Robust facility layout design for flexible manufacturing: a doe-based heuristic
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it