European Journal of Operational Research 202 (2010) 730–746

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

European Journal of Operational Research

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

Production, Manufacturing and Logistics

Applying Ant System for solving Unequal Area Facility Layout Problems
Komarudin, Kuan Yew Wong *
Department of Manufacturing and Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Skudai, Malaysia

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

Article history: Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) is a young metaheuristic algorithm which has shown promising results in
Received 26 November 2008 solving many optimization problems. To date, a formal ACO-based metaheuristic has not been applied for
Accepted 18 June 2009 solving Unequal Area Facility Layout Problems (UA-FLPs). This paper proposes an Ant System (AS) (one of
Available online 24 June 2009
the ACO variants) to solve them. As a discrete optimization algorithm, the proposed algorithm uses slic-
ing tree representation to easily represent the problems without too restricting the solution space. It uses
Keywords: several types of local search to improve its search performance. It is then tested using several case prob-
Facility layout
lems with different size and setting. Overall, the proposed algorithm shows encouraging results in solving
Slicing tree representation
Ant System
UA-FLPs.
Metaheuristic Ó 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Unequal Area Facility Layout Problem

1. Introduction

Ant System (AS) is the first variant of Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) which was introduced by Dorigo and his colleagues in the early
1990s (Blum, 2005). ACO works by imitating the foraging behavior of ants when searching for the shortest path to reach their food source.
ACO was initially developed for solving the Traveling Salesman Problems (TSPs). Thereafter, its application was extended to solve various
kinds of discrete optimization problems including the Quadratic Assignment Problems (QAPs), Vehicle Routing Problems (VRPs), Job-Shop
Scheduling Problems (JSPs), etc.
This paper attempts to investigate the performance of AS when solving the Unequal Area Facility Layout Problems (UA-FLPs). To date, a
formal ACO-based metaheuristic has not been applied to solve them. Recent research has mainly used it to deal with QAPs (Hani et al.,
2007; Stützle and Dorigo, 1999; See and Wong, 2008; Wong and See, 2009a,b). Besides this, it has also been used for solving machine layout
problems (Corry and Kozan, 2004). Generally, ACO has been proven to perform outstandingly when solving QAPs, which are the backbone
problems for UA-FLPs (Stützle and Dorigo, 1999). This motivates the authors to create a new AS for solving UA-FLPs, and to investigate its
performance.
UA-FLPs were originally formulated by Armour and Buffa (1963). Conceptually, the main objective of UA-FLPs is to partition a given
area/region into departmental sub-regions so that the total material movement cost between departments could be minimized. The con-
straints for solving UA-FLPs (Meller and Gau, 1996) are: (1) all departments must be located within a given area or facility, (2) all depart-
ments must not overlap with each other, and (3) the layout must fulfill the maximum ratio constraints (or minimum value restrictions) for
the dimension of departments (length and width of each department).
This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the fundamentals of AS and current research in UA-FLPs. Section 3 discusses
about the new AS formulation created by the authors to solve UA-FLPs. Section 4 mentions the parameter settings and case problems which
are used to test the proposed algorithm. Section 5 analyzes and describes the evaluation results obtained. Finally, this paper ends with con-
clusions in Section 6.

2. Literature review

ACO is a discrete optimization technique which imitates the foraging behavior of an ant colony. Particularly, it resembles the behavior of
an ant colony in finding the shortest path to reach its food source. After the initialization of parameters and input of problem data, every
ACO iteration consists of ant solutions construction, local search procedures (optional), and pheromone information update. The explana-
tions of these three components are as follows (Blum, 2005):

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +607 5534691; fax: +607 5566159.

E-mail addresses: wongky@fkm.utm.my, kuanyewwong@yahoo.com (K.Y. Wong).

0377-2217/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2009.06.016
 Komarudin, K.Y. Wong / European Journal of Operational Research 202 (2010) 730–746 731

ConstructAntSolutions( ). A set of m artificial ants construct solutions from elements of a finite set of available solution components. A
solution construction starts with an empty partial solution. Then, at each construction step, the current partial solution is extended by add-
ing a feasible solution component from the set of available solution components. The choice of a solution component is selected probabi-
listically at each construction step.
ApplyLocalSearch( ). A local search phase could be implemented once solutions have been constructed by all ants in an iteration. The
strategies used in this phase are often called as daemon actions. In general, daemon actions could be used to implement a problem specific
and/or a centralized action, which intends to improve the solutions obtained by the ants.
PheromoneUpdating( ). The main objective of pheromone updating is to avoid premature search convergence, and to bias the ants’ search
into a solution search space that contains good or promising solutions. Usually, each ant performs pheromone updating by (i) decreasing all
the pheromone values through pheromone evaporation, and (ii) increasing the pheromone values associated with a chosen set of good
solution(s).
As mentioned before, UA-FLPs intend to determine the location and arrangement of departments within a given area or facility. In fact,
various methodologies and procedures have been proposed to solve these problems, which could be classified into: (1) exact procedures,
(2) heuristics and improvement procedures, and (3) metaheuristics. Recent research focused mainly on the use of exact procedures or
metaheuristics (or a combination between them) when solving UA-FLPs (Meller and Gau, 1996).
With respect to exact procedures, Meller and Gau (1996) stated that the first Mixed Integer Programming (MIP) formulation for
solving UA-FLPs was introduced by Montreuil in 1990. The major drawback of this method is that, it only solves problems with
six or less departments to optimality. Meller et al. (1999) proposed an improved surrogate perimeter constraint that performs a more
effective implementation by forcing a department’s area to rigorously adhere to changes in its perimeter. They reported optimal solu-
tions for problems with up to eight departments. Sherali et al. (2003) provided a similar approach that significantly reduces errors in
department areas by using a polyhedral outer approximation of the area constraints and branching priorities. Using the polyhedral
approximation and other innovative techniques, Sherali et al. (2003) reported optimal solutions for problems with up to nine depart-
ments. Likewise, Meller et al. (2007) presented a new formulation for UA-FLPs based on the sequence-pair representation. They tight-
ened the structure of the problem, and extended the solvable solution space from problems with nine departments to problems with
eleven departments.
In terms of metaheuristics, Tam and Li (1991) used Simulated Annealing (SA) to solve UA-FLPs. Specifically, their method is known as
Layout Optimization using Guillotine-Induced Cut (LOGIC). It uses SA to find a better layout by two-way exchanges of branching operators.
Tate and Smith (1995) used a Genetic Algorithm (GA) application to solve UA-FLPs by representing them as flexible bays. A dynamic pen-
alty function is used to evaluate the shape-constrained UA-FLPs. This method uses GA to search the solution search space by varying
department-to-bay assignments or by adding/removing bay breakpoints during implementation.
Castillo et al. (2005) used a Mixed Integer Nonlinear Programming (MINLP) for solving UA-FLPs. Their framework consists of an
exact representation of the underlying non-convex and hyperbolic area restrictions using a decision variable transformation and
symmetric convex lower bounds, together with simple constraints to avoid symmetric layout solutions. Their computational results
show that a convex optimization method yields global optimal solutions on several small test problems from the published
literature.
Anjos and Vannelli (2006) introduced a two-phase mathematical programming method to solve UA-FLPs. The first phase used in their
method is a relaxation of UA-FLPs, which intends to find a good starting point for algorithm implementation. In the second phase, an iter-
ative algorithm is used to solve the exact formulation of the problems as a non-convex Mathematical Program with Equilibrium Constraints
(MPEC). Although this two-phase mathematical programming method achieves better objective function values (as compared to those
achieved in other previous research) when solving UA-FLPs, it has been tested only on one UA-FLP instance introduced by Armour and Buffa
(1963).
Recently, Liu and Meller (2007) proposed an approach to solve UA-FLPs represented as sequence-pairs, by using GA and MIP. Con-
ceptually, Liu and Meller (2007) used GA to modify the solutions represented as sequence-pairs. Thereafter, the sequence-pair represen-
tation is transformed to become a feasible solution with MIP. The main purpose of using the sequence-pair representation is to eliminate
all infeasible binary variables which make large UA-FLPs intractable. Liu and Meller (2007) claimed that their method can produce exact
solutions up to eleven departments. Besides this, they have shown some improvements when solving problem instances with larger data
sets.
More recently, Scholz et al. (2009) proposed a Tabu Search (TS) algorithm with slicing tree representation for solving UA-FLPs.
They incorporated a bounding curve for solving fixed and flexible departments in UA-FLPs. Their Tabu Search incorporated four types
of neighborhood moves to find better solutions. They compared their algorithm with previous research and showed large
improvements.
From the previous literature review, it can be said that UA-FLP is still an active area. It also shows that Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) or
particularly Ant System (AS) has not been utilized to solve UA-FLPs. This encourages the authors to apply AS for solving them.

3. Formulation

In this section, a detailed explanation of the proposed AS algorithm will be given. Specifically, it describes the ant solution representa-
tion used and the three main phases of the proposed algorithm, i.e., ant solutions construction, local search procedures, and pheromone
information update.

3.1. Ant solution representation

The proposed AS algorithm uses a colony of artificial ants to construct new solutions through the slicing tree representation. In general,
the slicing tree representation recursively divides a facility (horizontally or vertically), in proportion to the areas of the departments. In the
732 Komarudin, K.Y. Wong / European Journal of Operational Research 202 (2010) 730–746

proposed algorithm, slicing tree is implemented using a solution representation which can be divided into three parts: (1) department se-
quence, (2) slicing sequence, and (3) slicing orientation. The first two parts are represented by integer numbers whereas the last part is
represented by binary numbers.
The department sequence is the ordering of n departments (represented by integer numbers), which will be transformed into a slicing
tree form. The slicing sequence is the ordering of n  1 integer numbers which slices the department sequence. The slicing orientation is
represented by n  1 binary numbers, whereby 0 represents a horizontal cut and 1 represents a vertical cut. This type of solution repre-
sentation is used (rather than other expressions such as the Polish expression (Wong and Liu, 1989)) because it separates the department
sequence from the slicing sequence and slicing orientation. This is needed because the department sequence can only be generated after
the creation of the dummy layout (which requires the slicing sequence and slicing orientation) as will be discussed in the next section.
Fig. 1 shows the solution representation, the slicing tree transformation, and the layout solution used by the authors. The transformation
from the solution representation to the slicing tree form can be described as follows: (1) mark the spaces between the department se-
quence with increasing integer numbers and these are the numbers which correspond to the slicing sequence, (2) the first item of the slic-
ing sequence will divide the department sequence into two branches, the slicing sequence determines the place where to cut and the
orientation type determines the cut type, (3) for the second until the last item of the slicing sequence, find the branch which consists
of the next unassigned item of the slicing sequence and make a new sub-branch according to the slicing sequence and orientation type.
The transformation from the slicing tree form to the layout solution is as follows: from the highest to the lowest branch of the slicing
tree, divide recursively the facility into two sub-facilities in proportion to the total areas of departments contained. If it is a horizontal cut,
the left sub-branch is placed at the bottom part of the facility and the right sub-branch is placed at the upper part of the facility. If it is a
vertical cut, the left sub-branch is placed at the left part and the right sub-branch is placed at the right part. Although the solution repre-
sentation is redundant, it is used in the proposed algorithm for local search implementation. It could be identified that the solution search
space becomes 2n1 n! (n  1)! in the proposed method.
As for the objective function calculation, it is shown in Eq. (1).
X
n X
n
Ant Objective Function ¼ fij dij þ pinf ðV feas  V all Þ ð1Þ
i¼1 j¼1;i–j

where n is the number of departments, fij is the cost per unit distance to move materials from department i to department j, where
i; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . :; n, dij is the distance between departments i and j, where i; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n, pinf is the number of infeasible departments, V feas is
the best feasible objective function value found and V all is the best overall objective function value found.
The distance is measured using rectilinear distance from centroid-to-centroid of each department. In addition, the objective function
incorporates an adaptive penalty function (Tate and Smith, 1995) to guide the search process towards feasible solution regions. Specifically,
an ant solution is given a penalty value which is proportional to the number of infeasible departments that it contains. A department is
considered as infeasible if it violates the department constraints, i.e., either the maximum aspect ratio or minimum side length.

3.2. Ant solutions construction

The proposed algorithm employs the pheromone information and heuristic information for constructing ant solutions. In this respect,
the three parts of an ant solution are not generated concurrently. The slicing sequences and orientation types are generated first and their
constructions are solely based on pheromone information. The generated slicing sequences and orientation types are transformed into a
dummy layout which will be used to calculate the heuristic information for that particular ant solution. Following this, the department
sequences are constructed based on pheromone information and heuristic information.
During execution, the proposed algorithm keeps the pheromone information for the three parts of the ant solution (department se-
quences, slicing sequences, and orientation types). For each element of the department sequences, pheromone information is the relative
probability to choose department 1 until department n. As for each element of the slicing sequences, pheromone information represents
the desirability to select slicing sequence 1 until slicing sequence n  1. While for each element of the orientation types, pheromone infor-
mation corresponds to the desirability to select a horizontal cut or vertical cut.
When adding a solution component, the proposed algorithm only chooses the solution component which has not appeared in that par-
ticular ant solution to avoid duplication. The proposed algorithm cannot guarantee that the generated ant solution is feasible because the
feasibility can only be known after a complete layout solution is formed. Instead, it uses an adaptive penalty function to guide the search
process to the feasible regions as mentioned in Section 3.1.

Fig. 1. Transformation of solution representation into slicing tree form and layout solution.
 Komarudin, K.Y. Wong / European Journal of Operational Research 202 (2010) 730–746 733

After the slicing sequences and orientation types have been generated, the proposed algorithm creates a dummy layout solution assum-
ing that all departments have the same area (obtained by dividing the facility area with the number of departments). The dummy layout
specifies the location candidates which represent the relative locations of departments in the final layout solution. The location candidates
will be used as a basis for determining the heuristic information for department sequences construction.
The proposed algorithm uses the heuristic information to help achieves a higher quality solution in a shorter time. The heuristic infor-
mation helps to guide the proposed algorithm to place a department with high material flow in a location candidate nearer to the center of
the facility. In order to provide such heuristic information, the proposed algorithm introduces k as a parameter for location candidate. As-
sume that point (0, 0) is located at the bottom left of the facility. The parameter for each location candidate is calculated based on Eq. (2).
   
L  L W  W
kk ¼  xk   þ  yk   ð2Þ
2 2 2 2

where kk is the parameter for location candidate k, where k ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n, L is the facility length, W is the facility width, xk is the x-axis value
for the center of location candidate k, and yk is the y-axis value for the center of location candidate k.
Eq. (2) ensures that a location candidate which is nearer to the center of the facility will have a higher k value. Apparently, the equation
is a linear function since the proposed algorithm uses the rectilinear distance as the measuring parameter.
By using the pheromone information and heuristic information, the proposed algorithm generates the department sequences by prob-
abilistically selecting an available department based on Eq. (3). This equation must be recomputed for each ant solution construction since
it uses an unfixed dummy layout. The sik acts as the pheromone information collected in previous search to guide the proposed algorithm
to ‘good solution regions that have been explored’. The product of m and k represents the heuristic information which heuristically guides
the proposed algorithm to place a department with high material flow in a location candidate nearer to the center of the facility.

½sik a :½mi :kk b

pðcik jsÞ ¼ P ; 8cik 2 NðsÞ ð3Þ
½sik a :½mi :kk b
cik 2NðsÞ

where pðcik Þ is the probability to locate department i to location candidate k, cik is department i located in location candidate k (department i
located in the kth element of the department sequences), sik is the pheromone value associated with the solution to locate department i to
location candidate k, mi is the sum of material flow from and to department i, kk is the parameter for location candidate k, a is the relative
importance of pheromone information, b is the relative importance of heuristic information, and NðsÞ is the available departments and
location candidates which have not been used in the corresponding ant.

3.3. Local search procedures

In order to enhance the search performance of AS, the authors incorporate nine types of local search as improvement procedures within
the algorithm. They are:

1. Branch swap procedure, which exchanges a pair of randomly selected branches in the slicing tree.
2. Branch orientation swap procedure, which randomly chooses a slicing operation before exchanging the left sub-branch and right sub-
branch. It can be noted that this procedure is a subset of the first local search procedure.
3. Orientation type change procedure, which randomly changes the orientation type of a cut (from vertical to horizontal or vice versa).
4. Swap between two items of the department sequence (within one ant solution), which randomly chooses two different items of the
department sequence and exchanges them.
5. 1-insert procedure on department sequence, which randomly chooses one item of the department sequence and moves it to a new loca-
tion in the department sequence.
6. 2-opt procedure on department sequence. This local search randomly chooses a subset chain of the department sequence and rear-
ranges it in the opposite direction.
7. Swap between two items of the slicing sequence (within one ant solution), which randomly chooses two different items of the slicing
sequence and exchanges them.
8. 1-insert procedure on slicing sequence, which randomly chooses one item of the slicing sequence and moves it to a new location in the
slicing sequence.
9. 2-opt procedure on slicing sequence, which randomly chooses a subset chain of the slicing sequence and rearranges it in the opposite
direction.

The local search procedures can be classified into two categories. Both are used to provide a robust search for the proposed algorithm.
The first category (procedures 1–3) is a neighborhood search of the slicing tree form or structure and the second category (procedures 4–9)
is a neighborhood search of the ant solution representation. All the procedures are used because of the large solution space of certain prob-
lem instances. All of them have the same probability to occur since the solution space of one problem instance may differ from those of
other problem instances and thus, it is hard to predict the most effective local search procedure.
During implementation, the algorithm continuously probes the neighborhood of the solution search space (using local search proce-
dures) to find a solution with a better quality. Whenever a better solution (refers to a solution that either (1) improves the solution fea-
sibility (indicated by a decrease in the number of infeasible departments), or (2) improves the objective function value without degrading
the solution feasibility) is found, the neighborhood that contains such a solution will be explored in the next local search step.
Although the proposed algorithm incorporates nine types of local search, it randomly selects one of them in an implementation, and
recursively repeats it until a stopping criterion is met. As in this case, the stopping criteria for the local search are specified as: (1) the max-
imum number of steps pre-specified by users, and (2) the number of steps where the local search does not improve the solution quality.
Whenever one of these criteria is met, the local search will be terminated.
734 Komarudin, K.Y. Wong / European Journal of Operational Research 202 (2010) 730–746

3.4. Pheromone information update

The proposed algorithm uses the standard pheromone updating strategy to avoid premature search convergence and to bias the
search process into a solution search space that contains good or promising solutions. The pheromone updating process is shown
in Eq. (4).
X
sik ð1  qÞ:sik þ q: ws FðsÞ ð4Þ
fs2Supd jcik 2sg
where Supd is the set of ants that is used for updating the pheromone, q is the evaporation rate, q 2 ð0; 1Þ, FðsÞ is the quality function such that
fðsÞ < fðs0 Þ ! FðsÞ P Fðs0 Þ; 8s–s0 2 S, with f(s) is the objective function, and w is the weight for the corresponding ant solution s. The proposed
algorithm uses F(s) = 1/f(s), and w ¼ 1 for all Supd .
It should be noted that a department sequence could be advantageous for a specific slicing tree but not for general slicing trees. There-
fore, the pheromone information collected for department sequence in this pheromone update step may not be very meaningful. Due to
this reason, the authors incorporate heuristic information to guide the search for good department sequences, as explained in Section 3.2.
The algorithm proposed by the authors uses the best-so-far and iteration-best ants for pheromone updating. Apart from this, it uses two
stopping criteria to terminate its search: (1) the maximum number of iterations, which sets an upper limit for the number of steps involved
in a single implementation and, (2) the maximum number of iterations where AS could not further improve the best-so-far solution. The
latter helps the algorithm to terminate the search if a better solution could not be found. Whichever stopping criterion is met first, the
proposed algorithm will be stopped.

4. Numerical experiments

The proposed algorithm was tested using various problem sets taken from the literature. They are O7, O8 and O9 from Meller et al.
(1999), vC10 from van Camp et al. (1992), Ba12 and Ba14 from van Camp (1989), AB20 from Armour and Buffa (1963), SC30 and SC35 from
Liu and Meller (2007), and Du62 from Dunker et al. (2003). These problem sets are chosen because of their variety in size (from 7 depart-
ments until 62 departments). In addition, they are chosen because they are widely used in previous studies. For each of the problem sets,
the authors used the following setups which are adopted from previous research (van Camp, 1989; Armour and Buffa, 1963; Liu and Meller,
2007):

(1) O7: Maximum aspect ratio = 4 for each department.

(2) O8: Maximum aspect ratio = 4 for each department.
(3) O9: Maximum aspect ratio = 4 for each department.
(4) vC10: Minimum side length = 5 for each department.
(5) Ba12: Minimum side length = 1, except for the dummy departments that do not have shape restriction.
(6) Ba14: Minimum side length = 1, except for the dummy departments that do not have shape restriction.
(7) AB20: Maximum aspect ratio = 4 for each department.
(8) SC30: Maximum aspect ratio = 5, except for the dummy departments that do not have shape restriction.
(9) SC35: Maximum aspect ratio = 4, except for the dummy departments that do not have shape restriction.
(10) Du62: Maximum aspect ratio = 4 for each department.

These setups are used for comparison purposes with previous research. For problem instances O7 and O8, a reduced facility width is
used so that the total facility area is equal to the total department areas. As for Ba12, Ba14, SC30, and SC35, several dummy departments
are added to handle the empty space issue. The problem instance Du62 is a modified problem taken from Dunker et al. (2003) by relaxing
department dimensions, using a maximum aspect ratio of 4, and fixing the facility dimension. The complete problem sets can be found in
Appendix A.
For the algorithm settings, the authors determined the parameter settings (refer to Appendix B) based on manual parameter tuning.
Note that the proposed algorithm would stop the local search phase if the unimproved local search steps exceeded 10% of the maximum
local search steps (a counter was programmed to check this). The authors replicated the algorithm five times with a maximum number of
iterations = 1,000 and a maximum number of unimproved iterations = 500 (these are the stopping criteria mentioned earlier). As for Du62,
the algorithm was stopped after 24 hours of computation time. The algorithm was coded with C++ and compiled using GCC 4.3.0. It was
tested using an Intel Centrino Duo processor (1.7 GHz) and a Linux operating system.

5. Results and discussion

The statistical results obtained after running the proposed algorithm are shown in Table 1. From the table, it is shown that the proposed
algorithm is robust since the percentage of gap between the best and worst solutions is relatively low. The computation time needed is
acceptable considering the fact that various types of local search are used in the algorithm. In addition, facility layout planning is not a
time-critical issue (See and Wong, 2008).
The local search procedures contribute to the achievement of the proposed algorithm by exploiting the constructed solutions. To show
the effectiveness of the local search procedures, the authors conducted a test which did not use any local search procedure but utilized a
large number of ants (100,000 artificial ants) on problem set AB20. The results of this test are very poor; the best objective function value
obtained is 7592 with an average of 7971 (five replications).
In order to validate the performance of the proposed algorithm, the authors compare its search results obtained from the computational
experiment with those achieved by Tate and Smith (1995), Liu and Meller (2007) and Scholz et al. (2009). These three previous studies have
tested most of the selected problem sets, and thus could be used as a meaningful comparative benchmark. As shown in Table 2, it is clear
 Komarudin, K.Y. Wong / European Journal of Operational Research 202 (2010) 730–746 735

Table 1
Statistical results for the proposed algorithm.

Data sets AS objective function value Computation time (hours)

AS best AS mean AS worst % Gap Best timea Total timeb
O7 131.68 131.68 131.68 0.00 0.21 1.12
O8 243.12 243.12 243.12 0.00 0.22 1.18
O9 236.12 236.12 236.12 0.00 0.25 1.44
vC10 19,967.60 19,967.60 19,967.60 0.00 0.28 1.88
Ba12 8252.67 8275.60 8314.00 0.74 1.41 8.08
Ba14 4724.68 4729.03 4731.93 0.15 2.38 11.09
AB20 4972.56 5182.35 5306.40 6.71 4.95 20.85
SC30 3868.54 3985.49 4036.47 4.34 6.54 45.85
SC35 4132.37 4231.93 4320.56 4.55 23.33 115.44
Du62 3,720,521.13 3,728,790.72 3,734,967.88 0.39 24.00 120.00
a
Computation time for AS best (1 replication).
b
Total computation time for 5 replications.

Table 2
Comparison results.

Data Tate and Smith (1995) – Liu and Meller (2007) – Scholz et al. (2009) – Best Best Authors’ algorithm-Ant Dif. (%)a
sets Genetic algorithm with Genetic algorithm with Tabu search with slicing known known system with slicing
flexible bay representation mixed integer programming tree representation solution reference tree representation
O7 131.63 132.00 131.58 Castillo et al. (2005) 131.68 0.08
O8 245.41 243.16 242.93 Castillo et al. (2005) 243.12 0.08
O9 246.26 239.07 236.14 Castillo et al. (2005) 236.14 0.00
vC10 23,671.00 19,997.00 19,994.10 19,994.10 Scholz et al. (2009) 19,967.60 0.13
Ba12 8768.00 8702.00 8264.00 8180.00 Castillo et al. (2005) 8252.67 0.89
Ba14 5080.00 4852.00 4712.33 4712.33 Scholz et al. (2009) 4724.68 0.26
AB20 5668.00 5668.00 Liu and Meller (2007) 4972.56 12.27
AB20b 5743.00 5225.96 5225.96 Scholz et al. (2009) 5073.82 2.91
SC30 3707.00 3707.00 Liu and Meller (2007) 3868.55 4.36
SC35 3604.00 3604.00 Liu and Meller (2007) 4132.36 14.66
a
Percentage of difference in the result (between AS and the best known solution).
b
Data set AB20 with symmetrical material flow.

that the proposed algorithm performs better than Tate and Smith (1995)’s algorithm on all the problem sets. It also outperforms Liu and
Meller (2007)’s approach on six of the problem instances which are O8, O9, vC10, Ba12, Ba14 and AB20. Moreover, the proposed algorithm
achieves better results on O7, O8, O9, vC10, Ba12 and AB20 as compared to Scholz et al. (2009)’s method.
The proposed algorithm performs better as compared to the one developed by Tate and Smith (1995) because of the use of slicing tree
representation (in contrast to Tate and Smith (1995) who used the flexible bay representation). Slicing tree can produce more solution can-
didates with the addition of other candidates which cannot be produced by the flexible bay representation. Moreover, the proposed algo-
rithm uses a very high degree of local search to improve the solutions and explore the solution search space.
The proposed algorithm also performs better than Liu and Meller (2007)’s approach on O8, O9, vC10, Ba12, Ba14 and AB20. Although
they used a continuous representation which can consider all feasible layouts, GA cannot guarantee to produce the optimal binary num-
bers. Moreover, the area constraints and overlapping constraints of their MIP formulation tend to make the problems become very tight
when the number of departments is high. These prevent their approach to produce optimal solutions for large problem instances. Never-
theless, the proposed algorithm performs poorer than Liu and Meller (2007)’s approach on O7 because of the use of a reduced facility width.
It also achieves poorer results when it comes to solving problems sets SC30 and SC35. This is because these two problem sets have an area
utilization less than one. This means that these problems have empty space which will not be occupied by the departments. Liu and Meller
(2007)’s method can benefit from such an area utilization so as to relax the problems and produce better solutions. On the contrary, AS with
slicing tree representation must add dummy departments so that the area utilization equals to one. Consequently, this increases the prob-
lem size and results in poorer solution quality.
When compared to Scholz et al. (2009)’s approach, the proposed algorithm can improve six problems (i.e., O7, O8, O9, vC10, Ba12 and
AB20). Actually, the proposed algorithm and Scholz et al. (2009)’s approach produced a similar slicing tree solution for O8 and vC10. How-
ever, as mentioned in their paper, their approach used an overestimation of department areas and so their result was slightly poorer. The
proposed algorithm also performs better on Ba12 when compared to Scholz et al. (2009)’s approach. This is because after they sliced the
facility with the bounding curve technique, they tightened the departments by moving all of them to the left-bottom of the facility.
Although tightening the departments into the left-bottom position can produce a better objective function, it is not guaranteed that this
position is the best one for minimizing material flow. In contrast, the proposed algorithm uses dummy departments to automatically gen-
erate a slicing tree layout. This approach does not need to decide the tightening position of the departments, but rather it examines the
available positions of the departments.
In addition, the proposed algorithm outperforms Scholz et al. (2009)’s approach on O7, O9 and AB20. This achievement is resulted
from the inadequacy of Tabu Search (TS) (which was used by them) to prevent the solutions from getting trapped in local optima.
736 Komarudin, K.Y. Wong / European Journal of Operational Research 202 (2010) 730–746

Although they implemented a multi-start algorithm, the neighborhood moves used are local search procedures which cannot jump out
from local optima when there is no other better neighborhood solution. The proposed algorithm cannot compete with Scholz et al.
(2009)’s approach on Ba14 because the area utilization for this problem is less than one. Their bounding curve technique can be used
to handle empty space in this problem. On the other hand, the proposed algorithm must incorporate dummy departments as mentioned
earlier.
When the solutions from the proposed algorithm are compared to the best known solutions, the proposed algorithm performs moder-
ately on small and medium problems (O7, O8, O9, vC10, Ba12, Ba14, and AB20) but performs poorly on large problems (SC30 and SC35). The
poor performances are caused by the use of less restricted representation by Liu and Meller (2007). In addition, the result of the proposed
algorithm on Du62 is encouraging (the best solution attained is 3,720,521.13 as shown in Table 1). Dunker et al. (2003) reported their best
solution for Du62 was 4,167,956.8, Scholz et al. (2009) reported 3,871,510, and McKendall and Hakobyan (in press) reported 3,812,825.
However, it should be noted that the previous methods for solving Du62 could not be compared directly to the proposed algorithm because
they used different problem constraints.

6. Conclusions

This paper has proposed an AS algorithm with slicing tree representation for solving UA-FLPs. This is probably the first paper
which investigates the use of ACO for solving UA-FLPs. The proposed algorithm is quite robust and has improved several problem
instances as compared to previous research. It performs better than GA with flexible bay representation which was proposed by Tate
and Smith (1995). In comparison to Liu and Meller (2007)’s and Scholz et al. (2009)’s approaches, the proposed algorithm can im-
prove the results for six different problem instances. In short, it can certainly be used by researchers and practitioners to solve UA-
FLPs. Specifically, the proposed algorithm yields good results when there is no empty space in the facility (area utilization equals to
one).
In terms of future work, this research can be extended in many ways. It will be interesting to improve this research on problems which
have empty space. This research can also be expanded to consider other layout restrictions such as fixed department location and fixed
department size. Finally, it will be interesting to investigate the use of continuous representation techniques together with ACO in solving
UA-FLPs.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI), Malaysia for funding this research
under the E-Science Grant Number: 03-01-06-SF0024. We would also like to thank the three anonymous referees for their valuable
comments.

Appendix A. Summary of problem sets

Problem set Number of departments Facility size

Width Height
O7 7 8.54 13.00
O8 8 11.31 13.00
O9 9 12.00 13.00
vC10 10 25.00 51.00
Ba12 12 7.00 9.00
Ba14 14 6.00 10.00
AB20 20 2.00 3.00
SC30 30 15.00 12.00
SC35 35 16.00 15.00
Du62 62 100.00 137.18

Appendix B. Parameter settings

Parameter Data sets

O7 O8 O9 vC10 Ba12 Ba14 AB20 SC30 SC35 Du62
Number of ants (m) 100 100 100 100 100 100 50 100 100 100
Relative importance of pheromone 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1
information ðaÞ
Relative importance of heuristic information ðbÞ 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 1 5
Evaporation rate ðqÞ 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.3
Maximum number of iterations for local search 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 20,000 10,000 20,000 20,000
 Komarudin, K.Y. Wong / European Journal of Operational Research 202 (2010) 730–746 737

Appendix C. Data set and best layout obtained for O7

Dept Area Max aspect ratio

1 16 4
2 16 4
3 16 4
4 36 4
5 9 4
6 9 4
7 9 4

From To Material flow

1 4 5
1 7 1
2 4 3
2 7 1
3 4 2
3 7 1
4 5 4
4 6 4
5 7 2
6 7 1

Appendix D. Data set and best layout obtained for O8

Dept Area Max aspect ratio

1 16 4
2 16 4
3 16 4
4 36 4
5 36 4
6 9 4
7 9 4
8 9 4

From To Material flow

1 4 5
1 5 5
1 8 1
2 4 3
2 5 3
2 8 1
738 Komarudin, K.Y. Wong / European Journal of Operational Research 202 (2010) 730–746

Appendix D (continued)

From To Material flow

3 4 2
3 5 2
3 8 1
4 6 4
4 7 4
5 6 3
5 8 4
6 8 2
7 8 1

Appendix E. Data set and best layout obtained for O9

Dept Area Max aspect ratio

1 16 4
2 16 4
3 16 4
4 36 4
5 36 4
6 9 4
7 9 4
8 9 4
9 9 4

From To Material flow

1 4 5
1 5 5
1 9 1
2 4 3
2 5 3
2 9 1
3 4 2
3 5 2
3 9 1
4 6 4
4 7 4
5 6 3
5 9 4
6 9 2
7 9 1
 Komarudin, K.Y. Wong / European Journal of Operational Research 202 (2010) 730–746 739

Appendix F. Data set and best layout obtained for vC10

Dept 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Area Min side

1 – 0 0 0 0 218 0 0 0 0 238 5
2 – 0 0 0 148 0 0 296 0 112 5
3 – 28 70 0 0 0 0 0 160 5
4 – 0 28 70 140 0 0 80 5
5 – 0 0 210 0 0 120 5
6 – 0 0 0 0 80 5
7 – 0 0 28 60 5
8 – 0 888 85 5
9 – 59 221 5
10 – 119 5

Appendix G. Data set and best layout obtained for Ba12

Dept 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Area Min side

1 – 288 180 54 72 180 27 72 36 0 0 9 9 1
2 – 240 54 72 24 48 160 16 64 8 16 8 1
3 – 120 80 0 60 120 60 0 0 30 10 1
4 – 72 18 18 48 24 48 12 0 6 1
5 – 12 12 64 16 16 4 8 4 1
6 – 18 24 6 12 3 3 3 1
(continued on next page)
740 Komarudin, K.Y. Wong / European Journal of Operational Research 202 (2010) 730–746

Appendix G (continued)

Dept 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Area Min side

7 – 0 6 6 3 6 3 1
8 – 16 16 16 4 4 1
9 – 4 4 2 2 1
10 – 2 2 2 1
11 – 2 1 1
12 – 1 1
13 1 0
14 1 0
15 1 0
16 1 0
17 1 0
18 1 0
19 1 0

Appendix H. Data set and best layout obtained for Ba14

Dept 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Area Min side

1 – 72 162 90 108 27 0 0 18 27 18 0 0 0 9 1
2 – 72 80 0 48 0 48 32 0 16 8 0 0 8 1
3 – 45 54 27 27 27 0 27 0 9 18 0 9 1
4 – 30 0 30 30 20 0 20 10 10 0 10 1
5 – 18 0 18 12 18 24 0 0 0 6 1
6 – 9 9 0 0 6 6 6 0 3 1
7 – 9 12 9 6 3 0 0 3 1
8 – 6 9 0 3 0 0 3 1
9 – 6 4 6 2 0 2 1
10 – 6 3 6 0 3 1
11 – 2 0 0 2 1
12 – 4 0 1 1
13 – 0 1 0
14 – 1 0
15 0.5 0
16 0.5 0
17 0.5 0
18 0.5 0
 Komarudin, K.Y. Wong / European Journal of Operational Research 202 (2010) 730–746 741

Appendix I. Data set and best layout obtained for AB20

Dept 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Area Max aspect

ratio

1 – 18 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.4 11.2 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.27 4

2 18 – 9.6 245 7.8 0 140 0 12 13.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 0.18 4
3 12 9.6 – 0 0 22.1 0 0 31.5 39 0 0 0 131 0 0 0 0 137 0 0.27 4
4 0 245 0 – 10.8 57 75 0 23.4 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 15 158 0 0.18 4
5 0 7.8 0 10.8 – 0 22.5 13.5 0 15.6 0 0 0 0 13.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.18 4
6 0 0 22.1 57 0 – 61.5 0 0 0 0 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 10.5 0 0 0.18 4
7 0 140 0 75 22.5 61.5 – 240 0 18.7 0 0 0 9.6 0 0 0 16.5 0 37.5 0.09 4
8 0 0 0 0 13.5 0 240 – 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 75 335 0.09 4
9 0 12 31.5 23.4 0 0 0 0 – 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 75 0 0 0 0.09 4
10 10.4 13.5 39 0 15.6 0 18.7 0 0 – 3.6 120 0 186 19.2 0 0 0 52.5 0 0.24 4
11 11.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 – 22.5 0 30 9.6 225 0 0 0 0 0.6 4
12 0 0 0 14 0 4.5 0 0 0 120 22.5 – 0 0 16.5 0 150 0 84 0 0.42 4
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 – 80 10.4 60 0 0 0 0 0.18 4
14 12 0 131 0 0 0 9.6 0 75 186 30 0 80 – 97.5 0 0 9 0 0 0.24 4
15 0 0 0 0 13.5 0 0 0 0 19.2 9.6 16.5 10.4 97.5 – 0 52.5 0 0 0 0.27 4
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 – 120 0 0 0 0.75 4
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 150 0 0 52.5 120 – 0 75 0 0.64 4
18 0 0 0 15 0 10.5 16.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 – 46.5 0 0.41 4
19 0 69 137 158 0 0 0 75 0 52.5 0 84 0 0 0 0 75 46.5 – 0 0.27 4
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 37.5 335 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 – 0.45 4
742 Komarudin, K.Y. Wong / European Journal of Operational Research 202 (2010) 730–746

Appendix J. Data set and best layout obtained for SC30

Dept Area Max aspect ratio Dept Area Max aspect ratio
1 3 5 25 1 5
2 4 5 26 4 5
3 4 5 27 6 5
4 16 5 28 1 5
5 4 5 29 14 5
6 5 5 30 4 5
7 2 5 31 1 0
8 3 5 32 1 0
9 5 5 33 1 0
10 6 5 34 1 0
11 2 5 35 1 0
12 24 5 36 1 0
13 5 5 37 1 0
14 3 5 38 1 0
15 11 5 39 1 0
16 6 5 40 1 0
17 2 5 41 1 0
18 8 5 42 1 0
19 4 5 43 1 0
20 5 5 44 1 0
21 4 5 45 1 0
22 3 5 46 1 0
23 1 5 47 1 0
24 3 5

From To Material flow From To Material flow

1 24 2.95 10 12 38.03
1 25 6.32 11 12 8.84
1 26 1.26 12 13 12.97
 Komarudin, K.Y. Wong / European Journal of Operational Research 202 (2010) 730–746 743

Appendix J (continued)
From To Material flow From To Material flow
1 27 2.11 12 14 4.67
1 28 1.26 12 15 53.42
1 30 13.91 12 16 1.83
2 6 20.38 13 15 12.97
2 19 4.5 14 15 4.67
2 20 3.63 15 4 63.95
2 21 2.93 15 18 190.74
2 22 1.29 16 15 4.58
2 23 1.43 17 15 0.76
4 3 394.11 18 4 190.74
5 11 4.09 19 29 9.18
5 12 33.09 20 29 7.4
6 5 8.92 21 29 5.97
6 7 2.07 22 29 2.63
6 8 4.84 23 29 2.92
6 10 4.56 24 29 5.9
6 12 1.83 25 29 12.65
6 17 0.61 26 29 2.53
7 8 12.97 27 29 4.22
8 9 43.23 28 29 2.53
9 11 4.76 29 4 190.13
9 12 38.47 30 29 59.64

Appendix K. Data set and best layout obtained for SC35

Dept Area Max aspect ratio Dept Area Max aspect ratio
1 3 4 31 9 4
2 5 4 32 14 4
3 4 4 33 10 4
4 14 4 34 4 4
5 4 4 35 3 4
6 5 4 36 2 0
7 2 4 37 2 0
8 3 4 38 2 0
9 5 4 39 2 0
10 6 4 40 2 0
11 2 4 41 2 0
12 6 4 42 2 0
13 5 4 43 2 0
14 3 4 44 2 0
15 13 4 45 2 0
16 6 4 46 2 0
(continued on next page)
744 Komarudin, K.Y. Wong / European Journal of Operational Research 202 (2010) 730–746

Appendix K (continued)
Dept Area Max aspect ratio Dept Area Max aspect ratio
17 2 4 47 2 0
18 10 4 48 2 0
19 4 4 49 2 0
20 5 4 50 2 0
21 4 4 51 2 0
22 3 4 52 2 0
23 1 4 53 2 0
24 3 4 54 2 0
25 1 4 55 2 0
26 4 4 56 2 0
27 6 4 57 2 0
28 1 4 58 2 0
29 18 4 59 2 0
30 4 4

From To Material flow From To Material flow

1 24 2.95 11 12 8.84
1 25 6.32 12 32 72.89
1 26 1.26 13 15 12.97
1 27 2.11 14 15 4.67
1 28 1.26 15 4 63.95
1 30 13.91 15 18 190.74
2 6 20.38 16 15 4.58
2 19 4.5 17 15 0.76
2 20 3.63 18 4 190.74
2 21 2.93 19 29 9.18
2 22 1.29 20 29 7.4
2 23 1.43 21 29 5.97
4 3 225.65 22 29 2.63
5 11 4.09 23 29 2.92
5 12 33.09 24 29 5.9
6 5 8.92 25 29 12.65
6 7 2.07 26 29 2.53
6 8 4.84 27 29 4.22
6 10 4.56 28 29 2.53
6 12 1.83 29 33 190.13
6 17 0.61 30 29 59.64
6 31 3.93 31 32 22.92
7 8 12.97 32 13 12.97
8 9 43.23 32 14 4.67
9 11 4.76 32 15 53.42
9 12 38.47 32 16 1.83
10 12 38.03 33 34 168.45
Appendix L. Data set and best layout obtained for Du62

Dept 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Area Max

aspect
ratio

1 0 51 93 60 42 0 13 6 45 0 63 96 0 14 0 32 0 43 0 52 45 0 94 55 30 0 59 72 29 0 0 0 32 51 19 0 23 30 40 0 85 89 48 90 97 0 0 0 0 0 41 75 52 84 69 9 0 59 68 24 95 59 210 4
2 0 0 44 0 88 22 32 16 25 37 12 46 23 0 99 10 86 0 18 23 16 0 74 93 8 7 57 69 30 41 21 37 51 25 64 0 25 40 41 84 0 70 77 63 0 0 47 0 6 18 0 0 28 97 0 74 52 0 68 0 18 72 130 4
3 0 0 0 33 35 6 8 45 13 14 71 94 17 92 54 56 67 62 63 29 93 21 55 85 84 73 37 24 9 85 7 52 0 54 63 47 36 26 77 23 93 25 6 22 21 0 8 45 28 16 99 32 71 51 49 72 68 0 31 27 54 68 224 4
4 0 0 0 0 92 90 11 56 11 0 18 18 98 0 0 83 0 56 0 81 23 71 84 0 27 0 5 0 61 91 0 65 12 0 0 28 52 0 82 0 84 53 0 0 94 27 5 0 12 43 84 0 74 51 91 50 0 76 33 0 10 0 260 4
5 0 0 0 0 0 83 13 31 59 61 53 54 18 0 94 59 0 46 56 19 65 49 0 51 0 55 0 23 65 42 0 30 76 48 0 29 84 83 16 70 76 0 70 73 0 72 96 17 75 0 77 14 0 75 55 50 0 0 88 55 12 0 208 4
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 72 20 63 84 0 0 35 0 0 0 76 43 7 6 0 0 0 32 29 87 0 0 0 47 0 0 19 43 0 21 0 0 0 49 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 5 27 29 0 11 11 294 4
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 60 41 62 94 11 0 62 0 0 0 42 83 71 0 0 26 0 26 14 91 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 9 16 16 0 0 0 20 64 0 12 47 91 92 85 0 45 59 13 0 35 83 0 17 0 33 8 323 4
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 65 8 7 37 44 52 97 86 42 38 36 25 27 24 82 45 82 7 36 12 17 26 85 79 79 50 55 82 17 18 33 60 54 16 30 76 96 41 48 0 22 67 69 61 32 60 11 69 97 19 88 31 11 266 4
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 91 0 98 17 62 90 54 42 50 29 22 49 0 52 61 0 69 67 39 82 48 71 48 10 10 68 14 55 23 0 0 0 0 31 57 80 0 0 80 65 84 34 52 64 91 9 0 72 37 22 10 441 4
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 75 77 88 0 23 75 11 28 17 8 52 76 0 48 0 32 99 36 75 9 54 0 23 0 84 20 76 27 26 97 43 8 24 26 0 22 0 85 0 0 54 96 64 95 51 69 44 0 0 62 65 340 4
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 99 52 21 96 12 0 0 55 58 40 31 0 0 25 52 0 22 65 40 64 0 50 0 0 48 84 53 0 18 38 0 22 42 92 22 54 30 88 62 93 7 45 0 18 65 0 47 0 6 57 143 4
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 24 0 0 0 65 90 84 11 32 75 65 28 83 94 55 69 0 30 0 34 0 78 85 0 15 0 0 10 35 80 0 23 6 0 40 0 73 0 30 74 68 0 99 70 0 24 0 168 4
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 0 0 62 96 9 98 76 0 61 0 0 9 95 0 61 0 0 97 68 91 9 19 0 61 34 71 0 0 9 0 0 70 0 0 0 94 29 0 0 79 0 8 45 0 90 0 342 4
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 38 0 37 0 82 52 0 0 0 6 0 70 43 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 65 72 0 0 28 0 47 40 0 0 0 41 24 57 0 0 67 0 79 35 357 4
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 29 0 39 91 0 0 32 0 0 98 0 56 0 74 0 15 0 0 0 6 65 0 0 0 79 0 24 0 92 59 58 38 0 0 83 0 29 74 13 0 60 54 0 25 0 420 4
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 87 81 17 56 92 17 72 42 82 87 53 72 87 36 83 54 36 77 31 21 29 68 88 74 33 36 58 84 94 91 68 12 38 82 17 85 10 85 24 71 44 33 51 37 41 36 147 4
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 46 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 27 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 62 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 78 0 0 51 0 0 0 79 0 0 98 0 74 37 380 4
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 97 70 59 90 98 0 10 0 0 52 95 0 0 94 0 0 57 67 0 0 66 69 0 9 0 39 0 0 0 41 0 0 37 0 0 0 92 0 0 94 25 95 0 144 4
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 13 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 29 78 0 78 71 0 0 85 75 17 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 87 44 0 0 0 11 0 187 4
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 71 14 36 95 96 51 97 32 14 12 91 16 27 45 86 17 93 41 42 21 73 22 12 7 11 88 81 95 13 66 39 70 68 89 62 0 15 22 66 18 16 240 4
21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 76 98 25 15 41 18 11 60 60 10 52 48 77 75 31 44 7 36 33 47 42 24 84 57 58 24 36 93 95 9 99 0 74 41 21 67 63 50 91 16 140 4
22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 86 0 77 37 19 14 0 0 45 51 0 34 85 41 80 51 18 53 33 0 39 90 6 0 68 89 80 71 0 0 27 72 61 34 73 85 82 53 0 304 4
23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 49 31 27 79 72 69 59 35 62 72 43 76 27 93 0 0 62 24 89 0 77 0 0 13 44 25 0 8 0 54 58 0 32 0 9 0 95 63 300 4
24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 67 82 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 0 73 32 0 0 85 0 39 0 162 4
25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 35 0 61 0 0 90 34 0 0 0 32 78 68 78 73 62 70 94 0 0 0 0 83 29 37 25 0 53 45 40 57 0 24 0 56 40 252 4
26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 20 0 0 56 43 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 29 78 85 0 0 0 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 41 16 0 13 0 54 0 196 4
27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 11 15 30 44 10 45 0 42 68 19 61 83 0 52 71 20 0 91 88 0 67 0 54 95 0 84 79 55 75 93 58 55 18 48 176 4
28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 60 0 0 24 0 68 0 0 0 0 79 30 0 72 0 0 0 50 0 0 98 0 33 0 87 67 0 83 0 87 0 144 4
29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 90 71 59 0 88 9 10 75 56 97 98 70 22 93 90 28 66 56 19 75 69 79 40 41 6 90 71 54 24 10 221 4
30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 49 91 0 0 42 56 0 0 0 54 19 0 21 0 0 11 40 0 73 0 89 0 0 27 31 7 0 6 74 8 0 130 4
31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 76 0 0 87 0 40 0 182 4
32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 90 0 0 31 26 19 0 22 0 0 80 0 0 78 53 0 67 23 70 83 51 43 0 136 4
33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 33 50 41 85 93 35 0 0 0 0 65 42 97 10 0 40 92 59 22 99 22 0 0 0 59 0 25 46 399 4
34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 8 0 0 0 0 0 47 62 42 0 0 0 0 60 0 42 0 0 85 58 0 46 72 0 24 0 210 4
35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 59 0 0 0 0 51 69 0 0 96 0 0 14 88 23 54 150 4
36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 74 0 0 70 0 54 0 108 4
37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 84 26 34 58 51 19 80 42 62 35 38 58 79 54 0 79 86 54 98 31 33 78 60 357 4
38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 71 0 46 0 0 17 37 0 63 0 0 58 0 39 56 35 65 11 89 91 144 4
39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 0 43 0 98 94 0 30 0 0 0 94 0 0 32 0 41 0 252 4
40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 67 0 0 49 0 36 5 135 4
41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 32 7 84 0 74 0 5 0 13 0 36 22 0 51 0 204 4
42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 48 0 0 88 0 15 78 22 0 0 0 86 0 0 17 0 24 69 204 4
43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95 0 0 35 56 0 89 90 29 64 47 7 0 0 0 74 0 27 95 99 4
44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 85 86 7 99 0 0 59 94 0 0 43 0 0 77 0 36 0 160 4
45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 73 5 0 0 0 0 88 83 55 21 86 50 13 0 357 4
46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 39 0 98 0 260 4
47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 72 0 91 0 0 0 88 46 0 79 0 62 7 190 4
48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 61 0 74 51 0 10 0 44 72 0 83 36 280 4
49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 65 0 26 11 0 9 0 59 0 180 4
Komarudin, K.Y. Wong / European Journal of Operational Research 202 (2010) 730–746

50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 18 9 0 21 33 53 55 14 104 4
51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 48 0 0 11 0 8 0 198 4
52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 76 0 8 0 8 20 76 160 4
53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 70 0 60 0 200 4
54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 83 99 0 87 11 361 4
55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 55 0 89 0 79 10 231 4
56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 47 73 91 68 140 4
57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 0 44 77 4
58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 0 87 0 187 4
59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 80 25 231 4
60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 91 4
61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 210 4
62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 272 4
745
746 Komarudin, K.Y. Wong / European Journal of Operational Research 202 (2010) 730–746

References

Anjos, M.F., Vannelli, A., 2006. A new mathematical-programming framework for facility layout problem. Informs Journals on Computing 18 (1), 111–118.
Armour, G.C., Buffa, E.S., 1963. A heuristic algorithm and simulation approach to relative allocation of facilities. Management Science 9 (2), 294–309.
Blum, C., 2005. Ant colony optimization: introduction and recent trends. Physics of Live Reviews 2 (4), 353–373.
Castillo, I., Westerlund, J., Emet, S., Westerlund, T., 2005. Optimization of block layout design problems with unequal areas: A comparison of MILP and MINLP optimization
methods. Computers and Chemical Engineering 30, 54–69.
Corry, P., Kozan, E., 2004. Ant colony optimisation for machine layout problems. Computational Optimization and Applications 28, 287–310.
Dunker, T., Radons, G., Westkämper, E., 2003. A coevolutionary algorithm for a facility layout problem. International Journal of Production Research 41, 3479–3500.
Hani, Y., Amodeo, L., Yalaoui, F., Chen, H., 2007. Ant colony optimization for solving an industrial layout problem. European Journal of Operational Research 183, 633–642.
Liu, Q., Meller, R.D., 2007. A sequence-pair representation and MIP model based heuristic for the facility layout problem with rectangular departments. IIE Transactions 39 (4),
377–394.
McKendall Jr., A.R., Hakobyan, A., in press. Heuristics for the dynamic facility layout problem with unequal-area departments. European Journal of Operational Research.
Meller, R.D., Gau, K.Y., 1996. The facility layout problem: Recent and emerging trends and perspectives. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 15 (5), 351–366.
Meller, R.D., Narayanan, V., Vance, P.H., 1999. Optimal facility layout design. Operations Research Letters 23 (3–5), 117–127.
Meller, R.D., Chen, W., Sherali, H.D., 2007. Applying the sequence-pair representation to optimal facility layout designs. Operations Research Letters 35 (5), 651–659.
Scholz, D., Petrick, A., Domschke, W., 2009. STaTS: A slicing tree and tabu search based heuristic for the unequal area facility layout problem. European Journal of Operational
Research 197 (1), 166–178.
See, P.C., Wong, K.Y., 2008. Application of ant colony optimisation algorithms in solving facility layout problems formulated as quadratic assignment problems: A review.
International Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering 3 (6), 644–672.
Sherali, H.D., Fraticelli, B.M.P., Meller, R.D., 2003. Enhanced model formulations for optimal facility layout. Operations Research 51 (4), 629–644.
Stützle, T., Dorigo, M., 1999. ACO algorithms for the quadratic assignment problem. In: Corne, D., Dorigo, M., Glover, F. (Eds.), New Ideas in Optimization. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Tam, K.Y., Li, S.G., 1991. A hierarchical approach to the facility layout problem. International Journal of Production Research 29 (1), 165–184.
Tate, D.M., Smith, A.E., 1995. Unequal area facility layout using genetic search. IIE Transactions 27 (4), 465–472.
van Camp, D.J., 1989. A Nonlinear Optimization Approach for Solving Facility Layout Problem. Thesis, Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Canada.
van Camp, D.J., Carter, M.W., Vannelli, A., 1992. A nonlinear optimization approach for solving facility layout problems. European Journal of Operational Research 57 (2), 174–
189.
Wong, D.F., Liu, C.L., 1989. Floorplan design of VLSI circuits. Algorithmica 4, 263–291.
Wong, K.Y., See, P.C., 2009a. A new minimum pheromone threshold strategy (MPTS) for max–min ant system. Applied Soft Computing 9 (3), 882–888.
Wong, K.Y., See, P.C., 2009b. A genetic ant colony optimisation system (GenANT) for quadratic assignment problems. International Journal of Mathematics in Operational
Research 1 (4), 456–475.