Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
ScienceDirect
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia Manufacturing 39 (2019) 1010–1019

25th International Conference on Production Research Manufacturing Innovation:

25th International Conference
Cyberon Production
Physical Research Manufacturing Innovation:
Manufacturing
Cyber Physical Manufacturing
August 9-14, 2019 | Chicago, Illinois (USA)
August 9-14, 2019 | Chicago, Illinois (USA)
Mitigating
Mitigating the
the Effects
Effects of
of Bottlenecks
Bottlenecks in
in Wagon
Wagon Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Furkan Uludağaa, Yahya Olabiaa, Elif Elçin Günaya*, Gül Erdem Okudan Kremerb
Furkan Uludağ , Yahya Olabi , Elif Elçin Günaya*, Gül Erdem Okudan Kremerb
a
Sakarya University, Department of Industrial Engineering, Sakarya, 54050, Turkey
b a
SakaryaDepartment
Iowa State University, University, Department
of Industrialofand
Industrial Engineering,
Manufacturing Sakarya,
Systems 54050,Ames,
Engineering, TurkeyIA, 50011, USA
b
Iowa State University, Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering, Ames, IA, 50011, USA

Abstract
Abstract
In this study, we consider the manufacturing process of cable ducts, which is one of the main manufacturing steps of the train
In this (or
wagon study,
car)we consider the These
manufacturing. manufacturing process
ducts provide coveroffor
cable ducts, cables
electrical which inisthe
onerail
ofcars.
the main manufacturing
Manufacturing steps
of cable of the
ducts train
involves
wagon
cutting (or
andcar) manufacturing.
welding of aluminumThese ductsinprovide
sheets weldingcover
andfor electrical
cutting cables
shops, in the rail cars.
respectively. ThereManufacturing
is a bottleneckofbetween
cable ducts involves
cutting and
cutting
weldingand weldingdue
workshops of aluminum sheetsproduction
to the different in weldingspeeds
and cutting shops, respectively.
and inadequate There is
capacity planning fora the
bottleneck between
operators cutting and
and machines. We
welding workshops
aim to provide due totothe
solutions differentthe
decrease production
cycle time speeds
in anand inadequate
efficient capacity planning
and sustainable mannerfor the operators
through resourceand machines.
sharing We
between
aim to provide
departments. solutionstotoefficiently
Therefore, decrease theuse cycle time in an
the resources andefficient
balance and sustainablewe
the workload, manner
examinethrough resource
the benefits of sharing
utilizingbetween
Cyber-
departments. Therefore,
Physical Production to efficiently
Systems (CPPS)use in the
the resources and balance
manufacturing facility.theThe
workload,
problemweisexamine
simulated theinbenefits of utilizing
ProModel based on Cyber-
real
Physical Production
manufacturing Systems
data. The current(CPPS) in the manufacturing
manufacturing environment and facility. The problem
the scenario in whichisCPPSsimulated in ProModel
is utilized are compared based on real
in terms of
manufacturing
machine data. rates
utilization The current manufacturing
and cycle time. According environment and the scenario
to the simulation results, in
thewhich CPPSrates
utilization is utilized
of theare compared
resources areinincreased,
terms of
machine utilization
and the cycle time ofrates
cableand cycle
duct time. According
production to the
is decreased oncesimulation
the CPPSresults, the utilization rates of the resources are increased,
is utilized.
and the cycle time of cable duct production is decreased once the CPPS is utilized.
©
© 2019
2019 The Authors. Published
The Authors. Published byby Elsevier
Elsevier B.V.
Ltd.
© 2019an
This The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is
is an open
open access
access article
article under
under the
the CC
CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an and
Selection
Peer-reviewopen access
peer
under articleunder
review under
responsibility ofthe
the theCC BY-NC-ND
responsibility
scientific license
of ICPR25
committee of (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
International
the Scientific &Scientific
ICPR25 International Advisory&and Organizing
Advisory committee
and Organizing
Selection
committeeand
members peer review under the responsibility of ICPR25 International Scientific & Advisory and Organizing committee
members
members
Keywords: Wagon manufacturing; CPPS; bottleneck; simulation
Keywords: Wagon manufacturing; CPPS; bottleneck; simulation

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-264-295-5716.

* Corresponding
E-mail author. Tel.: +90-264-295-5716.
address: ekabeloglu@sakarya.edu.tr
E-mail address: ekabeloglu@sakarya.edu.tr

2351-9789 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

2351-9789 © 2019
This is an open Thearticle
access Authors. Published
under by Elsevier B.V.
the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an and
Selection openpeer
access article
review under
under the the CC BY-NC-ND
responsibility license
of ICPR25 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
International Scientific & Advisory and Organizing committee members
Selection and peer review under the responsibility of ICPR25 International Scientific & Advisory and Organizing committee members

2351-9789 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the ICPR25 International Scientific & Advisory and Organizing
committee members
10.1016/j.promfg.2020.01.377
 Furkan Uludağ et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 39 (2019) 1010–1019 1011
Uludağ et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

1. Introduction

Achieving high resource utilization is one of the main challenges in manufacturing. This topic is getting more attention
in the U.S. and E.U. due to the fluctuations in capacity utilization since 1970s to today [1]. To operate the machines
under high utilization rates, joint resource usage can offer a solution through balancing the load in temporarily over-
loaded and under-loaded machines. Better balanced workload may decrease the cycle time when a machine has critical
importance on the total manufacturing time. Resource sharing can be established within the organizations [2] as well
as between companies [1, 2]. Once the resource sharing is employed within the organization, the resources inside the
shop floor could be effectively managed to increase the utilization rate of the resources. For instance, operators could
be cross-trained so that they could perform a variety of tasks [3], also machines could be shared between
manufacturing departments in order to improve the performance of the production [4]. To authorize the joint utilization
at high capacity, real-time process monitoring and coordination throughout the resources are essential. Today,
emerging technologies are being used as part of advanced manufacturing applications in order to boost the efficiency
of manufacturing [5]. Due to high industrialization, companies will not only optimize their manufacturing processes
but also the use of their manufacturing resources [6].
Thanks to the technological development in production environments and wide applications of Industry 4.0,
Internet-of-things, and smart factory, resource monitoring has become much easier [5, 7]. Currently, cyber-physical
systems (CPS) have high impacts on the planning of the resources and production due to their capability to
communicate through the internet [8]. The process information is captured by sensors and microelectronic devices;
this information is processed and transformed into actions via internet communication protocols [9]. CPS enables the
integration of computational applications with physical processes in a network [10-12]. Such computational
applications are used to share information about physical systems and offer intelligence, responsiveness, and
adaptation [13]. Thus, the real-time information about the process can be gathered, detected and follow on actions can
be taken [5, 14]. The adoption of the CPS in the production environment builds Cyber-Physical Production Systems
(CPPS) [15].
Enabling the CPS in stochastic, complex production environments will provide real-time monitoring of the
resources and assist companies to react to changes. Therefore, in addition to more organized plans such as production
and process planning, even sudden changes like machine/material breakdowns and defects can be observed
dynamically in real-time, and thus full coordination throughout the company can be achieved. In the vision of Industry
4.0, CPS is enabled to capture, gather and process data to monitor the factories as well as creating a collaboration
between enterprises. Freitag et al. [1] discussed increasing the efficiency of a galvanization process in which two
stakeholders are sharing the same resource. The capacity utilization of the process is increased through the utilization
of the CPS by information sharing between stakeholders. Barbosa et al. [6] wrote about CPS use to monitor the
manufacturing resources and processes in train manufacturing. However, resource sharing is not considered. Nayak
et al. [16] pointed out that there were a limited number of studies which focus on utilizing the CPS for resource sharing.
Therefore, they proposed a utility theory-based model for resource sharing which enables the coordination of a wide
range of CPSs. The developed model is validated through three case studies that include scheduling, energy
distribution, and information routing in multi-robot systems. The biggest benefit of integrating CPS into the
manufacturing process is flexibility to respond to unpredicted changes in the production [14]. For example, the
resources may be overloaded due to temporary workloads and there may be a need for dynamic routing of the
parts/jobs. Dynamic routing through the negotiation between the next available machines can balance the workload
between machines. Thus, increased resource usage, efficiency, and lower cycle times will be achieved. Therefore, our
study contributes to the literature by indicating the advantages of resource sharing through utilizing CPS for train
manufacturing industry by comparing the current system in use and when the CPS is utilized through the production.
This paper investigates the benefit of integrating CPS systems into the wagon manufacturing industry. The case
study is applied for the production stages of the cable ducts, which is one of the essential production stages of wagon
manufacturing. Enabling the CPS will assist the company to monitor the utilization rate of the succeeding process
machines, i.e., whether the machine is able to process incoming parts, and thus the parts will be directed to the next
1012 Furkan Uludağ et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 39 (2019) 1010–1019
Uludağ et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

production based on this information. However, before utilizing the CPS, the advantages in terms of capacity
utilization rate and cycle time should be elaborated. Section 2 states the basic cable duct manufacturing and the
aforementioned bottleneck problem between two consecutive machines due to unbalanced workload. Section 3
proposes a simulation model where the benefit of the CPS can be observed. Section 4 presents the results. Section 5
concludes the paper and discusses the limitations of the study while pointing out the potential future directions.

2. Problem Description

This study considers the production of wagon cable ducts. Cable ducts provide a shell to cover all the electrical systems
of the rail cars, and they are mainly comprised of (1) cover, (2) duct, (3) box, and (4) bracket as seen in Fig.1 (a).
Cable duct manufacturing includes 13 pieces of different size of aluminum ducts, covers, boxes, and brackets
combined to form the cable ducts. Fig. 1(a) shows one piece of 13 different pieces, where the rest can be seen in Fig.
1 (b). Finally, all 13 pieces are welded together and then assembled into the wagon.

(a) (b)
Fig. 1. Cable ducts in rail cars

There are one cutting and two welding machines in the shop floor, and the cable duct manufacturing starts with
the delivery of the aluminum sheet into the cutting machine. First, the ducts are cut and then directed to the welding
machine. The duct pieces are sent back to the cutting process and the proper size covers are cut for the ducts. Then,
the ducts and covers are welded together with brackets and boxes located in the welding department to join the rough
form of the cable ducts. In the last step, cable ducts are routed back to the cutting machine again for the final cutting
process. The final cutting process includes the grinding and trimming stages in order to have a smooth surface finish.
The detailed manufacturing stages of cable duct are presented by workflow diagram in Fig. 2.
Cutting and welding are two work intensive machines employed for cable duct manufacturing. However, the
discrepancies in the speed of cutting and welding machines cause a waiting line before machines. Therefore, increasing
the efficiency of the cable duct manufacturing process highly depends on the management of this bottleneck which is
due to different machine capacities. In the current manufacturing environment, the cut ducts are directed to the welding
machines according to the defined technical codes of the parts due to the lack of coordination between cutting and
welding machines. Since the cutting operator is aware of the work-in-progress queue at the welding machines, some
predefined parts are moved to welding machine 1, where the others are transported to welding machine 2. The main
difficulty is the lack of coordination between cutting and welding machines. Moreover, the critical path method
(CPM), which is used to control the flow of production through a network, identifies the welding process at machine
2 as a critical process (activity) in order to finalize the project on time. Thus, the reduction of the manufacturing time
at welding machine 2 not only increases the utilization of the machine but also decreases the cycle time of the total
 Furkan Uludağ et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 39 (2019) 1010–1019 1013
Uludağ et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

rail car manufacturing. Since these two welding machines are substitutable, joint resource usage can increase the
efficiency of the machines, and thus mitigate the negative effects of the bottleneck.

This study investigates the benefit of joint resource usage through CPPS. CPPS can be utilized to balance the
workloads of consecutive machines by enabling joint resource use. Therefore, rather than routing the ducts and covers
to the welding machine without coordination between succeeding processes, the utilization rate of the machines can
be captured, and the effective usage of the substitute machines can be achieved. Our objective is to merge the benefits
of the CPPS in project-based manufacturing for a wagon manufacturing case with actual data.

Activity
Activity Definition
1- Preparation
2- Measuring for profile cutting
3- Cutting the profiles
4- Giving codes to the cut profiles
5- Cutting the wire rod
6- Moving the wire rod and cut profiles to the welding machine
7- Duct welding
8- Bracket welding
9- Bar welding
10-Wire welding
11- Box welding
12- Moving the welded profiles for trimming
13- Punching
14- Trimming
15- Grinding
16- Measuring the covers
17- Cutting the covers
18- Moving cables to the welding machine
19- Welding the covers
20- Moving to the trimming machine
21- Trimming
22- Grinding
23- Surface cleaning
24- Giving codes to the channels
25- Welding ducts with covers
26- Taping
27- Inspection
28- Moving cable ducts to the stock area
29- Stocking
Fig. 2. Workflow diagram of cable ducts
1014 Furkan Uludağ et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 39 (2019) 1010–1019
Uludağ et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

3. Simulation Model

The first step to examine the benefit of resource sharing is to develop a discrete event simulation (DES). Since DES
is triggered based on an event or activity, it is one of the best tools used to model the manufacturing environment.
DES captures the entire manufacturing stages of the cable duct production and provides data for the machine
utilization rates and queue lengths. Also, DES enables us to model the scheduling decisions related to determining the
routing plan of the work-in-progress inventory. The simulation is developed using ProModel simulation package. The
basic elements in the ProModel program are locations, entities, arrivals, and processing. There are also other elements
like variables and attributes used in the model in addition to the four basic elements. All these elements are briefly
explained as they are used in the simulation model below.
Locations are the fixed places where the main production takes place. There is one cutting machine, two welding
machines, four stock areas for raw materials and work-in-progress inventory, and four conveyors defined as locations
in the model. The capacity of each machine is one, whereas the capacity of the stock areas is defined as infinite. All
entities processed in the locations follow the first-in-first-out principle while they enter in and exist from the locations.
Entities are the tangibles that are moving and processed in the model. These are raw materials, work-in-progress
inventories, and final products. In the model, aluminum profiles are the raw materials, ducts and cables are the work-
in-progress inventories, and the cable ducts are the final products. There are thirty-seven entities defined in the model.
All the entities are carried through operators and default speed of 150 foot per minute (0.762 meters per second) is
accepted.
Arrivals are the mechanism used to define the delivery of the entities to the system. Entities can enter singly as well
as in batches to the locations. The arrival of the raw materials to the locations are defined by the lot size, frequency
and the time between each entry i.e., inter-arrival time. Three different arrival procedures are defined for three different
raw material types. Each raw material enters singly at once.
Processing refers to the operations in the locations, which are the production stages in our simulation model. The
amount of time that entities spend in the production, transformations in the production stage, and the next destination
of the entities are defined in the processing module. Welding, cutting, measuring, trimming, grinding, punching are
examples of the processing types in our simulation model. Variables in our model are used to count the number of
entities for the specific processes so as to define rules for routing. We used the attributes to differentiate various
properties of the same entities.
We divide the simulation model development into three stages. In the first stage in Section 3.1, the procedures for
the data collection is explained. Section 3.2 presents the current manufacturing environment before the utilization of
CPPS. Lastly, Section 3.3 discusses the proposed model that simulates the production where information sharing
between machines is achieved through CPPS.

3.1. Data Collection

The first step of the data collection is to determine the manufacturing processes and stages in order to draw the work
flow of the whole production. Respectively, each process is carefully observed, and time studies are conducted. In
order to determine the correct time spent in each process, random samples are taken. Then, the average and standard
deviation of data points are calculated. With regards to the performance of the workers according to the Westinghouse
table [17], the standard processing time for each manufacturing process and stages are calculated. All the steps in data
collection are conducted according to the motion and time study principles [18]. The cable ducts are comprised of the
manufacturing of 13 different ducts, covers and their connection processes. Table 1 presents the production stages and
corresponding standard processing time for cable duct production.
 Furkan Uludağ et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 39 (2019) 1010–1019 1015
Uludağ et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

Table 1. Manufacturing stages and the standard time of cable duct production
Sub-activities Process time
Main Activities
(activity number in Fig. 2) (sec)
1- Profile cutting 1-5 N (494,1.33)
2- Moving wire rod and profiles to welding machines 6 N (26,0.20)
3- Welding 7-11 N (4716,1.66)
4- Moving the welded profiles for trimming 12 N (29,0.30)
5- Trimming 13-17 N (1294, 2.33)
6- Moving covers to the welding machine 18 N (47,0.20)
7- Welding 19 N (2940,2.50)
8- Moving to the cutting machine 20 N (10, 0.30)
9- Cutting 21-27 N (562,1.66)
10- Moving cable ducts to the stock area 28-29 N (11,0.20)

3.2 Current Scenario

The current scenario captures the real manufacturing environment without considering joint resource usage. In the
simulation model, the production starts with the direction of the raw materials to the machines respect to the production
plan same as a real manufacturing environment. First, the aluminum profiles are carried to the cutting machine, and
then the cut pieces are moved to one of the two welding machines based on their technical codes. Then, the welded
ducts are carried to the cutting machine for the cover cutting process. The covers and the ducts are again transferred
to the same previous welding machine for the final welding process. At the end of the welding process, the rough form
of the cable ducts is manufactured. This rough form is again moved back to the cutting machine for the last time to
provide smooth surface finish through grinding and trimming. Fig. 3 presents the current manufacturing stages in the
simulation.

Fig. 3. Manufacturing stages of cable duct

The manufacturing stages presented in Fig. 3 are repeated for 13 different pieces which are comprised of different size
ducts and covers in order to manufacture the cable duct of a wagon. In the current scenario, there are bottlenecks
1016 Furkan Uludağ et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 39 (2019) 1010–1019
Uludağ et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

before the cutting and the welding machines due to different machine capacities. All these manufacturing stages are
modeled via ProModel; Fig. 4 presents the screenshot of the simulation.

Fig. 4. The current manufacturing environment modeled with ProModel.

3.3. Proposed Model

The advantage of utilizing the CCPS is investigated in the proposed model. The current system does not integrate
the utilization rates of the machines before directing the cut pieces (ducts or covers) to the next processes. There are
bottlenecks before welding and cutting machines. Due to the different capacities and inadequately determined
scheduling routes of the pieces, welding machine 2 has a higher workload than welding machine 1 in the current
system. Thus, the queue before welding machine 2 is longer than the queue before welding machine 1. However,
through the integration of the CCPS, the utilization rate of the machines can be captured and the benefit of joint
resource usage to the system can be elaborated. The proposed model examines the advantage of real-time information
sharing between machines by enabling the advanced manufacturing system, i.e., CPPS.

In the proposed model that is presented in Fig. 5, the in-line inventory level before each welding machines is
controlled in real time through the sensors. As a result of real-time inventory information sharing, pieces (ducts and
In-line inventory information covers) are directed to the welding
machines changing based on the length of
the queue before machines. Once the
pieces leave the cutting process, they are
Welding Capacity
machine 1 directed to the welding machine that has
the shortest queue. Thus, a dynamic
Cutting scheduling strategy is utilized to balance
machine the workload between machines. Rather
Welding Capacity than directing the cut pieces to the
machine 2
welding machines according to the
technical codes, routes are dynamically
determined based on capacity utilization
In-line inventory information rate and in-line inventory information.
Fig. 5 The proposed model
 Furkan Uludağ et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 39 (2019) 1010–1019 1017
Uludağ et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

Sharing the inventory and the utilization rate information between machines gives flexibility to the company for joint
resource usage.

4. Scenario Analysis

First, the verification of the simulation model is carried out whether the developed simulation model runs in the logic
that is identified in the conceptual model. In this stage, the simulation is checked against programming errors. Once
the verification stage is successfully conducted, the validation of the simulation is proven. In the validation process,
the internal validity of the simulation model is tested by generating extreme values and then running the simulation
model and checking the results. The external validity of the simulation is assessed by comparing the simulation results
(cycle time, machine utilization rates) with the historical data for the current manufacturing environment to observe
how the simulation results are close to the real-world system. After the verification and the validation of the simulation
model, assuring that the simulation serves the purpose it was designed, the simulation is run for 500 replications [19]
and the results are presented in terms of machine capacity utilization rate, waiting lines, and the total cable duct
manufacturing time.
In the first analysis, the comparison of the current system and the proposed model is performed with regards to
the utilization rate of the cutting and welding machines. The utilization rate of each machine in the current and
proposed model is presented in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7. In the current system in Fig. 6, the average utilization rate of cutting
machine is 65.60% and average utilization rates for the welding machines 1 and 2 are 75.5% and 97% respectively.
The simulation results for the current scenario also reveals the bottleneck in the real manufacturing environment before
welding machine 2. In Fig. 7, enabling the CPPS results in more balanced resource usage and increased utilization
rate for the machines. The average utilization rate of the cutting machine increased from 65.60% to 71.23% in the
proposed model. The work balance between welding machine 1 and 2 increases the workload of welding machine 1
and decreases the workload of welding machine 2. The average utilization rate for welding machine 1 and 2 are 95.1%
and 91.92%. However, even the utilization rate of the welding machine 2 is decreased from 97% to 91.92% in the
proposed model, the average utilization rate of all machines is increased, 79.37% vs. 86.08%. Thus, joint resource
usage through CPPS increased the efficiency of the machines.

Fig. 6. The utilization rate of the machines in the current scenario.

Fig. 7. The utilization rate of the machines in the proposed model.

In the second analysis, the fill rate of the waiting lines before machines are compared though Fig. 8-9. In Fig. 8-9,
waiting area 1 is for the queue before cutting machine, waiting area 2 and waiting area 3 refer to the queue before
welding machine 1 and 2 respectively. In the current system, the queue in waiting line 1, waiting line 2 and waiting
line 3 are partially occupied at 19.69%, 73.34% and 93.9% of the time as in Fig. 8. In the proposed model, since the
1018 Furkan Uludağ et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 39 (2019) 1010–1019
Uludağ et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

utilization rate of the welding machine 2 is increased, the fill rate of the queue in waiting line 3 is decreased to 86.15%,
while the fill rate of the queue at waiting line 1 and 2 are increased to 25.54% and 93.81% respectively in Fig. 9.

Fig. 8. Fill rate of the waiting line for the current system.

Fig. 9. Fill rate of the waiting line for the proposed system.

Table 2 presents the summary statistics for the comparison of the current and the proposed systems for the operation,
idle and waiting time percentages at 95% confidence interval (CI). Operation time percentage, i.e. machine utilization
rate, shows the percentage of time that the machine is processing the entities. The 95% CI of the operation time for
the cutting machine in the proposed system is higher than the current system. Similarly, 95% CI of the operation time
for the welding machine 2 is also higher in the proposed system. However, the operation time percentage of welding
1 is decreased by almost 6%. When the idle time percentages of machines are compared at 95% CI, there is a dramatic
decrease in cutting and welding machine 1, while the increase for the welding machine 2 is slight. Waiting time
percentage shows the percentage of the time that a location is waiting for the entities. According to the 95% CI for the
waiting time percentage, there is a decrease in the average waiting time for welding 2 in the proposed system while
there is only a small amount of increase in the average waiting time of the welding machine 1. The results in Table 2
shows the increase in the efficiency of the machines once the CPPS is integrated into the system. Moreover, the cycle
time of the cable duct production is decreased from 15hr to 13hr and 48 min on the average.

Table 2. Simulation results for the current and proposed system

Operation (%) Idle (%) Waiting (%)
Locations Simulation model Average 95% CI Average 95% CI Average 95% CI
Cutting Current system 65.60 63.19-68.02 34.4 31.99-36.82 0.00 0.00-0.00
Proposed system 71.23 68.88-73.59 28.77 26.42-31.13 0.00 0.00-0.00
Welding 1 Current system 75.50 73.62-77.39 24.17 22.27-26.08 0.34 0.33-0.36
Proposed system 95.10 94.20-96.01 4.41 3.51-5.32 0.49 0.48-0.51
Welding 2 Current system 97.00 96.40-97.61 1.99 1.41-2.58 1.01 1.01-1.03
Proposed system 91.92 89.98-93.87 7.10 5.16-9.05 0.97 0.96-0.99

5. Conclusion
In this study, we consider the bottleneck problem between cutting and welding machines in the train wagon
manufacturing industry. Due to the inadequately planned resource usage and discrepancies in the production speed,
some machines get temporarily over-loaded while the others under-loaded. In order to increase the harmony between
consecutive processes, the real-time data on the machine utilization rates can be captured, and thus more balanced
workloads can be achieved by dynamic routing strategies. Herein, enabling the CPPS in the manufacturing shop is
 Furkan Uludağ et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 39 (2019) 1010–1019 1019
Uludağ et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

considered as an alternative way to boost the efficiency of the production. Therefore, we aim to examine the benefits
of utilizing the CPPS in current manufacturing by simulation. The current system and the CPPS based scenarios are
run in ProModel simulation program. The results show the advantages of the CPPS in terms of increasing the average
machine utilization rates and decreasing the average cycle time of cable duct manufacturing. One of the limitations of
the presented work is that intelligent routing mechanisms to increase the efficiency of the machines are not
incorporated as we opted to examine the advantage of CPPS. However, we are planning to expand the model by
integrating machine learning algorithms to improve the efficiency of the routing strategy. Thus, the CPPS will react
in more intelligent ways and to even further lower cycle times.

References

[1] M. Freitag, T. Becker, N. A. Duffie, Dynamics of resource sharing in production networks, CIRP Annals, 64(1), (2015) 435-438.
[2] K. Ma, S. Thomassey, X. Zeng, L. Wang, Y. Chen, A resource sharing solution optimized by simulation-based heuristic for garment
manufacturing, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 99(9-12), (2018) 2803-2818.
[3] W. J. Hopp, M. P. Oyen, Agile workforce evaluation: a framework for cross-training and coordination, IIE Transactions, 36(10), (2004) 919-940.
[4] R. G. Qiu, D. W. Russell, A formal model for incorporating shop floor controls into plant information systems, The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 23(1-2), (2004) 47-57.
[5] L. Monostori, B. Kádár, T. Bauernhansl, S. Kondoh, S. Kumara, G. Reinhart, O. Sauer, G. Schuh, W. Sihn, W., K. Ueda, Cyber-physical
systems in manufacturing, CIRP Annals, 65(2), (2016) 621-641.
[6] J. Barbosa, P. Leitão, D. Trentesaux, A. W. Colombo, S. Karnouskos, Cross benefits from cyber-physical systems and intelligent products for
future smart industries, Proc. IEEE 14th International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN), IEEE, (2016) 504-509.
[7] L. Monostori, Cyber-physical production systems: Roots, expectations and R&D challenges, Procedia CIRP, 17 (2014) 9-13.
[8] E. M. Frazzon, J. Hartmann, T. Makuschewitz, B. Scholz-Reiter, Towards socio-cyber-physical systems in production networks, Procedia
CIRP, 7 (2013) 49-54.
[9] D. Mourtzis, E. Vlachou, A cloud-based cyber-physical system for adaptive shop-floor scheduling and condition-based maintenance, Journal
of Manufacturing Systems, 47(2018) 179-198.
[10] K.-D. Kim, P. R. Kumar, Cyber–physical systems: A perspective at the centennial, Proceedings of the IEEE, 100 (2012) 1287-1308.
[11] R. Rajkumar, A cyber–physical future, Proceedings of the IEEE, 100 (2012), 1309-1312.
[12] E. A. Lee, Cyber physical systems: Design challenges, Proc. 11th IEEE International Symposium on Object and Component-Oriented Real-
Time Distributed Computing (ISORC), IEEE, (2008) 363-369.
[13] P. Leitão, A. W. Colombo, S. Karnouskos, Industrial automation based on cyber-physical systems technologies: Prototype implementations
and challenges, Computers in Industry, 81 (2016) 11-25.
[14] J. F. Lachenmaier, H. Lasi, H.-G. Kemper, Simulation of production processes involving cyber-physical systems, Procedia CIRP, 62 (2017)
577-582.
[15] D. Mourtzis, E. Vlachou, Cloud-based cyber-physical systems and quality of services, The TQM Journal, 28(5), (2016) 704-733.
[16] A. Nayak, R. Reyes Levalle, S. Lee, & S. Y., Nof, Resource sharing in cyber-physical systems: Modelling framework and case
studies, International Journal of Production Research, 54(23), (2016), 6969-6983.
[17] E. Cevikcan, H. S. Kilic, S. Zaim, Westinghouse method oriented fuzzy rule based tempo rating approach, Proc. Proceedings of the 2012
International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Istanbul, Turkey, (2012) 1670-1677.
[18] M. E. Mundel, Motion and time study-principles and practice, Prentice-Hall, Inc.; New Jersy, (2013).
[19] A.R. Mashhadi, B. Esmaeilian, S. Behdad, Simulation modeling of consumers' participation in product take-back systems, Journal of
Mechanical Design, 138(5), (2016) 051403.