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

net/publication/342401479

Internal logistics flow simulation: A case study in automotive industry

Article  in  Journal of Simulation · June 2020

DOI: 10.1080/17477778.2020.1781554

CITATIONS READS

2 241

4 authors, including:

Helena Ramalhinho Lourenço Miquel Oliver

University Pompeu Fabra University Pompeu Fabra
107 PUBLICATIONS   3,548 CITATIONS    107 PUBLICATIONS   1,296 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Redes Chain: Blockchain for Decentralized Self Organizing Wireless Networks View project

Combinatorial Optimization View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Helena Ramalhinho Lourenço on 22 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Internal Logistics Flow Simulation: a case study in automotive
industry

Marcelus Fabri Lima ab , Helena Ramalhinhoc , Miquel Olivera and Juan Carlos
Muñoz b
a
Department of Information and Communication Technologies, Universitat Pompeu Fabra,
C/ Roc Boronat, 138, 08018, Barcelona, SPAIN.
b
SEAT, S.A. Autovı́a A-2, Km. 585, 08760, Martorell, SPAIN.
c
Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra C/ Trias Fargas,
25-27,08005, Barcelona, SPAIN.

ABSTRACT

This work focuses on internal logistics (IL), which is defined as the flows of ma-
terials inside the same business or the same plant. We center on the IL activities
of a car-assembling company. The main objective is to propose simulation models’
concepts that evaluate assembling lines under the IL point of view. Also, we present
a real case-study based on SEAT S.A., a company in the Volkswagen group. We de-
veloped a Discrete-Event-Simulation model through the Plant Simulation software.
The company set the main Key-Performance-Indicators, and these are related to the
logistics flows’ performance and an assembly lines’ aisles utilization. Three scenar-
ios were simulated: the company’s current scenario, the introduction of autonomous
automated guided vehicles, and the application of a transit flow policy. The results
expose which aisles are overused, the disturbs among the logistics flows, and the
logistics flows’ performance, regarding the total of backorders, the trips duration,
and the routes’ length in terms of distances and time. Moreover, we offer a set of
best practices for further applications in that field. The study was presented to the
company’s employees that found it interesting and appropriate.

KEYWORDS
Logistics; Automotive Industry; Discrete-Event Simulation

1. Introduction

The logistics field refers to the flow of materials between and within organizations.
Also, it is a vital field to gain competitiveness in the market by reducing costs or
serving better the customers, see (Muñuzuri, Larrañeta, Onieva, & Cortés, 2005).
Most of the works published in the logistics field focus on external logistics, i.e., flows
of materials and products to different companies or customers, see (Tako & Robinson,
2012) and (Braekers, Ramaekers, & Van Nieuwenhuyse, 2016). In this work, we focus
on internal logistics, which means flows of materials inside the same business or the
same plant, for example, from the warehouse to an assembly line. The improvement
of these flows can lead to a reduction in the delays, disruptions, accidents, and also
contribute to minimizing the logistics costs. As a result, the main objective of this
work is to propose simulation-based concepts that evaluate assembling lines under the
internal logistics point of view.

CONTACT: Marcelus Fabri Lima. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

 The motivation to study the Internal Logistics Flow (ILF) in an assembly line comes
from the study of a real case based on the company SEAT S.A.(Sociedad Española de
Automóviles de Turismo) which is a Spanish company, a subsidiary of the Volkswagen
Group (www.seat.es). SEAT’s market is composed of more than 75 countries, with a
volume of sales in 2018 of more than 517,600 units. This study was carried out under
an agreement with SEAT S.A., which expressed to us the importance of analyzing
assembly lines focus on the internal logistics processes. The company also provided us
with all the necessary data and support.
To analyze the ILFs, we consider the simulation methodology described by (Banks,
Carson, Nelson, & Nicol, 2005). Also, according to those authors and (Tako & Robin-
son, 2012), simulation is a suitable methodology to face logistics problems. Among
the simulation methodology applications, we can find the System Dynamics, Agent-
based Modelling, and Discrete-Event Simulation (DES). Also, simulation models have
been extensively used to deal with logistics problems, as observed in (Banks et al.,
2005; Hillier & Lieberman, 1995; Tako & Robinson, 2012). As stated, there are many
simulating-based works that focus on external logistics. However, there are a limited
number of works applied to the internal logistics (IL) field. Nevertheless, most of those
simulation-based studies that associate assembly lines and IL are focused on the pro-
duction point of view because they consider aspects such as the production flow in the
assembly line and machine interruptions.
The main goal of this work is to propose a simulation model to evaluate and analyze
the internal logistics activities in an assembly line of a car-manufacturing company.
We developed a DES model through the Plant Simulation software and performed an
analysis of the IL in SEAT. To evaluate the IL, we have considered Key Performance
Indicators (KPI) proposed by the company. These KPIs are related to the logistics
flows’ performance and the assembly line’s aisles utilization. Moreover, three scenarios
were evaluated based on the actual system, the introduction of autonomous automated
guided vehicles (AGV), and applying a transit flow policy. The results indicated the
main aspects and areas of the assembly line that contribute to a disruption of the
logistics operations. Note that the proposed DES concepts can be applied whenever
a new scenario occurs or even in other industries that rely on assembly lines. As a
result, we present a set of best practices for bench-marketing purposes for those who
develop DES models centered on ILF analysis, because it is a vital topic for businesses
that count with assembling lines.
Moreover, the automotive sector can be viewed as a particular case regarding man-
ufacturing companies. First, a significant amount of data is required to conduct a
DES study over an entire assembly line. Usually, that sector does not disclose that
required data. Second, the complexity of the DES is significant in terms of the num-
ber of processes. There are many processes to be considered because many types of
ILFs are introduced into the model. Third, besides the ILF processes, there are the
workstations’ orders to take into account. In SEAT, one assembling line can produce
more than 600 cars each day. Also, a car is assembled with more than 2,500 materials
in those workstations. So, the scope of the DES model is quite significant. As a result,
businesses that share similar concepts, but on a smaller scale, can take advantage of
this work as well.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the literature review and the
main contribution of this work. Section 3 presents the case-study description. Section 4
describes the developed simulation model and the experiments’ results. Finally, section
5 concludes the paper.

2
2. Literature review

This paper is placed among those simulation-based works that are related with the
Logistics and Production fields. In particular, that work addresses to the internal
logistics field. So, in this section, we highlight the works that share some concepts
with our approach.
Usually, the literature associates the logistics related works to the Supply Chain
Management (SCM) studies. That can be checked in the surveys and literature revi-
sions presented by (Sachan & Datta, 2005; Tako & Robinson, 2012; Wilding, Wagner,
Gligor, & Holcomb, 2012).
The survey conducted by (Sachan & Datta, 2005) reviewed 442 papers of SCM and
logistics research to examine the state of logistics and SCM research. Surprisingly, only
20 out of these 442 papers used simulation as the primary methodology.
Moreover, (Wilding et al., 2012) conducted a review of the literature on manufactur-
ing, organizational, and SCM agility through 175 papers. The authors concluded that
SCM agility had been explored through a focus on manufacturing flexibility, supply
chain speed, or lean manufacturing. Another interesting point is the fact that there is
not any work in these surveys, in which the main scope focuses on internal logistics.
However, internal logistics is a theme to be considered when facing logistics concepts.
Finally, (Tako & Robinson, 2012) presented a survey on simulation studies under
Logistics and SCM perspectives and their application in several industries. Their work
suggests that the DES has been applied more frequently to work on SCM. On the other
hand, the Systems Dynamics method is the preferred one to deal with the bullwhip
effect. On the contrary, no important information was provided regarding ILF studies.
Centralizing the search over manufacturing logistics studies, which is one of the
main topics of our work, there are two surveys to highlight. These are the studies
presented by (Negahban & Smith, 2014; Semini, Fauske, & Strandhagen , 2006).
(Negahban & Smith, 2014) conducted a review of 290 DES publications with a
focus on applications in manufacturing. The authors classified the literature into three
classes: (i) manufacturing system design, (ii) manufacturing system operation, and (iii)
simulation language/package development. Even though the authors did not create
a specific category for logistics, the logistics-based works were somehow considered
through the studies of automated material handling systems. Also, the authors pointed
out that logistics-based works were mostly related to AGV. So, no further discussion
about ILF concepts was provided.
Regarding the AGV-based works, a complete survey about design and control of
AGV systems is presented by (Vis, 2006). In this AGV systems survey, the author
considers topics related to flow path layout, traffic management, and vehicle routing.
So, issues like single loops, tandem, and segmented flow configurations are discussed.
However, the focus is always on the AGV itself and not on how an AGV interacts with
the environment.
Also, (Semini et al., 2006) presented a survey on the use of DES in real-world
manufacturing logistics decision making. The authors conclude that the majority of
applications have been classified into the following fields: production plant design,
evaluation of production policies, lot sizing, work in progress levels, and production
plans/schedules. We can state that this survey supports the argument that the litera-
ture lacks works that consider both workshops’ aisles utilization and flows strategies.
Indeed, (Semini et al., 2006) did not present a work like that.
Therefore, from the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is not a similar work that
faces the internal logistics flow and the traffic issues inside a workshop, as we propose

3
in this paper.
On the contrary, it does exist works that share common aspects of the ILF topic. We
introduce these works through four categories: (i)production flow, (ii) layout evalua-
tion, (iii) material handling flow, and (iv) routing strategy. Table 1 summarizes those
works.
Works that tackle issues related to Production Flow are: (Ĉujan , 2016; Ruiz-Torres
& Nakatani, 1998; Seebacher, Winkler, & Oberegger, 2015). Also, works that center
their approach to the automotive sector and the production flow are: (Fabri, Ramal-
hinho, de Souza, & Ravetti, 2019; Faget, Eriksson, & Herrmann, 2005; Ludavicius &
Ali, 2014; Michalos, Makris, Papakostas, Mourtzis, & Chryssolouris, 2010; Patchong,
Lemoine, & Kern, 2003; Roman-Verdugo, 2014).
Regarding works that face issues linked to Layout Evaluation, see (Horta, Coelho,
& Relvas, 2016; Martı́nez-Barberá & Herrero-Pérez, 2010; Wang & Chang , 2015).
Concerning works that focus on Material Handling Flow (MHF), see (Klug, 2013;
Mason, Ribera, Farris, & Kirk, 2003; Zhou & Peng, 2017). Moreover, there are works
that approache both MHF and warehouse issues, such as (Atieh et al., 2016; Caridade,
Pereira, Ferreira, & Silva, 2017; Gagliardi, Renaud, & Ruiz, 2007; Higgins, Ladbrook,
Khalwadekar, & Osman, 2019; Poon et al., 2009; Ribino, Cossentino, Lodato, & Lopes,
2018).
Finally, (Lima & Ramalhinho, 2017; Mehami, Nawi, & Zhong, 2018; Vavrı́k et al.,
2017) presented studies, in which the Routing Strategy.

The work’s focus References

Production Flow (Ĉujan , 2016; Fabri et al., 2019; Faget et al., 2005),
(Ludavicius & Ali, 2014; Michalos , 2010)
(Patchong et al., 2003; Seebacher et al. , 2015),
(Roman-Verdugo , 2014; Ruiz-Torres & Nakatani , 1998),
Layout Evaluation (Martı́nez-Barberá & Herrero-Pérez , 2010),
(Horta et al., 2016; Wang & Chang , 2015),
Material Handling (Atieh et al. , 2016; Caridade et al. , 2017),
Flow (Gagliardi at al., 2007; Higgins et al., 2019; Klug , 2013),
(Mason et al. , 2003; Poon et al. , 2009),
(Ribino et al., 2018; Zhou & Peng , 2017)
Routing Strategy (Lima & Ramalhinho, 2017; Mehami et al. , 2018),
(Vavrı́k et al. , 2017)
Table 1. Related work.

To sum up, although there are many references that approach both logistics and
manufacturing activities through DES or other simulation-based methodologies, works
that focus on the simulation of Internal Logistics Flows (ILF), under an aggregate per-
spective, are unusual. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the simulation literature
lacks studies that integrate more than one class of ILF to evaluate how a workshop
can absorb all the traffic, for instance. Also, from our point of view, the absence of
simulation studies in the literature over ILF in the automotive sector may be explained
by its complexity and confidential issues, as detailed at the end of Section 1.
As a result, the majority of the simulation-based works found in the literature that
copes with logistics and production fields concerns with supply chain and product-
oriented manufacturing optimization. Also, assembly-lines studies have always been

4
driven by the workstations necessities, but little attention was put into the logistics
flow implications inside an assembly line.
Consequently, this paper provides DES’s concepts whose objective is to assess the
ILF in an assembling workshop. Besides, we provide a set of bench-marketing
practices for those who want to approach the DES to evaluate models centered on ILF
analysis, as presented in Figure 3. We are sure that it is a hot topic for a business that
counts with assembling lines.
In this sense, our work contributes to knowledge since it copes with a demanded
problem over a real scenario. We also present a set of best practices that help to deal
with these types of problems and their applications.

3. The Internal Logistics Flow Simulation in assembling lines

The Internal Logistics Flow (ILF) analysis is a relevant issue for companies, in partic-
ular for those that face a scenario with high variable demand. A proper ILF simulation
study enables a company to carry on analysis of the followings items: (i) flow bottle-
necks; (ii) layout evaluation; and (iii) introduction of new premises such as the input of
traffic new rules or a new product. As a result, this approach summarizes the standard
aspects of ILF simulation in assembling lines. Also, it is highly recommended whenever
there are relevant changes in the system, such as the operations of an assembly line
or introduction of a new logistics flow.
In this work, we execute an ILF simulation based on a DES model to evaluate
the workshop’s aisles and the introduced logistics flows. The main goal is to identify
the main bottlenecks in the system, which regards to the ILFs obstructions found
throughout the simulation, such as blocked trajectories and overtakes. Consequently,
we will be able to verify which aisles are more collapsed in terms of traffic. Therefore,
we aim to present a case study of a DES model, which focuses on the logistics flows
aspects. Next, we present the special characteristics found in ILF processes of SEAT.
We highlight that the departure frequency of a route depends on the material con-
sumption rate assigned to it. Consequently, materials with non-uniform consuming
rates are delivered not periodically as well. Then, the convoys, which have these mate-
rial assigned, will depart under demand. On the contrary, some materials are regularly
requested. These materials are assigned to another class of convoys. As a result, we
state that there are two main classes of convoys, those with irregular departure and
those with regular departures.
Next, the main processes observed in the supplying activity in SEAT are presented.
First, we explain figure 1 that regards to irregular logistic flows. In other words, those
logistics flows whose departure from the warehouse towards the assembly line are not
periodical. Later, those flows with periodic departure are presented in figure 2. Note
that those processes presented by figures 1 and 2 were considered to develop the DES
model.
Figure 1 presents four steps to take into account: (i) departure from the warehouse
(WHS), (ii) check workstations, (iii) supply workstations and (iv) return back to the
WHS. Each step is explained next.
First, the WHS receives orders through the commercial system SAP. Note that these
orders are not steady in this case, which results in irregular departures. As a result,
the departure is regulated through a rule defined as a ”Capacity vs. Time” rule. This
rule ensures that each convoy leaves the WHS as soon as it is either completely loaded
or after a pre-defined amount of time. The last criterion refers to the amount of time

5
 1 2 3 4
Departure from Check Back to the
workstations Supply
WHS WHS

• Unsteady Orders • Each workstation • Before starting the • After checking the
are clustered and (WKS) is assigned material supply, WKSs under his
assigned to to a respective the operator must responsibility, the
convoys; route; check the parking operator drives
availability; back to the WHS.
• A convoy leaves • The logistic
the Warehouse operator is • The order goes
(WHS) based on responsible for directly to the SAP
the “Capacity vs placing the WKSs’ system in the
Time” rule. orders. WHS.

Figure 1. The summary of the processes of a logistic flow, which does not present a periodic departure.

a convoy can wait after the arrival of the first order. For example, the maximum time
a convoy can wait to be loaded is 30 minutes after assigning the first material to it.
Then, there are two criteria that regulate the departure, which refer to the capacity
and the time. Also, there is an important material’ classification that concerns to the
Stocking Keeping Unit’s (SKU) size. In the company, there are two main classes of
SKU, i.e., the Small Boxes (SB) class and the Large Container (LC) one. So, we state a
premise that establishes the division between SB convoys and LC ones. In other words,
it is not allowed to mix SB and LC in the same convoy. That premise is coherent with
SEATs actual processes.
Afterward, the second phase starts, which refers to the checking workstations pro-
cesses. In SEAT, one operator is assigned to one route. Also, several workstations are
linked to each route. Moreover, one workstation cannot be served by more than one
route. That rule is valid for SKU-related routes only. Other relevant premises refer
to the logistics flows’ trajectory. By definition, a logistics flow must complete all its
trajectory whenever it starts. Also, the considered logistics flow trajectories must be
conserved and kept fixed for a long-term period, e.g., months. It is justified because
some logistics operators are responsible for supplying the orders and placing orders.
As a result, the routes are fixed to keep the requesting and supplying activities under
control. In the next section, we will identify the characteristics of the studied logistics
flows.
Later, the third phase refers to the supplying activity. Along a route trajectory,
an operator must park the convoy to supply a workstation, and each workstation has
its parking spot. So, if there is not any spot available, the operator must wait for an
empty spot. Then, the operator will supply the material and restart its trajectory.
Lastly, the final step is the return to the WHS. After checking the workstations’
under his/her responsibility, the operator returns to the WHS to deliver the empty
racks and get newly loaded ones. Later, the convoy departs from the WHS towards
the assembly line, and the cycle starts again.
Next, figure 2 presents the processes for those logistics flows that have a regular
departure from the WHS (for example, every 15 minutes). These processes are quite
similar to the irregular departure ones. On the one hand, the routes are divided into
SKU classes, and the routes do not share supplying locations. On the other hand,
the materials supplied here are viewed as steady ones because its consumption rate is

6
well defined. Therefore, there is no need to ask the logistics operators to place orders
because it is ruled by SAP, following the first-in-first-out (FIFO) rule.

1 2 3 4
Departure from Check Back to the
workstations Supply
WHS WHS

• Steady orders are • Workstations • Before starting the • After supplying

clustered and (WKS) are material supply, the orders, the
assigned to previously the operator must operator drives
convoys; assigned to the check the parking back to the WHS
routes; availability; and prepare its
• Convoys have a • Orders are next convoy.
fixed departure • The logistic managed directly
interval. operator is not to the SAP system
responsible for in the WHS. No
placing the WKSs’ intervention is
orders needed.

Figure 2. The summary of the processes of a logistic flow, which presents a periodic departure.

Then, we evaluated these flow classes through an assembling-line simulation model.

That model was developed based on classical simulation models methodologies stated
by (Banks et al., 2005; Brooks & Robinson, 2001), which can be summarized in five
steps: (i) problem formulation; (ii) model construction; (iii) data collection; (iv) ex-
periments; and (v) validation. Figure 3 summarizes the main procedures to take into
account.

Problem Model Data Experiments Validation

Formulation Construction Collection

• Set the main • Set the scope; • Input data set by • Reproduce the • Get feedback from
processes; • Define: Logistics the company; current scenario; the experts and
• Set the main routes, crossing • Special attention • Introduce new decision-makers
goals; rules, speed, with routes- premises one-by- from all
• Propose new overtakes rules, departure one; hierarchical levels;
premises: Security supplying time, frequency and • Set the KPIs. First • Validate the
issues, Layout, routes departures convoys’ focus on defined simulation
introduction of and requests supplying time; KPIs by the bottlenecks;
new technologies. procedure; • Define company. Then • Evaluate the KPIs.
• Terminal or determinitic and propose others if
continuous sim. stochastic data. necessary.

Figure 3. The classical simulation modeling framework and the best practices over an assembling-line model
construction.

As presented in Section 2, most of the literature prioritizes the manufacturing issues

and considers the body-shop phase when car-assembling lines are evaluated. In this
work, we provide a set of best practices for those who develop DES models centered on
ILF analysis. Next, we present the simulation model that copes with the ILF processes.

4. The Simulation Model Description

In this section, we present the DES model applied to the ILF of two car-assembly
lines, which is motivated by the application at SEAT.

7
 The DES model developed here is defined as a terminating simulation model, as
stated by (Banks et al., 2005). Besides, it follows the concept of the building blocks
design. According to (Valentin, Verbraeck, & Sol, 2003), building blocks are suitable
for logistics environments because there are processes that repeat over the model.
As a result, we developed routines so users can drag and drop them in the frame.
Furthermore, some parameters of the model are done through excel tables that can be
filled by the user previously. Then, to explain better the model’s concepts, we present
the simulation model through the framework illustrated in Figure 3.

4.1. Problem Description

The first step concerns the problem description. It consists of three main phases: (i)
set the main processes; (ii) set the main goals; and (iii) propose new premises, such
as a new layout and the introduction of new technologies. The main processes have
already been presented in the last section by figures 1 and 2. Next, the main goal of
this work is identifying the logistics flows’ bottlenecks through a simulation model that
considers a company’s workshop. Also, evaluating the consequences of introducing a
set of established premises, such as layout, convoys’ speed, and workstations demands.
Finally, the new premises evaluated are the introduction of an autonomous AGV and
a single flow traffic policy. Note that our model does not consider the content of the
supplied boxes and containers but the number of SKU units to be supplied.

4.2. Model Construction

The second framework’s step is model construction. We modeled the problem through
a DES Model. To provide a better understanding of the model and set its scope, we
present the main concepts of the model as follows: (i) layout; (ii) traffic flow; (iii)
irregular routes departure; (iv) supplying activity; and (v) KPIs report.
The first concept is the layout one that is defined by the aisles and intersections
rules. Here, the main traffic rules are stated, such as overtaking permissions, intersec-
tion priorities, and workstations’ locations. Figure 4 illustrates the layout developed
through the Plant Simulation software. The dimensions of the studied workshop are
nearly 350 meters in width by 60 meters in length. Moreover, it contains two assembly
lines that process more than 1,000 cars per day. The workshop is divided into two main
parts, with different logistics operations. The left-hand part contains verticals aisles
as the majority, and it is called Supermarket. Next, the right-hand part has horizontal
aisles as a majority and is viewed as the assembly line area. We highlight that both of
these areas are considered in this work because both of them must receive materials
through the logistics flows. However, the supermarket is also a location where logistics
flows depart as well.
Second, to set the traffic rules in all the workshop’ areas, we develop traffic flow
concepts that are responsible for defining items such as routes’ directions, departures,
and a convoy’s decision whether an overtaking is possible or not.
The third concept regards to the irregular convoys departures that refers to those
routes called as supplying ones. It concerns the logistics flows that are in charge of
supplying the materials with a variable consumption rate. The workstations’ consump-
tion or orders are available in the company’s SAP system. We introduce in the model
those orders that refer to real-historical data. Therefore, these workstations’ demands
are the main variable components of the DES model. Figure 5 illustrates how orders

8
 An aisle track An intersection icon

A couple of workstations

Entrance/
Exit WHS

Entrance/Exit WHS

Supermarket Area Assembly Line Area

Figure 4. The layout of the studied workshop. It is compound by a set of aisles (tracks) and a set of
workstations (grey dots). Besides, there are two main parts. The left-hand part, which contains long verticals
aisles, is called Supermarket. Next, the right-hand part, which contains long horizontal aisles, is viewed as the
assembly line zone.

are placed, along five days, considering one workstation.

Next, we built an algorithm that is in charge of assigning requests to the corre-
sponding convoys. By definition, a workstation’s orders must be assigned by a unique
and pre-established convoy. A convoy’s departure is allowed either whenever a prede-
fined time-limited is reached or the number of orders assigned is equal to the convoy’s
capacity, which refers to the ”Capacity vs. Time” rule defined in section 3. Note that
each convoy is unique and refers to a specific route.
The fourth concept is supplying activity. It is relevant because it provides informa-
tion about how the unloading activity may interfere with both aisle’s traffic and over
the workstations areas. Particularly, for those workstations that receive both LC and
SB materials from more than one convoy.
Finally, the last concept concerns the KPI reporting. To report the KPIs, we collect
the data generated by the simulation model. That data gives information about the
convoys, aisles, orders as well as interferences data, such as overtaking and logistics
flows’ interruptions.
To conclude, we state that the developed DES model shares some concepts with the
Agent-Based modeling based on the premises stated by (Macal & North, 2010). On the
one hand, we state that each vehicle, or agent, is a modular and uniquely identifiable
individual. Besides, we assigned attributes to each vehicle, such as name, route’s tracks,
workstations to be visited, and departure time. Moreover, those vehicles interact with
other vehicles dynamically, as we can observe in the interference data collection. As a
result, the vehicles have a sort of protocol for interactions with other vehicles. On the
other hand, the vehicles cannot learn and adapt their behavior completely, for example,
deciding to change the routes’ trajectory due to traffic congestion. In this sense, we
assume that our model incorporates some concepts of the agent-based simulation.
However, it is a DES model because we modeled a system in which the considered
variables change only at a discrete set of points in time.

9
 Figure 5. The demand behavior of a workstation throughout five consecutive days.

4.3. Data Collection

The third step of the framework is data collection, which was briefly cited in the
last step (Model Construction). To carry on this study, we input real data provided by
SEAT. Deterministic parameters were defined by the company, such as speed, capacity,
and time spent to deliver the material at the correct place. Concerning to the models’
input data, we present the table 2 that contains the main parameters applied in this
work.

Data Value

Supplying Average Time LC 2.69 min

Supplying Average Time SB 0.66 min
Convoy’s Average Capacity LC 4 units
Convoy’s Average Capacity SB 48 units
Convoy’s Average Speed 7 km/h
AGV Convoy’s Average Speed 4 km/h
Number of workstations 154 units
Number of assembly Lines 2 lines
A Replication Period One day (2 shifts)
Warm-up Period 15 minutes
Time-slot for Supplying routes 30 minutes
Number of days applied Five days
Table 2. Summary of the parameters’ structure. We highlight that LC means large containers and SB means
small boxes.

The orders of 154 workstations are delivered through four main logistics flows, which
are presented in Table 3 and defined as follows: (i) supplying route; (ii) cycling route
autonomous AGV; (iii) cycling route operator; and (iv) Just-in-Time route (JIT).

10
 Logistics Flow Main Characteristics

Supplying routes Irregular departure; Overtaking allowed; 17 Routes

Cycling routes AGV Regular departure; Overtaking not allowed; 4 Routes
Cycling routes Operator Regular departure; Overtaking allowed; 2 Routes
JIT route Regular departure; Overtaking allowed; 5 Routes
Table 3. Summary of logistics flows applied.

To summarize Table 3, the supplying routes refer to the convoys that deliver materi-
als whose consumption rate is irregular, e.g., the workstation described in Figure 5. On
the contrary, the following logistics flows receive materials with a constant consump-
tion rate. Therefore, all of them follow a systematic departure routine that we defined
as regular departures. Among those flows, there are the ”cycle routes AGV” and ”cycle
routes Operator” that are conducted by an AGV and a logistics operator, respectively.
Finally, there are the JIT flows that are executed by outsourced employees. We can
not disclose any further data due to confidential issues.
As stated in subsection 4.2, the demand assigned to the supplying routes category
is the main variable component introduced in the model. Table 4 present a summary
of that data, according to the supplying routes only.

R. Mat. L. D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 Confidence Interval p-value

LB ≤ µ ≤ UP

1 LC 1 243 247 277 287 279 241≤ µ ≤ 291 25

2 LC 1 112 115 129 138 135 110 ≤ µ ≤ 140 15
3 LC 1 211 210 239 236 230 208 ≤ µ ≤ 242 17
4 LC 1 163 158 191 180 199 156 ≤ µ ≤ 200 22
5 LC 1 243 231 277 275 285 233≤ µ ≤ 291 29
6 SB 1 8 9 14 11 9 7≤ µ ≤ 13 3
7 SB 1 67 60 72 68 63 60 ≤ µ ≤ 72 6
8 LC 1 36 37 51 55 44 33 ≤ µ ≤ 55 11
9 SB 2 57 55 67 73 77 54≤ µ ≤ 78 12
10 SB 2 306 328 352 328 343 309 ≤ µ ≤ 353 22
11 LC 2 89 79 93 106 103 81 ≤ µ ≤ 107 13
12 LC 2 241 279 286 320 301 249 ≤ µ ≤ 321 36
13 LC 2 225 209 259 277 285 210 ≤ µ ≤ 292 41
14 LC 2 164 177 189 200 190 167 ≤ µ ≤ 201 17
15 SB 2 189 200 221 234 220 190 ≤ µ ≤ 234 22
16 SB 2 244 250 289 280 263 241 ≤ µ ≤ 289 24
17 LC 2 56 62 62 71 69 56 ≤ µ ≤ 72 8
Total - - 2,654 2,706 3,068 3,139 3,095 2,644 ≤ µ ≤ 3,222 289
Table 4. The summary of the applied variable demand. The first, second, and third columns refer to a route-
identification item, a route’s load type and the assembling line assigned, respectively. The five-days demand is
presented throughout columns four to eight. The ninth column represents the confidence interval, concerning
the route’s five-days demand. The LB and UP refer to the lower bound and upper bound values of the CI,
respectively. The last column presents the p-value applied to the confidence interval, which is defined as 5%.
The last line sums up each component of the table.

11
 The reader may observe that we introduce a confidence interval (CI) study among
the five-days demand sample. It represents the measure of error because the µ is defined
as the average value computed through a sample. As a result, it is an estimated value
of the population average µ∗ . Consequently, µ has an error that is measured through
the CI.

4.4. Experiments and validation

The main objective of this work is to analyze the logistics flows’ bottlenecks through
a simulation model. The developed simulation model evaluates the consequences of
introducing all parameters and demands presented previously. So, we consider three
scenarios that are presented in Table 5. The objective is to assess those new scenarios
and contrast them with the actual system.

Scenario Main Purpose

A - Company’s scenario. Collect the current metrics.

B - Introduction of autonomous AGVs. Enable an AGV to overtake by itself.
C - Introduction of a single flow policy. One flow aisles whenever possible.
Table 5. Evaluated scenarios.

Based on Table 5, the first scenario aims to compute the current system’s metrics.
The second scenario evaluates the introduction of an autonomous-AGV concept that
enables an AGV to overtake other vehicles by itself and without external support.
The purpose is to evaluate how these new robots will affect the level of interferences
in the workshop. Lastly, the third scenario refers to the introduction of a single flow
policy. So, the workshop’s aisles will have a single flow whenever it is possible. Then,
for each scenario, we executed five experiments, one for each considered day, see Table
4. Moreover, scenarios B and C were defined based on the company’s suggestions
and discussions. The model was built on the Plant Simulation software (version 13)
developed by Siemens.
As explained, that model integrates the workshop layout, the logistics flows, the
workstations’ demand, and the premises defined by the company. For each scenario, we
ran the model five times that correspond to the orders of each day considered.Besides,
we set the simulation time as one day, and we considered two shifts within a day. As
mentioned, the introduced demand presents different values along the days and differ-
ent levels over a single day, see Figure 5 and Table 4. However, all other parameters,
such as speed and convoys’ capacity, were maintained.
Afterward, we evaluated the experiments’ results under the company’s KPIs. These
KPIs concerns to the routes and aisles utilization. Considering the performance of the
routes, we evaluate each route individually based on the following indicators: (i) total
of backorders; (ii) backorders’ duration; (iii) trip’s duration; and (iv) a route’s trip
distance. Notice that we define a backorder as a material that was supplied later than
its due date.
Then, regarding the aisles’ performance, we take into account the following indi-
cators: (i) total of interferences; (ii) interferences’ duration; and (iii) total of vehicles
that passed through each aisle along the day. As mentioned in Section 3, interferences
are actions that disturb a convoys’ trajectory. In this sense, an interference may be an

12
overtaking along an aisle or breaking at the intersections, for instance. Furthermore,
we classify the interferences into five groups defined as follows: (i) overtake; (ii) blocked
AGV; (iii) waiting before the intersection; (iv) overtake with both vehicle moving; and
(v) overtaking not allowed.
Next, we present the computed KPIs in Tables 6, 7, and 8. Also, these tables present
the results of the scenarios A, B, and C. Note that the KPIs are computed after 15
minutes of warm-up.
Table 6 presents the results related to aisles’ performance. Each table’s line repre-
sents a different workshop’s aisle. So, for each aisle and each scenario, we indicate the
total of interferences, the length of those interferences last, and the total of vehicles
that passed through that aisle along the day.
As said, we execute five experiments per scenario that correspond to the data pro-
vided and allowed to be disclosed in this work. Moreover, each experiment was repli-
cated just once because the variability is linked to a day’s orders only. Also, to present
the aisles’ results accurately, we selected the main ones to expose the results. The
criteria to select an aisle was based on its average number of interferences throughout
the simulation.

Total Duration Total

Aisle Interf. (units) Interf. (min) vehicles (units)
Scenarios Scenarios Scenarios
A B C A B C A B C

1 143 139 151 14 5 23 613 618 636

2 126 132 91 7 8 4 439 445 379
3 92 93 103 4 4 9 414 421 330
4 68 68 58 3 3 3 529 525 503
5 44 45 51 2 2 2 515 520 335
6 40 47 90 2 2 3 332 338 532
7 17 18 15 3 3 2 588 592 569
8 7 8 6 1 1 1 1031 1050 943
9 6 6 6 1 1 1 647 659 594
10 6 7 4 1 1 1 659 672 656
11 6 6 6 1 1 1 558 566 627
Total 555 569 581 4 3 5 6325 6406 6104
Table 6. The summary of the aisles’ result throughout the three considered scenarios. It is sorted in a
decreasing fashion, according to the number of interferences. Only aisles with a relevant number of interferences
were selected. Note that the values of each column refer to the average results computed through the simulation
of the five-days data. The last line sums up each component of the table, in which we present the sum of the
total interferences and vehicles. Also, the average value of the duration of the interferences is presented.

In addition to Table 6, we provide the Figures 6 and 7 that illustrate the heat-
maps layouts of the workshop, which were built based on the number of interferences.
Moreover, we assume the following references to set these heat maps: blue color, or
the absence of geometric symbols, is set if the number of interferences is fewer o equal
to 4; yellow, or squares icons, for a total of interferences values between 5 and 15; red,
or circles, applied for a total of interferences values bigger than 15.
The reader may notice that the conflicting areas are placed where there is a higher
concentration of workstations. Usually, these areas receive all kinds of logistics flows.

13
 9 8

7
2
8
3
9
6
1
5
4

Figure 6. A heat map based on the workshop’s layout and the number of interferences computed through
the simulation of the scenarios A and B. Notice that the level of interferences is quite similar in both scenarios.
However, those scenarios’ interferences are not the same ones, as observed in table 7.

7
2
8
3
9
6
1
5
4

7 4
Figure 7. A heat map based on the workshop’s layout and the number of interferences computed through
the simulation of the scenario C.

Also, the workshop’s entrance and exit points are viewed as complicated ones. For
example, in Figure 6, aisle number 7 receives the main entrance and exit doors to the
assembling line. As a result, many logistics flows must pass by these locations.
To continue the interferences analyses, Table 7 indicates the main types of inter-
ferences. Moreover, for each scenario, we present the average value found through the
simulations.

Scenarios
Interferences A B C
Interferences (units)

Overtake 402 465 475

AGV Blocked 67 0 64
Waiting before the Intersection 69 62 64
Overtake with both vehicle moving 47 50 5
Overtaking not allowed 1 1 1
Total 586 578 609
Table 7. Summary of the average number of interferences found during the experiments. Note that the values
of each column refer to the average results computed through the simulation of the five-days data.

Table 7 suggests that the main disturbing item is the one related to overtaking.
Indeed, the convoys must overtake themselves on many occasions, such as whenever
slower AGVs are ahead, and a workmate is parked supplying materials. Also, the
”blocked AGV” item has significant values in scenarios A and C because the cur-
rent AGVs are able neither to overtake nor to make decisions. Consequently, it must
interrupt its trajectory frequently. On the contrary, scenario B enables the AGV to
overtake other vehicles. As a result, the interferences related to ”blocked AGV” were

14
significantly reduced, as well as the interferences’ average duration.
Moreover, scenario B does not contribute to minimizing the total of interferences,
as observed in figure 6. However, the interferences, in that case, tend to be quicker. It
is explained by the fact that the blocked AGV cases were replaced by the overtakes
ones. The overtakes interferences are faster than blocked AGV interferences.
Regarding the impacts of scenario C, on the one hand, that approach contributes to
increasing the total number of interferences because the number of overtakes increases
as well. On the other hand, it decreases the number of overtaking when both vehicles
are moving, which is representative due to security reasons. Moreover, according to
Table 6, the total of vehicles that pass through those aisles is reduced. In many situa-
tions, a vehicle goes back to the warehouse through the same aisle from where it was.
That is counted as two vehicles by the system. It explains the high level of vehicles in
scenarios A and B. Moreover, note in Figure 7 that aisles number 7 has reduced the
number of interferences due to the application of scenario C.
Concerning the routes’ evaluation, Table 8 presents the results related to the in-
troduced logistics flows. So, we report the following indicators for each route: (i) the
total of backorders; (ii) the sum of the length the backorders last; (iii) routes’ trip
duration; and (iv) a route’s trip distance. Once again, we assigned to each route its
average value of each scenario.
Note that the considered routes are the supplying ones, which are the ones that
supply materials with irregular consumption rates.

15
 Route Mat. Total Backorders Trip Time Trip
Backorders (units) Duration (min.) (min.) (meters)
Scenarios Scenarios Scenarios Scenarios
A B C A B C A B C A B C

1 LC 169 170 125 10 11 10 11 11 10 500 500 500

2 LC 30 30 21 3 3 1 10 10 4 443 443 431
3 LC 146 146 118 11 11 6 11 11 8 647 647 635
4 LC 43 43 55 2 2 3 8 8 9 624 624 624
5 LC 200 200 161 24 24 11 11 11 9 711 711 711
6 SB 0 0 0 4 4 3 7 7 8 711 711 711
7 SB 0 0 0 1 1 1 7 7 6 647 647 635
8 LC 2 2 1 1 1 1 7 7 4 443 443 431

16
9 SB 0 0 0 1 1 1 6 6 6 555 555 550
10 SB 0 0 0 1 1 1 5 5 5 488 488 488
10 LC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 488 488 488
11 LC 6 6 8 1 1 1 6 6 6 488 488 488
11 LC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 352 352 352
12 LC 201 201 191 15 15 13 10 10 10 384 384 384
13 LC 199 199 179 26 26 19 13 13 13 633 633 633
14 LC 78 78 69 5 5 3 9 9 8 616 616 616
15 SB 0 0 0 1 1 1 13 13 15 1298 1298 1252
16 SB 0 0 0 1 1 1 4 4 4 753 753 753
17 LC 0 0 0 1 1 1 10 10 10 352 352 352
Total - 1074 1075 928 16 16 11 8 8 7 586 586 581
Table 8. The summary of the logistics flows’ results through the simulation of the three considered scenarios. Only the supplying routes were considered, which refers to those
routes with non-periodical departure. Note that the values of each column refer to the average results computed through the simulation of the five-days data. The last line sums
up each component of the table, in which we present the sum of the total of backorders of each route and the average value for the other columns.
 Concerning the results in Table 8, the first general analysis one may do is that the
considered routes are not balanced. In other words, there are some logistics operators
that received more load than others. As a result, the reassignment of the workstations
into the routes should be considered. Besides, the SB routes are better to execute their
tasks than the LC ones. Indeed, the LC routes presented the higher overall backorders
values because the demand for LC is also higher.
Moreover, we can observe that scenarios A and B are quite similar because the
autonomous AGVs does not impact the performance of other vehicles. Note that the
AGV routes are not considered here because they do not supply materials with an
unsteady consumption rate.
By contrast, scenario C do incur on a reduction of the level of backorders as well as
a reduction on the backorders duration for most of the routes. It is explained because
the routes were reorganized in such a way that the distance of their trips became
a little shorter. Also, the routes were able to complete a trip faster than before, as
presented in able 8. Note that routes reconfiguration was necessary to adapt them to
the new layout flows found in scenario C.
Regarding the model’s validation, we have presented the model structure and the
computed results to the company’s employees. They found them interesting and won-
dering about introducing it as a supportive methodology to evaluate logistics flows in
other areas as well, for example, the WHS. We noticed that the graphical tools, such as
the heat maps, are good options to promote a model validation. Consequently, this tool
can be exploited to further application according to the needs of the decision-maker,
such as building a heat map based on the number of backorders of each workstation.
To conclude, the authors suggest that scenario C should be tested in practice be-
cause of its overall performance in reducing the number of backorders. Also, it is a
cheaper scenario than the autonomous AGV one. However, scenario C requires effort
to organize all the routes’ trajectories and processes because it impacts on many of
them.
Also, the following managerial insights may be interpreted based on the previous
results: (i) workshop areas that receive a high number of workstations are likely to
be defined as a conflicting one; (ii) shorter routes may implicate in a fewer number
of backorders as well as the average duration a backorder last. So, the longer a route
is and the more workstations it receives, a higher level of backorders it will have;
(iii) single-flow aisles may increase the traffic security because it minimizes both the
number of overtakes with two moving vehicles and the chance of frontal accidents; (iv)
the introduction of autonomous AGV supports the ILF to become more fluid because
there are not issues regarding blocked AGV. However, the number of overtakes in
the workshop will increase; (v) heat-maps are a suitable tool to present results to
stakeholders because these maps are straightforward and widely accepted by them.

5. Conclusions

In this work, we face a real-world case study over internal logistics operations in a car
assembling company. The company’s workshop contains two assembly lines that are
able to produce more than 1,000 cars each day.
We introduce an ILF simulation based on a DES model to evaluate the work-
shop’ aisles and a set of logistics flows. The primary objective is to identify the main
bottlenecks in the assembly line under the logistics perspective, such as the flows’
obstructions or interferences.

17
 The study was carried out in a real car-assembling company, considering real data
and actual assembly-line operations. Also, two further scenarios were evaluated. The
first scenario introduced autonomous AGVs that can overtake other vehicles. The
second one referred to an one-flow policy in the workshop’s aisles. The results show
which aisles are overused, the disturbance among the logistics flows, and the logistics
flow’s performance regarding the total of backorders, trips duration, and the routes’
length in terms of distances and time.
As a result, this paper contributes to both the literature and industry. First, a
DES model is provided, which aims is to assess the ILF in a car-assembling workshop.
Second, we provide a set of best practices for bench-marketing purposes for those
who want to develop DES models centered on ILF analysis. Then, focusing on real
operations, we propose a set of managerial insights related to ILFs in assembling lines
that can impact the efficiency of the logistics operations.
Figure 8 summarizes the main module that should compose a DES model to assess
internal logistics flows. This framework is based on the work of (Harrison, Memarpour,
Mardani, Shakibayifar, Bakhshayeshi, & Espahbod, 2019). Note that the content ap-
plied in this work can be adapted easily to further applications such as warehouse
operations. Usually, internal logistics flow studies share standard features regardless
of their application, such as traffic flow control, routes behavior, and orders manage-
ment.

DES Models for Internal Logistics

Event Control Module

Route behavior control Traffic flow control Orders trigger control

Evaluation Module Decision Module Scenario Module

Report generator Layout designing and

Trajectory decisions
parameters setting
Statistical analysis
Supply decisions Orders evaluator

Managerial evaluation

Figure 8. A DES model framework for Internal Logistics applications. This scheme summarizes the applica-
tions discusses in Section 4.

To conclude, the study was presented to the company’s employees that found it
interesting. Indeed, they propose to extend it to WHS’s flows. The proposed extension
may be viewed as future work. Concerning further applications, it would be interesting
to introduce those concepts developed for external logistics into internal logistics, such
as driver behavior. Also, methods should be approached to support the company to
compute those routes, such as a metaheuristic algorithm that faces combinatorial
optimization problems. Later, those routes may be introduced and tested in a similar
DES model.

18
Acknowledgments

This work has been partially supported by the Industrial Ph.D. of Government of
Catalonia (2016DI022) (Marcelus Fabri) and by the Government of Catalonia through
the projects (2017-SGR-1739) (Helena Ramalhinho, Miquel Oliver). The authors are
also thankful to Ms. Simona Kusynova, Ms. Montserrat Oriol, and all the employees
of SEAT S.A that contributed to this paper. Finally, the authors would like to thank
the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments that considerably improved the
quality of this paper.

References

Atieh, A. M., Kaylani, H., Al-abdallat, Y., Qaderi, A., Ghoul, L., Jaradat, L., & Hdairis, I.
(2016). Performance improvement of inventory management system processes by an auto-
mated warehouse management system. Procedia Cirp, 41, 568-572.
Banks, J., Carson, I. I., Nelson, B. L., & Nicol, D. M. (2005). Discrete-event system simulation.
Pearson.
Brooks, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2001). Simulation and Inventory Control (Texts in Opera-
tional Research). Palgrave Macmillan.
Braekers, K., Ramaekers, K., & Van Nieuwenhuyse, I. (2016). The vehicle routing problem:
State of the art classification and review. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 99, 300-313.
Caridade, R., Pereira, T., Ferreira, L. P., & Silva, F. J. G. (2017). Analysis and optimisation
of a logistic warehouse in the automotive industry. Procedia Manufacturing, 13, 1096-1103.
Cujan, Z. (2016). Simulation of production lines supply within internal logistics systems. Open
Engineering, 6 (1).
Fabri, M., Ramalhinho, H., de Souza, M. C., Ravetti, M. G. (2019). The Lagrangean Relax-
ation for the Flow Shop Scheduling Problem with Precedence Constraints, Release Dates
and Delivery Times. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2019.
Faget, P., Eriksson, U., & Herrmann, F. (2005, December). Applying discrete event simulation
and an automated bottleneck analysis as an aid to detect running production constraints.
In Proceedings of the 37th conference on Winter simulation (pp. 1401-1407). IEEE.
Gagliardi, J. P., Renaud, J., & Ruiz, A. (2007, December). A simulation model to improve
warehouse operations. In Proceedings of the 39th conference on Winter simulation: 40 years!
The best is yet to come (pp. 2012-2018). IEEE Press.
Hassannayebi, E., Memarpour, M., Mardani, S., Shakibayifar, M., Bakhshayeshi, I., Espahbod,
S. (2019). A hybrid simulation model of passenger emergency evacuation under disruption
scenarios: A case study of a large transfer railway station. Journal of Simulation, 9 1-25.
Harrison, G., & Thiel, C. (2017). Policy insights and modelling challenges: The case of pas-
senger car powertrain technology transition in the European Union. European Transport
Research Review, 9 (3), 37.
Higgins, M., Ladbrook, J., Khalwadekar, G., & Osman, M. (2019). Deterministic simulation
and graphical representation of powered material handling vehicle movements to enhance
pedestrian safety at the Ford Motor company. Journal of Simulation, 1-11.
Hillier, F. S., & Lieberman, G. J. (1995). Introduction to operations research. McGraw-Hill
Science, Engineering & Mathematics.
Horta, M., Coelho, F., & Relvas, S. (2016). Layout design modelling for a real world just-in-
time warehouse. Computers & industrial engineering, 101, 1-9.
Lima, M., Ramalhinho, H. (2017, December). Designing internal supply routes: A case study
in the automotive industry. In 2017 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC) (pp. 3358-3369).
IEEE.
Ludavicius, E., & Ali, A. (2014). Modeling and simulation of automotive engine sub-assembly
for production improvement. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial

19
 Engineering and Operations Management (pp. 2040-2049).
Klug, F. (2013). The internal bullwhip effect in car manufacturing.International Journal of
Production Research, 51 (1), 303-322.
Macal C. M. & North M.J. (2010). Tutorial on agent-based modelling and simulation. Journal
of Simulation, 4 (3), 151-162.
Martı́nez-Barberá, H., & Herrero-Pérez, D. (2010). Autonomous navigation of an automated
guided vehicle in industrial environments. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing,
26 (4), 296-311.
Mason, S. J., Ribera, P. M., Farris, J. A., & Kirk, R. G. (2003). Integrating the warehousing
and transportation functions of the supply chain. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics
and Transportation Review, 39 (2), 141-159.
Mehami, J., Nawi, M., & Zhong, R. Y. (2018). Smart automated guided vehicles for manufac-
turing in the context of Industry 4.0. Procedia Manufacturing, 26, 1077-1086.
Michalos, G., Makris, S., Papakostas, N., Mourtzis, D., & Chryssolouris, G. (2010). Automotive
assembly technologies review: challenges and outlook for a flexible and adaptive approach.
CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 2 (2), 81-91.
Muñuzuri, J., Larrañeta, J., Onieva, L., & Cortés, P. (2005). Solutions applicable by local
administrations for urban logistics improvement. Cities, 22 (1), 15-28.
Negahban, A., & Smith, J. S. (2014). Simulation for manufacturing system design and opera-
tion: Literature review and analysis. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 33 (2), 241-261.
Patchong, A., Lemoine, T., & Kern, G. (2003). Improving car body production at PSA Peugeot
Citroen. Interfaces, 33(1), 36-49.
Poon, T. C., Choy, K. L., Chow, H. K., Lau, H. C., Chan, F. T., & Ho, K. C. (2009). A RFID
case-based logistics resource management system for managing order-picking operations in
warehouses. Expert Systems with Applications, 36 (4), 8277-8301.
Ribino, P., Cossentino, M., Lodato, C., & Lopes, S. (2018). Agent-based simulation study for
improving logistic warehouse performance. Journal of Simulation, 12 (1), 23-41.
Roman-Verdugo, O. (2014). Diagnóstico de Flujo del Área de Carrocerı́as de la Planta Ford
de estampado y ensamble de Hermosillo, Sonora, México. Produção em Foco, 4(2).
Ruiz-Torres, A. J., & Nakatani, K. (1998, December). Application of real-time simulation to
assign due dates on logistic-manufacturing networks. In 1998 Winter Simulation Conference.
Proceedings(Cat. No. 98CH36274) (Vol. 2, pp. 1205-1210). IEEE.
Sachan, A., & Datta, S. (2005). Review of supply chain management and logistics research.
International Journal of Physical Distribution Logistics Management, 35 (9), 664-705.
Semini, M., Fauske, H., & Strandhagen, J. O. (2006, December). Applications of discrete event
simulation to support manufacturing logistics decision-making: a survey. In Proceedings of
the 38th conference on Winter simulation (pp. 1946-1953). Winter Simulation Conference.
Seebacher, G., Winkler, H., & Oberegger, B. (2015). In-plant logistics efficiency valuation using
discrete event simulation. International Journal of Simulation Modelling, 14 (1), 60-70.
Tako, A. A., & Robinson, S. (2012). The application of discrete event simulation and system
dynamics in the logistics and supply chain context. Decision support systems, 52 (4), 802-
815.
Valentin, E. C., Verbraeck, A., & Sol, H. G. (2003). Advantages and disadvantages of building
blocks in simulation studies: A laboratory experiment with simulation experts. In Proceed-
ings ESS (pp. 141-148).
Vavrı́k, V., Gregor, M., & Grznár, P. (2017). Computer simulation as a tool for the optimization
of logistics using automated guided vehicles. Procedia engineering, 192, 923-928.
Vis, I. F. (2006). Survey of research in the design and control of automated guided vehicle
systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 170 (3), 677-709.
Wang, H. F., & Chang, C. M. (2015). Facility layout for an automated guided vehicle system.
Procedia Computer Science, 55, 52-61.
Wilding, R., Wagner, B., Gligor, D. M., & Holcomb, M. C. (2012). Understanding the role of
logistics capabilities in achieving supply chain agility: a systematic literature review. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal.

20
 Zhou, B., & Peng, T. (2017). Scheduling the in-house logistics distribution for automotive
assembly lines with just-in-time principles. Assembly Automation, 37 (1), 51-63.

21

View publication stats