Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Discussion: Mathematical
Model &
• Objective Value Comparison Methodolgy
Case study:
• Initial Layout
• Departments
• Assumptions
• New Layout
Background
Konak et al.
Sherali et al. (2005) for
FBS layout Jain, Khare, &
(2003) Mishra (2013)
Meller (1999)
Montreuil
(1991) Multi-objective
as future
research
Heragu &
Kusiak
(1991) :
M1, M2, &
M3 MIP development Literature Reviews
State of the Art
Research proposed
Sha & Chen (2001) Chen & Sha (2005) Shah et al. (2011) Aiello et al. (2012) Lenin et al. (2013)
(2015)
Multi objective V V V V V V
facility layout
problems
Material Handling V V V V
Cost objective
Closeness/Adjacency V V V
Rating objective
Probability of V
Superiority objective
Aspect ratio objective V
Distance Request V
objective
Total flow distance V
objective
MIP developmentV
Total number of
machines objective
Total Investment cost V
objective
Total Re-Layout V
objective
Research • Location: UD Rekayasa Wangdi (Cambahan, Nogotirto,
Location and
Gamping, Sleman, DIY). Rekayasa Wangdi is a company focusing in
producing machines for industries and personal usage related in
manufacturing, trade, and service of food and beverage.
Objects • The layout for the production of concrete brick dough
stirring machine company’s best seller
Mathematical w
𝑐𝑖𝑗
= weighting score of each objective
Model 𝑓𝑖𝑗
𝑃𝑙𝑖
= frequency of material flow from facilities i to j
(Parameter) 𝑡𝑖𝑗
𝑐𝑚1𝑖𝑗
= time spent for moving facilities i to j
∝𝑖 = maximum permissible ratio between the longest and shortest side of department i. i.e.,
s = x, y coordinate
Mathematical 𝑙𝑖𝑥
𝑦
= half-length (correspond to x ordinate)
Model
𝑙𝑖 = half-width (Correspond to y ordinate)
(Variables)
𝑦 = centroid of department i in y ordinate
𝑐𝑖
𝑠
𝑧𝑖𝑗
1, 𝑖𝑓 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖 𝑖𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑗 𝑖𝑛
𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑠
0, 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒
Mathematical min 𝑍 = 𝑤1 𝑂1 − 𝑤2 𝑂2 + 𝑤3 𝑂3𝑎 + 𝑤3 𝑂3𝑏 (01)
(Objective)
𝑥 𝑦
𝑂1 = 𝑐𝑖𝑗 𝑓𝑖𝑗 (𝑑𝑖𝑗 + 𝑑𝑖𝑗 )
minimization
𝑖=1 𝑗=1+1
𝑛−1 𝑛
𝑥 𝑦 Adjacency score maximization
𝑂2 = 𝑟𝑖𝑗 (𝑑𝑖𝑗 + 𝑑𝑖𝑗 )
𝑖=1 𝑗=1+1
machine
Mathematical • Area constraint : Eq. (06) and (07)
• Departments i and j are separated : Eq. (08) and (09)
𝜆
𝑥ҧ = 𝑙𝑏𝑖𝑥 + 𝑢𝑏𝑖𝑥 − 𝑙𝑏𝑖𝑥 ∀ 𝜆 = 0, 1, … , Δ − 1,
Model
Δ−1 (07)
(Constraints)
𝑦
𝑠 (08)
𝑧𝑖𝑗 + 𝑧𝑗𝑖𝑠 ≥ 1 ∀ 𝑖<𝑗
𝑠=𝑥
𝑠
𝑧𝑖𝑗 + 𝑧𝑗𝑖𝑠 ≤ 1 ∀ 𝑗 > 𝑖, 𝑠 (09)
𝑠
𝑑𝑖𝑗 ≥ 𝑐𝑖𝑠 − 𝑐𝑗𝑠 ∀ 𝑓𝑖𝑗 ≠ 0, 𝑗 > 𝑖, 𝑠 (11)
𝑠
𝑑𝑖𝑗 ≥ 𝑐𝑗𝑠 − 𝑐𝑖𝑠 ∀ 𝑓𝑖𝑗 ≠ 0, 𝑗 > 𝑖, 𝑠 (12)
𝑠
0 ≤ 𝑑𝑖𝑗 ≤ 𝐻 𝑠 − (𝑙𝑏𝑖 +𝑙𝑏𝑗 ) ∀ 𝑖 ≠ 𝑗, 𝑠 (17)
𝑐𝑖𝑠 ≥ 0 (18)
𝑠
𝑧𝑖𝑗 ∈ 0,1 ∀ 𝑖 ≠ 𝑗, 𝑠 (19)
Mathematical 𝑐𝑝𝑠 ≤ 𝑐𝑞𝑠 ∀ 𝑠 = 𝑥, 𝑦
(20)
Model
𝑥 𝑦 (21)
𝑧𝑞𝑝 = 𝑧𝑞𝑝 = 0
(Constraints) 𝑠
V2: 𝑑𝑖𝑗
𝑠
B2: 𝑑𝑖𝑗 ≥ (𝑙𝑏𝑖𝑠 +𝑙𝑏𝑗𝑠 ) ∀ 𝑓𝑖𝑗 ≠ 0, 𝑗 > 𝑖, 𝑠
(24)
∀ 𝑓𝑖𝑗 ≠ 0, 𝑗 > 𝑖, 𝑠
Data Collection Primary data:
– Number of facilities
– Frequency of material flow
– Area of each machine/facility with its length and wide
– Adjacency rating between facilities
– Cost of moving machine/facility
– Production capacity for each machine/facility
– Time of moving facilities
– Allowed area of the building for production facilities/machines
Secondary data:
– Bill of Material of the product produced
– Flow diagram of the material produced
– Operation Process Chart (OPC) of the product
Data Collecting • Observation
Direct observation is conducted to the production floor so the layout data
Method and any other data, especially the quantitative one, can be collected.
• Interview
Interview is conducted toward the owner/manager and the operator of the
production itself, so the data that cannot be observed by own can be
gathered.
Initial Layout
Departments
Involved
𝒚
No Dept. L (m) H (m) 𝒄𝒙𝒊 𝒄𝒊 Cost of moving machine (IDR/meter)
1 Cutting machine 12 8 16,55 5,725 7.200.000 (fixed)
2 Cutting dept. 3 4 15,2 6,05 Equal to material handling cost/meter
3 Drill 3 2,5 15,1 6,375 Equal to material handling cost/meter
4 Welding 8 2,5 17,05 6,275 Equal to material handling cost/meter
5 Circle 9 4,5 16,4 6,825 Equal to material handling cost/meter
6 Grinding 6 2,5 15,65 6,375 Equal to material handling cost/meter
7 Bender 3 2,5 15,825 6,625 Equal to material handling cost/meter * 2
8 Roll plate 4 2 16,85 6,5 7.200.000 (fixed)
9 Painting 6 6 15,65 5,95 Equal to material handling cost/meter
10 Bending 7 4,5 16,3 6,375 7.200.000 (fixed)
Departments
Involved
• Production loss per minute for each departments • Moving time of machine:
7 7 0 7 2 2 2 2 3 2 0 2 1 2
8 4 2 2 2 3 2 2 0 2 2
8 1 0
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 3
9 0
10 1 0 10 3 2 3 2 2 5 2 2 3 0
Assumptions • Material handling cost = 1
• Value of ∆ in area constraint is 20
• The α ratio uses the initial length and widht
comparisons
• The departments are located along a maximum
𝑦
permissible length 𝐻 𝑥 = 24 and 𝐻 =18 (in meter)
• The weighing score:
– 𝑤1 = 0,4
– 𝑤2 = 0,5
– 𝑤3 = 0,1
𝒚 𝒚
Dept. 𝒄𝒙𝒊 𝒄𝒊 𝒍𝒙𝒊 𝒍𝒊
1 9,305733 10,48089 5,356049 4,480891
2 1,974842 16,48089 1,974842 1,519109
3 4,61782 2,25 1,5 1,25
4 18,66178 4,75 4 1,25
5 19,16178 8,25 4,5 2,25
6 17,66178 16,75 3 1,25
7 7,411782 4,75 1,25 1,25
8 22,85734 1,75 1,142659 1,75
9 11,66178 3 3 3
10 18,21143 13 3,549648 2,230891
Objective Value Objective Value comparison between initial and new layout: