Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
(1)
where
i
SD is satisfied demand during ith request,
i
GD
is Generated demand during ith request and n Number
of demand requests during simulation
C Aggregate Average Kanban Queue (AAKQ)
Aggregate average Kanban queue is the sum of the
average number of Kanban lots waiting in the queue at
all stations, during simulation. AAKQ is defined as
follows:
1
AAKQ=
n
j
j
I lot size
=
(2)
where ij is number of kanbans in the queue during jth
request.
Objective Function
Number of Kanbans and lot size directly affect the
performance defined above. The performance measure
can be expressed as a function of number of Kanbans at
each station and lot size. The multi-objective function
turn as maximizing mean throughput rate while
minimizing aggregate average Kanban lots queue.
Since the individual measure are moving in opposite
directions, when summed up as it, there is a chance of
good solution in each case to be nullified resulting in
poor performance measure. Hence a unified function
has to be constructed to get both the performance
measure in unidirectional. For this reason an
experiment is conducted and presented later, to
redesign AAKQ. Redesigned AAKQ (RAAKQ) is
defined as follows:
1
3816
RAAKQ
3816
n
j
j
I lot size
=
=
(3)
The combined objective function is:
{ } U max f MTR, RAAKQ = (
(4)
The above constructed objective function is used to
find the overall performance measure called Objective
value to measure the system effectiveness. The
objective function is to maximize objective value.
III. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND RESULTS
Experiment 1. Drive of the RAAKQ
In this experiment, it is tried to redesign AAKQ as a
maximization objective function. For a runlength of
10000 units of time, various lot sizes, and various
numbers of Kanbans, average Kanban queue is found;
the result is given in Table 5. Based on maximum
Kanban queue that is observed AAKQ is redesigned.
This redesigned AAKQ is tested in C column that
whether it is able to give sufficient variety for AAKQ
or not.
TABLE 5
EXPERIMENT TO DRIVE A MAXIMIZATION OBJECTIVE
FUNCTION FOR AAKQ
NOK
LOT SIZE
20
LOT SIZE
60
A B C A B C
1 2.2 44 0.9885 1.5 90 0.9764
3 10.4 208 0.9455 5.0 300 0.9214
5 18.5 370 0.9030 9.5 570 0.8506
8 34.5 690 0.8192 16.6 996 0.7390
10 44.6 892 0.7662 22 1320 0.6541
13 54.9 1098 0.7123 26.9 1614 0.5770
15 66 1320 0.6541 31.5 1890 0.5047
NOK
LOT SIZE
120
A B C
1 1.9 228 0.9402
3 4.3 516 0.8648
5 7.8 936 0.7547
8 14 1680 0.5597
10 17.6 2112 0.4465
13 22.9 2780 0.2715
15 26.5 3180 0.1667
A= Average Kanban Queue Length B= ALot Size
C= Redesigned AAKQ Value (RAAKQ)
* RAAKQ= 1-B/(31801.2)
The range of calculated RAAKQ in the table is
recommending the use of redesigned AAKQ.
International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459,Volume 1, Issue 1, November 2011)
6
Experiment 2.Effect of number of Kanbans and Lot size
This experiment shows the effect of number of
Kanbans and lot sizes on the MTR and the RAAKQ.
These effects are illustrated in Figure 2 to 9. As it is
observed by increasing number of Kanbans the
RAAKQ is decreased rapidly. So in our study we limit
the number of Kanbans to fifteen. Increasing lot sizes
causes in increasing the MTR and at the same time
decreasing the RAAKQ. So the lot sizes are not limited.
Fig 2 Effect of Number of Kanbans on RAAKQ and MTR
Lot Size = 20
Fig 3 Effect of Number of Kanbans on RAAKQ and MTR
Lot Size = 60
Fig 4 Effect of Number of Kanbans on RAAKQ and MTR
Lot Size = 100
Fig 5 Effect of Number of Kanbans on RAAKQ and MTR
Lot Size = 120
Fig 6 Effect of Lot Size on RAAKQ and MTR, No. of
Kanbans = 1
International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459,Volume 1, Issue 1, November 2011)
7
Fig 7 Effect of Lot Size on RAAKQ and MTR, No. of
Kanbans = 5
Fig 8 Effect of Lot Size on RAAKQ and MTR, No. of
Kanbans = 10
Fig 9 Effect of Lot Size on RAAKQ and MTR, No. of
Kanbans = 15
Experiment 3.
The genetic algorithm is performed for the defined
system in the six different cases. The GA is done six
times for each case. Table 6 and Table 7 show the
objective values and average used time (CPU time).
TABLE 6
OBJECTIVE VALUES AND AVERAGE SYSTEM TIMES FOR
VARIOUS CASES OBTAINED BY GENETIC ALGORITHM
CASE
GA
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4
Obj-val Obj-val Obj-val Obj-val
1 1.7744 1.7434 1.7652 1.5674
2 0.9006 1.0333 0.9307 0.8549
3 1.9069 1.6642 1.9069 1.6467
4 0.8997 0.9433 0.8868 0.9040
5 0.9691 1.0109 1.0022 0.9018
6 0.9847 1.0574 0.9688 1.0571
CASE
GA
Trial 5 Trial 6 Average
Time Obj-val Obj-val
1 1.5473 1.7398 0.0994
2 0.9513 0.9188 0.0365
3 1.4914 1.6178 0.1353
4 0.9732 0.8555 0.1681
5 0.9985 0.9704 0.0252
6 1.0065 1.0341 0.0290
TABLE 7
SYSTEM TIMES AND AVERAGE OBJECTIVE VALUES FOR
VARIOUS CASES OBTAINED BY GENETIC ALGORITHM
CASE
GA
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4
System
Time
System
Time
System
Time
System
Time
1 0.0951 0.0941 0.0972 0.1360
2 0.0363 0.0357 0.0375 0.0381
3 0.1810 0.0955 0.1702 0.1488
4 0.1448 0.1566 0.1777 0.1885
5 0.0254 0.0262 0.0225 0.0214
6 0.0236 0.0325 0.0225 0.0252
CASE
GA
Trial 5 Trial 6
Average
Objective Value
System
Time
System
Time
1 0.0890 0.0852 1.6896
2 0.0350 0.0380 0.9316
3 0.1086 0.1079 1.7056
4 0.1630 0.1781 0.9104
5 0.0244 0.0312 0.9755
6 0.0403 0.0298 1.0181
International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459,Volume 1, Issue 1, November 2011)
8
IV. CONCLUSION
Simulation model of a two card Kanban system has
been developed. An objective function consisting of
Kanban size, waiting time and throughput rate has been
developed. Number of Kanbans at each station and lot
sizes are considered as two decision parameters, to
improve objective function. Genetic Algorithm have
been employed to achieve an improved solution. Effect
of number of Kanbans and lot sizes on the two
objective functions (mean throughput rate, MTR, and
redesigned aggregate average Kanban queue, RAAKQ,
) is studied. The study concluded that for the present
system as the number of kanbans or lotsizes icreased,
the MTR increased, while RAKKQ decreased.
With the use of GA in a very low time most
important decision in a JIT production system is made.
It means that for six different cases with various system
parameters number of kanbans and lotsizes at each
station is calculated. As it is known in multiobjective
optimization problems there exist a number of solutions
which are optimum in some sense. The problems
discussed in the present work, also have many
satisfactory answers which provide another advantage
of using GA to make the decision. GA is able to
produce a huge number of answers to the problem and
the user can select the most appropriate solution.
Among a number of solutions for each cases a complete
solution for each case using GA are given in the Table
8.
TABLE 8
IMPROVED SOLUTIONS FOR VARIOUS CASES USING GA
KANBANS
GA
CASE
1
CASE
2
CASE
3
A B A B A B
POK-WS3 2 8 11 6 2 8
POK-WS2 4 8 6 10 4 8
POK-WS1 4 7 8 5 4 7
WK-WS32 14 4 11 6 14 4
WK-WS21 4 7 8 10 4 7
LS 2 3 3 3 2 3
OBJ_VAL 1.7744 1.0333 1.9069
KANBANS
GA
CASE
4
CASE
5
CASE
6
A B A B A B
POK-WS3 2 8 4 6 4 4
POK-WS2 4 8 4 5 6 6
POK-WS1 4 7 11 12 8 9
WK-WS32 14 4 5 9 4 8
WK-WS21 4 7 12 11 8 9
LS 2 3 3 3 6 4
OBJ_VAL 0.9433 1.0109 1.0571
A: Product A B: Product B
LS: Lot Size
POK: Production Order Kanban
WK: Withdrawal Kanban WS: Work Station
References
[1] K. Ohno 1995. Optimal numbers of two kinds of Kanbans in a
JIT production, Prod. Research, Vol. 33, No.5, pp. 1387-1401.
[2] Berkley B. J, 1992. A review of the Kanban production control
research literature, Production and Operation Management, Vol.
1, No. 4, pp. 392-411.
[3] Krajewski L. J, King B. E, Ritzman L. P and Wong D. S, 1987.
Kanban, MRP, and shaping the manufacturing environment,
Management Science, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 39-57.
[4] Berkley B. J., 1996. A simulation study of container size in
two-card Kanban system, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 34, No. 12, pp. 3417- 3445.
[5] Yavuz I. H. and Satir A, 1995. A Kanban based simulation
study of a mixed model just-in-time manufacturing line,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 33, No. 4,
pp. 1027-1048.
[6] F. T. S. Chan, 2001. Effect of kanban size on just-in-time
manufacturing systems, Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, Vol. 116, No. 2-3, pp. 146-160.
[7] Berna Dengiz & Cigdem Alabas, 2000. Simulation optimization
using tabu search, Proceeding of the 2000 Winter Simulation
Conference, Vol. 1, pp. 805 810.
[8] G. D. Sivakumar and P. Shahabudeen, 2008. Design of multi-
stage adaptive kanban system, The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 38, No. 3-4, pp.
321-336.
International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459,Volume 1, Issue 1, November 2011)
9
[9] N. Selvaraj, 2009. Determining the Number of Kanbans in
EKCS: A Simulation Modeling Approach, Proceedings of the
International Multi Conference of Engineers and Computer
Scientists, Vol. 2, IMECS 2009, March 18-20, 2009, Hong
Kong (a).
[10] Siha S, 1994. The pull production system: modeling and
characteristics, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 933-949.
[11] Berkley B. J., 1994. Testing minimum performance levels for
Kanban-controlled lines, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 93-109.
[12] Mitwasi M. G and Askin R. G, 1994. Production planning for a
multi-item, single-stage Kanban system, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 1173-1195.
[13] Philipoom R. P, Rees L. P and Taylor B. W III, 1996.
Simultaneously determining the number of Kanbans container
size and the final assembly sequence of product in a just-in-time
shop, International Journal of production Research, , Vol. 34,
No. 1, pp. 51-69.
[14] S. K. Chaharsooghi and A. Sajedinia, 2010. Determination of
Number of Kanbans and Batch Sizes in a JIT Supply Chain
System, Scientia Iranica: Transaction on Industrial Engineering,
Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 143-149.
[15] Kochel P and Nielander U, 2002. Kanban optimization by
simulation and evolution, Production Planning and Control,
Vol. 13, No. 8, pp.725734.
[16] Mitra D and Mitrani I, 1990. Analysis of a kanban discipline for
cell coordination in production lines I, Management Science,
Vol. 36, No. 12, pp. 15481566.
[17] Mitra D and Mitrani I, 1991. Analysis of a Kanban discipline
for cell coordination in production lines II, Stochastic demands,
Operations Research, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 807823.
[18] Wang H and Wang H. P, 1990. Determining number of
kanbans: Step toward non-stock production, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 28, pp. 21012115.
[19] Wang, H and Wang H. P, 1991. Optimum number of kanbans
between two adjacent workstations in a JIT system,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 22, No. 3,
pp. 179188.
[20] Shahabudeen P and Krishnaiah K, 1999. Design of bi-criteria
kanban system using Genetic Algorithm, International Journal
of Management and System, Vol. 15, pp. 257274.
[21] Paris J. L, Tautou-Guillaume L, & Pierreval H, 2001. Dealing
with design options in the optimization of manufacturing
systems an evolutionary approach, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 10811094.
[22] C. Alabas, F. Altiparmak and B Dengiz, 2002. A comparison of
the performance of artificial intelligence techniques for
optimizing the number of kanbans, Journal of Operational
Research Society, Vol. 53, pp. 907-914 (c).
[23] P. Shahabudeen and G. D. Sivakumar, 2008. Algorithm for the
design of single-stage adaptive kanban system, Computers &
Industrial Engineering, Vol. 54, pp. 800820 (b).
[24] Holland J. H, 1975. Adaptation in natural and artificial systems,
Ann Abor, University of Michigan