The Quality of Approximation Algorithms implemented in the Flow Line Planning Software FlowEval – Numerical Results

Horst Tempelmeier Universit¨ t zu K¨ ln a o Seminar f¨ r Produktionswirtschaft u Albertus-Magnus-Platz D-50923 K¨ ln o http://www.spw.uni-koeln.de/ tempelmeier@wiso.uni-koeln.de

Technical Report

Cologne, February 2004

Abstract In this report we provide numerical results with respect to the approximation quality of the algorithms implemented in the software system FlowEval. Most of the systems considered are real-life systems. Not only linear but also assembly structures are considered. The computed values are compared to simulation results generated with the simulation software Arena . The results show that the performance of the systems is predicted very well.

1

The real-life data sets considered were slightly modified in order to hide their origin. when the planner seeks the optimum system configuration and consequently a large number of simulation runs have to be carried out. The simulation software used was Arena . an increasing ” number of companies now consider the application of analytical tools to predict the performance of a considered flow production system. Buzacott and Shanthikumar (1993). Basically this report can be considered as a supplement to the Tempelmeier (2003) paper. which is in sharp contrast to the crude rule-of-thumb-planning practice based on experience of the past. Further background with respect to the principle structure of the approximation methods applied is provided by Dallery and Gershwin (1992). The simulation models (including animation objects) were automatically constructed with a model generator that is available as an optional module of FlowEval.1 Introduction In industrial factory planning practice. Closely connected with recently emerging Digital Factory” projects. As a detailed discussion of the type of system that may be evaluated with the help of available analytical algorithms and references are provided in Tempelmeier (2003). the costs of a simulation study in terms of development effort and the time to perform a statistically significant number of simulation runs usually are very high. Gershwin (1994) and the literature cited therein. The Arena templates required are the 2 . the evaluation of the performance of a planned production system is a prerequisite for an economically sound investment decision. This is particularly true in cases. For each system we provide a comprehensive characterisation in terms of the station parameters. Although simulation models are very useful in the detailed planning phase of a production system. In the following the quality of the approximations provided by the performance evaluation algorithms implemented in the software system FlowEval is tested with the help of a number of invented and real-life data sets. we confine our attention to the description of the systems considered and the experimental results. In many companies planners use simulation models to approximate the performance of a planned flow production system.

849768 Production rate (Simulation) Input Station 1 1 Station 2 Buffer: 5 12 Station 3 Buffer: 12 4 Buffer: 5 0. 0 Create 1 SeizeProc1_R Separate Original RecordNumberIn AssignTNOW 0 0 Duplicate Delay_1 AssignBlocked_1 Hold_1_2 ReleaseProc1_R SeizeProc2_R Delay_2 AssignBlocked_2 Hold_2_3 ReleaseProc2_R SeizeProc3_R Delay_3 AssignBlocked_3 Hold_3_4 ReleaseProc3_R SeizeProc4_R 0 Delay_4 ReleaseProc4_R RecordNumberOut DecideEnde True AssignEnde Dispose 0 0 False Figure 1: Model logic for a linear flow production system Production rate (FlowEval) = 0. 3 . Both the model logic as well as the animation structure of the generated Arena simulation model are available to the user for further changes – if required. 84529 Station 4 Figure 2: Animation view for a linear flow production system For systems with converging material flow the model logic of the simulation model is significantly more complicated. The Arena modules used for a linear flow production system consisting of four stations and the associated animation view are shown in figures 1 and 2. Figure 2 shows the animation view of an assembly system.Basic Process Template and the Advanced Process Template.

• • • • Structure: linear (L). stochastic (S) Source of data: invented (I). max) Mean time-to-repair (avg. min. 5 5 3 6 7 M1 0 Buffer: 3 M2 0 Buffer: 3 M3 0 Buffer: 3 M4 0 Buffer: 3 M5 0 Buffer: 3 3 Buffer: 3 3 Buffer: 3 M2C M3A M4B 3 Buffer: 3 3 Buffer: 3 M2B M4A 3 Buffer: 3 M2A Figure 3: Animation view for a flow production system with converging material flow 2 Numerical results The systems considered differ with respect to the following system characteristics. min.Production rate (FlowEval) = 0. min. real-life (R) Degree of homogenity of stations • Workload per station: (avg. max. assembly (A) Processing times: deterministic (D). this buffer size applies to all buffers (stations). the repair times as well as the lifetimes were assumed 4 .555501 Production rate (Simulation) 0 . In the simulations. For each system configuration considered. max) The systems are labeled with the triple (Structure/Processing times/System origin). For example. In cases where only a single number for the buffer sizes is given. for stochastic processing times: CV = coefficient of variation) • • Availabilities (avg. (L/S/I) means a linear system with stochastic processing times and invented data. ten independent simulation runs were performed with a production quantity of 50000 units each. The results presented are the system production rates as a function of the buffer sizes.

944890 0.1 System 1: L/S/I Number of Stations Workloads Availability MTTR 10 avg 1 1.00 – Table 1: Data computed simulated deviation Buffer size per Station 1 3 5 0.00 – max 36 1.81215 0. For the systems with stochastic processing times the processing time distributions were assumed to be gamma distributions with the given coefficient of variation (CV).1 Linear systems 2.to be exponentially distributed.1.943787 -2.00 – Table 3: Data computed simulated deviation Buffer size per Station 6 optimal (total 90) 0.4 – – min 1 1.915573 0.12% Table 2: Results .32% 1.00 – CV 0.00 – CV 0.914110 0.027016 1.027110 0.1.5 – – min 22 1. 2.28% -0.Production rates 2.2 System 2: L/S/I Number of Stations Workloads Availability MTTR 16 avg 30 1.83106 0.027500 0.00 – max 1 1.Production rates 5 .79% Table 4: Results .026758 0.16% 0.

80 300 max 246 0.1.003080 0.003190 0.27 CV – – – min 0.98 12 Table 9: Data 6 .3 System 3: L/S/R Number of Stations Workloads Availability MTTR 10 avg 1.456000 0.01% -0.479328 0.92 7.96 300 Table 7: Data computed simulated deviation Buffer size per Station 2 optimal (total 334) 0.72 1.5 max 1.425173 -2.003114 4.1.64% Buffer size per Station 2 3 optimal (total 83) 0.8 1.37% 2.38% 0.5 System 5: L/D/R Number of Stations Workloads Availability MTTR 14 avg 1.41% Table 6: Results .4 – – min 1.460647 0.40% Table 8: Results .519960 0.Production rates 2.Production rates 2.92 4.2.23 0.88 300 CV – – – min 214 0.1.002951 0.413930 0.04 0.00 – max 1.00 – Table 5: Data computed simulated deviation 1 0.4 System 4: L/D/I Number of Stations Workloads Availability MTTR 80 avg 232 0.00 – CV 0.477500 0.88 1.85 0.517820 -1.

99 20 Table 13: Data computed simulated deviation Buffer size per Station 1 3 optimal (total 26) 0.697719 0.734716 0.762362 -0.057410 0.08% 0.6 System 6: L/D/R Number of Stations Workloads Availability MTTR 6 avg 30 0.94 690 CV – – – min 30 0.04% -0.057550 0.99 20 CV – – – min 11 0.025140 0.057763 0.Production rates 2.738840 0.1.00% Table 10: Results .91 610 max 30 0.05762 0.02% Table 14: Results .52% 0.024240 0.028000 0.025120 0.56% 1.770000 0.05763 -0.20% -0.027767 -0.Production rates 7 .057433 0.02% -0.694110 0.computed simulated deviation Buffer size per Station 2 5 optimal (total 63) 0.Production rates 2.1.024289 0.84% Table 12: Results .99 20 max 17 0.95 820 Table 11: Data computed simulated deviation Buffer size per Station 0 3 optimal (total 26) 0.7 System 7: L/D/R Number of Stations Workloads Availability MTTR 10 avg 12 0.

80 300 max 246 0.48% Table 16: Results .82 27 max 6.03% Buffer size per Station 3 optimal (total 21) 0.16% 1.003170 0.7% larger then the even distribution of the same number of buffers.9 0.88 300 CV – – – min 214 0.123142 0.63% optimal (total 54) 0.002940 -2.1 0.132020 0.2.96 300 Table 15: Data computed simulated deviation 1 0.39% Table 18: Results .130210 -0.003320 0.96 68 CV – – – min 4.002873 0.8 System 8: L/D/R Number of Stations Workloads Availability MTTR 8 avg 232 0.122940 0. 8 .Production rates 2.1 1.Production rates Note: In this real-life system the optimal distribution of 110 buffers has a production rate that is 5.61% 0.00 230 Table 17: Data computed simulated deviation Buffer size per Station 5 optimal (total 110) 0.28% 2 0.1.003563 0.003329 0.1.003169 0.003300 0.9 System 9: L/D/R Number of Stations Workloads Availability MTTR 23 avg 4.003350 0.003580 0.

9091 10 Table 21: Data 1 0 2 0 0 3 4 0 5 0 6 Figure 4: Layout 9 .9091 10 CV – – – min 10 0.2.422471 0.99 0.9091 10 max 10 0. Buffer size per Station 5 optimal (total 102) 0.9 0.85 30 max 1.Production rates 2.2 Assembly systems 2.33% computed simulated deviation Table 20: Results .10 System 10: L/D/R Number of Stations Workloads Availability MTTR 21 avg 0.89 30 Table 19: Data Note: This system has very long failure times (MTTR) relative to the processing times.05 0.423460 0.88 30 CV 0 0 0 min 0.23% 2.444080 0.1 System 11: A/D/I Number of Stations Workloads Availability MTTR 6 avg 10 0.2. which were considered by the planners to test the approximation in a worst-case scenario.1.433951 0.

012634 -3.015961 -1.9091 10 Table 25: Data 10 .013343 0.53% -1.014353 0.10% Table 22: Results .08491 0.42% -0.9091 10 CV – – – min 10 0.Production rates 2.016000 0.3 System 13: A/D/I Number of Stations Workloads Availability MTTR 6 avg 10 0.00% Buffer size per Station 1 2 optimal (total 55) 0.014165 0.9091 10 max 10 0.Production rates 2.076962 0.95 300 CV – – – min 300 0.24% Table 24: Results .2.08482 -1.012255 0.92% Buffer size per Station 1 2 optimal (total 20) 0.081208 0.2.2 System 12: A/D/I Number of Stations Workloads Availability MTTR 12 avg 300 0.062502 0.39% -0.080889 0.95 300 max 300 0.075868 0.computed simulated deviation 0 0.067876 -7.95 300 Table 23: Data 1 0 2 0 0 3 7 0 4 0 0 8 9 0 5 0 0 10 6 0 11 0 12 Figure 5: Layout computed simulated deviation 0 0.31% 0.013550 0.

083400 0.070478 0.16 2 1 2 17 2 12 2 13 2 10 2 2 6 2 2 14 2 2 15 11 7 2 2 8 2 9 2 3 2 2 4 5 Figure 6: Layout computed simulated deviation Buffer size per Station 1 2 optimal (total 64) 0.082855 -4.90 1 CV – – – min 1 0.66% Table 26: Results .2.076921 0.09% -0.90 1 Table 27: Data 0 0 1 2 0 5 0 0 6 7 0 10 0 0 11 3 0 4 8 0 9 Figure 7: Layout 11 .067589 0.90 1 max 1 0.43% 0.076587 0.4 System 14: A/D/I Number of Stations Workloads Availability MTTR 11 avg 1 0.Production rates 2.

59% Table 28: Results .5 System 15: A/D/R Number of Stations Workloads Availability MTTR 14 avg 229 0.Production rates 2.704640 0.002703 0.89 300 CV – – – min 206 0.4500 0.003592 0.2.003027 -4.80 300 max 248 0.14% 0.6 System 16: A/D/I This is an extension of the above system with several stations added.07% Buffer size per Station 1 2 optimal (total 25) 0.Production rates optimal (total 116) 0.2.39% 2.002529 0.003000 0.002755 -8.002821 0.12% 0.5927 -24. 12 .36% -0.94% Buffer size per Station optimal (total 14) optimal (total 23) 0.89% Table 30: Results .96 300 Table 29: Data 12 6 11 4 14 12 10 8 7 10 5 8 4 12 3 4 2 7 1 10 13 13 10 8 7 11 9 Figure 8: Layout computed simulated deviation 1 0.computed simulated deviation 0 0.79143 -2.003578 0. The added stations have the same characteristics as the stations of the original system.776563 0.719928 0.79610 0.775467 0.

003533 1.003600 0. Buffer size optimal (total 174) 0.96 300 Table 31: Data 12 7 16 6 15 7 14 10 9 13 9 10 10 6 7 7 11 8 8 7 4 22 4 23 5 10 4 9 3 6 2 4 4 1 5 27 3 28 11 9 4 21 17 4 18 4 19 5 20 4 26 6 25 6 24 Figure 9: Layout The buffer sizes were optimized with respect to a target production rate of 0.Production rates 2.89 300 CV – – – min 206 0.97 300 CV – – – min 449 0.90% computed simulated deviation Table 32: Results .00360.2.Number of Stations Workloads Availability MTTR 27 avg 229 0.999 300 Table 33: Data 13 .7 System 17: A/D/R Number of Stations Workloads Availability MTTR 30 avg 482 0.935 300 max 519 0.80 300 max 248 0.

33% 0.Production rates 2.90 250 Table 35: Data 14 .2.34% Buffer size per Station optimal (total 39) optimal (total 63) 0.72% Table 34: Results .90 250 max 47 0.8 System 18: A/D/R Number of Stations Workloads Availability MTTR 11 avg 45 0.001731 0.90 250 CV – – – min 43 0.001794 0.001817 0.25 1 23 1 22 1 30 1 31 1 29 1 27 1 1 32 19 1 1 18 1 1 28 4 3 17 1 16 1 15 1 14 1 13 1 24 1 21 1 20 1 26 12 1 11 1 10 1 9 1 8 1 7 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 5 6 Figure 10: Layout computed simulated deviation 1 0.001737 -0.001830 0.001800 0.

9 max 51 0.9 CV – – – min 0.82 0.017000 0.09% 2.999 20 Table 37: Data 7 0 1 0 0 2 6 0 0 8 13 0 5 0 0 0 11 0 0 12 0 17 0 0 18 0 3 4 10 0 14 0 16 9 15 Figure 12: Layout 15 .90 11.013039 0.011435 -4.9 System 19: A/D/R Number of Stations Workloads Availability MTTR 21 avg 0.010928 0.2.43 Buffer size per Station 5 10 optimal (total 421) 0.015361 0.96 16.14% 1.71 0.015529 0.19% Table 36: Results .012891 0.016636 -1.Production rates 2.19 10 9 10 1 10 10 10 2 11 10 10 12 10 3 10 13 15 10 4 10 10 10 10 16 22 10 21 10 23 14 10 5 10 10 20 10 18 10 6 10 24 10 10 27 10 7 10 26 28 29 10 10 10 10 30 10 8 25 31 17 Figure 11: Layout computed simulated deviation 3 0.

63% Buffer size per Station 2 optimal (total 35) 0.49% optimal(total 86) 0.Production rates 2.99 405 Table 41: Data 16 .773514 0.16% Table 40: Results .10 System 20: A/D/R Number of Stations Workloads Availability MTTR 10 avg 50 0.2.96 405 CV – – – min 135 0.767767 0.33% -0.12% 0.11 System 21: A/D/R Number of Stations Workloads Availability MTTR 13 avg 135 0.016627 0.74% -0.803707 -0.016319 0.36% Table 38: Results .016601 -0.799740 0.96 450 max 51 0.Production rates 2.754146 -0.863138 -0.749417 0.016339 0.015999 0.860040 0.015946 0.97 450 CV – – – min 49 0.99 450 Table 39: Data 10 2 1 1 2 3 9 2 1 4 1 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 Figure 13: Layout computed simulated deviation Buffer size per Station 1 2 3 0.2.93 405 max 135 0.computed simulated deviation 1 0.

Significant deviations from the simulation results occur only in those cases where in despite of the stochastic characteristics of a system a planner would refuse to include even a minimum amount of buffering into the system. usually a planner will be aware of the necessity to include buffers and FlowEval will provide to him suggestions as to where the buffers are required.73% Table 42: Results . before the implementation of a proposed system configuration a detailed simulation should be carried out. FlowEval has been designed such that it can be applied as a performance evaluation and optimistion module in the frame of an overall planning concept. 17 . However.005851 0.005791 0.006379 0. As FlowEval is based on a more or less abstract model of the considered flow production system.006163 0.3 1 2 1 1 7 1 1 4 1 1 5 1 8 1 9 6 12 1 1 1 13 1 10 11 Figure 14: Layout computed simulated deviation Buffer size per Station 1 2 3 0.34% 0.03% 0.Production rates 3 Conclusion The numerical results presented show that the algorithms implemented in FlowEval are very precise for a wide variety of system designs.006142 0. To this end.006333 -1.

Shanthikumar (1993). (2003). G. S. Queueing Systems Theory and Applications 12. Manufacturing Systems Engineering. International Journal of Production Research 41(1). A. 3–94. Practical considerations in the optimization of flow production systems. (1994).References Buzacott. B. Y. J. Stochastic Models of Manufacturing Systems. B. and S. Gershwin (1992). 18 . H. 149–170. and J. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Gershwin. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Dallery. Tempelmeier. Manufacturing flow line systems: A review of models and analytical results.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful