CoDIT'13
Production Floor Layout Using Systematic Layout
Planning in Can Manufacturing Company
Ajit Pal Singh
Manufacturing Section
Production Engineering Department
Defence University
Debre Zeit, Ethiopia, Africa
singh_ajit_pal@hotmail.com
Abstract—This paper presents an analysis on a production shop
floor layout of a Can manufacturing company and the
application of a systematic layout planning (SLP) procedure as
an approach to solve the production shop floor layout problem.
The relationship between machines, operation activities and
material flow are used to determine the optimal location of each
machine. SLP technique has been employed to design the two
alternative production shop floor layouts and compare the
performance between new layout and present layout in terms of
material flow distance, traveling time, and traveling cost. The
existing production process was inefficient, showing bottlenecks.
The alternative layouts were developed based on minimum
distance traveled between each pair of machine. It improved the
company existing layout by reduced total movement traveled in
production for material handling. The measurements covered the
actual sizes of the layout and machines, activities between
machines, distance between machines, and material flow between
machines in the company. The proposed procedure is illustrated
to be a viable approach for solving production shop floor layout
design problem through a real-world case study. From the
proposed two alternative layouts which are more economical,
distance of the production flow can be shortened from 389.7m to
311.2m or 360.6m. The traveling time can be reduced from
901sec. to 750sec. and traveling cost can be reduced from 3.17
Birr to 2.98 or 2.19 Birr per each travel resulting increase in
productivity.
Keywords—systematic layout planning; production floor;
material handling; Can manufacturing.
I. INTRODUCTION
The efficacy of a manufacturing facility depends mainly on
the layout of machinery and departments. Typical plant layout
procedures determine how to arrange the various machines and
departments to achieve minimization of overall manufacturing
time, maximization of turnover of work-in-process, and
maximization of company output. The capability to reconfigure
an existing manufacturing system is a key factor to maintain
competitiveness in manufacturing business environment. It was
estimated that over $250 billion is spent annually in the United
States on facilities planning and re-planning. Further, between
20%-50% of the total costs within manufacturing are related to
material handling and effective facility planning can reduce
these costs 10-30% [1]. Taha et al. (2008) [2] suggested that in
order to be successful in today’s competitive manufacturing
environment, managers have to look for new approaches to
Manufacturing Section, Production Engineering Department, Defence
University, Bishoftu (Debre Zeit), Ethiopia, Africa. (sponsors)
978-1-4673-5549-0/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO. Downloaded on July 14,2021 at 03:42:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Manderas Yilma
Mechanical & Vehicle Engineering Department
School of Engineering & Information Technologies
Adama Science & Technology University
Adama, Ethiopia, Africa
mandaaw6@gmail.com
facilities planning. Zhu and Wang (2009) [3] applied SLP
method to design the overall layout of log yards, that was
examined the feasibility of SLP method in the layout yards.
The result showed the good workflow and practical
significance. Symptoms that allow us to detect the need for a
re-layout [4, 5] are congestion and bad utilization of space,
excessive stock in process at the facility, long distances and
interrupt flow path in the work flow process, simultaneous
bottle necks and workstations with idle time, qualified workers
carrying out too many simple operations, labor anxiety and
discomfort; accidents at the facility, difficulty for controlling
operations and personnel.
II. METHODOLOGY
The company has some problems during the production of
Cans. The production department of Cans has one main
building. The main problems of the production process of Cans
are long travel, products cross pass between machines and back
tracking of semi-finished components being manufacturing
process. The labor cost of the product is also high due to high
traveling. In response to the these problems, the need for
facilities layout optimization on new layout proposals to
evaluate the performance measures related to the
manufacturing goals of the company is needed. This paper
proposes to use SLP as the infra-structure for production shop
floor layout optimization. Department performances
improvements are in terms of reduction in traveling distance
and reduction in traveling cost, reduction in traveling time,
eliminating back tracking and interrupt flow path.
A. Can Production Shop Floor Layout
Company produces Crown Corks and Cans and exclusively
supplying these products for about twenty beverages, soft
drink, soda, paint and pharmaceutical product factories. The
Crown Cork and Can production is operates in a one building;
the total build up area for the building is 42m × 96m=4032 sq.
meters. From this shop area the half length of width has to the
stores (21m × 48m=1008 sq. meters) (Fig. 1). The other
remains 21m of the width are used for the Crown Cork and Can
production process. The Cans (Ø90mm, Ø115mm, Ø 176mm)
production is operates in 7m width and the machineries are
installed in to two rows along the length, within 7m of width.
Operators for certain components have to walk to-and-fro
822

within those machineries during production and assembly. The
existing production shop floor layout is shown in Fig. 1
(workstations/machine names and codes are shown in Table
IV). Note: All dimensions are in meters and the drawing is
made by Auto CAD (Version 2007) and is not to scale.
Figure 1. Existing production floor layout (material flow).
One of the most successful strategies for solving the
facilities layout problem has been based on the systematic
layout planning methodology developed by Muther (1976) [6].
The three fundamental areas of the technique are: relationships
(input data, flow of materials, activity relationships, and
relationship diagram), space (space requirements, space
available, and space relationship diagram) and adjustment
(modifying constraints, practical limitations, develop layout,
and evaluation), overall there are eleven steps required to
complete an SLP. Following stepwise procedure has been
followed [4].
Step 1: Input data
The first step of SLP requires gathering and analyzing data
required for the case study. This must occur before any
planning of relationships, space or adjustments. The input
variables for every SLP are, product (P) is the material that will
978-1-4673-5549-0/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO. Downloaded on July 14,2021 at 03:42:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
CoDIT'13
be processed (For this study, the product is an Ø90mm Can),
quantity (Q) is the volume of each sub component of the
product to be processed, routing (R) is the path a product
travels to be processed, the routing in this case study is
obtained by making the flow chart for each main component of
the Ø90mm Cans, and time (T) refers to the overall time
required to complete processing. During production process the
observed time (OT) of Can component(s) is determined by
taking the mean of 20 observations for each process. The rating
used for this time study is 85% (0.85) and allowance taken are
personal needs-5%, unavoidable delay-1%, basic fatigue-4%,
noise level (intermittent-loud)-2% [4]. Normal time=Total
observed time × Average rating=25.81 × 0.85 =21.94sec.
Standard time=Normal time+(Normal
time × Allowance)=21.94+(21.94 × 0.12)=24.57sec.
Step 2: Flow of materials for Ø90 mm Can
Process begins with incoming raw material at store. For
production of Ø90mm Cans, operations are performed at the
main production shop floor for their components i.e. bottom,
body, ring, and lid (these components have to travel 92.4m,
119.5m, 87.4m and 90.4m respectively) (Table I). The cross-
over for those subcomponents expressed in terms of cross-over
between machines. As the installed machines are not in a
proper way as per production process of these components,
leads to high traveling distance for the flow path and
interruption of flow path (Fig. 1). In general, the product flow
for components is unsystematic with required resources not
being located close to each other.
Step 3: Activity relationship chart
In this stage, the identification of the relationships between
resources is discussed. The resources are the various processes
involved in the manufacturing of the Can products. The
information regarding where a material(s) is received from and
the destination of the final product upon completion is gathered
(Table II). Activity relationship diagram is generated where
proximity and relationships are visually evident (A-Absolutely
necessary, E-Especially important, I-Important, O-Ordinary
closeness OK, U-Unimportant, X-Undesirable) (Fig. 2).
Figure 2. Activity relationship chart for workstations/machines.
823
 CoDIT'13

TABLE I. PRESENT FLOW PROCESS CHART ANALYSIS. TABLE III. ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP WORKSHEET.
Details of Present Method Operation Distance Observed Work Centers/Machines:
(Flow process) (S-Store, T-Transport, (meters) Time A E I O U X
O-Operation, D-Delay) (seconds) 1. Store:
2,5 15 3,4,6,9 7,8,10,11,12,16,17 13,14
Bottom for Ø90mm Can:
2. Slitter:
1. Store S
1,3,4,6,9 7,13,14 5,8,10,11,12,16,17 15
2. To slitter machine T 23.7
3. Bottom press:
3. Slitting O 0.23
2,5 11 6,7,8,9,10, 12,13, 14,17 15,16
4. To bottom pressing machine T 14.0
4. Ring press:
5. Bottom pressing O 1.65
2,12 17 13,14 5,6,7,8,9,10,11 15,16
6. To sealing machine T 54.7
5. Plastic liner:
7. Sealing with body O
3,11 17 6,7,8,9,10, 12,13,14 15,16
Sub Total 92.4 1.88
6. Rolling:
Body for Ø90mm Can:
2,7 8 17 9,10,16,11,12 13,14,15
1. Store S
7. Welding:
2. To slitter machine T 23.7
6,8 17 9,10,11, 12,16 13,14,15
3. Slitting O 0.74
8. Flanging:
4. To rolling machine T 50.2
7,11 12 17 13,14,15,16 9,10
5. Rolling O 0.96
9. Lid press:
6. To seam welding T 2.2
2,10 17 11,12 13,14,15,16
7. Welding O 3.07
10. Lid curling:
8. To flanging machine T 42.6
9 17 11,12,13,14,15,16
9. Flanging O 3.36
11. Bottom sealing:
10. To bottom and ring sealing machine T 0.8
5 12 17 16 13,14,15
11. Bottom and ring sealing O 7.45
12. Ring sealing:
Sub Total 119.5 15.60
4 17 16 13,14,15
Ring for Ø90mm Can:
13. Ear press:
1. Store S
16 17 14,15
2. To slitter machine T 23.7
14. Washer press:
3. Slitting O 0.34
16 17 15
4. To ring press machine T 34.1
15. Wire bender:
5. Ring pressing O 1.94
16 17
6. To sealing machine T 29.6
16. Bail sub assemble:
7. Sealing with body O
17
Sub Total 87.4 2.28
17. Final assemble:
Lid for Ø90mm Can:
16 12
1. Store S
2. To slitter machine T 23.7
3. Slitting O 0.22
2) Dimensionless block diagram: The dimensionless block
4. To lid press T 19.6
5. Lid pressing O 2.63 diagram is the first layout attempt (Fig. 3). Even though this
6. To lid curling machine T 47.1 layout is dimensionless, it is the plan for the master layout and
7. Lid curling O 3.98 plot plan. Once size is determined, space will be allocated to
Sub Total 90.4 6.83 each activity as per the dimensionless blocks diagram layout.
If we obey the activity codes, a good layout will results.
TABLE II. DISTANCES (METERS) BETWEEN WORK CENTERS/MACHINES.
Sometimes it is harder laying out the dimensionless block
diagram than when exact sizes are available because large
work centers/machines/departments to have more important
relationships than small machines/departments and can have
many more activities close by them [7].

1) Work sheet: The worksheet interprets the activity

relationship diagram and becomes the basic data for the
dimensionless block diagram [7]. The work sheet will replace
Figure 3. Dimensionless block diagram.
the activity relationship diagram (Table III).

978-1-4673-5549-0/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 824

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO. Downloaded on July 14,2021 at 03:42:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 CoDIT'13

Step 4: Relationship diagram (String diagram) M8 Ear press 1.3 × 1.2 1.56
M9 Ø115mm ring press (no work) 1.5 × 1.2 1.8
This step positions workstations/machineries spatially. For
those machineries that have strong interactions and/or M10 Ear and wire assemble 0.8 × 0.7 0.56
closeness relationships are placed in proximity. The M11 Wire bending machine 0.8 × 1.4 1.12
relation/string diagram shows near optimal placement without M12 Washer press 1.5 × 1 1.5
consideration for space requirements and exposes possible
M13 Ø115mm cover press (no work) 1.5 × 1 1.5
clustering of machineries (Fig. 4). Through the analysis of the
activity relationship diagram, a better understanding of the M14 Ø115mm ring press 1.5 × 1 1.5
processing functions for all the components has been achieved. M15 Ø176mm ring press (for final shape) 1.5 × 1 1.5
This can be applied to the layout of the physical building in a M16 Ø176mm ring press (only blank shape) 2.3 × 2 4.6
space relationship diagram. M17 Ø176mm cover press (no work) 1.5 × 1 1.5
M18 Rolling 0.4 × 1 0.4
M19 Resistance (seam) welding 1.5 × 4 6
M20 Resistance (seam) welding 1.5 × 4 6
M21 Ø176mm body flanging machine 1.3 × 1.5 1.95
M22 Ø176mm bottom sealing 1.3 × 1 1.3
M23 Ø176mm ring sealing 1.3 × 1 1.3
M24 Spot welding 1.3 × 1.4 1.82
M25 Ø90mm body flanging machine 0.8 × 1.2 0.96
M26 Ø90mm bottom and ring sealing 0.7 × 1 0.7
M27 Ø115mm body flanging machine 2.5 × 7 17.5
M28 Ø115mm bottom sealing 0.6 × 1 0.6
M29 Ø115mm ring sealing 0.6 × 1 0.6
M30 Ø115mm cover press 0.8 × 1.8 1.44
M31 Ø176mm cover press 2.1 × 2.1 4.41
Figure 4. Relationship diagram for work centers/machines.
M32 Ø90mm cover curling machine 0.7 × 0.7 0.49
M33 Ø115mm cover curling machine 0.7 × 0.7 0.49
Step 5: Space requirement
M34 Ø176mm cover curling machine 1.2 × 0.7 0.84
The overall space requirement for the production of Cans in Total 84.06
the production shop floor is determined by taking measurement
150% 126.09
of the foot print of the machine along with the number of
stations and allowances required. From each workstation layout Step 6: Space available
we measured the length and the width to determine the square
footage of each station as: Machine space (Max.) = Length × Based on the space determined under the space
Width+(maintenance+maximum travel+plant service+ operator determination, the space occupied by the production shop is
+material) and Machine space (Min.)=Length × Width. enough for the production of Cans. The space available for the
Multiplying the total sq. meters by 150% allows extra space for production of Cans occupies 420 sq. meters area (7m width
the aisle, work-in-progress (Table IV). The extra 50% space with 60m length), in this floor width machineries were
added to the equipment space requirement will be mostly used arranged by two rows with its length of the floor (Fig. 1). There
for aisles [8]. Based on the space determination the operators are two options for the rearranging of machineries.
can be seated during work comfortably without knocking the
persons behind. The first option is to widened (increase) the width of Cans
production shop floor; reducing the width from raw materials
store (1008 sq. meters), and rearrange machineries by three
TABLE IV. SPACE DETERMINATIONS. rows with their process sequences. The store area will become
Code Workstations/Machines Length × Total sq. rather wide in contrast to be stored raw material, therefore
Width (m) meters reduce 4m width space along the length from store to Cans
production shop floor spaces (Fig. 5).
M1 Slitter machine 1.2 × 2 2.4
M2 Slitter machine 1.2 × 2 2.4 The second option is that enough space is available but the
M3 Ø115mm bottom press machine 1 × 1.8 1.8 width of the Cans production shop floor was narrow,
M4 Ø176mm bottom press machine 1× 2 2 machineries can be arranged only by two rows (Fig. 6). And
M5 Ø90mm cover press 1.2 × 0.8 0.96 additionally we have to remove some unused/dead machines
(M6-plastic liner, M9-Ø115mm ring press, M13-Ø115mm lid
M6 Plastic liner (no work) 1.2 × 0.8 0.96
press, M17-Ø176mm lid press machine) from existing
M7 Plastic liner 2 × 4.8 9.6 production shop floor for both the options.

978-1-4673-5549-0/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 825

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO. Downloaded on July 14,2021 at 03:42:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 CoDIT'13

Step 7: Space relationship diagram

The space requirements and space available discussed in
Steps 5 and 6, and are then combined to space relationship
diagram. The purpose of the space relationship diagram is to
combine spatial constraints with the activity relationship
diagram. Two space relationship diagrams options (Figs. 5 and
6) are proposed.
Basically, in the first option, the distance moved by the Can
components will reduce hence reducing the operation cost and
the time lost by moving the materials between the work
centers/machines. Different line indicates the relationship from
the activity relationship chart and these work centers need to be
close to each other (Fig. 5). In the second option, the distance
moved by the Can components will increase in contrast to
option one, but the distance will be reduce (Fig. 6) in contrast
to existing layout (Fig. 1).

Step 8: Modifying constraints

The main constraint in this study is the space required for
making re-layout for the production floor. With the available
space it is difficult to make re-layout even though for the
existing machine tools as per the standards.

Step 9: Practical limitations Figure 5. Space relationship diagram and proposed layout alternative design
I (with widened the space of production shop floor).
In the study, the existing facilities were established and
there was limited ability to expand the area for extra space. (ii) Alternative Design II
Other than, some negotiations are needed to rebuild the main
building from one side to have best floor layout for the The second layout alternative design is without increasing
facilities. the width of Cans production shop floor. To minimize the sub-
components traveling distance for the second alternative
Step 10: Develop layout alternatives design, rearrange the machineries in to two rows according to
their process flow sequences, and proposed space for the aisle,
It is also common to find an entire plant arrangement maintenance of the machines, space for the operators etc. also
according to general material flow (fabrication, subassembly, combined (Fig. 6).
and final assembly). Because of the narrow width space of
existing Cans production shop floor layout, machineries were
arranged only by two rows along the length of the floor. A
single part is translated from machine to machine being
production; which results to long distance travels, flow are
across between another machines (interrupt flow path) and
back tracking’s also occurs. And some unused machines lead to
long distance travels and interruption of flow paths and remove
some unused/dead machines from existing Cans production
shop floor. To minimize these problems two layout alternative
designs are proposed.

(i) Alternative Design I

In the existing layout, we have enough square footage
spaces but the width of Cans production shop floor was narrow
and machineries were arranged only by two rows. In the first
layout alternative design, we have to widened (increase) the
width of Cans production shop floor and then rearrange the
machineries in to three rows with their process flow sequences.
There will be a re-layout for this production shop floor, since
this design includes other space for the aisle, maintenance
space etc. (Fig. 5).
Figure 6. Space relationship diagram and proposed layout alternative design
II (without widened the space of production shop floor).

978-1-4673-5549-0/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 826

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO. Downloaded on July 14,2021 at 03:42:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 CoDIT'13

Step 11: Evaluation m m

Z = ∑∑ CijDij (1)
This is to perform comparisons on certain key performance
i =1 j =1
indices between the existing layout and the two layout
alternative designs as proposed in Step 10. Following are the where: Z = total material handling cost, Cij is the cost per unit
performance measures to evaluate the effectiveness of the two distance of flow between activities i and j, Dij is the distance
proposed (improved) layouts viz., total travel distance, total between activities i and j, m = work centers.
travel time, traveling cost, and back tracking.
The Can components were moving from machine to
machine by using two modes of material handling systems, by
A. Total Travel Distance
forklift truck and manual handling. The travel cost is expressed
Table VI reveals that the existing layout incorporates high in terms of the resource cost and the labor salary.
distance of travel, i.e. 389.7m. The layout alternative design I
results in a less distance being traveled i.e. 311.2m (reduces The forklift activity cost in this company is calculated as
78.5m) and the layout alternative design II has reduced the 11.25Birr/hr. (0.19Birr/min.) for fuel and 6.8Birr/hr.
distance travels i.e. 360.6m (reduces 29m) respectively. Table (0.11Birr/min.) for labor, totally 18.05Birr/hr. (0.30Birr/min.).
V shows that distance reduction can be obtained by This cost/hr. is changed to cost/distance, to calculate material
implementing the layout rearrangement suggested. The layout handling cost. From observed data, material movement
alternative one is better since reduced the traveled distance by (forklift) measured distance between store and slitter machine
20.14% as compared with the existing layout. is 23.7≈24m (Table II). Forklift takes 60sec. (1 min.) for the
movement between these work centers of 24m distance.
Therefore the forklift activity cost between these work centers
TABLE V. COMPARISON OF THE LAYOUTS IN TERMS OF DISTANCE. is 0.30Birr/min. As per this calculation the cost per distance is
Components Total Traveling Distances (meters) 0.30Birr/24m, from this result the forklift cost per distance is
of Ø90mm Existing Alternative Alternative 0.013Birr/m. The labor salary is calculated as 6.80Birr/hr.
Can layout design I design II (0.11Birr/min.). The traveling time by the operator is also
Bottom 92.4 74.4 95.5 considered in the assembly process as labor hours. Table VII
Body 119.5 73.3 79.2
reveals that the calculated total travel cost as per (1), for
Ring 87.4 75.1 95.7
Lid 90.4 88.4 90.2
production Cans is less on layout alternative designs I and II.
Total 389.7 311.2 360.6
Reduced distances (%) 20.14 7.46 TABLE VII. SUMMARIZED TRAVELING COST OF LAYOUTS.
B. Total Travel Time Traveling Cost (Birr per each travel)
Table VI shows that total traveling time at existing layout Existing Alternative design I Alternative design II
3.17 2.93 (8 %) 2.19 (31%)
incorporates high traveling time i.e. 901sec. (15.01 min.), for
layout alternative design I results in a less travel time being D. Back Tracking
traveled i.e. 750 sec. (12.50 min.) reduced by 2.51min., and
The process flow and relations between each operation are
total traveling time at layout alternative design II has also
observed (Figs. 1, 7, and 8). The arrangement of the machines
reduced the traveled time i.e. 910sec. (15.16 min.) reduced by -
for the developed layout alternatives are made by arranging the
0.15 min. respectively in contrast to existing layout and this
machines following the operation route for each component.
result shows there is significant improvement for layout
Table VIII shows comparisons of layouts in terms of back
alternative designs I and II.
tracking and reveals that there is no back tracking in alternative
designs I and II.
TABLE VI. COMPARISON OF THE LAYOUTS IN TERMS OF TIME.
Components Total Traveling Time (Seconds) TABLE VIII. COMPARISON OF LAYOUTS IN TERMS OF BACKTRACKING.
of Ø90mm Existing Alternative Alternative
Can layout design I design II Existing Alternative Design I Alternative Design II
Bottom 248 188 251 From To From To From To
Body 203 135 143 Welding Flanging No back No back No back No back
Ring 218 192 276 tracking tracking tracking tracking
Lid 232 235 240 Bottom press Bottom No back No back No back No back
Total 901 750 910 sealing tracking tracking tracking tracking
Reduced traveling time (%) 16.7 -1 Ring press Ring No back No back No back No back
sealing tracking tracking tracking tracking
C. Total Travel Cost
III. CONCLUSIONS
Based on different methods, the layout problem can have
different models. According to objective functions, there are After careful analysis of the current Can manufacturing floor
two basic objectives, one aims at minimizing the total material layout of company and using SLP technique, the following
handling cost while the other aims at maximizing an adjacency conclusions are made:
score. The formulation of the model for minimizing the total • From the viewpoint of process flow sequences, the self-
material handling cost is given as follows [5]: organized layout was more effective than the existing plan.

978-1-4673-5549-0/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 827

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO. Downloaded on July 14,2021 at 03:42:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

These results demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed
method.
Figure 7. Layout alternative design I (flow of materials).
Figure 8. Layout alternative design II (flow of materials).
978-1-4673-5549-0/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE DE SAO PAULO. Downloaded on July 14,2021 at 03:42:40 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
CoDIT'13
• Wasting time and resource in transporting high volume of
materials through long distances, the planned production
volume as well as profit could not be attained in the company.
Designing a better layout for production shop floor is thus
reasonable and mandatory.
• After the current layout has been analyzed, two different
improved new alternative layouts (layout alternative designs I
and II) have been developed/proposed by using SLP.
• The alternative design I layout is proposed with widened the
width of Cans production shop floor (Fig. 7) and the layout
alternative design II layout is proposed without widened the
width of Cans production shop floor (Fig. 8) and remove some
unused machines, then machines are rearranged in to two rows
according to the specific sequence of operations required.
• The two layout alternative designs would have saving in the
distance to be traveled by the components within work centers
(Table V). This reduced distance will reduce the time needed
to process each component thereby decreasing the operation
cost. The traveling between the machines is also minimized,
minimizing the time, eliminating the interrupting flow paths
and backtrackings. Thus, the proposed layout alternative
design I is better and would bring sustainable improvement.
• The traveling cost for the production of Cans is reduced by
using SPL. There is reduction in travel time per travel (Table
VI) and reduction in travel cost per travel (Table VII) for the
developed layout (designs I and II) and this show significant
improvement in terms of the performance measures and the
design is safe.
• Finally, rearranging production floor layout decreased
distance and time consumption in flow of material, resulting in
an increase in productivity.
• The findings are useful in serving as a good example for
small medium enterprises, which do not normally apply
scientific approaches to enhance their production.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Balakrishnan and C.H. Cheng, “Multi-period planning and uncertainty
issues in cellular manufacturing: A review and future directions,”
European Journal of Operational Research, Ed.177, 2007, pp. 281–309.
[2] Z. Taha and F. Tahriri, “A classification of different type of facility
layout design,” in Proceeding of Asia pacific conference on management
of technology and technology entrepreneurship, 2008, pp. 1-5.
[3] Y. Zhu, and F. Wang, “Study on the general plane of log yards based on
systematic layout planning,” IEEE Computer Society, vol. 4, pp. 92-95,
2009.
[4] M. Yilma, “Improvement of production floor layout using systematic
layout planning: A case study on Ethiopian crown cork and can
manufacturing industry,” Mechanical and Vehicle Engineering
Department, Adama Science and Technology University, Adama,
Ethiopia, 2012, Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis.
[5] J.A. Tompkins, J.A. White, Y.A. Bozer, E.H. Frazelle, J.M.A. Tanchoco
and J. Trevino, “Facilities Planning,” 4th ed., John Wiley and Sons, Inc.:
New York, NY, 2010.
[6] R. Muther, “Systematic Layout Planning”, Mc-Graw Hill, New
York, 1976.
[7] F.E. Meyers, “Plant Layout and Material Handling,” Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall Regents, 1993.
[8] D.R. Sule, “Manufacturing Facilities Location, Planning, and
Design,” 2nd ed., PWS Publishing Company, 1994.
828