pro2 calculation sequence
Thread Content
In the calculation sequence, the first option, namely minimum tear steam, is selected; however, the order of the options is different from that in the example provided, which results in no convergence. Why is this? If the process is exactly the same, there’s no reason for a different order. I always feel that the result of this automatic sorting is related to the order in which modules and logistics elements are added in the process. I wonder what everyone thinks.
The result of automatic sorting is related to the order in which modules and logistics elements are added in the process, right? In the simulations I’ve done, the order in which items are arranged automatically corresponds to the order in which the modules were added! Sometimes it does not converge, but adjusting the order of calculation can bring about convergence.
I also think there is a connection, but it doesn’t mean that the final ordering will necessarily be the same as the order in which they were added. But since the principle of automatic sorting is to minimize circular logistics, why do we have cases where the processes are the same yet the sorting results differ? After some thought, the most likely outcome is that two or more different sorting methods can all result in the same minimum number of cycles. But I always feel that this understanding is a bit forced.
Haha, after carefully comparing the two procedures, I realized that in my approach there was a middle logistics component for which no initial value had been assigned. Once an initial value was assigned to that component, the order of calculations changed, and convergence occurred much more easily (with my original calculation order, i.e., without assigning an initial value to that component, an accelerated convergence method was used, and convergence required many iterations). :Lol, therefore, if the process settings are exactly the same, the calculation order for the minimum cycle should be the same as well. But there is another issue here: due to the different settings at the beginning and end, that is, no initial value estimation was performed for a certain logistics element at the start, forcing the use of a certain order of computation and convergence method ； Later, an initial estimate of this logistics was performed, using a different calculation order and convergence method ； The results obtained from these two methods differ greatly. If there is no actual data available for evaluation, then how can we determine which one is better? This post was last edited by huanglei on 2009-3-27 19:26]
"A large difference in the results indicates that convergence has not been achieved fully. The calculated values can be used as initial values until they no longer change