Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Volume I 1/No. 4
The Centroid Projection Method for
Locating Pick-Up and Delivery Stations
in Single-Loop AGV Systems
David Sinriech and J.M.A. Tanchoco, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
Abstract
In this paper, we consider incorporating within
department flows in formulating the problem of deter-
mining the pick-up and delivery stations in the design
of single-loop AGV systems. We first show the impact
of different locations of P/D stations by simulation. We
then propose a model for determining optimal locations
of P/D stations, which accounts for between and within
department flows. We denote this procedure as the
centroid projection method since material flow is
assumed to occur between department centroids pro-
jected to the nearest aisle segment bounding each
department. The model assumes the transportation
cost ratio of the within and between department flows
is known.
Keywords: Facility Design, Material Handling,
AGVs, Modeling, Simulation
Introduction
Automated guided vehicle (AGV) systems offer
flexibility and relative cost advantages over more
conventional horizontal material handling systems
such as lift trucks, inverted power-and-free convey-
ors, tow-line systems, and others. Its capabilities
are no longer limited to warehousing applications,
and manufacturing and service industry related
applications are increasing. The flexibility of these
vehicle systems make them a prime candidate for
the automated handling requirements of flexible
manufacturing systems (FMSs) and flexible assem-
bly systems (FASs). However, AGV systems are
often complex and good design and operational
control policies are essential if the benefits they
offer are to be realized.
There are four basic stages in the successful
design of an effective AGV system--unit load
sizing, guide path and guidance system design,
number and type of vehicles, and design of the
control system. These stages are all interrelated,
297
some must be done simultaneously and others in
sequence. The careful selection of alternatives at
each of these stages will yield a more efficient and
cost effective system.
The effectiveness of the AGV system is strongly
influenced by a carefully planned guide path design.
The guide path has a significant effect on vehicle
travel time. Also, the guide path layout configura-
tion has a major impact on the complexity of the
system's control software. The more alternative
routes and intersections there are in the guide path,
the more complicated it is to control traffic in an
effective way.
Different types of guide path layouts have been
studied in the literature. The most common and
general one is the conventional guide path shown in
Figure 1.6's An advantage of this type of system is
its flexibility and reliability. Nonetheless, due to its
complex physical structure, it is also complicated to
control and manage efficiently. Several approaches
have been proposed in the literature as alternatives
to the more complex conventional systems.
Bozer and Srinivasan 3 suggested the tandem
configuration shown in Figure 2, which is based on
the zoning strategy frequently applied in transpor-
tation systems. 12 The tandem configuration essen-
tially breaks down the entire guide path into
nonoverlapping loops where each loop is serviced
by a single vehicle. The advantage of this type of
system is that it eliminates congestion, blocking,
and interference. On the other hand, it restricts the
number of vehicles to one per zone and causes the
zones to be small. As a result, more zones and more
vehicles may be needed. Parts that require process-
ing in more than one zone will have to go through
one or more transfer stations. Additionally, a vehi-
cle breakdown in one zone will render the entire
zone inoperable.
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Volume 1 l/No. 4

1 Pt o. 11 1 PI 11
DII
oql P2D2 I D4 PI0
D, --~ e]o
6 10 6 10
2 4 2 4
P4 D6 P6 DI0 D6 P6 DI0

P2 ~ D4 P4
bD9 D9 9
D3 9 D3 P7,D7
3 P7 3 Po
P3 P3
PB PsJ)8
D5 D~
5 8
5 P~
P5 FD7 Ds
,,,A

Figure 1 Figure 3
Conventional Guide Path System Single-LoopGuidePathConfiguration

The optimal single-loop (OSL) guide path sug- rectilinear distances between centroids are used to
gested by Tanchoco and Sinriech 13 reduces the evaluate the improvements made in exchanging the
complexity of conventional and tandem systems. In physical location of departments. However, as con-
a single-loop system as shown in Figure 3, there is firmed by Warnecke, ~7 the centroid-to-centroid dis-
only one loop and the entire loop is serviced by one tance approximations are less representative of the
or more vehicles as required. The single-loop sys- actual flows compared to the P/D station flow
tem is characterized by its simplicity in design and distances.
operation.
P/D Station Use
Pick-Up/Delivery (P/D) More recent studies in facility layout design 2'n°
Station Location Problem use the rectilinear distance from pick-up stations to
delivery stations instead of from centroid-
Centroid-to-Centroid Assumption to-centroid. In these studies, the designer predeter-
The first studies in facility layout design CRAFT ~ mines the location of the P/D stations. Nonetheless,
and its extension with material handling consider- these studies fail to relate to a specific material
ation COFAD 14 used the centroid-to-centroid handling system when evaluating a change in the
assumption in describing the material flows layout structure.
between pairs of departments. More specifically,
Facility Layout Design
Versus Guide Path Design
1 PI 11
a
DII Studies in facility layout design do not account
Ill
P2 D2 D4 Plo for the physical material handling system when
6 10 using direct rectilinear or euclidean distances. In
4
D6 P6 DIo some cases such as monorails and conveyors, these
P4 distance measures are usable. In others like AGVs
7.
P?,D
:Do 9 and forklift trucks, the interdepartment material
D3
3
P3
P9 movement is possible only through the aisles. In the
D5
PS~ case of guide path design problems, the actual path
7 8 distance that takes into account the physical struc-
P5
ture of the aisle network is needed. Various
studies 6-s'l]']3,ls']6 use the path distance from pick-
Figure 2 up station to delivery station. In these studies, the
Tandem Configuration Guide Path P/D stations are assumed to be located along the

298
 Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Volume I l/No. 4

department boundaries. The objective function used existing aisle segments that connect the different
in these models minimizes the distance by finding nodes. A single-loop guide path configuration is a
the optimal location of pick-up and delivery stations connected subnetwork of nodes and arcs. Each node
or by setting guide path directions. All these models in this subnetwork has two incident arcs, i.e., one
fail to take into account the flows within the arc represents an incoming flow and the other
department. Flows within a department cover mate- represents an outgoing flow.
rial movement from P/D station(s) to the individual The analytical model presented later in this paper
machines within the department. assumes that a predefined single-loop guide path
exists. A procedure is then given for finding the
Within Versus Between Department Flows optimal location of pick-up and delivery stations
Two major factors must b e considered when along this guide path.
deciding whether or not to include within depart-
ment flows in a design model--the cost of moving
Determining the Single-Loop Guide Path
loads within a department, and the size of the
Any single-loop guide path used as an input to the
department. When the relative cost of internal
proposed model must meet one basic requirement.
transportation within a department is large com-
At least one arc out of the set of arcs that make up
pared to the movement cost between departments,
each department must be included in the single-loop
omitting this factor in the model will result in an
guide path. This loop will be denoted as a valid
inaccurate model. When the sizes of departments
single loop. There may be many valid single-loop
are large, then the total transportation distance
guide paths for any given facility layout. Choosing
within a department may be significant.
between them is an important factor in the quality of
The study by Luxhoj 9 combines between and
the final design. One such promising candidate is
within department flows in a single design proce-
the shortest (distance) valid single-loop guide path
dure within the context of facility layout design.
layout. An alternative approach is to use the OSL
The relative location of departments is determined
procedure suggested in Reference 13.
on a minimum distance measure. An inherent
assumption is that a single material handling system
Simulation Studies Showing the
is used. In most cases, one or more different types
Impact of P/D Station Location
of material handling systems are used within and
To show the impact the P/D station location has
between departments. Thus, the minimum distance
on the performance of single-loop systems, four
measure will not be adequate.
different P/D station location configurations shown
For the rest of this paper, the focus will be on the
in Figure 4 were simulated using the simulation
issues related to the location of P/D stations in
single-loop AGV systems. The P/D station location
problem is a natural extension of the work on 1p I IID n 1p I liD n
single-loop AGV guide paths. 13 The discussions D2 "l". . . . . ~ to

will center on two issues--the location of a P/D , ~,D, 4 J-D.---Za ,o

10
F2,D2 l| l<o7- I ~' i PIO,DLO
!P, II
station making a difference in system performance DS 'D?
3 Pa i
|l
li
0
PDDs 3 P%DS
ii
I~
g
PoD¢,
7 ~ .... "I l
as measured by job throughput, and an analytical P~ L.. . . . . . . . . . q 5 P,%D6 P~tD..7 all Ps, Ds 8

procedure being developed for determining optimal

Station Location Configuration 1 Station Location Configuration 3
locations of P/D stations with consideration of Ip L 11Dn 1p I lid n
between and within department costs. ". . . . . . . p 6D ~! lo
2 PzD~ i'P,.D, 4 I Px~,DIo
~..~-~.a
T
The Single-Loop 3 Fs,D8
'"

r 7
iI
ii
9
PoDA
~ ..... ~D,
3 P~D3
'
I PTID7
9

Guide Path Configuration I I Ps

7
$ P~D5 k . . . . . . . . . . bpS,Ds 8

A facility layout can be represented by a graph Station Location Configuration 2 Station Location Configuration 4
G(N,A), where N is the set of nodes that denotes
convergences and divergences (i.e., aisle intersec- Figure 4
tions) and A is the set of arcs that denotes the Four-Station Location Configuration

299
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
V o l u m e I 1/No. 4

package AGVSim developed by Egbelu and Table 3

Throughput for Configuration 2
Tanchoco. s The job mix and process plan for each
part used in the simulation is given in Table 1. The
same dispatching rules and system parameters were
used in all the runs. Five replications using different Veh. run 1 run 2 run 3 run 4 run 5 p (+]-) Interval

random seeds were made for each number of

vehicles on each of the four configurations to 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

calculate a 90% confidence interval (see Tables 2 1.13 0.56 0.56 0 0 0.45 0.45

2-5. A 5.5 min. job interarrival time was used. The 3 6.21 3.39 11.86 9.04 12.99 8.7 3.79

simulation time for each run was 16 hours. The 4 35.03 28.81 34.45 32.2 29.94 32.09 2.59
simulations were run on a SUN/SPARC Station 1 5 61.58 54.24 67.8 83.28 61.58 61.7 4.65
with the execution times varying from 5 to 15 6 82.49 78.53 88.14 85.31 79.66 82.83 3.78
seconds. Statistics were cleared after an hour to 7 94.35 96.05 96.05 98.61 96.05 95.82 0.82
eliminate the initial transient state. The results are 8 94.62 98.05 96.05 96.61 98.05 95.88 0.71
given in the form of a percent of parts completed out
of the total number of parts released to the shop
floor. The results are shown in Figure 5. The graph
Table 4
shows a difference in the throughput performance as Throughput for Configuration 3
various P/D station location configurations are used.

Table 1
Process Plan and Job Mix Veh. run 1 run 2 run 3 run 4 run 5 ft (+1-) Interval

Part Job mix Unit Load Routing 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 0.56 0 0 0 0 0.11 0.24

1 0.3125 1 1-2-4-9-8-10-11
3 9.6 3.95 8.47 4.52 6.21 6.55 2.34
2 0.1875 1 1-2-4-7-9-4-6-10-11 4 29.38 21.47 29.94 24.86 25.42 26.21 3.34

5 53.11 48.89 50.85 46.89 55.93 50.73 3.76

3 0.0625 1 1-2-7-9-6-10-11
6 76.27 79.1 79.1 83.05 74.58 78.42 3.08
4 0.125 1 1-2-3-5-9-6-11 7 90.96 95.48 96.05 93.22 91.53 93.45 2.17

5 0.3125 1 1-2-4-8-10-11 8 95.48 95.48 96.05 96.05 96.05 95.82 0.3

Table 2 Table 5
Throughput for Configuration 1 Throughput for Configuration 4

Veh. run 1 run 2 run 3 run 4 run 5 /~ (+ 1-) Interval (+ [-) Interval
Veh. run 1 run 2 run 3 run 4 run 5 /z

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 10.17 2.26 6.21 3.95 5.65 5.65 2.82 2 0.56 0 0 0.56 0 0.22 0.3
3 33.9 29.94 36.16 36.72 38.42 35.03 3.12 3 6.21 2.82 4.52 2.26 5.65 4.29 1.64
4 65.54 59.32 66.1 64.97 63.84 63.95 2.59 4 30.51 19.21 27,68 21.47 27.12 25.2 4.47
5 92.09 90.4 90.96 93.79 91.53 91.75 1.24 5 46.89 46.33 49,15 50.85 53.11 49,27 2.68
6 96.61 96.05 98.05 96.05 96.61 96.27 0.3 6 72.88 66.1 69.49 70.06 65.54 68.81 3.89
7 96.61 96.61 96.05 96.05 96.61 96.39 0.3 7 90.96 90.4 93.22 90.4 81.36 89.27 4.36
8 96.61 96.61 96.61 96.05 96.61 96.5 0.24 8 94.92 95.48 95.48 95.48 96.05 95.48 0.38

300
 Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Volume 11/No. 4

T
H
R
0
100p
951--
901--
851--
80 1-
751--
70I-
651-
601--
551-
/y" stations and the centroids must be developed. The
problem in calculating these distances is the fact that
the station's location is indicated by a one-
dimensional labeling scheme (position is repre-
sented by the distance along a loop from a reference
point), while the centroid location is indicated by a
two-dimensional labeling scheme (an (x,y) coordi-
U 501-
nate). A method of translating one scheme in terms
G
H 451- of the other is needed.
P 401-
U 351-
We define a centroid projection point (CPP) as the
T
301- closest point in terms of rectilinear distance to a
251-
201- Configuration 1 department's centroid on each of the department's
151- Configuration 2 boundary segments that are included in the single-
101- Configuration 3 x ±
51- Configuration 4 o n loop guide path. These points can be easily calcu-
C
0
T
1
I
2
I
3
I
4
I
5
I
6
!
7
i
8
I
9
lated. Figure 6 shows an example of a single-loop
# of AGVs guide path with the corresponding CPPs.
Due to the assumption of rectilinear distances for
Figure 5
the flow within a department, the distance between
Throughput Performance of the Different Configurations the pick-up/delivery stations and the centroid of a
department can be divided into two components--
Confidence Interval Calculation the distance between the P/D stations and the CPP
Notation located on the same arc segment, and the distance
n = The number of replications made (simula- between the CPP and the department's centroid.
tion runs for each point) The distance between the P/D stations and the
ix = The average throughput of the simulation CPP can easily be calculated since both use the same
runs labeling method. The distance between the CPP and
s = The estimated standard deviation the centroid is known and constant. Using this
( + I -) Interval = The confidence interval based approach enables us to add the flow within the
on a 90% probability. department to the model. Figure 7 illustrates the
Formulas flow of a job from Department 8 to Department 4.
The following formulas were used to calculate The job originates at the department's centroid and
the estimated standard deviation and the confidence is transferred to the pick-up station of Department 8
interval. Where n = 5 and = t 0 " g s 2. 132. by one of two possible paths indicated by the dashed

~ , run~
S2 - - i= 1 n ix2 1 + 11+
n-1 n-1 cpp I
/ - -
0 epPll

I
, 4 6 + cpp26 cppl0 + 1 0
2 + epp 2, [~pp~ +
Interval = i x +~ { -/° t',_g~ s } _ 1
.I
il cpp~ t---~P~'--
! cpp~
~cpp~ 9 +

Formulation of the Design Model 3 -I- e p p s~,!

i~ ePP'4: ..... cppl
PP~ 7 + --cp;~
5 q- cpp6"I cpp 8 + 8
Centroid Projection Point (CPP) I. . . . . . . £11~ . . . . . . . . . J

To account for within and between department

flows in locating pick-up and delivery stations, a Figure 6
method for calculating the distance between the P/D Facility Layout and the CPP L o c a t i o n

301
Journal of ManuJacturing Systems
Volume I l/No. 4

lines. Regardless of the actual path taken, the
distance will be the same as if the job was trans-
ferred first to the CPP and then to the pick-up
station. From this point, the job is transferred along
the physical guide path to the delivery station of
department 4 and then through one of the two
possible paths indicated by the dashed lines to the
department's centroid. Regardless of the actual path
taken, the distance will be the same as if the job was
first transferred to the CPP and then to the centroid.
Functional Versus Economic
Considerations in Locating P/D Stations
In the case where pick-up and delivery stations
must be located in specific predefined sites due to
functional considerations such as the entrance and
exit of an assembly line, there is no need to use the
following model. In this case, the OSL procedure
can be modified to design a single-loop that includes
the aisle segment where the pick-up and/or the
delivery stations are located. Nonetheless, if there
are no functional considerations involved in the
station location, economic considerations must be
used to find the location that minimizes the cost of
within and between department flows.
General Assumptions
The organization of manufacturing systems may
be categorized according to product, function, and
part-family groupings. Although we do not have
1 11
CPP~
4 ear path from the pick-up and delivery stations to
6 10
2 cee~I
cee~
D4
9
3
statistics to support it, facilities that are organized
along functional lines still exist in a large number of
manufacturing facilities and in some cases, it is the
only logical organization possible. Furthermore,
when the opportunity to relayout a facility is not
available, the introduction of flexible material han-
dling systems such as an AGV system can enhance
the operational efficiency in these manufacturing
systems. It is in this context that the following
assumptions are made in developing the P/D station
location model:
• The departments contain several machines and
each part arriving to a department must be pro-
cessed by only one of those machines. The
machines in a department need not be all identical
as in a pure job shop, but it suffices to state that
processing is performed on only one machine in
the department. If processing is required in more
than one machine within a department, then an
aggregate operation time will describe the single
machine requirement. This interpretation is rea-
sonable for as long as the inter-machine handling
time is minimal. Therefore, the use of the depart-
ment's centroid as an aggregate machine position
within the department is a reasonable assump-
tion.
• A material handling system exists within the
department that is different than the material
handling system between departments. The inter-
department material handling system, in this case
the AGV, must pick up the loads at the pick-up
station and deliver them to the delivery station,
both of which are located along the guide path.
• The flow within a department follows a rectilin-
the department's centroid.
• The costs of moving loads between departments
Cout and within departments Cin are known.

;:
5 cee]l ........ +
- The single-loop's reference point
• - A department's pick-up/delivery station
• - A department's CPP
Figure 7
Job Flow from D e p a r t m e n t 8 to Department 4
i s Mathematical Model
The mathematical model presented in this section
determines the location of the pick-up and delivery
stations, which minimizes the total transportation
cost of jobs between the different departments. The
location of the stations is denoted as a positive
distance from a reference point located on the
single-loop guide path (the reference point used in
the illustrated example is shown in Figure 7).

302
 Journal of ManufacturingSystems
Volume 11/No. 4

Notation C out = Moving cost of one unit load and one

unit distance between departments
subscripts: Departments i = 1 ..... N
L = length of single-loop guide path
CPP k = 1 ..... Si
P/ The position of the pickup station Objective Function
department i The objective function minimizes the cost of
Di = The position of the delivery station moving loads from the centroid of the origin depart-
department i ment to the centroid of the destination department
vi = Upper bound on the position of station i through the pick-up and delivery stations of those
Li = Lower bound on the position of station i departments. The objective function is divided into
CP i = A variable that accepts one of the cpp~ three separate terms as follows:
values i. The first term in the objective function
i The location of the CPP of department i denotes the flow cost between departments
cpp k =
on segment k from pick-up station to delivery station. The
si = Set of CPPs of department i distance b e t w e e n the stations can be
cppik ~ S i expressed as follows:

The distance between cpp~ and the }Dj-Pil ifDj-Pi>--O

centroid of department i d(ij? = L - I D j - Pi I otherwise
k Using the indicator variable I(ij3, the first
Xcppi = x-coordinate of cpp~
term in the objective function can be written
k as:
Ycppi = y-coordinate of cpp~
N N
x i t = x-coordinate of the centroid of
department i
i=1 j=l
k i k i
lik = I X c p p i - Xct I -JI- I Ycep, - Y c t [
Each flow in the system involves a pair of
departments, an origin department i, and delivery ii. The second term in the objective function
department j. denotes the flow cost between pick-up and
delivery stations and the CPPs.
i(id ) : ~ 0 if Dj >-- Pi N N

t 1 otherwise Z2t = fin ~ ~f(ij ")

i=1 j=l
~ = f 1 if cpp~ is used
I. 0 otherwise
0 if pick-up department i is located
~hp' = on split segment h This term is not linear. Nonetheless, by
1 otherwise introducing the real variables, u's and v's,
this absolute expression can be linearized as
0 if delivery departmentj is located
follows:
~h aj = on split segment h N N
1 otherwise

f~ia~ = flow between pickup station i to i=1 j=l

delivery station j
= distance between pickup station i to [bli "~- Vi "~ Uj -I- ~j ]
delivery station j
Cin = Moving cost of one unit load and one This transformation requires additional con-
unit distance within a department straints as given in the next section.

303
JournalofManufacturingSystems
Volume ll/No. 4

111. The third term in the objective function
denotes the flow cost between the CPPs and
the department's centroids. This can be cal-
culated by multiplying the distance between
the chosen CPP and the department's centroid
by the flow into the department and summing
over all departments. A similar calculation is
needed for the flow out of a department.
N N
Z3 : Gin Z [ ~ ~J lJk Zhi~l~]
j= l k~Si i=l
N N
denotes the farthest department boundary from
the reference point, and a lower bound, which
denotes the closest department boundary to the
reference point. Thus,
Li <~ Pi <~ Ui i = 1 ..... N
Lj<--Dj<--Uj i = 1 ..... N
There is a set of constraints of this type for
every pickup and delivery station.
In some cases, the boundaries of the depart-
ments are split i.e., the space the department
takes along the loop is not continuous. In those

~- fin Z [ k ~ S ~ ki ilkZ
i=1 i j=l
hij) ] instances, instead of the aforementioned con-
straint, another constraint must be used.
C2': If the bounds of a department labeled i are
If a department contains only one CPP, this split into H parts, then
term reduces to the following constant: Li (h) <~ Pi <~ Ui(h) h = 1 ..... H
N N Lj (h, <~ Oj <-- UJ h) h = 1 ..... H
Z3= Cin Z [l~ ~f(ij)]
j=l i=l The set of constraints for the pick-up stations
of every split department will be the following:
N N
Pi <~ Ui (h) "~- M ~hP' h-- 1 ..... H
q- Gin Z [ l~ ~ h i j ) ]
i=1 j=l Pi >~ Li (h) - M 3ht' h = 1 ..... H
Thus, the objective function is: n

Minimize Z~ + Z 2 + Z 3
Constraints
There are five types of constraints in the formu-
lation. Constraints C1, C2, and C5 deal with the
feasibility of the loop guide path design and the flow
between departments, and constraints C3 and C4
take into account the flow within departments.
• C1: The value of the indicator variable l(ij) is set
by the model. Since it is a minimization model,
the constraint will force the indicator variable to
be 1 if the distance between stations is negative;
the objective function will force the indicator to
be 0 otherwise.
~ [ gh e ' = H-1
h=l
A similar set of constraints is needed to define
the bounds on the location of the delivery stations
where gh~ replaces g~'. There is a set of con-
straints of this type for every station belonging to
a department with split boundaries.
C3: The value set to the CP i variable is deter-
mined by the optimization model. If a department
has a single CPP, then CP i = cpp~ otherwise, CP i
is set to one of the cpp~ given.
CP i < cpp~ + M ( 1 - ~ ) k = 1 ..... Si
CP i >_ cppik - M ( 1 - ~ ) k = 1 ..... S i

Dj - Pi + I(M3 M >-- 0 V i,j ISil

i __
~k- 1
Where M is a very large number. There is a
constraint of this type for all pairs of nodes where
k=l
a flow exists. There is a set of constraints of this type for
• C2: Every station location is bounded by its every station belonging to a department with
department boundaries. An upper bound, which multiple CPPs.

304
 Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Volume 1 l/No. 4

• C4: To linearize the absolute expression in Zz', zation model. The specific model solved contains
the real variables u's and v's are used. 33 {0-1} variables and 58 continuous variables. The
number of the binary variables in this type of model
CPt-Pi + ui-vi = 0 i = 1 .... ,N is usually the source of complexity. In a general
CPj--Dj + uj-vj = 0 j = 1 .... , N case, this number is a function of the number of
flows in the system, the number of split depart-
where u i, v i, Uy, vy >-- 0 V i,j ments, and the number of departments with multiple
CPPs (i.e., the physical structure of the single loop
• C5: The binary variables are: used). The run time of the optimization model
~hPi, ~ h d~ ~-- 0 or 1 V h,i,j ranged from 10 cpu sec. to 20 cpu min. on a
GOULD NP 1.
/I(ij) ~--- 0 or 1 V id The model was used to test the effect of varying
within department and between department material
~ = 0 or 1 V k,i handling cost ratios on the location of pick-up and
delivery stations along a given single-loop guide
path. The sum of these two costs was kept fixed and
Example equal to 100, thereby enabling the comparison
The guide path and layout shown in Figure 6 are between the different optimization results. The cost
used to illustrate the model. The job mix and ratio Ci,,/Co,,t varied between 1/99 to 99/1. Table 7
process plan for each part used in the example are shows the results of those runs.
given in Table 1. Table 6 presents additional infor- By varying the cost ratio of the within and
mation needed by the optimization model such as between department flow, four different station
the stations' boundaries, the location of each CPP, location configurations were designed. Each of
and the distances between the CPPs and the depart- these station locations is optimal under a specific
ment's centroids. cost ratio range of Cin/Cou t. The values of the
objective function for the different cost ranges are
Optimization M o d e l
Results given in Table 7 and are plotted in Figure 8. The
A modified mixed integer version of the commer- different station location configurations are shown
cial CPLEX program 4 was used to solve the optimi- in Figure 4.

Tab/e 7
Table 6 Optimization Model Results
CPP Location and Distances

Dep. Li Ui epp~• c PP2i e p p 3i epp~. .11~ . 12.t . 131 14~

1 0 10 10 2

2 10 20 15 5 Cin
Run Set Cost ratio Configuration Objective Function
3 20 25 22.5 5

4 o, 70 20, 73 5 15 75 5 5 7
1 0.01- 1 S.L. eonfigl 548000- 614250
5 25 30 27.5 5
2 1 - 15.67 S.L. config2 614250- 446390
6 73 100 78 86.5 95 3.5 5 3.5

7 30 70 22.75 38.75 54.25 68 8.75 4.25 11.25 3

3 15.67 - 29.96 S.L. eonfig3 446390- 428872

8 50 56 53 5 4 29.96- 99 S.L. config4 428872 - 403500

6 56 83 56 69.5 83 3.5 i0 3.5

10 83 90 86.5 5
11 90 100 90 2

305
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Volume I I/No. 4

department goes down. The total distance from the

620 pick-up and delivery stations to the department's
centroids in Configurations 1 to 4 is 1485, 895,865,
5sol
and 840, respectively. The largest decrease in the
flow within the departments corresponds to the
56o I
largest decrease in the system's performance shown
F \
L
O
s40 | \ in Figure 5 (Configuration 1 compared to Configu-
W
52o I ration 2).
C
O
S
T

x I000
480 [
400 |
440 [ Configuration I - -
Configuration 2 -- -- --
4201 Configuration 3 ...........
Configuration $ ......
4001
C in
Figure 8
Objective Function Value for Different Combinations
Ci. and Co. t
General Observations
In a previous study, Tanchoco and Sinriech 13
proved that in the single-loop guide path configura-
tion, an optimal station location is one where each
pick-up and delivery station is located at one of the
layout nodes (in these layouts all nodes represent
intersections). In the current model, CPPs are con-
sidered to be additional system nodes, hence an
optimal solution will be one where each pick-up and
delivery station is located either at an intersection or
at a CPP.
As the cost of the flow within a department
decreases, the current model and the SLSLP model
from the OSL procedure described in Reference 13
yield closer results. A zero cost of moving loads
within a department results in both formulations
being identical; therefore, the solutions of both
formulations are the same.
The graphs presented in Figure 5 show that as the
cost ratio C J C o u t goes up, the throughput perfor-
mance of the system goes down. The model com-
pares the two costs Ci,/Co, t and as the cost ratio
goes up, finds that positioning the pick-up and
delivery stations closer to their CPPs is more effec-
tive, thereby increasing the distance unit loads must
travel between departments. This fact causes the
throughput performance to go down. On the other
hand, the distance unit loads must travel within a
Conclusion
This study presents a model that takes into
account the unit load's flow between and within
~
departments. In the past, the flow within department
was overlooked by most studies dealing with the
design of AGV systems. As this study shows, the
assumption of neglecting the flow within the depart-
ments is not always valid. The example given shows
a significant difference in the system's performance
when the cost of the flow within the department
goes up. When the cost ratio Ci,/Cou t becomes
greater than 1, station location configuration 1,
which was optimal up to that point, changes to
station location configuration 2 and there is a large
drop in the system's throughput. On the other hand,
there is a decrease of 40% in the total within
department flow distance (895 compared to 1485).
This becomes an economic trade-off, meaning there
are savings on the within department flow cost large
enough to compensate for the increase in the cost of
between department flow plus the decrease in the
system's throughput.
This model can be used in two distinct ways. In
the case where the cost ratio of between and within
department flow is known, the model can be used as
a design tool to determine the station locations along
the guide path. On the other hand, the model can be
used as an evaluation tool to explore the impact
different material handling system combinations
(within department system and between department
system), each with a different cost ratio, have on the
overall system's performance.
Additional effort is needed for developing a
heuristic solution procedure for the mathematical
optimization model, due to the increase in the
model's complexity as larger systems are evaluated.
These heuristics should also take into account
changes in the system's throughput as different
station location configurations are evaluated.

306

References
1. G.C. Armour, E.S Buffa, and T.E, Vollman, "Allocating Facil-
ities with CRAFT," Harvard Business Review, %1ol.42, No. 2, 1964,
pp. 136-58.
2. P. Banerjee, B. Montreuil, C.L. Moodie, and R.L. Kashyap, "A
Qualitative Reasoning-Based Interactive Optimization Methodology
for Layout Design," Proceedings of the 1990 liE Conference, San
Francisco, CA, pp. 230-35.
3. Y.A. Bozer and M.M. Srinivasan, "Tandem AGV Systems: A
Partitioning Algorithm and Performance Comparison with Conven-
tional AGV Systems," Working Paper, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, MI, 1991.
4. "Using the CPLEX Linear Optimizer," CPLEX Optimization,
Inc., Houston, TX, 1990.
5. P.J. Egbelu and J.M.A. Tanchoco, "AGVSim User's Manual,"
Technical Report No. 8204., Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, VA, 1982.
6. R.J. Gaskins and J.M.A. Tanchoco, "Flow Path Design for
Automated Guided Vehicle Systems," International Journal of Pro-
duction Research, Vol. 25, No. 5, 1987, pp. 667-76.
7. W.G. Goetz and P.J. Egbelu, "Guide Path Design and Location
of Load Pick-up/Drop-off Points for an Automated Guided Vehicle
System," International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 28, No.
5, 1990, pp. 927-41.
8. M. Kaspi and J.M.A. Tanchoco, "Optimal Flow Path Design of
Unidirectional AGV Systems," International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 28, No. 6, 1990, pp. 1023-30.
9. J.T. Luxhoj, "A Methodology for the Location of Facility
Ingress/Egress Points," International Journal of Operation and Pro-
duction Management, Vol. 11, No. 5, 1991, pp. 6-21.
10. B. Montreuil and H.D. Ratliff, "Optimizing the Location of
Input/Output Stations Within Facilities Layout," Engineering Cost
and Production Economics, Vol. 14, 1988, pp. 177-78.
11. D. Riopel and A. Langevin, "Optimizing the Location of
Material Transfer Stations Within Layout Analysis," International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 22, 1991, pp. 169-76.
307
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Volume 11/No. 4
12. D.M. Stein, "Scheduling Dial-a-Ride Transportation Systems,"
Transportation Science, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1978, pp. 232-49.
13. J.M.A. Tanchoco and D. Sinriech, "OSL--Optimal Single-Loop
Guide Paths for AGVS," International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 30, No, 3, 1992, pp. 665-81.
14. J.A. Tompkins and R. Reed, Jr., "Computerized Facilities
Design," Technical Paper, American Institute of Industrial Engineers,
Norcross, GA, 1973.
15. J.S. Usher, G.W. Evans, and M.R. Wilhelm, "AGV Flow Path
Design and Load Transfer Point Location," Proceedings of the 1988
liE Conference, pp. 174-79, Orlando, FL.
16. M.A. Venkataramanan and K.A. Wilson, "A Branch-and-Bound
Algorithm for Flow-Path Design of Automated Guided Vehicle
Systems," Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, Vol. 38, 1991, pp.
431-45.
17. H.J. Warnecke, W. Dangelmaier, and H. Kuhnle, "Computer-
Aided Layout Planning," Material Flow, Vol. 1, 1985, pp. 35-48.
Authors' Biographies
David Sinriech received a BS in industrial engineering and
management from the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in
1988 and a MSIE degree from Purdue University in 1990. He is
currently pursuing a PhD in industrial engineering at Purdue
University. His research areas include material handling systems
design and network optimization.
J.M.A. Tanchoco is Professor of Industrial Engineering at Purdue
University. His teaching and research interests include facility design
and material handling systems, manufacturing planning and control,
and production economics. His current research is focused on the
design and operational control of intelligent factory transport systems
and on the design justification of material handling systems. He
pioneered research on the modeling and simulation of automated
guided vehicle systems.