20160406_Project report_Final

of 85 /85
STAFFORDSHIRE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF COMPUTING, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY NEGOTIATED FINAL PROJECT BEng (Mechanical) Project Report Fitter Truck Storage Solution British Army MAN SV 6T truck (Think Defence 2014) A project to investigate current and possible improved solutions for the carriage of tools and repair facilities on the Army MAN SV truck, used as part of deployed Equipment Support (ES) Student Graeme Wilcock W022700F Project Tutor Mr Chris Wayman

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of 20160406_Project report_Final

STAFFORDSHIRE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF COMPUTING, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

NEGOTIATED FINAL PROJECT BEng (Mechanical)

Project Report

Fitter Truck Storage Solution

British Army MAN SV 6T truck (Think Defence 2014)

A project to investigate current and possible improved solutions for the carriage of tools and repair facilities on the Army MAN SV truck, used as part of deployed Equipment Support (ES)

Student Graeme Wilcock W022700FProject Tutor Mr Chris Wayman

February 2016

Abstract

Create and design an adaptable and modular storage system for the carriage of tools and repair assets on the Army MAN Support Vehicle, used as part of deployed Equipment Support (ES).

When deployed out of barracks ES personnel need to store tools, special test equipment and spares on the MAN Support Vehicle (SV). There is currently no standard storage unit for this and local modifications for storage are proving time-consuming to implement, potentially unsafe and unable to accommodate all items securely.

In order to understand the situation this project first established a customer requirement of equipment to be carried. This was achieved through a customer survey of 150 personnel from across the Land ES environment. From this a Product Design Specification (PDS) was created with a list of items and criteria deemed essential. Research into current storage solutions, civilian modular systems and complete ISO container based systems was conducted with the findings assisting in the creation of a self-designed storage system.

This design was based around the dimensions of standard NATO storage boxes and vehicle mechanic toolboxes. By utilising Computer Aided Drawing (CAD) software a technical design specification was created for a storage unit based around 4 main pillars of box section steel combined with 3 shelving units that can be moved up and down the pillars to accommodate different storage requirements. The pillars also allowed for further shelves to be used to extend the storage unit lengthways thereby creating a modular system. A securing bracket was designed to mount onto the truck bed to which the storage unit could sit on and mathematical calculations proved the integrity of the design.

A concept prototype was built to prove the practicality of building the design within local unit capabilities, although achievable it ultimately highlighted the high degree of accuracy and time required and was therefore deemed unfeasible to manufacture within local unit capabilities, and full production should be sought through civilian industry. Further CAD modelling was instead used to prove the storage capability of the design.

This report concludes that to provide deployable storage for ES equipment across a range of customer bases, while maintaining the crucial ability to quickly remove it, an adaptable and modular system such as the one this project has designed offers the best solution. Despite the manufacturing requirements this solution is both practical and achievable whilst at a greatly reduced cost when compared with containerised solutions.

Acknowledgements

This project would not have been possible without the support and help of the following persons:

1.Mr Daniel Errington from DE&S. Senior manager for the MAN vehicle for initial project assistance.

2.Mr Gary Daniels. Manager for all Deployable Machine Repair Solutions for information on ISO container based systems.

3.Mr Chris Wayman. Project tutor from Staffordshire University for continual assistance and guidance.

4.Captain Chris Marsh (REME). My line manager and senior officer within my workshop for his authorisation of the use of Army facilities.

5.Members of 6 RLC LAD. The authors peer group who were instrumental in synthesising ideas.

6.Members of the ES Land environment. For their time and effort in completing the customer surveys without which no specification couldve been created.

ContentsChapter PageAbbreviationsiv1. Introduction1-12. Project Management2-13. Identifying the Required Change3-14. Designing the Change4-15. Produce the items to effect the change5-16. Implement the Change6-17. Monitor the Effect7-18. Conclusion and Recommendations7-4Bibliography7-6

AnnexesA Project Analysis TableA-1B Initial Gantt Chart A-2C Updated ChartA-3D Fitter truck storage data requirementsA-4E Technical Design SolutionA-5F Storage Unit CalculationsA-6G Securing Frame CalculationsA-7Appendix 1 to Annex G&H Data TablesA-8

iv

Abbreviations

AESPArmy Equipment Support Publication

ASMArtificer Sergeant Major

CCMConfiguration Change Management

CADComputer Aided Design

CD CSSCapability Director Combat Service Support

CESCambridge Engineering Selector

COTSComercial Of The Shelf

DE&SDefence Equipment and Support

DMSDeployed Machine Shop

DMRSDeployable Mechanical Repair Systems

DTSSDeployable Technical Support Solutions

ESEquipment Support i.e. maintenance, inspection and repair

JSP Joint Service Publication

LADLight Aid Detachment

MODMinistry Of Defence

NATONorth Atlantic Treaty Organisation

PMEPump Mounted Equipment

POLPetroleum, Oil and Lubricants

PTProject Team

REMERoyal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

RMRoyal Marines

TC OPOTransportable Container Operational

TDUTrials and Development Unit

SVSupport Vehicle

VMVehicle Mechanic

Chapter 1.Introduction

1.1Background 1.2Project Selection1.3Selection of a project1.4Fitter Truck1.5Project Aim 1.6Objectives 1.7Success Calculation

1.1Background

As a vehicle artificer in the Armys Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME) the author chose a project based on land equipment as this is relevant to his career and interest. Three potential projects were initially investigated and these were found through the authors experience, discussion with colleagues and advice from the MOD Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) Project Teams who manage all equipment for the MOD.

1.2Project Selection

Three options were considered:1.Quad bike loading. Investigate a means for safely loading and unloading quad bikes (fig 1) from flatbed trucks without the use of a crane in order to reduce the logistics burden for quad bikes.2.Recovery vehicle winch snapping. Investigate the reasons for failure of the winch fairlead shackle on the MAN SV recovery vehicle (fig 2). 3.Repair section fitter truck. Investigate current and possible improved solutions for the carriage of tools, POL, repair facilities and specialist items on the MAN SV truck in support of deployed operations.

Fig 1. Quad bikeFig 2. MAN SV Recovery(British Army n.d Crown Copyright) (Defence update n.d)1.3Selection of a project

The technique of SWOT analysis was used to help choose between the options. This highlighted the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats to each one as shown in the authors proposal document. The threats identified during this analysis resulted in options 1 and 2 being discounted.

In consultation with Staffordshire University project tutor for advice on suitability it was decided to go forward with option 3, hereafter known as the fitter truck storage project detailed below. This is relevant to the authors career and interest, has the required supporting information freely available and access to the equipment.

1.4Fitter Truck Storage

Army equipment is maintained and repaired by REME sections from Light Aid Detachments (LADs) attached to each Army unit. When deployed out of barracks they carry all tools and repair equipment on their vehicles, and in armoured units there are special armoured repair vehicles available with built-in storage and repair facilities. However in non-armoured units they use standard issue flatbed trucks such as the MAN Support Vehicle (SV) 6t (Fig 3.) and convert the back of them in an ad hoc manner to use as repair trucks with tool storage, spares, vices and drills etc.

Fig 3. MAN SV 6t (CST) (Think defence 2014)

This conversion is done by placing workbenches and storage units on the load bed secured by ratchet straps, correct securing angles and tensions are difficult to achieve which results in the equipment moving around during cross-country driving (fig 4) which can lead to damage. The storage units are also heavy and cannot be moved by hand which leads to excessive time to set up the repair truck.

Fig 6. Evidence of items moving around during transport. (Wilcock 2015)

Project Analysis

Project analysis was conducted to look to at the issues, implications and deductions for this project and this can be seen at Annex A. The project aimed to firstly establish what the exact requirement for repair trucks was from the Land environment[footnoteRef:1]. It then investigated current and alternative solutions before designing and evaluating a self-designed system. The intent was to design a solution that is easily removable and modular in nature. [1: Defence terminology meaning users operating on the ground, in this case referring to Army and Royal Marine units ES units.]

1.5Project Aim

Create and design an adaptable and modular storage system for the carriage of tools and repair assets on the MAN SV truck, used as part of deployed Equipment Support (ES).

1.6Objectives

To complete this project the following objectives have been set:

1.Create a Product Design Specification (PDS) based on feedback from customer surveys.2.Investigate current and alternative options for storage solutions.3.Propose and design a modular solution for testing by creating a Technical Design Specification which accommodates the PDS.5.Investigate feasibility of solution by building an example.5.Prove chosen solution is fit for purpose.6.Produce cost evaluation for solution.7.Validate solution against specification.8.Complete all objectives in accordance with project timeline.

These were designed using SMART principles. They are specific to the REME and the Armys fleet of MAN vehicles, they are measurable in that they can be marked as achieved/not achieved during and at the end of the project, achievable and realistic as data collection, designing a solution and testing it are within the authors capabilities at the unit, and time based in accordance with a project timetable.

1.7Success Calculation

The project will be a success if all objectives have been met and a modular and adaptable solution has been designed which can be proved to offer a suitable means of storing all items required by the customer. A validation of the solution will be conducted to show that each criteria of the PDS has been met whilst remaining within safe design limitations1-4

Chapter 2.Project Management

2.1Guidance2.2Planning2.3Resources2.5Technical Review2.5Data Requirements

2.1Guidance

The success of any project depends heavily on the efficient management of it, there are many established practices for managing projects with PRINCE 2 being one of the most common. As this project is related to MOD equipment JSP 886 was used as the guiding doctrine.

Joint Service Publication (JSP) 886, Vol 5, Part 2A. This is the MOD guidance on Configuration Change Management (CCM) or modification and is open source information. It details 5 stages for modifying in-service equipment and the project used these stages as follows:

1.Identify the required change. Issue surveys to units and analyse results to establish a customer requirement, begin data gathering.2.Design the Changes. Research safety and other limitations for any solutions. Research current and alternative storage methods. 3.Produce the items and documentation to effect the change. Produce detailed design drawings for a modular storage solution, select materials, and prove design is capable mathematically4.Implement the Change. Build solution and analyse feasibility. Conduct cost and ecological analysis.5.Monitor the Change. Validate solution.

2.2Planning

When considering the timeline a top down analysis was used by identifying the major blocks of work in the project (Nokes, Major, Greenwood, Allen, & Goodman, 2003) and then detailing tasks within each of them. The major blocks for this project were the five stages as defined by JSP 886. These major blocks and tasks were planned on an excel spreadsheet with time limits for each of them shown at Annex B. A period of up to 12 months was given for this project to allow it to fit in with other commitments. The project was broken down into week long blocks which were placed within month periods, the Gannt chart was used to monitor what was achieved at the end of each month period (indicated in yellow) against what was planned. Further resources could be added during the course of the project. 2 periods of 2 week breaks for summer and Christmas were factored in.

2.3Technical Reviews

Technical reviews were conducted at the end of each month, following Septembers review it was realised that the research had extended past the aim of the project, with the author looking at fitter trucks as a whole piece, i.e. the H+S of personnel working on the back, how electricity could be brought into the back of the truck etc., This was outside of the aim of the project and so focus was reapplied to only addressing those aspects directly related to the project aim.

During Januarys review it was felt that the manufacture of a full working prototype was beyond the time available of the author and that more time should be devoted to mathematical calculations to prove the design with a simpler version of the design produced to validate the concept. The Gannt chart was therefore altered to reflect this new approach and is shown at Annex C.

A short notice deployment in support of a European Union Battle Group exercise in April through to June resulted in the original deadline for completion being pushed back. However if this had not occurred then the project wouldve been finalised to schedule.

2.4Resources

The following resources were utilised for this project.

1.Computer Aided Design software. CAD software assisted in drawing a solution which was then be used to manufacture it.

2.Cambridge Engineering Selector software. While only a reference tool, this allowed for the investigation of materials properties

3. Microsoft based software. Excel was used for project management and data analysis, Word was used for project write up and Power Point was used for presentation work.

4. Basic hand and machine tools during the build phase with the assistance of the unit metalsmith.

2.5Research

A mixed method approach to research was used using questionnaires as the primary information source to collect quantitative data, in order to establish a customer requirement, secondary research was used to establish limiting criteria such as size, weight and legal impediments and then to research current and alternative storage systems in both the military and civilian domains.

By looking at the key information required it was possible to break this down into more specific questions to pose or investigate. These are shown at Annex D. 2-3

Chapter 3.Identifying the Required Change

3.2Primary Research3.3Further considerations on survey results3.4Customer Requirement3.5Specification

3.2Primary Research

The focus for the first part of the project was to establish exactly why there was a need for a fitter truck and what was required of it. In order to do this a customer survey was created to establish a customer requirement from the land environment. Some knowledge of writing surveys was gained from a quick guide to research by Jones T, L. Jones (2013) states to place easy important questions near the start, group common themes and arrange it in a logical manner, the survey was therefore designed as a set of 10 questions to establish how the customer currently fulfils this capability, what they carry on it and what they want from a fitter truck.

In order to prove this question set was sufficient an alpha test was conducted by print outs of the on-line survey and distributed to members within the authors workshop. From this it was discovered that question 4 did not provide the opportunity to state how many of each item was carried, this is crucial information as it is needed to calculate size and weight requirements.

The survey was emailed to 150 personnel across the Land environment within the Army and the Royal Marines[footnoteRef:2]. 45 personnel completed the survey and these results were taken to be indicative of the customer requirement. 4 key questions from the survey were identified which give the quantative data required and are detailed below. The other questions in the survey were able to give important information on what the customer needed to do in a fitter truck and what they would like from it, while not specific to the issue of storage; they did give a better understanding of the larger issue. [2: Although much smaller in number and less vehicle dependant, the Royal marines still deploy a number of vehicles and therefore also have a requirement for a deployable fitter truck.]

3.2Results

The results from question one showed that the overwhelming majority of units were using the MAN SV 6T truck as a vehicle for fitter trucks. This gave a vehicle type to base ideas on. It was clear however that the other 2 main types of MAN truck (9t and 15t) were also used by some units; therefore a solution should be adaptable for use across the range of MAN vehicles in use.

Question 2 explained how fitter trucks are currently fitted out with storage units, the majority of units use large storage drawers and cages which are then filled with NATO green storage boxes. Question 3 detailed how these storage units are fixed to the fitter truck bed, in the overwhelming case they are ratchet strapped to the load bed. The fact that no units weld their storage units to the truck bed relates to the requirement of it being easily removable.

Question 4 was the most important question as the answers to this question gave the amount of equipment that any solution must be capable of handling. It was slightly disappointing that the number of VM toolboxes carried did not produce a clearer result but 3 was taken as the number of required toolboxes due to this being the highest scoring result, this is also the total number of personnel that can sit in the driving cab. For each item the highest scoring number of items was taken as an essential requirement for the specification, this was caveated by taking bench drill and grinder as an anomaly due to the low number of responses for them and placing it as a desirable requirement only.

3.3Further considerations on survey results

Further to the results displayed above qualitative data was also received from peoples opinions and comments, from these the following conclusions were:

1.That available space for carrying a tent should be available with the consensus being that an Army issue 9x9 tent would be key. 2.That space should also be available for carrying a Light Field Generator (LFG).3.That space should be available for at least 2 X 25 litre drums of Oil.4.3 of the questions asked were about how units stored difficult to measure equipment such as spare parts, large and bulky tools, as well as COSHH and POL, the common answer was by placing them in green NATO storage containers.5.That any solution must have the ability to have a worktop placed on top of it to provide a firm, flat working environment.6.In-line with the policy detailed in JSP 886 and on advice from CD CSS the solution must not permanently alter the vehicle but be able to be quickly removed in order to return the vehicle to its standard cargo carrying variant.

3.4Customer Requirement

By analysing the information from the survey a customer requirement was designed of what the customer requires from a fitter truck.

Based on the feedback from the survey, design a storage solution to store and use the items identified that is able to be placed onto the MAN SV vehicle whilst complying with all mandatory safety regulations.

3.5Product Design Specification

The Product Design Specification (PDS) is a spreadsheet of the essential, highly desirable and desirable criteria as defined by the customer surveys (Table 1). The essential criteria are those items that any solution must be able to achieve. The highly desirable and desirable criteria are the nice to haves and were used to compare solutions with each other during comparison if required.

Table 1. Product Design Specification (PDS)[footnoteRef:3] [3: 1st Line repair facilities refers to unit workshops. 2nd Line repair facilities refers to larger supporting workshops. Work lasting more than 30 hours would be referred to civilian or Base Overhaul repair.]

Further investigation was conducted to ascertain the importance of each of these items in relation to the others, i.e. Is a basic toolbox more or less important than a laptop? This was achieved through the use of pair analysis. By using a group discussion of personnel from the authors unit it was possible to compare and rank each criteria against the others. For the purpose of clarity storage items were compared separate to vehicle requirements. Tables 2 and 3 refer.

Table 2 Pair analysis equipment

Table 3 Pair analysis Vehicle requirements

The pair analysis proves that the toolboxes and not affecting safety are the most important criteria and one that any solution must be able to accommodate. This will be important to factor in when comparing solutions.3-5

Chapter 4DESIGINING THE CHANGE

4.1Secondary Research4.3Safety Requirements4.3Alternative Solutions4.4Analysis of alternative solutions4.5Selecting a solution.

4.1Secondary Research

With a clear and detailed customer requirement it was then necessary to define the limiting criteria against which the solution must adhere to as well as investigating current storage systems in order to draw out best practices. The secondary research was therefore to investigate the following:

1. Safety Requirements. This is based around ensuring that the storage units are secured correctly to the vehicle.2.Alternative Solutions. Investigating the current storage solutions as well as alternative ideas from within the military and civilian areas to generate ideas for a modular storage system.

4.3Safety Requirements

Loading

Load Interfaces Safe Designers Guide. This document produced by MAN Nutzfahrzuege AG is the manufacturers guide for loading equipment onto the MAN SV. It consists of a series of technical drawings describing loading envelopes to assist users in placing loads onto the truck to ensure the Centre of Gravity (C of G) is not dangerously altered. MAN 2014 states that If the load falls within the load envelopes, no further testing is required, meaning that provided the load can be placed within the load envelopes then it will be deemed safe to carry.

Page 22 of MAN 2003 provides a pictorial representation of the load envelope (not open source information), this detailed the exact weight limits across the bed, and it also gave a height limit of 1.3m. This gave boundary limits for any solution; the storage solutions must be less than 1.3 m tall and not exceed the weights as indicated, the lowest weight of 1000kg as indicated was used for this project. The total weight on the load bed must also remain under 6000Kg and the imbalance between left and right hand side weights must be under 6%.

Securing the load to the bed

Code of Practice for Carriage of Loads. The Department for Transport (DfT) code of practice for load carriage states that:

The strength of the load restraint must be sufficient to withstand a force not less than the total weight of the load forwardand half of the weight of the load backwards and sideways. (Department for Transport. 2002)

This means that the effect of braking causing the load to move forwards is the primary area for restraint. The MAN SV trucks have a series of lashing points on the flatbed for load security as shown in fig 1 and these are what are currently used to lash the items to the flatbed with a large strap, of note is the statements made in the code of practice about the use of lashings and the angle of them, DfT (2002) states that lashings must not be at an angle greater than 60o as the lashing force is greatly increased above this. This would be difficult to achieve and still include the number of storage units required and could also be a reason why the current solutions are moving about during cross-country driving.

Fig 1. MAN SV flatbed (Think Defence 2014)

DfT 2002 also states that the restraining effect from friction between the load and the vehicle platformshould be regarded as a bonus, this means that any storage solution must be securable without relying on friction as a means of restraint.

DfT 2002 is backed up by the European best practice guidelines on cargo securing for road transport (EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORT). This gives a guide of inertia forces acting on loads as:

a.0.5 x weight of the load when accelerating.b.0.5 x the weight of the load when cornering.c.0.8 of the load when decelerating.

The force required to be restrained will be proportional to the total mass of it. Restraining force can be supplied by strapping the load to the bed through the lashing points to provide a force equal to the inertia force or bolting the storage units to the load bed with bolts of shear strength greater than the inertia force acting on them.

4.4Alternative solutions

Current in-service storage solutions

The army is currently equipped with several means of storing kit and equipment and these are often used by units when designing local fitter trucks. The pictures below show the 2 most common items, Chest unit twin drawer (fig 3) and Container Bulk (fig 4). However these are general purpose storage units and not specifically designed for mounting on the MAN SV truck.

Fig 3. Chest Unit Twin DrawerFig 4. Container Bulk

Although these are secure and well-built storage items they suffer in that the means used to secure them to the flatbed is with the use of ratchet straps, due to the size of them and the desirable position for placing them on the bed (i.e. along the sides so as to allow an area to walk in the middle) they are difficult to secure sufficiently in accordance with the DfT code of practice, the result being a load that moves around during driving.

AdvantagesDisadvantages

Provides a ready to use system.

Heavy mass of each unit means they can only be moved using MHE.

Sturdy, durable constructionDifficult to secure sufficiently with ratchet straps.

Another common item used by the MOD for the storage of smaller items is the NATO box, based on the Euro box (fig 5) this is a plastic box which comes in a variety of sizes. These boxes are durable, waterproof, oil resistant and not easily damaged.

Fig 5 Euro Box (Think Defence 2014)

The elegance of this system of storage units is the ability to stack them neatly and this comes about from an ISO arrangement of sizes whereby the boxes share a common width and length but with 3 different heights. A smaller box is dimensioned so as to be half the length of the larger boxes and so 2 small boxes can sit on top of the larger box.

These boxes are universally used throughout the MOD for storage and in particular are used throughout ES units to store tools and spare parts (fig 6), an ideal solution would therefore encompass a method for using these boxes, as this would allow for a rapid transfer of stores and spares from workshop buildings to fitter trucks and back again.

Fig 6 NATO Storage boxes in general use

In addition these boxes have also been seen fitted to Dakar Rally support trucks (fig 7), these are similar to the fitter truck concept in that mechanics are working and living of these trucks and need to carry forward all tools and spares.

Fig 7 Dakar rally support truck (storage boxes in centre)

AdvantagesDisadvantages

Already in use throughout the Army.Requires a sufficient storage unit to hold them securely which means a new design

Modular design allows for different options

Strong, durable and water/oil resistant

Deployable Mechanical Repair Systems (DMRS). There are already deployable workshops in MOD use, and these also provide for the storage of tools and repair functions. The two main pieces of deployable equipment are the Deployable Machine Shop (DMS) and the Transportable Container Office Royal Marine (TC OPO RM). Figs 8&9. These are both based on a standard 20 foot ISO container.

Fig 8. DMS (Think Defence 2013)

The DMS is a well-lit and well laid out repair facility, its primary purpose is to provide a deployable workshop for manufacture of small items and engineering fitting, it is primarily used by 2nd line units in support of weapon repair. To aid in this task it is fitted with:

a.Harrison M300 Centre Lathe.b.WARCO Drilling machine.c.Makita cut off saw.d.Union UGW8B Grinder/Buffer.e.Degreaser.f.2 Workbenches.

While this could potentially form the basis of a fitter truck, there is no requirement for such extensive manufacturing equipment as these tasks would not routinely be done at most units. Additionally due to the amount of fitted equipment it is highly unlikely that it would be able to accommodate the equipment identified from the customer surveys.

TC OPO and RM Variant. The Transportable Container Operational Portable Office (TC OPO) is a deployable office which is used for logistics planning. It is based around a standard 14 foot ISO container and is equipped with tables, chairs and environmental control systems which are powered by a towed Field Electrical Power System (FEPS) generator. It is mounted on the back of a suitable truck but can also be ground mounted if required. Of interest is that some of these TC OPOs have been modified for other uses such as radio and electronic equipment repair, as well as a Royal Marine (RM) repair version (fig 8 and 9).

Fig 8. TC OPOFig 9. TC OPO RM

The TC OPO RM is a standard TC OPO that was refitted by the Royal Marines to provide a base for equipment support functions in a wide range of climatic conditions. The TC OPO RM is fitted with the following items:

a.Power supply via a fused switchboard.b.4 four drawer work units with stainless steel tops.c.1 Vice.d.Articulated task light.e.4 240v AC outlet sockets.f.Eyewash and first aid station.g.Chair.h.Planning board.I.2 x Air Conditioning Units (ACU).

The TC OPO RM is a well thought out and efficient fitter truck solution. At the moment this is only used by Royal Marine forces and not by the Army, this is primarily due to the far higher number that would be required by the Army to issue it as a solution, the storage units are based on the chest unit twin drawer as previously discussed.

AdvantagesDisadvantages

Provides a ready to use system.

Cost per unit is around 44,000. This impacts on ability to be bought in sufficient numbers for larger Army use.

Provides adequate storage of equipment.Increases height of vehicle.

Already trialled and accepted by MOD.Can only be moved from one truck to another with the use of specialist equipment.

ISO container solutions are used across a wide range of applications within the military, they offer a self-contained solution that due to its ISO dimensions is able to be accepted onto a wide range of transportation modes. A general drawback is that they require specialist equipment to move them which cannot be guaranteed to be in place and this inhibits the ease with which they can be moved from one vehicle to another if, for example, a vehicle suffers a breakdown or is damaged due to enemy action. Although the TC OPO RM is a feasible solution its use within the Army would depend entirely on the funds being available for it.

4.10Civilian Industry Solutions.

Various civilian companies offering storage solutions were investigated and of note was a company called FlexQube who design modular transportable pallets for use in warehouses and production lines (fig 10). They have developed an interesting method for allowing customers to design a modular and adaptable system for storing ready to use parts on mobile racking systems with the aim being to reduce the requirement for and implications of forklift truck operations.

Fig 10 FlexQube transportable pallet (www.flexqube.com)The system is built around a common base to which is then added sections of metal work to produce the required cart shape, all these pieces of metalwork have holes placed in them which accept screws and bolts to secure shelving. The whole system is based around 5 parts and is designed around a key dimension of 700mm.

Although this is aimed at transporting ready to use goods within a production line the idea of a simple solution built around a few common parts that users can alter to suit their needs is very appealing. With a change of focus to securing equipment during movement and with a hard work top on the top this could provide a suitable solution to this project. After contacting FlexQube they were unable to offer a solution suitable to the needs of this project.

Another company investigated was a UK company called Bristor systems. This company supplies bespoke van storage solutions and are therefore specifically aimed at providing storage in moving vehicles (fig 11). These are adaptable shelving units that could be used for a range of storage applications.

Fig 11. Bristor storage system fitted to a van (www.bri-stor.co.uk)

These storage units come complete with their own securing brackets to mount them to the van floor (fig 12). However part of the securing system also relies on brackets fixing the shelving units to the van sides and roof which would not be possible on an Army MAN SV. After initially contacting them it would not be feasible to get a quote from them for a re-designed system to fit the MAN SV within the timelines of this project.

Fig 12. Securing arrangement (www.bri-stor.co.uk)

AdvantagesDisadvantages

Modular and adaptable.No work top.

FlexQube built around a few easily replicable parts.Not currently part of the MOD stores system.

Enables the customer to dictate the end look.Lack of an ability to secure the frames to the vehicle.

FlexQube would enable rapid movement from one vehicle to another.BriStore does not allow for it to be used off the vehicle or for rapid movement between vehicles.

BriStor units are specifically designed for mobile storage.

4.9Current solutions ideas from Land Environment.

30 Signal Regiment LAD. A current storage solution from the Army investigated was from 30 Signal Regiment LAD, this solution as designed by Cpl Roy Flanagan and Cpl Bailey utilizes 2 strips of metal attached to the flatbed which is secured with bolts in place of the load shackles (fig 13).

Fig 13. Securing brackets

Standard issue storage units are then placed on top of these metal strips and are secured through the use of M12 bolts (Fig 14). This provides for an effective platform for mounting storage units but only for those storage units already within the NATO system.

Fig 14. Storage units mounted on vehicle bed

Of note is that all the items used for this solution are either NATO parts or locally manufactured and although it is not stated in the report it is not believed to require longer than 30 hours to produce.

AdvantagesDisadvantages

Utilises current in-service storage units.No work top on the units.

Built around a few easily replicable parts.Can only be moved from one truck to another with the use of forklifts.

Enables the customer to dictate the end look.The metal strips are very heavy to move.

This solution seems to offer an effective and simple to manufacture method for fitting the current in-service storage equipment onto the flatbed of the truck. A big disadvantage of this is the heavy mass of the storage drawers and units, these can only be moved on and off the vehicle with the aid of a crane or forklifts and so the ease of removal and re-fitting is reduced.

Another alternative LISLM is shown below (fig 13), this shows an attempt to design and build a solution based around accommodating the NATO storage boxes. This is a smart and practical solution and fulfils the aim well. However this also serves to demonstrate the point that while being able to accommodate the NATO storage boxes very well, it is unable to accommodate the vehicle mechanic basic and supplementary boxesl. Clearly a better solution would be adaptable to allow for all of these items to be secured correctly.

Fig 15. Storage system based on NATO Storage box

Authors Solution

In line with this projects objectives it was decided to design a solution taking forward as many of the ideas highlighted in the previous solutions. The design would be based around the following assumption:

That a storage solution should be based around the NATO storage box and VM toolboxes and should be capable of being adaptable to accommodate securely the different sizes of these items.

This assumption was based on the pair analysis and information received from the survey as to how items are stored which indicated that the NATO storage boxes are used. It was also felt that as professional rally teams are using such systems it would be sensible to investigate around this idea.

A process called Invitational Stem Analysis (Matthews, 2012) was used to conceptualise how such a solution should look, this was done by using the collective questions and ideas from fellow soldiers within the unit. Rough drawings were then done (fig 16).

Fig 16 Rough drawings

The frame would be constructed from individual pieces to allow for easy transport and assembly and be dimensioned to allow small, medium and large containers to be placed within its shelves. The large containers on the bottom can be removed and toolboxes or other items put in their place. A wooden worktop could be screwed on to the top of the frame

AdvantagesDisadvantages

Modular and adaptable.Requires the use of a metalsmith to manufacture them.

Built around a few easily replicable parts.Using metal available may be heavy which may compromise its ability to be moved without forklifts, but this is mitigated by it being easy to disassemble.

Enables the customer to dictate the end look.

Would enable rapid movement from one vehicle to another.

Dimensioned around the NATO storage box ensuring maximum functionality

Users can choose how many of these units they wish to fit onto their trucks and so areas on the truck bed can be left clear to accommodate bulkier or longer items such as jacks, axle stands, tents or an LFG by strapping them to the floor. This storage solution could also be used in barracks which would minimise the time required to set-up a fitter truck by being able to use the same storage systems on deployment as those used in-barracks.

4.11Analysis and Comparison of available solutions

Several different storage solutions have now been analysed and each of these offer advantages and disadvantages over the others. Reflecting on them and applying them specifically to the military environment the following issues can be considered:

a.A need for specialist movement equipment which may not be available.b.Ability to quickly and easily move storage solution from one vehicle to another.c.Ability to adapt the storage unit depending on the needs of the customer but keeping the number of parts and therefore the manufacturing time/costs to a minimum.d.Ability to use the storage units both in-barracks and when deployed. This will reduce the time required to prepare for deployment by reducing the time taken to pack/unpack.

Taking these points into consideration it can be seen that a solution which can draw on all of the advantages of the researched options should provide a solution that matches all elements of the PDS. The next stage is to take this idea and create it into a working prototype; this shall be achieved through conceptual experimentation to establish rough working dimensions and then using CAD software to produce a Technical Design Solution (TDS).

4-14

Chapter 5.Produce the items to effect the change

5.1Analysis of the equipment identified from the customer requirement5.2Technical Design Specification5.3Material Selection5.4Proof Loading5.5Mounting the Storage unit to the truck bed5.6Analysis

5.1Analysis of the equipment identified from the customer requirement

The first part of the detailed design phase was to establish the exact working dimensions and weights of the items required by the customer to be stored. These are shown at table 1. The planning board criteria was removed as it was established through group discussion to be a simple item that could be placed anywhere and does not really fit in with the aim of storage. Tent was also removed as this will need to be accommodated in the middle of the floor due to its size.

ItemLengthWidthHeightVolumeMass

NATO storage box L600mm400mm420mm0.10m325Kg

NATO storage box M600mm400mm230mm0.056 m325Kg

NATO storage box S600mm400mm150mm0.036 m325Kg

VM Toolbox480mm300mm340mm0.049 m317Kg

VM Supplementary bob570mm480mm330mm0.090 m3

Cable repair kit570mm480mm330mm0.090 m316Kg

Jacks1700mm490mm280mm0.23 m3

Axle stands570mm570mm650mm0.21 m319Kg

Portable drillCarried in Green storage boxes

Air kitCarried in Green storage boxes

Soldering stationCarried in Green storage boxes

LaptopCarried in Green storage boxes

JUDCarried in Green storage boxes

LFG600mm450mm400mm0.108m324kg

Oil drum 25 Ltr490mm280mm280mm0.038 m325Kg

Table 1 Dimensions of Essential items

Idea Synthesis

From the pair analysis it was seen that the VM toolboxes were the most important items. Many other items can also be stored easily in the NATO storage box. The length of the VM Supplementary box and the storage boxes were very close so this was the first point of measure, from there some rough conceptual work was done to work out how these items could be stored in a similar sized frame (fig 1 and 2).

Fig 1 and 2. Conceptual Study

From this it was established that a box roughly 650mm x 490mm would allow for the following variations to be accommodated:

a. 1 x large green box.b. 1 x VM supplementary box.c. 2 x VM basic boxes.d. 2 x 25 Litre oil drums (on their sides).e. 3 x 20 Litre Jerry cans (not on requirement but added bonus).

Attention then turned to the z axis, as the toolboxes and storage boxes were not standardised in height a solution that could be adaptable in the Z axis was required. It was decided to utilise movable shelf units that could be moved up or down to alter the z axis accordingly, this allows the user the ability to store these main items in whichever combination best suits them.

5.2Technical Design Specification

By utilising CAD software it was possible to model these ideas and modify dimensions until a reasonable solution was created. The storage unit is built around 4 main pillars of 50mm x 50mm steel box sections with 3 identical shelving units, the shelving units are made of four 25mm x 25mm angled steel sections, the front and back parts are 25mm longer on the front face than the bottom face, a hole through this section allows a bolt to slide through it and align with one of a series of holes running up and down the pillars, this bolt with a nut on the back secures the shelving unit in position, and this is repeated for each shelving unit to make a complete storage unit (fig 3).

The four 25mm x 25mm angled sections are bolted to each other and to a piece of flat metal which forms the bottom of the shelf. The total width of one standard unit is 755mm x 490mm x 980mm as shown on the Technical Design Specification at Annex E.

Fig 3 3D drawing of solution (one shelf removed for clarity)

The double run of holes on each pillar allow for extra shelving units to be used to add to the length of the unit by linking up with extra pillars, in this way extra storage units can be added easily according to the customers desire by simply adding shelving units, multiple storage units therefore share a central supporting pillar which helps minimise weight (fig 4).

Fig 4 Storage solution concept of modular extension

5.5Mounting the Storage unit to the truck bed

In order to mount the storage units to the truck bed to prevent movement a securing frame was designed to mount the storage units to. The securing frame is comprised of 2 pieces of 50mm angled steel facing each other which are joined by welding 25mm metal strips to form a ladder type arrangement (fig 5&6). 2 holes on each of the 25mm metal strips allow the bracket to be bolted to the removed tie down shackles (fig 6).

Bracket is secured through the load bed shackles.

Fig 5 Load bed securing Bracket (Top View)

Bracket is secured through the load bed shackles.

Fig 6 Load bed securing bracket set up

Running along the length of the upward facing part of the angled steel are a series of holes that align with the holes on the storage frames, M8 bolts and nuts are then used to secure the 2 together (fig 7). The total usable length of the MAN SV 6T load bed is 4500mm, therefore up to six of these storage units can be fitted.Frame is secured with bolts through these holes.

Fig 7. Securing Bracket

5.3Material Selection

The materials would need to be readily available, easy to work with, have the required strength to support the loads applied and be as low cost as possible. In order to comply with criteria E15, NATO sourced parts were required and therefore composite materials were not investigated. Cambridge Engineering Selector (CES) was utilised and with searches completed for Density, Price, Shear Modulus and Formability.

Fig 8

Fig 9

As can be seen Low Carbon Steel offers a material with low price, good shear modulus values and good formability. The drawback to this material is that it is relatively dense resulting in a heavier storage unit, this is mitigated though by the design being flat pack in nature. From this research and after consultation with the workshop metalsmith it was decided to use low carbon steel. Table 2 details the materials selected.

Table 2. Material Selection

5.4Parts list and Total Mass

Taking the measurements and description from the TDS and the material information the total mass of each storage unit, securing bracket and the number of pieces was calculated (Table 3). Each shelf is designed to hold up to 25kg of stores, therefore a total of 75kg can be added to each storage unit.

Total mass of each storage unit= 109.30 KG (frame mass of 34.3kg plus load of 75kg)Mass of each subsequent storage unit = 100.168 KGMaximum mass of 6 storage units = 610.14 KGMass of securing bracket = 43.233 kg

Total all up mass for 6 loaded storage units and securing bracket = 653.373 kg

Table 3. Parts list and mass of storage unit and securing bracket

5.4Proof loading

The all up mass of the storage frames with loads on and the securing bracket are within the limits from the MAN SV Load Interfaces Safe Designers Guide as detailed at Chapter 4 section 4.3. In order to ensure that the storage units and securing bracket are physically capable of the task and are safe to use the following proof calculations were completed:

a.Maximum deflection of shelving units.b.Shear force acting on shelving unit bolts.c.Maximum tensile force on securing bracket bolts.d.Maximum shear force acting on securing bracket bolts.For these calculations assumptions were made that each shelf can be considered to be a simply supported beam with a Uniformly Distributed Load (UDL) on it and so standard case calculations can be used, also that bolts are under single shear force only. All loads are considered to be distributed evenly across the shelf.

Youngs Modulus of Elasticity (E)[footnoteRef:4] was taken as 205 GPa, this figure was taken from Cambridge Engineering Selector (CES) software as well as other sources, CES is an established and justifiable information tool for materials but an exact figure for E would only be available after detailed material analysis. Two pieces of reference materials were used for comparing tensile and shear strengths of bolts, these were: [4: Youngs Modulus of Elasticity defined as Stress / Strain. (Matthews, 2012)]

a.Shear strength and tensile strength of bolts taken from PDF document given to the author by Staffs University project tutor (title unknown).b.Bolt Proof loads taken from internet PDF document (Thomson Engineering Design Ltd, 2012)

Calculations were based on bolts of grade 8.8. The detailed calculations are shown at Annex F and G for the storage unit and securing bracket respectively. The following results were obtained:

a.Maximum deflection of shelving units = 0.068mmb.Shear force acting on shelving unit bolts = 8.67 Nmm2 total and 2.17 N/mm2 per each of the 4 bolts securing the shelf to the frame. c.Maximum force on securing bracket bolts in tension = 493.05 Nd.Maximum shear force on storage bracket securing bolts = 2.67 N/mm2.

Notes a.The deflection is small and is what would be expected for this choice of material and the relatively low mass on the shelf. Of note is that the calculation is simplified by considering only the bottom (load carrying) section of the angled 25mm steel section, in reality the front facing part of the steel section would add to the structural rigidity of the item by increasing the second moment of area about which Ixx is calculated, this should in turn result in a lower amount of flex. The deflection is allowable for this application.b.From the data table at Appendix 1 to Annexes F and G maximum shear strength of grade 8.8 bolts is 375 N/mm2, the bolts securing the shelves are being subjected to just 2.17 N/mm2 so the choice of bolt is sufficient for this purpose.

c.The total force of a fully loaded set of 6 storage units is 6409.589 N, bolts are designed primarily to work in tension, and according to the data table at appendix 1 an M8 bolt should withstand up to 2120 kg (20797.2 N) in tension. The bolts selected are therefore adequate for securing the frame and storage units to the truck bed.

d.The major force acting to move the storage units will be shear force, with rapid deceleration being the main area for concern. The calculations show that each bolt will be subject to a shear force of 2.67 N/mm2 (ignoring any reduction in force as a result of friction). Grade 8.8 bolts should be able to withstand up to 375 n/mm2 in shear, the bolts selected should therefore be sufficient for restraining the storage units in place.

5.6Analysis

The solution designed is a modular and adaptable storage unit that is able to accommodate all items as required by the Product Design Specification (PDS) as well as other items such as fuel cans. This design offers the customer the ability to adapt the layout according to their own requirements. The number of units carried on each truck can also be tailored to the customers requirement with space being left to accommodate other items if required.

The calculations proved that the material choice and securing methods are sufficient, and the total mass of the storage units and securing bracket does not exceed those limits as dictated by the MAN SV Load Interfaces Safe Designers Guide.

5-10

Chapter 6.Implement the Change

6.1Solution Build6.2Cost of manufacture by Military resources6.3Ecological Considerations

6.1Solution Build

A concept build was conducted to investigate the feasibility of building this design within local unit lines. All materials were sourced from the LAD store and basic measuring tools and bench and hand tools were used to facilitate the build. It soon became apparent that there would be some issues with this build and these were:

1. The degree of accuracy required by the technical drawings was extremely tight and this proved difficult to achieve consistently without the use of accurate bench measuring equipment.2. The time required to make the components was extensive.

Unfortunately due to time constraints on the author due to a short notice deployment and the lack of sufficient cutting tools within the unit and the MOD as a whole it was not possible to completely finish a storage unit build, the work did though prove that it was possible to build a storage unit based on the TDS.

Fig 1. Storage unit basic buildIn order to further assess this storage unit, CAD modelling was again used to show the different types of setup achievable (fig 2).

Fig 2. Three variations to Storage unit

This shows the 3 main storage options for this solution, options for the storage of 3 types of NATO storage box and options for the storage of 1 x supplementary tool box or 2 VM basic toolboxes. The items are all dimensioned according to the measurements shown in chapter 5. The top drawings show how the different items fit on the storage unit along the x and y axis, whilst the bottom drawings show how they fit in the x and z axis.

6.2Cost of manufacture by Military resources

Cost of manufacture was completed by taking the mass for each item and multiplying it by a cost per kg as given by CES, the version of CES used is a 2009 version and records cost in /kg, the actual cost that the MOD would pay for steel is not known to the author but this CES version served to give an appreciation of the cost. To the cost of material was added labour charges, these charges were taken from the MODs labour costs for service personnel and is based on the prediction of how many hours each unit would take based on the work completed so far. Cost table is shown below.

Table 1. Cost estimation

These figures show clearly the contrast of the low cost of the material itself with the high cost for labour. Specifically the build required a large amount of the authors time to measure and drill. The cost of labour could be reduced if more of the build were automated, particularly with measuring and drilling.

The overwhelming cost of manufacture for this project is therefore not in materials but in labour costs, it was therefore decided to approach civilian industry to investigate a price, several UK companies were approached but unfortunately due to time constraints as a result of the authors deployment it was not possible to chase up these companies for quotations, however it is reasonable to assume that a civilian company working to scale should be able to produce the authors design at a smaller cost than self-build at unit LAD level.

6.3Ecological Considerations

It was decided to investigate the ecological implications of this design in order to understand the environmental costs incurred as a result of manufacture. Utilising the CES software the eco properties of low carbon steel were investigated and contrasted against those with an alternative material (in this case plywood was used with basic dimension calculations completed to determine a like for like comparison for 1 storage unit made out of the 2 materials). The results are shown below.

Table 2. Ecological Considerations

The environmental impact for steel is considerably higher than that for plywood however plywood could not be considered as durable in this application as steel due to the likelihood of oil contamination during use, the strength of plywood is also much lower than steel and so it would not be as practical for this application although it would offer a lower mass. Additionally due to its construction plywood is not as easily as recyclable as steel. For this project the use of low carbon steel is a justifiable choice.6-4

Chapter 7Monitor the effect

7.1Validation7.2Implementation Plan 7.3Conclusion7.4Recommendations

7.1Validation

Firstly referring back to the project analysis at Annex A, this project has been able to achieve a successful outcome to solve all issues highlighted. Table 1 refers.

SerialIssueResult of Project

1There is no universal and agreed statement of what a fitter truck is required to store.Authors design is adaptable to carry the key items required.

2Current storage units being used do not provide for an efficient means of securing stored itemsAuthors design is proportioned to prevent excessive movement of items which can be further secured with a small strap around the shelves.

3Current storage units can only be secured to the truck bed with ratchet straps.Authors design includes a securing bracket to mount the storage units securely to the vehicle bed.

4Current storage units are heavy and require Manual Handling Equipment (MHE) to move.Authors design is easily manhandled by 2 people and can be further broken down into easily manageable parts.

Table 1. Comparison with Project analysis

Validating the authors design against the PDS is shown overleaf. Of note is criteria E4, E5, E11 and E12, due to these being large bulky items it was not possible to accommodate them within the shelves, however, the nature of this design means that users can simply allocate space on the truck to not fit a storage unit, this space then being allocated to secure those items. Criteria E18 would be a matter for the user to decide how many of the storage units he or she wanted to have a worktop mounted on, but this would be easy to affix with bolts to the top of the storage unit.

Table 1. Validation

This project has therefore been able to satisfy the requirements of the PDS within certain acceptable design limits.

7-2

7.2Implementation Plan

The MOD operates an equipment acquisition programme under the mnemonic CADMID to cover the full life cycle of any equipment purchases. CADMID stands for:

Conception. This is the initial idea phase where the requirements for any equipment are investigated.Assessment. During this phase further detailed investigation is conducted and at this stage finance may be allocated to the projectDemonstration. Working prototypes are constructed to prove the feasibility of the equipment. At the end of this phase a single solution is selected.Manufacture. The equipment is manufactured and all spares, technical publications and other items are purchased.In-service. This phase covers the period of in use service life. It will also include the periodic depth maintenance and modification programme.Disposal. This phase consists of the withdrawal from service and disposal of the equipment.

This project report has considered the conception and assessment phase for this particular design solution. This report can now be presented to Capability Director Combat Service Support Capability development branch (CD CSS Cap Dev) for consideration. Should this branch consider this project to be of worthwhile application then the following timeline could be followed:

StageTimeline (Weeks)Notes

CD CSS accept this for further trial work3

Funds allocated for trial

2Funds for trial allocated by trial sponsor (CD CSS Cap Dev?)

MAN SV Safety case updated to include carriage of this storage unit

4Safety case updated to cover means of build, securing frame fitment and limitations of use.

Local manufacturer produces enough units for one or two vehicle2Enough sets to allow for sufficient trial process.

Trial and development conducted

8To be completed at Combat Service Support Trials and Development unit (CSS TDU)

Remedial work as a result of trial phase adopted4Redesign based on trials feedback. Safety case updated.

Unit selected for continuation trials (to include a thorough exercise phase)12Extended timeline to allow for thorough exercise testing.

Storage unit formally selected for adoption throughout the ES Land environment3CD CSS and PT decide on number of units to be procured.

Remedial work as a result of unit exercise phase adopted4Redesign based on trials feedback. Safety case updated.

Funds allocated for full scale production3Funds allocated as part of wider Army Equipment budget

PT selects manufacturer for full scale issue4PT invite industry to tender for manufacture

Full Manufacture4

Documentation produced

3Build instructions, safety instructions

Units made aware of the new storage units through official media2Local magazines as well as official bulletins.

Storage unit made available to units through MOD stores systemAs per direction from CD CSS

Total time58 WeeksSubject to change

This implementation plan is a rough idea of the further work to be done in order to bring this design into general use. It is envisaged that should this idea be selected by CD CSS Cap Dev then further design work would still need to be completed.

7-6

7.3Conclusion

The aim of this project was to design an adaptable and modular storage system for the carriage of tools and repair facilities on the Army MAN SV truck and this has been achieved. By conducting a survey of customers taken from the Land Environment this report was able to establish a list of standard items that were required to be carried on any storage solution. This was a vital piece for this project and it is believed this is the first time that a fitter truck storage solution has been investigated based on an established customer requirement.

One of the key requirements of fitter truck storage is that it must be adaptable to reflect the different roles of Army units and in particular the different spares, tools and test equipment required to be carried. By designing a storage unit on the dimensions of the NATO storage boxes and vehicle mechanic toolboxes, this project has attempted to build a storage unit that can be used effectively across as many units as possible by ensuring it can accommodate the most important items as noted by the pair analysis.

Another key requirement is the ability to quickly and easily remove the storage units in order that the vehicle can be retuned back to a standard truck, and this may become important on operations as vehicle availability reduces due to failure or enemy action. This is not possible with current storage units which require manual handling equipment to do so and is the main reason why ISO container based systems, while attractive, may not be the perfect solution.

It is likely that there may not be a perfect storage system due to Army ES units not having a standard role across the Army. This project has however designed a solution that accommodates all the customer requirements whilst remaining lightweight enough to be moved without the use of MHE and without comprising any safety aspects. The use of CAD software was key in establishing the dimensions for this solution. Whilst it is disappointing it was not possible to manufacture within unit capabilities it is perhaps more practical in the long term to have one manufacture building to scale with the inherent cost reductions that come as a result of this, this in turn also reduces the burden of work on the frontline Army ES units.

This project has achieved its aims and offered CD CSS Cap Dev a possible solution to fitter truck storage. Further work to be done in the concept of fitter trucks in general is covered in the next section.

7.4Recommendations

This project of fitter truck storage is also one part of a whole fitter truck concept. The requirements of a fitter truck involves not just the carriage of tools, spares and equipment but the ability for ES personnel to deploy and operate from the back of the fitter truck. This storage solution has been designed with that in mind and space for a worktop to be placed on top of the storage unit was always an essential criteria.

Currently the MAN SV safety case does not allow for ES personnel to conduct repair activities within the confines of the rear of the vehicle. Such activities may include stripping of engine sub-components, the use of soldering equipment to repair damaged electrical equipment, minor bench fitting such as filling, drilling or stud extraction. These activities would also likely include the use of chemicals and heat.

Further work is therefore required to assess the risks that these activities involve as well as the means to mitigate them. The work of this project and in particular the customer survey has highlight the very strong desire from the customer base that an ability to deploy and operate from fitter trucks is crucial to successful equipment support when deployed.

Bibliography

Blacksfasteners. (2016, April 03). Blacksfasteners. Retrieved from Blacksfasteners: http://www.blacksfasteners.co.nz/Tech-Info-MSDS/downloads-technical-manual-nuts-bolts-__I.135Department for Transport. (2002). Safety of Loads on Vehicles. 3. Retrieved from http://www.fta.co.uk/_galleries/downloads/loading_of_vehicles/safetyloadsonvehicles-1.pdfEUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORT. (n.d.). European Best Practice Guidelines on Cargo Securing for Road Transport. Retrieved July 26, 2015, from http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/vehicles/doc/cargo_securing_guidelines_en.pdfFlanagan, R., Bailey, P., & Nicholls. (2012). FITTER TRUCK MODIFICATION PROJECT. Greer, A. &. (1989). Tables, Data and Formulae for Engineeers & Mathematicians. Cheltenham: Stanley Thomas.Jones, T. L. (2013). A quick guide to survey research (1 ed., Vol. 95).Matthews, C. (2012). ENGINEERS DATA BOOK (Fourth ed.). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.MOD. (2011). An Introduction to System Safety. MOD. (2014, November 27). JSP 886 The Defence Logistics Support Chain Manual. Configuration Management Land Modifications, 5(1.5), Part 2A.MOD. (2014, December 22). PART 8.02 PACKAGING, HANDLING, STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION. JSP 886 DEFENCE LOGISTICS SUPPORT CHAIN MANUAL, 1.6.MOD. (n.d.). PACKAGING, HANDLING, STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION. JSP 886 DEFENCE LOGISTICS SUPPORT CHAIN MANUAL, 7(1.6).Nokes, Major, Greenwood, Allen, & Goodman. (2003). the definitive guide to project managment. Prentice Hall Financial Times.Thomson Engineering Design Ltd. (2012, December). Thomsondesignuk. Retrieved April 02, 2016, from http://www.thomsondesignuk.com/: http://www.thomsonrail.com/Technical%20Resources/A%20short%20guide%20to%20metric%20nuts%20and%20bolts.pdf

Annex A Project Analysis

SerialIssueImplicationDeduction

1There is no universal and agreed statement of what a fitter truck is required to store.Each unit has different loads to store and so storage units are set up in different manners.A storage solution is required that is based around a standard set up but which can be altered according to the requirements of the customer.

2Current storage units being used do not provide an efficient means of securing stored itemsPoorly secured equipment is able to move around during driving with the potential to cause damage.A storage solution is required that can secure a range of items sufficient enough to prevent excessive movement.

3Current storage units can only be secured to the truck bed with ratchet straps.Due to the size and nature of the storage units it is difficult to secure them correctly and easily.A storage solution is required that can be secured quickly and easily, preferably without the need of ratchet straps.

4Current storage units are heavy and require Manual Handling Equipment (MHE) to move.MHE is not always available and this can lead to time delays in preparing a repair truck.A storage solution is required that can be moved quickly and easily, preferably without needing MHE.

A-7

Annex BInitial Gannt Chart

Annex CUpdated Gannt Chart

Annex DFitter truck data requirements

Fitter Truck Data Requirements

SerialInformation requiredNeed for informationPosed toAnswerAny secondary questions?

1Requirement for Fitter truckWill give a starting point for the whole projectES Land environmentThis has been answered through the customer survey.

2Manner of and number of equipment to be carried.Vital informationES Land environmentThis has been answered through the customer survey.Dimensions of items to be required?

3What are the requirements for securing loadsVital legal informationDetails in report.

4Safety rating of each tie down pointdistribution of weight for LISLMMAN Load interface Safe Designers Guide2000kg or 19620NHow much total weight does my solution have?

5Safe loading envelope of MAN trucksWill explain where on the truck storage units can be placed.MAN Load interface Safe Designers GuideThis document is not open source information so cannot be answered here.

6Info on TC Opo RMComparison for preferred choiceDTTS, RM CDO LOGCosts approx. 35000Has this been cleared through PT and MAN?

7Size of ISO that can be encompassed on each MAN trucklimitations, if 6t is most numerous truck but cannot accommodate a standard TC Opo, then there may be a problemAESP, OWN MEASUREMENTS AND PROOF OFFERED BY TC OPO IN UNITMAN SV6t is designed and able to accommodate the size of a TC Opo but not the Deployable Machine Workshop..

8Number of 1st line LADsthis will provide a figure for the required number of fitter trucksCD CSS ES Cap DevExact figure unknownEstimated to be 100+

9Size and Weight of NATO storage boxes and VM boxesThese are key items that units use to store equipment.Measured by meDetails in report.

10Size and weight of storage systemThis combined with the answers to serial 14 will tell me how much weight (force) I need to secure.Calculated mathematically based on material informationDetails in report.

11Strength of materials in point loading and shear loadingWill confirm if chosen design and materials remain safe working limitsCalculated mathematically based on material informationDetails in report.

Annex ETechnical Design Solution

Annex FStorage unit calculations

Total mass of each storage unit= 109.30 KG = 1072.23 NYoungs modulus of elasticity = 205 KN/mm2 = 205 GPa http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470775097.app1/pdf

Maximum Deflection

Considering the shelf as a 2 dimensional beam with dimensions of 675mm (0.675m) long by 5 mm (0.005m) high (thickness of material) then the shelf can be considered a standard case beam with a Uniformly Distributed Load (UDL) of up to 25kg/245.25 N (based on H+S limits for a one man lift).

Therefore Max Deflection[footnoteRef:5] = 5xWxL4 / 384 x E x I [5: Standard Case Beam calculations page 141 (Matthews, 2012)]

Second moment of Area[footnoteRef:6] (IXX) = bd^3 / 12 = 0.675 x (0.005^3) / 12 = 0.007x10-6m4 [6: Second Moment of Area (I) page 139 (Matthews, 2012)]

Therefore 5 x 245.25 x0.6753 / 384 x (205x109) x (0.007x10-6)

= 68.44X10-6m

= 0.000068m total deflection=0.068mm total deflection

Based on calculations from Matthews, 2012 and advice from Staffs University Project tutor.

Shear Force acting on bolts

Each bolt is M6 class 8.8.

The load on the shelving units is carried by the 4 bolts at each corner of the shelving units.

Shear stress = Shear Load / Shear Area.Shear load = 245.25 N

Bolt is M6 8.8, therefore area in shear is equal to the cross-sectional area of bolt thread face. Therefore Shear stress equals

245.25 / (3.14 x 32) x 4 bolts = 2.17 N/mm2 shear force acting on each bolt

Annex GSecuring frame calculations

Tensile Force

Total mass of each storage unit= 109.30 KG (frame mass of 34.3kg plus load of 75kg)Mass of each subsequent storage unit (minus 2 legs) = 100.168 KGMaximum mass of 6 storage units = 610.14 KGMass of securing frame = 43.233 kgTotal = 653.373 kgF= m*a therefore total force = 6409.589 N or 6.409589 KN

Each securing frame is secured to the truck bed via 13 M8 (8.8) bolts, these are bolted into the removed tie down shackles fitted as standard to the truck bed. Each bolt is acting in tension to pull the securing frame onto the truck bed.

Total force on each bolt is therefore 6409.589 / 13 = 493.05 N

Shear Force

Taking rapid deceleration as the highest possible momentum force to resist, assuming that in this case the securing bolts will be subject to a single plane shearing force and taking just one storage unit into consideration the following calculations were used.

Total mass of each storage unit= 109.30 KGX 9.81 m/s = 1072.233N

Bolts used = M8 bolts grade 8.8Max Shear force acting on bolts = Max Shear Load / Shear Area = 1072.233 / 3.14 x 42

= 21.33 N/mm2

Each storage unit is mounted to the securing frame via 8 M8 bolts, total shearing force is therefore divided by these 8 bolts.

Total Shear Force = 21.33 / 8 = 2.666 N/mm2.

Appendix 1 to Annex E & G Data Tables

Table 1 Bolt Shear Capacity (Courtesy of Staffs Tutor Chris Wayman)

Table 2 Proof loads (Thomson Engineering Design Ltd, 2012)