1. Introduction

     This paper is an extension of a work presented in the 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Logistics and Transport (ICALT) [1].

     Due to intense competitivity in the industrial sector and to demand fluctuation, companies need to ensure better performance of their Manufacturing Systems (MS). An appropriately selected number of resources can improve the overall system performance. On the other hand, too much chosen resources means needless investment, whereas an insufficient number of chosen resources can make the system unable to produce the required quantities in the desired due date, which constitutes a financial loss (ie. penalties, loss of customers, etc.). Therefore, MS sizing is an important issue that must be considered to obtain the desired system performance. In fact, this issue has attracted the attention of several researchers. Hence, many types of approaches have been used to solve machines, labor and MHS fleet sizing problems. The Simulation/Expert System Approach (SESA), is one of these approaches used to solve MS sizing. It was proposed by [2] and enhanced by other researchers either by considering other resources or by altering the used tools. However, SESA still needs improvements to be applicable in real cases. However, one of its shortcomings is the lack of consideration for the material handling system (MHS). In fact, appropriate MHS choice and sizing is crucial for the MS design task [3]. Its main role is transferring parts between the various components of a MS in the most economical way, to ensure an efficient material flow.  The interest of configuring and sizing the MHS is continually increasing in manufacturing facilities. Therefore, this research proposes some opportunities to improve SESA framework considering the MHS fleet sizing problem to make this approach more pertinent and applicable in real-world cases.

    The remainder of this paper is as follows: Section 2 presents a brief literature review on the MS sizing problems. The originality of SESA and its evolution are presented in Section 3. Section 4 presents a survey of recent research studies to show the promising potential of SESA tools. Before concluding, section 5 suggests an improvement proposal for SESA.

2. MS Sizing problem

       MS sizing problem is defined as the selection of the required number of resources from each type to be used in a manufacturing process for a given horizon.

2.1    Resources studied in literature

      Several research studies dealt with the MS sizing problem, more precisely with the main manufacturing resources used in MS, such as (1) machines, (2) labor and (3) material handling system (MHS).

2.2    Machine selection problem

      Machines represent a fundamental industrial equipment that allocates a part, for a period, to generate changes by performing certain tasks (generating the Added Value). Finding the required number of machines is an important task in the MS to achieve the target performances.  Among the first research studies discussing the machine selection problem, we can cite [4] who developed neural networks to minimize the number of machines in each work center in a flexible manufacturing system.  In addition, [5] proposed a mathematical formulation and a heuristic algorithm to find out the required number of types of machines in a group technology system that reduce the manufacturing cost. More recently, [6] developed a new modelling approach combining simulation/optimization methods to find the minimum number of machines required in each MS type. Besides,[7] used an artificial neural network approach coupled with a simulation tool to estimate the minimum number and the best scheduling of machines that enhance the mean tardiness and the mean flow time. In fact, [8] used two analytical methods to firstly, determine the optimal number of machines and the quantities produced in each period and secondly, determine the production plan and the periodic preventive maintenance scheduling to reduce the failures and minimize the total costs. Moreover, [9] used Discrete-Event Simulation (DES) and OptQuest to find out the optimal machine number. Two objective functions were used: maximizing the machine utilization rate and minimizing the waiting time in the queue.

      The continuous dealing with the machine selection problem proves the importance of this issue in the MS improvement.

2.3    Labor selection problem

      The human factor plays a crucial role in the creation, the responsiveness, the flexibility and the performance of industrial processes. The determination of the optimal number and quality of labor to be allocated is necessary in each MS. In fact, this issue has been the object of numerous research studies. For instance, [10] used Fuzzy AHP, TOPSIS and  Simulation tools to determine the optimal number and assignment of  labor in the system. Many performance measures have been used to achieve some objectives such as the average lead-time, the average labor utilization and the average waiting time. [11] used simulation and genetic algorithm to determine the optimum number and allocation of labor and the measure of the efficiency of their operation in an assembly shop. His aim is to maximize the throughput system. Similarly, [12]developed a simulation /optimization approach based on the genetic algorithm (NSGAII) to determine the required number of labor. [13] used CPLEX optimization software and DES (ARENA software) to determine the required number of operators in automobile chassis manufacturer while considering the labor fatigue in their attempt to satisfy the customer demand.

2.4    MHS fleet sizing

      MHSs are used to transport goods and materials between workstations of a manufacturing system. Therefore, the number of vehicles greatly influences the performance of the MS. MHS are usually expensive, thus determining the appropriate number of vehicles is very a very important task. Hence, due to the importance of this problem, many recent research works dealt with this problem using different approaches. For instance, [3] developed an analytical model to estimate the minimum number of automated vehicles required by a flexible MS. The results of the regression analysis were compared with simulation results to show that the regression technique is a promising approach to resolve the fleet sizing problem. [14] used a simulation tool to determine the optimal vehicle number and material flow rate in a semiconductor manufacturing systems. [15] applied a queuing model to determine the required number of automated vehicles in a flexible MS containing multiple pickup and delivery points. The objective was to minimize the waiting times. As for, [16] applied the queuing theory to specify the required number of MHSs in a MS in order to maximize their utilization rate and minimize the investment costs. Besides, [17] used the bees algorithm to estimate the optimal number of MHS operated at the MS to maximize the profit. This algorithm is inspired by the foraging behavior of honeybees. On the other hand, [18] used multi-class Closed Queuing Networks (CQN) based on a linear programming to model the movement of MHS in a MS and determine the minimum MHS number. More recently, [19] has developed two analytical methods to determine the AGV fleet size in different layouts of flexible MS. In fact, different factors, such as the processing time, job sequence, job mix, loading/unloading stations and the number of work centers, are included in the model.

2.5    Synthesis

     Table 1 presents a literature survey on the MS sizing problem the detailed analysis of which shows that the number of studies about the production resources selection area has grown considerably in recent years. In fact, the growing interest in this subject shows the importance of the resolution of the resource selection problem in improving MS performance.  However, one of the gaps in these studies is the absence of a correlation between the three types problems related to the selection of machines, of labor (operators) and of MHS components, which affect one another.

Table 1.Literature review on MS sizing

Recently, some studies have combined machine and labor selection problems but without considering the MHS fleet sizing problem. For example, [20] used  a simulation tool to size an effective automobile manufacturing process. The aim is to enhance the system throughput by determining the required number of repair stations, labor, machines and the best plan configuration. More recently, [21] has sized a functional MS to determine the required number of machines and employees that enhance the overall system performances for the purpose of respecting the Due Date (DD).

2.6    Used methods

      Due to the variety of resources used in the production systems and the influence of one over the other, the search for the optimal size becomes more and more difficult. To overcome this difficulty, many methods are employed in the literature to tackle the sizing issue, which are classified into two main categories:

• Analytical methods;
• Simulation-based methods.

      The first category can be classified into two main types: exact and approximate methods.

     In fact, the exact methods like Branch-and-Bound, linear programming and others provide an optimal solution, which is suitable only for small sized problems. Therefore, the major weaknesses of these methods are their static and deterministic character, their mis-consideration of the dynamic and stochastic aspects of the system and their inconsistency with the MS sizing problem. Since the number of feasible solutions rises exponentially when changing the total number of resources, it is impossible to use complete enumeration for large-sized problems. As a consequence, heuristic and meta-heuristic methods are widely approved by the researchers to efficiency deal with the MS sizing problems.

Approximate methods, which are heuristic and artificial intelligence methods, as the expert system, artificial neural networks, genetic algorithm, Tabu search, particle swarm optimization, simulated annealing and others do not always guarantee the optimal solution.

On the other hand, the simulation-based methods, which fall into the second category, are widely used to solve MS sizing problems. In fact, simulation can provide a detailed analysis of the system performance and help managers to take the right decision.

Moreover, some studies developed approaches combining simulation and analytical methods to find out satisfying results (not optimal ones). Due to the effectiveness of this combination, [21] used an expert system simulation approach called “SESA” to look for the optimal number of two types of resources simultaneously: machines and labor. In fact, this work considers the stochastic and dynamic aspects. However, the major gap in this work is the neglect of transfer problem when sizing MS.

In the next section, the evolution of SESA and its originality are presented.

3. SESA Evolution

3.1.  Originality of SESA

      SESA is a prescriptive simulated approach developed by [2] to solve the MS sizing problem and more precisely, to identify the optimal number of machines in a simple static and deterministic MS. The framework of SESA is presented in Figure 1. The two principal tools used in SESA method are the simulation and the expert system, which work in a closed loop and exchange data and results.

Figure 1.The framework of SESA [2]

The data of the studied MS and the typical order to be manufactured are the required inputs for the simulation step in order to establish the simulation procedure according to which the command type will be executed. This first step provides performance indicators such as the total operation time. For each scenario, the simulation model is run and the system performance measures are recorded. Then, the second step, it involves the expert system, which has as inputs the performance measures (provided by simulation) and the performance limits. The main role of this step is to analyze the results provided by the simulator and establish one of these two cases:

• The system performance, which is optimized according to the actual context, or;
• The system performance, which needs to be improved according to the actual context. In fact, the expert system offers a problem diagnosis, according to the MS resources, in order to check if there is a lack or an excess of resources. Then, the ES provides a set of recommendations to adjust the resource number, which improves the system performance.

The simulator used in this original version is a deterministic tool named “SICOP”. It is a simple program developed by “C language”, which provides statistical results (performance measures). The expert system is “SEORAM”, which is intended to minimize the Mean Flow Time (MFT). The results of this study indicate that combining the simulation and optimization tool is quite competitive, in terms of precision, when compared to the simulation itself. This approach helps to avoid the “try-error” aspect. Enhancement of the system performance proves the efficiency of this approach. Accordingly, other researches were encouraged to extend the application of this approach to be more applicable in real MS.

The weaknesses of this study are as follows:

• Misconsideration of the stochastic and dynamic aspects;
• Used tools and the total indices of performance chosen in this initiated approach are not used any more in research since they do not reflect any more the current tendencies of the industrialists;
• Misconsideration of the labor and MHS selection problems.

3.2.  SESA improvement

Improvement of the Expert System used tool “ESMRS”

In the follow-up research work, [22] developed an improved version of SESA and applied it for Job Shop machine selection problem. The studied MS grouped the same machine type on departments and supposed that the requirement of labor and material handling system are neglected. The main focus was on the development of a new ES prototype named expert system for manufacturing resource sizing (ESMRS developed by Kappa. PC) (see Figure 2). A set of generic diagnosis production rules is developed. The main objectives were to improve the structure of research mechanism, recommend resource modification according to performance indicators provided by the simulation and overcome the “try-error” aspect. The results provide significant insights into the effective application of the enhanced ES.

Improvement of the simulation used tool

      After that, [23]enhanced the framework of SESA, previously described, by using the simulation software “ARENA”. This tool considered the stochastic and dynamic aspects, governs Manufacturing Orders launching (MO) as well as machine operating parameters. Thus, all entities of the same product type enter the MS according to a stochastic inter-arrival time (random distribution). Then, the entities stay on the machine queue until the machine becomes available. After that, the entity will be treated in a randomly chosen processing time (see Figure 3). The same optimization loop presented previously is used in [23] but the differences are:

• Use of a stochastic simulator tool;
• Use of more relevant performance indicators and;
• Considering the stochastic and dynamic aspect.

Figure 2.Enhanced ES interface [22]

Figure 3.MS “ARENA” simulation model[23]

Despite improvements provided by [22, 23] to enhance the efficiency of SESA tools, this approach still limited in its application domain. It resolve only the machine selection problem.

3.3.  Enlargement of SESA application domain

      In an earlier work, [21] extended the application domain of SESA to select the optimal number of both machines and labor in a functional manufacturing system. This extension has already involved changes both in simulation model (see Figure 4) and ES interface (see Figure 5).

Figure 4.MS “ARENA” simulation model [21]

To build the simulation model, two inputs are required:

The MS data which represents the number of work center, Processing Time (PT) and Setup Time (ST) and;

The demand patterns, which represent the inter-arrival times, product type, load size and sequence.

Different performance indicators have been used to enhance the applicability of SESA. These indicators are: the rate of resource utilization, the average waiting time and waiting number of batches in resource queues, throughput, mean tardiness and mean earliness.

Figure 5.Enhanced ES interface [21]

The main target is to respect the DD in order to minimize the delay penalties and the storage costs. The DD indicator is more adequate for functional manufacturing context than MFT. The first objective is to minimize the Mean Tardiness (MT) and then minimize the Mean Earliness (ME), which is considered as the second objective. Besides, in order to avoid superfluous investment costs, all the resources should be fully utilized. The experiments with different levels of DD closeness indicate the important benefits of the approach improvements through the new performance measures and the enhanced ES interface.

      The enhanced ES interface is divided into two main stages. The first stage is the machine selection problem without labor constraints and the second is the labor selection problem.

In the first stage, the ES starts with the study of the MS machine situation (without labor constraints). Thus, this stage supposes that the number of employees is equal to that of machines (assigning a worker to each machine). If the simulated system performance needs to be improved, the ES will recommend modifications regarding machine number. These changes overcome the problem and enhance the system performance. Thus, a new cycle is run with the modified machine number until the ES can not suggest other modifications. This situation presents the end of this stage. In the second stage, the ES resolves the labor selection problem with a machine balanced MS (according to the first stage results). The same optimization cycles will be run until they reach a non-improvable MS.

The confines of SESA developed by [21] is the neglect of the transfer network and MHS constraints when sizing MS component resources. In fact, MHS is significant in MS that has an effect on the system performance [24].  It can account for 30 –75% of the total cost, and efficient material handling can be primarily responsible for reducing a plant operating cost by 15–30% [25]. Therefore, MHS is very important in reducing the total manufacturing costs and increasing profits. Consequently, it is necessary to extend the application domain of SESA by incorporating material handling system constraints when sizing production resources. However, it is necessary to demonstrate the relevance of SESA tools. Therefore, the next section will provide a detailed survey of recent research studies using simulation and/or expert system for solving resource selection problem.

4. Is SESA a promising approach?

4.1.  Is simulation always promising?

     Simulation has been developing for a long time to became an essential tool for many disciplines. Its application fields may go from industry [26] healthcare [27, 28], urban design [29] military [30], among others.  It has been widely proven by the scientific community and practitioners as a flexible technique by allowing modelling, testing and analyzing complex dynamic systems, namely for models where structure and behavior change over time. The simulation model is a representation of the real system. It may reduce the risks related to the implementation of new system design, production cost, production time, etc. It is used to analyze and process huge quantities of data. As shown in Figure 6, simulation is a solid approach with many years of application and is a rapidly evolving research field [31].

Figure 6.Evolution of simulation application

Discrete-event-simulation (DES) is mostly used to solve MS problems. Numerous benefits to use DES defined by [32]include: simulate a real system in a short time, study the interaction between different components, reduce cost and risk, monitor and control the system and others.

This approach has tackled different problems. A brief summary of DES applications to solve manufacturing systems is presented in Table 2. [33] revealed abundant references in more details about the simulation utilisation on other MS problems.

Table 2.Publications related to simulation approach

In all the above discussed studies, DES models have been proven as powerful decision support tools, which enables practitioners to accurately test, model, analyze and plan complex systems. Moreover, it is an efficient tool to search for optimal solution and evaluate the obtained results. Different DES tools have been used in literature.in this context, [44] compared these tools to identify the most popular and used ones. In fact, the ARENA commercial software has been the most popular and used tool for modeling and analyzing various complex MSs.

    Nevertheless, the simulation tool may not be the first preferred in solving real-life system due to the “trial-and-error” nature of the development process and its lengthy computational requirements. This issue is particularly remarked when the solution space is mostly large and the time available to make decision and analysis is too limited. Thus, it is necessary to add an analytical method to the simulation tool to do an optimal decision-making. Therefore, the simulation tool has been coupled with an expert system approach.

4.2.  Is the Expert system still promising?

      The ES is an Artificial intelligence (AI) software application that attempts to simulate the knowledge and experience of human experts in a specific domain and make such expertise accessible on demand to the program user. This application was introduced by [45]for the first time in the 1980s. A growing interest in the use of ES has been seen for solving optimization problems in many domains such as Healthcare [46, 47], supply chain [48],transport [49], risk management [50] and others.

According to [51], the expert system includes three principal parts (Figure 7):

• User’s interface that enables the user to ask questions and provide advice corresponding to it;
• Knowledge base that consists of facts and rules, which are created from information which are provided to it;
• Inference engine that helps to match the user’s query with knowledge base and provides the result.

Figure 7.An Expert system environment

Table 3.Recent research studies used ES

The main advantages of ES consist in reducing human error, always available, providing expertise at a minimum cost, which is used in any risky environment to solve complex decision problems in different specific fields, obtain flexible and practical solutions, and respond at great speed, etc.

The capability of ESs to acquire performance similar to the human ones makes current researchers used it to solve various types of problem in MS (see Table 3).

4.3.  Is coupling Simulation/Expert System promising?

       Simulator systems generate large and a high variety of data that make decision making so difficult. Therefore, novel approaches combined simulation and optimization have been developed in literature to eliminate this gap. In fact, simulation based optimization approaches have received considerable attention from many recent researchers to solve MS problems. [62] proposed an improvement framework using genetic algorithm and DES to investigate the buffer size and job sequencing optimization problems. [63] combined the DES models and artificial neural network models of the production system. This combination was realized through an ES in order to evaluate the stability of a production system and implement production plans. [64] developed a practical approach using bee colony to improve throughput while minimizing waste energy and environmental impact. [65] proposed a novel methodology using ant colony and DES to select better facility allocations that minimize fixed and transportation costs.

Recent research studies applied the DES with ES in different application including industrial systems [66], food process [67], supply chain management [68], healthcare systems [69], risk management [70]and others.

The main advantage of this combination is that the DES can integrate compound system dynamics and uncertainties. Then, ES helps in efficiently getting optimal parameter values. The methodology is that the ES accesses the output of a simulation cycle and, depending on the user’s objective, selects and retrieves the pertinent data and provides a mechanism for exception reporting. A greater degree of integration would be for the ES to explain the recommendations. Thus, the incorporation of DES with ES improves the decision-making process.

      The research studies, cited in the previous three sub-sections, have been conducted to assess the trends of SESA approach and its capability to solve highly complex systems with stochastic variables. We can conclude that SESA is still promising but can be improved.

4.4.  Limits of SESA

      The application domain of SESA is limited in finding the optimal number of machines and employees without taking into account the MHS, despite its importance. A MHS can be defined as a vehicle that moves work-parts at short distances and usually inside the building. [71] affirms that the MHS represents a major portion of the total manufactured product cost.  An efficient MHS can have a main impact on the operating cost, which reduces and increases the total throughput and department utilization. Moreover, a well selection of the required number of MHS is very important to significantly improve the efficiency of the MS. In fact, if the chosen number of MHS is less than the required number, the work-parts will saturate the storage areas between departments and their waiting time increases. Moreover, if the chosen number is higher than the required one, the MHS waiting time increases. This will cause an accumulation of vehicles, a saturation of the traffic lines and a system blockage. Besides, the MHS purchase cost is very high, so an accurate determination of their optimum number is required.

     Consequently, considering MHS when selecting machines and labor, it is very important to significantly improve the efficiency of MS.

5. SESA improvement proposal

     From previous sections, it is clear that SESA is always promising seen simulation and ES benefits. Nevertheless, it is a priority to take into consideration the MHS. Our contribution in this section is to highlight the opportunities of SESA improvements.

5.1.  Proposal to enlarge the application domain

     To enlarge the application domain of SESA, we will propose some improvement opportunities and develop a new strategy of SESA by considering the MHS fleet sizing problem (see Figure 8).

Figure 8.The new SESA framework

In the beginning, different characteristics related to the MHS will be integrated in simulation inputs. Then, new performance indicators related to the MHS will be considered to analyze system performance (see section 5.4). Finally, a new stage related to the MHS fleet sizing will be added to extend the expert system mechanism.

5.2.  Improvement proposal of simulation model

     To improve the simulation model developed by [21] and make the first investigation of taking into account the MHS when sizing MS, it is necessary to add different data related to the MHS within the MS data, which represent the simulation input. A representation of the improved model is presented in Figure 9.

The MHS data requirements can be:

• Type of material handling;
• Direction of movement (orientation);
• Transport distance;
• Load size;
• Loading and unloading time;
• Speed of material handling;
• Dispatching rule.

The components of this proposed model are as follows:

• Materials warehouse;
• Five departments (each one group the machinery with the same process capability) ;
• Parking (group the MHS);
• Finished Pieces (FP) warehouse.

Figure 9.MS model including MHS

The MHS process, in this system, consist of four main steps:

• The unloaded MHS starts from the parking and moves to the pickup point to pick the load and goes to its destination (P/D point) related to the work center;
• The MHS stops to deliver the parts, picks up the new load if it exists;
• The loaded MHS moves to the next point whatever its storage area or work center, then the same operations will be repeated until the end of the procedure;
• MH returns to the parking.

The traveling time depends on: (1) the type of transporter (speed, loading time, unloading time, etc.); (2) the transfer network constraints like dispatching rule, orientation, distance between the departments etc.

5.3.  Use of better Performance indicators

      The performance indicators used by [21] are divided in two types:

• The main performance indicators are used to evaluate the global MS performance, in terms of tardiness, earliness and DD;
• Diagnostic performance indicators: they are used to resolve resource lack/surplus problems in each work center, which are represented as follows (Table 4):
• Indicators used by [21]

We can say that the performance indicators used by[21] are relevant but not sufficient to evaluate the performance of a MS including the MHS. The major shortcoming consists in neglecting the performance measure related to the MHS.

On the other hand, to improve SESA, it is necessary to measure the efficiency of the MHS, which can be characterized by several performance indicators.

In fact, previous research studies, in the field of fleet size, used   different performance measures to analyze and evaluate the system performance. [18, 72-77].

Most of the indicators, related to MHS performance are:

• Vehicle utilization rate;
• Throughput rate;
• Vehicle waiting time;
• Vehicle blockage time;
• Empty vehicle traveling time;
• Total number of delivered loads;
• Number of units waiting to be transported;
• Waiting time of units to be transported;
• Availability/ unavailability of MHS.

5.4.  Improvement proposal of the ES reasoning mechanism

     The ES reasoning mechanism used by SESA is divided into two stages. The first stage aims at resolving machine selection problem without labor constraints (with a number of workers equal to the number of machines in each department). Then, the labor requirement problem resolution starts with a machine balanced MS.

According to our literature review, there has not been yet any expert system developed to select machines, labor and MHS simultaneously. In this work, we try to improve further ES reasoning mechanism in order to select not only the production resources (machines and labor), but also the material handling resources (trucks, pallets, etc.).To attain this objective, it is important to add another stage, in SESA, to resolve MHS fleet sizing problem (see Figure 10).

Figure 10.ES reasoning mechanism

The resolution of MHS fleet sizing problem requires new knowledge based rules related to the MHS in order to make the right decision of adding or deleting a MHS. The new stage must be in coherence with the other stages.  We can take the example of the Lack and surplus of MHS resources. In fact, If the MHS utilization rate (ur) is less than the lower performance limits (supposed urmin=40%) there is a surplus of vehicles (the number of units waiting to be transported decreases but the MHS cost increases). In addition, If the MHS utilization rate (ur) is more than the higher performance limits (urmax=90%) there is lack of vehicles (the number of units waiting to be transported increases).

Example of the generic diagnosis production rule related to the lack of resources (ur>urmax):

MSS: Manufacturing system state.

If [GlobalPerformance: MSS= = OK] AND [D: ur>= D: urmax] Then D: problem=lack

The ES is a promising tool, as proved in previous section. It can be useful to various types of resource sizing problems. However, integrating an additional stage and finding an optimal order of three stages in the strategy structure is not an easy task. The feasible way to enhance SESA is to start with one problem, by giving a fixed number of resources for the others, then, using the solution of the first stage by solving the next problem, then, using the new information obtained from the second for solving the third problem. Each stage may have several iterations until satisfying results are obtained. In fact, it is necessary to identify the right ordering of selection problems because different ordering can provide different solutions.  Unfortunately, the chained stages can address the complexity of the problem when dealing with a high-size problem. This approach becomes challenging to be applied.

Note that it is possible to combine other useful optimization approaches with simulation, such as the Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) Tabu algorithm, Genetic Algorithm, Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), Regression Metamodeling etc. to identify the required number of resources.

6. Conclusion and Future Work

      This paper discusses the originality and the evolution of SESA for sizing MS. The original version was created using static and deterministic tools to solve only the machine selection problems. Later research studies enhanced it by developing new stochastic and dynamic tools and enlarging its application domain by incorporating the labor selection problem. However, SESA is still limited, it neglects the MHS fleet sizing problem despite its influence on the machines and labor quantities. The provided literature survey indicates firstly that the MS sizing problem is continuously relevant due to its importance in ensuring the desired system performance. Secondly, the survey indicates that SESA is a promising approach for the MS sizing problem. The purpose of this study was to extend the application domain of SESA by integrating the MHS fleet sizing problem in the overall MS sizing task.  The new SESA framework is thoroughly explained and its application and validation on actual case are proposed as future research.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgement

The authors gratefully appreciate the reviewers for their valuable remarks and suggestions, which have led to enhance this paper.

1.  I. Lajmi, W. Masmoudi, and M. Elleuch, “Importance of Handling Resources’ Incorporation Into Simulation Expert System Approach,” in 6th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Logistics and Transport (ICALT), pp. 139–143, 2017.
2.  Chtourou Hedi and Guillot Michel, “Une approche prescriptive simulée utilisant un système expert pour l’optimisation des ressources de systèmes manufacturiers,” Actes du 4éme congrés international de génie industriel, pp. 217–26, 1993.
3.  R. Arifin and P. J. Egbelu, “Determination of vehicle requirements in automated guided vehicle systems: A statistical approach,” Production Planning & Control, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 258–270, Jan. 2000.
4.  Chryssolouris, G, Lee, M, Pierce, J, and Domroese, M, “Use of neural networks for the design of manufacturing systems,” Manufacturing Review, pp. 187–194, 1990.
5.  R. G. Askin and K. S. Chiu, “A graph partitioning procedure for machine assignment and cell formation in group technology” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 1555–1572, Aug. 1990.
6.  F. O., H. Pierreval *, and D. Deflandre, “A simulation-based optimization approach to size manufacturing systems,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 247–266, Jan. 2005.
7.  M. B. Yildirim, T. Cakar, U. Doguc, and J. C. Meza, “Machine number, priority rule, and due date determination in flexible manufacturing systems using artificial neural networks,” Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 50, no. 1–2, pp. 185–194, May 2006.
8.  Z. Hajej, N. Rezg, and T. Askri, “Joint optimization of capacity, production and maintenance planning of leased machines,” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Oct. 2018.
9. A. Rahman, S. Sarker, and M. T. Islam, “Simulating Cutting Line of a Furniture Industry,” in 2018 International Conference on Production and Operations Management Society (POMS), pp. 1–7, 2018.
10. A. Azadeh, S. Nazari-Shirkouhi, L. Hatami-Shirkouhi, and A. Ansarinejad, “A unique fuzzy multi-criteria decision making: computer simulation approach for productive operators’ assignment in cellular manufacturing systems with uncertainty and vagueness,” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 56, no. 1–4, pp. 329–343, Sep. 2011.
11.  A. Azadeh, S. M. Asadzadeh, and S. Tadayoun, “Optimization of operator allocation in a large multi product assembly shop through unique integration of simulation and genetic algorithm,” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 76, no. 1–4, pp. 471–486, Jan. 2015.
12.  A. Ammar, H. Pierreval, and S. Elkosantini, “A multiobjective simulation optimization approach to define teams of workers in stochastic production systems,” in 2015 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Systems Management (IESM), Seville, pp. 977–986, Spain, 2015.
13.  S. Samant, V. K. Mittal, and R. Prakash, “Resource optimisation for an automobile chassis manufacturer through value stream mapping enhanced with simulation technique and constraint programming,” International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 379–401, Jan. 2018.
14.  J. T. Lin, F.-K. Wang, and P.-Y. Yen, “Simulation analysis of dispatching rules for an automated interbay material handling system in wafer fab,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 1221–1238, Jan. 2001.
15.  P.-H. Koo, J. Jang, and J. Suh, “Estimation of Part Waiting Time and Fleet Sizing in AGV Systems,” International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 211–228, Jul. 2004.
16. D. Raman, S. V. Nagalingam, B. W. Gurd, and G. C. I. Lin, “Quantity of material handling equipment—A queuing theory based approach,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 348–357, Apr. 2009.
17.  H. R. Sayarshad, “Using bees algorithm for material handling equipment planning in manufacturing systems,” Int J Adv Manuf Technol, vol. 48, no. 9, pp. 1009–1018, Jun. 2010.
18. F. F. Choobineh, A. Asef-Vaziri, and X. Huang, “Fleet sizing of automated guided vehicles: a linear programming approach based on closed queuing networks,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 3222–3235, Jun. 2012.
19.  V. K. Chawla, A. K. Chanda, and S. Angra, “Automatic guided vehicles fleet size optimization for flexible manufacturing system by grey wolf optimization algorithm,” Management Science Letters, pp. 79–90, 2018.
20.  V. Patel, J. Ashby, and J. Ma, “Discrete event simulation in automotive final process system,” in Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, vol. 1, pp. 1030–1034 vol.1, 2002.
21.  W. Masmoudi, H. Chtourou, and A. Y. Maalej, “Labor and machine sizing through a Simulation-Expert-System-based Approach,” Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 98–110, Jan. 2007.
22. H. Chtourou, W. Masmoudi, and A. Maalej, “An expert system for manufacturing systems machine selection,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 461–467, Apr. 2005.
23.  Wassim Masmoudi, H. Chtourou, and Aref Y. Maalej, “A simulation-expert-system-based approach for machine sizing of production systems,” Jnl of Manu Tech Mnagmnt, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 187–198, Feb. 2006.
24. AshkanNegahban and Jeffrey S.Smith, “Simulation for manufacturing system design and operation: Literature review and analysis – ScienceDirect,” Journal of Manufacturing Systems, vol. Volume 33, no. 2, pp. 241-261, Apr. 2014.
25. D. R. Sule, Manufacturing Facilities: Location, Planning, and Design, Third Edition. CRC Press, 2008.
26. S. M. Boorla, K. Bjarklev, T. Eifler, T. J. Howard, and C. A. McMahon, “Industry 4.0 – A challenge for variation simulation tools for mechanical assemblies,” Advances in Computational Design, vol. 4, no 1, pp. 43-52, Apr. 2019.
27. C. M. DeRienzo, R. J. Shaw, P. Meanor, E. Lada, J. Ferranti, and D. Tanaka, “A discrete event simulation tool to support and predict hospital and clinic staffing,” Health Informatics J, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 124–133, Jun. 2017.
28.  S. Almagooshi, “Simulation Modelling in Healthcare: Challenges and Trends,” Procedia Manufacturing, vol. 3, pp. 301–307, Jan. 2015.
29.  L. Alonso et al., “CityScope: A Data-Driven Interactive Simulation Tool for Urban Design. Use Case Volpe,” in Unifying Themes in Complex Systems IX, pp. 253–261, 2018.
30.  X. Song, Y. Wu, Y. Ma, Y. Cui, and G. Gong, “Military Simulation Big Data: Background, State of the Art, and Challenges,” Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2015.
31.  D. Mourtzis, M. Doukas, and D. Bernidaki, “Simulation in Manufacturing: Review and Challenges,” Procedia CIRP, vol. 25, pp. 213–229, Jan. 2014.
32. G. Popovics, A. Pfeiffer, and L. Monostori, “Generic data structure and validation methodology for simulation of manufacturing systems,” International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 1272–1286, Dec. 2016.
33.  A. Polenghi, L. Fumagalli, and I. Roda, “Role of simulation in industrial engineering: focus on manufacturing systems,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 51, no. 11, pp. 496–501, Jan. 2018.
34.  A. Greasley, “Using simulation for facility design: A case study,” Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 670–677, Jul. 2008.
35.  R. Zhang, S. K. Ong, and A. Y. C. Nee, “A simulation-based genetic algorithm approach for remanufacturing process planning and scheduling,” Applied Soft Computing, vol. 37, pp. 521–532, Dec. 2015.
36.  D. Krenczyk, W. M. Kempa, K. Kalinowski, C. Grabowik, and I. Paprocka, “Production planning and scheduling with material handling using modelling and simulation,” MATEC Web Conf., vol. 112, p. 09015, 2017.
37.  S. Yang, T. Arndt, and G. Lanza, “A Flexible Simulation Support for Production Planning and Control in Small and Medium Enterprises,” Procedia CIRP, vol. 56, pp. 389–394, Jan. 2016.
38.  D. Ivanov, “Disruption tails and revival policies: A simulation analysis of supply chain design and production-ordering systems in the recovery and post-disruption periods,” Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 127, pp. 558–570, Jan. 2019.
39.  W. Ye and F. You, “A computationally efficient simulation-based optimization method with region-wise surrogate modeling for stochastic inventory management of supply chains with general network structures,” Computers & Chemical Engineering, vol. 87, pp. 164–179, Apr. 2016.
40. Sławomir Kłos and Justyna Patalas-Maliszewska, “The Use of the Simulation Method in Analysing the Performance of a Predictive Maintenance System,” in Distributed Computing and Artificial Intelligence, Special Sessions, 15th International Conference, pp. 42–49, 2019.
41.  S. Gallego García and M. García García, “Design and Simulation of Production and Maintenance Management Applying the Viable System Model: The Case of an OEM Plant,” Materials, vol. 11, no. 8, p. 1346, Aug. 2018.
42.  J. Stoldt, A. Schlegel, and M. Putz, “Enhanced integration of energy-related considerations in discrete event simulation for manufacturing applications,” Journal of Simulation, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 113–122, May 2016.
43.  E. Romano and D. Iuliano, “A simulation/optimization approach to support resource allocation in a service firms,” International Journal of Procurement Management, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 1, 2018.
44.  L. M. S. Dias, A. A. C. Vieira, G. A. B. Pereira, and J. A. Oliveira, “Discrete Simulation Software Ranking: A Top List of the Worldwide Most Popular and Used Tools,” in Proceedings of the 2016 Winter Simulation Conference, Piscataway, NJ, USA, pp. 1060–1071, 2016.
45.  F. Hayes-Roth, D. Waterman, and D. Lenat, Building expert systems. 1984.
46. M. H. Fazel Zarandi, S. Soltanzadeh, A. Mohammadi, and O. Castillo, “Designing a general type-2 fuzzy expert system for diagnosis of depression,” Applied Soft Computing, Apr. 2019.
47.  O. T. Nkamgang, D. Tchiotsop, H. B. Fotsin, P. K. Talla, V. Louis Dorr, and D. Wolf, “Automating the clinical stools exam using image processing integrated in an expert system,” Informatics in Medicine Unlocked, vol. 15, p. 100165, Jan. 2019.
48.  E. K. Tekez, “Development of an expert system for demand management process,” International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 970–977, Oct. 2018.
49.  Ali Ahmed Mohammed, K. Ambak, A. M. Mosa, and D. Syamsunur, “EXPERT SYSTEM IN ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION: A REVIEW,” vol. 14, p. 25, 2019.
50. G. Baryannis, S. Dani, S. Validi, and G. Antoniou, “Decision Support Systems and Artificial Intelligence in Supply Chain Risk Management,” in Revisiting Supply Chain Risk, G. A. Zsidisin and M. Henke, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 53–71, 2019.
51.  Jaskiranjit Kaur and Anjali Walia, “Dimensions of Expert System in Manufacturing Industry,” International Journal of Scientific Research in Computer Science, Engineering and Information Technology, vol. Volume 3, p. 7, 2018.
52. S. Singh, E. U. Olugu, and S. N. Musa, “Development of Sustainable Manufacturing Performance Evaluation Expert System for Small and Medium Enterprises,” Procedia CIRP, vol. 40, pp. 608–613, Jan. 2016.
53. K. Prasad, S. R. Maity, and S. Chakraborty, “Quality Function Deployment-based Expert System for Materials Selection,” 2016.
54. W. Hellmann, D. Marino, M. Megahed, M. Suggs, J. Borowski, and A. Negahban, “Human, AGV or AIV? An integrated framework for material handling system selection with real-world application in an injection molding facility,” Int J Adv Manuf Technol, vol. 101, no. 1, pp. 815–824, Mar. 2019.
55.  R. Carreño, V. Aguilar, D. Pacheco, M. A. Acevedo, W. Yu, and M. E. Acevedo, “An IoT Expert System Shell in Block-Chain Technology with ELM as Inference Engine,” International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, Jan. 2019.
56.  M. S. Amalnik, “Expert System Approach for Optimization of Design and Manufacturing Process for Rotary Ultrasonic Machining,” vol. 11, no. 1, p. 13, 2018.
57. H. Esen, T. Hatipoğlu, A. Cihan, and N. Fiğlali, “Expert system application for prioritizing preventive actions for shift work: shift expert,” International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 123–137, Jan. 2019.
58. C. F. Tan, S. N. Khalil, J. Karjanto, L. S. Wahidin, W. Chen, and G. W. M. Rauterberg, “An Expert Machine Tools Selection System for Turning Operation,” IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 88, p. 012044, Sep. 2015.
59.  C. Urrea, G. Henríquez, and M. Jamett, “Development of an expert system to select materials for the main structure of a transfer crane designed for disabled people,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 691–697, Jan. 2015.
60. M. Ristić, M. Manić, D. Mišić, M. Kosanović, and M. Mitković, “IMPLANT MATERIAL SELECTION USING EXPERT SYSTEM,” Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 133–144, Apr. 2017.
61.  M. Soleymani and M. O. Nejad, “Supply Chain Risk Management using Expert Systems,” International Journal of Current Engineering and echnology, vol. 8, no. 04, 2018.
62. P. S. Kang and R. S. Bhatti, “Continuous process improvement implementation framework using multi-objective genetic algorithms and discrete event simulation,” Business Process Mgmt Journal, Sep. 2018.
63.  A. Burduk, K. Grzybowska, and G. Kovács, “Hybrid model of an expert system for assessing the stability of a production system,” LogForum, vol. Vol. 14, no. 4, 2018.
64. A. Singh, D. Philip, J. Ramkumar, and M. Das, “A simulation based approach to realize green factory from unit green manufacturing processes,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 182, pp. 67–81, May 2018.
65.  J.-P. Arnaout, G. Arnaout, and J. E. Khoury, “Simulation and Optimization Of Ant Colony Optimization Algorithm For The Stochiastic Uncapacitated Location-Allocation Problem,” Journal of Industrial and Management Optimization, pp. 1215–1225, Oct. 2016.
66. K. Nagadi, L. Rabelo, M. Basingab, A. T. Sarmiento, A. Jones, and A. Rahal, “A hybrid simulation-based assessment framework of smart manufacturing systems,” International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 115–128, Feb. 2018.
67.  D. Stefanovic, N. Stefanovic, and B. Radenkovic, “Supply network modelling and simulation methodology,” Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 743–766, Apr. 2009.
68.  B. Hernández‐Vera, A. A. A. Lasserre, M. G. Cedillo‐Campos, L. E. Herrera‐Franco, and J. Ochoa‐Robles, “Expert System Based on Fuzzy Logic to Define the Production Process in the Coffee Industry,” Journal of Food Process Engineering, vol. 40, no. 2, p. e12389, 2017.
69.  A. Azadeh, H. Tohidi, M. Zarrin, S. Pashapour, and M. Moghaddam, “An integrated algorithm for performance optimization of neurosurgical ICUs,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 43, pp. 142–153, Jan. 2016.
70.  H. Behret, B. Öztayşi, and C. Kahraman, “A Fuzzy Inference System for Supply Chain Risk Management,” in Practical Applications of Intelligent Systems, pp. 429–438, 2012.
71. A. Hadi-Vencheh and A. Mohamadghasemi, “A new hybrid fuzzy multi-criteria decision making model for solving the material handling equipment selection problem,” International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 534–550, May 2015.
72.  B. Mahadevan and T. T. Narendran, “A hybrid modelling approach to the design of an AGV-based material handling system for an FMS,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 2015–2030, Sep. 1994.
73.  B. M. Beamon and V. C. P. Chen, “Performability-based fleet sizing in a material handling system,” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 441–449, Jun. 1998.
74.  Hung, P. C. and Liu, F. H, “Estimation of the fleet size for a multi-load automated guided vehicle system,” Proceedings of the National Science Council, Part A: Physical Science and Engineering, pp. 244–253, 2001.
75.  S. Rajotia, K. Shanker, and J. L. Batra, “Determination of optimal AGV fleet size for an FMS,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1177–1198, May 1998.
76.  K.-H. Chang, A.-L. Chang, and C.-Y. Kuo, “A simulation-based framework for multi-objective vehicle fleet sizing of automated material handling systems: an empirical study,” Journal of Simulation, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 271–280, Nov. 2014.
77.  R. Wibisono, T. J. Ai, and D. R. Yuniartha, “Fleet Sizing of Automated Material Handling Using Simulation Approach,” IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 319, p. 012030, Mar. 2018.

Citations by Dimensions

Citations by PlumX

Google Scholar

Crossref Citations

1. Izuchukwu Francis Okafor, Mustapha Abdullahi, Bappah Adamu Umar, Kelechi U. Adie, "Investigating the Influence Biomass Additive on the Thermal Performance of a Fired-Clay for Producing the Inner Liner of a Biomass Cook-Stove", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 69–77, 2026. doi: 10.25046/aj110107
2. Marlene Böhmer, Thorsten Herfet, "PerfVis+: From Timestamps to Insight through Integration of Visual and Statistical Analysis", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 77–87, 2025. doi: 10.25046/aj100607
3. Young-Jin Park, Hui-Sup Cho, Sanghun Yun, "Implementation and Simulation of Sequential Adverse Condition Scenarios for Autonomous Driving", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 1–10, 2025. doi: 10.25046/aj100501
4. Glender Brás, Samara Leal, Breno Sousa, Gabriel Paes, Cleberson Junior, João Souza, Rafael Assis, Tamires Marques, Thiago Teles Calazans Silva, "Machine Learning Methods for University Student Performance Prediction in Basic Skills based on Psychometric Profile", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1–13, 2025. doi: 10.25046/aj100401
5. Fadwa Bouhannana, Akram El Korchi, "Application of Lean Practices in Food Supply Chain: The Case of Morocco", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 101–110, 2023. doi: 10.25046/aj080412
6. Temsamani Khallouk Yassine, Achchab Said, Laouami Lamia, Faridi Mohammed, "Hybrid Discriminant Neural Networks for Performance Job Prediction", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 116–122, 2023. doi: 10.25046/aj080213
7. Ossama Embarak, "Multi-Layered Machine Learning Model For Mining Learners Academic Performance", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 850–861, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060194
8. Aicha Lamjahdi, Hafida Bouloiz, Maryam Gallab, "Heuristic Analysis of Overall Performance Measurement Perception and Management in Automotive Industry", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1–11, 2022. doi: 10.25046/aj070301
9. Sepideh Amirpour, Torbjörn Thiringer, Yasin Sharifi, Marco Majid Kabiri Samani, "Improving of Heat Spreading in a SiC Propulsion Inverter using Graphene Assembled Films", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 98–111, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060614
10. Boris Kontsevoi, Sergei Terekhov, "TETRA™ Techniques to Assess and Manage the Software Technical Debt", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 303–309, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060534
11. Ghada Shedid, Osama Tolba, Sherif Ezzeldin, "Design Optimization and Life Cycle Cost Assessment of GRC Shading Screens for Office Buildings in Cairo", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 222–228, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060524
12. Yao Sun, Keijiro Nakamura, Xin Zhu, "The Effect of Myocardial Fat’s Thickness and Myocardial Impedance on Bipolar Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation Using Computer Simulation", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 83–89, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060511
13. Maroua Barha, Soumaia Hmimou, Mounir Ait Kerroum, Hamid Ait Lemqeddem, "The Internal Reliability of a Questionnaire on the Impact of Enterprise Resource Planning on the Performance of Moroccan Companies", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 59–64, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060508
14. Radwan Qasrawi, Stephanny VicunaPolo, Diala Abu Al-Halawa, Sameh Hallaq, Ziad Abdeen, "Predicting School Children Academic Performance Using Machine Learning Techniques", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 08–15, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060502
15. Rafael Souza Cotrim, João Manuel Leitão Pires Caldeira, Vasco Nuno da Gama de Jesus Soares, Pedro Miguel de Figueiredo Dinis Oliveira Gaspar, "Power Saving MAC Protocols in Wireless Sensor Networks: A Performance Assessment Analysis", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 341–347, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060438
16. Ahmed R. Sadik, Christian Goerick, "Multi-Robot System Architecture Design in SysML and BPMN", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 176–183, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060421
17. Juanita Juanita, Titus Hari Setiawan, Anwar Ma’ruf, "The Operational Performance of Mass Transportation Before Covid-19 and New Normal Life: Case Study BRT TransJateng, Central Java", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 361–366, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060342
18. Abderrahmane Ouddasser, Anass Mellouki, Yassine Belyagou, Kamal Yazzif, "The health Sector Between Innovation and Organizational Performance: Applied Research in Moroccan Hospitals", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 277–285, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060331
19. Md Mahmudul Hasan, Nafiul Hasan, Dil Afroz, Ferdaus Anam Jibon, Md. Arman Hossen, Md. Shahrier Parvage, Jakaria Sulaiman Aongkon, "Electroencephalogram Based Medical Biometrics using Machine Learning: Assessment of Different Color Stimuli", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 27–34, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060304
20. Abdulla M. Alsharhan, "Survey of Agent-Based Simulations for Modelling COVID-19 Pandemic", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 439–447, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060250
21. Amany Khalil, Osama Tolba, Sherif Ezzeldin, "Design Optimization of Open Office Building Form for Thermal Energy Performance using Genetic Algorithm", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 254–261, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060228
22. Amine Mounaam, Ridouane Oulhiq, Ahmed Souissi, Mohamed Salouhi, Khalid Benjelloun, Ahmed Bichri, "A Model-Driven Digital Twin Framework Development for Sulfur Dioxide Conversion Units Simulation", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 122–131, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060215
23. Futra Zamsyah Md Fadzil, Alireza Mousavi, Morad Danishvar, "Event Modeller Data Analytic for Harmonic Failures", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1343–1359, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj0601154
24. Meyliana, Cadelina Cassandra, Yakob Utama Chandra, Surjandy, Erick Fernando, Henry Antonius Eka Widjaja, Harjanto Prabowo, "Recording of Academic Transcript Data to Prevent the Forgery based on Blockchain Technology", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1273–1278, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj0601145
25. Naeem Ahmed Haq Nawaz, Musab Bassam Al-Zghoul, Hamid Raza Malik, Omar Radhi Aqeel Al-Zabi, Bilal Radi Ageel Al-Zabi, "Wireless Sensor Networks Simulation Model to Compute Verification Time in Terms of Groups for Massive Crowd", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1229–1240, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj0601140
26. Shahrinaz Ismail, Faes Tumin, "Simulating Get-Understand-Share-Connect Model using Process Mining", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1040–1048, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj0601115
27. Ayodele Periola, Akintunde Alonge, Kingsley Ogudo, "Underwater Computing Systems and Astronomy–Multi-Disciplinary Research Potential and Benefits", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1000–1011, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj0601111
28. Abdulla Alsharhan, Said Salloum, Khaled Shaalan, "The Impact of eLearning as a Knowledge Management Tool in Organizational Performance", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 928–936, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj0601102
29. Desman Hidayat, Edi Abdurachman, Elidjen, Yanthi Hutagaol, "The Mediating Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation on the Knowledge Creation-Firm Performance Nexus: Evidence from Indonesian IT Companies", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 922–927, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj0601101
30. Syeda Nadiah Fatima Nahri, Shengzhi Du, Barend Jacobus van Wyk, "Active Disturbance Rejection Control Design for a Haptic Machine Interface Platform", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 898–911, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060199
31. Lesia Marushchak, Olha Pavlykivska, Galyna Liakhovych, Oksana Vakun, Nataliia Shveda, "Accounting Software in Modern Business", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 862–870, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060195
32. Abdulla M. Alsharhan, "Simulating COVID-19 Trajectory in the UAE and the Impact of Possible Intervention Scenarios", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 791–797, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060188
33. Erick Fernando, Meyliana, Harco Leslie Hendric Spits Warnars, Edi Abdurachman, "Blockchain Technology for Tracing Drug with a Multichain Platform: Simulation Method", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 765–769, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060184
34. Alan Catovic, Elvedin Kljuno, "Comparation of Analytical Models and Review of Numerical Simulation Method for Blast Wave Overpressure Estimation after the Explosion", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 748–756, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060182
35. Antonio Vitale, Federico Corraro, Nicola Genito, Luca Garbarino, Leopoldo Verde, "An Innovative Angle of Attack Virtual Sensor for Physical-Analytical Redundant Measurement System Applicable to Commercial Aircraft", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 698–709, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060176
36. Deddy Kurniawan, Ditdit Nugeraha Utama, "Decision Support Model using FIM Sugeno for Assessing the Academic Performance", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 605–611, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060165
37. Amin S. Ibrahim, Khaled Y Youssef, Mohamed Abouelatta, "Traffic Aggregation Techniques for Optimizing IoT Networks", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 509–518, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060156
38. Najat Messaoudi, Jaafar Khalid Naciri, Bahloul Bensassi, "Mathematical Modelling of Output Responses and Performance Variations of an Education System due to Changes in Input Parameters", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 327–335, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060137
39. Maria Cristina Piccirilli, Francesco Grasso, Antonio Luchetta, Stefano Manetti, Alberto Reatti, "Simulation of Pulse Width Modulation DC-DC Converters Through Symbolic Analysis Techniques", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 275–282, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060132
40. Ndiatenda Ndou, Ritesh Ajoodha, Ashwini Jadhav, "A Case Study to Enhance Student Support Initiatives Through Forecasting Student Success in Higher-Education", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 230–241, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060126
41. Anatoly Stepanov, Vitaly Enin, "Sensorless Control and Corrected Error Commutation of the Brushless DC Motor", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 224–229, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060125
42. Yanet Cruz Flores, Tania Retuerto-Azaña, Jaquelin Nuñez-Artica, Brian Meneses-Claudio, Hernan Matta Solis, Lourdes Matta-Zamudio, "Lifestyle in Nursing Students at a University of North Lima", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 164–168, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060118
43. Lonia Masangu, Ashwini Jadhav, Ritesh Ajoodha, "Predicting Student Academic Performance Using Data Mining Techniques", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 153–163, 2021. doi: 10.25046/aj060117
44. Nin Hayati Mohd Yusoff, Nurul Azma Zakaria, "Development and Performance Analysis of HRPL Using 6LoWPAN CC2538 Module for IoT Ecosystem", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 1217–1224, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj0506145
45. Anatoly Panyukov, Alexander Bogushov, "Development of Secondary Processing Data Methods under Single Point Thunderstorm Activity Monitoring", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 1096–1102, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj0506133
46. Rewan Kumar Dahal, Ganesh Bhattarai, Dipendra Karki, "Determinants of Technological and Innovation Performance of the Nepalese Cellular Telecommunications Industry from the Customers’ Perspective", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 1013–1020, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj0506122
47. Nu’man Amri Maliky, Nanda Pratama Putra, Mochamad Teguh Subarkah, Syarif Hidayat, "Prediction of Vessel Dynamic Model Parameters using Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulation", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 926–936, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj0506110
48. Muhammad Arif Riza, Yun Ii Go, "Investigation of the Effect of FBG Profiles, Temperature and Transmission Distance for Environmental Sensing & Monitoring", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 912, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj0506108
49. Ignacio Alvarez-Placencia, Diana Sánchez-Partida, Patricia Cano-Olivos, José-Luis Martínez-Flores, "Inventory Management Practices during COVID 19 Pandemic to Maintain Liquidity Increasing Customer Service level in an Industrial Products Company in Mexico", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 613–626, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj050675
50. Robert Antonio Romero-Flores, "An Economic Theory Perspective for the Fight Against Poverty in the Peruvian Andes", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 497–506, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj050659
51. Eugen Harinda, Hadi Larijani, Ryan M. Gibson, "Trace-Driven Simulation of LoRaWAN Air Channel Propagation in an Urban Scenario", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 211–220, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj050625
52. Kamal Jaiswal, Serdar Dalkilic, Evangelos Papageorgiou, Balgopal Singh, "Aviation MRO: Impact of Physical Environment Factors on Job Performance in Aircraft Maintenance Organization", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 148–154, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj050617
53. Klyagin Viktor Anatolievich, Laushin Dmitry Andreevich, "The Impact Assessment of the Errors in Determining the Mass and Zero Lift-Drag Coefficient on the Aircraft’s Performance Data", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 118–126, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj050613
54. Irin Tri Anggraini, Achmad Basuki, Nobuo Funabiki, Xiqin Lu, Chih-Peng Fan, Yu-Chung Hsu, Cheng-Hsien Lin, "A Proposal of Exercise and Performance Learning Assistant System for Self-Practice at Home", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 1196–1203, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj0505145
55. Thi Anh Van Nguyen, Khac Hieu Nguyen, "The Impact of Innovation on the Performance of Manufacturing Enterprises in Vietnam", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 984–990, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj0505120
56. Fayza A. Nada, "Performance Analysis of Selective Repeat ARQ Protocol Used in Digital Data Transmission Over Unreliable Channels", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 927–933, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj0505113
57. Gcobisile Matafeni, Ritesh Ajoodha, "Using Big Data Analytics to Predict Learner Attrition based on First Year Marks at a South African University", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 920–926, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj0505112
58. Mika Karjalainen, Tero Kokkonen, "Review of Pedagogical Principles of Cyber Security Exercises", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 592–600, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj050572
59. Sanaz Gheibi, Tania Banerjee, Sanjay Ranka, Sartaj Sahni, "Fine Tuning the Performance of Parallel Codes", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 824–840, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj050497
60. Supalak Sathiracheewin, Patamaporn Sripadungtham, Settakorn Kamuang, "Performance Analysis of Grid-Connected PV Rooftop, at Sakon Nakhon Province, Thailand", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 816–823, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj050496
61. Fayza Ahmed Nada, "Performance Analysis of Go-Back-N ARQ Protocol Used in Data Transmission Over Noisy Channels", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 612–617, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj050472
62. Pratik Kumar Singh, Fadillah Binti Ismail, Chan Shiau Wei, Muhammad Imran, Syed Ashfaq Ahmed, "A Framework of E-Procurement Technology for Sustainable Procurement in ISO 14001 Certified Firms in Malaysia", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 424–431, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj050450
63. Rand Talib, Alexander Rodrigues, Nabil Nassif, "Energy Recovery Equipment and Control Strategies in Various Climate Regions", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 47–53, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj050407
64. Nahid Akhter Jahan, M. Mofazzal Hossain, "Efficiency Enhancement of p-i-n Solar Cell Embedding Quantum Wires in the Intrinsic Layer", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 540–546, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj050367
65. Rafidah Abd Karim, Airil Haimi Mohd Adnan, Mohd Haniff Mohd Tahir, Mohd Hafiz Mat Adam, Noorzaina Idris, Izwah Ismail, "The Application of Mobile Learning Technologies at Malaysian Universities Through Mind Mapping Apps for Augmenting Writing Performance", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 510–517, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj050363
66. Md. Imdadul Hoque, Abul kalam Azad, Mohammad Abu Hurayra Tuhin, Zayed Us Salehin, "University Students Result Analysis and Prediction System by Decision Tree Algorithm", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 115–122, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj050315
67. Gede Indrawan, I Made Agus Oka Gunawan, Sariyasa, "The Usability Evaluation of Academic Progress Information System (SIsKA-NG)", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 460–468, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj050259
68. Jorge Castro-Bedriñana, Doris Chirinos-Peinado, Felipe Zenteno-Vigo, Gianfranco Castro-Chirinos, "Satisfaction of Old Graduates of Zootechnical Engineering for Improvement of Educational Quality at the UNCP", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 166–173, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj050221
69. Dora Yvonne Arce Santillan, Omar Freddy Chamorro Atalaya, Yesica Pamela Leandro Chacón, Jorge Isaac Castro Bedriñana, Elizabeth Rosario Martínez Santillán, "The Proportionality of Women Graduated from the Professional Career of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering at UNTELS: Analysis of their Academic Performance and Labor Field of Action", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 368–372, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj050147
70. Lorenzo Damiani, Roberto Revetria, Emanuele Morra, Pietro Giribone, "A Smart Box for Blood Bags Transport: Simulation Model of the Cooling Autonomy Control System", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 249–255, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj050131
71. Vladyslav Kucher, Jens Hunloh, Sergei Gorlatch, "Performance Portability and Unified Profiling for Finite Element Methods on Parallel Systems", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 119–127, 2020. doi: 10.25046/aj050116
72. Mariam Houti, Laila El Abbadi, Abdellah Abouabdellah, "CSFs for the Implementation of the Hybrid Lean ERP System. Stakeholders Interactions", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 443–447, 2019. doi: 10.25046/aj040655
73. Aref Hassan Kurd Ali, Halikul Lenando, Mohamad Alrfaay, Slim Chaoui, Haithem Ben Chikha, Akram Ajouli, "Performance Analysis of Routing Protocols in Resource-Constrained Opportunistic Networks", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 402–413, 2019. doi: 10.25046/aj040651
74. Omar Freddy Chamorro Atalaya, Dora Yvonne Arce Santillan, Jorge Isaac Castro Bedriñana, Yesica Pamela Leandro Chacón, Martin Díaz Choque, "The Correlation of the Specific and Global Performance of Teachers in UNTELS Engineering Schools", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 196–202, 2019. doi: 10.25046/aj040625
75. Kira Rambow-Hoeschele, Nick Giani Rambow, Matthias Michael Hampel, David Keith Harrison, Bruce MacLeod Wood, "Creating a Digital Twin: Simulation of a Business Model Design Tool", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 53–60, 2019. doi: 10.25046/aj040607
76. Ramachandran Ravi Sowmiyasree, Nachimuthu Maheswari, Manickam Sivagami, "Improving the Performance of Hadoop Framework Using Optimization Process in the Information Management", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 327–333, 2019. doi: 10.25046/aj040542
77. Mohamed Elhefnawy, "Design and Simulation of a Doppler-Radar RF Front-End Transceiver", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 250–257, 2019. doi: 10.25046/aj040531
78. Muhammad Usman Sheikh, Ritayan Biswas, Jukka Lempiainen, Riku Jantti, "Assessment of Coordinated Multipoint Transmission Modes for Indoor and Outdoor Users at 28 GHz in Urban Macrocellular Environment", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 119–126, 2019. doi: 10.25046/aj040216
79. Lev Lafayette, Bernd Wiebelt, Dirk von Suchdoletz, Helena Rasche, Michael Janczyk, Daniel Tosello, "The Chimera and the Cyborg", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1–7, 2019. doi: 10.25046/aj040201
80. János Végh, József Vásárhelyi, Dániel Drótos, "Can parallelization save the (computing) world?", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 141–158, 2019. doi: 10.25046/aj040114
81. Waleed Al Shehri, Maher Khemakhem, Abdullah Basuhail, Fathy E. Eassa, "A Proposed Architecture for Parallel HPC-based Resource Management System for Big Data Applications", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 40–44, 2019. doi: 10.25046/aj040105
82. Zeinab Hajiabolhasani, Romeo Marian, John Boland, "Simulation-Optimisation of a Granularity Controlled Consumer Supply Network Using Genetic Algorithms", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 455–468, 2018. doi: 10.25046/aj030654
83. Juan Sebastián Gilart Pulido, María Camila Zambrano Bello, Ender Jhobany Orduz Duarte, "Numerical Simulation of One Pavement Structure of Polyethylene Terephthalate Submitted to Static Point Loads", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 478–487, 2018. doi: 10.25046/aj030554
84. Rabiaa Mars, Badii Bouzidi, Bassem El Badsi, Abderrazak Yangui, "Improved DTC Control Strategy of B12 Inverter Fed BLDC Motor Drives Considering Commutation Torque Dips", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 427–438, 2018. doi: 10.25046/aj030549
85. Moises Levy, Daniel Raviv, "An Overview of Data Center Metrics and a Novel Approach for a New Family of Metrics", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 238–251, 2018. doi: 10.25046/aj030228
86. Tiago Antunes, Tiago Alexandre dos Reis Antunes, Paulo Jorge da Costa Santos, Armando José Pinheiro Marques Pires, "Limitations of HVAC Offshore Cables in Large Scale Offshore Wind Farm Applications", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 146–156, 2018. doi: 10.25046/aj030217
87. Zheng Li, Maria Kihl, Yiqun Chen, He Zhang, "Two-Stage Performance Engineering of Container-based Virtualization", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 521–536, 2018. doi: 10.25046/aj030163
88. Aneta George, Liam Peyton, Voicu Groza, "Systematic Tool Support of Engineering Education Performance Management", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 418–425, 2018. doi: 10.25046/aj030151
89. Reem Izzeldin Salim, Hassan Noura, Abbas Fardoun, "The Use of LMS AMESim in the Fault Diagnosis of a Commercial PEM Fuel Cell System", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 297–309, 2018. doi: 10.25046/aj030136
90. Muhammad Usman Sheikh, Jukka Lempiainen, "Analysis of Outdoor and Indoor Propagation at 15 GHz and Millimeter Wave Frequencies in Microcellular Environment", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 160–167, 2018. doi: 10.25046/aj030120
91. Ruijian Zhang, Deren Li, "Applying Machine Learning and High Performance Computing to Water Quality Assessment and Prediction", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 285–289, 2017. doi: 10.25046/aj020635
92. Jose Manuel Diaz Moreno, Concepcion Garcia Vazquez, Maria Teresa Gonzalez Montesinos, Francisco Ortegon Gallego, Giuseppe Viglialoro, "Steel heat treating: mathematical modelling and numerical simulation of a problem arising in the automotive industry", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 55–62, 2017. doi: 10.25046/aj020510
93. Asim Alkhaibari, "A Review of Anti- Podal Vivaldi Antenna Operating in Cellular Mobile Communications", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 204–208, 2017. doi: 10.25046/aj020427
94. Zdenko Balaž, Davor Predavec, "Cognitive Cybernetics vs. Captology", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 107–118, 2017. doi: 10.25046/aj020614
95. Michael Pelosi, Michael Brown, Kinza Ahmad, "Improved Hybrid Opponent System for Professional Military Training", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1804–1814, 2017. doi: 10.25046/aj0203220
96. Habib Smei, Kamel Smiri, Abderrazak Jemai, "A New profiling and pipelining approach for HEVC Decoder on ZedBoard Platform", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 40–48, 2017. doi: 10.25046/aj020605
97. Kirsten Weide-Zaage, Guillermo Payá-Vayá, "COTS – Harsh Condition Effects Considerations from Technology to User Level", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1592–1598, 2017. doi: 10.25046/aj0203198
98. Moises Levy, Jason O. Hallstrom, "A Reliable, Non-Invasive Approach to Data Center Monitoring and Management", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1577–1584, 2017. doi: 10.25046/aj0203196
99. Frank Müller, Bernd Bertsche, "Planning an Availability Demonstration Test with Consideration of Confidence Level", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1565–1576, 2017. doi: 10.25046/aj0203195
100. Zoltan Sarkany, Marta Rencz, "A Way for Measuring the Temperature Transients of Capacitors", Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1381–1389, 2017. doi: 10.25046/aj0203174