281 views

Uploaded by Moshira Essam

save

You are on page 1of 127

Manufacturing Design

13. Layout Design and

Cellular Manufacturing Design

1. Single-row Machine Layout Problem (s-MLP)

1.1 s-MLP Formulation

1.2 s-MLP Representation

1.3 s-MLP Evaluation

1.4 s-MLP Numerical Example

2. Multi-row Machine Layout Problem (m-MLP)

2.1 m-MLP Formulation

2.2 m-MLP Representation

2.3 m-MLP Initialization

2.4 m-MLP Evaluation

2.5 m-MLP Genetic Operations

2.6 m-MLP Numerical Example

3. m-MLP in Fuzzy Environment

3.1 Fuzzy Clearance

3.2 Fuzzy m-MLP

3.3 Fuzzy m-MLP Formulation and Representation

3.4 Fuzzy m-MLP Feasibility

3.5 Fuzzy m-MLP Evaluation

3.6 Fuzzy m-MLP Numerical Example

13. Layout Design and

Cellular Manufacturing Design

4. Fuzzy Facility Layout Problems

4.1 FLP Formulation and Fuzzy Interflow

4.2 FLP Representation and Initialization

4.3 FLP Genetic Operations and Constructing a Layout

4.4 FLP Evaluation

4.5 Fuzzy FLP Numerical Example

5.1 Introduction to CMD

5.2 Major Issues on CMD

5.3 Mathematical Formulation

5.4 Genetic Representation and Operations

5.5 Evaluation and Overall Procedure

5.6 Numerical Examples

13. Layout Design and

Cellular Manufacturing Design

1.1 s-MLP Formulation

1.2 s-MLP Representation

1.3 s-MLP Evaluation

1.4 s-MLP Numerical Example

2. m-MLP in Fuzzy Environment

3. Fuzzy Facility Layout Problems

4. Cellular Manufacturing Design

1. s-MLP

Layout Design Problem

Kusiak, A. and S. Heragu: "The facility layout problem”, European Journal of

Operational Research, Vol.29, pp. 229-251, 1987.

Optimum arrangement of Physical Facilities such as machines or

departments, is a criteria area in manufacturing environment.

Design Criterion is considered as the minimizing material handling cost.

Heuristic Technique is the most promising approach for solving the

practical size Facility Layout Design (FLD) problems.

The layout of machines in a flexible machining system is typically

determined by the type of material handling devices used. The most used

material handling devices are as follows:

Material handling robot

Automated Guided Vehicle (AGV)

Gantry robot

1. s-MLP

Machine/Facility Layout Design (M/FLD) Problem based

on Genetic Algorithms:

Cohon, J., S. Hegde, and N. Martin: "Distributed genetic algorithms for the

floor-plan design problem”, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design,

Vol.10, pp. 483-491,1991.

Tam, K.: "Genetic algorithms, function optimization, facility layout design”,

European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 63, pp. 322-346,1992.

Tate, D. and A. Smith: "Unequal-area facility layout by genetic search, IIE

Transactions, Vol. 27, pp. 465-472, 1995.

Tate, D. and A. Smith: "Genetic approach to quadratic assignment

problem”, Computers and Operations Research, Vol. 22, pp. 73-83, 1995.

Cheng, R. and M. Gen: "Genetic search for facility layout design under

interflows uncertainty”, Japanese Journal of Fuzzy Theory and System,

Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 335-346, 1996.

Cheng, R. and M. Gen: "Genetic algorithms for multi-row machine layout

problem”, in Gen M. and R. Cheng: Genetic Algorithm and Engineering

Design, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1997

1. s-MLP

Recently, the interest in application of Genetic

algorithms to facility layout design has been growing

rapidly:

David W. and S. Alice: "Penalty guided genetic search for reliability

design optimization,” Computers and Industrial Engineering, Special

Issue on Genetic Algorithms, Vol.30, No. 4, pp.895-904, 1996.

David W. A. E. Smith, and T. David: "Adaptive Penalty Methods for

Genetic Optimization of Constrained Combinatorial Problems”,

INFORMS Journal on Computing, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.173-182, 1996.

Schnecke V. and O. Vornberger: "Hybrid Genetic Algorithms for

Constrained Placement Problems”, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary

Computation, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 266–277, 1997.

Rajasekharan, M. B. A. Peters, and T. Yang: "A Genetic Algorithm for

Facility Layout Design in Flexible Manufacturing Systems”, International

Journal of Production Research, Vol. 36, No.1, pp. 95-110, 1998

1. s-MLP

Assumption:

Kusiak, A.: Intelligent Manufacturing System, Prentice-Hall, Englewood

Cliffs, NJ, 1990.

In order to model the single-row machine layout problem, the following

assumptions are made:

machines are rectangular in shape

orientation of machines is known

for example, all machines are to be oriented lengthwise

lV li dij lj

mi bi mj bj

xi

xj

Fig. 13.1 Illustration of Parameters and Decision Variables

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 8

1.1 s-MLP Formulation

Notation:

n is the number of machines.

fij the frequency of trips between machines i and j.

cij the handling cost per unit distance traveled between machine i

and j.

li the length of machine i.

dij the minimum clearance between machines i and j.

bi the width of machine i.

xi the distance between the center of machine i and the vertical

reference line lV.

n −1 n

min ∑ ∑c

i =1 j = i +1

ij f ij xi − x j

1

s. t. xi − x j ≥ (li + l j ) + d ij , i = i,..., n − 1, j = i + 1,..., n

2

xi ≥ 0, i = 1,..., n

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 9

1.2 s-MLP Representation

The essential problem in s-MLP can be viewed as the

sequencing problem of machines, so it can be solved in two

separate steps:

sequencing machines

generating actual layout

Representation:

A straightforward way to encode the machine layout into a

chromosome for a single-row case is to use the permutation of

machines.

Generally, for an n-machine problem, a chromosome vk is given

as follows:

vk = [ m1 m2 ... mn ]

k k k

chromosome.

Genetic Operators:

Here we use PMX crossover and inverse mutation.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 10

1.3 s-MLP Evaluation

Evaluation Function:

According to the sequence and the geometric requirements of

machines, we can calculate the x-axis coordinates of all

machines as follows: k k k

[ x1 x1 ... xn ]

Then we can calculate the total cost for the kth chromosome as

follows: n −1 n

fk = ∑ ∑c k k

i =1 j = i +1

ij f ij xi − x j

convert the objective function value of each chromosome to

the fitness value, such that a fitter chromosome has a larger

fitness value.

The conversion is done by the following evaluation function:

1

eval(vk ) =

fk

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 11

Algorithm for s-MLP

begin

t ←0;

initialize encoding P(t) with permutation of machines;

evaluate with permutation decoding P(t);

while (not termination condition) do

PMX crossover P(t) to yield C(t);

inverse mutation P(t) to yield C(t);

evaluate C(t);

select P (t+1) from P(t) and C(t) ;

t ← t+1;

end

end

1.4 s-MLP Numerical Example

The test problem, given by Kusiak, is a six-machine layout problem.

the machine size, the frequency matrix, the cost matrix, and the

clearance between machines for the problem are as follows:

Machine Sizes

0 40 80 21 62 90

Machine i Dimension ( li× bi )

1 5.0× 3.0 40 0 72 12 24 28

2 2.0× 2.0 80 72 0 14 41 9

[ f ij ] =

3 2.5× 2.0 21 12 14 0 21 12

62

24 41 21 0 31

4 6.0× 3.5

5 3.0× 1.5

90 28 9 12 31 0

6 4.0× 4.0

0 4 4 6 4 5 0 1 1 1 2 1

4 0 2 5 2 3 1 0 1 1 1 1

4 2 0 5 3 3 1 1 0 1 1 1

[cij ] = [ d ij ] =

6 5 5 0 5 8 1 1 1 0 3 1

4 2 2

2 3 5 0 4

1 1 3 0

5 3 3 8 4 0 1 1 1 1 2 0

1.4 s-MLP Numerical Example

The evolutionary environment of our implementation is given as follows:

popSize=20, maxGen=50, pM=0.4, pC=0.2

The best chromosome is listed as follows:

Generation the best solution occurred: 17

Cost: 19531.00

The sequence of machines: [6 1 3 5 2 4]

vrl

m6 … m1 … m3 … m5 … m2 … m4

hrl

Fig. 13.2 single-row layout for the example problem

1.4 s-MLP Numerical Example

Evolutionary Process

0.00006

best fitness

0.00005

average fitness

0.00004

0.00003

ss enti F

0.00002

0.00001

0

10 20 30 40 50

13. Layout Design and

Cellular Manufacturing Design

2. Multi-row Machine Layout Problem (m-MLP)

2.1 m-MLP Formulation

2.2 m-MLP Representation

2.3 m-MLP Initialization

2.4 m-MLP Evaluation

2.5 m-MLP Genetic Operations

2.6 m-MLP Numerical Example

2. Fuzzy Facility Layout Problems

3. Cellular Manufacturing Design

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 16

1. m-MLP

The essential of this problem comprises three different

tasks:

allocate machines to rows (to determine y coordinates).

find the best positions of machines within each row (to

determine x coordinates).

Heragu, S. and A. Kusiak: "Machine layout problem in flexible manufacturing

systems”, Operations Research, Vol. 36, pp. 258-268, 1988.

Although second one is the single-row layout problem, it is easy

to see that the best solution for each row may not be good for

global solution of the problem due to the existence of traffic

cost among rows.

Thus we cannot simply handle this problem as several

single-row layout problems.

2.1 m-MLP Formulation

Notation: lV

d0j

Let the decision variable zik be mj

lk

l0

zik = xi dik yk

0, otherwise

lH

n is the number of machines. Fig. 13.4 Illustration of parameters, decision

m the number of rows. variables, and reference lines

fij the frequency of trips between machines i and j.

cij the handling cost per unit distance traveled between machines i and j.

li the length of machine i.

l0 the separation between two adjacent rows.

dij the minimum clearance between machines i and j.

bi the width of machine i.

xi the distance between the center of machine i and the vertical reference line lV.

yi the distance between the center of machine i and the horizontal reference line lH.

2.1 m-MLP Formulation

The multiple-row machine layout problem with unequal area

can be formulated as a mixed-integer programming problem:

∑ ∑c f ( x − x )

n −1 n

min ij ij i j + yi − y j

i =1 j =i +1

1

s. t. xi − x j zik z jk ≥ (li + l j ) + d ij , i, j = 1, , n

2

m

yi = ∑ l (k − 1)z

k =1

0 ik , i = 1, , n

m

∑z

k =1

ik = 1, i = 1, , n

n

∑z

k =1

ik < n, i = 1, , m

xi , yi ≥ 0, i = 1, , n

zik = 0,1, i = 1, , n, k = 1, , m

2.2 m-MLP Representation

Representation:

Cheng, R. and M. Gen: "Genetic algorithms for multi-row machine

layout problem”, in Gen M. and R. Cheng: Genetic Algorithm

and Engineering Design, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1997.

representation scheme can be viewed as an extended

permutation representation, which contains three lists of

separator/ machine symbol/ neat clearance.

For n machines and two-row case, the representation is

sketched as follows:

[ s, {mi 1 , mi 2 , ..., mi n }, {∆ i1 , ∆ i2 , ..., ∆ i n }]

where mij represent machine mij in the j th position.

∆ ij denotes the neat clearance between machines mij −1 and mij .

s denotes the cutting position to separate the list into

two part according to the two row requiremen t.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 20

2.2 m-MLP Representation

Calculation of x-axis Coordinates:

Suppose that machines mk and mi are arranged as shown in

this Figure, the net clearance and x-axis position can be

calculated as follows:

lV

(1/2)lk ∆ lki (1/2)li

∆ i = ∆lki − d ki

1

xi = xk + d ki + ∆ i + ( li + lk ) mk

∆ i

mi

2

1 (1/2)dki (1/2)dki

xk = d k 0 + ∆ k + lk

2 xk xi lH

Fig. 13.5 Neat Clearance and Decision Variables

∆lki separation between two machines

d ki the required clearance between machines k and i

2.2 m-MLP Representation

Calculation of y-axis Coordinates:

to determine based on the separations of rows.

The separation between rows can be predetermine according to

features of the material handling system

Let us consider the two-row case.

If we suppose that the position of the first row is 0,

then the y-axis coordinates can be calculated as follows:

lV

mi1 mi2 mi3 mi4

l

0 mi5 mi6 0, if mi is in the first row

yi =

lH l , if mi is in the second row

Fig. 13.6 Illustration of y-axis coordinates

2.3 m-MLP Initialization

Initialization of Multi-row Machine Layout:

procedure: Initialization

begin

i ←0

while (i ≥ popSize) do

generate separator randomly;

generate machine list randomly;

check the feasibility of a chromosome;

if the chromosome is feasible then

generate neat clearance list randomly;

i ← i + 1;

else delete selected list;

end

end

2.3 m-MLP Initialization

Machine Permutation:

Let ∑ 0 denote the set of available machines and P denote the list

of machine permutation, then the machine permutation is randomly

generated as follows:

procedure: Machine Permutation

begin

i ← 0;

∑0 ← {m1 , m2 , …, mn};

P ←φ ;

while (i ≤ n) do

pick up a machine m’ from ∑ 0 randomly;

P ← P ∪ m’ ;

∑ 0 ← ∑ 0 m’ ;

i ← i + 1;

end

output permutation list P ;

end

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 24

2.3 m-MLP Initialization

Feasibility Checking:

Because of the existence of available working area restriction,

we need to check whether the randomly generated machines

permutation is feasible.

Suppose the machine sequence for a row, say row 1, is as

follows:

[m1, m2,..., mk]

Let L denote the restriction of working area and S1 denote the

necessary space required, which is determined as follows:

k k −1

S1 = ∑ ∑

i =1

li +

i =1

d il, i +1 + d10l + d kl 0

less than or equal to L, the randomly generated permutation is

feasible; otherwise it is infeasible.

2.3 m-MLP Initialization

Neat Clearance:

Because of the existence of allowable space constraints, the neat

clearance (real number) is randomly generated within an

allocable region.

of the working area. Then the initial available space can be

calculated as follows:

n n −1

L′ = 2 L − ( ∑ ∑

i =1

li +

i =1

d ih, i +1 + d10h + d kh0 )

2.3 m-MLP Initialization

Let ∆ denote the list of neat clearance for the row.

The overall procedure is shown below:

procedure: Neat Clearance List

begin

i ← 0;

∆ ←φ ;

calculate initial available space L’;

while (i ≤ n) do

pick up a neat clearance ∆ i within (0, L’) randomly;

∆ ←∆ ∪ ∆ i;

L’ ← L’ - ∆ i ;

i ← i + 2;

end

output neat clearance list ∆ ;

end

2.4 m-MLP Evaluation

Evaluation Function:

In general, two kinds of illegal solutions may occur in the machine

problem:

1. overlapping of machines

2. violation of working area

Because the x-axis coordinates are represented as neat clearance,

overlapping illegality will never occur in this encoding scheme.

The violation of the working area can be measured in the following

manner:

For a given chromosome vk,

let Lk1 and Lk2 be the necessary working areas required by machines

which are arranged in the first row and second row, respectively, and

let Lku = max{Lk1, Lk2}

thus the penalty coefficient is calculated as follows:

0, if Luk − L ≤ 0

λk = u

Lk − L, otherwise

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 28

2.4 m-MLP Evaluation

Thus the fitness function for chromosome vk is given as

follows:

1

eval (vk ) = , k = 1, 2, ..., popSize

f k + λk P

travel cost among machines for chromosome vk ,

which is determined as follows:

( )

n −1 n

fk = ∑ ∑ ij ij i j i j

c f x k

− x k

+ y k

− y k

i =1 j =i +1

2.5 m-MLP Genetic Operations

Crossover: The basic element of our crossover procedure

consists of three parts,

a random way to determine separator

an ordinary PMX (partially mapped crossover) to manipulate machine

permutation list

an arithmetical crossover to manipulate neat clearance list

procedure: Crossover

begin

i ← 0;

while (i ≤ popSize * pC) do

select two chromosomes randomly;

generate a new separator;

generate a new machine permutation with ordinary PMX;

generate a new neat clearance list with arithmetical crossover;

if the offspring is feasible then // check the feasibility

i ← i + 1;

else delete selected list;

end

end

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 30

2.5 m-MLP Genetic Operations - Crossover

New separator: The procedure for generating new separator

contains two steps:

determine the upper and lower bounds for a closed interval

select an integer within the interval randomly

For example, we have two parents shown as follows:

p2=[{s2}, {m12, …, mn2}, {∆ 12,…, ∆ n2}]

sU= max{s1 , s2}

sL= min{s1 , s2}

Then we can make a closed interval with sU and sL as [sU, sL].

The new separator is a randomly generated integer within this

interval.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 31

2.5 m-MLP Genetic Operations - Crossover

New neat clearance list

Suppose there are two neat clearance lists:

{∆ 11, ∆ 2

1

, …, ∆ n1} {∆ 12, ∆ 2

2

, …, ∆ n2}]

The new neat clearance is determined as follows:

∆ i’= α 1 ∆ i1 + α 2 ∆ i2, i = 1, 2, …, n

α 1, α 2 ∈ (0, 1)

where α 1 and α 2 are the randomly generated real number within the

open interval (0,1).

The difference comparing with conventional one is that we require following

relation holds for these two parameters: α 1+ α 2 , then we can enlarge the

search space greatly, which is independent of initial search space. If we take

conventional approach, the generated neat clearances between machines will

be gradually decreasing along with the evolutionary process. In this case, search

space is highly depended on the initial solution space.

2.5 m-MLP Genetic Operations - Mutation

Mutation: The mutation operator is designed with neighborhood

technique to try to find an improved offspring.

chromosome.

Suppose the neat clearance list for a given chromosome is:

{∆ 1, ∆ 2, … , ∆ i , …, ∆ n}

And the ith gene ∆ i is selected for mutation.

Let r be a given integer and then we divide the selected neat

clearance ∆ i /r into 2r equal parts as follows:

∆i

∆ =

1

i′

r

j −1 ∆i

∆ =∆

j

i′ i′ + , j = 2, 3, ..., 2r

r

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 33

2.5 m-MLP Genetic Operations - Mutation

After getting r neat clearances, the set of neat

clearances is listed below:

{∆1 , ∆ 2 , ..., ∆1i′ , ..., ∆ n }

{∆1 , ∆ 2 , ..., ∆2i′ , ..., ∆ n }

{∆1 , ∆1 , ..., ∆ki′ , ..., ∆ n }

clearance lists together with the separator list and machine

permutation list of the given chromosome are regarded as the

neighborhood of the given chromosome.

A chromosome is said to be 2r-optimum, if it is better than any

others in the neighborhood.

2.5 m-MLP Genetic Operations - Mutation

The proposed mutation is given as follows:

procedure: Mutation

begin

give an integer r;

t ← 0;

while (t ≤ popSize * pM) do

pick up a gene ∆ t randomly;

generate 2r neighbors of ∆ t;

generate all neighbors of ∆ t;

select the best neighbor as the offspring;

t ← t + 1;

end

end

Algorithm for m-MLP

procedure: GA for m-MLP

begin

t ←0;

initialize encoding P(t) with separator, machines list and neat clearance list;

evaluate with permutation decoding P(t); // total cost and penalty to illegality.

while (not termination condition) do

PMX crossover to machine list, arithmetical crossover to

neat clearance list and separator determined randomly,

all for P(t) to yield C(t);

neighbor search technique to mutation P(t) to yield C(t);

evaluate C(t); // total cost and penalty to illegality.

select P (t+1) from P(t) and C(t) ;

t ← t+1;

end

end

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 36

2.6 m-MLP Numerical Example

The test problem consists of six machines.

The machine size, the frequency matrix, the cost matrix, and

clearance between machines for the problem are as follows:

Machine Sizes

0 40 80 21 62 90

Machine i Dimension ( li× bi )

1 5.0× 3.0 40 0 72 12 24 28

2 2.0× 2.0 80 72 0 14 41 9

[ f ij ] =

3 2.5× 2.0 21 12 14 0 21 12

62

24 41 21 0 31

4 6.0× 3.5

5 3.0× 1.5

90 28 9 12 31 0

6 4.0× 4.0

0 4 4 6 4 5 2 0 1 1 1 2 1 2

4 0 2 5 2 3 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 2

4 2 0 5 3 3 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 2

[cij ] = [ d ij ] =

6 5 5 0 5 8 2 1 1 1 0 3 1 2

2

4

2 3 5 0 4

2 1 1 3 0 2 2

5 3 3 8 4

0 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 2

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 37

2.6 m-MLP Numerical Example

Separation between two rows is 8.

Width restriction of the working area is 22.

Evolutionary environment of our implementation is given as follows:

PopSize=20, maxGen=500, pM=0.4, pC=0.4, r =10

The best chromosome is listed as follows:

Generation the best solution occurred: 48

Fitness: 0.5217

Machines in row 1: [ 2 3 1 6 ]

Machines in row 2: [ 4 5 ]

Machine positions in row 1: [ 4.49 7.74 12.49 17.99 ]

Machine positions in row 2: [ 5.00 12.5 ]

lV

m1 m6

m2 m3

m4 m5

lH

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 38

2.6 m-MLP Numerical Example

Evolutionary Process

0. 6 best fitness

0. 5

average fitness

0. 4

0. 3

ss enti F

0. 2

0. 1

0

100 200 300 400 500

Evolutionary process

13. Layout Design and

Cellular Manufacturing Design

2. Multi-row Machine Layout Problem (m-MLP)

3. m-MLP in Fuzzy Environment

3.1 Fuzzy Clearance

3.2 Fuzzy m-MLP

3.3 Fuzzy m-MLP Formulation and Representation

3.4 Fuzzy m-MLP Feasibility

3.5 Fuzzy m-MLP Evaluation

3.6 Fuzzy m-MLP Numerical Example

2. Cellular Manufacturing Design

3. m-MLP in Fuzzy Environment

We formulate fuzzy multi-row machine layout problem

where the clearance between two adjacent machines is given

as a fuzzy set.

The membership function of the fuzzy clearance

corresponds to the grade of satisfaction of separate distance.

The objective function

To maximize the minimum grade of satisfaction over

machines and meanwhile minimize the total travel cost among

machines.

3.1 Fuzzy Clearance

Fuzzy Clearance:

The clearance dij between machines i and j is shown in this

Figure:

vrl li dij lj

mi mj

xi

xj

Fig. 13.9 Clearance between Machines

adjacent machine i and machine j. This represents the grade of

satisfaction of the separated distance.

dij l the least clearance for machines i and j.

dij s the satisfactory clearance for machines i and j.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 42

3.1 Fuzzy Clearance - Membership Function

µ ij

1

δ ijl δ ijs x

The membership function is defined as:

1, xi − x j ≥ δ ijs

µ ij ( xi , x j ) =

( )

xi − x j − 1 / 2( li + l j ) − d ijl

, δ ijl ≤ xi − x j ≤ δ ijs

( dij − dij )

s l

0, xi − x j ≤ δ ijl

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 43

3.2 Fuzzy m-MLP

The essential of this problem comprises three different tasks:

find a better allocation of machines to rows

find a better sequence of machines within each row

find a better position (x and y coordinates) for each machines

Because the separation between rows can be

predetermined according to the feature of material

handling system, we can calculate y-axis coordinators

based on the separations of rows.

Instead of computing the y-axis directly, we treat it as how

to allocate machines among rows. So we do not need

consider the fuzzy clearance between machines.

3.3 Fuzzy m-MLP Formulation and Representation

For multi-row case, the relation of working area restriction, machines

and reference lines is illustrated in the right-side figure.

dj0lh

mj

lk

dij v

di0 lh dik h

mi mk bk

li the length of machine i. Fig. 13.11Clearance between Machines

bi the width of machine i.

µ ij

h

the grade of satisfaction of horizontal separation between machines i and j.

µ ij

v

the grade of satisfaction of vertical separation between machines i and j.

di0lh the least clearance between machine i and right vertical reference line.

di0lv the least clearance between machine i and upper horizontal reference line.

W the width of working area.

L the length of working area.

3.3 Fuzzy m-MLP Formulation and Representation

With the notation of fuzzy clearance, the multiple row

machine layout problem with unequal area can be formulated

as follows:

∑∑ c f ( x − x )

n n

min ij ij i j + yi − y j (1)

i =1 j =1

max µTh ( 2)

max µTv (3)

s. t. µijh ( xi , x j ) + Mzij ≥ µTh , i, j = 1, , n ( 4)

µijv ( xi , x j ) + M (1 − zij ) ≥ µTv , i, j = 1, , n (5)

zij (1 − zij ) = 0, i, j = 1, , n ( 6)

xi + 1 / 2li + d ilh0 ≤ L i = 1, , n (7)

yi + 1 / 2bi + d ilv0 ≤ W i = 1, , n (8)

xi , yi ≥ 0, i = 1, , n (9)

zij = 0 or 1 i, j = 1, , n (10)

3.3 Fuzzy m-MLP Formulation and Representation

The objective function (1) is to minimize the total

travel cost among machines.

The objective functions (2) and (3) are to maximize

the minimum grade of satisfaction over machines.

Constraint (6) ensures that only one of the two

constraints (4) and (5) hold.

Constraints (7) and (8) ensure that machines are

arranged within the restricted working area.

Constraint (9) is a non-negativity constraint.

3.3 Fuzzy m-MLP Formulation and Representation

Representation and Calculation of x-axis

For n machines and two-row case, the representation is sketched as

follows:

where mij represent machine mij in the j th position.

∆ ij denotes the neat clearance between machines mij −1 and mij .

k denotes the cutting position to separate the list into two part

according to the tow row requiremen t.

The net clearance and x-axis position can be calculated as follows:

1 1

∆ i = ∆ lki − d kil , xi = xk + d kil + ∆ i + ( li + lk ) , xk = d kl 0 + ∆ k + lk

2 2

where ∆i neat clearance associated with machine mi

∆lki separation between two machines

d ki the required clearance between machines k and i

3.4 Fuzzy m-MLP Feasibility

Feasibility Checking:

Because of the existence of available working area

restriction, we need to check whether the randomly

generated machines permutation is feasible.

Suppose the machine sequence for a row, say row 1, is as

follows:

[m1, m2,..., mk]

Let L denote the restriction of working area and S1 denote

the necessary space required, which is determined as

follows: k k −1

S1 = ∑ ∑

i =1

li +

i =1

d il, i +1 + d10l + d kl 0

if it is less than or equal to L, the randomly generated

permutation is feasible; otherwise it is infeasible.

3.5 Fuzzy m-MLP Evaluation

Evaluation Function:

The fitness function for chromosome vt is given as follows:

( )

n −1 n

ft = ∑∑ cij f ij xit − x tj + yit − y tj

i =1 j = i +1

objective function value.

ft is the travel cost among machines for

chromosome vt, which is determined as follows:

eval (vt ) = w1

λ0

+ w2

∑ µ ij ( xit , x tj )

ft n +1

w1 + w2 = 1

3.6 Fuzzy m-MLP Numerical Example

Test problem is a 6-machine 2-row layout problem given by

kusiak. the fuzzy clearances are considered as follows:

Machine Sizes

Machine i Dimension ( li× bi )

1 5.0× 3.0

2 2.0× 2.0

3 2.5× 2.0

4 6.0× 3.5

5 3.0× 1.5

6 4.0× 4.0

l0 1 2 3 4 5 6 r0 l0 1 2 3 4 5 6 r0

1 1.0 0.0 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1 2.0 0.0 2.8 5.0 4.0 6.2 7.0 2.0

2 1.0 0.6 0.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.5 1.0 2 2.0 2.8 0.0 4.0 2.0 6.0 1.8 2.0

1.0 1.0 3 2.0 5.0 4.0 0.0 1.1 2.8 5.6 2.0

[ ]

d ijs =

3

4

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.5

0.0

0.4

0.4

0.0

2.2

1.6

2.6

0.8 1.0

[ ]

d ij =

l

4 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.1 0.0 5.0 2.2 2.0

1.0 1.0

5 1.0 0.5 2.2 1.6 0.0 2.0 5 2.0 6.2 6.0 2.8 5.0 0.0 4.0 2.0

1.0 1.0

6 2.0 1.5 2.6 0.8 2.0 0.0 6 2.0 7.0 1.8 5.6 2.2 4.0 0.0 2.0

3.6 Fuzzy m-MLP Numerical Example

The evolutionary environment of our implementation

is given as follows:

pC pM popSize maxGen w1 w2

0.4 0.4 30 200 0.5 0.5

The restriction of working area is 22.

The separation between rows is 8. We have got the best

chromosome in the 38th generation listed as below:

Sequence : 2 6 4 3 1 5

x position : ( 3.11, 7.93, 14.14, 3.14, 8.06, 13.64 )

separator : 3

cost : 19660.56

µ : 0.875

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 52

3.6 Fuzzy m-MLP Numerical Example

vrl

m2 m6 m4

m3 m1 m5

hrl

Fig. 13.12 Multiple-row Layout for the Test Problem

0.4 average

fitness

ss enti F

0.2

0

50 100 150 200

Evolutionary process

13. Layout Design and

Cellular Manufacturing Design

2. Multi-row Machine Layout Problem (m-MLP)

3. M-MLP in Fuzzy Environment

4. Fuzzy Facility Layout Problems

4.1 FLP Formulation and Fuzzy Interflow

4.2 FLP Representation and Initialization

4.3 FLP Genetic Operations and Constructing a Layout

4.4 FLP Evaluation

4.5 Fuzzy FLP Numerical Example

1. Cellular Manufacturing Design

4. Fuzzy Facility Layout Problems

The flows among facilities may change from period to period due to

the dynamic nature of businesses, growth, and demand fluctuation,

and product mix.

Unfortunately, changes in product mix, machine breakdowns,

seasonal fluctuations, and demand are uncertain in nature.

Under these circumstances, designers tend to obtain a satisfactory

layout rather than an optimal layout.

Vol.32, pp. 76-86, 1986.

Journal of Operational Research, Vol.29, pp. 229-251, 1987.

4. Fuzzy Facility Layout Problems

Cheng, R. and M. Gen: "Genetic search for facility layout design under

interflows uncertainty”, Japanese Journal of Fuzzy Theory and

System,

Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 335-346, 1996.

such uncertainties:

1. flexible or probabilistic approach we must specify

probability distribution for material flow

2. robustness approach we must provide several demand

scenarios and the optimal solutions for each

scenario.

Giving an exact probability distribution or giving some

precise demand scenarios is as difficult as the optimal

design of the facility layout itself.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 56

4.1 FLP Formulation and Fuzzy Interflow

Formulation:

There is a set of m facilities, denoted by {Mi}, i=1, 2, …, m.

Each facility is restricted to be rectangular and characterized by a

triple (Ai, li, ui).

y wi′

Ai : the area of the facility

Ai

li : the upper bound on the aspect ratio hi′ y=

x

wi

ui : the lower bound on the aspect ratio

hi

wi hi = Ai , i = 1, 2 , ..., m wi′′

Ai

hi′′

h

li ≤ i ≤ ui , i = 1, 2 , ..., m wi′ = ( Ai / ui )

1/ 2

wi′′ = ( Ai / li )

1/ 2

x

wi

Fig. 13.14 relationship between the height, width,

and aspect ration for a facility

Relationship among the height, width, and aspect ratio for a facility is like follows:

A facility layout for given m facilities consists of a bounding rectangle, R, partitioned

by horizontal and vertical line segments into m nonoverlapping rectangular

regions, denoted by {ri}, i=1, 2, …, m.

Each region ri, with width xi and height yi, must be large enough to accommodate its

facility Mi.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 57

4.1 FLP Formulation and Fuzzy Interflow

Fuzzy Interflow:

Kaufmann, A. and M. Gupta: Fuzzy Mathematical Models in Engineering

and Management Science, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988.

Uncertainty of material flows among facilities can be represented

as convex fuzzy number, which is called as fuzzy interflow.

fuzzy interflow: A TrFN can be defined by a quadruple (a, b, c, d)

and is shown as follows:

µ (x)

a b c d x

that have different membership values, it is not easy to compare

the final ratings to determine which alternative are preferred.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 58

4.1 FLP Formulation and Fuzzy Interflow

Lee, E. S. and R. Li, “Comparison of fuzzy numbers based on the probability

measure of fuzzy events”, Operations Research, Vol. 15, pp. 887-896, 1988

Lee and Li’s approach suggests the use of generalized mean and

standard deviation based on the probability measures of fuzzy

events to rank fuzzy number.

When fuzzy number M is a TrFN, the generalized mean value with a

uniform density is calculated as follows:

~ = − a b + c + d − ab + cd

2 2 2 2

m( M )

3( −a −b + c + d )

The standard deviation is defined as follows:

~ 1 b 4 ab3 a 4 1

σ (M ) = − + + (c 3 − b 3 )

b − a 4 3 12 3

1 d 4 c 3d c 4 1 ~ 2

+ − + 2 ( − a − b + c + d ) − m ( M )

d − c 12 3 4

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 59

4.2 FLP Representation and Initialization

Representation:

A facility layout can be represented as a slicing structure

constructed by recursively partitioning a R.

+: operator of a horizontal cut, *: operator of a vertical cut

Slicing structures comprising m given facilities (called operand)

can be represented by slicing tree or polish expressions over

the alphabet set Σ = {1, 2, …, m, +, *}.

An example of a slicing structure is shown as follows:

+

4 4 +

3

3 *

1 2 2

1

4 3 1 2 * + +

Fig. 13.15 A slicing structure and its representations

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 60

4.2 FLP Representation and Initialization

1 2 4 5

Possible prefixes: 1 2 * 3 4 * 5 6++ *

6 1 2 * 3 4 * 5 6++

Layout 1 2 * 3 4 * 5 6+

1 2 * 3 4 * 5 6

1 2 * 3 4 * 5

* 1 2 * 3 4 *

* + 1 2 * 3

1 2 3 +

1 2 *

1 2

* 6

1

4 5 where + : horizontal cut

Slicing Tree * : vertical cut

4.2 FLP Representation and Initialization

Initialization:

Guided random approach is proposed to initialize genetic

system.

element at a time from the set Σ until a complete chromosome is

formed.

Because the random permutation of operands and operators

may yield an illegal chromosome, we must check its legality at

each random picking.

Concept of Prefix for a chromosome:

For a given chromosome with a total size of (2m-1), a prefix is a

partial expressing containing the first I elements of the chromosome

with same order as they are in the chromosome:

4.2 FLP Representation and Initialization

Proposition 1:

For a given chromosome containing m operands and (m-1)

operators,

if the equation N(ψ i) ≥ M(ψ i) + 1,

then the chromosome is legal polish expression.

Corollary:

For a given prefix ψ ,

if it does not meet the condition of the above equation, it is impossible to

develop a legal polish expression from the prefix ψ with a left-

to-right generation procedure.

where ψ denote the set of all possible prefixes for a given chromosome.

For a prefix ψ ∈ ψ ,

N(ψ ) denote the total number of operands the prefix ψ contains.

M(ψ ) the total number of operators the prefix ψ contains

4.2 FLP Representation and Initialization

procedure: Guided Random Initialization

begin

Σ 1←{*, +};

while (i ≤ popSize) do

Σ 0←{1, 2,…,m};

ψ i←φ ;

select a random element σ 1 from Σ 0; No

Σ 0← Σ 0 σ 1; operand = operator+1

ψ i← ψ i ∪ σ 1;

j←1; Yes

while (j ≤ 2m-1) do

if N(ψ i)=M(ψ i)+1 then

select σ j from Σ 0;

else only operators can be both

select σ j from Σ 0 ∪ Σ 1;

Σ 0← Σ 0 σ j;

ψ i← ψ i ∪ σ j;

j←j+1;

end

i←i+1;

end

end

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 64

4.3 FLP Genetic Operations and Constructing a Layout

Genetic Operations:

Crossover:

Cohoon J., S. Hegde, and N. Martin: "Distributed genetic algorithms for the

floor-plan design problem”, IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided

Design,

Vol. 10, pp. 483-491, 1991.

parent1: 1 2 * 3 4 5 * 6 + + *

: Obtaining operands

offspring: 1 2 + 3 4 5 * 6 * * +

: Obtaining operators

parent2: 3 6 1 + 2 5 4 * * * +

4.3 FLP Genetic Operations and Constructing a Layout

Layouts after crossover

* +

* + 3 3 * 3

1 2 3 + 4 5 + * 6

1 2 2 5 4

* 6 6 1 2 *

6 1

4 5 5 4

(a) parent 1: (12*345*6++*) (a) parent 2: (361+254***+)

+

+ * 1

2

1 2 3 *

* 6 3 4 5 6

4 5

(a) offspring 1: (12+345*6**+)

4.3 FLP Genetic Operations and Constructing a Layout

Mutation:

(a) Swapping Mutation

parent 1: 1 2 * 3 4 5 * 6 ++ *

offspring 1: 1 2 * 3 4 5 * 6 + * +

(b) Inverting Mutation

parent 1: 1 2 * 3 4 5 * 6 ++ *

offspring 2: 1 2 * 5 4 3 * 6 ++ *

(c) Altering Mutation

parent 1: 1 2 * 3 4 5 * 6 + + *

offspring 1: 1 2 + 3 4 5 * 6 + + *

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 67

4.3 FLP Genetic Operations and Constructing a Layout

Layouts after Mutation

* +

* + 3 * * 1 2

1 2 3 + 1 2 4 5 1 2 3 +

4 5

* 6 * 6 3

6 6

4 5 4 5

parent: (1 2 * 3 4 5 * 6 + + *) (a) After swapping : (1 2 * 3 4 5 * 6 + * +)

* *

* + 5 + + 3

1

1 2 5 + 1 2 4 3 1 2 3 + 4 5

* 6 * 6 2

6 6

4 3 4 5

(b) After inverting : (1 2 * 5 4 3 * 6 + + *) (c) After altering : (1 2 + 3 4 5 * 6 + + *)

4.3 FLP Genetic Operations and Constructing a Layout

Constructing a Layout:

Proposition 2:

If a cut-point i is the first position, scanning from right to left

ranging from 2m-1 to 1, which lets the equation ni(ψ ) = mi (ψ )

then at cut-point i the slicing tree can be separated into

1. a left subtree containing the elements from 1 to i -1 of the given

slicing tree

2. a right subtree containing elements from i to 2m-2.

Each subtree is a legal slicing tree.

i an arbitrary cut-point in the tree (1 ≤ i ≤ 2m-2).

ni(ψ ) total number of operands contained in the right part from

the cut-point to the right most part of the tree.

mi(ψ ) total number of operators contained in the same right part

of the tree.

4.3 FLP Genetic Operations and Constructing a Layout

procedure: Construct (tree, length)

begin

i ← length;

while (i > 0) do The

Theset

setofofpossible

possibledimensions

dimensions(x(xi i, ,yyi i) )

separate tree to two subtrees; ofofregion

calculate xir, xil, yiu, yib; regionrri iaccommodating

accommodatingMMi i

can

canbe bedetermined

determinedalong

alongwith

with

if the right subtree is a simple tree then

calculate xi , xi , yi , yi ;

r l u b the

the recursively separatingprocess

recursively separating process

i ← i - 2; using area requirement information

using area requirement information

if neighbor left tree is a simple tree then

calculate xir, xil, yiu, yib;

i ← i - 2; where

else construct (lefttree, length);

i ← i – length; xi = xir - xil, i = 1, 2, …, m

end yi = yiu - yib, i = 1, 2, …, m

else construct (righttree, length);

i ← i – length; xir and xil denote the left and

if neighbor left tree is a simple tree then right boundary of region.

calculate xir, xil, yiu, yib;

i ← i - 2; yiu and yib denote the upper and

else construct (lefttree, length); bottom boundary of region.

i ← i – length;

end

end

end

calculate xi and yi using xir, xil, yiu, yib;

end

4.3 FLP Genetic Operations and Constructing a Layout

Constructing a layout

+

cut-point * *

(1 2 * ) n1 = m1 = 4

* *

(1 2 * 3 4 5 * 6 + * +) 1 2 3 +

1 2 3 +

(3 4 5 * 6 + * ) * 6

n3 = m3 = 4

* 6 n1 = m1 = 4

4 5

4 5

1 2 1 2 1 2

+

(4 5 *) * * 6

3 4 5 3 n1 = m1 = 4 3

4 5 (4 5 * 6 +) 4 5

n3 = m3 = 4

6 6

4.4 FLP Evaluation

Evaluation:

We evaluate each chromosome by the following function in which a

penalty approach is adopted to handle violation for it.

1

eval (v k ) = ~

m(Ck (v k )) + λk P

where m(Ck(vk)) denotes the generalized mean value for the total cost,

m m

~

Ck (v k ) = ∑∑ c~ij (v k )d ij (v k )

i =1 j =1

λ k the total number of facilities which violate the aspect

ratio constraints within the kth chromosome.

P large penalty value.

cij (vk) a trapezoidal fuzzy number to denote the fuzzy

interflow between the facilities i and j.

dij (vk) a real number to denote the Manhattan distance

between centers of each pair of facilities i and j.

4.5 Fuzzy FLP Numerical Example

The test problem contains 15 facilities and fuzzy interflow is

represented as a trapezoidal fuzzy number.

a b c d

d the pessimistic estimation (the worst case)

b one average estimation (the near best case)

c the other average estimation (the near worst case)

4.5 Fuzzy FLP Numerical Example

Evolutionary Environment of Our Experiment

Parameters

Population size (popSize) 40

Crossover probability (pC ) 0.4

Mutation Probability ( pM ) 0.4

Maximum generation (maxGen) 200

Penalty value 5000

4.5 Fuzzy FLP Numerical Example

Table. 13.1 Geometric Constraints of Facilities

Aspect Ratio

Facility

Identification Area Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 100 0.7 1

2 80 1 1

3 50 0.7 1.3

4 60 0.5 0.8

5 120 0.9 1

6 40 0.6 1

7 20 0.7 1.4

8 40 1 1

9 150 0.8 1.1

10 120 0.5 1.5

11 50 0.7 1.1

12 10 0.8 1.2

13 20 0.95 1.5

14 30 0.75 1.25

15 50 0.9 1.1

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 75

4.5 Fuzzy FLP Numerical Example

Table. 13.2 Fuzzy Interflow Among Facilities

4.5 Fuzzy FLP Numerical Example

Table. 13.3 Fuzzy Interflow Among Facilities

4.5 Fuzzy FLP Numerical Example

Table. 13.4 Fuzzy Interflow Among Facilities

4.5 Fuzzy FLP Numerical Example

Best chromosome: (13 1 + 2 6 8 3 + + 15 11 14 9 * + + * * 4 7 * 5 10 + 12 * * + *)

*

6 15 + +

11 13 1 * *

13 2 8

2 * + *

14 9

3 + + 4 7 12

+

6 + 15 + 5 10

1 5

4 7 12 8 3 11 *

10 14 9

Fig. 13. 16 Layout for the Best Chromosome Fig. 13. 17 Tree Representation

~

C = (2946.91, 5841.40, 9561.81, 12613.53).

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 79

4.5 Fuzzy FLP Numerical Example

We can use possibility theory and fuzzy integrals to interpret

the fuzzy performance.

Possibility that the layout will have total cost of 4394 units is 0.5

1

Fuzzy Integral :

β

~ ∫

I ( x ≤ β) = a

µ( x )dx 0.5

∫S µ( x)dx

2947 4394 5841 9562 12614

~

Possibility, when C = 4394

The fuzzy integral of 4394 is 0.13

which means that the fuzzy expectation of the layout

yielding total cost less than or equal to 4394 is 0.13

The fuzzy integral of 9562 is 0.91

4.5 Fuzzy FLP Numerical Example

Evolutionary Process

4.5 Fuzzy FLP Numerical Example

According to the four cases, we can make four equivalent

nonfuzzy problems using the same fuzzy data and solved by

the proposed algorithms

Best : (5 14 3 * 9 * * 15 10 + 12 13 * 1 * * 6 7 8 11 + * * 4 * 2 * + +)

Near best: (6 7 + 8 * 9 1 2 + * * 5 15 11 13 * 10 3 * 14 * 4 12 * * + * * +)

Near worst: (9 15 * 14 * 4 13 1 * * * 10 12 6 * + 11 3 8 7 + + 5 * 2 * * * +)

Worst : (7 3 * 14 * 4 * 11 6 * 2 * + 12 * 9 13 8 * * + 5 * 10 15 1 + + *)

Solutions a b c d

Fuzzy 2497 5841 9562 12614

Best case 2795 6068 9953 13215

Near best case 2895 5083 9625 12922

Near worst case 2971 5869 9581 12685

Worst case 3012 6257 10024 13134

4.5 Fuzzy FLP Numerical Example

Fig. 13.18 Layout and tree representation for the best case.

Fig. 13.19 Layout and tree representation for the near-best case.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 83

4.5 Fuzzy FLP Numerical Example

Fig. 13.20 Layout and tree representation for the near-worst case.

Fig. 13.21 Layout and tree representation for the worst case.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 84

4.5 Fuzzy FLP Numerical Example

Conclusion

The layout problem of machines is critical to designing an

efficient flexible machining system.

Usually, machine layout problem is treated without the

consideration of imprecise data.

We have discussed the conception of fuzzy clearance into

multi-row machine layout problem and formulated fuzzy multi-

row layout problem based on this concept.

Genetic algorithms are applied to solve the fuzzy multi-row

layout problem.

Preliminary computational experiments demonstrated that

genetic algorithms and fuzzy approach can be a promising

way for multiple machine layout problems.

Conclusion

From the comparative results we know that

obtained a layout will yield large costs than the

solution obtained by the fuzzy approach.

layout suitable for its considered case, while the

fuzzy approach can get a reasonable solution

suitable for all cases ranging from the best

case to the worst case.

13. Layout Design and

Cellular Manufacturing Design

2. Multi-row Machine Layout Problem (m-MLP)

3. M-MLP in Fuzzy Environment

4. Fuzzy Facility Layout Problems

5. Cellular Manufacturing Design

5.1 Introduction to CMD

5.2 Major Issues on CMD

5.3 Mathematical Formulation

5.4 Genetic Representation and Operations

5.5 Evaluation and Overall Procedure

5.6 Numerical Examples

5.1 Introduction to CMD - Common configurations

Common Configurations:

Four common configurations of CMD when designing

most of manufacturing systems for a type of facility

organization:

1. Product Layout (Product-focused Line)

2. Process Layout (Process-focused Job Shop)

3. Group Technology (Cellular Manufacturing)

4. Fixed Position

It is used for large products such as ships, buildings, and

airplanes because the size of the product makes it

impractical to move the product between processing

operations.

All parts and processes, such as welding equipment, are

brought to the product.

5.1 Introduction to CMD - Common configurations

A. Standridge: Modeling and Analysis of manufacturing Systems, John Wiley

& Sons, New York, 1993

Product Layout

(Product-Focused Line) Group Technology

1000

(Cellular

Manufacturing)

100

10

r uoh r e p st r a P

1

Process Layout

(Process-focused Job Shop)

0 1 10 100 1000

Number of part types

Fig. 13.23 Product Demand Volume versus Variety of Products or Parts

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 90

5.1 Introduction to CMD - Common configurations

Product Layout (Product-focused Line):

Machines are oriented such that the product flows from the

first machine to second, from the second to the third and

so on down the line.

Raw material enters the front of the line. Upon completing

processing at the last machine, the raw material has

been converted into a finished product.

Advantages of the product layouts are very low throughput

time, low work-in-process inventories etc.

: department

material product

parts T T M D G : machine

: flow of materials

T: turning, M: milling, D: drilling, G: grinding or parts

5.1 Introduction to CMD - Common configurations

Process Layout (Process-focused Job Shop):

Departments are composed of machines with similar

capabilities that perform similar function.

Highly skilled operators are typically required because

successive batches assigned to a work center may require

very different tooling and setup.

M M D D G G

Product

Product M M D D G G

B B material

material T T T B B parts

parts

M: milling, D: drilling, G: grinding, T: turning, B: boring

5.1 Introduction to CMD - Common configurations

Group Technology (Cellular Manufacturing):

It entails dividing the manufacturing facility into small groups or

cells of machines, each cell being dedicated to a specified set

of part types with similarity.

Use of machines in a designated physical area for production of

a specific set of parts facilitates scheduling and control and

reduces setup time, material handling, and throughput time.

M

B D

M D

D M

T G

material

parts Product Product

M: milling, B: boring, T: turning, G: grinding, D: drilling

5.1 Introduction to CMD - Common configurations

Throughput Time low high low medium

Work in Process low high low medium

Skill Level choice high medium-high mixed

Product Flexibility low high medium-high high

Demand Flexibility medium high medium medium

Machine Utilization high medium-low medium-high medium

worker Utilization high high high medium

Unit Production Cost low high low high

Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1993

5.1 Introduction to CMD - Group Technology

Group Technology (GT) :

A method identifying and exploiting the similarity among

the attributes of a set of objects.

A theory of management based on the principle that

similar “thing” should be done similarly.

“things” include product design, process planning,

fabrication, assembly, and production control. It is this kind

of efforts that small `focused factories` are being created as

independent operating units within large facilities today.

The central objective is to increase production efficiency

by grouping various parts and products with similarity.

It allows for the combined benefits of mass production

while dealing with multi-product, small-lot-sized

production.

5.1 Introduction to CMD - Group Technology

Cellular Manufacturing :

Application of GT to organize cells that contain a

set of machines to process a part family.

Reasons for Establishing CMD:

To reduce throughput time

To reduce work-in-process inventory

To improve part/product quality

To reduce response time to customer orders

To reduce move time

To increase manufacturing flexibility

To reduce unit production cost

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 96

5.1 Introduction to CMD - Group Technology

Important Areas of GT Applications:

Classification and coding

Process planning

Part family and machine cell design

Group technology layout

Group scheduling

Examples of Automated CMD:

Flexible Manufacturing System (FMS)

Computer-Integrated Manufacturing (CIM)

Just-In-Time (JIT) or Kanban System

Manufacturing Cell Design:

Procedure of the machines and parts to form in GT

MCD Problem is an NP-hard problem

Evolutionary Search Methods, Simulated Annealing and GAs

5.2 Major Issues on CMD

The design of cellular manufacturing systems

consist of three major issues:

1 ） Cell Formation 2 ） Machine Layout

machines

cell i

...

cell a

... ... ...

cell c

cell a cell b … cell n cell b

5.2 Major Issues on CMD - issue I

1. Cell Formation: Goal of cell formation is to group machines

into cells to minimize the intercell traffic, knowing that the

number of machines in each cell is limited.

Part Process Plan 1 2 3 4 5

1 M1 1 1 1

2 M2 2 1 1 1

3 M1→ M2→ M4 3 1

se ni hca M

4 M3 4 1 1

5 M2→ M4 Part/Machine Matrix

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 99

5.2 Major Issues on CMD - issue I

Organize cells that contain a set of machines to process a

family of similar parts, while minimizing number of

exceptional elements.

Parts Parts

1 2 3 4 5 1 4 3 5 2

1 1 1 1 1 1

2 1 1 1 3 1

3 1 1 1 1

se ni hca M

se ni hca M

2

4 1 1 4 1 1

Two machine cells: C1={1,3}, C2={2,4}

Corresponding parts families: F1={1,4}, F2={2,3,5}

5.2 Major Issues on CMD - issue I

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Part Process Plan

1 1 1

1 M2→ M5

2 1 1

2 M1→ M7

3 1 1 1

3 M3→ M4→ M6 4 1 1 1

se ni hca M

4 M3→ M4→ M6 5 1 1

5 M1→ M7 6 1 1 1

6 M3→ M4→ M6 7 1 1

7 M2→ M5 Part/Machine Matrix

5.2 Major Issues on CMD - issue I

Parts Parts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 7 3 4 6 2 5

1 1 1 2 1 1

2 1 1 5 1 1

3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1

4 1 1 1 4 1 1 1

se ni hca M

se ni hca M

5 1 1 6 1 1 1

6 1 1 1 1 1 1

7 1 1 7 1 1

Three machine cells: C1={2,5}, C2={3,4,6}, C3={1,7}

Corresponding parts families: F1={1,7}, F2={3,4,6}, F3={2,5}

5.2 Major Issues on CMD - issue II

Machine Layout:

5.2 Major Issues on CMD - issue II

Cell Layout:

21 17 18 10 20

cell b

5 8 11 23

cell a

4 1 6

22 2

12 16 7

15 3 cell c

13 9 19

14

5.2 Major Issues on CMD - issue II

Previous:

Formation Layout Layout

Local

optimal

Proposed: Cell

Formation

Consider

Simultaneously

Machine Cell

Layout Layout

5.3 Mathematical Formulation

Assumption:

Each machine has enough capacity to produce all parts.

Shape of machine and cell is rectangle.

Input Data:

Number of machines.

Area of each machine.

Production volume & sequence of each part.

Processing time on each machine for each part.

Maximum number of cells.

Maximum number of machines in a cell.

5.3 Mathematical Formulation - Objective I

Formulation:

One of the objective functions is total moves determined

as the weighted sum of both intercell and intracell moves.

n n n m k mk

min z1 = θ1 ∑∑ d ijC nij + θ 2 ∑∑∑ lk d kpq

M

mkpq

i =1 j =1 k =1 p =1 q =1

θ1 + θ 2 = 1 intercell intracell

cell a cell b

5.3 Mathematical Formulation - Objective I

where θ 1 and θ 2are weights attributed to the intercell and intracell moves

respectively, θ 1 and θ 2 ∈ [0, 1], θ 1 +θ 2 =1.

mk the number of machines in the cell k.

dij C the rectilinear distance between the centroids of the cell i and

the cell j.

nij the total number of transportation between the cell i and the

cell j.

lk if a type of machine layout in the cell k is a loop layout,

it takes e, otherwise it takes 1.

e the move cost ratio of uni-direction/bi-direction per unit

distance, e<1.

dkpq M the rectilinear distance between the centroids of the machine p

and the machine q in the cell k.

mkpq the total number of transportation between the machine p and

the machine q in the cell k.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 108

5.3 Mathematical Formulation - Objective II

The cell load variation is minimized to aid the smooth

flow of materials inside each cell and is calculated as the

difference between the workload on machines in each cell

and the average of total workload.

z2 = ∑ ( tk − T )

n

2

min

k =1

where tk the total processing time to finish all jobs assigned in the cell k.

T− the average workload on a cell.

1 m p

t k = ∑ ∑ tij ri , T = ∑∑ tij ri

j∈C k i∈Fk n j =1 i =1

m the total number of machines, m = m1+...+ mk +...+ m ｎ .

p the total number of types of parts.

tij the processing time on the machine j for the part i.

ri the production volume of the part i.

Ck, Fk a set of machines and a corresponding a family of parts in

the cell k.

4. Genetic Representation and Operations

We must encode all of three issues in a

chromosome.

cell a cell b cell c

［５ ６ ７ ８］（９ １０）＋

Cell Formation,

Machine Layout,

（１ ２ ３ ４ ) ＊

Cell Layout

Number,

cell b Parentheses,

10

４ Operation

9 mark

cell c

cell a

３

6 8 2

：

５ １ cell

７ ：

machine

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 110

5.4 Genetic Representation and Operations

The number is used to represent a machine and the

permutation of numbers represents a sequence of machine

layout in a cell.

The parentheses divide machines into cells. The first

parenthesis signals the start of a cell and the second signals the

end of cell.

Table. 13.7 Parentheses represented types of machine layouts

Double Rows Layout [ ] 〔 〕

Triple Rows Layout < > 《 》

U-shape Layout 【 】 『 』

Loop Layout (( )) | |

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 111

5.4 Genetic Representation and Operations

The Operation marks mean arrangements of cells as

follows:

“+”: two cells are laid out vertically and aligned to left.

“-” : two cells are laid out vertically but aligned to right.

“*”: two cells are laid out horizontally and aligned to bottom.

“/” : a cell is laid out in the L shape formed by operation “+”.

b b b c

a a a b a

ab+ ab- ab* ab+c/

Fig. 13.24 Operation marks represented types of cell layouts

5.4 Genetic Representation and Operations

② ③ Operation Mark

Parenthesis

P1=() [] () P2 ={} <> () P1= + × P2= × －

O1: (123)<7964>(85)+ － O2: {92}[34576](18)××

5.4 Genetic Representation and Operations

Altering Cell Formation:

swapping: choose two machines in different cells and then swap

them.

(1 2 3 4) [5 6 7 8] <9 10> + *

(1 2 7 4) [5 6 3 8] <9 10> + *

other cell.

(1 2 3 4) [5 6 7 8] <9 10> + *

(1 2 4) [3 5 6 7 8] <9 10> + *

5.4 Genetic Representation and Operations

Altering Machine Layout Type:

choose a pair of parentheses at random and then alter them into

other type of parentheses as follows:

(1 2 3 4) [5 6 7 8] <9 10> + *

Altering Machine Layout within a Cell:

choose two machines at the same cell at random and then swap

them as follows:

(1 2 3 4) [5 6 7 8] <9 10> + *

(4 2 3 1) [5 6 7 8] <9 10> + *

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 115

5.4 Genetic Representation and Operations

Altering Cell Layout:

swapping: choose two cells in different cells and

(1 2 3 4) [5 6 7 8] <9 10> + *

<9 10> [5 6 7 8] (1 2 3 4) + *

Altering operation mark: choose an operation mark at random

and then alter it into another type.

(1 2 3 4) [5 6 7 8] <9 10> + *

(1 2 3 4) [5 6 7 8] <9 10> + /

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 116

5.5 Evaluation and Overall Procedure

During each iteration of genetic algorithms, chromosomes are

evaluated through three following steps:

convert chromosomes to paths and workloads

calculate objective values

convert values of objective functions into fitness values

optimization problem by using GA is how to determine the fitness

value of chromosomes according to multiple objectives.

towards the positive ideal point by readjusting weights attributed

multiple objectives according to the current generation.

Gen, M. & R. Cheng: Genetic Algorithms and Engineering Optimization, John Wiley &

Sons, New York, 2000.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 117

5.5 Evaluation and Overall Procedure

Let E denote the set of non-dominated solutions examined so

far, two special extreme points (z1min, z2max) and (z1min, z2max) in E

interest us:

z 2min = min {z 2 (v ) | v ∈ E} , z 2max = max{z 2 (v ) | v ∈ E}

from objective functions as follows:

z = w1 z1 + w2 z 2

1 1

where w1 = max min , w2 = max min

z1 − z1 z2 − z2

5.5 Evaluation and Overall Procedure

Adaptive moving line defined by the extreme points

(z1min, z2max) and (z1min, z2max) are shown below:

all current solutions Z−

negative ideal point

− whole criteria space Z

min max

F

(z ,z )

z max

2

1 2

z−

maximum

α extreme point

adaptive

+ max min

z min

2

z β (z 1 ,z 2 ) moving line

minimum subspace

extreme point corresponding to

+

F current solutions

Z+

positive ideal point

z1min z1max z1

Fig. 13.25 Adaptive Weights and Adaptive Hyper-plane

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 119

5.5 Evaluation and Overall Procedure

Hyper-plane divides the criteria space into two half spaces:

One containing positive ideal point Z+ and another containing negative

ideal point Z-.

The feasible solution space F is correspondingly divided into two

parts:

one is F+ =F∩Z+ and another is F- =F∩Z- .

All examined Pareto solutions lie in the space F+, and all points

lying in the F+ have large fitness values than those in the points in

the space F-.

As the minimum extreme point Z+ approximates the positive ideal point

Z+ along with the evolutionary progress, the hyper-plane will

gradually approach to the positive ideal point.

Therefore, the adaptive weight method can readjust its weights

according to the current population to obtain a search pressure

toward the positive ideal point.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 120

5.5 Evaluation and Overall Procedure

procedure: Overall Procedure for mo-CMD/GA

begin

t 0;

initialize P(t);

calculate objective values of P(t);

Pareto E(t);

evaluate fitness values of P(t);

while (not termination condition) do

recombine P(t) to yield C(t) by crossover and mutation;

calculate objective values of P(t) and C(t) ;

update Pareto E(t);

evaluate fitness values of P(t) and C(t) ;

select P(t+1) from P(t) and C(t) ;

tt+1

end

end

5.6 Numerical Examples

Experimental Results

No. of

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 122

5.6 Numerical Examples

The proposed method by Muramatsu et.al. and the three-

stage method were applied to eleven problems and the

optimal technique was applied the four small-size

problems (①, ②, ⑤, ⑥) of them.

Technique CF-ML-CL

Optimal

enumeration simultaneously

Approach

Muramatsu simultaneously

GA

et. al.

Three-strage

GA sequentially

Method

5.6 Numerical Examples

Detail input data for the 10th Numerical

Example:

Plant works making automobile parts in Saitama Prefecture,

Japan

Input Data:

Number of machines: 23 (NC lathe, Machining Center, etc)

Number of parts: 41

Number of cells: 3

Maximum number of machines in a cell: 9

5.6 Numerical Examples

Results for the 10th Numerical Example:

21 17 18 15 14

21 17 18 10 20

5 8 11 23 9 19 12 16 4

4 1 6 22 2 7 1 6 13

12 16 7 15 3 5 2 10 20 8

Three

13 9 19 14

: loop layout

3 23 11 22

5.7 Numerical Examples

The size of solution space=11612160000

The size of search space= 2700

Search efficiency ＝ 2700/ 11612160000=2.32515…×10-5

＝ about 0.0000233 ％

500

Objective Function

400

300

200

100

0.0000233 ％ of the solution space

0

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49

Generation

Fig. 13.26 Optimization process in Problem②

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 126

Conclusion

In this talk, a genetic algorithm-based solution approach is proposed to

address the multiple objective cellular manufacturing design

problems considered total moves and workload variation.

The design of cellular manufacturing systems consists of three issues:

cell formation, machine layout within cells, and cellular layout.

The proposed method takes an integrated approach to solve these

issues simultaneously, while most of previous researches treated

them sequentially and ignored interdependency among them.

Adaptive weights method is used to secularize multiple objectives

into a fitness function, which utilizes some useful information form

the current population to readjust weights to obtain a search

pressure towards the positive ideal point.

The results in the numerical examples by Muramatsu et. al. show a

successful integration of cell formation, machine layout, and cell

layout problems by using a genetic algorithms.

- ANN Modeling and GA Optimization of Zinc Removal from Wash water by Electro-coagulation ProcessUploaded byRahul Sharma
- Application of Genetic Algorithm to the Development of Artificial Intelligence Module SystemUploaded by尤俊偉
- On Simultaneous ion of Smart Structures - Part I_TheoryUploaded byAndreas_amp
- Binder1 74.pdfUploaded byAbdul Rahman
- Evalutionary AlgthUploaded byMoshira Essam
- 341B_P.13Uploaded bykemanjan
- Genetic AlgorithmUploaded byFarooq Shah
- A Fast Algorithm for Computing High-Dimensional Risk Parity PortfoliosUploaded byyeongloh
- Single vs MultiobjectiveUploaded byBetty Nagy
- [Paper] Optimization of Pilot Power for Load Balancing in WCDMA NetworksUploaded byorgenoyar
- c13 Wcdma Rno Rf OptimizationUploaded byHoyeborday Holumeday Temmythayor
- 2001-09-10_ECCMR_PaperUploaded byDalibor Petkovic
- Enhanced POD Projection Basis With Application to Shape Optimization of Car Engine Intake PortUploaded byGiovani Bueno
- A Hybrid of Back Propagation Neural Network and Genetic Algorithm for Optimization of Injection Molding Process ParametersUploaded byMusta Mustapha
- Lecture 1 (Introduction to or)Uploaded byShipra Narauney
- introducción a la programación linealUploaded byJessica Ramirez
- Frontline Solvers User GuideUploaded byfusion2000

- quimica analitica laboratorioUploaded byIsvanRobinHuaylascoArredondo
- Automation in Environmental Engineering Lecture 3Uploaded byPatryk2000
- Datos agrupados y no agrupados Miguel CalzadaUploaded byKattia Ortiz
- Incidencias World Class Presentation ToolUploaded byabel
- NTC-5747Uploaded byanon_455339496
- 4.1 Tipos de CircuitosUploaded byAlberto Orihuela
- ocaml-3.08-refmanUploaded byChiritoiu Tiberiu
- Anatomia del tipo.pdfUploaded bycuenta1000000
- 1372.pdfUploaded byDaniel Gavidia
- Quitz 8 NormaUploaded byAnonymous vZJjp0lPOk
- Theory of EntropyUploaded byKasi Spartacvs Albatroz
- Intervalo de Máxima EficiênciaUploaded byrodrigolorensini
- 2 - afa_efomm_apostila_matematica_vol_2.pdfUploaded byGabriel Cachoeira
- Parametros Hibridos GUploaded byangelfvn
- Simulado/tividade 56 Matemática para 4º e 5° anoUploaded byDesafios Matemáticos
- section 7 4 lesson planUploaded byapi-272198179
- Ball and BeamUploaded byAndre Milla Guerrero
- Fisica Semana 10Uploaded byYoelRonny
- DescontoUploaded byBelchiorMarioBT
- MainUploaded byMarco Passafiume
- 32Uploaded byapi-3856596
- Berklee College Harmonia 4Uploaded byDavid de Sousa
- álgebraUploaded byRoy Steveen
- Trabajo PrimorosoUploaded byCristian Andres Hoyos
- A Esfera CelesteUploaded byMarcos Vinicius Silva
- OCR S1 Notes Permutations and CombinationsUploaded byJon Hadley
- ETEC640F16-ExamReview-Dec72016Uploaded byMajid Mohammadi
- Manual Corporativo Hospital 3Uploaded byDeyvisDavid
- CHM110H5 Assignment 1 .pdfUploaded byAlvin Cheung
- zadania graniceUploaded byAnonymous Y156Bs