Decision Support Systems 40 (2005) 305 – 314

www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw

Fuzzy decision support system for manufacturing

facilities layout planning
S.K. Deb a,*, B. Bhattacharyya b
a
Jorhat Engineering College, Jorhat 785007, India
b
Production Engineering Department, Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700032, India
Received 1 November 2002; accepted 1 December 2003
Available online 28 March 2004

Abstract

Manufacturing facility layout problem is an unstructured decision-making problem due to natural vagueness associated
with the inputs to the models. Arbitrary numerical ratings are assigned for relationship chart to determine facility selection
routine. This paper presents a distinct decision support system based on multifactor fuzzy inference system (FIS) for the
development of facility layout with fixed pickup/drop-off points. The algorithm searches several candidate points with
different orientation of incoming machine blocks in order to minimize flow cost, dead space and area required for the
development of layout. The proposed methodology is coded in C+ language and implemented in a Pentium III, 550-MHz
machine. The experimental results with a test problem are illustrated with encouraging result with its advanced soft
computational effectiveness.
D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Facility layout; Fuzzy decision; Flow cost; Dead space; Minimum required area

1. Introduction ers have proposed various approaches, which had

The most significant objective of any enterprise has
been the maximum utilization of facilities available to
achieve desired goal of productivity and profitability.
Two-dimensional facility layout deals with the selec-
tion of most appropriate and effective arrangements of
departments in the continuous plane to allow greater
working efficiency [2,3]. Owing to the complex and
unstructured nature of facility layout, many research-
* Corresponding author. c/o Dr. K. Patra, Department of
Mathematics, Guahati University, Guwahati 781014, India.
E-mail address: debskd2000@rediffmail.com (S.K. Deb).
varying degrees of success in dealing with the com-
plexities associated with the problem.
Regardless of the type of data, there is an element
of vagueness or fuzziness in it [6]. Traditional layout
method treats these data as exact and cannot satisfy
the desire of managers in handling real problems [12].
Kawasaki and Evans [9] illustrated the potential
application of fuzzy set theory to various areas of
production management. One of the prominent areas
identified by the authors was facility planning which
includes such problem as facilities layout design.
Raoot and Rakshit [10] have also presented a frame-
work of an algorithm for the development and eval-
uation of a layout based on fuzzy linguistic variables

0167-9236/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.dss.2003.12.007
306 S.K. Deb, B. Bhattacharyya / Decision Support Systems 40 (2005) 305–314
and their fuzzy relation. The integrated expert system
approach of Abdou and Dutta [1] determines the
movement of material-handling equipments first to
determine its effect on the layout.
Recently, Dweiri [6] proposed a fuzzy decision-
making application for developing relationship charts
and comparing the layouts generated with them. The
concept has been applied to develop layout in the line
of computer-relative layout programme that was not
efficient as compared to conventional layout proce-
dure. He suggested further research work to improve
the procedure or developing a new algorithm for the
facility layout design.
The facility layout problems fall in to the class of
NP-complete solutions, and heuristic approaches are
usually adopted to develop the layout [8]. Most of the
models and algorithms available in the literature are
based on the quadratic assignment problem with an
objective to minimize transportation costs or maxi-
mize total closeness rating. The facility selection
routine required for the development of layout was
solved by considering a single quantitative factor as
flow chart. Moreover, the move (distance) traversed is
considered from center to center of the departments
without considering the practical issue of entry and
exit of the departments.
Most of the existing methods have been devel-
oped on the grid-based system without considering
actual dimensions of departmental block and entry/
exit locations, thus resulting in irregular shapes.
Deb et al. [3] have already developed a hybrid
modeling for the management of material-handling
equipment selection planning while generating a
manufacturing facility layout. The authors herein
have also proposed different projects of integrating
facility layout and material-handling equipment se-
lection by using a knowledge base and optimization
approach [5]. They utilized the material flow inter-
action matrix in finding the facility placement
sequence. The authors have already developed a
decision model and algorithm for material-handling
equipment selection routine under facility layout
planning by using fuzzy multi-criteria decision-mak-
ing methods [4].
Therefore, the present research work follows in
the same direction of author’s previous work to
integrate various linguistic assessments to evaluate
facility selection routine and its impact on the
development of facility layout. The applicability of
the suggested methodology is demonstrated with a
six-machine layout problem considering subjective
factors such as supervision, information and envi-
ronmental condition. The material flows between the
different departments are assumed as the objective
factor for the development of selection routine. The
heuristic search algorithms proposed in this paper
take care of optimal placement of incoming facilities
based on a multi-criteria optimization function. The
performance of the proposed multifactor fuzzy facil-
ity selection routine is compared with the multifactor
normalized facility selection routine for the develop-
ment of facility layout under the auspices of a
manufacturing environment.
2. Fuzzy set and decision-making system
A fuzzy set can be thought of a class of concepts/
objects in which no well-defined boundary exists
between the concepts/objects that belong to the class
and those which do not belong. Formally, if
B={xi | i N} is a set of objects, then the fuzzy set
C on B is defined by its membership function fC(x)
that assigns to each element x B a real number in
the interval [0,1] which represents the grade of
membership of x in C or the degree to which x
belongs to C. Thus, C can be written as
C fC x x x B ; B 0 1
Linguistic variables are words in natural language,
while numerical variables use numbers as values.
Since words are usually less precise than numbers,
linguistic variables provide a method to characterize
complex systems that are ill structured to be de-
scribed in traditional quantitative terms. A linguistic
variable is defined by the name of the variable x, and
the set term S(x) of the linguistic values of x with
each value being a fuzzy number defined on U. For
example, if material flow (MF) is a linguistic vari-
able, its term set S(MF)={Very High (VH), High (H),
Medium (M), Low (L), Very Low (VL)}, where each
term is characterized by a fuzzy set in a universe of
discourse U.
 S.K. Deb, B. Bhattacharyya / Decision Support Systems 40 (2005) 305–314
A fuzzy decision-making system (FDMS) consists
of four main components [14] as shown in Fig. 1. The
four components of FDMS are given below:
(i) Fuzzification: In this interface, the different input
and output variables are measured and converted
into natural language;
(ii) Knowledge base: In this component, the mem-
bership functions are decided by the experts
based on their knowledge of the system;
(iii) Decision rules: In this interface, the experts’
decision-making ability is simulated based on a
fuzzy concept. The connective ‘and’ is imple-
mented as a fuzzy conjunction in a Cartesian
product space in which the input variables take in
their respective universe of discourses. The
minimum operator is used, and the rules are in
the form of IF– THEN statement; and
(iv) Defuzzification: In this interface, the fuzzy
outputs are converted into crisp (no fuzzy) values
by center-of-area (COA) method.
3. Problem formulation and procedure
Facility layout design under a manufacturing envi-
ronment is mainly based on machine, move and
methods. Each machine block can be considered as
an individual facility having rectangular shape with
proper dimensions of length and width. The rectan-
gular facilities are represented by the top left corner
point and bottom right corner point. The ‘move’ is
considered as the several interactions associated be-
tween the two facilities. The ‘method’ is considered as
the material-handling equipments engaged with each
move to perform the movement of material from
pickup to drop-off point between two facilities to
facilitate the production processes. Pickup and drop-
off points are assumed to be located at the middle
Fig. 1. Fuzzy decision support system configuration.
307
point of edges of the rectangular machine blocks. The
generation of model for layout construction is a
critical step because of its unstructured and vast
nature. The complexity increases further due to mul-
tifactor influence on the development of facility
selection routine for its sequential placement in the
open plane. Out of various types of facility layout
environment, very less work has been carried out
under the continual planner approach because of its
complexity and flexibility in the generation process
starting from the center of the plane considering zero
base area allocation [3 – 5]. The inherent difficulties of
generating such kind of layout are the generation of
dead space. As the layout expands from the center of
the continual plane, it is very difficult to predict the
possible location for incoming facilities. The formu-
lation of facility layout design problem mainly con-
sists of two modules:
(i) facility selection routine and
(ii) facility placement routine
3.1. Facility selection routine
The layout generation depends highly on the se-
quential facility selection order that in turn directly
depends on several quantitative as well as qualitative
factors that are very difficult to describe precisely. The
input variables assumed for the present problem are
level of material flow (MF) as the objective variable
and supervision link (SL), job condition or environ-
mental link (EL) and information link (IL) as subjective
variables. The multifactor fuzzy inference system (FIS)
for the proposed methodology is shown in Fig. 2. The
multiple-input, single-output (MISO) fuzzy inference
system (FIS) measures the values of the input and
output variables, transfers the range of these values
into a corresponding universe of discourse and converts
them into associated values (very low, low, medium,
308 S.K. Deb, B. Bhattacharyya / Decision Support Systems 40 (2005) 305–314

Fig. 2. Multifactor fuzzy inference system for facility layout.

etc.). The values associated with different linguistic f x 1 x 0 x 10

variables used in the formulation of proposed FIS are
U: 0 1 0 1 0 2 0
(i) material flow (very high, high, medium, low, x 0 x 10
very low), f x
(ii) supervision link (negligible, considerable, mod- 2 x 10 x 20
erate, essential, very essential),
(iii) environmental link (very safe, safe, unsafe, O: 1 0 2 0 2 0 3 0
hazardous, very hazardous), and
(iv) information link (very strong, strong, medium, x 1 10 x 20
weak, very weak). f x
3 x 20 x 30
The crisp output of the FIS measures the rating with I: 2 0 3 0 3 0 4 0
standard associated values usually in practice [2,12]
under facility layout planning X, U, O, I, E and A within x 2 20 x 30
the universe of discourse [0,6]. The universe of dis- f x
course and set of the grades of membership were 4 x 30 x 40
developed within the existing knowledge and experi-
ence of facility layout designers using the subjective E: 3 0 4 0 4 0 5 0
approach, which is in line with the view of Zadeh [13],
x 3 30 x 40
who indicated that the grade of membership are sub-
f x
jective, in the sense that their specification is a matter of
5 x 40 x 50
definition rather than experimentation. The shape of the
membership function reflects the expert’s knowledge, A: 4 0 5 0 5 0 6 0
experience and preference regarding the importance of
different relationships (‘sharp’ slope for important x 4 40 x 50
relationship and ‘flat’ slope for less important relation- f x
ships). The membership function of each linguistic 6 x 50 x 60
value in the crisp output rating set R=[X,U,O,I,E,A] is
shown in the following expressions: In decision rules module, the expert’s decision-
making ability is simulated based on a fuzzy concept.
X: 0 0 0 0 1 0 The entire knowledge of the decision maker is stored
 S.K. Deb, B. Bhattacharyya / Decision Support Systems 40 (2005) 305–314
as rules in the knowledge base of the FIS. The
development of rules may be time consuming. An
intuitively developed strategy for finding the rating of
each move based on the values of their relationships
can be summarized as follows:
(i) If the material flow (MF) relationship between
two facilities is very high, then they should be
located very close to each other, i.e., rating given
is ‘A’.
(ii) If the supervision link (SL) between two facilities
is very high, then they should be located very
close to each other, i.e., rating given is ‘A’.
(iii) If the environmental link (EL) between two
departments is very hazardous, then they should
be located very far to each other, i.e., rating
given is ‘U’.
(iv) If the information flow (IF) between two facilities
is very strong, then they should be located very
close to each other, i.e., rating given is ‘A’.
The mapping of the inputs to the outputs for a
fuzzy system is in part characterized by a set of
condition action rules in the form of IF– THEN.
The connective ‘and’ is implemented as a fuzzy
conjunction in a Cartesian product space in which
the input variables take on their respective universe of
discourses. For this study, the [minimum] operator
will be used. The membership value of the control
action of each rule is the minimum value of the input
variables’ membership values. In this paper, multi-
input, single-output (MISO) is considered under heu-
ristic design rules in the following form:
IF MF is VH and IF is VH
THEN rating is A
IF MF is H and EL is hazardous
THEN rating is
The values of linguistic variables are considered
within a designed weighing scale [0, 10] with levels
[VL, L, M, H, VH], and the values of the output
rating are designed within a weighing scale [0,6]
with generally accepted levels [X,U,O,I,E,A]. The
triangular membership function is considered for
objective variable material flow and rating score.
The subjective variables supervision link, informa-
309
tion link and environmental link are considered as
trapezoidal membership functions. The number of
rules (N) used in controlling the system using fuzzy
control is represented by:
m n
N Li
j 1
i 1
where, m = number of set of rules, Li = number of
membership functions or levels, N = number of input
variables used in one set of rules. When m = 1, n = 4
and Li = 5, then number of rules (N) becomes:
5 5 5 5 = 625.
The following steps are established to find the
selection routine of facilities in an open field:
1. Prepare the input values for all moves (activities).
The total activities are n (n 1), where n is
number of departments.
2. Find the minimum values of the input variables’
membership values using minimum operator for
every activity.
3. Scan the heuristic design rules for all the moves,
and find the crisp output of the rating (Rijc) by using
center-of-area (COA) method.
4. Determine the fuzzy rating matrix as Rn*n =
[Rijc] i,j = 1,2 n and Rijc = 0 for i = j.
5. Calculate the total fuzzy rating of the ith
department with the other departments and find
the maximum value ( Fk) to select the first facility
as department ‘k’.
Fi Rcij Rcji i j 1 2...n
j
Fk max Fi i 1 2...n
6. Next, find the department that has maximum fuzzy
rating value with the facility already included in
the selection routine.
7. Repeat step 6 until all facilities are included in the
selection routine.
3.2. Facility placement routine
Heuristic is deterministic and hence suboptimal.
Not that this is a bad thing. The generalized QAP
facility layout formulation is NP complete. Indeed, the
heuristic is novel and provides an interesting approach
310 S.K. Deb, B. Bhattacharyya / Decision Support Systems 40 (2005) 305–314

to the classical facility layout problem. Most of the Table 1

earlier approaches used the concept of area under Data table for machine configuration
rectangular grid system and the distance from centroid Machines M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6
to centroid of the blocks. The methods could not Length (in m) 60 30 120 48 72 54
address the development of real layout, which are Width (in m) 30 30 30 36 24 36
Pickup 0,15 0,15 60,0 24,0 0,12 27,0
characterized by dimension of length and width,
Drop-off 60,15 30,15 60,30 24,0 36,0 0,18
pickup/drop-off points (P/D), orientation of blocks
for making P/D closer in the passage. An incoming
facility is placed at a point called a candidate point on drop-off points of the machine blocks. The first block
the periphery of the already placed block, and its is placed at the center of the plane continuum hori-
optimality is tested under various placement styles in zontally. To solve the problem of nonoverlapping
order to minimize the value of objective function. criteria, several possible alternatives of machine block
Generally, three styles of placements are considered placements are tested at the candidate point on each
around a candidate point. It may be either left or right edge. The incoming blocks may be placed horizon-
of candidate point or on the middle of the candidate tally (H) or vertically (V) resulting in six possible
point. Blocks must be placed either horizontally or arrangements denoted by HL, VL, HM, VM, HR and
vertically within designated site area without over- VR. These six possible arrangements are given 180
lapping. The commonly used objective function in the rotation to change the fixed pickup/drop-off points
facility layout is the minimization of the sum of that are on the edges of the machine blocks. Thus, it
material-handling cost (MHC), i.e., allows 12 search space per candidate point. The ‘HL’
arrangement under 180 rotation is denoted by HLR.
Minimize MHC cij fij dij Similarly, the remaining rotations are shown in Fig. 3.
Heuristic search is carried out through all candidate
where cij = material-handling cost coefficient involved points on the four edges of the already placed blocks
between machine i and j, fij = material flow volume to fulfill the nonoverlapping condition and to locate
and dij = the distance between machines i and j. the incoming blocks at minimum value of the bi-
The decision variables of the objective function are criterion objective function (see Appendix A) with
coordinates of the rectangular block, pickup/drop-off two parts as flow cost and dead space. The heuristic
points. The move is measured between the pickup and optimization is carried out under the consideration of

Fig. 3. Different configurations and orientations of incoming rectangular blocks.

 S.K. Deb, B. Bhattacharyya / Decision Support Systems 40 (2005) 305–314 311

Table 2 Table 4
Fuzzy system input data and output rating Multifactor-normalized relation matrix
Move MF SL EL IL Rcij Rnij Machines M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6
number M1 – 0.20 0.16 0.13 0.16 0.16
1-2 1 5 9 10 3.00 0.20 M2 0.18 – 0.17 0.01 0.11 0.16
2-1 5 8 2 2 3.00 0.18 M3 0.16 0.21 – 0.15 0.12 0.11
1-3 2 3 8 5 1.00 0.15 M4 0.19 0.05 00 – 0.38 0.20
3-1 2 2 7 6 1.99 0.15 M5 0.11 0.17 00 0.13 – 0.11
1-4 1 1 6 8 1.00 0.13 M6 0.12 0.16 0.07 0.20 0.16 –
4-1 4 6 1 9 3.00 0.19
1-5 2 8 5 2 3.00 0.15
5-1 1 3 4 5 1.99 0.11
1-6 3 5 2 8 3.00 0.16 3.3. Steps of algorithm for facility placement routine
6-1 0 7 3 6 3.00 0.12
2-3 1 2 5 7 1.99 0.17
3-2 3 2 6 8 1.99 0.21
1. Find the facility selection routine applying
2-4 2 9 9 5 3.00 0.01 multifactor FIS.
4-2 0 1 0 0 1.04 0.05 2. Locate the first block at the center of the open
2-5 1 2 1 2 1.09 0.11 plane horizontally.
5-2 2 3 4 3 1.99 0.17 3. Select the next block for placement according to
2-6 2 4 6 9 3.00 0.15
6-2 2 6 5 4 3.00 0.16
placement routine of facilities.
3-4 3 8 3 3 3.00 0.15 4. Select the candidate point, and check the feasible
4-3 0 0 0 0 1.04 00 quarter. If not feasible, go to step 7, else go to next
3-5 2 1 5 6 1.99 0.12 step.
5-3 0 0 0 0 1.04 00 5. Locate the block according to placement possibil-
3-6 1 1 2 2 1.99 0.11
6-3 0 2 0 0 3.00 0.07
ities, and check for nonoverlapping. If not satisfied,
4-5 1 1 1 5 1.00 0.28 repeat next possible placement as explained in
5-4 5 8 9 9 3.00 0.13 Section 4, else go to step 6.
4-6 2 5 6 1 3.00 0.20 6. Calculate the value of objective function, if it is
6-4 2 8 8 6 3.00 0.20 better than previous update configuration and
5-6 1 3 5 4 1.99 0.11
6-5 10 9 7 3 1.99 0.16
objective function value. Go to step 5 for searching
other possibilities at the candidate point.
MF = material flow, SL = supervision link, EL = environmental link,
IL = information link. 7. Select next candidate point. If all candidate points
of the selected block are already considered, go to
step 8; otherwise, go to step 4.
unit flow cost coefficient (i.e., cij = 1) and unit penalty 8. Select the next block. If all blocks are selected, go
cost coefficient for the dead space (i.e., Pc = 1). The to step 9, else go to step 3.
penalty cost coefficient is defined as the cost of dead
space per unit area that is considered as a parameter,
which varies from place to place.

Table 3
Fuzzy crisp activity relation matrix
Machines M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6
M1 – 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00
M2 3.00 – 1.99 3.00 1.09 3.00
M3 1.99 1.99 – 3.00 1.99 1.99
M4 3.00 1.04 1.04 – 1.00 3.00
M5 1.99 1.99 1.04 3.00 – 1.99
M6 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.99 –
Fig. 4. Membership function for material flow.
312 S.K. Deb, B. Bhattacharyya / Decision Support Systems 40 (2005) 305–314

Table 5
Experimental results using fuzzy and normalized approach
Facility Methods Flow Minimum Dead Value
layout applied cost required space of
selection (T-m) area of (m2) fuzzy
routine layout score
1-2-6-4-5-3 (A) Multifactor 2998 17280 7580 7.14
normalized
6-4-2-1-5-3 (B) Multifactor 3015 17199 5499 7.32
fuzzy method
Fig. 5. Membership function for supervision link.
obtained by applying the proposed methodology
9. Locate the block, which provides the best value of and normalized rating obtained by applying the
objective function. methodology of Harmonosky and Tothero [7] for
each move are presented in Table 2. The fuzzy
activity relation matrix and normalized activity rela-
4. Experimentation and results tion matrix are shown in Tables 3 and 4 respectively.
Membership functions of material flow, supervision
The experimentation was carried out in order to link and score are shown in Figs. 3– 5. A triangular
investigate the applicability and effectiveness of the membership function is considered for the material
proposed methodology based on multifactor fuzzy flow and score (Fig. 6). For other variables, trape-
inference system, and the results have been com- zoidal membership functions are considered. The
pared with the facility selection routine developed as values of material flow cost, minimum required area
an extension of the multifactor plant layout method- and dead space for different selection routine are
ology by Harmonosky and Tothero [7]. The algo- presented in Table 5. Figs. 7 and 8 show the layouts
rithm was coded in C+ language, and the problem developed by using the proposed algorithm under
was run on an IBM Pentium III, 550-MHz machine. multifactor fuzzy inference system and multifactor
The data table related to machine dimensions, P/D
locations and move characteristics used for computer
simulation having six machines, 30 moves under the
consideration of four influencing factors are taken
from earlier research work [3– 5] and listed in Tables
1 and 2. The values of subjective variables supervi-
sion link (SL), information link (IL), environment
link (EL) and objective variable material flow (MF)
are taken arbitrarily within designed weighing scale
[0,10]. The values of crisp output rating (R ijc )

Fig. 6. Membership function for output variable score. Fig. 7. Layout based on multifactor fuzzy selection routine.
 S.K. Deb, B. Bhattacharyya / Decision Support Systems 40 (2005) 305–314 313

6. Future research

The present work simply demonstrates the poten-

tial applicability of fuzzy set theory and offers a
systematic guidance to the decision makers in plan-
ning manufacturing facilities layout under fuzzy en-
vironment. This research can be directed towards
finding a scientific method for determining the values
of the subjective variables—supervision link (SL),
information link (IL), environmental link (EL) and
the objective variable-material flow (MF), by apply-
ing Satty’s analytical hierarchy process [11], which
are chosen arbitrarily here.

Fig. 8. Layout based on multifactor-normalized selection routine.

Appendix A . Objective function for placement
routine

normalized selection routine as discussed in Section A.1 . Minimization of material flow cost
3. The values of FC, DS and MRAL are converted
to fuzzy score and its value for the six-machine Minimize Zj1 cij fij xjp xid yjp yid
layout problem is shown in Table 5. cji fij xip xjd yip yjd j 2 3 . . . n.

A.2 . Minimization of dead space

5. Conclusions
Minimize Zj2 Pc xbj xt j ybj yt
The fuzzy decision support system presented in j
this paper is an effective way to handle inexact and li wi j 2 3 ...n
vague data. However, it is yet to work on the problem i 1

in a mathematically strict and rigorous way. The where xbj = Max{xbi} i = 1,2, n; xtj = Max{xti}
experimental results obtained from the computer sim- i = 1,2, j
n; yb= Max{ ybi} i = 1,2, n; ytj =
ulation illustrate that the proposed methodology has Max{ yti} i = 1,2, n; li and wi are the length and
been very effective in reducing MRAL and DS, while width of the ith rectangular machine block; ji 1 li
developing green-field layouts. The value of flow cost wi is the sum of all the machine blocks.
obtained by using the proposed approach is slightly
higher than the layout developed with the selection A.3 . Minimization of flow cost and dead space
routine based on multifactor-normalized method. The
slightly higher value of flow cost is comparable to the Minimize Zj w1 Zj1 w2 Zj2
fuzzy decision-making method under the present
consideration of developing green-field layouts where where w1 and w2 are weights of FC and DS; (xip,yip)
MRAL and DS are considered very important evalu- is the input coordinate of ith department; (xdi ,ydi ) is
ating parameters. Applying the fuzzy scoring meth- the exit coordinate of the ith department; (xjp,yjp) is
odology typically yields higher scores for the multi- the input coordinate of the jth department; (xjd,yjd) is
factor fuzzy approach. the exit coordinate of the jth department; fij and fji
The firm can save initial investment costs by adopt- are the material flow between departments i –j and
ing the proposed facility layout methodology. The j–i; cij and cji are the flow cost coefficients between
methodology presented in this paper is simple and moves i–j and j– i; Pc is the penalty cost coefficients
can easily be implemented on a personal computer. for dead space.
314 S.K. Deb, B. Bhattacharyya / Decision Support Systems 40 (2005) 305–314
References
[1] G. Abdou, S.P. Dutta, An integrated approach to facilities
layout design using expert system, International Journal of
Production Research 28 (1990) 685 – 708.
[2] J.M. Apple, Plant Layout and Material Handling, Wiley, New
York, 1977.
[3] S.K. Deb, B. Bhattacharyya, S.K. Sorkhel, Management of
machine layout and material handling system selection using
hybrid approach, 1st International Conference on Logistic and
Supply Chain Management, PSG Tech, India, 2001.
[4] S.K. Deb, B. Bhattacharyya, S.K. Sorkhel, Material Han-
dling Equipment Selection by Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision
Making Methods. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002.
[5] S.K. Deb, B. Bhattacharyya, S.K. Sorkhel, Facility layout and
material handling equipment selection planning using hybrid
methodology, International Journal of Industrial Engineering
10 (3) (2003 September) 436 – 443.
[6] F. Dweiri, Fuzzy development of crisp activity relationship
charts for facilities layout, Computer and Industrial Engineer-
ing 36 (1999) 1 – 16.
[7] C.M. Harmonosky, K. Tothero, Multi factors plant layout
methodology, International Journal of Production Research
30 (1992) 1773 – 1789.
[8] S.S. Heragu, A. Kusiak, Machine layout: an optimization and
knowledge-based approach, International Journal of Produc-
tion Research 28 (1990) 615 – 635.
[9] W. Kawasaki, G.W. Evans, A layout design heuristic employ-
ing theory of fuzzy set, International Journal of Production
Research 25 (1987) 1431 – 1450.
[10] A. Raoot, A. Rakshit, A linguistic pattern approach for mul-
tiple criteria facility layout problems, International Journal of
Production Research 31 (1993) 203 – 222.
[11] T.L. Saaty, The Analytical Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1980.
[12] J.A. Tompkins, J.A. White, Facilities Planning, Wiley, New
York, 1984.
[13] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Information and Control 8 (1965)
338 – 553.
[14] H.J. Zimmermann, Fuzzy Sets. Decision Making and Expert
Systems, Kluwer Academic Publishing, Boston, 1987.
S.K. Deb is assistant professor of the
Mechanical Engineering Department,
Jorhat Engineering College, Jorhat-7, In-
dia. He secured his MTech and MBA
degree from IIT, Kharagpur and Gauhati
University, respectively. Recently, he has
obtained his PhD (Engg) from Jadavpur
University, Kolkata, India. The author has
teaching and research experience of about
18 years. His area of specialization is
Facility Layout Planning and Operations
Management. He has published several research papers in national
and international journals.
B. Bhattacharyya is professor and for-
mer head of the Production Engineering
Department, Jadavpur University, Kol-
kata, India. He did his MProd (Engg)
and PhD (Engg) from Jadavpur Univer-
sity, Kolkata. At present, he is the coor-
dinator of Center of Advanced Studies
(CAS) and Quality Improvement Pro-
gram (QIP) of Jadavpur University. His
area of specialization is non-traditional
manufacturing and production manage-
ment. He has published about 50 research papers in international
and national journals.