2. Problem + Goals for Project
Problem-
1. Metal contaminate in paint shop pretreatment process that comes from the body shop.
2. Metal contaminates in the phosphate tanks can causes metal to deposit on the hood and
the entire body.
Goals for Summer Project-
1. Reduce the amount of metal debris in the phosphate process to improve quality of units
produced.
2. Implement a best practice as identified by FCA manufacturing engineering group for
phosphate.
3. Design and install the most effective device for collecting metal debris.
4. Install the magnet capsules during the week of summer shut down (July 16th).
5. Implement best practice as a cost reduction compared to Jefferson North Assembly Plant.
4. Testing Metal vs. PVC Housing
1. Now that housing was in mind for the project I had to decide if the magnets should be
placed into metal or PVC tubing.
• Initially it was thought that metal tubing would be the best choice because the
magnets would turn the metal tubing into one large magnet.
• The magnets were placed in both, PVC and steel, and the PVC had the largest
pull.
Metal housing attracts metal at 1.5” PVC housing attracts metal at 3”
Metal vs. PVC
NOK OK
5. Major Consideration- Method of Cleaning
1. Cleaning was a major thought when designing the magnet prototype. The time needed to
clean the design and return the design back into the system is important along with the
amount of material removed.
2. There are three methods considered for cleaning-
a. Metal or plastic tube that covers the magnets and another tube that is larger in
diameter to swipe down to remove material.
b. Bag over the magnets and remove the bag and replace with a new bag each time.
c. Metal or plastic tube that covers the magnets and just a swipe is needed for cleaning.
NOK
NOK
OK
Method C
7. Major Consideration- Maximizing Gauze
Time (Hours) Vertical Horizontal Percent Increase
1 10.2 16.8 64.7%
2 17.4 22.5 29.3%
4 28.4 36.3 27.8%
6 32.5 40.1 23.4%
8 35.7 43.3 21.3%
• To maximize the gauze of the magnets I changed the orientation of the magnets from horizontal to
vertical.
• This minor change can collect on average 33.3% more metal debris from the phosphate tanks.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1 2 3 4 5
GramsofMaterialRemoved
Time (Hours)
Maximizing Gauze
9. Selecting the Most Effective Design
Material Removed
(Grams- 8Hours)
N/A
N/A
N/A
35.7
43.3
N/A
20.1
Cost
$26.35
$25.56
$46.10
$48.24
$43.70
$6.34
$25.30
Prototype #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
• Prototype #5 and #7 were chosen to more forward to mass produce during shut down because of
there results.
• Prototype #5 produced the most amount of material removed from the phosphate system
through the tanks (43.3 grams)
• Prototype #7 was selected because prototype 5 was not appropriate for basket strainers.
#5
#7
OK
OK
Material removed + $$$
11. Cost to Build
• The cost for the 12 capsules in phosphate is a total of $2,653.75
• These are the materials used to build the selected design
1. Stainless steel all thread (1/2”)
2. Stainless steel washers and nuts (1/2”)
3. Newspaper bags (21”long x 7-1/2” wide)
4. Rare earth magnets- Neodymium ring magnets N42(1.5” Diameter)
5. PVC tubing (1 ½” schedule 40)
6. PVC end caps (1 ½“)
7. PVC reducer cap (1 ½” to ½“)
Cost Comparison:
Toledo North Assembly- $2,654
Jefferson North Assembly- $250,000
12. Benefit of the Phosphate Install
With the install of the 12 capsules in phosphate the magnets will pull out 447.5 grams
each day from the tanks and basket strainers.
447.5 Grams = 1 Pound of Metal/day
1 Lb/day X 300 running days = 300 Pounds/Year
13. Magnet Design Overview- Phosphate Pretreatment
Prototypes that produced
results (#4,5,7) were selected
to move forward.
Install device #5 + #7 during
summer shutdown week
(installation: July 18th-22nd)
OK
NOK
OK
Mass produced the selected
prototypes.
Systematic Diagram
Prototype #2
Prototype #1
NOK
Prototype #3
Prototype #4
Prototype #5
Prototype #6
Prototype #7
NOK
NOK
OK
Prototypes #5 + #7 produce the best
results when considering cleaning
and material collected.
