Abstract
Automated material transfer between workstations is a key feature of flexible manufacturing systems. The aim of automation is to increase the output rate while reducing the manufacturing throughput. However, machine idle time contributes significantly to the overall throughput time and cannot be completely eliminated; it can only be minimized. Accurately locating the bottleneck and synchronizing it with other assembly line equipment can help reduce throughput. The process or activity with no idle or waiting time is known as the bottleneck in a production system. In this paper, we will analyze the bottleneck in Coca-Cola’s production line at Lae and provide suggestions for reducing throughput.
1. Introduction
An automated material movement, or handling, system refers to using a computer control system to regulate and transport materials to build products between workstations from start to finish in a flexible manufacturing system. The unit load, Mini-load, Person-on-board, Deep lane, and automated item retrieval systems are the five categories of ASs/RSs. A Deep lane AS/RS is utilized for massive warehouses with numerous layers of shelves and storage units, whereas a unit load AS/RS is used for lesser loads [,].
An automated material handling and storage system has the advantages of reduced throughput, enhanced product quality, and reduced labor costs.
The control system that operates these conveyors ensures that a proper conveyor speed is maintained between various workstations. A manually used forklift moves goods to storage; the storage system is not automated [,].
This brief paper seeks to determine a bottleneck by analyzing Coca-Cola production’s automated material flow and storage system. This study also provides a process flow analysis of the Coca-Cola factory’s manufacturing process to suggest ways to lower throughput as shown in Table 1.
Table 1.
Detailed overview of the 13 processes in the production line.
2. Methodology
Our research group planned a field trip to the Coca-Cola plant in Lae to learn about its automated material transportation and storage system. The factory’s process engineers kindly provided us with a tour of the entire manufacturing process. We conducted a manual process flow analysis using the data and information we gathered during the field trip.
3. Results and Discussion
Conveyors account for the majority of Coca-Cola’s automated material transportation in Lae. A system of rollers and conveyor belts transports the Coca-Cola bottle from one cell to the next. The Coca-Cola storage system is not automated. Only a manually operated forklift is used to move it to the warehouse for storage [,].
The first step of process flow analysis is to locate any potential bottlenecks. Next, the remaining aspects of the process are based on the metrics for measuring its success. These consist of throughput and utilization (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Overall process of Coca Cola PET production line.
Blowing a bottle takes around a minute, including when the premade bottles need to go through the blow mold oven. Once the blow molding station has produced the correct bottle shape, the bottles go to the fill station, where high-pressure beverage injection fills and caps them []. The filler is equipped with a circular arrangement of nozzles that is used to fill the bottles. Up to 50 bottles can be filled and sealed in a single pass or loop, since the bottles are filled while rotating on a loop conveyor. Therefore, supplying the number of bottles in a pass or revolution of the filler takes around a minute [,]. As filled and capped bottles leave the fill station, they pass through an inspection point, where an X-ray camera with sensors checks each bottle’s fill level and faults []. The labeler is the next station on the PET production line, following the date coder. The bottles are labeled in the labeler using a reel-labeling wheel system with trade-marked labels. Here, the bottles are quickly labeled one at a time. Each bottle enters the labeler and is kept at a fixed distance by a mechanical fixture; it takes around 30 s to label each bottle. The bottles require approximately two minutes to travel from the packer’s entrance to the heated channel’s departure. The bottle pack is then transferred by a conveyor belt to the next station’s palletizer [,,]. The palletizer sorts the cartons into layers, which are each stacked on the pallet as shown in Table 2. A robotic arm sorts the pallets, and the process takes around five minutes [,,,]. The trip yielded a production rate of 2000 PET bottles per hour. The bottleneck station has a single server. The examination is carried out quickly and precisely using a single X-ray machine [,,].
Table 2.
Estimated time for each workstation and material handling processes.
The utilization of the bottleneck station is 100% at maximum production rate . The overall FMS utilization is calculated as
Only 36.4% of the assembly line is used during maximum output, indicating that specific machines must operate to their full potential due to bottlenecks. The bottleneck’s production rate has to be raised to boost utilization. This is accomplished by either adding more servers or lightening the burden. The manufacturing lead time or the throughput can now be calculated. The waiting time is zero.
This means that it takes 25 min to produce a pallet and then move it to the end of the line.
To put it briefly, the bottleneck station and the upstream workstations are automatically managed to prevent lines and waiting times. For instance, if there is a chance of a queue in the manufacturing line, the workstation’s speed will rise. Similarly, if there is a chance of an idle condition, the workstation’s speed drops. Before the next work item arrives, this automated control system ensures that every workstation completes its tasks on schedule. As a result, there is no longer a need for workstation lines or wait times. Each workstation is used more efficiently, and there is a low total throughput.
4. Conclusions
Three automated material handling systems are utilized in the Coca-Cola facility in Lae: robotic arms, conveyors, and loops. The robotic arm is utilized for palletizing, the filling machine uses a loop, and the conveyors at the downstream workstations employ a loop. A manually operated forklift moves cargo from the manufacturing line’s end to the storage unit. Automation is not implemented. The facility could increase the number of servers at the bottleneck station to boost throughput or decrease the burden by speeding up or shortening the processing time for each item.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, M.M. and A.M.; methodology, A.M.; validation, S.K. and A.M; formal analysis, A.M.; investigation, M.M.; resources, A.M.; data curation, M.M.; writing—original draft preparation, S.K.; writing—review and editing, A.M. and M.M.; visualization, A.M.; supervision, A.M. and S.K.; project administration, A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
All data are provided in the article.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Ajenblit, D.A. Applying Genetics Algorithms to the U-shaped Assembly Line Balancing Problem. In Proceeding of the IEEE Conference of Evolutionary Computation, Anchorage, AK, USA, 4–9 May 1998; pp. 96–101. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, X.; Pan, L. Direct adaptive robust tracking control for 6 DOF industrial robot with enhanced accuracy. ISA Trans. 2018, 72, 178–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Heizer, J.; Barry, R. Production and Operation Management; Allyn and Bacon Inc.: Boston, MA, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Ribeiro, J.; Lima, R.; Eckhardt, T.; Paiva, S. Robotic Process Automation and Artificial Intelligence in Industry 4.0—A Literature review. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2021, 181, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Labour Office. Introduction to Work Study, 3rd ed.; ILO Press: Geneva, Switzerland, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Goldratt, E.M. The Goal, 4th ed.; The North River Press Publishing Corporation: Great Barrington, MA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Rout, A.; BBVL, D.; Biswal, B.B.; Mahanta, G.B. Optimal trajectory planning of industrial robot for improving positional accuracy. Ind. Robot. Int. J. Robot. Res. Appl. 2021, 48, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rout, A.; Mahanta, G.B.; Gunji, B.; Deepak BB, V.L.; Biswal, B.B. Kinematic and dynamic optimal trajectory planning of industrial robot using multi-objective ant lion optimizer. In Advances in Mechanical Engineering: Select Proceedings of ICRIDME 2018; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 1475–1486. [Google Scholar]
- Mohamed, A.; Ben, J.; Muduli, K. Implementation of Autonomous Maintenance and Its Effect on MTBF, MTTR, and Reliability of a Critical Machine in a Beer Processing Plant. In Applications of Computational Methods in Manufacturing and Product Design; Springer: Singapore, 2023; pp. 511–521. [Google Scholar]
- Oyekola, P.; Oyewo, T.; Oyekola, A.; Mohamed, A. Arduino based smart home security system. IJITEE 2019, 8, 2880–2884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).