Computerized Layout Planning Computerized Layout Planning

INEN 416 Facility Location, Layout, and

Material Handling

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

108

Texas A&M INEN 416

10/9/2004


• 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.


109

Texas A&M Industrial Engineering 1




• Graphical Representation

– “Points and lines” representation is not convenient for analysis

110

10/9/2004



• 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.

111

Texas A&M

Texas A&M Industrial Engineering

INEN 416

2




• 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 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

2

2

2

2 2

2 4

4

5 5 5 5 5

5 5 5 5 5

2

4

4

4

3 3

3 3

4 4

4 4

4 4 4

4 4 4

1

1

1 1

1 1

2

2

2 2

2 4

1 1 1

1 1 1

5

2

2

5 5 5 5

4

4

5 5 5 5 5

4

4

4

4

3

3

4

4

4

4

3

3

4

4

4

4


112

10/9/2004


• 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 s

= i

6

∑

=

1 w X i

» 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?


113





• Layout Evaluation (cont.)

– Distance-based scoring

» Approximate the cost of flow between activities

» Requires explicit evaluation of the flow volumes and costs s

= i m

∑

−

1

=

1 m

∑ c D ij

= +

1

» c ij covers both the i to j and the j to i material flows

» D ij 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


114

10/9/2004


– Layout Evaluation -- Distance-based scoring Example

A

Initial Layout

B

Flow Data

From/To A B C D

A 2 4 4

B

C

D

1

2

4

-

1

1

1

-

0

3

2

-

C D

Distance Data

From/To A B C D

A

B

C

-

40

25

40

-

65

25

65

-

55

25

40

D 55

Texas A&M

25 40 -

Total Cost

From/To A B C D Total

A

B

C

D

Total

80 100 220 400

40 65 75 180

50 65 80 195

220 25 0 245

310 170 165 375 1020

INEN 416

115






– Distance-based scoring

– Impact of aisle layout and direction of travel

116

A

C

B

D

10/9/2004




– Distance-Weighted Adjacency-Based Scoring s

= i

6

∑

=

1 j

6

∑

=

1 w X ij

» A smaller score is better

» As before, the scoring model is sensitive to the adjacency class weights, w ij

– 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


117





• 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.

118

10/9/2004



• Construction Algorithms

– For i = 1 to n

SELECT an activity to be placed

PLACE 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.

119

INEN 416 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.

120

10/9/2004



• Construction Algorithms (cont.)

– Placement Rules (cont.)

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

121

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







– 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 shape’s 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 activity’s shape there are a large number of alternative placements for it in a layout, including different locations and mirror images and rotations.


122

10/9/2004



– 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


123





• 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 them

EXCHANGE if the effect is to reduce the total cost

CHECK to be sure the new layout is better

Repeat Until no more improvements are possible.


124

10/9/2004


• 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.

125





Computer-Aided Layout

• 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

» -

» Improvement of an existing layout

126

10/9/2004


Computer-Aided Layout

Techniques

Quantitative Input

Qualitative Input

Construction Routine Improvement Routine

PLANET CRAFT

COFAD

CORELAP

ALDEP

PLANET

127





CRAFT

• 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.

128

10/9/2004


CRAFT

• Procedure

1. 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.


129




CRAFT

• CRAFT is a path-oriented method so the final layout 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.

130

10/9/2004


CRAFT Example

• Initial Layout

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1 A A A A A A A A A A G G G G G G G G

2 A A G

3 A A A A A A A A A A G G G

G

G

Shipping

Department

4 B B B B B C C C C C E E G G G G G G

5 B

6 B

B C C E E E E E E E E

B C C C C C E E E E E E E E

7 B B B B B D D D D F F F F F F F E E

8 D D D D D D D F F F

9 D D F F F F F F

10 D D D D D D D D H H H H H F F F F F

Dummy Department

131





CRAFT Example

• Distance Matrix

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A B C D E F G H

6 5 6 13 16

6

14

6 11 14

7 10

12

3

3 4

7

• Cost Matrix

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

A B C D E F

270 75 150 130 80

120

70

180 275 210

35 100

420

75

G

195 140

455

H Total

705

665

135

540

335

600

0

0

2980


132

10/9/2004

CRAFT Example

• Trial Distance Matrix

A B C D E F G H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

6 5 6 16 13

6 14 11

6

11

10 7

9

3

3 7

4

• Trial Cost Matrix

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

A B

120

55

C D E F

270 75 150 160 65

180 350 165

50 70

315

75

195 245

260

G H Total

720

695

120

435

440

390

0

H 0

2800


133




CRAFT Example

• New Layout

• Final Layout

Texas A&M

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18


2 A A G G

3 A A A A A A A A A A G G G G

4 B B B B B C C C C C F F G G G G G G

5 B

6 B

B C C

B C C C C C

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

F

7 B B B B B D D D D E E E E E E F

F F

F

F

8 D D D D D D

9 D

D E

D E E E E E

E

E

F

F

10 D D D D D D D D H H H H H E E F F F

F

F

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18


2 A A G G

3 A A A A A A A A A A G G G G

4 C C C B B B B B B B F F G G G G G G

5 C

6 C

7 C C C C B D D D D E E E E E E F

8 D D D D D D D E E F

9 D

C C B B F F F F F F F F

C B B B B B B F F F F F F F

D E E E E E E F

F

F

F

10 D D D D D D D D H H H H H E E F F F

INEN 416

134

10/9/2004

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.

135





PLANET

• 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.


136

10/9/2004

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.


137




ALDEP

• 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.


138

10/9/2004

139

• Sweep Pattern

ALDEP

– 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





ALDEP Example

• Layout Construction

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4

4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4

4 4 2 2 2 2

4 4 2 2 2 2

4 4 2 2 2 2

4 4 2 2 2 2

4 4 2 2 2 2

4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4

4 4 4 4

4 4 2 2 2 2 1 1

4 4 2 2 2 2 1 1

4 4 2 2 2 2 1 1

4 4 2 2 2 2 1 1

4 4 2 2 2 2 1 1

4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1

4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1

4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1

4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1

4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1

Texas A&M

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

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

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

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

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

4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 3 3

4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 3 3

4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 3 0

4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 0 0

4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 0 0

INEN 416

140

10/9/2004

ALDEP Example

• Scoring Procedure

Adjacent

Departments Relationship Value Rating

4-2 and 2-4

4-1 and 1-4

E

I

16

4

32

8

2-1 and 1-2

1-6 and 6-1

6-5 and 5-6

6-7 and 7-6

5-7 and 7-5

7-3 and 3-7

E

I

U

E

U

A

16

0

64

16

4

0

Total

32

0

128

32

8

0

240


141




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.


142

10/9/2004

Spiral Example

• Input Data

– Asymmetrical Flow Matrix

Dept 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6

7

4

5

1

2

3

45 15 25 10 5

-

-

30 25 15

5 10

20 35

5

65 35

25 65

-

– Symmetrical Flow Matrix

Dept 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 45 15 25 10 5

-

4

5

2

3

6

7

-

50 25 20

5 10

35

90 35

65

-


143




Spiral Example

• Sorted Flow List

3

1

Texas A&M

3

1

2

4

5

2

1

1

Dept

2

1

5

6

Dept

4

2

6

7

4

5

5

7

6

3

5

6

6

5

Flow

90

65

50

45

35

35

25

25

20

15

10

10

5

5

INEN 416

144

10/9/2004

Spiral Example

• Graph Construction

5 6

2

4

7

1 2

5 6

4

5

5

4 5

Texas A&M

7

6

7

7

6

6

3

1

4

2 7

5

INEN 416

6

145




Spiral Example

• Graph Evaluation

– Adjacency Matrix * Symmetrical Flow Matrix

6

7

4

5

Dept 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 1 1 1 0 0 0

2

3

0

-

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

-

0

1

-

0

1

1

-

6

7

4

5

Dept 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 45 15 25 10 5

2

3

-

-

50 25

5

20

10

35

90

-

35

65

-

– Score is 385

– Maximum score is 435

– Efficiency is 385/435 = 88%


146

10/9/2004

Spiral Example

• Alternative Adjacency Graph

7

5 6

2 4

– Score is 405

– Efficiency is 93%

1 3

Texas A&M

Texas A&M Industrial Engineering

INEN 416

147

20



Spiral

• Creating a Layout

– Can use a sweep pattern similar to ALDEP to sweep through the adjacency graph and create a block layout

7

5 6

4 2

1 3

148


10/9/2004

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”

149





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




150

10/9/2004


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




151





Factory CAD/Flow/Plan

• AutoCAD based add-on

• Has multiple applications

– CAD: drawing templates

– FLOW: evaluation of material flow; manual SLPtype manipulation

– PLAN: layout alternative generation

• FactoryPLAN

– Uses Spiral-type algorithm to generate alternative layout options

152

10/9/2004



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.

153



Computerized Layout Planning Computerized Layout Planning

Related documents

Products

Support

Computerized Layout Planning Computerized Layout Planning

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib