Computer - 2 per.pdf

INEN 416 Facility Location, Layout, and Material Handling

10/9/2004

Texas A&M Industrial Engineering 1

INEN 416

108

Texas A&M

Computerized Layout Planning

Focus on how computers can aid the facility layout process.

Designer must interact with multiple design databases and provide the integration between them to translate information and ensure consistency.

We will concentrate on decision aids for block layout planning.

Information required Common elements Classical layout programs

Craft, Corelap, Aldep, and Planet Newer layout programs

M-Craft, LayOpt, FactoryPlan

INEN 416

109

Texas A&M


Information in layout planning Numeric information

Space required for an activity Total flow between two activities

Logic information Preferences of the designer, i.e., activity relationship

chart Graphical information

Drawing of the block plan

Key element of computerized layout planning is the representation and manipulation of these three types of information.

Graphical representation is most challenging. A method suitable for display is not suitable for manipulation and vice-versa.


10/9/2004


INEN 416

110

Texas A&M


Graphical Representation Points and lines representation is not convenient

for analysis

INEN 416

111

Texas A&M


Graphical Representation (cont.) Most procedures employ a unit area square

representation as an approximation Space available and space required for each activity

are expressed as an integer multiple of the unit area.


10/9/2004


INEN 416

112

Texas A&M


Graphical Representation (cont.) Unit Square Area approximation can also be

represented by a two dimensional array or matrix of numbers

Easy to manipulate (e.g., determine adjacency) but difficult to visually interpret

1 2

4

5

1 1

111

1 1 1

111

2 2

2 2

2

2

3 3

33

44 4 4

4444

4

4 4 4

445 5 5 5

5 5 5 5 5

1 2

4

5

1 1

111

1 1 1

111

2 2

2 2

2

2

3 3

33

44 4 4

4444

4

4 4 4

445 5 5 5

5 5 5 5 5

INEN 416

113

Texas A&M


Layout Evaluation Algorithm needs to distinguish between good

layouts and bad ones Develop scoring model, s = g(X) Adjacency-based scoring

Based on on the relationship chart and diagram

Aldep uses A=64, E=16, I=4, O=1, U=0, and X=-1024 Scoring model has intuitive appeal; the ranking of

layouts is sensitive to the weight values. Layout B may be preferred to C with certain weights but not with others.

Therefore, correct specification of the weights is very important -- but how do you do that?

s w Xi ii

==

1

6


10/9/2004


INEN 416

114

Texas A&M


Layout Evaluation (cont.) Distance-based scoring

Approximate the cost of flow between activities Requires explicit evaluation of the flow volumes and costs

cij covers both the i to j and the j to i material flows Dij can be determined with any appropriate distance metric

Often the rectilinear distance between department centroids Assumes that the material flow system has already been

specified Assumes that the variable flow cost is proportional to

distance Distance often depends on the aisle layout and material

handling equipment

s c Dij ijj i

m

i

m=

= +=

11

1

INEN 416

115

Texas A&M


Layout Evaluation -- Distance-based scoring Example

A B

C D

From/To A B C DA - 2 4 4B 1 - 1 3C 2 1 - 2D 4 1 0 -

From/To A B C DA - 40 25 55B 40 - 65 25C 25 65 - 40D 55 25 40 -

From/To A B C D TotalA - 80 100 220 400B 40 - 65 75 180C 50 65 - 80 195D 220 25 0 - 245

Total 310 170 165 375 1020

Initial Layout Flow Data

Distance Data

Total Cost


10/9/2004


INEN 416

116

Texas A&M


Layout Evaluation (cont.) Distance-based scoring Impact of aisle layout and direction of travel

A B

C D

INEN 416

117

Texas A&M


Layout Evaluation (cont.) Distance-Weighted Adjacency-Based Scoring

A smaller score is better As before, the scoring model is sensitive to the

adjacency class weights, wij More Complex Scoring Methods

Could employ simulation to determine material handling equipment utilization, etc.

Would probably better reflect the preferences of the layout planner

Certainly more difficult to compute and could effect the number of alternatives considered

s w Xij ijji

===

1

6

1

6


10/9/2004


INEN 416

118

Texas A&M


Layout Generation Construction Algorithms

Start with basic SLP data and build a block layout by iteratively adding activities to a partial layout until all activities have been placed.

Improvement Algorithms Require an initial block layout which they then

attempt to improve.

INEN 416

119

Texas A&M


Construction Algorithms For i = 1 to n

SELECT an activity to be placedPLACE the selected activity in the layout

End For Selection rules

Choose the next activity having the largest number of A (E, I, etc.) relationships with the activities already in the layout. Break ties randomly.

Supplement above procedure with TCR for choosing first department and breaking ties.

Consider flow cost chart and user specified placement priorities.


10/9/2004


INEN 416

120

Texas A&M


Construction Algorithms Placement Rules

Contiguity Rule If an activity is represented by more than one unit area

square, every unit area square representing the activity must share at least one edge with at least one other unit area square representing the activity.

Connectedness Rule The perimeter of an activity must be a single closed

loop that is always in contact with some edge of some unit area square representing the activity.

The following are infeasible shapes for activities.

INEN 416

121

Texas A&M


Construction Algorithms (cont.) Placement Rules (cont.)

Five basic shapes for an activity represented by 4 unit area squares.

Determining possible shapes becomes nontrivial for activities with more than 5 unit area squares, and some of the shapes have bizarre configurations.


10/9/2004


INEN 416

122

Texas A&M


Construction Algorithms (cont.) Placement Rules (cont.)

Therefore, additional rules are often used. Enclosed Voids Rule

No activity shape shall contain an enclosed void. Shape Ratio Rule

The ratio of a feasible shapes greatest length to its greatest width shall be constrained to lie between specified limits.

Corner Count Rule The number of corners for a feasible shape may not

exceed a specified maximum. Given an activitys shape there are a large number of

alternative placements for it in a layout, including different locations and mirror images and rotations.

INEN 416

123

Texas A&M


Construction Algorithms (cont.) Bounded placement procedures

Accept a specified facility configuration and fit the activities into the facility.

May not be able to enforce all of the activity shape rules.

E.g., ALDEP Free placement procedures

Create a layout without regard to the resulting facility configuration.

May produce layouts requiring considerable adjustment to conform to conventional building configurations.

E.g., CORELAP


10/9/2004


INEN 416

124

Texas A&M


Improvement Algorithms Moves activities around within the block plan,

much like a jigsaw puzzle except that the shapes of the pieces are not fixed.

Too many degrees of freedom to devise a good method for modifying the block plan.

Most all improvement algorithms limit the kinds of changes that are permitted.

Basic procedure CHOOSE a pair (or triple) of activities

ESTIMATE the effect of exchanging themEXCHANGE if the effect is to reduce the total costCHECK to be sure the new layout is betterRepeat Until no more improvements are possible.

INEN 416

125

Texas A&M


Improvement Algorithms (cont.) To CHOOSE a pair of activities

Activities that have the same area, or Activities that share a common boundary.

There are many possibilities for EXCHANGE when the areas are not equal.

Generally, the shape ratio and corner count rules are violated, therefore, manual adjustment is sometimes required.

ESTIMATE the value of the exchange by comparing the cost if the two centroids are switched.

However, this estimate will not necessarily be correct for unequal area activities.


10/9/2004


INEN 416

126

Texas A&M

Computer-aided layout techniques are classified by

Method of recording flows between departments Quantitatively in a from-to chart Qualitatively in a relationship chart

Method of generating layouts Construction of a layout Improvement of an existing layout

-

Computer-Aided Layout

INEN 416

127

Texas A&M

Computer-Aided LayoutTechniques

Construction Routine Improvement Routine

Quantitative Input PLANET CRAFT

COFAD

CORELAPQualitative Input ALDEP

PLANET


10/9/2004


INEN 416

128

Texas A&M

Attempts to minimize transportation cost, where

Transportation cost = flow * distance * unit cost Requires the assumptions that:

Move costs are independent of the equipment utilization.

Move costs are linearly related to the length of the move.

Distance metric used is the rectilinear distance between department centroids.

CRAFT

INEN 416

129

Texas A&M

Procedure1. Determine department centroids.2. Calculate rectilinear distance between centroids.3. Calculate transportation cost for the layout.4. Consider department exchanges of either equal

area departments or departments sharing a common border.

5. Determine transportation cost of each departmental interchange.

6. Select and implement the departmental interchange that offers the greatest reduction in transportation cost.

7. Repeat the procedure for the new layout until no interchange is able to reduce the transportation cost.

CRAFT


10/9/2004


INEN 416

130

Texas A&M

CRAFT is a path-oriented method so the finallayout is dependent on the initial layout.

Therefore, a number of different initial layouts should be used as input to the CRAFT procedure.

CRAFT allows the use of dummy departments to represent fixed areas in the layout.

CRAFT

INEN 416

131

Texas A&M

CRAFT Example

Initial Layout

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 181 A A A A A A A A A A G G G G G G G G2 A A G G Shipping3 A A A A A A A A A A G G G G Department4 B B B B B C C C C C E E G G G G G G5 B B C C E E E E E E E E6 B B C C C C C E E E E E E E E7 B B B B B D D D D F F F F F F F E E8 D D D D D D D F F F9 D D F F F F F F10 D D D D D D D D H H H H H F F F F F

Dummy Department


10/9/2004


INEN 416

132

Texas A&M

CRAFT Example

Distance Matrix

Cost MatrixA B C D E F G H Total

A 270 75 150 130 80 705B 180 275 210 665C 35 100 135D 120 420 540E 195 140 335F 70 75 455 600G 0H 0

2980

A B C D E F G HA 6 5 6 13 16B 6 11 14C 7 10D 6 12E 3 4F 14 3 7GH

INEN 416

133

Texas A&M

CRAFT Example

Trial Distance Matrix

Trial Cost Matrix

A B C D E F G HA 6 5 6 16 13B 6 14 11C 10 7D 6 9E 3 7F 11 3 4GH

A B C D E F G H TotalA 270 75 150 160 65 720B 180 350 165 695C 50 70 120D 120 315 435E 195 245 440F 55 75 260 390G 0H 0

2800


10/9/2004


INEN 416

134

Texas A&M

CRAFT Example

New Layout

Final Layout

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 181 A A A A A A A A A A G G G G G G G G2 A A G G3 A A A A A A A A A A G G G G4 B B B B B C C C C C F F G G G G G G5 B B C C F F F F F F F F6 B B C C C C C F F F F F F F7 B B B B B D D D D E E E E E E F F8 D D D D D D D E E F F9 D D E E E E E E F F10 D D D D D D D D H H H H H E E F F F

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 181 A A A A A A A A A A G G G G G G G G2 A A G G3 A A A A A A A A A A G G G G4 C C C B B B B B B B F F G G G G G G5 C C C B B F F F F F F F F6 C C B B B B B B F F F F F F F7 C C C C B D D D D E E E E E E F F8 D D D D D D D E E F F9 D D E E E E E E F F10 D D D D D D D D H H H H H E E F F F

INEN 416

135

Texas A&M

COFAD

A modification of CRAFT to allow for a variety of material handling equipment alternatives.

It attempts to select both the layout and the material handling system.

A special version, COFAD-F, allows the evaluation of varying the product volumes and mixes to analyze the flexibility of the design.


10/9/2004


INEN 416

136

Texas A&M

PLANET is a construction routine with the same basic input requirements as CRAFT.

Material Flow Input Methods Specify a route or production sequence for each

part. From-to Chart. Penalty Matrix -- quantitative representation of a

relationship chart. Construction Algorithm Selection Methods

Choose based on individual flow-between costs. Choose based on the sum of the flow-between

costs with previously placed departments. Choose based on the sum of the flow-between

costs with all other departments.

PLANET

INEN 416

137

Texas A&M

CORELAP

Constructs a layout for a facility by calculating the total closeness rating (TCR) for each department.

The total closeness rating is the sum of numerical values assigned to the closeness relationships from the relationship chart.

A = 6, E = 5, I = 4, O = 3, U = 2, X = 1 Procedure (similar to one of the procedures for

relationship diagramming) Place department with the highest TCR in the center of

the layout. Scan the relationship chart for a department with an A (if

none, then E, I, and so on) relationship with the selected department. Highest TCR is tie-breaker.

Continue until all departments are in the layout.


10/9/2004


INEN 416

138

Texas A&M

Same basic input requirements and objectives as CORELAP.

Selection Procedure Randomly select first department in the layout. Scan the relationship chart for an A (then E, etc.)

relationship with the selected department. Break ties randomly.

Repeat procedure until all departments are selected. Placement Procedure

Place first department in upper left corner and extend it downward. Width of the extension is determined by the sweep width.

Next department begins where the previous department ended and follows the serpentine sweep pattern.

ALDEP

INEN 416

139

Texas A&M

ALDEP

Sweep Pattern

Can accommodate a variety of building shapes and irregularities.

Scoring Mechanism: Adjacency Score ALDEP rates the layouts by determining an

adjacency score by assigning values to the relationships among adjacent departments.

A = 64, E = 16, I = 4, O = 1, U = 0, X = -1024


10/9/2004


INEN 416

140

Texas A&M

ALDEP Example

Layout Construction4 44 44 44 44 44 4 4 44 4 4 44 4 4 44 4 4 44 4 4 4

4 4 2 2 2 24 4 2 2 2 24 4 2 2 2 24 4 2 2 2 24 4 2 2 2 24 4 4 44 4 4 44 4 4 44 4 4 44 4 4 4

4 4 2 2 2 2 1 14 4 2 2 2 2 1 14 4 2 2 2 2 1 14 4 2 2 2 2 1 14 4 2 2 2 2 1 14 4 4 4 1 1 1 14 4 4 4 1 1 1 14 4 4 4 1 1 1 14 4 4 4 1 1 1 14 4 4 4 1 1 1 1

4 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 6 6 5 5 5 5 7 7 3 34 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 6 6 5 5 5 5 7 7 3 34 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 6 6 5 5 5 5 7 7 3 34 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 6 6 5 5 5 5 7 7 3 34 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 6 6 5 5 5 5 7 7 3 34 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 3 34 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 3 34 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 3 04 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 0 04 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 0 0

INEN 416

141

Texas A&M

ALDEP Example

Scoring ProcedureAdjacent

Departments Relationship Value Rating4-2 and 2-4 E 16 324-1 and 1-4 I 4 82-1 and 1-2 E 16 321-6 and 6-1 U 0 06-5 and 5-6 A 64 1286-7 and 7-6 E 16 325-7 and 7-5 I 4 87-3 and 3-7 U 0 0

Total 240


10/9/2004


INEN 416

142

Texas A&M

Spiral

Graph based algorithm which attempts to create a structured adjacency graph.

The objective is to maximize the adjacency score. The selection and location decisions are made

simultaneously, using a greedy approach on a hexagonal grid.

Procedure Convert the flow matrix to a symmetric matrix. Sort the pairwise relationships by decreasing value. Place the first two departments in the layout. Add the departments by order in the list from step 2,

such that the adjacency with already placed departments is maximized. Use a random tie breaker.

INEN 416

143

Texas A&M

Input Data Asymmetrical Flow Matrix

Symmetrical Flow Matrix

Spiral Example

Dept 1 2 3 4 5 6 71 - 45 15 25 10 52 - 30 25 153 - 5 104 20 - 355 - 65 356 5 25 - 657 -

Dept 1 2 3 4 5 6 71 - 45 15 25 10 52 - 50 25 203 - 5 104 - 355 - 90 356 - 657 -


10/9/2004


INEN 416

144

Texas A&M

Spiral Example

Sorted Flow ListDept Dept Flow

5 6 906 7 652 4 501 2 454 5 355 7 351 4 252 5 252 6 201 3 151 5 103 6 101 6 53 5 5

INEN 416

145

Texas A&M

Spiral Example

Graph Construction

5 6

5 6

7

5 6

7

4

5 6

7

4

2

2

5 6

7

4

1

2

3 5 6

7

4

1


10/9/2004


INEN 416

146

Texas A&M

Spiral Example

Graph Evaluation Adjacency Matrix * Symmetrical Flow Matrix

Score is 385 Maximum score is 435 Efficiency is 385/435 = 88%

Dept 1 2 3 4 5 6 71 - 45 15 25 10 52 - 50 25 203 - 5 104 - 355 - 90 356 - 657 -

Dept 1 2 3 4 5 6 71 - 1 1 1 0 0 02 - 0 1 1 0 13 - 1 0 0 04 - 1 0 05 - 1 16 - 17 -

INEN 416

147

Texas A&M

Spiral Example

Alternative Adjacency Graph

Score is 405 Efficiency is 93%

3

5 6

7

4

1

2


10/9/2004


INEN 416

148

Texas A&M

Spiral

Creating a Layout Can use a sweep pattern similar to ALDEP to sweep

through the adjacency graph and create a block layout

3

5 6

7

4

1

2

INEN 416

149

Texas A&M

Excel Layout Tool

Uses CRAFT-type flow*distance objective Layout is specified by a department sequence

User-specified and random sequences can be used ALDEP placement procedure based on a vertical

sweep pattern is used to place departments in layout Sweep width parameter can be changed Grid size and facility shape can also be adjusted

Pairwise exchange is performed on the sequence position of departments

Not restricted to adjacent or equal size departments Due to using the sweep method to create a layout

Additional add-ins to generate and improve sequences are available

Software also solves traditional CRAFT


10/9/2004


INEN 416

150

Texas A&M

M-Craft

Layout is specified by a sequence of departments

Horizontal sweep patterns are used to place departments in layout

Number of bays controls sweep width Pairwise exchange is performed on the

sequence position of departments Not restricted to adjacent or equal size departments

Due to using the sweep method to create a layout

INEN 416

151

Texas A&M

MULTIPLE / LayOpt

Layout is specified by a sequence of departments

Sweep patterns are used to place departments in layout

Sweep pattern is based on space filling curve (SFC) concept

Many alternative SFCs can be created Pairwise exchange is performed on the

sequence position of departments Not restricted to adjacent or equal size departments

Due to using the sweep method to create a layout


10/9/2004


INEN 416

152

Texas A&M

Factory CAD/Flow/Plan

AutoCAD based add-on Has multiple applications

CAD: drawing templates FLOW: evaluation of material flow; manual SLP-

type manipulation PLAN: layout alternative generation

FactoryPLAN Uses Spiral-type algorithm to generate alternative

layout options

INEN 416

153

Texas A&M


Conclusion Does not provide an absolute best model for

finding the optimal layout. Does provide algorithms for evaluating a

large number of alternative layouts.

It is important to understand the underlying assumptions and scoring models of each procedure in order to correctly interpret the results.

Date post:	09-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	anonymous-feesgun
View:	232 times
Download:	0 times

Computer - 2 per.pdf

Documents