FUNCTIONAL VS CELLULAR LAYOUTS:

USING SIMULATION AS A COMPARISON TOOL

Abdessalem JERBI *, Hédi CHTOUROU *,**and Aref Y. MAALEJ *

*
Laboratoire des Systemes Electro-Mecaniques
Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Sfax
BP W 3038, Sfax – Tunisie
**
Département de technologie
Institut Préparatoire aux études d’Ingénieurs de Sfax
Sfax -Tunisie

ABSTRACT
A number of simulation studies were carried out by several researchers in order to compare the performances of cellular
and functional layouts. The majority of these studies often lack objectivity in their methodologies and lead to paradoxical
results. The aim of this study is the development of simulation models for both layouts. These models are used for the
illustration of some objectivity lacks in one of the main comparative studies.
KEYWORDS
Functional layout - Job shop - Cellular manufacturing - simulation - model – comparison-objectivity

INTRODUCTION
Cellular manufacturing, a facet of group technology, has
emerged as one of the major techniques being used for the
improvement of manufacturing competitiveness. Several
studies tempted to verify such an issue by comparing the
cellular layout (CL) to the functional layout (FL). These
studies may be classified into three main categories:
simulation based investigations, analytical models and
empirical surveys. Simulation based studies represent the
mainstream of the work in this domain. In this way, Morris
and Tersine (1990), Jensen et al (1996) and Faizul huq et al
(2001) found that the cellular manufacturing system cannot
outperform its functional counterpart even though machine
reservation that characterize cellular layout assures a
considerable setup reduction. In contrast, Shafer and
Charnes (1992) proved the superiority of the cellular layout
when using the overlapping of production operations
combined to setup reduction. Besides, Suresh and Meredith
(1994), Shafer and Charnes (1995) and Li (2003) showed
that none of the two layouts outperforms the other one in the
totality of the tested contexts. These paradoxical results may
be imputed to the different contexts in which the comparison
test series were carried out as well as to the lack of neutrality
of a number of these contexts.
Hence, the goal of this paper is to present simulation
models that can be used to illustrate the objectivity lack of
the main comparative studies and eventually, to achieve an
objective comparison methodology of the two layout types.
Accordingly, the second section is dedicated to a taxonomy
of existing FL-CL comparison research. It mainly focuses on
the main experimental factors and performance measures
used in the published simulation studies. The third section
deals with the development of simulation models for both
layouts using a commercial simulation tool. Finally and
before concluding, a section is reserved to the illustration of
the objectivity lack of one of the main comparison studies
done by Morris and Tersine (1990).
TAXONOMY OF EXISTING COMPARISON studies considered very high degrees decomposability
RESEARCH leading to completely independent cells.
A total of 8 simulation-based comparative simulation studies
Batch size (q)
are considered in the present investigation. They were
In order to reduce the number of the machines setup and
published in top specialized refereed journals between 1990
transport between work stations, products are generally
and 2003. Some of the 16 main parameters used in these
manufactured and transported in batches. Many authors used
studies were kept constant throughout the simulation series
the batch size as variable factor and demonstrated that the
(e.g.: the number of cells, the number of product types, the
use of small batch sizes in combination with an efficient
number of machines, the number of departments ...). On the
scheduling rules results in the improvement of the cellular
opposite, some others such as the lot size, the setup time and
layout.
the setup reduction factor, were generally considered as
Scheduling rules
variable experimental factors. In addition, the most widely
Jobs arriving at a department or a cell may have to wait in a
used performance measures are the mean flow time (MFT)
queue until the required machine becomes available. The
and the work in process (WIP). Also, throughput and some
order in which the jobs are to be processed is generally
due-date-related performance measures are used in some of
specified by a scheduling rule or a priority rule such as “First
the studies.
Come First Served” (FCFS), “Shortest Process Time” (SPT),
MAIN EXPERIMENTAL FACTORS “Earliest Due Date” (EDD) or “Repetitive Lots” (RL). Using
the first, jobs are simply selected according to their arrival
General MS characteristics
times whereas the second rule prioritizes the job with the
The studied MSs are characterized by a number of machines
shortest processing time. Alternatively, the EDD rules aims
ranging between 12 and 30. These are either arranged into
at reducing the number of tardy jobs by prioritizing jobs
departments or else into manufacturing cells. The number of
with the earliest due dates. The limited versions (-L) of these
departments (d) ranges between 4 and 15 whereas the
three rules are often used in order to avoid the duplication of
number of cells (c) ranges between 3 and 5. Furthermore, the
machines setup for the same product type. Finally, when the
studied systems were designed for a demand pattern
RL rule is used, jobs of the same type that the one just
comprising 3 to 80 product types (t) belonging to a number
processed are always prioritized in order to avoid
of families (f) varying between 3 and 10. Each product type
unnecessary setups.
requires a number of manufacturing operations ranging
between 2 and 25. Finally, only one of the treated studies Transfer mode
dealt with the labor resources whereas the others overlooked In the FL, the interdepartmental distances are considerable.
this factor assuming that a worker is always available when Hence, products are often transferred by batches or lots in
ever he is needed. order to reduce the transfer costs. Some studies used this
transfer mode in the CL whereas others exploited the
Degree of decomposability of the part machine matrix
proximity of machines of a same cell to transfer products by
(DD)
part. The “part by part” transfer mode allows simultaneous
This factor translates the feasibility of the decomposition of
execution of several operations on the same batch called
the MS into independent cells. The more the
operations overlapping.
product/machine matrix is diagonal the more the
decomposability is feasible. The majority of the comparison
Flow direction
A number of authors included the flow direction within a
cell as an experimental factor. This factor has two possible
levels: unidirectional flow or else, flow with backtracking
allowed. The first level is obtained either by altering product
type routings or also by duplicating cell machines in order to
avoid backtracking.
Processing time (PT) and Set up time (ST)
Several studies modeled both times by two independent
probabilistic laws. Others formulated ST as a fraction of PT.
It is worth noting here that PT is often given for the whole
batch and not per part.
Set up time reduction factor (δ)
This factor materializes one of the crucial advantages of the
CL and more particularly of the group technology
philosophy. Indeed, part types of a same family have usually
very similar setups on the machines. Hence, if a machine is
set up for a certain type and then it should be set for another
type of the same family, the nominal setup time for the
second batch should be reduced by the δ factor.
Transfer time (TT)
In the FL, this parameter corresponds to the
interdepartmental travel time. It is often modeled using an
appropriate probabilistic law. On the other hand, within the
CL framework, it corresponds to the durations of intra cell
moves. These times are generally very small compared to
those in the FL. This constitutes the second major advantage
of CL.
Demand rate
The demand rate is mainly expressed by the batch inter-
arrival times (IAT) in the MS. They are generally generated
by common probabilistic distributions. Besides, some
studies focus only on the stability of this factor without
changing its mean.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Work in process (WIP)
This measure characterizes the fluidity of the part flow in the
system. It has mainly been measured in two manners: the
number of parts in the system and the time weighted number
of parts in the system. The latter is obtained by summing up
the average setup and process times of all parts either being
processed or waiting in the different MS queues.
Mean flow time (MFT)
This performance measure constitutes with WIP the most
popular measures used in the FL-CL comparative studies. It
also characterizes the fluidity of the part flow in the system.
For each part, the flow time is simply obtained by
subtracting the exit time from the entry time.
Due date related measures
Mainly, researchers used Mean Tardiness (MT) and Mean
Earliness (ME) as due date related performance measures.
The first is taken as the average, over all tardy jobs, of the
difference between actual delivery date and the promised
due date. ME is obtained by analogy for all early jobs. Some
researchers also use the percentage of tardy jobs and the
percentage of early jobs without taking into account the
actual amount of tardiness or earliness.
Other measures
The system throughput is usually considered as productivity
measure. It is the average number of parts exiting the system
by time unit. It is the main indicator used for detecting the
attainment of steady state in a simulation run. Also, some
studies used the average machine utilization rate or the
average PT/ST ratio as performance indicators. Maximizing
the former ensures a high degree of resource exploitation
whereas the minimizing the latter enhances the efficiency of
the MS piloting.
SIMULATION MODELS
GENERALITIES
The functional layout splits the shop into d departments Di
(i=1,…,d) Each department is formed by Mi machines of the
same type. On the other hand, in a cellular production
system, products with similar shapes or production processes
are grouped into f families Fj (j=1,…,f). The Nj required
machines to the manufacturing of every product of the
family Fj are clustered into the independent manufacturing
cell Cj. No labor constraints are considered in both models.
Manufacturing orders are launched by batches of constant
size and the batches inter arrival times are governed by an
appropriate probabilistic law. As soon as the batches are
created, they are assigned a number of attributes such the
routing, the processing times and set up times on each work
station included in this routing.
The commercial simulation software Arena 7.0 was used in
this study. It provides an integrated framework for building
simulation models in wide variety of applications. It
integrates all the functions needed for simulation including
animation, analysis of input and output data.
FL MODEL
When entering the functionally structured shop, the batches
are routed to the first department listed in their routing (Fig.
1). Then, they are queued until a machine becomes
available. The department queue can be governed by priority
rules such as first come first served (FCFS) or smallest
processing time (SPT) or repetitive lot (RL) or any other
needed rule. The RL rule is the most frequently used one in
order to minimize overall set up times. When it is used,
every time a machine becomes available the queue is
searched for batches of the same type than the one just
processed and the first batch found is prioritized. Just before
being processed, all batches are split into individual parts.
These parts are regrouped after processing. A processed
batch is then routed toward the next step of its routing or, if
processing is completed, toward the system exit (Fig.2).

DEPARTMENT 1
CREATE 1 ASSIGN 1
……..
CREATE 2 ASSIGN 2 DEPARTMENT i
BATCH ROUTE STATION DISPOSE
……………………...
……..
CREATE N ASSIGN N DEPARTMENT d

PRODUCT ARRIVALS DEPARTMENTS SYSTEM EXIT

Fig 1: Overview of the functional layout model

DEPARTMENT QUEUE

STATION Di HOLD

STATION 1 SEPARATE MACHINE 1 BATCH

PICKSTATION STATION 2 SEPARATE MACHINE 2 BATCH ROUTE

…………………………………………………….………………

STATION Mi SEPARATE MACHINEMi BATCH

Fig 2: Overview of department i sub model

CL MODELS
As for the CL model, it is characterized by the same batch
creation and attribute assignation mechanisms. However, in
addition to the cell general queue, each machine has its
individual queue. Moreover, the routings in such a model are
expressed in terms of specific machines and not in terms of
departments as it is the case in the FL model. Hence, each
batch waits in the general queue until the first machine in its
routing becomes available. Pre-manufacturing batch splitting
is always required. However, after manufacturing, two
CELL ARRIVALS
options are available and a specific model is developed for
each of them. In the first version (Fig 3), parts are re-
congregated into batches before being routed to the
subsequent manufacturing step. In the second CL version
(Fig 4), every processed part is dispatched toward the next
machine of its routing without waiting for the other batch
components. This is called operations overlapping, since a
same batch could be simultaneously processed by several
machines.
CELL EXIT

CREATE 1 ASSIGN 1 CELL QUEUE

CREATE 2 ASSIGN 2 DISPOSE

BATCH ROUTE STATION Cj HOLD Cj
……………………...

CREATE N ASSIGN N

STATION 1 HOLD 1 SEPARATE MACHINE 1 BATCH

STATION

PICKSTATION STATION 2 HOLD 2 SEPARATE MACHINE 2 BATCH ROUTE

……………………………………………………………………...

STATION Nj HOLD Nj SEPARATE MACHINE Nj BATCH

MACHINES

Fig 3: Overview of the cellular layout model with no overlapping

CELL ARRIVALS CELL EXIT

CREATE 1 ASSIGN 1 CELL QUEUE

CREATE 2 ASSIGN 2 DISPOSE
BATCH ROUTE STATION Cj HOLD Cj
……………………...

CREATE N ASSIGN N
BATCH

STATION 1 HOLD 1 MACHINE 1

STATION

SEPARATE PICKSTATION STATION 2 HOLD 2 MACHINE 2 ROUTE

……………………………………………...

STATION Nj HOLD Nj MACHINE Nj

MACHINES

Fig 4: Overview of the cellular layout model with overlapping

ILLUSTRATION
Morris and Tersine (1990) used hypothetical shop data
featuring 40 product types belonging to 5 families and 30
machines divided between 8 process departments in the FL
and 5 cells in the CL. In both layouts, the queues were
governed by the RL priority rule. Besides, the performances
were assessed using the average levels of flow time and WIP
while varying the ratio of set up to process time, the transfer
time, demand stability and flow work within cells. It
appeared from their results that FL outperforms CL in the
majority of investigated contexts. Still, when we carefully
examine their methodology, we notice that Morris and
Tersine (1990) considered very low transfer times which
implicitly advantages the FL. In fact, one of the main
advantages of CL is the time saving by locating machines
required to process one job close to each other. Also, the lot
size was not included in their experimental design despite
the fact that its importance is indisputable. Finally, the
authors used a CL with no operations overlapping allowed.
This does not permit to perceive full CL benefits. In this
work we choose to illustrate this particular shortcoming by
showing that if overlapping is allowed, the CL could
outperform the FL.
Hence, a first test with no overlapping generated MFTs of
8524 min and 11833 min for the FL and CL models
respectively. These results are very close to those of the
studied research (Table 1). However, when overlapping was
used, the MFT of the CL model was lowered to 6815 min.
This confirms the major influence of overlapping,
disregarded by Morris and Tersine. Moreover, this result
confirms that the conclusions formulated by Morris and
Tersine are very specific to the “no overlapping” case.
FL CL
Overlapping Overlapping
not allowed allowed
Morris and
8731 13101 ----------
Tersine model
Present study 11833 6815
8524
model
Table 1: Illustration results (MFT)
CONCLUSION
This paper presents a taxonomy of the key factors used in
the main published FL-CL comparison simulation studies. It
also presents the development of simulation models for both
functional and cellular layouts using the ARENA commercial
software. Using these models, it is demonstrated that the
findings presented by Morris and Tersine (1990), one of the
most important simulation studies, lack objectivity.
Furthermore, these models are intended to be the key
instruments in establishing an objective simulation-based
FL-CL comparison methodology. The development of such
a methodology is currently pursued.
REFERENCES
Hyer, N.L. and Wemmerlov, U., “Group Technology in the
U.S. manufacturing industry: a survey of current practices”
International Journal of Production Research, 27(8), 1989,
pp. 1287-1304
Leonard, R. and Rathmill, K., “the group technology
myths”, Management Today, January 1977, pp. 66-9.
Rathmill, K. and Leonard, R., “The fundamental
limitations of cellular manufacture when contrasted with
efficient functional layout”, fourth international conference
on production research, Taylor & Francis, London 1977.
Craven, F.W., “Some constraints, fallacies and solution in
GT applications”, Proceedings of Fourteenth International
Machine Tool Design and Research Conference, 1973, pp.
169-175.
Morris, J.S. and Tersine, R.J. “A simulation analysis of
factors influencing the attractiveness of group technology
cellular layouts”, Management Science, Vol. 36 No.
12, 1990, pp. 1567-78.
Shafer, S.M. and Charnes, J.M. “Cellular versus functional
layouts under a variety of shop operating conditions”,
Decision Sciences, Vol. 24, No. 3, 1992, pp. 665-681.
Suresh, N.C. and Meredith, J.R. “Coping with the loss of
pooling synergy in cellular manufacturing systems”,
Management Science, Vol. 40, No. 4, 1994, pp. 466- 483.
Suresh, N.C., “Partitioning work centers for group
technology: analytical-extension and shop-level simulation
investigation”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 23, No. 2, 1992,
pp.267-90.
Shafer, S.M, and Charnes, J.M. “A simulation analyses of
factors influencing loading practices in cellular
manufacturing”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 33, No. 1, 1995, pp. 279-290.
Jensen, J.B., Malhotra, M.K and Philipoom, P.R. “Machine
dedication and process flexibility in a group technology
environment”, Journal of Operations Management, 14,
1996, pp. 19-39.
Farrington, Ph.A and Nazametz J.W. “Evaluation of the
performance domain of cellular and functional layouts”,
Computers ind. Engng, Vol. 34, No. 1, 1998, pp. 91-101.
Faizul huq, Douglas, A.H and Zubair, M.M. “A simulation
analysis of factors influencing the flow time and through-
put performance of functional and cellular layouts”,
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 12/4, 2001, pp. 285-
295.
Jing-Wen Li. “Improving the performance of job shop
manufacturing with demand-pull production control by
reducing set-up/processing time variability”, International
journal of Production Economics, 84, 2003, pp. 255-270.
Rathmell, J and Sturrock, D.T. “The ARENA product
family: Enterprise modeling solutions”, Proceedings of the
Winter Simulation Conference, 2002, pp. 165-172.
Kelton, W.D., Sadowski, R.P. and Sadowski. D.A.
“Simulation with Arena” 2nd. ed. 2002, New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Arena Template Reference Guide, Rockwell software, inc.
2000-2002