Manuscript Click here to view linked References

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia Manufacturing 54 (2021) 100–105

10th CIRP Sponsored Conference on Digital Enterprise Technologies (DET 2020) – Digital Technologies as
Enablers of Industrial Competitiveness and Sustainability

Analysis of an assembly line by mixed integer programming and discrete

event-based simulation
Norbert Ibriksza,*, Tibor Szalaya, Lajos Kutrovácza, Ferenc Boóra
a
Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, Hungary
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +36-1-463-1357; fax: +36-1-463-3176. E-mail address: ibriksz.norbert@gpk.bme.hu

Abstract

Since the appearance of computers, engineers recognized their potential. Due to this fact, engineers are utilizing computer usage during their
daily tasks. When it comes to analysis, simulation is one of the most valuable tools an engineer can apply. In this paper a mixed integer
programming-based description and a discrete event-based model is presented. The mathematical approach is used for rough checking, while the
more detailed event-based simulation is used to examine the effects of certain parameters of the assembly cell. Based on the results, the bottleneck
of the line and the possibly over-capacitated buffers were identified. Furthermore, a worker regrouping strategy is determined with the help of
the models.

© 2021The
© 2020 TheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier B.V.B.V.
This
This isisan
anopen
openaccess
access article
article under
under the BY-NC-ND
the CC CC BY-NC-ND licenselicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review underresponsibility
Peer-review under responsibilityofof
thethe scientific
scientific committee
committee of the
of the 10th10th
CIRPCIRP Sponsored
Sponsored Conference
Conference on Digital
on Digital Enterprise
Enterprise Technologies
Technologies (DET
(DET
2020) –2020) – Digital
Digital Technologies
Technologies as Enablers
as Enablers of Industrial
of Industrial Competitiveness
Competitiveness and Sustainability.
and Sustainability.

Keywords: assembly line analysis, manufacturing management, discrete event-based modelling, mixed integer programming

1. Introduction is its quickness and cost-effectiveness. The calculations

After the third industrial revolution, automation and the
development of information and communication technology
together opened up a new horizon. This new contingency was
described by Harrington and his book titled Computer
Integrated Manufacturing[1]. Back in the ’70 s, it felt futuristic,
but this concept is the core of the current research in Industry
4.0. Computer science developed enough by now, thus
enabling the fourth industrial revolution by providing suitable
means and tools.
As Nance and Sargent[2] presented numerous kinds of
simulation were used in various fields from the ’60s. They
emphasize a common misconception about simulations,
namely, people tend to classify any computational process as
simulation. Nowadays, it is so widespread and common in
engineers’ daily routine that it is natural. Its inarguable benefit
executed this way are done in split time compared to
calculating manually. Its cost-effectiveness lies beside
quickness in the evaluation of several possibilities. Engineers
tend to communicate via graphs, figures, and diagrams because
they can provide relatively much information only with a blink.
Furthermore, communication towards managers becomes more
manageable this way since understanding these does not
require intricate mathematical knowledge, and it is easy to
compare different scenarios by comparing diagrams.
During the implementation of any kind of simulation, the
precise understanding of the simulated process is a must.
Alongside the thorough knowledge of the modelled object, one
of the most important things is the proper inputs based on real-
world data. Thanks to the Internet of Things (IoT), data
collection should be more effortless than ever, making the
simulations more accurate than before. Unfortunately, IoT

2351-9789 © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an©open
2351-9789 2020 access article
The Authors. under by
Published theElsevier
CC BY-NC-ND
B.V. license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review
This is an openunder
access responsibility
article under the of
CCthe scientificlicense
BY-NC-ND committee of the 10th CIRP Sponsored Conference on Digital Enterprise Technologies
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
(DET 2020)
Peer-review – Digital
under Technologies
responsibility as Enablers
of the scientific committeeofofIndustrial
the 10th CIRPCompetitiveness and Sustainability.
Sponsored Conference on Digital Enterprise Technologies (DET 2020) – Digital
10.1016/j.promfg.2021.07.016
Technologies as Enablers of Industrial Competitiveness and Sustainability.
 Norbert Ibriksz et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 54 (2021) 100–105
2 Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
systems are not widespread due to the expensive investment
costs of gearing up appropriately such a system.
It is easy to create a Finite Element Method (FEM)
Simulation with some mouse click. However, it is not so easy
if we want an exact result. Expertise is needed to set the
parameters properly. The aforementioned method does not
require high-level abstraction, unlike other simulation
methods. Building a discrete event-based simulation uses a bit
more complex way of representation. Since it is a versatile tool
-promising several and different quick analysis options-, it is
commonly used among industrial engineers and researchers. A
good example is the work of Szaller et al.[3], who used it in
combination with artificial intelligence to predict lead times. Li
et al. in [4] summarize the state-of-the-Art of this kind of
modelling and simulation. In addition to the thorough review,
they emphasize its possibilities when combined with the
recently emerged technologies or recently emerged
circumstances, such as the Internet of Things or social
distancing due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Furthermore, future
trends are outlined.
Maybe the highest level of abstraction is needed to create a
mathematical description of systems. At first sight, no one is
able to tell what is described, but the engineer who is creating
the simulation. Despite this obstacle, numerous researchers
describe the analyzed system this way. It is mainly used for
solving optimization problems, like Oesterle et al.[5] did.
Ağpak and Gökçen proposed linearizing assumptions to reduce
computation time [6]. Pınarbaşı and Alakaş also used this
approach for assembly line balancing [7]. Although Mixed
Integer Programming was outperformed in the latter article by
Constraint Programming, the former has the advantage of
relaxation and lower bound and optimality gap measurement
[8]. Both approach is suitable for multi-objective optimization.
For the Mixed Integer Programming it has been done for
example by Lu et al. [9].
The aim of this paper is to present two different
representation of the same electronic device assembly line. The
first model is a mathematical representation. It is primarily
used for the verification of the other model. However, it is
hoped to be fundamental for an extended version, which aids
further optimization. The discrete event-based simulation is
used for the execution of quick analyses of the system.
Different buffer characteristics and the effect of worker
assignment is examined through this depiction.
The structure of the paper is as follows: Section2 describes
the analyzed assembly line. Section3 explains the source and
preprocessing of the input data. Section4 details the
mathematical model. Section5 outlines the discrete event-based
simulation and the experiments executed on it. The result and
experiences are discussed in Section6. Finally, Section7
provides a brief summary.
2. Assembly line description
In cooperation with our industrial partner, we examined
their manufacturing line and created two different models to
analyze them. The examined assembly line consists of three
pre-assembly cells, an additional external assembly cell and a
final assembly cell, as shown in Figure 1.
101
Figure 1 Simplifed material flow
Only the same pre-assemblies are made in Cell1 and Cell2.
The semi-finished products are forwarded from Cell1 to Cell2
manually on carriers according to pull strategy. In the
meantime, the parts are stored in Cell1 in a buffer. An
automated conveyor carries the output parts of Cell2 to the final
assembly cell.
Four different parts are prepared in Cell3. Components are
identified by QR code, so the processing machine can
recognize each piece and run the appropriate program
automatically for a sufficient outcome. Certain elements are
directly used during the final assembly. They are stored locally
in buffers until they are used in the Final cell. Other parts are
forwarded to the external cell periodically. The subassemblies
are also returned periodically, partially to Cell2 and partially to
the Final cell. This periodical delivery causes impulses on the
affected buffers. The externally processed number of pieces
depends on open orders in the given period. The External cell
is different from the other ones because it cannot be influenced
directly. Thus, it is handled as a black box in our task because
detailed information about its internal operation was not
available to us.
Three kinds of product are made in the final assembly cell.
The products differ only in inner substance, their physical form
is the same. Thus, no additional setup is required when it comes
to change-over. In addition, mainly only one of them is made
on the line. Considering these circumstances, the assembled
products' diversity can be neglected, and the line can be
modelled like a single product line.
The number of operations differs in each cell. Cell1 and the
Final Cell contains 9 operations, while Cell2 and Cell3 consist
of 4 operations. The main material flow is linear in each cell.
Cell1 provides input material for the second operation of Cell2.
Units from Cell2 are transferred to the fourth operation of the
Final Cell. Cell3 and the External Cell join the Final Cell on
multiple points – since they supply further processes with
several different parts.
The number of operators is always the same (constant 1) in
the case of Cell1 and Cell3. But in Cell2 and the Final cell, this
number depends on the demand for every product made in the
same hall. Since the External cell is a black box, this kind of
information is not considered.
3. The used dataset
The automated machines of each cell are connected to a
Manufacturing Execution System (MES). This way, the
number of total runs, failed runs, and yield is registered every
102 Norbert Ibriksz et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 54 (2021) 100–105
Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 3

hour automatically. As for the cycle times of manual

workstations, our industrial partner gave the relevant MES data
and verified this information with manual time measurement.
Of course, the cycle times depend on the number of operators
working in the individual cells. A worker is able to work only
in a single cell at the same time.
Considering the vast amount of raw data gathered for two
months, we narrowed the initially examined area. Since the
maximal throughput of Cell1, Cell2 and Cell3 are reasonably
higher than the one belonging to the Final assembly cell, and Figure 2 Diagram of weekly yield
the lack of detailed information regarding the external cell, the
dataset recorded exclusively on the finishing line was
thoroughly processed. During the analysis of the discrete event-
based model, this way of modelling was proven right based on
the buffer levels. The other cells were modelled based on the
time standards given by our partner. The sources of commercial
compounds were modelled as buffers without constraints.
Setting up no restrictions towards these buffers was reasonable
based on the information provided to us; namely, there were no
problems in the supply chain before.
The examined cell includes nine operations. The cell can be Figure 3 Diagram of weekly average cycle times
run by either two or three or four operators. The dataset was
analyzed with statistical methods. This way, we determined the
maximal- and the average hourly yield, the least- and the
average cycle time in minutes and the percentage fluctuation of
these data for each process in the cell. We calculated the fail
rate of the operations, too. Since there are failed runs, the yield
of the successive processes in the Final Cell shows a
decrement. It is shown in Figure 2. We compared these
statistically calculated cycle times to the standards provided by
our partner. The least cycle time matched the theoretical four
operator cycle time well, while the average did not differ the Figure 4 Average weekly buffer level
cycle time belonging to three operators. Figure 3 presents the
average -videlicet for the three-operator scenario- cycle times The workers are operating the examined system non-stop for
for the operations in the Final cell. In Figure 4, the weekly the whole week. The ordered amount (di) in a period is usually
average buffered amount can be observed for the same line– in the range of 600-1200 (2). The average period length is four
the levels are sampled hourly. The indexing of buffers days. It means 5760 minutes per period, which equals the
respectively matches the index of the operation they are available capacity cap (Ccap) (3). Since the length of each
following. These safety stocks are used upon any unplanned period is fixed in this modelling, the capacity cap is constant.
machine downtimes. Changing time bucket lengths could be modelled using a Ti
variable. To fit the modelled time length to the measured one
4. The mathematical model on the whole time horizon (2 months), the number of time
periods(T) was 15 period (4).
The advantage of mathematical system modelling is its The restrictions above can be formulated mathematically as
flexibility and quickness. It is easy to rerun the calculations follows:
with different inputs. This enables engineers to measure several
what-if scenarios. At the same time running of these models are 𝑅𝑅 = 9 (1)
usually relatively quick. It means some minutes maximum in 𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖 ∈ [600; 1200] (2)
extremely complex cases, as well. Of course, creating these 𝐶𝐶𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 5760 (3)
models require a very high-level abstraction. 𝑇𝑇 = 15 (4)
In our analysis we used a mathematical approach provided
Where:
by FICO© Xpress to calculate the limits of the assembly line.
i is the index of the period
It is important to underline that arrays in this environment can
be defined in this environment with any starting index instead The sought variables are the number of runs (𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 ), the
of the commonly used 0. It is in order to fit the programming number of fail runs (𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 ), the yield amount (𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 ), the
syntax to the average way of thinking of engineers. In a number of forwarded units (𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 ) and the buffered amount
manufacturing context it is more logical to define the arrays as (𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 ) after each process in each period (5). These amount
their indexing begins with 1. The nine operation means nine means a total, but the buffered one. The latter is the level at the
used resources (R) in the model (1). end of a period.
 Norbert Ibriksz et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 54 (2021) 100–105
4 Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 ; 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 ; 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 ; 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 ; 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 =?
Where:
j is the index of resource
The cycle times calculated during the processing of the
dataset can be given as input. These cycle times will be the
capacity consumption (cj) for every operation for each run. The
total capacity consumption cannot be more than Ccap (6).
𝐶𝐶𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ≥ 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 ∙ 𝑐𝑐𝑗𝑗 , ∀𝑖𝑖, 𝑗𝑗
As the nomenclature shows, there are buffers after each
resource and every forwarded unit was considered a sold unit.
These sales are internal ones, except at the end of the line. In
order to calculate real scenarios, certain integrity restrictions
have to be set. It is evident that the computed values of the
variables have to be non-negative integers (7). Naturally, the
sold amount at the end of the line has to match the demand in
the given time bucket (9). The demand for every internal sale
can be calculated with a retrograde calculation minding the
failed runs of the processes, too (8). An initial buffered quantity
(B0j) input is required to enable analyses from any time. It will
mean an additional constraint in the program regarding the
zeroth period (10).
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 ; 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 ; 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 ; 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 ; 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 ≥ 0 , ∀𝑖𝑖, 𝑗𝑗
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗−1 = 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 + 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 , 𝑗𝑗 ∈ [2; 𝑅𝑅], ∀𝑖𝑖
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖,𝑅𝑅 = 𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖 , ∀𝑖𝑖
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 = 𝐵𝐵0𝑗𝑗 𝑖𝑖 = 0 , ∀𝑗𝑗
The process has no other source or sink except the listed
ones. This leads to further restrictions. These are as follows:
The number of total runs can be calculated by adding the
number of fail runs to the amount of yield individually for
every resource in each period (11). The sold amount in a given
period cannot exceed the sum of the yield in the period and the
previously buffered amount (12). The buffered amount can be
calculated by increasing the previously buffered amount by the
difference of the yield and the number of forwarded units (13).
The number of fail runs can be calculated by multiplying the
runs by failure rate (Frj) (14).
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 = 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 + 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 , ∀𝑖𝑖, 𝑗𝑗
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 <= 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 + 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖−1,𝑗𝑗 , ∀𝑖𝑖, 𝑗𝑗
𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 = 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖−1,𝑗𝑗 + 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑒𝑒𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 − 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 , ∀𝑖𝑖, 𝑗𝑗
𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 = 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 ∙ (
𝐹𝐹𝑟𝑟𝑗𝑗
) , ∀𝑖𝑖, 𝑗𝑗
100
The program needs a target function to find an optimal point
in the search range. Since the main aim of this rough model is
to verify the event-based model based on the numbers gained
from the statistical process, the objective function (15) is
simple. In order to avoid unnecessary buffer levels, the total
number of buffered units was penalized. The weight of this
penalty is wb.
max(∑𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖=1 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖,𝑅𝑅 − ∑𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖=1 ∑𝑅𝑅𝑗𝑗=1 𝑤𝑤𝑏𝑏 ∙ 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑖,𝑗𝑗 ) , 𝑤𝑤𝑏𝑏 > 1 (15)
These equations are sufficient for basic checking. If no
buffering is allowed, the maximal yield at the end of the line is
103
(5) 1067 with the average cycle time, and 1432 units can be sold
keeping the fastest pace. With buffers the average negotiable
number 1073 unit, and the peak yield is 1858 unit theoretically
based on the collected data. These numbers match the numbers
derived from the statistically processed dataset. It means that
the model can be used in different scenarios as a reference for
verification.
It is interesting to observe the bottleneck. Considering the
average capacity consumption pro units without buffering, the
slowest operation is the 6th, while at a high production rate, the
(6)
8th operation limits the throughput based on the stations’
utilization. With buffers the theoretical limit is influenced only
by the last operation – assuming there is enough time before a
high demand to fill the buffers appropriately. Of course, the
sold amount can be increased by stocking the product for later
sale when the demand is lesser than the available capacity, but
this results in additional holding costs and requires area in the
storage. Since the usual demand is less than the maximal yield
capacity of the assembly line, keeping these units in the
inventory is neither reasonable nor economical.
5. Discrete event-based simulation
A more detailed and subtle model was built to observe the
material flow on the whole assembly line. There are 26
(7) operations altogether in the four known cells. We used the
(8) Siemens Tecnomatix Plant Simulation software. The program
(9) offers a complex solution to simulate and optimize shop floors.
(10) Simple models can be built in this environment quickly with
the help of its graphical interface. Methods written in SimTalk
can also be added in order to reach a more sophisticated, more
refined result.
Every cell was modelled in individual frames with dedicated
workers. Each operation was created as a station object. To
ensure the material flow, the stations were connected with
connector objects. In this model buffers were added only where
they existed in the factory, as well. Each object was placed like
it was on the layout of the shop floor. Besides the labels of
objects, this also helped to identify the processes. The
individual frames were connected via interfaces. During the
creation of the discrete event-based model, the actual buffers
were considered. These are the following: one buffer after
(11) Cell1. There are two buffers within Cell2 and one after it to the
(12) Final Cell. There are two buffers to the Final Cell and one to
(13) the External Cell after Cell2 and Cell3, each. The parts arriving
(14) from the External Cell are stored in two buffers before Cell2
and two before the Final Cell. There is a last buffer before the
last operation of the Final Cell.
Cycle times, buffer capacity caps and other variables were
given in tables and global variables. These variables were based
on the previously verified dataset. A method imported these
data from a table to every object based on the global variables.
This provided a quick and convenient way to change the
necessary properties of the objects. It is a crucial aspect because
the number of operators in the cells influences the cycle time.
The problem with the described mathematical model is the
lack of non-deterministic effects. Although the statistical data
process integrated them into the results, the model itself is still
strictly deterministic. The Plant Simulation software gives an
104 Norbert Ibriksz et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 54 (2021) 100–105
Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 5

opportunity to handle stochastic effects such as machine

failures and fluctuating process times. Due to the statistical
input process, we relinquished setting the latter. The stochastic
aspects were taken into consideration with the help of
availability and the Main Time To Repair (MTTR) for each
machine. Station failures were set via an Attribute Viewer,
similarly to buffer capacities. It provides a quick and
convenient way to modify the chosen parameters of several
objects in the model.
An exciting task was modelling operations where manual
and machine time is also given. It is problematic because the
station object has only a single cycle time property.
Furthermore, it cannot handle operations requiring operator
and automated processing at the same time. To address this Figure 5 Well balanced buffer characteristics with safety stock
issue, such operations were decomposed to a manual and an
automated station.
Another challenge was modelling ovens or dispensing
stations, where the workpieces are entering on a palette.
Moreover, ovens can contain several palettes at the same time.
In addition, these palettes are containing different number of
workpieces. The solution to this problem is to put workpieces
on a palette and apply a parallel station instead of a simple
station. The processing time on parallel stations is measured
from the time the mobile unit enters the station or from the time
the station is fully filled. In our case, the former was applied.
A model has to be verified before detailed analysis. To do
this, the results were compared to the ones derived from the
mathematical model -which operates with the dataset derived
Figure 6 Possibly over capacitated buffer characteristics before the
from the real world- in test scenarios. The peak deviance was bottleneck
2% which is acceptable. Thus, the model is verified.
The buffer level diagrams helped locate the bottleneck and
identify the possibly over capacitated buffers based on their
characteristics. Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7 present different
buffer characteristics. The figures are meant only for the
representation of different characteristics.
Cell1 and Cell3 are always operated by one worker. Cell 2
can be run by one or two laborers, while two to four people
operate the finishing cell. As previously was mentioned, the
cycle times are depending on the number of operators in the
cells. We run simulations with all the possible worker numbers.
The results are shown in Table 1.
The overall weekly yield was reduced to 1649 units after
setting 80% availability for every machine. In consultation with
our partner, we choose the processes where it is possible to
Figure 7 Buffet characteristics after the bottleneck
eliminate downtimes with proper maintenance based on their
engineers’ opinion. 17 operation was selected out of 26 this Table 1 Effect of operator numbers on yield
way. The throughput of the system become 2212 units over a
week after disabling failures at these stations. This significant Number of operators Number of operators
Yield
difference underlines the importance of proper maintenance. in Cell2 in Final cell
The last experiments with this model meant to answer the 2 4 1967
question: how long does it take to run out of workpieces in case 1 4 995
of shut down of different cells? The buffers are filled fully after 2 2 1014
a while during continuous working. The time needed to reach 1 2 995
the maximum buffer capacity is relatively short, and such This elapsed time is varied in the case of Cell3 because of the
shutdowns are very rare. This is why we run the model until the versatility of the manufactured parts. The least value was 11
desired buffer got full. The simulated cell shutdown followed hours. Unfortunately, we do not have information about the
this. After the shutdown of Cell1, the production continued for external cell, but other semi-finished parts run out within a
further 17,5 hours. In the case of Cell2, this interval was 14,5 period of delivery of externally manufactured parts. It means
hours. the buffer of Cell3 has the most significant impact, but it has a
 Norbert Ibriksz et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 54 (2021) 100–105
6 Author name / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000
sufficient capacity for much longer than any MTTR in the
system or any other planned downtime. This means that the size
of buffers is unnecessarily over capacitated.
6. Discussion
Building the mathematical model can be more challenging
due to the required abstraction, but it is easy to extend further.
They can also be helpful when it is combined with artificial
intelligence. This time only basic calculations were executed
with the help of it. Further extension is planned to determine
more economic buffer sizes.
The Plant Simulation model was deployed for a detailed
analysis. We suggested to our partner, based on the results, to
regroup workers from the Final cell in the case it is needed.
Furthermore, the unnecessarily big sizes of buffers were
identified.
One of the biggest obstacles was the lack of proper
information or its reliability during model construction.
Although our partner has a MES, several kinds of information
could not have been queried from the database. On the other
hand, there is plenty of information in the MES that we did not
need. This underlines the importance of proper data collection.
Although modern technology offers several solutions to make
plants transparent, gathering all the data cannot be the ideal
solution. It generates such an amount of raw data, unnecessarily
increasing the investment costs by increasing data storage
capacity and communication speed requirements. With the
increment of the attributes above, its price is usually growing
exponentially, but at least proportionally. In addition, more
gathered data usually means more sensor, thus more
auxiliaries, as well. It also increases investment costs. This
means that the purpose of the data collection has to be declared
clearly before the implementation of the system, providing the
opportunity to determine the structure of the dataset carefully.
On the contrary, the more transparent is a plant, the more
optimized performance can be achieved. Furthermore, we are
never able to tell whether we will need a specific information
in the future. In addition, the more sensor is placed, the more
money can be saved in the future. All in all, the investment in
IoT systems is a definitely returning one.
7. Summary
In this paper a mathematical and a discrete event-based
model was presented. The input of the simulations was based
on a dataset collected in a real assembly system via a MES. The
limits of the system were calculated with the help of the
models. The effect of the number of operators was analyzed
using the more detailed event-based simulation, providing
suggestions for worker reassignment. Buffer characteristics
were also examined. This showed that the system has oversized
buffers. Further analysis is planned to determine more
economic buffer sizes.
105
Acknowledgements
Work for this paper was partly supported by the European
Commission through the H2020 project EPIC under grant No.
739592. This study was worked out in the frame of the research
project “Digital solutions for efficiency improvement of the
workers in production logistics” (registration number: 2017-
1.3.1-VKE-2017-00036). The results introduced in this paper
are applied in project No. ED_18-22018-0006, which project
was implemented with support provided by the National
Research, Development and Innovation Fund of Hungary, and
was financed in the scope of (publicly funded) funding schemes
according to Section 13(2) of the Hungarian Act on Scientific
Research, Development and Innovation.
The authors acknowledge that the final project of Krisztina
Szabó [6] was a great contribution to the establishment and
analysis of the discrete event-based model.
References
[1] Harrington Jr Dr J. Computer Integrated Manufacturing, New York:
Industrial Press Inc., 1973
[2] Nance RE, Sargent RG. Perspectives on the Evolution of Simulation. Op
Res 2002;50(1):161-172. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.50.1.161.17790
[3] Szaller Á, Béres F, Piller É, Gyulai D, Pfeiffer A, Benczúr Ifj A. Real-
time prediction of manufacturing lead times in complex production
environments In: 25th Annual EurOMA Conference. To Serve, To
Produce and to Servitize in the Era of Networks, Big Data and Analytics;
Budapest, Hungary, 24 June-26 June 2018, pp. 1-10. European
Operations Management Association
[4] Li W, Huynh BH, Akhatar H, Myo KS. Discrete Event Simulation as a
Robust Supporting Tool for Smart Manufacturing In: Implementing
Industry 4.0 (Toro C, Wang W, Akhatar H); 287-312; Cham, Springer
International Publishing, 2021
[5] Oesterle J, Bauernhansl T, Amodeo L. Hybrid Multi-objective
Optimization Method for Solving Simultaneously the line Balancing,
Equipment and Buffer Sizing Problems for Hybrid Assembly Systems,
Proc CIRP 2016;57:416-421
ISSN 2212-8271,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.072.
[6] Ağpak K, Gökçen H. A Chance-Constrained Approach to Stochastic Line
Balancing Problem,Int J of Op Res 2007;180(3):1098-1115.
[7] Pınarbaşı M, Alakaş HM. Balancing stochastic type-II assembly lines:
chance-constrained mixed integer and constraint programming models,
Engineering Optimization 2020; 52(12): 2146-2163,
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305215X.2020.1716746
[8] IBM®. Mathematical programming versus constraint programming In:
IBM® Decision Optimization CPLEX® Modeling for Python
(DOcplex) V2.20 documentation,
http://ibmdecisionoptimization.github.io/docplex-doc/mp_vs_cp.html
(2016, accessesd: 04 May 2021)
[9] Lu K, Mizuno S, Shi J. A new mixed integer programming approach for
optimization over the efficient set of a multiobjective linear
programming problem, Optimization Letters 2020; 14:2323-2333,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11590-020-01554-7
[10] Szabó K. Material-flow analysis on an electronical unit assembly line –
master thesis, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, 2020