Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Technical paper
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 18 December 2014
Received in revised form 19 April 2015
Accepted 18 July 2015
Available online 31 October 2015
Keywords:
Multi-technology platforms
Productivity
Cost
Throughput times
a b s t r a c t
Manufacturing technology integration is an emerging paradigm that focuses on the functional integration of diverse manufacturing technologies into machine tools. This paper describes the application
of models of production, cost, and queuing theory to identify conditions under which manufacturing
technology integration yields greater productivity, lower cost, and decreased throughput times than
a manufacturing system comprising conventional single-technology machine tools. It was found that
manufacturing technology integration is particularly cost- efcient for small output quantities. However,
although the logistic chain is shortened through manufacturing technology integration, throughput times
might increase because of waiting times.
2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Society of Manufacturing Engineers.
1. Introduction
The layout of manufacturing systems and the design of machine
tools are governed by manufacturing paradigms that mirror
evolution-like mechanisms [13]. According to Koren et al., there
are three paradigms in manufacturing system design: dedicated,
exible, and recongurable [47]. The limited functions of a dedicated manufacturing system are intended for manufacturing, a
xed set of known products only. Flexible manufacturing systems
are initially equipped with an enhanced functional spectrum to
enable the manufacture of products that are unknown at the time of
system design. The recongurable manufacturing paradigm postulates that the ever-increasing volatility in terms of product volumes
and functional requirements may best be met by manufacturing
systems that are recongurable, that is, their functions may be
interchanged.
During the past decade, the economic justication of the recongurable manufacturing paradigm has received much academic
attention. [414] However, while this paradigm has been successfully applied to the design of recongurable assembly systems,
recongurable machine tools are not broadly implemented in
industry as yet [15]. First, the initial costs of recongurable machine
tools are higher than those of conventional machine tools [16].
Second, the maturity of the technology is still low [17]. Hence,
the recongurable manufacturing paradigm has not yet proven its
viability in terms of machine tool design.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 241 80 27400; fax: +49 241 80 22293.
E-mail addresses: s.toenissen@wzl.rwth-aachen.de (S. Tnissen),
j.rey@wzl.rwth-aachen.de (J. Rey), f.klocke@wzl.rwth-aachen.de (F. Klocke).
The breadth of scientic literature covering the economic justication of recongurable manufacturing systems is wide. However,
the actual evolution of the application of machine tools in industry
should rather be understood as a continuous functional enhancement based on the exible manufacturing paradigm. The latest
trend in this development is a functional enhancement that targets manufacturing technology integration, wherein machine tools
are enabled to execute diverse manufacturing technologies that
were previously installed on individual machine tools. This type
of a machine tool is referred to as multi-technology platforms
or multifunctional machine tools. In addition to multi-technology
platforms with one workspace, multi-technology platforms with
two workspaces have been studied in past research [1820].
To date, very little attention has been paid to the economic
justication of manufacturing technology integration; for example, the 2008 CIRP keynote paper on Multi-functional machine
tools provides only one citation that addresses economic justication comparisons [21]. Some machine tool builders have
developed platforms that have never been marketed. However,
other multi-technology platforms such as the Trumpf TruMatic,
which combines punching and laser cutting have been successfully
sold for decades [22], clearly illustrating the economic potential of
the manufacturing technology integration paradigm.
This paper shifts its focus from the economic justication of
recongurable machine tools to the economic efciency of manufacturing technology integration, because of its greater relevance
to actual machine tool development in industry. In section 2, key
terms regarding manufacturing technology integration are dened.
Section 3 derives efciency models of manufacturing technology
integration on the basis of production, cost, and queueing theory. In
section 4, the efciency models are applied to discuss the integrated
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2015.07.003
0278-6125/ 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Society of Manufacturing Engineers.
174
Table 1
List of acronyms.
Acronym
BN
cj
Cj
fl
IMS
Lpara
Lserial
m
MTP
n
o
ocrit
SMS
tco,j
top,j
tp,j
ttp,j
ttr,SMS
twc,j
T
Top
Um,max
x
xcrit,j
tco
top
tp
twc
j
N
op
tr
Unit
D/qty.
D
qty.
qty.
qty.
qty.
qty.
qty.
min
min
min
min
min
min
min
min
%
qty.
qty.
min
min
min
min
min1
min1
qty.
qty.
Description
Bottle-neck machine tool
Piece cost
Machine and operator cost per machine tool
Workload on l-th machine of segregated manufacturing system
Integrated manufacturing system
Number of paralleled machine tools
Number of serial machine tools
Lot size
Multi-technology platform
Number of features per workpiece
Number of orders
Critical output/productivity limit in terms of lots
Segregated manufacturing system
Changeover time per lot
Operation time per lot
Processing time per feature
Throughput time
Transportation time between machines of segregated manufacturing system
Workpiece change time per workpiece
Duration of reference period
Maximum operation time during reference period T
Maximum mean utilization of machine tools
Output quantity
Critical output/productivity limit in terms of workpieces
Difference in changeover time between multi-technology platform and bottleneck machine of segregated manufacturing system
Difference in operation time between multi-technology platform and bottleneck machine of segregated manufacturing system
Difference in processing time between multi-technology platform and bottleneck machine of segregated manufacturing system
Difference in workpiece change time between multi-technology platform and bottleneck machine of segregated manufacturing system
Arrival rate of orders
Service rate of orders
Characteristic threshold for lot size
Characteristic threshold for number of features
Ratio of operation times between multi-technology platform and segregated manufacturing system
Ratio of transportation time to operation time of segregated manufacturing system
Segregated
manufacturing
system
Integrated
manufactruring
system
2. Denition of terms
Technology chain
T1
T2
T3
T1, T2, T3
Multi-technology platforms
Focus of comparison
Fig. 1. Focus of comparison.
Low output*
Integrated
manufacturing system
175
Segregated
manufacturing system
High output
Serial configuration
Parallel configuration
Legend:
Machine tool
Profitability
Productivity
Throughput time
Precision synergy
effect
Monetary synergy
effect
Temporal synergy
effect
Manufacturing technology integration implies that the functions that were previously installed on separate single-technology
machine tools are integrated into a single multi-technology platform. For low output quantities, this functional integration creates
a functional synergy. This is because a single machine bed, a single operator, and a single machine control are required within
the integrated manufacturing system. However, within the segregated manufacturing system, multiple machine beds, operators,
and machine controls are required.
Depending on the workpiece to be machined and the manufacturing technologies combined, the functional synergy based on
manufacturing technology integration may create a precision, a
monetary, and a temporal synergy effect, as shown in Fig. 3. The precision synergy effect describes the enhancement of the workpiece
accuracy resulting from manufacturing technology integration,
because the workpiece may be machined in a single clamping. The
monetary synergy effect refers to the cost difference between a
multi-technology platform and a serial line of single-technology
machine tools within the segregated manufacturing system. The
monetary synergy effect is particularly great if functionally similar
manufacturing technologies such as drilling and milling are integrated. This is because in this combination, the same tool clamping
unit may be used in a machining center. Of course, the monetary
synergy effect is not quite as signicant if functionally dissimilar
manufacturing technologies such as turning and grinding are integrated. The temporal synergy effect of manufacturing technology
integration is based on the reduction of workpiece change time
because the workpieces may be machined in a single clamping.
The temporal synergy effect is related to protability, productivity, and throughput time, whereas the precision and the monetary
synergy effect solely inuences protability.
3. Efciency modeling
This section aims at the determination of the conditions for
the economic efciency of integrated manufacturing systems compared to segregated manufacturing systems using quantitative
models based on production, cost, and queuing theory. Three efciency criteria are reected in this analysis: productivity, cost, and
throughput time.
3.1. Productivity
The productivity of the integrated manufacturing system may be
measured by the operation time top,MTP required to manufacture a
specic product lot. This time is determined by the changeover time
tco,MTP , the lot size m, the workpiece change time twc,MTP , the number of workpiece features n, and the processing time per feature
tp,MTP according to the following expression:
(1)
(2)
Now, the conditions in terms of lot size m and number of workpiece features n will be identied for which the productivity of the
integrated manufacturing system is higher than that of the segregated manufacturing system. The productivity of the integrated
manufacturing system is higher if the operation time difference
top is less than zero.
top = top,MTP top,BN < 0
(3)
176
tco
twc
tp
(4)
synergy effect of manufacturing technology integration is not sufciently large to compensate for the smaller number of workspaces.
In short, the productivity of the multi-technology platform is less
than that of the bottleneck machine of the segregated manufacturing system.
xcrit,MTP < xcrit,BN .
In the following section, it will be discussed whether the differences in changeover, workpiece change, and the processing time
are greater or less than zero when an integrated manufacturing
system is compared to a segregated manufacturing system.
Changeover time tco is the time required to prepare a machine
tool to manufacture a particular lot. Since the multi-technology
platform is more complex than the single-technology machine
tool at the bottleneck of the segregated manufacturing system, it
seems reasonable to assume that the changeover time of the multitechnology machine tool tco,MTP is higher than that of the bottleneck
machine tco,BN .
Assumption : tco > 0
(5)
(7)
top < 0 n
3.2. Cost
This section discusses the conditions, wherein the piece cost of
an integrated manufacturing system cIMS is less than that of a segregated manufacturing system cSMS . This discussion is based on the
assumption that the productivity of a multi-technology platform
xcrit,MTP is less than that of the bottleneck machine of the segregated manufacturing system xcrit,BN . Furthermore, the material and
xed costs are considered equal for the integrated and the segregated manufacturing system, such that these cost fractions may be
neglected.
The piece cost of the integrated manufacturing system depends
on the number of paralleled multi-technology platforms Lpara,MTP ,
the machine and the operator cost of a multi-technology platform
CMTP , and the output quantity x.
cIMS =
twc
N=
m
tp
tco
M=
twc + ntp
(8)
(10)
Lserial
(6)
(9)
cSMS =
l=10
(12)
x
xcrit,l
(11)
CMTP
.
xcrit,MTP
(13)
The piece cost of the segregated manufacturing system converges to the sum of the ratios of machine and operator cost CMT,l
divided by the productivity limit xcrit,l :
CMT,l
Lserial
cSMS (x ) =
l=1
xcrit,l
(14)
(15)
*Configuration of
manufacturing system
IMS(
2xcrit,IMS
3xcrit,IMS
0
0
0
xcrit,IMS
177
SMS(xcrit,BN)
SMS(
0
00
Output quantity x
xcrit,3
manufacturing system. In this output domain, manufacturing technology integration is cost-efcient if the cost of a multi-technology
platform and its operator are less than the machine and operator
cost of a serial line of machine tools in a segregated manufacturing
system.
Lserial
(16)
l=1
For high output quantities, the cost threshold for machine and
operator cost of the multi-technology platform may be determined
by considering expressions (13) and (14).
<1
L
serial
l=1
xcrit,MTP
CMT,l , x .
xcrit,l
(17)
(18)
operation time during the reference period Top , and the operation
time per lot top .
xcrit,MTP =
mTop
.
top
(19)
Furthermore, the productivity limit of the l-th stage of the segregated manufacturing system depends on its workload fraction
fl .
xcrit,l =
mTop
mTop
=
.
top,l
top fl
(20)
(21)
Expressions (19), (20), and (21) are now substituted in expression (17) to determine the machine and operator cost threshold
of the multi-technology platform for high output quantities. If no
temporal synergy effect of manufacturing technology integration
exists, the machine and operator cost of a multi-technology platform must be less than that of a single-technology machine tool.
CMTP (x ) < CMT .
(22)
However, this is impossible since the complexity of the multitechnology platform is greater than that of a single-technology
machine tool. This contradiction will be called the paradox of manufacturing technology integration. This paradox illustrates that a
signicant temporal synergy effect is required such that the cost of
an integrated manufacturing system is lower than that of a segregated manufacturing system for high output quantities.
3.3. Throughput time
This section determines the conditions, wherein the throughput
time of a multi-technology platform is less than that of a serial line
of single-technology machine tools within the segregated manufacturing system.
ttp,MTP < ttp,SMS .
(23)
Since the threshold for machine and operator cost of the multitechnology platform is higher for output quantities beneath the
178
tr,SMS = 4
Threshold of operation
time ratio op [-]
Threshold of operation
time ratio op [-]
op,min
tr,SMS = 4
1,2
1.2
1,2
1.2
tr,SMS = 2
1,0
1.0
0,8
0.8
0,6
0.6
tr,SMS = 0
0,4
0.4
op,min
1
1.0
tr,SMS = 2
0,8
0.8
0,6
0.6
0,4
0.4
Assumption:
f2=f3=(1-f1)/3
tr,SMS = 0
0,2
0.2
0,2
0.2
0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0
25
50
75
25
100
50
75
100
Fig. 5. Operation time ratio for shorter throughput times of the integrated manufacturing systems.
(24)
o
.
T
(25)
1
top,MTP
(26)
According to the M/M/1 queueing model, the average throughput time of one order on a single multi-technology platform may
be determined by the following expression:
1
.
MTP
ttp,MTP =
(27)
max
= 0.8 max = Um,max MTP .
MTP
(28)
The service time at the l-th stage of the segregated manufacturing system may be determined on the basis of the operation time
top,SMS and the respective workload fl.
l =
1
.
top,SMS fl
(29)
Lserial
ttp,SMS =
1
+ ttr,SMS .
l
(30)
top,MTP
.
top,SMS
(31)
The smallest operation time ratios required for smaller throughput times occur if the multi-technology platform is utilized at the
maximum mean utilization Um,max , whereas the single-technology
machine tools of the segregated manufacturing system are only
partially utilized. Hence, the following equation must be solved to
determine the critical operation time ratio.
ttp,MTP =
1
< ttp,SMS =
MTP max
Lserial
1
+ ttr,SMS .
l max
(32)
ttr,SMS
.
top,SMS
(33)
179
Fig. 6. Rotary table of a machine tool.
ocrit,l = rounddown
Top
top,l
(34)
The left-side diagram in Fig. 8 depicts the piece cost progression of either manufacturing system over the number of orders o.
According to expression (16), the integrated manufacturing system
is more protable in a domain that is delimited by the critical output ocrit = 30 if the machine and operator cost of a single
multi-technology platform is smaller than that of the segregated
manufacturing system. This is the case for the exemplary values
depicted in Table 4.
CMTP = 10, 184.62 D <
CMT,l
l=1
4. Case study
The practical relevance of the results of section 3 will be elucidated using the following case study. Fig. 6 depicts a rotary table
of a machine tool from the workpiece spectrum of a machine tool
manufacturer. Workpieces with similar features but distinct geometric properties are manufactured in lot sizes of m = 10 in low
output quantities. The raw material is a cast body that requires
milling and drilling as a rst step. At the lower side, the rotary table
possesses two guideways that require grinding.
The end machining of the rotary table may be performed by a
segregated or an integrated manufacturing system, as shown in
Fig. 7. The segregated manufacturing system consists of milling
and grinding machines. The integrated manufacturing system
comprises multi-technology platforms that combine milling and
grinding.
In the following section, the relative economic efciency of the
integrated and the segregated manufacturing system will be discussed for variable output quantities. The conguration of either
manufacturing system is adjusted according to the output quantities to be machined. Hence, the integrated manufacturing system
may assume a parallel conguration comprising multi-technology
platforms, whereas the segregated manufacturing system may
assume a serial and parallel conguration of multiple milling and
grinding machines.
Table 2 illustrates the operation times per lot of the machine
tools of the integrated and the segregated manufacturing system. The operation time of the integrated manufacturing system
is less than that of the segregated manufacturing system due to the
temporal synergy effect of manufacturing technology integration.
Despite this, the productivity of a single multi-technology platform
is less than that of the bottleneck machine (milling machine) of the
segregated manufacturing system.
The relative protability and throughput times of manufacturing technology integration will be discussed during a reference
period of 4 weeks and for a variable number of orders, as shown
in Table 3. During the reference period of 4 weeks (T = 160 h),
the machine tools are used to a maximum mean utilization of
(35)
CMTP
= 33.95D <
/ cSMS (x ) = 13.67D
xcrit,MTP
+ 10.07D = 23.74D.
(36)
top,MTP
250 min
=
= 0.86.
top,SMS
290 min
(37)
180
Table 2
Operation times per lot of segregated and integrated manufacturing system.
Milling Machine
Grinding Machine
Multi-Technology Platform
15
1
15
175
15
2
8
115
20
1
22
250
Table 3
Duration of reference period and maximum operation time.
Weeks
160
80%
128
Table 4
Cost during reference period T.
Milling Machine
Grinding Machine
Multi-Technology Platform
5876.92
43
13.67
6646.15
66
10.07
10,184.62
30
33.95
1500
100
cIMS
50
IMS(x
SMS(x
ttp,SMS
*
Throughput time ttp [min]
Piece cost cj []
1000
ttp,IMS
500
cSMS
cIMS<cSMS
0
0
60
80
13
20
ttp,IMS<ttp,SMS
20 ocrit,MTP 40
ocrit,MTP 40
60
80
Fig. 8. Piece cost and throughput time progressions over number of orders.
References
[1] ElMaraghy H, AlGeddawy T, Azab A. Modelling evolution in manufacturing: a
biological analogy. CIRP Ann 2008;57(1):46772.
[2] Tolio T, Ceglarek D, ElMaraghy H, Fischer A, Hu S, Laperrire L, et al.
Speciesco-evolution of products, processes and production systems. CIRP Ann
2010;59(2):67293.
[3] ElMaraghy W, ElMaraghy H, Tomiyama T, Monostori L. Complexity in engineering design and manufacturing. CIRP Ann 2012;61(2):793814.
[4] Koren Y. The global manufacturing revolution: product-process-business integration and recongurable systems. 1st ed Hobok John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 2010.
p. 424.
[5] Koren Y, Shpitalni M. Design of recongurable manufacturing systems. J Manuf
Syst 2011;29(4):13041.
[6] Koren Y, Heisel U, Jovane F, Moriwaki T, Pritschow G, Ulsoy G, et al. Recongurable manufacturing systems. CIRP Ann 1999;48(2):52740.
[7] Landers LG, Min B-K, Koren Y. Recongurable machine tools. CIRP Ann
2001;50(1):26974.
[8] Renna P. Capacity reconguration management in recongurable manufacturing systems. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2010;46(14):395404.
[9] Meng X. Modeling of recongurable manufacturing systems based on colored
timed object-oriented Petri nets. J Manuf Syst 2010;29(23):8190.
[10] Abbasi M, Houshmand M. Production planning and performance optimization
of recongurable manufacturing systems using genetic algorithm. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 2011;54(14):37392.
[11] Reza Abdi M, Labib AW. Performance evaluation of recongurable manufacturing systems via holonic architecture and the analytic network process. Int J
Prod Res 2011;49(5):131935.
[12] Wang W, Koren Y. Scalability planning for recongurable manufacturing systems. J Manuf Syst 2012;31(2):3891.
[13] Goyal KK, Jain PK, Jain M. Optimal conguration selection for recongurable manufacturing systems using NSGA II and TOPSIS. Int J Prod Res
2012;50(15):417591.
181
[14] Kristianto Y, Gunasekaran A, Jiao J. Logical reconguration of recongurable manufacturing systems with stream of variations modelling: a
stochastic two-stage programming and shortest path model. Int J Prod Res
2014;52(5):140118.
[15] Wiendahl HP, ElMaraghy H, Nyhuis P, Zh M, Wiendahl HH, Dufe N, et al.
Changeable manufacturingclassication, design and operation. CIRP Ann
2007;56(2):783809.
[16] Abele E, Wrn A, Stroh C, Elzenheimer J. Multi machining technology integration in RMS. In: Proceedings of CIRP sponsored 3rd Conference on
Recongurable Manufacturing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan; 2005.
[17] ElMaraghy H. Recongurable process plans for responsive manufacturing systems. New York: Digital Enterprise Technology, Springer; 2007.
p. 3544.
[18] Tnissen S. Economic efciency of manufacturing technology integration. In:
Dissertation RWTH Aachen. Aachen, Germany: Apprimus-Verl; 2014.
[19] Brecher C, Breitbach T, Do-Khac D, Bumler S, Lohse W. Efcient utilization of
production resources in the use phase of multi-technology machine tools. Prod
Eng Res Dev 2013;7(4):44352.
[20] Tnissen S, Klocke F, Mattfeld P, Shirobokov A. Productivity boundaries of
multi-technology platforms with two workspaces. Procedia CIRP 2013;9:
137.
[21] Moriwaki T. Multi-functional machine tool. CIRP Ann 2008;57(2):73649.
[22] Arntz K, Brecher C, Bundschuh W, Deutges D, Eckert M, Emonts M, et al.
Hybride produktionstechnik. In: Brecher C, Klocke F, Schmitt R, Schuh G,
editors. Wettbewerbsfaktor produktionstechnik. Aachen: Shaker Verlag; 2011.
p. 31744.
[23] Koren Y, Hu SJ, Weber TW. Impact of manufacturing system conguration on
performance. CIRP Ann 1998;47(1):36972.
[24] Nazarian E, Ko J, Wang H. Design of multi-product manufacturing lines with
the consideration of product change dependent inter-task times, reduced
changeover and machine exibility. J Manuf Syst 2010;29(1):3546.
[25] Gross D, Shortle JF, Thompson JM, Harris CM. Fundamentals of queueing theory.
4th ed Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 2008. p. 528.