Detailed Design Review

Dresser- Rand : Rotor Cell Improvement Project

Topics:

• Heat treat• B & OS• Capacity Determination

Rochester Institute of Technology

Multi-Disciplinary Senior DesignProject: P13457 Team Members: Michael Then, Katherine

Poehlman, Allison Doster, William Slaughter, William Swift

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 TreatLayout Option: 3 Large Racks- Straight Line

Most viable given constraints Can’t move office Can’t block door 24-40 impellers

Total Cost: Roll Out Racks

• Lead Time = 10-12 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

• 6th 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 5th shelf• Leave 6th shelf at top to

prevent dust settling on parts.

• Total: $3861.21• 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