Advertisement

Consideration of Redundancies in the Configuration of Automated Flow Lines

  • Christoph MüllerEmail author
  • Christian Weckenborg
  • Martin Grunewald
  • Thomas S. Spengler
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Logistics book series (LNLO)

Abstract

Highly automated manufacturing systems offer several advantages and are widely introduced as a strategy to improve the performance of manufacturing organizations. Various forms of automated equipment, such as industrial robots or flexible automatic machines, are used extensively in high-volume industrial production. Especially for flow production systems automation has advanced considerably. This type of production system can, for instance, be found in the automotive, home appliance, or electronics industry where highly automated flow lines are mainly implemented for safety, quality, and productivity reasons. A significant challenge in the operation of highly automated assembly lines is the occurrence of equipment failures which impair the throughput rate. Therefore, buffer space is allocated between the stations of an assembly line in order to achieve a desired throughput rate in spite of equipment failures. However, the installation of buffer space requires considerable investments and also leads to an increase of the average work-in-process inventory in the line. A different approach to achieve a desired throughput rate despite equipment failures is a redundant configuration, in which downstream stations automatically take over the operations of failed stations in the event of failure. The throughput loss in these situations mainly depends on the level of redundancy designed into the system. We present an assembly line balancing model for automated assembly lines which maximizes the lines’ level of redundancy for a given number of stations. In a numerical analysis we demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach and show that a redundant configuration allows for significant reductions of required buffer sizes in flow lines with unreliable equipment for a given throughput rate.

Keywords

Assembly Line Equipment Failure Throughput Rate Downstream Station Assembly Line Balance Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Baybars I (1986) A survey of exact algorithms for the simple assembly line balancing problem. Manag Sci 32 (8):909–932Google Scholar
  2. Becker c, Scholl A (2006) A survey on problems and methods in generalized assembly line balancing. Eur J Oper Res 168(3):694–715Google Scholar
  3. Boysen N, Fliedner M, Scholl A (2007) A classification of assembly line balancing problems. Eur J Oper Res 183(2):674–693Google Scholar
  4. Boysen N, Fliedner M, Scholl A (2008) Assembly line balancing: Which model to use when? Int J Prod Econ 111(2):509–528Google Scholar
  5. Bukchin J, Rubinovitz J (2003) A weighted approach for assembly line design with station paralleling and equipment selection. IIE Trans 35(1):73–85Google Scholar
  6. Bukchin J, Tzur M (2000) Design of flexible assembly line to minimize equipment cost. IIE Trans 32(7):585–598Google Scholar
  7. Gershwin SB, Schor JE (2000) Efficient algorithms for buffer space allocation. Ann Oper Res 93(1–4):117–144Google Scholar
  8. Graves SC, Lamar BW (1983) Integer programming procedure for assembly system design problems. Oper Res 31(3):522–545Google Scholar
  9. Graves SC, Redfield CH (1988) Equipment selection and task assignment for multiproduct assembly system design. Int J Flex Manuf Syst 1(1):31–50Google Scholar
  10. Inman R (1999) Empirical evaluation of exponential and independence assumptions in queueing models of manufacturing systems. Prod Oper Manag 8(4):409–432Google Scholar
  11. International Federation of Robotics (2015) Industrial robots statistics. http://www.ifr.org/industrial-robots/statistics/
  12. Kahan T, Bukchin Y, Menassa R, Ben-Gal I (2009) Backup strategy for robots’ failures in an automotive assembly system. Int J Prod Econ 120(2):315–326Google Scholar
  13. Moon D, Cho H, Kim H, Sunwoo H, Jung J (2006) A case study of the body shop design in an automotive factory using 3D simulation. Int J Prod Res 44(18–19):4121–4135Google Scholar
  14. Müller C, Spengler TS, Sodhi MS (2014) Robust flowline design for automotive body shops. In: Guan Y, Liao H (eds) Proceedings of the 2014 industrial and systems engineering research conference, pp 3077–3085Google Scholar
  15. Otto A, Otto C, Scholl A (2013) Systematic data generation and test design for solution algorithms on the example of SALBPGen for assembly line balancing. Eur J Oper Res 228(1):33–45Google Scholar
  16. Rubinovitz J, Bukchin J, Lenz E (1993) RALB—a heuristic algorithm for design and balancing of robotic assembly lines. CIRP Ann—Manuf Technol 42(1):497–500Google Scholar
  17. Salveson ME (1955) The assembly line balancing problem. J Ind Eng 6(3):18–25Google Scholar
  18. Scholl A, Becker C (2006) State-of-the-art exact and heuristic solution procedures for simple assembly line balancing. Eur J Oper Res 168(3):666–693Google Scholar
  19. Spieckermann S, Gutenschwager K, Heinzel H, Voß S (2000) Simulation-based optimization in the automotive industry—a case study on body shop design. Simulation 75(5–6):276–286Google Scholar
  20. Tempelmeier H (2003) Practical considerations in the optimization of flow production systems. Int J Prod Res 41(1):149–170Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Müller
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christian Weckenborg
    • 1
  • Martin Grunewald
    • 2
  • Thomas S. Spengler
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Automotive Management and Industrial ProductionTechnische Universität BraunschweigBrunswickGermany
  2. 2.Production and Logistics Research Group, Institute of Automotive Management and Industrial Production, University of BraunschweigBraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations