American Journal of Scientific Research

ISSN 1450-223X Issue 12 (2010), pp.16-22

EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2010
http://www.eurojournals.com/ajsr.htm


Modeling of Automatic Lathe Management System


Lim Eng Aik
Institut Matematik Kejuruteraan, Universiti Malaysia Perlis
Kangar, Perlis, Malaysia
E-mail: e.a.lim80@gmail.com


Abstract

In this paper, an automatic lathe management system was discussed, and an
effective algorithm was proposed aided with easy to execute the scheme, to reduce
effectively the cost of inspection intervals, cutting tools replacement policy and the loss
comes from replacing individual parts. For Model I, we obtained an inspection time-gap of,

0
= 18 and the time-gap for cutting tools replacement of,
1
= 342, which leads to the
corresponding optimal solution of cost of individual parts, C = 2.42 Ringgit. The model for
Model I is then tested for its stability with Monte Carlo simulation. While for Model II, the
inspection time-gap,
0
= 11, and the time-gap for cutting tools replacement,
1
= 242 were
obtained. The optimal solution for cost for individual parts in Model II is, C = 3.68 Ringgit.
Lastly, for Model III, we applied our proposed improvement to the model, and an expected
cost for individual part is reduced to 2.72 Ringgit was observed. Discussion on changes of
inspection intervals, parameter sensitivity and error analysis was provided in this paper.


Keywords: Monte-Carlo Simulation, Optimization, Modeling, Sensitivity Analysis, Error
Analysis

Introduction
In industry, lathe management is an essential task to perform. Due to the failure of the cutting tools will
cause breakdown such as process failure, which is completely random during operation [1, 2]. The
process is mainly monitored by staff. They need to perform checking whether the parts fail during
operation process failure, and replacing cutting tools after a certain period of time performing the
operations [3, 4]. Figure 1 and 2 shows an example of the appearance and cutting process of lathe.
Therefore, when performing inspection for parts of tools within the inspection time-gap, if they
found a non-compliant component that causes fault occurred, then the inspection will immediately stop
to locate the fault is repaired, if there is no fault found, then production line will continues the
operation. When the cutting tool reaches the end of its time-gap for tools replacement, the tool needs to
replace with new one even though there is no fault occurs from the equipment. The illustration of lathe
cutting tools is showed in Figure 3.
Obviously, for the case of periodic replacement, if the inspection time-gap is too large, it may
cause failure of equipment extend in time, which resulting in increased losses in production cost; if the
inspection time-gap is too small, this will cause an increment in inspection fees. The main problem
now is to find the optimal inspection time-gap, and the time-gap for cutting tools replacement to
achieve better process efficiency and reduce cost. The best process efficiency can be expressed as the
smallest expected loss from individual parts, and we defined a cycle of replacement as the period
between tool replacements, then Cost of expected loss from individual parts, C is defined as;
Modeling of Automatic Lathe Management System 17

C =
Expected loss within 1 cycle
Total expected cycle
(1)

Figure 1: Appearance of lathe



Figure 2: Cutting process of lathe



Figure 3: Illustration for lathe cutting tool




Model Description
To set-up our model, we placed a few assumptions as follows:
1. The time of producing an individual part is set to 1.
18 Lim Eng Aik
2. We are not considering the fault detection time and time regulator to replace the cutting tool.
3. The process is restored to initial state, after replacement of cutting tools or adjustment is being
made to fault location.
4. Staff immediately specified the substandard parts during an inspection, and confirm the
production process is a failure.
5. Each automatic lathe machine only consists of one cutting tool.

The symbol conventions involved are:

The cost of losses on producing a nonconforming product output with = 102.04 Ringgit/ piece
T Cost of inspection t = 5.10 Ringgit/inspection
D Average cost of fault adjustment d = 153.06 Ringgit/times
K Cost of replacing a new cutting tool in zero fault condition k = 510.20 Ringgit /unit replace
X Zero failure production process time
F(x) Distribution function of X
p(x) Probability density function of X
0

Inspection time-gap
1

Time-gap for cutting tools replacement
E(L) Expected total cost for one cycle
E(T) Expected total cycle
C Cost of expected loss cost for individual parts


Preparation of the Model
To set-up the model, we recorded the statistical analysis of a 100 time of cutting tool failure. From the
frequency distribution histogram, we are able to examining the level of significance when = 0.10, the
time of cutting tool working properly are comparable to normal distribution N(,
2
), where = 306.12,

2
= 50.92
2
.
To compute the probability distribution for zero failure process time, we set the decisive role of
cutting tool failure as 95% loss. We believe that, a long working hour along with whole trouble-free
process distribution is equivalent to a zero-failure cutting tool distribution, i.e., X ~ N (0.95, (0.95)
2
).
Lastly, for the cutting tool replacement policy, an inspection should be performed before the
constant cutting tool replacement is proceeded. If failure was found during an inspection, repairing
work will immediately carry on, otherwise, they will directly progress to constant cutting tool
replacement. For practicable convenience, constant cutting tool replacement cycle can be set at the first
m-examination, that if
0
is constant,
1
= m
0
(m = 1,2, ...).


Set-Up of Models
Model I
If
1
X >
Loss: L
1
= mt + k;
If n
0
<X (n + 1)
0
(n = 0,1,2, ..., m -1)
Loss: L
n
= (n + 1) t + d + [(n + 1)
0
- X]
Expected total cost for one cycle E(L) =

=
+

+
1
0
) 1 (
1
0
0
0
) ( ) (
m
n
n
n
n
m
dx x p L dx x p L

Expected total cycle E(T) =

=
+
+ +
) 1 (
0
) 1 (
0 0
0
0 0
) ( ) 1 ( ) (
m
n
n
n m
dx x p n dx x p m

Modeling of Automatic Lathe Management System 19

For best efficiency, we need to find an equivalent to
0
and
1
, so that C =
) (
) (
T E
L E
minimum.
From the test, we computed that
0
=18 (i.e., producing 18 parts per inspection),
1
= 342 (i.e., produce
342 parts per cutting tool replacement), and the expected cost for individual parts C = 2.42 Ringgit.

Model II
Similar steps as in Model I, but for this model, we set the values for
0
=11,
1
= 242 and C = 1.88
Ringgit.

Model III
Taking into account that the equipment used within the period of replacement can be separated into
stable and unstable equipment. Here, stability refers to a minor fault, but the so-called failure is major
fault, which refers as unstable. We improved the inspection time-gap to extend the inspection time
within the stable period, while reducing the inspection time during the unstable period, resulting in
higher efficiency. Here, the inspection interval
0
and the time, x , is denoted by
0
( x ). If the failure
rate is large, then the number of inspection per unit time ) (x n is also increasing. Note
that,
) (
1
) (
0
x n
x = , we define
) ( 1
) (
) (
x F
x p
t
f
x n

=
(2)
where dx x p ) ( is the probability of equipment failure bounded in ( x , x +dx ) and ) ( 1 x F is the
probability of zero failure. Therefore, ( t , t +dt ) is the boundary of conditional probability for
equipment failure, where
) ( 1
) (
x F
dx x p

is represent the zero failure condition. Here,

2
2
( 290.81)
2 47.61 1
( )
2 47.61
x
e
p x

=
(3)
Based on the above analysis, the inspection method can be expressed as follow:
1st time of inspection time-gap
(

=
) 0 (
1
1
n
d ; (
(

) 0 (
1
n
expressed as
1
(0) n
round value to the
nearest integer, d is the i -th times of inspections time-gap)
2nd time of inspection time-gap
(

=
) (
1
1
2
d n
d ;
3rd time of inspection time-gap
(

+
=
) (
1
1 2
3
d d n
d ;
...
n-th time of inspection time-gap
1 2 1
1
( ... )
n
n n
d
n d d d

(
=
(
+ + +

.
The results are listed in Table 1.
By substituting
i
d into eq. (1), C =
) (
) (
T E
L E
, the cost of expected loss for individual parts, C =
2.72 Ringgit, this cost is less than the expected loss cost in eq. (1). From Model II, for constant
replacement of cutting tool
1
= 242 cases, we found that, the frequency of inspection was greatly
reduced at the 72
nd
,114
th
,146
th
,172
nd
,194
th
,214
th
,232
nd
and 242
nd
parts of inspection.
20 Lim Eng Aik
Table 1: Model I Simulation Results

i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
i
d
72 42 32 26 22 20 18 16 15 14 13 12 12 11 10
i
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
i
d
10 10 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7
i
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
i
d
7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5


Model Simulation and Results
Monte-Carlo Simulation Test
For Model I, we adopt the Monte-Carlo method to simulate the inspection. Concrete steps are as
follows:
1) Zero failure process time distribution for
2
~ (290.81 47.61 X N , are generated using Monte-
Carlo simulation of 1000 times with a pseudo-random number,
) 1000 ..., 2 1 ( = i X
i
.
2) Given a constant inspection time-gap
0
and cutting tool replacement time-gap
1
, the
i
X value
can be calculated using the corresponding cost for
i
L
[ ] ( )

+
(

+
+
+
=
f X t
X
d
t d
t k
L
i
i
i
0 0
0
0
1
0
1
%

[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
1
1
1

<
=
>
i
i
i
X
X
X

where [ ]
i
X express as round value of
i
X to the nearest integer, while % express as remainder of
i
X .
3) Calculate the cost of expected loss for individual parts, C is defined as follow:

=
=
=
1000
1
1000
1
i
i
i
i
T
L
C
with

|
|

\
|
+
(

=
0
0
1
1

i i
X T

[ ]
[ ]
1
1
i
i
X
X

<

4) To find the optimal values for
0
,
1
, let 200 0 (
0
and 1000 0
1
, both values can be
obtained from the cost of expected loss for individual parts, C .
Based on the calculation, we obtained the optimal inspection time-gap, 18
0
= , and time-gap
for constant replacement of cutting tool,
1
= 378, which yield the corresponding cost of expected loss
for individual parts of 2.12 Ringgit. Model I result using Monte-Carlo simulation results are compared
(see Table 2). From Table 2, we observed that the simulation results using the Model I is comparable
with Monte-Carlo simulation. So, we conclude that Model I result is more stable.

Table 2: Monte-Carlo Simulation Results


0

1
C
Model I 18 342 2.42
Monte Carlo simulation 18 378 2.12
Modeling of Automatic Lathe Management System 21

Sensitivity Analysis
For normal distribution of
2
~ (290.81 47.61 X N , we change P (P is a proportion of substandard
products produce from the normal production process) and q (q is a proportion unqualified products
produce when production process failure occurs) and obtained the results are shown in Table 3.
Figure 4 shows the scatter plot of P-C (Table 3) and q-C (Table 4). We observed that the cost
the loss of individual components impacts, C , are related to the impact from the changes of P and q.
From Figure 4(a), One can sees, there is an essential linear relationship between P and C, and in
addition, the impact of P on C was significantly higher than q (see Figure 4(b)). From the patterns
C q , when q value reached about 0.4, the increment of q to C had a minor effect or almost constant.
In short, C response to the changes in P, while the response is very slow in q. Therefore, in practical
management, if one hold a good control on the value P, then one can have a better control of the cost of
expected loss for individual parts. Thus, to maximize the efficiency, we have to minimize P so that C is
minimized.

Table 3: Results for P-C

P
0.01 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.018 0.02 0.022 0.024 0.026 0.028 0.03 0.035
0

13 13 12 12 12 11 11 11 10 10 9 7
m 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22
1

286 286 264 264 264 242 242 242 220 220 198 154
C
3.21 3.32 3.41 3.51 3.59 3.68 3.76 3.84 3.90 3.96 4.00 4.04

Table 4: Results for q-C

q
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
0

12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 11
m 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22
1

264 264 242 242 242 242 242 242 242
C
3.60 3.64 3.66 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.67

Similarly, by altering the misconception on the process failure which leads to discontinue of the
production process and resulting to the loss of 765.30 Ringgit for each discontinue made, and we found
that changes made by in this factor on C is not obvious.

Figure 4: Cutting process of lathe


22 Lim Eng Aik
Error Analysis
Our analysis on the trouble-free process time is to approximate the distribution of working hours when
there is no fault on the cutting tools. This is due to the actual process of working hours without failures
are unknown. If we try to use normal distribution to describe this situation, with uncertainty on its
mean value , on , ultimately, will cause the error for the results. Using the results from Model I to
analyze the errors, as in Table 5, where represent the relative error, with % 100
0
0

C
C C
(taking C
0

= 4.75). Table 5 shows the mean , standard deviation of smaller changes that have a minor affect
on the results, so it is reasonable to apply the method that has given in this paper, to approximate the
zero failure process time.

Table 5: Statistical Analysis Results


290.81 290.81 295.91 301.02 306.12 306.12
2

48.38 50.92 48.38 48.38 48.38 50.92
C
2.42 2.50 2.36 2.30 2.24 2.32

0 3.2% 2.5% 5% 7.4% 4.2%


Conclusion
Based on the models and replacement cutting tool time-gap through the inspection time-gap traversal
search, we are able to obtain an optimal solution for constant inspection time-gap. With a limited
number of Monte-Carlo simulation, shows the simulation results contain a larger finite precision error.
For Model III, we can only provide a single effective solution, but it did not give the optimal solution.
Thus, we propose an easy to execute scheme to facilitate staff during practices of the inspection
program.


References
[1] Thomas, A., and Artiba, A., 2009. Modeling and control of productive system: concepts and
application, International Journal of Production Economics Vol. 212 (1), pp. 1-3.
[2] Yeo, S. H., 1995. A multipass optimization strategy for CNC lathe operations, International
Journal of Production Economics Vol. 40 (2), pp. 209-218.
[3] Pan, G., Xu, H., Kwan, C. M., Liang, C., Haynes, L., and Geng, Z., 1996. Modeling and
intelligent chatter control strategies for lathe machine, Control Engineering Practice 4(12), pp.
1647-1658.
[4] Jan, T. K., Krzysztof, M., 1995. Modeling cutting process in dynamic stability analysis of
machine tools, International Journal of Machine Tool and Manufacture 35(4), pp. 535-545.