Central European Journal of Computer Science

, Volume 1, Issue 4, pp 375–386 | Cite as

Dynamic facility layout problem under uncertainty: a Pareto-optimality based multi-objective evolutionary approach

  • Kazi Shah Nawaz Ripon
  • Kyrre Glette
  • Mats Hovin
  • Jim Torresen
Research Article


In this paper, we investigate an evolutionary approach to solve the multi-objective dynamic facility layout problem (FLP) under uncertainty that presents the layout as a set of Pareto-optimal solutions. Research examining the dynamic FLP usually assumes that data for each time period are deterministic and known with certainty. However, production uncertainty is one of the most challenging aspects in today’s manufacturing environments. Researchers have only recently modeled FLPs with uncertainty. Unfortunately, most solution methodologies developed to date for both static and dynamic FLPs under uncertainty focus on optimizing just a single objective. To the best of our knowledge, the use of Pareto-optimality in multi-objective dynamic FLPs under uncertainty has not yet been studied. In addition, the approach proposed in this paper is tested using a backward pass heuristic to determine its effectiveness in optimizing multiple objectives. Results show that our approach is an efficient evolutionary dynamic FLP approach to optimize multiple objectives simultaneously under uncertainty.


forecast uncertainty Pareto-optimality dynamic facility layout problem multi-objective optimization backward pass pair-wise exchange heuristic 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Balakrishnan J., Cheng C.H., The dynamic plant layout problem: Incorporating rolling horizons and forecast uncertainty, Omega-Int. J. Manage. S., 37(1), 165–177, 2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Balakrishnan J., Cheng C.H., Multi-period planning and uncertainty issues in cellular manufacturing: a review and future directions, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 177(1), 281–309, 2007CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Balakrishnan J., Cheng, C.H., Genetic search and the dynamic layout problem, Comput. Oper. Res, 27(6), 587–593, 2000CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Balakrishnan J., Cheng C.H., Conway, D.G., An improved pair-wise exchange heuristic for the dynamic plant layout problem, Int. J. Prod. Res., 38(13), 3067–3077, 2000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Chand S., Hsu V.N., Sethi S., Forecast, solution, and rolling horizons in operations management problems: a classified bibliography, M&Som.-Manuf. Serv. Op., 4(1), 25–43, 2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Chen G.Y.-H., Multi-objective evaluation of dynamic facility layout using ant colony optimization, PhD thesis, The University of Texas at Arlington, USA, 2007Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Chen C.-W., Sha D.Y., Heuristic approach for solving the multi-objective facility layout problem, Int. J. Prod. Res., 43(21), 4493–4507, 2005CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Coello Coello C.A., Recent trends in evolutionary multiobjective optimization, In: Evolutionary multiobjective optimization: theoretical advances and applications, Abraham A., Jain L., Goldberg R. (Eds.), 7–53, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Collette Y., Siarry, P., Three new metrics to measure the convergence of metaheuristics towards the Pareto frontier and the aesthetic of a set of solutions in biobjective optimization, Comput. Oper. Res, 32(4), 773–792, 2005CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Deb K., Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms, Wiley, Chichester, 2001zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Deb K., Pratap A., Agarwal S., Meyarivan, T., A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE T. Evolut. Comput., 6(2), 182–197Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Drira A., Pierreval H., Hajri-Gabouj S., Facility layout problems: a survey, Annu Rev. Control., 31(2), 255–267, 2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Grosan C., Abraham A., Tigan S., Chang T.G., How to solve a multicriterion problem for which Pareto dominance relationship cannot be applied? A case study from medicine. Lect. Notes Comput. Sc., 4253, 1128–1135, 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Heragu S.S., Facilities design, BWS, Boston, 1997Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Hu M.H., Wang M.-J., Using genetic algorithms on facilities layout problems, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech., 23(3–4), 301–310, 2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Kulturel-Konak, S., Approaches to uncertainties in facility layout problems: perspectives at the beginning of the 21st century, J. Intell. Manuf., 18(2), 273–284, 2007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    McKendall Jr A.R., Shang J., Hybrid ant systems for the dynamic facility layout problem, Comput. Oper. Res., 33(3), 790–803, 2006CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Ripon K.S.N., Khan K.N., Glette K., Hovin M., Torresen J., Using Pareto-optimality for solving multi-objective unequal area facility layout problem, In: Proceedings of 13th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GECCO 2011), (July 2011, Dublin, Ireland), Krasnogor N. (Ed.), ACM, 681–688, 2011Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Ripon K.S.N., Glette K., Hovin M., Torresen J., An adaptive local search based genetic algorithm for solving multi-objective facility layout problem, In: Lect. Notes Comput. Sc., 6443, 540–550, 2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Ripon K.S.N., Glette K., Hovin M., Torresen J., Dynamic facility layout problem with hybrid genetic algorithm, In: Proceedings of IEEE 9th International Conference on Cybernetic Intelligent Systems (CIS 2010), (September 2010, Reading, UK), Oussalah M., Mitchell R., Siddique N.H. (Eds.), IEEE Sys. Man Cybern., 33–38, 2010Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Ripon K.S.N., Glette K., Hovin M., Torresen J., A genetic algorithm to find Pareto-optimal solutions for the dynamic facility layout problem with multiple objectives, Lect. Notes Comput. Sc., 6443, 642–651, 2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Sanders N.R., Ritzman L.P., Improving short-term forecasts, Omega Int. J. Manage. S., 18(4), 365–373, 1990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Schott J.R., Fault tolerant design using single and multicriteria genetic algorithm optimization, MS thesis, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Singh S.P., Sharma R.R.K., A review of different approaches to the facility layout problems, Int. J. Adv Manuf. Tech., 30(5–6), 425–433, 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Singh S.P., Singh V.K., An improved heuristic approach for multi-objective facility layout problem, Int. J. Prod. Res., 48(4), 1171–1194, 2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Snyder L.V., Facility location under uncertainty: a review, IIE Trans., 38(7), 537–554, 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Tompkins A., Facilities planning, 3rd edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2003Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Urban T.L., A heuristic for the dynamic facility layout problem, IIE Trans., 25(4), 57–63, 1993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Ye M., Zhou G., A local genetic approach to multi-objective, facility layout problems with fixed aisles, Int. J. Prod. Res., 45(22), 5243–5264 2007CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© © Versita Warsaw and Springer-Verlag Wien 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kazi Shah Nawaz Ripon
    • 1
  • Kyrre Glette
    • 1
  • Mats Hovin
    • 1
  • Jim Torresen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUniversity of OsloBlindernOslo, Norway

Personalised recommendations