2003
DOI: 10.1080/0232929031000075313
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reduced Discrete-Event Simulation Models for Medium-Term Production Scheduling

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
3
3

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, starting from a detailed manufacturing model, Johnson et al (2005) propose a simple procedure that (i) establishes a list of machines ordered according to their utilization, (ii) selects those machines with a low utilization from the list and replaces them with constant delays, and (iii) validates the resulting reduced model by comparing its outputs with those found for the detailed model. Similar examples, employing different methods and different manufacturing settings, are given by Innis and Rexstad (1983), Yin and Zhou (1989), Salt (1993), Law (1991), Nance et al (1999), Chwif, Barretto, andSantoro (1998), Chwif et al, 2000, Yavari andRoeder (2012), Rank et al (2016) • Misfit between model nature and modeling objectives • Henriksen (1989) • Problem size • Morris (1967), Salt (1993), Chwif et al (2000) • Number of model inputs • Innis and Rexstad (1983), Kim et al (2003), Yavari and Roeder (2012) Brooks and Tobias (2000), Völker and Gmilkowsky (2003), Huber and Dangelmaier (2009), and Zhou, Cao, Liu, and Zhang (2016). Apart from their choices of underlying methods and focus on specific manufacturing settings, simplification procedures differ for their algorithmic and/or tool-based support.…”
Section: Simplification Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…For example, starting from a detailed manufacturing model, Johnson et al (2005) propose a simple procedure that (i) establishes a list of machines ordered according to their utilization, (ii) selects those machines with a low utilization from the list and replaces them with constant delays, and (iii) validates the resulting reduced model by comparing its outputs with those found for the detailed model. Similar examples, employing different methods and different manufacturing settings, are given by Innis and Rexstad (1983), Yin and Zhou (1989), Salt (1993), Law (1991), Nance et al (1999), Chwif, Barretto, andSantoro (1998), Chwif et al, 2000, Yavari andRoeder (2012), Rank et al (2016) • Misfit between model nature and modeling objectives • Henriksen (1989) • Problem size • Morris (1967), Salt (1993), Chwif et al (2000) • Number of model inputs • Innis and Rexstad (1983), Kim et al (2003), Yavari and Roeder (2012) Brooks and Tobias (2000), Völker and Gmilkowsky (2003), Huber and Dangelmaier (2009), and Zhou, Cao, Liu, and Zhang (2016). Apart from their choices of underlying methods and focus on specific manufacturing settings, simplification procedures differ for their algorithmic and/or tool-based support.…”
Section: Simplification Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…For these reasons, a reduced simulation model focusing on the principal characteristics of the base system and process is used in our architecture. In the following, Algorithm 2 describes the methodology proposed by Hung and Leachman (1999) and Völker and Gmilkowsky (2003) for reducing the degree of detail of simulation models. The methodology is applied to a variant of the MASM test data set MIMAC-I (MASM 1997).…”
Section: Reduced Simulation Models Of Wafer Fabsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most implementations use the methods aggregation and formalism transformation. The latter is better known as simulation metamodelling and shall not be discussed further in this paper, since it is not possible to create a stepwise simplification using these techniques (Völker and Gmilkowsky 2003). Aggregation is used by Brooks and Tobias (2000), Johnson et al (2005), Rose (2000), Rose (2007) and Hung and Leachman (1999).…”
Section: Model Simplificationmentioning
confidence: 99%