Preliminary Detailed Design Review Phase I: Assembly Stations 1-5 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Preliminary Detailed Design Review Phase I: Assembly Stations 1-5 P13458: Dresser-Rand Compressor Assembly Line Team Members: Lauren Kraft – Project Manager, Nick Feng – IE Cole Bowden – ME, Shawn Moseley – ME Jordon Boggs – ME, Alex Peterson – ME

Agenda  Key Objectives of this Review  Problem Statement  Preliminary Detailed Design of Caster System:  Caster Design  Cart Design  Universal Frame Interface  Frame and Caster Plate Stress Analysis  Design Risks Identified  Detailed Design Needs  Ergonomic Justification  Process Layout Update  Economic Analysis  Project Outlook & Timeline

Key Objectives of this Review Prototype type Desi sign gn Overall Process ss layout  Catch mistakes  Receive feedback on current layout  Improve design from operator feedback  Consider alternatives and application of lean  Specs (needs) are principles addressed  What are we missing?  Risks are addressed  Decisions are made to further design

Problem Statement Design a flexible material handling system to incorporate 5,000 to 22,000 pounds that is easy to use and incorporates the safest design elements within cost and functionality constraints. This design fully supports the new process layout in Dresser- Rand’s strategic project.

Caster Design  Designing to 5000lbs/plate Total Weight per Model Plates Weight Plate  Casters per plate: 4 HOSS 2 8,700 4 2175  Caster load: 1250lbs HOSS 4 15,400 4 3850  Caster considerations HOSS 6 21,900 6 3650  Swivel lock  Low diameter HOS 2 5,200 4 1300  Non-Metal Construction HOS 4 10,600 4 2650  Cost HOS 6 15,400 4 3850  Hamilton WH-4NYB MOS 2 5,000 4 1250  4 inch diameter nylon wheel MOS 4 8,800 4 2200  2000lb load capacity MOS 6 1,3200 4 3300

Swivel Lock Casters  Locking casters allow for strict 2 directional motion  Each caster must be turned and locked by hand  4 unidirectional caster sets will over-constrain the system  Solves guidance issue  Creates a directional control issue  Creates an ergonomics issue

Preliminary Cart Design

Preliminary Cart Dimensions

Universal Frame Interface  Single interface compatible with all 3 compressor families  Tapered pin on top face for ease of frame positioning  Dual pin configuration on bottom face for stability  Ease of manufacture and assembly

Unloaded Beam Universal Frame Interface MOS HOS HOSS

Beam Model Output Von Mises Stress Along Beam 18000 16000 Allowable Stress 14000 Calculated Stress Von Mises Stress (psi) 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Beam Position (in) Deflection Along Beam 4 Beam Deflection x 0.001 (in.) 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Beam Position (in.)

Frame Stress Analysis – On Casters  Peak stress of 6850psi, n<4  Agrees well with initial calculation of 6930 psi, n<4  Max deflection .01 inches

Frame Stress Analysis – On Jackstands

Caster Plate Stress Analysis

Design Risks  Casters cannot support cylinder weights Highest Risk  Tugger integration not yet determined  Directional control issues with casters  Ergonomics of swivel-lock rotation  Tolerance stack-up  Weld joint stress analysis  Caster bolt pattern not standard  Manufacturability deadlines Lowest Risk

Detailed Design Needs  Dimensioned frame drawings with tolerance  Design safety standards (if applicable)  Finalized cylinder attach decisions  Finalized caster decisions  Casters or air bearings decision

Ergonomics Male horizontal reach = 731 mm (95%) Female horizontal reach = 676 mm (95%) 10% of female = 641 mm Height of compressor (711.2 mm) + carts (457.2 mm) = 1168.4 mm Male vertical reach = 1732.5 mm (mean) 1844.04 mm (95%) Female V .R = 1602.7 mm (mean) 1711.96 mm (95%) 1518.9 mm (10%)

Ergonomics  Horizontal Reach Envelope

Conceptual Assembly Process Sub-assembly Main Assembly Phase I Phase II Source: Dresser-Rand

Process Layout

Economic Analysis  AFE presented to team and reviewed  Estimates apply only to MOS compressor product launch and does not take into consideration the financial effects of the mixed model format of the line  Inflow and Outflow data used to calculate several figures to justify the pursuit of this project Outflows - Labor Outflows - Material Outflow - Initial Outflows - Discounted Cumulative Year Inflows (sales) Net Flows (20%) (80%) Investment Inventory Cash Flow Discounted Cash Flow - - - 2,316,835 (2,316,835) - (2,316,835) (2,316,835) 0 Confidential 6,300,000 948,000 3,792,000 700,000 860,000 781,818 (1,535,017) 1 17,600,000 1,896,000 7,584,000 - 8,120,000 6,710,744 5,175,727 2 27,600,000 3,864,000 15,456,000 - 8,280,000 6,220,887 11,396,614 3 34,500,000 4,890,000 19,560,000 - 10,050,000 6,864,285 18,260,899 4 *inflows and outflows based off of AFE Discount Rate - assumed 10% Need more accurate # years *material handling system is Payback = 1.30 from Finance, if possible subset of initial investment IRR = 155%

Project Outlook • Assembly stations 1-5 of main line Phase 1 • Proven prototype with detailed design for full scale system (currently here) • Test, Paint, Shipping of main line without the use of a crane • Possible detailed design for full scale system Phase 2 • Ensure Phase I and Phase II functionally support the process flow and the physical flow in the assembly line Integration

① Completed: ② Current Work: • • Systems Design Process Layout of Project Timeline Review for Assembly Line Assembly Stations • 1-5 (Phase I) Concept Development of • Preliminary Phase II – test, Detailed Design of paint, shipping Caster System ③ Future Work: • Finish detailed design of Phase I • Review Phase II concepts