(13) computerised layout planning
TRANSCRIPT
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
1
COMPUTERISED LAYOUT PLANNING
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
2
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMSCORELAPALDEPPLANET, LSP, LAYOPT, RMA Comp I
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMSCRAFTRUGR (based on graph theory)
LAYOUT PLANNINGPACKAGES
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
3
ALDEP
AutomatedLayout
DEsignProgram
Development within IBM
Seehof, J.M and W.O. Evans “Automated Layout Design Program:, The Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol 18, No. 12, 1967, pp 690 - 695.
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
4
ALDEP based on closeness Ratings
A 43 = 64
E 43 = 16
I 41 = 4
O 40 = 1
U 0 = 0
X -45 = -1,024
Can handle 63 departments on 3 floors
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
5
Scoring Pattern of ALDEP
50
8
2 4
1
7 6
3
For a Cell (0) the scores of all eight neighbours areadded together (as per REL chart)
Then the cell (0) is deletedso that it is not counted again. We then proceed to the next cell till all cells are exhausted. The final cumulativescore is the Layout Score
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
6
Inputs Requirements for ALDEP
• Length, Width and area requirements for each floor.• Scale of layout printout (max 30x50)• No. of depts. in the layout• No. of layouts to be generated• Minimum allowable score for an acceptable layout.• Minimum dept. preference (A or E)• REL chart for the depts.• Location and size of restricted area for each floor.
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
7
Vertical Scanning Pattern for placing depts. in ALDEP
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
8
Mechanism of ALDEP :
(a) 1st dept placed randomly.
(b) Scan the REL chart for a dept with A,E rating (min dept preference) continue this step till no such dept exists
(c) Pick up the next dept. in a random fashion and again proceed by scanning the REL chart [step (b)].
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
9
An Example of ALDEP
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
10
The Available Space
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
11
B
Placement of 1st Department
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
12
Placement of 2nd Department
B
D
D
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
13
Placement of 3rd Department
D
B
D
A
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
14
Placement of 4th Department
C
B
D
D
AC
C
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
15
Final Layout
B
D
D
A
C
CC
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
16
Features of CORELAP
• Retain the rectangular shape of each department
• The layout is built around a central department
• Placement and choice based on the total and current placement ratio
• The final layout may end up with irregular boundaries
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
17
CRAFTComputerized
Relative
Allocation of
Facilities
Technique
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
18
Armour, G.C. and E.S.Buffa, “A Heuristic Algorithm and Simulation Approach to Relative Location of Facilities”
Management Science, Vol 9, No. 1, 1963, pp 294-309
Buffa, E.S, G.C. Armour and T.E. Vollman “Allocating Facilities with CRAFT” Harvard Business Review, Vol 42, No.2, 1964, pp 136 - 159.
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
19
An Example of CRAFT
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
20
Product, Process & Schedule Data
Product Processingsequence
Dailyproduction
No of itemsin Trolley
Trolley loads/ day
1 ABCBCD 100 5 20
2 ACBD 50 5 10
3 ACBCBD 200 40 5
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
21
Initial Layout
A D
B C
From /To
A B C D
A --- 1 2 1
B 1 --- 1 2
C 2 1 --- 1
D 1 2 1 ---
Distance Matrix for initial layout(Assuming Rectilinear Distances)
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
22
Load MatrixFrom/To A B C D
A --- 20 15
B --- 45 15
C 45 --- 20
D ---
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
23
Unit Cost MatrixFrom/To A B C D
A --- 1 2 1
B 1 --- 1 1
C 2 1 --- 1
D 1 1 1 ---
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
24
Load x Unit Cost Matrix (Flow Matrix)
From/To
A B C D
A --- 20 30 50
B --- 45 15 60
C 45 --- 20 65
D --- 00
00 65 75 35
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
25
Initial Layout (Distance Matrix)
A D
B C
From/To
A B C D
A --- 1 2 1
B 1 --- 1 2
C 2 1 --- 1
D 1 2 1 ---
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
26
Material Handling Effort for Initial Layout
From/To
A B C D
A --- 20 30
B --- 45 15
C 45 --- 20
D ---
From/To
A B C D
A --- 1 2 1
B 1 --- 1 2
C 2 1 --- 1
D 1 2 1 ---
From/To
A B C D
A --- 20 60 80
B --- 45 30 75
C 90 --- 20 110
D --- 00
00 110 105 50 265
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
27
P air w ise E x chang es
A BB DA C
A CC DB A
A DD AB C
B CA DC B
B DA BD C
C DA CB D
In it ia l L ayou tA DB C
265 Material Handling Effort
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
28
Alternative 1 (Distance Matrix)
A B C D
A ---- 1 1 2
B 1 ---- 2 1
C 1 2 ---- 1
D 2 1 1 ----
B DA C
Material Handling Effort = Flow x Distance Matrix = 220
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
29
Alternative 2 (Distance Matrix)
A B C D
A ---- 1 2 1
B 1 ---- 1 2
C 2 1 ---- 1
D 1 2 1 ----
C D B A
Material Handling Effort = Flow x Distance Matrix = 265
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
30
Alternative 3 (Distance Matrix)
A B C D
A ---- 2 1 1
B 2 ---- 1 1
C 1 1 ---- 2
D 1 1 2 ----
D AB C
Material Handling Effort = Flow x Distance Matrix = 215
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
31
Alternative 4 (Distance Matrix)
A B C D
A ---- 2 1 1
B 2 ---- 1 1
C 1 1 ---- 2
D 1 1 2 ----
A DC B
Material Handling Effort = Flow x Distance Matrix = 215
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
32
Alternative 5 (Distance Matrix)
A B C D
A ---- 1 2 1
B 1 ---- 1 2
C 2 1 ---- 1
D 1 2 1 ----
A BD C
Material Handling Effort = Flow x Distance Matrix = 265
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
33
Alternative 6 (Distance Matrix)
A B C D
A ---- 1 1 2
B 1 ---- 2 1
C 1 2 ---- 1
D 2 1 1 ----
A CB D
Material Handling Effort = Flow x Distance Matrix = 220
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
34
P air w ise E x chang es
A BB DA C
A CC DB A
A DD AB C
B CA DC B
B DA BD C
C DA CB D
In it ia l L ayou tA DB C
265
220 265 215* 215* 265 220
MaterialHandlingEffort
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
35
Limitations of CRAFT
• CRAFT yields a good heuristic solution that does not guarantee optimality
• This is because not all (n!) combinations are evaluated, but only (nC2) pair-wise exchange options are considered.
• In case departments are on unequal size, their centroids are exchanged which can result in irregular shapes of departments
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
36
n nC2 = [n(n-1)]/2
n!
1 0 1 2 1 2 3 3 4 4 6 24 5 10 120 6 15 720 7 21 5040 8 28 40320 9 36 362880 10 45 3628800 11 55 39916800 12 66 479001600
8
Factorial Growth
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
37
20! = 2.4329 X 1018 20C2 = 190
30! = 2.65252 X 1032 30C2 = 435
40! = 8.15915 X 1047 40C2 = 780
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
38
Summary of the CRAFT procedure
• This example demonstrates one iteration of the basic CRAFT procedure
• The best layout so produced is compared with the starting layout. If it is inferior to the starting layout, the starting layout is declared optimal and the search stops
• Otherwise a new iteration with the discovered layout as the starting node is initiated
04/07/23 Computerized Layouts / R K BANSAL
39
Conclusions
• Computer packages for layout planning – Construction programs (ALDEP, CORELAP)– Improvement programs (CRAFT)
• Based on SLP procedure – Activity relationships– Material Handling Effort
• Good for generation of alternative layouts• Limitations of irregular shapes, ignoring realistic
constraints