Expert Systems with Applications 26 (2004) 615–623

www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

A knowledge-based system for conveyor equipment selection

Daniel J. Fonseca*, Gopal Uppal, Timothy J. Greene
Department of Industrial Engineering. The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa 35487, USA

Abstract
Conveyor equipment selection is a complex, and sometimes, tedious task since there are literally hundreds of equipment types
and manufacturers to choose from. The expert system approach to conveyor selection provides advantages of unbiased decision
making, greater availability, faster response, and reduced cost as compared to human experts. This paper discusses the development
of a prototype expert system for industrial conveyor selection. The system, which was developed on Level V Object, provides the user
with a list of conveyor solutions for their material handling needs along with a list of suppliers for the suggested conveyor devices.
Conveyor types are selected on the basis of a suitability score, which is a measure of the fulfillment of the material handling requirements
by the characteristics of the conveyor. The computation of the score is performed through the Weighted Evaluation Method, and the
Expected Value Criterion for decision making under risk. The prototype system was successfully validated through two industrial
case studies.
q 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Weighted evaluation method; Decision making; Expected value criterion; Conveyor selection

1. Introduction portable conveyors can be used for temporary as well as

1.1. Industrial conveyors
Conveyors are defined as fixed and portable devices used
for transporting materials between two fixed points, through
intermittent or continuous movement. They are usually
employed where the workflow is relatively constant.
Industrial conveyors can be classified into several
categories, such as bulk material and unit handling
conveyors, accumulating and non-accumulating conveyors,
and fixed and portable conveyors. Bulk conveyors are those
employed to handle coal, ashes, cement grains, flour sand,
and almost any material that is not packaged, crated, or
otherwise handled in unit loads. The unit conveyors are
those designed to handle small pieces in containers
weighing from few ounces to large units such as
filled pallets, crates, or assemblies weighing tons. Non-
accumulating conveyors stop moving whenever loading or
unloading occurs, while accumulating conveyors work
continuously, and thus, contribute to the accumulation of
materials at the workstation. Fixed conveyors are inflexible,
as they cannot accommodate alterations in location, shape,
capacity, or type of material handled. On the other hand,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 205-348-3337; fax: þ 205-348-7162.
E-mail address: dfonseca@coe.eng.ua.edu (D.J. Fonseca).
0957-4174/$ - see front matter q 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2003.12.011
permanent arrangements (Apple, 1991).
1.2. Traditional approaches for material handling
equipment selection
The traditional approach for material handling selection
has been to entrust this task to process engineers. These
process engineers often lack the needed expertise in
equipment selection; and, there are few available tools
for their assistance.
A number of quantitative techniques and computational
algorithms such as CRAFT, CORELAP, ALDEP, PLANT
and COFAD have been developed as useful aids for facility
layout design. However, for equipment selection, most
engineers are left with few tangible options: (1) rely on
textbooks, handbooks, and their own experience, (2) rely on
the advice of equipment vendors, (3) employ the use of
analytical models, or (4) consult a material-handling expert
(Apple, 1991).
The services of consultants are expensive and may not be
affordable for most companies. The advice given by vendors
is free, however, they have an inherent interest in selling
their products, and hence, their advice cannot be always
trusted. Finally, analytical models are very rarely used for
equipment selection due to criteria over simplification.
616 D.J. Fonseca et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 26 (2004) 615–623
Therefore, engineers end up usually selecting pieces of
equipment that they are most familiar with, and thus, these
may not represent the most cost-effective solution.
2. Survey of related research
Heuristic-based systems are becoming increasingly
popular in material handling equipment selection. Their
importance stems from the fact that they consider both
qualitative and quantitative factors while selecting and
evaluating pieces of equipment.
Intelligent computer systems have been developed as
expert systems (ES) and decision support systems (DSS).
Expert systems have been widely applied to material
handling equipment selection problems. They function by
inquiring the user for desired attribute values, which are
used to select the most cost effective equipment type from a
pre-established set of alternatives. The knowledge base
usually consists of rules drawn from textbooks, equipment
literature, or from consultation with experts. An expert
system can also be programmed to select among available
commercial material handling models. Some of the most
successful applications of expert systems to the selection of
material handling devices are discussed below.
2.1. SEMH-Selection of equipment for material handling
SEMH was developed in 1984 by Hatem Nasr. It starts the
equipment selection process by identifying the character-
istics of the material to be handled, i.e. type, weight, size, etc.
Based on these characteristics, the system searches its
knowledge base to recommend on the degree of mechaniza-
tion, and the type of material handling equipment to be
employed. SEMH is implemented as a rule- based system.
The knowledge base consists of 39 rules divided between two
knowledge bases: the level of mechanization and the
equipment-selection knowledge bases. The system draws
its knowledge mainly from textbooks, handbooks, and
similar sources. SEMH is also capable of learning new
facts inferred from previous consultations (Nasr, 1984).
2.2. A prototype expert system for industrial
truck type selection
This expert system, developed by Malmborg, Agee,
Simons, and Chowdhury, considers 17 equipment attributes
and 47 devices for industrial truck selection. Developed in
PROLOG, it uses a combination of forward and backward
chaining for inferencing. In the forward reasoning stage, the
system attempts to deduce a truck type recommendation
based on known relationships, and specified requirements.
In the backward reasoning stage, the system tries to
establish which truck type is most suitable for the task at
hand by inquiring the user on equipment attributes.
The system is designed to recommend a truck type
alternative that meets the user specified requirements,
while optimizing the given evaluation criteria (e.g. mini-
mum cost, minimum downtime, etc.). Moreover, the
program attempts truck selection through few inquiries
from the user. This is accomplished through pattern-directed
inference (Malmborg et al., 1987).
2.3. MATHES—material handling equipment selection
expert system
It was developed by Fisher and Farber, 1988. It
addresses the problem of selecting a material-handling
device from a total of 16 possible choices. It is a rule-
based system that uses 172 rules to arrive at the final
decision. MATHES uses four main parameters: path,
volume of flow, sizes of unit, and distance between
departments. Moreover, minor parameters such as palleti-
zing, accumulation, and fragility are also considered for
some scenarios. The system generates multiple solutions
with different certainty factors. Its evaluation capability is
limited to a small number of attributes. It also suffers from
the drawback of not considering common types of
conveyors, and trucks for interdepartmental moves (Fisher
& Farber, 1988).
2.4. Mathes II
MATHES II was developed in 1990 by Honng. It follows
the same procedure as MATHES, but it possesses a larger
working scope and greater consultation functions. Its main
goal is to select suitable material handling equipment
alternatives for material handling activities. MATHES II is
capable of performing economic analysis for particular
groups of material handling equipment. It can also provide
specific information on equipment suppliers (Honng, 1990).
2.5. EXCITE—expert consultant for in-plant
transportation equipment
It was developed by Swaminathan S.R et al. in 1990 as a
part of his MS thesis at the University of Alabama. It
addresses 35 equipment types, and 28 material, move, and
method attributes. The knowledge base is written in OPS83,
and the system uses 340 rules for decision making. EXCITE
operates by asking the user for relevant material, move, and
method attributes. The inference engine uses forward
chaining to arrive to a decision. The program lists the
most viable equipment types, and preference factors based
on flexibility, maintainability, and cost attractiveness
criteria. It focuses on selection of devices for individual
moves only, and the interface requirements are explicitly
considered to ensure that the recommended device is
appropriate for the given requirement. A certainty factor
module called Mathand allows the user to specify measures
of belief for attributes, and incorporate certainty factors in
 D.J. Fonseca et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 26 (2004) 615–623 617

the rules. It also offers limited explanation facilities, which material handling operations take place. An object oriented
permits the user to follow the reasoning process. EXCITE paradigm is used for knowledge representation in
does not consider pieces of equipments that are used for MAHSES, which supports modularity, multiple reasoning,
storage activities, such as automated storage and retrieval inheritance, message sending communication, and hierarch-
systems. Commercial models of equipment are frequently ical structures. MAHSES carries out its inferencing on the
not considered by its knowledge base (Swaminathan et al., basis of user supplied attribute values and the heuristic rules
1999). stored in the knowledge base. MAHSES is currently limited
to the selection of micro load AS/RS design. However, it is
2.6. EMHES—expert system for material handling feasible to expand MAHSES capabilities to other material
equipment selection handling and storage alternative designs (Kim & Eom,
1997).
EMHES was developed in 1992 by Attia et al. EMHES is
a prototype expert system which incorporates knowledge
based systems technology and database management 3. Expert system development
techniques to assist in the selection of cost effective material
handling equipment alternatives. EMHES is divided into 3.1. Development of the knowledge base
two main components: the knowledge base and the
reasoning system. The knowledge base consists of a A considerable amount of information and data was
database which includes a working memory and a large collected on the different types of conveyors mentioned
set of decision rules on material handling equipment listed in Tables 1 and 2 through textbooks, handbooks,
selection. The database includes a material handling journal articles, interviews with material handling experts,
equipment catalog, and a vendor’s equipment availability and promotional literature supplied by the vendors. Vendor
report. The knowledge representation is in the form of IF- supplied literature was used as the primary source because it
THEN statements. The reasoning system is based on five led to the construction of a system most in tune with the
independent modules, i.e. the user interface module, the industrial world. The accuracy of that information was
selection module, the optimization module, the modification validated with the use of journal articles and material
module, and the simulation module (Attia, 1992).
Table 1
2.7. ICMESE—intelligent consultant system for material Unit handling conveyors
handling equipment selection Chain conveyors
Flat top chain Chain-on-edge
ICMESE was developed by Park, 1996. This system Slat chain Drag chain
overcomes the limitations of its predecessors, i.e. consider- Roller conveyors
ation of a limited number of equipment types and attributes, Chain driven Line shaft
lack of consideration for storage and warehousing equip- Belt driven
ment, and exclusion of commercial models. It addresses 50 Belt conveyors
equipment types, and reaches a final conclusion on the basis Roller bed belt Slider bed belt
of 29 attributes which are grouped under (1) move Trash belt
attributes, (2) material characteristics, (3) operation require- Tow conveyors
ments, and (4) area constraints. First, ICMESE collects Overhead Underfloor
information on the attributes by inquiring from the user. It Flush
then matches its rules to the specific attribute values to Gravity conveyors
select an equipment type. ICMESE retrieves all the Skatewheel Chute
commercial models for the selected equipment type, and Gravity roller
lists them on the screen. Finally, the program evaluates the Monorail systems
performance of the selected equipment model by simulating Overhead power and free Overhead monorail
its operations using SLAMI, and Fortran 77 (Park, 1996). Inverted power and free Automated electrified monorail system
Vertical conveyors
2.8. MAHSES—material handling selection expert system Reciprocating Opposed shelf
Continuous Arm
MAHSES was developed by Kim & Eom, 1997. It is Sortation conveyors
a hierarchical object oriented expert system composed of Right angle pusher Line shaft diverter
two main modules. Module 1 addresses the selection of Panograph sorter Roller diverter
material handling alternatives as well as storage systems for Motor driven sorter Sliding shoe sorter
Pneumatic puller Tilt tray sorter
electronic assembly. Module 2 addresses the selection of the
Powered wheel diverter Belt carriage sorter
design, assembly flow, and departmental layout, where
618 D.J. Fonseca et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 26 (2004) 615–623

Table 2 Table 4
Bulk handling conveyors Bulk conveyor attributes

Belt conveyors 1. Loading: it refers to the feeding of the bulk materials on to the conveyor
Rubber belt grade 1 Mobile stripper Loading can be either controlled or uncontrolled
Rubber belt grade 2 Stationary stripper 2. Discharge: it refers to the material transfer that can take place at the head
Rubber belt grade 3 end, head or foot end, at one place in between (single intermediate), at many
places with equal intervals in between (multiple intermediate), and at
Pneumatic conveyors
various places with unequal intervals between the head and foot end
Pressure dense phase system Portable vacuum pressure system (variable intermediate)
Fan type system Dilute phase system 3. Angle of inclination: it is the slope at which the bulk material needs to be
Hooper loader system Vacuum dense phase system transported
Screw conveyors 4. Complexity: it refers to the conveyor profile that can be straight-line or
Troughed and shafted Tubular and shafted compound. Straight-line conveyors have a constant angle of incline, and no
Troughed and shaftless Tubular and shaftless discontinuity in between, while a compound conveyor is made of two or
more separate conveyors joined at their ends
Bucket conveyors 5. Horizontal carry: it refers to the maximum horizontal distance that a
Gravity discharge Pivoted bucket conveyor can move the material
Chain conveyors 6. Vertical lift: it refers to the maximum vertical distance that can be
Deep pan apron Flight traversed by the conveyor device
Hinged pan apron Sliding chain 7. Material size: it refers to the size of the transported bulk materials
Shallow pan apron Slat 8. Angle of repose: it is the angle made by the uppermost layer of the bulk
Enmasse material with the horizontal
Bucket elevators 9. Temperature: it refers to the hotness of the transported material
10. Corrosiveness: it refers to the eroding ability of the transported material
Belt type centrifugal discharge Super capacity bucket style F
Chain type centrifugal discharge Super capacity bucket style G 11. Friability: it refers to the brittleness of the materials
Chain type continuous discharge Super capacity bucket style H/HL
Belt type continuous discharge Positive discharge 3.2. Computation of material handling device scores
Internal discharge
Vibrating conveyors
The score of the various conveyor types is a measure
of the fulfillment of the material handling requirements by
handling books. The knowledge base development was the characteristics of the conveyor. The computation of the
accomplished through the following three steps: score utilizes the concepts of the Weighted Evaluation
Method and the Expected Value Criterion for decision
† Identification of a list of conveyor types, one or many of making under risk. The conveyor type’s score is computed
which the system can recommend to the user for his/her in the following fashion:
material handling needs
† Identification of conveyor attributes (Tables 3 and 4) to If Attribute 1 has Value 1 OR Value 2
be matched with the material handling requirements Then Score ¼ Score þ 100 p (wt. of Attribute 1/Swt. of
given by the user all attributes) p Prob. 1
† Development of the heuristic rules for conveyor selection. Else Score ¼ Score þ 100 p (wt. of Attribute 1/Swt.
of all attributes) p Prob. 2
Table 3 ..
Unit conveyor attributes .
1. Plane of movement: it refers to the movements of the conveyors to the
horizontal, inclined or vertical plane If Attribute N has Value N
2. Power source: it refers to the gravity or electric power that makes the Then Score ¼ Score þ 100 p (wt. of Attribute N/Swt. of
convey or move the materials all attributes) p Prob. X
3. Speed: it refers to the required speed of the movements of the materials
Else Score ¼ Score þ 100 p (wt. of Attribute N/Swt. of
4. Temperature: it refers to the hotness of the transported materials
5. Loading capacity: it refers to the weight carrying capacity for a conveyor all attributes) p Prob. Y
type Score of the Conveyor 1 ¼ Score
6. Horizontal carry: it refers to the horizontal distance that needs to be End
covered by the conveyor
7. Product shape: it refers to the shape of the transported material that can
The programming logic compares each user supplied
be of regular or irregular type
8. Accumulation: it is the ability of the conveyor type to pile up transported attribute value against the conveyor characteristics. On
materials along the path finding a match, the score of the conveyor type gets
9. Flexibility: it is defined as the ability of the conveyor to adapt to changes. incremented by a quantity equal to the weight given to the
High flexibility conveyors can be moved form one place to the other, while corresponding attribute over the sum of the weights for all
low flexibility conveyors can be moved only after incurring very high
the other attributes, multiplied by the probability that the
expenditure
attribute in question is in conformance with the conveyor
 D.J. Fonseca et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 26 (2004) 615–623
characteristics. This probability value is computed as
follows:
Probability ¼ conf þ ð1 2 confÞ p ½ðx 2 1Þ=ða 2 1Þ ð1Þ
where conf refers to the confidence that the user has on the
supplied information. Since other attribute values could
also give a positive match, the component ð1 2 confÞ p
½ðx 2 1Þ=ða 2 1Þ is added to attain the final probability
value, where x refers to the number of favorable events, and
a is the total number of different values of the attribute.
When the user supplied attribute does not concur with the
conveyor characteristics, the Else statement of the rule also
increments the score, but by a smaller quantity. To illustrate,
let us suppose that the user has stated with a 90% confidence
that the attribute value is Value 1, while Value 2 is the one
that matches the conveyor characteristic. Therefore, there is
still a 10% chance that the user was incorrect, and therefore,
the score should be incremented accordingly. The prob-
ability of such an event is computed as:
Probability ¼ ð1 2 confÞ p ½x=ða 2 1Þ
where conf is the confidence the user has on the provided
information, x is the number of favorable values, and a is
the total number of different values of the attribute.
A conveyor can attain a maximum score of 100 if it
satisfies all the material handling requirements of the user
who has supplied all attribute values with complete
certainty (confidence value ¼ 100).
3.3. Development of the inference procedures
The prototype expert system can identify suitable
conveyor solutions from a knowledge base of 76 conveyor
types that have been demarcated into three categories of
unit, bulk, and sortation conveyors.
For unit and bulk handling conveyors, the system
identifies suitable conveyor groups as an intermediate
conclusion, and then lists numerous conveyor subtypes in
the final conclusion screen. However, suitable sortation
conveyors are presented in a single stage itself.
The inference procedures identify the suitable conveyor
groups through a scheme involving the use of Pursue
commands and When-Needed methods. The user is asked
to express his material handling requirements in terms of
attribute values. The user also provides weights for the
various attributes as well as confidence values for the
information supplied. After the user has supplied the required
information, the system prompts the user to click on the
‘Continue’ pushbutton to begin the device assessment. This
pushbutton is attached to a When-Changed method which
then fires a series of Pursue commands. Each Pursue
command is followed by an attribute representing a particular
conveyor group. The value of this attribute indicates the
desirability or undesirability of the conveyor type for the task
at hand. Hence, when the Pursue commands are fired,
the inference engine searches the knowledge base to
619
determine the suitability of the conveyor group. The
knowledge base is searched using a search order defined by
the developer. Conveyor type suitability or unsuitability is
determined through the rules embedded in the When-Needed
method associated with that particular conveyor group.
After displaying a list of suitable conveyor groups, the
expert system inquires the user on the selected conveyor
groups. The responses to these queries, along with the
attribute values, are used to identify suitable conveyor
solutions with corresponding conveyor scores.
The identification of suitable conveyor subtypes is
performed using the same scheme of Pursue and When-
Needed methods. The conveyor score is calculated
through a combination of the Weighted Evaluation Tech-
nique and the Expected Value Criterion for decision making
under risk. The conveyor score is a reflection of the
compatibility of the conveyor to the material handling
requirements. Only conveyor solutions with a score of 80 or
above are displayed to the user.
4. Use of the system
4.1. System’s input
As it has been mentioned before, one of the main
objectives established in the system design phase of this
study was to burden the user with the minimum number of
queries on material handling features as possible. This was
accomplished using a forward chaining inferencing mech-
anism, which moves in a step by step manner to identify the
appropriate conveyor category, conveyor groups, and then,
the most suitable conveyor type.
The first input screen presented to the user is the Conveyor
Category Selection screen which asks the user to select one of
three conveyor categories (Fig. 1). The expert system then
presents the user with a list of attributes needed to determine
suitable conveyor solutions (Fig. 2). The user is asked to
input the weights or importance values for these attributes.
The expert system compares material handling require-
ments supplied by the user against the conveyor character-
istics for the purpose of selecting the best conveyor system.
The user is asked to input the material handling requirements
in two stages for unit and bulk handling conveyors. However,
identification of sortation conveyors is accomplished in a
single stage only. In Stage 1 (Fig. 3), the handling
requirements are expressed as attributes. The user is asked
to select for each attribute one of the many ranges of attribute
values that best describes the work at hand. This information
is then used to identify suitable conveyor groups. In Stage 2
(Fig. 4), specific questions pertaining to individual conveyor
groups are asked to find out the most suitable conveyor
subtypes. In both Stages 1 and 2, the user is also asked to
provide confidence values for the information submitted.
The system takes the confidence values into consideration
while computing the conveyor’s suitability score.
620 D.J. Fonseca et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 26 (2004) 615–623

Fig. 1. Conveyor category selection screen.

The input screens are user friendly, wherein the definitions
of technical terms are provided to the user. All suitable
conveyor solutions and attributes appear as hyperlinks in blue
color, and their definitions can be accessed by clicking on
them. Moreover, all screens are equipped with help menus.
4.2. System’s processing
The expert system requires the weighted importance
of attributes, confidence values, and material handling
requirements from the user. It then matches the handling
requirements against the characteristics of conveyor groups
to identify suitable conveyor groups for the task. The user is
presented with a list of candidate conveyor groups as well as
a series of queries on handling requirements. The system
uses the query responses along with the attribute values to
calculate a score for all the suitable conveyor subtypes, and
then, sorts out those conveyor subtypes that attained a score
of 80 or above. The list of conveyor subtypes that represent
the best match to the handling requirements of the user is
finally displayed to the user.
4.3. System’s output
The main goal of the system’s output interface is to
provide all the necessary information in a clear and easy to

Fig. 2. Attribute importance specification screen.

 D.J. Fonseca et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 26 (2004) 615–623 621

Fig. 3. Material handling requirements screen stage 1.

understand manner. The output to the user includes the
preliminary and the final conclusion. The Intermediate
Conclusion screen lists the conveyor groups suitable for the
task at hand, while the final Conclusion screen lists the
various conveyor types along with their suitability indexes.
Both screens display the names of the conveyor groups and
conveyor types as hyperlinks. Upon clicking on them, the
user can access relevant information on the devices including
a list of manufacturers and suppliers for each conveyor type.
The first set of outputs to the user is the Intermediate
Conclusion screen which lists the suitability/unsuitability
of each conveyor group (Fig. 5). The Intermediate
Conclusion screen is not presented for sortation conveyors
as they are identified in a single stage itself. After specific
data particular to the conveyor groups are entered by the
user, the final Conclusion Screen reporting the most suitable
conveyor subtypes and their corresponding suitability
scores is displayed (Fig. 6).
5. Validation of the system
The validation of the prototype expert system was
accomplished by the use of two ‘real life’ case studies.

Fig. 4. Material handling requirements screen stage 2.

622 D.J. Fonseca et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 26 (2004) 615–623

Fig. 5. Intermediate conclusion screen.

The case studies together tested the system’s unit and bulk
handling conveyor expertise. The case studies were
evaluated by the expert system, and the results along with
the reasoning process were compared against those obtained
from selected human experts. Encouraging results were
obtained from both case studies.
5.1. Case study 1: overhead monorail conveyor
at Lambert Inc., Ansonia, Ohio
Lambert Corporation is a manufacturer of lawn and garden
products, such as lawnsweepers, dethatchers, plug aerators,
seed cultivators, and ramps. Welding, stamping, spray
painting, assembling, and packaging are the main operations
involved in making these lawn and garden products.
The component parts need to be spray painted before being
assembled into lawn products in the Assembly department.
Spray painting involves surface preparation through the
washing of the component parts with a special washer
solution. The components are then dried with the use of a
heater and a blower that blows hot air over them. The washed
and dried parts can then be spray painted. Once spray painted,
the parts need to go back to the heater to dry the paint. The
company required a conveyor to transport the parts through
the washer (an enclosure that sprays the washer solution on
parts), two heaters, and the paint booth. Also, the required

Fig. 6. Conclusion screen.

 D.J. Fonseca et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 26 (2004) 615–623
handling system had to transport materials in an overhead
plane with speeds of 200 ft/min, over a distance of 3000 ft.
The engineers at Lambert compared their material handling
requirements against the characteristics of a set of available
conveyor types to arrive at the conclusion of installing an
overhead monorail conveyor. The installed overhead mono-
rail conveyor is inexpensive, simple in construction, and
satisfies all the given handling requirements.
The prototype expert system also suggested an overhead
monorail conveyor with the highest suitability index possible,
which is a measure of its appropriateness for the task at hand.
The expert system also listed automated electrified monorail
systems and overhead power and free conveyors as effective
conveyor solutions. However, these two solutions are much
more expensive and complicated in structure and operation
than the overhead monorail conveyors.
5.2. Case study 2: troughed belt conveyor at Vardhmann
Acrylics, Bharuch, India
Vardhmann Acrylics Ltd is an acrylic fiber manufacturing
company, producing acrylic fiber from acrylonitrile as a basic
feed stock. Vardhmann Acrylics has set up a 5.5 MW
cogeneration power plant to utilize excess steam generated
by a high pressure boiler to produce power. The integral part of
the plant is a high pressure boiler which generates 42 tons of
steam per hour (1 ton ¼ 2240 lbs) at a pressure of 45 Kgf/cm2.
The coal supplied to the company first needs to be reduced in
sizes down to 0.5–3.0 mm, so that it can be used in the
atmospheric fluidized bed combustion boiler. Coal is trans-
ported by trucks to the site, and dumped into a hopper. The coal
handling conveyor needs to transport the coal from the hopper
to the crusher, from the crusher to the vibratory screen,
and finally from the vibratory screen to the combustion
chamber.
The conveying system should be able to handle mildly
abrasive coal with a size of 2 in. and an angle of repose of 358.
Due to space limitations, a conveyor system that could
transport materials at an angle of incline greater than 308 was
desired. The engineers at Vardhmann decided on the use of a
troughed rubber belt conveyor (grade 1) based on the proven
suitability of belt conveyors to handle coals. Belt conveyors
are ideal for the task as they can transport materials over
longer distances and high angles of inclines. The expert
system suggested the use of grade 1 and grade 2 belt
conveyors. Sliding, drag, and flight chain conveyors were also
suggested by the system.
623
6. Summary
Conveyor equipment selection involves several factors,
a number of which are subjective. Analytical approaches
used for material handling selection have been limited to
quantifiable factors such as cost and equipment utilization.
However, the knowledge based approach addresses a large
number of factors in a structured and logical manner.
A prototype computer-based system, developed on Level
V Object, was constructed to identify suitable conveyor
solutions from a list of 76 conveyor types. It uses a total of
25 material, move and method attributes to find an effective
match between material handling requirements and the
different features of various conveyor types. The system
ranks the conveyor types on the basis of their suitability
scores, which are computed through the Weighted Evalu-
ation Method and the Expected Value Criterion. The
constructed prototype system was successfully validated
trough two industrial case studies.
References
Apple, J. M. (1991). Plant layout and material handling (3rd ed.).
Krieger.
Attia, F., Hosny & Ramu, EMHES—an expert system for material handling
equipment selection, 1992. Fourth International Conference on
Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems Applications Proceedings,
EXPERSYS-92, Houston, Texas, pp. 407– 412.
Fisher, E. L., Farber, J. B., & Kay, M. G. (1988). MATHES: an expert
system for material handling equipment selection. Engineering Costs
and Production Economics, 14, 297–310.
Honng, W. L (1990). MATHES II: an expert system for material handling
equipment selection, Unpublished thesis, Industrial Engineering
Department, NCSU.
Kim, K. S., & Eom, J. K. (1997). Expert system for selection of material
handling and storage systems. International Journal of Industrial
Engineering, 4(2), 81 –89.
Malmborg, C. J., Agee Simons, M. H., & Choudhary, J. V. (1987). A
prototype expert system for industrial truck type selection. Industrial
Engineering, 19(3), 58 –65.
Nasr, H. N (1984). Expert system techniques applied to engineering
problems: a prototype system for material handling. Unpublished
thesis, Industrial engineering department, University of Houston,
Houston, TX.
Park, Y. B. (1996). ICMESE: intelligent consultant system for material
handling equipment selection and evaluation. Journal Manufacturing
System, 15(5), 325 –336.
Swaminathan, S. R., Matson, J. O., & Mellichamp, J. M. (1992). EXCITE:
expert consultant for in-plant transportation equipment. International
Journal of Production Research, 30(8), 1969– 1983.