Slide 1

A Presentation on the topic

SELECTION OF MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEM USING MULTI CRITERIA DECISION TECHNIQUES AT IMPERIAL PORCELAIN PRIVATE LIMITED

Presented By:Ankur Mahajan NITTTR, ChandigarhEmail:ankurmahajan786@gmail.com1ContentsIntroductionCompanys ProfileLiterature ReviewProblem FormulationMethodologyResult & DiscussionsConclusions & Scope for Future WorkReferences

2IntroductionMaterial handling systems:-Material handling systems consist of discrete or continuous resources to move entities from one location to another. Material movement occurs everywhere in a factory or warehousebefore, during, and after processing. Although the cost associated with the material movement does not add value in the manufacturing process, sometimes half of the company's expenditure incurred in material handling. Therefore, each effort to keep the material handling activities at a minimum is appreciable.Due to the increasing demand for a high variety of products and shorter response times in today's manufacturing industry, there is a need for highly flexible and efficient material handling systems. Basic design of a material handling system comprises of machine layout, product routings, and material flow control.

3TEN PRINCIPLES OF MATERIAL HANDLING4TYPES OF MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEMSConveyors (belt conveyors, bucket conveyors, etc.)Cranes (jib crane, bridge crane, etc.)PalletizersIndustrial trucks (fork lift)Excavators, bull-dozersAGVRobotsAutomated Storage and Retrieval System

5TYPES OF CONVEYORSFlat belt conveyorTrough belt conveyor

6Chain driven roller conveyorScrew conveyor

7

Roller Bed Belt conveyor8Company ProfileImperial Porcelain Private Limited is one of the pioneer ceramic industry in the western Rajasthan located in Bikaner to produce porcelain insulators.The basic raw material is Quartz which is abundantly available at Bikaner. With governments impetus on electrification in India, the company diversified its entire production to Low Tension & High Tension insulators for attaining higher value addition. The industry was established in the year 1991 with capacity of 6-8 tonnes /day. The company is small scale and having manpower 150. The major clients are RVUNL, NTPC, NHPL etc9Process chart

10Products 1.1 KV transformer Bushing12-17.5 KV Transformer Bushing36 KV Transformer Bushing11 KV Pin Insulator22 KV Pin Insulator33 KV Pin InsulatorLT Pin Insulator11 KV post Insulator11 KV 45 KN Disc Insulator11 KV 70&90 KN Disc InsulatorLT shackle insulator

1111

Company Layout12Literature Review(Concluding Remarks)For problem in different field of engineering viz. selection of best equipment, process, logistic, vendor, product etc. a number of alternatives are usually available for selecting the best possible solution some quantifying methods are required. From the literature survey it has been found that a number of Multi Criteria Decision Method are available which can help in making a optimal selection. Some of the Multi Criteria Decision Method technique reported in the literature are Analytical Hierarchy Process, Analytical Network Process, Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution, Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment of Evaluation, Social choice theory method: preferential or non preferential etc. 13Contd..Out of these techniques AHP, ANP, TOPSIS has been applied for solving various engineering problem and has been found to be effectiveThese three techniques i.e. AHP, ANP and TOPSIS establish the priorities in the same way by using pair wise comparisons and judgment. The AHP reduces a multidimensional problem into a one dimensional problem. AHP structures a decision problem into a hierarchal structure with a goal, decision criteria and alternatives.The basic structure of ANP is an influence network of clusters and nodes contained within the clusters. 14Contd..TOPSIS is a practical and useful technique for ranking and selection of a number of externally determined alternatives through distant measures. However there is no indicator available for selecting a suitable technique for a given problem. Therefore it is proposed to apply these three techniques for selecting the material handling system for Imperial Porcelain Private Limited, Bikaner.15Problem IdentificationFor the last 2 years, observation of the management of the company was that the production of the organization is low and cracks were appearing in the insulators during drying and baking. The percentage of defects were observed in the range of 13% to 17%. After analyzing the whole manufacturing process it was found that three processes namely pugging, shaping and copying play an important role for preparing the required and specified preliminary sizing and shaping of the final product. These processes are providing the required properties of electrical and mechanical for final product.16Contd..The extra removed material which is removed during shaping and copying process dumped around the machines. This material is later on reused in the pugging machine mixed with fresh raw material. The extra material is fed back into the pug mill manually at irregular intervals. During this process the material gets dry and its properties become different from the fresh raw material and therefore the basic properties of the mixture on the pug mill are changed. Due to intermittent feeding process some material becomes completely dry.17Contd..Thus it was observed that the main reason for large percentage of cracks is the material recovered from the shaping and copying machines which is mixed with the fresh raw material.By the time this material is transported manually to the pugmill for recycling it loses moisture and it contains chunks due to the operation carried out during shaping and copying. It was therefore proposed to the management that the material from the shaping and copying be transported back to blunger instead of pugmill for proper mixing. Further a suitable material handling system be installed so that irregular transportation can be avoided which was causing moisture loss and reduced productivity.18Contd..The management wanted to select the most suitable material handling system which would increase productivity with least investment. Since a number of alternative are available in material handling system. It was decided to select a system which meet maximum possible criteria of the process. Therefore in the present work, different MCDM techniques will be used for the optimum selection of material handling system, by using AHP, ANP and TOPSIS techniques in context of different criteria defined/specified by the company.1919

20MethodologyContd.. Identification of criteria The first step is to go for detailed study of existing process, products and layout of the organization. The selection of material handling system depends upon different criteria. In this step the criteria applicable to the existing problem will be identified. Criterion/FactorsFactor I: Characteristic of product (Gas, Liquid & Solid)Factor II: Conveying speed (Low, Medium, High)Factor III: Cost (Installation, Maintenance & Operation)Factor IV: Movement (Distance and frequency of moves)Factor V: Load Flexibility (Light, Medium & Heavy)Factor VI: Physical shape of the product (Long & Flat)Factor VII: Property of the product (Wet, Sticky, Hot) Factor VIII: Volume to be moved

21 contd..Listing of alternativesA number of alternatives are available in material handling systems such as conveyors, overhead cranes, trucks, AGVs etc. further options are there in each of these systems. The criteria identified in the previous steps will be used for choosing a giving type of material handling system using MCDM techniques. The different material handling systems are as followsC-1: Chain Driven Roller Conveyor C-2: Flat belt ConveyorC-3: Roller bed belt conveyorC-4: Screw ConveyorC-5: Troughed Belt ConveyorIt is the major concern of the company to install an appropriate material handling system in view of its specific nature of the flow of material and cost.

22contd..Application of MCDM TechniquesThere are number of MCDM techniques available. Out of these techniques AHP, ANP and TOPSIS are proposed for selecting the material handling system for the given problem. The three technique will be applied one by one for ranking the different alternatives based upon the selected criteria.

23Methodology for Analytical Hierarchy ProcessStep 1: Cost Factor Component of the Equipments

S. NoEquipmentsChain driven roller curveFlat belt conveyorRoller bed belt conveyorScrew conveyorTroughed belt conveyor1Cost of Acquisition1650001200001590002560001380002Cost of installation30000200002500035000300003Cost of Operation12000120001500018000160004Cost of Maintenance26000200002700018000230005Total Cost23300017200022600032700020700024Step 2: Developing the Decision Tree

25Step 3: Objective Factor Measure (OFM) Objective Factor Measure (OFM) values are determined for each of the alternatives of equipment. The formula is given below: OFMi = [OFCi x (1/OFCi)]-1 Where OFCi = Objective Factor Component for i = 1, 2 n number of alternatives of equipment. (1/OFCi) = (1/OFC1+1/OFC2+1/OFC3+1/OFC4+1/OFC5) = (1/233000 + 1/172000 + 1/226000 + 1/327000 + 1/207000) (1/OFCi) = 2.242*10-5

26S. No.EquipmentsChain Driven Roller ConveyorFlat Belt ConveyorRoller Bed Belt ConveyorScrew ConveyorTroughed Belt Conveyor1Cost of Acquisition1650001200001590002560001380002Cost of installation30000200002500035000300003Cost of Operation12000120001500018000160004Cost of Maintenance26000200002700018000230005Total Cost2330001720002260003270002070006OFM0.19140.25930.19730.13640.215427Questionnaire

28Step 4: Decision MatrixIIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIII1421/51/21/221/2II1/411/21/81/41/71/21/6III1/2211/81/41/521/4IV58812274V2441/211/242VI2751/22162VII1/221/21/71/41/611/4VIII2621/41/21/24129Step 5: Pairwise Comparison Matrices 1.Pair-wise comparison matrix for Characteristic of productC1C2C3C4C5C11 1/52 2 1/6C25 1 6 8 2 C3 1/2 1/61 3 1/6C4 1/2 1/8 1/31 1/6C56 1/26 6 1 30

Pair-wise comparison matrix for Conveying speed Pair-wise comparison matrix for CostPair-wise comparison matrix for Distance MovementPair-wise comparison matrix for Load FlexibilityPair-wise comparison matrix for Physical Shape of The ProductPair-wise comparison matrix for Property of the ProductPair-wise comparison matrix for Volume to be Moved31Step 6: Determination of the priority vectors (P.V.)IIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIII1421/51/21/221/2II1/411/21/81/41/71/21/6III1/2211/81/41/521/2IV58812274V2441/211/242VI2751/22162VII1/221/21/71/41/611/4VIII2621/41/21/241TOTAL13.25034.00023.0002.8426.7505.00926.50010.41632Normalize Matrix for decision matrixIIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIPVI0.07550.11760.08700.07040.07410.09980.07550.04800.0810II0.01890.02940.02170.04400.03700.02850.01890.01600.0268III0.03770.05880.04350.04400.03700.03990.07550.04800.0481IV0.37740.23530.34780.35180.29630.39920.26420.38400.3320V0.15090.11760.17390.17590.14810.09980.15090.19200.1512VI0.15090.20590.21740.17590.29630.19960.22640.19200.2081VII0.03770.05880.02170.05030.03700.03330.03770.02400.0376VIII0.15090.17650.08700.08790.07410.09980.15090.09600.1154TOTAL11111111133Graphical representation of decision matrix34PV Value for Characteristic of Product35

PV Value for Conveying Speed36

PV Valve for Cost37

PV Valve for Distance Movement38

PV Valve for Load Flexibility39

PV Valve for Physical Shape of the Product40

PV Valve for Property of the Product41

PV Valve for Volume to be moved42

Step 7: Consistency Index (C.I.) for each of the MatricesThe Consistency Index (C.I.) for each of the matrix is calculated using following formula:C.I. = (max n) / (n-1) Where n = number of elements of each of the matrices. Here max = Principle Eigen value max can be calculated by summation of the multification of sum of each column with the corresponding PV value for each of the matrix.Step 8: Random Consistency index (R.I.)n58R.I.1.111.4143Step 9: Consistency Ratio (C.R.) The consistency Ratio for each of the matrix is calculated by the ratio of Consistency index and Random Index. C.R. = C.I. / R.I.C.R. for decision matrix: = 0.02994901C.R. for Characteristic of product: = 0.0733575C.R. for Conveying speed: = 0.0858189C.R. for Cost: = 0.0798872C.R. for Distance Movement: = 0.0501446C.R. for Load Flexibility: = 0.0900662C.R. for Physical shape of the product: = 0.011578C.R. for Property of the product: = 0.070508C.R. for Volume to be moved:= 0.0864858

44Step 10: Subjection Factor Measure Valve for AlternativesSFMi can be calculated by multiplying each of the PV values of decision matrix to each of the PV values of each alternatives of equipment for each factor. The product is then summed up for each alternative.SFM1 = 0.1893SFM2 = 0.266SFM3 = 0.1883SFM4 = 0.1248SFM5 = 0.2300

45CRITERIASFMIIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIII0.08100.02680.04810.33200.15120.20810.03760.1154C10.09110.11780.06710.05800.14850.40270.28560.34080.1893C20.44990.18290.52680.47330.06560.07990.07440.12540.2676C30.07700.06850.11970.07800.19490.38750.13090.29150.1883C40.04410.05690.05290.04020.47990.04740.44450.04090.1248C50.33790.57390.23340.35050.11110.08250.06460.20150.23004647

Step 11: Material Handling Equipment Measure Valve for AlternativesMEMi = [( x OFMi) + (1 - ) x SFMi ]

The best alternative on the basis of the highest value of the MEM is Flat belt Conveyor.

EquipmentMEM valveRankCHAIN DRIVEN ROLLER CONVEYOR0.19073283FLAT BELT CONVEYOR0.26205211ROLLER BED BELT CONVEYOR0.19438254SCREW CONVEYOR0.13257515TROUGHED BELT CONVEYOR0.2202575248The result shows that the Flat belt conveyor is best as per the criteria selected for Imperial Porcelain Private Limited

49

Methodology for Analytical Network ProcessThe ANP is a more general form of the AHP used in multi criteria decision analysis. AHP structures a decision problem into hierarchy with a goal, decision criteria and alternatives while the basic structure of ANP is an influence network of clusters and nodes contained within the clusters. ANP is a multi-criteria decision analysis method that takes simultaneously, several criteria, both qualitative and quantitative into consideration, allowing dependence and making numerical tradeoffs to arrive at a synthetic conclusion indicating the best solution of a set of possible alternatives.

50Step 1: Network Structure

51Step2: Pairwise Comparison MatricesComparison Matrices of Alternative Alternative with respect to CriteriaComparison Matrix Alternative Alternative with respect to AlternativeComparison Matrix Criteria-Criteria with respect to CriteriaComparison Matrix of Criteria-Criteria with respect to Alternative

52Comparison Matrix of Criteria-Criteria with respect to AlternativeComparison with respect to Chain Drive Roller Conveyor Node in "Criteria" ClusterIIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIII11/61/41/31/61/221/2II611/21/21/4253III4211/21/3442IV32211/2343V64321474VI21/21/41/31/4121/3VII1/51/41/41/71/211/4VIII21/31/21/31/4341Total24.500010.20007.75005.25002.892918.000029.000014.083353Step 3: Determination of the priority vectors (P.V.)IIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIPVI0.04080.01630.03230.06350.05760.02780.06900.03550.0429II0.24490.09800.06450.09520.08640.11110.17240.21300.1357III0.16330.19610.12900.09520.11520.22220.13790.14200.1501IV0.12250.19610.25810.19050.17280.16670.13790.21300.1822V0.24490.39220.38710.38100.34570.22220.24140.28400.3123VI0.08160.04900.03230.06350.08640.05560.06900.02370.0576VII0.02040.01960.03230.04760.04940.02780.03450.01780.0312VIII0.08160.03270.06450.06350.08640.16670.13790.07100.0880Total1.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.000054Step 4: Consistency Index (C.I.) For each of the Matrices.C.I. = (max n) / (n-1)C.I. = (8.638228533 - 8)/ (8-1) = 0.091175505C.I. = (8.667012993 - 8)/ (8-1) = 0.09528757C.I. = (8.693005629 - 8)/ (8-1) = 0.099000804C.I. = (8.609240185 - 8)/ (8-1) = 0.087034311C.I. = (8.681107493 - 8)/ (8-1) = 0.09730107

55Step 5: Random Consistency index (R.I.)n58R.I.1.111.41Step 6: Consistency Ratio (C.R.)C.R. = C.I./ R.I.C.R. for Chain drive roller conveyor = 0.06512536C.R. for Flat belt conveyor = 0.06806255C.R. for Roller bed belt conveyor = 0.07071486C.R. for Screw conveyor = 0.062167365C.R. for Troughed belt conveyor = 0.06950076556The Unweighted SupermatrixAlternativeCriteriaC1C2C3C4C5IIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIAlternativeC10.08830.08970.11590.10980.10040.09110.11780.06710.05800.14850.40270.28560.3408C20.46070.49490.39470.45790.29200.44990.18290.52680.47330.06560.07990.07440.1254C30.08050.06170.09260.08430.07580.07700.06850.11970.07800.19490.38750.13090.2915C40.03970.03960.03980.04210.04120.04410.05690.05290.04020.47990.04740.44450.0409C50.33080.31400.35690.30600.49060.33790.57390.23340.35050.11110.08250.06460.2015CriteriaI0.04280.04870.04200.03820.03740.08100.02190.02180.03220.02690.02550.30230.1471II0.13570.02510.14440.02440.07190.02680.09340.11750.03320.13930.27250.02470.0436III0.15010.10620.07560.33090.13150.04810.21450.32150.06450.12030.11970.08900.1006IV0.18220.09930.18840.16040.34620.33200.14700.12840.30550.09230.17320.04360.2888V0.31230.24370.32700.09410.20160.15120.07850.03490.18210.29350.03430.06900.0965VI0.05760.07470.08030.24000.07510.20810.07580.14810.14790.02890.22120.12320.2027VII0.03120.04140.06330.08140.02420.03760.03600.05860.02720.04800.05270.16700.0294VIII0.08800.36100.07890.03060.11200.11540.33300.16920.20750.25080.10090.18110.091357Step 8: The Cluster MatrixAlternativesCriteriaAlternatives1.00001.0000Criteria1.00001.0000Total2.00002.0000AlternativesCriteriaPV AverageAlternatives0.50.50.500Criteria0.50.50.500Total111.00058Step 8: Weighted SupermatrixAlternativeCriteriaC1C2C3C4C5IIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIAlternativeC10.04410.04490.05800.05490.05020.04550.05890.03360.02900.07430.20130.14280.1704C20.23040.24750.19740.22890.14600.22490.09150.26340.23670.03280.04000.03720.0627C30.04030.03090.04630.04220.03790.03850.03420.05980.03900.09750.19370.06540.1457C40.01980.01980.01990.02100.02060.02210.02840.02650.02010.23990.02370.22230.0204C50.16540.15700.17840.15300.24530.16900.28700.11670.17520.05560.04130.03230.1007CriteriaI0.02140.02430.02100.01910.01870.04050.01100.01090.01610.01340.01270.15110.0735II0.06790.01250.07220.01220.03600.01340.04670.05870.01660.06960.13630.01240.0218III0.07510.05310.03780.16550.06570.02400.10730.16080.03220.06010.05980.04450.0503IV0.09110.04960.09420.08020.17310.16600.07350.06420.15270.04620.08660.02180.1444V0.15620.12190.16350.04710.10080.07560.03920.01740.09100.14680.01720.03450.0482VI0.02880.03740.04010.12000.03760.10400.03790.07410.07400.01450.11060.06160.1014VII0.01560.02070.03170.04070.01210.01880.01800.02930.01360.02400.02640.08350.0147VIII0.04400.18050.03950.01530.05600.05770.16650.08460.10370.12540.05050.09060.045659Step 9: Limit SupermatrixAlternativeCriteriaC1C2C3C4C5IIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIAlternativeC10.06920.06920.06920.06920.06920.06920.06920.06920.06920.06920.06920.06920.0692C20.16850.16850.16850.16850.16850.16850.16850.16850.16850.16850.16850.16850.1685C30.06350.06350.06350.06350.06350.06350.06350.06350.06350.06350.06350.06350.0635C40.04610.04610.04610.04610.04610.04610.04610.04610.04610.04610.04610.04610.0461C50.15270.15270.15270.15270.15270.15270.15270.15270.15270.15270.15270.15270.1527CriteriaI0.02590.02590.02590.02590.02590.02590.02590.02590.02590.02590.02590.02590.0259II0.04130.04130.04130.04130.04130.04130.04130.04130.04130.04130.04130.04130.0413III0.06770.06770.06770.06770.06770.06770.06770.06770.06770.06770.06770.06770.0677IV0.10200.10200.10200.10200.10200.10200.10200.10200.10200.10200.10200.10200.1020V0.09420.09420.09420.09420.09420.09420.09420.09420.09420.09420.09420.09420.0942VI0.05620.05620.05620.05620.05620.05620.05620.05620.05620.05620.05620.05620.0562VII0.02110.02110.02110.02110.02110.02110.02110.02110.02110.02110.02110.02110.0211VIII0.09140.09140.09140.09140.09140.09140.09140.09140.09140.09140.09140.09140.091460The result shows that the Flat belt conveyor is best as per the criteria selected for Imperial Porcelain Pvt. Limited and followed by Troughed belt conveyor61

Methodology For Technique For Order Preference By Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS)TOPSIS is based on the idea that the chosen alternative should have the shortest distance from the Positive Ideal Solution (PIS) and on the other side the farthest distance of the Negative Ideal Solution (NIS). The Positive Ideal Solution maximizes the benefit criteria and minimizes the cost criteria, whereas the Negative Ideal Solution maximizes the cost criteria and minimizes the benefit criteria. In the process of TOPSIS, the priority valves are same as in AHP. 62Steps for TOPSISStep 1: Decision Matrix:Step 2: Pairwise Comparison Matrices: Pair-wise comparison matrix for Characteristic of productPair-wise comparison matrix for Conveying speed Pair-wise comparison matrix for CostPair-wise comparison matrix for Distance MovementPair-wise comparison matrix for Load FlexibilityPair-wise comparison matrix for Physical Shape of The ProductPair-wise comparison matrix for Property of the ProductPair-wise comparison matrix for Volume to be MovedStep 3: Determination of the priority vectors (P.V.)Step 4: Consistency Index (C.I.) For Each of the Matrices.Step 5: Random Consistency index (R.I.)Step 6: Consistency Ratio (C.R.)

63Step 7: Construct a Normalize matrix:The vector normalization is used for computing rij, which is given as

CRITERIAIIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIALTERNATIVESWEIGHTS0.08100.02680.04810.33200.15120.20810.03760.1154C10.15790.18990.11290.09700.26810.70340.51630.6696C20.77990.29500.88590.79120.11830.13960.13440.2464C30.13350.11040.20120.13030.35180.67690.23660.5726C40.07650.09170.08900.06720.86610.08280.80360.0803C50.58580.92540.39240.58580.20060.14420.11690.395864Step 8: Weighted Normalized Decision MatrixFor constructing the weighted normalized decision matrix multiply each column of the normalized decision matrix by its associated weight. The weighted normalized value Vij is calculated as:Vij = Wj*rij

CRITERIAIIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIALTERNATIVESWEIGHTS0.08100.02680.04810.33200.15120.20810.03760.1154C10.01280.00510.00540.03220.04050.14630.01940.0773C20.06320.00790.04260.26270.01790.02900.00510.0284C30.01080.00300.00970.04330.05320.14080.00890.0661C40.00620.00250.00430.02230.13090.01720.03020.0093C50.04740.02480.01890.19450.03030.03000.00440.045765Step 9: Determine the positive ideal and negative ideal solutionPositive ideal solution:A* ={ V1*, . . . ., Vn*}, where = {0.0061926, 0.00245856, 0.004278, 0.02230477, 0.0178841, 0.017232, 0.0043905, 0.009266231}Negative ideal solution:A' = { V1, . . . ., Vn}, whereVj, = { if j J ; if j J } = {0.0061926, 0.00245856, 0.004278, 0.02230477,0.0178841, 0.017232, 0.0043905, 0.009266231}66Step 10: Separation measure for the positive ideal alternative

CRITERIASUMS*IIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIALTERN--ATIVESC10.00250.00040.00140.05310.00820.00000.00010.00010.06590.2566C20.00000.00030.00000.00000.01280.01250.00060.00140.02760.1662C30.00270.00050.00110.04810.00600.00000.00050.00000.05890.2428C40.00320.00050.00150.05780.00000.01530.00000.00320.08150.2855C50.00020.00000.00060.00460.01010.01230.00070.00040.02890.1701

67Separation measure for the Negative ideal alternative CRITERIASUMSIIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIALTERN--ATIVESC10.00000.00000.00000.00010.00050.01670.00020.00460.0220.148C20.00320.00000.00150.05780.00000.00010.00000.00040.0630.251C30.00000.00000.00000.00040.00120.01530.00000.00320.0200.142C40.00000.00000.00000.00000.01280.00000.00070.00000.0130.115C50.00170.00050.00020.02960.00020.00020.00000.00130.0330.183

68Step 11: Calculation for relative closeness Calculation for relative closeness coefficient to rank the alternatives. The closeness coefficient is the distance to the positive ideal solution (S*) and negative ideal solution (S-) simultaneously by taking the relative closeness to the positive ideal solution. The closeness coefficient () for each alternative is calculated as follow

69 Relative Closeness of the AlternativesThe result shows that the Flat belt conveyor is best as per the criteria selected for Imperial Porcelain Pvt. Limited and followed by Troughed belt conveyor 70

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONResult obtained using Multi Criteria Decision techniques AHP Result for selection of Alternative

The ranking obtained based upon Material Handling Equipment Measure show that flat belt conveyor is the most suitable system for present work followed by Troughed belt conveyor, Chain driven roller conveyor, Roller bed belt conveyor and Screw conveyor.

AlternativesResult(MEM)RankChain driven roller conveyor0.19073283Flat belt conveyor0.26205211Roller bed belt conveyor0.19438254Screw conveyor0.13257515Troughed belt conveyor0.2202575271ANP Result for selection of AlternativeAlternativesResultRankChain driven roller conveyor0.06923Flat belt conveyor0.16851Roller bed belt conveyor0.06354Screw conveyor0.04615Troughed belt conveyor0.15272The ranking obtained based upon Limit super matrix show that flat belt conveyor is the most suitable system for present work followed by Troughed belt conveyor, Chain driven roller conveyor, Roller bed belt conveyor and Screw conveyor.72TOPSIS Result for selection of AlternativeThe ranking obtained based upon relative closeness to the ideal solution show that flat belt conveyor is the most suitable system for present work followed by Troughed belt conveyor, Roller bed belt conveyor, Chain driven roller conveyor and Screw conveyor.

AlternativesResultRankChain driven roller conveyor0.3672251074Flat belt conveyor0.6017274351Roller bed belt conveyor0.3695996393Screw conveyor0.2888507785Troughed belt conveyor0.519016039273Comparative Result of MCDM TechniquesThe chart shows that the flat belt conveyor was ranked first. The ranking of troughed belt conveyor and screw conveyor are second and fifth by all the three techniques. Chain driven roller conveyor and roller bed belt conveyor are preferred over belt driven in case of heavier loads. Therefore both of them can be used interchangeably when the material to be transported is heavy. Accordingly they have been ranked in the range of three to four.74

Discussion on Rankings of Material handling SystemsResults obtained by using MCDM Techniques are discussed with reference to the criterion/factors of the problemFactor I: Characteristic of product (Gas, Liquid & Solid)Factor II: Conveying speed (Low, Medium, High)Factor III: Cost (Installation, Maintenance & Operation)Factor IV: Movement (Distance and frequency of moves)Factor V: Load Flexibility (Light, Medium & Heavy)Factor VI: Physical shape of the product (Long & Flat)Factor VII: Property of the product (Wet, Sticky, Hot) Factor VIII: Volume to be moved

75Cost analysis of flat belt conveyor installation at Imperial Porcelain Pvt. LimitedThe flat belt conveyor was ranked first by AHP, ANP and TOPSIS techniques in selection of material handling system for the present problem. The cost price of flat belt conveyor suitable for the present problem is one lac seventy five thousand approximately and the operational cost is Rs fifteen thousand per month approximately.Therefore the total cost for installing and operating the conveyor system in the first year will be Rs. Three lac fifty five thousand to the company. But installation of the conveyor system the requirement of labour will be reduce to six from the present numbers i.e. ten. The present labour cost is Rs. Three hundred per person per day. With the reduction of labour requirement the company will be saving Rs. 300x4x30 =36000/- per month. Thus there will be a annual saving of Rs. 36000x12 = 4,32,000/- in the first year. Thus the company will will be able to recover the cost price in the very first year along with substantial savings which will further increase in the subsequent year.

76Discussion..After installation the conveyor system, there is indirect benefit of decrement in the defective pieces that occur due to the transportation of extra material from shaping and copying machine to the blunger is intermittent and at irregular intervals and the material dried. The basic properties of the extra material on the pug mill get changed. After installation of conveyor system for providing continuous movement of chunks from copying and shaping to blunger which will enhance the overall productivity of the system.Keeping in view the different factors which affect the selection of material handling system at Imperial Porcelain Pvt. Limited, Bikaner and the cost analysis, it is stated that the Flat belt conveyor selected using the different Multi Criteria Decision Method techniques is the optimal selection.

77CONCLUSIONS AND SCOPE FOR FUTURE WORKConclusionFor selection of suitable material handling system, the dominant factors considered were characteristic of product, conveying speed, cost, distance movement, load flexibility, physical shape of the product, property of the product and volume to be moved.Multi Criteria Decision Method techniques viz. AHP,ANP and TOPSIS were used for selection of suitable material handling system.The results show that the flat belt conveyor was ranked first by AHP,ANP and TOPSIS techniques for selection of material handling system for the present problem. The ranking of troughed belt conveyor and screw conveyor are second and fifth by all the three techniques. Chain driven roller conveyor and roller bed belt conveyor are preferred over belt driven in case of heavier loads. Therefore both of them can be used interchangeably when the material to be transported is heavy. Accordingly they have been ranked in the range of three to four.

78Conclusion .The results obtained from AHP,ANP and TOPSIS techniques were correlated with factors affecting the process and it was found that the results providing by all the Multi Criteria Decision Method techniques were optimal. Thus it may be concluded that Multi Criteria Decision method techniques are an effective tool for this type of problem.The cost analysis of the material handling system shows that installing the said conveyor system would result in economic benefit for the company.The indirect benefit is reduction in the percentage of defective pieces due to continuously supply of extra material to blunger so that the properties of extra material is not changed. 79Limitation of Multi Criteria Decision Method TechniqueThe result obtained were forwarded to the management of the company. The benefits of implementing the selected material handling system can be measured only after the company management decides to implement the system.The single set of input data for the Multi Criteria Decision Method Technique was obtained in the form of rankings scale for different options in the questionnaire from the company management and technical experts. Obtaining different sets of input from different people and using aggregation technique for converging may have resulted in the different result.The procedure uses weighing the importance of a decision maker on the basis of his experience and knowledge in the field. Although the method is widely used but may introduce biasing based on decision makers preferences.80Scope for Future WorkThe measure evaluated as weighted average of objective and subjective factor measure while computing MEM, life of the equipment and present value of the money has not been considered explicitly. As different alternatives have different life span, it should be included in the analysis. Further money in absolute terms cannot be compared and it needs to be analyzed in relation to time factor.In the MCDM analysis, decision-makers are asked to express their opinions on comparative importance of various criteria in exact numerical values. However, in practice, the decision is very subjective and it is usually expressed in linguistic terms rather than exact numerical values. These linguistic variable scales, such as "very important'', "important", "equal", "less important'', can then be converted into fuzzy numbers, since it becomes more meaningful to quantify a subjective measurement into a range rather than in an exact value. Therefore, further work is suggested to explore the application of fuzzy theory in developing this decision system.

81Some aggregation technique may be used to improve the data collection and the preliminary results of the system.Some other Multi Criteria Decision methods may be used for the problem viz. Preference Ranking Organization Method Enrichment of Evaluation (PROMETHEE), Social Choice Theory Method: Preferential or Non Preferential, Compromise Programming, Borda technique, Elimination and Choice Expressing Reality(ELECTRE) etc.

82REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHYSatty T.L, Fundamental of the Analytical network process, ISAHP, August (1999), pp.12-14.Chakraborty S. and Banik Debabrata, Design of a material handling equipment selection model using analytic hierarchy process International Journal of Advance Manufacturing Technology (2006), pp. 1237-1245. Chakraborty P S, Majumdar G. and Sarkar B. Performance evaluation of material handling system for a ware house Journal of scientific and Industrial Research, vol. 66 (2007), pp. 325-329.Momani A. M. and Ahmed A. A., Material Handling Equipment Selection using Hybrid Monte Carlo Simulation and Analytic Hierarchy Process World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 59( 2011), pp.953-958.Ghosh D. N., Analytic Hierarchy Process & TOPSIS Method to Evaluate Faculty Performance in Engineering Education UNIASCIT, Vol. 1 (2), (2011), pp.63-70.Jadidi O, Fatemeh F. and Bagliery E., TOPSIS Method for Supplier Selection Problem World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 71 (2010), pp.965-967.

83Markovic Z., Modification Of TOPSIS Method For Solving Of Multicriteria Tasks Yugoslav Journal of Operations Research Volume 20 (2010), pp. 117-143.Gulfem Tuzkaya, Bahadr Gulsun, Cengiz Kahraman and Dogan Ozgen , An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methodology for material handling equipment selection problem and an application, Expert Systems with Applications voll37 (2010), pp. 28532863.Mustafa Yurdakul, AHP as a strategic decision-making tool to justify machine tool selection Journal of Materials Processing Technology Vol. 146 (2004), pp.365376.Tesfamariam D. and Lindberg B., Aggregate analysis of manufacturing systems using system dynamics and ANP Computers and Industrial Engineering 49 (1), (2005), pp. 98-117.Pourjavad E.,Shirouyehzad H., A MCDM Approach for Prioritizing Production Lines: A Case Study, International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6, No. 10;(2011),pp. 221-228.Cheng E.W.L., Contractor selection using the analytic network process Construction Management and Economics 22 (2010), pp. 1021-1032.Senba H. and Mori K., Analysis of decision making process of an expert in cutting condition set up using ANP Transactions of the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers, Part C 69 (2011), pp. 3100-3107.84Meade L.M. and Presley A., R&D project selection using the analytic network process, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 49 (2001), pp. 59-66.Paramasivam V., Senthil V. and Rajam Ramasamy N., Decision making in equipment selection: An integrated approach with digraph and matrix approach, AHP and ANP, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 54 (2009), pp. 1233-1244.Hsing Hung Chen, Amy H.I. Lee and He-Yau Kang, A model for strategic selection of feeder management systems: A case study, Electrical Power and Energy Systems Vol32 (2010) , pp. 421427.Chung S.H., Lee A.H.I. and Pearn W.L. Product mix optimization for semiconductor manufacturing based on AHP and ANP analysis, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 25 (11-12), pp. 1144-1156.Chang Che-Wei, Horngand D. J. and Lin H. L., A measurement model for experts knowledge-based systems algorithm using fuzzy analytic network process, Expert Systems with Applications vol.38 (2011), pp.1200912017.Theresa J. Barker and Zelda B. Zabinsky, A multicriteria decision making model for reverse logistics using analytical hierarchy process, Omega vol.39 (2011), pp. 558573.

85Dilay elebi , Demet Bayraktar and Levent Bingl, Analytical Network Process for logistics management: A case study in a small electronic appliances manufacturer, Computers & Industrial Engineering Vol. 58 (2010), pp. 432441.V. Ravi, Ravi Shankar and M.K. Tiwari, Analyzing alternatives in reverse logistics for end-of-life computers: ANP and balanced scorecard approach, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol.48 (2005), pp. 327356.Claudio Garuti and Mario Sandoval, Comparing AHP and ANP Shiftwork Models: Hierarchy Simplicity V/S Network Connectivity, MCDM 2004, Whistler, B. C. Canada August 6-11, (2004).Ido Millet and Bertram Schoner, Incorporating negative values into the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Computers & Operations Research Vol.32 (2005), pp.31633173.Joseph Sarkis, Quantitative models for performance measurement systemsalternate considerations, International Journal Production Economics Vol. 86 (2003), pp.8190.Chun Yut , Chuah and Kong Bieng Evaluation of Eco design alternatives by integrating AHP and TOPSIS methodology under a fuzzy environment UK International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, (2012), pp. 43-52.Product Catalogue, D K Industries, Bikaner.

86Thanks87