multidisciplinary senior design rochester institute of technology dresser-rand painted post p10459...

Multidisciplinary Senior DesignRochester Institute of Technology

Dresser-Rand Painted PostP10459

Detailed Design Review2/26/10

Team:

Phil Eaton (ME)

Alex Frenkel (ME)

Rachel Koch (ME)

Pete Lowry (ISE)

Yi Xie (ISE)

Faculty Guide:

John Kaemmerlen

Overview

• Expectations• Background• Systems Level Breakdown• Project Status Update• Target Specifications Update• Machine Configuration Status Update• Layout Concepts• Process Improvement Concepts• Material Handling Detailed Design• Material Storage Detailed Design• Risk Assessment Update• MSD II Project Plan

Expectations

• Discussion• Feedback on current status• Suggestions for improvement • Different thoughts/points to consider• Clear view of next steps• Action items for MSD II

• Decisions to me made today.• Location: shop 6 or 17• Heiligenstadt • Money for pallet prototype• Gilbert

Background• Problem

• Liner cell is located in 3 different parts of the plant

• One part is in a location that will be closed off

• Objective• Provide a detailed plan for

movement/consolidation• Maximize productivity, safety, quality, and

profitability in new layout

• Stakeholders• RIT: John Kaemmerlen, Senior Design Program• D-R: Dennis Rice, Mike Decerbo, John Woedy,

Systems Level Design

New Layout with best safety, productivity and quality

Machine Material

Method Metrics

Machine Configuration

Material Handling Material

Storage

Cell Layout

IndustrialEngineering

Mechanical Engineering Alex Rachel Phil

YiPete

Man

Problem Solving

Visual Controls


Material Handling Material

Storage

Project Status Overview• Time Frame

• MSD I: Nov. 30, 2009 – Feb. 19, 2010 (Completed)

• MSD II: Mar. 8, 2010 – May 14, 2010

Customer Needs

Concept Generation

Concept Improvement

Concept Selection

Detailed Design


Floor Layout

Process Improvement

Material Handling

Material Storage

Target Specifications Updated

Need Metric Current* Marginal Target


(Alex)

Overhead Cost $87,991 -10% -20%

Process Time 35.47 hrs -20% -50%

Man Power 4 3 3

Defect Cost $40,623 -20% -50%

Cell Layout(Pete)

Travel Distance Next Slide -40% -50%

Mfg Footprint 6584 sq ft -20% -30%

Process Improvement

(Yi)

# Injuries 0 0 0

Process Time 35.47 hrs -10% -20%

Defect Cost $40,623 -20% -50%

Material Handling (Rachel)

Defect Cost $6,000 -100% -100%

# Injuries 0 0 0

Material Storage

(Phil)

Space Utilization

480 sq ft -40% -60%

Travel Distance 1,280 ft -10% -20%*Based on 2009 Metrics (Jan – Sep)

Travel Distance

Production Service

Large Liner 1890 ft 2464 ft

Small Liner 1952 ft 1745 ft

R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department


o Currently parts are machined on vintage 50’s and 60’s machines.o Slow machining timeo Frequent maintenance and repairo Parts are difficult to find and expensiveo Manual machines can lead to more frequent defects in parts

or “out of round” conditions.o Machining operation depends on tribal knowledge of

operators

o We are researching other alternatives such as the purchase of a used or new CNC horizontal or vertical lathe.o We will attempt to justify the cost with the savings in

process time as well as reduced operating cost of the machines.



o Currently the average process time is about 35.47 hours per liner (shop order details)

o We will attempt to reduce that number by about 50% to 17.64 hours.

o In the last 2 years liner cell produced 555 liners.

o At a burden rate of $105, One hour of reduced process time comes out to about $29,138 a year



o This results in a total savings per year of about $513,994

o A brand new Toshiba TUE 150 costs around $500,000 with tooling.

o Looking at a payback period of about one year



o Justificationo Video taped time studies on in house machineso Data from Morris Great Lakeso CICS hours charged on linerso Production data from 2008 and 2009

o Morris Great lakes has already been brought in on this project to provide assistance on the best machine choice and they are putting together a proposal for us.

• Options include everything from: • Utilizing Shop 6 • Utilizing Shop 17 • Buying a new VTL • Scrapping old machines • Bringing in machines from other departments.

Cell Layout Design & Selection

As Is

•Liner Cell in Shop 21, Shop 6, & Shop 17•High travel distance & future wall necessitate the re-layout.

Option #1

Moving Shop 21 into Shop 17• Cost of removal of the Heyligenstaedt & the Betts• Room available for possible new machine(s)

Option #2

Moving Shop 21 & the Gilbert porting machine into Shop 17• Cost of removal of the Heyligenstaedt & the Betts• Porting brought to Shop 17

Option #3

Moving Shop 21 & a new VTL CNC machine into Shop 17• Cost of removal of the Heyligenstaedt & the Betts• Majority of work performed on VTL with Shop 21 machines for backup• Need to propose a viable business case for the new machine

Option #4

Moving Shop 21 & Shop 6 into Shop 17• Cost of removal of the Heyligenstaedt & the Betts• Cost of foundation preparation & move of Norton Grinder & American Lathe• Liner Cell moved out of Shop 21 & 6

Option #5

Moving Shop 21, the Gilbert porting machine & a new VTL CNC into Shop 17• Cost of removal of the Heyligenstaedt & the Betts• Porting brought to Shop 17• Majority of work performed on VTL with Shop 21 machines for backup• Need to propose a viable business case for the new machine

Option #6

Moving Shop 21 & the Gilbert porting machine into Shop 17, along with the removal of the Summit machine – Drawing A

• Cost of removal of the Heyligenstaedt, the Betts, & the Summit• Porting brought to Shop 17

Option #7

Moving Shop 21 & the Gilbert porting machine into Shop 17, along with the removal of the Summit machine – Drawing B

• Cost of removal of the Heyligenstaedt, the Betts, & the Summit• Porting brought to Shop 17

Option #8

Moving Shop 21, the Gilbert porting machine, & a new VTL CNC into Shop 17, along with the removal of the Summit machine

• Cost of removal of the Heyligenstaedt, the Betts, & the Summit• Porting brought to Shop 17• Majority of work performed on VTL with Shop 21 machines for backup• Need to propose a viable business case for the new machine

Option #9

Moving Shop 21, Shop 6, & the Gilbert porting machine into Shop 17, along with the removal of the Summit machine

• Cost of removal of the Heyligenstaedt & the Betts• Porting brought to Shop 17• Cost of foundation preparation & move of Norton Grinder & American Lathe• Liner Cell moved out of Shop 21 & 6

Option #10

Moving Shop 21 into Shop 6• All moving can be done in house• Already open & available floor space• Liner Cell moved entirely into Shop 6• Room available for possible new machine(s)

Option #11

Moving Shop 21 into Shop 6• All moving can be done in house• Already open & available floor space• Liner Cell moved entirely into Shop 6• Room available for possible new machine(s)

Decision Matrix

The breakdown of all the possible layouts (several are no longer possible as shown by feasibility) comes to show that one of the simplest solutions is proven to be the ideal one.

Option #11 is ideal due to all the necessary machines being capable of in house movement, a nice semi-linear flow, the layout space only being used presently for WIP, & the open space left available in Shop 17 for possible additional machines.

Layout - PeteAs Is

#1: 21 to 17

#2: 21 to 17 w/

Gilbert

#3: 21 to 17 w/ new

VTL#4: 21 & 6

to 17

#5: 21 to 17 w/ Gilbert

& VTL

#6: 21 to 17 w/ Gilbert,

Summit Removed - A

#7: 21 to 17 w/ Gilbert, Summit

Removed - B#8: 21 to 17 w/ Gilbert &

VTL, Summit Removed

#9: 21 & 6 to 17 w/ Gilbert,

Summit Removed

#10: 21 to 6 - A

#11: 21 to 6 - B Weight

Move Time 5 2.5 2 2.5 1.5 2 2 2 2 1 4 4 1.5

Productivity 2.5 3 3.5 4 3 5 3.5 3.5 5 3.5 3 3 2

Footprint 2 2.5 2.5 2.5 3 2.5 2 2 2 3.5 2 2.5 1.5

Cost 5 3 2.5 1 2.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 0.5 2 4 4 2

Safety 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2Travel

Distance 1 3 3.5 4 4 4.5 4 4 4.5 4 3 3.5 1.5

Flexibility 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 2

Feasibility 0 3 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 3

Total: 22.5 25 22 25 25 23.5 22 22 22 22 29 30Weighed

Total: 41 49 40 47.5 48.75 42.5 40 40 39.75 39.75 58.5 60

Process Improvement


• Concept Selection and Improvement– Process control board– Machine downtime board– Cell safety and information placard– Standardized work charts– Waste tracking sheet

Value Stream Map


Process Control Board


Machine D/T Board


Cell Safety Information


Standard Work Charts


31

5

28

7

4

6

9

Waste Tracking Sheet


Material Handling


o Current Material Handling Procedure:o Liners set vertically onto wooden pallets, moved

by forklifto Causes parts to fall if forklift must stop short, resulting

in defectso Current Defect Cost: Approximately $6,000 (Over 2

years)o Many more unreported incidentso Major safety concerns

Concept Selection


Concept Selected: #6, Standard w/ VBlock Fixture

Final Concept


Standard wooden pallet

Small V Blocks

Large V BlockHoles for

adjustable V Block spacing

Standard wooden pallet with adjustable V Block fixtures for different sizing/length of liners

Method for strapping the liner to the pallet

Material Selection


Material Handling


BOMProduct Number Vendor Product Desc Qty List Price

Total Part Price Lead Time

H-2089 ULINE48X40 HEAT TREAT RECYCLED PALLET 30 $16.00 $480.00 <1 Week

4023 Lowes Pine 8 ft 4”x4” Lumber 16 $9.67 $154.72 In Store

1640T37 McMasterCarrArchitectural Aluminum (Alloy 6063) 1" Diameter, 8' Length 6 $36.41 $218.46 <1 Week

2VKN5 GraingerRetractable Tie Down, 10 Ft L, PK2 30 $88.35 $2,650.50 <1 Week

2936T31 McMasterCarr

Hot-Dipped Galvanized Steel U-Bolt 1/4"-20 X 3/4" Thread Length, for 9/16" OD, 435# Wll 60 $0.66 $39.60 <1 Week

(---) Dresser Rand Gorilla Glue 1 (---) (---) (---)

Feasibility Analysis


Through a series of FEA analyses in COMSOL, it was determined that an oak pallet could withstand the weight of a 2000lb liner with a factor of safety of at least 4.

Test Plan


• Prototype pallet (1-3 units)– Purchase base pallet to specifications– Mfg V Blocks in RIT machine shop

• Band Saw, Lathe, Hand Tools– Done in weeks 1-3 of MSD II– Mechanical engineer will manufacture

• Run prototype at Dresser Rand– Use on shelf, floor, forklift– Place on liners (smallest to largest)– Check for any failures in the pallet, V blocks or

straps

Material Handling Risk Analysis


Material Storage


Current State

Concept Generation


o Functions of Drum Racko Support load of drums (14,475 lb)o Restrict drum movement

(Brackets)o Built to OSHA standards for

safety

Material Storage


http://www.rackingandshelving.com/acatalog/pallet_rack_wiredeck_2.jpg

Concept Selection Matrix


http://www.rackingandshelving.com/acatalog/pallet_rack_wiredeck_2.jpg

Feasibility Analysis


• Operational feasibility for installation of a rack system is high since it is cheap and easy to use.

• The only issue with a shelf would be loading and unloading safely within the area of the shelf.

• There needs to be enough clearance above the rack to be able to load the top shelf, and a clear path to and from the storage area.

• There will need to be front to back supports to reduce the likelihood of an inaccurately placed load falling between the beams.

Test Plan


• Placing liners onto pallets and then place the loaded pallet on the rack.

• The desired outcome is a rack system that can carry the load and maintain an excellent level of safety for the workers in Liner cell.

• Testing the spacing between shelves. The shelves need to be adequately spaced to provide easy placement and removal of loaded pallets.

• Use various forklifts to load and unload the rack to ensure compatibility with rack location.

Bill of Materials


Manufacturer Part number Description Quantity VendorLead time Price Total

Lodi LBC50-86Beam, 86" long, max load: 11,197; max δ, 0.27" 12

Material Flow 2 week $35.20 $422.40

Lodi LM30Upright, 42" deep, 120" height, Max load: 30000 lb 6


Lyon WD4442HWire decking, 44" wide, 42" deep 12


McMaster 92188A301 Upright anchor 24 Material Flow 1 week $4.00 $96.00

$1,320.24

Risk Assessment


Risk Assessment Table

Risk Item Effect Cause Likelihood Severity Importance Action to Minimize Risk

Injury of student or DR team member

Downtime for

employees, Loss of

student man hours

Liner falling off of rack 1 3 3

Review safety procedures, do not distract others when

working

Pallet breakage

Material damage,

injury

Weathering, poor

construction2 3 6 Inspect pallet before placing

on the rack

Rack failure

Injury or death,

material damage

Disregarding design criteria,

overloading rack

1 3 6 Use a smaller, more robust rack

Rack does hold all liners

Excess material on

the floor

Not taking into account all sizes

of liners1 1 1

Take into account all liner sizes, confirm with

management entire range of liners

o Estimated 20-30 Liners in inventoryo Current State:

o On flooro 480 sq. ft. total

o Future State: o On rackso 78.75 sq. ft.

o Initial Estimated Reduction (60%)o Actual Planned Reduction (80%)

Comparison to Target Specs (Space Utilization)

Risk Assessment Update

Risk Importance* Action to mitigate

Management Restructuring 3 Weekly meetings with management, get buy in from multiple stakeholders, have

contingency plans

Failure to pass budget approval

6 Have contingency plan, create detailed cutover plan

Machine move takes longer than expected

6 Have all details for move ready, support move while occurring, make clear DR

capabilities

Operators reject process improvements

6 Have meeting to explain importance, guide supervisor

and operator in implementation

*Based on Severity (1-3) x Likelihood (1-3). 1= lowest, 9= highest

Risk Assessment Comparison

MSD II Project Plan

multidisciplinary senior design rochester institute of technology dresser-rand painted post p10459...

Documents