Utilization of operator vs. processor

Question

question

mohammadmajd asked Dec 7, '23 Jason Lightfoot commented Dec 21, '23

Utilization of operator vs. processor

I have 3 operators and three processors. Operators are connected to the processors through a dispatcher. All the processors and operators are on the same schedule. However, the utilization % of operators differs from the utilization of processors. I am trying to understand why this can happen. Any insights?

I even exported the data from these graphs and made a pivot table. As you can see the seconds are also different.

Software Version:

FlexSim 23.0.7

dashboards state pie

1701966960550.png (11.5 KiB)

1701966968944.png (9.9 KiB)

1701967093409.png (48.2 KiB)

· 3

Joerg Vogel commented · Dec 07, 2023 at 07:03 PM

@MohammadMajd, what do you compare: state of utilization in chart center or the table value? You can tell flexsim what states are included to be summarized in the center value in State table by include, exclude or empty field.

0 ·

mohammadmajd Joerg Vogel commented · Dec 11, 2023 at 01:16 PM

I was comparing the pie charts. Shouldn't the time that operators are utilized roughly matches the utilization of processors? Where else are they utilized?

0 ·

Jason Lightfoot ♦ commented · Dec 21, 2023 at 04:45 PM

Hi @mohammadmajd, was Felix Möhlmann's answer helpful? If so, please click the "Accept" button at the bottom of their answer. Or if you still have questions, add a comment and we'll continue the conversation.

If we haven't heard back from you within 3 business days we'll auto-accept an answer, but you can always comment back to reopen your question.

0 ·

Answer 1 · 2023-12-08T09:00:42Z

Felix Möhlmann answered Dec 8, '23 mohammadmajd commented Dec 13, '23

I noticed that the total non-excluded time of the processors is higher than that of the operarators.This is probably due to an unwanted side effect of all objects using the same time table. If an operator goes down while a processor is utilizing it, the processor's state will change to "Waiting for Operator". This also happens if the processor itself is down. As a result, if a processor goes down before its operator while it is active, it will spend the down time in the "Waiting for Operator" state. To work around this, make sure that the operators go down first by placing them at the top of the time table's members list.

This does not explaing the discrepency between the processing/setup and utilize times. I could not recreate that issue in a test model. Could you attach your model or an example model where the issue is present, so we can investigate further?

1702025957414.png (6.9 KiB)

· 5

mohammadmajd commented · Dec 11, 2023 at 01:17 PM

My model is larger than 25mb. How can I upload larger models?

0 ·

Jason Lightfoot ♦ mohammadmajd commented · Dec 11, 2023 at 01:23 PM

You could try removing a layout/cad file or use cloud storage.

0 ·

mohammadmajd commented · Dec 11, 2023 at 01:49 PM

NPP_Question.fsm Here is my model.

0 ·

npp-question.fsm (173.3 KiB)

Felix Möhlmann mohammadmajd commented · Dec 13, 2023 at 03:28 PM

Sorry, I didn't notice you had uploaded the model.

The break times of the operators offer from those of the processors by 1 minute accross the board.

The operators start their break one minute earlier. During that time the processor is in the "Waiting for Operator" state. The operators also end their break one minute earlier. However, they still spend the time until the processor also resumes its process in the "Utilize" state. This results in an offset of 60s between the utilized times of operators and processors every time a break happens while a processor is in use.

0 ·

1702481195933.png (65.6 KiB)

mohammadmajd Felix Möhlmann commented · Dec 13, 2023 at 05:56 PM

Thanks. I made the one minute difference to make sure processor does not stay in "waiting for operator" state until the operator becomes available again. Instead of one minute I will change it to 1 second.

0 ·

question