Research

1
Research Development Review

• ETM5131-Capstone Project
• NPI Concept Application RD
• Larry Cochran Summer 2004

2
ETM-5131 Capstone Report

• This is the final report on research, testing
  and development of a new travel-limiter device
  for the 2004 X-Brand light duty truck concept-unit

3
Introduction - Initial Details

• 2004 X-Brand truck front McPherson Strut
• OEM expects to produce 800,000 vehicles in
  FY2004
• Replacement curve depicts growth to 40,000 units
  annually within 6-years
• Due to vehicle model, long life-cycle is expected
• First year this design has been used on any
  Domestic light-duty truck

4
A Look at Potential Sales
10-year sales 15.4-M Total Revenue 5.6-M Net
Profit 420-K units
A graphic look at potential sales, based on known
volumes and initial cost / price projections
5
Problem Statement

• This project was initiated due to a top-customer
  requesting a specialty design for a high-volume
  vehicle replacement damper
• Insufficient quantity in itself to warrant
  development
• New development will provide working solution to
  broader coverage for all customers
• Current travel-limiter is insufficiently strong
  enough for this application, regardless of
  customer
• OEM manufacturer is projecting use of the new
  design across all truck platforms for the
  foreseeable future

6
Measures of the Problem

• Our current welded travel-limiter design is
  constructed to withstand a 4400-9500-lb. axial
  load
• We have not designed McPherson struts for light
  truck applications before
• Initial Calculations showed that the X-Brand
  truck would potentially exert up to 10,000-lbs
  axial force onto the limiter. Later reviews
  found the value to require 15,000-lbs axial load
  capacity
• As the travel-limiters (rod-stop) survival is
  considered a critical characteristic, the
  rod-stop must be designed in such a way as to
  survive 15,000-lbs minimum force

7
Project Objectives

• To deliver a viable alternative, the following
  conditions must be met within the new design
• It must prove to be of durable design in the
  field
• It must be simple in overall design
• It must work integral to all other designs and
  systems, so that incorporation to all other
  related components causes minimal manufacturing
  difficulties
• Ideally, it should be non-directionally oriented,
  to reduce the risk of improper manufacturing
  assembly
• It must be a cost-effective solution
• Easily sourced at competitive costs
• It must not significantly increase the overall
  cost of the unit
• Easily moved to alternative suppliers if needed
  (non-proprietary to supplier)
• It must meet customer quality and safety
  expectations for this heavy-duty application

8
Specific Deliverables

• The new rod-stop must not fail to axial loads
  below 15,000-lbs.
• It will be composed of as few components and
  processes as possible
• It must not significantly increase the overall
  unit complexity
• It must not compromise the structural integrity
  of the overall piston-rod assembly
• In selection, it must take into account
  supply-logistics for necessary components
• Stocking and re-order points for components must
  be established during startup
• It must source from existing, approved suppliers
• Teamwork with suppliers must be established, so
  that the final component can be made within
  specification, taking into account their
  process-capabilities
• Design-for-Manufacture must be observed to the
  limits possible
• Must maintain all related DFMEAs, PFMEAs,
  ECRs/ECOs, Benchmarking data, and Project
  Engineering Reports
• Coordination of PPAP for all initial components
  through quality process

9
Considered Alternatives

• Several designs to be considered
• Must pass critical requirements 100
• Only designs which can do so will be considered
  further
• Those which pass all empirical tests will be
  compared based on their durability, cost,
  simplicity, and ease-of-manufacture
• The final selected design will be prototyped into
  assembly for full unit testing, and upon
  approval, manufacture

10
Alternative 1

• Press-Fit crenellate-filled design
• Single-piece design
• Requires special tooling
• Currently used by OEM tier-1 suppliers
• Requires rod modification (groove)
• Eliminates differed-differentiation
• Increases costs
• Is this patented? (patent research)
• Is feasible for application
• FINAL RESULT REJECTED

11
Alternative 2

• Free-Floating Rod-Stop with Snap-Ring Retainer
• 2-piece design
• Requires grooved rod
• Eliminates differed-differentiation
• Increases Costs
• Generic machine design
• No patent issues
• Is feasible design
• FINAL RESULT
• FAILED IN PROTOTYPE

12
Alternative 3

• Split-Diameter (ground-shoulder) piston-rod
• No-pieces required
• Rod uses compound diameters
• Significant rod cost increase
• No known existing applications
• Highest Strength, Fail-safe
• Feasibility depends on rod-grinding process
  availability
• FINAL RESULT REJECTED

13
Accepted Alternative

• Counter-Lock Design with Eaton Ring
• Simple Mechanical Design
• Two Pieces Ease-of-Manufacture
• Four Processes
• Groove Rod
• Press on Eaton Ring
• Drop on Rod-Stop
• Stake Rod-Stop skirt behind ring
• Strength in excess of 15,000-lbs axial
• Cost 0.38 each over initial target

14
Alternative Evaluation Criteria

• Accepted Alternative required to pass all
  empirical testing
• Withstand axial load minimum of 15,000-lbs.
• Must not compromise rod bend resistance of .315
  deflection at 10,000-12,500-lb load, applied to
  rod resting on 8.00 center-rests with 2 radii
• Must be cost-competitive
• Must be able to source from existing approved
  suppliers
• Must be able to manufacture with minimal tooling
  costs
• Must be durable in application
• Must pass standard approval process
• Peer-Engineer review
• Director of Engineering approval
• Plant Manager approval
• Quality approval
• Customer approval
• Must be able to integrate with existing
  components to the maximum extent possible

15
Project Start Process

• Collect Initial Data
• Benchmark known processes and components
• Make inquiries into available processes and
  knowledge-bases internally
• Contact suppliers regarding their process
  capabilities
• Create all relevant prints
• Hold first meeting to detail pending design
• Review meeting feedback
• Provide tentative timeline for departmental
  actions

16
Start Process (continued)

• Evaluate Alternatives
• Develop initial prototypes for testing
• Begin component testing for strength, durability
  and manufacturability
• Document all testing
• Maintain testing samples
• Submit prototype prints for purchasing to
  retrieve component quotes on
• Calculate per-unit costs as assembled
• Compile CIP for tooling and NPI, if required
• ROI
• IRR
• DTR
• Tooling Amortization, if required
• Start-Up expense (suppliers, production, etc.)
• Complete and publish lead-time analysis

17
Start Process (continued-2)

• Develop and Present Recommendation
• Call 2nd management meeting to formally present
  design
• Take feedback
• Present alternatives (if applicable and required)
• Initiate action plan

18
Project Planning

• The overall scope of this project is to develop
  and implement a new travel limiter with
  heavy-duty capacity significantly in excess of
  our current component
• The initial project team is composed of
• Primary Design Engineer (and Project Champion)
• Tooling-Process Engineer
• Sales Representative (customer advocate)
• Director of Engineering
• Plant Manager
• Planning for all forthcoming actions will be
  presented through this core group

19
Project Execution

• Confirmation of all feasibility considerations
  must first be conducted
• Prototypes of all alternatives to be created and
  empirically tested
• Tests and all documentation to be reviewed, with
  consideration to
• Manufacturability
• Costs
• Strength, durability, safety, customer
  satisfaction
• Component Logistic considerations
• Time-to-Market timeline considerations
• Selection of alternative to take to market
• Delegation of new assembly to standard
  manufacturing protocol

20
Project Closure

• With attention to the project timeline that
  follows
• The first prototype offered to the customer
  failed due to insufficient empirical testing
• The second (Alternative 4, shown previously)
  prototype did pass all field tests and survive as
  per the design
• Other problem-issues associated with the overall
  project led to the customer leaving Arvinmeritor
  for this product line, and seeking the
  application from a competitor.
• Competitors are still fighting the durability
  issues associated with the rod-stop
• We could not solve (in-time) the lower mount
  strength issues which the competitors did.

21
Projected Timeline (part 1 of 3)
22
Project Timeline (part 2 of 3)
23
Project Timeline (part 3 of 3)
24
Course Credits

• I would like to give credit to a few classes I am
  currently taking at OSU, which have helped in the
  successful execution of this project. They have
  proven to be a valuable information source to
  help improve the quality of not only this project
  presentation, but the actual project itself
• Benchmarking
• This course brought to light several things which
  I had not paid sufficient attention to before,
  especially the precept of clearly defining your
  specific benchmark goal before attempting to
  acquire data on the objective.
• Supply Chain Analysis
• An excellent course with a strong technical text,
  Designing and Managing the Supply Chain,
  especially chapter 4, which covers the trade offs
  between lot size, inventory lead times versus
  costs. A significant consideration when many of
  our suppliers are foreign, with long logistical
  lines. A bad design which requires revisions may
  catch thousands of components in-transit,
  purchased but never useable.
• Intro to Strategy, Technology Integration
• The knowledge gained through the course texts and
  presentations has provided a better understanding
  of what drives new technology and invention in
  corporate business, as well as what corporations
  are looking for in new concepts.

25
References

• Burgelman, Robert A. Sayles, Leonard R. Inside
  Corporate Innovation. New York, NY. The Free
  Press. 1988.
• Bossidy, Larry Charan, Ram. Execution The
  Discipline of Getting Things Done. New York, NY.
  Crown Business. 2002.
• Camp, Robert C. Business Process Benchmarking
  Finding and Implementing Best Practices.
  Milwaukee, WI. ASQ Quality Press. 1995.
• Simchi-Levi, David Kaminsky, Philip
  Smichi-Levi, Edith. Designing Managing the
  Supply Chain Concepts, Strategies Case
  Studies. New York, NY. McGraw-Hill. 2003.