Int. J.

Production Economics 64 (2000) 91}100

Flow simulation and genetic algorithm as optimization tools

F. Fontanili!,*, A. Vincent!, R. Ponsonnet"
!GRPI, IUT Cergy, 95, rue Vale% re Collas, 95100 Argenteuil, France
"GRPI, IUT St Denis, Place du 8 mai 1945, 93000 St Denis, France

Abstract

This paper presents the use of #ow simulation and genetic algorithm to optimize the management parameters in
production. To start with, this study reviews the main parameters to be taken into account for the management of an
assembly line with bypass workstations. Then, we develop two cases of optimization to check the validity of the
combination between #ow simulation and a genetic algorithm for obtaining of optimal parameters. The "rst case
corresponds to a production of only one type of product. The second case is more complex: several di!erent types of
products are simultaneously produced. ( 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Flow simulation; Optimization; Assembly line; Genetic algorithm

1. Presentation of the experimental system
In order to illustrate #ow simulation and process
optimization, we have chosen to apply our research
on a system presently in operation in our laboratory.
This system has a widespread architecture for
industrial applications called Free Modular Trans-
fer. Three types of functional modules are used
(Fig. 1): loading/unloading line (]1), main line
(]1), and bypass workstations (]6).
The links between the di!erent modules help to
obtain the structure shown in Fig. 2.
This line is able to produce simultaneously up to
ten di!erent products, released in variable quantit-
ies, and with di!erent routings and running times.
The products move on the line according to the
generalised Flow Shop: occupation of a workstation
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: franck.fontanil@u-cergy.fr (F. Fontanili),
arnaud.vincent@u-cergy.fr (A. Vincent)
excepted, each product is realised in only one
round, without necessarily going on all the work-
stations.
The assembly routing of a product is constituted
of `Non-permutate and non-redundant phasesa. For
instance, a product's assembly path leads from by-
pass-workstations 1 to 2, 2 to 5, and 5 to 6, in this
order only.
For the rest of this paper, the products will be
regarded as pallets, the pallets on which the prod-
uct is assembled during manufacture.
The chosen architecture o!ers one major advant-
age over the classical architecture with worksta-
tions in series: the pallets #ow is independant (or
asynchronous) with respect to the operations tak-
ing place at the di!erent stations. Moreover, it
permits the simultaneous manufacture of products
with di!erent routings. Another advantage is found
in the system's reliability and ease of maintenance;
these features result from the independently con-
trolled workstations which ensure continuous pro-
duction even when a given workstation fails.

0925-5273/00/$ - see front matter ( 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 5 - 5 2 7 3 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 4 7 - X
92 F. Fontanili et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 64 (2000) 91}100

2. Presentation of the management parameters

2.1. Access rule for pallets onto a bypass workstation

Pallet access to a bypass workstation is deter-

mined by a rule that takes into account parameters
that depend on the pallet itself (routing, defect,
completion of prior operations), as well as a double
condition algorithm involving the workstation
itself (availability, load of upstream stock). Fig. 3
illustrates the access algorithm.

Fig. 1. Functional modules.

Fig. 2. Assembly line structure.

The management of such line, particularly when

di!erent products are in process, is very di$cult.
The questions we must answer are

f What is the interval of time between the release

of two consecutive pallets?
f What is the batch size for each fabrication order?
f What priority rules must we use at the exit of
each workstation?
f What is a `bottlenecka workstation?
f What is the maximum number of pallets that we
can release without saturation of the line?
f What is the best shop scheduling?
f etc. Fig. 3. Access algorithm.
 F. Fontanili et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 64 (2000) 91}100
2.2. Priority rule at bypass workstation exit
In order to prevent the pallets on the main line
from colliding with the pallets leaving a bypass
workstation, it is essential to determine a right of
priority. This problem, apparently simple, is prob-
ably the most complex to solve, because of the
multitude of priority possibilities and their e!ects
on the global functioning of the line. An arbitrary
rule has been chosen whereby correct operation is
monitored at each bypass workstation. Fig. 4 de-
scribes the corresponding algorithm.
Other rules, from the simple to the more com-
plex, can be established to work out which pallet
goes "rst on leaving a bypass workstation. Choos-
ing one of these rules is not easy, because it is
di$cult to forecast the e!ects on the global yield.
The choice is all the more di$cult as di!erent rules
could be established for each bypass workstation
according to other constraints.
One of the goals of our research is to determine
the optimal local rules associated with each work-
station.
In this study, we shall limit ourselves to the rule
described before (we are also researching and test-
ing other rules).
2.3. Flow management parameters
The pallets are sent into the line from the load-
ing/unloading area, where they are parked ac-
Fig. 4. Priority rule.
93
cording to a FIFO queue. The "rst management
parameter to de"ne is therefore the inter-release
time (IRTi) which corresponds to the lapse of time
between the release of two consecutive pallets in the
queue. This parameter may either be constant or
vary from pallet to pallet.
At any bypass workstation, we can de"ne two
parameters:
f the upstream stock capacity (UpSt): a bu!er sec-
tion located at the entrance of workstation,
f the downstream stock capacity (DoSt): a bu!er
section located at the exit of the workstation.
The maximal physical capacity of each of these
bu!ers is six pallets. The UpSt value is a parameter
taken into consideration in the access rule (Fig. 3)
and the DoSt value is a parameter for the exit rule
(Fig. 4). Each bypass workstation may have di!er-
ent UpSt and DoSt values.
3. Limits of the study
The objective function depends on the market, in
a make-to-order approach: the cycle time of a pallet
batch must be as short as possible.
It is also possible to "nd a compromise between
the shortest lead time and the minimal number of
pallets being processed.
The quantity of parameters and the di!erent
values they can take made us realize that our pro-
duction system was particularly complex to man-
age.
Indeed, if we had tried to "nd the optimum
values for the parameters for a 25 pallet batch
production, a very high number of possible combi-
nations would have been found:
f concerning the inter-release time (IRTi), if we
consider that the value can be between 1 and 20
sec, and may vary from one pallet to another,
then there are 20(25~1) possible combinations!
or, more generally (this assumes integer times):
number of combinations
"[Max(IRTi)!min(IRTi)](/6."%3 0& 1!--%54~1);
f concerning the upstream stock capacity (UpSt)
of each workstation and for a product needing to
94 F. Fontanili et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 64 (2000) 91}100

stop on four workstations, there are 64 (i.e. 1296)

possible combinations. or more generally:
number of combinations"
Max(UpSt)/6."%3 0& 803,45!5*0/4.
In the rest of our study, we have decided to take
into account only one parameter:
the inter-release time (IRTi).
The other parameters are "xed on an arbitrary
value.

4. Simulation without optimization

To test di!erent values of the inter-release time

(IRTi), we have made a model of the line and used
#ow simulation with WITNESS software [1]. With
this tool, situations can be tested in a few seconds
rather than hours on the real system. The interest of
such a tool for research goes without saying [2}4].
So we used #ow simulation mostly, and the most
interesting results were checked and proved right
on the real system.
4.1. First case of production
We want to launch a 25 product batch of the
same type. The assembly routing is as follows:
W1[5]PW2[8]PW5[4]PW6[2]
with Wi[ j] the operation on Workstation i, opera-
tion time"j seconds.
The theorical path of a product is the bold draw-
ing in Fig. 5.
In practice, it is possible that some pallets loop
one or more times because they cannot access to
a workstation during the "rst loop.
The objective is to determine the best inter-re-
lease time (IRTi), the one that leads to the minimal
manufacturing lead time (the makespan).
Thanks to the simulation, it's easy to proceed
experimentally, from an initial arbitrary value of
the inter-release time (IRTi).
First, we decide to run simulation with a con-
stant value of IRTi between each pallet.
Results of diwerent runs:
f With 3 seconds as IRTi, the simulation gives a
manufacturing lead time of 633 seconds.
Fig. 5. Product routing.
f With 1 second as IRTi, the simulation gives a
manufacturing lead time of 725 seconds.
f With 8 seconds. as IRTi, the simulation gives a
manufacturing lead time of 519 seconds.
f etc.
We can check each value of IRTi, but in this case, it
is easy to determine the best one: it's the value
which is synchronized with the `bottlenecka work-
station, here workstation number 2. The inter-re-
lease time (IRTi) must be identical to the cycle time
of the `bottlenecka workstation, 8 seconds. In prac-
tice, we add a constant of 4 seconds to this time,
which corresponds to the idle time between the
arrival of two pallets at the workstation. The inter-
release time (IRTi) must be
8#4"12 seconds.
We run the simulation with an IRTi value of 12
seconds and we obtain a manufacturing lead time
of 475 seconds.
The equation of this time is
MLT"FPLT#[(N!1)](BCT#4)]
"187#[(25!1)](8#4)]"475 seconds.
where MLT is the manufacturing lead time, FPLT
the "rst pallet lead time, N the number of pallets,
and BCT the bottleneck cycle time.
 F. Fontanili et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 64 (2000) 91}100 95

4.2. Second case of production We apply immediatly the principle of synchroni-

We want to launch a manufacturing campaign,
which means a set of successive product batches,
with di!erent sizes and di!erent routings. Each
batch corresponds to a manufacturing order (MO),
with a routing and a quantity of products. In our
case, the release of the campaign is scheduled as
follows:
1st"MO1("ve pallets) 2nd"MO2(three pallets)
3rd"MO3(ten pallets) 4th"MO4(seven pallets).
The matrix in Fig. 6 presents the di!erent routings
associated with each Manufacturing Order.
The objective of this campaign release is identical
to the "rst case: to determine the optimal inter-
release time between each pallet to obtain the min-
imal manufacturing lead time.
zation between the bottleneck workstation and the
inter-release time. In this case, the di!erence is that
the bottleneck workstation is not necessarily the
same on each batch, and the cycle time of a given
workstation can vary from one batch to another.
Fitted to this case, the inter-release time settles to
8#4"12 seconds for the MO1 batch of "ve pallets;
5#4"9 seconds for the MO2 batch of three pallets;
15#4"19 seconds for the MO3 batch of 10 pallets;
5#4"9 seconds for the MO4 batch of seven pallets.
The theorical manufacturing lead time of this
campaign (533 seconds) can be determined from the
Gantt chart of Fig. 7.
We can hope that the simulation of this case will
give a lead time close to the theorical value.
Simulation result: 601 seconds
This result is over the theorical lead time and so
we decide to check all the values of inter-release

Fig. 6. Routings matrix.

Fig. 7. Gantt chart of manufacturing lead time.

96 F. Fontanili et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 64 (2000) 91}100
time between 1 and 35 seconds. To limit the num-
ber of combinations, the inter-release time is "xed
to a constant value between each pallet of a cam-
paign. The results of the simulations of these com-
binations are presented in Fig. 8.
The analysis of this graphic shows us a discon-
tinuous variation of the lead time, with several
peaks and hollows. Contrary to the "rst case, it is
impossible to associate a mathematical function to
determine the lead time and so the minimal value is
given from the graphic. Moreover, we have two
values of inter-release time which give the minimal
lead time (627 seconds): 6 and 14 seconds. If we
have to choose one of these two values, we must
take a selection criterion.
But it is not necessary to develop anything in this
case because the minimal value of the manufactur-
ing lead time (627 seconds) is over the value that we
have found in the "rst simulation, with di!erent
values of IRTi between each manufacturing order
(601 seconds.).
5. Simulation with optimization
We are interested in "nding a quick and e!ective
optimization method, capable of determining the
Fig. 8. Manufacturing lead time"f (IRTi).
optimum of an objective function comprising
numerous variables, without testing all possible
combinations.
This optimization method must be able to
handle even more complex situations, such as sev-
eral products with di!erent simultaneous routings
Our investigation of this problem has led us to
use a genetic algorithm [5,6]. This type of algorithm
must be tested with the real system, or even better,
a model of the real system. Contrary to other op-
timization methods, such as linear programming or
quasi-Newton method, it is not necessary to have
a mathematical formulation of the model [7,8].
Our #ow simulation model can then be used as the
support of the genetic algorithm.
An important point to be noticed is that the #ow
simulation model is a stochastic model, capable of
taking unpredictable events into account (break-
downs, setups, changes in cycle times, etc.), and the
genetic algorithm can adapt to model variations by
itself. So, it seemed relevant to us to test the com-
bined use of #ow simulation and genetic algorithm
[9,10].
In order to check this algorithm, we decided to
start by working out the optimum inter-release
time (IRTi), assuming that the other variables were
constant.
 F. Fontanili et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 64 (2000) 91}100
The main di$culty in using a genetic algorithm
was the encoding of the problem. We resorted to
viewing the pallets as individuals carrying one or
several genes corresponding to the parameters to
test. In this case, and within the limits we had set,
each individual carries only one gene whose code is
the inter-release time (IRTi) between each pallet.
For example, for the release of a 7 pallet batch, we
thought in terms of one individual whose genes
include 6 elements corresponding to 6 inter-release
times.
5.1. Simple example of a genetic algorithm
5.1.1. Random creation of an eight individual
generation (i.e. eight genes)
Example: for the release of a seven pallets batch:
Gene 1: 05 - 12 - 02 - 17 - 11 - 09P genetic encoding
of IRTi for the "rst batch, which means that there
are 5 seconds between the release of the "rst pallet
and the second pallet, 12 seconds between the sec-
ond and the third, etc.
Gene 2: 16 - 10 - 08 - 03 - 13 - 02P second batch.
...............................
................................
Gene 8: 07 - 18 - 03 - 04 - 09 - 19.
5.1.2. Evaluation of the xtness (or objective) function
of each individual
Example: The objective is to minimize the lead time
of a product batch.
Gene 1: lead time"193 seconds.
Gene 2: lead time"168 seconds.
Gene 3: lead time"260 seconds.
.......................
Gene 8: lead time"219 seconds.
The result of the "tness function (i.e. lead time) is
obtained by exchanging the data with the #ow
simulation model.
5.1.3. Selection of the two individuals with the best
xtness function
Example:
Gene 2: lead time"168 seconds and Gene 7; lead
time"189 seconds.
97
These two individuals are the selected PARENTS
for the reproduction and the creation of the next
generation.
5.1.4. Reproduction
Hypothesis: The number of individuals is the
same within each generation (eight individuals/gen-
eration in our example).
(a) The selected parents in the previous generation
are the "rst two individuals of the active gen-
eration: it is the elitist strategy of our algo-
rithm.
(b) The two parents' genes are randomly crossed
to obtain six CHILDREN in the active genera-
tion.
Example:
Parent 1"Gene 2: 16 - 10 - 08 - 03 - 13 - 02.
Parent 2"Gene 7: 12 - 04 - 07 - 19 - 17 - 13.
Child 1"Gene C1: 16 - 10 - 07 - 19 - 17 - 13:
crossing of the "rst two elements of parent 1's gene
and the last four elements of parent 2's gene.
Child 2"Gene C2: 03 - 13 - 02 - 12 - 04 - 07.
.........................
.........................
Child 6"Gene C6: 12 - 05 - 07 - 20 - 13 - 03:
Mutant gene which makes possible the generation
of an individual capable of adapting to a modi"ed
environment. In our algorithm, the mutation con-
sists in the incrementation or the decrementation of
every other element of the gene.
5.1.5. Evaluation of the xtness function of the new
generation
Loop back to steps 1}4 for k generations, k being
determined empirically (in our experiments
20(k(50 generations).
5.1.6. Hardware and software used in the experi-
ments
f The genetic algorithm was encoded in PASCAL
with BORLAND DELPHI 2 using WINDOWS
95.
f The simulation model was done with the #ow
simulation software WITNESS 8.0c.
f The data exchange (IRTi and Delay) between the
two applications above was achieved through
98 F. Fontanili et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 64 (2000) 91}100
MICROSOFT OLE Automation links. WIT-
NESS (and the simulation model) was used
as a OLE server and DELPHI 2 as a OLE
customer.
f The implementation of those applications was
done on a PENTIUM 166 MHz computer.
5.1.7. Results
First case: Release of a 25 products batch with the
same routing
f Manufacturing lead time without any optimiza-
tion: 606 seconds with a constant IRTi of 3 sec-
onds.
f Manufacturing lead time with synchronous IRTi
of 12 seconds: 475 seconds.
f Fig. 9 shows research of the minimal lead time
with a genetic algorithm during 50 generations.
The minimal lead time (479 seconds) is obtained for
the gene:
12-11-9-6-1-12-4-6-4-4-18-3-9-11-5-1-6-15-3-8-3-
10-2-15
which corresponds to the inter-release time be-
tween each pallet, variable from one pallet to an-
other. We can notice that this result, close to the
Fig. 9. 1st case: lead time with a genetic algorithm.
minimal lead time (475 seconds), is obtained with
a gene completly di!erent from the optimal: 12-12-
12-12- .......
Second case: Release of a campaign with diwerents
products and routings
1st"MO1(5 pallets) 2nd"MO42(3 pallets)
3rd"MO3(10 pallets) 4th"MO4(7 pallets).
f Theorical minimal lead time: 533 seconds
(Fig. 7);
f Manufacturing lead time with synchronous IRTi
(12 seconds for MO1, 9 seconds for MO2, 19
seconds for MO3, 9 seconds for MO4): 601 seconds
(a) First optimization with genetic algorithm: con-
stant value of IRTi on each manufacturing order, but
variable between each order.
The genetic algorithm gives a result better than
601 seconds (Figs. 10 and 11): 558 seconds.
This minimal lead time (558 seconds) is obtained
for the gene:
10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-22-22-22-22-22-22-22-22-
22-22-9-9-9-9-9-9
which corresponds to the inter-release time be-
tween each pallet.
 F. Fontanili et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 64 (2000) 91}100 99

Fig. 10. 2nd case: lead time with genetic algorithm and constant IRTi.

Fig. 11. 2nd case: lead time with genetic algorithm and variable IRTi.
100 F. Fontanili et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 64 (2000) 91}100
(b) Second optimization with genetic algorithm:
Variable IRTi between each pallet.
The minimal lead time obtained with the genetic
algorithm is 514 seconds. This result is smaller than
the theorical lead time (533 seconds, Fig. 7). This
result is particularly interesting because the genetic
algorithm has found a better solution than our
objective. The gene which corresponds to this lead
time is very `chaotica:
8-5-4-16-5-7-5-9-9-16-8-3-1-6-5-7-17-5-8-12-3-8-9-4.
This result shows us that the genetic algorithm
seems to be very e!ective for problems with lot of
combinations and possible solutions.
6. Analysis of the results and conclusions
f The results obtained with the genetic algorithm
associated with the #ow simulation are very
promising because they are better than all the
results that we have found.
f The calculation/simulation time is proportional
to the number of generations, but does not de-
pend on the number of pallets. With the com-
puter we used, we obtained a calculation/
simulation time of 150 seconds/generation, or
125 min to obtain the optimum lead time for
25 pallets. The increasing performances of com-
puters lead us to believe that in the near future,
we will get even shorter times. But those times
are quite acceptable, all the more so in an indus-
trial environment where the optimization
process can take place during the production
of another batch.
f On the other hand, the optimum inter-release
time (IRTi) given by the genetic algorithm may
appear disappointing because of their random
variations. Indeed, not many production man-
agers would agree to release a batch of products
with such chaotic parameters, especially pro-
vided by a computer! But owing to the use of
#ow simulation, we can prove that they make
sense. To us, it seems that this combination
between #ow simulation and genetic algorithms
is the only reliable way to work out the adequate
IRTi.
f As the real system requires important response
delays for each experiment, the use of #ow simu-
lation is absolutely justi"ed. In this case, suppos-
ing that the mean delay to process 25 pallets is
560 seconds on the real system, the genetic algo-
rithm would have needed 62 hour to "nd the
optimum solution without the simulation!
The results obtained so far have led us to envis-
age the further study of:
f optimization of the upstream and downstream
stock size on each workstation;
f optimization of priority rule at the exit of each
workstation;
f optimization of the pallets dispatching/schedul-
ing, in the case of several di!erent routings;
f etc.
References
[1] WITNESS ver. 8.0, Manuel de programmation
} SERETE.
[2] A.M. Law, W.D. Kelton, Simulation Modeling and Analy-
sis, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1991.
[3] P. Chau, P.C. Bell, Decision support for the design of
a new production plant using visual interactive simulation,
Journal of the Operational Research Society 45 (11) (1994).
[4] R. Caprihan, Simulation studies of alternative control
strategies for FMS, Ph.D. Dissertation, 1995.
[5] D.E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA, 1991.
[6] J. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Arti"cial Systems,
2nd Edition, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992.
[7] E.L. Lawler, Combinatorial Optimization, Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, New York, 1976.
[8] M. Syslo, N. Deo, J.S. Kowalick, Discrete Optimization
Algorithms with Pascal Programs, Prentice-Hall, Engle-
wood Cli!s, NJ, 1983.
[9] M.A. Wellman, D.D. Gemmill, A genetic algorithm
approach to optimization of asynchronous automatic as-
sembly systems, International Journal of Flexible Manu-
facturing Systems 7 (1995) 27}46.
[10] L. Tautou, H. Pierreval, Using evolutionary algorithms
and simulation for the optimization of manufacturing sys-
tems, IEEE, 1995.