Expert Systems With Applications 98 (2018) 93–104

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Expert Systems With Applications

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

A new hybrid heuristic algorithm based on bacterial foraging

optimization for the dynamic facility layout problem
Betül Turanoğlu∗, Gökay Akkaya
Department of Industrial Engineering, Atatürk University, Erzurum 25240, Turkey

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

Article history: One of the most important features of modern production is that the demand for the product is con-
Received 2 September 2017 stantly changing. The problems showing demand variability in certain time periods are called dynamic
Revised 5 January 2018
facility layout problems (DFLP). The establishment of a balance between handling and moving costs is
Accepted 9 January 2018
attempted with such problems. Because the DFLP are complex combinatorial optimization problems, clas-
Available online 10 January 2018
sical optimization techniques may not always be sufficient to solve them. Furthermore, it is necessary to
Keywords: find a solution within a reasonable computation time. Therefore, researchers tend to use heuristic meth-
Dynamic facility layout ods. In the literature, various heuristic methods, such as the genetic algorithm, tabu search and ant-colony
Bacterial foraging optimization algorithm, were used to solve the DFLP. The paper introduces the use of bacterial foraging optimization
Simulated annealing (BFO) to solve the DFLP. In this study, a new hybrid heuristic algorithm, called simulated annealing which
Hybrid heuristic methods is based on bacterial foraging optimization (SABFO), is proposed for the DFLP. Also, the parameter tuning
of the SABFO is made by Taguchi method. The proposed algorithm is tested on the most-used test prob-
lems in the literature, and satisfactory results are obtained at reasonable computation times. The study
is important to show how BFO that is a new heuristic approach is applied to the DFLP.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In a facility layout problem, if the interdepartmental material

Today, industrial enterprises make facility layout in order to ef-
fectively and efficiently use machinery, equipment and manpower
resources, which are one of the existing production factors. Facility
layout studies are studies that maximize the rate of machine uti-
lization, minimize unnecessary movements, save time, enable em-
ployees to work more efficiently and thus reduce costs. Deciding
on the physical organization of a production system can be de-
scribed as a facility layout. This combinational organization prob-
lem arises in different production activities. The most important
thing here is to arrange manufacturing layout. In production sys-
tems, the manufacturing system is a critical element.
The material handling cost in facility layout is the most impor-
tant measure for determining the effectiveness of an arrangement
and it is the most used criterion in comparision of location op-
tion. The material handling cost constitutes 20% to 50% of the total
operating cost and also 15% to 70% of the total cost of a product
(Sahin, 2008). Therefore, it is focused on minimizing total material
handling cost in the facility layout problem.
∗ tained at reasonable times. Furthermore, in the study, the BFO that
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: b.turanoglu@atauni.edu.tr (B. Turanoğlu),
gakkaya@atauni.edu.tr (G. Akkaya).
flows are assumed to be constant during all planning periods, this
is called the static facility layout problem (SFLP). However, inter-
departmental material flows may vary by reasons such as changes
in product design, removal or addition of a product from/to the
production line, renewal of the production equipment, changes
in the production amount depending on the change of demand
(Sahin, 2008). These situations in real life make it necessary to
consider facility layout as the DFLP. The purpose of the DFLP is to
find a facility layout that minimizes the total of material handling
cost and relocation cost of departments for each planning period.
For this reason, it attempts to establish a balance between ma-
terial handling costs and relocation costs. Relocation of depart-
ments within a facility can lead to such costs as some produc-
tion losses, production control, time loss and training. However, if
the income from the demand change is sufficiently high, rearrange-
ment is economically and reasonably considered. If rearrangement
costs are lower than material handling costs, a new facility layout
can be made (Ulutas & Islier, 2015).
In this study, a new hybrid heuristic algorithm, based on the
BFO, is proposed for the DFLP. The proposed approach has been
tested using test problems, and quite good results have been ob-
is a new heuristic method is used for the first time in the DFLP
solution, and its applicability to this problem type is shown.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.01.011
0957-4174/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
94 B. Turanoğlu, G. Akkaya / Expert Systems With Applications 98 (2018) 93–104
The paper is structured as follows: in Section 2, a mathematical
model of the DFLP and literature review is expressed. The struc-
ture and steps of the BFO algorithm are then clarified in Section 3.
Section 4 explains the details of the proposed simulated annealing
based on the bacterial foraging optimization (SABFO) algorithm.
The results of the experimental study and a comparison with other
algorithms in the literature are discussed in Section 5. Finally, the
last section present a summary of the paper and future works.
2. Problem formulation and literature review
Rosenblatt first defined and addressed the DFLP in 1986. In this
study, the author used dynamic programming to find the optimal
facility layout. By using optimal arrangements of each period in a
relation function, finding a single optimal solution for the whole
problem was attempted. Because there was computation difficulty
even in small the DFLP problems, two different heuristic algo-
rithms were developed.
In the DFLP, a new facility layout is obtained for each pro-
duction period. The mathematical model of DFLP is as follows
(Balakrishnan & Cheng, 20 0 0):

T 
N 
N 
N 
T 
N 
N 
N
Min Atijl x(t−1 )ij xtil + ftik djl cik xtij xtkl
t=2 i=1 j=1 l=1 t=1 i=1 j=1 l=1

N
xti j = 1, i = 1, 2, . . . , N, t = 1, 2, . . . , T
j=1

N
xti j = 1, j = 1, 2, . . . , N, t = 1, 2, . . . , T
i=1
xti j ∈ {0, 1}, ∀i, j, t
Where;
N: Number of departments
T: Number of periods
ftik : Material flow between departments i and k in the period t.
djl : Distance between locations j and l
cik : Unit cost between departments i and k.
Atijl : Relocation cost of department i from location j to location
l in period t.
Xtij : Variable having value of 1 if department i is assigned to
location j in period t, otherwise variable having value of 0
The objective function of the model (1) attempts to minimise
the total relocation costs and material handling costs. Constraint
(2) means that each department is assigned to only one location
in each period. Constraint (3) means that only one department is
assigned to one location in each period.
The DFLP are classified as NP-Hard problems. The number of
possible facility layout alternatives of DFLP having N number of de-
partments and T number of periods is (N!)T . This shows computa-
tion difficulty even in small problems. Therefore, different heuris-
tic algorithms were proposed in the literature, which yield results
close to the best in a shorter time than analytical solution ap-
proaches. Urban (1992) used lower-bound procedures to improve
the computational performance of the DFLP. He obtained these
procedures on the basis of the lower-bound methods developed
for the SFLP. Balakrishnan, Jacobs, and Venkataramanan (1992) pro-
posed a new model by adding a budget constraint to the DFLP,
including rearrangement costs. The proposed model was solved
by using the shortest-path algorithm, and the results of the test
problems were compared to the dynamic programming approach.
Lacksonen and Enscore (1993) utilised the quadratic assignment
problem formulation for the DFLP. They attempted to solve DFLP by
modifying CRAFT and by cutting the plane algorithm, the branch-
bound algorithm, the dynamic programming algorithm and the
tree algorithm. The performance of these five algorithms was com-
pared by generating new test problems. Conway and Venkatara-
manan (1994) developed a genetic algorithm-based heuristic for
the DFLP. In the algorithm, the first generation was randomly gen-
erated, and the selected generations using the roulette technique
were crossed according to the determined methods. The algorithm
was tested on Rosenblatt’s (1986) test problems. Balakrishnan and
Cheng (20 0 0) proposed a new genetic algorithm called the “Nested
Loop Genetic Algorithm”. This algorithm mainly consists of two
parts as the outer loop and the inner loop. The crossover and mu-
tation operators were used in the inner loop. Conformance testing
was developed to prevent the occurrence of noncompliant gener-
ations as a result of the crossover. The solution space was also
extended by the mutation process. In the outer loop, randomly
generated facility layouts were replaced by some of the weak
families of the population. Baykasoğlu and Gindy (2001) were
the first users of the simulated annealing algorithm to solve
the DFLP, and quite good results were obtained in large prob-
lems. Balakrishnan, Cheng, Conway, and Lau (2003) developed
two different hybrid genetic algorithms. Erel, Ghosh, and Si-
(1) mon (2003) used dynamic programming and simulated anneal-
ing methods for the DFLP. Baykasoglu, Dereli, and Sabuncu (2006)
made the first attempt for the DFLP with budget constraints.
McKendall and Shang (2006) presented hybrid ant systems for
(2) the DFLP. Ulutas and Islier (2009) developed an heuristic-based
clonal-selection algorithm for the DFLP. The proposed algorithm
was tested on three different datasets, and the better results were
(3) obtained in large problems. Şahin and Türkbey (2009) proposed
a hybrid metaheurisitc method called TABUSA. Moslemipour, Lee,
and Rilling (2012) reviewed the intelligent approaches for dy-
namic and robust layout problems. Mazinani, Abedzadeh, and Mo-
hebali (2013) proposed a genetic algorithm approach for the DFLP.
Pourvaziri and Naderi (2014) developed a hybrid multipopulation
genetic algorithm. Here, the solution area was divided into parts
to provide the diversity of the algorithm. Furthermore, a simu-
lated annealing-based strong local search mechanism was devel-
oped. The operators in the algorithm were designed to search only
the appropriate solution. Chen, Jiang, Wahab, and Long (2015) de-
veloped new mathematical models for the facility layout prob-
lem in a logistics park. García-Hernández, Palomo-Romero, Salas-
Morera, and Arauzo-Azofra (2015) proposed a hybrid genetic al-
gorithm for capturing decision maker knowledge into the un-
equal area facility layout problem (UA-FLP). Palomo-Romero, Salas-
Morera, and García-Hernández (2017) presented an island model
genetic algorithm for the UA-FLP. Kang and Chae (2017) developed
a harmony search-based heuristic algorithm to solve the UA-FLP.
Pourvaziri and Pierreval (2017) suggested an analytical approach
based on open queuing network theory for the DFLP. Guo, Cheng,
and Wang (2017) proposed a hybrid evolutionary algorithm for
two-stage capacitated facility location problem. Xiao, Xie, Kulturel-
Konak, and Konak (2017) presented an evolution algorithm with
linear programming for the DFLP.
3. Bacterial foraging optimization (BFO)
BFO is a new population-based heuristic method that imitates
the foraging optimization process of Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacte-
ria. The foraging mechanism of these bacteria consists of a series
of movements towards nutritional sources. The method is based on
the principle of assessing changes from one location to another to
be a reference to the next relocation movement of E. coli bacte-
ria. The relocation between two locations is called a “movement”,
and each movement has a specific direction and step length. E.
coli bacteria approach nutritional sources step by step, depending
 B. Turanoğlu, G. Akkaya / Expert Systems With Applications 98 (2018) 93–104
on their control mechanisms. Biological studies on E. coli bacteria
show that the foraging process consists of four steps. These steps
can be listed as follows (Passino, 2002):
 Searching for a reasonable nutritional location,
 Deciding whether to enter the current reasonable nutritional
location,
 Performing rigorous foraging if a new nutritional location has
been entered,
 Deciding whether to migrate to a new and better nutritional
location or stay in the same nutritional location after the con-
sumption of some of the nutrients available in the current nu-
tritional location.
The BFO was first proposed by Passino (2002) for dis-
tributed optimization and control. Lately, it seems to be used
to solve various engineering problems. For example; it has
been successfully applied to such engineering problems as har-
monic prediction (Mishra, 2005), prediction of stock indices
(Majhi, Panda, Majhi, & Sahoo, 2009), multi-objective optimization
problems (Guzman, Delgado, & Carvalho, 2010), image segmenta-
tion (Bermejo, Cordon, Damas, & Santamaria, 2015; Sanyal, Chat-
terjee, & Munshi, 2011; Sathya & Kayalvizhi, 2011a, b), optimal ac-
tive power rescheduling of generators (Venkaiah & Kumar, 2011),
numerical optimization (Chatzis & Koukas, 2011), optimal multi-
level thresholding (Sathya & Kayalvizhi, 2011a, b), modelling of ma-
nipulator systems (Supriyono & Tokhi, 2012), environmental eco-
nomic dispatch (Pandit, Tripathi, Tapaswi, & Pandit, 2012), vehicle
routing problems (Hezer & Kara, 2013), optimal placement of dis-
tributed generation (Devi & Geethanjali, 2014), RFID network op-
timization (Chen, Zhu, Hu, & Ma, 2014), multicycle transient fault-
tolerant datapath (Sengupta & Bhadauria, 2015), optimization of ra-
dial distribution systems (Mohammadi, 2015), controller design for
electrohydraulic systems (Mandal et al., 2015), linear discriminant
analysis (Panda & Naik, 2015) and global optimization (Kim, Abra-
ham, & Cho, 2007; Zhao & Wang, 2016).
BFO consists of three main phases: chemotaxis, reproduction
and elimination-dispersal (Passino, 2002):
• Chemotaxis: The bacteria move forward if E. coli bacteria ro-
tate counter-clockwise via their flagellas, whereas the bacteria
slow down and are released wherever they are if flagellas rotate
clockwise. The foraging of E. coli bacteria is based on changes
between the last two behaviors, and these two behaviors result
in the so-called chemotactic step of the bacteria. During the for-
aging process of the bacteria, the rotating of flagellas is based
on assessing the current bacterial environment. It is then de-
cided whether the current location will be changed and, if so,
how it will be changed in light of some parameters (direction
and step length of the next movement). The formula for chang-
ing direction in the BFO is as follows:
θ i ( j + 1, k, l ) = θ i ( j, k, l ) + C (i )φ (i )
Where;
i: Bacterial index,
j: Chemotaxis index,
k: Reproduction index,
l: Elimination-dispersal index,
θ i (j,k, l): the current location of ith bacterium,
θ i (j + 1, k, l): the next location of ith bacterium,
C(i): the swimming or tumbling step length of ith bacterium,
ϕ (i): the tumbling movement of ith bacterium.
During chemotaxis, bacteria will continue to swim in the same
direction or tumble, changing direction, depending on the nutri-
tional concentration. The mathematical representation of the tum-
95
bling movement is as follows (Bermejo et al., 2015):
(i )
φ (i ) =  (5)
(i )T (i )
Where, (i)refers to a vector randomly determined in the range
of [−1,1] for the direction of ith bacteria.
When E. coli bacteria reach the nutrient, they release a chem-
ical substance that has a stimulant effect on other bacteria. This
substance leads other bacteria to move towards the location of the
bacteria that has found the nutrient. This is known as swarm in-
telligence or swarm behavior. The effect of swarm behavior in the
algorithm is used upon request. Swarm behavior is modelled as
follows (Bermejo et al., 2015; Panda & Naik, 2015):

S
Jcc (θ , P ( j, k, l )) = Jcc (θ , θ i ( j, k, l ))
i=1
S 
  p 
2
= −dat t ract exp −wat t ract (θm −θmi )
m =1
i=1
S 
  p 
2
+ −hrepell exp −wrepell (θm −θmi )
m=1
i =1
Jcc (θ ,P(j, k, l)): Total cell-to-cell attractant value added to objec-
tive function in jth chemotaxis step
P(j, k, l) = {θ i (j, k, l)|i = 1, 2, ..., S}: The position of ith bacterium
at jth chemotactic step, kth reproduction step, and lth elimination-
dispersal events.
S: Total number of bacteria
p: The size of the problem
dattract : Coefficient of the cell-to-cell attractant signal
wattract : Spreading speed of the cell-to-cell attractant signal
hrepell : Coefficient of the cell-to-cell repellant effect
wrepell : Cell-to-cell spreading speed
• Reproduction: After a foraging period, it is obvious that the for-
aging strategies of some bacteria clearly fail. These bacteria are
removed from the population because of the low probability of
obtaining adequate nutrients. To keep the population number
constant, bacteria with good foraging strategies are reproduced
to replace those removed in the same amount. First, each bac-
terium is sequenced according to its assessment criteria in its
location. Then, the bacteria in the last half of the sequence are
removed from the population, and each bacterium in the first
half is reproduced so that they will be in the same location as
the originals. This process is the imitation of a kind of bacteria
mitosis.
• Elimination-dispersal: The behaviors of the bacteria are af-
fected significantly by the environmental conditions they live
in (temperature, fast water flow, etc.). These factors may cause
the death of the bacteria in that area or the relocation of some
(4)
of them by moving. Although elimination and dispersal may
have an adverse effect on chemotaxis, they may also have a
positive effect by allowing bacteria to move to the richer ar-
eas. The elimination-dispersal event is carried out depending
on a certain probability (Ped ). If a bacterium is exposed to an
elimination-dispersal event, that bacterium is eliminated and a
new bacterium is reproduced. This means the relocation of the
said bacteria.
BFO can be explained step by step as follows (Passino, 2002):
Step 1: The initialization of all stated parameters: n, S, Nc , Ns ,
Nre , Ned , Ped , C(i) (i = 1,2,…,S). Where;
n: the dimension of the search space,
S: the number of bacteria in the population,
Nc : the number of chemotactic steps,
96 B. Turanoğlu, G. Akkaya / Expert Systems With Applications 98 (2018) 93–104
Ns : the swimming length,
Nre : the number of reproduction steps,
Ned : the number of elimination-dispersal steps,
Ped : the elimination-dispersal probability,
C(i): the step size of ith bacterium.
Step 2: Elimination-dispersal loop: l = l + 1
Step 3: Reproduction loop: k = k + 1
Step 4: Chemotaxis loop: j = j + 1
Step 4.1: For each bacterium (i = 1,2,…,S), initialize a chemo-
tactic step as follows.
Step 4.2: Calculate objective function J(i,j,k,l). If the effect of
swarm behavior will be used, add value Jcc (θ ,P(j, k, l)) to
this value.
Step 4.3: Set Jlast = J(i,j,k,l).
Step 4.4: Create a random vector (i) ∈ Rn in the range of
[−1,1], including m (i), m = 1, 2, ..., n.
Step 4.5 (Moving): Using Eq. (4), move as much as step C(i)
in the direction of tumbling for ith bacterium.
Step 4.6: Calculate J(i, j + 1, k) using θ i (j + 1, k, l)
Step 4.7 (Swimming):
(i) Set the initial value of ms = 0 to be the counter of
the swimming length.
(ii) as long as ms < Ns ;
• ms = ms + 1;
• If J(i, j + 1, k) < J
last , set Jlast = J(i, j + 1, k).
• Using the same direction vector θ i (j + 1, k, l) re-
produce and use this value to calculate the new
J(i, j + 1, k) value.
• If ms = Ns , stop the swimming process for this
bacterium.
Step 4.8: If i = S, go to Step 4.2 with the next bacterium.
Step 5: If j < Nc , it means that the life of the bacterium is not
terminated. Go to Step 4.
Step 6 (Reproduction):
Step 6.1: Calculate the Jhealth value as follows for the current
k and l values and each i = 1,2,…,S. This function shows
how much nutrient a bacterium consumes during its life-
time and how successful it is to stay away from harmful
substances. In other words, it means the health status of
ith bacterium. Sort bacteria from small to large according
to Jhealth values.

Nc+1
Jhealth = J (i, j, k, l )
j=1
Step 6.2: Sr = S/2 bacteria, whose health status in the lower
half of the sequence is worse than the others, are con-
sidered dead. In this case, the rest of Sr bacteria, whose
health status in the upper part of the sequence are better,
are reproduced by dividing. Each new generation bacte-
rial pair replaces the dead bacteria at the bottom of the
list so that they are placed in the same positions as their
parents.
Step 7: If k < Nre , it means that the specified reproduction upper
limit has not been reached; go back to Step 3 and carry out
the chemotactic steps with the next generation.
Step 8 (Elimination-Dispersal): Expose all bacteria in
i = 1,2,…,S sequence to an elimination and dispersal process
depending on Ped probability. This process is carried out by
random relocation of a bacterium from its current location
and by keeping the population constant.
Step 9: If l < Ned, go to Step 2; otherwise end the algorithm.
Some notations in the BFO, given the basic steps above, can be
expressed for the DFLP as follows:
• Bacteria: It is a suitable solution for DFLP. Fig. 2 shows the
coded version of this solution.
• J(i, j, k, l): The objective function value of ith bacterium at jth
chemotactic step, kth reproduction step, and lth elimination-
dispersal events. So, it is the total cost of ith facility layout.
• θ i (j + 1, k, l): The position of ith bacterium at (j + 1)th chemo-
tactic step, kth reproduction step, and lth elimination-dispersal
events. In other words, it is the new layout obtained by modi-
fying the existing layout (θ i (j,k, l)).
• J(i, j + 1, k, l): It is the value of the new objective function cal-
culated according to θ i (j + 1, k, l).
4. Proposed hybrid heuristic algorithm for DFLP: SABFO
The proposed SABFO algorithm is basically composed of two
steps. In the first step, an initial solution is obtained with the BFO.
Starting an algorithm from a good solution in heuristic methods
helps to reduce computation time, in particular. Therefore, a good
initial solution is produced by using the modified BFO given in
Section 4.2.1. The solution used in SA is the second step of SABFO.
The SA method that is a strong local search strategy continues to
improve the solution until the initial solution meets the stop cri-
terion. The neighbors of the initial solution are discovered by this
strategy because the optimal solution may be close to this solu-
tion. When the algorithm stops, the final solution and the cost of
the problem are given as output.
4.1. Encoding of a solution
As in many heuristic algorithms, the first step in SABFO is to
encode the problem in a way that is appropriate to the algorithm.
Each solution for the DFLP, in other words facility layout, is ex-
pressed as a matrix according to periods. In this matrix; each line
shows a period; the number of elements in a line shows the total
number of departments in the location and the location in which
each element is located shows which location that element (de-
partment) is assigned. Fig. 1 shows sample DFLP consisting of 3
periods and 6 departments. Fig. 2 shows the coded solution of
this problem. Here, department 4 is assigned to location 6 in time
period 1, location 4 in time period 2 and, finally, location 1 in
time period 3. The solution obtained in this way provides the con-
straints of assigning one department to only one location and a lo-
cation including only one department. Therefore, the total cost of
the solution, including the material handling costs and relocation
cost, is easily calculated.
4.2. Obtaining initial solution
In heuristic algorithms, starting an algorithm from a good so-
lution has an important effect both in terms of computation time
and in the approaching the optimal solution or in approaching this
solution more quickly. In SABFO approach developed for this rea-
son, the initial solution to be used in simulated annealing was ob-
tained with BFO. For this reason, the modified BFO was used in-
stead of the classic BFO.
4.2.1. Structure of the modified BFO
Bacteria start the chemotaxis loop with the values of the objec-
tive function (J) obtained by the initial locations and the solution of
these locations. The direction vector ((i)) determined in the range
of [+ 1, −1] in the classical BFO is randomly generated according
to the set of discrete values {−1, 0, +1} due to the problem struc-
ture and has as many elements as the number of departments. For
example, a direction vector may be created as (i) = { − 1, 0, 0, 1,
0, −1} for DFLP with 6 departments. The department correspond-
ing to the value “−1” is replaced by the department subsequent to
 B. Turanoğlu, G. Akkaya / Expert Systems With Applications 98 (2018) 93–104
Fig. 1. A sample for DFLP.
Fig. 2. A coded solution for DFLP.
Fig. 3. Application of direction vector to a bacteria.
itself as much as the step length C, whereas the department corre-
sponding to the value “+1” is replaced by the department preced-
ing it as much as the step length C. If a department corresponds to
a value of “0”, it maintains the same position. In this study, the di-
rection vector determined to a facility layout representing the bac-
teria was applied as follows:
• A random period is selected.
• Considering a random department and the subsequent depart-
ment of that department in the selected period, a part is
deemed to have been taken in such a period.
• In the specified direction vector, a location change is made ac-
cording to the values corresponding to this part.
• For all bacteria, the step length is assumed to be C = 1.
Fig. 3 gives an example of these steps. In Fig. 3a, department
5 placed at location 2 in the randomly selected period was ran-
domly selected. After department 3 subsequent to this department
is taken, the direction vector will be applied to this binary com-
ponent. In the direction vector given in Fig. 3b, the values corre-
sponding to the parts constituted by departments 5 and 3 are the
values “0” and “−1”. In this case, the location of the first depart-
ment that is department 5 will not change, and department 3 will
be replaced by the previous location. Finally, a location change, as
shown in Fig. 3c, will occur.
In classical BFO, bacteria are moved in the specified direction.
If there is improvement in the solution, it continues to move in
the same direction and cost value J at each step gets the solution
value corresponding to the step taken. This process, called swim-
ming in the algorithm, is repeated until the bacteria heal or reach
the maximum number of swimming (Ns ). If one of these criteria
is met, a chemotactic step is deemed to have been performed for
97
such bacteria. In the swimming phase of the modified BFO, even if
a nutrient concentration does not increase in the specified direc-
tion, a nutrient scan is performed around that area. This process
can be seen as a search for neighbors of a solution of any kind.
While performing this search, the pairwise interchange heuristic
including the following steps is used (McKendall & Shang, 2006):
Step 1: Calculate the cost (f(π )) of the facility layout (π ) in the
randomly determined direction.
Step 2: Select a random time period (t).
Step 3: Select two random departments again in the selected
period, and change the location of these departments to ob-
tain a new facility layout (π  ).
Step 4: Calculate the cost of the new facility layout (f(π ) ).
Step 5: Calculate the change in total cost ( f = f (π ) − f (π  )).
If f > 0, accept the change and do π = π  . Otherwise,
refuse the exchange.
Step 6: Repeat these steps as much as the swimming length
(Ns ).
The reproduction process in modified BFO is the same as that
used in the original BFO. In other words, the values of the objective
functions that each bacterium obtained at the end of each chemo-
tactic step in the chemotaxis process are collected, and the related
value is expressed as Jhealth value. After performing the same pro-
cedure for all the bacteria that make up the population, the bac-
teria are sequenced according to Jhealth value, the bad half of the
sequence is eliminated from the population and the good half is
copied to the location of the eliminated part. In the process of
elimination and dispersal, a random value is generated in the range
of (0–1) for each bacterium. If this value is less than the probabil-
ity value Ped , the bacteria are eliminated. Instead of bacteria being
eliminated, a random new bacterium is reproduced and added to
the population.
4.3. Simulated annealing
Simulated annealing (SA) is a method inspired by the annealing
process, which refers to the process of heating and slowly cooling
the solids. This method is based on the study of Metropolis, Rosen-
bluth, Rosenbluth, Teller, and Teller (1958). In the study, balanced
dispersal of atoms and energy changes were studied at a cer-
tain temperature level. Pincus (1970) emphasised that SA is linked
to mathematical minimization. However, Kirkpatrick, Gerlatt, and
Vecchi (1983) suggested for the first time that this approach can
be used as an optimization technique.
The most important advantage of SA is its ability to get rid
of the local optimum to find the global optimum. It obtains this
property with the possibility of accepting worse neighborhood so-
lutions than the current solution. The probability of acceptance is
determined as a control parameter that decreases over the dura-
tion of the SA period (Baykasoğlu & Gindy, 2001). SA is very simi-
lar to other local search algorithms. However, these techniques are
usually stuck in the local optimum. Accepting bad solutions in a
controlled way or moving up the hill (known as “hill climbing”), is
the solution of SA for this problem. The SA algorithm is a kind of
threshold algorithm because it allows hill climbing.
98 B. Turanoğlu, G. Akkaya / Expert Systems With Applications 98 (2018) 93–104
Table 1
The parameters and their levels.
Parameters
Symbol Description
A Number of bacteria
B Number of elimination-dispersal steps
C Number of reproduction steps
D Number of chemotaxis steps
E Number of swimming steps
F Elimination-dispersal probability
G Initial temperature
H Cooling rate
J Maximum number of iterations
The basic steps of simulated annealing can be summarised as
follows (McKendall, Shang, & Kuppusamy, 2006):
(i) Heuristic parameter values are selected.
(ii) An initial solution is generated and the cost is calculated.
This solution is defined as the current solution.
(iii) A neighborhood solution is obtained using one of the local
search techniques from the current solution.
(iv) The cost of the neighborhood solution is calculated and
compared to the cost of the current solution:
• If the cost is better, the neighborhood solution is consid-
ered the current solution.
• If the cost is worse, the neighborhood solution is consid-
ered the current solution with the determined probabil-
ity. Otherwise, the current solution will not change.
(v) The counters and parameters are updated, and steps 2–4 are
repeated until the stopping criterion is reached.
Choosing the correct parameters for a successful SA algorithm
is very important. The parameters are as follows:
• Initial temperature (Tb ): The initial temperature should be
chosen high enough so that the vast majority of the solutions
generated after the algorithm starts can be accepted. The value
of the initial temperature can be determined by means of ex-
periments.
• Number of solutions to be generated at each temperature
(CS): It is necessary to generate the solution enough to allow
the system to reach the equilibrium state at any temperature
without decreasing the temperature value in SA. In this study,
the number of solutions is equal to multiplication of the num-
ber of periods and the number of departments (N∗ T) of the
problem.
• Cooling rate (a): According to the annealing process, the suffi-
ciently high initial temperature should be cooled slowly. Cool-
ing rate can be determined experimentally, or this value can be
calculated with the methods proposed in the literature.
• Stopping criteria: In an SA algorithm, criteria such as the num-
ber of maximum iterations and the ending temperature can be
used as the stopping criterion. A function is used to reduce the
temperature at each iteration. One of the most used functions
is given below:
T(m+1) = Tm ∗ a
In this geometric function, Tm is the current temperature and a
is the cooling rate. The algorithm is stopped when it reaches the
maximum number of iterations specified or the ending tempera-
ture.
5. Parameter tuning with Taguchi method
Parameter design greatly influences the performance of heuris-
tic methods. For this reason, statistical experimental design meth-
ods, such as full factorial design and the Taguchi method, are used
Levels
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
30 50 100
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 5
100 200 500
0.01 0.05 0.1
10 0 0 20 0 0 50 0 0
0.9 0.999 0.9999
500 10 0 0 50 0 0
in the design of heuristic methods. The full factorial design leads
to an increase in the total number of experiments depending on
the parameter, the parameter level, and the increase in experimen-
tal repetition in each parameter combination. This also requires
higher time and cost investments. However, the Taguchi method
saves time and money by minimizing the number of required ex-
periments, even if the parameters and their levels increase. In ad-
dition, it provides a more efficient tuning procedure for the inves-
tigator.
The Taguchi method is a useful method to determine the best
combination among different levels of different parameters. In
cases where it is necessary to perform a significant number of ex-
periments for each combination of each parameter, including each
level, it is possible to achieve results with far fewer experimen-
tal studies using orthogonal arrays in the Taguchi method. In this
method, factors affecting experimental work are classified into two
main groups: controllable factors and noise factors. With this ap-
proach, the optimal levels of controllable factors are determined,
and the effect of noise factors is minimized.
Taguchi has improved a transformation of the repetition data
to another value which is a measure of the variation present.
The transformation is the signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio. The ratio
combines several repetitions into one value which represents the
amount of variation present. In experimental designs, the maxi-
mizaiton of the S/N ratio is aimed. There are several S/N ratios
available depending on the type of the objective function. These
are “lower is better (LB)”, “nominal is best (NB)” and “higher is
better (HB)”(Ross, 1988). Since objective function of DFLP is min-
imization of total cost, its corresponding S/N ratio is:

1  2
M
S/NLB = −10log10 Yi (6)
M
i=1
where Yi is performance characteristic value of the ith instance
(i = 1,2,…,M). The best level of parameters or factors used in an
experimental study in the Taguchi method is determined by or-
thogonal arrays. The selection of orthogonal arrays depends on
the number of parameters and the number of levels of these pa-
rameters. The proposed SABFO algorithm contains nine parame-
ters, each with three levels. The levels of these parameters are
shown in Table 1. For an experiment with nine parameters of
three levels each, the L27 orthogonal array was determined to
be the most suitable for use in this study. First, three different
problems were randomly selected among the small-, medium- and
large-sized problems of the 48 problem data sets: P3, P17 and
P34. For these three problems, the SABFO algorithm was run three
times according to each parameter combination of the L27 array.
Thus, a total of 243 trials were made. To measure the performance
of SABFO in each problem, the objective function is transformed
into its relative percentage deviation (RPD) described as follows
 B. Turanoğlu, G. Akkaya / Expert Systems With Applications 98 (2018) 93–104 99

Table 2
L27 orthogonal array and the results of experiments.

Experiment No Parameters RPD3 RPD17 RPD34 S/N ratio

A B C D E F G H J

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0,018852 0,0194477 0,026088 33,2662

2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 0,007205 0,0206756 0,024764 34,3864
3 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 0,001655 0,0056423 0,006910 45,6159
4 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 0,008583 0,0208536 0,025466 34,1377
5 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 0,002467 0,0043937 0,0 0170 0 50,2563
6 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 0,028198 0,0198628 0,030988 31,4469
7 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 0,003917 0,0030155 0,003090 49,4581
8 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 0,012708 0,0232864 0,030699 32,6065
9 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 0,010950 0,0213719 0,028165 33,4043
10 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 0,009161 0,0208633 0,030563 33,1477
11 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 0,016044 0,0179947 0,024097 34,1197
12 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 0,067747 0,0630730 0,144903 20,0635
13 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 2 3 0,003579 0,0162895 0,027893 34,5340
14 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 0,019641 0,0187036 0,072727 26,9718
15 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 0,006068 0,0203693 0,026665 34,1164
16 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 0,101997 0,0959839 0,178487 17,6554
17 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 0,019322 0,0294415 0,031388 31,2972
18 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 0,014804 0,0232455 0,023856 33,5372
19 3 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 0,003476 0,0246023 0,030228 32,9212
20 3 1 3 2 2 1 3 2 1 0,006854 0,0163976 0,028536 34,2398
21 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 3 2 0,018680 0,0067918 0,015515 36,7382
22 3 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 1 0,005991 0,0197519 0,030173 33,5117
23 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 0,039094 0,0634707 0,142093 20,6639
24 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 3 0,004445 0,0273753 0,036293 31,5774
25 3 3 2 1 1 3 2 3 2 0,017961 0,0339890 0,104383 23,8462
26 3 3 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 0,013436 0,0267835 0,023936 33,0957
27 3 3 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 0,015216 0,0220829 0,028274 32,9568

Fig. 4. The mean S/N ratio plot for each level of the parameters.

(Pourvaziri and Naderi, 2014): Table 3

The best levels of the parameters.
total cos ti, j − LBi
RP Di, j = (7) Symbol Description Best levels
LBi
A Number of bacteria 30
where total costi,j denotes the total cost obtained for ith problem B Number of elimination-dispersal steps 2
in jth replication and LBi is the minimum total cost of ith problem. C Number of reproduction steps 4
RPDi,j symbolizes the RPD value of ith problem in jth replication. D Number of chemotaxis steps 3
E Number of swimming steps 500
The RPD value of the ith problem (RPDi ) was obtained by aver- F Elimination-dispersal probability 0.05
aging the RPD values of the three experiment replicates for each G Initial temperature 10 0 0
problem. In Formula 6, RPDi was used as the value of Yi . H Cooling rate 0.999
Table 2 shows the orthogonal array L27, RPDi value and S/N ra- J Maximum number of iterations 50 0 0
tio for each experimental trial. The mean S/N ratio plot for each
level of the parameters is shown in Fig. 4. Since the aim is max-
imization of the S/N ratio, the level with highest S/N ratio is se-
lected as best level. Table 3 shows the best levels of the param- using analysis of variance (ANOVA). As shown in Table 4, the most
eters. Also, the most significant parameter can be determined by important parameters are the maximum number of iterations, the
100 B. Turanoğlu, G. Akkaya / Expert Systems With Applications 98 (2018) 93–104

Table 4
The ANOVA of the S/N ratio.

Parameters Degrees of freedom Seq. sum of squares Adj. sum of squares Adj. mean squares F-value P-value

Number of bacteria 2 395.93 395.927 197.964 3.36 .087

Number of elimination-dispersal steps 2 15.46 15.465 7.732 0.13 .879
Number of reproduction steps 2 64.26 64.257 32.128 0.55 .599
Number of chemotaxis steps 2 11.25 11.248 5.624 0.10 .910
Number of swimming steps 2 2.91 2.912 1.456 0.02 .976
Elimination-dispersal probability 2 8.98 8.983 4.492 0.08 .927
Initial temperature 2 39.94 39.936 19.968 0.34 .722
Cooling rate 2 11.76 11.762 5.881 0.10 .906
Maximum number of iterations 2 413.62 413.618 206.809 3.52 .080
Error 8 470.65 470.646 58.831
Total 26 1434.75

number of bacteria and the number of reproduction steps since
their P-values are close to zero.
6. Computational study
To measure the effectiveness of the proposed SABFO algorithm,
the test problems of Balakrishnan and Cheng (20 0 0) are used.
These problems consist of 6, 15, and 30 departments, and 5 and
10 periods are considered for each problem. The proposed algo-
rithm is coded in the MATLAB programming language. The dataset
consists of 48 problems tests on a PC with the Intel (R) Core (TM)
i7-4770 3.4 GHz. The results of SABFO are compared to the follow-
ing studies:
• Conway and Venkataramanan (1994) – Conway and Venkatara-
manan Genetic Algorithm (CVGA).
• Balakrishnan and Cheng (20 0 0) – Nested Loop Genetic Algo-
rithm (NLGA).
• Balakrishnan et al. (2003) – Genetic Algorithms based on Dy-
namic Programming (GADP/GADP(R)/GADP(U))
• Erel et al. (2003) – Dynamic Programming and Simulated
Annealing algorithms (DP_10, DP_10I, DP_5, DP_5I, DP_10L,
DP_10LI, DP_5L, DP_5LI, DP_10S, DP_10SI, DP_5S, DP_5SI, SA_EG_1,
SA_EG_2)
• Baykasoğlu, Dereli, and Sabuncu (2006) – Ant Colony Optimiza-
tion (ACO)
• Pillai, Hunagund, and Krishnan (2011) – Simulated Annealing
based on Robust Model (SA_Robust)
The comparative results of the examined algorithms are given
in the tables in Appendix A. In these tables, the result values in
bold are the best solution values. Tables 5 and 6 show the re-
sults of the problems with 6 departments and 5 and 10 periods,
respectively. SABFO has obtained the best results for all 8 prob-
lems, consisting of 6 departments and 5 periods, in reasonable CPU
time. Table 6 shows that SABFO is the only algorithm that finds the
best solutions for all problems with 6 departments and 10 periods.
These results were obtained in a highly efficient CPU time.
In Table 7, the results obtained for the problems consisting of
15 departments and 5 periods are seen. SABFO finds the best solu-
tion in only one of these problems. SA_EG_1 algorithm obtaines
the best results for other problems. However, SABFO is able to
reach the best solution with an average deviation of 0.8% in a
shorter time than SA_EG_1 as the computation time. Table 8 shows
the results of problems with 15 departments and 10 periods, and
that SABFO found the best solution in 4 problems under a fairly
reasonable CPU time. In the remaining 4 problems, SA_EG_1 ob-
tains the best results.
As shown in Table 9, the proposed SABFO algorithm finds the
best solution in 5 problems, consisting of 30 departments and
5 periods. For the remaining 3 problems, it approaches the best
solution with an average deviation of 0.2% at a reasonable CPU
time. GADP (U) obtains the best results in 2 problems. DP_10S
and DP_10SI attain the best result in 1 problem. In these prob-
lems, it can be said that DP_10SI is better than these methods in
finding the best solution in the most effective time. The proposed
approach achieves the best result in 3 of the problems with 30
departments and 10 periods. However, it seems to be better than
the DP_10LI algorithm, which finds the best solution in 3 of these
problems, as CPU time (Table 10).
SABFO finds better results than other methods at a consider-
ably better computation time for all small problems (P1-P16). In
medium problems (P17-P32), it finds the 5 best solutions. Although
the SA_EG_1 algorithm obtains the best solution in 11 of these
problems, the CPU time spent finding the solution is several times
higher than that in SABFO. For the problems between Ps33 and
P40, SABFO acquires the best solution in 5 of them and at a very
reasonable computation time. For large problems (P41-P48), SABFO
3, GADP(U) 1, DP_10L 1, DP_10LI 3, DP_10SI and DP_10SI 1, respec-
tively, obtain the best solution for the problem. Hovewer, it can be
said that SABFO is better than GADP(U), DP_10L and DP_10LI as
CPU time.
In general, SABFO achieves more effective results than other
population-based approaches, such as CVGA, NLGA, GADP (R) and
GADP (U). It is also seen that SABFO is better both in solution value
and computation time than SA_EG_1, SA_EG_2 and SA_Robust ap-
proaches where stimulated annealing are used. SABFO obtains the
best solution value in 29 of 48 problems.
7. Conclusion and future work
Since the DFLP have NP-Hard structures, the solution time ex-
ponentially increases as the problem size increases. This leads re-
searchers to use heuristic rather than analytical methods. One of
the most important reasons for this is the desire for a decision
without spending too much time on the problem being addressed.
Although heuristic methods do not guarantee the optimal solution,
they yield close results to the optimum in a reasonable computa-
tion time. This study presents a BFO-based new hybrid heuristic
method for the DFLP. The BFO is a new heuristic method used for
the first time in the DFLP. In the proposed method, the initial solu-
tion obtained by BFO enters into the simulated annealing process.
The so-called SABFO method, in general, yields promising results
at an acceptable CPU time. The difference between the best result
values is close to 0%. Also, the Taguchi method is used to design
the parameters of SABFO. The study contributes to both DFLP and
BFO literature.
The suggestions can be given for future studies as follows:
• New algorithms can be developed by hybridising BFO and other
heuristic methods for the DFLP.
• Different parameter values, direction vectors and local search
techniques of the proposed approach can be used in the BFO
phase.
 B. Turanoğlu, G. Akkaya / Expert Systems With Applications 98 (2018) 93–104 101

• In elimination and reproduction processes of the BFO, different • New heuristic approaches can be developed for the DFLP with
approaches similar to those used in the process of generating a budget constraint and multi-objective.
new individual and mutating the processes of the genetic algo- • Multiple floors, unequal areas and stochastic flows cases of the
rithm can be tried. DFLP can be tested by using BFO algorithm.
• The performance of the BFO can be evaluated by applying it to • It can be considered that rearrangement costs change during
other types of facility layout problems. planning periods.
• BFO can be applied to different combinatorial optimization
problems.
Appendix A

Table 5
Results for problems with N = 6 and T = 5.

Description Problem 1 Problem 2 Problem 3 Problem 4 Problem 5 Problem 6 Problem 7 Problem 8 Mean CPU Time(in second)

CVGA 108,976 105,170 104,520 106,719 105,628 105,606 106,439 104,485 NA

NGLA 106,419 104,834 104,320 106,515 105,628 104,053 106,978 103,771 NA
GADP 106,419 104,834 104,529 106,583 105,628 104,315 106,447 103,771 NA
DP_10 106,419 104,834 104,320 106,509 105,628 103,985 106,447 103,771 <1
DP_10I 106,419 104,834 104,320 106,509 105,628 103,985 106,447 103,771 <1
DP_5 106,419 104,834 104,320 106,885 105,737 104,053 106,447 104,185 <1
DP_5I 106,419 104,834 104,320 106,515 105,737 104,053 106,447 104,185 <1
SA_EG_1 106,419 104,834 104,520 106,399 105,737 103,985 106,439 103,771 55
SA_EG_2 106,419 104,834 104,320 106,399 105,628 103,985 106,439 103,771 52
ACO 106,419 104,834 104,320 106,509 105,628 104,053 106,439 103,771 70
SA (Robust) 106,419 105,731 107,650 108,260 108,188 107,765 108,114 107,248 NA
SABFO 106,419 104,834 104,320 106,399 105,628 103,985 106,439 103,771 4.61
Best solution 106,419 104,834 104,320 106,399 105,628 103,985 106,439 103,771
% Deviation of SABFO value 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
from best solution

Table 6
Results for problems with N = 6 and T = 10.

Description Problem 9 Problem 10 Problem 11 Problem 12 Problem 13 Problem 14 Problem 15 Problem 16 Mean CPU Time (in second)

CVGA 218,407 215,623 211,028 217,493 215,363 215,564 220,529 216,291 NA

NGLA 214,397 212,138 208,453 212,953 211,575 210,801 215,685 214,657 NA
GADP 214,313 212,134 207,987 212,741 210,944 210,0 0 0 215,452 212,588 NA
DP_10 214,313 212,134 207,987 212,741 211,022 209,932 214,252 212,588 <1
DP_10I 214,313 212,134 207,987 212,741 211,022 209,932 214,252 212,588 <1
DP_5 214,313 212,138 208,246 213,117 211,022 210,0 0 0 214,252 213,002 <1
DP_5I 214,313 212,138 208,060 212,747 211,022 210,0 0 0 214,252 213,002 <1
SA_EG_1 214,313 212,134 207,987 212,747 211,076 210,0 0 0 214,823 212,588 215
SA_EG_2 214,313 213,015 208,351 212,747 211,072 209,932 214,438 212,588 206
ACO 217,251 216,055 208,185 212,951 211,076 210,277 215,504 214,621 1326
SA (Robust) 220,776 217,412 219,024 217,350 217,142 217,397 219,788 220,144 NA
SABFO 214,313 212,134 207,987 212,530 210,906 209,932 214,252 212,588 14.27
Best solution 214,313 212,134 207,987 212,530 210,906 209,932 214,252 212,588
% Deviation of SABFO value 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
from best solution
102 B. Turanoğlu, G. Akkaya / Expert Systems With Applications 98 (2018) 93–104

Table 7
Results for problems with N = 15 and T = 5.

Description Problem 17 Problem 18 Problem 19 Problem 20 Problem 21 Problem 22 Problem 23 Problem 24 Mean CPU Time (in second)

CVGA 504,759 514,718 516,063 508,532 515,599 509,384 512,508 514,839 NA

NGLA 511,854 507,694 518,461 514,242 512,834 513,763 512,722 521,116 NA
GADP (R) 493,707 494,476 506,684 500,826 502,409 497,382 494,316 500,779 NA
GADP (U) 484,090 485,352 489,898 484,625 489,885 488,640 489,378 500,779 NA
DP_10L 484,054 489,322 491,310 487,884 491,617 490,205 490,544 494,994 111
DP_10LI 483,568 489,322 491,310 487,275 491,346 489,847 490,051 493,577 119
DP_5L 484,972 491,102 493,632 489,929 494,040 490,782 491,984 496,841 20
DP_5LI 482,123 488,840 493,632 489,480 494,040 490,782 490,251 496,672 28
DP_10S 484,369 487,274 491,790 487,956 491,178 490,305 490,161 494,954 14
DP_10SI 483,708 485,702 491,790 486,851 491,178 489,947 489,583 494,534 22
DP_5S 484,369 489,819 493,224 489,698 493,097 492,275 492,430 496,990 2
DP_5SI 483,708 488,382 492,597 489,698 491,738 492,202 489,155 496,473 10
SA_EG_1 481,378 478,816 487,886 481,628 484,177 482,321 485,384 489,072 1635
SA_EG_2 481,792 488,592 492,536 485,862 489,946 488,452 487,576 493,030 946
ACO 501,447 506,236 512,886 504,956 509,636 508,215 508,848 512,320 167
SA (Robust) 506,847 500,284 508,011 503,699 502,622 499,891 502,919 507,970 NA
SABFO 480,453 484,853 489,981 486,006 488,556 488,196 487,476 491,789 145.9
Best solution 480,453 478,816 487,886 481,628 484,177 482,321 485,384 489,072
% Deviation of SABFO value 0 1.26 0.43 0.90 0.90 1.22 0.43 0.56
from best solution

Table 8
Results for problems with N = 15 and T = 10.

Description Problem 25 Problem 26 Problem 27 Problem 28 Problem 29 Problem 30 Problem 31 Problem 32 Mean CPU Time (in second)

CVGA 1,055,563 1,061,940 1,073,603 1,060,034 1,064,692 1,066,370 1,066,617 1,068,216 NA

NGLA 1,047,596 1,037,580 1,056,185 1,026,789 1,033,591 1,028,606 1,043,823 1,048,853 NA
GADP (R) 1,004,806 1,006,790 1,012,482 1,001,795 1,005,988 1,002,871 1,019,645 1,010,772 NA
GADP (U) 987,887 980,638 985,886 976,025 982,778 973,912 982,872 987,789 NA
DP_10L 986,811 985,154 989,081 979,139 986,029 976,917 985,535 990,844 712
DP_10LI 984,344 984,779 988,635 976,456 983,846 974,436 982,790 990,372 724
DP_5L 991,093 987,453 993,799 983,208 989,680 979,297 992,897 992,962 55
DP_5LI 988,322 985,147 993,318 982,632 985,966 978,683 989,272 988,959 67
DP_10S 986,592 984,601 990,218 978,726 984,975 976,610 987,019 990,247 206
DP_10SI 983,070 983,826 990,153 977,548 983,053 975,290 986,325 988,584 218
DP_5S 995,319 988,396 992,824 982,270 987,963 981,406 992,807 993,902 7
DP_5SI 991,801 985,360 990,794 982,112 982,893 979,731 988,870 990,376 19
SA_EG_1 982,298 973,179 985,364 974,994 975,498 968,323 977,410 985,041 6470
SA_EG_2 984,013 983,550 988,465 980,045 982,191 973,199 985,270 989,520 3867
ACO 1,017,741 1,016,567 1,021,075 1,007,713 1,010,822 1,007,210 1,013,315 1,019,092 2407
SA (Robust) 1,059,100 1,022,447 1,068,402 1,054,997 1,051,395 1,057,543 1,037,066 1,040,450 NA
SABFO 982,087 979,095 982,914 974,144 979,376 970,247 983,527 984,664 306.05
Best solution 982,087 973,179 982,914 974,144 975,498 968,323 977,410 984,664
% Deviation of SABFO value 0 0.60 0 0 0.40 0.20 0.63 0
from best solution

Table 9
Results for problems with N = 30 and T = 5.

Description Problem 33 Problem 34 Problem 35 Problem 36 Problem 37 Problem 38 Problem 39 Problem 40 Mean CPU Time (in second)

CVGA 632,737 647,585 642,295 634,626 639,693 637,620 640,482 635,776 NA

NGLA 611,794 611,873 611,664 611,766 604,564 606,010 607,134 620,183 NA
GADP (R) 603,339 589,834 592,475 586,064 580,624 587,797 588,347 590,451 NA
GADP (U) 578,689 572,232 578,527 572,057 559,777 566,792 567,873 575,720 NA
DP_10L 581,805 574,657 581,030 571,730 561,079 567,202 572,262 575,445 1324
DP_10LI 579,741 570,915 581,030 569,874 561,079 567,154 568,196 575,445 1499
DP_5L 583,082 576,592 581,691 575,024 561,424 570,435 573,878 576,091 222
DP_5LI 581,942 571,563 580,549 574,070 561,424 570,435 571,254 576,091 397
DP_10S 581,805 575,004 581,170 571,749 561,078 568,554 572,706 575,273 131
DP_10SI 579,741 570,906 577,402 569,596 561,078 568,554 571,580 575,273 306
DP_5S 582,858 576,106 581,262 574,110 562,857 570,356 572,797 576,149 23
DP_5SI 581,369 572,511 580,186 573,001 562,857 570,356 569,145 576,149 182
SA_EG_1 583,081 573,965 580,102 572,139 563,503 574,805 573,361 581,614 21,710
SA_EG_2 583,227 574,116 577,787 573,446 565,735 570,905 571,499 581,966 10,691
ACO 604,408 604,370 603,867 596,901 591,988 599,862 600,670 610,474 2061
SA (Robust) 579,704 576,350 586,831 584,318 570,492 572,782 571,703 596,835 NA
SABFO 578,415 570,630 577,390 568,289 558,345 572,536 569,993 577,873 758
Best solution 578,415 570,630 577,390 568,289 558,345 566,792 567,873 575,273
% Deviation of SABFO value 0 0 0 0 0 1.01 0.37 0.45
from best solution
 B. Turanoğlu, G. Akkaya / Expert Systems With Applications 98 (2018) 93–104 103

Table 10
Results for problems with N = 30 and T = 10.

Description Problem 41 Problem 42 Problem 43 Problem 44 Problem 45 Problem 46 Problem 47 Problem 48 Mean CPU Time (in second)

CVGA 1,362,513 1,379,640 1,365,024 1,367,130 1,356,860 1,372,513 1,382,799 1,383,610 NA

NGLA 1,228,411 1,231,978 1,231,829 1,227,413 1,215,256 1,221,356 1,212,273 1,245,423 NA
GADP (R) 1,194,084 1,199,001 1,197,253 1,184,422 1,179,673 1,178,091 1,186,145 1,208,436 NA
GADP (U) 1,169,747 1,168,878 1,166,366 1,154,192 1,133,561 1,145,0 0 0 1,145,927 1,168,657 NA
DP_10L 1,174,773 1,175,323 1,174,023 1,155,879 1,128,136 1,144,030 1,143,814 1,168,142 7008
DP_10LI 1,171,853 1,169,138 1,174,023 1,152,684 1,128,136 1,143,824 1,142,494 1,167,900 7358
DP_5L 1,180,120 1,179,022 1,175,920 1,157,918 1,131,518 1,147,517 1,147,016 1,170,929 595
DP_5LI 1,171,413 1,174,421 1,170,019 1,156,016 1,131,518 1,147,517 1,145,934 1,170,929 945
DP_10S 1,172,434 1,175,551 1,175,240 1,155,998 1,129,143 1,144,539 1,143,788 1,167,163 1477
DP_10SI 1,171,178 1,170,747 1,165,525 1,153,981 1,128,784 1,144,092 1143,183 1,167,163 1827
DP_5S 1,181,743 1,177,212 1,176,997 1,158,507 1,132,926 1,149,893 1,147,041 1,171,658 63
DP_5SI 1,180,087 1,170,810 1,173,529 1,156,517 1,132,926 1,149,893 1,146,987 1,171,428 413
SA_EG_1 1,175,756 1,173,015 1,166,295 1,154,196 1,141,738 1,158,322 1,157,505 1179,888 87,200
SA_EG_2 1,174,815 1,177,743 1,171,932 1,154,945 1,140,116 1,158,227 1,163,761 1,177,565 46,152
ACO 1,223,124 1,231,151 1,230,520 1,200,613 1,210,892 1,239,255 1,248,309 1,231,408 8663
SA (Robust) 1,172,691 1,182,286 1,188,620 1,198,487 1,198,674 1,202,033 1210,573 1,209,088 NA
SABFO 1,168,453 1,170,042 1,160,204 1,149,944 1,132,136 1,144,677 1,160,830 1,172,857 3806.24
Best solution 1,168,453 1,168,878 1,160,204 1,149,944 1,128,136 1,143,824 1,142,494 1,167,163
% Deviation of SABFO value 0 0.1 0 0 0.35 0.07 1.6 0.49
from best solution

References
Balakrishnan, J., Jacobs, F. R., & Venkataramanan, M. A. (1992). Solutions for the
constrained dynamic facility layout problem. European Journal of Operational Re-
search, 15, 280–286.
Balakrishnan, J., & Cheng, C. H. (20 0 0). Genetic search and the dynamic layout prob-
lem. Computers and Operations Research, 27(6), 587–593.
Balakrishnan, J., Cheng, C. H., Conway, D. G., & Lau, C. M. (2003). A hybrid genetic
algorithm for the dynamic plant layout problem. International Journal of Produc-
tion Research, 86, 107–120.
Baykasoğlu, A., & Gindy, N. N. Z. (2001). A simulated annealing algortihm for the
dynamic layout problem. Computers and Opeartions Research, 28, 1403–1426.
Baykasoğlu, A., Dereli, T., & Sabuncu, İ. (2006). An ant colony algorithm for solving
budget constrained and unconstrained dynamic facility layout problems. Omega,
34, 385–396.
Bermejo, E., Cordon, O., Damas, S., & Santamaria, J. (2015). A comparative study on
the application of advanced bacterial foraging models to image registration. In-
formation Sciences, 295, 160–181.
Chatzis, S. P., & Koukas, S. (2011). Numerical optimization using synergetic
swarms of foraging bacterial populations. Expert Systems with Applications, 38,
15332–15343.
Chen, H., Zhu, Y., Hu, K., & Ma, L. (2014). Bacterial colony foraging algorithm: Com-
bining chemotaxis, cell-to-cell communication, and self-adaptive strategy. Infor-
mation Sciences, 273, 73–100.
Chen, Y., Jiang, Y., Wahab, M. I. M., & Long, X. (2015). The facility layout problem in
non-rectangular logistics parks with split lines. Expert Systems with Applications,
42, 7768–7780.
Conway, D. G., & Venkataramanan, M. A. (1994). Genetic search and the dynamic
facility layout problem. Computers and Operations Research, 21(8), 955–960.
Devi, S., & Geethanjali, M. (2014). Application of modified bacterial foraging opti-
mization algorithm for optimal placement and sizing of distributed generation.
Expert Systems with Applications, 41, 2772–2781.
Erel, E., Ghosh, J. B., & Simon, J. T. (2003). New heuristic for the layout problem.
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54, 1275–1282.
García-Hernández, L., Palomo-Romero, J. M., Salas-Morera, L., & Arauzo-A-
zofra, A. (2015). A novel hybrid evolutionary approach for capturing decision
maker knowledge into the unequal area facility layout problem. Expert Systems
with Applications, 42, 4697–4708.
Guo, P., Cheng, W., & Wang, Y. (2017). Hybrid evolutionary algorithm with extreme
machine learning fitness function evaluation for two-stage capacitated facility
location problems. Expert Systems with Applications, 71, 57–68.
Guzman, M. A., Delgado, A., & Carvalho, J. D. (2010). A novel multiobjective opti-
mization algorithm based on bacterial chemotaxis. Engineering Applications of
Artificial Intelligence, 23, 292–301.
Hezer, S., & Kara, Y. (2013). Eşzamanlı Dağıtımlı Ve Toplamalı Araç Rotalama Prob-
lemlerinin Çözümü İçin Bakteriyel Besin Arama Optimizasyonu Tabanlı Bir Al-
goritma. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University,
28(2), 373–382.
Kang, S., & Chae, J. (2017). Harmony search for the layout design of an unequal area
facility. Expert Systems with Applications, 79, 269–281.
Kim, D. H., Abraham, A., & Cho, J. H. (2007). A hybrid genetic algorithm and bacterial
foraging approach for global optimization. Information Sciences, 177, 3918–3937.
Kirkpatrick, S., Gerlatt, C. D., Jr., & Vecchi, M. P. (1983). Optimization by simulated
annealing. Science, 220, 671–680.
Lacksonen, T. A., & Enscore, E. E., Jr. (1993). Quadratic assignment algorithms for the
dynamic layout. International Journal of Production Research, 31(3), 503–517.
Mazinani, M., Abedzadeh, M., & Mohebali, N. (2013). Dynamic facility layout prob-
lem basedon flexible bay structure and solving by genetic algorithm. Interna-
tional Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 65, 929–943.
McKendall, A. R., Jr., Shang, J., & Kuppusamy, S. (2006). Simulated annealing heuris-
tics for the dynamic facility layout problem. Computers & Operations Research,
33, 2431–2444.
McKendall, A. R., Jr., & Shang, J. (2006). Hybrid ant systems for the dynamic facility
layout problem. Computers & Operations Research, 33, 790–803.
Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., Teller, A. H., & Teller, E. (1958).
Equations of state calculations by fast computing machines. J. Chem. Phys., 21,
1087–1092.
Majhi, R., Panda, G., Majhi, B., & Sahoo, G. (2009). Efficient prediction of stock mar-
ket indices using adaptive bacterial foraging optimization (ABFO) and BFO based
techniques. Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 10097–10104.
Mandal, P., Sarkar, B. K., Saha, R., Chatterjee, A., Mookherjee, S., & Sanyal, D. (2015).
Real-time fuzzy-feedforward controller design by bacterial foraging optimiza-
tion for an electrohydraulic system. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelli-
gence, 45, 168–179.
Mishra, S. (2005). A hybrid least square-fuzzy bacteria foraging strategy for har-
monic estimation. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 9(1), 61–73.
Mohammadi, M. (2015). Bacterial foraging optimization and adaptive version for
economicallyoptimum sitting, sizing and harmonic tuning orders setting of
LCharmonic passive power filters in radial distribution systems withlinear and
nonlinear loads. Applied Soft Computing, 29, 345–356.
Moslemipour, G., Lee, T. S., & Rilling, D. (2012). A review of intelligent approaches
for design-ing dynamic and robust layouts in flexible manufacturing systems.
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 60, 11–27.
Panda, R., & Naik, M. K. (2015). A novel adaptive crossover bacterial foraging opti-
mization algorithm for linear discriminant analysis based face recognition. Ap-
plied Soft Computing, 30, 722–736.
Pandit, N., Tripathi, A., Tapaswi, S., & Pandit, M. (2012). An improved bacterial for-
aging algorithm for combined static/dynamic environmental economic dispatch.
Applied Soft Computing, 12, 3500–3513.
Passino, K. M. (2002). Biomimicry of bacterial foraging for distributed optimization
and control. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 22(3), 52–67.
Pillai, V. M., Hunagund, I. B., & Krishnan, K. K. (2011). Design of robust layout for Dy-
namic Plant Layout Problems. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 61, 813–823.
Pincus, M. (1970). A Monte Carlo method for the approximate solution of certain
types of constrained optimization problems. Operation Research, 18, 1225–1228.
Palomo-Romero, J. M., Salas-Morera, L., & García-Hernández, L. (2017). An island
model genetic algorithm for unequal area facility layout problems. Expert Sys-
tems with Applications, 68, 151–162.
Pourvaziri, H., & Naderi, B. (2014). A hybrid multi-population genetic algorithm for
the dynamic facility layout problem. Applied Soft Computing, 24, 457–469.
Pourvaziri, H., & Pierreval, H. (2017). Dynamic facility layout problem based on open
queuing network theory. European Journal of Operational Research, 259, 538–553.
Rosenblatt, M. J. (1986). The Dynamics of plant layout. Management Science, 32(1),
76–86.
Ross, P. J. (1988). Taguchi techniques for quality engineering. The United States of
America: McGraw-Hill, Inc. (Chapter 8).
Sanyal, N., Chatterjee, A., & Munshi, S. (2011). An adaptive bacterial foraging algo-
rithm for fuzzy entropy based image segmentation. Expert Systems with Applica-
tions, 38, 15489–15498.
Sathya, P. D., & Kayalvizhi, R. (2011a). Modified bacterial foraging algorithm based
multi level thresholding for image segmentation. Engineering Applications of Ar-
tificial Intelligence, 24, 595–615.
104 B. Turanoğlu, G. Akkaya / Expert Systems With Applications 98 (2018) 93–104
Sathya, P. D., & Kayalvizhi, R. (2011b). Optimal multilevel thresholding using bacte-
rial foraging algorithm. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 15549–15564.
Sengupta, A., & Bhadauria, S. (2015). Bacterial foraging driven exploration of multi
cycle fault tolerant datapath based on power-performance tradeoff in high level
synthesis. Expert Systems with Applications, 42, 4719–4732.
Supriyono, H., & Tokhi, M. O. (2012). Parametric modelling approach using bacterial
foraging algorithms for modelling of flexible manipulator systems. Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 25, 898–916.
Şahin, R. (2008). Dinamik tesis düzenleme problemi için bir tavlama benzetimi
sezgiseli. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture of Gazi University,
23(4), 863–870.
Şahin, R., & Türkbey, O. (2009). A new hybrid tabu-simulated annealing heuristic for
the dynamic facility layout problem. International Journal of Production Research,
47(24), 6855–6873.
Ulutas, B. H., & Islier, A. A. (2009). A clonal selection algorithm for dynamic facility
layout problems. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 28, 123–131.
Ulutas, B., & Islier, A. A. (2015). Dynamic facility layout problem in footwear indus-
try. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 36, 55–61.
Urban, T. L. (1992). Computational performance and efficiency of lower procedures
fort he dynamic facility layout problem. European Journal of Operational Re-
search, 57(2), 271–279.
Venkaiah, C., & Kumar, D. M. V. (2011). Fuzzy adaptive bacterial foraging conges-
tion management using sensitivity based optimal active power re-scheduling of
generators. Applied Soft Computing, 11, 4921–4930.
Xiao, Y., Xie, Y., Kulturel-Konak, S., & Konak, A. (2017). A problem evolution algo-
rithm with linear programming for the dynamic facility layout problem—A gen-
eral layout formulation. Computers and Operations Research, 88, 187–207.
Zhao, W., & Wang, L. (2016). An effective bacterial foraging optimizer for globalop-
timization. Information Sciences, 329, 719–735.