Engineering · Precision Engineering
Arva Industries — Rebuilding a fixture nobody had drawings for
An undocumented assembly fixture was reverse engineered, redesigned and validated — removing 22% of cycle time and two-thirds of rejections.
Client overview
Arva Industries operates in precision engineering. The engagement ran across our Engineering practice.
Problem statement
Arva's main assembly cell depended on a fixture built in-house fourteen years earlier. Tolerances had drifted, final inspection rejection sat near 9%, and throughput could not be raised. No drawings existed and the engineer who built it had retired.
Research
- The fixture was 3D scanned and critical interfaces verified on a CMM to establish actual versus intended geometry.
- Three months of inspection data was analysed to correlate rejection modes with specific fixture features rather than operator variation.
- Time study across two shifts isolated where the 42-second cycle was actually consumed — 11 seconds sat in clamping and repositioning.
- Mating component drawings were reviewed to infer the original design intent and the tolerances that genuinely mattered.
Planning and approach
- A ground-up redesign in SolidWorks with a revised clamping scheme replacing four manual clamps with two pneumatic units.
- FEA validation of the base structure under clamping load, which identified the deflection responsible for most tolerance drift.
- Correct GD&T applied against measured process capability rather than inherited nominal tolerances.
- The surrounding cell layout was reworked to remove two material-handling movements per cycle.
Execution
Weeks 1–2 · Capture
Scanning, CMM verification and inspection-data analysis completed on site.
Weeks 3–5 · Design
Concept selection, detailed modelling, FEA and design review with the plant team.
Weeks 6–9 · Build
Fabrication supervised at a partner shop with in-process inspection at each stage.
Weeks 10–11 · Commission
Installation, first-article inspection, operator training and documentation handover.
Timeline
Weeks 1–2
Reverse engineering and data analysis
Weeks 3–5
Design and simulation
Weeks 6–9
Fabrication and inspection
Weeks 10–11
Commissioning and handover
Month 12
Post-implementation audit of cycle time and reject rate
Results
Return on the engagement.
Reduced rejection alone paid for the engagement in seven months. The throughput gain removed the need for a second shift that had been planned for the following quarter.
2.9x
Return in year one
22%
Cycle-time reduction
-67%
Final inspection rejects
9 → 3%
Rejection rate
“We expected a new fixture. We got a documented, revision-controlled design with an inspection plan that our quality team now uses as a template. The documentation alone was worth the engagement.”
Conclusion
What we would tell a similar business.
The gain here came from sequencing — fixing the measurable constraint first, then building around it. If your business shows the same symptoms Arva Industries did, the diagnosis usually takes one conversation and a look at ninety days of data.
More stories
Related case studies.
Next step
Tell us the problem. We will tell you what it takes.
A 30-minute consultation with the practice lead who would actually run your mandate — no sales layer in between.