skip to main content
10.1145/3573900.3591112acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespadsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access

Automatic Model Generation and Data Assimilation Framework for Cyber-Physical Production Systems

Published:21 June 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

The recent development of new technologies within the Industry 4.0 revolution drives the increased digitization of manufacturing plants. To effectively utilize the digital twins, it is essential to guarantee a correct alignment between the physical system and the associated simulation model along the whole system life cycle. Data assimilation is frequently used to incorporate observation data into a running model to produce improved estimates of state variables of interest. However, it assumes a closed system and cannot handle structural changes in the system, e.g., machine breakdown. Instead of combining the observation data into an existing model, we aim to automatically generate the model concurrently with the data assimilation procedure. This can reduce the time and cost of building the model. In addition, it can generate a more accurate model when sudden operational changes are not reflected at the higher planning levels. Component-based model generation approach is used with the application of data and process mining techniques to generate a complete process model from the data. A new data assimilation method is proposed to iteratively generate new models based on the arrival of further data. Each model is simulated to obtain the system performance, which will be compared to the real system performance to select the best-estimated model. Identical twin experiments of a wafer-fab simulation are conducted under different scenarios to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed approach.

References

  1. Fan Bai, Feng Gu, Xiaolin Hu, and Song Guo. 2016. Particle Routing in Distributed Particle Filters for Large-Scale Spatial Temporal Systems. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems 27, 2 (Feb. 2016), 481–493. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPDS.2015.2405912Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Sören Bergmann and Steffen Strassburger. 2010. Challenges for the Automatic Generation of Simulation Models for Production Systems. In Proceedings of the 2010 Summer Computer Simulation Conference. Society for Computer Simulation International, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 545–549.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. F Bouttier and P Courtier. 2002. Data assimilation concepts and methods March 1999. Meteorological training course lecture series. ECMWF 718 (2002), 59.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Frank Chance, Jennifer Robinson, and John W. Fowler. 1996. Supporting Manufacturing with Simulation: Model Design, Development, and Deployment. In Proceedings of the 28th Conference on Winter Simulation (Coronado, California, USA) (WSC ’96). IEEE Computer Society, USA, 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1145/256562.256586Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Petar M Djuric, Jayesh H Kotecha, Jianqui Zhang, Yufei Huang, Tadesse Ghirmai, Mónica F Bugallo, and Joaquin Miguez. 2003. Particle filtering. IEEE signal processing magazine 20, 5 (2003), 19–38.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Jonas Friederich, Giovanni Lugaresi, Sanja Lazarova-Molnar, and Andrea Matta. 2022. Process Mining for Dynamic Modeling of Smart Manufacturing Systems: Data Requirements. Procedia CIRP 107 (2022), 546–551.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Anahita Farhang Ghahfarokhi, Gyunam Park, Alessandro Berti, and Wil M. P. van der Aalst. 2021. OCEL: A Standard for Object-Centric Event Logs. In New Trends in Database and Information Systems. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 169–175.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. S. Gillijns, O.B. Mendoza, J. Chandrasekar, B.L.R. De Moor, D.S. Bernstein, and A. Ridley. 2006. What is the ensemble Kalman filter and how well does it work?. In 2006 American Control Conference. IEEE, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 6 pp.–. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2006.1657419Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Xiaolin Hu and Peisheng Wu. 2019. A Data Assimilation Framework for Discrete Event Simulations. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation 29, 3 (June 2019), 17:1–17:26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3301502Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Yilin Huang, Mamadou D. Seck, and Alexander Verbraeck. 2011. From Data to Simulation Models: Component-based Model Generation with a Data-Driven Approach. In Proceedings of the 2011 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC). IEEE, Phoenix, AZ, USA, 3719–3729. https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2011.6148065Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Nasser Jazdi. 2014. Cyber physical systems in the context of Industry 4.0. In 2014 IEEE international conference on automation, quality and testing, robotics. IEEE, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 1–4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. David Kayton, Tim Teyner, Christopher Schwartz, and Reha Uzsoy. Fourth Quarter 1997. Focusing Maintenance Improvement Efforts in a Wafer Fabrication Facility Operating under the Theory of Constraints. Production and Inventory Management Journal 38, 4 (Fourth Quarter 1997), 51–57.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. D. Krenczyk, B. Skolud, and M. Olender. 2016. Semi-Automatic Simulation Model Generation of Virtual Dynamic Networks for Production Flow Planning. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 145, 4 (Aug. 2016), 042021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/145/4/042021Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Sander JJ Leemans, Erik Poppe, and Moe T Wynn. 2019. Directly follows-based process mining: Exploration & a case study. In 2019 International Conference on Process Mining (ICPM). IEEE, Aachen, Germany, 25–32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Sander J. J. Leemans, Dirk Fahland, and Wil M. P. van der Aalst. 2013. Discovering Block-Structured Process Models from Event Logs - A Constructive Approach. In Application and Theory of Petri Nets and Concurrency. Vol. 7927. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 311–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38697-8_17Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Giovanni Lugaresi. 2021. Automated Generation and Exploitation of Discrete Event Simulation Models for Decision Making in Manufacturing. Ph. D. Dissertation. Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Giovanni Lugaresi, Gianluca Aglio, Federico Folgheraiter, and Andrea Matta. 2019. Real-time validation of digital models for manufacturing systems: A novel signal-processing-based approach. In 2019 IEEE 15th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE). IEEE, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 450–455.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Giovanni Lugaresi, Sofia Gangemi, Giulia Gazzoni, and Andrea Matta. 2022. Online Validation of Simulation-Based Digital Twins Exploiting Time Series Analysis. In 2022 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC). IEEE, Singapore, 2912–2923.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Alexander Mages, Carina Mieth, Jens Hetzler, Fadil Kallat, Jakob Rehof, Christian Riest, and Tristan Schäfer. 2022. Automatic Component-Based Synthesis of User-Configured Manufacturing Simulation Models. In 2022 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC). IEEE, Singapore, 1841–1852.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Lars Mönch, John W Fowler, and Scott J Mason. 2012. Production planning and control for semiconductor wafer fabrication facilities: modeling, analysis, and systems. Vol. 52. Springer Science & Business Media, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Lucy E Morgan and Russell R Barton. 2022. Fourier trajectory analysis for system discrimination. European Journal of Operational Research 296, 1 (2022), 203–217.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. B Nelson 2013. Foundations and methods of stochastic simulation. A first course. International series in operations research & management science 187 (2013), 313 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Robert G Sargent. 2010. Verification and validation of simulation models. In Proceedings of the 2010 winter simulation conference. IEEE, Baltimore, MD, USA, 166–183.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Denise Maria Vecino Sato, Sheila Cristiana De Freitas, Jean Paul Barddal, and Edson Emilio Scalabrin. 2021. A Survey on Concept Drift in Process Mining. Comput. Surveys 54, 9 (Oct. 2021), 189:1–189:38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3472752Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Moon GI Seok, Chew Wye Chan, Wentong Cai, Hessam S. Sarjoughian, and Daejin Park. 2020. Runtime Abstraction-Level Conversion of Discrete-Event Wafer-fabrication Models for Simulation Acceleration. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSIM Conference on Principles of Advanced Discrete Simulation(SIGSIM-PADS ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1145/3384441.3395982Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Young Jun Son and Richard A Wysk. 2001. Automatic Simulation Model Generation for Simulation-Based, Real-Time Shop Floor Control. Computers in Industry 45, 3 (July 2001), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-3615(01)00086-0Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Wil MP van der Aalst. 2010. Process discovery: Capturing the invisible. IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine 5, 1 (2010), 28–41.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Harry L. Van Trees and Kristine L. Bell. 2007. A Tutorial on Particle Filters for Online Nonlinear/NonGaussian Bayesian Tracking. Wiley-IEEE press, NY, USA, 723–737. https://doi.org/10.1109/9780470544198.ch73Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. A. J. M. M. Weijters, Wil M.P. van der Aalst, and Ana K. A. de Medeiros. 2006. Process mining with the HeuristicsMiner algorithm. Technical Report. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven, Netherlands.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Xu Xie and Alexander Verbraeck. 2019. A Particle Filter-Based Data Assimilation Framework for Discrete Event Simulations. SIMULATION 95, 11 (Nov. 2019), 1027–1053. https://doi.org/10.1177/0037549718798466Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Xu Xie, Alexander Verbraeck, and Feng Gu. 2016. Data Assimilation in Discrete Event Simulations - a Rollback Based Sequential Monte Carlo Approach. In 2016 Symposium on Theory of Modeling and Simulation (TMS-DEVS). IEEE, Pasadena, CA, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.23919/TMS.2016.7918817Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Automatic Model Generation and Data Assimilation Framework for Cyber-Physical Production Systems

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            SIGSIM-PADS '23: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGSIM Conference on Principles of Advanced Discrete Simulation
            June 2023
            173 pages
            ISBN:9798400700309
            DOI:10.1145/3573900

            Copyright © 2023 Owner/Author

            This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 21 June 2023

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed limited

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate398of779submissions,51%
          • Article Metrics

            • Downloads (Last 12 months)210
            • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)18

            Other Metrics

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          HTML Format

          View this article in HTML Format .

          View HTML Format