eFlex Systems > 实例探究 > Line Changeover Comparison Study: Flexible Assembly Line vs Highly Automated Fixed Tooling

Line Changeover Comparison Study: Flexible Assembly Line vs Highly Automated Fixed Tooling

公司规模

Large Corporate

产品

eFlex Assembly

技术栈

PLC logic
HMI programs
RFID

实施规模

Enterprise-wide Deployment

影响指标

Cost Savings
Productivity Improvements

技术

功能应用 - 制造执行系统 (MES)

适用行业

汽车

适用功能

离散制造

用例

自动化制造系统

服务

系统集成
软件设计与工程服务

关于客户

The customer in this case study is a global automotive manufacturer. They have two manufacturing plants that produce the same V6 engine with similar production rates and model variants. Each plant has over 100 workstations and can produce up to 200 model variants. The manufacturer is facing challenges with their highly automated fixed tooling line, which is inflexible and costly to change. This has resulted in lost opportunities and a lack of competitiveness in the market. The manufacturer is looking for a solution that allows for rapid changes in production requirements, configurability, distributed control, and plug-and-play capabilities.

登录后查看完整内容

挑战

The global automotive manufacturer in this case study had two manufacturing plants producing the same V6 engine with similar production rates and model variants. One plant used the eFlex Assembly architecture, while the other used a highly automated fixed architecture. Both lines had over 100 workstations and up to 200 model variants. Both sites needed to re-rate production and introduce new models. The challenge was that the highly automated fixed tooling line was inflexible, costly, and time-consuming to change. This resulted in lost opportunities and a lack of competitiveness in the market. The manufacturer needed a solution that would allow for rapid changes in production requirements, configurability, distributed control, and plug-and-play capabilities.

登录后查看完整内容

解决方案

The solution was the implementation of the eFlex Assembly architecture in one of the manufacturing plants. This architecture allowed for quick line changes without the need for coding, outsourcing, print updates, or extensive engineering work. The plant staff could perform the entire change during a 2-day weekend, with the line running at rate by midday on Monday. The eFlex Assembly architecture also allowed for the shutdown to occur over a weekend, with normal production resuming by midday on Monday. This was in stark contrast to the automated fixed tooling line, which required a shutdown of 9 days. The eFlex Assembly architecture also allowed for the creation of a new line configuration offline at the engineer's desk within 6-8 hours, compared to the 480 hours of preparation work required for the automated fixed tooling line.

登录后查看完整内容

运营影响

The eFlex Assembly architecture allowed for quick line changes without the need for coding, outsourcing, print updates, or extensive engineering work.
The plant staff could perform the entire change during a 2-day weekend, with the line running at rate by midday on Monday.
The eFlex Assembly architecture also allowed for the shutdown to occur over a weekend, with normal production resuming by midday on Monday.
The eFlex Assembly architecture also allowed for the creation of a new line configuration offline at the engineer's desk within 6-8 hours, compared to the 480 hours of preparation work required for the automated fixed tooling line.

登录后查看完整内容

数量效益

82% more flexibility over traditional architecture.
35% cost savings on new lines.
40-50% faster delivery of new assembly lines.
50%-70% of capital can be redeployed for a different product.
Cost for Major Change: $10k – $30k with eFlex Assembly vs $100k –$250k with Highly Automated Fixed Tooling Line.

登录后查看完整内容