HomeMy WebLinkAbout780490.tiff nr r',
A. LQ,'MISSZ ERI
EFFICIENCY OF ROCK CRUSHER AUDIT REPORT APR 4 1978
A. Purpose of Audit GnEazy. COW
The purpose of the audit was to determine the productivity of the
rock crusher.
B. Details of Purchase
1. The rock crusher was purchased on July 29, 1977 for
$254,995.00. The price included the trade-in of the old rock crusher.
2. Frank Smith and Commissioners Victor Jacobucci and Norman
Carlson traveled to the factory and saw a rock crusher demonstrated.
3. According to the Purchasing Department files the rock crusher
furnished by Cox Equipment was the lowest bid and was the company
selected to furnish the rock crusher.
C. Comparison between Old and New Rock Crushers
1. A comparison of the old and new rock crushers is not
feasible for the months of January, 1977 and January, 1978 because
the old rock crusher was being overhauled in January, 1977 and operated
a total of eleven (11) hours.
2. In February, 1977 the rock crusher operated a total of
eighty-six (86) hours and produced 6060 yards of crushed rock.
During January, 1978 the rock crusher operated for 37 hours and pro-
duced 9400 yards of crushed rock.
3. Therefore, the new rock crusher operated less than half the
time that the old crusher operated but crushed half again as much
rock.
D. Causes for Down Time of Crusher
1. Crusher vibrates too much. Most of the vibration comes from
the jaws.
2. The bolts holding the jaws to the frame of the crusher keep
breaking. These are one-inch steel bolts. The Cox Company who fur-
nished the bolts promised to look at them but has not sent a repre-
sentative though the company was called a week ago.
3. The trough rolls on the overhead feed and return belt are too
far apart causing material to fall off and throw break drive belts.
4. Feed out conveyor vibrates from side to side. Support cables
should be further apart.
5. Feed-in conveyor has a 24-inch belt with 400 ton per hour
capacity. Crusher has a 500 ton capacity per hour. This means that
780490
Crusher Audit Report
Page two
(D-5)
the crusher could not run at top capacity if the conveyor is
attached.
6. The breaker boxes on the crusher vibrate badly. This could
cause the breakers to crack or break.
7. The power unit (engine) is quite a lot larger than needed.
It is 700 H. P. when 350 H. P. would be sufficient.
8. The engine being mounted on the crusher makes the job of
changing screens hard work and is very time consuming. The screens
and screen racks must be removed to get to the lower screens.
9. The top screens have a tendency to plug with rock and
must be cleaned daily.
10. The bin has several flat spots causing material to build
up, especially if damp or wet.
11. The control panel for the motors or engines are in different
areas. The opeator must climb down a ladder and walk to the other
side and climb a ladder to check the other control panel.
12. The catwalk is too short. The operator cannot see the
material in the jaws or rolls. One person on the ground watches
belts and checks the feed to the jaws and rolls. Another person is
at the control panel.
13. The factory man was supposed to come out on Monday,
February 27, 1978 but he hadn't shown up at the time of this audit.
14. Service from the manufacturer and distributor is bad.
No effort has been made to correct the troubles.
E. Analysis of Weekly Production Report
1. In the week of January 16, 1978 the crusher operated 20
hours. Down time amounted 13-'2 hours; 6z hours unaccounted for.
2. In the week of February 6, 1978 the crusher was in operation
for 9 hours; 24 hours moving and let-up time; 7 hours down time;
total 40 hours.
3. In the week of February 16, 1978 the crusher was in operation
for 8 hours; 32 hours of down time. On Thursday it was "stormy and
snowy". Eleven and a half hours are accounted for; 28l hours are
unaccounted for.
Crusher Audit Report
Page three
(E cont. )
4. In the week of February 20, 1978, the crusher operated
for 20 hours; 9 hours of down time; a total of 29 hours with 11
hours not accounted for.
5. During the 4-week period, 46 hours were not accounted for.
The supervisor was asked what the men did during down time and I
was told that they work in the county garage or help the snow
removal teams.
6. Inquiry at the County garage indicated that the only time
the crusher employees worked there was to work on their county
vehicles. It was learned that no crusher employees had worked at
the county garage during the time period of this audit, January 3,
1978 to March 8, 1978.
7. None of the crusher employees worked in snow removal simply
because there has not been enough snow since the first of the year.
F. Operation of Rock Crusher
1. The hours the rock crusher was in operation from January
2, 1978 through February 28, 1978 totaled 89. The possible opera-
tional time was approximately 328 hours. The crusher was not in
operation for 239 hours in that period.
2. The crusher was observed at different hours during the
week of February 27, 1978.
a. February 27, 1978 - At 9 A.M. the crusher was not in
operation. A tractor was working, one tractor was
parked, and three county pickups were parked in front
of the office.
b. February 28, 1978 - At 10:30 A.M. there were no vehicles
in operation. All equipment was parked. At 3:30 P.M.
the crusher and bulldozers were not in operation.
c. March 1, 1978 - At 8:30 A. M. vehicles were being warmed
up and operators were in the trailer.
d. March 2, 1978 - At 8:30 A.M. the crusher was down and
the bulldozers were warming up. Five men were in the
trailer drinking coffee. The men did not have on their
working overalls. The men had to dress for work before
they went outside to hook up the conveyor.
Crusher Audit Report
Page four
G. Interview with Frank Smith, Engineering Department head
1. Mr. Smith stated that he knew that the employees at the
rock crusher site did not put in a full day's work some days.
He also had analyzed the weekly time sheets and was also aware of
46 hours lacking on the time sheets. He also stated that the crusher
employees knew his car and could see the car coming and would be at
their jobs when he arrived.
2. Mr. Smith was also asked where the Road and Bridge crews
were working now. He gave me the locations of the job sites.
This will be covered in an audit at a later date.
3. Mr. Smith was very cordial and was very cooperative.
H. Summary
1. The rock crusher has yet to produce its potential output.
This is due mainly to the vibration which is the cause of most of its
problems. It is also apparent that the company from whom we purchased
the crusher is not complying with repeated requests to send a person
to Greeley to correct the faults of the machine.
2. It is also apparent that the rock crusher crew is not
working 40 hours per week. The head of the engineering department
knows this but nothing has been done to correct this matter.
3. Due to the fact that the rock crusher was in operation
only 89 hours in the months of January and February, 1978, raises
the question of whether the purchase of a new rock crusher was
necessary. The old rock crusher was overhauled completely in
January, 1977 and if it had been operated at its full potential
it would have produced as much gravel as needed. By operating at
its full potential it would also have increased the hours that the
crusher crew worked.
4. According to the weekly reports turned in, there were a
few days in January, 1977 that there was no production of gravel
at all. The five men were not sent home or assigned to other jobs.
If the crusher does not operate due to snowy and windy days, there
should be some other work that the crusher crew could be assigned.
5. When the rock crusher is moved to a new site, a Denver
company must be called to transport it. The cost of the moving is
Crusher Audit Report
Page five
(H-5 cont)
v/ , expensive. The Denver company must be called because Weld County
does not have equipment to handle the transporting.
6. The efficiency of the rock crusher could be improved if
the company which furnished the crusher would honor their warranty.
This would also decrease the idle time of the crew.
I. Recommendations
1. The office of the Weld County Commissioners should write
a letter to. the Cox Equipment Company and insist that they send
someone to Greeley that is capable of clearing up the problems noted
in paragraphs D1-13.
2. The Engineering Department head should devise a method to
insure that his crusher employees work a 40 hour week.
3. On windy and snowy days when the crusher does not operate,
the employees should be sent to other jobs or be sent home.
4. Better weekly reports should be made. They should total
40 hours per week. This would eliminate missing hours.
5. The county garage should keep a record of hours worked by
rock crusher employees in the county garage.
p � n
Anthony T./ nkins /;�
Performance/Audito1
Hello