Next Article in Journal
Effects of Building Design Elements on Residential Thermal Environment
Previous Article in Journal
Exploratory Orientation, Business Model Innovation and New Venture Growth
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sustainability Formation of Machine Cells in Group Technology Systems Using Modified Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Dhaanish Ahmed College of Engineering, Chennai 601301, India
2
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Kalasalingam University, Krishnankovil 626126, India
3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, KCG College of Technology, Chennai 600097, India
4
Institute of Production Engineering, Cracow University of Technology, 31-155 Krakow, Poland
5
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Simrol, Indore 453552, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2018, 10(1), 42; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010042
Submission received: 24 November 2017 / Revised: 15 December 2017 / Accepted: 20 December 2017 / Published: 28 December 2017
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Engineering and Science)

Abstract

:
The efficiency and sustainability of a cellular manufacturing system (CMS) in batch type manufacturing is highly valued. This is done using a systematic method of equipment into machine cells, and components into part families, based on the suitable similar criteria. The present work discusses the cell formation problem, with the objective of minimizing the cumulative cell load variation and cumulative intercellular moves. The quantity of parts, operation sequences, processing time, capacity of machines, and workload of machineries were considered as parameters. For the grouping of equipment, the modified artificial bee colony (MABC) algorithm is considered. The computational procedure of this approach is explained by using up to 40 machines and 100 part types. The result obtained from MABC is compared with the findings acquired from the genetic algorithm (GA) and ant colony system (ACS) in the literature.

1. Introduction

Group technology (GT) is a production strategy where the similar components are picked out and grouped together to gain the benefits of their similarities in design and/or production character [1]. Cellular manufacturing (CM) is based on the principles of group technology. Cellular manufacturing system plays a major role in the application to industries. It is an important technique to cope with the rapid changing industrial demands and new innovations. In CM, the equipment is located in close proximity, and sacrificed to make all necessary operations into the particular part family, and provide smooth flow of materials within the cell which lead to high productivity. The equipment in CM system permits the equipment to be changed or relocated whenever new part designs are incorporated, and product demand changes with minimum effort, in terms of cost and time [2]. GT concept has been implemented in various factories like machineries, automobiles, defense, and electrical industries [3]. There are many advantages in cellular manufacturing system (CMS) which include minimizing the processing cost, material handling cost, machine duplication cost, cycle times, material handling times, work-in-process inventory levels, factory space requirements, product defect rates, and machine idle times [4,5]. There have been many investigations done on part families and machine cell problems during the past three decades. Opitz [6] described a method of part classification and coding analysis for effective production planning and control. Burbidge [7] explained the material flow system with process organization and process to product organization in production flow analysis. The problem comprises of a group of equipment, group of components, and assigning of components and equipment into the part families. Rank order clustering method was proposed by King [8]. The main purpose is to devise a generalized procedure that would convert, in a finite number of iterations, any original machine–part matrix into a clustered diagonal form, if one exists. Srinivasan et al. [9] discussed the similarity coefficient method, which describes that this method is more flexible for incorporating production data, such as production volume, sequence of operation, and operational time, into the machine cell formation. Heuristic algorithms [10,11] have been implemented for many cell formation (CF) solutions. In the present days, most of the cell formation problems have been solved by using meta-heuristic algorithms. Meta-heuristic search approaches, such as simulated annealing [12,13,14] and a genetic algorithm [15], have also been used to solve various cell formation problems. Prabhakaran [16] has discussed the cell load variation and intercellular moves in cell formation problem using genetic algorithm (GA). Sarac and Ozcelik [17] formulated a genetic algorithm with proper parameters for manufacturing cell formation problems. In their paper, the cell formation in cellular manufacturing systems is considered with the objective of maximizing the grouping efficacy. Arkat et al. [18] employed the minimization of exceptional elements and voids in the cell formation problem using a multi-objective genetic algorithm, and presented a bi-objective mathematical model to simultaneously minimize the number of exceptional elements and the number of voids in the part machine incidence matrix. An e-constraint method is then applied to solve the model and to generate the efficient solutions. Other metaheuristics, like tabu search [19,20], ant colony optimization (ACO) [21,22], particle swarm optimization [23,24], and scatter search [25] have also been proposed for designing CMS. Chattopadhyayet et al. [26] discussed machine–part cell formation through visual decipherable clustering of self-organizing map. Their paper deals with the self-organizing map method, an unsupervised learning algorithm in artificial intelligence which has been used as a visually decipherable clustering tool of machine–part cell formation. Ghezavati and Saidi-Mehrabad [27] proposed an efficient hybrid self-learning method for stochastic cellular manufacturing problems. It addresses a new version of stochastic mixed-integer model to design cellular manufacturing systems under random parameters, described by continuous distributions. Ying-Chin and Ta-Wei [28] explained about the concurrent solution for intra-cell flow path layouts and I/O point locations of cells in a cellular manufacturing system. In this study, the authors propose a layout procedure that can solve these two problems at the same time, so that the sum of the inter-cell flow distance and the intra-cell flow distance can be minimized. Venkumar and Haq [29] discussed the complete and fractional cell formation using neural network methodology. The other recent approaches of CMS design include a new branch-and-bound algorithm [30], and the firefly-inspired algorithm [31]. Mohammad and Kamran [32] proposed an integrated bi-objective layout and cell formation problem. In this problem, the main aim is to minimize the total inter- and intra-cell material handling costs, and the second aim is to maximize the total similarity between machines. Behrang et al. [33] explained mathematical models in cellular manufacturing systems for clustering workers and machines in product mix variation case. Sakhaii et al. [34] developed a robust optimization approach for a new integrated mixed-integer linear programming model to solve a dynamic cellular manufacturing system with unreliable machines and a production planning problem simultaneously. Brown [35] proposed optimized manufacturing model to minimize costs associated with exceptional elements. Costs are minimized through intercellular transfer, machine duplication, and subcontracting. Kia et al. [36] explained a mixed-integer programming model for a multi-floor layout design of cellular manufacturing systems (CMS) in a dynamic environment. Yung Chin et al. [37] explained a design procedure for improving the effectiveness of fractal layouts formation aiming at minimization of routing distances. Zahra et al. [38] explained the task scheduling Non-polynomial (NP) hard problem in grid computing system using particle swarm optimization–gravitational emulation local search (PSO–GELS). In this problem, the PSO–GELS combined algorithm has provided better results than other approaches. Mohammad et al. [39] discussed the job scheduling problem in cloud computing, using the methodology of fuzzy theory and genetic algorithm. In this paper, the main aim is to perform optimal load balancing considering execution time and cost. Mohammad et al. [40] described a fuzzy reputation-based model for trust management in semantic P2P grids. Javanmardi et al. [41] present a hybrid job scheduling approach, which considers the load balancing of the system, and reduces total execution time and execution cost using genetic algorithm and fuzzy theory.
In the recent years, there are so many population based meta heuristic evolutionary algorithms used to solve cell formation problems due to their ease of implementation. However, these intelligence algorithms are sensitive to value and precision. It inspired us to use modified artificial bee colony (MABC) for cell formation problem. In this paper, the MABC algorithm, a meta heuristic population based algorithms is used in cell formation problem with the aim of reducing cumulative cell load variation and cumulative intercellular moves. The outcome of this approach is compared with that of both GA and ACO.

2. Problem Formulation

In this problem, the most cited performance measures, such as cumulative intercellular moves and cumulative cell load variation, are to be calculated. The constraint used is a minimum of two machines in a cell.

2.1. Cumulative Intercellular Moves

The movement of parts between the cells is known as intercellular movement. It deals with the impact of processing sequence and cell layout, which is explained [42].
Cumulative moves = i = 0 P i = 0 k 1 k = 1 | C k C k + 1 |
where Ck = cell number and processing k is carried out on component i, considering the operation sequence; Ck+1 = cell number in which and processing k + 1 is carried out on component i, considering the operation sequence; ki = total number of processes carried out on component i to finish its necessary operations; C = cell counting; P = part counting.

2.2. Cumulative Cell Load Variation

The cell load variation is calculated by the difference between the equipment workload and the machine cell average load. A lower value of cell load variation is preferable, since it leads to efficient flow of parts and lowers the inventory level. The cumulative cell load variation is measured using the formula suggested [15].
Cell load variation = i = 1 m l = 1 c x i l j = 1 p ( w i j m i j ) 2
where m = machine counting; c = cell counting; p = part counting.
W = [wij] is an m × p workload matrix, where
w i j = ( t i j × N j ) T i ,
where tij = manufacturing time (hours/piece) of job j on equipment i; Ti = available time on equipment i for the allotted time period; Nj = manufacturing demand of part j for the allotted time period; X = [xil] is an m × c cell membership matrix, where xil = 1 if the i-th equipment is in cell 1, and 0 otherwise; M = [mlj] is a c × p matrix of the average machine cell load.
Where
m l j = i = 1 m ( x i l × w i j ) i = 1 m x i l .

2.3. The Combined Objective Function

Min   Z = W 1 { i = 0 P i = 0 K 1 K = 1 | C k C K + 1 | } + W 2 { i = 1 m l = 1 c x i l j = 1 P ( w i j m i j ) 2 }
where W1 and W2 are weights. By varying the values of W1 and W2, the decision maker can decide which function should be given a high priority.

2.4. Existing ABC Algorithm

Karaboga [43,44,45,46] proposed that ABC algorithm has been generated by imitating the behavior of the honey bee swarm intelligence. This algorithm has been implemented for numerous engineering problems. Its development was instigated through the intelligent foraging character of bees in their colony, and their performance was measured by the benchmark optimization function. Kalayci et al. [47] clearly explained the behavior of bees to solve disassembled line balancing problems. Particularly, the number of control parameters in ABC is fewer than the other population-based algorithms. Moreover, the optimization characteristics of ABC are comparable, and in some cases, much better than the state-of-the-art meta-heuristics. Hence, ABC is applied to the many types of optimization problems.
In this problem, bees represent a solution. There are three types of bees available in the ABC colony. They are employed bees, onlookers, and scout bee. It is assumed that there is only one artificial employed bee for each food source. In other words, the number of employed bees in the colony is equal to the number of food sources around the hive. Employed bees go to their food source, and come back to the hive and dance in this area. The employed bee whose food source has been abandoned becomes a scout, and starts to search for a new food source. Onlookers watch the dances of employed bees, and choose food sources depending on dances. The main steps of the algorithm are given below:
Initial food sources are produced for all employed bees.
REPEAT
  • Each employed bee goes to a food source in her memory and determines a neighbor source, then evaluates its nectar amount and dances in the hive.
  • Each onlooker watches the dance of employed bees and chooses one of their sources depending on the dances, and then goes to that source. After choosing a neighbor around that, she evaluates its nectar amount.
  • Abandoned food sources are determined and are replaced with the new food sources discovered by scouts.
  • The best food source found so far is registered.
UNTIL (requirements are met)

2.5. Proposed Modified ABC Algorithm

The basic ABC algorithm was originally designed for continuous function optimization. But especially for the NP hard combinatorial optimization problems, some modifications are required in the basic ABC approach. The modified ABC approach (MABC) is described in the following subsections.

2.6. Representation

The length of a solution string represents the number of equipment considered in the problem. Each place in the solution string indicates the machine number, and the position number indicates the equipment present in that position. The position of any equipment represents its location.
Example: 1 3 5 2 4 8 7 6 9
Here, the length of the solution string is 9, which indicates that the number of equipment considered in the problem is 9. The places in the solution string take the values 1 to 9, which indicate the equipment number. Position of equipment 1 is 1, 3 is 2, and so on.

2.7. Population Initialization

The size of the initial population is formulated randomly. An initial population of the desired size is generated randomly. In this proposed MABC, 40 solution strings are randomly generated and used as initial population. Each solution string is converted into a 3 × 3 matrix, and the objective value is calculated using the objective function equation.
Example: 1 3 5 2 4 8 7 6 9
[ 1 3 5 2 4 8 7 6 9 ]

2.8. Employed Bee Phase

The employed bees initialize food origin near their present locations. In this phase, insert and swap manipulators are used to produce nearby findings. The insert manipulator of a string, Si, is explained by taking away a bit from its initial location j, and inserting it into another location, k, such that (k ∈ {j, j − 1}), where as the swap manipulator generates a nearby of Si by exchanging two bits of Si in various positions. To improve the neighborhood structure and spread out the population, the following two neighboring approaches are utilized to generate neighboring food sources for the employed bees.
Approach 1. Perform one insert operator to a solution Si.
  • Initially, the 3rd bit is selected randomly. Then, the selected bit was inserted into 5th bit.
  • Before insert operation: 1 3 5 2 4 8 7 6 9;
  • After insert operation: 1 3 2 4 5 8 7 6 9.
Approach 2. Perform one swap operator to a solution Si.
  • Initially, the 3rd and 7th bits are selected randomly, and swapping is performed.
  • Before swap operation: 1 3 5 2 4 8 7 6 9;
  • After swap operation: 1 3 7 2 4 8 5 6 9.
One of the neighboring approaches is selected randomly to produce new food sources. If the new food source is better than the current food source, then the new food source is accepted.

2.9. Onlooker Bee Phase

In the basic ABC algorithm, an onlooker bee selects a food source, xi, depending on its winning probability value pi, which is similar to the wheel selection in genetic algorithms [16]. In this MABC, the tournament selection with the size of 2 is used, due to its simplicity and ability to escape from local optima. In the tournament selection, an onlooker bee selects a food source, xi, in such a way that two food sources are picked up randomly from the population, and compared to each other, and then the better one is chosen. In addition, the onlooker utilizes the same method as used by the employed bee to produce a new neighboring solution. If the new obtained food source is better than, or equal to the current one, the new food source will replace the current one, and become a new member in the population.

2.10. Scout Bee Phase

In the basic ABC algorithm, a scout produces a food source randomly in the predefined search scope. This will decrease the search efficacy, since the best food source in the population often carries better information than others during the evolution process, and the search space around it could be the most promising region. In the MABC algorithm, the scout generates a food source by utilizing the same method as used by the employed bee to produce a new neighboring solution on the best food source.

2.11. Steps for Computational Procedure of the Proposed MABC Algorithm

Step 1:
Initialize the parameters SN, PS, Limit, and PL. (In MABC, SN is equal to PS and number of Onlookers.)
Where SN denotes the size of the population, PS indicates the food source count, limit specifies control parameter and PL denotes the cycles count.
Step 2:
Initialize population S = {s1, s2, …, sPS} and calculate every result in the population.
Step 3:
Employed bees:
For i = 1, 2, …, PS, repeat the following sub-steps:
  • Produce a new solution Si* for the i-th employed bee who is associated with solution Si by using the strategy presented in the subsection employed bee phase, and evaluate the new solution.
  • If Si* is better than or equal to Si, let Si = Si*.
Step 4:
Onlooker bee:
For each i = 1, 2, …, PS, repeat the following sub-steps:
  • Select a food source in the population for the onlooker bee, Si, by using the tournament selection presented in the subsection onlooker bee phase.
  • Generate a new solution, Si*, for the onlooker by using the strategy presented in the sub section employed bee phase and evaluate it.
  • If Si* is better than or equal to Si, let Si = Si*.
Step 5:
Scout bee:
For each i = 1, 2, …, PS, repeat the following sub-steps:
  • If a solution Si in the population has not been improved during the last limit number of trials, abandon it.
  • Generate a new solution onlooker by using the strategy presented in the subsection Employed bee phase on the best solution.
Step 6:
Store the best result achieved so far.
Step 7:
If the termination criterion is reached, return the best solution found so far; else go to step 3.

3. Results and Discussion

The proposed algorithm is coded in C++ language on a personal computer with a 1.3 GHz Pentium IV CPU processor (Intel, Bengaluru, India) and 16 GB RAM memory (Intel, Bengaluru, India). Different parameters, such as machine workload, operation sequences, unit processing times on every equipment, and manufacturing quantity, among others, are considered in this study. From the literature [16], 20 data sets have been taken, and the experimental works have been carried out using the proposed MABC algorithm, and the outcomes were compared with those of the other two approaches, GA [16] and ACO [21]. The parameter settings selected for the problem, its implementation, and the results obtained are discussed below:
MABC Parameter Setting: For the given problem structure, the parameter settings are shown in Table 1.
The modified ABC algorithm is implemented, and the results are simulated for different problem sizes. The result obtained for the MABC problem, with respect to the problem sizes considered, are given below. The problem sizes considered for the present investigation is 8 × 20, 10 × 12, and 10 × 15.
Figure 1 shows the MABC convergence curve for intercellular moves of problem size 8 × 20. As can be seen in the figure, the increase of cycles minimizes the intercellular movement. Further, the result indicates that number of cells consisting of 2 indicates the minimum intercellular moves. Normally, the increase of cycles tries to minimize the intercellular move. Whereas for the 3 cell problem, the trend is almost linear up to 300 cycles, after which it tries to minimize, up to 400 cycles. The 400 to 500 cycles result does not indicate the possible variations. That is, variations obtained for cycles 400–500 are very minimal. For the cell number 4, drastic changes are observed in intercellular moves from the cycles 100 to 200, and minimum variation from the cycle of 200 to 500.
Figure 2 shows the MABC convergence curve for cell load variation of problem size 8 × 20. The result from the graph indicates that the increase in cycles minimizes the cell load variations. In the above figure, the result indicates that cell number 4 has minimum cell load variations. In the case of 3 cell problem, the curve is almost linear from the cycle of 100 to 300, after which it tries to minimize, up to 500 cycles. But in the 2 cells problem, there is a drastic change from 100 to 200 cycles, and then a linear decrease of cell load variation continues up to 500 cycles.
Figure 3 shows the MABC convergence curve for intercellular move for the problem size 10 × 12. In the above figure for the cell number 2, 3, and 4, the curve is almost linear from 100 to 300 cycles. But for the cell number 5, there is drastic change of curve from 400 to 500 cycles.
Figure 4 shows the MABC convergence curve for cell load variation of problem size 10 × 12. The above figure indicates that in cell 4, cell load variation is minimized from the cycle of 100 to 300, and there is no significant improvement from the cycle of 300 to 500. For cell number 2, 3, and 5, the curve is linear from the cycle of 100 to 300.
Figure 5 shows the MABC convergence curve for intercellular move for the problem size 10 × 15. In the above figure, all the curves are linear from the cycle of 100 to 300. In this figure, cell number 2 reaches zero intercellular moves at the cycle of 500.
Figure 6 shows the MABC convergence curve for cell load variation of problem size 10 × 15. In the above figure, for the cell number 2, there are some improvements in minimizing cell load variation from cycle 100 to 300, and considerable improvement from cycle 300 to 500. For the cell numbers 3, 4, and 5, the curves are located very close to each other.
Comparison of results for minimum-sized problems, medium-sized problems, and bigger-sized problems from the literature [16] are mentioned in the following tables. Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 show the results that were obtained by the other methods in the literature using genetic algorithm (GA) [16], ant colony optimization (ACO) [21], results acquired by MABC, and MABC CPU time for intercellular move and cell load variations.
From Table 2, it has been inferred that there are 5 different matrix-sized problems and 21 cells. The cumulative intercellular moves provide better results in 16 cases (Serial number: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21 from Table 2) out of 21 cases (76%), than that of any of the other methods. It yields equal results in 5 cells (Sl. No.: 3, 8, 9, 16, 17) to the best one of other methods. The cumulative cell load variation provides better outcome in 11 cases (Sl. No.: 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20 from Table 2) out of 21 cases (52%) than that of any of the other methods. It produces equal results in 9 cells (Sl. No.: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 18) to the best of the other methods.
From the analysis of Table 3, it has been known that there are 10 different matrix-sized problems and 70 cells are considered for results comparison. The cumulative intercellular moves provide better results in 40 cases out of 70 cases (57%) than that of any other method, and yield equal results in 18 cells compared to the best of the other methods. The cumulative cell load variation provides better outcome in 44 cases out of 70 cases (63%) than that of any of the method, and produces equal results in 18 cells to the best one of the other methods.
Table 4 indicates that there are 5 different matrix-sized problems and 55 cases. The cumulative intercellular moves provide better results in 41 cases out of 55 cases (75%) than that of any one of the other methods, and yields equal result in 7 cells compared to the best of the other methods. The cumulative cell load variation provides better outcome in 42 cases out of 55 cases (76%) than that of any one of the other methods, and produces equal results in 4 cells compared to the best of the other methods. Based on the analysis and results, the bar charts are plotted for clarity of results for the intercellular moves and cell load variations for the problem sizes 8 × 20, 10 × 12, and 10 × 15, to compare the results of MABC with GA and ACO.
Figure 7 indicates that in cell numbers 2 and 3, MABC intercellular moves are considered to be at a minimum, as there is a better convergence compared to GA and ACO. In cell number 4, MABC produces results that are on par with GA and ACO, and there is no appreciable difference observed when using MABC.
Figure 8 indicates that in cell numbers 2, 3, and 4, MABC produces almost the same cell load variations as that of GA and ACO.
Figure 9 indicates that MABC intercellular moves are considered to be a minimum for cell number 2, 3, 4, and 5, as compared with GA and ACO.
Figure 10 indicates that in cell number 2, MABC produces minimum cell load variation as compared with GA and ACO. In cell number 3, MABC exhibits minimum cell load variations as compared with GA, and produces the same result with ACO. For cell numbers 4 and 5, MABC yields the same cell load variations as that of GA and ACO.
Figure 11 indicates that for cell numbers 2 and 3, MABC produces the same intercellular moves as that of GA and ACO. For cell numbers 4 and 5, MABC produces minimum intercellular moves as compared with GA.
Figure 12 indicates that in cell numbers 2 and 3, MABC produces same cell load variation as that of GA and ACO. In cell numbers 4 and 5, MABC produces minimum cell load variations as compared with GA, and the same result as that of ACO.
Figure 13 represents the MABC CPU time variation for cell 4 for the minimum-sized problems of sizes 8 × 20, 10 × 12, 10 × 15, and 11 × 22. The figure depicts that the increase of problem size (search space) leads to increase of CPU time.

4. Conclusions

The main purpose of this paper is to compare the performance of the MABC approach with the other two heuristic algorithms in the literature GA [16] and ACO [21] to minimize the cumulative intercellular moves and the cumulative cell load variation. From the results obtained, it has been indicated that, in most of the problems discussed in the literature, cumulative intercellular moves and cumulative cell load variations obtained by the proposed method, MABC, is either better (minimized) than the other methods, or it is equal to the best one. The outcome obtained in the computational experiences carried out show that the proposed algorithm MABC deserves to be well placed among the three approaches in studies on machine cell formation. The work can be further extended in the future, incorporating parameters like demand of parts, cost factor, etc., enhancing it to a more generalized sustainability in manufacturing environments.

Author Contributions

Adinarayanan Arunagiri developed the algorithm and wrote the manuscript. Uthayakumar Marimuthu analyzed the results. Prabhakaran Gopalakrishnan provided the various input datas to solve the problem. Adam Slota and Jerzy Zajac collected materials for literature review. Mahendra Prabhu Paulraj reviewed the final manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ham, I.; Hitomi, K. Group Technology Applications to Production Management; Kluwer-Nijhoff: Boston, MA, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  2. Black, J. Cellular manufacturing systems reduce setup time, make small lot production economical. Ind. Eng. 1983, 15, 36–48. [Google Scholar]
  3. Wemmerlov, U.; Johnson, D.J. Cellular manufacturing at 46 user plants: Implementation and performance improvements. Int. J. Prod. Res. 1997, 35, 29–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kazerooni, M.L.; Luong, H.S.; Abhary, K. A genetic algorithm based cell design considering alternative routing. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 1997, 10, 93–107. [Google Scholar]
  5. Taboun, S.M.; Merchawi, N.S.; Ulger, T. Part family and machine cell formation in multi-period planning horizons of cellular manufacturing systems. Prod. Plan. Control 1998, 9, 561–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Opitz, H. A Classification System to Describe Work Pieces; Pergamon: New York, NY, USA, 1970. [Google Scholar]
  7. Burbidge, L. Production flow analysis. Prod. Eng. 1963, 42, 742–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. King, J.R. Machine-component grouping in production flow analysis: An approach using a rank order-clustering algorithm. Int. J. Prod. Res. 1980, 18, 213–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Srinivasan, G.; Narendran, T.T.; Mahadevan, B. An assignment model for the part families in group technology. Int. J. Prod. Res. 1990, 29, 463–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mukattash, A.M.; Adil, M.B.; Tahboub, K.K. Heuristic approaches for part assignment in cell formation. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2002, 42, 329–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kim, C.O.; Baek, J.G.; Baek, J.K. A two-phase heuristic algorithm for cell formation problems considering alternative part routes and machine sequences. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2004, 42, 3911–3927. [Google Scholar]
  12. Chen, W.H.; Srivastava, B. Simulated annealing procedures for forming machine cell in-group technology. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1994, 71, 100–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Venugopal, V.; Narendran, T.T. Cell formation in manufacturing systems through simulated annealing: An experimental evaluation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1992, 63, 409–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R.; Aryanezhad, M.B.; Safaei, N.; Azaron, A. Solving a dynamic cell formation problem using metaheuristics. Appl. Math. Comput. 2005, 170, 761–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Venugopal, V.; Narendran, T.T. A genetic algorithm approach to the machine-component grouping problems with multiple objectives. Comput. Ind. Eng. 1992, 22, 469–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Prabhakaran, G. Clustering and Machine Cell Formation for Cellular Manufacturing Systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu, India, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  17. Sarac, T.; Ozcelik, F. A genetic algorithm with proper parameters for manufacturing cell formation problems. J. Intell. Manuf. 2012, 23, 1047–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Arkat, J.; Hosseini, L.; Farahani, M.H. Minimization of exceptional elements and voids in the cell formation problem using a multi-objective genetic algorithm. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 9597–9602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vakharia, A.J.; Chang, Y.L. Cell formation in group technology: A combinatorial search approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 1997, 35, 2025–2043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chung, S.H.; Wu, T.H.; Chang, C.C. An efficient tabu search algorithm to the cell formation problem with alternative routings and machine reliability considerations. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2011, 60, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Prabhakaran, G.; Muruganandam, A.; Asokan, P.; Girish, B.S. Machine cell formation for cellular manufacturing systems using an ant colony system approach. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2005, 25, 1013–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Spiliopoulos, K.; Sofianopoulou, S. An efficient ant colony optimization system for the manufacturing cells formation system. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2008, 36, 589–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Andres, C.; Lozano, S. A particle swarm optimization algorithm for part machine grouping. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2006, 22, 468–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Duran, O.; Rodriguez, N.; Consalter, L.A. A PSO-based clustering algorithm for manufacturing cell design. In Proceedings of the 2008 Workshop on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Adelaide, Australia, 23–24 January 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bajestani, A.M.; Rabbani, M.; RahimiVahed, A.R.; Khoshkhou, G.B. A multi objective scatter search for a dynamic cell formation problem. Comput. Oper. Res. 2009, 36, 777–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chattopadhyay, M.; Chattopadhyay, S.; Dan, P.K. Machine-part cell formation through visual decipherable clustering of self-organizing map. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2011, 52, 1019–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ghezavati, V.R.; SaidiMehrabad, M. An efficient hybrid self-learning method for stochastic cellular manufacturing problem: A queuing-based analysis. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 1326–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ying Chin, H.; Ta-Wei, L. A concurrent solution for intra-cell flow path layouts and I/O point locations of cells in a cellular manufacturing system. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2011, 60, 614–634. [Google Scholar]
  29. Venkumar, P.; Haq, A.N. Complete and fractional cell formation using Kohonen self-organizing map networks in cellular manufacturing system. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2006, 20, 4257–4271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Arkat, J.; Abdollahzadeh, H.; Ghahve, H.A. New branch and bound algorithm for cell formation problem. Appl. Math. Model. 2012, 36, 5091–5100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sayadi, M.K.; Hafezalkotob, A.; Naini, S.G.J. Firefly-inspired algorithm for discrete optimization problems: An application to manufacturing cell formation. J. Manuf. Syst. 2013, 32, 78–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mohammad, M.; Kamran, F. Designing cellular manufacturing systems considering S-shaped layout. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2016, 98, 221–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Behrang, B.; Iraj, M.; Mohammad, M.P. New criteria for configuration of cellular manufacturing considering product mix variation. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2016, 98, 413–426. [Google Scholar]
  34. Sakhaii, M.; Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R.; Bagheri, M.; Vatani, B. A robust optimization approach for an integrated dynamic cellular manufacturing system and production planning with unreliable machines. Appl. Math. Model. 2016, 40, 169–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Brown, J.R. A capacity constrained mathematical programming model for cellular manufacturing with exceptional elements. J. Manuf. Syst. 2015, 37, 227–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kia, R.; KhaksarHaghani, F.; Javadian, N.; Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R. Solving a multi-floor layout design model of a dynamic cellular manufacturing system by an efficient genetic algorithm. J. Manuf. Syst. 2014, 33, 218–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Shih, Y.C.; Filho, E.V.G. A design procedure for improving the effectiveness of fractal layouts formation. Artif. Intell. Eng. Des. Anal. Manuf. 2014, 28, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pooranian, Z.; Shojafar, M.; Abawajy, J.H.; Abraham, A. An efficient meta-heuristic algorithm for grid computing. J. Comb. Optim. 2015, 30, 413–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mohammad, S.; Saeed, J.; Saeid, A.; Nicola, C. FUGE: A joint meta-heuristic approach to cloud job scheduling algorithm using fuzzy theory and a genetic method. Clust. Comput. 2015, 18, 829–844. [Google Scholar]
  40. Mohammad, S.; Saeed, J.; Shahdad, S.; Sima, S. FR trust: A fuzzy reputationbased model for trust management in semantic P2P grids. Int. J. Grid Util. Comput. 2015, 6, 57–66. [Google Scholar]
  41. Javanmardi, S.; Shojafar, M.; Amendola, D.; Cordeschi, N.; Liu, H.; Abraham, A. Hybrid Job Scheduling Algorithm for Cloud Computing Environment. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Innovations in Bio-Inspired Computing and Applications (IBICA), Ostrava, Czech Republic, 23–25 June 2014; pp. 43–52. [Google Scholar]
  42. Logendran, R. A workload based model for minimizing total intercell and intracell moves in cellular manufacturing. Int. J. Prod. Res. 1990, 28, 913–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Karaboga, D. An Idea Based on Honey Bee Swarm for Numerical Optimization; Technical Report TR06; Computer Engineering Department, Erciyes University: Kayseri, Turkiye, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  44. Karaboga, D.; Basturk, B. A powerful and efficient algorithm for numerical function optimization: Artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm. J. Glob. Optim. 2007, 39, 459–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Karaboga, D.; Basturk, B. On the performance of artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm. Appl. Soft Comput. 2008, 8, 687–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Karaboga, D.; Akay, B. A comparative study of artificial bee colony algorithm. Appl. Math. Comput. 2009, 214, 108–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kalayci, C.B.; Gupta, S.M.; Nakashima, K. Bees colony intelligence in solving disassembly line balancing problem. In Proceedings of the 2011 Asian Conference of Management Science and Applications, Sanya, China, 21–23 December 2011; pp. 34–41. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. MABC convergence curve for intercellular move of problem size 8 × 20.
Figure 1. MABC convergence curve for intercellular move of problem size 8 × 20.
Sustainability 10 00042 g001
Figure 2. MABC convergence curve for cell load variation of problem size 8 × 20.
Figure 2. MABC convergence curve for cell load variation of problem size 8 × 20.
Sustainability 10 00042 g002
Figure 3. MABC convergence curve for intercellular move of problem size 10 × 12.
Figure 3. MABC convergence curve for intercellular move of problem size 10 × 12.
Sustainability 10 00042 g003
Figure 4. MABC convergence curve for cell load variation of problem size 10 × 12.
Figure 4. MABC convergence curve for cell load variation of problem size 10 × 12.
Sustainability 10 00042 g004
Figure 5. MABC convergence curve for intercellular move of problem size 10 × 15.
Figure 5. MABC convergence curve for intercellular move of problem size 10 × 15.
Sustainability 10 00042 g005
Figure 6. MABC convergence curve for cell load variation of problem size 10 × 15.
Figure 6. MABC convergence curve for cell load variation of problem size 10 × 15.
Sustainability 10 00042 g006
Figure 7. Results comparison of intercellular moves for the problem size 8 × 20.
Figure 7. Results comparison of intercellular moves for the problem size 8 × 20.
Sustainability 10 00042 g007
Figure 8. Results comparison of cell load variation for the problem size 8 × 20.
Figure 8. Results comparison of cell load variation for the problem size 8 × 20.
Sustainability 10 00042 g008
Figure 9. Results comparison of intercellular move for the problem size 10 × 12.
Figure 9. Results comparison of intercellular move for the problem size 10 × 12.
Sustainability 10 00042 g009
Figure 10. Results comparison of cell load variation for the problem size 10 × 12.
Figure 10. Results comparison of cell load variation for the problem size 10 × 12.
Sustainability 10 00042 g010
Figure 11. Results comparison of intercellular moves for the problem size 10 × 15.
Figure 11. Results comparison of intercellular moves for the problem size 10 × 15.
Sustainability 10 00042 g011
Figure 12. Results comparison of cell load variations for the problem size 10 × 15.
Figure 12. Results comparison of cell load variations for the problem size 10 × 15.
Sustainability 10 00042 g012
Figure 13. MABC CPU time variation for minimum-sized problems.
Figure 13. MABC CPU time variation for minimum-sized problems.
Sustainability 10 00042 g013
Table 1. MABC parameter setting.
Table 1. MABC parameter setting.
PSPLLimit
4050010
(no. of food sources)(no. of cycles)(no. of trials)
PS denotes the food source count, PL denotes the cycles count and Limit specifies control parameter.
Table 2. Results comparison for minimum-sized problems.
Table 2. Results comparison for minimum-sized problems.
Sl. NoPbm.SizeNo.of CellIntercellular MoveCumulative Cell Load VariationsMABCCPU Time in Sec
GA [16]ACO [21]MABCGA [16]ACO [21]MABC
18 × 2029975.635.635.630.593
231717153.353.353.350.516
342626262.132.132.130.578
410 × 1227759.099.097.530.344
53131998.243.463.460.454
642020152.482.482.480.905
752222213.243.243.240.686
810 × 1520005.085.085.080.343
937772.392.392.390.453
1041713152.182.172.171.129
1152624253.142.352.350.676
1211 × 22213877.276.226.220.406
1331817154.305.114.920.468
1442925252.833.813.521.895
1554526362.333.762.551.609
1614 × 24200011.3711.3711.370.593
17350010.678.918.910.625
1843326.516.516.511.765
19510995.946.334.590.954
2061714124.414.304.31.327
2172222183.893.894.1423.625
Table 3. Result comparison for medium-sized problems.
Table 3. Result comparison for medium-sized problems.
Sl. NoPbm. SizeNo. of CellIntercellular MoveCumulative Cell Load VariationsMABCCPU Time in Sec
GA [16]ACO [21]MABCGA [16]ACO [21]MABC
1Boctor 1216151411.339.479.470.938
233526308.988.658.442.188
343535428.418.418.052.593
454949496.436.436.432.655
566258606.186.236.211.374
677272725.444.844.842.719
787777774.314.314.3179.36
8Boctor 2244315.4515.4515.450.876
9399814.3012.4612.461.031
10430141312.7810.6311.011.093
1153323238.569.409.41.372
1264038379.187.928.61.312
1375452506.757.027.932.563
1486261626.286.426.2878.782
15Boctor 3261113.7614.0314.030.921
16396610.8611.0810.941.313
1742315189.636.596.591.999
1852420215.616.026.12.141
1963329296.345.045.521.312
2074037395.354.134.932.876
2184747474.354.354.3575.03
22Boctor 4213131315.8815.8815.750.937
23325251614.5114.5114.381.328
24453363710.6612.5911.281.486
25568505010.7510.4210.391.656
2666870728.658.378.871.374
2778276956.967.537.812.859
2888886866.156.506.575.422
29Boctor 5277210.7010.7010.700.923
3032014810.009.068.791.265
3141919186.776.776.771.969
3254030217.465.745.681.947
3363838315.285.155.071.345
3474945474.754.654.532.765
3585756584.104.124.2575.829
36Boctor 6282212.1811.5011.550.906
37310459.649.209.241.25
3842012128.936.516.561.656
3951717185.945.945.981.656
4063427315.165.524.961.297
4174439454.745.534.692.765
4285555554.594.594.59119.50
43Boctor 723326.656.656.651.001
44310995.514.714.711.094
4542414154.313.913.661.5
4652323283.963.963.81.358
4764646462.393.253.21.343
4875655593.132.442.932.656
4986869692.732.862.86126.17
50Boctor 8223121114.2612.9512.951.001
51322222010.8710.8710.871.249
52433283210.099.9510.081.485
5353938399.178.879.171.485
5465449497.558.098.091.391
5576365657.066.816.762.828
5687474745.415.515.51119.33
57Boctor 9210555.115.445.121.015
583311894.854.474.271.328
5942424233.083.083.091.51
6054131342.783.043.011.762
6164545492.932.932.921.438
6275857572.542.652.572.858
6386971712.152.172.18115.14
64Boctor 10213654.834.084.080.891
6531818183.853.303.191.297
6642923283.382.662.661.623
6753733412.752.572.451.909
6864641492.282.392.252.347
6975858582.032.082.082.765
7086565651.851.851.8578.829
Table 4. Result comparison for bigger-sized problems.
Table 4. Result comparison for bigger-sized problems.
Sl. NoPbm. SizeNo. of CellIntercellular MoveCumulative Cell Load VariationsMABCCPU Time in Sec
GA [16]ACO [21]MABCGA [16]ACO [21]MABC
116 × 43266720.4520.4520.451.219
2316151019.0019.1117.461.453
3427272116.3316.3314.241.626
4531323116.2616.3916.262.101
5650455012.5615.0412.561.86
6765575710.9210.7010.72.969
786869689.398.979.3945.407
820 × 37214121037.2238.0438.081.343
9340282438.9532.2532.941.657
10447474629.1023.4424.842.046
11561646121.6918.3021.232.504
12668676821.1314.9124.632.882
13778737816.8717.2817.013.12
14898818117.4614.2914.293.39
15998999812.8213.4613.4716.843
161011711711712.0512.0512.053015.17
1720 × 55241303059.2561.3560.281.751
18374485051.3557.8157.502.281
194101938547.7247.2247.193.281
20511411010043.4645.4743.643.507
21613313013540.5136.2737.923.784
22714915015038.2034.8134.813.944
23817516417031.7131.9829.824.344
24919818019825.3927.9625.3912.797
251021320320024.7225.2725.13393.483
2625 × 5021802657.7658.5356.442.031
27351122653.6651.8751.382.064
28448303251.2649.0545.982.751
29578535233.8037.7136.363.889
306102635433.1735.4439.963.964
31778938132.4022.68294.021
3281149910728.9521.4425.034.245
33911310010025.6626.0726.075.741
341012813212520.1317.5020.779.361
351113112812920.6918.7319.2863.24
361213813613818.2416.4118.243112.20
3740 × 1002623755175.6170.14172.365.984
383845640156.21132.20153.376.906
39411711390126.64114.54109.557.268
40512916314597.54114.5881.427.781
416218147127123.6986.6784.238.548
427259241115108.2296.0969.188.921
43823216917288.5876.3683.3912.812
44924924725784.7584.3966.6612.999
451026827831075.2065.1475.1715.984
461124727232769.0060.7874.5217.395
471228829129061.5159.0057.0120.974
481333930730275.1958.2358.1130.054
491442530329366.3157.9157.3251.947
501541342040865.2869.2455.5762.578
511639036036060.3053.0553.5775.172
521744738139060.5652.7553.4581.138
531846341344757.0449.2255.989.644
541941241548.4048.54105.367
552045146250.8153.723568.459

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Arunagiri, A.; Marimuthu, U.; Gopalakrishnan, P.; Slota, A.; Zajac, J.; Paulraj, M.P. Sustainability Formation of Machine Cells in Group Technology Systems Using Modified Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm. Sustainability 2018, 10, 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010042

AMA Style

Arunagiri A, Marimuthu U, Gopalakrishnan P, Slota A, Zajac J, Paulraj MP. Sustainability Formation of Machine Cells in Group Technology Systems Using Modified Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm. Sustainability. 2018; 10(1):42. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010042

Chicago/Turabian Style

Arunagiri, Adinarayanan, Uthayakumar Marimuthu, Prabhakaran Gopalakrishnan, Adam Slota, Jerzy Zajac, and Maheandera Prabu Paulraj. 2018. "Sustainability Formation of Machine Cells in Group Technology Systems Using Modified Artificial Bee Colony Algorithm" Sustainability 10, no. 1: 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010042

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop