Project Title: Leyland Trucks Cross Member Sub Assembly Jig Company Background Information Leyland Trucks, based in Leyland, Lancashire manufactures approximately 14,000 trucks per year for the UK, European and export markets under the DAF brand. The model range is undergoing design changes in 2017 driven by a requirement for CO2 reduction. The product design changes will then drive a number of major changes to the assembly process across the facility to enable production readiness. Project Brief The production process at Leyland Trucks involves the sub assembly of a number of components prior to final assembly of the vehicle. Included within the sub assembly processes is the assembly of the chassis cross members. The cross member sub assembly processes involve the dimensional alignment of the constituent components prior to riveting or bolting the assembly. The project will review the current process for the sub assembly of cross members. Design concepts should remove the risk associated with potential human error by reducing human involvement or by introducing poke yoke/mistake proofing. The requirement for over-checking operations also needs to be removed in order to improve efficiency. The anticipated outcomes of the project are: 1. Implement the USA automation strategy. 2. Demonstrate an understanding of the principles of Poka Yoke/Mistake Proofing in process design. 3. Confirm an understanding of the key considerations including safety, ergonomics, dimensional alignment and control, process cycle time, assembly efficiency and solution cost. 4. Develop a design specification for a cross member sub assembly jig which removes the need for human input or incorporates a mistake proof solution. 5. Identification of conceptual designs. 6. Evaluation of concepts versus the design specification in order to select and propose the most viable solution. 7. Construction of a virtual prototype and/or demonstration of the technology associated with the proposed solution. 8. Consideration of multiple variants and rapid changeover. 9. Compare the process cycle time of the proposed solution against the original using Simul8. Instructions The project is to be completed individually. The final solution may be mechanical or electrical but you must produce at least three conceptual designs. The report should effectively present outcomes 1-9. There is no word limit, but the minimum is 2,000 words. The concept designs should present a wide variety of ideas. The concept development should ideally lead to a viable solution. The report marks are divided as follows: • Introduction, USA strategy and Poke yoke (10 marks) • Design specification (20 marks) • Concept design and evaluation (20 marks) • Concept development and final solution (20 marks) • Manufacturing simulation using Simul8 (20 marks) • Writing, figures and references (10 marks)   Marking rubric: 1st 2.1 2.2 3rd Fail Introduction, USA strategy and principals of Poka-yoke (10%) The project is clearly and concisely introduced. USA strategy is used to better understand the automation problem. Jig and fixture design/theory is considered. Poka-yoke is clearly explained with relevant examples/references. Excellent references are made from literature. The project is introduced. USA strategy is mentioned. Jig and fixture design/theory is considered. Poka-yoke is explained with examples. The project is poorly introduced. USA, jig design Poka-yoke theory is not explained. Design specification (20%) Design specifications extend those given by Leyland Trucks but don't prevent creative solutions. Correct methodology is used. Design specifications slightly extend those given by Leyland Trucks. Some specifications lack depth of thinking. Design specifications simply repeat those given by Leyland Trucks. Concept design and evaluation (20%) Concepts are ingenious, varied and sufficiently developed to be feasible. A range of different technologies/solutions were presented. Inspiration was sourced from a range of places. Presentation of the concepts is excellent with all concepts easy to understand. Concepts are systematically and rigorously evaluated against the design specifications. Gray areas or close wins are re-evaluated with the help of extra information. Reasoning is logical and well explained. Concepts are varied and sufficiently developed to be feasible. Some different technologies/solutions were selected. Presentation of the concepts is good with all concepts easy to understand. Concepts are systematically evaluated against the design specification. Reasoning is fairly logical and well explained. Only one concept given. Presentation of the concept is poor. Concepts are not evaluated against the design specification. Reasoning is poor. Concept development and final solution (20%) The chosen concept is developed to a final design. A working CAD model or simulation was used to demonstrate the solution. The detail is sufficient for the solution to be implemented by Leyland Trucks in an efficient manner. The development is carried out logically and methodically to a professional standard. The chosen concept is developed to a final design. A CAD model was used to demonstrate the solution. The detail is sufficient for the solution to be implemented by Leyland Trucks with extra work. The development is carried out methodically to an acceptable standard. The chosen concept is not developed to a final design. A sketch was used to demonstrate the solution. The detail is insufficient for the solution to be implemented by Leyland Trucks even with extra work. Manufacturing simulation (20%) Simulation is well presented. Inputs are accurate. Where inputs are unknown assumptions were made that are well reasoned and logical. The simulations are well explained and the results are professionally presented. The results lead to useful insights and conclusions. The simulation is mostly accurate. Presentation of the model and results are acceptable. Simulation highly flawed or non-existent. Writing figures and references (10%) Writing and presentation are of a professional standard. Figures and tables are tidy easily understood and have numbers and captions. Referencing is accurate and consistently follows a standard format. Writing and presentation are of an acceptable standard. Figures and tables are used but could be improved. Referencing is appropriate but with formatting errors. Writing and presentation are of a poor standard.