Discretized Cell Modeling for Optimal Facility Layout Plans

of Unequal and Irregular Facilities

C. Huang 1 and C. K. Wong, A.M.ASCE 2

Abstract: Facility layout design is an essential planning task to resolve potential spatial conflicts and overlapping during practical oper-
ations. A discretized cell optimization model is developed to optimize site space usages. Site areas and facilities are represented by small unit
cells to effectively model irregularities, and the availability of unit cells for use in a facility setup is modeled by binary-type variables. With
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

size and shape requirements through linear constraints, the site layout design can be formulated as a binary mixed integer-linear programming
(BMILP) problem to allocate different facilities onto different site available areas in optimal shapes and locations. Total material transpor-
tation costs across facilities are optimized subject to various design constraints ensuring safety, homogenous facility setups, physical size, and
orientation requirements. The proposed cell model is verified by comparing optimization results with results obtained by conventional point
notation methods. A standard branch-and-bound algorithm is applied to solve a global optimal solution, and the numerical example is opti-
mized for illustrating the very different optimized layout plan in terms of facility locations, positions of entry and exit points, shapes, and
orientations of different facilities. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001206. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Facility layout planning; Discretized cell modeling; Site layout optimization; Binary mixed integer-linear programming
problem; Project planning and design.

Introduction
Site layout planning is essential to construction management be-
cause of its direct impact on construction costs, production effi-
ciency, and site safety. Improper facility layouts decrease the
overall work efficiency by requiring workers to travel further, in-
creasing both their travel time and length of their material trans-
portation paths. Based on studies in the manufacturing industry,
materials handling costs can be reduced by 20–60% if appropriate
facility layout is adopted (Lam et al. 2005). Because of its impor-
tance, site layout planning has been studied by many researchers
using different optimization methods and modeling approaches that
have been developed for optimal site layout plans. For instance,
available site locations might be visually identified and available
areas might be prespecified within site boundaries; these are re-
ferred to as fixed model inputs (Tam et al. 2001; Huang and Wong
2015). Key decision variables are defined to allocate site facilities
onto available site locations using point notation and representa-
tion. Regular site area and site facilities are modeled. Unequal area
modeling with detailed area size restrictions has also been devel-
oped to increase modeling accuracy (Hegazy and Elbeltagi 1999;
Easa and Hossain 2008). In these types of modeling, restrictions in
specific site locations, matching physical sizes among available site
areas and facilities, and fulfilling safety requirements are estab-
lished in the form of mathematical constraints that can be integrated
into an optimization framework. The total (generalized) cost is
generally set as an objective function for optimization, including
1
Lecturer, College of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Beijing Univ.
of Technology, 100 Pingleyuan, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100124, China.
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Architecture and Civil Engineering, City
Univ. of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Ave., Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong SAR
(corresponding author). E-mail: wongck@cityu.edu.hk
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 17, 2015; approved
on May 31, 2016; published online on July 19, 2016. Discussion period
open until December 19, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364.
material transportation costs between any two related site facilities
at different locations based on their horizontal Manhattan distances.
Activity links and material flow among pairs of site facilities at
different locations can be established for evaluating the objective
cost function (Hegazy and Elbeltagi 1999; Easa and Hossain 2008;
Wong et al. 2010).
Effective construction site planning requires a proper designing
of a site layout and site facility location. Different site facilities
compete to occupy available site spaces at different spatial loca-
tions in construction sites. The conventional point modeling ap-
proach is simple to use and also fast in computation but at the
expense of modeling accuracy such as problems of irregularities in
shapes, facility orientations, and potential spatial conflicts in the
optimization process.
To enhance these existing point notation models, the present
study aims to develop a discretized site layout optimization model
to allocate different facilities to adjacent linked unit cells for
homogenous facility setups, which form a mesh that represents an
entire site area. The entire study area in a site is discretized and
modeled by a cell matrix that consists of rows and columns such
that irregular site areas and site facilities with different physical
shape requirements can be modeled; in this manner, the construc-
tion site area may be completely utilized, and flow paths for con-
struction materials may be optimized. The problem is challenging
when the site is tight without much room and buffer areas for fa-
cility setups (i.e., total area of site ≈ total area of facilities). The
solution of the site layout plan is not a trivial one especially when
facilities that are unequal in size and irregular in shape are being
allocated onto a site with irregular boundaries.
Literature Review
The latest publications in this area of study include research into
dynamic construction site layout and security planning (Li et al.
2015) and site layout planning with safety considerations across
multiple construction stages (Huang and Wong 2015). Both these

© ASCE 04016082-1 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1

 studies still apply the conventional point notation approach to the
optimization of site layout plans. The conventional point modeling
approach is simple to use and also fast in computation but at the
expense of the modeling accuracy. The problem of irregularities in
sites and facilities is a critical one. When the irregularity problem
combined with the facility orientations and the potential spatial
conflict, the existing point modeling approach may not work prop-
erly, and the problem formulation would be difficult.
Comprehensive reviews by Drira et al. (2007), Singh and
Sharma (2006), Liggett (2000), Mavridou and Pardalos (1997),
and Meller and Gau (1996) cover the history of such studies; mod-
eling methods for site spaces and facilities; deterministic, heuristic,
and probabilistic solution algorithms; chronological listing of re-
searchers’ works; and commercialized computer design packages,
respectively.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Site layout planning with fixed locations and fixed shape
designs is the most classical problem addressed (Li and Love
1998; Wong et al. 2010; Huang et al. 2010, 2011; Easa and Hossain
2008). Other studies have proposed methods for designing three-
dimensional (3D) multilevel layout plans when vertical dimensions
are modeled into the transportation path, for instance, lift transpor-
tation to different building floors or tower crane hooks may be
utilized (Huang et al. 2010, 2011; Meller and Bozer 1997). More
advanced approaches include dynamic site layout planning that
deals with varying uses of space during different construction
stages (El-Rayes and Said 2009; Tommelein and Zouein 1993;
Zouein and Tommelein 1999).
Unequal area modeling is another significant research area in
the literature. Li and Love (2000) studied an unequal area site lay-
out problem through the simple point modeling approach. Zhang
and Wang (2008) applied particle swarm optimization method to
deal with an unequal area regular layout problem based on point
notation approach again. Zouein et al. (2002) applied genetic algo-
rithms to arrange facilities of unequal sizes but the potential over-
lapping problem was prevented. Corry and Kozan (2004) solved
the similar problem using the ant colony method. Easa and Hossain
(2008) developed a programming approach to improve the conven-
tional point notation method by introducing facility length and
width requirements for optimization. The entire site area could be
used without restriction by a given set of available site locations.
Constraints were developed to prevent overlapping effectively.
McKendall and Hakobyan (2010) developed heuristics for an un-
equal but regular facility layout problem. Material transportation
costs and facility setup costs were set as the objective for optimi-
zation. A three-stage solution algorithm encapsulating a tabu search
was proposed to solve this heuristic model. Point notation was used
with mathematical constraints to prevent area overlapping. Similar
work was conducted by Scholz et al. (2009), who combined the
slicing tree and tabu search for solving the unequal area facility
layout problem. Andayesh and Sadeghpour (2013) again applied
the point notation method to solve the unequal size by minimizing
total potential energy among facilities. Kulturel-Konak and Konak
(2011) applied another particle swarm method to solve this problem
and Ulutas and Kulturel-Konak (2013) applied genetic algorithms.
Hegazy and Elbeltagi (1999) developed the EvoSite using a dis-
cretized approach to model irregular sites and facilities. The great-
est common divisor (GCD) concept was introduced to fix the size
of a modeling unit. Genetic algorithms were applied to solve the
site layout problem. Elbeltagi and Hegazy (2001) replaced the ge-
netic algorithms by a hybrid artificial intelligence as the solution
method for solving a similar problem. Different site layouts for dif-
ferent construction periods could be designed using the genetic
algorithms (Elbeltagi et al. 2001). Safety and environmental factors
© ASCE 04016082-2
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1
may be incorporated in their design framework (Sanad et al. 2008;
Elbeltagi et al. 2004).
Furthermore, artificial intelligence (Tommelein et al. 1992), ge-
netic algorithms (Mavridou and Pardalos 1997; Li and Love 1998,
2000; Wong et al. 2010; Zouein et al. 2002; Hegazy and Elbeltagi
1999; Elbeltagi et al. 2004), ant colonies (Corry and Kozan 2004;
Lee 2012), tabu searches (Kulturel-Konak 2012), particle swarms
(Kulturel-Konak and Konak 2011), and annealed neural networks
(Yeh 1995) have been widely applied for different layout optimi-
zation problems. However, a major weakness of applying prob-
abilistic optimization methods is that their overall design accuracy
is restricted because of the randomness in searching the solution
spaces leading to suboptimal site layout planning. The advantage
of adopting a programming method is that such methods ensure
global optimal solutions in which a standard solver package is
readily available (Konak et al. 2006; Huang and Wong 2015;
Huang et al. 2010, 2011). To model different shapes and orienta-
tions of irregular facilities during layout planning, the present study
proposes a new cell optimization model that is formulated as a
binary mixed integer-linear programming (BMILP) problem and
solved by a standard branch-and-bound technique.
Discretized Cell Model for Site Layout Planning and
Optimization
Model Assumptions
1. The site area is discretized into a uniform mesh composed of
small-sized, square unit cells.
2. The regular (square and rectangle) or irregular (other than
square and rectangle) facilities of different shapes are divided
into small parts (pieces), and each unit cell has a square shape.
3. The entry and exit point or interior of a facility is represented by
one unit cell.
4. The unit cell is the finest unit for analysis, and the cell size is
sufficiently small to model any irregularity and shape.
5. Materials inside facilities are evenly distributed over all assigned
unit cells and transportation of different types of materials in-
ternally inside all facilities will incur subtotal cost C 0 .
6. With the objective function, material transportation costs are
optimized including costs induced externally from one facility
to another facility, C, and costs induced internally inside a fa-
cility from entry and exit point to other unit cells of the same
facility, C 0 .
7. Once unit cells are assigned to setup facilities, sufficient buffer
areas exist and are reserved to satisfy all necessary safety re-
quirements and to provide congestion-free material transporta-
tion paths.
8. One facility should contain an entry and exit point and all inter-
ior parts of that facility.
Cell Representation of a Construction Site
Facilities of both regular and irregular shapes are discretized
into small square areas, referred to as unit cells in the proposed
modeling framework. Unit cells are uniformly arranged in a two-
dimensional (2D) rectangular mesh of M unit cells along the ver-
tical direction and N unit cells along the horizontal direction, as
shown in Fig. 1 in which an example trapezoidal-shaped site is
represented by a set of structured unit cells (small squares shown
by dotted lines). The example site contains 11 × 11 unit cells
(M ¼ N ¼ 11 in size). Cell identification numbers, vertical and
horizontal positions, cell availability for facility setup, and gov-
erning constraints will be provided in the following sections.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 n=1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n=N=11
Apartment Block Apartment Block

m=1 Tree
Street Entrance
Tree
2 i=22
Available cells
3 for facility
assignment
s 4
s Apartment
t
t Block
r 5
r
e
Construction Site e Construction Site
e 6
e
t
t
7
Unavailable cells for
facility assignment
8
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

10
Street Entrance
i=111
n=M=11
Legend: Unit cell inside site boundary

Unit cell outside site boundary

Legend: Unit cell inside site boundary
Site boundary
Unit cell outside site boundary
Fig. 1. Cell representation of a site area
Site boundary

Fig. 2. Example unit cell representation of an irregular site

Vertical and Horizontal Positions of Unit Cells
In the proposed 2D modeling framework, the position of a unit cell
i is identified by its horizontal and vertical positions, H i and V i , as
calculated by Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively. Mathematically, the
symbol bc is used to round down a numerical figure (as calculated
by the mathematical function inside that symbol) to its nearest in-
teger. In Fig. 2, for example, a unit cell i ¼ 22 with N ¼ 11 and
ε ¼ 0.01, ði − εÞ=N, is 1.999; bði − εÞ=Nc converts that figure to
integral number 1. From Eqs. (1) and (2), the horizontal and vertical
positions of the cell i ¼ 22 can then be fixed at H22 ¼ 11 and
V 22 ¼ 2, respectively. This is similar for cell number i ¼ 111 with
H 111 ¼ 1 and V 111 ¼ 11


ði − εÞ
Hi ¼ i − · N; ∀ i ∈ f1; Ig ð1Þ
N only one entry and exit point for facility k, a binary variable xi;k and


ði − εÞ
Vi ¼ þ 1; ∀ i ∈ f1; Ig
N
Availability of Unit Cells for Facility Setup
Fig. 2 shows an example trapezoidal-shaped site; the site boundary
is outlined by solid lines. Unit cells (which are indicated by dotted
lines) fully inside the site boundary are considered to be available
for facility setup; on the other hand, those outside the boundary or
not fully inside the boundary will also be modeled but are unavail-
able for facility setup. Binary parameter ϖi is introduced in the
constraint set in Eq. (3), where 1 indicates that the unit cell i is
available and 0 indicates that it is not. For example, unit cell i ¼
111 in Fig. 2 is outside the site boundary; thus, ϖ111 ¼ 0. Mean-
while, unit cell i ¼ 22 is inside the boundary; thus, ϖ22 ¼ 1. Be-
cause this parameter is based on user-specified input, it allows users
to define the shape and boundary of any given site area

1 available for site facility assignment
ϖi ¼ ; ∀ i ∈ f1; Ig
0 unavailable for site facility assignment
ð3Þ
Assignment of Unit Cells for Facility Setup
Existence of Entry and Exit Point for Each Facility
Each facility is modeled to have one single entry and exit point,
which occupies one full unit cell. Mathematically, to fix one and
the constraint set in Eq. (4) are introduced. Binary variable xi;k
equals 1 if the entry and exit point of facility k is located in unit
ð2Þ cell i. Using the constraint set in Eq. (4), only one entry and exit
point for each facility will be allowed in one of the unit cells within
the mesh
X
I
xi;k ¼ 1; ∀ k ∈ f1; Kg ð4Þ
i¼1
Defining the Physical Size of a Facility Using the Number of
Unit Cells
Depending on the given physical size requirement for each facility,
the total number of unit cells required for facility k is defined by Sk
in the constraint set in Eq. (5). Variable Ak is the input size require-
ment of facility k, and a2 represents the area of a unit cell where a is
the side length. Mathematically, dAk =a2 e rounds up the result of
Ak =a2 to its nearest integer, which is then the minimum required
number of unit cells for facility k

© ASCE 04016082-3 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1

   n=1 2 3 4 5 n=N=6
Ak
Sk ¼ ; ∀ k ∈ f1; Kg ð5Þ
a2 j= j=
m=1 i-N-1
j=i-N
i-N+1
Assigning a Sufficient Number of Unit Cells to Setup an
Entire Facility 2 j=i-1 i j=i+1
A facility will be divided into two parts: the entry and exit point,
xi;k , and an interior space, yi;k . All parts of the interior space must 3
j=
j=i+N
j=
j=18
i+N-1 i+N+1
be allocated to different unit cells. In the constraint set in Eq. (6),
the sum of the binary variables xi;k and yi;k becomes the total num-
ber of unit cells assigned for facility k; this number should equal Sk 4 j=22 j=23 j=24
as given by the constraint set in Eq. (5), such that the exact physical
size of facility k is modeled 5 j=27 j=28 i=29 j=30

X
I
ðxi;k þ yi;k Þ ¼ Sk ; ∀ k ∈ f1; Kg ð6Þ m=M=6 j=34 j=35 j=36
i¼1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Facility Setup in Available Unit Cells Only

The constraint set in Eq. (7) is introduced to ensure that each unit Fig. 3. Modeling of typical unit cells
cell can only be assigned to the setup of a facility if that unit cell is
inside the prespecified site boundary given in Eq. (1) and also if that
unit cell is available—meaning, it is not currently occupied by other
facilities. For example, if the given binary parameter ϖi is 1— n=1 2 3 4 5 n=N=6
indicating that unit cell i is available inside the site boundary for
facility setup—then the unit cell is free for use in the setup of fa- m=1 i=1 j=i+1 j=i-1 i=N
cility k; thus, both xi;k and yi;k can be either 1 or 0. However, if ϖi
is 0, then unit cell i is either outside the site boundary or simply not j= j=
available for any facility setup; thus, the sum of xi;k and yi;k must be
2 j=i+N
i+N+1 i+N-1
j=i+N

forced to 0, using the constraint set in Eq. (7)

3
X
K
ϖi ≥ ðxi;k þ yi;k Þ; ∀ i ∈ f1; Ig ð7Þ
k¼1
4
j= j=
Establishing Direct and Indirect Cell Linkages 5 j=25 j=26 i+N-1 i+N
One important requirement in the proposed cell modeling frame-
work is to maintain facility homogeneity without splitting a facility m=M=6 i=31 j=32 j=i-1 i=I
apart at different locations during unit cell assignment. To satisfy
this key requirement in the formulation, the cell model requires an-
other binary parameter, ωi;j ¼ 1, to denote the adjacency linkage
between any two unit cells, i and j, for being directly or indirectly Fig. 4. Modeling of unit cells at corners
linked. For any two directly linked adjacent unit cells, one of their
side edges is in common. For any two indirectly linked adjacent
unit cells, only one cell corner is in common. If unit cells i and
j have no cell corner in common, the cells are considered to be to different modeling constraints. In general, typical unit cells
not linked at all; thus, ωi;j ¼ 0. Fig. 3 gives a sample site made are governed by the constraint set in Eq. (8)
up of 36 unit cells. In that figure, unit cell i ¼ 29 is directly linked
to four adjacent unit cells (23, 28, 30, and 35) (with entire cell edge ωi;j ¼ 1; ∀i ¼ m · N þ n; 1 ≤ m ≤ M − 2; 2 ≤ n ≤ N − 1;
between two circled corners in common) and unit cell i ¼ 29 is
indirectly linked to other four unit cells (22, 24, 34, and 36) with ∀j ¼ fi − 1; i þ 1; i − N − 1; j − N; i − N þ 1; i þ N − 1;
only a corner (one circle) in common; thus, ω29,22 ; ω29,23 ; ω29,24 ; i þ N; i þ N þ 1g ð8Þ
ω29,28 ; ω29,30 ; ω29,34 ; ω29,35 ; and ω29,36 are set to 1. All other re-
maining unit cells have no linkage with unit cell i ¼ 29; thus, Unit cells in the four corners are governed by the constraint
all associated ω29;j ∀j ¼ f1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; sets in Eqs. (9)–(12), respectively. For example, in Fig. 4, unit cell
15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 25; 26; 27; 29; 31; 32; 33g must be 0. i ¼ 31 is directly linked with unit cells j ¼ 25 and j ¼ 32 and
indirectly linked with unit cell j ¼ 26. Thus, ω31,25 ; ω31,26 , and
Classifying Typical, Corner, and Edge Cells in the Cell
ω31,32 are forced to be 1, as governed by the constraint set in
Modeling Framework
Eq. (11)
In Fig. 3, the 16 gray-shaded unit cells are classified as typical unit
cells. Each typical unit cell is always linked and surrounded by ωi;j ¼ 1; ∀i ¼ 1; ∀j ¼ fi þ 1; i þ N; i þ N − 1g ð9Þ
eight unit cells with four direct and another four indirect links
(e.g., typical unit cell i ¼ 22, 23, 27, 28, 29). Each unit cell located ωi;j ¼ 1; ∀i ¼ N; ∀j ¼ fi − 1; i þ N − 1; i þ Ng ð10Þ
in the four corners (e.g., the shaded cells in Fig. 4) is surrounded
and linked by three unit cells. Unit cells along the edges of a site ωi;j ¼ 1; ∀i ¼ ðM − 1Þ · N þ 1; ∀j ¼ fi − N; i − N þ 1; i þ 1g
boundary (e.g., the shaded cells in Fig. 5) are linked by five
unit cells. Having different properties, each unit cell is subject ð11Þ

© ASCE 04016082-4 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1

 n=1 2 3 4 5 n=N=6

m=1 i-1 i i+1 i-N-1 i-N

2 i+N-1 i+N i+N+1 i-1 i

3 i+N-1 i+N

4 i-N i-N+1

5 i i+1 i-N-1 i-N i-N+1

m=M=6 i+N i+N+1 i-1 i i+1

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Modeling of unit cells along the edges Fig. 6. Indirectly linked unit cells

ωi;j ¼ 1; ∀i ¼ I; ∀j ¼ fi − N − 1; i − N; i − 1g
Unit cells along the four edges (e.g., the shaded cells in Fig. 5),
excluding unit cells in the corners, should always be linked to five
adjacent unit cells. For any given unit cell i along any of the four
edges, the constraint sets in Eqs. (13)–(16) are required to establish
the correct linkages
ωi;j ¼ 1; 2 ≤ i ≤ N − 1;
∀j ¼ fi − 1; i þ 1; i þ N − 1; i þ N; i þ N þ 1g
ωi;j ¼ 1; ðM − 1Þ · N þ 2 ≤ i ≤ I − 1;
∀j ¼ fi − 1; i þ 1; i − N − 1; i − N; i − N þ 1g
ωi;j ¼ 1; ∀i ¼ m · N þ 1,1 ≤ m ≤ M − 1;
∀j ¼ fi − N; i − N þ 1; i þ 1; i þ N; i þ N þ 1g
ωi;j ¼ 1; ∀i ¼ m · N; 2 ≤ m ≤ M − 1;
∀j ¼ fi − N − 1; i − N; i − 1; i þ N − 1; i þ Ng
Fig. 6. Thus, more constraint sets are required to ensure that all
ð12Þ
interior parts, together with the entry and exit point, are first as-
signed to unit cells with direct links.
For typical unit cells, the constraint sets in Eqs. (18) and (19) are
required. When xi;k ¼ 1 in the constraint set in Eq. (18), the sum of
yi−N;k ; yi−1;k ; yiþ1;k , and yiþN;k must be at least 1, which means that
when the entry and exit point of facility k is located in unit cell i, at
least one of the four directly linked cells (i.e., cells i − N, i − 1,
i þ 1, or i þ N) must be occupied by an interior part of facility
k. Similarly, when yi;k equals 1, the sum of the binary variables
ð13Þ in the constraint set in Eq. (19) must be 1, thus ensuring that either
an interior part or the entry and exit point of the facility must be
assigned to one of the four directly linked unit cells. In Fig. 6, for
ð14Þ example, if unit cell i ¼ 29 is occupied by an interior part of the
facility, then the constraint sets in Eqs. (18) and (19) will force one
of the four unit cells 23, 28, 30, or 35 to be used to setup the same
facility
ð15Þ
yi−N;k þ yi−1;k þ yiþ1;k þ yiþN;k ≥ xi;k ; ∀i ¼ m · N þ n;
2 ≤ m ≤ M − 2; 2 ≤ n ≤ N − 1; 2 ≤ n ≤ N − 1;
ð16Þ ∀k ∈ f1; Kg ð18Þ

Facility Assignment to Directly and Indirectly

Linked Unit Cells xi−N;k þ xi−1;k þ xiþ1;k þ xiþN;k þ yi−N;k þ yi−1;k
For any two unit cells, i and j, without either direct or indirect links, þ yiþ1;k þ yiþN;k ≥ yi;k ; ∀i ¼ m · N þ n;
ωi;j ¼ 0 if the entry and exit point of facility k is assigned to unit
cell i—in which case, other interior parts of facility k should not be 2 ≤ m ≤ M − 2; 2 ≤ n ≤ N − 1; ∀k ∈ f1; Kg ð19Þ
assigned to unit cell j, according to the constraint set in Eq. (17),
Similarly, for unit cells in the different corners, the constraint
thus requiring yj;k ¼ 0. If ωi;j ¼ 1, then unit cell j is available for
sets in Eqs. (20)–(27) are provided
facility k setup because yj;k can be either 0 or 1 without violating
the constraint set in Eq. (17)
yiþ1;k þ yiþN;k ≥ xi;k ; ∀i ¼ 1; ∀k ∈ f1; Kg ð20Þ
1 − xi;k þ ωi;j ≥ yj;k ; ∀k ∈ f1; Kg; ∀i ∈ f1; Ig; ∀j ∈ f1; Ig ð17Þ
xiþ1;k þ xiþN;k þ yiþ1;k þ yiþN;k ≥ yi;k ; ∀i ¼ 1; ∀k ∈ f1; Kg ð21Þ
Shaping Facilities by Filling Directly and/or Indirectly
Linked Unit Cells
yi−1;k þ yiþN;k ≥ xi;k ; ∀i ¼ N; ∀k ∈ f1; Kg ð22Þ
With the constraint set in Eq. (17), the entry and exit point and an
interior part of a facility may be assigned onto either directly or
indirectly linked unit cells to match the physical size requirements. xi−1;k þ xiþN;k þ yi−1;k þ yiþN;k ≥ yi;k ; ∀i ¼ N; ∀k ∈ f1; Kg ð23Þ
However, indirect links between the entry and exit point and an
interior part of a facility in two different unit cells can possibly split
a single facility apart, as demonstrated by the six dotted cells in yiþ1;k þ yi−N;k ≥ xi;k ; ∀i ¼ ðM − 1Þ · N þ 1; ∀k ∈ f1; Kg ð24Þ

© ASCE 04016082-5 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1

 xiþ1;k þ xi−N;k þ yiþ1;k þ yi−N;k ≥ yi;k ; n=1 2 3 4 5 n=N=6

∀i ¼ ðM − 1Þ · N þ 1; ∀k ∈ f1; Kg ð25Þ m=1

yi−N;k þ yi−1;k ≥ xi;k ; ∀i ¼ I; ∀k ∈ f1; Kg ð26Þ 2

xi−1;k þ xi−N;k þ yi−1;k þ yi−N;k ≥ yi;k ; ∀i ¼ I; ∀k ∈ f1; Kg ð27Þ 3

Unit cells along the edges, excluding unit cells at corners, are 4 i=24
always directly linked to three other unit cells. The constraint sets
in Eqs. (28)–(35) provide similar controls for those unit cells 5 VD24,33
yi−1;k þ yiþ1;k þ yiþN;k ≥ xi;k ; 2 ≤ i ≤ N − 1; ∀k ∈ f1; Kg ð28Þ
m=M=6 j=33

xi−1;k þ xiþ1;k þ xiþN;k þ yi−1;k þ yiþ1;k þ yiþN;k ≥ yi;k ; HD24,33

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2 ≤ i ≤ N − 1; ∀k ∈ f1; Kg ð29Þ H 24 − H 33

yi−N;k þ yiþ1;k þ yiþN;k ≥ xi;k ; Fig. 7. Separation between a pair of unit cells
∀i ¼ m · N þ 1; 1 ≤ m ≤ M − 2; ∀k ∈ f1; Kg ð30Þ

xi−N;k þ xiþ1;k þ xiþN;k þ yi−N;k þ yiþ1;k þ yiþN;k ≥ yi;k ; distance with unit cell length a, the true physical distance can then
be determined using Eqs. (36) and (37)
∀i ¼ m · N þ 1; 1 ≤ m ≤ M − 2; ∀k ∈ f1; Kg ð31Þ
HDi;j ¼ ðjHi − Hj j þ 1Þ · a; ∀i ≠ j ∈ f1; Ig ð36Þ
yi−N;k þ yi−1;k þ yiþN;k ≥ xi;k ;
VDi;j ¼ ðjV i − V j j þ 1Þ · a; ∀i ≠ j ∈ f1; Ig ð37Þ
∀i ¼ m · N; 2 ≤ m ≤ M − 1; ∀k ∈ f1; Kg ð32Þ

xi−N;k þ xi−1;k þ xiþN;k þ yi−N;k þ yi−1;k þ yiþN;k ≥ yi;k ;
∀i ¼ m · N; 2 ≤ m ≤ M − 1; ∀k ∈ f1; Kg ð33Þ
yi−1;k þ yiþ1;k þ yi−N;k ≥ xi;k ;
ðM − 1Þ · N þ 2 ≤ i ≤ I − 1; ∀k ∈ f1; Kg ð34Þ
xi−1;k þ xiþ1;k þ xi−N;k þ yi−1;k þ yiþ1;k þ yi−N;k ≥ yi;k ;
ðM − 1Þ · N þ 2 ≤ i ≤ I − 1; ∀k ∈ f1; Kg ð35Þ
In short, the constraint sets in Eqs. (3)–(35) effectively avoid
splitting facilities apart into different cell locations during the
solution process.
Shaping of Facilities
Separations between Pairs of Unit Cells in the Horizontal
and Vertical Directions
A unit cell is the finest unit used in the proposed 2D modeling
framework. Thus, when measuring the horizontal and vertical sep-
arations that exist between a pair of unit cells, the number of unit
cells between them is a key unit of measurement. For example,
Fig. 7 graphically shows the separation that exists between two unit
cells, i and j; the number of unit cells between them, along the
horizontal and vertical directions, are given by HDi;j and VDi;j ,
respectively. Recall that H i and V i are calculated by Eqs. (1)
and (2), respectively, and identify the horizontal and vertical posi-
tions of unit cell i in the mesh system, and jH i − H j j and jV i − V j j
calculate the absolute distance, in unit cells, between the centers of
unit cells i and j in the horizontal and vertical directions, respec-
tively. Furthermore, recall that adding one unit cell to the calculated
distance is required to represent the actual distance (in unit cells)
between any one pair of unit cells. By further multiplying the total
Facility Assignment in Linked Unit Cells Involving the
Entry and Exit Point
One new feature in the proposed optimization algorithm is the abil-
ity to assign all facilities in the site area using a discretized cell
approach. Facilities of different shapes can then be modeled, thus
utilizing the best possible usage of the available site area. The entry
and exit point of a facility, occupying one full unit cell, will be
assigned first; all interior parts of that facility will then be assigned
to adjacently linked unit cells until the physical size requirements
have been matched. To model the possible different orientations of
a facility, the length (along the vertical direction) and width (along
the horizontal direction) must be taken into consideration. To mea-
sure the separation between the entry and exit point and an interior
part of a facility, an auxiliary set of binary variables, λi;j;k , is in-
troduced to represent whether unit cells i and j are simultaneously
assigned for the setup of facility k. In the constraint set in Eq. (38),
if both binary variables xi;k and yi;k equal 1, meaning that the entry
and exit point and an interior part of facility k are allocated, respec-
tively, in unit cells i and j, then λi;j;k must equal 1. Otherwise, if xi;k
or yi;k is 0, then λi;j;k must equal 0 according to the constraint sets
in Eqs. (39) and (40)
2 − xi;k − yj;k ≥ 1 − λi;j;k ∀k ∈ f1; Kg; ∀i; j ∈ f1; Ig ð38Þ
xi;k ≥ λi;j;k ; ∀k ∈ f1; Kg; ∀i; j ∈ f1; Ig ð39Þ
yj;k ≥ λi;j;k ; ∀k ∈ f1; Kg; ∀i; j ∈ f1; Ig ð40Þ
Facility Assignment in Linked Unit Cells, Excluding the
Entry and Exit Point
Another similar auxiliary binary variable, ηi;j;k , is defined and
governed by the constraint set in Eq. (41) for unit cells i and j,
not involving the entry and exit point, to setup facility k. If both
yi;k and yj;k equal 1, meaning that two interior parts of facility k
are assigned to unit cells i and j, then ηi;j;k must equal 1. Otherwise,

© ASCE 04016082-6 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1

 ηi;j;k equals 0, which is restricted by the constraint sets in Eqs. (42)
and (43)
2 − yi;k − yj;k ≥ 1 − ηi;j;k ; ∀k ∈ f1; Kg; ∀i; j ∈ f1; Ig ð41Þ
yi;k ≥ ηi;j;k ; ∀k ∈ f1; Kg; ∀i; j ∈ f1; Ig ð42Þ
yj;k ≥ ηi;j;k ; ∀k ∈ f1; Kg; ∀i; j ∈ f1; Ig ð43Þ
Facility Orientation Satisfying Length and Width
Requirements
The proposed cell formulation is able to handle irregularities as
well as differently shaped facilities and site boundaries. Generally,
the objective function of site layout planning is set to minimize the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
total material transportation costs among different facilities (Huang
and Wong 2015). It is thus expected that facilities be closely packed
and that the orientation of any given facility be optimized for
achieving the best possible site layout shape in terms of unit cell
assignment. To ensure the best orientation and location of the fa-
cilities during the unit cell optimization process, a binary variable,
ϕk , is required to represent the orientation of facility k. In the con-
straint sets in Eqs. (44)–(47), when both λi;j;k and ηi;j;k are 1, then
λi;j;k · VDi;j and ηi;j;k · VDi;j give the vertical distance between
unit cells i and j, while λi;j;k · HDi;j and ηi;j;k · HDi;j give the hori-
zontal distance between unit cells i and j (which here represent any
two parts of the given facility). In Fig. 8, for example, all facilities
that occupy five unit cells are different in their shape and orienta-
tion. For facilities k ¼ 1 and k ¼ 2, when binary variable ϕk ¼ 1 in
the constraint sets in Eqs. (44) and (45), then Lk must be greater
than or equal to both ηi;j;k · VDi;j and λi;j;k · VDi;j ; when binary
variable ϕk ¼ 1 in the constraint sets in Eqs. (46) and (47), then
W k must be greater than or equal to bothλi;j;k · HDi;j and
ηi;j;k · HDi;j . Therefore, when ϕk ¼ 1, the long edge of facilities
k ¼ 1 and k ¼ 2 is parallel to the vertical direction and the short
edge is assigned along the horizontal direction. Otherwise, when
ϕk ¼ 0, the orientation of facility k ¼ 3 will be rotated until its long
edge is parallel to the horizontal direction
ηi;j;k · VDi;j ≤ ϕk · Lk þ ð1 − ϕk Þ · W k ;
∀k ∈ f1; Kg; ∀i ∈ f1; Ig; ∀j ∈ f1; Ig ð44Þ
λi;j;k · VDi;j ≤ ϕk · Lk þ ð1 − ϕk Þ · W k ;
∀k ∈ f1; Kg; ∀i ∈ f1; Ig; ∀j ∈ f1; Ig ð45Þ
n=1 2 3 4 5 n=N=6
m=1
2 Facility k
Facility 1
3 j
φ1 = 1
4 Facility 2
φ2 = 1
5 ·
Facility 3
φ3 = 0
m=M=6
Fig. 8. Different facility orientations
© ASCE 04016082-7
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1
λi;j;k · HDi;j ≤ ϕk · W k þ ð1 − ϕk Þ · Lk ;
∀k ∈ f1; Kg; ∀i ∈ f1; Ig; ∀j ∈ f1; Ig ð46Þ
ηi;j;k · HDi;j ≤ ϕk · W k þ ð1 − ϕk Þ · Lk ;
∀k ∈ f1; Kg; ∀i ∈ f1; Ig; ∀j ∈ f1; Ig ð47Þ
Material Transportation Distance between Facilities
The proposed cell model assumes that materials are delivered be-
tween the entry and exit points of different facilities. The distance
between two assigned unit cells refers to the distance between their
centers. In Eq. (48), jH i − Hj j and jV i − V j j are the horizontal and
vertical distances between unit cells i and j, respectively. By multi-
plying the unit cell length, a, the actual transportation distance, Di;j
(as indicated by a hidden line in Fig. 9), can be calculated
Di;j ¼ ðjHi − Hj j þ jV i − V j jÞ · a; ∀i ≠ j ∈ f1; Ig ð48Þ
Existence of Material Flows between Facilities
A set of binary variables, Fk;o;u , is defined to identify whether a
material type, u, is transported from a facility, k, to another facility,
o. In the constraint set in Eq. (49), a user-defined input, Qk;o;u ,
specifies the quantity of material type u that is required from fa-
cility k to facility o. Parameter ε 0 is an arbitrary, large integral num-
ber. If Qk;o;u is 0, then ε 0 · Qk;o;u is also 0, which in turn forces
Fk;o;u to be 0 as well; in other words, the respective material flow
does not exist. Otherwise, ε 0 · Fk;o;u must be greater than Qk;o;u ;
this then requires Fk;o;u to be 1 so that the existence of the material
flows may be denoted
ε 0 · Qk;o;u ≥ ε 0 · Fk;o;u ≥ Qk;o;u ; ∀k ≠ o ∈ f1; Kg; ∀u ∈ f1; Ug
ð49Þ
Establishing Material Transportation Flows between
Facilities Externally
In the proposed cell model, material movements inside a site area
are referred to as the material flows between the entry and exit
points of different facilities. An auxiliary binary-type variable,
δ i;j;k;o;u , is defined in Eq. (50) to represent the existence of the
material flows of material type u between the entry and exit points
n=1 2 3 4 5 n=N=6
m=1
i
2
k*
Vi − V j
3 Di , j
4 o*
5 Facility o
m=M=6
Hi − H j
Fig. 9. Travel distance between facilities for material transportation
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.
 at unit cells i and j of any two related facilities, k and o, where Total Material Transportation Costs as the Objective
k ≠ o and i ≠ j. Parameter δ i;j;k;o;u is useful for maintaining Function
linearity while formulating relationships between different facili-
The total material transportation costs are defined as an objective
ties; it is governed by the constraint set in Eq. (50). Numerically,
function for optimization including interfacility transportation cost,
if xi;k ¼ 1, xj;o ¼ 1, and Fk;o;u ¼ 1, then a material flow must
C, for materials transported externally among facilities as given in
exist—that is, δ i;j;k;o;u ¼ 1. Otherwise, if xi;k , xj;o , or Fk;o;u equals
Eq. (63) and internal material transportation cost, C 0 , induced for
0, then δ i;j;k;o;u is forced to also be 0, according to the constraint sets
material movements from entry and exit points to all other interior
in Eqs.(51)–(53)
parts inside the same facility as given in Eq. (64)
3 − xi;k − xj;o − Fk;o;u ≥ 1 − δi;j;k;o;u ; X
I X
I X
K X
K X
U

∀k ≠ o ∈ f1; Kg; ∀i ≠ j ∈ f1; Ig; ∀u ∈ f1; Ug ð50Þ C¼ δ i;j;k;o;u · ρk;o;u · Di;j · Qk;o;u ; ∀k ≠ o;∀i ≠ j
i¼1 j¼1 k¼1 o¼1 u¼1

ð63Þ
xi;k ≥ δi;j;k;o;u ; ∀k ≠ o ∈ f1; Kg; ∀i ≠ j ∈ f1; Ig; ∀u ∈ f1; Ug ð51Þ
X
I X
I X
K X
U X
K 
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

xj;o ≥ δ i;j;k;o;u ; ∀k ≠ o ∈ f1; Kg; ∀i ≠ j ∈ f1; Ig; ∀u ∈ f1; Ug ð52Þ C0 ¼ 2 · λi;j;o · Qk;o;u =So · ρo;u
0
· Di;j ;
i¼1 j¼1 o¼1 u¼1 k¼1

∀k ≠ o; ∀i ≠ j ð64Þ
Fk;o;u ≥ δi;j;k;o;u ; ∀k ≠ o ∈ f1; Kg; ∀i ≠ j ∈ f1; Ig; ∀u ∈ f1; Ug
ð53Þ An auxiliary binary variable δ i;j;k;o;u given in Eq. (63) denotes
which type of material, u, is transported between the entry and exit
points, k and o , of facilities k and o, which are located in unit
Minimum Safety Distance cells i and j, respectively. After multiplying the input parameters
Qk;o;u , ρk;o;u , and Di;j —which (respectively) represent the de-
To ensure that there exists a minimum safety distance separating manded quantity of material type u from facility k to facility o, the
any two facilities such as site staff office and storage for hazardous material transportation cost per unit of material u, and the travel
materials, two auxiliary binary-type variables, δ i;j;k;o
0 and δ i;j;k;o
00 , are distance between unit cells and j—the subtotal external material
defined and governed by Eqs. (54)–(62). When δ i;j;k;o 0
¼ 1, the en- transportation cost C can be obtained using Eq. (63). Eq. (64) is to
try and exit point of facility k and a part of facility o are respectively evaluate the subtotal cost C 0 for the internal material movements
allocated at unit cells i and j where k ≠ o and i ≠ j. Similarly, from the entry and exit point located at unit cell i to all other interior
δ i;j;k;o
00
¼ 1 indicates that a part of facility k and a part of facility parts of unit cells j of the same facility o. A numerical factor of 2 is
o are assigned respectively at unit cells i and j. An input parameter applied to realize the (round trip) traveling paths for (1) distributing
SDk;o specifying a minimum safety distance between facilities k the raw materials onto different unit cells within the facility from
and o is introduced. In the constraint set in Eq. (60), if δ i;j;k;o
0
equals the entry and exit point and (2) returning to the entry and exit point
1, the distance Di;j between unit cell i where the entry and exit from those interior unit cells after the production process. Param-
point of facility k locates and unit cell j where a part of facility eter λi;j;o is a set of binary variables specifying whether unit cell i is
o is located must be greater than the safety distance SDk;o . Eqs. (61) the entry and exit point andP unit cell j is an interior part of a facility
and (62) are similar constraint sets to govern δ i;j;k;o00
and δ i;j;k;o;u o (= 1 if yes and = 0 if no); Kk¼1 Qk;o;u represents the total quantity
fulfilling the respective safety distance requirements of material type u being transported from all other facilities k to
2 − xi;k − yj;o ≥ 1 − δ i;j;k;o
0
; ∀k ≠ o ∈ f1; Kg; ∀i ≠ j ∈ f1; Ig ð54Þ enter facility o; So is a user input for the physical size of a facility
o; ρo;u
0
is a user-specified unit cost for internal material transporta-
tion inside a facility; and Di;j is the physical travel distance be-
xi;k ≥ δ i;j;k;o
0 ; ∀k ≠ o ∈ f1; Kg; ∀i ≠ j ∈ f1; Ig ð55Þ tween unit cell i and unit cell j. It is assumed that all materials
entering facility o from all other facilities k are evenly distributed
over all the unit cells assigned for a facility o
yj;o ≥ δi;j;k;o
0 ; ∀k ≠ o ∈ f1; Kg; ∀i ≠ j ∈ f1; Ig ð56Þ
Minimize C þ γC 0
Ω
2 − yi;k − yj;o ≥ 1 − δ i;j;k;o
00 ; ∀k ≠ o ∈ f1; Kg; ∀i ≠ j ∈ f1; Ig ð57Þ
subject to constraint sets in Eqs. (1)–(62)

yi;k ≥ δ i;j;k;o
00
; ∀k ≠ o ∈ f1; Kg; ∀i ≠ j ∈ f1; Ig ð58Þ Ω ∈ fδi;j;k;o;u ; Fk;o;u ; xi;k ; yi;k ; φk g

The problem of site layout planning is formulated as a standard

yj;o ≥ δi;j;k;o
00
; ∀k ≠ o ∈ f1; Kg; ∀i ≠ j ∈ f1; Ig ð59Þ BMILP problem in order to minimize C þ γC 0 based on the key
binary variable set Ω ∈ fδi;j;k;o;u ; Fk;o;u ; xi;k ; yi;k ; ϕk g subject to
the linear constraint sets in Eqs. (1)–(62). A user-defined weighting
δ i;j;k;o
0
ðDi;j − SDk;o Þ ≥ 0; ∀k ≠ o ∈ f1; Kg; ∀i ≠ j ∈ f1; Ig ð60Þ parameter γ is introduced in the objective function to weight and
differentiate the influences of the internal and external material
transportation costs in the total material transportation costs dur-
δ i;j;k;o
00 ðDi;j − SDk;o Þ ≥ 0; ∀k ≠ o ∈ f1; Kg; ∀i ≠ j ∈ f1; Ig ð61Þ
ing the optimization process. The present programming problem
can then be effectively solved by a standard branch-and-bound
δ i;j;k;o;u ðDi;j − SDk;o Þ ≥ 0; ∀k ≠ o ∈ f1; Kg; technique using a commercial solver package Gurobi with the
programming language Python to generate the optimal unit cell
∀i ≠ j ∈ f1; Ig; ∀u ∈ f1; Ug ð62Þ arrangements and the respective site layout plans.

© ASCE 04016082-8 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1

 Table 1. Facility Types and Their Physical Size Requirements
Physical size requirements
Dimensional requirement Requirement in cell unit
Facility Area Ak Length Lk Width W k Area a
Length Width
number (k) Facility ðm2 Þ (m) (m) (cells) (cells) (cells)
1 Main gate 45 7≥ 7≥ 1 1 1
2 Side gate 45 7≥ 7≥ 1 1 1
3 Batching plant 180 ≥13 ≥10 4 ≥2 ≥2
4 Steel storage yard 225 ≥7 ≥6 5 ≥1 ≥1
5 Formwork storage yard 225 ≥6 ≥6 5 ≥1 ≥1
6 Bending yard 180 ≥12 ≥10 4 ≥2 ≥2
7 Cement, sand, aggregate storage yard 225 ≥6 ≥6 5 ≥1 ≥1
8 Curing yard 225 ≥15 ≥12 5 ≥3 ≥2
9 Refuse dumping area 135 ≥7 ≥6 3 ≥1 ≥1
10 Casting yard 135 ≥12 ≥10 3 ≥2 ≥2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

11 Lifting yard 180 ≥14 ≥11 4 ≥2 ≥2

a
Unit cell size is assumed to be 49 m2 and side length of unit cells is 7 m.

Numerical Example a discretized cell approach. In this section, a numerical example

containing (7 × 7 ¼ 49) unit cells is demonstrated to model the
To demonstrate the applicability of the proposed, discretized cell construction site.
model for designing facility locations, two numerical examples To verify the new discretized cell model, the proposed cell
will be given in which the proposed cell model will be used to model is first used in an attempt to replicate the optimization results
optimize facility locations without safety considerations containing obtained in previous studies. Modeling the 7 × 7 unit cells, a total
the constraint sets in Eqs. (1)–(53) and also with safety constraint of 49 unit cells are arranged in a square shape, as shown in Fig. 10,
sets comprising Eqs. (1)–(62). Both model runs will adopt the in which only 11 selected unit cells i ∈ f5; 9; 21; 23; 24; 29; 32; 35;
total material transportation cost in Eqs. (63) and (64) as the ob- 44; 45; 48g are activated as available site areas, thus duplicating the
jective function for optimization. Problem settings used in the point notation settings as found in Wong et al. (2010). The other
examples have been used in previous research based on point no- remaining 38 unit cells are assumed to be occupied (these are
tations; however, those works did not give any practical consider- shown as shaded) for the cell model verification. Every facility is
ation to the shapes of site and facilities or facility orientations while assumed to occupy only one full unit cell. The optimized facility
assigning facility locations. The example site layout has already locations resulting from the cell model are exactly the same as those
been optimized using genetic algorithms and integer programming resulting from Wong et al. (2010) in Fig. 11.
(Wong et al. 2010). Material flows among different facilities in- Having successfully demonstrated that the proposed cell model
clude completed precast unit (CPU); aggregate, sand, cement is able to replicate the same optimization results as those optimized
(ASC); reinforcement (R); and formwork (F). Eleven facilities by a conventional point modeling framework, more complicated
are modeled with the physical size requirements listed in Table 1. problem conditions will be modeled by relaxing all available unit
The unit transportation costs, ρk;o;u and ρo;u0
, for different types cells for facility assignment, facility sizes, irregular site boundaries,
of raw materials are 4.0 for R (u ¼ 1), 5.0 for ASC (u ¼ 2), 8.0 for irregular shapes, and site orientation as new design optimization
F (u ¼ 3), and 8.5 for CPU (u ¼ 4). The given quantities of differ- parameters. To implement the new cell optimization model, the
ent types of materials demanded from different facilities are given study site area is discretized and represented by structured unit
in Table 2. cells. The availability of the unit cells can be specified by the binary
Conventional models require users to specify all available site parameter ϖi, where ϖi ¼ 1 indicates that unit cell i is inside the
locations as input. A key enhancement provided by the present site boundary and available for facility assignment and ϖi ¼ 0 in-
study is the ability to model a site area and various facilities using dicates that unit cell i is either outside the site boundary or not
available for facility assignment. In Fig. 12, the gray-shaded unit
cells marked with 0 are not available for facility assignment; other
Table 2. Quantity of Demanded Material Flows in the Study Site unit cells, which are marked with 1, are available.
With the physical dimensions and respective length and width
From facility (k) To facility (o) Material flow (Qk;o;u )
constraints given in Table 1, optimization of the cell model can be
1 4 30 (R) conducted based on the problem formulation given in the previous
1 7 20 (ASC) section. In general, to determine the size of unit cells, the approach
2 4 20 (R)
adopted by Hegazy and Elbeltagi (1999), whose study set the size
2 7 15 (ASC)
3 10 35 (ASC) of each cell using the greatest common divisor (g.c.d.) among all
4 6 50 (R) modeled facilities, is followed. In this case study, Columns 1, 3, 4,
5 10 48 (F) and 5 in Table 1 are input dimensional requirements. The physical
6 10 50 (R) area required for each facility ranged from 45 to 225 m2 . The great-
7 3 35 (ASC) est common divisor among all sizes of facilities is 45 m2 in the case
8 11 48 (CPU) study. Because unit cells are modeled in square shape in the pro-
10 8 48 (CPU) posed modeling framework (Assumption 1), the nearest size of a
11 1 28 (CPU) unit cell would be 7 × 7 m ¼ 49 m2 (45 ~ m2 ) and the remaining
11 2 20 (CPU) 2
(4 m ¼ 49 − 45) is assumed to reserve for material transportation

© ASCE 04016082-9 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1

 i=5
11
0 0 1 1 1 1 0
i=9
1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
i=21
0 1 1 1 1 1 1
9
i=23 i=24
0 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 3
i=29 i=32 i=35
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 4 8
0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

i=44 i=45 i=48

0 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 5 7

Unavailable Available
0 Space 1 Space
Available 1 Available Location
Location Number
Fig. 12. Unit cell availability for facility setup
i Cell Number

Fig. 10. Discretized cell modeling framework

4 4 4 6

(9) 11 1* 4 4* 6* 6

(1) 1 11 8 8 10 6 5

(7) 9 11* 11 8* 10* 5* 5

(11) 2 (8) 3 2* 11 8 8 10 5 5

(2) 10 (10) 4 (3) 8 7 7* 3 3* 3 9

7 7 7 3 9* 9

(4) 6 (6) 5 (5) 7 1 1

1* The entry/exit 1*
Facility 1
of facility 1
1 1
Available Location
1
Number (1) Facility Number
Fig. 13. Optimal site layout without safety constraints by the cell
Fig. 11. Cell representation of the optimal site layout model

path (Assumption 7). With these, Columns 6–8 in Table 1 can be
prepared to serve as the user’s input to the cell model as the physical
size requirements in terms of unit cell numbers for implementing
the cell model.
The optimized facility locations and layouts are diagrammati-
cally given in Fig. 13, presenting all unit cell usages for the 11 types
of facilities. Observe that—in terms of facility locations, positions
of the entry and exit points, and the shapes and orientations of
different facilities—the optimized site layout plan result has greater
solution complexity than does the conventional point modeling
approach. In total, five different shapes exist in the optimized site
layout plan (L, T, I, U, and F) for different facilities. For example,
Facilities 8 (curing yard), 9 (refuse dumping area), and 10 (casting
yard) are in U, L, and I shapes, respectively. Facilities 3 (batching
yard), 6 (bending yard), and 11 (lifting yard) each occupy four unit
cells are all in T shape but different orientations. The minimized
subtotal external material transportation cost C is 36,183.0 cost
units and the minimized subtotal internal material transportation
cost γC 0 is 1,651.76 cost units and their details are listed in Tables 3
and 4, respectively. In Table 3, Column 8 gives the subtotal of

© ASCE 04016082-10 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1

 external material transportation cost that is the product of the
material flow quantities (Column 5), unit transportation costs (Col-
umn 6), and transportation distances between pairs of facilities al-
located in different unit cells (Column 7); the sum of the subtotal
cost is 36,183.0 cost units. Similar cost evaluation details for
internal material transportation cost inside all facilities, γC 0 , are
given in Table 4.
The proposed model is solved by the commercial Gurobi soft-
ware (academic version) on a desktop computer (Lenovo, China)
with an i5-2400 3.10 GHz CPU and 4 GB RAM. A total of 912,464

Table 3. Material Flows and Subtotal of External Material Transportation Cost

From To
Material flow Unit Subtotal
Facility Unit cell Facility Unit cell quantity transportation Transportation transportation Construction
(k) (i) (o) (j) (Qk;o;u ) cost (ρk;o;u ) distance (Di;j ) cost material (u)a
1 9 4 11 30 4.0 14 1,680 R
1 9 7 38 20 5.0 35 3,500 ASC
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2 29 4 11 20 4.0 42 3,360 R
2 29 7 38 15 5.0 21 1,575 ASC
3 40 10 26 35 5.0 14 2,450 ASC
4 11 6 12 50 4.0 7 1,400 R
5 27 10 26 48 8.0 7 2,688 F
6 12 10 26 50 4.0 14 2,800 R
7 38 3 40 35 5.0 14 2,450 ASC
8 25 11 23 48 8.5 14 5,712 CPU
10 26 8 25 48 8.5 7 2,856 CPU
11 23 1 9 28 8.5 14 3,332 CPU
11 23 2 29 20 8.5 14 2,380 CPU
Note: Optimized subtotal cost for external material transportation is C ¼ 36,183.0.
a
u ¼ 1 for R, u ¼ 2 for ASC, u ¼ 3 for F, and u ¼ 4 for CPU.

Table 4. Material Flows and Subtotal of Internal Material Transportation Cost

Entry and exit point Facility parts
Material quantity in Unit transportation Transportation Subtotal
Facility Unit cell Unit cell each
P facility part cost inside distance transportation Material
(o) (i) (j) ( Kk¼1 Qk;o;u =So ) 0 )
facility (ρo;u (Di;j ) cost type (u)a
3 40 39 8.75 5.0 7 306.25 ASC
41 7 306.25
47 7 306.25
4 11 3 10.0 4.0 14 560.00 R
4 7 280.00
5 14 560.00
10 7 280.00
5 27 21 9.6 8.0 14 1,075.20 F
28 7 537.60
34 7 537.60
35 14 1,075.20
6 12 6 12.5 4.0 14 700.00 R
13 7 350.00
20 14 700.00
7 38 37 7.0 5.0 7 245.00 ASC
44 14 490.00
45 7 245.00
46 14 490.00
8 25 17 9.6 8.5 14 1,142.40 CPU
18 7 571.20
31 14 1,142.40
32 7 571.20
10 26 19 16.0 8.5 7 952.00 CPU
33 7 952.00
11 23 23 12.0 8.5 7 714.00 CPU
16 7 714.00
24 7 714.00
16,517.55
Note: Optimized subtotal cost for internal material transportation is ¼ 0.05 × 2 × 16,517.55 ¼ 1,651.76γC0 .
a
u ¼ 1 for R, u ¼ 2 for ASC, u ¼ 3 for F, and u ¼ 4 for CPU.

© ASCE 04016082-11 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1

 11 facilities. The entire site layout and shapes of some facilities will
be changed as well. While fulfilling the new safety requirements,
4 4 11 11
the objective function value that is the total material transportation
cost, C þ γC 0 , would be increased by 12.93% from 37,834.76 to
1* 4* 8 11 * 11 42,726.36 cost units. Tables 5 and 6 provide the calculation details
for the subtotal material transportation costs C 0 and γC 0 with safety
4 4 8 8* 8 5 constraints, respectively.

6 6* 8 10 * 5* 5 Conclusions

Facility layout design is an essential planning step in order to re-

2* 6 6 10 10 5 5
solve potential spatial conflicts while setting different facilities onto
a given site location during the operational stage. Conventionally,
7 7* 3 3* 3 9 available spaces and facilities have been modeled and represented
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

by simplified point notations without any consideration given to

7 7 7 3 9* 9
1 1
1* The entry/exit 1*
of facility 1 Facility 1
1 1
Fig. 14. Optimal site layout with safety constraints by the cell model
binary variables and 1,376,584 linear constraints have been built
for the cell model in the site layout optimization problem. The total
computation time required to reach the global optimal solution is
approximately 7.81 h (~28,120 s).
For the cell model with the additional safety constraint sets in
Eqs. (54)–(62) added, safety distance SD1,11 ¼ 10 m is specified to
separate the lifting yard (Facility 11) and the entrance gate (Facility 1)
and another safety distance SD2,11 ¼ 30 m is set to separate the
lifting yard (Facility 11) and the exit gate (Facility 2). With these
constraint sets, the lifting yard (Facility 11) can no longer be allo-
cated next to the two entrance and exit gates of the site but is forced
to be set up at a new location (top right-hand corner of the site) as
shown in Fig. 14 presenting a new optimized site layout plan for all
the requirements presented by actual facility shapes and orienta-
tions. The proposed cell optimization model utilizes small unit cells
to discretize any given site area in a way that facilitates represen-
tations of irregular site spaces and facilities.
Having verified the cell model’s ability to replicate an
optimal site layout that was previously determined by conventional
point modeling, the cell model was then applied to more compli-
cated requirements involving different facility sizes and orienta-
tions, irregular site boundaries, and irregular facility shapes.
More realistic design constraints regarding size, orientation, and
shape were added in the form of linear-type mathematical con-
straints. The cell model was then formulated as a BMILP, and a
standard branch-and-bound technique was applied to obtain the
global optimal solution. A numerical example consisting of 11 fa-
cilities to be allocated in a 7 × 7 unit cell system was demonstrated.
A total of 912,464 binary variables and 1,376,584 linear con-
straints were developed; the solution time was approximately
7.8 h.
Results indicate that the cell model is capable of optimizing very
different site arrangements in order to setup different facilities at
various locations. Because different shapes and orientations may
be used when allocating facilities, the available site space can
be better utilized. Future work will likely enhance the cell model
such that it may be used to plan site layouts for multiple construc-
tion stages at a time.

Table 5. Material Flows and Subtotal of External Material Transportation Cost with Safety Constraints
From To
Material flow Unit Transportation Subtotal
Facility Unit cell Facility Unit cell quantity transportation distance transportation Construction
(k) (i) (o) (j) (Qk;o;u ) cost (ρk;o;u ) (Di;j ) cost material ua
1 9 4 10 30 4.0 7 840 R
1 9 7 38 20 5.0 35 3,500 ASC
2 29 4 10 20 4.0 35 2,800 R
2 29 7 38 15 5.0 21 1,575 ASC
3 40 10 26 35 5.0 14 2,450 ASC
4 10 6 24 50 4.0 14 2,800 R
5 27 10 26 48 8.0 7 2,688 F
6 24 10 26 50 4.0 14 2,800 R
7 38 3 40 35 5.0 14 2,450 ASC
8 19 11 12 48 8.5 7 2,856 CPU
10 26 8 19 48 8.5 7 2,856 CPU
11 12 1 9 28 8.5 21 4,998 CPU
11 12 2 29 20 8.5 49 8,330 CPU
Note: Optimized subtotal cost for external material transportation cost is C ¼ 40,943.0.
a
u ¼ 1 for R, u ¼ 2 for ASCE, u ¼ 3 for F, and u ¼ 4 for CPU.

© ASCE 04016082-12 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1

 Table 6. Material Flows and Subtotal of Internal Material Transportation Cost with Safety Constraints
Entry and exit point Facility parts
Material quantity in Unit transportation Transportation Subtotal
Facility Unit cell Unit cell each
P facility part cost inside distance transportation Material
(o) (i) (j) ( Kk¼1 Qk;o;u =So ) 0 )
facility (ρo;u (Di;j ) cost type ua
3 40 39 8.75 5.0 7 306.25 ASC
41 7 306.25
47 7 306.25
4 10 3 10 4.0 7 280.00 R
4 14 560.00
16 14 560.00
17 7 280.00
5 27 21 9.6 8.0 14 1,075.20 F
28 7 537.60
34 7 537.60
35 14 1,075.20
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

6 24 23 12.5 4.0 7 350.00 R

30 14 700.00
31 7 350.00
7 38 37 7.0 5.0 7 245.00 ASC
44 14 490.00
45 7 245.00
46 14 490.00
8 19 11 9.6 8.5 14 1,142.40 CPU
18 7 571.20
20 7 571.20
25 14 1,142.40
10 26 32 16 8.5 14 1,904.00 CPU
33 7 952.0
11 12 5 12 8.5 7 714.00 CPU
6 14 1,428.00
13 7 714.00
17,833.55
Note: Optimized subtotal cost for internal material transportation is ¼ 0.05 × 2 × 17,833.55 ¼ 1,783.36γC 0 .
a
u ¼ 1 for R, u ¼ 2 for ASC, u ¼ 3 for F, and u ¼ 4 for CPU.

Acknowledgments M = total number of rows in a cell mesh for site

This work was supported by the City University of Hong Kong’s
Strategic Research Grant under Grant No. CityU 7004370 and
Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. NSFC
5150081022.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
a = unit length of a square unit cell;
Ak = actual size (area) of facility k;
C = subtotal of external material transportation cost among
facilities in a site;
C 0 = subtotal of internal material transportation cost inside
facilities;
Di;j = rectangular distance between unit cells i and j;
Fk;o;u = binary variable where Fk;o;u ¼ 1 means that a material
type u is delivered from facility k to another facility o,
and Fk;o;u ¼ 0 if no such material flow exists;
Hi = horizontal position of a unit cell i in a cell mesh;
HDi;j = horizontal separation between two unit cells i and j;
I = total number of cells in a cell mesh;
i; j = cell numbers in a cell mesh;
K = total number of facility types;
k = setup in a unit cell i, where xi;k ¼ 0 if not;
k; o = facility types;
Lk = physical length of facility k;
representation;
m = row number of a cell mesh for site representation;
N = total number of columns in a cell mesh for site
representation;
n = column number of a cell mesh for site representation;
Qk;o;u = quantity of demand flow of material type u between
facilities k and o;
SDk;o = minimal distance between facilities k and o;
Sk = number of unit cells required to setup facility k;
U = total number of material types;
u = material types;
V i = vertical position of a unit cell i in a cell mesh;
VDi;j = vertical separation between two unit cells i and j;
W k = physical width of facility k;
xi;k = binary decision variable where xi;k ¼ 1 means the entry
and exit point of facility;
yi;k = binary variable where yi;k ¼ 1 means that facility k
other than the entry and exit point is setup in a unit cell i,
and yi;k ¼ 0 if not;
γ = weighting parameter to specify the relative importance
between external (outside facilities) and internal (inside
facilities) material transportation costs in the
optimization process;
δ i;j;k;o;u = auxiliary binary variable where δi;j;k;o;u ¼ 1 means that
a material type u is delivered from facility k to o through
entry and exit points located in respective unit cells i and
j, and δ i;j;k;o;u ¼ 0 if not;

© ASCE 04016082-13 J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1

 δi;j;k;o
0
= auxiliary binary variable where δi;j;k;o
0
¼ 1 means that
entry and exit point of facility k and a part of facility o
are located in respective unit cells i and j, and δ i;j;k;o
0
¼ bays.” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 223(3), 614–625.
0 if not;
δi;j;k;o
00 = auxiliary binary variable where δ i;j;k;o
00 ¼ 1 means that a
part of facility k and a part of facility o are located in
respective unit cells i and j, and δi;j;k;o
00 ¼ 0 if not;
ε = arbitrary small number;
ε 0 = arbitrary large number;
ρk;o;u = unit cost of transporting material type u between
facilities k and o;
ρo;u
0 = unit cost of transporting material type u inside
facility o;
ϕk = binary variable where ϕk ¼ 1 indicates that the long side
of facility k is assigned along the vertical direction, and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Budi Atmoko on 05/09/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ϕk ¼ 0 indicates that the long side is assigned along the
horizontal direction;
ωi;j = binary parameter where ωi;j ¼ 1 means that a unit cell j
is located around another unit cell i, and ωi;j ¼ 0 if not;
and
ϖi = binary parameter where ϖi ¼ 1 means that a unit cell i
is available for facility setup, and ϖi ¼ 0 if not
available.
References
Andayesh, M., and Sadeghpour, F. (2013). “Dynamic site layout planning
through minimization of total potential energy.” Autom. Constr., 31,
92–102.
Corry, P., and Kozan, E. (2004). “Ant colony optimisation for machine
layout problems.” Comput. Optim. Appl., 28(3), 287–310.
Drira, A., Pierreval, H., and Hajri-Gabouj, S. (2007). “Facility layout prob-
lems: A survey.” Annu. Rev. Control, 31(2), 255–267.
Easa, S. M., and Hossain, K. M. A. (2008). “New mathematical optimiza-
tion model for construction site layout.” J. Civ. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:8(653), 653–662.
Elbeltagi, E., and Hegazy, T. (2001). “A hybrid AL-based system
for site layout planning in construction.” Comput. Aided Civ. Inf.,
16(2), 79–93.
Elbeltagi, E., Hegazy, T., and Eldosouky, A. (2004). “Dynamic layout
of construction temporary facilities considering safety.” J. Civ. Eng.
Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:4(534), 534–541.
Elbeltagi, E., Hegazy, T., and Hosny, A. H. (2001). “Schedule-dependent
evolution of site layout planning.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 19(7),
689–697.
El-Rayes, K., and Said, H. (2009). “Dynamic site layout planning using
approximate dynamic programming.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)0887-3801(2009)23:2(119), 119–127.
Gurobi version 5.5 [Computer software]. Gurobi Optimization, Houston,
TX.
Hegazy, T., and Elbeltagi, E. (1999). “EvoSite: Evolution-based model for
site layout planning.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801
(1999)13:3(198), 198–206.
Huang, C., and Wong, C. K. (2015). “Optimisation of site layout planning
for multiple construction stages with safety considerations and require-
ments.” Autom. Constr., 53, 58–68.
Huang, C., Wong, C. K., and Tam, C. M. (2010). “Optimization of material
hoisting operations and storage locations in multi-storey building
construction by mixed-integer programming.” Autom. Constr., 19(5),
656–663.
Huang, C., Wong, C. K., and Tam, C. M. (2011). “Optimization of tower
crane and material supply location operations and storage locations
in multi-storey building construction by mixed-integer programming.”
Autom. Constr., 20(5), 571–580.
Konak, A., Kulturel-Konak, S., Norman, B. A., and Smith, A. E. (2006). “A
new integer programming formulation for facility layout design using
flexible bays.” Oper. Res. Lett., 34(6), 660–672.
© ASCE 04016082-14
J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 2017, 143(1): -1--1
Kulturel-Konak, S. (2012). “A linear programming embedded probabilistic
tabu search for the unequal-area facility layout problem with flexible
Kulturel-Konak, S., and Konak, A. (2011). “A new relaxed flexible
bay structure representation and particle swarm optimization for the un-
equal area facility layout problem.” Eng. Optim., 43(12), 1263–1287.
Lam, K. C., Tang, C. M., and Lee, W. C. (2005). “Application of the
entropy technique and genetic algorithms to construction site layout plan-
ning of medium-size projects.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 23(2), 127–145.
Lee, H. Y. (2012). “Integrating simulation and ant colony optimization
to improve the service facility layout in a station.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000128, 259–269.
Li, H., and Love, P. E. D. (1998). “Site-level facility layout using genetic
algorithms.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(1998)
12:4(227), 227–231.
Li, H., and Love, P. E. D. (2000). “Genetic search for solving construction
site-level unequal-area facility layout problems.” Autom. Constr., 9(2),
217–226.
Li, Z., Shen, W., Xu, J., and Lev, B. (2015). “Bilevel and multi-objective
dynamic construction site layout and security planning.” Autom.
Constr., 57, 1–16.
Liggett, R. (2000). “Automated facilities layout: Past, present and future.”
Autom. Constr., 9(2), 197–215.
Mavridou, T. D., and Pardalos, R. M. (1997). “Simulated annealing and
genetic algorithms for the facility layout problem: A survey.” Comput.
Optim. Appl., 7(1), 111–126.
McKendall, A. R., and Hakobyan, A. (2010). “Heuristics for the dynamic
facility layout problem with unequal-area departments.” Eur. J. Oper.
Res., 201(1), 171–182.
Meller, R. D., and Bozer, Y. A. (1997). “Alternative approaches to solve
the multi-floor facility layout problem.” J. Manuf. Syst., 16(3), 192–203.
Meller, R. D., and Gau, K. Y. (1996). “Facility layout problem: Recent and
emerging trends and perspectives.” J. Manuf. Syst., 15(5), 351–366.
Sanad, H. M., Ammar, M. A., and Ibrahim, M. E. (2008). “Optimal
construction site layout considering safety and environmental aspects.”
J. Civ. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:7(536),
536–544.
Scholz, D., Petrick, A., and Domschke, W. (2009). “STaTS: A slicing tree
and tabu search based heuristic for the unequal area facility layout prob-
lem.” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 197(1), 166–178.
Singh, S., and Sharma, R. (2006). “A review of different approaches to the
facility layout problems.” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 30(5–6), 425–433.
Tam, C. M., Tong, T. K. L., and Chan, W. K. W. (2001). “Genetic algorithm
for optimizing supply locations around tower crane.” J. Civ. Eng.
Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2001)127:4(315), 315–321.
Tommelein, I. D., Levitt, R. E., and Hayes-Roth, B. (1992). “Site-layout
modeling: How can artificial intelligence help?” J. Civ. Eng. Manage.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2001)127:4(315), 315–321.
Tommelein, I. D., and Zouein, P. P. (1993). “Interactive dynamic layout
planning.” J. Civ. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1993)
119:2(266), 266–287.
Ulutas, B. H., and Kulturel-Konak, S. (2013). “Assessing hypermutation
operators of a clonal selection algorithm for the unequal area facility
layout problem.” Eng. Optim., 45(3), 375–395.
Wong, C. K., Fung, I. W. H., and Tam, C. M. (2010). “Comparing mixed-
integer programming and genetic algorithm for construction site facility
layout planning.” J. Civ. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943
-7862.0000214, 1116–1128.
Yeh, I. C. (1995). “Construction-site layout using annealed neural-network.”
J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(1995)9:3(201), 201–208.
Zhang, H., and Wang, J. Y. (2008). “Particle swarm optimization for con-
struction site unequal-area layout.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9364(2008)134:9(739), 739–748.
Zouein, P. P., Harmanani, H., and Hajar, A. (2002). “Genetic algorithm
for solving site layout problem with unequal size and constrained
facilities.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(2002)
16:2(143), 143–151.
Zouein, P. P., and Tommelein, I. D. (1999). “Dynamic layout planning
using a hybrid incremental solution method.” J. Civ. Eng. Manage.,
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1999)125:6(400), 400–408.
J. Constr. Eng. Manage.