1. © Copyright 2010 Dresser-Rand Gasket Cell Relocation [Revision: Feb 2011] Team Members: Cody Willmart, Aaron Marcotte, Jacky Li, Daniel Swol, Tyler Borden Mentor: John Kaemmerlen

2. © Copyright 2010 2 Meeting Purpose Purpose Purpose – Interactive discussion of the project with stakeholders. Provide recommendation for the future state of the Gasket Cell. Goal Goal – Gain feedback to determine the direction for the rest of the project. PLEASE – Comment or ask questions at any time

3. © Copyright 2010 Agenda 1. Introductions 2. Project Summary 3. Customer Needs and Engineering Specs 4. Review Current System 5. Concept Feasibility 6. Upgraded Technology Options 7. Layout Options 8. Visual Management 9. Cost Analysis 10. Project Schedule and Next Steps 3

4. © Copyright 2010 4 Project Background  DR Painted Post relocating and consolidating processes to reduce plant footprint  Gasket and Sheet Metal Cells are on the “Wrong side of the wall”  Primary focus is the Gasket Cell Relocation and Improvement  Timeline: 22 week project Started: 12/3/2010 End: 5/13/2011

5. © Copyright 2010 Expected Project Benefits  An updated, efficient, and safe gasket cell in an operating area of Dresser-Rand’s Painted Post facility  A model project for process innovation and the implementation of lean principles for both Dresser-Rand and RIT 5

6. © Copyright 2010 6 Work Breakdown Structure

7. © Copyright 2010 7 Customer Needs

8. © Copyright 2010 8 Engineering Specifications

9. © Copyright 2010 9 Current Layout Red = Machine Yellow = Table Blue = Storage Total Footprint: 6000 sq. ft.

10. © Copyright 2010 Current State Value Stream Map  Please see attached 11x17 document in review packet 10

11. © Copyright 2010 Three Main Options 1. Relocate current process into new area of the plant 2. Update die cutting equipment with a single press and move process into new area 3. Invest in completely new technology, eliminate the need for dies, patterns, and the hand cut area. Significant footprint reduction 11

12. © Copyright 2010 Options 1 & 2 - Concept Feasibility? 12 Current Area = 6,000 sq.ft. Improved Area = 5260 sq.ft. Footprint Reduction of 710 sq.ft. (12%)

13. © Copyright 2010  Purchase a laser, blade, or waterjet cutting machine  Dies and patterns are no longer required with a digital interface  Goal is to replace all die cutting and hand cutting with a single machine  A significant footprint reduction can be achieved  Develop an entirely new process around the new equipment  Incorporate lean principles into design (visual management, 5S, standard work, flow, etc.) 13 3) Higher Cost, Highest Risk, Maximum Benefit

14. © Copyright 2010 Waterjet Safety: Spray shields and cutting head guards. Emergency shut off valves. Electronic perimeter shut off system. Quality: Meets tolerance requirements. Gasket materials can soak up moisture from waterjet, which may cause slight discoloration. Delivery: Can complete jobs fast and efficient and should be able to meet any delivery deadline. Cost: Most expensive machine at $165,000. Most expensive annual operating cost. Consumables: $2/machine hour Utilities: $6/machine hour Abrasives: $20/machine hour (operation can be run without abrasives) People: Operation can be run with 2-3 people instead of 7. Limitations: Excess water spray Might be too powerful for gasket application.

15. © Copyright 2010 Laser Safety: Fully enclosed cutting area. All doors and covers have redundant safety interlocks that, when doors are opened, turn off power to the laser and place a shutter over the laser beam path. Crash sensor and break away nozzle to reduce the risk of damage due to set up errors. Quality: Meets tolerance requirements. Gasket materials can get scorched by the laser. Delivery: Can complete jobs fast and efficient and should be able to meet any delivery deadline. Cost: Machine costs $100,000. Operating costs $1/machine hour. The cost of running a compressor (air assist) Consumables $500 per year (mainly replacing table every 6 months) Installation of fume hood and stack People: Operation can be run with 2-3 people instead of 7 Limitations: Needs fume extraction. Government approval for fume stack required

16. © Copyright 2010 CNC Blade Cutting Safety: Fully enclosed cutting head Only exposed to blade tools when changing head for depth or tool type Emergency stops on each end of table and gantry Stop machine if runs into obstacle by yellow disks, can resume cutting from stop Quality: Meets tolerance requirements. Pen tool can mark parts Delivery: Can complete jobs fast and efficient and should be able to meet any delivery deadline. Cost: Machine costs $86,000. Annual operating cost: $3,000-$4,000. People: Operation can be run with 2-3 people instead of 7. Limitations: Tools required for different depths with depth limiters to extend table life Replace table recommended each year and blades as they wear

17. © Copyright 2010 17 Pugh Chart – Revised after further research Concepts ABCDE CurrentHydraulic PressBladeLaserWaterjet Selection Criteria Footprint Reduction Datum (Mix of Hand Cut and Die Cut) 0+++ Efficient Cell 0+++ Fast Response Time 0+++ Movement toward lean principles ++++ Safety ++++ Maintenance and Operation Cost +++- Labor 0+++ Capital Investment ----- Acceptable material size 0+++ Quality of Product 0+-- Range of material type 0+-- Sum + 's 31087 Sum 0's 7000 Sum -'s 1134 Net Score 2953 Rank 4123

18. © Copyright 2010 18 Machine Specs Cut speedHead SpeedToleranceCutting size in/minin/sec Blade Cutting2000600.015"6’ x 12’ Laser Cutting1000160.002"6'x6' Water Jet Cutting (1)40080.003"5.5x6.5 Water Jet Cutting (2)1500250.004"6.5'x13' Setup TimeMachine TimeToleranceCutting size Required1min 0.015"5'x5' Blade Cutting1min 0.015"6’ x 12' Laser Cutting1min2min0.002"6'x6' Water Jet Cutting3min2min0.003"5.5x6.5

19. © Copyright 2010 Current Recommendation  Eastman CNC Blade Cutting Table 19

20. © Copyright 2010 20 5M’s

21. © Copyright 2010 Future State VSM  Please see 11x17 handout 21

22. © Copyright 2010 Layout Options 22 Possible Relocation Area

23. © Copyright 2010 Layout Options 23

24. © Copyright 2010 Layout Options 24

25. © Copyright 2010 Layout Options 25

26. © Copyright 2010 Visual Management Ideas 26

27. © Copyright 2010 Heijunka Box  Eliminates the need to search through a pile of orders to see what gaskets need to be produced for the day 27

28. © Copyright 2010 Risk Assessment 28

29. © Copyright 2010 Project Schedule 29

30. © Copyright 2010 Next Steps – Machine Testing  Test Heavy Duty Head  ¼ inch holes, blade or punch?  Test pen on different materials  Waiting on final quote 30

31. © Copyright 2010 Next Steps and Action Items 31  Capital Acquisition Requirements  Kaizen opportunity?  Analyze feasibility of new process  Implementation plan  Test waterjet?

32. © Copyright 2010 32 Questions

33. © Copyright 2010 www.dresser-rand.com info@dresser-rand.com