238 views

Uploaded by aranfeiv

- Belt Conveyor Ism
- SM Pizza Report
- IIE_RA_1.pdf
- opt_25491_2063846081
- Unique Catalogue
- Nilkamal Presentation 2011 Final
- Msdspds File 11 ENR020
- Chain Maintenance
- Automotive Chains & Sprockets Manufacturers
- A8-A FM 301 PPT
- Washing Brochure Terex
- Application of Conveyors for UG Haulage
- Slat Conveyor
- Commissioning Procedures for Conveyors.docx
- Pbe_199306-Compact Pneumatic Conveyor Cleanly Transfers Detergent Dust
- 7288855 rev 12
- Packinghouse Report
- Material Handling
- 2017
- Champion 8pg 02

You are on page 1of 4

CONTEST PROBLEM 9

SM Electronics is a small manufacturer that produces electronic parts used by a variety of

other manufacturers. Recently, we noticed problems in a department that produces three

different parts. The demand mix for these three products has changed slowly over time.

The department is almost fully automated and consists of four lines. Each of the first three

lines produces a single product and they have all been modified over time to meet the

current demand mix. When the almost-finished parts (Parts A, B, and C) exit these three

lines, they all enter the fourth line where the final operations are performed for all product

types. The new product mix has caused the fourth line to become a bottleneck.

SM Electronics employed several consultants to collect data and recommend modifi-

cations to this line. Although we’ve received sufficient information to proceed with the

modifications, the actual performance after the modifications are implemented is in

question. Two different approaches were suggested. At this time, it’s not clear which

approach would provide the best results. It’s also possible that both suggested modifica-

tions may be required in order to achieve the desired performance. In light of this uncer-

tainty, we are initiating this request for recommendations.

You are asked to evaluate the current design and propose the configuration(s) that

will result in approximately minimizing operating cost while still achieving the desired

performance levels. With this in mind, this document describes the current system and

presents the two different modifications that have been proposed, as well as including

data where they are available.

Your analysis should concentrate on the fourth line, and a schematic of it is shown.

We do not anticipate a need to change the first three lines, so we will give you only

limited information on them.

Parts A, B, and C enter the fourth line on the left. Since the lines that produce these

parts are fully automated, their arrival rates are very predictable. The normal arrivals for

the three parts are: Part A, every 2.8 minutes; Part B, every 1.4 minutes; and Part C,

every 2.0 minutes. There are occasional jams on these lines, which can cause slight

delays in part arrivals. The collected data show that delays occur 2%, 1.75%, and 0.5% of

the time on Lines A, B, and C, respectively. The data for these delays have been analyzed

and triangular distributions have been fitted to the data. The parameters for these

distributions are (5,15,60), (5,20,55), and (5,20,65) for Lines A, B, and C, respectively.

Note that the time units for these parameters are in seconds.

2 IIE/RA CONTEST PROBLEMS

7 6 5 4

Part A Line

Part B Line 8 1 2 3

Part C Line

Finished Parts

The arriving parts are merged (in the order in which they arrive) onto a single input

conveyor, which feeds the fourth and final system. The input conveyor from the merge

point to where the parts enter the fourth system has room for 40 parts. If this input

conveyor becomes full and a new part attempts to merge onto the conveyor, then the line

producing that part temporarily shuts down until space becomes available. Currently,

there are numerous shutdowns during each day. For analysis purposes, you can assume

that if a part arrives and the input conveyor is full, that part is considered to be lost

production. The cost for a lost part is $0.89, $0.63, and $0.72 for Parts A, B, and C,

respectively.

The fourth system consists of eight work cells connected by a power-and-free

conveyor. The distance between each work cell is 18 feet. When a new part enters the

system from the input conveyor at Work Cell 8, it must wait for a special pallet that will

hold the part as it travels through the system. Presently, there are 40 pallets in the system,

each requiring 2 feet of space. Thus, there is room for eight pallets between each pair of

successive work cells (16 feet of buffer space and 2 feet for the work cell). The travel

time between work cells (18 feet) is 15 seconds.

When both a pallet and a new part are available at Work Cell 8, the finished part is first

removed from the pallet, and then the new part is loaded. This unload/load process is fully

automated and takes 25 seconds. A jam occurs approximately 1% of the time, requiring

additional time. The time to respond to a jam follows a triangular distribution with

parameters (5,15,75). These parameters are expressed in seconds. Once the unload/load

process is complete, the pallet moves to the buffer area in front of Work Cell 1. If there is

no room in the buffer area, the pallet remains at the unload/load work cell until room

becomes available. In effect, the waiting loaded pallet blocks the unload/load work cell.

The new part moves through the system where an operation is performed at each of

the remaining seven work cells. Work Cells 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are automated operations.

Work Cells 2 and 7 are manual operations.

When a pallet enters an automated work cell, a scanner reads the part type on that

pallet. If the part type is different from the last part type at that work cell, the work cell

must undergo a setup. The required setup time is dependent only on the new part type.

These setup times (in seconds) are given in the table below.

IIE/RA CONTEST PROBLEMS 3

Arriving

Part Type Work Cell 1 Work Cell 3 Work Cell 4 Work Cell 5 Work Cell 6

Part A 25 52 35 29 11

Part B 20 21 22 14 19

Part C 17 34 24 37 17

For example, if a Part B arrives at Work Cell 1 and the previous part at that work cell

was either an A or C, then a 20-second setup is required. If the previous part was a B,

then no setup is required.

The operation or process time at the automated work cells is also part dependent.

These operation times (in seconds) are given in the following table. For example, a Part B

at Work Cell 4 requires a 38-second operation time.

Part Type Work Cell 1 Work Cell 3 Work Cell 4 Work Cell 5 Work Cell 6

Part A 37 39 41 33 31

Part B 46 27 38 41 24

Part C 39 23 47 35 51

The operation or process times at the two manual work cells follow triangular

distributions with the parameters given, in seconds. No setup is required at the manual

work cells.

Part A 36,45,52 27,35,41

Part B 21,32,39 31,39,43

Part C 32,36,42 22,27,38

Based on our observations, we feel that you can safely assume that no jams or failures

occur at Work Cells 1 through 7.

The factory is currently working two shifts, a 16-hour production day, five days a

week. The lines are shut down at the end of each day, leaving the incomplete parts in the

system, and they are restarted at the beginning of the next working day.

Although casual observations by the consultants and our production engineers

indicate that our lost production cost is high, we are not able to place a dollar value on

that loss. Thus, the first question we would like you to address is: What is the cost of lost

production for our current system? Please provide this as a weekly cost.

We would then like you to evaluate the two proposed modifications to see if they

make economic sense. The first proposed modification requires that we add pallets to the

existing fourth system. Since the current control logic for that system was developed

specifically for 40 pallets, that logic must be modified. The fixed cost for this

modification is $17,000. This cost is incurred even if only one pallet is added. In

addition, there is an incremental cost of $3,000 for each pallet added.

4 IIE/RA CONTEST PROBLEMS

The second proposed modification requires that we insert additional space for

incoming parts by adding three new buffer conveyors. The amount of additional storage

is limited, based on available space. The current available space would allow three buffer

conveyors to be added at the incoming merge point, one conveyor for each part type.

Each of these conveyors would have space for an additional ten parts. The concept is that

each of the first three lines would insert their parts into their own buffer conveyor

(limited to ten parts on each conveyor). Logic would then be developed that would allow

these parts to be released in batches to the existing buffer conveyor (limited to 40 parts).

For example, you might release in batches of five. When these batches of five (all the

same part) are processed by the final system, there would be only one setup at each of the

automated operations at the start of the batch. We have already priced this option with a

conveyor manufacturer. The cost to implement this modification is $56,000. This cost

includes the equipment cost, installation cost, and the development of whatever release

logic is required.

SM Electronics requests that during your analysis you evaluate and answer the

following questions:

1. What is the cost of lost production for our current system?

2. What is the cost savings, if any, resulting from the implementation of the first

proposed modification?

How many additional pallets should be added?

3. What is the cost savings, if any, resulting from the implementation of the second

proposed modification?

Include a detailed description of your proposed release logic.

4. Should we implement both of the proposed modifications?

Please provide all cost comparisons in dollars per week. Your report should include a

recommendation for the most cost-effective system. Your analysis may reveal that neither

of the two options should be considered.

We are currently occupied by other activities and will not require a solution until

early April. Since there are several groups competing for this contract, we have decided

that we will not provide additional information during the analysis period. However, you

are encouraged to make additional reasonable, documented assumptions. We look

forward to receiving your report in April and reviewing your proposed solution.

- Belt Conveyor IsmUploaded byPrasenjit Choudhury
- SM Pizza ReportUploaded byJoel Manalili
- IIE_RA_1.pdfUploaded byFelicia Thomas
- opt_25491_2063846081Uploaded bydanielesmar
- Nilkamal Presentation 2011 FinalUploaded bybhushii_jags
- Msdspds File 11 ENR020Uploaded byVân (Ms) - Mendo
- Chain MaintenanceUploaded bystokinpower
- Washing Brochure TerexUploaded byWashington Huallpa
- Automotive Chains & Sprockets ManufacturersUploaded bySher Thapa
- Unique CatalogueUploaded bydeepakpatni11
- Application of Conveyors for UG HaulageUploaded byminerito2211
- Commissioning Procedures for Conveyors.docxUploaded byNur Khamid
- A8-A FM 301 PPTUploaded byRishikesh Awale
- Slat ConveyorUploaded bypkjddjsyd
- Pbe_199306-Compact Pneumatic Conveyor Cleanly Transfers Detergent DustUploaded by설동하
- 7288855 rev 12Uploaded byapi-273257329
- Packinghouse ReportUploaded byGebreMichael
- Material HandlingUploaded bymkpq
- 2017Uploaded byapi-392944886
- Champion 8pg 02Uploaded byRicardo Pena
- Receiving Material ProcedureUploaded bygst ajah
- epalUploaded byDragos Vda
- Study of Existing Fruit Grading Machines: A ReviewUploaded byInternational Journal of Innovations in Engineering and Science
- resume 04182017Uploaded byapi-355103381
- MINIMIZING BELT WEAR AND DAMAGE FROM OPTIMIZED CHUTE DESIGNUploaded bylrodriguez_892566
- Waves Older Expert GuideUploaded bymailbox75
- TOSARA R2 (2)Uploaded bybappabatliboi
- Qh441 Brochure EnglishUploaded byJesusFloresRodriguez
- Rotation Sensor With TimerUploaded byNad Eem
- Resume MechanicalUploaded byPrateek SInghal

- 2-MatlabCharacterUploaded byJandry Luhukay
- Linux Administrators Security GuideUploaded byomjaijagdish.rai
- JKT 48 Security AgencyUploaded byAnonymous 0zDCGRZH
- BikeNetUploaded byjagdishmehta_online123
- Ace the Ielts Trial Listening Edition3Uploaded byDOMINIC
- Performance Analysis Report_R2.pdfUploaded byVictor Escobar
- In-situ Balancing - Method of Statement_rev04.pdfUploaded byMuhammad Fahmi Mahmud
- DeviceNet_HA027506ENG_5Uploaded byjnesa
- 3D.user.Interfaces.theory.and.Practice.2nd.editionUploaded byAlejandro Arias Alarcon
- 776-sap-bw-web-reporting-user-guide.docUploaded byrohit sharma
- Eva Luna PDF EnglishUploaded bySara
- 07172015_ResumeUploaded byJames Nully
- Management Information System Project - Coca ColaUploaded byMuhammad Talha
- LM741CUploaded byMario Ariel
- B11 catalog.pdfUploaded byChew Chong
- E-Business Tax Purchasing Whitepaper-1Uploaded byOluwole Osinubi
- mongoUploaded byRavivarma Venkata Srinivasa
- Oreilly CatalogUploaded byRicurdo FromHell
- FLIX-Ticket-7001512090.pdfUploaded bypablo
- Mogucnost Nadogradnje Operativnih SistemaUploaded byadrovicalmir
- CVUploaded byGaston Dereck Alex
- Lecture 3Uploaded bytuyambaze jean claude
- SQL Server Integration Services SSISUploaded byMarijaVidanović
- Walther PP Pistol ExplainedUploaded bycungya
- SAP APJ Partner SolutionsUploaded byitmues
- AG300Uploaded byJaqhama
- CaptiVoice-2018-1bUploaded byFernanda Torres
- CSF213-L6Uploaded byNilayan Ahmed
- Epson L100 DatasheetUploaded byBattulga Ag
- Intro to SpiceUploaded byajith.ganesh2420