Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 37 (2015) 140 – 145

CIRPe 2015 - Understanding the life cycle implications of manufacturing

Real-time bottleneck detection and prediction to prioritize fault

repair in interlinked production lines
Michael Wedel1*, Michael von Hacht1, Ralf Hieber2, Joachim Metternich3 and Eberhard Abele3

1
Daimler AG, Hanns-Martin-Schleyer-Str. 21-57, 68305 Mannheim, Germany
2
Daimler AG, Hedelfinger Str. 4 – 11, 73734 Esslingen,Germany
3
TU Darmstadt Technical University, Otto-Berndt-Straße 2, 64287 Darmstadt,Germany

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-621-393-3158; fax: +49-711-3052-124200. E-mail address: michael.wedel@daimler.com

Abstract

To identify the momentary bottleneck of serial production lines with finite buffers is still a challenge in the automobile industry. In literature
there are already some detection methods. However, these methods lack the applicability for a real-time fault repair prioritization. A new
method is being developed because of this disadvantage to detect the bottlenecks by analyzing the increase and decrease of buffer levels. This
method has the benefit of detecting the real-time bottlenecks as well as giving a forecast bottleneck emerging in the near future by indicating
the remaining time until a machine becomes one. The new fault repair prioritization method was validated in a material flow simulation of a
production line. This simulation indicates a significant output increase. In the following steps, the new method is going to be implemented in a
case study.

© 2015
© 2015 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier
Elsevier B.V.
B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the International Scientific Committee of the “4th CIRP Global Web Conference” in the
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
person of theunder
Peer-review Conference Chair of
responsibility Dr.the
John Ahmet Erkoyuncu.
organizing committee of CIRPe 2015 - Understanding the life cycle implications of manufacturing

Keywords: bottleneck; manufacturing; prioritization

1. Introduction The aim of the new prioritization

method is to reduce the reaction
time on current output critical
In the machining area of the automotive industry one big machines.
challenge is the output increase of serial production lines with
finite buffers. The output of these production lines is limited
by the throughput of a bottleneck process [1]. Depending on
technical and organizational parameters the bottleneck process
changes over time. To increase the systems throughput the
bottleneck has to be detected and improved [2]. One Availability losses
improvement possibility is the rise of the availability. The
availability losses include all losses due to equipment failure
as well as setup and adjustment downtimes [3] as is shown in
Fig. 1. Equipment failure can be further split into “reaction
time for repair” and the “repair duration”.
One possibility to reduce availability losses and increase Fig. 1. Availability losses on a machine according to Nakajima [3] and
the output of the system is to reduce the reaction time for supplemented by the "Reaction time for repair" and the "Repair duration"

2212-8271 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of CIRPe 2015 - Understanding the life cycle implications of manufacturing
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2015.08.071
 Michael Wedel et al. / Procedia CIRP 37 (2015) 140 – 145
repair (as is shown in Fig. 1) at the faulted real-time
bottleneck which also will reduce the key performance
indicator “mean time to repair” (MTTR; often used in lean
production). Therefore, an effective fault repair prioritization
focusing on bottlenecks is needed which is already a known
method for maintenance prioritization [4]. Most long-term or
short-term bottleneck detection methods are used for
maintenance prioritization, which determine the bottleneck for
a selected longer time period (long-term) [5] or for a day
(short-term) [6]. It is also known that maintenance
prioritization based on short-term bottlenecks results in a
higher output increase than focusing on long-term bottlenecks
[7, 8]. The reason behind this fact is that in balanced
production lines with nearly identical cycle times [9] the
bottleneck shifts randomly [10] with different probabilities.
When taking into account this behavior a fault repair
prioritization according to real-time bottlenecks and in
addition to near future bottlenecks are a challenge but it
should even be more effective, too.
2. Previous Work on bottleneck definitions and detection
methods
A sizeable amount of literature about bottleneck
definitions exists but none of these definitions are for general
usage [11]. All definitions agree to the fact that the bottleneck
has a negative impact on the output of the production system.
The negative impact is commonly described as: “constraining
the system” [12].
As already described in the introduction, bottlenecks are
not stable in serial production lines, as they shift randomly due
to machine downtimes (faults, tool changes, preventive
maintenance…) [13]. The more a line is balanced, the more
the bottleneck shifts [14]. For the evaluation of the balanced
rate of the production line the utilization formula of Lawrence
et al. can be used [10]:
஛೔
ߩ௜ ൌ (1)
ఓ೔
In this formula ߩ௜ is the utilization rate, ɉ௜ the arriving rate
of parts and ߤ௜ the distribution of the service time. If the ߩ௜ of
every machine of the line has the same value, the bottleneck
shiftiness will occur most frequently [10]. The shifting
bottleneck phenomenon is the reason why long-term and
short-term bottleneck detection methods oversee temporary
bottlenecks [15] which implies the need to prioritize fault
repair based on real-time bottlenecks. Generally bottleneck
detection methods can be separated into simulation based and
analytical methods [7], the latter of which is the focus of this
paper.
The real-time bottleneck is a special form of a momentary
bottleneck. Momentary bottlenecks are ones that can occur at
any point in time [16], and any point in time can even be
defined as the current moment (real-time). In literature there
are two main methods for detecting momentary bottlenecks.
The first method analyzes the waiting time of the parts in
front of a machine, which is comparable to analyzing the
queue length in front of this machine [10]. The momentary
bottleneck of a production line is the machine, which is
141
downstream of the buffer with most of the parts [17, 18]. This
method works well by analyzing job flow systems. If the
production line has finite buffers [19] or no buffers at all [16],
this method cannot be used and it will not be applicable if
several machines get their parts from one buffer [20].
The second method is the active period method by Roser
et al.. Roser’s method analyzes how long a machine is in
active mode (produces parts, is faulted, has a tool change etc).
If the machine becomes idle, the active mode will change into
inactive. The momentary bottleneck at a point of time is the
machine with the longest uninterrupted active time [16]. Yang
et al. modified the active period method by defining the active
time as the time only when the machine is in production [6].
Eskandari et al. declared the “criticality indicators based
method” as a further method for detecting momentary
bottlenecks [21]. This method was derived from Králová et al.
and has the aim to detect machines with critical capacities [22,
23]. The criticality indicators based method relies entirely on
averages, and this aspect emphasizes the methods inability to
fully capture the bottleneck shiftiness of real-time bottlenecks
[14].
Another possible time focus for the bottleneck detection is
the bottleneck prediction [24, 25], which is also an important
piece of information for the fault repair prioritization: Ni and
Jin see a high potential in prioritizing maintenance tasks by
analyzing future bottlenecks [26]. In literature, there are
already some bottleneck prediction methods. These are based,
for example, on stochastic models like the ANFIS [27] or the
ARMA model [24]. In comparison to the long-term, to the
short-term and to the momentary bottleneck detection
methods, the bottleneck prediction received less focus in
literature the few last years. Only Lee and Ni used a
bottleneck prediction for a fault repair prioritization (fault
repair prioritization according on the urgency) [28], by
analyzing the increase and decrease of the buffer level. While
the first step of the newly derived method in this paper is also
based on this idea, it can also be applied for more complex
production lines with parallel machines as well as to detect
the real-time bottleneck in a serial production line.
3. Conclusion of the literature review
In literature there are a lot of bottleneck detection methods
which can be sectioned into long-term, short-term, momentary
bottleneck detection methods, or bottleneck prediction
methods. However, there is no method for a fault repair
prioritization that focuses on the real-time bottlenecks as well
as on the near future bottlenecks in a complex production line
with parallel machines and finite buffers. This information is
crucial for a fault repair prioritization in the daily business of
the automotive industry. Therefore, the lack of applicability
was the motivation to derive a new and faster method. When
implementing this method, a fault repair prioritization for the
operator or for maintenance personnel can be issued at the
serial production line on the plant floor. This change will help
to reduce the reaction time on bottlenecks and increases the
output by repairing the machines in the order they are actually
limiting the production line output. The benefit of the new
method will be shown by a simulation at the end of this paper.
142 Michael Wedel et al. / Procedia CIRP 37 (2015) 140 – 145
4. A method for detecting real-time and near future
bottlenecks
In this paper a bottleneck is defined as a machine that has a
negative impact on the output of other machines by a
disturbance of the throughput (as previously mentioned). This
adverse impact results in idle time at nearby machines. The
reason for the idle time at upstream machines are full buffers
and at downstream machines empty buffers. This phenomenon
will result if the bottleneck machine has, for example, a fault,
a tool change, a cleaning or if its cycle time is higher than the
cycle time of the nearby machine. The new method focuses on
the unplanned standstills (faults) because this is the point of
interest for the operator and maintenance. The idea of the
method is to concentrate on the decrease and increase of the
buffer levels between the machines (step 1, according to the
idea of Lee and Ni [28]) as well as analyzing the prioritization
of the fault repairs if the capacity of the buffers reaches its
limit (step 2). This approach allows for detecting the real-time
bottleneck as well as giving a forecast when a machine will
become a bottleneck by analyzing the remaining time until a
nearby machine gets idle. Finally, the case will be analyzed
only if parallel machines are faulted (step 3).
4.1. Step 1
Fig. 2. Serial production line with finite buffers
For the derivation of the new method it helps to start with
an easy example as in Fig. 2. There are two sections (machine
i-1 until i+1 and n-1 until n+1) of a serial production line
shown with interlinked machines (Mx). Between the machines
there are finite buffers (Bx) and between the two sections there
are even more machines, which are not the focus of the
derivation. The two red colored machines (Mi and Mn) have a
fault at the time t0 (the grey colored machines are still running
and the grey colored buffers have not reached their capacity
limits yet). If there is only one operator or only one maintainer
available, then the question will arise, which machine should
be repaired first? In practice, the person would select
intuitively a machine (if no machine was allocated by the
supervisor). The person is mainly focused on achieving the
maximal possible output, but his selection has the possibility
of being right or wrong. The new method will help to
prioritize the right machine to achieve the highest possible
output.
In Fig. 2 none of the faulted machines affect other
machines as long as protective buffer capacities are not
reached. To calculate the remaining time until a negative
impact occurs, the buffer levels have to be analyzed: The
buffer Bi-1 in front of machine Mi will reach its maximum
capacity (full) after the time duration
‫ݐ‬௙௜ିଵ ൌ ൫‫ܤ‬௜ିଵ௠௔௫ െ ‫ܤ‬௜ିଵ ሺ‫ݐ‬଴ ሻ൯ ‫ݐܿ כ‬௜ିଵ
and the buffer Bi downstream of machine Mi will be empty
after the time duration
‫ݐ‬௘௜ ൌ ‫ܤ‬௜ ሺ‫ݐ‬଴ ሻ ‫ݐܿ כ‬௜ାଵ . (3)
In both formulas ܿ‫ ݐ‬is the cycle time (once for machine
Mi-1 and once for machine Mi+1). ‫ܤ‬௜ିଵ௠௔௫ is the maximal
number of parts that can be stored in buffer ‫ܤ‬௜ିଵ and ‫ܤ‬௜ ሺ‫ݐ‬଴ ሻ is
the number of parts in buffer ‫ܤ‬௜ at the time ‫ݐ‬଴ (respectively
‫ܤ‬௜ିଵ ሺ‫ݐ‬଴ ሻ ). Analogous to formula (2) and (3) the time
durations ‫ݐ‬௙௡ିଵ and ‫ݐ‬௘௡ can be calculated for the buffers next
to the faulted machine Mn. After this, the shortest time ܵܶ
until a nearby machine will be negatively impacted can be
determined by:
ܵܶ ൌ ‹ሺ‫ݐ‬௙௜ିଵ Ǣ ‫ݐ‬௘௜ Ǣ ‫ݐ‬௙௡ିଵ Ǣ ‫ݐ‬௘௡ ሻ (4)
The faulted machine with the shortest time ܵܶ until a
nearby buffer first reaches its capacity limits (full or empty),
must be prioritized for the fault repair (according to [28]).
Formula (4) also gives the information of how long the repair
of the prioritized machine may continue until this machine
will become a bottleneck (bottleneck prediction).
The serial production lines in the automobile industry are
mostly more complex than the line in Fig. 2. A large portion
of serial production lines have parallel machines like in Fig. 3:
Fig. 3. Serial production line with parallel machines and finite buffers
In case one or more parallel machines are faulted in a
block of parallel machines (like the two red colored machines
in Fig. 3), the other parallel machines continue processing
parts. This scenario is the reason why formula (2) and (3) must
be adapted. Therefore, the common buffer formula ‫ܤ‬௫ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ can
be used:
‫ܤ‬௫ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ൌ ‫ܤ‬௫ ሺ‫ݐ‬଴ ሻ ൅
௧
െ
௧
(5)
௖௧ೣ ௖௧ೣశభ
This formula considers the current buffer level at a time ‫ݐ‬଴
as well as the increase and decrease of the buffer level in
dependence of the time t. In formula (5) ‫ܤ‬௫ ሺ‫ݐ‬଴ ሻ is the buffer
level at the time ‫ݐ‬଴ , ܿ‫ݐ‬௫ the cycle time of the nearby upstream
machine (or the upstream parallel machines), ܿ‫ݐ‬௫ାଵ the cycle
time of the downstream machine (or downstream parallel
machines) next to the buffer and ‫ ݐ‬a multiple of ܿ‫ݐ‬௫ and ܿ‫ݐ‬௫ାଵ .
Solving formula (5) for – and setting ୶ ሺ–ሻ ൌ ୶୫ୟ୶ (the
buffer level has reached the maximum) the remaining time till
the buffer Bi-1 in Fig. 3 reaches its capacity limit is:
൫஻೔షభ೘ೌೣ ି஻೔షభ ሺ௧బ ሻ൯‫כ‬௖௧೔ ‫כ‬௖௧೔షభ
(2) ‫ݐ‬௙௜ିଵ ൌ ቚ ቚ (6)
௖௧೔ ି௖௧೔షభ
 Michael Wedel et al. / Procedia CIRP 37 (2015) 140 – 145
The remaining time till the buffer is empty (‫ܤ‬௫ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ൌ Ͳሻ can be
analyzed analogously:
஻೔ ሺ௧బ ሻ‫כ‬௖௧೔ ‫כ‬௖௧೔శభ
‫ݐ‬௘௜ ൌ ቚ ቚ (7)
௖௧೔ ି௖௧೔శభ
For formula (6) we suppose, that the buffer level will
increase and for formula (7) that the buffer level will
decrease. In the special case, where a buffer level after a block
of parallel machines can increase and upstream buffer level
can decrease, the buffers must first be analyzed in more detail
before using the above mentioned formulas. Hence, the first
step is to investigate every buffer to see if the buffer level is
increasing or decreasing by:
‫ܤ‬ሶ௫ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ൌ
ଵ
െ
ଵ
(8)
௖௧ೣ ௖௧ೣశభ
If ‫ܤ‬ሶ௫ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ൏ Ͳ, the buffer level will decrease; if ‫ܤ‬ሶ௫ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ൐ Ͳ,
the buffer level will increase and if ‫ܤ‬ሶ௫ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ൌ Ͳ, the buffer level
will stay constantly. In the case that the buffer level in front of
the block of parallel machines in Fig. 3 is decreasing then
instead of formula (6) the formula (9) has to be used:
൫஻೔షభ ሺ௧బ ሻ൯‫כ‬௖௧೔ ‫כ‬௖௧೔షభ
‫ݐ‬௙௜ିଵ ൌ ቚ ቚ (9)
௖௧೔ ି௖௧೔షభ
If the downstream buffer is increasing the following formula
has to be taken instead of formula (7):
ሺ஻೔షభ೘ೌೣ ି஻೔షభ ሺ௧బ ሻሻ‫כ‬௖௧೔ ‫כ‬௖௧೔శభ
‫ݐ‬௘௜ ൌ ቚ ቚ (10)
௖௧೔ ି௖௧೔శభ
In formula (6), (7), (9) and (10) ܿ‫ݐ‬௜ is the resulting cycle time
of the still processing parallel machines:
ିଵ
ଵ
ܿ‫ݐ‬௜ ൌ ൤σ௭௬ୀଵ ൨ (11)
௖௧೔೤
In formula (11) ܿ‫ݐ‬௜௬ is the current cycle time of every
parallel machine of the parallel machine block. If the machine
is faulted, the cycle time of this machine will be λ . By
analyzing the limiting value, the cycle time of a faulted
machine is not taken into consideration in formula (11).
The faulted machine with overall minimum value of tfi-1, tei,
tfn-1 or ten has to be prioritized:
ܲ‫ ݋݅ݎ‬ൌ ‹ൣ‫ݐ‬௙௜ିଵ Ǣ ‫ݐ‬௘௜ Ǣ ‫ݐ‬௙௡ିଵ Ǣ ‫ݐ‬௘௡ ൧
4.2. Step 2
For the special case that a faulted machine has no buffer or
the buffer has reached its capacity limit, this machine has an
even higher priority because the faulted machine causes a
negative impact on nearby machines (bottleneck). Hence, the
case ‫ܤ‬ሶ௫ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ൌ Ͳ has to be analyzed. The reasons for ‫ܤ‬ሶ௫ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ൌ
Ͳcan be:
1. The downstream buffer is full (no priority).
2. The upstream buffer is empty (no priority).
143
3. The downstream buffer is empty or there is no
buffer (high priority).
4. The upstream buffer is full or there is no buffer
(high priority).
5. The cycle time of still running parallel machines has
the same value as the downstream or upstream
nearby machine(s) (no priority).
If there is no upstream or downstream buffer or the buffer
capacities are exhausted (category 3 and 4), the faulted
machine will have a negative impact on other machines
(bottleneck). If more than one machine belongs to category 4
and 5, it must be analyzed which of these machines must be
repaired first. To identify this machine, it must be understood
which machine causes the biggest loss of value added. Cycle
time can be seen as the representative of value, which a
machine adds to the part. According to this viewpoint, the
faulted machine that generates the highest loss of value added
to idle machines has the highest priority:
ܲ‫ ݋݅ݎ‬ൌ ݄݉ܽܿ݅݊݁‫ ݔ݄ܽ݉ݐ݅ݓ‬σ௫௡ୀଵ ܿ‫ݐ‬௡ (13)
In formula (14) x is the number of machines that are idle
because of the faulted machine and ܿ‫ݐ‬௡ is the cycle time that
every particular machine needs to process parts.
4.3. Step 3
For the special case that only machines are faulted parallel
to each other, downstream and upstream buffers do not need
to be analyzed. The parallel machines can be seen as one
machine on the line that has a reduced resulting cycle time if
one or more of the parallel machines are faulted. For the fault
repair prioritization it is more interesting to know which
machine can be repaired in the shortest time. Therefore, the
analysis of the fault specific mean time to repair (MTTRF) is
important.
The analysis of only the MTTRF would provide the right
priority if all parallel machines had the same cycle time. In
practice the cycle time of parallel machines slightly differs.
Hence, the minimal value of the multiplication of the fault
specific mean time to repair and the cycle time characterizes
the machine that has priority:
ܲ‫ ݋݅ݎ‬ൌ ݄݉ܽܿ݅݊݁݅‫݄݊݅݉ݐ݅ݓ‬ሾ‫ܴܶܶܯ‬ி௜ ‫ݐܿ כ‬௜ ሿ (14)
(12)
When examining parallel machines, there is another
special scenario to consider if the loader L in Fig. 3 (e.g. a
gantry or a robot) of the parallel machines is faulted. In this
case, every single parallel machine will stop working after
finishing the current cycle. If the loader is faulted, it will be
reflected in the algorithm as if all parallel machines, which get
supplied by the loader, are faulted.
The derived method can also be used for a priority
analysis of more than two faulted machines. In order to do so,
the buffers next to all faulted machines have to be analyzed.
With the help of Step 1, 2 and 3 the machine with the highest
priority, as well as priority ranking of other faulted machines
can be detected.
144 Michael Wedel et al. / Procedia CIRP 37 (2015) 140 – 145

5. Simulation of the fault repair prioritization method Table 2. Buffer capacities (maximal number of parts)

5.1. Simulation description

B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9
The derived prioritization method was tested by a capacity 56 100 92 48 88 64 16 44 76
simulation with the software PLANTSIMULATION and a
model of a real production line was implemented. This The simulation runs several times with and without the
production line was selected because it consists of buffer above presented method. Each of the simulation periods
linked machines, no buffer linked machines and parallel spanned ten working days (longer simulation did not produce
machines, which were loaded by a loader. The different results).
aforementioned steps are all presented in the production line
of Fig. 5. 5.2. Simulation results

In Fig. 4 the results of the material flow simulation are

shown. The diagram shows the throughput proportion
depending on the number of workers and on different fault
repair prioritization methods is illustrated. The throughput
proportion is calculated by dividing the throughput of the
production line in dependency of the constellation with the
maximum throughput. This maximum throughput is achieved
by having similar number of repair personnel and machines
Fig. 5. Simulated serial production line
available. In this case no machine has to wait for a repair.
The part supply of the production line is not in focus, so in
the simulation M1 is a part source and M15 a part sink.
Between some machines M there are buffers B and the +4,5%
parallel machines M3-1/M3-2 are loaded by a loader L.

Cycle
Machine MTTR MTBF time
M2 0:04:55 0:50:59 17.6
Loader L 0:02:41 0:30:01
M3-1 0:07:22 0:41:21 24.4
M3-2 0:06:55 0:25:27 24.4
M4 0:00:45 0:51:58 19.0
M5 0:04:28 1:20:13 18.6
M6 0:03:08 1:17:18 17.5
M7 0:07:58 1:20:12 17.6
M8 0:10:44 1:34:22 17.9 Fig. 4. Simulation results
M9 0:07:01 0:42:21 18.4
M10 0:10:21 0:24:19 17,6 Fig. 4 shows that the newly developed prioritization
M11 0:04:56 1:09:53 19.2 method increases the throughput in all case compared to the
M12 0:07:41 2:27:36 17.6 “first come first serve” prioritization. In the special case only
M13 0:03:22 1:50:11 17.6 one worker is assigned to the production line, the throughput
M14 0:05:58 1:29:00 17.6 is low because one worker cannot handle the fault repairs
adequately. Consequentially, in many cases the buffers reach
Table 1. Provided data for the simulation
their capacity limits and the throughput of the line collapses.
If two workers are available, the impact of the
Table 1 shows the mean time to repair (MTTR) and mean prioritization method will show its highest effect (gaining
time between failure (MTBF) data from a real production line throughput of 4.5%). If more than two workers are available
which was used for the simulation. For the loader L no cycle in the production line, a positive but a smaller impact can be
time is specified because in the simulation it receives a observed. This conclusion is due to the fact that both methods
driving command from M3-1 or from M3-2 as soon as they result in a saturated condition. Using the “first come first
have finished their production cycle. Table 2 shows the buffer serve” prioritization method, the saturated condition (nearly
capacities that got used for the simulation. maximum throughput) is achieved with five workers. On the
If a fault occurs the worker will be sent to the faulted other hand, the new prioritization method already delivers the
machine. As long as more workers are available than faults maximum output with three workers. Hence, the new method
occur, a prioritization method is not needed. If more faults are allows the manager the possibility of running the production
in the production line than workers are available, the new line more effectively (throughput increase), more efficiently
method will determine which machine will have to be (decrease the number of worker), or both.
repaired first. The assumption must be made that all workers
are equally qualified for repair.
 Michael Wedel et al. / Procedia CIRP 37 (2015) 140 – 145
6. Conclusion and future work
In this paper a new fault repair prioritization method for
serial interlinked production lines with finite buffers was
developed that aims to decrease the reaction time on
throughput critical machines. The prioritization method is
focusing on real-time and near future bottlenecks because
these bottlenecks are decreasing the throughput of the
production line currently or will decrease it in near future.
Therefore, two new bottleneck detection methods were
developed in this paper. The newly introduced real-time
bottleneck detection method analyzes the loss of value added
of idle machines. The second method, which detects the near
future bottleneck, is focusing on the buffer levels and is a
further development of the ideas of Lee and Ni [28]. The
simulation of the new prioritization method compared to the
“first come first serve” method shows a throughput increase
up to 4.5%. In exchange for output, it is also possible to
economize repair personnel.
The introduced method is a link between machines and
operators, and specifically helps the worker to work more
effectively. Future research work should quantify the benefit
of the new method for different production lines in the
automotive industry, especially production lines with a high
product variety. Another application possibility can be found
in the field of logistic processes, but further work must be
conducted.
In the following steps, the new prioritization method is
going to be implemented in a case study to verify the output
increase. Therefore, the data of the manufacturing data
collecting system is going to be obtained and the fault repair
prioritization is going to be displayed on the Andon Boards as
well as on computer tablets. The new method should also
contribute to the science project “Industry 4.0”.
7. Acknowledgement
The authors thank Ulrich Burges (SimPlan AG) for
implementing the new fault repair prioritization method into
an existing production line simulation model and Heiko
Noessler (Daimler AG) for providing the data for the
simulation. We would also like to thank Philipp Noessler
(Daimler AG) for his assistance in the review process.
8. References
[1] Lemessi M, Rehbein S, Rehn G. Semi-automatic simulation-based
bottleneck detection approach. Proceedings of the 2012 Winter
Simulation Conference 2012.
[2] Goldratt EM, Cox J. The Goal: A process of ongoing improvement.
20th anniversary edition, Edition: 3, Productivity & Quality Publishing
Private Limited 2004.
[3] Nakajima S. Introduction to TPM: Total productive maintenance.
Productivity Press Cambridge 1988.
[4] Li L, Ambani S, Ni J. Plant-level maintenance decision support system
for throughput improvement. International Journal of Production
Research 2009; Vol. 47, No. 24, p. 7041-7061.
[5] Roser C, Nakano M, Tanaka M. Detecting shifting bottlenecks.
International Symposium on Scheduling 2002; p. 59-62.
[6] Yang K, Chung Y, Park SC. Short-term bottleneck detection for
process planning in a FAB. International Journal of Computer and
Communication Engineering 2014; Vol. 3, No. 6, p. 442-445.
145
[7] Chang Q, Ni J, Bandyopadhyay P, Biller S, Xiao G. Supervisory
factory control based on real-time production feedback. Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Engineering 2007; Vol. 129, p. 653-660.
[8] Li L, Ni J. Short-term decision support system for maintenance task
prioritization. International Journal of Production Economics 2009;
121, p. 195-202.
[9] Conway R, Maxwell W, McClain JO, Thomas LJ. The role of work-in-
process inventory in serial production lines. Operation Research 1988;
Vol. 36, No. 2, p. 229-241.
[10] Lawrence SR, Buss AH. Shifting production bottlenecks: causes, sures,
and conundrums. Production and Operations Management 1994; Vol.
3, No 1; p. 21-37.
[11] Wang Y, Zhao Q, Zheng D. Bottleneck in production networks: An
overview. Journal of Systems Science and System Engineering 2005;
Vol. 14, No. 3, p. 347-363.
[12] Kuo CT, Lim JT, Meerkov SM. Bottlenecks in serial production lines:
a system-theorethic approach. MPE 1996;Vol. 2, p. 233-276.
[13] Sengupta S, Das K, VanTil RP. A new method for bottleneck
detection. Proceedings of the 2008 Winter Simulation Conference
2008; p. 1741-1745.
[14] Roser C, Lorentzen K, Deuse J. Reliable shop floor bottleneck
detection for flow lines through process and inventory observation.
Procedia CIRP 19 2014; p. 63-68 .
[15] Wang Z, Chen J, Wu Q. A new method of dynamic bottleneck
detection for semiconductor manufacturing line. The International
Federation of Automatic Control 2008; p. 14840-14845.
[16] Roser C, Nakano M, Tanaka M. Shifting bottleneck detection.
Proceedings of the 2002 Winter Simulation Conference. 2002; p. 1079-
1086.
[17] Li L, Chang Q, Ni J, Xiao G, Biller S. Bottleneck detection of
manufacturing systems using data driven method. International
Symposium on Assembly and Manufacturing 2007; p. 76-81.
[18] Betterton CE, Silver SJ. Decting bottlenecks in serial production lines
– a focus on interdeparture time variance. International Journal of
Production Research 2012; Vol. 50, No. 15, p. 4158-4174.
[19] Roser C, Nakano M, Tanaka M. A practical bottleneck detection
method. Proceedings of the 2001 Winter Simulation Conference 2001;
p. 949-953.
[20] Roser C, Nakano M. Constraint management in manufacturing
systems. JSME International Journal 2003; Vol. 46, No. 1, p. 73-80.
[21] Eskandari H, Babolmorad N, Farrokhnia N. Bottleneck analysis in a
pharmaceutical production line using simulation approach. Proceedings
of the 2013 Summer Computer Simulation Conference 2013.
[22] Leporis M, Králová Z. A simulation approach to production line
bottleneck analysis. International Conference Cybernetics and
Informatics 2010.
[23] Králová Z, Bielak M. Synchronizácia výrobného proceso s využitím
simulácie vo witnesse. 7. Konference Witness 2004.
[24] Li L, Chang Q, Xiao G, Ambani S. Throughput bottleneck prediction
of manufacturing systems using time series analysis. Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Engineering 2011; Vol. 133.
[25] Arab A, Ismail N, Lee LS. Maintenance scheduling incorporating
dynamics of production system and real-time information from
workstations. J Intell Manuf 2013; 24, p. 695-705.
[26] Ni J, Jin X. Decision support systems for effective maintenance
operations. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology 61 (2012); p.
411-414.
[27] Cao Z, Deng J, Liu M, Wang Y. Bottleneck prediction method based
on improved adaptive network-based fuzzy interference system
(ANFIS) in semiconductor manufacturing system. Chinese Journal of
Chemical Engineering 20 (6), 2012; p. 1081-1088.
[28] Lee S, Ni J. Joint decision making for maintenance and production
scheduling of production system. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology 2013; p. 977-990.