RESEARCH ARTICLE | OCTOBER 11 2022

Bottleneck analysis for gear manufacturing unit by using

discrete event simulation using ARENA
Neha Gunreddy; Ishan Gupta; Ishaan Poddar; ... et. al

AIP Conference Proceedings 2653, 020003 (2022)

https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0110454

CrossMark

 
View Export
Online Citation

Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0110454/16228567/020003_1_online.pdf

 Bottleneck Analysis for Gear Manufacturing Unit by Using
Discrete Event Simulation Using ARENA
Neha Gunreddy1, Ishan Gupta1, Ishaan Poddar1, Akshay Pradeep
Menon1, Raj Srivastava1, Ashish Kumar Saxena2,a
1Department of Manufacturing Engineering, School of Mechanical Engineering,
Vellore Institute of Technology Vellore, India – 632014.
2
Center of Innovation Manufacturing Research, School of Mechanical Engineering,
Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT) Vellore, India – 632014.

Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0110454/16228567/020003_1_online.pdf

a
Corresponding author: ashishkumar@vit.ac.in

Abstract. The identification of bottleneck process is always a big problem in many industrial processes. The issue can be
addressed by understand entirely manufacturing process and optimize and utilize the resources effectively to improve
productivity. This study aims to understand a gear manufacturing production line and use ARENA software to improve
manufacturing efficiency. The input data for various operation cycles were collected by direct observation of the continuous
manufacturing production line of the gear manufacturing plant. After conducting process flow simulation using ARENA, the
bottleneck process was identified, and appropriate actions were simulated to reduce the entire process time of the gear
manufacturing line. To finally arrive at workable solutions, a series of case studies are conducted to analyze the effect of
simulation in each condition by utilizing "WHAT IF" scenarios.

INTRODUCTION
Achieving highest efficiency is always a goal for any business. industry. All industries are always focus to look
forward for enhancing their effectiveness and reduce expenses in the midst of pressures such as competitiveness all
across the world, and also to maintain quality for higher consumer demand. To improve adaptability to a production
process is indeed a major issue in reality, primarily in sectors, where significant capital and intricacy involved, such
as the automobile [1], aviation and other manufacturing sector industries. Gears are one of the critical components in
the automobile sector, and there are many small industries involve in producing the gears for various applications.
To improve the manufacturing capabilities of these industries, the production line and multiple steps involve
incomplete processes should be well optimized. Since the product lines utilize various functions in the intermediary
phases of a processing flow and assembly paths, they tend to have capacity and cycle time difficulties, impacting
overall production lead time. ARENA simulation is a strong tool in capability, efficiency, consistency, and
accessibility[2]. The ARENA can cater to rectify the bottleneck step in the complete production process and help
optimize the process parameters. The optimized parameters support the industry to eliminate bottlenecks in a
production line and obtain higher efficiency in the production chain. This approach makes it easier to research the
most crucial aspect of the manufacturing process. Earlier work about the bottle production line was simulated by
using ARENA software and obtained the optimized parameters. With newly optimized parameters the productivity
of the plant was increased by 4%, average waiting time was reduced by 14.11%, and schedule utilization rate had
been decreased by 15.11%[3]. Another simulation study using ARENA was conducted on cement industries for
optimizing production processes at various workstations. They identified the bottlenecks in-process and improved
the productivity by 15.4% [4]. In another case, Bangladesh Cable Silpa limited, able to locate and alleviate
bottleneck equipment in the copper cable manufacturing cycle using ARENA software. All of these examples opted
ARENA simulation to increase efficiency for the number of production processes, whole system capacity and also
improve the resource utilization. Furthermore, other literature [5][6] showed tire manufacturing process simulation;
they figured out the fundamental cause for the bottleneck in the process. The bottleneck analysis was verified by
lean techniques such as the Pareto chart and cause-effect approach to attain an 18.8 % increase in productivity.

Proceedings of International Conference on Product Design, Development, and Deployment (PDCUBE-2021)

AIP Conf. Proc. 2653, 020003-1–020003-12; https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0110454
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-4213-9/$30.00

020003-1
Another example from Fast Kitchen Sdn. Bhd. Rarit Raja built a simulation model for the food processing line and
led to an increase of 5.11% to 21.47% by small shifts in business hours or the addition of one workforce [7]. Bon &
Shahrin [8] investigated the motorcycle manufacturing process by using ARENA simulation, with the primary goal
to reduce the set of operations and increase the efficiency of each process so that to optimize the complete
manufacturing for outstanding performance. The ARENA simulation process was used by a car manufacturing
company for the car part assembling process; they were able to improve their performance from 68.2% to 81.5% and
manufacturing efficiency by 20 % [9].Our work here is focused on identifying the key bottleneck process in XYZ
Pvt. Ltd., a high precision gear manufacturing company, thus using relevant quantitative data analysis tools to figure
out possible solutions for the bottleneck process. The further aim of this work is to reduce work-in-progress (WIP),
increase worker efficiency, and reduce non-value added activities in the complete gear manufacturing process. In
order to reach feasible solutions, we have opted for various case studies using ‘WHAT IF’ scenarios to analyze the
change in system efficiency by using simulation results for each case.

Approach

Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0110454/16228567/020003_1_online.pdf

As discussed in earlier literature, ARENA simulation proved as an appropriate tool for optimizing manufacturing
processes in various industries, here we are also using the ARENA simulation model for solving our problems in the
production line. With the help of the ARENA simulation model in this study, we can run many numbers of possible
iterations without physically affecting the real manufacturing and save a lot of cost of designing, building, testing
the complete system. We are developing an effective design of experiments for simulating models and performing
analysis to validate the impact of changes. The results obtained from the current analysis can be applied to several
similar production lines.

Validation & Verification

The research is focused upon the workstations that are engaged in the production of gear manufacturing. Data was
collected based on the observation of the process flow of the production line via a detailed field visit at the gear
manufacturing plant (Figure 1a). Each operation at every station was carefully understood, and also all data related
to cycle time was collected from the gear manufacturing plant (Figure 1b). The average cycle time for each of the
manufacturing operations is given in red text with in Figure 1b. In order to perform the simulation analysis using
ARENA, the acquired data for each station has been documented to identify the bottleneck process.

020003-2
 Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0110454/16228567/020003_1_online.pdf
FIGURE 1. a) Data collection process at gear manufacturing plant; b) steps involve in complete gear manufacturing process,
along with the time spend in each of step involve in red color; c) Pie chart for all operations involved in the gear manufacturing
process and its relative contribution to overall lead time

Primary Data Source

The primary data was observed for the operations involved in the gear manufacturing production process. A total of
18 operations are involved in the production process. The total processing time taken in manufacturing of the final
product for the first entity should be 494 seconds or 8.233 minutes.

Data Analysis
The all processes operation time is plotted on Pie-Chart (Fig.1c). In this case, the Pie-Chart represents the
percentage weight age of each process cycle time contributing to total lead time. It is evident from the Pie-Chart that
Fork Machining consumes 32.4% of the total lead time ,which shall act as a major bottleneck in the process and
thereby increasing queuing time. The least time is consumed by the Puffing operation, 0.6% of the total lead time.

Input Data Variables

a) Shift timings: The actual working time for the whole system is 8 working hours per day, excluding the variation of
workers' performance at a time to rest, machine failure, and power off.
b) No. of replications / Sample Size: Simulation is performed for 30 working days. The replication length is 25890
seconds and takes 8 hours per day.
c) Failure of machine: Workstation failure data is collected to obtain the machine's failure behaviors. The

020003-3
 performance of a production line is highly influenced by machine failures. When a machine fails, it is then
unavailable during a certain amount of time required to repair it. When a machine is in a failure status, the number
of parts in the upstream buffer is increased while the number of parts in the downstream buffer is tempted to be
decreased.
d) Capacity of each machine: As mentioned in the resource data module. It is the number of entities a resource
processes at a given point in time.
e) Delay time: For each process in Arena, it is the cycle time as mentioned in the data table.
f) Delay type: Considering delay time as input data in arena simulation we are able to analyze how the delay is
distributed from the delay type for each entity.
g) Number of components In & Out: This input attributes to the total number of parts being transported to the
workstation for the work to begin. No. of Entities: 150 entities are considered. Iron rods in this case.

ARENA FLOW CHART AND MODEL

The flow chart created in ARENA software is shown in fig 2. The complete model consists of 1 start module 16

Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0110454/16228567/020003_1_online.pdf

process module and 1 end module. As process flow mentioned earlier, the very first operation is the CNC process
and the last one is the riveting process.

FIGURE 2. Arena Simulation process flow chart

SIMULATION RESULTS VERIFICATION & ANALYSIS

The initial simulation model is once developed, and the results of the simulation process without any change in the
system are analyzed. Following are essential tables and results from the initial study of the gear manufacturing plant.
The parameters considered are wait time, WIP(work-in-progress), number of parts waiting, and resource utilization.
These characteristics are examined to determine which operation in the production line is causing the longest wait
time to complete the process, the highest number of parts waiting before the procedure begins, and the operation
with the most increased resource utilization.

The initial simulations show the value added time is 474.85 seconds, wait time was 10884.21 seconds and WIP was
65.81 parts. Fig 4a. shows the waiting time for the Fork Machining Process (the Bottleneck Machine) is 8940.48
seconds, the highest among all processes. Fig 4b. shows the number of parts waiting in a queue for the bottleneck
operation is 51.8 which is the maximum among all the operations.

020003-4
 Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0110454/16228567/020003_1_online.pdf
FIGURE 3 a) Screen shot Entity table obtained from the ARENA, with highlighted section for value
added time for completing rail shift assembly rod, part wait time and Work in progress at that instant of
time;

FIGURE 4.a) Queue time in before process; b) No of part waiting at respective station in existing model

Fig5. shows the usage of the different resources, the maximum being that of the bottleneck machine which is at
92.7%. Higher utilization signifies higher wear and tear and higher risk of breakdown.

020003-5
 Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0110454/16228567/020003_1_online.pdf
FIGURE 5. Resource utilization in initial condition

CASE STUDIES: WHAT IF’S SCENARIOS

Scenario 1: What if an additional bottleneck machine is installed?
To alleviate the impacts of the bottleneck, an additional bottleneck machine can be added to the process flow, which
will allow the number of components passing through the bottleneck machine to be divided in two, i.e. total
workload to be shared between two machines. The simulation was performed as per the process flow chart. The
sequence was followed as illustrated in the flow chart to generate an ARENA model (Figure 6) and the results have
been summarized in table 1.

FIGURE 6. Resource utilization in initial condition

FIGURE 6. Process flow chart (additional bottleneck)

020003-6
Effect on Simulation: The value added time is the same as the original process as the cycle times have not been
changed for any of the process. After installing another bottleneck machine the total waiting time has become 1/3rd
of initial waiting time. The no. of average WIP has come down to 31.617 parts from initial 65.811 parts. The
maximum WIP parts at a time in the simulation is 134 which has been reduced from 142.
Queue waiting time: The waiting time for the Fork Machining Process (the Bottleneck Machine) has come down
from 8940 to 6001.93 (2921.6+3080.33) seconds. Even if we add up the waiting time for both Fork Machine 1 and
Fork Machine 2, it is still less than the original waiting time.
No. of parts waiting in queue: Adding another bottleneck machine has significantly reduced the number of parts
waiting in the queue. For Fork Machining 1 it is 8.44 parts and for Fork Machining 2 it is 9.2047 parts. This has
significantly reduced from the original 52 waiting parts for the Fork Machining process.
Resource utilization: The total utilization of the Fork Machining process was 92.7%. After introducing another
machine, the utilization time of Fork Machine 1 is 45.55% and for Fork Machining 2 is 47.15%. This results in
longer life for both machines and lesser wear and tear. It also insures the company to continue production in case
one of the machines breaks down or goes under maintenance.

Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0110454/16228567/020003_1_online.pdf

Table 1. Effect of simulation suggested system 1 on operational parameters and on completed system

Parameter in Existing With simulated and Percentage

Name of Parameter Remarks
Condition optimized system Improvement
Waiting time per part reduced
Waiting Time 10884.2 Sec 4982.2 Sec 54.20%
by half
Work in progress Average (no of Average No of parts in progress
Entity 65 31.6 51.30%
Parts) reduced by half

Work in progress Max. (no of Parts) 142 134 5.60%

Average waiting time in fork Waiting time in Existing

8940.5 Sec 2921.6 Sec
Machining process 1 machining get reduced

Queue time In Added Machine: Average waiting Waiting time in new fork
3080.3 Sec
time in fork Machining process 2 machining also less

Total 8940.5 Sec 6001.9 Sec 32.80%

Average no. of parts in fork No of parts in Existing
51.8 8.4
Machining process 1 machining get reduced
No. of parts waiting
In Added Machine: Average no. of No of parts in new fork
in queue 9.2
parts in fork Machining process 2 machining also less
Total 8940.48 17.6 65%
Percentage utilization of fork
92.70% 45.55% Simulated system reduces %
Machining process 1
utilization of resources is less,
Operation
In Added Machine: Percentage that improve life of fork
47.15% machine
utilization fork Machining process 2

Scenario 2: What if the various processes of the bottleneck machine are broken down
into multiple sub- machines? (Simulate with multiple machine instead of Fork Machining)
Procedures could be split down into sub-machines and reallocated to lower the machine's work burden, resulting in
less accumulation. In doing so the waiting time of the production line could be reduced .The sequence was followed
as illustrated in the flow chart to generate an ARENA model (Figure 7) and the results have been summarized in
table 2.

020003-7
 Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0110454/16228567/020003_1_online.pdf
FIGURE 7. Process Flowchart (multiple machine)

Effect on simulation: The value added time is different as the bottleneck machine has been broken down into
different machines. After breaking down the bottleneck machines into multiple sub-machines the WAITING TIME
has become approximately 0.26 times the Original Waiting Time. The WIP has also come down to 19.778 parts
from 65 parts and the maximum WIP parts at a time in the simulation is 127 which has reduced from 142.
Queue waiting time: The waiting time for the Fork Machining Process (the Bottleneck Machine) has come down
from 8940 to 1009.76 seconds (FM Sub1+Sub2+Sub3).
No of parts waiting in queue: Dividing the bottleneck operations into different machines has significantly reduced
the number of parts waiting in the queue. For Fork Machining Substitutes 1,2 &3 the number of waiting parts are
5.8271, 0.013 and 0.0101 respectively. This has significantly reduced from the original 52 waiting parts for the Fork
Machining process
Resource utilization: The total utilization of the Fork Machining process was 92.7%. After dividing the Fork
Machine into subdivisions the utilization time of Fork Machine substitutes 1,2&3 are 31% each resulting in longer
life of the machines and lower depreciation.

Table 2. Effect of simulation suggested system 2 on operational parameters and on completed system

With simulated and

Parameter in Existing Percentage
Name of Parameter optimized system (FM Remarks
Condition Improvement
Sub1+ Sub2 +Sub 3)
Waiting time per part reduced
Waiting Time 10884.2 Sec 2938 Sec 73.00%
by approx.1/4
Work in progress Average (no of Average No of parts in progress
Entity 65 19.8 69.50%
Parts) reduced by third

Work in progress Max. (no of Parts) 142 127 10.50%

Average waiting time in fork Waiting time in Existing

Queue time 8940.5 Sec 1009.76 Sec 88.70%
Machining process 1 machining get reduced
No of parts in Existing
No. of parts waiting Average no. of parts in fork
51.8 5.8 88.70% machining get reduced by 1/9
in queue Machining process 1
times
Percentage utilization of fork
92.70%
Machining process
In Added Machine: Percentage
31.00% Simulated system reduces %
utilization fork Machining process 1
utilization of resources is
Operation
In Added Machine: Percentage approximate 2/3 less, that
31.00%
utilization fork Machining process 2 improve life of fork machine

In Added Machine: Percentage

31.00%
utilization fork Machining process 3

020003-8
Scenario 3: What if the cycle time of all non-bottleneck machines preceding the bottleneck
machine is increased? (Synchronous Manufacturing)
In synchronous production, batch size determination is critical. Larger batch sizes are preferable for bottleneck
resources. Smaller process batch sizes are preferable for non-bottleneck resources because they minimize work-in-
process inventories. Cycle time is increased by 6 seconds, considering a single worker working on multiple
machines, causing some delay and increase in cycle time.

Effect on simulation: The value added time is 538.85 seconds which is different from the original VA time of 474
seconds. After increasing the cycle time of each operation the WAITING TIME has not changed much and become
approximately 0.95 times the Original Waiting Time of 10884 seconds. The WIP has also come down to 63.20 parts
from 65 parts and the maximum WIP parts at a time in the simulation is 136 which has reduced from 142.
Queue waiting time: The waiting time for the Fork Machining Process (the Bottleneck Machine) has come down

Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0110454/16228567/020003_1_online.pdf

from 8940 to 8492.86 seconds.
No of parts waiting in queue: Increasing cycle time of the operations has not significantly affected the number of
parts waiting. For Fork Machining the number of parts waiting is 49.2 as opposed to the original number waiting of
52.
Resource utilization: Increasing cycle time has no effect on utilization of the bottleneck machine. Utilization for
both original and this scenario is the same, 92.7%.

Table 3. Effect of simulation suggested system 3 (with Synchronous Manufacturing) on operational parameters

Parameter in With simulated system (i.e.

Percentage
Name of Parameter Existing Synchronous Remarks
Improvement
Condition Manufacturing)
Waiting Time 10884.2 Sec 10405.4 Sec 4.39% Very small Improvement
Work in progress Average
Entity 65 63.4 2.50% Very small Improvement
(no of Parts)
Work in progress Max. (no
142 136 4.20% Very small Improvement
of Parts)
Average waiting time in
Queue time 8940.5 Sec 8492.9 Sec 5.00% Minimal Improvement
fork Machining process 1
No. of parts Average no. of parts in
51.8 49.2 5.00% Minimal Improvement
waiting in queue fork Machining process 1
Percentage utilization of
Operation 92.70% 92.70% 0% No Improvement
fork Machining process

Scenario 4:What if the process was simulated to be a batch arrival process and not a single
entity process? (i.e. The rods in the very first process arrive in batches of 30)
The entities per arrival has been changed to 30 (Fig. 8) as this is a batch process and not a single entity process. In
other cases, entities per arrival was 1 and results have been summarized in table 4.

FIGURE 8. Creation of Module for batch arrival

Effect on simulation: The value added time is the same as that of the original Value added time . After changing

020003-9
the process type to a batch type process the WAITING TIME has become approximately 0.72 times the Original
Waiting Time:The WIP has also come down to 48.63 parts from 65 parts and the maximum WIP parts at a time in
the simulation is 103 which has reduced from 142.
Queue waiting time: The waiting time for the Fork Machining Process (the Bottleneck Machine) has come down
from 8940 to 7340.2 seconds.
No of parts waiting in queue: For Fork Machining in this case the number of parts waiting is 42.57.This has
significantly reduced from the original 52 waiting parts for the Fork Machining process.
Resource utilization: The utilization of bottleneck machines has not been affected with the change from single
entity process to batch process.

Table 4. Effect of simulation suggested system 4 (i.e. with Batch Arrival Process) on operational parameters

Parameter in With simulated system Percentage

Name of Parameter Remarks
Existing Condition (Batch Arrival Process) Improvement
Process waiting time
Waiting Time 10884.2 Sec 7907.7 Sec 27.30%
reduced by 1/4 times

Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0110454/16228567/020003_1_online.pdf

Work in progress Work in progress part
65 48.6 25.20%
Entity Average (no of Parts) reduced by 1/4 time
Maximum Work in
Work in progress Max.
142 103 27.50% progress part
(no of Parts)
reduced by 1/4 time
Average waiting time in Approx. 1/6
Queue time 8940.5 Sec 7340.2 Sec 17.80%
fork Machining process improment
No. of parts waiting Average no. of parts in Approx. 1/6
51.8 42.6 17.80%
in queue fork Machining process improment
Percentage utilization
Operation of fork Machining 92.70% 92.70% 0% No Improvement
process

Scenario 5: What if installing a new bottleneck machine is expensive? (Subcontracting)

We can subcontract the machining of the fork which is to be drilled with the rod later in the flowchart in the “Fork
Drilling” Process. The fork if subcontracted will result in the removal of the Fork Machining and Molding Process
from the flowchart. These processes will be done externally and the finished fork will be delivered to the plant. The
finished fork can then be assembled and drilled together with the rod and the following processes can be carried on.
This will increase the manufacturing cost of the entire Rail Shift Assembly as it depends on the cost comparison
between Fork Machining in plant vs Cost of Fork Machining if given externally and usually subcontracting is
expensive. (The company will be saving production costs of fork machining and molding and even capital
expenditure on those 2 machines will be saved).[Assuming that the availability of subcontracted fork is always there
in the plant for simulation purposes].Fork Machining and Molding Processes have been removed from the
simulation.

FIGURE 9. Process flow

020003-10
 Effect on simulation: The value added time has reduced compared to the original Value Added (VA) time . After
removing the Fork Machining process the WAITING TIME has become approximately 0.183 times the Original
Waiting Time: It has reduced significantly. The WIP has also come down to 12.85 parts from 65 parts and the
maximum WIP parts at a time in the simulation is 113 which has reduced from 142.
Queue waiting time: As there is no Fork Machining process the average queuing time is reduced significantly. No
particular process resulted with a high queuing time.
No of parts waiting in queue: As there is no Fork Machining process the number of parts waiting is reduced
significantly. Maximum of 8 parts are waiting in a process as compared to 52 in the original simulation.
Resource utilization: As we have removed the Fork Machining process, the maximum utilization is 23.17% as of
Grinding Machine Finishing. Although this method reduces queue time and numbers waiting significantly, it
increases the risk of the external supplier (a.k.a subcontractor) from delaying/defaulting deliveries or not meeting
quality requirements of XYZ Pvt. Ltd. and thereby causing further problems in the entire production process.

Table 5. Effect of simulation suggested system 4 (i.e. with subcontracting of bottleneck machine) on operational parameters

Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0110454/16228567/020003_1_online.pdf

With simulated system
Parameter in (Subcontracting of bottleneck Percentage
Name of Parameter Remarks
Existing Condition machine/exclude the Improvement
bottleneck from the plant)

Waiting time is reduced to

Waiting Time 10884.2 Sec 1933.5 Sec 82.20%
1/6 time
Work in progress Average No. of part in progress
Entity 65 12.8 80.20%
(no of Parts) reduced by 1/5
Work in progress Max. Maximum no of parts
142 113 20.40%
(no of Parts) reduced by 4/5
Average waiting time in Queue time is reduced by
Queue time 8940.5 Sec 1380 Sec 84.50%
fork Machining process 1 1/6 time
No. of parts Average no. of parts in Average time per part
51.8 8 84.50%
waiting in queue fork Machining process 1 reduced by 1/6 time
Percentage utilization of Reduce % utilization by 1/4
Operation 92.70% 23.20%
fork Machining process times

FURTHER SCOPE OF IMPROVEMENT

1.The sudden failure of the bottleneck machine can be simulated on ARENA and the delays associated with it can be
analyzed. The company can then arrange for a back-up or have contingency plans ready in case an unforeseen event
occurs.
2.The bottleneck machine can be started at a time before starting other machines every morning in the plant. This way it
has more time to reduce its queue which has the previous day’s Work-in-Process (WIP). This can be simulated on
ARENA and the reduction in queuing time and number of parts waiting can then be further analyzed.
3.Further, the time interval before which the machine needs to be started can be optimized.
4.Analysis can be done in what-if scenario 3 by increasing the cycle times of non-bottleneck machines until a significant
reduction in queuing time at the bottleneck machine is observed.
5.Analysis can be done in what-if scenario 5 by subcontracting half the components to external sources and utilizing
existing equipment for the other half of the components. This way existing equipment is not idle, capital expenditure is
not wasted and if at all subcontractor delays/defaults as a backup the company will have half a lot of components ready
for disposal.

CONCLUSIONS
The gear manufacturing process of XYZ Pvt. Ltd. is analyzed critically by using quantitative analysis using ARENA.
Among many company production lines, the rail shift assembly line process is studied in this project. The entire
production process of the rail shift assembly line is simulated using ARENA software for all 17 manufacturing steps and

020003-11
their exact cycle times. The simulation was carried out to replicate the entire day of the production process in the
company, which includes an 8 hours shift. This simulation is then replicated for 30 days (1 month) to make sizable and
appropriate inferences.
ߦ While running the simulation, three key bottleneck key bottlenecks were found by analyzing three parameters, i.e.,
average queue time for each machine, the average number of parts waiting in the queue at each station, and the scheduled
utilization of each machine.
ߦ The Fork Machining process is found to have a problem in a maximum of 3 parameters. Thus suggested to used a
vertical milling center (VMC) to perform the Fork Machining operation as the bottleneck machine.
ߦ Furthermore, five (5) ‘WHAT-IF’ scenarios (case studies) were explored/ analyzed/ simulated for bottleneck analysis.
The recommended action was proposed for each case, and the impact of each recommended scenario on the system was
analyzed by simulation respective effect on the production process was reported.
ߦ This study figured out that the bottleneck problems can be addressed in many different ways, but the most effective
one should be considered to improve the system.
ߦ It was found that sometimes the company cannot afford a lot of money to implement proposed changes in the
production line; in those cases, either that process should outsource the material or divide the bottleneck process into
multiple sub-processes. All such possible solutions have been pondered upon

Downloaded from http://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0110454/16228567/020003_1_online.pdf

ߦOverall, after removing the problem of queuing in front of the bottleneck machine, we can achieve our objectives to
minimize Work-in-Progress (WIP), increase worker efficiency, reduce non-value adding (NVA) activities, lower takt
times and increase the overall production capacity of the plant.

REFERENCES
1.Wang, J., Chang, Q., Xiao, G., Wang, N., & Li, S. (2011). Data driven production modeling and simulation of
complex automobile general assembly plant. Computers in Industry, 62(7), 765–775.
doi:10.1016/j.compind.2011.05.004

2.Balan, S. (2017). Using simulation for process reengineering in refractory ceramics manufacturing—a case study.
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 93(5), 1761-1770.

3.Talapatra, S., Tarannum, R., & Shefa, J. (2018). Simulation Modeling for Productivity Improvement of a
Production Line: A Case Study.

4.Heshmat, M., El-Sharief, M. A., & El-Sebaie, M. G. (2013). Simulation Modeling of Production lines: A case
study of cement production line. JES. Journal of Engineering Sciences, 41(3), 1045-1053.

5.Shams, A. T., & Hasan, K. (2019). Identification, mitigation of bottleneck by capacity addition and economic
analysis for copper cable production process: a case study. Journal of Applied Research on Industrial Engineering,
6(2), 97-107.

6.Krishnan, S., Dev, A. S., Suresh, R., Sumesh, A., & Rameshkumar, K. (2018).Bottleneck identification in a tyre
manufacturing plant using simulation analysis and productivity improvement. Materials Today: Proceedings, 5(11),
24720–24730. doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2018.10.270

7.Ahmad, S. S. S., Kasim, A. S. A., Masood, I., Ho, F. H., & Abdullah, H. (2021). Capacity Study Of A Food
Processing Company Using Arena Simulation Software. Research Progress in Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering, 2(1), 160-167.

8.Bon, A. T., & Shahrin, N. N. (2016, March). Assembly line optimization using Arena simulation. In Proceedings
of the 2016 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia (pp. 2225-2232).

9.Kamar, A. N. N., Bakar, N. H. A., Dahan, S. M., Adham, A. A. J., & Sorooshian, S. (2016). Improving
Productivity by Simulate Facility Layout: A Case Study in a Car Component Manufacturer. International Journal of
Industrial Management, Malaysia.

020003-12