Manufacturing Laboratory-II (ME 308)

Report ( MAKEUP)

❖ Experiment No. 8

❖ Experiment title
Manufacturing System Simulation

❖ Objective(s)

➢ Optimize your system before you implement changes in real life, saving your
company time and money using FLEXSIM software

➢ Apparatus

■ FlexSim Software

❖ Experimental procedure
➢ Line Balancing Model
■ Built the Model: We chose the necessary Flexsim objects and
placed them in our model workspace.
■ Established Connections: We linked objects together with the "A"
key to define the flow of items and create the process logic.
■ Input Data: We carefully added real-world data like processing
times, resource amounts, and other details to individual Flexsim
objects.
■ Cleared the Board: We reset the model to ensure a fresh starting
point.
■ Observed the Run: We simulated the model and analyzed the
results.
■ Iterated for Balance: We experimented with processing times and
processor quantities, aiming to synchronize the input and output of
the model.
➢ AGV
■ Defined the Route: We created the path the AGV needed to travel
on.
■ Placed Key Points: We added control points, a source, a sink, and
a queue for managing AGV flow.
■ Made Connections: We linked the points, paying attention to
center port and I/O connections.
■ Checked It Out: We ran the model to see the AGV in action.

❖ Results and discussion

 ➢ Experiment 1 Question : Line Balancing Data:
➢ Source – Box Items, Inter Arrival Time = 10 sec, Queue - Max content =
1100, Target Batch Size as usual. Repeat for all queues.
➢ Processor :
■ ST = 5 sec, PT = 5 sec
■ ST = 6 sec, PT = 9 sec
■ ST = 5sec, PT = 15 sec
■ ST = 2 sec, PT = 12 sec
■ Run this model for 3650 seconds
➢ Speed up Processor 2 (6s processing): Output improves to 190,
congestion shifts to Queue 3 (Processor 3).
➢ Speed up Processor 3 (12s processing): Output increases to 211.
➢ Optimize Processors 2 (5s) & 3 (10s): Output becomes 260, congestion at
both Queues 2 & 3.
➢ Speed up Processor 3 further (6s): Congestion moves to Queue 4.
➢ Speed up Processor 4 (9s): Output is 327, congestion is now at Processor
3.
➢ Add Processor after Queue 3 (5s setup, 10s processing): Reduces load
on Processor 3.
➢ Speed Up Processor 4 (7s): Output reaches 371, but input drops slightly to
352.
➢ Speed up Processor 1 (4s): Output improves to 359.
➢ Reduce Setup Times (most processors): Output reaches approximately
360.

Final Result: Significant improvement from an initial output of 179 to a final output of
around 360, with input remaining close to the desired 371.

❖ Learning from the experiments

➢ We learned several valuable concepts from this experiment. Primarily, we
saw how to identify idle time and optimize resources to reduce wasted time.
Further, we learned to manage lead time variability for improved efficiency
and how to pinpoint bottlenecks for targeted solutions. We gained insight
into how inter-arrival times influence the need to handle workload shifts. This
experiment also taught us the principles of line balancing for a more efficient
system. Importantly, we used Flexsim software to master assembly line
simulations and even practiced designing and testing AGV paths within the
software environment.

❖ Safety Concern
➢ Ensure that you are maintaining some distance from the machine in order to
avoid injuries.
➢ Never put yourself into any position where your eyes approach the axis of a
laser beam.
➢ Wear safety glasses and other safety gear if required.

---------END--------