Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 4167–4174 www.materialstoday.com/proceedings

ICMPC 2017

Scheduling of Products for Reconfiguration Effort in

Reconfigurable Manufacturing System
Durga Prasada*, S.C. Jayswalb
a
Mechanical Engineering Department, Madan Mohan Malaviya University of Technology, Gorakhpur-273010 (U.P.), India
b
Mechanical Engineering Department, Madan Mohan Malaviya University of Technology, Gorakhpur-273010 (U.P.), India

Abstract

Reconfigurable manufacturing system is a responsive manufacturing system which can easily adjust its capacity and functionality
with least effort and time when demand of the product changes. Reconfigurable manufacturing system (RMS) has the exactly
capacity and functionality whenever is required.
In the present work a methodology has been presented for scheduling of the products on the basis of reconfiguration effort in a
multi-product line. For scheduling of products, three criteria have been considered; reconfiguration effort, profit over cost and
due date. Integrated approach of Shannon entropy and TOPSIS has been used for scheduling of the products.

© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and/or Peer-review under responsibility of 7th International Conference of Materials Processing and Characterization.

Keywords:reconfigurable manufacturing system; reconfiguration effort; scheduling; entropy

1. Introduction and literature review

In the era of globalization, the product variety is increasing very fast and it has necessitated the production of
mass-customized products of increasingly short product life cycle. It has necessitated that manufacturing enterprises
should find a way to adjust production capacity and capability quickly at low cost. Reconfigurable manufacturing
system is a such type of system. A Reconfigurable Manufacturing System (RMS) is designed at the outset for rapid
change in structure, as well as in hardware and software components, in order to quickly adjust production capacity
and functionality within a part family in response to sudden changes in market or in regulatory requirements [1].

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +915516050030.

E-mail address: dp.mmmut@gmail.com

2214-7853© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Selection and/or Peer-review under responsibility of 7th International Conference of Materials Processing and Characterization.
4168 Durga Prasad et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 4167–4174

Reconfigurability of a manufacturing system can be defined as the ability to be reconfigured at a low cost and in a
short period of time [2]. Reconfigurable manufacturing system consists dedicated machines, CNC machines and
modular machines. RMS has six key characteristics which are modularity, integrability, scalability, convertibility,
customization and diagnosability.
Reconfigurable machine Tool (RMT) is the core component of reconfigurable manufacturing system.The concept
of modular machines have been used for many years [3].Many definitions of modularity have been presented in [4].
Reconfigurable machine tools are the modular machines which have different modules basic modules and auxiliary
modules. The basic modules are larger and bigger and are fixed for the machine such as base, slide ways etc.
Auxiliary modules are smaller and lighter and can be added, removed or adjusted easily such as spindle head, tool
changer etc. Machines can easily and quickly change its configurations by adding, removing or changing the
auxiliary modules while basic modules are fixed [5].The benefits of modular concept are; it provides opportunity for
both short- term and long-term objectives, it enables the integration of machine system, process, tools, information
flow, etc., it helps the reuse of machinery [3].
In [2] three factors of reconfigurability have been discussed. These are design of manufacturing systems for
reconfigurability, design of components for reconfigurability and integrated design of components and
manufacturing systems. In this paper machine relocation rules have been defined. In [6] a methodology has been
presented for selection of part family that minimizes cost of reconfiguration and underutilization.
Hassan [7] presented a review and consolidation of the machine layout problem in modern manufacturing
facilities that adopt GT, FMS, JIT, and robots. Kaebernick et al. [8] presented an integrated approach to design of
cellular manufacturing. In this approach, the decision maker was provided with multiple efficient alternative
solutions according to different cell-partition strategies. It offered the flexibility to assess each alternative against
tangible and intangible benefits and criteria. Perronet et al. [9] proposed a set of analytical models for strategic IMS
design for effective resource utilization and system configuration.
Renna et al. [10] proposed a CMS (cellular manufacturing system) with reconfigurable machines to handle the
turbulent market conditions.Sethi et al. [11] discussed various flexibilities (such as machine flexibility, material
handling flexibility, operation flexibility, process flexibility, product flexibility, routing flexibility, volume
flexibility, expansion flexibility, program flexibility, production flexibility and market flexibility) for responsiveness
of the system and discussed the methods to measure them.
Dahane et al. [12] proposed a mathematical model for machine selection problem for machine reliability
constraints.Youssef et al. [13] proposed RMS Configuration Selection approach.Pattanaik et al.[14] proposed an
approach to design machine cells using modular machines. Hasan et al. [15] used the concept of bowl phenomenon
for RMS planning.
In the present work a methodology has been presented for scheduling of the products for reconfiguration effort in
multi-product line manufacturing system. In a multi-product line problem arises which product should be
manufactured if many type of products are in queue. This methodology provides the solution of this type of
problem.

2. Reconfiguration effort

Reconfiguration effort (RE) is the effort for changing its configuration from one type of product to another type
of product. It can be calculated by using following equation.

No. of modules added No. of modules removed No. of modules readjusted

RE = α +β +γ
Tota no. of modules Total no. of modules Total no. of modules

where, α , β , γ are the constants; α > β > γ and α + β +γ =1

If in a manufacturing system, there are n machines which are needed to be reconfigured for another type of
product, total number of modules added, removed or readjusted can be calculated by using following formulas.
 Durga Prasad et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 4167–4174 4169

n
No of modules added = Σi =1 ( N i × modules added in M i )
n
No of modules removed = Σi =1 ( N i × modules removed in M i )
n
No of modules readjusted = Σi =1 ( N i × modules readjusted in M i )

n
Total no of modules = Σi =1 ( N i × Total modules in M i )

Total no of modules = Total no of modules added + Total no of modules removed

+ Total no of modules readjusted
where N i = number of machine required for ithoperation
th
M = machine required for i operation
i

3. Problem Formulation

In reconfigurable manufacturing system five reconfigurable machines have been considered. These machines
have 15 auxiliary modules {1, 2, 3, …, 15}. Machine M1 can be changed in three configuration, M2 can be changed
into four configurations, M3 can be changed into two configurations, M4 can be changed to three configurations and
M5 can be changed into two configurations. These configurations are used to produce four types of product;
PRODUCT A, PRODUCT B, PRODUCT C and PRODUCT D. Table 1 shows the machine configurations which
can be used for various products. means that machine 1 in its 2nd configuration.
For example, machine configuration has auxiliary modules {1,2} and it is used for PRODUCT A. When there
is need to produce PRODUCT B, machine M1’s configuration is changed from to . Machine configuration
has auxiliary modules {1,2,3}. There fore for changing its configuration one modules {3} is added and two modules
{1,2} are adjusted.

Table 1. Machine configurations for PRODUCT A, PRODUCT B, PRODUCT C and PRODUCT D

Machines Machine Auxiliary Product A Product B Product C Product D

Configurations Modules
{1,2} 
{1,2,3}  
{2,4} 
{3,5,6} 
{4,5} 
{5,6,7} 
{4,8} 
{2,8}  
{7,9,10}  
{8,11,12}  
{11,13} 
{12,13} 
{6,12,15}  
{11,12,14}  
4170 Durga Prasad et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 4167–4174

If initially PRODUCT A is produced in the manufacturing system, reconfiguration effort has been calculated
when manufacturing system is configured for PRODUCT B, PRODUCT C and PRODUCT D. For example, for
producing PRODUCT B,

= {3} = 1
= {4} = 1
= {7,9,10} = 3
={}=0
= {6,15} = 2
= ×1+ ×1+ ×3+ ×0+ ×2
In problem = = = = =1
=7
Similarly,
=6
=7
= 20
7 6 7
= 0.5 × + 0.4 × + 0.1 × = 0.33
20 20 20
where, α = 0.5, β = 0.4, γ = 0.1
Similarly reconfiguration effort for PRODUCT C and PRODUCT D has been calculated and shown in
Table 2.

Table 2. Reconfiguration effort

Initially PRODUCT A
After Module Module Module Total RE
reconfiguration added removed readjusted Module

PRODUCT B 7 6 7 20 0.33
PRODUCT C 5 5 8 18 0.29
PRODUCT D 7 8 5 20 0.36

This problem is based on real life problem.In manufacturing system, there is multi-product line. Problem arises that
which produced should be the produced in the line.For scheduling of products three criteria have been considered.
These are reconfiguration effort, profit over cost and due date shown in below Table 3.
Table 3. Reconfiguration effort, profit over cost and due date of products

Initially Product A
After reconfiguration RE 3 Due date (days)
Profit over cost ( ×10 INR)

PRODUCT B 0.33 1400 10

PRODUCT C 0.29 1200 12
PRODUCT D 0.36 1500 15
 Durga Prasad et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 4167–4174 4171

4.Methodology

In the problem integrated approach of Shannon entropy

method and TOPSIS method have been used. Weights of Determination of objectives, criteria and alternatives
each criterion have been determined by using Shannon
Establish the decision matrix
entropy method and ranking of the alternatives has been
obtained by TOPSIS methodFig. 1.
Normalize the decision matrix
Since each criterion has different meaning,
equal weights of the each criterion can’t be Compute entropy
considered. Weights can be determined by two Shannon
ways. First, by preference of decision maker, Entropy
Determine degree of diversification
for example AHP method, Delphi method and
weighted least square method, etc. Second, by Determine the weightage of the criteria
solving mathematical model, for example
entropy method, principal element analysis, Normalize the decision matrix*
multiple objective programming, etc.[16]. In
present work entropy method has been used to Determine the weighted decision matrix
determine the weights.
Identify positive and negative ideal solutions
TOPSIS is a decision making technique. It is
TOPSIS
a goal based approach for finding the
Calculate the separation measures
alternative that is closest to the ideal solution.
In this method, options are graded based on Measure the relative closeness coefficient
ideal solution similarity. If an option is more
similar to an ideal solution, it has a higher Rank the preference order
grade. Ideal solution is a solution that is the best from any
aspect that does not exist practically. Basically, for Fig. 1. Integrated approach of Shannon entropy and TOPSIS
measuring similarity of a design (or option) to ideal level
and non-ideal, distance of that design from ideal and non-ideal solution is considered [17][18].The structure of the
decision matrix can be expressed as follows as shown in Fig 1 and Table 4.
Table 4
Criterion 1 Criterion 2 … Criterion n
Alternative 1 x11 x12 … x1n
Alternative 2 x21 x22 … x2n
    

Alternative m xm1 xm2 … xmn

where, = Performance value of alternative i when it is evaluated in terms of criterion j, i = 1,2,,m and
j = 1,2,…,n.
Integrated approach of Shannon Entropy and TOPSIS has following steps

Step 1: Normalize the decision matrix

=
∑
Step 2: Compute entropy

ℎ = −ℎ . ln
4172 Durga Prasad et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 4167–4174

Where ℎ is the entropy constant and is considered equal to:

ℎ = ln
and . ln = 0, if =0
Step 3: Set = 1 − ℎ , as the degree of diversification.
Step 4: Set =∑ as the degree of importance of attribute j

TOPSIS techniques following steps.

Step 5: Calculate a normalized decision matrix* by using formula
= =
∑
where i is criteria index, (i = 1,2…m)
jis alternative index, (j= 1,2,…n)
Step 6: Determine the weighted decision matrix. The weighted decision matrix is simply constructed by
multiply each element of each column of the normalized decision matrix by the associated weights.
= ×
where = associated weights
Step 7: Identify positive and negative ideal solutions (A*, A’).
∗
= { ∗ , ∗ … … ∗ }, where ∗ = max ∈ ; min ∈
= { , … … }, where = min ∈ ; max ∈
Where, J is associated with the beneficial attributes and J' is associated with the non-beneficial attributes.
Step 8: Calculate the separation measures (S*, S’).

∗ ∗
= −

= −

Step 9: Measure the relative closeness coefficient (Ci*).

∗
= ∗
+
Step 10: Rank the preference order

4. Results and discussion

Using Shannon entropy, weights of the criteria have been determined as 0.1772, 0.1929 and 0.6299. It shows that
weight of due date is thehighest. Reason of this is that there is more variation in the due date in comparison to
reconfiguration effort and profit over cost. Ranking of the products have been calculated using TOPSIS and shown
in Table 5. It shows that PRODUCT B should be scheduled. Reconfiguration effort of PRODUCT B is 0.33 while
for PRODUCT C, reconfiguration effort is 0.29. Profit over cost of PRODUCT B is 1400 × 10 INR, while for
PRODUCT D, it is 1500 × 10 INR. Still ranking of the PRODUCT B is one. It is because of due date. Due date of
PRODUCT B is 10 days while for PRODUCT C and PRODUCT D, it is 12 and 15 days and weight of due date is
0.6299.
 Durga Prasad et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 4167–4174 4173

Table 5. Ranking of alternatives

Alternatives Closeness-coefficient Ranking

PRODUCT B 0.9078 1
PRODUCT C 0.5879 2
PRODUCT D 0.1420 3

5. Conclusions

In the present work a methodology has been proposed for calculation of reconfiguration effort for a multi-product
line. Integrated approach of Shannon entropy and TOPSIS has been used for the scheduling of the products. On the
basis of work done following points can be concluded.
1. In the present work methodology for calculating reconfiguration effort for a multi-product line has
been discussed.
2. Shannon entropy method has been discussed and weights of the criteria have been calculated using
this method. It shows that for problem considered, weight of due date is the highest.
3. TOPSIS have been discussed and ranking of the alternatives have been calculated using this
method.
4. This methodology has been used in Continental Automotive Components (India) Pvt. Ltd.

References

[1] Y. Koren, U. Heisel, F. Jovane, T. Moriwaki, G. Pritschow, G. Ulsoy and H. V. Brussel, “Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems,” Annals
of the CIRP, vol. 48/2, pp. 527-540, 1999.
[2] G. H. Lee, “Reconfigurability Consideration Design of Componenets and Manufacturing systems,” The International Journal of Advanced
Manufactuirng Technology, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 376-386, 1997.
[3] G. G. Rogers and L. Bottaci, “Modular production systems: a new manufacturing paradigm,” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, vol. 8,
no. 2, p. 147–156, 1997.
[4] A. M. Shaik, V. K. Rao and C. S. Rao, “Development of modular manufacturing systems—a review,” The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 76, no. 5, p. 789–802, 2015.
[5] K. K. Goyal, P. K. Jain and M. Jain, “A novel methodology to measure the responsiveness of RMTs in reconfigurablemanufacturing
system,” Journal of Manufacturing Systems, vol. 32, no. 4, p. 724–730, 2013.
[6] R. Galan, J. Racero, I. Eguia and D. Canca, “A methodology for facilitating reconfiguration in manufacturing: the move towards
reconfigurable manufacturing systems,” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 345-353,
2007.
[7] M. M. D. HASSAN, “Machine layout problem in modern manufacturing facilities,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 32,
no. 11, pp. 2559-2584, 1994.
[8] H. Kaebernick, M. Bazargan-Lari and G. Arndt, “An Integrated Approach to the Design of Cellular Manufacturing,” CIRP Annals -
Manufacturing Technology, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 421-425, 1996.
[9] G. Perronet and S. N. L. Diega, “A Reference Scenario for IMS Strategic Design,” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, vol. 48, no. 1,
pp. 381-384, 1999.
[10] P. Renna and M. Ambrico, “Design and reconfiguration models for dynamic cellular manufacturing to handle market changes,”
International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 170-186, 2015.
[11] A. K. Sethi and S. P. Sethi, “Flexibility in manufacturing: A survey,” International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, vol. 2, no. 4,
pp. 289-328, 1990.
[12] M. Dahane and L. Benyoucef, “An Adapted NSGA-II Algorithm for a Reconfigurable Manufacturing System (RMS) Design Under
Machines Reliability Constraints,” in Metaheuristics for Production Systems, Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp. 109-130.
[13] A. M. A. Youssef and H. A. ElMaraghy, “Optimal configuration selection for Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems,” International
Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 67-106, 2007.
[14] L. N. Pattanaik, P. K. Jain and N. K. Mehta, “Cell formation in the presence of reconfigurable machines,” The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 335-345, 2007.
[15] F. Hasan, P. K. Jain and D. Kumar, “Scalability of reconfigurable manufacturing systems based on bowl phenomenon: an implication of
modular machines,” International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 73-95, 2016.
4174 Durga Prasad et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 4167–4174

[16] F. H. Lotfi and R. Fallahnejad, “Imprecise Shannon’s Entropy and Multi Attribute Decision Making,” Entropy, vol. 12, pp. 53-62, 2010.
[17] P. W. Bhutia and R. Phipon, “Appication of ahp and topsis method for supplier selection problem,” IOSR Journal of Engineering, vol. 2, no.
10, pp. 43-50, 2012.
[18] M. Hanine, O. Boutkhoum, A. Tikniouine and T. Agouti, “Application of an integrated multi-criteria decision making AHP-TOPSIS
methodology for ETL software selection,” SpringerPlus, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 1, 2016.