AN OVERVIEW OF SIMULATION , MODELLING AND ANALYSIS OF MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS

Dr. C S P Rao NIT Warangal.

1

Simulation
Is the process of building a mathematical or logical model of a system or a decision problem, and experimenting with the model to obtain insight into the systems behavior or to assist in solving the decision problem.
2

Simulation
Recent survey of management science practitioners: simulation and statistics have the highest rate of application over all other tools by over a 2:1 margin!

Simulation
Usually, a simulation model is a computer model that imitates a real-life situation. It is like other mathematical models, but it explicitly incorporates uncertainty in one or more input quantities When we run simulation, we allow these random quantities to take various values, and we keep track of any resulting output quantities of interest In this way, we are able to see how the outputs vary as a function of the varying inputs 4

Simulation
Is able do deal with problems exhibiting significant uncertainty Shows the whole distribution of results, not just best guesses Is useful for determining how sensitive system is to changes in operating conditions Enables us to experiment with a system without actually building / changing the physical system!

Models
Prescriptive Deterministic Discrete vs. vs. vs. Descriptive Probabilistic Continuous

Descriptive Models
Inputs: Decision and Uncontrollable Variables Simulation Model Outputs: Measures of Performance or Behavior: Output variables

Simulation Process
Develop a conceptual model of the system or problem under study Build the simulation model Verify and validate the model Design experiments using the model Perform the experiment and analyze the results
8

Simulation Models
Monte Carlo Simulation
Distribution of an outcome variable that depends on several probabilistic variables Risk analysis

System Simulation
Models sequences of events that occur over time
9

Benefits and Limitations

Does not require simplifying assumptions Can deal with problems not possible to solve analytically Provides an experimental laboratory: possible to evaluate decisions/systems without implementing them Generally easier to understand than Building models and simulating is timeconsuming for complex systems Simulation results / simulated systems are always approximations of the real ones Does not guarantee an optimal solution - lack of precise answers Should not be used indiscriminately in place of sound analytical 10 models.

Simulation modeling
Simulation modeling on spreadsheets is quite similar to other MgmtSci modeling approaches Main difference:
Simulation uses Random Numbers to drive the whole process

11

Simulation Modelling
Simulation is a modelling and analysis tool used for the purpose of designing planning and control of manufacturing systems. Simulation may be defined as a concise framework for the analysis and understanding of a system. It is an abstract framework of a system that facilitates imitating the behavior of the system over a period of time. In contrast to mathematical models, simulation models do not need explicit mathematical functions to relate variables
12

 Therefore ,they are suitable for representing complex systems to get a feeling of real system. One of the greatest advantage of a simulation models is that it can compress or expand time. Simulation models can also be used to observe a phenomenon that cannot be observed at very small intervals of time. Simulation can also stops continuity of the experiment.
13

 Simulation modelling techniques are powerful for manipulation of time system inputs, and logic. They are cost effective for modelling a complex system, and with visual animation capabilities they provide an effective means of learning, experimenting, and analyzing real-life complex systems such as FMS. Simulation are capable of taking care of stochastic variable without much complexity. They enable the behavior of the system as a whole to be predicted.
14

WHEN SIMULATION IS APPROPRIATE?

Simulation enables the study of, and experimentation with, the internal interactions of a complex system, or of a subsystem within a complex system. Informational, organizational, and environmental changes can be simulated, and the effect of these alterations on the models behavior can be observed.

15

 The knowledge gained in designing a simulation model may be of great value toward suggesting improvement in the system under investigation. By changing simulation inputs and observing the resulting outputs, valuable insight may be obtained into which variables are most important and how variables interact
16

 Simulation can be used as a pedagogical device to reinforce analytic solution methodologies. Simulation can be used to experiment with new designs or policies prior to implementation, so as to prepare for what may happen. Simulation can be used to verify analytic solutions. By simulating different capabilities for a machine, requirements can be determined. Simulation models designed for training allow learning without the cost and disruption of onthe-job learning. Animation shows a system in simulated operation so that he plan can be visualized.
17

WHEN SIMULATION IS NOT APPROPRIATE?

The Problem is solved by common sense. The Problem is solved by analytical means. It is easier to perform direct experimentation The resources are not available The cost exceeds savings The time is not available No enough time and personal are not available Un-reasonable expectations The behavior of the system is too complex to define

18

THE ELEMENTS OF DISCRETE SIMULATION

1. 2. Entity: Building blocks of mfg. sys. (M/Cs, AGVs) Activities: Function performed by entites.They are just like verbs in simulation language. Duration is assumed as fixed. Activity start end times are known Events :Points on time scale at which some changes takes places in the model.they represent the beginning or end of one or more activities. events are classified as endogenous (internal), exogenous (external).

3.

19

Queues:formed when an entity is waiting in the system for some activity. Attributes: These are adjectives of simulation language, qualifying nouns. States:defines the condition of various elements and the model as the whole. Activity cycle diagram (ACD): This is used in defining the logic of simulation model.

20

environment

Arrival

Waiting in queue

dispatch

machine

idle

Activity cycle diagram

21

CONVERSION FOR DRAWING ACDS ARE AS FOLLOWS.

Each type of entity has an activity cycle. The cycle consists of activities and queues Activities and queues alternate in the cycle. The cycle is closed Activities are depicted by rectangles and queues by circles or ellipses.

22

Table 1 : Use of Simulation in Manufacturing

Manufacturing Environments Manufacturing Issues Performance Measurement of Manufacturing System Throughput (number of jobs produced per unit of time). Time in system for jobs (makespan). Times jobs spend in queues. Time that jobs spend being transported. Sizes of in-process inventories (WIP or queue sizes). Utilization of equipment and personnel (i.e., proportion of time busy). Proportion of time that a machine is under fadum, blocked until and starved. Proportion of jobs produced which must be reworked or scrapped. Return on investment for a new or modified manufacturing system.

New equipment and buildings are required (called green fields). New equipment is required in an old building. A new product will be produced in all or part of an existing building. Upgrading of existing equipment or its operation. Concerned with producing the same product more efficiently. Changes may be in the equipment (e.g., introduction of a robot) or in operational procedures (e.g., scheduling rule employed).

Number and type of machines for a particular objective. Location and size of inventory buffers. Evaluation of a change in product mix (impact of new products). Evaluation of the effect of a new piece of equipment on an existing manufacturing line. Evaluation of capital investments. Manpower requirements planning. Throughput analysis. Makespan analysis. Bottleneck analysis. Evaluation of operational procedures. Evaluation of policies for component part or raw material inventory levels. Evaluation of control strategies

23

Problem Definition
Statement of Objectives

Model Formulation , Planning Data Collection

Model Development

Steps in simulation study

Continues Development Verified?

Validated? Experimentation Results Analysis More Runs? Documentation & Presentation 24
Implementation

Procedure for Conducting a Simulation Study

Plan Study Define System Build Model Run Experiments Analyze Output Report Results

25

SIMULATION SOFTWARE
1st Category Channel purpose language FORTRANC, C + +VB, VB+ + . . ............ . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .many other oriented languages 2nd Category Simulation language
GPSS (1965)SIMSCRIPT (1963)SIMULA GASP (1961)ALGOL SLAM (1979)SIMAN GPSS/4 (1977)SLAM IIAWESIM (1995)GEMS

3rd Category Simulation Packages ARENA (1993)AutoMOD QUEST EXTEND PROMODEL TaylorED WITNESS. . . . . . . . . . .and many more

Webbased simulation

JAVASIMWEBBASED SIMULATION. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .....

Table 2 : Commercial Simulation Language

26

Simulation Software

Ref: Law & Kelton, Chapter 27 3

Modelling Approach
Event Scheduling
System modelled via characteristic events Events have subroutines which update state variables.

Process Orientation
Time oriented sequence of inter-related events that describes the experience of an entity as it flows through a system. Overlay to an event scheduling system. Approach adopted in most current software.
28

Common Features
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Generating random numbers (i.e. ~U(0,1)) Generating random variates from a specified probability distribution. Advancing the simulation clock. Determining the next event on the list event and passing control of to the appropriate piece of code. Adding and deleting records from a list. Collecting output statistics and reporting the results of the simulation run. Trapping error conditions.
29

Simulation Languages
General in nature
Can model almost any type of system. Frequently include specific modelling constructs (such as material handling systems). Steep learning curve. Significant modelling and programming expertise is necessary. Long(ish) development cycles.

30

Simulators
Facilitates the development of models related to a specific class of problems.
Short development cycles. Rapid model prototypes. Gentle learning curve. Lack flexibility to model outside of class. Do not handle unusual situations. Built in assumptions can be problematic.
31

A Brief History of Simulation

Simulation has been around for some time. Early simulations were event-driven (see SimscriptMODSIM) and frequently military applications. In the 1960s Geoffrey Gordon developed the transaction (process) based orientation that we are now familiar with. Gordons software was called General Purpose Simulation System (GPSS). GPSS was originally intended for analyzing time sharing options on mainframe computers. The software was included as a standard library on IBM 360s and its use was quite widespread.

32

GPSS Code
Assume an M/M/1system. Interarrival time = 2.0 minutes (exponential) Service time = 1.0 minutes (exponential). Assume an infinite queue.
* Simulation of M/M/1 system SIMULATE GENERATE RVEXPO(1, 2.0) QUEUE SERVQ SEIZE SERVER ADVANCE RVEXPO(2, 1.0) RELEASE SERVER TERMINATE 1 CONTROL STATEMENTS START END 1000

* * *

33

SLAM
IBM stopped support and development of GPSS about 1972. A market developed for alternative software that could run on newer machines (VAX & UNIX). In 1979, Alan Pritsker and David Pegden create SLAM (Simulation Language for Alternative Modeling). In the early 80s Pritsker and Pegden develop SLAMII, which ran on engineering workstations.
A feature of this new language is a graphical model builder. Users enter their model as a network diagram. When complete, the network is translated into SLAM code.
34

SLAM-II Code
Originally one of the slowest components of a SLAM model was compiling. Compiling really translates the model into a set of FORTRAN subroutines. To speed up compiles, controls were separated from the main body of the model. Controls were designed to be short and changeable, while models were to be big and relatively fixed.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ; 1 2 3 4 5 GEN; LIMITS; INITIALIZE,0.0,1000,YES,,NO; NET; FIN; RESOURCE,,SERVER,1,{1}; CREATE,EXPON(2,1),0.0,,INF,1; ACTIVITY; AWAIT,1,{{SERVER,1}},ALL,,NONE,1; ACTIVITY,1,EXPON(1,1); FREE,{{SERVER,1}},1; ACTIVITY; TERMINATE,INF;

35

SIMAN
About 1983 or so, Dennis Pegden develops his own simulation language. SIMAN (SIMulation ANalysis). The language was designed to run on a PC. It is remarkably similar in look, feel, content and style to SLAM. A lawsuit entailed.
BEGIN; CREATE,,EX(2,1); QUEUE, 1; SEIZE: SERVER; DELAY: EX(1,1); RELEASE:SERVER:DISPOSE; END; BEGIN; DISCRETE, 1000, 1, 1; RESOURCES: 1, SERVER; REPLICATE,1; END;

36

SIMAN AND SLAM

SIMAN is tailored for the PC market. SLAM remains focused on workstations. SIMAN introduces an animation package (CINEMA) about 1985 or so.
The animation is an add on unit for the model. Originally it required specialized (& expensive) hardware.

SLAM responds with a PC version of SLAM in the late 1980s (which also has animation). Both firms develop software to integrate factory scheduling into simulation runs. 37

Early PC Versions
By the mid-80s the PC market is dominant.
Mainframes are expensive. Cycles are expensive. Central IS groups are expensive.

Engineers become computer experts. A lot of IEs end up writing simulations. There are a number of issues:
User development cycles are very long. Total memory (model, entities, etc) limited to about 32k by FORTRAN/C and early versions of DOS. Simulation language development tends to lag OS development. 38

SIMULATORS
Advent of Windows 3.0/3.1. Mass penetration of PCs. Powerful hardware and software (especially OOC) becomes available. We start to see the creation of a variety of simulators. The simulators are usually graphically oriented (drag & drop model development),have integrated animation, and low purchase cost. Huge number of simulators come onto the market. These often lack statistical rigour.
39

Todays Market
There has been something of a rationalization in terms of the number of simulation languages/simulators available.
See the May 1999 edition of IIE Solutions.

The large simulation companies have all been bought or sold at least a couple of times in the past two three years. SLAM Frontstep Systems (a logistics software supplier). Not in active development (last release 99). SIMAN Rockwell Software (logistics & controls).
40

Trends
Virtual reality animations. Advanced statistical functions
Curve fitting for input data. Automatic detection of warm up Output analysis modules (including replication).

Bolt on Optimizers Tools to search for optimal settings of parameters.

41

Witness (Lanner Inc)

Simple building block design Interactive Full range of logic and control options Elements for discrete manufacture, process industries, BPR, ecommerce, call centers, health, finance and government Statistical input and reports Link system to other software easily (CAD/Excel) Optional 3D/VR views

$13,000-$17,000 ($US)
42

ARENA
Process hierarchy. Integrates with Microsoft desktop tools Spreadsheet interface Crystal reports Free runtime software. Fully graphical environment. No programming required. VBA embedded. Optimization with OptQuest for Arena. Builds reusable modules. $1,000 - $17,000 ($US). Various add-in modules available.

43

ARENA
Arena can be used for simulating discrete and continuous systems Arena employs an object based design for entirely graphical model development. Modules are organized into collections called templates.

44

GPSS/H
Successor to the orginal simulation language (GPSS).
Was freeware on IBM 360s

Makes use of common program blocks. Proven, reliable software. Extremely flexible. Extensive error checking routines. Post-process animations (Proof) can be built. ~$5,000 ($US)
45

Automod
Combines Virtual Reality (VR) graphics with a discrete and continuous simulation environment.
Manufacturing operations Material handling systems Tanks and pipe networks IC Manufacturing Transportation and logistics systems

$15,000 - $100,000 ($US)

46

AutoMod
It includes the AutoMod simulation package, AutoStat for experimentation and analysis, and Auto View for making AVI movies of the built-in 3-D animation. The main focus of the AutoMod simulation product is manufacturing and material handling systems.
47

QUEST
QUEST if offered by Deneb Robotics QUEST models are based on 3-D CAD geometry. A QUEST model consists of elements from a number of element classes. Built-in element classes include AGV and transporters, buffer, conveyor, labour, machine, parts and process. Each element has associated geometric data and parameters that define its behaviour
48

ProModel
ProModel is offered by ProModel Corporation It is a simulation and animation tool designed to model manufacturing systems. ProModel offers 2-D animation with an optional 3-D like perspective view.
49

WITNESS
WITNESS is offered by the Lanner Group. WITNESS is strongly machine oriented and contains many elements for discretepart manufacturing. WITNESS models are based on template elements. Elements may be combined into a designer element module to be reused

50

METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTION OF SIMULATION SOFTWARE

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Need for purchasing simulation software

Initial software survey

Evaluation

Software selection
Software contract negotiation

Stage 6

Software purchase
51

Figure 3 : Stages of simulation software selection methodology

Need for purchasing simulation software

Purpose of simulatio n

Constrai nts

Models to be simulate d

Model develope rs

Educati on

Quick and dry ind

D/C ind or researc h

Time

Discret e

Contin uo.

Combi ned disc/co nt

Individ ual prefere nce

Previous exper. in simulation

Initial software survey 52

Continued in the next slide

Short list of software for evaluation

Initial software software survey

Initial

survey

Initial software survey

Initial software survey

Initial software survey

Initial software survey

Results of Evaluation

Software selection

Selection of software Legend:

Software contract negotiation Contract acceptable

Stages

Intermediate Results

Software purchase

Elements

53

Promodel
State-of-the-art simulation engine Graphical user interface Distribution-fitting. Output analysis module Optional optimizer. Modules designed for:
Manufacturing Healthcare Services

$17,000 ($US)
54

Case study
Table 1 : Machine Area Information
Machine M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 Area (m2) 20 x 20 20 x 20 20 x 20 20 x 20 20 x 20 20 x 20 20 x 20 20 x 20 20 x 20 20 x 20

55

Table 2 : Part Job Sequence and Quantity Information

Part Type
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18

Job Sequence
8-6-8-10-4 7-9-2 6-5 3-1-3 5-6-7-10 7-9-7-8 7-9 3-4-1-6 2-7 2-7-9-5 10-8-5 1-3-10 8-10-5-6 9-2-7 6-8-10 4-3 6-5 4-3-1

Quantity
160 310 280 265 80 125 360 240 175 95 100 230 285 315 50 275 260 150 56

Table 3 : Processing Time Information (in minutes)

Part Type P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 Machines M1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 M2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 M3 0 0 0 2+ 5 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 6 M4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 M5 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 M6 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 M7 0 2 0 0 1 2+ 1 4 0 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 M8 2+ 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 M9 0 3 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 M10 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 0 2 0 0 0

57

Here the initial solution for the above case study is obtained using genetic algorithm as below

Cell Formation Cell 1 = 3 1 Cell 2 = 8 6 Cell 3 = 2 9

10 7

4 5

58

(Run Hours 231.57)

59

from above table average process time in percentage of total scheduled hours (39.62+14.97+20.04+11.88+11.16+21.7+16.99+22.89+23.89+20.51)/18 = 11.31%=0.1131 average process time = 0.1131*231.57*60=1572.05

60

average material handling time per part type = (85.70*231.57*60)/(100*18) = 661.52 min.

61

Run hours 352 The solution for the above case study using heuristic method is as follows Step 1 : Arrange all machines randomly according to the given dimensions of machines. Here machine to machine clearance of 1 m is also considered.

(.85)

62

Step 2 : From job sequence of parts, check the minimum sequence (2 machines) common for all parts e.g. M7 M9, M5 M6, M4 M3, M8 M6, M8 M10 and bring those 2 machines closer or nearer to each other.

(Run Hours 229.37)

63

Step 3 : From job sequence, calculate number of times, all parts uses the same machines.

M1-4 M2-4 M3-6 M4-4 M5-6 M6-7 M7-8 M8-6 M9-5 M10-6
64

The least utilized machines are M1,M2 and M4. these machines are kept away from remaining machines or at periphery so that they will not obstruct other more utilized machines.( e.g. 3-1-3, 13-10, 3-4-1-6 i.e. 3 must be closer to 1 and 2-7, 2-7-9-5, 9-2-7, i.e. 2 must be closer to 7 & 9). In this step, since the row distance is high, it will take more time for the vehicle to move from one machine to another machine. So the row distance is reduced from 5 machines to 3 and 4 machines.

(Run hours 223.24)

65

Step 4: from above we can see that most utilized machine is M7. checking the position of this machine in the job sequence and corresponding parts to be processed. 1st 3, 310+125+360=795 2nd 2, 175+95=270 3rd 3, 80+125+315=520 from above 1st position is higher. It must be placed at corner position so that processing starts from that position only.( eg. 4, 8 also.)

Run hours 220

66

Step 5: Here M5 is accompanied M6, M7 is accompanied by M9, M3 is accompanied by M4. These machines are kept at minimum possible distance. Step 6: now considering maximum number of parts to be processed and their job sequence. P7=360, 7-9 P2=310, 7-9-2, P14=315, 9-2-7 So these machines are at minimum distance in straight line manner (7-9-2) In next iteration next lower maximum parts are considered.

67

(Run hours 213)

68

Step 7: place remaining machines closer to respective machines according to job sequence.

average process time(%) per part = (42.98+16.24+21.75+12.88+12.10+23.54+18.43+24.83+25.92+2 2.25)/18 = 12.273%=0.1273 average process time per part type =0.1273*213.45*60 = 1571.84 min.

69

average material handling time per part type = (82.26*213.45*60) / (100*18) = 585.27 min average process time(%) per part = (42.98+16.24+21.75+12.88+12.10+23.54+18.43+24.83+25.92+22.25)/18 = 12.273%=0.1273 average process time per part type =0.1273*213.45*60 = 1571.84 min.

70

ELL FORMATION ell 1 2 ell 2 - 10 9 5 7 6

71

.3 EFFECT OF NUMBER OF VEHICLES ON CYCLE TIME PER JOB TYPE he effect of number of vehicles used for material handling purpose on the cycle time is shown below in the tables for case study both for GA and heuristic layout. It is seen that as the number of vehicles are increased, cycle time( average material handling time) is getting Case study 2(GA) reduced. From this we can find out optimum number of vehicles needed for given throughput
No. of vehicles 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Total Time(hrs.)

457.35

231.57

160.29

123.55

100.79

91.75

91.75

91.75

Material Handling time(min.)

1322.9 6

661.52

440.95

330.74

264.57

220.5

189

165.36

Process Time(min. )

1572.2 2

1572.2 2

1572.2 2

1572.2 2

1572.2 2

1572.22

1572.22

1572.22

72

Cycle Time(min .)

2895. 18

2233. 74

2013. 17

1902. 96

1836. 79

1792.7 2

1761.2 2

1737.5 8

Case study 2 (heuristic)

No. of vehicles 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8

Total Time(hrs. ) Material Handling time(min. ) Process Time(min .) Cycle Time(min .)

422.3 9

213.4 5

144.0 9

109.7 3

91.78

91.78

91.78

91.78

1170. 58

585.2 7

390.1 9

292.6 1

234.1 0

195.0 1

167.2 2

146.3 2

1571. 95

1571. 95

1571. 95

1571. 95

1571. 95

1571. 95

1571. 95

1571. 95

2742. 53

2157. 22

1962. 14

1864. 56

1806. 05

1766. 96

1739. 17

1718. 27

73

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Summarized Table of grouping efficiency, total throughput time and total material handling time for two case studies.
)

Initial solution by GA
GE (%) Tt (hrs.) Mt (min.)

Improved solution by heuristic

Percentage improvement

GE (%)

Tt (hrs.)

Mt (min.)

GE (%)

Tt (hrs.)

Mt (min.)

Case study 2

76

231.57

661.5 2

81

213.4 5

585.2 7

6.57

7.82

11.52

GE : Group Efficiency Tt : Total Throughput Time Mt : Total material Handling Time

74

Summarized Table of machine utilization for the case study

Machine

Initial solution by GA ( % )

Improved solution by heuristic ( % ) 16.24 23.54 42.98 12.88 25.92 22.25 24.83 12.1 18.43 21.75

Percentage improvement 8.48 8.47 8.48 8.41 8.5 8.48 8.47 8.42 8.35 8.53

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10

14.97 21.7 39.62 11.88 23.89 20.51 22.89 11.16 16.99 20.04

75

The bar charts of machine utilization for 2 case studies are shown below. Case study 2(GA)

76

Case study 2(HEURISTIC METHOD)

77

1)

Summarized Table of resource utilization for two case studies

Resource Initial solution by GA ( % ) 40.68 31.67 30 231.57 99.83 99.83 Improved solution by heuristic ( % ) 37.59 27.33 25.3 213.45 99.92 99.93 Percentage improvement 7.6 20.25 22.07 7.82 7.74 7.73

Case study 1

Run hours forklift 1 forklift 2

Case study 2

Run hours forklift 1 forklift 2

78

Resource utilization bar charts for 2 case studies Case Study 2 (GA)

Case Study 2 (Heuristic Method)

79

Resource states graphs of 2 case studies

Case Study 2 (Heuristic Method)

80

Graphs of cycle time verses number of vehicles for two case studies
Graph - 2 : Case Study - 2
2900 2700 Cycle Time 2500 2300 2100 1900 1700 1500 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Number of Vehicles GA Heuristic

81

CONCLUSIONS
the application for simulation to address manufacturing problems. Developments in the area of simulation existing softwares for discrete event simulation and conduction of simulation studies were reviewed. The necessity and importance of simulation for modeling and analyzing the various classes of manufacturing problems was focused in this paper; we hope this paper may encourage the extensive use of simulation in manufacturing and development of simulation technology for addressing the problems which need serious attention.
82

Journals

ACM Transactions on Modelling and Computer Simulat Computer Simulation Modeling and Analysis European Journal of Operations Research IEEE Journal of Systems, Man and Cybernetics IIE Transactions on IE Research International Journal in Computer Simulation Management Science ORSA Journal on Computing Simulation System Dynamics Review Journal of the Operational Research Society
83

References
Averill M. Law, W. David, Kelton,2000 Simulation Modeling and Analysis, McGraw-Hill Charles Harrell, et al., 2000, Simulation Using ProModel, McGraw-Hill Ramsey Suliman, et al.,2000 Tools and Techniques for Social Science Simulation, Physica Verlag Michael Pidd, 1998, Computer Simulation in Management Science, John Wiley & Sons Michael Prietula, et al., 1998, Simulating Organizations: Computational Models of Institutions and Groups, Mit. Press David Profozich,1997, Managing Change with Business Process Simulation, Pearson Ptr. Paul A. Fishwick, Richard B. Modjeski, 1991, KnowledgeBased Simulation,Springer-Verlag Klaus G. Troitzsch, et al., 1996, Social Science Microsimulation, Springer Verlag Harry A. Pappo, 1998, Simulations for Skills Training, Educational Technology Publications
84

Thank you
Contact information

Dr.C.S.P. Rao Manufacturing Simulation Lab. Department of Mech. Engg. Regional Engineering College - Warangal 506 004 E-mail : cspr@recw.ernet.in (or) csp_rao@rediffmail.com

85