PROJECT REPORT

Selection of Material Handling

Equipment
M.Sc. (Mechanical Engineering Design)
2004-2006

Submitted By:
Engr. Rafiullah Khan

Supervised By:
Prof. Dr. Iftikhar Hussain

Department of Mechanical Engineering,

NWFP University of Engineering and Technology
Peshawar, Pakistan.
 Abstract
The purpose of this work is to develop a new methodology for automating the
determination of a material handling system by combining knowledge based and optimization
approaches. The proposed system extends previous concepts of minimization of operating cost
by including the cost for reliability, performance and flexibility into total cost. Mathematical
model of the cost for Availability, Reliability, Maintainability and capability of different MHE
(Material Handling Equipment) is developed. These cost values are then added into total cost
(investment, Operating) of the individual MHE accordingly. This overall cost is then minimized
by HASSAN’S construction algorithm for selection of Material Handling Equipment. The initial
short listings of equipments were performed by the knowledge based system for the available
MHE. Suitable code was used to develop the system. The models was tested, verified and
validated by using 25 case studies.

I
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

All submission and glory is for the creator of talent and not the owner of it. It is in the
recognition of blessings that the Merciful Almighty Allah has bestowed upon me.

I am thankful from the core of my heart to the man whose loving guidance and cooperation was
what I needed during my project work. He is my teacher and supervisor Professor Dr. Iftikhar
Hussain Department of Mechanical Engineering.

I also feel myself duty-bound to thank all my colleagues for their all time friendly and ever
ready-to- cooperative behavior.

Last but not the least, I do not find words to thank my parents who suffered all the hardships to
educate and train me throughout my life for a better future.

Rafiullah khan

II
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................... I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... II
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ III
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 1
1.1 Overview of Material Handling Equipment........................................ 1
1.2 Organization of the work ... ..................................................................3

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE SURVEY.............................................................. .... 4

2.1 Materials Handling System Selection ……………………………….6
2.2 Research direction ............................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 3 AVAILABILITY, RELIABILITY, MAINTAINABILITY AND
CAPABILITY ..........................................................................................................8
3.1 Effectiveness .......................................................................................8
3.1.1 Availability .......................................................................... 10
3.1.2 Reliability ............................................................................ 12
3.1.3 Maintainability ..................................................................... 14
3.1.4 Capability...................................................................................15

CHAPTER 4 KNOWLEDGE BASE SELECTION, OBJECTIVE FUNCTION AND

COST MODELS OF MHE.............................................................................................16
4.1 A knowledge base system ........................................................................16

4.1.1 Knowledge base ..........................................................................16

4.1.2 Rules development .....................................................................18.

4.1.3. Knowledge based system...........................................................20

4.2 Objective Function...................................................................................20

4.3. Constraints ..............................................................................................21

4.4. Cost Models of MHE ..............................................................................22

III
CHAPTER 5 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................27
5.1. Heuristic approach .................................................................................27
5.1.1. Algorithm for the solution of Problem.......................................27
5.1.2. PROBLEM.................................................................................30
CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................33

REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................34

APPEDIX A....................................................................................................................35

APPENDIX B .................................................................................................................41

IV
 Chapter 1
Introduction

Material handling and transfer is defined as the movement of physical objects

such as raw materials, component parts, sub-assemblies, assemblies and finished goods
along within the manufacturing environment from receiving through shipping. The
purpose of moving the material should be to increase its value. However, the handling,
transporting, housing and controlling of materials and goods adds nothing but cost to the
system [Sims (1991)]. The material handling and transfer is thus regarded as a burden
and therefore, often carried out as a final step after product, process and layout design
have been completed.

Material handling activities may cost as much as 55% of the total production cost
in an average industry [Pan et al (1992), Welgama and Gibson (1995)]. An efficient
Materials Handling System (MHS) greatly improves the competitiveness of a product
through a reduction of handling cost. The fundamental principles of material handling
include the use of ‘systems approach’ where the material handling requirements of the
entire factory is considered, and simplification of moves through the reduction or
elimination of un-necessary and combination of several moves. Traditionally, ‘experts’
who analyze a few alternatives from which a selection is made based on their experience
in the application environment have determined MHS. Selection of suitable MHE
requires a complete analysis of the material handling problem.

The design of MHS includes the selection of material handling devices to transport
material between facilities, which also impact on lead time, safety, work in process,
queue length, inventory levels and over all operating efficiency of a facility. Thus the
proper design of MHS is very important for both conventional and advanced
manufacturing systems.

1.1. Overview of Material Handling Equipment:

A great variety of material handling equipment is available commercially. Material

handling equipment includes: (1) transport equipment, (2) storage equipment, (3)

1
unitizing equipment, and (4) identification systems. In this work only transport system is
focused.

1.1.1 Transport equipment:

Material transport includes equipment that is used to move material inside a factory,
warehouse, or other facility. This equipment can be divided into the following five
categories.

1. Industrial trucks. Industrial trucks divide into two types: non powered and
powered. Non powered trucks are platforms with wheels that are pushed by human
workers to move materials. Powered industrial trucks are steered by human workers.
They provide mechanized movement of materials.

2. Automated guided vehicles (AGVs). AGVs are battery powered, automatically

steered vehicles that follow defined pathways in the floor. The pathways are unobtrusive.
AGVs are used to move unit loads between load and unload stations in the facility.
Routing variations are possible, meaning that different loads move between different
stations.

3. Monorails and other rail guided vehicles. These are self-propelled vehicles that ride
on a fixed rail system that is either on the floor or suspended from the ceiling. The
vehicles operate independently and are usually driven by electric motors.

4. Conveyors. Conveyors constitute a large family of material transport equipment

that is designed to move materials over a fixed path, generally in large quantities or
volumes. Examples include roller, belt, and tow-line conveyors. Conveyors can be either
powered or non powered. Powered conveyors are distinguished from other types of
powered material transport equipment in that the mechanical drive system into the fixed
path. Non powered conveyors are either activated either by human workers or by gravity.

5. Cranes and hoists. These are handling devices for lifting, lowering and transporting
materials, often very heavy loads. Hoists accomplish vertical lifting; both manually
operated and powered types are available. Cranes provide horizontal travel and generally
include one or more hoists.

2
Table 1 summary of features and applications of five categories of Material Handling
equipment
Material handling equipment Features Typical applications
Industrial trucks, manual Low cost Moving light load in a factory
Low rate of delivery/hr

Industrial trucks,
powered Medium cost Movement of pallet loads

Automated guided High

vehicles cost moving pallet loads in factory
Moving
work in
Battery powered process
Flexible routing along variable routes

Monorails and other rail guided High Moving single

vehicles cost assemblies
products or poallet
Flexible Routing loadds
along variable routes
Conveyors,
Powered Great varietyof equipment
In-floor, On the floor,
Mechanical
powered

Cranes and Moving large, heavy

Hoists Lift capacities more than items
100 in factories
tones etc

1.2. Organization of the work:

In chapter 2 literatures about the selection of Material handling system is revised. In

chapter 3 Reliability, Maintainability, Availability and Capability are described in detail
to find suitable indices to be used in the effectiveness equation. Chapter 4 outlines the
attempt to model the costs associated with MHE which are further use in the selection of
suitable MHE. A new approach to model the MHE cost based on equipment reliability is
developed. This is followed by the constraints and objective function of the MHE
selection problem. Chapter 5 presents the Methodology used to solve MHE selection
problem.

3
 Chapter 2
Literature Survey

The research done by various researchers in the field of MHE selection is given in the
following lines.

2.1. Materials Handling System Selection

The literature covers optimization approach, expert systems (knowledge based) and
hybrid systems for the selection of MHE.
WEBSTER AND REED (1971) used optimization technique for finding a suitable
minimum cost MHE for each move without initially being concerned about improving
utilization, and subsequently combining several moves and assigning to some selected
MHE in an attempt to improve utilization.
HASSAN (1985) proposed construction algorithm which selects a minimum cost
MHE from a candidate MHE set and assigns moves to it until its utilization reaches an
acceptable level, the moves assigned to the equipment are assigned to some other
equipment type. One advantage of this method over Webster’s procedure is that the
method itself estimates the operating times and operating costs, however an operating
cost per unit load distance per period is required for each item of equipment. Both
procedures require the user to determine a feasible candidate MHE set for each move and
t6he cost to performing each move by each MHE.

FARBER AND FISHER (1985) have developed MATHES, a Material Handling

Equipment Selection Expert System. To arrive at a decision, the values of four main
parameters viz. path, volume of flow, size of load and distance between facilities are
determined. Fisher et al. (1988) have improved MATHES by taking into account both
technological and economic considerations using heuristic rules. The results indicate that
due to technological considerations the conveyors should not be selected for material
moves over a variable path, while an AGV is not selected for a low volume move. Even
though an AGV is technically feasible for low volume moves, it can justify its high cost
only for high volume moves.

4
 GABBERT AND BROWN (1988) have developed MAHDE (Material Handling
Design), a hierarchical frame structured KB system. The MAHDE initially selects the
equipment for an MHS design based on the physical capacities of the equipment size,
payload and throughput. The equipment, which does not meet the initial parameters are
removed from the subsequent searches to narrow down the search space. The MAHDE
system combines formal and Expert System (ES) methodologies to address the
complexity of the problem and is able to select an equipment type based on optimal cost,
an availability measure, lead time, a feasibility measure and a security measure.
HOSNI (1989) has presented an ES for material handling method and equipment
selection. The Material Handling Equipment Selection (MHES) provides suggestion for
an MHS configured to meet a particular purpose and limited by some constraints such as
cost, area, material type, material weight and move characteristics and frequency. The
MHES is basically based on the famous material handling equation: MATERIAL +
MOVE = METHOD devised by Apple (1976). For the selection of an equipment type, a
set of questions guide the user through the various frames leading to one or more
equipments.

NOBEL AND TANCHOCO (1993) have presented a framework for an MHS design
justification. Design justification refers to a design procedure where the economic
ramifications of design decisions are considered simultaneously with design
development. The goal of design justification is to guide the designer to a design that is
justifiable from both a performance and economic perspective. The MHS design
justification framework consists of system designer, design interface, design inference
model, model generator, rule base and database. The comparison between system
alternatives is facilitated through graphs showing total system cost, total system
flexibility or unit flexibility cost.

RUBINOVITZ AND KARNI (1994) have presented a detailed description of the use
of ES for the selection of material handling and transfer equipment type. The ES
compares a set of attributes of the intended operating environment with a set of attributes
of the Material Handling Transport (MHT) equipment. After comparison, the system
selects the most appropriate equipment type and model. The MHT specification is created

5
in the form of a questionnaire, listing the interface design attributes and their possible
values. Integrating the ES into the design process is also achieved.

PRASERT AND K.J.ROGERS (1994), focus on the activity-based costing approach

to the equipment selection problem for manufacturing systems. This technique help
decision-makers select the appropriate set of equipment or machines to be used in the
system based on the objective to minimize total operating cost subject to the availability
of machines in the system.

WELGAMA AND GIBSON (1995) have developed a hybrid KB/optimization

system for automated selection of MHS, through minimization of total cost and aisle
space requirements. The model also allows the design considerations to be treated as
parameters, determines the equipment’s design load capacity and selects a candidate set
of equipment through a knowledge base, based around certain constraints. A
mathematical model (which in fact is the extension of Hassan and Hogg (1985)) is
developed with the objective function of minimizing the total cost. The constraints ensure
that all the moves are assigned to the MHE and one move to assign to only one MHE
type. The knowledge base of the hybrid methodology obtains a feasible set of MHE for
each move, and then an optimization algorithm determines the optimum MHE for all
moves using a system approach.

RAMZAN YAMAN (1999) used a knowledge-based approach for selection of

Material Handling Equipment and Material Handling System. This approach speed up the
design process and to extends personal abilities. In this approach, MHS equipment
selection is defined as a matching problem between product, process handling
requirements and equipment specifications using rule sets.

HUSSAIN et al. (2006) used a hybrid (production rules, fuzzy logic and analytical
approaches). KB part selects MHE with certain confidence level and the analytical part
calculates the cost factors of the selected MHE in detail and practical manner. Some of
the cost factors (such as intangible) that are difficult to estimate are calculated using
fuzzy logic. Once the adjusted costs of the selected MHE are calculated, then various
moves between the departments are assigned to the most feasible (within the selected
MHE) MHE based on minimum cost.

6
2.2. Research direction
The expert system approach only selects an MHE on the basis of its attributes. It has
nothing to do with the economics concerned certain MHE. It selects an MHE on the basis
of feasibility of it for handling a particular type of material.
There are two optimization procedures proposed in the literature. The basic concept
behind the optimization method in [1] is finding a suitable minimum cost MHE for each
move without initially being concerned about improving utilization, and subsequently
combining several moves and assigning to some selected MHE in an attempt to improve
utilization. The construction algorithm proposed by HASSAN on the other hand, selects a
minimum cost MHE from a candidate MHE set and assigns moves to it until its
utilization reaches an acceptable predetermined level. The algorithm proposed considers
equipment types one at a time. Moves are then assigned then to selected equipment. If the
utilization of equipment is less than an acceptable level, the moves assigned to the
equipment are assigned to some other equipment type. One advantage of this method
over WEBSTER is that the method itself estimates the operating times and operating
costs. However operating cost per unit load distance per period is required for each item
of equipment, both procedures requires the user to determine a feasible candidate MHE
set for each move and cost of performing each move by each MHE. Cost models used by
both algorithms are too simplistic to be useful in practice. So there is a need to have a
cost model for the MHE which is more realistic and incorporate the realistic factors. Then
this cost model is incorporated into the optimization technique and then integrating this
with the expert system approach. The effectiveness of an MHE is to be included in the
cost. Effectiveness is the multiplication of Availability, Reliability, Maintainability and
Capability. These factors are discussed in detail in the next chapter.

7
 Chapter 3
Availability, Reliability,
Maintainability and Capability
Availability, reliability, maintainability, and capability are components of the
effectiveness equation. The effectiveness equation is a figure of merit which is helpful for
deciding which component(s) detract from performance measures. For many equipments
and machine tools the reliability component is the largest detractor from better
performance.
3.1. Effectiveness. Effectiveness is defined by an equation as a figure-of-merit judging
the opportunity for producing the intended results. The effectiveness equation is
described in different formats (Blanchard 1995, Kececioglu 1995, Landers 1996, Pecht
1995, Raheja 1991). Each effectiveness element varies as a probability. Since
components of the effectiveness equation have different forms, it varies from one writer
to the next. Definitions of the effectiveness equation, and its components, generate many
technical arguments. The major (and unarguable economic issue) is finding a system
effectiveness value which gives lowest long term cost of ownership using life cycle costs,
(LCC) (Barringer 1996a and 1997) for the value received:
System effectiveness = Effectiveness/LCC
Cost is a measure of resource usage. Lower cost is generally better than higher costs.
Cost estimates never includes all possible elements, but hopefully includes the most
important elements. Effectiveness is a measure of value received. Clements (1991)
describes effectiveness as telling how well the product/process satisfies end user
demands. Higher effectiveness is generally better than lower effectiveness. Effectiveness
varies from 0 to 1 and rarely includes all value elements as many are too difficult to
quantify. One form is described by Berger (1993):
Effectiveness = availability * reliability * maintainability * capability
In plain English, the effectiveness equation is the product of:
--the chance the equipment or system will be available to perform its duty,
--it will operate for a given time without failure,
--it is repaired without excessive lost maintenance time and
--it can perform its intended production activity according to the standard.

8
Each element of the effectiveness equation requires a firm datum which changes with
name plate ratings for a true value that lies between 0 and 1.
Berger’s effectiveness equation (availability * reliability * maintainability *
capability) is argued by some as flawed because it contains availability and components
of availability (reliability and maintainability). For any index to be successful, it must be
understandable and creditable by the people who will use it. Most people understand
availability and can quantify it. Few can quantify reliability or maintainability in terms
everyone can understand. The effectiveness equation is simply a relative index for
measuring “how things are doing”.
The importance of quantifying elements of the effectiveness equation (and their
associated costs) is to find areas for improvement. For example, if availability is 98%,
reliability is 70%, maintainability is 70%, and capability is 65%, the opportunity for
improving capability is usually much greater than for improving availability. Table 1
contains a simple data set used to illustrate how some “—abilities” are calculated.

9
Events are put into categories of up time and down time for a system. Because the data
lacks specific failure details, the up time intervals are often considered as generic age-to-
failure data. Likewise, the specific maintenance details are often considered as generic
repair times. Add more details to the reports to increase their usefulness. This limited data
can be helpful for understanding the effectiveness equation—even though most plant
level people do not acknowledge the have adequate data for analysis (Barringer 1995).

3.1.1. Availability deals with the duration of up-time for operations and is a measure of
how often the system is alive and well. It is often expressed as (up-time)/(up-time +
downtime) with many different variants. Up-time and downtime refer to dichotomized
conditions. Up time refers to a capability to perform the task and downtime refers to not
being able to perform the task, i.e., uptime not downtime. Also availability may be the
product of many different terms such as:

A = Ahardware * Asoftware * Ahumans * Ainterfaces * Aprocess

and similar configurations. Availability issues deal with at least three main factors
(Davidson 1988) for: 1) increasing time to failure, 2) decreasing downtime due to repairs
or scheduled maintenance, and 3) accomplishing items 1 and 2 in a cost effective manner.
As availability grows, the capacity for making money increases because the equipment is
in service a larger percent of time.
Three frequently used availability terms (Ireson 1996) are explained below.
Inherent availability, as seen by maintenance personnel, (excludes preventive
maintenance outages, supply delays, and administrative delays) is defined as:

Ai = MTBF/(MTBF + MTTR)

Achieved availability, as seen by the maintenance department, (includes both corrective

and preventive maintenance but does not include supply delays and administrative
delays) is defined as:
Aa = MTBM/(MTBM + MAMT)

10
Where MTBM is mean time between corrective and preventive maintenance actions and
MAMT is the mean active maintenance time.

Operational availability, as seen by the user, is defined as:

Ao = MTBM/ (MTBM + MDT)

Where MDT is mean down time. A few key words describing availability in quantitative
words are: on-line time, stream factor time, lack of downtime, and a host of local
operating terms including a minimum value for operational availability.
An example of 98% availability for a continuous process says to expect up-time of
0.98*8760 = 8584.8 hr/yr and downtime of 0.02*8760 = 175.2 hrs/yr as availability +
unavailability = 1. Now, using the data set provided above in Table 1, the dichotomized
availability is 98.6% based on up time = 8205.3 hours and downtime = 112.5 hours. Of
course the dichotomized view of availability is simplistic and provides worst case
availability numbers. Not all equipment in a train provides binary results of only up or
only down sometimes it’s partially up or partially down. Clearly the issue is correctly
defining failure. In the practical world, complexities exist in the definitions for when only
some of the equipment is available in a train, and the net availability is less than the ideal
availability i.e., a cutback in output occurs because of equipment failure which decreases
the idealized output from say 95% to a lower value such as say 87% when failures are
correctly defined.
A key measure is defining the cutback (and thus loss of availability from a
dichotomized viewpoint) when the cutback declines to a level causing financial losses—
this is the economic standard for failure. In short, the area under the availability curve can
be summed to calculate a practical level of availability and generate higher values for
availability than when only dichotomized values are used. Lack of availability is a
problem related to primarily to failures of equipment. But the root cause of the failure
may lie in different areas than initially expected. Often deterioration, leading to economic
failure, causes conflicts in the definitions of reliability, maintainability, and capability—
real life issues are rarely simple and independent.

11
3.1.2. Reliability deals with reducing the frequency of failures over a time interval and is
a measure of the probability for failure-free operation during a given interval, i.e., it is a
measure of success for a failure free operation. It is often expressed as

R(t) = exp(-t/MTBF) = exp(-λt)

Where λ is constant failure rate, and MTBF is mean time, between failures. MTBF
measures the time between system failures and is easier to understand than a probability
number. For exponentially distributed failure modes, MTBF is a basic figure-of-merit for
reliability (failure rate, λ, is the reciprocal of MTBF). For a given mission time, to
achieve high reliability, a long MTBF is required. Also reliability may be the product of
many different reliability terms such as

R = Rutilities * Rfeed-plant * Rprocessing * Rpackaging * Rshipping

and similar configurations.

To the user of a product, reliability is measured by a long, failure free, operation. Long
periods of failure free interruptions results in increased productive capability while
requiring fewer spare parts and less manpower for maintenance activities which results in
lower costs. To the supplier of a product, reliability is measured by completing a failure
free warranty period under specified operating conditions with few failures during the
design life of the product.
Improving reliability occurs at an increased capital cost but brings with it the
expectation for improving availability, decreasing downtime and smaller maintenance
costs, improved secondary failure costs, and results in better chances for making money
because the equipment is free from failures for longer periods of time. While general
calculations of reliability pertain to constant failure rates, detailed calculations of
reliability are based on consideration of the failure mode which may be infant mortality
(decreasing failure rates with time), chance failure (constant failure rates with time), or
wear-out (increasing failure rates with time).

12
A few key words describing reliability in quantitative words are: mean times to failure,
mean time between failures, mean time between/before maintenance actions, mean time
between/before repairs, mean life of units in counting units such as hours or cycles,
failure rates, and the maximum number of failures in a specified time interval.
An example of a mission time of one year with equipment which has a 30 year
mean time to failure gives a reliability of 96.72% which is the probability of successfully
competing the one year time interval without failure. The probability for failure is
3.278% as reliability + unreliability = 1. For reliability issues, defining the mission time
is very important to get valid answers. Notice from the example that high reliability for
mission times of one year or more require high inherent reliability (i.e., large mean times
to failure)—often the inherent reliability is not achieved due to operating errors and
maintenance errors.
The data in Table 1 shows the mean time between maintenance actions is 683.8
hours. Calculate the system reliability using the exponential distributions described above
and a mission time of one year. The system has a reliability of exp(-8760/683.8) =
0.00027%. The reliability value is the probability of completing the one year mission
without failure. In short, the system is highly unreliable (for a one year mission time) and
maintenance actions are in high demand as the system is expected to have
8760/683.8=12.8 maintenance actions per year!
So how can high availability be achieved with systems requiring many maintenance
actions? The maintenance actions must be performed very quickly to minimize
outages!!!!! This leads to pressures for establishing world class maintenance operations.
A better way to solve the problem is to reduce the number of failures—thus demands for
world class maintenance operations is avoided and costs are decreased—particularly
when life cycle costs drive the actions. Remember failures carry hidden costs resulting
from the hidden factories associated with production losses for disposal of scrap and the
slow output incurred while reestablishing steady state conditions—the lost time may be
1.5 to 5 times the obvious lost time costs. The real issue for studying reliability is driven
by a simple concept called money—particularly when the cost of unreliability (Barringer
1996c) is identified and used for motivating trade-off studies.

13
High reliability (few failures) and high maintainability (predictable maintenance times)
tend toward highly effective systems.

3.1.3. Maintainability deals with duration of maintenance outages or how long it takes to
achieve (ease and speed) the maintenance actions compared to a datum. The datum
includes maintenance (all actions necessary for retaining an item in, or restoring an item
to, a specified, good condition) is performed by personnel having specified skill levels,
using prescribed procedures and resources, at each prescribed level of maintenance.
Maintainability characteristics are usually determined by equipment design which set
maintenance procedures and determine the length of repair times. The key figure of merit
for maintainability is often the mean time to repair (MTTR) and a limit for the maximum
repair time. Qualitatively it refers to the ease with which hardware or software is restored
to a functioning state. Quantitatively it has probabilities and is measured based on the
total down time for maintenance including all time for: diagnosis, trouble shooting, tear-
down, removal/replacement, active repair time, verification testing that the repair is
adequate, delays for logistic movements, and administrative maintenance delays. It is
often expressed as

M(t) = 1- exp(-t/MTTR) = 1 - exp(-µt)

Where µ is constant maintenance rate, and MTTR is mean time to repair. MTTR
is an arithmetic average of how fast the system is repaired and is easier to visualize than
the probability value. Note the simple, easy to use criteria shown above, is frequently
expressed in exponential repair times. A better and more accurate formula requires use of
a different equation for the very cumbersome log-normal distributions of repair times
describing maintenance times which are skewed to the right. The maintainability issue is
to achieve short repair times for keeping availability high so that downtime of productive
equipment is minimized for cost control when availability is critical.
An example of a stated maintainability goal is a 90% probability that maintenance repair
times will be completed in 8 hours or less with a maximum repair time of 24 hours. This
requires a system MTTR of 3.48 hours. Also the cap of 24 hours (99.9% of repairs will

14
be accomplished in this time, or less) requires control of three main items of downtime:
1) active repair time (a function of design, training, and skill of maintenance personnel),
2) logistic time (time lost for supplying the replacement parts), and 3) administrative time
(A function of the operational structure of the organization). The probability for not
meeting the specified 8 hour repair interval in this example is 10% based on a MTTR of
3.48 hours as
Maintainability + unmaintainability = 1.
Data in Table 1 shows mean down time due to maintenance actions is 9.4 hours.
Calculate the system maintainability using the exponential distributions and an allowed
repair time of 10 hours. The system has a maintainability of 1-exp(-10/9.4) = 65.5%. The
maintainability value is the probability of completing the repairs in the allowed interval
of 10 hours. In short, the system has a modest maintainability value (for the allowed
repair interval of 10 hours)!
High availability (high up-time), high reliability (few failures) and high
maintainability (predictable and short maintenance times) tend toward highly effective
systems if capability is also maintained a high levels.

3.1.4. Capability deals with productive output compared to inherent productive output
which is a measure of how well the production activity is performed compared to the datum.
This index measures the systems capability to perform the intended function on a system
basis. Often the term is the synonymous with productivity which is the product of efficiency
multiplied by utilization. Efficiency measures the productive work output versus the work
input. Utilization is the ratio of time spent on productive efforts to the total time consumed.
For example, suppose efficiency is 80% because of wasted labor/scrap generated, and
utilization is 82.19% because the operation is operated 300 days per year out of 365 days.
The capability is 0.8*0.8219 = 65.75%. These numbers are frequently generated by
accounting departments for production departments as a key index of how they are doing.
Thus these calculations need few explanations.
As we have defined the factors of effectiveness equation in detail. Now we are able to
incorporate these factors in the cost model of MHE, which is discussed in the next chapter.

15
 Chapter 4

Knowledge base selection, objective function and

Cost Model of MHE

In this chapter first we introduce the knowledge base approach for the selection of
Material handling equipment, and then the objective function of MHE will be discussed.
After that, mathematical models for the cost of Material handling will be developed.
4.1 A knowledge base system
A materials handling expert should analyze every move i and the capabilities of every
MHE j. this involves analyzing the feasibility requirements. In recent years, a tendency
exists to implement on expert systems approach to determine the feasibility of MHE for a
particular move. In this chapter, a knowledge based system is developed to obtain a
feasible set of MHE for each move, and then an optimization algorithm is used to
determine the optimum MHE for all moves using a system approach.
4.1.1. Knowledge base
The knowledge base consists of facts and rules that are used to obtain a feasible
set of MHE types for each individual move.
4.1.1.1 Facts. These are the data values relevant to materials associated with
moves, MHE data, location details of machines (source and destination of moves), and
available time. The knowledge representation of facts is made in terms of lists. The
following illustrates the knowledge representation.
(i) The material associated with a move is represented as follows:
Mat_data(F1i,F2i,Fi,[material type, nature, unit load, li, wi])
Here
F1i=source associated with the move i
F2i=destination associated with the move i
Li= length of the unit load associated with the move i
wi= width of the unit load associated with the move i
Fi=the flow volume of move i.

16
Material type and nature are considered because they are important in selecting a suitable
MHE. Material type can be an ‘individual item’, ‘packaged’, or ‘bulk’. Material nature
can be “fragile”, or “bulky”.
(ii) MHE data are represented as follows.
Equip(Rnj,eq.name,[Cj1,Cj2,Cj3],[special features], Vj, Cjp)
Rnj=reference number for the MHE j.
Eq.name=name of the MHE, e.g. tow tractor, AGV, bridge crane etc)
Cj1, Cj2, Cj3=cost coefficients described before
Special features=special features attached to the MHE, e.g. for a fork lift type 1 is “IC
cushion type”: internal combustion engine with cushion tyres.
Vj=speed of the MHE j
Cjp=upper limit of the load carrying capacity of MHE j.
Since in practice a wide range of load carrying capacities is available for a particular
MHE type the upper limit of each type is considered here, as procedure will determine
the appropriate “design and carrying capacity” for the optimum MHE. This information
is useful to obtain a complete specification of the optimum set of MHE. The other facts
such as available time are represented similarly in the knowledge base.
4.1.1.2. Rules. Rules are developed for obtaining a feasible set of MHE, calculating
costs, and for combining moves which are parts of the optimization algorithm. The rules
for obtaining a feasible set of MHE are developed using the material handling equipment
selection guide. An example of these rules is:
(R.1) IF material type is not “bulk” and
Material nature is not “fragile” and
Load < 100kg and
Frequency is not “low”
THEN roller conveyor is feasible.
Also rules are developed to check the feasibility based on the unit load of material and
the equipment capacity, and for checking feasibility of overhead cranes, the equipment
cost calculations described before are also implemented in the knowledge base as rules.
Since the material flow is in numerical form and the frequencies used in the above rules

17
are in qualitative form, rules based on a volume matrix are used to convert flow into
frequency.
4.1.2 Rules development
General guidelines for the analysis and selection of MHE [Apple (1976)] are used to
develop production rules in the knowledge base of this methodology. Although the chart
[Apple (1976] cannot accurately depict relationships between a huge number of
equipment and a large number of factors, but still it can serve as a guide to general types
of equipment, since it again depicts the thinking process involved in the selection
problem. Production rules for 20 different MHE are developed. Although the guidelines
do not report information about the selection of Automated Guided Vehicle (AGV), and
since AGVs play an important role in the modern day material handling activities,
therefore, these factors are also taken into consideration based on the characteristics of
the AGVs. These factors (attributes) are grouped into three major phases, material, move
and method. Although no such “crutch” can compare with personal knowledge, nor can it
indicate logical adaptations, which may make an equipment type applicable, but it might
be helpful in pointing out possibilities with which the analyst may not be familiar.

Forward chaining depth first inference strategy is used to execute rules [Kamran
and Mark (1988)]. Figure 1 below shows this strategy.

B C

C E
D

Figure 1. Tree of possible paths for the search problem

The depth-first-search burrows in to a tree looking for the goal state. By convention,
the leftmost alternative below the current node is chosen as the next node to move to.

18
Thus, depth first search begins by examining the left most branches in Figure 1 (A-B-C).
Since a terminal node is encountered without reaching the goal, the search method then
moves back up the tree to the next untried path. In this Figure, it moves back up one node
to B and going through the entire sequence (A-B-C-B-D-F).

Since simple yes or no to a production rule is inadequate and that the real world is
characterized by uncertainty (Zadeh, 1965), therefore, fuzzy logic approach has been
used to handle uncertainty in the selection of MHE. An illustration of a rule using
certainty factors is given below in Figure 2.

(cf = 0.8) (cf = 0.7) (cf = 0.6) (cf = 0.8) (cf = 0.5)
Rule1 Rule2 Rule3 Rule4 Rule5

AND

RI (cf)

Rule
R(cf) = 0.7

Conclusion (cf)

Figure 2. Rules illustration with certainty factors

RI(cf) = min (0.8, 0.7, 0.6, 0.8, 0.5) = 0.5
Cf = RI(cf)*R(cf) = 0.5*0.7 = 0.35
RIk(cf) = min {Pi(cf)} if all Pi(cf) ≥ δ (0.2, assumed)
Or
RIk(cf) = 0, if Pi(cf) < δ for any i
Where RIk(cf) is the composite rule input or premise confidence factor of rule k
Pi(cf) is the confidence factor for premise clause i
δ is confidence factor threshold level
cfk = RIk(cf)*Rk(cf)
Where cf is the output confidence factor of rule k
Rk(cf) is the confidence factor of rule k

19
4.1.3. Knowledge based system. The knowledge base described above is used initially to
obtain a feasible set of MHE types, for each individual move, for further consideration in
the optimization algorithm. This is carried out as follows:
Consider a move, and test the feasibility of using each MHE type for the selected
move using the knowledge base. All feasible MHE types for the move concerned form a
set of feasible MHE types for further consideration. The process is repeated for all the
moves.
During the optimization process, the feasibility is maintained by referring to the
knowledge base whenever a change is considered, in order to optimize the total system
cost, to the initially selected MHE for a given move.
4.2 Objective Function
The objective is to select a MHS such that total material handling cost is minimized.
The total cost includes the increased capital cost due to effectiveness and operating cost
of the MHE. Thus the objective function becomes:

N
Minimize z = ∑{ λj(Caj+CjO) } (4.1)
j =1

N
Subject to ∑ aij * xij = 1
j =1
for i=1,2,…,m (4.2)

xij ≤ λj for all I,j (4.3)

m

∑ tij * xij ≤ µij*Ta

i =1
for j=1,2,….,N (4.4)

xij ≤ aij for all I,j (4.5)

m
CjO= ∑ wij * xij for j=1,2,…N (4.6)
i =1

Wij=Cj3*tij*xij for all i,j (4.7)

λj={0,1}, µij ≥ 0 for j=1,2,…N (4.8)
xij={0,1} for all i,j (4.9)
Where
Tij=total operating cost of equipment type j required for move i
Wij=operation cost equipment type j for move i

20
 aij=1 if equipment type j can be used for move I,0 otherwise
λj=1 if MHE j is choosen,0 otherwise
µj=number of units of MHE j required
Ta=available time
xij=1 if move I is assigned to j,0 otherwise
Caj=adjusted increased cost of MHE j
Cj3= operating cost of MHE j
The above formulation is an extension of Hassan model. The objective function
represents the minimization of the total cost (adjusted capital cost, operating cost). The
constraints ensure that all the moves are assigned to MHE and one move to only one
MHE type.
4.3. Constraints:
The constraints required to be satisfied when searching for an optimum MHS are
on feasibility, utilization and other system requirements.
4.3.1 Feasibility constraints.
(a) Feasibility based on the material type, nature and flow volume: the MHE
selected should be capable of handling the material in the technological sense.
(b) Feasibility based on the unit load of the move and capability of MHE: the load
carrying capacity of the MHE should be more or equal to the unit load associated
with the move concerned.
(c) Crane feasibility: bridge cranes and gantry cranes operate on rails. They can not
be used for moves which extend beyond the span of these rails.
4.3.2 Utilization:
The utilization of the selected MHE for all moves assigned to it should not exceed an
acceptable limit. This limit should be decided, considering allowances required for
operator changes, meal breaks if any, maintenance shutdown etc.
4.3 .3 other system constraints:
(a) All moves should be assigned to material handling equipment.
(b) One move should be assigned to only one equipment type. Although in practice
on occasions, a move may be handled by more than one MHE type, this is not a very
attractive option for management due to the complexities involved. For this reason and

21
 for simplicity of analysis, a move is assigned to only one equipment type. However,
one equipment type can handle many moves subject to feasibility and utilization limits.

4.4. Cost Models of MHE

As the primary objective of any MHS selection problem is to minimize handling

costs. For this purpose an accurate model of costs and easy to estimate cost coefficients
should be used. Material handling cost consists of MHE investment (capital) cost and
MHE operating cost. The cost considerations provided in Webster [1] and Hassan is too
simplistic to be useful in most practical applications. They do not consider the costs of
Reliability, Maintainability, Availability and Capability of an MHE. This might lead to a
situation that an MHE would be selected which can not be efficient to perform its
expected duty. The procedure developed here has the capability to incorporate the above
mentioned factors in the model for cost of an MHS.

4.4.1 Investment/capital cost of MHE.

Investment cost of MHE should be discounted to represent annual investment

cost. This investment cost depends on many factors.

The investment cost of variable path equipment j (e.g.AGVs, fork-lifts), Cj, which is
assumed to be linearly proportionate to the lifting capacity, is given by,

Cj=Cj1 + Cj2 +Cjp (1)

Where

Cj1=a fixed cost

Cj2=cost per unit load capacity

Cjp=load carrying capacity.

Of the fixed path equipment types, the investment cost of a bridge and gantry crane is
proportionate not only to the load carrying capacity, but also to the span. Hence the
investment cost of bridge/gantry crane j is modeled as:

22
 CjI=Cj1+Cj2+*Cjp*S. (2)

The investment cost of conveyers is mainly proportionate to the width of conveyors and
distance associated with the move. It is assumed here that the coefficient Cj1 considers
the effect of load. It is reasonable to approximate the width of a conveyor to be equal to
the width of the unit load associated with the move concerned. Hence, the investment
cost of conveyor j used for move i, Cji

Cj1=Cj1+Cj2*Wi*di (3)

Where

Di=distance associated with move i

Wi =width of the unit load associated with move i.

4.4.2 Effect of Reliability, Maintainability, Availability and Capability on the

capital/investment cost of MHE.

In the previous section we modeled the cost of various MHE. During modeling process
we ignored that up to what extent these equipments are reliable, maintainable, and
available for service and what is the capability of a specific MHE. Before we introduce
these factors in to the cost model we first define these factors briefly. These are discussed
in detail in the previous chapter.

Reliability is a measure of the probability of a system machine or process for failure-

free operation during a given interval.

Maintainability deals with the duration of maintenance outages or how long it takes to
achieve the maintenance actions compared to a datum.

Availability deals with the duration of uptime for operations and is a measure of how
often the system is alive and well.

Capability deals with the productive output compared to inherent productive output
which is a measure of how well the production activity is performed compared to the
datum.

23
Let us define the Effectiveness. Effectiveness is a figure-of merit judging the opportunity
of equipment for producing intended results. Effectiveness is a measure of value
received. Clements (1991) describes effectiveness as telling how well the product/process
satisfies end user demands. Higher effectiveness is generally better than lower
effectiveness. Effectiveness varies from 0 to 1 and rarely includes all value elements as
many are too difficult to quantify. One form is described by Berger (1993):

Effectiveness = availability * reliability * maintainability * capability (4)

In plain English, the effectiveness equation is the product of:

--the chance the equipment or system will be available to perform its duty,
--it will operate for a given time without failure,
--it is repaired without excessive lost maintenance time and
--it can perform its intended production activity according to the standard.
Each element of the effectiveness equation requires a firm datum which changes with
name plate ratings for a true value that lies between 0 and 1.
If the effectiveness of an equipment/system is low, we have to pay for it. A more
effective equipment is more cost competent than an equipment having less effectiveness.
Thus an increased capital cost of less effective equipment. Let us denote effectiveness by
Є, then the increased adjusted capital cost CDaj of a material handling equipment can be
given by,

Caj=Co + [1- Є]* Co (5)

Where
Co= original capital cost of the MHE
In an ideal case the Effectiveness Є (all the four Reliability, maintainability,
availability and capability in equation 4 are1) is considered 1, then Caj=Co, i.e. the
increased capital is equal to the original capital cost.

24
4.4.3. Operating cost of MHE.
The operating costs include fuel, electricity, and cost of operators, costs of
maintenance and cost of spare parts. Although modeling these factors is extremely
difficult, it is very reasonable to consider that the operating cost is linearly proportional to
the operating time (time of use). Thus operating time of MHE (j) required for move i
(except for a tow tractor) is given by

tij=2*di*Fi / Vj (6)
Where
Di=distance associated with move i
Fi=flow volume (in unit load) in the move i
Vj=speed of travel of MHE j.
Here rectilinear distances are used. Although, the loading and unloading times are not
included explicitly, the speed Vj can be adjusted to reflect the loading and unloading
time. Also the MHE is assumed to be returning empty to the base; hence the
multiplication factor is applied.
Operating time for a tow tractor (j) required for move i:

tij= [2*Fi / (Cjp/Li)]*di/Vj (7)

Where
Li= unit load associated with move i.
The operating time of conveyors depend on the frequency of flows. If the frequency
is too low ( i.e. if the interarrival time of material is more than the transfer time), a
conveyor can be operated intermittently. Otherwise the conveyors are operated
throughout available working time.
Let the annual working is denoted by Ta Then, operating time of conveyor j required
for move I is given by:
tij = Fi*di / Vj if Ta / Fi > di / Vj (8)

tij = Ta otherwise

25
 Let Cj3 be the operating cost of MHE j per unit operating time. Then operating cost
of a MHE j is given by
CjO=Cj3*tij. (9)
Until now we have developed the procedures for finding the factors required for the
selection of MHE. Now we are able to develop the methodology and integrating the
concepts developed. The Methodology developed is discussed in next chapter.

26
 Chapter 5
Methodology
The methodology used for the selection of MHE is given in the following lines.
1. The Expert System (ES) selects a set of feasible MHEs from a pool of MHEs using
knowledge base. ES uses questionnaires to acquire input data regarding material
which have to be moved, moves, and attributes of MHEs. Then decides which type of
MHEs is feasible to handle the moves. Thus short listing of MHEs is performed at
first stage.
2. Cost models for the short listed MHEs are developed. Effectiveness equation factors
(Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, and Capability) corresponding each MHE is
calculated. Then these factors are used in the cost models.
3. Operating Cost Data corresponding to each MHE j for performing move I is
collected. Total cost of material handling for performing a move i is calculated.
4. A move i is assigned to an MHE on the principle of minimizing the handling cost.
Thus an optimum set of MHE is selected.
5.1. Heuristic approach
After short listing of the MHEs by Expert system we have a set of MHEs to which the
moves will be assigned.
Since the problem can not be solved optimally, a heuristic approach has to be
employed. In the following lines general steps for the solution of the MHE selection
problem are given.
5.1.1. Algorithm for the solution of Problem:
The algorithm considers the equipment types one at a time. Moves are assigned to a
unit of the selected equipment until it is fully utilized or no other move can be assigned.
A selection of the second unit or another type is then made, and the moves are assigned
until that second unit or type is also fully utilized or no further assignment is possible.
The algorithm terminates when all moves are assigned. Both equipment selection and
move assignment are performed in a manner that helps in cost minimization. The steps of
the algorithm are as follows.

27
1. for each equipment type, calculate the number of units that would be needed if the
equipment performs all the moves as follows:

Let Yi= ∑ hij / Hi

j

If the division is an exact integer, then

λi=Yi
If the division is not an exact integer, then
λi=[Y]+1
Where the quantity in the brackets is integer portion of Y i. Usually, Hi is a set equal
to 1, and hij is expressed as a fraction of Hi.
2. calculate the total cost of material handling for each equipment type as
Zi=λiKi+ ∑ Wij
jeEi

Where Ei is the vector of moves that can be performed by equipment type I, and the
number of these moves is qi.
3. calculate the average cost for each equipment type per move as
Zi(bar)=Zi/qi
4. Select the equipment having the smallest Zi(bar) first. Resolve ties by selecting
the equipment with the smallest Zi. If the ties persist, resolve them by selecting in
order of ascending λiKi.
5. For the selected equipment type, arrange the moves that can be performed by it in
increasing order of equipment cost.
6. Assign the moves to the selected equipment starting with the move having the
smallest operating cost. After each assignment, check to see whether the sum of
hij is equal to Hi or within a tolerance Ei of it. If the sum of hij is equal to Hi, go
to the next step; otherwise, check either of the following two cases:
a. If the moves are the only remaining moves, or they can not be assigned to
another piece of equipment, leave the assignment as it is.
b. If the sum of hij is greater than Hi (or a multiple of Hi depending on the
number of units required of the equipment so far), check the difference
between the least integer multiple of H(making it greater than the sum of

28
 hi) and the sum of hij, if the difference, which represents idle time, is less
than or equal to E2 (a specified acceptable idle time), leave the assignment
as it is. If the difference is larger than E2, remove moves from the
equipment, starting with the last assigned move, until the acceptable
utilization level is achieved.

7. Delete the moves assigned from consideration for the remaining moves, calculate
a new value for Zi as before, and repeat the steps until all the moves are assigned.
The process of MHE selection is shown in the flow chart below.

29
 A sample problem is solved to illustrate the methodology which is given in detail
next.
5.1.2. PROBLEM:
Suppose we have 10 types of equipments which are short listed by ES to four. The
data of Moves is given below

Equipment 1 Equipment 2 Equipment 3 Equipment 4

operating Operating operating Operating operating Operating operating Operating

Move
cost time cost time cost time cost time
1 400 0.4 0 0 200 0.5 0 0
2 600 0.6 400 1 900 0.8 0 0
3 400 0.5 500 1 900 0.9 0 0
4 500 0.4 400 1 800 0.9 0 0
5 100 0.3 300 1 0 0 0 0
6 200 0.7 900 1 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 400 1 400 0.7 200 0.4
8 0 0 100 1 300 0.7 200 0.4
9 0 0 200 1 800 0.7 900 0.3
10 0 0 100 1 0 0 500 0.2
total 2200 2.9 3300 9 4300 5.2 1800 1.3

The capital cost for each MHE is given below:

Capital cost of MHE:
Equipment Capital cost
1 5000
2 2777.8
3 3000
4 4000

30
 The following table illustrates the basic calculations of step 1-3.
No.
No.of of total
Equipment capital Total
possible unit operating Zi
Type cost cost
mves of cost
Eq
1 6 3 15000 2200 17200 2866.667
2 9 9 24999.93 3300 28299.93 3144.437
3 7 6 18000 4300 22300 3185.714
4 4 2 8000 1800 9800 2450

The smallest Zi is that of equipment 4; hence it is selected first, and the moves are
arranged according to their operating costs as in table under:
Move W4j h4j ∑h4j
7 200 0.4 0.4
8 200 0.4 0.8
10 500 0.2 1
9 900 0.3

After assigning moves 7,8 10, the ∑h4j=1; therefore this iteration is terminated. And
one unit of 4 is fully utilized.
For the next iteration the cost and the move time data are shown in the table, the
moves already assigned are not included in the table.

Equipment 1 Equipment 2 Equipment 3 Equipment 4

operating Operating operating Operating operating Operating operating Operating
Move
cost time cost time cost time cost time
1 400 0.4 0 0 200 0.5 0 0
2 600 0.6 400 1 900 0.8 0 0
3 400 0.5 500 1 900 0.9 0 0
4 500 0.4 400 1 800 0.9 0 0
5 100 0.3 300 1 0 0 0 0
6 200 0.7 900 1 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 200 1 800 0.7 900 0.3
total 2200 2.9 2700 6 3600 3.8 900 0.3

31
The calculation for Zi based on the data in the previous table is shown in the next table.

No. of No total
Equipment capital Total
possible unit operating Zi
Type cost cost
moves of Eq Cost

1 6 3 15000 2200 17200 2866.667

2 6 6 16666.62 2700 19366.62 3227.77
3 4 4 12000 3600 15600 3900
4 1 1 4000 900 4900 4900
Equipment 1 has the smallest Zi; therefore it is the next to be selected.
The ranked moves and their parameters, for a selected unit of equipment 1 second
Iteration.
Move W1j h1j ∑h1j
5 100 0.3 0.3
6 200 0.7 1
1 400 0.4
3 400 0.5
4 500 0.4
2 600 0.6

After assigning moves 5, 6 the ∑h1j=1; therefore this iteration is terminated. And one
unit of 1 is fully utilized.
If we continue in the same manner, the final assignment of the moves to the candidate
equipment is the following:

Move 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Equipment 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 4

5.2. Development of the Matlab Program:

In order to make the process of MHE selection automatic the algorithm is written in a
Matlab program. This program is given in appendix A.
5.3. Testing and verification of the Methodology:
Twenty five problems are solved using the proposed methodology. Results of the
problems are verified by solving them manually and found them correct when checked by
Matlab code. The problems tested and verified are given in Appendix B.

32
 Conclusion
Following conclusions are made from the research work.
• Literature of MHE selection is reviewed. Both Expert system and optimization
approaches developed by various researchers is discussed.
• The previous mathematical models for the cost of material handling are improved
by including the cost for the performance and effectiveness.
• A new methodology is developed which combines the optimization approaches
with the Expert system approach.
• A detailed example is solved step by step in order to illustrate the developed
methodology.
• Methodology has been tested and verified by solving 25 problems manually and
then using Matlab code.
• The developed methodology can guide people in industries in more accurate way
to arrive at a proper selection of MHE.
Future work:
Short listing of the MHE can be done using fuzzy logic and then incorporating a
mathematical model for cost of MHE to assign moves to the selected MHE with least
cost.

33
 References
1. WEBSTER, D. B., and REED, R., 1971, A Material handling selection model.
AIIE, 3, 13-21.
2. HASSAN, M. M. D., and HOGG, G. L., 1985, A construction algorithm for the
selection and assignment of materials handling equipment, International Journal
of Production Research, 23, 381-392.
3. FISHER, E. L., FARBER, J. B., AND KAY, M. G., 1988, MATHES: Material
handling equipment selection, Engineering Costs and Production Economics, 14,
297-310.
4. HOSNI, Y. A., 1989, Inference engine for material handling selection, Computers
and Industrial Engineering, 17(1-4), 79-84.
5. NOBEL, J. S., and TANCHOCO, J. M. A., 1993, A frame work for material
handling system design justification, International Journal of Production
Research, 31(1), 81-106.
6. WELGAMA, P. S., and GIBSON, P. R., 1995, A hybrid knowledge
based/optimization system for automated selection of materials handling system,
Computers and Industrial Engineering, 28(2), 205-217.
7. PAUL BARRINGER H., 1997, Availability, Reliability, Maintainability, and
Capability, Barringer & Associates, Inc. Humble, TX.
8. HUSSAIN, I., 2002, Hybrid Approach to the Selection of Material Handling
Equipment.

34
 APPEDIX A
In this Appendix the code developed in MATLAB 6.5 is given. Here some
instructions are given to efficiently use the program.
1. First of all write the moves in the first column of an excel file with name rda. In
the same excel file write the operating cost and operating time corresponding to
each move for each equipment.
2. Save the excel file as a text file rda.txt.
3. In the MATLAB m-file moves2 write capital costs, for the each equipment, in the
bracket in the line 7 in the name capcost.
4. Now the m-file is ready to be executed.
5. Run the file and see the results in the command line editor.
6. In the command line editor the 1st column is the moves and 2nd column gives the
equipment to which the move in the 1st column is assigned.

35
clear all

%for simplicity always save the text file from xcel

%as rda.txt

load rda.txt
load capcost1.txt

% in the following line write the capital

% cost of each equipment in the bracket giving on espace

%capcost is the capital cost

capcost=capcost1(7,:);

%capcost=[5000 2777.77 3000 4000];

% %nmove is the number of total moves and

% is the the number of rows in rda.txt.

nmove=length(rda(:,1));

% teq is the number of equipment and is the half

% of the number of colums of rda.txt

teq=length(rda(1,:))/2;

mmm=[0];
mm1=[0];

% the maximum number of iteration will not be

36
% more than the No.of total moves

for i=1:nmove
jj=0;

%for each equipment finding total

%possible moves,total operating cost,total operating
%time and no of equipment units in each iterations of
%assignment of a move or moves

for j=1:teq
%a is matrix of nonzero indices
%possible moves by each equipment

a=find(rda(:,2*j)>0);
jj=jj+1;

%tpm is total possible moves by equipment jj

Tpm(jj)=length(a);

%tocast is the operating cost and totime is the

%operating time and noeq is the No of units
%of equipment jj

tocast(jj)=sum(rda(a,2*j));
totime(jj)=sum(rda(a,2*j+1));
noeq(jj)=ceil(totime(jj));
end

37
% tcapcost is the capital cost of noeq
%No. of equipment jj and total cost is the
%sum of operating and capital cost if eq jj

tcapcost=noeq.*capcost;
totalcost=tcapcost+tocast;
dum=find(Tpm == 0);
Tpm(dum)=1e-10;

%finding average cost of equipment jj

zbar=totalcost./Tpm;

clear Tpm tocast totime noeq

dum=find(zbar > 0);

%finding minimum zbar value

zbar_m=min(zbar(dum));

%eq_min is the equipment having minimum average cost

eq_min=find(zbar==zbar_m);

%a is the index matrix of equipment selected

a=find(rda(:,2*eq_min)>0);
b=[1 2*eq_min 2*eq_min+1];

%w_eq is the matrix of operating cost and time

%of the selected equipment
w_eq=rda(a,b);
w_eq=sortrows(w_eq,2);

38
%sorting operating cost and calculating commulative
%operating time of selected equipment

h4j=cumsum(w_eq(:,3));

%a is the indices of moves possible to selected equipment

%within its utilization df are the moves can be performed by
%selected equipment

a=find(h4j <= 1.0);

df=w_eq(a,1);

mmm=cat(1,mmm,df);
df1=ones(size(df))*eq_min;
mm1=cat(1,mm1,df1);

%removing the moves assigned from the data table

as=setdiff(rda(:,1),df);
hh=0;

for k=1:length(as)
gg(k)=find(rda(:,1) == as(k));
hh=1;
end
if(hh == 0)
break
hh=2;
end
rda1=rda(gg,:);
rda=rda1;
clear gg

39
end
mmm=mmm(2:end);
mm1=mm1(2:end);
move_table=[mmm mm1]

%listing the moves and the equipment to

%which a move is assigned in a table form
sortrows(move_table,1)

40
 APPENDIX B
Solved problems:
In these problems various No. of moves are assigned to various No. of
equipments. The initial short listing of the equipment is considered to be performed
using KB part of the selection process. The effectiveness factors are listed in the table
given in the solution. All the data are given in the solution part next. The problems
are solved by MMATLAB 6.5 program. Results of both with adjusted and unadjusted
capital cost solution are presented in tabulated form at the end of the problems
solution.

41