VUT Calculator

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1999

MEASURE:
Arrival Rate (parts/hr)

ra

1
10.000

2
9.800

3
9.310

4
8.845

5
7.960

Arrival CV
Natural Process Time (hr)

ca 2
t0

1.000
0.090

0.181
0.090

0.031
0.095

0.061
0.090

0.035
0.090

Natural Process SCV

Number of Machines
MTTF (hr)
MTTR (hr)
Availability
Effective Process Time (failures only)

c0 2
m
mf
mr
A
te'

0.500
1
200
2
0.990
0.091

0.500
1
200
2
0.990
0.091

0.500
1
200
8
0.962
0.099

0.500
1
200
4
0.980
0.092

0.500
1
200
4
0.980
0.092

Eff Process SCV (failures only)

Batch Size
Setup Time (hr)

ce2'
k
ts

0.936
100
0.000

0.936
100
0.500

6.729
100
0.500

2.209
100
0.000

2.209
100
0.000

cs2
ra/k
te = kt0/A+ts

1.000
0.100
9.090

1.000
0.098
9.590

1.000
0.093
10.380

1.000
0.088
9.180

1.000
0.080
9.180

0.773

1.023

6.818

1.861

1.861

0.009
0.909

0.011
0.940

0.063
0.966

0.022
0.812

0.022
0.731

cd 2
y
ra*y

0.181
0.980
9.800

0.031
0.950
9.310

0.061
0.950
8.845

0.035
0.900
7.960

0.028
0.950
7.562

0.198
0.909
9.800
45.825
54.915
54.915
458.249
549.149
549.149

0.079
0.940
9.310
14.421
24.011
78.925
141.321
235.303
784.452

0.108
0.966
8.845
14.065
24.445
103.371
130.948
227.586
1012.038

0.132
0.812
7.960
1.649
10.829
114.200
14.587
95.780
1107.818

0.077
0.731
7.562
0.716
9.896
124.096
5.700
78.773
1186.591

Setup Time SCV

Arrival Rate of Batches
Eff Batch Process Time (failures+setups)
Eff Batch Process Time Var (failures+setups)
Eff Process SCV (failures+setups)
Utilization
Departure SCV
Yield
Final Departure Rate
Final Departure SCV
Utilization
Throughput
Queue Time (hr)
Cycle Time (hr)
Cumulative Cycle Time (hr)
WIP in Queue (jobs)
WIP (jobs)
Cumulative WIP (jobs)

STATION:

k*s02/A2+ 2mr(1-A)kt0/A+ss2
ce2

ycd2+(1-y)
u
TH
CTq
CTq+te
Si(CTq(i)+te(i))
raCTq
raCT
Si(ra(i)CT(i))

Improvement Options:
1) Station 3 is the bottleneck. Changes here will be most valuable.
2) We could increase capacity at bottleneck by:
- increasing MTTF to 400
- decreasing MTTR to 4
- reducing t_0 to 0.09
- eliminating setups
- increasing yield to 100%
- add a second machine at station 3
3) We could reduce variability at bottleneck by:
- cutting both MTTF and MTTR in half
- reducing c_0 to 0
- halving batch size and setup times
- reduce setup time CV to zero
4) We could increase capacity at nonbottleneck by:
- speeding up station 2 by making t_0 = 0.85
- increasing MTTF at station 2 to 400
- decreasing MTTR at station 2 to 1
- eliminating setups at station 2
- increasing yield to 100% at station 2
5) We could decrease variability at nonbottleneck by:
- cutting both MTTF and MTTR in half at station 2
- reducing c_0 to 0 at station 2
- halving batch size and setup times at station 2
6) Note that if we do similar changes to those in (5) to station 4,
the effect will be much less, since this is downstream
from the bottleneck.
7) A big portion of delay in this example is due to batching
- reduce setup times in half and halve all batch sizes

TH
7.56

CT
124.10

WIP
1240.96

7.56
7.56
7.56
7.56
7.96
7.56

115.56
113.86
121.43
115.12
124.81
111.19

1155.60
1138.64
1148.71
1151.15
1248.14
1065.84

7.56
7.56
7.56
7.56

119.25
123.32
117.79
123.70

1192.53
1233.19
1177.90
1236.98

7.56
7.56
7.56
7.56

118.67
122.77
122.57
118.34
-

1186.74
1227.68
1225.69
1183.43
-

7.56
7.56
7.56

123.69
123.16
113.53

1236.89
1231.61
1135.25

7.56

69.17

691.71

Conclusion: improvements can be roughly ordered in terms of effectiveness as:

0) batching reductions (via setup time reduction) where batching is significant
1) capacity improvements at bottleneck
2) variability reductions at bottleneck
3) capacity improvements (immediately) upstream from bottleneck
4) variability reductions (immediately) upstream from bottleneck
5) capacity/variability improvements downstream from bottleneck

Note - unless we reduce release rate, TH goes up due

to yield, which causes utilization and CT,WIP to go up too.

Note - unless we reduce release rate, the increased yield at

station 2 causes station 3 to become overloaded.