SIMULATION WITH ARENA MEA_2012

PRACTICE QUESTIONS
1. Consider a single WS with an m/c of infinite buffer. Jobs arrive randomly and wait in buffer if the m/c is busy. The IAT are expo (30)min while PT are expo(24)min. (M/M/1 Queue). System simulated for 10000 hrs Data:IAT are expo(30)min PT are expo(24)min Simulation run time-10000 hrs Compare with theoretical results, estimate avg job delay in Q, avg no in Q and m/c utilization.

2. Consider a manufacturing network of two workstations in series, consisting of an assembly workstation followed by a painting workstation, where jobs arrive at the assembly station with exponentially distributed inter-arrival times of mean 5 hours. the assembly process always has all the raw materials necessary to carry out the assembly operation the assembly time is uniformly distributed between 2 and 6 hours after the process is completed, a quality control test is performed, and past data reveal that 15% of the jobs fail the test and go back to the assembly operation for rework jobs that pass the test proceed to the painting operation that takes 3 hours for each unit. We are interested in simulating the system for 100,000 hours estimating process utilizations, average job waiting times and average job flow times (the elapsed time for a job from start to finish)

3. The system represents the final operations of the production of two different sealed electronic units. The parts are cast metal cases that have already been machined .part A arrives with expo (5) min. Upon arrival they are transferred to part A prep area where the mating faces of the cases are
VISWAJYOTHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, VAZHAKULAM PAGE 1

SIMULATION WITH ARENA MEA_2012

deburred and cleaned the process time for this opern follows TRIA(1,4,8). The part is then transferred to the sealer. Second unit part B comes into the system as a batch with 4 units. time between arrival of successive batch is expo (30)min. Upon arrival at the prep area it is separated into 4 units which are processed individually from here. The processing at the prep area follows TRIA (3,5,10). The part is then sent to the sealer. At the sealer , the case is sealed and tested, the total time for these operations depends on the part type; TRIA (1,3,4)for part a and WEIB(2.5,5.3) for Part B. 91 % of the parts pass inspection and are transferred directly to the shipping dept. The remaining parts are transferred to the rework area where they are disassembled, repaired cleaned assembled and retested. 80 % of the parts are salvaged and passed on to the shipping dept and the rest is thrown out as scrap. time for rework follows expo (45)min independent of the part type. The system is run for 4 8 hr shifts or 1920 min. Find:- resource utilization, no in Q, time in Q, cycle time, salvage parts and scrapped parts.

4. Travelers arrive at the main entrance door of an airline terminal according to an EXPO Interarrival time of mean 1.6 min, with the first arrival at time 0. The travel time from entrance to check in is UNIF distributed between 2 and 3 min. at the check in counter travelers wait in a single line until one of the five agents is available to serve them. Check in time follows a WEINB distribution with parameters (7.76, 3.91). Upon completion of their check in they are free to travel to their gates., simulation run time is 16 hrs . Data IAT passengers= EXPO(1.6)min Travel time to check in=UNIF (2,3)min
VISWAJYOTHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, VAZHAKULAM PAGE 2

SIMULATION WITH ARENA MEA_2012

Check in time =WIENB(7.76,3.91) min Simulation run time =16 hrs First arrival time =0 min Find:-avg time in system, no of passengers completing check in and avg length of check in Q Modify check in problem by adding agent breaks. The 16 hr are divided into 2 8 hr shifts, starting at 90 min into each shift. Each agent is given one 15 min break . agent lunch breaks 30 min are also staggered, staring 3.5 hrs into each shift. Compare results 5. The emergency room of a small hospital operates around the clock. It is staffed by three receptionists at the reception office, and two doctors on the premises, assisted by two nurses. However, one additional doctor is on call at all times; this doctor is summoned when the patient workload upcrosses some threshold, and is dismissed when the number of patients to be examined goes down to zero, possibly to be summoned again later. Patients arrive at the emergency room according to a Poisson process with mean interarrival time of 10 minutes. An incoming patient is first checked into the emergency room by a receptionist at the reception office. Check-in time is uniform between 6 and 12 minutes. Since critically ill patients get treatment priority over noncritical ones, each patient first undergoes triage in the sense that a doctor determines the criticality level of the incoming patient in FIFO order. The triage time distribution is triangular with a minimum of 3 minutes, a maximum of 15 minutes, and a most likely value of 5 minutes. It has been observed that 40% of incoming patients arrive in critical condition, and such patients proceed directly to an adjacent treatment room, where they wait FIFO to be treated by a doctor. The treatment time of critical patients is uniform between 20 and 30 minutes. In contrast, patients deemed noncritical first wait to be called by a nurse who walks them to a treatment room some distance away. The time spent to reach the treatment room is uniform between 1 and 3 minutes and the treatment time by a nurse is uniform between 3 and 10 minutes. Once treated by a nurse, a noncritical patient waits FIFO for a doctor to approve
VISWAJYOTHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, VAZHAKULAM PAGE 3

SIMULATION WITH ARENA MEA_2012

the treatment, which takes a uniform time between 5 to 10 minutes., all patients wait FIFO for an available doctor, but critical patients are given priority over noncritical ones Following treatment by a doctor, all patients are checked out FIFO at the reception office, which takes a uniform time between 10 and 20 minutes, following which the patients leave the emergency room. The performance metrics of interest in this problem are as follows: Utilization of the emergency room staff by type (doctors, nurses, and receptionists), Distribution of the number of doctors present in the emergency room, Average waiting time of incoming patients for triage, Average patient sojourn time in the emergency room, Average daily throughput (patients treated per day) of the emergency room. To estimate the requisite statistics, the hospital emergency room was simulated for a period of 1 year.

Model:- 2 segment:-ER segment, on call doc segment Data:receptionist=3, doc=2, on call doc= 1, nurse= 2 IAT patient=Poisson(10)min Check in time Patients=unif(6,12)min Triage Time= tri(3,5,15)min Critical patients =40% Treatment time for P crit=unif(20,30)min Travel time for p non cri= unif(1,3)min Treatment time for p non cri=unif(3,10)min Waiting time for all patient= unif (5,10)min Check out time for all patient= unif (10,20)min Simulation length= 1 year
VISWAJYOTHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, VAZHAKULAM PAGE 4

SIMULATION WITH ARENA MEA_2012

6. Consider a generic packaging line for some product, such as a pharmaceutical plant producing a packaged medicinal product, or a food processing plant producing packaged foods or beverages. The line consists of workstations that perform the processes of filling, capping, labeling, sealing, and carton packing. Individual product units will be referred to simply as units. We make the following assumptions: The filling workstation always has material in front of it, so that it never starves. 2. The buffer space between workstations can hold at most five units. 3. A workstation gets blocked if there is no space in the immediate downstream buffer (manufacturing blocking).4. The processing times for filling, capping, labeling, sealing, and carton packing are 6.5, 5, 8, 5, and 6 seconds, respectively. Note that these assumptions render our packaging line a push-regime production line. To keep matters simple, no randomness has been introduced into the system, that is, our packaging line is deterministic. It is worthwhile to elaborate and analyze the behavior of the packaging line understudy. The first workstation (filling) drives the system in that it feeds all downstream workstations with units. Clearly, one of the workstations in the line is the slowest (if there are several slowest workstations, we take the first among them). The throughput (output rate) of that workstation then coincides with the throughput of the entire packaging line. Furthermore, workstations upstream of the slowest one will experience excessive buildup of WIP inventory in their buffers. In contrast, workstations downstream of the slowest one will always have lightly occupied or empty WIP inventory buffers. Thus, the slowest workstation acts as a bottleneck in our packaging line. Of course, this behavior holds for any deterministic push-regime production line.

7. Suppose that Filling Process in the packaging line fails randomly and that it needs an adjustment after every 250 departures from the workstation. Assume that uptimes (times between a repair completion and the next failure, or time to failure) are exponentially distributed with a mean of 50 hours, while repair times are uniformly distributed between 1.5 hours to 3
VISWAJYOTHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, VAZHAKULAM PAGE 5

SIMULATION WITH ARENA MEA_2012

hours. Also, the aforementioned adjustment time is uniformly distributed between 10 minutes to 25 minutes. Assume further that Packing Process can also experience random mechanical failures, and downtimes are triangularly distributed with a minimum of 75 minutes, a maximum of 2 hours, and a mode at 90 minutes. The corresponding uptimes are exponentially distributed with a mean of 25 hours. Finally, assume that random failures occur only while the machines are busy (operationdependent failures). We shall refer to the modified packaging line model as the failure-modified model. 8. A Job Shop producing 3 types of Gears; G1, G2, G3. Job Shop consists of Arrival Dock, Milling Workstation, Drilling Workstation, Paint Shop, Polishing Area, Shop Exit Gear Jobs arrive in batches of 10 units. Their interarrival times are uniformly distributed between 400 and 600 minutes. Of arriving batches, 50% are G1, 30% are G2, 20% are G3. Each gear type has different operation sequence. Gears are transported by Two trucks running at a constant speed of 100 feet/minute. Each truck can carry only one gear at a time. Transport Procedure: The Transport starts from Arrival Dock When a job is complete at a location, the gear is placed into an output buffer. A transport request is made for a truck, and the gear waits for the truck to arrive. Among the two trucks, the preference will be for the one which is closest to the requested location. The transported job is placed in the input buffer of next station. After all operations, the finished gear departs from the job shop via the Shop Exit. Assumptions: Transporter (Truck) speed is same for both loaded and empty. The freed transporter stays at the destination station until requested by another station. The Job Shop works for 24 hours a day in 3 shifts at 8 hours each.
VISWAJYOTHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, VAZHAKULAM PAGE 6

SIMULATION WITH ARENA MEA_2012

Find: Gear flow time Gear delays at operation location Resource utilization Improvements

9. Bulk materials are an important component of international trade, and their transportation is mediated by numerous seaports worldwide. Important bulk materials include iron ore, cement, bauxite, grain, oil, and coal. For analysis of port facilities, see Altiok (1998), White (1984), and Crook (1980). This example illustrates bulk port operations, using the notions of station, entity routing among stations, entity pick-up and dropoff by another entity, and the control of entity movements using logical gating. It concerns a bulk material port, called Port Tamsar, at which cargo ships arrive and wait to be loaded with coal for their return journey. Cargo ship movement in port is governed by tug boats, which need to be assigned as a requisite resource. The port has a single berth where the vessels dock, and a single ship loader that loads the ships. A schematic representation of the layout of Port Tamsar is depicted in Figure 13.2. Port Tamsar operates continually 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. The annual
VISWAJYOTHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, VAZHAKULAM PAGE 7

SIMULATION WITH ARENA MEA_2012

coal production plan calls for nominal deterministic ship arrivals at the rate of one ship every 28 hours. However, ships usually do not arrive on time due to weather conditions, rough seas, or other reasons, and consequently, each ship is given a 5-day grace period commonly referred to as the lay period (see Jagerman and Altiok [1999]). We assume that ships arrive uniformly in their lay periods and queue up FIFO (if necessary) at an offshore anchorage location, whence they are towed into port by a single tug boat as soon as the berth becomes available. The tug boat is stationed at a tug station located at a distance of 30 minutes away from the offshore anchorage. Travel between the offshore anchorage and the berth takes exactly 1 hour. We assume that there is an uninterrupted coal supply to the ship loader at the coal-loading berth, and that ship loading times are uniformly distributed between 14 and 18 hours. Once a ship is loaded at the berth, the tug boat tows it away to the offshore anchorage, whence the boat departs with its coal for its destination. Departing vessels are accorded higher priority in seizing the tug boat. An important environmental factor in many port locations around the world is tidal dynamics. Cargo ships are usually quite large and need deep waters to get into and out of port. Obviously, water depth increases with high tide and decreases with low tide, where the time between two consecutive high tides is precisely 12 hours. We assume that ships can go in and come out of port only during the middle 4 hours of high tide. Thus, the tidal window at the port is closed for 8 hours and open for 4 hours every 12 hours. We wish to simulate Port Tamsar for 1 year (8760 hours) to estimate berth and ship loader utilization, as well as the expected port time per ship. We mention parenthetically that although a number of operating details have been omitted to simplify the modeling problem, the foregoing description is quite realistic and applicable to many bulk material ports and container ports around the world. An Arena model of Port Tamsar consists of four main segments: ship arrivals, tugboat operations, coal-loading operations at the berth, and tidal window modulation. These will be described next in some detail along with simulation results.
VISWAJYOTHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, VAZHAKULAM PAGE 8

SIMULATION WITH ARENA MEA_2012

10. This example concerns a transportation system consisting of a toll plaza on the New Jersey Turnpike, and aims to study the queueing delays resulting from toll collection. The system under study is depicted in Figure 13.28. The toll plaza consists of two exact change (EC) lanes, two cash receipt (CR) lanes, and one easy pass (EZP) lane. Arriving vehicles are classified into three groups as follows: 1. Fifty percent of all arriving cars go to EC lanes, and their normal service time distribution is Norm(4.81, 1.01). Recall that only the non-negative values sampled from this distribution are used by Arena (see Section 4.2). 2. Thirty percent of all arriving cars go to CR lanes, and their service time distribution is 5 Logn(4.67, 2.26). 3. Twenty percent of all arriving cars go to EZP lanes, and their service time distribution is 1.18 4.29 Beta(2.27, 3.02). To simplify matters, we assume that an incoming car always joins the shortest queue in its category (EC, CR, or EZP). We further assume that no jockeying between queues takes place. That is, once a car joins a queue in front of a tollbooth, it never switches to another queue. Traffic congestion is distinctly nonstationary, varying widely by time of day. As expected, traffic is heavier during the morning rush hour (6 A.M.9 A.M.) and the evening rush hour (4 P.M.7 P.M.), and tapers off during off-peak hours. Table 13.1 summarizes vehicle interarrival time distributions over each 24-hour period. The number of operating cash receipt booths varies over time. Since such booths must be manned, and therefore are expensive to operate, one of them is closed during the offpeak hours. Only during morning and evening rush hours do all cash receipt booths remain open. Typical performance analysis objectives for the toll plaza system address the following issues: What would be the impact of
VISWAJYOTHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, VAZHAKULAM PAGE 9

SIMULATION WITH ARENA MEA_2012

additional traffic on car delays? Would adding another booth markedly reduce waiting times? Could some booths be closed during light traffic hours without appreciably increasing waiting times? What would be the impact of converting some cash receipt booths to exact change booths or to easy pass booths? How would waiting times be reduced if both cash receipt booths were to be kept open at all times? Of course, additional issues may be specific to particular toll plazas under study, but in our case we wish to address the last issue in the list, using the performance metrics of average time to pass through the system and booth utilization. An Arena model for the toll plaza system presented here is depicted in Figure 13.29. The model can be decomposed into the following segments: creation of car entities from the appropriate distributions over various time periods, dispatching a car to the appropriate tollbooth with the shortest queue, and serving incoming cars. To this end, we use the Set construct to facilitate modeling of module sets (model components) with analogous logic (e.g., multiple tollbooths). Consequently, the number of such components would be easily modifiable. The structure of the toll plaza model will be described next in some detail, along with simulation results.

VISWAJYOTHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, VAZHAKULAM

PAGE 10

SIMULATION WITH ARENA MEA_2012

MODEL LOGIC
Problem
1.

LOGIC

2.

3.

VISWAJYOTHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, VAZHAKULAM

PAGE 11

SIMULATION WITH ARENA MEA_2012

4.

5.

VISWAJYOTHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, VAZHAKULAM

PAGE 12

SIMULATION WITH ARENA MEA_2012

6.

7.

VISWAJYOTHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, VAZHAKULAM

PAGE 13

SIMULATION WITH ARENA MEA_2012

8.

VISWAJYOTHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, VAZHAKULAM

PAGE 14

SIMULATION WITH ARENA MEA_2012

9.

VISWAJYOTHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, VAZHAKULAM

PAGE 15

SIMULATION WITH ARENA MEA_2012

10.

VISWAJYOTHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, VAZHAKULAM

PAGE 16