Download pdf - SIMUL8 User Group - Visual8 Case Study - Plywood Manufacturing

Visual8 Corporation

WSC2013 – SIMUL8 User Group Presentation

http://www.visual8.com/




Agenda

About Visual8 – Company Overview

Example Projects

Case Study – Automated Plywood Patching Line

Live Demonstration

Questions & Answers

Conclusion

2



3

Background:

– Industrial Engineering & Operations Research Consultants

– Provide productivity improvements to companies through simulation modeling, analysis and optimization

Business Focus:

– Simulation Consulting, Training & Support with SIMUL8

– Optimization, Planning & Scheduling

– Strategic, Tactical & Operational Level Decision Support

Industry Specialization:

– General Manufacturing, Distribution & Supply Chain

– Automotive, Food & Beverage, Plastics, Oil & Gas

– Mining, Smelting, Metals Processing

Company Profile

Visual8 Overview



4

Distribution Centre – Inventory Management

Example Projects

Objective:

To identify whether the warehouse can conform to plan

To determine the inventory sizing required for all products

To allocate spacing and materials handling to all floors

Solution:

Create a warehousing simulation of the entire DC and show inventory movements, arrivals and shipments, inventory spacing, and labour requirements.

Benefits:

Capacity Planning tool for new products

Correct sizing of inventory for product mix and replenishment

Proven delivery capability to stores



5

Dairy Cooler – Process Improvement

Example Projects

Objective:

Evaluate the impact of product layout and staff plans on labour picking time

Determine the impact of sequencing and batching of product on storage requirements and order fulfillment

Solution:

Created a component-based flexible simulator that can be used to simulate the operation of all 15 Dairies

Benefits:

Increased output with minimal capital changes

Determine the capacity limits of the materials handling system

Standardized Best-Practices Procedures across plants



6

Candy Manufacturer – Capacity Planning

Example Projects

Objective:

Consolidation of external packaging plant within plant

To identify WIP and Finished Goods space requirements

To evaluate impact of smaller batches to directly feed packing

Solution:

Create a plant-wide simulation of entire Candy operations and simulate the impact of the new packaging lines

Benefits:

Decrease in transportation and plant costs

Correct inventory sizing prior to commissioning of line

Identified a need for a tighter scheduling system



Example Projects 7

Automotive Bumper Line – Takt-Time Analysis

Objective:

Demonstrate capability of planned assembly line to Customer

To determine the correct number of assembly stations

To allocate appropriate tasks and parts to stations

Solution:

Create an assembly-line simulation of the Bumper line and show build rates, line replenishment requirements, delivery rates, and labor requirements

Benefits:

Reduced commissioning time of the line to meet TAKT times

Correct sizing of bins for product mix and replenishment

Proven delivery capability to Customer



Case Study – Plywood Finishing 8

Background:

Major US plywood manufacturer wanted to update their current manual defect patching process to an automated robotic line.

A number of different design configurations were proposed and the company wanted a way to effectively evaluate them.

Project Objective:

Design and construct detailed simulation models of the various proposed patch line designs

Conduct sensitivity analysis study to help determine the configuration best suited to meet client requirements.





Case Study – Plywood Finishing 9

Project Steps:

1. Coordination & Data Collection

2. Initial Simulation Model Development

3. Preliminary Analysis & Review

4. Model Refinement and In-Depth Analysis

5. Onsite Review and Discussion





Process Description - Current 10

Manual Plywood Inspection & Repair

• Stacks of manufactured plywood delivered to the line

• Plywood conveyed through a panel inspection/repair area on rigid belt

• Defects in panel manually processed by two workers

• Routing to remove defects such as knots

• Patching to fill holes left by router and other defects such as cracks

Process Issues

• Lack of quality control

• High level of rework

• Excessive use of Patching compound





Process Description - Planned 11

Automated Inspection & Repair

• Stacks of manufactured plywood delivered to the line

• Plywood conveyed through an imaging tool to identify quantity, types, sizes and locations of defects

• Product conveyed to Routing or combined Routing and Patching equipment, indexed and locked into position

• Routing operation to remove defects such as knots

• Patching operation to fill holes left by router and other defects such as cracks

Key considerations

• Supply of plywood/movement of product through the scanner and line not an issue

• Need to achieve high throughput with good utilization of equipment, Limited floor space available





Process Description - Planned 12

Defect Scanning Panel Repair Stations

Panel Exit

Panel Loading





Model Inputs 13





Model Inputs 14





Model Inputs 15





Model Inputs 16





Design Layouts 17

Scenario 1a – Parallel Work Centers (Combined Route & Patch)

Key Design Factors:

1. Route & Patch operations

combined in same work

center (line)

2. Dedicated routing & patch

robots

3. Simple board conveyance

(even distribution to work

centers)





Design Layouts 18

Scenario 1b – Parallel Work Centers (Separate Route & Patch)

Key Design Factors:


separate for each work

center (line)


robots



centers)





Design Layouts 19

Scenario 1c – Parallel Work Centers (Defect-based Board Routing)

Key Design Factors:



center


robots

3. Dual patch robots in one

work center

4. Defect-based board

conveyance (high defect

boards routed to dual robot

work centers)





Design Layouts 20

Scenario 1d – Parallel Work Centers (Shared Patch Robots)

Key Design Factors:


separate in same work

center

2. Two patch robots shared

between to work centers



centers)





Design Layouts 21

Scenario 1e – Parallel Work Centers (Shared Patch + Defect Routing)

Key Design Factors:


separate in same work

center

2. Two patch robots shared

between to work centers

3. Dual patch robots in one

work center

4. Defect-based board

conveyance (high defect

boards routed to dual robot

work centers)





Design Layouts 22

Scenario 1f – Parallel Work Centers (Separate Route & Patch)

Key Design Factors:


separate for each work

center (line)


robots



centers)





Design Layouts 23

Scenario 2a – Alternating Patch Robots (In/Out Conveyance)

Key Design Factors:



center

2. Patch robots shared

between two work centers

3. Boards move into and out

of work centers from same

side





Design Layouts 24

Scenario 2b – Alternating Patch Robots (Flow-through Conveyance)

Key Design Factors:



center

2. Patch robots shared

between two work centers

3. Boards flow through work

centers





Design Layouts 25

Layout 3 – Multiple Patch Robots per Board

Key Design Factors:

1. Single Work Center

resulting in lower space

utilization

2. Work on a single board

divided out to 4 robots


center





Design Layouts 26

Layout 4 – Combined Routing & Patch Robots

Key Design Factors:



center

2. Routing and patch

operations are completed

by single robot


centers





Sensitivity Analysis Testing 27

Generated Data:

Simulation trials based on Panel data created using distributions

• AC Grade / BC Grade / Siding Grade

Real Data:

Single runs utilizing actual Scanner data

• AC Grade / BC Grade / Siding Grade

Breakdowns/Efficiency:

• Randomized breakdowns

• Scheduled stoppages





Results 28

Key Findings: • Parallel Work Centers yield optimal throughput

• Maximize Patch Robot Utilization by alternating workstations or combining Route/Patch

• Minimize Routing & Patching overlap

• Parallel Work Centers increase redundancy

• Flow-though Work Centers at Patch if possible

Layout 1A Layout 1B Layout 1C Layout 1D Layout 1E Layout 1F Layout 2A Layout 2B Layout 3 Layout 4

Router 1: Utilization % 22.5 24.2 22.2 24.2 22.4 24.2 20.1 20.0 40.7 -



Router 4: Utilization % - - - - - 24.5 20.1 20.0 26.3 -

Patching 1: Working % 70.7 76.3 69.7 76.2 89.9 76.4 79.2 86.2 18.0 81.8

Patching 2: Working % 70.6 76.4 69.7 76.3 95.3 76.2 84.6 77.3 17.6 81.9

Patching 3: Working % 70.6 76.3 37.8 48.1 48.2 76.1 79.6 86.3 - 81.8

Patching 4: Working % - - 45.7 57.9 57.9 76.4 84.3 77.1 - 81.6

Board Count 4820 5207 5071 5881 5620 6938 5706 5751 3602 5518





Results 29

Highest throughput scenario Layout 1F:

Issues: • Unbalanced line yields underutilized Patch robots • Reconfiguring the line to balance line would mean exceeding floor space

limitations or require complex conveyor set up • Additional equipment & conveyance required – potential reliability impacts





Results 30

Final choice Layout 4:

Layout analysis: • Throughput requirements met • Machine utilization requirements achieved • Floor space limitations not exceeded • Conveyance simplicity maintained





Presentation of Sample Model

Questions & Answers

31

Example Model, Q & A

Live Demonstration

