A KNOWLEDGE BASED METHODOLOGY FOR PLANNING AND DESIGNING OF A FLEXIBLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEM (FMS)

A Knowledge Based Methodology for Planning and Designing of a Flexible Manufacturing System (FMS)
M. K. Khan
School of Engineering, Design and Technology, University of Bradford, UK. Email: m.k.khan@bradford.ac.uk

I. Hussain & S. Noor

Department of Industrial Engineering, NWFP University of Engineering & Technology Peshawar, Pakistan Email: iftikhar@nwfpuet.edu.pk Email: saharnoor@gmail.com
Abstract: This paper presents a Knowledge-Based (KB) integrated approach for planning and designing of number of machining centres, selection of material handling system, layout and networking architecture and cost analysis for a Flexible Manufacturing Systems (FMS). The KB model can be applied for integrating the decision issues at both the planning and designing stages of an FMS for three types of layouts (single row, double row, and loop) and three MHS types (robot-conveyor, AGV-conveyor and a hybrid AGV-robotconveyor). The KB methodology starts from a suitable information input, which includes demand per year of part types, part types information, machining centres calculation, Material Handling System (MHS) selection, machining centres layout selection, networking selection and financial analysis. The KB methodology is developed by using AM, an expert system shell, and contains over 1500 KB rules. The performance of the system has been verified and validated through four published and four industrial case studies, respectively. The validation results from industry show that the KB methodology is capable of considering detailed design inputs and is able to assist in designing and selecting a practical FMS. It is concluded that a KB system for the present FMS application is a viable and efficient methodology. Keywords: FMS, MHS, Knowledge-Based System, machining centres, layout, networking, validation.

1. INTRODUCTION The increasing global competition has led many manufacturing enterprises to adopt Flexible Manufacturing Systems (FMS) to meet customers requirements of product variety at low cost. FMS are characterised by an integrated system of Computerised Numerically Controlled (CNC) machine tools and automated Material Handling System (MHS), operating under the control of computer(s). Many supporting workstations such as load/unload stations, washing stations, storage, de-burring stations, tools and fixtures setting stations can be added to FMS (Aly and Subramaniam, 1993; Bayazit, 2005). The

fundamental building block of an FMS is data communication because flexibility is mainly imparted by integrating the functions of various elements such as machining cells, robots, AGVs using computers (Venkatesh and Ilyas, 1993; Ficko et al, 2010). Thus FMS are quite complex and expensive systems and require a large amount of planning and investment. For this reason, it is crucial that the correct type of FMS is installed for the particular situation. Most of the available systems developed for the design of FMS concentrate on one or two aspects (such as equipment selection and/or FMS layouts). Similarly, the majority of the published literature address the

Volume 13 Issue 1 2011 IJAMS

M. K. KHAN, I. HUSSAIN & S. NOOR

operational design issues (such as loading, sequencing, and/or scheduling strategies under which to operate the facility), whilst the equipment design (concerned with determining the selection and/or best possible arrangement of the equipment making up the FMS) has gained relatively little attention (Koltai et al, 2000; Bayazit, 2005; Ficko et al, 2010) 2. DESIGN APPROACHES TO FMS There are various problem solving approaches (such as traditional approaches and KB expert system techniques) which can be used for the design of FMS. The traditional approaches include analytical and simulation techniques. The analytical approaches, based on mathematical relationships, are used to configure the FMS design including machine selection, MHS and layouts, while the simulation techniques are mainly used to evaluate the operational policies including loading, sequencing and scheduling. Mathematical models use various techniques such as linear programming, integer programming and dynamic programming to formulate and solve FMS problems (El Maraghy and Ravi, 1992). Mathematical programming finds application in the design of FMS (Afentakis et al, 1990; Heragu and Kusiak, 1990; Mahadevan and Narendran, 1993; Houshyar and White, 1993; Li and Huang, 2007). These mathematical programming formulations have also been used for the loading and grouping problems of FMS. Heuristic approaches are used to solve mathematical formulations. However, mathematical programmes are only suitable for small and medium size problems and cannot be used for large size problems partly due to the inefficient algorithms and partly due to the large number of constraints which increase the computational time exponentially and hence cost. In addition they do not always guarantee an optimum solution (El Maraghy and Ravi, 1992; Koltai et al, 2000).

Simulation models describe the various operations of the system logically and numerically, closely duplicate the behaviour of the system and, unlike analytical models, require a few simplifying assumptions. Simulation models provide more realistic information about the systems performance than analytical models and can address both designs as well as operation problems of FMS. These models are explicitly used in the design and operations problems of FMS (Morito and Mizoguchi, 1991; Aly and Subramaniam, 1993; Dekleva and Gaberc, 1994; Chan and Chan, 2002; Zaied, 2008; Wadhwa et al, 2009). Simulation modelling approaches need expertise in a number of fields in order to use them correctly and intelligently. The analyst is expected to have sufficient knowledge of probability, statistics, design of experiments, modelling, computer programming and simulation language for the development of a realistic simulation model. Knowledge based (KB) expert systems find applications in the design of FMS (Mellichamp et al, 1990; Spano et al, 1993), MHSs (Hosni, 1989; Rubinovitz and Karni, 1994; Welgama and Gibson, 1995) and machine layout problems (Heragu and Kusiak, 1990; Abdou and Dutta, 1990; Sirinaovakul and Thajchaypong, 1994; Maraghy and Ulay, 2007; Malhotra et al, 2010; Ficko et al, 2010). KB approaches are found to be efficient and user friendly for the design of an FMS. 3. KNOWLEDGE BASED DESIGN METHODOLOGY STRUCTURE The objective of this paper is the development of a KB Flexible Manufacturing System Planning and Design (KBFMSPD) system in conjunction with analytical approaches to assist the user in the design of FMS and help evaluate a suitable and viable FMS before implementation. The KBFMSPD system helps in decision making while the analytical approach is used in calculating design parameters of the FMS and the MHS system. The KB model
92

A KNOWLEDGE BASED METHODOLOGY FOR PLANNING AND DESIGNING OF A FLEXIBLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEM (FMS)

presented in this paper consists of several modules, illustrated in Figure 1 below. Two kinds of part types are considered, i.e. cylindrical and prismatic. Both cylindrical and prismatic part types cover a wide range of rotational and cube like parts. The KB methodology systematically integrates all the modules (mainly ignored in the past) and the feasibility of the selected FMS is checked for cost effectiveness. The system consists of user interface, information base, Knowledge Base, optimisation and inference engine. The user communicates with the KB system through the user interface to present the problem.
User

The knowledge is represented through production rules using the AM expert System shell, and are expressed in the form IF THEN- ELSE statements. A total of over 1500 such knowledge/production rules have been developed for the KBFMSPD. The required information is interactively input by the user and stored in the information base. The information is tested against the rules in the KB which, in conjunction with the analytical approach, decides about the number and selection of machining centres, MHS, layouts (of both the FMS and MHS), communication networking and cost effectiveness of the system.

User Interface

Information Base

Knowledge Base

Optimisation

Inference Engine

M/cs, MHS and Layout Selection Network Selection

Cost Calculation

FMS viable?

Y Stop

Figure 1: Flow chart for Methodology of KBFMSPD

The KBFMSPD system for the design of FMS consists of two stages: KB Flexible Manufacturing System Planning (KBFMSP) and KB Flexible Manufacturing System Design (KBFMSD). The planning stage is mainly used for information acquisition, both in the form of declarative and procedural knowledge. In the planning stage the user is requested to provide the demand of part types, part type information, MHS
93

information, communication network information and cost related information and the information from planning stage and some additional information from user in the design stage are used for calculation of equipment and network selection. The development of planning and design stages of the KBFMSPD is discussed in detail in the following sections.

M. K. KHAN, I. HUSSAIN & S. NOOR

3.1 Knowledge-Based Flexible Manufacturing System Planning (KBFMSP) The planning stage, KBFMSP, is shown in Figure 2. The user is requested to provide

the demand part types, part type information, MHS information, communication network information and cost related information. The KBFMSP Model consists of the following modules, shown in Figure 2.

User User interface Demand information

Review data entry?

N
Part Type information

Review data entry?

N
Machine information

Review data entry?

N
MHS information

Review data entry?

N
Networking information

Review data entry?

Y
Knowledge Base

N
Information Base

Review data entry?

N
Design Stage

Figure 2: Flow chart showing the logic for KBFMSP

For the sake of Brevity, the summarised KB rules are shown below for only the Demand Information and Part Types information. The Demand Information Module is used to find the potential demand for each part type which determines the type of manufacturing system to be used. The KB system extracts information from the user as

declarative and procedural knowledge. The Module first checks the stability and accuracy of the demand information through a series of questions, briefly shown below:

94

A KNOWLEDGE BASED METHODOLOGY FOR PLANNING AND DESIGNING OF A FLEXIBLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEM (FMS) IF previous sales record are checked for demand information AND sales growth are checked AND complete market survey is conducted AND competitors analysis performed AND demand forecast methods used to predict demand THEN the demand information is reliable and accurate OR IF sales record are not checked AND sales growth are not checked AND market survey not conducted AND competitor analysis not performed AND demand forecast methods used THEN demand information is not very stable or unpredictable OR Analyse factors to base demand information. Please review.

are assigned to represent the processes on a cylindrical part type. On a prismatic part type, a maximum of four processes are considered (represented by four code numbers). It is not necessary that every cylindrical or prismatic part types have the maximum number of processes. There may be any number of processes between one and maximum, i.e. five and four depending upon the part type. On a cylindrical part type, a maximum of 45 operations can be performed, whilst on a prismatic part type a maximum of 36 operations can be performed. A Help display briefly defines the processes and operations. The objective of the Machine Information Module is to collect the necessary data regarding machining centres (working area, cost and size), workers and some additional information which is helpful in calculating the number of machining centres at a later stage. In an FMS environment, the palletised parts are loaded on to the material transporting equipment and dispatched to the machining centres for manufacturing. After completion, the parts are unloaded at the unloading station. In the present research, no other design consideration is given to the loading and unloading stations except for the costs in the MHS calculations. Material handling equipment in an FMS environment is used to transfer palletised parts between machines, load/unload stations and other supporting stations such as tool setting, washing, inspection and buffers. The cost of a MHS contributes to a high percentage of the total FMS cost, and therefore requires a careful analysis for selection. The structure of the Material Handling Information Module is shown in Figure 3, and through this the KB system recommends an AGVConveyor, a Robot-Conveyor, or a hybrid AGV-Robot-Conveyor MHS.

The response of the user is compared with the production rules and a recommendation is given by the KB system. The Demand Information finds the type of manufacturing system in the following manner:
IF variation in part types is more than 7 [Ingersoll (1982) and Abdou and Dutta (1990)] AND demand of part types fall in the range of 5000 to 75000 per year [Groover (1987)] AND manufacturing system is capable of accommodating part type of various shapes AND part types of various materials can be machined THEN select an FMS for the provided information

The Part Type Information Module helps determine the specification of machining centres and MHSs on the basis of part information from the Demand Information Module and information provided by the user to the Part Type Information Module. A maximum of five processes are considered on a cylindrical part type. Five code numbers

95

M. K. KHAN, I. HUSSAIN & S. NOOR

KBFMSP Model User User interface
Maximum & Minimum -weight, volume, processes

Will parts be palletised? Will parts be transferred in bulk or individual? Will the distance to move the parts be long, medium or short ? Will changes of parts in flow mix be fixed or variable? Will the path of part travel be fixed or variable? Are the parts vulnerable to damage in transit? Will material handling equipment be adaptable to other automated and computer SYSTEM? Will aisles be required to avoid interference of work with each other on shop floor? Can new routes be added easily in case of machine(s) breakdown? Will the effect of breakdowns be significant? Will material handling equipment use the floor space permanently? Will cross traffic be expected? Will the loading/unloading of machines be independent from other machines? Will the mobility of material handling equipment be restricted? Will the material handling equipment require variable speed?
Review information?

N
MHS selection

AGVs-robot MHS

Conveyor-robot MHS

Information Base

Next Module

Figure 3: Structure of the Material Handling Information Module

3.2 Knowledge-Based Flexible Manufacturing System Design (KBFMSD) After successful acquisition of information at the planning stage, the control of the programmes then moves to the design stage for equipment selection calculations and financial assessment of the FMS. The structure of the KBFMSD Model is shown in Figure 4. The calculation of the number of machines is based on the information from KBFMSP and user. The machining centres which fulfil the requirements and provide better features are selected from the database, through a complex process of KB rules and

analytical calculations. The KB system assumes machining centres which can have single or multiple-spindle heads (able to handle simultaneous operations on parts) and also have 3-D machining capabiilites. The machining centres for prismatic parts are selected through a similar process. The KBFMSD is thus able to select the type and number of machining centres based on the input information for the part types from a list of machining centres in a database. The KB searches for the best match for a machining centre in the database created inside the machining centre calculation module.

96

A KNOWLEDGE BASED METHODOLOGY FOR PLANNING AND DESIGNING OF A FLEXIBLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEM (FMS)
Information Base from KBFMSP - Demand information - Part Type Information - Machine Information - MHS Information - Networking Information

User User interface

Information Base

Knowledge Base

Analytical Approach

Inference Engine

Machining centres calculation Review calculations?

N
MHS design factors calculation

Review calculations?

N
Financial Assessment

Review calculations?

N N
FMS viable?

Y
Stop

Figure 4: Structure and logic of the KBFMSD The selection of an MHS for FMS is quite a complex process and requires the identification of alternative equipment candidate tasks, their feasibility and economic justification to arrive at an optimal solution (Mahadevan and Narendran, 1993). According to Mellichamp and Wahab (1987), the selection of suitable MHS is very important because the material handling aspects accounts for up to 55% of the cost of a product according to some estimates. Thus the selection of an MHS requires complete analysis of the material handling problem (Heragu and Kusiak, 1990). Two major MHSs i.e. AGV-Robot based and RobotConveyor based are considered. The KBFMSD selects a suitable MHS based upon the requirement of the system provided by the user as an information input in the Information Base 4.DEMONSTRATION OF THE USE OF Model THE KBFMSPD Both the KBFMSP and KBFMSD models are illustrated through an industrial case study example (FORD Motor Company, and which are discussed in detail later). Tables 1 and 2 in the Appendix show the individual and total demand for part types per year for 20 different part types (13 cylindrical and 17 prismatic). This information is requested by the KB system which then intelligently checks the accuracy of the inputs. The design of the FMS system has been based on the Year 3 demand. The demand for cylindrical and prismatic parts, after considering shrinkage allowance (1%) is 12049 and 15533 units respectively. The personal allowance is considered as 1%. The system operates 2 eight hours shifts per day
97

M. K. KHAN, I. HUSSAIN & S. NOOR

and 22 days per month. The efficiency of the system (efficiency of the manufacturing system obtained from the product of mechanical and utilisation efficiencies) is assumed as 72.25%. Table 2 shows the part types information. The volume of each part type is calculated which, together with the weight of part type, can help in selecting machining centres and material handling equipment. Based on the part type input information in the planning stage, the operating hours per month for both cylindrical and prismatic part types are calculated. The operating hours of part types per month include the operation times, set up time per batch (monthly demand per part type is considered as a batch size in this example), and shrinkage allowance. It is assumed in this example that

no break down occurs and that the system runs without any shut down (although the KBFMSD can take these two factors in to account). Sequential operations are considered on the part types. However the system is also capable of considering simultaneous operations. The KBFMSD system offers the user an option about the operating hours i.e. maximum or average to base the FMS design on. For this paper, the average operating hours in Year 3 are considered for the system design. The FMS is assumed to be available 254 hours per month. Based upon the input information, the numbers of machining centres calculated by the KB system for the FMS are 7 (2 turning and 5 milling centres). Table 3 shows the design factors for MHS, again calculated by the KB system.

Total time/delivery/vehicle (min) Number of deliveries/hour/vehicle Number of AGVs Total cost of AGVs (s) Efficiency of MHS (%age) Av. Operating cost/move/vehicle (s) Weights assigned Priority on the basis of weights

Single row layout Double row layout Loop layout (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) 46.76 24.24 31.09 17.85 22.91 13.37 1.26 2.43 1.91 3.32 2.61 4.47 20.00 11.00 13.00 8.00 10.00 6.00 400,000 220,000 260,000 160,000 200,000 120,000 72.83 72.01 69.30 69.23 86.80 86.82 1.10 0.57 0.73 0.42 0.54 0.31 1 2 5 4 12 10 3 3 2 2 1 1

Table 3: Design factors for selection of MHS

As mentioned earlier, three types of machining centre layouts have been considered, i.e. single row, double row and loop layout. Two scenarios (in the first case, for each two deliveries there is one empty move; and in the second case, for each two deliveries there are three empty moves) and two assumptions (one robot serves two machining centres; and one robot serves three machining centres) are also considered. The two scenarios refer to two extreme situations, while the practical problem lies between these extremes. In a practical problem it is unusual to find a situation which is very efficient or very inefficient. The real problem must lie between these two extremes. Therefore average values are
98

considered after calculating individual values of each scenario under each assumption. Weights are assigned to individual design factors under each assumption. The weight of the design factors in loop type layout (12) under first assumption is higher than single row (1) and double row layout (5). Consequently a priority of 1 is assigned to the loop layout. Similarly under the second assumption the weight of the design factors in the loop layout (10) is higher than the single row (2) and double row layout (4) and again a priority of 1 is assigned. One assumption needs to be selected, therefore a comparison between the two assumptions is made on the basis of costs associated with both the assumptions. The cost associated

A KNOWLEDGE BASED METHODOLOGY FOR PLANNING AND DESIGNING OF A FLEXIBLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEM (FMS)

with the first assumption is 200000 while for the second assumption it is 120000. The second assumption provides optimal cost, therefore this option (one robot to serve three machining centres) is selected. The KB model then calculates the total financial feasibility/viability of the complete FMS through three criteria: Break Even Analysis, Pay Back Period and Internal Rate of Return. These three methods of financial calculations then clearly indicate the viability of the FMS investment for the different combinations of machine layouts and MHS types. 4.1 Verification and Validation through Published and Industrial Case Studies Four published case studies of FMS are used to verify (i.e. the KB system is functioning as intended) the KBFMSP and KBFMSD Models. Two of the published case studies are from the UK and two from Germany. Using the published case studies, only the problem solving accuracy (functioning as intended) of the system is checked with the results of the case studies. Since the KB model (and its many sub-modules) requires a huge amount of information, whereas the published case studies contained limited information, reasonable assumptions (additional data) were therefore made whilst testing and verifying the sub-modules of the
The HNH FMS Part Types Di/PT/batch Machines AGVs 15* 12-17** 16* 74880* 11* 11* The Rover L-500 FMS 8-16** 100** 11** 11**

KB system. Each published case study is briefly described below. In addition, four experts from industrial companies agreed to test and validate (i.e. how closely the KB systems decisions and recommendations matched the human experts) KB models for the planning and design of the FMS. The validation process of the models was based on interviews, questions and input information. The input information (answers to questions and input data) were provided by each expert from their companies (based on their experience and judgement). The output of the models is then compared with the experts expected decisions/recommendations. The knowledge contained in the models was also tested and validated (through user feedback during the system testing). 4.2 Results of Published Case Studies For the published case studies, the main factors considered for verification were the number of machining centres and AGVs as an MHS. The combined results of the main factors of the published case studies are shown against the calculated results in Table 4 on the basis of detailed input information (including modified and assumed information).

The Vickers FMS 48* 74976* 13* 40-60** 100-5000** 13**

The KWU FMS 10* 10**

74000* 1-1000** 5* 8* 5** 8**

2400* 200** 4* 4** -

24* 2, gantry, conveyor**

* KB system: input and output ** Published case studies: input and output

Table 4 shows that the factors such as

Table 4: Main results for all published case studies

99

M. K. KHAN, I. HUSSAIN & S. NOOR

Part Types and demand per part type per batch (Di/PT/batch) considered in the published case studies for the validation of the KB system are mainly satisfied by slightly tailoring to fit in the modules. For example, the HNH FMS produces 12 to 17 production orders per active production mix and produces 1 to 1000 parts per production order. Here, the production orders are considered as different part types (15) and the demand per part type per batch is considered as the monthly requirement of a part type. Thus the annual required units (74000) are calculated for the considered Part Types (15). The availability of the system per month is calculated as 260 hours (assumed data) and the monthly operating hours calculated for the different parts (both cylindrical and prismatic) are calculated as 299 and 782 respectively (not shown in Table 4). The number of machining centres for the input information is calculated as 5. Using the assumed input information for the MHS the numbers of AGVs are calculated as 8. Similarly, the KB system carried out calculations for the other published case studies. It can be seen that the system has been verified as the KB outputs are identical to three of the published case studies (HNH FMS, Rover L-500 FMS and KWU FMS). In the case of Vickers FMS, the figure for the number of AGVs calculated by the KB
Ford Motor Company Limited Vickers Defence

system is quite high (24) due to the reason that the company has an integrated system of AGVs (2), gantry robot and conveyors design for specific purpose. In the case of KWU FMS, the number of AGVs is not calculated as another MHS system is considered, which is not covered in this research work. Table 4 indicates that the KB system produced nearly the same results for the design factors considered in the published case studies, which verifies the validity of the KB system.

4.3 Results of Industrial Case Studies The input information of the companies about the demand, part type information, material handling and cost information is obtained in the same way as explained in the example. The users provided their own information based on their understanding, experience and judgement. All of them tested and verified the KB system for completeness and accuracy of information (input, output, import/export, displays and rules), and finally validated the system by confirming the information. The main findings of the industrial information is summarised below in a Table 5.

The 600 Lathes Limited

Denford Machine Tools Limited

INPUT INFORMATION
PT Di Hc (hrs) Hp (hrs) Sav (hrs) 20 26,354 657 1092 275 29 17,400 594 747 298 45 35,332 1516 1213 310 22 19,069 564 597 320

OUTPUTS

100

A KNOWLEDGE BASED METHODOLOGY FOR PLANNING AND DESIGNING OF A FLEXIBLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEM (FMS) Tm Mm AGVs Layout LAN Tinv (ms) IRR (%) FMS viable? * 3* 4* 3* Loop* Yes* 3.6* 23.19* Yes* 3** 4** 3** 2* 3* 10* Loop* Yes* 1.8* 21.78* Yes* 2** 2** 12** 5* 4* 6* Loop* Yes* 3.18* 18.03* Yes* 5** 4** 6** 2* 2* 6* Loop* Yes* 3.01* 18.79* Yes* 2** 2** 7** -

KB system output

** Experts decisions

Table 5: Main findings for all industrial case studies

Table 5 shows the number of part types (PT) and demand per year (Di) provided by each company. Each company provided input information about both cylindrical and prismatic part types. The number of hours per month for both cylindrical and prismatic parts is calculated. The availability of the manufacturing system is calculated by the information provided about the number of shifts per day, number of operating days per month, manufacturing and utilisation efficiency. The machining centres (Turning and Milling centres) are calculated by dividing the monthly operating hours with monthly availability of the system. The number of AGVs is calculated by finding the total moves to Turning and Milling centres per hour divided by the number of deliveries per hour per vehicle. Table 5 has summarised the main output results for the experts input information. For example, the expert at Ford Motor Company Limited provided 20 different part types to the KB system. The user provided demand information for five years and selected the demand of Year 4 (26,354) to base the system design. Due to the consideration of shrinkage allowance (1%), the KB system calculated 26618 parts to be produced in Year 4. The calculation for machining centres and MHSs were then based on this figure. The KB system
101

separated the monthly operating hours for cylindrical (Hc , 657 hours) and prismatic (Hp , 1092 hours) parts (the user selected both cylindrical and prismatic type of parts). The availability of the manufacturing system was calculated as Sav 275 hours per month. For the input information, the Turning (Tm) and Milling (Mm) centres were calculated as 3 and 4 respectively. The number of AGVs to move the parts between the loading/unloading stations and machining centres were calculated as 3. The KB system selected loop layout as the suitable one over the single row and double row layouts. Based on the input and calculated cost information, the KB system calculated the total investment as 3.6 million. After applying the financial assessment techniques (described in the previous sections), the viability of the designed FMS was checked with the IRR (23.19%). Similar, procedures were carried out by the experts at other companies and the decision making process of the KB system (calculation of machining centres, selection of layouts, calculation of AGVs and financial assessment of the FMS) was checked. The outputs of the KB modules were compared with the experts decisions and recommendations and are found to be close. A single suffix (*) is used to denote the solution by the KB system whilst a double

M. K. KHAN, I. HUSSAIN & S. NOOR

suffix (**) denotes the corresponding solutions arrived at by the experts, and shows very little difference between the two, for the four industrial case studies. For example, at Vickers Defence the expert was expecting the number of AGVs for the input information as 12 whilst the KB system calculated as 10. Similarly, at Denford Machine Tools Limited, the user was expecting the number of AGVs to be 7 whilst the KB system calculated as 6. However, the users agreed that the situations in the real environment are always changed from the prototype systems. The experts agreed with the calculations of the parameters shown in Table 5. It can also be seen that the KB system calculated a complete FMS, whereas the focus of the experts was on the number of machining centres and AGVs only. A LAN is also considered at the planning stage which recommends a suitable networking architecture for the FMS. At the design stage, the cost of the networking hardware was considered as 15% (all companies) of the FMS hardware which is to be connected. The financial assessment showed the overall validity of the chosen FSM system for the particular validation scenario. One of the key aspects of the KB system that the experts found the most important and useful was its decision arriving process. They could see and trace how the KB system arrived at a particular decision and how the recommendations were made; this was critical for checking and agreeing with the viability of the FMS solution.

both in declarative and procedural form of knowledge. The final information in each module is then stored in the Information Base which is retrieved by the following module when required. The KBFMSPD approach incorporates over 1500 KB production rules which help in making decisions, whilst the analytical approach assists the KBFMSPD in making decisions based on mathematical calculations. A number of factors are considered for the selection of machining centres to be used in the FMS. The KBFMSPD can consider a number of different types of MHSs used in FMS. In addition, the KBFMSPD also considers a variety of design factors which have not been considered by other researchers in the past. All of the design factors are applied and tested on the three types of layouts (single row, double row, and loop layout). The KBFMSPD, in conjunction with the optimisation technique selects the optimum layout and design factors. In addition to considering various design factors, the system performs a detailed cost analysis and finds the viability of the FMS. The performance of the system has been illustrated through the use of an example. The KBFMSPD has also been verified and validated through four published case studies and four industrial case studies. It is concluded that the developed KBFMSPD system for the present application is a viable and efficient methodology. REFERENCES [1] Abdou, G., and Dutta, S. P., 1990, An Integrated Approach to Facilities Layout Using Expert Systems, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 685-708. [2] Afentakis, P., Millen, R. A., and Solomon, M. M., 1990, Dynamic Layout Strategies for Flexible Manufacturing Systems, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 311-323. [3] Aly, A. A., and Subramaniam, M., 1993, Design of an FMS Decision Support System, International Journal of
102

5. CONCLUSION
This paper has presented a KBFMSPD for the systematic selection and design of a FMS. The combination of KB and analytical approach assist in providing structured and integrated methodology for the design of an FMS. The information input (demand forecast, part type information, machining centre information, MHS information, network selection information and cost information) to the KB system is provided

A KNOWLEDGE BASED METHODOLOGY FOR PLANNING AND DESIGNING OF A FLEXIBLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEM (FMS)

Production Research, Vol. 31, No. 10, pp. 2257-2273. [4] Bayazit, O., 2005, Use of AHP in Decision-Making for Flexible Manufacturing Systems, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol.16,, No. 7, pp 808-819. [5] Chan, F. T., Chan, H. K., 2004, A Comprehensive Survey and Future Trend of Simulation Study on FMS Scheduling, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 15, pp 87-102 [6] Dekleva, J., and Gaberc, M., 1994, Twophase method for designing flexible manufacturing systems, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 683-691. [7] El Maraghy, H. A., and Ravi, T., 1992, Modern tools for the design modelling and evaluation of flexible manufacturing systems, Robotics & Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 9, No. 4/5, pp. 335-340. [8] Ficko, M., Brezovnik, S., Klancnik, S., Balic, J., Brezocnik, M., and Pahole, I., 2009, Intelligent design of an unconstrained layout for a FMS, Neurocomputing, vol. 73, pp 639-647. [9] Heragu, S. S., and Kusiak, A, 1990, Machine layout: an optimisation and knowledge based approach, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 615-635. [10]Hosni, Y. A., 1989, Inference engine for material handling selection, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 17 No. 1-4, pp. 79-84. [11] Houshyar, A., and White, B., 1993, Exact optimal solution for facility layout: Deciding which pairs of locations should be adjacent, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 177-187. [12] Koltai, T., Lazano, S., and Onieva, L. 2000, A flexible costing system for FMS using activity based costing, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 38, No. 7, pp 1615-30. [13] Li, J. and Huang, N., 2007, Quality evaluation of FMS: a Markovian approach, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Vol. 2007, article ID: 57128, 24 pages.
103

[14]Mahadevan, B., and Narendran, T. T., 1993, Determination of unit load sizes in an automated guided vehicles based material handling system for an FMS, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 30, pp. 909-922. [15] Malhotra, V., Raj, T., and Arora, A., 2010, Excellent Techniques of manufacturing Systems: RMS and FMS, International Journal of engineering Science and Technology, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp 137-142. [16]Maraghy, R. Ulay, Y., 2007, Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems: key to future manufacturing Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 11, no. 4, pp 403-419. [17]Mellichamp J. M., Kwon O-J., and Wahab A. F. A., 1990, FMS Designer: An expert system for flexible manufacturing system design, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 28, No. 11, pp. 2013-2024. [18]Mellichamp, J. M., and Wahab, A. F. A., 1987, An expert system for FMS design, Simulation, Vol. 48, No. 5, pp. 201-208. [19]Morito, S., and Mizoguchi, K., 1991, Design and analysis of flexible manufacturing system with simulation effects of flexibility on FMS performance, Proceedings of the 1991 Winter Simulation Conference, Nelson et al. (Eds.), pp. 294301. [20]Rubinovitz, J., and Karni, R., 1994, Expert system approaches to the selection of material handling and transfer equipment, Handbook of Expert Systems Applications in Manufacturing Structures and Rules, edited by A. Mital and S. Anand. [21]Sirinaovakul, B., and Thajchayapong, P., 1994, A knowledge base to assist a heuristic search to facility layout, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 141-160. [22]Spano, O Grady, Young, 1993, The design of flexible manufacturing system, Computer in Industry, Vol. 21, pp. 185-198

M. K. KHAN, I. HUSSAIN & S. NOOR

[23]Venkatesh, K., and Ilyas, M., 1993, Modelling, controlling and simulation of local area networks for flexible manufacturing systems using Petri Nets, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 25, Nos. 1-4, pp. 155-158. [24]Wadhwa, S., Prakash, A., and Deshmukh, S. G., 2009, A knowledge Based GA approach for FMS scheduling, Proceedings of the International Multi Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, IMECS 2009, March 2009, Hong Kong, Vol. II. [25]Zaied, A. H. R., 2008, Quantitative models for planning and scheduling of FMS, Emirates Journal for engineering Research, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp 11-19.

[26]Welgama, P. S., and Gibson, P. R., 1995, A hybrid knowledge based/optimisation system for automated selection of materials handling system, Computers in Industrial Engineering, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 205-217.

APPENDIX

Table 1: Individual and total demand forecast for part types per year
Part Type
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Year 1
800 900 1,000 850 790 900 1,200 900 890 800 1,200 1,100 800 800 800 900 800 900 900 900

Year 2
808 918 1,010 859 806 909 1,212 909 899 808 1,212 1,111 816 808 808 909 808 909 918 909

Year 3
816 927 1,030 867 814 918 1,224 918 908 816 1,224 1,122 824 816 816 927 808 927 927 918

Year 4
824 918 1,030 876 822 927 1,236 927 917 824 1,236 1,133 832 824 824 936 816 936 936 927

Year 5
832 927 1,041 885 822 937 1,249 937 926 832 1,212 1,145 841 832 832 908 824 946 936 937

104

A KNOWLEDGE BASED METHODOLOGY FOR PLANNING AND DESIGNING OF A FLEXIBLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEM (FMS)

Table 2: Part Information

PT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

PS
2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2

P
4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 4

N
14 16 18 15 21 20 22 22 20 16 18 21 19 22 19 19 21 21 19 18

T
28 32 36 30 42 40 44 44 40 32 36 42 38 44 38 38 42 42 38 36

M
2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 4 3 3 3 3 4 1

W
13 12 12 10 14 15 13 15 12 10 35 35 33 30 30 45 20 14 25 20

MC
3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 2

LC
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

V
0.01 0.08 0.04 0.22 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.07 0.07

PT = Part type, PS = Part type shape, P = Number of processes, N = Number of operations, T = Total operations time, M = Material of part type, W = weight of part type, MC = Material cost per kg., LC =Labour cost per hour, V = Volume of a part type (m3)

105

M. K. KHAN, I. HUSSAIN & S. NOOR

Author Biographies Dr. M. Khurshid Khan received his BEng, PhD and MBA degrees from the University of Bradford in 1983, 1987 and 1997, respectively. His PhD area of research was experimental and theoretical study of air turbulence. During 1987 to 1990, he worked for Pepsi-Cola International as a Technical Services Manager in the Middle East, Far East and Africa Regions. In 1990, he joined the School of Engineering, University of Bradford, where he is currently a Senior Lecturer in Manufacturing Systems. His research interest is in the area of AI/Knowledge-Based Systems and their application to Manufacturing Systems, Strategy Planning and Control.

(2007). His PhD was in Scheduling of Manufacturing Systems using AI Tools. During 1997-2007, he worked in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, UET Peshawar and thereafter joined the Department of Industrial Engineering in 2008. Currently, he is Professor in the Industrial Engineering and Chairman of the Department of Chemical Engineering. His area of interest is manufacturing planning and control using AI tools.

Dr. Iftikhar Hussain did BSc Mechanical Engineering from Engineering University Peshawar (Pakistan), MSc Production Engineering from Engineering University Lahore (Pakistan) and PhD from University of Bradford (UK) in 1998. His PhD research was in the Knowledge Based approaches to Manufacturing System Design. In 2000, he joined the Industrial Engineering Department at King Saud University Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Professor Hussain returned to Engineering University Peshawar in 2006 and established the Department of Industrial Engineering, where he is the current Chairman. His research interest is in the area of Expert Systems applications to Manufacturing Systems and Production Planning and Control.

Dr Sahar Noor received his BSc Mechanical Engineering (1993) from the University of Engineering and Technology (UET) Peshawar, MSc in Metallurgical Engineering (1996) from the NED UET, Karachi and PhD degree from the University of Bradford

106