The document provides an agenda and overview for a SIMUL8 User Group presentation by Visual8 Corporation. Visual8 is an industrial engineering consulting firm that specializes in simulation modeling. The presentation includes an overview of Visual8, example projects applying SIMUL8 across various industries, a case study of simulating different designs for an automated plywood patching line, and a live SIMUL8 model demonstration. The case study details the project goals, simulation model development process, different layout designs tested through sensitivity analysis, and results identifying Layout 4 with a combined routing and patching robot as the final choice meeting throughput needs within space limitations.

1. Visual8 Corporation
WSC2013 – SIMUL8 User Group Presentation

2. 2
Agenda

About Visual8 – Company Overview

Example Projects

Case Study – Automated Plywood Patching Line

Live Demonstration

Questions & Answers

Conclusion

3. 3
Visual8 Overview
Company Profile
Background:
– Industrial Engineering & Operations Research Consultants
– Provide productivity improvements to companies through
simulation modeling, analysis and optimization
Business Focus:
– Simulation Consulting, Training & Support with SIMUL8
– Optimization, Planning & Scheduling
– Strategic, Tactical & Operational Level Decision Support
Industry Specialization:
–
–
–
General Manufacturing, Distribution & Supply Chain
Automotive, Food & Beverage, Plastics, Oil & Gas
Mining, Smelting, Metals Processing

4. 4
Example Projects
Distribution Centre – Inventory Management
Objective:
 To identify whether the warehouse can conform to plan
 To determine the inventory sizing required for all products
 To allocate spacing and materials handling to all floors
Solution:
 Create a warehousing simulation of the entire DC and show inventory
movements, arrivals and shipments, inventory spacing, and labour
requirements.
Benefits:
 Capacity Planning tool for new products
 Correct sizing of inventory for product mix and replenishment
 Proven delivery capability to stores

5. 5
Example Projects
Dairy Cooler – Process Improvement
Objective:
 Evaluate the impact of product layout and staff plans on labour picking
time
 Determine the impact of sequencing and batching of product on storage
requirements and order fulfillment
Solution:
 Created a component-based flexible simulator that can be used to
simulate the operation of all 15 Dairies
Benefits:
 Increased output with minimal capital changes
 Determine the capacity limits of the materials handling system
 Standardized Best-Practices Procedures across plants

6. 6
Example Projects
Candy Manufacturer – Capacity Planning
Objective:
 Consolidation of external packaging plant within plant
 To identify WIP and Finished Goods space requirements
 To evaluate impact of smaller batches to directly feed packing
Solution:
 Create a plant-wide simulation of entire Candy operations and simulate
the impact of the new packaging lines
Benefits:
 Decrease in transportation and plant costs
 Correct inventory sizing prior to commissioning of line
 Identified a need for a tighter scheduling system

7. 7
Example Projects
Automotive Bumper Line – Takt-Time Analysis
Objective:
 Demonstrate capability of planned assembly line to Customer
 To determine the correct number of assembly stations
 To allocate appropriate tasks and parts to stations
Solution:
 Create an assembly-line simulation of the Bumper line and show build
rates, line replenishment requirements, delivery rates, and labor
requirements
Benefits:
 Reduced commissioning time of the line to meet TAKT times
 Correct sizing of bins for product mix and replenishment
 Proven delivery capability to Customer

8. 8
Case Study – Plywood Finishing
Background:
Major US plywood manufacturer wanted to update their current
manual defect patching process to an automated robotic line.
A number of different design configurations were proposed and
the company wanted a way to effectively evaluate them.
Project Objective:
Design and construct detailed simulation models of the various
proposed patch line designs
Conduct sensitivity analysis study to help determine the
configuration best suited to meet client requirements.

9. 9
Case Study – Plywood Finishing
Project Steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Coordination & Data Collection
Initial Simulation Model Development
Preliminary Analysis & Review
Model Refinement and In-Depth Analysis
Onsite Review and Discussion

10. 10
Process Description - Current
Manual Plywood Inspection & Repair
•
•
•
•
•
Stacks of manufactured plywood delivered to the line
Plywood conveyed through a panel inspection/repair
area on rigid belt
Defects in panel manually processed by two workers
Routing to remove defects such as knots
Patching to fill holes left by router and other defects such
as cracks
Process Issues
•
•
•
Lack of quality control
High level of rework
Excessive use of Patching compound

11. 11
Process Description - Planned
Automated Inspection & Repair
•
•
•
•
•
Stacks of manufactured plywood delivered to the line
Plywood conveyed through an imaging tool to identify
quantity, types, sizes and locations of defects
Product conveyed to Routing or combined Routing and
Patching equipment, indexed and locked into position
Routing operation to remove defects such as knots
Patching operation to fill holes left by router and other
defects such as cracks
Key considerations
•
•
Supply of plywood/movement of product through the
scanner and line not an issue
Need to achieve high throughput with good utilization of
equipment, Limited floor space available

12. 12
Process Description - Planned
Panel Loading
Defect Scanning
Panel Exit
Panel Repair Stations

13. 13
Model Inputs

14. 14
Model Inputs

15. 15
Model Inputs

16. 16
Model Inputs

17. 17
Design Layouts
Scenario 1a – Parallel Work Centers (Combined Route & Patch)
Key Design Factors:
1. Route & Patch operations
combined in same work
center (line)
2. Dedicated routing & patch
robots
3. Simple board conveyance
(even distribution to work
centers)

18. 18
Design Layouts
Scenario 1b – Parallel Work Centers (Separate Route & Patch)
Key Design Factors:
1. Route & Patch operations
separate for each work
center (line)
2. Dedicated routing & patch
robots
3. Simple board conveyance
(even distribution to work
centers)

19. 19
Design Layouts
Scenario 1c – Parallel Work Centers (Defect-based Board Routing)
Key Design Factors:
1. Route & Patch operations
combined in same work
center
2. Dedicated routing & patch
robots
3. Dual patch robots in one
work center
4. Defect-based board
conveyance (high defect
boards routed to dual robot
work centers)

20. 20
Design Layouts
Scenario 1d – Parallel Work Centers (Shared Patch Robots)
Key Design Factors:
1. Route & Patch operations
separate in same work
center
2. Two patch robots shared
between to work centers
3. Simple board conveyance
(even distribution to work
centers)

21. 21
Design Layouts
Scenario 1e – Parallel Work Centers (Shared Patch + Defect Routing)
Key Design Factors:
1. Route & Patch operations
separate in same work
center
2. Two patch robots shared
between to work centers
3. Dual patch robots in one
work center
4. Defect-based board
conveyance (high defect
boards routed to dual robot
work centers)

22. 22
Design Layouts
Scenario 1f – Parallel Work Centers (Separate Route & Patch)
Key Design Factors:
1. Route & Patch operations
separate for each work
center (line)
2. Dedicated routing & patch
robots
3. Simple board conveyance
(even distribution to work
centers)

23. 23
Design Layouts
Scenario 2a – Alternating Patch Robots (In/Out Conveyance)
Key Design Factors:
1. Route & Patch operations
combined in same work
center
2. Patch robots shared
between two work centers
3. Boards move into and out
of work centers from same
side

24. 24
Design Layouts
Scenario 2b – Alternating Patch Robots (Flow-through Conveyance)
Key Design Factors:
1. Route & Patch operations
combined in same work
center
2. Patch robots shared
between two work centers
3. Boards flow through work
centers

25. 25
Design Layouts
Layout 3 – Multiple Patch Robots per Board
Key Design Factors:
1. Single Work Center
resulting in lower space
utilization
2. Work on a single board
divided out to 4 robots
3. Boards flow through work
center

26. 26
Design Layouts
Layout 4 – Combined Routing & Patch Robots
Key Design Factors:
1. Route & Patch operations
combined in same work
center
2. Routing and patch
operations are completed
by single robot
3. Boards flow through work
centers

27. 27
Sensitivity Analysis Testing
Generated Data:
Simulation trials based on Panel data created using distributions
•
AC Grade / BC Grade / Siding Grade
Real Data:
Single runs utilizing actual Scanner data
•
AC Grade / BC Grade / Siding Grade
Breakdowns/Efficiency:
•
•
Randomized breakdowns
Scheduled stoppages

28. 28
Results
Layout 1A
Layout 1B
Layout 1C
Layout 1D
Layout 1E
Layout 1F
Layout 2A
Layout 2B
Layout 3
Layout 4
Router 1: Utilization %
22.5
24.2
22.2
24.2
22.4
24.2
20.1
20.0
40.7
-
Router 2: Utilization %
22.4
24.3
22.2
24.4
22.5
24.0
19.8
19.8
32.6
-
Router 3: Utilization %
22.6
24.4
26.6
33.8
33.8
24.2
20.0
20.0
33.9
-
Router 4: Utilization %
-
-
-
-
-
24.5
20.1
20.0
26.3
-
Patching 1: Working %
70.7
76.3
69.7
76.2
89.9
76.4
79.2
86.2
18.0
81.8
Patching 2: Working %
70.6
76.4
69.7
76.3
95.3
76.2
84.6
77.3
17.6
81.9
Patching 3: Working %
70.6
76.3
37.8
48.1
48.2
76.1
79.6
86.3
-
81.8
Patching 4: Working %
-
-
45.7
57.9
57.9
76.4
84.3
77.1
-
81.6
4820
5207
5071
5881
5620
6938
5706
5751
3602
5518
Board Count
Key Findings:
•
•
•
•
•
Parallel Work Centers yield optimal throughput
Maximize Patch Robot Utilization by alternating workstations or combining Route/Patch
Minimize Routing & Patching overlap
Parallel Work Centers increase redundancy
Flow-though Work Centers at Patch if possible

29. 29
Results
Highest throughput scenario Layout 1F:
Issues:
•
•
•
Unbalanced line yields underutilized Patch robots
Reconfiguring the line to balance line would mean exceeding floor space
limitations or require complex conveyor set up
Additional equipment & conveyance required – potential reliability impacts

30. 30
Results
Final choice Layout 4:
Layout analysis:
• Throughput requirements met
• Machine utilization requirements achieved
• Floor space limitations not exceeded
• Conveyance simplicity maintained

31. 31
Live Demonstration
Example Model, Q & A
 Presentation of Sample Model
 Questions & Answers