Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
109 lines (75 loc) · 6.31 KB

File metadata and controls

109 lines (75 loc) · 6.31 KB

Example — Unified pneumatic + electrical test bench (2020)

Real APTE spec used in 2020 to design a unified test bench for an industrial workshop assembling medical equipment. Names and proprietary details anonymized. The bench was built and is still in production 6 years later.

0. Context

A French distributor of imported medical equipment assembled and tested each unit on-site before shipping to end users. Each test required two separate benches — one for pneumatic + water circuits, one for electrical — physically distant in the workshop. This caused unnecessary movement between stations and missed procedure steps. Total test time per unit : 3 h 50.

The mission given to me (intern, BTS year 2) : propose and build a redesign that reduces test time and procedure errors. Budget cap : ~500 €.

1. Bête à cornes

Question Answer
Who does it serve ? The workshop technicians and the company (faster + more reliable testing).
What does it act on ? The assembled equipment units, before they ship.
In what purpose ? Validate every unit's pneumatic, water, and electrical function in one continuous procedure, without station switching.

2. Interaction diagram

The bench interacts with :

  • Technicians (use it, follow the procedure)
  • Compressed air (workshop compressor, ~6 bar)
  • Water (autonomous bottle, 2 bottles for purge cycle)
  • Mains electricity (230 V workshop)
  • Equipment under test (the assembled unit, all configurations)
  • Test instrument (electrical leakage tester, Fluke-class)
  • Workstation PC (test report archive)
  • Workshop floor (~30 m², bench footprint constraint)
  • Production schedule (any install must not stop production)

3. Functions FP / FC

FP1 : Let the technician validate every unit's full operation in a single continuous procedure.

FC1 : Adapt to the 4 product families in scope (2 chair groups × 2 unit types). FC2 : Use the existing energy sources — 230 V mains, workshop compressor, water from bottle. FC3 : Respect the budget : ~500 €. FC4 : Integrate the test procedure for each product variant (no manual cross-referencing). FC5 : Include a second water bottle for circuit purge / cleaning cycle. FC6 : Integrate an assembly-tracking sheet (per-unit BOM with serial numbers).

4. Criteria + flexibility classes

Function Criterion Level / value Flex
FP1 — electrical Functional test, leakage test, insulation test Pass per Fluke procedure F0
FP1 — pneumatic All instruments respond, no air/water leak Visual + auditory + pressure check F0
FP1 — duration Full cycle one unit ≤ 1 h F0
FC1 Unit types supported 4 families (group 500 : 533/532/542 ; group 300 : 333/332) F0
FC2 — electrical Mains input 230 V F0
FC2 — pneumatic Air source Workshop compressor F0
FC2 — water Source Autonomous bottle F0
FC3 Total cost ~500 € (components + tubing) F0
FC4 Procedure support One A4 fiche per variant F0
FC5 Purge cycle 2nd bottle with cleaning tablet F0
FC6 Tracking sheet Computer file + per-unit fiche F0

5. Out of scope

  • The bench does not test mechanical strength (the chair frame is validated upstream by the OEM).
  • The bench does not replace the post-install QA on customer site.
  • The bench does not automate report generation (manual print of first page only, 2020 limitation — see lessons below).

6. Acceptance test

The bench completes one full test cycle (pneumatic + electrical + Fluke leakage check + procedure validated step by step) for any of the 4 supported unit families, in under 1 h, without the technician switching between two physical stations.

7. Sign-off

Role Name Date
Asked by Product manager (workshop redesign initiative) 2020
Built by Me (intern, BTS year 2) 2020
Validated by The two senior technicians who use it daily 2020

Realized solution (summary)

  • One bench (built from 2 recovered bathroom tables, drilled and integrated).
  • Lovato 3-position selector switch at the center (0 = off / 1 = pneumatic + electrical simultaneously / 2 = electrical leakage test).
  • Step-down transformer 230 V → 24 V integrated.
  • Autonomous water reservoir with 2 bottles (operation + purge).
  • Color-coded tubes following European convention (blue = air-spray, green = water, transparent = air-drive).
  • Custom enclosure with grommets, brass T-fittings, electrical interface on one face, pneumatic interface on the other.

Total build : ~500 € of components + ~2 weeks of workshop time during a partial production pause.

Outcome : the bench has been in continuous production use for 6 years (as of 2026).


Lessons learned — what 2026-me would do differently

This is where the toolkit becomes honest. Three gaps I see now that I missed in 2020 :

  1. No quantified gain measurement. The 2020 spec aimed for "reduce test time" but never recorded the actual before / after. I should have instrumented the bench from day 1 (technician timestamps each step, average over N units, publish the delta). Without numbers, the "success" is anecdotal.

  2. Data was inert. The Fluke generated a PDF report per unit, saved to a workshop PC folder ; only the first page was printed and archived. In 2026 terms, that report should have been parsed into a queryable store (serial, technician, leakage current, date) instead of sitting as dead PDFs. The system did the test ; it didn't learn from it. Today I'd pipe the Fluke output into SQLite or a structured store, with a basic dashboard. This is the gap between "a system that works" and "a system that gets better over time".

  3. No version-controlled spec. The APTE doc lived in a Word file that probably got lost. The procedure fiche existed on paper. Today the whole spec + procedure + bench schematic + assembly tracker would live in a Git repo, evolve via commits, be reviewable.

This apte-toolkit and the companion banc-test-2020 case study are partly an effort to fix gap #3 retroactively : make the methodology version-controlled, reusable, and visible.


Anonymized example. License : MIT. Method : APTE. Author : Nevil Bofumbo, 2026.