Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 66:795807 DOI 10.

1007/s00170-012-4367-x

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Multiple-attribute decision-making approach for an energy-efficient facility layout design

Lei Yang & Jochen Deuse & Pingyu Jiang

Received: 27 February 2012 / Accepted: 2 July 2012 / Published online: 20 July 2012 # Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Abstract Due to the trends of energy shortage and energy price rise, energy efficiency, which was always ignored over the past decades, becomes a worldwide hot issue and also a significant challenge for most factories. Therefore, it is necessary to incorporate energy-relevant criterion as a key criterion with traditional criteria in the layout planning phase. As a multiattribute decision-making (MADM) problem, the evaluation and selection of facility layout alternatives are often difficult and time consuming since the criteria generally have different units and conflicting features. In this article, a MADM approach which incorporates the advantages of rough set theory, analytic hierarchy process (AHP), and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) is proposed to solve the facility layout design problem with considering both traditional layout criteria and energy relevant criteria. At first, rough set theory is integrated with AHP to determine the weights for each criterion of alternatives. Then, TOPSIS is applied to get the final alternative ranking. Besides, sensitivity analysis for both decision weights and production rates is performed, and a comparison among different decision-making approaches for the same problem is also studied to demonstrate the rationality of the final decision. Finally, a practical expanding case is studied to validate the proposed approach. Keywords Decision making . Energy efficiency . Facility layout design . Sensitivity analysis
L. Yang (*) : J. Deuse Department of Mechanical Engineering, TU Dortmund University, Leonhard-Euler-Strae 5, 44227 Dortmund, Germany e-mail: lei2.yang@tu-dortmund.de P. Jiang State key Laboratory for Manufacturing Systems Engineering, Xian Jiaotong University, No.99.Yanxiang Road, 710054 Xian, China

1 Introduction Nowadays, many manufacturing companies share the common goals towards cost effectiveness, energy efficiency, and sustainability. In particular, in the age of energy shortage and energy price rise, energy efficiency should be considered as an essential factor in early planning phase with the purpose of obtaining more benefit and becoming more competitive in the market. Besides, developing an energyefficient facility planning is not only a problem about cost reduction but also a great contribution to the environmental protection [1]. Facility layout design has an essential impact on the performance of the whole manufacturing system, and it is always considered as a key for manufacturing systems to improve their productivity. The traditional facility layout problem (FLP) generally focuses on quantitative criteria such as shape ratio, material handling cost, adjacency score, and space demand, as well as the qualitative criteria such as flexibility and quality. However, due to the trends of energy shortage and energy price rise, energy relevant criteria should be incorporated with the traditional criteria in the facility layout planning phase.

2 Literature review Over the past decades, in the purpose of solving FLP, most studies have investigated the allocation activities. Many researches try to simplify practical FLP into mathematical programming models or simulation models to optimize the objectives of the FLP [2]. Unfortunately, such optimization problem always belongs to the class of NP-hard, which means large amount of computing time consumption and difficulty of finding an exact solution [3]. Furthermore, such optimization approaches

796

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 66:795807

are difficult to solve the problem with qualitative criteria. In addition, most layout design problems have many optimization objectives with different units and conflicting features. Aiming at acquiring the best layout with considering all objectives, many multiobjective optimization approaches have been developed which finally obtain an optimal solution set instead of a single optimal solution. Ye et al. [4] use genetic algorithm which applied a random weight approach to combine the normalized value of two objectives for solving the layout problem with considering the material handling costs and nonmaterial relation requirements. Aiello et al. [5] develop a genetic search algorithm which determines Pareto optimal solutions to solve the multiobjective optimization problem with the objectives of minimizing material handling costs while maximizing the satisfaction of distance requests, closeness rating, and the satisfaction of aspect ratio requests. Ye et al. [6] employ a GA-TS algorithm based on weighted sum method for maximizing closeness rating and minimizing material handling cost. Under this condition, the layout designers should choose a best solution according to the practical situation and their preference. However, layout decision making is a multiattribute decisionmaking (MADM) problem; hence, the evaluation of FLP alternatives is always difficult and time consuming because of its inherent multiple attribute feature. In order to avoid relayout that will cause extra costs and waste of production time, many researchers concerned the layout evaluation by using MADM techniques. They investigate the characteristics of a finite number of layout alternatives, the information on the performance among alternatives of an attribute, and the preferences across all involved attributes to choose the optimum layout alternative that can satisfy all the relevant attributes [3]. Cambron et al. [7] use various computer-aided layout approaches to obtain several layout alternatives and employ analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to evaluate them by considering material handling cost, safety level, aesthetic appeal, noise level, and the level of satisfaction for special requirements. AHP is able to provide weights for qualitative layout evaluation criteria. However, many quantitative criteria are difficult to be distinguished with its nine-point scale. Yang et al. [8] use AHP to collect qualitative data, and the data envelopment analysis is then employed to take both quantitative data (distance, adjacency, and shape ratio) and qualitative data (such as flexibility, accessibility, and maintenance) to solve plant layout design problem. Kuo et al. [9] take the same criteria into consideration and then apply gray relational analysis to solve the multiple attribute layout decision-making problems. However, energy relevant criteria are always ignored in the decision-making process.

For the MADM problem that has different attributes with different units and feature, it is always difficult to determine the relative weights among the involved criteria. AHP is always used to solve this problem. Yang and Deuse (2012) use AHP to obtain the weights of criteria and then apply PROMETEE to choose the best layout alternative from layout candidates [10]. nt et al. (2008) develop a hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach based on integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) to solve CNC machining center selection problem for a company in Istanbul [11]. However, AHP strongly depends on human judgment that may cause assessment bias, and the results of AHP are easily influenced by different person and situation. Although fuzzy AHP can classify human judgment in fuzzy way, the most widely used fuzzy AHP methodextent analysis methodcannot evaluate the true weights by using a fuzzy comparison matrix and has led to quite a number of misapplications in practice [12]. Therefore, more researchers focus on rough set theory with the purpose of getting weights of criteria. Wen and Chen (2010) employ rough set theory and AHP to get the criteria weights then used TOPSIS to make the risk assessment [13]. Sen et al. apply rough set theory to obtain the criteria weights and then developed an interactive multiobjective decision-making method to solve a distribution center location problem [14]. After getting the relative weights, it is necessary to find an efficient method to get the final ranking among finite alternatives. Although AHP can help decision maker not only to calculate the ratio of the decision maker s inconsistency but also to make best decision considering with both tangible and nontangible aspects of a decision problem, large amount of pairwise comparisons leads to impractical usage of AHP, especially under fuzzy conditions [11]. TOPSIS is effective in handling with the tangible attributes and large number of alternatives, but it requires an efficient approach to provide the relative weights of different decision criteria [15]. Unlike other decision-making methods, for example, PROMETHEE which needs much experience to determine the preference functions and thresholds, as well as AHP which is very difficult to make the pairwise comparisons precisely, TOPSIS calculates the Euclidean distance from chosen alternatives to the ideal solutions. Its mathematical simplicity is preferred by many decision makers. In addition, due to the fluctuation of economic and politic situation and the change of seasons, the criteria weights and the production rates inevitably fluctuate correspondingly. These fluctuations lead to the change of final ranking results. nt et al. [11] and Azadeh et al. [16] use a sensitivity analysis method that exchanges the weights of criteria

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 66:795807

797

with each other. However, only limited scenarios can be studied by this method. Dadeviren [17] employ software Decision Lab 2000 to analyze the influence of weight change on the final ranking results. But this analysis is based on a hypothesis: when the analysis is studied on a given weight of a decision criterion, the ratios among other weights are remained constant. Nevertheless, in industrial application, the criteria weights are fluctuated randomly. Besides, the sensitivity analysis for production rates fluctuation is always ignored in facility layout decision-making process. As for the sensitivity analysis considering the both fluctuations of criteria weights and production rates, there are few researches in this field. As mentioned above, a hybrid approach, which considers both traditional and energy relevant criteria, is developed in this article. It integrates rough set theory and AHP to get the criteria weights, and then based on the results of rough setAHP approach, TOPSIS is applied to obtain the final layout alternative ranking. The sensitivity analysis of criteria weights is studied to find the influence of criteria weight variation on ranking results. Moreover, the sensitivity analysis of production rates is performed with considering the possibility of different production rate conditions. Finally, the results obtained by different decision-making approaches are compared. The remaining parts of this paper are organized as follows: Section 3 describes the proposed approach briefly. In Section 4, a case study is applied to validate this approach. Finally, the main conclusions and future researches are summarized in Section 5.
Fig. 1 The flow chart of proposed approach

3 The proposed methodology In this section, a hybrid approach based on rough setAHP and TOPSIS is proposed for the facility layout decisionmaking problem. In addition, the sensitivity analysis of criteria weights and production rates is studied. Figure 1 shows its flowchart. This approach mainly includes the following steps: Step 1: Data collection. Data collection should consider the features of products, transport routing, quantities, restrictions, and so on. Those collected data are used to validate the input data at the design stage. Step 2: Alternatives generation. In this step, the layout alternatives are obtained from a simulation model. In addition, the quantitative performances of the generated layout alternatives are also obtained. Step 3: Rough setAHP calculation. AHP developed by Saaty (1980) provides a method to decompose the complex problem into a hierarchy of subproblems which can be evaluated and handled more easily and rationally [18]. Moreover, AHP makes it possible to quantify the experiences of experts and to integrate those quantified experiences to the decision-making process. Especially, when the structure of the object is complex and the data is missing, such quantified experiences are extremely valuable for the decision makers.

Step 1: Data collection Step 2: Alternatives generation

Collecting data

Sensitivity analysis of weights

Generating layout alternatives

Sensitivity analysis of production rates

Step 5: Results analysis

Step 3: Rough set-AHP

Getting relative importance via rough set theory

Comparing the results by different methods

Finding criteria weights via AHP

Are objectives achieved?

Step 6: Decision making

Y
Creating the evaluation matrix Decision making: select the best layout

Step 4: TOPSIS calculation

Ranking layout alternatives via TOPSIS

798

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 66:795807

However, AHP is strongly connected to human judgment that is easily influenced by different person and different situation. It will cause evaluator s assessment bias that makes the judgment matrix inconsistent. Therefore, in this paper, rough set theory is integrated with AHP to solve the evaluation bias problem in AHP. Rough set theory is used to get the relative significances among decision criteria based on data gotten from previous project, and then based on the relative significances, AHP is applied to get the criteria weights. Rough set theory was firstly developed by Pawlak (1982) [19]. It is a well-known mathematical tool to express imprecise, incomplete, and uncertain information or knowledge that is obtained from human experience. Besides, it is a suitable method to deal with qualitative information which is difficult to be analyzed by using standard statistical methods [20]. It can also be used to find the hidden patterns in data, make the data and attribute reduction, evaluate the significance of data, and find the minimal decision rules based on obtained data. In addition, its straightforward interpretation of results and no requirement for priori knowledge brings a wide application prospect. Some important definitions of rough set theory are described as follows [21, 22]: Definition 1 Assume that S 0 (U,A,V,f) is an information system, where U is nonempty finite sets of object; A 0 CD is an attributes set where subset C denotes the condition attribute set and subset D indicates the decision attribute set and they satisfy CD 0 ; V 0 aA, Va, Va is the range of a; and f: U A V is an information function and it gives values to each object for each attribute, 8x 2 U , and aA, f(x,a)Va. Definition 2 For a nonempty subset B of attributes A ( B  A ), a indiscernibility relation IND (B) is defined and can be denoted as INDB
fx:yjx:y 2 U U ; 8b 2 Bbx byg:

as U jINDB X1 ; X2 ; . . . ; Xn , where Xi indicates different equivalence classes. Definition 3 Entropy H(P) of knowledge P (attributes set) can be calculated as H p
n X i1

pXi log pXi :

where pXi jXi j=jU j is the probability of Xi when P is in the partition X 0 {X1, X2,, Xn} of U. Definition 4 Conditional entropy H QjP that e xp r e s s es h o w k n ow l e d ge Q U jINDQ fY1 ; Y2 ; . . . ; Ym g is relative to knowledge PU jINDP fX1 ; X2 ; . . . ; Xn g can be described as H QjP n m X X pXi pYj jXi log pYj jXi
i1 j 1

where p Yj jXi ; i 1; 2; . . . ; n; j 1; 2; . . . ; m denotes conditional probability. Definition 5 The attribute significance SGA(a, E, D) of attribute a can be calculated as
SGAa; E ; D H DjE H DjE [ a

4 where E is a subset of A. The higher value of SGF( a , E , D ) means more important is attribute a for decision attribute set D. Based on the significance values of all attribute in condition attribute set C, the pairwise comparison judgment matrix of decision criteria can be made. Then, with the help of AHP, the weights of each decision criterion can be obtained. More detail of the AHP can be found in literature [10, 17, 18]. Step 4: TOPSIS calculation. After assigning the weights of decision criteria from the rough setAHP, the layout alternatives are evaluated and ranked by the TOPSIS method. TOPSIS calculates the distance from both the positive and the negative ideal solutions to each alternative to evaluate the alternatives. The alternative which has the shortest distance to the positive ideal solution and the farthest distance to the negative ideal solution is considered as the best alternative.

1 It is clear that the indiscernibility relation expresses an equivalence relation. The family of all the equivalence classes of the relation IND(B) can be expressed

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 66:795807

799

This method mainly consists of the following steps [12, 23, 24]: 1. Establishing the evaluation matrix D based on the values of each layout alternative obtained by the simulation model as follows: 1 0 x11 x12 ::: x1j ::: x1n B x21 x22 ::: x2j ::: x2n C C B C B ::: ::: C B 5 D B xi1 xi2 ::: xij ::: xin C C B C B .. A @ ::: ::: . xm 1 xm2 ::: xmj ::: xmn where xij is the performance of jth criterion for ith layout alternative, with i 0 1, 2,, m and j 0 1, 2,, n. 2. Normalizing the evaluation matrix D: R rij i 1; 2; :::; m; j 1; 2; :::; n xij rij s n P xij
i1

5. Calculating the distances from each alternative to the positive ideal and negative ideal solutions. The distance from positive ideal solution is expressed as
di v uX u n t vij Vj i 1; 2; :::; m; j 1; 2; :::; n:
j1

11 The distance from negative ideal solution is expressed as

v uX u n t vij Vj i 1; 2; :::; m; j 1; 2; :::; n;
j 1

di

12 6. Measuring the relative closeness to the ideal solution (Ci*) defined as follows:
Ci * di di di

i 1; 2; :::; m; j 1; 2; :::; n

i 1; 2; :::; n; 0

Ci *

1:

3. Constituting the weighted and normalized decision matrix V by using the weights gotten from rough setAHP: w1 r11 B w1 r21 B B B V B w1 rj1 B B @ w1 rm1 0 w2 r12 w2 r22 w2 rj2 w2 rm2 ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: wj r1j wj r2j ::: wj rjj ::: wj rmj 1 wn r1n wn r2n C C C C ::: wn rjn C C C .. A . ::: wn rmn ::: ::: 8 where wj stands for the weight of the jth criterion. 4. Choosing both the positive ideal solution (V+) and negative ideal solution (V) with the following representations: V fmax vij jj 2 J ; min vij jj 2 J 0 ji
i i

13 7. Ranking the layout alternative based on values of Ci*. The alternative which has higher closeness means the better ranking. Step 5: Analysis of results. In this step, sensitivity analyses for both criteria weights and production rates are studied. Besides, comparisons among different decision-making approaches for the same problem are also performed. 1. Sensitivity analysis for criteria weights. The weights for criteria are significant for the final ranking, and they are usually obtained based on the subjective experiences which can be easily influenced by different situation and persons. Therefore, it is valuable to analyze the influence of varying criteria weights on the final ranking. With the help of this sensitivity analysis, the most sensitive weight can be found. As a result, the final layout alternative ranking can be made more rationally. Assume that the optimal layout alternative is * s*, and T and w*are the corresponding relative closeness to the ideal solution and weight vector, respectively. S is the set of all layout alternatives. Suppose that ri (i 0 1, 2,, m) is the minimum variation of weights which makes * i T < T , which means layout alternative si is

1; 2; :::; m; j 1; 2; :::; ng

V fmax vij jj 2 J ; min vij jj 2 J 0 ji

i i

1; 2; :::; m; j 1; 2; :::; ng

10

where J represents the benefit criteria and J indicates the cost criteria.

800

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 66:795807

better than optimal layout alternative s*. Then, ri can be calculated as v uX u n 2 ri t kj kj *

j1

Based on the value of Pi(), a ranking results matrix P can be established: p11 B p21 B B B P B pi 1 B B @ pm1 0 p12 p22 pi 2 pm2 ::: ::: ::: ::: p1j p2j ::: pij ::: ::: ::: .. . ::: 1 p1 t p2 t C C C C pit C C C A pmt

14

19

where kj indicates the weight of the jth criterion, kj* expresses the weight of the jth criterion for the optimal layout alternative s*, and n is the number of criteria. If the layout alternative si has the minimum ri in m layout alternatives, it means that the layout s* is most sensitive to the layout alternative si. Usually, the value of ri and the corresponding weight vector can be calculated by the following nonlinear programming with n variables [25]: min ri w; w*
* s:t:T i > T ;

::: ::: ::: pmj

where pij indicates the relative closeness to the ideal solution of the ith layout alternative at jth production rate, t denotes the number of different production rates, and m is the number of layout alternatives. Then, the ranking results matrix P is normalized: G gij pij gij s n P pij
i1

15

i 1; 2; :::; m; j 1; 2; :::; t

20

16

i 1; 2; . . . ; m ; j 1; 2; . . . ; t

21

n X j1

k j 1; k j ! 0

17 Afterwards, assume that the possibility of under jth production rate condition is j. Therefore, the normalized matrix considering the possibility under each production rate condition can be expressed as l1 g11 B l1 g21 B B B FR B li gi1 B B @ l1 gm 1 0 l2 g12 l2 g22 l2 gi 2 l2 gm1 ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: lj g1j lj g2j ::: li gij ::: lj gmj ::: ::: ::: .. . ::: 1 lt g1t lt g2t C C C C lt git C C C A lt gmt

i where w is the corresponding weight vector for ri, T denotes the corresponding relative closeness obtained from TOPSIS, kj indicates the weight of the jth criterion in the weight vector w. Based on the variation of each weight, we can know that under the restriction of having smallest weight variation, varying the criterion with greatest variation is most efficient to make layout alternative si better than s*. Therefore, this criterion should be treated carefully. 2. Sensitivity analysis for production rates. Besides, the sensitivity analysis for fluctuation of production rates is studied. In practice, due to the change of economic situation or companys strategy, the production rates always vary. Consequently, both the performance of layouts and the ranking of layout alternatives will change. Therefore, analyzing the influence of production rates variation on the layout performance can help layout designer to make their decision more rationally. Suppose that the production rate is and then the performance of ith layout alternative at production rate is

22

Finally, the synthetic ranking value of the ith layout alternative for all production rates FRi is obtained: FRi
t X i 1

hij

i 1; 2; :::; m; j 1; 2; :::; t

23

Pi Ti* ;

18

where Ti* ; denotes the relative closeness to the ideal solution of the ith layout alternative at production rate .

Based on the value of FRi, the layout alternative ranking results with considering the possibility of all production rates are obtained. The layout alternative with high value means the better ranking. 3. Comparing the results by different methods. In this step, the same problem is analyzed by different decision-making methods. The comparison of

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 66:795807

801

ranking results by using different decision-making methods can help the layout designer to validate the correctness of the proposed model. Step 6: Decision making. In this step, all objectives are checked by decision makers, and if all objectives are satisfied, the final decision is made and the best layout is chosen based on the above obtained results. Otherwise, the procedure returns to step 2 to generate new layout alternatives.

4.2 Alternatives generation New layout alternatives are generated by a Pareto-based multiobjective optimization approach that simultaneously considers transport performance, energy loss, and space requirement [27]. All new generated layouts apply energy recovery network to reduce energy consumption, and ten optimized layouts are chosen from the Pareto optimal solutions because of their balancing performances on all involved criteria. In addition, the original layout design is also accepted as a layout alternative. 4.3 Rough setAHP The hybrid approach rough setAHP is applied to find the weights of criteria determined by decision makers. Firstly, the problem is analyzed, and the decision criteria determined by decision makers are as follows: space requirement (SR), transport performance (TP), investment for energy recovery network (Inv.), distance request (DR), and energy saving (ES). The decision hierarchy structure is shown in Fig. 3. The space requirement is equal to the needed minimum rectangle area, and it can be evaluated as SR Xbr Xtl Ytl Ybr 24

4 Case study In this section, an expanding case study based on [26] is used to validate the proposed hybrid approach of rough setAHP and TOPSIS. In a paint department, there are six ovens which have a great amount of energy consumption. In addition, workplaces for filler application, basecoat application, and clearcoat application are included. Nowadays, due to the energy policy and the trend of energy price rise, energy consumption reduction is regarded as a key objective in the process of facility layout design because of its long-term effect on expense reduction and clime protection. On the other hand, several traditional layout criteria such as transport performance, investment, and space requirement will be taken into account. 4.1 Data collection The paint department in this studied case has two production lines. The original layout design is displayed in Fig. 2. The production route of the production line 1 is 142536, and the production route of line 2 is 710811912, regardless of the product type.

where Xbr is the maximum x-coordinate value of bottom right corner in all facilities, Xtl denotes the minimum xcoordinate value of top left corner in all facilities, Ytl indicates the maximum y-coordinate value of top left corner in all facilities, and Ybr stands for the minimum y-coordinate value of bottom right corner in all facilities. The transport performance is the sum of the material flow multiplying the corresponding rectangle distance between the output point of previous facility and input point of the next facility which can be formulated as TP
n X n X i1 j1

fij dij

25

Oven 2 (5)

Oven 3 (6) Oven 1 (4) Basecoat Application Filler Application Clearcoat Application 1 2 3 Door 7 8 9 Filler Application Clearcoat Application Basecoat Application Oven 4 (10) Oven 6 (12) Compressed air machine

Door

where fij is the material transport flow from ith facility to jth facility, dij denotes the rectilinear distance between the output point of ith facility and the input point of jth facility. The distance request is measured by multiplying distance rating and distance between facilities. This requirement is related to the satisfaction of environmental issues like noise, vibration, pollution, or risks of fire or explosion. It can be described as XX DR sij dij 26
i j

Oven 5 (11)

13

Fig. 2 The original layout design

where sij indicates the distance rating of facility i and j and dij denotes the distance between the centers of facility i and j.

802 Fig. 3 Hierarchy structure

Goal layer Criteria layer Space requirement (SR) Investment (Inv.)

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 66:795807

Selecting best Layout

Transport Performance (TP)

Distance Request (DR)

Energy Saving (ES)

Alternative layer Original layout Layout 1 Layout 2 Layout 3

...

Layout 10

Energy saving is used to measure the amount of energy consumption reduction of optimized layout alternatives compared to the original layout design. It can be calculated by ES ER EL 27

heat transfers, corresponding pipes, labor costs, and so on. Inv: Cht aL 28

where ER indicates the amount of recovered energy with the help of energy recovery network and EL denotes the amount of energy loss because of heat loss and pressure drop in pipes, which is brought by energy recovery network. Although energy recovery network brings long-term benefit of reducing energy consumption, it brings also extra investment. Therefore, the investment for energy recovery network is accepted as a decision criterion to calculate the sum costs for heat exchange network including

where Cht denotes the costs for heat transfer devices. In addition, the material costs of pipes and labor costs for installation depend on the length of pipes, and L indicates the length of pipes and is the cost coefficient. After forming the problem hierarchy, a decision table is built in Table 1. Rows show the distinct alternatives, and columns indicate value of different alternatives on different decision attributes. A three-grade value is used to evaluate the performance of criteria. In Table 1, 19 different combinations of criteria rates are listed before evaluation process according to the expert advice according to previous layout design, in which 1 means good, 2 corresponds to medium, and

Table 1 Decision table U 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 SR (a) 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 2 1 Inv. (b) 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 TP (c) 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 3 2 1 3 DR (d) 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 ES (e) 2 1 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 Decision (D) 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 66:795807

803

3 indicates poor by trichotomy. Besides, in the decision column, 1 means it is valuable to build the layout and 0 means not to establish the layout.

From the decision table, the relative significances of the mentioned five criteria can be obtained by the following process:

U jINDa; b; c; d ; e ff1g; f2g; f3g; f4g; f5g; f6g; f7g; f8g; f9g; f10g; f11g; f12g; f13g; f14g; f15g; f16g; f17g; f18g; f19gg;

UjINDD ff2; 4; 5; 8; 9; 10; 11; 18; 19g; f1; 3; 6; 7; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17gg fD1 ; D2 g; U jINDb; c; d ; e ff1; 19g; f4; 15g; f8; 14g; f9; 11g; f2g; f3g; f5g; f6g; f7g; f10g; f12g; f13g; f16g; f17g; f18gg fX1 ; X2 ; X3 ; X4 ; X5 ; X6 ; X7 ; X8 ; X9 ; X10 ; X11 ; X12 ; X13 ; X14 ; X15 g; PD1 jX12 PD2 jX12 0; PD1 jX13 PD13 jX5 0; PD1 jX14 PD2 jX14 0; PD1 jX15 PD2 jX15 0:

PX1 2=19; PX2 2=19; PX3 2=19; PX4 2=19; PX5 PX6 PX7 PX8 PX9 PX10 PX11 PX12 PX13 PX14 PX15 1=19;

PD1 jX1 1=2; PD2 jX1 1=2; PD1 jX2 1=2; PD2 jX2 1=2; PD1 jX3 1=2; PD2 jX3 1=2; PD1 jX4 1; PD2 jX4 0; PD1 jX5 PD2 jX5 0; PD1 jX6 PD2 jX6 0; PD1 jX7 PD2 jX7 0; PD1 jX8 PD2 jX8 0; PD1 jX9 PD2 jX9 0; PD1 jX10 PD2 jX10 0; PD1 jX11 PD2 jX11 0;

SGF a; fb; c; d ; eg; fDg H f Dgjfb; c; d ; eg H f Dgjfa; b; c; d ; eg 2=19*1=2* log 1=2 1=2* log 1=2*3 2=19*1* log1 0:0951 Therefore, the relative significance of attribute a is 0.0951. Similarly, the significance of attribute b, c, d, and e can be calculated and they are 0.0757, 0.1267, 0.0317, 0.0951, respectively. Then, AHP is used to get the weights of decision criteria. The preference of alternative ij can be calculated as Wi/Wj where Wi and Wj denote the significant value of attribute i and j. Therefore, the judgment matrix can be described as the following according to the significant values obtained by rough set theory: 1 6 0:796 6 J 6 6 1:332 4 0:333 1 2 1:256 0:751 1 0:597 1:674 1 0:419 0:25 1:256 0:75 3 3 1 2:388 0:796 7 7 4 1:332 7 7 1 0:333 5 3 1

29

804 Table 2 The evaluation matrix for TOPSIS calculation

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 66:795807

Criteria Unit Max/min Weights Original design Layout 1 Layout 2 Layout 3 Layout 4 Layout 5 Layout 6 Layout 7 Layout 8 Layout 9 Layout 10

SR m2 Min 0.224 1,242 1,012 972 972 1,217 1,069 1,069 1,090 1,139 1,026 1,071

Inv. 103 Min 0.178 0 210 150 270 190 195 200 220 185 230 165

TP 106 kg m/year Min 0.299 406 259 176 406 208 241 234 278 199 293 189

DR m Max 0.075 3,612 3,872 3,530 3,322 3,892 3,777 3,836 3,666 3,738 3,513 3,630

ES 105 kwh/year Max 0.224 0 8.412 8.385 8.887 8.471 8.521 8.554 8.578 8.496 8.576 8.453

Finally, the following criteria weights are obtained: 0.224, 0.178, 0.299, 0.075, and 0.224, respectively. In addition, the consistency index which is calculated as 0 which means pairwise comparison matrix established according to rough set theory is complete consistency. 4.4 TOPSIS calculation After finding the weights of criteria by using rough set AHP, TOPSIS method is employed to rank the layout alternatives. In this step, each layout alternative is evaluated with respect to all involved decision criteria by the simulation model. The evaluation matrix is established as shown in Table 2. By using Eq. 7, the performance values of all layout alternatives are normalized. The weighted normalized decision matrix is given in Table 3. It is calculated by multiplying the normalized matrix and the criteria weights obtained by rough set AHP. Afterwards, the positive ideal and
Table 3 Weighted normalized decision matrix SR Original design Layout 1 Layout 2 Layout 3 Layout 4 Layout 5 Layout 6 Layout 7 Layout 8 Layout 9 Layout 10 0.077 0.063 0.061 0.061 0.076 0.067 0.067 0.068 0.071 0.064 0.067 Inv. 0 0.058 0.041 0.075 0.052 0.054 0.055 0.061 0.051 0.063 0.046 TP 0.134 0.085 0.058 0.134 0.069 0.080 0.077 0.092 0.066 0.097 0.062 DR 0.022 0.024 0.022 0.020 0.024 0.023 0.024 0.023 0.023 0.022 0.022 ES 0 0.070 0.070 0.074 0.070 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.071 0.070

negative ideal solutions, which respectively mean the best values and the worst values of layout alternatives, are obtained as shown in Table 4. The distances from each layout alternative to the positive ideal and negative ideal solutions are calculated by Eqs. 11 and 12. Then, Eq. 13 is applied to get the relative closeness from each layout alternative to the ideal solution. Finally, all the layout alternatives are ranked. The results are summarized in Table 5. 4.5 Analysis of results Based on the results in Table 5, the ranking of the layout alternatives is obtained. Layout 2 with minimum transport performance and minimum space requirement has the highest value of Ti*. Therefore, it is regarded as the best layout. Although layout 10 and layout 8 do not have the best performance in any decision criterion, their balancing performances are preferred by decision makers. Hence, they take the second and third place, respectively. Besides, although the original design does not need extra investment and layout 3 requires least energy as well as space, their poor performances in other criteria make them as the worst two layout alternatives. In the case discussed above, only layout 2, layout 4, layout 8, and layout 10 are studied in the sensitivity analysis of weights due to their good performances. k1, k2, k3, k4, and k5 denote the decision criterion SR, Inv., TP, DR, and ES,
Table 4 Positive ideal solutions and negative ideal solutions SR V+ V0.061 0.077 Inv. 0 0.075 TP 0.058 0.134 DR 0.024 0.020 ES 0.074 0

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 66:795807 Table 5 Overall scores and ranking of layout alternatives

805

di
Original design Layout 1 Layout 2 Layout 3 Layout 4 Layout 5 Layout 6 Layout 7 Layout 8 Layout 9 Layout 10 0.107 0.064 0.042 0.106 0.056 0.058 0.059 0.070 0.053 0.074 0.046

di
0.075 0.088 0.109 0.076 0.099 0.092 0.094 0.085 0.101 0.082 0.105

Ci*
0.410 0.578 0.724 0.416 0.639 0.613 0.614 0.547 0.657 0.525 0.694

Ranking 11 7 1 10 4 6 5 8 3 9 2

respectively. Layout 2, layout 4, layout 8, and layout 10 were indicated as s2, s4, s8, and s10, respectively. Because s2 is the optimal solution obtained by the proposed approach, it is considered as s*, and its corresponding weight vector (0.224, 0.178, 0.299, 0.075, 0.224) is denoted as w*. During variation of weights, if the minimum weight variation ri which make si where i 0 {4, 8, 10} better than s2 is found, the corresponding weight vector is expressed as wi,2. By using nonlinear programming developed with Matlab, the minimum weight variation r4 0 0.362 that makes s4 better than s2 is found out. The corresponding weight vector w4,2 is (0.089, 0.014, 0.223, 0.330, 0.347). Similarly, r8 is 0.317 and w8,2 is (0.117, 0.011, 0.246, 0.289, 0.336); r10 is 0.274 and w10,2 is (0.142, 0.014, 0.272, 0.252, 0.320). The weight variation graph is shown in Fig. 4. From the above analysis, it is clear that s2 is more sensitive to s10 since s10 can get better ranking than s2 with the smallest weight variation. In addition, from Fig. 4, it can be seen that k2 and k4 have larger influence than other criteria on the final ranking for s10 because varying them is more efficient to make s10 better than s2 under the restriction of having smallest weight variation. Therefore, during the decision-making process, the weight setting of w2 and w4 should be made more carefully.

In the sensitivity analysis of production rate, it is assumed that the production rate fluctuates 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2 , and 0.25 because of the change of seasons, economic situation, etc. As the result, values of the transport performance and energy saving of each layout alternatives are changed correspondingly. Here, the weight vectors obtained from rough setAHP are used, and the possibility for each production rate is assumed to be the same. The rankings of each layout alternative under each production rate condition are shown in Fig. 5, and the synthetic ranking values of each layout alternative for all production rates are shown in Table 7. From Fig. 5, it is clear that, during the variation of production rate from 0.75 to 1.25, layout 2 is always the best solution; meanwhile, layout 10, layout 8, and layout 4 always take the second, third, and fourth place, respectively. Layout 5 and layout 6 change their rankings at production rate 0.85. In addition, the ranking of layout 1 becomes worse from production rate 1.1 to 1.2, and its ranking goes from seventh place to ninth place. Layout 9 and layout 7 get better rankings at production rates 1.15 and 1.2, respectively. Due to the poor performances of layout 3 and the original layout, they are always the worst two alternatives during the variation of production rate. From Table 6, we can know that layout 2 is the best layout considering all production rate conditions. Finally, in the scope of the application, the same decisionmaking problem has also been studied by AHP, PROMETHEE. The results are given in Table 7. From Table 7, it can be seen that due to the best performance of layout 2, it is always the best layout alternative in all alternatives. Layout 10 and layout 8 are apparently the second and third choice in all three ranking methods, respectively. Because of the poor performances of layout 3 and the original design, they are the worst two layout alternatives during the studies by all three methods. Other alternatives vary their rankings by using different methods. As above mentioned, layout 2 is finally selected as the best layout because of its good performances in all criteria as well as its stabilities during varying criteria weights and changing production rate.

5 Conclusions The layout design problem with the essential impact on the performance of manufacturing system is a strategic issue that should be treated carefully. Usually, layout designers make several layout alternatives by using different methods or from different aspects. However, due to the multiple attribute nature of layout design problem, it is always difficult to make an optimal decision.

Fig. 4 Weights variation graph

806
Original Layout 1 Layout 2 11 Layout 3 Layout 4 Layout 5 10 Layout 6 Layout 7 Layout 8 9 Layout 9 Layout 10

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 66:795807

Ranking

6 5 4

3 2

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1.0

1.05

1.1

1.15

1.2

1.25

Production rate
Fig. 5 The ranking changes by fluctuating production rate

In this paper, a decision-making approach for facility layout design is proposed. Due to the energy shortage, energy relevant criterion is introduced as an important factor and integrated with other traditional layout criteria in the process of layout decision making. The aim of this study is to find the most effective layout solution for the paint department. The proposed approach is useful for managers to improve companys strategic planning or to be used in the further applications of layout planning. By using rough setAHP, rational weights for decision criteria are easily made. Based on this, the TOPSIS is used
Table 6 Ranking results of layout alternatives for all production rates

to obtain the final results that represent not only the ranking of different alternatives but also the degree of superiority among the studied layout alternatives. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis of varying criteria weights and fluctuating production rate is studied. The most sensitive layout alternative, the greatest influencing criterion, and the changes of final ranking during the variation of production rate are found. These results are valuable for other applications as well as the further strategic planning. Finally, the results comparison is implemented by using three different decision-making methods for the same problem, and the results show that the best layout and the worst layout
Table 7 Results obtained from different ranking methods

Layout alternative

Ranking value for all production rates FRi 0.414 0.577 0.722 0.413 0.635 0.610 0.612 0.543 0.654 0.550 0.691

Ranking Ranking 10 7 1 11 4 6 5 9 3 8 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 AHP Layout 2 Layout 10 Layout 8 Layout 5 Layout 4 Layout 6 Layout 1 Layout 9 Layout 3 Layout 7 Original design PROMETHEE Layout 2 Layout 10 Layout 8 Layout 6 Layout 5 Layout 1 Layout 4 Layout 7 Layout 9 Layout 3 Original design Current approach Layout 2 Layout 10 Layout 8 Layout 4 Layout 6 Layout 5 Layout 1 Layout 7 Layout 9 Layout 3 Original design

Original design Layout Layout Layout Layout Layout Layout Layout Layout Layout Layout 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2013) 66:795807

807 12. Wang YM, Luo Y, Hua ZS (2008) On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its application. Eur J Oper Res 186(2008):735 747 13. Wen, G. F., Chen, L. W (2010) Construction project bidding risk assessment model based on rough set-TOPSIS. In: 2010 WASE international conference on information engineering: 296-300 14. Sen L, Felix TS, Chung SH (2011) A study of distribution center location based on the rough sets and interactive multi-objective fuzzy decision theory. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 27:426433 15. Rao RV, Davim JP (2008) A decision making framework model for material selection using a combined multiple attribute decisionmaking method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 35:751760 16. Azadeh A, Nazari-Shirkouhi S (2011) A unique fuzzy multicriteria decision making: computer simulation approach for productive operators assignment in cellular manufacturing systems with uncertainty and vagueness. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 56:329343 17. Dadeviren M (2008) Decision making in equipment selection: an integrated approach with AHP and PROMETHEE. J Intell Manuf 19:397406 18. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York 19. Pawlak Z (1982) Rough sets. Int J Inf Comput Sci 11:345356 20. Zou Z, Tseng TL, Sohn H, Song G, Gutierrez R (2011) A rough set based approach to distributor selection in supply chain management. Expert Syst Appl 38:106115 21. Aydogan EK (2011) Performance measurement model for Turkish aviation firms using the rough-AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 38:39923998 22. Liu S, Chan FTS, Chung SH (2011) A study of distribution center location based on the rough sets and interactive multi-objective fuzzy decision theory. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 27:426433 23. Wang Y, Zhen H (2008) A TOPSIS based robust optimization methodology for multivariable quality characteristics. In IEEE international conference on service operations and logistics and informatics: 2558-2561 24. Chang CW (2010) Collaborative decision making algorithm for selection of optimal wire saw in photovoltaic wafer manufacture. J Intell Manuf. doi:10.1007/s10845-010-0391-6 25. Wang CY, Shi JC, Niu XS, Jia SJ, Liu SJ, Mu L (2011) Sensitivity analysis on the weights in power system restoration decisionmaking. In: 2011 4th international conference on electric utility deregulation and restructuring and power technologies, pp 653-656 26. Geldermann J, Treitz M, Schollenberger H, Ludwig J, Rentz O (2007) Integrated process design for the inter-company plant layout planning of dynamic mass flow networks. Universittsverlag Karlsruhe, Kalrsruhe 27. Yang L, Deuse J, Jiang P (2012) Multi-objective optimization of facility planning for energy intensive companies. J Intell Manuf. doi:10.1007/s10845-012-0637-6

obtained by using different methods are same. Therefore, the final decision is made, and the best layout is chosen. It is well known that, due to the nature of MADM, the optimal solution may not exist. However, the effective systematic decision-making approach can help designers to reduce the risk of a poor layout design. In our future research, some qualitative criteria (e.g., quality and flexibility), which cannot be measured precisely, will be integrated in the decision-making process.

References
1. Yang L, Deuse J, Droste M (2011) Energy efficiency at energy intensive factorya facility planning approach. In: IEEE the 18th international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management, pp: 699-703 2. Ertay T, Ruan D, Tuzkaya UR (2006) Integrating data envelopment analysis and analytic hierarchy for the facility layout design in manufacturing systems. Inform Sci 176:237262 3. Yang T, Hang CC (2007) Multiple-attribute decision making methods for plant layout design problem. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 23:126137 4. Ye MJ, Zhou GG (2005) The application of genetic algorithm in the bi-criteria layout problem with aisles. Syst Eng Theory Pract 10:101107, In Chinese 5. Aiello G, Enea M, Galante G (2006) A multi-objective approach to facility layout problem by genetic search algorithm and Electre method. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 22:447455 6. Ye MJ, Zhou GG (2007) A local genetic approach to multiobjective, facility layout problems with fixed aisles. Int J Prod Res 45:52435264 7. Cambron KE, Evans GW (1991) Layout design using the analytic hierarchy process. Comput Ind Eng 20:211229 8. Yang T, Kuo CW (2003) A hierarchical AHP/DEA methodology for the facilities layout design problem. Eur J Oper Res 147:128 136 9. Kuo Y, Yang T, Huang GW (2008) The use of grey relational analysis in solving multiple attribute decision-making problems. Comput Ind Eng 55:8093 10. Yang, L., Deuse, J. (2012) Multiple-attribute decision making for an energy efficient facility layout design. In: 45th CIRP conference on manufacturing systems, 16-18 May 2012, Athens 11. nt S, Kara SS, Efendigil T (2008) A hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach to machine tool selection. J Intell Manuf 19:443453