You are on page 1of 127

Graduate School of Information, Production and Systems, Waseda University

13. Layout Design and Cellular


   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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 2


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. 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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 3


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

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


2. m-MLP in Fuzzy Environment
3. Fuzzy Facility Layout Problems
4. Cellular Manufacturing Design

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 4


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 5


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 6


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 7


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

 where mik represents a machine which is in the ith position of kth


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

 Because the layout design is a minimization problem, we must


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

procedure: GA 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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 12


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
   

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 13


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 14


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

Fig. 13.3 Evolutionary process for test problem

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 15


13. Layout Design and
Cellular Manufacturing Design

1. Single-row Machine Layout Problem


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

1. M-MLP in Fuzzy Environment


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.

 The first one is a combinatorial optimization problem.


 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.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 17


2.1 m-MLP Formulation
 Notation: lV
d0j
Let the decision variable zik be mj
lk
l0

1, if machine i is allocated to row k mi mk


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.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 18


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 19


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.

 For the multiple-row machine layout problem, a


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

where ∆ i neat clearance associated with machine mi


∆lki separation between two machines
d ki the required clearance between machines k and i

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 21


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 22


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 23


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

 Then we compare S1 with L, the restriction of working area, if it is


less than or equal to L, the randomly generated permutation is
feasible; otherwise it is infeasible.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 25


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.

 Let L’ denote available space and L denote the length restriction


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 )

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 26


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 27


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

where p is the big positive penalty value. fk the total


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 29


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:

p1=[{s1}, {m11, …, mn1}, {∆ 11,…, ∆ n1}]


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

 The upper and lower bounds can be directly calculated as follows:


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.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 32


2.5 m-MLP Genetic Operations - Mutation
 Mutation: The mutation operator is designed with neighborhood
technique to try to find an improved offspring.

 Firstly we give the definition of neighborhood for a given


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 }

 The set of chromosome formed with above set of neat


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.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 34


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 35


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

Fig. 13.7 Multiple-row layout for the example problem


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

Fig. 13.8 Evolutionary process for the example problem

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 39


13. Layout Design and
Cellular Manufacturing Design

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


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

1. Fuzzy Facility Layout Problems


2. Cellular Manufacturing Design

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 40


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.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 41


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

µ ij (xi, , xj ) the membership function of fuzzy clearance between two


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

Fig. 13.10 Membership function


 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

δ ijs = 1 / 2( li + l j ) − d ijs , δ ijl = 1 / 2( li + l j ) − d 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.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 44


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

 Notation: di0lv dk0lv


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.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 45


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)

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 46


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.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 47


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:

[{k},{mi1 , mi 2 , ..., min }, {∆ i1 , ∆ i 2 , ..., ∆ in }]


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 48


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

 Then we compare S1 with L, the restriction of working area,


if it is less than or equal to L, the randomly generated
permutation is feasible; otherwise it is infeasible.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 49


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

where λ 0 is an initial estimation of the best


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 50


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 

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 51


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

0.6 best fitness

0.4 average
fitness
ss enti F

0.2

0
50 100 150 200
Evolutionary process

Fig. 13.13 Evaluation Process for Test Problem

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 53


13. Layout Design and
Cellular Manufacturing Design

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


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 54


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.

 Rosenblatt, M.: The dynamics of plant layout, Management Science,


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

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


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 55


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.

 There are two approaches proposed for modeling


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.

 Here, a trapezoidal fuzzy number (TrFN) is used to represent to


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

 Since a fuzzy number represents many possible real numbers


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

3 Chromosome: 12 * 345 * 6++ *


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 61


4.2 FLP Representation and Initialization
 Initialization:
 Guided random approach is proposed to initialize genetic
system.

 It constructs a chromosome from left to right by picking one


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:

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 62


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 63


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 * * * +

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 65


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**+)

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 66


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 + + *)

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 68


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.

where ψ is a slicing tree with total size 2m-1.


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.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 69


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 70


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 71


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.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 72


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

where a is the optimistic estimation on material flow (the best case)


d the pessimistic estimation (the worst case)
b one average estimation (the near best case)
c the other average estimation (the near worst case)

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 73


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 74


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 76


4.5 Fuzzy FLP Numerical Example
Table. 13.3 Fuzzy Interflow Among Facilities

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 77


4.5 Fuzzy FLP Numerical Example
Table. 13.4 Fuzzy Interflow Among Facilities

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 78


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

The fuzzy cost measure of the best layout is


~
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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 80


4.5 Fuzzy FLP Numerical Example
 Evolutionary Process

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 81


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 + + *)

Table. 13.5 Comparative Results


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 82


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

Fig. 13.22 Relative error with respect to the fuzzy solution

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 85


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.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 86


Conclusion
 From the comparative results we know that

 For an equivalent nonfuzzy case, we can


obtained a layout will yield large costs than the
solution obtained by the fuzzy approach.

 That is, the nonfuzzy approach can obtain a


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.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 87


13. Layout Design and
Cellular Manufacturing Design

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


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 88


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.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 89


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 91


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 92


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 93


5.1 Introduction to CMD - Common configurations

Table. 13.6 General Characteristics of Layout Types

Characteristic Product Process Group Fixed


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

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


Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1993

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 94


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.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 95


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 97


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
...

…... 3 ) Cell Layout

cell a
... ... ...
cell c
cell a cell b … cell n cell b

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 98


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.

Process Plans for Parts Parts


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}

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 100


5.2 Major Issues on CMD - issue I

Process Plans for Parts: Parts


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 101


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}

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 102


5.2 Major Issues on CMD - issue II
 Machine Layout:

Single Row Layout U-shape   Layout

Loop Layout Multi Rows Layout

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 103


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 104


5.2 Major Issues on CMD - issue II

Previous:

Cell Machine Cell


Formation Layout Layout

Local
optimal

Proposed: Cell
Formation
Consider
Simultaneously
Machine Cell
Layout Layout

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 105


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.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 106


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 107


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.

n the number of cells.


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.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 109


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

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

Layout Type of Machines Vertical Horizontal

Single Row Layout ( ) { }


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 112


5.4 Genetic Representation and Operations

P1: (123)[4567](89)+×   P2 : {52}<37946>(18)× -

①   Number P1 =12 345 6789 P2 =52 379 4618

P1 =12 379 6789 P2=52 345 4618

P1 =12 379 6485 P2=92 345 7618


②  ③ Operation Mark
Parenthesis  
P1=() [] () P2 ={} <> () P1= + × P2= × -

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


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 113


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> + *

 insertion: choose a machine randomly and then insert it to the


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

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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 114


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> + *

(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

then swap them.


(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

One of the special issues arising in solving multi-objective


optimization problem by using GA is how to determine the fitness
value of chromosomes according to multiple objectives.

 The adaptive weight approach will obtain a search pressure


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:

z1min = min {z1 (v ) | v ∈ E}, z1max = max{z1 (v ) | v ∈ E}


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

 Based on the extreme points, a fitness function was given


from objective functions as follows:
z = w1 z1 + w2 z 2
1 1
where w1 = max min , w2 = max min
z1 − z1 z2 − z2

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 118


5.5 Evaluation and Overall Procedure
 Adaptive moving line defined by the extreme points
(z1min, z2max) and (z1min, z2max) are shown below:

z2 minimal rectangle containing


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) ;
tt+1
end
end

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 121


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.

Outline of each Method


Technique CF-ML-CL
Optimal
enumeration simultaneously
Approach
Muramatsu simultaneously
GA
et. al.
Three-strage
GA sequentially
Method

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 123


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

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 124


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

Three-stage method Muramatsu et. al.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 125


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.

Soft Computing Lab. WASEDA UNIVERSITY , IPS 127