Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

European Journal of Operational Research 188 (2008) 140152 www.elsevier.com/locate/ejor

Production, Manufacturing and Logistics

Machine-part cell formation in group technology using a modied ART1 method

Miin-Shen Yang *, Jenn-Hwai Yang
Department of Applied Mathematics, Chung Yuan Christian University, Chung-Li 32023, Taiwan Received 17 August 2004; accepted 9 March 2007 Available online 29 April 2007

Abstract Group Technology (GT) is a useful way of increasing the productivity for manufacturing high quality products and improving the exibility of manufacturing systems. Cell formation (CF) is a key step in GT. It is used in designing good cellular manufacturing systems using the similarities between parts in relation to the machines in their manufacture. It can identify part families and machine groups. Recently, neural networks (NNs) have been widely applied in GT due to their robust and adaptive nature. NNs are very suitable in CF with a wide variety of real applications. Although Dagli and Huggahalli adopted the ART1 network with an application in machine-part CF, there are still several drawbacks to this approach. To address these concerns, we propose a modied ART1 neural learning algorithm. In our modied ART1, the vigilance parameter can be simply estimated by the data so that it is more ecient and reliable than Dagli and Huggahallis method for selecting a vigilance value. We then apply the proposed algorithm to machine-part CF in GT. Several examples are presented to illustrate its eciency. In comparison with Dagli and Huggahallis method based on the performance measure proposed by Chandrasekaran and Rajagopalan, our modied ART1 neural learning algorithm provides better results. Overall, the proposed algorithm is vigilance parameter-free and very ecient to use in CF with a wide variety of machine/part matrices. 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Group technology; Cell formation; ART1 neural network; Learning algorithm; Group eciency

1. Introduction Prot in manufacturing can be achieved by lowering costs and improving product quality. There are some general guidelines for reducing the cost of products without any decrease in quality. These include improving production methods, minimizing
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 3 265 3119; fax: +886 3 265 3199. E-mail address: msyang@math.cycu.edu.tw (M.-S. Yang).

aws, increasing machine utilization and reducing transit and setup time. Research and development (R&D) engineering is the rst line of defense in addressing these issues through the design of a unique product and competitive production techniques. Keeping a close watch over the production process is also important in the pursuit of prot. Although the traditional statistical process control (SPC) technique has several merits, control chart pattern recognition has become a popular tool for monitoring abnormalities in the manufacturing

0377-2217/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.03.047

M.-S. Yang, J.-H. Yang / European Journal of Operational Research 188 (2008) 140152

141

process by recognizing unnatural control chart patterns. This approach not only decreases the waste but also prevents the defects more eciently. Many researchers have applied neural network models to the manufacturing process with generally good results (see Chang and Aw, 1996; Cheng, 1997; Guh and Tannock, 1999; Yang and Yang, 2002). The production process requires a variety of machines and often some complex procedures. Frequently, parts have to be moved from one place to another. This results not only in machine idle time but also wastes the manpower required for the physical movement of the parts. On the other hand, an increasing number of companies are encountering small to medium size production orders. In this situation, more setup changes and frequent part or machine movements occur. Group technology (GT) has proven to be a useful way of addressing these problems by creating a more exible manufacturing process. It can be used to exploit similarities between components to achieve lower costs and increase productivity without loosing product quality. Cell formation (CF) is a key step in GT. It is a tool for designing cellular manufacturing systems using the similarities between parts and machines to have part families and machine groups. The parts in the same machine group have similar requirements, reducing travel and setup time. In CF, a binary machine/part matrix of m p dimension is usually provided (see Fig. 1(a)). The m rows indicate m machines and the p columns represent p parts. Each binary element in the m p matrix indicates a relationship between parts and machines where 1 (0) represents that the pth part should be (not) worked on the mth machine. The matrix also displays all similarities in parts and machines. Our objective is to group parts and machines in a cell based on their similarities. If we consider a machine/part matrix as shown in Fig. 1(a), the result shown in Fig. 1(b) is obtained by a CF clustering method based on the similarities in parts and machines from the machine/part matrix of Figs. 1(a) and 1(b) demonstrates that parts 1 and 4, and machines 1 and 3 are in one cell while parts 3,

Fig. 1(b). Optimal result of Fig. 1(a).

Fig. 1(c). Machine/part matrix.

Fig. 1(d). Optimal result of Fig. 1(c).

5 and 2, and machines 2 and 4 are in another cell. In this case, there are no 1 outside the diagonal block and no 0 inside the diagonal block so that we call it a perfect result. That is, the two cells are completely independent where each part family will be processed only within a machine group. Unfortunately, this perfect result for a machine/part matrix is rarely seen in real situations. On the other hand, another machine/part matrix is shown in Fig. 1(c) with its result in Fig. 1(d). We see that there is a 1 outside the diagonal block. In this case, part 3 is called an exceptional part because it works on two or more machine groups, and machine 1 is called a bottleneck machine as it processes two or more part families. There is also a 0 inside the diagonal block in Fig. 1(d). In this case, it is called a void. In general, an optimal result for a machine/part matrix by a CF clustering method is desired to satisfy the following two conditions: (a) To minimize the number of 0s inside the diagonal blocks (i.e., voids); (b) To minimize the number of 1s outside the diagonal blocks (i.e., exceptional elements). Based on these optimal conditions, Fig. 1(b) is an optimal result of Fig. 1(a) and 1(d) is an optimal result of Fig. 1(c).

Fig. 1(a). Machine/part matrix.

142

M.-S. Yang, J.-H. Yang / European Journal of Operational Research 188 (2008) 140152

There are many CF methods in the literature (see Singh, 1993; Singh and Rajamani, 1996). Some of them use algorithms with certain energy functions or codes to sort the machine/part matrix. Examples include the bond energy algorithm (BEA) (McCormick et al., 1972), rank order clustering (ROC) (King, 1980), modied rank order clustering (MODROC) (Chandrasekaran and Rajagopalan, 1986a) and the direct clustering algorithm (DCA) (Chan and Milner, 1982). Others use similaritybased hierarchical clustering (Mosier, 1989; Wei and Kern, 1989; Gupta and Seifoddini, 1990; Shafer and Rogers, 1993) or simulated annealing approach (see Xambre and Vilarinho, 2003). Examples of these methods include single linkage clustering (SLC), complete linkage clustering (CLC), average linkage clustering (ALC) and linear cell clustering (LCC). However, these CF methods all assume well-dened boundaries between machine/part cells. These crisp boundary assumptions may fail to fully describe cases where machine/part cell boundaries are fuzzy. This is why fuzzy clustering and fuzzy logic methods are applied in CF (see Xu and Wang, 1989; Chu and Hayya, 1991; Gindy et al., 1995; Narayanaswamy et al., 1996). Neural networks have been studied for many years and widely applied in various areas. It is a learning scheme that uses mathematical models to simulate biological nervous system operations in parallel. Lippmann, 1987 gave a tutorial review on neural computing and surveyed six important neural network models that can be used in pattern classication. In general, neural network models are of three types: feedforward networks (e.g., multilayer perceptron, see Rumelhart et al., 1986), feedback networks (e.g., Hopeld network, see Hopeld, 1982) and competitive learning networks (e.g., self-organizing map (SOM), see Kohonen, 1981; adaptive resonance theory (ART1), see Carpenter and Grossberg, 1988). Both feedforward and feedback networks are supervised. The competitive learning network on the other hand is unsupervised. By applying neural network learning, GT is more adaptive in a variety of situations. Recently, more research is being conducted in applying neural networks to GT by using backpropagation learning (Kao and Moon, 1991), competitive learning (Malave and Ramachandran, 1991), ART1 (Kaparthi and Suresh, 1992; Dagli and Huggahalli, 1995) and SOM (Venugopal and Narendran, 1994; Guerrero et al., 2002). Since the competitive learning network is an unsupervised approach, it is very suitable for use in

GT. SOM is best used in GT when the neural node number is known a priori, but this number is not usually known in most real cases. It is generally known that ART1 is a competitive learning network with a exible number of neural nodes making it better applied to GT than SOM. However, some problems may be encountered in directly applying ART1 to GT. Thus, Dagli and Huggahalli (1995) revised ART1 and then applied it to the machine-part CF. Although Dagli and Huggahalli (1995) presented a good application of ART1 to the machine-part CF, we nd that their method still has several drawbacks. In this paper, we rst propose a modied ART1 to overcome these drawbacks and then apply our modied ART1 to the machine-part CF in GT. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the original ART1 with Dagli and Huggahallis application to the machine-part CF in GT. We describe these drawbacks when ART1 is applied in CF by Dagli and Huggahalli (1995). We then propose a modied ART1 to correct these problems. Several examples with some machine/part matrices are presented and compared in Section 3. Conclusions are made in Section 4. 2. A modied ART1 algorithm for cell formation Although GT has been studied and used for more than three decades, neural network applications in GT began only during the last 10 years. Neural network learning is benecial for use in GT in a variety of real cases because it is robust and adaptive. In most neural network models, competitive learning is unsupervised making it valuable to be applied in GT. For examples, see the applications from Malave and Ramachandran (1991), Kaparthi and Suresh (1992), Venugopal and Narendran (1994) and Guerrero et al. (2002). In competitive learning, Kohonens SOM has widely been studied and applied (see Kohonen, 1998, 2001; Guerrero et al., 2002; Lin et al., 2003), but the SOM neural node number needs to be known a priori and the neural node number is, in most real cases, unknown. An appropriate learning algorithm should have the ability to function without being provided the node number. Moreover, the SOM learning system often encounters a stability and plasticity dilemma (Grossberg, 1976). Learning is essential, but stability mechanism, to resist random noise, is also important. ART neural networks were proposed to solve this stability and plasticity dilemma (Carpenter and Grossberg, 1987, 1988). On the other

M.-S. Yang, J.-H. Yang / European Journal of Operational Research 188 (2008) 140152

143

hand, the machine/part matrix data type in GT is binary, making ART1 a good choice. Thus, Kaparthi and Suresh (1992) rst applied the following ART1 algorithm to machine-part CF in GT. ART1 algorithm Step 1. Give a vigilance parameterq and set the initial weights with: tij 0 1; j 1; . . . ; c; where tij (t) is the top-down weight which represent the centers and bij (t) is the bottom-up connective weight between input node i and output node j at time t that is used to evaluate matching scores in the training stage. 2. Input a training vector x. 3. Use bottom-up weights to evaluate matching scores and determine the winner according to the following: j is the winner node when it satises nodej P maxfnodej gwhere n nodej i1 bij txi Pn Pn 4. Set kX k i1 xi and kT j X k i1 tij xi . Test whether the similarity measure kT j X k > q? IF the similarity measure is larkX k ger than q THEN go to Step 6; ELSE go to Step 5. 5. Disable the node j* so that it will not become a candidate in the next iteration and go to Step 3. If there is no winner node, then activate a new node and go to Step 2. 6. Update the winner as follows: tij t 1 tij txi ; bij t 1 tij txi Pn : 0:5 i1 tij txi bij 0 1 ; i 1; . . . ; n; 1n

(b) The input vector order inuences the results. That is, if a sparse vector inputs rst, it will easily cause the nal stored patterns grow sparse. (c) Determination of the vigilance parameter q in ART1 is important but always dicult. If the similarity between the winner and the input X is larger than the vigilance parameter as shown in the Step 4 of ART1 algorithm, it should be allowed to update the winner or else activate a new node as a new group center. Obviously, a larger vigilance will have more plasticity and generate more groups. However, a smaller vigilance has greater stability and may result in only one group. Thus a suitable vigilance parameter is very important. To solve the rst two drawbacks, Dagli and Huggahalli (1995) re-ordered the input vectors according to the number of 1s in each vector, and applied them in the order of descending number of 1s to the network. Then, when a comparison between two vectors is successful, instead of storing Y, the result of ANDing vectors X and T j , the vector having the higher number of 1s among Y and T j must be stored. This can ensure that the stored patterns become denser as the algorithm progresses. To solve the third drawback, Dagli and Huggahalli (1995) rst ran a pre-process with the machine/part matrix to determine appropriate vigilance values q1 and q2 relative to part families and machine groups, and then obtained group numbers N and M, respectively. The values are increased to get dierent part family and machine group numbers so that the nal vigilance value can be chosen according to that which satised N = M. However, by further considering the solutions of Dagli and Huggahalli, we nd that there are still several drawbacks. The rst two modications from Dagli and Huggahalli (1995) often aect the following input vectors, giving them no opportunity to update the output layer. That is, there is no learning behavior after that. This can be demonstrated by an example with the machine/part matrix shown in Fig. 2 where there are 9 machines and 9 parts. The objective is to identify machine groups. We use fx1;...; x9 g to present the 9 machine data vectors for the machine/part matrix as shown in Fig. 2. Chu and Hayya (1991) pointed out that a better and reasonable result for the machine groups in the machine/part matrix shown in Fig. 2 should be as follows:

Step Step

Step

Step

Step

Step 7. Go to Step 2 until all the training data are inputted. However, Dagli and Huggahalli (1995) pointed out that directly applying the above ART1 algorithm might present the following drawbacks: (a) The vector with few 1 elements is called a sparse vector in contrast to a dense vector. The stored patterns grow sparser when more input data are applied.

144

M.-S. Yang, J.-H. Yang / European Journal of Operational Research 188 (2008) 140152

Fig. 2. Machine/part matrix.

Machine Group 1: 3, 4, 7, and 8. Machine Group 2: 1 and 5. Machine Group 3: 2, 6, and 9. Suppose all competitions satisfy our expectations, the center of Group 1 is updated in the order of x8 ; x4 ; x3 , and x7. As far as the nal center results are concerned, Fig. 3 shows that x4 ; x3 and x7 cannot update the node during the learning process because they are sparser than x8. This shows that Dagli and Huggahalli (1995) revision of ART1 is not good enough. The third modication of ART1 by Dagli and Huggahalli (1995) is similar to the validity index for clustering algorithms which needs to be run several times to nd an optimum cluster number. Thus, the redundant evaluation destroys the original idea of ART1. On the other hand, there may be more than one set of q1 and q2 for which N = M. We will explain this with an example later. After making more detailed examination for all steps in the ART1 algorithm, we nd that the main problem with an application of ART1 to the machine/part matrix is caused by Step 6. This is because they execute the update process using a logic AND. We show this phenomenon by using the machine/part matrix shown in Fig. 2 in the order of x3 ; x4 ; x7; and x8. The center change results are shown in

Fig. 4. We nd that the 7th components of four input vectors are 1 except in x4, but we have that the nal center change result in the 7th component becomes 0. Obviously, this nal center vector is unreasonable because there are three 1 in four input vectors. This is because the center change results in the ART1 will become sparse after updating. To prevent ART1 from developing sparse reference vectors after the learning stages, we propose an annealing mechanism to enable the component to have an opportunity for 0 to approach 1 by replacing the logical AND with the weighted average of the reference vector Wij and the input vector X i as follows: W ij t 1 b W ij t 1 bxi : 1

Here we adopt b = 0.5. Using the update formula (1) with the same example in Fig. 2 and the same order of x3 ; x4 ; x7; and x8, we obtain the center change results as shown in Fig. 5. We nd that the nal center change value of 7th component has been upgraded to 0.875. The value of 0.875 is just between 0 and 1, but it is much close to 1. The nal result seems to be more acceptable in the case of three 1 in four input vectors. We already mentioned that the Dagli and Huggahalli (1995) selection method for the vigilance parameter is not reliable. In fact, to enable ART1 to be applied to most real cases of cell formation, the vigilance value should be auto-adjusted from the data structure and information. The distances (similarity) between sample vectors play an important role in deciding the vigilance parameter as if the data sets have diering degrees of dispersion. If the data are more dispersed, the data needs a larger vigilance value to avoid generating too many groups. If the data have less dispersion, the data should take on a smaller vigilance value for eective classication. According to this analysis, we may take the data dispersion value as an index in esti-

Fig. 3. Variation of center.

Fig. 4. Variation of center.

M.-S. Yang, J.-H. Yang / European Journal of Operational Research 188 (2008) 140152

145

Fig. 5. New approach of center variation.

mating the vigilance parameter. Suppose that there are n vectors for training. We adopt the similarity measure with absolute error as an estimator for the vigilance parameter as follows: Pn Pn i 1 ji1 jxi xj j ^ q : 2 Pn1 f n k 1 k In general, more data results in more groups, whereas a smaller q also generates more groups. Thus, we divide the total absolute error by a monotone increasing function f(n) as shown in Eq. (2) to adjust the similarity measure and make the estimator more exible. Thus, a modied ART1 algorithm for CF can be described as follows: Modied ART1 algorithm Step 1. Determine the vigilance parameter q by (2); Given b = 0.5 and assign the rst training vector to W1. Step 2. Input the training vector x. Step 3. Calculate the matching score to nd the winner node j P by the following equation: nodej min n i1 j W ij xi j . j Step 4. Test the degree of similarity. IF Pn i1 jW ij xi j < q, THEN go to Step 6. ELSE go to Step 5. Step 5. Activate a new node and go to Step 2. Step 6. Update the winner as follows: W ij t 1 b W ij t 1 bx: Step 7. Go to Step 2 until all the training data are inputted. We know that Dagli and Huggahallis method and the proposed modied ART1 algorithm can group data into machine-part cells. To accomplish diagonal blocking for the machine/part matrix, both methods have to group parts into part families

and machines into machine groups. However, they may probably generate dierent number of groups when running the algorithms separately by parts and by machines, respectively. Therefore, we can group row vectors (machines) and then assign parts to machine groups or group column vectors (parts) and then assign machines to part families. Suppose we have already grouped m machines into k groups, part i will be assigned to family k when the part operated on k machine group is proportionately higher than that of any other machine group. 3. Numerical examples In order to measure the grouping eciency of an algorithm for machine-part CF, a performance measure is needed. Due to its simplicity of calculation, the grouping eciency measure proposed by Chandrasekaran and Rajagopalan (1986b) is the most widely used method. They dene the grouping eciency g with a weighted mean of g1 and g2 as follows: g xg1 1 xg2 ;
mpov oe where g1 o ; g2 mp ; 0 6 x 6 1 and ev ove m number of machines, p number of parts, o number of 1s in the part/machine matrix, e number of 1s outside the diagonal block, v number of 0s in the diagonal block.

An optimal result should have two features with a higher proportion of 1s inside the diagonal block as well as a higher proportion of 0s outside the diagonal block. The values of g1 and g2 are used to measure these two features, respectively. Of course, x allows the designer to modify the emphasis of the two features. Since x is a weight between g1 and g2 ; x 0:5 is generally suggested and will be used in all of the examples presented next.

146

M.-S. Yang, J.-H. Yang / European Journal of Operational Research 188 (2008) 140152

Example 1. In this example, we rst use several dierent machine/part matrices to demonstrate the behavior of the dened grouping eciency g. We obtain the optimal clustering results for these machine/part matrices using the proposed modied ART1 algorithm in which some 1s have appeared outside the diagonal blocks and some 1s have disappeared from the diagonal blocks. These machine/part matrices and optimal clustering results with grouping efciencies are shown in Figs. 6(a)6(d). Fig. 6a illustrates a machine/part matrix with its clustering result without any exceptional element and void and a grouping efciency g = 100%. Fig. 6b illustrates another machine/part matrix with its clustering result having 8 exceptional elements and a grouping efciency g = 97.7%. Fig. 6c demonstrates a machine/part matrix with its clustering result having 9 voids and a grouping

efciency g = 91.7%, and nally, Fig. 6d has both exceptional elements and voids with a grouping efciency g = 89.3%. Of course, Fig. 6a has a perfect result without any exceptional element and void such that a grouping efciency g = 100% is obtained. For Fig. 6b, we have m = 15, p = 15, o = 54, e = 8, and v = 0. We nd g1 54 8 15 15 54 0 1 and g2 45 8 0 15 15 54 0 8 0:9532:

Thus, we have the grouping eciency g 0:5 g1 0:5 g2 97:7%: Similarly, the grouping eciency for Figs. 6c and 6d are 91.7% and 89.3%, respectively. Our proposed modied ART1 method obtains the optimal clustering results for these dierent machine/part matrices with the advantage

Fig. 6a. Machine/part matrix and nal clustering result with grouping eciency = 100%.

Fig. 6b. Machine/part matrix and nal clustering result with grouping eciency = 97.7%.

M.-S. Yang, J.-H. Yang / European Journal of Operational Research 188 (2008) 140152

147

Fig. 6c. Machine/part matrix and nal clustering result with grouping eciency = 91.7%.

Fig. 6d. Machine/part matrix and nal clustering result with grouping eciency = 89.3%.

that the number of groups needs not be given and is automatically generated from the data. On the other hand, the vigilance parameter is estimated automatically in our modied ART1 algorithm. In comparing the grouping eciencies between Figs. 6a6d, we nd that if there are more exceptional elements or voids in nal clustering results, the grouping eciency will decrease. Example 2. This example uses a machine/part matrix with 35 parts and 28 machines as shown in Fig. 7. We use the data set for comparing the results from our method to those from Dagli and Huggahalli (1995). The pre-process results of determining a suitable vigilance based on Dagli and Huggahalli (1995) method is shown in Fig. 8. Table 1 shows all the dierent combinations of eciency with each dierent choice of vigilances where q1 and q2 repre-

sent groups for parts and machines, respectively. We see that the group number can be c = 5, 6 or 7. In fact, it is difcult to pick a suitable group number c in Dagli and Huggahalli (1995) method. If c = 5 is picked, there is an efciency g = 75.08%. If c = 6 is picked, there is an efciency g = 87.81%. Even if c = 7 is chosen with a best efciency g = 89.11% in Dagli and Huggahallis method, our approach gives the nal results of c = 6 with an efciency g = 90.68% as shown in Fig. 9. We can see that our proposed method presents a simple and efcient way by using an auto-adjusted estimation method according to the structure of the data set itself. Example 3. In this example, the machine/part matrix shown in Fig. 2 with 9 parts and 9 machines is used. The pre-process results of determining a suitable vigilance based on Dagli and Huggahalli

148

M.-S. Yang, J.-H. Yang / European Journal of Operational Research 188 (2008) 140152

Fig. 7. Machine/part matrix with 35 parts and 28 machines.

13 12 11 Number of Groups 10 9 8 7 6 5 4
Part Group Machine Group

Table 1 Grouping eciency of dierent vigilance by part and machine q1 q2 c=5 0.25 0.3 0.2 71.65 71.65 0.3 75.08 75.08 0.35 75.08 75.08

q1 q2 c=6 0.2 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.25 87.81 87.81 87.81 88.43 0.4 87.81 87.81 87.81 88.43 0.45 87.81 87.81 87.81 88.43

q1

15

20

25

30

35 40 45 Vigilance (%)

50

55

60

65

q2

Fig. 8. Variation of group number with vigilance.

c=7 0.5 0.55

0.5 89.11 89.11

0.55 89.11 89.11

(1995) method are shown in Fig. 10. Table 2 shows the dierent combinations of eciency with each dierent choice of vigilances. The Dagli and Huggahalli (1995) method gives the nal results with c = 2 for this machine/part matrix as shown in Fig. 11(a). The grouping efciency is g = 81.62%. Our proposed modied ART1 gives the nal results with c = 3 for this machine/part matrix as shown in Fig. 11(b). The grouping efciency is g = 89.06%.

The nal results from our proposed modied ART1 algorithm actually present better machinepart cells and also higher grouping efciency than Dagli and Huggahallis method. Example 4. The last example uses a larger machine/ part matrix with 105 parts and 46 machines as shown in Fig. 12. The nal clustering matrix from our proposed modied ART1 is shown in Fig. 13.

M.-S. Yang, J.-H. Yang / European Journal of Operational Research 188 (2008) 140152

149

Fig. 9. Final results for machine/part matrix of Fig. 7 using the modied ART1 algorithm with grouping eciency = 90.68%.

Table 2 Eciency of dierent vigilance by part and machine q1 q2 c=2 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.2 81.62 81.62 81.62 81.62 81.62 81.62 0.25 81.62 81.62 81.62 81.62 81.62 81.62 0.3 81.62 81.62 81.62 81.62 81.62 81.62 0.35 81.62 81.62 81.62 81.62 81.62 81.62 0.4 81.62 81.62 81.62 81.62 81.62 81.62 0.45 81.62 81.62 81.62 81.62 81.62 81.62

Fig. 10. Variation of group number with vigilance.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 11. Final result for machine/part matrix of Fig. 2. (a) Using Dagli and Huggahallis method with grouping eciency = 81.62%. (b) Using the modied ART1 algorithm with grouping eciency = 89.06%.

150

M.-S. Yang, J.-H. Yang / European Journal of Operational Research 188 (2008) 140152

Fig. 12. Machine/part matrix with 105 parts and 46 machines.

Fig. 13. Final results for machine/part matrix of Fig. 12 using the modied ART1 algorithm with grouping eciency = 87.54%.

M.-S. Yang, J.-H. Yang / European Journal of Operational Research 188 (2008) 140152

151

The results show that the estimated optimal group number c is 7, and the grouping efciency g is 87.54%. These results look good for a machine-part CF algorithm. It actually follows the assumption that more bottleneck machines and exceptional parts will decrease the nal grouping efciency and so is the case in this example. 4. Conclusions Our main objective in this paper is to provide a neural network application in GT cell formation with a special focus on the ART1 algorithm. Although ART1 has been applied to GT by Kaparthi and Suresh (1992) and Dagli and Huggahalli (1995), it encountered problems when directly applied to GT. In this paper, we analyze these drawbacks and propose a modied ART1 to t the application to GT. Some examples are given and comparisons are made. Based on the performance measure proposed by Chandrasekaran and Rajagopalan (1986b), we nd that our proposed method is vigilance parameter-free and also more ecient in CF with dierent machine/part matrices than the previous methods. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees for their critical and constructive comments and suggestions. This work was supported in part by the National Science Council of Taiwan, R.O.C., under Grant NSC-92-2118-M-033-001. References
Carpenter, G.A., Grossberg, S., 1987. A massively parallel architecture for a self-organizing neural pattern recognition machine. Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing 37, 54115. Carpenter, G.A., Grossberg, S., 1988. The ART1 of adaptive pattern recognition by a self-organization neural network. Computer 21, 7788. Chan, H.M., Milner, D.A., 1982. Direct clustering algorithm for group formation in cellular manufacture. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 1 (1), 6476. Chandrasekaran, M.P., Rajagopalan, R., 1986a. MODROC: An extension of rank order clustering of group technology. International Journal of Production Research 24 (5), 1221 1233. Chandrasekaran, M.P., Rajagopalan, R., 1986b. An ideal seed non-hierarchical clustering algorithm for cellular manufacturing. International Journal of Production Research 24, 451 464.

Chang, S.I., Aw, C.A., 1996. A neural fuzzy control chart for detecting and classifying process mean shifts. International Journal of Production Research 34, 22652278. Cheng, C.S., 1997. A neural network approach for the analysis of control chart patterns. International Journal of Production Research 35, 667697. Chu, C.H., Hayya, J.C., 1991. A fuzzy clustering approach to manufacturing cell formation. International Journal of Production Research 29 (7), 14751487. Dagli, C., Huggahalli, R., 1995. Machine-part family formation with the adaptive resonance theory paradigm. International Journal of Production Research 33, 893913. Gindy, N.N.G., Ratchev, T.M., Case, K., 1995. Component grouping for GT applications- a fuzzy clustering approach with validity measure. International Journal of Production Research 33 (9), 24932509. Grossberg, S., 1976. Adaptive pattern classication and universal recoding I: Parallel development and coding of neural feature detectors. Biological Cybernetics 23, 121134. Guerrero, F., Lozano, S., Smith, K.A., Canca, D., Kwok, T., 2002. Manufacturing cell formation using a new self-organizing neural network. Computers and Industrial Engineering 42, 377382. Guh, R.S., Tannock, J.D.T., 1999. Recognition of control chart concurrent patterns using a neural network approach. International Journal of Production Research 37, 17431765. Gupta, T., Seifoddini, H., 1990. Production data based similarity coecient for machine-component grouping decisions in the design of a cellular manufacturing system. International Journal of Production Research 28 (7), 12471269. Hopeld, J.J., 1982. Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 79, 25542558. Kao, Y., Moon, Y.B., 1991. A unied group technology implementation using the backpropagation learning rule of neural networks. Computers and Industrial Engineering 20 (4), 425437. Kaparthi, S., Suresh, N.C., 1992. Machine-component cell formation in group technology: A neural network approach. International Journal of Production Research 30 (6), 13531367. King, J.R., 1980. Machine-component grouping in production ow analysis: An approach using rank order clustering algorithm. International Journal of Production Research 18 (2), 213232. Kohonen, T., 1998. The self-organizing map. Neurocomputing 21, 16. Kohonen, T., 2001. Self-Organizing Maps, 3rd ed. SpringerVerlag, Berlin. Lin, K.C.R., Yang, M.S., Liu, H.C., Lirng, J.F., Wang, P.N., 2003. Generalized Kohonens competitive learning algorithms for ophthalmological MR image segmentation. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 21, 863870. Lippmann, R.P., 1987. An introduction to computing with neural nets. IEEE ASSP, 4-22. Malave, C.O., Ramachandran, S., 1991. Neural network-based design of cellular manufacturing systems. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 2, 305314. McCormick, W.T., Schweitzer, P.J., White, T.W., 1972. Problem decomposition and data reorganization by a clustering technique. Operations Research 20 (5), 9931009. Mosier, C.T., 1989. An experiment investigating the application of clustering procedures and similarity coecients to the GT

152

M.-S. Yang, J.-H. Yang / European Journal of Operational Research 188 (2008) 140152 Venugopal, V., Narendran, T.T., 1994. Machine-cell formation through neural network models. International Journal of Production Research 32, 21052116. Wei, J.C., Kern, G.M., 1989. Commonality analysis: A linear cell clustering algorithm for group technology. International Journal of Production Research 27 (12), 20532062. Xambre, A.R., Vilarinho, P.M., 2003. A simulated annealing approach for manufacturing cell formation with multiple identical machines. European Journal of Operational Research 151, 434446. Xu, H., Wang, H.P., 1989. Part family formation for GT applications based on fuzzy mathematics. International Journal of Production Research 27 (9), 16371651. Yang, M.S., Yang, J.H., 2002. A fuzzy soft learning vector quantization for control chart pattern recognition. International Journal of Production Research 40, 27212731.

machine cell formation problem. International Journal of Production Research 27 (10), 18111835. Narayanaswamy, P., Bector, C.R., Rajamani, D., 1996. Fuzzy logic concepts applied to machine-component matrix formation in cellular manufacturing. European Journal of Operational Research 93, 8897. Rumelhart, D.E., Hinton, G.E., Williams, R.J., 1986. Learning representations by back-propagation. Nature 323, 533536. Shafer, S.M., Rogers, D.F., 1993. Similarity and distance measures for cellular manufacturing, Part 1: A survey. International Journal of Production Research 31 (5), 1133 1142. Singh, N., 1993. Design of cellular manufacturing systems-an invited review. European Journal of Operational Research 69 (3), 284291. Singh, N., Rajamani, D., 1996. Cellular Manufacturing Systems. Chapman & Hall, New York.