See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/296443457

Facility Layout Design by CRAFT Technique

Conference Paper · September 2005

CITATION READS
1 8,738

2 authors, including:

Vivek A Deshpande
G H Patel College of Engineering and Technology (GCET)
53 PUBLICATIONS   126 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Lead time reduction View project

Cables View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vivek A Deshpande on 01 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Proceedings of COMPUTIME: September 16-17, 2005
National Conference on Computational Methods in Mechanical Engineering
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Osmania University, Hyderabad – 500007, India

Facility Layout Design by CRAFT Technique

Vivek A. Deshpande1 I. K. Chopade2
Lecturer, G. H. Patel College of Engineering Professor, Visvesvaraya National
& Technology, V.V.Nagar, Anand. Gujarat. Institute of Technology, Nagpur.
Gujarat - 388120, India. Maharashtra – 440011, India.
vivek_deshpande@yahoo.com ikchopade@vnitnagpur.ac.in

Abstract:
Facility layout design is the field of selecting the most effective arrangement of physical
facilities to allow the greater efficiency in the combination of resources to produce a
product. The manufacturing facility needs to be responsive to the frequent changes in
demand while minimizing material handling. By keeping material moving faster,
manufacturing time is also reduced. Now a days computer programs are used to assist
the layout planner in generating alternate layout. In this paper, a computerized layout
algorithm (improvement type) i.e. ‘CRAFT’ (Computerized Relative Allocation of
Facilities Technique) technique is presented for facility layout design. Since CRAFT
was developed for situations [1] in which materials handling costs were a major
consideration, its goal is to minimize the total cost of moving items between
departments. Travel chart is also used to assist CRAFT technique to compare the
existing and improved layout. All these aspects are explained in this paper with the
help of a case study.
Keywords: Facility Layout, CRAFT

1. INTRODUCTION
In manufacturing company, facility
layout problem deals with the
allocation of the various facilities of
the company with the space
constraint and reduction in material
handling cost. The main objective of
facility layout is to reduce MLT,
maintain low WIP level, minimize
space utilization and better
housekeeping. It is said that 80% of
the total product cost is due to poor
material handling. This paper
presents real life case study involving
relayout problem. In this case study,
the authors investigated that the
constraint of inadequate space has
increased the MH cost by increased
material flow. This problem was
raised because of poor facility layout.
In the existing plant, material handling
consumes lot of effort, time & cost. The
layout should be designed to move the
material with the lowest outlay of time
& effort, thereby lessening the MLT,
inventory and the cost of indirect
labour. In this paper, computerized
layout algorithm can be used to give
improved layout. Few widely used
computer programs are construction
type algorithm (CORELAP, ALDEP)
and improvement algorithm (CRAFT)
etc. In this paper the authors have
used improvement algorithm (CRAFT)
and travel chart to solve the facility
layout problems related to
transmission assembly line.

108
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
In this case study, authors found that
the transmission assembly was
premeditated on crash basis. Much
contemplation was not given to space
requirements and plant layout
facilities. Due to this plant capacity
cannot be augmented. The constraint
of inadequate space compelled them
to keep sub assembly work station
away from main transmission
assembly line. As a result of this,
material flow is increased thereby
increasing MH & its cost. Inapt layout
makes the production job extremely
uneconomical. Large walking distance
to obtain supplies, tools or materials
by production worker can waste
innumerable man-hours. So our aim is
to reduce MH cost and to increase
capacity.
3. METHODOLOGY ADOPTED
In this paper, ‘CRAFT’ method is
used. It as an improvement algorithm
[2]. It starts with an initial layout and
improves the layout by interchanging
the department’s pair wise so that the
transportation cost is minimized.
‘CRAFT’ first evaluates [3] a given
layout and then considers what the
effect will be if the departments under
consideration are interchanged. If
making pair wise exchange can make
improvement, the exchange
producing the greatest improvement
is made. The process continues until
no improvement can be made by pair
wise exchange.
3.1 INPUT REQUIREMENTS [4]
1) Initial layout, showing the size of the
departments arranged.
2) Flow matrix giving the no. of unit loads
moving between all departments over
a given period of time.
3) Cost matrix giving the cost per unit
distance of movement between all
departments.
4) Space requirement for each
department.
Algorithm by which the program operates
is as follows:
A. CRAFT interchanges a pair of
departments which have either a
common border or the same area
requirement.
B. Calculate the distance between
departments, the distance being
taken as centroid to centroid
rectilinear distances between the
departments.
C. Calculate the reduction in total
movement cost resulting from the
interchange of all possible pairs of
department.
D. Interchange the two departments,
which provides the greatest saving
in total movement costs.
The cost matrix will require the
cost in terms of Rs./meter. So to
get this we require travel chart.
This chart will show how many
departments were interacting &
how much will be the cost for it. So
for the cost analysis of MH for
existing situation Travel chart is
used and total MH cost for worker
& forklift utilization is calculated.
3.2 ASSUMPTIONS
1) Centroid of each sub assembly
area is taken from the reference
point X (0,0).
2) Inter-departmental MH of workers
& forklift is considered.
3) Production rate in existing layout is
40 per shift.
Workers work for 25days/month & there
are 3 shifts in a day. The shift runs for
8hrs/day.
Working hours per month= 25 * 8 = 200
Labour cost :
Assembly worker = Rs. 20 per hour
Cleaning worker = Rs 12.5 per hour
Fork utilization cost = Rs 82.665 per hr.
109
3.3 ESXISTING LAYOUT 3.4 EXISTING LAYOUT DETAILS
Table 1: Existing layout details
Work
Centroid Description
Station
Counter shaft,
Drive shaft &
A ( 2,10.4 )
Bull cage sub
assembly
Spline shaft sub
B ( 6,10.4 ) assembly
Differential sub
C ( 10,10.4 ) assembly
D ( 14,10.4 ) ---
Clutch housing
E ( 2,2.6 ) sub assembly
Gear shifter sub
F ( 6,2.6 ) assembly
Cleaning
G ( 12,2.6 ) machine
H ( 18,2.6 ) ---
I ( 24,2.6 ) ---
J ( 26,11.2 ) ---
Backlash
K ( 22,7.2 ) assembly
Clutch housing
L ( 22,11.2 ) mounting
Brake, Rear
axle & PTO
M ( 22,15.2 ) mounting
Gear shifter
N ( 22,19.2 ) mounting
Rear axle
carrier sub
O ( 26,15.2 ) assembly
P ( 14,20.8 ) Office
Q ( 14,15.6 ) Office
Transmission
R ( 22,23.2 ) Testing

110
3.5 COST ANALYSIS OF EXISTING LAYOUT
Table 2: Travel chart for material handling with trolly
BACKLASH ASSEMBLY (Dept. K)
Lot No. of Distance Distance Time Time for Time in Cost Total Cost
From \ To Size moves Traveled Traveled per MH per hours Rs./Hr. per shift in
S.N
per move per shift move shift Rs./metres
(Min.) (Min.)
a b c = a*b d e = d*a f g i = g*f/c
Counter shaft
1 sub assembly 5 8 22.7m 181.6 m 0.71 5.68 0.095 20 0.0104
(Dept. A)
Drive shaft sub
2 assembly (Dept. 10 4 22.7 m 90.8 m 0.71 2.84 0.047 20 0.0104
A)
Bull cage sub
3 assembly (Dept. 8 5 22.7 m 113.5 m 0.71 3.55 0.06 20 0.0106
A)
Spline shaft sub
4 assembly (Dept. 5 8 18.7 m 149.6 m 0.58 4.64 0.077 20 0.0103
B)
Differential sub
5 assembly (Dept. 5 8 15.7 m 117.6 m 0.57 4.56 0.076 20 0.013
C)

3.6 CRAFT METHOD Total cost = Rs. 95.46 per shift

= Rs. 95.46*3*25*12
= Rs. 85914 per annum
Total cost of initial layout is calculated as,
n n Taking the sequence of assembly in mind we

Total cost =   f Xd Xc
i1 j1
ij ij ij …..Eq. 1
have to interchange the departments such that
the total cost of MH be reduced. Due to this
we are forced to exchange following
Where, departments.
fij is the flow from department ‘i’ to the dept. ‘j’ 1. Dept. A exchanged with Dept. H, D
dij is the distance from dept. ‘i’ to the dept. ‘j’ 2. Dept. B exchanged with Dept. Q, P
cij is the cost/unit distance of travel/trip 3. Dept. C exchanged with Dept. D, Q
4. Dept. E exchanged with Dept. J only
Table 3: Matrix for existing layout 5. Dept. F exchanged with Dept. P, Q
FROM/TO dij fij cij d*f*c 6. Dept. G exchanged with Dept. I only
(m) (Rs./m)
A–G 17.8 4 0.0935 6.657 So now let us find out the cost of exchanging
A–K 23.2 17 0.0314 12.38 the departments. For the purpose of cost
B–K 19.2 8 0.0103 1.6 calculation, an interchange between two
C–K 15.2 8 0.013 1.58 departments would mean that their present
E–L 28.6 8 0.0117 2.7 centroids are interchanged. For each
F–N 32.6 8 0.013 3.34 interchange, the associated distance matrix is
G–K 14.6 40 0.026 15.184 calculated. Then the total cost of handling is
G–O 26.6 8 0.167 35.54 calculated.
K–L 4 40 0.014 2.24 Ex. Interchange departments A & H i.e. their
L–M 4 40 0.007 1.12 centroids are interchanged.
M–N 4 40 0.007 1.12 A (x1,y1) = (18,2.6) and H (x2,y2) = (2,10.4)
N–R 4 40 0.0075 1.2
Total cost = Rs. 74941.2 per annum
Total cost 95.46

111
Similarly by interchanging the other departments 3.7 PROPOSED LAYOUT DETAILS
we find out the cost of interchanging the pairs and
hence we get the optimum solution. Table 5: Proposed layout details

Table 4: Cost wise comparison between dept.

Work
Centroid Description
Interchange Interchange Total cost Remark Station
pair Rule Rs./annum Counter shaft,
A to H Equal area 74925 A ( 18,2.6 ) Drive shaft & Bull
Exchange cage sub assembly
A to D Equal area 77472
A with H
A to P Equal area 85950 Spline shaft sub
B to C Common 85599 B (10,10.4 ) assembly
border Exchange Differential sub
B to Q Equal area 85689 B with C C ( 14,10.4 ) assembly
B to P Equal area 86076
F to P Equal area 83790 Exchange D ( 6,10.4 ) ---
F to Q Equal area 83961 F with P Clutch housing sub
C to D Common 85545
Exchange
E ( 26,11.2 ) assembly
border Gear shifter sub
C with D
C to Q Equal area 86022 F ( 14.6,19 ) assembly
E to J only Equal area 83817 Exchange
E with J G ( 24,2.6 ) Cleaning machine
G to I only Equal area 63990 Exchange H ( 2,10.4 ) ---
G with I
I ( 12,2.6 ) ---
Hence we get the following final layout. J ( 2,2.6 ) ---
K ( 22,7.2 ) Backlash assembly
Clutch housing
L ( 22,11.2 ) mounting
Brake, Rear axle &
M ( 22,15.2 ) PTO mounting
Gear shifter
N ( 22,19.2 ) mounting
Rear axle carrier
O ( 26,15.2 ) sub assembly
P ( 6,2.6 ) Office
Q (14. 6,15 ) Office
Transmission
R ( 22,23.2 ) Testing

112
 3.8 COST ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED LAYOUT
Table 6: Travel chart for material handling with trolly
BACKLASH ASSEMBLY (Dept. K)
Lot No. of Distance Distance Time Time Time Cost Total Cost
Size moves Traveled Traveled per for MH in Rs./Hr. per shift in
From \ To per move per shift move per hours Rs./metres
S.N
(Min.) shift
(Min.)
e=
a b c = a*b d f g i = g*f/c
d*a
Counter shaft
1 sub assembly 5 8 8m 64 m 0.12 0.96 0.016 20 0.005
(Dept. A)
Drive shaft sub
2 assembly (Dept. 10 4 8m 32 m 0.12 0.48 0.008 20 0.005
A)
Bull cage sub
3 assembly (Dept. 8 5 8m 40 m 0.12 0.6 0.01 20 0.005
A)
Spline shaft sub
4 assembly (Dept. 5 8 14.7 m 117.6 m 0.218 1.744 0.029 20 0.005
B)
Differential sub
5 assembly (Dept. 5 8 10.7 m 85.6 m 0.16 1.28 0.021 20 0.005
C)
5. CONCLUSION
Table 7: Matrix for proposed layout Due to change in the layout, material
handling cost is reduced from Rs. 85914 for
FROM/TO dij fij cij d*f*c the initial layout to Rs. 8660.7 for the
(m) (Rs./m) proposed layout i.e. 89.92% saving in MH
A–K 8.6 17 0.015 2.093 cost. Further benefits were:
B–K 15.2 8 0.005 0.608  Increased productivity
C–K 11.2 8 0.005 0.448  Low cost of product
E–L 4 8 0.0027 0.0324  Reduction in efforts by assembly
F–N 7.6 8 0.0077 0.47 workers
K–L 4 40 0.014 2.24 In this paper an attempt has been made to
L–M 4 40 0.007 1.12 indicate the usefulness of CRAFT method in
M–N 4 40 0.007 1.12 developing the optimum layout.
N–R 4 40 0.0075 1.2 6. REFERENCES
Total cost 9.623 1. Hamid Noori & Russel Radford,
Production and Operations
Total cost = Rs. 9.623 per shift Management: Total Quality &
= Rs. 9623*3*25*12 Responsiveness, McGraw-Hill Inc.,
= Rs. 8660.7 per annum p221.
2. Paneerselvam R. Production and
4. RESULT Operations Management, Prentice Hall
Cost of Material Handling for : of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 1999,
A) Existing layout = Rs. 85914/annum p129.
B) Proposed layout = Rs. 8660.7 per 3. Agarwal G. K., Plant Layout & Material
annum Handling, Jain Brothers, New Delhi,
Reduction in Material Handling cost 1997, p98.
= (85914 – 8660.7)/(85914) = 89.92 % 4. Chary S. N., Theory & Problems in
Production and Operations
Management, Tata McGraw Hill
Publishing Co. Ltd., New Delhi, 2000,
p89.

113

View publication stats