LAYOUT PLANNING

Contents
TABLE OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................. 3
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 4
A SHORT HISTORY.............................................................................................................................. 5
TYPES OF LAYOUT FORMATS ............................................................................................................. 6
FACILITY SHAPES AND DIMENSIONS .................................................................................................. 8
STATIC VS. DYNAMIC LAYOUT PROBLEMS .......................................................................................... 9
FORMULATION TECHNIQUES ............................................................................................................. 9
RESOLUTION APPROACHES.............................................................................................................. 11
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE .................................................................................................. 21
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 22

TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Tree representation of FLP ................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2 Online store layout............................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3 Heat map tool ...................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 4 Facility shape ....................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 5 Dynamic Layout ................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 6 Layout models from SPIRAL ................................................................................................ 17
Figure 7 Factory Layout Planner Interface ........................................................................................ 18
Figure 8 DES Simulation ................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 9 5D Simulation .................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 10 Collision Simulation
Figure 11 Use of Manikin ................................................................................................................ 20

INTRODUCTION
Determining the physical organization of a production system is defined to be the facility
layout problem. This well-studied combinatorial optimization problem arises in a variety of
production facilities, including service and communications settings. It is concerned with
finding the most efficient arrangement of m indivisible departments with unequal area
requirements within a facility. The objective is to ensure a smooth workflow or a particular
traffic pattern so as to minimize material handling costs and time. Three sets of constraints
present are: (1) department and floor area requirements (2) department location restrictions
and (3) budget restrictions.
The output of the facility layout problem is a block layout, which specifies the relative
location of each department.

A SHORT HISTORY
Numerous articles have been published in this area. 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 In order to highlight what
seems to constitute essential features to characterize layout problems a possible rough tree
representation of the different factors taken into account is shown (Amine Drira, 2007). In
fact, the problems addressed in research works differ, depending on such factors as: the
workshop characteristics (e.g., specificities of the manufacturing systems, the facility shapes,
the material handling system, and the layout evolution), what is the problem addressed (e.g.,
problem formulation, objectives and constraints) and the approaches used to solve it
(Resolution approaches).
Types, advantages and limitations, applications and future scope of different
resolution approaches are given emphasize in this project.

Figure 1 Tree representation of FLP

TYPES OF LAYOUT FORMATS

1) Process Layout
Similar equipments or functions are grouped together. A part being worked on then
travels according to the established sequence of operations. This is often reported to
be suited when there is a wide variety of product. Typically found application in jobshops and hospitals.
2) Product Layout
Equipment work processes are arranged according to the progressive steps by which
the product is made. The path for each part is a straight line. It is used for systems
with high production volumes and a low variety of products. Production line is a
typical example.
3) Fixed-position Layout
The product remains at one location. Manufacturing equipments are moved to the
product. This type of layout is commonly found in industries that manufacture large
size products. Shipyards, construction sites, movie lots etc are examples.
4) Cellular Layout
Dissimilar machines are grouped into work centres to work on products having
similar shapes or processing requirements. 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. Here, one is concerned with finding the best arrangement of
machines in each cell.
5) Office Layout
Process of positioning workers, their equipments and spaces to provide flow of
information. Workers who require frequent contacts are positioned together.
6) Retail Layout
In a retail outlet the shelve space is allocated according to the customer behaviour.
One of the primary strategies is exposing customer to high margin items. Store layout
is a critical factor driving consumer elaboration and response in retailing.
Electronic retailing has created an innovative environment for retailers. While
interactivity and flow experiences are leading issues of online retailing, online success
remains to be founded on traditional retail principles, such as store layout. The layout
of a retail store has been found to significantly impact a retailers overall performance
through its influence on information processing, purchase intentions, attitude toward
the retailer, etc. (Underhill,2000).
Two types of online store layout common in practice are used namely tree and tunnel
web site structures. These store layouts are expected to either facilitate or hinder
consumer information processing and response. A tunnel structured online store
layout constricts a consumers movements through a web site to pre-determined paths.
Alternatively, a tree structured online store allows consumers to move freely and
access information easily (Poruban, 2002). It is theorized that tree and tunnel
structures have differing influences on consumer information processing and
response. A tunnel structured online store layout requires a greater amount of mental

energy for deciphering and learning the navigational elements of the store (i.e., it is
perceived as more difficult to use), thereby reducing the mental energy left available
for processing the information contained within the confines of the store; this in turn
hinders goal achievement resulting in lower consumer elaboration and response.

Figure 2 Online store layout

The technology acceptance model (TAM) theorizes that ease of use of a system
interface is one element that has significant behavioural implications (Davis, 1989,
1993; Venkatesh and Davis, 1996, 2000). The TAM argues that as a systems ease of
use (i.e., the perception of the amount of effort necessary to use the system) increases,
a users intentions to use the system increases (as intention to use the system is
derived from the belief that the information system can enhance user performance of
specific tasks while minimizing effort expended). As such, it can be theorized that a
tree structured online retail store layout, because it is perceived to be easier to use by
consumers, may stimulate greater elaboration, and, due to its ability to facilitate
consumer goal achievement by providing easy access to information, generate a more
favourable consumer response both toward the retailer as well as toward the featured
brand. (Griffith, 2005)
To determine the placing of different items in a tree or tunnel layout various analytical
tools can be used which tracks the points at website where most of the consumers

notice. Eye Movement Pattern is one of them. It refers to the complete paths that the
human eye takes when looking at a web page - from the moment visitors enter a page
to the moment they leave it. To get visitors to use your services or purchase your
products important features must be placed at where the eyes go.
Another tool is Heat map. A heat map is a graphical representation of data where the
individual values contained in a matrix are represented as colours. This allows a
visual representation of important areas in a website in terms of colours. The lay out
can be easily rearranged using the information obtained from heat map analysis.

Figure 3 Heat map tool

7) Warehouse Layout
Objective is to balance low cost storage with low cost material handling. Hence
tradeoffs between space and material handling are carried out.

FACILITY SHAPES AND DIMENSIONS

Two different facility shapes are often distinguished: regular, i.e., generally
rectangular (Kim & Kim, 2000) and irregular, i.e., generally polygons containing at
least a 2700 angle. A facility can have given dimensions, defined by a fixed length and
a fixed width (Chwif, Pereira Barretto and Moscato, 1998). In this case, the facilities
are called fixed or rigid blocks. According to the same authors, a facility can also be
defined, 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 (1999). If ai = ail = aiu,
this corresponds to the fixed shape blocks case (Chwif, 1998).

Figure 4 Facility shape

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. On average,
40% of a companys sales come from new products. However, the change in product mix
yields to modify the production flow and thus affects the layout. 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. Dynamic layout problems take into account
possible changes in the material handling flow over multiple periods. 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. 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
rearrangement costs between time periods (Balakrishnan, Cheng, Conway, 2003).
Rearrangement costs have to be considered when facilities need to be moved from one
location to another (Baykasoglu & Gindy, 2001).

Figure 5 Dynamic Layout

FORMULATION TECHNIQUES
1) Quadratic Assignment Problem Approach
Koopmans and Beckman (1957) introduced the quadratic assignment problem (QAP)
to model the problem of locating interacting plants of equal areas. The QAP has been
applied to a wide range of applications, including urban planning, control panel
layout, and wiring design. QAP is a special case of the facility layout problem
assuming that all departments have equal areas. The QAP formulation assigns every
department to one location and at most one department to each location. The cost of
placing a department at a particular location is dependent on the location of the
interacting departments. Such dependency leads to the quadratic objective that
inspires the problems name. The QAP is NP complete, which implies that, in
general, it is a hard problem to solve. Optimal solutions to general cases of the
problem can only be found for problems with less no. of departments.

Applications

Cellular and automated machine systems

Urban planning
Control panel layout
Wiring design etc.

2) Mixed-Integer Programming Formulation

A mixed-integer programming formulation for the facility layout problem was
presented by Montreuil in 1990 at a material handling research conference. The model
uses a distance-based objective. The objective is based on flow time rectilinear
distance between centroid of two departments .It utilizes a continuous representation
of a layout. Mixed-integer programming approach is powerful and holds much
promise. However, the model could only be optimally solved for small problems.
Applications

Variable area layouts and Dynamic layouts like construction sites,

FMS etc.

3) Graph- Theoretic Approaches

In graph-theoretic approaches, it is assumed that the desirability of locating each pair
of facilities adjacent to each other is known. The area and shape of the departments
are ignored (at the beginning), and each department is then represented by a node in a
graph. Satisfied department adjacency relationships are represented by an arc
connecting the two adjacent departments (nodes) in the graph. The objective function
translates to constructing a graph that maximizes the weight on the adjacencies (arcs)
between department pairs (nodes). These rely on a predefined desirable adjacency of
each pair of facilities.
Developing a layout in the graph-theoretic approach requires the following three
steps:
(1) Developing an adjacency graph from department relationships (which departments
are adjacent)
(2) Constructing the dual graph of the adjacency graph (represent departments as
adjacent regions having specific boundaries)
(3) Converting the dual graph into a block layout (specifying departments with
regular shapes and specific areas).
The objective function of the graph-theoretic approach is maximized if all department
pairs with positive flow have an arc between them. Difficult in general, and thus,
heuristics must be used to construct a maximally weighted adjacency graph. Unequalarea problems of even small size cannot be solved to guaranteed optimality with
graph-theoretic approaches (S. P. Singh, 2006).
Applications

Systematic Layout Planning

Unequal area layouts, FMS.

RESOLUTION APPROACHES
1) Exact Methods
Branch and Bound Methods
It is used to find an optimum solution of quadratic assignment formulated FLP
because QAP involves only binary variables. Only optimal solutions up to a problem
size of 16 are reported in literature. Beyond n=16 it becomes intractable for a
computer to solve it and, consequently, even a powerful computer cannot handle a
large instance of the problem. (Russell D. Meller, 1996)
Applications

Locating input and output points in a given layout

Unidirectional layouts.
Exact methods alone are not a powerful tool anymore. They can be
used along with artificial intelligence methods or metaheuristics for
giving better results in layout design of manufacturing plants.

2) Heuristics
Heuristic algorithms can be classified as construction type algorithms where a
solution is constructed from scratch and improvement type algorithms where an initial
solution is improved. Construction based methods are considered to be the simplest
and oldest heuristic approaches to solve the QAP from a conceptual and
implementation point of view, but the quality of solutions produced by the
construction method is generally not satisfactory. Improvement based methods start
with a feasible solution and tries to improve it by interchanges of single assignments.
Improvement methods can easily be combined with construction methods.
Different types of heuristics algorithms can be defined as:
1) Adjacency-Based Algorithms
Adjacency-based algorithms are usually incorporated within a graph based
approach.

Deltahedron Approach
One of the most widely cited adjacency-graph construction approaches is the
Deltahedron Approach (DA). The DA proceeds by determining the sequence
that nodes will enter the graph. At any stage, a node is entered into the centre
of the face (a triangle formed by three nodes) in the graph that will maximize
the adjacency benefits with the other departments in the face. Thus, a planar
graph is always maintained in DA, which allows for an easier transformation
to a block layout. Many heuristics have been developed in an attempt to
improve on DA's performance. The DA has also been modified to consider a

continuous relaxation of the adjacency decision variables using a shortest path

approach.

MATCH
MATCH, developed by Montreuil, Ratliff, and Goetschalckx is an interactive
construction type approach that utilizes a discrete representation and integer
programming to solve a b- matching problem. Their algorithm attempts to find
a matching that maximizes the adjacency score while satisfying the lower and
upper bound on the number of matches with each department, and the total
number of times a department must be matched with all other departments.
The algorithm considers the number of adjacent segments when computing
adjacency scores. The departments generated by MATCH are all rectangular
in shape and the approach is iterative, based on user input.

SPIRAL
SPIRAL, created by Goetschalckx, develops an adjacency graph and then a
block layout from the graph. SPIRAL utilizes the concept of "relationship
tuples" to construct an adjacency graph, where tuples quantify the relationship
between one department and other departments. The graph remains planar due
to its hexagonal structure and is used to construct an approximate relative
location diagram by fitting the unequal-area departments into a row-andcolumn structure. SPIRAL compares favourably to layouts generated by other
approaches.

2) Distance-Based Algorithms
The following algorithms employ a distance based objective.

CRAFT (Computerized Relative Allocation of Facilities Technique)

CRAFT is is a popular improvement algorithm that uses pair wise interchange
and was developed by Armour and Buffa in 1963. CRAFT begins by
determining the centroid of each department in the initial layout. It then
performs two-way or three-way exchanges of the centroids of nonfixed
departments that are also equal in area or adjacent in the current layout. For
each exchange, CRAFT will calculate an estimated reduction in cost and it
chooses the exchange with the largest estimated reduction (steepest descent).
It then exchanges the departments exactly and continues until there exists no
estimated reduction due to two-way or three-way exchanges. Constraining the
feasible department exchanges to those departments that are adjacent or equal
in area is likely to affect the quality of the solution, but it is necessary due to
its exchange procedure. The exchange procedure has also been criticized
because it may lead to departments with irregular shape.

SHAPE
SHAPE, developed by Hassan, Hogg, and Smith, is a construction algorithm
that utilizes a discrete representation and an objective based on rectilinear

distances between department centroids. The department selection sequence is

dependent on a ranking, which is based on each department's flows and a userdefined critical flow value. Department placement begins at the centre of the
layout. Subsequent department placement is based on the objective function
value with the department placed on each of the layout's four sides. The
algorithm is easy to implement; however, because the department shape is
controlled by the objective function, the shape of departments may deteriorate
toward the end.

NLT (Nonlinear optimization Layout Technique)

NLT, a construction algorithm developed by van Camp, Carter and Vannelli,
is based on nonlinear programming techniques and utilizes Euclidean
distances between department centroids. In the NLT model, there are three
sets of constraints: departments cannot overlap, cannot be located outside the
facility, and cannot be assigned area less than required. The constrained model
is transformed to an unconstrained form by an exterior point quadratic penalty
function method. With a three-stage approach, successively more difficult
problems are solved using the solution from the previous stage as an initial
solution point. The department shapes are all rectangular.

QLAARP (Qualitative Layout Analysis using Automated Recognition of

Patterns)
QLAARP, a construction approach that was developed by Banerjee et al. uses
qualitative layout anomalies (QLAs) to set binary variables in Montreuil's
MIP. That is, the algorithm heuristically uses context-based information to
reduce the solution tree. A design skeleton is used to structure the QLAs.

LOGIC (named for Layout Optimization using Guillotine-lnduced Cuts)

LOGIC is an improvement- type algorithm developed by Tam, where the
layout is represented as a collection of rectangular partitions organized as a
slicing tree. A slicing tree consists of branches and branching operators that
specify whether the departments on opposite sides of a branch are to the left,
right, above, or below each other. With a given slicing tree and department
area values, the layout can be determined by recursively partitioning a
rectangular area by placing the departments into the area according to the four
specific branching operators. Because this approach is likely to produce long
and narrow department shapes, two shape constraints are added as a penalty
function to the objective. The algorithm uses simulated annealing in an
attempt to find a better layout by two-way exchanges of branching operators.
The final layout of this algorithm has all rectangular shapes, except for
potentially those departments that are placed near fixed departments.

MULTIPLE (MULTI-floor Plant Layout Evaluation)

MULTIPLE, is a single or multi floor improvement- type algorithm developed
by Bozer, Meller, and Erlebacher. MULTIPLE uses a discrete representation
and extends CRAFT by applying space filling curves to single floor or multi

floor facility layout problems. MULTIPLE improves CRAFT by increasing

the number of exchanges considered at each iteration. In addition, MULTIPLE
can restrict the irregularity of department shapes by using an irregularity
measure based on the perimeter and area of each department; however,
because it uses a discrete representation, the department shapes may not be
rectangular. MULTIPLE, like CRAFT, is a steepest descent search and may be
affected by the initial layout. SABLE extends MULTIPLE by employing a
simulated annealing based search and by generalizing the departmentexchange algorithm. SABLE is shown to produce lower cost layout solutions
than MULTIPLE or LOGIC.

FLEX-BAY (named for FLEXible BAY structure)

FLEX-BAY is an improvement-type algorithm based on a continuous
representation developed by Tate and Smith. A dynamic penalty function is
used to evaluate the shape-constrained unequal area facility layout problem. A
layout is represented by a flexible number of vertical bays of varying width,
each divided into one or more rectangular departments. Encoding flexible bay
layouts is a two-part representation: permutation of the departments and
breakpoints for the bays. FLEX-BAY utilizes a genetic algorithm to search the
solution space by varying department-to-bay assignments or by adding or
removing a bay breakpoint. The algorithm generates good layouts and was
shown to outperform CRAFT and NLT.

3) Metaheuristics
Various meta-heuristics such as SA, GA, and ant colony are currently used to
approximate the solution of very large layout design problems.

The SA (Simulated Annealing) technique originates from the theory of

statistical mechanics and is based upon the analogy between the annealing of
solids and solving optimization problems. At each step, the SA heuristic
considers some neighbouring state s' of the current state s, and
probabilistically decides between moving the system to state s' or staying in
state s. These probabilities ultimately lead the system to move to states of
lower energy. Typically this step is repeated until the system reaches a state
that is good enough for the application, or until a given computation budget
has been exhausted. Many researches have been carried out on application of
SA to QAP.

Genetic algorithms are modelling techniques based on biological behaviour.

They rely on the speed of computers either to combine elements from two
solutions (parents) or to mutate a single solution to a complex problem to
produce a third solution (child) and evaluate it. If the third solution is better
than one of the others, then it survives and the worst one diesalong the
lines of survival of the fittest in Darwins theory of evolution. The process
continues through a number of iterations or generations with each solution
contributing to the next generation in proportion to its goodness. Random
factors ensure that the solution space is adequately covered.

Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) is a metaheuristic inspired by the foraging

behaviour of ants, which has been used to solve combinatorial optimization
problems and the Ant System (AS) was the first algorithm within this class. In
order to communicate the individual search experience to the colony, the ants
mark the corresponding paths with some amount of pheromone according to
the type of solutions found. This amount is inversely proportional to the cost
of the path generated. Besides the pheromone, the ants are guided by a
heuristic value in order to help them in the construction process.

Tabu search (TS) is an iterative procedure designed to solve optimization

problems. Helm and Hadley applied TS to solve FLP. The method is still
actively researched, and is continuing to evolve and improve. They are
generally used in combination with other algorithms like AS for enhancing
the obtained results using local search.

Advantages

Better performance
Faster runtime
Suitable for application in large scale DPLP problems

Limits/Disadvantages

Care has to be taken if the surface of the fitness function is relatively flat over
a large area of the site
Determination of layout and the scheduling procedure would need to be
carried out concurrently to demonstrate optimality
Not optimal to solve for problems which have area utilization less than one
May require dummy departments so that the area utilization equals to one.
Consequently, this increases the problem size and results in poorer solution
quality
For discrete representation shapes of the machines are not concerned, so its
difficult to define the real locations of machines.
The continuous representation increases the complexity of problem.

Applications
To solve for:

Unequal Area Facility Layout Problems

Layouts which are Highly dynamic, very difficult to specify and interrelated with
other management tasks. e.g.,
Construction site layouts.
Semiconductor industry under fast changing business environment,
life cycles of products become very short and types and amounts of

products vary very fast, new machines and old machines may need
to be added into/removed from the plant in multi-stages

Stochastic layouts

4) Artificial Intelligence Approach

AI approaches which are currently applied to FLP are neural network, fuzzy logic and
expert system. Tsuchiya et al. had proposed near-optimum parallel algorithm for
solving the QAP using two-dimensional maximum neural network for an N-FLP.
Knowledge based expert system has also been applied by Malakooti and Tsurushima,
Abdou and Dutta, Heragu and Kusiak and Sirinavakul and Thajchayapong to tackle
various issues related to FLP such as multi objective, the issue of optimizing material
handling equipment, etc. Kumar et al. applied expert system to handle qualitative
constraints via a symbolic manipulation.
Advantages

Can be used for solving problems involving uncertainty.

Comprehensive view and overcomes the decision makers subjective
consciousness.
Offer an environment for incorporating the good capabilities of humans and
the power of computers.
Can be used to solve unstructured problems and when no procedure exists.
Ability of handling a symbolic information and applying a systematic
reasoning process with a very large knowledge base.
Can accommodate new expertise whenever new knowledge is identified and
explain their recommendations.
Provide expert level consultative services to users for productivity
Improvement and reduce the companys reliance on human experts by
capturing expert knowledge and storing it in computers, they are often cost
effective when human expertise is very expensive, not available, or
contradictory.
Limitations

Require extensive expertise knowledge.

The rules articulated must be cogent, correct, consistent.
A lengthy process depending on the problem domain.
Not good at representing temporal knowledge, representing spatial knowledge,
performing commonsense reasoning, handling inconsistent knowledge, and
recognizing the limits of their ability.
Applications

Dynamic layouts.
Stochastic layouts.
Service layouts like hospitals.

5) Facility Layout Software Packages and Simulation

Layout software packages incorporate an algorithm for layout generation (in addition to
layout evaluation). Each package is listed with its associated algorithm.

FactoryOPT by CIMTECHNOLOGIE incorporates a licensed version of the

SPIRAL algorithm as well as some CRAFT-like improvement routines to
provide the user with a choice of algorithms. Previous layout packages by
CIMTECHNOLOGIES (for example, FactoryPlan and FactoryFlow) were
based on a computerized graphical representation of the manual systematic
layout procedure (SLP) developed by Muther.

SPIRAL is distributed by Marc Goetschalckx and, as the name implies, is his

implementation of the SPIRAL algorithm with other options for improvement
routines.

Figure 6 Layout models from SPIRAL

LayOPT by the Production Modeling Corp. Is an implementation of

MULTIPLE and SABLE.
Factory Modeler by Systems Espace Temps Inc., implements the MIP-based
approach. Various procedures are used to set the binary variables in the MIP.
(S. P. Singh, 2006)

The Factory Layout Planner is a client/server application that enables the

collaborative development of a factory layout. It allows the multi-user,
network-based visual creation and management of a factory layout: the design
team can co-operate on the same layout both acting on a common multi-touch
device and collaborating from different part of the world. Moreover, a key
element in this revolution is the capability to provide an adherent to reality
representation of manufacturing process There are three key features of the
FLP: the 3D visual editing of the layout, the possibility to act on the same
layout in a distributed environment, the ability to perform Discrete Events
Simulation (DES) on the layout that the user is composing. Most important
references are Dassault Systemes Delmia V6,Siemens Tecnomatix 9,
Rockwell Automation Arena 13.0,Autodesk Factory Design Suite etc.
(N. Shariatzadeh, 2012)
Most of the application window is occupied by the 3D view of the layout. The
user can interact with it using the mouse and the desired interaction mode:

Camera: In this mode, the mouse is used to explore the layout: pan,
zoom and rotate function are available for natural navigation in the 3D
scene.
Edit: This is the main mode used to modify the layout. The objects can
be selected, grouped, moved, rotated and their properties viewed and
edited. A snap grid can optionally be enabled to assist the positioning
of the objects.
Connection: When this mode is enabled, the user can connect objects
to create logical relationship useful for the DES simulation. The
available ports are shown and the user can connect then tracing lines
from one port to the other.

Figure 7 Factory Layout Planner Interface

Figure 8 DES Simulation

5D simulation: Simulating layout construction planning showing

how the layout and its cost evolve through time (5D simulation)
can clarify and give a good image about the construction activities
sequence and spatial arrangement before starting the construction
phase. Moreover during the layout construction, team members
need to understand the progress of a project compare to their plan.
This is traditionally done by using project management documents
such as Gantt chart. However it is a difficult task to understand all
the details due to the complexity of the factory layouts. This
implies the joining the 3D visualization of the project with the
planning document can prevent misunderstanding among different
members, increasing comprehension and intuitive of designers
about physical progress of layout and identify errors in process
sequence and spatial arrangement of the layout planning process.
Users can travel in time to see the planning and real time progress
of the layout construction.

Figure 9 5D Simulation

Figure 10 Collision Simulation

Figure 11 Use of Manikin

Advantages

Algorithmic approaches can generate layout alternatives efficiently, particularly,

when commercial software is available, e.g., Spiral.
Algorithmic approaches usually simplify both design constraints and objectives in
order to reach a surrogate objective function, the solution of which can then be
obtained.
The capability to support a collaborative editing of the layout (possibly distributed) in
a 3D environment, and the integrated DES possibilities, makes FLP to be an high
value adding tool for cost-effective and rapid creation, management and use of the
Next generation factory.
Fit-checking if components collide- through viewing or through automatic checking
of the geometry model.
Checking requirements on safety and ergonomics through if-then rule bases.
Productivity through material flow analysis.
Ergonomics through immersion in the layout model or manikins with load analysis.

Limitations
The resulting quantitative results of algorithmic approach often do not capture all of
the design objectives.
An algorithmic approach is usually less effective in solving a practical design
problem.
Applications
They are applicable for almost any type of layout of manufacturing, construction
service applications.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE

It can be found that research on the layout planning is not converging but is somewhat
diverging. Looking into the approach towards a layout decision problem basic models it can
be seen that basic models remain the same such as QAP, MIP, Graph theoretical approaches.
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. Approaches based on artificial intelligence are
seldom published.
Major areas to be developed are AI approaches, Computer based applications and simulation
for virtual factory layout and Hybrid systems involving Metaheuristics, AI and Simulation.
5D simulation showing cost evolution through time can simplify planning of dynamic and
stochastic layouts and hence needs to be developed. Every two years the Material Handling
Institute of America, along with other sponsoring industries and government agencies,
organizes consortium on material handling research where researchers are asked to present
their research. It is found that there is a lack of application of concurrent engineering in FLP
with respect to the choice of the material handling system which in turn shows that the
current facility layout design is irrespective to the choice of material handling system.
Although use of simulation software has brought some concurrency between layout planning
and other elements involved in final design like material handling systems, more research is
needed in developing better systems.

REFERENCES
1. Alan R. McKendall Jr., A. H. (2010). Heuristics for the dynamic facility layout problem with
unequal-area departments. European Journal of Operational Research , 171-182.
2. Amine Drira, H. P.-G. (2007). Facility layout problems: A survey. Annual Reviews in Control ,
255267.
3. Balakrishnan, J. C. (2003). A hybrid genetic algorithm for the dynamic plant layout problem. .
International Journal of Production Economics , 107-120.
4. Baykasoglu, A. &. (2001). A simulated annealing algorithm for dynamic layout problem.
Computers & Operations Research , 1403-1426.
5. Chwif L., P. B. (1998). A solution to the facility layout problem using simulated annealing.
Computers in Industry , 125-132.
6. Griffith, D. A. (2005). An examination of the influences of store layout in online retailing.
Journal of Business Research , 1391 1396.
7. Hari Prasad.N, R. S. (2014). A Typical Manufacturing Plant Layout Design Using CRAFT
Algorithm. 12th GLOBAL CONGRESS ON MANUFACTURING AND MANAGEMENT, GCMM
2014 , 1808 1814.
8. Kim, J. G. (2000). Layout planning for facilities with fixed shapes and input and output points.
International Journal of Production Research , 46354653.
9. Komarudin, K. Y. (2010). Applying Ant System for solving Unequal Area Facility Layout
Problems. European Journal of Operational Research , 730746.
10. Krunke M., K. A. (2014). Value-oriented layout planning using the Virtual Production
Intelligence.
11. Lee, H.-Y. (2012). Integrating Simulation and Ant Colony Optimization to Improve the Service
Facility Layout in a Station. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering , 259-269.
12. Liggett, R. S. (2000). Automated facilities layout: past, present and future. Automation in
Construction , 197215.
13. M. Iqbal, M. H. (2001). Design and Analysis of a Virtual Factory Layout. Journal of Materials
Processing Technology , 403-410.
14. Mawdesley, M. J., Al-jibouri, S. H., & Yang, a. H. (2002). Genetic Algorithms for Construction
Site Layout. JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT , 418-426.
15. Md. Riyad Hossain, M. K. (2014). Increasing Productivity through Facility Layout
Improvement using Systematic Layout Planning Pattern Theory. Global Journal of Researches
in Engineering , 2249-4596.

16. Ming Dong, C. W. (2009). Shortest path based simulated annealing algorithm for dynamic
facility layout. Expert Systems with Applications , 1122111232.
17. N. Shariatzadeh, G. S. (2012). Software Evaluation Criteria for Rapid Factory Layout Planning,
Design and Simulation. 45th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems , (pp. 299 304).
18. P, U. (2000). Why we buy: the science of shopping. Newyork: Touchstone.
19. Qing-Lian Lin, H.-C. L.-J. (2015). Integrating systematic layout planning with fuzzy constraint
theory to design and optimize the facility layout for operating theatre in hospitals. Journal of
Intellingent Manufacturing , 87-95.
20. Russell D. Meller, K.-Y. G. (1996). The Facility Layout Problem: Recent and Emerging Trends
and Perspectives. Journal of Manufacturing Systems , 351-366.
21. S. P. Singh, R. R. (2006). A review of different approaches to the facility layout problems.
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology , 425-433.
22. S., P. (2002). Effective use of the web. Oil Gas Journal , 12-19.
23. Taho Yang, B. A. (1998). Flexible machine layout design for dynamic and uncertain
environmnets. European Journal of Operational Research , 49-64.
24. Thomas Dunker, G. R. (2005). Combining evolutionary computation and dynamic
programming for solving a dynamic facility layout problem. European Journal of Operational
Research , 5569.
25. Thomas Hamann, F. V. (1992). The Intra-cell layout problem in automated manufacturing
systems.