Section 5-Layout Planning Models and Design Algorithms

ISE-422- Facility Layout and Location
Section 5: Layout planning models and

design algorithms
1
Outline (1)
1. Introduction to Layout Analysis

2. Qualitative Approach: Systematic Layout
Planning
3. Quantitative Approaches: Mathematical
modeling
• Single Floor Model: Model P
• Multiple Floor Model: Model Q
2
Outline (2)
4. Heuristic Solution Approaches for Block

Layout
• Greedy Approach: Idea
• A Greedy Heuristic
• Row Layout using Greedy Heuristic
• Typical Layout using Slicing Structure
• Typical Layout using MULTIPLE Structure
5. Conclusion
3
Introduction (1)
• The generation of layout alternatives is a critical

step in the facilities planning process
• The layout selected will be either chosen or
based on one of the alternatives generated.
• In this chapter, we focus on developing layout
alternatives
4
Introduction (2)
Most facility layouts can be viewed at two levels:
 The block layout: which shows the location, shape, and size, of
each planning department. (Macro Level)
 Detailed layout: which shows the exact location of all

equipment, work benches, and storage areas within each
department.(Micro Level)
Both the block layout and the detailed layout need to be

developed and evaluated carefully.
5
Introduction (3)
• Which comes first?–Facility layout or Material handling
– Many appear to believe that it should be facility layout
– Material handling decisions have an impact on the
effectiveness of a layout:
• Centralized vs. decentralized storage of WIP, tooling and supplies
• Fixed path vs. variable path handling
• Unit load
• Degree of automation used in handling
• Type of level of inventory control, physical control and computer
control of materials
• Each of these considerations affects requirements for
space, equipment and personnel, as well as the
proximity required between functions 6
Introduction (4)
• Facility layout is considered first – over emphasis on
manufacturing
• If parts move from department A to B–It is logical to
have department B next to A–Handling is minimized
• If parts cannot move from department A to B
directly–WIP storage is necessary–Parts move from A
to Storage and then to B–In such a case, A and B
need not be close to each other
• Both facility layout and material handling should be
designed simultaneously
7
Introduction (5)
• Many procedures are available

• These procedures can be classified into two
main categories according to their primary
function: :
– Construction type layout methods: involve
developing a new layout “from scratch”
– improvement methods: generate
alternatives based on existing layout
8
Introduction (5)
Block Layout: Algorithm Classification
• The layout algorithm can be classified based on

the input data.
1
A
2 U
O U
 Qualitative approach: Use relationship chart 3
E
I
4
and department areas to build the block layout.
 Quantitative approach: expressed as a from-to
matrix and department areas to build the block
layout.
9
Introduction (5)
Block Layout: Algorithm Classification
• Layout algorithms can also be classified according

to their objective functions.
 Minimizing the sum of flows times distances: more

suitable when the input data is expressed as a
from- to chart
 Maximizing an adjacency score: more suitable for a

relationship chart.
10
Systematic layout planning procedure (1)
• Developed by Richard Muther (Practical Plant

Layout. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956)
• A conceptual approach that provides a process for
layout design
11
• Develop a feasible layout through a multistep
procedure that uses the following types of input
information:
 List of products to be manufactured, production
quantities, routing sheets for all products, list of
supporting services, standard times for all operation,
and all manufacturing activities grouped into planning
departments
 Relationship between various departments
• From the input, two intermediate outputs are established:
1. Flow of materials
2. activity relationships
12
13
Flow of materials
• Flow can consolidated into a square matrix (from-to-
chart)
• In the chart:
 Departments corresponds to rows and columns
 Each entry is equal to the material flow from the departm
corresponding to the row to the departments correspondi
to the column
 A standard unit must be chosen to measure the flows as
equivalent number of trips for a specified period of time (
all the products have the same handling requirement) 14
Activity relationships (chart)

• Visual representation of the closeness relationships
• Represents the relationships qualitatively using the
following letters:
–A = Absolutely necessary
–E = Especially important
–I = Important
–O = Ordinary closeness acceptable
–U = Unimportant
–X = not desirable to be close 15
Relationship diagram
• The relationship diagram positions activities
spatially
• Proximities reflect the relationship between pairs
of activities
• Usually two dimensional
16
Space relationship diagram
• Space relationship diagram combines space
requirements with relationship diagram
17
Layout alternatives
• Conversion of a space relationship diagram into several feasible
alternative block layouts
• not a mechanical process
– importance of intuition, judgment and experience
18
Systematic layout planning procedure: Example
(1)
Four departments are to be located in a building
of 600 ft x 1000 ft. the expected personnel
traffic flows and area requirement for
departments are shown in the tables below.
Develop a block layout using SLP
Dept. A B C D Department Dept. dim.
A 0 250 25 240 A 200 ft. x 200 ft.
B 125 0 400 335 B 400 ft. x 400 ft.
C 100 0 0 225 C 600 ft. x 600 ft.
D 125 285 175 0 D 200 ft. x 200 ft.
Systematic layout planning procedure:
Example (1)
Dept. A B C D
A 0 250 25 240
B 125 0 400 335
C 100 0 0 225
D 125 285 175 0
Example (1)
Dept. A B C D
A 0 250 25 240
B 125 0 400 335
C 100 0 0 225
D 125 285 175 0
Example (1)
Dept. A B C D
A 0 250 25 240
B 125 0 400 335
C 100 0 0 225
D 125 285 175 0
Example (1)
Dept. A B C D
A 0 250 25 240
B 125 0 400 335
C 100 0 0 225
D 125 285 175 0
Mathematical Modeling: Notations (1)
Parameters:
•
• m: total number of departments
• F: set of department pairs with positive flow values
• : set of department pairs with negative flow values
• fij : number of unit loads moved per unit time from
department i to department j (could be positive or
negative.)
• cij : cost of moving a unit load one distance unit
from department i to department j
24
Mathematical Modeling: Notations (2)
Decision variables:
• dij : distance between department i and
department j. Typically, it is measured as
rectilinear distance between department
centroids. However, it may also be measured
along aisle structure.
• xij : it is equal to 1 if department i is adjacent
to department j in the layout, and it is equal to
0 otherwise.
25
Mathematical Modeling: Objectives (1)
• Minimizing total flow distances (with costs)
26
• Maximizing adjacency score
Normalized adjacency score:
27
• Maximizing adjacency score

• In some cases, the layout planner may represent an
X relationship between departments i and j by
assigning a negative value to fij
• If such “negative flow” are used, the normalized
adjacency score must be modified as follows:
28
Mathematical Modeling:
Mixed Integer Linear Programing Model (MIP): Section 6.4.6

The facility layout problem may be formulated as a mixed
integer programming (MIP) problem with the following
assumptions:
 All departments are assumed to be rectangular.
 It assumes the distance-based objective function where
is measured rectilinearly between departments centroids.
 It is regarded as construction- type layout models
The model we show here is based on the one presented by

Montreuil.
Given Parameters (1)
Given decision variables (2)

Department i would be strictly on the
right side of department j if and only if

Department i would be strictly on the top
side of department j if and only if
31
The model (1)
32
The model (2)
33
The model (3)
34
The model (4)
35
The model (5)
36
The model (6)
37
The model (7)
38
The model (8)
39
The model (9)
40
The model (10)
It ensures that , which

means that department is
strictly to the east of
department
if
41
The model (11)
42
The model (12)
43
The model (13)
44
The model (14)
45
The model (15)

Department i would be strictly on the right
Department i would be strictly on the top side
side of department j if and only if of department j if and only if
46
The model (16)
47
The model (17)
48
The model (18)
49
The model (19)
50
The model (20)
The previous parameters and variables definitions lead to the
following model:
Subject to
51
The model (21)
•
Non-negativity constraints for the decision

variables
52
The model (22)
53
The model (23)
54
The model (24)
There are two issues with previous model, the first is:
1) The objective function contains the absolute value operator:
The absolute values in the objective function may be removed

by introducing a “positive part” and a “negative part” for each
term.
We set and
Then, and
Where , , , and are all nonnegative variables.
55
The model (25)

+ = ?
+ = ||
- = ?
- =
56
The model (26)
57
The model (27)
There are two issues with previous model, the second is:
2) The model is nonlinear because one of the constraints is not
linear:
One technique to linearize is use its half-perimeter. Therefore, the

approximate linear constraint becomes:
Where and represent the lower and upper limits imposed on the
half- perimeter of department , respectively.
58
The model (28)
Insome cases, we want to control the shape of a department. We
set () as the ratio of department’s longer side to its shorter side.
Such a ratio may be controlled simply by adding the following
linear constraints to the previous model:
59
The model (29)
60
The model (30)
Let us call it as P
61
Constructing an optimum layout using the MIP
model:
• Consider the following initial layout:
62
model:
• Assuming that departments A and G are fixed on the north

side of the building. The data is provided in the table below:
(note: other details are not provided in the book)
63
model:
• We can use the MIP model to construct the optimal layout.

• The solution is shown below where the layout cost is equal to
53,501.17 units.
64
Extension to Multiple floors
• Many existing and new industrial facilities in
countries such as Japan, Korea, and China are
multi-floor facilities.
• Some older industrial facilities in the united
states are multi-floor, and they are still in use.
65
• Some reasons for constructing multi-floor
facility layout:
 Usable land is limited
 Usable land is expensive
 Getting closer to industries zones.
• A multi-floor layout problem is more
challenging than a comparable single- floor
layout problem.
66
• A multi-floor facilities present certain
challenges:
 Vertical travel between floors.
 The number and location of vertical handling.
 Possible lack of coordination between.
departments on separate floors.
 Space constraints in multi- floor facilities.
67
Multiple floors (1)
• How to build a mathematical model incorporating
multiple floors?
min 𝑍=
: is the vertical distance between department i and department j.
68
Multiple floors (1)
• Adding the vertical distance to the model will make it bigger and
harder to solve.
• Possible approach to avoid one big mathematical model
69
Multiple floors (2)
We develop model 𝒬 as follows:
Parameters:
δ: Inter-floor distance between any two adjacent floors
𝑚: The total number of departments, 𝑖=1,…,𝑚.
𝐺: Total number of floors, 𝑔=1,…,𝐺.
𝑐𝑖𝑗𝑣: Cost of moving one unit per unit distance vertically between department 𝑖and 𝑗.
𝑓𝑖𝑗: Number of unit loads moved per unit time from department 𝑖to department 𝑗
𝐴𝑖: The area of department 𝑖.
𝑆𝑔: Available floor space on the floor 𝑔
Decision variables:
𝑥𝑖𝑗: is equal to 1 if department 𝑖 is assigned to floor 𝑔, 0 otherwise.

𝑑𝑖𝑗𝑧: is the vertical distance between department 𝑖 and department 𝑗.
𝑦𝑖: represents the floor number of a department 𝑖. 70
Multiple floors (3)
• The objective function:
Remember we want to minimize the cost per
unit time for movement between the floors.
Thus :
The objective function:
71
Multiple floors (4)
• A department can be assigned to exactly one
floor.
• The sum of areas of all departments in a floor

should be less than Sg
72
Multiple floors (5)
• How to calculate the total vertical cost flow
distance?
• The floor number for a department can be

calculated as:
• Now the distance can be calculated as:
73
Multiple floors (6)
74
Multiple floors (7)
75
Multiple floors (8)
Let us call it as Q
76
Multiple floors (9)
Two Stage Approach
• Stage 1: Solve Q
• Stage 2: For each floor solve P
How to solve P and Q?
• Exact Methods:
 Branch and bound based methods
 Cutting plane based methods
 Combination of branching, bounding and cutting/pricing...
• Heuristic Methods:
 Greedy heuristic methods
 Meta-heuristics (simulated annealing, genetic algorithms, etc.)
77
Heuristic Methods: Greedy method
The steps of implanting the greedy method are as follows:

1. Start with an initial solution (starting solution)
2. Set current solution as initial solution: this may be updated
when moved to next iteration.
Begin iteration:
A. To find a better solution (local best), move to a
neighborhood solution (next solution).
B. Set candidate solution as local best solution.
If candidate solution is not better that current solution, then :
- Terminate the algorithm.
Else
- Update current solution = local best solution.
- Continue to next iteration.
Heuristic Methods: Notations
Heuristic Methods: Greedy Approach (1)
Motivation:
• In the following slides we will see a simple structure of the greedy approach.
The aim is to show pictorially the basis of any greedy approach.
• Alternate versions of the greedy approach can be implemented by
considering various assumptions.
Assumptions:
• The objective of our greedy heuristic is to find a strict local optimal. We
assume that we search all members of the one step neighborhood (all single
swap solutions). However, in some scenarios, the size of one step
neighborhood will become exponential. In such scenarios, we can restrict the
neighborhood size.
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
• In the greedy approach's flow chart, all red

boxes needs problem specific information.
• In the greedy approach's flow chart, all green
boxes do NOT need any problem specific
information.
91
92
Heuristic Methods: Swap mechanism (1)
Swap: exchange or switch.

• One of the most simple, basic and oldest idea
for a heuristic.
• The idea led to the development of huge
number of permutation-based heuristics.
• Simulated annealing is one of the well know
meta-heuristic that has been developed upon
this idea.
93
The idea:
• Given a solution in a structure, swap the
elements within the structure to produce an
alternate solution.
Difficult or challenging part will be:
• to build a good structure that presents complete
information of the solution.
• to develop an efficient swapping mechanism that
explores all possible alternatives.
94
Example: Simple Row Layout
Problem: To find the best row layout for a given flow matrix.
Swap heuristic:
Solution Structure: A VECTOR containing four departments,
representing the row layout.
For example, following structure says department 1 is the first
in the row sequence. The next department to the left of dept
1 is dept 2 (similarly 3 next to 2).
Department four is at the end of the row.
95
• Initial or Current Solution: call it initial solution (if it is the
first iteration) or current solution in general.
• Neighborhood:
Possible swaps from the current solution:
96
We consider only single swaps for ease of
tractability, i.e., following swaps are only permissible
from the current solution. Example:
We call the SET of ALL such single swap solution

vectors as single exchange neighborhood

The above current solution has a neighborhood size
of =(4x3)/(2x1)=6 97
Local Best: Any solution (including the current
solution) which has the best objective function value
in the neighborhood is called as local best.
Candidate Solution: A solution from the
neighborhood is called as candidate solution, if we
will select it as the current solution for the next
iteration.
98
Greedy heuristic: Example (1)
Question: Given the following flow matrix among
departments 1 to 4, find the best row layout. Assume
distance between the adjacent departments is one
unit.
99
Solution:
Iteration 1:
Current solution = Initial Solution = [1; 2; 3; 4],
Current solution's objective function value =
T1;2;3;4 = 10* 1 + 15*2 + 20*3 + 10*1 + 5*2 + 5*1 = 125
100
Solution:
Iteration 1:
Current solution's neighborhood:
1 2 3 4
2 1 3 4 3 2 1 4 4 2 3 1
1 3 2 4 1 4 3 2 1 2 4 3
Cost at [2; 1; 3; 4], will be

T2;1;3;4 = 10x1 + 15x1 + 20x2 + 10x2 + 5x3 + 5x1 = 105 Local best
Similarly, we have T2;1;3;4 = 105, T3;2;1;4 = 95, T4;2;3;1 = 120, T1;3;2;4 = 120,
101
T1;4;3;2 = 105, T1;2;4;3 = 125.
Solution:
Iteration 2:
Current solution's neighborhood: Current solution's
3 2 1 4 objective function value
= 95
2 3 1 4 1 2 3 4 4 2 1 3
3 1 2 4 3 4 1 2 3 2 4 1
Cost at [4; 2; 1; 3], will be

T4;2;1;3 = 10 1 + 15 1 + 20 2 + 10 2 + 5 1 + 5 3 = 105 Local best
Similarly, we have T2;3;1;4 = 90, T1;2;3;4 = 125, T4;2;1;3 = 105, T3;1;2;4 = 105,
102
T3;4;1;2 = 105, T3;2;4;1 = 110.
Solution:
Iteration 2:
Current solution's neighborhood: Current solution's
2 3 1 4 objective function value
= 90
1 3 2 4 4 3 1 2 2 1 3 4
2 4 1 3 3 2 1 4 2 3 4 1
T1;3;2;4 = 120, T4;3;1;2 = 105, T2;1;3;4 = 105, T2;4;1;3 = 100, T3;2;1;4 = 95,
T2;3;4;1 = 105.
Local best = [2; 3; 1; 4], same as the current solution. No
Since greedy approach, we stop here. 103
improvement
Typical Layout
• What is the key element in proposing a heuristic?

 the solution structure
• What was the structure that we picked for row
layout?
 a vector
• What should be the structure for a typical
rectangular layout?
 not a direct answer, a research topic. But lets
discuss some successful approaches
104
Typical Layout: Slicing Structure-Idea (1)
105
Typical Layout: Slicing Structure-Idea (2)
106
Typical Layout: Example (1)
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
Swap – Type 1
116
Swap – Type 1
117
Swap – Type 2
118
Swap – Type 2
119
Swap – Type 2
120
Slicing Structure: Points to Remember
• Total number of columns in the matrix form is
(2m-1), where m is the total number of
departments.
• The number of internal nodes is m - 1.
• The first column should be an internal node.
• The last two columns should be an external
nodes.
• The number of zeroes in the bottom row
before any given column is greater than or
equal to the number of 1's before the given
column. 121
Slicing Structure: Example (1)
Is the following slicing structure valid? If yes, then
find the corresponding layout.
Solution:
Verification:
Rule1: The number of columns is odd, equal to 13
(m=7).
Rule2: The number of internal nodes is 6.
Rule3: The first column is an internal node.
Rule4: The last two columns are external nodes.
122
Is the following slicing structure valid? If yes, then
find the corresponding layout.
Solution:
Rule5: The total number of zeros and ones before
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
Typical Layout: MULTIPLE Structure-Idea
• Divide the given area Into small squares.
• The smaller the square area, the good the solution
will be.
• Let us assume that each small square has an area of
1 sq units.
135
MULTIPLE: Space Filling Curves (SFC)
• SFCs are used to reconstruct a new layout when any
two departments are exchanged.
• Consider the SFC below which is known as the
Hilbert curve.
136
MULTIPLE: Space Filling Curves (SFC) (2)
• The curve connects each grid such that a “dot”
traveling along the curve will always visit a grid that
is adjacent to its current grid
• Each grid is visited exactly once
137
MULTIPLE: Example (1)
• Suppose that the layout vector is given by 1-2-3-4-5-
6.
• Start from grid 1 and assign the first 16 grids (along
the SFC) to department 1
138
1 2 3 4 5 6
139
1 2 3 4 5 6
140
1 2 3 4 5 6
141
1 2 3 4 5 6
142
1 2 3 4 5 6
143
1 2 3 4 5 6
144
1 2 3 4 5 6
145
1 2 3 4 5 6
146
MULTIPLE Structure: Points to Remember (1)
• (SFCs) can be selected from standard curves, or can be hand drawn.
• Hilbert Curves are the common SFCs, and can be easily drawn for any
nxn grid, for n a power of 2.
• Peano Curves are other useful SFCs that can be used for the solution
structure.
• Typically, the solutions obtained from MULTIPLE algorithm need to
be “massaged” to smooth the department borders.
147
148
Alternative Layouts
- Type 1: Swap departments for a given SFC.
- Type 2: Change SFC to get new shapes for the
department.
- Typical approach:
• Develop more than one SFC
• For each SFC, find a good heuristic solution.
• Pick the best, from among the different SFCs'
good solutions, as the final best layout.
149
Multiple Floors
Example: Say 1-2-3 are to be placed in floor 1, 4-5-6
are to be placed on floor 2, and 7-8-9 are to be
placed on floor 3.
A practical way to represent the above multi-floor
layout is:
1-2-3-|-4-5-6-|-7-8-9
where | indicates change of floor.
150
Multiple Floors
1-2-3-|-4-5-6-|-7-8-9
Possible swaps:
Reassignment between the floors
1-2-|-3-4-5-6-|-7-8-9
rearrangement within a floor

1-3-2-|-4-5-6-|-7-8-9
151
Summary
Quantitative approach to block layout:
• Different objective functions
• Single floor model
• Multiple floor model
• Exact method for solving the mathematical models,
using packages (GAMS, AMPL, or LINGO).
• Heuristic method for block layout using greedy
approach:
– Row layout
– Typical layout: Slicing and Multiple structure.
152

Section 5-Layout Planning Models and Design Algorithms

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Section 5-Layout Planning Models and Design Algorithms

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISE-422- Facility Layout and Location

Section 5: Layout planning models and

1. Introduction to Layout Analysis

4. Heuristic Solution Approaches for Block

• The generation of layout alternatives is a critical

 Detailed layout: which shows the exact location of all

Both the block layout and the detailed layout need to be

• Many procedures are available

Block Layout: Algorithm Classification

• The layout algorithm can be classified based on

Block Layout: Algorithm Classification

• Layout algorithms can also be classified according

 Minimizing the sum of flows times distances: more

 Maximizing an adjacency score: more suitable for a

• Developed by Richard Muther (Practical Plant

Activity relationships (chart)

• Minimizing total flow distances (with costs)

• Maximizing adjacency score

Normalized adjacency score:

• Maximizing adjacency score

The model we show here is based on the one presented by

It ensures that , which

Non-negativity constraints for the decision

1) The objective function contains the absolute value operator:

The absolute values in the objective function may be removed

One technique to linearize is use its half-perimeter. Therefore, the

• Consider the following initial layout:

• Assuming that departments A and G are fixed on the north

• We can use the MIP model to construct the optimal layout.

: is the vertical distance between department i and department j.

𝑥𝑖𝑗: is equal to 1 if department 𝑖 is assigned to floor 𝑔, 0 otherwise.

The objective function:

• The sum of areas of all departments in a floor

• The floor number for a department can be

• Now the distance can be calculated as:

The steps of implanting the greedy method are as follows:

• In the greedy approach's flow chart, all red

Swap: exchange or switch.

We call the SET of ALL such single swap solution

Cost at [2; 1; 3; 4], will be

Cost at [4; 2; 1; 3], will be

• What is the key element in proposing a heuristic?

rearrangement within a floor

You might also like