Jump to content
Simio Forum

Welcome to the Simio Forum

Welcome to the Simio Forum! Experience the full experience of the forum by becoming a Simio Insider! You must be an Insider to post on any forum!

Click_Here_button.png

New Software Release

Our latest release, Simio 11, is here!

Kaylinn

Reliability Logic by Tables

Recommended Posts

Hello!

I'm trying to model an assembly line that has several unit (entity) types run down it. I have a table set up determining processing times for each entity types and that works fine. I tried the same syntax for the Reliability Logic (for both uptime between failures or count between failures and the time to repair) but I keep getting errors saying there is a problem determining the row to use in my table. I've tried different tables and several failure types and I'm stuck. I also tried add-on processes to SetRow  via the Token object, but that didn't help. I even tried copying and pasting the exact same syntax I have for the processing time into the reliability logic, and it still gets stuck.

Can I not call on table references in my reliability logic?

Thanks!
Kaylinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a bit queer to relate MTBF to Entity types. can you elaborate on the process...Tks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may wish to have a table listing each of the servers in the assembly line. Then, within the Object column (specifying the name of the server), set the Auto-set Table Row Reference property (under Advanced Options for an Object Property) to 'True'.  This will automatically set the row reference to the row associated with the server in the assembly line. Then, you can have MTTF and MTTR columns that you refer to for each server and simply reference the table/column, such as ServerTable.MTTF or ServerTable.MTTR within the server's themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jzhou I'm confused why you're confused. I have several entity types (in the real world, they're hydraulic pumps and motors). They all go through the same stations on the assembly line, but they don't all fail at the same rate. For example, our motors have a FPY of 90% per say, but one model of pumps is closer to 55%, while another is 75%. We build to order, so I could run any part at any time. And each part has it's own failure rate and general repair time at each station. 

@CWatson I think I get what you're going for. But wouldn't that still tie a single failure rate to my station instead of a dynamic rate/time based on unit type? 

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kaylinn said:

@jzhou I'm confused why you're confused. I have several entity types (in the real world, they're hydraulic pumps and motors). They all go through the same stations on the assembly line, but they don't all fail at the same rate. For example, our motors have a FPY of 90% per say, but one model of pumps is closer to 55%, while another is 75%. We build to order, so I could run any part at any time. And each part has it's own failure rate and general repair time at each station. 

@CWatson I think I get what you're going for. But wouldn't that still tie a single failure rate to my station instead of a dynamic rate/time based on unit type? 

 

Thanks!

I am confused at your words'failure' ,  it is actually FPY, not the same concept...failure is the Machine breakdown, FPY is the first pass rate for products.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AHH! I understand now. I guess we've always cheated and done it with server/workstation reliability logic (because for the most part, our FPY is our reason for downtime, not our servers/workstations actually being broken). 

So do you know how I would I do what I'm looking to do? Is there a property I can add to the entity that would be called upon as a FPY at each station? To add an extra layer of difficulty, the failure rates won't be the same at every station. For example, Entity A at station 1 might have a FPY of 90%, Entity B at station 1 has 85%, Entity A at station 2 has 95%, and Entity B at station 2 has 50%, if that makes sense. 

Thank you for your help!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...