Feasibility Study: Automated Painting of

Pipe Pieces, Hangers, and Other Small Parts:

Maximizing Shop Painting Operations
Task 3.84.4

August, 1989

By
National Steel & Shipbuilding Company
Harbor Drive & 28th Street
San Diego, California 92138
 Form Approved
Report Documentation Page OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it
does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

1. REPORT DATE 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED

APR 1989 N/A -
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Feasibility Study: Automated Painting of Pipe Pieces, Hangers, and Other 5b. GRANT NUMBER
Small Parts: Maximizing Shop Painting Operations Task 3.84.4
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER
Naval Surface Warfare Center CD Code 2230 - Design Integration Tools
Building 192 Room 128 9500 MacArthur Blvd Bethesda, MD 20817-5700
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT

NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release, distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF
ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE
SAR 44
unclassified unclassified unclassified

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
 DISCLAIMER

These reports were prepared as an account of government-sponsored work. Neither the

United States, nor the Maritime Administration, nor any person acting on behalf of
the Maritime Administration (A) makes any warranty or representation, expressed or
implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of the information
contained in this report/manual, or that the use of any information, apparatus, meth-
od, or process disclosed in this report may not infringe privately owned rights; or (B)
assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of or for damages resulting from the
use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in the report. As used
in the above, "Persons acting on behalf of the Maritime Administration" includes any
employee, contractor, or subcontractor to the contractor of the Maritime Administra-
tion to the extent that such employee, contractor, or subcontractor to the contractor
prepares, handles, or distributes, or provides access to any information pursuant to
his employment or contract or subcontract to the contractor with the Maritime Adminis-
tration. ANY POSSIBLE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND/OR FITNESS FOR
PURPOSE ARE SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMED.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section 1 lntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section 2 Study Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section 3 Small Parts Painting: A Manufacturing Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section 4 Planning for Manufacture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.1 A Thru-put Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section 5 The lndustrial Engineering Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section 6 Small Parts identification and Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section 7 Current Methods, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7.1 Study Conditions, Method and Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7.2 Field Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.3 From Current Method to Revised Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section 8 The ldeal System (Model). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8.1 Making the ldeaI Model Real . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section 9 Small Parts Painting Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9.1 Addendum to Empire West Corp. Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section 10 Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section 11 Summary and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix A: The Simple System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix B: The NASSCO Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix C: Automated Painting.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix D: Blasting Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix E: Typical Parts List... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 DEDICATION

This report is dedicated to the memory of Jim Jim’s desire to improve painting methodology at
Castle, who served as NASSCO’s Paint/Outfitting Su- NASSCO supplied the inspiration for this project in
perintendent from 1982 until August 1986. its final form.

During his years of involvement with the SP-3

Coatings Panel, Jim contributed significantly from
his vast knowledge of the industry.

ABSTRACT

Shipyard painting is most often viewed as pure What happens, then, when a systems approach
ship construction operations, where the painting of is applied to shipyard small parts painting? Can
the hull, deck, superstructure, and cargo spaces study techniques, analysis and design be adapted
makes up the total effort and cost. This view may to facilitate painting systems which are cost effec-
be justified when analyzing various trade produc- tive for this industry? This paper attempts to answer
tion costs as parts of the total ship cost. However, these questions by presenting discussion of:
parts preparation and painting costs are significant
when looked at in summary as a new construction ● Manufacturing Concepts of Parts Painting
or repair contract sub-cost item.
● Use of the Industrial Engineering Analysis
Once addressed, the historical means and
methods for small parts painting in shipyards ap- ● Systems Configurations
pears to leave much room for improvement. This is
particularly true when comparisons are made to ● Systems Cost and Justification
other industries.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research project was produced for the Ron Madison, Paint General Foreman; James
National Shipbuilding Research Program as a Ruecker, SP-3 Panel Chairman; and Don White, Out-
cooperative cost-shared effort between the Maritime fitting Asst. Superintendent.
Administration, the U.S. Navy, and National Steel
and Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO). The Surface We thank the following shipyards and their
Preparation and Coatings Panel (SP-3) of SNAME’s representatives for graciously conducting tours of
Ship Production Committee sponsored the project their facilities and providing invaluable information:
under the technical direction of James Ruecker of
NASSCO, SP-3 Chairman and Program Manager. Mike Sfirri of Bath Iron Works; Jim and Kay Free-
man of Ingalls Shipbuilding Gary Higgins, Darrel
The study was conducted and the report prepared Bernschien and Darrei George of Petersen Builders,
by NASSCO, with Les Hansen serving as Project Inc.; Jim Herbstritt and Dave Fenton of Puget Sound
Manager and Principal Investigator. William Apple- Naval Shipyard; and Oren Funkhauser of Todd Ship-
ton acted as Industrial Engineering Consultant and yards, San Pedro.
contributed significantly to the research, as well as
co-authoring the report. In addition, SP-3 Panel members have freely con-
tributed comments and other useful input at panel
The special support and assistance offered by the meetings during the course of the study.
following persons at NASSCO is greatfully ac-
knowledged:
 FOREWORD

This feasibility study represents the reincarnation . ing. The desired result is reduced shop painting
of a research project initiated several years earlier costs through improved productivity and ultimately
by Avondaie Shipyards under the perview of SNAME overall shipbuilding cost savings.
Panel 0-23-1 (now SP-3), Surface Preparation and
Coatings. Avondale discontinued work on this pro- The economic significance of productivity im-
ject shortly after contract award. The objective of provements in shop painting should not be over-
the earlier study was to establish the feasibility of looked. Combined costs of painting small parts at
automated painting of small parts, with emphasis NASSCO, averaged for the previous several con-
on state-of-the-art automated material handling, tracts, are estimated to comprise nearly 20% of the
blasting and coating equipment and systems. entire ship painting budget.

The focus of the present study has been shifted The authors have intended this report to be highly
to include the broader scope of all collateral parts user oriented. The target audience, then, is the
painting operations, as well as coating process Production Departments and specifically Paint Su-
methodology. Automation is viewed not necessarily pervision. In addition, Shop Managers, Planners
as an end, but rather one choice in a series of pos- and other Staff Support personnel may glean use-
sibilities to maximize shop efficiency. The revised ful information from the discussions herein. Hope-
objective has therefore become the establishment fully, the ideas and recommendations put forth in
of a true “Systems Approach” to small parts paint- this report, in whole or in part, will benefit the en-
tire shipbuilding industry.
 SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION

Automation. . . . A high sounding term, a stock Engineering practices to develop improved methods
seller on Wall Street, a bright beacon to an under- or systems and determine the feasibility of im-
graduate engineer, “tomorrowland” to the man on plementing these improvements in terms of capital
the street, and reality for manufacturing of the investment, time, and ongoing costs.
1980s and 90s. [t is here, it works and more often
than not, it is expensive—very expensive. Therein To address automated painting of small parts in
lies the reason for addressing automated painting a shipbuilding/repair setting without a full compre-
of small parts in a feasibility study. hension of that setting would be a useless exercise.
Since highly developed, sophisticated systems re-
● What level of automation fits? quire equally balanced systems and methods for
planning, scheduling, identifying and controlling
● What are the costs? materials and material movements, this must be a
study in overview which ultimately works down to
● Are the costs justifiable? detailed possibilities.

● Is there something else? This study will:

These are the questions; this study is intended ● IDENTIFY and CLASSIFY Groups and Families
to provide the answers. However, this project is not of Small Parts. [Group Technology]
intended to address automation for painting small
parts in a narrow context, but to develop a larger ● DETERMINE CURRENT SYSTEMS and
overview of maximizing shop painting operations. METHODS In Use for Controlling and Process-
This study, therefore, also deals with planning, ing Small Parts.
scheduling, handling and handling equipment, and
rework reduction—in short, a Systems Approach to ● DEVELOP PROPOSED IMPROVED SYSTEMS
painting small parts. Some specific problems will for Doing the Same: Planning, Scheduling,
be addressed and solutions will be proposed along Handling, Mechanizing and Automating.
with costs versus potential savings.
● ANALYZE the FEASIBILITY for Such
The study will utilize the latest painting technol- Improvements.
ogy from various sources and accepted Industrial
 SECTION 2. STUDY PREPARATION

A feasibility study conducted with a view toward ● Most Current Equipment and Systems: New
shipyard industry-wide benefits suggests several Sources Data
things concerning potential results:
● Other Industry Users: Actual Operational Data
● Certain results or data presented by the study
may be applicable to one yard and not to The generalized objectives of the study could be
another. lost if the process started from a current condition
(NASSCO operation) and worked through a single
● Even where two yards may have exactly ap- revised (improved system) condition, thus being
plicable situations, the view on economic rather heavily subjective. As a matter of fact, the
justification may vary widely resulting in ac- capability to do exactly that was a most desired re-
ceptance by the one and rejection by the other. sult of the study; however, it had to be applicable
to essentially any shipbuilding or repair yard, whol-
● Only partial data extracted from context could ly or in part. Therefore, the study had to work from
be applicable. several perspectives simultaneously; gathering data
from the three study bases and analyzing the ap-
Therefore, at the outset, this study required scope plications to both specific NASSCO operations on
and objectives which could permit generalization of one hand and a valuable industry-wide potential on
results and, at the same time, maintain clear and the other. Thus, the study was initiated on several
specific details for ease of application and use. fronts.
Moreover, a base of reference was needed. . . .
actual small parts painting operations. Since the A further question arose in completing the prepa-
project did not permit a scope whereby multi-yards rations. How could data best be compiled concern-
could be used as a basis, NASSCO’S more recent ing current small parts painting operating practices?
work contracts as wel I as the current contract for Ultimately, some quantitative analyses would be
the Navy AOE-6 were selected. made in order to deal with economic justification,
and the industrial engineering method filled this re-
If automation and the many other factors lead- quirement. The application of this technology is dis-
ing up to and/or supporting automation were not al- cussed in a later section.
ready present in the operations (and they were not),
other bases were needed. Leading paint suppliers These were guidelines for the work of this study:
for coatings, equipment and shop systems would be
approached along with production organizations out- ● A Scope Permitting Generalized Results Sup-
side the shipyard industry. This, then, formed the ported By Sufficient Details.
three position bases for study references.
● A Three-Point Base of Reference.
Ž NASSCO AOE-6 Contract Planning: Actual
Shipyard Requirements ● The Industrial Engineering Method.

5
 SECTION 3. SMALL PARTS PAINTING:
A Manufacturing Operation

Let us place small parts painting into the context

of building a ship. When a part has been fabricat-
ed, it requires painting; and when a weldment (sub-
assembly/assembly) has been completed, it requires
painting, Some purchased parts require painting
other than supplied by the vendor. Therefore, small
parts painting is technically an operation within a
continuum for the completion of a part prior to the
next order of assembly.

This relationship can be seen in the Classic

Manufacturing Shop, where work flows through
fabrication operations to paint to inventory or ship-
ping. Thus, a yard may ask if paint operations
shouldn’t be contiguous to other fabrication source
operations. What does this do to transportation ● Painting is a SEPARATE TRADE, a SEPARATE
costs, control costs, damage or other factors? DEPARTMENT.

Should painting operations be self-contained and ● Mixing painting with other fabrication is not
for what reasons? Is this justified? It may be that desired.
a highly cost-effective automated or semi-automated
Paint Shop should be self-contained and central- ● Air pollution controls, requirements, etc. pres-
ized due to decentralized fabrication and receiving ent complications.
sources (in the case of purchased items).
These may be some concerns and there are
Nevertheless, painting is difficult to define as an others.
"independent operation" or small parts when
viewed as part of a continuing process flow. To be contiguous, the parts painting operation
does not have to be housed with the afore occur-
Once painted, the part can be stored, even in bad ring fabrication operations, however, the flow rela-
weather, for the next weld or assembly operation. tionship should be evaluated. Is the cost to move
to and through the paint operation reasonable or are
Painting may be an independent operation for there cost effective alternatives? This study offers
many reasons from yard to yard. These reasons some methods for evaluating the problem.
should be analyzed.

7
 SECTION 4. PLANNING FOR MANUFACTURE

If a yard wishes to advance the cause of small takes; how much level loading of labor, machines
parts painting through automation or semi- and processes are required; and what particular bot-
automation, should it go for the expenditure, train tle necks or limiting operations exist.
some people and turn the paint group loose? Hard-
Iy! Well, it might just work for the yard that has per- This study cannot deal with these issues in de-
fect flow, perfect planning and scheduling, and tail, but it is most important to give recognition to
perfect methodization for small parts painting, but the essential nature of good scheduling.
is any yard at this point?
Parts painting schedules are derivatives of parts
The assumption is that most yards need to get fabrication scheduling. it’s fair to say, "Who gets to
through an evaluation of the current state of their schedule parts painting? The parts come, always
"Planning for Manufacture" as relates to small parts. late, and you blast and paint them as best and fast
Problems exist whether the painting operations are as you can!" This study tends to find agreement that
centralized or decentralized. parts painting by nature is a vassal to the fabrica-
tion operation, however, all the more reason for the
PLANNING FOR MANUFACTURE dual, simultaneous planning for fabrication and
paint. There is reason to look at communication
across the related activities (yard trades) to test the
strength of these foundations.

In-Process Corrtrol: This is an individual function

with each yard and each shop within a yard. There
are many ways to achieve this control. The impor-
tant point in this study is simply that it be done,
be re-evaluated, and upgraded as necessary.

The key to any flow lane, any shop, any process

is "through-flow". Handling and re-handling does not
improve or change the value of a part... never did
and likely never will. The physical layout and facili-
These activities need to be perfected as a foun- ties relationships of a good small parts painting
dation for a good manual paint operation as well as operation are covered later. However, the best
the most automated one. Therefore, let us examine through-flow layouts tend to yield the easiest In
each in some detail. Process Control Systems and procedures (and least
in process delays).
Planning: Either the part fabrication planner must
know paint planning as well as fabrication planning, Storage, Staging and Routing What good does it
or a fabrication planner and paint planner must work do a yard to perform all that precedes this point to
side by side. A shop routing card saying "paint" or perfection and not do well here? The ultimate oper-
"paint green" just is not enough. ation for the properly fabricated and painted part
is the proper and safe location for that item to be
What surface preparation is required? What paint used at the next level of assembly.
system and which coats are required? Are there spe-
cial instructions? What is the post-paint routing? Evaluate this function as a key to analyzing your
These questions, properly answered, are the foun- state of planning for manufacture.
dation of any good planning practice.
Identification: It is all too easy for a yard to ex-
Scheduling This goes hand in hand with plan- pend costly labor hunting, correcting, repainting or
ning. Whether your yard works to "!Just in Time" or remaking misidentified parts. Most yards are not
“Inventory” or, as is common in most cases, a com- having problems with original identification, this is
bined approach, you should be clear as to a finish covered on the prints. The real problem is the phys-
date and, therefore, the start date. The latter is ical identification of the part(s), which has to do
where each yard tends to develop its own best meth: with how (The Method) and what data need be in-
od. When to start a part, based upon a given finish cluded. Will Part Number do or is next assembly
date, has to do with: How long the fabrication cycle identification required as well? The answer will
9
generally depend on the coding system employed manufacturing planning. Quantification of process
by design engineering. Both questions are impor- time and man-hours is of the utmost importance.
tant. Further discussion on this subject can be Operation overview through flow process and oper-
found in Appendix B (Parts Tagging). ation analysis along with some other industrial En-
gineering Methods deserve some review and are
There are many supporting techniques for good discussed in Section 5.

SECTION 4.1 A THRU-PUT TECHNIQUE

If a yard can schedule parts painting as the last Now, on a daily basis record the date received,
fabrication operation as suggested previously, a the delivery date required and the number of
delivery date can be determined and a specific M.U.s for every work item (along with proper iden-
priority schedule can be followed through the tification, work item numbers, etc.) Then, by day
painting cycle. If a “first-in/first-out” policy is the or week all M.U.s can be summed and the prod-
norm, some kind of priority-setting is required. uct of (M. U.) x (RATE) can be determined. If a
Here is a simple thru-put technique which re- small computer is available, a D-base or Lotus
quires order and discipline to set up and main- 1-2-3 spread sheet can be used. The computer
tain but will offer a good plan for man-loading is not, however, necessary.
action.
A sample analysis for a six period thru-put (Fig-
Desired things to know: ure 1) shows how simple this can be.

(1) Delivery Date or need date. Where this The leveling analysis, which deals with the over
is not predetermined, set this date demand or under demand for a given work peri-
from receipt plus three days or five od, is most important (Figure 2). Since the mean
days.. whatever fits. (man-hours) for six periods will vary with the
production requirement, management must de-
(2) Available Date or date received. Make tide whether to vary the manpower provided from
certain to manifest all parts received period to period or to move the work forward and
daily. Tag the parts with a brightly col- backward in order to keep a fixed crew size over
ored tag. the six periods.

(3) Process Time Available is the differ- The key questions are:
ence between (1) and (2). If parts are
late or will be late when complete 1. Can manpower be easily and effi-
even if expedited, these are the num- ciently moved from small parts paint-
ber one priority. ing to other operations?

(4) Establish a Measurable Unit (M.U.). 2. Is the work available for forward
This may be a large or medium part moves in schedule?
like a foundation or large valve. It is
also a quantity of small parts, maybe 3. Can some work be moved backward
25 hangers. in schedule? Which work?

(5) Determine a Rate Per M.U. in man- In the combining of periods for further level
hours. How many man hours to blast? load analysis (Figure 3), it can be seen that two
To paint? (Include all handling and levels exist with a mean difference of almost 250
set-up time). man-hours (243.75). This strongly directs
management to look for work "to fill" or manpow-
er to move to other operations after period four.

10
 SECTION 5. THE INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING METHOD

The Industrial Engineering Method, like ail tech-

nology of the twentieth century, has simple begin-
nings, a rapid history of development, and a
high-tech presence. Simple and more basic tools
were needed for this study and, fortunately, these
are easy to learn and apply no matter the size or
complexity of yard operations under study.

The Flow Process Chart can be the foundation for

analyzing a small parts painting operation (or any
yard operation for that matter). A sample from our
study is shown in Figure 4.

FLOW PROCESS CHART

BLOW- OFF MATERIAL

Figure 4

13
 This form is classic and the symbols have been idle time is a probable non-productive cost. The use
standardized through years of practice. The chart of a wrist watch with a sweep second hand is recom-
can be used for actual studies where a person can mended in these kinds of Flow Process Chart
observe what is being done and record the work, the studies. A minute is an acceptable level of accura-
time it takes, the distances involved, and notations, cy although .25 minute intervals may be desired and
therefore establishing basic data (l), (2). can be easily read and recorded. Where something
more critical is desired the time study watch or dec-
The chart can also be used in analyzing a pro- imal stop watch will be needed.
posed operation using the basic data established by
previous study observations. Final procedures or in-
structions for a new operating plan can be present-
ed on the chart, which is easy to read and
understand.

The Flow Diagram is the product of the flow proc-

ess study(s).

CURRENT PARTS FLOW

Figure 6

Figure 5

When a number of studies are made (this will

The use of a scale plan view of the physical area generally be the case) the data must be correlated.
is recommended for analysis as well as presenta- This is most easily done by a spread sheet recap.
tion to management. The “before” and “after” ef- Accumulate all like elemental work time values, de-
fect can be dramatic since movements and lays, distances, etc. and arrive at unit time values,
distances are vivid. Often it is necessary to use large such as: time per piece, square foot, 100 feet
scale sizes (and therefore print sizes) for this work moved.
when there is great detail within an area or great
distances to show. Comparative Evaluatiorr, most popularly called
the Before and After, has to be the ultimate objec-
Flow Symbols and a recommended use are im- tive of the Industrial Engineering Method. This
portant. Make certain that a common understand- forms the bases for action, direction, and justifi-
ing exists as to what each symbol is to represent. cation.
Define this before any studies are started and then
maintain these definitions throughout the project. Where two or more existing or proposed small
parts painting operations or systems can be flow
Not all activities are necessarily identified above. analyzed and timed, total times and total distances
However, each and every significant activity should and ail other appropriate data can be compared and
be assigned a standard symbol for consistency of a total cost for one possibility versus another (or
data accumulation and evaluation. others) established. This then determines the lev-
els of expected improvement, payoff, return on in-
These accepted uses of the symbols are recom- vestment, or whatever basis a yard may use to justify
mended. expense and/or capital funding.

Time Values are important to the ultimate study Subsequent sections will include some actual ap-
accomplishments. Time to perform work is the di- plications of the industrial Engineering Method just
rect labor cost of the painting or related activity and discussed.
 The first order of business for the project was From this list, thirteen items were selected as best
identification and classification of small parts to be representatives to form the "Typical Parts List" used
included in the study. This step would, in effect, as a basis for further study. (See Appendix E for
define “small parts” and provide a scope for all fur- List) .
ther studies and analyses to be conducted. Theo-
retically, any item painted prior to block (module) A further approach to classification would be to
or unit assembly, or prior to on-board installation, examine parts in the context of their respective coat-
could be considered a painted “part”. There are ing requirements. Parts can be grouped by the type
thousands of such items on a typical large hull. of coating and extent of the system to be applied
at the shop painting stage. For example, some parts
A reasonable starting point for small parts defi- may receive primer only, others one or more inter-
nition would be to include all, or nearly all, items mediate coats, and still others a full system includ-
traditionally painted in NASSCO’s Main Paint Area ing topcoats. Parts receiving identical coatings can
(an open air “shop”) or any “satellite” paint area ad- then be grouped together for purposes of surface
jacent to the fabrication shops. Points of origin preparation and painting. Typical coating systems
(NASSCO shops, outside vendors, etc.) for these used as a basis for this study are those specified
items are significant for sections of the study relat- by the NAVY for AOE-6. (Figure 7)
ed to planning, scheduling, routing and handling.
At this point, a question may arise concerning
Next, a grouping by size and weight would be re- how to determine the extent of the coating system
quired to further narrow the parts scope to a to be applied at the shop painting stage. Is it best
meaningful range for the project. The maximum part to apply primer only, a full system, or somewhere
size chosen was 60” X 60” X 24” to permit inclu- in between? This clearly is a production planning
sion of a majority of the steel angle foundations issue and should be given considerable attention
commonly encountered. This upper limit size cor- early in the planning process with strong input from
responds to a weight of several hundred pounds or the Paint Department.
more and would require a fork lift and/or small crane
for handling. The smallest part could be a 2“ x 3“ Several factors will need to be considered and
staple weighing a fraction of a pound. analyzed, however the bottom line is the overall cost
of shop painting vs. painting at other construction
In addition to parts, raw stock shapes (angles, flat, stages. On the surface, it would appear shop paint-
bar, pipe, etc.) to be used in parts fabrication or on- ing is clearly most cost-efficient, since an industry
board outfitting, were also included in the study rule-of-thumb says on-board labor costs are gener-
since much of this material is primed in the Main ally two to three times higher than shop labor costs
Paint Area. Raw stock varies in cross sectional for identical work. However, when inserting onboard
dimensions and weight and is generally handled in and on-block paint rework costs into the equation,
twenty foot lengths. the picture may change significantly.

A parts classification list was developed using Consider the amount of potential coating dam-
NASSCO’s AOE-6 contract as a point of reference. age encountered after a part leaves the Paint Shop:
Parts were grouped by type, indicating location/shop Transportation and handling damage; environmen-
of origin, and an approximate quantity was noted. tal damage from the elements; dirt, grease and oil

15
 I
contamination; and probably most significant is the is expected to be minimal or non-existent (such as
damage caused during installation, either by weld- on machinery), a full-system shop application would
ing or installation tools. In addition, ECNs, PCNs likely be justified. Finally, all attempts should be
or missed schedules frequently create hotwork dam- made to reduce on-board paint rework to a bare .
age long after part installation. minimum.

When these paint rework costs can be accurately In passing, we mention a technique that we con-
determined and analyzed, they may make a strong sider the best methodology for properly setting up
case for applying only prime or intermediate coats a classification system of parts where numbers, vari-
in the shop and all finish coats as late as on-board ables, and computer codification are involved. This
schedules will allow. Certainly, this analysis should methodology is broadly known as Group Technolo-
be made on a case basis for individual outfitting gy and is covered in a forthcoming SP-1 Project
items or families of parts. Where coating damage Report. An example is shown in Figure 8.
 SECTION 7. CURRENT METHODS
Small parts painting procedures and methods turning, etc.) material between work stations, so a
have remained virtually unchanged over NASSCO’s high level of forklift activity is usually the norm. A
long history of building ships. This aspect of opera- “mule train” transportation system consisting of
tions has been, for one reason or another, basically several rolling carts pulled by a single forklift was
overlooked whenever facility improvements were created several years ago to alleviate the problem.
considered. Possibly, parts painting is the victim of This system has proven to be a good solution for im-
the adage: “If it works, don’t fix it”, or “Out of sight, proving the efficiency of NASSCO’S forklift-
out of mind” since the parts area is set off in a re- dependent transportation operations.
mote corner of the shipyard. Whatever the reason,
we think it will be obvious from this discussion of Parts arriving in the blast receiving area are logged
NASSCO’S current parts painting methods that there in and stored to await blast (several hours to sever-
is plenty of room for improvement. More than Iike- al days). No formal prioritization system presently
Iy, this will be the situation at many other shipyards. exists, so the informal “first in, last out”, or “who-
ever screams the loudest gets their’s first” systems
San Diego is “blessed” with a very mild and dry are usually in effect. As previously mentioned, most
climate. So NASSCO, unlike most yards, is in the blasting is performed manually, outside, and on
unique position of being able to perform much of pallets at ground level with at least one turning oper-
the blast and paint operation in the open air, with- ation required per piece. Steel grit is used where
out the need for enclosures or even covered areas. possible and reclaimed/recycled via brooms, shov-
The few rainy days that do occur in the winter may els, sweepers, ‘bobcats’ and a COIlector/classifier.
present a minor problem in the form of schedule An automatic airless table blast machine and wheel-
delays. This seemingly ideal situation may, howev- a-brator are also available for specialized blasting
er, be a mixed blessing. Having a large, undelineat- operations.
ed area available for parts blasting and painting can
foster inefficient use of that space, while the phys- When blasting is completed, parts are moved (via
ical limits inherent in a building or enclosure usually forklift) to a blow-down/finspection station to remove
encourage a close look at flow and efficiency. residual dust in preparation for painting.

A few comments regarding parts scheduling are The first step in the paint operation is a check
appropriate at this point. This subject was discussed of the part identification and determination of the
in Section 4, ‘Planning for Manufacture’. Scheduling coating requirements. If precise instructions do not
of material into the paint/blast shop is virtually accompany the work piece, labor-consuming re-
nonexistent. That is to say the fabrication shops that search of engineering drawings and the ship’s paint
supply parts to be painted cannot adequately pre- schedule is necessary prior to coating. Painting is
dict, in advance, when those parts will be complet- accomplished on pallets at ground level, or parts
ed and ready to ship. Therefore, blast and paint are arranged on worktables or racks and usually re-
supervision is forced into a reactive mode for man- quire turning for complete coverage. Portable air
power and material planning on a daily basis. Level- spray or airless equipment is used as appropriate.
Ioading of shop work and personnel becomes near- Parts are dried in place between applications or
ly impossible, impacting overall departmental coats, creating an obvious bottleneck in the system,
scheduling and budgeting performance. especially with long dry time epoxy coatings.

NASSCO’S small parts blast and paint areas are Following the coating and drying processes, parts
separate and adjacent, with the paint area located are inspected and then moved, again by forklift, to
upwind from blasting to avoid dust contamination a shipping/holding area to await transportation to
(see Figure 5). The two areas are operated indepen- a storage or instal Iation location.
dently by shop General Foremen under the overall
jurisdiction of a Blast/Paint Manager. Daily work The procedures described above apply to
planning is the activiiy common to both, since coor- NASSCO’s central paint area or shop. Painting is also
dination is required to ensure that blasted parts are performed in satellite facilities adjacent to fabrica-
painted quickly. tion shops—most notably the sheetmetal and ma-
chine shops. These are small, open air areas for
Each area requires a staging zone for incoming painting (no blasting), operating similar to the main
and outgoing material. All parts arrive and leave by shop. The use of these satel Iites reduces transpor-
forklift on pallets or in baskets. Forklifts are also tation to and congestion in the main shop.
used for transporting and handling (positioning,
17
 SECTION 7.1 STUDY CONDITIONS, METHOD AND RESULTS
Flow process studies were conducted of When the data is grouped further into five major
NASSCO’s small parts operations to obtain time and sub-divisions the following results:
cost values for the current situation. The data was
accumulated in work elements, averaged for SLUS
(Single Load Units) of 3’ x 3’ to 5’ x 5’ mean, and
summarized for comparisons to alternative
proposals. 1

The time values were recapped, summed and

evaluated with respect to various types of work per-
formed: handling, blasting, painting, etc. Idle time
which could not be specifically related to personal
needs, work or other factors was ignored.
Figure 10
When work elements were developed per average
SLU, only specific work values were included. Fa-
tigue, rest and personal time were added to the work
cycle as a standard allowance. Total study time was This grouping graphically points out the impor-
grouped (in this case all time for both Blast and tance of performing methods and equipment anal-
Paint was treated as the data universe) and a distri- ysis for all work factors, and not subjective work
bution set by percentage was taken. factors (blast and paint) alone. It follows that blast
and paint productivity will rise if blast and paint
Peterson Builders, Inc. of Sturgeon Bay, Wiscon- operation time, as a function of total time, is in-
sin conducted in SP-3 Project, the Economics of creased. Doubling the latter would double produc-
Shipyard Painting (3), and have developed work dis- tivity (or reduce by one half the crew size). Can setup
tribution percentages that greatly compare to those and teardown time be reduced? The same for other
developed by NASSCO. A comparison is made for groups?
reference and illustration. (Figure 9)
 WORK DISTRIBUTION

SECTION 7.2 FIELD STUDIES

Small Parts Painting in other Industries What Do Conveyors Do?

Field surveys and interviews were conducted to Handling (direct cost) is sharply reduced for a
determine what other industries are doing. The rather reasonable cost. This is not meant to say that
sources were: automated paint booths are inexpensive, but ordi-
nary conveyors are far less expensive. It should be
Air Frame Manufacturer noted that only one source. used automated paint
application and that was, surprisingly, the job shop.
Mobile Equipment Manufacturer Economics is addressed later in the report.

Oil Tool and Equipment Manufacturer Handling was found to be 14.4% of the blast and
paint work cycles from the NASSCO studies. This
Medium Size Shipyard does not include the forklift handling caused by a
lack of thru-flow that a well planned mechanized
Steam Turbine Manufacturer system can eliminate. Equipment setup and
teardown was 24.3% since the work was not “moved
Large Sheet Metal Job Shop. thru” but rather the equipment “moved to” the work.

While each source had widely varying conditions It appeared that the genius of the conveyor would
of material and surface preparation requirements as be the center piece of any system intended to de-
well as paint coating and curing, one inevitable fac- crease parts handling and equipment setup. The
tor ran throughout.. they all used conveyors. Over- sum of handling and setup in the NASSCO studies
head conveyors were prevalent, but floor type were was 38.7% and it was estimated, based upon the
used where more desirable. Floor types have a dis- experience of others, that this could be reduced to
advantage of “fouling” due to foreign items getting 10% to 15.%.. These are reasons for targeting
in the drive. The more sophisticated systems used mechanization prior to automation.
switchable conveyor trackage and several used pow-
er and push (manual) sections. These features de- In most systems where cold rolled or galvanized
pend upon the needs and variations of the system. steel is being painted the preparation is chemical
washing, however, shipbuilding generally uses blast-
ing. Paint booths were single (one man painting both
sides of a part) or double (two booths facing oppo-
site each other and two men paint opposite part
sides). Larger, flat parts work best with the latter.
 SECTION 7.3 FROM CURRRENT METHODS TO REVISED METHODS
The study developed a focal point and ironically The answers varied between two minutes and five
it was the non-painting work, rather than specific minutes to perform the actual painting and an hour
painting of small parts that took the spotlight. to two hours to perform all the suppoting work. The
exact numbers will vary greatly from yard to yard.
SOME NON-PAINTING AND However, it is safe to say that 75% to 90% of all
PREPARATION COSTS ARE... the work is non-painting.

This new perspective therefore weighed heavily

on the direction that the project should take and
resulted in the decision to look at a Systems
Approach to small parts painting. Analyses of the
three levels of automation, semi-automation and
mechanization were developed. A fourth and some-
what separate level, that of semi-mechanization, is
included so that a more complete economic range
of systems are represented. The latter wilI be treat-
ed as an appendage to the main three levels which
To dramatize this we asked painting supervisors have “mover” systems in common (See Appendix A).
the following

IF YOUR PAINTER HAS...

20
 SECTION 8. THE IDEAL SYSTEM (MODEL)
Let us start at the beginning with the Ideal Sys- IDEAL BLAST, PRIME & PAINT LINE
tern. Many managers and engineers might argue that
since nothing in ship production is ideal, such an PRIME OR PANT
approach is a waste of time and effort. There are
!1
always restrictions: physical, economic, time, facii- f
CURE
ity or equipment life span, and others. This is most BLAST 8Y-PASS AREA
1 r
true. However, if a system attempted for production 1-
O-J
_ o R Y
ZONE
and cost improvement reasons is started with all res- ~
r
m 1 .
trictions as a forefront criteria, two important pos-
sibilities are sacrificed. First, the ideal system allows [

for the 100% potential level, never attainable, but DRY =

J
A A 1 “
measurable (The ultimate system can be measured LOAO UNLOAO _ POWEREO CONVEYOR
against the ideal). Second, the forefront objectives — MANUAL CONVEYOR

should be stated and constantly pursued through- Figure 12

out the proposal development and evaluated with
respect to each restriction as each comes into play.
This permits separate, justified decisions relative to The Ideal System shown in Figure 12 operates as
each restriction rather than a predefine or implied follows:
acceptance of the restrictions at the outset.
1. The parts are loaded to the overhead
For example, if an ideal system is developed and conveyor at the load station. Some fix-
given a rating of 100% based upon all attainable turing in a “Christmas Tiee” fashion is
objectives and carries an implementation cost es- required for smaller parts, but medium
timate of $ 1,000,000, another more economic pro- and larger parts are hung individually.
posal could be related to it. It is possible that 50%
of all attainable objectives might cost $250,000, a 2. Parts proceed via the conveyor line
considerable difference in cost. The ideal permits through the blast station. All surfaces
comparison in a dramatic way and thus a relative are blasted to the required condition.
merit can be easily seen between proposals. Since blast may require three to five
times the paint cycle time, some varia-
The ideal small parts paint system for a represen- tion in the line is necessary. A five min-
tative yard would contain the following ute blast cycle per SLU is assumed for
the Ideal System. Expanded blast ca-
A mover system: an overhead conveyor. pacity can be developed to permit the
volume of blast work to be balanced with
A blasting system. the painting work.

A prime and paint booth. 3. The parts are primed or painted as re-
quired. The assumed paint cycle time for
A drying system: air or force. this system is one minute. This
represents the average time needed to
A curing zone. apply a single coat to a SLU.

The basic configuration to this system is shown 4. The parts are dryed. Where there is suffi-
in Figure 12. cient conveyor length and speed, this
can be accomplished simply by air dty-
The ultimate possibilities for the system are vir- ing on the conveyor from the point of
tually unlimited and this study recognizes that con- painting to unloading.
dition, however, certain narrow assumptions were
required in order to focus upon specific issues. For example: Ten feet per minute is a
Moreover, each yard will be required to do methodi- common speed for many lines. If the dis-
zation, and costs should be included for this work tance from the paint station to the un-
when preparing a proposal. load station is 150 feet the dry time is
fifteen minutes.

21
 A cure area will be needed for various ence for this discussion as well as further
paint coatings. In a conveyorized system applications covered in the next section.
this is done via switching and manually
controlled track “spurs”. Parts can be System A: Manual Blast and Manual Paint
held in these areas for extended periods
while the main system continues System B: Auto Blast and Manual Paint
operation.
System C: Auto Blast and Auto Paint
6. A by-pass for blast will be required where
already blasted/primed or painted parts All three systems use the conveyor routing as
require additional coats. Another option shown in Figure 12.
would be to shut down the blast booth
and run the parts through. Refering to System A, a Single Load Unit is
produced with fifteen man-minutes or .25 man-
Balancing the Ideal is a necessary early step in hours operating the line with three men (5 min. x
developing the system concept. Here the intent is 3 men).
to be able to load, blast, paint, dry and unload with-
out a “bottleneck” or out-of-balance operation. The System B changes the limiting cycle to one min-
flow process chart is the place to begin. ute. Since the blasting time is now shortened, via
automation, to match the paint time. This is poten-
The Ideal System in Figure 12 shows a basic prim- tially five times faster than System A with sixty SLU’S
ing operation. The assumed Single Load Unit (SLU) per hour. Manning the line with three men, the
is a large or medium part or a “Christmas Tree” of production rate is three man-minutes per unit or .05
small parts. At a conveyor line speed of five FPM man-hours.
and the developed line length of two hundred feet
it will take thirty-four minutes without line stoppages System C has the same limiting cycle of one min-
for a single load to make a total cycle (the forty ute but potentially can be operated by two men at
minutes for the line cycle less the six minutes (30 a production rate of two man-minutes per unit or
ft.) of “dead space” between the assumed load and .033 man hours.
unload points). However, the productive rate of the
system will be the same as the “limiting cycle”, in Recognizably, great arguments can be made con-
this case five minutes to blast the SLU. That is, as cerning this data and the related assumptions. How-
in any manual blasting operation, where one man ever, while these assumptions are based on real,
takes five minutes to completely blast the single observed conditions, they are submitted within this
load unit. In other words, when this system oper- study as a point of reference and not an absolute.
ates without stoppages, a SLU is produced every five The greatest value in this exercise is the applicabil-
minutes, twelve items per hour. ity of the concept to any small parts system propos-
al, whether a continuous line or a separate forklift
Three systems were developed, using various con- fed work station basis is used.
figurations of equipment. These establish a refer-

SECTION 8.1 MAKING THE IDEAL MODEL REAL

The Ideal model and flow analysis was exactly that Supervision.
. . . a pure ideal, but capturing a very workable
concept(s). What then is REAL? How do we make Miscellaneous.
it workable?
Some history for these types of systems suggests
First, the flow analysis can be re-evaluated in an expectation of 10% to 25’%0 (of course in an ac-
terms of reasonably expected line stoppages or de- tual application this should be established as early
lays. These are: as possible once the learning curve settles down).
For study purposes, the most consewative delay val-
Mechanical or electrical maintenance. ue was utilized (25%). Applying the delay factor in-
creases the total system cycle time from thirty-four
Wait for materials. to fifty minutes.

22
 Second, and most importantly, the manual activi- Applying some of these intuitive factors will bring
ties require evaluation. Basic questions need to be the ideal system further into the area of the real sys-
asked: tern. Each system is adjusted to show man-hour ef-
fect for system and human delays (Figure 14).
Can a man maintain the one minute work cycle
in loading and unloading?

Not without some fatigue, rest and per-

sonal time allowances.

More seriously, can a man maintain the paint-

ing cycle of one minute?

This type work probably requires the Figure 14

highest allowances for fatigue, rest and
personal time.
Men/machine charts are shown below for System
When the Single Load Units are small parts A in Figures 15 and 16. The initial (Ideal) and ex-
hung on “Christmas Trees” won’t an auxiliary pected (Real) are compared. This is an effective
handler(s) be required? method for depicting time, work operations, and sys-
tem relationships. It will work well for facilities utili-
Yes, and at least for planning analysis zation analysis in general.
purposes the general practice is to add
an auxiliary man (or more) to the line
crew and include that time in the expect-
ed operating labor cost.

If manual blasting is to be used, won’t two

blasters be required since that is the limiting
cycle?

Not necessarily. This would appear to be

the best answer if the system is planned
to run “full out” for extended periods.
When one blaster works the other rests. Figure 15
This must be evaluated on a per piece
basis since it might be better to have
both blast and rest in unison.

The manpower utilization is much better when

working in unison, as shown in Figure 13.

Figure 16

A final set of comments concerning this exercise:

Figure 13 The conveyor type system can be analyzed at

whatever speed and length of line is reasonable.
Most systems viewed as part of the study moved at
10 to 12 feet per (see Section 7.2). The ul- blast cabinets require much research prior to acqui-
timate length will be governed by the air dry cycle sition and much operational methodization after ac-
required, economics, or space. quisition and installation. (Blasting systems are
discussed in Appendix D).
The manning of the system is totally variable
based upon the degree of automation and system Also, the “Christmas Tree” method for handling
reliability. One system had over a thousand feet of small parts has great impact. Remember, if ten
continuously moving conveyor and a two man small parts are contained in one SLU the expected
crew—one a handler and the second a line opera- man hours per part is factored 10 times.
tor/maintenance man. The total system was auto-
mated except for loading and unloading the Finally, once the initial analysis has been reduced
conveyor. It should be added that this line used a to reasonable expectations, the Ideal nature of the
washer system rather than blasting to prep parts. system will still exist, but in a Real form. Answer
questions like: Do you have the physical space?
“For shipyard conditions and practices, blasting What configuration will fit? Are utilities adequate?
holds equal importance with painting. Automated Access to and from? Parts staging? Then begin the
process for developing the proposal.

24
 SECTION 9. SMALL PARTS PAINTING SYSTEMS

What will these kinds of systems cost? Can auto- All parts will require a minimum of one coat of
mation be affordable and justifiable or should primer.
mechanization at a lower level be the goal?
Forced Drying:
Herein lies the heart of this feasibility study. To
answer these questions, a separate survey was made Most of the coating materials will air dry in am-
by the Empire West Corp. of Cerritos, California. The bient conditions. The curing times for most materi-
survey used as a model the same ideal system as als can be reduced significantly by processing
in Figure 12 in order to permit direct comparisons through a drying oven after a specified flash-off time
of data. period. An oven is included in each of the three
preliminary systems to increase production.
Three types of parts painting systems are being
considered: 2 Material Handling:

SYSTEM 1 (Mechanized/Manual) The vast majority of parts can be handled by an

overhead powered conveyor system with start/top
SYSTEM 2 (Semi-Automatic) stations for loading and unloading. A combination
power and free system could be considered for Sys-
SYSTEM 3 (Automatic) tems 1 and 2, but is not included in the survey. Sec-
tions of horizontal conveyors in some process areas
This survey is based on the following general may be considered, along with four wheel carts for
assumptions: handling of unusual parts.

Surface Preparation: Small Parts Data:

The blasting requirement for items to be coated Size: Minimum, 3" x 2" x l"
with inorganic zinc primer is near white blast clean-
ing (SSPC-SP-1O). All other items require either Maximum, 60” wide, 42” high x 20’
commercial blast cleaning (SSPC-SP-6), or brush- long
off blast cleaning (SSPC-SP-7).
Weight: Maximum 100 pounds/piece
For occasional items which do not require blast
cleaning, other manual cleaning methods can be Configurations: Small assemblies (founda-
considered. A limited quantity of parts will require tions), pipe hangers, U Bolts, wire-way
masking of some areas prior to blast cleaning and/or hangers, light brackets, ladders, etc., as
coating application. typical.

Coating: Substrate: Mild steel.

The coating requirements for the parts include SYSTEM 1

five basic paint material systems:
This plan will have the lowest purchase cost, but
Inorganic zinc primer the highest operating cost of the three systems, as
it is the most labor intensive. The plan will utilize
Epoxy tank coatings more floor space because of the staging areas re-
quired as work flows through the processes,
High build polyamide epoxy primer
Surface Preparation: All blast cleaning will be
Alkyd primer done manually in a blast booth with dust collector.

Topcoatings for each specified coating system. Coating: Coating application will be done manu-
alIy in a water wash spray booth.
2 These systems are relative to Systems A, B and
C described in Section 8. However, they are not
identical and therefore should not be compared
directly.
25
 Drying: One two-pass conveyorized drying oven is Preliminary cost estimates of each system, (at the
included. time of survey) for budgetary purposes only. are as
follows:
Material Handling: For this system, material han-
dling will be accomplished primarily by overhead
conveyor. Four wheel carts for special items are in-
cluded.

SYSTEM 2

Surface Preparation: This plan reduces manual

blasting and adds a Turnblast semi-automatic ma-
chine or a table-blast machine.
The equipment costs contained in the Empire
Coating An additional spray booth is included. West survey were further analyzed with respect to
semi-automatic (non-computerized) coating appli- the three systems as originally discussed in Section
cation machines are added to reduce personnel and 8, This permits the reader to see a continuum of
increase quality control. comparative data as would be required in any specif-
ic system proposal.
Fbrced Drying The drying oven is increased in size
with two chambers to force dry the primers and top
teats continuously in separate temperature zones.

Material Handling System 2 will allow the parts

to be carried, via conveyor, through the blast cycle,
the primer application, flash-off period, drying oven,
cooling, top coat application, flash-off period, dry-
ing oven, cooling, to unload station-all without
manual handling.

SYSTEM 3

Surface Preparation: This plan utilizes a four

wheel airless (centrifugal) automatic blast cleaning
machine in place of the manual blast booth. With
proper fixtures, this machine should process all of
the parts included in the survey.
These are guide line costs and can be used to de-
Coating: The coating equipment will be fully au- velop Strong indications of what svstem is feasible
tomatic, with electronic control and sensing systems for a given yard.
to coordinate with the conveyor drive. Four spray
booths are included for continuous line flow.

Forced Drying: Drying will be through a double

oven as described in System 11, to allow predicta-
ble coating application sequence.

Material Handling The overhead conveyor will

carry most parts through the automatic blast clean-
ing machine and all other processes.

If all included assumptions are reasonably ac-

curate, this will be the optimum one cycle system.
After loading the parts on fixtures on the conveyors,
blast cleaning, coating, and drying will be automatic
until the parts are unloaded, ready for inspection.
 SECTION 9.1 ADDENDUM TO EMPIRE WEST CORP. SURVEY

This is a list of qualified manufacturers of the ba- Drying Equipment:

sic types of equipment outlined:
1. Industrial Systems, Inc. South Gate, CA
Blast Cleaning Equipment
2. George Koch Sons, nc., Evansville, IN
1. R. A. Barnes Inc., Seattle, WA
Spray Equipment & Booths:
2. Whee/abrator, Mishawwaka WI
1. Empire West, Inc. Cerritos, CA
3. Pangborn,Hagerstown, M D
2. Grace, Inc., Minneapolis, MN
4. Blast Star Co. (R. Walka), St. Helena, CA
3. Binks Mfg. Co., Chicago, IL
5. CAB Systems, Kent, WA

Conveyor Equipment:

1. High Beam Conveyor Inc., La Habra, CA

2. Jervis B. Webb, Los Angeles, CA

3. Blast Star Co. (R. Walka), St. Helena, CA

 SECTION 10. JUSTIFICATION

Justification for a proposal is necessary and vital

for management review and decision. The proposed
system must be compared to existing operations.
The savings to be realized must provide return on
investment and fulIy satisfy management criteria.

The most direct method for determining current

operation methods and productivity is observation.
Asset forth previously under the Industrial Engineer-
ing Method (Section 5), the flow process study is
recommended. Complete eight hour studies, or, at
a minimum, four hour studies will yield the best
quality information. The time a man is working is
important, how he works and at what task must be
observed closely and properly recorded as well.
However, of equal importance is idle time, and the
reason for the idle condition requires close obser- Figure 17
vance and recording. Personal time, rest, and fatigue
are simply states of human-kind and have well-
engineered standard values for that reason. Wait-
ing for something is idle time, which can be changed
to productive time, but must be first properly iden-
tified.

Determining how work is being done can lead

directly to methods changes, which in turn increase
productivity. Unneeded movements of materials, ex-
cessive handling, identification problems, instruc-
tional problems, and poor workmanship by others
can be changed or eliminated. Often these changes
cost little.

Observation studies were conducted at NASSCO

as part of this project and were discussed in Sec-
tion 7. The specific data used to develop work cy-
cle times was developed from those studies. Results
are shown in Figures 17 and 18.

Figure 17 summarizes time study results for blast-

ing and related operations for a Single bad Unit Figure 18
(one or more individual parts), while Figure 18
shows results for painting. Note that in both cases The details of data accumulation, analysis and
equipment setup or teardown times exceed the ac- evaluation must be left to a specific proposal pro-
tual blast/paint operation times. Therefore it is im- ject manager or engineer. However, for this report,
portant to maximize work package or lot size to in order to carry through the concept originated with
absorb the equipment handling time (cost). Also the Ideal System, that particular example was tak-
note that the total work cycle times are nearly equal en all the way through a proposal cycle.
for blasting and painting. This results from compar-
ing blasting to painting multiple (2-3) coats. Apply- At this point, it is recommended that all new costs
ing a single coat to a part is usually three to four for the proposed operation be evaluated and that the
times faster than manually blasting that same part. particular financial form related to the yard doing
the proposal be followed. Since policies, and there-
fore calculations vary, this example will end here.

29
 In losing, some additional comments about the note that the calculations assume a production rate
example may be appropriate. First, the potential sav- of 60,000 SLUS per year. If the actual quantity of
ings versus capital investment for System A may small parts processed for a particular operation was
suggest a reduction in the expenditure by deleting less, say 30,000, the analysis for System B would
the oven and proposing a capital expenditure of be adjusted to show a ROI of 80% and a payback
$105,5OO. This would offer a very safe economic period of fifteen months.
trade-off. Moreover, proposed System C (see Figure
19) yields the greatest potential percentage of time Clearly, specific SLU counts, current operation
saved (81.4%), however this same system shows the values, proposed system configurations and expect-
lowest annual ROI (122%.) due to high investment ed operation values, and specific equipment and in-
cost. (ROI =annual savings ÷ investment) System stallation costs will yield wide variations between
B would yield the greatest ROI (160%) and have the individual cases.
shortest payback period—about 7.5 months. Also
 SECTION 11. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Is automation, semi-automation, or mechaniza- The specific review of various levels of system

tion feasible for a given yard? This study suggests mechanization and the ultimate of automation,
that there are definitely possibilities that deserve along with potential costs for each, may be just what
review and analysis, The study further shows that the large yards need next.
there are cost improvement potentials with very lit-
tle capital cost and that the techniques utilized here Yes, it is agreed that this project looks like “some-
can be applied to most, if not all, shipyard oper- thing for everyone"-and that can’t be all bad. From
ations, here on, it’s a “do-it-yourself” project: look at your
family of painted small parts and see what can be
The project represents a wide view. As intended, changed and improved. Conduct the studies and use
it deals withtion of small whatever techniques help.
parts painting. However, along the road to these high
ends many simple and easy to perform planning,
scheduling and industrial engineering techniques
have marked our way. Possibly, and without origi- SUMMARY
nal intention, the exposure to these management
tools will be of the most universal value.

The emphasis placed upon “Planning” for

Manufacture” in Section 4, as well as the side trip
into “A Thru-put Technique” in the same section,
may serve any yard well for very little cost. The In-
dustriai Engineering Method is not only set forth in
Section 5, but by design permeates the complete
project. Identifying and analyzing the “Existing” and
“Proposed” is at the heart of good, well-managed
economical evaluation and justification.

31
 REFERENCES

1. Mynard, industrial ENGINEERING HAND- 3. Peterson Builders, Inc., ECONOMICS OF

BOOK, McGraw-Hill, 1971: Process Chart SHIPYARD PAINTING, NSRP#0227, January,
Procedures 1986.

2. American National Standards, PROCESS 4. Todd Pacific Shipyards, IMPLEMENTATION

CHART STANDARD: ANSI Y15.3M-1979 PLAN FOR FLEXIBLE AUTOMATION IN U.S.
SHIPYARDS, NSRP#0267, February, 1987.

32
 APPENDIX A: THE SIMPLE SYSTEM

A simple approach to small parts painting, the automated. If a track or conveyor is used, parts can
previously identified Semi-Mechanization, is not to be worked individually or “Christmas Tree” fash[on
be overlooked. as an SLU, and with a limited production demand

Economics, a need for a small decentralized Paint

Shop, or the relative volume of work may not sup-
port the kinds of systems previously discussed. This
study suggests that all the principles developed thus
far can be further applied to a simpler approach.
(As a matter of fact, simple time study and methodi-
zation will yield immediate cost reductions).

The order of working up a proposal is exactly the Figure 1

same:

Define and classify the parts Spacing of the facilities will be most important
in order to queue parts for each sequential opera-
Evaluate current methods and time values for tion. The key is to keep the materials moving through
the operations without double handling. This strongly suggests that
the handling method or "mover” is the most impor-
Develop an Ideal Plan tant function of the system and may prove to be the
most cost effective investment in the proposal.
Evolve to a Real Plan
Develop a flow process chart complete with work
Determine Equipment and Facilities Require- times and process values. Use an SLU as the basic
ments and Proposal costs production measure and calculate the potential sav-
ings for the proposal. Remember... keep it simple!
Economically justify the proposal.

When evaluating current operations and making A SIMPLE APPROACH THRU METHODIZATION
the transfer to the Ideal/Real System Proposal, work
on Flow Concepts.

Is a manufacturing operation continuum pos-

sible? Will transportation from the last fabri-
cation operation to the first blast and paint
operation be at a minimum?

Will the blast and paint operations be a flow-

through layout with a minimum of handling
and rehandling?

Will the layout afford good thru-put planning

and in-process control?

Can the proposal improve the cost of painting

small parts?

The flow diagram in Figure 1 shows a simple flow-

through arrangement that can use multiple “mov-
er” methods: fork lift, hand cart, track, or conveyor
(with or without a return loop). This System is envi-
sioned as having manual blast and paint, air dry or
oven dry facilities. However, blast could be semi-
 APPENDIX B: THE NASSCO PROJECT

During research and development of this project, The Facilities Engineers are, at this writing, de-
NASSCO was concurrently planning production of veloping the plans and specifications for the system.
the AOE-6 Navy Supply Ship. Since the ship specifi-
cation required a significant amount of flame spray
(wire sprayed aluminum) application, a manage-
ment decision was made to setup an in-house flame
spray faciliiy. The facility planning and procurement
was a joint effort of the Paint, Corrosion Control, and
Facilities Departments.

Management directed that a total concept for in-

tegrating small parts painting and flame spray be
developed in order to:

Combine the operations for space and flow

utilization
Figure 3
Develop Production Control and Scheduling

Produce the efficiencies offered by Mechani-

zation of the operations.

Therefore, the NASSCO project focused on con-

veyorization of small parts painting and flame spray
including staging, blast, flame spray, painting, and
material movement.

The flame spray facility has been installed—

supported by a plan to add conveyorization at some
future date. Presented here is the background to the
planning, which is derived totally from the project
and text.
Figure 4
First, the Paint Department staff developed Proc-
ess Flow Charts showing the concepts to support the
relationships found in flame spray and simple paint-
ing of parts (Figures 2 and 3). Secondly, the con-
Assumption:
veyorized flow concept was developed (Figure 4) to Effort for each handling
depict the objectives and relationships of stations, task is roughly the same
alternative routes, and system terminal.

Conclusion:
Number of handIing tasks
with handling system: 2
Number of handling tasks
without handling system: 10
Advantage to handling system by
over 5 times or a direct labor
factor of 20%

Figure 2
Parts Tagging up operation was usually performed on-board, late
in the outfitting cycle, thus increasing labor costs
One of the immediate benefits to NASSCO result- and disrupting adjacent work.
ing from this study was the development of improved
identification procedures for parts requiring blast During the “Proposed Improved Methods” phase
and paint. of the study, a small ad-hoc committee of Paint and
Production Planners was formed to investigate the
Temporary identification is required on ail fabri- tagging problem and offer solutions. The group’s
cated parts to ensure they end up in the right in- recommendations focused on all aspects of the
stallation location. Since any information written problem. First, use an automatic Address-O-Graph
directly on parts would be lost during blast and machine to imprint the metal tags, saving the labor
paint, tags are commonly used. When tags are of hand-stamping. Then, attach tags to parts with
fastened with wire, the risk of being torn loose and a weld stud pin. Studs are “shot” from an electric
lost is high. Also, part configuration does not always gun, using a minimum of effort and cost. The
allow a tag to be attached by tying. Therefore, tags—with holes at each end—are then placed over
NASSCO has traditionally used welded metal tags the pins and the pins are partially bent down. This
(aluminum or steel) for parts identification. arrangement secures the tag while allowing it to ro-
tate for blast and paint accessibility behind.
Under the old system, necessary information— Removal of studs is accomplished easily with a ham-
part, drawing or other reference numbers—was mer and chisel. Minimal, if any, paint touch up is
stamped on tags by hand, one character at a time. required after stud removal.
Tags were then spot-welded to the part after fabri-
cation and eventually removed on-block or on-board At the time of this writing, the new tagging pro-
after part instal Iation. This method proved costly posal has been accepted by NASSCO Management
and created specific problems for the Paint Depart- and is being put into effect for the AOE-6 contract.
ment. Removal of the welded tags required labori- A justification cost analysis for the new tagging sys-
ous chipping and grinding that damaged tem indicated labor and material savings of over two
surrounding coatings. Also, since the area behind dollars per tag. At this rate, the full capital invest-
the tag has been shielded from earlier shop blast- ment required for the new system will be recovered
ing and painting, extensive surface preparation and before completion of the first ship.
touch up was necessary after tag removal. This touch

APPENDIX C: AUTOMATED PAINTING

Automated parts painting for shipbuilding A reference summary on automation is very

presents a unique situation when compared with desirable. The possibilities are great and all major
other manufacturing industries, such as automotive producers of painting equipment offer some ready
or aircraft. Ship construction is not generally con- to use automation. However, most applications will
sidered an “assembly line” process due to the length need customization to match equipment, system
of the building cycle and individuality of design. Few and specifications to the requirements.
if any, shipyard jobs are identical in the usual
manufacturing sense. It follows, then, that the parts Let us therefore briefly discuss the various types
making up assemblies are diverse in size and con- of automated systems to establish a reference base.
figuration, as evidenced by this study’s “Typical”
Parts List (Appendix E). Linear Reciprocating Systems—~pical of the
blast and prime lines for mill plates. NASSCO
Thus, if automation in any form is to be applica- uses this type of system for pre-construction
ble, it must be highly flexible in nature. Flexible au- priming of all plates and shapes.
tomation is defined as any automated or
semi-automated process which is able to adapt or The speed of the material passing the point(s)
to be rearranged to some degree to accommodate paint application is coordinated with the
changing job configurations, sizes, times or other speed of guns moving back and forth along a
important conditions (4). Clearly, any successful at- fixed linear path. Control systems can be
tempt to automate parts painting would need to fit pneumatic, low-voltage, computerized or other.
this description.
 Multi-linear Reciprocating Systems—same as The use of robots for parts painting maybe in-
linear except the set-ups can be varied (with- dicated where several thousand (or more)
in limits) to permit change in the linear path. identical items are to be coated. Costs for
For very sophisticated systems, the path these systems are extremely high at present,
change can be initiated from computerized and the justification requires comparable ex-
controls or manually called in from part to tremes.
part.
The researchers for this project believe that the
These systems are used in high-production multi-linear system may be the practical maximum
conveyorized parts systems where “families” for shipyard applications. Many parts are similar, but
of parts are coated and pattern changes are rarely are large quantities of parts identiczd.
required “on the fly.” By using multiple gun
arrangements, different paints can be sprayed The NASSCO studies show that manual painting
in the same set-up. within a well developed mechanized conveyor sys-
tem yields the greatest flexibility combined with ef-
Robotic Systems—generally the most ad- ficiency.
vanced state of the automation. Fully program-
mable, robots can duplicate the movements Blasting, then, may be the place to look for
of a man. automation . . . . .

APPENDIX D: BLASTING SYSTEMS

This may be far and away the key to mechaniza- hangers used extensively by shipyards, the savings
tion, semi-automation or automation where small could be a hundred-to-one over airblasting, even
parts painting is concerned. Many experts consider with a durable abrasive such as steel grit, Examples
direct blasting to require four times the labor cost of how to use the information in Figure 5 will be
of direct painting. provided later.

Manual Blast = 4 X Manual Painting

This is a significant direct cost condition.

“A very comprehensive discussion of automated

blasting was presented to the project group by Mr.
R. A. Walka, President of the Blast Star Company.
Excerpts from his presentation are included here.

The use of automated blast equipment is intend-

ed to eliminate manual airblast by introducing sever-
al types of centrifugal or wheel blast machines. Air
as a energy transfer system is always less desirable
than more effective methods like hydraulic and
mechanical. Thus, costly air compressors should be
avoided whenever possible. Figure 5 shows a com-
parison of costs for three methods of blasting: air
blast with sand, air blast with steel grit, and wheel
blast with steel shot. (Support data used in this
analysis is included at end of section.)
Figure 5
These costs become more conservative when
related to actual experience for small parts. The
figures are based on structural shapes and plate, A look at the different types of wheelblast
which provide a good basis for continuous airblast- machines and the material handling process itself
ing without constant stopping and overspray as with can point out the attractiveness of the wheel blast
small parts. For specific parts, such as the pipe alternative.
 Airb/ast typically involves using a ASME pressure The primary machines to be described differ in
vessel to store abrasive and introduce it into an air- how the part is handled and whether the part dwells
stream of equal pressure for propelling the materi- for a period of time under the blast pattern. In-place
al through a hose. The abrasive is accelerated to or cycle machines like the tumbleblast, table, and
approximately 400 MPH or more though a nozzle spinner-hanger hold the part(s) in front of the blast
of much smaller orifice than the hose diameter. In for several minutes. Pass-through machines for plate
the case of steel grit, a large nozzle of 1/2” diameter and structural shapes move the part continuously
will propel as much as two tons an hour. This would without delay. The number of wheels in a machine
require one man to handle the blasting. Air biast- determines both the production rate and size of part
ing with sand or slag is so cost prohibitive that it that can be blasted. However, most pass-through
is out of the question except for very small amounts machines have at least two wheels on each side.
of blasting.
Automated and semi-automated blasting of small
Wheel or centrifugal blasting is the introduction parts may utilize any number of machine configu-
of abrasive, usually steel or iron shot, to a revolving rations. General purpose machines include:
series of spokes or blades from the center. The shot
then is literally flung by the speed of the rotation 1. TUMBLEBELT. The cycle machine is
of the “wheel” on which the flat blades are mount- designed primarily for large numbers of very
ed. The ultimate abrasive velocity is determined by small parts. A quantity of parts is dumped onto
the length of the blade and the speed of the rota- a metal link or rubber belt directly under the
tion. Two hundred MPH is typical abrasive speed blast pattern of the wheel. The slipping, slid-
from a wheel—less than the rate achieved by ing and flipping action of the belt insures com-
airbiast. plete coverage of even the most complex part.
Typically found in highly repetitive applica-
It is through the anchor pattern achieved and tions, like foundries and automotive part
amount of abrasive expended that the wheel shows rebuilder, it is by far the most popular of
its substantial increase in efficiency. An extremely wheel machines. While shipyards may not
large horsepower wheel (75 HP) can throw more have the high production of small parts that
than a ton of shot per minute. the ½ airblast noz- is typical for belt machines, they may repre-
zle would need at least a half hour to do this with sent the only reasonable way to automatically
an air compressor requiring 75 HP or more. prepare some small parts.

The airblast nozzle can create an effective pat- 2. SPINNER HANGER. A more versatile cy-
tern of about 6“ diameter. The large wheel can blast cle machine, which has parts hung from a
a pattern of 48” high and 6“ wide. This wheel pat- hook or multiples from a “Christmas Tree”, is
tern is a constant flow of abrasive which requires used for parts that would be damaged from
little or no dwell time to blast the exposed surfaces tumbling or are too large to tumble. In addi-
clean. tion, a standardized part can be conveyed to
and from the machine on an overhead con-
Using a S-230 size shot, the number of abrasive veyor. Standard spinner hangers have hooks or
impacts achieved per minute would be 840 million. part trees on two loading doors. One or two
In many wheel machines, multiple wheels are used wheels propel the abrasive while the parts re-
simultaneously in both perpendicular and angular volve in front of the blast pattern. An interest-
attitudes to the work to create a literal “metal laun- ing new option being offered is to have the
dty!’ Use of round shot rather than angular grit wheel oscillate on its vertical axis to insure
results in tremendous rebounding and ricocheting maximum coverage of the parts. The limita-
of the abrasive and, therefore, more effective tion of this machine is that the parts must be
cleaning. able to suspend on a hook or fixture.

There are a number of configurations of wheel 3. MONORAIL. Basically a spinner hanger

blast machines all suited for certain types an sizes variation, the monorail provides “pass-
of work. Some special purpose models are not through” parts handling while also offering cy-
general enough to be usable for broad applications. cling for better coverage. The parts are sus-
These include skew roll pipe machines, multi-table pended on a hook or tree and move in a line
small parts down blasters, and large part car tables. on a conveyor. Most monorails have wheels

37
mounted on both sides, so revolving the part 6. PLATE. Plate machines are among the
is not necessary. Four or more wheels provide largest and most expensive blast machines
the coverage, so parts can continuously move due to the 8’ to 12’ pattern required to clean
through the blast area. A high volume ma- both the top and bottom of a standard steel
chine, the monorail provides the abiliy to do plate. These are quite common in new con-
longer parts as they pass through on the con- struction shipyards, often combined with an
veyor. Monorails often are equipped with a se- automatic priming line. The design standard
ries of “finger” seals instead of doors as on for these machines is now the vertical orien-
a spinner hanger. This would necessitate hav- tation mentioned in the structural section.
ing smaller numbers of parts enter at a given Previously, most plate machines moved the
time. plate flat through blast, thus requiring costly
brush off devices.
4. STRUCTURAL. This is a pass-through
machine similar in design to a monorail. The Plate machines have been used for struc-
structural machine is designed for all types of tural applications, but the very wide pattern
long narrow shapes, usually four feet or longer. of each wheel does not effectively intensify the
l-beams, channels, angles and bars are ideally pattern for cleaning complex shapes. These
handled in this machine. The machine, in ad- machines also required much higher main-
dition to size of opening, varies in whether it tenance than the vertically oriented systems.
is designed for “pre” or “post” fabrication. The
post-fabrication machine has the wheels an- 7. TABLE. The table machine is a box-
gled to expose additional work surfaces that shaped enclosure with a round table that is
would not be reached at the 90 degree angle revolved in front of the blast wheel(s). Theta-
used in prefabrication machines. In this way, ble is usually attached to the door and swings
the post machine can clean weldments like out for ease of loading. These cycling
stiffeners and build-up members. The struc- machines often are large and can take the
tural machines will also clean pipe and bar place of extensive airblast operations for fin-
stock in either configuration; not as efficient- ished weldments. The material handling how-
ly as a skew roll machine, but effectively. ever, is not automatic since the table has to
be loaded and unloaded by hand or overhead
A fairly recent innovation in structural crane.
machines is vertical orientation. The work
piece is positioned ‘on end’ in its lengthwise While somewhat more cumbersome in load-
pass through the machine. This insures bet- ing, the machine can handle a wide variety of
ter coverage in a narrower but taller pattern. parts from small pieces on a rack to just about
The abrasive falls off readily and therefore anything that can fit inside. Two cycles are of-
there is no abrasive “masking” at the ends of ten necessary, with parts being rearranged to
parts, and little or no additional cleaning of achieve optimal cleaning. While it may not suit
parts is necessaty. the automation of a high production arrange-
ment, this machine is probably the most ver-
5. COMBINATION STRUCTURAL AND satile for small parts blasting.
MONORAIL. The angled wheel pattern of the
post-fabrication structural machine is similar 8. MESH BIAST. The mesh blast machine
to the design of the four or more wheel mono- consists of two or four wheels firing on a mesh
rail, which has wheels on both sides to elimi- belt which conveys the parts. The belt is con-
nate the need for rotating the part. Several structed of manganese alloy wire 3/16” in di-
combination machines are available with both ameter and conveys the parts through the blast
methods of conveying—overhead rail and roll- cabinet in a manner similar to an airport metal
er conveyor. Due to the ease of handling, most detector.
structural types have roller conveyors. These
machines can blast smaller parts suspended A unique feature of this machine is that long
overhead as in a monorail with continuous narrow parts like pipe and structural shapes
movement to insure cleanliness, or parts can can be handled in addition to small parts that
be moved back and forth in the blast pattern. would otherwise be cleaned in a tumbleblast
machine. Completed parts can either be fed
into a basket carrier or onto roller conveyors.

38
 This completes a general description of the op- Using these assumptions for the list provided,
tions available for selecting wheel blast systems. The each machine’s value could be determined. How-
capabilities of each machine must now be meas- ever, for the smaller parts, time to blast each one,
ured against the specific parts that are to be cleaned rather than square footage, is more applicable for
on a regular basis. Using NASSCO’S AOE Typical a cost analysis. This time can be converted to cost
Parts List (Appendix E) as a guideline, it is possi- through the square foot per hour assumptions used
ble to be more specific in evaluating the various con- for Figure 5.
figurations.
The evaluations are as shown in Figure 6.
Each machine will be evaluated on a scale of A,
B C or D as follows: PART EVALUATIONS - AOE
A. Ideally suited; the type of part for which
the machine was designed. Rating
100%

B. Will clean effectively on a single pass or

cycle, however, part may have to be
mounted on special fixturing. In addi-
tion, the energy efficiency will be lower
and maintenance higher. Rating 75%

c. Marginal on single pass or cycle, how-

ever, part can be cleaned by flipping on
table, repositioning on fixturing in spin-
ner hanger, or repeated pass through on
structural or monorail. Rating: 50%

D. Totally unsuitable, part cannot be

cleaned in this machine with any prac-
ticality. Rating O%

The percentage ratings are related to a potential

financial savings evaluation that could be developed
along with estimates of the manual blast cost. For
example, if plate, an obvious “A" for a plate machine,
were evaluated, 100% of the cost savings in using
a wheel blast system would be realized. If present-
ly being done with sand, and the cost comparison
figures in Figure 5 are used, the savings for a 10’
by 40’ plate would be:

Cost per Square hot, Sand $.310

Cost per Square Foot, Shot .011
Per Square Foot Savings $.299

800 square feet (two sides) X Savings X 1.00 =

$239.20 per plate (100% of this can be used in
the justification). SUPPORT DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR

If the same plate were run through a combina-

tion machine, it would be graded a “C” and the sav- 1. Labor Cost: $30 per hour, in addition:
ings realized would be only 50Y0. Now the savings A. Sand or slag requires 25% cleanup.
per plate is: B. Wheel requires minimal labor to operate.

800 square feet X Savings X .50 = $119.60 (50% 2. Electricity Cost: $.06 per kilowatt hour.
only can be used in the justification).
39
3. Horsepower Requirements: 7. Cleaning Rates, Square Foot Per Minute
A. Sand: 333 cfm = 75 hp compressor A. Sand: 5
B. Grit: 75 hp plus other equipment = 100 B. Grit: 5
hp c. Wheet: 1 per horsepower
c. Wheel:
8. Blast Equipment Maintenance Per Hour.
Four 20 hp wheels 80 A. Sand: $.75
elevator 7.5 B. Grit: $1.30
dust collector 15 c. Wheel: $3.00 per wheel
convevors 5
total 107.5 9. Compressor Maintenance

4. Horsepower to Electric. Converted at 745 watt $.08 per 1000 cfm

per hp.
10. CFM Requirements
5. Abrasive Cost Per Ton A. Sand: 333 cfm
A. Sand: $50 B. Wheel: 8 cfm (for cleaning dust collec-
B. Steel grit and shot: $550 tor filters)

6. Abrasive Usage Per Hour * Assume 100 recycles

A. Sand: One ton
B. Grit: 30* tbs.
c. Shot: 24 Ibs. per wheel*