P13458 RIT Senior Design Team

May 10, 2013

10-10:30AM

09-2030

Dresser- Rand, Painted Post

http://edge.rit.edu/edge/P13458/public/Home

Final Presentation: Compressor

Transport System & Layout

Agenda Problem Statement

Accomplishments For The Transport System

Design History

Final Design

Summary Of Test Results

Recommendations

Accomplishments For The Layout

Design History

Final Design & Test Results

Recommendations

Reflection On The D-R/RIT Partnership

Reflection On Our Code Of Ethics

Problem Statement

Design a flexible material handling system that is easy to use and incorporates the safest design elements within cost and functionality constraints. This design fully supports the new process layout in Dresser-Rand’s strategic project to increase capacity for the MOS compressor projected sales.

New Shop Floor

6-throw MOS Compressor

Transport System Design History

Design Considerations

Long Beam Caster System

Short Frame Caster System (Yellow Frame)

Air Bearing Technology

Free Support System

Fixed Support System

Modified Support System

Design Considerations

Movement Propulsion

Long Beam Caster System

Assumed entire

compressor assembly

would be loaded, including

cylinders

Assumed massive CG

changes while loaded

Large structural members

necessary

Short Frame Caster System

Yellow Frame Design

Versatile – to account for

multiple product families

Modular – to account for

multiple product sizes

Could not be used at test

station

Was prototyped

Many design flaws

surrounding caster system

Air Bearing Technology

Unidirectional

Nearly frictionless

Reduces horizontal force

required to 1lb per

1000lbs

Air supply is common in

industrial setting

Requires flat, smooth floor

surfaces

Free Support System

Based on the short frame

system

Adapted for air pallet use

Legs fixed to support beam

Concerns regarding

clearance between floor

and legs during movement

Fixed Support System

Vertical “legs” of the Free

system are now fixtures

placed at each station

Eliminates floor clearance

concerns while moving

from station to station

Simplifies manufacturing

Easily integrated into

testing and shipping

Removable Support System Conceptual design

Method of manufacture and

dimensions undetermined

Removable fixture attaches to

beam and acts like a jack

stand

Overcomes flaws that were

revealed during the 3P event

Stress analysis not completed

results should be comparable

to the free system results

Removable Support Qualities Pros

No more fixtures

Resolves ergonomic issues

discovered during the 3P event

Lowers move prep time – no

longer need to configure

fixtures from station to station

Bolt on legs removable for

test and shipping

Cons

Requires the floor to be

leveled

Test Results

EngMetrics TargetValue MarginalValue Dir SummaryforPhaseIPrelimDesign

CurrentStatusforCaster

SystemPrelimDesign TestPlan

Numberof

TestsRequired

ResultsAfter

Testing AdditionalComments

Timetomove 5min 20min -

Tuggershouldbeabletomoveinunder20minutes,however

therearenoactualspeedspecificationsonthedevice

Measuretimeforprototype

movementbetweenstationto

stationusingastopwatch,use

heaviestcompressormodelasitwill

havethelowestacceleration

5perstation

Didnotmeasuretime

becausefullscale

prototypeandAir

palletswerenot

orderedyet

Timetosetupmove 0min 10min -

Won'tknowuntilfinaldesign,willdependontypeofcastersused

andlevelingsystemimplemented

Measuretimeforsetupusingastop

watch

5per

compressor

model

Fullscaleprototype

neverbuilt

Timetoreturn 10min 30min - Needtofinalizereturnprocess

Measurethetimetoreturn

prototypefromtheendofthelineto

thecartstoragelocation

5Fullscaleprototype

neverbuilt

CartWeight 1500lb 2500lb -

CurrentEstimate:(aircasterversionwasestimatedat1,160lbs,

airfloatscatalogisdownsoIcan'tfindtheweights…tosubtract

out)

Weighprotoypeusingahanging

scale

1

Weightswereestimated

basedoncadddataand

materialweights

EngMetrics TargetValue MarginalValue Dir SummaryforPhaseIPrelimDesign

CurrentStatusforCaster

SystemPrelimDesign TestPlan

Numberof

TestsRequired

ResultsAfter

Testing AdditionalComments

Forcetomove 100lb 500lb +

300lbforcenecessary.Benchmarkresearch:tuggerscanhandle

over500lbs

Measurethestraininthetugger

connectioninterfaceduring

movementoftheheaviest

compressorusingstraingauges

5Actualtuggersystem

wasnotorderedyet

StaysinLine 3ft 5ft + Needtofinalizecasterlayout

Marktheidealpathonthefloor,

aftermovingtheprototypetothe

nextstationmeasurethedifference

withatapemeasure

5cycles

through

stations1-5

Coveredthroughthe3P

event.Movedstations

fartherapartformore

clearance

PowerSourcesRequired 1 2 - 1BatteryoperatedTugger

Testcapabilityofasingletugger

systemtomoveeachcompressor

model

1per

compressor

model

Nottestedalthough

DresserRandisworking

withAirfloattomake

suretheyhaveproper

aircapabilities

Stoppingdistance 5ft 10ft - Unsureofsafedecelerationvalueandthereforestoppingdistance

Measurethedistanceittakesfor

eachcompressormodeltocoasttoa

stopfrommaximumvelocityusinga

tapemeasure

5per

compressor

model

Airbearingsstop

immediatelywhenair

supplyiscut

Weightpercart 15T 10T + HOSSWillbeincludedincartdesign.15Tcapabilitiesaremet.

Combinemeasuredcartweightwith

DresserRand'sdataoncompressor

weight

1

Datacanbederived

fromcaddmodelsand

knownmaterialweights

MetricValue

P13458:HouseofQuality&TestPlan 3/15/13 5/7/13

Recommendations

Modify testing station to incorporate free-system design

Possible lifting/attachment to test bed

Determine lifting/loading method

Need 3-axis positioning without a crane

Modified Grey Portable Lifting system for vertical lifting

Back truck under lifted compressor

Air bearings under truck bed

Driver positioning

Layout Design History Took dimensions of required

equipment and space for each

station in the assembly, test, and

paint process in the current state

Created factors of varying

importance

Designed 4 different layouts – 2

straight-line, 2 U-shaped – in the

new shop floor

Conducted a 3P event on a U-

shaped layout using cardboard to

check theoretical values against

actual feedback from operators

and line side managers

3P Event Result Factors Affected Status

Tested U-shape design

Returnability

Flexibility

Pass-by/Pass-through

Added new cylinder assembly flow

line

Space Utilization

Inventory Access

Operators and managers evaluated

the layout and gave feedback on

parts and people flow and

equipment requirements

Inventory Access

Ease of Movement by Operator

Movement Time

Found hidden problems and

constraints i.e. spacing between

stations, jib crane requires oil

pump station next to column

Space Utilization

Maintenance Access

Tested – good outlook

Needs further testing, but predict a good outlook

Needs attention, was not addressed

Final design Top Level

Assembly Level

Flow

Recommendations Re-evaluate test bay requirements for sizing and safety –

retractable blast walls

Add in and test inventory flow and information flow

Understand exact requirements and locations for energy/power/air sources

Full dimensioning of layout

Computer simulation of process flow

Continuous evaluation and improvement

5S taping and marking to indicate specific areas, i.e. operator walking zone inside cell, in-process kanban, visitor aisle way

Identify and allocate future expansion area

Reflection on the DR/RIT

Partnership Overall, very successful learning experience

Design process Iterative in nature – lots of ‘back to the drawing board’ moments

Conceptualization and the funnel of idea development

Understanding fluctuating customer needs

Efficiency of communication

Recommend a “consulting” contract be completed at the start To better establish the needs of Dresser Rand

So the team can better prioritize efforts

Recommend creating a communications protocol to prevent delay in work as the team awaits feedback

Reflection On Our Code Of Ethics

Code of Ethics Components Assessment Recommendations

Expectations for Team Behavior:

Honesty, Respect, Accountability, Professional and

Thorough Communication

Good communication during meetings,

but email communication was not

responded to in a timely manner. Also,

accountability could have been better

during MSD II.

Better individual time management,

check email twice daily and respond

Expectations for Integrity of Assigned Tasks:

Tasks should be completed on-time and with the quality

expected as seen in the MyCourses documentation and as

discussed during assignment of the tasks

Completion of tasks was not always done

on time, therefore resulting in wasted

team meeting time catching up on work.

Better individual time management,

more thorough and clear description

of tasks

Not Meeting Expectations:

Any complaints or inability of meeting expectations

should be shared with the team in order to provide more

resources and/or time, or reassign task to another

member

Many tasks completed last minute and

the individuals did not inform the team

of their status or ask for help as often as

they should have.

Mid-week check-ins, project manager

emphasizes team effort - offer help to

others when your workload is light

3 out of 11 components were not followed satisfactorily