Robust facility layout design for flexible manufacturing: a doe-based heuristic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flexible manufacturing systems (FMS) should be able to respond to changing manufacturing requirements and environments. From the layout point of view, FMS need to be rearranged to fit the new requirements. However, rearranging the layout is often undesirable due to its unpredicted high costs and production disruption. This paper proposes a practical approach to mitigate the effects and repercussions of changing environments and avoid rearranging the layout. A robust layout approach is presented, where changes in product demand and mix are absorbed by altering product routes and not rearranging the layout. In this approach, the problem is decomposed into two sub-problems: sub-problem 1 (SP1) where a robust layout is constructed, and sub-problem 2 (SP2) to obtain the best routes of products. To solve SP1, design of experiments is used to find a critical period, which is the period most affected under demand changes. Then, the layout for the critical period is determined using a hybridized genetic-tabu search algorithm. Then SP2 is solved by a branch and cut algorithm to obtain the optimal routes of the products in each period. The performance of the proposed methodology is illustrated using a case study and is benchmarked against rival ones from the literature.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".