EDGE™ Project Review P Automation/Improvement of Wegmans Cookie Line Packaging Project Team: Stephanie Rager (IE), Bruno Coelho (ME), Mark Voss (ME), Chukwuma Morah (IE), Brian Duffy (EE), Benjamin Powell (EE)

EDGE™ Project Overview Project Description: Wegmans bakes and packages all of their mini cookies at their bakeshop located here in Rochester on Brookes Avenue. Currently the packaging is done by six or seven people who stand around a conveyor and pull the cookies into the clam-shell packages. This leads to the problem of packing more cookies than needed into a package. The mini-cookie package calls for 397 grams worth of cookies but employees sometimes package up to 450 grams. This is a loss for Wegmans because customers are receiving more cookies than they are paying for. This project will look into building an automated prototype that will separate the cookies into the correct amount by weight, which the employees can then package.

EDGE™ High Level Customer Needs  Must separate mini-chocolate chip cookies by weight  Must reduce the amount of excess mini- cookies in package  Must not substantially slow down process  Should be adjustable for other products  Must be simplistic for employees to use  Must not create a substantial amount of extra labor for employees  Must not be considered a capital investment  Percentage of packages with excess (2 or more) cookies (currently at 95%)  Weight of cookie package  Requires training that takes X minutes  Changeover time  Creates clear separation of product for packaging  Throughput  Cost Key Target Metrics

EDGE™ Overall Prototype System Sifting Bar: Need 4.2 Metric 7 Push-Rod: Metric 6 Weigh Station: Need 1.1 & 2 Metric 1 & 2 Incline Gate: (not shown) Need 3, 4.1 & 5 Metric 4 & 5

EDGE™ Design Review Summary Key Issues: Systems Level Design Review –Definition of excess cookies Clearly defined excess cookies in metrics, defined appropriate marginal and ideal target specifications –Breakage/Pinch Points Re-assessed design for other possible solutions instead of chute, other options just created other problems –Clogging Assessed the flow rate, re-designed system to have 4 tunnels and 8 weigh stations, prototype will be one fourth of entire system Key Issues: Detailed Design Review –Pick-Up of Cookies Will prioritize cookie pick-up during MSDII, at the very least pick-up concepts will be developed and designed by the end of MSDII –Enclosures, Attachments & Adjustability of Design Drawings Re-designed some components to include adjustability, completed drawings with enclosures and attachments –Interfacing of Scales Assessed the best interface for production level implementation of eight scales

EDGE™ High Level Risk Assessment RiskSeverityProbabilityOverallContingency Plan Mechanical and Electrical systems don’t interface well with each other 5315 Be aware of the interface between the two, constant communication between electrical and mechanical engineers Cookies get stuck in tunnel section5525 Use sifting bar to put cookies into lines which can be more easily handled by the tunnels Weigh station doesn’t push out cookies quickly enough 339 Use alternative pushing method instead of push rods, use air at a high pressure Chutes don’t switch quickly enough5315 Use one weigh station and close chute while cookies back up Difficulty controlling push rod using motors 428Use air compression to control push rod Force of cookies falling on scale from chute gives a false reading on scale 3515 Take an average of the weight samples when deciding when to push cookies out of weigh station Cookies get damaged by push-rod when being pushed off scale 5315 Reduce the speed of the push-rod when pushing cookies off in order to gently slide them off scale Temperature of Cookies at top of Conveyor 428 Move pick-up of cookies lower on the conveyor Importance Scale: 1 through 5 1 = Consequences from risk have little effect on the cookie line’s flow 5 = Consequences from risk halt the entire cookie line or project

EDGE™ Current State of Design Selected design meets primary customer needs All needs with high importance (ranked at a 9) Some needs that are ranked at a 5 Design is projected to meet primary target metrics All metrics with ranking of 9 Some metrics that are ranked at a 5 Project cost projected at < $4,000 Ideal cost metric = < $5,000 On schedule to be complete by end of MSDII End of Detailed Design Phase

EDGE™ MSD II Project Schedule Milestones Week 1 (March 13 th ) All parts order and ideally received for initial construction Familiarization with ordered board and coding Week 2 (March 20 th ) Parts cut and prepped Run code and test connections Week 3 (March 27 th ) Construct sub-assemblies Initial testing on weigh scale and run motors Week 4 (April 3 rd ) Construction complete, full assembly Integration and code adjustments Week 5-8 (April 10 th - May 1 st ) Testing and minor adjustments Week 9 (May 8 th ) Testing documented Project poster complete Week 10 (May 15 th ) Final project review