Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:10031018
DOI 10.1007/s00170-008-1530-5
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
A simulated annealing algorithm to find approximate
Pareto optimal solutions for the multi-objective facility
layout problem
Ramazan ahin & Orhan Trkbey
Received: 6 August 2007 / Accepted: 15 April 2008 / Published online: 3 June 2008
# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008
Abstract In this article, we consider the facility layout
problem which combines the objective of minimization of
the total material handling cost and the maximization of
total closeness rating scores. Multi-objective optimization is
the way to consider the two objectives at the same time. A
simulated annealing (SA) algorithm is proposed to find the
non-dominated solution (Pareto optimal) set approximately
for the multi-objective facility layout problem we tackle.
The Pareto optimal sets generated by the proposed
algorithm was compared with the solutions of the previous
algorithms for multi-objective facility layout problem. The
results showed that the approximate Pareto optimal sets we
have found include almost all the previously obtained
results and many more approximate Pareto optimal solutions.
Keywords Facility layout problem . Simulated annealing .
Pareto optimal solution . Multi-objective optimization
1 Introduction
Facility layout is one of the most important problems for
modern manufacturing systems. Facility layout plays a key
role for companies, and it is an inseparable part of the
manufacturing system design process. A facility layout
problem (FLP) is about arranging the physical departments
within a facility to help the facility work in a productive
R. ahin (*) : O. Trkbey
Department of Industrial Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Gazi University,
06570 Ankara, Turkey
e-mail: rsahin@gazi.edu.tr
way. FLP has attracted many researchers because of its
practical benefit and importance for many planning functions.
A good solution for the facility layout problem would
contribute to the overall efficiency of operations. A poor
layout can lead to accumulation of work-in process inventory,
overloading of material handling systems, inefficient setups
and longer queues [1]. Therefore, solution of an FLP is a
strategic study to be conducted.
Traditionally, there are two approaches for the facility
layout problem. The first one is the quantitative approach
aiming at minimizing the total material handling cost
between departments based on a distance function. Armour
and Buffa [2] and Buffa et al. [3] can be given as examples
for this approach. The second one is the qualitative
approach aiming at maximizing closeness rating scores
between departments based on a closeness function. The
most important example for this approach can be systematic
layout planning-SLP procedure, suggested by Muther [4].
Detailed reviews of the literature on facility layout problem
were conducted by Kusiak and Heragu [5] and Meller and
Gau [6].
The approaches stated above were used separately to
solve the facility layout problem. However both approaches
have advantages and disadvantages. The models that use
one of the criteria are not explanatory because there are
many factors which affect the facility layout. In order to do
a more effective layout design, both criteria have to be
considered. Thus, we need to solve the problem by using
multi-objective model.
The purpose of multi-objective facility layout problems
is to generate efficient alternatives which can then be
presented to the decision-maker (DM) so that he/she can
select the best facility layout alternative while considering
conflicting and non-commensurate objectives [7]. In previous
studies, objectives were combined by many different
1004
methods and stated as a single objective. Then a solution was
found based on the single objective.
But in todays world, consumer preferences and market
conditions change rapidly. Therefore, a suggested layout is
beneficial at that moment but after a period as the
conditions change, it loses its effectiveness. Also, the
decision-makers preferences can change in time. Thus,
instead of offering a single alternative, giving options and
letting decision-maker choose between them based on the
changing market conditions is more realistic and appropri-
ate. In this study, we suggest a SA-based heuristic approach
to find approximate Pareto solutions for multi-objective
facility layout problem with two objectives; total material
handling cost and total closeness rating score. The objective
was to provide the decision-maker with a Pareto solution
set and let her or him make a choice depending on her or
his preferences. The reason we call our solution as
approximate Pareto optimal set is that we find them using
a heuristic search method, and we can not guarantee that
they are Pareto optimal in the exact sense.
In the next section, we give some relevant literature on
multi-criteria facility layout problem (MCFLP) and the
mathematical model of the problem. In Sect. 3, we describe
a multi-objective formulation of MCFLP. Section four
addresses the SA based search method to construct the
approximate Pareto optimal. Numerical results that compare
the approximate Pareto optimal solutions we generate and the
previous result from literature is given in Sect. 5. We provide
the conclusion of our study and some future research
directions in Sect. 6.
2 Literature and mathematical model for MCFLP
In general, facility layout problem is formulated as
quadratic assignment problem (QAP). In the QAP formu-
lation, the objective is to assign N facilities to N locations
such that transfer costs are minimized. Therefore, to reach
the optimal layout, (N!) alternative layouts should be
evaluated. As N increases, the number of options to be
evaluated will obviously increase exponentially. For instance,
in a FLP that has 20 departments, (20!) in other words
approximately 608 trillion different layout options should be
evaluated to find the optimal solution. Sahni and Gonzalez [8]
showed that, QAP is NP-complete.
For multi-criteria facility layout problem, the quadratic
assignment formulation is shown in Eqs. (1) to (4) as given
in [9];
X
n X
n X
n X
n meaning as those used in Fortenberry and Cox [12].
Minimize Z Aijkl Xij Xkl 1 The additional parameter c is a constant coefficient
i1 j1 k1 l1
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:10031018
subject to
P
n
xij 1; j 1; 2; 3; . . . ; n 2
i1
P
n
xij 1; i 1; 2; 3; . . . ; n 3
j1
Xij 2 f0; 1g; i; j 1; 2; 3; . . . ; n 4
where 
1 if department i is assigned to location j;
Xij
0 otherwise;
Aijkl the cost of locating facility i at location j and facility
k at location l
In Eq. (1), Aijkl is a cost variable representing the
combination of quantitative and qualitative factors in
MCFLP model. Equation (2) ensures that each location is
assigned only one facility. Equation (3) ensures that each
facility is assigned to only one physical location.
In order to solve MCFLP, numerous methods have been
suggested in the literature since 1979. Most of them
consider the above the two criteria we use in this paper.
These studies can be assigned into four different groups
according to their ways of combining the objectives:
a) Rosenblatt [10] is the first to state multi-criteria facility
layout problem. Rosenblatt [10] defines the parameter
Aijkl as Aijkl=2Cijkl-1Rijkl. Here, Cijkl represents the
total handling material cost, and Rijkl represents the
total closeness rating score. 1, 2 are the weight used
for these objectives. Dutta and Sahu [11] uses the same
definition of the objective function.
b) Fortenberry and Cox [12] sets Aijkl=fikdjlrik. They
named their model as multiplicity model. In this
expression fik shows the handling of material between
i and k facilities, rik shows the closeness rating score
between i and k facilities, and djl shows the distance
between locations j and l.
c) Urban [13] had a study called additive model. In that
model qualitative criteria is multiplied by a proper
weight, added to quantitative criteria whereby quanti-
tative and quantitative criteria was combined. Urban
uses Aijkl=djl(fik+crik) where parameters have the same
which states the importance of closeness rating score
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:10031018 1005

due to handling of material. c is taken as equal to the objective problems were converted into a single objective
highest level of material handling between facilities. one by weighting the objectives and an optimizing solution
d) Khare et. al [14], in Eq. (1), defined Aijkl term as was sought. But in this study, qualitative and quantitative
Aijkl=1djl fik+2rikdjl. Definition of the parameters are objectives are handled as different objective functions and
same as given above, and 1 and 2 are the weights non-dominated approximate Pareto optimal solution set is
used to unify the two objectives. constructed through a search procedure. From here on we
will use the Pareto optimal set (POS) in place of
Apart from the studies above, many other works were
approximate Pareto optimal solution set.
carried out on multi-criteria facility layout problem.
Multi-objective facility layout problem (MOFLP) can be
Malakooti and Tsurushima [15] developed an expert system
stated as below:
for multi-objective facility layout problem. Raoot and
Rakshit [16] had a linguistic model approach. In this
model, by fuzzy set approach, they examined the qualitative Min f x ff1 x; f2 xg 5
and quantitative criteria where complete and clear informa-
tion can not be gathered. Suresh and Sahu [17] used
simulated annealing. Chen and Sha [18] and Sha and Chen subject to
[9] conducted studies related to the qualified solution of
multi-criteria facility layout problem. In these studies, by n X
X n X
n X
n
developing dominant index and probability of superiority f 1 x Cijkl  djl  Xij Xkl 6
concepts, respectively, they tried to find whether one i1 j1 k1 l1
solution is better than the other. Deb and Bhattacharyya
[19] searched for a solution to multi-criteria facility layout
problem by using fuzzy logic. Chen and Sha [20] offered a n X
X n X
n X
n
new heuristic approach by giving more importance by f 2 x Rijkl  djl  Xij Xkl 7
giving different weights to objectives. i1 j1 k1 l1

Malakooti [7] divided solution methods of multi-criteria

facility layout problems into three groups: (1): finding
effective arranging choices and then presenting them to the P
n
decision-maker. (2): determining about choices and due to xij 1; j 1; 2; 3; . . . ; n 8
i1
these choices, finding the best alternative for arranging (3):
using an interactive method to find the best alternative.
However all of the previous studies found a solution by
giving weights beforehand, and offered a single layout to P
n
xij 1; i 1; 2; 3; . . . ; n 9
the decision-maker. i1

3 New formulation for multi-objective facility layout

problem Xij 2 f0; 1g; i; j 1; 2; 3; . . . ; n 10

Many real life problems have more than one objective. where 
These problems are named as multi-objective optimization 1 if facility i is assigned to location j;
Xij
problems. Although the solution of single objective 0 otherwise;
(
optimization problem figures out a single solution, the fik djl ; if facility i is assigned to location j and
solution of multi-objective optimization figures out a set of Cijkl facility k is assigned to location l
0; otherwise
solutions. In this set, a set where none of the solutions (
dominated each other is called non-dominated or Pareto rik djl ; if facility i is assigned to location j
Rijkl and facility k is assigned to location l
optimal solution set. Each solution in this set has equal
0; otherwise
importance. A solution x* is a Pareto optimal if no objective
fik work flow from facility i facility k
function can be improved without worsening at least one
rik closeness rating score of facilities i and k.
other objective functions. Mathematically, Pareto optimal
djl distance from location j to location l.
solution is defined as: x*S is Pareto optimal solution if
there is no solution for xS where fi(x) fi(x*) i i=1,2,3,k Equation 5 indicates that we are minimizing both f1(x)
and fi(x)<fi(x*) at least for one i. In previous studies, multi- and f2(x). f1(x) and f2(x) show the total material handling
1006
cost, and the total closeness rating score between facilities,
respectively. In f2(x), weighted distance cost, which
represents closeness rating score, is considered as a penalty
to be minimized similar to Khare et al. [14].
Facility layout problem is a combinatorial optimization
problem in NP-complete sense. For this reason, finding an
optimal solution for a facility layout problem of a real life
model is difficult due to increase in required computation
time. In literature, heuristic methods are commonly used.
4 Simulated annealing for MOFLP
Simulated annealing is a stochastic search method, which
imitates the physical annealing of solid, for finding solution
to combinatorial optimization problems. In the physical
annealing, solid is heated until it melts and then with a
proper annealing schedule it gets cold till it reaches the least
energy point. If the initial temperature was not selected high
enough or cooling process was very fast, at the low energy
state, there can be a deformation in the solid. SA algorithm for
combinatorial optimization problems is firstly used by [21].
Genetic algorithms and simulated annealing algorithms
are commonly used to solve the multi-objective optimization
problems. Several simulated annealing algorithms are pro-
posed for multi-objective optimization problems [2226]. SA
has an advantage over genetic algorithm in terms of the ease
of implementation, and SA has been proven to give
reasonably good solutions for many combinatorial problems.
In this study, SA algorithm is used to solve the MOFLP and
construct the POS. The flowchart of the proposed SA
algorithm is given in Fig. 1. Steps of the proposed SA
algorithm for the solution of multi-objective facility layout
problem are given below:
Step 1 Define the parameters of simulated annealing: Tin=
initial temperature, =cooling rate, NIET = the
number of trials to be performed with the same
temperature value, iteration number. Determine
weights (w1, w2) for the two objectives.
Step 2 Start temperature counter: el=0. (el: outer circle
counter)
Step 3 Create a random initial solution (Sin), and calculate
its functioning values Ecost (material handling cost)
and Ecloseness (closeness rating score). Keep the
result of solution and function as the best solution
and add it to the Pareto set. At the same time,
calculate the weighted sum of the two objective
function values (E0) using the given weights.
Sbest Sc Sin ; Ebest Ec E0
PARi; j Sin ; MALi Ecost and RATi Ecloseness Fig. 1 The flowchart of the proposed SA algorithm
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:10031018
Step 4 Make the iteration counter 0 at each temperature
level: il=0
Step 5 Increase the iteration counter one at each temper-
ature level: il=il+1.
Step 6 Choose two facilities randomly (ij) and find a
neighbour solution by swapping their places. Then
calculate the function of the neighbour solution. At
the same time, calculate weighted sum of the two
objective function values (Eil) using the given
weights.
Sil ; Eil ; Ecost il and Ecloseness il
Step 7 Compare the objective function value of neigh-
bour solution with the ones in POS. A solution is
dominated by another solution if this second
solution has equal or lower values in two
objectives, and has strictly lower value at least
in one objective. If neighbour solution is domi-
nated by any of the solutions in POS, do not take
the neighbour solution into POS. If there are some
solutions in POS dominated by neighbour solu-
tion, take them out from POS, and add the
neighbour solution to POS. If neighbour solution
and those within POS are not dominating each
other, add the neighbour solution to POS.
Step 8 Calculate the change in combined objective
function value: E = Eil Ec. If (E<0) or
(E > 0 and x = random (01)<P (E) = exp
(-E/T)), accept the change, which means the
neighbour solution and, Sc Sil ; Ec Eil
Step 9 If (Ec< Ebest) Set Sbest = Sc and Ebest = Ec. If it is
not, go to the next step.
Step 10 If (il NIET) go to next step. If it is not, go to
Step 5.
Step 11 el = el + 1
Step 12 Tel+1 = Tel
Step 13 If (el elmax) go to next step. If it is not, go to
Step 4.
Step 14 Stop algorithm and write the Pareto solutions.
4.1 SA cooling schedule
In order to obtain a high rate of randomization at the
beginning of the search, initial temperature must be high
b
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:10031018 1007

START

Input parameters
T = Tin , el = 0

Create Sin
Calculate E0, Ecost, Ecloseness

Sbest = Sc = Sin
Ebest = E0

il = 0

il = il+1
Generate Sil from Sc
Calculate Eil, Ecost_il, Ecloseness_il

Y
Sil Pareto
optimal? Update Pareto List

E = Eil - Ec

E 0 N Generate rnd from u.d. (0,1)

Y Y

Sc = Sil, Ec = Eil
rnd e(E / T)

N N
Ec < Ebest il NIET

Y Y

Sbest = Sc el = el + 1
Ebest = Ec Tel+1 = Tel*

N
el elmax

STOP
1008 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:10031018

Fig. 2 The type of layout of a

enough. In this way algorithm finds a new solution which is
not really dependent on the initial solution since most of the
initial movements are accepted. The value of the initial
temperature at the beginning of SA is accepted due to
starting acceptation probability (Pc). For that reason, (Pc) is
stated as a value which is very close to 1. Estimation of
initial temperature can be done using the equation
Tin fmin  fmax =ln Pc . Here, fmin and fmax are the lower
and upper bound values to the problem. The lower and
upper bound are estimated numerically by making many
trial runs for each test problem.
In order to find good solutions, temperature must be
decreased slowly. Many functions are recommended in
the literature for temperature decreasing process. Some
examples functions are arithmetic, geometric, inverse,
and logarithmic functions. In this study, Tk = Tk-1
is used to decrease the temperature. Here is cooling
rate and its value is between 0 and 1 and usually a value
close to 1 is used. In this study, cooling rate is taken as
0.99989.
When the system freezes, simulated annealing ends. In
order to stop the algorithm, a few methods recommended in
the literature. Examples of the stopping criteria are when
total iteration number is reached, the required number of
acceptances for a given number of trials has not been
obtained and final given temperature value is reached. In
this study, algorithm is ended when we reach a given
maximum iteration number (elmax).
5 Computational results
We discuss the computational results obtained with
proposed algorithm in this section. Proposed SA algo-
rithm is coded in Fortran-90 language. Seven different
previously studied test problems are considered. Solu-
tions of these problems are found using the proposed
algorithm on a Pentium III 800MHz PC. The solutions
are compared with the ones in the literature. Three of
the test problems (dataset 1) were used in [12] and
composed of six, eight and 12 departments. The other four
problems (dataset 2) were given in [17] and composed of
12-department problem 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12
common and at the end, a unique Pareto solution set is
created for each problem.
For a six-department test problem in dataset 1, efficient
frontier and all the solutions, which constitute solution
space, are given in Fig. 3. By evaluating all the solutions
for this problem we found the Pareto optimal solution set.
The Pareto optimal set has four solutions in terms of the
objective value and there are 32 different alternative layouts
corresponding to the four Pareto solutions. Only four of
these Pareto optimal layouts are given in Table 2. These
four solutions are compared with the ones found by Dutta
and Sahu (D+S) [11], Fortenberry and Cox (F+C) [12],
Harmonosky and Tothero (H+T) [27] and Sha and Chen
(S+C) [9]. In Table 2, the comparisons are given. Pareto
solutions are written bold in all tables. Dutta and Sahu [11]
found the best solutions for different weights by using four
different starting solutions. Fortenberry and Cox [12] also
used the same starting solutions, found the best layout for
each.
Harmonosky and Tothero [27] and Sha and Chen [9]
used the same data and found a solution by given different
weights for the objectives. As it is seen in Table 2, obtained
Pareto solutions using proposed method are same with most
of the solutions found by D+S, F+C, H+T and S+C. Even
more, obtained Pareto solutions dominate some of them.
Pareto solutions set for 8- and 12-department test problems
Solution Space and Pareto Solutions
140
Closeness Rating

130
12, 15, 20 and 30 departments. The type of layout is
120
known for all test problems. These layouts are given in
Score

110
Table 1.
See Fig. 2 for an example of a 12-department problem. 100

The algorithm is run twice for each test problem. In the first 90
one, to combine the objectives at the stage of accepting 80
180

190

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

neighbour solution in simulated annealing algorithm, the

rate of weighting (w) is taken as 0.00, 0.10, 0.20, , 1.00. Material Handling Cost
In the second one, w is taken as 0.00, 0.05, 0.10, , 1.00. Fig. 3 Solution space and efficient frontier of a six-department test
Pareto solutions found in both usages are evaluated problem
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:10031018 1009

Table 1 The number of

Number of Layout Pareto Solutions
departments and related layout
types departments type 1060

Closeness Rating Score

1040
6 23 1020
8 24 1000
12 34 980
15 35 960
20 45 940
30 56 920
900
880

550

580

610

640

670

700

730

760

790

820

850
Material Handling Cost
in dataset 1, comparisons for previous studies and efficient Fig. 4 Pareto solutions and efficient frontier for a 12-department test
frontier are given in Appendix 1. Comparison for an eight- problem
department test problem in dataset 1 is given in Table 4.
The proposed SA algorithm found five Pareto solutions for

Table 2 Comparison of a six-department test problem

Layout Locations Material Closeness

handling cost rating score
1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Initial layout 4 2 5 1 3 6 204 106

D+S (1983), W1=0.50.6 1 6 5 3 2 4 184 98
D+S (1983), W1=0.7 4 1 5 3 2 6 196 94
D+S (1983), W1=0.80.9 1 5 6 3 2 4 212 82
F+C 3 1 4 2 5 6 212 82
2 Initial layout 1 3 6 4 2 5 204 106
D+S, W1=0.50.9 3 2 6 4 1 5 196 94
F+C 2 5 6 3 1 4 212 82
3 Initial layout 1 2 3 4 5 6 200 94
D+S, W1=0.50.6 1 2 3 4 5 6 200 94
D+S, W1=0.70.9 3 2 4 1 5 6 212 82
F+C 3 1 4 2 5 6 212 82
4 Initial layout 2 1 3 5 4 6 220 106
D+S, W1=0.5 4 2 3 5 6 1 184 98
D+S, W1=0.6 1 2 3 4 5 6 200 94
D+S, W1=0.70.9 4 2 3 6 5 1 212 82
F+C 3 1 4 2 5 6 212 82
H+T a1=0.0 1 3 4 2 6 5 184 118
H+T a1=0.10.2 3 1 4 2 6 5 184 98
H+T a1=0.3 3 2 4 1 6 5 184 98
H+T a1=0.40.7 3 2 4 1 5 6 212 82
H+T a1=0.80.9 4 1 3 6 5 2 212 82
H+T a1=1.0 3 1 4 2 5 6 212 82
S+C 1=1.0 1 6 5 3 2 4 184 98
S+C 1=0.9 3 1 4 2 6 5 184 98
S+C 1=0.70.8 2 6 5 3 1 4 184 98
S+C 1=0.50.6 3 2 4 1 6 5 184 98
S+C 1=0.00.4 3 2 4 1 5 6 212 82
Pareto solution 1 4 1 3 5 6 2 184 98
Pareto solution 2 2 1 3 6 5 4 192 94
Pareto solution 3 4 5 6 3 2 1 208 86
Pareto solution 4 6 5 2 4 1 3 212 82

Note: Material handling cost and closeness rating scores for D+S, F+C, H+T and S+C are the values found by the proposed method that is
recommended to them according to their solution. The layouts obtained by D+S are directly taken from F+C
1010 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:10031018

this problem. All layouts obtained by Dutta and Sahu [11],
except for one layout, are dominated by found Pareto
solutions. The layouts proposed by Foetenberry and Cox
[12], and Sha and Chen [9] are included in found Pareto
solutions.
Comparison for a 12-department test problem in
dataset 1 is given in Table 5. The proposed SA algorithm
found 20 Pareto solutions for this problem. While some of
the layouts obtained by the other methods are dominated
by found Pareto solutions, found Pareto solutions set
contains some of them. But any solution produced by the
other methods dominates proposed Pareto solutions.
For the test problem of 12 departments in dataset 2, a
POS which consist of 24 Pareto solutions was found.
Figure 4 shows the solutions in this POS and efficient
frontier. Obtained Pareto solutions are compared with the

Table 3 Comparison of a 12-department test problem

Layout Locations Material Closeness

handling cost rating score
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Pareto solution 1 5 6 10 2 4 8 11 1 12 7 9 3 578 1042

Pareto solution 2 5 6 4 12 10 7 11 9 2 1 8 3 586 1010
S+S, =0.5 12 4 6 5 9 11 7 10 3 8 1 2 586 1010
Pareto solution 3 5 4 8 1 6 11 7 2 10 12 9 3 594 1004
Pareto solution 4 8 4 3 1 7 11 9 12 6 5 10 2 598 992
Pareto solution 5 5 6 10 2 12 7 9 1 4 8 11 3 600 988
S+S, =0.6 2 1 3 9 10 7 8 11 5 6 4 12 600 1006
S+S, =0.70.8 12 4 6 5 11 8 7 10 9 3 1 2 600 1006
Pareto solution 6 2 9 12 10 3 11 7 6 1 8 4 5 606 986
Pareto solution 7 5 12 4 1 6 11 7 8 10 9 2 3 610 970
Pareto solution 8 1 4 12 5 8 11 7 6 3 9 2 10 618 964
Pareto solution 9 5 12 4 1 6 7 8 2 10 9 11 3 620 960
Pareto solution 10 5 12 4 1 6 7 11 8 10 9 2 3 626 956
D+S, =0.5 5 7 8 4 6 11 9 1 10 2 3 12 626 1028
D+S, =0.6 5 7 8 4 6 11 3 1 10 2 9 12 630 1000
D+S, =0.7 2 1 12 9 10 7 8 11 5 6 4 3 634 1014
Pareto solution 11 3 11 9 10 8 2 7 6 1 4 12 5 636 954
Pareto solution 12 2 8 7 6 1 4 12 5 3 11 9 10 642 952
Pareto solution 13 1 2 12 5 8 4 7 6 3 11 9 10 644 944
Pareto solution 14 3 2 9 10 1 4 11 12 8 7 6 5 656 942
Pareto solution 15 3 8 11 6 1 4 7 5 2 9 12 10 664 934
Pareto solution 16 2 9 12 10 1 4 7 5 3 11 8 6 678 926
Pareto solution 17 5 6 11 8 10 7 4 3 12 9 2 1 694 924
Pareto solution 18 1 3 8 11 2 9 4 6 12 10 7 5 702 920
Pareto solution 19 3 9 2 1 8 4 7 12 11 6 10 5 708 918
Pareto solution 20 8 6 7 5 11 4 2 10 3 9 1 12 726 914
D+S, =0.8 3 11 7 8 9 6 4 2 10 5 12 1 726 972
Pareto solution 21 5 7 6 8 12 10 4 11 1 2 9 3 736 912
Pareto solution 22 8 6 7 5 11 4 1 12 3 9 2 10 740 908
D+S, =0.9 11 9 10 12 8 6 7 1 3 4 5 2 756 960
Pareto solution 23 10 1 9 3 12 2 4 11 5 7 6 8 768 904
Pareto solution 24 2 9 6 10 8 4 7 12 11 3 1 5 830 898
S+S, =0.9 5 7 8 6 12 1 3 11 10 9 4 2 834 910

Note: Material handling cost and closeness rating scores for D+S, and S+S, are the values found by the proposed method that is recommended to
them, according to their solution. The layouts obtained by D+S are directly taken from S+S.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:10031018 1011

ones found by Dutta and Sahu (D+S) [11] and Suresh and
Sahu (S+S) [17]. The Pareto solutions and results of the
comparisons are given in Table 3. Dutta and Sahu [11] and
Suresh and Sahu [17] found the best solutions for each
weight, by giving different weights to objective values. As
it can be seen in Table 3, only the solution for =0.5 found
by Suresh and Sahu [17] is among the Pareto solutions and
the rest of the solutions found both by Dutta and Sahu [11]
and Suresh and Sahu [17] are dominated by the Pareto
solutions found with the proposed method. Pareto solutions
set of 15-, 20-, and 30-department test problems in dataset 2
and comparisons are given in Appendix 2. Comparison for
a 15-department test problem in dataset 2 is given in
Table 6. The proposed SA algorithm found 23 Pareto
solutions for a 15-department test problem. As it can be
seen in Table 6, the solution for =0.7 found by Suresh
and Sahu [17] dominates the Pareto solution 1 obtained by
the proposed SA algorithm. But the rest of the solutions
found both by Dutta and Sahu [11] and Suresh and Sahu
[17] are dominated by the Pareto solutions found with the
proposed method.
In Table 7, comparison for a 20-department test problem
in dataset 2 is given. For this test problem, the proposed SA
algorithm found 39 Pareto solutions, but four of them is
dominated by the solutions found by Suresh and Sahu [17].
The solution for =0.9 found by Suresh and Sahu [17] and
all solutions found by Dutta and Sahu [11] are dominated by
the Pareto solutions found with the proposed method.
Comparison for a 30-department test problem in dataset 2
is given in Table 8. The proposed SA algorithm found 33
Pareto solutions for a 30-department test problem. As it can
be seen in Table 8, the solutions for =0.6, =0.8, and =
0.9 found by Suresh and Sahu [17] dominates the Pareto
solutions 1, 2, 3, and 4 obtained by the proposed SA
algorithm.
with the solutions of previous studies in the literature.
Results showed that proposed method generates better
solutions. Additionally previous studies offered single
solution under certain circumstances, however with this
study, for the multi-objective facility layout problem, more
than one Pareto solution is recommended to the decision-
maker. Decision-maker can decide on different solutions
according to todays changing economic conditions and
choose one solution among the set of Pareto optimal
solutions. This will enable the decision-maker to make
better, more effective and flexible decisions depending on
the market circumstances. For future studies, considering
more than two objectives, using other meta-heuristic
methods (genetic algorithm, tabu search, ant colony
algorithm etc.), or forming hybrid methods can be
considered. Additionally it will be suitable to develop
solution procedure for the problems with dynamic, fuzzy
or stochastic data.
Appendix 1
Note: Material handling cost and closeness rating scores for
D+S, F+C, H+T and S+C, are the values found by the
proposed method that is recommended to them according to
their solution. The layouts obtained by D+S are directly
taken from F+C.
Pareto Solutions
Closeness Rating Score

290
280
6 Summary and conclusions 270
260
250
In this study, SA algorithm, which finds Pareto solutions 240
for the minimization of material handling cost and 230
220
maximization of closeness rating score between depart- 210
ments, is presented for multi-objective facility layout 200
300

320

340

360

380

400

420

440

460

problem. Seven problems in two sets are solved with the

proposed SA algorithm and the approximate Pareto Material Handling Cost
optimal solutions are found. Efficient frontier is formed Fig. 5 Pareto solutions and efficient frontier for an eight-department
with these Pareto solutions. These solutions are compared test problem
1012 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:10031018

Table 4 Comparison of an eight-department test problem

Layout Locations Material Closeness

handling cost rating score
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Initial layout 5 8 3 1 7 6 2 4 444 288

1 D+S, W1=0.50.8 5 8 1 3 7 6 2 4 422 260
D+S, W1=0.9 5 7 1 3 8 6 2 4 458 248
F+C 6 7 2 4 8 5 1 3 434 228
Initial layout 3 6 5 2 4 8 7 1 422 310
2 D+S, W1=0.5 0.6 8 6 5 1 3 4 7 2 390 286
D+S, W1=0.7 0.8 4 6 7 1 3 8 5 2 380 292
D+S, W1=0.9 4 8 5 1 3 6 7 2 388 300
F+C 3 8 5 1 4 6 7 2 358 284
Initial layout 8 3 2 5 6 4 7 1 448 306
3 D+S, W1=0.5 0.6 8 6 5 1 3 4 7 2 390 286
D+S, W1=0.7 0.8 4 6 7 1 3 8 5 2 380 292
D+S, W1=0.9 8 6 5 7 3 4 1 2 398 266
F+C 3 8 5 1 4 6 7 2 358 284
H+T a1=0.0 2 7 6 4 1 5 8 3 358 284
H+T a1=0.1 3 8 6 4 1 5 7 2 390 292
H+T a1=0.20.3 4 6 8 3 2 7 5 1 390 292
H+T a1=0.4 6 8 3 4 7 5 1 2 418 264
H+T a1=0.50.9 6 7 2 4 8 5 1 3 434 228
H+T a1=1.0 3 1 5 8 4 2 7 6 434 228
S+C 1=1.00.6 2 7 6 4 1 5 8 3 358 284
S+C 1=0.5 6 7 2 4 8 5 1 3 434 228
S+C 1=0.4 3 1 5 8 4 2 7 6 434 228
S+C 1=0.00.3 8 5 1 3 6 7 2 4 434 228
Pareto solution 1 3 8 5 1 4 6 7 2 358 284
Pareto solution 2 8 6 5 7 3 4 1 2 398 266
Pareto solution 3 3 1 2 4 8 5 7 6 414 260
Pareto solution 4 4 3 6 8 2 1 7 5 426 256
Pareto solution 5 3 1 5 8 4 2 7 6 434 228

Note: Material handling cost and closeness rating scores for D+S, and S+S, are the values found by the proposed method that is recommended to
them according to their solution. The layouts obtained by D+S are directly taken from S+S

Pareto Solutions
650
Closeness Rating Score

630
610
590
570
550
530
510
490
470
450
2500

2550

2600

2650

2700

2750

2800

2850

2900

2950

3000

Material Handling Cost

Fig. 6 Pareto solutions and efficient frontier for a 12-department test

problem
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:10031018 1013

Table 5 Comparison of a 12-department test problem

Layout Locations Material Closeness

handling cost rating score
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Pareto solution 1 2 12 5 3 10 6 7 8 4 9 11 1 2530 626

S+C 1=1.0 3 5 12 2 8 7 10 6 1 11 9 4 2530 630
Pareto solution 2 2 6 7 3 10 12 5 8 4 9 11 1 2532 622
Pareto solution 3 1 11 8 3 7 6 5 12 4 9 10 2 2534 604
Pareto solution 4 3 8 5 11 1 6 7 9 2 10 12 4 2536 584
Pareto solution 5 4 9 11 1 7 12 5 3 6 10 8 2 2540 556
Pareto solution 6 4 7 6 1 11 5 8 3 9 12 10 2 2544 538
S+S 9 12 10 2 11 5 8 3 4 7 6 1 2544 538
H+T a1=0.0 3 11 9 1 8 7 6 4 5 12 10 2 2544 634
S+C 1=0.6 1 4 11 9 3 6 7 12 2 8 5 10 2552 534
S+C 1=0.8 2 8 5 10 3 6 7 12 1 4 11 9 2552 534
Pareto solution 7 10 5 8 2 12 7 6 3 9 11 4 1 2552 534
Pareto solution 8 9 12 10 2 11 5 8 1 4 7 6 3 2570 530
S+C 1=0.5 2 8 5 10 1 6 7 12 3 4 11 9 2594 526
Pareto solution 9 2 8 5 10 1 6 7 12 3 4 11 9 2594 526
Pareto solution 10 1 10 12 9 2 8 5 11 3 6 7 4 2616 520
H+T a1=0.2 2 8 10 9 1 11 12 4 3 5 6 7 2648 522
Pareto solution 11 3 4 6 7 1 8 5 11 2 10 12 9 2650 518
Pareto solution 12 1 11 12 9 2 8 5 10 3 4 6 7 2672 516
Pareto solution 13 3 4 6 7 1 11 12 5 2 8 10 9 2680 514
Pareto solution 14 2 8 10 9 1 11 5 12 3 4 6 7 2686 510
F+C 7 6 4 1 5 12 10 2 9 11 8 3 2690 528
Pareto solution 15 10 8 2 1 12 5 6 3 9 11 7 4 2694 508
H+T a1=0.5 9 10 2 1 11 12 8 3 7 5 6 4 2716 516
Pareto solution 16 3 12 4 7 2 8 5 6 1 10 11 9 2726 504
H+T a1=0.4 3 11 8 1 9 12 10 2 4 7 5 6 2738 542
Pareto solution 17 4 6 7 9 3 5 11 12 1 2 8 10 2770 496
H+T a1=0.60.9565 9 7 6 4 12 11 5 3 10 8 2 1 2770 496
S+C 1=0.40.2 9 7 6 4 12 11 5 3 10 8 2 1 2770 496
Pareto solution 18 7 4 3 1 6 5 2 8 9 11 12 10 2930 494
H+T a1=1.0 9 7 6 12 11 4 5 3 10 8 2 1 2958 496
Pareto solution 19 6 5 2 1 7 4 12 3 9 11 8 10 2986 492
S+C 1=0.0435 7 4 12 3 6 5 2 1 9 11 8 10 2996 490
Pareto solution 20 9 11 8 10 6 5 2 1 7 4 12 3 2996 490
S+C 1=0.1 10 8 11 9 1 2 5 6 3 12 4 7 2996 490
S+C 1=0.0 9 12 8 10 6 5 2 1 7 4 11 3 3014 490

Pareto Solutions
Closeness Rating Score

1950

1900

1850

1800
Appendix 2 1750

1700
Note: Material handling cost and closeness rating scores for
1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

1550

D+S and S+S are the values found by the proposed method
Material Handling Cost
that is recommended to them according to their solution. Fig. 7 Pareto solutions and efficient frontier for a 15-department test
The layouts obtained by D+S are directly taken from S+S. problem
1014 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:10031018

Table 6 Comparison of a 15-department test problem

Layout Locations Material Closeness

handling rating score
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 cost

S+S, =0.7 15 5 14 3 4 6 7 8 13 2 10 12 11 9 1 1160 1936

Pareto solution 1 15 5 3 14 4 6 7 8 13 2 10 12 11 9 1 1160 1942
S+S, =0.5 1 2 4 5 6 9 13 3 14 15 11 8 7 12 10 1164 1978
Pareto solution 2 1 9 11 12 10 4 3 8 7 15 2 13 14 5 6 1186 1918
S+S, =0.6 10 7 8 12 11 15 5 3 13 9 6 4 14 2 1 1192 1938
Pareto solution 3 15 5 3 14 4 6 8 7 13 2 10 9 11 12 1 1194 1910
Pareto solution 4 2 13 14 15 6 4 3 8 5 10 1 9 11 7 12 1196 1886
Pareto solution 5 15 5 3 14 4 10 8 9 13 2 6 7 11 12 1 1218 1866
Pareto solution 6 2 13 14 15 6 4 3 5 7 10 1 9 11 8 12 1224 1864
Pareto solution 7 12 11 9 3 1 10 7 8 13 4 6 15 5 14 2 1232 1854
Pareto solution 8 4 3 9 8 11 1 13 5 7 12 2 14 15 6 10 1234 1852
D+S, =0.5 12 1 7 5 10 9 8 3 4 15 11 2 13 14 6 1236 1974
Pareto solution 9 8 7 5 3 4 12 11 9 13 1 10 6 15 14 2 1256 1848
Pareto solution 10 6 15 14 13 2 10 8 5 3 4 7 11 12 9 1 1262 1846
Pareto solution 11 7 8 5 3 1 12 11 9 13 4 10 6 15 14 2 1266 1834
D+S, =0.7 7 1 4 5 10 8 11 3 2 15 12 9 13 14 6 1274 1916
Pareto solution 12 2 14 13 6 15 4 5 8 7 10 1 3 9 11 12 1276 1828
D+S, =0.6 7 1 4 12 10 8 13 3 2 15 11 9 5 14 6 1282 1966
S+S, =0.80.9 1 3 11 12 10 14 13 9 8 15 2 4 5 7 6 1288 1860
Pareto solution 13 4 3 9 11 5 1 13 12 8 7 2 14 10 15 6 1292 1826
Pareto solution 14 2 13 15 6 10 14 4 5 8 7 1 3 9 11 12 1302 1824
Pareto solution 15 5 9 11 3 4 7 8 12 13 1 6 15 10 14 2 1308 1814
Pareto solution 16 6 10 12 7 11 15 13 3 8 9 2 14 4 1 5 1318 1808
Pareto solution 17 1 5 4 14 2 12 9 3 13 6 7 11 8 10 15 1332 1804
D+S, =0.8 7 1 3 5 10 11 9 4 2 15 8 12 13 14 6 1334 1904
Pareto solution 18 6 10 7 11 12 15 14 8 5 9 2 13 4 3 1 1346 1788
Pareto solution 19 6 10 8 11 7 15 14 9 3 5 2 13 12 4 1 1374 1778
Pareto solution 20 6 10 12 11 7 15 14 8 9 5 13 2 4 3 1 1402 1776
D+S, =0.9 9 1 3 5 4 11 7 10 15 6 8 12 13 14 2 1410 1858
Pareto solution 21 1 11 7 10 12 3 9 8 14 13 4 5 15 2 6 1452 1770
Pareto solution 22 1 5 4 14 2 3 7 8 10 15 9 11 12 13 6 1464 1758
Pareto solution 23 5 9 4 15 2 3 11 8 14 13 1 7 12 10 6 1538 1750

Pareto Solutions
4000
Closeness Rating Score

3950
3900
3850
3800
3750
3700
3650
3600
3550
3500
2600

2700

2800

2900

3000

3100

3200

3300

3400

3500

3600

Material Handling Cost

Fig. 8 Pareto solutions and efficient frontier for a 20-department test
problem
Table 7 Comparison of a 20-department test problem

Layout Locations Material Closeness

handling cost rating score
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

S+S, =0.5 17 19 8 5 13 4 15 20 7 6 18 2 12 1 3 16 14 11 10 9 2600 3912

S+S, =0.7 9 10 14 18 16 3 1 12 2 11 6 7 20 15 4 13 5 8 19 17 2614 3880
S+S, =0.6 9 14 10 16 18 3 12 2 11 4 13 20 15 8 19 6 7 1 5 17 2640 3876
Pareto solution 1 13 19 18 3 9 6 15 2 14 10 5 20 7 12 1 17 8 4 11 16 2648 3982
Pareto solution 2 17 8 11 1 16 4 20 7 12 18 19 15 2 14 3 6 13 5 10 9 2660 3910
Pareto solution 3 4 16 18 3 9 19 11 2 14 10 15 20 7 12 6 17 8 5 1 13 2688 3808
S+S, =0.8 17 4 11 16 18 19 20 15 2 10 5 7 8 12 14 13 6 9 1 3 2712 3766
Pareto solution 4 6 13 7 5 17 8 20 11 15 4 9 1 12 2 19 3 16 14 10 18 2728 3804
Pareto solution 5 13 1 7 8 17 6 12 11 4 5 9 16 20 15 19 3 14 10 2 18 2732 3792
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:10031018

Pareto solution 6 18 12 14 3 9 10 15 2 1 16 8 20 11 7 6 17 4 19 5 13 2736 3724

Pareto solution 7 4 10 18 3 9 19 11 2 14 16 15 20 7 12 6 17 8 5 1 13 2740 3720
Pareto solution 8 19 10 18 3 9 4 11 2 14 16 15 20 7 12 6 17 8 5 1 13 2742 3716
Pareto solution 9 4 10 18 3 9 19 11 2 14 16 15 20 1 12 6 17 8 5 7 13 2792 3708
Pareto solution 10 18 12 14 1 9 10 15 2 3 16 8 20 11 7 6 17 4 19 5 13 2796 3698
Pareto solution 11 4 10 1 3 9 19 11 2 14 16 15 20 7 12 6 17 8 5 18 13 2800 3696
S+S, =0.9 18 2 12 3 6 10 15 14 1 9 19 4 11 7 16 17 20 8 5 13 2810 3730
Pareto solution 12 4 10 2 3 9 19 11 18 14 16 15 20 7 1 6 17 8 5 12 13 2818 3694
D+S, =0.5 9 5 10 13 6 1 7 12 3 20 11 4 8 15 19 16 17 18 14 2 2828 4088
D+S, =0.8 13 8 5 6 9 16 20 19 15 10 11 7 2 14 12 4 17 18 3 1 2870 3766
D+S, =0.7 16 13 9 6 5 20 8 15 12 19 11 7 2 14 10 4 17 18 3 1 2884 3846
Pareto solution 13 9 14 3 18 10 12 1 11 2 15 6 7 8 20 4 13 5 16 17 19 2888 3688
Pareto solution 14 6 1 3 14 9 13 7 16 12 10 5 18 11 2 4 8 17 20 15 19 2894 3684
Pareto solution 15 17 5 7 1 9 4 11 16 6 13 19 15 2 12 14 10 8 20 18 3 2896 3682
D+S, =0.6 9 12 17 13 6 1 7 8 20 5 14 11 3 4 19 16 10 18 15 2 2896 3914
Pareto solution 16 9 14 2 15 19 3 1 12 5 17 6 7 18 8 10 13 16 11 20 4 2912 3680
Pareto solution 17 18 3 14 1 13 10 20 11 12 16 8 15 2 7 6 17 4 19 5 9 2914 3678
Pareto solution 18 9 12 14 2 4 1 3 11 15 10 7 16 20 18 19 13 6 8 5 17 2918 3666
Pareto solution 19 9 14 16 6 13 1 12 3 7 5 2 10 11 18 8 19 15 4 20 17 2922 3642
Pareto solution 20 1 12 14 3 6 19 15 2 5 9 4 11 10 7 16 17 8 20 18 13 2970 3628
Pareto solution 21 14 12 18 2 10 3 9 11 15 4 1 16 6 20 19 13 7 5 8 17 3036 3626
D+S, =0.9 13 1 17 15 12 6 7 8 10 14 11 16 5 19 9 4 20 18 2 3 3066 3848
Pareto solution 22 14 3 16 13 6 18 10 11 20 7 12 2 15 5 8 1 9 19 17 4 3070 3624
Pareto solution 23 17 8 5 7 1 4 18 11 13 12 19 20 16 3 6 10 15 2 9 14 3082 3614
Pareto solution 24 14 3 11 6 13 1 18 16 7 5 12 2 20 15 17 9 10 4 19 8 3094 3606
Pareto solution 25 19 2 5 1 9 4 15 14 12 8 17 20 11 6 7 10 18 16 3 13 3100 3600
Pareto solution 26 19 2 12 1 9 4 15 14 5 8 17 20 11 6 7 10 18 16 3 13 3116 3596
Pareto solution 27 9 1 12 14 2 8 5 18 17 15 6 7 16 11 10 13 3 20 4 19 3136 3594
Pareto solution 28 1 3 17 7 6 14 18 11 5 8 12 20 15 16 13 2 10 4 19 9 3160 3590
Pareto solution 29 13 6 7 9 1 8 3 5 2 12 20 18 11 15 14 10 16 19 4 17 3166 3588
1015
Table 7 (continued)
1016

Layout Locations Material Closeness

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 handling cost rating score

Pareto solution 30 8 7 5 13 1 17 6 9 18 3 4 20 11 16 14 19 15 10 2 12 3178 3586

Pareto solution 31 19 17 4 20 8 2 10 15 18 5 14 9 11 16 7 1 12 3 6 13 3188 3582
Pareto solution 32 13 20 6 5 8 16 18 11 7 17 3 14 4 1 19 10 2 12 15 9 3200 3570
Pareto solution 33 17 15 19 2 10 8 9 4 18 20 1 7 5 11 16 12 6 3 14 13 3214 3568
Pareto solution 34 3 1 6 7 13 14 9 5 18 16 12 2 11 20 8 4 15 19 17 10 3232 3566
Pareto solution 35 10 20 16 18 13 19 15 11 3 14 5 4 6 2 12 8 17 7 9 1 3300 3560
Pareto solution 36 1 8 5 19 9 12 7 17 4 2 14 6 16 11 15 3 13 18 20 10 3310 3542
Pareto solution 37 1 9 12 2 8 19 15 14 18 5 17 7 11 16 10 4 6 3 13 20 3404 3534
Pareto solution 38 1 9 12 2 8 17 15 14 18 5 19 7 11 16 10 4 6 3 13 20 3406 3522
Pareto solution 39 8 18 13 20 10 1 7 5 16 19 14 3 2 11 17 12 6 9 4 15 3500 3518

Closeness Rating Score

problem
9900
10000
10100
10200
10300
10400
10500
10600
10700
10800
10900

6400

6570

6740

6910

7080

7250

7420
Pareto Solutions

Material Handling Cost

7590

7760

7930

8100
Fig. 9 Pareto solutions and efficient frontier for a 30-department test
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:10031018
Table 8 Comparison of a 30-department test problem

Layout Locations Material Closeness

handling rating score
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 cost

S+S, a=0.6 15 25 18 1 17 24 28 8 23 22 6 12 27 16 11 7 10 26 14 30 19 3 13 9 20 4 29 21 2 5 6200 10766

S+S, a=0.5 4 14 30 11 28 15 20 27 16 19 8 25 3 29 9 7 10 17 21 18 23 22 1 26 5 2 13 6 12 24 6224 10886
S+S, a=0.7 5 2 18 3 27 14 15 6 22 16 30 4 26 23 10 11 19 29 17 1 9 7 8 20 24 12 13 21 25 28 6288 10896
S+S, a=0.8 2 21 9 28 26 5 29 20 13 10 17 24 19 16 7 25 6 12 30 3 11 8 22 1 4 14 27 23 18 15 6318 10570
Pareto solution 1 5 6 2 25 21 28 17 12 13 10 19 29 24 1 7 9 14 20 26 18 23 8 16 3 15 22 11 30 27 4 6460 10786
Pareto solution 2 5 24 25 9 21 28 12 26 2 10 20 29 17 1 13 7 19 14 6 18 23 8 16 30 15 22 11 27 3 4 6498 10728
S+S, a=0.9 27 3 29 9 2 5 4 30 19 16 13 21 23 8 11 10 7 25 14 18 22 24 1 12 15 20 17 26 28 6 6500 10552
Pareto solution 3 4 14 3 23 18 15 16 30 27 11 22 24 20 8 7 13 1 12 29 19 25 10 6 17 28 9 2 26 21 5 6504 10586
Pareto solution 4 26 12 24 17 1 15 6 20 22 8 18 14 28 25 10 7 16 27 21 9 13 19 3 4 5 2 29 11 23 30 6536 10556
Pareto solution 5 26 12 24 17 1 14 6 20 22 8 18 15 28 25 10 7 16 27 21 13 9 19 3 4 5 2 29 11 23 30 6542 10508
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:10031018

Pareto solution 6 26 12 6 28 22 15 24 13 10 11 25 16 1 7 19 8 30 18 17 9 29 3 27 4 5 21 2 20 23 14 6560 10492

Pareto solution 7 5 26 17 2 29 20 25 10 21 30 19 27 28 9 11 8 3 16 6 13 7 22 4 15 12 24 1 18 23 14 6578 10478
Pareto solution 8 26 12 24 20 1 14 6 17 22 8 18 15 28 25 10 7 16 27 21 13 9 19 3 4 5 2 11 29 23 30 6598 10476
Pareto solution 9 16 4 3 5 13 2 27 30 19 29 9 21 20 11 8 25 10 28 15 23 6 7 17 26 14 18 22 1 12 24 6600 10458
Pareto solution 10 16 4 30 5 13 2 27 3 19 29 9 21 20 11 8 25 10 28 15 23 6 7 17 26 14 18 22 1 12 24 6624 10422
Pareto solution 11 4 3 18 9 21 5 16 30 29 19 2 13 15 23 8 7 1 17 14 11 27 25 10 24 20 28 22 6 12 26 6640 10398
Pareto solution 12 16 4 30 5 2 9 27 3 19 29 13 21 20 11 8 25 10 28 15 23 6 7 17 26 14 18 22 1 12 24 6642 10390
Pareto solution 13 5 21 17 28 24 26 25 13 7 6 1 12 2 19 11 10 22 15 29 9 8 30 14 23 4 3 16 27 18 20 6654 10386
D+S, a=0.6 20 4 15 9 26 17 14 27 10 18 23 24 30 11 16 22 6 12 29 8 25 7 5 13 28 19 21 3 2 1 6660 10836
Pareto solution 14 5 21 17 28 12 26 25 13 7 6 1 24 2 19 11 10 22 20 29 9 8 30 14 23 4 3 16 27 18 15 6686 10382
Pareto solution 15 17 24 20 18 15 14 26 10 12 27 22 23 25 1 6 8 3 11 5 28 7 19 16 30 21 9 2 13 29 4 6690 10358
Pareto solution 16 5 4 30 27 23 14 29 16 19 3 15 18 2 6 25 8 22 20 9 13 28 11 1 26 21 7 10 12 17 24 6714 10352
Pareto solution 17 18 22 6 17 24 5 14 23 11 1 12 26 27 30 19 7 10 13 4 15 8 25 29 2 16 20 3 28 21 9 6716 10310
Pareto solution 18 5 2 21 13 26 17 29 11 25 19 10 28 4 3 8 7 9 1 16 30 22 6 20 12 23 27 18 15 14 24 6760 10272
Pareto solution 19 5 2 21 13 17 26 29 16 25 19 10 28 4 8 3 7 9 20 11 30 22 6 1 12 23 27 18 15 14 24 6762 10228
D+S, a=0.5 15 13 7 6 12 24 16 14 9 10 26 17 25 29 19 22 3 23 4 30 27 11 18 5 28 20 21 8 2 1 6776 10802
Pareto solution 20 5 2 21 13 17 26 29 11 25 19 10 28 4 8 3 7 9 20 16 30 22 6 1 12 23 27 18 15 14 24 6808 10196
D+S, a=0.7 26 23 14 9 6 12 17 8 10 11 7 24 20 19 3 30 22 18 21 25 16 27 13 15 28 4 29 2 5 1 6904 10810
Pareto solution 21 5 2 21 13 17 26 29 11 25 19 10 28 4 8 3 7 9 1 16 30 22 15 20 12 23 27 18 6 14 24 6918 10192
D+S, a=0.8 26 20 9 14 12 24 21 23 13 10 17 18 25 8 7 16 22 15 19 11 3 27 5 6 28 4 30 29 2 1 6922 10684
Pareto solution 22 29 13 2 20 9 5 4 16 11 3 10 21 30 8 19 7 17 25 23 27 15 6 26 28 14 22 18 1 24 12 7034 10160
D+S, a=0.9 21 9 10 2 26 24 7 13 11 6 14 17 8 30 16 20 23 5 19 29 27 22 18 12 25 4 28 15 3 1 7106 10694
Pareto solution 23 5 17 28 26 12 24 21 8 7 11 30 1 25 3 10 19 22 18 2 29 9 15 6 27 23 4 20 16 13 14 7160 10158
Pareto solution 24 28 9 29 4 20 16 10 7 21 2 6 13 26 25 8 30 3 15 24 17 19 27 22 18 12 5 1 11 14 23 7258 10154
Pareto solution 25 23 30 4 22 14 1 18 20 16 11 27 24 13 8 3 6 15 28 9 19 7 25 10 26 2 29 21 5 17 12 7268 10122
Pareto solution 26 23 30 4 22 14 1 18 19 16 11 27 24 13 8 3 6 15 28 9 20 7 25 10 26 2 29 21 5 17 12 7336 10114
Pareto solution 27 29 4 16 11 21 5 2 13 19 6 25 20 9 15 8 7 28 17 18 3 27 10 12 26 23 1 30 14 22 24 7460 10094
Pareto solution 28 27 14 16 10 28 20 22 3 15 6 11 24 18 30 8 19 26 25 2 13 7 9 21 17 23 1 4 29 12 5 7462 10080
Pareto solution 29 23 30 13 22 14 1 18 19 16 11 27 24 4 8 3 6 15 28 2 20 7 25 10 26 9 29 21 5 17 12 7510 10070
Pareto solution 30 23 4 20 7 9 2 16 6 8 25 13 21 11 27 15 29 19 5 22 18 30 3 10 17 14 24 28 1 26 12 7668 10060
Pareto solution 31 23 20 4 21 9 2 16 6 8 25 13 7 11 27 15 29 19 5 22 18 30 3 10 17 14 24 28 1 26 12 7694 9998
Pareto solution 32 18 16 19 11 14 22 23 20 6 27 17 24 2 25 8 3 29 26 13 15 4 30 10 5 21 9 7 28 1 12 8020 9996
Pareto solution 33 18 16 19 11 14 22 23 20 6 27 17 24 2 25 8 3 29 26 13 15 4 30 10 5 9 21 7 28 1 12 8052 9984
1017
1018
References
1. Jajodia S, Minis I, Harhalakis G, Proth JM (1992) CLASS:
computerized layout solutions using simulated annealing. Int J
Prod Res 30(1):95108
2. Armour GC, Buffa ES (1963) A heuristic algorithm and
simulation approach to relative allocation of facilities. Manage
Sci 9:294309
3. Buffa ES, Armour GC, Vollmann TE (1964) Allocating Facilities
with CRAFT. Harvard Bus Rev 42:136158
4. Muther R (1974) Systematic layout planning (SLP), 2nd edn.
Cahners Books, Boston
5. Kusiak A, Heragu S (1987) The facility layout problem. Eur J
Oper Res 29:229251
6. Meller RD, Gau KY (1996) The facility layout problem: recent
and emerging trends and perspectives. J Manuf Syst 15:351366
7. Malakooti B (1989) Multiple objective facility layout: a heuristic
to generate efficient alternatives. Int J Prod Res 27(7):12251238
8. Sahni S, Gonzales T (1976) P-complete approximation problems.
Journal of ACM 23(3):555565
9. Sha DY, Chen C-W (2001) A new approach to the multiple
objective facility layout problem. Integrated Manuf Syst 12(1):59
66
10. Rosenblatt MJ (1979) The facilities layout problem: a multi-goal
approach. Int J Prod Res 17(4):323332
11. Dutta KN, Sahu S (1982) A multigoal heuristic for facilities
design problems: MUGHAL. Int J Prod Res 20(2):147154
12. Fortenberry JC, Cox JF (1985) Multiple criteria approach to the
facilities layout problem. Int J Prod Res 23(4):773782
13. Urban TL (1987) A multiple criteria model for the facilities layout
problem. Int J Prod Res 25(12):18051812
14. Khare VK, Khare MK, Neema ML (1988) Combined computer-
aided approach for the facilities design problem and estimation of
the distribution parameter in the case of multigoal optimization.
Comput Ind Eng 14(4):465476
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 41:10031018
15. Malakooti B, Tsurushima A (1989) An expert system using
priorities for solving multiple-criteria facility layout problems. Int
J Prod Res 27(5):793808
16. Raoot AD, Rakshit A (1993) An experimental comparison of
systematic placement procedures for facility layout design. Int J
Prod Res 31(7):203222
17. Suresh G, Sahu S (1993) Multiobjective facility layout using
simulated annealing. Int J Prod Econ 32(2):239254
18. Chen CW, Sha DY (1999) A design approach to the multi-
objective facility layout problem. Int J Prod Res 37(5):11751196
19. Deb SK, Bhattacharyya B (2003) Facilities layout planning based
on Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making methodology. Int J
Prod Res 41(18):44874504
20. Chen C-W, Sha DY (2005) Heuristic approach for solving the multi-
objective facility layout problem. Int J Prod Res 43(21):44934507
21. Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD Jr, Vecchi MP (1983) Optimisation by
simulated annealing. Sci 220(4598):671680
22. Serafini P (1994) Simulated annealing for multiple objective
optimization problems. In: Tzeng GH et al (eds) Multiple criteria
decision making: Expand and enrich the domains of thinking and
application. Springer, Berlin, Vol. 283
23. Ulungu LE, Teghem J, Fortemps P (1995) Heuristics for multi-
objective combinatorial optimization problems by simulated
annealing. In: Gu J et al (eds) MCDM: theory and applications.
Windsor: Sci-Tech, p 269
24. Ululgu LE, Teghem J, Fortemps PH, Tuyttens D (1999) MOSA
method: A tool for solving multiobjective combinatorial optimi-
zation problems. J Multi-Crit Decis Anal 8:221236
25. Czyzak P, Jaszkiewicz A (1998) Pareto simulated annealing-A
metaheuristic technique for multiple-objective combinatorial
optimization. J Multi-Crit Decis Anal 7:3447
26. Suman B (2003) Simulated annealing based multiobjective
algorithm and their application for system reliability. Eng Optimiz
35:391416
27. Harmonosky CM, Tothero GK (1992) A multi-factor plant layout
methodology. Int J Prod Res 30:17731789