Advertisement

OPSEARCH

pp 1–29 | Cite as

A novel approach to determine the cell formation using heuristics approach

  • Shruti Shashikumar
  • Rakesh D. Raut
  • Vaibhav S. Narwane
  • Bhaskar B. Gardas
  • Balkrishna E. Narkhede
  • Anjali AwasthiEmail author
Theoretical Article
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

Cellular manufacturing is a vital part of lean manufacturing. It is an application of group technology. Three problems in cellular manufacturing are cell formation, machine layout and cell layout problems. However, these problems are NP-hard optimisation problems and cannot be solved using exact methods. A difficult part is to form the machine groups or cells, also called Cell Formation Problem and several techniques have been proposed to solve the same. In this paper, the Cell Formation Problem is solved using an integrated approach of heuristics along with Genetic Algorithm and Membership Index. Heuristics technique is used for domain selection which is used in Genetic Algorithm as the initial population. Genetic Algorithm is useful for optimising the results of machine assignment to cells, and Membership Index is used to assign parts to the cells. The performance is analysed using performance measures such as group technology efficiency and some exceptional elements. The proposed computational methodology is tested on standard problems of diverse size from literature papers using the hybrid approach. Results from test problems show that the proposed method is effective and efficient. The paper is useful from the practicality aspect and also relevant from current research and industry trends.

Keywords

Cell formation Cellular manufacturing Genetic algorithm Heuristics Membership index Hybrid approach 

Abbreviations

Xa,b

Similarity coefficients between machines ‘a’ and ‘b’

\( P_{pbr} \)

Processing time is taken by part ‘p’ on machine ‘b’ with process plan ‘r’

\( P_{par} \)

Processing time is taken by part ‘p’ on the machine ‘a’ with process plan ‘r’

\( o_{a} \)

Number of operations done on machine ‘a’

\( o_{b} \)

Number of operations done on machine ‘b’

\( M_{a} \)

Machine ‘a’ capacity

\( M_{b} \)

Machine ‘b’ capacity

Nop

Operations performed by a part

Vp

Part volume of ‘p’ type part per period

Dp

The part demand of ‘p’ type part per period

Aabpr

= 1 if part ‘p’ for process plan ‘r’ visits both ‘a’ and ‘b’ machines; 0 otherwise

Babpr

= 1 if part ‘p’ for process plan ‘r’ visits both ‘a’ and ‘b’ machines; 0 otherwise

R

Total of part routings which can be processed on both ‘a’ and ‘b’ machines

u

Total number of machines

v

Total number of parts

\( V_{{A_{abpr} }} \)

Number of parts with process routings ‘r’, that can visit both ‘a’ and ‘b’ machines

\( \frac{{P_{par} }}{{M_{a} }} \)

The ratio of processing time for part ‘p’ for machine ‘a’ capacity

\( \frac{{P_{pbr} }}{{M_{b} }} \)

The ratio of processing time for part ‘p’ for machine ‘b’ capacity

\( \frac{{o_{a} }}{{O_{amax} }} \)

Total operations on the machine ‘a’ concerning the maximum number of operations

\( \frac{{o_{b} }}{{O_{bmax} }} \)

Total operations on the machine ‘b’ concerning the maximum number of operations

\( \frac{{V_{p} }}{{D_{p} }} \)

Ratio of production volume rate to demand per part

\( X_{{m,r_{c} }} \)

Similarity coefficient between machine m and group representative of the selected cell decision variable

\( f_{m,c} \)

= 1 if machine ‘m’ is allocated to cell ‘c’; 0 otherwise

\( \frac{{a_{pc} }}{{A_{c} }} \)

The proportion of machines required by part ‘p’ in cell ‘c’

\( \frac{{a_{pc} }}{{A_{p} }} \)

The fraction of a number of machines necessary for part ‘p’ in cell ‘c’

\( \frac{{P_{pc} }}{{P_{p} }} \)

The percentage of processing time required by part ‘p’ in cell ‘c’

\( N_{op} \)

Number of operations (‘o’ = 1….. Nop)

\( q_{vpo} \)

0 if operations ‘o’ and ‘o + 1’ are performed in one cell; 1 otherwise

Notes

Supplementary material

12597_2019_381_MOESM1_ESM.docx (30 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 30 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Batsyn, M. V., Batsyna, E. K., & Bychkov, I. S. (2019). On NP-completeness of the cell formation problem. arXiv:1901.02778
  2. 2.
    Belal, M.A., Haggag, M.H.: A structured-population genetic-algorithm based on hierarchical hypercube of genes expressions. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 64(22), 5–18 (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chan, H.M., Milner, D.A.: Direct clustering algorithm for group formation in cellular manufacture. J. Manuf. Syst. 1(1), 65–75 (1982)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chang, C.C., Wu, T.S., Li, F.C.: An efficient tabu search approach to determine cell formation, cell layout, and intracellular machine layout in the cellular manufacturing system. Expert Syst. Appl. Int. J. 36(2), 3652–3661 (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Costa, A., Cappadonna, F.A., Fichera, S.: A hybrid genetic algorithm for minimizing makespan in a flow-shop sequence-dependent group scheduling problem. J. Intell. Manuf. 28(6), 1269–1283 (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Devaki, P., Valarmathi, M.L.: Job scheduling using genetic algorithm with qos satisfaction in grid. Eur. J. Sci. Res. 74(2), 272–285 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    El-Mihoub, T.A., Hopgood, A.A., Nolle, L., Battersby, A.: Hybrid genetic algorithms: a review. Eng. Lett. 13(2), 124–137 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garbie, I.H., Parsaei, H.R., Leep, H.R.: Machine cell formation based on a new similarity coefficient. J. Ind. Syst. Eng. 1(4), 318–344 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ghosh, T., Sengupta, S., Chattopadhyay, M., Dan, P.K.: Meta-heuristics in cellular manufacturing: a state-of-the-art review. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput. 2(5), 198–215 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Golmohammadi, A., Bani-Asadi, H., Zanjani, H., Tikani, H.: A genetic algorithm for preemptive scheduling of a single machine. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput. 7(4), 607–614 (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harhalakis, G., Nagi, R., Proth, J.M.: An efficient heuristic in manufacturing cell formation for group technology applications. Int. J. Prod. Res. 28(1), 185–198 (1990)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hazarika, M., Laha, D.: Genetic algorithm approach for machine cell formation with alternative routings. Mater. Today Proc. 5(1), 1766–1775 (2018)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Imran, M., Kang, C., Lee, Y.H., Jahanzaib, M., Aziz, H.: Cell formation in a cellular manufacturing system using simulation integrated hybrid genetic algorithm. Comput. Ind. Eng. 105, 123–135 (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jiang, P., Ding, K., Leng, J.: Towards a cyber-physical-social-connected and service-oriented manufacturing paradigm: social Manufacturing. Manuf. Lett. 7, 15–21 (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Joshua, R., Raj, S., Vasudevan, V.: Grid scheduling with smart genetic algorithm. Int. J. Grid Comput. Multi Agent Syst. 2(1), 1–10 (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kheirkhah, A., Ghajari, A.: A three-phase heuristic approach to solve an integrated cell formation and production planning problem. Uncertain Supply Chain Manag. 6(2), 213–228 (2018)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khorasgani, S.M.S., Ghaffari, M.: Developing a cellular manufacturing model considering the alternative routes, tool assignment, and machine reliability. J. Ind. Eng. Int. 14(3), 627–636 (2018)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kia, R., Baboli, A., Javadian, N., Tavakkoli, M.R., Kazemi, M., Khorrami, J.: Solving a group layout design model of a dynamic cellular manufacturing system with alternative process routings, lot splitting and flexible reconfiguration by simulated annealing. Comput. Oper. Res. 39(11), 2642–2658 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kumar, R., Singh, S.P.: Designing robust stochastic bi-objective cellular layout in manufacturing systems. Int. J. Manag. Concepts Philos. 10(2), 147–164 (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leno, I.J., Sankar, S.S., Ponnambalam, S.G.: MIP model and elitist strategy hybrid GA–SA algorithm for layout design. J. Intell. Manuf. 29(2), 369–387 (2018)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lopez, F.G., Gover, M.R., Leskela, J., Sauer, E.M., Schirmer, L., Wyssmann, J.: Attachment styles, shame, guilt, and collaborative problem-solving orientations. Personal Relationships 4(2), 187–199 (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mahapatra, S.S., Pandian, S.R.: Genetic cell formation using ratio level data in cellular manufacturing systems. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 38(5), 630–640 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mohammadi, M., Forghani, K.: A dynamic programming enhanced simulated annealing algorithm for solving bi-objective cell formation problem with duplicate machines. Decis. Sci. Lett. 4(2), 261–276 (2015)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mojtaba, S., Reza, T.M.: A grouping genetic algorithm for the cell formation problem. Int. J. Nat. Eng. Sci. 3(1), 73–78 (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morris, J.S., Tersine, R.J.: A simulation analysis of factors influencing the attractiveness of group technology cellular layouts. Manag. Sci. 36, 1567–1578 (1990)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mulvey, J.M., Crowde, H.P.: Cluster analysis: an application of Lagrangian relaxation. Manag. Sci. 25(4), 329–340 (1979)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Murugaiyan, P., Ramasamy, P.: Hybrid genetic algorithm for machine-component cell formation. Intell. Inf. Manag. 7(3), 107–122 (2015)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pandey, R., Agrawal, M., Tomar, A.S.: Concept of group technology in the field of cellular manufacturing and design of manufacturing system. Imp. J. Interdiscip. Res. 3(5), 1099–1103 (2017)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Patel, J.N., Patel, S.V.: Approaches to solve cell formation, machine layout and cell layout problem: a Review. Trans. Mach. Learn. Artif. Intell. 2(5), 80–96 (2014)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Paydar, M.M., Mahdavi, I.S.I., Solimanpur, M.: Applying simulated annealing for designing cellular manufacturing systems using MDmTSP. Comput. Ind. Eng. J. 59, 929–936 (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Prabhaharan, G., Muruganandam, A., Asokan, P., Girish, B.S.: Machine cell formation for cellular manufacturing systems using an ant colony system approach. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 25(9), 1013–1019 (2005)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ramabhatta, V., Nagi, R.: An integrated formulation of manufacturing cell formation with capacity planning and routing. Ann. Oper. Res. 77(2), 79–95 (1998)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Saeedi, S., Solimanpur, M., Mahdavi, I., Javadian, N.: Heuristic approaches for cell formation in cellular manufacturing. J. Softw. Eng. Appl. 3(7), 674–682 (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shahparvari, S., Chiniforooshan, P.: Hybridization of genetic algorithm and linear programming for solving cell formation problem with alternative process routings. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science (2012)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sofianopoulou, S.: Manufacturing cells design with alternative process plans and/or replicate machines. Int. J. Prod. Res. 37(3), 707–720 (1999)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Soolaki, M., Arkat, J.: Incorporating dynamic cellular manufacturing into strategic supply chain design. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 95(5–8), 2429–2447 (2018)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Soto, R., Crawford, B., Aste Toledo, A., Castro, C., Paredes, F., Olivares, R.: Solving the manufacturing cell design problem through binary cat swarm optimization with dynamic mixture ratios. Comput. Intell. Neurosci 2019, 4787856 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4787856 Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tambuskar, D.P., Narkhede, B.E., Mahapatra, S.S.: A novel algorithm for machine cell formation to enhance agility of manufacturing supply chain. In: Proceedings of 1st International Conference on BPSCM, pp. 22–23. SOA University, Bhubaneshwar, (2012)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Thanh, L., Ferland, J.A., Elbenani, B., Thuc, N.D., Nguyen, V.H.: A computational study of hybrid approaches of metaheuristic algorithms for the cell formation problem. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 45(2), 96–110 (2015)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Utkina, I.E., Batsyn, M.V., Batsyna, E.K.: A branch-and-bound algorithm for the cell formation problem. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56(9), 3262–3273 (2018)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Venugopal, V., Narendran, T.T.: Cell formation in manufacturing systems through simulated annealing: an experimental evaluation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 63, 409–422 (1992)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wilhelm, W.E., Chiou, C.C., Chang, D.B.: Integrating design and planning considerations in cellular manufacturing. Ann. Oper. Res. 77(3), 97–107 (1998)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Xambre, A.R., Vilarinho, P.M.: A simulated annealing approach for manufacturing cell formation with multiple identical machines. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 151, 434–446 (2003)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Xiaodan, W., Chao-Hsien, C., Yunfeng, W., Weili, Y.: A genetic algorithm for cellular manufacturing design and layout. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 181, 156–167 (2007)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yin, Y., Stecke, K.E., Li, D.: The evolution of production systems from industry 2.0 through industry 4.0. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56(1–2), 848–861 (2018)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zolfaghari, S., Liang, M.: Comprehensive machine cell/part family formation using genetic algorithms. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 15(6), 433–444 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Operational Research Society of India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shruti Shashikumar
    • 1
  • Rakesh D. Raut
    • 2
  • Vaibhav S. Narwane
    • 3
  • Bhaskar B. Gardas
    • 3
  • Balkrishna E. Narkhede
    • 4
  • Anjali Awasthi
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringK.J. Somaiya College of EngineeringMumbaiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Operations and Supply Chain ManagementNational Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE)MumbaiIndia
  3. 3.Department of Production EngineeringVeermata Jijabai Technological Institute (VJTI)MumbaiIndia
  4. 4.Department of Industrial Engineering and Management SystemsNational Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE)MumbaiIndia
  5. 5.Concordia Institute for Information Systems Engineering (CIISE)Concordia UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations