工作站限制下生產線平衡Type Ⅱ與Type Ⅲ問題效率之比較

NHUIR > College of Management > Department of Business Administration, Master/Ph.D Program in Management Sciences > Disserations and Theses(Master and Doctoral Program in Management Sciences) > Item 987654321/18322

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nhuir.nhu.edu.tw/handle/987654321/18322

Title:	工作站限制下生產線平衡Type Ⅱ與Type Ⅲ問題效率之比較
Other Titles:	The Comparison of Type Ⅱ and Type Ⅲ of Assembly Balancing Efficiency Problem for constrained work station
Authors:	余玟慧 Yu, Wen-hui
Contributors:	企業管理系管理科學碩博士班藍俊雄 Chun-hsung Lan
Keywords:	生產線平衡;工作負荷平滑化(Type Ⅲ);平衡效率;週程時間最小化(Type Ⅱ) Balancing Efficiency;Workload Smoothing(Type Ⅲ);Assembly Line Balancing;minimization of cycle time(Type Ⅱ)
Date:	2011
Issue Date:	2015-01-20 14:12:41 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	本研究主要探討週程時間最小化(Type Ⅱ)與工作負荷平滑化(Type Ⅲ)考量下之生產平衡效率問題。研究發現在工作站排給定條件下若以Type Ⅱ為目標考量則生產線平衡問題的平衡效率較為優異。一般認為在工作負荷平滑化(Type Ⅲ)的目標追求之下應會有較佳的平衡效率產出，但本研究透過數值範例進行不同工作站數改變下的模擬情況，發現以Type Ⅱ為目標時的生產線佈置有較佳的平衡效率表現。　　　探究結果，發現在追求Type Ⅲ的目標時，若工作站數給予過大的佈置空間時，最佳解將傾向生產週程時間加以放大，且同時進行工作單元的佈置調動，以追求各工作站平均負荷變異最小化。　　　當工作站數充分且適當的給定時，Type Ⅱ與Type Ⅲ目標下之最佳解僅有佈置單元配置不同的差異，其生產率及平衡效率部份並無顯著差異存在。且當工作站數給定過於適當時，Type Ⅱ仍會以追求目標式的最小週程時間為主，則Type Ⅲ將趨向放大週程時間以滿足工作站平均負荷變異最小化，因而導致Type Ⅲ在平衡效率與生產速率評估下皆較Type Ⅱ差。　　　本研究建構數學模式再以LINGO 9.0套裝軟體內建的Global Solver進行全域最佳解的求取。因此對於有關生產線平衡Type Ⅱ、Type Ⅲ問題的最佳佈置均可藉由本研究所提出的模式獲取。綜言之，本研究建構在套裝軟體的使用求解，因此具有高度的重現性，並在生產實務應用上，作為價值之決策工具。　　This study mainly investigates the efficiency of assembly line balancing (ALB) with the consideration of the minimization of cycle time (type II) and workload smoothing (type III). The major finding of this work shows that the ALB solution of type II is better than type III under a given number of workstations. Commonly thinking, the more workload smoothing makes the more ALB efficiency. Through the simulation of variable number of workstations, the ALB efficiency of type II is often tie or ahead than type III.　　　When the number of workstations is satisfied enough, the research suggested solution is going to type III because type III not only owns ALB efficiency and cycle time have insignificant difference than type II, but creates the better workload smoothing. Appositively, if the number of workstations is over satisfied enough (slack), the solution of type III tends to enlarge the cycle time to achieve its objective. Meanwhile, the solution of type II remains its objective to reach the minimum of cycle time. Facing the above-mentioned situation, the type II will ahead the type III under the consideration of the maximum production rate.　　　Two mathematical models proposed in this paper are constructed by the syntax of Lingo 9.0, and the built-in “global solver” is selected as the solving method to conduct the searching of global optimum solutions. This work functions as a valuable decision tool in practical applications because of its repeated characteristic.
Appears in Collections:	[Department of Business Administration, Master/Ph.D Program in Management Sciences] Disserations and Theses(Master and Doctoral Program in Management Sciences)

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
099NHU05457023-001.pdf		948Kb	Adobe PDF	0	View/Open
index.html		0Kb	HTML	161	View/Open

Loading...