447

Numbers that identify particular machines in the routing. Table 16.3 presents a list of possible code
numbers that might be used (again, highly simplified).

A sorting procedure would be used on the cards to arrange them into “packs” . A pack is a
group of parts with identical process routings. Some packs will contain only one part number. Each
pack is given a pack indentification number or letter.

3. PFA chart. The processes used for each pack are next displayed graphically on a PFA chart. A
simplified version of the PFA chart is shown in Figure 16.11. It is merely a plot of the process code
numbers for all the pack that have been determined.

4. Analysis. This is the most subjective and most difficult step in production flow analysis, yet it is the
crucial step in the procedure. From the pattern of data exhibited in the PFA chart, similar groups
must be indentified. This can be done by rearranging the data on the original PFA chart into a new
pattern which brings together packs with similar routings. One possible rearrangement is shown in
figure 16.12. The diffirent groupings are indicated within blocks. The machines identified together
within the blocks of figure 16.12 would be synthesized into logical machines cells.

Invariably, there will be packs ( process routings) that do not fit into similar group-ings, these
parts can be analyzed to determine if a revised process sequence can be developed which fits into
one of the groups. If not, these parts must continue to be manufactured through a conventional
process-type plant layout.

Comments on PFA:

The weakness of production flow analysis is that the data used in the analysis are derived
from production route sheets. The process sequences from these route sheets have been prepared
by different process planners, and these differences are reflected in the route sheets. The ruotings
may contain processing steps that are nonoptimal, illogical, and unnecessary. Consequently, the final
machine groupings that result from the analysis may be suboptimal. Notwithstanding this weakness.
PFA has the virtue of requiring less time to perform than a complete parts classification and coding
procedure. It therefore provides a technique that is attractive to many firms for making the
changeover to a group tech-nology machine layout.

16.4 Machine cell design

Wherther part families and machine groups have been detetrmined by parts classification and
coding or by production flow analysis, the problem of desiging the machine cells must be solved. In
this section we consider some of the aspects of this important problem in group technology.
448

The composite part concept

Part families are defined by the fact that their members have similar design and manu-
facturing attributes. The composite part concept takes this part family definition to its
logical conclusion. It conceives of a hypothetical part that represents all of the design and
corresponding manufacturing attributes possessed by the various individuals in the family.
Such a hypothetical part is illustrated in figure 16.13. To produce one of the members of the
part family, operations are added and deleted corresponding to the attributes of the
particular part design. For example, the composite part in the figure 16.13 is a rotational
part made up of seven separate design and manufacturing features. These features are
listed in table 16.4.

A machine cell would be designed to provide all seven machine capabilities. The
machines, fixtures, and tools would be set up for efficient flow of workparts through the
cell. A part with all seven attributes, such as the composite part of figure 16.13, would go
through all seven proxessing steps. For part designs without all seven features, un-needed
operations would simply be omitted.

449
In practice, the number of design and manufacturing attributes would be greater than
seven, and allowances would have to be made for variations in overall size and shape of
parts in the part family. Nevertheless, the composite part concept is useful for visualizing
the machine cell design problem.

Types of cell designs:

The term cellular manufacturing is sometimes used to describe the operations of a group
technology machine cell. Machine cells can be classified into one of the following cat-
egories, according to the number of machines and degree to which the material flow is
mechanized between the machines:

1. Single machine cell

2. Group machine cell with manual handing
3. Group machine cell with semi-integrated handing
4. Flexible manufacturing system (FMS).
As its name indicates, the single machine cell consists of one machine plus sup-
porting fixtures and tooling organized to make one or more part families.

This type of cell can be applied to workparts whose attributes allow them tobe made
on one basic type of process, such as turning or milling. For example, the composite
part of figure 16.13 could be produced on a conventional turret lathe with the
possible exception of the cylindrical grinding operation. (step 4).

The group machine cell with manual handling is an arrangement of more

than one machine used collectively to produce one or more part families. There is no
provision for mechanized parts movement between the machines in the cell.
Instead, the human operators who run the cell perform the material handling
function. Depending on the size of the parts and the arrangement of the machines in
the cell, this function may require the assistance of the regular material handling
crew in the shop. The cell is often organized into a U-shaped layout, as shown figure
16.14. This layout is considered appropriate when there is a variation in the work
flow among the parts made in the cell. It also allows the multifunctional workers in
the cell to move easily between machines [13].

The group machine cell with manual handling is sonetimes achieved in a

conven-tional process-type layout without rearranging the equipment. This is done
simply by assigning certain machines to be included in the machine group, and
restricting their work to specified part families. This allows many of the benefits of
group technology cellular manufacturing to be achieved without the expense of
rearranging equipment in the shop. Obviously, many of the material handling
benefits of GT are not realized with this organization.

The group machine cell with semi-integrated handling uses a mechanized

handling system, such as a conveyor, to move parts between machines in the cell.
When the parts made in the cell have indentical or nearly identical routings, an in-
line layout of machines is considered appropriate. In this case, the machines are laid
out along a conveyor to match the processing sequence. If the process routings vary,
a loop layout is more appropriate since it allows the parts to circulate in the handling
system. This permits different processing tifferent parts in the system. These two
layouts are illustrated in figure 16.15.

The flexible manufacturing system is the most highly automated of the group
technology machine cells. It combines automated processing stations with a fully
integrated material handling system. Chapter 17 is devoted to this form of
automation, and we defer discussion until then.
 Determining the best machine arrangement.
Determining which type of machine cell to use and the best arrangement of
equipment in the cell should be based on work processing requierments. The
important factors include:

 Volume of work to be done by the cell. This includes the number of

parts per year and the amount of work required per part. These
factors influence how many machines investment that can be justified
to organize and equip the cell.
 Variations in process routings of the parts. This setermines the work
flow. If all process routings are identical, straight-line flow is
appropriate. With significant variations in the routings, a U-shape or
loop would be more appropriate.
 Part size, shape, weight, and other physical attributes. These factors
determine the size and type of material handling and processing
equipment that can be used.

A number of methods have been proposed for dealing with the problem of
arranging machines in a GT cell. Several of these methods are described in Ham et al. [6].
Also, the production flow analysis technique described in section 16.3 is helpful in sloving a
related problem, that of identifying which machines be in the group.

Let us describe a relatively simple method that is suggested by hollier [7] and
described by wild [18]. The method makes use of from to charts, found useful in chapter 14
for material handling analysis. We can formulate the method as consisting of three steps, as
follows:

1. Develop the from-to chart from part routing data. The data contained in the
chart reflect numbers of part moves between the machines (or workstations)
in the cell. Moves into and out of the cell are not included in the chart.
2. Determine the ‘tolfrom ratio’ for each machine. This is accomplished by
summing up all of the “ to” trips and “from” trips for each machine ( or
operation). The “ to” sum for machine id determined by adding all the
elements in the corresponding column, and the “from” sum for a machine is
determined by adding the elements in the corresponding row. For each
machine, a “to/from ratio” is formed.
3. Arrange machine in order of increasing to/from ratio. The notion is that
machines that have a low to/from ratio receive work from few other
machines in the cell but distribute work to many machines. Conversely,
machines possessing a high to/frorm ratio receive work more than they
distribute it. Therefore, it is logical to place machines with low ratios at the
beginning of the work flow, and to put machines with high ratios at the end
of the work flow.
An example will illustrate the method.
Example 16.3:
Suppose that four machines have been identified as belonging in a GT
machine cell. An analysis of 50 parts which are processed on these machines
provides the following from to chart (machines are identified by number):