5&&3;$*755&G55&*7

4%K5>7 5 &3 K58 2553

Design Machine Configuration Using Simulation

1 2

. . 40002 : 087-2553101 E-mail: napito.watanabe@hotmail.com1,skanch@kku.ac.th2

technique processed by Arena program: production simulating

computer program. The study found that production pattern designed
increased throughput by 4.11% of current production and reduce lead
time spending by 6.3% respectively.

Keywords: Machine configuration, Simulation, Scheduling and Cell
manufacturing

1.







4.11%
6.3%

: , ,
,

Abstract
Hard Disk Drive (HDD) industry is a fast growing industry
business in Thailand which needs a large number of investments in term
of machinery and high value production area. HDD production has
constrains of traceability and contamination limitation that result in
inferior outcome, more lead time spending and low efficient of
machinery usage. Consequently, production designing needs to be at the
highest efficiency concerning traceability and protection of
contamination in production process. This study presents production
methods and machinery placement options in order to increase
production efficiency by designing algorithm and using simulation

108
 5&&3;$*755&G55&*7 4%K5>7 5 &3 K58 2553

( Grouping
efficiency) (quality index)
2008 Duran [2]
(Machine Configuration) ( cluster)

z] ( Throughput) Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)
( cycle time)
( Machine utilization)

( HDD) Slider cell 2007 Chen [4]
fabrication mmm

2.
2002 Spicer et Al. [10] 1999 Brah & Loo [11]
4 Flow shop
(1) pure serial lines, (2) pure parallel lines, (3) short serial
lines arranged in parallel (4) long serial lines arranged in parallel (Makespan) Mean flow time 5

Riane et al. [3]
Simulated annealing
(SA Algorithm) Regression analysis
(Variation)
Auto-adaptable Vamanana et al. [6]
Simulated Annealing based Heuristic (HASAH) CPLEX ARENA
2007 Safari & Saidi-Mehrabad [8] ARENA
Cell ( Simulation)
Fuzzy GUI
product mix ,

Vitanov et al. [12] ARENA
( Decision support tool) ATMs

cell Reza Abdi [5] 3 serial
configuration, parallel configuration hybrid configuration

(Analysis Hierarchy Process: AHP)

109
 5&&3;$*755&G55&*7 4%K5>7 5 &3 K58 2553

, , Sequencing Phase
Qui et al. [9] 4 Type-Fix (TF), First-Fit (FF), 3. Best-Fit
(BF) Random (RD)
Lower Bound
Sequencing phase Modified Johnsons
( Machine Sharing) ( Game Dispatching Phase First-Fit (FF)
Theory)


S. Benjaafar [7]
(Cellular Manufacturing Systems)

System Loading, 3.
(Batch Sizes)

common process
Der-Fang Shiau [13] ( Share)
common process
Constructive Genetic Algorithm (CGA)
Weighted Completion Time (WCT)
Weighted Shortest Processing Time (WSPT) ( Flexibility)
Shortest Processing Time (SPT) Pool
1
PFFS
Pool
(Contamination)
Lowa [1] (Traceability)
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 Pn
Cell 1

Cell 2

two stage
Common Process

Cell 3
Common Process

(Unrelated Machine) Cell 4

2 Sequencing Phase Cell m-1

4 Random Method, Pij with SPT, Qij wih LPT

Cell m

Modified Johnsons Rule 2 Dispatching Phase 1

110
 5&&3;$*755&G55&*7 4%K5>7 5 &3 K58 2553

1 2


() ()
A 18 Bars 860.63+UNIF[20, 29.9]+NORM[7. 62, 0.812]+TRIA[103, 117, 153.4] 18 Bars 1324.48+UNIF[40, 49]+TRIA[2.06, 3.11, 5.55]
B 12 Lots 1742.7+UNIF[62, 117]
C 18 Bars 135.41+TRIA[8, 9.41, 13.6]
D 12 Lots 1742.7+UNIF[62, 117] 12 Lots 1742.7+UNIF[62, 117]
E 112 Lots 15754.1+UNIF[7.54, 12.56]+TRIA[141, 168.9, 191] 112 Lots 15605.11+UNIF[7.54+12.56]+TRIA[264, 502, 659]
7 bars 865.84+TRIA[170.4, 198.62, 219.61] 5 Bars 411.4+UNIF[6, 7.49]+TRIA[13.03, 17.4, 20.6]
F 4 Bars 223.18+TRIA[73.7, 75.7, 77.9] 4 Bars 121.03+UNIF[9, 12.9]+TRIA[151.3, 161.9, 167.19]
1 Bar 192.18+UNIF[2, 13]+TRIA[139, 285, 624] 1 Bar 145.27+UNIF[16, 48.56]+TRIA[166, 384.1, 1013]
1 Bar 35.371 1 Bar 31.62+TRIA[2, 2.68, 8.87]
1 Lot 634.51 1 Lot 5.71+NORM[620,74.3]+TRIA[18, 32.3, 37]
12 Lots 1742.7+UNIF[62, 117] 12 Lots 1742.7+UNIF[62, 117]
20 Bars 624.36+UNIF[977, 134]
20 Bars 523.03+UNIF[33, 56]+TRIA[33,47.8,59]
G 20 Bars 1618.91+TRIA[219, 295.27, 333.73] 20 Bars 973.3+TRIA[555, 612, 744]
20 Bars 232.9+UNIF[62, 120] 20 Bars 184.06
H 42 Lots 3260+UNIF[8, 13] 42 Lots 3263+UNIF[8, 13]+TRIA[5, 12.7, 16]
I 4 Bars 498.09+TRIA[163.14, 191.24, 201.64]+UNIF[4, 6.57] 4 Bars 800.1+UNIF[51,79.9]+TRIA[6, 9.72, 10.8]
J 20 Lots 2213.75+UNIF[42, 70]+TRIA[86, 99.2, 140] 20 Lots 2304.41+UNIF[336, 581]+TRIA[8,19.7,21]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
A A1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
A2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
B 12 Common Process
C F1 2 Common Process
F2 3 Common Process
D 12 Common Process
E E1 3 Common Process
E2 4 Common Process
F F1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
F2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
F3 16 16 18 15 17 17 15 15 18 17 18
F4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
F5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
G G1 12 Common Process
H H1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
H2 6 6 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 4
I 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0
J J1 3 Common Process

111
 5&&3;$*755&G55&*7 4%K5>7 5 &3 K58 2553

3 Start

Process Flow matrix
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
C 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
D 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
E 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
F 4 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 7
G 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 8
H 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 6 Yes

I 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

J 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

No
Pool Pool


End

mmm 2
11

2 4.1
2
1 1 1
2 10
2,3,4, 12
2
3 3

1 2 3
1
1 1
4. 2 9, 10 11
3 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9 12

112
 5&&3;$*755&G55&*7 4%K5>7 5 &3 K58 2553

4.2 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 Pn

Cell 1

Cell 2

Common Process

Common Process
Cell 3

Cell 4

Cell 5

Cell 6

3.1 2
3.1 3.2
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 Pn
3.1 Cell 1

2 Cell 2

Common Procesa.s

Common Process
2 3.2 Cell 3

Cell 4
3
Cell 5
2
Cell 6

3.2 3
5.

2 ( 12 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
) 11 (Bottle neck)


2 2
3 3
2 3 ( Steady state) 2
6 4
Scenario 1: Scenario 1
( Independent production cells)
11
Scenario 2:

()
Scenario 3:
2 3
1, 2 3
Scenario 4:

2 3
4 Scenario 1

113
 5&&3;$*755&G55&*7 4%K5>7 5 &3 K58 2553

6.
3 3
4 5 2, 3
4 5 Scenario 3 (
) Scenario 3-6
3
(Cycle time) 3
(Sec./pcs.) Scenario 3-6 117,022
4 5 4.02% 38.81
Scenario 4-3 6.32%
4 Scenario 4 ()


Sub-
Scenario
Scenario

()
Scenario 4-3 3
()
117,124 4.11%
1 - - - - 112,502 41.43
38.82
2 - - - - 112,687 41.57
3 3-1 2 1 - 113,631 40.48 6.3%
3-2 3 1 - 116,863 38.84

6.
3-3 2 2 - 113,889 40.51
3-4 3 2 - 117,007 38.84
3-5 2 3 - 113,948 40.44
3-6 3 3 - 117,022 38.81
1
4 4-1 2 3 2,3 115,630 39.21
4-2 2 3 1,2 115,375 39.49
4-3 3 3 2,3 117,124 38.82

4-4 3 3 1,2 116,412 38.82
4-5 3 3 1,2,3 116,503 38.89

5
Sub- % %
Scenario
Scenario
2 - 0.16% 0.34%
3 3-1 1.00% 2.29%
3-2 3.88% 6.25%
3-3 1.23% 2.22%
3-4 4.00% 6.25%

3-5 1.29% 2.39%
3-6 4.02% 6.32%
4 4-1 2.78% 5.36%
4-2 2.55% 4.68%
4-3 4.11% 6.30%
4-4 3.48% 6.30%
4-5 3.56% 6.13%

114
 5&&3;$*755&G55&*7 4%K5>7 5 &3 K58 2553

[5] M. Reza Abdi (2005). Selection of a layout configuration for

reconfigurable manufacturing systems using the AHP. ISAHP
2005, Honolulu, Hawaii, July 8-10, 2005
[6] M. Vamanana, Q. Wangb, R. Batta and R. J. Szczerbad (2004).

Integration of COTS software products ARENA & CPLEX for an

inventory/logistics problem. Computers and Operations Research,
31(4), 533-547
[7] M. sheikhzadeh, S. Benjaafar and D. Gupta (1998). Machine
Sharing in Manufacturing Systems: Total Flexibility versus
Chaining. The International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing
Systems, 10: 351378
[8] N. Safaei, M. Saidi-Mehrabad, M. Babakhani (2007). Design

cellular manufacturing systems under dynamic and uncertain

conditions. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 18, 383-399
[9] R. G. Qui, S. Joshi and P. Mcdonnell (2004). An approch to
regulating machine sharing in reconfigurable back-end
semiconductor manufacturing. Journal of intelligent
manufacturing, 15, 597-591
[10] S. Spicer, Y. Koren, M. Shpitalni, D. Yip-Hoi (2002). Design
Principles for Machining System Configurations. CIRP Annals-
7. Manufacturing Technology, 51(1), 275-280
[11] S. A. Brah and L. L. Loo (1999), Heuristics for scheduling in a
( I/UCRC) flow shop with multiple processors. European Journal of
Operational Research, 113(1), 113-122
[12] V. Vitanov, B. Tjahjono, I. Marghalany (2007). A decision
,
support tool to facilitate the design of cellular manufacturing

layouts. Computer & Industrial Engineering, 52, 380-403

[13] Der-Fang Shiau, Shu-Chen Cheng and Yueh-Min Huang a (2008).
[1] C. Lowa, C.-J. Hsub and C.-T. Sub (2008). A two-stage hybrid Proportionate flexible flow shop scheduling via a hybrid
flowshop scheduling problem with a function constraint and constructive genetic algorithm. Expert Systems with Applications
unrelated alternative machines. Computers & Operations 34, 11331143
Research, 35, 845 853
[2] Duran, O. Rodriguez, N. Consalter, L.A. (2008). A PSO-based
Clustering Algorithm for Manufacturing Cell Design. Knowledge
Discovery and Data Mining, 2008. WKDD 2008, 72-75
.. 2550
[3] F. Riane, C. Raczy, A. Artiba (1999). Hybrid auto-adaptable

simulated annealing based heuristic. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 37(1-2), 277 280.
[4] J.- T. Chen (2007). Queueing models of certain manufacturing
cells under product-mix sequencing rules. European Journal of
Operation Research, 188, 826-837

115
 5&&3;$*755&G55&*7 4%K5>7 5 &3 K58 2553

-

Oklahoma
State
West Virginia

116