Throughput of flow lines with unreliable parallel-machine workstations and blocking

Yang Woo Shin; Dug Hee Moon

doi:10.3934/jimo.2016052

Previous Article
Distributed fault-tolerant consensus tracking for networked non-identical motors
JIMO Home
This Issue
Next Article
Salesforce contract design, joint pricing and production planning with asymmetric overconfidence sales agent

April 2017, 13(2): 901-916. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016052

Throughput of flow lines with unreliable parallel-machine workstations and blocking

Yang Woo Shin ^1, and Dug Hee Moon ^2,

1.	Department of Statistics, Changwon National University, Changwon, Gyeongnam 641-773, Korea
2.	School of Industrial Engineering and Naval Architecture, Changwon National University, Changwon, Gyeongnam 641-773, Korea

Received May 2015 Revised April 2016 Published August 2016

Flow lines in which workstations and buffers are linked along a single flow path one after another are widely used for modeling manufacturing systems. In this paper we consider the flow lines with multiple independent unreliable machines at each workstation and blocking. The processing times, time to failure and time to repair of each machine are assumed to exponentially distributed and blocking after service blocking protocol is also assumed. An approximate analysis for throughput in the flow lines is presented. The method developed here is based on the decomposition method using the subsystems with three workstations including virtual station and two buffers between workstations. Some numerical examples are presented for accuracy of approximation.

Keywords: Tandem queue, flow line, unreliable parallel-machine workstation, decomposition method.

Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary: 60K25, 68M20; Secondary: 90B22, 90B30.

Citation: Yang Woo Shin, Dug Hee Moon. Throughput of flow lines with unreliable parallel-machine workstations and blocking. Journal of Industrial & Management Optimization, 2017, 13 (2) : 901-916. doi: 10.3934/jimo.2016052

References:

[1]	T. Altiok, Performance Analysis of Manufacturing Systems, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-1924-8. Google Scholar
[2]	J. A. Buzzacott and J. G. Shanthikumar, Stochastic Models of Manufacturing Systems, Prentice-Hall, 1993. Google Scholar
[3]	Y. Dallery and B. Gershwin, Manufacturing flow line systems: A review of models and analytical results, Queueing Systems, 12 (1992), 3-94. doi: 10.1007/BF01158636. Google Scholar
[4]	A. C. Diamantidis, C. T. Papadopoulos and C. Heavey, Approximate analysis of serial flow lines with multiple parallel-machine stations, IIE Transactions, 39 (2007), 361-375. doi: 10.1080/07408170600838423. Google Scholar
[5]	A. C. Diamantidis and C. T. Papadopoulos, Exact analysis of a two-workstation one-buffer flow line with parallel unreliable machines, European Journal of Operational Research, 197 (2009), 592-580. Google Scholar
[6]	S. B. Gershwin, Manufacturing Systems Engineering, Prentice-Hall, 1994. Google Scholar
[7]	W. D. Kelton, R. P. Sadowski and D. A. Sadowski, Simulation with ARENA, 2edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998. Google Scholar
[8]	G. Latouche and V. Ramaswami, Introduction to Matrix Analytic Methods in Stochastic Modeling, SIAM, Philadephia, 1999. doi: 10.1137/1.9780898719734. Google Scholar
[9]	J. Li, Overlapping decomposition: A system-theoretic method for modeling and analysis of complex manufacturing systems, IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 2 (2005), 40-53. doi: 10.1109/TASE.2004.835576. Google Scholar
[10]	J. Li, D. E. Blumenfeld, N. Huang and J. M. Alden, Throughput analysis of production systems: Recent advances and future topics, International Journal of Production Research, 47 (2009), 3823-3851. doi: 10.1080/00207540701829752. Google Scholar
[11]	J. Li and S. M. Meerkov, Production Systems Engineering, Springer, 2009. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-75579-3. Google Scholar
[12]	J. Liu, S. Yang, A. Wu and S. J. Hu, Multi-stage throughput analysis of a two-stage manufacturing system with parallel unreliable machines and a finite buffer, European Journal of Operational Research, 219 (2012), 296-304. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2011.12.025. Google Scholar
[13]	A. Patchong and D. Willaeys, Modeling and analysis of an unreliable flow line composed of parallel-machine stages, IIE Transactions, 33 (2001), 559-568. doi: 10.1080/07408170108936854. Google Scholar
[14]	H. G. Perros, Queueing Networks with Blocking, Oxford University Press, 1994. Google Scholar
[15]	Y. W. Shin and D. H. Moon, Approximation of throughput in tandem queues with multiple servers and blocking, Applied Mathematical Modelling, 38 (2014), 6122-6132. doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2014.05.015. Google Scholar
[16]	M. van Vuuren, I. J. B. F. Adan and S. A. E. Resing-Sassen, Performance analysis of multi-server tandem queues with finite buffers and blocking, OR Spectrum, 27 (2005), 315-338. doi: 10.1007/s00291-004-0189-z. Google Scholar

show all references

References:

[1]	T. Altiok, Performance Analysis of Manufacturing Systems, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-1924-8. Google Scholar
[2]	J. A. Buzzacott and J. G. Shanthikumar, Stochastic Models of Manufacturing Systems, Prentice-Hall, 1993. Google Scholar
[3]	Y. Dallery and B. Gershwin, Manufacturing flow line systems: A review of models and analytical results, Queueing Systems, 12 (1992), 3-94. doi: 10.1007/BF01158636. Google Scholar
[4]	A. C. Diamantidis, C. T. Papadopoulos and C. Heavey, Approximate analysis of serial flow lines with multiple parallel-machine stations, IIE Transactions, 39 (2007), 361-375. doi: 10.1080/07408170600838423. Google Scholar
[5]	A. C. Diamantidis and C. T. Papadopoulos, Exact analysis of a two-workstation one-buffer flow line with parallel unreliable machines, European Journal of Operational Research, 197 (2009), 592-580. Google Scholar
[6]	S. B. Gershwin, Manufacturing Systems Engineering, Prentice-Hall, 1994. Google Scholar
[7]	W. D. Kelton, R. P. Sadowski and D. A. Sadowski, Simulation with ARENA, 2edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998. Google Scholar
[8]	G. Latouche and V. Ramaswami, Introduction to Matrix Analytic Methods in Stochastic Modeling, SIAM, Philadephia, 1999. doi: 10.1137/1.9780898719734. Google Scholar
[9]	J. Li, Overlapping decomposition: A system-theoretic method for modeling and analysis of complex manufacturing systems, IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 2 (2005), 40-53. doi: 10.1109/TASE.2004.835576. Google Scholar
[10]	J. Li, D. E. Blumenfeld, N. Huang and J. M. Alden, Throughput analysis of production systems: Recent advances and future topics, International Journal of Production Research, 47 (2009), 3823-3851. doi: 10.1080/00207540701829752. Google Scholar
[11]	J. Li and S. M. Meerkov, Production Systems Engineering, Springer, 2009. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-75579-3. Google Scholar
[12]	J. Liu, S. Yang, A. Wu and S. J. Hu, Multi-stage throughput analysis of a two-stage manufacturing system with parallel unreliable machines and a finite buffer, European Journal of Operational Research, 219 (2012), 296-304. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2011.12.025. Google Scholar
[13]	A. Patchong and D. Willaeys, Modeling and analysis of an unreliable flow line composed of parallel-machine stages, IIE Transactions, 33 (2001), 559-568. doi: 10.1080/07408170108936854. Google Scholar
[14]	H. G. Perros, Queueing Networks with Blocking, Oxford University Press, 1994. Google Scholar
[15]	Y. W. Shin and D. H. Moon, Approximation of throughput in tandem queues with multiple servers and blocking, Applied Mathematical Modelling, 38 (2014), 6122-6132. doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2014.05.015. Google Scholar
[16]	M. van Vuuren, I. J. B. F. Adan and S. A. E. Resing-Sassen, Performance analysis of multi-server tandem queues with finite buffers and blocking, OR Spectrum, 27 (2005), 315-338. doi: 10.1007/s00291-004-0189-z. Google Scholar

Figure 1. Flow line

Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 2. Subsystems L_i

Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Figure 3. Two-stage line ${\hat L}_i$

Figure Options

Download full-size image

Download as PowerPoint slide

Table 1. Throughput for flow lines with $m_i=1$ and $\mu_i=1.0$

$(\nu_i,\gamma_i)$	$N$	$b_i$	Sim(c.i.)	App	Err(%)	DDX	Err(%)
(0.04, 0.2)	6	0	0.3325 (±0.0006)	0.3446	3.6	0.2962	10.9
		3	0.4962 (±0.0013)	0.5031	1.4	0.4804	3.2
		5	0.5485 (±0.0013)	0.5497	0.2	0.5408	1.4
	10	0	0.2870 (±0.0007)	0.3038	5.8	0.2430	15.3
		3	0.4583 (±0.0016)	0.4718	3.0	0.4433	3.3
		5	0.5157 (±0.0016)	0.5191	0.7	0.5112	0.9
(0.1, 0.5)	6	0	0.3550 (±0.0006)	0.3573	0.6	0.3149	11.3
		3	0.5443 (±0.0008)	0.5432	0.2	0.5272	3.1
		5	0.6003 (±0.0009)	0.5977	0.4	0.5917	1.4
	10	0	0.3182 (±0.0003)	0.3175	0.2	0.2691	15.4
		3	0.5174 (±0.0006)	0.5182	0.2	0.5010	3.2
		5	0.5777 (±0.0008)	0.5755	0.4	0.5717	1.0

Table Options

Download as excel

$(\nu_i,\gamma_i)$	$N$	$b_i$	Sim(c.i.)	App	Err(%)	DDX	Err(%)
(0.04, 0.2)	6	0	0.3325 (±0.0006)	0.3446	3.6	0.2962	10.9
		3	0.4962 (±0.0013)	0.5031	1.4	0.4804	3.2
		5	0.5485 (±0.0013)	0.5497	0.2	0.5408	1.4
	10	0	0.2870 (±0.0007)	0.3038	5.8	0.2430	15.3
		3	0.4583 (±0.0016)	0.4718	3.0	0.4433	3.3
		5	0.5157 (±0.0016)	0.5191	0.7	0.5112	0.9
(0.1, 0.5)	6	0	0.3550 (±0.0006)	0.3573	0.6	0.3149	11.3
		3	0.5443 (±0.0008)	0.5432	0.2	0.5272	3.1
		5	0.6003 (±0.0009)	0.5977	0.4	0.5917	1.4
	10	0	0.3182 (±0.0003)	0.3175	0.2	0.2691	15.4
		3	0.5174 (±0.0006)	0.5182	0.2	0.5010	3.2
		5	0.5777 (±0.0008)	0.5755	0.4	0.5717	1.0

Table 2. Throughput of flow lines with $N=6$ and $m_i\mu_i=1$

${\pmb m}$	$b_i$	$(\nu_i,\gamma_i)=(0.04, 0.2)$		$(\nu_i,\gamma_i)=(0.1, 0.5)$
${\pmb m}$	$b_i$	Sim	App (Err(%))	Sim	App (Err(%)
(2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2)	0	0.4584 (±0.0007)	0.4604 (0.4)	0.4725 (±0.0004)	0.4678 (1.0)
	3	0.5843 (±0.0010)	0.5872 (0.5)	0.6077 (±0.0009)	0.6067 (0.2)
	5	0.6254 (±0.0010)	0.6258 (0.1)	0.6504 (±0.0010)	0.6488 (0.2)
(1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3)	0	0.4260 (±0.0012)	0.4319 (1.4)	0.4421 (±0.0007)	0.4407 (0.3)
	3	0.5613 (±0.0010)	0.5665 (0.9)	0.5930 (±0.0013)	0.5918 (0.2)
	5	0.6056 (±0.0011)	0.6067 (0.2)	0.6388 (±0.0008)	0.6369 (0.3)
(3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1)	0	0.4241 (±0.0013)	0.4284 (1.0)	0.4398 (±0.0006)	0.4382 (0.4)
	3	0.5608 (±0.0016)	0.5649 (0.7)	0.5926 (±0.0007)	0.5909 (0.3)
	5	0.6058 (±0.0009)	0.6065 (0.1)	0.6385 (±0.0008)	0.6367 (0.3)
(1, 2, 3, 3, 2, 1)	0	0.4507 (±0.0009)	0.4562 (1.2)	0.4707 (±0.0007)	0.4671 (0.8)
	3	0.5754 (±0.0010)	0.5828 (1.3)	0.6069 (±0.0007)	0.6070 (0.0)
	5	0.6177 (±0.0013)	0.6211 (0.5)	0.6486 (±0.0009)	0.6488 (0.0)
(3, 2, 1, 1, 2, 3)	0	0.4131 (±0.0011)	0.4173 (1.0)	0.4277 (±0.0006)	0.4264 (0.3)
	3	0.5532 (±0.0010)	0.5548 (0.3)	0.5839 (±0.0009)	0.5811 (0.5)
	5	0.5977 (±0.0018)	0.5968 (0.1)	0.6320 (±0.0007)	0.6283 (0.6)

Table Options

Download as excel

${\pmb m}$	$b_i$	$(\nu_i,\gamma_i)=(0.04, 0.2)$		$(\nu_i,\gamma_i)=(0.1, 0.5)$
${\pmb m}$	$b_i$	Sim	App (Err(%))	Sim	App (Err(%)
(2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2)	0	0.4584 (±0.0007)	0.4604 (0.4)	0.4725 (±0.0004)	0.4678 (1.0)
	3	0.5843 (±0.0010)	0.5872 (0.5)	0.6077 (±0.0009)	0.6067 (0.2)
	5	0.6254 (±0.0010)	0.6258 (0.1)	0.6504 (±0.0010)	0.6488 (0.2)
(1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3)	0	0.4260 (±0.0012)	0.4319 (1.4)	0.4421 (±0.0007)	0.4407 (0.3)
	3	0.5613 (±0.0010)	0.5665 (0.9)	0.5930 (±0.0013)	0.5918 (0.2)
	5	0.6056 (±0.0011)	0.6067 (0.2)	0.6388 (±0.0008)	0.6369 (0.3)
(3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1)	0	0.4241 (±0.0013)	0.4284 (1.0)	0.4398 (±0.0006)	0.4382 (0.4)
	3	0.5608 (±0.0016)	0.5649 (0.7)	0.5926 (±0.0007)	0.5909 (0.3)
	5	0.6058 (±0.0009)	0.6065 (0.1)	0.6385 (±0.0008)	0.6367 (0.3)
(1, 2, 3, 3, 2, 1)	0	0.4507 (±0.0009)	0.4562 (1.2)	0.4707 (±0.0007)	0.4671 (0.8)
	3	0.5754 (±0.0010)	0.5828 (1.3)	0.6069 (±0.0007)	0.6070 (0.0)
	5	0.6177 (±0.0013)	0.6211 (0.5)	0.6486 (±0.0009)	0.6488 (0.0)
(3, 2, 1, 1, 2, 3)	0	0.4131 (±0.0011)	0.4173 (1.0)	0.4277 (±0.0006)	0.4264 (0.3)
	3	0.5532 (±0.0010)	0.5548 (0.3)	0.5839 (±0.0009)	0.5811 (0.5)
	5	0.5977 (±0.0018)	0.5968 (0.1)	0.6320 (±0.0007)	0.6283 (0.6)

Table 3. Throughput of flow lines with $N=6$ and $\mu_i=1$

${\pmb m}$	$b_i$	$(\nu_i,\gamma_i)=(0.04, 0.2)$		$(\nu_i,\gamma_i)=(0.1, 0.5)$
${\pmb m}$	$b_i$	Sim	App (Err(%))	Sim	App (Err(%)
(2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2)	0	0.8986 (±0.0011)	0.9110 (1.4)	0.9257 (±0.0008)	0.9243 (0.1)
	3	1.1255 (±0.0011)	1.1415 (1.4)	1.1842 (±0.0012)	1.1848 (0.1)
	5	1.2020 (±0.0026)	1.2077 (0.5)	1.2663 (±0.0012)	1.2646 (0.1)
(1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3)	0	0.5179 (±0.0017)	0.5176 (0.1)	0.5254 (±0.0011)	0.5245 (0.2)
	3	0.6454 (±0.0009)	0.6434 (0.3)	0.6645 (±0.0012)	0.6612 (0.5)
	5	0.6783 (±0.0022)	0.6778 (0.1)	0.7010 (±0.0014)	0.6983 (0.4)
(3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1)	0	0.5165 (±0.0018)	0.5178 (0.3)	0.5241 (±0.0010)	0.5242 (0.0)
	3	0.6448 (±0.0013)	0.6439 (0.1)	0.6639 (±0.0010)	0.6613 (0.4)
	5	0.6806 (±0.0017)	0.6780 (0.4)	0.7002 (±0.0013)	0.6983 (0.3)
(1, 2, 3, 3, 2, 1)	0	0.6405 (±0.0018)	0.6811 (6.3)	0.6637 (±0.0008)	0.6898 (3.9)
	3	0.7483 (±0.0026)	0.7748 (3.5)	0.7697 (±0.0013)	0.7878 (2.4)
	5	0.7739 (±0.0020)	0.7854 (1.5)	0.7905 (±0.0013)	0.7994 (1.1)
(3, 2, 1, 1, 2, 3)	0	0.5099 (±0.0022)	0.5108 (0.2)	0.5191 (±0.0010)	0.5178 (0.2)
	3	0.6442 (±0.0023)	0.6411 (0.5)	0.6646 (±0.0009)	0.6596 (0.7)
	5	0.6782 (±0.0022)	0.6764 (0.3)	0.7006 (±0.0010)	0.6977 (0.4)

Table Options

Download as excel

${\pmb m}$	$b_i$	$(\nu_i,\gamma_i)=(0.04, 0.2)$		$(\nu_i,\gamma_i)=(0.1, 0.5)$
${\pmb m}$	$b_i$	Sim	App (Err(%))	Sim	App (Err(%)
(2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2)	0	0.8986 (±0.0011)	0.9110 (1.4)	0.9257 (±0.0008)	0.9243 (0.1)
	3	1.1255 (±0.0011)	1.1415 (1.4)	1.1842 (±0.0012)	1.1848 (0.1)
	5	1.2020 (±0.0026)	1.2077 (0.5)	1.2663 (±0.0012)	1.2646 (0.1)
(1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3)	0	0.5179 (±0.0017)	0.5176 (0.1)	0.5254 (±0.0011)	0.5245 (0.2)
	3	0.6454 (±0.0009)	0.6434 (0.3)	0.6645 (±0.0012)	0.6612 (0.5)
	5	0.6783 (±0.0022)	0.6778 (0.1)	0.7010 (±0.0014)	0.6983 (0.4)
(3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1)	0	0.5165 (±0.0018)	0.5178 (0.3)	0.5241 (±0.0010)	0.5242 (0.0)
	3	0.6448 (±0.0013)	0.6439 (0.1)	0.6639 (±0.0010)	0.6613 (0.4)
	5	0.6806 (±0.0017)	0.6780 (0.4)	0.7002 (±0.0013)	0.6983 (0.3)
(1, 2, 3, 3, 2, 1)	0	0.6405 (±0.0018)	0.6811 (6.3)	0.6637 (±0.0008)	0.6898 (3.9)
	3	0.7483 (±0.0026)	0.7748 (3.5)	0.7697 (±0.0013)	0.7878 (2.4)
	5	0.7739 (±0.0020)	0.7854 (1.5)	0.7905 (±0.0013)	0.7994 (1.1)
(3, 2, 1, 1, 2, 3)	0	0.5099 (±0.0022)	0.5108 (0.2)	0.5191 (±0.0010)	0.5178 (0.2)
	3	0.6442 (±0.0023)	0.6411 (0.5)	0.6646 (±0.0009)	0.6596 (0.7)
	5	0.6782 (±0.0022)	0.6764 (0.3)	0.7006 (±0.0010)	0.6977 (0.4)

Table 4. The number of machines of the lines in Tables 5-6

$N=10$	${\pmb m}=(m_1,\cdots,m_{10})$	$N=15$	${\pmb m}=(m_1,\cdots,m_{15})$
Line 1	$(2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2)$	Line 5	$(2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2)$
Line 2	$(1,1,2,2,3,3,2,2,1,1)$	Line 6	$(1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3,2,2,2,1,1,1)$
Line 3	$(3,3,2,2,1,1,2,2,3,3)$	Line 7	$(3,3,3,2,2,2,1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3)$
Line 4	$(3,2,2,1,2,2,3,2,2,1)$	Line 8	$(3,3,2,2,1,1,2,2,3,3,2,2,1,1,3)$

Table Options

Download as excel

$N=10$	${\pmb m}=(m_1,\cdots,m_{10})$	$N=15$	${\pmb m}=(m_1,\cdots,m_{15})$
Line 1	$(2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2)$	Line 5	$(2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2)$
Line 2	$(1,1,2,2,3,3,2,2,1,1)$	Line 6	$(1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3,2,2,2,1,1,1)$
Line 3	$(3,3,2,2,1,1,2,2,3,3)$	Line 7	$(3,3,3,2,2,2,1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3)$
Line 4	$(3,2,2,1,2,2,3,2,2,1)$	Line 8	$(3,3,2,2,1,1,2,2,3,3,2,2,1,1,3)$

Table 5. Throughput for the lines with $N=10, 15$, $\mu_i=\frac{1}{m_i}$ and $l_i=m_i+b_i=3$

Lines	$(\nu_i,\gamma_i)=(0.04, 0.2)$		$(\nu_i,\gamma_i)=(0.1, 0.5)$
Lines	Sim(c.i.)	App (Err(%))	Sim(c.i.)	App (Err(%)
1	0.4874 (±0.0003)	0.4949 (1.5)	0.5104 (±0.0004)	0.5082 (0.4)
2	0.4597 (±0.0007)	0.4729 (2.9)	0.4934 (±0.0009)	0.4914 (0.4)
3	0.4698 (±0.0011)	0.4772 (1.6)	0.4982 (±0.0008)	0.4954 (0.6)
4	0.4742 (±0.0009)	0.4836 (2.0)	0.5023 (±0.0006)	0.5004 (0.4)
5	0.4717 (±0.0007)	0.4790 (1.6)	0.4973 (±0.0004)	0.4930 (0.9)
6	0.4430 (±0.0009)	0.4567 (3.1)	0.4808 (±0.0006)	0.4767 (0.9)
7	0.4497 (±0.0007)	0.4581 (1.9)	0.4839 (±0.0005)	0.4781 (1.2)
8	0.4474 (±0.0008)	0.4596 (2.7)	0.4828 (±0.0006)	0.4790 (0.8)

Table Options

Download as excel

Lines	$(\nu_i,\gamma_i)=(0.04, 0.2)$		$(\nu_i,\gamma_i)=(0.1, 0.5)$
Lines	Sim(c.i.)	App (Err(%))	Sim(c.i.)	App (Err(%)
1	0.4874 (±0.0003)	0.4949 (1.5)	0.5104 (±0.0004)	0.5082 (0.4)
2	0.4597 (±0.0007)	0.4729 (2.9)	0.4934 (±0.0009)	0.4914 (0.4)
3	0.4698 (±0.0011)	0.4772 (1.6)	0.4982 (±0.0008)	0.4954 (0.6)
4	0.4742 (±0.0009)	0.4836 (2.0)	0.5023 (±0.0006)	0.5004 (0.4)
5	0.4717 (±0.0007)	0.4790 (1.6)	0.4973 (±0.0004)	0.4930 (0.9)
6	0.4430 (±0.0009)	0.4567 (3.1)	0.4808 (±0.0006)	0.4767 (0.9)
7	0.4497 (±0.0007)	0.4581 (1.9)	0.4839 (±0.0005)	0.4781 (1.2)
8	0.4474 (±0.0008)	0.4596 (2.7)	0.4828 (±0.0006)	0.4790 (0.8)

Table 6. Throughput for the lines with $N=10, 15$, $\mu_i=1.0$ and $l_i=m_i+b_i=3,5$

Lines	$l_i$	$(\nu_i,\gamma_i)=(0.04, 0.2)$		$(\nu_i,\gamma_i)=(0.1, 0.5)$
Lines	$l_i$	Sim(c.i.)	App (Err(%))	Sim(c.i.)	App (Err(%)
1	3	0.9367 (±0.0008)	0.9706 (3.6)	0.9908 (±0.0015)	0.9965 (0.6)
	5	1.0663 (±0.0014)	1.0948 (2.7)	1.1382 (±0.0013)	1.1427 (0.4)
2	3	0.5671 (±0.0010)	0.5932 (4.6)	0.6018 (±0.0011)	0.6116 (1.6)
	5	0.6296 (±0.0016)	0.6421 (2.0)	0.6634 (±0.0010)	0.6663 (0.4)
3	3	0.6085 (±0.0010)	0.6075 (0.1)	0.6279 (±0.0014)	0.6244 (0.6)
	5	0.6600 (±0.0017)	0.6586 (0.2)	0.6820 (±0.0019)	0.6797 (0.3)
4	3	0.6840 (±0.0013)	0.7218 (5.5)	0.7162 (±0.0011)	0.7362 (2.8)
	5	0.7452 (±0.0014)	0.7719 (3.6)	0.7722 (±0.0012)	0.7878 (2.0)
5	3	0.8994 (±0.0012)	0.9376 (4.3)	0.9606 (±0.0013)	0.9651 (0.5)
	5	1.0334 (±0.0016)	1.0688 (3.4)	1.1134 (±0.0015)	1.1197 (0.6)
6	3	0.5167 (±0.0008)	0.5257 (1.7)	0.5539 (±0.0007)	0.5515 (0.4)
	5	0.5808 (±0.0015)	0.5811 (0.1)	0.6215 (±0.0010)	0.6156 (0.9)
7	3	0.5414 (±0.0009)	0.5420 (0.1)	0.5689 (±0.0011)	0.5658 (0.5)
	5	0.6000 (±0.0013)	0.5975 (0.4)	0.6324 (±0.0016)	0.6285 (0.6)
8	3	0.5657 (±0.0009)	0.5899 (4.3)	0.6006 (±0.0011)	0.6091 (1.4)
	5	0.6287 (±0.0012)	0.6406 (1.9)	0.6620 (±0.0010)	0.6656 (0.5)

Table Options

Download as excel

Lines	$l_i$	$(\nu_i,\gamma_i)=(0.04, 0.2)$		$(\nu_i,\gamma_i)=(0.1, 0.5)$
Lines	$l_i$	Sim(c.i.)	App (Err(%))	Sim(c.i.)	App (Err(%)
1	3	0.9367 (±0.0008)	0.9706 (3.6)	0.9908 (±0.0015)	0.9965 (0.6)
	5	1.0663 (±0.0014)	1.0948 (2.7)	1.1382 (±0.0013)	1.1427 (0.4)
2	3	0.5671 (±0.0010)	0.5932 (4.6)	0.6018 (±0.0011)	0.6116 (1.6)
	5	0.6296 (±0.0016)	0.6421 (2.0)	0.6634 (±0.0010)	0.6663 (0.4)
3	3	0.6085 (±0.0010)	0.6075 (0.1)	0.6279 (±0.0014)	0.6244 (0.6)
	5	0.6600 (±0.0017)	0.6586 (0.2)	0.6820 (±0.0019)	0.6797 (0.3)
4	3	0.6840 (±0.0013)	0.7218 (5.5)	0.7162 (±0.0011)	0.7362 (2.8)
	5	0.7452 (±0.0014)	0.7719 (3.6)	0.7722 (±0.0012)	0.7878 (2.0)
5	3	0.8994 (±0.0012)	0.9376 (4.3)	0.9606 (±0.0013)	0.9651 (0.5)
	5	1.0334 (±0.0016)	1.0688 (3.4)	1.1134 (±0.0015)	1.1197 (0.6)
6	3	0.5167 (±0.0008)	0.5257 (1.7)	0.5539 (±0.0007)	0.5515 (0.4)
	5	0.5808 (±0.0015)	0.5811 (0.1)	0.6215 (±0.0010)	0.6156 (0.9)
7	3	0.5414 (±0.0009)	0.5420 (0.1)	0.5689 (±0.0011)	0.5658 (0.5)
	5	0.6000 (±0.0013)	0.5975 (0.4)	0.6324 (±0.0016)	0.6285 (0.6)
8	3	0.5657 (±0.0009)	0.5899 (4.3)	0.6006 (±0.0011)	0.6091 (1.4)
	5	0.6287 (±0.0012)	0.6406 (1.9)	0.6620 (±0.0010)	0.6656 (0.5)

Table 7. The number of iterations for $(\mu_i,\nu_i,\gamma_i)=(1.0/m_i,0.1,0.5)$ and $\epsilon=10^{-5}$

	$m_i$	1			2			3
	$l_i$	1	3	5	2	3	5	3	5
$N$	5	5	5	4	4	5	5	4	5
	10	7	7	6	6	8	8	6	8
	15	8	9	8	8	10	11	8	11

Table Options

Download as excel

	$m_i$	1			2			3
	$l_i$	1	3	5	2	3	5	3	5
$N$	5	5	5	4	4	5	5	4	5
	10	7	7	6	6	8	8	6	8
	15	8	9	8	8	10	11	8	11

[1]	José Madrid, João P. G. Ramos. On optimal autocorrelation inequalities on the real line. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, , () : -. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2020271
[2]	Ying Lin, Qi Ye. Support vector machine classifiers by non-Euclidean margins. Mathematical Foundations of Computing, 2020, 3 (4) : 279-300. doi: 10.3934/mfc.2020018
[3]	Abdelghafour Atlas, Mostafa Bendahmane, Fahd Karami, Driss Meskine, Omar Oubbih. A nonlinear fractional reaction-diffusion system applied to image denoising and decomposition. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020 doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020321
[4]	Tommi Brander, Joonas Ilmavirta, Petteri Piiroinen, Teemu Tyni. Optimal recovery of a radiating source with multiple frequencies along one line. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2020, 14 (6) : 967-983. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2020044
[5]	Dan Zhu, Rosemary A. Renaut, Hongwei Li, Tianyou Liu. Fast non-convex low-rank matrix decomposition for separation of potential field data using minimal memory. Inverse Problems & Imaging, , () : -. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2020076
[6]	Mehdi Bastani, Davod Khojasteh Salkuyeh. On the GSOR iteration method for image restoration. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2021, 11 (1) : 27-43. doi: 10.3934/naco.2020013
[7]	M. S. Lee, H. G. Harno, B. S. Goh, K. H. Lim. On the bang-bang control approach via a component-wise line search strategy for unconstrained optimization. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2021, 11 (1) : 45-61. doi: 10.3934/naco.2020014
[8]	Hong Niu, Zhijiang Feng, Qijin Xiao, Yajun Zhang. A PID control method based on optimal control strategy. Numerical Algebra, Control & Optimization, 2021, 11 (1) : 117-126. doi: 10.3934/naco.2020019
[9]	Li-Bin Liu, Ying Liang, Jian Zhang, Xiaobing Bao. A robust adaptive grid method for singularly perturbed Burger-Huxley equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28 (4) : 1439-1457. doi: 10.3934/era.2020076
[10]	Zexuan Liu, Zhiyuan Sun, Jerry Zhijian Yang. A numerical study of superconvergence of the discontinuous Galerkin method by patch reconstruction. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28 (4) : 1487-1501. doi: 10.3934/era.2020078
[11]	Yuxia Guo, Shaolong Peng. A direct method of moving planes for fully nonlinear nonlocal operators and applications. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - S, 2020 doi: 10.3934/dcdss.2020462
[12]	Noah Stevenson, Ian Tice. A truncated real interpolation method and characterizations of screened Sobolev spaces. Communications on Pure & Applied Analysis, 2020, 19 (12) : 5509-5566. doi: 10.3934/cpaa.2020250
[13]	Yue Feng, Yujie Liu, Ruishu Wang, Shangyou Zhang. A conforming discontinuous Galerkin finite element method on rectangular partitions. Electronic Research Archive, , () : -. doi: 10.3934/era.2020120
[14]	Leilei Wei, Yinnian He. A fully discrete local discontinuous Galerkin method with the generalized numerical flux to solve the tempered fractional reaction-diffusion equation. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020 doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020319
[15]	Marion Darbas, Jérémy Heleine, Stephanie Lohrengel. Numerical resolution by the quasi-reversibility method of a data completion problem for Maxwell's equations. Inverse Problems & Imaging, 2020, 14 (6) : 1107-1133. doi: 10.3934/ipi.2020056
[16]	Gang Bao, Mingming Zhang, Bin Hu, Peijun Li. An adaptive finite element DtN method for the three-dimensional acoustic scattering problem. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B, 2020 doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020351
[17]	Zuliang Lu, Fei Huang, Xiankui Wu, Lin Li, Shang Liu. Convergence and quasi-optimality of $ L^2- $norms based an adaptive finite element method for nonlinear optimal control problems. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28 (4) : 1459-1486. doi: 10.3934/era.2020077

2019 Impact Factor: 1.366

Tools

Metrics

Tools

Article outline

Figures and Tables

2019 Impact Factor: 1.366

Tools

Figures and Tables

2019 Impact Factor: 1.366

American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

Throughput of flow lines with unreliable parallel-machine workstations and blocking

References:

References:

Tools

Metrics

Other articles
by authors

Tools

Tools

Tools

Metrics

Other articles
by authors

American Institute of Mathematical Sciences

Throughput of flow lines with unreliable parallel-machine workstations and blocking

References:

References:

Tools

Metrics

Other articlesby authors

Tools

Tools

Tools

Metrics

Other articlesby authors

Other articles
by authors

Other articles
by authors