Reliability considerations in the design of cellular manufacturing systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to: develop an effective cellular manufacturing system (CMS) design methodology by simultaneously considering system costs and individual machine reliabilities; and propose a combinatorial search‐based solution procedure to solve large‐sized problems. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a multi‐objective mixed integer‐programming model for the design of CMS with the objective of minimizing costs and maximizing system reliability. The approach optimizes inter‐cell material handling costs, the variable cost of machining operations, and the machine under‐utilization costs. It also maximizes the system reliability by selecting process routes for the part types with the highest system reliability for the machines along the routes. To solve the multi‐objective, multiple process plan model, a simulated annealing (SA)‐based algorithm is developed. The algorithm follows the basic steps of SA, but also incorporates the genetic algorithm (GA) operations of crossover and mutations to generate better neighboring solutions from the current good solutions. Findings The algorithm in the paper solves the multi‐objective CMS design model and generates near optimal solutions for medium to large‐sized problems within reasonable limits of CPU time. Practical implications In the paper the CMS design approach can be implemented to improve reliability performance of the CMS. Originality/value A new CMS design methodology in this paper, which minimizes system costs and maximizes machine‐related system reliability, is developed. The proposed algorithm, which combines the basic steps of SA and crossover and mutation operations of GA, will enable CMS designers and users to obtain near optimal solutions for practical‐sized problems within reasonable time limits.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".