Journal of Manufacturing Systems

Vol. 17/No. I
1998

Machine Layout with a Linear Single-Row Flow

Path in an Automated Manufacturing System
Ying-Chin Ho, National Central University, Chung-U, Taiwan
Colin L. Moo,die, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Abstract popular in industry. This is because a linear flow

This paper investigates the machine layout problem with
a linear single-row flow path within an automated manufac-
turing system. Traditional machine layout approaches can
produce inappropriate layout designs because they often do
not consider flow path characteristics, such as flow path
configuration and feasible flow path direction. This paper
investigates the effects of such flow path characteristics on
machine layouts. A two-phase layout procedure that com-
bines flow line analysis with simulated annealing is pro-
posed. The procedure can be employed using a variety of
evaluation criteria (minimize total flow distance, maximize
number of in-sequence movements, and so on). Different
layout procedures can be obtained by varying the flow line
analysis method and temperature reduction strategy
employed for simulated annealing. Experiments are per-
formed to test the performance of different layout proce-
dures for different combinations of flow path characteristics
and quantities of machines. The experimental results pro-
vide vital information on selecting appropriate flow line
analysis methods and temperature reduction strategies for
different layout problems. Furthermore, the results will help
designers determine appropriate evaluation criteria for dif-
ferent layout problems.
Keywords: Machine Layout, Flow Line Analysis, Simulated
Annealing, Automated Manufacturing System
1. I n t r o d u c t i o n
Two flow path characteristics of a linear single-
row flow path are the flow path configuration and
the feasible flow path direction. A machine layout
with a linear single-row flow path exists in different
configurations, such as a straight line, U-shape, ser-
pentine line, and loop (Figure 1). The configuration
of a flow path is determined by many factors. One
factor is the material handling system employed. For
example, for a rotating robot arm, its flow path con-
figuration can be a U-shape or a loop. For a convey-
or or an automatic guided vehicle (AGV), the flow
path configuration can be a straight line, U-shaped
line, serpentine line, or loop. Although modern
material handing systems often allow for complex
flow path configurations, linear flow paths are still
path is easier to design and has relatively easy flow
control problems due to its simple structure.
In addition to the four possible configurations of a
linear flow path, it can be unidirectional or bidirec-
tional. Like cars on a one-way street, parts on a uni-
directional flow path can move only in one direction.
On the other hand, parts on a bidirectional flow path
can move in both directions. According to Aneke and
Carrie) four different types of flow movements can
be observed in a flow path. They are: repeat opera-
tion, in-sequence movement, bypassing movement,
and backtracking movement. Parts that require repeat
operations will stay at the same machine for the next
operation. An in-sequence movement takes a part
from its current machine to a neighboring machine
without violating the feasible flow directions. A
bypassing movement moves a part from its current
machine to any machine that is not a neighboring
machine without violating the feasible flow direction.
A backtracking movement is defined here as a move-
ment that violates the feasible flow direction of the
flow path. Backtracking movements are the least
desirable in a unidirectional flow path. Since back-
~)
(a)
(c)
Fibre I
Alternative Configurations of Machine Layout with s Linear Flow Path
(a) loop layout, (b) U-shaped layout, (c) strsight-Hne layout,
and (d) serpentine layout
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 17/No. 1
1998
tracking movements cannot be achieved by the pri-
mary automated material handling device in a unidi-
rectional flow path, other ways (such as manual trans-
portation) are required to assist in achieving the
movements. On the other hand, according to the
above definition, a backtracking movement does not
exist in a bidirectional flow path. Figure 2 illustrates
these movements on a unidirectional flow path. In the
traditional machine layout problem, two of the most
popular criteria are minimization of total flow dis-
tance and minimization of the number of backtrack-
ing movements. However, as will be shown in Section
3.1, there are other criteria that are also important to
the machine layout design. Furthermore, selecting
appropriate criteria to evaluate the layout design relies
very much on flow path characteristics.
Flow path characteristics also affect the layout
result. Because a feasible route in a bidirectional
flow path may be infeasible in a unidirectional flow
path, it is possible that the best layout for a bidirec-
tional system may not also be the best for a unidi-
rectional system. Similarly, whether the flow path is
a loop or not also affects the layout design. This is
because a loop flow path may provide alternative
routes that may not be available in a nonloop flow
path, including a straight-line flow path, a U-shaped
flow path, and a serpentine flow path. The combina-
tion of flow path configuration and flow path direc-
tion is referred to as problem scenario hereafter.
There are four problem scenarios defined here: (1)
unidirectional nonloop flow path, (2) bidirectional
nonloop flow path, (3) unidirectional loop flow path,
and (4) bidirectional loop flow path. The discussion
above shows how important it is to consider flow
path characteristics during the layout design.
As will be shown in the next section, many meth-
ods have been developed for the machine layout
problem with a linear single-row flow path.
However, none of them consider the effects of flow
path characteristics on the layout design. In addition,
almost all of them have the restriction that the flow
path has to be a straight line. This paper will focus
on investigating the layout design problems in the
four problem scenarios listed above and developing
effective and efficient layout procedures for them. A
two-phase layout design procedure that combines
the flow line analysis (FLA) method and simulated
annealing (SA) will be proposed. Although, the pro-
posed procedure is not the first method that applies
Figure 2
Four Different Flow Movements in a Flow Line: repeat (R),
in-sequence (I), bypassing (liP), and backtracking (BT))
SA to the machine layout problem, it is the first lay-
out procedure that utilizes both FLA and SA to
obtain the layout design. It is also the first layout
procedure that has been tested for the performance
of different FLA methods and temperature reduction
strategies of SA relative to every applicable evalua-
tion criterion in different problem scenarios. By
knowing the performance of each FLA method and
temperature reduction strategy, it is expected that
one will be able to solve the layout problem more
effectively and efficiently.
2. Literature Review
Traditionally, machine layout problems have been
treated as typical facilities layout problems.
However, as research on layout problems progressed,
researchers began to focus on more specific prob-
lems, such as machine layout problems in an auto-
mated manufacturing system. According to Heragu
and Kusiak,2 there are four basic machine layout
configurations in an automated manufacturing sys-
tem: linear single row, circular single row, linear
double row, and multi-row layouts. They proposed
two constructive layout methods for the above layout
configurations with the objective of minimizing
total traveling time. Heragu and Kusiaka proposed a
knowledge-based system that combines optimiza-
tion and expert system approaches for selecting
machines and material handling equipment and
determining the layout. Heragu and Kusial~ pro-
posed two mathematical models for single-row and
multiple-row facility layout problems with the
objective function of minimizing the total cost of
making the required trips between facilities. Heragu
and Alfas proposed a hybrid SA algorithm which
combines a modified penalty algorithm and SA for
solving single-row layout problems and multiple-
row layout problems. They found that the hybrid SA
appeared to produce better quality solutions than SA

and the tabu search algorithm. Kouvelis and Chiang6
used SA for solving a machine layout problem with
a straight material handling track so that the total
backtracking flow distance can be minimized.
Kouvelis, Chiang, and Fitzsimmons 7 used SA for
machine layout problems not confined to single row
problems under zoning constraints with the objec-
tive of minimizing the sum of assignment cost and
material handling cost. Zoning constraints restrict
the arrangement of machines. Kusiak and Parks
developed two methods for linear single-row
machine layout and linear double-row machine lay-
out problems with an assumption that the flow path
is a bidirectional straight line, and an objective func-
tion of minimizing the total travel distance. As
pointed out earlier, almost all of the methods
reviewed above are intended for the layout problem
with a straight-line flow path. In addition, none of
them consider the effects of flow path characteristics
on the layout design, such as the effects of flow path
characteristics on the selection of evaluation criteria.
Another related problem is FLA, which determines
the relative positions of machines based on the oper-
ation sequences of products. The objective is to
design a flow line in which the number of backtrack-
ing movements is minirraz"ed. Early FLA methods
(such as those by Noy,9 Singleton,1 Moore, u and
Hollier12) are for single-machine-type problems
where only one machine of any type is allowed in a
flow line. This type of problem is not realistic because
duplicate machines are very common in actual manu-
facttaing environments. A more realistic problem that
allows duplication of machines was studied by
Carrie? 3 Other studies on this problem can also be
found in Aneke and Carrie ~ and H o , Lee, and
Moodie? 4 The study by Ho, Lee, and Moodie also
suggested a network flow analysis. Unlike traditional
FLA, network flow analysis does not restrict the flow
path configuration to a linear configuration. Flow
branching and skipping are allowed if they can be jus-
tified. Although FLA does not provide exact positions
of machines, the solution it f'mds often serves as a
good guideline for a detailed layout of machines.
3. Modeling Framework
It is assumed in this paper that automated materi-
al handling devices are employed in the layout prob-
lem. Popular automated material handling devices
include AGVs, robots, conveyors, and overhead
Journal of ManufacturingSystems
Vol. 17/No. 1
1998
gantries. These devices may be different physically
but share one common attribute. They usually have
to follow some fixed paths for material transporta-
tion; ~5 for example, AGVs need to follow the guide
paths laid on the floor. Other important issues of the
modeling framework are addressed in the following
subsections.
3.1 Evaluation Criteria
A common criterion for evaluating machine lay-
outs is the total flow distance. The goal is to mini-
mize the total flow distance. However, minimizing
total flow distance may not be the most important
goal for some situations. The material handling
device employed and the characteristics of the flow
path determine what criterion is important for a lay-
out design. For example, for a unidirectional straight-
line conveyor, one may want to minimize the number
of backtracking movements or total backtracking
flow distance because backtracking movements can-
not be achieved by the unidirectional conveyor alone,
as explained in Section 1. On the other hand, if the
conveyor is bidirectional, minimizing total flow dis-
tance may be more important and appropriate
because backtracking movements no longer exist in a
bidirectional flow path.
Four evaluation criteria are provided in the pro-
posed layout procedure. The first is the minimiza-
tion of the number of backtracking movements. This
criterion is most suitable for problems with unidi-
rectional nonloop flow paths. The second criterion is
the minimization of total backtracking flow dis-
tance. Similarly, it is most suitable for unidirection-
al nonloop flow paths. The third criterion is the max-
imization of the number of in-sequence movements.
In-sequence movements are especially favorable in
the mass-production assembly or transfer-line sys-
tem. Finally, the fourth criterion is the minimization
of total flow distance.
All four criteria can be applied to unidirectional
nonloop flow paths. For bidirectional flow paths and
unidirectional loop flow paths, only minimization of
the total flow distance and maximization of the num-
ber of in-sequence movements can be applied.
Minimization of the number of backtracking move-
merits and minimization of the total backtracking
flow distance cannot be applied to bidirectional prob-
lems because backtracking movements do not exist in
bidirectional problems. As for the unidirectional loop
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 17/No. 1
1998
flow path, backtracking is not necessary since one can
move from one machine to any other machines on the
unidirectional loop flow path without violating the
feasible flow direction. As a result, backtracking will
not be allowed in the unidirectional loop flow path.
The applicability of these criteria in different problem
scenarios is staumarized in Table 1. In addition to
considering each of the above four evaluation criteria
independently, one or more of these criteria may be
considered simultaneously. This can be done through
the use of a multiple-criterion objective function,
which will be addressed in Section 4.2.1.
3.2 Travel Distance Calculation
Another important issue is how to obtain the correct
travel distance. Two popular distance calculation
methods are the Euclidean distance method and the
rectilinear distance method. For both, the distance
from a point i to another pointj is equal to the distance
fromj to i. However, in reality, the travel distance from
i toj is not necessarily equal to the travel distance from
j to i. In addition, Euclidean and rectilinear distances
are not necessarily equal to the actual travel distance.
For example, as shown in Figure 3, six machines are
arranged along a unidirectional loop conveyor and the
feasible flow direction is clockwise. The coordinates
of the input/output (I/O) points of machines are also
(o,8) (3,8) (~) 03,8)
I -
A ........................ ~-
v
(o,o) (3,0) (8,0) (13,0)
Figure 3
Example for Calculation o f Travel Distance
Unidirectional,
Evaluation Criterion
Min. Total Flow Distance
Max. Number of In-SequenceMovements
Min. Total Backtracking Flow Distance
Min. Number of Backtracking Movements
given. In the example, the travel distance from M6 to
M2 is equal to 19, while the travel distance fromM2 to
M6 is 29. However, the Euclidean distances for both
M6 to M2 and M2 to M6 are 9.43, and the rectilinear
distances are 13. These distances are different from the
actual travel distance. In this paper, the travel distance
of a movement is calculated as the length of flow path
segment traversed by the movement, which is the actu-
al travel distance.
3.3 Minimum Safe Distance Between Machines
It is necessary to save some distance between
neighboring machines for the safe operation of
machines, the storage of work-in-process (WIP), the
movement of personnel, and many other purposes.
One assumption here is that each machine has its own
minimum required safe distance to be away from
other machines. With this assumption, the length of
the flow path segment between two adjacent
machines is made to be equal to the maximum of the
minimum required safe distances of these two
machines. If one also assumes that the I/O point of a
machine is at the midpoint of the flow-path-neighbor-
ing side of the machine, then the travel distance from
machine A to machine B can be obtained as follows:
DISA,B = Z0.5o(WD, + Y D j ) + m a x { S i , S j } (1)
(i,j)GNMA.B
- (16,8)
where:
!
DISA,B travel distance from machine A to machine B
i
!
/
WDt width of machine i
NMA,B a set containing every pair of adjacent
(16,0) machines along the route from machine A to
machine B
St minimum required safe distance of machine i
Table l
Applicability of Criteria
Problem Scenario
Bidirectional, Unidirectional, Bidirectional,
Non-Loop Non-Loop Loop Loop
,/
/
4

One may argue that this strategy does not guaran-
tee nonoverlapping of machines if the flow path is a
loop. This is true only when machines are arranged
along the inner side of the loop. Overlapping will not
occur if machines are arranged along the outer side
of the loop. This can be realized from Figure 4.
Machines are arranged along a straight flow path as
in Figure 4a. The distance between two adjacent
machines is equal to the maximum of their minimum
required safe distances. It is also assumed that the
safe distance has been saved for the first machine and
the last machine on the flow path. If one folds the
line upward, connects both ends, and makes it into a
loop, then the machines may collide with each other
(Figure 4b). This collision can be prevented if the
line is folded downward (Figure 4c). The same argu-
ment can also be applied to a U-shaped flow path. As
for the serpentine flow path, it is recommended that
machines be arranged as in Figure ld; however, one
needs to reserve enough space to prevent the
machines within each turn from overlapping the flow
path segment at the opposite side.
4, Proposed Layout Procedure
The proposed layout procedure has two phases.
Figure 5 shows the flow chart of the proposed two-
phase layout procedure. As shown in the figure, before
the two-phase procedure can be started, the flow path
characteristics and the evaluation criteria have to be
detem-dned. At the f'n~t phase of the two-phase layout
procedure, an FLA method is selected and applied to
obtain a machine layout. SA then uses the layout as an
initial solution and improves it in the second phase.
The combination of FLA and SA is due to the follow-
ing reasons. First, it is well known that FLA methods
are capable of producing good flow-line designs.
{I)) (c)
F/gRre 4
Examples for Preventing Machine CoHisJon
(a) machine layout along a straight-line flow path, (b) machine
collision occurs, and (c) machine collision prevented
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 17/No. 1
1998
Second, SA has a reputation as a very effective heuris-
tic optirniTation technique. Finally, Johnson et al: 6
have shown that starting at good initial solutions rather
than randomly selected solutions in SA results in bet-
ter chances of producing good-quality solutions.
In the remainder of this section, six F L A methods
will be introduced. Each of these will be illustrated
with an example problem. Then, issues pertaining to
the application of SA to the problems investigated
here will also be addressed. These issues will include
the construction of a normalized weighted multiple-
criterion objective function to be used in SA, the
proper setting of initial and freezing temperatures,
and four different temperature reduction strategies.
4.1 Phase One---Flow Line Analysis
Four of Hollier's12 F L A methods (Methods I, 2, 3,
and 4) are modified and two new F L A methods
(Methods 5 and 6) are proposed. Hollier's original
methods cannot be directly applied to the problems
investigatedhere because they are designed for single-
machine-type problems in which duplication of
machines is not allowed. The inapplicability of
HoIlier's methods to the problems investigated here
can be fixed by giving every machine a unique identi-
fication number and Izeating each machine as if it
were the only one of its kind. By doing so, one can
treat any problems as single-machine-type problems
and apply Hollier'smethods to them. Another modifi-
cation of HoIlier'smethods isthat allflow interactions
a ovakmt~ crtt~a
I PMse0M-use~ it to L~
S ~ c t an FLA rneh'~ ~
Ansbu~
obtsin a layout of machines on
the flow ~ .
~ T ~ - ~ t~m ~ m n ,
~ e m n ~e ~auon un~ ~ ~ me ~ n g tem-
~ u ~ , and me a~pm~tn ~ stmgy
~ e g~e l~tout ~und at Rme Ore u k Ini~l ~uUon anO a ~ y SA
w ~ ~e abovesetting to obtaln a better solut~t.
Figure 5
Flowchart of Two-Phase Layout Procedure
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 17/No. I
1998

Table 2
will now be considered regardless of how insignificant From-To Matrix of the Seven-Machine Example Problem and the
they may seem. The original methods of Hollier allow Summed "From" and "To" Values of Every Machine
designers to ignore some flow interactions if they
seem insignificant to the designers. Hollier's intention To
From l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Row Sum
was to simplify a problem by reducing its size; how-
ever, because determining the significance of flow 1 0 2 3 4 5 6 1 21
interactions is very subjective, the original Hollier's 2 5 0 3 2 I 4 2 17
methods run the risk of sacrificing the quality of solu- 3 3 4 0 1 2 5 1 16
4 2 1 5 0 3 I 2 14
tions. The modified HoUier's methods and the pro- 5 1 2 3 2 0 1 4 13
posed methods are explained in the following sections. 6 3 2 3 3 1 0 1 13
7 2 3 1 5 4 2 0 17
4.1.1 Method 1
Col. Sum 16 14 18 17 16 19 11
This method tries to minimize the number of
backtracking movements. Before one can use this
method, a From-To matrix needs to be prepared. The
Inlletmmll~I~su# I
total "from" and "to" values of each machine also ~Wlru~d Row Line
need to be calculated. The flow line is then formed 7

using the following rules. UpdatedSummed"From" and Summed"To"

MachineIO 1 2 3 4 5 6
Summed From 20 15 15 12 9 12
Sumnl(p:lTo 14 11 17 12 12 17
1. The machine that has the smallest summed "to"
I 1 ~ Rlmllt II
or summed "from" value is chosen. If it is the Conslnct~ Row Line
summed "to" value, then place the machine at 7 5
the start of the flow line; otherwise, place the UpdatedSummed"From"and Summed"To"
machine at the end of the flow line. 4 6
S u r r . ~ Fm'n 9 11
2. If summed "to" and summed "from" values of SummedTo 13 9 14 10 16

this machine are equal, the machine is ignored Result III

ConstructedFlowUne
and the machine with the next smallest summed 7 2 4 5
"to" or summed "from" value is chosen. UpdatedSummed"From" and Summed"To"
3. If two machines with minimum values occur at
the opposite ends of the flow line, then place
both machines. I n n ~ l d ~ I~mlt N
Constructed Flow Line
4. If two machines with minimum values occur at jJ J

the same end of the flow line, then the priority is UpdatedSummed"From" and Summed"To"
given to the one with the largest ratio of summed
"from" and summed "to", or the one with the
largest ratio of summed "to" and summed
ConstructedFlow Line
"from".
O J

5. Update the summed "to" and summed "from"

values of remaining machines by subtracting,
respectively, the "to" and "from" flows incurred
by machines placed at this iteration from the
summed "to" and summed "from" values of
remaining machines.
6. Repeat steps 1 to 5 until the flow line is com-
pleted.
A seven-machine example problem is given to
illustrate Method 1. The From-To matrix is given in
Table 2. Figure 6 shows the result of every iteration.
Figure 6
Intermediate Results of the Seven-Machine Example Problem
Using Method 1
4.1.2 Method 2
Method 2 is similar to Method 1 except that it selects
machines based on the ratio of summed "from" and
summed "to" or the ratio of summed "to" and summed
"from". If the denominator has a value of zero, then the
ratio value is oG.If the "summed from/summed to" ratio
of a machine is the maximum, then place the machine
 Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 17/No. 1
1998

at the start of the flow line. If the "summed to/summed I n t m m d ~ Ruzdt I

Flow Line
from" ratio of a machine is the maximum, then place 7
the machine at the end of the flow line. If two machines Updated"SummedTo/SummedFrom" and "Summed From/SummedTo"
have equal maximum ratio values at the same end of
0.7 1.333 1.417
the flow line, then the one with the smallest "to" value Summed From/SummedTo 1.429 . 1. 0.75 0.706
(for the "from/to" case) or "from" value (for the Illltmlltediate ~ II
ConstructedFlow Line
'`to/from" case) is selected. However, if both ratios have 7 1
zero denominators (that is, both ratio values are o),
Updated"SummedTo/Summed From" and "Summed From/SummedTo"
then the one with the larger numerator is considered M~m~lneID2 3 4 5, 6
larger. Atter each iteration, the summed "from" and To/SlJmmelFrom 0.9 lJ67 0.8 0.875 1.222
Summed From/SummedTo 1.111 0.857 1 . 2 5 1.'t43 0,818
summed "to" values of the remaining machines are Intmmdlate Relult III
updated and the "summed from/summed to" and ConslructedFlow Line
7 1 4
"summed to/summed from" ratios are recalculated.
Upaated"SummedTo/SummedFrom" and "Summed From/SummedTo"
Using the same example problem from Method l,
Method 2 is illustrated below. The "summed ,D2 3 5 6o,81e 1.5
0.=7
1.0 1.222
to/summed from" and "summed from/summed to" Inlmmmlil~ Rlsult IV
ratios of each machine are calculated and listed in Table Cons'auctedRow line
3. The iterations, intermediate results, and final result 7 1 4 6

of this example problem are illustrated in Figure 7. Updated"SummedTo/SummedFrom" and "Summed From/SummedTo"
ID2 3 5
mmea From/summedTo 0.667 1.0
4.1.3 Method 3
Intlt'lMdklte Relmlt V
This method tries to minimize the number of back- ConstructedRow Une
tracking movements. To implement Method 3, a sec- 7 1 4 5 6
ondary matrix must be prepared first. The new cell Updated"SummedTo/SummedFrom" and "Summed From/SummedTo"
MachineU~2 3
value, So, in the secondary matrix is equal to X u - Xz/, Sunllnl~ Tq/YJomml~F'rgm 1.333 0.75
where X.~/and Xj~ are the cell values in the original Sumrned R'mVStg~medTo 0.75 1.333

From-To matrix. The cell values in the secondary ~ Re~lt V

Consb~ctedRow Line
matrix will be positive or negative. For each column, 7 1 4 5 3 2 6
the absolute values of the positive and negative values Figure 7
are then summed separately. The summed "positive" Intermediate Results of the Seven.Machine
values correspond to the summed "to" values in Example Problem Using Method 2

Method 1, and the summed "negative" values corre-

spond to the summed "from" values in Method 1. The
flow line is formed in a manner similar to Method 1.
Using the same example problem, Method 3 is illus-
trated below. First, the secondary matrix is prepared
(Table 4). Then the initial summed "negative" and
summed "positive" of each column are calculated
(Table 5). The iterations, intermediate results, and
final result of this example problem are shown in
Figure 8.
4.1.4 Method 4
This method is similar to Method 3 except the
selection of machine is based on the "sum of posi-
five/absolute sum of negative" ratio or the "absolute
sum of negative/sum of positive" ratio, depending on
whichever is the greatest. The same selection rules as
described in Method 2 are applied by relating the
"positive" values to the "to" values in Method 2, and
the "negative" values to the "from" values in Method

Table3
Initial " S u m m e d To/Summed From" and " S u m m e d F r o m / S u m m e d To" Ratios of Each Machine of the
Seven-Machine Example Problem Using Method 2

Machine ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Summed To/Summed From 0.762 0.824 1.125 1.214 1.231 1.462 0.647
Summed From/Summed To 1.313 1.214 0.889' 0.824 0.813 0.684 1.545

7
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 17/No. 1
1998

Table4
Secondary Matrix of the Seven-Machine
I ~ 1 1 ~ IQ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Example Problem for Method 3 of PmilNM/mollR ~ M ~ 0.444 0.5 1.667 1.6 2.5 4.0 0
/~=l=lulelkcnofNlmlwSumeflZml~ 2.25 2.0 0.6 0.625 0.4 0.25 -
MC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IIMIIBUlfB Rllult I
Commctel Row Line
7
1 0 -3 0 2 4 3 -1
2 3 0 -1 1 -I 2 -1 L~--"~--~ = of "Nelmve/Po=~" and "Pee~WNe0=M"
3 0 1 0 -4 -1 2 0 II/ll~ ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6
,Samof P ~ b W ~ Smof~,~ 0 . ~ o.~m 1.set ~.0 2.5 3.s
4 -2 -1 4 0 1 -2 -3 ~ S m ~ o f P e . ~ 3,o S.0 0.S ~.0 0.4 O.286
5 -4 1 1 -1 0 0 0
lulmmml~ Itlmlt II
6 -3 -2 -2 2 0 0 -1 Cmmn~l Row Line
7 1 1 0 3 0 1 0 7 6
Upe== ~ of "Ne~va/P=~" =W "~WNega~ve"
Table5
Initial Absolute Sum of"Negative" and Sum of"Positive" of the MIICI1NID 1 2 3 4 5
SumV,~m/~Swaof~ 0,~ 0.~ 5.0 0.e 2,S
Seven-Machine Example Problem for Method 3 =mSmof,mzk~mo,~Z,,e Z0 2.0 0.2 1.~ 0.4
I l l l m U l a l ItIIUlI III
Machine ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ComlnctN Row i.lne
7 3 6
Absolute S u m
o f "Negative" 9 6 3 5 2 2 6 Ml~ln# I~ 1 2 4 5
Sum of"Positive" 4 3 5 8 5 8 0 Somo,~/~azWSme~m,We 0-0 Q~ ~ 5
N~Aull l l n of N I g I ~ I ~ of PUlI~ 2.0 4.0 0.333 0.2
I,ilmmNla~ IIIUII IV
Conllncted Row Une
Constructed Row Une 7 5 3 6
7
Updated Absolute Sum of "Negative" and Som of "Posl~ve" Ml~c~cmI1~ 1 2 4
l~lt ~ I~,dm/NIIOlUll Scumof Mlolli~ 1~ 0 -
k~olm Sereol NmalkW~m o~I ~ v e 0.1167 - 0
/ /
NmmU~ I~lt V
ConCmc~l FlowUne
7 2 1 4 5 3 6
7 2 6
F~,ure 9
Updated .absolute Sum of "Nega1~e" and Sum of "Positive" Intermediate Results of the Seve~PMaehlne Example
IVla~hlne iD 1 3 4 5 Problem Using Method 4
Al~0/ute Sum of " I ~ " 6 0 5 1
Sum of "PosltNe" 0 5 2 5
Intem~llats I ~ u # III
machines are calculated. The steps of this method
Constructed Row Une are listed below. Figure 10 illustrates Method 5
7 2 1 3 6
using the seven-machine example problem.
Updated/~solute Sum of "Negative" and Sum of "Positive"
Mac~JlirleID 4 5
1. Among the machine pairs, select and connect a
pair of machines that has the largest amount of
~ ~ N
Row Une flow interactions to generate a semiconstructed
7 2 1 4 5 3 6 flow line. If more than one pair o f machines is
F/gur~S qualified, arbitrarily select one pair.
Intermediate Results of the Seven-Machine Example
Problem Using Method 3 2. Find a pair of candidate machines that has the
largest number o f flow interactions and does not
2. Figure 9 illustrates this method using the seven- belong to the same semiconstructed flow line. A
machine example problem. machine is a candidate if it is not connected to
any other machines, or if it is the first machine
4.1.5Method5 or the last machine of a semiconstructed flow
Method 5 can only be used for bidirectional flow line. If more than one pair of machines is quali-
lines. The objective of this method is to maximize fied, arbitrarily select one.
the total number of in-sequence movements in a 3. Connect the selected machines together. There
bidirectional flow line. Before applying Method 5, are three possibilities here. The first one is that
the total flow interactions between every pair of two machines are connected together to become
 Journalof ManufacturingSystems
Vol. 17/No. 1
t998

Row Interaction Malxtx

Row~MalTix

MC M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7
MC M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 ~ M7

M1 0 7 6 6 6 9 3
M2 0 7 3 3 6 5 M1 0 2 3 4 5 6 1
M3 0 6 5 8 2 M2 5 0 3 2 1 4 2
M4 0 5 4 7 M3 3 4 0 1 2 5 1
M5 0 2 8 M4 2 1 5 0 3 1 2
M6 0 3 M5 1 2 3 2 0 1 4
M7 0 M6 3 2 3 3 1 0 1
M7 2 3 1 5 4 2 0
I1~1
Sekct macl'dnes 1 and6. Itmatm I
Cnenect m ~ 1 anti mactline 6 togelher. 1 ~ flow from ma~tine 1 to machine6 is ~te grnetest.
Semi-Cor~ Row Line 1 : 1 - 6. Co~ect mlchine 1 to macNne 6.
Semi-Cor~ruct~ Row Line 1 : 1 - 6
II
Sekct mEl'mu 3 and 6. Itl~U
Cortnect machine 3 to machine6 of'b'lesemi-constructedflow line 1. The flow from m a ~ 2 to maclline 1, from maeNne 4 to maclllne 3, anti from mactline 7
Semi-ConslructedRow Une 1 : 1 - 6 - 3. to ma~ne 4 are the grmtest. We m~mrlly m~"t ~ 2 anti 1.
~ n e o t ma~ne 2 to m ~ l n e 1 of s e m i - ~ 0ow line 1.
It~ III Seroi~ Flow Line 1 : 2-1 - 6
Select m~ines 5 and 7.
Connect m a c ~ 5 and mactdne 7 togelher. It~ III
Semi-C~Rowl.kle 1 : 1- 6-3 The flow from macllkm 4 to machine 3, lind from machlne 7 to machine 4 are the ornetest.
S e r n i - C o n ~ Row Line 2 : 5 - 7 We arbitll~y ilekct n'BClklm 4 and 3.
Connect maclllne 4 to mactline 3 ~ buildanother8emi-conlRlctedflow line.
Itl~ IV Serni~ Flow LI~ 1 : 2 - 1 - 6
Select n ~ 2 aM 1. Semi-Con~ Flow Une 2 : 4 - 3
Connect m ~ 2 to machine 1 of the semi-conelxuctedflow line 1.
Seml-Conetr~ Row Line 1 : 2-1 - 6 - 3 Itm'atlonIV
Semi.Cone1~'uctedRow Line 2 : 5 - 7 The flow from machine7 to mscttine4 is l~e gre~est. Select maclYmes7 anti 4.
Connect m ~ 7 to machine 4 of s e m l - o ~ flow line 2.
It~V S e ~ Row Line 1 : 2-1 - 6
Select m ~ 4 and 7. Semi-Con~ Row Lh~ 2 : 7 - 4 - 3
Connet,'tmacftlne 4 to machine 7 of the Nmi-com'lxucted flow line 2.
Seml-Com'~tl~KIFIow Line 1 : 2-1 - 6 - 3 IWalbll V
Semi-Co--Row Line 2: 5 - 7- 4 The flow horn machim 3 to machine 2 and ~e flow h'om machine 5 to maclline 7 are the
Gr~tRCmacfikWearbib"adly sekct macl'dnm 3 and 2.
I t M t l N Vl 3 of serni-o0mlncted flow line 2 to maclYJne2 of semi-coneCuctedflow
Sekct ~ 3 aid 4. Une 1.
Connect m a c ~ 3 of semi-comtncted flow line 1 to machine7 of the s e m i - c o ~ Semi-~ Row Une I : 7 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 -6
flow line 2.
RnalRowLine: 2 - 1 - 6 - 3 - 4 - 7 - 5 ~ . a t m Vl
111eflow flora mclline 5 to mactline 7 is ~le g n ~ e ~
Connect mad11~ 5 to n'~hk~ 7 of semi-cot,ag'dCt~ flow I.
Figure 10 Rnel Row Line : 5 - 7 - 4 - 3 - 2 - I - 6
Intermediate Results of the Seven-Machine Example Problem
Using Method 5 Flare 11
Intermediate Results of the Seven-Machine Example Problem
Using Method 6
a new semiconstructed flow line. The second
one is that a machine is added to a semicon-
structed flow line. The last one is that two semi- the other is the largest and build a semicon-
constructed flow lines are connected to become structed flow line by placing the "from"
a larger semiconstructed flow line. machine in front of the "to" machine. If more
4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 until the entire flow line is than one pair of machines is qualified, arbitrari-
completed. ly select one pair.
. Find a pair of candidate machines that do not
4.1.6 Method 6 belong to the same semiconstructed flow line
Method 6 can only be used for unidirectional flow and the amount of flow from one to the other is
lines. The objective of this method is to maximize the the largest. A machine is a candidate if it is not
total number of in-sequence flow movements in a uni- connected to any other machines or it is the first
directional flow path. Method 6 is similar to Method or the last machine in a semiconstructed flow
5 except in Method 6 one has to satisfy the feasible line. Again, if more than one pair of machines is
flow direction constraint when connecting machines qualified, arbiU'arily select one. Since the flow
together. The steps of this method are listed below. line is unidirectional, for those machines that are
The seven-machine example problem is also used to the first ones of semiconstructed flow lines, one
illustrate Method 6 as shown in Figure 11. can only add machines in front o f them; that is,
they cannot be "from" machines. On the other
1. Among all machine pairs, select the pair of hand, for those machines residing at the end of
machines where the amount of flow from one to semiconstructed flow lines, they cannot be "to"
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 17/No. 1
1998
1. Start with an initial feasible solution X(0), an initial temperature t.
and an iteration limit Imax. Ird~lize X'<- X(O) and I <- 1.
2. While I < < / , ~ do
2.1. Until a feasible move AXis accepted do
2.1.1. Randomlyselect a feasible move zlX
2.1.2. Calculatethe change of value Agincurred by AX
2.1.3. if AV> 0, accept ~X
else accept ~ ( with a probability of e~ .
2.2. Update~ current solution X~<- X,-1 + ~ .
2.3. if the value of X, is better than that of X', then up(late X* <- X~.
2.4. Decreasethe temperature if appropriate.
3. Stop and report the best sotution found.
Figure 12
SimulatedAnnealing
machines; that is, one only can add machines
after them.
3. Connect the candidate machines together by
putting the "from" machine in front of the "to"
machine. There are also three possibilities here,
as listed in the third step of Method 5.
4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 until a complete flow line
is constructed.
4.2 Phase Two Simulated Annealing
At this phase, SA is used to improve the solutions
obtained at the first phase. SA is an optimization
technique that allows nonimproving moves in the
search process. Its name comes from the analogy to
the annealing process of slowly cooling metals. SA
was first proposed by Metropolis et al. 17and has been
receiving a considerable amount of attention recent-
ly. The steps of SA are given in Figure 12. To imple-
ment SA at this phase, the solution obtained from
FLA is used as the initial solution. Two machines are
then randomly selected and their positions are
exchanged to obtain a new solution. This new solu-
tion is compared with the current one. If it is better,
it is accepted as the current solution. If not, the prob-
ability e (Avto is calculated and a random number is
generated from the uniform distribution [0,1]. If the
random number is less than or equal to e (~v/, then the
solution is accepted; otherwise, it is rejected. The fol-
lowing sections explain the objective function, the
setting of initial and freezing temperatures, and the
temperature reduction strategies used by SA at this
phase of the proposed layout procedure.
4.2.1 Normalized Weighted Multiple-Criterion
Objective Function
Now that the SA method is understood, it can be
explained how the multiple-criterion objective func-
tion presented in Section 3.1 is implemented. The
multiple-criterion objective function is capable of
incorporating the evaluation values of different cri-
10
teria together. As stated earlier in Section 3.1, the
quality of a layout can be evaluated by four different
criteria: minimization of total number of backtrack-
ing movements, minimization of total backtracking
flow distance, maximization of total number of in-
sequence movements, and minimization of total
flow distance. Since these criteria are on different
scales, to reflect their real contribution to the multi-
ple-criterion objective function their values have to
be normalized to the same scale.
Normalization involves scaling the value of each
criterion into the range 0 to 1. The normalization pro-
cedure for a maximizing criterion value is different
from that for a minimizing criterion value. For a max-
imizing criterion value, it is normalized by dividing
its value with the normalizing factor, maxi*, which is
the maximum value of this criterion obtained from
the solutions that have been explored by SA so far.
The maximum value of the criterion will be updated
whenever SA finds another feasible solution with a
value of this criterion greater than the current maxi-
mum value. On the other hand, for a minimizing cri-
teflon value, it is normalized by dividing the normal-
izing factor, mini(which is the minimum value of this
criterion obtained from the solutions that have been
explored by SA so far), with its value. Similarly, the
minimum value of the criterion will be updated when-
ever SA finds another feasible solution with a value
of this criterion smaller than the current minimum
value. In addition, to ensure that the overall objective
value will fall between 0 and 1, the weight of each cri-
teflon is also normalized. This is accomplished by
dividing the weight of a criterion with the sum of the
weights of all criteria. The normalized objective value
of a solution X, V(X), can thus be obtained as follows:
it
v(x) = Nw, N ( X , ) (2)
i=I
where
vcx) normalized objective value of solution X
w, prenormalized weight of criterion i
NW, normalized weight of criterion i,
where NW~ = ~/~=~z W/
N(X3 normalized value of criterion i of solution X,

where
N( X i ) = X i/max* for maximizing criterion
N ( X i ) = min*/X i for minimizing criterion
x/ prenormalized value of criterion i of solu-
tion X
max7 best maximum prenormalized value of crite-
rion i of all solutions found so far
min'~ best minimum prenormalized value of crite-
rion i of all solutions found so far
n number of criteria
With the above definition of the multiple-criteri-
on objective function, one can incorporate different
criteria into the objective function. A nonzero
weight of a criterion means the presence of the cri-
terion, and a zero weight means the absence. Hence,
the objective function can be converted into a single-
criterion objective function by assi~ing a nonzero
weight to the criterion of interest and zero weights to
the rest of criteria.
4.2.2 Initi'~ Temperature and
Freezing Temperature
Since the objective value, V(X), will fall between
0 and 1, the value of AVWIll be in the range [-1.0,
1.0]. Because one accepts a superior solution (that
is, A V > 0) unconditionally and an inferior solution
(that is, AV< 0) with a probability ofe <Av'~),thus only
the negative A V has to be considered in determining
the probability of accepting an inferior solution. The
value of a negative AV will be in the range [-1.0,
0.0]. To determine the appropriate initial tempera-
ture, one has to determine the appropriate probabil-
ity at which inferior solutions will be accepted at the
early stage of SA. The experiments by Kouvelis,
Chiang, and Fitzsimmons 7 showed that SA has bet-
ter chances of obtaining good-quality solutions if
the initial probability of accepting inferior solutions
is around 0.8. From the plot lines o f e (~v/0 at various
temperatures, one can see that for any temperature in
the range [3.5, 5.5], its probability of accepting infe-
rior solutions (that is, e tAv/~)) will be in the range
[0.7515, 0.8338], which is around 0.8. The value
11
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 17/No. 1
1998
range [3.5, 5.5] is therefore suggested for the initial
temperature T~. A freezing temperature, T:, is also
suggested to prevent the temperature from going too
low. A temperature that is too low can make it very
difficult for SA to move on to other new solutions.
As a result, SA will spend too much time at one iter-
ation before moving on to another solution, which in
turn can cause SA to become very inefficient. It was
found from experiments that freezing temperatures
within the value range 0.2 (whose lowest e (~v'~)) is
0.0067) to 0.5 (whose lowest e(~v/) is 0.1353) can
result in satisfactory solutions with a reasonable
amount of computational time. The value range [0.2,
0.5] is therefore suggested for the freezing tempera-
ture T/. Since the negative AV will always be
between-1 and 0, the suggested initial temperature
range and freezing temperature range are therefore
valid for all problems as long as the proposed nor-
realization schemes are used. The initial tempera-
tures and freezing temperatures used in the experi-
ments of Section 5.2 are within their respective
value ranges suggested above.
4.2.3 Temperature Reduction
Four temperature reduction strategies are provid-
ed. The first strategy decreases the temperature by
the amount of (T~- TI)/(I,=- 1) after each iteration.
This strategy is a linear decreasing strategy. The sec-
ond strategy decreases the temperature M times
(where M < I==). The number of iterations between
two consecutive reductions of temperature is [=~/(M
+ 1). The values of M and I~,~ must be selected so
that I=~/(M + 1) is an integer. The amount of tem-
perature decrease each time is equal to ( T i - Tf)/M.
The second strategy is a constant-step decreasing
strategy.
In the third strategy, the temperafure is decreased
M times, and the number of iterations between two
consecutive reductions is I,~/(M + 1). The tempera-
ture Tn, after the nth reduction, is equal to T/ ct",
where ct = ~ / . In this strategy, the amount of
temperature reduction decreases as n becomes larger.
This strategy is a decelerating-step decreasing strate-
gy. The fourth strategy is similar to the third strategy
except that the amount of temperature reduction
increases as n becomes larger. This strategy is an
accelerating-step decreasing strategy. The tempera-
ture after the nth reduction, T., can be obtained by 7".
= T._I - S, where S = T(3)~,_,, - T(3)s~,,_l) and T(3)~,...
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 17/No. 1
1998
and T(3)u_(~_~)are the temperatures after the (M-n)th
reduction and the [M-(n-l)]th reduction, respective-
ly, using the third strategy.
Figure 13 shows the temperature curves of these
four strategies with T~= 5.0, T;= 0.3, I ~ = 100, and
M=9.
5. Experiments
A large variety of experiments have been con-
ducted to test the performance of the proposed lay-
out procedure in different problem scenarios when
different FLA methods and temperature reduction
strategies are used. In Section 5.1, methods for eval-
uating the solution quality and measuring the per-
formance of the proposed layout procedure are
introduced. The design of the experiments is
explained in Section 5.2. The experimental results
are summarized and explained in Section 5.3.
5.1 Performance Evaluation
Four performance evaluation methods will be
used to evaluate the solution quality and measure the
performance of the proposed layout procedure. The
first two methods measure the solution quality. The
third method measures the improvement in solution
resulting from applying SA to the solutions found by
FLA methods. The last method is the average CPU
time for solving a problem. Since the first three
methods require some calculations, they are
described in detail as follows.
5.1.1 Absolute Measure of Solution Quality
The first method is an absolute measure that mea-
sures the proximity of a solution to the global opti-
mal solution. For a problem j, let Sj,.,. be the solu-
tion found by the proposed procedure using FLA
method m and temperature reduction strategy n, and
let S~ be the global optimal solution found by enu-
meration. The solution quality of Sj,.,. relative to S~,
that is, QI(Sj..,.)*, is defined as follows:
QI(Si'~")*= V(S;) (3)
^S
V(~,,,,,) and ~S~) are normalized objective values
of Sj~,~ and S~, respectively. They are calculated using
a formula similar to Eq. (2), except now the normaliz-
ing factor for each criterion is no longer max,. or min*~.
Instead, the normalizing factor for each criterion is
12
i 5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000
I
2.000
1.000
0'000{ I I I I I t ~ I I
(a) (b)
5.000
4.000 4.000
~3.000
j 3.000
2.000
1.000 1.000 1" l
0.000 0.000 I t i ) ) i i i J i"-
~erat~
(C) (d)
Figure 13
Temperature Curves of the Four Temperature Reduction Strategies
(I.= = 100, T~= 5.0, Tf = 0.3, and M = 9)
(a) lineur decre=sing, (b) constuut-step decreasing, (c) decelerating-
step d e c r ~ d n g , and (d) accelerating-step decreasing
now the optimal value of the criterion, which is also
obtained by enumeration. Figure 14 shows a flowchart
describing the steps for calculating QI(Sj~,)*. First, as
shown in Figure 14, the proposed two-phase layout
proc~ur is used to solve problemj with FLA method
m and temperature reduction strategy n. As stated ear-
lier in Section 4.2.1, Eq. (2) is used to evaluate the
solutions found by SA at the second phase of the two-
phase procedure. After the second phase of the two-
phase procedure, a solution, say Sj~,,, is found. One
then enumerates all the solutions of problem j. For
each criterion of problemj, one compares the value of
the criterion of every enumerated solution and finds
the optimal value of the criterion. After the best values
of all evaluation criteria of problemj have been found,
one uses these values as the new normalizing factors
in Eq. (2) to calculate the normalized objective value
of every enumerated solution. The solution with the
best normalized objective value is the optimal solu-
tion. With these n^ormalizingfactors, the value of the
optimal solution, V(S), is not necessarily equal to one
because the normalizing factors do not necessarily
come from S~. Similarly, one uses these best values as
the normalizing factors to calculate the normalized
objective value of Sj~., which is ~Sj~..). After that,
QI(Sj~,u,)* can be obtained using Eq. (3).
5.1.2 Relative Measure of Solution Quality
One disadvantage of the absolute measure is that
it is very time consuming to calculate. This is espe-

U~e~ ~ two-gWmel~tmcWnmm p~WWemj.
Let,.~,,be'~nemutionofproblemjifFLAmethodm~(J~oera-
tore redo~on -.~ai~yn are used.
Enumen~ a~ l~e _~O.__~mof probWnj.
For eaCzm W i ~ of pmlWemj, find the op'dmalvalue of the cdtedon
amongall ~le eflunlemted solutes.
i u~e~ o p ~ m o~mc~ ~ az~ normJz~ factor~
mc~~ In r=qu~l~(2)md ~ume ~ nonnW~edotiec~e
value of every Iolu~on leone by m and ~lut~on S/~,
c~c.~te~(s~*= O(s~)^
1 Calculate0/lSx.~'= V---(~)V(S'~)
v(s~
Fipre 14
Flowchart for Calculating the Absolute Measure of Solution Quality
cially true for large problems. To overcome this dif-
ficulty, the absolute measure is modified as follows:
QI(Sj.,..,,)'= ~'(Sj,.,.)
v(s;)
The modified measure is a relative measure. It is
similar to the absolute measure except the denomi-
nator is no longer the normalized objective value of
the global optimal solution. The following explana-
tion and the flowchart in Figure 15 will make it eas-
ier to understand how Sj, QI(S~,.)', ~S~,.), and
~Sj) are obtained.
First, as will be explained in Section 5.2, there are
20 possible combinations of FLA method and tem-
perature reduction strategy. As shown in Figure 15, let
Sja~,, be the solution of a problemj found by the pro-
posed two-phase procedure with FLA method m and
temperature reduction strategy n. After that, one
solves the same problem 19 times using the remain-
ing 19 combinations of FLA method and temperature
reduction strategy. While solving the same problem
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 17/No. 1
1998
use k ~ , ~ ~ pr0em~ 10m ~m j.
Let S~,ube 1he ~ o n of probtemj if FLA m e t ~ m ~ d tempera-
ture reck~ slrate~ n are used.
Usethe nmudlling 19 combilld~ of FLA melhocland temperature
reductionslrategyto soNe~e Hme problemj 19 times.
~Jring;he courseof finding lhe above 20 mu~ons, mmy o~er solu-
tiom will be enceu~ered.Look (er the best value of eacfi ctihmon that
can~ govidedbythesesomtlons.
i ~ e ~e best value of each cf~erlonfound earlier as the nermalizefl
factor for each c~erlon In E ~ (2) md calculatethe normalized
oOjectivevaluefor each of the 20 solutions.
Let ~(S~,.) be"d~e~ ot~'tive vWe of S ~
Comp~ ~e r~maV~ o~ecavev ~ of e ~ of ~ 2OsCur~s
a~ ~J ~ best~ u ~ , S"~w~ ~ vaoe, V(S"~).
F / p r e 15
Flowchart for Calculating ~e Relaliv Measure of Solution Quality
20 times, numerous solutions will be encountered
when SA is being applied. From these solutions, the
best value of every criterion ofproblemj is collected.
After solving the same problem 20 times, there
should be 20 possible solutions. Using the best value
collected for each criterion as the new normalizing
(4) factor for Eq. (2), one calculates the normalized
objective value of each solution. Let ~Sj~,,,,) be the
normalized objective value of S~,~,. Select the solu-
tion with the best normalized objective value among
the 20 solutions and refer to the best solution as Sj
and its value as f'(Sj). In other words, ~S,,,,) and
are obtained using a formula similar to that for
V(Sj~,,~) and ~S'~), except that the normalizing fac-
tor for every criterion now is no longer the optimal
value of the criterion found by enumeration as in the
calculation for the absolute performance measure.
After f'(Sj,.,.) and V(S;) have been obtained,
can be ated using (4). Similarly,
I~Sj) is not necessarily equal to one because the nor-
maliz/ng factors do not necessarily come from Sj.
5.1.3 Measuring the Improvement Made by SA
Finally, the improvement in solution resulting from
applying SA to the solution found at Phase 1 is
13
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 17/No. I
1998
defined as the difference between the normalized
objective value of the initial solution found at the fin'st
phase and the normalized objective value of the solu-
tion after the improvement of SA at the second phase.
Let Sj~ be the solution found by FLA method m for a
problemj after the f'n-stphase of the two-phase proce-
dure, and let Sj~,n be the solution obtained after apply-
ing SA to Sj,,. with temperature reduction strategy n. If
absolute measure is used, then the improvement made
by SA can be calculated as P(Sz~ ) - V(Si~). On the
other hand, if relative measure is used, then the
improvement made by SA is IT(Sign)- IT'(Szm).
5.2 Experiment Design
Five sets of experiments have been conducted.
For each experiment set, the performance of the two-
phase procedure with different combinations of FLA
methods and temperature reduction strategies was
investigated for each of the relevant problem scenar-
ios. Of particular interest was determining the effect
of the FLA method and temperature reduction strat-
egy on the solution quality relative to every applica-
ble evaluation criterion in different problem scenar-
ios. Also of interest was the improvement one can
make on the solution quality by applying SA to the
solutions found by FLA methods.
The first four experiment sets test the perfor-
mance of the FLA method and temperature reduc-
tion strategy relative to each of the evaluation crite-
ria listed in Table 1. Since these experiment sets are
only interested in each individual evaluation criteri-
on, every problem tested within these experiment
sets has a single-criterion objective function. The
fifth experiment set tests the performance of each
FLA method and temperature reduction strategy rel-
ative to the multiple-criterion objective function.
Every problem tested within this experiment set has
a normalized weighted multiple-criterion objective
function with nonzero weights for all criteria that are
applicable to the problem.
For the fLrSt, second, and fifth sets of experiments,
four problem scenarios are possible. This is because
the ftrst and second experiment sets are for minimiz-
ing the total flow distance and maximizing the number
of in-sequence movements, respectively. Furthermore,
the fifth experiment set has a multiple-criterion objec-
tive function with nonzero weights for all the criteria
applicable to each problem. For the third and fourth
experiment sets, only one problem scenario is possible
14
because they are for minimizing the total backtracking
flow distance and minimizing the number of back-
tracking movements, respectively. For each problem
scenario, different quantities of machines are possible.
In these experiments, for each problem scenario, 6, 7,
8, 14, 16, and 18-machine systems were considered,
resulting in six problem types. The 6, 7, and 8-
machine problems are referred to as limited-machine
problems, and the 14, 16, and 18-machine problems
are referred to as extended-machine problems. For
each problem type, 100 randomly generated problems
were solved. As a result, there are totally 8400 prob-
lems in these experiments.
Six different FLA methods have been developed.
Because FLA Method 5 is only for bidirectional
flow lines and Method 6 is only for unidirectional
flow lines, there are effectively five possible FLA
methods for each problem. Four possible tempera-
ture reduction strategies have been developed. As a
result, there are 20 possible combinations of FLA
method and temperature reduction strategy. Each
problem is solved 20 times using these combinations
of FLA method and temperature reduction strategy.
For every problem, the initial temperature is set at
4.0 and the freezing temperature is set at 0.3. These
temperatures are within their respective ranges as
suggested in Section 4.2.2. Although the chance for
SA to find the optimal solution will be higher for a
larger iteration limit, I,,~, there is no way of know-
ing exactly what value 1re,o,should be in order for SA
to find the optimal solution of a problem.
Furthermore, there are problems for which it is dif-
ficult or impossible to verify the optimality of their
solutions. In these experiments, ifI,,,~ is set too large
then it is possible that every combination of FLA
method and temperature reduction strategy will per-
form so well that there is no way to tell which FLA
method or temperature reduction strategy has better
performance. Therefore, in these experiments, for
each problem type, /max is set sufficiently large so
that at least one combination of FLA method and
temperature reduction strategy produces satisfactory
results. This is done by experimenting and testing
some sample problems with different I , ~ values
before the experiments. For 6, 7, 8, 14, 16, and 18-
machine problems, I,,~ is set to 100, 120, 150, 200,
240, and 280, respectively. Since these experiments
are not interested in the effects of the number of
temperature reductions, M, on the solution quality, it
 Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 17/No. 1
1998

is arbitrarily decided that for every 10 iterations
there is a temperature reduction. In other words, for
6, 7, 8, 14, 16, and 18-machine problems, Mis set to
9, 11, 14, 19, 23, and 27, respectively.
As for the fifth experiment set, the weights for
minimizing the total flow distance criterion, maxi-
mizing the number of in-sequence movements crite-
rion, minimizing the total backtracking flow dis-
tance, and minimizing the number of backtracking
movements criterion are arbitrarily set to 5, 3, 2, and
1, respectively. The absolute performance measure
only was used for limited-machine problems, while
the relative measure only was used for extended-
machine problems. The average CPU time and the
average improvement resulting from the application
of SA to the FLA solutions will be collected from
the fifth experiment set. The experiments were con-
ducted on a SUN SPARC 10 workstation.
5.3 Experimental Results
The experimental results are summarized in
Tables 6--17. Tables 6-13 summarize the results of
Table6
Average Performance of Different FLA Methods Relative to the Criterion of l~linlmidngToTS]Flow Distance
0PM ffipcrforman~ measure)
the first, second, third, and fourth sets of experi-
merits, while Tables 14 and 15 summarize the results
of the fifth set of experiments. Tables 6, 8, 10, 12,
and 14 categorize the results based on the FLA
method, and Tables 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 categorize
the results based on the temperature reduction strat-
egy. Table 16 lists the average CPU time for solving
problems of different sizes. Finally, Table 17 shows
the improvement in solution resulting from applying
SA to the solutions found by FLA methods.
Observations from the results of these experiments
are summarized as follows.
From Table 6 one can see that, relative to the cri-
terion of minimizing total flow distance, the solu-
tions of the limited-machine problems are all very
close to the optimal solutions. As for the extended-
machine problems, the average performance of
every FLA method is close to one. This means that
for each of these extended-problems, the solution
found by every FLA method is very close to the best
solution of the 20 solutions found by using different
combinations of FLA method and temperature

FLA Method
Problem Type PM Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Method 4 Method 5 Method 6

6 machines, unidireet., nonloop .984772 .985324 .985164 .984763 .986258*

6 machines, tmidireet., loop .994697 .996091 .995993 .996281* .994420
7 machines, unidirect., nonloop a .969313 .970938 .969908 .970706 .973958*
7 machines, unidirect., loop b .985418 .986937 .987143* .986469 .985742
8 machines, tmidireet., nonloop s .964584* .961865 .962159 .962368 .963480
8 machines, unidirect., loop o .977470 .978603 .978733 .980108* .976209
6 machines, bidirect., nonloop 1 .984898 .982729 .984705 .981722 .988816*
6 machines, bidirect., loop u .998437 .998301 .998018 .997889 .998779*
7 machines, bidireet., nonloop t .970256 .971837 .969898 .970033 .976983*
7 machines, hidirect., loop e .989953 .990858 .989388 .989642 .993366*
8 machines, bidirect., nonloop .964636 .962348 .963180 .962076 .967975*
8 machines, bidirect., loop .983620 .983208 .983673 .982976 .986289*
14 machines unidirect., nonloop .970344 .968968 .968426 .968493 .970938*
14 machines unidirect.,loop .977097 .983340 .984584 .986907* .974585
16 machines unidirect.,nonloop r .972254 .972339 .970230 .969846 .974227*
16 machines uni~rect.,loop e .978772 .986745 .985951 .988361* .974243
18 machines unidire~., nonloop 1 .973563 .973998 .973226 .973346 .976785*
18 machines unidirect.,loop a .979365 .986644 .985932 .989064* .975446
14 machines bidire~., nonloop t .968669 .967544 .966654 .967647 .975772*
14 machines bi&rect., loop i .980367 .978907 .980225 .978803 .986449*
16 machines bidireet., nonloop v .973487 .971622 .971070 .971168 .976786*
16 machines bidire~.,loop e .981713 .981802 .981059 .981842 .986902*
18 machines, bidirect., nonloop .973623 .972205 .973446 .973445 .979131*
18 machines, bidirect., loop .982720 .980375 .981749 .981878 .988753*

* denotes which FLA method has the best performance in every problem type.

15
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 17/No. 1
1998

reduction strategy. However, it is observed that FLA as well. As a matter of fact, for both the limited-
Method 5 seems to dominate the other methods in machine problems and the extended-machine prob-
bidirectional problems. In addition, except for the lems, FLA Method 5 has the best performance in
seven-machine unidirectional loop flow path prob- every bidirectional problem. As for the average per-
lem and the eight-machine unidirectional nonloop formance of different temperature reduction strate-
flow path problem, the best performances in the rest gies relative to the criterion of maximizing the num-
of unidirectional problems are shared between FLA ber of in-sequence movements, one can see from
Methods 4 and 6. As for the average performance of Table 9 that although the third temperature reduction
different temperature reduction strategies relative to strategy wins the majority of the best performance,
the criterion of minimizing total flow distance, it can all temperature reduction strategies have very close
be observed from Table 7 that no temperature reduc- performance.
tion strategy significantly dominates the other As for the performance of the FLA method rela-
strategies; however, the third strategy seems to have tive to the criterion of minimizing total backtracking
slightly better performance. flow distance, Table 10 shows that FLA Method 1
Relative to the criterion of maximizing the num- has the best performance in every limited and
ber of in-sequence movements, one can see from extended problem. In addition, for the performance
Table 8 that all the solutions of limited-machine of the temperature reduction strategy relative to the
problems are extremely close to the optimal solu- criterion of minimizing total backtracking flow dis-
tions. As for the extended-machine problems in tahoe, Table 11 shows that all strategies have very
Table 8, one can see that only FLA Methods 5 and 6 close performance with the third strategy, winning
perform well--their average performance values are half of the best performances. From Table 12, one
close to one. The other FLA methods do not perform can see that all FLA methods have very close per-
7able7
AveragePerformance of Different T m p e n t m Reduction S t r t t q ~ lblttive to the Criterion of Minimi~ng Total Flew Distance
O'M". perromnce m~ure)
TemneratureReductionStrategy
ProblemType PM Temp 1 T~'mp2 Temp3- Temp4
6 machines, unidirect., nordoop .985342 .985568* .985436 .984679
6 machines, unidirect., loop .995942* .995518 .995413 .995113
7 machines, unidirect., nonloop a .970075 .970591 .971543 .971649*
7 machines, unidireet., loop b .986467 .986231 .986644* .986026
8 machines, unidirect., nonloop s .962736 .964257* .963472 .961099
8 machines, unidirect., loop o .977568 .978254 .979226* .977833
6 machines, bidirect., nonloop 1 .984495 .985155* .984811 .983834
6 machines, bidirect., loop u .998252 .998161 .998115 .998612*
7 machines, bidirect., nonloop t .971808 .971195 .970651 .973551*
7 machines, bidireet,, loop e .990693 .990736 .991088* .990048
8 machines, bidirect., nonloop .963843 .964041 .965206* .963081
8 machines, bidirect., loop .983973 .983544 .984762* .983534
14 machines, unidirect., nonloop .969886* .969446 .969832 .968572
14 machines, unidirect., loop .981681* .981356 .981366 .980809
16 machines, unidirect., nonloop r .971869 .971383 .972569* .971295
16 machines, unidirect., loop e .982732 .982906* .982739 .982879
18 machines, unidirect., nonloop 1 .974601" .974256 .973668 .974211
18 machines, unidirect., loop a .983340 .983661* .983311 .982849
14 machines, bidirect., nonloop t .969608* .969344 .969361 .968716
14 machines, bidirect., loop i .980637 .980825 .980761 .981578*
16 machines, bidirect., nonloop v .973326 .971439 .973989* .972552
16 machines, bidirect., loop e .982680 .982403 .982730 .982843*
18 machines, bidirect., nonloop .974163 .974410 .975139" .973769
18 machines, bidirect., loop .982914 .983492* .982886 .983089

* denotes which temperature reduction strategy has the best performance in every problem type.

16
 Journal of ManufacturingSystems
Vol. 17/No. 1
1998

formance relative to the criterion of minimizing the
number of backtracking movements, with FLA
Method 4 winning all the best performances. Table
13 shows that all temperature reduction strategies
perform equally well, with the second strategy win-
ning half of the best performances.
From the discussion above, one can understand
the performance of different FLA methods and tem-
perature reduction strategies relative to every applic-
able criterion in every problem scenario. The results
of the experiments indicate that the selection of FLA
method can be based on the evaluation criteria in the
objective function of a problem. This is because one
FLA method seems to dominate the other FLA
methods for all problems in the experiments for a
given evaluation criterion, with the exception of uni-
directional problems for the evaluation criterion of
minimizing the total flow distance. Although one
does not see such significant dominance among
temperature reduction strategies, the results from
Tables 7, 9, 11, and 13 more or less provide some
ideas on the selection of temperature reduction strat-
Table8
Average Performance of Different FLA Methods Relative to the Critet~n of MaYimi~iqgthe Number of In-Sequence Movements
(I'M = performaaee measure)
egy. With this knowledge, it becomes easier to select
appropriate FLA methods and temperature reduc-
tion strategies for different problems; as a result,
good solutions can be found more effectively and
efficiently. This is very helpful especially when
there are constraints of time and other computation-
al resources. For example, in the fii~h set of experi-
ments, the weights assigned to the criteria are 5
(minimizing total flow distance), 3 (maximizing the
number of in-sequence movements), 2 (minimizing
total backtracking flow distance), and 1 (minimizing
the number of backtracking movements). Larger
weights are assigned to the first two criteria. With
this assignment of weights and the knowledge
learned from the first four experiment sets, it is
expected that FLA Method 5 will have the best per-
formance in bidirectional problems and FLA
Method 6 will have the best performance in unidi-
rectional problems. It is also expected that the third
temperature reduction strategy should be able to per-
form well. In other words, to solve this problem, one
should consider using FLA Method 5 (for bidirec-

FLA Method
Problem Type PM Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Method 4 Method 5 Method 6

6 machines, unidirect., nonloop .951329 .954799 .950679 .950689 .973417*

6 machines, unidirect., loop .983983 .986345 .981609 .983414 .988216*
7 machines, unidirect., nonloop a .929497 .926169 .926051 .926325 .967200*
7 machines, unidirect., loop b .958527 .956655 .959712 .956205 .968561*
8 machines, tmidirect., nonloop s .916214 .913501 .914728 .914322 .972469*
8 machines, unidircct., loop o .938586 .935472 .936176 .938001 .962477*
6 machines, bidirect., nonloop 1 .975293 .975068 .974166 .972440 .997051*
6 machines, bidirect., loop u .995623 .995369 .995378 .995489 .998165*
7 machines, bidirect., nonloop t .950826 .950373 .947823 .950643 .993448*
7 machines, bidirect., loop e .977848 .976570 .975306 .977482 .991772*
8 machines, bidireet., nonloop .938669 .937348 .935682 .933682 .992335*
8 machines, bidireet., loop .960365 .957092 .958259 .960030 .983123*
14 machines, unidireet., nonloop .859097 .852035 .864101 .860955 .999494*
14 machines, unidireet., loop .883410 .876956 .886359 .885113 .997109*
16 machines, unidireet., nonloop r .845415 .842507 .850015 .841220 .999863*
16 machines, unidireet., loop e .866216 .861565 .868713 .865431 .997874*
18 machines, unidireet., nonloop 1 .836640 .828145 .840337 .832167 .999563*
18 machines, unidireet., loop a .856193 .847432 .858618 .849930 .999571*
14 machines, bidircct., nordoop t .859151 .852043 .851826 .850446 .999900*
14 machines, bidire,ct., loop i .882110 .875504 .877753 .875852 .999765*
16 machines, bidireet., nordoop v .841266 .834606 .836544 .832963 .999931*
16 machines, bidireet., loop e .859316 .856477 .856992 .855511 .999890*
18 machines, bidir~et., nonloop .825321 .821469 .818671 .820731 .999984*
18 machines, bidireet., loop .842336 .837699 .837145 .837715 .999871*

* denotes which FLA method has the best performance in every problem type.

17
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 17/No. 1
1998

tional problems) or FLA Method 6 (for unidirec- reduction strategy has the best performance in the
tional problems) and the third temperature reduction majority of problems. Table 16 lists the average CPU
strategy first before other methods and strategies. time for solving a problem of different sizes in the
The results of the fifth set of experiments shown filth experiment set. As seen in Table 16, the pro-
in Tables 14 and 15 prove these speculations to be posed two-phase procedure is very effective in terms
true. From Tables 14 and 15, one can see that FLA of CPU time. In addition, Table 17 lists the average
Methods 5 and 6 have the best performance in bidi- improvement made by SA for each problem type in
rectional problems and unidirectional problems, the fit~la set of experiments. Table 17 shows that the
respectively. In addition, the third temperature improvement is significant for some problems.
Table9
Average Performance of Different Temperature Reduction Strategies Relative to the Criterion of Maximizing the Number
of In-Sequence Movements (PM = performance measure)

Temperature Reduction Strategy

Problem Type PM Temp 1 Terap 2 Temp 3 Temp 4

6 machines, unidirect., nonloop .954744 .955952 .958134* .955901

6 machines, unidirect., loop .984863 .983103 .985797* .985090
7 machines, unidirect., nonloop a .933779 .935212 .936293* .934909
7 machines, unidirect., loop b .958877 .961223 .962017* .957612
8 machines, unidireet., nonloop s .926673 .925490 .926936* .925888
8 machines, urtidirect., loop o .943346* .942068 .941513 .941643
6 machines, bidirect., nonloop 1 .979974* .978951 .978770 .977519
6 machines, bidirect., loop u .995293 .996239 .996328* .996158
7 machines, bidireet., nonloop t .957433 .959723* .958743 .958590
7 machines, bidirect., loop e .980312 .977087 .981155* .980628
8 machines, bidirect., nonloop .946529 .947239 .947797 .948608*
8 machines, bidirect., loop .963531 .963363 .966462* .961739
14 machines tmidimet., nordoop .887784 .887393 .887820* .885549
14 machines unid~ect.,loop .904440 .906144 .907485* .905089
16 machines unidirect.,nonloop r .873759 .876816 .877710* .874930
16 machines unidireet.,loop e .891892 .891744 .892835* .891367
18 machines unidirect.,nonloop I .866835 .867818 .868829* .866000
18 machines unidirect., loop a .882332 .881913 .883860* .881290
14 machines bidire~.,nonloop t .883058* .883008 .882335 .882292
14 machines bidirect.,loop i .901559 .902055 .902940* .902234
16 machines bidire~.,no~oop v .869976* .868486 .869588 .868198
16 machines bidirect.,loop e .886419 .883945 .886607* .885577
18 machines bidirect.,nordoop .857606* .856837 .857456 .857042
18 machines bidire~.,loop .869589 .871662 .871959* .870602

* denotes which temperature reduction strategy has the best performance in every problem type.

Table 10
Average Performance of Different FLA Methods Relative to the Criterion of Minimizing Total Backtracking Flow Distance
0PM = performance measure, abs = absolute, and tel = relative)

FLA Method
ProblemType PM Methodl Method2 Method3 Method4 Method6

6 machines, unidirect., nonloop a .975069* .970952 .970021 .970674 .968974

7 machines, unidirect., nonloop b .957350* .954802 .948532 .948582 .949199
8 machines, unidirect., nordoop s .951207* .948564 .944681 .942855 .940670
14 machines, unidireet., nonloop r .970752* .963763 .958518 .962729 .946871
16 machines, unidirect., nonloop e .977102* .965982 .963049 .967720 .952949
18 machines, unidirect., nonloop 1 .976837* .965783 .963901 .968076 .951330

* denotes which FLA method has the best performance in every problem type.

18
 Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 17/No. 1
1998

Because of the relatively small mount of CPU time paths. In addition, linear single-row flow path con-
for solving one problem, it is concluded that the figurations are popular in practice because of their
improvement made by SA is worth the effort. simple structures and relatively easy flow control
problems. As pointed out earlier in the paper, tradi-
6. Summary and Conclusion tional machine layout procedures ignore flow path
This paper proposed a two-phase layout proce- characteristics and almost all of them restrict the
dure to solve the machine layout problem with a lin- flow path to a straight line. Unlike traditional layout
ear single-row flow path in an automated manufac- methods, the proposed layout procedure considers
turing system. Many modern automated material the characteristics of the flow path and does not have
handling devices transport material on fixed flow the same restriction. Because of the consideration of
Table 11
Average Performance of Different Temperature Reduction Strategies Relative to the Criterion of MilaimizingTotal Backtracking Flow Distance
(PM = performance measure, abs ffi absolute, and tel ffi relative)

Temverature Reduction Stratet, v

Problem Type PM Temp 1 Temp 2 Temp 3 Temp 4

6 machines, unidirect., nonloop a .970644 .970002 .971702 .972204*

7 machines, umdirect., nonloop b .951175 .951423 .952966* .951209
8 machines, unidirect., nonloop s .944761 .946503 .947092* .944026
14 machines, unidireet., nonloop r .961164* .960150 .960134 .960658
16 machines, unidirect., nonloop e .965290 .964655 .965997* .965498
18 machines, unidireet., nonloop 1 .964513 .965801* .965528 .964900

* denotes which temperature reduction strategy has the best performance in every problem type.

Table 12
Average Performance of Different FLA Methods Relative to the Criterion of Minimizing the Number of Backtracking Movements
(PM ffi performancemeasure, abs ffi absolute, and tel ffi relative)

FLA Method
Problem Type PM Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Method 4 Method 6

6 machines, unidirect., nonloop a .979886 ,990207 .989515 .992395* .965439

7 machines, tmidireet., nonloop b .968736 ,987105 .983348 .988723* .951943
8 machines, unidirect., nonloop s .960992 ,979523 .975002 .983740* .942497
14 machines, unidirect,, nonloop r .966589 ,991152 .986364 .994128* .929431
16 machines, unidirect., nonloop e .968005 .992613 .988099 .995822* .930448
18 machines, unidirect., nonloop ! .973239 .992758 .990490 .995870* .932380

* denotes which FLA method has the best performance in every problem type.

Table 13
Average Performance of Different Temperature Reduction Strategies Relative to the Criterion of Minimi~dng the Number of Backtracking
Movements (TM = performance measure, abs ffi absolute, and rel = relative)

Ternverature Reduction Strateav

Problem Type PM Temp 1 Temp 2 Temp 3 Temp 4

6 machines, unidirect., nonloop a .981596 .984388* .984147 .983822

7 machines, unidiroct., nonloop b .975768 .976053 .976590* .975474
8 machines, unidirect., nonloop s .968755* .967778 .968735 .968137
14 machines, unidirect., nonloop r .973193 .973860* .973835 .973244
16 machines, unidirect., nonloop e .975172* .975052 .974937 .974829
18 machines, unidirect., nonloop I .976637 .977128* .976963 .977061

* denotes which temperature reduction strategy has the best performance in every problem type.

19
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vot. 17/No. 1
1998

flow path characteristics, appropriate evaluation cri- ear single-row flow path, it is the first layout proce-
teria can be selected for different layout problems. dure that has been tested for the performance of dif-
Four evaluation criteria have been introduced to ferent FLA methods and temperature reduction
assist in evaluating the layout design for different strategies relative to every applicable evaluation cri-
problem scenarios. Minimum safe distances teflon in every problem scenario. Many experiments
between machines were introduced for the safe oper- have been conducted. The results of these experi-
ation of machines, storage space for WIP, move- ments provide vital information on selecting appro-
ments of personnel, and many other purposes. priate FLA methods and temperature reduction
Suggestions were also made to prevent the overlap- strategies for solving different problems.
ping of machines. The proposed layout procedure From the experimental results, it was also observed
combines FLA method and SA. Two new FLA that the proposed solution procedure performs
methods have been proposed. Four of Hollier's extremely well for the limited-machine problems. For
methods ~2have been adopted and modified so they the extended-machine problems, although their solu-
can be applied to problems with duplicate machines. tions are not compared with their respective optimal
A normalized multiple-criterion objective function solutions, it is believed that near-optimal solutions will
has been proposed to incorporate different evalua- be obtained for the extended-machine problems if the
tion cflteria together so that the layout design can be number of iterations, I,~, is large enough. In fact, if
evaluated. Initial and freezing temperatures setting the time constraint allows, one can further improve the
strategies and four temperature reduction strategies chance of achieving an even better solution of a prob-
for SA have also been suggested. Although the pro- lem by any one or combination of the following
posed layout procedure is not the first method that means: using the solutions obtained from other FLA
applies SA to the machine layout problem with a lin- methods as initial solutions, increasing the iteration
Table 14
Average Performance of Different FLA Methods Relative to the Normalized Weighted Multiple Criteria in the Fifth Experiment Set
(PM = performance messure)

FLA Me~od
Problem Type PM Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Method 4 Method 5 Method 6

6 machines unidirect., nonloop .973285 .969681 .968599 .969508 .978672*

6 machines unidirect.,loop .990215 .993591* .991563 .991784 .992765
7 machines unidirect., nonloop a .956629 .953679 .953127 .952223 .968023*
7 machines tmidirect., loop b .974438 .978188 .978037 .979429 .981713*
8 machines uuidirect., nonloop s .953264 .948024 .945165 .947459 .960138*
8 machines unidirect.,loop o .967474 .967071 .965919 .970227 .974779*
6 machines bidirect., nonloop 1 .978780 .979459 .979219 .978347 .991911*
6 machines bidirect.,loop u .996877 .997410 .997488 .997618* .997357
7 machines bidirect.,nonloop t .961749 .960390 .960480 .958852 .983645*
7 machines bidire~.,loop e .985230 .985084 .985184 .985188 .987504*
8 machines bidirect., nonloop .952475 .952262 .953026 .951850 .978992"
8 machines bidirect.,loop .974571 .973693 .975203 .974610 .975223*
14 machines, unidirect., nonloop .967827 .956549 .957412 .959316 .990061*
14 machines, unidirect.,loop .954727 .957612 .962565 .963519 .994837*
16 machines, unidirect.,nonloop r .964632 .952444 .955646 .954222 .993780*
16 machines, tmidirect., loop c .951838 .955329 .959804 .958922 .996426*
18 machines, unidirect., nonloop 1 .963331 .949964 .953257 .951861 .996569*
18 machines, unidirect., loop a .947277 .947265 .955904 .951614 .997478*
14 machines, bidirect., nonloop t .934225 .931605 .929251 .931523 .998975*
14 machines, bidirect., loop i .944967 .941442 .942314 .941621 .999052"
16 machines, bidirect., nonloop v .933755 .931362 .929647 .931366 .999380*
16 machines, bidirect., loop e .938068 .936093 .935901 .936164 .999314*
18 machines, bidirect., nonloop .925861 .921380 .922275 .921090 .999945*
18 machines, bidirect., loop .930063 .926962 .926646 .926271 .999790*

* denotes which FLA method has the best performance in every problem type.

20
 Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 17/No. 1
1998

limit, I,,,~ and using other temperature reduction Acknowledgments

strategies. It is also observed that the proposed solu- This research was supported by the Engineering
tion procedure is very efficient with CPU time. It is Research Center for Intelligent Manufacturing
therefore concluded that the proposed solution proce- Systems at Purdue University under a grant from the
dure is a very effective and efficient method. National Science Foundation.

Table 15
Average Performance of Different Temperature Redaction Strategies Relative to the Normalized Weighted Multiple Criteria in the
Experiment Set (PM = performance measure)

Temverature Reduction Strateav

Problem Type PM Temp 1 Temp 2 Temp 3 Temp 4

6maehines, urtidirect., nonloop .971871 .972131 .971393 .972401"

6maehines, unidireet.,Ioop .991626 .991857 .992755* .991696
7maehines, unidireet., nonloop a .955863 .957133 .957330* .956619
7maehines, unidireet., loop b .978347 .978107 .978545* .978444
8machines, unidire~.,nonloop s .950549 .950457 .951199* .951035
8maehines, unidireet.,loop o .969319 .968738 .969765* .968555
6machines, bidireet.,nonloop 1 .980822 .982118* .981654 .981580
6machines, bidirect.,loop u .997313 .997119 .997877* .997092
7maehines, bidireet.,nonloop t .964171 .965131 .966451* .964341
7rnachines, bidireet.,loop e .985168 .985460 .986181* .985742
8machines, bidireet., nonloop .957502 .957095 .985121 .985165*
8machines, bidireet.,loop .974761 .974770 .975529* .973578
14 machines, uaidireet., nonloop .966232 .965934 .966629* .966138
14 machines, unidirect., loop .966249 .966753 .966714 .966890*
16 machines, unidirect., nonloop r .964161 .963744 .964649* .964026
16 machines, unidirect., loop e .964648 .964330 .964899* .963980
18 machines, unidireet., nonloop 1 .962541 .962909 .962809 .963726*
18 machines, unidireet., loop a .959698 .960618* .959754 .960010
14 machines, bidireet., nonloop t .944547 .945120 .945088 .945708"
14 machines, bidireet., loop i .953969 .953679 .953892 .953977*
16 machines, bidireet., nonloop v .944531 .945807 .945934* .944137
16 machines, bidireet., loop e .949537* .949044 .948880 .948970
18 machines, bidireet., nonloop .937975 .937870 .938381* .938214
18 machines, bidirect., loop .942040 .941357 .942535* .941854

* denotes which temperature reduction strategy has the best performance in every problem type.

Table 16
Average CPU Time for Problems with Different Quantities of Machines

Quantity of Machines 6 7 8 14 16 18

Average CPU time (seconds/problem) .015538 .021125 .026613 .084925 .119688 .16855

Table l 7
Average Improvement of Every Problem X~)~e

Quantity of Machines bidireet., nonloop unidireet., nonloop bidireet., loop unidireet., loop

6 .100487 .041864 .080787 .043644

7 .094740 .034562 .083651 .037720
8 .084956 .028392 .076500 .029771
14 .058314 .010204 .053169 .007374
16 .052561 .008406 .048620 .005869
18 .048234 .006167 .045207 .003596

21
Journal of Manufacturing Systems
Vol. 17/No. 1
1998
References
1. N.A.G. Aneke and A.S. Carrie, "A Design Technique for the Layout
of Multi-Product Flowlines" InternationalJournal of Production Research
(v24, n3, 1986), pp471-481.
2. S.S. Heragu and A. Kusiak, "Machine Layout Problem in Flexible
Manufacturing Systems," Operations Research (v36, n2, 1988), pp258-
268.
3. S.S. Heragu and A. Kusiak, "Machine Layout: An Optimization and
Knowledge-Based Approach," International Journal of Production
Research (v28, n4, 1990), pp615-635.
4. S.S. Heragu and A. Kusiak, "Efficient Models for the Facility Layout
Problem" EuropeanJournal of OperationalResearch (v53, n 1, 1991), pp 1-
13.
5. S.S. Heragu and A.S. Alfa, "Experimental Analysis of Simulated
AnnealingBased Algorithms for the Layout Problem" European Journal of
Operational Research (v57, n2, 1992), pp190-202.
6. P. Kouvelis and W.C. Chiang, "A Simulated Annealing Procedure for
Single Row Layout Problems in Flexible Manufacturing Systems,"
International Journal of Production Research (v30, n4, 1992), pp717-732.
7. P. Kouvelis, W.C. Chiang, and J. Fitzsimmons, "Simulated Annealing
for Machine Layout Problems in the Presence of Zoning Constraints,"
European Journal of Operational Research (v57, n2, 1992), pp203-223.
8. A. Kusiak and K. Park, "Layout of Machines in Cellular
Manufacturing Systems," International Journal of Manufacturing System
Design (vl, nl, 1994), pp31-39.
9. P.C. Noy, "Make the Right Plant Layout--Mathematically"American
Machinist (Max. 1957), pp121-125.
10. W.T.Singleton, 1962, "Optimum Sequencing of Operations for Batch
Production," WorkStudy and Industrial Engineering (Mar. 1962), ppl00-
110.
11. J.M. Moore, Plant Layout and Design (New York: Macmillan, 1962).
12. R.H. Hollier, "The Layout of Multi-Product Lines," International
Journal of Production Research (v2, nl, 1963), plM7-57.
22
13. A.S. Carrie, "Layout of Multi-Product Lines" International Journal
of Production Research (v13, n6, 1975), pp541-557.
14. Y.C. Ho, C.E.C. Lee, and C.L. Moodie, "Two Sequence-Pattern,
Matching-Based, Flow Analysis Methods for Multi-Flowlines Layout
Design," International Journal of Praduction Research (v31, n7, 1993),
pp1557-1578.
15. Y.C. Ho, "Cell Formation and Layout Design for Multiple-Cell
Manufacturing with Flexible Processing and Routing," PhD thesis (West
Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, 1995).
16. D.S. Johnson, C.R. Aragon, L.A. McGeoch, and C. Schevon,
"Optimization by Simulated Annealing: An Experimental Evaluation; Part
1, Graph Partitioning;' Operations Research (v37, n6, 1989), pp865-892.
17. N. Metropolis, A.W. Rosenbluth, M.N. Rosenbluth, and A.H. Teller,
"Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines" The Journal
of Chemical Physics (v21, n6, 1953), pp1087-1092.
Authors' Biographies
Ying-Chin Ho is an associate professor of industrial management at
National Central University (NCU) in Taiwan. He holds a BS degree m
industrial management from the National Cheng-Kung University in
Talwan. He received his MS and PhD degrees from Purdue in 1994 and
joined the faculty at NCU. His teaching and research interests are in the
control and design of production systems, material handling, facility
design, CIM, and FMS. His papers have appeared in major international
journals.
Colin L. Moodie is a professor of industrial engineering at Purdue
University. He has been a member of the Purdue faculty for 30 years. His
teaching and research interests are in the control and design of production
systems. He teaches courses in computer-assisted production planning and
control, facilities design, and material handling, and real-time control of
manufacturing systems. He is active with curriculum development at both
the graduate and undergraduate levels in Purdue's School of Industrial
Engineering. He is an ABET evaluator for industrial engineering.