See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/253532213

Metamodeling by using Multiple Regression Integrated K-Means Clustering

Algorithm

Conference Paper · April 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 147

3 authors, including:

Ilker Akgun Murat M. Gunal

Marmara University Naval Science and Engineering Institute
18 PUBLICATIONS   161 CITATIONS    42 PUBLICATIONS   646 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Hospital management View project

İstanbul Kalkınma Ajansı DFD 2017 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Murat M. Gunal on 04 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Metamodeling by using Multiple Regression Integrated
K-Means Clustering Algorithm
Emre Irfanoglu, Ilker Akgun, Murat M. Gunal
Institute of Naval Science and Engineering
Turkish Naval Academy
Tuzla, Istanbul, TURKEY
(eirfanoglu@dho.edu.tr, iakgun@dho.edu.tr, mgunal@dho.edu.tr)
Keywords: simulation optimization, K-means clustering,
metamodel, multi regression
Abstract
A metamodel in simulation modeling, as also known as
response surfaces, emulators, auxiliary models, etc. relates a
simulation model’s outputs to its inputs without the need for
further experimentation. A metamodel is essentially a
regression model and mostly known as “the model of a
simulation model”. A metamodel may be used for
Validation and Verification, sensitivity or what-if analysis,
and optimization of simulation model. In this study, we
proposed a new metamodeling approach by using multiple
regression integrated K-means clustering algorithm
especially for simulation optimization. Our aim is to
evaluate the feasibility of a new metamodeling approach in
which we create multiple metamodels by clustering input-
output variables of a simulation model according to their
similarities. In this approach, first, we run the simulation
model of a system, second, by using K-Means clustering
algorithm, we create metamodels for each cluster, and third,
we seek the minima (or maxima) for each metamodel. We
also tested our approach by using a fictitious call center.
We observed that this approach increases the accuracy of a
metamodel and decreases the sum of squared errors. These
observations give us some insights about usefulness of
clustering in metamodeling for simulation optimization.
1. INTRODUCTION
Coupling the speed of optimization techniques and
flexibility of simulation emerges a new research area called
Simulation Optimization (SimOpt), which also affected the
practice [1-3]. In the history of Operational Research,
SimOpt methods have started to appear in 1990s, with the
basic idea of merging the advantages of simulation
modeling with optimization. Simulation methods are known
for their flexibility to tackle the complexity in systems.
Although simulation models require extensive amount of
data, they help decision makers make better decisions.
Optimization methods, on the other hand, are not as flexible
as for modeling complexity, but once they are built, they
618
generate more accurate and faster results than simulation
does. Many methods for SimOpt have been developed,
mainly in four categories; gradient-based and random search
algorithms, evolutionary algorithms and metaheuristics,
mathematical programming based approaches, and
statistical search techniques.
In this study, we suggest a four-phase approach to improve
the metamodeling process for SimOpt. Our approach
includes simulation experimentation, clustering,
metamodeling, and optimization. In the first phase,
conventional simulation experimentation techniques are
used. Note that we assume we have a simulation model of a
typical call centre system, and we aim to optimize some
objective function. In the second phase, we apply a
clustering algorithm (k-means) to the simulation inputs. In
the third phase for each cluster, a metamodel is developed.
Finally, we applied optimization techniques to each
metamodel. Different from classical metamodeling in
SimOpt, we integrated clustering before the “multiple
regression” metamodel, and generated one metamodel for
each cluster, instead of one metamodel for all data.
First, we review some of SimOpt methods in the literature
in section 2. In section 3 and 4, we give brief information
about metamodel and clustering. In section 5, we presented
our proposed approach by comparing with the classical
approach. To show an application of the proposed approach,
we experimented with a call center simulation model, and
showed that clustered metamodels outperform the classical
approach.
2. REVIEW OF SIMULATION OPTIMIZATION
TECHNIQUES
In SimOpt, a simulation model is used to estimate the
performance of a system, and based on the estimation, then,
an optimization algorithm is run to find some new input
values that will maximize or minimize the system
performance estimation. As in the conventional optimization
models, the input values, or the decision variables, are
constrained. The iterative nature of this approach generally
makes the simulation model a bottleneck and therefore the
model performance is significant.
We review some of the well-known simulation optimization
techniques as follows:
Gradient-based and random search algorithms (e.g.
stochastic approximation): Gradient-based search methods
are a type of optimization techniques that use the gradient of
the objective function to find an optimal solution [4]. In
each iteration of the algorithm, the values of the decision
variables are adjusted so that the simulation produces a
lower objective function value. Gradient-based methods
work well in high-dimensional spaces provided that these
spaces do not have local minima. The drawback is that
global minima are likely to remain unfound.
Evolutionary Algorithms and Metaheuristics (e.g.
Genetic Algorithms, Tabu Search and Simulated
Annealing): Heuristic-based methods strike a balance
between exploration and exploitation. This balance permits
the identification of local minima, but encourages the
discovery of a globally optimal solution [5]. Heuristic
techniques generate good candidate solutions when the
search space is large and nonlinear.
Mathematical Programming-Based Approaches (e.g. the
Sample Path Method): Sample path optimization (also
known as stochastic counterpart, sample average
approximation; see [6]) takes many simulations first, and
then tries to optimize the resulting estimates by using
conventional mathematical programming solution
algorithms.
Statistical Search Techniques (e.g. Sequential Response
Surface Methodology): Response surface methodology
(RSM) is a statistical method for fitting a series of
regression models to the output of a simulation model [5].
The goal of RSM is to construct a functional relationship
between the decision variables and the output to
demonstrate how the changes in the value of decision
variables affect the output. Relationships constructed from
RSM are often called meta-models [7]. RSM usually
consists of a screening phase that eliminates unimportant
variables in the simulation [8]. After the screening phase,
linear models are used to build a surface and find the region
of optimality. Then, second or higher order models are run
to find the optimal values for decision variables.
The eventual objective of RSM is to determine the optimum
operating conditions for the system or to determine a region
of the factor space in which operating requirements are
satisfied [9]. In the formal application of RSM for
optimization and for design of experiments in general, one
619
of the most important steps is factor screening, the initial
identification of the “important" parameters, those factors
that have the greatest influence on the response. However,
in our discussion of optimization of discrete-event
simulation models, we assume that this has already been
determined. In most discrete-event system applications, this
is usually the case, since there are underlying analytic
models which can give a rough idea as to the influence of
various parameters. For example, in manufacturing systems
and telecommunications networks, the analyst knows from
queuing network models which routing probabilities and
service times have an effect on the performance measures of
interest. RSM procedures usually presuppose a more “black
box" approach to the problem as stated above, so it is
unclear a priori which factors are of importance at all [10].
Additionally, Fu [10] classifies the application of RSM in
two main categories: metamodels, and sequential
procedures.
Meta models are special cases of RSM representation and
therefore the remainder of this paper uses the term
“metamodel” rather than RSM.
3. METAMODEL
A metamodel is a polynomial model that relates the input-
output behavior of a simulation model. A metamodel is
often a least squares regression model that has form as given
in Eqs.(1):
k k k k
E  y   0   i xi   ii xi2  ...    x x j (1)
ij i
i 1 i 1 i 1 j 1
where βi, βii , and βij represent regression coefficients, xi
(i = 1,…..,n) are design variables, and y is the response. The
simple form of a metamodel can reveal the general
characteristics of behavior in complex simulation models.
The objective of a metamodel is to “effectively” relate the
output data of a simulation model to the model’s input to aid
in the purpose for which the simulation model was
developed [11].
Since our aim in this study is to form a metamodel by using
clustering algorithms, we review the related literature in the
following section. Note that we aim at classifying the input
variables according to the similarities between each other,
and after clustering the data, there will be n grouped
(clustered) data sets, n metamodels. We discuss the details
of this approach after stating the clustering algorithms.
4. CLUSTERING
Clustering is a way to examine similarities and
dissimilarities of observations or objects. Data often fall
naturally into groups, or clusters, of observations, where the
characteristics of objects in the same cluster are similar and
the characteristics of objects in different clusters are
dissimilar. Both the similarity and the dissimilarity should
be examinable in a clear and meaningful way. Measures of
similarity depend on the application.
Clustering is widespread, and a wealth of clustering
algorithms has been developed to solve different problems
in specific fields. However, there is no clustering algorithm
that can be universally used to solve all problems [12].
Clustering has been applied in a wide range of areas,
ranging from engineering (machine learning, artificial
intelligence, pattern recognition, mechanical engineering,
electrical engineering), computer sciences (web mining,
spatial database analysis, textual document collection,
image segmentation), life and medical sciences (genetics,
biology, microbiology, paleontology, psychiatry, clinic,
pathology), to earth sciences (geography. geology, remote
sensing), social sciences (sociology, psychology,
archeology, education), and economics (marketing,
business) [13-14].
There are two common clustering techniques based on the
properties of clusters generated [13-15]; hierarchical
clustering and partitioned clustering. Hierarchical clustering
groups the data over a variety of scales by creating a cluster
tree. The tree is not a single set of cluster, but rather a
multilevel hierarchy, where clusters at one level are joined
as clusters at the next level. This allows you to decide the
level or scale of clustering that is most appropriate for your
application.
In partitioned clustering, the data objects are divided into
some specified number of clusters. K-means clustering
algorithm is one of the well-known methods in this
category. K-means partitions data into k mutually exclusive
clusters, and returns the index of the cluster to which each
observation has assigned. We used this technique in our
methodology to cluster the simulation inputs.
K-means clustering algorithm treats each observation in data
as an object having a location in space. It finds a partition in
which objects within each cluster are as close to each other
as possible, and as far from objects in other clusters as
possible. There are several different distance measures,
depending on the kind of data you are clustering.
Each cluster in the partition is defined by its member objects
and by its centroid, or center point. The centroid for each
cluster is the point to which the sum of distances from all
objects in that cluster is minimized. K-means computes the
cluster centroids differently for each distance measure, to
minimize the sum with respect to the specified measure.
620
K-means uses an iterative algorithm that minimizes the sum
of distances from each object to its cluster centroid, over all
clusters. The algorithm moves objects between clusters until
the sum cannot be decreased further. The result is a set of
clusters that are as compact and well-separated as possible.
An example of clustered data points is shown in Figure-1
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
8 2
7 3
6 4
5
4 5
Figure-1. An example of clustered data points (taken from a
Matlab example)
5. PROPOSED APPROACH
In this study, we proposed a new metamodeling approach by
using multiple regression integrated K-means clustering
algorithm especially for simulation optimization. Our
approach works in four phases; Experimentation,
Clustering, Metamodeling, and Optimization. We have ten
steps in total as presented in Figure 2. We assume that we
have a simulation model that is built for the system that we
desire to find optimum values of some decision variables.
Note that in this case, the decision variables are simulation
model inputs. In the experimentation phase, the modeler
designs the experiments according to the search space size.
For example, if there are n input values and we decided to
run low and high values of each variable, we end up with 2n
factorial experiments. For some cases, that many
experiments may not be enough and more experimentation
might be required.
 In the second phase, we cluster the simulation inputs. This is
an iterative process since we look for some performance
criterion in each iteration and if the criterion for clustering is
below the acceptable level, we increase the number of
clusters. For example, in K-Means clustering method, the
performance criterion is the silhouette value.

In the third phase, we develop metamodels for each cluster.

As in the previous phase, we look for some quality
measures of metamodels, for example by the R-square
values. The purpose of a metamodel is to estimate outputs
values without further simulation experimentation.
Therefore after this phase, we can estimate simulation
outputs without running the model. However since we have
multiple metamodels, we need to determine some rules for
using each metamodel. These rules might be based on the
limits of the simulation inputs.

The final phase is the optimization phase. Based on the

objective function, we seek the minima or maxima of each
metamodel. This requires differentiating the regression
model and setting it to zero to find the roots of the equation.
Then, we choose the minimum or maximum among the
clusters optimum values.

6. APPLICATION

6.1. Problem Definition

To test our approach, we used an example of a call center
simulation model created with ARENA program [16]. We
choose this model to benchmark our methodology.
Therefore the model structure and its parameter values are
taken from the original problem definition as is written in
[16]. The call centre provides technical support, sales
information, and order processing to a company. The calls
arrive to this call centre with interarrival times exponentially
distributed with a mean value of 0.857 minute. The call
center has 26 trunk lines, which means that there exist
concurrent 26 calls maximum. If all lines are busy, then the
next arriving call will be rejected. An incoming call can be
diverted to one of these options; transfer to technical
support, sales information or order status inquiry. Their
percentages are 76%, 16%, 8% respectively. The estimated
time for this activity is UNIF(0.1, 0.6); all times are in
minutes.

In case of technical support calls, first, a recorded welcome

Figure-2. Flowchart of the proposed methodology
message is presented which takes UNIF (0.1, 0.5) minutes.
In this message, the caller is expected to choose one of the
three product types. The percentage of the product types 1, 2
and 3 are 25%, 34% and 41% respectively. If a qualified
technical support person is available for the selected product
type, the call is automatically routed to that person.
Otherwise, the customer is placed in an electronic queue

621
until a support person is available. All technical support call There are two constraints in the problem definition; first, the
durations are triangularly distributed with 3, 6, 18 minutes. number of trunk lines must be between 26 and 50. Second,
After a caller is being served, he exits the system. the call center can accommodate 15 operators at most.

The second type of calls is the sales. These calls are routed 6.2. Steps of the Methodology
to the sales staff. A sales staff call duration is triangularly Step-1 Specify the decision variables: We choose the six
distributed with the parameters 4, 15, 45 minutes. As in the decision variable as shown in Table-1 that affected our
technical support, the caller leaves the system after performance criteria (e.g. the total cost).
completion of the call. The third type of call, order status, is
handled by computers. However some customers may Table 1. Decision variables and their lower and upper
require talking to a real operator. This happens in 15% of bounds
this type of calls. Order status calls also distributed Decision Variables Lower Upper
triangularly with 2, 3, 4 minutes. Note that when these calls Bound Bound
are inserted to a queue for a real operator, they have lower New Sales (X1) 0 15
priority than sales calls. An operator can handle these calls New Tech 1 (X2) 0 15
with triangularly distributed times (3, 5, 10 minutes). These New Tech 2 (X3) 0 15
callers then exit the system. New Tech 3 (X4) 0 15
New Tech All (X5) 0 15
Trunk Line (X6) 26 50
In our base experimentation, there are 11 technical support
employees to answer the technical support calls. Two are
Step-2 Simulation Experimentation: For this stage, instead
only qualified to handle calls for product Type 1, three are
of designing our own experiments, we choose the
only qualified to handle calls for product Type 2, three are
experiments that are already specified by Arena’s OptQuest.
only qualified to handle calls for product Type 3, two are
To ease the process, we first run OptQuest for 500
only qualified to handle calls for product Types 1 and 3, and
experiments to find the optimum. As a result of this,
one is only qualified to handle calls for all three products
OptQuest found the values in Table 2 with the objective
types. There are four employees to answer the sales calls
function value of $21,017. The run length for the model is
and those order-status calls that want to speak to a real
1000 hours and we made 10 replications in each experiment.
person.
Table 2. Minimum total cost and values of decision
Our main output variable is the total cost which includes 3
variables via OptQuest
types of costs; (1) staffing and resource costs, (2) costs due
Obj.Func. X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6
to poor customer service and (3) costs of rejected calls. A
$21017 3 0 0 0 3 29
sales staff’s cost is $20/hour and a tech-support staff’s cost
is $18-$20/hour, depending on their level of training and
Step-3 Evaluate the Simulation Output: 16 experiments
flexibility. The second type of cost is the incurred cost
among 500 experimental results are removed since they
associated by making costumer wait on hold. When dealing
were in infeasible region.
with a call center, at some point, people will start getting
mad and the system will start incurring a cost. Although it is
Step-4 Determine the Number of Clusters: In this step, we
difficult to measure this cost, we assumed that for tech calls,
cluster the inputs of the simulation model by examining the
this point is 3 minutes; for sales calls, it’s 1 minute; and for
silhouette values. The silhouette plot displays a measure of
order status it’s 2 minutes. Beyond this tolerance point for
the closeness of each data point by comparing with the
each call type, the system will incur a cost of 36.8
neighboring clusters in the diagram. The measure for the
cents/minute for tech calls, 81.8 cents/minute for sales calls
silhouette value ranges from +1 to -1. “+1” indicates the
and 34.6 cents/minute for order status calls. For rejected
points that are very distant from the neighboring clusters.
calls it is assumed that no more than %5 of incoming calls
“0” indicates the points that are not distinctly in one cluster
get a busy signal; any model configuration not meeting this
or another. “-1” indicates the points that are assigned to the
requirement will be regarded as unacceptable. With related
wrong cluster. The value is defined as;
rejected calls changing the number of trunk line is incurred
$98/week for each trunk line.
S(i) = (min(b(i,k),2) - a(i)) / max(a(i),min(b(i,k)))
In the optimization part, we used this call center simulation
where a(i) is the average distance from the ith point to the
model to find the minimum total cost while holding percent
other points in its cluster, and b(i,k) is the average distance
of rejected calls to 5 and less. The decision variables and
from the ith point to points in another cluster k.
their lower/upper bound values are as shown in the Table 1.

622
Step-5 Cluster Simulation Inputs: We clustered the f 4  34439.5-1970.06 * X 1 - 450.6 * X 2 -1767.6 * X 3 -1197.2 * X 4
simulation inputs using the euclidean distance between the - 2515 * X 5 + 130.49 * X 12 + 81.6 * X 1 * X 2 + 156.9 * X 1 * X 5
inputs. Here, we clustered the inputs up to 8 to compare the (5)
Silhouette plots. + 23.7 * X 2 2 + 75.6 * X 2 * X 3 + 81.7 * X 2 * X 4 + 67.87 * X 2 * X 5
+ 171.8 * X 32 + 146.3 * X 3 * X 4 + 353.6 * X 3 * X 5 + 118 * X 4 2
Step-6 Cluster Validation: To validate the clusters, we + 190.4 * X 4 * X 5 + 211.9 * X 52
analyzed the Silhouette plots and means. Here, the best plot
belongs to the 5-clusters (mean 0.55), as shown in Figure-3.
f5  -4170.44 + 2002.79 * X 1 - 1395.23 * X 3 + 6725.7 * X 4 + 323.3 * X 5
Therefore we end up with 5 metamodels.
+ 1151.2 * X 6 + 567.3 * X 12 + 111.7 * X 1 * X 3 - 838.7 * X 1 * X 5
(6)
- 86.4 * X 1 * X 6 + 19.2 * X 2 2 -156.9 * X 2 * X 4 + 102.7 * X 2 * X 5
1 + 80.9 * X 32 + 54.8 * X 3 * X 4 + 315.4 * X 3 * X 5 - 144.5 * X 4 2
- 193.1* X 4 * X 6 + 269 * X 52 - 8.9 * X 6 2
2

Step-8 Evaluate the Results: In this step, we evaluate the

3
metamodels in Step-7 by conducting some statistical tests
Cluster

(ANOVA, R-square, Residuals Sum of Square). The

metamodels’ corresponding R-Square values are 79,83%,
63,82%, 65,27%, 67,70% and 96.65% respectively.
4
Additionally, square roots of mean square errors (MSE) are
given in Table-3. We compare the R-Square and MSE
values with the single metamodel, that is when we assume
5 to have a classic metamodel (no cluster), we see that the
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 single metamodel’s R-Square value is 81.51% and MSE is
Silhouette Value 1782.76.
Figure 3. Silhouette plot for the experiments.
Table 3. Statistical results of proposed approach and classic
Step-7 Create Metamodel of Every Cluster: We created 5 metamodel
metamodels by using Minitab [17] according to number of Method R MSE F& p Value
clusters in Step 6. The Equations 2 to 6 shows the square
metamodel of each cluster. Cluster-1 79,83 1703.29 25.7246
%, 0.0000
f1  36500  4657,06* X 1  382,69* X 2  774,67* X 3 Cluster-2 63,82 1764.56 10.2316
(2) % 0.0000
 779, 2* X 4  166,54 * X 5  618,5* X  24, 43* X 2
1
2 2
Proposed Cluster-3 76.75 1631.55 7.76564
 62,75* X 32  96,67* X 4 2  57,97* X 5 2 Approach % 0.0000
Cluster-4 81.63 793 47.89
% 0.0000
f 2  33072  4200,84* X 1  185* X 2  225,52* X 3
(3) Cluster-5 99.38 138.45 109.708
 57, 46* X 4  229,69* X 5  617,75* X 12  102, 25* X 2 2 % 0.0000
 77,57* X 32  14,71* X 4 2  16,81* X 52 Classic 81.51 1782.76 173.039
Metamodel % 0.0000

f3  47090.5 - 3869 * X 1 +15649 * X 2 - 3294.5 * X 3 - 3404.3 * X 4 Step-9 Find the Optimum of Each Metamodel: To optimize
- 2199.4 * X 5 +474.6 * X 12 + 90 * X 1 * X 4 -1367.5 * X 2 2 the objective functions of five metamodels, we used Matlab
- 1238.2 * X 2 * X 3 -821.7 * X 2 * X 4 -1084.9 * X 2 * X 5 +193.8 * X 32
(4) [19]’s Optimization Tool. Table-4 shows the minimum total
costs and values of decision variables.
+ 295.9 * X 3 * X 4 +250.5 * X 3 * X 5 +170.7 * X 4 2 +251* X 4 * X 5
+104.9 * X 52

623
Table 4. Objective functions and decision variables’ values [2] Law, M. and Kelton W. D., 2001. Simulation Modeling
Method Obj.Func Decision Variables Tested and Analysis, McGrawHill, Second Edition, United
Value [X1;X2;X3;X4;X5;X6] Obj. States.
Func. [3] Fu, M., 2002. “Optimization for Simulation: Theory vs.
OptQuest $21017 [3;0;0;0;3;29] - Practice”, INFORMS Journal on Computing
Cluster-1 $21394 [3.76;0;6.17;4;8;50] $28570 14(3):192-215.
Cluster-2 $24842 [3.4;0.9;1.4;1.95;6.83;5 $26343
[4] Waziruddin, S., Brogan,D. C., Reynolds, P.
0]
F.:“Coercion through Optimization: A Classification of
Cluster-3 $23994 [3.5;0;3.9;6;0;50] $26246
Cluster-4 $21888 [7.5;0;4;2.6;0;41] $25171 Optimization Techniques” Proceedings of the 2004 Fall
Cluster-5 $20345 [4;0;0;0;5;29] $21986 Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando, FL,
September 2004.
Step-10 Test the Optimum by Using Simulation Model: We [5] Carson, Y. and A. Maria: “Simulation
tested the optimum of each cluster that obtained in Step-9 Optimization: Methods and Applications” Proceedings of
by using Arena simulation model. Note that the minimum the 1997 Winter Simulation Conference, 1997.
total cost belongs to the Cluster-5’s metamodel, as shown in [6] Rubinstein, R. Y. and A. Shapiro. 1993. Discrete
Table-3. After running those decision variable values in our Event Systems: Sensitivity Analysis and Stochastic
call center simulation model, the result is $21646 (“Tested Optimization by the Score Function Method. New York:
Objective Function” column) which is close to the minimum John Wiley & Sons.
total cost that OptQuest finds $21017. [7] Fu, M.: “Simulation Optimization” Proceedings of
the 2001 Winter Simulation Conference, 2001.
7. CONCLUSION [8] R. H. Myers and D. C. Montgomery: Response
Surface Methodology: Process and Product Optimization
Simulation optimization techniques have developed Using Designed Experiments, Wiley-Interscience, 2002.
significantly in the last two decades. In this study, we aim at [9] Montgomery, D.C. (1991) Design and Analysis of
contributing the literature by proposing a new approach in Experiments, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
which K-Means clustering algorithm is integrated into [10] Fu, M.C. (1994) Optimization via simulation: A
metamodeling. We tested the proposed approach by using a review. Annals of Operations Research, 53, 199–247.
call center simulation model. In this example we used 500 [11] Sargent ,R.G.: “Reesearch Issues in
scenarios which are created by Arena OptQuest Metamodeling” Proceedings of the 1991 Winter Simulation
optimization tool, and then clustered the inputs into five Conference, 1997.
groups. The clusters helped to create plausible metamodels [12] Xu, R.:”Survey of Clustering Algorithms” IEEE
with satisfactory and near-optimal R-Square and MSE Transactıons on Neural Networks, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 645–
values. This gives us an indication of the advantage of the 678, May 2005.
proposed approach. [13] B. Everitt, S. Landau, and M. Leese, Cluster
Analysis. London:Arnold, 2001.Biography.
When the solution space is large and searching is costly, the [14] J. Hartigan, Clustering Algorithms. New York:
proposed approach can be used as an alternative to heuristic Wiley, 1975.
search algorithms. However to generalize the usefulness of [15] A. Jain, M. Murty, and P. Flynn, “Data clustering:
this approach, we aim at having more cases in the future. A review,” ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 264–323,
1999.
8. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS [16] Kelton, W. D. Sadowski, R. P. and Sturrock, D. T.
2007. Simulation with Arena, McGrawHill, Fourth Edition,
The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the United States. pp 195-285.
authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily [17] Minitab, http://www.minitab.com, [accessed
representing the official policies or endorsements, either Jan.2013]
expressed or implied, of any affiliated organization or [18] Arena Simulation Software,
government. http://www.arenasimulation.com/, [accessed Jan.2013]
[19] Matlab,
9. REFERENCES http://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/ , [accessed
Jan.2013]
[1] Tekin, E. and Sabuncuoglu, I., 2004.“Simulation
Optimization: A Comprehensive Review on Theory and
Applications”. IEEE Transactions, 36:1067-1081.

624
 Biography
Emre İrfanoglu is pursuing his MSc in Naval Operations
Research in the Institute of Naval Science and Engineering.
He holds a BSc in Industrial Engineering degree where he
received in 2005 from the Turkish Naval Academy.

Ilker Akgun is an assistant professor in Turkish Naval

Academy. He completed his PhD in Istanbul Technical
University and MSc studies in Middle East Technical
University in 2012 and 2002 respectively.

Murat Gunal is an assistant professor in Turkish Naval

Academy. He completed his PhD and MSc studies in
Lancaster University, UK, in 2008 and 2000 respectively.
His PhD thesis’ title is “Simulation Modelling for
Performance Measurement in Hospitals”. He did research
and worked in simulation field many years.

625

View publication stats