Design of a Process Layout

7/30/2019 Design of a Process Layout

1/12


2/12

27

product life cycles and increased variety in product offerings require that facilities remainuseful over many product generations and support the manufacturing of a large numberof products. In the design of the process layout of a palm oil production plant, the processlayout apply the principle of work place design and work space design to optimally

arrange production facilities in a manner that fits the job to man so as to create conditionsin work environment that furnishes operators comfort and stress reduction. Processlayout design is a process that deals with the arrangement of machine or productionfacilities in their correct relative position in the available workspace to create conditions inwork environment that furnishes operators comfort and stress reduction. Process layoutsare found primarily in job shops or firms that produce customized, small quantity productsthat may require different processing requirements and sequences of operations; processlayouts are facility configurations in which operations of similar nature or function aregrouped together. Different literature on the design of a process layout has been onarticles on various approaches for large and small scale industries. For instance Riis(1992) as well as Gouzhn and Riis (2001) proposed methods for modern plant layout thatcan furnish optimum production. He emphasized that plant layout design should beviewed in the context of the whole production system. Moore (1978) proposed computeraided plant layout design and pointed out several limitations associated with computeraided layout design and made suggestions on how to improve its use. Ostresh (1975),Love and Moris (1975), Love and Juel (1982), Christofides and Viola (1971) all discussedthe application algorithms to the optimization of the process layout design. Francis andWhite (1974) advocated an integrated approach to multi-criteria facility layout problem. Itis worthy to note that, most of the works cited above have only theoretical value andperhaps their practicality has not been demonstrated.

METHODOLOGY This study involves visiting a palm oil production plant to understand the existing layoutand assess the trip frequency between adjacent and non-adjacent departments; variousprocesses were also studied to understand the ergonomic implications to humancapabilities and limitations. The areas of investigation includes degree of closeness,relationship that exists between departments and flow that exists betweendepartments, area required for each work centres and some other layout planningrequirements such as transportation time, material volume, number of movement and soon. The tool used in carrying out this investigation includes subjects interrogation usingthe questionnaire and also by direct measurement of plants dimensions in terms of areasand distances between departments. Table 1.0 shows the relationship priority code. Theshortcomings and closeness relationship problems identified were eliminated.Thedepartments contain in the layout include1) Administrative Department: This consist of i) Directors Office, ii) General Managersoffice, iii) Secretarys office iv) Personnel Managers office, v) General Administrativeoffice, vi) Account office and vii) Production Managers office.2) Electrical Department: This consists of i) Workshop, ii) Electrical Engineers office andiii) Power Generating section.3) Maintenance Department: This consists of i) Engineering Workshop, ii) WorkshopEngineers office and iii) Engineering Store.

Imoukhuede, K.A., Ologunagba, F.O. and Tanimola, B.A.

Design of a Process Layout for Palm Oil Production Plant


3/12

28

4) Marketing Department: This consists of i) Marketing office, ii) Loading section, iii)Weigh bridge/ Computer section.5) Research and Quality Control Department: This consists of i) Laboratory and ii)Chemical Store.

6) Production Department

Mathematical AnalysisThe objective function is to minimize the effective distance or travel between departmentsthat have strong activity relationships with each other

Where

for all set of i relationship with j Notation

i = Department on the column ( i = 1,2,3,.... n ) j = Department on the row ( j = 1,2,3,... m )k = Location of department i h = Location of department j

= Rectilinear distance between the centres of the k th and h th locations fordepartments i and j (length of the shortest path or the least number of square blocksbetween two departments as represented in the grid).Gij = Numerical activity relationship rating of the department i and j .F = Layout effectiveness value (effective) distance relationship between departments.

Solution Procedure

Stage 1Compose the relationship priority codes for -1 G ij 4 (Table 1.0)Table 1. Relationship Priority Codes

Code Priority Value A Absolute necessary 4E Especially important 3I Important 2O Ordinary 1U Unimportant 0X Undesirable -1

Table 2. Reasons for relationship Priority CodesCode Reason1 Same dock 2 Flow of Material3 Service4 Convenience5 Inventory Control6 Communication

Volume 3, December 2011 Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences


4/12

29

7 Same personnel8 Cleanliness9 Chemical Reaction

10 Production Flow

Stage 2Construct the closeness relationship value (activity relationship table) usingT j1 = G i1j2 + G i1j3 + G i1j4 + G i1j5 + . . . . .G i1jm T j2 = G i1j2 + G i2j3 + G i2j4 + G i2j5 + . . . . .G i2jm T j3 = G i1j3 + G i2j3 + G i3j4 + G i3j5 + . . . . .G i3jm T j4 = G i1j4 + G i2j4 + G i3j4 + G i4j5 + . . . . .G i4jm T j5 = G i1j5 + G i2j5 + G i3j5 + G i4j5 + G i5j6 + . . . . .G i4jm T jm = G i1jm + G i2jm + G i3jm + G i4jm + G i5jm + . . . . .G in -1 jm -1 Where, T j = Total closeness relationship value for each department (section). The resultsof stage2 are shown in table 3.1, 4.1 and 5.1 respectively. The T j is used to generate thenodal diagram.

Stage 3Generate square blocks for grid formation of each department is converted to anapproximate number of square blocks using

Where, B is the number of blocks to be generated for each department (section). A is the area of the department (section) in square meters.q is the block dimension.For the purpose of this research q = 2, 6 for office section and production section with thewhole plant layout generation respectively.

Stage 4Now construct the grid. The grid is made up of square blocks generated from eachdepartment. Rectangular shaped grids are used for the purpose of this research.Bt = B i B j WhereBt = Total number of square blocks in the gridBi = Total number of square blocks on the grid column (length).B j = Total number of square blocks on the grid row (width).Bt = 13 14, 124, 164 office section, production section and the whole plant layoutgeneration respectively.

Stage 5Determine the layout effectiveness value (the effective distance or travel betweendepartment) for the grid arrangement. The nodal diagram and on the grid arrangementare varied until the minimum workable effectiveness value (minimum effective distancerelationship) is obtained.




5/12

30

WhereF j = distance effectiveness row valueTherefore

F = F j1 + F j2 + F j3 + F j4 + . . . . . + F jm-1 .WhereF j1 = G i1j2 d(k i1 ,h j2 ) + G i1j3 d(k i1 ,h j3 ) + G i1j4 d(k i1 ,h j4 ) + . . . . .+ G i1jm d(k i1 ,h jm ).F j2 = G i2j3 d(k i2 ,h j3 ) + G i2j4 d(k i2 ,h j4 ) + G i2j5 d(k i2 ,h j5 ) + . . . . .+ G i2jm d(k i2 ,h jm )F j3 = G i3j4 d(k i3 ,h j4 ) + G i3j5 d(k i3 ,h j5 ) + G i3j6 (k i3 ,h j6 ) + . . . . . . .+ G i3jm d(k i3 ,h jm )F j4 = G i4j5 d(k i4 ,h j5 ) + G i4j6 d(k i4 , h j6 ) + G i4j7 (k i4 ,h j7 ) + . . . . . . + G i4jm d(k i4 ,h jm )F j5 = G i5j6 d(k i5 ,h j6 ) + G i5j7 d(k i5 ,h j7 ) + G i5j8 (k i5 ,h j8 ) + . . . . . . + G i5jm d(k i5 ,h jm )F jm-1 = G in-1jm d(k in-1 ,h jm )

The grid with the minimum workable effectiveness value (minimum effective distancerelationship is chosen. These stages 1 to 5 are observable in generating office segment,production segment and the whole plant.

Table 3. Office Space MeasurementsS/N SECTION AREA (SQUARE METRES) NO OF BLOCK (B) q=21. Director 23.04 62. Secretary 23.04 63. General Manager 28.80 74. Personal Manager 17.64 45. Marketing Manager 28.80 76. Production Manager 17.64 47. Account 23.04 68. General Administration 17.64 49. Console 23.04 6

10. oilet and Bathroom 8.64 2Total 211.32 52

Table 3.1 Closeness Relationship Value for Office Space Measurements1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TOTAL

1 - 4 4 2 2 2 1 0 0 2 172 - 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 103 - 4 4 4 1 0 0 2 234 - 2 2 2 2 0 2 165 - 0 3 2 0 2 15

6 - 3 2 0 2 157 - 1 0 2 138 - 0 2 99 - 2 2

10 - 18



6/12

31

Table 3.2 Effectiveness Value for Office Layout for the Production Section1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ROW VALUE

1 - 40 40 26 20 26 16 05 01 29 482 - 40 00 01 01 01 02 24 24 83 - 41 40 40 10 05 01 23 104 - 24 20 21 22 06 22 185 - 03 31 20 00 24 116 - 30 21 05 21 47 - 10 03 20 08 - 00 20 09 - 24 8

10 - 0Total Value F 107

Table 3.3 Grid Formation for the Office Layout4 6 7 74 6 7 104 6 7 104 6 7 82 3 7 82 3 3 82 3 5 82 3 5 92 3 5 92 3 5 91 1 5 91 1 5 91 1 5 9

4 6 7

2 3

10

1 5

8

9




7/12

32

Fig.1. Nodal Diagram for the Office Layout

Table 4. Space Measurements for Production SectionS/N PRODUCTION SECTION AREA (SQUARE METRES) NO OF BLOCK S (B),

1. Sterilisation 72.00 2

2. Threshing and Stripping 330.48 9

3. Oil Extraction 330.48 9

4. Clarification and 181.44 5

5. Depericating 138.24 4

6. Nut Craking 116.64 3

7. Winnowing and Drying 51.84 1

8. Effluent Treatment Plantand Press Cake 540.00 15

Total 1761.12 48

Table 4.1 Closeness Relationship Value for the Production Section1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL

1 - 4 4 4 4 0 0 0 16

2 - 1 4 0 0 0 1 9

3 - 4 0 0 0 0 9

4 - 0 4 0 4 20

5 - 4 2 0 10

6 - 4 0 12

7 - 1 7

8 - 5

Table 4.2 Effectiveness Values for Production Section Layout1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ROW VALUE

1 - 43 40 40 40 00 00 00 122 - 11 40 00 00 00 00 1

3 - 40 00 00 00 00 04 - 00 40 00 41 85 - 45 24 00 286 - 40 00 07 - 11 18 - 0

TOTAL VALUE F 50



8/12

33

Table 4.3 Grid Formation for Production Section Layout 5 1 3 35 1 3 85 4 3 8

5 4 3 82 4 3 82 4 3 82 4 3 82 7 3 82 6 8 82 6 8 82 6 8 82 2 8 8

Fig. 2. Nodal Diagram for the Production Section Layout

Table 5.0 Space Measurement for the Whole Plant.S/N WHOLE PLANT AREA (SQUARE METERS) NO OF BLOCK S B

(q=6.)1 Production 1761.12 492 Material Store 52.92 23 Laboratory 28.80 14 Office 211.32 65 Mech-w/s & Store 64.80 26 Electrical Dept 64.80 27 Power Generating

Section34.56 1

8 Food Services 34.56 12252.88 64

5 1 3

8 4 2

6 7




9/12

34

Table 5.1 Closeness Relationship Value for the Whole Plant.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL

1 - 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 242 - 4 0 2 2 0 1 13

3 - 1 0 0 0 1 94 - 1 1 0 1 75 - 2 1 0 106 - 3 0 117 - 0 78 - 7

Table 5.2 Effectiveness Value for the Whole Plant1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ROW VALUE

1 - 40 30 30 40 30 30 41 42 - 40 01 20 22 03 12 6

3 - 10 02 04 03 12 24 - 11 11 00 10 25 - 20 12 03 26 - 34 05 127 - 00 08 - 0TOTAL VALUE F 28

Table 5.3 Grid Formation for the Whole plant2 3 4 42 1 4 85 1 4 75 1 4 16 1 4 16 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 1

1 1 1 11 1 1 1



10/12

35

Fig.3. Nodal Diagram for the Whole Plant

Fig 4. Block Diagram for the Factory Plan for Palm Oil Production

DISCUSSIONIn the course of the analysis we spotlighted several techniques for placement of machinesand other equipment of production system in order to promote flow of people and

2 3 4

5 1 8

6 7

STERILISATION

72.00m 2THRESHING AND

STRIPPING 330.48m2

OIL EXTRACTION

330.48m 2

CLARIFICATION AND

PURIFICATION 181.44m 2DEPERICATING

138.24m 2NUT CRAKING

116.64m 2

WINNOWING AND

DRYING 51.84m 2

EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT

AND PRESS LAKE 540.00m 2




11/12

36

material. The overall procedure entails assigning space within the production plant andarranging equipments within their assigned space. In particular we saw that the finallayout developed in figures 1, 2 , 3 and 4 are demonstrative even without demonstration inthe sense that the charts used employed logic and visual representation of information in

a clearer and codified manner. The final layout will effectively allow people to usemachines to process materials. It requires minimum movement of people and machines itprovides for the sequential flow of materials as they move through processing steps; itgives workers a safe work environment. Finally it is flexible and easily changed. In finalitythe analysis in the study has helped to clarify thinking about the application of person-centred considerations in the design of the facility layout. Perhaps the most significantlessons to be learned from this study is that the most common approach in developing aprocess layout is to arrange workstations consisting of like processes in a way thatoptimizes their relative placement. And by optimal placement, it is meant placingworkstations with amount of inter-station traffic adjacent to one another.

CONCLUSION The authors have shown the usefulness of integrating the heuristic concept into processlayout decision problems as a means of optimizing workflow, movement of people andproduction rate. The results of this study support the current method of front endingproduction planning, which requires optimal production quantities even at the initialstages of production phase.

REFERNCES Apple, J.M. and Deisenrotch, M.P. (1992): A Computerization Model for Plant Layout Analysis and Evaluation Technique (PLANET). Alle Technical Papers of 23 rd Conference Anaheim, California.

Ataga,D.O., Ilechie, C.O.and Omoti, U. 1993. Small-Scale Palm Oil Processing Technologyin Nigeria. Nigerian Institute for Oil Palm Research (NIFOR). Benin-City.

Buffa,E.S., Armour, G.C. and Vollman, T.E. (1966): Allocating Facilities with CRAFT,Harvard Business Review, Vol., 42(2);136

Christofides, N. And Viola, P. (1971): The Optimum Location of Multi Centres on a Graph.Operation Research Quarterly; Vol., 22, No2.

Dutta, K.N. and Sahu, S. (1982): A Multi-goal Heuristic for Facilities Design Problems.MIJGHAL, International Journal of Production Research 20(2), 147-154.

Edwards, H.K., Gilbert, B.E. and Hale, M.E. (1970): Modular Allocation Technique (MAT).Management Science Vol., 17 (1); 161-167.

Francis, R.L. and White, J. A. (1974): Facilities Layout and Location; An Analytical Approach Eaglewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.



12/12

37

Gouzhu, Jia and Riss, O. Jens (2001): Development of the Integrated Design Process toPlant Layout and Its Application in a Medium Enterprises, New York: Addison.

Igboanugo A.C. and Amiebenomo, S.O. (2006): Design of a Process Layout for Pilot Alkyd

Resin Production Plant. International Conference on Engineering Research andDevelopment.

Love, R.F. and Juel, H. (1982): Properties and Solution Methods for Large Location Allocation Problem. Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol., 33, No 5,pp 443-452.

Love, R.F. and Morris, J.G. (1975): A Computational Procedure for the Exact Solution of Location-Allocation Problems with Rectangular Distances. National Research LogisticsQuarterly Vol.22, No 3, pp 441-453.

Moore, J.M. (1974): Computer Aided Facilities Design an International Survey.International Journal of Production Research Vol.12 (1) 21-44.

Ogunkoya, A. K.2002. Process Re-Engineering of a Small-Scale Industry for CompetitiveProduction. Unpublished M.Eng. Seminar in the Department of Mechanical engineering,Federal University of Technology, Akure.

Ostresh, L.M. (1975): An Efficient Algorithm for Solving the Two Centre Location. Journalof Regional Science, Vol. 15, No 2 pp 209- 276.

Riis, J. (1992): Integration and Manufacturing Strategy. Computers in Industry, pp 37-50.

Rosenblatt, M.J. (1979): The Facilities Layout Problem-A Multi-goal Approach,International Journal of Production Research. Vol. 17 (4) 323-332.

Sharma, P.C. (2006): Production Engineering Textbook, S. Chand and Company Ltd,India.



Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sunil-yadav
View:	223 times
Download:	0 times

Design of a Process Layout

Documents