See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318743771

Plant Layout Optimization using CRAFT and ALDEP Methodology

Article · June 2016

CITATIONS READS

5 14,261

4 authors, including:

Vivek A Deshpande Vilas Baviskar

G H Patel College of Engineering and Technology (GCET) Sandip Foundation College
52 PUBLICATIONS   105 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Recycling and Reutilization of steel plant waste by optimizing Binder proportion using DOE View project

Plant Layout Optimization View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Vivek A Deshpande on 24 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Productivity Journal by National Productivity Council, ISSN: 0032-9924,
Volume 57, Issue No.1, April-June 2016, pp. 32-42.
Plant Layout Optimization using CRAFT and ALDEP Methodology

Vivek Deshpande1, Nitish D.Patil2, Vilas Baviskar3, Jaivesh Gandhi4

1
Asst. Prof., Mech. Engg., G H Patel College of Engg. & Tech., V. V. Nagar, Anand, Gujarat.
2
M.E. (4th Sem.) Adv. Manufacturing System, Shri S’ad vidhya Mandal, Bharuch, Gujarat.
3
Vilas Baviskar, M.E. (4th Sem.) Mechanical E, Engg., RCPIT, Shirpur, Maharashtra.
4
Jaivesh Gandhi, Asst. Prof., Production Engg., Shri S’ad vidhya Mandal, Bharuch, Gujarat.

Abstract

Facility layout design is the field of selecting the most effective arrangement of physical

facilities to allow the greater efficiency in the combination of resources to produce a product.

The facility planning plays a vital role in manufacturing process due to there in achieving an

efficient process flow it reduces the total cost of manufacturing activity and provides optimum

space to give maximum output with minimum effort at the floor area. The manufacturing

facility needs to be responsive to the frequent changes in demand while minimizing material

handling (Deshpande & Chopade, 2005). By keeping material moving faster, manufacturing

time is also reduced. The objective of the facility planning is to achieve the lower work-in

process, inventory, lower material handling and production cost (Patil, Deshpande, &

Gandhi, 2015). The different method or techniques are employed to design the facility layout.

The most widely used techniques for facility layout design is systematic layout planning

(SLP) by Muther. Now a days computer programs are used to assist the layout planner in

generating alternate layout. In this paper, a computerized layout algorithm (improvement

type) i.e. ‘CRAFT’ (Computerized Relative Allocation of Facilities Technique) technique is

presented for improving existing layout. Further authors have proposed the new plant layout

using Automated Layout Design Program (ALDEP) technique. The improvement given by

ALDEP over CRAFT technique was found to reduce annual material handling cost by 23%.

Travel chart is also used here in CRAFT technique. All these aspects are explained in this

paper with the help of a case study.

 Productivity Journal by National Productivity Council, ISSN: 0032-9924,
Volume 57, Issue No.1, April-June 2016, pp. 32-42.
Key words: CRAFT, ALDEP, Facility layout design

1. Introduction & Problem identification:

The facility layout design is the basic problem in any manufacturing environment, which

influences the work efficiency i.e. productivity of the whole organization. Facility layout deals

with allocation of the various facilities within the department. We do use facility layout design

at different phases. Say for example, selection of plant site among many or developing the

layout (i.e. arranging different departments within the selected layout) or after identifying a

department within a plant how to arrange the machines. These are nothing but plant layout

design problems which are encountered at different phases the survival of the plant. The

objective of the facility layout is to reduce WIP, optimum space utilization and improve the

flow process of production system.

The case study is based on RMG alloy steel industry in Bharuch. It deals with rolling mill

making RCS bar. In existing plant, material handling consume lots of effort. Also time taken

for material handling is more. This increases the cost of material handling (MH). The layout

should be designed to transfer material with low outlay of time and with minimum effort,

thereby lessening the manufacturing lead time (MLT), inventory and cost of indirect labor.

Computerized layout algorithm can be used to give improved layout. Few widely used

computer programs are construction type algorithm (CORELAP, ALDEP) and improvement

algorithm (CRAFT) etc. In this paper, we discuss about CRAFT technique for improving

existing layout (Drira, Pierreval, & Hajri-gabouj, 2007) . It resulted in substantial

improvement. Also ALDEP technique is used to propose optimum layout based on the

adjacency score and proper material flow.

2. Literature survey:

There are different methods and techniques for solving the facility layout problems such as

SLP(Shah, n.d.; Shahin, 2011; Sutari, 2014; Tak & Yadav, 2012), CRAFT, ALDEP,

CORELAP(Alex, Lokesh, & Ravikumar, 2010), M-CRAFT, BLOCK PLAN, MIP, MULPTIPLE

etc. Based on above literature survey (Patil et al., 2015) it has been found that the
 Productivity Journal by National Productivity Council, ISSN: 0032-9924,
Volume 57, Issue No.1, April-June 2016, pp. 32-42.
comparative study of facility layout problem using both CRAFT And ALDEP techniques has

not been done.

3. Methodology adopted:

For improving the existing layout CRAFT method is used. It as an improvement algorithm

(Paneerselvam, 1999). It starts with an initial layout and improves the layout by

interchanging the department’s pair wise so that the transportation cost is minimized.

‘CRAFT’ first evaluates (Agarwal, 1997) a given layout and then considers what the effect

will be if the departments under consideration are interchanged. If making pair wise

exchange can make improvement, the exchange producing the greatest improvement is

made. The process continues until no improvement can be made by pair wise exchange.

3.1 Input requirement

i. Initial layout show in the size of the department arrange.

ii. Flow matrix giving the number of unit loads moving between all departments over

a given period of time.

iii. Cost matrix giving the cost per unit distance of movement between all

departments’.

iv. Space requirement for each department.

3.2 Algorithm by which the programmed operates is as follows:

i. CRAFT interchanges a pair of departments which have either a common border or

the same area requirement.

ii. Calculate the distance between departments the distance being takes as centroid

to centroid rectilinear distances between the departments.

iii. Calculate the reduction in total movement cost result in from the interchanged of

all possible pairs of department.

iv. Interchanged the two departments which provides the greatest saving in total

movement cost.
 Productivity Journal by National Productivity Council, ISSN: 0032-9924,
Volume 57, Issue No.1, April-June 2016, pp. 32-42.
3.3 Assumptions:

i. Centroid of each department or area should have taken on absolute coordinate X

(0, 0).

ii. Inter departmental MH of workers to be considered.

iii. Working days per month: 26

iv. Working hours per day: 8

v. Working hours per month = 26*8 = 208 Hr. or 74800 sec/month

3.4 Cost data for existing layout:

The overhead crane used to transport material from one place to another place

respectively. On other hand human works also appointed to transport the most of

material that utilized human operator level 1(operator 1) with an average salary 16000/-

per month.

The method starts from first calculate the cost between Dept. 1 (Store) to Dept. 2 (WHF

FURNACE). The overhead magnet crane used whose weight is 20 Tonne. Magnetic

gripper is used to attach to the bloom. The bloom weight 2 Tonne and 30 HP motor is

used in the crane which consume 65 unit per hours and 1 worker is working with it

whose salary is Rs. 16000 per month. The time taken to move from Dept. 1 to Dept. 2 is

0.05 Hour (3 minute).

i. Working days per month: 26

ii. Working hours per day: 8

iii. Working hours per month = 26*8 = 208 Hr. or 74800 sec/month

iv. Unit = KW*running hours = 65*0.05 = 3.25

v. 1 Unit cost = Rs. 8

vi. 3.25 Unit costs = 3.25*8 = Rs. 26

vii. Crane driver salary (for 0.05 hr.) = 16000/208*0.05 = Rs. 3.846

viii. Workers salary (208 Hr/month) = Rs. 6000

ix. Worker salary (for 0.05 hr.) = 60000/208*0.05 = RS. 1.442

 Productivity Journal by National Productivity Council, ISSN: 0032-9924,
Volume 57, Issue No.1, April-June 2016, pp. 32-42.
x. Total transportation cost between Department 1 and 2 = C12 = vi + vii + ix = 26 +

3.846 + 1.442 = Rs. 31.28

3.5 Existing layout:

Refer Figure 1 for Existing layout and Table 1 for Layout details.

1-STORE, 2-WHF FURNACE, 3-ROLLING MILL, 4-HOT SAW CUTTING, 5-COOLING BED, 6 FINISHING

Figure 1: Existing Layout

Table 1: Description of Existing layout with coordinates

Departments X Y Description
1 15 12 Store
WHF
2 51.8 12
furnace
3 61.5 54 Rolling mill
Hot saw
4 61.5 95
cutting
5 36.8 114 Cooling bed
6 24.8 65 Finishing
 Productivity Journal by National Productivity Council, ISSN: 0032-9924,
Volume 57, Issue No.1, April-June 2016, pp. 32-42.

3.6 CRAFT Method:

n n
Total cost of initial layout is calculated as, Total cost =  
i 1 j 1
Fij * Dij *Cij

Where,
Fij is the flow from department ‘i’ to the dept. ‘j’
Dij is the distance from dept. ‘i’ to the dept. ‘j’
Cij is the cost/unit distance of travel/trip
Table 2 to Table 5 indicates distance matrix, flow matrix, cost matrix and total cost matrix

respectively.

Table 2: Distance Matrix (Dij) for Existing Layout

WHF Rolling Hot Cooling Finishin

S. N. From\To Store
Furnace Mill Saw Bed g
1 Store - 36.75 88.5 129 123.75 62.25
WHF
2 36.75 - 51.75 92.25 117 79.5
Furnace
3 Rolling Mil 88.5 51.75 - 40.5 84.75 47.25
Hot Saw
4 129 92.25 40.5 - 44.25 66.75
Cutting
5 Cooling Bed 123.75 117 84.75 44.25 - 61.5

6 Finishing 62.25 79.5 47.25 66.75 61.5 -

Table 3: Flow Matrix (Fij) for Existing Layout

WHF Rolling Hot Cooling Finishin

S. N. From\To Store
Furnace Mill Saw Bed g
1 Store 0 1 0 0 0 0
WHF
2 0 0 1 0 0 0
Furnace
3 Rolling Mil 0 0 0 1 0 0
Hot Saw
4 0 0 0 0 1 0
Cutting
5 Cooling Bed 0 0 0 0 0 1

6 Finishing 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Productivity Journal by National Productivity Council, ISSN: 0032-9924,
Volume 57, Issue No.1, April-June 2016, pp. 32-42.

Table 4: Cost Matrix (Cij) for Existing Layout

WHF Rolling Hot Cooling Finishin

S. N. From\To Store
Furnace Mill Saw Bed g
1 Store 0 31.28 72.70 125.14 137.66 168.94
WHF
2 0 0 41.29 93.42 108.83 131.79
Furnace
3 Rolling Mil 0 0 0 52.18 62.514 93.80
Hot Saw
4 0 0 0 0 10.38 41.67
Cutting
5 Cooling Bed 0 0 0 0 0 31.28

6 Finishing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 5: Total Cost Matrix (TCij) for Existing Layout

WHF Rolling Cooling Finishin

S. N. From\To Store Hot Saw
Furnace Mill Bed g
1 Store 0 1149.54 0 0 0 0

2 WHF Furnace 0 0 2137.11 0 0 0

3 Rolling Mil 0 0 0 2113.53 0 0

4 Hot Saw Cutting 0 0 0 0 459.67 0

5 Cooling Bed 0 0 0 0 0 1923.72

6 Finishing 0 0 0 0 0 0
Column
7 0 1149.54 2137.11 2113.53 459.67 1923.72
Total
8 Total Cost of MH Rs. 7783.57/Hr. * 208 Hr. * 12 Months = 194,26,368 Rs./year

Total Annual Cost of MH for the existing layout = Rs. 1, 94, 26, 368/-

The pairwise interchange is done based common border rule as per the CRAFT

technique. For each interchanged, all three associated matrices i.e. distance matrix, cost

matrix and flow matrix is calculated. After implementation of the CRAFT algorithm we get

the following solution. Refer Figure 2 for improved layout using CRAFT technique.

Total Annual MH Cost for improved layout = Rs. 7775/Hr. * 208 Hr. * 12 Months

= Rs. 1,94,06,400/-
 Productivity Journal by National Productivity Council, ISSN: 0032-9924,
Volume 57, Issue No.1, April-June 2016, pp. 32-42.
Hence the total saving in MH cost per annum = Rs. 19968/- (0.1027 % only)

This improvement is very less and hence we are interested in proposing new layout with

the help of ALDEP methodology.

1-STORE, 2-WHF FURNACE, 3-ROLLING MILL, 4-HOT SAW CUTTING, 5-COOLING BED, 6 FINISHING

Figure 2: Improved Layout using CRAFT technique

4. ALDEP methodology for proposing new layout:

ALDEP is a construction layout. ALDEP does not need any initial layout. ALDEP (Francies &

White, 1999; Meller & Gau, 1996)constructs a layout when there is none. It requires the area

of each departments and the relationship between these departments based on Activity

Relationship chart (REL chart) and sweep width. Let us first discuss its procedure.

4.1 Department selection:

i. Randomly selects the first department.

ii. Out of those departments select the one which has ‘A’ relationship with the first

one from REL chart or (‘E’, ‘I’ etc. minimum level of importance is determined by

user)

iii. Select randomly the second department.

iv. If no such department exists it selects the second one completely randomly
 Productivity Journal by National Productivity Council, ISSN: 0032-9924,
Volume 57, Issue No.1, April-June 2016, pp. 32-42.
v. The selection procedure is repeated until all departments are selected (Always

search for the department having relationship last one placed in the layout – not

all).

4.2 Department placement and sweep pattern:

i. Starts from upper left corner and extends it downward

ii. Sweep width is determine by user

iii. If minimum requirements met, it prints out the layout and the score is given

iv. The layout with highest score (closeness rating) is selected as solution.

4.3 Activity Relationship Chart (REL Chart)

A relationship diagram that provides a visual means to determine the intensity of flow

between processes. Activity relationship diagram shows the relationship of every

department, office, or service area with every other department and area. In order to

establish this relationship, we use closeness code to “WEIGH” the decision. Refer Figure

3 for REL chart.

Assignment of the closeness ration is subjective rule of thumb:

1. Very few A and X relationship should be assign (no more than 5% of closeness rating

to be an A and X).

2. No more than 10% should be an E.

3. No more than 15% to be an I.

4. No more than 20% to be O.

5. Which mean that about 50% of the relationship should be U.

 Productivity Journal by National Productivity Council, ISSN: 0032-9924,
Volume 57, Issue No.1, April-June 2016, pp. 32-42.

Figure 3: REL Chart

Based on REL chart, Activity relation diagram is made as shown in Figure 4. Based on

this relationship process diagram is made as shown in Table 6.

Figure 4: Activity Relationship Diagram

 Productivity Journal by National Productivity Council, ISSN: 0032-9924,
Volume 57, Issue No.1, April-June 2016, pp. 32-42.
Table 6: Relationship process diagram

DEPT. DEPT. RELATIONDHIP SUMMERY

TCR
NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 A E I O U
1 - A U U U E 1 1 0 0 3 7
2 A - E U U U 1 1 0 0 3 7
3 U E - A U U 1 1 0 0 3 7
4 U U A - I U 1 0 1 0 3 6
5 U U U I - A 1 0 1 0 3 6
6 E U U U A - 1 1 0 0 3 7

ASSUME:

 TCR (TOTAL CLOSENESS RATING) A=4, E=3, I=2, O=1, U=0

 1 grid = 84 M2

 Sweep width = 4

Table 7: Space Relationship Table

NO. OF UNIT
DEPT. NO. NAME AREA (M2)
SQUARE
1 STORE 720 8
2 WHF 1044 12
3 RM 1440 18
4 HC 504 6
5 CB 1323 16
6 FINISHING 4009.5 48

4.4 ALDEP Solution:

Iteration 1: Refer to Figure 5 for layout modification by Iteration 1 of ALDEP method.

 Productivity Journal by National Productivity Council, ISSN: 0032-9924,
Volume 57, Issue No.1, April-June 2016, pp. 32-42.

Figure 5: Layout for Iteration 1 by ALDEP method

Iteration 5: Refer to Figure 6 for layout modification by Iteration 5 of ALDEP method.

Figure 6: Layout for Iteration 5 by ALDEP method

 Productivity Journal by National Productivity Council, ISSN: 0032-9924,
Volume 57, Issue No.1, April-June 2016, pp. 32-42.
Iteration 6: Refer to Figure 7 for layout modification by Iteration 6 of ALDEP method.

Figure 7: Layout for Iteration 6 by ALDEP method

As per above analysis it is found that among all the iterations of ALDEP, Iteration-1

offers best solution. The sequence for this is mentioned in Table 8. This iteration is

selected compared to other iterations due to reason that it is not affecting the flow of the

process. Otherwise the cost of MH will increase.

Table 8: Different possible solutions by ALDEP

Sr. Adjacency
Sequence Possibility
No. score
1 F-C-H-R-W-S 224 Better solution for process flow
Rank is high but process flow does
2 W-S-F-R-H-C 228
not followed
3 C-F-S-W-R-H 224 process flow does not followed
4 S-W-R-H-C-F 224 process flow does not followed
5 F-S-W-R-H-C 224 process flow does not followed
6 S-W-R-C-H-F 164 Not possible
7 S-W-F-R-H-C 212 process flow does not followed
8 W-R-H-C-S-F 164 Not possible
9 W-S-C-F-R-H 208 process flow does not followed
10 R-H-C-W-S-F 212 process flow does not followed
 Productivity Journal by National Productivity Council, ISSN: 0032-9924,
Volume 57, Issue No.1, April-June 2016, pp. 32-42.

Rank is high but process flow does

11 R-H-C-S-W-F 228
not followed
12 R-W-H-C-S-F 164 Not possible
13 H-R-C-W-S-F 224 process flow does not followed
14 H-C-F-R-W-S 164 Not possible
15 H-R-W-S-C-F 224 Process flow does not followed
16 C-S-W-R-H-F 212 Process flow does not followed
Rank is high but process flow does
17 C-H-R-F-S-W 228
not followed
18 F-W-S-C-R-H 224 process does not followed

Construction algorithm ALDEP gives new layout and this proposed layout is again

evaluated by CRAFT technique to find out the annual cost of MH. The final layout is

given in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Proposed Final Layout by ALDEP method

4.5 Evaluation of ALDEP Solution by CRAFT for finding out annual MH cost:

Refer Table 9 for details of Proposed layout.

Table 9: Centroid distance between departments

Dept. No. X Y
1 8.25 20.5
2 28.75 20.5
3 58.48 24.056
4 63.86 65.056
5 40.75 61.5
6 30.62 92.25
 Productivity Journal by National Productivity Council, ISSN: 0032-9924,
Volume 57, Issue No.1, April-June 2016, pp. 32-42.
Refer Table 10 and 11 for distance matrix and total cost matrix of proposed layout.

Table 10: Distance Matrix (Dij) for Proposed Layout

WHF Rolling Hot Cooling Finishin

S. N. From\To Store
Furnace Mill Saw Bed g
1 Store 0 20.5 0 0 0 0
WHF
2 0 0 33.286 0 0 0
Furnace
3 Rolling Mil 0 0 0 46.36 0 0
Hot Saw
4 0 0 0 0 26.66 0
Cutting
5 Cooling Bed 0 0 0 0 0 40.88

6 Finishing 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 11: Total Cost Matrix (TCij) for Proposed Layout

WHF Rolling Hot Cooling

S. N. From\To Store Finishing
Furnace Mill Saw Bed
1 Store 0 641.24 0 0 0 0
1374.6
2 WHF Furnace 0 0 0 0 0
0
2419.3
3 Rolling Mil 0 0 0 0 0
4
4 Hot Saw Cutting 0 0 0 0 276.9 0

5 Cooling Bed 0 0 0 0 0 1278.72

6 Finishing 0 0 0 0 0 0
Column 2419.3
7 0 641.24 1374.6 276.9 1278.72
Total 4
8 Total Cost of MH Rs. 5990/Hr. * 208 Hr. * 12 Months = Rs. 1,49,51,040 / year

Total Annual Cost of MH for the proposed layout (ALDEP) = Rs. 1, 49, 51, 040/-

Total saving in MH cost per annum by ALDEP over CRAFT =

(MH Cost for existing layout - MH Cost for proposed layout)/(MH Cost for existing layout)

= (1,94,26,368 – 1,49,51,040) * 100/(1,94,26,368) = (44,75,328*100)/(1,94,26,368) =

23%

5. Result and conclusion:

 Productivity Journal by National Productivity Council, ISSN: 0032-9924,
Volume 57, Issue No.1, April-June 2016, pp. 32-42.
The CRAFT technique shows an improvement of only 0.10 % in MH cost for the existing

layout. The proposed layout by ALDEP technique indicates the improvement (i.e. saving) in

MH cost by 23%. This improvement of 23% i.e. Rs. 44.75 Lacs is a great savings per

annum. This indicates usefulness of ALDEP methodology. It does mean that if the layout

would have been developed at the inception it would have resulted in a profit of Rs. 44.75

lacs/year till date. Further benefit were:

 Increased productivity

 Low cost of product

 Reduction in efforts by production workers

In this paper an attempt has been made to indicate the usefulness of ALDEP method in

developing the optimum layout.

6. References:

Agarwal, G. K. (1997). Plant Layout & Material Handling. Jain Brothers, New Delhi.

Alex, S., Lokesh, A. C., & Ravikumar, N. (2010). SPACE UTILIZATION IMPROVEMENT IN

CNC, 9(2), 31–38.

Deshpande, V. A., & Chopade, I. K. (2005). Facility Layout Design by CRAFT Technique. In

Proceedings of COMPUTIME: National Conference on Computational Methods in

Mechanical Engineering (pp. 108–113). Hyderabad: Department of Mechanical

Engineering, Osmania University, Hyderabad – 500007, India.

Drira, A., Pierreval, H., & Hajri-gabouj, S. (2007). Facility layout problems : A survey, 31,

255–267. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2007.04.001

Francies, R. L., & White, J. A. (1999). Facility layout and location and an analytical approch.

PHI Ltd.delhi.

Meller, R. D., & Gau, K. (1996). The Facility Layout Problem: Recent and Emerging Trends

and Perspectives. Journal of Manufacturing Systems Vol., 15(5).

Paneerselvam, R. (1999). Production and Operations Management. Prentice Hall of India

Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

 Productivity Journal by National Productivity Council, ISSN: 0032-9924,
Volume 57, Issue No.1, April-June 2016, pp. 32-42.
Patil, N. D., Deshpande, V. A., & Gandhi, J. (2015). Techniques for Solving Facility Layout

Problem : A Survey. In Afro - Asian International Conference on Science, Engineering &

Technology AAICSET-2015 (pp. 352–360). Akshar Publications.

Shah, C. R. (n.d.). Increased Productivity in Factory Layout by Using Systematic Layout

Planning ( SLP ).

Shahin, A. (2011). Facility Layout Simulation and Optimization : an Integration of Advanced

Quality and Decision Making Tools and Techniques, 5(4).

http://doi.org/10.5539/mas.v5n4p95

Sutari, O. (2014). DEVELOPMENT OF PLANT LAYOUT USING SYSTEMATIC LAYOUT

PLANNING ( SLP ) TO MAXIMIZE PRODUCTION – A CASE STUDY OUTLINE

DEVELOPMENT OF, 1–4.

Tak, C. S., & Yadav, L. (2012). Improvement in Layout Design using SLP of a small size

manufacturing unit : A case study, 2(10), 1–7.

View publication stats