Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

3D facility layout problem

  • Published:
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Facility layout aims to arrange a set of facilities in a site. The main objective function is to minimize the total material handling cost under production-derived constraints. This problem has received much attention during the past decades. However, these works have mainly focused on solving a 2D layout problem, dealing with the footprints of pieces of equipment. The obtained results have been then adapted to the real spatial constraints of a workshop. This research work looks to take account of spatial constraints within a 3D space from the very first steps of problem solving. The authors use a approach by combining a genetic algorithm with A*, 〈GA,A*〉 research. The genetic algorithm generates possible arrangements and A* finds the shortest paths that products must travel in a restricted 3D space. The application allows to converge to a layout minimizing the total material handling cost. This approach is illustrated by its application on an example inspired by a valve assembly workshop in Tunisia and the results are discussed from two points of view. The first one consists in comparing the effect of the choice of the distance measurement technique on the handling cost. For this purpose, the results of the application of 〈GA,A*〉 are compared with those obtained by combining the genetic algorithm and two of the most commonly used distance measurements in the literature of the discipline, namely the Euclidean distance, 〈GA,Euclidean〉, and the rectilinear distance, 〈GA,rectilinear〉. Our results show that the proposed approach offers better results than those of 〈GA,rectilinear〉 whereas they are not as good as those obtained by the 〈GA,Euclidean〉 approach. The effectiveness of the 〈GA,A*〉 approach is then studied from the perspective of the effect of the algorithm used for the generation of candidate arrangements. The final results obtained from the application of 〈GA,A*〉 are then compared with those of the approach combining particle swarm optimization and A*, 〈PSO,A*〉. This comparison shows that the 〈GA,A*〉 approach obtains better results. Nevertheless, its convergence speed is lower than that of 〈PSO,A*〉. The paper ends with some conclusions and perspectives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmadi, A., & Akbari Jokar, M. R. (2016). An efficient multiple-stage mathematical programming method for advanced single and multi-floor facility layout problems. Journal of Applied Mathematical Modelling, 40(9–10), 5605–5620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmadi, A., Pishvaee, M. S., & Akbari Jokar, M. R. (2017). A survey on multi-floor facility layout problems. Journal of Computers and Industrial Engineering, 107, 158–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiello, G., Scalia, G. L., & Enea, M. (2013). A non dominated ranking multi objective genetic algorithm and electre method for unequal area facility layout problems. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(12), 4812–4819.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amaral, A. R. (2008). An exact approach to the one-dimensional facility layout problem. Operational Research, 56(4), 1026–1033.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anjos, M. F., & Vieira, M. V. (2017). Mathematical optimization approaches for facility layout problems: The state-of-the-art and future research directions. European Journal of Operational Research, 261(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelova, M., & Pencheva, T. (2011). Tuning genetic algorithm parameters to improve convergence time. International Journal of Chemical Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/646917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armour, G. C., & Buffa, E. S. (1964). A heuristic algorithm and simulation approach to relative allocation of facilities. Management Science, 9(2), 294–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asl, A. D., & Wong, K. Y. (2017). Solving unequal-area static and dynamic facility layout problems using modified particle swarm optimization. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 28, 1317–1336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, M. M., Crispim, J. A., & de Sousa, J. P. (2017). A dynamic multi-objective approach for the reconfigurable multi-facility layout problem. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 42, 140–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azimi, K., & Solimanpur, M. (2016). A heuristic method to solve the location and machine selection problem in a two-dimensional continuous area. International Journal of Mathematics in Operational Research, 8(4), 424–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbosa-Póvoa, A. P., Mateus, R., & Novais, A. Q. (2002). Optimal 3D layout of industrial facilities. International Journal of Production Research, 40(7), 1669–1698.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besbes, M., Costa Affonso, R., Zolghadri, M., Masmoudi, F., & Haddar, M. (2017). Multi-criteria decision making for the selection of a performant manual workshop layout: a case study. In: Proceedings of the The 20th World Congress of the International Federation of Automatic Control, (IFAC2017) 9th–14th July, 2017, Toulouse, France.

  • Besbes, M., Costa Affonso, R., Zolghadri, M., Masmoudi, F., & Haddar, M. (2018). A survey of different design rules-based techniques for facility layout problems. In: Proceedings of the Tools and Methods of Competitive Engineering Conference.

  • Besbes, M., Zolghadri, M., Affonso, R. C., Masmoudi, F., & Haddar, M. (2019). A approach for solving facility layout problem considering barriers: genetic algorithm coupled with A* search. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-019-01468-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Besbes, M., Zolghadri, M., Affonso, R. C., Masmoudi, F., & Haddar, M. (2020 May). Comparison of evolution algorithms coupled with A* search for solving facility layout problem. In: Proceedings of the Tools and methods of competitive engineering (TMCE2020) 11th–15th May, 2020, Dublin, Ireland.

  • Bozer, Y. A., Meller, R. D., & Erlebacher, S. J. (1994). An improvement type layout algorithm for single and multiple-floor facilities. Management Science, 40(7), 918–932.

    Google Scholar 

  • Datta, D., Amaral, A. R., & Figueira, J. R. (2011). Single row facility layout problem using a permutation-based genetic algorithm. European Journal of Operational Research, 213(2), 388–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drira, A., Pierreval, H., & Hajri-Gabouj, S. (2007). Facility layout problems: A survey. Annual Reviews in Control, 31(2), 255–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deisenroth, M.P., & Apple, J.M. (1972). A computerized plant layout analysis and evaluation technique (PLANET).Tech. Papers 1962, Annual AIIE Conference and Commission, Norcross, GA, pp. 75–87.

  • Donaghey, C. E., & Pire, V. F. (1990). Solving the facility layout problem with BLOCPLAN. Technical Report, Indus: Eng Dep, University of Houston, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  • Che, A., Zhang, Y., & Feng, J. (2017). Bi-objective optimization for multi-floor facility layout problem with fixed inner configuration and room adjacency constraints. Computers & Industrial Engineering., 105, 265–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chraibi, A. (2015). A decision making system for operating theater design: application of facility layout problem (Doctoral dissertation, Jean Monnet-Saint-Etienne University).

  • Chraibi, A., Kharraja, S., Osman, I. H., & Elbeqqali, O. (2016). A Particle swarm algorithm for solving the multi-objective operating theater layout problem. IFAC-Papers Online, 49(12), 1169–1174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cravo, G. L., & Amaral, A. R. (2019). A GRASP algorithm for solving large-scale single row facility layout problems. Computers & Operations Research, 106, 49–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feng, J., & Che, A. (2018). Novel integer linear programming models for the facility layout problem with fixed-size rectangular departments. Computers & Operations Research, 95, 163–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghadikolaei, Y. K., & Shahanaghi, K. (2013). Multi-floor dynamic facility layout: A simulated annealing-based solution. International Journal of Operational Research, 16(4), 375–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golany, B., Gurevich, A., & Puzailov, E. P. (2006). Developing a 3D layout for wafer fabrication plants. Production Planning & Control, 17(7), 664–677.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guan, J., & Lin, G. (2016). Hybridizing variable neighborhood search with ant colony optimization for solving the single row facility layout problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 248, 899–909.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ha, J. K., & Lee, E. S. (2016). Development of an optimal multifloor layout model for the generic liquefied natural gas liquefaction process. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, 33(3), 755–763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, P. E., Nilsson, N. J., & Raphael, B. (1972). Correction to ‘A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths’. SIGART Newsletters, 37, 28–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heragu, S. S. (1997). Facilities design. Boston: BWS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosseini-Nasab, H., Fereidouni, S., Seyyed, M. T. F. G., & Fakhrzad, M. B. (2017). Classification of facility layout problems: a review study. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-0895-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulturel-Konak, S. (2012). A linear programming embedded probabilistic tabu search for the unequal-area facility layout problem with flexible bays. European Journal of Operational Research, 223(3), 614–625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulturel-Konak, S., & Konak, A. (2015). Large-scale hybrid simulated annealing algorithm for cyclic facility layout problems. Engineering Optimization, 47(7), 963–978.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kundu, A., & Dan, P. K. (2012). Metaheuristic in facility layout problems: Current trend and future direction. International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 10(2), 238–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., & Liu, J. (2019). Applying multi-objective ant colony optimization algorithm for solving the unequal area facility layout problems. Applied Soft Computing, 74, 167–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., Zhang, H., He, K., & Jiang, S. (2018). Multi-objective particle swarm optimization algorithm based on objective space division for the unequal-area facility layout problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 102, 179–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazinani, M., Abedzadeh, M., & Mohebali, N. (2013). Dynamic facility layout problem based on flexible bay structure and solving by genetic algorithm. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 65(5–8), 929–943.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matai, R., Singh, S. P., & Mittal, M. L. (2013a). Modified simulated annealing based approach for multi-objective facility layout problem. International Journal of Production Research., 51, 4273–4288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matai, R., Singh, S. P., & Mittal, M. L. (2013b). A new heuristic for solving facility layout problem. International Journal of Advance Operations Management, 5(2), 137–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meller, R. D., & Gau, K. (1996). The facility layout problem: Recent and emerging trends and perspectives. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 15(5), 351–366.​

    Google Scholar 

  • Moslemipour, G., Lee, T. S., & Rilling, D. (2012). A review of intelligent approaches for designing dynamic and robust layouts in flexible manufacturing systems. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 60(1–4), 11–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palomo-Romero, J. M., Salas-Morera, L., & García-Hernández, L. (2017). An island model genetic algorithm for unequal area facility layout problems. Expert Systems with Applications, 68, 151–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palubeckis, G. (2012). A branch-and-bound algorithm for the single-row equidistant facility layout problem. OR Spectrum, 34, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, K., Koo, J., Shin, D., Lee, C. J., & Yoon, E. S. (2011). Optimal multi-floor plant layout with consideration of safety distance based on mathematical programming and modified consequence analysis. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, 28(4), 1009–1018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Razali, N.M., & Gerghty, J. (2011). In Proceedings of World Congress Engineering vol. II. London:WCE.

  • Rosenblatt, M. J. (1986). The dynamics of plant layout. Management Science, 32(1), 76–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubio-Sánchez, M., Gallego, M., Gortázar, F., & Duarte, A. (2016). GRASP with path relinking for the single row facility layout problem. Knowledge-Based Systems, 106, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadrzadeh, A. (2012). A genetic algorithm with the heuristic procedure to solve the multi-line layout problem. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 62(4), 1055–1064.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmani, M. H., Eshghi, K., & Neghabi, H. (2015). A bi-objective MIP model for facility layout problem in uncertain environment. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 81(9–12), 1563–1575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samarghandi, H., Taabayan, P., & Jahantigh, F. F. (2010). A particle swarm optimization for the single row facility layout problem. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 58, 529–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • See, P. C., & Wong, K. Y. (2008). Application of ant colony optimisation algorithms in solving facility layout problems formulated as quadratic assignment problems: A review. International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 3(6), 644–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seehof, J. M., & Evans, W. O. (1967). Automated layout design program. The Journal of Industrial Engineering, 18, 690–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, S. P., & Sharma, R. R. K. (2006). A review of different approaches to the facility layout problems. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing., 30, 425–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solimanpur, M., & Jafari, A. (2008). Optimal solution for the two-dimensional facility layout problem using a branch-and-bound algorithm. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 55(3), 606–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitayasak, S., Pongcharoen, P., & Hicks, C. (2017). A tool for solving stochastic dynamic facility layout problems with stochastic demand using either a genetic algorithm or modified backtracking search algorithm. International Journal of Production Economics, 190, 146–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiao, Y., Xie, Y., Sadan, K.-K., & Abdullah, K. (2017). A problem evolution algorithm with linear programming for the dynamic facility layout problem a general layout formulation. Computers and Operations Research, 88, 187–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xie, Y., Zhou, S., Xiao, Y., Kulturel-Konak, S., & Konak, A. (2018). A β-accurate linearization method of Euclidean distance for the facility layout problem with heterogeneous distance metrics. European Journal of Operational Research, 265, 26–38.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mariem Besbes.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Figs.

Fig. 12
figure 12

Best cost versus number of iterations, roulette operator (a) and tournament operator (b) obtained by 〈GA,A*〉

12 and

Fig. 13
figure 13

Best cost versus number of iterations obtained by 〈PSO,A*〉

13.

Appendix 2

Interested readers can consult the Matlab program by coping and pasting the following link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ZLYG6uSmjZiuaD88feRzXWJtvH5Omf8c?usp=sharing

Appendix 3

See Table

Table 12 Raw data

12.

Appendix 4

Particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm-based on swarm intelligence and evolutionary computation, was originally developed by Kennedy and Eberhart (1995). PSO is a population-based search algorithm and it is inspired by the social behaviour of groups of fish and birds. It is initialized with a population of random solutions. Each solution is called a ‘particle’. Each particle in PSO is associated with a position vector and a velocity vector. The historical behaviours of each particle depends on three factors, which are the previous velocity, the best position of each particle (\(P_{best}\)), and the swarm best position (\(G_{best}\)). The population evolves by communicating the best global solution ever found by all particles and the personal best solution ever found by each particle. Therefore, all the particles tend to converge to the best solution quickly. Considering the simplicity and good convergence speed of PSO, we choose to compare our approach 〈GA,A*〉 with 〈PSO,A*〉. In this paper, the position of each particle represents a configuration.

In a D-dimensional search space, The position and the velocity of the \(i^{th}\) particle is illustrated by \(X_{I}\) = (\(x_{i1}\), \(x_{i2}\), …., \(x_{iD}\)) and \(V_{i}\) = (\(v_{i1}\), \(v_{i2} , \ldots ,\,v_{iD}\)).

figure c

Appendix 5

Interested readers can consult the Matlab program by coping and pasting the following link:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1BsBqqeQ_-DH_JTid0gPRbkxpxpTM-REF?usp=sharing

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Besbes, M., Zolghadri, M., Costa Affonso, R. et al. 3D facility layout problem. J Intell Manuf 32, 1065–1090 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-020-01603-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-020-01603-z

Keywords

Navigation