Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2003) 21:917–922
Ownership and Copyright
 2003 Springer-Verlag London Limited
Plant Layout Computerised Design: Logistic and Relayout
Program (LRP)
E. Ferrari1, A. Pareschi1, A. Persona2 and A. Regattieri1
1
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Plants, Bologna University, Italy; and 2Department of Technique and Management of
Industrial System, Padova University, Italy
Markets are affected by strong competition in terms of continu-
ous innovation of products and processes, high customer satis-
faction and low cost of production. In order to achieve these
strategic results it is recommended, or necessary, to rectify
lack of organisation. For instance, the increasing costs due to
material handling, force factories to check the facility layout
and, when necessary, to improve it. The evaluation of a
prospective improvement requires a large effort and a well-
established skill. The study and the optimisation of plant layout
is a strategic activity. This paper represents the last step of a
research program on the automatic design of plant layout.
The aim is to support the design activity of plant layout by
means of an integrated approach, taking into account many
criteria, both quantitative and qualitative. In particular, this
paper presents a global approach, based on material flow and
activity relationships. It is carried out using new software,
called LRP (layout and re-layout program), introduced by the
authors. A real application in a factory, specialising in the
production of electronic devices, is presented.
Keywords: Electronic devices; Facility layout; Flow of
materials; LRP software; Real application; Relationships
1. Introduction
The design process of plant layout is influenced by many
factors which can have a great impact on the factory, e.g.
plant-engineering, technology, management and also economic-
financial. The best solution must guarantee a harmonic syn-
thesis and a well-balanced combination of all of these.
During the last few years the systematic layout planning [1]
(SLP) approach is being widely applied. SLP consists of:
Correspondence and offprint requests to: Professor A. R. Regattieri,
DIEM – Plant Section, Faculty of Engineering, Bologna University,
Via le Risorgimento 2, Bologna 40136, Italy.
Received 10 April 2001
Accepted 9 April 2002
Data collection (i.e. product types, quantities, process, and
plants).
Block layout planning (with freedom inside blocks).
Intra-block design.
Plant realisation.
It is very important to underline the relevance of data collec-
tion, as it represents the fundamental starting point of the
procedure. Insufficient information can cause an explosion of
the layout problem, and can give misleading conclusions. The
focal point of the SLP procedure is block and intra-block
design.
Different authors have proposed some models with corre-
sponding algorithms [1–4]. Fundamentally, the models proposed
are focused on the flow of materials and the minimisation of
transportation. Several solutions are based on the relationships
among activities, and their relative closeness is the target
function to maximise [1].
This simple approach is often inadequate for real situations
involving more complex relationships among facilities, for
which a deeper analysis is required. Some multicriteria
approaches have been proposed [1,5,6] in order to take into
account simultaneously both the relationships and the flow of
materials in an integrated way. The use of a personal computer
is required by the great amount of data to process in the
layout study.
Many software programs and techniques [7–9], based on
single or multiple criteria, have been proposed. The critical
point in most of them is the strictness of constraints derived
from the analytical approach, which are normally too rigorous
for a direct application in a real case.
A real situation requires a “systemic approach” that takes
into consideration a large number of factors. Because of this,
and on the basis of the experiences of different layout studies
in various industrial sectors, the logistic and re-layout program
(LRP) [10], a new modular platform, is proposed. The LRP
platform was developed in 1999 and it is in permanent
improvement; this paper presents the current status of LRP.
After a short overview of the literature (Section 2) on layout
design, the most relevant features of LRP logic are described
in Section 3. A representation of the scheme proposed is
918 E. Ferrari et al.
presented in Section 4. Section 5 focuses on a real application
of LRP in a multi-plant factory operating in the field of
electronic devices. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section 6.
2. Literature
Many studies have been made on the facilities layout problem.
Fundamental formulation is due to Koopman and Beckmann
[11] with their quadratic assignment problem (QAP). Based
on QAP, different formulations are developed. Bazaraa [10]
introduced the quadratic set covering problem (QSP), Lawler
[12] the linear integer formulation, and Kaufman the mixed
integer programming problem.
Beyond QAP and their corollaries, non-linear formulations
are introduced, e.g. Tam and Li model attempts to minimise
an objective function defined as f = wij d2ij where wij represents
the flow of materials and dij the distance between facilities.
The solution of these models often requires very complex
algorithms and a large amount of computational resources.
Analytical methods can be classified as optimal, e.g. the well-
known branch and bound and cutting plane techniques, and
heuristics. The exacting requirements of optimal methods, in
terms of high memory and computer time, limit their appli-
cation; the largest problem solved optimally is a layout with
15 facilities [1].
For this reason heuristics have become more widely adopted.
They can be classified into construction, improvement, and
hybrid types.
Construction algorithms produce the solution ab initio without
requiring any starting layout, as in the well-known CORELAP
and ALDEP [13].
Improvement algorithms, such as CRAFT [14] and COFAD
[15], start with an initial layout and try to improve it with
facility exchanges.
Hybrid approaches provide a first construction phase and a
final improvement arrangement.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a powerful tool;
expert and hybrid systems, employing both algorithms and
knowledge-based systems, have been developed, and studies
have been made by Heragu and Kusiak [9] and Fisher and
Nof [4].
The importance of a multilevel approach has already been
underlined. However, in spite of the large amount of work on
layout design, very few papers consider the flow of material
and the relative closeness among activities, at the same time.
Further, the multi-criteria models proposed [16–18] have
non-trivial constraints and are difficult to adapt to real cases,
thus having few applications.
These problems are quite common for all of the presented
approaches; in real problems, all factors can vary over a
wide range and, generally, the analytical models introduce
unfeasible restrictions.
A new software package called Logistic and Re-layout Pro-
gram (LRP), centred on continuous dual analysis (flow of
materials and activities relationships), has therefore been
developed. Its most important features, i.e. interactivity, modu-
larity and integration, permit great flexibility and, as a conse-
quence, can fine tune solutions in real cases.
3. Integrated Approach by Logistic and
Re-layout Program (LRP)
Before introducing LRP logic, the most relevant features are
described.
3.1 Dual Approach
It is universally recognised that the flow of materials is a very
important factor in plant layout, but an accurate study can be
performed only if the relationships among activities are con-
sidered.
A complete approach must merge all the factors [18]. LRP
presents a dual track: the flow of materials and the relationship
among activities are treated by the same algorithms, in a
parallel or in a combined manner. The system works on both
factors at the same time and permits great flexibility during
the development of the layout.
3.2 Integration
For a program dedicated to layout design, the compatibility
and integration with CAD software are very important. LRP
supports this facility and allows an easy data interchange with
many advantages in accuracy and saving of elaboration time.
3.3 Modularity
LRP has a modular structure. It has two macro-sections, which
can work individually, i.e. data input and improvement of sol-
utions.
The section for data input is realised in Microsoft Access
for maximum compatibility with widespread information sys-
tems. It presents a user-friendly interface that guides the
designer, or the customer on data introduction. The optimising
section, based on Visio CAD support and the VBL language,
elaborates the data stored in the previous section for the
interactive generation of the plant layout.
Each of the two sections has an internal structure made of
basic modules, as shown in the LRP scheme.
3.4 Interactivity
A completely automatic approach can be too rigid: the extended
set of factors involved in layout design cannot be handled
independently of human control. With LRP the user operates
interactively during the generation of the layout and keeps
control at any moment of what LRP suggests.
3.5 Multilevel Analysis
The LRP platform has different levels of detail both on the
flow of materials and the activity relationships. In particular,

a flow control point (FCP) is introduced for a punctual analysis
of the flow of materials. The FCP represents an interchange
point for the materials, e.g. at machinery in shops or even at
a storage point for materials at a single machine. The introduc-
tion of FCPs enables the user to make a detailed analysis of
the materials moved among blocks, shops or areas, and inside
a single block, at different moments in the layout under con-
struction.
The first step in a correct procedure, ideally concentrates
the flow of materials in the centre of gravity of the blocks,
thus obtaining a quick definition of a draft layout in a “shop
logic”, with a little computational effort.
This first solution can be followed by a screening phase in
depth, contrary to many traditional approaches, which are based
only on shop logic, and ignore the intra-block flow of materials
and introduce a distortion of the final solution (Fig.1).
3.6 Entry List
A strategic target for the LRP platform is a very fast decisional
support system for layout construction. By experience, the final
layout corresponds strongly to the sequence by which shops,
or activities are introduced: that is, the entry list. This matter
is developed in [10,19]. LRP presents three different methods
for the selection of the entry list [10]:
Weighted ratio method.
Total maximum value.
Punctual maximum value.
These different methods are suitable for real applications
depending on the different application characteristics [10].
3.7 Position Research
Another fundamental problem is related to the positioning
procedure. In this phase a contribution by the user, in terms
Aggregate logic (shop)
M5
M1-M2-M3-M4
Production line 2
Shop 1
Flow control point logic
M2
M1
M3
M5
Production line 2
M4
Shop 1
Fig. 1. Shop logic and FCP logic.
Plant Layout Computerised Design 919
of experience and support, can help to achieve a fast and
good solution.
Automated algorithms can find an optimal position based on
the minimum of a target function (see target function), but a
critical contribution by the user is always needed. The LRP
platform supports the user’s interaction by a process called
gradient: starting from the optimal position, LRP shows the
trajectory, described by the barycentre of blocks, to be pos-
itioned in order to determine decreasing values of a target
function, e.g. the cost of material transport (Fig. 2).
3.8 Target Functions
The evaluation of the efficiency of the plant layout is carried
on by means of target functions. The most used target functions
are the annual cost of the material handling policy and the
total evaluation of relationships, expressed by coefficients rep-
resenting the proximity among blocks or activities [20,21].
Each function calculates a numerical value, as the design of
the plant layout is still in progress, in order to verify its
efficiency, or to compare different layout alternatives in the
final choice. In synthesis:
FO1 = material handling policy = 冘 冘 cij * zij * dij
i j
FO2 = total evaluation of activities proximity = 冘 冘 R
hk
h k
cij cost of handling per unit of length between i and j ($/m)
zij number of travels per year between i and j (trips/year)
dij distance between i and j (m)
Rhk value of the relation between h and k inside the influence area
Both these functions are very important because they influence
simultaneously the plant layout, as shown during real appli-
cations of the procedure. The LRP platform estimates, at the
same time, a set of target functions based on the two previous
formulations, respectively: FO1, FO2 and based on a hybrid
version defined as P1*FO1+P2*FO2 where P1 and P2 are
user-defined weights. LRP updates these functions in real-time.
3.9 Distance of Influence
It is logical to think that there is a correlation and a mutual
influence among activities, even if they are not directly contigu-
gradient
DRILLING MILLING
relationship
representation
CUTTING
STORAGE
LATHENING
Fig. 2. Application of gradient tool.
920 E. Ferrari et al.

According to a graphical representation, the density values of

these two aspects are transformed in arrows changing in width
FACILITY : Cutting and shape (Fig. 4).
Actual Distance of Influence (m)

New Distance of Influence (m)

4. LRP Logical-Scheme
Distance of
Influence OK Apply Cancel
The LRP platform presents two fundamental frameworks: the
input setting background and the drafting environment.
CUTTING
The input setting background permits an organic and system-
atic collection of data about areas, activities, machines, and
Form for re-setting of
Distance of Influence corresponding data on intended relationships and flows. Differ-
ent options, for example, on distance type or on closeness
Fig. 3. Distance of influence. scale are permitted.
The final framework is the working environment where
ous. In LRP, the target for the proximity of activities is software supported by the user develops and optimises the
calculated by the sum of every contribution due to those layout. It is CAD compatible both in input and in output, it
activities, which is in an influence area, whose extension is permits very powerful graphical functions and a real-time
defined by the user around each single block or facility (Fig. 3). analysis for different perspectives (flows, closeness of activities
and hybrid). A logic scheme is represented in Fig. 5.
3.10 Overcrowding Analysis
5. Real Application
Another facility supported by LRP is the hunting of “critical”
overcrowded points or zones, e.g. zones of high density in The last release of the LRP platform has been applied for a
flow of materials or in closeness among conflicting activities. relayout case, in a factory involved in the production of

LATHENING

PACKAGING DRILLING

Target Functions – L.R.P. 2.0.0

$ Shop
STORAGE $ FCP
DELIVERY Rel

Hybrid

Fig. 4. Overcrowding analysis example.

 Plant Layout Computerised Design 921

INPUT section

Existing file CAD

Area loading
New definition

Dimensions
Activities / Shop data
Flow Control Point

Type of distance

Material flows data Flow from to chart

Travel cost from to chart

User-defined scale
Relationships data
Relations from to chart

WORK section (CAD)

Entry list choice

Block position design

Target functions

Intra-block optimisation

Different
Overcrowding analysis
Layout options

Fig. 5. The LRP scheme.

electronic devices, e.g. inverters, battery chargers, and welding
machines (300 skilled personnel and 700.000 units sold
every year).
The main target of this complete relayout is to merge four
existing production areas, not close each other, and to replace
them by only three zones.
The flow of materials is large in this case history; a first
analysis is carried out centred on this topic, and the solution
is fine-tuned according to the relationships as second step.
As the first step, a mapping of the starting situation was
carried out by a reconstruction in the LRP environment, both
of the flow of materials and the activities relationships.
In the initial four facilities configuration of the company,
the number of kilometres travelled (without intra-facilities
travels) was about 8000. The intra-facilities path length was
about 1200 kilometres per year.
A new solution based on three sites, with a different con-
figuration of machines and shops, is developed.
In the LRP final relayout (on three sites), the total distance
travelled per year of the handled material amounts to about
6500 km (intra-facilities travel included), that is a saving of
about 1500 km/year, which is equal to 18%.
On closeness of activities, the new situation produces an
about 32% gain on the corresponding target function.
922 E. Ferrari et al.
Fig. 6. A product sample.
Because of CAD compatibility and the great interactivity, it
was possible to apply a set of constraints, using an analytical
approach, producing optimum results in real-time.
6. Conclusions
Plant layout optimisation is relevant both for new plants and
for existing companies. In general, it is a “capital intensive”
question.
During recent years, many approaches have been proposed
by different authors. The resort to artificial intelligence appears
the most promising, but real cases usually present constraints,
in terms of flexibility and variability, that conflict with the
analytical model proposed.
The last release of the logistic and relayout program (LRP)
approach is presented, in order to give information on the
procedure for the dual contemporaneous approach (flow of
materials and relationship), and CAD integration involved (for
a better layout design) [11,12]. Modularity, interactivity, two-
level analysis (shop and single flow control point), and a
variable entry list system are other significant features.
The LRP factors for the final decision-making are a set of
different target functions, overcrowding analysis and graphic
analysis of relationships.
A real application of LRP software in a company making
electronic devices is briefly presented. Using LRP, a new
solution is designed, with a saving of material transport costs
of about 18% (conservatively) and a gain in activity closeness
of about 32%.
The LRP platform has a modular architecture, and allows a
continuous improvement with the design or in the testing
phase; the integration of LRP with modules of warehouse
design and of manufacturing cells design appears very interest-
ing.
References
1. M. Bonfoli, A. Di Giulio, L. Ferrari and P. Garulli, “Definizione
del layout di impianti complessi mediante sistema esperto”, Impi-
antistica Italiana, 12(8), 1994.
2. M. Bonfioli, A. Di Giulio, P. Di Camillo and R. Salandra,
“Definizione del layout di impianti complessi mediante sistema
esperto: risultato operativo”, Impiantistica Italiana, 13(7), 1995.
3. S. Buffa, G. C. Armour and T. E Vollman, “Allocating facilities
with craft”, Harvard Business Review, 42(2), pp. 136–158, 1964.
4. E. L. Fisher and S. Y. Nof, “Fades: knowledge based facility
design”, Computerized Facilities Planning, Industrial Engineering
and Management Press, Norcross, 1985.
5. H. Lee Hales, Computer Aided Facilities Planning, Marcel Dekker,
New York, 1984.
6. A. Pareschi, “Impianti industriali”, Progetto Leonardo, Societœ
editrice Esculapio, Bologna, 1994.
7. L. Galbraith and W. Miller, “A multifactor approach to selecting
computer generated electronics assembly facility layout”, Com-
puters and Industrial Engineering, 18(1), 1990.
8. S. Heragu, “Facilities Design”, PWS Publishing Company, Bos-
ton, 1996.
9. S. Heragu and A. Kusiak, “Machine layout: an optimisation and
knowledge based approach”, International Journal of Production
Research, 28(4), pp. 615–635, 1990.
10. M. S. Bazaraa, “Computerised layout: a branch and bound
approach”, AIIE Transactions, 7(4), pp. 432–437, 1975.
11. T. C. Koopman and M. J. Beckmann, “Assignment problems and
the location of economics activities”, Econometrica, 25, pp. 53–75.
12. E. L. Lawler, “The quadratic assignment problem”, Management
Science, 9(4), pp. 586–599, 1963.
13. D. Sly, “Computerized Facilities Design and Management, an
overview”, IIE Solutions, 27 (8), 1995.
14. D. Sly, E. Grajo and B. Montreuil, “Layout design and analysis
software”, IIE Solutions, 27(7), 1995.
15. J. A. Tompkins and R. J. Reed, “An applied model for the
facilities design problem”, International Journal of Production
Research, 14(5), pp. 583–595, 1976.
16. P. Welgama and P. Gibson, “Computer-aided facility layout – a
status report”, Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 10(1), 1995.
17. P. Waghodekar and S. Sahu, “Facilities layout with multiple
objectives: MFLAP”, Engineering Cost and Productions Econom-
ics”, 10(2), pp. 105–112, 1986.
18. A. Housyar, “Computer aided facility layout: an interactive multi-
goal approach”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, 20(2), pp.
177–186, 1991.
19. M. Bandelloni, A. Pareschi and M. Tucci, “Progettazione auto-
matica su PC del layout degli impianti industriali”, Impiantistica
Italiana, 4(4), 1988.
20. A. Housyar and R. Dawood, “Development of an educational
facilities layout software”, Computers Industrial Engineering,
19(1), 1990.
21. L. Ketcham, M. Alstrom and L. McRoberts, “A comparison of
three computer assisted facilities design algorithms”, Computers
Industrial Engineering, 16(3), 1990.
22. A. Asato and H. Ali, “An improved floor planning algorithm
using topological constraint reduction”, IEEE transactions 0–7803-
2972–4, 1996.
23. A. Pareschi, A. Persona and A. Regattieri, “Progettazione com-
puterizzata del layout degli impianti industriali”, Proceedings of
XXVI ANIMP Congress, Ischia, 1999.
24. A. Persona, “Pianificazione automatica di lay-out industriali tramite
personal computer” , Impiantistica Italiana, 1, 1992.
25. D. Sly, “Autocad based industrial layout planning and material
flow analysis in factory flow and plan”, Proceedings of Winter
Simulation Conference, Ames, 1993.