The International

Proceedings of Federation
the 20th Worldof Congress
Automatic Control
Proceedings
Proceedings of
of the
the 20th World
20th9-14,
World Congress
Congress
Toulouse,
The France,
International July
Federation 2017
of Automatic Control
The
The International
Proceedings
International Federation
of the 20th World
Federation of Automatic
of Congress Control
Available
Automatic online at www.sciencedirect.com
Control
Toulouse,
Toulouse, France,
France,
The International July
July 9-14,
9-14, 2017
2017
Toulouse, France,Federation of Automatic Control
July 9-14, 2017
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017
ScienceDirect
Layout evolution effort for
IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1product family in Reconfigurable
(2017) 10166–10171
Layout
Layout evolution
evolution effort
effort
Manufacturing
Layout evolution for
for product
product
effort for product System family
family in
in Reconfigurable
in Reconfigurable
design
family Reconfigurable
Layout evolution effort
Manufacturing
Manufacturingfor product
System
System family in
design
design Reconfigurable
Manufacturing System design
Manufacturing
Hichem Haddou-Benderbal*, MohammedSystem design
Dahane* and Lyes Benyoucef**
Hichem Haddou-Benderbal*,
Hichem Haddou-Benderbal*, Mohammed Mohammed  Dahane* and
Dahane* and LyesLyes Benyoucef**
Benyoucef**
Hichem * Haddou-Benderbal*,
LGIPM Research Laboratory,Mohammed Université
Dahane* and Lyes
de Lorraine, Metz,Benyoucef**
France
Hichem Haddou-Benderbal*, Mohammed  Dahane* and Lyes Benyoucef**
**({hicham.haddou-ben-derbal,
LGIPM Research Laboratory, mohammed.dahane}@univ-lorraine.fr)
Université de Lorraine, Metz, France
* LGIPM
LGIPM ResearchResearch Laboratory,
Laboratory, Université
 Université de de Lorraine,
Lorraine, Metz,Metz, France
France
**
LGIPMLSIS-UMR
*({hicham.haddou-ben-derbal,
Research
({hicham.haddou-ben-derbal, 7296, Aix-Marseille
Laboratory, University,
Université de Marseille,
mohammed.dahane}@univ-lorraine.fr)
Lorraine, Metz, France
France
({hicham.haddou-ben-derbal, mohammed.dahane}@univ-lorraine.fr)
mohammed.dahane}@univ-lorraine.fr)
** LSIS-UMR
LSIS-UMR 7296,
({hicham.haddou-ben-derbal,
** 7296, (lyes.benyoucef@lsis.org)
Aix-Marseille University, Marseille,
Marseille, France
mohammed.dahane}@univ-lorraine.fr)
Aix-Marseille University, France
** LSIS-UMR 7296, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France
** LSIS-UMR 7296, (lyes.benyoucef@lsis.org)
Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France
(lyes.benyoucef@lsis.org)
(lyes.benyoucef@lsis.org)
(lyes.benyoucef@lsis.org)
Abstract: This paper describes a multi-objective approach that assesses the evolution and layout transition
efforts
Abstract:
Abstract: between
This paper products of a aproduct
describes family inapproach
multi-objective reconfigurable manufacturing
that assesses the evolution systems (RMS)
and layout design.
transition
Abstract: This This paper
paper describes
describes aa multi-objective
multi-objective approach approach that that assesses
assesses thethe evolution
evolution andand layout
layout transition
transition
The
efforts
Abstract:layout
betweenevolution
This paper products effort
of
describes a is minimized
product family andin system performance
reconfigurable metrics
manufacturing (i.e.,
systems average
(RMS) machine
design.
efforts
efforts between
between products
products of aa aproduct
of multi-objective
product family
family in inapproach that assesses
reconfigurable
reconfigurable the evolution
manufacturing
manufacturing and layout
systems
systems (RMS)
(RMS) transition
design.
design.
utilization
The
efforts
The layout and
between
layout alternative
evolution
products
evolution effort
of
effort replacement
a isproduct
is minimized
minimized machines
family and
andin withinperformance
system the system)
performance
reconfigurable
system manufacturingare maximized.
metrics
metrics (i.e., average
systems
(i.e., The machine
average
(RMS) problem
machine
design.
The layout evolution effort is minimized and system performance metrics (i.e., average machine
considers
utilization
The layout
utilization various
and
evolution
and manufacturing
alternative
alternative effort is constraints
replacement
minimized
replacement asand
machines
machines wellsystem as various
within
within themetrics
system)
performance
the system) tometrics
ensure
are the
are maximized.high
maximized.
(i.e., performance
The machine
average
The problem
problem of
utilization and alternative replacement machines within the system) are maximized. The problem
the designed
considers
utilization
considers andreconfigurable
various manufacturing
alternative manufacturing
constraints
replacement system
as
machines well following
as various
within the
the generated
metrics
system) to layouts.
ensure
are the The
high
maximized. effectiveness
performance
The problem of
considers various
various manufacturing
manufacturing constraints constraints as as well
well as as various
various metrics
metrics to to ensure
ensure the
the high
high performance
performance of of
developed
the designed
considers
the various approach
reconfigurable
manufacturing is manufacturing
evaluated
manufacturing
constraintsusingsystem
asanwell
system illustrative
as variousnumerical
following the generated
metrics toexample. theThe
layouts.
ensure Theresults
high show the
effectiveness
performance of
the designed
designed reconfigurable
reconfigurable manufacturing system following
following the
the generated
generated layouts.
layouts. The
The effectiveness
effectiveness of
effectiveness
the developed
designed of the
approach multi-objective
reconfigurable is evaluated approach
manufacturing using to
an
system help decision
illustrative
following maker’s
numerical
the designing
generated example. RMS.
layouts. The
The The
resultsapproach
show
effectiveness can
the
of
the developed
developed approach
approach is is evaluated
evaluated using using an an illustrative
illustrative numerical
numerical example.
example. The The results
results showshow the the
be used
effectiveness
the later of
developed
effectiveness to approach
of guarantee
the
the a better
multi-objective
is
multi-objectiveevaluated system
approach
using
approach performance
to
an
to help
illustrative
help when numerical
decision
decision solving the
maker’s
maker’s problems
designing
example.
designing RMS.of machine
The
RMS. The
results
The layoutcan
approach
show
approach canin
the
effectiveness of the multi-objective approach to help decision maker’s designing RMS. The approach can
the used
be
be context
used
effectiveness later
laterofofRMS.
to
to guarantee
the a better
multi-objective
guarantee a better system
system
approach performance
to help
performance when maker’s
decision
when solving the
solving the problems
designing
problems RMS.of machine
of machine
The layoutcan
approach
layout in
in
be used later to guarantee a better system performance when solving the problems of machine layout in
the used
be
the context
contextlaterofto
of RMS.
guarantee a Federation
RMS. better system performance whenHosting
solvingbythe problems of machine layout in
© 2017,
the context
Keywords: IFAC of RMS.
(International
Reconfigurable manufacturing of Automatic
systems,Control) machine Elsevier
layout problem, Ltd. All rights
transition reserved.
effort, layout
the context of RMS.
design,
Keywords: performance
Reconfigurable metrics.
Reconfigurable manufacturing
Keywords: Reconfigurable manufacturing
manufacturing systems, systems,
systems, machine machine layout
machine layout problem,
layout problem, transition
problem, transition effort,
transition effort, layout
effort, layout
layout
Keywords:
design,
Keywords: performance
design, performanceReconfigurable
performance metrics. metrics.
metrics. manufacturing systems, machine layout problem, transition effort, layout
design, 
design, performance metrics. reconfiguration as well as frequent redesigning. The aim of

1. INTRODUCTION 
this process is as
reconfiguration to well
ensureas the needed
frequent reconfigurability
redesigning. The aimaimthatof
Nowadays, the manufacturing 1.
1. INTRODUCTION world witnesses a frequently reconfiguration  reconfiguration as as well
well asas frequent
frequent redesigning.
redesigning. The The aim of of
1. INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION characterize
this process
process is
reconfiguration
this theas
is toRMS.
to ensure
well
ensure The
as the frequent
needed
frequent
the needed reconfiguration
reconfigurability
redesigning. The
reconfigurability aim and
that
of
that
varying
Nowadays,
Nowadays, product the demand
manufacturing
1. and fast
INTRODUCTION introduction
world witnesses of new
a products
frequently this process is to ensure the needed reconfigurability that
Nowadays, the the manufacturing
manufacturing world world witnesses
witnesses aa frequently
frequently redesign characterize
this process
characterize of islayout
the
the toRMS. mustThe
ensure
RMS. The alsofrequent
the maintain
needed
frequent the system high
reconfiguration
reconfigurability
reconfiguration and
that
and
that leads
varying
Nowadays, productto
theunpredictable
demand
manufacturingand fastmarket changes
introduction of as a well
new as a characterize the RMS. The frequent reconfiguration and
products
varying
varying product
product demand
demand and fastworld
and fast witnesses
introduction
introduction of
of new
new frequently
products
products performance redesign
characterize (productivity,
of the
layout RMS. must reactivity,
also maintain maintainability…etc.).
the system high
ferocious
that leads
varying
that leads global
product competition.
to unpredictable
unpredictable
demand and fastTo cope changes
market with these
changes
introduction of as increasingly
new well as aa redesign
products redesign of of layout
layout mustThe
must alsofrequent
also maintainreconfiguration
maintain the
the system
system high and
high
that leads to unpredictable market changes as well as
to market as well as a Maintainingperformance
redesign
performance of high
layout performance
(productivity,
must
(productivity, can be
reactivity,
also achieved
maintain
reactivity, by integrating
maintainability…etc.).
the system
maintainability…etc.). high
influencing
ferocious
that manufacturing
global
leadsglobal competition. To
to unpredictable factorsTo and to
cope changes
market offer
with these a cost-effective
well as a performance
these increasingly (productivity, reactivity, maintainability…etc.).
ferocious
ferocious global competition.
competition. To cope
cope with with theseasincreasingly
increasingly performance
Maintaining
Maintaining metrics
high at the outset
performance
(productivity, canofbe
reactivity,theachieved
layout design
by process.
integrating
maintainability…etc.).
and
influencing
ferocious
influencingrapid response
manufacturing
global competition.
manufacturing toTo cope
factors
factors production
and
and to offer
with
to offer requirements
aa cost-effective
these increasingly
cost-effective Maintaining high high performance
performance can
can bebe achieved
achieved by
by integrating
integrating
influencing manufacturing factors and to offer a cost-effective Maintaining Compared
performance to
high conventional
metrics at the
performance and
outsetcanof existing
the
be layout
achieved systems,
design
by RMS
process.
integrating
Reconfigurable-manufacturing
and
influencingrapid response to systems to(RMS)
production offer a was proposed performance
requirements performance metrics
metrics at at the
the outset
outset ofof the
the layout
layout design
design process.
process.
and
and rapidmanufacturing
rapid response factors
response to
to and
production
production cost-effective
requirements
requirements Compared provides
Compared
performance new principles
tometrics
to conventional
at the
conventional and alternatives.
andof the
outset
and existing Thus,
layout
existing it isprocess.
systems,
design
systems, a RMS
very
RMS
by Koren
and rapid (1999).
Reconfigurable-manufacturing RMS is formed
response
Reconfigurable-manufacturing to systems by (RMS)
production
systems using reconfigurable,
(RMS) was proposed
requirements Compared to conventional and existing systems, RMS
Reconfigurable-manufacturing systems (RMS) was was proposed
proposed provides active research
provides
Compared new to field.
principles
conventional and alternatives.
alternatives.
and existing Thus, it is
systems, is aa RMS
very
automated
by Koren (1999).and multifunctional
Reconfigurable-manufacturing RMS is formed machines.
systems by Thesereconfigurable,
using machines are provides new principles and alternatives. Thus, it is a very
new principles and Thus, it very
by
by Koren
Koren (1999).(1999). RMS RMS is is formed
formed by (RMS)
by using was proposed
using reconfigurable,
reconfigurable, active research
provides
active research
new field.
principles
field. and alternatives. Thus, it is a very
seen
by as
automated
Koren
automated oneand of
(1999). the major
multifunctional
RMS is components
formed machines.
by of
These
using RMS. They
machines
reconfigurable, are active research field.
automated and and multifunctional
multifunctional machines. machines. These These machines
machines are are active research field.
known
seen as
automated asonereconfigurable
andof the major machine
components tool (RMT).
of RMS. RMT Theycan arebe
seen
seen as
as oneone ofmultifunctional
of the
the major
major components machines.
components These
of
of RMS.
RMS. machines
They
They are are
easily
known
seen
known transformed
as asonereconfigurable
of thewhen
major requirements
machine
components toolchange.
(RMT).
of RMS.This
RMT ability
Theycan are is
be
known as reconfigurable machine tool (RMT). RMT can be
as reconfigurable machine tool (RMT). RMT can be
due
easily
known
easilyto transformed
the
as specification
transformed
reconfigurable whenofrequirements
their design
requirements
machine tool for a customized
change.
(RMT). This
RMT range
ability
can is
be
easily transformed when requirements change. This ability is
when change. This ability is
of
duerequirement
easily
due to transformed
to the (Mehrabi
the specification
specification when ofet
of al. 2002).
their
requirements
their designOne
design for aofcustomized
change.
for a theThis
most
customized critical
range
ability
range is
due to the specification of their design for a customized range
issues
of
due
of to in specification
requirement
the
requirement designing(Mehrabi
(Mehrabi theofetRMS
et al.
their
al. is machine
2002).
design
2002). One
for
One aof
of layout
the most
customized
the most problem.
critical
range
critical
of requirement (Mehrabi et al. 2002). One of the most critical
Unlike
issues conventional
in
of requirement designing(Mehrabi manufacturing
the RMSal. 2002).is system,
machine the
One of layoutthe RMS
most layout
problem.
critical
issues
issues in
in designing
designing the etRMS
the RMS is
is machine
machine layout
layout problem.
problem.
needs
Unlike
issues
Unlike toin take
conventionalinto
designing consideration
manufacturing
the RMS not
is only
system,
machine the current
the
layout RMS product
layout
problem.
Unlike conventional
conventional manufacturing
manufacturing system, system, the the RMSRMS layoutlayout
to be
needs
Unlike
needs produced
to take
conventional and
into classical
consideration
manufacturing constraint
not only (precedence
system, the current
the RMS relations,
product
layout
needs to to take
take intointo consideration
consideration not not only
only the the current
current product
product
machine
to be
needs
to to capabilities
produced
take and
into …etc.)
classical
consideration but also
constraint
not the
only new
(precedence
the specificities
current relations,
product of
to be
be produced
produced and and classical
classical constraint
constraint (precedence
(precedence relations,
relations,
RMS,
machine
to be
machine thecapabilities
produced wholeand
capabilities product
…etc.)
classical family
but and the
also
constraint the
the transition
new
(precedence that may
specificities
relations, of
machine capabilities …etc.) but also the new specificities of
…etc.) but also new specificities of
occur
RMS, when
machine
RMS, the wholeswitching
thecapabilities
whole product from
…etc.)
product family
but
family onealsoproduct
and
and the new
the
the to another
transition
transition that
specificities
thatin may
this
may of
RMS, the whole product family and the transition that may
product
occur
RMS,
occur when
the
when family.
whole This
switching
product
switching transition
from
from family one
one can
and be
product
productthe seen
to in Figure1
another
transition
to another thatin
in this
may
thisas
occur when switching from one product to another in this
described
product
occur by
family. (KorenThis 2010).
transition The figure
can be describes
seen in that
Figure1during as
productwhen
product family.
family. switching
This from onecan
This transition
transition product
can be
be seen to another
seen in
in Figure1
Figure1in this as
as Fig.1. RMS changes during product family transition (Koren 2010)
the lifetime
described
product
described by of
family.
by RMS,
(Koren
(KorenThis the
2010). system
transition
2010). The
The undergoes
figure
can
figure be seensome
describes
describes in changes
that
Figure1
that during
during in
as
described by (Koren 2010). The figure describes that during Fig.1. RMS
RMS changes during family transition ((Koren
during product family Koren 2010)
response
the lifetime
described
the to
by ofnew RMS,
(Koren products.
the
2010). systemTheUnder these
undergoes
figure conditions,
some
describes changes
that RMS
during in Fig.1. Fig.1. RMS changes
changes during product
product family transition
transition (Koren 2010) 2010)
the lifetime
lifetime of of RMS,
RMS, the the system
system undergoes
undergoes some some changes
changes in in ResearchFig.1. RMS efforts
changes are
duringmainly
product addressed
family to RMS
transition ( Korendesign,
2010)
requires
response
the lifetime
response being
to ofnew more
RMS, flexible,
products.
the system robust
Under and
these
undergoes reconfigurable,
conditions,
some changes RMSandin
response to to newnew products.
products. Under Under these these conditions,
conditions, RMS RMS Research modelling, efforts
Research and the are
efforts generation
are mainly
mainly ofaddressed
process plans.
addressed to
to Nevertheless,
RMS
RMS design,
design,
must adapt
requires
response to tonew
being different
more production
flexible,
products. robust requirements
and reconfigurable, by going and Research efforts are mainly addressed to RMS design,
requires
requires beingbeing more
more flexible, Under
flexible, robust these
robust and conditions,
and reconfigurable,
reconfigurable, RMSand
and Research there is very
modelling, andlittle works
the are on the
generation of operational
process toaspects
plans. ofdesign,
Nevertheless,RMS
through
must adapt
requires
must adaptfrequent
being to more
to configuration
different
different production
flexible,
production changes.
robust requirements
and reconfigurable,
requirements by going
by going
and modelling, efforts
modelling, and
and the mainly
the generation
generation ofaddressed
of process
process plans.
plans. RMS
Nevertheless,
Nevertheless,
must adapt to different production requirements by going modelling, design
there is along
very with
little
andlittle layout.
works
the works on
generationTherefore,
the there
operational
of operational
process plans. is a necessity
aspects of
Nevertheless,RMS of
The
through
must
through
through
goal
adapt of such
frequent
frequent
frequent
frequentproduction
configuration
to different
configuration
configuration
change is torequirements
changes.
changes.
changes.
reduce manufacturing by going there there is
is very
very
reconsidering
design along
little
the
with
works
existing
layout.
on
on the
the
methods
operational
Therefore, and
there
aspects
aspects
approaches
is a
of
of RMS
used
necessity
RMS
for
of
cost goal
The as well of suchas increasing
such frequent change thechanges.
change system
is to efficiency.
to reduce Thus, the design
manufacturing there is very
design along little
along with works
with layout. on the
layout. Therefore, operational
Therefore, therethere is aspects of
is aa necessity RMS
necessity of of
through
The goalfrequent
The goal of suchconfiguration
of frequent
frequent change is
is to reduce
reduce manufacturing
manufacturing reconsidering existing systems.the This reconsideration
existing methods will
and help
approachesus better
used meet
for
layout
cost as must
well be as more changeable.
increasing the Itismust
system go through
efficiency. frequent
Thus, the design along
reconsidering
reconsidering the with layout.
the existing Therefore,
existing methods
methods and there is
and approaches a necessity
approaches used used for of
for
The
cost goal
as of
well such
as frequent
increasing change
the system to reduce
efficiency.
cost as well as increasing the system efficiency. Thus, the reconsidering manufacturing
Thus, the existing systems. This reconsideration will help us better meet
the existing methods and approaches used for
layout
cost asmust
layout
layout wellbe
must
must
more
beasmore
be changeable.
increasing
more changeable.
changeable.the system It
It mustefficiency.
It must
must go
go through
throughThus,
go through
frequent
frequent
frequentthe existing existing systems.
systems. ThisThis reconsideration
reconsideration will will help
help usus better
better meet
meet
existing systems. This reconsideration will help us better meet
layout must
Copyright be more
© 2017 IFAC changeable. It must go through frequent10581
2405-8963 ©
Copyright © 2017,
2017 IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control)
IFAC 10581Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Copyright
Peer review©
Copyright 2017
©under IFAC
2017 responsibility
IFAC 10581
10581
of International Federation of Automatic Control.
Copyright © 2017 IFAC
10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.1764 10581
 Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 Hichem Haddou-Benderbal et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 10166–10171 10167
the needs and challenges of RMS by adapting existing
methods and/or developing new ones.
One of the aspects to be explored more deeply is how to deal
with machines layout problems in a RMS context. Why?
Because RMS comprises combinations of software modules,
as well as hardware ones, that can be rearranged, or removed
when needed in a rapid and reliable way. This kind of
rearrangement could be the consequences of quickly adjusting
functionality and production capacity, reconfiguration,
product change within a part family or market requirement
change amongst other, etc. When designing a RMS, a
manufacturer finds several feasible configurations for each
product family (Lacksonen and Hung 1998, Kochhar and
Heragu 1999). Thus, an important issue arises, which is the
choice of optimal configurations or rearrangement for each
family, since different configurations have a significant
impact on profits as well as the whole system (Xiaobo et al.,
2000)
Our research work concerns the question of managing the
machines positioning within an RMS layout. More precisely,
our problem consists in finding the best rearrangement of
selected machines in a layout to ensure the system
responsiveness and high performance when transitioning from
one product to another in the product family. A metaheuristic
is adapted based on the well-known Archived Multi-objective
Simulated Annealing (AMOSA). The approach is based on
three objectives namely the minimization of the transition
effort between layouts of the product family, the
maximization of machine average utilization for all products
of the product family and finally the maximization of
alternatives replacement among the selected machines in case
of unavailability. The three objectives guide the adapted
AMOSA to the best solution based on the given process plan
of each product in the product family.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: section 2
discusses some existing works on the process plan generation
in RMS as well as studies on layout problem in general.
Section 3 presents the considered problem. Section 4
describes the proposed approach. Section 5 illustrates a
numerical example and discusses the obtained results. Section
6 concludes the paper with some future work directions.
2. RELATED WORKS
RMS design undergoes two main tasks. One is related to
selecting the machines to be included in the design, which is
generally based on process planning. Whilst the second,
concerns the disposition of these machines in the layout
process. When it comes to process plan generation in RMS,
the state of the art is very rich. Process plan (or process
planning) is described as the activity that decides the
sequence, which the manufacturing process has to follow
(Nallakumarasamy, 2011). It depict the required operations
order to complete, to produce a single unit of product, as well
as assigning each operation to the suitable machine under its
right configuration. Bensmaine et al. (2012) studied the
process plan generation problems by considering a multi-
objective approach based on AMOSA. The considered
objectives were the cost and the completion time. According
to ElMaraghy (2007) there is a necessity for a reconfigurable
process-plan reconfiguration and evolution to be associated to
the evolution and the changes of both manufacturing systems
10582
and products. The author also attempt to discuss and classify
various process-planning concept.
Other authors tried to generate more performant process plans
by integrating performance metrics at the outset of process
design. Haddou-Benderbal et al. (2015a) considered the
possible unavailability of selected machine in their final
generated process plans. They argued that once process plans
are deployed, if eventual unavailability’s are not taken in
consideration, they might interrupt the production process.
The authors solve the problem by proposing a flexibility
index that guides the process plan generation and proposed an
adapted non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II)
based approach. The flexibility index depicts the number of
alternatives that the process plan may have to dodge the
production process interruption caused by the unavailability.
In another study, Haddou-Benderbal et al. (2015b) guided the
generation of process plans by introduced a new performance
metric called robustness index. This metric represent the
perturbation time caused by eventual machine unavailability.
It helps to generate process plans with minimum perturbations
in the case of machines unavailability’s. A more operational
level approach was proposed in Haddou-Benderbal et al.
(2016) to take a full advantage from these metrics. Authors
attempted to ensure the production process continuity through
managing machine unavailability during the process plan
execution. They adapted the robustness index and solved the
problem by proposing a new hybrid heuristic to minimize the
impact of perturbations on the system, caused by eventual
unavailability of selected machines. In the same context,
reconfigurability effort index was developed Dahane and
Benyoucef (2016). The index determines the reconfigurability
effort in RMS. An adapted NSGA-II algorithm was proposed
to resolve the problem following two objectives namely the
maximization of the reconfiguration index and the
minimization of the total cost of the system.
Guan et al. (2012) adapted an electromagnetism-like
mechanism for the layout design of reconfigurable
manufacturing systems. More specifically the use of
automatic guided vehicles AGV and the reconfiguration of
their path that they consider as a change of layout. The
objective of their work was to reduce system costs (more
specifically material handling cost and reconfiguration cost at
the system level).
Goyal et al. (2016) studied the design of an economic RMS
configuration. Authors proposed a multi-objective
optimization for the RMS flow line configuration. They did
not consider layout design problem.
Benjafaar et al. (2002) stated that for the next generation
factory layouts design, two approaches could be used. The
first approach consists in developing layouts that are more
robust for various manufacturing periods. While the second
one involves the development of flexible layouts. To meet the
frequent production requirement changes, the reconfiguration
of these layouts is achieved with minimal effort.
Heragu et al. (2001) presented a framework in order to
determine the layout for manufacturing environment known
for their constant change in product volumes and mix.
To the best of our knowledge, and by considering the
literature, we can clearly notice even with the very large
amount of research in the field of RMS that there is a dearth
of research incorporating with machine layout problems in the
Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 Hichem Haddou-Benderbal et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 10166–10171
10168

RMS context, and there is a meaningful gap in this field. Our which the operation u is realized
𝐩𝐩
paper represents a first attempt to integrate the RMS design 𝐌𝐌𝐣𝐣 (𝐎𝐎𝐎𝐎𝐮𝐮 ) The operation u of the product p is being
and machine layout problem to overcome the disadvantage of executed on the machine j
the existing literature. More precisely, the problem that we
𝒋𝒋 𝒋𝒋
𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝒋𝒋 [𝑪𝑪𝒍𝒍 ][𝑪𝑪𝒍𝒍′ ] Configuration change time for the machine
introduce in this paper concerns the layout from an evolution 𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗 from the configuration l to the
point of view where we are going to assess this evolution configuration l’
effort. This assessment will help later in a better layout design 𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝑻𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒊𝒋𝒋 [𝑻𝑻𝒒𝒒 ][𝑻𝑻𝒒𝒒′ ] Tool change time for a particular machine
from tool q to the tool q’
in the context of RMS. 𝒑𝒑
𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝒋𝒋 [𝑴𝑴𝒋𝒋 ][𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶𝒖𝒖] Processing time of the operation u of the
3. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION AND FORMULATION product p on the machine Mj
𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝒋𝒋 [ ] Matrix of available configurations for the
3.1 Problem description machine 𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗
To design RMS we must go by two main and distinct tasks. 𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝒑𝒑 [𝑴𝑴𝒋𝒋 ] Matrix of selected machines for product p
The first task concerns the choice of the concerned set of 𝑴𝑴𝑴𝑴𝒋𝒋 [ ] Matrix of available tools for the machine 𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗
𝒑𝒑
machines that will realize the production process. After MTOP[𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶𝒖𝒖 ] Matrix of required tools for the operation u
selecting the appropriate set of machines, we switch to the of the product p
𝒑𝒑 𝒑𝒑
second task that consists of defining the optimal layout of the PRM[𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶𝒖𝒖 ] [𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶𝒖𝒖′ ] Operations precedence matrix
selected machines. In this work, we will consider the first task The product family comprise a number NP of distinct
while basing on the second one, in order to study the products p. The machines 𝑴𝑴𝒋𝒋 have a type j and a limited
transition between layouts. Our work aims to propose a
genuine tool for supporting decision-making for resources number of occurrence 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁[𝑴𝑴𝒋𝒋 ]. Each product p is realized by
management (e.g., machine selection) to ensure optimal a selected set of machines 𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝒑𝒑 [𝑴𝑴𝒋𝒋 ] . The product can also
transition between layouts of the selected machines involved use several duplicates of these machines 𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵𝒑𝒑 [𝑴𝑴𝒋𝒋 ]Ǥ In order
in the RMS design for a product family, while maintaining the to increase the manufacturing system responsiveness and
performances provided by the given process plans as well as reactivity to eventual new needs like product family needs or
minimizing the transition effort between the products in the product evolution, we have to increase the number of
product family. alternative solutions. This can be done by designing
In this paper, we consider that we already have a set of appropriate tools and alternative solution within the generated
selected machines involved in the RMS design. Thus, the process plan in order to deal with any eventual requirement of
optimal process plans are previously generated based on some the product/product family or problems with the selected
performance metrics as proposed by Haddou-Benderbal et al. machines. One of the solution is to consider the changes
(2015b). Table 1 represents the process plan structure. between family products requirement in terms of machine
Moreover, for a better understanding of the problem, the capabilities. These changes can be reduced through the
notations that we used are described in Table 2. combination or the inclusion of existing resources or even
Table 1. Process plan structure adding new compatible ones. When insuring this objective,
we have also to insure machine variety and the best sharing
possible of machines among the products of the whole
Operation OP2 OP5 OP1 OP14 OP7 OP9
product family. Consequently, this will help us to minimize
Designated M2 M10 M1 M10 M1 M4 the transition effort (cost/reconfiguration) when launching
machines new product from the product family on the existing system.
Furthermore, considering inclusion relationship among the
Table 2. Notations selected machines of the whole product family will allow us
NP Number of product in the product family to reach the needed mass customization and fulfil the
NPM Number of candidate machine used to reconfigurable manufacturing system paradigm. The objective
generate input process plans for each is to select a group of machines with the just needed
product of the product family capabilities and capacities that can complete all the needed
NSMp Number of selected machines for the operations of the product family while ensuring a high system
product p performance. To assure the high performance of the system,
NM Number of distinct selected machines for we need to design alternative solution among the selected
the product family
machines. One of these alternative solutions is to assure the
𝑴𝑴𝟏𝟏 , … , 𝑴𝑴𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵 Available machines
existing of replacement machine in case of an unavailability
𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵𝒋𝒋 Number of available configurations for the
machine 𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗 of a selected one. Another objective to avoid the constant use
of single machine or certain machines for the whole product
𝒋𝒋 𝒋𝒋 𝒋𝒋
𝑪𝑪𝟏𝟏 , 𝑪𝑪𝟐𝟐 , … , 𝑪𝑪𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵𝒋𝒋 Configurations of the machine 𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗
family is to diversify the selected machine. This can be
OPTNp Total number of operations for the product p guaranteed by a balanced use of all selected machine in the
TFOP Number of all operations of the product limit of their capabilities. Thus, we are facing a multi-
family objective problem guided by the minimization of the system
𝒑𝒑 𝒑𝒑
𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶𝟏𝟏 , … , 𝑶𝑶𝑶𝑶𝐎𝐎𝐎𝐎𝐎𝐎𝐎𝐎𝐩𝐩 Operations of the product p transition effort from one product of the product family to
𝑵𝑵𝑵𝑵𝒑𝒑 [𝑴𝑴𝒋𝒋 ] Number of occurrence of the machine j for another, the maximization of the average use of machines to
product p reach equilibrium if possible and the maximization of the
𝐣𝐣
𝐂𝐂𝐥𝐥 (𝐮𝐮) The configuration l of the machine j on replacement machines within the process plans of the product

10583
 Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 Hichem Haddou-Benderbal et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 10166–10171 10169
family. Equations (11), (2) and (4) depict the mathematical
formulation of the objective functions respectively.
3.1 Average machine usage per product (AMUP)
When dealing with product family, the possibility of using
some machines more often is big, especially when it comes to
common operation between all products from the product
family. Another reason to use machine more than once for
many operation of the same product, is the machine
capabilities and type, as well as the limitation constraint
imposed by the operations type and relationships. So in order
to get an insight on the frequency of using a machine for the
whole family, first, we compute each machine utilization
frequency for each product as in equation (1). Then, we use
equation (2) to calculate the average machine usage per
product.
NOp (Mj ) 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑝𝑝
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝 (Mj ) = ∑𝑢𝑢=0 𝛼𝛼 . 𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗 (𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑢𝑢 )
𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑝𝑝
Where:
𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗 (𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑢𝑢 ) = 1 if the machine j can accomplish operation u, 0
otherwise.
𝛼𝛼 = 1 if the machine j is designated to perform operation u, 0
otherwise.
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀{𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 =
1
∑𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 ∑𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑝𝑝 (Mj )} (2)
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁∗𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑗𝑗=1 𝑝𝑝=0
The information that we can get from equation (2) is that if
the entire machines are used equitably for all product in the
product family. Thus, equation (2) (AMUP) is considered as
our first objective, which is to be maximize in order to get the
best equilibrium among all the selected machines for the
product family.
3.2 Replacement machines
Each operation of each product can be executed by one or
more than one machine. Based on this constraint, as well as
the given process plan for each product; we can calculate the
number of possible replacement for all the product family as
following
1 1 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = ∑𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
𝑝𝑝=0 ∑𝑢𝑢=0 𝑝𝑝 ∑𝑗𝑗=0 𝑝𝑝 𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗 (𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑢𝑢𝑝𝑝 ) ∗
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑝𝑝 ∗𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑝𝑝
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑝𝑝 (𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗 ) (3)
𝑀𝑀𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴{𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀} (4)
Where 𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗 (𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑢𝑢 ) = 1 if the machine j can execute operation
u, 0 otherwise.
Equation (4) is used as a performance metric to get an insight
of the intrinsic capacity of the system. This metric ensure at
its best, the continuity of the production process in case of
unavailability of a given selected machine. It represents the
possible existing replacement machines within each process
plan that can be used instead of the unavailable one if there
are any. The MRP represent our second objective, which is to
be maximized also in order to avoid any eventual
unavailability.
3.3 Layout evolution effort (LEE)
Our third objective consists of two aspects that are described
in the next subsections. This objective represent the transition
effort endured when going through the products of the
product family. This effort is referred to as layout evolution
effort (LEE) because of the change that may occur to the
selected machines and or to their rearrangement from one
process plan to the other. The LEE consist of the following:
3.3.1 Machine similarities (MASim)
A factor to take into consideration to choose the best machine
layout is the similarities between the selected machines. What
we mean by similarities is the number and type of
configuration changes between two given machine. As
indicated in Dahane and Benyoucef (2016). RMT are
composed of basic and auxiliary modules, based on this
information we calculate the machine similarity following
these steps:
a. First, we define the machine similarity matrix (SimM)
which is an NMxNM matrix. Machine are comprise of basic
modules, which are considered as fixed non-changeable
modules, and auxiliary modules, which form the various
possible configuration of a given machine. Two machine
(1)
could have the same basic module but not necessarily the
same configurations. The value of each cell in MSim is
calculated as follows:
𝑆𝑆𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖[𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖 ][𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗 ] = (α . 1) −
|𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖 −𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑗𝑗 |
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖 +𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑗𝑗
(5)
Where 𝛼𝛼 = 1 if machines 𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖 & 𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗 have the same basic
module, 0 otherwise
b. Second, we calculate the average similarity between
machines that are selected to realize a given product from the
product family, thus:
1 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 −1 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑝𝑝
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝 = ∑𝑗𝑗=1 𝑝𝑝 ∑𝑘𝑘=𝑗𝑗+1 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆[𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗 ][𝑀𝑀𝑘𝑘 ]
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑝𝑝
(6)
3.3.2 Selected machine type difference (SMDif)
First, we check if the layouts have the same selected type of
machine i.e., we check, what are the type of machines (SMT)
used for each product of the product family, how many
machines are removed (RM) from one product to the other
and how many ones are added (AM). To determine the
number of RM as well as AM we use the Product-machine
(PM) matrix and proceed as follows:
𝑆𝑆𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = ∑𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑗𝑗=0 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀(𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝 [𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗 ], 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝′ [𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗 ]) (7)
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
∑
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 = 𝑗𝑗=0 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀(𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝 [𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗 ] − 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝′ [𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗 ], 0) (8)
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 = ∑𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑗𝑗=0 |𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀(𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝 [𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗 ] − 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝′ [𝑀𝑀 𝑗𝑗 ], 0)|
(9)
Where: p’=min (pk ) and p<pk <NP k∈ 1. . NP and 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝 [𝑀𝑀𝑗𝑗 ] =
1 if Mj is selected to realize product p, 0 otherwise.
Using equations (7), (8) and (9), the selected machine type
difference (SMDif) from one product to another is:
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴+𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑝𝑝 =
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆
(10)
Based on equations (6) and (10), the layout evolution effort,
which is to be minimized, is computed as follows
1 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑝𝑝
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀{𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 = ∑𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁
𝑝𝑝=1 ( )} (11)
𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑝𝑝
4. PROPOSED APPROACH
In this paper, a well-known optimization algorithm is used to
solve the multi-objective optimization problem. The used
algorithm is called “A simulated annealing-based
multiobjective optimization algorithm AMOSA”. Developed
10584
Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 Hichem Haddou-Benderbal et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 10166–10171
10170

Bandyopadhyay et al. (2008) this algorithm provides a set of minimize the layout evolution effort which is based on
trade-off solution for the considered multiobjective problem machine type difference from one layout to the other.
by incorporating the concept of solution archive. The authors Nevertheless, this replacement can affect the other two
of AMOSA proved its effectiveness by comparing it to the objectives, especially that process plan could become
existing multiobjective-based algorithms like NSGA-II (Deb dependent on fewer machines to realize all the operations, the
et al. 2002) among others. Bandyopadhyay et al. (2008) based thing that can increase risk of unavailability (maintenance,
their comparison on seven measures where AMOSA showed failure…etc.) of these machines.
better performance and less time consuming than its rivals in
majority of cases. C: Capacity M2 M6
When implementing metaheuristics, the most important step
is to choose the encoding method. This is because the M1
solutions are altered during the perturbation phase of the C10
C1 C6
algorithm the thing that can lead to infeasible solutions. To
avoid that we choose to encode our solution as integer number
C4
where each number represent each of the machines used in the C2 C5 C8
process plans of the product family. If we take the process C3 C9
plan in (table 1) which represents one product among the
products of the family, the solution is encoded as a set of the Fig. 2. Inclusion Concept (M2 is included in both M1 and M6)
used machine in this process plan i.e., (1, 2, 4, 10). The same
goes for the rest of the other process plan in the product
family, we note here that the final set do not contain duplicate 5. NUMERICAL EXAMPLE AND RESULTS
machines i.e., if machine M1 is used in 3 positions of the DISCUSSION
process plan it will be present only once in the set of solution To test our model we developed the following example. Our
that concerns this precise process plan. Once the solution is product family comprise three product (P1, P2 and P3) with
established, AMOSA will try to find better solution based on respectively 6, 8 and 7 operations, the total number of
the objectives mentioned in section 3. To do that AMOSA operation needed by the whole product family is TFOP=14.
follows a perturbation method to generate new solutions. In Table 1 depict the machines (MA) and operations (OP) of P1,
our case the perturbation is based on a NPMxNPM matrix that Table 4 and Table 5 represent the structure of P2 and P3
we called inclusion matrix (Table3), the matrix is not limited respectively.
to only selected machine by the given process plans but to all Table 4. Process plan for P2
the candidate machines used to generate these process plans.
Table 3. Machine Inclusion Matrix OP1 OP7 OP6 OP10 OP2 OP13 OP11 OP8

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 M1 M2 M8 M4 M2 M10 M3 M4
M1 1 Table 5. Process plan for P3
M2 1 1 1 1 1 1
M3 1 1 1 1 OP3 OP5 OP2 OP12 OP6 OP4 OP7
M4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M9 M6 M1 M9 M1 M8 M2
M5 1 1 Table 6. Input Solution
M6 1
M7 1 PP (P1) M1 M2 M4 M10 - -
M8 1 1 1 1 1 PP (P2) M1 M2 M3 M4 M8 M10
M9 1 1
PP (P3) M1 M2 M6 M8 M9 -
M10 1 1 1 1 1
From Tables 1, 4 and 5, we derive the solution matrix that is
The concept is simple we see for the present machines in the
introduced to AMOSA as an input; this matrix will take the
solution set, if they have a common machine that include their
chosen machines from each process plan (PP). Table 6
capabilities i.e., can replace these machine in terms of doing
represents the input solution. The objectives values of this
the job. Table 3 is read from left to right row by row; the
solution are depicted in Table 7.
presence of the number 1 means that the machine in row i is
included in the machine of column j. Table 7. Input solution objective values
Figure 2 depicts this concept. For example, if we go through
Table 3 row by row, we see that the capacities of machine 2 AMUP MRP LEE
are already included in machine 1. This logically means that
the operation performed by the included machine (e.g., M2), 0.275 1.605 12.381
can be performed without problem by the inclusion machine The outputs of AMOSA are a set of non-dominated solution,
(e.g., M1). Therefore, it might be better to replace machine 2 and it is up to the decision maker to choose the best solution
by machine 1 in the entire concerned process plans in order to that fit his needs. To explain our approach we will detail only

10585
 Proceedings of the 20th IFAC World Congress
Toulouse, France, July 9-14, 2017 Hichem Haddou-Benderbal et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 50-1 (2017) 10166–10171 10171
one solution from the Pareto front. The output solutions as
well as the objectives values are presented respectively in
Table 8 and Table 9.
Table 8. AMOSA output solution
PP (P1) M1 M6 M1 M10 - -
PP (P2) M1 M6 M6 M1 M8
PP (P3) M1 M6 M6 M8 M9
Table 9. Output solution objective values
AMUP MRP LEE
0.371 1.409 8.875
A global view of the output solution shows that three
machines have been replaced by two existing ones (M2, M3
replaced by M6. And M4 replaced by M1). Both capacities of
M2 and M3 are included in that of M6. We can also notice
that even if M10 is also included in M6 as well as M8 is
included in M1, but the result shows that they are not
replaced, this scenario can happen if we had only the
objective of layout evolution effort (LEE), the thing that will
have a major effect on system performances. The presence of
a multiobjective approach has introduced a trade-off solution
between all components by proposing the just needed change.
If we take a look at the objective values of the output solution
we see clearly that the LEE has been reduced considerably
while maintaining a good system performance that is
interpreted by the augmentation of the average machine using
(AMUP) and a slightly change in the machine replacement
metric (MRP).
6. CONCLUSION
In this paper, to tackle the existing gap in the literature
concerning layout problems for a reconfigurable
manufacturing system (RMS), we developed an approach for
the design of RMS used to produce numerous families of
parts. The layout evolution efforts, constraints such as
compatibility and productivity requirements, as well as
performance metrics design objectives are modelled
mathematically. The model allows taking decisions about
selection of machining requirement, required machines and
configuration/reconfiguration of layout depending on the
product families to be produced and the common capabilities
of selected machines. We illustrated the approach
applicability by presenting a numerical example and
analysing the results. Finally, the study showed that the
solution provides a better design and selection regarding the
objectives of minimizing the layout evolution effort, the
maximization of average machine utilisation and the efficient
machine configuration respecting the maximization of
alternative replacement machines.
Further works concern the use of our approach for
reconfigurable layout design of reconfigurable manufacturing
system consisting of several reconfigurable machines. In
order to evaluate the dynamic behaviour of the system as well
as fulfilling the gap of facility layout problem in the context
of RMS, further studies can be conducted. The objective is to
(i) adapt and propose more optimization approaches to the
problem of layout design in the RMS context, and (ii) to
develop suitable simulation models for the optimization of the
problem as well as a combined optimization and simulation
techniques in an efficient design scheme.
REFERENCES
Bandyopadhyay, S., Saha, S., Maulik, U., & Deb, K. (2008). A simulated
annealing-based multiobjective optimization algorithm: AMOSA. IEEE
M10 transactions on evolutionary computation, 12(3), 269-283.
Benjaafar, S., Heragu, S. S., & Irani, S. A. (2002). Next generation factory
- layouts: research challenges and recent progress. Interfaces, 32(6), 58-
76.
Bensmaine A., Dahane M. and Benyoucef L. (2012) Process plan generation
in reconfigurable manufacturing systems using amosa and topsis. IFAC
Proceedings Volumes (IFAC-Papers Online) 14:560–565.
Bensmaine A., Dahane M., and Benyoucef L. (2013). A non-dominated
sorting genetic algorithm based approach for optimal machines
selection in reconfigurable manufacturing environment. Computers and
Industrial Engineering, 66(3), 519-524.
Dahane M. and Benyoucef L. (2016). An adapted NSGA-II algorithm for a
reconfigurable manufacturing system (RMS) design under machines
reliability constraints. Chapter 5, pp: 109-130, In. Metaheuristics for
production systems, Talbi, Yalaoui and Amodeo (Eds.), ISBN: 978-3-
319-23349-9.
Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T. A. M. T. (2002). A fast and
elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. , IEEE Transactions
on Evolutionary Computation, 6(2), 182-197
ElMaraghy H. A. (2007). Reconfigurable process plans for responsive
manufacturing systems. In Digital enterprise technology (pp. 35-44).
Springer US.
Goyal, K. K., & Jain, P. K. (2016). Design of reconfigurable flow lines using
MOPSO and maximum deviation theory. The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 84(5-8), 1587-1600.
Guan, X., Dai, X., Qiu, B., & Li, J. (2012). A revised electromagnetism-like
mechanism for layout design of reconfigurable manufacturing
system. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 63(1), 98-108.
Haddou Benderbal H., Dahane M. and Benyoucef L. (2015a) A new
flexibility index for machines selection in RMS design problem: Multi-
objective approach. CIE45 Proceedings Volumes (Papers Online) in
press.
Haddou Benderbal H., Dahane M. and Benyoucef L. (2015b) A new
Robustness index for machines selection in Reconfigurable
Manufacturing System. Proceedings of 6th IESM Conference, October
21-23, Seville, Spain
Haddou-Benderbal, H., Dahane, M., & Benyoucef, L. (2016). Hybrid
Heuristic to Minimize Machine’s Unavailability Impact on
Reconfigurable Manufacturing System Using Reconfigurable Process
Plan. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 49(12), 1626-1631.
Heragu, S. S., Meng, G. J. J. A., Zijm, W. H. M., & Van Ommeren, J. C. W.
(2001). Design and analysis of reconfigurable layout systems.
Kochhar, J., & Heragu, S. S. (1999). Facility layout design in a changing
environment. International Journal of Production Research, 37(11),
2429-2446.
Koren Y., Heisel U., Jovane F., Moriwaki T., Pritschow G., Ulsoy G. and
Van Brussel H. (1999). Reconfigurable manufacturing systems. CIRP
Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 48(2), 527-540.
Koren, Y. (2010). The global manufacturing revolution: product-process-
business integration and reconfigurable systems (Vol. 80). John Wiley
& Sons.
Lacksonen, T. A., & Hung, C. Y. (1997). Project scheduling algorithms for
re-layout projects. IIE transactions, 30(1), 91-99.Labib A and Yuniarto
M. (2009) Maintenance strategies for changeable manufacturing. In:
Changeable and Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems, ElMaraghy
H.A. (Ed.) Springer, pp 337–351
Mehrabi, M. G., Ulsoy, A. G., Koren, Y., & Heytler, P. (2002). Trends and
perspectives in flexible and reconfigurable manufacturing
systems. Journal of Intelligent manufacturing, 13(2), 135-146.
Nallakumarasamy G., Srinivasan P. S. S., Raja K. V. and Malayalamurthi R.
(2011). Optimization of operation sequencing in CAPP using
superhybrid genetic algorithms-simulated annealing technique. ISRN
Mechanical Engineering, 2011.
Xiaobo, Z., Jiancai, W., & Zhenbi, L. (2000). A stochastic model of a
reconfigurable manufacturing system Part 1: A
framework. International Journal of Production Research, 38(10), 2273-
2285
10586