Annual Reviews in Control 31 (2007) 255–267

www.elsevier.com/locate/arcontrol

Facility layout problems: A survey

Amine Drira a,b,*, Henri Pierreval a, Sonia Hajri-Gabouj b
a
LIMOS, UMR CNRS 6158, IFMA, Institut Français de Mécanique Avancée, Campus des Cézeaux, BP 265, F-63175 Aubière Cedex, France
b
URAII, INSAT, Institut National des Sciences Appliquées et de Technologie, Centre Urbain Nord, BP 676, 1080 Tunis, Tunisia
Received 14 January 2007; accepted 4 April 2007
Available online 5 November 2007

Abstract
Layout problems are found in several types of manufacturing systems. Typically, layout problems are related to the location of facilities (e.g.,
machines, departments) in a plant. They are known to greatly impact the system performance. Most of these problems are NP hard. Numerous
research works related to facility layout have been published. A few literature reviews exist, but they are not recent or are restricted to certain
specific aspects of these problems. The literature analysis given here is recent and not restricted to specific considerations about layout design.
We suggest a general framework to analyze the literature and present existing works using such criteria as: the manufacturing system features,
static/dynamic considerations, continual/discrete representation, problem formulation, and resolution approach. Several research directions are
pointed out and discussed in our conclusion.
# 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Manufacturing facility; Facility layout; Material handling; Dynamic layout; Optimization methods

1. Introduction design, such as loop layouts (Asef-Vaziri & Laporte, 2005),

The placement of the facilities in the plant area, often
referred to as ‘‘facility layout problem’’, is known to have a
significant impact upon manufacturing costs, work in process,
lead times and productivity. A good placement of facilities
contributes to the overall efficiency of operations and can
reduce until 50% the total operating expenses (Tompkins et al.,
1996). Simulation studies are often used to measure the benefits
and performance of given layouts (Aleisa & Lin, 2005).
Unfortunately, layout problems are known to be complex and
are generally NP-Hard (Garey & Johnson, 1979). As a
consequence, a tremendous amount of research has been
carried out in this area during the last decades. A few surveys
have been published to review the different trends and research
directions in this area. However, these surveys are either not
recent (Hassan, 1994; Kusiak & Heragu, 1987; Levary &
Kalchik, 1985), or focus on a very specific aspect of layout
dynamic problems (Balakrishnan & Cheng, 1998) and design
through evolutionary approaches (Pierreval, Caux, Paris, &
Viguier, 2003). Benjaafar, Heragu, and Irani (2002) conducted
a prospective analysis and suggested research directions. Our
conclusion will show that several of their research propositions
remain valid but other issues can also be raised.
In this article, we present a recent survey about layout
problems based on numerous literature references. First, in
Section 2, we consider several possible definitions of layout
problems. Then, we propose a general framework that can be
used to analyze the current literature. Section 3 distinguishes
the major features of the workshops that can be found. In
Section 4, emphasis is put on so called dynamic problems.
Section 5 discusses how facility layout problems can be
formulated. In Section 6, we are interested in the approaches
that are used to solve these problems. Although this review
cannot be exhaustive, it has been conducted from a large
number of literature references.

* Corresponding author at: URAII, INSAT, Institut National des Sciences 2. Definition of layout problems
Appliquées et de Technologie, Centre Urbain Nord, BP 676, 1080 Tunis,
Tunisia. Tel.: +216 71703829; fax: +216 71704329.
E-mail addresses: Amine.Drira@ifma.fr (A. Drira),
A facility layout is an arrangement of everything needed for
Henri.Pierreval@ifma.fr (H. Pierreval), Sonia.Gabouj@insat.rnu.tn production of goods or delivery of services. A facility is an
(S. Hajri-Gabouj). entity that facilitates the performance of any job. It may be a
1367-5788/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2007.04.001
256 A. Drira et al. / Annual Reviews in Control 31 (2007) 255–267
machine tool, a work centre, a manufacturing cell, a machine
shop, a department, a warehouse, etc. (Heragu, 1997).
Due to the variety of considerations found in the articles,
researchers do not agree about a common and exact definition of
layout problems. The most encountered formulations are related
to static layout problems (in opposition to the dynamic layout
problems that will be specifically discussed in Section 3).
Koopmans and Beckmann (1957) were among the first to
consider this class of problems, and they defined the facility
layout problem as a common industrial problem in which the
objective is to configure facilities, so as to minimize the cost of
transporting materials between them. Meller, Narayanan, and
Vance (1999) considered that the facility layout problem consists
in finding a non-overlapping planar orthogonal arrangement of n
rectangular facilities within a given rectangular plan site so as to
minimize the distance based measure. Azadivar and Wang
(2000) defined that the facility layout problem as the
determination of the relative locations for, and allocation of,
the available space among a given number of facilities. Lee and
Lee (2002) reported that the facility layout problem consists in
arranging n unequal-area facilities of different sizes within a
given total space, which can be bounded to the length or width of
site area in a way to minimize the total material handling cost and
slack area cost. Shayan and Chittilappilly (2004) defined the
facility layout problem as an optimization problem that tries to
make layouts more efficient by taking into account various
interactions between facilities and material handling systems
while designing layouts.
Numerous articles have been published in this area. In order
to highlight what seems to constitute essential features to
characterize layout problems, we propose in Fig. 1, a first
possible rough tree representation of the different factors taken
into account in the literature. In fact, the problems addressed in
research works differ, depending on such factors as: the
workshop characteristics (e.g. ail, specificities of the manu-
facturing systems, the facility shapes, the material handling
system, and the layout evolution), what is the problem
addressed (e.g., problem formulation, objectives and con-
straints) and the approaches used to solve it (Resolution
approaches). Although this tree representation can probably be
improved in future research works, we have found it helpful in
characterizing existing research works. Consequently, the rest
of this article is organized in accordance with this representa-
tion and with the most important features identified.
3. Workshop characteristics impacting the layout
Several types of workshop are addressed in the literature. In
fact, the layout problems addressed are strongly dependent on
the specific features of manufacturing systems studied. Several
factors and design issues clearly differentiate the nature of the
problems to be addressed, in particular: the production variety
and volume, the material handling system chosen, the different
possible flows allowed for parts, the number of floors on which
the machines can be assigned, the facility shapes and the pick-
up and drop-off locations. Due to their importance, these factors
are detailed below.
3.1. Products variety and volume
The layout design generally depends on the products variety
and the production volumes. Four types of organization are
referred to in existing articles, namely fixed product layout,
process layout, product layout and cellular layout (Dilworth,
1996). These key organizations are sometimes discussed
differently according to the authors.
In Fixed product layout, the products generally circulate
within the production facilities (machines, workers, etc.); in
this particular type of layout, the product does not move, it is the
different resources that are moved to perform the operations on
the product. This type of layout is commonly found in
industries that manufacture large size products, such as ships or
aircrafts. Process layout groups facilities with similar functions
together (resources of the same type). This organization is often
reported to be suited when there is a wide variety of product.
Product layout is used for systems with high production
volumes and a low variety of products. Facilities are organized
according to the sequence of the successive manufacturing
operations. In Cellular layout, machines are grouped into cells,
to process families of similar parts. These cells also need to be
placed on the factory floor. Therefore, one is also generally
concerned with so called intra cells machine layout problems,
as mentioned for example in (Proth, 1992, ch. 3) and (Hamann
& Vernadat, 1992). Here, one is concerned with finding the best
arrangement of machines in each cell.
3.2. Facility shapes and dimensions
Two different facility shapes are often distinguished (Fig. 2):
regular, i.e., generally rectangular (Kim & Kim, 2000) and
irregular, i.e., generally polygons containing at least a 2708
angle (Lee & Kim, 2000). As mentioned by Chwif, Pereira
Barretto, and Moscato (1998) a facility can have given
dimensions, defined by a fixed length (Li) and a fixed width
(Wi). In this case, the facilities are called fixed or rigid blocks.
According to the same authors, a facility can also be defined by
its area, its aspect ratio: ai = Li/Wi, an upper bound aiu and a
lower bound ail such that ail  ai  aiu. The aspect ratio was
also used by Meller et al. (1999). If ai = ail = aiu, this
corresponds to the fixed shape blocks case (Chwif et al., 1998).
3.3. Material handling systems
A material handling system ensures the delivery of material
to the appropriate locations. Material handling equipment can
be conveyors (belt, roller, wheel), automated guided vehicles
(AGV), robots, etc. (El-Baz, 2004). Tompkins et al. (1996)
estimated that 20–50% of the manufacturing costs are due to the
handling of parts and then a good arrangement of handling
devices might to reduce them for 10–30%.
When dealing with a material handling system, the problem
consists in arranging facilities along the material handling path.
Two dependent design problems are considered: finding the
facility layout and selecting the handling equipment. The type
of material-handling device determines the pattern to be used
A. Drira et al. / Annual Reviews in Control 31 (2007) 255–267 257

Fig. 1. Tree representation of the layout problems.

258 A. Drira et al. / Annual Reviews in Control 31 (2007) 255–267
Fig. 2. Regular and irregular facility shapes.
Fig. 3. Layout design considering material handling devices.
for the layout of machine (Devise & Pierreval, 2000; Heragu &
Kusiak, 1988). Co, Wu, & Reisman (1989) also pointed out that
the facility layout impacts the selection of the handling device.
Given the difficulty of solving both problems jointly, they are
mainly solved sequentially (Hassan, 1994). Among the major
types of layout arrangement based on the type of material
handling, one can distinguish, as depicted in Fig. 3: single row
layout, multi-rows layout, loop layout and open-field layout
(Yang, Peters, & Tu, 2005).
The single row layout problem occurs when facilities have to
be placed along a line (Djellab & Gourgand, 2001; Ficko,
Brezocnick, & Balic, 2004; Kim, Kim, & Bobbie, 1996;
Kumar, Hadjinicola, & Lin, 1995). Several shapes may be
considered from this basic situation, such as straight line, semi-
circular or U-shape (Hassan, 1994). The loop layout problem
deals with the assignment of m facilities to candidate locations
1, . . ., m, in a closed ring network, around which parts are
transported in one direction (Chaieb, 2002; Cheng & Gen,
1998; Cheng, Gen, & Tosawa, 1996; Nearchou, 2006; Potts &
Whitehead, 2001). The loop layout incorporates a Load/Unload
(L/U) station, i.e., location from which a part enters and leaves
the loop. This station is unique and it is assumed to be located
between position m and 1. The multi-rows layout involves
several rows of facilities (Hassan, 1994). The movements of
parts occur between facilities from the same row and from
different rows (Chen, Wang, & Chen, 2001; Ficko et al., 2004;
Kim et al., 1996). The open field layout corresponds to
situations where facilities can be placed without the restrictions
or constraints that would be induced by such arrangements as
single row or loop layout (Yang et al., 2005).
3.4. Multi-floor layout
Nowadays, when it comes to construct a factory in urban
area, land supply is generally insufficient and expensive. The
limitation of available horizontal space creates a need to use a
vertical dimension of the workshop. Then, it can be relevant to
locate the facilities on several floors, as depicted in Fig. 4. This
Fig. 4. Multi-floor layout.
figure shows that parts can move horizontally on a given floor
(horizontal flow direction), but also from one floor to another
floors located at a different level (vertical flow direction). The
vertical movement of parts requires a vertical transportation
device: elevator. In such situations, both the position on the
floor and the levels have to be determined for each facility, so
that the related problems are referred to as multi-floor layout
problems (Kochhar & Heragu, 1998).
Johnson (1982) seems to be among the firsts to address a
multiple-floor layout problem. He dealt with the problem of
defining relative locations of facilities in a multiple-floor
building. Later, other researchers focused on taking into
consideration vertical movements of parts from one floor to
another (Bozer, Meller, & Erlebacher, 1994; Meller & Bozer,
1996, 1997). Elevators are often the material handling system
reported (Lee, Roh, & Jeong, 2005). Their number and location
are either known (Lee et al., 2005) or to be determined through
optimization (Matsuzaki, Takashi, & Yoshimoto, 1999). In
(Matsuzaki et al., 1999), the capacity of each elevator was
considered as a constraint. The number of floors can be known
(Lee et al., 2005) or to be determined, depending on each floor
area and on the number and dimensions of the facilities
(Patsiatzis & Papageorgiou, 2002).
3.5. Backtracking and bypassing
Backtracking and bypassing (see Fig. 5) are two particular
movements that can occur in flow-line layouts, which impact
the flow of the products. Backtracking is the movement of a
part, from one facility to another preceding it in the sequence of
facilities in the flow-line arrangement (Braglia, 1996; Kouvelis
Fig. 5. Backtracking and bypassing.
 A. Drira et al. / Annual Reviews in Control 31 (2007) 255–267
& Chiang, 1992; Zhou, 1998). The number of these movements
has to be minimized. Zhou (1998) called this problem
Production Line Formation Problem (PLFP), which consists
in determining the orders (partial or total) of machines so as to
minimize the weighted sum of arrows whose direction is
contrary to the global flow of products, while taking into
account constraints on the rank of machines.
Bypassing occurs when a part skips some facilities during its
moving towards the flow line arrangement (Chen et al., 2001).
Hassan (1994) noticed that several procedures were presented
for dealing with and minimizing backtracking but no procedure
was suggested in the literature for addressing bypassing.
3.6. Pick-up and drop-off locations
It is often necessary to determine the location from which
parts enter and leave facilities, called Pick-up and Drop-off (P/
D) points. Although they can potentially be located at various
places (Kim & Kim, 2000), several researchers restricted their
possible position to reduce the complexity (Das, 1993;
Rajasekharan, Peters, & Yang, 1998; Welgama & Gibson,
1993). An example is given in Fig. 6.
4. Static vs. dynamic layout problems
We have seen that the workshop characteristics introduce
differences in the way to design the layout. In addition, it is well
known that nowadays, manufacturing plants must be able to
respond quickly to changes in demand, production volume and
product mix. Page (1991) reported that, on average, 40% of a
company’s sales come from new products. However, the change
in product mix yields to modify the production flow and thus
affects the layout. Gupta and Seifoddini (1990) stated that 1/3
of USA companies undergo major reorganization of the
production facilities every 2 years. A good number of authors
have tried to take such an important issue into account when
designing the layout. Most articles dealing with layout
problems are implicitly considered as static; in other words
they assume that the key data about the workshop and what it is
intended to produce will remain constant enough over a long
period of time. Recently the idea of dynamic layout problems
has been introduced by several researchers. Dynamic layout
problems take into account possible changes in the material
handling flow over multiple periods (Balakrishnan, Cheng,
Conway, & Lau, 2003; Braglia, Zanoni, & Zavanella, 2003;
Kouvelis, Kurawarwala, & Gutierrez, 1992; Meng, Heragu, &
Zijm, 2004). In this respect, the planning horizon is generally
divided into periods that may be defined in weeks, months, or
years. For each period, the estimated flow data remains
constant. A layout plan for the dynamic layout problem consists
of series of layouts, each layout being associated with a period.
Fig. 6. Example of P/D points of a machine with a regular shape.
259
Fig. 7. Evolution of the layout over four periods.
Fig. 7 shows a layout with six equal size locations to be
arranged in each of the four periods in the planning horizon.
The objective can be to determine a layout for each period in
the planning horizon, while minimizing the sum of the material
handling costs, for all periods, and the sum of the rearrange-
ment costs between time periods (Balakrishnan, Cheng,
Conway, et al., 2003; Baykasoglu, Dereli, & Sabuncu,
2006). Rearrangement costs have to be considered when
facilities need to be moved from one location to another
(Baykasoglu & Gindy, 2001).
5. Formulation of layout problems
The workshop characteristics and the static or dynamic
issues being raised, there are several ways of formulating
mathematically the layout problems so that they can be solved.
This formulation of static and dynamic layout problems can be
based on several types of models, which allow the complex
relationships between the different elements involved in a
layout problem to be expressed. Such models can rely on
different principles, which include graph theory (Kim & Kim,
1995; Leung, 1992; Proth, 1992) or neural network (Tsuchiya,
Bharitkar, & Takefuji, 1996). These models are generally used
to suggest solutions to the layout problems, which most
researchers consider as optimization problems, with either
single or multiple objectives. Depending on the manner in
which the problem is formulated, that is, discrete or continuous,
the formulations found in the literature can lead to Quadratic
Assignment Problems (QAP) or Mixed Integer Programmings
(MIP), which are the most commonly encountered. In each
case, a few authors have argued that the available data could not
be perfectly known and have suggested fuzzy formulation.
These approaches are discussed in the following.
5.1. Discrete formulation
The layout is sometimes considered as discrete (Fig. 8a). In
such a case, the associated optimization problem is sometimes
addressed as QAP. The plant site is divided into rectangular
blocks with the same area and shape, and each block is assigned
Fig. 8. Discrete and continual layout representations.
260 A. Drira et al. / Annual Reviews in Control 31 (2007) 255–267
to a facility (Fruggiero, Lambiase, & Negri, 2006). If facilities
have unequal areas, they can occupy different blocks (Wang,
Hu, & Ku, 2005).
A typical formulation, when determining the relative
locations of facilities so as to minimize the total material
handling cost, is as follows (Balakrishnan, Cheng, & Wong,
2003):
X
N X
N X
N X
N
min f ik d jl X i j X kl
i¼1 j¼1 k¼1 l¼1
s.t.
X
N 1998):
X i j ¼ 1; j ¼ 1; . . . ; N
i¼1
X
N The pick-up and drop-off points can generate constraints in
X i j ¼ 1; i ¼ 1; . . . ; N
j¼1
where N is the number of facilities in the layout, f ik the flow cost
from facility i to k, djl the distance from location j to l and Xij the
0, 1 variable for locating facility i at location j. The objective
function (1) represents the sum of the flow costs over every pair
of facilities. Eq. (2) ensures that each location contains only one
facility and Eq. (3) guarantees that each facility is placed only
in one location.
Discrete formulations are suggested, for example, by
Kouvelis and Chiang (1992) and Braglia (1996) to minimize
part backtrack in single row layouts. The same type of approach
is also used by Afentakis (1989), to design a loop layout, so as
to minimize the traffic congestion, i.e., the number of times a
part traverses the loop before all its operations are completed.
There are two kinds of congestion measures commonly used in
loop layout design: Min-Sum and Min-Max. A Min-Sum
problem attempts to minimize the total congestion of all parts;
while a Min-Max problem attempts to minimize the maximum
congestion among a family of parts (Cheng & Gen, 1998;
Cheng et al., 1996; Nearchou, 2006).
Discrete representation of the layout is commonly used for
dynamic layout problems. The problems addressed are related
to equal size facilities (Baykasoglu & Gindy, 2001; Lacksonen
& Enscore, 1993) and must respect constraints ensuring that
each location is assigned to only one facility at each period, and
that exactly one facility is assigned to each location at each
period (Baykasoglu & Gindy, 2001; McKendall, Shang, &
Kuppusamy, 2006). Budget constraints can be added to carry
out the reconfiguration of facilities on the floor plant
(Balakrishnan, Robert Jacobs, & Venkataramanan, 1992;
Baykasoglu et al., 2006). In fact, the rearrangement costs
must not exceed a certain level of the budget.
Discrete representations are not suited to represent the exact
position of facilities in the plant site and can not model
appropriately specific constraints as the orientation of facilities,
pick-up and drop-off points or clearance between facilities. In
such cases, a continuous representation is found to be more
relevant by several authors (Das, 1993; Dunker, Radonsb, &
Westkämpera, 2005; Lacksonen, 1997).
5.2. Continual formulation
In many articles, the layout representation is continual
(Fig. 8b). It is often addressed as Mixed Integer Programming
Problems (Das, 1993). All the facilities are placed anywhere
within the planar site and must not overlap each other (Das,
1993; Dunker et al., 2005; Meller et al., 1999).
The facilities in the plant site are located either by their
(1) centroid coordinates (xi,yi), half length li and half width wi or by
the coordinates of bottom-left corner, length Li and width Wi of
the facility. The distance between two facilities can be, for
example, expressed through the rectilinear norm (Chwif et al.,
(2)
d i j ððxi ; yi Þ; ðx j ; y j ÞÞ ¼ jxi  x j j þ jyi  y j j (4)
(3) the layout problem formulation (Kim & Kim, 2000; Welgama
& Gibson, 1993; Yang et al., 2005). In this case, the distance
traveled by a part from the drop-off of facility i to the pick-up of
facility j, can for example, be given by Eq. (5) (Kim & Kim,
2000).
d i j ¼ jxO I O I
i  x j j þ jyi  y j j (5)
where (xO O
i ; yi ) designate the coordinates of the drop-off point of
facility i, and (xIj ; yIj ) the coordinates of the pick-up point of
facility j.
The determination of the best locations of the P/D stations is
a specific problem, addressed for example by Chittratanawat
and Noble (1999), Kim and Kim (1999), and Aiello, Enea, and
Galante (2002).
Obviously, area constraints on the plant site exist, which
require the total area available to be superior or equal to the sum
of all the facility areas. The area allocated to each machine on
the floor plan must also take into account the space of other
resources or buffers, which are needed to operate the machine
(Lacksonen, 1997). The clearance between facilities can be
included or not in the facility surface (Braglia, 1996; Heragu &
Kusiak, 1988, 1991).
Another very important constraint is that facilities must not
overlap. Welgama and Gibson (1993) set two conditions for the
non-overlapping of facilities: condition of X-projection non-
overlapping and condition of Y-projection non-overlapping:
ðx jt  xib Þðx jb  xit Þ  0 (6)
ðy jt  yib Þðy jb  yit Þ  0 (7)
where (xit, yit) and (xib, yib) are the top-left and the bottom right
corners of the facility i and (xjt, yjt) and (xjb, yjb) are the top-left
and the bottom right corners of the facility j. Mir and Imam
(2001) defined an overlap area Aij between two facilities to
formulate this constraint. The layout optimization problem is
expressed as follows:
Minimize objective function
(8)
Subject to Ai j  0
 A. Drira et al. / Annual Reviews in Control 31 (2007) 255–267
where
Ai j ¼ li j ðDX i j ÞðDY i j Þ;
 
Li þ L j
DX i j ¼ li j  jxi  x j j;
2 are interested in situations where the clearance cannot be
 
Wi þ W j
DY i j ¼ li j  jyi  y j j;
2
 layout problem, the amount of parts circulating between
1 for DX i j  0 and DY i j  0
li j ¼
þ1 otherwise
ðLi ; W i Þ are the length and width of facility i, and (xi,yi) are
coordinates of facility i.
Other constraints can also be considered in the layout
formulation, such as a pre-defined orientation of certain
facilities (Dunker et al., 2005). Given such constraints, a typical
formulation of the optimization problem can be as follows:
X
N X
N
Minimize C ¼ f i j ðjxIj  xO I O
i j þ jy j  yi jÞ
i¼1 j¼1
where N is the number of facilities, f ij the amount/cost
of material flow from drop-off point of facility i to pick-up
point of facility j, (xO O
i ; yi ) the coordinates of drop-off point of
I I
facility i, and (x j ; y j ) are the coordinates of pick-up point of
facility j.
Very few works seem to deal with dynamic layout problems
with a continuous representation. Dunker et al. (2005)
addressed unequal size layout problems in a dynamic
environment and assumed that the facility sizes vary from
one period to another.
5.3. Fuzzy formulation
In many concrete cases, data affecting layout problems are
not exactly known. Stochastic approaches, such as the use of
queuing networks (Meng et al., 2004) are seldom seen. Fuzzy
logic has been proposed to handle the imprecision or uncertainty
that is often encountered (Evans, Wilhlem, & Karwowsky, 1987;
Grobelny, 1987a; Raoot & Rakshit, 1991). A few approaches
based on fuzzy concepts exist to design layouts.
Evans et al. (1987) addressed the placement of unequal size
facilities on the plant area. They expressed relations between
every pair of facilities by fuzzy relations describing closeness
and importance. These relations allow the analyst to specify the
importance associated with each pair of facilities to be located
at any distance from each other. The authors proposed a fuzzy
formulation of the problem through linguistic variables and
propose a heuristic. Grobelny (1987a, 1987b) tacked the
problem of locating n facilities to n fixed locations so as to
minimize the total material handling cost. The data impacting
the layout, such as closeness links and traffic intensity, are
fuzzy and modeled with linguistic variables and fuzzy
implications. A heuristic procedure, based on binary fuzzy
relations, is developed for the selection and the placement of
facilities in the available locations. Several principles of this
approach are also used by Raoot and Rakshit (1991), who
considered the problem of finding the best arrangement on
261
the plant site of facilities based on specifications about their
inter-relationship, which are characterized through linguistic
variables. Gen, Ida, and Cheng (1995) addressed a multi-
objective multi-rows layout problem with unequal area. They
precisely defined, and is therefore considered as fuzzy. In
Dweiri and Meier (1996), who dealt with a discrete facility
facilities, the amount of communications between facilities
(information flow) and the number of material handling
equipments used to transfer parts between facilities are
considered as fuzzy factors. The authors developed an Activity
Relationship Chart (ARC) based on the judgment of experts
that is used to specify relationships between each pair of
facilities. ARC is then integrated in the well known heuristic
‘CORELAP’ to find the best placement of facilities. Aiello and
Enea (2001) argued that the product market demands are
uncertain data that can be defined as fuzzy numbers. They
(9)
minimize the total material handling cost, along a single row
configuration, under the constraints that the capacity of
production for each department is limited. To solve a single
row layout problem, they split the fuzzy demands in a-cuts and
determine the a-level fuzzy cost for each possible layout. Deb
and Bhattacharyya (2005), addressed the placement of
facilities with pick-up and drop-off points in a continual
plane, so as to minimize the total material handling cost.
The position of facilities depends on such factors as: the
personal flow, the supervision relationships, the environmental
relationships and the information relationships, which are
rated using linguistic variables (e.g., high, medium, low). The
authors developed a fuzzy decision support system based on
a set of fuzzy IF–THEN rules. A construction heuristic is
then used do determine the placement of facilities in the plant
site.
5.4. Multi-objective layout problems
In most articles about layout problems, the main objective is
to minimize a function related to the travel of parts (the total
material handling cost, the travel time, the travel distance, etc.).
To be more realistic, some researchers have considered more
than a single objective. For example, Dweiri and Meier (1996)
aimed at minimizing simultaneously the material handling flow
and the equipment flow and the information flow. Most authors
combine the different objectives into a single one either by
means of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) methodology
(Harmonosky & Tothero, 1992; Yang & Kuo, 2003) or using a
linear combination of the different objectives (Chen & Sha,
2005).
Few researchers used a Pareto approach to generate a set of
non-dominated solutions. Aiello, Enea, and Galante (2006)
dealt with a layout problem related to the minimization of the
material handling cost and the maximization of an adjacency
function (assessment of the proximity requests between two
departments). The set of non-dominated solutions is then found
and a ‘‘best’’ solution is then selected from this set using the
well known ‘Electre method’.
262 A. Drira et al. / Annual Reviews in Control 31 (2007) 255–267
5.5. Simultaneous solving of different problems
It is common that other problems have to be solved together
with the layout design. For example, this occurs when
designing cellular manufacturing systems, where one has both
to assign machines to cells (cell formation problems) and to
determine the position of each machine in the cell (intra cell
layout). The position of each cell in the floor plant has also to be
determined. Instead of formulating and solving these problems
sequentially, it is sometimes possible to address these two
issues as a same problem (Gupta, Gupta, Kumar, & Sundaram,
1996).
6. Resolution approaches
Several approaches exist to address the different types of
problems that are formulated in the literature. They aim either
at finding good solutions, which satisfies certain constraints
given by the decision maker or at searching for an global or
local optimum solutions given one or several performance
objectives. This has yield heuristic based methods or
optimization algorithms, as explained in the following of this
section.
Some attempts of using artificial intelligent approaches
have been made to address layout problems. Expert systems
were, for example, proposed in (Heragu & Kusiak, 1990).
Hamann and Vernadat (1992) also used this approach for
intra-cell problems. More recently, an expert system based
on artificial neural networks was implemented for facility
layout construction in a manufacturing system (Chung,
1999).
Several types of optimization approaches have been
proposed in the literature. In the following, we distinguish:
exact methods, such as branch and bound, and approximated
approaches, such as heuristics and metaheuristics.
6.1. Exact approaches
Among articles that dealt with exact methods, Kouvelis
and Kim (1992) developed a branch and bound algorithm
for the unidirectional loop layout problem. Meller et al.
(1999) also used this approach to solve the problem of
placing n rectangular facilities within a given rectangular
available area. They proposed general classes of valid
inequalities, based on an acyclic sub-graph structure, to
increase the range of solvable problems and use them in a
branch-and-bound algorithm. Kim and Kim (1999) addressed
the problem of finding P/D locations on fixed size facilities
for a given layout. The objective of the problem is to
minimize the total distance of material flows between the
P/D points. Authors suggested a branch and bound
algorithm to find an optimal location of the P/D points of
each facility. Rosenblatt (1986) used a dynamic program-
ming method to solve a dynamic layout problem with
equal size facilities. However, only small problem instances
have been solved optimally (six facilities and five time
periods).
6.2. Approximated approaches
Since exact approaches are often found not to be suited for
large size problems, numerous researchers have developed
heuristics and metaheuristics.
Construction approaches build progressively the sequence of
the facilities until the complete layout is obtained whereas
improvement methods start from one initial solution and they try
to improve the solution with producing new solution. Construc-
tion heuristics include: CORELAP (Lee & Moore, 1967),
ALDEP (Seehof & Evans, 1967) and COFAD (Tompkins &
Reed, 1976), SHAPE (Hassan, Hogg, & Smith, 1986). Example
of improvement heuristics are: CRAFT (Armour & Buffa, 1963),
FRAT (Khalil, 1973) and DISCON (Drezner, 1987).
Among the approaches based on metaheuristics, one can
distinguish global search methods (Tabu search and simulated
annealing) and evolutionary approaches (genetic and ant
colony algorithms).
Chiang and Kouvelis (1996) developed a tabu search
algorithm to solve a facility layout problem. They used a
neighborhood based on the exchange of two locations of facilities
and included a long term memory structure, a dynamic tabu list
size, an intensification criteria and diversification strategies.
Chwif et al. (1998) used a simulated annealing algorithm to
solve the layout problem with aspect ratio facilities sizes. Two
neighborhood procedures are proposed: a pairwise exchange
between facilities and random moves on the planar site in the
four main directions (upwards, downwards, leftwards and
rightward). McKendall et al. (2006) suggested two simulated
annealing approaches for a dynamic layout problem with equal
size facilities. The first simulated annealing approach used a
neighborhood based on a descent pairwise exchange method,
which consists in randomly changing the location of two
facilities while the solution is improved. The second approach
combines the first simulated annealing algorithm and improve-
ment strategy called ‘‘look-ahead and look-back strategy’’.
Genetic algorithms seem to become quite popular in solving
facility layout problems (Pierreval et al., 2003). In fact, a large
number of studies using such approaches have been published:
see Banerjee and Zhou (1995), Mak, Wong, & Chan (1998),
Tam and Chan (1998), Azadivar and Wang (2000), Wu and
Appleton (2002), Dunker, Radonsb, & Westkämpera (2003),
and Wang et al. (2005) for the static layout problems, and
Balakrishnan and Cheng (2000), Balakrishnan, Cheng, Con-
way, et al. (2003), and Dunker et al. (2005) for the dynamic
layout problems.
A very important problem when developing a genetic
algorithm is related to the coding of a candidate floor plan. A
popular representation of the continual layout is the slicing tree
(Shayan & Chittilappilly, 2004). A slicing tree is composed of
internal nodes partitioning the floor plan and of external nodes
representing the facilities. Each internal node can be labeled
either h (horizontal) or v (vertical), indicating whether it is a
horizontal or vertical slice whereas external nodes label the
facility index (1, 2, 3, . . ., n for n facilities). Each rectangular
partition corresponds to a space allocated to a facility. Fig. 9
shows a particular layout and the corresponding slicing tree.
 A. Drira et al. / Annual Reviews in Control 31 (2007) 255–267
Fig. 9. Slicing tree representation of the floor plan.
Wu and Appleton (2002) suggested a slicing tree to represent
simultaneously the layout and the aisles and adapted genetic
operators.
From a given layout, the slicing tree is generally encoded
into a string form, in order to use particular genetic operators.
Tam (1992) suggested coding a solution by a binary string with
two parts, which represent operators and operands, and latter in
three parts: the tree structure, the operators and the operands
(Tam & Chan, 1998). Al-Hakim (2000) improved Tam Chan’s
approach (1998) and proposed a new operator named
‘transplanting’, to ensure the coherence of an offspring. The
problem of avoiding reparation procedures when dealing with
slicing trees is tackled by Shayan and Chittilappilly (2004).
When authors addressed discrete layout problems, the
coding scheme differs from continual representation. For
discrete representation, a popular solution for coding layouts is
based on Space Filling Curves (SFC) (Wang et al., 2005). The
plant area being divided into grids, a space filling curve defines
a continuous sequence through all neighbored squares in the
underlying layout (Fig. 10). Space-filling curves ensure that a
facility is never split (Bock & Hoberg, 2007). Nevertheless, this
technique requires many rules to verify the connection of all
positions of a layout as for example using expert rules (Wang
et al., 2005).
When a space filling strategy is defined, solutions have to be
coded. Islier (1998) decomposed strings into three segments,
encoding the sequence of facilities, the area required for each
facility and the width of each sweeping band. Recently, Wang
et al. (2005) encoded the chromosome’s genes through five
segments strings. The first segment shows the department
Fig. 10. String scheme of a discrete layout representation based on a space
filling curve (Wang et al., 2005).
263
placement sequence. The second gives the required areas of each
department. The third segment indicates the site size (length and
width). The fourth segment shows the sweeping direction
(1: horizontal, 2: vertical) and the fifth segment indicates the
sweeping bands. An example is illustrated in Fig. 10.
The objective function used in evolutionary methods is
generally expressed as a mathematical cost function, which is
derived from the problem formulation under consideration. To
take into account in a more realistic way the system
performance, simulation models have been connected to
evolutionary methods to evaluate the candidate solutions
(Azadivar & Wang, 2000). Hamamoto, Yih, and Salvendy
(1999) addressed a real problem of pharmaceutical industry.
The chromosome evaluation is performed through the
simulation of a 4 months production.
Ant colony optimization has been recently applied for
solving layout problems. Solimanpur, Vrat, and Shankar (2005)
developed an ant algorithm for a sequence-dependent single
row machine layout problem. Baykasoglu et al. (2006)
proposed an ant colony algorithm for solving the unconstrained
and budget constrained dynamic layout problems.
The hybridization of different metaheuristics has also been
considered for solving facility layout problems. Mahdi, Amet,
and Portman (1998) proposed a hybrid approach for minimiz-
ing the material handling cost. They used a simulated annealing
algorithm to solve the geometrical aspect of the problem, a
genetic algorithm to make decisions about the material
handling system and an exact method (Hitchcock’s method)
to minimize the total material handling utilization cost. Mir and
Imam (2001) presented a hybrid approach for a layout problem
with unequal area facilities. Starting from an initial solution
given by a simulated annealing algorithm, the optimal positions
of facilities are determined by an analytical search technique in
a multi-stage optimization process. Lee and Lee (2002)
presented a hybrid genetic algorithm for a fixed shape and
unequal area facility layout problem. Tabu search and
simulated annealing are first used to find global solutions
and the genetic algorithm is introduced in the middle of the
local search process to search for a global solution.
Balakrishnan, Cheng, Conway, et al. (2003) developed a
hybrid genetic algorithm to solve the dynamic layout problem
previously tackled by Rosenblatt (1986). The initial population
is generated with two methods: a random method and an
Urban’s procedure (Urban, 1993). The crossover is based on a
dynamic programming approach and the mutation is achieved
by the CRAFT heuristic (Armour & Buffa, 1963). McKendall
and Shang (2006) developed and compare three hybrid ant
colony algorithms for a dynamic facility layout problem. They
combine an ant colony with three local search procedures: (1) a
random descent pairwise exchange procedure, (2) a simulated
annealing algorithm and (3) a look-ahead/look-back procedure.
7. Conclusion and research directions
In this article, we have presented a recent comprehensive
survey related to facility layout problems. Although this survey
cannot be exhaustive, the analysis carried out is based on a large
264 A. Drira et al. / Annual Reviews in Control 31 (2007) 255–267
number of literature references. From this analysis, it appears
that articles related to layout design continue to be regularly
published in major research journals and that facility layout
remains an open research issue. Several current trends and
directions seem worth being mentioned.
First of all, recent papers include more and more complex
and/or realistic characteristics of the studied manufacturing
systems. Typical examples are P/D points, aisles, complex
geometrical constraints, several floors, which are taken into
account together when formulating the layout design problem.
This is indeed an important issue because many articles contain
restrictive assumptions that are not adapted to the complexity of
many manufacturing system facilities. This is an old trend
(Benjaafar et al., 2002). However, research is still needed. The
use of a third dimension when designing a plant is a recent
consideration that certainly requires more research, for
example to select and optimize resources related to the vertical
transportation of parts between different floors.
The often unrealistic aspect of static approaches, which
consider that the data available are relevant to characterize the
future operating conditions of the system, seems to be now well
identified by researchers. Dynamic approaches may sometimes
be a potential alternative; meanwhile, they often rely on
knowledge of the future operating conditions. Fuzzy methods
can offer interesting possibilities to include uncertainty.
However, as already noted by Benjaafar et al. (2002), research
is still needed to suggest or improve methods for designing (1)
robust and adaptive layouts, (2) sensitivity measures and
analysis of layouts and (3) stochastic models used to evaluate
solutions.
In terms of methods used to solve layout problems, one can
obviously see that the use of metaheuristics is more and more
reported in articles, in order to cope with problems of a larger
size and to take into account more realistic constraints.
Evolutionary algorithms seem to be among the most popular
approaches. Solving methods are also hybridized, either to
solve complex problems (e.g., metaheuristics embedding
heuristics or connected with exact methods) or to provide
more realistic solutions (e.g., connection of evolutionary
principles with simulation). Approaches based on artificial
intelligence are now seldom published. Given the fact that it is
probably difficult to solve everything without using some kind
of expert knowledge about the system, there is probably still a
need for hybrid methods capable of optimizing the layout while
taking into account expert available knowledge.
We have noticed that most published works focus on
determining the position of facilities. However, in practice this
problem is often consider together with other design problems,
such as the choice of the type of manufacturing or
transportation resources, the design of cells, the determination
of resources capacities, etc. These problems are often not
independent (for example, the choice of a conveyor as a
material handling device does not induce the same constraints
as the choice of automated guided vehicles). Therefore, there is
still research needed for solving the different problems involved
in the design of the workshop simultaneously instead of
sequentially. Such combinations, that start to be addressed, turn
out to be promising and would worth being developed and
improved. This would lead to favor more global research about
workshop design, instead of concentrating on facility layout
problems.
The articles studied in this article focus on manufacturing
system applications. However, layout design problems also
concern other types of systems, such as ports, supermarkets,
airports, etc. These constitute interesting areas that could
benefit from the advances made in the specific area of
manufacturing.
As a final remark, let us note that commercial software tools
available on the market to globally assist in the design of
manufacturing are currently limited. Therefore, there is
probably a need for trying to make the resolution approaches
more generic, so that they can be embed as layout procedures in
software tools supporting the design of manufacturing systems.
The combination with graphical tools would also render such
tools more efficient and attractive and a few authors have
started to consider possible interfaces with virtual reality
systems.
References
Afentakis, P. A. (1989). Loop layout design problem for flexible manufacturing
systems. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 1, 143–
175.
Aiello, G., & Enea, M. (2001). Fuzzy approach to the robust facility layout in
uncertain production environments. International Journal of Production
Research, 39(18), 4089–4101.
Aiello, G., Enea, M., & Galante, G. (2002). An integrated approach to the
facilities and material handling system design. International Journal of
Production Research, 40(15), 4007–4017.
Aiello, G., Enea, M., & Galante, G. (2006). Multi-objective approach to facility
layout problem by genetic search algorithm and Electre method. Robotics
and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 22, 447–455.
Al-Hakim, L. (2000). On solving facility layout problems using genetic
algorithms. International Journal of Production Research, 38(11), 2573–
2582.
Aleisa, E. E., & Lin, L. (2005). For effectiveness facilities planning: Layout
optimization then simulation, or vice versa? In Proceedings of the 2005
Winter Simulation Conference.
Armour, G. C., & Buffa, E. S. (1963). A heuristic algorithm and simulation
approach to relative allocation of facilities. Management Science, 9(2), 294–
300.
Asef-Vaziri, A., & Laporte, G. (2005). Loop based facility planning and
material handling. European Journal of Operational Research, 164(1),
1–11.
Azadivar, F., & Wang, J. (2000). Facility layout optimization using simulation
and genetic algorithms. International Journal of Production Research,
38(17), 4369–4383.
Balakrishnan, J., & Cheng, C. H. (1998). Dynamic layout algorithms: A state-
of-the-art survey. Omega, 26(4), 507–521.
Balakrishnan, J., & Cheng, C. H. (2000). Genetic search and the dynamic layout
problem. Computers & Operations Research, 27(6), 587–593.
Balakrishnan, J., Cheng, C. H., & Wong, K. F. (2003a). FACOPT: A user
friendly FACility layout OPTimization system. Computers & Operations
Research, 30(11), 1625–1641.
Balakrishnan, J., Cheng, C. H., Conway, D. G., & Lau, C. M. (2003b). A hybrid
genetic algorithm for the dynamic plant layout problem. International
Journal of Production Economics, 86(2), 107–120.
Balakrishnan, J., Robert Jacobs, F., & Venkataramanan, M. A. (1992). Solutions
for the constrained dynamic facility layout problem. European Journal of
Operational Research, 57(2), 280–286.
 A. Drira et al. / Annual Reviews in Control 31 (2007) 255–267
Banerjee, P., & Zhou, Y. (1995). Facilities layout design optimization with
single loop material flow path configuration. International Journal of
Production Research, 33(1), 183–204.
Baykasoglu, A., Dereli, T., & Sabuncu, I. (2006). An ant colony algorithm for
solving budget constrained and unconstrained dynamic facility layout
problems. Omega, 34(4), 385–396.
Baykasoglu, A., & Gindy, N. N. Z. (2001). A simulated annealing algorithm for
dynamic layout problem. Computers & Operations Research, 28(14), 1403–
1426.
Benjaafar, S., Heragu, S. S., & Irani, S. A. (2002). Next generation factory
layouts: Research challenges and recent progress. Interface, 32(6), 58–76.
Bock, S., & Hoberg, K. (2007). Detailed layout planning for irregularly-shaped
machines with transportation path design. European Journal of Operational
Research, 177, 693–718.
Bozer, Y. A., Meller, R. D., & Erlebacher, S. J. (1994). An improvement-type
layout algorithm for single and multiple floor facilities. Management
Science, 40(7), 918–932.
Braglia, M. (1996). Optimization of a simulated-annealing-based heuristic for
single row machine layout problem by genetic algorithm. International
Transactions in Operational Research, 3(1), 37–49.
Braglia, M., Zanoni, S., & Zavanella, L. (2003). Layout design in dynamic
environments: Strategies and quantitative indices. International Journal of
Production Research, 41(5), 995–1016.
Chaieb, I. (2002). Conception et exploitation des systèmes de production
flexibles manufacturières: Introduction des tâches de transport. Ph.D.
dissertation (in French). France: Spécialité en productique automatique
et informatique industrielle, Ecole centrale de Lille.
Chen, C. W., & Sha, D. Y. (2005). Heuristic approach for solving the multi-
objective facility layout problem. International Journal of Production
Research, 43(21), 4493–4507.
Chen, D. S., Wang, Q., & Chen, H. C. (2001). Linear sequencing for machine
layouts by a modified simulated annealing. International Journal of Pro-
duction Research, 39(8), 1721–1732.
Cheng, R., & Gen, M. (1998). Loop layout design problem in flexible
manufacturing systems using genetic algorithms. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 34(1), 53–61.
Cheng, R., Gen, M., & Tosawa, T. (1996). Genetic algorithms for designing loop
layout manufacturing systems. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 31(3–
4), 587–591.
Chiang, W. C., & Kouvelis, P. (1996). An improved tabu search heuristic for
solving facility layout design problems. International Journal of Production
Research, 34(9), 2565–2585.
Chittratanawat, S., & Noble, J. S. (1999). An integrated approach for facility
layout, P/D location and material handling system design. International
Journal of Production Research, 37(3), 683–706.
Chung, Y. K. (1999). A neuro-based expert system for facility layout construc-
tion. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 10(5), 359–385.
Chwif, L., Pereira Barretto, M. R., & Moscato, L. A. (1998). A solution to the
facility layout problem using simulated annealing. Computers in Industry,
36(1–2), 125–132.
Co, H. C., Wu, A., & Reisman, A. (1989). A throughput-maximizing facility
planning and layout model. International Journal of Production Research,
27(1), 1–12.
Das, S. K. (1993). A facility layout method for flexible manufacturing systems.
International Journal of Production Research, 31(2), 279–297.
Deb, S. K., & Bhattacharyya, B. (2005). Fuzzy decision support systems for
manufacturing facilities layout planning. Decision Support Systems, 40,
305–314.
Devise, O., & Pierreval, A. (2000). Indicators for measuring performances of
morphology and materials handling systems. International Journal of
Production Economics, 64(1–3), 209–218.
Dilworth, J. B. (1996). Operation management. McGraw Hill.
Djellab, H., & Gourgand, A. (2001). A new heuristic procedure for the single-
row facility layout problem. International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, 14(3), 270–280.
Drezner, Z. (1987). A heuristic procedure for the layout of a large number
of facilities. International Journal of Management Science, 33(7), 907–
915.
265
Dunker, T., Radonsb, G., & Westkämpera, E. (2003). A coevolutionary algo-
rithm for a facility layout problem. International Journal of Production
Research, 41(15), 3479–3500.
Dunker, T., Radonsb, G., & Westkämpera, E. (2005). Combining evolutionary
computation and dynamic programming for solving a dynamic facility
layout problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 165(1), 55–69.
Dweiri, F., & Meier, F. A. (1996). Application of fuzzy decision-making in
facilities layout planning. International Journal of Production Research,
34(11), 3207–3225.
El-Baz, M. A. (2004). A genetic algorithm for facility layout problems of
different manufacturing environments. Computers & Industrial Engineer-
ing, 47(2–3), 233–246.
Evans, G. W., Wilhlem, M. R., & Karwowsky, W. (1987). A layout design
heuristic employing the theory of fuzzy sets. International Journal of
Production Research, 25, 1431–1450.
Ficko, M., Brezocnick, M., & Balic, J. (2004). Designing the layout of single-
and multiple-rows flexible manufacturing system by genetic algorithms.
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 157–158: 150–158.
Fruggiero, F., Lambiase, A., & Negri, F. (2006). Design and optimization of a
facility layout problem in virtual environment.. In Proceeding of ICAD 2006
(pp. 2206–).
Garey, M. R., & Johnson, D. S. (1979). Computers and intractability: A guide to
the theory of NP-completeness. New York: WH Freeman.
Gen, M., Ida, K., & Cheng, C. (1995). Multi row machine layout problem in
fuzzy environment using genetic algorithms. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 29(1–4), 519–523.
Grobeiny, J. (1987a). The fuzzy approach to facility layout problems. Fuzzy Sets
and Systems, 23, 175–190.
Grobelny, J. (1987b). On one possible ‘fuzzy’ approach to facility layout
problems. International Journal of Production Research, 25, 1123–1141.
Gupta, T., & Seifoddini, H. (1990). Production data based similarity coefficient
for machine–component grouping decisions in the design of cellular
manufacturing system. International Journal of Production Research,
28(4), 1247–1269.
Gupta, Y. P., Gupta, M. C., Kumar, A., & Sundaram, C. (1996). A genetic
algorithm-based approach to cell composition and layout design problems.
International Journal of Production Research, 34(2), 447–482.
Hamamoto, S., Yih, Y., & Salvendy, G. (1999). Development and validation
of genetic algorithm-based facility layout-a case study in the pharma-
ceutical industry. International Journal of Production Research, 37,
749–768.
Hamann, T., & Vernadat, F. (1992). The intra cell layout problem in automated
manufacturing system. 8th international Conference on CAD/CAM,
robotics and factory of the future (CARs & FOF 92).
Harmonosky, C. M., & Tothero, G. K. (1992). A multi-factor plant layout
methodology. International Journal of Production Research, 30(8), 1773–
1789.
Hassan, M. M. D. (1994). Machine layout problem in modern manufacturing
facilities. International Journal of Production Research, 32(11), 2559–
2584.
Hassan, M. M. D., Hogg, G. L., & Smith, D. R. (1986). SHAPE: A construction
algorithm for area placement evaluation. International Journal of Produc-
tion Research, 24(5), 1283–1295.
Heragu, S. S. (1997). Facilities design. Boston: BWS.
Heragu, S. S., & Kusiak, A. (1988). Machine layout problem in flexible
manufacturing systems. Operations Research, 36(2), 258–268.
Heragu, S. S., & Kusiak, A. (1990). Machine layout: An optimization and
knowledge-based approach. International Journal of Production Research,
28, 615–635.
Heragu, S. S., & Kusiak, A. (1991). Efficient models for the facility layout
problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 53(1), 1–13.
Islier, A. A. (1998). A genetic algorithm approach for multiple criteria facility
layout design. International Journal of Production Research, 36(6), 1549–
1569.
Johnson, R. V. (1982). SPACECRAFT for multi-floor layout planning. Manage-
ment Sciences, 28(4), 407–417.
Khalil, T. M. (1973). Facilities relative allocation technique (FRAT). Interna-
tional Journal of Productions Research, 11(2), 183–194.
266 A. Drira et al. / Annual Reviews in Control 31 (2007) 255–267
Kim, C. B., Kim, S. S., & Bobbie, L. F. (1996). Assignment problems in single-
row and double-row machine layouts during slow and peak periods.
Computers & Industrial Engineering, 30(3), 411–422.
Kim, J. G., & Kim, Y. D. (1999). A branch and bound algorithm for locating
input and output points of departments on the block layout. Journal of the
operational research society, 50(5), 517–525.
Kim, J. G., & Kim, Y. D. (2000). Layout planning for facilities with fixed shapes
and input and output points. International Journal of Production Research,
38(18), 4635–4653.
Kim, J. Y., & Kim, Y. D. (1995). Graph theoretic heuristics for unequal-sized
facility layout problems. Omega, 23(4), 391–401.
Kochhar, J. S., & Heragu, S. S. (1998). MULTI-HOPE: A tool for multiple floor
layout problems. International Journal of Production Research, 36(12),
3421–3435.
Koopmans, T. C., & Beckmann, M. (1957). Assignment problems and the
location of economic activities. Econometrica, 25(1), 53–76.
Kouvelis, P., & Chiang, W. C. (1992). A simulated annealing procedure for the
single row layout problems in flexible manufacturing systems. International
Journal of Production Research, 30, 717–732.
Kouvelis, P., & Kim, M. W. (1992). Unidirectional loop network layout problem
in automated manufacturing systems. Operations Research, 40, 533–550.
Kouvelis, P., Kurawarwala, A. A., & Gutierrez, G. J. (1992). Algorithms for
robust single and multiple period layout planning for manufacturing
systems. European Journal of Operations Research, 63(2), 287–303.
Kumar, K. R., Hadjinicola, G. C., & Lin, T. L. (1995). A heuristic procedure for
the single-row facility layout problem. European Journal of Operational
Research, 87(1), 65–73.
Kusiak, A., & Heragu, S. S. (1987). The facilities layout problem. European
Journal of Operational Research, 29(3), 229–251.
Lacksonen, T. A. (1997). Preprocessing for static and dynamic facility layout
problems. International Journal of Production Research, 35(4), 1095–1106.
Lacksonen, T. A., & Enscore, E. E. (1993). Quadratic assignment algorithms for
the dynamic layout problem. International Journal of Production Research,
31, 503–517.
Lee, G. C., & Kim, Y. D. (2000). Algorithms for adjusting shapes of depart-
ments in block layouts on the gird-based plane. Omega, 28(1), 111–122.
Lee, K. Y., Roh, M. I., & Jeong, H. S. (2005). An improved genetic algorithm for
multi-floor facility layout problems having inner structure walls and pas-
sages. Computers & Operations Research, 32(4), 879–899.
Lee, R., & Moore, J. M. (1967). CORELAP-computerized relationship layout
planning. The Journal of Industrial Engineering, 18, 195–200.
Lee, Y. H., & Lee, M. H. (2002). A shape-based block layout approach to
facility layout problems using hybrid genetic algorithm. Computers &
Industrial Engineering, 42, 237–248.
Leung, J. (1992). A graph-theoretic heuristic for flexible manufacturing sys-
tems. European Journal of Operational Research, 57(2), 243–252.
Levary, R. R., & Kalchik, S. (1985). Facilities layout-a survey of solution
procedures. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 9(2), 141–148.
Mahdi, A. H., Amet, H., & Portman, M. C. (1998). Physical layout with
minimization of the transport cost (Research Internal Report). Nancy,
France: LORIA.
Mak, K. L., Wong, Y. S., & Chan, F. T. S. (1998). A genetic algorithm for facility
layout problems. Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 11(1–2),
113–127.
Matsuzaki, K., Takashi, I., & Yoshimoto, K. (1999). Heuristic algorithm to solve
the multi-floor layout problem with the consideration of elevator utilization.
Computers & Industrial Engineering, 36(2), 487–502.
McKendall, A. R., & Shang, J. (2006). Hybrid ant systems for the dynamic
facility layout problem. Computers & Operations Research, 33(3), 790–803.
McKendall, A. R., Shang, J., & Kuppusamy, S. (2006). Simulated annealing
heuristics for the dynamic facility layout problem. Computers & Operations
Research, 33(8), 2431–2444.
Meller, R. D., & Bozer, Y. A. (1996). A new simulated annealing algorithm for
the facility layout problem. International Journal of Production Research,
34, 1675–1692.
Meller, R. D., & Bozer, Y. A. (1997). Alternative approaches to solve the multi-
floor facility layout problem. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 16(3),
192–203.
Meller, R. D., Narayanan, V., & Vance, P. H. (1999). Optimal facility layout
design. Operations Research Letters, 23(3–5), 117–127.
Meng, G., Heragu, S. S., & Zijm, H. (2004). Reconfigurable layout problem.
International Journal of Production Research, 42(22), 4709–4729.
Mir, M., & Imam, M. H. (2001). A hybrid optimization approach for layout
design of unequal-area facilities. Computers & Industrial Engineering,
39(1–2), 49–63.
Nearchou, A. C. (2006). Meta-heuristics from nature for the loop layout
design problem. International Journal of Production Economics, 101(2),
312–328.
Page, A. L. (1991). New product development survey: Performance, and best
practices. PDMA Conference.
Patsiatzis, D. I., & Papageorgiou, L. G. (2002). Optimal multi-floor
process plant layout. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 26(4–5),
575–583.
Pierreval, H., Caux, C., Paris, J. L., & Viguier, F. (2003). Evolutionary
approaches to the design and organization of manufacturing systems.
Computers & Industrial Engineering, 44(3), 339–364.
Potts, C. N., & Whitehead, J. D. (2001). Workload balancing and loop layout in
the deign of a flexible manufacturing system. European Journal of Opera-
tional Research, 129(2), 326–336.
Proth, J. M. (1992). Conception et gestion des systèmes de production. Presses
Universitaires de France. pp. 68–77.
Rajasekharan, M., Peters, B. A., & Yang, T. (1998). A genetic algorithm for
facility layout design in flexible manufacturing systems. International
Journal of Production Research, 36(1), 95–110.
Raoot, A. D., & Rakshit, A. (1991). A ‘fuzzy’ approach to facilities layout
planning. International Journal of Production Research, 29, 835–857.
Rosenblatt, M. J. (1986). The dynamics of plant layout. Management Science,
32(1), 76–86.
Seehof, J. M., & Evans, W. O. (1967). Automated layout design program. The
Journal of Industrial Engineering, 18, 690–695.
Shayan, E., & Chittilappilly, A. (2004). Genetic algorithm for facilities layout
problems based on slicing tree structure. International Journal of Produc-
tion Research, 42(19), 4055–4067.
Solimanpur, M., Vrat, P., & Shankar, R. (2005). An ant algorithm for the single
row layout problem in flexible manufacturing systems. Computers &
Operations Research, 32(3), 583–598.
Tam, K. Y. (1992). Genetic algorithms, function optimization and facility layout
design. European Journal of Operational Research, 63(2), 322–346.
Tam, K. Y., & Chan, S. K. (1998). Solving facility layout problems with
geometric constraints using parallel genetic algorithms: Experimentation
and findings. International Journal of Production Research, 36(12), 3253–
3272.
Tompkins, J. A., & Reed, J. R. (1976). An applied model for the facilities design
problem. International Journal of Production Research, 14, 583–595.
Tompkins, J. A., White, J. A., Bozer, Y. A., Frazelle, E. H., Tanchoco, J. M., &
Trevino, J. (1996). Facilities planning. New York: Wiley.
Tsuchiya, K., Bharitkar, S., & Takefuji, Y. (1996). A neural network approach to
facility layout problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 89(3),
556–563.
Urban, T. L. (1993). A heuristic for the dynamic facility layout problem. IIE
Transactions, 25(4), 57–63.
Wang, M. J., Hu, M. H., & Ku, M. H. (2005). A solution to the unequal area
facilities layout problem by genetic algorithm. Computers in Industry,
56(2), 207–220.
Welgama, P. S., & Gibson, P. R. (1993). A construction algorithm for the
machine layout problem with fixed pick-up and drop-off points. Interna-
tional Journal of Production Research, 31(11), 2575–2590.
Wu, Y., & Appleton, E. (2002). The optimisation of block layout and aisle
structure by a genetic algorithm. Computers & Industrial Engineering,
41(4), 371–387.
Yang, T., & Kuo, C. (2003). A hierarchical AHP/DEA methodology for the
facilities layout design problem. European Journal of Operational
Research, 147, 128–136.
Yang, T., Peters, B. A., & Tu, M. (2005). Layout design for flexible manu-
facturing systems considering single-loop directional flow patterns. Eur-
opean Journal of Operational Research, 164(2), 440–455.
 A. Drira et al. / Annual Reviews in Control 31 (2007) 255–267
Zhou, J. (1998). Algorithmes et outils pour l’analyse des flux de production à
l’aide du concept d’ordre. Ph.D. dissertation (in French). University of
Strasbourg 1.
Amine Drira is a doctoral student in industrial computing at the Institute of
Applied Sciences and Technology of Tunis, Tunisia (University of 7 November
at Carthage). He is currently working as an assistant professor at the High
Institute of Medical Technologies (University Tunis El Manar). His research
interests include facility layout, fuzzy computation, metaheuristics and multi-
objective optimization.
Henri Pierreval is a professor at the French Institute of Mechanical Engineer-
ing (IFMA) of Clermont-Ferrand in France. His research activities are carried
out within the LIMOS laboratory of Clermont-Ferrand (Laboratory of Comput-
ing, System Modeling and Optimization): UMR CNRS 6158. He received his
doctoral degree and ‘‘qualification to direct research’’ degree from the Uni-
versity of Lyon in France. The design, modeling, operation of manufacturing
267
systems and of networks of firms are the main focuses of Dr. Pierreval’s
research. He is the author or co-author of numerous articles in these areas,
published in well-known international refereed journals. He participates in
national and international research collaborations and is on the editorial board
of scientific journals.
Sonia Hajri-Gabouj is an associate professor at the Institute of Applied
Sciences and Technology of Tunis, Tunisia. She received her BS degree in
electrical engineering from the National Engineering School of Monastir,
Tunisia, in 1994. She got her MS and PhD degrees in industrial computing
and automatic from the University of Sciences and Technologies of Lille,
France, in 1994 and 1997, respectively. She received a ‘‘qualification to direct
research’’ degree from the National Engineering School of Tunis in 2003. She is
co-responsible for the URAII research unit in automatic and industrial comput-
ing of the Institute of Applied Sciences and Technology of Tunis. Her research
interests include fuzzy modeling, design and control of manufacturing systems,
scheduling and optimization and metaheuristics.