MIXE INDUSTRY

Mixe production time = 34.14 min

Total task time = T = 180 min
Maximum production rate = 420/34.14= 12.30 units per day
Cycle time = C = 420/12.30= 33.6 min
Theoretical number of work station = N = T/C = 210/33.6 = 6.15
But number of workers = 6. So the number of workstations should be six.
Take number of workstations as 6.
N= T/C, C = T/N =210/6 = 35 min per units.
Production rate = 420/33.6 = 12.5 = 13 units per day.
Line Efficiency (LE) = (Total Station Line Time Cycle time x no. of
workstations) x 100%
Line Efficiency (LE) = (180/33.6 x6) x100 = 89%
Balance Delay (BD) = (Total idle time total available working time on all
stations) x 100%
Balance Delay (BD) = (2.46/ 34.4) x100 = 7.15%
SELECTION OF BALANCING METHOD KILBRIDGE AND WESTER
COLUMN METHOD AND RANKED POSITIONAL WEIGHT METHOD

S.N
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

PROCESS
Base
Motor
Rubber Bush
Plastic Body
Basic Switch
Motor Teeth
Testing
Jar Manufacturing &
Assembly Of Jar
Jar Testing
TOTAL

CURRENT PROCESS LAYOUT

(Min)
1.15
2.10
1.20
2.30
0.58
0.98
6.51
13.81
5.51
34.14

Balance Delay (d) Calculation

Ranked Positional Weight method It combines the strategies of the LargestCandidate Rule and Kilbridge and Westers method. A Ranked Positional Weight
(RPW) Value is computed for each element. The RPW takes account of both the Te
value of the element and its position in the precedence diagram. Then, the elements
are assigned to work stations in the general order of their RPW values. Procedure:
Step1: Calculate the RPW for each element by summing the elements Te together
with the Te value for all the elements that follow it in the row chain of the
precedence diagram.
Step2: List the elements in the order of their RPW, largest RPW at the top of the
list. For convience include the Te value and immediate predecessors for each
element.
Step3: Assign elements to the stations according to RPW, avoiding precedence
constraints and cycle-time violations.

d = (nTc Twc) / nTc

Where,

n= no. of work stations,

Tc = cycle time,
Twc = total cycle time

Balance delay for existing workstation

d = (633.634.14) / 633.6 = 83 %
Balance delay for Largest Candidate Rule workstations
d = (433.634.14) / 433.6 = 74.59 %
Balance delay for Ranked Positioning Weight method workstations
d = (533.634.14) / 533.6 = 79.67 %
Total balance delay reduction to 74.59 % and 79.67 % by using above methods
Line Efficiency () Calculation
= Twc/ (n Tc)
Line efficiency for existing workstations
= 34.14 / (633.6) = 16.93 %
Line efficiency for Largest Candidate Rule workstations
= 34.14 / (433.6) = 25.40 %
Line efficiency for ranked positioning weight method workstations
= 34.14 / (533.6) = 20.32 %

Total line efficiency increase to 25.40 % and 20.32 % by using above methods
Comparisons of Results

Installed

Largest
candidate
rule

Ranked
positioning
method

Number of
workstations

Man power
required

Man power
saving

---

17%

12.2%

4
5

Idle time
Time save

480
---

210
150 sec

235
186 sec

Balance delay

83%

74.59 %

79.67 %

Total %
reduction in
balance delay

---

14.57 %

9.83 %

Cumulative time

0-33

0-26

0-29

Line efficiency

16.93 %

25.40 %

20.32 %

10

Total % increase
in line efficiency

---

8.47%

3.39%

S. No

Comparison
between

1200.00%

1000.00%

800.00%

9 Line efficiency 16.93%

600.00%

10 Total % increase in line

efficiency ---

400.00%

200.00%

0.00%
0

10

12

PUMP INDUSTRY
Pump production time = 46.24 min
Total task time = T = 210 min
Maximum production rate = 420/46.24= 9.08=9 units per day
Cycle time = C = 420/9= 46.66= 47 min
Balance Delay (d) Calculation
Ranked Positional Weight method It combines the strategies of the LargestCandidate Rule and Kilbridge and Westers method. A Ranked Positional Weight
(RPW) Value is computed for each element. The RPW takes account of both the Te
value of the element and its position in the precedence diagram. Then, the elements
are assigned to work stations in the general order of their RPW values. Procedure:
Step1: Calculate the RPW for each element by summing the elements Te together
with the Te value for all the elements that follow it in the row chain of the
precedence diagram.
Step2: List the elements in the order of their RPW, largest RPW at the top of the
list. For convience include the Te value and immediate predecessors for each
element.
Step3: Assign elements to the stations according to RPW, avoiding precedence
constraints and cycle-time violations.
d = (nTc Twc) / nTc
Where,

n= no. of work stations,

Tc = cycle time,

Twc = total cycle time

Balance delay for existing workstation
d = (124746.24) / 1247= 91.80 %
Balance delay for Largest Candidate Rule workstations
d = (84746.24) / 847= 87.70 %
Balance delay for Ranked Positioning Weight method workstations
d = (104746.24) / 1047= 90.16 %
Total balance delay reduction to 87.70 % and 90.16 % by using above methods
Line Efficiency () Calculation
= Twc/ (n Tc)
Line efficiency for existing workstations
= 47 / (1246.24) = 8.47%
Line efficiency for Largest Candidate Rule workstations
= 47 / (846.24) = 12.70 %
Line efficiency for ranked positioning weight method workstations
= 47 / (1046.24) = 10.16 %
Total line efficiency increase to 10.16 and 12.70 % by using above methods

Comparisons of Results

Installed

Largest
candidate
rule

Ranked
positioning
method

Number of
workstations

12

10

Man power
required

12

10

Man power
saving

---

8%

12.2%

4
5

Idle time
Time save

480
---

210
130 sec

235
156 sec

Balance delay

91.80%

87.70 %

90.16 %

Total %
reduction in
balance delay

---

4.1 %

1.64 %

Cumulative time

0-47

0-44.8

0-45.6

Line efficiency

8.47%

12.70 %

10.16 %

10

Total % increase
in line efficiency

---

4.23%

1.69%

S. No

Comparison
between

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%
9 Line efficiency 16.93%
15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%

10 Total % increase in line

efficiency ---