Design

for
Assembly &
Automation
[IM31014]

Session: DFAA-18: Mixed

Model Flow

Presented by :-
Soumyanath Chatterjee
Prepared using LATEX
⟨soumya@iem.iitkgp.ac.in⟩
 Uttisthata Jagrata Prapya Varannibodhata
Kshurasanna Dhara Nishita Durataya durgama Pathah tat kavayo Vadanti
Arise! Awake! Approach the great and learn.
Like the sharp edge of a razor is that path,
so the wise say, hard to tread and difficult to cross.
– Katha Upanishada ( 1.3.14)
Mixed Model Assy System [MMAS]

1
Picture Credit: Quarterman Lee, P E; Strategos Inc.
©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 3/31
Traditional

©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 4/31

Schedule:Traditional

©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 5/31

Back process

©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 6/31

Pros & Cons

For:
Scheduling is easy
Low process variation
Less chance of any error
Against:
Difficult to meet delivery
commitment
High inventory
Low capacity utilization

©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 7/31

Mixed Assy

©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 8/31

Mixed Back Process

©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 9/31

Mixed Assy Schedule

1
©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 10/31
Pros & Cons

Cons:
Difficult to plan and execute
Needs close synchronization between production plan and
supply
Needs strict quality control
Pros:
Adopts to upstream and downstream demand variability
Better capacity utilization
Lower inventory and space requirement

©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 11/31

Enablers

Quality of material
In process changeover
Harmonized operation and time
Material sequencing
Material staging
Inline equipment
Ensure part availability
Ensure tool availability

©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 12/31

Key Performance Indicators[KPI]

Delivery time adherence

WIP
Utilization
Complexity

©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 13/31

Flow line

2
Picture credit: Wang, H & Hu, S J; Manufacturing complexity in assembly
systems
©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 14/31
Representation

Block diagrams show the flow

but are not very useful for math-
ematical analysis on computer.

Adjacency Matrix are useful for

analyzing the line in computer.

©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 15/31

Algebric Expression

Use ⊗ to denote serial blocks

Use ⊕ to denote parallel blocks

S1,2,3,4,5 = S1 ⊗ [(S2 ⊗ S3 ) ⊕ S4 ] ⊗ S5
3

3
Abad AG et al.
©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 16/31
Comparison

©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 17/31

Quality Metric

Where,
ψiik Prob{Producing a conforming item of type i at station k}
ψiϵk Prob{Producing a non-conforming item of type i at station k}

∴ ψiik = (1 − ψiϵk )

©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 18/31

Quality Performance

Let, Ψi be Quality conforming matrix of stations i

When two stations i, j are serially linked:

ΨE(i,j) = Ψi × Ψj (1)
⇒ ΨE(1,2,...n) = Ψ1 × Ψ2 × . . . Ψn (2)

©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 19/31

Quality: Parallel lines
Performing similar tasks:
ΨE(i,j) = Ψi ⊕Q Ψj (3)
[ ]
∑
i j
= ωi ψrv + ωj ψrv (4)
s rv
[ ]rv is the r-th row and v-th col of the matrix
ωi is probability of parts passing through station i

When the stations are performing different tasks:

{
{min(Ψirv , Ψjrv )}rv , if v ̸= N + 1
ΨE(i,j) = Ψi ⊕Q Ψj = (5)
{max(Ψirv , Ψjrv )}rv , if v = N + 1
{
{min(Ψ1rv , Ψ2rv , . . . Ψnrv )}rv , if v ̸= N + 1
⇒ ΨE(1,2,...n) = (6)
{max(Ψ1rv , Ψ2rv , . . . Ψnrv )}rv , if v = N + 1
©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 20/31
Case Study-1: Net Quality

©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 21/31

Quality Metric

©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 22/31

Quality:Station

Ψ1 = Ψ1.1 ⊗Q Ψ1.2 (7)

Ψ1 = Ψ5.1 ⊗Q Ψ5.2 (8)

©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 23/31

Quality:Single flow stations

©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 24/31

Quality:Overall

ΨE(1.2.3.4.5) = Ψ1 ⊗Q [(Ψ2 ⊗ Ψ3 ) ⊕Q Ψ4 ] ⊗Q Ψ5

©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 25/31

Inverse Notation:Serial

Given:
ΨE(i,j) = Ψi ⊗Q Ψj
We define:
−→
Ψi = ΨE(i,j) ⊗Q −1 Ψj = ΨE(i,j) ⊗Q [Ψj ]−1

and
←−
Ψj = Ψi ⊗Q −1 ΨE(i,j) = [Ψi ]−1 ⊗Q ΨE(i,j)

©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 26/31

Inverse Notation:Parallel

Given:
ΨE(i,j) = Ψi ⊕Q Ψj
We define:
Ψi = ΨE(i,j) ⊕−1
Q Ψ
j


E(i,j) E(i,j) j

{ψrv }rv , if ψrv > ψrv AND v ̸= N + 1


{ψ i ≥ ψ E(i,j) } E(i,j)
, if ψrv j
= ψrv AND v ̸= N + 1
rv rv rv
= (9)


E(i,j)
{ψrv }rv
E(i,j)
, if ψrv j
> ψrv AND v = N + 1


{ψ i ≥ 1 − ψ E(i,j) } E(i,j)
, if ψrv j
= ψrv AND v = N + 1
rv rv rv

©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 27/31

Example
Suppose we want to make quality for first product to 70% instead
of 67.5% in previous example then what improvement in process is
required. For simplicity, let us assume quality of only station 3 can
be improved.

SE(1.2.3.4.5) = S1 ⊗ [(S2 ⊗ S3 ) ⊕ S4 ⊗ S5 ] (10)

−1
⇒ S1 ⊗ SE(1.2.3.4.5) = [(S2 ⊗ S3 ) ⊕ S4 ] ⊗ S5 (11)
−1 −1
⇒ (S1 ⊗ SE(1.2.3.4.5) ) ⊗ S5 = [(S2 ⊗ S3 ) ⊕ S4 ] (12)
−1 −1 −1
⇒ [(S1 ⊗ SE(1.2.3.4.5) ) ⊗ S5 ] ⊕ S4 = S2 ⊗ S3 (13)
∴ S2 ⊗−1 [[(S1 ⊗−1 SE(1.2.3.4.5) ) ⊗−1 S5 ] ⊕−1 S4 ] = S3 (14)

Replacing Si with Ψi we get:

Ψ3.NEW = Ψ2 ⊗−1 1 −1 E(1.2.3.4.5)

Q [[(Ψ ⊗Q Ψ ) ⊗−1
Q Ψ ]⊕
5 −1 4
Ψ ]

©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 28/31

 We can see this improvement in quality will require improving the
quality level in station 3 from 96% to 99.56%

©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 29/31

References

1 Abad, A. G., Guo, W., & Jin, J. (2014). Algebraic expression

of system configurations and performance metrics for
mixed-model assembly systems. IIE Transactions, 46(3),
230-248.
2 Abad, A. G. (2010). Modeling and analysis of process
complexity and performance in mixed model assembly systems
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan).
3 Wang H, Ko J, Zhu X and Hu S J (2010); A complexity
model for assembly supply chain...; ASME journal of
Manufacturing Science and Engineering

©Soumyanath Chatterjee, 2021 IM31014-18/21 30/31