CIE42 Proceedings, 16-18 July 2012, Cape Town, South Africa 2012 CIE & SAIIE

BOTTLENECK MANAGEMENT THROUGH DISCRETE EVENT SIMULATION FOR MANUAL AUTOMOBILE ASSEMBLY SYSTEMS M. Dewa1* and L. Chidzuu2 Department of Industrial Engineering Durban University of Technology, South Africa bindewa@yahoo.com
1

Department of Production Engineering Chinhoyi University of Technology, Zimbabwe libertychidzuu@gmail.com ABSTRACT Batch model lines are quite handy when the demand for each product is medium. However they are characterized by high work-in-progress inventories, lost production time when changing over models and reduced flexibility when it comes to altering production rates as product demand changes. On the other hand, mixed model lines can offer reduced work-inprogress inventory and increased flexibility. The object of this paper is to illustrate that a manual automobile assembling system can be optimized through bottleneck management by ensuring high workstation utilization, reducing queue lengths before stations as well as reducing station downtime. A case study from the automobile industry is used for data collection. A model is developed through use of simulation software. The model is then verified and validated before a detailed bottleneck analysis is conducted. An operational strategy is then proposed for optimal bottleneck management. Although the paper focuses on improving automobile assembly systems in batch mode, the methodology used can also be applied in single model manual and automated production lines.

Corresponding Author

120-1

CIE42 Proceedings, 16-18 July 2012, Cape Town, South Africa 2012 CIE & SAIIE

INTRODUCTION

Assembly lines can be classified into single-model, batch-model, and mixed -model lines. In a batch-model assembly system, a few product models are produced in batches, but one product at a time, on the same line and a certain amount of changeover time is allotted to make the line ready for production of another model [1]. In the last decades, the necessity to make production more versatile and flexible has forced assembly line production systems to change from fixed assembly lines to mixed model assembly lines, where the output products are variations of the same base product and only differ in specific customizable attributes [2]. Considering mixed-model manual automobile assembly systems, setup times between models could be reduced sufficiently enough to be ignored, so that intermixed model sequences can be assembled on the same line. A procedure is needed to determine a particular configuration for the products to be produced on the line which will not only minimize the balance delay or number of workstations but also satisfy the other conflicting criteria like production rate, variety, minimum distance moved, division of labor and quality [1]. The key input to a line balancing problem is accurate standard time derived from a time study or any other work measurement technique. For a traditional direct time study, a time study analyst divides a job that usually takes long time into basic tasks that are easier to measure and analyze and observes a qualified person who is using the best method to perform the job [3]. The time standard is the time required by a skilled operator, working at a normal place, to perform a specific task using a prescribed method, allowing time for personal needs, fatigue and delays. It can be used for work assignment, for evaluating the numbers of workers, the type and capacity of machines, the overall productivity, the total cost for product manufacturing and so on. Bottlenecks for one product are not automatically bottlenecks for other products in the same manufacturing line. This is due to variation in processing time for the different products on different machines [4]. An important trend in the queuing theory literature which can be used in bottleneck analysis is the development of laws that connect the system content and the customer delay. The most well-known result is Littles law, which is valid for any arrival process, service process or scheduling discipline, but only deals with the first moments of system content and delay [5]. According to Masood [6], increased throughput and higher machine utilization in an automotive plant can be achieved by managing bottlenecks through line balancing. Das B [7] discusses the conceptual overview of simulation methodology for evaluating assembly line balancing with variable operation times based on the next-event analysis. Pourbabai [8] proposes a methodology for the design of a flexible assembly line system while controlling the bottleneck problem. Plenert [9] demonstrates how geometric programming can be used to solve an industrial bottleneck with an unlimited number of products and multiple constraints. Wang [10] proved that a data driven approach can enable the modeling and simulation of the complex assembly plant in a real-time fashion and therefore effectively improve the responsiveness and flexibility of the production line. The object of the paper is to use a discrete event simulation package to illustrate that bottlenecks can be managed by ensuring high workstation utilization, reducing queue lengths before stations as well as reducing station downtime. The paper commences with the background information on the case in point. The second section of the paper comprises the work approach from time studies to quantitative analysis of mixed model assembly lines. A simulation model is then developed using Showflow simulation software. The model is verified and validated using information derived from actual historic data. Detailed bottleneck analysis is then conducted after which decision are made for optimal bottleneck management. The paper also demonstrated that simulation can be as a tool for determining 120-2

CIE42 Proceedings, 16-18 July 2012, Cape Town, South Africa 2012 CIE & SAIIE

the makespan for specified vehicle demand in order to meet due dates for orders from customers. 2 BACKGROUND

The assembly line of the case in point produces seven truck models and six bus models operating in batch mode. A summary of vehicles assembled in 2011 is shown in Table 1. The assembly plant is basically made up of 15 workstations, which are divided into 3 zones with different supervisors and group leaders. Zone 1 starts from WS 1 to WS 6, zone 2 from WS 7 to WS 11 and zone 3 from WS 12 to WS 15. There is a quality inspection bay at the end of the assembly line, where all vehicles produced on the line are inspected for faults. All detected faults are noted in the vehicles protocol book. In collective working, as practised in the final assembly of motor vehicles, several operators work on one or more products at a workstation designed for group work. The product is released from this workstation when all operators have completed their work. It will then be replaced by another product. Correctly designed, such a method of working provides the opportunity to reduce time losses caused by variations in work pace, imbalances in the division of labour and product variant differences, so-called balance loss. [11]. The case in point operates its fifteen-station assembly system in an asynchronous mode and there are no storage buffers between the stations due to the facility space constraints as well of the firm's policy on minimising work-in-progress inventory. In terms of job enrichment, workers are dedicated to particular assembly stations and are trained to perform a restricted set of assigned tasks. On the 15 assembly plant workstations, there are bottlenecks which keep on migrating due to variation in station cycle times and other system dynamics. Table 1: Vehicle Sales In 2011

Vehicle type VW TGM TGS CLA HB Total

3

Ja 41 14 54 4 25 11

Fe 35 2 73 25 15

Ma 37 10 100 27 28

Ap 18 5 50 20 50

Ma 17 19 18 19

Jn 26 3 16 39

Jul 16 5 23 38

Au 28 14 18 33

Se 45 22 21 9

Oc 63 34 66 34 17

No 62 26 79 18 40

De 35 11 37 11 13 112

Aver age 34 14 93 20 27 187

100 136 148 134 140

150 202 143 173 220 230 227 237 214 225

WORK APPROACH

This section describes the approach which we used to address the problem of poor bottleneck management. The following proposed steps were followed: 3.1 Conduct time studies and establish standard times Quantitative analysis of mixed model assembly lines Develop the simulation model Verify and validate the simulation model Conduct bottleneck analysis Decision making for optimal bottleneck management Time Studies

The standard times have been previously updated four years ago and there have been changes within the company in terms of production, variability in material or parts used to 120-3

CIE42 Proceedings, 16-18 July 2012, Cape Town, South Africa 2012 CIE & SAIIE

assemble the vehicles as well as the methods. State of the art tooling that takes much lesser time to perform tasks is now available and new models have been introduced to the assembly line. It is against this backdrop that we decided to conduct time studies. We observed the assembly operators and recorded the operation sequences and well as potential break points on the standard operations sheet. Table 2 shows a summary of typical operations during the assembly of a truck. Table 2: Operations In Manual Truck Assembly Station Number Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 Station 6 Station 7 Station 8 Station 9 Station 10 Station 11 Station 12 Station 13 Station 14 Station 15 Station 16 Description of operations Chassis assembly, Assembly of suspension legs Peripheral mounting, stabiliser bracket, mounting, platform supporter mounting, bogey assembly Fitment of steering box, power steering pipe, brake valves, air tanks and compressor pipe connecting. Routing and connection of air pipes Rear and front spring mounting, Tag axle and front axle mounting Assembly of rear axle, fitment of rear axle and prop shaft Assembly of LSV rods and mounting into rear axle, Tail light and wheel choke brackets, Battery box, Fuel tank bracket mounting, Cab tilt Chassis masking, loom connection, chassis rubbing, fitment of booster pipe and speed sensor, isolator board mounting Chassis painting Drying station Engine subassembly, engine mounting and preparation of cooling pack. Fitment of exhaust and gearbox. Cab preparation and drop, fitment of soundproof, drag link prep & mounting, air cleaner assembly , mirrors & mudguard mounting Fitment of fuel tank, tyres and spare wheel Bumper, head light, battery box, trailer loom and mirror, rear mudguards fitment and brake test Programming, filling of fuel, vehicle inspection [brake roller, mechanical inspection] and start up. Vehicle final quality inspection

We split the operations into elements and timed the individual elements as many times as was necessary till the end of operation. Table 3 shows a summary of assembly times for five key vehicle models. 120-4

CIE42 Proceedings, 16-18 July 2012, Cape Town, South Africa 2012 CIE & SAIIE

Table 3: Vehicle Assembly Times At Stations (In Minutes) Work Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 3.2 TGS 28 27 27 27 36 24 39 34 30 12 27 46 41 27 31 30 HB 30 23 32 23 25 18 32 32 34 12 29 22 41 67 21 30 TGM 24 28 37 30 31 23 31 29 34 12 18 33 41 47 24 30 CLA 64 43 50 26 41 28 58 36 31 12 25 42 41 48 22 30 VW 19 21 26 22 41 16 34 14 28 12 23 12 41 46 23 30 Average number of workers 4 3 4 3 4 3 5 4 4 2 3 4 5 6 3 4

Quantitative Analysis Of Mixed Model Assembly Lines

There are many factors that affect the dynamic behaviour of work flow in manual assembly systems. The average utilization and the number of tasks per job obviously affect average flowtime and work-in-process inventory levels. It is also intuitive, based on elementary queuing theory, that the variance of job inter-arrival times and the variance of processing times on individual machines affect flowtimes. [12]. Basic terminology regarding queuing systems for both infinite and finite source has been adequately covered by Stevenson [13]. This includes characteristics of waiting lines, arrival and service patterns, queue discipline and measures of waiting line performance. The case scenario is an infinite source situation, single channel, multi phase system. The inter-arrival times are considered to be constant and vehicles are assembled on a first-come, first-served basis. According to Littles law, for a stable system, the average number of vehicles in the assembly line, is equal to the average vehicle arrival rate, multiplied by the average time spent by a vehicle in the assembly line, [13]. That is: System utilization, is computed as: =

=

(1)

where = vehicle arrival rate to station 1; M = number of servers; = service rate/ server. The average time a vehicle is in the assembly line, is given as: where W = average time a vehicle waits in the queue. 120-5 = +

(2)

(3)

CIE42 Proceedings, 16-18 July 2012, Cape Town, South Africa 2012 CIE & SAIIE

The performance metrics for the manual assembly line which include average number of vehicles waiting in the line, average time a vehicle waits in the line and system utilization, were used for bottleneck analysis in Section 3.5 and are based on Equation 1, 2 and 3. We derived through physical counting of vehicles on the assembly line, and from the desired takt time which was a function of the demand. The quantitative analysis of mixed model assembly lines used in the paper was derived from Groover [14]. The number of workers, w is computed as:

where WL = workload to be accomplished by the workers in the scheduled time period (min/hr); AT = available time per worker (min/hr per worker), where =

=

(4)

(5)

where Rpj = production rate of model j (vehicles/hr) and Twcj = work content of model j (min/vehicle). p = number of vehicle models to be produced during the period, and j is used to identify the model. Rpj is computed as a function of annual demand for the vehicle models as shown in Table 1, using Equation 6. =

We used Equation 4, 5 and 6 to determine the number of workers required as shown in the last column of Table 3. For instance, for station 1, using 8 hours per shift, 1 shift per day, 50 weeks per year, and annual demand values from Table 1, hourly assembly rate for VW is 0.36, for TGM is 0.42, for TGS is 2.79, for CLA is 0.6 and for HB Bus is 0.81.This give an average production rate of 1 vehicle/ hr for the assembly line. To compute the available time per worker, WL, the work content of each model is obtained from first row of Table 3, and the average production rate of the line is 1 vehicle/ hr, to give WL = 166 min/hr. Assuming AT = 60 minutes as the available time per hour and factoring an efficiency of 80% results in 48 minutes being available per hour. Computing the number of workers, w will give 3.45, which we rounded up to 4 workers. In mixed model assembly line balancing, the objective function can be expressed as: This constraint was crucial in optimally assigning the workers to stations with the objective to minimize worker idling or maximise on worker labour utilization. The decisions regarding optimal bottleneck management in Section 3.6 are based on this constraint. 3.3 Development Of Simulation Model (7)

(6)

In discrete-event simulation (DES), the operation of a system is represented as a chronological sequence of events. Each event occurs at an instant in time and marks a change of state in the system [15]. Input data to the simulation model were extracted directly from the data files of the Process control department. The facility layout of the assembly plant was used as a basis for the layout of the simulation model to enable an accurate and realistic simulation model. Discrete-event simulation is an experimental approach often used because it allows a high level of detail to be modelled since assumptions with respect to buffer space, processing time distributions or priority dispatching can be modelled [13]. We assumed that all station will be available for assembly operations and that the new spray booth has negligible downtime. It is also critical to note 120-6

CIE42 Proceedings, 16-18 July 2012, Cape Town, South Africa 2012 CIE & SAIIE

that the final vehicle inspection station will not constrain the main assembly line since the finished vehicle can be moved away from the line and not block station 15. Figure 1 show a schematic diagram of the facility layout of the assembly line which was used for the Showflow model. W/S 2 W/S1 W/S 3 W/S 4 W/S 5 W/S 6 W/S 7 W/S 8
W/S

9 W/S 10 W/S 11

Spray Booth

Quality Inspection Bay

W/S 15

W/S 14

W/S 13

W/S 12

Figure 1: Facility Layout Of Assembly Line We coded the model using Trigger Language Interpreter (TLI). For instance, a table for processing times is first created and job parameter such as processing time for the first vehicle model on first workstation will be coded as: elem[product[E,1],1] TLI was also used to control entry of vehicles into the first workstation i.e. if elqueue[E]>1 then elaccept[E]:=false. 3.4 Verification And Validation Of Simulation Model

After building the model, verification and validation were carried out to check the accuracy of the model. The production historic data were compared to simulation data and showed acceptable accuracy, less than 5 percent deviation from real values. The objective of model verification was to ensure that the conceptual model was reflected accurately. Table 4 shows simulation results for a 30 day period with vehicles entering the assembly line in the sequence VWHBTGMTGS-CLA after every one hour, according to the November 2011 vehicle sales. We used a time representation of 60 units make 1 minute, 60 minutes make 1 hour, 8 hours make 1 day. The simulation results for vehicles produced are in line with the average monthly sales shown in Table 1, an indication that the lumped model input/output relations accurately map onto those of the real system [16]. 3.5 Bottleneck Analysis

We simulated the model for a 30 day period with 5 vehicle models entering the assembly line while varying different parameters. A low value of every 15 minutes for the rate of vehicle entrance to the first station was chosen such that it would not bottleneck the process. Bottleneck analysis was then conducted by analysing the effect of vehicle sequence, batch sizes, individual vehicle models, subassemblies and downtime on the desired performance metrics.

120-7

CIE42 Proceedings, 16-18 July 2012, Cape Town, South Africa 2012 CIE & SAIIE

Table 4: Simulation Results For Validation Station number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Produced 236 235 234 233 233 233 233 232 231 231 230 229 228 228 228 227 Average queue 0.64 0.55 0.6 0.58 0.63 0.56 0.64 0.54 0.5 0.24 0.62 0.69 0.77 0.74 0.45 0.79 Utilization 54.3 45.74 56.23 41.49 56.11 35.27 62.79 46.84 50.16 19.25 39.07 49.6 64.31 73.94 38.13 78.85

3.5.1 Analysis Of Effect Of Vehicle Sequencing We commenced bottleneck analysis by simulating 25 combinations of assembly sequences for the five vehicle models with the view find a better sequence than the VWHBTGMTGS-CLA, which was being used, basing on shortest total processing time rule. Fig 2 depicts results for comparison of station waiting times for five assembly sequences (sequences for A, B, C, D and E are shown in Table 5). The sequence TGSHBTGMCLAVW outperformed other sequences in both the number of vehicles produced, total waiting time and average queues of vehicles at stations as shown in Table 5. The results also demonstrated slight disparities in station utilization. Analysis of the status diagram of the simulation results indicated high frequency of blockages at station 10 and 6, while station 2 and 4 were the idlest ones.

49 Waiting time ( mins) 44 39 34 29 24 19 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Station number

Figure 2: Comparison Of Station Waiting Times For Five Assembly Sequences 120-8

A B C D E

CIE42 Proceedings, 16-18 July 2012, Cape Town, South Africa 2012 CIE & SAIIE

Table 5: Output And Waiting Times For Five Vehicle Sequences Sequence A: B: C: D: E: TGSHBTGMCLA-VW VWHBTGMTGS-CLA CLA-VWTGS-HBTGM CLA-VWTGM-TGS-HB CLATGS-TGM-HB-VW of vehicles produced 227 226 226 226 226 Total waiting time (mins) 592 598 594 593 594

3.5.2 Analysis Of Effect Of Batch Sizes We then analysed the effect of assembling in batch sizes of a single unit when compared to batch sizes of up to maximum of 20 vehicles, using the sequence TGSHBTGMCLAVW. We found out that the batch size of one was superior in terms of number of vehicles produced, higher station utilization and lower average queue lengths. Fig 3 shows the effect of increasing the batch size on production output.

Number of vehicles produced

280 275 270 265 260 255 250 245 1 5 10 15 20

Production output

Batch size
Figure 3: Comparison Batch Size Against Production Output 3.5.3 Analysis Of Individual Vehicle Models We then simulated the individual vehicle models with the object to identify precisely the effects of individual models and actual locations of bottleneck stations and results are shown in Table 6. Analysis of simulation results revealed that the CLA truck and HB bus were the most problematic due to the complexity of the assembly activities executed. The results from the simulation model demonstrate that the first station was bottleneck when assembling the CLA truck since it has the largest waiting time for vehicles in the queue, when using the FIFO queue discipline [17].The main reason for this bottleneck is the fact that the operators have to assemble the cross members and fit them at the same time. The average waiting time of the assembly line at station 14 was also adversely increased by HB bus since mounting operations of bumper; head light, battery box, trailer loom, mirror and rear mudguards as well as brake test are undertaken by 6 workers.

120-9

CIE42 Proceedings, 16-18 July 2012, Cape Town, South Africa 2012 CIE & SAIIE

Table 6: Simulation Results For Individual Vehicle Models Vehicle model VW HB CLA TGS TGM HB with subassembly CLA with subassembly Produced 280 209 215 278 278 279 240 Average queue 0.974 0.928 0.588 0.980 0.980 0.948 0.751 Average wait (h) 12.98 16.33 10.26 13.15 13.13 12.69 11.75 Average Utilization (%) 53.2 45.8 58.8 62.7 60.9 58.6 64.1

3.5.4 Analysis Of The Effect Of A Subassembly When demand increased, there was need to reduce the takt time from one hour to 50 minutes. We introduced a subassembly at station 14 when assembling the HB bus, and at station 1 when assembling the CLA truck to reduce the takt time. We used the results from the simulation model shown in Table 7 to analyse the effect of subassemblies on single mode and mixed mode. The results show that introduction of a subassembly for the HB bus will result in an increase in average utilization of assembly line than single mode, although the single mode will produce two more vehicles during the simulated 30-day period. Table 7: Comparison Of Single Mode Against Mixed Mode Vehicle model HB with subassembly (single mode) HB with subassembly (mixed mode) CLA with subassembly (single mode) CLA with subassembly (mixed mode) Adding subassemblies for both CLA and HB Produced 279 277 240 277 278 Average queue 0.948 0.963 0.751 0.963 0.973 Average wait (h) 12.69 12.96 11.75 12.94 13.03 Average Utilization (%) 58.6 62.2 64.1 62.2 61.8

Conversely, average line utilization decreases while total number of vehicles produced increase for the CLA truck under the same scenario. Adding subassemblies for both CLA and HB under same production run yields one more vehicle for the 30-day period at a slightly lower line utilization of 61.8%. 3.5.5 Analysis Of The Effect Of Downtime We also simulated the model with special focus station 9, assuming 4% downtime on the painting station and exponential distribution of the runtime. The results show a loss of about 10 vehicles in lost production for every 30 working days. We also varied the stop time simulation settings to determine the actual number of vehicles that could be produced to meet particular due dates for orders from customers, if the vehicles were assembled in mixed mode. For instance, 68 vehicles can be produced in 10 days, 108 vehicles can be produced in 15 days, 148 vehicles can be produced in 20 days, and 227 vehicles can be produced in 30 days. 120-10

CIE42 Proceedings, 16-18 July 2012, Cape Town, South Africa 2012 CIE & SAIIE

3.6

Decision Making For Optimal Bottleneck Management

The analysis of vehicle sequencing revealed that if there is demand for all the 5 vehicle models, the best sequence would be TGSHBTGMCLAVW. It is advisable to ensure that the model with largest total assembly time is followed by one with the smallest, one with second largest followed by one with second from least, and the one with average assembly time in the middle. This helps to reduce the throughput time and effectively utilise the workers. Bottlenecks can also be effectively managed through assembly of vehicles in singleunit batch sizes. In manual assembly, the time the assemblers spend fetching parts often constitutes a considerable portion of each work cycle, thus having a substantial impact on assembly cost. Consequently, if the use of kitting can reduce the time for fetching parts, it is an important aspect to consider so that vehicle queues can be reduced [18]. If the labour utilization at a station is too low, we propose to reduce the number of operators working on this work station. Conversely, if the labour utilization at a particular station is too high and yet the same station is a constraint for the whole line, we increase the number of operators working on this work station. If the labour utilization is just below the required target of the labour utilization, we propose moving functions from another work station to this work station. If the labour utilization is just above the required target of the labour utilization, functions should be moved from this work station to another work station that has the capacity to work on the functions. We introduced the cross member sub-assembly next to station 1 when assembling the CLA truck and this resulted in reduction in assembly time from 64 minutes to 50 minutes. We also proposed a battery box sub-assembly at station 3 for the CLA truck. We also propose to add a worker to station 14 when processing an HB bus since the functions cannot be moved to another station. We propose a variable takt time which would be a function of the monthly demand. When demand increases, takt time should decrease even up to 40 minutes. This calls for more resources at station 2 and 3 for the CLA, station 5 for CLA and VW, station 7 for CLA, station 12 for VW and CLA, station 14 for TGM, CLA and VW. It is also very critical to institute a reliability centred maintenance program for ensuring an optimal preventive maintenance scheme especially for station 9. 4 CONCLUSION

The case study demonstrates a methodology which integrates queuing theory and simulation for optimal bottleneck management. Optimal sequence for mixed mode production can be determined through simulation. Our simulation experiments revealed that the proposed mixed-model approach for manual automobile systems at the case in point outperforms the conventional batch production mode. We demonstrated that bottlenecks migrate when there is a product changeover on the assembly line. The purpose of bottleneck analysis was finding the bottleneck in a production line. Different vehicles are made on the line, with same routing but varying processing times. This simulation model clearly demonstrated that the machine with the highest degree of utilisation does not necessarily have to be the bottleneck. When the model was simulated, one could trace the bottleneck by finding out which machine is blocked most. The machine next to this one was the bottleneck. We also demonstrated that simulation can be as a tool for determining the due dates for orders from customers through varying stop time simulation settings. Improvement efforts for manual automobile assembly lines should commence with the required takt time, then finding ways to achieve it using optimal number of workers. Future research will be directed towards automating the manual automobile systems with the objective to reduce makespan and improve productivity. Development of heuristics for sequencing mixed models for manual assembly systems is also an area for future research. 120-11

CIE42 Proceedings, 16-18 July 2012, Cape Town, South Africa 2012 CIE & SAIIE

5 [1]

REFERENCES Md. Alamgir Kabir, Mario. T. T. 1995. Batch-model assembly line balancing: A multiattribute decision making approach, International Journal of Production Economics, 41(1), pp 193-201. Daria B , M. F., Alessandro P, Fabio S. 2009. Balancingsequencing procedure for a mixed model assembly system in case of finite buffer capacity, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 44(1), pp 345-359. Novoa, C. M. 2009. Bootstrap methods for analyzing time studies and input data for simulations, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 58 (5), pp 460-479. Arne I, Torbjrn. Y., Gunnar S. B 2005. Reducing bottle-necks in a manufacturing system with automatic data collection and discrete-event simulation, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 16(6), pp 615-628. Gao, P, Wittevrongel S, Laevens K, De Vleeschauwer D, Bruneel H. 2010. Distributional Little's law for queues with heterogeneous server interruptions, Electronics Letters, 46(11), pp 763-764. Masood S. 2006. Line balancing and simulation of an automated production transfer line., Assembly Automation, 26(1), pp 69-74. Das B, Sanchez-Rivas J, Garcia-Diaz A, MacDonald, C. A. 2010. A computer simulation approach to evaluating assembly line balancing with variable operation times, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 21(7), pp 872-887. Pourbabai, B. 1994. Design of a flexible assembly line to control the bottleneck, Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems 7(2), pp 122-133. Plenert, G. J. 1993. Generalized model for solving constrained bottlenecks, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 12(6), pp 506-513. Wang J, Q. Chang, et al. 2011. Data driven production modeling and simulation of complex automobile general assembly plant, Computers in Industry, 62(7), pp 765775. Engstrom, T., & Medbo, L. 1994. Intra-group work patterns in final assembly of motor vehicles, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 14(3), pp 101-113. Enns, S. T. 1998. Work flow analysis using queuing decomposition models. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 34(2), pp 371-383. William J.S. 2007. Operations Management, 9th Edition, McGraw-Hill Irwin. Mikell, P Groover. 2001. Automation, Production Systems and Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall. Stewart Robinson. 2004. Simulation - The practice of model development and use, Wiley. Michael Pidd. 2004. Computer Simulation in Management Science, 5th Edition, John Wiley & Sons,Ltd. Incontrol Enterprise Dynamics. 2001. Showflow Simulation Software, Incontrol Simulation Software. Robin Ha, Lars M, Per M, 2012. Assembly station design: a quantitative comparison of the effects of kitting and continuous supply, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 23(3), pp 315327.

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6] [7]

[8] [9] [10]

[11]

[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

120-12