A

P r e se nta tion
on the topic
SELEC TION OF MATERIA L HANDLING SY STEM USI NG MULTI CRIT ERIA DE CISI ON TECHNIQ UES AT I MPERIAL PORCEL AI N PRI VATE LI MITED

Presented By:
Ankur Mahajan
NITTTR, Chandigarh
Email:ankurmahajan786@gmail.com

Contents
Introduction
Companys Profile
Literature Review
Problem Formulation
Methodology
Result & Discussions
Conclusions & Scope for Future Work
References

Introduction
Material 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.
3

TEN PRINCIPLES OF MATERIAL HANDLING

TYPES OF MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEMS

Conveyors (belt conveyors, bucket conveyors, etc.)
Cranes (jib crane, bridge crane, etc.)
Palletizers
Industrial trucks (fork lift)
Excavators, bull-dozers
AGV
Robots
Automated Storage and Retrieval System

TYPES OF CONVEYORS

Flat belt conveyor

Trough belt conveyor

6

Chain driven roller conveyor

Screw conveyor

Roller Bed Belt conveyor

Company Profile
Imperial 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 etc
9

Process chart

10

Products
1.1 KV transformer

Bushing
12-17.5 KV Transformer
Bushing
36 KV Transformer
Bushing
11 KV Pin Insulator
22 KV Pin Insulator

33 KV Pin Insulator
LT Pin Insulator
11 KV post Insulator
11 KV 45 KN Disc

Insulator
11 KV 70&90 KN Disc
Insulator
LT shackle insulator
11

Company Layout

12

Literature 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.
13

Contd..
Out of these techniques AHP, ANP, TOPSIS has been applied

for solving various engineering problem and has been found to

be effective
These 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.
14

Contd..
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.

15

Problem Identification
For 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.
16

Contd..
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.

17

Contd..
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.
18

Contd..
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.

19

Methodology

20

Contd..
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/Factors
Factor 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 alternatives
A 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 follows
C-1 : Chain Driven Roller Conveyor
C-2 : Flat belt Conveyor
C-3 : Roller bed belt conveyor
C-4 : Screw Conveyor
C-5 : Troughed Belt Conveyor
It 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.
22

contd..
Application of MCDM Techniques
There 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.

23

Methodology for Analytical Hierarchy Process

Step 1: Cost Factor Component of the Equipments
Chain
S. No

Equipment

driven

Flat belt

roller

conveyor

curve

Roller bed
belt
conveyor

Screw
conveyor

Troughed
belt
conveyor

Cost of
Acquisition

165000

120000

159000

256000

138000

Cost of
installation

30000

20000

25000

35000

30000

Cost of
Operation

12000

12000

15000

18000

16000

Cost of
Maintenan
ce

26000

20000

27000

18000

23000

Total Cost

233000

172000

226000

327000

207000
24

Step 2: Developing the Decision Tree

25

Step 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

26

S. No.

Equipments

Chain Driven
Roller
Conveyor

Cost of
Acquisition

165000

120000

159000

256000

138000

Cost of
installation

30000

20000

25000

35000

30000

Cost of
Operation

12000

12000

15000

18000

16000

Cost of
Maintenance

26000

20000

27000

18000

23000

Total Cost

233000

172000

226000

327000

207000

OFM

0.1914

0.2593

0.1973

0.1364

0.2154

Flat Belt
Conveyor

Roller Bed
Belt Conveyor

Screw
Conveyor

Troughed Belt
Conveyor

27

Questionnaire

28


Step 4: Decision Matrix
I

II

III

IV

VI

VII

VIII

1/5

1/2

1/2

1/2

II

1/4

1/2

1/8

1/4

1/7

1/2

1/6

III

1/2

1/8

1/4

1/5

1/4

IV

1/2

1/2

VI

1/2

VII

1/2

1/2

1/7

1/4

1/6

1/4

VIII

1/4

1/2

1/2

1
29

Step 5: Pairwise Comparison Matrices

1.Pair-wise comparison matrix for Characteristic of product
C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C1

1/5

1/6

C2

C3

1/2

1/6

1/6

C4

1/2

1/8

1/3

1/6

C5

1/2

30

Pair-wise comparison matrix for Conveying speed

Pair-wise comparison matrix for Cost
Pair-wise comparison matrix for Distance Movement
Pair-wise comparison matrix for Load Flexibility
Pair-wise comparison matrix for Physical Shape of The
Product
7. Pair-wise comparison matrix for Property of the Product
8. Pair-wise comparison matrix for Volume to be Moved
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

31

Step 6: Determination of the priority vectors (P.V.)

I

II

III

IV

VI

VII

VIII

1/5

1/2

1/2

1/2

II

1/4

1/2

1/8

1/4

1/7

1/2

1/6

III

1/2

1/8

1/4

1/5

1/2

IV

1/2

1/2

VI

1/2

VII

1/2

1/2

1/7

1/4

1/6

1/4

VIII

1/4

1/2

1/2

TOTAL

13.250

34.000

23.000

2.842

6.750

5.009

26.500

10.416

32

Normalize Matrix for decision matrix

I

II

III

IV

VI

VII

VIII

PV

0.0755

0.1176

0.0870

0.0704

0.0741

0.0998

0.0755

0.0480

0.0810

II

0.0189

0.0294

0.0217

0.0440

0.0370

0.0285

0.0189

0.0160

0.0268

III

0.0377

0.0588

0.0435

0.0440

0.0370

0.0399

0.0755

0.0480

0.0481

IV

0.3774

0.2353

0.3478

0.3518

0.2963

0.3992

0.2642

0.3840

0.3320

0.1509

0.1176

0.1739

0.1759

0.1481

0.0998

0.1509

0.1920

0.1512

VI

0.1509

0.2059

0.2174

0.1759

0.2963

0.1996

0.2264

0.1920

0.2081

VII

0.0377

0.0588

0.0217

0.0503

0.0370

0.0333

0.0377

0.0240

0.0376

VIII

0.1509

0.1765

0.0870

0.0879

0.0741

0.0998

0.1509

0.0960

0.1154

TOTAL

33

Graphical representation of decision matrix

PV values for Decision Matrix
0.35
0.30
0.25

PV Average
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00

Critrion

34

PV Value for Characteristic of Product

35

PV Value for Conveying Speed

36

PV Valve for Cost

37

PV Valve for Distance Movement

38

PV Valve for Load Flexibility

39

PV Valve for Physical Shape of the Product

40

PV Valve for Property of the Product

41

PV Valve for Volume to be moved

42

Step 7: Consistency Index (C.I.) for each of the Matrices

The 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.)
n
R.I.

5
1.11

8
1.41
43

Step 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: = 0.02994901
C.R. for Characteristic of product: = 0.0733575
C.R. for Conveying speed: = 0.0858189
C.R. for Cost: = 0.0798872
C.R. for Distance Movement: = 0.0501446
C.R. for Load Flexibility: = 0.0900662
C.R. for Physical shape of the product: = 0.011578
C.R. for Property of the product: = 0.070508
C.R. for Volume to be moved:= 0.0864858
44

Step 10: Subjection Factor Measure Valve for Alternatives

SFMi 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 = 0.1893
SFM2 = 0.266
SFM3 = 0.1883
SFM4 = 0.1248
SFM5 = 0.2300

45

CRITERIA

SFM

II

III

IV

VI

VII

VIII

0.0810

0.0268

0.0481

0.3320

0.1512

0.2081

0.0376

0.1154

C1

0.0911

0.1178

0.0671

0.0580

0.1485

0.4027

0.2856

0.3408

0.1893

C2

0.4499

0.1829

0.5268

0.4733

0.0656

0.0799

0.0744

0.1254

0.2676

C3

0.0770

0.0685

0.1197

0.0780

0.1949

0.3875

0.1309

0.2915

0.1883

C4

0.0441

0.0569

0.0529

0.0402

0.4799

0.0474

0.4445

0.0409

0.1248

C5

0.3379

0.5739

0.2334

0.3505

0.1111

0.0825

0.0646

0.2015

0.2300

46

47

Step 11: Material Handling Equipment Measure

Valve for Alternatives
MEMi = [( x OFMi) + (1 - ) x SFMi ]
Equipment

MEM valve

Rank

CHAIN DRIVEN ROLLER CONVEYOR

0.1907328

FLAT BELT CONVEYOR

0.2620521

ROLLER BED BELT CONVEYOR

0.1943825

SCREW CONVEYOR

0.1325751

TROUGHED BELT CONVEYOR

0.2202575

The best alternative on the basis of the highest value of the

MEM is Flat belt Conveyor.
48

The result shows that the Flat belt conveyor is best as per
the criteria selected for Imperial Porcelain Private Limited 49

Methodology for Analytical Network Process

The 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.

50

Step 1: Network Structure

51

Step2: Pairwise Comparison Matrices

1. Comparison Matrices of Alternative Alternative with respect

to Criteria
2. Comparison Matrix Alternative Alternative with respect to

Alternative
3. Comparison Matrix Criteria-Criteria with respect to Criteria
4. Comparison Matrix of Criteria-Criteria with respect to

Alternative

52

Comparison Matrix of Criteria-Criteria with respect to

Alternative
Comparison with respect to Chain Drive Roller Conveyor Node in "Criteria" Cluster
I

II

III

IV

VI

VII

VIII

1/6

1/4

1/3

1/6

1/2

1/2

II

1/2

1/2

1/4

III

1/2

1/3

IV

1/2

VI

1/2

1/4

1/3

1/4

1/3

VII

1/5

1/4

1/4

1/7

1/2

1/4

VIII

1/3

1/2

1/3

1/4

Total

24.5000

10.2000

7.7500

5.2500

2.8929

18.0000

29.0000

14.0833

53

Step 3: Determination of the priority vectors (P.V.)

I

II

III

IV

VI

VII

VIII

PV

0.0408

0.0163

0.0323

0.0635

0.0576

0.0278

0.0690

0.0355

0.0429

II

0.2449

0.0980

0.0645

0.0952

0.0864

0.1111

0.1724

0.2130

0.1357

III

0.1633

0.1961

0.1290

0.0952

0.1152

0.2222

0.1379

0.1420

0.1501

IV

0.1225

0.1961

0.2581

0.1905

0.1728

0.1667

0.1379

0.2130

0.1822

0.2449

0.3922

0.3871

0.3810

0.3457

0.2222

0.2414

0.2840

0.3123

VI

0.0816

0.0490

0.0323

0.0635

0.0864

0.0556

0.0690

0.0237

0.0576

VII

0.0204

0.0196

0.0323

0.0476

0.0494

0.0278

0.0345

0.0178

0.0312

VIII

0.0816

0.0327

0.0645

0.0635

0.0864

0.1667

0.1379

0.0710

0.0880

Total

1.0000

1.0000

1.0000

1.0000

1.0000

1.0000

1.0000

1.0000

1.0000

54

Step 4: Consistency Index (C.I.) For each of the Matrices.

C.I. = (max n) / (n-1)

C.I. = (8.638228533 - 8)/ (8-1)

C.I. = (8.667012993 - 8)/ (8-1)
C.I. = (8.693005629 - 8)/ (8-1)
C.I. = (8.609240185 - 8)/ (8-1)
C.I. = (8.681107493 - 8)/ (8-1)

=
=
=
=
=

0.091175505
0.09528757
0.099000804
0.087034311
0.09730107

55

Step 5: Random Consistency index (R.I.)

n

R.I.

1.11

1.41

Step 6: Consistency Ratio (C.R.)

C.R. = C.I./ R.I.
C.R. for Chain drive roller conveyor = 0.06512536
C.R. for Flat belt conveyor = 0.06806255
C.R. for Roller bed belt conveyor = 0.07071486
C.R. for Screw conveyor = 0.062167365
C.R. for Troughed belt conveyor = 0.069500765
56

The Unweighted Supermatrix

Alternative

Altern
ative

Criteri
a

Criteria

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

II

III

IV

VI

VII

VIII

C1

0.0883

0.0897

0.1159

0.1098

0.1004

0.0911

0.1178

0.0671

0.0580

0.1485

0.4027

0.2856

0.3408

C2

0.4607

0.4949

0.3947

0.4579

0.2920

0.4499

0.1829

0.5268

0.4733

0.0656

0.0799

0.0744

0.1254

C3

0.0805

0.0617

0.0926

0.0843

0.0758

0.0770

0.0685

0.1197

0.0780

0.1949

0.3875

0.1309

0.2915

C4

0.0397

0.0396

0.0398

0.0421

0.0412

0.0441

0.0569

0.0529

0.0402

0.4799

0.0474

0.4445

0.0409

C5

0.3308

0.3140

0.3569

0.3060

0.4906

0.3379

0.5739

0.2334

0.3505

0.1111

0.0825

0.0646

0.2015

0.0428

0.0487

0.0420

0.0382

0.0374

0.0810

0.0219

0.0218

0.0322

0.0269

0.0255

0.3023

0.1471

II

0.1357

0.0251

0.1444

0.0244

0.0719

0.0268

0.0934

0.1175

0.0332

0.1393

0.2725

0.0247

0.0436

III

0.1501

0.1062

0.0756

0.3309

0.1315

0.0481

0.2145

0.3215

0.0645

0.1203

0.1197

0.0890

0.1006

IV

0.1822

0.0993

0.1884

0.1604

0.3462

0.3320

0.1470

0.1284

0.3055

0.0923

0.1732

0.0436

0.2888

0.3123

0.2437

0.3270

0.0941

0.2016

0.1512

0.0785

0.0349

0.1821

0.2935

0.0343

0.0690

0.0965

VI

0.0576

0.0747

0.0803

0.2400

0.0751

0.2081

0.0758

0.1481

0.1479

0.0289

0.2212

0.1232

0.2027

VII

0.0312

0.0414

0.0633

0.0814

0.0242

0.0376

0.0360

0.0586

0.0272

0.0480

0.0527

0.1670

0.0294

VIII

0.0880

0.3610

0.0789

0.0306

0.1120

0.1154

0.3330

0.1692

0.2075

0.2508

0.1009

0.1811

0.0913

57

Step 8: The Cluster Matrix

Alternatives

Criteria

Alternatives

1.0000

1.0000

Criteria

1.0000

1.0000

2.0000

2.0000

Total

Alternative
s
Criteria
Total

Alternatives

Criteria

PV Average

0.5

0.5

0.500

0.5

0.5

0.500

1.000

58

Step 8: Weighted Supermatrix

Alternative

C1
C2
Altern
ative

C3
C4
C5
I
II
III

Criter
ia

IV
V
VI
VII
VIII

Criteria

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

II

III

IV

VI

VII

VIII

0.0441

0.0449

0.0580

0.0549

0.0502

0.0455

0.0589

0.0336

0.0290

0.0743

0.2013

0.1428

0.1704

0.2304

0.2475

0.1974

0.2289

0.1460

0.2249

0.0915

0.2634

0.2367

0.0328

0.0400

0.0372

0.0627

0.0403

0.0309

0.0463

0.0422

0.0379

0.0385

0.0342

0.0598

0.0390

0.0975

0.1937

0.0654

0.1457

0.0198

0.0198

0.0199

0.0210

0.0206

0.0221

0.0284

0.0265

0.0201

0.2399

0.0237

0.2223

0.0204

0.1654

0.1570

0.1784

0.1530

0.2453

0.1690

0.2870

0.1167

0.1752

0.0556

0.0413

0.0323

0.1007

0.0214

0.0243

0.0210

0.0191

0.0187

0.0405

0.0110

0.0109

0.0161

0.0134

0.0127

0.1511

0.0735

0.0679

0.0125

0.0722

0.0122

0.0360

0.0134

0.0467

0.0587

0.0166

0.0696

0.1363

0.0124

0.0218

0.0751

0.0531

0.0378

0.1655

0.0657

0.0240

0.1073

0.1608

0.0322

0.0601

0.0598

0.0445

0.0503

0.0911

0.0496

0.0942

0.0802

0.1731

0.1660

0.0735

0.0642

0.1527

0.0462

0.0866

0.0218

0.1444

0.1562

0.1219

0.1635

0.0471

0.1008

0.0756

0.0392

0.0174

0.0910

0.1468

0.0172

0.0345

0.0482

0.0288

0.0374

0.0401

0.1200

0.0376

0.1040

0.0379

0.0741

0.0740

0.0145

0.1106

0.0616

0.1014

0.0156

0.0207

0.0317

0.0407

0.0121

0.0188

0.0180

0.0293

0.0136

0.0240

0.0264

0.0835

0.0147

0.0440

0.1805

0.0395

0.0153

0.0560

0.0577

0.1665

0.0846

0.1037

0.1254

0.0505

0.0906

0.0456

59

Step 9: Limit Supermatrix

Alternative

Criteria

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

II

III

IV

VI

VII

VIII

C1

0.0692

0.0692

0.0692

0.0692

0.0692

0.0692

0.0692

0.0692

0.0692

0.0692

0.0692

0.0692

0.0692

C2

0.1685

0.1685

0.1685

0.1685

0.1685

0.1685

0.1685

0.1685

0.1685

0.1685

0.1685

0.1685

0.1685

C3

0.0635

0.0635

0.0635

0.0635

0.0635

0.0635

0.0635

0.0635

0.0635

0.0635

0.0635

0.0635

0.0635

C4

0.0461

0.0461

0.0461

0.0461

0.0461

0.0461

0.0461

0.0461

0.0461

0.0461

0.0461

0.0461

0.0461

C5

0.1527

0.1527

0.1527

0.1527

0.1527

0.1527

0.1527

0.1527

0.1527

0.1527

0.1527

0.1527

0.1527

0.0259

0.0259

0.0259

0.0259

0.0259

0.0259

0.0259

0.0259

0.0259

0.0259

0.0259

0.0259

0.0259

II

0.0413

0.0413

0.0413

0.0413

0.0413

0.0413

0.0413

0.0413

0.0413

0.0413

0.0413

0.0413

0.0413

III

0.0677

0.0677

0.0677

0.0677

0.0677

0.0677

0.0677

0.0677

0.0677

0.0677

0.0677

0.0677

0.0677

Criteri

IV

0.1020

0.1020

0.1020

0.1020

0.1020

0.1020

0.1020

0.1020

0.1020

0.1020

0.1020

0.1020

0.1020

0.0942

0.0942

0.0942

0.0942

0.0942

0.0942

0.0942

0.0942

0.0942

0.0942

0.0942

0.0942

0.0942

VI

0.0562

0.0562

0.0562

0.0562

0.0562

0.0562

0.0562

0.0562

0.0562

0.0562

0.0562

0.0562

0.0562

VII

0.0211

0.0211

0.0211

0.0211

0.0211

0.0211

0.0211

0.0211

0.0211

0.0211

0.0211

0.0211

0.0211

VIII

0.0914

0.0914

0.0914

0.0914

0.0914

0.0914

0.0914

0.0914

0.0914

0.0914

0.0914

0.0914

0.0914

Altern
ative

60

The 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
61

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.

62

Steps for TOPSIS

Step 1: Decision Matrix:
Step 2: Pairwise Comparison Matrices:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)

Pair-wise comparison matrix for Characteristic of product

Pair-wise comparison matrix for Conveying speed
Pair-wise comparison matrix for Cost
Pair-wise comparison matrix for Distance Movement
Pair-wise comparison matrix for Load Flexibility
Pair-wise comparison matrix for Physical Shape of The Product
Pair-wise comparison matrix for Property of the Product
Pair-wise comparison matrix for Volume to be Moved

Step 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.)

63

Step 7: Construct a Normalize matrix:

The vector normalization is used for computing rij, which is given as

CRITERIA

WEIGH
TS
ALTER
NATIV
ES

II

III

IV

VI

VII

VIII

0.0810

0.0268

0.0481

0.3320

0.1512

0.2081

0.0376

0.1154

C1

0.1579

0.1899

0.1129

0.0970

0.2681

0.7034

0.5163

0.6696

C2

0.7799

0.2950

0.8859

0.7912

0.1183

0.1396

0.1344

0.2464

C3

0.1335

0.1104

0.2012

0.1303

0.3518

0.6769

0.2366

0.5726

C4

0.0765

0.0917

0.0890

0.0672

0.8661

0.0828

0.8036

0.0803

C5

0.5858

0.9254

0.3924

0.5858

0.2006

0.1442

0.1169

0.3958
64

Step 8: Weighted Normalized Decision Matrix

For 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
CRITERIA

ALTER
NATIV
ES

II

III

IV

VI

VII

VIII

WEIG
HTS

0.0810

0.0268

0.0481

0.3320

0.1512

0.2081

0.0376

0.1154

C1

0.0128

0.0051

0.0054

0.0322

0.0405

0.1463

0.0194

0.0773

C2

0.0632

0.0079

0.0426

0.2627

0.0179

0.0290

0.0051

0.0284

C3

0.0108

0.0030

0.0097

0.0433

0.0532

0.1408

0.0089

0.0661

C4

0.0062

0.0025

0.0043

0.0223

0.1309

0.0172

0.0302

0.0093

C5

0.0474

0.0248

0.0189

0.1945

0.0303

0.0300

0.0044

0.0457
65

Step 9: Determine the positive ideal and negative

ideal solution
Positive 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}, where

Vj, = { if j J ; if j J }
= {0.0061926, 0.00245856, 0.004278, 0.02230477,
0.0178841, 0.017232, 0.0043905, 0.009266231}
66

Step 10: Separation measure for the positive ideal alternative

CRITERIA

ALTE
RN-ATIV
ES

SUM

S*

II

III

IV

VI

VII

VIII

C1

0.0025

0.0004

0.0014

0.0531

0.0082

0.0000

0.0001

0.0001

0.0659

0.2566

C2

0.0000

0.0003

0.0000

0.0000

0.0128

0.0125

0.0006

0.0014

0.0276

0.1662

C3

0.0027

0.0005

0.0011

0.0481

0.0060

0.0000

0.0005

0.0000

0.0589

0.2428

C4

0.0032

0.0005

0.0015

0.0578

0.0000

0.0153

0.0000

0.0032

0.0815

0.2855

C5

0.0002

0.0000

0.0006

0.0046

0.0101

0.0123

0.0007

0.0004

0.0289

0.1701
67

Separation measure for the Negative ideal alternative

CRITERIA
SUM

ALTE
RN-ATIVE
S

II

III

IV

VI

VII

VIII

C1

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0001

0.0005

0.0167

0.0002

0.0046

0.022

0.148

C2

0.0032

0.0000

0.0015

0.0578

0.0000

0.0001

0.0000

0.0004

0.063

0.251

C3

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0004

0.0012

0.0153

0.0000

0.0032

0.020

0.142

C4

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0000

0.0128

0.0000

0.0007

0.0000

0.013

0.115

C5

0.0017

0.0005

0.0002

0.0296

0.0002

0.0002

0.0000

0.0013

0.033

0.183
68

Step 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 Alternatives

The 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 DISCUSSION

Result obtained using Multi Criteria Decision techniques
1. AHP Result for selection of Alternative

Alternatives

Result(MEM)

Rank

Chain driven roller conveyor

0.1907328

Flat belt conveyor

0.2620521

Roller bed belt conveyor

0.1943825

Screw conveyor

0.1325751

Troughed belt conveyor

0.2202575

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.
71

2. ANP Result for selection of Alternative

Alternatives

Result

Rank

Chain driven roller conveyor

0.0692

Flat belt conveyor

0.1685

Roller bed belt conveyor

0.0635

Screw conveyor

0.0461

Troughed belt conveyor

0.1527

The 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.
72

3. TOPSIS Result for selection of Alternative

Alternatives

Result

Rank

Chain driven roller conveyor

0.367225107

Flat belt conveyor

0.601727435

Roller bed belt conveyor

0.369599639

Screw conveyor

0.288850778

Troughed belt conveyor

0.519016039

The 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.

73

4. Comparative Result of MCDM Techniques

The 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.
74
Accordingly they have been ranked in the range of three to four.

Discussion on Rankings of Material handling Systems

Results obtained by using MCDM Techniques are discussed with
reference to the criterion/factors of the problem
Factor 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

75

Cost analysis of flat belt conveyor installation at

Imperial Porcelain Pvt. Limited
The 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.
76

Discussion..
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.
77

CONCLUSIONS AND SCOPE FOR FUTURE WORK

Conclusion
For 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.
78

Conclusion .
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.
79

Limitation of Multi Criteria Decision Method Technique

1.

2.

3.

The 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.
80

Scope for Future Work

The 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
81
developing this decision system.

Some 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.

82

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Satty T.L, Fundamental of the Analytical network process, ISAHP, August
2.

3.

4.

5.
6.

(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.
83

7.
8.

9.

10.

11.

12.
13.

Markovic 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.
84

14. Meade L.M. and Presley A., R&D project selection using the analytic network

process, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 49 (2001), pp. 59-66.

15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
85

20. Dilay elebi , Demet Bayraktar and Levent Bingl, Analytical Network

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

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 systems
alternate 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.

86

Thanks

87