JQLNQLK7 QDH/ - International Journal of Lean Thinkingthinkinglean.com/img/files/Improvization_Of_Productivity_Through...JQLNQLK7 QDH/ ... improvement is made through modification

International Journal of Lean Thinking Volume 3, Issue 2 (December 2012)

Lean Thinkingjournal homepage: www.thinkinglean.com/ijlt

IMPROVIZATION OF PRODUCTIVITY THROUGH LAYOUT OPTIMIZATION IN PUMP INDUSTRY

Karthik .T * Assistant Professor, Department Of

Mechanical Engineering, PSG College of Technology Tamilnadu, Coimbatore, India.

[email protected]

Senthilkumar.M PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu, India

A B S T R A C T

K E Y W O R D S

A R T I C L E I N F O

Productivity,

Layout,

Manpower

Received 03 July 2012

Accepted 06 September 2012

Available online 01 October 2012

This paper focuses on meeting the customer demand by

improving the man power utilization, enhancing the machining

capacity and improving material flow .The productivity

improvement is made through modification of shop floor layout

which supports the multi machine manning and streamlining the

material flow in between the machines. The cycle time analysis and

part flow analysis is carried out to group the machines which look

more in detail on bottleneck processes. The machines are low cost

automated hence, the operator only has to perform the set up and

the machine does the rest of the process automatically. Thus the

operators are less of loaded with work content, effective utilization

of manpower becomes more important and critical to bring up the

productivity. The analysis on machine utilization and layout of

machinery is made to enhance the machining capacity of the shop

floor.

________________________________

* Corresponding Author

1. Introduction and literature survey

One of the major roles of lean manufacturing in a factory is to perform space planning

according to the expansion plans for new machines to add capacity to the plant. More often

than not, the Industrial Engineer can be challenged when there is a limitation to the space on a

production floor. Particularly for cases where a certain production floor or area is designated

for a specific product, space becomes an issue of greater concern when the product volume

expands beyond the designated area.

When there is a mismatch between demand and capacity from the planning systems, it

is time for the Industrial Engineer to seek actions needed for productivity improvement to

close the capacity gaps in order to meet the demand of customers in a timely manner. By

understanding the factors contributing to productivity losses, an Industrial Engineer can then

work with the operations and engineering teams to identify the opportunities based on existing

problems on the production floor and efficiency of the material handling equipment.

KARTHIK, SENTHİLKUMAR / International Journal of Lean Thinking Volume 3, Issue 2(December 2012)

91

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

One-operator – two machine flow shop so as to minimize the make span. Confining our attention to

cyclic-movement schedules, we have first identified the relevant cyclic-movement schedules for the

separable and no separable setup and dismounting problems, respectively [1]

the user has to rebuild the model based on the number of jobs and machines given in the problem.

The result obtained from the simulation output helps managers to evaluate the performance of the system

by knowing machines utilization and other resources, average waiting time of jobs, and average idle time

for each machine[2]

where each worker has skills to operate two machines, and where the operator busy time is

considered the same as the machine busy time, worker level was found to be the best. Under these

conditions, increasing the worker level. results in a marginal gain for which the return on investment does

not justify the increase in worker cost. [3]

The proposed model should be extended to examine other performance measures that are critical to

the efficient operation of cellular systems such as work in process inventories and production lead times.

The selection of the best labour allocation strategies should simultaneously consider production output,

lead times, and the amount of work in process inventories in the system.[4]

III. PROBLEM DEFINITION

The problem identified here is that the demand is not met, due to improper material flow under

utilization of machines and man power not sufficient

IV.METHODOLOGY

These problems can be solved by following lean concepts. The approach is bas explained in the

following fig.1

Fig. 1 Flowchart of systematic approach


92

V .THE CURRENT PROCESS

The parts like top bearing block, Bottom bearing block, Pump adopter, Out let casing, Outlet

casing, Thrust bearing housing required for the pumps are casted from the vendors and brought into the

shops for machining process. Here these parts are first turned in the semi automated lathes. These lathes

are arranged based on product, so each part is turned in their specific cells. After turning operations like

drilling, tapping, grooving is performed in respective machines which are arranged in traditional layout.

The layout of these machines is as shown in fig.2 below

Fig.2 Lay out of machines in the pump industry

The top bearing block undergoes several operations which are as shown in fig 3 below.

Fig.3 Flow chart of Top bearing blocks process.


93

Similar operations are performed in other parts also

A. Problems In Current Layout:

The following are the problems faced in the current layout

Some machines remain ideal due to lack of man power.

Distance between machines are high, wich increases the transportation.

High Lead time of the product.

Customer demand cannot be satisfied.

B. Data Collection

Takt Time

Working shift per day = 2

Working hours per shift = 12 hours

Available time per shift = 720 minutes

Tea break per shift = 2breaks * 15 minutes

= 30 minutes

Lunch break per shift = 60 minutes

Down time per shift = 0

Net working time per shift = [ available time-(breaks +break down)]

= 720-90

= 630 minutes

= 37800 seconds

Net working time per day = 75600 seconds

Customer demand per day = 500 pieces

Takt time = Net working time per day/ Customer demand per day

= 75600/500

Takt time = 151.12 seconds

The Takt time required to meet the customer demand is calculated & found to be 151.2 seconds

The daily demand for each parts & the cycle time for every machine is noted. Then the productions of

each machine are calculated. These are tabulated in table I.


94

TABLE I

S.NO MACHINE CYCLE TIME CAPACITY REQUIRED

1 MACHINE001 4 315.0 500

2 MACHINE002 3.32 379.5 500

3 MACHINE003 3 420.0 500

4 MACHINE004 3.3 0.0 0

5 MACHINE005 3.3 381.8 500

6 MACHINE006 5 252.0 500

7 MACHINE007 3.5 360.0 500

8 MACHINE008 2.3 547.8 500

9 MACHINE009 3.27 385.3 500

10 MACHINE010 3.27 0.0 0

11 MACHINE011 2.41 0.0 500

12 MACHINE012 5.2 0.0 0

13 MACHINE013 5.2 0.0 500

14 MACHINE014 2.3 0.0 500

15 MACHINE015 3.27 0.0 500

16 MACHINE016 3.27 0.0 0

C. Current States

We found that many machines are not used, kept idle due to unavailable of skilled man power. So

as the result the operations to be performed are done by vendors outside the premises. The following fig.4

shows the current process simulation models.

Fig.4 simulation models the current process


95

The following are the results of the simulated model. The man power utilization is tabulated in table II.

TABLE II

DESCRIPTION

%

BUSY

%

IDLE QUANTITY

NO.

STARTED

NO.

ENDED

NO.

NOW

Labor001 19.31 80.69 1 244 243 1

Labor002 19.23 80.77 1 243 242 1

Labor003 23.25 76.75 1 293 293 0

Labor004 23.18 76.83 1 292 292 0

Labor005 30.41 69.59 1 384 383 1

Labor006 22.38 77.62 1 282 282 0

Labor007 20.08 79.92 1 253 253 0

Labor008 20.00 80.00 1 252 252 0

The machine utility is tabulated in table III

TABLE III

DESCRIPTION % IDLE % SETUP

NO. OF

OPER % BUSY

Machine001 0 19.312 244 80.688

Machine002 16.481 19.233 243 64.286

Machine003 0 23.254 293 76.746

Machine004 100 0 0 0

Machine005 0.341 23.175 292 76.484

Machine006 0 30.413 384 69.587

Machine007 100 0 0 0

Machine008 0.181 22.381 282 77.438

Machine009 100 0 0 0

Machine010 100 0 0 0

Machine011 100 0 0 0

Machine012 100 0 0 0

Machine013 100 0 0 0

Machine014 100 0 0 0

Machine015 0 20.079 253 79.921

Machine016 20.097 20 253 59.903


96

Parts output from simulation is tabulated in table IV

TABLE IV DESCRIPTION NO. ENTERED NO. SHIPPED W.I.P.

BTTOMBONOT 600 253 347

HOUSING 0 0 0

OUTLETCASING125 600 282 318

PUMPADOPTER 600 243 357

TOPBEARING 600 292 308

VI.MODIFIED LAYOUT

With the help of modified layout the available operators can be used effectively. Through this layout

the non utilized machine can also be used. One operator will be used in running two machines. This will

help in utilization on the worker as shown in fig 5.Tthe modified shop floor layout

Fig.5 Modified layout


97

The following fig.6 shows the modified layout simulation models

Fig.6. Modified layout simulation

The following are the results of the simulated model. The man power utilization is tabulated in table V

TABLE V

DESCRIPTION

%

BUSY

%

IDLE QUANTITY NO.STARTED

NO.

ENDED

NO.

NOW

Labor001 91.19 8.81 1 445 444 1

Labor002 43.85 56.15 1 442 442 0

Labor003 59.33 40.68 1 598 598 0

Labor004 51.88 48.12 1 524 523 1

Labor005 52.06 47.94 1 525 525 0

Labor006 51.87 48.14 1 523 523 0

Labor007 45.71 54.29 1 461 461 0

Labor008 45.52 54.48 1 459 459 0


98

The machine utilization is tabulated in table VI

TABLE VI

DESCRIPTION % Idle

%

Setup

No. Of

Ope % Busy

Machine001 0 17.619 222 73.611

Machine002 0 26.429 222 73.571

Machine003 6.336 17.54 221 58.585

Machine004 15.026 26.31 221 58.664

Machine005 10.181 23.73 300 54.365

Machine006 9.96 35.595 300 54.365

Machine007 0.181 20.794 262 68.812

Machine008 0.299 31.082 262 68.619

Machine009 0 20.873 263 68.913

Machine010 0 31.19 262 68.73

Machine011 0.688 20.794 262 68.304

Machine012 0.806 31.071 261 68.123

Machine013 0 18.333 231 72.775

Machine014 0 27.381 230 72.54

Machine015 18.344 18.254 230 54.511

Machine016 18.385 27.262 229 54.353

The status of parts is tabulated in table VII

TABLE VII

DESCRIPTION

No.

Entered

No.

Shipped W.I.P.

BOTTOMBEARING 600 459 141

OUTLETCASING 600 524 76




99

VII.COMPARISON OF PRESENT AND MODIFIED LAYOUT

Comparison of old layout machine busy Percentage and modified layout machine busy

percentages are shown table9.

Comparison of machine utilization

TABLE VIII % OF BUSY

DESCRIPTION OLD LAYOUT NEW LAYOUT

MACHINE001 80.688 73.611

MACHINE002 64.286 73.571

MACHINE003 76.746 58.585

MACHINE004 0 58.664

MACHINE005 76.484 54.365

MACHINE006 69.587 54.365

MACHINE007 0 68.812

MACHINE008 77.438 68.619

MACHINE009 0 68.913

MACHINE010 0 68.73

MACHINE011 0 68.304

MACHINE012 0 68.123

MACHINE013 0 72.775

MACHINE014 0 72.54

MACHINE015 79.921 54.511

MACHINE016 59.903 54.353

The following fig.7 shows the machine utilization result

Fig.7 Machine utilization result

0102030405060708090

MA

CH

INE0

01

MA

CH

INE0

02

MA

CH

INE0

03

MA

CH

INE0

04

MA

CH

INE0

05

MA

CH

INE0

06

MA

CH

INE0

07

MA

CH

INE0

08

MA

CH

INE0

09

MA

CH

INE0

10

MA

CH

INE0

11

MA

CH

INE0

12

MA

CH

INE0

13

MA

CH

INE0

14

MA

CH

INE0

15

MA

CH

INE0

16

OLD LAYOUTNEW LAYOUT


100

Caparison of parts out put

TABLE IX

DESCRIPTION

No.

ENTERED

NO. SHIPPED

OLD

LAYOUT

NEW

LAYOUT

BOTTOMBEARING 600 253 459

OUTLETCASING 600 282 524



HOUSING 0 0 0

The following fig 8 shows the parts output result

Fig.8 parts output result

VIII.CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

This paper delivers the evidence of valid advantage when applying lean principle to the machine

shop. Man power has been used efficiently with help of witness software data has been analyzing finding

solution to improvement. through this analysis non utilized machines are properly used. with this proper

utilization net product output has been increased.

0100200300400500600

OLD LAYOUT

NEW LAYOUT


101

IX.REFERENCES

Cheng TCE, Podolsky S. Just-in-time manufacturing: an introduction, 2/e. London: Chapman & Hall,

1996.

Krajeswski LJ, Ritzman LP. Operations management: strategy and analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,

1987.

East N. A human guide to robots. UK: Alpin Press, 1983.

Su Q, Chen FE. Optimal sequencing of double-gripper gantry robot moves in tightly-coupled serial

production systems. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 1996;12:22— 30.

Graham RL, Lawler EL, Lenstra JK, Rinnooy Kan AHG. Optimization and approximation in

deterministic sequencing and scheduling: a survey. Annals of Discrete Mathematics 1979;5:287— 326.

Dudek RA, Panwalker SS, Smith ML. The lessons of flowshop scheduling research. Operations

Research 1992;40:7— 13.

Lawler EL, Lenstra JK, Rinnooy Kan AHG, Shmoys DB. Sequencing and scheduling: algorithms and

complexity. In: Nemhauser GL, Rinnooy Kan AHG (editors), Logistics of production and inventory.

Amsterdam: North- Holland, 1993.

Hall NG, Sriskandarajah C. A survey of machine scheduling problems with blocking and no-wait in

process.Operations Ressearch 1996;44:510— 24.

Crama Y, van de Klundert J. Cyclic scheduling of identical parts in a robotic cell. Operations

Research 1997;45:952— 6.

Levner E, Kats V, Levit VE. An improved algorithm for the cyclic flowshop scheduling in a robotic cell.

European Journal of Operational Research 1997;97:500 — 8.

Kise H, Shioyama T, Ibaraki T. Automated two-machine flowshop scheduling: a solvable case. IIE

Transactions 1991;23:10— 6.

Sethi SP, Sriskandarajah C, Sorger G, Blazewicz J, Kubiak W. Sequencing of parts and robot moves in a

robotic cell. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems 1992;4:331 — 58.

JQLNQLK7 QDH/ - International Journal of Lean Thinkingthinkinglean.com/img/files/Improvization_Of_Productivity_Through...JQLNQLK7 QDH/ ... improvement is made through modification

Documents