Facility Design An Introduction

R. Lindeke, Ph. D.
IE 3265
Sp. 2006
Facility Layouts:

A Decision that Encompasses:

Placement of Departments
Placement of Workstations/Machines
Placement of Stockholding points within Factory
or Warehouse
Development of Controlled Traffic Patterns to
generate smooth workflow throughout
Decision Makers:

What is the desired flexibility and

required output?
What is the forecast product demand
and its growth?
What are the processing requirements?
Number of operators
Level of flow between work stations and
between work areas
How can the design balance
requirements on Workstation loading
Facility Space Available
Signs of a Successful Layout

1. Directed Flow Patterns:

1. Straight line or other smooth patterns of
movement
2. Backtracking kept to a minimum
2. Predictable Processing Time
3. Little WIP in Facility
4. Open Floors: allow communication and
easy tracking of work & employees
5. Bottleneck operations under control
6. Work Stations close together
Signs of a Successful Layout, cont:

7. Orderly Handling & Storage of Raw

Materials and Finished products
8. No extra handling or unnecessary handling
of materials
9. Can easily adapt to changing conditions
1. Considers demand growth or decline
2. Considers product change over
3. Considers technological change
Workstation Layouts Within a cell:

IMPROVED
Standard Layouts
LAYOUTS:

End to End

Front to Front

I/O

Back to Back
(poor) Circular or U Flow
Considering Circular or U-Flow:

Advantages:
One operator can tend several machines
Common I/O station simplifies material
transfer to/from cell to the rest of the
facility
Automation can be tried for several
machines
Disadvantages:
Limited Queuing space or WIP storage
within cell
Requires excellent balance and high
quality to keep flow active between
workstations in the cell
Flow Patterns within Process
Departments (Job Shops)

Aisle

Aisle

Aisle
A. Parallel Flow
B. Perpendicular Flow

Aisle

C. Diagonal Flow

Aisle
Some Job Shop Ideas:

Flow is in-out of the department not between

machines
Traffic patterns must support movement from
and to aisles
Diagonal designs often save floor space in 1
way aisle shops
Overall Flow is a Function of Aisles

As a designer, aisle placement is of primary interest

and often marks successful or failed designs!
Aisle Size is a function of Load Size!

Set Aside is controlled by Largest Load Area (Rules of Thumb)

Load Area Aisle Set Aside
< 6 ft2 5 -10% of calc. size
6 12 ft2 10 - 20% of calc. size
12 18 ft2 20 - 30% of calc. size
> 18 ft2 30 - 40% of calc. size
 Aisle Consideration, cont.

Aisle width is controlled by the traffic that flows on it

Type of Traffic Min. Aisle Width
Large Wheeled Indoor/outdoor Tractors 12* *F
or
Large Forktrucks 11 e ac
h
Small Forktrucks 9 of di r
f ec
low tio
Narrow Aisle trucks/AGVs 6 n
Manual Platform Trucks 5
Personnel 3
Personnel w/doors 1 side 6
Personnel w/doors both sides 8

NOTE: Consider turning radiuses at intersections!

General Aisle Issues:

Good Aisle Designs

Avoid curves/jogs/non 90
intersections
Avoid outside wall paths (these
are used for utilities so
machine/workstations should
back to walls if possible
Are straight and lead to door
ways
Allow Flow to be controlled by
entrances and exits (as it should)
Facility Designs Seeks:

To maximize directed (forward)

flow
Materials move directly from
sources to destination without
jogging around and by paths that
dont intersect other flows*
Minimize total flow (volume) of all
products
Distances minimized, too
Minimize cost of flow expensive
flows should be short while lighter
or less critical flows can be longer

*No Backtracks!
An Example:

50
A
D
50
25
50 75
B C

Flow Straight Thru: A-B-C-D is 250

Flow w/Backtracking: A-B-C-A-D is 550
Backtracking is an Economic decision!
Cost of Added Equipment (replication of A) VS.
Cost of added flow movement and traffic patterns (aisle set
aside) for each product that flows along backtrack
The Technical Jobs of Facilities Design:

Determination of Space requirements:

Workstation space for:
Equipment
Footprint + machine travel + access (load/maintenance) +
shop services (air/electrical/water, etc)
Materials
consider unit load size + tooling/scrap etc
Personnel
ingress & egress 30 42 for passage between stationary
or operating machines
The Technical Jobs of Facilities Design:

Determination of Space requirements (cont.):

Departmental (Cell) Requirements:
(WSreqr + G.Service + M.Handlingreqr)
G. Service areas
offices, records, data, inspection/QC, etc.
Material Handling
inside traffic set asides to move product, tools, raw
materials, etc
The Technical Jobs of Facilities Design:

Determination of Space requirements (cont.):

Specifics for Work Centers:
Use a Worksheet (see handout)
Lists various resources and their requirements
considering services, physical loading (special needs?)
List and sum all areas required
Add in Aisle Allowance

See handout (one for each work center or

assembly line)
The Technical Jobs of Facilities Design:

The second job is to effectively provide for minimum

flow and cost of flow
Here the designer performs studies of the space
requirements and desired travel patterns
Using Qualitative Tools:
SLP (systematic layout planning) based on activity relationship
charts to suggest appropriate layouts
Software to optimize the relationships
Using Quantitative tools:
Mileage Charts: area to area distance matrices
From -To Charts: Move/Volume/Cost Matrices
Appropriate software to compute and optimize the
arrangements
Typical Activity Relationship Chart:

These charts are often

called an AEIOUX
chart the letters
used to explain
relationships that are
learned during our
facility studies:
Completing the Activities Relationship
Chart:

After listing all departments on chart, Conduct Surveys to assess

relationships with each departments staff
Interpret results of surveys as closeness needs itemize and
record closeness requirements to support assessed relationship
Establish the relationships:
A absolutely necessary
E Especially Important
I Important
O ordinary closeness okay
U Unimportant
X Undesirable
Allow all concerned parties to review proposed chart for accuracy
of closeness settings
Using Activity Relationship Chart to
build Designs:

Using Pure SLP ideas

we develop a Meatball
diagram and move
departments around to
shorten A & E lines
while increasing length
of X lines
Using Activity Relationship Chart to
build Designs
Using Activity Relationship Chart to
build Designs

An alternative approach begins with looking

at each department as equal sized
rectangles listing letter relationship with all
departments in the Facility
Receiving: A -; X-; Milling: A -; X-; E- Press: A -; X-; Sc. Machine: A -;
E-B; I-D; O-C,E; A,D; I-E,F; O-; U- E-; I-; O-A,F; X-; E-B; I-A,E;
U- F,G C,G U- B,D,E,G O-; U-C,F,G

Plating: A -E; X-; E- Shipping: A -; X-; E- Assembly: A -F; X-;

G; I-B; O-C; U- F; I-E; O-; U- E-; I-B,D,G; O-A;
A,D A, B, C,D U- C
Using Activity Relationship Chart to
build Designs

Select template with highest number of A

relationships; tied templates selected subject to
hierarchy: most Es, Most Is, fewest Xs
Here select Plating department (F)
Next template chosen should have A relationship w/
1st chosen any ties broken as above
Here Assembly, department E
Next template chosen should have the highest joint
relationship with first two chosen
Here is Shipping G
This continues until all departments are chosen
In doing the Design:

Place F in Center.
F
Then follow in order
keeping Ideas
E
By This (AEIOUX) of
Order: G
arrangements:

B A
C
D B
D E F
G
A

C
A Final Step: now we consider actual
departmental areas:

# Units
Code Function Area Ft2
(2000 per)
A Receiving 12,000 6
B Milling 8,000 4
C Press 6,000 3
Sc.
D 12,000 6
Machines
E Assembly 8,000 4
F Plating 12,000 6
G Shipping 12,000 6
Leads to the following Proposed
Layout:

When equal sizes are replaced

with scaled sizes we develop
these layouts:
Obviously, many variants
would be possible (no Xs and
few A and Es)
We determine appropriate
layout only after quantitative
analysis is applied to the
proposed arrangements
Addressing the Quantitative
Approaches:

Mileage
Charts: showing Distances between
Departments
Distances measures Euclidian-wise using
computed straight lines between department
centroids
Distances measure Recti-linear were
department to department distances are
computed by moving horizontally and vertically
along expected aisle routes
Mileage Chart Format

A B C D E

A XXX 100 200 300 400

B 100(?) XXX 100 200 300

C 200 100 XXX 100 200

D 300 200 100 XXX 100

E 400 300 200 100 XXX

BackTracks:
From-To Charts

Charts, based on Routings, that show

each relevant parts movement
through the proposed facility
Format is similar to Mileage chart but
are rarely symmetrical or fully
populated
More expensive travel can be
handled with increased Volumes or
have other special handling costs
attached
Examining Quantitative Design

We begin with a Qualitatively designed

facility (one that meets perceived activity
relationships)
To keep it simple, lets look at a Flowthru
facility:
Consider that each
A B C D E of the departments
(A to E) are 100
units square
General Flow Direction
Representative Products are selected
for study:

These might be group seeds or large volume

products or in other ways represent how the product
will move thru the facility
Lets explore 3: (Pr 1, Pr 2 and Pr 3)

Product Prod. Quantity Routing

Pr1 30 A-C-B-D-E
Pr2 12 A-B-D-E
Pr3 7 A-C-D-B-E
Mileage Chart:

A B C D E

A XXX 100 200 300 400

B 100 XXX 100 200 300

C 200 100 XXX 100 200

D 300 200 100 XXX 100

E 400 300 200 100 XXX

From To Chart (based on Routing)

A B C D E
Pr 1 30 +
A XXX Pr2 12 Pr 3 2*7 = 0 0
30 +14 = 44
Pr 1 30 + Pr 3 2*7 =
B 0 XXX 0
Pr2 12 = 42 14
Pr 3 2*7 =
C 0 Pr 1 30 XXX
14
0

Pr 3 2*7 = Pr 1 30 +
D 0
14
0 XXX
Pr2 12 = 42

E 0 0 0 0 XXX

Pr 3 is heavier and costlier to move we double

volume to make it equivalent to Pr 1 & Pr 2
From To Issues

The filled cells below the diagonal represent moves

against the general directed flow of the original
facility design ( they may (should) cost more
than moves above the line for the same distances)
Cells Close to the diagonal are short distance moves
while cells remote from the diagonal are long
distance moves
The number of moves (not filled cells!) must equal
the total of each move in the routing sheets for the
products
Costing Transport in the Layout:

For comparison:
all forward moves cost $1/unit vol/unit distance
All Backtrack move cost $1.25/unit vol/unit distance

Costs A B C D E
A xxx 1 1 1 1
B 1.25 xxx 1 1 1
C 1.25 1.25 xxx 1 1
D 1.25 1.25 1.25 xxx 1
E 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 xxx
Layout Total Transport Cost

Form: M*F*C cell products

Sum each cell of resultant matrix it is the facility
transportation cost (for comparison)
Can we do Better?

Lets Swap Departments B & C

A C B D E

General Flow Direction

This will change our Mileage and Cost

Matrices as well as arrangements in From/To
Matrix
New Mileage Chart:

A C B D E

A XXX 100 200 300 400

C 100 XXX 100 200 300

B 200 100 XXX 100 200

D 300 200 100 XXX 100

E 400 300 200 100 XXX

New From-To Chart

A C B D E
Pr 1 30 +
A XXX Pr 3 2*7 = Pr2 12 0 0
30 +14 = 44
Pr 3 2*7 =
C 0 XXX Pr 1 30
14
0

Pr 1 30 + Pr 3 2*7 =
B 0 0 XXX
Pr2 12 = 42 14
Pr 3 2*7 = Pr 1 30 +
D 0 0
14
XXX
Pr2 12 = 42

E 0 0 0 0 XXX
New Cost Matrix:

Costs A C B D E

A xxx 1 1 1 1

C 1.25 xxx 1 1 1

B 1.25 1.25 xxx 1 1

D 1.25 1.25 1.25 xxx 1

E 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 xxx

New Transportation Costs:
Examining these results:

Swapping 2 departments lead to a reduction

in cost of:
$9900 or about 28% of the original cost
Can we improve further?
Not with this fundamental design
Can we redesign the general footprint?
Then we can keep looking!
New Fundamental Design:

And applying a Euclidean Concept of distances!

A C D
B E
Distance from A to B is: (1002+1002).5 = 142 units
Distance A to E is: (2002+1002).5 = 224 units
Typically, with Euclidean distances, were would not consider
transport cost differences in either direction this facility shape
doesnt favor general directions of flow!
Mileage Chart (now)

A C B D E

A XXX 100 142 200 224

C 100 XXX 100 100 142

B 142 100 XXX 142 100

D 200 100 142 XXX 100

E 224 142 100 100 XXX

Transportation Cost Picture:

A further savings of $1000 as manager we decide if the

new configuration design is worth the savings gained!