Detailed Design Review Dresser- Rand : Rotor Cell Improvement Project Topics: Heat treat B & OS Capacity Determination

Re-Cap  Improve Throughput in the Rotor-Cell  Layouts: Heat Treat and B&OS  Shelving choices  Quotes and Lead Times  Layout Configurations  Capacity Determination (Moving Forward…MSDII)

Roll-Out Racks Heat Treat 3 racks for the Heat Treat area 3 adjustable shelves per rack B & OS 1 rack for Finger Mandrels Recommend additional shelf to increase capacity Rack Specs  2,000lbs /shelf  48”x 48” shelf space  15lbs of force to pull-out fully loaded rack

Layout in Heat Treat Layout Option: 3 Large Racks- Straight Line  Most viable given constraints  Can’t move office  Can’t block door  impellers

Total Cost: Roll Out Racks Lead Time = business days Note: This includes one Rack and extra shelf for B&OS

B&OS: Standard Racks 6 racks should fit all parts Modeled in Auto-Cad 5 storage shelves/rack 6 th shelf for dust? Very low, if any, maintenance Consistent with current shelving Layout of plates will remain the similar

Standard Racks Specifications 3000lbs per shelf Heavy gauge steel 72-L x 24-W x 60-H 72 x 24 x 72 (Second Option) Versatility Shelves can be adjusted in 1 inch increments Not bolted to the floor so they can be rearranged Accessible on both sides

Layout in B&OS

Rack Quote 1: 6 racks - 5 shelves Lead Time = 4-8 business days Top Shelf open 60” height Lower top shelf with 10 inch spaces between shelves. Total: $3,255.62

Rack Quote 2: 6 racks - 6 shelves Lead Time = 4-8 business days 72” height (6 ft.) Gives more vertical space options Lower the 5 th shelf Leave 6 th shelf at top to prevent dust settling on parts. Total: $ Additional $600

Moving Forward (MSDII): Capacity Determination Focus is on Impeller throughput  Impeller routings are complex  Rotor Assembly process adds to complexity  Moving Bottleneck  Bottleneck = Plant Capacity First bottleneck: Milling  What to send out? What to keep in house?  Parts mix determines Capacity / Bottlenecks  Monthly standard ≈ 70-80% parts outsourced for this process Goal:  Given your parts mix each month:  Maximize Machine Usage  Maximize Throughput  Keeping Impellers of same Rotor Assembly on same pace  Could you decrease rented vendor space - $$  Most importantly: What parts mix stabilizes flow?

Why start in Milling?  All parts go through this process  Most Variability in Process Times from part to part  Other processes are more similar  Parts mix is less relevant  Easier problem to analyze  Comes down to stabilizing flow  Process Times can be accurately measured  Decision to send out here initiates “waves” in flow  Creates “Moving” Bottlenecks Stabilizing flow through this step in the process will help flow throughout facility  Add more complexity (i.e. further steps in the process) as we progress

Basic Model Inputs and Logic Mill 460 Mill 437 Mill 435 Mill 431 Mill 429 O/V Create Assign Decide Generic Part Created Gives Parts Attributes based on Parts Mix (Probability) 2-piece 1-piece Semi Diameter 5-Axis 3-Axis Routes Parts Based on Machine Capability and part Attributes 5-Axis Large Single-Piece 3 & 5-axis 29” max for 2-piece 23” max for 1-piece 5-Axis Single-Piece 5-Axis Single-Piece 3-axis TBD: Vendor Lead Time; Part Types; Affect of Attribute on Time Batch Sizes for Shipping Capabilities

Next Steps Data Collection John Russell – Highest Month Parts list DISCO Reports- Milling Times Programming List- 3-axis, 5-axis, if Vendor was used Build Preliminary Model of Mills Validate Model Logic Initial Goal: Optimize Planning through Milling Analyze impact of returning parts quantity on processes downstream If time allows, incorporate other areas of work cell