1.

0 inch

GA-BASED OPTIMAL FACILITY LAYOUT DESIGN: CROSSOVER

AND MUTATIONS PROBABILITY EVALUATIONS

Sample only TITLE

A Research
Presented to
The Department of Industrial Engineering 1.0 inch
Technological Institute of the Philippines, Quezon City

1.5 inch
In partial fulfillment

Of the requirements in

IE501 Undergraduate Research for IE

Thesis Adviser:

Engr. Maricar M. Navarro, PhD, ASEAN Eng.

Submitted by:

Proponent 1

Proponent 1

Proponent 1

Proponent 1

Proponent 1

Proponent 1

i
 1.0 inch

PROOF OF EDIT

This is to certify that I have proof read and edited the design project entitled,

“_______________________________________________” prepared by

__________,_________,_______,______________ of Industrial Engineering

program

MR. JUAN DELA CRUZ

Editor’s Signature Over Printed Name

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to the following, who gave their

contributions to this thesis:

To the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), for giving me all the financial

support to finish this study.

My adviser, Dr. Ma. Cecilia C. Carlos for her guidance, motivation and

inspiration accorded.

To Dr. Jonathan W. Salvacion, the Dean of School of Graduate Studies for

constantly accepting me as a CHED scholar and giving a drive to complete my thesis

work.

To other Mapua Graduate School Professors, for their constructive suggestions

and criticisms that made me to prepare towards a bigger task.

All my classmates in MEP-IE, particularly Ms. Jocelyn Delgado for her

invaluable friendship. She has taught me that people need not be born from the same

parents in order to be brothers and sisters, thus she is my twin sister too. To Mr. Abayhon

and Mr. Dumalay for moral support during our thesis proposal.

Indeed, I can neither put the endless love and support of my family into words,

nor pay my debt to them by any means. Especially to my one and only “bhebhe ko”,

Engr. Bryan Navarro. This thesis would never be complete without his valuable

contribution, inspiration, encouragement to finish my master’s degree. And friendliness

of all people who surrounded me.

Foremost acknowledgement is duethe Lord Almighty for giving me wisdom,

courage and strength in making this thesis.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE…………………………...

……………………………………………………...i

APPROVAL SHEET...........................................................................................................ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..................................................................................................iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................iv

LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................vii

LiST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................viii

Abstract...............................................................................................................................ix

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................1

Chapter 2: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK......................................................................3

2.1 Review of Related Literature.....................................................................................3

Indicat
e sub 2.2 Types of Layout.........................................................................................................4
number
here 2.3 Facility Layout Problem............................................................................................4

2.4 Facility layout problem solution approaches.............................................................5

2.5 Genetic algorithm approaches...................................................................................8

2.6 Analogy of Numerical GA and Biological Genetics...............................................11

2.7 Summary of Related Articles...................................................................................13

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................17

3.1 Methodology............................................................................................................19

3.2 Test Case..................................................................................................................22

Numerical Example 1................................................................................................22

Numerical Example 2................................................................................................24

iv
 Facility Layout Problem Using Genetic Algorithm.......................................................26

Population Representation and Initialization.............................................................27

Evaluation of Initial Population.................................................................................28

Selection of Individuals for Mating...........................................................................31

Crossover (Recombination).......................................................................................32

Mutation.....................................................................................................................33

Evaluation of Offspring.............................................................................................34

Reinsertion of Offspring into the Population.............................................................34

Termination of the GA...............................................................................................35

Results and Discussion..................................................................................................35

Comparison with Different Approaches Using Numerical Example 1 (9 Facilities) 35

Sensitivity Analysis Using Numerical Example 2 (12 Facilities).............................37

Crossover and Mutation Probability Evaluations: 9 and 12 Facilities.......................41

Crossover and Mutation Probability Evaluations: 9 Facilities..................................41

Crossover and Mutation Probability Evaluations: 12 Facilities................................44

Conclusion.....................................................................................................................46

References......................................................................................................................47

Chapter 4: PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND

INTERPRETATION……………………49

Chapter 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION...............................................50

REFERENCES..................................................................................................................51

APPENDIX A....................................................................................................................53

Crossover and Mutation Probability Experimental Results for 9 and 12 Facilities.......53

v
APPENDIX B....................................................................................................................61

Matlab Codes.................................................................................................................61

APPENDIX C....................................................................................................................74

Example Exported Results from Matlab …………………………………………….74-

270

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Optimal Facility Results Comparison to Different Approaches.......................10

Table 2.2 Summary of Related Literature........................................................................13

Table 3.1 Material Flow between Equipment...................................................................22

Table 3.2 Unit Material Handling Cost............................................................................23

Table 3.3 Rectilinear Distance between Equipment........................................................24

Table 3.4 Material Flow between Equipment..................................................................24

Table 3.5 Unit Material Handling Cost............................................................................25

Table 3.6 Rectilinear Distance between Equipment.........................................................25

Table 3.7 Objective Function Values and Fitness Values of Initial Population of 9

Facilities.............................................................................................................................29

Table 3.8 Objective Function Values and Fitness Values of Initial Population of 12

Facilities.............................................................................................................................30

Table 3.9 Optimal Solutions of 9 Facilities.......................................................................36

Table 3.10 Comparison to Different Approaches.............................................................37

Table 3.11 Objective Value and Facilities Location for 50 Individuals and 50

Generations........................................................................................................................38

Table 3.12 Objective Value at Different Number of Individuals and Generations...........39

Table 3.13 Convergence (Iteration Number) at Different Crossover and Mutation

Probability..........................................................................................................................42

Table 3.14 Optimal Solution at Different Crossover and Mutation Probability..............45

vii
 Sample only

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Resolution Approaches......................................................................................7

Figure 2.2 Analogy of GA to Biological Genetics............................................................12

Figure 3.1 Research Paradigm..........................................................................................20

Figure 3. 2 Methodology of the Study..............................................................................21

Figure 3. 3 A material flow diagram of test case 1 can be represented by a vector flow. 23

Figure 3. 4 A material flow diagram of test case 2 can be represented by a vector flow. 25

Figure 3. 5 Flowchart of the Proposed Genetic Algorithm for Facility Layout Problem 26

Figure 3. 6 Encoding of Chromosomes..........................................................................27

Figure 3. 7 Encoding of Chromosomes...........................................................................27

Figure 3. 8 Roulette Wheel Selection...............................................................................32

Figure 3. 9 Swapped Crossover.......................................................................................33

Figure 3. 10 Swap Mutation..............................................................................................34

Figure 3.11 Best Facility Locations for 50 Individuals and 50 Generations....................38

Figure 3.12 Optimal Facility Location.............................................................................39

Figure 3.13 Graphical Representation Comparing the Objective Values at Different

Individuals and Generations..............................................................................................40

Figure 3.14 Crossover and Mutation Probability Combinations......................................41

Figure 3.15 Graphical representation of Convergence (Iteration Number) at Different

Crossover and Mutation Probability..................................................................................43

viii
 Sample only

ABSTRACT

Facility layout problem (FLP) is a naturally complex combinatorial optimization problem

on which the search for meta-heuristic solution approaches gained significant attention to

obtained optimal facility layout design. This paper investigates the convergence analysis

by changing the crossover and mutation probability of genetic algorithm (GA) in an

optimal facility layout design. This algorithm is based on suitable techniques including

multipoint swapped crossover and swap mutation operators. A number of test cases using

different implementations of genetic algorithm in an equal area facility were used to

show the robustness of the proposed method compared to other approaches.

Keywords: Facility layout Problem, genetic algorithm, meta-heuristics, material

handling cost

ix
 GA-BASED OPTIMAL FACILITY LAYOUT DESIGN

Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Sample only

1.1 Introduction

Sample only TITLE

PUT only Short title

Times New Roman :11 font Italic

Short Title starts at Chapter 1

Instructions : Click
“Insert “ Choose
“Page NUMBER ,then
“Format Page
Number” Click starts
at “(1)

Note that page no. 1 starts at

Chapter 1: PROBLEM
AND ITS BACKGROUND

1
 GA-BASED OPTIMAL FACILITY LAYOUT DESIGN

Chapter 2

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Related Literature and Studies

Sample only

Instructions All font

should be “Times New
Roman, Font 12 size

Double space line

spacing

2
 GA-BASED OPTIMAL FACILITY LAYOUT DESIGN

Summary of Related Articles (Sample Only)

Table 2.2 Summary of Related Literature

AUTHOR RESEARCH TITLE YEAR HIGHLIGHTS AND

FEATURES OF THE
STUDY
(Drira, Pierreval & Facility layout 2007 - Authors analyze and
Hajri-Gabouj , 2007) problems: A survey. suggested general
framework using
manufacturing system
features, static/dynamic
considerations, continual /
discrete representation,
problem formulation, and
resolution approaches
Chiang WC, Kouvelis An Improved Tabu 1996 - Developed a tabu search
Search heuristic for method in solving facility
Solving Facility layout problem that uses a
Layout Design
neighborhood based
Problems
including long term
memory structure, dynamic
tabu list size
Chwif L, Pereira A Solution to facility 1998 - Developed a simulated
Barreto MR, Moscato Layout Problem Using annealing algorithm to
LA Simulated Annealing solve facility layout
problem with aspect ratio
McKendall AR, Simulated Annealing 2006 - Used two simulated
Shang J, Kuppusamy Heuristics for the annealing approaches for a
S Dynamic Facility dynamic facility layout
Layout Problem
problem. They used
pairwise exchange method
and improve simulated
annealing called “look-
ahead and look-back
strategy
Solimanpur M, Vrat An Ant Colony 2005 - Developed an ant colony
P, Shankar R Algorithm for the algorithm in a sequence-
Single Row Layout dependent single row
Problem in Flexible
machine layout problem

3
 GA-BASED OPTIMAL FACILITY LAYOUT DESIGN

Manufacturing
Systems.
Baykasoglu A, Gindy A Simulated 2001 - Used ant colony
NNZ Annealing Algorithm algorithm in solving
for Dynamic Layout constrained and
Problem
unconstrained dynamic
layout problems.
Tong-tong L, Chao L, Optimal Design for 2011 - Developed a genetic
Hu Z Facility Workshop algorithm with penalty
Layout Based on function to minimized
Genetic Algorithm
“transportation distance” in
the workshop layout.
Yi Z, Hu Z, Zi-tian F, Optimal Design for 2009 - Presented an improved
Qiang W Facility Workshop adaptive genetic algorithm
Layout Based on for solving workshop
Genetic Algorithm.
layout. The crossover and
mutation possibility adjusts
adaptively with the fitness
value in accordance with
sigmoid function curve.
Tavakkoli- Solving a New 2007 - Proposed genetic
Moghaddam R, Mathematical Model algorithm to solve the
Panahi H. of a Closed-Loop closed-loop layout problem
Layout Problem with
with unequal-sized
Unequal-Sized
Facilities by a Genetic facilities.
Algorithm

Salas-Morera L, An Evolutionary 2011 - Used a genetic

Garcia-Hernandez L, Algorithm for the
Arauzo-Azofra A. Unequal Area Facility
Layout Problem.
Xu L, Yang S, Li A, An adaptive genetic 2011
Matta A algorithm for facility
layout problem in
cylinder block line
algorithm and utilize new
encoding representation for
designing plant layouts
with unequal area facilities
- Proposed an adaptive
genetic algorithm to
optimize material handling
cost and workshop
utilization and illustrated a
multi-objective model in
facility layout of cylinder

4
 GA-BASED OPTIMAL FACILITY LAYOUT DESIGN

block line.
Chan KC, Tansri H . A study of genetic 1994 - Studied different genetic
crossover operations crossover operators to
on the facility layout solve facility layout
problem
problem.
Mihajlovic I, Using Genetic 2007 - Proposed genetic
Zivkovic Z, Strbac N, Algorithms to Resolve algorithm to minimize
Zivkovic D, Facility Layout material handling costs in
Jovanovic A. Problem
manufacturing layout
problem.
Adel El-Baz M A genetic algorithm 2004 - Proposed genetic
for facility layout algorithm to solve the
problems of different problem of optimal
manufacturing
facilities layout in
environments
manufacturing systems
design
Mak KL, Wong YS, A genetic algorithm 1998 - Developed a genetic
Chan TS. for facility layout algorithm to solve facility
problems layout problems
Aiello G, La Scalia A multi objective 2012 - Developed a multi
G, Enea M genetic algorithm for objective genetic algorithm
the facility layout to solve facility layout
problem based upon
problem based on slicing
slicing structure
encoding structure encoding

Kulkarni P, Shanker A Genetic Algorithm 2004 - Adopted a genetic

K. for Layout Problems algorithm methodology to
in Cellular solve quadratic assignment
Manufacturing
problems in order to
Systems
minimize material handling
cost.

Misola M. G and B. Optimal Facility 2013 - Studied genetic

Navarro Layout Problem algorithm in an equal area
Solution using Genetic facility. They used the
Algorithm
methodology of single
crossover point. They

5
 GA-BASED OPTIMAL FACILITY LAYOUT DESIGN

compared their best

Misola M.G and B. A multipoint swapped 2014
Navarro crossover and swap
mutation to obtain
optimal facility layout
design
optimal solution using the
same GA parameters in 19
different sets of population
and generation
- Studied genetic
algorithm in an equal area
facility. They used the
methodology of multi point
swapped crossover. They
compared their best
optimal solution using the
same GA parameters in 19
different sets of population
and generation

6
 GA-BASED OPTIMAL FACILITY LAYOUT DESIGN

Chapter 3 Sample only

METHODOLOGY
Theoretical Framework

Input Process
Output
• Facility Layout Problem Review of Facility Layout
Literature Problem Resolution New method using
• Genetic Algorithm Approach Genetic Algorithm for
Principles Review GA Methodology Facility Layout
• Benchmark Numerical Develop New method for Problem
Example GA (Proposed chart for Impact of Crossover
GA) and Mutation
• Programming Skills
Apply develop method in
• Software : Matlab Probability to Optimal
Benchmark Numerical
R2010a facility Layout Design
Example : Test Case 1
Title : GA - BASED
Comparison with Different
OPTIMAL
Approaches using GA
Sensitivity analysis FACILITY LAYOUT

(Individual, Generation) in DESIGN :

an Optimal Facility Layout CROSSOVER AND
Design : Test Case 2 MUTATION
Sensitivity Analysis PROBABILITY
Evaluation of crossover EVALUATIONS
and mutation probability
(Test Case 1 and Test Case
2)

Figure 3.1 Research Paradigm

7
 GA-BASED OPTIMAL FACILITY LAYOUT DESIGN

Figure 3. 2 Methodology of the Study

Table 3.1 Material Flow between Equipment SAMPLE ONLY FOR TABLES note :
avoid colors in your table
8
 GA-BASED OPTIMAL FACILITY LAYOUT DESIGN

From/
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
To
1 0 100 3 0 6 35 190 14 12
2 0 0 6 8 109 78 1 1 104
3 0 0 0 0 0 17 100 1 31
4 0 0 0 0 100 1 247 178 1
5 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 1 79
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 3.4 Material Flow between Equipment
From/To 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0 3 2 2 1 3 0 2 1 4 2 1
2 3 0 2 3 2 4 1 0 0 3 1 2
3 2 2 0 1 0 2 2 3 2 0 3 2
4 2 3 1 0 2 3 3 2 1 0 2 1
5 1 2 0 2 0 1 3 0 1 2 2 1
6 3 4 2 3 1 0 2 1 0 3 1 1
7 0 1 2 3 3 2 0 2 3 0 1 3
8 2 0 3 2 0 1 2 0 3 2 2 0
9 1 0 2 1 1 0 3 3 0 2 2 3
10 4 3 0 0 2 3 0 2 2 0 2 1
11 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 0 2
12 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 0 3 1 2 0

Figure 3.4 A material flow diagram of test case 2 can be represented by a vector flow
(sample only

9
 GA-BASED OPTIMAL FACILITY LAYOUT DESIGN

Sample only for EQUATIONS

(3.1)

Where Fij is the amount of material flow among equipment i and j, Cij is the unit

material handling cost between locations of equipment i and j, and Dij is the rectilinear

distance between the centroids of locations between equipment i and j and TC is the total

material handling cost of the system.

The objective function (Tables 3.7 - 3.8) is used to provide a measure of how

individuals have performed in the problem domain. In the case of a minimization

problem, the most fit individuals will have the lowest numerical value of the associated

objective function.

10
 GA-BASED OPTIMAL FACILITY LAYOUT DESIGN

Figure 3.13 Graphical Representation Comparing the Objective Values at Different Individuals and Generations

(SAMPLE ONLY FOR GRAPHS)

11
 GA-BASED OPTIMAL FACILITY LAYOUT DESIGN
Sample only

Figure 3.15 Graphical representation of Convergence (Iteration Number) at Different Crossover and Mutation Probability

The result of the simulation shows that fast convergence can be obtained at mutation probability of 0.9 or 1.0 in any

crossover probability.

12
 GA-BASED OPTIMAL FACILITY LAYOUT DESIGN

Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION

Sample only
 GA-BASED OPTIMAL FACILITY LAYOUT DESIGN

Chapter 5

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Sample only

14
 GA-BASED OPTIMAL FACILITY LAYOUT DESIGN

REFERENCES
Sample only (ALPHABETICALL ARRANGE) Author , year title…etc.

Adel El-Baz, M. (2004). A genetic algorithm for facility layout problems of different
manufacturing environments. Computers and Industrial Engineering, (47), 233-246.

Aiello, G., G. La Scalia and M. Enea (2012). A multi objective genetic algorithm for the
facility layout problem based upon slicing structure encoding. Expert Systems with
Applications.

Aleisha, E.E. and L. Lin (2005). For Effectiveness Facilities Planning: Layout
Optimization then simulation, or vice versa?. Proceedings of the 2005 Winter Simulation
Conference.

Baykasoglu, A. and N. N. Z. Gindy (2001). A Simulated Annealing Algorithm for

Dynamic Layout Problem. Computers and Operations Research, Volume 28 (14), 1403-
1426.

Chan, K. C. and H. Tansri (1994). A study of genetic crossover operations on the facility
layout problem. Computers and Industrial Engineering, Volume 26 (3), 537-550.

Chiang, W. C., P. Kouvelis (1996). An Improved Tabu Search heuristic for Solving
Facility Layout Design Problems. International Journal of Production Research, Volume
34 (9), 2565-2585.

Chipperfield, A., P. Fleming, H. Pohlheim and C. Ponseca. Genetic Algorithm Toolbox

for use with Matlab User’s Guide Version 1.2. Department of Automatic Control and
Systems Engineering of the University of Sheffield.

Chwif, L., M. R. Pereira Barreto and L. A. Moscato (1998). A Solution to facility Layout
Problem Using Simulated Annealing. Computers in Industry, Volume 36 (1-2), 125-132.

Drira, A., H. Pierreval and S. Hajri-Gabouj (2007). Facility layout problems: A survey.
Annual Reviews in Control 31, 255-267.

Haupt, R. and S. Haupt (2004). Practical Genetic Algorithms. Second Edition, John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Kulkarni, P. and K. Shanker (2007). A Genetic Algorithm for Layout Problems in

Cellular Manufacturing Systems. IEEE, 694-698.

Mak, K. L., Y. S. Wong and T. S. Chan (1998). A genetic algorithm for facility layout
problems. Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Volume 1 (1-2), 113-
123.

15
 GA-BASED OPTIMAL FACILITY LAYOUT DESIGN

McKendall, A. R., J. Shang and S. Kuppusamy (2006). Simulated Annealing Heuristics

for the Dynamic Facility Layout Problem. Computers and Operations Research, Volume
33 (8), 2431-2444.

Mihajlovic, I., Z. Zivkovic, N. Strbac, D. Zivkovic and A. Jovanovic (2007). Using

Genetic Algorithms to Resolve Facility Layout Problem. Serbian Journal of
Management, Volume 2 (1), 35-46.

Ramkumar, A. S. and S. G. Ponnambalam (2004). Design of single-row layout for

Flexible Manufacturing Systems using genetic algorithm and simulated annealing
Algorithm. IEEE Conference on Cybernetics and Intelligent Systems, 1143-1147.

Salas-Morera, L., L. Garcia-Hernandez and A. Arauzo-Azofra (2011). An Evolutionary

Algorithm for the Unequal Area Facility Layout Problem. 2011 11th International
Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications, 414-419.

Solimanpur, M., P. Vrat and R. Shankar (2005). An Ant Colony Algorithm for the Single
Row Layout Problem in Flexible Manufacturing Systems. Computers and Operations
Research, Volume 33 (8), 583-598.

Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R. and H. Panahi (2007). Solving a New Mathematical Model of

a Closed-Loop Layout Problem with Unequal-Sized Facilities by a Genetic Algorithm.
Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE IEEM, 327-331.

Tompkins, J. A. and J. A. White (1996). Facilities Planning. 2nd Ed., New York, John
Wiley.

Tong-tong, L., L. Chao and Z. Hu (2011). Optimal Design for Facility Workshop Layout
Based on Genetic Algorithm. IEEE.

Xu, L., S. Yang, A. Li and A. Matta (2011). An adaptive genetic algorithm for facility
layout problem in cylinder block line. IEEE, 749-753.

Yi, Z., Z. Hu, F. Zi-tian and W. Qiang (2009). Study on the Facility Layout in Workshop
Based on Improved Adaptive Genetic Algorithm. IEEE.

16
 GA-BASED OPTIMAL FACILITY LAYOUT DESIGN

APPENDIX A

Crossover and Mutation Probability Experimental Results for 9 and 12 Facilities

Sample only

Experiment (1-25) 9 Facilities

Convergence
Mutatio
Experiment P G Crossover BEST TRIAL at (G)
n
No. iteration no.
1 300 300 0.1 0.1 4818 20 104
2 300 300 0.1 0.2 4818 20 148
3 300 300 0.1 0.3 4818 20 125
4 300 300 0.1 0.4 4818 20 8
5 300 300 0.1 0.5 4818 20 15
6 300 300 0.1 0.6 4818 20 9
7 300 300 0.1 0.7 4818 20 5
8 300 300 0.1 0.8 4818 20 16
9 300 300 0.1 0.9 4818 20 16
10 300 300 0.1 1.0 4818 20 9
11 300 300 0.2 0.1 4818 20 33
12 300 300 0.2 0.2 4818 20 126
13 300 300 0.2 0.3 4818 20 17
14 300 300 0.2 0.4 4818 20 57
15 300 300 0.2 0.5 4818 20 11
16 300 300 0.2 0.6 4818 20 6
17 300 300 0.2 0.7 4818 20 12
18 300 300 0.2 0.8 4818 20 10
19 300 300 0.2 0.9 4818 20 10
20 300 300 0.2 1.0 4818 20 10
21 300 300 0.3 0.1 4818 20 92
22 300 300 0.3 0.2 4818 20 172
23 300 300 0.3 0.3 4818 20 19
24 300 300 0.3 0.4 4818 20 21
25 300 300 0.3 0.5 4818 20 24

17