DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF

CELLULAR MANUFACTURING
SYSTEMS.
Supervisor: Work done By:
Dr. RAJIV KUMAR SHARMA ARUN SIVARAJ
Associate Professor CAD/CAM
MED ROLL NO.11M335
1. Introduction.

2. Key points from the Literature review.

3. Research gaps from the literature review.

4. Problem definition and objectives.

5. Solution methodology.

6. Illustrative examples.

7. Layout problems.

8. References.





Contents.
G.T is a manufacturing philosophy, in which similar
parts are grouped together according to the
manufacturing and design attributes.

Cellular manufacturing is an application of group
technology.

The main objective of the design of a cellular
manufacturing system (CMS) is to identify part families
to machine cells. This is called cell formation.

Different types of algorithms are available in the
literature for cell formation.

Introduction.
Set up time reduction

Work in process inventory reduction

Material handling cost reduction

Equipment cost and direct/indirect labor cost reduction

Improvement in quality

Improvement in material flow

Improvement in machine utilization

Improvement in space utilization

Benefits of Cellular Manufacturing.

Burbrigde (1971) developed a new algorithm for solving cell
formation problem called production flow analysis (PFA).

J McAuley (1972) developed a new method called similarity
coefficient method .He used single linkage clustering
algorithm (SLCA) for clustering . This algorithm is a Jaccard
similarity based algorithm.

Different production factors can be incorporated in this
method while solving the cell formation problem.

King (1980) proposed an algorithm called rank order
clustering algorithm (ROC) for solving the cell formation
problem.
Key points from the Literature Review
Wei and kern (1989)proposed an algorithm based on the
commonality score for solving the cell formation problem
called linear cell clustering algorithm (LCCA).

Seiffodini (1989) developed an algorithm called average
linkage clustering algorithm (ALCA).This algorithm was
based on jaccard similarity coefficient.

Chow and Hawaleshka (1993)proposed an algorithm for
solving the cell formation problem. This algorithm was
based on commonality score.
Key points from the Literature Review
Conti.
Yasuda and Yin (2000) developed an algorithm called average
void value(AVV).They described the advantages and
disadvantages of different similarity coefficients.

B.adenso Diaz et al(2005) Proposed an algorithm for solving
the cell formation problem.This algorithm consists of two
phases. Weighted similarity coefficient is used in this
algorithm.

H.Wafik et.al (2008) Proposed a new approach for
solving the cell formation problem. This algorithm works
in three phases. The third phase of the algorithm is used
for assigning exceptional elements



Key points from the Literature Review
Conti.
Si
no
Source Issues Addressed Research Gaps
1 McAauley
(1972)
Proposed an algorithm based on
Jaccard similarity coefficient for
solving cell formation problem
by using SLCA
Performance measures such as Grouping
Efficiency, Grouping Efficacy,etc.were
not used for the analysis purpose.
SLCA suffers from the chaining
2 King
(1980)
Proposed An algorithm called
Rank order clustering
(ROC).large size problems can be
solved by using this algorithm.
This algorithm cannot incorporate
different production data such as
production volume, operation sequences
,etc.
3 Romesbu
rg 1984
Proposed an algorithm called
Complete Linkage Clustering
Algorithm (CLCA) .
It does the reverse of SLCA.
This algorithm performed as a worst
procedure. This causes high degree of
chaining problem.
4
Seiffodini
1989
Proposed an algorithm based on
Jaccard similarity coefficient
called ALCA.
Compared the proposed
algorithm with SLCA
This algorithm requires more
computation compared with SLCA. The
chaining problem cannot completely
avoid.
Research Gaps from the Literature Review
Si
no
Source Issues Addressed Research Gaps
5. Wei and
Kern
1989
Proposed an algorithm called linear cell
clustering algorithm (LCCA), based on the
commonality score for solving cell
formation problem,
LCCA cannot avoid the chaining
problem completely. The
computational requirement of LCCA
is more than the single linkage
clustering algorithm (SLCA).
6. Chow and
Hawalesh
ka
1993
Proposed an algorithm based on
commonality score for solving chaining
problem in cell formation.
The proposed algorithm results were
compared with LCCA and ALCA.
This algorithm could not give optimal
result even though it minimizes the
number of exceptional elements in
the final clustered matrix in the cell
formation problem.
7 K.Yasuda
and Y.Yin
2000
Introduced a new method called Average
Voids Value (AVV).
Addressed limitations of commonality
score and Jaccard similarity coefficients
based clustering techniques.
Only one performance measure is
used for the analysis purpose.
The author was silent about the
layout problem.
8 B.adenso
Diaz et
al(2005)
Proposed algorithm for cell formation
problem by using weighted similarity
coefficient.This algorithm consists of two
stages.
Single performance measure used for
the analysis purpose.
Research Gaps from the Literature Review
Si
no

Source Issues Addressed Research Gaps
9 H.Wafik
et.al
(2008)
Proposed a new approach for solving the cell
formation problem. This algorithm works in
three phases.
The third phase of the algorithm is used for
assigning exceptional elements.
The computational requirement
is more for getting the optimal
result.
10 Bortolini et
al (2011)
Proposed an algorithm for machine
duplication.
Cell formation algorithm was based on
production data based similarity coefficient.
Authors were silent about the
layout problem.
This algorithm consists of several
phases and machine duplication
phase is based on mathematical
programming, so that
computational requirement is
more.
11 Mukattash
et al (2011)
Proposed an algorithm for solving the cell
formation problem and reduce the
computational requirement.
Compared the results of modified algorithm
with Wafiks algorithm results.
This algorithm is giving good
results in very less number of
problems. So, proposed
algorithm is not good for solving
the cell formation problem.
Research Gaps from the Literature Review


P1 P2 P3 P4
M1 1 0 1 0
M2 0 1 1 0
M3 1 0 0 1
M4 0 1 1 0
P1 P2 P3 P4
M1 1 0 1 0
M2 1 1 0 0
M3 0 0 1 1
M4 0 0 1 1
Machine-part incidence matrix. Optimal results
Exceptional Elements &Voids.

In the clustering process, Similar machines are grouped
together according to the value of similarity coefficient. So
that optimal result will get in the final solution of an
algorithm.

Some cases, dissimilar machines may grouped together and
the final solution will not become an optimal. This results
more number of exceptional elements.

This forms long 'serpentine' like clusters is called
"chaining. Most of the existing algorithms in the similarity
coefficient method suffer from this problem.
Chaining Problem.
Problem Definition:
In the similarity coefficient method ,the common problem in
the existing algorithms is chaining problem. Due to this
problem, algorithms cannot give optimal result. So develop an
algorithm for solving the cell formation problem. This can
give optimal results by eliminating chaining problem.

Objectives:
The main objectives of this cell formation algorithm are:
To Minimize the number of voids.
To Minimize the number of exceptional elements.
To Avoid the chaining problem effectively.

Problem Definition &Objective(s).
Proposed an algorithm for achieving mentioned
objectives. This algorithm is based on similarity
coefficient method.

Five Different performance measures are used for the
analysis purpose.

The performance measures are listed below:
Grouping efficiency
Grouping efficacy
Grouping measure
Grouping index
Number of exceptional elements
Solution Methodology.
This algorithm works in two phases:
1. Building of similarity matrix.
2. Clustering phase

Phase 1: Building of similarity matrix:
Find out the similarities between machines
according to the equations and generalise the
matrix.

Compute the similarity coefficients from the
generalised matrix. These similarity coefficients are
expressed in matrix form.

Proposed Algorithm.
Building of Similarity Coefficient.
.....
11 12 1
.....
21 22 2
A =
.... .... ..... ....
.....
1 2
a a a
P
a a a
P
a a a
mP m m
(
(
(
(
(
(

The matrix A given below is the general form of the machine-part
incidence matrix which is used as the input for the proposed algorithm.
Mi is a binary row vector from the matrix A:
A
M [a a a .........a ]
i i1, i2, i3, ip
A
-
M E
i
i
B
=
M
i o
ki
m
k=1
=
Ei
m
a

2 2
i
Ei Ei o =
S =
BB'
m
This phase includes an important concept of new machine unit,
which is formed by a transformation. The procedure of
transformation into new machine unit is given below.

0 , if a
i(r)
=0 or a
j(r)
=0
M
(i,j)r
=
1, otherwise.

Here, Mi and Mj are the machines.

M1 1 0 0 0 0 0
M2 1 0 1 0 0 1
M(1,2) 1 0 1 0 0 1
Then, the new machine unit will be,

Concept of New Machine Unit.
The working of second phase of this algorithm is given below:

Step 1: Compute the similarity coefficient of the incidence matrix.

Step2: Find out the two machines, which contribute highest positive
value for similarity coefficient.

Step 3: If a positive value does not exist, then select the machines with
the highest negative similarity coefficient value.

Step 4: Group these two machines and transform them into new
machine unit M
k,
.

Step 5: Replace the two grouped machines with M
k
in the incidence
matrix.

Step 6: If the number of machines in the new incidence matrix has only
one unit of machine, then stop: otherwise proceed to step 1.

Clustering Phase.
START
Input initial machine part matrix
Compute standarization matrix
Compute similarity coefficient matrix
If all the coefficients are
- ve
Find highest value Eliminate all -ve coefficient
Find highest value
Find which machines are contributing this value
Apply the transformation technique for the new machine unit
If the machine part
matrix row=1
END
Cluster those machines
YES
NO
YES
NO
Flow Chart of Proposed Algorithm.

Two different examples are taken from the literature and
explained below

One is a chaining problem and other one is a non-
chaining problem.
From the illustrative examples, we can understand the
ability of proposed algorithm.

That means, good results are showing in the non-
chaining problem along with existing algorithm because
in these problems existing algorithms are not suffers
from the chaining problem.

Only Proposed algorithm shows good results in chaining
problem.
Illustrative Examples.























































M
a
c
h
i
n
e
s

P
1
P
2
P
3
P
4
P
5
P
6
P
7
P
8
P
9
P
10
P
11


M
1
1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

M
2
1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

M
3
0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

M
4
0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

M
5
0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

M
6
0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

M
7
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0

Machine-part incidence matrix
Parts
Illustrative Example (Non-chaining Problem)

4
E = = 0.364
1
11
2
= 0.36- (0.36) = 0.481
1
The member coefficient between part P
1
and machine M
1
, b
11
is calculated as follows:
we can yield the member coefficient values which are given in the standardization
matrix B. For example, for machine M
1

1- 0.364
b = =1.32
11
0.481
0- 0.364
b = = -0.76
21
0.481
Generalized matrix
B =
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11
M1 1.32 -0.76 1.32 -0.76 -0.76 -0.76 1.32 -0.76 -0.76 -0.76 1.32
M2 1.63 1.63 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61 1.63 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61
M3 -0.61 1.63 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61 1.63 -0.61 -0.61 -0.47 -0.61 -0.61
M4 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61 1.63 1.63 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61 1.63 -0.61
M5 -0.47 -0.47 2.12 -0.47 -0.47 2.12 -0.47 -0.47 -0.47 -0.47 -0.47
M6 -0.61 -0.61 1.63 1.63 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61 1.63
M7 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61 -0.61 1.63 -0.61 -0.61 1.63 -0.61 1.63 -0.61
Illustrative Example (Non-chaining Problem)

The same procedure is applied for the other elements of the
matrix B. The final standardization matrix B is given below
S =
BB'
m
Then apply the other equation i.e,


















M
a
c
h
i
n
e
s


P
1
P
2
P
6
P
9
P
3
P
7
P
11
P
4
P
5
P
8
P
10

M
2
1 1 1 0
M
3
0 1 1 1
M
1
1 1 1 1
M
5
1 1 0
M
6
1 0 1 1
M
4
1 1 0 1
M
7
0 1 1 1
Final clustered matrix.
Parts
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7
M1 1 -0.04 -0.46 -0.46 0.62 0.39 -0.46
M2 1 0.54 -0.38 -0.29 -0.38 -0.38
M3 1 -0.38 -0.29 -0.38 -0.38
M4 1 -0.29 0.08 0.54
M5 1 0.24 -0.29
M6 1 -0.38
M7 1
Similarity coefficient matrix
S =
Illustrative Examples Conti
Analysis By Using Performance Measures
1. Number of exceptional elements =2
2. Group efficiency,
1 2
q q q = q +(1 )q
1
o e
o e v

q =
+ 2
MP o v
MP o v e

q =
+
Group efficiency =86.1%
Out
1 1
Grouping efficacy(
In
1 0
N N
N N

) =
+
g u m
q =q q
(1 )( )
1
(1 )( )
1
qv q e A
B
qv q e A
B
+

=
+
+
3.
Grouping Index,
4.
u
q
: The ratio of the number of ones to the number of total elements in the diagonal blocks.
m
q
: The ratio of exceptional elements to the total number of ones in the matrix.
Grouping Measure 5.
Grouping Measure,
g
q = 66.47%
Parts
P
1
P
2
P
3
P
4
P
5
P
6
P
7
P
8
P
9
P
10
P
11
P
12
P
13



M
a
c
h
i
n
e
s

M1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M
2
1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
M
3
0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
M
4
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
M
5

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
Illustrative Example (Chaining problem)
M
1
M
2
M
3
M
4
M
5

M
1
1 0.35 -0.22 -0.73 -0.62
M2 0.35 1 -0.22 -0.73 -0.62
M
3
-0.22 -0.22 1 -0.07 -0.22
M
4
-0.73 -0.73 -0.07 1 0.85
M
5
-0.62 -0.62 -0.22 0.85 1
P
1
P
2
P
3
P
4
P
5
P
6
P
7
P
8
P
9
P
10
P
11
P
12
P
13

M
1
1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 -0.79 1.26 -0.79 -0.79 -0.79 -0.79 -0.79 -0.79 -0.79
M
2
1.26 1.26 1.26 -0.79 1.26 -0.79 1.26 -0.79 -0.79 -0.79 -0.79 -0.79 -0.79
M
3
-1.08 -1.08 -1.08 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 -1.08 -1.08 -1.08
M
4
-0.92 -0.92 -0.92 -0.92 -0.92 -0.92 -0.92 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.08
M
5
-0.79 -0.79 -0.79 -0.79 -0.79 -0.79 -0.79 -0.79 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26
Illustrative Example (Chaining Problem)
B =

S =
P
1
P
2
P
3
P
4
P
5
P
6
P
7
P
8
P
9
P
10
P
11
P
12
P
13

M1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
M
2
1 1 1 0 1 0 1
M
3
0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
M
4
1 1 1 1 1 1
M
5
0 1 1 1 1 1
M
A
C
H
I
N
E
S
PARTS
Final Clustered Matrix of Proposed Algorithm
Illustrative Example (Chaining Problem)
P
1
P
2
P
3
P
4
P
5
P
6
P
7
P
8
P
9
P
10
P
11
P
12
P
13

M
1
1 1 1 1 0 1 0
M
2
1 1 1 0 1 0 1
M
3
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
M
4
1 1 1 1 1 1
M
5
0 1 1 1 1 1
PARTS
M
A
C
H
I
N
E
S
Final clustered matrix of SLCA,CLCA
Ten different problems are selected from the literature and the results of
these problems are compared with the existing algorithms results (SLCA,
CLCA, Hawaleshkas algorithm).
No. Source Size Year
Machines Parts
1 Seiffodini
5 18
1989
2
Hawaleshka and W.S
Chow
5 11
1992
3 Kusiak 6 8 1992
4
Venugopal and
Narendran
9 10 1992
5
Hawaleshka and
W.S Chow
5 13
1993
6 Wang 5 7 2003
7 Albadawi et.al 8 20 2005
8 Wafik et.al 7 11 2008
9 Yang et.al
9 9
2008
10 Yang et.al 15 15 2008
References of Selected Problems.
Grouping Efficiency ()
Sl
No
Source SLCA CLCA
Hawaleshka's
Algorithm
Proposed
Algorithm
1
Hawaleshka and
W.S Chow (1992)
83.48 68.89 82.16 83.48
2
Seiffodini (1989)
89.14 87.01 82.43 89.14
3 Yang et.al (2008) 89.05 79.28 78.05 89.05
4
Hawaleshka
W.S Chow (1993)
81.43 81.43 83.11 83.11
5 Kusiak (1992) 87.49 87.49 87.49 87.49
6
Venugopal and
Narendran(1992)
100 100 100 100
7 Wang (2003) 85.61 85.61 85.61 85.61
8
Albadawi et.al
(2005)
95.83 95.83 95.83 95.83
9 Wafik et.al (2008) 86.10 86.10 86.10 86.10
10 Yang et.al (2008) 89.17 89.17 89.17 89.17
Results.
Grouping Efficacy ()
Sl No Source SLCA CLCA
Hawalekshas
Algorithm
Proposed
Algorithm
1
Hawaleshka and
W.S Chow (1992)
70 50 68.75 70
2 Seiffodini (1989) 79.59 77.35 69.23 79.59
3 Yang et.al (2008) 74.28 54.05 60.41 74.28
4
Hawaleshka and
W.S Chow (1993)
66.67 66.67 69.44 69.44
5 Kusiak (1992) 76.92 76.92 76.92 76.92
6
Venugopal and
Narendran(1992)
100 100 100 100
7 Wang (2003) 73.68 73.68 73.68 73.68
8
Albadawi et.al
(2005)
85.24 85.24 85.24 85.24
9 Wafik et.al (2008) 70.37 70.37 70.37 70.37
10 Yang et.al (2008) 72.58 72.58 72.58 72.58
Results.
Grouping Index (GI)
Sl
No
Source SLCA CLCA
Hawaleshka's
Algorithm
Proposed
Algorithm
1
Hawaleshka and W.S
Chow (1992)
70.52 50.72 70.49 70.52
2
Seiffodini (1989)
78.12 74.49 68 78.12
3 Yang et.al (2008) 73.13 40.35 65.23 73.13
4
Hawaleshka and W.S
Chow (1993)
68.42 68.42 71.42 71.42
5 Kusiak (1992) 77.77 77.77 77.77 77.77
6 Venugopal and
Narendran(1992)
100 100 100 100
7 Wang (2003) 74.35 74.35 74.35 74.35
8
Albadawi et.al (2005)
84 84 84 84
9 Wafik et.al (2008) 72.41 72.41 72.41 72.41
10 yang et.al (2008) 72.8 72.8 72.8 72.8
Results.
Grouping Measure (GM)
Sl No Source SLCA CLCA
Hawaleshka's
Algorithm
Proposed
Algorithm
1
Hawaleshka and W.S
Chow (1992)
64.76 33.38 63.86 64.76
2 Seiffodini (1989) 77.63 74.54 63.97 77.63
3 Yang et.al (2008) 60.41 42.5 60.41 70.9
4
Hawaleshka and W.S
Chow (1993)
60.71 65.04 65.04 65.04
5 Kusiak (1992) 74.24 74.24 74.24 74.24
6
Venugopal and
Narendran(1992)
100 100 100 100
7 Wang (2003) 69.85 69.85 69.85 69.85
8 Albadawi et.al 2005 84.24 85.24 85.24 84.24
9 Wafik et.al (2008) 66.47 66.47 66.47 66.47
10 yang et.al (2008) 68.23 68.23 68.23 68.23
Results.
Number of Exceptional Elements (EE)
Sl
No
Source SLCA CLCA
Hawaleshka's
Algorithm
Proposed
Algorithm
1
Hawaleshka and
W.S Chow (1992)
4 8 3 4
2 Seiffodini (1989) 7 5 10 7
3 Yang et.al (2008) 6 12 3 6
4
Hawaleshka and
W.S Chow (1993)
4 4 3 3
5 Kusiak (1992) 2 2 2 2
6
Venugopal and
Narendran(1992)
0 0 0 0
7 Wang (2003) 2 2 2 2
8 Albadawi et.al 2005 9 9 9 9
9 Wafik (2008) 2 2 2 2
10 yang et.al (2008) 8 8 8 8
Results.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
SLCA CLCA Hwaleshka's
algorithm
Proposed
algorithm
N
o
.
o
f

e
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
a
l

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s

(
E
E
)

Algorithms
Problem 2
Problem 4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
SLCA CLCA Hawaleshka's
algorithm
Proprosed
algorithm
N
o
.
e
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
a
l

e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s

(
E
E
)

Algorithms
problem 1
problem 3
Result of Chaining Problem
0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2
G
r
o
u
p

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

(

)

Problem No.
SLCA
CLCA
Hawaleshka's
algorithm
Proposed
algorithm
Result of Chaining Problem

0 20 40 60 80 100
1
2
3
4
grouping efficacy ()
P
r
o
b
l
e
m

N
o
.

Proposed algorithm
Hawaleshka's algorithm
CLCA
SLCA
Result of Chaining Problem

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 3 4
G
r
o
u
p
i
n
g

I
n
d
e
x

(
G
I
)

Problem No:
SLCA
CLCA
Hawaleshka's
algorithm
Proposed algorithm
Result of Chaining Problem

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 3 4
G
r
o
u
p
i
n
g

M
e
a
s
u
r
e

(
G
M
)

Problem No.
SLCA
CLCA
Hawaleshka's algorithm
Proposed algorithm
Result of Chaining Problem

0
20
40
60
80
100
1 2 3 4 5 6
G
r
o
u
p
i
n
g

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

(

)

Problem No.
Proposed algorithm result
Best known result
Result of Non-Chaining Problem

The second step of design of cellular manufacturing
system is layout planning.

Two different layout algorithms are used for solving the
layout problem.

The final solution of the proposed algorithm is the input
of these two algorithms.

Based on these data the machine duplication procedure
will be carried out.

That means, the proposed algorithm is giving an option
for the machine duplication.
Machine duplication procedure is carried out in three
phases
Layout planning.
Calculation of material handling cost required
for the exceptional elements. Decision for
machine duplication

Facility layout design by using pair-wise
Algorithm
Cell layout design by using Heragus Algorithm
Final clustered matrix of cell formation
problem (solution of proposed algorithm)
Architecture of the machine duplication
procedure
Phase 1
Phase 2 2
Phase 3
Phase 1
The final solution of the proposed algorithm is given for
solving layout problem.

Phase 2
This phase consists of two steps

Cell layout arranging the machines with in the cell by
using Heragus Algorithm
Facility layout arranging the cells with in the plant by
using pair- wise exchange method.

We can reduce the material handling cost by using these
algorithms


Machine Duplication
Phase 3
Compute the material handling cost required for
the exceptional elements and then take the
decision for machine duplication.


Machine Duplication
Illustrative Example Machine Duplication.
Phase 1: Input the final clustered matrix of proposed algorithm
P
1
P
5
P
2
P
6
P
9
P
3
P
4
P
7
P
8

M
1
1 1 1
M
5
1 1 1 1
M
2
1 1 1 1
M
6
1 1 1
M
9
1 1 1
M
3
1 0 1 1
M
4
1 1 1 0 1
M
7
1 0 1 1
M
8
1 1 1 1 1
Final clustered matrix of proposed algorithm
Illustrative Example Machine Duplication.

Phase 2 :
Cell layout Heragus Algorithm.
M
1
M
5

M
1
0 2
M
5
2 0
Data required for cell 3:
M
1
M
5

M
1
0 20
M
5
30 0
M
1
M
5

M1 0 2
M5 2 0
Data required for cell 2:
M
2
M
6
M
9

M
2
0 20 70
M
6
20 0 10
M
9
70 10 0
M
2
M
6
M
9

M
2
0 2 7
M
6
2 0 1
M
9
7 1 0
M
2
M
6
M
9

M
2
0 2 1
M
6
2 0 3
M
9
1 3 0
Cost matrix Frequency of trip between
the pair of machines
Clearance matrix
Frequency of trip between the
pair of machines
Cost matrix
Clearance matrix
M
3
M
4
M
7
M
8

M
3
0 20 70 50
M
4
20 0 10 40
M
7
70 10 0 18
M
8
50 40 18 0
Data required for Cell 1:
M
3
M
4
M
7
M
8

M
3
0 2 7 5
M
4
2 0 1 4
M
7
7 1 0 1
M
8
5 4 1 0
M
3
M
4
M
7
M
8

M
3
0 2 1 1
M
4
2 0 1 2
M
7
1 3 0 1
M
8
1 2 1 0
Illustrative Example Machine Duplication.

Cell 1: Step 1: Determine the adjusted flow matrix as follows:
M
3
M
4
M
7
M
8

M
3
0 40 490 250
M
4
40 0 10 160
M
8
490 10 0 18
M
7
250 160 18 0
Step 2: Include the machine 1 and 7 in the partial solution, as they
are connected.
Step 3: Add machine 8 to the partial solution, as it is connected to
machine 1 then delete row 1.
Step 4: Add machine 4 to the partial solution, as it is connected to
machine 4. Delete row and column 4 from the matrix.
Step 5: Because all the machines are connected, stop. The final
sequence is 4, 8, 3 and 7. It is obtained by arranging the
adjusted flow weights in increasing order
Illustrative Example Machine Duplication.

The same way apply Heragus algorithm for cell 2
and cell 3.The arrangement cells are given below:
1 5
2 9
3 7
6
4 8
2
1
1 2
2 2
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Illustrative Example Machine Duplication.

Facility layout-Pair-wise Exchange method.
Material handling cost (TC) = (distance matrix frequency
matrix) (unit cost)
Initial Layout [1-2-3]
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 - 15 20
2 - 10
3 -
1 2 3
1 - 10 30
2 - 20
3 -
Material handling cost,
TC for 123 = [(15) (10) + (20) (30) + (10) (20)] (100) = 95000
Illustrative Example Machine Duplication.

Frequency matrix
Distance matrix
Check the possibilities for arranging the department
based on the material handling cost: The different
possibilities are:

Illustrative Example Machine Duplication.

3 2 1
3 1 2
2 3 1
2 3 1 1 3 1 2 3 2
Sl no
Department
arrangement
Material
handling cost
1 1-2-3 95000
2 1-3-2 85000
3 2-1-3 85000
4 2-3-1 95000
5 3-1-2 80000
6 3-2-1 100000
Illustrative Example Machine Duplication.

Material handling cost required for different layout
1 5 9 6 2 7 3 8 4
1o 2o
Illustrative Example Machine Duplication.

Cell 3 Cell 1 Cell 2
Material handling cost is less in 3-1-2 arrangement
Final layout.
Phase 3
Then find the material handling cost is required
for the exceptional parts.
If the material handling cost is more than the
cost of machine, then duplicate the machine.
Suppose, the part p4 and p8 is satisfied. So the
final matrix after duplication is given below:
Illustrative Example Machine Duplication.

P
1
P
5
P
2
P
6
P
9
P
3
P
4
P
7
P
8

M
1
1 1 1
M
5
1 1
M
2
1 1 1 1
M
6
1 1 1
M
9
1 1 1
M
5
0 1 0 1
M
3
1 0 1 1
M
4
1 1 1 0 1
M
7
1 0 1 1
M
8
1 1 1 1 1
Illustrative Example Machine Duplication.

The final solution after duplication procedure:
In this work, a new algorithm is proposed for
solving cell formation problem. This algorithm
was based on the similarity coefficient.
Compared the results with existing algorithms
(SLCA, CLCA, Hawaleshkas algorithm)
Five performance measures (Group Efficiency,
Group Efficacy, G.I,GM,EE) used for the
analysis purpose.
This algorithm gave a provision for machine
duplication. The criteria for the machine
duplication was material handling cost
Two well known algorithms were used for this
purpose.
Conclusion.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Proposed
algorithm
SLCA CLCA Hawaleshka's
algorithm
N
O
.
O
F

P
R
O
B
L
E
M
S

DIFFERENT ALGORITHMS
Conclusion.
Ten problems are selected from the literature and solved by
using proposed algorithm. The results of the existing
algorithms are compared with the proposed algorithm
Publication from the Work

International Conference:
1. Arun Sivaraj and Rajiv Kumar Sharma, Cluster analysis in cellular
manufacturing by using proposed algorithm, 3rd International
Conference on Production and Industrial Engineering (CPIE 2013),NIT
Jalandhar, India, ISBN 978-81-920453-1-3, Pages: 192-202.

[1]Burbridge (1963),Production flow analysis, Journal of institution of production
engineers,London,42,742748.
[2] Burbridge (1971) ,Production flow analysis, journal of institution of production engineers,
London, 50,139-145.
[3] McAuley.j (1972) ,Machine grouping for efficient Production, Journal of production
engineers,51,53-58.
[4] Burbridge (1977) , Manual method of production flow, journal of institution of production
engineers, London, 56,34-38.
[5] Wing S.Chow and Ostap Hawaleshka(1991).An efficient algorithm for solving the machine
chaining problem in cellular manufacturing, computers and industrial engineering,22,95-100.
[6] S.J Chen and C.S Cheng(1995),A neural network based cell formation algorithm in cellular
manufacturing, international journal production research, 33,293-318.
[7] Bhaba R. Sarker and Muslema Khan (2001),A comparison existing grouping efficiency
measures and a new weighted grouping efficiency measure, iie transactions, 33,11-27.
[8] Jose Fernando goncalves and Mauricio G.C.Resende(2004). An evolutionary algorithm for
manufacturing cell formation, computers and industrial engineering, 47,247-273.
[9] Surjit Angra et.al (2007), Cellular manufacturing A time based analysis to the lay out
problem,international journal of production economics , 112, 427-438.
[10] Miin-Shen Yang and Jenn-Hwai Yang (2007).Machine-part cell formation in group technology
using a modified ART1 method, European journal of operational research, 188,140-152.
[11] Comparative study. jordan journal of mechanical and industrial engineering, 5,199-212
[12] Jamal Arkat and Mehdi Hosseinabadi Farahani(2012), integrating cell formation with cellular
lay out and operations scheduling, advanced international journal of manufacturing
technology,61,637-647.
[13] Yong Yin and Kazuhiko Yasuda (2006) , Similarity coefficient methods applied to thecell
formation problem: A taxonomy and review , Int. J. Production Economics ,101, 329352.
References.
[14] Adil, G.K., Rajamani, D. and Strong, D. (1997) Assignment allocation and simulated annealing
algorithms for cell, formation.IIE Transactions 29(1), 53-67.

[15] G.J.K. Nair and Narendran, T.T. (1996) Grouping index: a new quantitative criterion for
goodness of block diagonal forms in group technology. International Journal of Production
Research,(10), 2767-2782.

[16] Rajagopalan, R., Batra, J.L., 1975. Design of cellular production systemsA graph theoretic
approach. International Journal of Production Research 13, 567574.

[17] Seifoddini, H. and Wolfe, P. (1987) Selection of a threshold value based on material handling
cost in machine-component grouping. IIE Transactions, 20(3), 266-270.

[18] Seifoddini, H. and Djassemi, M. (1996) The threshold value of a quality index formation of
cellular manufacturing systems. International Journal of Production Research, 34(12), 3401-
3416.

[19] Kumar, C.S. and Chandrasekharan, M.P. (1990) Grouping efficacy: a quantitative criterion for
goodness of block diagonal forms of binary matrices in group technology. International Journal
of Production Research, 28(2), 233-243.

[20] McCorrnick, W.T., Schweitzer, P.J., White, T.E., 1972. Problem decomposition and data
recognition by a clustering technique.Operations Research 20, 993999.

[21] King, J.R., Nakornchai, V., 1982. Machine-component group formation in group technology:
review and extension.International Journal of Production Research 20, 117124.
[22] Kusiak, A. and Chow, W.S. (1987) Efficient solving of the group technology problem. Journal of
Manufacturing Systems, 6(2), 117-124.






Reference Conti