Advanced design and manufacture IV

Generation IV reactor

---

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Advanced design and manufacture IV file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Advanced design and manufacture IV book. Happy reading Advanced design and manufacture IV Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Advanced design and manufacture IV at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Advanced design and manufacture IV Pocket Guide.

These principles work and are highly transferrable. Lean manufacturing or lean production is, at its core, about the identification of value-add activities and the continuous identification and elimination of waste surrounding those value-add activities. Seeing as Lean Manufacturing is so centered around elimination of waste, the Toyota Production System categorized and defined the specific types of waste it sought to eliminate, with those being:.

Muri overburden - unnecessary or excessive work tasks or efforts that can be avoided by proper work design and planning. Muda unnecessary resource use - non-value-added activities that result from variation in the system the seven original wastes include transportation, inventory, motion, waiting, overproduction, overprocessing, and defects. Many tools have been developed in support of lean manufacturing that may or may not be applicable across disciplines and industries.

However, one of the biggest constants is the idea of continuous improvement.

Continuous improvement both the acknowledgement that there is the room to improve and the systems to incrementally improve is a key pillar of lean systems and is a mindset that is necessary to drive away wasteful, value-sapping practices in manufacturing and other disciplines. One way to help is through design for manufacturability DFM.

Your manufacturing partner is a fantastic resource, especially as you move closer towards pre-mass production manufacturing runs. Seek DFM feedback early for the manufacturing process you plan use for your parts, so your manufacturer can provide you with the feedback necessary to modify wasteful or expensive design features, while ensuring manufacturability.

The easier to produce each part, the better. A few questions worth asking include:. Are you using as many off the shelf components as possible that meet product design requirements? Are you able to secure low minimum order quantities at a price within your cost requirements for this part?

Also, using standard off the shelf components can often reduce the assembly time your product requires. Lambert observed that the workshop participants included many people who were present at the beginning of the effort to revive U. Helper introduced her presentation by stating that it would answer three key questions: What happened to U.

Will the market provide a socially optimal manufacturing sector? We lost a third of manufacturing jobs then, and there has been a comeback—about ,—since. Next, Helper shared Figure , which shows the value added to the economy from manufacturing.

Generation IV reactor

She noted that the line showing manufacturing minus computers—which is a small but highly productive sector—shows a. Helper added that there is nothing inevitable about this decline. Germany and other northern European countries have higher wages than the United States, she pointed out, and 19 percent of their workforce is in manufacturing. According to Helper, this means public policies do make a difference.

Helper noted that because of knowledge spillovers, private companies are likely to underinvest in producing new knowledge. She argued that this means there is a role for public policies in encouraging research that underpins advanced manufacturing, especially given that the market will not produce this activity on its own.

Helper described three types of obstacles to a better U. Pointing to Figure , she noted the gap between investment by government and universities in maturing technologies in their earliest stages and investment by the private sector in the later stages. The second obstacle derives from weaknesses in the supply chain. Smaller firms, which increasingly do the manufacturing and supply the larger companies, also face a variety of obstacles, she added, from securing financing to commercializing new and unknown technologies.

Design Engineering 12222

The final obstacle to a more robust U. Helper explained that students and workers face a variety of challenges in linking to and staying with appropriate training programs and in keeping in pace with the changing needs of the manufacturing sector. Lack of training, she elaborated, is related to stigma associated with manufacturing, poor linkages between employers and educational organizations, and inadequate K—12 preparation. Manufacturing USA could be a key hub to overcome that and become a key lynchpin of future policy.

For a list of institutes and sponsoring agencies, see Figure A final objective of the GAO review was to gauge the extent to which Commerce has taken steps to coordinate the efforts of agencies that contribute to the Manufacturing USA program. Rather as generalists, they were applying the criteria set out in the legislation to see whether the initiative was effective in maximizing the use of federal dollars.

Advanced Design and Manufacture V

Murray explained that the RAMI Act requires the secretary of commerce to establish a Network for Manufacturing Innovation program within NIST; to establish, also within NIST, a national program office to oversee and carry out the program; to establish a network of centers for manufacturing innovation; and to provide financial assistance for the establishment of more such centers. Further, Murray continued, the RAMI Act contains a number of provisions related to collaboration between the Department of Commerce and other agencies. This includes establishing such procedures, processes, and criteria as may be necessary and appropriate to maximize cooperation and coordinate the activities of the program with programs and activities of other federal departments and agencies whose missions contribute to or are affected by advanced manufacturing.

GAO collected information on the use of the institutes between May and September The analysis showed that about manufacturers and about other entities were members of the seven operating institutes in , including academic institutions, state government agencies, and MEP centers. Murray explained that these participants joined the institutes at a variety of membership levels. At the highest two membership levels, participation by manufacturers and other entities was fairly evenly divided.

At lower levels, GAO found that manufacturers represented a larger proportion of participating members relative to the other entities. Looking more specifically at the size of the manufacturers, Murray reported that GAO found, as expected, that manufacturers that joined the institutes at a higher membership level were typically the large manufacturers, while those at lower levels tended to be the smaller manufacturers. Small manufacturers often cited networking opportunities as a key benefit of participation, Murray noted.

Membership helped them establish connections with large manufacturers and other small manufacturers and suppliers, and enabled them to obtain contracts they might otherwise have been unable to secure. Large manufacturers cited being able to accelerate their technology by 2 to 5 years and to get their products ready for commercial release more quickly.

Recommended for you

Murray reported that the Department of Commerce uses a variety of mechanisms to help coordinate the Manufacturing USA program. He noted the efforts of AMNPO and other agencies involved in the program to develop the December Manufacturing USA network charter, and asserted that the Manufacturing USA strategic plan and governance system represent important steps toward enhancing interagency collaboration under the program.

In particular, he observed, the Manufacturing USA governance system defines roles and responsibilities for the agencies contributing to the program. Murray added that non-sponsoring agencies are responsible for one general function under the framework: promoting advanced manufacturing to a variety of external stakeholders, such as Congress and the public. To enhance interagency collaboration on the Manufacturing USA program, Murray continued, GAO recommends that AMNPO work with nonsponsoring agencies whose missions contribute to or are affected by advanced manufacturing to revise the Manufacturing USA governance system so that it fully identifies the roles and responsibilities for these agencies in contributing to the program.

Mark LaViolette, specialist leader for Deloitte, opened his remarks by saying he was honored to share a third-party assessment of the Manufacturing USA program.

This assessment was conducted between August and. January , and so includes the eight institutes that were operating at that time. LaViolette noted that Deloitte looked at the theory of the program, its progress to date, its metrics for impact, and its sustainability strategies and made some recommendations for how the program or institutes could evolve to further improve their performance and effectiveness. Members of the research team also visited each of the institutes and interviewed its director and other senior staff.

Finally, Deloitte conducted interviews with external experts and others with experience operating and participating in the program. LaViolette emphasized the importance of advanced manufacturing for the U. LaViolette then outlined the six major findings of the Deloitte analysis. First, the Manufacturing USA program provides the focus and collaboration needed to invest in and develop new manufacturing technologies. Second, the institutes accelerate innovation by providing access to equipment, pooling project costs, and developing roadmaps that coordinate research activities. Third, by moving a series of complementary technologies forward at the same time, the program has a portfolio approach that captures complementarities and reduces risk.

Fourth, and relatedly, the network of institutes promotes connectivity among firms, research organizations, and other actors in the manufacturing ecosystem. Fifth, this networking activity strengthens the growth of regional economic clusters. Finally, the institutes are helping to identify and develop the skilled technical workforce necessary to sustain advanced manufacturing in the United States.

Bibliographic Information

Concluding his presentation, LaViolette itemized the recommendations of the Deloitte report. He noted that the most difficult part of any trip is the take-off and landing. Since then, Molnar observed, an interagency team has come together, breaking down barriers and establishing the first set of advanced manufacturing institutes. The initiative thus far has developed 14 institutes.

Navigation menu

According to Molnar, the interagency team driving the Manufacturing USA program has worked hard to create top-level metrics. He pointed to a slide summarizing the key categories, metrics, and units of measure used in tracking the progress of the institutes and the overall program against its vision and mission see Figure Molnar reported that in terms of impact as of , the Manufacturing USA program had members, two-thirds of which were manufacturers, and that two-thirds of these were small manufacturers. Other participants included universities, community colleges, and other academic institutions.

There were also other entities, including federal, state, and local government agencies; federal laboratories; and not-for-profit organizations. In terms of financial leverage, FY matching was nearly 2 to 1, Molnar reported. This funding supports all aspects of institute operation, including technology advancement projects, education and workforce training efforts, and capital equipment. As an example of this research, he cited development of a prototype high-power inverter for hybrid motors in heavy-duty construction vehicles and trucks—a partnership between researchers from John Deere and PowerAmerica.

Based on this advance, Deere plans to hire American production workers in Fargo, North Dakota, to manufacture and sell inverters starting in A further 3, workers completed institute-led certificate, apprenticeship, or training programs, while the program drew in 1, teachers and trainers in institute-led training for instructors. As a network, Molnar added, Manufacturing USA also recognized that certain common skills are needed across advanced manufacturing technologies.

Murray agreed that these were essentially two separate reviews, with the GAO review focused on compliance with the criteria established in legislation and elsewhere. Lambert then asked Susan Helper and Mike Molnar about where they think the program will be 5 years from now.

• Innovative Development : Global Hawk and DarkStar- Transitions Within and Out of the HAE UAV ACTD Program (2002)
• Something to Declare: Essays on France and French Culture
• Climate Change and Agricultural Water Management in Developing Countries
• Replica
• Plays of Persuasion: Drama and Politics at the Court of Henry VIII