D-R Compressor Cell RIT Senior Design Team P13458 Systems Design Review

Agenda  Project Introduction  Desired Outcome  Project Description & Motivation  Customer Needs  Systems Design  Specifications  Concept selection process  Systems architecture  Concept discussion  Next steps  Risk Management Plan  Work Breakdown Structure

Desired Outcome Based on the following specifications and proposed concepts:  Come to a decision on which design to pursue for the remainder of MSD I and MSD II  Gain any feedback, recommendations, and direction  Discussion of next steps for detailed design, test, prototyping, etc.

Project Summary  Overall goal of project:  Transform the fixed material position assembly process for the gas application reciprocating compressors into a flowing cell layout  Specific Task:  Create the material handling system that will allow the assembly to travel through this cell and will support the lean manufacturing initiatives this project is pursuing Note: A consultant has created a conceptual design of the process flow through this cell.

Motivations  Prepare for a projected increase in demand for their newly released MOS compressor  Break into separable compressor market share  Increase their on-time delivery rating from 35% to 95%  Proposed Productivity/Volume Increase: 150%  Create a safer environment for the operators (no overhead cranes)

Current & Proposed Layout Build Future Flow Line The Move Test Paint Wash Sub- Assy

Future Layout

Customer Needs Title Priority Multiplier Description Safety & Ergonomics3Capacity to prevent work-related injury Cost2Upfront Purchase/Installation Cost (capital investment) Transportability2Ease of Motion Current Capability1Compatibility with current facilities Scale3Impact of installation, no monuments allowed Guidance2Ability to remain inline Flexibility3Capacity for systems integration Maintenance2Operational Cost, Frequency of Repairs, Repair Costs Returnability2Ability to return empty fixture to beginning of the line Ease of Use2Minimize worker frustration, encourage proper use of the system Key for Priority Multiplier: 1It would be nice 2Should be incorporated 3Must have, absolutely necessary

Systems Design Discussion

Specifications

Concept Selection

 Translational Motion  Wheeled Cart  Industrial casters connected to a frame construct  Air Skids  Air bearings connected to a frame construct  Rails are no longer being considered  Propulsion  Powered Hand Cart  Battery/Electric  Air powered

Systems Architecture Material Handling System Support SystemFrame Translational Movement System Caster Wheel Air Bearing w/ Skid Propulsion System TuggerCompressed AirElectric Goal: Choose 1 of 2 methods

Center of Gravity Differing cylinder sizes and loading patterns allow for a range of C.G. locations. These varying locations must be accounted for in order to avoid hazardous loading conditions. The maximum CG envelope for the HOS and MOS models from all loading scenarios is shown in red. The frame design must take into account a factor of safety. This safe CG envelope is shown in yellow. The frame architecture must support the compressor from outside of the CG envelope.

Support System - Frame Overview  A36 Steel square tubing and plate  Frame will rest on four wheels or two air skids  90” Long, 30” wide- outside CG envelope  Two carts for 2 and 4 throw, three carts for 6-throw

Strength of Frame  Singularity functions used to analyze beam  Started with max deflection of L/240, or 0.36”  Beam 6H x 2L x 3/16 selected, max bending stress too high  Design stress limited, factor of safety 2.5 selected for bending  Beam 6H x 6L x 3/8 selected  Max deflection 0.08 inches due to bending, factor of safety 2.47  Frame weight 553 lb for frame

Frame Design

Frame Accessories  Feet- can be welded or bolted to go between wheels or air skid and frame to raise height  Plate- ½” A36 plate welded on top of frame to hold bolt holes

Materials Needed  20 feet 6x6x3/8 steel - $571  4x8x1/2 A36 sheet - $499  Source: metalsdepot.com

Caster Wheel Technology  Swivel Casters  Fixed Casters

Pros & Cons Pros  Ability to integrate with existing facilities  Ease of movement  No power requirements  Low maintenance  Cost effective Cons  Floor surface must be well maintained  Low load capacity with respect to size  Difficulty in directional control  Time intensive directional abilities

Air Bearing Technology  What is an air bearing?  How does it work?

Pros & Cons Pros  Ability to integrate with existing facilities  High load carrying capacity  Omni-directional movement  Ease of movement  Low power requirements Cons  Floor surface must be flat, crack free, and well maintained  More costly than conventional wheels and casters  Requires a physical line of air to be connected during movement  Requires an independent system to control movement  Requires employee training

 Pneumatic systems  Pros  Interfaces with existing air systems  Units made to attach to air skids  Cons  Airlines needed to operate Propulsion System

Propulsion Systems  Battery powered systems  Pros  No airlines needed  Can be modified to work with either concept  Cons  Need to determine hookup system to cart design  Limited battery life

Risk Assessment

Project Plan Detailed Design through MSD I and beginning of MSD II. How far with testing, prototyping, and building should we plan for based on needs and resources?

Additional Questions  Do you have any suggestions on lifting ideas without use of an overhead crane that would integrate with our design?  (For D-R) Do we need to design to incorporate the HOSS models?