0
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
M Vol. 2olNo. 4
~ 2001
Modeling and Analysis of Tandem AGV Systems
Using Generalized Stochastic Petri Nets
lgnacio Castillo, Dept. of Finance and Management Science, University of Alberta School of Business,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. E-mail: ignacio.castilloQualberta.ca
Sergio A. Reyes and Brett A. Peters, Dept. of Industrial Engineering, Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas, USA. E-mail: sergiora, bpetersQtamu.edu
Abstract
This paper presents a Petri net modeling approach for
analyzing tandem AGV systems. The approach allows the
consideration of several critical design issues such as multi-
load vehicles, multi-machine processing workstations, finite
queue capacities, and constant work-in-process operating
policies. The proposed approach is capable of providing ana-
lytical as well as simulative results and allows tandem AGV
systems to be fully explored within a single modeling frame-
work. Analytical analysis can be performed if the interarrival
and service times are assumed to be exponentially distrib-
uted. Simulative results do not require this restriction, and
thus general distributions can be used.
Keywords: Material Handling Systems, Tandem AGV
Systems, Petri Net Modeling and Analysis, Analytical and
Simulative Methods
Introduction
Automated guided vehicle (AGV) systems pro-
vide effective and efficient asynchronous movement
of material in low to medium-flow manufacturing
systems. The advantages of AGV systems relative to
other types of material handling systems include:
reliable and automatic operation, improved position-
ing accuracy, rapid and flexible response to changes
in the material handling requirements, and easily
expandable layout and system capacity, among oth-
ers (Peters, Smith, and Venkatesh 1996).
The modeling and further performance analysis
of AGV systems, nonetheless, can be very compli-
cated due to the number of issues that must be con-
sidered, such as the guidepath layout, the number
and type of vehicles, the buffer capacities, and the
operating policies. Consequently, many vendors,
users, and researchers employ discrete event simula-
tion as the primary tool in analyzing AGV systems.
Discrete event simulation allows the computation of
numerous performance metrics quite easily.
Detailed discrete event simulation models, however,
are complex computer programs that are hard to ver-
236
ify and validate. Moreover, in terms of model build-
ing and interpretation of results, discrete event sim-
ulation requires specialized training and experience.
On the other hand, several researchers have con-
centrated their efforts on developing basic academic
research on AGV systems. This type of research
assumes that there exists aggregated information
available and uses analytical tools to analyze AGV
systems. Analytical tools allow the computation of a
limited number of performance metrics and often
apply only under certain modeling assumptions and
constraints. The use of these tools when the assump-
tions and constraints do not hold may lead to impre-
cise results and questionable conclusions.
In this paper, a Petri net approach for modeling
and analyzing the class of AGV systems introduced
by Bozer and Srinivasan (199 1) is presented. The
proposed approach provides analytical as well as
simulative results with much of the modeling flexi-
bility of discrete event simulation. The approach
allows the consideration of critical design issues
such as multi-load vehicles, multi-machine process-
ing workstations, finite queue capacities, and con-
stant work-in-process (CONWIP) operating poli-
cies. The analytical analysis alternative requires the
assumption of exponentially distributed interarrival
and service times. While this assumption is very
limited, it is needed for analytical tractability.
Complexity in the computation of the model solu-
tion stems from the very large state spaces typical of
real-world Petri net models. The analytical analysis
alternative permits the computation of exact, yet
conservative, results when the requirements of CPU
time and main memory are met. Whenever the
requirement of main memory is exceeded the simu-
lative analysis alternative permits the computation
of point estimates. The simulative analysis alterna-
tive also permits the use of general distributions for
both interarrival and service times, thus allowing

realistic tandem AGV systems to be modeled and
analyzed. Additionally, the use of Petri nets, in gen-
eral, allows the representation of concurrency, syn-
chronization, and resource sharing-properties that
cannot be expressed easily in traditional formalisms
(e.g., queuing networks).
Background
AGV Systems: Conceptual Issues
AGVs are self-propelled vehicles that follow a
path determined in one of two ways: static a priori
determination or dynamic real-time determination.
Traditionally, the design and performance analysis
of AGV systems assumes that every vehicle is
allowed to visit any pickup/deposit (P/D) point in
the system. These conventional AGV systems
require extensive control systems for vehicle dis-
patching, routing, and traffic management.
Moreover, conventional systems are prone to con-
gestion when planning is poorly conducted and/or
when material flow requirements increase.
In Bozer and Srinivasan (1991), an alternative
configuration for the design and performance analy-
sis of AGV systems is presented. The authors base
their approach on partitioning all the workstations
into non-overlapping, single-vehicle zones with
additional P/D points provided as an interface
between zones or the external environment. Note
that a single vehicle operating in a zone can be con-
sidered a single-server polling system, where the
server polls the queues in a nondeterministic order.
Thus, a zone may be also considered as a closed
loop. In this paper, single-vehicle zones are referred
to as single-vehicle closed loops (see Figure I). The
advantages of this tandem configuration relative to
the conventional design are:
l Congestion due to zone blocking and conflicts at
intersections and P/D points are completely
eliminated.
l The control system for vehicle dispatching
and traffic management is significantly less
complicated.
l Because each closed loop is a module of the sys-
tem, the implementation of hierarchical control,
where independent loop controllers communicate
with a centralized control system, is facilitated.
l Tandem AGV systems also offer more flexibili-
237
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 2a/No. 4
2001
Interface station7 AGV loop--,
-P/D 2 2
Workstationas interface station
Figure 1
Tandem AGV System
ty. The modular configuration allows the addi-
tion of loops with minimal disruptions to the
existing system.
Tandem AGV systems, however, also present cer-
tain drawbacks that must be addressed. For instance,
tandem AGV systems will show less tolerance
toward vehicle breakdowns, thus requiring one or
more stand-by vehicles. Also, loads may have to be
handled by more than one vehicle before they reach
their destination. This requires the determination of
the shortest travel time route between the origin and
the destination. In Lin and Dgen (1994), a task-list
time-window algorithm to address this problem
based on the current status of the system is present-
ed. Moreover, the efficient operation of tandem sys-
tems requires balancing the workload among loops.
The issue of system layout and partitioning has been
a matter of research in Bozer and Park (1992), Bozer
and Srinivasan (1992), Hsieh and Sha (1996), and
Hsieh and Sha (1997). In Hsieh and Sha (1996) and
Hsieh and Sha (1997), an iterative procedure to
determine the workstation partition and layout for
single-load tandem AGV systems is presented. The
procedure starts with two closed loops and iterates,
increasing the number of loops by one, until the
available time of the vehicle exceeds the loaded trav-
el time of each vehicle within a loop.
Other design issues, such as multi-load vehicles,
multi-machine processing workstations, finite queue
capacities, and constant work-in-process (CON-
WIP) operating policies, have not been considered
for tandem AGV systems. The proposed approach
Journal of~anufac~~~rjng Systems
Vol.20Mo.4
2001
allows the consideration of such issues by providing
analytical as well as simulative analysis alternatives
within a single robust modeling approach.
AGV Systems: Analysis Issues
The perfo~ance analysis of conventional AGV
systems has motivated several simulation-based
studies to evaluate the effects of different design
issues, such as the number of AGVs, dispatching
policies, and queue capacities (Egbelu and Tanchoco
1984, 1986; Ozden 1988; and Schroer and Tseng
1988). In Vosniakos and Mamalis (1990), issues
such as zone blocking, loading and unloading, and
traffic control are also addressed. Simulation-based
Petri net approaches for conventional AGV systems
have been presented in Alanche et al. (1984) and
Davis, Jackson, and Jones (1989). More recently, in
Venkatesh et al. (1996) and Yim and Linn (1993),
push and pull policies in flexible manufacturing sys-
tems that include AGVs using the simulation-based
Petri net approach are investigated. The times asso-
ciated with transportation delays cannot be properly
addressed in the aforementioned simulation-based
Petri net approaches due to the dynamic nature of
AGV assignments in conventional AGV systems. In
Raju and Chetty (1993), a simulation-based Petri net
approach that addresses this issue by extending the
Petri net formalism is presented. The extension
relates transportation delays with a data structure
that records the state and location of the AGVs.
Analytical approaches for designing conventional
AGV systems include Egbelu (1987), Mahadevan
and Narendran (1990), and Malmborg (1990). In
Maxwell and Muckstadt (1982), a general design
methodology for single-load vehicles operating on a
unidirectional path is presented. Bartholdi and
Platzman (1989) present a simple and efficient dis-
patching policy, First-Encountered-First-Served
(FEFS). This dispatching policy can be applied to
the cases of single and multiple vehicles operating in
a closed loop. The authors present results for the
number of traversals of the loop and derive a condi-
tion under which the system will meet the required
throughput for a set of load arrival patterns. The spe-
cific case for analyzing tandem AGV system con-
figurations is studied in Bozer and Srinivasan
(1991). This work is concerned with the particular
situation of a single-load vehicle operating in a
closed loop. The authors develop an analytical
model to study the throughput capacity. An analyti-
238
cal Petri net approach to analyze the perfo~ance of
tandem AGV systems is presented in Wang and
Hafeez (1994). In this study, the authors consider a
simplified system in which each loop contains only
one workstation and a single-load vehicle. The
authors, however, do not indicate how the Petri net
model can be modified to incorporate other critical
design issues such as multiple workstation loops and
multi-load vehicles.
The potential to improve vehicle availability for
load transport requests and the further reduction of
deadhead or unproductive time of vehicles when
incorporating multi-load carrying capacity has been
acknowledged (Bilge and Tanchoco 1997, Nayyar
and Khator 1993). These and other design issues
such as finite queue capacities and CONWIP oper-
ating policies, however, have not been previously
addressed in the literature for the case of tandem
AGV systems. Thus, there is an obvious need for
further analysis to fully explore tandem AGV sys-
tems; only then can fair and quantitative compar-
isons with conventional AGV systems be conducted,
Petri Nets: Basic definitions
Petri nets make it possible to model discrete event
systems. Generalized stochastic Petri nets (GSPNs)
are a performance analysis tool based on the graph-
ical representation of Petri nets in which some tran-
sitions are timed while others are immediate (Chiola
et al. 1993, David and Alla 1992, Murata 1989,
Peterson 198 1). Timed transitions are associated
with exponentially distributed firing times, whereas
the firing of immediate transitions takes place in
zero time, with precedence over timed transitions.
Each transition is associated with a priority level.
The default priority value for immediate transitions
is 1; timed transitions have priority 0. Higher priori-
ty levels take precedence over lower priority levels.
GSPNs are widely accepted as high-level for-
malisms to define large and complex continuous-
time Markov chains (Ajmone Marsan et al. 1995).
GSPN models, in general, are graphically represent-
ed as directed bipartite graphs that consist of two
types of nodes: places, which are drawn as circles,
and immediate (timed) transitions, which are drawn
as bars (boxes). Places typically model conditions or
resources; transitions model events or activities.
Directed arcs connect places to transitions and tran-
sitions to places. Places may contain tokens, which

are drawn as black dots. The state of the Petri net is
characterized by the number of tokens in each place.
The state is usually called marking. The initial mark-
ing determines the initial state of the Petri net. In the
graphical representation, the number of tokens in
places might be replaced by the name of a parameter.
The structure of a Petri net is formally described
by the input, output, and inhibitor functions. These
functions map transitions onto places. In the graphi-
cal formalism, the input and output functions are rep-
resented by directed arcs from places to transitions
and from transitions to places, respectively. The
inhibitor function is represented by circle-headed
arcs connecting places to transitions, and it is used to
inhibit the firing of transitions given a marking.
Also, a function defined on the transitions maps
transitions into positive real numbers. This function
is used to represent the rate of a transition if it is
timed and the weight of a transition if it is n-imme-
diate, where n is the priority level. The association of
firing rates with timed transitions implies that an
exponentially distributed firing time with a given
rate is associated with the transition. The association
of weights with n-immediate transitions is necessary
to determine which of the enabled transitions will
actually fire in a marking that enables more than one
conflicting n-immediate transitions.
A Petri net executes by firing transitions. The fir-
ing of a transition yields a new marking such that
tokens are removed from the input places and creat-
ed in the output places. A marking is said to be
reachable from another marking if there exists a
sequence of transitions such that the firing of such
sequence yields the desired marking. Readers are
referred to Chiola et al. (1993), David and Alla
(1992), Murata (1989), and Peterson (1981) for
more detailed information on Petri nets.
Tandem AGV System Model
Considerations and Assumptions
Petri nets provide a powerful ability to represent
concurrency, synchronization, and resource sharing.
In this paper, these properties are exploited in a
modular and flexible modeling approach to analyze
tandem AGV systems. In the context of tandem
AGV systems, concurrency implies that the system
has the potential to execute workstation processing
and vehicle movement in parallel; synchronization
239
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. zo/No. 4
2001
allows the coordination of processes (e.g.,
pickup/deposit operations and input/output queue
inspections); and resource sharing allows modeling
of products competing for capacitated resources.
In the development of the model, a set of consid-
erations has been taken into account. The manufac-
turing system consists of workstations, which repre-
sent one machine or a group of machines. Each
workstation has two queues: input and output. Loads
that are destined to a workstation are dropped at its
input queue, while the loads that are leaving the
workstation are picked up from its output queue. The
input queue precedes the output queue from the
AGV traveling direction standpoint. These queues
may have a limited capacity.
There are two types of P/D points: those relat-
ed to the workstation queues and those related to
the input/output (I/O) stations (that is, P/D points
that serve as interface between adjacent loops or
the external environment). Thus, loads from adja-
cent loops or the external environment arrive at
the output queue of an I/O station where they wait
to be picked up. Likewise, loads that require no
further processing within a loop are delivered to
the input queue of an I/O station where they leave
the loop or system.
It is assumed that the workstations in the system
have been partitioned in advance into non-overlap-
ping, single-vehicle closed loops. In each closed
loop, a multi-load AGV travels from one P/D point
to another. The AGV is assumed to follow the FEFS
vehicle dispatching policy. Under this policy, if there
is capacity available in the vehicle, the AGV will
travel to inspect the output queues of each worksta-
tion and I/O station in the loop to locate the next
load requiring transport. Note that, under this policy,
the AGV is always traveling either loaded, partially
loaded or unloaded.
Also, it is assumed that the production plan and
the production routing are known. Finally, flow con-
servation is not required at the workstations or I/O
stations; that is, the number of loads entering a sta-
tion is not necessarily equal to the number of loads
leaving it.
Modeling Approach
The Petri net modeling approach for tandem AGV
systems consists of three basic modules. The mod-
ules are used to build the logic of the dynamics of
the tandem AGV system. Thus, by combining them
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 2omo. 4
2001
Figure 2
Tandem AGV Petri Net move Module
any particular tandem system can be modeled. The
modules are: move, transfer, and process.
The move Module
The move module is related to the AGV traversal
of the loop. The graphical Petri net representation of
the move module is shown in Figure 2. Table I gives
the description of the module’s places and transi-
tions. This module is the building block of each tan-
dem loop. Thus, the module is used to represent the
physical guidepath traversed and the P/D points vis-
ited by the AGY The functionality of the module is
described next.
l Place pin models the presence of the AGV at the
input queue of a P/D point (either workstation or
I/O station). Assume that a token has been creat-
ed in this place. If the AGV is carrying a load
destined to that point, the load is deposited in the
queue. Once the load has been deposited, transi-
tion tin fires. The delay incurred in the unload-
ing is modeled in the transfer module.
l After the firing of transition tin, a token is cre-
ated in place pout. This place models the pres-
ence of the AGV at the output queue of a P/D
point. At this point, the AGV inspects the queue.
If there is a load waiting to be picked up and
capacity available in the AGV, the AGV picks up
the load and transition tout fires. If there is no
capacity available in the AGV, the AGV contin-
ues traveling and transition tlogic, instead of
transition tout, fires. That is, transition tLogic
allows the AGV to continue traveling to the next
P/D point, disregarding the presence of a load
240
Table I
Legend for Petri Net move Module
Place Description
pin AGV positioned at input queue
(deposits loads if necessary)
pout AGV positioned at output queue
(inspects and picks up loads if necessary)
pTrave1 AGV traveling to next P/D point
Timed Transition Description
tTrave1 Travel completed
Immediate Transition Description
tin Deposit completed (if necessary)
tout Inspection and pickup completed
(if necessary)
tLogic Logical transition to resolve case of
no capacity available in AGV
ready to be picked up. The logic associated with
the presence of a load and the delay incurred in
the loading are modeled in the transfer module.
l Place pTrave1 represents the traveling of the
AGV to the next P/D point in the loop. The trav-
el time is accounted by timed transition tTrave1.
The firing of this transition represents the arrival
of the AGV to the input queue of the next P/D
point in the loop. This firing results in the cre-
ation of a token in place pin of the next P/D
point to be visited. If the loaded and unloaded
speeds of the AGV are equal, transition tTrave1
is assigned a real number as the firing rate. If the
loaded and unloaded speeds are different, how-
ever, a marking dependent rate definition must
be defined.
l A sequence of concatenated move modules mod-
els a loop, its P/D points, and the movement of the
AGV within it. Thus, the logic of the preceding
list is repeated for each P/D point. The concate-
nation of move modules is called loop subnet.
The transfer Module
The transfer module is related with the logic asso-
ciated with each product type and their interaction
with the P/D points. This module is the core of the
modeling approach. It is the building block to model
the dynamics of the FEFS dispatching policy, the
capacity available in the multi-load AGV, the pro-
duction routing of each product type, the presence of
loads in the input and output queues of P/D points,
the loading and unloading of loads, and the traveling
of the loads from one P/D point to the next accord-
ing to their respective routings. Moreover, most of
the enhancements presented in the sequel are
achieved by extending this module. The graphical

6-
- tLogic((i)]
Figure 3
Tandem AGV Petri Net transfer Module
Petri net representation of the transfer module is
shown in Figure 3. In this figure, places pOut[(i)]
and pIn[(i)+l], and transitions tOut[(i)], tLogic[(i)],
and tIn[(i)+l] correspond to the move module asso-
ciated with P/D point (i) or (i)+l. Table 2 gives the
description of the module’s places and transitions.
The functionality of the module is described next.
l Place pAGV models the capacity available in the
AGV. That is, pAGV will have as many tokens as
loads the AGV can carry. The existence of
tokens in this place contributes to enabling tran-
sition tLoad and inhibits the firing of transition
tLogic of station (i), in the move module, when
there is capacity available.
l Assume that transition tPre has fired and a token
has been created in place pOutQ. This token rep-
resents the presence of a load at the output queue
of station (i) in the routing of a certain product
type. The existence of tokens in this place
inhibits the firing of transition tout in the move
module. Under this condition, if the AGV hap-
pens to be inspecting the output queue of station
(i) and it has capacity available, the AGV will
pick up the load and timed transition tLoad will
fire after the loading time has elapsed.
l After the firing of transition tload, a token is
created in place pToInQ. This place models the
traveling of the load from station (i) to station
(i)+l in the routing of a certain product type.
The existence of tokens in this place inhibits the
firing of transition tin in the move module.
Under this condition, if the AGV happens to be
at the input queue of station (i)+ 1, the AGV will
deposit the load and timed transition tUnload
will fire after the unloading time has elapsed.
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 20Mo. 4
2001
Table 2
Legend for Petri Net transfer Module
Place Description
pAGV Capacity available in AGV
POutQ Load present at output queue of station (i)
@NOI pToInQ Load traveling to next P/D point
@Q Load present at input queue of station (i)+l
tOut[(i)] Timed Transition Description
tPre Load deposited at output queue of station (i)
plnKO+ll tLoad Loading completed
tUnload Unloading completed
tln[(i)+l] Immediate Transition Description
tpost Load transferred to workstation, or
load left the loop or system
The firing of transition tUnload will create a
token in place pAGV, thus restoring the capacity
of the AGV by one.
The firing of transition tUnload will also create
a token in place pInQ. This token represents the
presence of a load at the input queue of station
(i)+l in the routing of a particular product type.
The firing of transition tPost occurs either if the
load is transferred to a workstation or if the load
leaves the loop or system.
A sequence of concatenated transfer modules, with
aprocess module in between, models each product
type, its production routing, and its interaction with
the P/D points and the AGV under the FEFS dis-
patching policy. The concatenation of transfer and
process modules is called product subnet.
The process Module
Theprocess module is related to the workstations.
Because this module models the processing of loads,
it will always be located between transfer modules.
The graphical Petri net representation of the process
module is shown in Figure 4. Table 3 gives the
description of the module’s places and transitions.
The functionality of the module is described next.
l Place pWS models the capacity available in the
workstation. The existence of a token in this place
corresponds to an idle workstation. This condition
contributes to the enabling of transition tPost. If
there is a token in place pInQ of the transfer mod-
ule, transition tPost will fire. Thus, a load is trans-
ferred to the workstation to be processed.
l Place pProcess models the processing of a load.
The firing of timed transition tPre after the pro-
cessing time has elapsed restores the capacity of
the workstation and creates a token in place
pOutQ of the transfer module.
241
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 20Mo. 4
2001
1 Table 3
pProcess
tPre
Figure 4
Tandem AGV Petri Net press Module
Modeling Enhancements
The modeling enhancements are achieved by
extending or modifying the three basic modules
described above. The enhancements considered are:
No Conservation of Flow. The condition of no con-
servation of flow is achieved by modifying the input
and output functions of the Petri net model. In par-
ticular, the modification involves the multiplicity of
input arcs from pInQ places to tPost transitions and
the multiplicity of output arcs from tPre transitions
to pOutQ places.
CONWIP Operating Policies. CONWIP operating
policies are achieved by adding one place for each
product type or for each tandem loop under consider-
ation. Let such a place for a certain product type be
called pWIF? The number of tokens in this place rep-
resents the level of work in process set for that partic-
ular product type. The logic of the CONWIP policy is
introduced by adding an input arc from place pWIP to
the first transition of the respective product subnet,
and an output arc from the last transition of the respec-
tive product subnet back to place pWIF! In the case of
CONWIP operating policies for a loop instead of a
product, place pWIP becomes a colon input place
for the first transition of all product subnets and a
common output place for the last transition of all prod-
uct subnets back to place pWII? Similarly, CONWIP
operating policies for the entire system are possible by
extending the aforementioned logic.
Multi-Machine Workstations. A multi-machine
workstation is simply modeled by setting the num-
ber of tokens in pWS equal to the number of
machines in the workstation.
242
Legend for Petri Net processModule
Place Description
PWS Capacity &ail&e in workstation
pProcess Workstation processing a load
Timed Transition DescriGtion
tPre Load depositeh at &put queue of station (i)
Immediate Transition _ -- Description
tPost Load transferred to workstation, or load
left the loop or system
Finite Queue Capacities. Finite queue capacities can
be modeled if it is assumed that a transfer from one
P/D point to the next in the production routing of a
certain product type can only be performed if capac-
ity in the destination P/D point is reserved. This pol-
icy prevents the system from getting into a dead-
locked state. The extension requires the addition of
a place that models the queue capacity (i.e., place
pQ), an input arc from place pQ to transition tload,
and an output arc from transition KInload back to
place pQ.
~~direct~ona~ Loops with Shortcuts. For the case of
single-load AGVs, bidirectional loops with shortcuts
can be modeled. The modification requires the trav-
el time to be modeled in the transfer module rather
than in the move module because the travel time will
depend on whether the AGV is loaded or unloaded.
The proposed Petri net modeling approach and
the proposed enhancements allow the consideration
of several critical design issues for modeling and
analyzing tandem AGV systems. These issues have
not been addressed by any analytical approach
developed earlier, As an example, consider the Petri
net shown in Figure 5. In this figure, a simple tan-
dem AGV system is modeled. The system has one
loop. The loop is composed of two workstations
W;Sl and WS4 modeled by places pWS1 and pWS4,
respectively, and one I/O station, namely I/05. The
capacity of workstation Ws4 is 1, while the capacity
of workstation WSl is 2. The physical configuration
of the loop, with respect to the traveling direction of
the single-load AGV, is ( WSl, WS4,UOS).
The single product subnet models the production
routing of product B. The production routing of
product B is (I/05, WS4, WSI). That is, loads enter
the loop through I/O station 1/05 and are processed
by workstation Ws4 followed by workstation WSi.
 Journal qf Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 2a/No. 4
2001

K=5 Petri net is defined as a labeled directed graph,

-,
/
tLoadB5
pTolnQB54
tUnloadB4
plnPB4
tPoetB4
pProcessB4
tPreB4
pOutQB4
tLoadB4
pTolnQB41
tUnloadB1
pInaB
tPoetB1
pProcessB1
tPreB1
\
Figure 5
Petri Net Model of a Simple Tandem AGV System
The loads leave the loop through the last processing
workstation. Product B works under a CONWIP
operating policy. The WIP level is represented by the
parameter K. Notice that, in this single-product
example, place pWIP is not introduced to avoid
redundancy with place pOutQB5. That is, the CON-
WIP operating policy is simply modeled by con-
necting transition tPreB 1 to place pOutQB5.
Model Validation Considerations
The state space of a Petri net model is called the
reachability set and is characterized by the initial
marking and the structure of the net. The reachabil-
ity set is defined as the set comprising all markings
that can be reached from the initial marking by fir-
ing any legal transition sequence. This set is com-
posed of tangible and vanishing markings. Markings
that enable timed transitions are called tangible,
while markings that enable immediate transitions
are called vanishing. The reachability graph of a
whose set of nodes is the reachability set and whose
set of arcs represents all possible transition firing
relations between pairs of markings.
Numerical algorithms for the solution or simula-
tion of GSPN models require the structure and the
state space of the net to satisfy certain properties. In
the case of the analytical alternative, the net model
must be bounded (have a finite state space) and must
be live (no transitions can become unfirable for all
reachable markings). A necessary and sufficient
condition for the net model to be bounded is that all
places are covered by some P-invariant. A necessary
condition for the net to be live is that all transitions
are covered by T-invariants (see Martinez and Silva
198 1 for a complete treatment of P- and T-invari-
ants). To discover if the Petri net model is actually
live, the structure of the reachability graph must be
considered. If the reachability graph is strongly con-
nected that is, if the initial marking is a home state,
then the model is actually live. The properties of
liveness and home state are a sufficient condition for
the GSPN model and its underlying continuous time
Markov chain (CTMC) to be ergodic.
In addition, the construction of the CTMC is
based on the assumption that the GSPN model
belongs to the class of structurally confusion-free
nets. A confusion-free net is such that the firing of
simultaneously enabled transitions is immaterial for
the evolution of the net. Models comprising confu-
sion are usually considered to be semantically
wrong. A confusion-free net is generally achieved by
assigning higher priority levels to transitions that
cannot fire concurrently even if they are not in con-
flict (Chiola et al. 1993).
In the case of the simulative alternative, the
GSPN model must also satisfy the above properties,
except that it is not required to be bounded.
The Petri net modeling approach for tandem AGV
systems presented in this paper has been conceived
taking proper care of the aforementioned require-
ments. The net in Figure 5 defines a reachability set
comprising 642 markings, 448 of which are tangible
markings and 194 of which are vanishing markings.
Each place in the GSPN model is covered by some
P-invariant. The computation of T-invariants reveals
that all the transitions in the model are covered by T-
invariants. The initial marking is a home state; the
net is live and thus, ergodic. The net, moreover, is
confusion free.

243
Journal of’A4amfircturing Systems
Vol. 2oiNo. 4
200 1
The proposed modeling approach for tandem
AGV systems allows the consideration of several
detailed design issues, as discussed in previous sec-
tions. In certain cir~~stan~es where this detail is
not necessary, a considerably simplified net can be
developed. For example, if the load/unload rates are
not important and can be assumed to be zero, such
as when comparing different systems rather than
analyzing a single system, transitions tLoad and
tUnload of the product subnets become 2-immediate
instead of timed. The simplification, moreover,
reduces the modeling overhead by not considering
any of the i~ibitors arcs from product subnets to
loop subnets, nor the transitions tLogic in the move
modules. This modeling simplification preserves the
properties previously mentioned and helps reduce
the number of tangible markings by a considerable
amount. For example, with this simplification, the
net in Figure 5 would have 308 tangible markings
instead of 448.
Solution and Performance Analysis
of GSPNs
Because of the memoryless property of the expo-
nential dist~bution, a GSPN model is recognized as
a CTMC defined over a set of states isomorphic to
the set of tangible markings of the net. The analytic
analysis alternative solves this underlying CTMC.
The analytic solution allows the computation of
exact solutions; that is, as opposed to the simulative
alternative, the outcome does not depend on the gen-
eration of pseudo-random numbers. The analytical
solution of a GSPN, however, is limited by the state-
space explosion problem. Even if the GSPN is com-
pact, the underlying CTMC can easily have an enor-
mous set of states. Thus, even if the state space is
finite, it cannot be too large relative to the main
memory.
The analytical alternative assumes that the GSPN
and the underlying CTMC are ergodic. A sufficient
condition for a CTMC to be ergodic is that the net is
live and that the initial marking is a home state.
Moreover, the construction of the CTMC is based on
the assumption that the GSPN is confusion free
(Chiola et al. 1993), as previously discussed. The
steady-state solution of the CTMC can be obtained
by solving the ~o~esponding linear system of dif-
ferential equations using an iterative method based
on the Gauss-Seidel algorithm.
244
To show the kind of performance metrics that can
be obtained using a GSPN model, the tandem AGV
model in Figure 5 is considered. Say that the expect-
ed utilization of the vehicle, the expected utilization
of the workstations, and the number of parts that are
processed per time unit are required. These parame-
ters can be derived from the steady-state probability
distribution on markings.
Place pWS4 is l-bounded, and when there is no
token in place pWS4, the workstation is busy.
Therefore, the expected utilization of workstation
WS4 is given by 1 - ApWS4, where ApWS4is the
expected number of tokens in place pWS4. The
same holds for the AGV, modeled by place pAGV
The expected number of products of type B
processed per time unit is given by the inverse of the
frequency of firing of transition tPreB1. The fre-
quency of firing of tPreB1 is
f tPreB1 =
M:M[tPreBI>
where &real is the firing rate of transition tPreB1
andprM is the steady-state probability of marking Ad.
The summation is carried over all the markings
where ~ansition tPreB1 is fired. Alternatively, the
number of products of type B processed per time
unit can be computed as
t&z= %PreBl
P {#pProcessB 1> 0]
that is, the probability that place pProcessB1 is not
empty (P{ #pProcessBl > O>), times the firing rate
of transition tPreB 1, which represents the number of
products processed per time unit when processing is
being performed. In addition, because place
pOutQB4 is K-bounded, the expected number of
products in this place can be computed as
A pOutQB4 = biP (#pout QB4 = i)
On the other hand, the simulative analysis alter-
native does not require the generation of the state
space of the Petri net and therefore, does not require
a finite state space. This alternative allows the com-
putation of point estimates and their respective con-
fidence intervals. Moreover, the underlying stochas-
tic process is not restricted to be M~kovian; that is,
transitions can have generally distributed firing
times. This is important because with no congestion
 Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 2olNo. 4
2001

Table 4
Workstations as interface stations AGV Travel Distances Between Stations
n
I I I Loop I
..______.
P/D 1 P/D 4
4
From-To Distance (feet)
1
7Eix 90
WS4 - WS5 135
WS5 - WS3 225
ws3-wS2 405
ws2 - WSl 225
- P/D 2 LOODII
From-To Distance (feet)
ws3 - ws5 225
WS5 - WS6 540
WS6 - WS3 315

c Table 5
; Routing Data by Product Type
Product Type Production Routing Loop
Figure 6
Experimental Tandem AGV System A WSl - WS3-- WS6 Loop I - Loop II
B ws4 - WSl Loop I
c WS6 - WS5 - WS2 Loop II - Loop I
D WLQ-wSbws5 Loop I
and blocking, AGV travel times in a tandem AGV
system are unlikely to follow the exponential distri-
Table 6
bution. Complicated models, as in discrete-event Exuerimental Set of Svstem Parameters
simulation, demand long simulation times to Case WIP Level per AGVs Capacity
achieve the desired accuracy. Product Type
The simulation of a Petri net is performed by exe- 1 1 1
2 2 1
cuting the following cycle:
3 3 1
4 4 1
l Find enabled transitions. 5 5 1
l If immediate transitions are enabled, choose one 6 6 1
7 1 2
transition to fire according to priorities and 8 2 2
weights. If timed transitions are enabled, choose 9 3 2
one transition according to firing rates. 10 4 2
11 5 2
l Fire the selected transition and compute the new 12 6 2
marking.
l Update statistics of estimates.
WS3 serve as transfer points between loops.
For both the analytic and the simulative analysis Workstation WSl has two parallel and identical
alternatives, the GreatSPN package developed at the machines, whereas the other workstations have only
Universita di Torino is used (Chiola et al. 1995). The one machine each. The AGVs travel distances
package provides a friendly framework to experi- between stations are shown in Table 4. The loaded and
ment with GSPN modeling techniques and state-of- unloaded speeds of the AGVs are assumed to be equal
the-art analysis algorithms for validation, to 125 feet per minute. The AGVs travel, in both
Markovian analysis, and simulation of models. The loops, in a clockwise direction. The system produces
output of the sofhvare tool is used to compute the four types of products, denoted A, B, C, and D. The
desired performance metrics. four product types are produced according to the data
given in Table 5. The AGVs are capable of loading
and unloading loads from and to P/D points at a rate
Experimentation and Results of 360 unit loads per hour. Also, the system operates
Consider a manufacturing system with two loops under a CONWIP operating policy; that is, the WIP
and six workstations as shown in Figure 6. Notice that level for each product is held constant. The experi-
the P/D points of workstation WS5 and workstation mental set of system parameters is shown in Table 6.

245
Journal ofManuj&turing Systems
Vol. 20iNo. 4
2001

In Table 7, the results for the single-load AGVs ther throughput improvement.
are presented while the results for the dual-load The behavior of the AGV utilization is depicted in
AGVs are presented in Table 8. Three important Figures 9 and 10 for each of the two AGV capacity
results are shown in these tables: the throughput scenarios, respectively. The AGV capacity has, as
per hour for each product type, the AGV utiliza- expected a positive effect on the throughput metric.
tion, and the workstation utilization. The results for In the same fashion, the AGV capacity has a positive
cases 1, 2, 7, and 8 were computed using the ana- effect on the utilization of the workstations. This can
lytical analysis alternative. For the rest of the cases, be visualized in Figures II and 12 for each of the
the simulative analysis alternative was used and a two AGV capacity scenarios, respectively. In these
95% confidence interval for each performance figures, the shape of the curves is nearly identical.
metric was also computed. The batch means Note that in the experimentation above, the AGV
approach was used when conducting the simula- utilization is rather low with respect to the worksta-
tions. The number of batches per simulation was tion utilization. Thus, increasing the WIP level from
variable; for each case, statistics were collected 1 to 2 units of each product type has a much larger
until the accuracy of the confidence interval for all impact on product throughput than converting the
performance metrics was within 10%. AGVs from single-load to dual-load vehicles. Now,
The throughput per hour for each product type let the loaded and unloaded speeds of the AGVs be
increases as the WIP level for the products increas- equal to 10 feet per minute and consider the results
es. This behavior is depicted in Figures 7 and 8 for shown in Table 9.
each of the two AGV capacity scenarios, respective- As expected, with reduced loaded and unloaded
ly. The curves for all the product types appear to speeds, the AGV utilization is rather high with
reach the point of critical WIP, that is, the point respect to the workstation utilization. In Table 9, it is
where further WIP increment will not produce fur- seen that converting the AGVs from single-load to

Table 7 Table 8
Experimental Set Results Experimental Set Results
Case Throughput AGV Utilization Workstation Utilization Case Throughput AGV Utilization Workstatmn Utilization
per Hour Loop I Loop II per Hour Loop I Loop II

I / A 0.7042 0.1790 1 ~~~ ~

O.lZS I mmPEl 05418 7 A -0.7257 0.1696 ~ 0.1235 I WSI 0.5486
5 0.4433 , WS2 0.4274 B - 0.4486 W’S2 0.4302
C-O.5682 ~ WS3 0.4641 C - 0.5676 WS3 0.4697
D -- 0.2853 WS4 0.4433 D - 0.2883 WS4 0.4486
I WS5 0.4274 W’S5 0.4302
WS6GO.3181 I W’S6 0.3233
2 A - 1.0000 0.2634 0.1738 WSI 0.6800 8 A - 1.0260 0.2343 0. I577 WSI 0.6903
B 0.5753 WS2 0.6177 B - 0.5830 WS2 -0.6217
c - 0.7335 WS3 0.6845 C 0.7520 ~ WS3 0.695 I
D 0.4340 WS4 - 0.7246 D-O.4389 ws4 0.7379
WSS 0.6176 WS’5 0.6230
i WS6 -0.4378
3 (A - I .l I52 + 0.0247 0.3029 i 0.003 0.1944 i 0.0020 WSI 0.7359 i 0.0107 9 ‘A 1.1700 zt 0.0305 0.2607 zt 0.0016 0.1709 + 0.0020 WSI 0.7410 i 0.0065
!B-0.6349iO.01611 WS2 - 0.7120 i- 0.0217 5 0.6337 i 0.0072 WS2 0.7241 f 0.0149
W’S3 0.8014 i 0.0080 C - 0.7896 i 0.0293 WS3 0.8067 zk 0.0227
‘D - 0.5200 + 0.0098
~ WS4 - 0.8570 + 0.0552 D 0.5277 i 0.0063, WS4 0.8694 l 0.0232

WS5 0.72 I8 t 0.0283 WS5 0.7254 + 0.0087

~~ ~~~~_~ WS6 0.4784 * 0.0081 ~ fS6 -@X75 +m&O087
4
4 A - 1.1800 i 0.0416 0.3246 + 0.0029/ 0.2053 + 0.0038tWSI - 0.7672 f 0.0102 IO A - 1.2088 + 0.0254 0.2760 z+ 0.0025 0.1762 i 0.0020 WSI - 0.7650 + 0.0042
-I
B - 0.6572 * 0.01 I8 WS2 0.7803 f 0.0325 B 0.6601 i 0.0066 _~-r WS2 0.7792 zt 0.0277
C - 0.8264 -t 0.0197 WS3 - 0.8649 zt 0.0581 C 0.8344 + 0.0210 1WS3 0.8728 i 0.0472
~D 0.575710.0088 WS4 0.9251 i 0.0581 II 0.5710 + 0.0032
I
’ ws4 0.9337 * 0.0437
WS5 0.7814 i 0.0284 WS5 0.7796 i 0.007 I
WS6 0.5017 f 0.0065 WS6 - 0.5 123 f 0.0058
5 A - I .I884 i 0.0243 IO.33 I5 * 0.001 0.2056 * 0.0030 WSI 0.7729 * 0.0066 II A - I.2316 zt 0.0139 0.2777 i 0.0020’ 0.1769 + 0.0030 WSI 0.7688 + 0.0102
B - 0.6730 + 0.0056 ~~~~~ (I IWS2 0.8225
~~~~ * 0.0412
~~~ E 0.6669 i 0.0112 WS2 0.8 I33 + 0.065 I
WS3 0.9126 i- 0.0340 C 0.8316 i 0.0235 WS3 0.9 I62 + 0.0409
,:;“,:z::::g WS4 - 0.9615 + 0.067 I D - 0.6170 + 0.0077 ~ WS4 0.9667 i- 0.0629
I
WS5 0.8140 + 0.0542 , WS5 0.8183 f 0.0680
WS6 0.5 149 i 0.0092
_~ ~~_~ _PPIm~ ~ W’S6 0.5045
~~~~ i _~~
0.0071
6 ‘km- I.1884 * 0.0513 IO.3370 + 0.0032. 0.2093 * 0.00331 WSI 0.7689 + 0.0098 I2 A - 1.1932 * 0.0326 0.2842 + 0.1761 l 0.0016 1WSI 0.7734 * 0.0033
B - 0.6719 l 0.0094 WS2 0.8455 * 0.0698 B 0.6761 i 0.0052 ws2 0.855 I i 0.0440
C- 0.8580
D - 0.6287
+ 0.0344
+ 0.0079 iE I ::;:;:: : ::::;: C -0.8704
D - 0.6278
i 0.0243
+ 0.0043
WS3
WS4
0.9452
0.9X21
f 0.0736
f 0.0855
KS5 0.8409 i 0.0544 WS5 0.8434 IO.0277
WS6 0.5057 -t 0.0135 WS6 0.5 165 i 0.0082

246
 Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 2a/No. 4
2001

1.2 1.2

1 1

Cl ;
e 0.6
$
5
$ O6
E
+ 0.4
Product A --+-- Product A ---+-
0.2 Product B ---+--- 0.2 Producti? ---+ -x
‘,..“,’ ,,
Pmduct C ___J+__ .,>,‘,, Product C --o--
1,,, Product D ---x---
Product D ___)(___ ,’
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
WIP level per product type WIP level per product type

Figure 7 Figure 8
Throughput Curves for Single-Load AGVs Throughput Curves for Dual-Load AGVs

: I
,/’
0.05 :I-
:‘,, AGVl --a--
; ,’
,;i,’ AGVZ---+--
06
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
WIP level per product type WIP level per product type

Figure 9 Figure 10
Single-Load AGV Utilization Dual-Load AGV Utilization

I-
f

0.6 - -+____ __ 0.6

0.6 -

i 8 _,A’
$,‘.* WSI
w.9
--u--
---+_-_
I wsl
m
m
--Q__
--_+_--
___D__
WSQ ___x_-_
m ___*_--
m __.*._-

"0 1 2 3 4 5 6 “0 1 2 3 4 5 6
WIP level per product type WIP level per product type
Figure 11 Figure 12
Workstation Utilization for Single-Load AGVs Workstation Utilization for Dual-Load AGVs

247
Journal of Manufacturing s?/stems
Vol. 20Mo. 4
2001
Table 9
Additional Experimental Set Results
Loop I I ws2
0.5844 0.1470
0.5800 0.1878
0.6543 0.2062
0.7438 0.2897
I case of the simulative analysis alternative, no such
dual-load vehicles has a much larger impact on
product throughput when the material handling sys-
tem is the bottleneck of the system. Thus, an inter-
action exists between the AGV utilization and the
workstation utilization. This interaction needs to be
taken into account when designing tandem AGV
systems. The study of this interaction in detail is
beyond the scope of this paper.
Summary and Conclusions
The advantages of AGV systems relative to other
types of material handling systems include: reliable
and automatic operation, improved positioning
accuracy, rapid and flexible response to changes in
the material handling requirements, and easily
expandable layout and system capacity, among oth-
ers. The design and further performance analysis of
AGV systems, however, can be quite complicated. In
general, discrete event simulation is used as the pri-
mary tool in analyzing AGV systems; analytical
tools are preferred when certain modeling assump-
tions and constraints hold.
In this paper, a Petri net approach for analyzing
tandem AGV systems has been presented. The pro-
posed approach provides, within a single modeling
framework, analytical as well as simulative results
with much of the modeling flexibility of discrete
event simulation. The modeling flexibility of the
proposed approach allows the consideration of criti-
cal design issues that have not been addressed previ-
ously in the literature for the class of tandem AGV
systems. These critical design issues require the rep-
resentation of concurrency, synchronization, and
resource sharing; properties that cannot be
expressed easily in queuing theoretical formalisms.
In the proposed approach, tandem AGV Petri net
models are built by combining the three basic mod-
ules, move, transfer, and process. The modules are
simple and their logic intuitive. Moreover, combin-
Throughput
ing the modules is almost mechanical. Thus, the
approach generalizes quite well and in contrast to
discrete event simulation, in which computer pro-
gramming is required, model verification and vali-
dation is simplified.
The modeling assumption, in the case of the ana-
22.77% lytical analysis alternative, is the use of exponential-
1 17.31%
ly distributed interarrival and service times. In the
restriction is required. Thus, general distributions
for both interarrival and service times can be speci-
fied. This is important because, with no congestion
and blocking, AGV travel times in a tandem AGV
system are unlikely to follow the exponential distri-
bution.
When exact, yet conservative, solutions are
desired, the flexibility provided by the Petri net mod-
eling approach has a drawback; the numerical solu-
tion of a generalized stochastic Petri net is limited by
the state-space explosion problem. Extensive com-
puting power and resources are the only way to over-
come this obstacle. The simulative alternative, on
the other hand, allows point estimates to be obtained
when memory resources are exceeded with the ana-
lytical approach. Without robust modeling, however,
any solution technique or numerical analysis is use-
less. The modeling approach for tandem AGV sys-
tems presented in this paper represents a step toward
such a robust modeling framework.
References
Ajmone Marsan, M.; Balbo, G.; Conte, G.; Donatelli, S.; and
Franceschinis, G. (1995). Modeling with Generalized Stochastic Petri
Nets (New York: John Wiley & Sons).
Alanche, D.; Benzakour, K.; Gilld, D.F.; Dolle, E; Gill& P; Rodriguel, P;
and Vallete, R. (1984). “PSI: a Petri net based simulator for flexible
manufacturing systems.” Advances in Petri Nets, Lecture Notes m
Computer Science 188 (New York: Springer-Verlag).
Bartholdi, J.J. and Platzman, L.K. (1989). “Decentralized control of auto-
mated guided vehicles on a simple loop.” IZE Trans. (v2 I, n 1), ~~76-8 I.
Bilge, U. and Tanchoco, J.M.A. (1997). “AGV systems with multi-load car-
riers: basic issues and potential benefits.” Journal ofMom@cturing
Systems (~16, n3), ~~159-174.
Bozer, Y. and Park, J.H. (I 992). “New partitioning schemes for tandem
AGV systems.” Proc. of Int’l Material Handling Research Colloquium.
Bozer, Y. and Srinivasan, M.M. (1991). “Tandem configurations for auto-
mated guided vehicle systems and the analysis of single vehicle loops.”
IIE Trans. (~23, nl). ~~72-82.
Bozer, Y. and Srinivasan, M.M. (1992). “Tandem AGV systems: a parti-
tioning algorithm and performance comparison with conventional AGV
systems.” European Journal qf’Operational Reseurch (~63, n2). ppl73-
191.
Chiola, G.; Ajmone Marsan, M.; Balbo, G.; and Conte, G. (1993).
“Generalized stochastic Petri nets: a definition at the net level and its
implications.” IEEE Trcms. on S#ware Engg. (~19. n2), ~~89-107.
Chiola, G.; Franceschinis, G.; Gaeta, R.; and Ribaudo. M. (1995).
248

“GreatSPN 1.7: graphical editor and analyzer for timed and stochastic
Petri nets.” Performance Evaluation (v24), ~~47-68.
David R. and Alla, H. (1992). Petri Nets & Grafcet: Tools for Modeling
Discrete Event Systems (New York: Prentice-Hall).
Davis, W.J.; Jackson, R.H.F.; and Jones, A.T. (1989). “Real time optimiza-
tion in the automated manufacturing research facility.” Progress in
Material Handling and Logistics (New York: Springer-Verlag).
Egbelu, PJ. (1987). “The use of non-simulation approaches in estimating
vehicle requirements in an automated guided vehicle based transport
system.” Material Flow (v4), ~~17-32.
Egbelu, PJ. and Tanchoco, J.M.A. (1984).“Characterization of automatic
guided vehicle dispatching rules.” Int’l Journal ofproduction Research
(~22, n3), pp359-374.
Egbelu, PJ. and Tanchoco, J.M.A. (1986). “Potentials for bi-directional
guidepath for automated guided vehicle based systems.” Int’l Journal of
Production Research (~24, n5), pp1075-1097.
Hsieh, L.-F. and Sha, D.Y. (1996). “A design process for tandem automat-
ed guided vehicle systems: the concurrent design of machine layout and
guided vehicle routes in tandem automated guided vehicle systems.”
Integmted Mfg. Systems (~7, n6), ~~30-38.
Hsieh, L.-F. and Sha, D.Y. (1997). “Heuristic algorithm for the design of
facilities layout and AGV routes in tandem AGV systems.” Int ‘1Journal
of Industrial Engg. (~4, nl), ~~52-61.
Lin, J.T. and Dgen, P-K. (1994). “An algorithm for routing control of a tan-
dem automated guided vehicle system.” Int’l Journal af Production
Research (~32, n12), ~~2735-2750.
Mahadevan, B. and Narendran, T.T. (1990). “Design of an automated guid-
ed vehicle based material handling system.” Int ‘IJournal of Production
Research (~28, n9), ~~1611-1622.
Malmborg, C.J. (1990). “A model for the design of zone control automated
vehicle systems.” Int’l Journal of Production Research (v28), pp1741-
1758.
Martinez, J. and Silva, M. (I 98 1). “A simple and fast algorithm to obtain all
invariants of a generalized Petri net.” Proc. of 2nd European Workshop
on Application and Theory of Petri Nets.
Maxwell, W.L. and Muckstadt, J.A. (1982). “Design of automated guided
vehicle systems.” HE Trans. (~14. n2), ~~114-124.
Murata, T. (1989). “Petri nets: properties, analysis and applications.” Proc.
of IEEE (~77, n4), ~~541-580.
Nayyar, P and Khator, S.K. (1993). “Operational control of multi-load
vehicles in an automated guided vehicle system.” Computers and
Industrial Engg. (~25, nl-4), ~~503-506.
Ozden, M. (1988). “A simulation study of multiple-load-carrying automat-
ed guided vehicles in a flexible manufacturing system.” Int’l Journal of
Production Research (~26, n8), ~~1353-1366.
Peters, B.A.; Smith, J.S.; and Venkatesh, S. (1996). “A control classification
of automated guided vehicle systems.” Int ‘IJournal af Industrial Engg.
(~30, nl), ~~29-39.
Peterson, J.L. (1981). Petri Net Theory and the Modeling of Systems
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
249
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 2a/No. 4
2001
Raju, R.K. and Chetty, O.VK. (1993). “Design and evaluation of automat-
ed guided vehicle system for flexible manufacturing systems: an
extended timed Petri net-based approach.” Int ‘l Journal of Production
Research (v3 1, n5), pp1069-1096.
Schroer, B.J. and Tseng, ET. (1988). “Modeling complex manufacturing
systems using discrete event simulation.” Computers and Industrial
Engg. (~14, n4), ~~455-464.
Venkatesh, K.; Zhou, M.-C.; Kaighobadi, M.; and Caudill, R. (1996). “A
Petri net approach to investigating push and pull paradigms in flexible
factory automated systems.” Int ? Journal of Production Research (~34,
n3), ~~595-620.
Vosniakos, G.C. and Mamalis, A.G. (1990). “Automated guided vehicle
system design for FMS applications.” Int ? Journal of Machine Tools &
Manufacture (v30), pp85-97.
Wang, H.-PB. and Hafeez, S.A. (1994). “‘Per$ormance evaluation of tandem
and conventionalAGVsystems using generalized stochastic Petri nets.”
Int’l Journal of Production Research (~32, n4), ~~917-932.
Yim, D. and Linn, R.J. (1993). “Push and pull rules for dispatching auto-
mated guided vehicles in a flexible manufacturing system.” Int’l
Journal of Production Research (~31, nl), ~~43-57.
Authors’ Biographies
Ignacio Castillo is an assistant professor of management science at the
University of Alberta School of Business. He received a PhD in industrial
engineering from Texas A&M University in 2001, an MSE in industrial
engineering from Arizona State University in 1998, and a BS (magna cum
laude) in applied sciences from Universidad San Francisco de Quito,
Ecuador, in 1995. His research and teaching interests include manufactur-
ing logistics, facility layout and material handling systems, and operations
research applications in production systems. Dr. Castillo is a member of
HE, INFORMS, Alpha Pi Mu, Phi Kappa Phi, and a former FUNDA-
CYT/LASPAU scholar.
Sergio A. Reyes received an MS in industrial engineering from Texas
A&M University in 2000 and a BS in mechanical and electrical engineer-
ing from the Institute Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey,
Mexico, in 1996. His research interests include the real-time scheduling,
analysis, and control of manufacturing and material handling systems. Mr.
Reyes is a member of HE, INFORMS, Alpha Pi Mu, and a former CONA-
CYTiFulbright scholar.
Brett A. Peters is an associate professor in the Industrial Engineering
Dept. at Texas A&M University. He received a PhD and MS in industrial
engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1992 and 1988,
respectively, and a BSIE from the University of Arkansas in 1987. His
research and teaching interests include facilities design, material handling
systems, and the design, analysis, operation, and control of manufacturing
systems. Dr. Peters is a member of SME, HE, and INFORMS.