Applied Soft Computing 61 (2017) 819–831

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Soft Computing

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/asoc

Full length article

Solving an extended multi-row facility layout problem with fuzzy

clearances using GA
Soroush Safarzadeh a,∗ , Hamidreza Koosha b
a
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan 84156-83111, Iran
b
Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Multi-row facility layout problem (MRFLP) is a class of facility layout problems, which decides upon the
Received 18 December 2015 arrangement of facilities in some fixed numbers of rows in order to minimize material handling cost.
Received in revised form 3 August 2017 Nowadays, according to the new layout requirements, the facility layout problems (FLPs) have many
Accepted 3 September 2017
applications such as hospital layout, construction site layout planning and layout of logistics facilities.
Available online 8 September 2017
Therefore, we study an extended MRFLP, as a novel layout problem, with the following main assumptions:
1) the facilities are arranged in a two-dimensional area and without splitter rows, 2) multiple products
Keywords:
are available, 3) distance between each pair of facilities, due to inaccurate and flexible manufacturing
Facility layout
Multi-row facility layout problem (MRFLP)
processes and other limitations (such as WIPs, industrial instruments, transportation lines and etc.), is
Genetic algorithm considered as fuzzy number, and 4) the objective function is considered as minimizing the material han-
Lost opportunity cost dling and lost opportunity costs. To model these assumptions, a nonlinear mixed-integer programming
Fuzzy sets model with fuzzy constraints is presented and then converted to a linear mixed-integer programming
model. Since the developed model is an NP-hard problem, a genetic algorithm approach is suggested to
find the best solutions with a minimum cost function. Additionally, three different crossover methods
are compared in the proposed genetic algorithm and finally, a sensitivity analysis is performed to discuss
important parameters.
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction proven that this problem is an NP-hard combinatorial optimiza-

Layout design is an important and popular issue in the facil-
ity planning, which deals with the arrangement of facilities in a
determined area. Facility layout problems have many applications
in different fields. For example, recently, we can observe hospi-
tal layout [1–3], construction site layout planning [4–6] and layout
of logistics facilities [7,8], which are modeled by FLPs. In addition,
according to the extent of layout design problems, researchers have
conducted many studies on the FLPs’ definition, classification, and
their related solving methods in recent decades. Regarding vari-
ous arrangements in the plant layout area, according to the design
restrictions, layout design problems can be divided into four dis-
tinct categories: single row facility layout (SRFLP), multi-row facility
layout (MRFLP), loop layout and open-field layout [9].
Single row facility layout problem (SRFLP) is a classic prob-
lem that arranges rectangle departments, which all have the same
height, in a single row to minimize the material handling cost. It is
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: s.safarzadeh@in.iut.ac.ir (S. Safarzadeh).
tion problem [10]. On the other hand, multi-row facility layout
problem (MRFLP) is a generalized problem of SRFLP, so which rect-
angular departments must be assigned to the multi-determined
rows with the same height with the aim of minimizing the sum of
the center-to-center distances between all pairs of facilities [11].
MRFLP, similar to others layout problems, has been used in differ-
ent fields such as design computer and its accessories [12,13] or
production systems [14].
However, in MRFLP, the rectangular departments are placed in
the multi-fixed rows as default, but facilities may need unusual
or asymmetric layout, practically, in a two-dimensional area with
considering other limitations (such as unequal areas, unequal
departments and etc.). Thus, we propose a novel layout problem
in a production environment that is an extension of MRFLP, as a
two-dimensional planning with additional real assumptions.
Furthermore, based on the assigned feasible placement of facil-
ities, a cost, usually called handling cost, is calculated in FLPs
with considering the interactions between each pair of facilities.
Although, handling cost is a significant cost in layout problems, to
have a more realistic understanding of the problem and to enhance
the accuracy of the objective, we add an important layout cost that

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.09.003
1568-4946/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
820 S. Safarzadeh, H. Koosha / Applied Soft Computing 61 (2017) 819–831
is lost opportunity cost related to waste spaces, which remains after
the facilities placement into the objective function of the proposed
layout problem. Economically, any investment on an opportunity
causes losing other economic opportunities. For example, in layout
design problems, the inappropriate layout of facilities in an area
leads to losing some opportunities in that area such as locating
a new production line, making storage, renting the area and etc.
Therefore, considering the cost of lost opportunities with higher
utilities is reasonable for a layout problem. Unfortunately, this issue
has not been mentioned in the extant literature yet.
1.1. Fuzzy approach in FLP
Some important parameters such as demand or distance
between the facilities have been considered in the literature of the
FLPs, usually, as a crisp number to calculate the handling cost and it
has made the proposed models impractical. Because of some lim-
itations in the real world such as required space for instruments,
work in process, transportation facilities and etc., we cannot put the
facilities in the optimal location. Furthermore, diversity of products
forces the manufacturer into the flexible production methods and
industrial machines that may lead to a partial change in the facility
layout. Thus, it is more realistic to consider the distance between
each pair of facilities as fuzzy number as well as the recent studies
in the FLPs [15–17]. By doing this, the existent inaccuracy of the
distance is exerted in the model.
Fuzzy set theory which first introduced by Zadeh [15] explains
the inexact and ambiguous features of any measurable variable.
In an uncertain environment, the fuzzy theory can help us to solve
problems by considering inexact inputs for them and apply the spe-
cial techniques, in accordance with the available limitations [18].
In this paper, we focus on an extension of MRFLP in a two-
dimensional environment without splitter rows, to minimize lost
opportunity cost and material handling cost of a multi-product sys-
tem. In addition, we assume unequal departments and the fuzzy
distance between each pair of facilities to improve the mathe-
matical modeling of the extended problem. Thus far, however, no
research has been found surveying these two assumptions with
each other. Based on the problem definition, a linear mixed-integer
programming model is proposed with fuzzy constraints. Since the
proposed model belongs to NP-hard class, an effective GA, as a pop-
ular and useful algorithm in the FLPs’ literature, is developed to
conclude the best layout solutions.
The rest of this research is organized as follows. Section 2 con-
sists of a literature review of the SRFLP and MRFLP and their solution
methods. Then, in Section 3, the mathematical foundations of the
proposed model are explained. In Section 4, a genetic algorithm is
studied as the solution method for the defined layout problem. Fol-
lowing, the numerical studies and its related computational results
are described in Section 5. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis and
related discussions are performed in Section 6. Finally, Section 7
presents conclusion, including the main understandings, limita-
tions, and future research.
2. Literature review
In this section, we review the literature on SRFLP and MRFLP and
their proposed mathematical models, which establish major part
of the FLPs background, in the last decade. Moreover, we study the
developed solving methods consisting of metaheuristics, heuris-
tics, and exact techniques. Lastly, the summary of the reviewed
literature is presented in Table 1.
In most of the studied papers, the defined layout problems have
similar assumptions and we can observe more innovation in
solving methods. For example, Kothari and Ghosh [22] proposed
the Lin–Kernighan method, as a novel heuristic technique, for SRFLP
in which the lost opportunity cost had not been considered. In
another study for SRFLP, Amaral and Letchford [23] provided a poly-
hedral approach based on the material handling cost. Moreover,
a hybrid estimation of the distribution algorithm is proposed for
SRFLP [24].
Researchers in the area of facility layout paid little attention
to fuzzy layout environment [15,16,19]. For example, fuzzy tech-
niques could help to solve the unequal facility layout problems
(UA-FLPs) in a fuzzy random environment [17,20]. Moreover, qual-
itative and quantitative criteria were incorporated into FLP model
and then an integrated methodology, based on the synthetic value
of fuzzy judgments and nonlinear programming, was provided [21].
Some of the main parameters of layout problems such as demand
(related to the handling cost), and closeness of departments (in the
multi-objective models) are considered as fuzzy numbers in these
studies [6,20]. However, the investigated studies of FLPs have not
been dealt with the MRFLP in a fuzzy environment.
Garey and Johnson [25] proved the high computational com-
plexity of different layout design problems. Therefore, many
heuristics [26,27] and meta-heuristic algorithms have been pro-
posed in the previous literature to solve single and multi-row
layout design problems. For example, we can mention ant colony
optimization (ACO) algorithm [28–30], tabu search algorithm (TS)
[31–34], particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm and sim-
ulated annealing (SA) [35–37] as some metaheuristics to solve
SRFLP [38]. However, some researchers used exact optimization
methods; for example, Solimanpur and Jafari [39] provided a two-
dimensional facility layout problem using a branch and bound
algorithm.
Nonetheless, genetic algorithm (GA) is the most popular
approach used frequently in the literature of FLPs [40–45]. In most
cases, it has been shown that GA concludes better solutions than
other metaheuristics methods in FLPs. The genetic algorithm, which
was introduced by Jon Holland, has been widely applied in solving
optimization problems due to its capabilities. For example, in one
of the first GA applications, an FLP is solved by a genetic algorithm
with a heuristic crossover method [46]. In addition, Wu, Chu, Wang
and Yan [47] considered GA for cellular manufacturing design and
layout problem. On the other hand, Sadrzadeh [48] used GA with a
heuristic procedure to solve multi-line layout problem.
In some papers, GA is proposed with novel features to improve
the efficiency of algorithm. Datta, Amaral, and Figueira [44] pro-
posed a permutation-based GA for single row facility layout
problem. Aiello, Scalia and Enea [43] studied a multi-objective GA
(MOGA) for the facility layout problem based upon slicing struc-
ture encoding. In addition, Kiaa, Khaksar-Haghanib, Javadianc and
Tavakkoli-Moghaddam [42] solved a multi-floor FLP of a dynamic
cellular manufacturing system by an efficient GA. Furthermore,
Pourvaziri and Naderi [40] exhibited a hybrid multi-population GA
for dynamic facility layout problem. Table 1 presents an overview
of the studied publications in this paper as follows.
Obviously, our proposed problem consists of multi-product
with fuzzy distances [15,17,20] in a two-dimensional area, is not
observed in the studied FLPs’ literature. Moreover, we contributed
to the studied cost function (lost opportunity cost) of the allocated
spaces to the unequal departments, as a novel term, except for the
handling cost.
In the next section, firstly, a novel nonlinear programming
model with fuzzy constraints is presented for the extended MRFLP
along with the explained assumptions and notations. Then, the pro-
posed mathematical model is converted to a linear mixed-integer
programming model.
Table 1
Overview of studied literature.

Reference Problem Data 2D Product Objective Solution method

Crisp Fuzzy Single Multiple Meta-heuristic Heuristic Exact

Ficko, Brezocnik, and Balic [45] FMS • • HC GA

Solimanpur, Vrat and Shankar [30] SRFLP • • HC ACO

S. Safarzadeh, H. Koosha / Applied Soft Computing 61 (2017) 819–831

Amaral [21] SRFLP • • HC Novel MIP
Wu, Chu, Wang and Yan [47] CMS • • HC GA
Hani, Amodeo, Yalaoui, and Chen [28] QAP • • HC ACO
Samarghandi, Taabayan and Jahantigh [38] SRFLP • • HC PSO
Datta, Amaral and Figueira [44] SRFLP • • HC GA
Sadrzadeh [48] MLFLP* • • HC GA
Aiello, Scalia and Enea [43] UA-FLP* • • • HC MOGA*
Amaral and Letchford [23] SRFLP • • HC Polyhedral App.
García-Hernández, Pierreval, Salas-Morera and Arauzo-Azofra [41] UA-FLP • • • HC Interactive GA
Ou-Yang and Utamima [24] SRFLP • • HC Hybrid Alg.
Kothari and Ghosh [22] SRFLP • • HC LKN*
Kothari and Ghosh [31] SRFLP • • HC TS
Samarghandi, Taabayan and Behroozi [17] FDFLP* • • HC+RC* Fuzzy Apps.
Pourvaziri and Naderi [40] DFLP • • HC+RC GA
Lenin, Siva Kumar, Ravindran and Islam [34] SRFLP • • HC MOTS*
Kiaa, Khaksar-Haghanib, Javadianc and Tavakkoli-Moghaddam [42] MFLP* • • • HC+RC+PC* +OC* GA
Zuo, Murray, and Smith [33] DRLP* • • HC+TAC* MOTS
Nematian [15] FRSRFLP* • • HC B&B
Niroomand, Mirzaei, Şahin and Vizvári [37] CLFLP* • • HC SA
Hungerländer and Anjos [11] MRFLP • • HC Semidefinite App.
Palubeckis [26] SRFLP • • HC LS*
Palubeckis [36] SRFLP • • HC SA
Wang, Zuo, Liu, Zhao and Li [35] DRLP • • HC+RC SA
Xu and Song [20] DFLP • • HC+RC MOPSO
Rubio-Sánchez, Gallego, Gortázar and Duarte [27] SRFLP • • HC GRASP*
Guan and Lin [29] SRFLP • • HC Hybrid Alg.
The considered research Extended MRFLP • • • HC+LOC* GA

*Notes: HC—Handling Cost, LOC—Loss Opportunity Cost, MLFLP—Multi Line FLP, UA-FLP—Unequal Area FLP, MOGA—Multi-Objective GA, LKNS—Lin–Kernighan Neighborhood Search, FDFLP—Fuzzy Dynamic FLP, RC—Rearrangement
Cost, MOTS—Multi-Objective TS, MFLP—Multi Floor Layout Problem, PC—Purchase Cost, OC—Operating and Overhead Cost, DRLP—Double Row FLP, TAC—Total Area Consumed by the resulting layout, FRSRFLP—Fuzzy Robust
SRFLP, CLFLP—Closed Loop FLP, LS—Local Search, GRASP—Greedy Randomized Adaptive Search Procedure.

821
822 S. Safarzadeh, H. Koosha / Applied Soft Computing 61 (2017) 819–831

Table 2 Table 3
The description of the used indices and crisp parameters. The description of the used fuzzy parameters and decision variables.

Indices Description Fuzzy parameter Description

i, j ∈ {1, 2, · · ·, N} Machine index ˜ ij

dh Minimum horizontal distance needed between machine i
k ∈ {1, 2, · · ·, P} Product index
and j
Crisp parameter Description
P The number of products d̃vij Minimum vertical distance needed between machine i and
C Length of one period j
N The total number of facilities Decision variable Description
Dk Product demand over one time period xi length coordinates of machine i
tik Processing time of product k on the machine i yi width coordinates of machine i
Nik The number of required machine i for manufacturing X Maximum distance between x-axis and the last point of
product k the facilities along x-axis
bijk Machine route requirement binary parameter, which is 1 if Y Maximum distance between y-axis and the last point of
machine j is needed after machine i in the for product k , the facilities along y-axis
and zero otherwise. Ri Direction parameter, which is one if machine i be
aik Assignment parameter, which is one if machine i assign to horizontal, and zero, otherwise.
product k , and zero, otherwise.
fij The material flow between machine i and j
cijk Cost per unit of material flow between machine i and j for
product k
cij Cost per unit of material flow between machine i and j
wi Width of machine i
li Length of machine i
S0 Lost opportunity cost of each unit of area
X Length coordinate of available area
Y Width coordinate of available area

3. Mathematical modeling

Firstly, in this section, the assumptions and notations of the

proposed model are explained in two separate subsections. Next,
we present a fuzzy nonlinear programming model as an extension
of the ABSMODEL 3 for the defined problem. Finally, the primary
model is converted to a linear mixed-integer programming model,
due to the fuzzy nature of some right-hand side parameters.

3.1. Assumptions Fig. 1. The left trapezoidal number [50].

In this paper, the mathematical model is developed based on

Now, we present four mathematical relations between the intro-
the following assumptions:
duced parameters to obtain the secondary parameters from the
primary parameters as follows. It should be noted that; we will use
i iFacilities are arranged in a two-dimensional planar area with
the secondary parameters in modeling and the numerical studies
determined dimensions,
in Section 5.
ii The mathematical model is designed for multi-product, single
period and flow shop process, Dk tik
Nik =   ∀i, k (1)
iii Demand value and processing route of each product are known C
and there is not any backflow,

J

K
iv Distance between each pair of facilities is calculated by the N= Nik (2)
center-to-center method,
i=1 k=1
v Facilities have a predetermined rectangular shape,
vi Minimum horizontal and vertical distance between the 
K
Dk
machines are considered as fuzzy numbers, fij = bijk aik ajk ∀i, j (3)
Njk
vii The number of machines isn’t predetermined and is calculated k=1
according to the total demand of products,
viii Origin is considered as the entrance in the manufacturing pro- 
K
cij = bijk aik ajk cijk ∀ i, j (4)
cess. (This point is specified as a facility with a fixed location
and zero dimensions for all of the products.) k=1

The related notations are illustrated in the next subsection.
3.1. Notations
In this subsection, the used notations are divided into the
indices, crisp and fuzzy parameters, and sequentially, the decision
variables are defined for the mathematical model. Furthermore, a
comprehensive introduction to the fuzzy theory and fuzzy opti-
mization is provided from the fuzzy literature [49,50]. Thus, at first,
we describe the indexes and crisp parameters in Table 2 as follows.
Where Eqs. (1) and (2) address the number of total machines. In
addition, Eqs. (3) and (4) refer to the material flow and handling
cost between each pair of facilities, respectively. Furthermore, we
have two fuzzy parameters and three types of variables, which are
introduced in Table 3 as follows:
In this paper, based on the fieldwork experiences and nature
of fuzzy variables, we used the left trapezoidal numbers to show
the minimum distances as the best possible choice. Generally, the
left trapezoidal number denoted Al = (a1 , b1 , b2 , b2 ) that has sup-
porting interval [a1 , b2 ] in theory [50]. Fig. 1 represents the general
form of the left trapezoidal number as follows.
 S. Safarzadeh, H. Koosha / Applied Soft Computing 61 (2017) 819–831 823

˜ ij 3.4. Modified mathematical model

Now, assume that a1 = dhij − hij , b1 = dhij and b2 = ∞ for dh
and a1 = dvij − vij , b1 = dvij and b2 = ∞ for d̃vij in the proposed Considering the constraints (8) and (9), it can be observed that
model. accordingly, the membership functions of the fuzzy param- their right-hand side values are fuzzy numbers. By looking at the
eters are presented, based on the linearization methods in fuzzy fuzzy literature [51,52], to convert the fuzzy mathematical model to
sets theorem [51], in Eqs. (5) and (6) as follow: the deterministic model, we must define the membership functions
⎧1 x ≥ dhij of the objective function and fuzzy constraints, and then use the
⎪
⎨
x − (dhij − hij )
max-min method so that, the deterministic model can be obtained.
˜ ij = (dhij − hij , dhij ),
dh dhij (x) = dhij − hij ≤ x ≤ dhij ∀i, j (5) Therefore, the membership function for the constraints set, includ-
⎪
⎩ hij
ing dh parameter, can be presented in Eq. (17) as follows:
0 x ≤ dhij − hij
⎧1 x ≥ dvij Hlh = dhij (|xi − xj | − [Ri
li lj
+ Rj + (1 − Ri )
wi
+ (1 − Rj )
wj
] + M˛ij ),
⎪
⎨ 2 2 2 2 (17)
x − (dvij − vij ) lh ∈ {1, · · ·, Ndh }
d̃vij = (dvij − vij , dvij ), dvij (x) = dvij − vij ≤ x ≤ dvij ∀i, j (6)
⎪
⎩
vij
Where Ndh is the number of constraints (including dh parame-
0 x ≤ dvij − vij
ter) in the proposed model. Similarly, the membership function for
Where (dhij − hij , dhij ) and (dvij − vij , dvij ) are the expected inter- the constraints set, including dv parameter, is presented in Eq. (18)
˜ ij and d̃vij , respectively. Note that, we have the indifferent
vals of dh as follows:
mode between the two fuzzy parameters, if dhij (x) = dvij (x) = Hlv = dvij (|yi − yj | − [Ri
wi
+ Rj
wj li lj
+ (1 − Ri ) + (1 − Rj ) ] + M(1 − ˛ij )),
0.5. Therefore, we present a novel non-linear mathematical model
2 2 2 2 (18)
lv ∈ {1, · · ·, Ndv }
for the extended MRFLP in next subsection.
Where Ndv is the number of constraints set (including dh param-
3.3. The proposed model eter) in the proposed model. Based on the fuzzy sets literature [51],
the membership function for objective function is obtained similar
The proposed mathematical model, in this subsection, is an to the relations (5) and (6) as follow:
extension of the ABSMODEL 3, which is presented by Heragu and ⎧
⎪ 1 f (s) ≤ fl
Kusiak [14]. The objective function aims at minimizing the lost ⎪
⎨
opportunity cost of the used rectangular area as well as the total fu − f (s)
Gf = f (s) = fl ≤ f (s) ≤ fu ∀i, j (19)
distance traveled by the materials in the shop floor. It should be ⎪
⎪ fu − fl
noted that calculating lost areas among the facilities changes the ⎩
0 fu ≤ f (s)
objective function to a fuzzy objective, which can be considered
as future research. Based on the mentioned notation, the objective Where fl is lower bound of the objective function which is obtained
function is presented as follows in Eq. (7): by placing lower bound of right values in the constraints and solving
the mathematical model. In addition, the parameter fu indicates

N 
N

MinimizeS0 X Y + cij fij (|xi − xj | + |yi − yj |) (7) upper bound of the objective which is obtained by placing upper
bound of right hand side values in the constraints and solving the
i=1 j=1 mathematical model. Finally, the new objective function is obtained
j=
/ i in Eq. (20) as follows:

Moreover, the constraints include the following: lh=1 lv=1

Maximize min( ∩ Hlh , ∩ Hlv , Gf ) = Maximize (20)
C1. Ensure that no two facilities in the layout overlap (Eqs. (8) Ndh Ndv
and (9)):
To reduce the complexity of the model (due to absolute objective
li lj wi wj
|xi − xj | − [Ri + Rj + (1 − Ri ) + (1 − Rj ) ˜ ij ,
] + M˛ij ≥ dh ∀i, j (8) function and the constraints (5) and (6)), linearization is suggested.
2 2 2 2
wj lj
Thus, six new variables are defined as follows (21)–(26)):
wi li
|yi − yj | − [Ri
2
+ Rj
2
+ (1 − Ri ) + (1 − Rj ) ] + M(1 − ˛ij ) ≥ d̃vij ,
2 2
∀i, j (9) 
xi − xj xi ≥ xj
C2. Ensure that the location of each machine is in the feasible xij+ = , ∀ i, j (21)
area (Eqs. (10)–(16)): 0 xi < xj
li w 
xi − [Ri + (1 − Ri ) i ] ≥ 0, ∀i (10) −(xi − xj ) xi ≤ xj
2 2 xij− = ∀ i, j (22)
w l 0 xi > xj
yi − [Ri i + (1 − Ri ) i ] ≥ 0, ∀i (11)
2 2 
yi − yj yi ≥ yj
l w
xi + [Ri i + (1 − Ri ) i ] ≤ X , ∀i (12) yij+ = , ∀ i, j (23)
2 2 0 yi < yj
wi l 
yi + [Ri + (1 − Ri ) i ] ≤ Y , ∀i (13) −(yi − yj ) yi ≤ yj
2 2
yij− = , ∀ i, j (24)
X ≤ X (14) 0 yi > yj
Y ≤ Y (15) 
1 xi < xj
Ri , ˛ij ∈ {0, 1}. ∀i, j (16) ˇij = , ∀i, j (25)
0 xi ≥ xj
To prepare and solve the proposed mathematical model, we 
convert the fuzzy constraints (Eqs. (8) and (9)) and the objective 1 yi < yj
function to the linear mode and rewrite the model in the next ij = . ∀i, j (26)
0 yi ≥ yj
subsection.
824 S. Safarzadeh, H. Koosha / Applied Soft Computing 61 (2017) 819–831

called “population”, and each solution is called “chromosome”. Each

Fig. 2. The structure of the proposed chromosome.
Now, by replacing the new variables, the mathematical model
can be rewritten. In the modified mathematical model, only the
fuzzy-related constraints (Eqs. (8) and (9)) could be extended to
Eqs. (28)–(34). Moreover, the objective function is converted to a
compatible form as follows (Eqs. (27)–(42)).
Maximize
Subjectto

N 
N
chromosome is included in decision variables, which are called
“genes”. Based on a determined mechanism, some pairs of chro-
mosomes are chosen (called parents) and crossed over with each
other to generate next population (called children) [48]. Afterward,
a fitness function is selected to evaluate the relative performance
of chromosomes. Finally, the solutions with better fitness value
are selected (as usual) and reproduction operators (crossover and
mutation) are applied in order to achieve acceptable solutions. This
process continues until stop conditions are satisfied.
(27) As mentioned in the FLPs’ literature, many applications can be
observed in GA with different improvement techniques. However,

(fu − fl ) + S0 [X(Y − Y ) + Y (X − X )] + cij fij (xij+ + xij− + yij+ + yij− ) ≤ fu

(28)
i=1 j=1

j=
/ i

li lj w wj
xij+ − [Ri + Rj + (1 − Ri ) i + (1 − Rj ) ] + M(˛ij + ˇij ) − hij ≥ dhij − hij , ∀i, j (29)
2 2 2 2
li lj w wj
xij− − [Ri + Rj + (1 − Ri ) i + (1 − Rj ) ] + M(˛ij + (1 − ˇij )) − hij ≥ dhij − hij , ∀i, j (30)
2 2 2 2
xi − xj = xij+ − xij− , ∀i, j (31)

wi wj l lj
yij+ − [Ri + Rj + (1 − Ri ) i + (1 − Rj ) ] + M((1 − ˛ij ) + ij ) − vij ≥ dvij − vij , ∀i, j (32)
2 2 2 2
wi wj l lj
yij− − [Ri + Rj + (1 − Ri ) i + (1 − Rj ) ] + M((1 − ˛ij ) + (1 − ij )) − vij ≥ dvij − vij , ∀i, j (33)
2 2 2 2
yi − yj = yij+ − yij− , ∀i, j (34)

li w
xi − [Ri + (1 − Ri ) i ] ≥ 0, ∀i, j (35) most of the investigated studies generate the initial population
2 2
randomly (except Ref. [40,42]). Table 4 shows an overview of the
wi l
yi − [Ri + (1 − Ri ) i ] ≥ 0, ∀i, j (36) proposed GAs in the studied publications as follows.
2 2 We can observe in Table 4 that roulette wheel selection is a
li w popular selection method in the studied literature. In addition, the
xi + [Ri + (1 − Ri ) i ] ≤ X ∀i, j (37)
2 2 reproduction operators of GA consisting of PMX, N-point, and uni-
wi l form methods have more application than those of others. On the
yi + [Ri + (1 − Ri ) i ] ≤ Y , ∀i, j (38) other hand, the number of generations criterion is dominated stop
2 2
condition in the proposed GAs. Accordingly, we illustrate the GA
X ≤ X, (39)
elements in detail as follows.
Y ≤ Y, (40)

 ≥ 0, (41) 4.1. Structure of chromosomes and initial population

Ri , ˛ij , ˇij , ij ∈ {0, 1}. ∀i, j (42)

In the next section, we explain GA structure as the proposed
solving method for the modified mixed-integer programming
model, with considering the problem features, which influence the
structure of GA.
4. The proposed GA
The GA is one of the most popular optimization methods pro-
posed by Holland [53]. In this section, we explain the proposed
GA and its structure for the extended MRFLP in detail. Therefore,
we describe the structure of chromosomes and the initial popula-
tion. Then, we focus on the improvement operators consisting of
crossover and mutation operators by setting parameters that make
GA as a strong meta-heuristic algorithm.
In the genetic algorithm, the general idea is based on the natural
evolutionary systems. These systems help to improve breeding by
fertilization and genetic mutations. The explained mechanism can
be mimicked in the optimization problems to produce near opti-
mal solutions. For this purpose, a set of solutions is created, which is
As mentioned, the proposed modified mixed-integer program-
ming model contains both discrete (i.e. Ri ) and continuous (i.e.
xi , yi , X and Y ) decision variables. In addition, due to the depen-
dency of X and Y on the coordinates of decision variables (i.e.
xi , yi ), we can ignore them in the chromosome structure and keep
them, only in the calculation of the fitness function. Therefore, the
proposed structure of chromosome consists three parts, which the
number of each part is equal to the number of facilities (N). The first
part of this structure is assigned to the facilities longitudinal coor-
dinates (xi ). The second part is assigned to the facilities transverse
coordinates (yi ), and the directions of facilities (Ri ) are allotted to
the third part. Fig. 2 shows the proposed chromosome structure.
Moreover, to create the initial population, according to the prob-
lem constraints, the values of the facilities central features and their
directions are identified randomly and then, the flow value and dis-
tance between each pair of facilities are calculated for the solution.
Afterward, the parents are selected by the roulette wheel method to
create the next generation. It should be noted that the fitness value
of each chromosome is the same as objective function calculated in
the proposed model.
 S. Safarzadeh, H. Koosha / Applied Soft Computing 61 (2017) 819–831 825

Table 5

DM* satisfaction
The variant size of MRFLP.

Stop condition

G. No. + Conv.*

G. No. + Conv.
Problem No. of machines No. of variables No. of constraints

* ␸: Material handling cost; RWS: Roulette Wheel Selection; PMX: Partially Mapped Crossover; OX: Order Crossover; CX: Cycle Crossover; G. No.* : The Number of Generations; Conv: Convergence; DM: Decision Maker.
G. No.*
1 21 1074 1554

G. No.

G. No.
G. No.
G. No.
G. No.

G. No.
G. No.
G. No.
2 32 2515 3600
3 40 3943 5620
4 60 8913 12,630

Swap + Switch meth.

5 75 13,953 19,725
Reciprocal meth. 6 120 35,823 50,460

Swap+ Heuristic
7 175 76,303 107,275

Uniform meth.

Uniform meth.
Uniform meth.
Group meth. 8 280 195,583 274,540
Swap meth.

Swap meth.
9 500 624,253 875,250
Mutation

Heuristic

Heuristic

Heuristic
10 2000 9,997,003 14,001,000
*
Heuristic + PMX* + OX + CX

4.2. Crossover and mutation operators

Single-point+ Heuristic
*

PMX+2-Point+Uniform
PMX + N-Point meth.

In this paper, to produce the new chromosomes and create the

Uniformed based

next population, both crossover and mutation operators are used. In

the proposed GA, the PBX, 2-point and uniform crossover methods
Crossover

Heuristic

Heuristic
Heuristic

Heuristic

Heuristic

are applied to the improvement of future generations. Moreover,

the random mutation method is used to create diversification in
PMX

PMX

the population.
Tournament meth.

Tournament meth.

Tournament meth.
The best solutions
RWS + Dynamic
RWS*+Random

Modified RWS

4.3. Choose solutions and stop condition

Selection

Heuristic

Heuristic

In this subsection, we clarify the selection method of the next

RWS
RWS
RWS

generation and stop condition of the proposed GA. After reproduc-

tion step, the fitness function of the total population is calculated.
After that, all of the solutions are sorted and the best solutions are
Dynamic + Weighted sum meth.

separated (the number of solutions is equal to the number of initial

population). Then, the remaining worst results are removed from
the population. The GA algorithm continues to create generations
and to move from one generation to another until the termination
npop×(max ϕ+1)−sumϕ

condition is satisfied. In this study, like many others studies, the

1⁄(ϕ + penalty)

(max ϕ+1−ϕ)

number of iterations determines the termination of the algorithm.

Fitness fun.

Fig. 3 presents the flowchart of the proposed GA.

The next section explains how we can implement the proposed
1⁄ ϕ *

1⁄ϕ

GA for the MRFLP by the numerical examples. In addition, we show

ϕ

ϕ
ϕ
ϕ

ϕ
ϕ

that the studied problem has a high time complexity, even in the
JSSP-FSSP

small size problems.

Problem

UA-FLP

UA-FLP
UA-FLP
MLFLP*

MRFLP
MFLP*
SRFLP

DFLP
CMS
FMS

5. Computational results
Kiaa, Khaksar-Haghanib, Javadianc, and Tavakkoli-Moghaddam [42]
García-Hernández, Pierreval, Salas-Morera and Arauzo-Azofra [41]

In this section, the computational results of the proposed algo-

rithm are presented to study the efficiency of applied reproduction
operators. Therefore, the number of variables and constraints is cal-
culated by considering the proposed linear mathematical model.
The results can be observed in Table 5 as follows.
Clearly, the investigated layout design problem has a time com-
plexity of the factorial order. Therefore, solving the proposed FLP
with a deterministic optimization method, in a reasonable time,
is impossible. In such situations, application of the meta-heuristic
Enea, Galante, and Panascia [19]

optimization methods is strongly recommended.

Datta, Amaral and Figueira [44]
Ficko, Brezocnik, and Balic [45]

Wu, Chu, Wang and Yan [47]

The proposed GA be encoded with the MATLAB programming

Aiello, Scalia and Enea [43]
Mak, Wong, and Ghan [46]

Pourvaziri and Naderi [40]

Overview of the GA studies.

language on a computer with 2.6 GHz processor and 4G RAM. The

The proposed model

proposed GA pseudo-code for the presented layout design problem

is presented as follows in Fig. 4.
Sadrzadeh [48]

Before we start algorithm running, lower and upper bound of

the objective function (fl and fu ) were calculated and then, the best
Nasab [16]
Reference

values were obtained for the main parameters. In the next subsec-
Table 4

tion, we illustrate a numerical example in detail to clarify what kind

of problems can be modeled and solved by the proposed method.
826 S. Safarzadeh, H. Koosha / Applied Soft Computing 61 (2017) 819–831

Fig. 3. The framework for proposed GA.

Fig. 4. The pseudo-code of the proposed GA.

 S. Safarzadeh, H. Koosha / Applied Soft Computing 61 (2017) 819–831 827

Table 6 Table 11
Dimensions and symbols of machines. The minimum fuzzy horizontal distance needed among machines (m).

Machine type Symbol Length (m) Width (m) Entrance Cutting Milling Drilling Welding

Entrance E 0 0 Entrance (0,0) (0.1,0.2) (0.05,0.1) (0.1,0.15) (0.08,0.1)

Cutting machine C 4 2 Cutting (0.1,0.2) (0.1,0.2) (0.4,0.7) (0.8,1.0) (0.6,1.1)
Milling machine M 3 2 Milling (0.05,1.0) (0.4,0.7) (0.4,0.5) (0.1,0.5) (0.1,0.2)
Drilling machine D 2 1 Drilling (0.1,0.15) (0.8,1.0) (0.1,0.5) (0.8,0.9) (0.1,0.2)
Welding machine W 3 3 Welding (0.08,0.1) (0.6,1.1) (0.1,0.2) (0.1,0.2) (0.3,0.5)

*format of each cell: (dh − h,dh).

Table 7
The specification of products.
Table 12
Product Demand average (in each period) Processing Route (from left to right) The minimum fuzzy vertical distance needed among machines (m).

A 35 E-C-M-W Entrance Cutting Milling Drilling Welding

B 20 E-C-D-W
Entrance (0,0) (0.05,0.1) (0.1,0.2) (0.05,0.1) (0.25,0.5)
Cutting (0.05,0.1) (0.05,0.2) (0.55,0.9) (0.25,0.5) (0.55,0.8)
Milling (0.1,0.2) (0.55,0.9) (0.6,0.8) (0.05,0.1) (0.4,0.5)
Table 8
Drilling (0.05,0.1) (0.25,0.5) (0.95,1.0) (0.4,0.5) (0.2,0.3)
Processing time of each product on each machine (min).
Welding (0.25,0.5) (0.55,0.8) (0.4,0.5) (0.2,0.3) (0.3,0.4)
Product machine A B

Entrance realmin* realmin

Cutting 2 4 Table 13
Milling 2 0 The number of required machines.
Drilling 0 3
Machine Product A Product B
Welding 5 3
Entrance 1 1
*Is equals the smallest positive normalized floating-point number.
Cutting 1 2
Milling 1 0
Drilling 0 1
Table 9
Welding 3 1
Product A handling cost among the machines (currency per meter).

Entrance Cutting Milling Drilling Welding

Entrance 0 3 1 5 2
Cutting 3 0 2 4 3
Milling 1 2 0 3 3
Drilling 5 4 3 0 5
Welding 2 3 3 5 0

Table 10
Product B handling cost among machines (currency per meter).

Entrance Cutting Milling Drilling Welding

Entrance 0 5 2 1 2
Cutting 5 0 2 2 5
Milling 2 2 0 1 3
Drilling 1 2 1 0 1
Welding 2 5 3 1 0

5.1. Numerical example

This section addresses a numerical example of the MRFLP with
two products and five machines as the production system. More-
over, the length and width values of the area were considered
50 × 50 , respectively. In each time period, the demand values of
products A and B must be satisfied. In addition, the lost oppor-
tunity cost of each area unit is considered 10 units of currency.
The specifications of the required equipment to manufacture the
products and products are shown in Tables 6 and 7, respectively.
Moreover, Table 8 shows the processing times of products at each
facility. Tables 9 and 10 present the handling cost for products A
and B. Finally, Tables 11 and 12 denote the minimum horizontal
and vertical distances needed among facilities as fuzzy numbers.
According to the presented data in Table 7, Table 8 and available
time in each time period (that is considered 70 min), the number of
required equipment for each product is calculated by Eq. (1), and
the results are demonstrated in Table 13 as follows:
In the next step, fl and fu values (that were explained in
subsection 3.4) obtain 10,000 and 14,000, respectively, by the opti-
mal GA, which set its parameters in subsection 6.1. (population
Fig. 5. The best-obtained layout for the numerical example.
size = 300, iteration number = 300). Thus, the objective value is
obtained 0.6217 with the following arrangement, which is shown
in Fig. 5:
As we can observe in Fig. 5, the facilities, with considering the
existent constraints, have a reasonable and productive arrange-
ment. In addition, we show the trend of fitness value improvement
for the numerical example in Fig. 6. The main point of Fig. 6 is that
the best and the mean fitness values have a dramatical ascendancy,
in the entire process of optimization. This shows that the proposed
GA is efficient and convergent.
The next section investigates a comprehensive sensitivity anal-
ysis on the main parameters of the proposed GA and then, we define
three levels for each parameter and determine the optimized level
by the Taguchi method. Finally, according to the result of parame-
ter settings, we compare the obtained results of different crossover
operators and other GA parameters in detail.
828 S. Safarzadeh, H. Koosha / Applied Soft Computing 61 (2017) 819–831

Table 14
The GA parameter ranges and levels.

Row Algorithm parameters Parameters range Low Medium High

1 Pcrossover 0.75−0.95 0.75 0.85 0.95

2 Pmutation 0.05−0.25 0.05 0.15 0.25
3 ˇ* 1–10 1 5 10

* beta is a GA parameter.

Table 15
Calibration process of GA.

A B C R1 R2 R3 R4 S. D* Mean

1 3 1 15,044.5 13,327.2 12,053.1 12,053.1 1227 13,119.5

1 2 2 16,225.2 15,569.4 15,302.4 14,077.0 778 15,293.5
1 1 3 16,802.0 14,123.3 16,991.0 16,032.8 1134 15,987.3
2 3 2 12,001.8 13,144.1 14,174.9 19,380.0 2823 14,675.2
2 2 3 13,620.3 15,013.5 16,311.1 15,224.5 957 15,042.4
Fig. 6. Iteration-to-fitness plot for the illustrated example. 2 1 1 16,697.8 15,961.3 17,084.3 19,168.7 1191 17,228.0
3 3 3 14,728.2 13,804.2 14,708.3 15,008.8 454 14,562.4
3 2 1 14,767.1 14,565.7 13,990.7 15,940.1 709 14,815.9
6. Sensitivity analysis 3 1 2 15,842.2 15,634.4 15,113.0 19,464.5 1724 16,513.5

* Standard deviation.
In this section, the effects of changing the main parameters on
the solutions are addressed in detail. In the first step, the GA param-
eters are set by the Taguchi method. Next, the impact of crossover
observed in Table 15 in detail. In addition, Fig. 7 shows the main
operator on the output of the proposed GA is examined by many
effects for means of factor levels. It should be noted that each level
experiments in subsection 6.2. Finally, we conduct a comprehen-
has been run 10-times.
sive sensitivity analysis on the size of the population and number
It can be observed in Fig. 7, which the optimal factor levels of
of iterations, respectively.
crossover rate, mutation rate, and ˇ parameter are 0.75, 0.25 and
1, respectively. The results show that the proposed algorithm is
6.1. Parameter setting
sensitive to the mutation rate, and the ˇ parameter has insignificant
effect on the output. In the next subsection, we apply the optimal
Taguchi method is one of the most prevalent methods to analyze
GA to compare the crossover operators and the different size of
the output of experiments. It is used where the number of experi-
MRFLP practically.
mental factors or factor levels are numerous and take considerable
time to be optimized [54]. In this way, the experimental factors and
their levels are identified and then the Taguchi method is used to 6.2. Comparisons and numerical results
determine the optimal output level of each factor. Table 14 presents
the main parameters of the proposed GA and their ranges: We compare between the crossover operators with the optimal
Based on Table 14, the optimal level of each factor is obtained GA, in this subsection. Thus, the proposed GA was run 100-times
according to the numerical experiments, which are determined for 40 experiments. Furthermore, we apply uniform, 2-point and
by the Taguchi method with 9 experiments. The results can be position based crossover (PBX) methods in GA to determine the

Table 16
The experimental results for the proposed crossover operators.

Problem PBX Uniform cr. 2-P cr. Problem PBX Uniform cr. 2-P cr.

Best Avg. Time Best Avg. Time Best Avg. Time Best Avg. Time Best Avg. Time Best Avg. Time

1 0.1347 0.1345 262 0.5475 0.5085 290 0.1592 0.1561 195 21 0.2470 0.2469 316 0.0855 0.0854 342 0.3632 0.2916 286
2 0.3792 0.2775 272 0.1590 0.1572 303 0.4519 0.4519 202 22 0.3995 0.3987 300 0.3073 0.3072 295 0.2709 0.2706 250
3 0.6544 0.6364 276 0.3710 0.3593 321 0.2323 0.2323 178 23 0.0799 0.0706 373 0.2552 0.2530 338 0.1726 0.1725 312
4 0.3517 0.3493 269 0.1590 0.1572 304 0.4411 0.4411 235 24 0.4629 0.3650 298 0.0478 0.0463 268 0.6322 0.4178 289
5 0.1545 0.1499 301 0.3710 0.3593 328 0.2304 0.2304 229 25 0.0318 0.0317 317 0.5231 0.5211 350 0.3473 0.3193 298
6 0.2716 0.2716 273 0.5692 0.3904 255 0.0623 0.0608 201 26 0.1223 0.1090 305 0.4214 0.4015 268 0.4732 0.3407 339
7 0.2865 0.2549 257 0.0608 0.0446 299 0.1258 0.0831 189 27 0.2518 0.1375 374 0.2330 0.2132 312 0.2915 0.2882 254
8 0.2800 0.2799 292 0.1590 0.1572 309 0.4996 0.4244 216 28 0.4030 0.3840 325 0.2660 0.2659 293 0.4268 0.3916 249
9 0.1855 0.1852 270 0.3710 0.3593 317 0.4062 0.3865 225 29 0.3551 0.3462 330 0.1296 0.0459 296 0.2950 0.2946 262
10 0.5897 0.5799 264 0.5692 0.3904 247 0.3128 0.2837 235 30 0.1098 0.0352 285 0.3532 0.3531 316 0.0485 0.1030 268
11 0.6720 0.6052 310 0.0253 0.0240 411 0.2274 0.2088 244 31 0.5339 0.5325 313 0.1775 0.1611 305 0.2274 0.2088 252
12 0.1408 0.1398 258 0.1590 0.1572 348 0.1894 0.1893 254 32 0.3727 0.2947 371 0.3391 0.3390 276 0.0754 0.0753 230
13 0.3292 0.3198 331 0.3710 0.3593 367 0.1587 0.1221 329 33 0.3792 0.3572 343 0.4803 0.1962 354 0.2274 0.2088 249
14 0.3452 0.3451 312 0.5692 0.3904 286 0.1942 0.1753 248 34 0.2640 0.2635 312 0.3994 0.3963 313 0.0754 0.0753 229
15 0.5011 0.4955 313 0.3729 0.3478 339 0.6150 0.5963 268 35 0.4255 0.4255 334 0.1618 0.1412 355 0.0335 0.0334 222
16 0.2092 0.1997 322 0.2277 0.2259 333 0.5466 0.5454 266 36 0.6001 0.6001 272 0.1514 0.1148 376 0.3632 0.2916 240
17 0.4696 0.4695 302 0.5146 0.4919 304 0.0203 0.0201 294 37 0.1159 0.1143 336 0.1590 0.1572 342 0.2709 0.2706 255
18 0.0165 0.0034 293 0.4605 0.4530 338 0.2274 0.2088 270 38 0.4352 0.4351 308 0.4083 0.4007 340 0.1726 0.1725 278
19 0.1285 0.0994 359 0.4291 0.2282 318 0.0754 0.0753 287 39 0.4263 0.4226 313 0.4711 0.4559 282 0.6322 0.4178 258
20 0.2220 0.2057 334 0.4203 0.1238 333 0.3350 0.3340 264 40 0.3480 0.3478 361 0.6010 0.5651 295 0.3473 0.3193 274
Average: 0.3171 0.2980 309 0.3214 0.2776 317 0.2814 0.2547 253

*The genetic parameters are: n pop=300, Pcrossover=0. 75, Pmutation=0. 25.

Bold values are the maximum values of the problem objectives that the bigger values is better than the smaller.
 S. Safarzadeh, H. Koosha / Applied Soft Computing 61 (2017) 819–831 829

Fig. 7. Taguchi means plot for the proposed GA.

Table 17
The experimental results of sensitivity analysis on the population and iteration size.

Problem n pop n iter Fitness value Problem n pop n iter Fitness value

Best Avg. Time (s) Best Avg. Time (s)

1 40 100 0.1748 0.1656 5.92 21 150 100 0.2703 0.2621 22.49

2 40 200 0.2546 0.2475 10.47 22 150 200 0.3701 0.3701 33.02
3 40 300 0.2577 0.2577 13.99 23 150 300 0.4090 0.3923 43.56
4 40 400 0.2968 0.2965 16.32 24 150 400 0.4155 0.4155 60.60
5 40 500 0.3108 0.3108 21.59 25 150 500 0.4802 0.4802 78.97
6 50 100 0.1836 0.1762 7.50 26 200 100 0.2762 0.2661 28.00
7 50 200 0.2245 0.2241 13.09 27 200 200 0.3827 0.3689 49.36
8 50 300 0.2428 0.2425 18.06 28 200 300 0.4177 0.4177 63.98
9 50 400 0.2915 0.2915 21.69 29 200 400 0.4596 0.4596 77.30
10 50 500 0.3495 0.3491 27.86 30 200 500 0.4815 0.4813 104.73
11 75 100 0.1912 0.1909 11.34 31 300 100 0.2887 0.2419 39.34
12 75 200 0.1930 0.1836 20.33 32 300 200 0.4088 0.4064 65.73
13 75 300 0.2361 0.2350 26.81 33 300 300 0.4205 0.4103 88.12
14 75 400 0.3588 0.3588 32.17 34 300 400 0.4754 0.4665 112.80
15 75 500 0.3680 0.3680 42.11 35 300 500 0.4870 0.4756 139.01
16 100 100 0.2496 0.2288 14.21 36 500 100 0.3592 0.3293 67.66
17 100 200 0.2918 0.2851 24.26 37 500 200 0.4782 0.4643 105.93
18 100 300 0.3491 0.3488 33.06 38 500 300 0.4950 0.4921 134.75
19 100 400 0.3758 0.3757 42.16 39 500 400 0.6027 0.6018 168.47
20 100 500 0.3814 0.3814 53.91 40 500 500 0.6334 0.6334 208.72

*The GA parameters: Pcrossover = 0. 75, Pmutation=0. 25 (2-point Crossover).

best operator for the extended MRFLP. Table 16 shows the results Table 18
The coefficient and power of exponential trend lines.
as follows.
Comparing the obtained values of the three different crossover Seri n pop Coefficient Power Normalized power*
operators shows minor differences among the results that make 1 40 0.1575 0.0350 1.0000
selecting a specific operator as the best one for the studied problem 2 50 0.1397 0.0330 0.9429
difficult. The mean of objective values for PBX solutions is better 3 75 0.1322 0.0252 0.7200
than that of other methods. However, the uniform operator pro- 4 100 0.2239 0.0111 0.3171
5 150 0.2546 0.0085 0.2429
vides the best results. Comparing the average run-time shows that
6 200 0.2520 0.0070 0.2000
2-point crossover operator takes less run time compared with other 7 300 0.2654 0.0049 0.1400
ones. Moreover, another main point is that the minimum difference 8 500 0.2927 0.0040 0.1143
between the mean value and the best value can be observed in the * That is equal to Power/Power(Seri40).
PBX crossover method. In another study, the objective values are
evaluated by changing the population size (n pop) and the number
of iterations (n iter) at different levels. Table 17 summarizes the
dramatically. For better data analysis, the results are presented in
results as follows. It should be regarded that, each level has been
Fig. 8 as follows. Moreover, the coefficients and powers of exponen-
run 10-times.
tial trend lines for the total population series are shown in Table 18
Table 17 shows that with the significant increase in the popula-
to improve the conclusion.
tion size (n pop), the running time increases as well as the fitness
Table 18 determines that increasing the population size which is
function value. In addition, increasing the number of iterations not
shown with different series in Fig. 8 generally leads to less power.
only includes higher run-time but also improves the objective value
In other words, with the growth of population size, the required
830 S. Safarzadeh, H. Koosha / Applied Soft Computing 61 (2017) 819–831
Fig. 8. The fitness values change over time for population series.
time increases to achieve a significant best solution. Undoubtedly,
spending considerable time with the exponential trend to achieve
a mediocre solution in a large population size rather than a small
population size, in terms of the objective value, is not reasonable. In
addition, this results, justify using meta-heuristic for the proposed
problem.
7. Conclusion and future research
MRFLP is a popular and useful layout problem that can be
applied in most industrial or non-industrial environments as a real-
istic layout problem. However, this problem restricts the facilities
to multi-fixed rows, whereas we have some general problems such
as unequal areas and unequal departments that cannot be arranged
in this condition. Therefore, this paper proposed an extended
MRFLP consisting of the lost opportunity cost per unit of space and
the fuzzy distance between the facilities in a multi-product envi-
ronment. To optimize the extended MRFLP, we propose an absolute
linear programming model with fuzzy constraints. Next, we con-
vert the proposed fuzzy model to the crisp linear mixed-integer
programming model, based on the principals of fuzzy model lin-
earization. Since the extended model belongs to NP-hard class, an
effective GA, as a popular solving method, was developed to solve
the model. In addition, we provided the numerical studies to show
how the proposed model works.
Furthermore, the optimal GA parameters were obtained using
the Taguchi method in the sensitivity analysis section. In the next
step, three crossover methods and their results were compared.
Accordingly, it was determined that the uniform crossover opera-
tor provides the best result compared to 2-point and PBX crossover
operators. However, the average of the objective values in PBX solu-
tions was better than the other crossover operators. Finally, we
presented the results of changes of the population size, iterations,
and their effects on the fitness value.
Owing to the vast volume of required computation to reach
the best solution, practically, it was difficult to compare various
Metaheuristic methods in this paper. Research may be needed to
examine the other meta-heuristics for possible improvements of
layout solutions. In addition, we solved the problem with determin-
istic demand for products. However, considering it as a stochastic
variable may be an innovation in the studied problem. Moreover,
the investigation of the heuristic methods on the extended MRFLP
can be recommended for future research.
References
[1] S. Helber, D. Böhme, F. Oucherif, S. Lagershausen, S. Kasper, A hierarchical
facility layout planning approach for large and complex hospitals, Flex. Serv.
Manuf. J. 28 (2016) 5–29.
[2] B. Tawfik, B.K. Ouda, A. Abou-Alam, Optimal design of emergency department
in mass disasters, J. Clin. Eng. 39 (2014) 175–183.
[3] Q.-L. Lin, H.-C. Liu, D.-J. Wang, L. Liu, Integrating systematic layout planning
with fuzzy constraint theory to design and optimize the facility layout for
operating theatre in hospitals, J. Intell. Manuf. 26 (2015) 87–95.
[4] A. Hammad, A. Akbarnezhad, D. Rey, A multi-objective mixed integer
nonlinear programming model for construction site layout planning to
minimize noise pollution and transport costs, Autom. Constr. 61 (2016)
73–85.
[5] I. Abotaleb, K. Nassar, O. Hosny, Layout optimization of construction site
facilities with dynamic freeform geometric representations, Autom. Constr.
66 (2016) 15–28.
[6] J. Xu, Q. Liu, X. Lei, A fuzzy multi-objective model and application for the
discrete dynamic temporary facilities location planning problem, J. Civil Eng.
Manag. 22 (2016) 357–372.
[7] L. Wen, L. Bai, Systematic layout planning and comprehensive evaluation in
manufacture enterprise’s logistics facilities, Int. J. Appl. Decis. Sci. 8 (2015)
358–375.
[8] Y. Chen, Y. Jiang, M. Wahab, X. Long, The facility layout problem in
non-rectangular logistics parks with split lines, Expert Syst. Appl. 42 (2015)
7768–7780.
[9] T. Yang, B.A. Peters, M. Tu, Layout design for flexible manufacturing systems
considering single-loop directional flow patterns, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 164 (2005)
440–455.
[10] B. Keller, U. Buscher, Single row layout models, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 245 (2015)
629–644.
[11] P. Hungerländer, M.F. Anjos, A semidefinite optimization-based approach for
global optimization of multi-row facility layout, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 245 (2015)
46–61.
[12] L. Steinberg, The backboard wiring problem: a placement algorithm, Siam
Rev. 3 (1961) 37–50.
[13] M. Pollatschek, H. Gershoni, Y. Radday, Optimization of typewriter keyboard
by computer-simulation, Angew. Inform. (1976) 438–439.
[14] S.S. Heragu, A. Kusiak, Efficient models for the facility layout problem, Eur. J.
Oper. Res. 53 (1991) 1–13.
[15] J. Nematian, A robust single row facility layout problem with fuzzy random
variables, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 72 (2014) 255–267.
[16] H.H. Nasab, A hybrid fuzzy-GA algorithm for the integrated machine
allocation problem with fuzzy demands, Appl. Soft Comput. 23 (2014)
417–431.
[17] H. Samarghandi, P. Taabayan, M. Behroozi, Metaheuristics for fuzzy dynamic
facility layout problem with unequal area constraints and closeness ratings,
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 67 (2013) 2701–2715.
[18] T.J. Ross, Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications, Wiley, 2013.
[19] M. Enea, G. Galante, E. Panascia, The facility layout problem approached using
a fuzzy model and a genetic search, J. Intell. Manuf. 16 (2005) 303–316.
[20] J. Xu, X. Song, Multi-objective dynamic layout problem for temporary
construction facilities with unequal-area departments under fuzzy random
environment, Knowl.-Based Syst. 81 (2015) 30–45.
[21] A.R.S. Amaral, On the exact solution of a facility layout problem, Eur. J. Oper.
Res. 173 (2006) 508–518.
 S. Safarzadeh, H. Koosha / Applied Soft Computing 61 (2017) 819–831
[22] R. Kothari, D. Ghosh, Insertion based Lin–Kernighan heuristic for single row
facility layout, Comput. Oper. Res. 40 (2013) 129–136.
[23] A.R. Amaral, A.N. Letchford, A polyhedral approach to the single row facility
layout problem, Math. Programm. 141 (2013) 453–477.
[24] C. Ou-Yang, A. Utamima, Hybrid estimation of distribution algorithm for
solving single row facility layout problem, Comput. Ind. Eng. 66 (2013)
95–103.
[25] M.R. Garey, D.S. Johnson, Computers and Intractability. A Guide to the Theory
of NP Completeness, WH Freeman, New York, 1979.
[26] G. Palubeckis, Fast local search for single row facility layout, Eur. J. Oper. Res.
246 (2015) 800–814.
[27] M. Rubio-Sánchez, M. Gallego, F. Gortázar, A. Duarte, GRASP with path
relinking for the single row facility layout problem, Knowl.-Based Syst. 106
(2016) 1–13.
[28] Y. Hani, L. Amodeo, F. Yalaoui, H. Chen, Ant colony optimization for solving an
industrial layout problem, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 183 (2007) 633–642.
[29] J. Guan, G. Lin, Hybridizing variable neighborhood search with ant colony
optimization for solving the single row facility layout problem, Eur. J. Oper.
Res. 248 (2016) 899–909.
[30] M. Solimanpur, P. Vrat, R. Shankar, An ant algorithm for the single row layout
problem in flexible manufacturing systems, Comput. Oper. Res. 32 (2005)
583–598.
[31] R. Kothari, D. Ghosh, Tabu search for the single row facility layout problem
using exhaustive 2-opt and insertion neighborhoods, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 224
(2013) 93–100.
[32] H. Samarghandi, K. Eshghi, An efficient tabu algorithm for the single row
facility layout problem, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 205 (2010) 98–105.
[33] X. Zuo, C.C. Murray, A.E. Smith, Solving an extended double row layout
problem using multi-objective tabu search and linear programming, IEEE
Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 11 (2014) 1122–1132.
[34] N. Lenin, M. Siva Kumar, D. Ravindran, M.N. Islam, A tabu search for
multi-objective single row facility layout problem, J. Adv. Manuf. Syst. 13
(2014) 17–40.
[35] S. Wang, X. Zuo, X. Liu, X. Zhao, J. Li, Solving dynamic double row layout
problem via combining simulated annealing and mathematical programming,
Appl. Soft Comput. 37 (2015) 303–310.
[36] G. Palubeckis, Fast simulated annealing for single-row equidistant facility
layout, Appl. Math. Comput. 263 (2015) 287–301.
[37] S. Niroomand, N. Mirzaei, R. Şahin, B. Vizvári, A new exact formulation and
simulated annealing algorithm for one-Sided closed loop layout, J. Comput.
Theor. Nanosci. 12 (2015) 3817–3826.
831
[38] H. Samarghandi, P. Taabayan, F.F. Jahantigh, A particle swarm optimization for
the single row facility layout problem, Comput. Ind. Eng. 58 (2010) 529–534.
[39] M. Solimanpur, A. Jafari, Optimal solution for the two-dimensional facility
layout problem using a branch-and-bound algorithm, Comput. Ind. Eng. 55
(2008) 606–619.
[40] H. Pourvaziri, B. Naderi, A hybrid multi-population genetic algorithm for the
dynamic facility layout problem, Appl. Soft Comput. 24 (2014) 457–469.
[41] L. García-Hernández, H. Pierreval, L. Salas-Morera, A. Arauzo-Azofra, Handling
qualitative aspects in unequal area facility layout problem: an interactive
genetic algorithm, Appl. Soft Comput. 13 (2013) 1718–1727.
[42] R. Kiaa, F. Khaksar-Haghanib, N. Javadianc, R. Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, Solving
a multi-floor layout design model of a dynamic cellular manufacturing system
by an efficient genetic algorithm, J. Manuf. Syst. 33 (2014) 218–232.
[43] G. Aiello, G.L. Scalia, M. Enea, A multi objective genetic algorithm for the
facility layout problem based upon slicing structure encoding, Expert Syst.
Appl. 39 (2012) 10352–10358.
[44] D. Datta, A.R.S. Amaral, J.R. Figueira, Single row facility layout problem using a
permutation-based genetic algorithm, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 213 (2011) 388–394.
[45] M. Ficko, M. Brezocnik, J. Balic, Designing the layout of single-and
multiple-rows flexible manufacturing system by genetic algorithms, J. Mater.
Process. Technol. 157 (2004) 150–158.
[46] K.L. Mak, Y.S. Wong, F.T.S. Ghan, A genetic algorithm for facility layout
problem, Comput. Integrat. Manuf. Syst. 11 (1998) 113–127.
[47] X. Wu, C.-H. Chu, Y. Wang, W. Yan, A genetic algorithm for cellular
manufacturing design and layout, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 181 (2007) 156–167.
[48] A. Sadrzadeh, A genetic algorithm with the heuristic procedure to solve the
multi-line layout problem, Comput. Indu. Eng. 62 (2012) 1055–1064.
[49] G.J. Klir, B. Yuan, Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic-Theory and Applications,
Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 1995.
[50] G. Bojadziev, M. Bojadziev, Fuzzy logic for business, finance, and
management, World Sci. 23 (2007) 9–25.
[51] M. Jiménez, M. Arenas, A. Bilbao, M.V. Rodrı, Linear programming with fuzzy
parameters: an interactive method resolution, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 177 (2007)
1599–1609.
[52] H. Maleki, M. Tata, M. Mashinchi, Linear programming with fuzzy variables,
Fuzzy Sets Syst. 109 (2000) 21–33.
[53] J.H. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory
Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence, U
Michigan Press, 1975.
[54] K. Tatebayashi, Computer aided engineering combined with Taguchi
methods, Ann. Meet. Japan Soc. Mechan. Eng. 8 (2005) 224–225.