NUMBER: 003-0027 1 SIXTEENTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF POMS, CHICAGO, IL, APRIL 29 MAY 2, 2005 ADVANCED MANUFACTURING CONTROL SYSTEMS: A SIMULATION COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Massimo BERTOLINI Dipartimento di Ingegneria Industriale, Università degli Studi di Parma, Parco Area delle Scienze 181/A, 43100 Parma (Italy) Phone:+39 0521 905861 Fax: +39 0521 905705 email: massimo.bertolini@unipr.it Maurizio BEVILACQUA Dipartimento di Ingegneria delle Costruzioni Meccaniche, Nucleari, Aeronautiche e di Metallurgia, Università degli Studi di Bologna, sede di Forlì, Via Fontanelle, 40 47100 Forlì (Italy) – Phone: +39 071 2204874 – Fax: +39 071 2804239 – e-mail: m.bevilacqua@univpm.it Andrea GRASSI Dipartimento di Scienze e Metodi dell’Ingegneria, Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Via Fogliani 1 42100 Reggio Emilia (Italy) Phone: +39 0522 522624 Fax: +39 0522 522609 email: grassi.andrea@unimore.it Abstract This paper presents a comparative analysis of advanced manufacturing control systems using simulation. In particular, three PULL production philosophies have been analysed: a Just In Time (JIT), a CONstant Work In Process (CONWIP) and a hybrid system environments. These different production control philosophies have been applied to flow shop systems with four, six and eight machines, evaluating the manufacturing system performance (i.e. Service Rate, WIP, finished Goods, Time in System, Maximum Queue Size). The performances have been analysed both in an ideal case (machines efficiency equal to 100%) and in a real case (machines efficiency lower than 100%), so as to consider machine breakdowns. To overcome the limit of low performance in presence of a machine failure, two further solutions have been proposed, taking into account the introduction of kanban-break cards together with a re-allocation of workers during a machine downtime towards the upstream work centres.
[1]
Y. T. Herer,et al.
CONWIP-based production lines with multiple bottlenecks: performance and design implications
,
1999
.
[2]
Wallace J. Hopp,et al.
Estimating the throughput of an exponential CONWIP assembly system
,
1993,
Queueing Syst. Theory Appl..
[3]
Michael A. Zazanis,et al.
Push and Pull Production Systems: Issues and Comparisons
,
1992,
Oper. Res..
[4]
Donald R. Smith,et al.
Understanding the fundamentals of Kanban and CONWIP pull systems using simulation
,
2001,
Proceeding of the 2001 Winter Simulation Conference (Cat. No.01CH37304).
[5]
Andrew Kusiak,et al.
Computational Intelligence in Design and Manufacturing
,
2000
.
[6]
David L. Woodruff,et al.
CONWIP: a pull alternative to kanban
,
1990
.
[7]
Yasuhiro Monden,et al.
Toyota Production System: An Integrated Approach to Just-In-Time
,
1993
.
[8]
Asbjoern M. Bonvik,et al.
A comparison of production-line control mechanisms
,
1997
.
[9]
Katsuhiko Takahashi,et al.
Ordering alternatives in JIT production systems
,
1998
.
[10]
Wallace J. Hopp,et al.
Estimating variance of output from cyclic exponential queueing systems
,
1990,
Queueing Syst. Theory Appl..
[11]
Wallace J. Hopp,et al.
Factory physics : foundations of manufacturing management
,
1996
.
[12]
Daisuke Hirotani,et al.
Comparing CONWIP, synchronized CONWIP, and Kanban in complex supply chains
,
2005
.