12th INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE

NOVI SAD, SERBIA, SEPTEMBER 25-26, 2015

2ULJLQDOVFLHQWLILFSDSHU
Cerjakovi, E., Topi, A., Lovri, S., Heri, M.

IMPACT OF PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT SELECTION ON PRODUCTION COSTS

Abstract: Development and business of manufacturing systems permanently become more complex due to everyday
changes that are dictated from the global market. As a results of that fact, there is an everyday need for the
adjustment of structure and parameters of manufacturing systems so it could be operated in the most favourable
technological and economic conditions. Within this paper, are presents the results of the research that are directed
towards the analysis of the impact of the selection of the various production equipment on the production costs for
an identical manufacturing process.
Key words: production equipment, production costs, simulation studies, flow of material
1. INTRODUCTION
Development and business of companies, as well as
manufacturing systems, permanently become more
complex due to everyday changes which are dictated
from the global market, production in accordance with
the requirements of the customer, increase of volume,
quality and complexity of the production, request for
the increase of production flexibility, varieties of
products, shortened period of development and market
lasting of the product, decrease of the production costs
etc. All these factors as a consequence have
considerable increase of the dynamics of the market
where products are required to be of high quality and
that they must be delivered at the exact time with the
lowest possible production costs. In order to fulfill all
these requests, it is necessary that manufacturing
systems have a quick response to market requests,
which means that they develop every day, with the
increase of flexibility and adaption of its structure and
performances. Based on above mentioned market
conditions companies sometimes lost some of potential
business arrangements because of inadequate responses
on the market requests. One of possible causes for this
is absence of investments into the improvement of
production characteristics of the manufacturing
systems, as well as into the increase of production
capacities in order to fulfill increased market demands
and reducing the prices compared to competitive
products. On the other side, freezing of its own funds
through investment programs during the companys
moments of crisis leads to the problems of insolvent
that can be deleterious for the existence of the company
[1]. So, there is a constant question which structure and
equipment, when and in which extent reasonable to
invest with the aim of improvement of producing
capacities and performances of the manufacturing
system, so to reach optimal parameters based on the
given criteria.
2. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
The main issue when it comes to a reconstruction of

manufacturing system through implementation of new

production equipment is appearance of various
obstacles that can results in inability to consider all the
consequences at the end of the reconstruction activities,
and that is actually the real problem and the risk. In this
paper, it is presented the problem of insufficiently
researched area of mutual interaction of technological
and economic impacts according to the estimation of
potential investment programs for the enlargement of
the capacities, as well as projecting new or
accomplishment
of
reengineering
working
characteristics of manufacturing system, in the serial
production, with the aim of improvement of the
production characteristics. Koren, Hu, and Weber [2]
have demonstrated that the system configuration (the
arrangement of the machines and the interconnection
among them) has a significant impact on six key
performance criteria: 1) investment cost of machines
and tools, 2) quality, 3) throughput, 4) capacity
scalability, 5) number of product types, and 6) system
conversion time. However, if we direct the
consideration towards valuing the most favorable
equipment for the realization of the specific
technological operation in practice, the current
approach to this issue is the choice based on partial
analysis that does not consider all the possibilities and
malfunctions,
where
consciously
suboptimal
investment programs are chosen. Cerjakovi et al [3]
suggest that relevant investment analysis which will be
applied for determination of required structure of
manufacturing systems need to include all relevant
parameters of direct costs (costs of labor, machinery,
tools, emulsions, energy, transportation, quality control,
storage, maintenance, montage, etc.) and costs of
unused resources i.e. technical indirect production costs
of unused resources i.e. technical indirect production
costs (appearance of bottlenecks and malfunctions, lack
of energy, work resources, production materials, etc.)
projected on time of investment repayment. So, it is
necessary to apply the methodologies that will as much
as possible value the process of investment repayment.
Additional issues in the realization of valuing the
investment represents stochastic character of

1

changeable parameters of the manufacturing system,

[4].
3. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OBJECT OF
RESERCH

For transport of work pieces, kanban pallets with

capacity of 60 pieces per unit are used. Working time is
in three shifts, 365 days a year with 45 minutes of
break (breakfast and cleaning the equipment).
2.1 Preparing for experimental research

The polygon of research is manufacturing line

which suffered many technological and organization
changes during last 12 years. During that time, despite
to the changes, manufacturing line kept the
manufacturing of an identical products. In fact, during
that period are used new technology (tools,
manufacturing equipment ...) with the aim to
rationalization of the manufacturing process, and it
resulted in variation of the structure of technological
system and/or the flow of material within observed
manufacturing line.
With the aim of showing possible variations of
different manufacturing equipment, the operation of
drilling on the manufacturing line PLGT2 will be
observed, with all its specifications, [1]. It will be
presumed that it is necessary to change the equipment
on IV technological operation, drilling of the holes on
work pieces, (hereinafter TOIV), because it has the
biggest impact on forming the total production costs
and it has the largest number of applied types of
production equipment. In table 1. there are basic
characteristics of possible equipment which can be
applied for the realization of TOIV which is
implemented before. Considering the fact that it is
necessary to protect reliable economic indicators of the
object of research and to provide authenticity of
economic data all economical parameters will be
multiplied by x factor.
Produc
tion
equip
ment
M
I
L
K

Shares of certain states in total work time of

production equipment (%)
Capacity
Power
Space
Price ()
(pcs/
(kW)
(m2)
shift))
140.000
40,25
155
14
124.000
31
135
22
1.000.000
170
520
54
1.000.000
60
750
41,75

Table 1. Characteristics of the observed production

equipment
For this operation four different types of production
equipment during the time were used:
- Production equipment M CNC single spindle
drilling machine (machined 3 workpieces at a time);
- Production equipment I CNC single spindle
drilling machine (machined 3 workpieces at a time) or
one workpiece and possesses integrated storage with
capacity of 60 workpieces (this solution is used for
deburring of holes after treatment on production
equipment K);
- Production equipment L CNC multy spindle
drilling machine (machined 8 workpieces at a time);
- Production equipment K CNC multy spindle
drilling machine (machined 6 workpieces at a time) and
possesses integrated rotary storage with capacity of 60
workpieces.

11

In order to provide a needed capacity of observed

manufacturing line (Q=950, ..., 1200 pcs/shift), it is
necessary to form a complex structure by combining of
available production equipment for the realization of
the observed technological operation. According to
above mentioned criteria, for research are selected
following combinations of production equipment for
research are selected: K+I+2M, 8I, 2L, K+I+2I,
L+3M, L+4I, 7M, L+2I+2M .
Technical parameters (MTTR - Mean Time To
Repair, MTBF - Mean Time Between Failures,
working availability of production equipment, time of
the manufacturing cycle, period and time of changing
of tools, period and time of changing semiproducts
period and time of quality control) are used for a
preparation of the analysis of the observed structure, so
they are collected in-site and taken from the data base
since 2006. Basic economical parameters that were
used within generating the costs are given in the table
2, while others are taken in accordance with the real
state (costs of tools, adhere of emulsion...).
Parameter
Interest
rate,
inflation,
calculated profit of investor
(annual level)
Maintenance (average size)
Amortization (annual level)
Facility (rent and maintenance
on monthly level)
Workplace (4 shifts)
Energy

Value

Unit

17

23
20

/h
%

76,7

/m2

1915
0,072

/kWh

Table 2. Basic economical parameters

In order to analyze the operation of the observed
facility, it has been done its modelling with the
simulation tool Technomatix Plant Simulation.
Validation and verification of developed simulation
models of the observed manufacturing line was
performed by using of method of animation, Desk
Checking, partial models tests and the method of
comparing with the recorded data, [5]. Obtained data
show the authenticity of the created simulation model,
with the relative accuracy of the model above 92%
compared to the real state, [1]. Working period of
observed manufacturing system that was simulated is
one year. For evaluation of investment programs is
used coefficient of indirect costs Kind-tr, form (1) and
coefficient differences of indirect costs in percentage
ind-tr, forms (2), [3], [1].

Kind tr =

(P

tr j

min ( Ptr ) Q pro

min ( Ptr ) Q pr j

+1

Where are:
Kind-tr coefficient of indirect costs,

(1)

j number of observed structures (j=1 ... m),

min(Ptr) minimal recorded value of production costs
(/pcs),
Ptrj production costs of the observed structure j
(/pcs),
Qprj achieved annual production capacity of the
observed structure j (pcs./year),
Qpro planned annual production, (pcs/year).

ind tr = K ind tri min ( Kind tr ) 100

(2)

3. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
After processing the results obtained by simulation
experiments, relevant data about technological and
economic characteristics of previously defined
structures of TOIV are presented in table 3. At this
point it is important to clarify answer on reasonable
question: "Are the technological and economic
characteristics of other technological operations have
effect on obtained results?". In the order to give the
right answer to this question, determination of the size
of dispersion of production costs in percentages on
other technological operations compared to the average
value of these costs for all observed experiments was
done. Determined dispersion is with in a diapason from
0,753% to -1,660%, so it can be concluded that there
are impacts of production costs of other technological
operations on the TOIV production costs, but if we take
in to account relations between production costs
presented on table 3, these impacts can be disregarded
and they can be applied for some further analysis.
TOIV
structure
K+I+2M
8I
2L
K+I+2I
L+3M
L+4I
7M
L+2I+
2M

Necessary
investment
for TOIV
(x)
1.404.000
992.000
2.000.000
1.372.000
1.420.000
1.496.000
980.000

Production
costs for
TOIV
(/pcsx)
1.071
1.009
1.439
1.066
1.157
1.243
0.966

1.528.000

1.249

Table 3. Techno-economical
observed structures

Accomplished
production
(pallets/year)
16.825
16.830
16.976
16.839
16.775
16.828
17.180
16.930

characteristics

there is no direct connection between the value of

necessary investment and production costs. Previous
data show that when the new equipment is purchased,
all relevant parameters must be taken to value the
investment procedure.
Figure 1 and table 4 presents values of coefficients
of indirect costs per observed structures, and the best
structure is 7M, while other structures have a
significant increase of the coefficient of indirect costs.
The reason for this result can be justified with low
purchasing price of the equipment, however, it should
be considered that this structure is less sensitive to
malfunctions as well as it is needed less time for
servicing. In the order of realistic comparison of
influences of each type of production equipment in
forming of production costs, because of its variety of
production equipment and insight in forming
manufacturing costs, the following structure
L+2I+2M is observed.

Fig. 1. Coefficient of indirect costs Kind-tr

Structure TOIV
K+I+2M
8I
2L
K+I+2I
L+3M
L+4I
7M
L+2I+2M

Kind-tr

ind-tr (%)

1,113
1,047
1,503
1,107
1,206
1,297
1,000
1,303

11,29
4,70
50,29
10,69
20,63
29,66
0
30,26

Table 4. Value of investment programs

of

Data in Table 3 show that accomplished annual

production capacity for some structures is greatly lower
when compared to the projected capacity (17.378 ...
21.900 pallets/year) what is directly affected by the
level of balancing the whole line and availability of
production equipment. If production equipment does
not work which is conditioned by waiting for jobs and
malfunctions, it results in decrease of planned
realization of production volume. This especially has
impact on production equipment in starting operations
because it can reduce the level of utilization of the
equipment in the further technological operations.
Furthermore, if table 3 is analyzed, it can be seen that

When we compare the distribution of the certain

states in the total working time of production
equipment in structure L+2I+2M, table 5, it can be
seen that production equipment type L has significantly
higher share in waiting, dismissal state and servicing
the equipment when compared with other types of
production equipment. This state is described with
constructive characteristics of production equipment
such as rigidity of a machine, the way of changing
tools, maintenance advantages, the way of servicing...
With the aim of further analysis, average values of
costs and accomplished production will be observed, as
well as the relations of each production equipment for
structure L+2I+2M which is given in table 6.

11

Produc
tion
equip
ment
L
I-1
I-2
M-1
M-2

Shares of specific states in total working period

of production equipment (%)
States
Direct
waitin
for
break
service
work
g
dismis
sals
60,53
1,13
8,71
18,74
10,89
76,49
0,24
0,71
18,74
3,82
74,43
0,24
2,85
18,74
3,74
73,04
0,33
3,39
18,74
4,51
73,76
0,33
2,65
18,74
4,53

Table 5. Shares of certain states in total working period

in structure L+2I+2M
Differences in average values of costs, given in
table 6, for the same type of equipment are conditioned
by random events like dismissals states, processing
period, period of changing tools, ... . Beside these
values, the impact on creating total costs of production
has purchase price of the equipment, so if it comes to a
completely new investment, ca. 33,17% of total costs
goes to investment repayment (principal + interest
rate), while, if it comes to the investment of changing
the existing manufacturing funds that will be financed
from the gathered amortizated value during the
previous period of production equipment working time,
ca. 22,83% of production costs go to the servicing of
amortization. So, in this case, ca. 44,00% of total
production costs go to direct manufacturing process.
State

Average values of costs (%)

I-1
I-2
M-1
6,14
6,30
6,69
4,45
4,62
4,79
3,29
3,46
3,48
13,55
13,19
14,91

L
M-2
TR-1
30,85
6,67
TR-2
18,37
4,77
TR-3
9,77
3,46
GP
39,77
15,05
TR0,246
0,243
0,262
0,233
0,230
3/GP
TR31,69
53,62
54,84
51,98
51,84
3/TR-1
Legend.
TR-1 Total production costs (%)
TR-2 Production costs without repayment investment
costs (%)
TR-3 Production costs without repayment investment
costs and amortization (%)
GP annual amount of production (%)

Table 6. Techno-economical characteristics of structure

L+2I+2M
Furthermore, data TR-2 and TR-3 show average
values of production costs, if we expect the costs of
investment repayment that is the costs of investment
repayment and maintenance. These values are
presented because of the analysis of the investment
amount impact when forming the production costs for
different types of production equipment on one side,
and the amount of production equipment after the
amortization period ends. If we analyze data of total
production costs (TR-1) in table 6, it can be easily
concluded that percentage ratio is very bad for
productive production equipment L, due to the
expensive purchase price, however with the analysis of
TR-3 it can be seen that the high purchase price is not

11

the only reason, but also direct production costs and

ratio between TR-3/TR-1 (production costs without the
costs of investment repayment and amortization with
annual amount of production) is adverse when
compared to the production equipment of type M for
6,5% where the ratio of purchased price of the observed
equipment is K:M=7,14:1.
4. CONCLUSION
The process of choosing production equipment and
determining the real value of investment repayment is a
complex task which cannot be reduced to the analysis
of partial parameters because it requests a complex
techno-economical analysis.
The relation of invested-obtained with the purchase
of specific production equipment is not a proportional
value, so the research points to the sufficient potential
for improving characteristics of production, as well as
the production costs and enlarging the spectrum of
production, changing and optimizing the manufacturing
organization without additional investments.
Based on previous conclusions there is the need that
in future production equipment should be adjusted to
the consumers requests and not a consumer to the
characteristics of production equipment.
5. REFERENCES
[1] Cerjakovi,

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

E.: Utjecaj strukture proizvodnotehnolokog sistema i obima investicije na trokove

proizvodnje, PhD thesis, University of Tuzla,
Tuzla, 2012.
Koren, Y., Hu, J., Weber, T.: Impact of
Manufacturing
System
Configuration
on
Performance, Annals of the CIRP, 47, 1, p.p. 369378, 1998.
Cerjakovi, E., Topi, A., Tufeki, D., Vea, I.:
Influence of Structure of Manufacturing System
and amount of Investment on production cost,
Journal Technical Gazette, 22, 3, p.p. 771-780,
2015.
Cerjakovi, E., Tufeki, D., Topi, A., elo, R.,
elovi, .: Stabilisation of production lines by
using of simulation study methodology,
International Virtual Journal MTM. 4, 1-2, p.p.
24-27, 2010.
Rabe, M., Spieckermann, S., Wenzel, S.:
Verifikation und Validierung fr die Simulation in
Produktion und Logistik - Vorgehensmodelle und
Techniken, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2008.

Authors: Edin Cerjakovi, Assistant Professor, Prof.

dr. Alan Topi, M.Sc. Slaan Lovri, Muhamed
Heri, University of Tuzla, Faculty of Mechanical
Engineering Tuzla, Univerzitetska 4, 75000 Tuzla,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Phone.: +387 35 320-920,
Fax: +387 35 320-921.
E-mail: edin.cerjakovic@untz.ba;
alan.topcic@untz.ba;
sladjan.lovric@untz.ba;
muhamed.heric@untz.ba