> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.kevos.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Horizontal Paint Line Trolley – Mechanical Design and Workflow Improvement | EPTEC - URL: https://www.kevos.com/horizontal-paint-line-trolley-defence-grade-mechanical-design-for-eptec/ - Published: 2022-04-25T14:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-09-29T07:46:48.000Z - Description: Mechanical Design | Industrial Engineering | Materials Handling | Workflow Improvement | Design for Manufacture - Author: K G J - Tags: KEVOS® Mechanical Project, KEVOS® Projects **Client:** EPTEC **Industry:** Defence / Industrial Maintenance **Project Stage:** Concept and engineering design **Status:** Project paused before fabrication and implementation This project involved developing a horizontal trolley system to support the movement and handling of large and irregular components through an industrial paint-line environment. The existing production arrangement created challenges around component handling, available floor space and movement between different stages of the coating process. My contribution focused on understanding the operating workflow, translating those requirements into a mechanical design and developing a practical trolley concept capable of supporting heavy components while remaining manoeuvrable within the available production area. The project is a good example of how mechanical design can be used to address a broader manufacturing problem rather than simply create an individual piece of equipment. ## Project Context EPTEC required an improved method for moving components through a paint-line environment used for defence-related work. The existing arrangement involved large and sometimes irregularly shaped components that needed to move between preparation, painting and associated production activities. The engineering challenge involved balancing several requirements: - Load-carrying capability - Stability - Component accessibility - Manoeuvrability - Restricted production-floor space - Paint and coating workflow - Fabrication practicality - Operator use - Flexibility for different component geometries - Potential future requirements This meant that the trolley needed to be considered as part of the production process rather than simply as a fabricated frame on wheels. ## Understanding the Workflow The design process began by examining how operators and components moved through the production environment. Understanding the workflow was important because the trolley needed to improve movement through the paint process rather than introduce another constraint. Consideration was given to: - Where components entered the process - How they were loaded - How operators accessed different areas of the component - How the trolley moved between work areas - Floor-space restrictions - Component stability during movement - How the equipment would interact with the coating process These observations helped convert production issues into practical engineering requirements. ## Requirements Definition The operational review was translated into a set of design priorities. The trolley needed to provide sufficient structural support while remaining simple enough for practical fabrication and use. Key requirements included: - Supporting heavy and irregular loads - Maintaining stability during movement - Providing sufficient structural rigidity - Allowing operators to access the component during coating activities - Remaining manoeuvrable within the available space - Providing a platform that could accommodate different component arrangements - Withstanding an industrial production environment - Remaining practical to fabricate and maintain Defining these requirements before detailed design helped ensure that the engineering solution remained connected to the production problem. ## Mechanical Design Development A welded rectangular hollow-section steel frame formed the basis of the concept. The approximate platform dimensions were: **1.5 m × 0.6 m** The frame configuration incorporated bracing to improve structural rigidity and resistance to twisting under uneven loading. This was particularly relevant because irregular components do not always place their load uniformly across a support structure. The design therefore needed to consider more than total load capacity. Load distribution, stability and frame behaviour also influenced the mechanical arrangement. ## Load and Stability Considerations The original concept considered a castor arrangement in the approximate **200–300 kg load-rating range**, depending on the final configuration and component requirements. The design process considered how the total working load would transfer through: **Component → Support Structure → Trolley Frame → Castors → Factory Floor** This load path is fundamental to mobile equipment design. A trolley can have sufficient theoretical load capacity while still performing poorly if the frame twists, the centre of gravity becomes unstable or the castor arrangement does not suit the actual operating conditions. The concept therefore considered: - Structural rigidity - Load distribution - Centre-of-gravity effects - Castor capacity - Wheel positioning - Movement stability - Directional control Any final production unit would require detailed load verification and engineering validation based on the final operating load and configuration. ## Open-Deck Configuration An open-deck arrangement formed part of the concept. This helped reduce unnecessary surface area around the component and provided improved access during the coating process. The arrangement could also support airflow and reduce the likelihood of the trolley unnecessarily obstructing access to the workpiece. The design demonstrates how equipment geometry can influence the process being supported. The objective was not simply to transport the component. The trolley needed to work with the painting process itself. ## Manoeuvrability The production environment imposed limitations on available space. The castor system therefore needed to support controlled movement without making the trolley unnecessarily difficult to position. Wheel selection and arrangement were considered in relation to: - Load capacity - Turning requirements - Stability - Floor conditions - Operator control - Repeated movement between work areas This reinforced the relationship between mechanical design and operator usability. Equipment can be structurally adequate but still fail operationally if it is difficult to use. ## Modular Design Concepts Several optional concepts were explored to improve flexibility across different component types. These included: - Adjustable support arrangements - Rotating work platforms - Alternative component supports - Stackable framing concepts - Integrated task-lighting possibilities These concepts were not necessarily part of one final manufactured system. Rather, they demonstrated how the basic trolley platform could potentially be adapted to different production requirements. This modular thinking is valuable in manufacturing because production equipment often needs to support changing products and future workflows. ## Design for Manufacture Fabrication requirements were considered during development of the concept. Using standard structural sections and welded construction provided a relatively straightforward manufacturing approach. The design considered: - Standard material availability - Cutting and fabrication - Welding access - Assembly - Castor installation - Maintenance - Potential replacement of wear components The aim was to avoid creating unnecessary fabrication complexity while still meeting the operational requirements. This is an important principle of engineering design: **A technically sophisticated solution is not necessarily a better solution if a simpler design can achieve the required result more reliably.** ## Production Workflow Improvement One of the strongest aspects of this project was the connection between equipment design and process flow. The trolley was intended to help improve movement of components between paint-line activities and reduce handling difficulties associated with static or less-flexible equipment. This required looking beyond the CAD model and considering the complete workflow: **Load Component → Position → Prepare → Paint → Move → Inspect → Progress to Next Stage** Mechanical equipment becomes part of the process. Its design therefore affects throughput, operator movement, handling effort and potentially production consistency. This systems perspective became increasingly important throughout my later manufacturing and operations-excellence work. ## Safety Considerations The design also needed to consider the interaction between people, equipment and heavy components. Relevant considerations included: - Load stability - Trolley movement - Operator access - Potential pinch areas - Castor locking - Component positioning - Floor-space interaction - Manual handling Any final fabricated solution would require the appropriate detailed risk assessment, load verification and operational controls before commissioning. At concept stage, the design focused on incorporating practical safety considerations into the equipment layout. ## Stakeholder Requirements Production equipment design requires input from the people who understand the process. Operational requirements therefore influenced the trolley configuration. This involved translating practical requirements such as: “we need to move this component” into more precise engineering questions: - What does it weigh? - Where is its centre of gravity? - How will it be supported? - How much space is available? - How does the operator move it? - What areas need access during painting? - How frequently will it be repositioned? - What future components may also need to use the equipment? This translation from operational language into engineering requirements is an important part of engineering project delivery. ## Project Deliverables The project development included: - Production-workflow review - Mechanical design requirements - Horizontal trolley concept - Structural frame arrangement - RHS steel chassis design - Frame-bracing considerations - Castor arrangement and load considerations - Open-deck configuration - 3D CAD development - Modular support concepts - Design-for-manufacture considerations - Operational-access considerations - Engineering information supporting further review and potential fabrication The project was subsequently paused because of client-side budget changes and did not proceed into fabrication, installation or commissioning. ## Project Outcome The project produced a developed mechanical concept for improving component handling within EPTEC's paint-line environment. Although the equipment was not ultimately fabricated, the project demonstrated how a relatively simple mechanical system can address a wider manufacturing challenge involving material movement, production workflow, operator access and floor-space utilisation. From a professional-development perspective, the project also helped strengthen my ability to connect mechanical engineering decisions with manufacturing performance. ## Capabilities Demonstrated **Mechanical Design** Developing a practical mobile equipment concept around real production requirements. **Industrial Engineering** Understanding how equipment interacts with the wider production workflow. **Materials Handling** Considering movement, positioning and support of large and irregular components. **Structural Design Thinking** Considering load paths, frame rigidity, bracing and stability within a fabricated structure. **Design for Manufacture** Developing equipment around standard materials and practical fabrication methods. **Workflow Optimisation** Using equipment design to address bottlenecks and handling constraints within a production process. **Operator-Centred Design** Considering manoeuvrability, accessibility and usability alongside technical performance. **Modular Design** Exploring configurable equipment that could potentially support different products and future requirements. **Safety by Design** Considering stability, movement and operator interaction during concept development. **Requirements Translation** Converting shop-floor operational needs into defined engineering requirements. **Engineering Project Development** Progressing an operational problem through workflow assessment, requirements definition, concept development, CAD design and technical documentation. ## Career Development This project is particularly relevant to my career progression because it demonstrates the connection between **mechanical engineering and manufacturing improvement**. At first glance, the deliverable appears to be a relatively straightforward trolley. The engineering problem was broader. The actual questions were: Why is material movement creating difficulty? How does the existing paint workflow operate? What loads need to be handled? How do operators interact with the component? What restrictions exist on the factory floor? How can the equipment be manufactured simply? Can the concept accommodate future requirements? Those questions move the work beyond drafting into engineering problem-solving. This thinking later became increasingly important in my career as I progressed into product development, manufacturing engineering, operations excellence and project delivery. My approach has evolved from: **“Design the equipment.”** toward: **“Understand the operation, define the problem, develop the engineering solution and consider how it will ultimately be implemented.”** That transition is central to my progression toward larger engineering project and operational leadership responsibilities.