ScienceDirect

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

Available ScienceDirect
online at www.sciencedirect.com
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

ScienceDirect
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia Manufacturing 39 (2019) 814–823
25th International Conference on Production Research Manufacturing Innovation:
Cyber Physical Manufacturing
August 9-14, 2019 | Chicago, Illinois (USA)
25th International Conference on Production Research Manufacturing Innovation:
Cyber Physical Manufacturing
Throughput Analysis of2019
August 9-14, Manufacturing
| Chicago, IllinoisSystems
(USA) with Buffers
Considering Reliability and Cycle Time Using DES and DOE
Throughput Analysis of Manufacturing Systems with Buffers
Considering Reliability and
Jad Imseitif a
Cycle
, He TangaTime
*, MikeUsing
Smithb DES and DOE
a
School of Engineering, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI 48197, USA
Jad Imseitif , He Tang *, Mike Smith
b a
Magna International Powertrain,a Troy, MI 48083, USA b

a
School of Engineering, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI 48197, USA
Abstract b
Magna International Powertrain, Troy, MI 48083, USA

The complexity of manufacturing systems makes the accurate prediction of production throughput difficult because of many
Abstract
variables. Continuously developing and implementing scientific methods can advance the understanding of the throughput of
complex manufacturing systems.
The complexity
This of manufacturing
throughput study addresses thesystems makesofthe
main factors accurate prediction
manufacturing systems of
in production
the setting ofthroughput difficult
a serial line. because
The factors of many
include the
variables. and
reliability Continuously
cycle timedeveloping and implementing
of workstations, the length of ascientific methods
manufacturing can
line, andadvance the understanding
the capacity and locations ofof the throughput
internal buffers of
in
acomplex manufacturing
manufacturing line. Tosystems.
effectively study these factors, the authors propose and use Design of Experiments (DOE) and Discrete-
This
Eventthroughput
Simulationstudy
(DES)addresses theand
to analyze main factors
predict theofthroughput
manufacturing systems in thesystem
of a manufacturing settingunder
of a serial line.settings.
different The factors include the
reliability and cycle time of workstations, the length of a manufacturing line, and the capacity and
The study results provide a new understanding of the impacts of these factors on the production throughput locations of internal buffers in
of serial
amanufacturing
manufacturinglines.
line.The
To effectively studycan
study outcomes these
befactors,
a valuedthe authors propose
reference and use Design
for the development of Experiments
of such (DOE) and Discrete-
complex manufacturing systems
Event Simulation
to achieve (DES)
the desired to analyze and predict the throughput of a manufacturing system under different settings.
throughput.
The study results provide a new understanding of the impacts of these factors on the production throughput of serial
manufacturing lines. The study outcomes can be a valued reference for the development of such complex manufacturing systems
to
© achieve
2019 Thethe desired Published
Authors. throughput.by Elsevier B.V.
© 2019
This is anThe Authors.
open accessPublished by Elsevier
article under Ltd.
the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
© 2019
Selection The
Peer-review Authors.
andunder Published
peer review
responsibilityby Elsevier
under the
of the B.V.
responsibility of ICPR25 of
scientific committee International
the ICPR25Scientific & Advisory
International and &
Scientific Organizing
Advisorycommittee
and Organizing
committee
members members
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Selection and
Keywords: peer review
Manufacturing under
Lines; the responsibility
Reliability; Cycle Time;of ICPR25
Internal International
Buffer; Design of Scientific & Advisory
Experiments; and Organizing
Discrete-Event Simulation. committee
members

Keywords: Manufacturing Lines; Reliability; Cycle Time; Internal Buffer; Design of Experiments; Discrete-Event Simulation.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-734-487-2040; E-mail address: htang2@emich.edu

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

* Corresponding
This author.
is an open access Tel.:
article +1-734-487-2040;
under E-mail
the CC BY-NC-ND address:
license htang2@emich.edu
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Selection and peer review under the responsibility of ICPR25 International Scientific & Advisory and Organizing committee members
2351-9789 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
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.2020.01.423
 Jad Imseitif et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 39 (2019) 814–823 815
2 Imseitif, Tang, Simth / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

1. Introduction

1.1. General research background

Manufacturing systems can be designed with different configurations, such as serial, parallel, or hybrid [1]. A
serial manufacturing line is a set of sequential operations, where material flows from a work area (machines or
stations) to a storage (buffer), then to the proceeding work area and so on. In assembly lines, workstations bring
product closer to being fully assembled; and the product is transferred from a workstation to a buffer area or to the
proceeding stations. The production throughput of a manufacturing system can be measured by the number of
produced units finished at the last station in a specified period.
Throughput analysis is important for the design, operation, and management of production systems [2]. The
number of parts produced is affected by the randomness in production due to the number of workstations (M), the
reliability of the workstations, the cycle time (the time required to complete all designed operations at a workstation)
of the workstations, the locations and the size of internal buffers. These factors together make it hard to predict the
number of produced units. This study analyzes the throughput of serial automotive assembly lines to help
understand the effect of each factor on production when an internal buffer replaces an assembly station.
A workstation that reduces the throughput of a line or limits the flow of WIP called a bottleneck station.
Lawrence, et al. found that there existed no clear consensus definition of a bottleneck resource [3]. However, in the
literature, there are different definitions of a bottleneck station which Betterton, et al. summarized [4]. In this study,
two definitions are considered. First, a resource whose isolated production rate is the smallest among those in the
system [5] - slow cycle time or low reliability. Second, the resource that has the largest impact on reducing the
throughput of a system [6] – slow cycle time and low reliability (an extreme situation).
In Lean Manufacturing, the idea of theory of constraints (TOC) also comes into play, as each constraint or
bottleneck is addressed [7]. It is also assumed in this that a Pull system is at play rather than a push system, which
can have dramatic impacts on throughput and cycle time.

1.2 Objectives of the study

This study continues the work of a previous study that approved that the middle location in any homogenous line
is the optimal location for an internal buffer to increase the throughput of a serial manufacturing system [8]. The
reliability and cycle time of workstations, the length of a manufacturing line, and the capacity and locations of
internal buffers in a manufacturing line are the main factors that influence the throughput production of
manufacturing systems. This study also analyzes the throughput by addressing the reliability and cycle time of
workstations while an internal buffer presents in the line. This study proposes a new understanding of the impact
level of each factor on throughput using DES and analyzes the results using DOE.
The study methodology is to analyze two different lines with different lengths, a short line of 7 stations and a
long line of 12 stations. Each line has an internal buffer and one or more bottleneck stations. In the short line, one
bottleneck station is assigned at the middle, and three experiments are conducted to analyze the effect of cycle time
and/or reliability of one station on the throughput of the line while an internal buffer is assigned in the line. The
results are generalized to a long line to analyze how the internal buffer at different locations compensates the
bottlenecking effects with two or four bottleneck stations.
The outcomes of this study help in understanding the impact of each factor on throughput to test if the previous
study conclusions are applicable for a line with non-identical stations – one station or more have different
parameters. In addition, the results can be a valued reference for the development of such complex manufacturing
systems to achieve the desired throughput.

2. Literature review

Significant work has focused on analyzing the performance of manufacturing systems with unreliable machines
and finite buffers using analytic methods. Exact analytic solutions are only available for the simple two-machine-
816 Jad Imseitif et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 39 (2019) 814–823
Imseitif, Tang, Simth / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 3

one-buffer transfer lines using decomposition and aggregation methods. Exact analytic methods are not found for
long and complex serial lines.
Approximate methods such as decomposition and aggregation methods have been developed based on two
machines separated by a buffer to analyze the performance of larger systems. This does not give an accurate analysis
and prediction for the throughput. Patchong, et al., Li, et al, and Li et al. studied eight different models analytically.
Each study had two machines separated by a buffer to give a thorough understanding of a two-machine line model
[2, 9, 10]. Liu, et al. studied the throughput and inventory of a two-workstation with a one-finite-buffer system. The
machines follow exponential operation, failure, and repair processes. The study presented a three-state machine
model to characterize the asynchronous independent operations from multiple parallel machines [11]. Kavusturucu,
at el. studied arbitrary topology manufacturing (queueing) systems with finite buffers and N-policy by using
decomposition, isolation and expansion methodologies to calculate the throughput of the system [12].
Many researches focused on buffer capacity to decouple machines breakdowns, blocking, and starving to
maximize throughput for short balanced or unbalanced lines. So, et al. studied both balanced and unbalanced lines
considering up to five reliable machines [13]. Hillier, et al. studied the efficiency of short production line based on
the machines reliability, analytically. The study focuses on four- and five-identical-station lines [14]. Enginarlar, et
al. studied buffer allocation based on machines’ downtime distribution [15]. Roser, et al. proposed a prediction
model to determine the capacity of a buffer based on starving and blocking analysis and shifting bottleneck
detection [16].
Most papers that analyzed throughput for manufacturing systems used simulation or analytical methods.
Sivakumar, et al. used a data-driven discrete-event simulation (DES) model for a semiconductor site as the base for
a case study [17]. A few papers used the design of experiment (DOE) methodology to study the manufacturing
systems factors to optimize their performance as in [18]. Tanco, et al. stimulated the engineering community to
apply the DOE in manufacturing to increase the efficiency of the production processes [19]. Guerra-Zubiaga, et al.
used DOE to analyze energy consumption in a manufacturing process [20].
In summary, the previous studies analyzed throughput analytically but little analysis is found for long serial
manufacturing system using DES and DOE together. The throughput was analyzed using decomposition and
aggregation methods and that reduces the accuracy of the analysis. The proposed paper uses DES and DOE in an
effort to analyze throughput and have a better understanding of some variables on throughput. Furthermore, this
study provides a predictive quantitative improvement on throughput. With the DOE identifying the most significant
constraint then the principles of TOC can be applied to remove or reduce that factor.

3. Modeling description and assumptions

3.1 Overall methods

This paper uses two technologies to analyze throughput, which are DES and DOE. DOE is used as a controlled
experiment to determine the relationship between the factors that affect the throughput of a manufacturing system.
In addition, it is used to identify the factors that act together and affect throughput. DOE helps to estimate the size of
the effect of each factor on the output and to find the optimal settings of each factor to get the desired throughput.
The factors that are considered are the reliability of the stations, the cycle time of the stations, buffer location, and
buffer capacity.
DES models of automotive assembly lines are created in Simul8 software and the models are simulated to obtain
the anticipated throughput under each setting. The possible combinations of the settings of the factors are
determined by the generated DOE matrix by Minitab software.
To ensure comparability between the throughput of the lines. A manufacturing system with an internal buffer is
compared with a system that has the same manufacturing throughput capabilities - the same number of assembly
stations. If a line has M-identical stations and an internal buffer is to be replaced an assembly station, then the line
has M-1= m-identical assembly station. If one or more of the m stations is a bottleneck station, the throughput is
denoted by β. If a buffer is assigned at a particular location in this line, the throughput is denoted by µ. Throughput
increase percentage (TIP) is the difference between µ and β, which represents the effect of internal buffer in
compensating the effect of the bottleneck station.
 4 Imseitif, Tang, Simth /etProcedia
Jad Imseitif Manufacturing
al. / Procedia 00 (2019)
Manufacturing 000–000
39 (2019) 814–823 817

3.2 Design of experiment (DOE)

To study the factors and their settings, DOE methodology is used. A common reason of using DOE are to help
identify the influencing factors, factor interactions that act together on throughput, and determine the optimum
settings of the factors to get the desired throughput. Based on the DOE matrix, running the DES model to get
throughput results. The resulted throughput values are recorded in the DOE matrix.
Two main aspects are considered in this paper in analyzing the throughout, the TIP values and the P-values from
the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test. ANOVA test is used to compare the means of the factors to determine
whether they differ significantly from one another. Another important function, to estimate the differences between
the means, is the P-value, which measures how compatible the data are with the null hypothesis.

3.3 Discrete-event simulation (DES) modeling and assumptions

Simul8 software is used to model the manufacturing lines, analyze and validate the performance of the line under
different settings. It visualizes a manufacturing system as a flow diagram that represents the system’s workflow. By
creating a simulation model, Simul8 helps to experiment with the system’s changes and measure how its processes
will perform in the real world. A simulation model is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 A DES simulation Model of a 12-station line

The parameters of the stations are set up based on real-world numbers. Reliability can be viewed as the
probability that a station can operate continuously without failure during a specified interval of time. While cycle
time is the time required to complete all designed operations at a workstation [21]. A conveyor is used as an internal
buffer.
The assumptions in setting up the simulation models include:
1. The assembly line is saturated, which means the first station is never starved and the last station is never
blocked.
2. The manufacturing systems are set 8 hours a day and 5 working days per week. The simulation time is 16
weeks with 4 hours warming up. Simul8 starts collecting the results after the warming-up period ends.
3. When a failure occurs, the workstation stops working immediately.
4. The distribution of cycle time is average.
5. When an internal buffer has a multiple-unit capacity, it is designed in a stacked or conveyor configuration as
shown in Figure 2. Due to the travel distance in positions A, B, and C, the WIP transfer time is different. The
transfer time through A is set at 8 seconds. The transfer time increases in 8 seconds increments through the
positions B, C, etc.
6. The baseline parameters for the workstations are 45 seconds for the cycle time and 95% for the reliability. The
95% reliability represents the up time of a station. These parameters serve as a base for defining bottlenecking.
The parameters of a bottleneck station are chosen based on real-word situations. These parameters are
considered the lowest allowable parameters for a station in an automotive assembly line.
818 Jad Imseitif et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 39 (2019) 814–823
Imseitif, Tang, Simth / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 5

Figure 2 WIP flow in the stacked configuration of a multiple-unit buffer

4. Results and discussion

DES models consist of M stations (M: 7 and 12) and 10 conveyors. These conveyors act as internal buffers that
hold one WIP unit at a time. These internal buffers are assigned at different locations based on the DOE matrices.
The internal buffer replaces an assembly station as in the previous study [8]. In each experiment, the number of
bottleneck stations is different. The throughput data are recorded in the DOE matrix in Minitab software to estimate
the effect of each factor on the manufacturing system performance.

4.1 Effect analysis of internal buffer with one bottleneck station at the middle

In a 7-station line, six stations are identical and have the same reliability (95%) and cycle time (45 seconds). In
the line, one bottleneck station that has a slow cycle time (48 seconds) and/or low reliability (92%) is assigned at the
middle location, as shown in Figure 3. Three Taguchi designed experiments are conducted for three experiments.
Experiment 1: the bottleneck station has a slow cycle time (48 seconds and 95%). Experiment 2: the bottleneck
station has poor reliability (92% and 45 seconds). Experiment 3: the bottleneck station has a slow cycle time and
poor reliability (extreme situation).

Figure 3 A DES model of 7-station line with one bottleneck station at a middle location

The DOE factors and their levels are shown below in Table 1: 2 factors with 4 levels. In the DOE matrix, Table
2, 16 runs that test the possible combinations of the settings of the factors (4 levels 2 factors = 16 runs) for each
experiment. Since the combination of the location and capacity of buffers are the same for the three cases, three
DOE matrices are combined in one matrix. The Taguchi matrix chosen uses multilevel arrangement in order to
optimize the number of trials by using the interaction linear equations of an L16 matrix. The basic matrix is a 215
experiment allowing for 15 factors at 2 levels each. Multi-level arrangement allows for sacrificing the Interaction
Columns to create the 4 levels of factors. In this case, earlier studies indicated that the interactions between main
effects were negligible and could be ignored.
Table 1 DOE plan and Factors information for 7-station line with one bottleneck station at the middle.

Factor Type Levels Values

Buffer Location Fixed 4 2, 3, 5, 6

Buffer Capacity Fixed 4 1, 3, 5, 10

 Jad Imseitif et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 39 (2019) 814–823 819
6 Imseitif, Tang, Simth / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

The resulted throughput data of simulating the DES model, in Figure 3, are recorded in the experiment 1 TP
(throughput), experiment 2 TP, and experiment 3 TP columns in the DOE matrix in Table 2. After analyzing the
DOE matrix, the throughput mean value of each buffer location is used to calculate the TIP value.
Table 2 Combined DOE matrix of three experiments for the 7-station line with bottleneck at the middle.

Buffer Buffer Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Experiment 3

Location Capacity TP TP TP
2 1 37509 37750 36969
2 3 37509 37750 36969
2 5 37509 37750 36969
2 10 37509 37750 36969
3 1 38126 38321 37634
3 3 38198 38423 37699
3 5 38198 38423 37699
3 10 38198 38423 37699
5 1 38190 38396 37689
5 3 38278 38501 37749
5 10 38279 38501 37748
6 1 37499 37719 36995
6 3 37499 37719 36995
6 5 37499 37719 36995
6 10 37499 37719 36995

When the ANOVA test was performed it was set to the 95% confidence level such that a P-value of <0.05% is
significant. The ANOVA tables for the three experiments are shown in Table 3. In the three experiments, the buffer
location is significant but the buffer capacity is not significant.
Table 3 ANOVA for the three experiments for a 7-staiton line with a bottleneck station at the middle.

Experiment no Source DF Adj SS Adj MM F-value P-value

Buffer Location 3 2052517 684172 1245.27 0.000

Experiment 1

Buffer Capacity 3 4840 1613 2.94 0.092

Error 9 4945 549

Total 15 2062302

Buffer Location 3 19829698 660989 740.14 0.000

Experiment 2

Buffer Capacity 3 8034 2678 3.00 0.088

Error 9 8038 893

Total 15 1999039

Buffer Location 3 2116310 705437 2170.39 0.000

Experiment 3

Buffer Capacity 3 2914 971 2.99 0.088

Error 9 2925 325

Total 15 2122150
820 Jad Imseitif et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 39 (2019) 814–823
Imseitif, Tang, Simth / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 7

3.5%

2.9%

2.3%
TIP

1.7%

1.1%
Exp 1 Exp 2 Exp 3

0.5%
2nd 3rd 5th 6th
Internal Buffer Location

Figure 4 Effects of an internal buffer on the throughput when bottleneck in the middle of a 7-station line

Figure 4 shows that the locations of a buffer in a line have a significant effect on improving the throughput and
its trend line is concave down with the buffer location. The internal buffer is more effective in compensating the
negative effect of the bottleneck station if it is assigned closer to the bottleneck station (locations 3rd or 5th). While
assigning the internal buffer at the locations 2nd or 6th, the system has a layout (1 - 5) or (5 - 1). This layout is not
effective to compensate for the blocking and starving phenomena, since there is a long, un-buffered sub-line of 5
stations.
Table 4 shows the results of calculating the TIP values for each location in the three experiments. TIP values
show that the internal buffer effectiveness is higher with a slow station than an unreliable station. Lower reliability
means higher possibilities of breaking down, but when the station is working and processing units, the
manufacturing system can be considered as a homogenous system - all the stations have the same cycle time.

Table 4 TIP for 7-station line with a bottleneck station at the 4th location.
TIP with Buffer Locations
Experiment
2 3 5 6

Experiment 1 1.07% 2.88% 3.09% 1.05%

Experiment 2 1.06% 2.80% 3.01% 0.98%

Experiment 3 0.83% 2.77% 2.91% 0.90%

The main effect plot for experiment 3 is shown in Figure 5. The plot examines the differences between the level
means for the internal buffer location and capacity for experiment 3. The plot shows the direction of improvements
that could be made by assigning the internal buffer at the middle or near the middle. The internal buffer capacity line
is horizontal with the reference line when the capacity is three units or more. This means that increasing internal
buffer capacity has no main effect on improving the throughput. The response mean is the same across all factor
levels. The main effect plots for the three experiments are the same, but the mean values.
As the bottleneck station restricts the WIP flow, a buffer is needed to accumulate the WIP units and keep other
segments - the upstream or the downstream segment – processing units. Even though the 5th location has a slightly
higher TIP and mean value of the throughput than the 3rd location in the three experiments, the two locations are
important. For instance, the buffer reduces the blockage phenomena of the upstream line and the starving of the
downstream line. However, the internal buffer, to feed a bottleneck station, tends to be blocked and full most time. If
it is an output for a bottleneck station, it tends to be empty and unblocked.
 Jad Imseitif et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 39 (2019) 814–823 821
8 Imseitif, Tang, Simth / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

Main Effects Plot for Means

Experiment 3
Data Means
Buffer Location Buffer Capacity
37800

37700

37600
Mean of Means

37500

37400

37300

37200

37100

37000

36900
2 3 5 6 1 3 5 10

Figure 5 Main effects for the 7-station line with a bottleneck station at the middle

The 2nd and the 6th locations have approximately the same TIP values, and the 3rd and the 4th locations have
approximately the same TIP values. The throughput trend lines for the three experiments are the same. These results
agree the buffer mirror allocation and reversibility principles [22] and approves the results in [8] even if there is a
bottleneck station in the line. Since in [8] the stations were assumed to be identical and have the same parameters.
These results show that if one bottleneck station is in the line, the optimal location of the internal buffer is near the
middle or at the middle.

4.2 Effect analysis of internal buffer with bottleneck stations.

The above results show the effect analysis for a short line and one bottleneck (B) station. Another study is
conducted to address the effect of two or more bottleneck stations (extreme situation) on the throughput for a longer
line with internal buffer. Table 5 shows the factors and their levels for the two experiments. Two DES models, as
indicated in previous Figure 1, are built and simulated with the same considerations as the previous study. In the
first model, bottleneck stations are at the 4th and 9th locations. In the second model, bottleneck stations are at 4th, 6th,
8th and 10th locations.
Table 5 Factor information for a long line M=12 with bottleneck stations.

Number of B Factor Type Levels Values

Buffer Location Fixed 5 3, 5, 7, 8, 10

B=2
Buffer Capacity Fixed 4 1, 3, 5, 10

Buffer Location Fixed 4 3, 5, 7, 9

B=4
Buffer Capacity Fixed 4 1, 3, 5, 10

When the ANOVA test was performed it was set to the 95% confidence level such that a P-value of <0.05% is
significant. The ANOVA tables for the three experiments are shown in Table 6. In the three experiments, the
influence of buffer location is significant but that of the buffer capacity is not.
822 Jad Imseitif et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 39 (2019) 814–823
Imseitif, Tang, Simth / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 9

Table 6 ANOVA tables for a long line (M=12) with bottleneck stations.

Number of B stations Source DF Adj SS Adj MM F-value P-value

Buffer Location 4 1320049 330012 37.75 0.000

Buffer Capacity 3 65420 21807 2.94 0.110

B=2
Error 12 104918 8743

Total 19 1490387

Buffer Location 3 2108362 702787 62.65 0.000

Buffer Capacity 3 58186 19395 1.73 0.230

B=4
Error 9 100952 11217

Total 15 2267499

The resulted throughput data of simulating the DES models are recorded in a DOE matrix and analyzed. The
throughput mean value of each buffer location is used to calculate the TIP value. The resulting TIP values for each
location are plotted in Figure 6.

Figure 6 Analysis plot for the 12-station line with two bottleneck stations and four bottleneck stations.

The results show that the internal buffer location (P-value = 0.000) is significant, has a higher impact on
improving throughput, and compensates the negative effects of bottleneck station than the buffer capacity (P-value
=0.110). The throughput trend line is concave down in Figure 6 as same as Figure 4, even though the length of the
lines and the number of bottleneck station are different. When B =4, if the internal buffer is assigned in between of
bottleneck stations at the middle of the line, the TIP value increases significantly for this location. In other words,
the internal buffer at the middle location divides the line into two short sublines and close to the bottleneck stations.
While when the internal buffer is assigned at the 5th or the 9th locations in between two bottleneck stations, the
throughput is not improved, as at the middle, since the internal buffer is not at its optimal location that divides the
assembly line into two short sublines.

5. Conclusions

This study is a continuing study of [8] that concluded that the middle location for assigning an internal buffer, in
any homogenous serial line, is the optimal location to system throughput. This study focuses on the effects of the
 Jad Imseitif et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 39 (2019) 814–823 823
10 Imseitif, Tang, Simth / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

reliability and/or cycle time of stations on throughput and the effects of assigning an internal buffer at different
locations to improving throughput.
 The buffer location is more significant and effective than the buffer capacity in compensating the negative effect
of bottlenecking, blocking, and starving.
 The results show that the optimal location of internal buffers is the middle location, even if the line short or long
and has bottleneck stations.
 The internal buffer compensates the bottleneck station effect effectively when it is next to it. If the bottleneck
station(s) and the internal buffer are at middle or near the middle of the line that increases throughput
significantly.
The study results may serve as a reference in designing and developing manufacturing systems that have
bottleneck stations and in assigning an internal buffer to improve throughput.

References

[1] Koren, Yoram, S. Jack Hu, and Thomas W. Weber. "Impact of manufacturing system configuration on performance." CIRP Annals –
Manufacturing Technology 47 (1998): 369–372.
[2] Li, Jingshan, et al. "Throughput analysis of production systems: recent advances and future topics." International Journal of
Production Research, 47.14 (2009): 3823-3851.
[3] Lawrence, Stephen R., and Arnold H. Buss. "Shifting production bottlenecks: causes, cures, and conundrums." Production and
operations management 3.1 (1994): 21-37.
[4] Betterton, C. E., and S. J. Silver. "Detecting bottlenecks in serial production lines–a focus on interdeparture time variance."
International Journal of Production Research, 50.15 (2012): 4158-4174.
[5] Kuo, C-T., J-T. Lim, and Semyon M. Meerkov. "Bottlenecks in serial production lines: A system-theoretic approach." Mathmetical
Problems in Engineering 2 (1996): 233-276.
[6] Chiang, S-Y., C-T. Kuo, and Semyon M. Meerkov. "C-bottlenecks in serial production lines: identification and application."
Mathematical problems in engineering 7 (2001): 543-578.
[7] “Theory of Constraints.” Overall Equipment Effectiveness Manufacturing Made Easy by Vorne, www.leanproduction.com/theory-of-
constraints.html.
[8] Imseitif, J. & Tang, H. "Effects analysis of internal buffers in serial manufacturing systems for optimal throughput." 14th International
Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference. 2019.
[9] Patchong, Alain, and Didier Willaeys. "Modeling and analysis of an unreliable flow line composed of parallel-machine stages." Iie
Transactions 33.7 (2001): 559-568.
[10] Li, Jingshan, Dennis E. Blumenfeld, and Jeffrey M. Alden. "Comparisons of two-machine line models in throughput analysis."
International Journal of Production Research 44.7 (2006): 1375-1398.
[11] Liu, Jialu, et al. "Multi-state throughput analysis of a two-stage manufacturing system with parallel unreliable machines and a finite
buffer." European Journal of Operational Research 219.2 (2012): 296-304.
[12] Kavusturucu, Ayse, and Surendra M. Gupta. "Expansion method for the throughput analysis of open finite manufacturing/queueing
networks with N-policy." Computers & operations research, 26.13 (1999): 1267-1292.
[13] So, Kut C. "Optimal buffer allocation strategy for minimizing work-in-process inventory in unpaced production lines." IIE
transactions 29.1 (1997): 81-88.
[14] Hillier, Frederick S. and Kut C. So. "The effect of machine breakdowns and interstage storage on the performance of production line
systems." International Journal of Production Research 29.10 (1991): 2043-2055.
[15] [15] Enginarlar, Emre, et al. "Buffer capacity for accommodating machine downtime in serial production lines." International Journal
of Production Research 40.3 (2010): 601-624..
[16] Roser, Christoph, Masaru Nakano and Minoru Tanaka. "Single simulation buffer optimization." JSME International Journal Series C
Mechanical Systems, Machine Elements and Manufacturing 48.4 (2004): 763-768.
[17] Sivakumar, Appa Iyer, and Chin Soon Chong. "A simulation based analysis of cycle time distribution, and throughput in
semiconductor backend manufacturing." Computers in Industry 45.1 (2001): 59-78..
[18] Martin, M. A., González, I., Berrios, M., Siles, J. A., and Martin, A. "Optimization of coagulation–flocculation process for wastewater
derived from sauce manufacturing using factorial design of experiments." Chemical Engineering Journal 172.2-3 (2011): 771-782.
[19] Tanco, M., Viles, E., Ilzarbe, L., & Álvarez, M. J. "Manufacturing industries need Design of Experiments (DoE)." World Congress on
Engineering (2007): 1108-1112.
[20] Guerra-Zubiaga, D. A., Mamun, A. A., & Gonzalez-Badillo, G. "An energy consumption approach in a manufacturing process using
design of experiments." International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 31.11 (2018): 1067-1077.
[21] Tang, He. Manufacturing System and Process Development for Vehicle Assembly. . Warrendale, PA: SAE International, 2017.
[22] Conway, Richard, et al. “The role of work-in-process inventory in serial production lines.” Operations Research, 36.2 (1988): 229-
241.