Team CJG

Capstone
Proj ect
I EE545 - Dr. Tor r es-
Gar ci a
SM ELECTRONICS
COST SAVINGS THROUGH SIMULATION
ANALYSIS
Chri s Wei nkauf
Quality Systems Plant Manager
B.S. 2012 Chemical Engineering
Contact: cweinkau@asu.edu


Johnathon Wri ght
Applications Engineer
B.S. 2012 Mechanical Engineering
Contact: jswrigh2@asu.edu



*Gabri el Si l va
Sr. Software Engineer
B.S. 2004 Computer Science
Contact: glsilva@asu.edu

PROJECT TEAM
Proj ect Introduction - Gabriel
Problem
Project Purpose
Assumptions
Model Chris
Key Parts
Design
Interactive video
Results/Conclusions Johnathon
Results
Recommendations
Suggested future research
OUTLINE
Probl em
Factory:



Key Issues:
Single input conveyor with maximum capacity of 40 parts
Single input conveyor accepts random part types
Fourth line requires significant setup/process/jam time











PROJECT INTRODUCTION
Proj ect Purpose?
Determine cost of lines A,B, and C shutting down
Analyze design and efficiency of the
Single input conveyor
Fourth and final line (cells 1-8)
Analyze alternatives to improve cost reduction
Add more pallets
$17K + $3K for each new pallet
Benefit: More parts to work in the fourth line
Add 3 additional buffer conveyors
$56K
Benefit:
Additional space to store parts
Batches of parts fed into fourth line reducing required setup time
Can consider both alternatives

PROJECT INTRODUCTION
Assumptions
Negligible transfer time from input conveyor to line 4
Cell 8 will first take a new part even if cell 7 is ready to transfer to it
Limitation on the number pallets is 48
Two year ROI to consider an alternative
PROJECT INTRODUCTION
Key Parts
Four different models required for comparison
1. Current Process (no modifications)
2. Extra Pallets
3. Buffer Lines for Parts A, B, and C
4. Buffer Lines and Extra Pallets
Modules Types within the Model
Part Entry into the Holding Conveyor
Automatic Cells
Manual Cells
Cell 8
Completed Part Exit
Lost Part Exit


ARENA MODEL
Desi gn
Common Modules
Cell 8
Automatic Cells
Manual Cells
Completed Part Exit
Lost Part Exit



ARENA MODEL
Model Di f ferences
Extra Pallets do not change the model logic
Only difference is more pallets are available
Main difference between Normal Process and Buffer Lines Models is
the Entry Module


ARENA MODEL


ARENA MODEL
M1 i s the model of current system
M2 i s the model of adding addi ti onal pal l ets (resources).
M3 i s the model of adding buf fer l i nes ($56k i nvestment).
M4 i s the model of the production l i ne wi th buf fer l i nes and
additional pal lets combi ned (M2+M3).

Obj ective: Maximize Profi t.
Comparing M1M2

Comparing M1M3

Comparing M1M4

RESULTS
Recommendations
Buffer Lines Meet 2YR ROI criteria and should be implemented.
$56K initial cost, approximately $75,000 (+25k) return after 2 years.
Additional pallets showed no effect on results and should NOT be
implemented ($17K initial investment, plus $3K per pallet).
Suggested Future Research
Consider upgrading tools with faster loading and processing times.
Analyze the buffer line system to find batch sizes that maximize
production.
Consider making individual production lines for each part, or moving
to a larger production facility to maximize profits.

CONCLUSION