Raytheon Factory Automation
Abstract - Automation and Robotics have long been seen as a solution to monotonous and laborious tasks. However, because of their high costs careful analysis must be made of these systems before a major investment is made. The purpose for this study is to determine how automation can be used to improve this facility and if these solutions are feasible. With a focus on Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs) and material handling and distribution, the present system was first examined for flaws and inefficiencies that could be improved. Concurrently, state of the art technology and practices in similar industries were studied in order to look for possible solutions.
Ultimately, a plan was proposed that would be implemented in 3 main phases. Phase I automated part of the existing system. Specifically this phase focused on the movement of material from the warehouse to drop zones in production cells. The system
utilized pods into which material could be stored and AGVs that could transport them. Phase I would require ** AGVs. Phase II would utilize the same AGV and pod system to automate the warehouse storage and retrieval. Phase II would require *** additional AGVs for a total of *** vehicles. Finally, Phase III would remove several steps from the current system and take material in pods directly from the warehouse to where they are needed or requested on the factory floor. Phase III would require **** additional AGVs for a total of **** vehicles.
The ideal AGV would be low to the ground and slightly smaller than the plan form area of the pod. It would have the capacity to carry *******************************************************************. Navigation would be provided by either natural feature or vision guidance. These two are largely similar and allow for the greatest amount of flexibility with no physical installation. A close second would be a grid navigation which allows for nearly the same degree of flexibility with minimal physical installation. The battery system would use either Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH), Lead Acid, or Lithium Ion (Li-ion) batteries. All three of these chemistries are well suited for the charge and discharge cycles encountered in opportunity based charging. The main difference between these battery types is energy density and cost. Energy density and cost are inversely proportional. Lead Acid is the least efficient but most economical. NiMH has a medium energy density and corresponding cost. Li-ion is the most energy dense and also the most expensive.
The best suited supplier is **************. They can provide an COTS solution that fulfills all of the requirements for Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III. Their ************** has the correct physical characteristics. It uses grid navigation and is powered by lead acid batteries and opportunity charging. They can also supply pods, workstations, and extensive software integration.
Raytheon has existing relationships with ** other AGV companies. ******************* and ******************** can supply AGVs. However, neither have an COTS solution and their custom solutions have higher costs. The other company is ******** which is an integrator. They would work with a third party supplier for the vehicle and focus mostly on software integration. They can be used in conjunction with another AGV supplier. Financially this system can save ************** annually. Based on this a budget of ***************** will have a internal rate or return of *******. Phase I is projected to cost **************. Phase II is projected to cost an additional **************** bringing the total cost to *****************. Finally, Phase III is projected to cost ********************* bringing the total cost to *****************. Each phase was analyzed to determine its feasibility. Phase I and Phase II were determined to be ****************************************. Phase III, in its proposed implementation, **************.