“Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line

(Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using

Tecnomatix Plant Simulation 9.0”

Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

Master Thesis

presented in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the double degree:
“Advanced Master in Naval Architecture” conferred by University of Liege
"Master of Sciences in Applied Mechanics, specialization in Hydrodynamics,
Energetics and Propulsion” conferred by Ecole Centrale de Nantes

developed at University of Rostock

in the framework of the

“EMSHIP”
Erasmus Mundus Master Course
in “Integrated Advanced Ship Design”
Ref. 159652-1-2009-1-BE-ERA MUNDUS-EMMC

Supervisor: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Martin-Christoph Wanner, University of Rostock

Dr.-Ing. Ulrich Kothe, University of Rostock

Reviewer: Prof. Philippe RIGO, University of Liege

Rostock, February 2012

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”

ABSTRACT
Shipbuilding industry is one of the most difficult operations as far as design and production are
concerned, since it is production processes where hundreds of thousands of parts are welded and
joined together to only just give a single product (Ship). The technical complexity of the ship
industry is highly related to the fact that different types of ships entail distinct specification
requirements that affects the design and production system adversely. The construction of the ship is
really a special challenge since it should in principle satisfy the requirements of the ship owner,
shipyard and the Class and Flag Society which usually presents a conflict interest.

The purpose of this thesis is to examine the production line (Panel line) in shipbuilding industry
through the application of modeling and simulation techniques using Tecnomatix Plant Simulation 9.0
software considering two types of ships (Tanker and Container) for which most of the stiffened panels
are produced in the Panel line. During modeling, first the existing condition has been modeled and
simulated considering the parameters for each work station (station time) in order to get an insight
about the production rate, the effect of each work station on the overall panel line and their utilization.
Next, Scenario analysis has been performed in effort to improve the production rate along the panel
line applying the experimental manager and the genetic algorithm tools within the software by
selecting appropriate optimization parameters from the work stations so as to improve the
productivity. Furthermore the influence of the addition of a new workstation on the existing panel line
has also been examined in both cases (Tanker and Container ship) that would be very useful input for
the new workstation to be incorporated soon that leads to the design of a new work station.

The simulation analysis carried out in this project revealed that the same work station is acting as a
bottleneck which is affecting the productivity of the panel line both for container and tanker ships
considered in the analysis. Different improving alternatives have been presented in the paper and a
new work station has been designed in such a way that it will not at least affect the productivity of the
existing production (panel) line considering sub-station within the new work station. Finally, In order
to give more flexibility to the modeling and simulation process, an interface has been established with
the Microsoft access (database) where the data for the workstations’ parameters will be stored and to
Microsoft excel where the final results will be exported that facilitates the use and visualization of the
results. The Microsoft access and Microsoft excel files have been placed on the same interface
(Model frame) in order to easily access the files at the same time. Based on the overall analysis
carried out in this thesis, a conclusion has been drawn.

Key words: Ship Building, Modeling, Simulation, Panel Line, Work stations, Productivity.

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

ACRONYM

ABS American Bureau of Shipping

BV Bureau Veritas
CAD Computer Aided Design
CAM Computer Aided Manufacturing
CMT Computer Integrated Manufacturing
COM Computer Optimized Manufacturing
DNV Det Norske Veritas
FS Frame spacing
GA Genetic Algorithm
GL Germanischer Lloyd
HTML Hyper Text Markup Language
IACS The International Association of Classification Societies
ICT Information and Communication Technology
LR Lloyd's Register
MTTR Mean Time To Repair
MU Mobile Unit
NF Number of frames
NNK Nippon Kaiji Kyokai
NP Number of plates
NS Number of stiffeners
ODBC Object Database Connectivity procedure
PVPs (Plate Enforced profiles , Translated from German )
QSCS Quality System Certification scheme
RINA Registro Italiano Navale
V&V Verification and Modeling
VDI Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (The Association of German Engineers)

ii Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents








































Pages

List of Figures .............................................................................................................................v

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... vii

Chapter 1 Problems and Its Approach ........................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................. 2

1.3 Objective of the Thesis .................................................................................................... 3

1.4 Research Methodology .................................................................................................... 3

1.5 Expected Result of the Thesis .......................................................................................... 4

Chapter 2 Literature Review .......................................................................................................5

2.1 Production ........................................................................................................................ 5

2.2 Manufacturing Systems ................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Performance Measures of Manufacturing Systems ......................................................... 7

2.4 Simulation ........................................................................................................................ 8

2.4.1 Simulation Model...................................................................................................... 9

2.4.2 Basic Steps and Decisions for Simulation ................................................................ 9

2.4.3 Simulation in Ship Building and Computer Integrated Manufacturing .................. 12

2.4.4 Computer Optimized Manufacturing ...................................................................... 14

2.5 Ship Building ................................................................................................................. 15

2.5.1 The Ship Building Process ...................................................................................... 15

2.5.2 Ship Building Terms and Definitions ..................................................................... 16

2.5.3 Types of Ships......................................................................................................... 17

2.5.4 Ship Yard Facilities................................................................................................. 19

2.6 The Classification Societies and Regulatory Bodies ..................................................... 20

2.6.1 Classification Society.............................................................................................. 20

2.6.2 The International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) ......................... 21

2.7 Panel Line in Ship Building ........................................................................................... 21

2.7.1 Plate Welding .......................................................................................................... 22

2.7.2 Trimming, Marking and cutting............................................................................ 22

2.7.3 Stiffener (Profile) Setting........................................................................................ 23

2.7.4 Stiffener Welding .................................................................................................... 23

2.7.5 Completion Activities ............................................................................................. 24

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

2.8 Tecnomatix Plant Simulations 9.0 ................................................................................. 24

2.8.1 Definitions Used in the Simulation ......................................................................... 24

2.8.2 Standard Classes in Plant Simulation ..................................................................... 25

2.9 Verification and Validation in Simulation (V & V) ...................................................... 27

Chapter 3 Data collection and Preparation ...............................................................................29

3.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................29

3.2 Methodology of the Whole Process ............................................................................... 29

3.3 Data Collection and Analysis......................................................................................... 32

3.3.1 Container Ship ........................................................................................................ 32

3.3.2 Tanker Ship ............................................................................................................. 35

Chapter 4 Model Development and Scenario Analysis ............................................................47

4.1 Model Development and Scenario Analysis for Container Ship ................................... 47

4.1.1 Scenario One for Container Ship ............................................................................ 48

4.1.2 Scenario Two for Container Ship ........................................................................... 50

4.1.3 Scenario Three for Container Ship ......................................................................... 52

4.1.4 Optimization using The Genetic algorithm (GA) ................................................... 53

4.1.5 Scenario four for Container Ship ............................................................................ 56

4.1.6 Scenario Five for Container Ship............................................................................ 59

4.2 Model Development and Scenario Analysis for Tanker Ship ....................................... 60

4.2.1 Scenario One for Tanker Ship................................................................................. 61

4.2.2 Scenario Two for Tanker Ship ................................................................................ 62

4.2.3 Scenario Three for Tanker Ship .............................................................................. 64

4.2.4 Optimization Using the Genetic Algorithm (GA) .................................................. 65

4.2.5 Scenario Four for Tanker Ship................................................................................ 67

4.2.6 Scenario Four for Tanker Ship................................................................................ 69

4.3 Integrating Ms Access and Ms Excel in the Simulation Process ................................... 70

4.3.1 The Working Procedure .......................................................................................... 71

4.3.2 Times and Distributions .......................................................................................... 72

4.3.3 Normal Statistical Distribution ............................................................................... 73

Chapter 5 Conclusion................................................................................................................76

Acknowledgement ....................................................................................................................77

References .................................................................................................................................78

Appendixes ................................................................................................................................. I

iv Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”

LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Pages

    


   


     


 !   "# $   


 %#    


 #     &


 ' (#    &


 %%(!   &


 !!#   )


 &*
#+   )


 &,-  


 )(# # 


 .,##-  


 /  # #   


  # #   


 ,0102 3$ ..&$4 &


 
-##+#  .


  #-# #!#  


 !  (#-( 


  #-#(#  


  #-#(# '0  


  #-#(# '0 #-##(# &


  #-#(# #-#+  )


 & #-# # (#   .


 )5 264 #(   


 3 # #!#   


 ,##-(24  )


  ##-$724  )


  ### #8 # --(
24 


 9  - 


  ### #8 # -
 -(24 


 9  - -(24 


 & # # & 

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

 ) ## "  

 . #  ##. 


 ,$#+#-(2!4 &


 ,$#+#-(,0,   &


  ### #8 #,0,-( )


 3 # # (#  .


  $# #-( 


 ,##-(2 (4 


  ### #8 # --(
2 (4 


 &9  -2 (4 


 ) ### #8 # -
 -(2 (4 


 . ## "  


   #  ##. 


 9 ,0,-(2 (4 &


  ### #8 #,0,-( )


  9  ,0,-(2 (4 .


 /  #  


  #-(-#  #  


 ! $  -( 

vi Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”

LIST OF TABLES
Tables Pages
$ ! #-(##  

$ !  (#-( 

$ :$ ;; ;#+ #( 
#- 

$ *# '- 

$ *#    

$ *#   

$ *#   

$ &*#  -  

$ )! #-(#   

$ *$#8 # --( .

$ 9 #8 # --( .

$ *$#8 # - -( 

$ 8 # +# . # 

$ 9 " <'##  

$ * ,0,-( 

$ *$#8 #,0,-( )

$ &*$#8 # --( 

$ )*$#8 # - -( 

$ .8 # +# # 

$ 9 " <'# (#  

$ * ,0,-(2 (4 &

$ *$#8 #,0,-( )

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

Declaration of Authorship
I declare that this thesis and the work presented in it are my own and have been generated by
me as the result of my own original research.

Where I have consulted the published work of others, this is always clearly attributed.

Where I have quoted from the work of others, the source is always given. With the exception
of such quotations, this thesis is entirely my own work.

I have acknowledged all main sources of help.

Where the thesis is based on work done by myself jointly with others, I have made clear
exactly what was done by others and what I have contributed myself.

This thesis contains no material that has been submitted previously, in whole or in part, for
the award of any other academic degree or diploma.

I cede copyright of the thesis in favour of the University of Rostock.

Date: Signature:

viii Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”

CHAPTER 1 PROBLEMS AND ITS APPROACH

1.1 Introduction
Manufacturing is a series of inter-related activities and operations involving the design,
material selection, planning, manufacturing, production, quality assurance management and
marketing of the products of manufacturing industries (Center for International conference on
production engineering). Production is a transformation process that converts raw materials
into finished products in such a way that it will have value in the marketplace to satisfying
customer requirements. It is inevitable that products are made by a combination of manual
labor, machinery, tools and energy and the transformation process usually involves a
sequence of steps, each step bringing the materials closer to the desired final state. The
individual steps are referred to as production operations. The range of production varies
depending on the type of the final product and the facilities utilized to realize the final result.

Ship production is of very unique in nature where hundreds of thousands of components are
assembled together systematically in order to get the final result (single product). The
distinguishing feature of job shop production is low volume and hence the manufacturing lot
sizes are small, often of one kind (shipbuilding). It is commonly used to meet specific
customer orders, and there is a great variety in the type of work the plant must do. Therefore,
the production equipment must be flexible and general purpose to allow for this variety of the
work. Also the skill level of job shop workers must be relatively high so that they can perform
a range of different work assignments [1].

Manufacturing (production) planning and control entails the acquisition and allocation of
limited resources to production activities so as to satisfy customer demand over a specified
time horizon. As such, planning and control problems are inherently optimization problems,
where the objective is to develop a plan that meets demand at minimum cost or that fills the
demand that maximizes profit. The underlying optimization problem will vary due to
differences in the manufacturing and market context [2]. Since shipbuilding is very complex
in nature, it demands a special attention when planning the production activities which
requires appropriate product data and resource availability at the right time, in the right place,
in the right quantity. Simulation can be used in order to study carefully the production
planning that leads to Simulation Based Production in shipbuilding.
“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

Simulation powerfully supports managing the interaction of product and production flow –
especially for the production of complex products in very small series as in shipbuilding. In
recent years interest in simulation modeling has greatly increased. Many manufacturing
companies are investing in advanced manufacturing technology including flexible
manufacturing system (FMS), various computer aided manufacturing (CAM) systems, etc.
The availability of a well constructed and validated computer model allows the systems
designers, the engineers and the managers to understand in advance the detailed consequences
of their decisions and the investments prior to actually making binding commitments [3].

Production simulation is a very useful tool concerning the possibilities of gains in the process
of production and as result, cost reduction. In order to achieve an optimum integration of
design versus production, it is necessary to model not only the ship but also the shipyard
facilities and integrate them into a single simulation model. In production, the acquisition of
valid source of information with regard to the main characteristics of the manufacturing
function plays a vital role in simulation based production planning.

In this paper, the panel line of a ship building has been modeled and simulated in order to
examine the flow of the plates in the panel line and how each work station is affecting the
overall production line and an attempt has been made to optimize the bottleneck workstation
so that the productivity would be improved. The assessment about the effect of the new work
station that will be incorporated after the completion of the research which is still undergoing
has also been included in the study.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

In production, the acquisition of valid source of information with regard to the main
characteristics of the manufacturing function plays a vital role in simulation based production
planning. The availability of relevant data is not sufficient enough to carry out the simulation
based production planning unless the data are organized to be used by the tools developed.
Having a model about the panel line helps to make decisions in advance with good accuracy
and that saves time and resource. It also provides information about each the utilization of
each work station and how the overall panel line is being affected by each other. The addition
of new work station can easily be examined with simulation techniques since the method
provides the flexibility of adding new workstation to the existing system and investigate its

2 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
influence on the overall production line. The study has been carried out in light of the
following problem questions.
• What are the relevant production process data for the simulation tool?
• What is the effect of each work station on the overall panel line?
• What is the effect of the new work station on the existing panel line?
• How to optimize and maximize the productivity along the panel line?

1.3 Objective of the Thesis

The general objective of this thesis is to analyze and optimize the panel line of a shipbuilding
using modeling and simulation techniques. The specific objectives of the thesis can be
summarized as follows
¾ To identify the relevant data and synthesize it for modeling
¾ To model and simulate the panel line
¾ To identify the bottleneck in the production line
¾ To carry out scenario analysis and find out optimal solutions
¾ To investigate the effect of the new work station on the existing panel line

1.4 Research Methodology

Depending on the nature of the research to be carried out, different type of methodology can
be followed and in this study, the following methodology has been followed thoroughly.

9 Literature survey: Literature survey of different and relevant information for the
study with regard to Ship Production, Computerized Production planning, simulation,
maritime production systems plan from books, journals, articles and manuals in the
research center.
9 Data collection: Appropriate data for the study have been gathered from the shipyard
(drawings and spread sheet).
9 Data analysis and synthesis: having gathered all the required and necessary
information (data) relevant to this thesis, it has been analyzed, synthesized and
organized so that it would be suitable as useful input for modeling and simulation.
9 Model Development: the model for the panel line in the ship building industry has
been developed considering the Sankey diagram that provides information how the
“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

parts are flowing in the panel line. Scenario analysis and experimentation have also
been carried out for two different ship types (Container and Tanker) using Tecnomatix
Plant Simulation 9.0
9 Conclusion: based on the findings from the overall data analysis, synthesis, and
simulation results, a conclusion has been drawn.

1.5 Expected Result of the Thesis

The model developed and analyzed using the simulation software for the panel line in the ship
building industry will give an insight for the ship yard with regard to the production line and
helps them how to get the optimal output even without carrying out the actual task of
producing the stiffened panels. It will also provide for the top management an alternative
with different scenario so that they can make decisions effectively and efficiently in advance
since simulation will only provide options not solutions. The result from the simulation
analysis about the addition of new work station namely Plate Enforced Profiles (PVPs,
translated from German) will also give an insight to the effect of the addition of new work
station to the existing work station and this can used as in input for the research dealing with
PVPs.

4 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Production
Production involves the conversion of raw materials in to final products which are useful for
the purpose the final outputs are intended to function properly. There are different ways of
classifying the production activities and the most common classification is based on the
quantity of product made. In this classification, there are three types of production namely [1]:
• Job shop,
• Batch shop and
• mass production

Ship production lies under the category of job shop production where the main objective is to
meet the specific requirement of the customers and sometimes the term project is used instead
of job shop production.
Fig 2.1 summarizes some of the important characteristics of these different types of
production plants [1]. It would be noted that the production ranges of the three major
categories overlap to some degree. The reason is simply that it is difficult to draw a clear
dividing line between the different types.

Batch production Mass Production

Job Shop

Production quantity
Production rate
Labor skill level
General Equipment Special
Special tooling

Process Plant layout Product flow

Figure 2.1 Types of production

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

2.2 Manufacturing Systems

A manufacturing system is a complex, organized assembly of human beings and machines

implementing basic tasks and processes to transform input materials into output products. Key
goals of manufacturing are [1]
9 to increase the shareholders value

9 to satisfy customer needs at minimum cost

9 to enrich society and to increase the overall quality of life
Specific Goals of Manufacturing
– Maximization of revenue (from sales)
– Minimization of costs (from manufacturing)
– Customer satisfaction (product quality and customer service)
– Minimization of inventory and Minimization of environmental impact
Although manufacturing systems are generally quite complex, they almost involve the
following essential components: Workstations, Materials handling and Storage subsystems.
Manufacturing system functions can be performed by humans or automated. The following
essential functions can be identified in most manufacturing systems: Procurement,
Production and Distribution

Figure 2.2 Model of Manufacturing [1]

6 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
Effective production scheduling has been an important area of concern for many years in
manufacturing [4]. One of the major objectives of Production Planning and Control (PPC) is
summarized as follows:

• Maximize concurrency of operations and minimize conflicts.

• Determine the sequence of operations leading to the completion of each job.
• Determine the timing of these events.
• Check material availability and update job priorities.
• Minimize production cost and lateness.

2.3 Performance Measures of Manufacturing Systems

Performance measures are devices to aid decision makers differentiate among competing
manufacturing arrangements or to improve the performance of an existing system. There are
severla fundamental measures of performance concern and Askin Standbridg (1993)
suggested the following performance measure in manufactruing systems.
1. Production volume
2. Quality
3. Cost
4. Customer service
In order to quantify the above four major points, one has to carefully carry out the
performance analysis that is conducted to evaluate the existing or planned systems so as to
compare alternative configurations or to find an optimal configuration of a system. Basically,
there are three alternative techniques for analyzing the performance of a system.[5]
i. Measurement: measuring the performance of the system can provide the exact
answers regarding the performance of the system. The system in question is
observed directly and no details are abstracted away, and no simplifying
assumptions need to be made regarding the behavior of the system. However,
measurement is only an optional if the system in question is already in action. The
measurements that are taken may or may not be accurate depending on the current
state of the system. For example, if the utilization of a network is measured during
an off-peak period, then no conclusions can be drawn either about the average

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

utilization of the network or the utilization of the network during the peak usage
periods
ii. Analytical model: models like Markovian models can provide exact results
regarding the performance of the system. The results are exact, in that they are not
estimates of the performance of the system. However, the results provided by the
analytical models may or may not be accurate, depending on the assumptions that
have been made in order to accurately model industrial sized systems with
analytical models.
iii. Simulation-Based Performance analysis: this can be used as an alternative to
analytical techniques. Simulation can represent the real world by numbers and
other symbols that can be readily manipulated. The availability of computers
makes simulation possible for us to deal with extraordinary large quantity of
details, which can be incorporated in, to a model and the ability to manipulate the
model over many ‘experiments’ (i.e replicating all the possibility that may be
embedded in the external world and events would seem to recur). It can rarely
provide the exact solution, but it is possible to calculate the how precise the
estimates are. Furthermore, large and more complex models can generally be
created analyzed without making restrictive assumptions about the system. There
are two main drawbacks for using simulation; it may be time consuming to execute
the necessary simulations and difficult to achieve results that are precise enough.
Simulation based performance analysis of a model involves a statistical
investigation of output, the exploration of the large data sets, the appropriate
visualization, and the verification and validation of simulation experiments.

2.4 Simulation

Today Simulation is arguably one of the most multifaceted topics that can face an Engineer in
the dynamic business environment. It can also be considered as one of the most important
tools to a corporation, regardless of the industry. Simulation helps to improve the Quality,
safety and productivity of the industrial business environment through the representation of
the whole activities with different model development taking in to account all the business
parametrs.

8 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
2.4.1 Simulation Model

In building the model the whole activities of the business is simulated starting from the
reciept of orders ( raw material) and delivering the product (finished goods). It is also possible
to only consider parts of the business componets that are very critical to the profitability of the
specific company for example production simulation, logistic simulation, maintenance etc.
The benefit of incorporating the simulation technique in the process of carrying out the
business is to get an insight in advance about the whole system thereby decisions could be
made with a reasonable accuracy. While modeling the system, all the activities are grouped in
to a specific cluster taking into account all the parametrs to be included for each work station
or department and it is also necessary to communicate about the capacity and objective of
each department in accordance with the strategic objective of the company in order to avoid
interest conflict among the participating bodies within the company.

2.4.2 Basic Steps and Decisions for Simulation

2.4.2.1 Basic steps

The application of simulation involves specific steps in order for the simulation study to be
successful. Regardless of the type of problem and the objective of the study, the process by
which the simulation is performed remains constant. The following briefly describes the basic
steps in the simulation process [ 6]:

1. Problem-Definition
The initial step involves defining the goals of the study and determing what needs to be
solved. The problem is further defined through objective observations of the process to be
studied. Care should be taken to determine if simulation is the appropriate tool for the
problem under investigation.
2. Project-Planning
The tasks for completing the project are broken down into work packages with a
responsible party assigned to each package. Milestones are indicated for tracking progress.
This schedule is necessary to determine if sufficient time and resources are available for
completion.
3. System-Definition
This step involves identifying the system components to be modeled and the preformance
measures to be analyzed. Often the system is very complex, thus defining the system
“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

requires an experienced simulator who can find the appropriate level of detail and
flexibility.
4. Model-Formulation
Understanding how the actual system behaves and determining the basic requirements of
the model are necessary in developing the right model. Creating a flow chart of how the
system operates facilitates the understanding of what variables are involved and how these
variables interact.
5. Input-Data-Collection and Analysis

After formulating the model, the type of data to collect is determined. New data is
collected and/or existing data is gathered. Data is fitted to theoretical distributions. For
example, the arrival rate of a specific part to the manufacturing plant may follow a normal
distribution curve.

6. Model-Translation
The model is translated into programming language. Choices range from general purpose
languages such as fortran or simulation programs such as Arena.
7. Verification-and-Validation
Verification is the process of ensuring that the model behaves as intended, usually by
debugging or through animation. Verification is necessary but not sufficient for validation,
that is a model may be verified but not valid. Validation ensures that no significant
difference exists between the model and the real system and that the model reflects reality.
Validation can be achieved through statistical analysis. Additionally, face validity may be
obtained by having the model reviewed and supported by an expert.
8. Experimentation-and-Analysis
Experimentation involves developing the alternative model(s), executing the simulation
runs, and statistically comparing the alternative(s) system performance with that of the
real system.
9. Documentation-and-Implementation
Documentation consists of the written report and/or presentation. The results and
implications of the study are discussed. The best course of action is identified,
recommended, and justified.

10 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
2.4.2.2 Decisions-for-Simulating

Simulation usually provides alternatives about a specific cases and it does not give an exact
solution in priniciple since it only mimics the real system. Completing the required steps of a
simulation study establishes the likelihood of the study's success but it does not guarante that
the problem is solved. Although knowing the basic steps in the simulation study is important,
it is equally important to realize that not every problem should be solved using simulation that
requires cost benefit analysis. In the past, simulation required the specialized training of
programmers and analysts dedicated to very large and complex projects. Now, due to the
large number of software available, simulation at times is used inappropriately by individuals
lacking the sufficient training and experience. When simulation is applied inappropriately, the
study will not produce meaningful results. The failure to achieve the desired goals of the
simulation study may induce blaming the simulation approach itself when in fact the cause of
the failure lies in the inappropriate application of simulation [7].

It is advisable to consider some parametrs so as to check the benefit of applying the modeling
and simulation method in order to solve a specific problem. The major factors that should be
taken in to account to examine if the simulation is the right approach to solving a specific
problem before carrying out the study are [7]:

1. Type of Problem
2. Availability of Resources
3. Costs
4. Availability of Data

1 Type of Problem: If a problem can be solved by common sense or analytically, the use of
simulation is unnecessary. Additionally, using algorithms and mathematical equations may be
faster and less expensive than simulating. Also, if the problem can be solved by performing
direct experiments on the system to be evaluated, then conducting direct experiments may be
more desirable than simulating. However, one factor to consider when performing directing
experiments is the degree in which the real system will be disturbed. If a high degree of
disruption to the real system will occur, then another approach may be necessary.The real
system itself plays another factor in deciding to simulate. If the system is too complex, cannot
be defined, and not understandable then simulation will not produce meaningful results. This
situation often occurs when human behavior is involved.

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

2.Availability of Resources: People and time are the determining resources for conducting a
simulation study. An experienced analyst is the most important resource since such a person
has the ability and experience to determine both the model's appropriate level of detail and
how to verify and validate the model. Without a trained simulator, the wrong model may be
developed which produces unreliable results. Additionally, the allocation of time should not
be so limited so as to force the simulator to take shortcuts in designing the model. The
schedule should allow enough time for the implementation of any necessary changes and for
verification and validation to take place if the results are to be meaningful.

3.Costs: Cost considerations should be given for each step in the simulation process,
purchasing simulation software if not already available, and computer resources. Obviously if
these costs exceed the potential savings in altering the current system, then simulation should
not be pursued.

4.Availability of Data: The necessary data should be identified and located, and if the data
does not exist, then the data should be collectible. If the data does not exist and cannot be
collected, then continuing with the simulation study will eventually yield unreliable and
useless results. The simulation output cannot be compared to the real system's performance,
which is vital for verifying and validating the model.The basic steps and decisions for a
simulation study are incorporated into a flowchart as shown in the figure (Fig 2.3) .

2.4.3 Simulation in Ship Building and Computer Integrated Manufacturing

Computer simulation has been applied mainly in ship design stage, especially in the initial
planning and structural analysis at design stage, while it has not been widely implemented in
production because ship production is very complicated and requires much experience.
However, the introduction of production simulation is aimed at [8]:

(1) Quality improvement: to predict and estimate performance such as vessel speed, dead
weight, strength and so on, in accordance with design demand.
(2) Shortening of lead times: to shorten the construction period and flow time from design to
completion of a ship.
(3) Reduction of production cost: to decrease the costs, both material costs and personnel
expenses, and to reduce the waste time during the manufacturing process.
In ship production, simulations may be applied in the following:
(1) Analysis and evaluation of the production process
12 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
(2) Planning and assisting of production
(3) Simulator for training of skilled work such as line heating, welding, and straightening.
(4) To confirm work safety

Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM) is the manufacturing approach of

using computers to control the entire production process [9]. This integration allows
individual processes to exchange information with each other and initiate actions. Through the
integration of computers, manufacturing can be faster and less error-prone, although the main
advantage is the ability to create automated manufacturing processes.

When Computer-Integrated Manufacturing (CIM) is applied, the functional areas of a

manufacturing enterprise such as design, analysis, planning, purchasing, cost accounting,
inventory control, and distribution are linked through the computer with the factory-floor
functions such as materials handling and management; as result the CIM provides direct
control and monitoring of all process operations. The CIM is most useful where a high level
of information and communication technology (ICT) is used such as CAD/CAM systems, the
availability of process planning, and its data. There are however few major challenges to
development of a smoothly CIM operation: integration of components from different
suppliers, data integrity, and process control (Yoram, 1983; Waldner, 1992; Singh, 1997).

Therefore in order to raise productivity, quality, and safety, which are three major elements in
production, it becomes important to study the production procedure in advance using various
computer simulations.

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

Start
No
System
can be Stop
Define defined?
Problem
No
Yes Model
Verified Stop
No and
Specify system Validated?
Problem
appropriate Stop parameter
? Yes

Formulate
model?
No Experimentation
Benefit & Analysis?
exceeds Stop
cost?
No
Data can be
Documentation &
collected or Stop
Implementation
Yes exists?

Planning and
scheduling Yes

Data collection &

Analysis End
No
Adequate
Resource Stop
? Model
Translation

Yes

Figure 2.3 Steps and decisions for conducting a simulation study [7].

2.4.4 Computer Optimized Manufacturing

In the production field of shipbuilding, most of the works rely on the cooperation and
integration of multiple workers. The simulation-based production allows [10]:

14 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
9 Checking the feasibility of the construction procedure by using dynamic moving
images,
9 Confirming the interference both human and structures by compensating human errors
and raising the integrity of the engineering, and
9 Optimizing the construction process by providing common acknowledgment and
cooperation to all related workers.
In order to carry out shipbuilding activities efficiently, effectively and safely, it is very
important for all related workers to have a common acknowledgement and cooperation among
themselves. Using the product model which is the core of the computer integrated
manufacturing (CIM), design and production planning of the simulation base can be carried
out, and the global optimization is obtained as shown in the figure (Fig 2.4) .
Computer Optimized
Manufacturing
COM

Simulation Product
Simulation based
based design production
model

Digital
CIM manufacturing

Figure 2.4 Concept of computer optimized manufacturing in shipbuilding [11]

2.5 Ship Building

2.5.1 The Ship Building Process

The ship building is an industry that produces products (ships, offshore structures, floating
plants etc) for customers (private owners, companies, governments etc). In most cases, the
product is built to order and customized to the specific requirements of the customer or
purchasers. This applies even in cases where a similar series of ships is being built. The entire
process is likely to vary somewhat depending on the customer involved, but generally
involves a number of specific stages. These may be summarized as follows [12].
• Development of owners requirement
• Preliminary/ concept design
• Contract design
• Bidding/contracting

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

• Detail design and planning

• Construction

It is a common practice that the first stage in the ship building process is the formulation of
the product requirements by the customers or buyers.
Examples
9 A shipping line may forecast the demand for a transportation of 200,000 automobiles
per year between two ports
9 A company may want to transport 12 million tons of crude oil per year from one
country to another
9 A transportation agency may need to ferry 100,000 passengers per day across an
inland water way over 10 routes averaging 30 trips per route.
In general, ship building can be viewed as a process that begins when an owner perceives a
need to a vessel to perform some set of functions, that proceeds through a number of stages of
paper works (design, contracting, planning etc) and that culminates in massive collection and
joining of parts and components to manufacture the desired vessel. Productive ship building is
highly dependent on careful consideration, control and performance in each of these stages.
2.5.2 Ship Building Terms and Definitions

Ship building is the construction of ships and a ship yard is the place where ships are built.
Ship building is a construction industry which uses a wide variety of manufactured
components in addition to basic construction materials. The process, therefore, has many of
the characteristics of both construction and manufacturing [12]. It requires many workers
having various skills, working within an established organizational structure at specific
locations in which necessary facilities are available. The goal of a privately owned
shipbuilding company is to earn a profit by building ships.

A ship, although a complex combination of things, can be most easily classified by its basic
dimensions, its weight (displacement) and (or) load carrying capacity (dead weight) and its
intended service. Fig 2.5 defines a number of basic ship dimensions as well as typical ship
board regions. Some specific definitions are dependent on the vessel type or service, but in
general, most dimensions are applicable for all ship types [12].

16 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”

Figure 2.5 Basic ship dimensions and definitions [12]

2.5.3 Types of Ships

Ships can be divided into a number of classes based on their intended service and it inevitable
that different scholars provide a number of classifications. The primary classes according to
Richard Lee, Colin P, Howard m and Richard C Moore are


• Dry cargo ships
• Tankers
• Bulk carriers
• Passenger ships
• Fishing vessels
• Industrial vessels
• Combatant vessels
• Others

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

Figure 2.6 Ship types [12]

No simple classification of ships by type is likely to be all inclusive, but this general
breakdown is sufficient to indicate general trends. The figure (Fig 2.6) shows typical in board
profiles of the ship within each of these classes.

Figure 2.7A Tanker ship [12]

Figure 2.7B Bulk Carrier [12]

18 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”

Figure 2.7C Container ship

(Source: California Publication of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), USA:
http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/coastline/line0534.htm )

Figure 2.8D Fishing vessel [12]

2.5.4 Ship Yard Facilities

A ship yard generally contains several specific facilities laid out to facilitate the flow of the
material and assemblies. There is no typical ship yard layout, partly because many shipyards
were initially constructed in the ninetieth or early century. These yards have grown according
to the availability of land and water front as well as in response to production requirements.
Typical important features are listed below [12].
9 A location on land for creating a ship, along with an associated means for getting the
ship to the water, such as a graving dock, launching ways or floating dry dock.
9 Piers for storing ships afloat to permit work to continue following launching
“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

9 Shops for performing various kinds of work, such as

o Steel marking, cutting and forming shop
o Steel assembly shop
o Surface penetration and coating shop
o Pipe shop
o Sheet metal shop
9 Storage, marshaling, outdoor work areas
9 Offices and personnel support buildings ( cafeteria, sick bay, etc)

Associated with each of these general types of facilities are specific pieces of equipment that
are related to the work carried out in that location.

2.6 The Classification Societies and Regulatory Bodies

2.6.1 Classification Society

A classification society is a non-governmental organization that establishes and maintains

technical standards for the construction and operation of ships and offshore structures. The
society will also validate that construction is according to these standards and carry out
regular surveys in service to ensure compliance with the standards.
The purpose of a Classification Society is to provide classification and statutory services and
assistance to the maritime industry and regulatory bodies as regards maritime safety and
pollution prevention, based on the accumulation of maritime knowledge and technology. The
objective of ship classification is to verify the structural strength and integrity of essential
parts of the ship’s hull and its appendages, and the reliability and function of the propulsion
and steering systems, power generation and those other features and auxiliary systems which
have been built into the ship in order to maintain essential services on board. Classification
Societies aim to achieve this objective through the development and application of their own
Rules and by verifying compliance with international and/or national statutory regulations on
behalf of flag Administrations. The vast majority of commercial ships are built to and
surveyed for compliance with the standards laid down by Classification Societies. These
standards are issued by the Society as published Rules [13].

Some of the major classification societies in the world are:-

• American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), USA
• Lloyd's Register (LR), England
20 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
• Bureau Veritas (BV), France
• Det Norske Veritas (DNV), Norway
• Germanischer Lloyd (GL), Germany
• Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (NNK), Japan
• Registro Italiano Navale (RINA), Italy
2.6.2 The International Association of Classification Societies (IACS)

The International Association of Classification Societies is an association established by a

number of classification societies all over the world. Some classification societies are not
members of the International Association of Classification Societies. Compliance with the
IACS Quality System Certification Scheme (QSCS) is mandatory for IACS Membership.
Dedicated to safe ships and clean seas, IACS makes a unique contribution to maritime safety
and regulation through technical support, compliance verification and research and
development. More than 90% of the world's cargo carrying tonnage is covered by the
classification design, construction and through-life compliance Rules and standards set by the
thirteen Member Societies of IACS. Classification Rules have been developed over many
years by each Society through extensive research and development and service experience. In
addition, certain Unified Requirements have been agreed by IACS Members and transposed
into the individual Members’ Rules [13].

2.7 Panel Line in Ship Building

The panel line is one of the most important production lines in the ship building and hence
great care should be taken in to account since it affects the overall performance of the ship
yards. It is imperative that the flow of activities in the ship yard varies one from another but
the activities mentioned below are more or less the common practice in the ship yards.
o Grinding
o Chamfering
o Handling and storage
o Plate welding
o Grinding, cutting and marking
o Stiffening
o Framing
o Transport system

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

o Bulk heads, pillars and hull plates

o Automatic welding
o Manual welding
In this project, the work stations that have been considered for modeling the panel line to
examine the production line are:
9 Plate welding (Automatic or Manual welding)
9 Trimming, cutting, marking
9 Profile (stiffener) mounting or setting
9 Profile (stiffener) welding
9 Completion

2.7.1 Plate Welding

In this work station, a number of plates will be welded together depending on the requirement
for a specific section of the ship. The thickness of the plates determines the nature of the
welding technique whether to weld them automatically or manually.

Figure 2.8 Plates after welding operations

2.7.2 Trimming, Marking and cutting

In this section, different types of activities will be carried out like trimming the edge parts of
the welded plates based on the required dimensions described in the drawing for the specific
section of the ship and different types of cut outs have also to be performed at this work
station. The positions of the stiffeners will also be identified and marked at this work station
so that in the next work station (which is the profile setting), the stiffeners would be placed
easily and properly.

22 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”

Position of
stiffeners

Figure 2.9 Marking for the position of the stiffeners

2.7.3 Stiffener (Profile) Setting

In order to properly weld the stiffeners on the plates which provide good structural strength to
the ship, it is first necessary to properly place the stiffeners on their exact positions marked at
the previous work station. Failure not to keep the exact location of the stiffeners as prescribed
in main drawing from the design stage will ultimately affect the service period of the ship and
it may even cause a structural distortion.

Figure 2.10 Placement of the stiffeners on the welded plates

2.7.4 Stiffener Welding

Once the stiffeners are properly placed on the welded plates, the next step is to weld the
stiffeners to the plates. Depending on the requirement and the amount or length of stiffeners
to be welded on the plates, one or two welding tools can be used along the length of the
stiffener in order to reduce the time required for the welding of the stiffeners.

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

2.7.5 Completion Activities

This is the last work station considered in the model development for the panel line in ship
building under this research. The activities performed in this section are different for each
type of ship and some of the activities that would be performed in this work station are pre-
outfitting activities, manual welding if necessary and some finishing activities before the
stiffened panels are transported to another line in the ship yard.

2.8 Tecnomatix Plant Simulations 9.0

Plant Simulation is a discrete, event-oriented simulation program, i.e., it only inspects those
points in time, at which events take place within the simulation model. The first procedure is
to create an interface on the frame representing the input (Source), workstations and Output
(Drain) relationship ships as indicated in the Sankey diagram with appropriate connectors.In
order to model the panel line in the ship building, Tecnomatix Plant Simulation 9.0 has been
utilized. Simulation technology is an important tool for planning, implementing, and
operating complex technical systems. Several trends in the economy such as [14]
9 increasing product complexity and variety
9 increasing quality demands in connection with high cost pressure
9 increasing demands regarding flexibility
9 shorter product life cycles
9 shrinking lot sizes
9 increasing competitive pressure
lead to shorter planning cycles. Simulation has found its place where simpler methods no
longer provide useful results. Steffen Bangsow (2010) suggested that simulation can be
applied during planning, implementation, and operation of equipment.
2.8.1 Definitions Used in the Simulation

Simulation (source: VDI 3633)

Simulation is the reproduction of a real system with its dynamic processes in a model. The
aim is to reach transferable findings for the reality. In a wider sense, simulation means
preparing, implementing, and evaluating specific experiments with a simulation model.

System: (VDI 3633)

A system is defined as a separate set of components which are related to each other.
24 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”

Model: (VDI 3633)

A model is a simplified replica of a planned or real system with its processes in another
system. It differs in important properties only within specified tolerance from the original.

Simulation run: (source: VDI 3633)

A simulation run is the image of the behavior of the system in the simulation model within a
specified period.
Experiment: (source: VDI 3633)
An experiment is a targeted empirical study of the behavior of a model by repeated simulation
runs with systematic variation of arguments.
2.8.2 Standard Classes in Plant Simulation

In general, only a limited selection of objects is available for representing the real installation.
Hierarchically structured system models are best designed top-down. In this way, the real
system will be decomposed into separate functional units (subsystems) [14]. If we are not
able to model sufficiently precise with the available model objects, we should continue to
decompose, etc. Each object must be described precisely: The individual objects and the
operations within the objects are linked to an overall process. This creates a Frame and with
the objects and the Frame various logistical systems can be modelled considering the input,
failures and output parameters as depicted in the figure (Fig 2.11).

Failures

Input Objects: Output

Machine, store,
Conveyor etc..
Figure 2.11 Input output relationship in modeling the system [14]

The standard classes used in the Tecnomatix Plant simulation 9.0 can be classified into six
categories:
1. Material flow objects 4. Mobile objects
2. Resources 5. Lists and tables
3. General objects 6. Display objects
While using the software, due attention has to be given for the definitions of the terms used in
the software because sometimes the meaning may be a little bit different from the definitions
“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

used in other applications. One of the most important parameters used in the software is time
and the definitions for each time have been given below.

Cycle time

Set up Time

Recovery Time

Processing Time

Entry of part Entry of part

Figure 2.12 The processing duration of the part on a station [14]
Set up time: The Setup Time is the time which is required to set up a basic object for
processing another type. The type is determined by the name of a MU (MUs with the same
name have the same type). You can also use a setup time after a certain number of parts have
been set up, for example, for regular tool changes.
Recovery time: At the entrance of a basic object, there is a gate, which closes for a specified
time after an MU entered. This way you model robots, which require a certain time to insert
parts into the machine.
Processing time: The processing time determines how long an MU stays on the object after
the setup time, before Plant Simulation tries to move the MU to a succeeding object.
Cycle time: Cycle times can be used for synchronizing productions. They specify in which
interval or in which integral multiple of an interval entering the workstation is possible (e.g.,
every 20 seconds). The gate opens every 20 seconds. A new MU can only enter after the end
of the previous processing and the next opening of the gate.
It is also important to consider the distribution of the material from one work station to the
next station and there should be a method on how to distribute the parts to the successive
station which is considered as Exit strategy.
Exit strategy: This is a strategy that defines how the material will leave one station after
being processed and some of them are listed below:
• To move the parts cyclically to the next successor in line, select Cyclic.
• To cyclically move the part to the successor according to the sequence of successors,
which you entered into the list, select Cyclic Sequence.

26 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
• To move the parts to the successor that has been waiting the longest for an MU,
select Least Recent Demand.
• To move the parts to the successor in a linear fashion, according to the sequence of
successors, which you entered into the list, select Linear Sequence.
• To move the parts to the successor with the longest processing time, select
Maximum Processing Time.
• To move the parts to the successor with the longest set-up time, select Maximum
Set-up Time.
• To move the parts to the successor that received the smallest number of MUs, select
Minimum Number In.
• To move the parts to the successor with the shortest processing time, select
Minimum Processing Time.
• To move the parts to the successors according to a percentage distribution, select
Percentage.
In modeling and simulation, we usual want to have a result for a specific period of time
probably per year, per month etc and this can be done by making use of the Event controller
in the plant simulation software.
EventController: - coordinates and synchronizes the different events taking place during a
simulation run.
Chart: - The Chart graphically displays the data sets that Plant Simulation recorded during a
simulation run

2.9 Verification and Validation in Simulation (V & V)

It is imperative that simulation results provides only options to the decision making process
and if the results obtained from the simulation process are not concrete and reliable enough
the decision made could have a catastrophic effect on the overall process. It is highly
recommended to verify and validate the system at each stage in particular and the whole
system in general. The process of verification and validation in simulation is a broad concept
and different authors developed a number of procedure model on how to carry out the V & V
analyses.
Simulation is an established analysis method for production and logistic purposes. It is
frequently used when decisions with high risks have to be taken, and the consequences of
such decisions are not directly visible, or no suitable analytical solutions are available. This,
however, implies that correctness and suitability of the simulation results are of utmost
“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

importance. Wrong simulation results, translated into wrong decision proposals which are
then implemented, can cause cost that are by orders of magnitude higher than the total cost of
the simulation study. This illustrates the relevance of verification and validation (V&V)
within simulation studies in this application domain [15].

The figure (Fig 2.13) depicts the procedure model of simulation with verification and
validation developed by authors (Rabe, Spiekermann and Wenzel, 2009) based on a guideline
of the German Engineers’ Association, VDI (VDI 2009). Starting from the Sponsor Needs,
this procedure model considers only tasks that normally occur after the acceptance of the task
and cost plan for a simulation study, not distinguishing between external and internal service
providers. Therefore, the proposed procedure starts with the Task Definition, which is
considered to be the first analysis step within a simulation study.
According to these authors, verification and validation is not at all a task that is conducted at
the end of a project. Especially, it should never be considered as a procedure that is iterated
after the implementation until the model seems to operate correctly in contrast V & V has to
accompany the simulation project from the start until the very end, and specific V & V
activities are indispensable within each single phase of the modeling process.

Figure 2.13 Procedure model for simulation including V&V (cp. Rabe et al. 2008b)

28 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”

CHAPTER 3 DATA COLLECTION AND PREPARATION

3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter deals with the collection of the relevant data and preparing them in such a way
that the data will be used in the model developed in the next chapter where different scenario
analysis have to be carried out for the panel line in the ship building. Great care should be
taken in to account while collecting the data or making them ready for the simulation process
since failure to consider all the necessary parameter will result in making unreliable decisions
based on the results that will be obtained from the modeling and simulation process. Two
types of ships (Container and Tanker) have been considered in order to model the panel line
and some of the data are already prepared to be sued directly in the model developed and
others are to be collected from the drawing (Tanker ship) and synthesized so as to be used in
the simulation process.

3.2 Methodology of the Whole Process

It is clear that people usually apply different methodology or procedure in order to carry out a
research depending on the nature of the problem to be addressed. The figure (Fig 3.1)
represents the procedure followed in order to carry out the modeling and simulation of panel
line in the ship building process and a short explanation has also been provided for each steps.
Step 1 Start
This is the first procedure in the flow chart and it is assumed that all the problems and
objectives are already set in advance. The purpose of this research is to make use of the
simulation software (Tecnomatix plant simulation 9.0) in order to examine and optimize the
panel line in the ship building.

Step 2 data collection and synthesis

At this stage the question is whether the data available are good enough to be used in the
simulation process or not. Since there are two types of ships which will be considered in the
research and it was found out that the data with regard to the container ship is already
synthesized in the research center and can be used directly in simulation process. But in case
of the Tanker ship, the only available information is drawings and the data has been directly

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

obtained from the drawing which required further preparation by applying some mathematical
manipulations.

Start

No Data synthesis and

Is the data
analysis
suitable for
modeling?

yes

Develope the Sankey

diagram

Model the panel line

Model Verification
and Validation

Scenario Analysis
and experimentation

Documentation

End

Figure 3.1 Flow chart of the activities to model and simulate the panel line

30 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”

Step 3 Develop the Sankey diagram

Once we have all the necessary data for the modeling and simulation process, the next step is
to exactly identify the flow of the material along the panel line. It provides information about
the predecessors and successors relationships which is very important in developing the
model. The exit strategy in the model development is highly affected by the Sankey diagram
and it has a profound effect on the overall result of the production in the panel line.

Step 4 Model development

This part is all about the model development which is the important step because it is believed
to provide the solution to the problem stated in the problem description and satisfy the
objective requirements. If the model does not contain all the necessary information along the
panel line including the product and machinery information, it may not provide good results
and great care should be taken while developing the model.

Step 5 Model verification and Validation

At this stage careful assessment has to be carried out if the model has all the necessary
information about the overall production process or not. A simulation test can also be
performed in order to see the result or how the model is performing. Model verification and
validation is a process of increasing the confidence about the work to be done not about
ensuring the model is correct. A check list has been developed for the sake of verification and
validation for this specific model and presented in next chapter.

Step 6 scenario analysis and experimentation

This step involves performing different scenarios and experimentation in order to have
alternatives about the simulation results which provide an alternative that is very helpful for
the decision making process. This is one of the advantages of modeling and simulation for it
provides different options on how to solve the problem in question which has to be checked
against the conditions of the company.

Step 7 Documentation
This is the last step and is very important because the results obtained from the simulation
process should be documented so that it could be presented to the decision making
management where all the explanations and benefits are incorporated.
“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

3.3 Data Collection and Analysis

The data that will be necessary for the modeling and simulation process are parameters related
to each work stations like processing time, set up time, waiting time, machine availability,
Mean time to repair (MTTR) etc. some assumptions have been made and mentioned in the
next chapter about availability and MTTR.
3.3.1 Container Ship

Container ship is one of the ship types where the panel line is used to produce stiffened panels
that are sections of the entire ship. The cycle time for each work station is considered for
analyzing the panel line and these data along with the Sankey diagram in the panel line are
already available in the research center research (obtained from P & S ship yard for container
ship) and will be used in the model development.
There are 6 stations in the panel line and the activities that will be performed in each section
have been mentioned below.
1. Station 1 (S1): This is the station where two sides welding are performed for the plates
with a considerable plate thickness manually.
2. Station 2 (S2): This is the station where one side welding is performed for the plates
applying automatic welding techniques.
3. Station 3 (S3) : This is the station where activities like marking, trimming, cutting etc
are carried on the plates.
4. Station 4 (S4): This is the station where placements of stiffeners are preformed.
5. Station 5 (S5): This is the station where stiffeners are being welded on the plates.
6. Station 6 (S6): This is the final workstation for the completion of the panel line
represented in the figure (Fig 3.2).

Cycle time: The time elapsed when a part enters and leaves a certain workstation after being
processed in the same work station. Sometimes it is referred as the work station time. The
cycle time of the production line is the maximum station time along the production line and it
also depends on the Sankey diagram of the flow line.
Takt time: This is the time related to the demand of the customer about a specific product and
usually expressed in terms of the available time in the production system to quantity of the
products requested by a customer (net time available for production/customer demand) [16].

32 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
Cycle time is an important parameter for the purpose of simulation because it gives an insight
on how to determine the total manufacturing time for a certain product in the production line
so that comparison will be made with the demand of the customer. The cycle time for each
workstation is given in the table below (Table 3.1)
Table 3.1 Cycle time for each work station for the container ship case
Station Description Cycle Time, minute/plate

1 Manual welding 87.5

2 Automatic welding 96.8

3 Trimming, marking etc 138.8

4 Profile setting 54.4

5 Profile Welding 82

6 Completion 73

The Sankey diagram in figure (Fig 3.2) depicts the flow of materials in the panel line along
with their percentage distributions.
32%

S1
17%

49%
61% 61%

Input S4 S5 S6 Output
12%
39%
13%

S2 S3
19%

7%
Figure 3.2 The flow of material along the panel line for the Container ship
The input for the above panel line is the plates after being properly processed to be welded
and stiffened in the panel line. The final result of the above panel line is stiffened panel with
appropriate dimensions which will be used for the next step in the ship building that is the
fixing of frames on the stiffened panels.
“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

The following illustrates the Cycle time and Takt time for a container ship for which the
demand per year is considered to be 8100 sheets per year including the panel line and other
production lines.
Production capacity:
9 Available time: 22.1 hours per day and 250 days per year
9 Cycle time for each work station (given in Table 3.1)
9 Material flow (given in Fig 3.2)

     
Takt time=   
=  
= 40.93 minutes per sheet

= 40.93 minutes per sheet

It indicates that there should be exactly one sheet every 40.93 minutes in order to satisfy the
demand of the customer which is 8100 sheets per year. Considering this as a reference, takt
time for each work station can be computed taking the Sankey diagram in to account so that
comparison will be made at each work station between the cycle time (Capacity) and the takt
time (Demand).Referring to the Sankey diagram given in figure (Fig3.2), the percentage of
material flow to station 1 is 49% then the takt time for this specific work station will be:

   
Takt time (S1)=     !"

= 83.5 minutes per sheet

Since the work station has a capacity of producing one sheet every 87.5 minutes (cycle time)
which is greater than takt time (83.5 minutes), it will not satisfy the requirement of the
customer demand and the table below shows the comparison for each work station and the
negative difference indicates that the work station will not satisfy the customer demand. The
maximum negative difference between the cycle time and takt time of a work station indicates
the bottleneck of the production line and in this case the profile welding station is the
bottleneck.

34 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
Table 3.2 Comparison of cycle time and takt time for each work station
Cycle Takt
Time Flow Time Difference
Station Description minute Percentage minute minute
1 Manual welding 87,5 0,49 83,5 -4,0
2 Automatic welding 96,8 0,39 104,9 8,1
Trimming, Cutting,
3 marking etc 138,8 0,19 215,4 76,6
4 Profile setting 54,4 0,61 67,1 12,7
5 Profile Welding 82 0,61 67,1 -14,9
6 Completion 73 0,61 67,1 -5,9



 


 



Figure 3.3 Comparison of cycle time and takt time for each work station

3.3.2 Tanker Ship

The only available information about the tanker ship is the drawings and relevant data have
been collected by referring directly to the sections of the ship in the drawing. The figure
below represents the main drawing of the tanker ship three views: Top, side and front. All the
necessary dimensions are also included in the drawing like the frame spacing, number of
stiffeners, plate thickness etc which are very useful for the determination of the cycle time for
each work stations along the panel line.

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

Figure 3.4 The main drawings of the tanker ship

Since there are no real data on the processing time, set up time, and cycle time for each work
station in the panel line referring the tanker ship, computation of these parameters have been
done by considering the drawing and identifying the possible plates, panels and stiffeners
from the drawing. An attempt has been made to identify those panels that will pass through
the panel line excluding the curved and other panels and the results are depicted in the table
(Table 3.3).

Table 3.3 Number of plates, stiffeners, panels, and the average plate thickness identified for a specific
section from the drawing

Plate
Panel Parameters Thickness
No Section Stiffener Plate Average,mm
1 AV 2412-inner 4 2 12
2 AV 2412- outer 4 2 17
3 AV 2412- A 3 1 12,5
4 AV 2417 -Inner shell 15 6 16
5 AV 2417 -A 2 1 12
6 AV 2417 -B 2 1 12
36 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”

7 AV 2417 -C 2 1 12
8 AV 2411-Inner 9 5 15
9 AV 2411-A 2 1 13
10 AV 2411-B 2 1 12
11 AV 2411-C 2 1 12
Total Number of Plates= 22
Total Number of plates to be welded= 15
Average number of plates or sheets per panel are 2

Welding
lines 5 and 6
plates

Figure 3.5 The detailed drawings of the tanker ship for section AV 2417
From the above figure, considering the bottom part of the stiffened panel it is clear that there
are five welding lines longitudinally where the 6 plates will be welded together and counting
the number of stiffeners to be placed on the bottom part containing the 6 plates gives 15
stiffeners. The thickness of the plate is important parameters while choosing the speed of the
welding device and the thickness of each plate is given in the figure (Fig 3.5) where the
average thickness of the plates is considered for further computation of the cycle time.

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

Thickness of the
plates

Figure 3.6 The detailed drawings of the tanker ship for section AV 2417 showing the thickness of the
6 plates

While selecting the proper sections from the main and the detailed drawing of the tanker ship,
a great care has been taken in to account in order not to include the parts that have a curved
geometry which has no effect on the panel line. Stiffened panels with curved geometry will be
produced in a different line not in a panel line. The figure (Fig 3.7) depicts a curved stiffened
panel that will not be produced along the panel line.

38 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”

Figure 3.7 The detailed drawings of the tanker ship showing the curved geometry

Considering the parameters (Table 3.2) as the reference section of the tanker ship for which
we can compute the cycle time for each section and the thickness of the plate determines
whether to carry out the manual or automatic welding operation. If the plate thickness is
greater than 30 mm, it requires the double side welding and it has to be done on the manual
welding operation and hence the Sankey diagram depicts the flow of the material along the
panel line with the percentages mentioned below. Panels with only one plate will directly be
transferred to the profile setting station without visiting the plate welding.

Referring to the table (Table 3.2), there are 15 plates to be welded in the plate welding work
station and the rest (7 plates) would pass on to the stiffener setting work station bypassing the
plate welding station and this is very helpful in developing the Sankey diagram that indicates
the flow of the plates along the panel line.
Percentage of plates to the plate welding= number of plates to be welded/total number of
plates

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

Percentage of plates to the plate welding=15/22*100%

=68,2 %
The rest (31,8%) will be transferred directly to the stiffener setting work station and the flow
has been represented below.

Input S3 S4 S5 Output
31,8
68,2%

S1 S2

Figure 3.8 The flow of material along the panel line for the Tanker ship

After properly identifying the stiffened panels that would be produced in the panel line
excluding the curved sections of the stiffened panels, the next step is to determine the cycle
time for each work stations and presented in the next section.

3.3.2.1 Determination of the Cycle Time for Automatic Welding Work Station

In order to determine the cycle time for this work station, the following parameters have been
taken in to account:
• The speed of the welding machine
• The length of the plates
• The number of runs per panel
• Processing time account for 15% of the cycle time

NS:- Number of stiffeners

NP:-Number of plates
FS:-Frame spacing
NF:-Number of frames

40 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
Table 3.4 Determination of the cycle time for Automatic welding station
Parameters Plate welding
Thickness Time, in No.
Panel Average Speed min Of Cycle
No Section NS NP ,mm cm/min FS NF Length Per run Run Time,m
1 AV 2412-inner 4 2 12 92,4 786 20 15720 17,0 1,0 113,4
2 AV 2412- outer 4 2 17 83,4 786 20 15720 18,8 1,0 125,7
3 AV 2412- A 3 1 12,5 91,5 786 20 15720 17,2
4 AV 2417 -Inner 15 6 16 85,2 786 20 15720 18,5 5,0 615,0
5 AV 2417 -A 2 1 12 91,4 786 20 15720 17,0
6 AV 2417 -B 2 1 12 92,4 786 20 15720 17,0
7 AV 2417 -C 2 1 12 92,4 786 20 15720 17,0
8 AV 2411-Inner 9 5 15 87 786 20 15720 18,1 4,0 481,8
9 AV 2411-A 2 1 13 90,6 786 20 15720 17,4
10 AV 2411-B 2 1 12 92,4 786 20 15720 17,0
11 AV 2411-C 2 1 12 92,4 786 20 15720 17,0
Total Number of plates= 22 Total Cycle time = 1335,9
Total Number of plates to be welded= 15 Cycle time per plate = 89,1
Average number of plates per panel are = 2

Example for panel 1

Average plate thickness 12 mm
Number of plates 2
Frame spacing 786 mm
Number of frame 20
Plate Welding length= frame spacing * number of frames
= 786mm * 20
=15720 mm
The welding speed depends up on the thickness of the plate and interpolation has been utilized
so as to get the welding speed by considering the reference given in the figure 3.8 and
referring to the first alternative in the figure where the welding speeds for plate thickness of 5
and 30 mm are 105 and 60 cm per minute respectively, it is possible to interpolate using these
two parameters so as to get the approximated welding speed for the plate thickness of 12 mm.

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

Plate thickness, mm

Welding speed range (cm/min)

Figure 3.9 Welding speed (cm/minute) ranges for different plate thickness [17]

Thickness (mm) speed (cm/minutes)

5 105
12 ?
30 60

Welding speed for plate thickness 12 mm = 60 + (105-60)*(30-12)/(30-5)

= 92.4 cm/minute
Processing time = welding length / speed of welding

= 15720 mm/92.4 cm/minute

=17.02 minutes
Since there are only two plates in this panel, the number of running (welding frequency) will
only be one time. Then the cycle time for the panel can be computed as follows
Note: Processing time account for 15% of the cycle time
Cycle time = Processing time * frequency of welding /0.15
= 17.02 minutes *1/0.15
=113.4 minutes

42 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”

The same procedure has been followed for each panel and finally the cycle time per plate is
computed by dividing the total cycle time to the number of plated being welded.
Cycle time per plate= Total cycle times * total number of plates welded
= 1335.9/15
=89.1 minutes

3.3.2.2 Determination of the Cycle Time for Trimming, Cutting and Marking Work Station

In order to determine the cycle time for this work station, trimming and cutting operations are
considered separately and summed up finally. The following parameters have been take in to
account for the trimming operation
• The speed of the machine ( consider speed 700 mm/minute)
• The length and width of the panel
• Processing time account for 55% of the cycle time

Table 3.5 Determination of the cycle time for trimming operation

Processing
Speed, time,
Section Length Width mm/min minute
AV 2412-inner 15720 6681 700 64,00
AV 2412- outer 15720 4716 700 58,39
AV 2417 -inner 15720 13362 700 83,09
AV 2411 -inner 15720 1572 700 49,41
Number of plates 15 Total time= 254,89
Cycle time= 463,43

Cycle time per Plate is 30,90 minutes


The following parameters have been take in to account for the cutting out operation
• The speed of the machine ( consider speed 1000 mm/minute)
• The dimensions of the cutout
• Set up time 1 minute per cut out
• Cycle time is the summation of the processing time and the set up time

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

Table 3.6 Determination of the cycle time for cutting operation

Number
Length Width of Speed, Processing setting up,
Section mm mm cutouts mm/min time m/cut out Cycle time
AV 2417 943,20 314,40 5,00 1000,00 12,58 1,00 17,58
AV 2417 628,80 314,40 1,00 1000,00 1,89 1,00 2,89
AV 2417 314,40 314,40 1,00 1000,00 1,26 1,00 2,26
AV 2417 157,20 157,20 7 1000,00 4,40 1,00 11,40
AV 2411 501,70 1003,40 6,00 1000,00 18,06 1,00 24,06
AV 2411 334,47 668,94 20,00 1000,00 40,14 1,00 60,14
AV 2411 167,23 167,23 26,00 1000,00 17,39 1,00 43,39
Cycle
Number of plates with cut outs 11 time= 161,71
Cycle time per Sheet= 14,70 Minute
The cycle time for the trimming and cutting work station is the summation of the trimming
and the cutting cycle times that is 30.9+ 14.7 = 45.6 minutes

3.3.2.3 Determination of the Cycle Time for Profile Setting Work Station

The following parameters have been take in to account for the cutting out operation
• The speed of the machine ( Average speed 4500 mm/minute)
• The number of stiffeners and the number of the plates
• Processing time accounts for 25% of the cycle time

Table 3.7 Determination of the cycle time for profile setting station
Parameters Processing Cycle
Length Speed Time , Time,
SN Section NS NP mm mm/min minute minute
1,00 AV 2412-inner 4,00 2,00 15720,00 4500,00 13,97 55,89
2,00 AV 2412- outer 4,00 2,00 15720,00 4500,00 13,97 55,89
3,00 AV 2412- A 3,00 1,00 15720,00 4500,00 10,48 41,92
4,00 AV 2417 -inner 15,00 6,00 15720,00 4500,00 52,40 209,60
5,00 AV 2417 -A 2,00 1,00 15720,00 4500,00 6,99 27,95
6,00 AV 2417 -B 2,00 1,00 15720,00 4500,00 6,99 27,95
7,00 AV 2417 -C 2,00 1,00 15720,00 4500,00 6,99 27,95
8,00 AV 2411- 9,00 5,00 15720,00 4500,00 31,44 125,76
9,00 AV 2411-A 2,00 1,00 15720,00 4500,00 6,99 27,95
10,00 AV 2411-B 2,00 1,00 15720,00 4500,00 6,99 27,95
11,00 AV 2411-C 2,00 1,00 15720,00 4500,00 6,99 27,95
Total Number of plates= 22,00 Total cycle time = 656,75
Number of plates to be welded= 15,00 Cycle time per Plate is 29,85 minutes

44 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
3.3.2.4 Determination of the Cycle Time for Profile Welding Work Station

The following parameters have been take in to account for the cutting out operation
• The speed of the machine ( Average speed 700 mm/minute)
• The number of stiffeners and the number of the plates
• Processing time accounts for 75% of the cycle time

Table 3.8 Determination of the cycle time for profile welding station
SN Section Plates and stiffeners Processing Cycle
Length Speed Time, Time
NS NP mm mm/min minute minute
1 AV 2412-inner 4,00 2,00 15720,00 700,00 89,83 119,77
2 AV 2412- outer 4,00 2,00 15720,00 700,00 89,83 119,77
3 AV 2412- A 3,00 1,00 15720,00 700,00 67,37 89,83
4 AV 2417 -inner 15,00 6,00 15720,00 700,00 336,86 449,14
5 AV 2417 -A 2,00 1,00 15720,00 700,00 44,91 59,89
6 AV 2417 -B 2,00 1,00 15720,00 700,00 44,91 59,89
7 AV 2417 -C 2,00 1,00 15720,00 700,00 44,91 59,89
8 AV 2411- 9,00 5,00 15720,00 700,00 202,11 269,49
9 AV 2411-A 2,00 1,00 15720,00 700,00 44,91 59,89
10 AV 2411-B 2,00 1,00 15720,00 700,00 44,91 59,89
11 AV 2411-C 2,00 1,00 15720,00 700,00 44,91 59,89
Total Number of plates= 22,00 1407,31
Number of plates to be
welded= 15,00 Cycle time per Plate is 63,97 minutes
3.3.2.5 Determination of the Cycle Time for the Completion Work Station

The completion work station involves a number of activities like pre-outfitting, some manual
welding activities and others. Since it is not know exactly at this point what activities are
carried out in the completion work station which makes the determination of the cycle time
very difficult, the cycle times used for the container ship can be used as a reference in order to
interpolate the cycle time for the tanker ship.
Work station Container Tanker
Profile welding 82 64
Completion 73 ?
The completion time for Tanker case = 64*73/82
=57 minutes

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

The table below summarizes the cycle time for each work station along the panel line.

Table 3.9 Cycle time for each work station of the panel line

Station Description Cycle Time, minute/plate

1 Automatic welding 89.1

Trimming, cutting,
2 marking etc 45.6

3 Profile setting 29.9

4 Profile Welding 64

5 Completion 57

46 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”

CHAPTER 4 MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND SCENARIO ANALYSIS

Since there are two types ships (namely Container and Tanker ship) considered in this thesis,
two models have been developed separately following to the data collection and synthesis
carried out in the previous chapter. This chapter contains information regarding the model
development and scenario analysis for each type of ship along the panel line in the ship
building industry. The Sankey diagram that provides about the flow of the material along the
panel line has been taken in to account while developing the model and a number of
experiments are carried out to examine and find out the optimal cycle time for some work
stations that will maximize the overall production line.

4.1 Model Development and Scenario Analysis for Container Ship

It is clear that the Sankey diagram provides an insight what percentage to use in the exit
strategy dialogue box. The first procedure so as to carry out the simulation analysis is to
represent all the workstations along with their interactions with each other starting from the
source until the final result in the plant simulation frame. The figure below depicts the
representation of the workstations in the plant simulation interface.

Figure 4.1 Representation of the panel line in the simulation frame for Container ship
The above model is developed based on the information presented in the figure (Fig 3.2) that
indicates the flow of the plates along the panel line and all the product parameters like cycle

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

time. It is advisable to check the model (verification and validation) at each stage in order to
avoid cumulative errors at the end of the simulation process. The most important thing while
developing the model is to check whether the model would provide all the necessary answers
set as an objective in advance taking in to account the problem descriptions. It is also
possible to run a test simulation and look for the sample results before going further to
scenario analysis. The check lists below are used to check the importance of the model for the
overall analysis and applied in both cases (Container and Tanker).
• Is the model developed in such a way that it will provide information about the
utilization at each work station?
• Will the model help in decision making process with regard to production planning
and control?
• Are the results easy to understand and interpret?
• Will the result indicate the effect of each work station on the overall panel line?
• Is it possible to see the effect of the addition of new work station to the existing panel
line?
The model has been cross checked against the above checklists and positive results have been
obtained in both cases. Considering the sankey diagram and the cycle time for each work
stations given in table 3.1, the dominant cycle time will be the station time for the profile
welding which is 82 minutes per sheet. Hence the theoretical production rate without
considering the failure in the production line will be

Production rate = available time /cycle time

= 331200 minutes/82 minutes/sheet
=4039 sheets per year
This result has also been used to check the results from the simulation where the failure along
the production line is taken in to account.
4.1.1 Scenario One for Container Ship

This is the first case considered to see the simulation result in the Panel line based on the
cycle time given in the table (Table 3.1). It is recommended to select one of the key
performance measures to compare the results of different scenarios and in this case annual
throughout (annual production rate) has been considered for the sake of comparing the results

48 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
of the different cases. Due attention should be given when providing the simulation run
parameters because it is this value that will be considered in the overall simulation run.
Working days per year = 250 days
Working hours per day = 22.1 hrs
In order to give an input of one year running time for the simulation, the time has to be
converted in to real working days.
Real working days per year= 250*22.1/24= 230 days
This will be used in the EventController in the plant simulation software as the simulation run
time.

Assumptions
• 99% availability of resources
• Mean time to repair (MTTR) is 2 minutes

Figure 4.2 Performance characteristics of each workstation for scenario one (container)
Total Throughput= 3996 sheets (Note: Theoretical production rate is 4039 sheets)
The bottleneck station is profile welding

Figure 4.3 The standard statistics of the material flow objects for scenario one (container)

The bottleneck analyzer gives statistical information about each work station which is
relevant to clearly identify how each work station is performing in the production line.

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

Referring to the figure (Fig 4.3), most of the time, the workstations plate welding and
trimming are blocked that reduced the productivity of the panel line.
4.1.2 Scenario Two for Container Ship

In the previous section, it has been found out that the bottleneck section is the profile welding
work station and in this section an attempt has been made to find out the optimal cycle time
using the Experimental manger that runs experiments with simulation model. In order to
carry out the optimization analysis with the experimental manager, the lower bound, the upper
bound and the increment (Design experiment) have to be selected and presented in the table
below. Three simulation runs have also been considered for each experiment which means
three results will be taken in to account for each input value that gives rise to 33 experiments
with 99 simulation runs.
Table 4.1 Design table of the experiment for the profile welding work station
Input values Cycle Time, minutes/plate
Lower bound 50
Upper bound 82
Increment 1

Table 4.2 Output for each experiment of the profile welding workstation for scenario one
Cycle time , Cycle time ,
Experiment Minute Output Experiment Minute Output
1 50 4489 18 67 4488
2 51 4489 19 68 4487
3 52 4489 20 69 4485
4 53 4489 21 70 4482
5 54 4489 22 71 4475
6 55 4489 23 72 4466
7 56 4489 24 73 4451
8 57 4489 25 74 4406
9 58 4489 26 75 4356
10 59 4489 27 76 4304
11 60 4489 28 77 4251
12 61 4489 29 78 4198
13 62 4489 30 79 4146
14 63 4489 31 80 4094
15 64 4489 32 81 4044
16 65 4488 33 82 3995
17 66 4488

50 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
The plant simulation software also provides graphical representation of the result which is
good for visualization and it is part of the report that will be created automatically when it
finished the optimization process.

Feasible Area

Figure 4.4 The total throughput from the experimental manager considering the profile welding work
station (container)
Since there are three simulations run for each experiment, the above output values represent
the average value for each experiment and a confidence level interval of 95% which is
reasonable for scientific analysis has been taken into account in the experimental manager.
Referring to figure 4.4, it is clear that the total output is exactly the same for the first 15
experiments and it starts to decline afterwards. Examining how the output declines, it is from
experiment 24 to 25 where high decline in output has been observed and experiment 24 (73
minutes) can be considered as an optimal solution.

Figure 4.5 Optimal results for profile welding

The total output in this case is 4451 sheets and the percentage improvement will be
= (4451-3996)/3996*100%
=11,4 % improvement
In order to get the above percentage improvement in productivity, it requires a cost benefit
analysis on the work station because one or more of the followings have to be engaged to
realize the gain.
• Additional man power hiring in the profile welding work station
• Improving the technology involved in the work station
• Future demand has also to be taken to account

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

4.1.3 Scenario Three for Container Ship

The specific purpose of this scenario is to see if it is possible to optimize further by combining
the profile welding and the completion work stations.
Table 4.3 Design table of the experiment for the profile welding and completion work stations
Input Values Profile Welding , Cycle Completion , Cycle Time
time, minute/plate minute/plate
Lower bound 50 50
Upper bound 82 73
Increment 1 1

A total of 792 experiments with 1584 simulation runs and the results are displayed below
which shows the statistical distribution of the results for the combination of profile welding
and completion.

Figure 4.6 The total throughput from the experimental manager considering the profile welding and
completion work stations (container)
The results depicted in the figure 4.6 shows that the output is similar for some experiments
(every 24 experiments) and this is due to the difference in lower and upper bound for the
profile welding and the completion work stations. But it gives interesting information on how
to choose the best combination of the cycle times for both work stations taking in to account
the demand forecast. If it is required that there should be an output of 5041 sheets, we can
consider the experiments listed in the table (Table 4.4) below.

52 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
Table 4.4 design experiments that provide the same output of 5041 sheets
Profile welding Completion Output
Experiment Minute Minute Sheets
16 50 65 5041
40 51 65 5041
64 52 65 5041
88 53 65 5041
112 54 65 5041
136 55 65 5041
160 56 65 5041
184 57 65 5041
208 58 65 5041

Even though the results are the same for the total output in the table 4.4, experiment 208 gives
optimal combination of the cycle times for the profile welding and the completion
workstations. Therefore the total output in this case is 5041 sheets and the percentage
improvement will be
= (5041-3996)/3996*100%
=26.2 % improvement

Figure 4.7 Optimal results for profile welding and completion workstations (container)

4.1.4 Optimization using The Genetic algorithm (GA)

In the previous sections , an optimization analysis has been performed using the experimental
manager tool from the tecnomatix plant simulation software and here an attempt has been
made how to apply the generic algorithm method in order to find out the best optimal solution
considering the workstations where improvement could be possible by reducing the station
time. Genetic algorithm helps to find out an optimal solution based on a stochastic approach
and GA starts with an initial solution set, which contains individuals created randomly .This is
called initial population [18]. The initial step can mightily improve the efficiency of the
algorithm, thus a new start strategy can be momentous. The new population is always
generated from the actual population’s participants by the genetic operators. The generation of

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

new populations is continued until a predefined stop criterion is satisfied. The figure below
depicts the life cycle of genetic algorithms.

1.Start Generate random population with n individuals

2.Fitness Compute fitness function f(x) for each x individual of the population

3.New Population Create new population, repetition of the steps below

3.1 Selection Select 2 parents from the previous population by suitability

3.2 Crossover Cross over of the selected parents according to crossover probability

3.3 Mutation Mutation on descendants according to mutation probability

3.4 Acceptance Put descendants into new population

4. Swap Put new population into iteration

5. Test If stop condition is satisfied STOP

6. Repeat from 2 Repeat steps from 2

If the stop condition is satisfied,

stop and return with the best
individual of the population

Figure 4.8 The life cycle of generic algorithm [18]

In order to carry out the optimization analysis, parameters should be selected from different
stations for which the optimization would be performed by varying these values so as to
maximize or minimize the objective function. Genetic algorithm allows multiple objective
optimizations with weight percentage but in this case there exists only one objective function
and that is the production rate along the panel line. Looking at the performance
characteristics of the workstation in scenario one, the work stations profile setting, profile
welding and completion are selected in which the processing time is the parameter for
optimization.

54 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
Table 4.5 Optimization parameters of GA for the container ship
Input values Profile setting, Profile welding, Completion,
minute/plate minute/plate minute/plate
Lower bound 30 50 50
Upper bound 54.4 82 73
Increment 1 1 1

The objective function is to maximize the production rate along the panel line considering the
following optimization parameters
30<=X1<=54.4
50<=X2<=82
50<=X3<=73
Where
X1-The processing time per sheet for profile setting work station in minute
X2- The processing time per sheet for profile welding work station in minute
X3- The processing time per sheet for Completion work station in minute
Number of generations (Iterations):= 20
Size of the generation (population size):= 20
Initially 20 initials solutions (population) are selected from the optimization parameters and
evaluated based on their fitness by the fitness function where the two parents have to be
selected. The distribution of the initial solution of the first generation is depicted in the figure
below and the rest are placed at annex part of the report. Iteration continues until the end of
the last 20 generations by computing the best and the worst solutions on each generation from
which the best solution will be fitted in to the optimization parameters that would provide the
maximum production rate along the production line.

Figure 4.9 The initial solution of the optimization process

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

For each iteration, the best, the worst and the average fitness (solutions) are computed and the
results are represented in the figure below for the whole generations considered in the
optimization process.

Figure 4.10 The performance graph of the 20 generations

Referring to the above performance graph, the worst and the best fitness coincides to each
other indicating the optimal solution resulting in the production rate of 6497 sheets per year
for which the best fit for optimization parameters profile setting, profile welding and
completion are 33,50 and 50 minutes respectively. One of the basic differences between the
experimental manager and the genetic algorithm is that experimental manager considers one
input at a time but GA considers a number of inputs as a population and selects the best fit
from the population. In order to benefit more from the genetic algorithm, cost constraint
should be incorporated so that an optimal solution that could be justified by cost-benefit
analysis would be obtained along the production line.
4.1.5 Scenario four for Container Ship

In this section an attempt has been made to see the effect of adding a new workstation to the
panel line where the PVPs will be welded on the stiffeners in order to improve the strength of
the ship thereby reducing the catastrophic effects during collision and grounding. One of the
most important parameter for testing the effect of the PVPs work station is the cycle time and
since the project is still undergoing, the following assumptions have been considered for the
sake of checking its effect on the panel line production.

56 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
Assumption





i. Ten points will be
selected for proper placement

of the PVPS (0,5 minute
each)
ii. Robot welding will be applied in order to weld the PVPS on the panel
Speed , V=0,0083 m/s
Distance, L=2,8 m


Time= L/V= 2,8/0,0083=337,5

sec or 5,62

minutes

Considering 4 runs to entirely weld the PVPS

Total time for welding= 4*5,62= 22,5 minutes

Table 4.6 Determination of cycle time for PVPs work station

Time,
S.N Activity minute
1 Estimated time to transport one PVPs to the stiffened panel 1
Estimated time to weld parts of the PVPs on
2 the panel for proper placement of the PVPs 5
3 Average time to weld the PVPs on the stiffened panel 22,5
Estimated time to work with the PVPs on the panel line 28,5

Time per PVPs= 28,5 minutes
Panel

PVPs Time per panel, minute Cycle time ,min /sheet
1 3 85,5 38,00
1 4 114 50,67
1 5 142,5 63,33
1 6 171 76,00
1 7 199,5 88,67
1 8 228 101,33
1 9 256,5 114,00
1 10 285 126,67
1 11 313,5 139,33
1 12 342 152,00

Considering the number of PVPs per panel to be 6 and the number of sheets per panel to be
2.25, the simulation analysis gives the following results.

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

Figure 4.11 Performance behaviors in each work station under scenario four (Container)
The total output for the above simulation is 3994 sheets and compared to the first result (3996
sheets), it is clear that the PVPs workstation has no significant effect on the panel line under
this condition where the cycle time for the PVPs work station 76 minutes and hence still the
bottleneck is the profile welding.

If we consider the number of PVPs per panel to be 7 for which the cycle time for the PVPs
work station will be 88. 67 minutes, the addition of the new work station becomes a new
bottleneck and resulted in the total output of 3695 sheets per year.
Percentage of reduction in productivity along the panel line due to the addition of the new
work station (PVPs) can be computed by comparing the new result with the output obtained
from the existing panel line
= (3695-3996)/3996*100%
=-7.5 %

Figure 4.12 Performance behaviors in each work station considering 7 PVPs per panel
The above analysis provides an insight on how to visualize the effect of adding a new work
station in to the existing panel line and it is inevitable that as the number of PVPs exceeds 6
per panel the profile welding is no more a bottleneck along the panel line since its cycle time
is less than the new work station (PVPs) work station which gives rise to the reduction of the
production rate along the panel line. Since the requirement for the number of PVPs per panel
also depends on the structural analysis, the work station can have sub stations so that the
number of PVPs can exceed 6 per panel without affecting the panel line where the PVPs work
station has less cycle time than the profile welding station.

58 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
4.1.6 Scenario Five for Container Ship

The purpose of this section is to use the experimental manager in order to find out the
optimal cycle time for the PVPs work station in such a way that the total throughput will be
maximized. The design parameters are selected considering the number of PVPs in a panel
(assume 3 to 7 PVPs in a panel) and hence the range of the cycle time is depicted in the table
below with upper and lower bound.

Table 4.7 Design table of the experiment for the PVPs work station

Input values Cycle time,

minutes/plate
Lower bound 38
Upper bound 90
Increment 2

Figure 4.13 The total throughput from the experimental manager considering the PVPs work station
Referring to the results obtained from the experimental manager, the total output is more or
less similar for the first 22 (until cycle time=82 minutes) experiments and the numbers of
sheets produced are almost the same with the first scenario and this indicates that the profile
welding is the work station that is affecting the panel line. It is clear that an attempt to reduce
the cycle time in the PVPs work station does not have any effect on the overall performance
of the panel line unless the cycle time for the profile welding is also taken in to consideration
during the optimization.

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

4.2 Model Development and Scenario Analysis for Tanker Ship

In the previous section a simulation analysis has been carried out for a container ship and in
this part the same analysis will be performed for a tanker ship in order to examine the effect
of the ship type on the panel line and the influence of the PVPs work station to the panel line.
Since there are no real data on the processing time, set up time, and cycle time for each work
station in the panel line referring the tanker ship, computation of these parameters have been
done by considering the drawing and identifying the possible number of plates, panels and
stiffeners from the drawing.
In order to model the panel line for the stiffened panels that will be used for the construction
of the Tanker ship, the Sankey diagram represented in the figure (Fig 3.7) has been taken in to
account so as to identify the flow of the materials along the panel line and cycle time for each
work station presented in the table (Table 3.8). The figure below depicts the representation of
the workstations in the plant simulation interface.

Figure 4.14 Representation of the panel line in the simulation frame for Tanker ship
In the above frame, a table (Operation_sheet) and a method (Operating_Rule) have also been
incorporated that will facilitate the modeling and the simulation process. Instead of assigning
all the parameters for each work station, it is recommended to use a table that stores all the
information about the processing unit (machine or work station) and then use Method object,
in which we program how to extract the data from the table to be used in each processing unit.
The table below describes all the information about each work station and whenever needed it
is possible to edit the data and run program so that all the information will be updated without
going through each work station.

60 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”

Figure 4.15 Table containing all the parameters for each work station
The following code has been used in the Method object in order to retrieve the data from the
table and pass on to the processing unit in the panel line.
************************************************************
is
workstation: object;
i: integer ;
do
for i:= 1 to Operation_Sheet.yDim loop
workstation:= Operation_Sheet["Work_Station", i];
workstation.procTime:= Operation_Sheet["Processing_Time",i] ;
workstation.setupTime:= Operation_Sheet ["Setup_Time",i];
workstation.recoveryTime:= Operation_Sheet ["Recovery_Time",i];
workstation.failures.failure1.availability:= Operation_Sheet ["availability",i];
workstation.failures.failure1.MTTR:= Operation_Sheet ["MTTR",i];
next;
end;
******************************************************************
4.2.1 Scenario One for Tanker Ship

This is the first case considered to see the simulation result in the Panel line based on the
cycle time given in the table (Table 3.8). It is recommended to select one of the key
performance measures to compare the results of different scenarios and in this case annual
throughout (annual production rate) has been considered for the sake of comparing the results
of the different cases. Due attention should be given when providing the simulation run
parameters because it is this value that will be considered in the overall simulation run.
Working days per year = 250 days
“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

Working hours per day = 22.1 hrs

In order to give an input of one year running time for the simulation, the time has to be
converted in to real working days.
Real working days per year= 250*22.1/24= 230 days
This will be used in the EventController in the plant simulation software as the simulation run
time.
Assumptions
• 99% availability of resources
• Mean time to repair (MTTR) is 2 minutes

Figure 4.16 Performance characteristics of each workstation for scenario one (Tanker)
Results obtained from the simulation
• Total throughput 5115 plates per year
• The bottleneck is the profile welding

4.2.2 Scenario Two for Tanker Ship

In the previous section, it has been found out that the bottleneck section is the profile welding
work station and in this section an attempt has been made to find out the optimal cycle time
using the Experimental manger that runs experiments with simulation model. In order to
carry out the optimization analysis with the experimental manager, the lower bound, the upper
bound and the increment (Design experiment) have to be selected and presented in the table
below. Three simulation runs have also been considered for each experiment which means
two results will be taken in to account for each input value that gives rise to 35 experiments
with 70 simulation runs.

62 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
Table 4.8 Design table of the experiment for the profile welding work station

Input values Cycle time, minutes/plate
Lower bound 30
Upper bound 64
Increment 1

Figure 4.17 The total throughput from the experimental manager considering the profile welding work
station (Tanker)
Since there are two simulations run for each experiment, the above output values represent the
average value for each experiment and a confidence level interval of 95% which is reasonable
for scientific analysis has been taken into account in the experimental manager.
Referring to figure (Fig 4.17), it is clear that the total output is exactly the same for the first
21 experiments and it starts to decline afterwards. Examining how the output declines, it is
from experiment 28 to 29 where high decline in output has been observed and experiment 28
(57 minutes) can be considered as an optimal solution.

Figure 4.18 Optimal results for profile welding (Tanker)

The total output in this case is 5699 sheets and the percentage improvement will be
= (5699-5115)/5115*100%
=11,4 % improvement

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

In order to get the above percentage improvement in productivity, it requires a cost benefit
analysis on the work station because one or more of the followings have to be engaged to
realize the gain.
• Additional man power hiring in the profile welding work station
• Improving the technology involved in the work station
• Future demand has also to be taken to account

4.2.3 Scenario Three for Tanker Ship

The specific purpose of this scenario is to see if it is possible to optimize further by combining
the profile welding and the completion work stations.
Table 4.9 Design table of the experiment for the profile welding and completion work stations
Input values Profile Welding , Completion , Cycle
Cycle Time Time , minute/plate
Lower bound 30 30
Upper bound 64 57
Increment 1 1

A total of 980 experiments with 1960 simulation runs and the results are displayed below
which shows the statistical distribution of the results for the combination of profile welding
and completion.

Figure 4.19 The total throughput from the experimental manager considering the profile welding and
completion work stations (Tanker)
The above figure depicts the total throughput per year for different combinations of the cycle
time for the profile welding and completion work stations. The results are very important in
order to make a capacity planning decision based on the customer demand (forecasted or
Known) and it provides an insight on how to plan the panel line to satisfy the customer

64 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
demand by delivering the product in time. For example if the expected numbers of sheets to
be produced are 6552, we can consider the experiments listed in the table below.

Table 4.10 design experiments that provide the same output of 6552 sheets
Profile Welding Completion Output
Experiment Minute Minute Sheets
21 30 50 6552
49 31 50 6552
77 32 50 6552
105 33 50 6552
133 34 50 6552
161 35 50 6552
189 36 50 6552
217 37 50 6552
245 38 50 6552
273 39 50 6552
301 40 50 6552
329 41 50 6552
357 42 50 6552
385 43 50 6552
413 44 50 6552

Even though the results are the same for the total output in the table 4.10, experiment 413
gives optimal combination of the cycle times for the profile welding and the completion
workstations. Therefore the total output in this case is 6522 sheets and the percentage
improvement will be
= (6552-5115)/5115*100%
=28.1 % improvement
4.2.4 Optimization Using the Genetic Algorithm (GA)

In order to carry out the optimization analysis similar to the case in Container ship,
parameters should be selected from different stations for which the optimization would be
performed by varying these values so as to maximize or minimize the objective function.
Genetic algorithm allows multiple objective optimizations with weight percentage but in this
case there exists only one objective function and that is the production rate along the panel
line. Looking at the performance characteristics of the workstation in scenario one, the work

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

stations profile welding and completion are selected in which the processing time is the
parameter for optimization.
Table 4.11 Optimization parameters of GA for the Tanker ship
Input values Profile welding, Completion,
minute/plate minute/plate
Lower bound 40 40
Upper bound 64 57
Increment 1 1

The objective function is to maximize the production rate along the panel line considering the
following optimization parameters

40<=X1<=64
40<=X2<=57
Where
X1- The processing time per sheet for profile welding work station in minute
X2- The processing time per sheet for Completion work station in minute
Number of generations (Iterations):= 20
Size of the generation (population size):= 20

Initially 20 initials solutions (population) are selected from the optimization parameters and
evaluated based on their fitness by the fitness function where the two parents have to be
selected. The distribution of the initial solution of the first generation is depicted in the figure
below and the rest are placed at annex part of the report. Iteration continues until the end of
the last 20 generations by computing the best and the worst solutions on each generation from
which the best solution will be fitted in to the optimization parameters that would provide the
maximum production rate along the production line.

Figure 4.20 The initial solution of the optimization process

66 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
In each iteration, the best, the worst and the average fitness (solutions) are computed and the
results are represented in the figure below for the whole generations considered in the
optimization process.

Figure 4.21 The performance graph of the 20 generations

Referring to the above performance graph, the worst and the best fitness coincides to each
other starting from generation 9 indicating the optimal solution resulting in the production rate
of 8120 sheets per year for which the best fit for optimization parameter profile welding and
completion is 40 minutes. One of the basic differences between the experimental manager and
the genetic algorithm is experimental manager considers one input at a time but Genetic
Algorithm consider a number of inputs as a population and selects the best fit from the
population.
4.2.5 Scenario Four for Tanker Ship

In this section an attempt has been made to see the effect of adding a new workstation to the
panel line where the PVPs will be welded on the stiffeners in order to improve the strength of
the ship thereby reducing the catastrophic effects during collision. One of the most important
parameter to for testing the effect of the PVPs work station is the cycle and since the project is
still undergoing, the following assumptions have been considered for the sake of checking its
effect on the panel line production.

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

Assumption





i. Ten points will be selected

for proper placement

of the PVPs (0,5 minute each)


ii. Robot welding will be applied in order to weld the PVPs on the panel
Speed , V=0,0083 m/s
Distance, L=2,8 m


Time= L/V= 2,8/0,0083=337,5

sec or 5,62 minutes



Considering 4 runs to entirely weld the PVPs

Total time for welding= 4*5,62= 22,5 minutes

Table 4.12 Determination of cycle time for PVPs work station (Tanker)
Time,

S.N Activity minute
1 Estimated time to transport one PVPs to the stiffened panel 1
Estimated time to weld parts of the PVPs on
2 the panel for proper placement of the PVPs 5
3 Average time to weld the PVPs on the stiffened panel 22,5
Estimated time to work with the PVPs on the panel line 28,5
Plates per Panel= 2
Time per PVPs= 28,5 Minute
Panel PVPs Time per panel,min Cycle time ,min /sheet
1 3 85,5 42,75
1 4 114 57,00
1 5 142,5 71,25
1 6 171 85,50
1 7 199,5 99,75
1 8 228 114,00
1 9 256,5 128,25
1 10 285 142,50
1 11 313,5 156,75
1 12 342 171,00
Considering the number of PVPs per panel to be 6 and the number of sheets per panel to be
2.0, the simulation gives the following results.

Figure 4.22 Optimal results for PVPs work station (Tanker)

68 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
Results obtained from the simulation
• Total throughput 3832 plates per year
• The bottleneck is the PVPs work station

The percentage of decline due to the addition of the work station (PVPs)
= (3832-5115)/5115*100%
=-25.1 % (reduction in productivity due to the PVPs work station)
4.2.6 Scenario Four for Tanker Ship

The purpose of this section is to use the experimental manager in order to find out the
optimal cycle time for the PVPs work station in such a way that the total throughput will be
maximized. The design parameters are selected considering the number of PVPs in a panel
(assume 3 to 7 PVPs in a panel) and hence the range of the cycle time is depicted in the table
below with upper and lower bound.
Table 4.13 Design table of the experiment for the PVPs work station

Input values Cycle Time, minutes per

plate
Lower bound 40
Upper bound 100
Increment 1

Figure 4.23 The total throughput from the experimental manager considering the PVPs work station

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

Referring to the results obtained from the experimental manager, the total output is more or
less similar for the first 25 (until cycle time=64 minutes that is similar to the cycle time of
profile welding) experiments. If the cycle time for PVPs work station is greater than 64
minutes, it will be a bottleneck and care has to be taken when incorporating the PVPs
workstation to the existing panel line. The results of the simulation by changing the cycle time
of the PVPs workstation to 64 minutes is presented in the figure (Fig. 4.24).

Figure 4.24 Optimal results for profile PVPs workstation (Tanker)

It is clear from the above figure that the completion workstation is under the state of blocked
and waiting as well since the cycle time for this work station is less than both the profile
welding and the PVPs work stations. (The cycle time for completion work station is 57
minutes and the cycle time for the profile welding and PVPs work stations is 64 minutes).
Therefore the maximum number of PVPs per panel should be 4 for the case of Tanker ship so
that the existing panel line will not be affected. Since the requirement for the number of PVPs
per panel also depends on the structural analysis, the work station can have sub stations so
that the number of PVPs can exceed 4 per panel without affecting the panel line where the
PVPs work station has less cycle time than the profile welding station.

4.3 Integrating Ms Access and Ms Excel in the Simulation Process

In the previous sections a simulation analysis has been performed for a Tanker and Container
ship using the available data and in this section an attempt has been made to integrate the Ms
Access where the data for the workstations will be stored and Ms excel where the result will
be exported. The advantage of using the Microsoft applications (Access and Excel) is to
facilitate the overall simulation process there by helping the users who are not familiar with
the simulation software to work with the data. It also gives more time to the simulation expert

70 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
to focus and work with the development of the models than changing the work stations’
parameters that can be accessed directly from the database system.

4.3.1 The Working Procedure

It is first important to properly identify the number of workstations and all the information
that are relevant to each station along the production line (Processing time, set up time,
Availability, etc) and the flow of the material along the panel line. After proper identification
of all the necessary parameters, we can develop the database in the Microsoft Access and
great care should be taken in to account about the type of the data to be used in the database
keeping in mind that the same data will be used in the plant simulation software otherwise
incompatibility will be experienced that will affect the simulation analysis. For example:
Description MS access Simulation Software
Processing Time Data type: integer (in seconds) Data type: time
Set up time Data type: integer (in seconds) Data type: time
Cycle time Data type: integer (in seconds) Data type: time
Recovery time Data type: integer (in seconds) Data type: time
Availability Data type: Number (Double) Data type: Real
MTTR Data type: integer (in seconds) Data type: time
The figure below depicts the input output relationship in the simulation analysis.

Input Data Process Output

MS-Access Plant Simulation MS-Excel
Software
Figure 4.25 Input output relationship
In order to give more flexibility to the modeling and simulation process the plant simulation
software has been linked with the Microsoft access where the database is saved and to
Microsoft excel where the final results will be exported. The Microsoft access and Microsoft
excel files have been placed on the frame in order to easily access the files at the same time.
The section below provides a short summary how the process works.

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

• The first procedure is to link the Microsoft access where all the necessary data for the
simulation analysis have been saved with the plant simulation software applying the
Object Database Connectivity procedure (ODBC).
• The second procedure is to write a programming code (Method, init) to initialize the
connectivity and make a request for appropriate data acquisition from the database
(example tables) which will be used as an input for the simulation analysis. In order to
be used by the simulation software, all the data should be copied and saved in a table
with appropriate data reformatting within the plant simulation software.
• The third procedure is to pass all the data to the objects (in this case work stations)
making use of the same initialization code. Examples of the data are processing time,
Availability, MTTR etc. at this stage we are ready to simulate the panel line and a
question will prompt to ask the user how long the simulation time will be and care
should be taken at this point that the input should be in seconds.
• The fourth procedure is to export the result to Microsoft excel which is easy for further
manipulation. All the results will be first saved in a table within the simulation
software and finally exported to Microsoft excel with a programming code (Method,
Endsim) at the end of the simulation. A report has also been incorporated within the
frame interface to see the results at the end of the simulation run.
4.3.2 Times and Distributions

Time is the most important parameter both in terms of the simulation time and the time as
product characteristics in each work station along the production time. In order to give more
of the realistic nature to the modeling and simulation process, it is advisable to take in to
account the variability of the time (for example processing time, setup time, etc) instead of
considering only average time which is constant and not always true in reality. Plant
Simulation is a discrete simulation system and it is based on a variety of different times, such
as processing times, machine down times, etc. It allows true to life modeling with fixed times
as well as with statistically distributed times. Plant Simulation provides these statistical
distributions: Beta, Binomial, Constant Erlang, Gamma, Geom, Hypergeo, Lognormal,
Normal, Negexp, Poisson, Triangular, Uniform, and Weibull. The most commonly used
distribution in science and engineering is Normal Distribution and this has been utilized while
developing the database for the input parameters of processing time, cycle time, recovery time
and setup time.

72 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
The figure below shows the detailed flow procedure for the input output relationship.

Input Data Process Output

MS-Access Plant Simulation MS-Excel
Software

Connection (ODBC)

Accessing the data

from the Database

Exporting the results

Copying and saving

the data in the
simulation table
(Operation sheet)

Passing the data to the

objects (machines) in
the station

Performing simulation
and saving the results
in to a table

Figure 4.26 The work flow in the input output relation ship

4.3.3 Normal Statistical Distribution

The normal distribution is the most important one in all of the probability and statistics.
Many numerical populations have distributions that can be fit very closely by an appropriate
normal curve. “A continuous random variable X is said to have a normal distribution with
parameters mean (µ) and standard deviation (σ) or (µ and σ2), where -’ < µ <’ and 0<
σ, if the probability density function of X is [19]”

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

&'(&)*+
  +,+
f(x; µ, σ)= #$%
e- The base of the natural logarithm function (e is approximately equal to 2.718)
µ-the mean of the values (Data type: Real)
σ−the standard deviation of the results (Data type: Real)

The normal distribution with mean,µ=0 and standard deviation, σ=1 ισ is called a standard
normal distribution.
If the population distribution of a variable is (approximately) normal, then
• Roughly 68% of the values are within 1 SD (standard deviation) of the mean
• Roughly 95% of the values are within 2 SDs (standard deviation) of the mean
• Roughly 99.7% of the values are within 3 SDs (standard deviation) of the mean
It is indeed unusual to observe a value from a normal population that is much farther than 2
SDs (standard deviations) from the mean value and If X has a normal distribution with mean
µ and standard deviation ı, then the standard normal random variable is given by [19]:
-./

 %



The normal distribution is considered as one of the most prominent probability distribution in
statistics and there are several reasons for this .First, the normal distribution is very tractable
analytically, that is, a large number of results involving this distribution can be derived in
explicit form. Second, the normal distribution arises as the outcome of the central limit
theorem, which states that under mild conditions the sum of a large number of random
variables is distributed approximately normally. Finally, the "bell" shape of the normal
distribution makes it a convenient choice for modeling a large variety of random variables
encountered in practice [20].
in order to make use of the probability distribution in the plant simulation, there should be a
method containing arguments at least the type of the distribution (data type string) and
additional arguments (like mean, standard deviation, stream number, upper and lower bound
etc) depending on the nature of the distribution to be used in the simulation process at each
work stations.
For normal distribution, the user defined method should include the following parameters:
Setparam(“Normal”, stream,mean,standard deviation,lower bound,upper bound) or
74 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
Setparam(“Normal”, stream,mean,standard deviation)

The function for normal distribution is denoted by z_normal(s,µ, σ) where

s- The random variable stream (data type: Integer)
µ-the mean of the values (Data type: Real)
σ−the standard deviation of the results (Data type: real)
The random variable stream is used by the plant simulation software so as to produce the real
random numbers (between 0 and 1) and the standard deviation can never be zero. While
writing the code (Method) to retrieve the data from Ms Access, two options have been
considered for the time assignment (Constant or Normal distribution).
For example: Processing time
Processing_Time_Mean (µ)
Processing_Time_Stream (s)
Processing_Time_Sigma ( σ)

If the processing time is assumed to be distributed normally with the above parameters (µ and
σ ), the values (mean, stream and sigma) will be directly retrieved from the database and
passed on to the stations or else only the Processing_Mean_Time will be used as a constant
processing time. The following example illustrates how the program selects the appropriate
distribution of the processing time for plate_welding_Mannual and plate_welding_Automatic
by checking the input data given in the database. Refering to the values given in the database,
the processing time for the plate_welding_Mannual will have a normal distribution pattern but
for plate_welding_Automatic the processing time is constant since the stream number
(Processing_Time_Stream) is assigned to zero.

Figure 4.27 Constant and normally distributed processing Times for work stations

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION

Plant simulation software is an important tool in modelling and simulating the panel line
without carrying out the actual work and it gives an insight about the effect of each work
station along the production line by clearly identifying the influence of one station on the
overall panel line. It also provides a scenario analysis where optimized options could be
obtained for one or more work stations thereby improving the productivity of the panel line.
The results obtained from the modelling and simulation analysis can be used as an input to the
production planning and control scheme that highly influence the overall business of the
company where decisions can be made in advance based on the outputs from the simulation
experiments in order to meet customer demands in time (delivery time) without
compromising the quality of the product. The results could also facilitate the process of
preparing bidding documents for it gives how long it will require producing the required
number of stiffened panels per ship.

The overall analysis carried out in this project for two types of ships namely Container and
Tanker ships revealed that the profile welding is the bottleneck that is affecting the
productivity of the panel line. It was also found out that the addition of new work station
(Namely PVPs work station) may affect the production rate of the existing panel line
depending on the number of the PVPs per panel and different results have been obtained for
the two types of ships (Container and Tanker ship). Based on the simulation Analysis carried
out to examine the effect of introducing new work station in to the existing panel line, the
maximum number of PVPs per panel for the container and Tanker ships are 6 and 4
respectively so that the existing panel line will not be affected. But this can of course be
overcome by dividing the PVPs work station in to substation so that the cycle time for PVPs
work station will be reduced.

Finally the researcher strongly recommends the cost benefit analysis to be carried out for
future work that plays a vital role in decision making process in order to benefit from the
modelling and simulation analysis using tecnomatix plant simulation 9.0 especially in case of
generic algorithm optimization for it provides the optimal solution for multiple objectives
where the cost component can be incorporated as an additional objective term in the equation.

76 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost I would like to thank the almighty God for giving me the courage to start
and complete this program. My special appreciation goes to my father, who had been very
supportive, passionate and lovely since the time I could remember.

This thesis was developed in the frame of the European Master Course in “Integrated
Advanced Ship Design” named “EMSHIP” for “European Education in Advanced Ship
Design”, Ref.: 159652-1-2009-1-BE-ERA MUNDUS-EMMC.

I would like to thank the ERASMUS MUNDUS program for covering all my expenses
(Tuition fees, Accommodations, transport and health insurance) throughout my study in this
master program. My special appreciation goes to Prof. Philippe RIGO (the co-coordinator of
the EMSHIP program) who has been very supportive and helpful starting from the admission
process to the master program. I owe my deepest gratitude to Audrey Mélotte (International
office, ULG) for her kind and unreserved support during my study.

I am very indebted to thank my advisor, Prof. Dr.-Ing. Martin-Christoph Wanner (the head of
Fraunhofer Research Institute IPA, Rostock) for allowing me to do internship and write my
thesis in the research institute where I got wonderful experience. It is with great pleasure I
extend my special gratitude to my advisor, Dr-Ing Ulrich Kothe whose encouragement,
guidance and support from the initial to the final level enabled me to develop an
understanding of the subject. I would like to show my gratitude to Dip.-Wirt.-Ing. Jane sender
and Dip.-Wirt.-Ing. Oliver Herzig for their consistent support and help during my stay at
Fraunhofer Research Institute IPA (Rostock), Germany.

Lastly, I offer my regards and blessings to all of those who supported me in any respect
during my study in Europe.

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

REFERENCES
1. Mikell P. Groover, 2001.Automation, Production Systems, and Computer Integrated
Manufacturing. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
2. Thomas. L. J. and J. O. McClain, 1993. An Overview of Production Planning,
Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, Volume 4, Logistics of
Production and Inventory, edited by S. C. Graves, A. H. G. Rinnooy Kan and P. H.
Zipkin, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., 333-370.
3. Browne,J.,and K. Rathmill, 1998. Simulation in Manufacturing, IFS
publications/Springer-Verlag.
4. Hira and Gupta, 1999. Operations Research, New Delhi: Dhanpatrai & Sons.
5. Askin Standbridge, 1993. Modeling and Analysis of Manufacturing Systems, New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
6. W. David Kelton, Randall P. Sadowski and Deborah A. Sadowski, 2001. Simulation
with Arena, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill.
7. Banks, J. and R. Gibson, 1997. Don't Simulate When . . . 10 Reasons for Determining
When Simulation is Not Appropriate, IIE Solutions.
8. Okumoto, Y., 2002. Simulation Based Design and Production in Shipbuilding,
Proceedings of TEAM2002 Kobe, 3-12.
9. Kalpakjian S., Schmid S., 2006. Manufacturing Engineering and Technology ,5th ed.,
Prentice Hall.
10. Cang Vo Trong, Dung Vo Anh, and Thien Doan Minh, 2010. Using 3D-CAD for
Simulation-Based Production in Shipbuilding, Proceedings of the International Multi-
Conference of Engineers and scientists, Vol III, Hong Kong.
11. Okumoto, Y. and Hiyoku, K. 2005. Digital Manufacturing of Pipe Unit Assembly,
Journal of Ship Production, Vol.21, No.3, 141-145.
12. Richard L., Colin P, Howard M. and Richard C., 1995. Ship Production, 2nd ed. New
Jersey: Cornell Maritime Press.
13. ICAS, 2011. Classification Society What, Why and How? Available from:
http://www.iacs.org.uk/document/public/explained/Class_WhatWhy&How.PDF
[Accessed 21 October 2011].
14. Steffen B., 2010. Manufacturing Simulation with Plant Simulation and SimTalk,
Usage and Programming with Examples and Solutions, Berlin: Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.

78 Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

“Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”
15. Markus R.,Sven S. and Sigrid W., 2009. Verification and Validation Activities within
a New Procedure Model for V & V in Production and Logistics Simulation,
Proceedings of the 2009 Winter Simulation Conference, 2509-2519.
16. Ohno Taiichi, 1995. Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-scale Production,
Portland: Productivity Inc.
17. Haack L. 1999.New Production Technologies in Ship Building, Conference
Proceedings of Specialists about Welding Technology, Symposium, Rostock [German
Version].
18. Király and J. Abonyi, 2011.Optimization of Multiple Travelling Salesmen Problem by
a Novel Representation Based Genetic Algorithm, Studies in Computational
Intelligence, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg ,Vol. 366, 241-269.
19. Jay L. Devore, 1995. Probability and statistics for Engineering and the Sciences, 4th
ed. San Luis Obispo: Thomson.
20. Casella G. and Roger L., 2001. Statistical Inference, 2nd ed. USA: Duxbury Press.

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”

APPENDIXES
A1. Interface of the Model Developed for the Container Ship

A2. Interface of the Model Developed for the Tanker Ship

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

A3.Results from the Genetic Algorithm Iterations for the Container Ship

Number of multiple generated individuals: 663

Number of evaluated individuals: 117
Observations per individual: 4
468 simulation runs are performed

II Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

IV Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

A4. Results from the Genetic Algorithm Iterations for the Tanker Ship

Number of multiple generated individuals: 1486

Number of evaluated individuals: 74
Observations per individual: 4
296 simulation runs are performed

VI Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

VIII Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.

 “Modeling and Simulation of a Production Line (Panel Line) in shipbuilding Industry using Tecnomatix Plant
Simulation 9.0”

“EMSHIP” Erasmus Mundus Master Course, September 2010 – February 2012



 Yohannes Tekle Muhabie

X Master Thesis developed at the University of Rostock, Rostock.