PENNSTATE

Department of Industrial Engineering

Rockland Manufacturing Team # 2 Final Report

April 1, 2012

Team Members: Ronald Chan Zachary Dale PJ Clifford Eric Segner Jeffrey Zub Sponsor: Bo Pratt Jim Hershberger Adviser: Dr. Voigt

Executive Summary
Rockland Manufacturing currently spends $90,000 on their grinding process using the Pearl Silver nine inch grinding wheels. They are interested in finding a wheel that performs better than their current wheel to improve their grinding process and potentially yield monetary savings. Rockland brought the Penn State team in to test different grinding wheels against their current wheel to understand the performance of their current wheel compared to that of different wheels available. The parameters of most interest to Rockland are the material removal rate, price, and wheel life. The team first did extensive research on grinding wheels and the grinding process to completely understand the problem. The team found the main difference between nine inch grinding wheels is the material of which they are manufactured and the manufacturer. The price also varied greatly, but the team found the variation was a result of the manufacturer. The team developed a list of test wheels based on the two materials, aluminum oxide and zirconium, from seven different top manufacturers; CARBO, CGW, DeWalt, SAIT, Westward, Norton, and Metabo which ranged greatly in price. The wheels were obtained and three tests were performed. The first test was a weld test where each wheel was used to grind off six 1 inch welds. This was done twice with each wheel, using a new wheel for each test to obtain an average. The time was recorded and the weight difference of the wheel was recorded. The time was testing the material removal rate as the each wheel was grinding the same six welds. The wheel weight difference tested the wheel life. The best performing wheel was the Norton zirconium with a time of 149 seconds and the worst performing wheel was the Pearl Silver at 268 seconds. The next two tests developed tested grinding on bare metal; two different types of metals Rockland uses in their processes. Each type of metal was tested with each wheel for two minutes. Two samples of these tests were taken to obtain an average. The difference in weight of the metal piece and the difference in weight of the wheel were recorded. The difference in weight tested material removal rate in two minutes and the difference in wheel weight tested wheel life. A jig was used to hold constant pressure on the grinder to avoid variability. These two tests had much less variability than the weld test as there was constant pressure and time where the weld test had different sized welds and operator fatigue that set in. The best performing wheel for the harder metal was the CARBO Maxx Gold with a material removal of .132 lb. The best performing wheel for the harder metal was the CARBO Premier with a material removal of .144 lb. The worst wheel in both tests was the Pearl Silver wheel with a material removal of .0253 lb and .0231 lb. An employee evaluation was then performed by distributing forms to the employees with the test wheel to rate the wheels compared to the current wheel. Because of the poor performance of the current wheel in each test, it was obvious that improvements could be made. Analysis was completed using the data obtained in the two metal grinding tests. The wheel life and material removal rate was found and compared amongst the wheels. Then, this data along with the data of Rocklands current grinding costs and usage was used to make calculations and comparisons regarding material costs for the wheels themselves and labor costs. Percentages were found to compare each wheel to the current wheel. The zirconium wheels recommended are the CARBO Maxx Gold and CARBO Premier and the aluminum oxide wheels recommended are the CGW and DeWalt wheels which resulted in the most savings per wheel in grinding expenses when compared to the current wheel. Also, the results from the analysis match the top performing wheels in the user evaluation. The Pearl Silver wheel currently being used was the worst wheel in the batch of wheels tested, meaning there is much room for improvement and potentially a high monetary savings when implementing one of the suggested wheels here. One of the four possible wheels listed here should be implemented to replace the use of the Pearl Silver wheels.

Table of Contents

1.0 Problem Statement .................................................................................. 4 1.1 Objectives/Goals ................................................................................... 4 2.0 Wheels Chosen to Test ............................................................................ 4 2.1 Reasons for Choosing Wheels .............................................................. 5 3.0 Experimental Approach........................................................................... 5 3.1 Parameters Being Tested ...................................................................... 6 3.2 Metal Grinding Tests ............................................................................ 6 3.2.1 Jig .................................................................................................... 6 3.2.2 Metal Test Results ........................................................................... 7 3.3 Welding Test ....................................................................................... 10 3.3.1 Grinding Test Results .................................................................... 11 4.0 Analysis ................................................................................................. 13 4.1 Operator Feedback .............................................................................. 13 4.2 Wheel Retail Cost ............................................................................... 16 4.3 Material Removal Rate ....................................................................... 17 4.4 Wheel Life .......................................................................................... 17 4.5 Percent Better Wheel Life and Material Removal Rate ..................... 18 4.6 Percent Better Wheel Life and Material Removal Rate per $ ............ 19 4.7 Wheels Needed per Year .................................................................... 21 4.8 Cost per Year and Savings per Year in Wheel Costs ......................... 22 4.9 Labor Hours per Year and Savings per Year in Labor Costs ............. 24 4.10 Labor and Wheel Cost Results Combined........................................ 26 4.11 Assumptions ...................................................................................... 28 5.0 Recommendations ................................................................................. 28 6.0 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 29 7.0 Appendix ............................................................................................... 29

1.0 Problem Statement

Our team worked with Rockland Manufacturing to evaluate a selection of 9 grinding wheels in order to determine the best fit for the company. An improved grinding wheel from their Pearl Silver wheel is desired to improve the performance of their grinding process and to potentially save money. Currently, Rockland uses air powered angle grinders for two main applications in the shop area; after the plasma cutting process, and when bracing is removed the excess weld slag is ground off. A combination of experiments was created to simulate each scenario and will be explained further in this report. A selection of grinding wheels was chosen by the team based on two main differences; brand/manufacturer and material type (aluminum oxide and zirconium). These various wheels were tested against Rocklands current 9 Pearl Silver Line grinding wheel. Each grinding wheel was tested with respect to cutting speed, cost, and wheel life. An economic analysis was conducted by the team to determine the cost/benefit ratio of implementing new grinding wheels vs. Rocklands current practices. This report presents the findings of through the experiments held. The numerical results as well as user results are provided and a comparison of these results is given to help understand which wheel is optimal. Also, the recommendations to Rockland on the improved wheel choice will be given.

1.1 Objectives/Goals

Obtain wheels of 2 material types from 8 different manufacturers and make comparisons based on tested parameters. Receive operator feedback on the wheels Analyze test data via numerical and cost analysis Recommend best grinding wheel based on criteria being tested Report estimated savings and/or improved performance based on new wheel recommendation

2.0 Wheels Chosen to Test

Manufacturer Pearl Silver Line CARBO CARBO CGW CGW Material Aluminum Oxide Zirconium Gold MAXX Zirconium - Premier Aluminum Oxide Zirconium Retail Prices $3.13 $6.85 $13.01 $3.49 $9.40

DeWalt DeWalt SAIT (United Abrasives) SAIT (United Abrasives) Westward Westward Norton Norton Metabo Metabo

Aluminum Oxide Zirconium Aluminum Oxide Zirconium Aluminum Oxide Zirconium Aluminum Oxide Zirconium Aluminum Oxide Zirconium Table 1: The wheels chosen to test for Rockland.

$6.71 $15.02 $9.70 $10.49 $6.01 $12.29 $6.21 $12.81 $4.25 $74.80/10

2.1 Reasons for Choosing Wheels

From the list above it can be seen that for each manufacturer, the two different materials; aluminum oxide and zirconium were chosen to test. During the initial research to find the parameters that changed between different 9 wheels, it was found that the material, manufacturer, and price were the differences between grinding wheel choices and would be focused on to find the best selection of test wheels. It was also found that the grit size of 24 was constant for the 9 X 7/8 X 1/4 size of grinding wheel which took this variation out of the decision for different wheels. Next, it was found that there are mainly three materials that make up this size of grinding wheel; aluminum oxide, zirconium, and ceramic. The ceramic wheels which had lofty claims were out of the budget of the experiment and seemed to be for more specialty metal jobs which took them out of the decision of grinding wheels. This left the aluminum oxide and zirconium wheels to test. The team decided to acquire these two material wheels from many different main manufacturers of grinding wheels which covered a broad range of prices. This was done to find the effect of manufacturer as well as price on the grinding wheel performance as different manufacturers offer the same material wheels for different prices. The manufacturers were chosen based on extensive research and phone calls to the manufacturers regarding the wheels. Also, the teams budget, while already extended for wheel purchases, had an effect on the amount of manufacturers to test leaving the larger, more prominent manufacturers to test. The manufacturers chosen allow for the best wheel found to be easily obtained from a local supplier while smaller manufacturers of wheels may be harder to gain the large amounts of wheels required by Rockland. Six samples of each wheel were obtained to have a new wheel for each of the two samples of the three different experiments explained below.

3.0 Experimental Approach

The following describes the parameters that were tested to analyze the test wheels given above in Section 2.0. The parameters are then followed by a description of the three tests; two different metal grinding tests and weld testing. These three tests were used to collect various data regarding wheel performance used in the analysis section.

3.1 Parameters Being Tested

There are three main parameters that the team tested in the experiments. The most important parameter for the team tested for was how quickly material is removed when grinding (material removal rate). The team and Rockland was looking to maximize the amount of material being removed. This was measured in two different ways, depending on the experiment which will be explained in the specific tests below. The second most important parameter that was tested with the experiment is the cost of the wheel. This was based on the cheapest cost that each wheel can be obtained for in bulk from a local supplier of each manufacturer. There was a separate cost analysis done once the experimentation was finished to determine which wheel makes the most financial sense once factoring in labor and other costs. The final parameter that the team was testing for was wheel life. This was tested for all of the experiments by weighing each wheel prior to performing the test, and then weighing it again after the test was completed. Ideally we were looking to minimize the difference between these two measurements so that the wheel will last as long as possible. The optimal combination of these parameters was found to recommend the best wheel choice.

3.2 Metal Grinding Tests

The metal grinding test was done in two different parts. This first part was to test 400 Brinell Plate and the second part was to test A572 Grade 50. Each test had two replications for each wheel that was being tested, and there were 17 different wheels being tested which resulted in 34 tests for each of the 2 types of metal; a total of 68 tests with 68 wheels. The two samples of each wheel were then averaged to reduce variability. The test used a jig that is described in section 3.2.1 to minimize the amount of variability between tests in order to gain accurate data. The jig helped to keep the grinder at the same angle during each test, as well as to apply the same amount of pressure for each test. We used the weight of the grinder as the pressure. Some wheels required a slight amount of pressure to be taken off the test piece because the wheel would slow down and stop because of the amount of pressure. For this test, the material removal was measured by weighing the sample of metal before the test, and then weighing it again after the piece was ground for 2 minutes each. The scale used had a resolution of .002 pounds and we timed each wheel with a stopwatch. The team looked to maximize the difference in weights so that we know that the wheel is removing more material than other wheels in the same amount of time. These tests were held at Penn State. 3.2.1 Jig The jig that was used for the grinding tests allowed the grinder to be firmly mounted so that it would not move during the tests. Rockland machined and assembled the jig for the team. It was hinged at the top so that it could be lifted off the sample to change test wheels without having to be detached. The sample piece was pinned into a small sled that was slid back and forth on a track, to simulate the movement of a grinder across a surface. This jig was taken back to Penn State for testing. The jig was set up in a welding booth with a vent and a guard to stop the sparks. The jig will then be presented in the final showcase. The jig is shown below in Figure 2.

The original jig is shown below. The jig was brought back to Penn State and the grinder was attached with U-bolts. It was seen that the grinder, at an angle of 45 degrees, would grind into the metal which was not how Rockland uses their grinders in their grinding process. The jig was taken back to Rockland to reduce the angle by moving the grinder closer to the base plate which resulted in a more accurate grinding test.

Figure 1: The first jig design to be used for the grinding tests

Figure 2: First Jig 3.2.2 Metal Test Results

Figure 3: Jig after the modifications made

Figures 4 and 5 present the results of the metal testing. The weight difference in the metal piece used to test is provided for each wheel in each test. The numbers given in the chart are the average of the two sample tests that were performed for each wheel. Metal 2 was the softer metal while metal 1 was the harder type of metal used in Rocklands products. From this chart, it can be

seen that the CARBO wheel performed the best, removing the most weight in the two minutes. This translates into these wheels having the fastest material removal rate. The SAIT and Norton zirconium wheels also performed well. Also, it can be seen that the Pearl Silver wheel performed the worst, removing the least amount of material. The Westward wheels also performed poorly in this test. The results from this test will be further analyzed below, providing a monetary value to the best performing wheels.

Metal 1 Difference (lbs)

0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Metal 1 Difference (lbs)

Figure 4: Average difference in weights of metal 1 from before the test to after the test per wheel used. Best performing wheels metal 1: CARBO Maxx Zirconium - .132 lbs CARBO Premier Zirconium - .111 lbs Norton Zirconium - .1045 lbs Worst performing wheels metal 1: Pearl Silver - .0253 lbs Westward Zirconium - .0325 lbs Norton Aluminum Oxide - .0418 lbs

Metal 2 Difference (lbs)

0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Metal 2 Difference (lbs)

Figure 5: Average difference in weights of metal 2 from before the test to after the test per wheel used. Best performing wheels metal 2: CARBO Premier Zirconium - .144 lbs DeWalt Aluminum Oxide - .124 lbs CARBO Maxx Zirconium - .122 lbs Worst performing wheels metal 2: Pearl Silver - .0231 lbs Westward Zirconium - .0264 lbs Westward Aluminum Oxide - .0396 lbs Figures 6 and 7 give the difference in wheel weight for the two metal tests. This measurement relates to the life of the wheel. The resolution of the scale used was .002 lbs. The best performing wheel for Metal 1 test is the Norton aluminum oxide, DeWalt zirconium, and CARBO Premier as these wheels lost the least amount of weight. The worst performing wheel is again the Pearl Silver wheel. The best performing wheels in the Metal 2 test are the Pearl Silver and CARBO wheels. The worst performing wheels in the Metal 2 test are the DeWalt aluminum Oxide, SAIT zirconium, and Metabo wheels. The best performing wheels represent the wheels with the best life while the worst have the shortest wheel life. The best wheel life will translate into less wheels needing changed and ultimately less wheels needing purchased.

Wheel Difference Metal 1 (lbs)

0.016 0.014 0.012 0.01 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0 Wheel Difference Metal 1 (lbs)

Figure 6: Average differences in wheel weights from before the metal 1 test to after the test

Wheel Difference Metal 2 (lbs)

0.016 0.014 0.012 0.01 0.008 0.006 0.004 0.002 0 Wheel Difference Metal 2 (lbs)

Figure 7: Average differences in wheel weights from before the metal 2 test to after the test

3.3 Welding Test

10

For the welding test, the 17 wheels that were being tested were each tested twice; each sample test used a new wheel similar to the metal grinding test. The idea of the welding test was to test how well the wheels removed a jagged weld after the bracing pieces have been removed from the main work piece. Unlike the metal grinding test, we were not able to weigh the sample pieces that were being welded and grinded. Instead, we made consistent sized weld, and timed, using a stopwatch, how long it took to completely remove the weld to make it smooth. Ideally, we were trying to minimize the time it take to remove the weld. The welds were created by welding six 1 inch welds in the corner of a piece of metal standing perpendicular to a metal table and then breaking the vertical piece off, simulating the broken welds that Rockland experiences. Each test consisted of removing three of the one inch welds two times. This resulted in two time measurements for each individual wheel which were then added. This was done twice for each type of wheel, resulting in two time measurements for each type of wheel which were averaged to reduce variability. The Rockland employees created the grinds while the Penn State team performed the grinding, timing, and recording. Figure 6 illustrates the test. It was noticed that the size of the grinds were consistent at one inch each but the amount of metal in each grind differed greatly between the different welds which introduced some variability into the experiment. It was noted that this was acceptable as the grinds that are currently being ground off in Rocklands processes are all different sizes and different amounts of metal.

3.3.1 Grinding Test Results Figure 8 gives the results from the weld test. These numbers are the average of the two samples of grinding six 1 inch welds. These results directly relate to the material removal rate while grinding off jagged welds from the surface of the products. It can be seen here that the Pearl Silver wheels performed the worst as they took the longest to remove the welds from the metal surface. The best performing wheels were the CGW zirconium, Westward aluminum oxide, and Norton zirconium wheels as they removed the welds the fastest. This translates to these wheels having the

11

fastest material removal rate. This test introduced a large amount of variability as the welds were all different sizes and operator fatigue was also a factor. Best performing wheels: Westward Aluminum Oxide 136 Seconds CGW Zirconium 139.5 Seconds Norton Zirconium 149 Seconds Worst performing wheels: Pearl Silver 268 seconds Norton Aluminum Oxide 230.5 seconds CGW Aluminum Oxide 211.5 seconds

Time (sec)
300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Time (sec)

Figure 8: Average of the total time to grind off six 1 inch welds per wheel

Figure 9 gives the difference in weights of the wheels for the weld test. Again these numbers are averages of the two samples of each wheel. These numbers relate directly to wheel life. The wheels with the smaller difference in wheel weight will have the longer wheel life while large differences relate to short wheel life. From the results shown, the DeWalt aluminum oxide, Westward aluminum oxide, and Metabo zirconium wheels performed the worst with a large difference in weights while the CGW zirconium. DeWalt zirconium, Westward zirconium, and Norton zirconium wheels performed the best with small difference in weights. These wheels will have the best wheel life and require fewer wheel purchases and wheel changes on the job. Best Performing Wheels - Wheel Difference CGW Zirconium - .0055 lbs DeWalt Zirconium - .006 lbs Westward Zirconium .007 lbs

12

 Norton Zirconium .007 lbs Worst Performing Wheels - Wheel Difference DeWalt Aluminum Oxide - .028 lbs Westward Aluminum Oxide .016 lbs Current Wheel Pearl Silver - .008 lbs

Wheel Difference (lbs)

0.03 0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Wheel Difference (lbs)

Figure 9: Average differences in wheel weights from before the metal test to after the test

4.0 Analysis
The team conducted three experimental analyses to test the data obtained from the above described tests. The team will first distribute operator feedback forms to get an understanding of how the employees feel about the test wheels. Then a DOE will be conducted with the data as well as a cost analysis to understand the optimal wheel choice for Rockland.

4.1 Operator Feedback

The operator feedback form shown in the figure below was given along with the corresponding wheel to the operators to test and give feedback. This test was performed to compare the results of the experimental test to an actual user evaluation to understand if the results were similar or different. The form distributed to the users compared the test wheel to the current Pearl Silver wheel using three main ratings; grinding speed, wheel life, and overall comparison. The users were to rank on a scale of one to five where one was the test wheel performing much worse than the original wheel, three was the wheel performing the same as the current wheel, and five was the wheel performing much better than the current wheel. Also, as area for any general comments or concerns was given. The wheels from the weld test were distributed with a corresponding form and the results were recorded. The results can be seen below in Table 10.

13

It can be seen that the current Pearl Silver wheel received the worst rating for wheel life while the Metabo Zirconium, CARBO Gold Maxx, CGW zirconium, DeWalt aluminum oxide, SAIT zirconium, and both Norton wheels received the highest ratings of four and five for wheel life. It also can be seen that in the overall category, the CRBO wheels, DeWalt wheels, Norton aluminum oxide, and Metabo Zirconium received the best ratings while the Westward wheels received the worst ratings. In the speed of cutting category, the Pearl Silver, and Metabo zirconium received the best ratings while all other wheels received ratings of four and five. There were a few concerns written in the comments section for some of the wheels. The CGW aluminum oxide wheel broke while the DeWalt aluminum oxide wheel smelt bad. The Westward zirconium wheel did not take the slag off well, the Norton zirconium wheels bent, and the Metabo zirconium wheels dug into the product if the user was not careful. From this test it can be seen that the wheels to focus on while making financial decisions are; CARBO Maxx Gold, DeWalt aluminum oxide, SAIT zirconium, Norton zirconium, and the CGW wheels. These results were compared with the results from the two other tests. Best Performing Wheels Metabo Zirconium Average = 4.67 CARBO Maxx Average = 4.33 DeWalt Aluminum Oxide Average = 4.33 Norton Aluminum Oxide Average= 4.33 Worst Performing Wheels Westward Zirconium Average = 2 Many Wheels Average = 3 Current Wheel Pearl Silver Average = 3.33

14

Figure 10: Operator evaluation form for the test wheels

Manufacturer Pearl Silver CARBO - Gold MAXX CARBO Premier CGW CGW DeWalt DeWalt SAIT SAIT

Material Aluminum Oxide Zirconium

Sample 2 1 2

Speed Life 5 1 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 N/A 4 3 4 3 4 3 3

Overall 4 5 4 5 3 4 3 3 5 3 5 3 3

Comments Does not last

Zirconium Aluminum Oxide Zirconium Aluminum Oxide Zirconium Aluminum Oxide Zirconium

1 1 2 5 6 1 1 2 1 1

Cut quicker. Broke.

Eats slag well. Smells bad. Pretty good

15

Westward Westward

Aluminum Oxide Zirconium

2 1 2 1 2

4 3 4 3 3 4 3 3

4 3 3 1 2 4 3 N/A

4 3 4 2 2 5 4 3 Wear too fast. Doesn't take slag off/bevel well Grinds good and doesn't take as long. Cuts good Bevels well. Bends more but chews more

Norton Norton Metabo Metabo

Aluminum Oxide Zirconium

1 2 1

2 4 4 4 Aluminum Oxide 1 4 3 3 2 4 N/A 4 Zirconium 1 5 4 5 2 5 5 5 Table 2: Operator feedback results

Gouge into product if not careful Digs in

4.2 Wheel Retail Cost

The wheel costs that were used for the study were based on the retail prices for an even comparison. These wheels will most likely be slightly cheaper when purchased in bulk from a local distributor. It can be seen that the Pearl Silver wheel is the cheapest while the SAIT zirconium wheel was the most expensive. These prices are used in the following analysis to analyze material cost savings.

Retail Cost per Wheel

Retail Cost per Wheel $20.12

$15.85 $13.01 $15.02 $10.18 $10.93 $12.29 $9.40 $6.71 $6.75 $7.58 $7.90 $3.78 $4.37 $5.06

Figure 11: Retail cost per wheel

16

4.3 Material Removal Rate

The material removal rate was calculated based off of what was recorded from the experiments. An average removal rate was taken for each wheel based on the four replications of the metal grinding tests and then converted to pounds per hour so that it was a more meaningful measurement. The material removal rate was converted from pounds per two minutes to pounds per hour. The removal rates of each wheel are seen below in Figure 12. Best Wheels CARBO Premier 3.825 CARBO MAXX 3.81 Worst Wheels Westward zirconium - .924 Pearl Silver .726

Material Removal (lbs/hour)

4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Material Removal (lbs/hour)

Figure 12: The material removal rate of each wheel in pounds removed per hour

4.4 Wheel Life

The wheel life of each wheel was also calculated by using the data from the experiments. The weight removed off each wheel for each test was averaged for each wheel. This was also converted to pounds per hour so that it was a more meaningful measurement. This is then used to represent the life of the wheels. The fewer pounds per hour removed off the wheel, the longer the wheel would last. An assumption was made for this part since not all of the wheels are exactly the same weight,

17

but this is corrected in the next section with the percentages. Also, the wheel life was calculated this way as it was out of the scope of the project to test the wheels to their completion.

Wheel Removal (lbs/hour)

0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Wheel Removal (lbs/hour)

Figure 13: The wheel life of each wheel given in pounds of wheel removed per wheel

4.5 Percent Better Wheel Life and Material Removal Rate

The two charts below simply take the data from the previous two sections and change them into percentages so that they can be more accurately compared. The percent better wheel life was calculated by taking the pounds per hour of the current wheel and subtracting it from the pounds per hour of the tested wheel, and dividing that by the pounds per hour of the current wheel. This gives a good comparison for the new wheels and how much longer they will last then the current wheel. The percent better grinding wheel efficiency simply takes the material removal rates and converts them into percentages. This was done by taking the removal rate of the current wheel and subtracting it from the removal rate of the tested wheel, and then dividing that by the removal rate of the current wheel. It can be seen in Figure 14 that the DeWalt zirconium has a much better percent wheel life that the current wheel. Also, the CARBO premier, Westward aluminum oxide, Westward zirconium, and Norton aluminum oxide have much better wheel life when compared to the current wheel. When looking at material removal rate, the two CARBO wheels, DeWalt wheels, and Norton zirconium wheels have much better material removal rates when compared to the current wheel.

18

% Better Wheel Life

1600% 1400% 1200% 1000% 800% 600% 400% 200% 0% -200% % Better Wheel Life

Figure 14: The percent better wheel life of each wheel when compared to the Pearl Silver wheel

% Better Grinding Efficiency

450% 400% 350% 300% 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0%

% Better Grinding Efficiency

Figure 15: The percent better grinding efficiency of each wheel when compared to the Pearl Silver wheel

4.6 Percent Better Wheel Life and Material Removal Rate per $

19

This section shows the percentages of better wheel life and efficiency per dollar since different wheels cost different amounts. This was done by simply taking the data from the previous section and dividing it by the cost of the respective wheel. This balances out the effects of the expensive wheels compared to the cheaper wheels. From Figure 16, it can be seen that the Westward aluminum oxide and CGW aluminum oxide wheels have a much better wheel life per dollar than the current wheel. From Figure 17 it can be seen that the CGW aluminum oxide, Westward aluminum oxide, and CARBO wheels have much better grinding efficiency than the current wheels.

% Better Wheel Life per $

250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% -50% % Better Wheel Life per $

Figure 16: The percent better wheel life of each wheel per dollar when compared to the Pearl Silver wheel

20

% Better Efficiency per $

200% 180% 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

% Better Efficiency per $

Figure 17: The percent better grinding efficiency of each wheel per dollar when compared to the Pearl Silver wheel

4.7 Wheels Needed per Year

The wheels needed per year were calculated based of the efficiency percentages and data on current wheel usage given by Rockland. Current usage is 1200 Pearl Silver wheels per year. The percent better efficiency percentages were then used to make a ratio between the number of current wheels used and the approximate number of the new wheels that would be needed under the same conditions. The results can be seen below in Figure 18 where it can be seen that more DeWalt aluminum oxide wheels would be needed than the current wheels while much fewer DeWalt zirconium, CARBO Premier, and Westward aluminum oxide wheels would be needed.

21

Wheels per Year

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Wheels per Year

Figure 18: The wheel used per year using the test data and the current wheel usage data from Rockland

4.8 Cost per Year and Savings per Year in Wheel Costs
The costs for wheels per year was calculated by taking the estimated number of wheels needed per year from the previous section and multiplying it by the retail costs of each respective wheel which is given in Figure 19. Then to calculate the savings in wheel costs per year, the cost per year of the tested wheel was subtracted from the costs per year of the current wheel, which resulted in either a savings or added expense per year given in Figure 20. The percent savings per year for wheel costs was calculated by taking the total cost per year for the current wheel a dividing it by the amount of savings per year for each wheel which is given in Figure 21. From the three charts, it can be seen that the Westward aluminum oxide, DeWalt zirconium, and CGW aluminum oxide wheels will result in much less material costs per year while the more expensive wheels; DeWalt aluminum oxide, SAIT zirconium, Norton zirconium, and Metabo zirconium will result in greater material costs than Rockland currently has.

22

Cost per Year

$12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 Cost per Year

Figure 19: The material cost per year for each wheel using the wheels needed per year and the retail cost of each wheel

Savings per Year

$4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0 ($1,000) ($2,000) ($3,000) ($4,000) ($5,000) ($6,000) ($7,000) Savings per Year

Figure 20: The savings in wheel costs per year for each wheel

23

% Savings per Year in Wheel Cost

350% 300% 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% -50% -100% % Savings per Year in Wheel Cost

Figure 21: The percent savings of each wheel when compared to the Pearl Silver wheel

4.9 Labor Hours per Year and Savings per Year in Labor Costs
The labor hours per year was calculated using the percent better efficiency data and data supplied by Rockland. Rockland reported spending of $90,000 a year on 4160 hours of labor. The percentages of better efficiency were used to make a ratio to estimate how many hours of labor would be needed to accomplish the same amount of grinding. These hours were then multiplied by their labor cost per hour which was calculated by dividing the $90,000 a year by the 4160 hours a year to get cost per hour. This gave the estimated cost of labor per year for each wheel. The savings per year was then calculated by taking the labor costs per year and subtracting it from the labor costs per year of the current wheel. A percentage was then calculated by taking the cost per year of the current wheel and dividing it by the savings per year of each tested wheel. From Figure 22, 23, and 24 it can be seen that the CARBO wheels, Norton and DeWalt zirconium, and DeWalt aluminum oxide wheels require less labor to accomplish the same amount of grinding; therefore reducing costs. While all wheels require less labor as the Pearl Silver wheels, the Westward wheels and Norton aluminum oxide wheels will save less than the other test wheels.

24

Labor Hours per Year

4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

Labor Hours per Year

Figure 22: The labor hours used per year for each wheel using data from the current grinding usage and labor costs

Labor Cost per Year

$90,000 $80,000 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0

Labor Cost per Year

Figure 23: The labor costs of each wheel using the current grinding usage and labor costs

25

Savings per Year

$80,000.00 $70,000.00 $60,000.00 $50,000.00 $40,000.00 $30,000.00 $20,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 Savings per Year

Figure 24: The savings per year in labor costs for each year when compared to the Pearl Silver wheel

% Savings per Year

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

% Savings per Year

Figure 25: The percent savings per year in labor costs for each year when compared to the Pearl Silver wheel

4.10 Labor and Wheel Cost Results Combined

26

Combined costs per year were then calculated by taking the wheels costs per year and adding it to the labor costs per year for each wheel shown in Figure 26. The combined savings per year of each wheel was calculated by taking the cost of each wheel per year and subtracting it from the combined cost per year of the current wheel. This was converted into a percentage by taking the total combined cost per year of the current wheel and dividing it by the savings per year of each wheel which is shown in Figure 27. From these results it can be seen that the CARBO wheels, DeWalt zirconium, Norton zirconium, CGW aluminum oxide, and DeWalt aluminum oxide wheels will result in the lowest costs per year which results in the highest savings per year.

Combined Costs per Year

$100,000 $90,000 $80,000 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0

Combined Costs per Year

Figure 26: The combined labor and wheel costs per year for each wheel

27

% Combined Savings per Year

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% % Combined Savings per Year

Figure 27: The combined percent savings in costs for each wheel when compared to the Pearl Silver wheel

4.11 Assumptions
Assumptions were made when calculating the above analysis. First, the two minute time period used was assumed to be constant over the life of the wheel as it was out of the scope of the project to test the wheels to their completion. Also, by calculating percentage relating to the data given to the team regarding the current grinding process resulted in other assumptions relating to labor costs. Also, averages from the experiments were used in the data analysis. The dollar amount in costs and savings given here are extrapolated from the test data to show relative performance and savings for the wheels. These results reveal the best wheels but the exact dollar amounts cannot be guaranteed as the wheels would have to be tested on the job at Rockland. From the analysis given here, it can easily be seen which wheels are the best performing while the Pearl Silver wheel is the worst performing.

5.0 Recommendations
Based on all of the data that was collected on the grinding wheels, the best two wheels were the CARBO Premier wheel and the CARBO MAXX wheel. These wheels both have the most savings per year in time and money for the grinding operation. These wheels are zirconium wheels which may be difficult to order in large quantities. If this is the case, the aluminum oxide wheels would be desired. The best performing aluminum oxide wheels were the CGW aluminum oxide or DeWalt aluminum oxide wheels. The results and recommendations given here correspond to top performing wheels in the user evaluation test.

28

6.0 Conclusion
The team began the grinding wheel project by first completely understanding the problem; testing a variety of grinding wheels to make a recommendation to Rockland regarding an improved wheel from their current wheel to reduce costs in labor and wheel costs and improve performance. The team performed extensive research regarding wheels and found that two materials; aluminum oxide and zirconium would be tested from a seven different main manufacturers. The manufacturers tested were CARBO, Norton, DeWalt, SAIT, CGW, Metabo, and Westward. The budget limited the number of manufacturers to test which is why the top manufacturers were chosen. The team then designed and performed three experiments. The first experiment consisted of grinding off 6 one inch welds and timing the grinding. Also, the difference in weight of the wheels before and after the test was recorded. Then, two grinding tests were completed. A jig was designed, manufactured, and used to reduce variability. In this test, the grinder was mounted to a jig was applied constant pressure to the metal piece which was ground for two minutes. The difference in weight of the metal pieces was recorded as well as the difference in weight of the wheel. This test was done for the two typed of metals used by Rockland; a harder metal and a softer metal. Then, a use evaluation form was distributed along with the test wheels to the employees to test the wheels on the job. The results from this test were again recorded. The current Pearl Silver wheel was the worst performing wheel in the experiments which proved the room for improvement in Rocklands grinding process. Analysis was completed with the data from the experiments. The experimental data was used along with the data regarding Rocklands current cost to find wheel life, material removal rates, material costs, and labor costs with respect to each wheel. Savings were also calculated and a percentage relating to how much better each wheel was compared to the current wheel. It was found that the current wheel resulted in the highest grinding costs and there was much room for improvement with an improved wheel. From the analysis, it is recommended that Rockland use CARBO Gold MAXX or CARBO Premier wheels if looking for a zirconium wheel to use. The CGW and DeWalt aluminum oxide wheels are recommended if looking for an easier to obtain wheel. These wheels will result I a better wheel life and material removal rate which translates into decreased costs and increased savings when compared to the current wheel.

7.0 Appendix
OVERALL Manufacturer Pearl Silver CARBO MAXX CARBO CGW CGW Material AO Zirconium Zirconium AO Zirconium Weld Test Time Weight Diff. 268 0.008 197 201 211.5 139.5 0.008 0.009 0.014 0.0055 Metal 1 Test Metal Wheel Diff. Diff. 0.0253 0.016 0.132 0.111 0.073 0.0649 0.004 0.001 0.002 0.002 Metal 2 Test Metal Wheel Diff. Diff. 0.0231 0 0.122 0.144 0.078 0.0462 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002

29

DeWalt DeWalt SAIT SAIT Westward Westward Norton Norton Metabo Metabo

AO Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium

203.5 166 165 154 136 176 230.5 149 185.5 211

0.028 0.006 0.009 0.011 0.016 0.007 0.009 0.007 0.014 0.018

0.067 0.089 0.0682 0.0902 0.0451 0.0352 0.0418 0.1045 0.0472 0.0806

0.002 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.002 0 0 0.002 0.004 0.004

0.124 0.11 0.0495 0.0847 0.0396 0.0264 0.0407 0.0977 0.0528 0.0704

0.015 0 0.002 0.005 0 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.004

Table 3: Overall results of the three tests

30

Manufacturer Material Pearl Silver AO

Sample Sample 5 6

Weight Weight 1.30 lb 1.308 lb Weight 1.438 lb 1.444 lb Weight 1.578 lb 1.578 lb Weight 1.428 lb 1.428 lb Weight 1.394 lb 1.406 lb Weight 1.382 lb 1.382 lb Weight 1.486 lb 1.484 lb Weight 1.574 lb 1.562 lb Weight 1.638 lb 1.642 lb Weight 1.294 lb 1.296 lb Weight 1.420 lb 1.418 lb Weight 1.502 lb 1.506 lb Weight 1.484 lb 1.492 lb Weight 1.356 lb 1.344 lb Weight 1.670 lb 1.648 lb

WELD TEST - Welds 1"-5/16" high (3 in a row) WELD TEST - SAMPLE 1 WELD TEST - SAMPLE 2 Total Time Weight Difference Total Time Weight Difference 257 0.012 279 0.004

Average Time Average Weight Diff.

268

0.008

CARBO

CARBO

Zirconium Sample 1 2 Zirconium Sample 1 2 Sample 1 2 Zirconium Sample 5 6 Sample 1 2 Zirconium Sample 1 2 Sample 1 2 Zirconium Sample 1 2 Sample 1 2 Zirconium Sample 1 2 Sample 1 2 Zirconium Sample 1 2 Sample 1 2 Zirconium Sample 1 2 AO AO AO AO AO AO

167

0.008 227 0.008 197 0.008

86

0.01 316 0.008 201 0.009

CGW

117

0.014 306 0.014 211.5 0.014

CGW

111

0.001 168 0.01 139.5 0.0055

DeWalt

256

0.034 151 0.022 203.5 0.028

DeWalt

148

0.006 184 0.006 166 0.006

SAIT

133

0.01 197 0.008 165 0.009

SAIT

165

0.012 143 0.01 154 0.011

Westward

111

0.022 161 0.01 136 0.016

Westward

157

0.008 195 0.006 176 0.007

Norton

166

0.01 295 0.008 230.5 0.009

Norton

164

0.008 134 0.006 149 0.007

Metabo

214

0.014 157 0.014 185.5 0.014

Metabo

196

0.018 226 0.018 211 0.018

Figure 28: Raw data for the weld test

31

Manufacturer Material Pearl Silver AO

Sample Weight Sample Weight 1 1.3024 lb 2 1.320 lb Weight 1.448 lb 1.450 lb Weight 1.596 lb 1.582 lb Weight 1.424 lb 1.372 lb Weight 1.604 lb 1.610 lb Weight 1.426 lb 1.404 lb Weight 1.480 lb 1.446 lb Weight 1.566 lb 1.580 lb Weight 1.668 lb 1.654 lb Weight 1.294 lb 1.300 lb Weight 1.406 lb 1.408 lb Weight 1.540 lb 1.542 lb Weight 1.484 lb 1.480 lb Weight 1.356 lb 1.362 lb Weight 1.666 lb 1.630 lb

Metal 1 Test SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2 Metal Diff. Wheel Diff. Metal Diff. Wheel Diff. 0.0286 0 0.022 0.032

Average Metal Diff.

Average Wheel Diff.

0.0253

0.016

CARBO

CARBO

Zirconium Sample 3 4 Zirconium Sample 3 4 Sample 3 4 Zirconium Sample 1 2 Sample 3 4 Zirconium Sample 3 4 Sample 3 4 Zirconium Sample 3 4 Sample 3 4 Zirconium Sample 3 4 Sample 3 4 Zirconium Sample 3 4 Sample 3 4 Zirconium Sample 3 4 AO AO AO AO AO AO

0.134

0.006 0.13 0.002 0.132 0.004

0.108

0.002 0.114 0 0.111 0.001

CGW

0.078

0.004 0.068 0 0.073 0.002

CGW

0.0616

0.002 0.0682 0.002 0.0649 0.002

DeWalt

0.066

0.002 0.068 0.002 0.067 0.002

DeWalt

0.09

0.002 0.088 0 0.089 0.001

SAIT help SAIT

0.0858

0.004 0.0506 0.002 0.0682 0.003

0.0792

0.002 0.1012 0.002 0.0902 0.002

Westward

0.044

0.002 0.0462 0.002 0.0451 0.002

Westward
help

0.0506

0 0.0198 0 0.0352 0

Norton

0.0418

0 0.0418 0 0.0418 0

Norton

0.0726

0.002 0.1364
0.002

0.1045

0.002

Metabo

0.044

0.004 0.0504 0.004 0.0472 0.004

Metabo

0.0682

0.004 0.093 0.004 0.0806 0.004

Figure 29: Raw data for the metal 1 test

32

Manufacturer Material Pearl Silver AO

Sample Sample 3 4

Weight Weight 1.312 lb 1.310 lb Weight 1.438 lb 1.442 lb Weight 1.596 lb 1.588 lb Weight 1.294 lb 1.382 lb Weight 1.614 lb 1.514 lb Weight 1.45 lb 1.400 lb Weight 1.448 lb 1.472 lb Weight 1.580 lb 1.558 lb Weight 1.644 lb 1.610 lb Weight 1.296 lb 1.302 lb Weight 1.410 lb 1.412 lb Weight 1.386 lb 1.534 lb Weight 1.486 lb 1.484 lb Weight 1.360 lb 1.362 lb Weight 1.678 lb 1.656 lb

Metal 2 Test SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2 Metal Diff. Wheel Diff. Metal Diff. Wheel Diff. 0.0264 0 0.0198 0

Average Metal Diff.

Average Wheel Diff.

0.0231

CARBO

CARBO

Zirconium Sample 5 6 Zirconium Sample 5 6 Sample 5 6 Zirconium Sample 3 4 Sample 5 6 Zirconium Sample 5 6 Sample 5 6 Zirconium Sample 5 6 Sample 5 6 Zirconium Sample 5 6 Sample 5 6 Zirconium Sample 5 6 Sample 5 6 Zirconium Sample 5 6 AO AO AO AO AO AO

0.116

0.002 0.128 0 0.122 0.001

0.14

0 0.148 0.002 0.144 0.001

CGW

0.082

0.004 0.074 0 0.078 0.002

CGW

0.0484

0.002 0.044 0.002 0.0462 0.002

DeWalt

0.192

0.028 0.056 0.002 0.124 0.015

DeWalt

0.1

0 0.12 0 0.11 0

SAIT

0.0506

0.002 0.0484 0.002 0.0495 0.002

SAIT

0.0792

0.004 0.0902 0.006 0.0847 0.005

Westward

0.044

0 0.0352 0 0.0396 0

Westward

0.0242

0.002 0.0286 0.002 0.0264 0.002

Norton

0.0308

0.002 0.0506 0.002 0.0407 0.002

Norton

0.0682

0.002 0.1272 0.002 0.0977 0.002

Metabo

0.0484

0.004 0.0572 0.004 0.0528 0.004

Metabo

0.0726

0.004 0.0682 0.004 0.0704 0.004

Figure 31: Raw data for the metal 2 test

33

Wheel Brand Pearl Silver CARBO - MAXX CARBO - Premier CGW - AO CGW - Zirconium DeWalt - AO DeWalt - Zirconium SAIT - AO SAIT - Zirconium Westward - AO Westward - Zirconium Norton - AO Norton - Zirconium Metabo - AO Metabo - Zirconium

Wheel Type AO Zirconium Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium

Metal Removed (lbs/2 mins) 0.0242 0.127 0.1275 0.0755 0.05555 0.0955 0.0995 0.05885 0.08745 0.04235 0.0308 0.04125 0.1011 0.05 0.0755

Wheel Removed (lbs/2 mins) 0.008 0.0025 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.0085 0.0005 0.0025 0.0035 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.004

Material Removal (lbs/hour) 0.726 3.81 3.825 2.265 1.6665 2.865 2.985 1.7655 2.6235 1.2705 0.924 1.2375 3.033 1.5 2.265

Figure 32: Raw data from the analysis

Wheel Brand Pearl Silver CARBO - MAXX CARBO - Premier CGW - AO CGW - Zirconium DeWalt - AO DeWalt - Zirconium SAIT - AO SAIT - Zirconium Westward - AO Westward - Zirconium Norton - AO Norton - Zirconium Metabo - AO Metabo - Zirconium Wheel Type AO Zirconium Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium Wheel Removal (lbs/hour) 0.24 0.075 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.255 0.015 0.075 0.105 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.12 0.12 Cost per Wheel $3.78 $7.90 $13.01 $5.06 $9.40 $6.71 $15.02 $10.18 $20.12 $6.75 $12.29 $10.93 $15.85 $4.37 $7.58 % Better Wheel Life 0% 220% 700% 300% 300% -6% 1500% 220% 129% 700% 700% 700% 300% 100% 100% % Better Grinding Efficiency 0% 425% 427% 212% 130% 295% 311% 143% 261% 75% 27% 70% 318% 107% 212%

Figure 33: Raw data from the analysis

Wheel Brand Pearl Silver CARBO - MAXX CARBO - Premier CGW - AO CGW - Zirconium DeWalt - AO DeWalt - Zirconium SAIT - AO SAIT - Zirconium Westward - AO Westward - Zirconium Norton - AO Norton - Zirconium Metabo - AO Metabo - Zirconium Wheel Type AO Zirconium Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium % Better Wheel Life per $ 53% 76% 234% 53% -2% 133% 34% 8% 236% 82% 98% 25% 169% 26% % Better Efficiency per $ 103% 46% 166% 23% 101% 28% 22% 16% 25% 3% 10% 26% 181% 56% Wheels per Year 1200 375 150 300 300 1275 75 375 525 150 150 150 300 600 600 Cost per Year $4,536 $2,963 $1,952 $1,518 $2,820 $8,555 $1,127 $3,818 $10,563 $1,013 $1,844 $1,640 $4,755 $2,622 $4,548

Figure 34: Raw data from the analysis

34

Wheel Brand Pearl Silver CARBO - MAXX CARBO - Premier CGW - AO CGW - Zirconium DeWalt - AO DeWalt - Zirconium SAIT - AO SAIT - Zirconium Westward - AO Westward - Zirconium Norton - AO Norton - Zirconium Metabo - AO Metabo - Zirconium

Wheel Type AO Zirconium Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium

Savings per Year $0 $1,574 $2,585 $3,018 $1,716 ($4,019) $3,410 $719 ($6,027) $3,524 $2,693 $2,897 ($219) $1,914 ($12)

% Savings per Year in Wheel Cost 0% 53% 132% 199% 61% -47% 303% 19% -57% 348% 146% 177% -5% 73% 0%

Labor Hours per Year 4160 793 790 1333 1812 1054 1012 1711 1151 2377 3269 2441 996 2013 1333

Labor Cost per Year $89,981 $17,146 $17,079 $28,842 $39,200 $22,801 $21,885 $37,001 $24,900 $51,418 $70,699 $52,789 $21,538 $43,551 $28,842

Figure 35: Raw data from the analysis

Wheel Brand Pearl Silver CARBO - MAXX CARBO - Premier CGW - AO CGW - Zirconium DeWalt - AO DeWalt - Zirconium SAIT - AO SAIT - Zirconium Westward - AO Westward - Zirconium Norton - AO Norton - Zirconium Metabo - AO Metabo - Zirconium Wheel Type AO Zirconium Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium AO Zirconium Savings per Year $0.00 $72,834.85 $72,902.09 $61,139.27 $50,781.24 $67,179.38 $68,096.02 $52,979.35 $65,080.45 $38,563.20 $19,281.60 $37,192.06 $68,442.37 $46,430.09 $61,139.27 % Savings per Year 0% 81% 81% 68% 56% 75% 76% 59% 72% 43% 21% 41% 76% 52% 68% Combined Costs per Year $94,517 $20,108 $19,030 $30,360 $42,020 $31,357 $23,011 $40,819 $35,463 $52,430 $72,543 $54,428 $26,293 $46,173 $33,390 % Combined Savings per Year 0% 79% 80% 68% 56% 67% 76% 57% 62% 45% 23% 42% 72% 51% 65%

Figure 36: Raw data from the analysis

35