You are on page 1of 7

References

• Groover, M.P., Automation, Production Systems and Computer-


Aided Manufacturing, Prentice-Hall, 1980. (2nd Edition, 2001).
• Askin, R.A. and C.R. Standridge, Modeling and Analysis of
Assembly and Line Balancing Manufacturing System, John Wiley & Sons, 1993.
• Whitney, D.E., Mechanical Assemblies, Oxford University Press,
Chapter
p 15 2004.

Jorge Leon
Louis McDaniels
Texas A&M University

Automobile Assembly Benchmarks 1997


Reading Subcompact: Nissan Smyrna; Sentra, 2.22 workers per vehicle
200SX;
Compact: Nissan Smyrna; Altima; 2.38 workers per vehicle (estimated)
Midsize: Toyota Georgetown #1; Camry; 2.50 workers per vehicle
Large: Ford St. Thomas; Crown Victoria, 3.01 workers per vehicle
Grand Marquis;
Luxury: Ford Wixom; Lincolns; 4.17 workers per vehicle
http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/089705.html Sports car: Ford Dearborn; Mustang; 3.14 workers per vehicle
Midsize sport utility vehicle: Ford 2 66 workers per vehicle
2.66
Louisville; Explorer, Mountaineer,
Ranger;
Full-size sport utility vehicle: Ford 3.52 workers per vehicle
Michigan Truck; Expedition, F-Series;
Small pickup: Nissan Smyrna; pickup; 2.25 workers per vehicle
Full-size pickup: Ford Kentucky; F-Series 2.83 workers per vehicle
(previous generation);
Minivan: Ford Oakville; Windstar; 2.85 workers per vehicle
Large van: Ford Lorain; Econoline; 3.28 workers per vehicle.

From http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/089705.html

Automobile Assembly Benchmarks 1997 Automobile Assembly Benchmarks 1997


Subcompact: Nissan Smyrna; Sentra, 2.22 workers per vehicle Labor Cost per Annual Cost Penalty
Manufacturer 1996 Volume
200SX; Vehicle to the Benchmark
Small pickup: Nissan Smyrna; pickup; 2.25 workers per vehicle Nissan $1,218 $0 Not given
Compact: Nissan Smyrna; Altima; 2.38 workers per vehicle (estimated)
Toyota $1,270 $25 million 483,000
Midsize: Toyota Georgetown #1; Camry; 2.50 workers per vehicle
Chrysler $1,743 $1,453 million 2,767,000
Midsize sport utility vehicle: Ford 2.66 workers per vehicle
Louisville; Explorer, Mountaineer, Ford $1,616 $1,702 million 4,271,000
Ranger;
F ll i pickup:
Full-size i k F
Fordd Kentucky;
K t k F-Series
F S i 2 83 workers
2.83 k per vehicle
hi l GM $1 917
$1,917 $3 525 million
$3,525 5 039 000
5,039,000
(previous generation);
Minivan: Ford Oakville; Windstar; 2.85 workers per vehicle
Large: Ford St. Thomas; Crown Victoria, 3.01 workers per vehicle
Grand Marquis;
Sports car: Ford Dearborn; Mustang; 3.14 workers per vehicle
Large van: Ford Lorain; Econoline; 3.28 workers per vehicle.
Full-size sport utility vehicle: Ford 3.52 workers per vehicle
Michigan Truck; Expedition, F-Series;
Luxury: Ford Wixom; Lincolns; 4.17 workers per vehicle

From http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/089705.html From http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/089705.html

1
It's Not All Factory Floor Ford Edsel
• These numbers are not isolated indices.
• They should not be considered separately because they are part
of a larger infrastructure.
• Production is penalized by what can be considered failures in
other functions (design, engineering and marketing).
• For example, an ugly vehicle that’s ill-conceived and/or has an
egregious sticker price is not likely to speed out of showrooms.
• If an assembly plant
– has the capacity to produce x vehicles
– and it is producing x – y vehicles
– and must retain staffing levels due to a negotiated contract
• Then even if everything else is done to the extent that the late
Drs. Ohno and Shingo (Toyota Production System) would nod
approvingly, the plant in question is not going to score well at all.

From http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/089705.html

History of Assembly Systems


The Fundamentals • Division of labor (Adam Smith, 1723-1790, The Wealth of Nations,
England, 1776.
• Excellence in execution • Interchangeable parts (Eli Whitney, 1765-1825).
– Basic industrial engineering
– Getting the most from each worker • Model T Ford (circa 1913).
• Correct design and engineering
– Factory setup supports value-added assembly
– Manual versus automated assembly (e.g., piston stuffing is manual)
– Paint shop (automated)
• Efficiency
– Limousines
– Simple platforms that move along the assembly line
– Operators, parts and tools move with the vehicle
• Line balancing
• Direct labor versus indirect labor

Examples of Assembly Lines from Ford Motor Company's Highland Park Plant around 1914, as
From http://www.autofieldguide.com/articles/089705.html the automobiles roll down the assembly lines Images from the Collections of The Henry Ford. 1)P.833.987,
2) P.833.380

Air Bag Assembly


Line
(Chihuahua,
Mexico)

Photo: National Archives and Records Administration


Still Picture Branch, College Park, Maryland

2
Minimum Rational Work Element
Assembly Line Principles
• A minimum rational work element is an assembly task that
cannot be subdivided any further without loss of practicality
1. Division of labor principle
– Small tasks each assigned to one worker
– Each worker becomes very proficient • The time required to perform the kth work element is denoted by
2. Interchangeable parts principle Tek
– No manual mating of parts is necessary
– Makes assembly lines possible • The total work content (Twc) associated with an assembly is
3. Material work flow principle equal to the sum of all the work element times for that assembly
– Move the work to the worker

4.
– Minimize movement of materials between workstations
Line pacing principle
Twc = ∑Tek
all k
– Maintain a prescribed cycle time
– Predictable production rate

Are these the best strategy?

Example Parts List for Drill


Determine the minimum rational work elements associated with step 3 of
the transmission subassembly of the Sears Craftsman drill shown below.

(Source: Whitney, 2004) (Source: Whitney, 2004)

Bottom
Transmission Subassembly Step 3
plastic
casing
Drill
Possible minimum rational work elements
Drill head
head & mount
Spring chuck k Description Tek*, sec
washer
Rotor
a Insert shaft 14 into the pinion gear 13; gross motion 3
b Assemble subasm(a) with the middle mount 12; fine motion 4
c Assemble drill head & chuck 15 with subasm(b); fine motion 6
Middle Pinion
Gear
shaft
d Assemble drill head mount 16 with subasm(c); fine motion 5
mount gear
e Assemble rotor 10 with subasm(c); fine motion 7

The total work content time is


Twc = ΣTek = 3 + 4 + 6 + 5 + 7 = 25 seconds
(Source: Whitney, 2004)

* best estimates

3
Precedence Diagram* Precedence Diagram Exercise*
• A precedence diagram is a network where Determine (a) the work elements, and (b) the precedence diagram
– each node represents a work element, and required to assemble the cup of instant coffee shown in the figure.
– arrows indicate a precedence relationship. The components to assemble are
coffee (Co), cream (Cr), a cup (Cu), a plate (P), sugar (S) and water (W)
• An arrow pointing from node i to node j indicates that work
element i must be completed before element j can start; i.e., The technological constraints are
element i ‘precedes’ element j. 1. The cup must be on the plate before pouring the water or instant coffee.
2 The coffee must be in the cup before pouring water in the cup
2. cup.
3. The sugar and cream must be added after the water.
The precedence diagram for the drill subassembly is

d 5s S
a b c P Cu Co W
3s 4s 6s e 7s Cr

Assembly Cycle Time, Tc Assembly Cycle Time Example


The assembly cycle time is the maximum time available to The daily demand for an assembled product is 4300 pieces/day.
complete one assembled unit at any assembly station. The assembly line will work 8 hr/day at a utilization of 0.90.

It consists of three main components. For station i it is What is the assembly cycle time?

Tc = (assembly time)i + (repositioning time) + (idle time) U (aT ) 0.90(8 hr/day )(3600 sec/hr )
Tc = = = 6.03 sec /piece
D 4300 pieces/day
Tc = Tsi + Tr + Ii

The cycle time (time/piece) is computed based on the What would be the number of assembly stations required to satisfy this
demand rate (D, pieces/time), demand if the work content of each assembly is 30 seconds?
available time (aT, time), and
line utilization (U). If the total work content could be subdivided into 30/6.03 ≈ 5 subgroups
of work elements, then each subgroup could be completed in 30/5 = 6 s.
An assembly line with 5 stations, each completing their assembly tasks
U (aT ) 1 Note: U is called E (line
Tc = = efficiency) in Groover. every 6 seconds will achieve the demand.
D Rc
The problem is that you may not be able to divide the total work content exactly
Where, Rc is the cycle rate (pieces/time). as desired, so you will have load imbalances among stations

Assembly Cycle Time Elements Measures of Line Balance Efficiency


bottleneck station
bottleneck station
I5
Tc Tc

I5
Ts5

Tr

Sta1 Sta2 Sta3 Sta4 Sta5


Ts5
Twc Total work content time
Balance Efficiency Eb = --------------------------------
nsTc Total allocated work time
Tr
Sta1 Sta2 Sta3 Sta4 Sta5

The assembly time at station i, Tsi, will depend on how many work
nsTc − Twc Total idle time
elements are assigned for completion in that station. Balance Delay d= --------------------------------
nsTc Total allocated work time
This time is less than the available assembly cycle time because of the
repositioning loss (Tri) and any imbalance loss (Ii). Maximum Station Imbalance
The maximum allowable assembly time is
max all i { Ii } = max all i {Tc − (Tsi + Tr )} Max idle time
Ts = Max{Tsi} ≤ Tc − Tr

4
Small Electrical Appliance Example*
i Task Description Tei, (min) Preceded by
Precedence Diagram Example
0.11
1 Place frame on work holder 0.2 -
2 Assemble grommet to power cord 0.4 - 6
3 Assemble bracket to frame 0.7 1
4 Wire power cord to motor 0.1 1, 2 0.7 0.32 0.27
5 Wire power cord to switch 0.3 2
0.2 3 7 9
6 Assemble mechanism plate to bracket 0 11
0.11 3
7 Assemble blade to bracket 0.32 3 1 0.5 0.12
0.1 0.6
8 Assemble motor to bracket 0.6 3, 4
8 11 12
9 Align blade and attach to motor 0.27 6, 7, 8 4
0.4 0.38
10 Assemble switch to motor bracket 0.38 5, 8
11 Attach cover, inspect, and test 0.5 9, 10 2 0.3 10
12 Place in tote pan for packing 0.12 11
5
Target production rate: 60 units/hour
What is the precedence diagram? (Groover, p.421 3e) What is a logical task grouping solution for this assembly operation?

Precedence Diagram Example Precedence Diagram Example


For the previous question, here is one solution consisting of Compute: Twc ; Tsi for i = 1, 2, 3; Tc; Ts; Eb and d.
Station 1: {1, 2, 4, 5},
0.11
Station 2: {3, 6, 7, 8, 9} and
Station 3: {10, 11, 12} 0.11 6
6
0.7 0.32 0.27
0.7 0.32 0.27 0.2 3 7 9
0.2 3 7 9 1 0.5 0.12
0.1 0.6
1 0.5 0.12 11 12
0.1 0.6 4 8
11 12 0.4 0.38
4 8
0.4 0.38 2 10
0.3
2 0.3 10 5
5

Precedence Diagram Example


Ts1 = 1.00 minute
0.11 The Line Balancing Problem (LBP)
6

0.7 0.32 0.27 • The basic problem is to assign the work elements required to
Ts2 = 2.00 minutes 7 9 complete a product to a number of workstations
0.2 3
1 0.5 0.12
0.6
0.1 • Typical inputs are
Ts3 = 1.00 minute 4 8 11 12
– Demand
0.4 0.38
– Task times
2 03
0.3 10 – Precedence among tasks
Twc = ΣTek = 4 minutes 5 – Efficiency factors

• Typical objectives are to


Tc = 1/Rp = (1/60 hr/unit)(60 min/hr) = 1 minute/unit – Minimize the work imbalance
Eb = Twc/(nsTc)= 4/[(3)(1)] = 1.33 (??) – Minimize the number of workstations
n T − Twc
d= s c
d = [(3)(1)-4]/(3)(1) = −1/3 (negative!!!) nsTc • Typical outputs are
– Task-to-station assignments
Note that this is an infeasible solution because Ts2 > Tc; i.e., this line
– The number of stations/workers
design cannot satisfy the required demand.
What can we do?

5
Line Balancing Model
Line Balancing Constraints • The job and tasks are modeled using a directed graph G(N, A)
• N is the set of nodes, each node is a task
• Precedence constraints • A is a set of arcs, each arc is a pair; (i, j) indicates that i must
Indicate the task sequence required to accomplish the goal precede j in the line
• Associated with node i there is a task time Tei
• Cycle time constraint • Si = {Si1, Si2, . . ., Sin} is a partition of N (group of nodes); each
Si contains the all the nodes associated with station i.
States the maximum time allowed at any workstation
0.11
• Location constraints 6
Indicate that some tasks must be placed close to or far from
others 0.7 0.32 0.27
– Technological constraints (e.g. clean-room vs standard tasks) 0.2 3 7 9
– Positional constraints – tasks that cannot be executed by the same 1 0.5 0.12
0.1 0.6
operator due to their position on the product (e.g. opposite sides of 11 12
an aircraft) 4 8
0.4 0.38
– Layout constraints (e.g. tasks take place in different places in the
factory) 2 0.3 10
5

Rank Positional Weights Heuristic


RPW Procedure
• Helgeson, W.B. and D.P. Birnie, “Assembly Line Balancing Using Rank
Positional Weight Technique,” Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 6,
1961, pp. 302-310.
• The method follows the precedence relations and proceeds Step 1. Calculate RPW(i) for every i in N.
station by station, assigning tasks by giving priority to those tasks • Start with the last task and work backwards
that have ‘most work ahead’ (or ‘rank positional weight’, RPW),
and where the new station time is less than Ts = Tc − Tr
Step 2. Sort the list in descending order of RPWs.
• Let B(i) represent all the tasks in paths emanating from node i in
the graph G(N, A) (i.e., all tasks following task i in the precedence
graph) Step 3. Assign tasks to stations according to decreasing values of
0.11 RPW.
• The RPW for task i is: 6
• Avoid precedence constraint violations.
RPW (i ) = Tei + ∑Tej 0.7
3
0.32
7
0.27
9 • Avoid cycle time constraint violations.
j ∈B ( i ) 0.2
1 0.5 0.12
0.1 0.6
8 11 12
4
0.4 0.38
2 0.3 10
5

RPW Step 2 - Sort the list in descending order of RPW(i)


RPW Step 1 - Calculate RPW(i) for every i in N Preceded
i Task Description Tei RPW(i)
0.11 (minutes) by
1 Place frame on work holder 0.2 3.30 -
6 1.00 3 Assemble bracket to frame 0.7 3.00 1
2 Assemble grommet to power cord 0.4 2.67 -
0.7 0.32 0.27
3.00 4 Wire power cord to motor 0.1 1.97 1, 2
0.2 3 7 9 8 Assemble motor to bracket 06
0.6 1 87
1.87 3 4
3,
1 21
1.21
1 0.89 0.5 0.12 5 Wire power cord to switch 0.3 1.30 2
0.1 0.6
3.30 8 11 12 7 Assemble blade to bracket 0.32 1.21 3
4 6 Assemble mechanism plate to bracket 0.11 1.00 3
0.4 1.87 0.38 0.62 0.12
1.97 10 Assemble switch to motor bracket 0.38 1.00 5, 8
2 0.3 10 9 Align blade and attach to motor 0.27 0.89 6, 7, 8
2.67 5 1.00 11 Attach cover, inspect, and test 0.5 0.62 9, 10

1.30 12 Place in tote pan for packing 0.12 0.12 11


Target production rate: 60 units/hour = 1 unit/min (Groover, p.421 3e)

6
RPW Step 3 - Assign tasks to stations according to RPW(i)*
i Task Description Tei (min) RPW(i) Station w Tsw I(w) RPW Step 3 - Assign tasks to stations according to RPW(i)*
1 Place frame on work holder 0.20 3.30 0.11
1 0.90 0.10
3 Assemble bracket to frame 0.70 3.00
6 1.00
2 Asm. Grommet to power cord 0.40 2.67
4 Wire power cord to motor 0.10 1.97
Wire power cord to switch
2 0.91 0.09 0.7 0.32 0.27
5 0.30 1.30
3.00
6 Asm. mech. plate to bracket 0.11 1.00 0.2 3 7 9
8 Assemble motor to bracket 0.60 1.87
1 21
1.21 0.89
3 0.92 0.08 1 0.5 0.12
0.1 0.6
7 Assemble blade to bracket 0.32 1.21
3.30 8 11 12
10 Asm. switch to motor bracket 0.38 1.00 4
4 0.65 0.35 0.4
9 Align blade and att. to motor 0.27 0.89 1.97 1.87 0.38 0.62 0.12
11 Attach cover, inspect, and test 0.50 0.62
5 0.62 0.38 2 0.3 10
12 Place in tote pan for packing 0.12 0.12
2.67 5 1.00
Target production rate: 60 units/hour = 1 unit/min (Groover, p.421 3e)
1.30 Target production rate: 60 units/hour = 1 unit/min
* Maintain precedence and cycle time requirements * Maintain precedence and cycle time

RPW Solution Evaluation*


• The balance delay i Task Description Tei (min) RPW(i) Station w Tsw I(w)
1 Place frame on workholder 0.20 3.30
d = [(5)(1)-4]/(5)(1) = 0.20 1 0.90 0.10
3 Assemble bracket to frame 0.70 3.00
nsTc − Twc
d= 2 Asm. Grommet to power cord 0.40 2.67
nsTc 4 Wire power cord to motor 0.10 1.97
2 0.91 0.09
5 Wire power cord to switch 0.30 1.30

• The balance efficiency 6 Asm. mech. plate to bracket 0.11 1.00

Eb= 4/(5)(1) = 0.80 8 Assemble motor to bracket 0.60 1.87


3 0.92 0.08
7 Assemble blade to bracket 0.32 1.21
Twc
Eb = 10 Asm switch to motor bracket
Asm. 0 38
0.38 1 00
1.00
nsTc 4 0.65 0.35
9 Align blade and att. to motor 0.27 0.89

11 Attach cover, inspect, and test 0.50 0.62


• Max station imbalance 12 Place in tote pan for packing 0.12 0.12
5 0.62 0.38

I(5) = |1-0.62| = 0.38


max all i I i = max all i {Tc − (Tsi + Tr )}

What is the maximum production rate for this line?


Rp = 1 / TSWmax = 1 / 0.92 = 1.09 units/min = 65.2 units/hr