Implementation of fuzzy TOPSIS methodology in selection of procedural approach for facility layout planning

  • Parveen SharmaEmail author
  • Sandeep Singhal


The present study deals with the selection of procedural approach for the handling of facility layout problem (FLP). Most of the designers always try to design the layout to fulfill the practical need on the shop floor in an effective way. The procedural approach is also a way to tackle the layout problems practically. It has always been a difficult decision to select the appropriate solution approach under several selected factors. In this paper, we have demonstrated a selection of the best procedural approach for the FLP with some selected factors. In this context, we have considered some important factors such as initial data required (IDR), use of charts (UC), use of graphs and diagrams (UGD), future expansion considered (FEC), constraints considered (CC), procedure implementation (PI), and material handling equipment selection consideration (MHC). Modified digital logic (MDL) is used to assign weight to the selected factors. Fuzzy logic-based multiple attribute decision making (MADM) approach is applied for the selection. The Muther’s approach is found to be the most suitable alternative with the selected factors.


Facility layout problem Procedural approach Modified digital logic Multiple attribute decision making Fuzzy TOPSIS 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Altuntas S, Selim H (2012) Facility layout using weighted association rule-based data mining algorithms: evaluation with simulation. Expert Sys Appl 39(1):3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jajodia S, Minis I, Harhalakis G, Proth JM (1992) CLASS: computerized layout solutions using simulated annealing. Int J Production Res 30(1):95–108CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sahin R, Turkbey O (2009) A simulated annealing algorithm to find approximate Pareto optimal solutions for the multi-objective facility layout problem. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 41(9-10):1003–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Altuntas S, Islier A (2010) A solution approach to assembly line balancing problem with task related constraints and an application at an enterprise. Pamukkale University J Eng Sci 16(1):29–44Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yang T, Su CT, Hsu YR (2000) Systematic layout planning: a study on semiconductor wafer fabrication facilities. Int J Oper Prod Manag 20(11):1359–1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chien TK (2004) An empirical study of facility layout using a modified SLP procedure. J Manuf Technol Manag 15(6):455–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aksarayli M, Altuntas S (2009) The comparison of layout arrangements for the material flow ordering planning in production systems through simulation analysis. PAJES 15(2):203–214Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hadi-Vencheh A, Mohamadghasemi A (2013) An integrated AHP–NLP methodology for facility layout design. J Manuf Syst 32(1):40–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Azadeh A, Izadbakhsh HR (2008) A multi-variate/multi-attribute approach for plant layout design. Int J Ind Eng Theory Appl Pract 15(2):143–154Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yang T, Kuo C (2003) A hierarchical AHP/DEA methodology for the facilities layout design problem. Eur J Oper Res 147(1):128–136CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yang T, Hung CC (2007) Multiple-attribute decision making methods for plant layout design problem. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 23(1):126–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ertay T, Ruan D, Tuzkaya UR (2006) Integrating data envelopment analysis and analytic hierarchy for the facility layout design in manufacturing systems. Inf Sci 176(3):237–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Muther R (1973) Systematic layout planning. CBI Publishing Co, BostonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pratyyush S, Jian-Bo Y (1998) Multiple criteria decision support in engineering design. Springer Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yang L, Deuse J, Jiang P (2013) Multiple-attribute decision-making approach for an energy-efficient facility layout design. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 66(5-8):795–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Altuntas S, Dereli T, Selim H (2013) Fuzzy weighted association rule based solution approaches to facility layout problem in cellular manufacturing system. Int J Ind Syst Eng 15(3):253–271Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Altuntas S, Selim H, Dereli T (2014) A fuzzy DEMATEL-based solution approach for facility layout problem: a case study. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 73(5-8):749–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ripon KSN, Torresen J (2014) Integrated job shop scheduling and layout planning: a hybrid evolutionary method for optimizing multiple objectives. Evol Syst 5(2):121–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rao RV, Davim JP (2008) A decision-making framework model for material selection using a combined multiple attribute decision-making method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 35(7-8):751–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Çebi F, Otay İ (2015) Multi-criteria and multi-stage facility location selection under interval type-2 fuzzy environment: a case study for a cement factory. Int J Comput Intell Sys 8(2):330–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mardani A, Jusoh A, Zavadskas EK (2015) Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications—two decades review from 1994 to 2014. Expert Sys Appl 42(8):4126–4148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ertuğrul İ, Karakaşoğlu N (2008) Comparison of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods for facility location selection. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 39(7-8):783–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Torfi F, Farahani RZ, Rezapour S (2010) Fuzzy AHP to determine the relative weights of evaluation criteria and Fuzzy TOPSIS to rank the alternatives. Appl Soft Comput 10(2):520–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shokri H, Ashjari B, Saberi M, Yoon JH (2013) An integrated AHP. VIKOR methodology for facility layout design. Ind Eng Manag Sys 12(4):389–405Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Farahani RZ, SteadieSeifi M, Asgari N (2010) Multiple criteria facility location problems: a survey. Appl Math Model 34(7):1689–1709MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ataei E, Branch A (2013) Application of TOPSIS and fuzzy TOPSIS methods for plant layout design. World Appl Sci J 23(12):48–53Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shahin A, Poormostafa M (2011) Facility layout simulation and optimization: an integration of advanced quality and decision making tools and techniques. Mod Appl Sci 5(4):95–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ardeshirilajimi A, Aghanouri A, Abedian A, Milani A (2014) An exponential placement method for materials selection. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 78(1-4):641–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jahan A, Mustapha F, Sapuan SM, Ismail MY, Bahraminasab M (2012) A framework for weighting of criteria in ranking stage of material selection process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 58(1-4):411–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8(3):338–353MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bellman RE, Zadeh LA (1970) Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Manag Sci 17(4):B-141-164MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Deng H, Yeh CH, Willis RJ (2000) Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights. Comput Oper Res 27(10):963–973CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mehrjerdi YZ (2013) Hierarchical multi-criteria risk-benefit analysis in fuzzy environment. Appl Soft Comput 13(1):590–599MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringNational Institute of TechnologyKurukshetraIndia

Personalised recommendations