1. Multidisciplinary Senior Design Rochester Institute of Technology Dresser-Rand Painted Post P Detailed Design Review 2/26/10
Team:
Phil Eaton (ME)
Alex Frenkel (ME)
Rachel Koch (ME)
Pete Lowry (ISE)
Yi Xie (ISE)
Faculty Guide:
John Kaemmerlen

2. 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

3. Expectations Discussion Decisions to me made today.
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

4. Background Problem Objective Stakeholders
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,

5. Machine Configuration
Systems Level Design
Mechanical
Engineering
Alex
Rachel
Phil
Machine
Material
Material Handling
Material Handling
Machine Configuration
Machine Configuration
Material Storage
Material Storage
New Layout with best safety, productivity and quality
Cell Layout
Problem Solving
Visual Controls
Method
Man
Metrics
Industrial
Engineering
Pete Yi

6. 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
Machine Configuration
Floor Layout
Process Improvement
Material Handling
Material Storage

7. Target Specifications Updated
Need
Metric
Current*
Marginal
Target
Machine Configuration
(Alex)
Overhead Cost
$87,991
-10%
-20%
Process Time
35.47 hrs
-50%
Man Power 4 3
Defect Cost
$40,623
Cell Layout
(Pete)
Travel Distance
Next Slide
-40%
Mfg Footprint
6584 sq ft
-30%
Process Improvement
(Yi)
# Injuries
Material Handling (Rachel)
$6,000
-100%
Material Storage
(Phil)
Space Utilization
480 sq ft
-60%
1,280 ft
*Based on 2009 Metrics (Jan – Sep)

8. Travel Distance Production Service Large Liner 1890 ft 2464 ft
Small Liner
1952 ft
1745 ft

9. Machine Configuration
Currently parts are machined on vintage 50’s and 60’s machines.
Slow machining time
Frequent maintenance and repair
Parts are difficult to find and expensive
Manual machines can lead to more frequent defects in parts or “out of round” conditions.
Machining operation depends on tribal knowledge of operators
We are researching other alternatives such as the purchase of a used or new CNC horizontal or vertical lathe.
We will attempt to justify the cost with the savings in process time as well as reduced operating cost of the machines.
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

10. Machine Configuration
Currently the average process time is about hours per liner (shop order details)
We will attempt to reduce that number by about 50% to hours.
In the last 2 years liner cell produced 555 liners.
At a burden rate of $105, One hour of reduced process time comes out to about $29,138 a year
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

11. Machine Configuration
This results in a total savings per year of about $513,994
A brand new Toshiba TUE 150 costs around $500,000 with tooling.
Looking at a payback period of about one year
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

12. Machine Configuration
Justification
Video taped time studies on in house machines
Data from Morris Great Lakes
CICS hours charged on liners
Production data from 2008 and 2009
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.
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

13. Cell Layout Design & Selection
Options include everything from:
Utilizing Shop 6
Utilizing Shop 17
Buying a new VTL
Scrapping old machines
Bringing in machines from other departments.

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

15. Option #1 Moving Shop 21 into Shop 17
Cost of removal of the Heyligenstaedt & the Betts
Room available for possible new machine(s)

16. 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

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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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)

25. 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)

26. Decision Matrix
Layout - Pete
As 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
1.5 1 4
Productivity 3
3.5
Footprint
Cost
0.5
Safety
Travel Distance
4.5
Flexibility
Feasibility
Total:
22.5 25 22
23.5 29 30
Weighed Total: 41 49 40
47.5
48.75
42.5
39.75
58.5 60
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.

27. Process Improvement Concept Selection and Improvement
Process control board
Machine downtime board
Cell safety and information placard
Standardized work charts
Waste tracking sheet
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

28. Value Stream Map
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

29. Process Control Board
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

30. Machine D/T Board
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

31. Cell Safety Information
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

32. Standard Work Charts 3 1 5 2 8 7 4 6 9
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

33. Waste Tracking Sheet
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

34. Material Handling Current Material Handling Procedure:
Liners set vertically onto wooden pallets, moved by forklift
Causes parts to fall if forklift must stop short, resulting in defects
Current Defect Cost: Approximately $6,000 (Over 2 years)
Many more unreported incidents
Major safety concerns
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

35. Concept Selection Concept Selected: #6, Standard w/ VBlock Fixture
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

36. Final Concept R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department
Large V Block
Holes for adjustable V Block spacing
Small V Blocks
Standard wooden pallet
Method for strapping the liner to the pallet
Standard wooden pallet with adjustable V Block fixtures for different sizing/length of liners
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

37. Material Selection
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

38. Material Handling BOM R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department H-2089
Product Number
Vendor
Product Desc
Qty
List Price
Total Part Price
Lead Time
 H-2089
ULINE
48X40 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
McMasterCarr
Architectural Aluminum (Alloy 6063) 1" Diameter, 8' Length 6
$36.41
$218.46
2VKN5
Grainger
Retractable Tie Down, 10 Ft L, PK2
$88.35
$2,650.50
2936T31
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
(---)
Dresser Rand
Gorilla Glue 1
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

39. 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.
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

40. Test Plan Prototype pallet (1-3 units) Run prototype at Dresser Rand
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
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

41. Action to Minimize Risk
Material Handling Risk Analysis
Risk Item
Effect
Cause
Likelihood
Severity
Importance
Action to Minimize Risk
Pallet design does not meet needs
Poor grade, Dissatisfied customer
Inadequate communication with management 2 3 6
Weekly meetings with management to determine accuracy of design to needs
Maintenance of tools/ process after completion
Downtime
Poor planning, lack of research 4
Documentation of processes and tools
Pallet Fails
Wasted time and effort, Unsatisfied customer
Poor Craftsmanship, Low reliability, Complex design 1
Maintenance documents, Proper training, Simple design, Design for robustness
V Blocks fail
Pallet used by other department
Lost pallet, wasted effort
Not properly labeling pallet, no rules for usage
Label all pallets with department number, assign responsibility to maintain pallets
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

42. Material Storage Current State
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

43. Concept Generation Pallet rack for liners Functions of Drum Rack
Liners stored on rack
Take up less floor space
Increase safety
Functions of Drum Rack
Support load of drums (14,475 lb)
Restrict drum movement (Brackets)
Built to OSHA standards for safety
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

44. Material Storage First Design Change
Include a wire mesh decking in order to support a wooden pallet if needed
Rack will be able to support any pallet
Second Design Change
Large liners stored vertically
Large liners will deform under their own weight
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

45. Material Storage Third Design Change Rack dimensions changed
Went from 48” x 144” to 42” x 86” based on availability of racks at DR
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

46. Concept Selection Matrix
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

47. 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.
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

48. 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.
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

49. Bill of Materials R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department
Manufacturer
Part number
Description
Quantity
Vendor
Lead time
Price
Total
Lodi
LBC50-86
Beam, 86" long, max load: 11,197; max δ, 0.27" 12
Material Flow
2 week
$35.20
$422.40
LM30
Upright, 42" deep, 120" height, Max load: lb 6
$98.86
$593.16
Lyon
WD4442H
Wire decking, 44" wide, 42" deep
$25.39
$304.68
McMaster
92188A301
Upright anchor 24
 Material Flow
1 week
$4.00
 $96.00
$1,320.24
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

50. Risk Assessment R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department
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
Review safety procedures, do not distract others when working
Pallet breakage
Material damage, injury
Weathering, poor construction 2 6
Inspect pallet before placing on the rack
Rack failure
Injury or death, material damage
Disregarding design criteria, overloading rack
Use a smaller, more robust rack
Rack does hold all liners
Excess material on the floor
Not taking into account all sizes of liners
Take into account all liner sizes, confirm with management entire range of liners
R· I· T Mechanical Engineering Department

51. Comparison to Target Specs (Space Utilization)
Estimated Liners in inventory
Current State:
On floor
480 sq. ft. total
Future State:
On racks
78.75 sq. ft.
Initial Estimated Reduction (60%)
Actual Planned Reduction (80%)

52. Risk Assessment Update
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
Have all details for move ready, support move while occurring, make clear DR capabilities
Operators reject process improvements
Have meeting to explain importance, guide supervisor and operator in implementation
*Based on Severity (1-3) x Likelihood (1-3). 1= lowest, 9= highest

53. Risk Assessment Comparison

54. MSD II Project Plan