Industrial Excellence Lecture 2 Production System Design...

Industrial ExcellenceKPP319 – Product and Process Development

Mats Jackson, [email protected] Wiktorsson, [email protected]

Individual literature study

An individual reflection on future development regarding simulation as a tool within production and logistics management. In a brief PM (max 5 p), reflect and discuss upon following key topics for the future of discrete event simulation:

1. Model size and complexity1. Model size and complexity

2. Verification and validation techniques

3. Optimization

4. Parallel and distributed simulation

5. Internet based simulation

6. Human behavior and uncertainty modeling

7. Integration with ERP, PLM etc.

Search and refer to sources by your self!

PM – physical hand in and presentation 2011-10-04

Max 5 pages reflections and discussion.

Project

The participants perform in a group of 3-4 persons a project. A simulation-based study of an industrial production process, complemented by advanced production system analysis methods.

● A production system analysis focusing an aspect of industrial excellence

● Logic model as well as visualized model of the object that is analyzed● Logic model as well as visualized model of the object that is analyzed

● Simulation in Extend and Visual Components

● Valid and relevant modeling and analysis to the objective of study.

Expected results:

● Simulation model – present at presentation

● Project report – hand in 2011-12-06

● Group presentation 2011-12-06 and 2011-12-13 (backup 2011-12-20)

Projects

Topics linked to the build-up of the Virtual lab at MDH.

Examples on possible studies are:

● Hardening plant at Volvo CE

● 3D animation of hardening plant VCE (Visual Components). ● 3D animation of hardening plant VCE (Visual Components). Internal flow / External flow

● Discrete event simulation of hardening plant (Extend). Internalmaterial flow / External material flow.

● Robot cell within a assembly flow at Haldex – animation as well as simulation.

● Build upon previous RTT (Robot Till Tusen) studies

Will be further presented and decided in lecture 2011-09-13.

CurriculumW Date Time Lecturer Room Moment

35 2011-08-30 13:15-16:00 Magnus L3115 Course intro. Start literature study

36 2011-09-06 13:15-16:00 Magnus L249 Lecture. Production System Design

37 2011-09-13 13:15-16:00 Mats L249 Lecture, Discrete event simulation

38 2011-09-20 13:15-16:00 Mats H118Lecture. Simulation and modeling of a production system

39 2011-09-27 13:15-16:00 Magnus L3115 Guest

40 2011-10-04 13:15-17:00Mats / Magnus

L249 / L3117

Literature study presentation

41 2011-10-10 9-12 + 13-16 Johan Ernlund Simulation lab – Visual Components

41 2011-10-11 13:15-16:00 Mats /Magnus L249 Project review 1 – objective and plan



5 O

PTIO

NS




43 2011-10-25 13:15-16:00 Raspen Guest

44 2011-11-01 13:15-16:00 Mats /Magnus L249 Project review 2 - draft model and indata

45 2011-11-08 13:15-16:00 Mats /Magnus L3115 Guest

46 2011-11-15 13:15-16:00 L3115 Project review 3 - validation of model

47 2011-11-22 13:15-16:00 Mats /Magnus L3115 Project support

48 2011-11-29 13:15-16:00 Mats /Magnus L3115 Project support

49 2011-12-06 13:15-16:00 Mats /Magnus L3115 Final presentation of project

50 2011-12-13 13:15-16:00 Mats /Magnus L249 Final presentation of project

51 2011-12-20 13:15-16:00 Mats /Magnus L249 Backup: Final presentation of project

5 O

PTIO

NS

To-dos

● Fill in project team and project / company (if any)

● Fill in date to participate in Lab

6

Lecture 2 – 2011-09-06

● Industrial Excellence - resumé

● The production system

● Production system design

●Design process●Design process

●Req´s – Alt’s – Eval

Production decisions haveimpact on the overall performance of the company

”.. what appears to be routine manufacturing decisions frequently come to limit the corporation’s strategic

options, binding it with facilities, equipment, personnel, basic controls and policies to a non-

competitive posture, which may take years to turn around.”

Skinner (1969)

PRODUCTION SYSTEM

The production system

Transformation of ”input” to products, from supplier to customer

PRODUCTION SYSTEM

Manufacturing

AssemblyParts

ManufacturingSuppliers

System supplier

HardwareSoftwareService

Industrial excellence

Decisions, plans, guidelines

Productionsystem design

Productionsystem

operations

Experience, knowledge, data

Competences, Tools

MethodsProcesses

Competences, ToolsMethodsProcesses

Olorgesailie

Ponte e Torri Arsenale di Venezia nel XVI secolo. Canaletto (1697-1768)

Putting out system (Tonya in Japan)

1913 Highland Park: T-Ford

Ford Rouge 1931

Toyota Nagoya 1952

Globally increasingmanufacturing activity

Economic activity within Manufacturing 1998 – 2008, at constant 1990 prices in US dollars. Source: UN Stats

A world wide 42% increase in

manufacturing activity (at constant prices)

1998-2008. 36% increase in GDP world wide 1998-2008

By Edward Burtynsky. Deda Chicken Processing Plant, Dehui City, Jilin Province, 2005.

Design: David Benqué, Royal College of Arts

Process and layout types

High

Low High

Project

Jobbing

Batch

Volume Manufacturingprocess types

Basic layouttypes

Projectprocesses

Jobbingprocesses

Fixed-positionlayout

Process

Low

Variety

Mass

Continous

processes

Batchprocesses

Massprocesses

Continousprocesses

Processlayout

Celllayout

Productlayout

Slack et al. (1998)

Typical cost functions

Fixed position Functional layout / process layout

Cell layout / Flow group

Product layout

Continous flow

Cost

Volume

But, big uncertanties in the cost functions! –What else influenceschoice of principle?

Typical manufacturing site

Parts manufacturingSurface treatment /

hardeningAssembly

Par

ts

Sup

plie

r

Mat

eria

l S

uppl

ier

Par

ts

Sup

plie

r

Mat

eria

l S

uppl

ier

Mat

eria

l S

uppl

ier

Typical manufacturing site

Parts manufacturingSurface treatment /

hardeningAssembly

Challenges, e.g.• Lot sizes• Materials handling• Order principles

2 3P

arts

S

uppl

ier

Mat

eria

l S

uppl

ier

Par

ts

Sup

plie

r

Mat

eria

l S

uppl

ier

Mat

eria

l S

uppl

ier

Solutions, e.g• Supply sequencing• Manufacturing process development• Manufacturing control

1 4

Variant flora in production systems…System Characteristic

Example

Flow pattern * Single straight line* Parallel lines* U-shaped cells * Dendritic flow

Cycle time * Parallel operations leading to long cycle times* Single line leading to short cycle times

Product movement device

* Belt* Roller conveyor* Overhead crane* Overhead crane* AGV

Pacing * Manual* Mechanical

Product mix * One product* Multiple products (in separate batches)* Mixed products (simultaneously)

Banking * Various removability of productsWork-station equipment

* Manual* Mechanical* Automatic

Work-station characteristics

* Workers may sit, stand, walk with a line or ride a line * Size/Length of station/line: Few or many workers* Worker density: Number of workers working at the same object

What is a production system?

Hubka & Eder, 1996

Porter, 1985

Reasons for design of production systemsInternal reasons

Product developmentIdea / need of renewalCost cutStructural rationalisation

External reasons

Market footprintCustomer preferencesVolume increaseAvaliable technologyStructural rationalisation

Change of principle…

Avaliable technologyChanging offeringSupply chain structureRegulation / legislation…

Hubka & Eder, 1996

Focusing on productiondevelopment, we are moving from a sequentialscheme to a parallel one Design and

Planning

Designing

Realising

Running-inOperation/

Maintaining

Retiring/Re-use

parallel one Design andRealisation

Running-in

Operation/Maintaining

Retiring/Re-use

Operation/Refining

Designing

Operation/Refining

Wiktorsson, 2000

Principal productrealization process

Manufacturing

operations

Product

design

Principal

product

Detail

product

Productidea

/

design task

Manufacturing

operations

design

spec

product

concept

product

design

Production

system

concept

Production

system

spec

Detail

production

design

Production

installation

Production

procure-

ment

However, the problem occurs if the productionsystem can’t cope with the new product

Manufacturing

operations

Product

design

Principal

product

Detail

product

Productidea

/

design task

Manufacturing

operations

design

spec

product

concept

product

design

Production

system

concept

Production

system

spec

Detail

production

design

Production

installation

Production

procure-

ment

Tied-up cost in production development project

Cost

100%Freedomof action

Tied-up share50%

Studyphase

Projectphase

Detaileddesign

Imple-mentation

Runningphase

Time

Tied-up shareof the total cost Actual

cash-flow

Concurrent engineering of productand production system

Productconcept

Systemdefinition

Traditional product and

production system development

Detaildesign


Productionsystem install.

Production

Concurrent engineering of

product and production system

Time reduction

Productconcept

Systemdefinition

Detaildesign



Production

However, ConcurrentEngineering poses a number of challenges as well

Product development

Production systemdevelopment

Product development

Production systemdevelopment

A complex task to develop

Uncertainty

No losses

Cost

100%

50%

Studyphase

Projectphase

Detaileddesign

Imple-mentation

Runningphase

Time

Freedomof action

Tied-up shareof the total cost Actual

cash-flow

Productconcept System

definition

Traditional product andproduction system development

Concurrent engineering of

product and production system

Time reduction

Detaildesign Production

system designProduction

system install.

Production

Productconcept

Systemdefinition

Detaildesign



Production

to developproduction systems!

Time is money

Early decisions

To sum up: Today is ”production system design”…

An investment project

Netz and Wiktorsson, 2009

A layout project

Muther, 1974

Part of a product development project Development of production principles

Ohno, 1988

The design paradox

”How can you decide the whole,

without knowing the parts? The parts without knowing the parts? The parts

depend in turn on the whole.”

Developments of the general model of the design process

synthesis(problem)analysis

(problem)analysis

(problem)analysis

(solution)synthesis

(solution)evaluation

(solution)synthesis


(solution)synthesis


Rosell, 1990

Design as a reduction process

Choice and evaluationscreens

Concept Large number ofdesign options

Uncertaintyregardingthe finaldesign

One design

Time

Certaintyregarding

the finaldesign

Final designspecification Slack et al., 1998

The hierarchy of systems

EnergyMaterials

Signals

Energy’Materials’

Signals’

Overallfunction

Sub-function

Complexity

Pahl and Beitz, 1996

Steps of the planning and design process

Task: Market, Company, Economy

Plan and clarify the task:Analyse the market and the company situation

Find and select product ideasFormulate a product proposal

Clarify the taskElaborate a requirements list

Requirements list (Design spec)

Develop the principle solution:Identify the essential problemsEstablish function structures

Search for working principles and working structuresCombine and firm up into concept variants

Evaluate against technical and economic criteria

Concept (Principle solution)

Develop the construction structure:Preliminary form design, materials selection and calculation

Select best preliminary layouts

Upg

rade

and

Im

prov

e

Info

rmat

ion:

Ada

pt t

he r

equi

rem

ents

list

Pla

n &

cla

rify

the

task

Con

cept

ual d

esig

nE

mbo

dim

ent

desi

gnSelect best preliminary layoutsEvaluate against technical and economic criteria

Preliminary layout

Define the construction layout:Eliminate weak spots

Check for errors, disturbing influences and minimum costsPrepare the preliminary parts list andproduction and assembly document

Definitive layout

Prepare production and operating documents:Elaborate detail drawings and parts lists

Complete production, assembly, transportand operation instuctions

Check all documents

Product documentation

Solution

Upg

rade

and

Im

prov

e

Info

rmat

ion:

Ada

pt t

he r

equi

rem

ents

list

Em

bodi

men

t de

sign

Det

ail d

esig

n


Task: Market, Company, Economy

Plan and clarify the task:Analyse the market and the company situation

Find and select product ideas

Formulate a product proposalClarify the task

Elaborate a requirements list

Requirements list (Design spec)

Develop the principle solution:Identify the essential problems

Establish function structuresSearch for working principles and working structures

Combine and firm up into concept variants

Evaluate against technical and economic criteria

Concept (Principle solution)

Develop the construction structure:Preliminary form design, materials selection and calculation

Select best preliminary layoutsEvaluate against technical and economic criteria

Upg

rade

and

Im

prov

e

Info

rmat

ion:

Ada

pt t

he r

equi

rem

ents

list

Pla

n &

cla

rify

the

task

Con

cept

ual d

esig

nE

mbo

dim

ent

desi

gn

Problem statement

Visions / Objective

Requirements

Pre-conditions

PropositionsPreliminary layout

Define the construction layout:Eliminate weak spots

Check for errors, disturbing influences and minimum costsPrepare the preliminary parts list andproduction and assembly document

Definitive layout

Prepare production and operating documents:Elaborate detail drawings and parts lists

Complete production, assembly, transport

and operation instuctionsCheck all documents

Product documentation

Solution

Upg

rade

and

Im

prov

e

Info

rmat

ion:

Ada

pt t

he r

equi

rem

ents

list

Em

bodi

men

t de

sign

Det

ail d

esig

n


Hubka & Eder, 1996

Rosell, 1990

Propositions

Evaluation

One example on design process for production systems

Problem

Analysis of situation Setting of objectives

Conceptual modelling

1.Identifying the required manufacturing functions needed.

2.Make vs. buy decisions.3.Input/output-diagrams

Evaluation of concepts

Decision

Detailed design

Evaluation of concepts

Decision

Solution

3.Input/output-diagrams (IOD) of a number of Business System Options (BSOs) fulfilling the requirements of the desired, physical system.

4.Convert the physical IOD to including control models.

5.Refine control specificaspects within the different BSOs

(Wu, 1994)

Method for planning the assembly system

Design Process Management

ProjectPlanning

Preparation ofinvestment

data

Preparatory design

Backgroundstudy

Prestudy

Requirements specificationfor the assembly system

The productdesign

process

AX BX

A B

C

system design process

Design specification

Evaluation of assemblysystem alternatives

Creation of conceptualassembly system alternatives

Detailed design of selectedassembly systems

Decision:Selection ofassembly system

Result:Description of theassembly system

D

E

F

Bellgran, 1998

What to evaluate?

Basically: • Time, • Cost and • Quality.

Req´s - Alt´s - Eval.

• Quality, • Speed, • Dependability, • Flexibility and • Cost

…links the operation strategy to the performance of the production system. of the production system.

Slack et al. (1998)

• Cost, • Quality, • Time, • Efficiency, • Flexibility, • Risk and• Environmental effects

… the seven ”universal virtues” of DFX

Olesen (1992)

• Cost,

• Delivery reliability,

• Delivery speed,

• Quality,

• Flexibility,

• Environmental friendliness and

• Employee relationships

… parameters as defining the manufacturing strategy (based on a review by Öhrström,1997)

Attributes to evaluate?

Goldratt and Fox (1986) defines three global economic measures: • net profit, • return on investment and • cash flow. Translated into three parameters to be used in operations, • Throughput: the rate at which the

Troxler and Blank (1989) defines a manufacturing system value (MSV) as a combination of: • Suitability, based on factors such as:

investment, growth, technology and market position, employee relations, workforce


• Throughput: the rate at which the system generates money through sales.

• Inventory: all the money the system invests in purchasing things the system intends to sell.

• Operating expense: all the money the system spends in turning inventory into throughput.

position, employee relations, workforce composition, organisation structure and operations management.

• Capability, based on factors such as: design, function, reliability, availability, flexibility, human factors and technical feasibility.

• Performance based on factors such as: throughput, quality, inventory, information, and capital utilisation.

• Productivity, based on factors such as: economic infrastructure, customer response and environmental influence.

Line performance as a function of line parameters

Repair times

Number of workstationsNumber of repairmenDispatching rule

Interfailure times

Preventive maintenenceEngineering changesCalibration / setupPersonal fatigue / delayLunch / break

Waiting time

Reliability

AvailabilityScheduleddowntime

Unscheduleddowntime


Lunch / break

Workstation layoutJob complexity

ToolsSkill level / discipline

Parts QualityEnvironment

Assembly process

Operationprocess time Capacity

Yieldcapacity

Yield

SchedulingJob dispatchingParts availabilityLayout / processMaterial handling

Lineperformance

(Chow 1990)

Three cases: Conditions

Case A Case B Case C

Line of business Truck industry Truck industry Car industry

Replacement or New? Replacement Replacement Replacement

Incentive for change New product Volume shift Space needed and work

rationalisation

Assembly capacity Tens Tens Hundreds


Assembly capacity

(thousands / year)

Tens Tens Hundreds

Total no. handled

components

Thousands Thousands Thousands

Components / product Hundreds Hundreds Some fifty to hundred

Data collection

technique

Interview and archival

Participant-observ. and archival

Direct observation and interview

Wiktorsson, 2000

Case A. Requirements (R) and Aims (A)

(R1) Decrease of assembly cost with 10% due to product improvements(R2) Decrease of assembly cost with 20% due to production improvements(R3) Two parallel product programmes during 1,5 year(R4) Verified quality on product/process before start of production(R5) A technical capacity of X products/day (work during day time)

+ Y assembly-kits/day(R6) Production design in accordance to a company-specific pre-defined

production philosophy


production philosophy (A1) Minimal losses in flow and no constraints in product mix. To be solved by:

- balancing on group level- new assembly sequence- flexible production layout

(A2) Fixed works done in the main flow (A3) Optimisation of spaces(A4) In the best way utilise the knowledge of production personnel and their

management in order to avoid known problems concerning:- quality- ergonomic issues- assembly sequence

Wiktorsson, 2000

Objectives (O1 - O4) and fundamental aspects (FA1 and FA2) in case B

(O1) A capacity of X products / day on two shifts (16 hours)(O2) Y percent on a company-specific productivity measure(O3) Z percent decrease in assembly time compared to today’s assembly system,

on today’s products and mix(O4) All pre-assembly should, where economically justifiable, be done by

suppliers in order to have as little material handling as possible in the


suppliers in order to have as little material handling as possible in the assembly system.

(FA1) Minimise the material handling. As complete components as possible should be delivered into the position at the line.

(FA2) Create a visual process. It should be seen and signalled, wherever and whenever the process is not working according to plan.

Wiktorsson, 2000

Aims (A), Secondary Aims (SA) and Prerequisites (P) for Case C

(A1) Reduce the used floor area in the assembly shop by a specific space.(A2) Increase productivity by reducing man-hours.(SA1) Simpler planning procedure(SA2) Better ergonomics through job variety


(SA2) Better ergonomics through job variety(SA3) Possibility to introduce semi-automated assembly(P1) No design changes on the product(P2) Capacity of N products per year

Wiktorsson, 2000

Generic optimization formula…

Back to mathematics…

Maximise f(x) objective function

Subject to gi(x) = 0 i ∈ I functional constraints: equalities

hj(x) ≥ 0 j ∈ J functional constraints: inequalities

x ∈ S set constraints


… applied on production system design

Maximise w(x)

Subject to pi(x) = Ri i ∈ I

qj(x) ≥ Rj j ∈ J

x ∈ C

Where x represents the production system design

w(x) represents the winning abilities

pi(x) = Ri represents the functional requirements: nominal values

qj(x) ≥ Rj represents the functional requirements: threshold values

x ∈ C represents the design constraints

Wiktorsson, 2000

Possible spec´ structure for production system design

QUALIFYING LEVELS

WINNING ABILITIESRequirements on

Function

Constraints on Design solution due to:

internal reasons

external reasons


reasons reasonsExamples Examples Examples Examples

• Product description

• Required production volume

• Product variants

• Company guideline

• Existing equipment

• Skills, experience and knowledge

• Component packing

• Quality assurance

• Regulations• Employment laws

• Time to customer• A specific type of

cost • A specific type of

flexibility• A specific type of

productivityRisk / Changes

Risk / Changes

Risk / Changes

Wiktorsson, 2000

Spec´s framework for the three cases

QUALIFYING LEVELS WINNINGFunctional req’s Internal design constraints External design constr’s ABILITIES

CASE

A

Nominal values* 2 product progr. for 1,5 year* Verified quality in product

start * No constraints in product mix

Threshold values* X products/day and Y kits/day* Decrease assembly cost …

…by 20%, due to production improvements

* Production according to a company-specific philosophy

* Work in one shift* Existing building & line for

today’s product * Balancing on group level* New assembly sequence

* Component suppliers and packing

* Assembly-kitting * Product quality-assurance* Regulations * Employment laws

* Availability, ease of operations

* Complexity and size of material handling

* Ease of installation & resetting

* Flexibility for new and existing variants

* Working environment, controllability


improvements …by 10%, due to product imprvm.

controllability* Economy: costs for

investments and operations

CASE

B

Nominal values* Today’s product

Threshold values* X products/day * Y on a produc-tivity measure* Z % decrease in assembly-

time compared to today’s situation

* Two shifts * Today’s building* Line solution. Possibly some

parallel sections * A visual process. * Pre-assembly by the

suppliers, if economically justifiable


* Assembly-kitting * Product quality-assurance* Regulations * Employment laws

* Simplicity and visuality of the process

* Minimised material handling* Investments and operational

costs

CASE

C

Nominal values* Existing product

Threshold values* Reduce used floor area by a

specific space* Given capacity / variant &

year* Today’s quality

* X hours per year available * Existing building* Line flow with a fixed

sequence* Limitations on new equipment * Installation during operation


* Regulations * Employment laws

* Minimise used floor area in the assembly shop

* Maximise productivity by reducing man hours

Guidelines for deploying the production flow

On all levels of abstraction:

1.Should the product be in separate processes due to product differences?2.Should the process be parallelised due to cycle time and capacity? 3.Can the process be modularised based on a modular product structure?


When designing a specific part, i.e. defining the attributes on a building block that describes the properties of that specific sub-system:

1.The level of mechanisation and automation2.Production rate = time available / number to be assembled3.Number of stages in a line solution = total work content / cycle time4.Minimise losses by balancing5.The layout of the flow depends on the building and philosophy

Example on Modelling techniques

GRAI (Graphe à Résultats et Activités Interliés) (Doumeingts et al., 1987)

Structured Analysis and Design Technique(SADT) (Ross and Brackett, 1976) / IDEF0 (Integrated computer-aidedmanufacturing DEFinition) /Astrakan

CIM-OSA (1989) for Computer Integrated

A21Manufacturing

functionInputs

Control

Output

A0

A1A2

A3

A2 A22A23


CIM-OSA (1989) for Computer Integrated Manufacturing

The Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method (SSADM) presented by for instanceDowns et al. (1992)

MechanismA23

A231A232

Feasibility studyProblem identification

Project identification

Analysis of systems operationand problems

Specification of requirements

Select technical option

Data design

Physical design

Systems analysis

System design

Case: Example on first rough modelling

Assembly system

Supplier CustomerInteriorass.

Buffer Exteriorass.

Buffer

Pre-assembly

KittingBuffer

Autom. lineAutom./

manual line

AGV

Manualass. type A

Manualass. type X

AGVBuffer

Cycle timePersonsNo comp.AreaCostetc.

Autom. line

Attributes

ResponstimeCapacityAreaCostetc.

Autom./manual line

Buffer

rough modellingof assemblyplant

Ass. ofguidepins

Marking

Ass. ofcrankshaft

& shellsAss. of

crankshaftsealing

Ass. ofpiston Ass. of

flywheel/driveplate

Ass. ofclutch

Handlingof large pallets

Handlingof small pallets

Buffer Buffer

Buffer

Buffer

Materialshandling

AG

V

Buffer

Materialshandling

pers

on

Assembly ofpiston

Justification approaches for analysis of production systems

Justification Methodologies

Strategic Approaches Analytic Approaches Economic Approaches


MathematicalAnalysis

ExperimentalAnalysis

Scorecards

Linearadditivemodels

AHP Models

”Back-of-the-envelope”calculations

Queingnetworks

Spreadsheets

Payback

Net PresentValue

Internal Rateof Return

OtherDiscountedCash Flowmethods

Non DCFmethods

SensitivityAnalysis

Technicalbenefits

BusinessAdvantage

Competetivefactors

FutureExpansion

ValueAnalysis

Optimisationtechniques

Trace-drivensimulations

Monte Carlosimulations

Wiktorsson, 2000

Value analysis models

Criterion A

Criterion B

Criterion C

Criterion XHighLow

Profile charts, checklists and symbolic scorecards


HighLow

Weight Alt. 1 ... Alt. MCriterion A 4 3 ... 1Criterion B 2 7 ... 5Criterion C 1 4 ... 7... ... ... ...Criterion X 2 1 ... 3Σ Weighted scores: 105 ... 77

Strategic attributes

A B C X...Level 1Categories

Level 2Attributes

Level 3Alternatives 1 M...

...

Linear additive models Analytical hierarchy process (AHP)

Wiktorsson, 2000

10 years ago: DE and geom. simulation and theirvendors

Software Company

Arena Systems Modeling Company

AutoMod AutoSimulationsDE3 BYG Systems Ltd.

Discrete Extend Imagine That, Inc.Event Factor/Aim Pritsker Corporation


Simulation Micro Saint Micro Analysis and Design, Inc.Software ProModel Production Modeling Corp. of Utah

Quest Deneb Robotics

Simple++ AesopTaylor F&H Simulations Inc.

Witness Lanner GroupCimStation SILMA

Geometry GRASP BYG Systems Ltd.Simulation IGrip Deneb Robotics

Software Robcad Tecnomatics Technologies Inc.Workspace 4 Robot Simulations Ltd.

Klingstam and Gullander, 1997

Case: from CAD to instruction

Konstruktör

ManufacturingEngineer

ProposedchangesPII with

CAD-drawingwith articles

DesignEngineer

PlatformConstraints

Operationsengineering

OPERATION PII

T Op R K Operation description Stn Variant TMU M 5 D Pull tape from page, … XYZ 755 10 AB Place the strip at the … 320 15 Take tool A and pull … 150 505 Pull tape from … XYZ 755

STRUCTURE R No Art.No Name Moment Variant T/U week A 2 311487 Strip xx XYZ T 9943 B 1 862144 Strip xy XYZ, XY T 9943 PICTURE 3-9943 TOOL Tool no T Tool name Operation 15424 Tool A 10, 510 28734 Tool B 15, 515 TEXT … notes and comments …

CHANGES Week UF No Des No Proj. Cause

OperationsSequencing

ProductionEngineer

Modifiedlayout

Layout

in productdesign

PII withTMU

Assemblyinstruction

Layout

Balanceengineering

AssemblySequence

Packing

Week UF No Des No Proj. Cause 9943 GN C39422-9 465534 XXY Structure updated

Name

Person Date Introduction No:C16-9

Sequence list 99-XX-XX Plant: X Project: 452 PII St W/ID Name Max B1 B2 BX C16-7 10 215 Ass’y X 335 315 315 335 C16-2 10 215 Ass’y Y 625 625 - 600 C27-1 10 215 Cut Z … 90 - - -

Balance instruction

No Type Name Total Time 156432 <type of balance> Ass’y X 2547 Adress Date Length Made by Takt 18725-87 9935 1 N. P-son XX #/hrs Time Activity PII+S+B Op F Variant PII S+B

Open xyz 16-6 10 88 110 Go to Y S6 ZX3 90 Ass’y Q 16-6 20 88 15

Wiktorsson, 2000

The tools and methods used in the previous Case

Description Usage in this case

Catia CAD-system describing the product and tools. Engineering design

T IGRIP Detailed simulation/visualisation with OLP-abilities Geometric simulation

O RobCAD Robot simulation program (similar to IGRIP) Geometric simulation

O 4D-Navigator Visualising product and tools Geometric packing

LErgoplan

Visualising assembly and material facades. Work place design

LS

ErgoplanVisualising assembly and material facades. Ergonomic considerations

Work place design

CC-Plant Process description with attributes Process description

Witness Flow simulation program for material and line Flow simulation

ME

FMEA Checklist for failure/consequence analysis

T VCCQ Checklist for quality assurance

H SAM Time analysis of assembly activities

OD

DFA/DFM Analysis of assemblyability and manufactureability

Wiktorsson, 2000

Case: tool usage

4D-Navigator

CC-Plant Witness

IGRIP/RobCAD

Ergoplan

Flow

Process

4D-Navigator

CatiaProduct

Static model:Geometric/Descriptive

Dynamic model:Kinematic/Flow simulation

Note that the tools have capabilities not used in this case, that is, the circles could be placed differently in another case

Wiktorsson, 2000

Referenced litterature

Bellgran M (1998) Systematic Design of Assembly Systems—Preconditions and Design Process Planning. Dissertation. Assembly Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Linköping University.

Chow W-M (1990) Assembly Line Design. Methodology and Applications. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.CIM-OSA (1989) Project 688: Open System Architecture for CIM. ESPRIT Consortium AMICE (Eds.). Springer Verlag.Doumeingts G, Vallespir B, Darricau D, Roboam M (1987) ”Design Methodology for Advanced Manufacturing Systems.”

Computers in Industry. 9(4):271-96.Downs E, Clare P, Coe I (1992) Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method: Application and Context. 2nd Edition,

Prentice Hall.Goldratt E, Fox R E (1986) The Race. Croton on the Hudson, NY: North River Press.Hill T (1995) Manufacturing Strategy—Text & Cases. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.Klingstam P, Gullander P (1997) ”Overview of Simulation Tools for Computer-Aided Production Engineering.” Proceedings Klingstam P, Gullander P (1997) ”Overview of Simulation Tools for Computer-Aided Production Engineering.” Proceedings

from ASI'97, Advanced Summer Institute. Budapest, Hungary.Olesen J (1992) Concurrent Development in Manufacturing—based on dispositional mechanisms. Institute for Engineering

Design. Lyngby: The Technical University of Denmark.Pahl G, Beitz W (1996) Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. London: Springer Verlag.Rosell G (1990) Notes on the design process. (In Swedish) Stockholm: Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan, avd. för teknik- och

vetenskapshistoria.Ross D T, Brackett J W (1976) ”An approach to structured analysis.” Computer Decisions. 8(9):40-44.Skinner W (1969) ”Manufacturing—Missing Link in Corporate Strategy.” Harvard Business Review. May-June, 1969.Slack N, Chambers S, Harland C, Harrison A, Johnston R (1998) Operations Management. Second Edition. London: Pitman

Publishing. Wiktorsson M (2000) Performance assessment of assembly systems – Linking strategy to analysis in early stage design of

large assembly systems. Dissertation, KTH, 2000.Wu B (1994) Manufacturing Systems Design and Analysis. Second Edition. London: Chapman & Hall.Öhrström P (1997) Production System Evaluation: A Theoretical Analysis. Licentiate thesis at Assembly Technology,

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Linköping University.

Industrial Excellence Lecture 2 Production System Design...

Documents

Transcript of Industrial Excellence Lecture 2 Production System Design...