reduction of waste time in a processing bags by preventive ... · this research aims to study the...
Post on 19-Aug-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
. . 2556 16-18 2556
:
Reduction of Waste Time In a Processing Bags By Preventive Maintenance
A Case Study : Skk Manufacturing co.,ltd.
1* 2 3 4 1,2,3,4
E-mail: ta_rmutt-m52@hotmail.com*
Yuthanarong jongjun1* Nara buripun2 Sarun Hakpal 3 Ekapong Sangkanun4 1*,2,3,4 Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Thonburi University, Bangkok 10160
E-mail: ta_rmutt-m52@hotmail.com*
4 Cutting Machine Sewing Machine Pressing Machine Nearly
Machine Sewing Machine
5.86 .
14.01 . 58.17 31 14 54.83 87.54%
94.32% 7.30% 65.36% 81.85% 20.15% 10.93%
Abstract
This research aims to study the use of principles preventive maintenance. To increase efficiency and reduce the time of mechanical disruptions. The author studies the production line the pockets of the SKK
Manufacturing Co., Ltd., a study in the four types of the machine. Cutting Machine Sewing Machine Pressing Machine and Nearly Machine. The results of grading the severity of the problem with the QC tools control.
The machine in the Sewing Machine is a machine that have a loss caused by the disruptions. The researchers chose the first update using the cause and effect diagram. Analyze causes of problems for your
guidance in the preparation and maintenance plan according to the preventive maintenance and staff training. And implements planned. The results of the experiment found that Mean time between failures the improve
. . 2556 16-18 2556
with an average Up from 5.86 hours to 14.01 hours, Accounted for 58.17 percent before and after the update
Mean time to repair. Be the same. Frequency of the lower average of 31 times to 14 times, accounting for 54.83 percent. The availability of the machine, up from 87.54% to 94.32%, up 7.30%, the overall efficiency
effectiveness Up from 65.36% to 81.85%, up 20.15% and the rate of disruption of the machine breakdown
1.31%. Keywords: Mean time between failures, Mean time to repair, Overall Equipment Effectiveness
1.
1
1
(JIM THOMSON : JIM)
(Preventive Maintenance : PM)
� � (Breakdown)
(Target) 1.1
(Breakdown) (Preventive Maintenance)
(OEE)
1.2
(Mean
Time Between Failures : MTBF) (Mean Time To Repair : MTTR)
2.
2.1
� �
. . 2556 16-18 2556
2.1.1
[1] 2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.2 7
7 (Check Sheet) (Pareto Diagram)
(Graph) (Cause & Effect Diagram) (Scatter Diagram)
(Control Chart) (Histogram) [2]
2.3 7
7
[3,4]
2.4
[5,6]
2.4.1 (MTBF)
MTBF =
2.4.2 (MTTR)
MTTR =
2.5 (OEE)
(Overall Equipment Effectiveness : OEE)
[7]
OEE = AR x PE x QR
AR =
PE = QR =
3.
3.1
M/C ( .)- ( ./ )
M/C ( )
( .)
( )
1
1
cutting
sawing
pressing
nearly
2
2
1
M/C
M/C
g M/C
M/C
2
CTM
SM
PM
NM
17
2
4
(
37
154
32
4
)
4
(MT
Ope
Net
C
C
(MTB
TR)
3
erating Rate
Operating R
(Mino
4
20.83
2.27
Cutting Machine Saw
2225
Cutting Machine Saw
16-1
BF)
MTBF
Net Oper Speed
Rate
or Stoppage)
2556
7.37
27
2.53
wing Machine Press
MTBF M
4075
wing Machine Press
18 2556
MTTR
rating Rate d Operating
)
. . 55
3 2555
7.4
67.1
2.31
sing Machine Nearly
MTTR
6000 6
sing Machine Nearly
. . 2556
3
. . 55
Speed
Rate
4
2555
8
2.15
y Machine
6000
y Machine
3.2
Machine 53.14
55.18%
(Brainsto
5
rm)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
(
2
(Down T
(Meeting)
53.14
SM
55.18%
5
(Pareto Diag
Sa
Time)
(Cause
20.51
CTM
gram)
awing
and
Effe
SMCTPMNM
Tot
(Cau
73.65%
ct Diagram)
2
( .)
M 53.14 M 20.51
M 16.20 M 6.45 tal 96.30
6
use and Effec
(Down T
(Preve
16.2
PM
90.47%
16-1
)
%
55.18 21.30 16.82 6.70 100
ct Diagram)
Sawing
Time)
entive Mainten
6.4
NM
%
4
18 2556
( .)
53.14 73.56 89.85 96.30
g Machine
nance : PM)
45
M
100%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
. . 2556
6
%
55.18 73.65 90.47 100
0
0
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
00
. . 2556 16-18 2556
Breakdown
Sawing Machine
6 Sawing Machine
. . 2556 16-18 2556
Sawing Machine 3
3 Sawing
Machine
set up
set up
set up
set up set up
set up
set up
set up
3
4
4
. .55 36 24.34 208 5.10 0.68
. .55 31 21.04 208 6.03 0.68
. .55 33 31.43 208 5.35 0.95
. .55 24 27.56 208 7.51 1.15
31 26.09 208 5.86 0.84
4 (MTBF)
5.86 ./
(MTTR) 0.84 .
3.3
5
5
1
Sawing
Machine
2
1
3
4
/ /
5
(PM-Instruction)
3 6 12
PM 3 6 1
6
PM
4.
. . 2556 16-18 2556
6
6
. .55 15 16.40 208 12.77 1.09
. .55 12 8.27 208 16.64 0.70
. .55 19 12.49 208 10.29 0.65
. .56 11 10.04 208 17.70 1.21
14 11.80 208 14.01 0.84
6
(MTBF) (MTTR)
7
7 MTBF MTTR
MTBF MTTR
5.86 0.84
14.01 0.84
8.15 0
% 58.17 0
7
(MTBF) Sewing Machine 5.86 . 14.01 . 8.15 .
58.17% (MTTR)
(MTTR)
(Overall
Equipment Effectiveness : OEE)
Sewing Machine
8
8
(208-26.09)/208*100 87.45%
(208-11.80)/208*100 94.32%
8
(PM) 87.45% 94.32% 7.30
9
9
(176/208)*100 84.62%
(190/208)*100 91.35%
9
(PM)
84.62% 91.35% 7.36
10
10
(2650/3000)*100 88.33%
(2850/3000)*100 95.00%
10 (PM)
84.62% 95.00% 10.93
X 100
X 100
X 100
. . 2556 16-18 2556
11
11 OEE
AR PE QR X 100 OEE
0.8745 0.8462 0.8833 100 65.36
0.9432 0.9135 0.9500 100 81.85
11 ( Preventive
Maintenance: PM) 65.36% 81.85%
20.15
5.
5.1
1) (MTBF)
Sewing Machine 8.15 58.17
2) (MTTR) Sewing Machine
17 54.83
3) Sewing Machine 20.15%
4) Break Down Sewing Machine 10.93%
5.2
PM 2
[1] . 2549.
: .
.
. [2] ] , 2555.
7 (7 QC Tools). :
. [3] . 2548.
(Productivity Improvement). 5. : .
[4] , 7 (7 Wastes). :
, 2544. [5] . 2545. .
: . [6] . 2542.
. 4.
: . [7] . 2543. ,
. :
.
top related