feasibility assessment.doc

8/13/2019 Feasibility Assessment.doc

1/28

Facet 3: Feasibility Assessment02001 Sentry Safe


2/28

Feasibility Assessment

This section will focus on the feasibility of the concepts identified in the concept

development facet of the project. All of the concepts identified have been scored below

from 0-3 with regard to specific questions. 0 being unfeasible, being worse than the

baseline concept, ! being equal to the baseline concept, and 3 being better than the

baseline concept.

TECHNICAL QUESTINS 1:

Does the team (with Sentrys assistance) have the skills and resources

necessary to implement all aspects of technologies for these concepts?

T!" #!$ement #et%!&s

C!n$ey!r Assist After Fill 'baseline( ) 2

The conveyor assist after fill is the baseline design. The team is capable of performing

e"isting technology research, flow calculations, collection of time study data, and

implementation of this baseline conveyor configuration.

C!n$ey!r *r!" 'a+t!mate&( ,ef!re Fill ) 0

The conveyor automated drop before fill is the same layout as the baseline design,

however all automated technologies for this system have been restricted by #entry. The

team is capable of performing e"isting technology research, flow calculations, collection

of time study data, and implementation of this conveyor configuration if necessary.

C!n$ey!r *r!" 'a+t!mate&( After Fill ) 0

The conveyor automated drop before fill is the same layout as the baseline design,

however all automated technologies for this system have been restricted by #entry. The

team is capable of performing e"isting technology research, flow calculations, collection

of time study data, and implementation of this conveyor configuration if necessary.

C!n$ey!r Assist ,ef!re Fill ) 3

The conveyor operator assist after fill is the same layout as the baseline design. The team


3/28

is capable of performing e"isting technology research, flow calculations, collection of

time study data, and implementation of this conveyor configuration.

#an+al #!$ement 'c+rrent( ) 1

$urrently e"isting technology, the lids have to be manually moved from one location to

another. %ith a simple conveyor e"tension, the entire step of pic&ing up and moving the

lid to the body will be eliminated, increasing potential throughput.

Fillin- #et%!&s

#etere& Fillin- 'baseline( ) 2

The team is capable of producing a metered filling devise or installing an e"isting

metering devise depending on the method chosen and the current technology available.

.ent+ri Fillin- ) 2

'enturi filling utili(es a plastic tube leading from the spout of the filling devise bac& into

the chamber producing a vacuum that controls the actuation of a flow valve. The team is

capable of producing such a method and incorporating it into the design, however the

consistency of the cement may ma&e this option difficult and less li&ely to succeed.

*+al H!se Fillin- ) 3

)f metered filling is possible and implemented, post fill concrete consistency *#entry+

may limit the flow rate of the fluid into the base causing a less feasible outcome. This

option is easier to perform than the baseline because it simply requires addition an

additional hose to the concrete drops. )f this solution is possible the outcome is definitely

advantageous.

*+al Safe Fillin- ) 3

This option is easier to implement than the baseline concept because it simply requires

adding an additional hose to the concrete drops.


4/28

#an+al Fillin- 'c+rrent( ) 1

This is the current method of procedure, limits efficiency and cleanliness while adding to

an already ergonomically ha(ardous wor&ing environment.

Ca" *ri$in- #et%!&s

/+bber Hammer 'baseline( ) 2

The team is capable of performing any calculations, design drawings, e"periments, and or

trials to implement a rubber hammer into the process.

ne+matic +n ) 0

The team is capable of researching e"isting pneumatic cap guns and implementing them

into the process, however if this technology is unavailable the necessary time to fully

design, develop, and test such a product is more then the team is able to allocate.

/!ller ress ) 3


trials to implement this type of technology. )f current technology for this equipment does

not e"ist the team would have the necessary tools to develop such a product.

Hy&ra+lic ress ) 0

The team is capable of performing any calculations, e"periments, and or trials to

implement this type of technology. Although the technology does e"ist #entry safe has

eliminated this option due to the possible buc&ling effect of the press on the safe.

renc% ) 2


trials to implement a wrench into the process.

#an+al ressin- 'c+rrent( ) 1

This is the current process and is obviously an accomplishable tas&, but ergonomic

ha(ards involved require the need for a new method of capping.


5/28

St!""in- #et%!&s

%!t!electric Sens!r 'baseline( ) 2

This technology e"ists and is in use currently. The team is capable of researching newsensors and stopping devises for implementation on the system.

ei-%t Sens!r ) 0

This technology currently e"ists and the team is capable of researching and

implementation of such technology, however, water concentrations vary between

different batches of concrete, and therefore a weight sensor would not be a feasible

option.

Si Lift ,ar ) 2

The team is capable of researching e"isting stopping devises and implementing them

accordingly.

#an+al ,+tt!n ) 2

The team is capable of researching e"isting stopping devises and implementing them

accordingly.

#an+al St!""in- 'c+rrent( ) 1

There is current technology a.&.a. the operator is a doable method to stop the safes, but

due to the ergonomic ha(ards of this procedure it is not a feasible solution.

SCHE*ULE QUESTIN 1:

How much time will it take to bring this concept to the customer?



esearch, design, and implementation are feasible within the timeframe.


6/28


The conveyor automated drop before fill is the same layout as the baseline design, and is

capable of being implemented in the timeframe, however all automated technologies for

this system have been restricted by #entry.


The conveyor automated drop before fill is the same layout as the baseline design, and is

capable of being implemented in the timeframe, however all automated technologies for

this system have been restricted by #entry.




$urrently, e"isting technology, the lids have to be manually moved from one location to

another.

Fillin- #et%!&s#etere& Fillin- 'baseline( ) 2

The team is capable of producing a metered filling devise and or installing an e"isting

metering devise depending on the method chosen by sentry and the current technology

available in the timeframe.

.ent+ri Fillin- ) 2

The consistency of the cement may ma&e this option difficult and less li&ely to succeed,

however, research, design, and implementation are feasible within the timeframe.



7/28

ual hose filling will use two hoses of the chosen filling method. esearch, esign, and

implementation are feasible within the timeframe, and #entry roup currently has the

hoses and control valves in stoc&.


This concept has the e"act same requirements as dual hose filling, and therefore would

receive the same rating.


This is the current method of procedure, which limits efficiency and cleanliness while

adding to an already ergonomically ha(ardous wor&ing environment.

Ca" *ri$in- #et%!&s


/re-e"isting tool. esearch, design, and implementation are feasible within the

timeframe.

ne+matic +n ) 0

"cessive design and testing required for this device, implementation not probable within

the timeframe.

/!ller ress ) 2


Hy&ra+lic ress ) 0

esearch, design, and implementation are feasible within the timeframe, however sentry

has elected to not e"plore this option due to safe buc&ling under pressure.

renc% ) 2



8/28


This is the current process.

St!""in- #et%!&s


This is the current process. esearch, design, and implementation are feasible within the

timeframe.

ei-%t Sens!r ) 2

This technology currently e"ists and research, design, and implementation are feasible

within the timeframe.

Si Lift ,ar ) 2


#an+al ,+tt!n ) 2



This operation can be implemented in the system at any time.

ECN#IC QUESTIN 1:

How much will it cost to bring this concept to the customer?

#entry has informed us that our budget could be over 10,000 dollars, so basically all of

our concepts were feasible.




9/28

The conveyor assist would require an additional length of gravity-fed conveyor to guide

the safe lids to the bodies. 0-foot sections of gravity-fed conveyors sell for an average

of 2300 dollars.


The conveyor drop would require a separate stopper for the safe bottoms, as well as an

e"tra ! to 3 feet of automated conveyor. %hile no conveyor systems identical to the

rubber band drive conveyor presently owned by #entry could be found, similar systems

with lengths of 3 feet cost on average !0 dollars. Also, installation costs would depend

on how quic&ly the installers could get the equipment wor&ing. An estimate of 4 hours

would be appropriate in this case, and assuming their own wor&ers would do the

installing at their average wage, of !.10 per hour that would be 00 dollars.


This is the same as the automated conveyor drop before filling, and would cost

appro"imately !0 dollars per 3 feet plus labor costs to install the system.


This is the same system as the baseline with regard to equipment.


This is their current process so implementing this would cost nothing.

Fillin- #et%!&s


To determine the cost of this process we would first have to decide how we wanted to

measure the filling process, whether it is by flow, various sensors, or even by measuring a

predetermined amount of cement. #entry is currently reviewing the various options with

regard to concrete because of their e"tensive e"perience with it.

.ent+ri Fillin- ) 1


10/28

'enturi filling requires a hose that does not currently e"ist in the mar&etplace, so one

would have to be made. Assuming that the specifications for all necessary equipment are

&nown building one would be costly.


#entry roup currently has e"tra hose and valves, so this wouldn5t cost them any

additional money to implement.





This is the current process and no changes would be necessary to implement this, thus no

money would have to be spent.

Ca" *ri$in- #et%!&s


ne+matic +n ) 1

The pneumatic gun would be much more e"pensive than the hammer. 6ecause the caps

are custom made, no such device e"ists, and therefore this device would have to be

developed from scratch. This development process would be very costly.

/!ller ress ) 1

This concept would require a series of rollers of different si(es attached to a frame. 7ne

place that sold conveyors sold replacement rollers of different si(es from appro"imately

dollars American *converted from 6ritish pounds+ up to 31 dollars American. Also a

frame could be assembled from scrap metal for a very low price. An estimate of labor

costs is 4 hours or 00 dollars.


11/28

Hy&ra+lic ress ) 1

The specifications for the hydraulic press are not &nown e"actly, however research shows

that they cost an average of 2!,300.

renc% ) 1

This would not require much capital to purchase, however, because of the level of

ergonomic improvement required, an estimate of 2!0 can be made.


This is the current process and no changes would be necessary to implement this, thus no

money would have to be spent.

St!""in- #et%!&s


A photoelectric sensor which can be found in garage doors, can be found at hardware

stores for !!.882. )nstallation of this type of sensor should not ta&e long at all, however,

a system to &eep it clean may be necessary, but not yet &nown.

ei-%t Sens!r ) 2

%eight sensors can cost minimal amounts of money, however, installation times are not

&nown.

Si Lift ,ar ) 2

The cost of a s&i lift bar should not be much in the way of materials, as only a metal bar

and simple electrical system is needed, but again installation times are not &nown.

#an+al ,+tt!n ) 2

This should not cost much to implement, as they already have the equipment to do it,

however, installation will be the most e"pensive part of this, depending on the desired

setup.


12/28


This is the current process and would cost nothing to implement.

ECN#IC QUESTIN 2:

ill this concept have a return investment of less than or e!ual to " year?

The combination of new top movement method, a new filling concept, new cap driving

method, and a new stopping system will in total result in the reduction of to !

wor&ers from the system. )n rating these methods the cost of each was

weighed against the saving of 10,000-200,000 dollars per year, because none

of these concepts alone could generate those savings.



As stated in economic question 9 the cost of this concept is far less than the year

savings of 10,000 dollars, and thus this concept will have a return investment of less than

one year.


This is the same as the previous question in that the cost of e"tra conveyor plus

installation will be far less than the amount saved. :owever, because of the e"tra

automation, it would have a slower 7) than the baseline


This is the same as the conveyor drop before filling.


This is the same as the conveyor assist after the fill.




13/28

Fillin- #et%!&s


;etered filling, as shown in the first economic question costs far less than the 10,000dollars that will be saved in one year.

.ent+ri Fillin- ) 3

)t is not &nown what the e"act costs of venturi filling will be, however, estimates put it

far less than 10,000 dollars. )t is believed that this could potentially eliminate an

additional operator, and would therefore have a faster 7) than the baseline.

*+al H!se Fillin- 4 3

This process will cost much less than the 10,000 dollars as shown in economic question

, and it could potentially speed up production as well, resulting in less man hours needed

to do the same job.






Ca" *ri$in- #et%!&s

/+bber Hammer ) 2

This will cost far less than 10,000 dollars.

ne+matic +n ) 1

The pneumatic gun as shown in the previous question will cost far less than the 10,000

dollars in savings, but will have a slower 7) than the baseline.


14/28

/!ller ress ) 1

This concept will also cost far less than the 10,000 dollars, but will have a slower 7)

than the baseline.

Hy&ra+lic ress ) 1

This concept while somewhat e"pensive will also generate a return on investment in one

year. :owever it will be much slower than the baseline

renc% ) 2

This tool will easily generate a return on investment of less than one year. )t is estimated

that the 7) will be very similar to the baseline.


This is the current process and costs nothing to implement.

St!""in- #et%!&s

All stopping methods are very cheap and will generate a return on investment of far less

than one year.


15/28



C!n$ey!r *r!" 'a+t!mate&( ,ef!re Fill ) 2C!n$ey!r *r!" 'a+t!mate&( After Fill ) 2



The above concepts for top movement methods do not provide the ability to increase or

decrease the production schedule if this fle"ibility is necessary.

Fillin- #et%!&s


.ent+ri Fillin- ) 3

The 'enturi


16/28

Ca" *ri$in- #et%!&s


ne+matic +n ) 3A pneumatic gun would insert the caps individually at a faster rate than the baseline

method.

/!ller ress ) 3

A roller press would perform the cap driving operation without an operator present. The

press would insert all four caps at once decreasing the time required for this operation.

Hy&ra+lic ress ) 3

A hydraulic press would perform the cap driving operation without an operator present.

The press would insert all four caps at once decreasing the time required for this

operation.

renc% ) 2

A wrench would require each cap to be inserted separately by an operator. This is

equivalent to the baseline.


;anually pressing the caps into the safe body requires each cap to be inserted separately

by an operator. This is equivalent to the baseline.

St!""in- #et%!&s


ei-%t Sens!r ) 2

Si Lift ,ar ) 2

#an+al ,+tt!n ) 2



17/28

The above concepts for stopping methods do not provide the ability to increase or

decrease the production schedule if this fle"ibility is necessary.

E/F/#ANCE QUESTIN 2:

How does this concept affect potential throughput?




The conveyor drop before fill should be equal to the baseline concept because the

processes is only slightly rearranged, but for all intensive purposes, the same with regard

to throughput


The conveyor drop after fill is better than the baseline concept because a human operator

will be able to move at a potentially faster pace than the automated conveyor. The

baseline concept would have to stop and ma&e sure the safes were properly aligned

before the lid could be slid onto the body. %ith the operator sliding the lid on, less

precision is needed with base location on the conveyor.


The conveyor drop before fill is better than the baseline concept because a human

operator will be able to move at a potentially faster pace than the automated conveyor.

The baseline concept would have to stop and ma&e sure the safes were properly aligned

before the lid could be slid onto the body. %ith the operator sliding the lid on, less

precision is needed with base location on the conveyor.


$urrently, the lids have to be manually moved from one location to another. %ith a

simple conveyor e"tension, the entire step of pic&ing up and moving the lid to the body

will be eliminated, increasing potential throughput.


18/28

Fillin- #et%!&s


.ent+ri Fillin- ) 2'enturi filling would be equal to metered filling because both methods will essentially

ta&e the same time. The operators will start the flow of concrete and be able to move

onto additional value-added activities while the safe is filling.


This could potentially double the rate at which safe bodies are filled, thereby increasing

throughput to appro"imately twice of the current process.


This concept could also potentially double the rate at which safe bodies are filled, thereby

increasing throughput to appro"imately twice of the current process.


The current process would be worse than the baseline concept. Although the safe would

be filled in the same amount of time, the other value-added activities that the operator

could potentially due won5t be able to be performed until after the safe is filled.

Ca" *ri$in- #et%!&s


ne+matic +n ) 3

The pneumatic gun would be better than the baseline concept because with the baseline

concept, the caps still need to be set on the holes and properly aligned before they can be

driven in. The pneumatic gun would be able to align and drive the cap all at the same

time, thereby speeding up the process.

/!ller ress ) 3


19/28

This would be better than the baseline concept because the operator would only have to

align the caps onto their holes as opposed to aligning and driving them in with the

baseline concept.

Hy&ra+lic ress ) 3

This would be much better than the baseline concept because all caps could be inserted

simultaneously by a single device instead of having to drive them in individually as is the

case with the baseline concept.

renc% ) 1

This would be worse than the baseline concept because the operator would have to insert

the caps into the wrench and then align them and insert them one by one. The e"tra time

that will be needed to insert the caps into the wrench could significantly slow down the

process.


This is the current process and involves operators pressing the caps in with their hands.

This is slightly better than the baseline concept because the operator aligns and inserts the

caps all in one motion, instead of aligning the caps and then driving them in.

St!""in- #et%!&s


ei-%t Sens!r ) 2

This is equal to the baseline concept because both the weight sensor and the baseline

concept have sensors that operate in a similar fashion. =amely, stopping the safe when it

is in the proper location by way of an electrical interrupt.

Si Lift ,ar ) 2

This is equal to the baseline concept because the s&i lift bar would also stop the safe in a

certain spot. The only difference is that the s&i lift bar uses a mechanical interrupt as

opposed to an electrical interrupt.


20/28

#an+al ,+tt!n ) 2

Although this has some operator interaction, the push button would also stop the safe by

means of an electrical interrupt, and therefore would ta&e the same amount of time as the

baseline concept.


This would be equal to the baseline because the operator simply stops the safes by

grabbing them as they pass. This should ta&e no longer than it would ta&e for the

baseline concept to stop the conveyor via the sensors.


$s this concept capable of meeting all regulatory re!uirements?




The automated conveyor drop before fill meets regulatory requirements in a manner



The automated conveyor drop after fill meets regulatory requirements in a manner



The conveyor assist before fill meets regulatory requirements in a manner equivalent to

the baseline.



21/28

;anual transfer of the safe doors is worse than the baseline. The current process is close

to e"ceeding the =)7#: >ifting uidelines.

Fillin- #et%!&s#etere& Fillin- 'baseline( ) 2

.ent+ri Fillin- ) 2




The above concepts for filling methods all meet regulatory requirements in a manner


Ca" *ri$in- #et%!&s


ne+matic +n ) 2

/!ller ress ) 2

Hy&ra+lic ress ) 2

renc% ) 2


The above concepts for cap driving methods all meet regulatory requirements in a

manner equivalent to the baseline.

St!""in- #et%!&s


ei-%t Sens!r ) 2

Si Lift ,ar ) 2

#an+al ,+tt!n ) 2


The above concepts for stopping methods all meet regulatory requirements in a manner



22/28


How does this concept affect the ergonomics of the work cell?




The conveyor drop before fill is better than the baseline concept because it has no

operator interaction at all. Therefore, no ergonomic issues are present.


The conveyor drop after fill is better than the baseline concept because it has no operator

interaction at all. Therefore, no ergonomic issues are present.


6ecause the safe is moved while it is still empty, it is much lighter and therefore better

ergonomically. The lighter weight puts less stress on the arm, shoulder muscles, and

joints while the lid is being slid onto the safe body.


The ergonomics are much worse in the manual movement. The operator must pic& up

each > lid and place them onto the safe bodies. This e"erts strain on the muscles of

the bac&, arms, and fingers. The strain is much lower in the baseline concept.

Fillin- #et%!&s


.ent+ri Fillin- ) 2

'enturi filling would be equal to metered filling because both methods require minimal

operator interaction. The filling process would require the operator to simply start the

process by putting the hose into the proper hole and starting the flow of concrete.



23/28

ual hose filling would be slightly worse than metered filling because it would require

the operator to load ! hoses into the proper holes, as well as continuously monitor the

flow of concrete by manipulating the on-off valve. The hoses have potential to be very

heavy, so proper counter balances would need to be implemented.


ual safe filling would be slightly worse than metered filling because it would require the

operator to load ! hoses into the proper holes, as well as continuously monitor the flow of

concrete by manipulating the on-off valves. The hoses have potential to be very heavy,

so proper counter balances would need to be implemented.


The current process would be worse than the baseline concept because the hoses have to

be loaded and unloaded and the flow of concrete must be manipulated continuously to get

the correct amount of concrete.

Ca" *ri$in- #et%!&s


ne+matic +n ) 3

The pneumatic gun would be better than the baseline concept because all the operator

needs to do is aim the gun and squee(e the trigger to drive the caps. This e"erts much

less strain on the operator5s shoulder and arm.

/!ller ress ) 3

This would be much better than the baseline concept because there would be no operator

interaction, and therefore no ergonomic issues.

Hy&ra+lic ress ) 3

This would be much better than the baseline concept because there would be no operator

interaction, and therefore no ergonomic issues.


24/28

renc% ) 1

This would be worse than the baseline concept because the wrench would require the

wrist to be coc&ed at e"treme angles to manipulate the caps. This would provide greater

ergonomic stress than the hammer5s simple swinging motion.


This is the current process and involves operators pressing the caps in with their hands.

This is much worse than using a hammer. There is currently unnecessary

contact stress on the hands or thumbs, depending on which methods the

operators use to press in the caps. The operators also have to use some of

their body weight to drive the caps.

St!""in- #et%!&s


ei-%t Sens!r ) 2

This is equal to the baseline concept because there is no operator involvement, and

therefore there are no ergonomic issues.

Si Lift ,ar ) 2

This is equal to the baseline concept because there is no operator involvement, and

therefore there are no ergonomic issues.

#an+al ,+tt!n ) 2

Although this has some operator interaction, the simple tas& of pushing a button does not

subject the operator to any unnecessary ergonomic stress and therefore is equal to the

baseline concept


This is much worse than the baseline concept because the operator must manually stop

and advance the safes. This subjects the operator to unnecessary ergonomic stress in

their shoulder and arm.


25/28


How does this concept affect product !uality?



This concept is not very different from the current concept *see manual movement below+

with regard to product quality. The only major difference is that the safe lids are filled

much closer to the finished safe bodies. This could have a negative effect because

concrete could be spilled onto the finished safe bodies.

C!n$ey!r *r!" 'a+t!mate&( ,ef!re Fill ) 16ecause the lids are automatically dropped onto the safe bodies, there is potential for

surface scratching on the bodies. This concept also has the same issues with concrete

spillage as the baseline. Therefore this concept is worse than the baseline


6ecause the lids are automatically dropped onto the safe bodies, there is potential for

surface scratching on the bodies. This potential for scratching is also increased because

of the weight of the lids when they are full. This concept also has the same issues with

concrete spillage as the baseline. Therefore this concept is worse than the baseline


6ecause the lid is being filled on the safe body, there is potential for scratching. This is

because the operator must sha&e the lid to ensure proper filling. Therefore, this concept

is worse than the baseline.


The current method is better than the baseline because, while the placing of the lid on the

safe is done by the operator in each, there is less potential for concrete spillage on the

safes.


26/28

Fillin- #et%!&s


%ith metered filling, there is a small potential for overfilling or underfilling. )f theoperator had the switch set at the wrong safe si(e, then e"cess concrete could be e"pelled

by the hose, or not enough concrete would be given.

.ent+ri Fillin- ) 3

%ith 'enturi filling, there would never be any chance of safe overflow *provided the

system was wor&ing correctly+. This would be because when the concrete reached the

top of the safe and touched the no((le, the flow would automatically shut off. Therefore,

this is better than the baseline concept.


This would be worse than the baseline concept, because there is a potential for voids in

the concrete if the bodies are filled to fast.


6ecause of the fact that ! no((les are being used, there will be less of a chance for

operators to freely swing the filling mechanism out of the way to let any e"cess concrete

drain. )n this case, the concrete may end up being released over the safe, and would have

to be wiped off.


This is worse than the baseline, because there is an increased possibility that the operators

will spill concrete onto the safe bodies. This already happens frequently, and the

concrete must then be wiped off.

Ca" *ri$in- #et%!&s



27/28

There is the potential of damage being done to the safe if a rubber hammer were used to

drive in the caps because the safe bodies are quite thin.

ne+matic +n ) 2

There is also potential of damage being done with this concept. 6ecause the caps are

driven with force, denting would be a major concern

/!ller ress ) 1

6ecause of the harsh environment in which the roller press would be operating it, there is

no doubt that concrete pieces would contaminate the rollers. This could then lead to

scratching of the safe bodies as the caps were driven in.

Hy&ra+lic ress ) 2

This has similar issues to the rubber hammer and pneumatic gun. 6ecause of the force

needed to drive the caps in, the press could dent the safe bodies.

renc% ) 3

The wrench would be better than the baseline concept. The potential for denting and

surface scratches would be eliminated


This would be better than the baseline because there is no potential for damaging the

safes bodies.

St!""in- #et%!&s


There should be no potential for positively or negatively affecting product quality,

because there is no additional contact on the safe besides the rollers already in place.

ei-%t Sens!r ) 2


because there is no additional contact on the safe besides the rollers already in place.


28/28

Si Lift ,ar ) 1

The bar could potentially scratch or dent the safes if concrete because to accumulate on it.

Therefore, this concept is worse than the baseline.

#an+al ,+tt!n ) 2

The manual button would simply stop the rollers, so there should be no potential for

positively or negatively affecting product quality, because there is no additional contact

on the safe besides the rollers already in place.



because the only contact on the safe besides the rollers is the operators hand.

Selecti!ns:

6ased on the above ratings and the radar charts attached, the follow tentativeselections

have been made. :owever, each of these is subject to approval and analysis by #entry

group, and it is e"pected that some changes will be made.

T!" #!$ement #et%!&@ $onveyor Assist 6efore or After

feasibility assessment.doc

Documents