CEE 243 – Query 6CEE 243 – Query 6Intel GroupIntel Group

Saurabh Samdani, Jack Cheng, John Brooks, Richard JonesSaurabh Samdani, Jack Cheng, John Brooks, Richard Jones

Overview

• Intel Fab11x renovation

• John Brooks, Jack Cheng, Richard Jones, Saurabh Samdani

• Engineering Problem: Evaluate as built plans of Fab11x in order to predict feasibility and serviceability of automated material handling system (AMHS) versus a conveyor belt system (CBS).

• Big Idea: Implementing VDC to make predictions in the behavior of AMHS and CBS systems to compare options and make decisions.

1

3D CAD

2

Design-Construction SchedulesID Task Name Duration Start Finish

1 Project Start 48 days Wed 2/14/07 Fri 4/20/07

2 Design 20 days Wed 2/14/07 Tue 3/13/07

3 3D CAD 20 days Wed 2/14/07 Tue 3/13/07

4 Construction 28 days Wed 3/14/07 Fri 4/20/07

5 Demolish Wall 2 days Wed 3/14/07 Thu 3/15/07

6 Move Equipment 10 days Wed 3/14/07 Tue 3/27/07

7 Demolish old 5 days Wed 3/14/07 Tue 3/20/07

8 Install new 5 days Wed 3/21/07 Tue 3/27/07

9 Track Installation 21 days Wed 3/21/07 Wed 4/18/07

10 Delivery of Track 2 days Wed 3/21/07 Thu 3/22/07

11 Move delivered track 2 days Fri 3/23/07 Mon 3/26/07

12 Install component 1 3 days Tue 3/27/07 Thu 3/29/07

13 Install component 2 3 days Fri 3/30/07 Tue 4/3/07

14 Install component 3 3 days Wed 4/4/07 Fri 4/6/07

15 Install component 4 3 days Mon 4/9/07 Wed 4/11/07

16 Install component 5 3 days Thu 4/12/07 Mon 4/16/07

17 Install component 6 3 days Mon 4/9/07 Wed 4/11/07

18 Install component 7 3 days Wed 4/4/07 Fri 4/6/07

19 Install component 8 3 days Fri 3/30/07 Tue 4/3/07

20 Install Car 2 days Tue 4/17/07 Wed 4/18/07

21 Construction 2 days Thu 4/19/07 Fri 4/20/07

22 New Wall 2 days Thu 4/19/07 Fri 4/20/07

T T S M W F S T T S M W F S T T S M W F S T T S M W F S T T S M W F S T TFeb 11, '07 Feb 18, '07 Feb 25, '07 Mar 4, '07 Mar 11, '07 Mar 18, '07 Mar 25, '07 Apr 1, '07 Apr 8, '07 Apr 15, '07 Apr 22, '07

ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors

1 Project Start 59 days Wed 2/14/07 Mon 5/7/07

2 Design 20 days Wed 2/14/07 Tue 3/13/07

3 3D CAD 20 days Wed 2/14/07 Tue 3/13/07

4 Construction 39 days Wed 3/14/07 Mon 5/7/07

5 Demolish Wall 2 days Wed 3/14/07 Thu 3/15/07 3

6 Move Equipment 10 days Fri 3/16/07 Thu 3/29/07

7 Demolish old 5 days Fri 3/16/07 Thu 3/22/07 5

8 Install new 5 days Fri 3/23/07 Thu 3/29/07 7

9 Track Installation 30 days Fri 3/23/07 Thu 5/3/07

10 Delivery of Track 2 days Fri 3/23/07 Mon 3/26/07 7

11 Move delivered track 2 days Tue 3/27/07 Wed 3/28/07 10

12 Install component 1 3 days Thu 3/29/07 Mon 4/2/07 11

13 Install component 2 3 days Tue 4/3/07 Thu 4/5/07 12

14 Install component 3 3 days Fri 4/6/07 Tue 4/10/07 13

15 Install component 4 3 days Wed 4/11/07 Fri 4/13/07 14

16 Install component 5 3 days Mon 4/16/07 Wed 4/18/07 15

17 Install component 6 3 days Thu 4/19/07 Mon 4/23/07 16

18 Install component 7 3 days Tue 4/24/07 Thu 4/26/07 17

19 Install component 8 3 days Fri 4/27/07 Tue 5/1/07 18

20 Install Car 2 days Wed 5/2/07 Thu 5/3/07 19

21 Construction 2 days Fri 5/4/07 Mon 5/7/07

22 New Wall 2 days Fri 5/4/07 Mon 5/7/07 20

T S W S T M F T S W S T M F T S W S T M F T S WFeb 11, '07 Feb 25, '07 Mar 11, '07 Mar 25, '07 Apr 8, '07 Apr 22, '07 May 6, '07

Series – 59 Days

Parallel – 48 Days

3

4D Troubleshooting

Engineering and Construction Issues

1. Obstruction of AMHS Track due to Tool

2. Tool Relocation for Installation of AMHS

3. Delivery of AMHS Materials to 2nd Floor

4. Sequence of Wall Removal and Rebuild

4-1

Baseline and Alternative SV Models

4-2

SimVision Analysis

Predictions:• Baseline (parallel)

– Cost: $97.5

– Project risk: 0.64

– Communication risk: 0.65

• Series– Cost: $103.5

– Project risk: 0.75

– Communication risk: 0.40

5

Gantt Chart

Optimistic Gantt Chart (Zero Probability) Compared to non-zero Gantt Chart

The design-build team will be able to allot more time for paths so that they won’t run over-schedule by adhering solely to CPM.

6-1

Hidden Work Impact

• SimVision is able to predict the increase in cost due to hidden work, as seen in this comparison with the zero-probability schedule.

6-2

PBS, OBS and WBS

OBSPBS

WBS

PBS, OBS and WBS for the AHMS. There is a 3D CAD team responsible for 3D CAD model and it is represented as an activity in the WBS. For the physical deliverable of 8 track components, there is a track design team in OBS and a install track activity in the WBS

7

Generic POP Model

8

Coordination in design of car and tracksCar Track

Design and construction of car and tracks will need some coordination since they are physically located near each other

Coordination & Rework

9

Baseline and Alternative POP Models

Baseline: AHMS Alternative: CBS

10

4D Suggested Coordination & ReworkCar Track

Coordination & Rework

11

Controllable Objectives

• Design versions / alternatives:

– The team can use the 3D models to determine if the actual constructed components are in the right place. Also, a 4D model can be used to determine if the sequence of construction is being done in the proper order.

• Coordination request and support:

– The team can use the SimVision predicted task backlogs by setting it up with a weekly schedule and comparing these values with the backlog set forth in the functional requirements.

• Activities scheduled durations: – The team can use SimVision/MS Project to predict and describe the

project schedule. Then they can use this on a weekly basis to evaluate whether or not project is on schedule.

12

Functional Organization and Process Objectives

• Response/Decision Latency– We can predict these items using SimVision Work Breakdown’s Chart.

We can take the value from this chart and compare it to the “decision wait” work volume specified in the project objectives.

• Schedule Conformance– We can use SimVision/MS Project to create a look-ahead schedule and

evaluate if the project meets objectives.

• Field Material Delivery– We can use SimVision and look at the backlog of the Material Delivery

Team to predict their predicted delivery delay and compare this to the project objectives.

• Rework Volume– We can use SimVision to predict the rework volume and compare this to

the amount of rework in the project objectives.

13

Instance Pop Model14

Relative and Numeric Costs/Benefits

15*

Relative Costs Relative BenefitsConveyor Belt System •Higher organizational

Risk (77%)•Higher work-related cost at $74.6k

•Finish 7 days ahead of specified end date on May 25, 2007•$15.9k less expensive than alternative•Lower non-labor cost at $2,574

Automated Material Handling System

•Finish 3 days after alternative case on May 28, 2007•$15.9k more expensive than CBS system•Higher non-labor cost at $34.6k

•Lower organizational risk (74%)•Lower work-related cost at $58.3k

Executive Summary

The purpose of this project is to use Virtual Design and Construction tools to analyze the implementation of a more efficient way to transport chips around Fabrication Plant 11x in Albuquerque, New Mexico. We will evaluate two alternatives: an Automated Material Handling System and a Conveyor Belt System. We will use a 3D model of the current building to create a walkthrough of the proposed path of these two systems in order to predict their serviceability. Furthermore, we shall use SimVision and other scheduling tools to predict various parameters such as: organizational cost, actor backlog, project risk, hidden work, and project end date. A 4D model will be implemented to predict constructability. We shall provide Intel with a new method of planning, and a fresh set of tools to consider using on future construction projects.

16