See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320988778

Use of Simulation Software Environments for the Purpose of Production

Optimization

Conference Paper · November 2017

DOI: 10.2507/28th.daaam.proceedings.xxx

CITATIONS READS

4 2,516

1 author:

Robert Ojstersek
University of Maribor
53 PUBLICATIONS 366 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mobile robotics View project

Manufacturing flexibility View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert Ojstersek on 10 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 28TH DAAAM INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON INTELLIGENT MANUFACTURING AND AUTOMATION

DOI: 10.2507/28th.daaam.proceedings.xxx

USE OF SIMULATION SOFTWARE ENVIRONMENTS FOR THE

PURPOSE OF PRODUCTION OPTIMIZATION
Robert Ojstersek & Borut Buchmeister

This Publication has to be referred as: Ojstersek, R[obert]; Buchmeister, B[orut] (2017). Use of Simulation Software
Environments for the Purpose of Production Optimization, Proceedings of the 28th DAAAM International Symposium,
pp.xxxx-xxxx, B. Katalinic (Ed.), Published by DAAAM International, ISBN 978-3-902734-xx-x, ISSN 1726-9679,
Vienna, Austria
DOI: 10.2507/28th.daaam.proceedings.xxx

Abstract

This paper presents an introduction of two simulation environments for the purpose of optimizing production line. The
time in which we are implementing the concept of Industry 4.0, a part of which is based on automated and robotic
production systems, we want to pre-check financial and production efficiency of the proposed new updated concept of
our existing production line. A comparison of two different programming environments for discrete systems simulation
will be presented in this paper on the applied industrial example. Simulation model enables calculation of machine
utilization, throughput time, number of finished products and minimum needed workers (MNW). If we want to justify
the use of simulation environments for the purpose of optimizing production, we must firstly show the real world example
as in presented paper. The result will justify the redesign of the existing production line and justify the use of simulation
software tools for carrying out preliminary tests to create new more productive production line, which is designed on
concept of Industry 4.0.

Keywords: Simulation; Simio; Autodesk Process Analysis 360°; Industry 4.0; Optimization.

1. Introduction

Modern concepts of production are based on the introduction of automated production systems, this raises the questions;
firstly, the financial justification of new investments in the existing manufacturing process, secondly, an appropriate
allocation of labour force. Thirdly, if we had reached satisfying optimization of our production line which will be able to
follow new trends and demands for a satisfactory period of time. Modern industry is turning to get the help from
simulation software environments through which we can precisely define, optimize and simulate new manufacturing
process. Throe the simulation results we can accurately determine production line specifications and parameters. In the
final phase, operation of the system is simulated in a virtual environment to test real world parameters. The results of the
simulations present the basic data for the comparative calculation of the eligibility of the existing system and proposed
updates. With the introduction of the concept of Industry 4.0 [1] we must be also careful to a social aspect of labour. We
must properly allocate the existing workforce. We must provide professional fulfilment in a new working area while we
should not resort to unnecessary firing of the workers.
The paper is organized as follows: in section 2 the literature review of simulation software is provided, in section 3 some
basic approaches of simulations model are introduced. The two discrete system simulation environments Autodesk
Process Analysis 360° and Simio are presented in sections 4 and 5. Section 6 provides the details of designing, developing
 28TH DAAAM INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON INTELLIGENT MANUFACTURING AND AUTOMATION

and implementing of simulation software’s on applied example for the purpose of production optimization. Final section
provides some conclusion about benefits and future advancements of simulation environments.

2. Literature review

Simulation environments are more and more powerful tools for precise execution of the new proposed concepts, models
and production lines in field of scheduling and optimizing production environments. For this purpose, we can use a lot of
different available simulation software packages. The problems are appearing when we want to combine our theoretical
knowledge and mathematics concepts to new future proposed concepts in simulation environments. Many different
authors have tried to integrate and compare multiple diverse simulation software and theoretical-mathematical models to
get near optimal results for optimization of production environments.
Shirazi et al. [2] presented the use of simulation tools for solving flexible manufacturing systems, where the machines
and tools are flexible; they can allocate the position and time of variables. Dehghanimohammadabadi et al. [3] present
the concept of the intelligent simulation in which they integrate two different powerful simulation tools Simio and MatLab
to create decision support system for optimization. We can see that many authors use simulation tools for: solving job
shop scheduling problem (JSSP) with multiple-objects such as Ripon et al. [4] presents a use of mathematical simulation
tool for solving crossover in JSSP. Wang et al. [5] present the simulation approach for process planning, operation
determining and operational sequencing. Shundar et al. [6] represented the use of bee colony algorithm for solving JSSP
in which they use some data analyser software to compare the mathematical data received from the simulation
environment to real world data. The same problem is solved by the Wisittipanich and Kachitvichyanukil [7] which are
using Microsoft Visual Studio and C# programming language to solve this problem. Most of big factories around the
world use simulation tools to simulate different approaches, methods and new concepts. Haider and Mirza [8] represent
the manufacturing in Toyota production system, the methods of lean manufacturing and job shop production is presented
on one-piece flow simulation. Another way to use the simulation environments is optimizing the layout and material flow
analysis, Centobelli et al. [9] present the concept of digital factory which is founded on the simulation environments.
Many authors are still using priority rules for solving different non-deterministic polynominal-time hard (NP-hard)
problems, but we can see that they use simulation environments instead of mathematical calculations. Zupan et al. [10]
present the hybrid algorithm based on priority rules for simulation of workshop production, the results show the
advantages of using simulation environments. We can also see that a lot of researchers use simulation environment to
create and test new metaheuristic approaches such as Shuffled frog-leaping algorithm [11, 12], Intelligent water drops
algorithm [13 - 15], Cloud-Entropy enhanced genetic algorithm [16] and so on [17]. Zgang et al. [18] present new hybrid
multi-neighborhood based shuffled frog leaping algorithm with path relinking (RMN-SFLA-PR) for solving JSSP and
MNW. RMN-SFLA-PR algorithm has a 100 % success rate in the low-dimensional cases of the 4 benchmark (dj38) and
converged to optimum ten times faster than individual algorithms in JSSP to solve MNW for the real world production
line. They use MatLab environment for creating mathematical model and discrete system simulation environment Simio
for testing the newly proposed algorithm on real world example. The mentioned things above show how useful are
simulation environments and in how many diversified fields we can used them. But in some cases the usage of the
simulation environments it is not so easy, programmes or researcher must have extended computational knowledge to
create reliable and working simulation models. This paper presents the use of two different simulation environments,
Autodesk Process Analysis 360° and discrete system simulation tool Simio, to enable testing the productivity and the
utilization of the new production line in comparison with the existing one.

3. Simulation

Simulation presents the transferred real system into computer programming language [19]. Designer build a computer
model, which has the characteristics of the real world system. Created model represents a true picture of real industrial
production line, to which we can add real world variables as mathematical variables or as a constant value in a specified
period of time. In the simulation optimization of the production system, the world's leading companies use Autodesk
software package Process Analysis 360° and discrete system programming environment Simio. In the following chapters
we will present this two simulation environments, their features and characteristics, which will be presented in the applied
example of real world production line. In our simulation of production line we are focused on optimizing three main
criteria; maximum makespan Cmax, defined by (3.1), the total flow time F (3.2) and the utilisation of the machine centres
UR (3.3) [12].

𝐶𝑚𝑎𝑥 = max{𝐶𝑖 } , 1 ≤ 𝑖 ≤ 𝑛 (3.1)

Ci is the completion time of job i, i = 1, …, n. n is number of jobs.

𝐹 = ∑(𝐶𝑖 − 𝑆𝑖 ), 𝑖 = 1, … , 𝑛 (3.2)

Ci is the competition time and Si is the starting time of job i, i = 1, …, n.

 28TH DAAAM INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON INTELLIGENT MANUFACTURING AND AUTOMATION

∑𝑛 𝑚
𝑖=1 ∑𝑗=1 𝑝𝑖𝑗 (3.3)
𝑈𝑅 = , m is number of machines.
𝑚 𝐶𝑚𝑎𝑥

The processing time pij represent the time job j has to spend on machine i [21].

4. Autodesk Process Analisys 360°

Simulation of the production system in the programming environment Autodesk Process Analysis 360° [22] enables as
direct transfer of three-dimensional model from the software environment Autodesk Inventor to the software simulation
environment Autodesk Process Analysis 360°. The advantage of the interconnectivity is represented in the entire software
environment of Autodesk Factory Design Suite. With transferring the production system model in which are included all
the data defined in the three-dimensional model created in Autodesk Inventor software environment, we transfer also
mutual length, data of processing machines and the number of workers. In our case, we want to determinate the MNW.
Real world example shows that the company already uses software from the manufacturer Autodesk environment, for
example, AutoCAD, which is often used software environment for two-dimensional designs of the layout processing
lines, and synchronization is possible between the two-dimensional model in AutoCAD and a three-dimensional model
in Autodesk Inventor. Synchronization between the two-dimensional model in AutoCAD and the three-dimensional
model is shown in Figure 1.

Fig. 1. A two-dimension model (left) and a three-dimensional model (right) of the production process

In the simulation environment Autodesk Process Analysis 360° is required to enter real information about the vehicle
speed, the speed of workers and conveyors, as well as time data: time to wait before processing, wait times on means of
transport, downtime of production line and the duration of the simulation.
The integrity of the software environment is reflected in the ease of use, versatility of existing information and
interconnectivity of the entire software package Autodesk Factory Design Suite.

5. Software environment Simio

Simio is a simulation environment based on the use of intelligent objects [23]. Intelligent objects can be built by ourselves
or we can use an existing object from the library. The use of existing objects is often the initial choice of the software
users. Firstly, the object can be assigned as symbolic three-dimensional animation models and secondly, maybe even
more important, is the possibility of transferring the real data captured from files of Microsoft Office Excel and SAP
systems from production floor to the Simio software environment. For the mathematical assignment of characteristics and
functions we used object-oriented programming languages C ++, C #. For the simplified implementation of object-
oriented programming language Simio provides already configured graphical programming framework. The pre-existing
objects are divided into the following groups:

 Fixed object, representing objects that are stationary relative to the location.
 Agents, freely moving objects in three-dimensional space.
 Entity, subsystem of moving objects, often presented as a moving product.
 Link and Node, connect the movement of moving objects.
 Transporter, intended to define routes, positions, and the final destinations.

Proper implementation of the objects is very important in order to obtain credible results in created simulation model.
The model is well-defined with real world application characteristics and properties, which can be determined by the
fixed values, or mathematical functions. The simulation model with real world characteristics and properties is presented
 28TH DAAAM INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON INTELLIGENT MANUFACTURING AND AUTOMATION

in Figure 2. The advantage of the 3D graphical simulation model are simulation results, which can be used as a basis for
a comparative simulation study between the existing and the proposed model of the new production line.

Fig. 2. Discrete system simulation in Simio

6. Example of the use of simulation software environments for the purpose of production optimization

Usage of simulation environment is very effective in the introducing of new concepts into an existing manufacturing
process. Figure 3 shows the existing production line, which is not optimized. It consists of older types of machines with
longer processing times and short mean time between failures (MTBF). For the smooth functioning of the production line
care six workers. As we know, the human factor reduces the reliability, robustness and productivity of the production
line. Therefore, we propose new concepts of automated and robotized production lines (fundament on concept of Industry
4.0). The existing system consists of ten individual machining centers, including transportation systems, partly managed
over the conveyor belt, partly manually transported using transport carts. Due to the influence of the human factor we can
assume the loss of production time occurring during manual transporting and handling of the work pieces. Older un-
optimized machining centre have longer production time per work piece. Ten machining centre perform operations listed
below (in brackets are the operational times per work piece in seconds):
1. Centering (20 s),
2. External turning (67 s),
3. External turning (64 s),
4. External turning (66 s),
5. Rolling (18 s),
6. Hardening (24 s),
7. Grinding (65 s),
8. Grinding (68 s),
9. Grinding (66 s),
10. Groove milling (17 s).

It should be noted that the operations of external turning and grinding are carried on only one of the three machining
centre. Transport of the work pieces from one machine centre to another is partly implemented via a conveyor belt, which
travels at a speed of 0.1 m/s, and partly by carts pushed by workers which are working at the production line. Their speed
of movement is between 70 m/min and 75 m/min, depending on the weight of the transport carts. Delivery of semi-
finished products on the production line and the initial filling of the first machine center (centering machine) and also the
 28TH DAAAM INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON INTELLIGENT MANUFACTURING AND AUTOMATION

removal of finished product from the production line is provided with a forklift. Speed of the forklift is 5 km/h or 83.3
m/min and it is electronically limited.

Fig. 3. A three-dimensional model of the existing production

The simulation results in Figure 4 show that the total utilization of the existing production line is 33.82 %. The simulation
time is represented by one eight hour shift or 480 min. During 480 min shift a worker has one 30 min lunch break, two
10 min break and one 5 min break to get some rest between hard work. That’s mean that the total production time of the
simulation is 425 min. In this time production line produced 440 finished products.
The simulation results are:
- Simulation time: 07:05:00 (h:m:s)
- Total Uptime of all machine centre: 1:02:21:18:203 (d:h:m:s:ms)
- Total Downtime of all machine centre: 03:57:11:000 (h:m:s:ms)
- Utilization: 33,82 %

Fig. 4. Simulation model in Autodesk Process Analysis 360°

Figure 5 represent the graphical representation of the simulation results for the utilization of each individual machine
centre, through which we can see single utilization, waiting times and potential bottlenecks in the production process.
 28TH DAAAM INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON INTELLIGENT MANUFACTURING AND AUTOMATION

Fig. 5. Graphical presentation of the simulation results for the existing system

For better reliability of the simulation results we have also tested the simulation in simulation environment Simio.
Simulation results in Simio shows that the total number of finished products is 448 parts within the simulation time period
of 425 min, which is the time of one work shift. Results shows that the amount of finished products in simulation
environment is higher for 8 finished product compared to the simulation carried out in the software environment Autodesk
Process Analysis 360 °. Minimum difference between this two simulation environment can be attributed to real data
entered into the simulation model and the impact of production downtime. We can also predict that the number of the
completed products is related to the reliability factor of the workers. The simulation model has been tested several times,
we tested with several applications and two durations:
 Short simulation time of one work shift, 425 min.
 Long simulation time of the eighteen work shifts, 7650 min.

From the obtained results we can see that the number of completed products differs just for two in positive or negative
way, which demonstrate the reliability of the simulation. Then we started with creating of new proposed concept of
production line. New production line has more productive machine centre with higher production rate lower MTBF and
totally automated machining process. New production line consists of ten machine centers that perform operations listed
below (in brackets are the operational times per work pieces in seconds):

1. Thread rolling (15 s),

2. Induction annealing (17 s),
3. Labelling (15 s),
4. Induction slackening (17 s),
5. Tooth controlling (17 s),
6. Hard turning (24 s),
7. Hard turning / milling (55 s),
8. Groove milling (28 s),
9. Groove controlling (17 s),
10. Product washing (17 s).

In new production line the transport of the product is carried out with conveyor belts, their speed is 0.1 m/s. Functioning
of the production line is provided by three workers, who are responsible for the smooth operation of the machining centre
and carrying out control checks on the work pieces. Delivery of semi-finished products on the production line is provided
by a forklift. Speed of the forklift is 5 km/h or 83.3 m/min (electronically limited). Semi-finished products, which arrive
in the production line from the external supplier are pre-treaded, also finished products are sent for corrosion protection,
provided by external supplier. Feeding semi-finished products to the production line is carried out by using the robot to
load the first machine centre (thread rolling). Also at the end of the production line a robot move finished products from
the conveyor belt to the box. The implementation of robotic systems in the production process contributes to a more
 28TH DAAAM INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON INTELLIGENT MANUFACTURING AND AUTOMATION

efficient, more reliable and faster production of the products. New concept of the production line is represented in Figure
6, in which we can see new machine centre and the robots at the beginning and at the end of the production line.

Fig. 6. Three-dimensional simulation model of the proposed new machining line

From the following Figure 7 can be seen an increase in the utilization of the production line from 33.82 % (old production
line) to 40.58 % (new production line), utilization is increased by 6,76 % or relatively by 20 %. It should be emphasized
that the number of workers is decreased from the six workers at the old production line to three workers at the new
production line. Smaller number of workers and higher productivity of the new machine centers are responsible for the
smoother, faster, more repayable operations at the new production line. As we said the implementation of the automation
and the robotisation in the new production line contributes to higher reliability, efficiency and robustness of the operating
process.

Fig. 7. Simulation model of the proposed concept

The results predict that the productivity of the new production line with implementation of a new concept will improve
the finished number of products form 440 products to 457 products, manufactured on an individual branch of the newly
proposed concept of the production line. Total number of finished product in the new line is 914 products, over a period
of 425 minutes.
The simulation results are:
- Simulation time: 07:05:00 (h:m:s)
- Total Uptime of all machine centre: 2:09:29:09:228 (d:h:m:s:ms)
- Total Downtime of all machine centre: 08:37:42:150 (h:m:s:ms)
- Utilization: 40,58 %
 28TH DAAAM INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON INTELLIGENT MANUFACTURING AND AUTOMATION

From the graphical representation in Figure 8, we can see the increase of each machine centre utilization. The increase of
the utilization can be attributed to the automation and robotisation of the production process.

Fig. 8. Graphical display of occupancy of the machining line

Simulation study implemented in the programming environment Simio showed that the number of completed products of
two central mirrored production lines (two branches) is higher than number of completed products of existing production
line (Figure 9). From the obtained results we can see that the number of finished products differs just for four products in
positive or negative way, which demonstrate the reliability of the simulation made in simulation programs Autodesk
Process Analysis 360° and Simio.

Fig. 9. Three-dimensional simulation model of the proposed new concept

7. Conclusion

The use of simulation packages, designed for simulation studies, indicates eligibility performance simulation, both for
the purposes of comparing and of introducing the new concept of the production process. It provides a preliminary analysis
of the financial justification of introducing new concepts into an existing manufacturing process. From the above, case it
can be seen that the introduction of a new concept increases the productivity of the production line for 20 %, with a 10 %
raise the occupancy of machining centre. By reducing the number of workers (MNW), from six at the existing production
line to two at the new proposed concept. Introduction of automated production systems increases the robustness of the
system, the higher the reliability, the less the number of downtime, which leads to the financial justification of introducing
automated systems in the production process. It proves the correctness of the simulation results matching final value of
 28TH DAAAM INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON INTELLIGENT MANUFACTURING AND AUTOMATION

the two separate software environments. We can say that the introduction of simulation environments has a positive
impact on the implementation of the concept of Industry 4.0 in the manufacturing process.
In the advancement, we will add some new metaheuristic methods for solving JSSP and MNW problem; we will combine
MatLab code with discrete system simulation and metaheuristic methods. Newly proposed metaheuristic models in
MatLab will be the fundament for creating near optimal multi-criteria optimization of JSSP. The focus will be on
calculation of MNW at the production line.

8. Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge the financial support from the Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS).

9. References

[1] Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution, Word Economic Forum, Cologny/Geneva, Switzerland
[2] Sivakumar, A.I. (2001). Multiobjective dynamic scheduling using discrete event simulation. International Journal of
Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 154-167.
[3] Dehghanimohammadabadi, M. & Keyser, T.K. (2017). Intelligent Simulation: Integration of SIMIO and MATLAB
to deploy decision support systems to simualtion environmnet. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, Vol. 71,
pp. 45-60.
[4] Ripon, K.S.N.; Siddique, N.H. & Torresen, J. (2011). Improved precedence preservations crossover for multi-
objective job shop scheduling problem, Evolving Systems, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 119-129.
[5] Wang, J.F.; Kang, W.L.; Zhao, J.L. & Chu, K.Y. (2016). A simulation approach to the process planning problem using
a modified particle swarm optimization. Advances in Production Engineering & Management, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 77-
92.
[6] Sundar, S.; Suganthan, P. N.; Jin, C. T.; Xiang, C. T. & Soon, C. C. (2015). A hybride artificial bee colony algorithm
for job-shop scheduling problem with no-wait constraint. Soft Computing, pp. 1-10.
[7] Wisittipanich, W. & Kachitvichyanukul, V. (2013). An Efficient PSO Algorithm for Finding Pareto-Frontier in Multi-
Objective Job Shop Scheduling Problems. Industrial Engineering & Management Systems, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 151-
160.
[8] Haider, A. & Mirza, J. (2015). An implementation of lean scheduling in a job shop environment. Advances in
Production Engineering & Management, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 5-17.
[9] Centrobelli, P.; Cerchione, R.; Murino, T. & Gallo, M. (2016). Layout and material flow optimization in digital
factory. International Journal of Simulation Modelling, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 223-235.
[10] Zupan, H.; Herakovic, N.; Starbek, M. & Kusar, J. (2016). Hybride algorithm based on priority rules for simulation
of workshop production. International Journal of Simulation Modelling, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 29-41.
[11] Xu, Y.; Wang, L. & Wang, S. (2013). An effective shuffled frog leaping algorithm for the flexible job shop
scheduling problem. Proceedings of IEEE Computational Intelligence in Control and Automation, Published in 2013
IEEE Symposium on 16-19 April.
[12] Eusuff, M.; Lansey, K. & Pasha, F. (2006). Shuffled forg-leaping algorithm: a memetic meta-heuristic for doscrete
optimization. Engineering Optimization, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 129-154.
[13] Shah-Hosseini, H. (2008). Intelligent water drops algorithm: A new optimization method for solving the multiple
knapsack problem. International Journal of Intelligent Computing and Cybernetics, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.193-212.
[14] Shah-Hosseini, H. (2009). The intelligent water drops algorithm: a nature-inspired swarm-based optimization
algorithm. International Journal of Bio-Inspired Computation, Vol. 1, No. 1/2, pp. 71-79.
[15] Shah-Hosseini, H. (2009). Evoltionary Computation: Optimization with the Nature-Inspired Intelligent Water Drops
Algorithm, I-Tech, Vienna, Austria.
[16] Yongxiang, L.; Xifan, Y. & Jifeng, Z. (2016). Multi-objective Optimization of Cloud Manufacturing Service
Composition with Cloud-Entropy Enhanced Genetic Algorithm. Strojniški vestnik – Journal of Mechanical
Engineering, Vol. 62, No. 10, pp. 577-590.
[17] Supsomboon, S. & Vajasuvimon, A. (2016). Simulation Model for Job Shop Production Process Improvement in
Machine Parts Manufacturing. International Journal of Simulation Modelling, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 611-622.
[18] Zhang, H.; Liu, S. & Ojstersek, R. (2017). An effective use of hybride metaheuristic algorithm for job shop
scheduling problem, International Journal of Simulation Modelling, in press
[19] Woolfson M. M.; Pert G. J. (1999). An Introduction to Computer Simulation. Oxford University Press, New York,
USA.
[20] Buchmeister, B. (2013). Advanced job shop scheduling, DAAAM International, Vienna, Austria.
[21] Pinedo, M. L. (2005). Planning and Scheduling in Manufacturing and Services, Springer Science+Business Media,
LLC, New York, USA.
[22] Strijker P. (2014). Hands-on: Factory Design Suite 2014, Autodesk Inc.
[23] Pegden C. D. & Sturrock D.T. Intruduction to Simio. Winter Simulation Conference (2010), pp. 1-10

View publication stats