Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 73:749–771
DOI 10.1007/s00170-014-5826-3
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
A fuzzy DEMATEL-based solution approach for facility layout
problem: a case study
Serkan Altuntas & Hasan Selim & Turkay Dereli
Received: 20 August 2013 / Accepted: 31 March 2014 / Published online: 8 May 2014
# Springer-Verlag London 2014
Abstract Facility layout in production systems is a difficult
activity since both qualitative and quantitative factors affect
the location decision, and also influence and causal relation-
ship between these factors should be determined for a better
location. In this respect, it is demonstrated in this study that
fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (fuzzy
DEMATEL) method can effectively be used in handling fa-
cility layout problems in practice. The qualitative factors that
described by linguistic terms can be taken into account
through fuzzy structure of the method. Considering this, a
fuzzy DEMATEL-based solution approach for facility layout
problem is proposed in this study. The proposed approach
takes into account both qualitative and quantitative location
factors. To address the need in practice, six important location
factors are considered in this study. These are material flow,
information flow, personnel flow, equipment flow, environ-
mental condition, and supervision of personnel. This study
differs from the previous works in that it applies fuzzy
DEMATEL method to facility layout problem. To explore
the viability of the proposed approach, a real world problem
in a machinery industry firm is handled.
S. Altuntas (*)
Faculty of Engineering, Department of Industrial Engineering,
Bayburt University, 69000 Bayburt, Turkey
e-mail: saltuntas2@gmail.com
S. Altuntas
e-mail: saltuntas@bayburt.edu.tr
H. Selim
Faculty of Engineering, Department of Industrial Engineering,
Dokuz Eylul University, 35397 Izmir, Turkey
e-mail: hasan.selim@deu.edu.tr
T. Dereli
Faculty of Engineering, Department of Industrial Engineering,
University of Gaziantep, 27310 Gaziantep, Turkey
e-mail: dereli@gantep.edu.tr
Keywords Facility layout . Fuzzy DEMATEL . Machine
allocation
1 Introduction
Facility layout is one of the most important issues for modern
manufacturing systems [1]. Engineers, workers, and decision
makers at enterprises have researched the best or appropriate
location to establish their departments/machines or locate their
facilities in a layout in view of the fact that their located spaces
affect material flow distance, total product produced, cycle
time, waiting time, facility utilization, etc. Researchers classi-
fied facility layout problem into three types, namely, static
facility layout problem [2, 3], dynamic facility layout problem
[4, 5], and stochastic facility layout problem [6, 7]. In this
study, we handle the static facility layout problem that deals
with the question of where m numbers of facilities (each with
area ai) are arranged within a given location when there is no
variability in product demand. Herein, the facilities having the
high level of relation have to be located adjacently. Several
approximate or heuristic approaches were proposed for facil-
ity layout problem such as genetic algorithms [8] and particle
swarm optimization [9]. The reader can refer to review studies
[7, 10-15] for the details on facility layout problem.
In handling facility layout problem in practice, qualitative
factors should be taken into account effectively. As in our
current study, some researchers used fuzzy logic-based solu-
tion approaches for facility layout problem. Among these
studies, Grobelny [16] proposed a fuzzy constructive-type
algorithm based on HC-66 method. The algorithm takes into
account the relationship degrees for facility, costs of installa-
tion of each facility in each possible place, and the distance
between location places in the form of fuzzy sets. In another
study, Grobelny [17] presented a linguistic pattern approach
based on possibility theory and Lukasiewiez multivalued im-
plication formula. Evans et al. [18] presented a constructive-
750
type heuristic-based on fuzzy sets for layout design. Raoot and
Rakshit [19] formulated a multiple criteria facility layout
problem based on a linguistic pattern approach. They illustrat-
ed their solution methodology with a numerical example by
considering material flow, service link, organization link,
environment link, and different facility size. Cheng et al.
[20] introduced the concept of fuzzy interflow into facility
layout problem. They presented material flows among facili-
ties as fuzzy numbers. The solution was performed by genetic
algorithm. Dweiri and Meier [21] introduced a new fuzzy
decision-making-based solution approach for facility layout
problem and presented a numerical example by considering
three factors; material flow, information flow, and equipment
flow. Szwarc et al. [22] considered fuzzy demand and machine
capacity for cell formation. Aiello and Enea [23] proposed a
fuzzy approach for facility layout in uncertain production
environments. The approach considers production capacity
of each facility and fuzzy demand for each product. Turkbey
[24, 25] proposed a fuzzy method for the multiobjective
machine sequencing problem. Deb and Bhattacharyya [26,
27] proposed a fuzzy decision support system for manufactur-
ing facilities layout planning. The decision support system
considers four factors: material flow, supervision link, infor-
mation link, and environment link. They also considered
pickup and drop-off points between the facilities. Enea et al.
[28] treated uncertain production demand through fuzzy num-
bers. They implemented genetic algorithm to model the facil-
ity layout problem. Karray et al. [48] proposed an approach
based on fuzzy logic and genetic algorithms for the facility
layout. They took three factors, material flow, information
flow, and equipment flow into account for layout arrange-
ment. Grobelny [49] presented a fuzzy approach for facility
layout problem and the proposed approach was verified using
a simple example. Sangwan [29] presented a multicriteria
heuristic model in a fuzzy environment to solve facility layout
problem taking into account quantitative and qualitative fac-
tors, namely, material flow, safety rating, and noise rating.
Altuntas et al. [30] proposed fuzzy weighted association rule-
based data mining approaches for facility layout problem.
Aksaraylı and Altuntas [50] compared the basic layout types
using simulation technique. Raoot and Rakshit [51] presented
a fuzzy approach based on experts’ opinions for construction-
type facility layout problem. They considered flow, control,
process, organization personnel, and environmental relation-
ships between facilities. Mohamadghasemi and Hadi-
Vencheh [52] proposed an integrated synthetic value of fuzzy
judgments and a nonlinear programming methodology for
ranking the facility layout patterns. They incorporated quali-
tative criteria besides the quantitative criteria into facility
layout design problem. In addition, multicriteria decision-
making (MCDM) based solution approaches were proposed
for facility layout problem. For instance, Ertugrul and
Karakasoglu [31] used fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (fuzzy
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 73:749–771
AHP) and fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity
to ideal solution (fuzzy TOPSIS) for the selection of the
location of a textile company in Turkey. Bashiri and
Hosseininezhad [32] can be referred for the details on the
applications of MCDM techniques to facility layout problem.
Facility location in production systems is a difficult activity
since there exist both qualitative and quantitative factors that
affect the location decision. In addition, influence and causal
relationship between these factors should be determined for a
better location. In this regard, we assert that fuzzy decision-
making trial and evaluation laboratory (fuzzy DEMATEL)
method can effectively be used in handling facility layout
problems in practice. Additionally, qualitative factors that
described by linguistic terms can be taken into account easily
through fuzzy structure of the method.
Fuzzy DEMATEL method is applied to various problems in
practice such as evaluation of R&D projects [33], development
of a cause and effect model of municipal solid waste manage-
ment [34], analysis of supplier selection criteria [35], and eval-
uation of critical success factors in agile new product develop-
ment [36]. On the other hand, to our knowledge, DEMATEL
and fuzzy DEMATEL methods have not been employed to
solve the facility layout problem. Considering this gap, a fuzzy
DEMATEL-based solution approach for facility layout problem
is proposed in this study. We utilize this approach to find the
closeness ratings between the facilities to be located.
This paper is further organized as follows. Section 2 de-
scribes fuzzy DEMATEL method. In Section 3, the proposed
approach is introduced. A real world case study is presented in
Section 4. Finally, conclusions and future research directions
are given in Section 5.
2 Fuzzy DEMATEL method
In this section, DEMATEL method is described briefly before
presenting fuzzy DEMATEL method.
2.1 DEMATEL Method
DEMATEL is a comprehensive method for analyzing and
building a structural model involving causal relationships
between complex factors.
Basic steps of DEMATEL method is presented in the
following [37, 38].
Step 1: Compute the average initial direct-relation matrix
(A). Herein, generally a survey is conducted by
asking related experts. The survey includes the com-
parison scale to find influence and direction among
criteria with respect to expert opinions. Comparison
scale includes four levels: (0) no influence, (1) low
influence, (2) medium influence, and (3) high
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 73:749–771 751

influence. The notations to compute A=[aij] are Table 1 Linguistic variables and corresponding triangular fuzzy
numbers
presented in the following.
Linguistic variables Corresponding triangular fuzzy numbers
n number of factors
H number of respondents (experts) No influence (NI) (0, 0.1, 0.3)
xkij degree to which respondent k believes factor i affects Very low influence (VLI) (0.1, 0.3, 0.5)
factor j Low influence (LI) (0.3, 0.5, 0.7)
Herein, aij can be computed as follows. High influence (HI) (0.5, 0.7, 0.9)
Very high influence (VHI) (0.7, 0.9, 1)
X
H
aij ¼ ð1=H Þ xkij ð1Þ
k¼1

Step 2: Compute normalized initial direct-relation matrix (D). & Normalization:

X
n
S ¼ 1=ð max aij Þ ð2Þ min ¼ max a3ij − min
Δmax k
ak
1< i< n
j¼1
 1ij
xak1ij ¼ ak1ij −min ak1ij =Δmax
  min ð5Þ
D¼AS ð3Þ xa2ij ¼ a2ij −min a1ij =Δmax
k k k
  min
Step 3: Compute factor total-influence matrix (T). xa3ij ¼ a3ij −min a1ij =Δmax
k k k
min

T ¼ DðI−DÞ−1 ð4Þ
& Compute left side (ls) and right side (rs) normalized
I identity matrix values:
Step 4: Compute C, R, C+R, and R−C values and also set
threshold value to obtain digraph of showing causal  
relations among criteria, where C and R denote the xlskij ¼ xak2ij = 1 þ xak2ij − xak1ij
column sum and the row sum of matrix T, respectively.   ð6Þ
xrskij ¼ xak3ij = 1 þ xak3ij − xak2ij

2.2 Fuzzy DEMATEL method

& Compute total normalized crisp value:
Qualitative factors that affect real-life facility layout problems
cannot be fairly taken into consideration in most of the model-
ing approaches, while they can be modeled easily and effec-
tively using fuzzy DEMATEL method. Steps of fuzzy xkij ¼ ½xlskij ð1 − xlskij Þ þ xrskij xlskij Š=½1 − xlskij þ xrskij Š ð7Þ
DEMATEL method are presented in the following.

Step 1: Compute average initial direct-relation matrix (A). In & Compute crisp values:
this study, we use the linguistic scale and correspond-
ing triangular fuzzy numbers that are defined by
Wang and Chang [39] and Chen [40] (see Table 1).
The fuzzy numbers corresponding to expert’s assess- xkij ¼ min ak1ij þ xkij Δmax
min ð8Þ
ment of facility pair with respect to each factor should
be defuzzified. In this work, “Converting the Fuzzy
Equation (1) is used to compute average initial direct-
data into Crips Scores” (CFCS) method, developed
relation matrix (A) after each fuzzy responds is defuzzified.
by Opricovic and Tzeng [41], is employed for the
defuzzification process. Step 2: Compute the normalized initial direct-relation matrix
CFCS method consists of the following four (D) using Eqs. (2) and (3).
steps [42]. Step 3: Compute factor total-influence matrix (T) using
Let wkij =(ak1ij, ak2ij, and ak3ij), there exist k experts, wkij Eq. (4).
presents the fuzzy weight of ith criteria that affects the Step 4: This step is exactly the same as step 4 of DEMATEL
jth criteria evaluated by kth expert. method.
752 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 73:749–771

3 The proposed approach prespecified factors. Both of these approaches consist of

There exist basically two type of approaches for facility
layout problem, namely, constructive type and improve-
ment type [43, 44, 45]. Constructive-type approaches do
not need any initial layout to establish facility’s location
because these type of approaches are used when a layout
is developed for the first time, while improvement-type
approaches need an initial layout to improve that layout.
The main aim of the constructive-type approaches is to
find appropriate facility layout with respect to some
two main stages. The first stage responds to which facility
to be assigned with which order to facility layout. The
second stage responds to which facility to be located with
which area. A constructive-type approach that considers
both qualitative and quantitative factors is proposed in
this study. The proposed fuzzy DEMATEL-based ap-
proach can be implemented to facility layout problem in
two stages.
The first stage of the proposed approach consists of ten steps,
which are presented in the following in a stepwise manner.

Step 1: Determine the factors that affect facility layout.

Step 2: Establish linguistic description of the factors.
Step 3: Compute matrix A for each qualitative factors by using expert’s assessment.
Step 4: Compute matrix D for each qualitative factors.
Step 5: Compute matrix T for each qualitative and also quantitative factor by using flow data.
Step 6: Normalize the values of all T matrices to interval 0-1.
Step 7: Weight all factors by using an appropriate method.
Step 8: Multiply each normalized matrix T by corresponding factor weight. The final matrix is
called matrix K.
Step 9: Compute closeness ratio matrix C by summing all matrices of K . This step gives
closeness ratings between the facilities.
Step 10: Sort all facility pairs in descending order in terms of their closeness rating and add this
ordered facility pairs to “list A” that denotes the order of allocation and stop.

Herein, the location factors could be weighted using sub-
jective weighting methods such as analytic hierarchy process
(AHP) and the simple multi-attribute rating technique
(SMART).
In the second stage of the proposed approach, we imple-
ment Altuntas and Selim’s [46] location algorithm for static
facility layout problem. The algorithm can cope with difficulty
in providing flexibility in assigning machine pairs to facility
layout. In addition, it can be modified easily in handling static
facility layout problem in cellular manufacturing systems.
Therefore, Altuntas and Selim’s [46] location algorithm is
employed in this study to assign machine pairs to facility
layout. The algorithm applies four rules. Three of these rules,
namely, “New facility cluster generation rule,” “Adoption
rule,” and “Merging rule” are proposed by Chan et al. [47],
and the last one, namely, “Final assembly rule” is proposed by
Altuntas and Selim [46]. Details of these rules are presented in
the following.
– New facility cluster generation rule: A facility pair is
assigned to a new temporary layout (cluster) if there are
not any connection between this facility pair and already
located facility/facilities.
– Adoption rule: If the selected facility pair has relation
with an already established layout, it is allocated adjacent
to that layout to improve the closeness rating.
– Merging rule: If the selected facility pair has rela-
tion with two facility layouts, these two layouts are
combined. When two facility clusters are merged,
most related facilities have to be allocated as close-
ly as possible.
– Final assembly rule: If there exist more than one layout
when all facilities are located, the layouts have to be
merged to obtain final layout. Herein, one of the layouts
has to be determined as the main layout. The layout
including the largest number of facility is selected as the
main layout. In case of equal number of facilities, the
facility location order is considered in determining the
main layout. The other clusters called temporary clusters.
Starting from the first facility pair, all facility pairs in the
temporary clusters are located to appropriate locations in
the main layout. Finally, a single cluster that is called
“final facility layout” is obtained by applying final as-
sembly rule.
The algorithm is presented in the following.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 73:749–771 753

Step 1: Pick out the facility pair in the top of list A.

Step 2: Is there more than one facility pair with the same value? If the answer is yes, select one of
them randomly. Otherwise, go to step 3.
Step 3: Has selected facility pair already been located to the same cluster in the workspace? If the
answer is yes, go to step 9. Otherwise, go to step 4.
Step 4: Is this first facility pair to be located in the workspace? If the answer is yes, go to step 5.
Otherwise, go to step 6.
Step 5: Locate this facility pair adjacently and go to step 9.
Step 6: Is there a connection to any cluster in the workspace? If the answer is yes, apply “Adoption
rule”. Otherwise, go to step 8.
Step 7: Is there a connection to two facility clusters in the workspace? If the answer is yes, apply
“Merging rule”. Otherwise, go to step 8.
Step 8: Apply “New facility cluster generation rule”.
Step 9: Have all facilities been located? If the answer is yes, go to step 10. Otherwise, go to step 1.
Step 10: Are there two or more facility clusters in the workspace? If answer is yes, apply “Final
assembly rule”. Otherwise, stop.

4 Case study Material flow: Total material flow between facilities is a

To explore the viability of the proposed approach, a real world
case study in the machinery industry is presented in this
section. The manufacturing firm under concern produces
twelve types of machine parts (products) for grouting ma-
chines using eleven types of totally 25 machines. Types and
number of the machines are as follows: lathe (13 machines),
honing (2 machines), gear shaper, milling (2 machines), drill,
sanding, polishing, welder, sawing, grinding, and shaper. The
current facility layout is illustrated in Fig. 1. Adjacency be-
tween the machines is represented by dashed arrows in the
figure. There exist three different types of lathe machines,
namely, CNC lathe, vertical lathe, and horizontal lathe, in
the production system. Therefore, three different illustrations
are used for lathe machines in Fig. 1. Currently, facility layout
of the production system is not structured by a systematic
approach. The routes, demand, and transfer batch size of the
products are reported in Table 2.
Application of the proposed approach is explained in a
stepwise manner in the following. Initially, implementation
of first stage is explained.
Step 1: Six key location factors are determined in this appli-
cation. These are material flow, information flow,
personnel flow, equipment flow, environmental con-
dition, and supervision of the personnel.
Step 2: Descriptions of the location factors are presented in
the following. Herein, explanation of the qualitative
factors is based on Dweiri and Meier’s [21] study.
quantitative factor and it is computed by “demand/trans-
fer batch size” formula.
Information flow: Communication level between fa-
cilities can be used as a surrogate for information
flow. Experts may evaluate the information flow by
using linguistic variables such as no influence (NI)
for no communication, very low influence (VLI)
for very low communication, low influence (LI) for
low communication, high influence (HI) for high
communication, and very high influence (VHI) for
very high communication.
Personnel flow: It denotes the intensity of employees
that perform tasks in both facilities under concern.
Experts may evaluate personnel flow by using linguistic
variables such as no influence (NI) for no personnel
flow, very low influence (VLI) for very low personnel
flow, low influence (LI) for low personnel flow, high
influence (HI) for high personnel flow, and very high
influence (VHI) for very high personnel flow.
Equipment flow: It denotes the intensity of equipments
used to perform task in both facilities under concern.
Experts may evaluate equipment flow by using linguistic
variables as in the same manner of the personnel flow.
Environmental condition: It denotes the level of hazard
or inconvenience involved such as high level of noise,
temperature, and vibration. Experts may evaluate envi-
ronmental condition by using linguistic variables such as
no influence (NI) for very high hazard, very low influ-
ence (VLI) for high hazard, low influence (LI) for low
754 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 73:749–771

HONING_1 HONING_2
SANDING
LATHE_1 LATHE_2

LATHE_3

GEAR SHAPER POLISHING WELDER SAWING

LATHE_5 LATHE_6 LATHE_7 LATHE_8

LATHE_4 MILLING_1

GRINDING

LATHE_9 MILLING_2

SHAPER

CNC_LATHE DRILL

LATHE_10

LATHE_11

LATHE_12

Fig. 1 The current facility layout

hazard, high influence (HI) for very low hazard, and
very high influence (VHI) for no hazard.
Supervision of the personnel: It denotes the intensity of
employees that come together under a common supervi-
sion. Experts may evaluate supervision of personnel by
using linguistic variables such as no influence (NI) for
no supervision of personnel, very low influence (VLI)
for very low level of supervision, low influence (LI) for
low level of supervision, high influence (HI) for high
level of supervision, and very high influence (VHI) for
very high level of supervision.
Explanations on the location factors expose that except
material flow, all of the location factors are qualitative.
Step 3: In our case, two experts evaluate association between
the machines with respect to the location factors

Table 2 The routes, demand, and transfer batch size of the products

Products Routea Demand Transfer

batch size

Product1 Lathe6 (6) Honing1 (13) Lathe4 (4) Honing2 (14) Milling1 (15) 160 3
Product2 Lathe11 (11) Honing1 (13) Lathe4 (4) Honing2 (14) Milling2 (16) 160 3
Product3 Sawing (23) Lathe6 (6) Honing1 (13) Lathe10 (10) Milling1 (15) Welder (22) 160 3
Product4 Lathe6 (6) Honing1 (13) Lathe7 (7) Lathe4 (4) Milling1 (15) 160 3
Product5 Lathe6 (6) Honing1 (13) Shaper (25) Milling1 (15) Lathe4 (4) 150 3
Product6 Lathe1 (1) Sanding (20) Lathe2 (2) Polishing (21) 190 5
Product7 Lathe5 (5) Grinding (24) Sanding (20) Polishing (21) 190 5
Product8 CNC Lathe (18) Lathe9 (9) Grinding (24) Sanding (20) Polishing (21) 190 5
Product9 Lathe8 (8) Milling1 (15) Grinding (24) Gear Shaper (17) Sanding (20) Polishing (21) 190 5
Product10 Lathe3 (3) Milling2 (16) 150 25
Product11 Lathe12 (12) Milling2 (16) 150 25
Product12 Lathe12 (12) Drill (19) Milling1(15) Welder(22) 150 10
a
The numbers in the brackets denote the machine numbers
Table 3 Expert1’s assessment for information flow

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 0 NI NI NI VLI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI VLI VLI NI VLI NI

2 NI 0 NI NI LI LI LI NI NI NI VLI NI VLI VLI VLI VLI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
3 VLI VLI 0 NI VLI VLI VLI NI NI NI NI NI LI LI VLI VLI VLI NI NI NI NI NI NI VLI NI
4 NI NI NI 0 LI LI NI NI NI LI LI NI HI HI VLI VLI NI NI NI NI NI VLI NI NI NI
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 73:749–771

5 NI NI VLI VLI 0 VLI VLI NI NI VLI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI VLI NI NI NI

6 NI NI NI VLI NI 0 NI NI NI NI NI NI HI HI VLI VLI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
7 NI NI NI VLI NI NI 0 NI NI NI NI NI NI NI LI LI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI VLI NI
8 LI LI LI NI NI NI LI 0 HI NI NI NI NI NI VLI VLI NI VHI NI VLI NI NI NI NI NI
9 NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 NI NI NI NI NI VLI VLI NI HI NI LI NI NI NI NI NI
10 NI NI NI HI NI HI NI NI NI 0 NI NI VLI VLI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI VLI
11 NI NI NI LI NI LI NI NI NI VLI 0 NI VLI VLI VLI VLI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI VLI
12 NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 NI NI NI NI NI NI LI NI NI NI NI NI NI
13 NI NI NI VLI NI LI NI NI NI LI NI NI 0 HI NI NI VHI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI VLI
14 NI NI NI VLI NI LI NI NI NI LI NI NI HI 0 NI NI VHI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI VLI
15 VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI NI 0 VHI NI NI LI NI NI NI NI NI NI
16 VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI NI VHI 0 NI NI LI NI NI NI NI NI NI
17 NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
18 NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI HI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
19 NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI LI NI NI VLI VLI NI NI 0 NI NI NI NI NI NI
20 VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 NI NI NI NI NI
21 VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI VLI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 NI NI NI NI
22 NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 NI NI NI
23 NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 VHI NI
24 NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI VHI 0 NI
25 NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI VLI VLI NI VLI VLI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI 0
755
 756

Table 4 Expert2’s assessment for information flow

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 0 NI NI NI VLI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI LI NI VLI NI VLI NI

2 NI 0 NI NI LI LI HI NI NI NI LI NI VLI VLI VLI VLI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
3 VLI VLI 0 NI LI LI VLI NI NI NI NI NI LI LI LI LI VLI NI NI VLI VLI NI NI VLI NI
4 NI NI NI 0 HI HI NI NI NI HI LI NI HI HI LI LI NI NI NI NI NI VLI NI NI NI
5 NI NI VLI VLI 0 VLI VLI NI NI LI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI HI NI NI NI
6 NI NI NI VLI NI 0 NI NI NI NI NI NI LI LI VLI VLI NI NI NI NI NI VLI NI NI NI
7 NI NI NI VLI NI NI 0 VLI NI NI NI NI VLI VLI LI LI NI NI NI NI NI VLI NI NI NI
8 VLI VLI VLI NI NI NI VLI 0 LI NI NI NI NI NI VLI VLI VLI NI NI LI LI NI NI LI NI
9 NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 NI NI NI NI NI VLI VLI VLI VHI NI LI LI NI NI LI NI
10 NI NI NI LI NI NI NI NI VLI 0 NI NI LI LI VLI VLI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI VLI
11 NI NI NI VLI NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 NI LI LI LI LI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI VLI
12 NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 NI NI VLI VLI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
13 NI NI LI VLI NI NI NI VLI VLI NI LI NI 0 VHI NI NI LI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
14 NI NI LI VLI NI NI NI VLI VLI NI LI NI VHI 0 NI NI LI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
15 LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI NI NI 0 VLI NI NI VLI NI NI NI NI NI NI
16 LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI LI NI NI VLI 0 NI NI VLI NI NI NI NI NI NI
17 NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
18 NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI LI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
19 NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI LI LI NI 0 NI NI NI NI NI NI
20 NI NI VLI NI NI NI NI LI LI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 VLI NI VLI NI NI
21 NI NI NI NI NI LI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 NI NI NI NI
22 NI NI NI NI NI LI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 NI NI LI
23 NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI VLI VLI NI NI NI NI NI VLI NI NI 0 NI NI
24 VLI NI VLI NI NI NI NI LI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 NI
25 NI NI NI NI VLI NI NI NI NI VLI NI NI VLI VLI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI 0
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 73:749–771
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 73:749–771 757

Table 5 The weights for the location factors Step 4: Matrix D for information flow is presented in Table 8
Factors Assigned weight Average weight in the Appendix.
Step 5: Matrices T for material flow and information flow are
Expert1 Expert2 presented in Tables 9 and 10 in the Appendix, respec-
tively. As reported in Table 9, there is no material flow
Material flow 0.30 0.40 0.350
between most of the machine pairs (see Table 2).
Information flow 0.20 0.15 0.175
Step 6: Normalized T matrices for material flow and infor-
Personnel flow 0.10 0.15 0.125
mation flow are presented in Tables 11 and 12 in the
Equipment flow 0.25 0.10 0.175
Appendix, respectively.
Environmental condition 0.05 0.10 0.075
Step 7: We determine the weights of the location factors by
Supervision of the personnel 0.10 0.10 0.100 averaging the weights assigned by the experts. The
Total 1 1 1 weights are reported in Table 5.
Step 8: Matrices K for material flow and information flow
are presented in Tables 13 and 14 in the Appendix,
respectively.
using linguistic variables. Corresponding triangular
Step 9: Closeness rating matrix (matrix C) is reported in
fuzzy numbers have already been presented in
Table 15 in the Appendix.
Table 1. To determine the associations between ma-
Step 10: List A that is obtained by sorting all machine pairs in
chines, a survey was conducted. In this regard,
descending order in terms of their closeness rating is
pairwise comparisons were made by the experts. To
presented in Table 6. The first 40 machine pairs that
improve the readability and due to the space limita-
have the highest closeness rating are presented in the
tion, we only present the results on “information
table. As recalled, list A responds to which facility to
flow” and “material flow” in this study.
be assigned with which order to facility layout.
Tables 3 and 4 report the experts’ assessment, while
Table 7 presented in the Appendix presents “matrix A”
Figure 2 illustrates the final facility layout obtained by the
for “information flow.” It should be recalled here that,
proposed approach. As stated before, dashed arrows in the figure
matrix T for material flow is constructed using
represent adjacency between the machines. Due to the fuzzy
demand/transfer batch size formula.

Table 6 Closeness rating of the

machine pairs (list A) No Machine Closeness No Machine Closeness
pair rating pair rating

1 6–13 (P) 0.047960 21 20–2 (P) 0.007231

2 4–14 (P) 0.027414 22 1–20 (P) 0.007219
3 13–4 (P) 0.027007 23 9–24 (P) 0.007205
4 20–21 (P,C) 0.019203 24 2–21 0.007152
5 15–22 (P) 0.016290 25 15–24 (C) 0.007131
6 4–15 (P) 0.014361 26 5–24 (P) 0.007091
7 11–13 (P) 0.014282 27 17–20 0.007061
8 7–4 (P) 0.014280 28 24–17 (P) 0.007016
9 13–10 (P) 0.014163 29 19–15 0.003649
10 13–7 0.014094 30 12–19 (P) 0.003411
11 10–15 (P) 0.014081 31 3–16 (P) 0.002426
12 14–15 0.014061 32 12–16 0.002116
13 14–16 (P) 0.014041 33 13–14 (C) 0.001944
14 23–6 (P) 0.013934 34 15–16 (C) 0.001933
15 24–20 (P) 0.013040 35 14–13 (C) 0.001928
16 15–4 (P) 0.009463 36 4–6 0.001923
17 13–25 0.009142 37 16–15 (C) 0.001923
P indicates that the machine pair
is located adjacently in the pro- 18 25–15 (P) 0.009062 38 4–5 (C) 0.001862
posed layout; C indicates that the 19 8–15 (C) 0.007504 39 8–9 (P, C) 0.001835
machine pair is located adjacently 20 18–9 (P) 0.007327 40 4–13 (P) 0.001831
in the current layout
758
SAWING
LATHE_6
DRILL
LATHE_12
LATHE_8 LATHE_5
LATHE_9
GRINDING
CNC_LATHE
GEAR SHAPER
Fig. 2 Facility layout obtained by the proposed approach
structure of the problem under concern, there does not exists an
objective performance measure for evaluation of the facility
layouts. In addition, different multicriteria decision making
methods treat uncertainties distinctively. Therefore, we could
not compare the results of the proposed method to the ones of
other methods. However, we compare the current and proposed
facility layouts using total closeness rating, the output of fuzzy
DEMATEL method, of the adjacent machine pairs with respect
to each layout. The results reveal that total closeness ratings of
the current and proposed facility layouts are 0.1195 and 0.3822,
respectively. It means that the proposed approach provides a
considerably improved facility layout in terms of the aforemen-
tioned six location factors. The case study explores that the
proposed fuzzy DEMATEL-based solution approach can effec-
tively and straightforwardly be applied in real world facility
layout problems under uncertainty.
5 Conclusion
Facility layout is quite important for enterprises due to its direct
effects on productivity and efficiency. However, facility layout
in production systems is a difficult activity since both qualita-
tive and quantitative factors affect the location decision. In
addition, influence and causal relationship between these fac-
tors should be determined for a better location. In this respect,
we demonstrated in this study that fuzzy DEMATEL method
can effectively be used in handling facility layout problems in
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 73:749–771
LATHE_3
LATHE_11 LATHE_7 MILLING_2
HONING_1 LATHE_4 HONING_2
LATHE_10 MILLING_1 SHAPER
WELDER
LATHE_2
SANDING
POLISHING
LATHE_1
practice. We take into account easily qualitative factors which
are described by linguistic terms through the method.
Fuzzy DEMATEL method is applied to various problems in
practice. However, to the authors’ knowledge, DEMATEL or
fuzzy DEMATEL methods have not been employed to solve
facility layout problems. Considering this gap, a fuzzy
DEMATEL-based solution approach for the facility layout
problem is proposed in this study. The method is utilized to find
the closeness ratings between the facilities to be located. The
proposed approach takes both qualitative and quantitative loca-
tion factors into account. To address the need in practice, six
essential location factors are considered in this study. These are
material flow, information flow, personnel flow, equipment
flow, environmental condition, and supervision of the person-
nel. This study differs from the previous works in that it applies
fuzzy DEMATEL method to the facility layout problem.
To explore the viability of the proposed approach, a real world
case study is presented. Results of the case study reveal that the
proposed approach can effectively be used in solving practical
facility layout problems. In addition, by means of the proposed
approach, qualitative location factors can effectively be treated.
As a future study, application of the proposed approach to
dynamic or stochastic facility layout problems is of worth.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the anonymous
reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions that have signif-
icantly improved the paper. The authors would also like to thank Fatih
Dülgeroğlu for his help in conducting the survey.
Appendix

Table 7 Matrix A for information flow

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 0.000 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.310 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.313 0.217 0.310 0.125 0.310 0.125
2 0.125 0.000 0.125 0.125 0.500 0.500 0.595 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.405 0.125 0.310 0.310 0.310 0.310 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 73:749–771

3 0.310 0.310 0.000 0.125 0.405 0.405 0.310 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.500 0.500 0.405 0.405 0.310 0.125 0.125 0.217 0.217 0.125 0.125 0.310 0.125
4 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.000 0.595 0.595 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.595 0.500 0.125 0.690 0.690 0.405 0.405 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.310 0.125 0.125 0.125
5 0.125 0.125 0.310 0.310 0.000 0.310 0.310 0.125 0.125 0.405 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.500 0.125 0.125 0.125
6 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.310 0.125 0.000 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.595 0.595 0.310 0.310 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.217 0.125 0.125 0.125
7 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.310 0.125 0.125 0.000 0.217 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.217 0.217 0.500 0.500 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.217 0.125 0.217 0.125
8 0.405 0.405 0.405 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.405 0.000 0.595 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.310 0.310 0.217 0.500 0.125 0.405 0.313 0.125 0.125 0.313 0.125
9 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.000 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.310 0.310 0.217 0.783 0.125 0.500 0.313 0.125 0.125 0.313 0.125
10 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.595 0.125 0.408 0.125 0.125 0.217 0.000 0.125 0.125 0.405 0.405 0.217 0.217 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.310
11 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.405 0.125 0.313 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.217 0.000 0.125 0.405 0.405 0.405 0.405 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.310
12 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.000 0.125 0.125 0.217 0.217 0.125 0.125 0.313 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125
13 0.125 0.125 0.313 0.310 0.125 0.313 0.125 0.217 0.217 0.313 0.313 0.125 0.000 0.783 0.125 0.125 0.687 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.217
14 0.125 0.125 0.313 0.310 0.125 0.313 0.125 0.217 0.217 0.313 0.313 0.125 0.783 0.000 0.125 0.125 0.687 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.217
15 0.405 0.405 0.405 0.405 0.405 0.405 0.405 0.405 0.405 0.405 0.405 0.405 0.217 0.125 0.000 0.592 0.125 0.125 0.405 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125
16 0.405 0.405 0.405 0.405 0.405 0.405 0.405 0.405 0.405 0.405 0.405 0.405 0.217 0.125 0.592 0.000 0.125 0.125 0.405 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125
17 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.000 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125
18 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.595 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.000 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125
19 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.313 0.125 0.125 0.217 0.405 0.313 0.125 0.000 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125
20 0.217 0.217 0.310 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.405 0.405 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.000 0.217 0.125 0.217 0.125 0.125
21 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.405 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.217 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.000 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125
22 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.313 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.000 0.125 0.125 0.313
23 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.217 0.217 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.217 0.125 0.125 0.000 0.500 0.125
24 0.217 0.125 0.217 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.313 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.500 0.000 0.125
25 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.217 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.310 0.217 0.125 0.310 0.310 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.000
759
 760

Table 8 Matrix D for information flow

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 0.000 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.043 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.043 0.030 0.043 0.017 0.043 0.017
2 0.017 0.000 0.017 0.017 0.069 0.069 0.083 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.056 0.017 0.043 0.043 0.043 0.043 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017
3 0.043 0.043 0.000 0.017 0.056 0.056 0.043 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.069 0.069 0.056 0.056 0.043 0.017 0.017 0.030 0.030 0.017 0.017 0.043 0.017
4 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.000 0.083 0.083 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.083 0.069 0.017 0.096 0.096 0.056 0.056 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.043 0.017 0.017 0.017
5 0.017 0.017 0.043 0.043 0.000 0.043 0.043 0.017 0.017 0.056 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.069 0.017 0.017 0.017
6 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.043 0.017 0.000 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.083 0.083 0.043 0.043 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.030 0.017 0.017 0.017
7 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.043 0.017 0.017 0.000 0.030 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.030 0.030 0.069 0.069 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.030 0.017 0.030 0.017
8 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.056 0.000 0.083 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.043 0.043 0.030 0.069 0.017 0.056 0.043 0.017 0.017 0.043 0.017
9 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.000 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.043 0.043 0.030 0.109 0.017 0.069 0.043 0.017 0.017 0.043 0.017
10 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.083 0.017 0.057 0.017 0.017 0.030 0.000 0.017 0.017 0.056 0.056 0.030 0.030 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.043
11 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.056 0.017 0.043 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.030 0.000 0.017 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.043
12 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.000 0.017 0.017 0.030 0.030 0.017 0.017 0.043 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017
13 0.017 0.017 0.043 0.043 0.017 0.043 0.017 0.030 0.030 0.043 0.043 0.017 0.000 0.109 0.017 0.017 0.095 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.030
14 0.017 0.017 0.043 0.043 0.017 0.043 0.017 0.030 0.030 0.043 0.043 0.017 0.109 0.000 0.017 0.017 0.095 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.030
15 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.030 0.017 0.000 0.082 0.017 0.017 0.056 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017
16 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.030 0.017 0.082 0.000 0.017 0.017 0.056 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017
17 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.000 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017
18 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.083 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.000 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017
19 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.043 0.017 0.017 0.030 0.056 0.043 0.017 0.000 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017
20 0.030 0.030 0.043 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.056 0.056 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.000 0.030 0.017 0.030 0.017 0.017
21 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.056 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.000 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017
22 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.043 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.000 0.017 0.017 0.043
23 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.030 0.030 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.030 0.017 0.017 0.000 0.069 0.017
24 0.030 0.017 0.030 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.043 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.069 0.000 0.017
25 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.030 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.043 0.030 0.017 0.043 0.043 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.000
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 73:749–771
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 73:749–771 761

Table 9 Matrix T for material flow

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 38
2 38
3 6
4 160c 80
5 38
6 290b
7 80
8 38
9 38
10 80
11 80
12 6 15
13 160a 80 80 50
14 80 80
15 50 95f 38
16
17 38
18 38
19 15
20 38 114e
21
22
23 80
24 38 76d
25 50
a
80+80=160
b
80+80+80+50=290
c
80+80=160
d
38+38=76
e
38+38+38=114
f
80+15=95
 762

Table 10 Matrix T for information flow

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 0.039 0.055 0.061 0.067 0.087 0.074 0.061 0.058 0.063 0.064 0.061 0.052 0.070 0.069 0.071 0.069 0.059 0.053 0.051 0.077 0.062 0.078 0.049 0.078 0.051
2 0.072 0.054 0.081 0.093 0.132 0.149 0.142 0.075 0.081 0.087 0.119 0.068 0.123 0.120 0.125 0.121 0.080 0.067 0.067 0.066 0.062 0.070 0.060 0.068 0.066
3 0.105 0.104 0.073 0.101 0.130 0.148 0.114 0.084 0.091 0.096 0.092 0.076 0.156 0.153 0.146 0.140 0.116 0.073 0.074 0.086 0.081 0.076 0.067 0.100 0.071
4 0.087 0.086 0.100 0.101 0.162 0.188 0.096 0.090 0.100 0.171 0.151 0.082 0.198 0.195 0.158 0.151 0.103 0.080 0.080 0.079 0.074 0.108 0.071 0.081 0.082
5 0.062 0.061 0.091 0.102 0.055 0.111 0.092 0.063 0.069 0.110 0.069 0.058 0.085 0.083 0.083 0.081 0.067 0.058 0.056 0.058 0.055 0.109 0.053 0.060 0.058
6 0.067 0.066 0.076 0.108 0.077 0.076 0.072 0.070 0.076 0.082 0.078 0.063 0.152 0.150 0.115 0.109 0.080 0.062 0.062 0.062 0.058 0.074 0.056 0.063 0.061
7 0.069 0.068 0.075 0.107 0.079 0.091 0.057 0.082 0.077 0.080 0.077 0.064 0.099 0.096 0.139 0.136 0.071 0.062 0.063 0.061 0.058 0.074 0.055 0.075 0.059
8 0.118 0.117 0.124 0.096 0.094 0.108 0.127 0.066 0.157 0.091 0.089 0.075 0.102 0.099 0.132 0.129 0.097 0.129 0.073 0.115 0.096 0.074 0.067 0.103 0.070
9 0.068 0.067 0.074 0.080 0.076 0.088 0.073 0.071 0.065 0.077 0.074 0.064 0.084 0.081 0.110 0.108 0.082 0.151 0.062 0.112 0.084 0.061 0.058 0.088 0.059
10 0.068 0.067 0.075 0.148 0.081 0.133 0.073 0.070 0.089 0.068 0.080 0.064 0.133 0.131 0.105 0.100 0.079 0.064 0.062 0.063 0.059 0.065 0.057 0.064 0.087
11 0.071 0.070 0.079 0.126 0.083 0.123 0.077 0.073 0.081 0.099 0.065 0.067 0.134 0.131 0.133 0.128 0.080 0.065 0.066 0.064 0.061 0.066 0.058 0.066 0.088
12 0.053 0.053 0.057 0.063 0.060 0.069 0.057 0.054 0.059 0.061 0.058 0.034 0.067 0.065 0.081 0.079 0.057 0.050 0.074 0.049 0.047 0.049 0.045 0.050 0.048
13 0.075 0.074 0.106 0.117 0.086 0.127 0.081 0.088 0.096 0.113 0.109 0.069 0.085 0.135 0.148 0.097 0.157 0.070 0.068 0.069 0.065 0.069 0.061 0.070 0.079
14 0.068 0.067 0.099 0.110 0.079 0.119 0.074 0.081 0.089 0.106 0.102 0.063 0.131 0.075 0.093 0.088 0.152 0.065 0.062 0.065 0.061 0.064 0.057 0.066 0.075
15 0.132 0.130 0.140 0.155 0.148 0.168 0.143 0.132 0.144 0.148 0.143 0.125 0.140 0.125 0.116 0.188 0.101 0.090 0.123 0.088 0.082 0.089 0.076 0.090 0.083
16 0.132 0.130 0.140 0.155 0.148 0.168 0.143 0.132 0.144 0.148 0.143 0.125 0.140 0.125 0.192 0.112 0.101 0.090 0.123 0.088 0.082 0.089 0.076 0.090 0.083
17 0.048 0.048 0.052 0.057 0.054 0.063 0.052 0.049 0.054 0.055 0.053 0.046 0.061 0.060 0.062 0.060 0.035 0.046 0.045 0.046 0.043 0.046 0.042 0.047 0.044
18 0.053 0.052 0.057 0.063 0.059 0.069 0.057 0.054 0.122 0.060 0.058 0.050 0.067 0.065 0.069 0.067 0.057 0.039 0.049 0.053 0.049 0.050 0.045 0.052 0.048
19 0.058 0.057 0.062 0.068 0.065 0.075 0.062 0.058 0.064 0.066 0.063 0.080 0.072 0.069 0.087 0.108 0.085 0.053 0.037 0.053 0.050 0.053 0.048 0.054 0.051
20 0.080 0.079 0.097 0.093 0.089 0.102 0.086 0.104 0.114 0.089 0.085 0.074 0.088 0.086 0.089 0.087 0.072 0.067 0.060 0.048 0.073 0.063 0.068 0.066 0.060
21 0.074 0.073 0.079 0.088 0.083 0.120 0.080 0.074 0.081 0.084 0.080 0.070 0.083 0.081 0.082 0.080 0.066 0.059 0.056 0.059 0.038 0.059 0.052 0.060 0.056
22 0.051 0.051 0.056 0.062 0.058 0.092 0.056 0.052 0.058 0.060 0.057 0.049 0.068 0.066 0.067 0.065 0.056 0.049 0.048 0.049 0.046 0.032 0.044 0.050 0.072
23 0.055 0.053 0.060 0.065 0.061 0.071 0.058 0.057 0.061 0.062 0.060 0.051 0.081 0.080 0.070 0.067 0.060 0.051 0.050 0.064 0.048 0.051 0.032 0.103 0.050
24 0.069 0.056 0.073 0.065 0.063 0.072 0.061 0.081 0.063 0.063 0.060 0.052 0.071 0.069 0.072 0.069 0.060 0.054 0.051 0.054 0.050 0.052 0.098 0.040 0.050
25 0.055 0.055 0.061 0.070 0.075 0.075 0.060 0.057 0.063 0.090 0.075 0.052 0.098 0.096 0.073 0.070 0.063 0.053 0.051 0.052 0.049 0.053 0.048 0.053 0.035
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 73:749–771
Table 11 Normalized T matrix for material flow

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.017 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.017 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.073 0.037 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 73:749–771

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.017 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.133 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0.037 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.017 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.037 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.037 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.003 0 0 0.007 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 0 0 0 0.073 0 0 0.037 0 0 0.037 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.023
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.037 0.037 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 0 0 0 0.023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.043 0 0.017 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.017 0 0 0 0 0
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 0 0.017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0.052 0 0 0 0
21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 0 0 0 0 0 0.037 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.017 0 0 0.035 0 0 0 0 0
25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
763
Table 12 Normalized T matrix for information flow
764

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 0.0008 0.0011 0.0012 0.0013 0.0017 0.0015 0.0012 0.0011 0.0013 0.0013 0.0012 0.0010 0.0014 0.0014
2 0.0014 0.0011 0.0016 0.0019 0.0026 0.0030 0.0028 0.0015 0.0016 0.0017 0.0024 0.0014 0.0024 0.0024
3 0.0021 0.0021 0.0015 0.0020 0.0026 0.0029 0.0023 0.0017 0.0018 0.0019 0.0018 0.0015 0.0031 0.0030
4 0.0017 0.0017 0.0020 0.0020 0.0032 0.0037 0.0019 0.0018 0.0020 0.0034 0.0030 0.0016 0.0040 0.0039
5 0.0012 0.0012 0.0018 0.0020 0.0011 0.0022 0.0018 0.0012 0.0014 0.0022 0.0014 0.0012 0.0017 0.0017
6 0.0013 0.0013 0.0015 0.0022 0.0015 0.0015 0.0014 0.0014 0.0015 0.0016 0.0016 0.0013 0.0030 0.0030
7 0.0014 0.0014 0.0015 0.0021 0.0016 0.0018 0.0011 0.0016 0.0015 0.0016 0.0015 0.0013 0.0020 0.0019
8 0.0024 0.0023 0.0025 0.0019 0.0019 0.0021 0.0025 0.0013 0.0031 0.0018 0.0018 0.0015 0.0020 0.0020
9 0.0014 0.0013 0.0015 0.0016 0.0015 0.0018 0.0015 0.0014 0.0013 0.0015 0.0015 0.0013 0.0017 0.0016
10 0.0013 0.0013 0.0015 0.0029 0.0016 0.0027 0.0015 0.0014 0.0018 0.0013 0.0016 0.0013 0.0027 0.0026
11 0.0014 0.0014 0.0016 0.0025 0.0017 0.0025 0.0015 0.0015 0.0016 0.0020 0.0013 0.0013 0.0027 0.0026
12 0.0011 0.0010 0.0011 0.0013 0.0012 0.0014 0.0011 0.0011 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0007 0.0013 0.0013
13 0.0015 0.0015 0.0021 0.0023 0.0017 0.0025 0.0016 0.0017 0.0019 0.0023 0.0022 0.0014 0.0017 0.0027
14 0.0014 0.0013 0.0020 0.0022 0.0016 0.0024 0.0015 0.0016 0.0018 0.0021 0.0020 0.0013 0.0026 0.0015
15 0.0026 0.0026 0.0028 0.0031 0.0030 0.0034 0.0028 0.0026 0.0029 0.0030 0.0028 0.0025 0.0028 0.0025
16 0.0026 0.0026 0.0028 0.0031 0.0030 0.0034 0.0028 0.0026 0.0029 0.0030 0.0028 0.0025 0.0028 0.0025
17 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0011 0.0011 0.0013 0.0010 0.0010 0.0011 0.0011 0.0011 0.0009 0.0012 0.0012
18 0.0011 0.0010 0.0011 0.0012 0.0012 0.0014 0.0011 0.0011 0.0024 0.0012 0.0012 0.0010 0.0013 0.0013
19 0.0011 0.0011 0.0012 0.0014 0.0013 0.0015 0.0012 0.0012 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0016 0.0014 0.0014
20 0.0016 0.0016 0.0019 0.0018 0.0018 0.0020 0.0017 0.0021 0.0023 0.0018 0.0017 0.0015 0.0018 0.0017
21 0.0015 0.0015 0.0016 0.0018 0.0017 0.0024 0.0016 0.0015 0.0016 0.0017 0.0016 0.0014 0.0017 0.0016
22 0.0010 0.0010 0.0011 0.0012 0.0012 0.0018 0.0011 0.0010 0.0011 0.0012 0.0011 0.0010 0.0014 0.0013
23 0.0011 0.0011 0.0012 0.0013 0.0012 0.0014 0.0012 0.0011 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0010 0.0016 0.0016
24 0.0014 0.0011 0.0014 0.0013 0.0012 0.0014 0.0012 0.0016 0.0013 0.0012 0.0012 0.0010 0.0014 0.0014
25 0.0011 0.0011 0.0012 0.0014 0.0015 0.0015 0.0012 0.0011 0.0013 0.0018 0.0015 0.0010 0.0020 0.0019

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 0.0014 0.0014 0.0012 0.0011 0.0010 0.0015 0.0012 0.0016 0.0010 0.0016 0.0010
2 0.0025 0.0024 0.0016 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0012 0.0014 0.0012 0.0014 0.0013
3 0.0029 0.0028 0.0023 0.0015 0.0015 0.0017 0.0016 0.0015 0.0013 0.0020 0.0014
4 0.0032 0.0030 0.0021 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0015 0.0022 0.0014 0.0016 0.0016
5 0.0017 0.0016 0.0013 0.0012 0.0011 0.0012 0.0011 0.0022 0.0010 0.0012 0.0012
6 0.0023 0.0022 0.0016 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012 0.0015 0.0011 0.0012 0.0012
7 0.0028 0.0027 0.0014 0.0012 0.0013 0.0012 0.0011 0.0015 0.0011 0.0015 0.0012
8 0.0026 0.0026 0.0019 0.0026 0.0014 0.0023 0.0019 0.0015 0.0013 0.0021 0.0014
9 0.0022 0.0021 0.0016 0.0030 0.0012 0.0022 0.0017 0.0012 0.0011 0.0018 0.0012
10 0.0021 0.0020 0.0016 0.0013 0.0012 0.0013 0.0012 0.0013 0.0011 0.0013 0.0017
11 0.0027 0.0026 0.0016 0.0013 0.0013 0.0013 0.0012 0.0013 0.0012 0.0013 0.0018
12 0.0016 0.0016 0.0011 0.0010 0.0015 0.0010 0.0009 0.0010 0.0009 0.0010 0.0009
13 0.0030 0.0019 0.0031 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0013 0.0014 0.0012 0.0014 0.0016
14 0.0019 0.0018 0.0030 0.0013 0.0012 0.0013 0.0012 0.0013 0.0011 0.0013 0.0015
15 0.0023 0.0037 0.0020 0.0018 0.0025 0.0018 0.0016 0.0018 0.0015 0.0018 0.0017
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 73:749–771

16 0.0038 0.0022 0.0020 0.0018 0.0025 0.0018 0.0016 0.0018 0.0015 0.0018 0.0017
Table 12 (continued)
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

17 0.0012 0.0012 0.0007 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0008 0.0009 0.0009
18 0.0014 0.0013 0.0011 0.0008 0.0010 0.0011 0.0010 0.0010 0.0009 0.0010 0.0010
19 0.0017 0.0022 0.0017 0.0011 0.0007 0.0011 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0011 0.0010
20 0.0018 0.0017 0.0014 0.0013 0.0012 0.0010 0.0014 0.0013 0.0014 0.0013 0.0012
21 0.0016 0.0016 0.0013 0.0012 0.0011 0.0012 0.0008 0.0012 0.0010 0.0012 0.0011
22 0.0013 0.0013 0.0011 0.0010 0.0009 0.0010 0.0009 0.0006 0.0009 0.0010 0.0014
23 0.0014 0.0013 0.0012 0.0010 0.0010 0.0013 0.0010 0.0010 0.0006 0.0020 0.0010
24 0.0014 0.0014 0.0012 0.0011 0.0010 0.0011 0.0010 0.0010 0.0019 0.0008 0.0010
25 0.0015 0.0014 0.0013 0.0011 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0011 0.0009 0.0011 0.0007
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 73:749–771
765
 766

Table 13 Matrix K for material flow

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.006 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.006 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.026 0.013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.006 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.046 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0.013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.006 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.002 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 0 0 0 0.026 0 0 0.013 0 0 0.013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.008
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.013 0.013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 0 0 0 0.008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.015 0 0.006 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.006 0 0 0 0 0
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.002 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 0 0.006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.018 0 0 0 0
21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 0 0 0 0 0 0.013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.006 0 0 0.012 0 0 0 0 0
25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 73:749–771
Table 14 Matrix K for information flow

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 0.00014 0.00019 0.00021 0.00023 0.00030 0.00026 0.00021 0.00020 0.00022 0.00022 0.00021 0.00018 0.00025 0.00024
2 0.00025 0.00019 0.00028 0.00033 0.00046 0.00052 0.00050 0.00026 0.00028 0.00030 0.00041 0.00024 0.00043 0.00042
3 0.00037 0.00036 0.00026 0.00035 0.00045 0.00052 0.00040 0.00029 0.00032 0.00033 0.00032 0.00026 0.00054 0.00053
4 0.00030 0.00030 0.00035 0.00035 0.00057 0.00066 0.00033 0.00031 0.00035 0.00060 0.00053 0.00029 0.00069 0.00068
5 0.00022 0.00021 0.00032 0.00036 0.00019 0.00039 0.00032 0.00022 0.00024 0.00038 0.00024 0.00020 0.00030 0.00029
6 0.00023 0.00023 0.00026 0.00038 0.00027 0.00026 0.00025 0.00024 0.00027 0.00029 0.00027 0.00022 0.00053 0.00052
7 0.00024 0.00024 0.00026 0.00037 0.00027 0.00032 0.00020 0.00029 0.00027 0.00028 0.00027 0.00022 0.00035 0.00033
8 0.00041 0.00041 0.00043 0.00033 0.00033 0.00038 0.00044 0.00023 0.00055 0.00032 0.00031 0.00026 0.00036 0.00035
9 0.00024 0.00023 0.00026 0.00028 0.00027 0.00031 0.00026 0.00025 0.00023 0.00027 0.00026 0.00022 0.00029 0.00028
10 0.00024 0.00023 0.00026 0.00051 0.00028 0.00046 0.00025 0.00024 0.00031 0.00024 0.00028 0.00022 0.00047 0.00046
11 0.00025 0.00025 0.00027 0.00044 0.00029 0.00043 0.00027 0.00026 0.00028 0.00035 0.00023 0.00023 0.00047 0.00046
12 0.00019 0.00018 0.00020 0.00022 0.00021 0.00024 0.00020 0.00019 0.00021 0.00021 0.00020 0.00012 0.00023 0.00023
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 73:749–771

13 0.00026 0.00026 0.00037 0.00041 0.00030 0.00044 0.00028 0.00031 0.00034 0.00039 0.00038 0.00024 0.00029 0.00047
14 0.00024 0.00023 0.00035 0.00038 0.00027 0.00041 0.00026 0.00028 0.00031 0.00037 0.00035 0.00022 0.00046 0.00026
15 0.00046 0.00045 0.00049 0.00054 0.00052 0.00059 0.00050 0.00046 0.00050 0.00052 0.00050 0.00044 0.00049 0.00043
16 0.00046 0.00045 0.00049 0.00054 0.00052 0.00059 0.00050 0.00046 0.00050 0.00052 0.00050 0.00044 0.00049 0.00043
17 0.00017 0.00017 0.00018 0.00020 0.00019 0.00022 0.00018 0.00017 0.00019 0.00019 0.00018 0.00016 0.00021 0.00021
18 0.00018 0.00018 0.00020 0.00022 0.00021 0.00024 0.00020 0.00019 0.00043 0.00021 0.00020 0.00017 0.00023 0.00023
19 0.00020 0.00020 0.00022 0.00024 0.00023 0.00026 0.00022 0.00020 0.00022 0.00023 0.00022 0.00028 0.00025 0.00024
20 0.00028 0.00027 0.00034 0.00032 0.00031 0.00036 0.00030 0.00036 0.00040 0.00031 0.00030 0.00026 0.00031 0.00030
21 0.00026 0.00025 0.00027 0.00031 0.00029 0.00042 0.00028 0.00026 0.00028 0.00029 0.00028 0.00024 0.00029 0.00028
22 0.00018 0.00018 0.00019 0.00022 0.00020 0.00032 0.00019 0.00018 0.00020 0.00021 0.00020 0.00017 0.00024 0.00023
23 0.00019 0.00019 0.00021 0.00023 0.00021 0.00025 0.00020 0.00020 0.00021 0.00022 0.00021 0.00018 0.00028 0.00028
24 0.00024 0.00019 0.00025 0.00023 0.00022 0.00025 0.00021 0.00028 0.00022 0.00022 0.00021 0.00018 0.00025 0.00024
25 0.00019 0.00019 0.00021 0.00024 0.00026 0.00026 0.00021 0.00020 0.00022 0.00031 0.00026 0.00018 0.00034 0.00034

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 0.00025 0.00024 0.00021 0.00018 0.00018 0.00027 0.00022 0.00027 0.00017 0.00027 0.00018
2 0.00044 0.00042 0.00028 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023 0.00022 0.00024 0.00021 0.00024 0.00023
3 0.00051 0.00049 0.00040 0.00026 0.00026 0.00030 0.00028 0.00026 0.00023 0.00035 0.00025
4 0.00055 0.00053 0.00036 0.00028 0.00028 0.00028 0.00026 0.00038 0.00025 0.00028 0.00029
5 0.00029 0.00028 0.00023 0.00020 0.00020 0.00020 0.00019 0.00038 0.00018 0.00021 0.00020
6 0.00040 0.00038 0.00028 0.00022 0.00022 0.00021 0.00020 0.00026 0.00019 0.00022 0.00021
7 0.00049 0.00047 0.00025 0.00022 0.00022 0.00021 0.00020 0.00026 0.00019 0.00026 0.00021
8 0.00046 0.00045 0.00034 0.00045 0.00025 0.00040 0.00034 0.00026 0.00024 0.00036 0.00024
9 0.00038 0.00038 0.00029 0.00053 0.00021 0.00039 0.00029 0.00021 0.00020 0.00031 0.00021
10 0.00037 0.00035 0.00027 0.00022 0.00022 0.00022 0.00021 0.00023 0.00020 0.00022 0.00030
11 0.00046 0.00045 0.00028 0.00023 0.00023 0.00022 0.00021 0.00023 0.00020 0.00023 0.00031
12 0.00028 0.00028 0.00020 0.00017 0.00026 0.00017 0.00016 0.00017 0.00016 0.00018 0.00017
13 0.00052 0.00034 0.00055 0.00024 0.00024 0.00024 0.00023 0.00024 0.00021 0.00024 0.00028
14 0.00032 0.00031 0.00053 0.00023 0.00022 0.00023 0.00021 0.00022 0.00020 0.00023 0.00026
15 0.00040 0.00065 0.00035 0.00031 0.00043 0.00031 0.00028 0.00031 0.00026 0.00031 0.00029
767

16 0.00067 0.00039 0.00035 0.00031 0.00043 0.00031 0.00028 0.00031 0.00026 0.00031 0.00029
Table 14 (continued)
768

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

17 0.00022 0.00021 0.00012 0.00016 0.00016 0.00016 0.00015 0.00016 0.00015 0.00016 0.00015
18 0.00024 0.00023 0.00020 0.00014 0.00017 0.00018 0.00017 0.00017 0.00016 0.00018 0.00017
19 0.00030 0.00038 0.00030 0.00019 0.00013 0.00018 0.00017 0.00018 0.00017 0.00019 0.00018
20 0.00031 0.00030 0.00025 0.00023 0.00021 0.00017 0.00025 0.00022 0.00024 0.00023 0.00021
21 0.00029 0.00028 0.00023 0.00021 0.00020 0.00020 0.00013 0.00021 0.00018 0.00021 0.00019
22 0.00023 0.00023 0.00019 0.00017 0.00017 0.00017 0.00016 0.00011 0.00015 0.00017 0.00025
23 0.00024 0.00023 0.00021 0.00018 0.00017 0.00022 0.00017 0.00018 0.00011 0.00036 0.00017
24 0.00025 0.00024 0.00021 0.00019 0.00018 0.00019 0.00017 0.00018 0.00034 0.00014 0.00017
25 0.00026 0.00024 0.00022 0.00018 0.00018 0.00018 0.00017 0.00018 0.00017 0.00019 0.00012
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 73:749–771
Table 15 Closeness rating matrix (×10−2)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 0.1160 0.1426 0.1397 0.1346 0.1447 0.1411 0.1346 0.1349 0.1351 0.1313 0.1294 0.1246 0.1270 0.1254
2 0.1513 0.1241 0.1490 0.1465 0.1633 0.1702 0.1743 0.1524 0.1450 0.1417 0.1519 0.1325 0.1488 0.1468
3 0.1581 0.1577 0.1294 0.1531 0.1666 0.1783 0.1549 0.1460 0.1471 0.1446 0.1421 0.1347 0.1601 0.1579
4 0.1523 0.1520 0.1557 0.1400 0.1862 0.1923 0.1512 0.1511 0.1525 0.1770 0.1647 0.1390 0.1831 2.7414
5 0.1336 0.1334 0.1432 0.1517 0.1216 0.1588 0.1440 0.1353 0.1363 0.1462 0.1313 0.1256 0.1309 0.1293
6 0.1355 0.1352 0.1378 0.1516 0.1462 0.1313 0.1374 0.1379 0.1389 0.1366 0.1347 0.1277 4.7959 0.1530
7 0.1362 0.1358 0.1376 1.4280 0.1408 0.1462 0.1214 0.1482 0.1453 0.1360 0.1341 0.1280 0.1359 0.1338
8 0.1549 0.1545 0.1563 0.1454 0.1478 0.1536 0.1640 0.1281 0.1835 0.1412 0.1396 0.1331 0.1391 0.1370
9 0.1374 0.1370 0.1387 0.1399 0.1416 0.1469 0.1452 0.1548 0.1267 0.1363 0.1345 0.1292 0.1325 0.1306
10 0.1323 0.1320 0.1343 0.1587 0.1381 0.1573 0.1342 0.1343 0.1399 0.1171 0.1376 0.1250 0.1442 0.1425
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 73:749–771

11 0.1361 0.1358 0.1380 0.1580 0.1418 0.1567 0.1380 0.1382 0.1394 0.1474 0.1179 0.1284 1.4282 0.1458
12 0.1244 0.1242 0.1252 0.1265 0.1280 0.1321 0.1259 0.1260 0.1267 0.1235 0.1220 0.1004 0.1180 0.1164
13 0.1270 0.1267 0.1371 2.7007 0.1327 0.1484 1.4094 0.1335 0.1348 1.4163 0.1336 0.1181 0.1339 0.1944
14 0.1230 0.1228 0.1330 0.1358 0.1285 0.1438 0.1250 0.1295 0.1306 0.1317 0.1294 0.1139 0.1928 0.1288
15 0.1396 0.1392 0.1417 0.9463 0.1468 0.1549 0.1435 0.1412 0.1439 0.1412 0.1385 0.1303 0.1428 0.1366
16 0.1393 0.1389 0.1414 0.1458 0.1465 0.1545 0.1431 0.1408 0.1436 0.1409 0.1382 0.1300 0.1423 0.1362
17 0.1137 0.1135 0.1141 0.1153 0.1176 0.1219 0.1151 0.1159 0.1159 0.1120 0.1103 0.1101 0.1510 0.1459
18 0.1001 0.0998 0.1009 0.1021 0.1036 0.1078 0.1016 0.1017 0.7327 0.0992 0.0977 0.0932 0.1049 0.1038
19 0.1071 0.1069 0.1079 0.1093 0.1111 0.1156 0.1087 0.1089 0.1096 0.1060 0.1044 0.1082 0.1129 0.1115
20 0.1152 0.7231 0.1205 0.1184 0.1199 0.1255 0.1175 0.1254 0.1272 0.1148 0.1129 0.1072 0.1182 0.1168
21 0.1099 0.1097 0.1109 0.1135 0.1146 0.1445 0.1120 0.1117 0.1127 0.1097 0.1079 0.1024 0.1140 0.1127
22 0.1071 0.1069 0.1078 0.1094 0.1202 0.1242 0.1086 0.1091 0.1095 0.1063 0.1046 0.1001 0.1132 0.1120
23 0.1048 0.1044 0.1058 0.1070 0.1084 1.3934 0.1062 0.1071 0.1072 0.1039 0.1023 0.0975 0.1147 0.1135
24 0.1056 0.1011 0.1064 0.1031 0.1048 0.1090 0.1029 0.1113 0.1038 0.1001 0.0985 0.0939 0.1064 0.1052
25 0.1057 0.1054 0.1070 0.1093 0.1151 0.1152 0.1074 0.1078 0.1085 0.1143 0.1081 0.0987 0.1209 0.1197

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 0.1202 0.1193 0.1111 0.0995 0.0988 0.7219 0.1042 0.1126 0.1039 0.1083 0.1048
2 0.1421 0.1404 0.1218 0.1068 0.1067 0.1127 0.7152 0.1126 0.1105 0.1072 0.1129
3 0.1488 0.2426 0.1337 0.1086 0.1087 0.1190 0.1138 0.1141 0.1125 0.1178 0.1144
4 1.4361 0.1529 0.1342 0.1130 0.1131 0.1192 0.1131 0.1277 0.1165 0.1132 0.1208
5 0.1236 0.1224 0.1127 0.1005 0.0999 0.1060 0.1007 0.1225 0.1042 0.7091 0.1063
6 0.1349 0.1326 0.1181 0.1021 0.1020 0.1077 0.1113 0.1107 0.1057 0.1022 0.1080
7 0.1432 0.1418 0.1143 0.1019 0.1023 0.1073 0.1018 0.1102 0.1053 0.1063 0.1067
8 0.7504 0.1409 0.1250 0.1267 0.1070 0.1275 0.1169 0.1118 0.1111 0.1176 0.1121
9 0.1348 0.1336 0.1199 0.1343 0.1031 0.1266 0.1125 0.1074 0.1076 0.7205 0.1084
10 1.4081 0.1259 0.1140 0.0999 0.0992 0.1052 0.0997 0.1043 0.1030 0.0998 0.1135
11 0.1402 0.1383 0.1177 0.1023 0.1026 0.1081 0.1025 0.1082 0.1060 0.1025 0.1259
12 0.1163 0.2116 0.1040 0.0926 0.3411 0.0980 0.0929 0.0965 0.0965 0.0927 0.0976
769
770 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 73:749–771

0.9142

0.0863
0.0923
0.0954
0.0919
0.1260
0.0907
0.0870
0.0808
0.1084
0.1081
0.0984
0.1117
References
25

1. Sahin R, Turkbey O (2009) A simulated annealing algorithm to

find approximate Pareto optimal solutions for the multi-
0.1040
0.1016

0.0828
0.0878
0.0919
0.0876
0.0876
0.1035
0.0706
0.0868
0.7131
0.1047
0.0926
objective facility layout problem. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
24

41(9–10):1003–1018
2. Kusiak A, Heragu SS (1987) The facility layout problem. Eur J Oper
Res 29(3):229–251
3. Meller R, Gau KY (1996) The facility layout problem: recent
and emerging trends and perspectives. J Manuf Syst 15(5):351–
0.1068
0.1045

0.0848
0.0905
0.1266
0.0897
0.0917
0.0790
0.1030
0.0897
0.1052
0.1049
0.0966

366
23

4. Koren Y, Heisen U, Jovane F, Moriwaki T, Pritschow G, Ulusoy G

et al (1999) Reconfigurable manufacturing system. Ann CIRP 48(2):
527–540
5. Moslemipour G, Lee TS, Rilling D (2012) A review of intelligent
approaches for designing dynamic and robust layouts in flexible
0.1081
0.1056

0.0852
1.6290
0.1083

0.0946
0.0912
0.0802
0.0893
0.0861
0.0967

0.0911

0.1127
manufacturing systems. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 60(1–4):11–27
22

6. Krishnan KK, Jithavech I, Liao H (2009) Mitigation of risk in facility

layout design for single and multi-period problems. Int J Prod Res
47(21):5911–5940
7. Snyder LV (2006) Facility location under uncertainty: a review. IIE
Trans 38(7):537–554
0.1042
0.1019
0.1040
0.1036

0.0830
0.0881
1.9203
0.0752
0.0882
0.0864
0.0835
0.0871
0.0935

8. Hu MH, Wang MJ (2004) Using genetic algorithms on facilities

21

layout problems. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 23(3–4):301–310

9. Paul CR, Asokan P, Prabhakar VI (2006) A solution to the facility
layout problem having passages and inner structure walls using
particle swarm optimization. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 29(7–8):
766–771
0.1094
0.1070
0.1096
0.1093

0.0874
0.0922
0.0859
0.0920
0.0990

1.3040
0.0918
0.7061

0.1173

10. Farahani RZ, Seifi MS, Asgari N (2010) Multiple criteria facility
20

location problems: a survey. Appl Math Model 34(7):1689–1709

11. Singh SP, Sharma RRK (2006) A review of different approaches to
the facility layout problems. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 30(5–6):425–
433
12. Canen AG, Williamson GH (1998) Facility layout overview: towards
0.1033
0.1003

0.0815
0.0741
0.0899
0.0865
0.0869
0.0851
0.0822
0.0860
0.0919
0.1167
0.1164

competitive advantage. Facilities 16(7/8):198–203

19

13. Drira A, Pierreval H, Hajri-Gabouj S (2007) Facility layout problems:

a survey. Annu Rev Control 31(2):255–267
14. Current J, Min H, Schilling D (1990) Multiobjective analysis of
facility location decisions. Eur J Oper Res 49(3):295–307
15. Meller R, Gau KY (1996) The facility layout problem: recent and
0.1040
0.1015
0.1050
0.1047

0.0702
0.0877
0.0923
0.0876
0.0874
0.0857
0.0833
0.0866
0.0924

emerging trends and perspectives. J Manuf Syst 15(5):351–366

18

16. Grobelny J (1987) On one possible fuzzy approach to facility layout

problems. Int J Prod Res 25(8):1123–1141
The results are multiplied by 100 in order to improve readability

17. Grobelny J (1988) The ‘linguistic pattern’ method for a workstation

layout analysis. Int J Prod Res 26(10):1779–1798
0.1740
0.1659

0.0926
0.1078

0.0991
0.0996
0.0980
0.7016
0.0996
0.0984

0.1033
0.1183
0.1179

18. Evans GW, Wilhelm MR, Karwowski W (1987) A layout design

heuristic employing the theory of fuzzy sets. Int J Prod Res 25(10):
17

1431–1450
19. Raoot AD, Rakshit A (1993) The linguistic pattern approach for
multiple criteria. Facility layout problems. Int J Prod Res 31(1):
203–222
0.1280
1.4041
0.1933
0.1233

0.0991
0.1282

0.1064
0.1051
0.1031
0.1000
0.1045
0.1109

0.1111

20. Cheng R, Gent M, Tozawa T (1995) Genetic search for facility layout
design under interflows uncertainty. IEEE International Conference
16

on Evolutionary Computation, 29 Nov.-1 Dec. Perth, WA, 1: 400–

405
21. Dweiri F, Meier FA (1996) Application of fuzzy decision-
making in facilities layout planning. Int J Prod Res 34(11):
Table 15 (continued)

0.1460
1.4061
0.1253
0.1923

0.1001
0.3649

0.1076
0.1061
0.1043
0.1010
0.9061
0.1123
0.1118

3207–3225
22. Szwarc D, Rajamani D, Bector CR (1997) Cell formation considering
15

fuzzy demand and machine capacity. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 13(2):
134–147
23. Aiello G, Enea M (2001) Fuzzy approach to the robust facility layout
in uncertain production environments. Int J Prod Res 39(18):4089–
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

4101
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2014) 73:749–771
24. Turkbey O (2003) A multi-objective fuzzy set approach in the
machine sequencing problems. J Fac Eng Archit Gazi Univ 18(2):
63–77
25. Turkbey O (2003) A fuzzy robust method for the multi-goal machine
sequencing problem. Dokuz Eylul Univ J Eng Sci 15(3):81–98 (in
Turkish)
26. Deb SK, Bhattacharyya B (2003) Facilities layout planning based on
fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making methodology. Int J Prod Res
41(18):4487–4504
27. Deb SK, Bhattacharyya B (2005) Fuzzy decision support system for
manufacturing facilities layout planning. Decis Support Syst 40(2):
305–314
28. Enea AM, Galante G, Panasci AE (2005) The facility layout problem
approached using a fuzzy model and a genetic search. J Intell Manuf
16(3):303–316
29. Sangwan KS (2010) Fuzziness in materials flow and plant layout.
Kahraman C, Yavuz M (eds) Production engineering and manage-
ment under fuzziness, studies in fuzziness and soft computing
(Studfuzz 252) Springer, Berlin. pp 359–380
30. Altuntas S, Dereli T, Selim H (2012) Fuzzy weighted association rule
based solution approaches to facility layout problem in cellular
manufacturing system. Int J Ind Syst Eng 15(3):253–271
31. Ertugrul I, Karakasoglu N (2008) Comparison of fuzzy AHP and
fuzzy TOPSIS methods for facility location selection. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 39(7–8):783–795
32. Bashiri M, Hosseininezhad SJ (2009) A fuzzy group decision support
system for multifacility location problems. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
42(5–6):533–543
33. Lin CJ, Wu WW (2008) A causal analytical method for group decision-
making under fuzzy environment. Exp Syst Appl 34(1):205–213
34. Tseng ML, Lin YH (2009) Application of fuzzy DEMATEL to
develop a cause and effect model of municipal solid waste manage-
ment in Metro Manila. Environ Monit Assess 158(1–4):519–533
35. Chang B, Chang CW, Wu CH (2011) Fuzzy DEMATEL method for
developing supplier selection criteria. Exp Syst Appl 38(3):1850–1858
36. Fekri R, Aliahmadi A, Fathian M (2009) Identifying the cause and
effect factors of agile NPD process with fuzzy DEMATEL meth-
od: the case of Iranian companies. J Intell Manuf 20(6):637–648
37. Liou JJH, Tzeng GH, Chang HC (2007) Airline safety measurement
using a hybrid model. J Air Transp Manag 13(4):243–249
771
38. Wu WW (2008) Choosing knowledge management strategies by
using a combined ANP and DEMATEL approach. Exp Syst Appl
35(3):828–835
39. Wang MJJ, Chang TC (1995) Tool steel materials selection under
fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 72(3):263–270
40. Chen CT (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group
decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst
114(1):1–9
41. Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2003) Defuzzification within a multi-criteria
decision model. Int J Uncertain Fuzzy 11(5):635–652
42. Tseng ML (2009) Using the extension of DEMATEL to integrate
hotel service quality perceptions into a cause–effect model in uncer-
tainty. Exp Syst Appl 36(5):9015–9023
43. Edwards HK, Gillett BE, Hale ME (1970) Modular Allocation
Technique (MAT). Manag Sci 17(3):161–169
44. Scriabin M, Vergin RC (1975) Comparison of computer algo-
rithms and visual based methods for plant layout. Manag Sci
22(2):172–181
45. Domschke W, Krispin G (1997) Location and layout planning: a
survey. OR Spectr 19(3):181–194
46. Altuntas S, Selim H (2012) Facility layout using weighted
association rule-based data mining algorithms: evaluation with
simulation. Exp Syst Appl 39(1):3–13
47. Chan WM, Chan CY, Ip WH (2002) A heuristic algorithm for
machine assignment in cellular layout. Comput Ind Eng 44(1):49–73
48. Karray F, Zaneldin E, Hegazy T, Shabeeb AHM, Elbeltagi E (2000)
Tools of soft computing as applied to the problem of facility layout
planning. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 8(4):367–379
49. Grobelny J (1987) The fuzzy approach to facility layout problems.
Fuzzy Sets Syst 23(2):175–190
50. Aksarayli M, Altuntas S (2009) The comparison of layout
arrangements for the material flow ordering planning in pro-
duction systems through simulation analysis. PAJES 15(2):
203–214 (In Turkish)
51. Raoot AD, Rakshit A (1991) A ‘fuzzy’ approach to facilities layout
planning. Int J Prod Res 29(4):835–857
52. Mohamadghasemi A, Hadi-Vencheh A (2012) An integrated synthet-
ic value of fuzzy judgments and nonlinear programming methodol-
ogy for ranking the facility layout patterns. Comput Ind Eng 62(1):
342–348
Copyright of International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology is the property of
Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.