Production floor layout using systematic layout planning ...

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 [email protected]

Manderas Yilma Mechanical & Vehicle Engineering Department

School of Engineering & Information Technologies Adama Science & Technology University

Adama, Ethiopia, Africa [email protected]

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

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

Manufacturing Section, Production Engineering Department, DefenceUniversity, Bishoftu (Debre Zeit), Ethiopia, Africa. (sponsors)

CoDIT'13

978-1-4673-5549-0/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 822

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

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

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.

CoDIT'13

978-1-4673-5549-0/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 823


TABLE I. PRESENT FLOW PROCESS CHART ANALYSIS.

Details of Present Method (Flow process) (S-Store, T-Transport, O-Operation, D-Delay)

Operation Distance (meters)

Observed Time (seconds)

Bottom for Ø90mm Can: 1. Store S 2. To slitter machine T 23.7 3. Slitting O 0.23 4. To bottom pressing machine T 14.0 5. Bottom pressing O 1.65 6. To sealing machine T 54.7 7. Sealing with body O

Sub Total 92.4 1.88 Body for Ø90mm Can: 1. Store S 2. To slitter machine T 23.7 3. Slitting O 0.74 4. To rolling machine T 50.2 5. Rolling O 0.96 6. To seam welding T 2.2 7. Welding O 3.07 8. To flanging machine T 42.6 9. Flanging O 3.36 10. To bottom and ring sealing machine T 0.8 11. Bottom and ring sealing O 7.45

Sub Total 119.5 15.60 Ring for Ø90mm Can: 1. Store S 2. To slitter machine T 23.7 3. Slitting O 0.34 4. To ring press machine T 34.1 5. Ring pressing O 1.94 6. To sealing machine T 29.6 7. Sealing with body O

Sub Total 87.4 2.28 Lid for Ø90mm Can: 1. Store S 2. To slitter machine T 23.7 3. Slitting O 0.22 4. To lid press T 19.6 5. Lid pressing O 2.63 6. To lid curling machine T 47.1 7. Lid curling O 3.98

Sub Total 90.4 6.83

TABLE II. DISTANCES (METERS) BETWEEN WORK CENTERS/MACHINES.

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 the activity relationship diagram (Table III).

TABLE III. ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP WORKSHEET.

Work Centers/Machines: A E I O U X 1. Store: 2,5 15 3,4,6,9 7,8,10,11,12,16,17 13,14 2. Slitter: 1,3,4,6,9 7,13,14 5,8,10,11,12,16,17 15 3. Bottom press: 2,5 11 6,7,8,9,10, 12,13, 14,17 15,16 4. Ring press: 2,12 17 13,14 5,6,7,8,9,10,11 15,16 5. Plastic liner: 3,11 17 6,7,8,9,10, 12,13,14 15,16 6. Rolling: 2,7 8 17 9,10,16,11,12 13,14,15 7. Welding: 6,8 17 9,10,11, 12,16 13,14,15 8. Flanging: 7,11 12 17 13,14,15,16 9,10 9. Lid press: 2,10 17 11,12 13,14,15,16 10. Lid curling: 9 17 11,12,13,14,15,16 11. Bottom sealing: 5 12 17 16 13,14,15 12. Ring sealing: 4 17 16 13,14,15 13. Ear press: 16 17 14,15 14. Washer press: 16 17 15 15. Wire bender: 16 17 16. Bail sub assemble: 17 17. Final assemble: 16 12

2) Dimensionless block diagram: The dimensionless block diagram is the first layout attempt (Fig. 3). Even though this layout is dimensionless, it is the plan for the master layout and plot plan. Once size is determined, space will be allocated to each activity as per the dimensionless blocks diagram layout. If we obey the activity codes, a good layout will results. 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].

Figure 3. Dimensionless block diagram.

CoDIT'13

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


Step 4: Relationship diagram (String diagram)

This step positions workstations/machineries spatially. For those machineries that have strong interactions and/or closeness relationships are placed in proximity. The relation/string diagram shows near optimal placement without consideration for space requirements and exposes possible clustering of machineries (Fig. 4). Through the analysis of the activity relationship diagram, a better understanding of the processing functions for all the components has been achieved. This can be applied to the layout of the physical building in a space relationship diagram.

Figure 4. Relationship diagram for work centers/machines.

Step 5: Space requirement

The overall space requirement for the production of Cans in the production shop floor is determined by taking measurement of the foot print of the machine along with the number of stations and allowances required. From each workstation layout we measured the length and the width to determine the square footage of each station as: Machine space (Max.) = Length× Width+(maintenance+maximum travel+plant service+ operator +material) and Machine space (Min.)=Length × Width. Multiplying the total sq. meters by 150% allows extra space for the aisle, work-in-progress (Table IV). The extra 50% space added to the equipment space requirement will be mostly used for aisles [8]. Based on the space determination the operators can be seated during work comfortably without knocking the persons behind.

TABLE IV. SPACE DETERMINATIONS.

Code Workstations/Machines Length× Width (m)

Total sq. meters

M1 Slitter machine 1.2× 2 2.4 M2 Slitter machine 1.2× 2 2.4 M3 Ø115mm bottom press machine 1× 1.8 1.8 M4 Ø176mm bottom press machine 1× 2 2 M5 Ø90mm cover press 1.2× 0.8 0.96

M6 Plastic liner (no work) 1.2× 0.8 0.96

M7 Plastic liner 2× 4.8 9.6

M8 Ear press 1.3× 1.2 1.56

M9 Ø115mm ring press (no work) 1.5× 1.2 1.8

M10 Ear and wire assemble 0.8× 0.7 0.56

M11 Wire bending machine 0.8× 1.4 1.12

M12 Washer press 1.5× 1 1.5

M13 Ø115mm cover press (no work) 1.5× 1 1.5

M14 Ø115mm ring press 1.5× 1 1.5

M15 Ø176mm ring press (for final shape) 1.5× 1 1.5

M16 Ø176mm ring press (only blank shape) 2.3× 2 4.6

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

M32 Ø90mm cover curling machine 0.7× 0.7 0.49



Total 84.06

150% 126.09

Step 6: Space available

Based on the space determined under the space determination, the space occupied by the production shop is enough for the production of Cans. The space available for the production of Cans occupies 420 sq. meters area (7m width with 60m length), in this floor width machineries were arranged by two rows with its length of the floor (Fig. 1). There are two options for the rearranging of machineries.

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 rows with their process sequences. The store area will become rather wide in contrast to be stored raw material, therefore reduce 4m width space along the length from store to Cans production shop floor spaces (Fig. 5).

The second option is that enough space is available but the width of the Cans production shop floor was narrow, machineries can be arranged only by two rows (Fig. 6). And additionally we have to remove some unused/dead machines (M6-plastic liner, M9-Ø115mm ring press, M13-Ø115mm lid press, M17-Ø176mm lid press machine) from existing production shop floor for both the options.

CoDIT'13

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


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

In the study, the existing facilities were established and there was limited ability to expand the area for extra space. Other than, some negotiations are needed to rebuild the main building from one side to have best floor layout for the facilities.

Step 10: Develop layout alternatives

It is also common to find an entire plant arrangement according to general material flow (fabrication, subassembly, 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 5. Space relationship diagram and proposed layout alternative design

I (with widened the space of production shop floor).

(ii) Alternative Design II The second layout alternative design is without increasing

the width of Cans production shop floor. To minimize the sub-components traveling distance for the second alternative design, rearrange the machineries in to two rows according to their process flow sequences, and proposed space for the aisle, maintenance of the machines, space for the operators etc. also combined (Fig. 6).

Figure 6. Space relationship diagram and proposed layout alternative design II (without widened the space of production shop floor).

CoDIT'13

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


Step 11: Evaluation

This is to perform comparisons on certain key performance indices between the existing layout and the two layout alternative designs as proposed in Step 10. Following are the performance measures to evaluate the effectiveness of the two proposed (improved) layouts viz., total travel distance, total travel time, traveling cost, and back tracking.

A. Total Travel Distance Table VI reveals that the existing layout incorporates high

distance of travel, i.e. 389.7m. The layout alternative design I results in a less distance being traveled i.e. 311.2m (reduces 78.5m) and the layout alternative design II has reduced the distance travels i.e. 360.6m (reduces 29m) respectively. Table V shows that distance reduction can be obtained by implementing the layout rearrangement suggested. The layout alternative one is better since reduced the traveled distance by 20.14% as compared with the existing layout.

TABLE V. COMPARISON OF THE LAYOUTS IN TERMS OF DISTANCE.

Components of Ø90mm Can

Total Traveling Distances (meters) Existing layout

Alternative design I

Alternative design II

Bottom 92.4 74.4 95.5 Body 119.5 73.3 79.2 Ring 87.4 75.1 95.7 Lid 90.4 88.4 90.2 Total 389.7 311.2 360.6 Reduced distances (%) 20.14 7.46

B. Total Travel Time Table VI shows that total traveling time at existing layout

incorporates high traveling time i.e. 901sec. (15.01 min.), for layout alternative design I results in a less travel time being traveled i.e. 750 sec. (12.50 min.) reduced by 2.51min., and total traveling time at layout alternative design II has also reduced the traveled time i.e. 910sec. (15.16 min.) reduced by -0.15 min. respectively in contrast to existing layout and this result shows there is significant improvement for layout alternative designs I and II.

TABLE VI. COMPARISON OF THE LAYOUTS IN TERMS OF TIME.

Components of Ø90mm Can

Total Traveling Time (Seconds) Existing layout

Alternative design I

Alternative design II

Bottom 248 188 251 Body 203 135 143 Ring 218 192 276 Lid 232 235 240 Total 901 750 910 Reduced traveling time (%) 16.7 -1

C. Total Travel Cost Based on different methods, the layout problem can have

different models. According to objective functions, there are two basic objectives, one aims at minimizing the total material handling cost while the other aims at maximizing an adjacency score. The formulation of the model for minimizing the total material handling cost is given as follows [5]:

ij

m

1i

m

1jijDCZ ∑∑

= =

= (1)

where: Z = total material handling cost, Cij is the cost per unit distance of flow between activities i and j, Dij is the distance between activities i and j, m = work centers.

The Can components were moving from machine to machine by using two modes of material handling systems, by forklift truck and manual handling. The travel cost is expressed in terms of the resource cost and the labor salary.

The forklift activity cost in this company is calculated as 11.25Birr/hr. (0.19Birr/min.) for fuel and 6.8Birr/hr. (0.11Birr/min.) for labor, totally 18.05Birr/hr. (0.30Birr/min.). This cost/hr. is changed to cost/distance, to calculate material handling cost. From observed data, material movement (forklift) measured distance between store and slitter machine 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 is 0.30Birr/min. As per this calculation the cost per distance is 0.30Birr/24m, from this result the forklift cost per distance is 0.013Birr/m. The labor salary is calculated as 6.80Birr/hr. (0.11Birr/min.). The traveling time by the operator is also considered in the assembly process as labor hours. Table VII reveals that the calculated total travel cost as per (1), for production Cans is less on layout alternative designs I and II.

TABLE VII. SUMMARIZED TRAVELING COST OF LAYOUTS.

Traveling Cost (Birr per each travel) Existing Alternative design I Alternative design II 3.17 2.93 (8 %) 2.19 (31%)

D. Back Tracking The process flow and relations between each operation are

observed (Figs. 1, 7, and 8). The arrangement of the machines for the developed layout alternatives are made by arranging the machines following the operation route for each component. Table VIII shows comparisons of layouts in terms of back tracking and reveals that there is no back tracking in alternative designs I and II.

TABLE VIII. COMPARISON OF LAYOUTS IN TERMS OF BACKTRACKING.

Existing Alternative Design I Alternative Design IIFrom To From To From To

Welding Flanging No back tracking

No back tracking

No back tracking

No back tracking

Bottom press Bottom sealing

No back tracking

No back tracking

No back tracking

No back tracking

Ring press Ring sealing

No back tracking

No back tracking

No back tracking

No back tracking

III. CONCLUSIONS After careful analysis of the current Can manufacturing floor layout of company and using SLP technique, the following conclusions are made: • From the viewpoint of process flow sequences, the self-organized layout was more effective than the existing plan.

CoDIT'13

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


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).

• 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.

CoDIT'13

978-1-4673-5549-0/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 828


Production floor layout using systematic layout planning ...

Documents

Transcript of Production floor layout using systematic layout planning ...