ADVANCES
in
NATURAL and APPLIED SCIENCES Published BYAENSI Publication http://www.aensiweb.com/ANAS
ISSN: 1995-0772 EISSN: 1998-1090 2017 June 11(8): pages 37-45
Open Access Journal
Implementation of Computerized Relative Allocation of Facilities Technique (CRAFT) for redesigning production layout in flywheel manufacturing industry 1M.
Sathiyamoorthy, 2M. Dhanashekar, 3V. S. Senthil Kumar
1P.G.
Scholar, Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Guindy, Anna University, Chennai-600025, India. Scholar, Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Guindy, Anna University, Chennai-600025, India. 3Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Guindy, Anna University, Chennai-600025, India. 2Research
Received 28 February 2017; Accepted 22 May 2017; Available online 6 June 2017 Address For Correspondence: V. S. Senthil Kumar, Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering Guindy, Anna University, Chennai-600025, India. E-mail:
[email protected],
[email protected] Copyright © 2017 by authors and American-Eurasian Network for ScientificInformation (AENSI Publication). This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
ABSTRACT Facility layout design is an integral part of the construction of manufacturing system. It provides a sequence for selection of machines and material handling route. The best layout design helps in the reduction of cost and production time. The aim is to redesign a new layout based on some defined design criteria and area limitations, with one or multiple objectives. The Computerized Relative Allocation of Facilities Technique (CRAFT) is used in selection of the best block layout of the flywheel production section. The utilization of the existing layout and the proposed layout is worked out and found to be increasing. The material handling distance is reduced in the proposed layout. The material handling cost is reduced by 26.61 % with the implementation of the proposed layout.
KEYWORDS: Facility layout design, CRAFT, Flywheel production, material handling, work-in-process. INTRODUCTION A proper layout within the organization can improve the efficiency of the material utilization, machines utilization, attitude of the employees and the customers. It reduces the movements of the materials, employees and improves flexibility. Computerized Relative Allocation of Facilities Technique (CRAFT) methodology was utilized as a part of the strategy to portrait the relationship between the departments to generate improved layout alternatives. A.M.E Sikaroudi et al. [2] said that Facility Layout redesign is carried under the limitations of low cost investment and to reduce overall material handling cost. Abhishek Kumar et al. [1] have incorporated the recent analysis on facility layout and surveyed the facility layout problem. Many intelligent techniques and conventional algorithms for solving facility layout problem are discussed. Bobby John et al. [3] have designed a hybrid model that combines a facility allocation technique and a software analysis. The best block layout for the foundry section was selected using the Computerized Relative Allocation of Facilities Technique (CRAFT). Then a detailed layout was constructed and analyzed using ARENA. Hari Prasad et al. [4] have designed a manufacturing plant layout using CRAFT. Yosra Ojaghi et al. [7] have generated several layouts using two types of construction techniques, viz. Systematic Layout Planning (SLP) and Graph Based Theory (GBT) followed by ToCite ThisArticle: M. Sathiyamoorthy, M. Dhanashekar, V. S. Senthil Kumar., Implementation of Computerized Relative Allocation of Facilities Technique (CRAFT) for redesigning production layout in flywheel manufacturing industry. Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences. 11(8); Pages: 37-45
38
M. Sathiyamoorthy et al., 2017/Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences. 11(8) June 2017, Pages: 37-45
calculating the Efficiency Rate (ER) of each layout. The layout with the highest ER was selected and optimized using the Pair wise Exchange Method (PEM). The results showed improvement in the ER of the selected layout from 90.43% to 94.78% after optimizing. Robert Cimikowski et al. [5] have discussed a new model for facility layout based on a maximum proximity weight adjacency sub graph. The model is a realistic representation of the facility layout problem in departments that are not neighbours but still have close proximity to each other and compensated for in the optimal adjacency sub graph. S. P. Singh et al. [6] have conducted an extensive review on the trends of facility layout for the past two decades and summarized the solution methodology, computerized facility layout software and various algorithms. Reduction in the total material handling cost using the CRAFT method and in work-in-process inventory through modification of the work station arrangement from the objectives of this paper. Data Collection: The existing plant layout was visually inspected and relevant data in the flywheel manufacturing section was collected. The real time distance between the machines was measured for the existing layout. The material handling cost within the plant was collected. There are four models of flywheels produced i.e. 350cc, 500cc, heavy and 535cc where 350cc and 535cc flywheel models have the same sequence of operations. Similarly 500cc and heavy flywheel models have the same sequence of operations.
Fig. 1: Existing Facility Layout The total number of departments available in the existing layout is 33. The number of machine types available and the operations for which they are used is given in Table 1. The existing layout is shown in Fig. 1. The major constraint in redesigning the existing layout was the inability to modify the location of the grinding machine (2 No’s). The working area required for each operation is presented in Table 1. The available floor space for locating the facilities was much greater than the total area required. This means the availability of extra free space after implementing the proposed layout which can be utilized effectively for other purposes. Table 1: Work Area Required Machine S.No Operations Number 1 1 CNC I Operation 2 2 CNC II Operation 3 3 CNC III Operation 4 4 Key way Broaching 5 5 Oil hole drill 6 6 Slot milling 7 7 Balancing 8 8 Two hole drilling 9 9 Holes deburring 10 10 Surface deburring 11 11 RH Shaft Key Pressing 12 12 LH Shaft Key Pressing 13 13 Crank Pin Plug Pressing 14 14 RH Shaft Pressing 15 15 LH Shaft Pressing 16 16 RH Face Grinding
Working Area Machine per machine (m2) 37.8 37.8 37.8 18 12.6 19.8 16.8 18 18 28 9.6
Number Machines 3 2 2 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 1
of
Total Working Area (m2) 113.4 75.6 75.6 54 12.6 59.4 50.4 54 18 28 9.6
1.6 9.6
1 1
1.6 9.6
42
1
42
39
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
M. Sathiyamoorthy et al., 2017/Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences. 11(8) June 2017, Pages: 37-45
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
LH Face Grinding RH Fine boring LH Fine boring Final Assembly Truing Oil Flow Test Run out Checking Dispatch
42 43.2 43.2 22.5 50 40 30.5 151
1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1
42 86.4 43.2 22.5 100 40 30.5 151
2. Relationship Matrix: 2.1 Cost and Load Matrix per unit distance: The materials are stored in different types of containers. At present the available material handling techniques are the bin system, the industrial trolley (fork lift). The worker material handling distance involved in shop floor per shift was calculated to enable calculation of the material handling cost on the basis of wages/shift relating to the work. Cost per unit distance was found varying for different material handling techniques. Details of the material handling cost calculated for each department are shown in Table 2. Load matrix was used for interpreting the (no of trips in-between the machines) Load relationship between the labour was involved in the shop floor. In this matrix the load between the each process is shown in the cell corresponding to the current machine from the X-axis and the next machine from the Y-axis. Details of the complete load calculation have been done between all available machines are given in Table 3. 2.2 Distance Matrix for Existing Production Layout: Distance matrix was used for interpreting the distance relationship between the various processes carried out in the shop floor. In this matrix, the distance between the two processes is shown in the cell corresponding to the current machine from the X-axis and the next machine from the Y-axis. The complete distance calculated between all available machines are shown in Table 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The total distance travelled by the material in a shift and the total cost spent in a shift were calculated using equation 1&2. The total distance covered and total cost for material handling are shown in Table 4. Using the above equation the total distance travelled in a shift was found to be 2376.85 m and the total cost of the present layout Rs. 2,788 per shift. The total distance to be traveled per shift in present layout (1) The total cost for handling for the present layout is calculated by the formula (2) Where, dij is the distance from departments i to department j. fij is the interdepartmental traffic from departments i to department j cij is the handling cost between departments i and department j.
M. Sathiyamoorthy et al., 2017/Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences. 11(8) June 2017, Pages: 37-45
40
Table 2: Cost Matrix (cij) and Load Matrix (fij) FROM/TO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 2 3 4
13
14
20
12
15
16
17
18
19
22.5
20
2
2
2
21
22
23
1.5 9 0.5 36 0.5 36
5 6 7
1.5 22.5 0.5 90
8 0.5
9
90 0.5
10
90 0.5
11
90 0.5
12
90 0.5
13
90
14 15 0.5
16
90 0.5
17
90 2.5
18
12.5 2.5
19
12.5
20
2.5
2.5
12.5
12.5 2
21
15 2
22
15 2
23
2
Where: = Cost Value,
= Load Value
3.1. Proposed Layout: The total work-in-process inventory and finished goods have been identified on the basis of observation of the existing process and layout. The total movement for an average quantity and the labour charge incurred have also been identified. The observation of existing manufacturing process, showed material handling process as excessive, resulting in high material handling time. The operations were unbalanced leading to increased work in process inventory. This consequently led to increased lead time. There is a need to redesign the layout to counteract these problems, various departmental interchanges are possible for improvement of this layout. Such interchanges are possible on the basis of above reason.
M. Sathiyamoorthy et al., 2017/Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences. 11(8) June 2017, Pages: 37-45
41
Table 3: Distance Matrix (dij) FROM /TO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 2 3 4
13 20
14
15
16
17
18
19
12
20
21
22
23
23
5.6 2.1 3.1
5 6 7
4.4 1.1
8 9
3
10
1
11
1.4
12
2
13
1.5
14 15 16
2.3
17
3.8
18
7.7
19
7
20
13
21
15 4
22
5
23
7
Where: = Distance Value
3.1.1 Procedure involved in redesigning the layout: 1. Travel of 500 cc, heavy, 350 cc and 535 cc model flywheels in a predefined path is common. The data collection has helped identification of 350 cc and 535 cc model flywheel has not having any CNC machining process. Therefore, in the proposed design the CNC machines are grouped separately to enable their use for the 500 cc and heavy model flywheel. 2. There are 3 slot milling and 3 drilling machines which are grouped in a single location. In the proposed design, this grouping has been changed on the basis of the process flow so that parallel work flow can be obtained as shown in the Fig. 2. 3. The final step is to link the different paths flowed by the two set of models at a common process line that has been selected as Balancing section. All the models have to travel from here in a same path. On the basis of above procedure the new layout has been designed and is shown in Fig. 2. The distance and cost of material handling were calculated for the proposed layout using the CRAFT algorithm. Work-in-process (WIP) is high in the existing layout due to improper planning. This leads to holding of materials at each machine. There is no defined system to record the work in process and quantity of raw material required per shift from the inventory. In the existing layout, it is located at a single place and this has been changed in the proposed layout at two locations. The two sets of models have separate inventory locations. The required quantity of raw material per shift is planned initially and there is no raw material supply from the inventory until the next shift.
M. Sathiyamoorthy et al., 2017/Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences. 11(8) June 2017, Pages: 37-45
42
Table 4: Total Distance Travelled and Total Cost Spent For Material Handling In a Shift FROM/ TO 1 2 3
1 0 50.4 75.6 0
2
3
4
5
6
7
12
13
14
40
24
80
48
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
75.6 37.8
5
0
0
6
0
0
111.6
17
18
19
20 45
21
22
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
99 149
99
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
15
0
55.8
7
0
11
0
0
11
10
0
0
0
9
0
4
10
8
0
0
0
0
0 0
49.5
0 0
90 45
0
0
0
0
126 63 0
0 180 90
0 0 135
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
67.5
0
72 36
0
0
0
207 104 342
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
171
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
163.75
183.75
409
459
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
96.25 241 87.5 219 0
0
60
Total 109 218 50.4 75.6 75.6 37.8 111.6 55.8 0 99 149 99 49.5 0 90 45 126 63 180 90 135 67.5 72 36 0 0 207 104 342 171 96.25 241 87.5 219 347.5 869 60
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50.4
75.6
111.6
99
99
90
126
180
135
72
40
24
549
183.75
163.75
183.75
105
75
14
0
2376.85
45
63
90 67.5 36
80
48
275
459
409
459
210 150
28
0
2787
Total
75.6 37.8 55.8
0
149 49.5
0
0
120
75 150
14 28
0
120 75 150 14 28
Where: = Distance value,
= Cost Value
3.2. Distance Matrix for Proposed Layout: After redesign the layout distance between stations will be changed the cost and the load matrix will be remains same. The distance matrix for proposed layout is shown Table 5. 3.3. Total distance travelled and total cost of proposed layout: Using equation 1 & 2, total distance and the total cost to be spent in a shift for proposed layout were calculated and details are shown in below Table 6. The total distance to be travel in a shift is seen as 2053.45 m and the total cost of the present layout is found to be Rs. 2046.725 per shift, using the CRAFT algorithm.
M. Sathiyamoorthy et al., 2017/Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences. 11(8) June 2017, Pages: 37-45
43
Fig. 2: Proposed Layout Table 5: Distance Matrix for Proposed Layout FROM/ TO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 2 3 4
13
14
20
12
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
22.5
2 2.1 3.1
5 6 7 8
2.2 1 2
9
1
10
1.6
11
2
12
1.5
13
0.8
14 15 16
2.3
17
3.8
18
5.6
19
5
20
6
21
6.5 4
22
5
23
3
Where: = Distance Value
23
M. Sathiyamoorthy et al., 2017/Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences. 11(8) June 2017, Pages: 37-45
44
Table 6: Total Distance Travelled and Total Cost Spent in a Shift for Proposed Layout FROM/ TO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 24 48
15
16
17
0
0
0
18
19
20
21
22
23
0
0
45 90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40 80
18 27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
75.6 37.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 49.5 74.25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 90 45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
144 72
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
135 67.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0 207 103.5 342 171
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60 120
0
0
0
0
75 150
0
0
1
0
2 3 4
0
0
5
0
0
111.6 55.8 0
6
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
90 45 0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
180 90
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14 15
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
72 36 0 0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
70 175 62.5 156.25
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
23
0
Total
18 27
0 0
0
0
0
75.6 111.6 37.8 55.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
49.5 74.25
90 45
0
90 45
144 72
0
0
0
0
180 135 90 67.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
72 36
40 80
24 48
0 0
0 0
549 132.5 274.5 331.25
0 0 0
75 81.25 188 203.1 0 0 0
0 0 0
0
75 81.25 105 188 203.1 210
0 75 150
6 12 6 12
0 0
Total 109 218 18 27 75.6 37.8 111.6 55.8 0 49.5 74.25 90 45 0 90 45 144 72 180 90 135 67.5 72 36 0 0 207 103.5 342 171 70 175 62.5 156.25 156.25 390.63 60 120 75 150 6 12 2053.45 2046.7
Where: = Distance Value,
= Cost Value
Table 7: Difference between Existing and Proposed Layout Average Total cost per month (Rs) Average Distance Travel per month (Km) Average Inventory (No’s)
Existing Layout 2,50,920 213.84 ≈ 445
New Layout 1,84,140 184.8 ≈ 200
Difference 66,780 29.04 245
Conclusion: This paper deals with redesigning of the manufacturing layout using the CRAFT technique and a new layout is proposed. Results are plotted and the results of the existing layout and the new layout are compared and a marginal increase in the utilization of the machines in the new layout is seen. Re-location of the machines was done to enable smoother flow of the material. The table 7 shows difference between the proposed layout and the existing layout. Material movement is reduced by 13.74 % after the implementation of the new layout and reduction of the total cost by 26.61 %. The work in process is reduced from 445 no’s to 200 no’s in the proposed layout design. The backtracking and by-passing movements have been ignored that are found with frequent occurrence in the existing layout.
45
M. Sathiyamoorthy et al., 2017/Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences. 11(8) June 2017, Pages: 37-45
REFERENCES 1. 2. 3.
4. 5. 6. 7.
Abhishek Kumar, V.K., Khare, P.M. Mishra., 2013. Facility Planning and Associated Problems: A Survey. 4: 6. Amir Mohammad Esmaieeli Sikaroudi, Kamran Shahanaghi., 2016. Facility layout by collision detection and force exertion heuristics, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 41: 21-30. Bobby John, Jubin James, R. Mahesh Rangaraj., 201. Analysis and Optimization of Plant Layout using Relative Allocation of Facilities Technique. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, 3(8): 514-520. Hari Prasad, N., G. Rajyalakshmi, A. Sreenivasulu Reddy, 2014. A Typical Manufacturing Plant Layout Design Using CRAFT Algorith. Procedia Engineering, 97: 1808-1814. Robert Cimikowski., 1997. Proximity-Based Adjacency Determination for Facility Layout. International Journal of Production Research, 42(22): 4709-4729. Singh, S.P., R.R.K. Sharma, 2006. A review of different approaches to the facility layout problems. Int J Adv Manuf Technol., 30: 425-433. Yosra Ojaghi, Alireza Khademi, Noordin Mohd Yusof., 2015. Production Layout Optimization for Small and Medium Scale Food Industry. Procedia CIRP 26: 247-251.
