1. RIT Senior Design Team P13458 Systems Design Review 1/18/13
D-R Compressor Cell
Lauren: introduce project and team
RIT Senior Design Team P13458
Systems Design Review
1/18/13

2. Agenda Project Introduction Systems Design Next steps 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
Lauren

3. 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.
Lauren

4. Project Summary Overall goal of project: Specific Task:
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.
Lauren

5. 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)
Lauren -
Based on increased volume in sales and decreased operating costs from the improved on-time-delivery rating, Dresser-Rand will be increasing their productivity past 150%.

6. Current & Proposed Layout
Build
Wash
Paint
Sub-Assy
Test
The Move
Nick
Current - Fixed material position, non-linear To
Future - Linear line flow from assembly to shipping
Future Flow Line

7. Future Layout
Nick
5 assembly stations + 2 test beds + 1 paint booth + staging for shipping

8. Customer Needs Key for Priority Multiplier: It would be nice
Should be incorporated
Must have, absolutely necessary
Title
Priority
Multiplier
Description
Safety & Ergonomics 3
Capacity to prevent work-related injury
Cost 2
Upfront Purchase/Installation Cost (capital investment)
Transportability
Ease of Motion
Current Capability 1
Compatibility with current facilities
Scale
Impact of installation, no monuments allowed
Guidance
Ability to remain inline
Flexibility
Capacity for systems integration
Maintenance
Operational Cost, Frequency of Repairs, Repair Costs
Returnability
Ability to return empty fixture to beginning of the line
Ease of Use
Minimize worker frustration, encourage proper use of the system
Nick –
Highlight most critical customer needs (3)
Safety & ergonomics
Scale
flexibility

9. Systems Design Discussion

10. Specifications
Alex - HOQ

11. Concept Selection
Cole

12. Concept Selection Translational Motion Propulsion 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
Cole

13. Systems Architecture Goal: Choose 1 of 2 methods
Material Handling System
Support System
Frame
Translational Movement System
Caster Wheel
Air Bearing w/ Skid
Propulsion System
Tugger
Compressed Air
Electric
Goal:
Choose 1 of 2 methods
Cole

14. 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.
Cole

15. 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
Alex

16. 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
Alex

17. Frame Design
Alex

18. 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
Alex

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

20. Caster Wheel Technology
Swivel Casters
Fixed Casters
Cole

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

22. Air Bearing Technology
What is an air bearing?
How does it work?
Shawn

23. Pros & Cons Pros Cons Ability to integrate with existing facilities
High load carrying capacity
Omni-directional movement
Ease of movement
Low power requirements
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
Shawn

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

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

26. Risk Assessment
Nick –
Top 4 are most important

27. 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?
Lauren

28. Discussion Points Do we need to design to incorporate the HOSS models?
What design for translational movement should we focus on? Are we missing anything?
Do our concepts conflict with the current process and tools for placing the compressor frame on our concept?
How does this cause pros and cons for the shipping scenario? What is the status of the loading dock design?
What are you expecting from a testing and prototyping standpoint? How far in detailed design should we go? What is the approval process in order to from a safety, design, and purchasing standpoint?