Case Study for Plant Layout :: A modern analysis


Published on

A studied analysis into a case calling for optimized plant layouts.

Published in: Technology, Business
1 Comment
  • This is real take it serious, who will believe that a herb can cure herpes, i navel believe that this will work i have spend a lot when getting drugs from the hospital to keep me healthy, what i was waiting for is death because i was broke, one day i hard about this great man who is well know of HIV and cancer cure, i decided to email him, unknowingly to me that this will be the end of the herpes in my body, he prepare the herb for me, and give me instruction on how to take it, at the end of the one month, he told me to go to the hospital for a check up, and i went, surprisingly after the test the doctor confirm me negative, i thought it was a joke, i went to other hospital was also negative, then i took my friend who was also herpes positive to the Dr Agumagu, after the treatment she was also confirm negative . He also have the herb to cure cancer. please i want every one with this virus to be free, that is why am dropping his email address, or do email him he is a great man. the government is also interested in this DR, thank you for saving my life, and I promise I will always testify for your good his number +233200116937..
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Case Study for Plant Layout :: A modern analysis

  1. 1. For Slideshare Case:,M1
  2. 2. <ul><li>Established in 1949 </li></ul><ul><li>Core business being manufacturing of rotating machinery </li></ul><ul><li>Acquired general engineering plant in 1989 </li></ul><ul><li>New products to be manufactured </li></ul><ul><li>Mr. Lamba appointed to develop a new layout </li></ul>
  3. 3. <ul><li>Mr.Lamba found out that 6000 components were required in final products out of which 5000 components were to be fabricated on Indus facilities </li></ul><ul><li>The approach followed was </li></ul><ul><li>Gathering reasonably accurate forecast figures </li></ul><ul><li>Using stratified random sample (4%) for the purpose of evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Using Schnieder’s method for developing alternate layout </li></ul><ul><li>Getting the proposal checked by production department </li></ul><ul><li>Used data to create routing table, a load matrix and a </li></ul><ul><li>distance matrix chart </li></ul>
  4. 6. <ul><li>Using Table 2 and Table 3, a load distance matrix was developed and </li></ul><ul><li>Schnieder’s method was applied to it. </li></ul>
  5. 7. <ul><li>All the primary operation centers (handling maximum load) are placed as close to raw material stores as possible </li></ul><ul><li>Similarly, the secondary operation departments are placed close to primary operation departments </li></ul><ul><li>Using this method, the existing layout was transformed into a new layout </li></ul>
  6. 10. <ul><li>The plant’s efficiency improved from 43% to 85.4% </li></ul><ul><li>The moves distance per time period for path reduced from 2803.8 to 1403.09 </li></ul><ul><li>Material handling efficiency reduced from 1023005 unit-load move feet to 517210 unit-load move feet </li></ul><ul><li>Cost of material handling came down by 50% </li></ul><ul><li>The factory plant and production personnel pointed out </li></ul><ul><li>that the location of the mechanical assembly and </li></ul><ul><li>assembly erection departments didn’t allow smooth </li></ul><ul><li>movement of painted products. </li></ul>
  7. 12. <ul><li>Time constraint : Only six weeks for making the decision </li></ul><ul><li>Information constraint : Lack of information from Product division and Process planning departments </li></ul><ul><li>Sampling : Stratified data was assumed to be correct </li></ul>
  8. 13. <ul><li>Factors Considered: </li></ul><ul><li>Load and Cubic space utilization </li></ul><ul><li>Distance </li></ul><ul><li>Factors not Considered: </li></ul><ul><li>Safety factors </li></ul><ul><li>Working condition for workers   </li></ul><ul><li>Cost </li></ul><ul><li>Flexibility  </li></ul><ul><li>Concern of other departments  </li></ul><ul><li>Customized orders </li></ul><ul><li>Optimum usage of floor space </li></ul>
  9. 15. <ul><li>Schnieder’s Method has both pros and cons </li></ul><ul><li>Pros: </li></ul><ul><li>Ensures smooth flow of materials through different operations </li></ul><ul><li>The high preference given to proximity between primary operations and raw materials reduced the to-fro movement </li></ul><ul><li>Cons: </li></ul><ul><li>Approach focused at minimizing material handling alone </li></ul><ul><li>Does not account the costs for shifting from the existing layout </li></ul>
  10. 17. <ul><li>Total material handling effort (TMHE) - single most important and frequently used criterion for layout planning </li></ul><ul><li>We look at an alternate layout that is based on a heuristic method that could reduce the time required to bring out a product </li></ul><ul><li>Tried to create a “hybrid” layout which looks to introduce a hint of assembly line in a process-based layout </li></ul><ul><li>Reason: Continuous lines are usually preferred when time is a factor, since they act to reduce the time spent on a particular WIP when compared to process layouts </li></ul>
  11. 18. <ul><li>Data regarding sub-divisions of factors (like product mix, market accessibility, etc) is not available, hence ignored </li></ul><ul><li>Main factory has not been included in calculations </li></ul><ul><li>Assumed portability of units, in line with Lamba’s approach </li></ul>
  12. 19. <ul><li>Looked at the most frequent and repetitive sequences of departments in the material flow </li></ul><ul><li>Arrived at an arrangement that makes the WIP flow between most of them akin to an assembly line, without much back-and-forth between departments </li></ul>
  13. 20. To -> From ↓ RMS M/c HT Process Shop Project Stores Welding Total RMS 0 7 0 0 0 1 8 M/c 0 0 2 2 3 0 7 HT 0 0 0 7 0 0 7 Process Shop 0 0 0 0 12 0 12 Project Stores 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Total 0 7 2 10 15 1
  14. 21. <ul><li>Preceding table based on Table 5.1 in given sample data </li></ul><ul><li>A pattern is seen along the diagonal (in red), that enables us to make an arrangement that is in a continuous chain </li></ul><ul><li>Important to keep in mind not only the frequencies, but also the loads that are transferred between the departments </li></ul><ul><li>Keeping this in mind, arrived at an alternate layout that is continuous and yet would not involve carrying heavy loads too far </li></ul><ul><li>Had to resort to some trial-and-error to get there </li></ul>
  15. 22. The pseudo “line”
  16. 23. <ul><li>Pro: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Objection raised by production personnel about Mechanical Assembly and Assembly Erection departments may be mitigated to a large extent </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Con: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Load-distance efficiency is less (64%) as compared to Lamba’s method (85%) </li></ul></ul>
  17. 24. <ul><li>Minimization of total space occupied, by area (square footage) </li></ul><ul><li>If area is considered, problem is analogous to sheet-cutting problem (pieces of different shapes and sizes need to be cut from a single sheet while minimizing the sheet area used) </li></ul>
  18. 25. <ul><li>Qualitative method that considers five key factors: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Product (P): What is to be produced? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quantity (Q): How much of each item will be made? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Routing (R): How will each item be produced? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Supporting services (S): What support will be required for production? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Time (T): When will each item be produced? </li></ul></ul>
  19. 26. SLP procedures
  20. 27. <ul><li>Some well known computer programs that use algorithms based on heuristic/qualitative data to optimize layouts are ALDEP (Automated Layout Design Program) and CORELAP (Computerized Relationship Layout Planning). </li></ul>
  21. 28. <ul><li>Gives a ‘relative importance’ of parameters with each other </li></ul><ul><li>Based on the premise that not all factors are equally important, while designing a layout </li></ul><ul><li>Factors can be divided into sub-factors and relative weights can be calculated, however not performed here due to lack of data </li></ul>
  22. 29. <ul><li>Step 1: Formation of AHP initial matrix, based on investigator’s judgment </li></ul><ul><li>Step 2: Calculation of proportionate worth of criteria. This is the result </li></ul><ul><li>Step 3 : Verify result. Multiply initial matrix by average worth </li></ul><ul><li>Step 4: Divide final matrix of step 4 by average worth to get l </li></ul><ul><li>Consistency Index (CI) = (lavg – n) / (n – 1), where n is the order of the matrix. </li></ul><ul><li>Consistency Ratio (CR) = CI/RI (Random Index) </li></ul><ul><li>If CR << 0.1, then results can be held valid </li></ul>
  23. 30. Initial Matrix:   No. of items Volume Distance Weight No. if items 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 Volume 5 1 0.5 0.8 Distance 7 5 1 1 Weight 7 3 1 1
  24. 31.   No. of items Volume Distance Weight Avg Worth No. if items 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.10 Volume 0.25 0.10 0.15 0.25 0.19 Distance 0.35 0.50 0.35 0.30 0.37 Weight 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.30 0.33
  25. 32.   No. of items Volume Distance Weight Avg Worth No. if items 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.10   0.1195 Volume 0.25 0.10 0.15 0.25 x 0.19 =   0.1820 Distance 0.35 0.50 0.35 0.30 0.37   0.3585 Weight 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.30 0.33   0.3300
  26. 33. l avg = (2.295+0.95+0.96+1) / 4 = 1.026 Consistency Index (CI) = (lavg – n) / (n – 1), where n is the order of the matrix. CI = (1.026 – 4)/3 = -0.9913 Consistency Ratio CR = CI / RI = -0.9913 / 0.90 = -1.101 Since -1.101 << + 0.10, the results are acceptable. Calculation of l
  27. 36. <ul><li>Possible Implications </li></ul><ul><li>Since buildings cannot be altered, no extra construction or demolishing costs involved </li></ul><ul><li>Size of the buildings is immaterial for location of the departments </li></ul><ul><li>The process of developing a new layout can still be complicated if we have length and breadth constraints for the blocks </li></ul><ul><li>TMHE is the only criteria under consideration in the current method while other factors like minimization of moves,etc. can also be considered </li></ul>
  28. 38. <ul><li>‘ Not properly located to allow painted products to move out smoothly’ can signify that movement is obstructed due to space constraint or due to narrow exit entrances </li></ul><ul><li>The Mechanical and Assembly erection departments which are farther away from the road and aisle can be located much closer </li></ul><ul><li>Also check if the material handling equipment is proper and allows smooth flow </li></ul>
  29. 40. <ul><li>Assumption </li></ul><ul><li>No volume restriction, only weight restriction (2000 kg per truck) </li></ul><ul><li>Trucks are considered as the only material movement equipment </li></ul><ul><li>Load is considered in tons </li></ul><ul><li>Main Factory is situated as per layout given below </li></ul><ul><li>The j th department has N j machines which work simultaneously and take T j time to finish one product </li></ul><ul><li>Speed of a truck is considered to be constant at “v” feet / minute </li></ul><ul><li>Dedicated trucks are provided between the nodes and the number of trucks moving between node i and node j are represented by X i </li></ul><ul><li>The main criteria for deciding the number of trucks is the total cost of acquiring the trucks, which is calculated by multiplying the total number of trucks in to the cost of one truck (K). The total cost is to be minimized </li></ul>
  30. 41. Machine Assembly Machine Shop Welding Shop Process Shop Project Store Assembly Errection HT Plant RMS Blade Plastic Main Factory
  31. 42. Fig 2 Load – Hop Distance Map
  32. 43. Objective Function: Minimize Z = (X 12 +X 13 +X 14 +X 15 +X 16 +X 17 +X 24 +X 26 +X 27 +X 29 +X 32 +X 36 +X 37 +X 39 +X 46 +X 47 +X 49 +X 48 +X 52 +X 59 +X 63 +X 67 +X 78 +X 79 +X 73 +X 76 +X 98 +X 9,10 +X 10,8 ) * K, it should be minimized   K = Cost of a power vehicle Constraints   Number of vehicles running from i th node to j th node >= (( Time of round trip from i th node to j th node / Time of operation of machine at j th node ) * number of machines at j th node)   Example:  X 12 >= ((4d/v)/T 2 )*N 2   Where X 12 = Number of vehicles running from 1 st node to 2nd node d = 1 hop distance v = speed of power trucks T 2 = Time of operation of a machine at 2 nd node N 2 = Number of machines at 2 nd node
  33. 44. NOTE: Also we need to consider the recurring cost of truck operations over a long period of time. X 12 trucks are moving in between node 1 and 2 which will cost us P= X 12 *K for acquiring the trucks. Now for example say cost of moving a truck for 1 hop costs C. So total cost for X 12 trucks will be (2*(73/X 12 )*C). So if we consider M period as the life time of the truck, then total recurring cost for X 12 will be R= (2*(73/X 12 )*C)*M. So after M period   R <= P
  34. 45. Thank you! Questions at [email_address] please