1988
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.34.10.1231
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Event Graph Modelling for Simulation with an Application to Flexible Manufacturing Systems

Abstract: This paper contains numerous extensions and refinements to event graphs which were recently introduced by Schruben for simulation modelling. These new results are integrated with Schruben's work to present a complete description of event graphs and their analysis. A (simple) flexible manufacturing system is modelled via event graphs to illustrate event graph modelling and analysis.modelling, simulation, flexible manufacturing systems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

1993
1993
2010
2010

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Event graphs were first introduced by Schruben (1983). Schruben (1995), Sargent (1988) and Seila, Ceric and Tadikamalla (2003) give a more detailed discussion of event graph modeling. In the EG methodology, nodes represent events and directed arcs represent the scheduling relationships between events.…”
Section: The Reasons For Selecting Simkit and Event Graphsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Event graphs were first introduced by Schruben (1983). Schruben (1995), Sargent (1988) and Seila, Ceric and Tadikamalla (2003) give a more detailed discussion of event graph modeling. In the EG methodology, nodes represent events and directed arcs represent the scheduling relationships between events.…”
Section: The Reasons For Selecting Simkit and Event Graphsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They represent the conceptual and logical models of our simulation. More detailed information on EGs are available in Sargent (1988) and Buss (2001).…”
Section: The Simulation Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…□ It may be desirable to know when two simulation model implementations (say, one in SLAM (Pritsker 1995) and the other in GPSS (Henriksen and Crain 1996)) are, in some measurable sense, close to one another, because one implementation may execute faster or may have more modest input data requirements. One measure of closeness can be defined with respect to model behavior, that is, with respect to the sample paths observed from the execution of different model implementations (Overstreet 1982, Schruben 1983, Sargent 1988. Establishing equivalence between simulation model implementations with respect to their behavior requires that instances of NONINTER-CHANGEABILITY be solved.…”
Section: Theorem 3 Noninterchangeability Is Np-hardmentioning
confidence: 99%