Manufacturing Systems Engineering Assignment | My Assignment Tutor

School of Aerospace, Transport and ManufacturingManufacturing Systems Engineering AssignmentMaster of Science CoursesAcademic Year 2020-2021 Assessors: Dr Emanuele PagoneDeadline: 16:00, 18th January 2021Assignment weighting: 100%Submission format:1. Simulation models 2. Written reportAssessmentSubmit a written report of not more than 2000 words and supporting simulationmodels. The aim of this Individual Course Work is to assess achievement of the learningoutcomes of the module based on the criteria below. It draws on the teaching fromthe Manufacturing Systems Engineering module and focuses on its application. It isdesigned to test understanding of application of techniques as well as give an opportunityto flexibility demonstrate critical abilities of the outcome of the application.Overall Learning Outcomes for AssessmentDemonstrating knowledge, understanding and critical abilities in:1. Design a simulation model using a discrete-event simulation tool.2. Devise an experimental procedure and interpret the consequential results of thesimulation model.13. Assess how production layouts influence productivity and appraise the effectivenessof cellular configurations.InstructionsPlease prepare the models for the AS-IS and the TO-BE cases described below using adiscrete-event simulation approach. Also please prepare a report of no more than 2000words describing your methodology, models and results providing a critical analysis ofyour results and a specific recommendation. The format of your report should follow thestandard steps of a simulation study discussed in class. Assessment will be conductedon the basis of both your report and your models.PLEASE NOTE: This is an individual assignment so no groupwork is allowedThe case below includes several specific questions that you should clearly address inyour overall submission, i.e. your models and report. All questions carry equal marks,25% each, and the final mark will be determined based on the total marks obtainedout of 100%.Please feel free to use materials beyond the lecture materials, e.g. academic journalarticles etc. Ensure you explicitly reference material used. Do not repeat the issues orquestions raised in the case as this will waste word count.Hints• When model building, be careful to scope and detail your model appropriately.• Define a detailed structure for the report early to ensure you focus on the assessedcategories.• Ensure you integrate each sub-section so that it appears as one report ratherindependent parts and the entire document should read consistently.• If you decide to use advanced features in your model, please highlight and provideany operating instructions if applicable. For example, if your model requires thedata to be imported from a spreadsheet file, please specify file name, contents ofthe file etc.2Case DescriptionAS-IS caseACME Manufacturing Ltd are a Tier 2 automotive manufacturer producing mechanicalsub-assemblies for their clients who are Tier 1 suppliers to automotive OEMs. Traditionally, their production line has been organised in a functional layout where machines ofthe same type are grouped. Fig. 1 illustrates the current layout and shows the routingsof three parts of the total that the shop floor can now produce. Once the parts arecompleted, they are then transferred into the final assembly area for assembly beforeshipment to their clients. Each time a part of a particular type arrives in one of thesefunctional areas, the next available machine has to be set-up to be able to process it.The Process Plans (routings) for all the parts that are produced in the line are shownin Fig. 2. Table 1 shows the cycle times for each part on each machine. The times inparenthesis are the corresponding set-up times which have been apportioned to a singlepart being processed. The machines are also subject to breakdowns which currentlyoccur very frequently. Additional characteristics of the AS-IS case are:1. The expected arrival rate of all parts is 2 parts every 5 time units.2. Every part change on every machine requires a new set-up that requires thecorresponding set-up time of a part-machine combination found in Table 1.3. Breakdowns occur on average every 200 operations when frequent part changestake place and the mean time to repair is 2 time units.Figure 1: Illustration of AS-IS case layout. Figure 2: Routings of AS-IS case.TO-BE caseThe company has conducted a study involving their clients and created a long termforecast, which revealed that the demand in the future will significantly increase and3Table 1: Cycle times and set-up times (in parenthesis) in arbitrary time units.Parts MachinesM1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12A 0.6 (0.1) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.1) 0.6 (0.2) 1 (0.3)B 1 (0.1) 1 (0.1) 1 (0.2) 0.6 (0.1)C 1 (0.1) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.25)D 0.6 (0.1) 1 (0.15) 0.6 (0.15) 0.6 (0.1) 0.6 (0.1)E 0.6 (0.1) 1 (0.2) 0.6 (0.25)F 0.6 (0.15) 0.6 (0.1) 0.6 (0.3)G 1 (0.2) 1 (0.1) 1 (0.2) 0.6 (0.1)H 1 (0.1) 1 (0.1) 0.6 (0.2)the product mix will be highly variable in comparison. In order to accommodate forthis change, the company decided to explore various ways of increasing productivity.One of the options they considered is to redesign the factory layout by converting thecurrent functional layout into cellular. A paper study has shown that the best possiblegrouping of parts into part families and machines into cells is the one shown in Fig. 3.The new process plan for each part is provided in Fig. 4. This new grouping will enablethe minimisation of set-ups as the part groupings have the same set-up requirements soonce the machines are relocated into their corresponding cells they will require no moresetting-up to processes the parts allocated to those cells. Additional characteristics ofthe TO-BE case are:1. The expected arrival rate of all parts is 2 parts every 5 time units.2. While the cycle times shown in Table 1 remain the same, the set-up times arereduced to 0 for the reasons provided above.3. The mean time to failure now changes to 500 operations while the mean time torepair remains the same.Company aims for this studyThe Company wishes to assess operational performance by comparing the two layouts.For this assessment they have prepared three alternative scenarios for the weekly demandof those parts, based on the anticipated future demand forecasts. These scenarios aregiven in Table 2.The Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) the Company decided to employ for thecomparison are the following:1. Overall Work In Progress Levels.2. Average Flow Rate (throughput) and Lead Time, per part type from inboundRaw Materials inventory to Final Assembly.4Figure 3: Illustration of TO-BE case layout.Figure 4: Routings of TO-BE case.Table 2: Weekly demand scenarios.Part Base S1 S2 S3A 4000 6000 6000 0B 4000 0 3000 5000C 4000 5000 7000 5000D 4000 5000 0 7000E 4000 5000 0 0F 4000 0 7000 7000G 4000 4000 0 0H 4000 5000 7000 600053. Machine Utilisation and average utilisation per functional area or cell and theoverall shop floor.Questions1. Problem Definition: Please provide in your own words a description of themodelling problem for both cases and write down a clear set of objectives for thestudy. Define the outputs and the format of the reports you will have to prepareto support your final recommendations.2. Model building and testing: Build the simulation models for both the AS-ISand the TO-BE case. Start with a description of your conceptual model for eachof those cases and state clearly any assumptions that you made. Provide the partflow matrix. Provide your comments on how you would verify and validate yourresults. What theoretical models would you use to check your simulation results?3. Experimentation: Prepare and describe your experimental procedure and conduct experiments accordingly for the scenarios provided. Prepare a set of reportsand critically discuss your results. The assumed arrival rate in both cases is 2parts every 5 time units. Can you suggest a different part release policy thatcould lead to performance enhancement against the KPIs state above?4. Completion: Provide a critical evaluation of your results by comparing theperformance of the models and provide your final, specific recommendations.Discuss possible improvements or alterations to both cases that could lead tomore enhanced performance, including your revised release policy. Discuss anylimitations of the factory and suggest improvements. Discuss the limitations ofyour model and suggest improvements and future work.6


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.