Abdou1990 Pagado USADO

This article was downloaded by: [New York University]
On: 01 February 2015, At: 09:38

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Production Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20
An integrated approach to facilities layout using expert

systems
a a
G. ABDOU & S. P. DUTTA
a
Department of Industrial Engineering , University of Windsor , Windsor, Ontario, N9B 3P4,
Canada
Published online: 30 Mar 2007.
To cite this article: G. ABDOU & S. P. DUTTA (1990) An integrated approach to facilities layout using expert systems,
International Journal of Production Research, 28:4, 685-708, DOI: 10.1080/00207549008942749
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207549008942749
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the
publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations
or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the
views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,
actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
INT. J. PROD. RES., 1990, VOL. 28, No.4, 685-708
An integrated approach to facilities layout using expert systems

G. ABDOUt and S. P. DUITAt
The paper develops an expert systems approach to define appropriate layouts of
machining facilities under specific combinations of manufacturing and materials
handling systems. The knowledge base incorporates six factors relating product
variety and quantity, degrees of flexibility, level of automation, materials handling
system, work-in-process and environmental considerations. The EXSYS system
program has been usedto manipulate the knowledge base.The program operates in
tandem mode and interfaces with algorithms to optimize the selection of materials
handling equipment,and generateappropriate layouts.Applicationof the program
is illustrated for an existing facility.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:38 01 February 2015
I. Introduction
The arrangement of physical facilities presents practical as well as methodological
problems. Generally, a two stage approach is followed in most cases, a block or
departmentalized layout phase followed by a detailed or machine layout phase. In both
instances, a large number of subjective factors are associated with the evaluation of the
corresponding layouts, not all of which can be 'modelled' realistically. In modelling the
layout problem, the objective functions are specified in either quantitative or
qualitative terms. The former is primarily concerned with minimizing material
handling costs, which are often taken to be functions of the distance travelled by
materials handling equipment and the type of handling systems used; the costs are also
assumed to vary depending on whether the operations involve manufacturing or pure
assembly tasks. The latter attempts to minimize some measure of closeness ratings,
which include 'positive' factors, such as ease of supervision, communication etc., and
'negative' factors, such as noise, dust, fumes and so on. A survey of solution procedures
for facilities layout problems has been reported by Levary and Kalchik (1985) who
classify them according to three broad characteristics, i.e., input requirements,
limitations and type of output required.
Recently, a number ofresearchers have attempted to develop methodologies which
allow the human decision maker to play an interactive role in the facility layout
analysis problem (Montreuil et al. 1987, D'Souza and Mohanty 1986, Fisher and Nof
1984). The purpose has been to amalgamate quantitative and qualitative objectives in
facilities design and also enable the decision maker to manipulate resultant layouts to
include factors not captured by the model. The generation of relationship (REL) charts
(or their equivalents) is undoubtedly improved as a result; however, the definition of
closeness relationships (i.e. A, E, I, 0, U, X) and the corresponding weighted values are
still left to the discretion of the layout planner. These procedures also do not easily
allow the decision maker to incorporate his or her 'learning' experience into the layout
development process, which would accelerate the search procedure for an appropriate
layout configuration. Given the importance of subjective, non-quantifiable criteria in
deciding the construe of the REL chart as well as in evaluating alternative layout
configurations, an 'expert system' approach seems to be appropriate for this type of
planning problem.
Revision received July 1989.

t University of Windsor,Department of Industrial Engineering, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
N9B 3P4.
002()-7543/90 $3'00 c 1990 Taylor & Francis Ltd.
686 G. Abdou and S. P. Dutta
An important consideration in the decision making process for optimal

manufacturing layout planning is the nature of the criteria used for layout analysis and
design. Many of these criteria are fuzzy, non-quantifiable, apparently conflicting and
may even have temporal dimensions. This complicates the development of closeness
ratings embodied in the relationship chart, affects the manner in which alternative
layouts are evaluated and influences the weights allocated to the ratings themselves.
Fontenberry and Cox (1985) have proposed a multiple criteria model for combining
quantitative and qualitative factors in plant layout, using a heuristic approach. A
dynamic programming approach to the solution of a multicriteria model has been
reported by D'Souza and Mohanty (1986). A layout design heuristic employing the
theory of fuzzy sets has been developed by Evans et al. (1987) to solve block layout
design problems. Here again, two problems have been noted. The first one relates to the
definition of the heuristic addressing placement and department dimensions, whilst the
second relates to the determination of the compatibility of the 'degree of importance'
attached to a particular closeness rating amongst various decision makers. Foulds

(1983),in proposing a method of deciding which pairs of activities should be adjacent,
based on a multicriteria approach, has used graph theory to provide an elegant
solution procedure. It has been assumed however, that a relationship chart is available.
The next section briefly reviews the major efforts to use expert systems
methodologies to overcome these problems and provide facility designers with
normative methods of acquiring and using their preferential knowledge.
2. Literature survey
Several expert systems (ES) applications to manufacturing systems have been
published. Most of them specifically apply to scheduling problems for job shop,
assembly line, flexible manufacturing, and flow shop. A few applications focus on
materials requirements planning and group technology. There are a few ES which have
been developed recently for solving the machine layout problem. The methods
proposed in these surveys are briefly reviewed in the following paragraphs.
FADES (Fisher and Nof 1984) is an ES designed for solving general facility design
problems, selecting equipment that meets the required technology level, and
performing economic analysis. The knowledge base uses first order predicate logic
which is of three forms: procedures, facts and goals. The input information are flow and
distance data, and include a materials handling cost matrix. The solution to the layout
problem is based on the relationship chart which is evaluated by a series of expert rules.
Kumara et al. (1987) have developed a heuristic-based ES. They have defined the
facilities layout problem as a multi-objective problem (with five objectives) and have
outlined a methodology to handle the qualitative constraints in conjunction with
heuristic procedures for quantitative parameters. The input information are the
number of departments and their corresponding areas. The knowledge base invokes a
FORTRAN program which draws a square grid, divides the screen into equal areas,
and generates the adjacents. The solution is a layout with one-directional material flow
on the graphics screen and includes an explanation of the reason for each assignment.
Recently they have developed IFLAPS (1988) using two different modules to solve
the layout problem. An ES module uses three types of assignment rules to determine the
adjacency of two facilities. Next the pattern recognition module consists of production
rules which determine the facility to be assigned first in the floor plan. The method does
not involve paired comparisons between departments or the overall relationship
between various facilities.
Facilities layout using expert systems 687
Leskowsky et al. (1987)described ES incorporating two main decision aids for plant
layout. They have used a group technology approach for finding the initial part-
machine groupings and laying out the machining areas to minimize material handling
costs. Their study is based on a heuristic approach to ES. A rule base is developed to
disaggregate a plant into subsystems. The input information are material flow, distance
and the material handling costs. The machines are divided into separate groups. The
system first generates the layout ofthe groups within the total facility, and subsequently
the layout of the machines within each group.
KBML (Kusiak and Heragu 1988) is an ES for machine layout in automated
manufacturing systems. The knowledge base consists of 35 rules for selecting specific
algorithms to solve the layout problem, varying parameters within each algorithm, and
checking whether the layout is implementable. It is capable of generating four types of
machine layouts and uses a forward chaining inference strategy to combine the expert
system approach with the optimization approach as in a tandem mode. The machine
arrangements are created to minimize the total time required by the materials handling
system to transfer products, components, tools, etc., between machines. The transfer
time has been assumed to be proportional to the material handling system cost. The
input information are the list of machines, their numbers and dimensions, location
restrictions, type of layout and material handling system, and flow, clearance and
relationship matrices. The KBML system continues to modify parameters, generate
solutions and evaluate them until a satisfactory solution is found. However, it is
assumed that the manufacturing system is automated and predefined. The degree of
flexibility has not been defined in their knowledge base.
The development of an expert system for solving facilities layout specification
problems needs further consideration. The following lacunae are observed.
(a) The knowledge base in existing ES assumes that the activity relationship chart,
type of layout and/or type of material handling system are already defined.
(b) The number of layout types which can be handled is restrictive.
(c) The effect of factors such as work-in-process in determining the
implementation feasibility of the solution are ignored.
It is therefore evident that a host offactors which directly or indirectly affect designers'
decisions have not been adequately represented in the systems proposed so far.
3. Objectives
The present paper develops an (ES) methodology to define appropriate layouts of
manufacturing facilities under specific combinations of manufacturing and materials
handling systems. The proposed ES considers the interrelationship between multiple
factors within the layout problem, as described in the next section. Because of the
applied nature of this study, every attempt has been made to investigate the problem
within a realistic framework by taking into account various technological
considerations through EXSYS (Wolfgram et al. 1987), an ES program that will help
the industrial user to improve the performance of the manufacturing system. The
following objectives were established to meet the above mentioned requirements:
(i) to determine an appropriate type of layout for a manufacturing system
(ii) to determine an appropriate materials handling system
(iii) to operate the ES in a tandem mode in which the ES is interfaced with
algorithms and external programs
(iv) to determine the closeness of the REL chart

(v) to develop an optimum machine layout.
4. Framework of the layout planning process using ES

4.1. Factors affecting layout planning
Decisions related to the configuration ofa number of machines into an acceptable
layout are dependent on six broad factors:
I. Product variety and quantity
2. Degree of flexibility
3. Level of automation
4. Materials handling system
5. Work-in-progress (WIP)
6. Environmental and safety considerations.
Layout types are greatly influenced by product variety and volume capability issues.
Figure I illustrates the influence of some of these issues within the manufacturing
systems concept. If parts are categorized by volume and variety, and if they fit into a
matrix, a stand-alone NC machine or FMC would meetthe machining centre objective
(maximizing the combination of operations at a single location), when the part volumes
are low and the variety is high. At the other end of the spectrum, the transfer line (FTL)
meets the objective where part variety is low and part volume is high.
At the same time, the level of automation and the degree of flexibility are dependent
on product volume and product variety. Browne et al. (1984) have defined five types of
flexibility as shown in Fig. 2. They conclude that the degree of flexibility helps to
determine the level of automation that will be appropriate for the system. Moreover, for
each of the five. types, the degree of flexibility associated with different types oflayout is
summarized in Table I. These characteristics should, therefore, contribute to the
decisions regarding manufacturing systems design. Table 2 presents a framework
within which the types oflayout shown in Table 1are related to manufacturing systems
and hence to manufacturing control systems. It may be noted in Table 2 that
1:
"-
90.0
FTL
VI
u Cellulnr or GT lnyout
o,
v
llJ 30.0
~ 16,0
L FMS
c: Mul tl-row linenr lnyout
~ 5.00
FM~
5
'!l
2.50 single-
o row
L 0.75
0.. 0.50
FMC or Process lnyout
2 5 6 16 48 64 1200
NUMber of pnrts In the systeM
Figure 1. Relationships between different classes of layout.

Product Flexibility
IlilICllin! Flexibility ~ Process Flexibility ----\-----,
L<lJeration Flexibility
ProcIuction Flexibility
""l UllEl Flexibility }
",,"teing Flexibility
{
Expansion Flexibility
Figure 2. Relationship amongst types of flexibility.
'conventional' layouts, i.e.those incorporating comparatively low levels of automation,

have been broadly clustered into three categories: product, group technology (GT) and
process (Chakravarty 1987). For automated manufacturing systems, nomenclatures for
machine layouts proposed by Kusiak and Heragu (1988) have been used. They have
identified four types of machine layouts in automated manufacturing systems: linear
single row, circular single row, linear double row and multi row.
A number of other researchers have also approached the layout planning problem
from a materials handling cost minimization objective. This, then, forms the fourth
factor which requires appropriate representation in the plant layout process. Materials
handling system (MHS) design is normally carried out after facilities layout, although
many aspects of the MHS problem clearly influence the choice of layout. It is this
interdependence between problems that creates difficulties for the layout planner.
Leskowsky et al. (1987) have adopted a group technology approach to create an expert
system for plant layout which minimizes materials handling costs between
part/machine families.The MHS choice is assumed to be known. At the other end of the
spectrum, Gabbert and Brown (1987) have proposed a knowledge based approach to
materials handling system design considering physical capacities of the equipment,
such as size, weight and transaction rate; the layout of the manufacturing facilities is
assumed to be predetermined. Perhaps a proper balance between the selection of the
materials handling system and the identification of a specific layout can be achieved
through the specification of the manufacturing system. If the manufacturing system is
conventional, it can be assumed that the materials handling system is not automated. In
such a case, appropriated systems specification procedures are provided by Kulwiec
(1985) and Tompkins and White (1984),depending on whether a product or a process
layout is required. In the former case, modular, manual transfer lines can be selected,
whereas in the latter case, variable path equipment such as fork trucks would be
preferred. If however, automated manufacturing systems are involved, the MHS must,
of necessity, be automated also. Reasons for this are well known and are outlined by
Flexibility
Machine Routeing
Product Process Operation Volume Expansion Production
Process layout M H H M H H
Linear single
row/C M M L M H M
FMC circular
single row M M M M M M
FTL or product
layout M L L L L L
Cellular or
GT layout H H H H H H
Multi-row
layout M H H H M H
Table I. Degree of f1exibilities.
Degree of flexibility
Level of automation Low Moderate High
Conventional Product layout GT layout Process
layout
Automated Linear or FMC, Multi-row Product or
circular single or cellular process
row layout layout layout
Table 2. A framework for identifying appropriate layouts within the context of manufacturing
systems.
Chakravarty (1987), Kusiak (1985) and others. Automated handling systems would
normally involve a choice between overhead and floor mounted equipment, which can
be broadly classified as conveyor systems and tow-lines or automated guided vehicular
systems (AGVS). It is possible, in the case of automated manufacturing systems,
therefore, to propose the selection of the material handling system prior to the design of
the layout of facilities.
Different models (Abdou and Tamashunas 1985, Kiran and Smith 1983, Larson
1983) have described the work-in-process factor to delineate the operating conditions
of a process layout, and have then defined the interaction of parts and the plant layout.
The simulation model proposed by Abdou and Tamashunas (1985) facilitates layout
changes including addition and layout of new machines, and several machine locations
can be moved to lessen localized congestion. The proposed ES can be interfaced with
this model to provide a means to access the variability of WIP inventory. It can
evaluate the results of the simulation model and provide the knowledge base with new
sets of data and parameters.
The layout of a facility and its materials handling system has a significant impact on
the safety of employees. Further, the tremendous costs of industrial accidents (over 2
billion dollars in Canada alone in 1986) are forcing a more in-depth analysis of how
safety and facilities design are interwoven. Tompkins (1976) has proposed the use of a
Faciliues layout using expert systems 691
'risk factor', to be evaluated for a specified facilities layout and each materials handling
move, to be used to rank environmental hazards by department. These rankings can
then be used as inputs to a method termed CO SFAD (computerized safety and facilities
design) to determine a minimal cost materials handling system for a plant layout that
has a minimal total-system safety risk. Whilst the technique does not consider the entire
spectrum of industrial safety and facilities (forexample, the location and partitioning of
noise producers), it can still be moulded into a knowledge base for quantifying the
effectsof negative factors (such as dust, fumes, etc.) influencing the relative location of
facilities. Information about human factors consideration can be added to the
knowledge base using a methodology proposed by Priest (1985) relating ergonomics
and group technology.
4.2. Relationship (REL) charts

Various optimization procedures have been adopted to integrate the effects of the
previous factors and derive appropriate layout plans. It has been repeatedly
emphasized (Montreuil et al. 1987, D'Souza and Mahanty 1986, Levary and Kalchik
1985) that all these optimization models, whether computer-based, heuristic or
algorithmic, are useful only for providing some guidelines for the decision maker.
Often, multiple, non-commensurate and conflicting objectives may have to be
considered in the solution procedure, which makes it difficult to solve optimally for
larger layout problems. A popular method of representing such criteria, therefore, is the
REL Chart. Levary and Kalchik (1985) have shown that, of the seventeen solution
procedures surveyed, fifteendifferent solution procedures widely suggested in literature
use the REL chart either as an optional or required input; this is expected to somehow
represent relationships between and effects of non-quantifiable criteria. The layouts
generated are thus manifestations of the REL chart itself, converted into spatial
configurations which are then evaluated against criteria which are once again often
non-commensurate or not wholly measurable.
It therefore seems appropriate to consider the use of a structured knowledge based
expert system to provide an appropriate framework for the creation of the REL chart
by the user. The components of such an expert system shell are outlined in the next
section.
4.3. Outline of the EXSYS program

EXSYS (Wolfgram et al. 1987), is a program for manipulating expert system
knowledge bases. It is a rule-based, backward-chaining, goal directed, development
tool. It is written in C and runs on an IBM or compatible computer. It asks the user
questions in the form of qualifiers. The user responds by entering a number which
corresponds to the appropriate value of the qualifier. In addition, EXSYS has the
ability to call an external program to carry out a wide range of calculation tasks. The
external program may pass data to EXSYS from a database or spreadsheet and run a
custom program for graphics or calculations. Upon completion of the calculations,
EXSYS displays all goal parameters and their respective resultant probabilities.
It involves three steps, as follows.
I. Creating a text base, to include:
(a) subject of knowledge base
(b) choices of data structure
(c) number of rules to be used in data derivation
(d) input text which explains to the user how to run the ES
(e) input text at the end of the run which includes recommendations
(f) choices of rules to be displayed
(g) choice to call the external program
(h) choices of decisions
(i) checking new rules against the previous one.
2. Creating a rule base. The way that rules are built in EXSYS is different from that
in most other ES development tools. The knowledge engineer creates qualifiers (like
parameters) and their respective values. Once qualifiers are created, they can be used
repeatedly by simple recall. Upon defining the qualifiers, the rules can then be
constructed. Each rule is expressed in the form of'IF, THEN, ELSE', and consists of:
(a) the name ofthe rule Which instructs the development engine to insert a new rule
into the knowledge base
(b) the premise 'IF' of the rule

(c) the action THEN' of the rule in which the knowledge engineer assigns a
probability value to the choices designated in step l.
3. Defining a flag variable that indicates whether or not a rule is activated, and
changes to be incorporated when the rule is activated.
If all of the premises are true the rule is considered true and the actions are considered
true and added to what the program knows. If any of the premises is false, the rule is
considered false, and any statements in the ELSE part are then taken to be true and
added to what the program knows.
4.4. Data required

The ES asks the user questions about the problem to be solved. The user responds
by entering the exact format in which data are required:
I. Total number of parts.
2. For each part: the quantity, and routeing sequence.
3. Dimensions of the floor plan.
4. Storage location and dimensions: length and width.
5. Location restrictions (if any) of machine(s) and/or storage(s).
6. Level of automation based on the type of control ofthe manufacturing systems.
This can be either conventional or automated.
7. Degree of production flexibility. The user answers a set of questions. Then, the
ES provides an overall flexibility rating, as shown in Table l.
8. Factors and criteria. The user specifies attributes of handling tasks for the
program to select appropriate MH equipment.
9. Closeness relationship (ifany) between two machines. The user specifies whether
any two machines must be located in adjacent sites.
5. System description
The structure of the EXSYS system is shown in Fig. 3. Its main components are as
follows,
5.1. Database
It consists of multiple qualifiers (Q) or variables (V), MHS table, simulation model
and an algorithm related to machine layout.
r" Do.to.bQse
QUQllflers
Varla.bles
Models
AlgorithMs
Ouery .: Inrer-ence Engine:
~ Knowledge Bo.se
Expert rules
Produc"tlon rules
I MQchlne
AssIgnMent
I
Figure 3. System components.

5.1.1. Qualifiers and variables

The program will tell the user what information (numeric or text data) is needed and
asks the user to input the value. Such data is returned as Qor V, followed by the number
of the qualifier or variable, followed by the data input. The program communicates
with the simulation model and the algorithm. The data is returned by sending it to a
disk file in ASCII called Layout.dat. The query is transformed to a logical form, a
predicate. The inference engine then matches the question to the knowledge base, and
an answer is obtained. Sometimes, the query includes some variables and asks the user
for their values. The variable is substituted by the corresponding value in the matched
knowledge base. This process is repeated until all the predicates are processed or it is
revealed that there is no further relevant knowledge available.
5.1.2. Algorithm to select material handling (M H) equipment

Selecting materials handling (MH) equipment required extensive knowledge of
facts, relationships and rules that are very specific. The selection process may have to
satisfy multiple objectives and to make efficient use of the extensive knowledge that
characterizes the MH equipment selection. In this study, a knowledge base (KB) and a
model to describe the use of the KB are developed.
An example of the selection factors and criteria is shown in Table 3. The table lists
nine MH equipment and the corresponding values of factors and criteria. The flow
chart, Fig. 4, represents in general terms the various procedures that have to be
performed on selection of MH equipment. The first step is to identify the task factors
and input value for each criteria based on user's requirements (Apple 1972,Tompkins
and White 1984,Veilleuxand Petro 1988). These values are determined by a set or rules,
which are described in the knowledge base section. Then, alternative MH equipment
are generated by matching all the task factors given by the user. This process is repeated
until all equipment are tested. Once the criteria matrix has been established and more
than one alternative has been generated, a numerical analysis can be performed
(Baumgarten 1983). A BASIC program, called EVL, has been developed to compare
the total difference and total accession of each alternative from the user's criteria.
Initially, the equipment having the least difference are identified. If ties exist, the
equipment with the least accession are chosen.
0-
'"
~
Factors F1exibility§ Criteria
Weight/ Speed % Mechanism Space Operating

load] uniformt handling'[ attachedt Unmanned'[ Layout Routeing utilization§ Safety§ costs'[
Fork lift
truck 2 1 1 0 1 9 9 3 6 1 0
Tractor trailer 2 0 1 1 1 9 9 3 6 3 :r..
<:r
AGV tugger ~
with trailers 2 2 1 1 0 9 9 3 9 6 c
Unit-load AGV 2 2 2 0 0 9 9 3 9 3 '"
l:l
;,
Monorail ~
conveyor 2 2 1 1 1 6 3 9 9 9 ,..,
Power and free ~.
conveyor 2 1 2 1 1 6 3 9 9 9 I:::l
Roller ~
conveyor 1 0 2 0 1 3 3 6 3 3 S
Chain conveyor 0 0 2 0 1 6 3 6 3 3
Towline 2 0 2 1 0 3 3 3 9 9
to, Low; I, Medium; 2, High.

to, Yes; 1, No; 2, Either possibility.
§ I, Very low; 3, Low; 6, Medium; 9, High.
~ I, High; 3, Medium; 6, Low; 9, Very low.
Table 3. MH equipment characteristics.

Identify ... Task Faet=s
Detennine InpJt Value

for Each, Criterion
kX:ept as an Altel:native
calculate t:b:t vari1m::e of

Each Alternative's Criterion Value
carpare all AlteJ:natives

Selectthe~
with 1.eJiIIeSt Vari.arce
Figure 4. MH equipment selection algorithm.
5.1.3. Algorithms to generate layout configuration

The process of machine assignments starts with sorting the machines in the
descending order of importance of the relationship. However, the user desired
importance of relation has priority over the one determined by the program. The
machine(s) and storage(s) with location restrictions, if any, are assigned first to the floor
plan. The program(s) then select(s)an appropriate model for solving the given problem.
The selection of the model depends on the type of layout and its configuration.
The construction algorithms considered in this study are: CORELAP and ALDEP
(Tompkins and Moore 1978). In the case of a circular layout, CORELAP is used to
locate the machining centres and the robot. The robot, having an A relationship with
all other machines, is placed in the centroid of the floor plan. Its area is based on the
maximum reach of the arm. Then the machines having an A relationship with each of
the ingoing and outgoing conveyors respectively are placed in the layout. The other
machines are placed based on their relationship with these two machines. The
placement method in CORELAP uses the sum of the closeness ratings between the
entering machine and the other machines.
Tn the case of single or multiple-row layout, ALDEP is used by specifying the sweep
width ofthe machines to be located. The placement method in ALDEP uses the upper
left corner of the layout to place the first machine, and extends it downward. Each
additional machine is placed at the end of the previous machine location. Adjustments
for the machine between two rows should be made for construction convenience of the
MHS. Tn the case of process layout, CORELAP is particularly useful, since the layout is
independent of the type of MHS to be used.
Tn the case of group technology layout, different measures have been developed for
constructing the initial machine grouping (Leskowsky et al. 1987). Then, CORELAP is
used to layout the groups of machines and subsequently, the machines within each
group.
5.1.4. External programs

Two other models carry out different calculation tasks. The Input data model
calculates the total machine areas and the corresponding space utilization. The FIT
model determines the number of rows for multi-row layout and the orientation of
machines. Tn addition, the program accepts the input information about parts to be
produced, then outputs a frequency chart, expressed in number of trips between
machines in normal form.
5.2. Knowledge base

The program attempts to derive information from the knowledge base rather than
ask the user. This is called backward chaining. Thus, the procedures built into the
system should act upon the knowledge base and derive conclusions. The procedure that
guides the ES through its knowledge base is depicted in Fig. 5. The knowledge base
consists of production rules for solving the machine layout problem. There are six sets
of rules:
I. Set 1 rules (rule 1-8) for determining the type of layout.
2. Set 2 rules (rule 9-14) for selecting material handling equipment.
3. Set 3 rules (rule 15-17) for determining layout arrangement.
4. Set 4 rules (rule 18-31) for determining the activity relationship chart, REL.
5. Set 5 rules (rule 32-35) for selecting an appropriate algorithm for machine
assignments based on the activity relationship.
6. Set 6 rules (rule 36-39) for checking whether the layout is implementable, based
on space constraints.
Set I rules allow the determination of
(i) the degree of system flexibility and the appropriate manufacturing system
(ii) the type of layout given the varieties of parts and volume of each part.
The program asks the user to indicate the number of families of parts and the
production per part. Then based on level of automation and the equipment utilization,
the program determines a suitable type of layout. Three sample rules are as follows.
Rule 2
TF:
number of parts in the system is > 5
and production rate (pcs/hr) is > 30
THEN:
cellular or GT layout-Probability = 9/10
Figure 5. The flow chart.
Rule 4
IF:
number of parts in the system is > 16
and production rate (pcs/hr) is <2
THEN:
process layout-Probability=7/1O
and linear single-row-Probability = 9/10
and FMC circular single-row-Probability=9/IO
ELSE:
linear multi-row-Probability = 9/10
and process layout-Probability = 9/10
and linear single-row-Probability = 3/10
Rule 6
IF:
level of automation is high
and product flexibility is medium or low
and process flexibility is medium or low
and operation flexibility is medium or low
and volume flexibility is medium
and expansion flexibility is high or medium or low
THEN:
production flexibility is medium
and linear single-row-Probability=9/10
and FMC circular single-row-Probability=9/1O
and linear multi-row-Probability=7/1O

Set 2 rules are capable of selecting an appropriate MH equipment. This selection
process must, first, obtain enough information from the user to allow application of a
sufficient number of rules to develop a specific recommendation. The questioning
sequence includes inquiries relative to factors, such as:
(i) weight/load
(ii) type of speed
(iii) percentage handling
(iv) conventional vs. unmanned task
(v) special attachment to the equipment.
There are many integration possibilities based on different machine flexibility indices,
and routeing flexibility indices. For example, flexible manufacturing system can be
integrated with a conveyor, a robot and/or an AGVS. Thus, the program asks
questions related to criteria analysis, such as:
(i) degree of flexibility with respect to layout changes and routeing
(ii) safety and floor conditions
(iii) space utilization
(iv) operating costs.
Based on this data, the program determines the most appropriate MH equipment.
Three sample rules are as follows.
Rule 8
IF: [NMACH]= <5
and [FL] > 1.2 * [MXRCH]
and [FW] > 1.2 * [MXRCH]
THEN:
FMC circular single-row-Probability=9/10
and robot-Probability=9/1O
ELSE:
FMC linear single-row-Probability=9/1O
Rule 11
IF:
loading/unloading.parts is unmanned? no
and required speed should be uniform
THEN:
tractor trailer-Probability =9/10
and [EW] IS GIVEN THE VALUE 4
and monorail conveyor-Probability = 9/10
and chain conveyor-Probability = 7/10
and roller conveyor-Probability = 9/10

and [CALL PROGRAM] IS GIVEN THE VALUE OF THE OPTIMUM MH
EQUIPMENT [MHE]
Rule 14
IF:
level of automation is high
and expansion flexibility is high
and buffer storage is central
THEN:
unit-load AGV-Probability=9/10
and towline-Probability=9/10
EQUIPMENT [MHE]
Set 3 rules determine the layout configuration based on floor dimensions, such as the
number of rows for the multi-row linear layout. Two sample rules from this set are as
follows.
Rule 15
IF:
[WM] > 0.75. [FW]
and [TAREA] >0.6. [FAREA]
THEN:
stop
Rule 16
IF:
linear single-row > 7/10
and multi-row/AGVS >7/10
and [WM] <0.75. [FW]
THEN:
length of machine is perpendicular to floor width
and [CALL FIT] IS GIVEN THE VALUE [NROWS]
ELSE:
length of machine is parallel to floor width
and [CALL FIT] IS GIVEN THE VALUE [NROWS]
Set 4 rules determine the relationship chart which is based on the following:
I. Expert defined importance of relationship between machines
2. User defined importance of relationship between machines
3. Flow of materials
4. Environmentals and safety considerations.
The experience relating to the activity relationship can be included by so-called 'expert'
rules. The following are some of the rules used in machine layout.
Rule 17
IF:
first machine number. is 4
second machine number is 7
closeness of 2 machines is due: to sequence of work or to
share same equipment or to share same personnel
THEN:
relationship between machines is A-Probability = 9/10
Rule 18
IF:
first machine number is 2
closeness of 2 machines is due: to noise or to vibration or to odours
THEN:
relationship between machines is X-Probability = 9/10
Rule 19
IF:
process is: painting
THEN:
relationship between painting and shipping is E-Probability=9/1O
Rule 20
IF:
process is: joining
THEN:
relationship between joining and assembly is E-Probability=9/1O
Subsequently, the production rules for the other activities can be formulated. User's
desired degree of importance of a relationship has a higher priority over the one
assigned by the program. A sample rule is as follows.
Rule 21
IF:
first machine number is 3
user's importance of relationship between two machines is:
absolutely important
THEN:
relationship between machines is A-Probability = 10/10
The next group of rules specifies the relationship between machines, based on flow of
materials. A sample rule is shown as follows.
Rule 26
IF:
(I) [NTRIPS] >0.9
THEN:
(I) relationship between machines is A-Probability = 10/10
Moreover, it is necessary to evaluate potential hazards built into the layout and
reallocate work centres to minimize total system risks. Two rules pertaining to these
criteria are:
Rule 31
IF:
[NOISE] >90
and [MARUN] >4
and [EXPOSURE] > 2
THEN:
relationship between machines is X-Probability =9/10
ELSE:
relationship between machines is O-Probability = 9/10
Rule 32
IF:
[HAZARD] >40
and [FUMES] > 65
THEN:
relationship between machines is X-Probability=9/1O
ELSE:
relationship between machines is O-Probability = 9/10
Set 5 Rules are used to select a layout algorithm and manipulate the descriptors to fit
the desired configuration. Two simple rules which select the algorithm for a given
problem are shown.
Rule 33
IF:
FMC circular single-row> 7/10
and robot >9/10

THEN:
[RAREAJ IS GIVEN THE VALUE (2*[RJP
and [CALL CORELAP] IS GIVEN THE VALUE [FLAYOUTJ
and [CALL WIPJ IS GIVEN THE VALUE [MWIPJ
and stop
Rule 34
IF:
FMC linear single-row> 7/10
and FMSmulti-row/AGVS >7/10
and FMS multi-row/conveyor >7/10
THEN:
[SWEEPJ IS GIVEN THE VALUE [FW]/[NROWS]
and [CALL ALDEP] IS GIVEN THE VALUE [FLAYOUT]
and [CALL WIP] IS GIVEN THE VALUE [MWIP]
and stop
Set 6 rules first check whether the solutions to the construction algorithms are feasible
based on space constraints. Infeasible solutions with minimum costs are modified by
sending them back to set 5 rules and reducing sweep width. A sample rule is:
Rule 37
IF:
THEN:
SWEEP IS GIVEN THE VALUE [FW]/[NROWS+l]
REPEAT CONDITION R36
The second step in these rule sets runs one of the improvement algorithms. As soon as a
new solution is generated the user can decide either to terminate the search or to
continue with the algorithm. This option is provided so that the user has the layout in
front as decisions are being made.
5.3. Inference engine

The inference engine is the mechanism that guides the program through its
knowledge base, and links the above sets of rules effectively. The link is directed from
Set l.to Set 5 rules. The inference engine, first, applies Set 1 rules to determine the type of
layout. Second, it applies Set 2 rules to determine the MH equipment. Third, it
determines the appropriate layout arrangement by applying Set 3 rules. Then, the
control is directed to Set 4 rules, to match the user's desired degree of importance of the
relationship between machines and the value assigned by the program. If a successful
match is found, the program selects an algorithm, Set 5 rules, to place machines in the
layout. Finally, it evaluates the solution and provide a recommendation to the user.
6. Application of the ES to a case study

A case study illustrating the ES described in the paper has been derived from
information provided by a medium sized manufacturing company. It manufactures

sheets of finished cardboard to specified dimensions and configurations. The end
products range from cardboard boxes of all sizes to specified fold out cardboard stands
for the display of products in retail stores. The company has a daily demand of about
87000 sheets for five different configurations. The manufacturing and processing
facilities in the main factory are currently accommodated within an area of 60% of the
total floor space. All details about existing plant and machinery have been provided
and no upgrading of technology in this regard has been permitted by the company.
The program first generates the required information from the user supplied inputs.
It queries, in the form of qualifiers, the following:
(i) types of machine controls
(ii) types of products and their (volume) quantities
(iii) types of processes
(iv) types of operations
(v) future growth.
The following are the user inputs:
- machine control is manual
- product types are ,;;; 5
- total production quantity is 87000/day (for an 8 h shift, the average production
rate is determined as 11 000 sheets/h).
types of processes: > Punching
Cutting
Sawing
Printing
Taping
Glueing
Stitching
Packaging
types of operations: Batch
sequence of operation: (Refer to Table 4)
potential for future changes is high in: Expansion
Operation
Process
704 G. Abdou and S. P. Dutra
Job Processing Volume/Year

number sequence (1000 sheets)
I 8-4-6-2-1-13 1500
2 5-1-10-13 WOO
3 8-4-5-1-13 2000
4 7-12-13 2500
5 3-1-11-13 400
6 6--13 2000
7 8-2-10-13 700
8 3-9-13 1500
9 7-9-13 6000
10 8-6--11-13 1000
\I 4-6--5-13 1000
Table 4. Product information.
The ES, then, generales the information to the Set I rule. Applying Rule 1, the ES
derives the type or layout. In this case, the products tend to Favour mass production
methods; thus they can be combined in a general layout. So the program decides on
product layout or flexible transfer line For this case problem.
The ES next derives options For the user about the types 01' machines: either single
process or multi-process, based on a predefined machine database. The number of each
type or machine, is calculated based on user preference, Table 5 demonstrates Foreach
machine the production rate, the lot size and the stock size.
Input raw material in terms 01' sheets per hour for machines 2-8 are prepared in the
warehouse. The scrap From machines 2-8 have to be moved to the baler.
The finished products are conveyed from machines 1,5,6,7, 10, II and 12 to the
bander: The MH considerations 01' this project are now incorporated, as discussed in
section 5.1.2. Applying Rule 12, From Set 2 rules as Follows:
IF:
loading/unloading parts in unmanned? no
and can a mechanism be attached? yes
and weight/load is medium or low
THEN:
Fork lift tractors-Probability = 9/10
and monorail conveyor-Probability = 7/10
and roller conveyor-Probability = 8/10
EQUIPMENT [MHE]
The ES derives three options For MH equipment: fork lift tractors, monorail conveyor
and roller conveyor. The roller conveyor can be implemented between machines 5, 6
and 7 and machines 9, 10, 11 and 12. The Forklift truck can be used to move parts
between the remainingmachines, The program then returns to its knowledge base to
evaluate the type 01' layout based on the MHS. Thus the layout is a product layout.
FacUities layout using expert systems 705
M/C Area M/C rate Lot

number (ft x ft) (min/part) size Stock size
Horton
stripper 5x6 1250 2500
Large
thompson 2 lOx 13 500 1500 20" x 30"
Small
thompson 3 lOx 12 500 1500 20"x 30"
Baler 3A 45 x 15
Band saw 4 lIxlO 5000 5000 15" x 30"
Rotary
die cutter 5 17x 34 6000 10000 25" x 40"
Flexo press 6 28 x 58 5000 5000 20" x4Q"
Ward 7 20x42 5000 5000 30"x 40"
Slitter 8 13x21 1500 1500 50"x 50"
ZB 9 14 x44 1700 2500 35"x 50"

Stitcher 10 11 x 20 700 2000 30" x 50"
Gluer II lOx 20 700 2000 30"x 50"
Taper 12 14x 20 700 2000 30"x 50"
Bander 13 12x 12 15000 1000 42"x 42" x 48"
Storage Location description Area Assigned to M/C
S#I West plate storage 4x 35 2,3,4

S#2 Rotary die storage lOx 11 5,6,7
S#3 Rotary die storage lOx 11 5,6,7
S#4 Rotary die storage 10x II 5,6,7
S#5 East plate storage 4x43 5,6
Table 5. The input data base for available machines.
Applying Rule 17, from Set 3 rules, the ES determines the number of rows and the
machine orientation in the layout. The longitudinal edges of the machines are
perpendicular to floor width and the number of rows can be either 2 or 3.
The next step is to generate the REL chart using Set 4 rules. Applying Rule 19,
machines II and 12 have an E relationship with machine 13, and machine 13 has an A
relationship with warehouse. By running the FIT model, as described in section 5.1.4,
the ES outputs a frequency chart, expressed in terms of the number of trips between
machines in normal form. Then a relationship is assigned between machines. These
relationships are then matched with the ones derived from the expert rules and the user
defined relationship. In addition, the ES evaluates potential hazards and assigns new
relationships between machines by applying Rules 31 and 32 respectively. Figure 6
shows the solution to the given problem as derived from the ES.
Applying Rule 34, from Set 5 rules the sweep width is determined and ALDEP is
selected as the construction algorithm for the relative allocation of machines. Using the
appropriate rule from Set 6 rules, the initial solutions were checked as to whether they
were implementable.1t was found that among these solutions, only a few were rejected.
Thus, there was no need to modify the unacceptable solutions. CRAFT was then used
to interchange machines location to reduce the handling cost and improve upon the
original construction algorithm. The final layout as shown in Fig. 7 is derivedfrom the
program output and illustrates the configuration adopted by the user.
The only restraint imposed by the user (in this case the manufacturer) is that
machine number 6 should have an A relationship with maintenance and its LH comer
The relationship matrix

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 \I 12
I
2 A
3 0 E
4 U 1 1
5 0 E E A
6 U U U 1 U
7 U E 1 0 0 U
8 U U U 1 0 A 0
9 1 E E U 0 0 E 0
10 U U U A E 1 0 E 0
\I U 0 0 E 1 A 0 E 0 A
12 U U U 1 1 A 0 0 0 U E
13 A E E A U 1 0 E 0 0 0 0
Values based on 0-10 system

Value Prevo
l. product 9 9
2. linear multi-row 9 9
3. fork lift tractors 9 9
4. roller conveyor 8 8
5. monorail conveyor 7 7
6. run (basic evl) =
7. number of machines = 15 13
8. the number of rows 3 2
9. optimum layout = FIGURE
All choices (A), only if value >0 (G), Print (P), Change and rerun (C), rules used (line
number), Quit/save (Q), Help (H), Done (D):
Figure 6. EXSYS solution to the given problem.
~
SIS
I
9
II 9
I
B
r DB u
D 8 D~D~
6
G
B
MAINTENANCE I
r
Figure 7. The layout derived from the algorithm.
MAINTENANCE I
Figure 8. The new layout after the addition of two machines.

should be positioned 47' from the buildings north wall and 20' from its west wall.
Following this step, the user had the option to change machine area and/or machine
locations, or to add new machines. Considering the alternative of adding two new
machines of types 2 and 9, the ES was run again and a new layout, as shown in Fig. 8,
was generated; it indicates the changes in machine location with the addition of two
new machines after the improvement algorithm was used.
7. Conclusion
The expert system proposed in the paper integrates the combined effects of
manufacturing systems selection and materials handling systems selection in defining
suitable layout of machining facilities. It also derives the relationship chart through an
ordered system of queries, rather than assuming that the chart is a given input to the
program. The advantages of standard layout generation packages, such as ALDEP
and CORELAP have been built into the system to derive a suitable layout which is then
examined for feasibility based on space constraints. This procedure is therefore an
improvement over previous models of expert systems for layout of machining facilities.
Further modifications are in progress to enhance the capabilities of the system.
More algorithms for derivation of layouts are being added to the tandem mode. The
number of rules is also being expanded to consider the effects of environmental and
ergonomic factors in greater detail.
Acknowledgment
This project has been partially supported by funding from grants provided by the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada under Grant No.
A4141 and Grant N. OG POO3636I. Their financial support is gratefully acknowledged.
References
ABOOU, G. H., and TAMASHUNAS, V., 1985, Simulation of WIP as a tool in facilities design.
Proceedings of the Conference on Production Systems (Paris: INRIA), p.212.
ApPLE, J. M., 1972, Material Handling Systems Design (New York: The Ronald Press Company).
BAUMGARTEN, H., 1983, Automated Guided Vehicles (Kempston, Bedfordshire: 1FS Ltd).
BROWNE, J., DUBOIS, D., RATIlMILL, K., SETIlI, S. P., and STECKE, K. E., 1984, Classification of
flexible manufacturing systems. The FMS Magazine, April, p. 114.
CHAKRAVARTY, A. K., 1987,Dimensions of manufacturing automation. International Journal oj
Production Research, 25, 1339.
708 Facilities layout using expert systems
D'SoUZA, G., and MOHANTY, 8. B., 1986, An interactive multi-level, multi-criteria dynamic
approach to facility layout analysis. Proceedings, Fall Industrial Engineering Conference
(Boston, MA: Institute of Industrial Engineering), p. 152.
EVANS, G. W., WILHELM, M. R., and KARWOWSKI, W., 1987, A layout design heuristic employing
the theory of fuzzy sets. International Journal of Production Research, 25, 1431.
FISHER, E. L., and NOF, S. Y., 1984, FADES: knowledge-based facility design. Proceedings,
International Industrial Engineering Conference (Chicago, IL: Institute of Industrial
Engineers), p.74.
FONTENBERRV, J. C, and Cox, J. F., 1985, Multiple criteria approach to the facilities layout
problem. Internalional J ourna! of Production Research, 23, 773.
FOULDS, L. R., 1983, Techniques for facilities layout: deciding which pairs of activities should be
adjacent. Management Science, 29, [414.
GABBERT, P., and BROWN, D. E., 1987, A knowledge-based approach to materials handling
system design in manufacturing facilities. Proceedings, World Productivity Forum and
lnternational Industrtal Engineering Conference (Washington, DC: Institute of Industrial
Engineers), p.445.
KIRAN, A. S., and SMITH, M. L., 1983, Simulation studies in job shop scheduling: a survey.
Proceedings ofthe Conference on Simulation in Inventory and Production Control (La Jolla,
CA: Society for Computer Simulation), pp.46-51.
KULWIEC, R. A., 1985, Materials Handling Handbook (New York: John Wiley).
KUMARA, S. R. T., KASHYAP, R. L., and MooDIE, C. L., 1988, Application of expert systems and
pattern recognition methodology to facilities layout planning. International Journal of
Production Research, 26, 905.
KUMARA, S. R. T., KASHYAP, R. L., and MOODIE, C. L., [987, Expert system forindustrial facilities
layout planning and analysis. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 12, 143.
KUSIAK, A., 1985, Flexible manufacturing systems: a structural approach. International Journal
of Production Research, 23, 1057.
KUSIAK, A., and HERAGU, S., 1988, Knowledge based system for machine layout. Proceedings,
International Industrial Engineering Conference (Orlando, FL: Institute of Industrial
Engineers), p. 159.
LARSON, L. K., [983, Investigation of inventory and production control policies using simulation.
Proceedings ofthe Conference on Simulation in Inventory and Production Control (La Jolla,
CA: Society for Computer Simulation), p.37.
LESKOWSKY, Z., LOGAN, L., and VANNELLI, A., 1987, Group technology decision aids in an expert
system for plant layout. Modern Production Management Systems, edited by A. Kusiak
(Amsterdam: North-Holland), p.561.
LEVARY, R. R., and KALCHIK, S., 1985, Facilities layout-a survey of solution procedures.
Computer and Industrial Engineering, 9, 141.
MONTREUIL, 8., RATLIFF, H. D., and GOETSCHALCKX, M., 1987, Matching based interactive
facility layout. 11E Transactions, 19, 271.
PRIr:ST, J. W., 1985, Ergonomic changes in the workplace can improve the productivity of
production operations. Industrial Engineering, 17, July, 40.
TOMPKINS, 1. A., 1976, Safety and facilities design. Industrial Engineering, January, 38.
TOMPKINS, 1. A., and WHITE, J., 1984, Facilities Planning (New York: John Wiley).
TOMPKINS, 1. A., and MOORE, J. M., 1978, Computer Aided Layout-A User's Guide (Atlanta, GA:
American Institute of Industrial Engineers).
VEILLEUX, R. F., and PETRO, L. W., 1988, Tool and Manufacturing Engineering Handbook, Vol. 5
(Dearborn, MI: Society of Manufacturing Engineers).
WOLFGRAM, D. D., DEAR, 1. J., and GALBRAITH, C. S., 1987, Expert Systems for the Technical
Professional (New York: John Wiley).

Abdou1990 Pagado USADO

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abdou1990 Pagado USADO

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 01 February 2015, At: 09:38

International Journal of Production Research

An integrated approach to facilities layout using expert

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207549008942749

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

An integrated approach to facilities layout using expert systems

Revision received July 1989.

An important consideration in the decision making process for optimal

attached to a particular closeness rating amongst various decision makers. Foulds

(iv) to determine the closeness of the REL chart

4. Framework of the layout planning process using ES

FMC or Process lnyout

NUMber of pnrts In the systeM

Figure 1. Relationships between different classes of layout.

IlilICllin! Flexibility ~ Process Flexibility ----\-----,

""l UllEl Flexibility }

Figure 2. Relationship amongst types of flexibility.

'conventional' layouts, i.e.those incorporating comparatively low levels of automation,

Product Process Operation Volume Expansion Production

Table I. Degree of f1exibilities.

4.2. Relationship (REL) charts

4.3. Outline of the EXSYS program

(b) the premise 'IF' of the rule

4.4. Data required

Figure 3. System components.

5.1.1. Qualifiers and variables

5.1.2. Algorithm to select material handling (M H) equipment

Factors F1exibility§ Criteria

Weight/ Speed % Mechanism Space Operating

to, Low; I, Medium; 2, High.

Table 3. MH equipment characteristics.

Identify ... Task Faet=s

Detennine InpJt Value

calculate t:b:t vari1m::e of

carpare all AlteJ:natives

Figure 4. MH equipment selection algorithm.

5.1.3. Algorithms to generate layout configuration

5.1.4. External programs

5.2. Knowledge base

Figure 5. The flow chart.

and linear multi-row-Probability=7/1O

and [EW] IS GIVEN THE VALUE 3

and robot >9/10

5.3. Inference engine

6. Application of the ES to a case study

information provided by a medium sized manufacturing company. It manufactures

Job Processing Volume/Year

Table 4. Product information.

M/C Area M/C rate Lot

ZB 9 14 x44 1700 2500 35"x 50"

S#I West plate storage 4x 35 2,3,4

Table 5. The input data base for available machines.

The relationship matrix

Values based on 0-10 system

Figure 6. EXSYS solution to the given problem.

Figure 8. The new layout after the addition of two machines.

You might also like