Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorRandolph E. Kirchain, Jr.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPovelaites, Jeffrey Cen_US
dc.contributor.otherMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Materials Science and Engineering.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2006-07-31T15:17:32Z
dc.date.available2006-07-31T15:17:32Z
dc.date.copyright2005en_US
dc.date.issued2005en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/33618
dc.descriptionThesis (M. Eng.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Materials Science and Engineering, 2005.en_US
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical references (leaves 58-59).en_US
dc.description.abstractConsumer demand is hard to predict in any industry, let alone the automotive industry. Vehicle manufacturers try to produce according to what their customers want, but if these wants change, the company is faced with lots of unsold cars and a huge changeover cost. In order to help fight the problems of demand variability, automotive manufacturers have begun the move towards plant flexibility. This includes designing vehicles comprised of similar subassemblies and the development of flexible tooling. The hope is that multiple vehicles can be produced on the same line so if demand starts to fluctuate, they can change the production levels of their styles with minimal lead time. There are a number of different approaches to flexible tooling. One approach using programmable robotic repositionable tools (PRRT) is particularly promising because it can handle a large number of styles and requires low style specific reinvestment costs. This thesis examines the PRRT technology as well as other forms of flexible tooling to understand the conditions under which these approaches make the most economic sense.en_US
dc.description.abstract(cont.) For this project an algorithm was developed to choose assembly tools based on subassembly characteristics, production levels, style counts, and flexibility approaches. The algorithm was connected to an already existing vehicle assembly model and two forms of economic analysis were performed. The first looked at the costs of using PRRT versus other forms of tooling for various product mixes. The second analyzed the potential cost savings when considering product changeover. The results indicated that the initial outlays for PRRTs cannot be justified even for a large number of styles unless multi-generational product changeover is also considered. However, PRRTs provide a cost effective flexible tooling option for plants producing multiple styles when considering product changeovers.en_US
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityby Jeffrey C. Povelaites.en_US
dc.format.extent59 leavesen_US
dc.format.extent3951247 bytes
dc.format.extent3953636 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherMassachusetts Institute of Technologyen_US
dc.rightsM.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582
dc.subjectMaterials Science and Engineering.en_US
dc.titleCharacterizing cost and performance of flexibility strategies in autobody manufacturingen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.degreeM.Eng.en_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Materials Science and Engineering
dc.identifier.oclc64391183en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record