Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Manufacturing 13 (2017) 1074–1081
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference 2017, MESIC 2017, 28-30 June
2017, Vigo (Pontevedra), Spain

Simulation, through discrete events, of industrial processes in

productive environments
C. Gárriza,b,*, R. Domingob
a
Volkswagen Navarra, Poligono Landaben s/n, Arazuri 31170, Spain
b
Department of Construction and Manufacturing Engineering, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), C/ Juan del Rosal 12,
Madrid 28040, Spain

Abstract

This paper explains the simulation of a production cell using discrete event simulation. The production cell is included in a car
factory, specifically in the body shop and belongs to the facility of the left front door. The objective of this paper is to analyze the
system before shaping the future real system. Some basic assumptions are incorporated as productivity, data and variables. These
assumptions are the result of experience. Once the simulation model is performed, the results are extracted from the interaction of
the variables and the system. Experiments have also been developed on the same numerical model in order to adapt and obtain
reliable data to validate the real system.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientic committee of the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference 2017.

Keywords:Discrete systems; simulation; productive cell; model.

1. Introduction

The efficiency and flexibility of manufacturing systems have been studied from different points of view because of
the need to respond to market change. An approach can be seen in Calvo et al., [1], where the influence of the quality,
time and cost on flexibility is studied, or in Álvarez et al. [2] where a more efficient and flexible system is designed.

*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: carlos.garriz@vw-navarra.es

2351-9789 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference 2017.
10.1016/j.promfg.2017.09.137
10.1016/j.promfg.2017.09.137 2351-9789

C. Gárriz et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 13 (2017) 1074–1081 1075

In these contexts, different tools are usually recommended to achieve a productive system adapted to the demand [3,4].
On a more particular manner, in manufacturing cells, Askin [5] and Domingo et al. [6] investigated about the
application of concepts related to the group technology of cellular manufacturing. Despite these efforts, the simulation
is a suitable tool due to its versatility and low relative cost to establish future performances in a production system, as
Mourtzis et al. [7] show.
The current situation of the automotive industry and the market demand for new products means that automotive
factories must take strong investments to adapt to this demand. In economic terms this is a high risk. Therefore, it is
necessary to carry out an analysis of the proposed situation before making an investment. The complexity of the
analysis due to the high number of variables and the random events involved make necessary the simulation by discrete
events.
In this sector, Pierreval et al. [8] focus on the development of detailed production models with all of their
interrelations. Ekren and Ornek [9] carried out a simulation of discrete events complemented by mathematical analysis;
they evaluate the effect of several parameters such as scheduling rules, the downtime of the machine, the size of the
lot and transport capacity on the performance of a manufacturing system. Egilmez et al. [10] proposed a non-linear
mathematical model for the design of a cellular manufacturing system, with manufacturing times and demand
uncertainty; moreover they define what the system is appropriate when there is a risk of less than 10% in the better
system design in stochastic environments.
The objective of this work is focused on the simulation of a production cell in the automotive industry. The
production cell is located in the body shop and corresponds with the door on the left side of the vehicle. This work
tries to maximize the productive efficiency of the system from the first stage (design phase) of the cell.
In addition to the main objective, the following complementary objectives are also established:

 Analyze primary and secondary variables.

 Facilitate future improvements in the real system.
 Study the flow of products, resource and people.
 Create standard entities that can be used in other industrial sectors.

In addition and in accordance with Askin [5], the academic research offers numerous models for decision-making.
In these models are not generally considered some of the key issues that arise in the industrial sectors, such as the
management of data and the existing constraints in the productive plants. The development of this work is intended to
cover that part of the gap.

2. Methodology

The methodology has been based on the steps suggested by Banks et al. [11] and Law [12] as it can be shown in
Table I. The conceptualization of the model has been based on the generative theory of systems written by Bertalanffly
[13] (see Fig. 1).

Table 1. Stages followed in the research.

Phase Activity Time

1 Definitionoftheproblem/datacollection
2 Formulationofthemathematicalmodel
3 Obtainingsolutionstotheproblemraised
4 Generation/refinementofthemodel
5 Validityofthemodel
6 Obtainingthefinalmodel
7 DeterminingScenariosforAnalysis
8 Sensitivityanalysis
9 Documentationandconclusionsofthemodel
1076 C. Gárriz et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 13 (2017) 1074–1081

Fig. 1. Simulation methodology. Adapted from Banks et al. [11].

The analysis of this work, the simulation by discrete events, is conducted by the software Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation of Siemens [14] and the probabilistic analysis has been carried out with the software Infostat [15].

3. Methodology

This paper tries to convey the experience gained through the modeling of an industrial process within an automotive
factory. The industrial process of this modeling is located in the body shop. The majority of the automotive production
process is chain production. In general, the automotive factories have the following workshops:

 Press shop
 Body shop
 Paint shop
 Motor assembly shop
 Vehicle assembly shop
 Final revision
 C. Gárriz et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 13 (2017) 1074–1081 1077

3.1. Formulation and general objective of the problem

This simulation model consists of the modeling of the productive cell that manufactures the left front door of the
vehicle. This model attempts to integrate the information available from all of the entities involved in the process,
such as machine availability, production times and work load planning. The simulation obtains a theoretical capacity
of production that should be compared with reality in order to establish critical variables or possible deficiencies of
the system. Therefore, this simulation is intended to maximize the productive function.

3.2. Conceptualization of the system

To achieve a good design of the system and to be able to draw the right conclusions, it is important to understand
the system under study. To get this representation and transformation of reality, the general theory will be used. First
of all, this conception leads to the description of the model as a static system [11,12].
Reality
The manufacture of the front left door of the vehicle is in the body shop. This implies the joining of metal parts
under different bounding technologies.
Research level
Modeling of the reality has been described in the previous point. The objectives are minimizing the availability of
the facility, minimizing the resources and, of course, good planning of the process.
Synergy
As in all systems and in this case, there is synergy because it is composed of different subsystems such as robots,
weld guns, workers, sealer equipment, etc.
In the same way, this system can be considered as a subsystem of the body shop because it is composed of more
systems. Also the body shop represents a subsystem of the workshops that make up a car factory.
Time
The time scale of the system will be seconds since most of the operations are measured in seconds. The magnitude
of the time plays a fundamental role in the simulation of the system. For this reason it is necessary to describe the
system dynamically.
Feedback
On this system there are several types of feedback by different subsystems. There are four areas of safety / control.
For example, the number of pieces (intermediate states of manufacture) produced in each will be one of the indicators
of the productivity of the system. For this reason, it is considered a positive feedback. Depending on the area you are
in, the global objectives are adapted to system level. If negative feedback arises, it will have all the defective parts
(terminated or intermediate states) produced. These results generate corresponding corrective / preventive actions.
System inputs.
The main input variables for the simulation are the following: working schedules, mean time between failures,
mean time to repair failures, percentage of defective parts manufactured and stocks available.
System outputs.
The main output variables for the simulation are the following: production, cost of production and cost of
maintenance.
Entropy / Negative entropy
This concept explains the conservation capacity of the system. In the case of the system under study, lack of
maintenance of the components or the simple slowdown of the components may generate lower yields than expected.
It can be considered as a cause of entropy. In this system, the lack of sufficient capacity on the part of the staff that
makes up the human resources, the lack of clear procedures or lack of planning may also be considered as entropy.
All this can be counteracted by preventive actions to avoid degrading the system (negative entropy) and counteract
the factors that generate entropy as preventive maintenance, staff training, detail and elaboration of procedures.
1078 C. Gárriz et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 13 (2017) 1074–1081

3.3. Product flow

The production sequence of the door must be clear before the modelling of the facility. This production follows a
logical process, starting with the interior parts / base of the door and ending with the view parts. It can be shown in
Fig. 2. An intermediate flow diagram is shown in Fig. 3. Moreover, in the simulation model it is important to introduce
in each of the processes the probability distribution that is more similar to the real process.

Fig. 2. Product flow diagram to be modelled.

Fig. 3. Intermediate flow diagram.

3.4. Translation of the model

As mentioned above, the production cell of the left door is distributed across four areas. This division occurs for
several reasons. One is for risk reduction. Keep in mind that the area to be simulated is a large area and there are
 C. Gárriz et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 13 (2017) 1074–1081 1079

numerous units, tables and robots. One of the root causes that lead to this division is the easy and quick identification
of a failure. In addition, in the event of a fault, it is possible that the other areas will continue to work until the saturation
or correction of the fault. This is especially important because in many cases it absorbs the repair time. Therefore,
they can reduce the loss of production. The simulation model for zone 1 is shown in Fig. 4 as an example. At a general
level the model is represented in a simplified way as shown in Fig. 5, which shows the four different work areas.

Fig. 4. Simulation model.Zone 1.

Fig. 5. Complete model process.

3.5. Validation of the model

Each of the proposed stages has a great similarity with reality. As far as the probability distributions are, they have
been calculated for each workstation. These have been calculated based on actual data. Therefore, in this sense, it can
be concluded that the model is faithful to reality. The most important validation the comparison of how many inputs
or outputs of the modelled system can be compared to reality. The model is validated through the data collected for
its design and the identical structure of the model with reality. The rest of the information entered, as the average time
between failures and mean time to repair, is valid by itself because it is taken from actual data that have been
introduced in the model. The model created is valid for the analysis. Using this model, it can be understood the
productive flow and identify potential bottlenecks to reach conclusions for the improvement of the same. These
conclusions will be extrapolated to the real model.

4. Results and discussion

Results are based on long term simulations, namely the time that the system takes to reach the steady state is
considered. In addition, according to Banks et al. [5], the required number of replicas to obtain reliable averages must
be determined.
1080 C. Gárriz et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 13 (2017) 1074–1081

4.1. Analysis of the model in steady state

In order to analyze the steady state, the model analysis aims to eliminate the transitional period from the start of
the simulation. The variable on which this state will be studied, it will be the production variable given that this is the
main objective of the paper. Therefore, when this variable is in the steady state, it is considered that the entire system
will be in the same state. Five replicas of a simulation of a year have been taken for the calculation of this state. Once
these replicas are realized, the average of all replicas will be taken and plotted to observe the inflection point at steady
state. As shown in Fig. 6, the steady state is reached in 58.694 minutes. Taking into account the work schedule, this
amount is equivalent to 46 days of work. Given that the working day is fixed at 220 days, is set from the 46 day and
until the 220 day the stationary state. This is the strip that has worked.

Fig. 6. Production / hour based on time.

4.2. Number of tests required

Given that the final data are random, it must be obtained several tests and averages. One of the questions that can
be raised is the number of tests needed to be carried out. This number depends on the disparity in the results obtained
between the tests. For this calculation, there were 5 replicas with the same duration. With the calculated data, 3 tests
of the experiment are necessary to obtain trustworthy results. These data have been calculated with a confidence
interval of 95%.

4.3. Analysis of results

This section shows the results in terms of production of each of the elements that make up the system. By way of
example, it can see the partial operation of the zone 1. The 3 blocks in which there are manual loading of parts are
represented. In the AFO100 station, it must be checked the correct geometry. It is a single piece and the processing
time is high. For that, the blocking ratio is also high. In the EAFO120 there is component failure of around 5%. There
is also a waiting ratio because the person, who works in this station, needs to move in the set of 3 loading windows.
And in the EAFO130 there is a component waiting for a later assembly.
It can also display the working time of the person. In Fig. 7, can be noted that the working time of a person is 96%.
Other concepts such as the displacement can also be seen in the Figure. Moreover, this Figure is especially useful to
show the saturation of a station and to know the station that determines the cycle time. Finally in terms of facility
production and according to the established premise, it is possible to manufacture a door every 52 seconds.
 C. Gárriz et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 13 (2017) 1074–1081 1081

Fig. 7. Partial statistics zone 1 and working time by the operator.

5. Conclusions

The academic research has provided many models for decision-making, but usually some of the fundamental
questions that have arisen in the industrial sector have not been considered. With the development of this work is
intended to cover part of this gap. This paper corresponds to the design phase of the installation. Computer simulation
has the great advantage in not requiring large investments. Examples of this have been the non-introduction of more
personnel in the loading stations or the change of the supply concept. This analysis has been carried out from the point
of view of the productivity and installation availability. In the future opens a line of research, consisting in the analysis
of the efficiency and sustainability of the facility through discrete event simulation.

References

[1] R. Calvo, R. Domingo, M.A. Sebastián, Int. J. Flex. Manuf. Sys. 19 (2007) 247-263.
[2] R. Álvarez, R. Calvo, M.M. Peña, R. Domingo, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech. 43 (2009) 949-958.
[3] R. Domingo, R. Álvarez, M. Melodía Peña, R. Calvo, Assembly Autom. 27 (2007) 141-147.
[4] R. Domingo, S. Aguado, Sustainability. 7 (2015) 9031-9047.
[5] R.G. Askin. Int. J. Prod. Res. 51 (2013) 6778-6787.
[6] R. Domingo, C. González, R. Calvo, CIT Inf. Tecnológica. 15 (2004) 55-60.
[7] D. Mourtzis, M. Doukas, D. Bernidaki, Procedia CIRP. 25 (2014) 213-229.
[8] H. Pierreval, R. Bruniaux, C. Caux, Simul. Model. Pract. Th. 15 (2007) 185-198.
[9] B.Y. Ekren, A.M. Ornek, Simul. Model. Pract. Th. 16 (2008) 278–293.
[10] G. Egilmez, G.A. Süer, J. Huang, Comput. Ind. Eng. 63 (2012) 842–854.
[11] J. Banks, J. Carson, B. Nelson, D. Nicol, Discrete event system simulation, fourth edition, Prentice Hall, 2005.
[12] A. Law, Simulation, Modeling and Analysis, fourth edition, McGraw-Hill, 2006
[13] L. Bertalanffly, Teoría general de los sistemas, Fondo de cultura económica, first edition in Spanish, 1976.
[14] Siemens. Tecnomatix. Available at: www.plm.automation.siemens.com (2017).
[15] Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Infostat. Available at: www.infostat.com (2017).