Running to a line up

[Anonymous]

Hello all,

I'm new to Process Analysis 360 so I'm sure there is a lot I have not yet learned.  I am wondering if it is possible to run to a lineup.

For example.  I make widget 1 through 9, all of which go through the same processors but all have different cycle times.  I want to force the processor to build in a specific order before feeding down the line. 

Any help would be great.

Thanks,

Brandon

[Kenny]

Hi Brandon,

Thank you for your question, according to my understanding, you need sequential processor.

1. Add processor

2. Add 9 operations on processor, by click "plus" button

3. Set different cycle time for each operation

4. Select the processor and go to the properties panel: check on the operation seqencing: sequential.

Is my understanding correct? Hope, it helps.

Tips:

You can view and learn the process analysis 360 from here:

http://help.autodesk.com/view/FPA360/ENU/

You also can press "F1" in the process analysis 360 to access the URL.

Thanks

Kenny

[Anonymous]

Hi Kenny,

Your solution will force 1 widget to go through OP 10 through 90 in order correct?  This is not what I am after.  I am after OP 10 through 90 to be a single operateration for specific widgets.  In other words I want widget 1 to go through OP 10, widget 2 to go through OP 20 and so on.  I want to be able to tell the simulator that you are going to build widgets in a specific order. 

Lets assume my lineup is 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9.  Porcessor 1 is processing widget 1 on OP 10 (because OP 10 is only for widget number 1).  Meanwhile widgets 4, 8, and 2 show up to processor 1 in that order.  I want processor 1s next choice to be widget 2 which will run through OP 20 (because OP 20 only runs widget number 2).

I want to be able to tell the simulator or even a given processor to choose a specific line up of parts rather than fixed, longest/shortest, round robin, or random. 

Hopefully this makes more sense.  I will add screenshots if need be.  I might not be able to get back to this until later in the week.  Any help is appreciated!!

Thanks,

Brandon 

[Kenny]

Hi Brandon,

Thanks for your clarfiy, so, what your need is that:

A processor with several operations handling several widges, and we can define a customized rule for the processor, so that the processor can select which widget would be the next one to handle, the processor can deal with widgets in some specific-customized order. e.g.

step 1. operate widget 1

step 2. operate widget 2 

step 3. opearte widget 5

step 4. operate widget 3

setp 5. operate widget 4

....

Is my understand correct? 

It would be very nice if you can provide a real/simple sample, we can understand your requirement better.

Thanks

Kenny

[Anonymous]

Hi Kenny,

Thanks for your reply, sounds like we are on the same page.  I think I can get you a sample set up this afternoon.  Is there an easy way to share a model I set up or should I just pull some screen shots?

Thanks,

Brandon

[Anonymous]

Hi Kenny,

Take a look at the attached picture, let me know what I need to clarify for you.

Thanks,

Brandon

[Kenny]

Hi Brandon,

Thank you very much for your reply and amazing example which makes the requirement clear.

I will discuss with team about this requirement and give you feedback.

Thanks,

Kenny

[Anonymous]

Sounds great, feel free to get a hold of me if you need more information from me.

Thanks,

Brandon

[jzhangustc]

Brandon,

Thanks for sharing your case with us.  I want to confirm what you are trying to archive,

Process setup,

    1. Multiple parts(widgets) from multiple sources are sent to a processor.

    2. A processor with multiple operations

    3. Each operation has a different input part.

Goal,

     1. Simulate different "what-if" scenarios for multiple operations running in different sequences and find the optimal sequence of the operations' execution which is the most efficient order for the production line.

If my understanding to your request is correct, I have the following proposal,

     1. PA360 adds production scheduling to the Sources (doesn't exist today)

     2. Schedule the sources carefully so that the parts sent from a source to your system 6 robot cell will be completely consumed before the parts from another source are coming.  

     In this way, there is always only one type of parts avaiable to system 6 robot cell at a time. So system 6 robot cell can only work on that type of parts at that time with a specific operation.  However, with this setup, the parts(widgets) from other sources cannot be transported in parallel when system 6 is working on the parts(widgets) from a source.  In another word, the transportation from sources to system 6 is not running in the most efficient way.

Will my proposal solve your problem?

Thanks,

Jun

Autodesk Process Analysis 360 Team

[Anonymous]

Hi Jun,

Your understanding is correct.  Of your proposals I like proposal number 1, how can we make that happen 🙂 ?  Is there any plan to add this capability to PA360?  On a side note it would be interesting to be able to start a process with partial IPK filled up to simulate shifts requirements changing.  That's a different story though.

I will play around with your proposal number 2, I think I see how I can make that work.  Only downside is it will require a lot of manual work to see the difference between production schedules. 

It would be awesome if PA360 gained the ablility to input production schedules on processors.  I will keep my fingers crossed. 

Thanks,

Brandon 

P.S.

Sorry I didn't reply earlier, for some reason I didn't get an automated message that someone replied. 

[jzhangustc]

Brandon,

Thanks for your reply.  I'm glad to know my proposal works for your case.  There is one thing I'd like to clarify.  I have only one proposal that includes two parts.  So you have to wait for PA to support production scheduling on Sources.

Regards,

Jun

[marko]

These is a 3 year old topic now and yet it is still a topic that needs a solution, since it has much to do with real-world production systems. Has someone at Autodesk tried to do anything regarding Operation Scheduling on a processor object?

Greetings, Marko

[jzhangustc]

Marko,

Thanks for reminding us on this topic.  We have been thinking of the best way to support this. As you know, the operation scheduling on a processor has dependency on the input material flow. It may not be sufficient to only support operation scheduling control on a processor without making the input material flow following the schedule correspondingly.  If you can provide your idea/thought on the expected behavior, it will be very helpful.

Regards,

Jun

[marko]

Jun,

I am trying to model several operations being performed on the same workplace (so the model is a Processor with several operations). Let's say 3 operations. The thing is that the output of a previous operation is an input to next one (together with an input from some source). This is a very common thing, for example in car industry. You have several components arriving to some workstation, and than in the first operation you make some sub-assembly from those components, and than in the next operation you take that sub-assembly and insert some new components that came from some other source, and that gets repeated unti you have completed an assembly for that specific workstation.

So, one essentially has a sequence of merge operations. Natively, in PA one could schedule the operations sequentially but than there is not option to merge (the only ports left after the sequential oeprations have been chosen are the very first one (input) and the very last one (output)). If one wants to have merge with source on all operations (so that all ports are preserved), one can not choose the sequential option. Additionally, there is a problem of directly routing the product of one operation to another operation on the SAME processor (but there is a workaroung of using the buffers, please look at the attached example). The thing is that beacuse of the PUSH based sequencing (and that is only implementd in PA) the upstream objects will route the entitites irrespective of the current state of the input ports (or the queues) on the downstream objects. And when the operation with merge specified has all the necessary inputs it will start to process and all other operations on the same Processor are waiting. In the attached example Operation 1 will be the first, the Operation 2 the second one, but than the Operation 1 will be scheduled (not the Operation 3), the reason being availabity of the enitities on the input ports wrt to defined merge operation. In reality, the cost of the setup time required to chanage the operation would robably be the prohibitive one and the sequencing would be Operation 1, Operation2, Operation 3 regardless of the state of the input ports.

Also, I think because of the PUSH based sequencing, there is no need to schedule the input material flow accordingly. It will be routed regardless of the process state on the Processor (that is the reasoning behind the PUSH sequencing).

Greetings, Marko

[jzhangustc]

Marko,

Thanks for your explanation and sample process model.  It clarifies things a lot.  I agree with you that it's a limitation not support Merge operation for sequential operations. I will add it to our backlog.  I also agree that we don't need to control the input material for the sequential operations.  Thanks again for your valuable feedback.

Best regards,

Jun

[jzhangustc]

Marko,

We have released an update for Process Analysis.  The update includes the support Merge for each operation in sequential operations.  Please check it out to see if it helps your case.

Regards,

Jun

[marko]

Thnx Jun and the guys at Autodesk, this is indeed a step in the right direction for PA. This will streamline a lot of real-world DES modeling. Hopefully, more improvements to PA are coming...

Greetings, Marko