_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Report Information from ProQuest

30 September 2013 04:41 _______________________________________________________________

30 September 2013

ProQuest

Table of contents
1. Simulation aids JIT assembly line manufacture: A case study..................................................................... 1

30 September 2013

ii

ProQuest

Document 1 of 1

Simulation aids JIT assembly line manufacture: A case study

Author: Chan, Felix T S; Smith, Adrian M Publication info: International Journal of Operations & Production Management 13.4 (1993): 50. ProQuest document link Abstract: The use of simulation techniques to analyze the performance of an existing assembly line, which has allowed a number of modifications to be proposed to allow the principles of just in time (JIT) to be applied, is described. Further simulations of the assembly line with the proposed modifications determined that the modifications were feasible and significantly increased the performance of the line owing to the use of continuous flow manufacture rather than the inefficient practice of stockpiling parts in a warehouse. The benefits of the new JIT operation include drastically reduced inventory and manufacturing lead time, improved line balance, better operator ergonomics, fewer operators required, increased utilization of operators and machines, and decreased materials handling by forklift trucks. The simulations indicate that additional modifications can be made further to improve the line balance of the final assembly line and increase utilization of operators and machines, and increase production rate. Full text: Simulation has been well recognized as a tool for the design and evaluation of complex advanced manufacturing facilities such as highly automated production lines and Flexible Manufacturing Systems (FMS) prior to their construction. Here simulation can determine the performance of a variety of possible machine layouts and scheduling rules to find the best performing system. This system can be tested with anticipated production schedules to determine if the planned production capacity is achieved, with good utilization of resources. Any limitations in the system can be identified, and the model adapted to correct those problems. Thus major modifications to a large capital investment after installation can be avoided. However simulation can also have a significant role in the analysis of existing manufacturing facilities. It is also often easier since information on the system is readily available, whereas when simulating a completely new system important information can only be estimated. An accurate simulation of an existing system serves as a basis for comparison of modified systems, and gives credibility to the results of modified simulations. The benefits of a Just-in-Time (JIT) manufacturing environment have been embraced by many manufacturers both worldwide and in Australia, not just as a means of reducing inefficiency, but often from necessity to remain competitive in the local and world markets. As a result many companies have embarked on programmes to implement some or all of the philosophies of JIT. Usually a manufacturer cannot afford a sudden leap into the advanced manufacturing technologies such as high automation and flexible manufacturing. Instead the principles of JIT are applied to existing manufacturing facilities to eliminate wasteful work practices such as high inventory, with its long lead times and poor resource utilization; these facilities are often largely manual with only partial utilization of automation such as robots. Simulation can analyse the performance of existing manufacturing facilities to identify (and determine the extent of) problems such as high inventory andpoor resource utilization. Poor work practices and high inventory can often hide the true extent of such problems from management. Simulation is equally effective at analysing manual operations as highly automated operations. Once the problem areas have been identified, modifications to improve the situation can be proposed, in line with the philosophies of JIT. Simulation can then be used to evaluate the effectiveness of such modifications. A wide variety of alternatives can be evaluated, yet the simulation studies cause no interruption to the current production process. Much simulation work has been aimed at the specialized field of FMSs, where such studies are critical in their effective design. A unique property of FMSs is that they tend to be composed of a set of similar elements, but in 30 September 2013 Page 1 of 10 ProQuest

different configurations. So it is possible to develop special languages and routines which are especially suited to FMS simulation, and reduce the effort required to simulate them. Madhusudhana 1! reports on the development of modular simulation software for FMSs using PC-SIMSCRIPTII.5. Schroer and Tseng 2! have developed modules for assembly and manufacturing cells using GPSS/PC, which can be connected to create complex models. Schriber 3! has used GPSS/H to develop FMS models. Ravi et al 4! have produced an interactive simulation of a generic FMS using SLAM II. The simulation is used to determine the scheduling rule which processes a mix of six part types in the minimum make-span. Five simple scheduling rules are available to test. The simulation can also be used to experiment with the eect of varying the availability of important resources. Ravi et al. argue that simulation can produce a more detailed study of FMS operation than analytical methods. Rajamani and Singh 5! have used a SLAM-II simulation to develop a cost model to determine an economic method of line balancing the design for a television assembly line. Musselman 6! presents case studies of simulation analysis of existing and proposed assemly lines at Carrier Corp., where simulation is used to "...quickly and efficiently introduce new processes into the factory environment and to operate them, once installed". Tedford 7! compares and evaluates two simulation languaes, SimFactory and Siman/Cinema, to determine their applicability in modelling and simulating an automobile assembly line. The aim of the simulations is to investigate alternative production strategies. Factors under investigation include ease of use, skill required, model accuracy, and realism of dynamic animation. Leemis et al. 8! describe the use of large SLAM simulations to design and analyse a new aircraft engine overhaul facility after the previous facility was destroyed by fire. A machine-based layout was replaced by a new functional layout which used cells to group families of parts which had similar geometry and processes, resulting in large decreases in materials handling, inventory and flow time. Schnur 9! discusses the role of simulation as a "stimulating" force in manufacturing decision-making processes. Simulation allows evaluation before implementation and "what-if?" analyses. Managers can utilize simulation as a decision support tool, especially when used in conjunction with artificially intelligent knowledge bases (expert systems). Simulation is an essential component of Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM). Bradshaw 1O! describes a case study of the use of simulation to upgrade an automated warehouse control system. Simulation provided a means of designing, testing and evaluating new control system hardware and software. The use of simulation allowed a quick and efficient method of designing and implementing the control system upgrade without disrupting the warehouse or manufacturing operations. Banks 11! discusses the simulation of materials-handling systems using a variety of simulation languages and simulators, including SLAM-II, GPSS/H, SimFactory II.5, SIMAN, and AutoMod II. A detailed and pragmatic discussion of the use of simulation in solving manufacturing problems is given by Chaharbaghi 12!, and is recommended reading for those interested in implementing simulation techniques. Fallon and Browne 13! have developed simulation models using SLAM to compare the performance of manufacturing systems employing JITlKanban principles with similar systems employing Materials Requirement Planning (MRP). These models are used to determine the extent to which JITlKanban principles can be employed in a traditional MRP batch manufacturing environment. The modelling of JIT/Kanban systems is demonstrated by Swinehart and Blackstone 14!. JIT requires the close synchronization of operations, and simulation allows experimentation to determine initial Kanban settings. The JIT model of multiproduct work cells is implemented using the GEMS simulation language. The simulation model is modular, allowing it to be adapted to represent a variety of system configurations. The ultimate aim of achieving total synchronization and removal of all Kanbans can be explored using the simulation. The difficulties of implementing JIT-manufacturing methods owing to human factors is discussed by Oliver 15!. He indicates that managers need to be aware of the type of problems and employee resistance which will arise 30 September 2013 Page 2 of 10 ProQuest

when changes in work practices are implemented. Case studies of two UK companies are used to demonstrate potential problems, and to illustrate methods of avoiding such problems. A comprehensive review of the literature relating to the implementation of JIT is undertaken by Sohal et al. 16!. This has concentrated on three main areas, that of the JIT philosophy, JIT supply bases, and formal/mathematical models of JIT. The review emphasizes some of the dierences between the implementation of JIT in Japanese companies compared with Western companies. This article presents an industrial case study of the application of simulation techniques to improve the performance of an assembly line in a just-in-time manufacturing environment. PROBLEM BACKGROUND An Australian car manufacturer committed to implementing the principles of just-in-time manufacturing, wishes to investigate the possibility of improving the manufacturing of their dash assembly. This is a welded sheetmetal fabrication, which supports the components of the cockpit module. These include the moulded plastic and rubber dashboard facia, instrument panel, steering column assembly, windscreen wiper mechanism, airconditioning system, brake master cylinder assembly, brake and clutch pedal assemblies, etc. The dash assembly consists of four main subassemblies, which are designated: * Reinforce dash * Cover dash * Lower dash * Upper dash. These main subassemblies are based on a pressed sheet-steel panel. These come from the press shop on pallets, and have a variety of small brackets, clips, studs and similar small items resistance-spot-, stud. or projection-welded to them. A row of nine multispot welders is currently used for producing the subassemblies. These large multispot welders are hard-tooled, and so each subassembly is produced on a specific set of them. The multispot welders are loaded and unloaded manually by operators. The final assembly of the subassemblies then occurs on an adjacent line, which has three spot-welding robots plus two manual welding stations. Figure 1 presents a schematic plant layout of the existing manufacturing system, and Figure 2 presents a flow chart of the sequence of operations in the manufacture of the dash assembly. (Figures 1 and 2 omitted) One of the major problems with the operation of the dash assembly manufacture is that the robots are much slower than the subassembly production. This necessitates the current practice of warehousing the subassemblies prior to final assembly, which leads to high work-in-progress, long manufacturing lead times, and the need for a fork-lift truck to move pallets to and from the warehouse. Not only is there poor line balance between the subassembly lines and the final assembly line, but there is also poor line balance within the final and subassembly lines. The manufacturer desires to improve the line balance, so that the subassemblies can be produced at the same rate as the final assembly, so the lines can be run together, and the use of the warehouse can be eliminated. This, along with other improvements, should decrease work-in-progress and lead times, increase machine and operator utilization, and possibly increase the production rate. Other factors to be considered are the ergonomics of the operator environment. Some of the operators have long walking distances each cycle, and there have been injuries related to the manual handling of assemblies, and welding injuries. SELECTION OF A SIMULATION LANGUAGE A most important step in the development of a computer simulation of a manufacturing system is the selection of an appropriate simulation language. Many things need to be considered: * The type of systemtobe modelled. * The skills of the personnel who will be using the software. * The computer hardware available. Speed, display type, etc. 30 September 2013 Page 3 of 10 ProQuest

* The capabilities of the language to represent accurately the subtleties of the system. * The type of statistical data to be collected, and how they will be displayed. * The speed of simulation processing. There are several levels of simulation languages. The first level is programming languages such as Fortran and Pascal, for which simulation routines are written to form a simulation program. This requires the user to have extensive programming skills. The second level is actual simulation languages, which allow the user to write the simulation program, using commands specifically for simulation tasks, and less programming skill is required. Higher levels of simulation languages have more powerful simulation commands, which make it easier to model particular situations such as FMSs. The languages become more specialized, require minimal programming skill, but become less flexible. For example, it may be possible to create a model of a Flexible Manufacturing Cell (FMC), using a system of pull-down menus in a very short time, but the variety of situations which can be modelled is limited. The higher levels of simulation languages also often have the ability to display information graphically and animate the model on the display. The graphics can be of varying sophistication, and may be interactive, allowing the user to modify variables, while the simulation is running, or simply post-processed and run like a movie. Graphic animation has two advantages. It can serve as a debugging tool, while writing the program, to detect errors and incorrect operating logic, and, perhaps most importantly, as a presentation tool to sell ideas to management. Improvement suggestions have much more impact when they can be seen in action. Initially attempts were made to use the MAST simulation package to create the computer simulation. MAST would fit into about the third level of simulation languages. MAST seems to be specializing in the area of automated manufacturing systems such as manufacturing cells which have automated materials-handling systems. The MAST model is created using a system of menus and windows. It can produce rudimentary post-processed colour graphic animation of the simulation. For our purposes, this language was not particularly suited, as the dash assembly manufacture is largely manual with some complicated operating logic. MAST was not flexible enough to model the system accurately as the commands were not particularly applicable to manual operations, and it was not possible to customize the statistics collection to any great extent. OVERVIEW OF GPSS The language selected was GPSS/H VAX/VMS Release 2.0 by Wolverine Software. GPSS stands for General Purpose Simulation System and, as the name suggests, is a general simulation language which is well suited to simulating almost any system. It would be categorized as a Level 2 simulation language, as the are general simulation commands which can be coded into a routine to simulate virtually any situation, given a reasonable level of programming skill. The collection of statistics can also be programmed to record the behaviour of any feature of the simulation. Chaharbaghi 12! has categorized GPSS as belonging to the third level of simulation languages, because the block structure of GPSS reduces the flexibility of programming compared with other high level simulation programming languages such as SIMULA and SIMSCRIPT II.5. But on the down side, the simulation only "crunches numbers"--there is no graphical output of information or animation features. Therefore output results must be interpreted and presented separately. This does have the advantage of making the simulation processing very fast--the longest simulation-processing time in this work was 255 seconds of CPU time. Processing time for some of the languages with graphical animation can be measured in many hours. Thus the speed of GPSS allows many simulation runs to be performed in a relatively short period of time, allowing a much greater variety of alternative models to be tested. A GPSS simulation program is written by writing a list of commands (called "blocks") using a text editor and then the program is compiled and executed, producing an output file containing the results. Appendix 1 contains a sample of GPSS code for the control of a robot. Appendix 2 contains an example of the output report generated by GPSS. 30 September 2013 Page 4 of 10 ProQuest

The text by Gordon 17! was used extensively while coding the model into a GPSS program. A package with animation capabilities would be extremely useful, when debug- ging a model. It would be possible to detect quickly and easily where errors of logic were occurring just by watching the manufacturing activities play on the screen before you, rather than rifling through and cross-referencing pages of program code and execution reports. DESCRIPTION OF APPROACH The objectives of this work are initially to model and simulate the existing manufacturing operations. This model should then be able to confirm the operational problems already identified, and possibly identify new problems, and methods by which to solve them. The simulation can also be validated by comparing theproduction rate of the simulation with the actual production rate. Validation will give the manufacturer evidence that confidence can be placed in the results of further models. Thus the results of simulations of modified manufacturing models can be regarded as being good representations of the actual system performance. A schematic flow chart describing the modelling approach is shown in Figure 3. (Figure 3 omitted) COLLECTION OF TIMES The existing dash assembly manufacture was observed over a period of about two weeks to establish operation cycle time distributions, and to get a feel for how the line could be modified for improvement. MODEL CREATION The information collected was then developed into a model of the manufactur- ing system in the form of a simple operation flow chart which depicted the sequence of operations, the cycle times, and the interrelationships between the various lines. The operating logic for the final assembly robots was reasonably complex and was better depicted using an activity cycle diagram to show the simultaneous operations of the robots and the operators who loaded and unloaded the robots (see Figure 4). (Figure 4 omitted) (See Carrie 18! for a discussion on the use and interpretation of activity cycle diagrams.) METHOD The simulation of the existing dash assembly manufacture (Model 1) was tack-led in the following way. Each of the subassembly lines and the final assembly line would be simulated separately, as they were not run simultaneously. Then performance such as operator utilization can be analysed. Then the production rate of each of the subassembly lines can be compared to the final assembly production rate, to check the feasibility of integrating the operation of the separate lines so that they are run simultaneously. From these results it should be possible to propose modifications to the layout and operating procedures of the lines to improve the line balance and address issues such as operator walking distance per cycle. A model of this improved manufacturing method can then be simulated to evaluate its feasibility and performance. Through a series of iterations the model can be further modified to test better and alternative methods until the best solution is found. MODEL ASSUMPTIONS For the purposes of the simulation the following assumptions were made: * Pallets of parts are always available for the subassembly and final assembly lines. * No machine breakdowns or maintenance periods. * No parts rejected. * Fork-lift trucks are not simulated; it is assumed that a fork-lift truck would always be available to deliver and remove pallets. * The warehouse is not simulated. Space is assumed to be always available. SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The reinforce dash subassembly had only one operation with a short cycle time so production rate was very high. Figure 5 shows the imbalance of production rates between subassembly and final assembly lines. (Figure 5 omitted) 30 September 2013 Page 5 of 10 ProQuest

The lower dash subassembly production rate was slightly greater than final assembly, so balance between these two lines is good. However the utilization and line balance of the two operators on the subassembly line needs improvement. A buffer chute of capacity 30 could be eliminated to reduce Work-in-Progress (WIP) and reduce lead time. Parts spend an average of 47 minutes on the buffer chute. The cover dash subassembly production rate is 50 per cent greater than the final assembly rate, so it has to be reduced for balance. A bufEer rack with a capacity of 160 parts is undesirable. Parts spend an average of 76 minutes on this buer which increases WIP and lead time, and also has a severe influence on the regular supply and removal of pallets. Figure 6 shows the distribution of cover dash panel pallet arrivals. (Figure 6 omitted) As can be seen there are two distinct peaks in the graph corresponding to two different interarrival periods, the two peaks being separated by a period of 72 minutes. One peak is at approximately 12 hours 50 minutes and the other at 14 hours 2 minutes. Similarly, Figure 7 shows the distribution of cover dash subassembly pallet departure times. (Figure 7 omitted) Again there are two peaks, separated by a time period of one hour 45 minutes, one peak at 40 minutes and the other at two hours 25 minutes. Thus the delivery and removal of pallets does not occur at regular intervals. This is due to the eect of the buffer rack and the operating procedure of completely filling or emptying the buffer rack before moving to the next machine. This effectively forces the I parts to be processed in batches of 160. The input pallet (pressed panels) has a capacity of 720 parts, which is much greater than 160. So sometimes an input pallet will last for four batches, and sometimes for five batches of 160, thus causing the two distinct pallet interarrival times. Similarly the output pallet (subassemblies) has a capacity of 90 which is less than the buffer rack capacity of 160. So sometimes the output pallet will be filled twice each batch, but other times only once, again causing two distinct pallet interdeparture times. These irregular arrival and departure times are undesirable, if the subassembly is to supply parts directly to the final assembly line. The upper dash subassembly line production rate is more than double the final assembly production rate so it has to be reduced significantly for balance. The small capacity of the output pallet (subassembly pallet) on this line means a fork-lift truck is required to remove and replace a pallet every 13 minutes. There are five operators on this line, and the utilization of these operators is very poor. The first operation is a bottleneck and the remaining four operators have an average utilization of only 54 per cent (see Figure 8). (Figure 8 omitted) This is a serious problem which needs rectification. The final assembly line had a production rate of 294 dash assemblies per eight-hour shift. The subassembly lines must be able to produce at a rate at least as high as this, if the subassembly lines are to supply the final assembly line directly, rather than stockpile parts in the warehouse. The problem with the existing layout (Model 1) is that the subassembly lines' production rates are too high for them to be integrated with final assembly. The simulation results reveal that the final assembly line has the heaviest usage of the fork-lift truck to deliver subassembly pallets from the warehouse and remove completed final assembly pallets. There are 48 fork-lift truck movements per shift, 20 of these being for movement of subassemblies. The utilization of operators on the final assembly line is poor, as the operation times are not well balanced. Operator 1 is idle 27 per cent of the time, and the remaining operators have an average utilization of only 45 per cent. This is due largely to the long cycle time of robot A which acts as a bottleneck. But even so, the utilization of robot A is only 84 per cent because it sits idle for approximately 16 seconds while the fixture is being unloaded and loaded. Robot B and robot C have utilizations of only 70 per cent and 60 per cen respectively, corresponding to their shorter cycle times. Thus the simulation of the existing dash assembly layout (Model 1) has identified a series of problems associated with current layout and operating proce- dures. The simulation has confirmed the problems such as high inventory, long lead times and poor utilization. It has gone a step further by providing detailed statistics on the extent of particular problems, enabling a closer analysis of the cause, and thus affording the ability to identify solutions. 30 September 2013 Page 6 of 10 ProQuest

MODIFICATIONS Utilizing the results of the first simulation, the following modifications were then proposed as possible solutions. Eliminate the warehouse. Instead of stockpiling subassemblies in the warehouse (leading to high inventory and long lead times), the subassemblies should be produced at the same time and at the same rate as required by the final line, and delivered directly to final assembly. This will also eliminate the need to transport subassembly pallets by fork-lift truck to and from the warehouse. In order to balance the production rates of the subassembly and final assembly, a cellular arrangement for each of the subassembly lines is proposed. This will reduce production rate by reducing the number of operators required, improve ergonomics by reducing the walking distance for operators, improve line balance within each subassembly cell by grouping machines to give operators similar cycle times, and improve operator working conditions by reducing the repetitious behaviour of working only at a single machine. Figure 9 presents the schematic plant layout with the modifications implemented (Model 2), and Figure 10 shows the corresponding process flow chart for the modified operations. (Figures 9 and 10 omitted) The modifications made in Model 2 can be summarized as follows: (1) Relocate reinforce dash multispot welder adjacent to robot A, and have this operation performed by operator 1 on the final assembly line, thus increasing this operator's utilization, and producing reinforce dash subassemblies exactly when required, no intermediate storage (see Figure 9). (2) Rearrange upper dash line into a cellular arrangement so that it can be operated by just two operators instead of five. Automatically unload parts from the last multispot welder onto a conveyor, to transfer subassemblies directly to operator 1 of the final assembly line (see Figure 9). (3) Eliminate need for buffer rack on cover dash line by relocating the first multispot welder at 90 degrees to second multispot welder to reduce walking distance of operator. Subassemblies are transferred directly to final assembly by the operator manually pushing a trolley with a capacity of 20 (see Figure 9). (4) Rearrange the sequence of operations of the lower dash line to improve line balance between operators. Relocate second multispot welder at 90 degrees to first to reduce operator walking distance. Subassemblies are transferred directly to final assembly by the operator manually pushing a trolley with a capacity of 20 (See Figure 9). (5) The fixtures of robot A and robot B are relocated closer together to reduce operator walking distance. Robot B now automatically unloads parts onto the conveyor to robot C to reduce manual handling of the assemblies. Some of the spot-welding operations from the MIG and spot weld of the final assembly are transferred to the operator of robot C (see Figure 9, and Figure 11, which presents an activity cycle diagram of the simultaneous activities of operator 1 and robots A and B). (Figure 11 omitted) The above modifications were implemented into a new GPSS model (Model 2) for simulation of the performance of the proposed manufacturing operations. The results of this simulation indicated that these modifications were feasible and offered significantly improved performance, the main benefits being the reduction of inventory and lead times, and the elimination of four operators. As stated in the assumptions, the warehouse was not simulated. An estimate of the time which subassemblies spend in the warehouse is made by assuming a minimum subassembly production run.time of eight hours, and a daily final assembly production rate of 230 per eight hour shift. Using this method it is possible to indicate the approximate reduction in manufacturing lead time. The average lead time for each sub assembly type is presented graphically in Figure 12. (Figure 12 omitted) The method of calculating the estimated manufachring lead time is presented in Appendix 3. However, the proposed modifications do not produce an optimal solution, and further improvements can be made. The subassembly line production rates have been reduced so as to be much better balanced with the final assembly, but the production rate capacity still exceeds that of final assembly owing to the slow robots. The 30 September 2013 Page 7 of 10 ProQuest

average utilization of the five operators on the three subassembly cells is 67 per cent. This value needs to be further improved. The line balance within the subassembly cells themselves is very good. The line balance along the final assembly line, though, is still poor. The utilization of the robots has not changed (with the exception of robot B, but this is due to the extra time to auto-unload). The utilization of operator 1 increased only marginally owing to the addition of the reinforce dash multispot welder. The utilization of operator 2 increased significantly owing to the transfer of spot welding operations from operator 5, but the utilization of operator 5 dropped by a corresponding amount. The production rate of final assembly has not been altered by the proposed modifications (Model 2) because robot A remains the bottleneck of the system. Further improvements need to be concentrated on the line balance along the final assembly line in order to improve utilization and increase production rate so that the balance with subassembly production is also improved. The simulations suggest that the first obvious modification is the elimination of the idle time of the robots, especially robot A. A possible modification to achieve this aim would be to install a rotating dual fixture at robot A instead of only one. In this way the robot can be welding on one fixture while the operator is loading and unloading the second, thus eliminating the 16 seconds of time in which the robot is idle. Figure 13 shows the layout of robots A and B with a rotating dual fixture at robot A. (Figure 13 omitted) Figure 14 presents an activity cycle diagram of the complex interaction of the robots, operator and fixture. (Figure 14 omitted) The appropriate logic was implemented in the GPSS model for this modification (Model 3) and the simulation was rerun. The results indicated a significant 12 per cent improvement of utilization of all operators, robots, and welders. Figure 15 shows the increase in the utilization of operators on the subassembly lines. (Figure 15 omitted) Plus an increase of production rate from 294 to 330 dash assemblies per eight-hour shift. Figure 16 presents a comparison of the utilization of the robots and operators on the final assembly line, when simulated by each of the three models. (Figure 16 omitted) This figure displays the increase of utilization of all facilities (except for the final operator whose work was partially transferred to another station). This relatively minor alteration produced a significant improvement just by eliminating a 16-second idle time at the bottleneck. However the line balance problem in final assembly still exists, and requires further modification for an optimum solution. However, this is the extent of the simulation work at this time. The simuiations indicate that further work can be performed to address the line balance problem, and should result in further significant improvements in utilization of operators and machines, and also increase production rate. One of the possible modifications which could be evaluated by further simulation studies is the employment of robotic transfer of assemblies between the robots. This would serve to: * reduce manual handlin of the heavy assemblies; * allow the redistribution of the spot-welding load between the three robots to improve the line balance, and eliminate the present bottleneck. These modifications would improve the line balance of the robots, but would not dramatically increase the low utilization of the final two manual welding operations (operators 3, 4, 5) of the final assembly line. The three simulation models so far have all assumed that operators remain at the same station throughout the simulation. To address the operator utilization, it would be possible to simulate a more flexible workforce which could move to dierent stations along the line rather than sit idle at a station. This could increase utilization of operators, or even allow the elimination of another operator from the system. However, this system would require the introduction of small buffer stocks within the system at certain points, thus increasing work-in-progress. But the increased operator utilization may outweigh this small drawback. CONCLUSIONS/SUMMARY 30 September 2013 Page 8 of 10 ProQuest

This article has described the use of simulation techniques to analyse the performance of an existing assembly line, which has allowed a number of modifications to be proposed to allow the principles of just-in-time to be applied. Further simulations of the assembly line with the proposed modifications determined that the modifications were feasible and significantly increased the performance of the line owing to the use of continuous flow manufacture rather than the ineicient practice of stockpiling parts in a warehouse. The benefits of the new JIT operation include drastically reduced inventory and manufacturing lead time, improved line balance, better operator ergonomics, fewer operators required, increased utilization of operators and machines, and decreased materials handling by fork-lift trucks. The simulations indicate that additional modifications can be made further to improve the line balance of the final assembly line and increase utilization of operators and machines, and increase production rate. The use of simulation techniques has allowed the inexpensive analysis of a manufacturing system to propose and evaluate modifications to improve manufac- turing performance. REFERENCES 1. Madhusudhana, H.K. and Shanker, K., "FMS Simulation Model Using PC-SIMSCRIPT-II.5", ComputerIntegrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 3 No. 3, August 1990, pp. 150-6. 2. Schroer, B.J. and Tseng, F.T., "Modelling Complex Manufacturing Systems Using Discrete Event Simulation", Computer and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 14 No. 4, 1988, pp. 455-64. 3. Schriber, J., "A GPSS Model for a Hypothetical Flexible Manufacturing System", Annals Cerations Research, Vol. 3, 1985, pp. 171-88. 4. Ravi, T., Lashkari, R.S. and Dutta, S.P., "Selection of Scheduling Rules in FMSs--A Simulation Approach", The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 6 No. 3, August 1991, pp. 246-62. 5. Rajamani, D. and Singh, N., "A Simulation Approach to the Design of an Assembly Lme: A Case Study", International Journal of Operations &Production Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, 1991, pp. 66-75. 6. Musselman, K.J., Martin, D.L. and Brouse, J., "Applying Simulation to Assembly Line Design", in Humon, R.d. (Ed.), Trends in Manufacturing Technology-Simulation, IFS Publications, Kempston, 1986, pp. 21-34. 7. Tedford, J.D., "A Comparative Evaluation of Simulation Software for Use in an Automobile Assembly Line", Transactions of Mechanical Engineering, Institution of Engineers Australia, Vol. ME16 No. 2, August 1991, pp. 163-7. 8. Leemis, L. Badiru, A., Foote, B.L., Ravindran, A. and Williams, L., "Job Shop Configuration Optimization at Tinker Air Force Base", Simulation, Vol. 54 No. 6, June 1990, pp. 287-90. 9. Schnur, J.A., "Stimulation through Simulation", CIM Review, Vol. 3 No. 2, Winter 1987, PP. 3-5. 10. Bradshaw, W.W., "Using Simulation to Upgrade a Warehouse Control System: TI Case Study", CIM Review, Winter 1987, pp. 33-41. 11. Banks, J., "The Simulation of Material Handling Systems", Simulation, Vol. 55 No. 5, November 1990, pp. 261-70. 12. Chaharbaghi, K., "Using Simulation to Solve Design and Operational Problems", International Journal of Operations &Production Management, Vol. 10 No. 9, 1991, pp. 89-105. 13. Fallon, D. and Browne, Jr, "Simulating Just-in-Time Systems", International Journal of Operations &Production Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, 1988, pp. 30-45. 14. Swinehart, K.D and Blackstone, J.H. J,, "Simulating a JIT/Kanban Production System Using GEMS", Simulation, Vol. 57 No. 4, October 1991, pp. 262-9. 15. Oliver, N., "Human Factors in the Implementation of Just-in-Time Production", International Journal of Operations &Production Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, 1990, pp. 32-40. 16. Sohal, A.S., Keller, A.Z. and Fouad, R.H., "A Review of Literature Relating to JIT", Internatianal Journal of Operations Production Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, 1989, pp. 15-25. 17. Gordon, G., The Aplication of GPSS V to Discrete System Simulation, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 30 September 2013 Page 9 of 10 ProQuest

1975. 18. Carrie, A., Simulation of Manufacturing Systems, John Wiley &Sons, New York, NY, 1988. Subject: Simulation; Performance evaluation; Models; Just in time; Implementations; Assembly lines; Advantages; Classification: 9130: Experimental/theoretical treatment; 5330: Inventory management Publication title: International Journal of Operations & Production Management Volume: 13 Issue: 4 Pages: 50 Number of pages: 25 Publication year: 1993 Publication date: 1993 Year: 1993 Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing, Limited Place of publication: Bradford Country of publication: United Kingdom Publication subject: Business And Economics--Management ISSN: 01443577 CODEN: IOPMDU Source type: Scholarly Journals Language of publication: English Document type: PERIODICAL Accession number: 00739963 ProQuest document ID: 232328270 Document URL: http://search.proquest.com/docview/232328270?accountid=25704 Copyright: Copyright MCB University Press Limited 1993 Last updated: 2010-06-10 Database: ProQuest Health Management,ProQuest Research Library,ABI/INFORM Global

_______________________________________________________________
Contact ProQuest

Copyright 2013 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms and Conditions

30 September 2013

Page 10 of 10

ProQuest