHA reports and information from the current management
staff.

Statistics from OSHA 200 report for both hazardous waste facilities:


Location Emp. class
1998
Metro South
Metro South
Metro Central
1999
Metro South
Metro Central


R = regular
T = temp






# of Incidents Days Lost
Days restricted
R
T
R
4
1
1
0
0
17
18
0
7
R
R
5
2
0
0
0
0
Economic Analysis
(Cont.)

Extrapolated figures from the above two years suggest the following.

Total as a result of lost days: $ 2,942.31
Temp replacement:
$52,415.57
Average per year
$27,678.94



Also, note that in these cases Metro is continuing to pay the regular employee their
wages for performing duties other than they were hired for. These figures also do not
include the medical costs that are incurred. Therefore, the average per year can be
substantially higher, depending on the number, types, and severity of incidents.