design of facilty layout of a led bulb production sysem
TRANSCRIPT
Facility Layout of an Electronic/ LED
Manufacturing Industry- A Case Study
By
Maheer Sohbat 11.01.07.014
Imtiaz Kabir Oly 11.01.07.020
Fabiha Binte Haider 11.01.07.026
Md. Mohiuddin 11.01.07.034
Rumaiya Faruki Probha 11.01.07.041
A Thesis Submitted to the
Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
of BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN INDUSTRIAL & PRODUCTION ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL & PRODUCTION ENGINEERING AHSANULLAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE &
TECHNOLOGY DHAKA, BANGLADESH
June, 2015
i
This project work entitled Facility Layout of an Electronic/ LED Manufacturing Industry-
A Case Study submitted by the following students has been accepted as satisfactory in
partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of B. Sc. in Industrial & Production
Engineering on June, 2015
Maheer Sohbat
11.01.07.014
Imtiaz Kabir Oly
11.01.07.020
Fabiha Binte Haider
11.01.07.026
Md. Mohiuddin
11.01.07.034
Rumaiya Faruki Probha
11.01.07.041
ii
Professor Dr. A.F.M. Anwarul Hoque,
Head of the Department,
Department of Mechanical and Production
Engineering, AUST
Dr. Nikhil R. Dhar
Professor
Department of Industrial & Production Engineering
Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology
Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh
Declaration
We do hereby declare that this thesis work has been done by us and neither this thesis nor any part of it has been submitted elsewhere for the award of any degree or diploma.
Maheer Sohbat 11.01.07.014
Imtiaz Kabir Oly 11.01.07.020
Fabiha Binte Haider 11.01.07.026
Md. Mohiuddin 11.01.07.034
Rumaiya Faruki Probha 11.01.07.041
ii
Professor Dr. A.F.M. Anwarul Hoque,
Head of the Department,
Department of Mechanical and Production
Engineering, AUST
Dr. Nikhil R. Dhar
Professor
Department of Industrial & Production Engineering
Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology
Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh
iii
Contents
List of table………………………………………………………………..…….….....…..v
List of figure…………………………………………………………………….…...……vi
Acknowledgements……………………………………………….…......….vii
Abstract…………………………………………………………...…..........viii
Chapter 1 Introduction……………………………………………………………...…….1
1.1.1 Introduction…………………………………………………...…….1
1.1.2 Basic Production Layout Format……………………......................1
1.1.3 Project Aim and Objectives………………………….............…….5
1.1.4 Factors in Determining Layout and De………………....…...…..…5
1. Literature Review…………………………………………………………….6
1.2.1 Facility shapes and dimensions…………………………………..…6 .
1.2.2 Material handling systems……………………………...……......….7
1.2.3 Multi-floor layout…………………………………………….…..…8
1.2.4 Facility Layout Problem……………………………………….....…9
1.2.5 Time and Motion Study …………………………………………...10
1.2.6 Assembly Line Balancing …………………………………..….…11
1.2.7 5S…………………………………………...………………...……13
1.2.8 SWOT Analysis ……………………………………………..…….15
Chapter-2 Data analysis and result………………………………………………..……17
2.1 Computerized Relative Allocation of Facilities Technique (CRAFT).17
2.2 Systematic layout planning (SLP) ……………………………...……23
2.3 Analysis of layout with minimum product travel method……………25
2.4 Line balancing and efficiency………………….………...………...…28
2.5 Capacity Calculation: Time Study………….……………………...…31
2.6 Implementation of 5S…………………………………...…….…...…33
2.7 Bill of material…………………………………...………………...…34
2.8 SWOT analysis…………………………………...…………......……37
Chapter-3 Discussion on Results……………………………………….…………......…39
3.1 CRAFT…………………………………...…………...….………….39
3.2 Systematic layout planning (SLP) ……………………...……...……40
iv
3.3 Assembly Line Balancing…………………………...........................40
3.4 Demand forecasting………………………........................................42
3.5 Ergonomics………………………......................................................43
3.6 Safety of workplace……………........................................................46
3.7 Lean Processes ...................................................................................... 49
3.8 Implementation of 5S…….................................................................52
Chapter-4 Conclusions and Recommendations…..........................................................54
4.1 Conclusions…….....................................................................................54
4.2 Recommendations……...........................................................................55
Chapter-5 References……………………………............................................................56
Appendix…………………………………………………………………….66
v
List of Table
Table 2.1: Included tasks and Area of the departments........................................................ 17
Table 2.2: From-To chart (Number trips of material per hour ............................................. 18
Table 2.3: Rectilinear distance between the departments for initial layout…………….…18
Table 2.4: Total distances travelled per hour between departments for initial layout …..........18
Table 2.5: Rectilinear distance between the departments .................................................... 19
Table 2.6: Total distances travelled per hour between departments for layout……..…….19
Table 2.7: Rectilinear distance between the departments…………………………...…….20
Table 2.8: Total distances travelled per hour between departments for layout……….…..20
Table 2.9: Reason for rating various departments…………………………………….…..21
Table 2.10: Closeness and line code for various departments………………………….…22
Table 2.11: Relationship chart…………………………………………………………….22
Table 2.12: Distances between the adjacent departments…………………………………25
Table 2.13: Precedence chart……………………………………………………………...27
Table 2.14: Time Study……………………………………………………………...…….29
Table 3.1: Monthly demand for 4 month………………………………………………….42
vi
List of Figure
Figure 2.1: Centroid allocation of departments in Initial layout………………………………...17
Figure 2.2: Centroid allocation in changed layout (Departments B and C)………………….….19
Figure 2.3: Centroid allocation in changed layout (Departments A and B)…………………..…20
Figure 2.4: Initial Relationship diagram………………………………………………………...…...22
Figure 2.5: Block diagram for initial layout……………………………………………………..…..23
Figure 2.6: Block diagram for improved layout………………………………………..………..…..24
Figure 2.7: Activity relationship diagram……………………………………………..…………..…28
Fig 3.1: Proposed U- shape line layout…………………………………………………..………..…41
vii
Acknowledgements
At the very beginning, the authors of this report wish to express our warmth gratitude
especially to the Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, AUST for arranging this
Project and Thesis Course that facilitates integration of theoretical knowledge with practical
situations.
We would like to express our sincere respect to Professor Dr. A.F.M. Anwarul Hoque,
Head of the Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering, AUST and Dr. Nikhil R.
Dhar, Professor, Department of Industrial & Production Engineering, BUET for their whole-
hearted supervision during their one year course period. His understanding, encouraging,
guidance and instructions throughout the progress of report preparing and writing have provided
a good basis for this Thesis. Without his direct help, suggestions assistance it would be
impossible to complete this work.
The author would like to convey their gratitude towards all the teachers of Department
of MPE, AUST for helping directly throughout the whole research work.
The author would like to convey their gratitude to the executives of Hosaf Proficient
Energy Ltd. and those who provided helping materials for working on industries. The authors are
pleased to express their heartiest gratitude to the manager of the industry who let us work on
every sections of their industry
Finally, the authors offer their sincere thanks and apologies to several others whom they
have no doubt overlooked.
Authors
viii
Abstract
The LED light manufacturing industry started developing in Bangladesh primarily as an
export-oriented industry. Productivity improvement is a vital issue in case of LED industry to
increase the profit and quality of the product and to reduce the manufacturing cost and also for
en effective work place. For these an effective layout model is necessary for the industry. By
decreasing process bottlenecks, reducing lead times and increasing the production line efficiency
productivity can be improved. Line balancing and time study are effective to reduce the
operation time and improvement for the productivity. Time study was performed in the industry
to increase its production efficiency and reduce the operation time and associated cost. Assembly
line balancing technique was also used in single production line to identify and remove the non-
value added activities and increase the productivity. Computerized Relative Allocation of
Facilities Technique (CRAFT), Systematic layout planning (SLP) and Analysis of layout with
Minimum Product Travel Method (MPTM) were used for an effective layout.
In this facility layout system, time study is performed and the production lines are
balanced through the distribution of works among the work stations by line balancing. A new
product layout is modeled with the balanced capacity combining both modular line and
traditional manufacturing system together. The feasible problem areas which occurred in
different places are pin pointed by strength, weakness, opportunities and threats for the facility
layout was also identified by SWOT analysis. This project report will provide practical and
pragmatic guidelines for the improvement of facility layout of small LED manufacturing
industry to improve their industrial productivity and capacity by applying some essential tools
like- CRAFT, SLP, MPTM, 5S etc.
ix
1
Chapter-1
Introduction
1.1 Introduction
For an organization or industry to have an effective and efficient manufacturing unit,
it is important that special attention is given to facility layout. Facility layout is an
arrangement of different aspects of manufacturing in an appropriate manner as to achieve
desired production results. Facility layout considers available space, final product, safety
of users and facility and convenience of operations.
In industry sectors, it is important to manufacture the products which have good
quality products and meet customers‘ demand. This action could be conducted under
existing resources such as employees, machines and other facilities. However, plant layout
improvement, could be one of the tools to response to increasing industrial productivity.
Plant layout design has become a fundamental basis of today‘s industrial plants which can
influence parts of work efficiency. It is needed to appropriately plan and position
employees, materials, machines, equipment, and other manufacturing supports and
facilities to create the most effective facility layout.
The integration of the needs of people (personnel and customers), materials (raw,
finished, and in process), and machinery in such a way that they create a single, well-
functioning system.
J. L. Zundi, defines ―Plant layout ideally involves allocation of space and
arrangement of equipment in such a manner that overall operating costs are minimized.
Riggs defines, ―the overall objective of plant layout is to design a physical
arrangement that most economically meets the required output – quantity and quality.‖
2
1.1.1 Basic Production Layout Formats
The formats by which departments are arranged in a facility are defined by the
general pattern of work flow; there are three basic types (process layout, product layout,
and fixed-position layout) and one hybrid type (group technology or cellular layout).
Process Layout Process Layout involves arranging departments consisting of like
processes in a way that optimizes their relative placement. In many installations, optimal
placement often means placing departments with large amounts of interdepartmental
traffic adjacent to one another. The work has to be allocated to each department in such a
way that no machines are chosen to do as many different job as possible i.e. the emphasis
is on general purpose machine. The work, which has to be done, is allocated to the
machines according to loading schedules with the object of ensuring that each machine is
fully loaded. The grouping of machines according to the process may be done keeping in
mind the following principles of process layout designing:
The distance between departments should be as less as possible for
avoiding long distance movement and handling of materials.
The Layout should be in sequence of manufacturing operations.
The arrangement should be convenient for inspection and supervision
Advantages
Disadvantages
Suitability
Lower initial capital
investment
High degree of machine
utilization,
Low overhead costs
variety of products
Effective and specialized
supervision
Greater Flexibility and
expansion scope
Material handling Cost is
high
More Skilled labor
requirement
Gap in Production is
Higher
WIP inventory is High
More frequent
inspection is needed
resulting in high cost
Mostly non standardized
product are produced
Where Production
volume required is lower
Products are not
standardized
There are frequent
changes in design and
style of product
Job shop type of work is
done
Machines are very
expensive
Suitability
3
Product layout Product layout is arrangement where machines and equipment are
arranged in one line depending upon the sequence of operations required for the product.
The materials move from one workstation to another sequentially without any
backtracking or deviation. Under this, machines are grouped in one sequence. Therefore
materials are fed into the first machine and finished goods travel automatically from
machine to machine, the output of one machine becoming input of the next. The raw
material moves very fast from one workstation to other stations with a minimum work in
progress storage and material handling. The grouping of machines should be done by
following principles:
All the operations including assembly, testing packing must be included in the Product line
All the machine tools or other items equipment‘s must be placed at the point
demanded by the sequence of operations
There should no points where one line inters another line. Materials may be
supplied where they are required for assembly.
Advantages
Disadvantages Suitability
Low cost of material
handling
Smooth, uninterrupted
operations
Continuous flow of
work
Lesser investment in
inventory and WIP
Optimum use of floor
space
Shorter processing
time
Less congestion of
work in the process
High initial capital
investment in special
purpose machine
Heavy overhead
charges
Breakdown of one
machine will hamper
the whole production
process
Lesser flexibility as
specially laid out for
particular product.
Mass production of
standardized products
Simple and repetitive
manufacturing process
Operation time for
different process is
more or less equal
Reasonably stable
demand for the
product
Continuous supply of
materials
4
Fixed Position Layout This is the type of layout in which the major product being
produced is fixed at one location. Equipment labor and components are moved to that
location. All facilities are brought and arranged around one work center. This type of
layout is not relevant for small scale entrepreneur.
Advantages
Disadvantages Suitability
It saves time and
cost involved on the
movement of work
from one
workstation to
another.
The layout is
flexible as change in
job design and
operation sequence
can be easily
incorporated.
It is more
economical when
several orders in
different stages of
progress are being
executed
simultaneously.
Production period
being very long,
capital investment is
very heavy
Very large space is
required for storage
of material and
equipment near the
product.
As several
operations are often
carried out
simultaneously, there
is possibility of
confusion and
conflicts among
different
workgroups.
Manufacture of bulky
and heavy products
such as locomotives,
ships, boilers,
generators, wagon
building, aircraft etc.
Construction of
building, flyovers,
dams.
Hospital medical
services.
Combined layout or Group Technology Many of Production units require all
three processes namely intermittent process (job shops), the continuous process (mass
production shops) and the representative process combined process or miscellaneous shop
production. In most of industries, only a product layout or process layout or fixed location
layout does not exist. Thus, in manufacturing concerns where several products are
5
produced in repeated numbers with no likelihood of continuous production, combined
layout is followed. Generally, a combination of the product and process layout or other
combination are found, in practice, e.g. for industries involving the fabrication and
manufacturing of parts and assembly, fabrication tends to employ the process layout, while
the assembly areas often employ the product layout. In LED, manufacturing plant, the
machinery manufacturing forms are arranged on the product line principle, but ancillary
services such as heating, the mixing of spices, the power house, the water treatment plant
etc. are arranged on a functional basis.
1.1.2 Project Aim and Objectives
The aim of this project is to find the optimal assembly plant layout for a
replaceable traffic light production line, by using industrial engineering techniques
such as assembly line analysis, quality control, ergonomics and cost analysis. Objectives
acting as a basis for the aim:
Create a detailed plan to illustrate the optimal facilities layout in order to increase
production rates of the assembled LED light.
Create a storage location for the finished product, making it easier for the
installation team to access.
Reduced/eliminated assembly blockage as well as more equipment and
assembly points in working order resulting in higher output.
Improved quality control for parts assembly.
Lower ergonomics risk for periodic work.
Reduced cost for space utilization resulting in less waste.
Better understanding of the facilities layout preventing stoppages in the
assembly line.
Improvement of overall efficiency of the LED manufacturing industry.
Ensure high employee morale and safety.
1.1.3 Factors in Determining Layout and Design
Small business owners need to consider many operational factors when building or
renovating a facility for maximum layout effectiveness. These criteria include the
following:
6
1. Space utilization
2. Shipping and receiving
3. Ease of communication and support
4. Impact on employee morale and job satisfaction
5. Promotional value
6. Safety
"Facility layout must be considered very carefully because we do not want to
constantly redesign the facility," summarized Weiss and Gershon. "Some of the goals in
designing the facility are to ensure a minimum amount of materials handling, to avoid
bottlenecks, to minimize machine interference, to ensure high employee morale and safety,
and to ensure flexibility. Essentially, there are two distinct types of layout. Product layout
is synonymous with assembly line and is oriented toward the products that are being made.
Process layout is oriented around the processes that are used to make the products.
Generally, product layout is applicable for high-volume repetitive operations, while
process layout is applicable for low-volume custom-made goods."
1.2 Literature Review
A facility layout is an arrangement of everything needed for production of goods or
delivery of services. A facility is an entity that facilitates the performance of any job. It
may be a machine tool, a work center, a manufacturing cell, a machine shop, a department,
a warehouse etc. [Heragu, 1997]. Due to the variety of considerations found in the
articles, researchers do not agree about a common and exact definition of layout problems.
The most encountered formulations are related to static layout problems. [Koopmans and
Beckmann, 1957] were among the first to consider this class of problems, and they
defined the facility layout problem as a common industrial problem in which the objective
is to configure facilities, so as to minimize the cost of transporting materials between them.
[Meller, et al. 1999] considered that the facility layout problem consists in finding a non-
overlapping planar orthogonal arrangement of rectangular facilities within a given
rectangular plan site so as to minimize the distance based measure. [Azadivar and Wang,
2000] defined that the facility layout problem as the determination of the relative locations
for, and allocation of, the available space among a given number of facilities. [ Lee and
7
Lee, 2002] reported that the facility layout problem consists in arranging unequal-area
facilities of different sizes within a given total space, which can be bounded to the length
or width of site area in a way to minimize the total material handling cost and slack area
cost. [Shayan and Chittilappilly 2004] defined the facility layout problem as an
optimization problem that tries to make layouts more efficient by taking into account
various interactions between facilities and material handling systems while designing
layouts.
1.2.1 Facility shapes and dimensions
Two different facility shapes are often distinguished regular, i.e., generally
rectangular [Kim & Kim, 2000] and irregular, i.e., generally polygons containing at least a
2708 angle [Lee & Kim, 2000]. As mentioned by [Chwif et al. 1998] a facility can have
given dimensions, defined by a fixed length (Li) and a fixed width (Wi). In this case, the
facilities are called fixed or rigid blocks. According to the same authors, a facility can also
be defined by its area, its aspect ratio: ai =Li /Wi.The aspect ratio was also used by
[Meller et al. 1999].
1.2.2 Material handling systems
A material handling system ensures the delivery of material to the appropriate
locations. Material handling equipment can be conveyors (belt, roller, wheel), automated
guided vehicles (AGV), robots, etc. [El-Baz, 2004]. [Tompkins et al. 1996] estimated that
20–50% of the manufacturing costs are due to the handling of parts and then a good
arrangement of handling devices might to reduce them for 10–30%. When dealing with a
material handling system, the problem consists in arranging facilities along the material
handling path. Two dependent design problems are considered: finding the facility layout
and selecting the handling equipment. The type of material-handling device determines the
pattern to be used for the layout of machine [Devise & Pierreval, 2000]; [Heragu &
Kusiak, 1988]. [Co et al. 1989] also pointed out that the facility layout impacts the
selection of the handling device.
Given the difficulty of solving both problems jointly, they are mainly solved
sequentially [Hassan, 1994]. Among the major types of layout arrangement based on the
type of material handling, one can distinguish, single row layout, multi-rows layout, loop
8
layout and open-field layout [Yang et al. 2005]. The single row layout problem occurs
when facilities have to be placed along a line [Djellab & Gourgand, 2001; Ficko,
Brezocnick, & Balic, 2004; Kim, Kim, & Bobbie, 1996; Kumar, Hadjinicola, & Lin,
1995]. Several shapes may be considered from this basic situation, such as straight line,
semi-circular or U-shape [Hassan, 1994]. The loop layout problem deals with the
assignment of facilities to candidate locations in a closed ring network, around which parts
are transported in one direction [Chaieb, 2002; Cheng & Gen, 1998; Cheng, Gen, &
Tosawa, 1996; Nearchou, 2006; Potts & Whitehead, 2001]. The loop layout
incorporates a Load/Unload (L/U) station, i.e., location from which a part enters and leaves
the loop. This station is unique. The multi-rows layout involves several rows of facilities
[Hassan, 1994]. The movements of parts occur between facilities from the same row and
from different rows [Chen et al. 2001; Ficko et al. 2004; Kim et al. 1996]. The open field
layout corresponds to situations where facilities can be placed without the restrictions or
constraints that would be induced by such arrangements as single row or loop layout
[Yang et al., 2005].
1.2.2 Multi-floor layout
Nowadays, when it comes to construct a factory in urban area, land supply is
generally insufficient and expensive. The limitation of available horizontal space creates a
need to use a vertical dimension of the workshop. Then, it can be relevant to locate the
facilities on several floors. The vertical movement of parts requires a vertical
transportation device: elevator. In such situations, both the position on the floor and the
levels has to be determined for each facility, so that the related problems are referred to as
multi-floor layout problems [Kochhar & Heragu, 1998]. [Johnson 1982] seems to be
among the firsts to address a multiple-floor layout problem. He dealt with the problem of
defining relative locations of facilities in a multiple-floor building. Later, other researchers
focused on taking into consideration vertical movements of parts from one floor to another
[Bozer, et al. 1994; Meller &.Bozer, 1996, 1997]. Elevators are often the material
handling system reported [Lee et al. 2005]. Their number and location are either known
(Lee et al., 2005) or to be determined through optimization [Matsuzaki et al. 1999]. In
[Matsuzaki et al. 1999], the capacity of each elevator was considered as a constraint. The
number of floors can be known [Lee et al., 2005] or to be determined, depending on each
9
floor area and on the number and dimensions of the facilities [Patsiatzis & Papageorgiou,
2002].
Backtracking and bypassing
Backtracking and bypassing are two particular movements that can occur in flow-
line layouts, which impact the flow of the products. Backtracking is the movement of a
part, from one facility to another preceding it in the sequence of facilities in the flow-line
arrangement [Braglia, 1996; Kouvelis]
1.2.4 Facility Layout Problem
[Anucha Watanapa 2011], proposed an improved the plant layout of pulley‘s
factory to eliminate obstructions in material flow and thus obtain maximum productivity.
The present plant layout and the operation process of each section have been investigated.
The problem in term of material flow of each operation section was identified.
Disassembly surface finishing and inspection sections should be allocated to make
the good material flow. The suitable of new plant layout can decrease the distance of
material flow, which rises production. [W. Wiyaratn 2010], study plant layout of iron
manufacturing based on the systematic layout planning pattern theory (SLP) for increased
productivity. The detailed study of the plant layout such as operation process chart, flow of
material and activity relationship chart has been investigated. The new plant layout has
been designed and compared with the present plant layout. The SLP method showed that
new plant layout significantly decrease the distance of material flow from billet cutting
process until keeping in ware house. [Pinto Wilsten, 2007], experiments application of
different heuristic approaches to a real facility layout problem at a furniture manufacturing
company. All the models are compared (Graph Theory, CRAFT, BLOCPLAN, Optimum
Sequence) here a number of parameters of interest are employed. The experiment shows
that formal layout modeling approaches can be effectively used real problems faced in
industry, leading to significant improvements. [Saifallah Benjaafar 2010], address the
problem of designing flexible plant layouts for manufacturing facilities where product
demands are subject to variability. A flexible layout is one that maintains low material
handling costs despite fluctuations in the product demand levels. Optimal and heuristic
10
methods (CRAFT) are presented for generating flexible layouts and determining flow
allocations under various design and operation assumptions.
1.2.5 Time and Motion Study
Time study is considered to be one of the most widely used means of work
measurement. Time study procedure involves timing a sample of a worker‘s performance
and using it to set a standard [lleizer and Render 20081]. The worker sample can be
selected from a single facility or it may be a composite sample selected from several
facilities [Philip Vaccaro 2011]. Time study is a work measurement technique for
recording the times of performing a certain specific j. or its elements carried out under
specified condition, and for analyzing the data to obtain the time necessary for an operator
to carry it out at a defined rate of performance [Shumon et al.2013].1t is the application of
a scientific method of determining process times using data collection and statistical
analysis. This study is concerned with the establishment of time standards far a worker to
perform a specified job at a defined level of performance. It was originally proposed by
[Fredrick Taylor 1881] and was modified to include a performance rating adjustment.
Taylor used the most qualified different parameters such as machine time, material
handling (with personal allowances) time and bundle time [Babu 2011]. Material handling
and bundle time is calculated by motion analysis.
Motion study offer a great potential for saving any areas of human effort and
reduce the cost by combining the elements of one task with elements of another. It
involves the analysis of the basic hand, arm and body movements of workers as they
perform work. Motion study uses the principles of motion economy to develop the work
stations that are friendly to the human body and efficient in their operation. This study is
used to develop the best work method and create motion consciousness on the part of all
employees by developing economical and efficient tools, fixtures and production aids. In
RMG industries the purpose of motion study is to analysis the motions of the operator's
hand, leg, shoulder and eyes in a single motion of work or in a single operation cycle, to
that unless motions can be eliminated. Motion study was first introduced to look at how
body motions were used in the process of completing a job by using camera [Frank and
Lillian Gilbreth 1885].This concept provide smooth and easy motion to improve
capability of performer and get more output of time investment done by the particular
resource towards their given tasks. So, it is vital to analyze the movement of workers and
11
eliminate the unwanted motions, which lead increased worker's efficiency and improved
productivity in a firm.
1.2.6 Assembly Line Balancing
Assembly Line Balancing (ALB) is the term commonly used to refer to the
decision process of assigning tasks to workstations in a serial production system. Line
balancing is an optimum distribution of the workload evenly across all process in a cell or
value stream to remove bottleneck or excess capacity [Kumar and Mahto 2013]. It is the
assignment of work to stations in a line to as to achieve the desired output rate with the
smallest number of workstations [Krajewski and Ritzman 2008] .Line balancing is one
of the most common optimization technique which is used to allocate task of workers in
different workstation in Order to in union productivity Single model represents a type of
assembly line when product is assigned in the same direction from the certain set up and
won‘t variant its set up.
A mix model assembly line produces several items belonging to same family. In
contras-t single model assembly line produces one type of product with no variation but
mixed enables a plant to achieve both high volume production and product variety.
However, it complicates scheduling and increases the need for good communication about
the specific parts to be produced at each station and minimizing the number of station
[Kumar and Mahto 2013].
Multi model assembly line is the combination of simple and mix model assembly
line. In this model the uniformity of the assembled products and the production system is
not that much sufficient to accept the enabling of the product and the production levels. To
reduce the time and money this assembly is arranged in batches, and this allows the short
term lot-sizing issues which made in groups of the models to batches and result will be on
the assembly levels. The line balancing method sometime s causes an unequal time
assignments .The U shaped layout which is assigned by standard task helps to solve these
unequal time assignments situations in line balancing U shaped .It avoids constant
displacement to the start of the line and solve money of the distribution problem. It
improves the tasks assignment by offering production rate flexibility. The number of
workers assigned can be changed at any time. It makes easy to adapt the cycle time to the
tack time without rearranging the task assignments [lqbal et al. 2013].
12
A sequence of operations is involved in making a product. In bulk production
works in an assembly line (Progressive Bundle system) and each operator does one
operation and passes it to other operator to do the next operation. In this way product
finally reaches to the end of the line as a finished product. In the assembly line after
sometime of the line setting, it is found that at some places in the line, work is started to
pile up and few operators sit idle due to unavailability of work [Shumon soil. 2013]. This
type of situation is known as bottleneck. So bottleneck can tined as delay in transmission
that causes slow production rate. When this situation happens in the line it is called an
imbalanced line. Normally it happens due to two main reasons which are variation in work
content (time needed to do an operation) in different operations and operator's performance
level. To identify the location of bottleneck and eliminate them line balancing is important
[Kumar and Mahto 2013]. A well-balanced assembly line reduces wastes such as
operator idleness, the need of fluctuating operators, stock and faulty products. It also
decreases the production costs of the unit and allows the company to reduce the price of
their products. To meet the production target, maintaining level work flow in the line is
very essential. So it is very important to know the basics of quick line balancing. Line
balancing can be classified as follows [Babu 2011]
Initial balancing: The sequence of operations of an industry is analyzed and the
Standard Minute Values (SMV) is allocated. The SMVs are determined by most
manufacturers using standard databases available whereas some companies use
their own databases based on past experience and using time studies.
Rebalancing: This is performed after few hours while the whole line is completely
laid down and may be performed several times in order to make the material flow
with the last bottle necks in the line. Capacity studies conducted on the line a help
the line balancing process.
Reactive balancing: Despite the production line being balanced spontaneous
variations are inevitable due to problems on the line. Reactive balancing is often
done due to machine break down, operator absenteeism, quality defects and
shortages. The operators or the machines are moved to the bottleneck until the
severity of the problem is concealed.
Late hour balancing: In order to fulfill the daily demanded output from a
production line the upstream operators are moved to the line end by the supervisors
13
of some garment manufacturing companies. This happens unofficially but not
uncommon and makes the line unbalanced in the next day especially in early hours.
The downstream operators are waiting to receive garment pieces resulting
extremely low output in early hours.
The proposed manufacturing cells for garment manufacturing totally oppose late hour
balancing and only initial balancing can give the preeminent result. In Indian industries
assembly line was designed with a number of operations by simulation and heuristic
method to minimum the balancing loss and system loss. [Roy and Kban 20101].
1.2.7 5S
Sort (Seiri) Sorting is the first step-removing all surplus items from the work
center which are not needed for the immediate continual operations [Hough,2008]. At
this stage it is decided what is really needed and what is not. Any item or tool that is
unaccounted out of place or unnecessary needs to be clearly documented. A red tag is a
document made on red colored paper that is attached to potential junk items in a
workplace. The items are stored temporarily until assignable action can be undertaken; it is
usually the starting point of a 5S exercise. Items are red tagged with the best
description of use or placement recorded on it. All red tagged articles are moved to a
temporary holding area, and that area clearly is identified as the red tag or Seiri area.
Equipment or anything else that is not of use, should be discarded as refuse to be
thrown out [Howell, 2009]. To implement the first step of 5S, a production team needs to
know what material is used when the material in storage are to used where the required
materials are, and what the users requirement are [Hirano 1993]. This is an opportunity
for every team to re-evaluate the tools at their disposal and make sure that they are
using the best available tools for the process [Cooper et. al 2009].
Set in Order (Seiton) The second step in a 5S launch is taking the stored items and
putting them where they best support the function they provide. Workers should be
motivated to place items at their point of use and improve the workplace‗s visual
management [Van Pattern 2006]. Before and after photos should be taken to document
progress and explain activity benefits are of key importance at this stage [Samuels, 2009].
One important advantage of Set in order is that everything needed for the job is clearly
visible. Another objective of this step is to arrange the work in such a manner that
missteps can be easily identified and corrected which is one of the main reason why the
14
implementation of visual controls is encouraged during this step. Associates may apply
these philosophies by referring to checklists, designing tool boards, parts container and
improving workplace design. The practice of shadow boarding can be quickly identified
when a piece of equipment is missing from a work station [Becker 2001]. The main
advantage of tool shadowing is that people instantly know which tool is missing and where
it stored.
Shine (Seiso) Once the unneeded is thrown away and sorting and set in order
has taken place, it is now time for the sanitize phase [Howell, 2009]. A cross functional
team should agree on what the cleaning standards need to be [Samuels, 2009]. This is
sometimes referred to as shine or sweep stage where teams thoroughly remove clutter
and fix equipment or building components [Hough 2008]. The objective of this
phase is to identify and eliminate the root cause of waste, dirt and damage as well
as clean up the work station [Van Pattern, 2006]. 5S projects that are almost entirely
focused on cleaning and painting prevent recording the valuable information that can be
gained from assessing it [Van Pattern, 2006]. This step needs to have the full involvement
of employees to gather the data of what they feel needs to be cleaned and how often
it should be cleaned [Samuels, 2009]. Although it is imperative to create a cleaning
schedule along with appointed duties for all personal working in designated areas, some
employees may mistakenly believe that they are not being paid to clean. In that situation,
[Cooper. et. al. 2007] make the suggestion to list all applicable responsibilities in detail,
including an area to be cleaned and desired expectations where they are assigned. Another
issue worth considering is that an unclean area is more susceptible to safety hazards
that could potentially cause worker injury [Howell, 2009]. This is of such importance that
[Cooper et. al. 2007] also recommends this particular event be followed as a daily
regimen.
Standardize (Seiketsu) After the organizing and cleaning of a production
area, it is essential that the area is maintained [Cooper, et. al. 2007]. This stage
requires that the improvements of the previous three phases are maintained. That‗s why
organization develop standardized procedures, rules and expectations for maintaining
continuous activity in all of the areas shift by shift and crew. This is a means of creating
consistent ways for implementing the tasks outlined above on daily basis [Cooper. et. al.
2007].The challenge is to visually maintain known agreed upon conditions rather than to
15
write work instructions [Van Pattern, 2006]. Teams can develop their own standards by
using the 5M‗s borrowed from Kaoru Ishikawa‗s Fishbone diagram. In it, he lists
Manpower, Methods, Materials, Machines and Measurements as the 5 components of
the standardizing step [Ishikawa, 1986]. An organization achieves conformity when
employees value working to one common metric, rather than working however they feel
like working or how they think a job should be done [Van Pattern, 2006].
Sustain (Shitsuke) The benefits of the above four phases of 5S are powerful,
visual and easily measured. However without self-discipline, elements for sustainability
the success of 5S program is brief and everything will atrophy or revert to the
previous messy state [Maggie, 2006]. In daily life, when we diet to lose weight, we still
need discipline to help us maintain our objective. Therefore discipline and motivation go
hand and hand to reach your goals [Santos et. al. 2006]. Several studies identify the fifth
phase as the most difficult phase to perform of this program [Bullington, 2003]; [Cooper
et. al, 2007]; [Womack & Jones 1991]. To continue the gains from implementing the 5S
system, efforts should be taken to instill the importance of maintaining employee
dedication for a neat, orderly and safe workplace and reinforcing good work habits
[Maggie, 2006]. Every employee needs to understand the importance of safety, order and
cleanliness and be willing to take the necessary steps that guarantee the prescribed
standards are accommodated [Cooper et. al 2007] when every square foot of a
production floor is assigned to an associate then clutter will not build up [Samuels,
2009]
1.2.7 SWOT Analysis
The SWOT analysis is an extremely useful for understanding and decision-making
tools. SWOT is an acronym for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. SWOT
analysis is a subjective assessment of data which is organized into a logical order that
helps understanding, presentation, discussion and decision-making. It provides a
framework for analyzing a company's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats it
faces. This analysis can be carried out for a product place, an industry or person. A SWOT
analysis enables firms to identify factors which need to be taken into account when
developing marketing and corporate strategy. The objective of the firm or industry should
be determined after the SWOT analysis has been performed. This would allow the
16
organization to achieve the goals or objectives [Philip and Koshy 2012], 1n this analysis
strengths and weaknesses, are 'mapped‘ or 'graphed' against opportunities and threats.
Strengths refer to the characteristics which are of high importance as well as
provide a business or project significant advantages over others
Weaknesses refer to the characteristics or the areas which provide disadvantages
and require immediate actions
Opportunities are the dements those should be further implemented and exploited
to achieve the desired performance
Threats refer to the elements in the environment that could cause trouble for the
business or project
SWOT analysis aims to identify the key internal and external factors seen as
important to achieving an objective. The factors come from within a company's unique
value chain. Internal factors - the strengths and weaknesses internal to the organization.
External factors- the opportunities and threats presented by the environment external to the
organization. The SWOT analysis provides information that is helpful in matching the
firm's resources and capabilities to the competitive environment in which it operates.
In India, SWOT analysis was practiced to throw light on its present retail scenario and to
identify weakness such as multi-diversified business, no bargaining markets etc. and
various threats such as increasing competitors, government and local policies
unrecognized modem retailing etc. The analysis also discussed some customer-centric
initiatives to be taken in future by the retailers [Archana 2012].
SWOT analysis helped to identify the strengths challenges, opportunities and
threats of LED sector in Bangladesh. According to the analysis, many problems area were
identified in the factory which is related to the global challenges of the organization such
as high prices of quality products, high rated gas, electricity and oil prices, political unrest
and inadequate sales center for the local market etc. [Mustafa 2006].
17
2.1 Computerized Relative Allocation of Facilities Technique (CRAFT)
Now days use computer is well established in every type of designing so is the facility
layout also. A number of computerized layout programs have been developed since the
1970s to help devise good manufacturing layouts. Out of these, the most widely applied is
the Computerized Relative Allocation of Facilities Technique (CRAFT).The CRAFT
method follows the same basic idea, but with some significant operational differences, it
requires a load matrix and a distance matrix as initial inputs, but in addition, it requires a
cost per unit distance traveled, With basic inputs and an initial layout in the program,
CRAFT tries to improve the relative placement of the departments as measured by total
material handling cost for the layout. (Material handling cost between departments (Flow
points) = Number of loads × Rectilinear distance between department centroids × Cost per
unit distance.) It makes improvements by exchanging pair departments iteratively until no
further cost reductions are possible. That is, the program calculates the effect on total cost
of exchanging departments; if this yields a reduction, the exchange is made, which
constitutes iteration. Departments are part of a material flow network, so even a simple
pairwise exchange generally will affect flow patterns among many other departments. It is
a heuristic program.
1. CRAFT uses a simple rule of thumb in making evaluations that is Compare two
departments at a time and exchange them if it reduces the total cost of the layout.
This type of rule is obviously necessary to analyze even a modest size layout.
2. CRAFT does not guarantee an optimal or model solution.
3. CRAFT is biased by its starting conditions: where you start (that is, the initial
layout) will determine the final layout.
4. Starting with a reasonably good solution is more likely to yield a lower-cost final
solution, but it does not always. This means that a good strategy for using CRAFT
Chapter-2
Data Analysis and Result
18
is to generate a variety of different starting layouts to expose the program to
different pairwise exchange.
5. It can handle up to 40 departments and rarely exceeds 10 iterations in arriving at a
solution.
6. CRAFT departments consist of combinations of square modules. This permits
multiple departmental configurations, but often results in strange departmental
shapes that have to be modified manually to obtain a realistic layout.
7. A modified version called SPACECRAFT has been developed to handle multistory
layout problems.
8. CRAFT assumes the existence of variable-path material handling equipment such
as forklift trucks. Therefore, when computerized fixed-path equipment is
employed, CRAFT‘s applicability is greatly reduced.
The result of design shows minimum total transfer cost between departments. The
calculation is based on the following equation:
If the distance between departments are rectilinear, d ij is calculated based on the following
equation-
dij= |∆x| + |∆y|
If the distance between departments is Euclidean, dij is calculated based on the following
equation-
Dij = √ (∆x) 2
+ (∆y) 2
To calculate the distance between departments, centroid of each department is calculated
using the following equation
X =
(x2
2 - x1
2) (y2 – y1)
Y =
(y2
2 –y1
2) (x2 –x1)
Based on these calculations, the result design will show only a transfer cost
between departments. The good result design means less transfer cost between
departments. However, there are other parameters missing such as total time in system,
waiting time, or utilization.
19
Cost matrix analysis using CRAFT method
The 26 processes of producing 3W LED bulb (shown in appendix A) are included
into 6 departments (A, B, C, D, E, and F). The process names are shown in table no 2.1
Table 2.1 Included tasks and Area of the departments
Department Included task Area (sq. ft.)
A A,B,C,M 15*15=225
B D,E,F,G,H 20*15=300
C I,J,K 25*15=375
D N,L,O 15*15=225
E P,Q,R 15*15=225
F S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z 30*15=450
Fig.2.1 Centroid allocation of departments in initial layout
One of the inputs required by craft is the flow data. That is the number of material
handling trips per unit time from every department to other department. This data is given
in the from-to chart appearing in the table 2.2.
The distance between departments is assumed to be the rectilinear distance between
centroid locations. From figure- 2.1, the centroid locations of the initial layout are
(XA, YA) = (7.5, 7.5), (XB, YB) = (10.5, 22.5)
(XC, YC)= (32.5, 22.5), (XD, YD) = (22.5, 7.5)
(XE, YE) = (52.5, 22.5), (XF, YF) = (45, 7.5)
20
The rectilinear distance between A and B. for example, is given by the formula-
|XA-XB| + |YA-YB| = |7.5-10.5| + |7.5-22.5| = 17.5
Table 2.2 From-To chart (Number trips of material per hour)
Table 2.3 Rectilinear distance between the departments for initial layout
F T A B C D E F
A 17.5 40 15 60 37.5
B 22.5 27.5 42.5 50
C 25 20 27.5
D 45 22.5
E 22.5
F
Table 2.4 Total distances travelled per hour between departments for initial layout
F T A B C D E F
A 315 165 1575 2055
B 562 1020 1582
C 825 560 1385
D 3825 3825
E 675 675
F
315 562 990 5405 2250 9522
Total distance = Number of material handling per hour × Rectilinear distance between the
departments
If B and C are exchanged then the predicted cost extending from 9522 to 10172.50,
or about 6 percent.
If A and B are exchanged the new layout with A and B exchanged appear in figure.
Because A has the small area, it is placed in the upper left hand corner of the space
formally occupied by B, so that the remaining space allows B to be continuous. Notice that
F T A B C D E F
A 18 11 42
B 25 24
C 33 28
D 85
E 30
F
21
B is no longer rectangular. The actual cost of the new layout is not necessarily equal to the
predicted value of 9522. The centroid of B is determined by first finding the moments MX
and MY.
Here, MX = {(152-0) (15-0) + (20
2-15
2) (30-15)}/2A where A = area of B =300 sq. ft.
=6000/2*300
=10
And MY= {(152-0) (15-0) + (30
2-15
2) (20-15)}/2A
=11.3
Now, interchanging departments B and C
Fig.2.2 Centroid allocation in changed layout (Departments B and C)
Table 2.5 Rectilinear distance between the departments
F T A B C D E F
A 42.5 20 15 60 37.5
B 22.5 27.5 42.5 25
C 25 40 47.5
D 45 22.5
E 22.5
F
22
Table 2.6 Total distances travelled per hour between departments for layout
F T A B C D E F
A 765 165 1575 2505
B 562.5 660 1222.5
C 825 1120 1945
D 3825 3825
E 675 675
F
765 562.5 990 5605 2250 10174.5
Now interchanging the departments A and B
Fig.2.3 Centroid allocation in changed layout (Departments A and B)
Table 2.7 Rectilinear distance between the departments
F T A B C D E F
A 13.7 25 30 45 52.5
B 33.7 16.3 53.7 38.8
C 25 20 27.5
D 45 22.5
E 22.5
F
23
Table 2.8 Total distances travelled per hour between departments for layout
F T A B C D E F
A 246.6 330 2205 2781.6
842.5 1288.8 2131.3
C 825 560 1385
D 3825 3825
E 675 675
F
246.6 842.5 1150 5673.8 2880 10797.9
2.2 Systematic layout planning (SLP)
In certain types of layout problems, numerical flow of items between departments
either is impractical to obtain or does not reveal the qualitative factors that may be crucial
to the placement decision. In these situations, the venerable technique known as systematic
layout planning (SLP) can be used. It involves developing a relationship chart showing the
degree of importance of having each department located adjacent to every other
department. From this chart, an activity relationship diagram, similar to the flow graph
used for illustrating material handling between departments, is developed. The activity
relationship diagram is then adjusted by trial and error until a satisfactory adjacency
pattern is obtained.
This pattern, in turn, is modified department by department to meet building space
limitations. The SLP approach has been quantified for ease of evaluating alternative
layouts. This entails assigning numerical weights to the closeness preferences and then
trying different layout arrangements.
Table 2.9 Reason for rating various departments
Rating Reason
1 Type of works
2 Ease of supervision
3 Common personnel
4 Contact necessary
5 Share same space
6 Psychology
24
Table 2.10 Closeness and line code for various departments
Value Closeness Line code
A Absolutely necessary
E Especially important
I Important
O Ordinary closeness OK
U Unimportant
X Undesirable
Table 2.11 Relationship chart
F T A B C D E F Area
(sq.ft)
A A/4 O/2 A/4 U/1 U 225
B U I/4 A/1 U 300
C O/2 U 375
D A/ O 225
E A 225
F 450
Fig.2.4 Initial Relationship diagram
A D
B E C
F
25
2.3 Analysis of layout with minimum product travel method
A layout which minimizes the product or material travel with in manufacturing
process is obtained by minimum product travel method (MPTM). The input for MPTM is
processing sequence, number of product processing department movement combination
and distance between departments.
The block diagram for existing layout,
Fig.2.7. Block diagram for initial layout
80
9
7 10
6 1
2 5
3 4
26
Block diagram for proposed layout on the basis of minimum product travel length,
Fig.2.8 Block diagram for improved layout
100
8 1
7 2
3 6
4 5
9
27
Table 2.13 Distances between the adjacent departments
SR NO Department
movement
condition
Distance between (in feet)
Original layout Improved layout
1 1-2 12 12
2 2-3 12 12
3 2-7 30 15
4 3-4 12 12
5 3-6 30 15
6 4-5 12 15
7 1-5 48 45
8 5-6 15 12
9 6-7 12 12
10 7-8 12 12
11 8-9 12 12
12 9-10 12 15
219 189
We assumed prescribed travel length to be = 200 ft.
Efficiency of original layout =
=
=.913
=91.30%
Efficiency of improved layout =
=
=1.05
=105%
Percentage improvement =
=15.90 %
28
2.4 Line balancing and efficiency
Assembly Lines are a special case of product layout. In a general sense, the term
assembly line refers to progressive assembly linked by some material handling device. The
usual assumption is that some form of pacing is present and the allowable processing time
is equivalent for all workstations. Within this broad definition, there are important
differences among line types.
A few of these are material handling devices (belt or roller conveyor, overhead
crane)
Line configuration (U-shape, straight, branching)
Pacing (mechanical, human)
Product mix (one product or multiple products)
Workstation characteristics (workers may sit, stand, walk with the line, or ride the
line)
Length of the line (few or many workers)
Assembly Line Balancing Though primarily a scheduling issue, assembly-line
balancing often has implications for layout. This would occur when, for balance purposes,
workstation size or the number used would have to be physically modified.
The most common assembly line is a moving conveyor that passes a series of work
stations in a uniform time interval called the work station cycle time. At each workstation,
work is per-formed on a product either by adding parts or by completing assembly
operations. The work performed at each station is made up of many bits of work, termed
tasks, elements, and work units. Such tasks are described by motion–time analysis.
Generally, they are groupings that cannot be subdivided on the assembly line without
paying a penalty in extra motions.
Cycle time which is also the time between successive units coming off the end of
the line.
Cycle time =
Minimum number of work station =
Efficiency =
29
Table 2.14 Precedence chart
Task Task name Performance time
(min)
Task must followed
A Wire cutting (long + short) 0.63 None
B Wire stapling (long + short) 0.94 A
C Wire leading (long + short) 1.78 A
D Driver lead 0.21 None
E Soldering wear and driver outline 0.78 B , C , D
F Cutting tube fiber 0.65 E
G Fiber enter driver 0.26 F
H Driver heating 0.60 G
I PCB LED soldering 0.63 None
J Helper (PCB folding + passing) 0.76 I
K PCB breaking 0.43 J
L PCB heat paste 0.37 K
M Shell lock
0.17 None
N Shell heat paste 0.33 M
O Shell +PCB 0.003 L ,N
P Cleaning shell + PCB 0.958 O
Q Shell + PCB cover adjust 0.45 P
R Driver pass (helper) 0.50 H
S Driver input 1.90 R , Q
T PCB soldering 0.56 S
U End capping 1.50 T
V Fiber heating 0.76 U
W End cap fitting 0.40 V
X Cleaning 0.25 W
Y Testing 0.50 X
Z Packaging 0.68 Y
Total performance time 17.001
30
Fig.2.9 Activity relationship diagram
Here, Production time available per day = 7 hours
= 420 min
Unit required per day = 200 units
Cycle time =
=
= 2.1 min/day
Minimum number of work station =
=
= 8.0957
≈ 9
Efficiency =
=
= 0.899
= 89.90 %
31
2.5 Capacity Calculation: Time Study
Table 2.15 Time Study
No Task name Total
O.T
Average
O.T
Rating Basic
time
1 2 3
1 Wire cutting (long
+ short)
0.61 0.63 0.65 1.90 0.63 100 0.63
2 Wire stapling
(long + short)
0.98 0.94 0.902 2.8 0.94 100 0.94
3 Wire leading
(long + short)
1.78 1.76 1.80 5.3 1.78 100 1.78
4 Driver lead 0.21 0.25 0.17 0.60 0.21 100 0.21
5 Soldering wear
and driver outline
0.78 0.74 0.82 2.3 0.78 100 0.78
6 Cutting tube fiber 0.65 0.60 0.70 2.0 0.65 100 0.65
7 Fiber enter driver 0.26 0.24 0.28 0.8 0.26 100 0.26
8 Driver heating 0.59 0.60 0.61 1.8 0.60 100 0.60
9 PCB LED
soldering
0.60 0.57 0.63 1.9 0.63 100 0.63
10 Helper (PCB
folding + passing)
0.76 0.75 0.77 2.3 0.76 100 0.76
11 PCB breaking 0.42 0.43 0.41 1.3 0.43 100 0.43
12 PCB heat paste 0.37 0.35 0.39 1.1 0.37 100 0.37
13 Shell lock 0.17 0.11 0.22 0.5 0.17 100 0.17
14 Shell heat paste 0.33 0.30 0.35 1.0 0.33 100 0.33
15 Shell +PCB 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.009 0.003 100 0.003
16 Cleaning shell +
PCB
0.958 0.10 0.901 2.87 0.958 100 0.958
17 Shell + PCB cover
adjust
0.45 0.42 0.48 1.35 0.45 100 0.45
18 Driver pass
(helper)
0.49 0.51 0.50 1.50 0.50 100 0.50
19 Driver input 1.90 1.91 1.91 5.7 1.90 100 1.90
20 PCB soldering 0.52 0.56 0.60 1.68 0.56 100 0.56
21 End capping 1.49 1.48 1.53 4.50 1.50 100 1.50
22 Fiber heating 0.76 0.73 0.79 2.28 0.76 100 0.76
23 End cap fitting 0.40 0.41 0.40 1.2 0.40 100 0.40
24 Cleaning 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.75 0.25 100 0.25
25 Testing 0.50 0.52 0.54 1.5 0.50 100 0.50
26 Packaging 0.68 0.70 0.67 2.04 0.68 100 0.68
Total basic time 17.001 17.001
Observation no
32
Calculation of Standard Minute Value (SMV):
Total basic time = 17.001 min
Personal allowances = 11 %
Machine allowances = 2 %
SAM (Standard Allowed Minute)
SAM = Basic time + total allowance time
= 17.001 + (11*17.001/100) + (2 17.001/100)
= 19.211 min
Calculation of line efficiency:
Number of operators = 36
Working hours = 7 hours
Line output (production) = 200 units
SAM = 19.211 min
Total minute attended = no. of operators working hours 60
= 36 7 60
=15120 min
Total minute produced = Line output SAM
=200 19.211 min
=3842.2 min
Line efficiency =
=
= .2541 100%
= 25.41 %
Capacity in hours:
Number of operators = 36
Total working hours = 7 hours
So, factory capacity (in hours) = (36 7) hours
= 252 hours
33
Production capacity of factory (in pieces):
Capacity =
=
=199.98
~ 200 pieces
2.6 Implementation of 5S
5S is a philosophy based on five Japanese terms utilized for creating and sustaining
a well-organized workplace that is more efficient and productive in operation.
The objective of implementation of 5S in the industry was to increase the
storing place create and preserve standards and service procedures specific to the
workshop, reduce unproductive time redefine access, working and storage spaces,
readjust the location. Changes that take place after 5S Implementation in our industry-
1S
During the activity Red labels have been applied to all marks which were not necessary
within the workshop.
All useless things have been sorted and eliminated.
Rubbish about approximately 300kg was thrown away.
The reason for scantling accumulation was found out.
The activity related rules have been stated and are to be implemented.
2S
The inappropriate objects have been taken inventory of
In the workshop, the location of all necessary objects have been defined and
marked.
Colors have been used to mark the different areas.
The arranging way has been set according to destination and degree of usage.
3S
Washing of floors was done.
All floors have been cleaned.
All storing shelves have been cleaned.
34
All machines and tools have been washed and cleaned.
Existing disturbances/non conformities have been detected.
All boards have been cleaned as well as all the windows.
The supply wiring has been redone.
4S
The daily checklists were carried out.
The specific procedure was followed.
All obligatory rules in the company are obeyed.
Rules and regulations of the company were followed.
Establishment of Rules and Standard Operation Procedure (SOP)
Improvement in operation and workflow
5S
It gives a scope for Workers participation in the work area design and maintenance.
Workers absenteeism has been lowered down.
Team spirit and discipline were developed.
5S slogans and posters were introduced.
Enhancement of operation effectiveness in a better working environment was
created
2.6 Bill of material
A bill of materials or product structure (sometimes bill of material, BOM or
associated list) is a list of the raw materials, sub-assemblies, intermediate assemblies, sub-
components, parts and the quantities of each needed to manufacture an end product. A
BOM may be used for communication between manufacturing partners, or confined to a
single manufacturing plant. A BOM can define products as they are designed (engineering
bill of materials), as they are ordered (sales bill of materials), as they are built
(manufacturing bill of materials), or as they are maintained (service bill of materials or
pseudo bill of material). The different types of BOMs depend on the business need and use
for which they are intended. In process industries, the BOM is also known as the formula,
recipe, or ingredients list. In electronics, the BOM represents the list of components used
on the printed wiring board or printed circuit board. Once the design of the circuit is
35
completed, the BOM list is passed on to the PCB layout engineer as well as component
engineer who will procure the components required for the design.
Creating a Bill of Materials Creating a bill of material should include:
BOM level
Part number
Part name
Phase
Description
Quantity
Unit of measure
Procurement type
Reference designations
BOM notes
What to include in an effective bill of materials
Because one of the main functions of the BOM is to ensure that the product is built
right, it is best to include specific pieces of product data in the BOM record. Whether you
are creating your first bill of materials or are looking for ways to improve how you create a
bill of materials, here is a high level list of information to include in your BOM record:
BOM Level—Assign each part or assembly a number to detail where it fits in the
hierarchy of the BOM. This allows anyone with an understanding of the BOM
structure to quickly decipher the BOM.
Part Number—Assign a part number to each part or assembly in order to
reference and identify parts quickly. It is common for manufacturers to choose
either an intelligent or non-intelligent part numbering scheme. Whichever scheme
you use, make sure you avoid creating multiple part numbers for the same part.
Part Name—Record the unique name of each part or assembly. This will help you
identify parts more easily.
Phase—Record what stage each part is at in its lifecycle. For parts in production, it
is common to use a term like ‗In Production‘ to indicate the stage of the part. New
parts that have not yet been approved can be classified as 'Unreleased' or 'In
Design'. This is helpful during new product introduction (NPI) because it allows
you to easily track progress and create realistic project timelines.
36
Description—Provide a detailed description of each part that will help you and
others distinguish between similar parts and identify specific parts more easily.
Quantity—Record the number of parts to be used in each assembly or
subassembly to help guide purchasing and manufacturing decisions and activities.
Unit of Measure—Classify the measurement in which a part will be used or
purchased. It is common to use ‗each‘, but standard measures like inches, feet,
ounces and drops are also suitable classifications.
Procurement Type—Document how each part is purchased or made (i.e. off-the-
shelf or made-to-specification) to create efficiencies in manufacturing, planning
and procurement activities.
Reference Designators—If your product contains printed circuit board assemblies
(PCBAs), you should include reference designators that detail where the part fits on
the board in your BOM. Capturing this information in the BOM can save time and
help you avoid confusion down the road.
BOM Notes—Capture other relevant notes to keep everyone who interacts with
your BOM on the same page.
Documenting all this information in your BOM will keep business activities and
manufacturing tasks on target. In addition to capturing this information, you should also
consider the following questions when creating a bill of materials.
An accurate BOM supports efficient manufacturing processes
Creating a bill of materials is not only a necessary step in the product development
process; it is also what makes your product design a reality. Before you create a BOM
record, it is important to consider who will utilize the information and how you will
maintain and manage all associated product documentation like part datasheets and CAD
files. Develop more efficient manufacturing practices by capturing detailed part
information when creating a bill of materials. A bill of material of the industry is shown in
Appendix E.
37
2.7 SWOT analysis
A SWOT analysis (alternatively SWOT matrix) is a structured planning method
used to evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats involved in a project
or in a business venture. A SWOT analysis can be carried out for a product, place, industry
or person. It involves specifying the objective of the business venture or project and
identifying the internal and external factors that are favorable and unfavorable to achieve
that objective. Some authors credit SWOT to Albert Humphrey, who led a convention at
the Stanford Research Institute (now SRI International) in the 1960s and 1970s using data
from Fortune 500 companies. However, Humphrey himself does not claim the creation of
SWOT, and the origins remain obscure. The degree to which the internal environment of
the firm matches with the external environment is expressed by the concept of strategic fit.
Strengths characteristics of the business or project that give it an advantage
over others.
Weaknesses characteristics that place the business or project at a
disadvantage relative to others.
Opportunities elements that the project could exploit to its advantage.
Threats elements in the environment that could cause trouble for the
business or project.
Identification of SWOTs is important because they can inform later steps in planning to
achieve the objective.
First, the decision makers should consider whether the objective is attainable, given
the SWOTs. If the objective is not attainable a different objective must be selected and the
process repeated. Users of SWOT analysis need to ask and answer questions that generate
meaningful information for each category (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats) to make the analysis useful and find their competitive advantage.
38
Strengths
Weakness
This layout reduces lead time
It increases the worker‘s
efficiency and production time
There is a high degree of labor
and equipment utilization
Easy material handling process
It reduces production time
The raw materials were kept
unorganized in the ware house
Same route for raw material flow
and final product flow
A constraints was found that the
shell lock machine is fixed
Opportunities Threats
The industry has the ability to
handle a variety of processing
requirements Since workers are crossed trained
to perform every jobs, boredom
is less of a factor.
The work area may be crowded as
the little storage space is available.
This also can cause material
handling problems.
39
3.1 CRAFT
In CRAFT method obtains the hourly cost of transporting materials to and from
each of the department s by simply multiplying the entries in the from-to-chart of figure by
the entries in the from–to-chart of figure. These calculations are summarized in fig.2.1.
The total distance traveled per hour for the initial layout is 9522 feet.
If B and C are exchanged then the predicted cost extending from 9522 to 10172.50,
or about 6 percent. (fig.2.2)
If A and B are exchanged the new layout with A and B exchanged appear in fig.
2.3 Because A has the small area, it is placed in the upper left hand corner of the space
formally occupied by B,
So that the remaining space allows B to be continuous. Notice that B is no longer
rectangular. The actual cost of the new layout is not necessarily equal to the predicted
value of 9522. The centroid of B is determined by first finding the moments MX and MY.
Exchanging A and B, the predicted cost is 10977.90
Since none of the predicted cost is less than the initial cost the lay out
recommended by CRAFT ,pictured in figure , required two iterations and resulted in a
reduction of total distance traveled from 10977.90 feet to 9522 feet, or about 15 percent.
Limitation of applying CRAFT
It cannot handle a change in material flow. It assumes the material flow is
deterministic. For different material flows it creates different layouts. Each layout is only
used for a specific situation. Limitations are-
Chapter-3
Discussion on Results
40
Path dependence: Different initial layouts give different final solutions.
Department shapes deteriorate rapidly with the number of iterations. Outputs
contain unrealistic locations, shapes, and alignments. Manual adjustments are
always required.
The improvement algorithms cannot generally consider a negative "X"
relationship.
The improvement algorithms do not deal easily with other-than flow
relationship.
Architectural influences and other qualitative factors are very difficult to
consider. They are usually ignored.
Costs may not be significant, known, and linear in distance as assumption
3.2 Systematic layout planning (SLP)
This pattern, in turn, is modified department by department to meet building space
limitations. The SLP approach has been quantified for ease of evaluating alternative
layouts. This entails assigning numerical weights to the closeness preferences and then
trying different layout arrangements. The layout with the highest total closeness score is
selected. The proposed layout by SLP is shown in appendix D.
Limitation of SLP
It cannot handle a change in relationship among departments. If a relationship
changes, SLP has to create a new layout.
The building shape may be irregular. Manual adjustment is needed.
Shortest rectilinear path may not always be a realistic measure.
Limitations for general construction routines
Ignores the direction of flow among departments.
Some important relationships are not considered.
It is the departments instead of relationships that are considered in order of
priority or importance.
3.3 Assembly Line Balancing
In assembly line balancing cycle time was 2.1 min and the longest time required
for the task ―Driver input‖ is 1.9 min. If the task time was greater than the cycle time the
bottleneck is created. In that case following steps might be taken in action-
41
1. Split the task: splitting the task so that complete units are processed in two
workstations.
2. Share the task: The task somehow to be shared with an adjacent workstation
which is part of the work.
3. Use parallel workstations: It may be necessary to assign the task to two
work-stations that would operate in parallel.
4. Use a more skilled worker: Because this task exceeds the workstation cycle
time a faster worker may be able to meet the task time.
5. Work overtime: working overtime may reduce the task time
6. Redesign: It may be possible to redesign the product to reduce the task time
slightly.
U- Shape line layout for further expansion can be implemented in line layout with
minimum worker movement.
Fig 3.1 Proposed U- shape line layout
Advantages of U-shape line layout
The IN and OUT are close, allowing visual control and management, according
to the production, a single person can handle both the cell input feeding and
The shortening of distances allow sharing of work, as well as reduction of
transportation waste
These layouts provide convenient foundation for one piece flow
42
Communication among team mates in the cell is easier
The work is done inside the , supplies remain outside
Usually machines and tables are on rollers (if possible) for quick
reconfiguration
The floor space is generally fewer with a U cell than stretched line (including
inventories and supplies), walk distances are also reduced, as they are Muda
(waste).
3.4 Demand forecasting
During the line balancing the daily production rate was assumed by the monthly
demand of LED lights. The demand is forecasted by SMA or WMA method.
Table 3.1 Monthly demand for 4 month
Time period/ month Demand (units)
January 4200
February 4800
March 4500
April 5000
SMA (Simple Moving Average)
Here, actual data is available for 4 periods (months)
So, t = 4
And Dt = D4
We need the forecast for period 5 (May)
So F5 =Ft+1 =F4+1
Here, n= 4, it‘s a 4 period or 4 months moving average
We would take 4 more recent observations (data) i.e. April, March, February & January
Ft+1=
=
= 4625 unit
Weight Moving Average (WMA)
In simple moving average equal weight are assigned to all the value in the moving
average.
43
WMA assigns more weights to the more recent values.
Now we want to forecast for 5th
period (May)
In a 4 period weighted moving average the weights may be given as-
The most recent period (April) might be assigned a weight of 0.5
The most recent period (March) might be assigned a weight of 0.2
The most recent period (February) might be assigned a weight of 0.2
The most recent period (January) might be assigned a weight of 0.1
The summation of the weight must be equal to 1.0
Now, F5 = 0.5*5000+0.2*4500+0.2*4800+0.1*4200 = 4780 units
3.5 Ergonomics
Ergonomics is the study of how to interact with working environment and how
these interactions can be improved so that the wellbeing is maximized. Ergonomics can be
applied to offices in several ways. Looking at how the industry is laid out, including where
people sit in relation to equipment, windows, doors and each other. Then check that
equipment and furniture is suitable for the type of work that people are doing. This
includes seating, desks, computers, printers and anything else that they might use to do
their job. Assess the environment that is, the temperature, ventilation, lighting, decoration.
All these aspects of an industry are considered in relation to the individuals in the industry
with emphasis on their safety, health, comfort - and productivity! Much of the following
information and advice can be applied to anywhere. After all, healthy computing is good
for everybody.
The layout which is proposed to the industry includes the following-
Arranging where people need to sit that work in the industry
What equipment the workers need to do their job
What sort of working environment they need
Some workers need a very quiet area to work, for example if they need to
concentrate, and could be put in a separate area away from noisy people and
equipment.
Other people may need to work creatively in teams, and would be better off in a
relaxed, open plan area.
44
The facilities that people will need for storage.
The furniture used by the worker also used by the officers and the environment should be
as follows-
Seats should be adjustable so that the range of users can be accommodated
comfortably and they provide support where it's needed. Seats should have an adjustable
seat pan height, backrest height and backrest tilt, at least. Computer seats are available
with more features than this, such as seat pan tilt, many of which make sitting more
comfortable.
Armrests can provide good support but should be removable if you don't want
them, or they restrict posture, such as when they stop you getting as close to the desk as
you would like. Seats should have a 5-castor base for stability. It is also important that
everyone understands how to adjust their seats and what posture they should be aiming for
some seats can be quite complicated. Make sure that the seat comes with clear instructions.
Desks are usually a standard height of about 720mm. This is fine for most people,
but it should be checked to make sure that all users can be seated comfortably at a desk of
this height. Particularly short or tall people may need an adjustable-height desk. Enough
desk space is required for paperwork, the computer (monitor, keyboard and mouse) and
any additional equipment.
The desk should not have any obstructions underneath like drawers or supports
those forces to sit in uncomfortable positions. Computer desks should also have a fairly
'thin' top - not like a kitchen worktop. This is to make sure that worker can get legs under
without squashing thighs.
Some desks are 'radial' - L-shaped with a curve in the middle. These can be quite
comfortable for computer work as operators can have everything they need close at hand
in an arc around.
Lighting Most people like to be able to see daylight as it gives them a feeling
about how the day is going outside and natural light is also thought to make people feel
better too. Most people also like to be able to control the artificial lighting levels in their
work area but individual control is not often possible in large offices. Different amounts of
45
light are needed for paperwork and screen work as screens emit their own light. In this
case, individual desk lights may be better for some people.
Temperature and ventilation It is clearly important to be warm enough, but
temperature and humidity can also make a difference to how alert or tired you feel by the
end of the day. Your response to the temperature of your environment depends not only
upon air temperature but also upon radiant temperatures (such as sunshine coming through
a window), air movement and humidity, as well as the type of clothing you are wearing
and what you are doing. Humans produce about 100 Watts of heat for typical office
activities, and computer terminals about twice that much or more depending upon type.
Remember that some people will not be able to move away from an uncomfortable or
stressful environment. Personal control systems where individuals have local control over
the air movement and temperature of their own environment - by the use of fans or heaters
etc., can help.
Noise In the work place can affect concentration, can be an irritation, and can be a
source of stress to some people. With the development of quieter equipment, especially
printers, noise levels in offices have generally decreased. However, in open-plan offices it
can still be a problem with the noise mainly due to people! Screens and good quality
flooring and ceiling tiles can help to absorb noise.
When assemblers need to sit to perform tasks, the optimal work surface height varies with
the type of work performed:
Precision work: 31 to 37 inches
Reading and writing: 28 to 31 inches
Typing and light assembly: 21 to 28 inches
The height of both the chair seat and the backrest should be adjustable. For a seated
person, the boundary for vertically reaching to grasp objects is 32 inches, with an
occasional extended reach of 38 to 40 inches.
When assemblers must stand to perform tasks, workbench heights should be as follows:
Precision work: above elbow height.
46
Light work: just below elbow height.
Heavy work: 4 to 6 inches below elbow height.
Individuals with good posture should have their elbows at a 90-degree angle and
their wrists in a neutral position. The head should be straight, not too far forward, and
operators should neither lean forward at the waist nor lift their arms above shoulder height.
This workstation features a rack with bins set up so all the parts are within the operator‘s
reach.
3.6 Safety of workplace
When it comes to warehouse safety there are many benefits that are often
overlooked. Safety procedures are frequently disregarded in a variety of workplaces due to
insufficient time, inadequate resources or an opportunity to cut corners in an attempt to
save money. However, when safety procedures are soundly implemented there are major
benefits such as higher employee satisfaction as well as increased productivity. By
minimizing the risk of injury, fewer workplace disruptions take place and absenteeism
associated with injury is also reduced. Equipment downtime is another factor which can be
avoided through the appropriate use of safety procedures.
Here a few safety guidelines to help keep the industry safe
Ensure Safety Equipment is used at all Times In the warehouse it is vital that
forklifts or hydraulic dollies are used to lift items that are too heavy. Appropriate eyewear
and hard hats should also be worn when required. Employees should be aware of
emergency exits and the sprinklers installed in the roof should not be blocked at any time.
Safety equipment is implemented in order to minimize workplace injury, so although it
may be time consuming to initiate its use; it does pay off in the long run.
47
Eliminate Any Potential Safety Hazards Ensure all warehousing floors are free
of ‗slip and trip‘ hazards. It is important that this safety check is carried out on a regular
basis, by all employees, and that the floor is always free of stray cords, liquids and any
other potentially hazardous items. It is also essential that any cracks and pits in the flooring
are attended to as these can cause serious injuries to employers as well as damaging
expensive machinery.
Clearly Label Designated Hazardous Zones Dangerous equipment should be
stored away in an area that is clearly labeled and safe walk ways should be highlighted
through necessary signage. The easiest way to illuminate hazardous zones is by using tape
or painting black and white stripes on the floor of the designated area. This enables
employees to be aware of dangerous surroundings and can be useful in avoiding accidents
that can cause serious injury.
Always Use Safe Lifting Techniques When a load requires transporting, firstly
assess what method is the best option for its movement. If lifting is the most suitable
method; check the route to ensure no obstacles are in the way and ensure there is enough
space for the load at its destination. Safe lifting techniques should always be carried out
and the load should not obstruct the view of the lifter. Use all materials handling
equipment carefully and follow the proper operating procedures including push rather than
pull, whenever possible and lean in the direction that is being travelled.
48
Provide Training and Refresher Courses Ensure all staffs are educated and up to
date with knowledge about safe practices within the workplace. This allows for greater
adherence to procedures as staff members will be completely aware of the consequences
that can emanate from an unsafe workplace. Accidents most commonly occur when
corners are cut in an attempt to save time. If staff and management are completely aware
of the repercussions that can arise from this fact, procedures may be followed more
closely.
Promote Awareness in your Warehouse Having a sense of awareness in the work
place is an important safety factor. This can be achieved through communication between
staff members. By employees being vocal and yelling out to others their location, collision
incidents can be drastically reduced. When carrying items or driving machinery, a simple
―coming through‖ can alert other coworkers of their whereabouts and can allow them to
steer clear of dangerous pathways. All staff members should be encouraged to be
constantly aware of what‘s around them and to communicate where they are to ensure the
avoidance of collision accidents.
49
3.7 Lean Processes
While it hasn‘t always been practiced with any great rigor, the concept of waste
reduction has long been a part of American business tradition. Ben Franklin's common-
sense reminders of "waste not, want not," and "a penny saved is a penny earned" have been
well taken by such luminaries as Henry Ford, who introduced the modern assembly line,
and the founders of time-and-motion studies and scientific management,
Systematic elimination of these wastes can result in faster processes, lower costs, higher
quality, happier workers and, most importantly, happier customers.
Defects, mistakes that require additional time, resources, and money to fix. In a
manufacturing process, a defect might involve a defective part that has to be remade; in a
white-collar job, it might include erroneous paperwork that needs to be redone. Defects
tend to be the result of:
Poor quality control
Poor repair
Poor documentation
Lack of standards
Weak or missing processes
A misunderstanding of customer needs
Poor inventory control
Poor design
Undocumented design changes
Over production, In some organizations, workers just blindly keep producing,
even when those who receive their output either aren't ready for it or don't need it.
Basically, what you end up with is too much stuff, too early, that the customer doesn't
necessarily want. This is especially common in manufacturing, but it can occur in any
workplace situation in which there's a bottleneck. Overproduction may occur due to:
Just-in-case production
Unclear customer needs
Producing to a forecast
Long set-up times
Attempts to avoid long set-up times
Poorly applied automation
50
The solution to overproduction is to establish a reasonable work flow for the benefit of the
customer, which in this case is whoever acts as the downstream consumer of what you
produce: your client, another organization within the company, the general public, or
whatever the case may be. Be sure that there are well-established procedures in place for
every process in your organization, and if necessary, implement new processes to keep
work from backing up behind particular bottlenecks in the organization.
Waiting, speaking of bottlenecks, one of the worst in any organization. This is
actual downtime, which occurs whenever work has to stop for some reason: because the
next person in line is overwhelmed, because something broke down, because you're
waiting for approval, or because you've run out of something. Causes of waiting can also
include:
Mismatched production rates
Very long set-up time
Poor shop layout
Insufficient staffing
Work absences
Poor communications
Non-utilized/underutilized talent, while not included in the original Japanese list
of the seven wastes, is an integral part of the American concept. Rather than being
transparent to the system, people themselves have been plugged into the equation, in the
sense that poor utilization of existing talents, ideas, abilities, and skill sets is a waste as real
as using ten pounds of iron when five will do. This type of waste can be caused by a
myriad of things, not least:
Lack of teamwork
Lack of training
Poor communications
Management's refusal to include employees in problem-solving
Narrowly defined jobs and expectations
Poor management in general
Transportation, waste caused by moving things around. This is less of a problem
in a business office than in a manufacturing plant, since most of what white collar workers
51
"transport" can be sent by email these days. Otherwise, too much transportation tends to
increase costs, wastes time, increases the likelihood of product damage and deterioration,
and can result in poor communication. In general, transportation waste can be caused by:
Poor plant/office layout
Excessive or unnecessary handling
Misaligned process flow
Poorly-designed systems
Unnecessary steps in system processes
Transportation issues can be defeated by common-sense efforts such as simplifying
processes, repairing physical layouts, handling products less often, and making distances
between steps as short as possible. In an office situation, simply providing enough printers
and other equipment for everyone can limit transportation waste.
Inventory, another item more important in manufacturing that in the standard
office environment, but still something you must be aware of. The actual issue here is
having too much inventory. Excess Inventory may be caused by:
Overproduction
Poor layout
Mismatched production speeds
Unreliable suppliers
Long set-up times
Misunderstood customer needs
Basically, eliminating excess inventory involves adjusting the workflow and
adopting the JIT process, which can be adapted to office environments as well as
manufacturing. Remember, all you really need to do is produce enough to satisfy your
downstream customer.
Motion, because simply having to move around too much can slow down
significantly. Typical causes of excessive motion include:
Poor workstation/shop layout
Poor housekeeping
Shared tools and machines
Workstation congestion
Isolated operations
52
Lack of standards
Poor process design and controls
The solution here is to tighten things up: basically, to make sure everything can be easily
located and put into play whenever it's needed. Re-arrange the office or shop layout to
decrease the distance between stations, and make it easier to reach things that are often
used. Make sure all tools and parts are close at hand, and provide extra printers, copiers,
and fax machines for your employees. Standardize all folders, drawers, and cabinets, and
make sure everything stays organized so that it doesn't take more than a few seconds for
anyone to find a file they need. Finally, make sure everything about the work area stays
neat.
Excess Processing, This is any unnecessary effort expended in order to complete a
task: double-handling, permission seeking, unnecessary steps, re-entering data, making too
many copies or reports, and the like. Excess Processing can arise from:
Poor process control
Lack of standards
Poor communication
Overdesigned equipment
Misunderstanding of the customer's needs
Human error
Producing to forecast
Whatever the cause, the result is predictable: wasted money, time, effort, and
resources. Your only option is to closely examine your processes and fix them: institute
standard operating procedures, empower employees, get your documentation up to par,
implement J-I-T processes (if applicable), and do everything you can to shrink processes
without sacrificing quality. If you're working in an office, stop copying everyone on emails
and quit sending out so many reports...and see who screams. Eliminate as many meetings
as you can, and let people do their jobs without getting permission every step of the way.
3.8 Approach of 5S
The advantages from implementing the 5S rules:
1S
Process development by cost reduction
Stock confinement
53
Better usage of workplace
Prevention of losing tools
2S
Process growth
Increasing Efficiency
Shortening of time required for searching necessary things
3S
Improvised working conditions for workers.
The number of customers has been increased after maintaining a clean and
neat layout.
Machine maintenance cost has been reduced.
4S
The standards of the company came to next level.
Improvement in safety has supported in reducing the injuries of workers.
Slips and falls of the material have been reduced.
Travel time of materials is reduced which led to reduction of work hazards.
5S
It gives a scope for Workers participation in the work area design and
maintenance.
Workers absenteeism has been lowered down.
Increasing of the awareness and morale.
Decreasing of mistakes quantity resulting from the inattention.
Proceedings according to decisions.
Improvement of the internal communication processes.
Improvement of the inter human relations.
54
Chapter-4
Conclusions and Recommendations
4.1 Conclusions
A layout is considered with keeping A, D and F departments together and B, C and E
together at the first time when the distances traveled is 9522 feet. There are two types of
distance. They are – rectilinear distance and Euclidian distance. The rectilinear distance is
considered.
If B and C are exchanged then the predicted cost extending from 9522 to 10172.50, or
about 6 percent.
If A and B are exchanged the new layout with A and B exchanged appear in fig. 2.1
Exchanging A and B, the distances traveled is 10977.90 feet.
Since none of the predicted cost is less than the initial cost the lay out recommended by
CRAFT, pictured in figure 2.2, required two iterations and resulted in a reduction of total
distance traveled from 10977.90 feet to 9522 feet, or about 15 percent.
Comparing this exchanging layout, the layout 1 is preferable due to the lowest distances
traveled among the departments.
An enter relation among the department is found by SLP. The departments is also rated
by various types of reason such as types of work, ease of supervision, common personal, contact
necessary, share same space and psychology. Absolutely necessary is found among A and B, A
and D , B and E, C and D and E and F department.
Three layouts are proposed. In the first layout picture in appendix B.1. the distance from
department 2 to department 7, department 3 to department 6 and department 1 to department 5
are high. In the second proposed lay out the distance from department 2 to department 7,
department 3 to department 6 are minimized. As the shell lock machine is fixed so the distance
55
from department 1 to department 5 could not be minimized. If the shell lock machine could be
replaced, then this distance will be minimized.
By the time study, SMV and production capacity of the processes were calculated
separately for production line. Line balancing has decreased 3-10 % work force. After line
balancing 2-10% of work stations, 27-28 % of waiting time and 20-100% of process bottlenecks
are reduced from the production line. The reduced workforce after line balancing can be shifted
to other production lines to minimize the total labor cost.
Different problem areas associated to man, machine, maintenance, material, method,
measurement, management and environment were recognized during observation.
In the industry, the layout is planned very carefully, as many people with different jobs
will be using the area. As the space is restricted, the layout becomes important to ensure that the
working space isn't too cramped, and people don't get in each other's way. Access and emergency
routes need to be defined and laid out to ensure that people can move around the industry easily
and quickly if necessary.
By SWOT analysis it becomes possible to identify various internal factors such as
strength and weakness and external factors such as opportunity and threats of LED light
manufacturing industry to improve its productivity, capacity, and export growth in the global
markets
4.2 Recommendations
A layout is proposed for the future expansion pictured in Appendix A3. Here the shell
lock machine is replaced and the lead time is reduced. An exit door for the final production with
the warehouse. The ware house is decorated with some selves for the product storage.
Only skilled workers should be entitled for the production processes and that‘s why
proper training and supervision must necessary to achieve the optimum improvements in
productivity and efficiency.
56
An
uch
a Watanapa.( 2011). Analysis Plant Layout Design for Effective Production. Proceeding
of the International Multi Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, Vol.2, pp.
543-559.
Afentakis, P. A. (1989). Loop layout design problem for flexible manufacturing systems.
International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 1, 143–175.
Aiello, G., & Enea, M. (2001). Fuzzy approach to the robust facility layout inuncertain
production environments. International Journal of Production Research, 39(18), 4089–
4101.
Aiello, G., Enea, M., & Galante, G. (2002). An integrated approach to the facilities and material
handling system design. International Journal of Production Research, 40(15), 4007 4017.
Aiello, G., Enea, M., & Galante, G. (2006). Multi-objective approach to facility layout problem
by genetic search algorithm and Electre method. Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing, 22, 447–455.
Al-Hakim, L. (2000). On solving facility layout problems using genetic algorithms. International
Journal of Production Research, 38(11), 2573–2582.
Aleisa, E. E., & Lin, L. (2005). For effectiveness facilities planning: Layout optimization then
simulation, or vice versa? In Proceedings of the 2005 Winter Simulation Conference.
Armour, G. C., & Buffa, E. S. (1963). A heuristic algorithm and simulation approach to relative
allocation of facilities. Management Science, 9(2), 294–300.
Asef-Vaziri, A., & Laporte, G. (2005). Loop based facility planning and material handling.
European Journal of Operational Research, 164(1),1–11.
Chapter-5
References
57
Azadivar, F., & Wang, J. (2000). Facility layout optimization using simulation and genetic
algorithms. International Journal of Production Research,38(17), 4369–4383.
Balakrishnan, J., & Cheng, C. H. (1998). Dynamic layout algorithms: A state of-the-art survey.
Omega, 26(4), 507–521.
Balakrishnan, J., & Cheng, C. H. (2000). Genetic search and the dynamic layout problem.
Computers & Operations Research, 27(6), 587–593.
Balakrishnan, J., Cheng, C. H., & Wong, K. F. (2003a). FACOPT: A user friendly Facilility
layout Optimization system. Computers & Operations Research, 30(11), 1625–1641.
Balakrishnan, J., Cheng, C. H., Conway, D. G., & Lau, C. M. (2003b). A hybrid genetic
algorithm for the dynamic plant layout problem. International Journal of Production
Economics, 86(2), 107–120.
Balakrishnan, J., Robert Jacobs, F., & Venkataramanan, M. A. (1992). Solutions for the
constrained dynamic facility layout problem. European Journal of Operational Research,
57(2), 280–286
Banerjee, P., & Zhou, Y. (1995). Facilities layout design optimization with single loop material
flow path configuration. International Journal of Production Research, 33(1), 183–204.
Baykasoglu, A., Dereli, T., & Sabuncu, I. (2006). An ant colony algorithm for solving budget
constrained and unconstrained dynamic facility layout problems. Omega, 34(4), 385–396.
Baykasoglu, A., & Gindy, N. N. Z. (2001). A simulated annealing algorithm for dynamic layout
problem. Computers & Operations Research, 28(14), 1403– 1426.
Benjaafar, S., Heragu, S. S., & Irani, S. A. (2002). Next generation factory layouts: Research
challenges and recent progress. Interface, 32(6), 58–76.
Bock, S., & Hoberg, K. (2007). Detailed layout planning for irregularly-shaped machines with
transportation path design. European Journal of Operational Research, 177, 693–718.
Bozer, Y. A., Meller, R. D., & Erlebacher, S. J. (1994). An improvement-type layout algorithm
for single and multiple floor facilities. Management Science, 40(7), 918–932.
Braglia, M. (1996). Optimization of a simulated-annealing-based heuristic for single row
machine layout problem by genetic algorithm. International Transactions in Operational
Research, 3(1), 37–49.
58
Braglia, M., Zanoni, S., & Zavanella, L. (2003). Layout design in dynamic environments:
Strategies and quantitative indices. International Journal of Production Research, 41(5),
995–1016.
Chen, C. W., & Sha, D. Y. (2005). Heuristic approach for solving the multiobjective facility
layout problem. International Journal of Production Research, 43(21), 4493–4507.
Chen, D. S., Wang, Q., & Chen, H. C. (2001). Linear sequencing for machine layouts by a
modified simulated annealing. International Journal of Production Research, 39(8), 1721
1732.
Cheng, R., & Gen, M. (1998). Loop layout design problem in flexible manufacturing systems
using genetic algorithms. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 34(1), 53–61.
Cheng, R., Gen, M., & Tosawa, T. (1996). Genetic algorithms for designing loop layout
manufacturing systems. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 31(3–4), 587–591.
Chiang, W. C., & Kouvelis, P. (1996). An improved tabu search heuristic for solving facility
layout design problems. International Journal of Production Research, 34(9), 2565–2585.
Chittratanawat, S., & Noble, J. S. (1999). An integrated approach for facility layout, P/D location
and material handling system design. International Journal of Production Research, 37(3),
683–706.
Chung, Y. K. (1999). A neuro-based expert system for facility layout construction. Journal of
Intelligent Manufacturing, 10(5), 359–385.
Chwif, L., Pereira Barretto, M. R., & Moscato, L. A. (1998). A solution to the facility layout
problem using simulated annealing. Computers in Industry,36(1–2), 125–132.
Co, H. C., Wu, A., & Reisman, A. (1989). A throughput-maximizing facility planning and layout
model. International Journal of Production Research,27(1), 1–12.
Das, S. K. (1993). A facility layout method for flexible manufacturing systems. International
Journal of Production Research, 31(2), 279–297.
Deb, S. K., & Bhattacharyya, B. (2005). Fuzzy decision support systems for manufacturing
facilities layout planning. Decision Support Systems, 40,305–314.
Devise, O., & Pierreval, A. (2000). Indicators for measuring performances of morphology and
materials handling systems. International Journal of Production Economics, 64(1–3),
209–218.
Dilworth, J. B. (1996).Operation management. McGraw Hill.
59
Djellab, H., & Gourgand, A. (2001). A new heuristic procedure for the single row facility layout
problem. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 14(3), 270–280.
Drezner, Z. (1987). A heuristic procedure for the layout of a large number of facilities.
International Journal of Management Science, 33(7), 907–915.
Dunker, T., Radonsb, G., & Westka¨mpera, E. (2003). A evolutionary algorithm for a facility
layout problem. International Journal of Production Research, 41(15), 3479–3500.
Dunker, T., Radonsb, G., & Westka¨mpera, E. (2005). Combining evolutionary computation and
dynamic programming for solving a dynamic facility layout problem. European Journal
of Operational Research, 165(1), 55–69.
Dweiri, F., & Meier, F. A. (1996). Application of fuzzy decision-making in facilities layout
planning. International Journal of Production Research, 34(11), 3207–3225.
El-Baz, M. A. (2004). A genetic algorithm for facility layout problems of different
manufacturing environments. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 47(2–3), 233–246.
Evans, G. W., Wilhlem, M. R., & Karwowsky, W. (1987). A layout design heuristic employing
the theory of fuzzy sets. International Journal of Production Research, 25, 1431–1450.
Ficko, M., Brezocnick, M., & Balic, J. (2004). Designing the layout of single and multiple-rows
flexible manufacturing system by genetic algorithms. Journal of Materials Processing
Technology,157–158: 150–158.
Fruggiero, F., Lambiase, A., & Negri, F. (2006). Design and optimization of a facility layout
problem in virtual environment. In Proceeding of ICAD 2006 (pp. 2206–).
Garey, M. R., & Johnson, D. S. (1979).Computers and intractability: A guide to the theory of
NP-completeness. New York: WH Freeman.
Gen, M., Ida, K., & Cheng, C. (1995). Multi row machine layout problem in fuzzy environment
using genetic algorithms. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 29(1–4), 519–523.
Grobeiny, J. (1987a). The fuzzy approach to facility layout problems. Fuzzy Sets and Systems,
23, 175–190.
Grobelny, J. (1987b). On one possible ‗fuzzy‘ approach to facility layout problems. International
Journal of Production Research, 25, 1123–1141.
Gupta, T., & Seifoddini, H. (1990). Production data based similarity coefficient for machine
component grouping decisions in the design of cellular manufacturing system.
International Journal of Production Research, 28(4), 1247–1269.
60
Gupta, Y. P., Gupta, M. C., Kumar, A., & Sundaram, C. (1996). A genetic algorithm-based
approach to cell composition and layout design problems. International Journal of
Production Research, 34(2), 447–482.
Hamamoto, S., Yih, Y., & Salvendy, G. (1999). Development and validation of genetic
algorithm-based facility layout-a case study in the pharmaceutical industry. International
Journal of Production Research,37,749–768.
Hamann, T., & Vernadat, F. (1992). The intra cell layout problem in automated manufacturing
system.8th international Conference on CAD/CAM, robotics and factory of the future
(CARs & FOF 92).
Harmonosky, C. M., & Tothero, G. K. (1992). A multi-factor plant layout methodology.
International Journal of Production Research, 30(8), 1773–1789.
Hassan, M. M. D. (1994). Machine layout problem in modern manufacturing facilities.
International Journal of Production Research, 32(11), 2559–2584.
Hassan, M. M. D., Hogg, G. L., & Smith, D. R. (1986). SHAPE: A construction algorithm for
area placement evaluation. International Journal of Production Research, 24(5), 1283
1295.
Heragu, S. S. (1997).Facilities design. Boston: BWS.
Heragu, S. S., & Kusiak, A. (1988). Machine layout problem in flexible manufacturing systems.
Operations Research, 36(2), 258–268.
Heragu, S. S., & Kusiak, A. (1990). Machine layout: An optimization and knowledge-based
approach. International Journal of Production Research,28, 615–635.
Heragu, S. S., & Kusiak, A. (1991). Efficient models for the facility layout problem.
European Journal of Operational Research, 53(1), 1–13.
Islier, A. A. (1998). A genetic algorithm approach for multiple criteria facility layout design.
International Journal of Production Research, 36(6), 1549–1569.
Johnson, R. V. (1982). SPACECRAFT for multi-floor layout planning. Management Sciences,
28(4), 407–417.
Khalil, T. M. (1973). Facilities relative allocation technique (FRAT).International Journal of
Productions Research, 11(2), 183–194.
61
Kim, C. B., Kim, S. S., & Bobbie, L. F. (1996). Assignment problems in singlerow and double
row machine layouts during slow and peak periods. Computers & Industrial Engineering,
30(3), 411–422.
Kim, J. G., & Kim, Y. D. (1999). A branch and bound algorithm for locating input and output
points of departments on the block layout. Journal of the operational research society,
50(5), 517–525.
Kim, J. G., & Kim, Y. D. (2000). Layout planning for facilities with fixed shapes and input and
output points. International Journal of Production Research, 38(18), 4635–4653.
Kim, J. Y., & Kim, Y. D. (1995). Graph theoretic heuristics for unequal-sized facility layout
problems. Omega, 23(4), 391–401.
Kochhar, J. S., & Heragu, S. S. (1998). MULTI-HOPE: A tool for multiple floor layout
problems. International Journal of Production Research, 36(12),3421–3435.
Koopmans, T. C., & Beckmann, M. (1957). Assignment problems and the location of economic
activities. Econometrica, 25(1), 53–76.
Kouvelis, P., & Chiang, W. C. (1992). A simulated annealing procedure for the single row layout
problems in flexible manufacturing systems. International Journal of Production
Research, 30, 717–732.
Kouvelis, P., & Kim, M. W. (1992). Unidirectional loop network layout problem in automated
manufacturing systems. Operations Research, 40, 533–550.
Kouvelis, P., Kurawarwala, A. A., & Gutierrez, G. J. (1992). Algorithms for robust single and
multiple period layout planning for manufacturing systems. European Journal of
Operations Research, 63(2), 287–303.
Kumar, K. R., Hadjinicola, G. C., & Lin, T. L. (1995). A heuristic procedure for the single-row
facility layout problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 87(1), 65–73.
Kusiak, A., & Heragu, S. S. (1987). The facilities layout problem. European Journal of
Operational Research, 29(3), 229–251.
Lacksonen, T. A. (1997). Preprocessing for static and dynamic facility layout problems.
International Journal of Production Research, 35(4), 1095–1106.
Lacksonen, T. A., & Enscore, E. E. (1993). Quadratic assignment algorithms for the dynamic
layout problem. International Journal of Production Research, 31, 503–517.
62
Lee, G. C., & Kim, Y. D. (2000). Algorithms for adjusting shapes of departments in block
layouts on the gird-based plane, Omega, 28(1), 111–122.
Lee, K. Y., Roh, M. I., & Jeong, H. S. (2005). An improved genetic algorithm for multi-floor
facility layout problems having inner structure walls and passages. Computers &
Operations Research, 32(4), 879–899.
Lee, R., & Moore, J. M. (1967). CORELAP-computerized relationship layout planning. The
Journal of Industrial Engineering, 18, 195–200.
Lee, Y. H., & Lee, M. H. (2002). A shape-based block layout approach to
facility layout problems using hybrid genetic algorithm. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 42, 237–248.
Leung, J. (1992). A graph-theoretic heuristic for flexible manufacturing systems. European
Journal of Operational Research, 57(2), 243–252.
Levary, R. R., & Kalchik, S. (1985). Facilities layout-a survey of solution procedures.Computers
& Industrial Engineering, 9(2), 141–148.
Mahdi, A. H., Amet, H., & Portman, M. C. (1998).Physical layout with minimization of the
transport cost(Research Internal Report). Nancy, France: LORIA.
Mak, K. L., Wong, Y. S., & Chan, F. T. S. (1998). A genetic algorithm for facility layout
problems. Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 11(1–2), 113–127.
Matsuzaki, K., Takashi, I., & Yoshimoto, K. (1999). Heuristic algorithm to solve the multi-floor
layout problem with the consideration of elevator utilization. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 36(2), 487–502.
McKendall, A. R., & Shang, J. (2006). Hybrid ant systems for the dynamic facility layout
problem. Computers & Operations Research, 33(3), 790–803.
McKendall, A. R., Shang, J., & Kuppusamy, S. (2006). Simulated annealing heuristics for the
dynamic facility layout problem. Computers & Operations Research, 33(8), 2431–2444.
Meller, R. D., & Bozer, Y. A. (1996). A new simulated annealing algorithm for the facility
layout problem. International Journal of Production Research, 34, 1675–1692.
Meller, R. D., & Bozer, Y. A. (1997). Alternative approaches to solve the multifloor facility
layout problem. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 16(3), 192–203
63
Meller, R. D., Narayanan, V., & Vance, P. H. (1999). Optimal facility layout design.Operations
Research Letters, 23(3–5), 117–127.
Meng, G., Heragu, S. S., & Zijm, H. (2004). Reconfigurable layout problem. International
Journal of Production Research, 42(22), 4709–4729.
Mir, M., & Imam, M. H. (2001). A hybrid optimization approach for layout design of unequal
area facilities. Computers & Industrial Engineering,39(1–2), 49–63.
Micheal schenk(1988).Manufacturing Facilities - Location, Planning and Design.PWS-KENT
Publishing, Boston U.S.A., vol 12, pp. 337-339.
Nehal Elsayar, Elwood S., Armour G. C. and Vollmann T. E.( March-April 1964)
Allocating Facilities with Computerized Relative Allocation Facility Technique
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 42, No.2, pp.136-158.
Nearchou, A. C. (2006). Meta-heuristics from nature for the loop layout design
problem.International Journal of Production Economics, 101(2),312–328.Page, A. L.
(1991). New product development survey: Performance, and best practices.PDMA
Conference.
Patsiatzis, D. I., & Papageorgiou, L. G. (2002). Optimal multi-floor process plant layout.
Computers and Chemical Engineering, 26(4–5),575–583.
Pierreval, H., Caux, C., Paris, J. L., & Viguier, F. (2003). Evolutionary approaches to the design
and organization of manufacturing systems. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 44(3),
339–364.
Potts, C. N., & Whitehead, J. D. (2001). Workload balancing and loop layout in the deign of a
flexible manufacturing system. European Journal of Operational Research, 129(2), 326
336.
Proth, J. M. (1992).Conception et gestion des syste`mes de production. Presses Universitaires de
France. pp. 68–77.
Richard Muther, ‗Pant layout and flow improvement‘, McGraw-Hill Companies: New
York, 1994.
Rajasekharan, M., Peters, B. A., & Yang, T. (1998). A genetic algorithm for facility layout
design in flexible manufacturing systems. International Journal of Production Research,
36(1), 95–110.
64
Raoot, A. D., & Rakshit, A. (1991). A ‗fuzzy‘ approach to facilities layout planning.
International Journal of Production Research, 29, 835–857.
Rosenblatt, M. J. (1986). The dynamics of plant layout. Management Science,32(1), 76-86.
Saifallah benjafaar & Hillier, F. S. ( 1963). Quantitative Tools for Plant Layout Analysis, Journal
of Industrial Engineering. IIE Transaction, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 33-40
Seehof, J. M., & Evans, W. O. (1967). Automated layout design program.The Journal of
Industrial Engineering, 18, 690–695.
Shayan, E., & Chittilappilly, A. (2004). Genetic algorithm for facilities layout problems based on
slicing tree structure. International Journal of Production Research, 42(19), 4055–4067.
Solimanpur, M., Vrat, P., & Shankar, R. (2005). An ant algorithm for the single row layout
problem in flexible manufacturing systems. Computers & Operations Research, 32(3),
583–598.
Tobiah r. master, Francis, R. L., L. F. McGinnis and J. A. White. (1992). Facility Layout and
Location: An Analytical Approach. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, vol. 9,
pp. 153-155.
Thomas lacknsonen.(2010).Facilities Layout Optimization Method Combining Human Factors
and SLP‖, International Conference on Information Management, Innovation
Management and Industrial Engineering. Vol 1, pp. 608-611.
Tam, K. Y. (1992). Genetic algorithms, function optimization and facility layout
design.European Journal of Operational Research, 63(2), 322–346.
Tam, K. Y., & Chan, S. K. (1998). Solving facility layout problems with geometric constraints
using parallel genetic algorithms: Experimentation and findings. International Journal of
Production Research, 36(12),3253–3272.
Tompkins, J. A., & Reed, J. R. (1976). An applied model for the facilities design problem.
International Journal of Production Research, 14, 583–595.
Tompkins, J. A., White, J. A., Bozer, Y. A., Frazelle, E. H., Tanchoco, J. M., &Trevino, J.
(1996).Facilities planning. New York: Wiley.Tsuchiya, K., Bharitkar, S., & Takefuji, Y.
(1996). A neural network approach to facility layout problems. European Journal of
Operational Research, 89(3),556–563.
Urban, T. L. (1993). A heuristic for the dynamic facility layout problem. IIE Transactions, 25(4),
57–63.
65
Wang, M. J., Hu, M. H., & Ku, M. H. (2005). A solution to the unequal area facilities layout
problem by genetic algorithm. Computers in Industry, 56(2), 207–220.
Welgama, P. S., & Gibson, P. R. (1993). A construction algorithm for the machine layout
problem with fixed pick-up and drop-off points. International Journal of Production
Research, 31(11), 2575–2590.
Wu, Y., & Appleton, E. (2002). The optimisation of block layout and aisle structure by a genetic
algorithm. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 41(4), 371–387.
Yang, T., & Kuo, C. (2003). A hierarchical AHP/DEA methodology for the facilities layout
design problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 147, 128–136.
Yang, T., Peters, B. A., & Tu, M. (2005). Layout design for flexible manufacturing systems
considering single-loop directional flow patterns. European Journal of Operational
Research, 164(2), 440–455
66
Appendix-A
The procedures of a 3W LED bulb manufacturing
SR. No Task Task name Performance time (min)
1 A Wire cutting (long + short) 0.63
2 B Wire stapling (long + short) 0.94
3 C Wire leading (long + short) 1.78
4 D Driver lead 0.21
5 E Soldering wear and driver outline 0.78
6 F Cutting tube fiber 0.65
7 G Fiber enter driver 0.26
8 H Driver heating 0.60
9 I PCB LED soldering 0.63
10 J Helper (PCB folding + passing) 0.76
11 K PCB breaking 0.43
12 L PCB heat paste 0.37
13 M Shell lock
0.17
14 N Shell heat paste 0.33
15 O Shell +PCB 0.003
16 P Cleaning shell + PCB 0.958
17 Q Shell + PCB cover adjust 0.45
18 R Driver pass (helper) 0.50
19 S Driver input 1.90
20 T PCB soldering 0.56
21 U End capping 1.50
22 V Fiber heating 0.76
23 W End cap fitting 0.40
24 X Cleaning 0.25
25 Y Testing 0.50
26 Z Packaging 0.68
67
Appendix B.1
Existing layout
68
Appendix-B.2
Proposed layout
69
Appendix B.3
Future expansion layout
70
Appendix C
Distance matrix chart
Appendix D
Proposed layout by SLP
9000
9200
9400
9600
9800
10000
10200
10400
layout 1 layout 2 layout 3
Dis
tan
ce
Layout
Chart Title
71
Appendix E
Bill of material
No. of
part Component
Quantit
y Price Unit Cost
01 Wire 1200 56.63 sq-ft 31 24
03 Aluminum shell 8 57.20 557 60
05 Aluminum hi-comer bracket 8 52.40 519.20
06 Fiber 0.4 69.00
10
sheets 527.60
08 Teensy 2.0 Microcontroller 1 516.00 516.00
09 Micro SD Card Adapter 1 8.00 58.00
10 USB adapter 1 55.50 5.50
11 Individually addressable RGB
LED pixel strands 4 39. 95 1 strand
= 25
pixels
5 1 5 9 . 8 0
12 5V DC power supply 1 525.00 525.00
13 PCB Board 0.5 46.95 523.48
14 Molex Header + Wiring 1 51.95
51 95
15 DC Barrel Jack 1 52.95 52.95
16 Rocker power switch 1 50.96 50.96
17 Momentary Button 1 51.80 1.80
18 Terminal Block 1 2.43 2.43
19 22awg wire 50.00
20 Resistor 50.00
Total 5539.39