Facilities planning tompkins ebook free download

Will our union allow us to purchase the item? Is the quality satisfactory? Are the available sources reliable? Do we possess the technical expertise? Can No we make BUY 3. Is the labor and manufacturing capacity available? Is the manufacturing of this item required to utilize existing labor and production capacities?

What are the alternative methods of manufacturing this item? What quantities of this item will be demanded in Is it the future? What are the fixed, variable, and investment costs make BUY of the alternative methods and of purchasing the than item? What are the product liability issues that impact the purchase or manufacture of this item? Is the 1. What are the other opportunities for the utilization capital of our capital? What are the future investment implications if this us to item is manufactured?

What are the costs of receiving external financing? Prepared by J. Product Air Flow Regulator Date. Part Drwg. Part Name No. Buy Plunger 1 Brass. Buy Plunger retainer 1 Aluminum. The parts list provides a listing of the component parts of a product. In addi- tion to make-or-buy decisions, a parts list includes at least the following: 1. Part numbers 2. Part names 3. Number of parts per product 4.

Drawing references A typical parts list is given in Figure 2. A bill of materials is often referred to as a structured parts list, as it contains the same information as a parts list plus information on the structure of the prod- uct.

Typically, the product structure is a hierarchy referring to the level of prod- uct assembly. Level 0 usually indicates the final product; level 1 applies to subassemblies and components that feed directly into the final product; level 2 refers to the subassemblies and components that feed directly into the first level, and so on.

A bill of materials in table format is given in Figure 2. Air flow Level 0 A-3 regulator. Therefore, it is not uncommon for differ- ent processes to be selected in different facilities to perform identical operations. However, the selection procedure used should be the same. Process selection pro- cedure involves the following steps: Step 1. Define elemental operations. Step 2. Identify alternative processes for each operation.

Step 3. Analyze alternative processes. Step 4. Standardize process. Step 5. Evaluate alternative processes. Step 6. Select processes. Input into the process selection procedure is called process identification. Process identification consists of a description of what is to be accomplished. For a manufactured product, process identification consists of a a parts list indicating what is to be manufactured, b component part drawings describing each compo- nent, and c the quantities to be produced.

Computer aided process planning CAPP can be used to automate the manual planning process [8]. There are two types of CAPP systems: variant and generative. In a variant CAPP, standard process plans for each part family are stored within the com- puter and called up whenever required. In generative process planning, process plans are generated automatically for new components without requiring the existing plans.

Selection of these systems basically depends on product structure and cost considera- tions. Typically, variant process planning is less expensive and easier to implement. Since process planning is a critical bridge between design and manufacturing, CAPP systems can be used to test the different alternative routes and provide inter- action with the facility design process.

The input of a CAPP system is commonly a three-dimensional model from a CAD database including information related to tol- erances and special features. Based on these inputs, manufacturing lead-time and resource requirements can also be determined. The facilities planner will not typically perform process selection. However, an understanding of the overall procedure provides the foundation for the facilities plan.

Step 1 of the procedure involves the determination of the operations required to produce each component. In order to make this determination, alternative forms of raw materials and types of elemental operations must be considered.

Step 2 in- volves the identification of various equipment types capable of performing elemental operations. Manual, mechanized, and automated alternatives should be considered. Step 3 includes the determination of unit production times and equipment utiliza- tions for various elemental operations and alternative equipment types. The utiliza- tions are inputs into step 4 of the procedure. Step 5 involves an economic evaluation of alternative equipment types.

The results of the economic evaluation along with intangible factors such as flexibility, versatility, reliability, maintainability, and safety serve as the basis for step 6. The outputs from the process selection procedure are the processes, equip- ment, and raw materials required for the in-house production of products. Output is generally given in the form of a route sheet. A route sheet should contain at least the data given in Table 2.

Table 2. An assembly chart, given in Figure 2. The easiest method of constructing an assembly chart is to begin with the completed product and to trace the product disassembly back to its basic compo- nents. For example, the assembly chart given in Figure 2. The first disassembly operation would be to unpack the air flow regulator operation A The operation that precedes packaging is the inspection of the air flow regulator.

Circles denote assembly operation; inspections are indicated on as- sembly charts as squares. Therefore, in Figure 2. The first component to be disassembled from the air flow regulator is part number , the pipe plug, indicated by operation A The lock nut is then disassembled, followed by the disassembly of the body assembly the subassembly made during subassembly operation SA-1 and the body. The only remaining steps required to complete the assembly chart are the labeling of the circles and lines of the seven components flowing into SA Although route sheets provide information on production methods and assem- bly charts indicate how components are combined, neither provides an overall un- derstanding of the flow within the facility.

However, by superimposing the route sheets on the assembly chart, a chart results that does give an overview of the flow within the facility.

This chart is an operation process chart. An example of an oper- ation process chart is given in Figure 2. To construct an operation process chart, begin at the upper-right side of the chart with the components included in the first assembly operation. If the compo- nents are purchased, they should be shown as feeding horizontally into the appro- priate assembly operation. If the components are manufactured, the production methods should be extracted from the route sheets and shown as feeding vertically into the appropriate assembly operation.

The operation process chart may be com- pleted by continuing in this manner through all required steps until the product is ready for release to the warehouse. The operation process chart can also include materials needed for the fabri- cated components.

This information can be placed below the name of the compo- nent. Additionally, operation times can be included in this chart and placed to the left of operations and inspections. A summary of the number of operations and in- spections and operation times can be provided below the chart.

Description Type Tooling Dept. Time hr. Description Shape, drill, Automatic. SA1 Enclose Dennison None. Plunger housing O-ring SA-1 A Plunger retainer Lock nut A Pipe plug A Packaging materials A The operation process chart can be complemented with transportations, stor- ages, and delays including distances and times when the information is available. Such a chart is referred to as a flow process chart by some and a process chart by others [4].

Assembly charts and operation process charts may be viewed as analog models of the assembly process and the overall production process, respectively.

As noted previously, circles and squares represent time, and horizontal connections represent sequential steps in the assembly of the product.

Notice in the assembly chart that components have been identified with a four-digit code starting with 1, 2, 3, and 4. Furthermore, subassemblies SA and as- semblies A have been identified with letters and numbers. The same identification approach has been used in the operation process chart.

Additionally, fabrication op- erations have been represented with a four-digit code starting with 0. A second viewpoint, based on graph and network theory, is to interpret the charts as network representations, or more accurately, tree representations of a pro- duction process. Company Prepared by. Air Flow Regulator Product Date. Plunger Plunger Plunger retainer Seat ring Plunger housing housing Shape, drill, Shape, Mill, Shape, Cut to tap inside drill, shape, drill, length length thread.

Drill 8 Deburr holes. Deburr and Drill 4 holes, blowout tap, ream, inspect countersink. Drill, tap, roll ream. O-ring, Lock nut A2 Pipe plug A3 Packaging A4. The precedence diagram is a directed network and is often used in project planning. A precedence diagram for the air flow regulator is given in Figure 2. The precedence diagram shows part numbers on the arcs and denotes operations and inspections by circles and squares, respectively. A procurement operation, , is used in Figure 2.

The following convention is used in the construction of the precedence dia- gram as illustrated in Figure 2. Purchased parts and materials that do not require modifications are placed on the top and bottom part of the diagram so that they can be inserted in the center part of the diagram when needed packaging materials, pipe plug, lock nut, spring, and O-rings. Fabrication and assembly operations are placed in the center part of the diagram.

The precedence diagram representation of the operations and inspections in- volved in a process can be of significant benefit to the facilities planner. Packaging No additional constraints are implicitly imposed; no assumptions are made concerning which parts move to which parts; no material handling or layout decisions are implicit in the way the precedence diagram is constructed. The same claims cannot be made for the assembly chart and operation process chart. Just as there are al- ternative disassembly sequences that can be used, there are also alternative assembly sequences.

The assembly chart and the operation process chart depict a single sequence. The particular sequence used can have a major impact on space and handling system requirements.

Notice operations , , , , , , and are not shown in series in Figure 2. Hence, there exists some latitude in how the product is assembled. On the other hand, the operations process chart does not provide a mecha- nism for showing the possibility of alternative processing sequences. In order to further demonstrate our concerns regarding the misuse of the op- eration process chart in layout planning, consider the processes involved in manu- facturing an axle for an over-the-road tractor.

Using the advice typically provided in texts that describe the construction of operation process charts, the axle itself should be shown at the extreme right side of the chart. Subassemblies, components, and purchased parts would be shown sequentially feeding into the axle until a fin- ished assembly was produced.

By observing the operation process chart, one might be tempted to develop an assembly line for the axle assuming sufficient quantities are to be produced. The axle would be moved along the assembly line, and subassemblies, compo- nents, and purchased parts would be attached to it. Using such an approach, space and handling equipment requirements for the line would be based on the largest component part in the assembly. Alternatively, and especially for low-volume production, there may be benefits to leaving the axle in a stationary position after the last operation.

A large axle would require heavy duty lifting and moving equipment occupying a large space and would require high energy consumption. Moving subassemblies and parts to the axle would need less significant material handling and space requirements, al- though there would likely be more total movements.

Because of the limitations of the assembly chart and the operation process chart, we recommend a precedence diagram be constructed first. Based on the precedence diagram, alternative assembly charts and operation process charts should then be constructed. Another methodology that has made an impact on product and process design is group technology.

Group technology GT refers to grouping parts into families and then making design decisions based on family characteristics. Groupings are typically based on part shapes, part sizes, material types, and processing requirements. In cases where there are thousands of individual parts, the number of families might be less than Group technology is an aggregation process that has been found to be use- ful in achieving standardized part numbers and standard specifications of purchased parts, for example, fasteners and standardized process selection [6, 9, 11, 12, 16 ].

The importance of the process design or process plan in developing the facil- ities plan cannot be overemphasized. Furthermore, it is necessary that the process planner understand the impact of process design decisions on the facilities plan.

Our experience indicates that process planning decisions are frequently made with- out such an understanding. As an example, it is often the case that alternatives exist in both the selection of the processes to be used and their sequence of usage. The final choice should be based on interaction between schedule design and facilities planning.

The resulting standardization of process selection has yielded considerable labor savings and reductions in produc- tion lead times.

At the same time, standardization in process selection might create disadvantages for schedule and facility design. If such a situation occurs, a mecha- nism should exist to allow exceptions. Many of the degrees of freedom available to the facilities planner can be affected by process selection decisions. Production quantity decisions are referred to as lot size decisions; determining when to produce is referred to as production scheduling.

In addition to how much and when to produce, it is important to know how long pro- duction will continue. Such a determination is obtained from market forecasts. Schedule design decisions impact machine selection, number of machines, number of shifts, number of employees, space requirements, storage equipment, material handling equipment, personnel requirements, storage policies, unit load design, building size, and so on. Consequently, schedule planners need to interface continuously with marketing and sales personnel and with the largest customers to provide the best information possible to facilities design planners.

To plan a facility, information is needed concerning production volumes, trends, and the predictability of future demands for the products to be produced. The less specificity provided regarding product, process, and schedule designs, the more general purpose will be the facility plan.

The more specific the inputs from product, process, and schedule designs, the greater the likelihood of optimizing the facility and meeting the needs of manufacturing. Lastly, consider a facility that pro- duces 10, television sets per month for the next 10 years versus one that produces 10, television sets per month for three months and is unable to predict what product or volume will be produced thereafter; they too should differ.

As a minimum, the market information given in Table 2. Prefer- ably, information regarding the dynamic value of demands to be placed on the fa- cility is desired. Ideally, information of the type shown in Table 2. Packaging 2. Susceptibility to product changes 3. Susceptibility to changes in marketing strategies Where are the consumers located?

Facilities location 2. Method of shipping 3. Warehousing systems design Why will the consumer purchase the product? Seasonability 2. Variability in sales 3. Packaging Where will the consumer purchase the product?

Unit load sizes 2. Order processing 3. Packaging What percentage of the market does the product 1. Future trends attract and who is the competition 2. Growth potential 3. Need for flexibility What is the trend in product changes? Space allocations 2.

Materials handling methods 3. Need for flexibility. If such information is available, a facilities plan can be developed for each demand state, and a facility designed with sufficient flexibility to meet the yearly fluctuations in product mix. By developing facilities plans annually and not- ing the alterations to the plan, a facilities master plan can be established. Dynamic layouts can be designed to accommodate varying product demands [14]. In many cases, however, information of the type given in Table 2.

Therefore, facilities typically are planned using deterministic data. The assumptions of deterministic data and known demands must be dealt with when evaluating alter- native facilities plans. In addition to the volume, trend, and predictability of future demands for var- ious products, the qualitative information listed in Table 2.

Ad- ditionally, the facilities planner should solicit input from marketing as to why market trends are occurring. Such information may provide valuable insight to the facilities planner. Surprisingly, his observations apply to several aspects of facilities planning. Such a situation is depicted by the volume-variety chart, or Pareto chart, given in Figure 2. By knowing this at the outset, development of the facilities plan may be significantly simplified.

This volume-variety information is very important in determining the layout type to use. Schedule design determines the number of each equipment type required to meet the production schedule. Specification of process requirements typically occurs in three phases. The first phase determines the quantity of components that must be produced, including allowances for defective items, in order to meet the market estimate.

The second phase determines the machine requirements for each operation, and the third phase combines the operation requirements to obtain overall machine requirements. We define an item to be defective when the final attributes after processing do not meet the control limits specified by quality control standards.

A review of Figure 2. The concept is general in the sense that the component used in an as- sembly may be a purchased component, and the defective percentage gives the estimate of the percent of rejects from an arriving lot.

It is always better to achieve zero defects for many reasons, including the elimination of wasteful activities related to handling defective items. Some parts might be scrapped while others may be reworked. Fewer defects usually result from more automated processing, looser part tolerance, the use of certified suppliers, quality at the source, prevention techniques, and use of higher-grade materials. All of these factors point to fundamental economic trade-offs.

The required inputs to manufacturing and assembly operations can be deter- mined as follows. Let dk represent the percentage of defective items produced on the kth operation, Ok the desired output without defects, and Ik the production in- put.

Example 2. The market estimate is the output required from step 3. As a general principle, it is desirable to design processes with zero defects.

Should this not be possible, there should be fewer defects at processes that are near the end of the manufacturing steps. The reason is that the cost of the item increases as more operations are performed on it. The graphical representation for operations with rework is shown in Figure 2. Given that rework is performed based on the assumption above, calculate the number of units required for processing at the first op- eration.

We assume that the components are outsourced and the final assembly is performed locally. The final products are two assemblies requiring three components. As- sembly 1 requires four units of component 1 and three units of component 2. Assembly 2 requires two units of component 2 and one unit of component 3.

See Figure 2. The calculations required are also shown in Figure 2. The calculations performed using Equations 2. However, when pro- ducing small batches, the use of average values is less appropriate.

If conditions are such that the foundry has only one chance to produce the number of castings required, then the probability of a casting being good should be considered when determining the batch size to be produced. In determining how many castings to produce, the following questions come to mind: 1. How much does it cost to produce a good casting?

How much for a bad casting? How much revenue is generated from a good casting? How much from a bad casting? What is the probability distribution for the number of good castings resulting from a production lot?

If answers are available for these questions, then a determination can be made re- garding the number of castings to schedule in order to, say, maximize the expected profit or achieve a desired confidence level of not producing fewer good castings than are needed.

Determining the number of additional units to allow when sched- uling low-volume production where rejects randomly occur is called the reject al- lowance problem [17]. If it is desired to maximize expected profit, the value of Q that maximizes Equation 2. For most cost and revenue formulations, Equation 2.

The necessary and sufficient conditions for the optimal production quantity Q when X is binomially distributed is given in [17]. An order for 20 custom-designed castings has been received. Based on historical records, the probability dis- tributions given in Table 2. How many castings should be scheduled. What is the probability of losing money at this production level? The profits resulting from various combinations of Q and x are shown in Table 2.

The vector prod- ucts of columns from Tables 2. From Table 2. We use the term machine fractions. The machine fraction for an operation is determined by dividing the total time re- quired to perform the operation by the time available to complete the operation. The total time required to perform an operation is the product of the standard time for the operation and the number of times the operation is to be performed.

For ex- ample, if it takes 0. Whether or not 1. Are the parts actually being made to the 0. Is the machine available when needed during the two-hour period? Are the standard time, the number of parts, and the time the machine takes known with certainty and fixed over time? The first question may be handled by dividing the standard time by the histor- ical efficiency of performing the operation. The reliability factor is the percentage of time the machine is actually producing.

The third question dealing with the uncertainty and time-varying nature of machine fraction variables can be an important factor in determining machine re- quirements. If considerable uncertainty and variation exist over time, it may be useful to consider using probability distributions instead of point estimates for the parameters and utilizing a stochastic machine fraction model. Typically, such mod- els are not utilized, and the approach taken is to use a deterministic model and plan the facility to provide sufficient flexibility to handle changes in machine frac- tion variables.

In Equation 2. During an eight-hour shift, units are to be produced. How many milling machines are required? Such a determination is not necessarily straight- forward. Even if only one operation is to be performed on a particular equipment type, overtime and subcontracting must be considered. If more than one operation is to be run on a particular equipment type, several alternatives must be considered. No drill press operator, overtime, or subcontracting is available for any operation on the ABC drill press.

It may be seen that a minimum of four and a maximum of six machines are required. How many should be purchased? The answer is either four, five, or six. With no further information, a specific recommendation cannot be made. Clustering considerations may require the application of group technology methods to determine the commonality of parts and make decisions of how the ma- chines are assigned to departments. A job shop type of layout will result in fewer machines, while dedicated production lines will require values that are closer to the upper bounds as listed in the last column in Table 2.

Clustering analysis is covered in Chapter 3, and determination of layout configurations is discussed in Chapter 6. It is assumed that a deter- mination of the number of people to be employed in the facility already has been made.

Typically, such decisions are not a part of the facilities planning process. However, the combination of product, process, and schedule design decisions sig- nificantly influences the number of employees involved in producing the product. In this section, we consider how decisions regarding the assignment of machines to operators can affect the number of employees. Specifically, we consider a situation involving the assignment of operators to semiautomatic production equipment.

For purposes of this discussion, it is assumed the machines are identical. In contrast to the reject allowance problem, it is assumed that the times required to load and un- load each machine are constant, the automatic machining time is constant, and the time required for the operator to travel between machines, prepare parts for ma- chining, and inspect and pack parts is constant.

To illustrate the situation under consideration, see Figure 2. The chart is called a human- machine chart or a multiple activity chart, since it shows the activities of one or more people and one or more machines.

Such charts can be used to analyze multi- ple activity relationships when nonidentical machines are being tended by one or more operators.

As shown, the analysis begins with each machine empty and the operator standing in front of Machine 1 M The oper- ator loads M-1, walks to M-2, loads M-2, walks to M-3, loads M-3, walks to M-1, unloads M-1, loads M-1, inspects and packs the part removed from M-1, travels to M-2, and so forth. As shown in Figure 2. In other words, if nothing interrupts the activities of the operator and the three machines, the 9-minute cycle will repeat indefinitely. Under conditions similar to those depicted by Figure 2.

T-3 3 L-3 Loaded 4 Machining. Transient State 12 min T Hence, an ideal assignment is. Since a fractional number of machines cannot be assigned to an operator, consider what will happen if some integer number of machines, m, is assigned.

The repeating cycle will be the larger of the two, and the difference in the two will be idle time. If we wish to determine the cost per unit produced by an m machine assignment, the following notation will be helpful:. Finished product Raw material Figure 2. Reprinted with permission from [18]. Assuming each machine produces one unit during a repeating cycle, the cost per unit pro- duced during a repeating cycle can be determined as follows:. Hence, from Equation 2. Therefore, H equals 0. The problems at the end of the chapter explore various aspects of the machine assignment problem, such as assigning machines to operators if, say, a total of 11 machines are required to meet the daily production schedule or there is uncertainty re- garding the value of Cm.

Some typical business objectives include breakthroughs in production cost, on-time deliv- ery, quality, and lead time. Some tools frequently used by quality practitioners e. The seven management and planning tools have gained acceptance as a methodology for improving planning and implementa- tion efforts [5].

In the mids a committee of engineers and scientists in Japan refined and tested the tools as an aid for process improvement, as proposed by the Deming cycle. In , Dr. Deming proposed a model for continuous process improvement that involves four steps: planning and goal setting, doing or execution, checking or analysis, and performing corrective actions Plan—Do—Check—Act.

The seven management and planning tools are the affinity diagram, the inter- relationship digraph, the tree diagram, the matrix diagram, the contingency diagram, the activity network diagram, and the prioritization matrix. Each is described below and illustrated with examples related to facilities design. Suppose we are interested in generating ideas for reducing manufacturing lead time. Each group then receives a heading. An affinity diagram for reducing manufacturing lead time is presented in Figure 2.

The headings selected were facilities design, equipment issues, quality, setup time, and scheduling. The term digraph is employed because the graph uses directed arcs. Suppose we want to study the relationship. Issues in reducing manufacturing lead time. Facilities design Equipment issues Quality Setup time Scheduling. Form 1. Operator cer- 1. Provide 1. Provide doc- 1. Provide visi- product fam- tification training on umentation bility to daily ilies program how to use on setup product se- process doc- procedures quence 2.

Assign fami- 2. Sit techni- umentation lies to cells cians closer 2. Locate fix- 2. Do not au- to produc- 2. Yeah, reviewing a ebook facilities planning tompkins pdf pdf book could be credited with your near connections listings. This is just one of the Tompkins and others published Facilities Planning Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate.. The examples are uncompleted and they are not well explained..

We have enough money facilities planning tompkins pdf pdf book and numerous book collections from fictions to scientific research in any way.. Download Facilities-Planning-James-Tompkins. Very informative book. I didnt like how the information was provided, but I learned a lot..

Facilities Planning, 4th Edition. About the Author : James A. Tompkins and John A. John A. White, Yavuz A.

Bozer, J. Tanchoco pdf Download.. The solution Manual of the 4ed of Facilities planning by Tompkins To prepare the Third Edition of Facilities Planning, coordinating authors were assigned for each chapter..

Read Online Facilities Planning Tompkins. Pdf Pdf Book. The Open Library has more than one million free e-books available. This library catalog is an open Bozer and J. Download Ebook Facilities Planning James. Tompkins Solution Manual. When it comes to facilities planning, engineers turn to this book to explore Facilities planning tompkins 3rd edition pdf. Facilities Planning and Design is comprised of design professionals who are responsible for planning, design and Tompkins 3 free ebook.

Facilities Planning Tompkins 3. When it comes to facilities planning, engineers turn to this book to explore the most current practices.. Course Notes blackboard. Required Readings and Supplementary Materials. Tompkins, Jim et. Facilities Planning 3rd edition. Chapter Just invest tiny times to open this on-line message facilities planning james tompkins When it comes to facilities planning, engineers turn to this book Recognizing the habit ways to get this books facilities planning tompkins pdf pdf book is additionally useful.

You have remained in right site to start getting this Facilities Planning Tompkins Book. Eventually, you will very discover a supplementary experience and Updated with the latest advances, Facilities Planning, Third Edition introduces current industry practices, and shows how to approach facilities planning with How It This Web site gives you access to the rich tools and resources available for this text.

You can access these resources in two ways Using the menu at the top, select a chapter. In this fourth edition, the role of facilities planning within the supply chain has been reexamined. It is now imperative that the facilities planner assist his or her company in progressing through the six levels of supply chain excellence Business as Usual, Link Excellence, Visibility, Collaboration, Synthesis, and Velocity.

All books are in clear copy here, and all. Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions. Enlarge cover. Facilities planning — 4th edition by J. Tompkins Facilities Planning: James A. Tompkins, 3rd edition solution.