PLANT LAYOUT JOURNAL FACILITY DESIGN

COMPARISON PLANT LAYOUT PROCEDURE PROPOSED BY APPLE,

REED, SLP MUTHER
Alivia Chairunnisa, Andhyka Cikatania, Ardia Kusuma, Farel Abdurahman, Rizg Lintang
Keywords: Production Planning, Facility Layout, Shop Floor.

ABSTRACT
Many companies have a lot of problems with the layout that they have and apply.
Problems will appear slowly and will be felt when the production period is running.
Therefore, there is knowledge about this, it is called Plant Layout or Facility Layout
Planning. As we know that there are many definitions and explanations for this problem
and according to experts, they are also different, according to one expert that They also
differ in that the layout of the facility involves the development of physical relationships
between buildings, equipment, and production flows that enable the execution of the
manufacturing process, according to one expert. Efficient (George R. Terry) from book
(Kiran D. , 2019). We will discuss this problem formulation in three ways, namely with
Apple, Reed, and System Layout Planning (SLP). Here we will compare several
journals with the basis and theory of System Layout Planning (SLP), Apple and Reed,
where there are many different theories and foundations and the method is different for
each journal that you have. There are several approaches to dealing with a layout
problem, such as SLP Murther, Apple, and Reed. Each approach has its own set of
benefits and drawbacks. After comparing all of the approaches and conducting research,
it is clear that these three approaches are still the most common way to determine the
facility layout.
INTRODUCTION
In every industry or company, it must have a perfect layout, where this will be assisted
by the name Plant Layout Planning, why is that because the flow of each machine or
worker will have a positive impact and smoothness in moving each process, according
to experts, Plant Layout is a factory layout is the placement of machinery, work, and
service areas within a factory. (Richard Muther), another definition is emphasized that
Plant layout is a method of locating machines, processes, and plant services within a
factory in order to achieve the highest possible output of high quality at the lowest total
cost of manufacturing.(FG Moore), in addition there are also those who say that the
Plant layout ideally entails planning and integrating the paths of a product's component
parts to achieve the most effective and cost-effective interrelationships between the

1 | FACILITY DESIGN WRITTING ASSIGNMENT GROUP 13

 PLANT LAYOUT JOURNAL FACILITY DESIGN

operating equipment and personnel, material movement, storage facilities, service

functions, and

2 | FACILITY DESIGN WRITTING ASSIGNMENT GROUP 13

auxiliary equipment. (Spreigel and Lansburgh) in book (Kiran D. , 2019). As already
explained, which is a decision about the orderly and efficient arrangement of operating
facilities, including design or configuration of parts of the work centre and equipment
that refers to the production process (input-process-output), both inside and outside the
building, so that operational activities flow properly. Plant layouts are properly designed
for the initial conditions of the business. However, during the growth period, these
layouts create numerous bottlenecks. As a result, as capacity grows, it must adapt to
internal and external changes, necessitating a re-layout. (Naik & Shrikant , 2016)
problems ( analysesanalyse
COMPARATION
SLP
The first systematic literature analysis presented an outline of future work-related
challenges that must be addressed in order to realize the objective of automating
industrial layout planning and planners adopting the resulting program application. The
known algorithms for automated layout planning are described in this study. Heuristics
and metaheuristics can be distinguished. To highlight shortcomings, many
implementations are given. As a result, automated layout design is rarely included in
comprehensive planning. Furthermore, future development requirements for the
integration of solution approaches and qualitative criteria are discussed. It has been
demonstrated that a hybrid strategy, which combines building and optimization
algorithms, is efficient. The heuristics, on the other hand, merely approximate the
optimal solution and are highly bound by the layout that was initially designed. Use
metaheuristics to try to solve this problem. It offers powerful algorithms, which must be
tailored to specific applications (Peter Burggräf, 2021). As a consequence of this
literature analysis, there is currently no algorithm that can evaluate and select layouts
without consulting the planner based on the provided qualitative criteria. The second
article will look at the layout of jute industry production processes, build new layouts
based on systematic layout planning pattern theory, cut production costs, and increase
productivity. In yarn production, the number of machines and the area for material
handling were investigated (Md. Riyad Hossain, 2014). We took a thorough look at the
facility's layout, including operational flow charts, activity-related diagrams, and the
equipment-to-area relationship. A new plant layout was created and compared to the

3 | FACILITY DESIGN WRITTING ASSIGNMENT GROUP 13

previous one. In this study, we examine the layout setup step by step, from raw material
storage to final goods shipment, utilizing systematic layout planning pattern (SLP)
theory. This strategy aids in the development of innovative plant layouts that make
greater use of space while also improving process flow. You can create new layouts in a
variety of ways depending on your output. B. Group layouts, products, processes,
blends, and fixed placements. Facility planning is a broad term that refers to how a
system's people, machines, and activities are designed, laid out, and integrated. The
author emphasizes that facility layout design refers to how a manufacturing facility's
equipment and support activities are organized, located, and distributed in order to
achieve overall production time minimization, operational efficiency maximization,
revenue growth, and factory output maximization in accordance with production and
strategic goals. Shorter lead times are important for a firm to become a sustainable
player, according to the third paper. With the number of rivals in the global market
expanding at a rapid rate, shorter lead times are essential for a company to become a
sustainable player. The goal of this research is to enhance material flow from one
station to the next in order to a) improve the workshop manufacturing facility's layout,
b) reduce lead times, and c) improve energy management. This report focuses on high-
temperature heat treatment tool makers based in north-eastern Indiana, USA. Because a
company's manufacturing layout was found to be inefficient, machines and devices have
been purchased and placed in space during the last few decades. Staff had to track and
transport a considerable volume of material, which added to the time it required to build
the parts (Elahia, 2021). The goal of this study was to optimize the plant architecture of
a high-temperature heat treatment tool manufacturer in North-eastern Indiana through
plant design and construction technology in order to reduce lead times and improve
energy savings. On the fourth paper, there are approximately the production and
assembly processes require efficient material delivery, but the planning process is
complicated due to factors that affect internal material supply in numerous ways.
Component storage, picking, transportation, and material flow control all require
various tactics and procedures. This page includes an overview of how to plan, analyze,
and evaluate internal material supply, as well as affecting elements and a quick planning
guide. There is a presentation of a qualitative, quantitative, and monetary appraisal
approach. Finally, the technique of planning is applicable to certain use situations. It

4 | FACILITY DESIGN WRITTING ASSIGNMENT GROUP 13

examines several planning options for providing materials at assembly stations in the
medical technology industry, such as line storage, kitting, and hybrid systems (Meike
Herberta, 2021). The research found that achieving effective production and supply
necessitates a systematic approach to internal material supply planning. Material supply
analysis and planning, on the other hand, is a difficult undertaking that requires
collaboration with other planning areas. Target formulation, design, data collection and
processing, dimensioning, assessment, and interpretation were all presented as part of a
holistic planning strategy. The proposed material supply planning approach was used to
compare line stockings, kitting, and hybrid solutions in real-world assembly stations in
the medical technology industry. We compared and contrasted many options in terms of
financial, quantitative, and qualitative factors.
Apple
The first piece discusses how healthcare is quickly expanding over the world, and
despite great technology developments, it continues to face fundamental issues,
resulting in poor service and facilities for those in need. It has evolved. Healthcare
institutions must improve their layout planning in order to run effectively and
efficiently. This research optimizes a number of economic, technological, and social-
related quantitative criteria used in assessing, analyzing, and selecting the best layout
for current healthcare facilities. That is the point. Use a questionnaire-based statistical
analysis to identify significant areas for improvement, and then use Apple's layout
process to create a variety of viable layouts for efficient distribution (Vimal K.E.K,
2020). This study employs different methodologies while retaining MCDA's ELECTRE
method. Hospital A performed a survey with the help of medical, technological, and
consultant specialists to identify key areas. The new plan was created utilizing Apple's
layout approach and space fill curve after significant locations were determined
(MULTIPLE method). Plan 1 was the most detailed of the four floor plans, focusing on
the bottom floor and making adjustments to the emergency department and pharmacy.
Plan 2 calls for a reorganization of departments on the ground and first floors, with a
focus on emergency and scanning rooms to improve accessibility. Plan 3 focuses on
making the ICU more accessible. Plan 4 fully implemented Plan 1, keeping the major
portions of ICU and OR together and replacing the ward with MRD and canteen. The
station's accessibility at the Point of Care has enhanced as a result of this. As a result,

5 | FACILITY DESIGN WRITTING ASSIGNMENT GROUP 13

Plan 4 is the most optimized of the four designs. The goal of the second article is to rate
procedural approaches that can be utilized to tackle facility layout design (FLP)
challenges, employ a multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) approach and an
analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The technique is ranked using an analytic hierarchy
procedure, and factor weights are assigned using modified digital logic (MDL)
approaches (Dr. Bikas Prasad, 2018). The right location of facilities within the
workplace is known as layout planning, and it helps to increase both the quality and
quantity of output. A procedural approach to addressing layout design challenges is
accessible and has been studied by a number of scholars in the literature. In this study,
we'll compare them and attempt to rank them based on a few key aspects.
Reed
The first article describes a way for improving the physical layout of microfluidic
components. This is a critical phase in the development of specialized microfluidic
equipment for a number of process applications. A mathematical formulation in the
form of a mixed integer linear problem is provided, which allows for non-overlapping
restrictions for layout footprint and multi-objective optimization of connection length.
The main contribution of this work is a way for improving the layout of microfluidic
equipment while keeping the two goals of minimum perimeter and total connection
length in mind (Sanjy Andriamiseza, 2021). A mathematical formulation based on the
literature results produces MILP. In a typical microfluidic design application,
implementation utilizing widely accessible software packages can yield good numerical
results and allow the Pareto front to be determined with high accuracy and little
processing effort. It has been demonstrated. Designers that can easily establish a
realistic solution to a multipurpose challenge benefit from the ability to estimate pareto
front. The second essay discusses the importance of production system optimization in
dealing with global competitiveness and the transition from mass manufacturing to mass
customisation. In legacy manufacturing plants with a history of changes, expansions,
and adjustments, the urgency of this necessity becomes even more obvious. Complex,
complex, and inefficient material and product flow systems are widespread as a result of
inadequate layout of manufacturing equipment. There are a number of ways that may be
employed to aid in the creation of the best plant layout. It, on the other hand, lacks a
strong generic process for creating such layouts. Furthermore, there is a lack of

6 | FACILITY DESIGN WRITTING ASSIGNMENT GROUP 13

emphasis on the data and resources needed, as well as how simulation and optimization
might aid in the design of the best plant. This study discusses the integration of
simulation and optimization for the design and improvement of plant layouts, taking
production and logistical constraints into account (ENRIQUE RUIZ ZIGA, 2020). The
subject of plant layout concerns and general challenges while utilizing SBO to analyze
FLD are discussed in this article. In order to overcome the challenges of production and
logistics constraints, the FLD SBO approach has been presented. The evaluation was
presented using the two industrial case studies and the FRAM approach, and the
registration explained the industrial case study. The FLD approach, which is
incorporated into the FRAM model, discovered broad flaws and Z. B. We stress the
importance of focusing on time, project planning, resource allocation, data collecting,
simulation expertise, and plan level (diagnosis and diagnosis). It's also crucial to follow
the proposed FLD methodology's phases in the correct order.
APPROACHES
Numerous techniques have been designed to assist the facility planner in
producing alternative layouts. These processes can be categorized into two broad
categories, those used in construction and those used in improvement. Construction
layout techniques develop layout alternatives by identifying flaws in a current layout.
The author examines three layout processes in this task: Apple’s Plant Layout
Procedure, Reed’s Plant Layout Procedure, and Murther’s Systematic Layout Planning
(SLP) Procedure. Compared to the other two methods, Apple proposed plant layout
procedure includes the most procedures. Apple techniques contain a twenty-step
sequence for creating a plant layout procedure, as shown in (Tompkins, Bozer, White,
& Tanchoco, 2010) and outlined below.
1. Gather the necessary data 9. Coordinate grouping of
2. Analyse the fundamental data operations that are connected
3. Create a productive process 10. Determine the interrelationship
4. Create a material flow pattern between activities
5. Take into account the overall 11. Determine the amount of storage
material management strategy required
6. Determine the necessary 12. Create a schedule of service and
equipment auxiliary activities
7. Establish separate workstations 13. Determine the amount of space
8. Determine the appropriate required
material handling equipment 14. Align activities with available
space

7 | FACILITY DESIGN WRITTING ASSIGNMENT GROUP 13

15. Consider the building types
16. Generate the master layout
17. Consult with the right
individuals to evaluate, change,
and verify the layout
18. Obtain authorizations
19. Create the layout
20. Monitor the layout’s
implementation

8 | FACILITY DESIGN WRITTING ASSIGNMENT GROUP 13

 Unlike Apple’s Plant Layout Procedure, Reed’s Plant Layout Procedure
provided a systematic approach to developing a procedure for plant layout. Reed’s
procedure step sequence is relatively shorter than Apple’s Procedure. A total of
ten steps are shown in (TompkinsTompkins, ,White, & Tanchoco, 2010) outlined
below.
1. Conduct an analysis of the 5. Determine the amount of
product or items to be storage space required
manufactured 6. Specify the minimum aisle
2. Determine the manufacturing widths
procedure that will be used to 7. Determine the office
create the product requirements
3. Create charts for layout 8. Take into account personnel
planning facilities and services
4. Establish workstations 9. Conduct a plant survey
10. Plan for future growth.

Compared to Apple’s Plant Layout Procedure, SLP is the more traditional

approach for creating facility layouts, introduced in 1961. However, SLP is the
more used method compared to the other two, Apple’s Plant Layout Procedure
and Reed’s Plant Layout Procedure, owing to its superior design and application
versatility for layouts. The purpose of SLP is to put things into context and
indicate that the layout was created to achieve organizational goals. SLP acts as a
catalyst for the flow of materials, information, and human requirements, among
other parts of the business. As a result, the layout design process defines the many
phases and strategies that will aid in the organization of the manufacturing
components (-Alcaraz, -Vargas, & -Flores, 2021). Other than that, the popularity
of the SLP approach is happening due to its simplicity. SLP consist of four phases
as shown in (Thompkins) which outlined below.
Phase I : Determination
Phase II : Establishing the overall layout in its entirety
Phase III : Detailed layout plans
Phase IV : Installing the chosen layout
The book (Heragu, 2016) goes into greater depth on the task completed at
each phase. According to (Heragu, 2016), Phase I is the simplest phase. It entails
determining the department's location. Phase II, on the other hand, is more
challenging. Because it entails determining the movement of materials between

9 | FACILITY DESIGN WRITTING ASSIGNMENT GROUP 13

departments, examining specific adjacency needs, determining the space
requirements for each department, balancing them against available space, taking
into account practical constraints, and developing up to five alternate layout plans.
After examining the plans for cost and non-cost aspects, a plan for departments
and general work spaces is selected. Phase II does not include details about the
layout and location of each machine, auxiliary equipment, and support services
such as toilets, cleaning rooms, examination stations, and recharging rooms. Phase
III focuses on the arrangement of departments and support services precisely.
Phase III employs the same approaches as Phase II, with the exception that Phase
II concentrates on department layout. In comparison, Phase III is concerned with
the organization of machines and other ancillary equipment inside each
department. Phase IV requires unanimous approval of the layout by all
stakeholders, including affected employees, supervisors, and managers. After that,
the final layout is developed. Due to the fact that the design will be used to plan
the transfer to the new facility, it must be significantly more thorough. Phase IV
include providing funds and time for the relocation, as well as the actual
transportation of machines and services. The three techniques listed above can be
adjusted to match the unique business objectives of any organization. Each
operation has various benefits and drawbacks, which will be explained in further
detail..
ADVANTAGES

Systematic Layout Planning Murther (SLP)

According Murther Reducing the require space by eliminating the travelled

distanced in the area. It can increase efficiency within the cluster, the position or
location of the industry needs to be arranged in order to provide maximum
benefits through cost efficiency in material handling. (Murther, 1961). 5 Factors
that affecting plant layout grouped into 5 main categories: Materials, Material
Handling, Machinery, Waiting Time, Labour. Beside from the five categories
listed above, this system offers a great deal of flexibility in terms of equipment
and manpower distribution for certain activities. For the operator, the variety of
jobs makes for a more exciting and satisfying results because each department’s
supervisors become extremely aware due to their responsibility to make all of job
shops effective and the results is good.

10 | FACILITY DESIGN WRITTING ASSIGNMENT GROUP 13

Apple, 1977

The advantages according Apple the first is comprehensive integration of all

influencing factors production process to minimize the displacement distance of
the material moving from the one operation to the next operation. And then the
factory work flow runs smoothly by avoiding reciprocating motion, cutting
motion and jamming. For the machines that existing in the factory are utilized
effectively and efficiently because the layout settings can be flexible enough.. The
workers can feel safe due to their safety maintained as well as possible
(MacGregor, 1977).

Reed, 1973

The advantages cite from Reed if all the requirement can support the layout
planning of the company, this method can maximize the resources and give many
benefits to the customer. Because if one of the requirements cannot support this
method it cannot present the maximum planning from this method and the results
will bad (Tompkins & Jr, 1976). The influencing factors of this method are
Factory Building, Type of Machine, Nature of Product, Factors Influencing Plant
Layout, Type of Industry, Human Resources, Type of Production Process, Plant
Environment, Volume of Production.

DISADVANTAGES

Every method has its own disadvantages. According to MacGregor (1977),

disadvantages of the SLP approach were discussed. One of the drawbacks of the
SLP approach is that the workstations cannot be changed. The design of the main
structure, as well as the need for efficient air circulation in the pre-treatment and
powder painting sections. Due to these constraints, two layouts have been created.
The two layouts have fulfilled the modifying considerations and practical limits
that exist, yet there are discrepancies in distance and material handling costs.
Another problem of these three methods is that it is difficult to design to meet the
requirements and constraints that occur in manufacturing. The designer must
create a new model and adjust it to the existing layout to acquire the greatest
outcomes from these three ways in layout design. When constructing layout

11 | FACILITY DESIGN WRITTING ASSIGNMENT GROUP 13

planning with quantitative techniques that must be solved algorithmically, these
three methods (SLP, Apple, and Reed) approaches are incompatible. (MacGregor,
1977). Murther Richard said, that these three methodologies are still standard
procedures that have not been changed and are still used by many scholars today.
To implement these strategies, the layout designer must make significant financial
investments in the purchase of similar machines in several lines of workstations,
resulting in a significant capital investment for the organization. As a result of the
designer's significant financial burden, this limitation causes financial loss and
overhead charges. (Murther, 1961). Due to the limitations in each approach, the
production cannot be enlarged because these three processes are still in traditional
terms. Traditional methos also causes general supervision to be ineffective due to
a lack of understanding and the failure to pay attention to the details of the
process. In addition, a lack of understanding about how to use these three
strategies makes the situation worse. (Tompkins & Jr, 1976).
CONCLUSION
Facility layout is the arrangement of the resource available in the shop floor in
such a way to get the maximized production. There are various solution
approaches available to handle a layout problem like SLP Murther, Apple, and
Reed. Each approaches have its own advantages and disadvantages. After
comparing all the approaches, and do research it shows that these three
approaches are still the traditional method to find the facility layout. Between
these three approaches, the most frequently used approach is SLP Murther,
because SLP Murther is simpler and easier to understand by all the circle.

12 | FACILITY DESIGN WRITTING ASSIGNMENT GROUP 13

 REFERENCES
Andriamiseza, S., Trellet, M., Lafitte, N., Clerget, C.-H., & Petit, N. (2021).
Optimization of microfluidic layouts as a wired parking problem. 529-535.
Elahia, & Behin. (2021). Manufacturing Plant Layout Improvement: Case study
of a High-Temperature Heat Treatment Tooling Manufacturer in Northeast
Indiana. 49th SME North American Manufacturing Research Conference,
NAMRC 49, 25-31.
Herberta, M., Heinleina, P., Fürstb, J., & Frankea, J. (2021). A systematic
approach for planning, analyzing and evaluating internal. 30th
International Conference on Flexible Automation and Intelligent
Manufacturing (FAIM2021), 448-454.
Hossain, M. R., Rasel, M. K., & Talapatra, S. (2014). Increasing Productivity
through Facility Layout Improvement. Global Journal of Researches in
Engineering, 71-75.
K.E.K, V., KANDASAMY, J., NADEEM, S. P., KUMAR, A., ŠAPARAUSKAS,
J., GARZA-REYES, J. A., & TRINKŪNIENĖ, E. (2020). Developing A
Strategic Sustainable Facility Plan For A Hospital Layout Using Electre
And Apples Procedure. International Journal of Strategic Property
Management, 2-17.
Kiran, D. (2019). Production Planning and Control. In D. Kiran, Plant Layout A
Comprehensive Approach (pp. 261-278).
Kiran, D. (2019). Production Planning and Control. In D. Kiran, A
Comprehensive Approach (pp. 261-278). United Kingdom : Butterworth-
Heinemann.
MacGregor, J. (1977). Factory Layout And Material Transfer. New York: Wiley,
3rd edition.
Murther, R. (1961). Systematic Layout Planning. Boston: Industrial Education
Institute.
Naik, S. B., & S. K. (2016). Plant Layout. Efficient Plant Layout .
Peter Burggräf, T. A.-I. (2021). Fields of action towards automated facility layout
design and optimization in factory planning – A systematic . 865-871.

13 | FACILITY DESIGN WRITTING ASSIGNMENT GROUP 13

Prasad, D. B., & Srivastava, D. R. (2018). Comparative Analysis of Procedural
Approaches for Facility Layout design. International Journal of Applied
Engineering Research, 238-243.
Tompkins, J. A., & Jr, R. R. (1976). An Applied Model For The Facilities Design
Problem. International Journal of Production Research, 583-595.
doi:doi.org/10.1080/00207547608956377
ZÚÑIGA, E. R., MATIAS URENDA MORIS, A. S., (Member, I., FATHI, M., &
RUBIO-ROMERO, J. C. (2020). A Simulation-Based Optimization
Methodology for Facility Layout Design in Manufacturing. 163819-
163828.

14 | FACILITY DESIGN WRITTING ASSIGNMENT GROUP 13