ABSTRACT

Manufacturing automotive Gear box components is a complex task involving the integration of
hundreds of components. Simulation is commonly applied in the design and implementation of
such production systems. Examples of such systems are the crankshaft machining line, engine
final assembly and transmission final assembly, to name a few. Invariably, different Gear boxes
and transmission sub-assemblies are machined and assembled on separate systems. The
completed sub-assemblies are then assembled to the gear or transmission main assembly. There
are many areas within a Gear box assembly plant that show complicated behavior due to the
varying nature of manufacturing processes. Not only the variation in process, but the schedules,
availability of workers, and the performance of material handling equipment are only few of the
factors contributing to the randomness in operation. Test areas where the final assembly is
inspected for functionality present an example of such highly random operation. Simulation is a
very useful tool for investigating the behavior of such complicated systems. This paper discusses
the need for and uses of discrete event simulation in the design of manufacturing systems for
Gear plant assemblies. The benefits of such applications of simulation are illustrated by using a
sample study of the final gear box test and repair area.
 1. Introduction
Gear manufacturing plant is a complex task that requires the production
and integration of thousands of gear boxes and bearings. The Gearing system is one of the most
important pieces of every automobile. The engine and the transmission are the major components
that constitute a Gear system. Manufacturing gear boxes of good quality is essential to the
quality of the automobile. Typically all major automotive components or sub-assemblies such as
gear, engines and transmissions are produced separately and assembled to each other and to the
chassis in the final assembly stage of an automobile. Thus, the major components that make up
the engine such as camshaft, crankshaft etc. are machined and/or assembled into respective
subassemblies. The sub-assemblies are then assembled together to make an engine.

Discrete event simulation is now a standard tool used in the design and implementation of
different automotive manufacturing systems ranging from a connecting rod machining sub-
system all the way up to the automotive assembly system. Examples of some successful
applications can be found in Ulgen et al. 1994, Gunal et al. 1996, and Jeyebalan et al. 1992.
Objectives for using simulation vary. Common objectives, to name a few, include (Jayaraman
and Agarwal 1996), System throughput determination, Bottleneck detection, Manpower
allocation and optimization, Comparing operating philosophies, Logistics systems design and
analysis, Analysis of materials storage issues, Optimizing shift patterns, Materials handling
systems design. This paper focuses on the use of simulation for automobile gear plant production
systems. The benefits of simulation are demonstrated by focusing on a small part of gear final
assembly systems: gear final test and repair area and then transmission of dear boxes through
conveyer belts. In every gear and transmission assembly, one of the final operations performed
on each assembly is testing. Testing is performed on each assembly at a specially designed test
stand. Typically test stands take a longer time to process an assembly compared with other
stations in the system. Also, the repair operation shows a random process time as the nature of
faults in a gear assembly can be due to many different reasons. Those characteristics lead to a
requirement for more than one test stand. As in a typical setup each test stand is connected to the
rest of the assembly line through conveyors, arrangement of test stations for utilizing them
uniformly and effectively is essential to save cost and to satisfy the demand. Given the dynamics
of the testing area, simulation is frequently applied to evaluate different alternatives and to select
the best configuration.

Discrete event simulation is different from the continuous event simulation,

instantaneous change in system state can be takes place in discrete event
simulation, where in other simulations it cant be. Railway reservation
counter, coffee shop queue etc. are examples for the discrete event
simulation (Mathew, 2013). Fujimoto (1990) explained that a discrete event
simulation model assumes that in simulated time the system which is
simulated at discrete points changes state. Upon the occurrence of an event
the simulation model jumps from one state to another. The discrete event
simulation can be done in WITNESS, Arena etc. the software which is used to
simulate this example is WITNESS.

A plant has to be modelled in WITNESS software as given in the problem

description, which produces gearboxes. It is said that the revenue for the
described model has to be found and comment on it. The gears for the
gearboxes come from an outer world which is manufactured outside this
plant, where it passes on the conveyor belt. The flow of the parts and its
assemblage, inspection, disassembling and further steps has to be
considered while designing the model. The process of the plant is as
described in the block diagram as shown below in fig.1.
 Figure 1: block diagram of plant using WITNESS

The model is designed and several tests have done to find the required
results. It has to find the revenue of the system which eventually gives how
much the plant could make for a year (the results gives for 2 weeks). And it
is possible to compare it with the budget after doing the optimisation. The
breakdown characteristics for the system are also described in the report. In
section 2 of the paper, a typical Gear assembly manufacturing setup is introduced with an
emphasis on the problems that can be best addressed through simulation. Then in section 3, a
detailed discussion of the need for using simulation in the design of such systems is discussed.
Illustration of the uses of simulation in design of similar areas is given in section 4. The
conclusions of the study are presented in section 5.

1.1 Description of System

The plant which was described in the problem description has explained in
the following section in order to have a deeper detail into the model. The
gear which is manufactured in an outside plant comes to the plant and feed
to the Conveyor belt. The gear manufactured outside the world has 80mm x
80mm x 100 mm and it is fed to 20m length conveyor. The conveyor feeds
the assembly unit where the gear assembles with bearing and casting to
form gearbox. The maximum capacity of the conveyor is 180 parts and the
speed is 5 m/min. Bearings are drawn to Assembly at the other hand and
casting to CNC.

The castings are drawn to CNC machine to machine and bore it. An Operator
is assigned to load and unload the parts to the machines. The cycle time was
distributed uniform in CNC machine for loading and unloading, where for 0.5
minutes to 1.0 minutes for loading and maximum of 0.9 minutes for
unloading. The time for machining in the CNC will take 2.3 minutes. The
inspection is done for every 20 th gearbox passed through the CNC and the
other gearboxes go to the buffer called bin, the maximum capacity of the Bin
is 50 parts. The cycle time is triangularly distributed in inspection station,
where 0.8 minutes minimum and maximum of 2.2 minutes. Plant details are
given in the problem description and it is used to design the model in order
to find the revenue of the plant.

2. Methodology

The background and methods related to the modelling and the system has
been discussed in the following section.
2.1 Petri Net
Petri net is the basis for the modelling of this plant which has stochastic
system with discrete event. Ling (2001) said that Petri net method was
introduced by Carl Adam Petri in the year 1962. This method can be used to
model a distributed system with concurrency, synchronization, distribution,
parallel, nondeterministic or stochastic (Ling, 2001and Murata1989). It can
be used as an aid to communicate which gives an overview like flow chart,
block diagrams and similar mathematical tools.

The Petri net comes from Carl Adam Petris dissertation which give chances
for both practitioners and theoreticians to communicate between them
(Murata, 1989). Murata (1989) in his paper said that after Petri introduces
the method there were many active research conducted on this method,
which was especially by computer structure group of MIT. Petri net have
permissiveness inherent and generality due to that this method can be used
in wide range of applications. Parallel and concurrent activities can be
denoted using Petri net even though it has complexity problem. Computer
aided tools has been used to do the Petri net practically (Murata, 1989).

Petri net has two kinds of nodes, which are places and transitions. Places
represent the condition of the system using a circle where the transition is
denoted by bars which represent the condition of the system. The connection
between the transition to places and (or) places to transition are connected
using the Arcs. The set of places and transitions are denoted by m and n. The
pre incidence matrix denotes the direction of arcs from places towards
transitions, whereas the direction of arc from transition to places is said as
post incidence matrix (Fanti, n.d).

Yang (2014) said that when looking at the examples which as shown in the
figure 2a & 2b the buffers or queues turned from places and processes
become from the transitions. In the example explained the transition has a
time. When the inputs are fully marked in the system, after a pre-
determined time they fire. In this example, parts arrive at every 6 minutes
whereas the process takes 10 minutes, this can be seen in fig.2b. It is the
raw idea about the Petri net with the discrete event simulation.

2.2 Modelling
The system is modelled using WITNESS, a short brief
about the witness was given in the introduction of the report. WITNESS is
discrete event stochastic system simulation software which is supplied by
Lanner Group. Inc. There are four main components used to model the
system. They are parts, machines, buffers, variables and function.

The parts are taken to the machines as per the required modelling. The parts
which are used in this system are gears, castings and bearings, which then
makes into gearboxes. The buffers are used to as a special function in the
system to act as bin, testing and other supportive actions, which are very
important. And the variables give the way to their actions to be done in the
system. For example, in inspection station, it says that 78% of the parts will
be in the upper tolerance limit and the CNC has to be cleaned. This function
in the system has been done with the help of the variable, as shown in the
program structure below.

IF Binomial ( 0.78,20 )< N passed

CleanCNC =1
 N passed =0

ELSE

N passed =N passed + 1

ENDIF

The actions for start till finish have to be defined in each component in the
system. PULL and PUSH can be used to take or give the process with
another. Each component in the system has its own functionality and
importance in the system to work with. The operations in the system can be
controlled by operator(s), when there is multitalented operator the necessity
number of operator is less. These functions and operators in the system
could lead to the revenue management of the model. Operators shift and
the revenue of the system can be also managed in this. The program
structure which shows above has a binomial function in order to replicate the
fact that for every 20 parts there is a chance of getting 78% parts near the
upper tolerance limit. And cleaning the CNC can be done with the variable
and after the CNC has cleaned the N passed variable can be used to make
the system to next.

The input rule for the assembly machine has to be done in sequence because
each part has to be assembled to get a gearbox. The casting, gear and
bearing are sequentially taken to the system from their respective source
and it is done in the structure as below.

SEQUENCE /Wait Casting out of Bin (1),

Gear out of Conveyor Belt at Front ( 2),

 Bearings out of WORLD (2)

After the assembly, all the parts have been changed to gearbox in the
system by giving the function in the ACTION ON FINISH of the Assembly. The
function was

CHANGE ALL to Gearbox

The gearbox is assembled and it has to be tested in another machine. Before

the gearboxes go to the test machine it has sent to the test buffer and
tested, further testing has done in the test machine. There is a chance that
the 93% passes the test whereas 7 % fails to clear it. This has been found
from the previous operations done which is explained in the case. The failed
gearboxes go to the disassembly station and the product is disassembled
and the bearings and castings go to the scrap while the gears go to the
conveyor belt.

The operator shift can be selected and managed in several ways. It can be
done by giving proper shifts with off or without. The duration of the shift can
be given. The description asks for a 10 day work, which can be duration of 2
weeks, with 2 days off in a week. These have to be given appropriately in
order to replicate the real system.

2.2.1 Revenue
The cost and revenue of the system can be defined in the using the witness.
It is possible to determine the machine rate, cost function for a plant etc. To
find the machine rate, the time required to get back the money paid for the
machine, the time required to run by the machine to get the money back. As
well as the machine rate the cost function for a plant can be done (Yang,
2014).

It has to be done based on the direct and indirect cost. For example, we have
to divide the cost of a machine by some period of time, say 3 years. And the
cost of that machine is 12000. And the operator cost can be also find for an
hour, as like these the costs has to be identified for all. And the actual
revenue can be calculated for the system using these results (Yang, 2014
and Lanner.com, 2008).

The revenue for the given system can be found using the equation 1. The
parts of the equations are defined from the way explained earlier. Thus the
revenue of this system can be identified. Yang (2014) explained that the
revenue of the system has to be maximum.

NQty ( Assembly)0.9+
RETURN NShip(Gearbox )80

NQty(CNC )12+ NQty (Test Buffer )0.1+

NQty(Test Bench )1.1+ NQty(Operator )16.3580 (eq.1)

Lanner.com (2008) in their website stated many case study about the
companies which had improved their revenue and production with the help
of Witness analysis. It is clear to look after the revenue of the system to
know the characteristics and to improve the system.

2.2.2 Budget
The budget to set up the plant has been allocated as described in the plant
description. It is given fifteen thousand pounds to set up the plant, excluding
the CNC. There are several costs incurred with any plants, the costs can be
described as direct cost and indirect cost (Yand, 2014). All the costs related
to the system have to be contained within the given budget. There is a list of
machines which have to be incurred in the budget calculation and compared
with the revenue which gives the best from the plant. The formula (Eq.2)
which is updated in the budget function is as below.

Return NQty( Assembly )1800+ NQty (Bin)200+

 Nqty (Test Bench )2200+ NQty (Operator )1500 (eq.2)

2.2.3 Optimization

A case study which was done at Volkswagen by its Industrial Engineering

department of Slovakia used WITNESS to optimize the new production and
logistics system in the firm. This resulted them to get a better output in the
company (Lanner.com, 2003). As Volkswagen done optimization using the
WITNESS several other organizations use the same to improve their
functionalities. The optimization in the simulation is a valuable technique
which can be used for business process behavior investigation. The
simulation optimization can be used to find the mathematical and statistical
reports which can be used to find the most optimal favorable output with
managing the input to the system (Chramcov, 2013).

Chramcov (2013) explained that optimization can be used to orchestrate the

simulation of a systems sequence which would provide an optimal solution.
Lanner group provide optimization mode for the purpose of testing different
combinations in the model which can be used to find the best among them
(Markt and Mayer, 1997). Chramcov (2013) explained that Hill climb
algorithm is the basis to do the optimization, the work also give detail
statistics and results of an example with optimization. The result from the
optimization should be low production cost, high revenue or higher
throughput level. The optimization in a system is to maximize or minimize a
particular function by making up the inputs related to it. This model has also
been subjected to optimization for the same reason that the results has to be
the best and with those results the organization can improve their key goal,
improve their profit. There are several mathematical algorithms used for
optimization, Hill climb is one among them and it has been used in this work.
Juels and Wattenberg(1994) explained Hill climbing by looking at the
optimization as a landscape where the height of each point and the solution
for each s corresponds to the fitness of the solution(f(s)), then with a higher
fitness hill climb surge to a peak by moving to nearby state. It can be used to
search for solution space.

Hill climbing follows several simple steps, which starts from picking a random
point in the search space. Then the neighboring of the current state has to
be considered, and the neighbor with the best quality has been chosen and
moved to that place. Repeat the method till all the neighboring states
become lower quality (Kendall, n. d.). This algorithm is the basis for the hill
climb and it is used in the optimization of the system.

2.2.4 Breakdown
Waller (2010) says about the breakdown that A key cause of variability in
manufacturing systems can be the breakdown of equipment. The science of
modelling breakdowns is, to my mind, underdeveloped. So for every system there
will be a breakdown to be considered and it is possible to depict that in WITNESS.
Different causes of interruption in machine at multiple breakdowns can be
interpreted in WITNESS, the distribution has to be chosen well. The behavior of the
distributions curve can be differing from the real life one to the system curve, which
leads from a few failures (Waller, 2010).

There are two options of modeler in witness when the system breakdown. One of
them is to retain the part in the cycle and after the repair is done the cycle
continues with the same part. The second option is to scrap the part and after
repairing a new cycle starts with a new part (Tague, 2010). The breakdown for the
system has to be considered while doing this model. It was told to consider 90
minutes breakdown time in the system. As the name says the breakdown time
denote the time taken to repair the machine along with the breaking down. It is
necessary to define and display the machine appropriately before detailing the
breakdown (Lanner, 2008).

Breakdown Counter has been used in the system to show the number of breakdown
occur. The time between breakdown for the Conveyor is 10000 minutes whereas for
the CNC is 50000 minutes. The function used to count the number of breakdown is
as below.

Breakdown counter=Breakdown_counter+1

3. Result
There are two tasks in the problem description which has to be done. First
one is to optimize the system and to identify the best revenue for the system
within the budget. The system can be broken down at several point in order
to identify the character of the plant, it is the second task.

3.1 Optimization
Optimization is a comprehensive experimental technique in the WITNESS. It
can be used to experiment the system which would give nearly equal real
time result. Those results can be utilized to find the vulnerability and
modification which has to be made in the system.

The revenue and the budget of the plant are found for the suitable setup by
optimizing the plant. It has been explained about the optimization and its
background in the previous section. The plant we use has several machines,
parts, buffers and variables. Machines, functions and variables have been
linked to the optimization tool, it uses hill climb algorithm. The selected
components are taken to optimization which gives the best result for the
system. The components which were used to optimize are Assembly, Bin,
and Conveyor belt, Operator, Test Bench and Test Bench. These components
were optimized by using the hill climb algorithm. The minimum quantity
given for each component is 1 and maximum quantity given to each
component is 3. So with the help of hill climb algorithm it uses combination
of components to do the optimization. And it could be able to find the best
for the plant. Thus the best revenue can be found which comes within the
budget.

Hill climb chooses the combination as like climbing a hill to give the proper
result. The stochastic hill climb has been defined for this system. Random
 restarts could be used to do the hill climb, there will be (n-1)! /2 possible
combinations. From this possible combination it has to find the best to suit
the criteria as per the hill climbing algorithm. So the value for the revenue
and budget can be found.

The algorithm used is Hill climb where the warm up time is 1440 minutes and
run time is 14400 minutes. These values are obtained for 2 weeks and this
has to be calculated manually for a year. The values after optimization are
shown in Table.1. After optimizing the combination using the hill climb
algorithm it gives revenue for each combination with respect to the budget.
The aim of the optimization is to find the maximum revenue with given
budget.

The revenue and budget for the best is obtained from the combination 45,
which has 2 assemblies, 1 Bin, 3 Conveyor belts, 3 Test_benchs, 1 Test
buffers and 3 operators. This combination gives the best revenue for the
system within the allowed budget 15k. The revenue which would incur for
two weeks is 87500 which needs 14900 budget. So the combination of
these components can give a better value for the two week time. .2275000
is the total revenue for the whole year.

Conve Test_be Test

Assem Bi yor nchs Buffer Oper
Evalu Revenu ator Budg
bly n shift
ation e _Be . . et
. .
lt Quantit Quantit
Quant Quanti
. y y
ity ty
Quant
ity
0 5222 2 3 1 2 1 3 131
8 00
1 3918 1 3 1 2 1 3 113
0 00
2 5254 2 2 1 2 1 3 129
8 00
3 5214 2 1 1 2 1 3 127
8 00
5 5190 2 2 1 3 1 3 151
0 00
 7 5254 2 2 1 2 2 3 129
0 00
9 5084 2 2 1 2 1 4 144
0 00
12 5167 2 2 1 1 1 3 107
6 00
15 5281 2 2 1 2 1 2 114
6 00
16 4048 1 2 1 2 1 2 96
8 00
18 5200 2 2 1 3 1 2 136
8 00
19 4324 2 2 1 2 1 1 99
4 00
20 5218 2 2 1 1 1 2 92
4 00
22 7313 2 2 2 2 1 2 114
6 00
23 7312 2 2 2 2 2 2 114
8 00
24 7368 2 2 2 3 1 2 136
8 00
25 8400 2 2 3 3 1 2 136
8 00
27 8321 3 2 3 3 1 2 154
6 00
29 8750 2 2 3 3 1 3 151
0 00
30 8750 2 3 3 3 1 3 153
0 00
32 8749 2 2 3 3 2 3 151
2 00
35 7606 2 2 2 3 1 3 151
0 00
37 8630 3 2 3 3 1 3 169
8 00
38 8541 1 2 3 3 1 3 133
2 00
42 8702 2 2 3 2 1 3 129
8 00
45 8750 2 1 3 3 1 3 149
0 00

Table.1. Revenue and Budget after optimization.

3.2 Breakdown
Another task to identify the character of the system after it is broken down.
Every plant has breakdown and its unavoidable. Forecasting the breakdown
and effects can be helpful to manage the breakdown and its after effect can
be reduced or totally avoided. The breakdown will reduce the outcome of the
system, so identifying them in the experimentation can be helpful for
forecasting and modifications can be done according to that.

Conveyor Belt and CNC are breaking down for 90 minutes in the experiment
on the daily production rate. And the time between each failure given for the
Conveyor Belt is 10000 minutes, whereas for CNC machine is 5000 minutes.
So the percentage broken down of the system can be identified from the
statistics report of the machines. When the Conveyor Belt and CNC broken
down, remaining machines in the system will also get affected by the
breakdown. The effect of broken down those two machines on them and
other machines can be critically analyzed with the statistical report from
before and after breaking down. Each machine in the system has been
analyzed with those statistical report before and after break down further.

The Table.2a shows the statistics report of the Conveyor Belt before the
Break down. Since the Conveyor is not broken down the broken down value
shows 0 whereas 29.05% is moving and 70.95 % parts were blocked on the
conveyor. The average time for the Conveyor belt is 22.38. The same results
for the conveyor after broken down are shown in Table.1b as below. After the
break down, it says 0.69% broken down whereas the move is 28.4% and
blocked is 70.9%. Remaining data for the system after the broken down can
be found from the Table.2b.

Table.2a. Conveyor Belt statistics before breakdown.

 Table.2b. Conveyor Belt statistics after breakdown

The CNC is break down 90 minutes for a day rate, the data for the CNC
before Break down. Table.2a shows the data for the CNC before the
breakdown and Table.2b shows the statistics of CNC after the breakdown.

Table.3a. CNC statistics before breakdown.

The %busy in the CNC is 45.31, whereas 29.93% and cycle wait labor
24.61%. These data show the results which has a multistep machine. The
other data for the system also show in the Table.3a.
 Table.3b. CNC statistics after breakdown.

The 2.08% broken down shows the data for the system, which eventually
changes whole other values in the data. The percentage of block is 30.11%.

Inspection, the machine is also identified for the system. The % idle and %
busy of the system is 96.55 and 0.86 respectively. The machine is 1.83%
blocked which is before the breakdown. The same for the machine after the
break down is also identified. The results are 98% idle, 0.86% busy, .47%
blocked, and 0% broken down for the Inspection station after the breakdown.

Table.4a. Inspection station statistics before breakdown.

 Table.4b. Inspection station statistics after breakdown.

Assembly machine also investigated, for before and after the breakdown of
defined two machines. The results are shown in table.5a and table.5b.

Table.5a. Assembly machine statistics before breakdown.

 Table.5b. Assembly machine statistics after breakdown.

Assembly machine is56.7 % idles before breakdown and 57.48% after broken
down. So as for % busy and Cycle wait Labor it is 37.72 and 5.58 before
break down and 36.99% and 5.54% after Broken down.

The same result for the disassembly, before and after break down is shown in
the below table, table.6a and table.6b. The % idle for disassembly machine is
96.43 whereas after the breakdown it is 96.8%. The same can be analyzed
for percentage busy and percentage cycle wait labor before breakdown and
after, which are 2.1% and 1.47 %respectively. The same after breakdown is
1.94% and 1.26% respectively.

Table.6a. Disassembly machine statistics before breakdown.

 Table.6b. Disassembly machine statistics after breakdown.

The statistics for the Test Bench is shown as in the table.6a and table.6b. The
value for % idle before breakdown for the Test Bench is 69.6% and after
broken down is 69.94%. And the machine is 25.27% busy before breakdown
and 24.79% after Broken down. It is blocked .18% before the broken down.
The no of operations in the machine before break down is 103 and after
broken down it is101.

Table.7a. Test Bench statistics before breakdown

 Table.7b. Test Bench statistics after breakdown.

The further statistics for the parts and buffer has no much significance in the
experiment so it is not explained in the system, rather the results are
included in the appendix.

4. Discussion
The system was designed and simulated using WITNESS. The results
obtained from the simulation have given an idea about the plant and what
and how it is going to work. The optimization result says that while using the
combination of 2 assemblies, 1 Bin, 3 Conveyor belts, 3 Test_benchs, 1 Test
buffers and 3 operators, plant gives high revenue which every organization is
looking for. It was important that to get this revenue within 15k Pounds
budget. So the budget used to get the advised revenue is 14900 for two
weeks. By looking at the revenue with the budget an organization can
forecast their outcome and they can help to improve their results.

This plant gives a total of .2275000 per year using the Witness. The
feasibility of the model and method cant be confident, because every
computer model cant give a real time equal result. The model is simulated
for 14400 minutes, which is of two weeks. That result has to be converted to
a year. Even though the simulation gives nearly equal values to the real
world, it is hard to emphasis on those results which may vary higher or lower.
So depending on the simulation totally to find the characteristics is not
advisable.

The breakdown results of the machines showed how each machines effect
from the two machine breakdown. The CNC and conveyor belt is the starting
point in the plant which feeds other machines has to work properly in order
to make whole plant not idle. The counter in the system shows how many
breakdowns happen in the system during the period of two weeks, with two
days shut down per week. The counter reading says there were 2
breakdowns throughout the period. The values and effects of break downs
may vary in the real world. Due to the break down the production reduces
and it would affect the revenue of the system. The reduction in production
can be identified by the Number shipped function, there was a difference in
10 gearboxes before and after breakdown. There are several other factors
which cant be coupled with the simulation model. As every computer model
has drawbacks, it too has some since it cant incur every real time aspects of
the system.

5. Conclusion
The plant has been modelled and optimized using the WITNESS software.
The model gives optimal values for the optimization and breakdown. The
optimization of the system gives the best revenue which would get within
the given budget. The revenue obtained for a year for that particular budget
within 15k is .2275000. This would be a good outcome from the plant as
per the requirements. The detailed results of optimization will give ways to
manage the plant and the components in each way, subjected to available
budget. So the optimization gives an idea about the plant, but the values
cant be same as for real world because many factors which would affect the
real world cant be depicted in the model.

The breakdown of conveyor and CNC shows a significant change in the plant.
When these components broken-down, it would affect whole the system and
it would subjected to idling, broken down and blocking in each machines. As
per the given time interval between breakdown, the breakdown counter
shows 2 breakdown in the plant for two weeks. So there would be 52
breakdowns in the system whole year. But there are a lot other things could
happen in the plant, which may lead whole plant to be idle for very long
time. This might lead the result to get wrong and whole other results become
wrong. So even though the prediction is done in the system, it is really hard
to depend these results because no software can depict the real world
exactly. Eventually it is possible to understand that the breakdown can
reduce the production that reduces the revenue.

6. References

Gunal, A., S.Sadakane, and E.J.Williams. 1996. Modeling of Chain Conveyors

and Their Equipment Interfaces, Proceedings of the 1996 Winter Applications
of Simulation in the Design of Automotive Manufacturing Systems 763
Simulation Conference, eds., J. Charnes, D. M. Morrice, D. T. Brunner, J. J.
Swain, IEEE, Picataway, NJ, 1353-1358.
Black, J., J.Bulat, B.Colwell, R.Combs, and H.Potvin. 1996. Simulation in
Automotive Industry - Today and the Next Five Years, Panel Session Chaired
by O. Ulgen, Proceedings of the Autofact Conference, SME, Dearborn, MI,
November, 947-961.
Grajo, E., A.Gunal, D.Sathyadev, O.Ulgen. 1994. A Uniform Methodology for
Discrete-Event and Robotic Simulation, Proceedings of the Deneb Users Group
Meeting, Deneb Robotics, Inc., 17-24.
Jayaraman, A., and A.Agarwal. 1996. Simulating an Engine Plant,
Manufacturing Engineering, Vol 117, No. 5, 60-68.
Jeyebalan, V. J. and N. C. Otto. 1992. Simulation of Material Delivery Systems
with Dolly Trains, Proceedings of the 1992 Winter Simulation Conference,
eds., J. Swain, D. Goldsman, R. C. Crain, J. Wilson, IEEE, Picataway, N. J., 916-
924
 Ulgen, O., A.Gunal, E.Grajo, and J.Shore. 1994. The Role of Simulation in
Design and Operation of Body and Paint Shops in Vehicle Assembly Plants,
Proceedings of The European Simulation Symposium, Society for Computer
Simulation International, 124-128
Chen, C.H. 2010. Stochastic Simulation Optimization: An Optimal Computing
Budget Allocation, London: World Scientific Publication, pp. 1-7.
Fanti, M. P. n.d modelling by Petri net, Dipartimento di electtrotecnica Ed
Elettronica, Polytechnic of Bari, Italy.
Fujimoto, R.M. 1990. Parallel Discrete Event Simulation, Communication of
the ACM, 33(10), pp. 30-53.
Juels, A and Wattenberg, M. 1994. Stochastic Hill climbing as a Baseline
Method for Evaluating
Lanner.com. 2008. Simulation and Simulation Software Explained, [online]
<http://www.lanner.com/en/simulation-explained.cfm> [Accessed on 26
March 2014].
Lanner.com, 2003. Volkswagen Slovakia uses WITNESS simulation software
from the Lanner Group to optimize new production and logistics systems,
[online] <http://www.lanner.com/en/case-study.cfm?
theCaseStudyID=CA50B631-15C5-F4C0-9907D7DA102B2F92> [Accessed on
16 April 2014]
Markt, P. L. and Mayer, M. H. 1997. Witness Simulation Software a Flexible
Suite of Simulation Tools, Proceedings of the 1997 Winter Simulation
Conference. Pp. 712-717
Matthew, J. 2013. Discrete event simulation: Resonance: Journal of Science
Education.[online] <http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=d5d4e5c1-
a1df-49be-a267-fda491beeffa
%40sessionmgr4002&vid=1&hid=4114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ
%3d%3d#db=ehh&AN=85283434> [Accessed on 28 March 2014]
Murata, T. 1989. Petri nets: Properties, Analysis and Applications, Proceedings
of the IEEE, 77(4), pp.541-580.
Robinson, S. 2004. Simulation: The Practice of Model Development and Use,
Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, p.40.
Sava, A.T. and Alla, H. 2006. A control synthesis approach for time discrete
event systems, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 70, pp.250265.
Tague, M. Simulatyion Blog-WITNESS Power with Ease 3 - New Breakdown
functionality, [online] <http://www.lanner.com/en/blog-entry.cfm?
 theFqID=092A18A3-15C5-F4C0-995A6FF40DF52802>[Accessed on 16 April
2014]
Waller, T. 2010. Simulation Blog-Breaking Down Breakdowns, [online]
<http://www.lanner.com/en/blog-entry.cfm?theFqID=698845A0-15C5-F4C0-
99764B68F0DEFBDF> [Accessed on 16 April 2014]
Yang, X.S. 2014. Discrete-Event Simulation: Introduction to Witness, PDE4905
Engineering Simulation. Middlesex University. London