DSES-6620-2000
Simulation and Analysis of a Pratt & Whitney
Turbine Module Manufacturing Cell
Christopher L. Gunther
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Hartford, CT
Simulation Modeling & Analysis
Professor Ernesto Gutierrez-Miravete
21 December 2000
For permission to copy or to republish, contact Christopher L. Gunther,
161 Russet Lane, Middletown, CT, 06457.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................................2
LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................................................................3
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................................................3
TABLE OF TERMINOLOGY ...................................................................................................................................3
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................4
2.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................4
2.1 SIMULATION MODEL OBJECTIVE ..........................................................................................................................4
2.2 SIMULATION SCOPE ..............................................................................................................................................5
2.3 SIMULATION REQUIREMENTS ...............................................................................................................................6
3.0 PROMODEL SIMULATION MODEL ...............................................................................................................6
3.1 MODEL OVERVIEW ...............................................................................................................................................6
3.2 MODEL LAYOUT ...................................................................................................................................................6
3.3 MODEL COMPONENTS ..........................................................................................................................................7
3.3.1 ProModel Layout ..........................................................................................................................................7
3.3.2 Machine and Operator Time Breakdown .....................................................................................................9
3.3.3 Part Scheduling, Interarrival Times ........................................................................................................... 10
3.4 MODEL UNCERTAINTY ....................................................................................................................................... 10
3.5 PERFORMANCE METRICS .................................................................................................................................... 11
4.0 SIMULATION RESULTS .................................................................................................................................. 12
4.1 CURRENT PROJECTED MEAN ARRIVAL RATE RESULTS......................................................................... 12
4.1.1 PROMODEL SIMULATION VERIFICATION/VALIDATION .................................................................................... 12
4.1.2 ProModel Output for the Current Production Level .................................................................................. 12
4.1.3 ProModel Plotting Features for the Current Production Level .................................................................. 12
4.2 SENSITIVITY OF MANUFACTURING CELL TO INTERARRIVAL RATES (PRODUCTION RUNS) ................................. 14
4.2.1 Interarrival Rates for a Theoretical System ................................................................................................ 14
4.2.2 Simulation-Calculated Part Exits from Cell ............................................................................................... 15
4.2.3 Machine Variation for Different Interarrival Rates ................................................................................... 16
4.2.4 Operator and Entity Variation for Different Interarrival Rates ................................................................. 19
5.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 21
6.0 REFERENCES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... 22
6.1 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 22
6.2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................................... 22
APPENDIX A: VIEW TEXT FILE FROM PROMODEL SIMULATION ......................................................... 23
APPENDIX B: SAMPLE OUTPUT FILE FROM PROMODEL SIMULATION .............................................. 34
Page 2
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
List of Figures
Figure 1: Sample Rotor Disk .........................................................................................................................................5
Figure 2: Cell #6 Floor Layout ......................................................................................................................................7
Figure 3: ProModel Simulation Model Layout ..............................................................................................................8
Figure 4: Machine Percent Utilization ......................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 5: Machine Process Breakdown ....................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 6: Operator Usage............................................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 7: Part Status while in System .......................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 8: Queue Status during Simulation ................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 9: Theoretical versus Simulation Part Throughput ........................................................................................... 16
Figure 10: Percent Machine Operation for Varying True Part Outputs ....................................................................... 17
Figure 11: Percent Machine is Idle for Varying True Part Outputs ............................................................................. 18
Figure 12: Percent Machine Waiting for Resources for Varying True Part Outputs ................................................... 18
Figure 13: Percent Total Machine Utilization for Varying True Part Outputs ............................................................ 19
Figure 14: Part Status as Three-Month Part Requirement Increases ........................................................................... 20
Figure 15: Operator Usage as Part Requirement Increases .......................................................................................... 21
List of Tables
Table 1: Schedule of Parts Delivery ..............................................................................................................................5
Table 2: Manual and Automatic Time for each Operation in Cell #6 for Part 52L002 .................................................9
Table 3: Three-Month Part Requirement and Available Daily Operation Time .......................................................... 10
Table 4: Operation Sheet with 5% Standard Deviation for Normal Distribution ........................................................ 11
Table 5: Interarrival Times Run in Simulation ............................................................................................................ 15
Table 6: Simulation Part Throughput of the Cell ......................................................................................................... 15
Table 7: Percent Utilization of Machines in Simulation .............................................................................................. 17
Table 8: Status of Part at Different Interarrival Rates ................................................................................................. 19
Table 9: Operator Usage at Different Interarrival Rates .............................................................................................. 20
Table of Terminology

FPI
PW
VTL
SWIP
Interarrival times (minutes/entity)
Fluorescent Penetrate Inspection
Pratt & Whitney
Vertical turret lathe
Standard work in progress
Page 3
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 4
1.0 Executive Summary
The goal of the simulation was to identify potential problems with the current order of
operations in a Pratt & Whitney manufacturing cell at the Middletown, Connecticut facility. The
simulation models Cell #6, which is responsible for the manufacture of high-pressure turbine
rotor disks for aircraft engines. Since the production facility can support the current level of
parts required per month, the ultimate load of the cell needed to be determined. Also, methods of
changing the system to improve part throughput were identified. The results of the simulation
will be used by Pratt & Whiney manufacturing engineers to help plan for the future.
Past part schedules were run to baseline the production simulation to test its validity.
Also, the past experience of the manufacturing engineers was used to check the results of the
simulation. The resources of the simulation required the ProModel software, a semester of
modeling the system, and one simulation programmer.
The ProModel simulation was run for 7 production levels. The current three-month part
requirement was analyzed in detail to validate the simulation model. The cell can adequately
support the mean part production rate (35 parts per three months).
However, if the part
requirement increases, the cell reaches its saturation point rather quickly.
The VTLs and
operators become fully utilized at around 44 parts per three months. To increase part throughput
in the cell, more VTL machines need to be added due to the long operation times at these
locations. In addition, more operators are needed to keep the parts running smoothly on the
machines and moving between machining locations.
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Simulation Model Objective
The goal of this project was to model a manufacturing cell at Pratt & Whitney’s
Middletown, Connecticut facility. Cell #6 is in charge of producing 4 different rotor disk parts
(Figure 1). Each of the parts has its own separate specified list of operations. However, these
parts have similar overall features, and operation times are very close. As a result, all 4 parts are
assumed to have the same operation times and order of machining to simplify the simulation
model and part arrival process. The numbers of each part that are required each month can be
seen in Table 1. The idea for this proposal came from a Kaizen Event held earlier this year in
Cell #6. This event’s objective was to improve part throughput, increase operator efficiency, and
decrease conflicts inside the cell. One of the difficulties that the Kaizen team ran into was a lack
of understanding of the part flow inside the cell. The long operation and arrival times make it
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 5
difficult to gain a full understanding of the part flow. One of the main action items out of the
event was to create a simulation of the part flow and understand the interactions between the
varied parts. However, lack of funding and interest at the managerial level prevented further
work on the simulation efforts. Since there is still a perceived need for simulation in the cell, a
model to represent the actual system and create a baseline model to aid in future efforts was
created. This model was validated against current production run data, and will be used to
predict the ability of the cell to produce future production loads.
Figure 1: Sample Rotor Disk
Table 1: Schedule of Parts Delivery
Parts Schedule for Cell 3106
Part Number Aug-00 Sep-00 Oct-00 Nov-00 Dec-00 Jan-01 Feb-01 Mar-01 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01
CELL 3106
52L002
0
7
6
9
8
10
8
12
3
5
11
53L402
2
3
3
0
3
2
2
5
5
3
7
53L202
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
53L702
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Total
2
10
9
9
12
12
11
18
8
8
19
3 month takt time
value
21
28
30
33
35
41
37
34
35
40
Jul-01
12
1
0
0
13
TOTAL
91
36
3
1
131
The problem with the current Cell #6 design is that all of these 4 parts are manufactured
using the same set of machines. Many of the operations require long machining durations (up to
several hours) so the potential for part interference and bottlenecks is high when part orders are
high.
2.2 Simulation Scope
The purpose of the simulation was to create a model of the manufacturing floor and the
part entities and view how the parts move through the system. The first goal was to determine
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 6
the ultimate capacity of the system, i.e. the total load it can support. Then the desire was to
identify potential improvements to increase part throughput. Also, ways of changing the system
to improve part throughput were identified. The results of the simulation will be used by Pratt &
Whiney manufacturing engineers to help plan for the future.
Past part schedules were run to baseline the production simulation to test its validity.
Also, the past experience of the manufacturing engineers was used to check the results of the
simulation.
2.3 Simulation Requirements
The resources required to perform the simulation were the ProModel software, a semester
of modeling the system, a PC capable of many simulation computations, and one simulation
programmer. The machine manual and automatic times of operation were obtained from the Cell
#6 Kaizen event notes, as well as input from manufacturing engineers. There is no required
budget for the project.
3.0 ProModel Simulation Model
3.1 Model Overview
The system to be modeled consisted of the major components on the shop floor. The Cell
#6 parts and the scheduling requirements for several months in the future can be seen in Table 1.
The 4 parts (52L002, 53L402, 53L202, and 53L702) are all high-pressure turbine 2nd stage rotors
(Figure 1). Operations on the part such as shot peen, marking, washing, turning, broaching,
milling, balancing, deburring, and brushing were all modeled.
The parts themselves were
modeled as the entities in the system. Operators were also included in the process, and some of
the variabilities between operator capabilities were modeled. Also, the process operation sheet
has a list of operation times for both setups to prepare the part and machine for running and
actual machine run time. Detailed operation sheets break this time down further to machine,
automatic, and manual time.
3.2 Model Layout
Figure 2 is a floor layout of the production process created by the manufacturing
engineers at Pratt and Whitney. This shows the various operations that will be performed on the
part as well as the ideal part flow through the process. The raw material arrives at VTL A and
then travels throughout the cell along the numbered blue path. The operations at each station
have detailed time breakdowns into manual internal, manual external, machine automatic, and
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 7
part changeover (setup) time. The floor layout below requires two operators. The machines are
located fairly close together so part travel time was neglected. The ProModel simulation used
this layout and list of operations, and was able to model each of the defined processes.
Standard Work Sheet
Name: Frank Gill, Steve Ali,
Shaun Vickers
FPI - Op. 1330 Cell 3901
Shot Peen - Op. 1350 Cell 3530
Wash - Op. 1360 Cell 3530
Mark - Op. 1380 Cell 3102
Im proved Production Process - 52L002
Business Unit:210
Cell:3106
16
Scope of Operati ons:Turn - 1030 to M ark - 1380
VTL - A
VTL - B
Op. 1030
Op. 1040
Setup=0.00
Manual=41.08
1
Setup=0.00
Manual=74.02
Date: 08/07/00
Broach
Op. 1080
2
Setup=0.00
Manual=68.26
5
B
Typhoon
Wash
A
VTL - D
Op. 1060, 1170
Op. 1280
4
VTL - C
10
Setup=0.00
Manual=105.83
15
3
Op. 1050
Sunstrand 5 Axis
Op. 1130, 1200
Setup=0.00
Manual=27.76
Setup=0.00
Manual=30.90
12
Deburr
13
Op. 1090, 1240
6
Balance
VTL - E
Op. 1250, 1260
1270
14
Pre-Spin process
only
8
9
Abrasive Brush
Turbo - Op. 1100 Cell 3107
Mark - Op. 1120 Cell 3107 7
Operators
Quality Check
Grind - Op. 1150 Cell 3107
11
Safety Precaution
Standard Work in Process
Machine
Loss of Control
(SWIP)
Grind - Op. 1195 Cell 3107
Standard Work in Process
T akt Time (minutes)
Cycle Time
Number of Operators
Part travel distanc e in feet
2
2605.7
3037.47
2
0
Figure 2: Cell #6 Floor Layout
3.3 Model Components
3.3.1 ProModel Layout
The ProModel simulation was modeled closely after the Cell #6 Layout in Figure 2.
Figure 3 is a schematic of the ProModel simulation layout. It contains each of the machines and
operations specified in the Cell #6 operation sheets. The two operators are also shown. When an
operator is in use, the operator moves to the machine where he is needed. The blue lines
between the machines are the path networks the part can travel. Again, since the machines are
located so closely, the part travel time is lumped in with the operator manual time and is not
broken out separately. The operators move the parts along those paths between queues and
machines. When the operator is unavailable (see Section 3.3.2) the operator moves to the
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 8
“down-time” location. When the operator is not needed, he returns to his “home” location.
Thus, as the simulation progresses, the status of the operator is easy to see. The gray boxes next
to some of the machines are queues. Since the operations at many of the machines take very
large amounts of time, some queues are needed to store parts waiting for machine time. The
counters below the queues show how many parts are located in each queue. For this analysis, the
queue size was assumed to be infinite. This is not a problem since the part interarrival rate is not
huge and the parts tend to not build up in queue too much. The part travels out of the cell in
three locations. While the operators are not used for these procedures, the machine operation
time still applies.
Figure 3: ProModel Simulation Model Layout
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 9
A detailed list of the simulation processing code can be seen in Appendix A. This shows
a breakup of the manual and automatic times for each of the machining stations. The random
downtime for the operators is also shown.
3.3.2 Machine and Operator Time Breakdown
For simplicity, only the operations for the 52L002 were chosen. The operations and
associated times are almost identical for the other parts. Table 2 is an operation sheet that lists
the times associated with each machine. For each operation, manual internal, manual external,
changeover (setup), and machine automatic time are listed. Each of these time breakdowns was
added to the ProModel simulation. For manual times, the operator specified for the operation
number was tied up (resource unavailable for other procedures). The rows highlighted in gray
are out-of-cell procedures. While these operations do not require operators A and B, they still
take machine automatic time.
Table 2: Manual and Automatic Time for each Operation in Cell #6 for Part 52L002
Part Number
Department Number / Name
52L002
3106
Part Name
Required Daily Output
Hub, Turbine Stage 2
Available Time (minutes)
0.4
TAKT Time (minutes)
912
Walk
Time
Manual
Int/Ext
Time
Manual
Internal
Time
2605.7
Manual
External
Time
Description Of Task
Machine
PCS. /
Load
1030
Turn
VTL-A
1
0.00
73.10
0.00
B
651.43
390.86
333.66
1040
Turn
VTL-B
1
0.00 265.43 191.41
74.02 250.76
0.00
A
651.43
390.86
333.66
1050
Turn
VTL-C
1
0.00 438.73 332.90 105.83 494.86
0.00
A
52.15
11.07
41.08
Auto
Time
Cell
Change
Operator
Over Time Number
Task #
Takt Time
(Min)
Takt Time
(Mean)
Takt Time
(Max)
2605.71 1563.43 1334.63
1060
Turn
VTL-D
1
0.00 284.54 189.35
95.19 380.51
0.00
B
651.43
390.86
333.66
1080
Broach
Broach
1
3.26
86.26
18.00
68.26 410.14
0.00
A
651.43
390.86
333.66
1090
Deburr
Bench
1
0.00
36.93
0.00
36.93
0.00
0.00
B
1100
Abrasive Brush
CNC Brush
1
0.00
2.00
2.00
0.00
5.00
5.00
1120
Mark
Dot-Peen
1
0.00
6.82
0.00
6.82
0.00
0.00
1130
Mill
Sundstrand
1
0.00
44.44
16.68
27.76 138.01
0.00
1150
Grind
Heald
1
0.00
75.46
33.35
42.11
33.35
0.00
1170
Turn
VTL-D
1
0.00
59.23
25.55
33.68
25.55
0.00
1195
Grind
Pfauter
1
0.00
53.14
33.08
20.06
96.35
0.00
1200
Mill
Sundstrand
1
1.48
59.95
29.05
30.90 128.51
0.00
A
2605.71 1563.43 1334.63
1240
Deburr
Bench
1
0.00 189.52
0.00 189.52
0.00
0.00
B
2605.71 1563.43 1334.63
1250
Balance
Balance
1
0.00
22.09
0.00
22.09
0.00
22.09
B
2605.71 1563.43 1334.63
1260
Balance if necessary
Balance
1
0.00
6.57
2.49
4.08
2.49
6.57
B
2605.71 1563.43 1334.63
1270
Balance if necessary
Balance
1
0.00
22.48
3.05
19.43
3.06
22.48
B
2605.71 1563.43 1334.63
1280
Wash
Proceco
0
0.00
7.43
2.54
4.89
2.54
0.00
B
2605.71 1563.43 1334.63
1330
FPI
FPI
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2605.71 1563.43 1334.63
1350
Shot Peen
Shot-Peen
0
0.00
24.63
1.00
23.63
75.75
10.00
2605.71 1563.43 1334.63
1360
Wash
Proceco
0
0.00
10.92
5.65
5.27
5.65
0.00
2605.71 1563.43 1334.63
1380
Mark
Dot-Peen
0
0.00
6.82
0.00
6.82
0.00
15.12
2605.71 1563.43 1334.63
4.74
1755.54
897.17
858.37
2125.63
81.26
Created by: Frank Gill (5-15-2000)
2605.71 1563.43 1334.63
2605.71 1563.43 1334.63
2605.71 1563.43 1334.63
A
2605.71 1563.43 1334.63
2605.71 1563.43 1334.63
B
2605.71 1563.43 1334.63
2605.71 1563.43 1334.63
2988.74 Cycle Time
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 10
3.3.3 Part Scheduling, Interarrival Times
The schedule from Table 1 has a minimum three-month part requirement of 21, an
average of 35, and a maximum of 41 pieces. Table 3 shows a calculation of the current method
of predicting the interarrival times of raw material into the cell to start a new part. The table
assumes a 20-day month with 2, 8-hour shifts per day. This gives 960 minutes daily of potential
machine and operator time. However, there are some weekly schedule meetings that occur
which reduce the total daily operation time to 912 minutes. This was modeled as operator
downtime in the simulation. As a result, the theoretical interarrival time could be calculated.
For example, for the average 35 part three-month requirement, the parts need to exit the cell at a
rate of 1563.4 minutes/piece. However, this time does not include any other uncertainties!
Table 3: Three-Month Part Requirement and Available Daily Operation Time
Part Number - 1
52L002
Part Name - 1
Hub, Turbine Stage 2
Part Number - 2
53L402
Part Name - 2
Hub, Turbine Stage 2
Cell Number
3106
Min
Mean
Max
Three Month Part
Requirement
21
35
41
pieces
Past Due Requirement
0
0
0
pieces
Daily time the Cell is
off-line
24
Minutes per shift
Available time daily
912
Minutes total daily
Number of Working Days
20
Days monthly
Number of working hours
daily
8
Hours per shift
Number of Shifts
2
shifts
QCPC Weekly Schedule
30
Minutes per shift
Min
Mean
Max
TPM Weekly Schedule
60
Minutes per shift
0.4
0.6
0.7
6S Weekly Schedule
(Daily walkaround)
15
Minutes per shift
2605.7
1563.4
1334.6
minutes/piece
Other Weekly Schedule
15
Minutes per shift
156342.9
93805.7
80078.0
seconds/piece
TAKT Time Calculation
Customer Demand
Available Time
Daily Customer
Requirement
3.4 Model Uncertainty
After talking to the manufacturing engineers, it was decided that a uniform band of
uncertainty would be applied to the ProModel simulation. Rather than trying to model all the
potential sources of uncertainty, it was agreed to add a 5% band of time to each of the operations
for the part. This means that a normal distribution with a standard deviation of 5% of the
component time was used in the simulation.
This seemed to be a good compromise to
encompass differences between operators on 1st and 2nd shift, problems with the machines,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 11
changing of inserts, and fixturing. The normal distribution is very good at predicting human and
mechanical variability.
There are several other potential sources of uncertainty that were not modeled.
Variability in the operation times is common due to a tool or insert breaking during machining.
The raw material delivery sometimes slips and the parts cannot always start on schedule. Other
production cells can also use Cell #6’s machines if a “hot” manufacturing job has fallen behind.
This can hold up the normal operation of the cell. Also, parts are sometimes scrapped or not
completed. The simulation model has the potential to capture all these variabilities if desired and
give an accurate prediction of manufacturing cell capability.
Table 4: Operation Sheet with 5% Standard Deviation for Normal Distribution
Manual
Manual
5% Manual
Manual
5% Manual
Int/Ext Time Internal Time Internal Time External Time External Time
Auto Time
5% Auto
Time
Change Over 5% Change Cell Operator
Time
Over Time
Number
Description Of Task
Machine
1030
1040
1050
1060
1080
1090
1100
1120
1130
1150
1170
1195
1200
1240
1250
1260
1270
1280
1330
1350
1360
1380
Turn
Turn
VTL-A
VTL-B
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
52.15
265.43
11.07
191.41
0.55
9.57
41.08
74.02
2.05
3.70
73.10
250.76
3.66
12.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
B
A
Turn
Turn
VTL-C
VTL-D
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
438.73
284.54
332.90
189.35
16.65
9.47
105.83
95.19
5.29
4.76
494.86
380.51
24.74
19.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
A
B
Broach
Broach
3.26
0.16
86.26
18.00
0.90
68.26
3.41
410.14
20.51
0.00
0.00
A
Deburr
Abrasive Brush
Mark
Mill
Bench
CNC Brush
Dot-Peen
Sundstrand
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
36.93
2.00
6.82
44.44
0.00
2.00
0.00
16.68
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.83
36.93
0.00
6.82
27.76
1.85
0.00
0.34
1.39
0.00
5.00
0.00
138.01
0.00
0.25
0.00
6.90
0.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
B
Grind
Turn
Grind
Mill
Heald
Pfauter
Sundstrand
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
75.46
59.23
53.14
59.95
33.35
25.55
33.08
29.05
1.67
1.28
1.65
1.45
42.11
33.68
20.06
30.90
2.11
1.68
1.00
1.55
33.35
25.55
96.35
128.51
1.67
1.28
4.82
6.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Deburr
Balance
Balance if necessary
Bench
Balance
Balance
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
189.52
22.09
6.57
0.00
0.00
2.49
0.00
0.00
0.12
189.52
22.09
4.08
9.48
1.10
0.20
0.00
0.00
2.49
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.00
22.09
6.57
0.00
1.10
0.33
B
B
B
Balance if necessary
Wash
Balance
Proceco
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.48
7.43
3.05
2.54
0.15
0.13
19.43
4.89
0.97
0.24
3.06
2.54
0.15
0.13
22.48
0.00
1.12
0.00
B
B
FPI
Shot Peen
FPI
Shot-Peen
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
24.63
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
23.63
0.00
1.18
0.00
75.75
0.00
3.79
0.00
10.00
0.00
0.50
Wash
Mark
TOTALS
Proceco
Dot-Peen
0.00
0.00
4.74
0.00
0.00
10.92
6.82
1755.54
5.65
0.00
897.17
0.28
0.00
5.27
6.82
858.37
0.26
0.34
5.65
0.00
2125.63
0.28
0.00
0.00
15.12
81.26
0.00
0.76
VTL-D
Walk Time
5% Walk
Time
Task #
3.5 Performance Metrics
The current schedule of parts was run first to see if any potential problems with the
simulation would arise and to verify the model. If this simulation looked good, the part numbers
would be increased until bottlenecks occurred. The schedule for the next few months is low;
however, this schedule will increase rapidly in the future due to higher projected part
requirements. Improvements to the current part flow as well as alternate part flows need to be
identified. To improve shop efficiency, it is helpful to identify times when the operators are
underutilized.
When the machines are operating automatically, the operators can perform
A
B
A
2988.74
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 12
another task. This simulation will help to show points of operator under-utilization and allow
them to be more efficient. Also, machines may not be currently used to their fullest capability.
If bottlenecks occur in the system, potential solutions need to be created to improve the process
and increase the part throughput. Shop floor operation time equates to cost to make the part. If
the parts can be made more quickly and efficiently, it equates to a cost reduction manufacturing
the part. Also, the lead-time for the raw material can be decreased which decreases storage and
inventory requirements and cost.
4.0 Simulation Results
4.1 Current Projected Mean Arrival Rate Results
4.1.1 ProModel Simulation Verification/Validation
The current level of production of 35 parts per three months was used to validate the
ProModel simulation.
Studies were also performed to determine the correct number of
replications to ensure good data. The model was run using the theoretical interarrival rate
calculated in Section 3.3.3. The average number of parts that completely exited the system over
100 replications is 32.09 parts per three months. While this number is slightly lower than the
expected value of 35 parts, it agrees well with the shop process. The interarrival rate for the
simulation was calculated on a theoretical basis and does not take into account any uncertainty in
the operation times or arrival time of the raw material. Therefore, the simulated results should be
lower than the theoretical value. The simulation would produce 35 parts per three months if
there were no uncertainties in the process.
4.1.2 ProModel Output for the Current Production Level
Appendix B contains a detailed sample output file for this data set with 100 replications.
This shows the breakdown ProModel gives in its output and a 95% confidence interval on each
of the parameters. Data for each of the locations in the model (machines), multiple-capacity
locations (queues), resources, entities, and exits are given. This information is presented in both
percentage and average time formats.
4.1.3 ProModel Plotting Features for the Current Production Level
ProModel also has some good plotting features. This graphical means of presenting the
data is much more concise and easy to understand. The following figures are for the mean three-
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
month part requirement of 35 parts with 100 replications. The data is averaged over the 100
replications to give a good estimate.
Figure 4: Machine Percent Utilization
Figure 5: Machine Process Breakdown
Figure 6: Operator Usage
Page 13
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Figure 7: Part Status while in System
Figure 8: Queue Status during Simulation
Figure 4 shows the percent usage of each of the machines. It appears that VTL C is the
most utilized piece of equipment. The rest of the machinery in and out of the cell is at less than
50% capacity. Figure 5 shows a further breakdown of the machines and different processes they
engage in during the simulation. It is evident that the machines are mostly idle in this case.
Otherwise, the second largest amount of machine time is spent in operation. Some of the
machines are waiting for resources (the operator is in use elsewhere and cannot run the machine).
Figure 6 shows the percent the two operators are used. From this plot, it appears that the
operators have time to perform other tasks. Figure 7 states that most of the time the parts are in
the system they are being operated on. However, sometimes the parts have to wait to be moved
by an operator to the next machine or are blocked at the next machine and must wait in queue.
Finally, Figure 8 shows that the queues are remaining almost totally empty for this level of part
production.
These plots can be generated for each of the simulation cases shown below.
However, a more simplified method of comparison was chosen (Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3).
4.2 Sensitivity of Manufacturing Cell to Interarrival Rates (Production Runs)
4.2.1 Interarrival Rates for a Theoretical System
The predicted interarrival times for a theoretical system with no uncertainty was
calculated above. The simulation was run for the 7 conditions shown in Table 5. The output of
the simulation represents the "true" cell capacity with uncertainty introduced.
Page 14
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 15
Table 5: Interarrival Times Run in Simulation
# Parts/3 Months Interarrival Time (min)
21
2605.714286
35
1563.428571
41
1334.634146
50
1094.4
75
729.6
100
547.2
125
437.76
4.2.2 Simulation-Calculated Part Exits from Cell
The theoretical predicted parts per three-month schedule cannot be reached in reality due
to inherent uncertainty in the system. Table 6 shows that the simulation models uncertainty.
Also, the effect of different numbers of replications was analyzed. With only 10 replications, the
standard deviation is fairly high and the 95% confidence interval on the data is rather large. As a
result, 100 replications were used to decrease the standard deviation since the model was not
overly time-consuming to run. 7 theoretical interarrival times were run and the average exits
from the simulation can be seen in Figure 9. This figure shows the limit load of the cell to
produce parts along with the 95% confidence interval band. This figure demonstrates that the
maximum possible part throughput the cell and operators can support is realistically about 44
parts. Also, the red line shows the effect that uncertainty can have on the schedule. To get the
desired level of 35 parts pre three-months, the theoretical interarrival time for 40 parts must be
used.
Table 6: Simulation Part Throughput of the Cell
10 replications
100 replications
3 Month
Req't
Mean
Current
Predicted
35
Min
Mean
Max
21
35
41
50
75
100
Simulation
Average Exits Std. Dev. 95% Low 95% High
33.7
7.3
28.48
38.92
19.69
32.09
36.84
42.1
44.39
44.87
4.24
6.32
4.82
4.03
1.77
1.59
18.82
30.8
35.85
41.28
44.03
44.55
20.56
33.38
37.83
42.92
44.75
45.19
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 16
P re d ic te d v s . A c tu a l P a rts P ro d u c e d
Simulation Parts Produce d
48
43
38
35
33
A v e r a g e Ex its
95% Low
28
9 5 % H ig h
23
18
20
40
60
80
100
P r e d ic t e d P a r t s P r o d u c e d
Figure 9: Theoretical versus Simulation Part Throughput
4.2.3 Machine Variation for Different Interarrival Rates
Data for each of the machines in the simulation for the varying interarrival times can be
seen in Table 7. This table breaks down the total machine utilization into its component parts.
Figure 10 through Figure 13 show the simulation part throughput versus percent utilization.
VTL C seems to be the limiting machine in the simulation (Figure 10). This lathe has long
machining times and is in operation almost continuously as the part requirements increase. As
the part requirements increase, the machines become less and less idle (Figure 11).
An
interesting finding of the simulation was that the machines were waiting for operators as the part
requirements went above current levels (Figure 12).
It appeared that the operators were
underutilized in the mean delivery case (35 parts) analyzed in section 4.1.
However, the
machines begin to fight for operator time and must wait until an operator is free. While the
operator usage might not be 100%, he still cannot be in two places at once. Finally, Figure 13 is
a plot of the total machine utilization. VTL C approaches 100% utilization around 44 parts, the
limit of the cell.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 17
Table 7: Percent Utilization of Machines in Simulation
3 Month Req't
21
35
41
50
75
100
Simulation
19.69
32.09
36.84
42.1
44.39
44.87
% Operation
4.73
7.92
9.28
11.32
17.12
22.76
VTL A
% Idle % Waiting
94.11
1.16
88.47
3.61
85.72
5
81.36
7.33
70.84
12.04
60.96
16.28
% Blocked
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average % Utilization
5.89
11.53
14.28
18.65
29.16
39.04
3 Month Req't
21
35
41
50
75
100
Simulation
19.69
32.09
36.84
42.1
44.39
44.87
% Operation
0.66
1.1
1.28
1.5
1.72
1.75
Abrasive Brush
% Idle % Waiting
99.34
0
98.89
0
98.72
0
98.5
0
98.28
0
98.25
0
% Blocked
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average % Utilization
0.66
1.1
1.28
1.5
1.72
1.75
3 Month Req't
21
35
41
50
75
100
Simulation
19.69
32.09
36.84
42.1
44.39
44.87
% Operation
19.26
32.1
37.52
44.85
54.45
55.43
VTL B
% Idle % Waiting
76.92
3.82
57.34
10.56
48.03
14.45
34.12
21.03
14.3
31.25
12.46
32.11
% Blocked
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average % Utilization
23.08
42.66
51.97
65.88
85.7
87.54
3 Month Req't
21
35
41
50
75
100
Simulation
19.69
32.09
36.84
42.1
44.39
44.87
% Operation
12.92
21.27
24.51
28.34
30.44
30.79
5-Axis Mill
% Idle % Waiting
82.84
4.1
63.58
14.67
53.82
21.19
38.67
32.22
21.45
47.88
19.98
49.04
% Blocked
0.14
0.48
0.48
0.77
0.24
0.19
Average % Utilization
17.16
36.42
46.18
61.33
78.56
80.02
3 Month Req't
21
35
41
50
75
100
Simulation
19.69
32.09
36.84
42.1
44.39
44.87
% Operation
34.25
56.58
66.06
77.86
90.16
91.21
VTL C
% Idle % Waiting
63.38
2.37
38.7
4.72
28.4
5.54
16.13
6.01
4.35
5.49
3.34
5.45
% Blocked
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average % Utilization
36.62
61.3
71.6
83.87
95.65
96.66
3 Month Req't
21
35
41
50
75
100
Simulation
19.69
32.09
36.84
42.1
44.39
44.87
% Operation
9.02
14.87
17.13
19.9
21.85
22.12
Grind
% Idle % Waiting
90.98
0
85.13
0
82.87
0
80.1
0
78.15
0
77.88
0
% Blocked
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average % Utilization
9.02
14.87
17.13
19.9
21.85
22.12
3 Month Req't
21
35
41
50
75
100
Simulation
19.69
32.09
36.84
42.1
44.39
44.87
% Operation
27.01
44.56
51.92
61.08
70.31
71.13
VTL D
% Idle % Waiting
71.64
1.36
51.63
3.8
43.16
4.92
32.64
6.28
22.57
7.12
21.1
7.77
% Blocked
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average % Utilization
28.37
48.36
56.84
67.36
77.43
78.9
3 Month Req't
21
35
41
50
75
100
Simulation
19.69
32.09
36.84
42.1
44.39
44.87
% Operation
3.71
6.05
6.95
7.94
8.36
8.45
Balance
% Idle % Waiting
93.3
2.99
85.1
8.85
81.4
11.64
76.76
15.3
74.21
17.43
73.09
18.46
% Blocked
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average % Utilization
6.7
14.9
18.59
23.24
25.79
26.91
3 Month Req't
21
35
41
50
75
100
Simulation
19.69
32.09
36.84
42.1
44.39
44.87
% Operation
17.69
29.24
33.99
40.05
45.98
46.55
Broach
% Idle % Waiting
79.49
2.55
62.76
7.18
55.03
9.8
43.33
14.81
27.44
24.26
26.32
24.78
% Blocked
0.27
0.82
1.18
1.81
2.33
2.35
Average % Utilization
20.51
37.24
44.97
56.67
72.57
73.68
3 Month Req't
21
35
41
50
75
100
Simulation
19.69
32.09
36.84
42.1
44.39
44.87
% Operation
0.34
0.56
0.64
0.73
0.77
0.78
Wash
% Idle % Waiting
99.06
0.52
97.54
1.67
96.91
2.19
96.38
2.62
96.82
2.27
96.61
2.51
% Blocked
0.07
0.24
0.27
0.27
0.14
0.09
Average % Utilization
0.93
2.47
3.1
3.62
3.18
3.38
3 Month Req't
21
35
41
50
75
100
Simulation
19.69
32.09
36.84
42.1
44.39
44.87
% Operation
7.85
12.85
14.79
17
18.2
18.35
Deburr
% Idle % Waiting
90.23
1.73
82.5
3.82
79.47
4.83
75.54
6.42
73.42
8.07
72.19
9.17
% Blocked
0.2
0.84
0.9
1.04
0.31
0.29
Average % Utilization
9.78
17.51
20.52
24.46
26.58
27.81
3 Month Req't
21
35
41
50
75
100
Simulation
19.69
32.09
36.84
42.1
44.39
44.87
% Operation
5.09
8.3
9.54
10.9
11.48
11.63
FPI/Peen/Mark
% Idle % Waiting
94.91
0
91.7
0
90.46
0
89.1
0
88.52
0
88.37
0
% Blocked
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average % Utilization
5.09
8.3
9.54
10.9
11.48
11.63
Machine % Operation
100
90
VTL A
80
VTL B
VTL C
% Operation
70
VTL D
60
Broach
Deburr
50
Abrasive Brush
40
5-Axis Mill
30
Grind
Balance
20
Wash
10
FPI/Peen/Mark
0
18
23
28
33
38
43
48
Simulation Parts Produced (3 months)
Figure 10: Percent Machine Operation for Varying True Part Outputs
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 18
Machine % Idle
100
90
VTL A
80
VTL B
VTL C
70
VTL D
% Idle
60
Broach
Deburr
50
Abrasive Brush
40
5-Axis Mill
30
Grind
Balance
20
Wash
FPI/Peen/Mark
10
0
18
23
28
33
38
43
48
Simulation Parts Produced (3 months)
Figure 11: Percent Machine is Idle for Varying True Part Outputs
Machine % Waiting
100
90
VTL A
80
VTL B
VTL C
70
% Waiting
VTL D
60
Broach
50
Deburr
Abrasive Brush
40
5-Axis Mill
30
Grind
Balance
20
Wash
FPI/Peen/Mark
10
0
18
23
28
33
38
43
48
Simulation Parts Produced (3 months)
Figure 12: Percent Machine Waiting for Resources for Varying True Part Outputs
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 19
Machine % Utilization
100
90
VTL A
80
VTL B
% Utilization
70
VTL C
VTL D
60
Broach
Deburr
50
Abrasive Brush
40
5-Axis Mill
Grind
30
Balance
Wash
20
FPI/Peen/Mark
10
0
18
23
28
33
38
43
48
Simulation Parts Produced (3 months)
Figure 13: Percent Total Machine Utilization for Varying True Part Outputs
4.2.4 Operator and Entity Variation for Different Interarrival Rates
The percentage of time the part spends during its travel through the cell can be seen in
Table 8. This shows the fraction the part is waiting for a resource (an operator to move it or start
the machine), in operation, moving between queues or machines, and blocked by another part.
Figure 14 shows that as the three-month part requirement increases, the amount of time the part
is in operation decreases. As a result, the part cannot move through the cell as quickly and the
efficiency of the cell decreases. At the current level of production of around 35 parts per three
months, the part moves fairly smoothly through the cell. However, at about 44 parts, the cell
reaches a point of saturation.
The time the parts spend in operation decreases almost
exponentially. The reason for this is appears to be that the parts are waiting for an operator, and
not because the machines are at full capacity.
Table 8: Status of Part at Different Interarrival Rates
3 Month
Req't
21
35
41
50
75
100
Simulation
19.69
32.09
36.84
42.1
44.39
44.87
Entity States
% in Move Logic % Wait for Resource % in Operation % Blocked
7.41
6.82
77.86
7.9
10.57
11.3
62.97
15.12
11.49
13.86
56.1
18.55
11.25
21.51
45.27
21.98
7.46
47.1
25.41
20.02
6.11
56.02
20.7
17.16
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 20
Entity States - Part 52L002
90
80
Percent, %
70
60
50
%
%
%
%
40
30
in Move Logic
Wait for Resource
in Operation
Blocked
20
10
0
18
23
28
33
38
Simulation Exits (3 months)
43
48
Figure 14: Part Status as Three-Month Part Requirement Increases
The percentage of time that the operators spend on varying tasks can be seen in Table 9.
Figure 15 demonstrates that the operator usage increases greatly as the part schedule rises.
Operator A seems to be busier than operator B. Perhaps one improvement could be to have
operator B take over one of A’s machines. For the current cell load, two operators seem
sufficient. However, if the part requirement increases, more operators should be added to the
system to improve overall performance, decrease operator workload, and ensure part throughput.
Table 9: Operator Usage at Different Interarrival Rates
3 Month
Req't
21
35
41
50
75
100
Simulation
19.69
32.09
36.84
42.1
44.39
44.87
% In Use
32.81
54.37
63.38
74.85
87.2
88.37
Operator A
% Idle
% Down
62.21
4.98
40.67
4.96
31.64
4.98
20.14
5.01
7.74
5.06
6.66
4.97
% In Use
26
42.75
49.51
57.76
65.93
68.93
Operator B
% Idle
% Down
69.06
4.94
52.25
5
45.49
4.99
37.29
4.95
29.16
4.9
26.11
4.97
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 21
% Operator "In Use"
100
% In Use
90
80
Operator A
70
Operator B
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
18
23
28
33
38
43
48
Simulation Parts Produced
Figure 15: Operator Usage as Part Requirement Increases
5.0 Conclusions
One potential addition to the cell to improve part throughput is the addition of machinery.
The three most used machines are all VTLs. As a result, another VTL probably should be added
to the system if the part schedule is to increase. An “overflow” VTL could prevent bottlenecking
in the cell and allow the parts to flow more smoothly. This would prevent parts fighting for
space in a machine. The other machines are not utilized as much since the operation times are
much shorter than the VTL operations. While some of the out-of-cell machines are shared
between cells, the operation times are so short for these operations that the parts have no real
wait time.
The second largest player in the simulation was the operators. The two operators become
saturated with work very quickly at levels of productions greater than the current 35-part
requirement. Either the workload between the operators needs to be adjusted or another operator
needs to be added when production schedules are increased.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 22
6.0 References and Acknowledgements
6.1 References
Griffith, Steve, et. al. “TMC Rotors Cell 3106 One Piece Flow Plan, Revision B.” Standard
Work Presentation. Summer 2000.
Harrell, Charles, Biman Ghosh, and Royce Bowden. Simulation Using ProModel. Boston:
McGraw Hill, 2000.
Law, Averill M., and W. David Kelton. Simulation Modeling and Analysis. Third Edition.
Boston: McGraw Hill, 2000.
6.2 Acknowledgements
The simulation team would like to thank:
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Hartford, Connecticut, United States
The following faculty advisors for their guidance:
Professor Ernesto Gutierrez-Miravete
The following Pratt & Whitney Manufacturing Engineers:
Steve Ali
Ken Getek
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Appendix A: View Text File from ProModel Simulation
Page 23
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 24
********************************************************************************
*
*
*
Formatted Listing of Model:
*
*
C:\WINDOWS\DESKTOP\FINAL_~1.MOD
*
*
*
********************************************************************************
Time Units:
Distance Units:
Minutes
Feet
********************************************************************************
*
Locations
*
********************************************************************************
Name
--------------------Sunstrand_5_Axis_Mill
VTL_A
VTL_B
VTL_D
VTL_C
Broach
Balance
Out_of_Cell
Out_of_Cell_3
Out_of_Cell_2
Typhoon_Wash
Deburr
Queue_VTL_A
Queue_VTL_B
Queue_VTL_D
Queue_VTL_C
Queue_Broach
Queue_5_Axis_Mill
Queue_Out_of_Cell_3
Queue_Deburr
Cap
-------1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
INFINITE
INFINITE
INFINITE
INFINITE
INFINITE
INFINITE
INFINITE
1
Units
----1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Stats
----------Time Series
Time Series
Time Series
Time Series
Time Series
Time Series
Time Series
Time Series
Time Series
Time Series
Time Series
Time Series
Time Series
Time Series
Time Series
Time Series
Time Series
Time Series
Time Series
Time Series
Rules
Cost
-------------- -----------Oldest, ,
Oldest, ,
Oldest, ,
Oldest, ,
Oldest, ,
Oldest, ,
Oldest, ,
Oldest, ,
Oldest, ,
Oldest, ,
Oldest, ,
Oldest, ,
Oldest, FIFO,
Oldest, FIFO,
Oldest, FIFO,
Oldest, FIFO,
Oldest, FIFO,
Oldest, FIFO,
Oldest, FIFO,
Oldest, ,
********************************************************************************
*
Entities
*
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 25
********************************************************************************
Name
----------Part_52L002
Part_53L202
Part_53L402
Part_53L702
Speed (fpm)
-----------150
150
150
150
Stats
Cost
----------- -----------Time Series
Time Series
Time Series
Time Series
********************************************************************************
*
Path Networks
*
********************************************************************************
Name
Type
T/S
From
------------- ----------- ---------------- --------Operator_path Passing
Speed & Distance N1
N3
N4
N2
N6
N8
N9
N11
N12
N14
N14
N13
N7
N5
N15
N16
N17
N17
N18
N19
N3
N20
N23
N16
N23
To
--------N2
N2
N5
N5
N7
N7
N10
N10
N13
N8
N13
N11
N10
N7
N5
N17
N14
N15
N17
N18
N18
N19
N19
N23
N20
BI
---Bi
Bi
Bi
Bi
Bi
Bi
Bi
Bi
Bi
Bi
Bi
Bi
Bi
Bi
Bi
Bi
Bi
Bi
Bi
Bi
Bi
Bi
Bi
Bi
Bi
Dist/Time
---------1
1
1
1
1
20.09
1
1
1
13.00
38.83
1
1
1
1
1
37.00
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Speed Factor
-----------1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Crane_path
Crane
Forklift_path Passing
Page 26
N21
N22
N24
Speed & Distance Origin
Origin
BridgeEnd
Speed & Distance N1
N14
N14
N14
Rail1End
BridgeEnd
Rail2End
N2
Bi
Bi
Bi
Uni
Uni
Uni
Bi
25.07
32.28
26.87
1
1
1
50
1
********************************************************************************
*
Interfaces
*
********************************************************************************
Net
Node
------------- ---------Operator_path N1
N4
N4
N6
N6
N9
N9
N11
N11
N12
N12
N8
N8
N16
N15
N15
N19
N19
N20
N3
Crane_path
Rail1End
Origin
Forklift_path N1
N2
Location
--------------------Out_of_Cell
Queue_VTL_A
VTL_A
Queue_VTL_B
VTL_B
Queue_Broach
Broach
Sunstrand_5_Axis_Mill
Queue_5_Axis_Mill
Out_of_Cell_3
Queue_Out_of_Cell_3
VTL_C
Queue_VTL_C
Balance
VTL_D
Queue_VTL_D
Deburr
Queue_Deburr
Out_of_Cell_2
Typhoon_Wash
Queue_VTL_A
Out_of_Cell
Queue_VTL_A
Queue_VTL_B
Coords (R,B)
------------
28.57, 0.00
0.00, 0.00
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 27
********************************************************************************
*
Resources
*
********************************************************************************
Res
Name
Units Stats
Search
-------- ----- -------- ------Op_A
1
By Unit Closest
Ent
Search Path
------ ------------Oldest Operator_path
Home: N24
(Return)
Motion
Cost
----------------- -----------Empty: 150000 fpm
Full: 150000 fpm
Op_B
1
By Unit
Closest Oldest Operator_path Empty: 150000 fpm
Home: N21
Full: 150000 fpm
(Return)
Crane
1
By Unit
Closest Oldest Crane_path
Home: Origin
(Return)
Forklift 1
By Unit
Closest Oldest Forklift_path Empty: 1 fpm
Home: N2
Full: 1 fpm
(Return)
Empty: 1,1 fpm
Full: 1,1 fpm
********************************************************************************
*
Clock downtimes for Resources
*
********************************************************************************
Res
Frequency First Time Priority
-------- ---------- ---------- ---------Op_A
E(2400)
E(2400)
E(2400)
E(2400)
Op_B
E(2400)
E(2400)
E(2400)
E(2400)
Scheduled Node
List
--------- -------- -------No
No
No
No
No
Disable
------No
No
No
No
No
Logic
-----------WAIT N(30, 1.5) MIN
WAIT N(60, 3.0) MIN
WAIT N(15, 0.75) MIN
WAIT N(15, 0.75) MIN
WAIT N(30, 1.5) MIN
No
No
No
No
No
No
WAIT N(60, 3.0) MIN
WAIT N(15, 0.75) MIN
WAIT N(15, 0.75) MIN
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 28
********************************************************************************
*
Processing
*
********************************************************************************
Process
Entity
Location
Operation
Move Logic
----------- --------------------- -------------------------Part_52L002 Queue_VTL_A
Walk Time
MOVE WITH Op_B THEN FREE
Part_52L002 VTL_A
MOVE WITH Op_B THEN FREE
Part_52L002 Queue_VTL_B
MOVE WITH Op_A THEN FREE
Part_52L002 VTL_B
MOVE WITH Op_A THEN FREE
Part_52L002 Queue_VTL_C
MOVE WITH Op_A THEN FREE
Part_52L002 VTL_C
Routing
Blk
Output
Destination
Rule
---- ----------- --------------------- -------
---
1
#
Part_52L002 VTL_A
# Turn, Op. 1030
# Change over time
USE Op_B FOR 0.0 MIN
# Manual Internal Time
USE Op_B FOR N(11.07, 0.55) MIN
# Manual External Time
USE Op_B FOR N(41.08, 2.05) MIN
# Auto Time
WAIT N(73.10, 3.66) MIN
1
Part_52L002 Queue_VTL_B
1
Part_52L002 VTL_B
# Turn, Op. 1040
USE Op_A FOR 0.0 min
USE Op_A FOR N(191.41, 9.57) min
USE Op_A FOR N(74.02, 3.70) min
WAIT N(250.76, 12.54) min
1
Part_52L002 Queue_VTL_C
1
Part_52L002 VTL_C
# Turn, Op. 1050
USE Op_A FOR 0.0 min
USE Op_A FOR N(332.90, 16.65) min
USE Op_A FOR N(105.83, 5.29) min
WAIT N(494.86, 24.74) min
FIRST 1
FIRST 1
FIRST 1
FIRST 1
FIRST 1
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
MOVE WITH Op_A THEN FREE
Part_52L002 Queue_VTL_D
MOVE WITH Op_B THEN FREE
Part_52L002 VTL_D
Page 29
MOVE WITH Op_A THEN FREE
Part_52L002 Queue_Deburr
MOVE WITH Op_B THEN FREE
Part_52L002 Deburr
MOVE WITH Op_B THEN FREE
Part_52L002 Out_of_Cell_2
Part_52L002 Queue_VTL_D
FIRST 1
1
Part_52L002 VTL_D
FIRST 1
# Turn, Op. 1060
USE Op_B FOR 0.0 min
USE Op_B FOR N(189.35, 9.47) min
USE Op_B FOR N(95.19, 4.76) min
WAIT N(380.51, 19.03) min
1
Part_52L002 Queue_Broach
MOVE WITH Op_B THEN FREE
Part_52L002 Queue_Broach
MOVE WITH Op_A FOR N(3.26, 0.16) MIN THEN FREE
Part_52L002 Broach
1
1
Part_52L002 Broach
# Broach, Op. 1080
USE Op_A FOR 0.0 min
USE Op_A FOR N(18.00, 0.90) min
USE Op_A FOR N(68.26, 3.41) min
WAIT N(410.14, 20.51) min
1
Part_52L002 Queue_Deburr
1
Part_52L002 Deburr
# Deburr, Op. 1090
USE Op_B FOR 0.0 min
USE Op_B FOR 0.0 min
USE Op_B FOR N(36.93, 1.85) min
WAIT 0.0 min
1
Part_52L002 Out_of_Cell_2
FIRST 1
FIRST 1
FIRST 1
FIRST 1
FIRST 1
# Abrasive Brush, Op. 1100
WAIT N(5.0, 0.25) MIN
WAIT N(2.0, 0.1) MIN
WAIT 0.0 MIN
WAIT N(5.0, 0.25) MIN
# Mark, Op. 1120
WAIT 0.0 MIN
WAIT 0.0 MIN
WAIT N(6.82, 0.34) MIN
WAIT 0.0 MIN
1
Part_52L002 Queue_5_Axis_Mill
FIRST 1
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Part_52L002 Queue_5_Axis_Mill
1
Part_52L002
MOVE WITH Op_A THEN FREE
Part_52L002 Sunstrand_5_Axis_Mill # Mill, Op. 1130
USE Op_A FOR 0.0 min
USE Op_A FOR N(16.68, 0.83) min
USE Op_A FOR N(27.76, 1.39) min
WAIT N(138.01, 6.90) min
1
Part_52L002
MOVE WITH Op_A THEN FREE
Part_52L002 Queue_Out_of_Cell_3
1
Part_52L002
Part_52L002 Out_of_Cell_3
# Grind, Op. 1195
WAIT 0.0 MIN
WAIT N(33.35, 1.67) MIN
WAIT N(42.11, 2.11) MIN
WAIT N(33.35, 1.67) MIN
1
Part_52L002
Part_52L002 Queue_VTL_D
1
Part_52L002
MOVE WITH Op_B THEN FREE
Part_52L002 VTL_D
# Turn, Op. 1170
USE Op_B FOR 0.0 min
USE Op_B FOR N(25.55, 1.28) min
USE Op_B FOR N(33.68, 1.68) min
WAIT N(25.55, 1.28) min
1
Part_52L002
MOVE WITH Op_B THEN FREE
Part_52L002 Queue_Out_of_Cell_3
1
Part_52L002
Part_52L002 Out_of_Cell_3
# Grind, Op. 1195
WAIT 0.0 MIN
WAIT N(33.08, 1.65) MIN
WAIT N(20.06, 1.00) MIN
WAIT N(96.35, 4.82) MIN
1
Part_52L002
Part_52L002 Queue_5_Axis_Mill
1
Part_52L002
MOVE WITH Op_A FOR N(1.48,0.07) MIN THEN FREE
Part_52L002 Sunstrand_5_Axis_Mill # Mill, Op. 1200
USE Op_A FOR 0.0 min
USE Op_A FOR N(29.05, 1.45) min
USE Op_A FOR N(30.90, 1.55) min
WAIT N(128.51, 6.43) min
Page 30
Sunstrand_5_Axis_Mill FIRST 1
Queue_Out_of_Cell_3
FIRST 1
Out_of_Cell_3
FIRST 1
Queue_VTL_D
VTL_D
FIRST 1
FIRST 1
Queue_Out_of_Cell_3
FIRST 1
Out_of_Cell_3
FIRST 1
Queue_5_Axis_Mill
FIRST 1
Sunstrand_5_Axis_Mill FIRST 1
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 31
MOVE WITH Op_A THEN FREE
Part_52L002 Queue_Deburr
MOVE WITH Op_B THEN FREE
Part_52L002 Deburr
1
Part_52L002 Queue_Deburr
FIRST 1
1
Part_52L002 Deburr
FIRST 1
# Deburr, Op. 1240
USE Op_B FOR 0.0 min
USE Op_B FOR 0.0 min
USE Op_B FOR N(189.52, 9.48) min
WAIT 0.0 min
1
Part_52L002 Balance
FIRST 1
MOVE WITH Op_B THEN FREE
Part_52L002 Balance
# Balance, Op. 1250
USE Op_B FOR N(22.09, 1.10) min
USE Op_B FOR 0.0 min
USE Op_B FOR N(22.09, 1.10) min
WAIT 0.0 min
# Balance, Op. 1260
USE Op_B FOR N(6.57, 0.33) min
USE Op_B FOR N(2.49, 0.12) min
USE Op_B FOR N(4.08, 0.20) min
WAIT N(2.49, 0.12) min
# Balance, Op. 1270
USE Op_B FOR N(22.48, 1.12) min
USE Op_B FOR N(3.05, 0.15) min
USE Op_B FOR N(19.43, 0.97) min
WAIT N(3.06, 0.15) min
1
Part_52L002 Typhoon_Wash
FIRST 1
# Wash, Op. 1280
USE Op_B FOR 0.0 min
USE Op_B FOR N(2.54, 0.13) min
USE Op_B FOR N(4.89, 0.24) min
WAIT N(2.54, 0.13) min
1
Part_52L002 Out_of_Cell
FIRST 1
MOVE WITH Op_B THEN FREE
Part_52L002 Typhoon_Wash
MOVE WITH Op_B THEN FREE
Part_52L002 Out_of_Cell
# FPI, Op. 1330
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 32
WAIT
WAIT
WAIT
WAIT
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
MIN
MIN
MIN
MIN
# Shot Peen, Op. 1350
WAIT N(10.0, 0.50) MIN
WAIT N(1.00, 0.05) MIN
WAIT N(23.63, 1.18) MIN
WAIT N(75.75, 3.79) MIN
# Wash, Op. 1360
WAIT 0.0 MIN
WAIT N(5.65, 0.28) MIN
WAIT N(5.27, 0.26) MIN
WAIT N(5.65, 0.28) MIN
# Mark, Op. 1380
WAIT N(15.12, 0.76) MIN
WAIT 0.0 MIN
WAIT N(6.82, 0.34) MIN
WAIT 0.0 MIN
# Increment # of Exits
num_exits=num_exits+1
1
Part_52L002 Queue_VTL_A
FIRST 1
1
Part_52L002 Queue_VTL_B
FIRST 1
1
Part_52L002 EXIT
FIRST 1
MOVE WITH Crane THEN FREE
Part_52L002 Queue_VTL_A
MOVE WITH Forklift THEN FREE
Part_52L002 Queue_VTL_B
********************************************************************************
*
Arrivals
*
********************************************************************************
Entity
Location
Qty each
First Time Occurrences Frequency
Logic
----------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Part_52L002 Queue_VTL_A 1
Page 33
Inf
E(1563.429)
********************************************************************************
*
Variables (global)
*
********************************************************************************
ID
Type
Initial value Stats
---------- ------------ ------------- ----------num_exits Integer
0
Time Series
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Appendix B: Sample Output File from ProModel Simulation
Page 34
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 35
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------General Report
Output from C:\WINDOWS\DESKTOP\FINAL_~1.MOD [Final Project]
Date: Dec/04/2000
Time: 11:42:32 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Scenario
: Normal Run
Replication
: Average
Period
: Final Report (0 sec to 960 hr Elapsed: 960 hr)
Simulation Time : 960 hr
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------LOCATIONS
Capacity
-------1
0
Total
Entries
------66.3
12.7727
Average
Minutes
Per Entry
----------309.387867
42.850047
Average
Contents
---------0.364239
0.1178
Maximum
Contents
-------1
0
Current
Contents
----------0.41
0.494311
% Util
-----36.42
11.78
(Average)
(Std.
960
1
63.688
300.625032
0.340149
1
0.308913
34.01
(95% C.I.
960
1
68.912
318.150701
0.38833
1
0.511087
38.83
(95% C.I.
VTL A
VTL A
Dev.)
VTL A
Low)
VTL A
High)
960
0
1
0
36.47
6.6309
179.867516
18.550714
0.115314
0.0301478
1
0
0.15
0.35887
11.53
3.01
(Average)
(Std.
960
1
35.114
176.073895
0.109149
1
0.076611
10.91
(95% C.I.
960
1
37.826
183.661137
0.121479
1
0.223389
12.15
(95% C.I.
VTL B
VTL B
Dev.)
VTL B
Low)
VTL B
High)
960
0
1
0
36.07
6.5663
674.512468
46.561934
0.426614
0.101795
1
0
0.5
0.502519
42.66
10.18
(Average)
(Std.
960
1
34.7272
664.990553
0.405797
1
0.397235
40.58
(95% C.I.
960
1
37.4128
684.034384
0.447431
1
0.602765
44.74
(95% C.I.
VTL D
VTL D
Dev.)
960
0
1
0
67.79
12.8364
409.602804
10.772050
0.483648
0.0998673
1
0
0.55
0.5
48.36
9.99
(Average)
(Std.
Location
Name
--------------------Sunstrand 5 Axis Mill
Sunstrand 5 Axis Mill
Dev.)
Sunstrand 5 Axis Mill
Low)
Sunstrand 5 Axis Mill
High)
Scheduled
Hours
--------960
0
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 36
VTL D
Low)
VTL D
High)
960
1
65.165
407.399920
0.463225
1
0.44775
46.32
(95% C.I.
960
1
70.415
411.805689
0.504071
1
0.65225
50.41
(95% C.I.
VTL C
VTL C
Dev.)
VTL C
Low)
VTL C
High)
960
0
1
0
35.32
6.53642
998.950766
17.859854
0.612972
0.11551
1
0
0.66
0.476095
61.30
11.55
(Average)
(Std.
960
1
33.9833
995.298426
0.58935
1
0.562639
58.93
(95% C.I.
960
1
36.6567
1002.603106
0.636593
1
0.757361
63.66
(95% C.I.
Broach
Broach
Dev.)
Broach
Low)
Broach
High)
960
0
1
0
34.14
6.49789
623.855680
37.728150
0.372431
0.0851626
1
0
0.43
0.49757
37.24
8.52
(Average)
(Std.
960
1
32.8112
616.140274
0.355016
1
0.328247
35.50
(95% C.I.
960
1
35.4688
631.571087
0.389847
1
0.531753
38.98
(95% C.I.
Balance
Balance
Dev.)
Balance
Low)
Balance
High)
960
0
1
0
32.45
6.3808
258.782220
41.516857
0.149052
0.0477922
1
0
0.2
0.402015
14.91
4.78
(Average)
(Std.
960
1
31.1451
250.292023
0.139278
1
0.117788
13.93
(95% C.I.
960
1
33.7549
267.272417
0.158825
1
0.282212
15.88
(95% C.I.
Out of
Out of
Dev.)
Out of
Low)
Out of
High)
Cell
Cell
960
0
1
0
32.2
6.30696
148.502194
1.229223
0.0830189
0.0162699
1
0
0.11
0.314466
8.30
1.63
(Average)
(Std.
Cell
960
1
30.9102
148.250818
0.0796917
1
0.0456917
7.97
(95% C.I.
Cell
960
1
33.4898
148.753571
0.0863461
1
0.174308
8.63
(95% C.I.
Out of
Out of
Dev.)
Out of
Low)
Out of
High)
Cell 3
Cell 3
960
0
1
0
66.36
12.7458
129.068039
0.638121
0.148707
0.0286327
1
0
0.14
0.348735
14.87
2.86
(Average)
(Std.
Cell 3
960
1
63.7535
128.937544
0.142852
1
0.0686837
14.29
(95% C.I.
Cell 3
960
1
68.9665
129.198535
0.154562
1
0.211316
15.46
(95% C.I.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Out of
Out of
Dev.)
Out of
Low)
Out of
High)
Page 37
Cell 2
Cell 2
960
0
1
0
33.58
6.36623
18.822956
0.098404
0.010974
0.00208434
1
0
0.01
0.1
1.10
0.21
(Average)
(Std.
Cell 2
960
1
32.2781
18.802833
0.0105477
1
-0.01045
1.05
(95% C.I.
Cell 2
960
1
34.8819
18.843080
0.0114002
1
0.03045
1.14
(95% C.I.
Wash
Wash
960
0
1
0
32.25
6.32515
42.567271
12.430730
0.0246377
0.0104998
1
0
0.05
0.219043
2.46
1.05
(Average)
(Std.
Wash
960
1
30.9565
40.025187
0.0224905
1
0.00520572
2.25
(95% C.I.
Wash
960
1
33.5435
45.109355
0.0267849
1
0.0947943
2.68
(95% C.I.
Deburr
Deburr
Dev.)
Deburr
Low)
Deburr
High)
960
0
1
0
66.23
12.7484
151.029437
10.151416
0.175039
0.0419295
1
0
0.2
0.402015
17.50
4.19
(Average)
(Std.
960
1
63.6229
148.953473
0.166465
1
0.117788
16.65
(95% C.I.
960
1
68.8371
153.105402
0.183614
1
0.282212
18.36
(95% C.I.
Queue
Queue
Dev.)
Queue
Low)
Queue
High)
VTL A
VTL A
960
0
999999
0
36.49
6.62791
49.377822
21.949742
0.0326938
0.0182237
1.66
0.554504
0.02
0.140705
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std.
VTL A
960
999999
35.1346
44.889099
0.0289671
1.5466
-0.00877423
0.00
(95% C.I.
VTL A
960
999999
37.8454
53.866544
0.0364206
1.7734
0.0487742
0.00
(95% C.I.
Queue
Queue
Dev.)
Queue
Low)
Queue
High)
VTL B
VTL B
960
0
999999
0
36.32
6.62545
395.772933
321.141002
0.274886
0.27259
2.67
1.13756
0.25
0.609272
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std.
VTL B
960
999999
34.9651
330.099598
0.219141
2.43737
0.125404
0.00
(95% C.I.
VTL B
960
999999
37.6749
461.446268
0.33063
2.90263
0.374596
0.00
(95% C.I.
Queue VTL D
Queue VTL D
Dev.)
Queue VTL D
Low)
960
0
999999
0
67.91
12.9257
112.272116
41.574307
0.13971
0.0708191
1.86
0.471833
0.12
0.326599
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std.
960
999999
65.2667
103.770171
0.125228
1.76351
0.0532106
0.00
(95% C.I.
Typhoon
Typhoon
Dev.)
Typhoon
Low)
Typhoon
High)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 38
Queue VTL D
High)
960
999999
70.5533
120.774062
0.154193
1.95649
0.186789
0.00
(95% C.I.
Queue
Queue
Dev.)
Queue
Low)
Queue
High)
VTL C
VTL C
960
0
999999
0
35.57
6.60464
367.798127
291.609226
0.252494
0.255469
1.6
0.724743
0.25
0.538891
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std.
VTL C
960
999999
34.2194
308.164040
0.20025
1.45179
0.139797
0.00
(95% C.I.
VTL C
960
999999
36.9206
427.432214
0.304737
1.74821
0.360203
0.00
(95% C.I.
Queue
Queue
Dev.)
Queue
Low)
Queue
High)
Broach
Broach
960
0
999999
0
34.17
6.48861
49.729092
33.887520
0.0308595
0.022954
1
0
0.03
0.171447
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std.
Broach
960
999999
32.8431
42.799094
0.0261654
1
-0.00506083
0.00
(95% C.I.
Broach
960
999999
35.4969
56.659090
0.0355536
1
0.0650608
0.00
(95% C.I.
Queue
Queue
Dev.)
Queue
Low)
Queue
High)
5 Axis Mill
5 Axis Mill
960
0
999999
0
66.54
12.7322
197.218240
177.946118
0.255832
0.308208
2.22
0.859645
0.24
0.429235
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std.
5 Axis Mill
960
999999
63.9363
160.828259
0.192803
2.0442
0.152222
0.00
(95% C.I.
5 Axis Mill
960
999999
69.1437
233.608221
0.31886
2.3958
0.327778
0.00
(95% C.I.
Queue
Queue
Dev.)
Queue
Low)
Queue
High)
Out of Cell 3
Out of Cell 3
960
0
999999
0
66.37
12.7467
5.950273
3.400028
0.0072523
0.00490368
1.07
0.256432
0.01
0.1
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std.
Out of Cell 3
960
999999
63.7633
5.254967
0.0062495
1.01756
-0.01045
0.00
(95% C.I.
Out of Cell 3
960
999999
68.9767
6.645579
0.00825511
1.12244
0.03045
0.00
(95% C.I.
Queue
Queue
Dev.)
Queue
Low)
Queue
High)
Deburr
Deburr
960
0
1
0
66.3
12.8185
34.834597
7.236194
0.0406829
0.013422
1
0
0.07
0.256432
4.07
1.34
(Average)
(Std.
Deburr
960
1
63.6786
33.354796
0.0379381
1
0.0175596
3.79
(95% C.I.
Deburr
960
1
68.9214
36.314399
0.0434277
1
0.12244
4.34
(95% C.I.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 39
LOCATION STATES BY PERCENTAGE (Multiple Capacity)
Location
Name
------------------Queue VTL A
Queue VTL A
Queue VTL A
Queue VTL A
Scheduled
Hours
--------960
0
960
960
%
Empty
----96.93
1.58
96.61
97.26
%
Partially
Occupied
--------3.07
1.58
2.74
3.39
%
Full
---0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
Down
---0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
Queue
Queue
Queue
Queue
VTL
VTL
VTL
VTL
B
B
B
B
960
0
960
960
82.01
11.51
79.65
84.36
17.99
11.51
15.64
20.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
|
|
|
|
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
Queue
Queue
Queue
Queue
VTL
VTL
VTL
VTL
D
D
D
D
960
0
960
960
86.35
6.76
84.97
87.73
13.65
6.76
12.27
15.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
|
|
|
|
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
Queue
Queue
Queue
Queue
VTL
VTL
VTL
VTL
C
C
C
C
960
0
960
960
79.44
14.15
76.54
82.33
20.56
14.15
17.67
23.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
|
|
|
|
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
Queue
Queue
Queue
Queue
Broach
Broach
Broach
Broach
960
0
960
960
96.91
2.30
96.44
97.38
3.09
2.30
2.62
3.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
|
|
|
|
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
Queue
Queue
Queue
Queue
5
5
5
5
960
0
960
960
80.43
13.61
77.64
83.21
19.57
13.61
16.79
22.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
|
|
|
|
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
Queue
Queue
Queue
Queue
Out
Out
Out
Out
960
0
960
960
99.28
0.48
99.18
99.38
0.72
0.48
0.62
0.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
|
|
|
|
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
Axis
Axis
Axis
Axis
of
of
of
of
Mill
Mill
Mill
Mill
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
3
3
3
3
LOCATION STATES BY PERCENTAGE (Single Capacity/Tanks)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Location
Name
--------------------Sunstrand 5 Axis Mill
Sunstrand 5 Axis Mill
Sunstrand 5 Axis Mill
Sunstrand 5 Axis Mill
Page 40
Scheduled
Hours
--------960
0
960
960
%
Operation
--------21.27
4.09
20.43
22.11
%
Setup
----0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
%
Idle
----63.58
11.78
61.17
65.98
%
Waiting
------14.67
7.70
13.10
16.25
%
Blocked
------0.48
0.54
0.37
0.59
%
Down
---0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
VTL
VTL
VTL
VTL
A
A
A
A
960
0
960
960
7.92
1.44
7.62
8.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
88.47
3.01
87.85
89.09
3.61
1.70
3.27
3.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
VTL
VTL
VTL
VTL
B
B
B
B
960
0
960
960
32.10
5.91
30.89
33.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
57.34
10.18
55.26
59.42
10.56
4.47
9.65
11.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
VTL
VTL
VTL
VTL
D
D
D
D
960
0
960
960
44.56
8.49
42.83
46.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
51.63
9.99
49.59
53.68
3.80
1.70
3.45
4.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
VTL
VTL
VTL
VTL
C
C
C
C
960
0
960
960
56.58
10.59
54.41
58.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
38.70
11.55
36.34
41.07
4.72
1.25
4.47
4.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
Broach
Broach
Broach
Broach
960
0
960
960
29.24
5.59
28.10
30.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
62.76
8.52
61.02
64.50
7.18
2.92
6.58
7.77
0.82
0.57
0.71
0.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
Balance
Balance
Balance
Balance
960
0
960
960
6.05
1.19
5.81
6.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
85.10
4.78
84.12
86.07
8.85
3.67
8.10
9.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
Out
Out
Out
Out
960
0
960
960
8.30
1.63
7.97
8.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
91.70
1.63
91.37
92.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
960
0
14.87
2.86
0.00
0.00
85.13
2.86
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
of
of
of
of
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Out of Cell 3
Out of Cell 3
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 41
Out of Cell 3
Out of Cell 3
960
960
14.28
15.46
0.00
0.00
84.54
85.72
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
Out
Out
Out
Out
960
0
960
960
1.10
0.21
1.05
1.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
98.90
0.21
98.86
98.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
960
0
960
960
0.56
0.11
0.54
0.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
97.54
1.05
97.32
97.75
1.67
0.88
1.49
1.85
0.24
0.16
0.21
0.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
Deburr
Deburr
Deburr
Deburr
960
0
960
960
12.85
2.48
12.35
13.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
82.50
4.19
81.64
83.35
3.82
1.55
3.50
4.13
0.84
0.62
0.71
0.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
Queue
Queue
Queue
Queue
960
0
960
960
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
95.93
1.34
95.66
96.21
1.55
0.64
1.42
1.68
2.52
0.94
2.33
2.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
of
of
of
of
Cell
Cell
Cell
Cell
Typhoon
Typhoon
Typhoon
Typhoon
2
2
2
2
Wash
Wash
Wash
Wash
Deburr
Deburr
Deburr
Deburr
RESOURCES
Resource
Name
-------Op A
Op A
Op A
Op A
Op
Op
Op
Op
B
B
B
B
Units
----1
0
1
1
Scheduled
Hours
--------960
0
960
960
Number
Of Times
Used
-------856.31
160.806
823.425
889.195
1
0
1
1
960
0
960
960
1303.1
247.501
1252.49
1353.71
RESOURCE STATES BY PERCENTAGE
Average
Minutes
Per
Usage
--------36.591405
0.507274
36.487668
36.695143
% Util
-----54.37
10.08
52.31
56.43
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
18.895011
0.142488
18.865872
18.924150
42.75
8.13
41.09
44.41
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Resource
Name
-------Op A
Op A
Op A
Op A
Op
Op
Op
Op
Page 42
Scheduled
Hours
--------960
0
960
960
%
In Use
-----54.37
10.08
52.31
56.43
%
Idle
----40.67
10.17
38.59
42.75
%
Down
---4.96
0.61
4.83
5.08
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
960
0
960
960
42.75
8.13
41.09
44.41
52.25
8.18
50.58
53.92
5.00
0.59
4.88
5.12
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
B
B
B
B
FAILED ARRIVALS
Entity
Name
----------Part 52L002
Part 52L002
Part 52L002
Part 52L002
Location
Name
----------Queue VTL A
Queue VTL A
Queue VTL A
Queue VTL A
Total
Failed
-----0
0
0
0
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
ENTITY ACTIVITY
Entity
Name
----------Part 52L002
Part 52L002
Part 52L002
Part 52L002
Part
Part
Part
Part
53L202
53L202
53L202
53L202
Total
Exits
------32.09
6.32151
30.7973
33.3827
Current
Quantity
In System
--------4.4
2.60923
3.86641
4.93359
Average
Minutes
In
System
----------6476.618195
1236.980269
6223.655730
6729.580660
Average
Minutes
In Move
Logic
---------692.862598
185.928377
654.840245
730.884951
Average
Minutes
Wait For
Res, etc.
---------794.071529
611.655236
668.988033
919.155024
Average
Minutes
In
Operation
----------3961.723375
7.458615
3960.198088
3963.248662
Average
Minutes
Blocked
----------1027.960694
501.499219
925.404103
1130.517284
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute - DSES-6620-2000
Page 43
Part
Part
Part
Part
53L402
53L402
53L402
53L402
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
Part
Part
Part
Part
53L702
53L702
53L702
53L702
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
ENTITY STATES BY PERCENTAGE
Entity
Name
----------Part 52L002
Part 52L002
Part 52L002
Part 52L002
%
In Move
Logic
------10.57
1.55
10.25
10.89
%
Wait For
Res, etc.
--------11.33
5.10
10.29
12.38
%
In Operation
-----------62.97
9.90
60.95
65.00
%
Blocked
------15.12
4.71
14.16
16.09
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
Part
Part
Part
Part
53L202
53L202
53L202
53L202
-
-
-
-
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
Part
Part
Part
Part
53L402
53L402
53L402
53L402
-
-
-
-
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)
Part
Part
Part
Part
53L702
53L702
53L702
53L702
-
-
-
-
(Average)
(Std. Dev.)
(95% C.I. Low)
(95% C.I. High)