Journal of Simulation

ISSN: 1747-7778 (Print) 1747-7786 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjsm20

Simulation-based dispatching in a production

system

N Höppe, F Seeanner & S Spieckermann

To cite this article: N Höppe, F Seeanner & S Spieckermann (2016) Simulation-based dispatching
in a production system, Journal of Simulation, 10:2, 89-94, DOI: 10.1057/jos.2015.17

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1057/jos.2015.17

Published online: 19 Dec 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 34

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjsm20
Journal of Simulation (2016) 10, 89–94 © 2016 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved. 1747-7778/16
www.palgrave-journals.com/jos/

Simulation-based dispatching in a production system

N Höppe1, F Seeanner2 and S Spieckermann3*
1
Reis GmbH & Co. KG Maschinenfabrik, Obernburg, Germany; 2SimPlan Systems GmbH, Maintal, Germany; and
3
SimPlan AG, Maintal, Germany
This paper describes the continuous application of simulation from system design to system operation including the integration of
the simulation in a manufacturing execution system (MES). This is done using the example of a real-world manufacturing system,
a complex flexible laser welding facility. The results of a simulation study during system design are presented and it is derived how
these results strengthened the decision to implement a simulation-based MES. Some technical details of the connection between the
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system, the MES, and the Programmable Logic Control (PLC) are explained, as well as the
usage of the MES and the simulation by the operations planners (dispatchers).
Journal of Simulation (2016) 10(2), 89–94. doi:10.1057/jos.2015.17; published online 25 September 2015

Keywords: discrete-event simulation; manufacturing execution system; welding facility; simulation-based dispatching

1. Introduction the developed software solution. The paper closes with a

summary and an overview of some lessons learned from the
The application of discrete-event simulation (DES) to support
practical application of the solution.
the daily operations of a production or logistics system is being
discussed for more than 20 years by now (cp. Noche and
Scholtissek, 1993 as well as Wenzel and Meyer, 1993). The
VDI guideline on simulation in production and logistics (VDI, 2. Problem description
2014) as well as Klingstam and Olson (2000) or Kosturiak and
The laser welding facility under consideration has four parallel
Gregor (1999) present several examples of simulation during
manual workstations, two welding booths, one automatic trans-
system operation. However, simulation in production and logis-
portation system, a carrier storage, holding up to eleven empty
tics is still mainly applied during system design to support
carriers, and a station to transfer carriers in and out of the facility.
manufacturing or logistics engineering. The second most com-
The carriers are moved by a cross transfer car called ‘shuttle’
mon reason for using simulation models is to support the ramp-up
between workstations and the welding booths. The shuttle can
of real-world production control systems (discussed under the
hold up to two carriers. On each carrier there is at least one
terms virtual ramp-up or emulation; cf. Johnstone et al, 2007).
fixture. At the workstations, metal sheets are set up on the fixtures
Only a small number of simulation applications is actually
before being moved to a welding booth, where the sheets are
supporting daily business. This is confirmed by, for example the
welded to form metal containers. Figure 1 depicts the facility
surveys given in Jahangirian et al (2010) and Smith (2003), each
layout.
of which are summarizing more than 200 publications.
Most of the carriers hold one single fixture. However, there are
More recently, Negahban and Smith (2014) noticed a shift
also carriers equipped with two or more (smaller) fixtures for
towards the use of simulation for manufacturing system opera-
parallel assembly of various small parts. Basically, the assign-
tion. The contribution of this paper can be seen in this context, as
ment of fixtures to carriers is fixed even though a changeover is
its focus is on a simulation application being part of the
possible. A changeover is not done within the facility; carriers are
operational control of a laser welding facility. The components
moved out via the outfeed transfer, the fixture is changed, and the
and the processes in this facility as well as the challenges related
carriers are moved backed into the facility. There are identical
to schedule the orders for the facility are explained in the next
fixtures so that several carriers may be set up to hold the same
chapter. Chapter 3 presents a short overview of the state-of-the-
product.
art in tackling similar problems. The idea and the need to use a
A production order, typically comprising a lot of identical
simulation-based application during daily operation of the facility
products (ie, lot size > 1), is always processed exclusively at
was born during a simulation study supporting system engineer-
one of the four workstations, as pre-manufactured metal sheets
ing. The fourth chapter is dedicated to this ‘classic’ simulation
have to be available at that workstation. These metal sheets are
activity. Chapter 5 describes functional and technical details of
provided by forklift trucks, that is, they cannot easily be shifted
from one workplace to another. An operator puts the metal sheets
*Correspondence: S Spieckermann, SimPlan AG, Edmund-Seng-Str. 3-5,
Maintal, Hessen D-63477, Germany. into the fixture (or in case of small parts into the fixtures) on the
E-mail: sven.spieckermann@SimPlan.de carrier. As soon as this is done, the operator signals to the control
90 Journal of Simulation Vol. 10, No. 2
Figure 1 3D-Layout of the laser welding facility.
software that the carrier is ready to enter a welding booth by
pressing a release button on the operating panel at his work-
station. The control software picks up the carrier and moves it
into a free welding booth. Both welding booths are equipped
identically and can process all different types of parts. However,
welding is only possible in one booth at a time, as there is only
one laser source available, which is directed via reflectors to
either booth. While the welding process is active in one booth, the
other booth is to some extent buffering a second carrier in order to
optimize the utilization of the expensive laser source, by reducing
waiting or idle times of the laser. After the welding is completed,
the shuttle picks up the carrier again and moves it back to the start
workstation. Depending on the details of the order, additional
metal sheets have to be added, or the operator has to change the
position of part and fixture before sending the carrier into a
welding booth again for another welding operation. The control
logic of when to pick up a carrier and where to move it is part of
the PLC (programmable logic control) of the facility.
The dispatching of production orders for the welding booth is
done by a team of operations planners (dispatchers) at the
operations planning department. The orders are provided via the
Enterprise Resource Planning system (ERP) from SAP. The PP
(production planning) module of the SAP system schedules a
basic start date and a basic end date based on throughput times.
When dispatching the orders, these dates need to be factored in as
earliest start and latest end date, respectively (cp. Dickersbach
and Keller, 2011 for an introduction and overview on SAP ERP).
The operations planner in charge decides which pending orders
shall be started next by taking into account the work content per
order and the current state of the facility. A constraint is that
orders are only released if at least one carrier with a matching
fixture is within the facility, thereby ensuring that there are no
waiting times because of fixture changeover.
Operations planning tries to find a schedule for the selected
production orders with a minimum makespan (ie the time
difference between the start and finish of the scheduled orders).
In this case, this objective is complementary to maximizing the
utilization of the laser equipment, which is the most expensive
key resource of the facility. Main restrictions are earliest start and
latest end date of the orders.
The number of possible solutions is quite high: there are 90 part
numbers, 30 fixtures, and 15 carriers. Some fixtures are identical,
meaning that it is possible to have identical part numbers on
different carriers in the system. The same carrier may in principle
be loaded at different workstations. However, as described above,
because of constraints in the part logistics, not all assignments of
part numbers to workstations are valid. Furthermore, orders for
small parts need to be combined appropriately, as SAP requires
one production order for each (small) part number whereas the
carriers hold fixtures for more than one small part.
In addition, blocks for single carriers, for dedicated fixtures, for
one of the two welding booths or for selected workstations need to
be considered because of equipment breakdown, maintenance or
missing part supply. Blocked resources have to be excluded when
searching for an order schedule. Finally, shift patterns and the
available workforce (workstation operators) are limiting factors.
3. State of the art
There are plenty of examples in the literature for both the
simulation of welding facilities like the one considered in this
paper, and for advanced-planning applications for order sequen-
cing. Chan and Chan (2004) present a survey on more than
120 studies, all dedicated to the control and planning of orders
and resources in flexible manufacturing systems (FMSs) using

simulation. They also present some definitions of FMSs and,
following Chan and Chan, the welding facility presented in
Chapter 2 would fall into this category. According to the
definitions, FMSs are facilities where machine centres (such as
the welding booths including the laser), manual workstations and
a material handling system (the shuttle and the carriers including
the carrier storage) work jointly under computer control.
Smith (2003) presents a number of examples for the use of
simulation during system and manufacturing engineering of FMSs,
that is during ‘flexible manufacturing system design’. He also
presents literature were simulation was used to support the daily
operation of FMSs and classifies it as simulation for ‘manufactur-
ing systems operation’. In the latter case, however, the number of
examples is significantly smaller than in the first-mentioned case.
PP applications to support the operational control of FMSs
might be considered to be part of scheduling or even part of
advanced planning and scheduling (APS) from a management
science standpoint. From a system controls point of view,
however, PP applications might be considered to be part of
MES (Manufacturing Execution Systems) located between the
company-wide ERP level and the shop floor control via PLC. For
both areas, APS and MES, there is a huge amount of literature,
starting with text books (Pinedo, 2012), and including several
recent surveys (Ouelhadj and Petrovic, 2009, Framinan and Ruiz,
2010, Saenz de Ugarte et al, 2010). Several of the examples
therein have characteristics similar to the application described in
detail in Chapter 5.
This brief context of simulation of FMSs, APS, and MES
illustrates that the application presented in this paper is not new
from a research perspective and the authors do not claim it to be.
However, the joint use of DES and scheduling algorithms within
an operational planning system or within a MES in a real-world
context is still a ‘rare’ exception. Sauer (2010) sees a future trend
in supporting MES by means of simulation. Framinan and Ruiz
(2010) point out that the discussion about the ‘gap’ between theory
and practice of scheduling has been going on for more than
20 years by now and that only 3-5% of quantitative studies in
scheduling consider realistic production settings. In this sense, the
case study discussed here addresses exactly this gap by document-
ing a real-world application, combing simulation for system
Figure 3 Welding booth utilization for different order sequences.
N Höppe et al—Tautomation 91
design, simulation to support daily-system operation, scheduling
approaches, and an implementation in an MES-like context.
4. Simulation supporting system design
During the design of the welding facility, a simulation model was
implemented in order to assess the complex dependencies of
carriers with different fixture set-ups, variant-depended proces-
sing times for the different part numbers, operators potentially
serving multiple workstations, and stochastic breakdowns of the
welding equipment. Main performance indicator for the simula-
tion experiments carried out with the simulation model was the
utilization of the welding booths in relation to the number of
operators and in relation to the order sequence.
Figure 2 shows the correlation of number of operators and the
welding booth utilization. Not only was the operator number
subject to modifications but also the way the operators are assigned
to workstations. The alternative ‘variable WS assignment’ allows
each operator to work on any of the workstations where a carrier
is waiting. With the alternative ‘fix WS assignment’ each operator
is bound to a limited number of allotted workstations.
The impact of the order sequence was assessed based on a
given pool of production orders. Using the orders in this pool, 500
order sequences (500 order sequence permutations) were gener-
ated randomly. Each of the permutations was then assessed via the
simulation model. Figure 3 shows the results of the simulation
runs (using three operators with variable workstation assignment).
Figure 2 Number of operators and welding booth utilization.
92 Journal of Simulation Vol. 10, No. 2
Figure 4 Architecture of the planning and scheduling application.
Five replications were performed for each order sequence permu-
tation; the graph shows the average welding booth utilization of
these replications. The resulting deviations in the utilization are
quite large or at least too large to accept them in the real-world
context. If the best and the worst sequence are eliminated, there is
still a difference of about 10 percentage points. Evaluations for
one, two, and four operators are showing very similar results.
Even if it is fair to expect that a manual operations planning
will achieve better results than random sequence generation,
these experiments were well-suited to demonstrate the sensitivity
of the welding booth utilization to the order scheduling.
It resulted in additional encouragement and commitment to
implement an operative planning and scheduling system in the
real-world facility, able to automatically create order sequences,
and to assess them using the simulation model of the facility.
5. Simulation to support daily-system operation
The software tool to support daily-system operations is a role-
based JAVA web application, which is basically usable via all
browser-enabled PCs in the intranet of the company running the
welding facility. The application comprises several components
depicted in Figure 4. There are interfaces to SAP ERP as well as
to the OPC server of the welding facility. At the heart of the
application, there are an optimization component and a simula-
tion component. The simulation component is using the simula-
tion model which was implemented during system planning. The
explanation of the planning process will provide some additional
details on each component.
In principle, the software-based planning operations can be
divided in four steps:
1. The operations planner in charge imports production orders,
including related status information from SAP, into the
planning application. The communication with SAP is based
on Remote Functions Calls (RFC), a SAP standard interface.
More precisely, there is an RFC function block used to read
the orders from SAP. This function block returns a list of all
released and not yet acknowledged production orders within
SAP ERP. This list comprises order number, process number,
part number, lot size, priority, earliest start date, and latest end
date. A second RFC function block is used to send acknowl-
edgements back to SAP once an order is finished. Here, order
number, part number, order status (‘OKAY’, ‘NOT OKAY’),
and a timestamp are passed back to the ERP system. Within
all imported, released, and open orders, the operations planner
selects a subset for scheduling. The manual selection of an
order subset was an explicit requirement, giving the
operations planner the opportunity (and responsibility) to
fully control the scheduling process. If the planner selects
only one order at a time, there is explicit control over when
and where this order is processed. If all open orders are
selected, the optimization and simulation component has
the greatest flexibility in supporting the decision making.
However, even then the final selection of a schedule still is
a manual decision of the operations planner, as will
become clearer in step 3.
2. In the second step, the operations planner sets the number of
workstation operators and the current shift patterns. In addi-
tion, selected resources, such as carriers or fixtures, might be
blocked. Varying these parameters, the planner can create a
couple of different scenarios. The basic information on the
availability of workstations, welding booths, carriers, and
fixtures comes from the shop floor control IT, that is, from
the PLC. However, the operations planner can block addi-
tional equipment components in order to assess alternative
scenarios. Components which are not available according to
the information coming from the PLC cannot be made
available for planning scenarios.
 N Höppe et al—Tautomation 93

Table 1 Example for data transfer between MES and PLC schedule are possible, for example, because of missing metal
sheets at one of the workstations. In this case, parts of a
Address Data Item
production order might be skipped or postponed causing the
PCStation.WinLC RTX F EC. Order[1].OrderNo SAP_001 system to send a ‘NOT OKAY’ message back to SAP. If that
PCStation.WinLC RTX F EC. Order[1].CarrierID WT_05 happens, the order needs to be re-opened (in parts or in total) at a
PCStation.WinLC RTX F EC. Order[1].Fixture01.FixtureID VT_07
later point in time with another schedule. All operations are
PCStation.WinLC RTX F EC. Order[1]. Fixture01.PartNo MAT_013
PCStation.WinLC RTX F EC. Order[1]. Fixture01.Count 1 logged into a database, enabling all kinds of analyses, compar-
isons of target and actual indicators, or tracking of actual
production processes.
3. The third step covers the generation and assessment of
production schedules for the planning scenarios defined in
the second step. By experience, the operations planner 6. Experiences with the planning application
generates four to eight different production schedules. Typi-
First of all, a software application between SAP ERP and the
cally, there are four schedules with active morning shift plus
PLC level which transfers the order data, supports order schedul-
active evening shift, and the planner modifies the number of
ing and transforms an order schedule into PLC-conform move-
operators. If in that case the orders cannot be completed
ment instructions is simply a technological necessity, at least in a
with the maximum of four workstation operators in two
situation where SAP and shop floor are required to work together
shifts per day, additional schedules using a three-shift-pattern
by exchanging order data. This is one of the straightforward
(including night shifts) will be generated. Of course, the
reasons for the popularity of MES applications, let alone all
operations planner might also change additional parameters
planning and scheduling features.
in order to generate and evaluate even more alternative
With respect to the scheduling and evaluation step itself,
schedules. To compile the schedules, priority-based heuristics
however, it turned out that even with today’s computational
are applied. Each generated schedule is fed into the simulation
resources and the available software, using optimization and
model of the welding facility. The model is used to compute a
simulation, it is still a challenging job, even for a rather small
detailed forecast on key performance indicators. The indica-
facility like the one considered in this case study. The generation
tors are workstation and welding booth utilization, distances
of schedules followed by the simulation-based forecast on how
travelled by each worker and workload per worker, order
the facility will perform under this schedule within the next
throughput times, and so on. The simulated throughput times
48 hours requires a computational time of several minutes
are used as target times and are compared with real-world times.
measured for a typical schedule, covering about 130 production
4. After the generation of schedules using heuristics and the
orders leading up to 10 000 movement instructions for the PLC.
simulation-based assessment of these schedules, the results are
The feedback of the operations planners as the main users of
presented to the operations planner using table sheets and
the planning application is that the software significantly supports
different kinds of charts. The planner uses this information to
and simplifies their daily business. Compared with a purely
select a schedule and to forward it via interface to the PLC
manual planning process, the tool saves them a considerable
level. The PLC interface is implemented using the so-called
amount of working time. The utilization of the welding booths is
Distributed Component Object Model (DCOM) together with
in the upper level of the bandwidth presented in Chapter 4.
the Siemens OPC-Server, running on Siemens Simatic S7
Altogether, the concept of simulation-based support of the
PLCs (cp. Mahnke et al, 2009). Using DCOM, the data are
welding facility was a success. As one result, the system
sent and received in tuples of < address, data > , where
integrator and supplier of the facility included the application
‘address’ stands for a unique string and ‘data’ stands for a
concept into its IT product portfolio for other, similar, projects.
simple data type (integer, floating etc). In order to control the
Another more recent result is that the operator of the overall
shuttle, the PLC needs simple movement instructions.
facility is currently working on extending the simulation-based
A movement instruction comprises a carrier ID, a motion from
operation support concept to the plant logistics.
welding booth to workstation or vice versa, and storage and
retrieval movements. Each fixture needs to know the attached
part number in order to start the correct welding programme in
the welding booths. Table 1 shows an example for the data 7. Summary and outlook
transfer between planning application and PLC. Each row of
The presented case study demonstrates that the integrated and
the table represents a tuple of the form < address, data > .
continuous use of simulation from system design to daily-system
As soon as the first movement instructions are sent to the PLC,
operation is well-understood and that a successful application
the production itself will start (or continue, respectively).
in a real-world manufacturing environment is feasible. The
The planning application permanently monitors the production technology is available to integrate simulation models with ERP
progress. For each welded part, an acknowledgement is sent to systems such as SAP, with the PLC level, and with optimization
the SAP ERP. However, deviations during the execution of a algorithms.
94 Journal of Simulation Vol. 10, No. 2
Future research may very well tackle the challenge of setting
standards with respect to interfaces between the software compo-
nents ERP, MES, and PLC. A common standard comprising, for
example, communication protocols, would potentially simplify
the implementation of simulation-based MES significantly.
Note —This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled
Simulationsgestützte Feinplanung im Produktionsumfeld – vom SAP zur
SPS presented at 15th ASIM Dedicated Conference Simulation in Produc-
tion and Logistics, Paderborn, Germany, 9–11 October 2013.
References
Chan FTS and Chan HK (2004). A comprehensive survey and future
trend of simulation study on FMS scheduling. Journal of Intelligent
Manufacturing 15(1): 87–102.
Dickersbach JT and Keller G (2011). Production Planning and Control
with SAP ERP. 2nd edn, Galileo Press: Bonn, Boston.
Framinan JM and Ruiz R (2010). Architecture of manufacturing
scheduling systems: Literature review and an integrated proposal.
European Journal of Operational Research 205(2): 237–246.
Jahangirian M, Eldabi T, Naseer A, Stergioulas LK and Young T (2010).
Simulation in manufacturing and business: A review. European
Journal of Operational Research 203(1): 1–13.
Johnstone M, Creighton D and Nahavandi S (2007). Enabling industrial
scale simulation/emulation models. In: Henderson SG, Biller B,
Hsieh MH, Shortle J, Tew JD, Barton RR (eds). Proceedings
of the 2007 Winter Simulation Conference. IEEE, Piscataway,
pp 1028–1034.
Klingstam P and Olsson B-G (2000). Using simulation techniques for
continuous process verification in industrial system development.
In: Joines JA, Barton RR, Kong K, Fishwick PA (eds). Proceedings
of the 2000 Winter Simulation Conference. IEEE, Piscataway,
pp 1315–1321.
Kosturiak J and Gregor M (1999). Simulation in production system
life cycle. Computers in Industry 382: 159–172.
Mahnke W, Leitner SH and Damm M (2009). OPC Unified Architecture.
Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg.
Negahban A and Smith JS (2014). Simulation for manufacturing system
design and operation: Literature review and analysis. Journal of
Manufacturing Systems 33(2): 241–261.
Noche B and Scholtissek P (1993). Anwendungen der Simulation in der
Unternehmensplanung. In: Kuhn A, Reinhardt A and Wiendahl HP
(eds). Handbuch der Simulationsanwendungen in Produktion und
Logistik. Vieweg: Braunschweig, pp 267–307.
Ouelhadj D and Petrovic S (2009). Survey of dynamic scheduling in
manufacturing systems. Journal of Scheduling 12(4): 417–431.
Pinedo M (2012). Scheduling—Theory, Algorithms, and Systems. 4.
Auflage. Springer: New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London.
Saenz de Ugarte B, Artiba A and Pellerin R (2010). Manufacturing
execution systems—A literature review. Production Planning &
Control 20(6): 525–539.
Sauer O (2010). Trends in manufacturing execution systems.
In: Huang GQ, Mak KL, Maropoulos PG (Hrsg.) (eds). Proceedings
of the 6th CIRP-Sponsored International Conference on Digital
Enterprise Technology, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp 685–693.
Smith JS (2003). Survey on the use of simulation for manufacturing
system design and operation. Journal of Manufacturing Systems
22(2): 157–161.
VDI (2014). Guideline 3633 Part 1 ‘Simulation of Systems in Materials
Handling, Logistics and Production’. Beuth: Berlin.
Wenzel S and Meyer R (1993). Kopplung der Simulation mit Methoden
des Datenmanagements. In: Kuhn A, Reinhardt A and Wiendahl HP
(Hrsg.) (eds). Handbuch der Simulationsanwendungen in Produktion
und Logistik. Vieweg: Braunschweig, pp 347–368.
Received 16 October 2014;
accepted 5 August 2015 after one revision