Virtual Systems Design

and Simulation for

Production
Contents
1) Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................3
1.1) Speaker development history.....................................................................................................................3
1.2) Speaker manufacturing ..............................................................................................................................4
1.3) Requirements of system .............................................................................................................................4
2) Process planning and sequence..........................................................................................................................4
3) Layout options ....................................................................................................................................................7
3.1) Facility layout...................................................................................................................................................7
3.2 Production system layout .................................................................................................................................8
4) Enterprise dynamics models.............................................................................................................................10
5) Enterprise dynamics results..............................................................................................................................12
6) Discussion and conclusion ................................................................................................................................13
References ................................................................................................................................................................14
Appendices .............................................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 1 reliability of equipment data .........................................................................................................................4

Table 2 task time and dependancy .............................................................................................................................5
Table 3 Proximity requirements of departments .......................................................................................................7
Table 4 enterprise dynamics model outputs over time ...........................................................................................12

Figure 1 RCA mascot “Nipper” Figure 2 1920’s horn loaded speaker Figure 3
horn driver (for Fig2) ..................................................................................................................................................3
Figure 4 moving iron speaker Figure 5 duel coil speakers with audio transformer
attached ......................................................................................................................................................................3
Figure 6 modern permanent magnet speakers ..........................................................................................................3
Figure 7, Celestion Vintage 30, voice coil to cone assembly Figure 8, Celestion vintage 30, voice coil,
spider and cone fitting to frame. 4
Figure 10 assembled and wired speaker excluding dust cap task h ...........................................................................6
Figure 11 pole plate task a..........................................................................................................................................6
Figure 12 pole and magnet task b ..............................................................................................................................6
Figure 13 pole magnet and top plate task c ...............................................................................................................6
Figure 14 voice coil task d...........................................................................................................................................6
Figure 15 voice coil and spider task e .........................................................................................................................6
Figure 16 voice coil spider and cone task f .................................................................................................................6
Figure 17 cone coil and spider in frame task g ...........................................................................................................6
Figure 18 proposed facility layout ..............................................................................................................................7
Figure 19 production floor basic layout....................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 20 central robot parts loader layout. ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1) Introduction
The aim of this work is to explore virtual system modelling to evaluate and improve the manufacturing system of
a low cost component speaker.

Modern manufacturing systems are often complex and highly automated, where seemingly small changes can
have significant impacts on productivity. Manufacturing system simulation allows for experimentation and
validation of process designs and modifications without the huge cost involved of altering existing systems.
However, some tasks do not lend themselves to automation. Intricate work with high variability, often on
soft or delicate parts still requires human dexterity. Accurate assembly of compliant structures by adhesive
bonding as found in speakers is one area where complete automation is challenging.

1.1) Speaker development history

Figure 1 RCA mascot “Nipper” Figure 2 1920’s horn loaded speaker Figure 3 horn driver (for Fig2)
(Barraud, 1898) (Soyland, 2019)

Figure 4 moving iron speaker Figure 5 duel coil speakers with audio transformer attached
(UNKNOWN, 1929) (Carlson, 2020)

While sound reproduction has come a long way since the

Figure 6 modern permanent magnet speakers
(Focal Audio, n.d.)
Edison roll phonograph (figure 1) there are recognisable
elements present performing similar functions. The signal
changes from mechanical vibration to electrical current for the
horn driver transducer, but it still vibrates a diaphragm (figures
2 and 3.) This later becomes the now common cone diaphragm
using the same style of transducer to create the movement
(figure 4). In the 1930s (figure 5) the voice coil that receives the
signal moved to the diaphragm, this reacts against an
electromagnet surrounding the pole piece as permanent
magnets lacked sufficient field strength, until AlNiCo magnetic
alloy was discovered. This discovery gave rise to the Permanent
magnet speakers commonly used today (figure 6).
1.2) Speaker manufacturing

Figure 7, Celestion Vintage 30, voice coil to cone assembly Figure 8, Celestion vintage 30, voice coil, spider and cone fitting to frame.
(Greeves, 2012) Note voice coil guide fixture for critical feature alignment
(Greeves, 2012)
While there is not a great deal of academic articles on the manufacture of speakers available, a few
manufacturers have provided virtual tours of their facilities online, or at least provided some publicity shots of
facilities. A few striking similarities in the higher-end speaker manufacturers’ production systems are apparent.
The manufacturing systems seem to be based around a flow lines with manual workers performing the bulk of
the tasks such as the voice coil fitment and diaphragm assembly to frame fitting shown in figures 7 and 8 above.
This is typically aided with production fixtures to increase speed and accuracy of assembly.

1.3) Requirements of system

General requirements
The manufacturing system for the speakers is required to output 1440 units per day, giving a line cycle time of
20 seconds, while sufficiently sized to fit into a building appropriate to the turnover of the business.
A lean manufacturing approach is suited to the low unit cost, to aid this the line needs to minimise work in
progress, maintain line balance and efficiency, and account for downtime based on equipment reliability.
Building size
Assuming that £2.00 of the £5.00 from the unit price is used for purchase of the pre-existing components, the
gross income of the company is £21600 PCW.
Based on average pricing of industrial property rent in Chichester (statistia, n.d.) and allowing a generous 15% of
turn over for rent, the factory footprint could be in the region of 590m2 (24x24.5m).

2) Process planning and sequence

To meet the production targets in the longer term, an adjusted line cycle time is required to account for the
downtime of equipment and will be based on the time lost on an average year.

Assuming the factory operates for 50 weeks a year 8 hrs a day 5 days a week, leaving 2 weeks for planned
maintenance. (2000 working hrs).

Table 1 reliability of equipment data

 Equipment Mean time Mean time to Failures per year Time lost (hrs)
between failures repair
Feeders 40 hr 0.5 hr 50 25
Robots 180 hr 2.0 hr 11.2 22.4
Stacker/Wrapper 300 hr 1.5 hr 6.7 10.1
Conveyors 4000 hr 3.0 hr 0.5 1.5
Fork-Lifts 300 hr 2.0 hr 6.7 13.4
Magnetiser 3000hr 4.0 hr 0.7 2.8
ATM 2000hr 4.0 hr 1 4
Total 79.2 hrs per year
lost

This leaves 1920 hrs remaining in the year, (6914887 seconds) therefore the maximum line cycle time to meet
production target (360’000 units) over the course of a year is 19.21 seconds.
The line cycle time is equal to the longest station or bottleneck time.
Maximum line cycle time ≥ (n x station time)/n where n is the number of stations performing a task(s).
So any assembly task longer than 19.21 seconds must have more than one station or operator.
No tasks are sufficiently short to allow them to be combined at a station.

Table 2 task time and dependency

Task Description Dependant Automatic Loading/setup Task time(s) Number
or manual Time(s) and and of
distribution distribution stations
Hard Parts
a Pole plate loading None Auto Log normal 17 1
Sd 15%
b Bond magnet body to pole plate a Auto Log normal 19 Log normal 19 1
Sd 15% Sd 15%
c Bond top plate to magnet None Auto 15-18 uniform 1
Soft Parts
d Load voice coil None Auto 35-45 uniform 3
e Bond spider to voice coil d Manual 35-45 uniform 3
f Bond spider and voice coil to cone e Auto Neg exp 18 1
g Bond cone assembly into frame f manual 6 16 1
Combined line
h Fit magnet to frame assembly g Auto Average 16 1
i Bond on dust cap f Manual Average 16 1
j Magnetise magnet asm c Auto Average 20 2
k Automated test machine b,c,g,i,j Auto Average 10 1
l Bag and pack, 36 units per box k Manual Average 12 1
m Palletise l Auto Average 15
Alignment of the voice coil, magnet and pole piece is critical to the function of the speaker unit and has an impact on the number of possible assembly sequences.

For this exercise, the spider is clamped between the frame and the top plate after the soft parts are assembled into the frame. The complete magnet assembly is then
attached to the frame allowing final positioning of the voice coil and pole piece to be done at this time. The dust cap is fitted later to allow access through the
diaphragm assembly to access the pole piece aligning feature. This is an approach like the Celestion speakers shown in figures 7-8.

Figure 10 pole plate Figure 11 pole and Figure 12pole

task a magnet task b magnet and top Dust cap Magnetise Test Pack
plate task c Task i Task j Task k Task l

Figure 9 assembled and wired

speaker excluding dust cap task h

Figure 13 voice coil Figure 14 voice coil Figure 16 voice coil Figure 15 cone coil
task d and spider task e spider and cone task f and spider in frame
task g

The proposed assembly sequence for the speaker is shown above (in Table 2), operation b, d, e, and j, all have a task time greater than the maximum line cycle time so
require parallel stations. The number of stations required = task time/ cycle time, rounded up to the nearest whole number.
3) Layout options

3.1) Facility layout

To make most efficient use of space, placement of the departments within the building should be based on any
need for proximity or distance. For example, placing an office next to a sheet metal forming bay may result in
office worker productivity loss due to excessive noise.

Using a proximity relationship table to guide the placements of the departments allows for a more efficient
initial layout process. The layout is modified until adjacency requirements are met.
Table 3 Proximity requirements of departments

From Receiving Production Toolroom Toolroom Office Convenience Shipping Rework

store facilities

Receiving E2 A A U A E4 U
Production E2 X E1 I1 E2 E2
Toolroom E3 U A X E4
Office X U U
Break and X U
hygiene
Shipping X

Proximity reasoning number code Adjacency desirability letter code

1) Ease of supervision 2) Contact required E) Extremely important A) Acceptable
3) Related store 4) Shared staff I) Important U) Unacceptable
X) Irrelevant

By considering table 1 above one acceptable layout is given below in figure 17

Figure 17 proposed facility layout

As can be seen in figure one, the departments that need to be adjacent are adjacent, with at least one
department between those that must be separated.
3.2 Production system layout
It is desired that the production line be automated as far as possible, however human operators are present, so
some layout considerations regarding access to equipment for repair and safety are required. Shipping and
receiving ideally need to be situated close to the beginning and end of the line, respectively. Beginning with the
robot parts loader centred line.

Both proposed production systems are arranged in a concertina fashion to reduce the length of the line and
reduce distance between stations. The two initial branches for assembly of soft and hard components joining
midway through.

Figure 18 High level conveyor

To allow access to equipment for service and repair in the more complex robot loaded system, high-level
transport conveyors, above 2m, give foot passage underneath as well as allowing conveyors to cross at different
hights.

Figure 19 process layout centred around central parts feed robot.

The production line is focused around the central parts feed robot, that supplies most components to the feeder
conveyors of the automated and manual assembly stations shown above in figure 19. This line occupies an area
of 62x24m including warehouses. Far too large for the turnover available and needs to be reduced to around
half. Conveyors of lengths that are a multiple of 5m is proving extremely difficult to implement in the space
available.

Figure 20 3D view of robot centred line

Figure 21 hand loaded production line

By contrast the production line equipped with manually loaded parts feeders is 46x23m and could be reduced
further. Significantly fewer feed conveyors are needed as parts are not being distributed from a central point.
Reduced complexity also gives some improvement in downtime predicted.
Figure 22 3D view of hand replenished line

Conveyors do not need to be run at significant distance of the ground as access to all stations is not impeded.
The green availability controls shown in figure 21 above are not a physical barrier, but rather an artefact of the
program interface, the 3D view above in figure 22 shows the access room available.

4) Enterprise dynamics models

Figure 23 Process and availability control connection

Figure 24 hand loaded connections and reliability

Figures 21 and 22 above shows the availability controls that simulate the reliability and downtime expected.
Rather than assign control to every conveyor, control is grouped such that in the event of failure the section that
needs to shutdown to safely repair on the damaged item. Figure 23 below shows one example of this where loss
of the loader robot results in shutdown of conveyors to and from it to effect a safe repair.

Figure 25 conveyors shutdown to facilitate robot repair

By adding an additional short buffer conveyor intermediate to the dust cap bonding station production could
continue for a short period.
Figure 26 conveyor zone and magnetizer reliability

Where a station or process is operated in parallel such as the magnetiser stations shown above in figure 22 their
downtime is assigned independently to accurately simulate the low probability of simultaneous failure.

5) Enterprise dynamics results

System type Output data

Hand loaded
1 day

Hand loaded
5 year

Robot loaded
1 day

Robot loaded
5 year

Table 4 enterprise dynamics model outputs over time

Simulation of the manufacturing systems presented were conducted for 5 runs over a simulated 5 year working
period, to give a clearer indication of the effect of system reliability on annual output.

The simulations are also run over a 2 working week cycle to look at shorter term output.

The results of the output simulations are shown in table 4 above.

The system is required to produce 1400 units per working day, giving a 5 year output of 1.8 million units.

The robot centred system produced a total output of 1771751.60 units 28’294 units short (1.56%) of the desired
amount despite appearing to have excess capacity, this equates to £84’747 in lost turnover.

The Human loaded system produced 1767188.80 units 32’812 units short (1.82%) of the 1.8 million units, a
turnover lost of £98’463 over the 5 year period.

This contrasts with the expected daily outputs when simulated over 10 working days where both systems on
average appear to over-produce.

6) Discussion and conclusion

Both the hand loaded hopper system and robot loaded variant of the production line have their individual merits
and could be fine-tuned to give the required production volume long-term, with small changes. The preferred
method really depends on the cost of floorspace available versus the wages of the workforce required.

There is some anecdotal evidence and personal experience to suggest that a “leave that for the day shift”
attitude amongst night-shift workers can cause a surprising amount of disruption, adequate supervision and care
needs to be taken during the night-shift to control this issue.

Further refinements to both simulations would be beneficial to improve the accuracy of the results.

The following alterations may be beneficial:

For the centralised robotic feeder system:

At present the feeder robot and buffer conveyors place parts at random, due to issues with the system locking
up when identifying individual random components. Correcting this would allow for a better understanding of
the length of the buffer conveyors required to ensure adequate capacity to absorb the random variation.
Alternatively, an additional robot loader could be used with the part types distributed between them. Provided
that sufficient buffering is present the output should not be significantly affected.

Further optimisation of the layout of the system, conveyor length and capacity could reduce footprint and work
in progress considerably while increasing uptime on the production line.

For the Human loaded system:

The human loaded feed hopper simulations do not accurately reflect the component storage and refilling
methods. Storing 1500 components, even relatively small ones is a non-trivial task. It is likely that replenishment
while the system is online would be required. Magazine or tape feeding of components is commonly employed
in the electronics industry, along with automated pick and place. This includes systems for online replenishment
of components, while this would add complexity, this has been accounted for in the MTBF and MTTR of the
feeder systems in the model.

To reduce footprint, the hard parts line’s first three stations do not have a buffer conveyor between them, or
between the station and the parts feeder system. While this has little effect during normal operation, any
interruption of feedstock results in immediate loss of production. Adding buffering would allow production to
continue until the buffer stock is exhausted, giving an increase in productivity. The size of the buffer is a trade-
off between work in progress and productivity gained during feeder failure.

For both systems:

Addition of an accurate 3D model of all components and sub-assemblies to the simulation would allow a more
natural understanding of how the process is progressing and what is occurring at each station. This has not been
implemented due to a quirk of the remote access licences of the CAD and Enterprise Dynamics software used
not allowing import of DXF or export of .wrl files. This however does not impact the simulation results in a
meaningful way.

Neither system is compact enough to fit within the floorspace that the turnover of the business would provide,
this is partly due to the conveyors being of 5m increments in length. Alterations of length and capacity of
conveyor systems would facilitate reduction in footprint area of the systems, along with a reduction in work in
progress.

Raw data from one test given in the appendices shows considerable time spent by components in some buffer
conveyors, these could have their capacity reduced to bring down in process inventory.

Given the cost of commercial rent I would be inclined to use the hand-loaded system unless further work
indicates cost savings from the alternative.

References
Barraud, F. (1898). Retrieved from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_loudspeaker#/media/File:OriginalNipper.jpg

Carlson, P. (2020, 04 30). Electronic Repair Adventure- Radio Receiver Troubleshooting. Retrieved from youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_11CkjXT2nw

Focal Audio. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.focal.com/en/car-audio/car-audio-kits-solutions/elite/utopia-

be/component-kits/ultima

Soyland, R. (2019). RESTORING AN OLD AMPLION HORN SPEAKER. Retrieved from youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azEFQXpgynA

statistia. (n.d.). cost of prime industrial rents. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/323030/prime-

industrial-rent-costs-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/

UNKNOWN. (1929, june 29). VOLUME 15 NUMBER 15. Radio world magazine, p. 21.
Appendices

summary report; Robot loaded cold start

content throughput staytime
name current average input output average

magnet bonding 2 2.051 2974 1486 38.362

top plate to ma 2 1.916 2972 1485 35.872
diaphram 1 1.034 3018 3017 9.515
spider 1 1.662 866 432 106.826
frame 2 1.714 3004 1501 31.730
Product 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
fame to magneti 0 0.914 2968 2968 8.560
magantizer 1 0.453 622 621 20.153
automated test 0 0.546 1479 1479 10.271
pallatize 2 1.432 1827 1825 21.818
dispatched 0 0.000 364 0 0.000
dustcap bonding 2 1.742 2964 1481 32.673
spider2 1 1.789 1050 524 94.769
rework 0 0.005 17 17 8.063
Sink59 0 0.000 17 0 0.000
Transporter65 1 0.269 365 364 20.559
Shipping 0 0.000 364 364 0.000
Goods In 200 206.603 10821 10621 535.158
Ground Storage6 0 0.007 365 365 0.559
magantizer75 1 0.644 859 858 20.850
spider76 1 1.871 1166 582 89.283
Availability Co 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Mtbf Mttr stack 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
pole plate feed 1 1.035 1488 1487 19.337
Source71 1 0.841 10822 10821 2.161
Availability Co 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Mtbf Mttr magne 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Availability Co 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Mtbf Mttr robot 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Robot68 1 1.010 10619 10618 2.644
Fast Accumulati 2 2.072 10621 10619 5.424
Fast Accumulati 5 5.169 1546 1541 93.006
Fast Accumulati 10 9.819 1556 1546 175.785
Fast Accumulati 6 5.965 1494 1488 111.237
Fast Accumulati 10 10.323 1516 1506 189.894
Product45 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Source46 1 0.490 1517 1516 8.988
Container47 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Operator49 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Accumulating Co 10 10.318 1551 1541 185.270
Accumulating Co 10 9.839 1565 1555 175.106
Right Curved Ac 4 4.076 1555 1551 72.900
Left Curved Acc 7 3.650 1501 1494 67.570
Right Curved Ac 4 4.094 1490 1486 76.508
spider to voice 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Operator52 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Operator53 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Operator54 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Fast Accumulati 10 9.282 1538 1528 167.998
Left Curved Acc 10 9.899 1528 1518 180.419
Right Curved Ac 9 9.015 1518 1509 165.382
Fast Accumulati 5 4.660 1514 1509 85.645
Fast Accumulati 0 0.256 1486 1486 4.791
Accumulating Co 4 4.828 1494 1490 89.965
frame loader 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Right Curved Ac 1 1.558 1508 1507 28.705
Left Curved Acc 5 2.768 1507 1502 51.059
Fast Accumulati 1 2.245 1485 1484 42.045
Accumulating Co 10 10.319 1503 1493 191.537
Right Curved Ac 4 4.090 1493 1489 76.265
Accumulating Co 2 2.070 1489 1487 38.680
Right Curved Ac 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Left Curved Acc 0 0.322 1486 1486 6.021
Right Curved Ac 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Fast Accumulati 10 9.937 1492 1482 185.696
Right Curved Ac 5 3.663 1494 1489 68.217
Right Curved Ac 4 3.444 1488 1484 64.388
Accumulating Co 1 0.876 1489 1488 16.352
Right Curved Ac 4 4.093 1506 1502 75.645
Right Curved Ac 1 1.771 1484 1483 33.189
Left Curved Acc 1 2.652 1483 1482 49.731
Operator79 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Accumulating Co 0 0.608 1481 1481 11.421
Fast Accumulati 0 1.032 1479 1479 19.398
Accumulating Co 0 0.002 17 17 3.000
Accumulating Co 0 1.659 1462 1462 31.547
dustcap 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
VR Building79 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Availability Co 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Mtbf Mttr conva 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Availability Co 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Mtbf Mttr conva 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Availability Co 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Availability Co 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Mtbf Mttr conva 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Availability Co 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Mtbf Mttr conva 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Availability Co 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Mtbf Mttr conva 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Mtbf Mttr magne 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Availability Co 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
bag and box 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Operator94 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Availability Co 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Mtbf Mttr conva 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
Mtbf Mttr conva 0 0.000 0 0 0.000
bag and box 1 0.772 2924 2923 7.339
bags 0 0.773 1462 1462 14.695
Product99 0 0.000 0 0 0.000

Model start time Friday, May 08 2020 13:04:04

Model end time Friday, May 08 2020 21:04:04
Runlength (seconds) 28800.00

End of report.