Dresser Rand Assembly Line MSD I Detailed Design Review Team February 18, 2010

Agenda Project Current Status Risk Assessment Kitting Process and Equipment Sub Assembly Handling Software

Project Current Status Crane Design Approved Kitting Cart Design Approved Bin Design to be finalized Friday, 2/19/2010 Software prototype tested once Software Specs Updated

Risk Assessment Scope Creep (9)- OK Kitting process Workers Reject Equipment/Process (6)- OK DR’s responsibility to enforce Feedback from users Bad Data (6)- OK

Kitting Process and Equipment Laura Mandanas and Kelly Votolato

Overview Current Inventory Delivery Specifications Budget Cart Selection Approved Kitting Cart Design Proposed Kitting Cart Process Trial Cart Bin Selection Feasibility Analysis Test Plan

Current Inventory Delivery Two rolling carts Many small items unsorted in cardboard boxes Inconsistent labeling (tape pull tickets/”bag and tag”, varies by operator) Inconsistent item placement No visual indicators of cart status Rolling carts brought from inventory to the floor.

Current Inventory Delivery Heavy parts and subassemblies brought to the floor on pallets Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI) out on floor for bolts, gathered by “water spider” Supermarket out on the floor for some common parts, gathered by operators Rotor subassembly on pallet. VMI.

Key Specifications Engr. Spec. # ImportanceSource Specification (description) Unit of Measure Marginal Value Ideal Value Comments/Status ES11 2CN6Speed of Kit MHDft/min2012 ES12 1CN7Weight lifted by workerlbs50<30 ES15 1CN10 Kitting must accommodate all parts in assembly Boolean 1 ES16 2 CN12 CN9 Height of deviceft6<5Requested by Matt Corman ES17 1 Cost$250,000 <250, ,000 for Kitting Process ES191CN11Safety ViolationsBoolean0

Budget $10,000 Projected Kitting Equipment Costs ItemQtyUnit PriceTotal Price Cantilever Cart37$0.00 Bin300$11.31$3, Paint5$20.00$ Bin Dividers1800$2.30$4, $7,633.00

Cart Selection Final Kitting Cart Concept Selection Drawbridge Cart Cantilever Cart Baker's CartWorkstation Carts Criteria Importan ce Rating Score (RxI) Rati ng Score(R xI) RatingScore(RxI)RatingScore(RxI) Ease of Implementation Safety+Ergonomi cs Footprint Visibility Cost TOTAL Ratings are based on a scale of 1-5, where one is the least favorable, and five is the most favorable.

Approved Kitting Cart Design Two rolling cantilever carts labeled by contract # – Main assembly cart – Pre-assembly cart Removable plastic bins, labeled and color coded by station Specific slot for each item in bin, labeled with name and picture Flag system to indicate cart status

Proposed Kitting Process For each contract, workers will pull parts by station and place in plastic bins – Includes VMI, which is moving back to stores Filled plastic bins go on cantilever cart in staging area, yellow flag raised When all parts have been pulled, green flag is raised to show that cart is complete Operator moves cart from staging to assembly area

Trial Cart Used during test of new smart card ticket system Existing cantilever cart and small plastic bins from stores Plastic bins labeled by station; color coded labels only No dividers; items loose in bins, pull tickets placed on top Main assembly trial cart.

Bin Design Color coded labels not visible enough; bins themselves should be color coded Loose items in bins are not easily identified and can be damaged; need specific slots Loose items in bins.

Bin Prototype 4 in 17 in 22 in Used pulled parts from smart card ticket test, laid out slots for each item Substitute material (foam and cardboard); actual bins will be heavy duty plastic Will show workers in inventory area to get feedback on basic design Looking for similar items already available on the market Shallow plastic bin with optional dividers, already available on the market.

Feasibility Analysis

Test Plan March (1) ▫ Usability- Pickers, Assemblers, Waterspider ▫ Audit Process Flow April (2) ▫ Bin Durability (ES 15) ▫ Cart speed (ES11) ▫ Max Weight Lifted by Worker (ES12) ▫ Height of Cart (ES16) May (1) ▫ Carts accommodate all possible parts (ES15)

Gantry Crane Joe Bykowicz

Overview Specifications Budget Concept Selection Detailed Drawing Usage Feasibility Analysis Test Plan Mechanical Simulation of Boom

Specifications Spec NumberImportanceSourceSpecUnitsAchieved ES 91CN5Load Capacity>2000lbsYes ES 162CN12+CN9Height<6ft Yes, on all but largest units ES 171CostTotal <$250,000 Yes, 2 ~$1500 Each ES 181CN8No attachments to foundationBooleanYes ES 191CN11Safety ViolationsBooleanYes

Budget $10,000 per unit Allowance Estimated Unit Cost= $1,500 Cost minimized by using existing hoists 2 to 3 cranes needed Estimated Total Cost= $4,500

Concept Selection Bridge CraneGantry with manual hoistGantry with assisted hoistArticlated arm Criteria Importanc e raw extende d raw extende d raw extende d raw extend ed Ease of Use Mobility Quantity Needed Safety Cost Strength and Stability Ease of Implemenation Total

Detailed Drawing

Usage Current Process for assembly leaves gantry crane relatively stationary In stations 2 and 3, a rotor cart (already owned) is wheeled under the gantry crane. Rotor is lifted, and main assembly cart is moved underneath gantry. Rotor is installed. Nozzle rings and top casings are installed in similar fashion. In this usage the threat of having suspended parts swaying during movement is minimized. In case crane needs to be moved while items are suspended, crane will have eye hooks welded to the frame, operators can use supplied tow straps with rubberized hooks to secure suspended items for movement

Feasibility Analysis Max Static Deflection= ~.025” Max Static Stress = ~12,950 psi Factor of Safety =~ 2.75 Based on Hand Calculations

Test Plan March (1) ▫ Important components of test run will be ease of use and general acceptance of device by line workers. April (2) ▫ Expected Loads will be ~400 lbs for the rotor, ~900lbs for the top casing and ~50lbs for the Nozzle Ring, well below Max Rated capacity. May (1) ▫ Test any upgrades to the design based on previous feedback

Mechanical Simulation of Boom

Software Leo Gala

Overview  Current State  Specifications  Concept Selection  Detailed Design  Feasibility Analysis  Test Plan

Current State  Automation in place.  No integration that produces desired Pick Lists.  Desired State Diagram.

Desired State MSD Scope

Specifications Engr. Spec. # ImportanceSource Specification (description) Unit of Measure Marginal Value Ideal ValueComments/Status ES43CN2Manageable file size.KB25,000<2,000N/A ES51CN2Computational timeMin1<.5Close to marginal. ES63CN3Manageable file sizeKB50,000<25,000N/A ES71CN3Computational timeMin1<.5 Dependant on Pick List Size. May be infeasible. ES82CN3Travel matrixBoolean1Achieved. Scale: 1 (Important) – 3 (Convenient)

Concept Selection- Software Platform Excel & WordDatabase & ExcelCustom Software Ease of use544 Ease of implementation441 Software Availability532 Ease of Design532 Maintenance & Upkeep331 Cost543 Sum: Scale of 1-5 with 5 being the best.

Concept Selection- Optimization Excel SolverSolver PackagesHeuristic Ease of use433 Ease of implementation425 Software Availability525 Ease of Design333 Maintenance & Upkeep313 Optimum Solution453 Solve Time345 Cost525 Sum: Scale of 1-5 with 5 being the best.

Detailed Design

Feasibility Analysis  Software will eliminate manual Pick List development.  File manipulation should take less than a minute during run time.  Straight forward navigation.  Invalid Contract # will cause macros to malfunction.  SD-1: Dependant on Standard Work generation.  SD-1: Part-Asm. Station relationship needs to be predefined.  SD-2:Optimization should only take a few minutes (pick list dependant) during run time.  SD-2:Distance matrix will need to be updated as storage locations are added/modified.  SD-2:Invalud Part # or Storage Location could generate an error in the algorithm.

Test Plan  March (1)  Test Sub-design 1 on several orders. (Subject to Std Work Availability).  March (19)  Test Pick order algorithm on sample Contract.  April (2)  Verify Sub-design 1 & 2 integration into DR- Intranet.

Questions?