Hill l‘l “Ill 1 ‘l ! 1 ll ' —+_‘_. Imp m—xm TéME SWDY C}? 3613 CREAM PLANE BY WORK SAMPLING TSCHNlGUE g3 3£1€§;55‘A‘% 3729;... UHF: SEW THESIS This is to certify that the thesis entitled T11 IE; b'lTFLH 0.." ILL (fl-‘JEILL-Q PL1.;.-‘lb [71' V03}; bill-"$1,110 'i'LLIiifIic'UE presented by Richard A. heppeler has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Lester's degree in Agr. Eng: . .‘7/4 W W Major professor Date dad-.153 /457 0-169 TIME STUDY OF ICE CREAM PLANTS BY WORK SAMPLING TECHNIQUE By Richard A. Keppeler AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the College of Agriculture of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Engineering 195'? Approved (ékziiflU. £24QQQC#ZA¢-thE;fiCC7 ABSTRACT The study was conducted to establish production stan- dards of six ice cream manufacturing plants. Six different size categories were studied. The sizes were 0-20,000 gal- lons per year; 20,001 to 50,000; 50,001 t0 100,000; 100,001 to 250,000; 250,001 to 700,000; and 700,001 gallons per year and up, and were designated as Plants I through VI, respec- tively. The form of time study known as work sampling was used as the data gathering technique.. Work sampling can be used for analyzing either repetitive or non-repetitive work of hu- mans or machines, either singly or in groups. The results include basic times for elements of pint, quart, half-gallon, gallon and bulk filling operations, elapsed time ratios, machine utilization factors, gallons per man hour for each plant. A check list is included in the thesis. 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It gives me great pleasure to thank Dr. Carl W. Hall for his excellent and subtle guidance on this project. Without his encouragement I am certain it would never have taken form. Also, I thank Professor Philip Thorson, at whose suggestion and with whose guidance the work sampling technique was used. To Dr. Joseph Meiser goes my thanks for his advice and sug- gestions. To Dr. Arthur W. Farrell goes my deep gratitude for en- couragement and making financial assistance available to fin- ish this project. Also, I am deeply indebted to the super- visors and workers of the various companies surveyed for the openhanded generosity with which they answered questions and gave information. Thanks also go to Mr. F. M. Skiver of the Bureau of Dairying, Michigan-Department of Agriculture, for his help in setting up the size categories and recommending of companies for study. Last but not least, a great debt of gratitude which can be experienced, but much less easily expressed, goes to my wife, Betty. Her spiritual strength and physical support have contributed immeasurably to the accomplishment of this task. TIME STUDY OF ICE CREAM PLANTS BY WORK SAMPLING TECHNIQUE By Richard A. Keppeler A THESIS Submitted to the College of Agriculture of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Engineering 1957 9/30/57 g/O/O TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of Elements . . . . RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . Check List for Ice Cream Plants SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . FUTURE WORK IN ICE CREAM PLANTS . LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . \o C? \N F‘ 18 28 5h 57 59 61 62 iv Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 11. 12. LIST OF FIGURES Observation record sheet . . . . . . . Sample of random time sheet used on all operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Layout, Plant I . . . . . . . . . . . Layout, Plant II . . . . . . . . . . . Layout, Plant III . . . . . . . . . . Layout, Plant IV . . . . . . . . . . . Layout, Plant V . . . . . . . . . . . Layout, Plant VI, Battery 1 . . . . . Layout, Plant VI, Battery 2 . . . . . Comparison of elapsed time ratios and machine use factors. . . . . . . . . . Comparison of gallons per man hour . . Comparison of gallons per man hour for consumer sized packages . . . . . . . Comparison of gallons per man hour for small and large bulk cans . . . . . . . l2 . 25 .111 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. VIII, continued. Table IX. Table Xe Table XI. LIST OF TABLES Plant I, Gallons Per Man Hour . . . . Plant II, Gallons Per Man Hour . . . Plant III, Gallons Per Man Hour . . . Plant IV, Gallons Per Man Hour . . . Plant V, Gallons Per Man Hour . . . . Plant VI, Gallons Per Man Hour . . . Comparison of Gallons Per Man Hour By Plants and Package Sizes. . . . . . . Elapsed Time Ratios and Machine Use Factors for Plants I, II, III, and IV Elapsed Time Ratios and Machine Use Factors for Plants V and VI . . . . . Basic Times of Elements, Bulk . . . . Basic Times of Elements, Pints . . . . Basic Times of Elements, Half Gallons 28 28 29 50 51 52 35 3h 55 56 57 58 vi INTRODUCTION "For production men, cost control is of paramount impor- tance," so spoke J. Hoffman Erb in October, 1955, at St. Louis, Missouri, to the International Association of Ice 1 To achieve cost control the production Cream Manufacturers. man needs to have information about his own operation and no harm will be done if he has figures from other operations for comparison. In the United States, in l95h, 8,h2h factories produced 596,999,000 gallons of ice cream.and 5h,0h8,000 gallons of sherbet worth approximately $1,009,000,000.10 In the same year, Michigan manufactured 29,162,000 gallons or h.89 per- cent of the national total of ice cream.worth approximately $h6,659,000 in hh8 factories, 5.52 percent of the national total. Nationally, 6,058 factories, or 71.68 percent of the total, are of eighty quarts or less capacity. In Michigan, 527 factories, 72.99 percent of the Michigan total, are of eighty quarts or less capacity. These totals do not include soft-serve parlors. In 1955, the ice cream industry em- ployed 59,6h9 people with an aggregate payroll of $1h5,7h6,000.11 Of these, 21,028 were production workers with salaries and wages of $67,216,000 for hh,6h7,000 man hours. An increase of 10 percent in the average gallonage per man hour would represent a saving of approximately $650,000 per year in the United States. Because of steadily increas- ing labor_costs, the need is imperative for the fullest util- ization of labor's time by carefully planned work schedules, alternative work in event of breakdowns, short shutdowns for flavor changeovers and as prolonged flavor runs as is econom- ically possible. A questioning attitude is needed in viewing each person and element of each operation. Is this necessary? Is this the person to do it? Is this the time to do it? Is there a better, simpler way to do it? Will a machine do it more cheaply? These questions, and others like them, will cer- tainly bring changes for the better unless the questioner has a perfect operation with 100 percent efficiency and zero cost. This questioning attitude, plus the method of motion and time analysis used in the data collection for this thesis, will give an excellent basis for work simplification, methods improvement, cost reduction, invaluable information on a company's operations and improved engineering design of equipment. There is always a better way! Look for it! Find it! Use it! 9 OBJECTIVES The objectives of this study were: 1. To improve the efficiency of ice cream manufacturing a. b. c. d. Co establish freezer elapsed time ratios, establish machine use factors, establish gallons per man hour, set basic times, compare sizes of plants. 2. To provide data for plant layouts. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Undoubtedly efficiencies of equipment and standard times of production of ice cream packages have been taken and cal- culated, but they are the property of private individuals and companies, and, as such, have not been published. It was the object of this thesis to gather and report information to the industry. Scientific management with time and motion study came into being with Frederick J. Taylor at Midvale Steel Company, Philadelphia, in 1881. Blessed with a facile, inquiring mind, Taylor preposed a "task" system, whereby each man would be given a task with written instructions for its performance carefully planned by the management. He also prOposed to set a standard time of performance for each task by breaking the job into "elements" or divisions which could be timed and a total time attained by summing the elemental times. Prior to Taylor's time, standards had been set by fore- men by guess. As a consequence, they were not trusted by labor, or respected by management. But, with Taylor's begin- nings, there has developed today's science of time and motion study. The movement received a bad setback in the early Twen- tieth Century because of so-called "efficiency experts." They were usually men with little or no knowledge of time study or of human relations and their standards were usually unrealistic and too difficult to attain, or if the standards were attainable or surpassable, unscrupulous managements would change the rates when the workers began to make what the management thought was too much money. The situation became so bad that Congress, in 1915, for- bade the use of any Federal money for time study. This law was not rescinded until 191.9.2 Time study is still looked upon with real or avowed suspicion by the unions in general, a1though.many union-management contracts are written agreeing on procedures for time and motion study. There are, in general, two methods of setting time stan- dards.2 One is the stopwatch method wherein a job or task is surveyed for minor method improvements, and those changes are made. The task is broken up into elements and the job cycles are timed with a time reading taken at the end of each ele- ment. Repetitions are made until a mean time is arrived at which is not significantly different from the expected value. These elemental times are summed and, with allowances added, are the standard times. This is a fairly long, tedious and fatiguing job for the time study man, and one which is com- plicated by the worker being studied. It is probably only too human to speed up to show off, or to slow down to try to get the standard as high as possible. The other method is called variously: work sampling, ratio delay, or occurrence study, depending upon the particu- lar use to which the meflhod is put. It was first used by L. H. C. Tippet in the English textile industry in 1955 to study the efficiency of loom usage. Nadler5 says that work sampling is the general procedure and ratio delay and occurrence study are variations, depend- ing on usage. Ratio delay is defined as the procedure for determining the amount of down time per day of a machine and, basically, is used for determining allowances in time study. Occurrence study is used for analysis of repetitive or non- repetitive work of humans, rather than machines. The information5 needed to calculate a basic time is: 1. the ratio of times that an element of a job occurs in relation to the total number of observations recorded on that job, 2. the total elapsed time of the study of that job, 5. the total units produced during that elapsed time, and h. the performance rating of the operators on that job as rated by the observer. This information is combined in the following formula: ratio x total elapsed time x the performance rating total units produced Performance rating2 is the rating of the operators speed Basic time - of performance by letting a normal performance equal one hundred and speeds more or less than normal be designated by ratings above or below one hundred. Normal performance could be compared to dealing fifty-two cards in O.h5 minutes, or walking one hundred feet in 0.35 minutes. According to Morrowh, two advantages of the work sampling method are: one, no objection by workers being studied to the study, because of the absence of a stopwatch, and, two, the cost of a study is cut to about one-third of that by a regu- lar production study. At the Eagle Pencil Company, the time study department estimated that a certain study by their usual methods would take 67 hours, while an actual study by the work sampling method took eleven hours. At J. E. Ogden Company, Bayonne, New Jersey, three jobs were surveyed by the conventional method using 22.5 hours. The ratio delay method took 7.7 hours. A third case“, at a company not named, ten men on a materials handling job were studied with a resultant cost saving of fifty percent. Niebel2 says that the most extensive use of work sampling so far has been in establishing time allowances in production studies, determining machine utilization, allocation of work assignments and methods improvement. George Knight, Chief Industrial Engineer of the Radio Tube Division of Sylvania Electric Products Corporation, said, We had started stop-watch studies and were obtaining reliable data but at the sacrifice of time and cover- age. Through the work sampling techniques, standards were established in a small fraction of the time that would have been required if stOp-watch studies were taken throughout, and the resulting standards have served their purpose as a management and operational control and proved valuable in highlighting areas requiring methods improvement. William Gomberg6 said, "Application of ratio delay technique is the earliest of sound statistical thinking to time study problems." PROCEDURE For the purposes of study the manufacturers of Michigan were divided into six groups according to size. After con- sultation with Mr. F. M. Skiver of Bureau of Dairying, Mich- igan Department of Agriculture, it was decided to split the manufacturers as follows: Gallons per Year Manufacturers in Category (percent) 0- 20,000 53.9 20,001- 50,000 51.9 50,001-100,000 12.5 100,001-250,000 11.9 250,001-700,000 7.3 700,001-and up 2.7 Having decided the range of categories, Mr. Skiver sup— plied us with a list of manufacturers in each category. From this list a company was selected in each category and Dr. Jo- aquiMeiser made the primary contacts to gain assent for in- vestigation. After the contacted companies had given their consent, a time table was set up, so that the work could be accomplished during the summer months. Bulk operations were studied with 5-, 5%-, 5-, and 2%- gallon cans being observed and, in consumer packages, round 10 and square pint, quart, half-gallon and gallon operations were examined. Each can and package filling operation was broken down into elements and, as nearly as possible, these elements were adhered to in all operations studied. To start observations, a position was selected which would afford the observer the most complete and uninterrupted view of all persons on the operation. This position was used each time the Operation was observed. Then, with an Observation record sheet as shown in the example, a random time sheet as shown, and a watch with a sweep hand, showing hundredths of a minute, the observations were taken of each person on the operation at the random times shown on the random time sheet as they occurred on the watch. When it was explained to the people on the operations that the watch was just to mark the time of the observation and not to measure time, there was no protest or nervousness shown by the operators, even in unionized plants. Between observations the observer's eyes were kept on the watch and, only when the time of observation was reached did the observer look at the operation. Then his eyes swept over the operation in the same direction each time, so as to ob- serve each operator in same sequence each time. Note was made of the element that each operator was performing and a mark was placed under that element heading on the observation record sheet. This procedure was followed for all operations as nearly as was possible. 11 FILLING ROUND PINTS - PLANT VI sooum use msoecma naoomaz Iflffl# U Hflrfif HflhW Iflffifi HHIN Homeom sauna Hempqoo Aeneohm IM'MH MRI I” nmwoi III acho>coo no ##I mmmm “Baum case use wmm comm wcaw -wsm 2H use was omoao I medaaaa pme;/#+HH lHIHH mewwwm HHMMm—IHHM IWtfi#-wejwVI#+fiw Hvrfi4ifilmm were; rfiwa Hfl/H4ififnfl H#f#+/ML~H-»H/~I fflfHH-Hflffl+ aomnommaa CH asepamo WWWWWWHMWI H/ Observation record sheet. Fig. l. RANDOM TIME SHEET ‘RanHOm Times First Half Hour Hundredths of Minute 1 1+1 ,7 1+9 51 E1 51 6 8 59 2% 3 11 1+0 15 59 5 61 g 0 9 i ’1 2 5 1 5 2g 5 IE 7 1 5 8 55 16 h? 26 h 25 i1 5 2 27 51 20 k 16 fig 22 11 1 8 Ba 2% 33 77 33 Z? 2% 31 a? 6 A 95 96 Random—TImes Second Half Hour Hundredths of Minute g3 82 91 Fig. 2. Sample of random time sheet used on all operations. 15 At the completion of the first day's run of a package, a statistical computation was made to determine how many ob- servations of each element were necessary to make the ratio of observations Of that element to the total observations of 2 that operation significant. The equationcrg‘.‘/pll-p$ where: p percent occurrence of element in first run ORE standard deviation of p N number of total observations to be made of the element. Since approximately 95 percent of all observations of a nor- mal distribution will fall within plus or minus 203; then the equation becomes 25; a 2 1- ) . The use of this equation to calculate N forces this into a normal distribution. In these studies, an accuracy of plus or minus 3 percent was used, which was substituted in place of ais'on the left side of the equation and N was computed. Studies of each package was continued until the requisite number of observations were obtained as computed. During the observation period, peri- odic performance ratings were made Of the Operator as des- cribed in the report of literature. The ratings were aver- aged at the end of the study and the average was used in calculations of the basic time. Accurate record was kept of the time that the operation ran and the number of gallons produced during this time. These were used in the basic time computation, which was used as follows: 1h percent of total time the element oc- Basic time of element a curs x total time the operation ran x performance rating gallons produced during the total time Example: if an element occurred 20 percent of total time Of 25 hours with a performance rating Of 90 and 5,000 gal- lons produced, then Basic time = '20 x 2003 60 x '90 a .05h minutes per gallon. 9 Standard time for an element is the basic time plus an allowance for all rest and down times during the day, such as fatigue rest periods, personal time, warm-up time for harden- ing room men, washing up of equipment and personnel wash-up time. For example, if two fifteen-minute rest periods were allowed per eight hour day (h80 minutes), the allowance would be H889:3U or .067. To compute: standard time per element : basic time (1 plus allowance). To continue the example: standard time x .05h (1 plus .067) = .058 minutes per gallon. To calculate the elapsed time ratio (ETR) of a contin- uous freezer or battery of continuous freezers: number of allons prOduced in a da ETR = elapsedvhours rom startup to shfitdpwn x galIons per hour capaci y For example: a battery of two freezers started at 8:00 AM and finished at h:00 PM with one-half hour lunch time, and it produced 2,516 gallons at a rated capacity of 200 gallons per hour per freezer. ETR g __2fii§ : .859 7.5 x 2 x 200 15 Calculations of machine use factor for continuous freez- ers is very nearly like elapsed time ratio, but with differ- ences in the hours used in the division. For machine use factor (MUF) the hours used are those of the length of the production crew's day. For example: a battery Of two 200- gallon per hour freezers produced 2,516 gallons in a day and the production crew worked eight hours per day. MSU = 2516 = .786 88x Z’x 200 Gallons per man hour would be calculated by gallons produced hours worked x number of peopIe in the production crew For example: three men working eight hours produced 2,516 gallons. Gallons per man hour = 2516 u 105 5 x Calculation of elapsed time ratio and machine use factor Of batch freezers was different than those calculations for continuous freezers. Since the batch freezers do not have a rated capacity per hour, another method of comparison was used. Dr. Joseph Meiser7, in work done for his thesis, ran a considerable number of trials on a batch freezer. These trials were run with a number of different fat sources and stabilizers and so should be quite representative. The times which he recorded were those from the moment the mix was drOpped into the freezer and the suction valve was opened 16 until the drawing began. The mean time of Dr. Meiser's re- cordings was h.hh minutes or 0.07h hours and was used for Plant I and II in this study which used batch freezers. The drawing time for each Of these two plants were dif- ferent because in Plant I, the packages and bulk cans were filled directly from the freezer, while in Plant II, the ice cream was drawn into cans, dumped into a filler and the pack- ages filled from the filler. As a consequence the drawing time was much less in Plant II than in Plant 1.. A mean draw- ing time was determined for each plant and added to the 0.07h hours to give 0.152 hours and 0.096 hours allowed time per batch for Plants I and II respectively. The elapsed time ratios were calculated as follows: ETR g number Of batches x time allowance per batch elapsed time '—' For example, if 51 batches with an allowance of 0.096 hours and elapsed time Of 6.66 hours were used, then _ 51 x 0.096 . . . ETR- 166 kin The machine use factor would be calculated by: MUF = number of batches xtime allowance per batch length of operator's day Using the figures of the above example and an eight hour day, MUF = 51 g 0'096 I .572. Note that the gallons per man hour reported for Plant 11 Swere not broken down as to different size packages. As men- tioned above, the ice cream was packed independently from 17 the freezer, and so the cycle of freezing, whipping and draw- ing had nothing to do with various size packs and the time .was not allotted to packages. 18 Description of Elements BULK: Stamp cans - Unmade cans were taken from shipping box and put in pile on stamping bench, stamped and repiled. This did not include getting stock or carrying to the place where cans were made. Stamp lids - Lids were taken from shipping box and put on stamping bench, stamped and returned to box. This did not include getting stock or carrying to place where lids were put on cans. Make cans - Cans were set up by hand or with jig and put on conveyor or on pile at arm's length. This did not in- clude carrying or conveying from stamping bench or from making point to filling point. Fill cans - Operator took can from conveyor or pile at arm's length, inserted under filling spout and removed full can. This did not include the bringing of empty cans from the making point. Scrape and lid - Operator scraped excess ice cream from top Of can and snapped on lid. This did not involve move- ment Of can or bringing of lids from stamping point to the lidding point. Weigh and convey - Operator moved lidded can from lidding point onto scale and then onto conveyor. This did not include operator standing and watching scale, but only the movement Of the can. l9 Freezer control - Operator changed overrun control, back pressure control or checked the amount Of mix remaining. This did not include startup or shutdown. HALF GALLONS: Cartons into Anderson magazine - Operator removed cartons from shipping box, riffled ends, aligned in magazine and replaced tension hook. This did not include movement Of full shipping cases to point of magazine loading. Align and bag filled cartons, Anderson - Operator picked up, opened and slipped bag over bagging chute, aligned two half-gallons, slid them into bag, removed bag from chute and set filled bag on table. This did not include bringing bags to point Of Operation. Tape and stamp bags, Anderson - Operator took filled bag, taped with tape from dispenser, and pulled handle Of dispenser to eject new strip of tape. When three bags were taped, all three were stamped. Onto conveyor - After taping and stamping, bags were placed on conveyor. Make up cartons - Operator picked up flat carton, folded flaps and locked outer flap on one end. Fill cartons, manual - Operator picked up carton from pile, placed open end under filling spout, removed carton when full and set on table. This did not include get- ting cartons from stock and putting in pile. 20 Close cartons - Operator took filled carton and closed flaps. This did not include any movement Of carton. Bag and tape - Operator took closed carton, put it in sack, taped sack and ejected fresh tape from dispenser. This did not include any movement Of filled bag toward des- tination or replenishing stock Of bags at point of bag— ging. Freezer control - Same as in bulk operation. SQUARE PINTS: Make up cartons - Same as make up cartons in half-gallon operation. Cartons into Anderson magazine - Same as Anderson half-gallon operation. Fill pints - Same as fill cartons, manual half-gallon oper- ation. . Close pints - Same as close cartons, manual half-gallon oper- ation. Bagging and taping All above have same meanings as half-gallon operation. ROUND PINTS: Fill cartons - Operator took carton from dispenser, filled at spout and put on table. This did not include putting empty cartons in diapenser. Close and put in bag chute - Operator took cap from supply, put it on carton and put capped carton in bagging chute. 21 This did not include taking caps from stock and putting in supply for capper. Bag and tape - Operator took bag from supply, opened it, slid it over the bagging chute, slid eight pints into the bag, taped the bag and pressed handle of tape dispenser to eject a fresh piece Of tape. This did not include get- ting bags from stock to the bagger's supply or moving the taped bag toward its final destination. Stamp bags - Operator assembled five bags of pints and stamped them. This did not include moving stamped bags toward their destination. Onto conveyor. Operator moved the taped and stamped bags onto conveyor. Freezer control - Same as in bulk operation. 22 Batch 1“. . , Freezer ..M_2_ Scale % in. . 1 ft. Fig. 5. Layout, Plant 1. I . *— i Packag- .1118. Machinefl . Batch . Freezer Scale % in. -.l.ft. Hardening 1 ‘ Hess --o—R-OOE 1:; 4.‘ . Door] {7 Door Fig. h. Layout, Plant II. Homog- enizen /”"‘"“\ , ' ~ Batch / Freezer \ Vat) _ . - a 4 \2 -- I ///’” \\ Scale % in. = 1 ft. / 1‘ Vat 4 Pa 3 Door ContinuouT . Hardening Freezer i ROoh Pd 8 DO r i v...— Fig. 5. Layout, Plant III. 25 F—-—- r—-—- min 0) 0) m8 :3 :5 o a c>a pr 5 o 5 0 (IN {IN «no H0 7 «90 +30 G H n a 0'3. oii. :5 0 Scale % in. a 1 ft. A P DO r Pass 'Door' i 1 7 Fig. 6. Layout, Plant Iv a O p. 0 2 Continuous O ‘ Freezer 0 ontinuous Freezer ontinuous Freezer Scale % in. = 1 ft. F180 7, Layout, Plant V 25 26 [_3 Half Gallon ' Filler Table [—fi 5 8 ‘5 8 . a. a .. 2:0 g’ :3 o o o O os. pace as: g; g s O :10 ccoo Layout, Plant VI Battery 2. Fig. 9. 28 TABLE I PLANT I GALLONS PER MAN HOUR “5 HEI?’ Bulk Day Pints Quarts Gallons Gallons 5 Gal. Average lst 19.5 28.6 55.k k5.5 57.9 2nd 20.0 50.2 21.7 58.0 51.6 5rd _l§l§_. .2218_._22l2_ _é§ai_ .22a1. .Jiiil. Average 19.6 29.h 50.5 h5.5 hh.6 57.9 TABLE II PLANT II GALLONS PER MAN HOUR Day 83:21 Nggrs Average 1st 221.5 5.50 hl.8‘ 2nd 28k.0 6.66 k2.6 5rd 2 .0 .20 _g9;9_ Total 760.5 17.16 hh-fi 29 TABLE III PLANT III GALLONS PER MAN HOUR WF 2 Gal. E5111? Bulk Day Pints Gallons Slabs 5% Gal. 5 Gal. Average lst u8.8 52.5 110.2 118.8 and 55-11 118.5 79-5 79.1: 148-8 5rd h7-8 59.5 8h.2 th.8 55-5 hth 50.2 117.9 75.8 70.5 52.1 5th 55.1 56.5 78.9 88.6 88.6 57.5 61:11 57.17 76.7 86.5 51.6 7th 1&2. .122. ALL .éLé. .2112. 1&2. Average 50.5 50.0 711.9 77.5 90.0 52.0 M 50 TABLE IV PLANT Iv GALLONS PER MAN HOUR " Hai?: 2 GaIT' ‘550a1. ‘7: Day Pints Quarts Gallons Slabs Bulk Average lst 55.6 57.6 76.9 70.0 67.6 70.9 2nd 57.8 67.1 70.9 69.0 5rd 60.0 95.5 1h7.2 82.1 hth 86.6 60.0 59.1 70.7 5th 69.? 69.7 6th 52.0 79.u 70.1 71.2 7th 56.1 71.5 66.0 01.9 8th 62.0 90.6 72.8 77.5 9th 75.0 85.0 10th 51.7 78.2 68.1 75.2 72.5 11th .5322. .1521 .1922. .EEJ. .1522}. Average 5h.8 57.6 80.5 68.5 75.6 69.6 51 H.NHH :.:ma N.Hma 4.Hma m.mHH m.~w m.:m omago>< 1.”le 4.4%: 44%»: diam. NJ... 8... w.:m N.:mH 0.0mm m.m: sum H.maa >.mem ~.H: p.mHH H.mm 26> 0.6m m.oma m.mma 3.0m o.mm new o.mna H.:ma m.e- p.6ma m.mma ~.Hm gum m.mna H.mom ~.mmm p.0ma H.~m o.mm a»: m.~m H.~:H ~.owa m.~m m.mm cum m.:ma w.mwa «.mom o.oom m.:ma o.mm Bum n.4ma m.ama o.oma m.o:H m.w: 66H emano><+ .Hdm m .Haw wm nsoaawm unoaawo mphdfld upsam man .1. xasm‘ EHBm uIIIIIIIIIIaIhHmmIIIaIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII meow z¢2 mam mzoqqae > azegm > mamda 52 m.mna o.oom o.mmm o.oma m.mm o.moa m.m: owwpm>< .Nqflwl gm: infill £2 m.poa m.pmm m.m: sped ~.oma :.mmm m.ama m.m0H 26m 5.0:H o.oom m.mmm o.m~a m.e: gum o.HmH o.ama new m.maa m.am~ e.moa :60 0.4:. H.:mm :.mmH w.mm 0.0: gum w.oma m.omm m.HmH H.m: up: m.mea m.mmm m.m:a m.moa m.mm can w.m:a 0.»:H Bum m.mma u.m:a :.:oa m.H: pad owdao>< .Hdo m .Hdo mm acoaawm append macaw mucfim baa Bazm masm “Ham nausea venom |IU| 1.! I 4b.} mDom z¢2 mam mzoqqdw H> Bqum H> mqm<9 55 m.mmH o.oom o.mmm o.oma m.mm «.moa w.m: H> H.~HH 4.:ma m.HmH :.HNH m.maa N.ee w.:m > m.mm m.m> m.om e.>m m.:m >H o.mm 0.0m m.m~ 0.0m m.om HHH m.:: HH m.~m 0.4: m.m: m.om :.mm m.ma H owmno>4 .Hao m .Haw «m maoaawm Macadam mpuadd macaw mucfim ucdam .m . m Haam mDom z¢£ mmm mzoaq<0 HH> mqm_6._ .2513. Average .885 TABLE VI I I CONTINUED ‘_‘—:._.—‘ J h PLANT v Day ETR MUF Day ETR MUF 1 .895 .721 6 .565 .022 2 .810 .575 7 .652 .589 5 .510 .565 8 .552 .156 0 .722 .598 9 _;é02_ ._5221_ 5 .792 .628 Average .671 .072 PLANT v1 Battery 1 Battery 2 ETR MUF Day ETR MUF 1 .771 .502 1 .072 .598 2 .818 .722 2 .000 .000 5 .725 .627 5 .778 .521 0 .792 .817 0 .801 .570 5 .900 .850 5 .557 .501 6 .672 .606 6 .782 .701 7 .801 .757 7 .000 .000 8 .965 .866 8 .808 .578 9 .921 .829 9 .682 .599 10 .892 .009 10 .812 .012 302.492. 11 40.22. Average .808 .707 Average .685 .050 56 .ason he“ «coaadw oom .nson non msoaadw mmm .udon non mcoaamw oom .aouooam $0969 #6 mH¢NO0RH mflofififipfioo 9d mHONOORH MSOSCHDGOO aw mnouoohu msoscapcoo anm voHHHm .: Beam 000000 .m Soak UoHHfim .N 809% noaaam .H ~00. H00. H00. mao. Hoapaoo poaooaa 0H0. :00. 0H0. mead» hoaaoo 0:0 00060 pmo. 000. 0N0. H00. 060 00a use 000060 :0m0. 40:0. 0000. ~000. on 0000. H000. "000 Haaa 000. 000. 000. 000. :60 N00. 0006 6082 N00. N00. 660 000H 05000 000. M00. H00. Hao. 0:00 05000 .000 0 .H00 mm .000 mm .Hae m .Hae mm .Hae m pcoEon H> panda > panda >H 0:000 HHH paaaa HH paeaa H paaaa AZOQQ:oo no mdo. mac. Hmo. Hao. moo. Monacoo nonconm nmm. wcamup one 09530 Spa: wcfiwmdm mma. Anomaovc pcmam > unmam >H unwam HHH pqwam HH unwam H pcuam acofioam Azoqqcoo no @00. @00. mmm. mcoupmo one» one mam Nmo. Nwo. owo. 0N0. omo. asephmo omoao 0000. :sem. 00mm. m0:0. naopaao 000a >00. Hoo. Hoo. oHH. Hoo. acounao ma 0x82 mma. somaooc¢ .umdn mauve cad onus mmo. connooa¢ .mcoundo 000000 was 0:0 00004 mao. nomaoond .oc0nmmme G0 asepaao H> ucdam > pcdam >H pcddm HHH undam HH pcdam H pcdam pcosoam I 1"! III. C II IIT- - l'l1‘51510‘l -II‘ . III" .II. 8! 8". 7515,- 'I' I‘ll. Azoaqdo mmm mmBDszv mZOAQ