bae project

PCC Structurals, Inc.

BAE Project

Presented By: Sylvain Gazaille (Student)

System Engineering Department

Portland State University

Presented To: Jim Barrett

Manager


September 3rd, 2004


Presentation Outline

Understanding the Problem Selection of an Approach Building the Simulation Model Model Analysis & Results Router Issues Recommendations Ongoing Initiatives Potential Model Improvements


Understanding the Problem Studying the Router Understanding the Cost Breakdown Structure Reviewing the Quality System Following BAE parts on the floor Key Personnel Interviews Challenging the Engineering Team


Selection of an Approach

Studying Cost Studying Process Flow

BAE parts only

BAE & Other Parts

All Parts


New Problem Statement Backend of BAE parts Reduce Lead Time (SPAN Days) Within PCC Structurals Cost analysis not included Increasing production levels Implementation Plan Assessment of current system Final Report


Selected Approach

Building a simulation model of the backend manufacturing process for BAE parts using

ProModel!


Building the Model

Let’s take a look at the model!


Reworking Logic

Table 1 – Re-Working Processing Time

Rework Activity Minimum Time Most Likely Maximum Time

Grinding 2% 15% 50%

Welding 2% 15% 50%

X-Ray 20% 50% 125%

FPI 10% 90% 200%

VISDIM (final) 5% 25% 100%

CMM 10% 15% 50%

Chem Mill 50% 60% 75%

VISDIM (welding) 100% 100% 100%


Reworking Loops

FPI Loop

FPI

Grind

WeldNext Step

50%

10%


Reworking Loops

CMM Loop

CMM

Weld

Next Step

75%

X-Ray

25%

Grind

FPI

5% 20%


Reworking Loops

X-Ray VISDIM (final dimension) VISDIM (mark for weld)

Other Loops

All loops account for 95% of reworking activities at PCC!


Assumptions Wait to be shipped Scrap re-appearing at BE X-Ray problem not accounted for No Downtime No extra floor capacity available No Overtime No Correlations Reworking Processing time (2nd loop) BAE (5%) Holidays/Sick days (10%)


Verification / Validation Incremental stages Using animation feature Logic review (Diana, Pam) Errors identified and corrected Results compared to the router Sensitivity analysis conducted

Nobody was available to officially validate the model


Model Analysis (Baseline Model)BAE Parts Only All Parts Router

EXITS SPAN Days EXITS SPAN Days EXITS SPAN Days

Center Body 4 -2 25 -9 3 -3 36.4 -2.4 6 34

Front Legs 13 +1 25 -9 12 0 36.4 -2.4 12 34

Rear Legs 13 +1 25 -9 11 -1 36.4 -2.4 12 34

Spades 13 +1 54 -3 11 -1 62.5 -5.5 12 57

Trails 12 0 54 -3 10 -2 62.5 -5.5 12 57

Stabilizers 14 +2 54 -3 10 -2 62.5 -5.5 12 57

TOTAL Exits 69 57

Inventory 29 40

Traveling 20% 15%

Waiting 28% 40%

Blocked 6% 5%

In Operation 46% 40%

Problem(s) No bottleneck HIP, MRB Crib, Welding (CB), Ti In, Ti Out


Questions

Lead Time reduction of 19% Inventory level down by 8 Impact on other parts unknown

Recommendation(s)Study the feasibility of doing strength testing

Calculate potential savings (X-Ray, CMM)

1 – What if CMM no longer exists?


Questions

Reduction in Utilization and Wait time at VISDIM by 50% Increase in Waiting time at Welding by 10% and Utilization by

15%

Recommendation(s)Cost comparison between re-tooling costs and savings on wages at VISDIM and Chem Mill

2 – What if tools are re-worked?


Questions

Reduction in Utilization and Wait time at welding of 30% and 17% respectively Only 1 welder now required! Total Exits increase by 2 Inventory decreases by 3 Lead time decreases by 5.7% in average

Recommendation(s)The cost of the patches adding to the overall savings, this change is definitely recommended

3 – What if patches are not required?


Questions

Since this is not currently a bottleneck, I will re-analyze the model if and when it becomes one

4 – What if we can use the 3 lines at Chem Mill?


Questions

HIP, Ti In, Ti Out no longer a problem Problem surfacing at Machining MRB Crib still full 12 additional parts shipped Reduction in Lead Time of 11.4% 7 fewer parts in inventory

5 – What if BAE parts represent 10%?


Questions

5 – Continued…

Recommendation(s)As the production level increases, the percentage will have to be adjusted

The impact on other parts is significant if the system is shared and is therefore to be avoided

Designing a system in parallel versus in serial will alleviate the risk


Questions5 – Continued… (impact on the process)

Location Impact Assessment

HIP At risk if % goes down

Sandblasting Not a problem if located within Steel Plant

Welding More booths may be required

Chem Mill More than one line required

X-Ray Not a problem

Machining Problem easily resolved

Paint Problem easily resolved

MRB Crib Needs to increase

Ti In/Out Needs to increase

FPI Will be fine

CMM Should not be a problem since excess capacity still available

Heat Treat Not a problem

Shipping Not a problem


Optimized Model Results

Let’s take a look at the Excel File!


Concerns

Ti In and Ti Out capacity problems

Production: 6/M

Production: 16/M X-Ray requires 3 booths CMM needs more than 2 shifts but not quite 3 With only 3 booths, a 3rd shift of Welders is required Unless 2 booths are freed up for BAE parts only at the Ti

Plant, a 3rd booth is required Even if Chem Mill is running 24 hours a day, it is utilized

at over 95% and creates a bottleneck every now and then


Potential Model Improvements Prioritization of parts Downtime Trial Parts Etc.


Router Concerns

No process variation Infinite Capacity Unlimited Resources 20 steps process, 50% chances of being late or early at each

step which equals out over time Touch Time and Overtime to compensate for additional time

required

Current Calculation

This method is accurate if the system allows for a lot of catching up time!


Router Concerns

PCC counts on overtime to meet schedule (expensive!) If parts are ahead of schedule, they wait Processing time does not allow for cashing up time Is more 50% chances of being late, 50% chances of being on

schedule (does not equal out!) If one item is late, all succeeding items are late too

What really happens…

You practically guaranty you will be late!


Router Issues (Sim. Model)

2/M No VariationUnlimited Res. Infinite Cap.

Variation Unlimited Res.

Infinite Cap.

VariationLimited Res.Infinite Cap.

VariationLimited Res.Finite Cap.

Total Exits 69(close to router)

67 30 19

Inventory 31 33 73 99

SPAN Days 11% to 22%Lower

Increase of27%

Increase of46% to 122%

Increase of86% to 225%

Time Blocked

Nil Nil Increases

Time In Operation

Increases Increases Increases

Move Time Same Same Same

Waiting Time

Same Increases Increases


Router Concerns

Recommendation(s)Use a dual system (Workers & Clients)


Theory Of Constraints

PCC is not planning for the bottlenecks Optimization of individual steps (reward system) FE became much more effective than the BE since it is more predictable

Current Situation

Potential Problem Creation of bottlenecks Inventory level increases Lead Time increases

Recommendation(s)Match company practices to the TOC


Other Areas of Concern Capacity Planning at the Work Center Level Touch Time of 55% Long approval process Overall flow analysis (FE & BE) Data Gathering (Bottlenecks) Financial Department raising the bar Communication


Ongoing Initiatives Welding (reducing purge time) VISDIM (data collection) Patches Chem Mill (fixtures) BAE at Steel Plant Machining (contemplating other contractors) X-Ray

Personnel pride and professionalism is quite remarkable throughout!


Questions

?

bae project

Documents