1

SYSTEM STUDY FOR PROCESS DE-BOTTLENECKING OF A FULLY AUTOMATED FLY-ASH BRICK PLANT

INTERIM DISSERTATION SUBMITTED

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF DEGREE OF

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY

IN INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT

Submitted By: PHANIDHAR MILI

Admission No – 2011MT0173

M.Tech – Industrial Engineering & Management

Under the Guidance of Prof. J.K. Pattanayak

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES INDIAN SCHOOL OF MINES

DHANBAD – 826004

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my gratitude to all the faculty members of Management Studies,

especially my guide Prof. J.K. Pattanayak, Professor and Head of the Department of

Management Studies at IndianSchool of Mines, Dhanbad, for guiding me and enriching my

knowledge by sharing their enormous experience.

I would also like to express my heartiest thanks to Mr. Dalbir Singh Rekhi (GM, HRD-IE;

JSPL - Raigarh) for guiding me throughout with his great expertise and showing the right

direction to complete the project.

I also express my deep sense of obligation to the management of Jindal Steel & Power

Limited, Raigarh for giving me an opportunity to carry out this live project in their

esteemed organization and to the whole HR Department of Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. who

provided great help with kind cooperation.

I would also like to thank my classmates and my seniors for their kind co-operation &

useful suggestions in completing this project.

Above all, utmost appreciation to the Almighty God for the divine intervention in this

academic endeavor.

PHANIDHAR MILI

Adm. No. 2011MT0173

M.Tech – Industrial Engineering & Management

Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad

SYNOPSIS Line Balancing (LB) is a classic, well-researched Operations Research (OR) optimization problem of

significant industrial importance. This technique has found great importance in manufacturing

industries.

In this project, a line balancing problem model has been developed to increase the production rate of a

fully automated fly-ash brick plant at Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. - Raigarh, which is under-performing

with reference to its potential.

The project report is organised as follows: The first chapter being the introductory chapter deals with

the conceptual clarification of Line Balancing Process as a technique of Operations Research. In the

second, chapter a brief description is made about the product and the manufacturing process. The third

chapter outlines the objective of the project along with a detailed analysis of the processes at some

critical stations after identifying them. The third chapter also shows a model of the existing practices

which points out the root cause for below par production. In the fourth chapter two models have been

developed in excel for improved operating procedure by means of Line Balancing. The first model is

based on real time experimental data, while the second is theoretical in nature. Chapter five concludes

the analysis and shows the outcome of adopting one of the suggested models.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter TITLE Page No.

1 SYSTEM STUDY1.1 Definition 11.2 Line Balancing as a tool for de-bottlenecking 1

2 THE PROCESS AND THE PRODUCT2.1 The Product - Fly-Ash Brick 32.2 Plant Layout 42.3 The Flow Process 5

3 PROCESS STUDY3.1 Objective of the Project 83.2 Bottle Neck Determination 93.3 Observations 9

4 PROCESS DE-BOTTLENECKING USING 4.1 Existing Process at the Strapping Line 12

4.2 Process Improvement Trial (Line Balancing) 124.3 Process Improvement (Theoretical) 13

5 CONCLUSION5.1 Implementation 155.2 Limitation and Future Scope 16

REFERENCES 17ANNEXURE 18

1 | P a g e

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

System Study is considered to be highly inevitable for any organisation, where some sort of mechanical

activities are undertaken. This study includes an analysis of the existing system and the design of a new

system which would put a positive impact on the whole operation.

1.1 Definition

A detailed study to determine whether, to what extent, and how automatic data processing equipment

should be used; it usually includes an analysis of the existing system and the design of the new

system, including the development of the system specifications which provide a basis for selection of

equipment.

1.1.1 Advantages

i. It helps in finding bottleneck in existing system.

ii. It provides facilities of accessing the existing system.

iii. It gives scope of improvement to the existing system and also provides valuable suggestions

for improving the existing system.

1.1.2 Limitations

i. For every suggestion we have to consider Cost Constraints.

ii. We have to provide suggestion as per location.

iii. We have to provide suggestion after consideration of local factors also.

1.2 Line Balancing as a tool for de-bottlenecking

As per the observations given in the book titled “Operations Management – Theory and Practice” by B.

Mahadevan (Second Edition), Line balancing is a method by which the tasks are optimally combined

without violating precedence constraints and a certain number of workstations are designed to complete

the tasks. If there are 3 workstations; A, B and C in which 7 tasks are performed in manufacturing system,

then the workstation times are nothing but the summation of the task times assigned to each workstation.

Let the workstation times be denoted as WA, WB and WC. Clearly a balanced design is one in which the

workstation times do not vary widely. In such a situation, the resources will be uniformly utilized and the

flow of material will be even. Further there will be a good rhythm in operations. The maximum of the

three workstation times determines the interval between the productions of two successive components.

2 | P a g e

If WA = 5 sec, WB = 3 sec and WC = 7 sec, one component will come out of the system every 7 seconds.

This measure is known as Cycle Time.

Cycle time would be considered as the reciprocal of production rate. If in a period of 20,000 seconds a

shop produced 10,000 pieces of a component, then the production rate is ½ per second. Conversely, the

cycle time is 2 seconds. Cycle time could be actual or desired. If we compute on the basis of actual

production, it represents the actual cycle time. On the other hand, if we compute the cycle time on the

basis of what we desire the production to be, then it is desired cycle time. Maintaining the desired cycle

time requires better management and work practices. The expression for cycle time is as follows:

Actual (desired) cycle timeAvailable Time

Actual (desired) production

The problem of designing a balanced set of workstations suffers from the classical trade-off issues. If we

combine more tasks into fewer workstations, we may require fewer workstations, but the cycle time will

be high, leading to reduced production rate. At the other extreme, if the tasks are kept separate and as

many workstations are designed, we may increase the production rate beyond what is required at the risk

of deploying more resources and workers with poor utilization. Therefore, solving the line balancing

problem calls for counterbalancing these opposing costs and striking the right trade-off between increased

production and better utilization of resources.

The production rate, cycle time and the number of workstations are interrelated. Moreover, the number of

workstations has a bearing on the average resource utilization. Using these measures it is possible to

design an appropriate number of workstations. These relationships are indicated in the following

expressions:

Minimum number of workstations required Sum of all task timesCycle Time

Sum of all task timesNumber of workstations X Cycle TimeAverage resource utilization

3 | P a g e

CHAPTER 2

THE PROCESS & THE PRODUCT

2.1 The Product - Fly-Ash Brick

Fly-Ash Brick (FAB) is a building material, specifically masonry units, containing class-C fly ash and

water. Compressed at 4,000 psi and cured for 24 hours in a 150 °F (66 °C) steam bath, then toughened

with an air entrainment agent, the bricks last for more than 100 freeze-thaw cycles. Owing to the high

concentration of calcium oxide in class-C fly ash, the brick is described as "self-cementing". The

manufacturing method saves energy, reduces mercury pollution, and costs 20% less than traditional clay

brick manufacturing.

The raw materials for fly ash brick are: fly-ash, sand, stone dust, lime, gypsum and cement. Fly-ash bricks

are manufactured using some or all these materials and are lighter than clay bricks.

Fly-Ash Bricks have the following advantages:

i. Due to high strength, practically no breakage during transport and use.

ii. Due to uniform size of bricks mortar required for joints and plaster reduces almost by 50%.

iii. Due to lower water penetration seepage of water through bricks is considerably reduced.

iv. Gypsum plaster (plaster of Paris) can be directly applied on these bricks without a backing coat

of lime plaster.

v. These bricks do not require soaking in water for 24 hours. Sprinkling of water before use is

enough.

vi. Practically it is fire-proof as there is no carbon content in the fly-ash.

Its disadvantages are:

i. Mechanical bonding strength is weak. But this can be rectified by adding marble waste.

ii. Limitation of size. Only modular size can be produced. Large size will have more breakages.

In coal based thermal power plants it is a huge cost upon the management to dispose fly ash. It is the

leftover of the coal burnt for the generation of power. As this material is considered unhealthy for the soil,

government has some strict guidelines viz. cannot be used for land filling; ash-dykes can be built only up

4 | P a g e

to certain heights etc. Moreover acquiring land and rehabilitating the project affected people is a huge

corporate social responsibility cost.

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Raigarh has started the trial production of its newly commissioned Fly-Ash

Brick Plant since 1st of May 2012.

The bricks produced in this plant have the following specifications:

Composition: 50% ash + 25% sand + 15% cement + 10% stone dust

Dimension: 228 mm X 85 mm X 75 mm; Weight of each brick: 3.2 Kg.

2.2 Plant Layout

The fly-ash bricks are manufactured by a fully automated machine called FRIMA. It is of make

FRIESISCHE MASCHINEBAU GMBH & CO.KG. GERMANY. Besides bricks it can also be used to

manufacture tiles. But in the current time only bricks are being manufactured. The diagram below shows

the plant layout.

Punch(Tamper)

Base Mixer(Tiles)

Top Mixer(Bricks)

Cement Fly ash Fly ash

Sand Stone Dust Unused

Strapping

Finger Car

Storage(CURING CHAMBER)

ControlRoom

Unused

Lowerator Gap Closer Cuber

Re-stacker for pallet

Filler Hopper(Top &

Base)

MouldElevator(Uperator)

Rubbish Remover(Tilter)

Silos

Cross Conveyor

WetSide

DrySide

Fig. 2.1 Plant Layout

5 | P a g e

2.3 The Flow Process

6 | P a g e

2.3.1 4Bin Hopper

The 4 bin hopper consists of 4 containers to load the raw materials for brick making. Since at present only

bricks are being manufactured, only two 2 bins are in use for sand and stone dust. The bins are funnel

shaped and materials are fed into them by means of payloaders from the raw material stock yard. Below

the bins is an aggregate weighing bucket with load cells that feed required amount of raw material into the

Skip Hoist Trolley which delivers the raw materials in right proportion into the Planetary Mixer.

2.3.2 Planetary Mixer (Top and Base Mixer)

Here mixing of materials namely sand, stone dust, cement and fly-ash with water is done by means of

motor action.

2.3.3 Silos

There are three large silos, two for fly-ash and one for cement. Cement and fly-ash are pumped into the

mixer. Cement silo is of capacity 100 tonne, one fly-ash silo of 500 tonne and the another one of 400

tonne.

2.3.4 Filler Hopper (Unit 1 & 2)

The materials after being mixed in the mixer are transported to the filler hopper (unit 1) by means of

bucket conveyor and later on to the mould by means of lowering unit filler hopper (unit 2).

2.3.5 Mould

The Mould contains 5x10 slots for giving shape to the bricks and the mixture is fed into the mould by

means of lowering unit of filler hopper.

2.3.6 Punch or Tamper

Force is applied from above upon the mould in order to give mechanical strength. The bricks that come

out of the machine on pallets are then cleaned from the non-bonding dusts using a dust remover and those

that do not bond properly are removed as rubbish by rubbish remover. The rubbish remover is tilted a bit

and the unwanted bricks to slide down and are removed.

2.3.7 Uperator (Elevator)

The good quality bricks are then moved through conveyor on pallets and fed into uperator. It is a multi

shelf (24 shelves) container that collects the bricks on pallets. It can collect in a batch 24X50 bricks.

7 | P a g e

2.3.8 Finger Cars

The Finger Cars pulls out the bricks on pallets from the uperator and transports them to the curing

chamber for drying. This car also transports the dry bricks out of the chamber for strapping. It can also

collect 24X50 bricks in a batch.

2.3.9 Lowerator

Lowerator has the reverse operation of elevator. It also has 24 shelves and the dry bricks are fed into it by

the finger car. It lowers down the dry bricks into the dry-side slide way

2.3.10 Gap Closer and Cuber

The dry bricks coming out of the lowerator on pallets are held together by the Gap Closer. Then the cuber

holds together the 50 bricks in the shape of a cube from the pallet and lifts it across to the slat conveyor

for strapping and dispatch. In the slat conveyor the bricks are packed in 5X10X8 numbers (400).

2.3.11 Strapping Line

In the whole plant this is the only section, where the operation is carried out manually. Two persons are

involved in this line on both sides of the pack of 400 bricks. The 1st person holding the strapping machine

places the straps on the slots below the brick packets and the 2nd person holds it from the other side and

tightens it to be strapped by the 1st person.

2.3.12 Dispatch

The strapped bricks are transported to the stock yard by means of fork-lift

2.3.13 Cross Conveyor

After the cuber places the bricks across the slat the conveyor, the empty pallets are transported back to the

wet conveyor line to continue the process.

8 | P a g e

CHAPTER 3

PROCESS STUDY

3.1 Objective of the Project

The plant as per the manufacturer’s specifications has the potential to produce 1 to 2 lakh pieces of

bricks per day if run on a 16 to 20 hours daily basis. The remaining working hours are meant for

carrying out maintenance and cleaning activities. But as per the production data (shown below in Fig.

3.1) provided for the period starting from 12 September 2012 to 12 October 2012 it is relevant that the

plant is not performing to its potential.

DATE PRODUCTION (nos. of bricks)12-09-2012 14,70013-09-201214-09-201215-09-201216-09-201217-09-2012 21,50018-09-2012 17,55019-09-2012 9,70020-09-201221-09-2012 21,95022-09-2012 38,80023-09-2012 4,75024-09-201225-09-2012 2,50026-09-2012 36,15027-09-2012 41,46028-09-2012 33,60029-09-2012 50,30001-10-2012 49,65002-10-201203-10-2012 50,85004-10-2012 61,15005-10-2012 49,45006-10-2012 51,20007-10-2012 14,00008-10-2012 49,80009-10-2012 5,00010-10-201211-10-2012 82,20012-10-2012 29,850

Total 7,36,110Average 33,460

Sept - October (30 days)

Fig. 3.1 Daily Production Data of Bricks

9 | P a g e

Hence the objective of this project is to determine the root cause for below par production as is

evident from the daily production data and to suggest improvements to boost production.

3.2 Bottle Neck Determination

With a view to determine the cause for below par production, a detailed study was carried out on the

fully automated processes. After detailed observation six critical stations were identified on the

processes. The process at these stations seemed to be the bottleneck as the operation at the stations

subsequent to these critical stations had to wait. Following were the critical stations:

i. Raw material feeding (Pay loader Operation)

ii. Brick Tampering

iii. Finger Car Operation

iv. Dry side (Cross Shifting to strapping line)

v. Strapping Line

vi. Dispatch (Fork Lift Operation)

3.3 Observations

Starting from the raw material feeding operation, a detailed time study was carried out on all the

activities of these critical stations. As per the existing set up and practices, the following observations

were made:

i. In each pallet at one time 50 bricks are punched, 8 layers of 50 bricks (400) are stacked for

strapping and the finger car transports 1200 bricks in one cycle. Hence in order to calculate

the cycle time at each station a benchmark of 50, 400 and 1200 bricks are taken.

ii. At the raw material feeding section, the pay loader operation has a cycle time of 125 sec. Its

bucket capacity is 1.25 tonne (1250 Kg.). Considering the weight of one brick i.e. 3.2Kg,

from 1250 kg (from one pay loader trip) a total of 391 (approx.) bricks can be manufactured.

From this we can say 391 bricks require 125 sec. of pay loader operation, hence 1200 bricks

will require 384 sec.

iii. At the brick tampering station, tampering (punching) of 50 bricks on each pallet took 15 sec.

This implies 1200 bricks take 360 sec.

iv. The finger car transports 1200 wet bricks at one go from the wet side to the curing chamber

and while returning transports 1200 dry bricks to the dry side, thus completing one cycle in

360 sec.

10 | P a g e

v. The cuber cross-shifts 400 (8X50) bricks in one cycle to the slat conveyor for strapping in 160

sec. Hence 1200 bricks will be shifted in 480 sec.

vi. In the strapping line, a pack of 400 bricks (8X50) are strapped in 295 sec. Hence 1200 bricks

will be strapped in 885 sec.

vii. Finally at the dispatch section a cycle of shifting 400 bricks by means of fork-lift to the stock

yard takes 160 sec. Hence for 1200 bricks time taken is 480 sec.

The table in Fig. 3.2 shows the summary of processing 1200 bricks. This data clearly indicates that

the time taken for processing of 1200 bricks is almost twice at the strapping line as compared to the

other stations.

Also as the processes at the other stations are fully automated, the cycle times are more or less

synchronised, it is evident that the process at the strapping line is the bottle neck to the plant

operation. Making exceptions for other minor differences in cycle times at other stations and

considering real time operations, the highest potential for improvement seems to be at the strapping

line.

From the results of study conducted a model has been developed in excel for the existing practice and

its summary are as shown below.

3.2 kg16

Wt. of raw material Shifted per trip

Avg. Time taken

per trip

No. of bricks Manufactured

pertamper

Avg. Time taken pertamper

No. of bricks

Shifted/ trip

Avg. Time taken/ trip

No. of bricks Shifted

Avg. Time taken

No. of bricks Straped

Avg. Time taken

No. of bricks Shifted

Avg. Time taken

(In Tonnes) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec)1.25 125 50 15 1200 360 400 160 400 295 400 160

Time Taken for Processing

1200 bricks (In Sec)

78102

Wt. of each brick

480

As per Existing Set - Up & Practices

Payloader Cycle Operation Brick Tamper Cycle Time Finger Car Cycle Time

(Complete Cycle)

Cross Shifting Cycle time (Dry Side to Strapping

Line)

Strapping time (Considering 2 men

1 Strapping m/c)

Fork Lifting Time(Cylcle time of shifting

Strapped Bricks to Yard & Vice Versa)

384

Total Production of Bricks per day

360 360 480 885

Total Available Time per day (In Hrs.)

Fig. 3.2 Summary of Cycle Time at Critical Stations (Existing Practice)

11 | P a g e

As the cycle time time at the strapping line is maximum as compared to other stations the final daily

production data will depend on this value. In 885 sec. (14.75 min) 1200 bricks are processed, i.e. in 1

min. 81.355935 bricks are processed. Hence in one hour 4881.3559 bricks are processed.

Considering 16 hour operation in a day, at this rate the plant can produce a maximum of 78102 bricks,

or in case the plant runs for 20 hours it can produce a maximum of 97627 bricks.

On cross-verification with the production data as shown in fig. 3.1, it is seen that till date the highest

production has been on 11/10/2012 which is 82200 bricks, which is approximately the same as the

result of the study model.

12 | P a g e

CHAPTER 4

PROCESS DE-BOTTLENECKING USING LINE BALANCING METHOD

4.1 Existing Process at the Strapping Line

With a view to improve the existing process, the process at the bottlenecking station was closely observed. The following observations were made:

i. Two persons are deployed at this station on both sides of the stacked brick packet for strapping. There is one strapping machine and a pulley around which the straps are wound.

ii. The 1st person holding the strapping machine, places the plastic straps on the slots below the brick packet across to the other side.

iii. The 2nd person on the other side receives, holds the strap, tightens and assists in strapping and cutting the strap.

iv. This process is repeated 5 times vertically and one time horizontally.

Since the whole plant is fully automated and the cycle time at this station is highest, the process preceding this has to wait.

4.2 Process Improvement Trial (Line Balancing)

In order to reduce the cycle time at this station an improved practice was suggested to balance the process line and a trial was taken. The salient features of this trial method are as follows:

i. One additional manpower was provided for cutting the straps of required length and placing them on the slots beforehand, while the strapping of another packet of bricks goes on.

ii. The two persons on both sides of the packet now just needed to hold the straps, tighten it and strap it.

The result to this trial was that the cycle time of strapping a packet of 400 bricks reduced from 295 sec. to 190 sec., which is a difference of 105 sec. (1.75 min.). In 570 sec. (9.5 min.) 1200 bricks are processed, i.e. in 1 min. 126.31579 bricks are processed. Hence in one hour 7578.9474 bricks are processed.

The summary of the cycle time for this improved model is shown in Fig. 4.1

13 | P a g e

This model has been developed in Microsoft excel considering the observed time as the input.

3.2 kg16

Wt. of each brickTotal Available Time per day (In Hrs.)

Wt. of raw material Shifted per trip

Avg. Time taken

per trip

No. of bricks Manufactured

pertamper

Avg. Time taken/tamper

No. of bricks

Shifted/ trip

Avg. Time taken/ trip

No. of bricks Shifted

Avg. Time taken

No. of bricks Straped

Avg. Time taken

No. of bricks Shifted

Avg. Time taken

(In Tonnes) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec)1.25 125 50 15 1200 360 400 160 400 190 400 160

Time Taken for Processing

1200 bricks (In Sec)

121263

570 480

After providing 3 men in Strapping Line & Pre-placement of straps in slots (Alternative - I) - experimented

Payloader Cycle Operation Brick Tamper Cycle Time Finger Car Cycle Time

(Complete Cycle)

Cross Shifting Cycle time (Dry Side to Strapping

Line)Strapping time

Fork Lifting Time(Cylcle time of shifting

Strapped Bricks to Yard & Vice Versa)

Total Production of Bricks per day

384 360 360 480

Fig. 4.1 Summary of Cycle Time at Critical Stations (Improved Case-Trial)

Considering this improved rate (as shown in Fig. 4.1) in a 16 hour daily operation, a maximum of 121263.16 bricks can be produced. Similarly in a 20 hour daily operation a maximum of 151578.95 bricks can be produced.

Hence this improved case was suggested for implementation on 20/10/2012.

4.3 Process Improvement (Theoretical)

Another improvement method was suggested for line balancing. The salient features of this improved process are:

i. Two additional menpower are provided.

ii. One additional strapping machine is provided.

iii. The two manpower gangs will carry out the strapping activity parallelly.

As seen from the summary for in Fig. 4.2, this improved method will process 800 bricks in 295 sec. as compared to 400 bricks in 295 sec. The daily production rate will now depend upon the dispatch rate or the fork-lift operation cycle time.

14 | P a g e

This model has been developed considering the fact that providing two parallel strapping stations will yield twice the production as in existing practice in the same cycle time.

3.2 kg16

Wt. of each brickTotal Available Time per day (In Hrs.)

Wt. of raw material Shifted

t i

Avg. Time taken

per trip

No. of bricks Manufactured

pert

Avg. Time taken/tamper

No. of bricks

Shifted/ trip

Avg. Time taken/ trip

No. of bricks Shifted

Avg. Time taken

No. of bricks Straped

Avg. Time taken

No. of bricks Shifted

Avg. Time taken

(In Tonnes) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec)1.25 125 50 15 1200 360 400 160 800 295 400 160

Time Taken for Processing

1200 bricks (In Sec)

144000

Finger Car Cycle Time(Complete Cycle)

Cross Shifting Cycle time (Dry Side to Strapping

Line)Strapping time

Fork Lifting Time(Cylcle time of shifting

Strapped Bricks to Yard & Vice Versa)

After providing 4 men & 1 additional Strapping M/c in strapping line (Alternative - II) - Theoretical

480

Total Production of Bricks per day

384 360 360 480 443

Payloader Cycle Operation Brick Tamper Cycle Time

Fig. 4.2 Summary of Cycle Time at Critical Stations (Improved Case-Theoretical)

Considering this rate, 400 bricks are dispatched in 160 sec. (2.6666667 min.), 1200 bricks are dispatched in 480 sec. (8 min.) i.e. in 1 min. 150 bricks are dispatched. Hence in one hour 9000 bricks are dispatched.

Daily production on 16 hour operation will be 144000 bricks and 180000 bricks for 20 hour operation.

15 | P a g e

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

5.1 Implementation

Two improved methodologies were suggested as described in chapter 4. However due to the

unavailability of strapping machine, the 1st methodology has been implemented.

The immediate effect of implementing this improved method was that the plant surpassed the

previous highest production of 82200 bricks (see Fig. 3.1) on two occasions as shown below:

i. On 23/10/2012 – 95400 bricks

ii. On 25/10/2012 – 112500 bricks

Below is attached an image of the congratulations mail mentioning this landmark achievement.

16 | P a g e

5.2 Limitation and Future Scope

Making fly-ash bricks is a new concept and also the Indian market is ignorant of this product. So far

the management is making use of this bricks in its own expansion projects. Moreover the system is

fully automated and first of its kind in India in the brick manufacturing sector. Hence the menpower

deployed are not fully efficient yet to meet the challenges in this sector. However with time their

learning curve will improve and run the plant more efficiently.

The consumption of fly-ash will also save the organisation a lot of CSR cost, whose disposal

otherwise is a huge cost.

The present study is not considering the cost benefit aspect of the proposal in monetary terms. For

each of the suggestion as identified by system, the cost of the additional arrangement should be

evaluated and the benefit (in terms of money by virtue of additional production) should be matched

with. At any given point of time, each of the proposals must at least be operating at break-even. The

present study is not considering this aspect and it will be subsequently undertaken to evaluate each of

the proposals and their ultimate absorption in the organisation.

17 | P a g e

REFERENCES

1. Becker C. and Scholl (2004); “A survey on problems and methods in generalized

assembly line balancing”, European Journal of Operations Research.

2. Emanuel Falkenauer (2004); “Line Balancing in the Real World”, International

Conference on Product Lifecycle Management.

3. B. Mahadevan; “Design of Manufacturing Processes,” Operation Management –

Theory and Practices, 2nd edition (2010), 102-149.

Annexure - IA3.2 Kg

16

Wt. of raw material Shifted

per trip

Avg. Time takenper trip

No. of bricks Manufactured/

tamper

Avg. Time taken/tamper

No. of bricks Shifted/ trip

Avg. Time taken/ trip

No. of bricks Shifted

Avg. Time takenNo. of bricks

StrapedAvg. Time taken No. of bricks Shifted Avg. Time taken

(In Tonnes) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec)

1.25 125 50 15 1200 360 400 160 400 295 400 160Time Taken for

Processing 1200 bricks (In Sec)

----------------->>>>

78102

Wt. of raw material Shifted

per trip

Avg. Time takenper trip

No. of bricks Manufactured/

tamper

Avg. Time taken/tamper

No. of bricks Shifted/ trip

Avg. Time taken/ trip

No. of bricks Shifted

Avg. Time takenNo. of bricks

StrapedAvg. Time taken No. of bricks Shifted Avg. Time taken

(In Tonnes) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec)

1.25 125 50 15 1200 360 400 160 400 190 400 160Time Taken for

Processing 1200 bricks (In Sec)

----------------->>>>

121263

Wt. of raw material Shifted

per trip

Avg. Time takenper trip

No. of bricks Manufactured/

tamper

Avg. Time taken/tamper

No. of bricks Shifted/ trip

Avg. Time taken/ trip

No. of bricks Shifted

Avg. Time takenNo. of bricks

StrapedAvg. Time taken No. of bricks Shifted Avg. Time taken

(In Tonnes) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec) (Nos.) (in sec)

1.25 125 50 15 1200 360 400 160 800 295 400 160Time Taken for

Processing 1200 bricks (In Sec)

----------------->>>>

144000

480

Total Available Time per day (In Hrs.)

As per Existing Set - Up & Practices

Payloader Cycle Operation Brick Tamper Cycle Time Finger Car Cycle Time(Complete Cycle)

Cross Shifting Cycle time (Dry Side to Strapping Line)

Strapping time (Considering 2 men

1 Strapping m/c)

Fork Lifting Time(Cylcle time of shifting Strapped Bricks to

Yard & Vice Versa)

384 360 360 480 885

480

Total Production of Bricks per day

After providing 3 men in Strapping Line & Pre-placement of straps in slots (Alternative - I)

Payloader Cycle Operation Brick Tamper Cycle Time Finger Car Cycle Time(Complete Cycle)

Cross Shifting Cycle time (Dry Side to Strapping Line)

Strapping time Fork Lifting Time

(Cylcle time of shifting Strapped Bricks to Yard & Vice Versa)

384 360 360 480 570

Wt. of each brick

480

Total Production of Bricks per day

384 360 360 480 443

After providing 4 men & 1 additional Strapping M/c in strapping line (Alternative - II)

Payloader Cycle Operation Brick Tamper Cycle Time Finger Car Cycle Time(Complete Cycle)

Cross Shifting Cycle time (Dry Side to Strapping Line)

Strapping time Fork Lifting Time

(Cylcle time of shifting Strapped Bricks to Yard & Vice Versa)

Total Production of Bricks per day