EUROPEAN

JOURNAL
OF OPERATIONAL
RESEARCH
ELSEVIER European Journal of Operational Research 87 (1995) 65-73

Theory and Methodology

A heuristic procedure for the single-row facility layout problem

K. Ravi Kumar a. , , G e o r g e C. H a d j i n i c o l a b, T i n g - l i L i n c
a Department of Information and Operations Management, School of Business Administration, University of Southern California,
LosAngeles, CA 90089-1421, USA
b Department of Public and Business Administration, School of Economics and Management, Universityof Cyprus, Kallipoleos 75,
P.O. Box 537, Nicosia, Cyprus
c Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
CA 90089-0193, USA
Received March 1991; revised July 1993, January 1994

Abstract

The single-row facility layout problem arises when assigning service rooms along a corridor, storing files on the
cylinders of a disk, and in flexible manufacturing systems where the efficiency of automated guided vehicles forces
the layout to be linear. This paper describes a constructive heuristic which provides solutions to the single-row
facility layout problem so as to minimize the materials handling cost. The heuristic assigns the facilities with the
largest number of moves between them to adjacent locations on the line. The heuristic differs from earlier
algorithms since at any stage of the process, more than two facilities can be added to the solution sequence. The
performance of the heuristic is compared to other methods proposed for the single-row facility layout problem.
Results show that the heuristic performs well in terms of computational efficiency and solution quality.

Keywords: Facility layout problem; Single-row layout problem; One dimensional assignment problem; Heuristic

1. Introduction linear integer programming problem (Lawler,

The facility layout problem concerns the place-
ment of a number of facilities on the factory floor
so as to minimize the amount or cost of materials
movement between the facilities. Koopmans and
Beckman (1957) first formulated the problem of
assigning facilities to an equal number of loca-
tions as a Quadratic Assignment Problem (QAP).
Subsequent formulations of the facility layout
problem attempted to linearize the QAP to a
* Corresponding author.
1963), mixed-integer programming problem
(Kaufman and Broeckx, 1978; Bazaraa and Sher-
ali, 1980; Burkard and Bonniger, 1983), or
quadratic set covering problem (Bazaraa, 1975).
Love and Wong (1976a) presented a linear
mixed-integer program which was not a lineariza-
tion attempt of the QAP. Heragu and Kusiak
(1991) also present a linear mixed-integer pro-
gramming formulation which they solve through
unconstrained minimization techniques. Hall
(1970) and Drezner (1980) formulated the facility
layout problem as a non-convex mathematical
program.

0377-2217/95/$09.50 © 1995 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

SSDI 0377-2217(94)00062-H
66 K.R. Kumar et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 87 (1995) 65-73
The single-row facility layout problem is a spe-
cial case where facilities of equal or unequal
dimensions are arranged on a line. Picard and
Oueyranne (1981), besides solving the problem
with dynamic programming, discuss a number of
applications of the single-row facility layout prob-
lem. For example, the single-row layout problem
arises in the layout of machines in a Flexible
Manufacturing System (FMS) which is served by
an Automated Guided Vehicle (AGV) (Kusiak
and Heragu, 1988), since linear layouts enable
the efficient functioning of AGVs (Muller, 1988).
In practice, the single-row layout problem is en-
countered in two forms: the linear single row and
circular single row problem (Kusiak and Heragu,
1988). The linear placement of facilities of differ-
ent but known dimensions on a straight line, is
also known as the one dimensional space alloca-
tion problem, which Simmons (1969) states is
more of an ordering problem. An even more
specific case of the ordering problem is when the
facilities are of the same length, and as a result,
the distance between adjacent locations for plac-
ing the facilities on the line can be assumed to be
one unit. This case is referred to by Adolphson
and Hu (1973) as the optimal linear ordering
problem.
A number of models and algorithms have been
proposed for the single-row facility layout which
is known to be an NP-complete problem
(Beghin-Picavet and Hansen, 1982). Karp and
Held (1967) developed a dynamic programming
algorithm for the solution of the module place-
ment problem which is equivalent to the optimal
linear ordering problem. Picard and Oueyranne
(1981) extended the algorithm developed by Karp
and Held (1967) for the general one-dimensional
space allocation problem. Adolphson and Hu
(1973) suggested an algorithm for the optimal
linear ordering problem to extract the linear facil-
ity sequence for problems whose flow matrix can
be represented as a single rooted tree. Picard and
Oueyranne (1981) extended their algorithm to
include facilities of dissimilar dimensions. Love
and Wong (1976b) presented a linear mixed-in-
teger program for the single-row facility layout
problem.
Hall (1970) and Drezner (1987) presented a
procedure that extracts the eigenvectors of a
transformed flow matrix. Hall (1970) suggests that
the plot of the two eigenvectors associated with
the smallest eigenvalues could be used to extract
the sequence with which facilities could be placed
in a single-row layout. Simmons (1969, 1971) pre-
sented a branch and bound algorithm to solve the
linear ordering problem. In computing his upper
bound, he proposed an algorithm that generates
a sequence of machines which Heragu and Ku-
siak (1988) applied to solve the general single-row
facility layout problem. This stepwise algorithm,
referred to by Kusiak (1990) as the Modified
Spanning Tree (MST) algorithm, selects the pair
of facilities with the largest element in the flow
matrix and then proceeds by adding facilities to
the left and right of this pair.
Neghabat (1974) proposed the linear place-
ment algorithm, a stepwise procedure which con-
structs the facility layout by inserting one facility
at a time in the solution set. Heragu and Kusiak
(1991) modeled the single-row facility layout
problem as a linear mixed-integer program which
they solved using the penalty method for uncon-
strained programs. Heragu and Alfa (1992) pro-
posed an algorithm known as the Hybrid Simu-
lated Annealing algorithm which improves upon
an initial solution using a simulated annealing
algorithm.
In this paper, we propose a greedy heuristic
that looks at strong relationships between mutu-
ally distinct pairs of facilities. The heuristic is
such that at any stage of the process, more than
one facility can be added to the solution se-
quence, which can also be disjointed. This differs
from earlier stepwise single-row layout heuristic
methods which increment the solution sequence
one facility at a time. Our algorithm's perfor-
mance is compared to other stepwise and simul-
taneous procedures which provide solutions to
the single-row layout problem, such as those pro-
posed by Hall (1970), Neghabat (1974), Heragu
and Kusiak (1988), Heragu and Kusiak (1991),
and Heragu and Alfa (1992). The computational
experience shows that the proposed heuristic per-
forms well in terms of computational efficiency
and solution quality.
The organization of the paper is as follows.
 K.R. Kumar et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 87 (1995) 65-73
Section 2 presents a QAP formulation of the
single-row facility layout problem under the re-
laxation that the distance between adjacent loca-
tions is one unit and also describes the construc-
tive greedy heuristic. Section 3 includes the per-
formance testing of the heuristic as compared to
other single-row facility layout methods. Finally,
Section 4 contains a summary and our conclu-
sions.
2. Mathematical formulation and greedy heuristic
Heragu and Kusiak (1988) pointed out that if
the facilities have dissimilar dimensions, then the
facilities layout problem can not be formulated as
a QAP due to the undefined locations where
facilities should be placed. We provide a QAP
formulation for the case where a number of dis-
tinct facilities are to be assigned to an equal
number of equi-distant locations which lie on a
straight line, so as to minimize the materials
handling cost. To formulate the problem, let m
be the number of facilities and locations, and fij
the number of moves per time period in the work
flow from facility i to facility j. In addition, we
define
xik = 1 if facility i is assigned to location k; 0
otherwise
The mathematical formulation of the above
problem is given by:
m m
min£ ~ ~ £ xikxjk,fulk-k'l
i=l j=l k=l k'=l
s.t.
m
x,k= l, k = l, 2 . . . . . m,
i=l
~xik=l, i = 1 , 2 .... ,m,
k=l
Xik ~ { 0 , 1}, i,k = 1, 2 . . . . . m.
Optimal algorithms for solving the QAP have
been classified by Kusiak and Heragu (1987) in
two categories: branch and bound algorithms
(Lawler, 1963; Land, 1963; Bazaraa and Elshafei,
67
1979; Bazaraa and Kirca, 1983; Kaku and
Thompson, 1986) and cutting plane algorithms
(Bazaraa and Sherali, 1980; Burkard and Bon-
niger, 1983). QAP is an NP-hard problem
(Burkard, 1984) and a number of suboptimal
techniques have been proposed which can be
classified into four categories: construction algo-
rithms (Hillier and Connors, 1966; Lee and
Moore, 1967; Kusiak and Heragu, 1988), im-
provement algorithms (Armour and Buffa, 1963;
Vollman et al., 1968; Khalil, 1973), hybrid algo-
rithms (Drezner, 1980, 1987; Bazaraa and Sherali,
1980; Bazaraa and Kirca, 1983), and graph theo-
retic algorithms (Seppanen and Moore, 1970,
1975; Foulds and Robinson, 1978; Foulds et al.,
1985; Giffin and Foulds, 1987). More recent
methods involve the use of simulated annealing
algorithms (Heragu and Alfa, 1992). Foulds
(1983), Burkard (1984), Kusiak and Heragu (1987),
and Heragu (1992) provide extensive reviews of
the literature on the QAP and the facilities lay-
out problem. Rosenblatt (1979) and Malakooti
and D'Souza (1987) provide reviews on multiple
criteria QAP formulations.
Below we present a constructive greedy heuris-
tic for the single-row layout problem. The heuris-
tic does not take into account the dimensions of
the facilities in the construction of the single-row
layout. For the description of the heuristic, the
following notation and terminology are used:
S: A set whose elements are sequences of two or
more facilities; no two elements contain the same
types of facilities.
(1) P: A set whose elements are pairs of facilities
which have the same fu value.
Links: The connection between two adjacent fa-
cilities. (A facility in a single-row layout can be
(2) placed adjacent to at most two other facilities.
When two facilities are placed adjacently, then
one of their links is said to have been occupied.)
(3)
Heuristic
(4) Step 1. Transform the flow matrix Fmx m into
an F'xm (lower triangular) such that
[fij +fji, i >j,
fiJ ~ 0, i < j.
68 K.R. Kumar et al. / European Journal of OperationalResearch 87 (1995) 65-73

Step Z Set S = {¢ }. tion, but this would be at the expense of the

Step 3. Repeat until all m facilities are in S. computational efficiency of our heuristic method.
Step 3.1. Assign the pair(s) of facilities with the
largest f'j to P. Example. Consider a case where seven equal-area
Step 3.2. Replace the fo-(s) of the above pair(s) facilities are to be assigned to locations on a
in the flow matrix with zero. straight line layout so as to minimize the materi-
Step 3.3. Repeat until the current P has no als handling cost. Furthermore, assume that the
elements. When done, go to Step 3. lower triangular matrix shown below is the trans-
Step 3.3.1. Either randomly or by comparative formed flow matrix of the above seven facilities,
search select an element from P. Remove this i.e. that the first step of the heuristic has already
element from P. been completed.
Step 3.3.2. If one facility in the element se- 4 5 6 7
1 2 3
lected from P is in S and both of its links are 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
occupied, discard the element and go to Step 3.3;
else go to Step 3.3.3. 2 69 0 0 0 0 0 0
Step 3.3.3. If the element consists of two facili- 3 78 42 0 0 0 0 0
ties that belong to the same element of S, discard
the element and go to Step 3.3; else go to Step 4 5 58 6 0 0 0 0
3.3.4. 5 51 31 30 99 0 0 0
Step 3.3.4. If the facilities in the element se-
lected from P connects the facilities of two dis- 6 76 88 22 98 99 0 0
joint elements in S, establish the corresponding 7 59 97 29 26 2 85 0
link and go to Step 3.3; else go to Step 3.3.5.
Step 3.3.5. If the facilities in the element se- The iterations below describe the process that
lected from P link a facility in an element in S the heuristic follows for the construction of the
and the element, establish the link and go to Step single-row layout. The numbers in parentheses
3.3; else go to Step 3.3.6. indicate the heuristic's step responsible for such
Step 3.3.6. Insert the element in S as a distinct an action to be taken.
element and go to Step 3.3. Iteration 1: S = {¢} (2). P = {5 ~ 4, 6 ~ 5} (3.1).
Select {5 ,~, 4} to enter S, P = {6 ~ 5} (3.3.1). S =
Unlike Heragu and Kusiak's (1988), and {5 ~ 4} (3.3.6). Select {6 ~ 5} to enter S, P = {¢}
Neghabat's (1974) heuristic methods, our heuris- (3.3.1). S = {6 ~ 5 ,~, 4} (3.3.5).
tic looks at and retains strong relationships be- Iteration 2: P = { 6 ~ 4} (3.1), discard element
tween mutually distinct pairs of facilities. Wher- (3.3.3).
ever possible, these are put in S, often forming Iteration 3: P = {7 ~ 2} (3.1). Insert the element
disjointed sequences of two or more facilities, in S (3.3.6), S = {6 ,--, 5 ,--, 4, 7 ~ 2}.
unlike the other heuristic methods that minimally Iteration 4: P = {6 ~ 2} (3.1). The element in P
increment the sequence by one facility at a time. connects two elements in S (3.3.4), S = {7 ~ 2
Nevertheless, in our heuristic, these disjointed 6,~5 ~4}.
sequences form constraints for the selection of Iteration 5: P = {7 ~ 6} (3.1), discard element
subsequent facility pair allocations. Neghabat's (3.3.3).
procedure, while allowing initial facility orderings Iteration 6: P = {1 ,~, 3} (3.1). Insert element in S
to be split apart, has the disadvantages of incre- (3.3.6), S = {7 <--}2--, 6,--, 5 ",-}4, 1 ,--, 3}.
menting the solution sequence by a single facility, Iteration 7: P = { 6 ~ 1} (3.1), discard element
and requiring a great deal of computation time, (3.3.2).
especially for problems of higher dimensions. Iteration 8: P = {2,--, 1} (3.1), discard element
Clearly, we could use a Neghabat-type search (3.3.2).
procedure in Step 3.3.1 rather than random selec- Iteration 9: P = {7 ~ 1} (3.1). The element in P
 K.R. Kumar et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 87 (1995) 65-73
connects two elements in S (3.3.4). S = {4 o 5
6~2~7~1~3}.
At this point the heuristic terminates since all
seven facilities are in S. The single element in S
indicates the order in which the facilities should
be placed in order to obtain the single-row facil-
ity layout. If the distance between adjacent loca-
tions is one unit, then if facility 4 is assigned to
the first location, facility 5 on the second, etc.,
the resulting materials handling cost is 2285. A
complete enumeration of all 7! possible layouts,
to search for the one with minimum materials
handling cost, indicates that the solution con-
structed by the heuristic is the optimal one.
Note that in iteration 3, our heuristic inserts
two facilities in S. This is not feasible in Heragu
and Kusiak's and Neghabat's heuristic methods
which increment their solution sequences by one
facility at a time. In general, the heuristic at any
point of its operation may insert any non-negative
number of facilities in the solution sequence.
Also, in the above example, at the end of the
heuristic's execution, S contained a single ele-
ment due to the nonzero elements of the flow
matrix. In cases where a number of elements in
the flow matrix are zero, the heuristic might
construct a solution sequence with several se-
quences of facilities with no overlap of facilities.
In other words, if we construct a graph whose
nodes are the facilities and whose arcs represent
the flow between two facilities, and two or more
disjoint sub-graphs are created, then the heuristic
views the sub-graphs' flow matrices as distinct
cases and provides single-row facility layouts in-
dependent from one another.
3. Performance testing
The performance of the heuristic was tested
on a number of problems with 4 to 30 facilities.
In all problems considered, the dimensions of the
facilities were dissimilar. To assess the effective-
ness of the heuristic, the materials handling cost
and computational time for each problem was
compared to the solution provided by other sin-
gle-row facility layout heuristic methods such as
the ones proposed by Hall (1970), Neghabat
69
(1974), Heragu and Kusiak (1988), Heragu and
Kusiak (1991), and Heragu and Alfa (1992). The
algorithms by Hall (1970), Neghabat (1974), Her-
agu and Kusiak (1988), and the heuristic pre-
sented in this paper were implemented using the
C programming language and run on a Sun 3/260
computer. The performance testing comprises of
three sets of problems found in the literature.
The first set of problems includes nine prob-
lems of 4 facilities. The flow matrices and dimen-
sions of these problems can be found in Heragu
and Kusiak (1988). The clearance between facili-
ties was assumed to be one unit. For these small
dimensionality facility layout problems, all meth-
ods have proven to be computationally efficient
and yield optimal or near optimal solutions and
hence the results are not reported here. The
heuristic proposed in this paper is slightly supe-
rior to Heragu and Kusiak's (1988) algorithm, but
comparable to Hall's (1970) and Neghabat's (1974)
algorithms.
The second set of problems consists of 8 prob-
lems with 5 to 30 facilities. The flow matrices of
the problems can be found in Nugent et al. (1968),
whereas their dimensions are reported in Heragu
and Kusiak (1988). The clearance between facili-
ties was assumed to be 0.01 units. Table 1 con-
tains the costs and computational times required
by the algorithms tested. It is evident that Negha-
bat's algorithm is computationally more expensive
than the heuristic presented in this paper. In
addition, for problems of small dimensions (12 or
less facilities) Neghabat's algorithm yields the best
cost (except in problem 2). Nevertheless, his solu-
tion quality is heavily dependent on computa-
tional cost, a fact which is particularly true for
problems of higher dimensions. For problems of
20 and 30 facilities Neghabat's algorithm yields
inferior solutions, even after half an hour of
execution. The algorithm by Heragu and Kusiak
consistently yields inferior solutions in terms of
cost, but is computationally less expensive than
our heuristic.
For problems with 12 or less facilities, our
heuristic is less computationally expensive than
Hall's method. For problems of higher dimen-
sions, Hall's algorithm is the least computation-
ally expensive among all methods. We would like
70 K~I~ Kumar et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 87 (1995) 65-73

to point out that in our implementation of Hall's
algorithm we did not account for the transforma-
tions required to be performed on the flow ma-
trix. Nevertheless, we believe that the incorpora-
tion of the transformations in the software would
not result in significant changes in the computa-
tional efficiency of Hall's algorithm. Table 1 also
shows that the cost provided by our heuristic in 4
of the 8 problems (problems 3, 4, 5, and 7)
outperforms the solution by Hall. Hall's algo-
rithm yields solutions with better cost in 2 of the
8 problems (problems 6 and 8).
We believe that the performance of our
heuristic can deteriorate due to two primary rea-
sons. First, the greedy nature of the heuristic on
pairs of facilities with higher interaction, ignores
the aggregate effect of the remaining pairwise
interactions. Second, random selection of ele-
ments from P (Step 3.3.1) can mislead the heuris-
tic. Both of these issues can be alleviated to some
extent by using a Neghabat-type local compari-
son, which will certainly increase the computa-
tional cost of the heuristic.
The third set of problems consists of 8 prob-
lems. The facility dimensions and flow matrix for
problem 1 can be found in Beghin-Picavet and
Hansen (1982), for problems 2 and 6 in Love and
Wong (1976b), and for problems 3, 4 and 5 in
Simmons (1969). The flow matrix for problems 7
and 8 can be found in Nugent et al. (1968) and
the dimension of the facilities in Heragu and
Kusiak (1991). For these eight problems the
clearance between facilities was assumed to be
zero units.
Table 2 contains the costs and processing times
of the above 8 problems for the heuristic and the
algorithms proposed by Heragu and Kusiak (1991)
and Heragu and Alfa (1992). The table includes
two sets of columns for costs and computation
times associated with our heuristic. In the first
set, the solutions provided by our heuristic were
improved by one iteration of a greedy pairwise
exchange algorithm, whereas in the second, the
solutions provided by our heuristic were im-
proved by a greedy pairwise exchange algorithm
until no improvement in cost could result from
any further facility exchange. These sets of results
were used for comparisons with the results ob-
tained by Heragu and Kusiak (1991) and Heragu
and Alfa (1992), respectively.
From the first set in Table 2 we see that the
heuristic uniformly dominates the method by
Heragu and Kusiak (1991) in terms of processing
time. The heuristic obtains the optimal cost in
problems 1, 2, and 4 and provides better costs for
problems 3, 5, 7, and 8 in less time than Heragu

Table 1
Computational comparisons of the heuristic four heuristic methods of the single-row facility layout problem
Previously best Heragu & Kusiak Kumar, Hadjinicola
known solution a Hall (1970) Neghabat (1974) (1988) & Lin
Problem Number Cost CPU Cost CPU b Cost CPU Cost CPU Cost CPU
number of
facilities
1 5 1.165 0.04 1.140 0.018 1.100 0.009 1.165 0.007 1.140 0.008
2 6 2.085 0.04 1.990 0.034 2.030 0.015 2.085 0.008 1.990 0.010
3 7 5.420 0.04 5.530 0.052 4.730 0.500 5.420 0.017 5.150 0.033
4 8 7.995 0.04 7.035 0.069 6.295 5.500 7.995 0.035 6.775 0.067
5 12 31.525 0.04 27.805 0.120 24.675 1800.00 31.525 0.067 24.715 0.100
6 15 62.624 0.05 49.375 0.153 51.500 1800.00 62.624 0.100 54.830 0.600
7 20 178.149 0.05 153.260 0.255 169.920 1800.00 178.149 0.600 141.040 4.200
8 30 n.a. n.a. 395.770 0.624 466.800 1800.00 414.400 4.800 405.520 14.800
CPU = central processing unit time in seconds. All CPU times were obtained on a Sun 3/260 computer.
n.a. means information not available.
a The previously best known solutions were obtained from Heragu and Kusiak (1988).
b The CPU time for Hall corresponds to the time needed to derive the eigenvalues using the software MATLAB and the time to
compute the cost. The time reported does not account for the matrix transformations required by Hall's algorithm.
 K.R. Kumar et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 87 (1995) 65-73 71

and Kusiak (1991). The heuristic does not domi-
nate Heragu and Kusiak's (1991) method since it
yields higher cost in problem 6.
From the second set in Table 2 we see that the
heuristic attains the optimal cost for problems 1,
2, and 4 in significantly less time than the method
proposed by Heragu and Alfa (1992). In addition,
in problem 3, it obtains the same cost but in less
processing time. The heuristic does not provide
improved cost for problems 5 and 6 even though
the solution it provides is computationally less
expensive. It is interesting to note that the heuris-
tic yielded improved costs for problems 7 and 8,
the higher dimension problems in significantly
less time.
4. Summary and conclusion
A special case of the general facility layout
problem is the single-row facility layout problem.
Table 2
Comparative performance testing of the heuristic with the m e t h o d proposed by Heragu and Kusiak (1991) and Heragu and Alfa
(1992)
Heragu & Kusiak (1991) c
with infeasible with feasible
initial solution initial solution
Problem N u m b e r of Cost a CPU b Cost a
number facilities
Such a problem arises when assigning service
rooms in one side of a corridor to minimize the
total distance travelled, arranging books on a
shelf to minimize the movements for book re-
trieval, and assigning files on the cylinders of a
disk so as to minimize the movement of the
mechanical head in retrieving the files. In the
context of flexible manufacturing systems, the
single-row layout problem arises in the assign-
ment of machines to minimize the movement for
an automated guided vehicle.
We propose a constructive heuristic which as-
signs facilities to locations on a straight line by
capitalizing on the pairs of facilities which have
the largest number of moves between them. The
heuristic is tested on three sets of problems for
cases where the facilities have different dimen-
sions. Its performance is compared to existing
algorithms specializing on single-row layout such
as those proposed by Hall (1970), Neghabat
(1974), Heragu and Kusiak (1988), Heragu and
Kusiak (1991) and Heragu and Alfa (1992).
Heragu & Alfa Kumar, Hadjinicola & Lin
(1992) Set 1 c Set 2 d
CPU b Cost a CPU b Cost CPU Cost CPU b

1 4 78.0 0.08 78.0 0.09 78.0 1.624 78.0 0.007 78.0 0.007
2 5 151.0 0.08 151.0 0.13 151.0 10.351 151.0 0.010 151.0 0.010
3 8 2 342.5 0.36 2 341.5 0.59 2 324.5 11.803 2 324.5 0.080 2 324.5 0.080
4 10 2781.5 1.11 2781.5 0.84 2781.5 19.815 2781.5 0.100 2781.5 0.100
5 11 7041.5 0.96 7274.5 2.18 6933.5 23.103 6953.5 0.120 6953.5 0.120
6 11 6933.5 0.98 6933.5 0.95 6933.5 29.176 7265.5 0.120 7265.5 0.120
7 20 16 265.0 10.68 16 109.0 7.82 15 602.0 603.376 15 971.0 5.300 15 549.0 8.600
8 30 46139.0 36.43 46 454.0 35.74 45 111.0 585.947 45 308.5 25.800 44 466.5 91.800
C P U = central processing unit time in seconds.
a T h e costs and computational times obtained by Heragu and Kusiak (1991) are equal to or better than the previously best known

solutions (up to 1991), also reported in the same paper. T h e only exception is problem 5 whose previously best known cost, which is
also the optimal, is 6933.5 with 9.84 sec. of computational time on an IRIS 80 C.I.I.-H.B. computer (Beghin-Picavet and Hansen,
1982). The costs obtained by H e r a g u and Alfa (1992) are equal to or better than the previously best known solutions. T h e costs
reported for problems 1, 2, and 4 are also those of the optimal solutions.
b C P U time for H e r a g u and Kusiak (1991) on an A M D A H L 5870 computer. C P U time for the H S A algorithm was obtained on a
V A X 6420 mainframe computer. C P U time for the heuristic presented in this paper was obtained on a Sun 3 / 2 6 0 computer.
c T h e solutions of the heuristic presented in this paper and the ones produced by H e r a g u and Kusiak (1991) were improved by one
iteration of a greedy pairwise exchange algorithm. T h e costs and C P U times reported account for such improvement.
d T h e solution produced by the heuristic presented in this paper was improved by a greedy pairwise exchange algorithm until no
further improvement in the cost could be obtained.
72 K.R. Kumar et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 87 (1995) 65-73
The computational experience from the first
set of problems indicates that for problems of low
dimensions (4 facilities), the heuristic's perfor-
mance is slightly superior to Heragu and Kusiak's
(1988) algorithm and comparable to Hall's (1970)
and Neghabat's (1974) algorithms.
The second set of problems consisted of prob-
lems of higher dimensions. In these problems, the
Heragu and Kusiak (1988) algorithm, although
being the most computationally efficient, resulted
in inferior costs, whereas the algorithm by Negha-
bat (1974) required extremely long computational
times. The method by Hall was the least compu-
tationally expensive for problems of more than 20
facilities. Nevertheless, out of the 8 problems that
Hall's method was tested on, the heuristic ob-
tained superior solutions in 4 problems in shorter
processing time.
In the third set of problems, the performance
of the heuristic is compared to the methods by
Heragu and Kusiak (1991) and Heragu and Alfa
(1992). Both methods are more computationally
expensive than our heuristic. Our heuristic ob-
tained the optimal (when known) or improved
costs in less time in 7 of the 8 problems tested
when compared to Heragu and Kusiak (1991) and
6 of the 8 problems tested when compared to
Heragu and Alfa (1992).
Our research can be extended in two direc-
tions. The heuristic can be enhanced by devising
a Neghabat-type local comparison procedure
which does not become 'too' computationally ex-
pensive. Yet another research avenue is to gener-
alize our heuristic to two-dimensional layout
problems.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Professor Sunderesh S.
Heragu and the two anonymous referees whose
comments greatly improved this paper.
References
Adolphson, D., and Flu, T.C. (1973), "Optimal linear order-
ing", SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 25/3, 403-423.
Armour, G.C., and Buffa, E.S. (1963), "A heuristic algorithm
and simulation approach to relative location of facilities",
Management Science 9/2, 294-309.
Bazaraa, M.S., and Kirca, O. (1983), "A branch-and-bound-
based heuristic for solving the quadratic assignment prob-
lem", Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 30/2, 287-304.
Bazaraa, M.S., and Sherali, H.D., (1980), "Benders' partition-
ing scheme applied to a new formulation of the quadratic
assignment problem", Naval Research Logistics Quarterly
27/1, 29-41.
Beghin-Picavet, M., and Hansen, P. (1982), "Deux problemes
d'affectation non lineaires", RAIRO Recherche Op~ratio-
nelle 16/3, 263-276.
Burkard, R.E. (1984), "Quadratic assignment problem", Eu-
ropean Journal of Operational Research 15/3, 283-289.
Burkard, R.E., and Bonniger, T. (1983), "A heuristic for
quadratic Boolean programs with applications to quadratic
assignment problems", European Journal of Operational
Research 13/4, 374-386.
Drezner, Z. (1987), "A heuristic procedure for the layout of a
large number of facilities", Management Science 33/7,
907-915.
Foulds, L.R. (1983), "Techniques for facilities layout: Decid-
ing which pairs of activities should be adjacent", Manage-
ment Science 29/12, 1414-1426.
Foulds, L.R., and Robinson, D.F. (1978), "Graph theoretic
heuristics for the plant layout problem", International
Journal of Production Research 16/1, 27-37.
Foulds, L.R., Gibbons, P.B., and Giffin, J.W. (1985), "Facili-
ties layout adjacency determination: An experimental
comparison of three graph theoretic heuristics", Opera-
tions Research 33/5, 1091-1106.
Giffin, J.W., and Foulds, L.R. (1987), "Facilities layout gener-
alized model solved by n-boundary shortest path heuris-
tics", European Journal of Operational Research 28/3,
382-891.
Hall, K.M. (1970), "An r-dimensional quadratic placement
algorithm", Management Science 17/3, 219-229.
Heragu, S.S. (1992), "Recent models and techniques for solv-
ing the layout problem", European Journal of Operational
Research 57/2, 136-144.
Heragu, S.S., and Alfa, A.S. (1992), "Experimental analysis of
simulated annealing based algorithms for the layout prob-
lem", European Journal of Operational Research 57/2,
190-202.
Heragu, S.S., and Kusiak, A. (1988), "Machine layout prob-
lem in flexible manufacturing systems", Operations Re-
search 36/2, 258-268.
Heragu, S.S., and Kusiak, A. (1991), "Efficient models for the
facility layout problem", European Journal of Operational
Research 53/1, 1-13.
Hillier, F.S., and Connors, M.M. (1966), "Quadratic assign-
ment problem algorithms and the location of indivisible
facilities", Management Science 13/1, 42-57.
Kaku, B.K., and Thompson, G.L. (1986), "An exact algorithm
for the general quadratic assignment problem", European
Journal of Operational Research 23/3, 382-390.
 K.R. Kumar et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 87 (1995) 65-73
Karp, R.M., and Held, M. (1967), "Finite state processes and
dynamic programming", SlAM Journal on Applied Mathe-
matics 15/3, 693-718.
Kaufman, L., and Broeckx, F. (1978), "An algorithm for the
quadratic assignment problem using Benders' decomposi-
tion", European Journal of Operational Research 2/3, 207-
211.
Khalil, T.M. (1973), "Facilities relative allocation technique
(FRAT)", International Journal of Production Research
11/2, 183-194.
Koopmans, T.C., and Beckmann, M. (1957), "Assignment
problems and location of economic activities", Economet-
rica 25/1, 53-76.
Kusiak, A. (1990), Intelligent Manufacturing Systems,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kusiak, A., and Heragu, S.S (1987), "The facility layout prob-
lem", European Journal of Operational Research 29/3,
229-251.
Lawler, E.L. (1963), "The quadratic assignment problem",
Management Science 9/4, 586-599.
Love, R.F., and Wong, J.Y. (1976a), "Solving quadratic as-
signment problems with rectangular distances and integer
programming", Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 23/4,
623-627.
Love, R.F., and Wong, J.Y. (1976b), "On solving a one-di-
mensional space allocation problem with integer program-
ming", INFOR 14/2, 139-143.
Malakooti, B., and D'Souza, G.I (1987), "Multiple objective
73
programming for the Quadratic Assignment Problem",
International Journal of Production Research 25/2, 285-
300.
Muller, T. (1983), Automated Guided Vehicles, IFS Publica-
tions, Kempton, Bedford, UK.
Neghabat, F. (1974), "An efficient equipment layout algo-
rithm", Operations Research 22/3, 622-628.
Nugent, C.E., Vollmann, T.E., and Ruml, J. (1968), "An
experimental comparison of techniques for the assignment
of facilities to locations", Operations Research 16/1, 150-
173.
Picard, J., and Queyranne, M. (1981), "On the one-dimen-
sional space allocation problem", Operations Research
29/2, 371-391.
Rosenblatt, M.J. (1979), "The facilities layout problem: A
multigoal approach", International Journal of Production
Research, 17/4, 323-332.
Seppanen, J., and Moore, J.M. (1970), "Facilities planning
with graph theory", Management Science 17/4, B242-
B253.
Seppanen, J.J., and Moore, J.M. (1975), "String processing
algorithms for plant layout problems", International Jour-
nal of Production Research 13/3, 239-254.
Simmons, D.M. (1969), "One-dimensional space allocation:
An ordering algorithm", Operations Research 17/5, 812-
826.
Simmons, D.M. (1971), "A further note on one-dimensional
space allocation", Operations Research 19/1,249.