Annual Reviews in Control 58 (2024) 100970

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Annual Reviews in Control

journal homepage: [Link]/locate/arcontrol

A comprehensive review of static and dynamic facility layout problems

Khalil Bouramtane a,b,* , Said Kharraja a , Jamal Riffi b, Omar El Beqqali b, Abdelahad Chraibi c
a
University of Jean Monnet Saint-Etienne, IUT of Roanne, LASPI, RU, F-42300, Roanne, France
b
Laboratory of Computer Science, Signals, Automation and Cognitivism (LISAC), Faculty of science Dhar El Mahraz, University Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah, Fez,
Morocco
c
Alicante Company, Lesquin 59810 France

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Facility layout is a critical aspect of operations management, since it affects the efficiency and effectiveness of the
Static facility layout problem production process. The facility layout problem (FLP) is a combinatorial optimization problem that involves
Dynamic facility layout problem finding an optimal arrangement of machines, workstations, and material handling systems within a
Survey
manufacturing facility. FLP is known to be a NP-complex problem for which numerous research studies have
Manufacturing systems
Optimization methods
been published. This paper presents a survey of the most recent advancements in FLP as an attempt to deal with
Hybrid approaches the current and future trends of research based on well-known papers of the last 16 years. The adopted approach
in this paper is to classify FLP according to the environment type, namely, static facility layout problem (SFLP)
and dynamic facility layout problem (DFLP) and to investigate the various formulations, application domains and
solution methodologies for each classification. Finally, a comparison between all approaches is provided for each
classification. This review provides a comprehensive overview of FLP literature and serves as a valuable resource
for researchers and practitioners interested in the design and optimization of facility layouts.

1. Introduction competing goals and restrictions characterizes layout design, which is a

particularly complicated planning challenge. Facility layout planning
Allocating facilities to particular designated places is a frequent in- requires the consideration of both quantitative and qualitative objec-
dustrial problem known as the facility layout problem (FLP). Under tives. Quantitative objectives are typically measured through metrics
certain limitations set by the actual administrative areas, system work- such as equipment utilization, material handling costs, and space utili-
ing requirements, and the preferences of decision-makers, FLP attempts zation, while qualitative objectives may include employee comfort,
to identify the "most effective" location of facilities within a specified aesthetics, and safety. Additionally, the design must conform to regu-
portion of a plant. A well-designed layout plan can optimize production latory standards and requirements, such as building codes, fire codes,
processes, reduce operational costs, and improve overall efficiency, and zoning regulations. By considering both quantitative and qualitative
leading to a successful factory planning project. In contrast, a poorly objectives and adhering to regulatory requirements, facility managers
designed layout plan can result in reduced productivity, increased costs, can optimize the operational efficiency of the facility while providing a
and operational inefficiencies, leading to project failure. As such, the safe and comfortable working environment for employees. This
layout plan is a critical factor in factory planning project success (Amar approach can lead to increased productivity, reduced costs, and
& Abouabdellah, 2016). It helps to enhance the industrial process’ improved overall performance for the facility. (Schenk et al., 2014).
dependability and efficiency (Schenk et al., 2014). Research indicates Despite their high level of complexity, operational functional com-
that a well-designed layout can reduce a factory’s operating expenses by ponents are typically assembled manually, whether on paper or through
up to 30 %. By optimizing the placement of equipment, minimizing digital layout creation software. This process involves considering
material handling costs, and reducing travel distances, a productive numerous factors, such as material flow, equipment placement, and
layout can significantly improve operational efficiency and reduce costs. space utilization, to create an optimized facility layout. Although this
These cost savings can lead to increased profitability and competitive- process can be challenging, it is essential to ensure the efficient opera-
ness for the factory (Schenk et al., 2014). The struggle between tion of the facility. (Aurich et al., 2018).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [Link]@[Link] (K. Bouramtane), [Link]@[Link] (S. Kharraja), [Link]@[Link] (J. Riffi), omar.
elbeqqali@[Link] (O. El Beqqali), [Link]@[Link] (A. Chraibi).

[Link]
Received 28 May 2024; Received in revised form 19 September 2024; Accepted 19 September 2024
Available online 16 October 2024
1367-5788/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ([Link]
K. Bouramtane et al. Annual Reviews in Control 58 (2024) 100970

Material handling cost (MHC) is considered the most significant in- reviewing literature from the past 16 years (2007–2023), with a specific
dicator of a layout’s efficiency. MHC refers to the cost incurred in focus on the integration of modern technologies such as artificial intel-
moving resources such as raw materials, work-in-progress inventory, ligence, machine learning, and big data analytics in FLPs. Additionally,
and finished goods within the facility. Inefficient facility layouts can we provide a critical analysis and evaluation of the reviewed studies,
result in high MHC due to factors such as excessive movement of re- identifying strengths, weaknesses, and future research directions. This
sources, unnecessary handling steps, and suboptimal placement of comprehensive review will offer researchers and practitioners a nuanced
equipment (Emami & Nookabadi, 2013). MHC represents between 20 understanding of the current state of FLPs and guide future research in
and 50 % of a manufacturing company’s overall operating expenses and this evolving field.
between 15 and 70 % of the total cost of producing a good With the advent of the fourth industrial revolution, the increasing
(Mohamadghasemi & Hadi-Vencheh, 2012), If businesses’ facilities are prevalence of cyberphysical systems, and the rising market expectations,
correctly structured, they may reduce these expenditures for a minimum there is a need for more adaptable production techniques that permit a
of 10–30 % (Pillai et al., 2011) and boost the economy. Ineffective vast product range in smaller batches. In order to examine the classifi-
layouts, on the other hand, can increase MHC by up to 36 % (Ripon et al., cation of FLPs, our study reviewed and examined previously produced
2013). Furthermore, research suggests that inappropriate layouts and studies, including publications for the 2007–2023 time window. Review
location designs are likely to lose >35 % of system efficiency (Izadinia & of previous research on the topic is a viable and important way to
Eshghi, 2016). Due to this, FLP is among the most significant topics in explore new research directions, as it helps in the analysis of conceptual
the literature on manufacturing and business engineering, drawing the issues and directs research toward new theoretical development. Pre-
interest of several academics in all type of the layout disciplines. viously, (Hosseini-Nasab et al., 2018) presented an FLP classification
If the movement of resources around the installations is not changing based on an analysis of bibliographic documents released up until 2016.
through times, the issue is referred to as the static facility layout problem The literature review presented in this paper is a new one and therefore
(SFLP), and its basic version may be expressed as a quadratic assignment it is not only restricted to the planning aspects of the layout design. As a
problem (QAP) (Emami & Nookabadi, 2013). In the QAP methodology, result, the rest of this study is structured around this description along
every facility has the exact same space, and the plan is split it into with the main aspects found. This study’s main objective is to examine
multiple areas of similar size, with every facility allocated to one area present and prospective tendencies on the basis on previous research.
and inversely (Konak et al., 2006). As a result, SFLP maps facilities to Following the categorization in Fig.1, Table.1 describes features found
locations while reducing the total of MHC among each pair of facilities in the literature review. The articles were published between 2007 and
(Xie & Sahinidis, 2008). Material flows between facilities are unlikely to mid-May 2023. In order to give a comprehensive picture of the study
remain constant over a significant time period. According to Drira et al. conducted for FLPs, the key characteristics that were used to charac-
(2013), approximately 33 % of American companies conduct a signifi- terize layout issues are grouped as a tree representation in Fig. 1. The
cant reconfiguration of manufacturing facilities every two years, and layout evolution, problem formulation, workshop characteristics, and
new products account for about 40 % of a company’s revenue on resolution methodologies are the four primary branches of this tree.
average. Based on (McKendall & Hakobyan, 2010), the following are The following is a summary of the structure of the current paper.
among the causes driving a switch in the direction of material between Section 2 describe the procedure for gathering and selecting publica-
facilities: tions for a literature review on FLP. The workshop characteristics are
discussed in Section 3. The fourth section focuses at how FLPs can be
1. Changes in demand constructed. Section 5 is employed to deal with the challenge. The
2. Changes in production capacity evolution of the layout is highlighted in Section 6. Section 7 discusses
3. Changes in supply chain research gaps and recommends possible paths for future FLP study.
4. Changes in logistics Finally, in Section 8, the paper comes to a conclusion.
5. Changes in regulations
2. Methodology and limitation of the study
The SFLP turns into a dynamic facility layout problem (DFLP),
because resource movements across facilities vary during the scheduling The sequential process for gathering and choosing analyzed publi-
period as a result of the factors mentioned above (McKendall & cations to form our paper database is presented in Fig. 2. Initially, we
Hakobyan, 2010). Each period’s flow data is regarded as predictable and compiled a list of keywords designated for the database search. As
consistent over the course of the period (McKendall & Shang, 2006). outlined in Di Mascolo et al. (2021), the four traditionally used data-
Selecting a static layout for every timeframe of DFLP generally entails bases consist of Scopus, Google Scholar, Web of Science (WOS), and
considering if it is necessary to change that layout in the following time ScienceDirect. These databases were employed to explore various
(Chraibi et al., 2019). As a result, the layout design is defined over a time "keyword combinations". To prevent missing any relevant publications,
period to minimize the MHC and the expense of reorganizing the facil- the keywords were fairly generic. The following keyword combinations
ities (McKendall & Hakobyan, 2010). were used in our search: facility layout problems, static and dynamic
FLP has been a significant subject in operations management and facility layout problems, facility arrangement and handling, resolution
industrial engineering since the latter half of the 20th century. The topic approaches of facility layout problems and categorization of facility
has received extensive attention and investigation, with various litera- layout problems.
ture reviews concentrating on specific aspects of the problem (such as Given the vast quantity of English-written articles obtained in the
Ahmadi’s study in 2017 and Pérez Gosende’s in 2020), while others first search, the investigators introduced an initial contextual constraint
have explored it more generally (like Hosseini-Nasab et al.’s research in in Scopus and WOS, concentrating on mathematics, engineering, com-
2018 and Drira, et al., in 2007). Nevertheless, despite the extensive puter science, and decision science. Nevertheless, because Google
coverage, much of the research remains in its early stages due to the Scholar and ScienceDirect databases do not present any contextual fil-
continuously evolving physical layout demands in industries. One sig- ters, all retrieved papers were subjected to a comprehensive evaluation
nificant review in this domain is by Hosseini-Nasab et al. (2018), who based on their title, keywords, and abstract before being selected. The
provided a comprehensive classification and review of FLP literature up articles were then divided into three types: journal papers, conference
to 2016. Their work has been instrumental in shaping subsequent papers, and others (which included book chapters, technical reports, and
research. However, the rapid advancements in technology and meth- Ph.D theses). We opted to preserve just journal and conference articles,
odology over the past few years necessitate an updated review that and we used a full-text review to examine all of the potential
captures these new developments. This paper aims to fill this gap by publications.

2
K. Bouramtane et al. Annual Reviews in Control 58 (2024) 100970

Fig. 1. Classification of facility layout problem.

Several conditions must be satisfied for an article to be considered 3. A review of the workshop characteristics
relevant. The primary condition is that the focus and objectives should
specifically address the problems of the FLP. Therefore, we limited our A FLP classification system was proposed by Hosseini-Nasab et al.
study to scenarios in which researchers attempted to determine the most (2018) based on workshop characteristics, and defining the problem and
effective arrangement based on specific criteria or objectives while its approach to solutions. Workshop characteristics are a crucial factor in
working within certain restrictions. The second condition concerns FLP, as they determine the constraints and opportunities available for
studies that discuss facility design problems in either static or dynamic designing an effective and efficient layout (Guan et al., 2019). This study
environments. The final criterion addresses repetition, stipulating that will provide an overview of the various workshop characteristics that
conference papers subsequently published in journals are disregarded to are relevant to FLP, including the size and shape of the workshop, the
prevent duplication. This rigorous approach ensured that we thoroughly type of equipment and machinery that will be used, the materials that
assessed a total of 166 references for our paper. However, despite the will be handled, the flow of materials through the workshop, and the
extensive review process, our classification table incorporates only 117 workflow of the workers. We will also discuss how these characteristics
articles. This selective inclusion underscores our commitment to pre- can impact the layout of the workshop, and how they can be considered
senting the most relevant and impactful findings in our study. in the design process. Understanding workshop characteristics is
While previous review papers like Pérez-Gosende et al. (2021) con- essential for finding a layout that meets the needs of the business and the
ducted a broader review encompassing various aspects of facility layout workers, and that allows for an efficient and effective use of space and
planning, our review specifically targets static and dynamic facility resources.
layout problems. This focused approach allows for a more detailed ex-
amination of these particular problems, providing insights that broader
reviews might miss. Pérez-Gosende et al. identified 232 articles from 3.1. Manufacturing systems
2010 to 2019 using a wide range of keywords and a broad scope. In
contrast, our targeted methodology, spanning literature from 2007 to FLPs are crucial for improving all critical elements of manufacturing
2023, resulted in 117 key studies, selected for their direct relevance and systems (Sule, 2008). (Tompkins et al., 2010) found that efficient facility
impact on the field. layout in manufacturing systems can reduce total operating expenses by
Furthermore, see Fig 3 for a summary of publication distribution by about 20 %. According to manufacturing systems are grouped into four
journal. groups in a traditional classification: product layout, process layout,
The literature review results have been summarized in Table 1, fixed-position layout, and cellular layout. Machines and equipment are
which is based on the classification depicted in Fig. 1. This grouped in one line in a product layout based on the series of processes
Table provides a descriptive overview of the results obtained from the necessary for the output. Resources are moved progressively between
articles reviewed in the field of FLP. When a paper addressed any of the workstations without turning back or detouring. The output arrange-
features listed in the Table, a symbol (✓) was included in the relevant ments are utilized in systems with large amounts of manufacturing ca-
cell. The Table presents a comprehensive overview of the different pacity but limited product variation. In a process layout, related
features addressed in the reviewed articles. This classification helped to machines are grouped together in one location. When the operation
provide a clearer understanding of the different factors that impact FLP, environment needs to manage a large range of items at a limited scope,
and how these factors are addressed in the literature. Overall, this process layout is frequently said to be ideal. The principal product being
Table provides a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners produced in a fixed-position layout is fixed in one area, and machinery,
working in the field of FLP, enabling them to identify relevant literature equipment, workers, and components are transported there. This ar-
and gain a better understanding of the state of the art in this area. chitecture is appropriate for companies that produce big and complex
products, such as engines, carriages, boats and planes. The processes
necessary to manufacture a specific class of parts are grouped in a spe-
cific order in a cellular layout. diversity of items in small volumes,
cellular layouts are used. This layout incorporates elements of both

3
K. Bouramtane et al. Annual Reviews in Control 58 (2024) 100970

Table 1
An overview of FLP papers (Ahmadi & Akbari Jokar, 2016; Aiello et al., 2012; Aiello et al., 2013; Al Hawari et al., 2014; Altuntas et al., 2014; Amaral, 2013; Anjos
et al., 2018; Azevedo et al., 2017; Bashiri & Dehghan, 2010; Besbes et al., 2021; Bozer & Wang, 2012; Bukchin & Tzur, 2014; Chae & Regan, 2020; Chan & Malmborg,
2013; Che et al., 2017; Chraibi et al., 2019b; Cravo & Amaral, 2019; Dahlbeck, 2021; Dahlbeck et al., 2022; Datta et al., 2011; Dong et al., 2009; Erik & Kuvvetli, 2021;
Feng & Che, 2018; Fernando Goncalves & Resende, 2015; García-Hernández et al., 2014; García-Hernández et al., 2015; Ghosh et al., 2016; Guan & Lin, 2016;
Hammad et al., 2016; Hathhorn et al., 2013a,b; HerránJ et al., 2021; S.M. Hosseini et al., 2014; Hosseini et al., 2019; Kang et al., 2018; Karateke et al., 2022;
Komarudin & Wong, 2010; Kothari & Ghosh, 2014; Ku et al., 2011; Kulturel Konak & Konak, 2015; Kulturel-Konak & Konak, 2011b; Kumar & Cheng, 2015; Leno et al.,
2015; Liu et al., 2020b; Mazinani et al., 2013; Mehdizadeh & Rahimi, 2016; Meller et al., 2007; Moslemipour & Lee, 2012; Navidi et al., 2012; Nematian, 2014; Ning
et al., 2010, 2011, Palubeckis, 2012, 2015; Peer & Sharma, 2008; Pourvaziri & Naderi, 2014; Raman et al., 2009; Ripon et al., 2011; Rubio-Sanchez et al., 2016;
Safarzadeh & Koosha, 2017; Sahin, 2011; Sahin & Turkbey, 2009; Salmani et al., 2015; Samarghandi et al., 2010; Saraswat et al., 2015; Singh & Singh, 2010; Sol-
imanpur & Jafari, 2008; Subulan et al., 2023; Teran-Somohano & Smith, 2023; Turanoğlu & Akkaya, 2018; Ulutas & Islier, 2015; Ulutas & Islier, 2009; Vitayasak et al.,
2016, 2017; Wang et al., 2015; Wong & Komarudin, 2010; Xiao et al., 2013; Xu & Song, 2015; Yang et al., 2011; Ye & Zhou, 2007; Zavari et al., 2022; Zheng, 2014; Zuo
et al., 2014; Zeng et al., 2023).

(continued on next page)

4
K. Bouramtane et al. Annual Reviews in Control 58 (2024) 100970

Table 1 (continued )

(continued on next page)

5
K. Bouramtane et al. Annual Reviews in Control 58 (2024) 100970

Table 1 (continued )

(continued on next page)

6
K. Bouramtane et al. Annual Reviews in Control 58 (2024) 100970

Table 1 (continued )

Fig. 2. Research process for bibliography.

product and process layouts. In most cases, manufacturing systems are algorithms, or a regular shape, which is relatively simple to detect due to
highly sophisticated and dynamic, which makes the process of predict- its geometric properties. Additionally, a facility may be defined as a rigid
ing reliability and performance far from trivial (LEE et al., 2011). or permanent block, which denotes a degree of stability and permanence
in the facility’s position.
3.2. Facility shapes and dimensions A facility can also be identified based on its surface area or aspect
ratio. according to Chwif et al. (1998). The facility ’s aspect ratio i is
Existing literature on the subject suggests that there are two primary given by the following equation:
forms of facility detection: regular shapes (such as rectangles), and Length of facility i Li
irregular shapes (such as polygons) (Drira et al., 2007). A constant αi = =
width of facility i Wi
length and width can be utilized to define the physical characteristics of
facilities. Within this context, they are referred to as permanent or rigid Where αi is between an upper bound αiu and a lower bound αil (αi ∈
blocks (Welgama & Gibson, 1995). This means that a facility can either [αiu , αil ]). If αi =αil =αiu . Fig. 4 illustrates the repartition of the articles
have an irregular shape, which requires more complicated detection published, which is separated into different categories in terms of the

7
K. Bouramtane et al. Annual Reviews in Control 58 (2024) 100970

Fig. 3. Publication distribution by journal.

Fig. 4. Publications: shape and dimension.

shapes and dimension of the facilities. The following two factors can be used to evaluate MHS:

1. The tools and equipment used to transport, transfer, and store items
3.3. Material-handling system inside a facility are referred to as material-handling equipment.
2. The layout configuration describes how people, equipment, and
A material-handling system is a way of effectively moving materials supplies are arranged and placed inside a facility. There are several
around a facility, like a factory, warehouse, or distribution center.

Fig. 5. Layout configurations.

8
K. Bouramtane et al. Annual Reviews in Control 58 (2024) 100970

different types of layout configurations as shown in Fig.5

(Hosseini-Nasab et al., 2018).
a. The single-row layout problem refers to the arrangement and
placement of materials, equipment, and personnel in a single row
within a facility (Lee et al., 2011; Samarghandi & Eshghi, 2010).
The branch and bound (B&B) approach was proposed as a method
for solving SRLP in the initial research conducted by Kothari and
Ghosh (2013).
b. The multi-row layout problem (MRLP) refers to the arrangement
and placement of materials, equipment, and personnel in multiple
rows within a facility. This type of layout is typically used in Fig. 7. Backtracking/bypassing.
environments where materials need to be moved along multiple
lines, such as in a manufacturing or assembly process forming problem (PLFP) is the name (Zhou, 1998) given to this problem,
(Hungerlander & Anjos, 2015). which involves deciding the ordering (partial or whole) of machines in
c. The double-row layout problem (DRLP) is a term used to describe order to minimize the weighted sum of arrows that point away from the
how materials, tools, and people are arranged and placed in two overall flow of products while taking into consideration machine rank
rows within a facility (Murray et al., 2013). DRLP was initially constraints.
suggested by Chung and Tanchoco (Chung & Tanchoco, 2010). A component is said to be a bypass if it goes through many facilities
d. Parallel-row ordering problem (PROP): Portions of installations on route towards the continuous flow layout (Drira et al., 2007).
having certain similar features will be grouped in one row, while
others are placed in a parallel row (Gülşen et al., 2019; Guan 4. Problem formulation
et al., 2022). DRLP and PROP differ in the fact that PROP implies
that the layouts of both rows start at the same spot with zero space 4.1. Problem representation
between neighboring installations.
e. Loop layout problem (LLP): In a closed ring network, this kind of When developing a facility layout problem (FLP) mathematical
structure aims to distribute n amenities among n preselected sites optimization model, it is essential to define the problem according to the
while reducing overall distribution cost (Hungerlander, 2014). conceptual framework illustrated in Fig. 1. A crucial factor in this pro-
f. Open-field layout problem (OFLP): this is a challenging problem, cess is the consideration of the shape and area of the departments, as
as it requires finding a layout that meets the constraints of these characteristics determine whether a discrete or continuous rep-
maximizing empty space around the vertices while still main- resentation modeling technique should be used (Kulturel-Konak &
taining the connections between them. (Drira et al., 2007). Konak, 2011).
g. multi-floor layout problem (MFLP): The challenge of organizing In a discrete layout, facility components are arranged in fixed pat-
the components of a facility (such as equipment, workstations, terns that cannot be altered. These elements are typically positioned on a
and storage rooms) across numerous floors or levels of a building. grid or regular structure (Kusiak & Heragu, 1987), and discrete layouts
The initial study of MFLP, according to Izadinia et al. (2014), are common in manufacturing environments, where machines and
demonstrated a model that allowed facilities to be constructed at workstations are set up to optimize the flow of materials. For instance,
specific positions in a multi-story building. The survey by Ahmadi the Quadratic Assignment Problem (QAP) formulated by Armor and
et al. (2017) is a detailed study of problems with multi-floor fa- Buffa (Armour & Buffa, 1963) divides facilities into discrete blocks,
cility layout. The review provides a comprehensive overview of optimizing the arrangement for a given space. However, discrete layouts
the research literature on this subject, as well as the many solu- like these are often less flexible, making them difficult to adapt when
tions that have been suggested. The literature on configurations of facilities need to be reconfigured.
layouts is shown in Fig. 6. Continuous layouts, on the other hand, offer greater flexibility. In
these layouts, facility components can be rearranged easily to accom-
modate changing operational requirements. Continuous representations
3.4. Flow movement are particularly advantageous in environments where facility locations
may need frequent adjustments. Unlike discrete models, continuous
Flowline layouts have a direct impact on the movement of products, layouts allow the space to be optimized more fluidly, enabling better
as they involve two types of movements: backtracking and bypassing. utilization of available resources (see Fig. 8).
The movement of a component in the opposite direction to the intended One approach that bridges the gap between the rigid structure of
flow along the series of facilities in a flow-line arrangement is known as discrete layouts and the flexibility of continuous layouts is the Flexible
backtracking, which is illustrated in Fig. 7 (Kouvelis et al., 1992) (Zhou, Bay Structure (FBS). Initially proposed by Tong (Ulutas &
1998). These movements must be kept to a minimum. Production line

Fig. 6. Classification of articles based on the configurations of layouts.

9
K. Bouramtane et al. Annual Reviews in Control 58 (2024) 100970

Fig. 8. (a) Discrete representation and (b) Continuous representation.

Kulturel-Konak, 2012), FBS divides the plant floor into parallel bays, configurations (Buscher et al., 2014).
where the width of each bay can be adjusted based on the size and area By understanding and integrating these methods facility planners
requirements of the facilities placed within it. This flexibility allows the can make informed decisions to optimize layout designs based on the
layout to be more dynamic, unlike traditional discrete approaches where specific needs of their operations. This comprehensive approach enables
space is rigidly allocated. Importantly, there is no restriction on the the creation of layouts that balance flexibility, adaptability, and space
number, width, or content of these bays, providing the adaptability efficiency, ensuring that facilities can be reconfigured as operational
needed for complex facility layout problems. Facilities, however, are demands evolve.
confined to a single bay and cannot extend across multiple bays, but the
adjustable bay widths ensure the efficient use of space while maintain- 4.1.1. Impact on layout design
ing flexibility. The choice of problem representation has significant implications for
Further enhancing this adaptability is the Relaxed Flexible Bay facility layout optimization. Discrete layouts, while simple and often
Structure (RFBS), which removes the uniformity constraint from FBS, effective in fixed environments, can be inflexible and difficult to modify.
allowing bay sizes to vary even more. This approach offers additional In contrast, continuous layouts offer greater adaptability but may
flexibility by accommodating irregularly sized facilities within the require more complex computational models. The Flexible Bay Structure
available area, making it more suitable for layouts that involve diverse and Relaxed Flexible Bay Structure models provide a middle ground by
facility requirements. The RFBS representation strikes a balance be- offering flexibility without sacrificing structure, while Graph-based
tween space optimization and adaptability, providing a versatile option methods and Space-Filling Curves offer more versatile representations
for facility planners who require a flexible layout that can adjust to for dynamic and complex facility interactions. The Cutting Trees
changing conditions. (Kulturel-Konak & Konak, 2011) developed RFBS approach allows for high customization and dynamic adjustment,
to improve upon FBS by removing some constraints and incorporating making it suitable for highly adaptable environments.
heuristic methods to solve complex layout problems efficiently. By understanding the strengths and weaknesses of these represen-
Graph-based methods also provide a powerful approach for repre- tation methods, facility planners can choose the most suitable approach
senting spatial relationships between facilities. By modeling facilities as based on their operational needs. Incorporating these methods into the
nodes and material flow or interactions as edges, graph methods enable review enhances the comprehensiveness of our analysis and provides a
an efficient representation of complex facility interactions. This method more detailed examination of facility layout problems in both static and
is particularly advantageous for facilities that require regular modifi- dynamic environments.
cations, as the graph structure can be easily adjusted to reflect changes
in layout. Graph-based approaches are often combined with optimiza- 4.2. Objective function
tion techniques like clustering or network flow algorithms to ensure an
efficient arrangement of facilities (Kim & Kim, 1995). The Facility Layout Problem (FLP) aims to achieve an efficient and
Another advanced method for optimizing facility layouts is the cut- effective arrangement of facilities within a specified area. The objective
ting trees approach, which employs a hierarchical structure to divide the functions used in FLP can be categorized into single objective, multi-
layout into manageable subsections. Each "tree" represents a portion of objective, and multi-attribute functions, each of which can further be
the overall layout, allowing for independent optimization of smaller classified as either quantitative or qualitative.
parts before integrating them into the larger system. This hierarchical
decomposition is particularly beneficial for complex and dynamic lay- 4.2.1. Single objective
outs, as it allows for fine-grained control over the placement of facilities, A single objective function focuses on optimizing one specific goal.
ultimately leading to more efficient and adaptable layouts. Cutting trees This approach is straightforward but may overlook other important
offer a flexible yet structured way to handle facility layout problems, factors. Common single objectives in FLP include:
making them ideal for dynamic environments where layouts need to be
continuously optimized. (Scholz et al., 2009) demonstrated the effec- ⋅ Minimizing Material Handling Cost: Reducing the costs associated
tiveness of this approach by combining it with heuristic methods, with moving materials between facilities. This is one of the most
resulting in better space utilization and reduced costs. commonly used objectives in the literature.
Lastly, Space-Filling Curves (SFC) provide another innovative rep- ⋅ Minimizing Flow Distance: Decreasing the total distance materials
resentation for facility layout problems. SFCs are continuous curves that or personnel need to travel. This objective is frequently cited in
fill a multidimensional space by passing through each point in a struc- studies.
tured way. These curves can be used to create efficient layouts that ⋅ Minimizing Construction Cost: Lowering the expenses involved in
reduce travel distances and ensure space utilization efficiency. Their building and maintaining the facilities. This objective is also widely
flexibility allows them to adapt to varying facility shapes and areas, mentioned in the literature.
making them particularly useful for facilities with irregular space

10
K. Bouramtane et al. Annual Reviews in Control 58 (2024) 100970

4.2.2. Multi-objective ⋅ Improving Employee Satisfaction: Creating a layout that fosters a

Multi-objective functions aim to balance two or more goals simul- positive working environment and efficient workflow.
taneously. These objectives often conflict, requiring trade-offs to find a
compromise solution. Typical multi-objective goals include: In conclusion, the FLP’s objective functions can vary significantly
depending on the specific goals and constraints of the problem. By un-
⋅ Minimizing Costs and Maximizing Efficiency: Balancing cost derstanding and appropriately categorizing these objectives, it is
reduction with operational efficiency. possible to develop a more effective and balanced facility layout that
⋅ Minimizing Travel Distance and Maximizing Closeness Ratings: meets the diverse needs of the organization.
Reducing travel distances while ensuring facilities that need to be
close to each other are placed accordingly. 4.3. Type of data
⋅ Minimizing Resource Usage and Maximizing Flexibility:
Decreasing the use of resources while maintaining the ability to The data needed for FLPs generally includes information on the
adapt to changes. layout of the facility, the size and location of departments or work areas,
material and product flows, and distances between different areas. The
In the reviewed literature, a significant portion of articles address majority of studies assume that the data required for FLPs are deter-
FLP using multi-objective optimization models. ministic and known with complete accuracy before the problem is
solved. While this assumption is true in certain cases, it is unrealistic in
4.2.3. Multi-attribute others. because a workshop’s research design is evidently finished long
Multi-attribute functions incorporate a range of qualitative and prior to being put into practice; data about client expectations, for
quantitative factors, aiming to provide a comprehensive solution that example, are rarely known with sufficient clarity (Drira et al., 2013). As
considers various attributes of the layout. This approach often involves: a consequence, it is necessary to use approaches that can model data
uncertainty. The two main challenges faced by FLPs in practice that have
⋅ Maximizing Safety and Minimizing Noise: Ensuring that facilities received particular focus in recent studies are flexibility and resilience
with hazardous operations are placed away from areas needing (Neghabi et al., 2014).
quiet. To address these challenges, it is important to understand the
⋅ Maximizing Employee Satisfaction and Minimizing Workflow different types of data that can be used in FLPs. These include deter-
Disruptions: Placing facilities in a manner that enhances employee ministic, stochastic, fuzzy, and robust data, each offering unique
morale and reduces interruptions in the workflow. methods to handle various levels of uncertainty:
⋅ Optimizing Space Utilization and Reducing Environmental Deterministic data assumes complete accuracy and certainty in all
Impact: Making efficient use of available space while minimizing the input information, disregarding any variability or uncertainty. This type
environmental footprint of the facilities. of data treats all parameters as fixed and precise values, making deter-
ministic models suitable for scenarios where exact values for distances,
These various objective functions are classified into quantitative and material flows, and departmental sizes are known.
qualitative categories. Quantitative objectives focus on measurable, In contrast, stochastic data incorporates randomness by assuming
numeric goals, while qualitative objectives emphasize non-numeric, that the data follows certain probability distributions. This approach is
subjective factors affecting overall effectiveness. Correctly categoriz- beneficial in scenarios where inherent variability can be statistically
ing these objectives is essential for developing a balanced solution that predicted. Stochastic models address uncertainties in demand or supply
meets organizational needs. Below are the commonly used quantitative by treating these factors as random variables with known distributions.
and qualitative objectives in FLP optimization. Fuzzy data, on the other hand, leverages fuzzy logic to manage un-
certainties through linguistic variables or fuzzy numbers. This method is
4.2.4. Quantitative objectives particularly effective when dealing with imprecise data or data lacking
Quantitative objectives involve measurable, numeric goals. These clear boundaries. Fuzzy models use fuzzy sets to represent parameters
objectives are often used to derive clear, data-driven solutions. Examples such as “high demand” or “low supply,” providing a range of possible
include: values rather than a single precise number.
Meanwhile, robust data focuses on identifying solutions that remain
⋅ Minimizing Material Handling Cost: Measured by the total cost effective across various uncertain conditions. The objective is to ensure
incurred in transporting materials. This objective is one of the most that the layout performs well under different scenarios, maintaining
commonly used in FLP optimization models. performance close to the optimal solution. Robust models are used to
⋅ Minimizing Flow Distance: Evaluated by the sum of distances be- design layouts capable of withstanding fluctuations in parameters such
tween facilities, and is frequently utilized in studies. as demand, supply, and operational conditions.
⋅ Minimizing Construction Cost: Calculated based on the expenses The adaptability of a layout with uncertainty is referred to in the
for building and maintaining the facility, and is also a commonly literature as its consistency (Neghabi et al., 2014). Recent advancements
mentioned objective. in facility layout optimization have addressed challenges posed by un-
certainties in various domains. For instance, in the optimization of
4.2.5. Qualitative objectives photovoltaic power plant layouts, the paper by Bischoff et al. (2017)
Qualitative objectives focus on non-numeric, subjective factors that presents a novel approach to tackling hard uncertainties, particularly
influence the overall effectiveness of the facility layout. These objectives focusing on weather data as a crucial factor influencing layout decisions.
often require judgment and prioritization based on specific needs. Ex- The techniques to solve the problem of the adaptability of a layout with
amples include: uncertainty may be divided into two categories: stochastic formulations
and fuzzy formulations (Drira et al., 2013). There are two types of fuzzy
⋅ Maximizing Closeness Rating: Ensuring that facilities with strong models for FLPs: techniques that use linguistic variables to construct
interdependencies are placed near each other. This is one of the most parameters and methods that view information as fuzzy integers (Kaveh
frequently used qualitative objectives. et al., 2014). The notion of facility layout flexibility was initially
⋅ Enhancing Safety and Reducing Noise: Arranging facilities to explored by Shore and Tompkins (Tompkins et al., 2010). The robust-
mitigate risks and minimize disruptive noise levels. ness of an alternative is the number of instances the answer for various
scenarios falls within a predetermined percentage of the ideal solution.

11
K. Bouramtane et al. Annual Reviews in Control 58 (2024) 100970

The option that is most likely to be the closest to the perfect answer will 6. Quadratic set covering problem (QSP): A type of mathematical
be chosen by the decider. Rosenblatt and Lee (Rosenblatt & Lee, 1987) optimization problem that involves selecting a minimum number of
were the first to use a numerical application to demonstrate the utility of subsets from a given collection of sets, such that all elements in a
the robustness method for the layout problem. Kouvelis et al. (Kouvelis given universe are covered. The objective is to minimize the sum of
et al., 1992) proposed a QAP model and a B&B algorithm to solve a novel the quadratic costs of the selected subsets. QSPs were first introduced
technique for locating a resilient layout according to unpredictability of and researched by Bazaraa (Bazaraa, 1975).
demand in DFLP.t 7. Graph theory (GT): Mathematical problems that involve analyzing
In summary, deterministic models assume certainty and fixed values, and manipulating graphs, which are mathematical structures used to
suitable for scenarios with known exact data. Stochastic models incor- represent relationships between objects (Kim & Kim, 1995). In Jan-
porate variability using probabilistic distributions, addressing un- kovits et al. (2011) It assumes that each pair of facilities’ proximities
certainties in a statistical manner. Fuzzy models handle imprecise data to one another is desirable in a GT model.
with fuzzy logic and sets, representing uncertain parameters with ranges
of values. Robust models aim to maintain performance across various
4.5. Constraints
uncertain conditions, ensuring solutions remain effective under different
scenarios. These approaches provide a spectrum of methods to address
The FLP is a challenging optimization problem that requires the
data uncertainty in FLPs, each with distinct advantages and applicable
consideration of multiple constraints to develop an efficient facility
contexts.
layout. These constraints can vary significantly, including factors such
The distribution of articles according to the type of data they contain
as the foloowing:Area: Refers to the minimum or maximum size required
is shown in Fig. 9.
for a particular area within the facility. The space allocated to every
facility on the floor plan should also consider any additional resources or
4.4. Modeling buffers needed to operate the facility (Lacksonen & Enscore, 1993).

Over the past six decades, many mathematical models for FLP have - -Pick-up/drop-off: Refer to locations within a facility where goods or
been formulated. They can be classified into the seven following types: materials are either picked up or dropped off. These points are
typically located at strategic points within the facility to facilitate the
1. Linear programming (LP): A mathematical technique is used to efficient flow of materials and goods throughout the facility. Despite
optimize a linear objective function while adhering to a group of the fact that they might be anywhere within or close to the facility
linear constraints. area’s boundaries (Kim & Kim, 2000).
2. Integer programming (IP): An optimization problem that involves - -Non-overlapping: In order to prevent situations when two facilities
decision variables constrained to take on integer values. Lawler occupy the same space physically, In order to establish this
(Kusiak & Heragu, 1987) initially described an FLP as a linear IP. constraint, (Mir & Imam, 2001) propose an overlap area between
3. Mixed integer programming problem (MIP): A type of mathematical two facilities.
optimization problem that involves both continuous and integer - -Budget: Budget restrictions may also be present while doing facility
decision variables. In a MIP problem, some of the variables are reconfiguration on the floor plant (Sahin et al., 2010). In actuality,
restricted to be integer values, while others are allowed to take on the costs of the rearranging cannot go over a predetermined amount
any real value within a given range. A set of equality and inequality of the budget.
constraints are imposed on the objective function of a mixed integer - Orientation and clearance between facilities: These constraints are
programming (MIP) model, which consists of both integer and non- also taken into account in the planning and may take the form of a
integer choice variables (Moslemipour et al., 2012). fixed value or be included into the size of the facility (WAN et al.,
4. Nonlinear programming (NLP): The objective function and/or the 2022).
constraints are nonlinear. This means that they cannot be repre-
sented by a linear equation or inequality, but rather involve terms Fig. 10 shows the distributions of papers that provided valuable in-
such as squares, square roots, logarithms, or other nonlinear formation about the critical constraints of FLPs.
functions.
5. Quadratic assignment problem (QAP): A type of mathematical 5. Resolution approach
optimization problem that involves finding the optimal assignment
of a set of objects to a set of locations, such that a quadratic objective FLPs can be categorized into two primary groups: FLPs with a single
function is minimized. The objective function typically involves the criterion and FLPs with multiple criteria. Single criterion FLPs involve
cost of assigning each object to a particular location, as well as the optimizing for a single objective, such as minimizing the total length of
cost of the interactions between the objects and locations (Kusiak & material handling paths. Multi-criterion FLPs involve optimizing for
Heragu, 1987). multiple objectives simultaneously, such as minimizing the total length

Fig. 9. The classification of articles based on the type of data.

12
K. Bouramtane et al. Annual Reviews in Control 58 (2024) 100970

Fig. 10. Classification of articles based on constraints.

of material handling paths while also maximizing the utilization of compare the performance of these alternatives and retain the best
available space. To solve single criterion FLPs, a variety of approaches possible one. (Sa’udah et al., 2015) combined value stream mapping
and procedures have been developed, which can be grouped into four (VSM) and computer simulation to optimize the FLP for small and me-
categories: exact, stochastic, approximated, and artificial intelligent dium enterprises in the food industry. Firstly, two layout alternatives are
methods. proposed using SLP to which we apply VSM. VSM is a method used to
identify waste during the production process runs and to provide the
• Exact methods model and data making simulation easier to be applied. Finally, a
simulation model is built based on the current and future state value
Exact methods, also known as deterministic methods, are algorithms stream maps (VSM), and computer simulation is employed to evaluate
or techniques that are guaranteed to produce a correct solution to a the proposed layouts.
problem within a finite amount of time. For small-scale FLPs, exact
methods are efficient approaches to finding optimal solutions. Unfor- • Approximated approaches:
tunately, they require a long time to achieve a goal and cannot deal with
big size problems (Osman et al., 2002), which is far from the reality in The effectiveness of optimization methods in solving problems
industrial situations. Among the various types of exact methods used in involving 15 or more facilities is limited, as per Sahni and Gonzalez’s
solving optimization problems, there are several techniques that are study, which also found that the QAP is NP-complete (Kusiak & Heragu,
commonly employed. The distribution of publications pertaining to 1987). It is necessary to use approximated algorithms that can produce
these methods can be seen in Fig 11. solid suboptimal answers. There are several ways to categorize these
strategies:
• Stochastic approaches:
a. Improvement algorithms: By switching the locations of the facilities,
Stochastic approaches are methods that involve some element of improvement methods begin with a first solution and work to
randomness or probability. These approaches are often used in decision enhance it (Chiang & Chiang, 1998). The exchange that generates
making, optimization, and simulation problems. the optimal solution is selected, and the operation is repeated until
Computer simulation is the use of computer systems to model and there is no more room for improvement in the solution (Kusiak &
mimic the behavior of real-world systems or processes. This method Heragu, 1987). As a result, the quality of improvement methods’
substitutes the goal function and constraints with simulation models, solutions is highly dependent on their initial layouts (Kim & Kim,
while the choice variables and constraints are stated in the simulation’s 1995).
operating circumstances. Performance metrics are then derived from the b. Construction algorithms: Construct a layout from the ground up by
answers the simulation output generates (Kelton & Law, 2000). choosing and positioning facilities one by one until the layout is
(Visuwan & Phruksaphanrat, 2014) provided a computer simulation for finished (Chiang & Chiang, 1998). A common disadvantage of all
the problem of facility layout in electronic production. First, Systematic these approaches is that the resulting layout can be inefficient since
Layout Planning (SLP) is used to generate all possible layouts alterna- the methods only create one layout (Kim & Kim, 1995).
tives for the factory. The cellular layout is selected based on the plant’s c. Meta-heuristic algorithms: These work by iteratively improving a
main criteria. Computer simulation is finally used to analyze and solution to a problem, using techniques such as local search, global

Fig. 11. Publications: Exact approaches.

13
K. Bouramtane et al. Annual Reviews in Control 58 (2024) 100970

search, or a combination of both. They often involve some form of initially utilized simulation to detect bottlenecks and create a repre-
randomization or stochasticity, which allows them to explore sentation of the system, and then employed a multi-agent system to
different parts of the search space and avoid getting stuck in local model different environmental conditions and design configurations. A
minima or maxima. They belong to a brand-new group of approxi- market mechanism that allows for wealthy agents to spend more money
mation strategies that instruct traditional construction and for better locations and less money for less desirable locations defines
improvement techniques to steer clear of local optimums when doing how properties are altered throughout agent interactions. In order to
their search. Some common examples of meta-heuristic algorithms solve the unidirectional loop FLP in a flexible manufacturing system
include genetic algorithms, simulated annealing, particle swarm while considering both the min sum and min max objectives, (Kumar
optimization, ant colony optimization, and tabu search. et al., 2009) looked at artificial immune systems. In order to improve the
system’s speed, shortcuts are also included to the loop layout’s flow
Incorporating human interaction into the optimization process, route. (Kunlei et al., 2011) used an imperialist competitive algorithm to
interactive algorithms represent an advanced subset of meta-heuristics. solve the single row FLP, drawing inspiration from the sociopolitical
These algorithms actively involve decision-makers in the iterative process of imperialistic rivalry. The approach demonstrated its effec-
improvement process, blending computational techniques with human tiveness on a big problem for which new, better solutions were found.
expertise. Interactive algorithms enhance the adaptability and practical With the help of a flexible bay structure and an artificial immune
applicability of solutions, particularly in dynamic and complex FLPs. For system, (Ulutas & Kulturel-Konak, 2012) were able to manage the un-
example, Interactive Genetic Algorithms (IGA) integrate user prefer- even region FLP. The flexible bay structure was addressed using a clonal
ences directly into the evolutionary process. (García-Hernández et al., selection algorithm that incorporates a new encoding method and an
2013) employed IGA to manage qualitative aspects in the unequal area original strategy for managing simulated departments used to fill unused
facility layout problem, using user feedback to refine the solution space space in the facility. (Jiang & Nee, 2013) suggested a FLP based on
and improve practical outcomes. Similarly, Interactive Particle Swarm augmented reality for a four-module interactive 3D real-time facility
Optimization (PSO) allows for real-time adjustment of parameters based planning system. The human interaction module is the first, where a
on user inputs, thus enhancing convergence rates and solution quality. camera scans a simulated reality to locate a facility’s perimeter. The
(Hosseini Nasab & Emami, 2013) demonstrated the effectiveness of second is the modeling module, where users can rearrange facilities
interactive adjustments in dynamic FLPs with a hybrid PSO approach. while adhering to the criteria and limitations that specify the layout’s
Interactive Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) modifies pheromone levels unique needs. The final module is the optimization one, where the final
and search processes in response to decision-maker feedback. (Chen, factory floor layout is optimized using an analytical hierarchy
2013) introduced a novel data structure for solution representation in process-genetic algorithm method to automatic layout planning. The
hybrid ACO, proving particularly effective for large, dynamic FLPs. evaluation module is the third, where the respect of criteria and con-
Fig. 12 presents the distribution of publications according to straints is evaluated. To solve a real life-sized operating theater layout
different methods. problem, (Chraibi et al., 2014) developed a MAS using a three-level
approach and a master/slave architecture. Agents are communicating
• Artificial intelligence approaches: during the optimization process to exchange information related to each
agent results to construct the final layout solution. (Tayal et al., 2020)
Artificial intelligence is where intelligent approaches first emerged, put forth a unique four-step process that incorporates Big Data Analytics,
and they have since been used to address challenging issues in the Machine Learning, Hybrid Meta-heuristic, Data Envelopment Analysis
optimization environment. Although less popular than meta-heuristics (DEA), and K-mean clustering to create a sustainable sub-optimal layout
for FLP, intelligent approaches also fall within the category of approx- that is energy-efficient and meets various demands over an indetermi-
imation methods. These include machine learning, multi-agent systems nate period of time. Using K-mean to determine the criteria that maxi-
(MAS), artificial immune systems (AIS) and fuzzy systems (FS). To mally satisfied an efficient sustainable layout and propose an SFLP
resolve FLP, (Tarkesh et al., 2009) developed a virtual community of model that can be customized depending on social, political, and eco-
intelligent beings. Within the field of operational research, there is a nomic conditions.
concept in which individual agents simulate facilities and possess The distribution of papers based on resolution techniques is seen in
unique properties such as emotions and monetary value. (Bouramtane Fig. 13.
et al., 2022) proposed a solution for addressing FLP in the domain of
emergency services that involved a multi-agent system approach. They

Fig. 12. Publications: metaheuristics algorithms.

14
K. Bouramtane et al. Annual Reviews in Control 58 (2024) 100970

Fig. 13. Publications: resolution approaches.

6. Layout evolution of researchers have looked at SFLPs, as seen in Fig. 14. As a result, rather
than SFLPs, study should be focused on DFLPs.
Material handling flows dictate that the FLP can be divided into two Despite the fact that optimizing space inside industrial facilities is a
subcategories, namely SFLP and DFLP. In a single time period, the SFLP fundamental facility planning principle, space analysis is frequently
presupposes that facility traffic and product demand are constant. The limited to a two-dimensional perspective. The works that have been
DFLP, on the other hand, is interested in assessing and adjusting facil- studied here mainly focused on floor plans for a single structure. Large
ities over a range of time periods.; by anticipating that material handling businesses, however, frequently thought about expanding their activ-
procedures and product needs could change over time, it expands the ities across multiple buildings and levels. Therefore, by thinking about
SFLP. In order to maintain a good facility layout, it is required in DFLP to material handling system configurations that have hardly been dis-
review changes in product demands on a regular basis to identify the cussed in the literature, FLP modeling needs to receive greater attention.
necessity for rearranging the layout (Drira et al., 2007). Fig. 14 shows Minimizing MHC, a quantitative quantity, is the most typical goal in
the percentage of articles using static and dynamic FLPs. mathematical models. The majority of related studies in the literature
concentrates on this criterion as a component for determining the
7. Discussion applicability of a plan but leaves out other crucial elements. As a result,
FLPs must carefully assess qualitative factors including facility prox-
Industrial FLP nowadays must be adaptable enough to deal with imity, plant safety, and layout adaptability for future design revisions.
variable demand, incorporate new technologies, permit the establish- Approximately 85 % of the research that used predictable and well-
ment of new processes, and generate a vast product range in ever smaller known parameters as a preferred method to create layout options used
amounts. Even if it does not reflect reality, considering static production mathematical optimisation models. Although this assumption may be
conditions, such as, for instance, the demand remaining constant across plausible in some contexts, it is unlikely that exact cost/profit co-
the temporary planning horizon, is the most often used planned strategy efficients of the objective function can be obtained given the measure-
in the scientific literature on FLP. In other words, due to quick techno- ment errors and random component that frequently appear in some
logical advancements and product changes, it is more important than forecasting techniques, such as those based on historic series to forecast
ever to concentrate on dynamic layouts (Jolai et al., 2012). The majority demand. Thus, in some datasets, such as demand, material movement,
materials processing unit prices, and facility sizes, it is essential to
employ methods that represent uncertainty more frequently. To
accomplish this, it is suggested that stochastic, resilient, fuzzy set,
probability distribution, and/or stochastic methods be used.
Due to its complexity, the length of the computations needed to solve
FLP in any of its variations grows exponentially with the size of the
problem. Therefore, exact methods are only effective for identifying the
best solutions to small problems. Because of this, approximate methods
like metaheuristics have become widely used in recent years to find
suboptimal answers. Nevertheless, it is essential to continue creating
new ways for finding solutions, and as this review article notes, a
collection of mathematician’s algorithms have appeared recently for
FLP with promising outcomes. Therefore, it is advised that further
research be done to examine this new way to solving problems. Ac-
cording to the review, there has been a tendency toward adopting meta
heuristic techniques to optimize the FLP, with GA and SA being used by
the highest number of studies. Fig. 15 represents the percentage of re-
searchers who used meta-heuristic techniques, and it can be concluded
that the GA and SA approaches are used by around 55 % of researchers,
while other approaches such as ACO, PSO, and other methods are used
by just a few.
ACO and PSO are appearing as future methods to deal with FLP,
which is now very low, and therefore ACO and PSO applications can
focus on future study topics in this field. Hybrid algorithms are now
performing well in delivering realistic solutions for a variety of
complicated FLPs, and there is still a lot of room for research to advance
Fig. 14. Percentage of articles released on the layout evolution. by using such algorithms in facility layout challenges.

15
K. Bouramtane et al. Annual Reviews in Control 58 (2024) 100970

the literature review will help interested researchers and practitioners

integrate various concepts and create more complete models for creating
or resolving FLPs.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest with regard to this

research. The funding provided by PHC Toubkal did not influence the
design, implementation, analysis, or interpretation of the study findings,
nor did it impact the writing or submission of this manuscript. The au-
thors have no financial or non-financial interests that could be perceived
as affecting the objectivity or integrity of the research presented in this
paper.

Data availability

No data was used for the research described in the article.

Acknowledgements
Fig. 15. Meta-heuristic approaches utilization.
This project has been funded by the Ministry of Europe and Foreign
Affairs (MEAE), the Ministry of Higher Education, Research (MESR) and
Rearrangements in Dynamic Facility Layout Problems (DFLPs) are the Ministry of Higher Education, Scientific Research and Innovation
inherently expensive, making budget constraints a crucial consideration (MESRSI), under the framework of the Franco-Moroccan bilateral pro-
for businesses operating within financial limits. Therefore, it is essential gram PHC Toubkal/23/164, with Grant number: 48603YB.
to incorporate budgetary limitations when addressing DFLPs to ensure
realistic and applicable solutions, as demonstrated in several studies
References
(Sahin et al., 2010; Ruiqi et al., 18 May 2021; Azimi & Charmchi, 2012;
Sahin et al., 2020; Tayal et al., 2020). Similarly, budget constraints play Ahmadi, A., & Akbari Jokar, M. R. (2016). An efficient multiple-stage mathematical
a significant role in Static Facility Layout Problems (SFLPs), as evi- programming method for advanced single and multi-floor facility layout problems.
denced by the research in Utamima (2021); Liu et al. (2020); Guan et al. Applied Mathematical Modeling, 40(9–10), 5605–5620.
Ahmadi, A., Pishvaee, M. S., & Jokar, M. R. A. (2017). A survey on multi-floor facility
(2019); Gülşen et al. (2019); Liu et al. (2018). These findings underscore layout problems. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 107, 158–170.
the importance of considering financial constraints in both dynamic and Aiello, G., La Scalia, G., & Enea, M. (2012). A multi objective genetic algorithm for the
static facility layout planning to achieve practical and cost-effective facility layout problem based upon slicing structure encoding. Expert Systems with
Applications, 39(12), 10352–10358.
outcomes.
Aiello, G., LaScalia, G., & Enea, M. (2013). A non-dominated ranking multi objective
genetic algorithm and electre method for unequal area facility layout problems.
8. Conclusion Expert Systems with Applications, 40(12), 4812–4819.
Al Hawari, T., Mumani, A., & Momani, A. (2014). Application of the analytic network
process to facility layout selection. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 33(4), 488–497.
Our paper provides an all- encompassing literature review of static Altuntas, S., Selim, H., & Dereli, T. (2014). A fuzzy DEMATEL-based solution approach
and dynamic FLP, which is based on a significant number of literature for facility layout problem: A case study. The International Journal, Advanced
references from the past 15 years. Through our review, we noted that Manufacturing Technology, 73(5), 749–771.
Amar, S. H., & Abouabdellah, A. (2016). Facility layout planning problem: effectiveness
research and application work on the FLP persisted across various do- and reliability evaluation system layout designs. In , 110. IEEE, International
mains, including more intricate and practical manufacturing and service Conference on System Reliability and Science (p. 114).
industries. Amaral, A. R. S. (2013). A parallel ordering problem in facilities layout. Computers &
Operations Research, 40, 2930–2939.
Facility layout refers to the arrangement of physical facilities, such as Anjos, M. F., Fischer, A., & Hungerländer, P. (2018). Improved exact approaches for row
machinery, equipment, and materials, within a manufacturing or service layout problems with departments of equal length. European Journal of Operational
organization. The goal of facility layout is to design an efficient and Research, 270(2), 514–529.
Armour, G. C., & Buffa, E. S. (1963). A heuristic algorithm and simulation approach to
effective workspace that meets the needs of the organization and its relative location of facilities. Management Science, 9(2), 294–309.
employees. This study tries to provide a thorough and in-depth analysis Aurich, P., Stonis, M., & Nyhuis, P. (2018). Development of Method for Quantitative,
of various publications about FLPs based on numerous literature refer- Multidimensional Factory Layout Planning. ZWF Zeitschrift fuer Wirtschaftlichen
Fabrikbetrieb, 113, 117–120. [Link]
ences, which can help in understanding the state of the field’s research
Azevedo, M. M., Crispim, J. A., & de Sousa, J. P. (2017). A dynamic multi-objective
at present and expand the study’s multidisciplinary knowledge base. The approach for the reconfigurable multi-facility layout problem. Journal of
findings of this literature review study could be used by readers to Manufacturing Systems, 42, 140–152.
Azimi, P., & Charmchi, H. R. (2012). A new optimization via simulation approach for
identify the topics that interest them the most. The current state of FLPs
dynamic facility layout problem with budget constraints. Modeling Simulating
is examined, along with their potential future development, in this study Engineering, 1–9.
paper. There have been reports of multi-objective techniques being Bashiri, M., & Dehghan, E. (2010). Optimizing a multiple criteria dynamic layout
consciously taken into account for facility layout problems and further problem using a simultaneous data envelopment analysis modeling: Optimizing a
DLP using DEA. International Journal of Computer Science and Engineering, 2(1),
design modifications. Among the numerous references listed at the end 28–35.
of this research, we discovered over 165 publications that have been Bazaraa, M. S. (1975). Computerized layout design: A branch and bound approach. A I I E
published since 1987 and are examined from a variety of angles (such as Transactions, 7(4), 432–438.
Besbes, M., Zolghadri, M., & Affonso, R. C. (2021). A method to solve 2D Facility Layout
layout evolution, workshop characteristics, problem formulation, and Problem with equipment inputs/outputs constraints using meta-heuristics
resolution methodologies). This analysis shows that FLPs are still an algorithms. Procedia CIRP, 104, 1698–1703.
open research problem and that articles about layout designs are regu- et Bischoff, Martin, JAHN, Johannes, & KÖBIS, Elisabeth (2017). Hard uncertainties in
multiobjective layout optimization of photovoltaic power plants. Optimization,, 66
larly published in significant academic journals. Finally, this analysis of (3), 361–380.

16
K. Bouramtane et al. Annual Reviews in Control 58 (2024) 100970

Bouramtane, K., Kharraja, S., Riffi, J., & Elbeqqali, O. (2022). A Decision-Making System Ghosh, T., Doloi, B., & Dan, P. K. (2016). Applying soft-computing techniques in solving
for emergency service design and management during pandemic COVID-19. In 2022 dynamic multi-objective layout problems in cellular manufacturing system. The
International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Computer Vision (ISCV) (pp. 1–8). International Journal, Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 86(1), 237–257.
IEEE. Guan, J., & Lin, G. (2016). Hybridizing variable neighborhood search with ant colony
Bozer, Y. A., & Wang, C. T. (2012). A graph-pair representation and MIPmodel-based optimization for solving the single row facility layout problem. European Journal of
heuristic for the unequal-area facility layout problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 248(3), 899–909.
Operational Research, 218(2), 382–391. Guan, C., Zhang, Z., Liu, S., & Gong, J. (2019). Multi-objective particle swarm
Bukchin, Y., & Tzur, M. (2014). A new MILP approach for the facility process-layout optimization for multi-workshop facility layout problem. Journal of Manufacturing
design problem with rectangular and L/T shape departments. International Journal of Systems, 53, 32–48.
Production Research, 52(24), 7339–7359. Guan, C., Zhang, Z., Zhu, L., & Liu, S. (2022). Mathematical formulation and a hybrid
Buscher, U., Mayer, B., & Ehrig, T. (2014). A genetic algorithm for the unequal area evolution algorithm for solving an extended row facility layout problem of a
facility layout problem. In Operations Research Proceedings 2012 (pp. 109–114). dynamic manufacturing system. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 78,
Springer International Publishing. Article 102379.
Chae, J., & Regan, A. C. (2020). A mixed integer programming model for a double row Gülşen, M., Murray, C. C., & Smith, A. E. (2019). Double-row facility layout with
layout problem. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 140, Article 106244. replicate machines and split flows. Computers & Operations Research, 108, 20–32.
Chan, W. K. V., & Malmborg, C. J. (2013). On the effectiveness of Monte Carlo simulation Hammad, A. W. A., Akbarnezhad, A., & Rey, D. (2016). A multi-objective mixed integer
and heuristic search for solving large-scale block layout problems. International nonlinear programming model for construction site layout planning to minimize
Journal of Production Research, 51(14), 4258–4272. noise pollution and transport costs. Automation in Construction, 61, 73–85.
Che, A., Zhang, Y., & Feng, J. (2017). Bi-objective optimization for multi-floor facility Hathhorn, J., Sisikoglu, E., & Sir, M. Y. (2013a). A multi-objective mixed-integer
layout problem with fixed inner configuration and room adjacency constraints. programming model for a multi-floor facility layout. International Journal of
Computers & Industrial Engineering, 105, 265–276. Production Research, 51(14), 4223–4239.
Chen, G. Y. (2013). A new data structure of solution representation in hybrid ant colony Hathhorn, J., Sisikoglu, E., & Sir, M. Y. (2013b). A multi-objective mixed integer
optimization for large dynamic facility layout problems. International Journal of programming model for a multi floor facility layout. International Journal of
Production Economics, 142(2), 362–371. Production Research, 51(14), 4223–4239.
Chiang, W., & Chiang, C. (1998). Intelligent local search strategies for solving facility HerránJ, Alberto, Colmenar, Manuel, & Duarte, Abraham (2021). An efficient variable
layout problems with the quadratic assignment problem formulation. European neighborhood search for the space-free multi-row facility layout problem. European
Journal of Operational Research, 106(2–3), 457–488. Journal of Operational Research.
Chraibi, A., Kharraja, S., Osman, I. H., & Elbeqqali, O. (2014). Solving operating theater Hosseini Nasab, H., & Emami, L. (2013). A hybrid particle swarm optimization for
facility layout problem using a Multi-Agent system. In 2014 International Conference dynamic facility layout problem. International Journal of Production Research, 51(14),
on Control, Decision and Information Technologies (CoDIT) (pp. 207–212). IEEE. 4325–4335.
Chraibi, A., Osman, I. H., & Kharraja, S. (2019a). Adaptive layout for operating theatre in Hosseini, S. M., Al Khaled, A., & Vadlamani, S. (2014). Hybrid imperialist competitive
hospitals: Different mathematical models for optimal layouts. Annals of Operations algorithm, variable neighborhood search, and simulated annealing for dynamic
Research, 272(1), 493–527. facility layout problem. Neural Computing and Applications, 25(7), 1871–1885.
Chraibi, A., Kharraja, S., Osman, I. H., & Elbeqqali, O. (2019b). A Multi-agents system for Hosseini, Z., Navazi, F., Siadat, A., Memari, P., & Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R. (2019).
solving facility layout problem: Application to operating theater. Journal of Intelligent A Tailored Fuzzy Simulation Integrated with a Fuzzy DEA Method for a Resilient
Systems, 28(4), 601–619. Facility Layout Problem: A Case Study of a Refrigerator Injection Process. IFAC-
Chung, J., & Tanchoco, J. M. A. (2010). The double row layout problem. International PapersOnLine, 52(13), 541–546.
Journal of Production Research, 48(3), 709–727. Hosseini-Nasab, Hasan, Fereidouni, Sepideh, Ghomi, Seyyed Mohammad Taghi Fatemi,
Chwif, L., Barretto, M. R. P., & Moscato, L. A. (1998). A solution to the facility layout & zad, Mohammad Bagher Fakhr (2018). Classification of facility layout problems: A
problem using simulated annealing. Computers in Industry, 36(1–2), 125–132. review study. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 94(1–4),
Cravo, G. L., & Amaral, A. R. S. (2019). A GRASP algorithm for solving large-scale single 957–977. [Link]
row facility layout problems. Computers & Operations Research, 106, 49–61. Hungerlander, P., & Anjos, M. F. (2015). A semidefinite optimization based approach for
DAHLBECK, Mirko, FISCHER, Anja, FISCHER, Frank, et al. (2022). Exact approaches for global optimization of multi-row facility layout. European Journal of Operational
the combined cell layout problem. European Journal of Operational Research. Research, 245(1), 46–61.
Dahlbeck, M. (2021). A mixed-integer linear programming approach for the T-row and Hungerlander, P. (2014). Single row equidistant facility layout as a special case of single
the multi-bay facility layout problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 295 row facility layout. International Journal of Production Research, 52(5), 1257–1268.
(2), 443–462. Izadinia, N., & Eshghi, K. (2016). A robust mathematical model and ACO solution for
Datta, D., Amaral, A. R. S., & Figueira, J. R. (2011). Single row facility layout problem multi-floor discrete layout problem with uncertain locations and demands.
using a permutation-based genetic algorithm. European Journal of Operational Computers & Industrial Engineering, 96, 237–248.
Research, 213(2), 388–394. Izadinia N., Eshghi K., Salmani M.H. (2014) A robust model for multi-floor layout
Di Mascolo, M., Martinez, C., & Espinouse, M. L. (2021). Routing and scheduling in home problem. Computers & Industrial Engineering 78:127–134.
health care: A literature survey and bibliometric analysis. Computers & Industrial Jankovits, I., Luo, C., Anjos, M. F., & Vannelli, A. (2011). A convex optimization
Engineering, 158, Article 107255. framework for the unequal-areas facility layout problem. European Journal of
Dong, M., Wu, C., & Hou, F. (2009). Shortest path based simulated annealing algorithm Operational Research, 214(2), 199–215.
for dynamic facility layout problem under dynamic business environment. Expert Jiang, S., & Nee, A. Y. C. (2013). A novel facility layout planning and optimization
Systems with Applications, 36(8), 11221–11232. methodology. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 62(1), 483–486.
Drira, A., Pierreval, H., & Hajri-Gabouj, S. (2007). Facility layout problem: A survey. Jolai, F., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., & Taghipour, M. (2012). A multiobjective particle
Annual Reviews in Control, 31(2), 255–267. swarm optimization algorithm for unequal sized dynamic facility layout problem
Drira, A., Pierreval, H., & Hajri-Gabouj, S. (2013). Design of a robust layout with with pickup/drop-off locations. International Journal of Production Research, 50(15),
information uncertainty increasing overtime: A fuzzy evolutionary approach. 4279–4293.
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 26(3), 1052–1060. Kang, S., Kim, M., & Chae, J. (2018). A closed loop based facility layout design using a
Emami, S., & Nookabadi, A. S. (2013). Managing a new multi-objective model for the cuckoo search algorithm. Expert Systems with Applications, 93, 322–335.
dynamic facility layout problem. The International Journal, Advanced Manufacturing Karateke, H., Şahin, R., & Niroomand, S. (2022). A hybrid Dantzig-Wolfe decomposition
Technology, 68(9), 2215–2228. algorithm for the multi-floor facility layout problem. Expert Systems with Applications,
Erik, Adem, & Kuvvetli, Yusuf (January 2021). Integration of material handling devices 206, Article 117845.
assignment and facility layout problems. Journal of Manufacturing Systems Volume, 58 Kaveh, M., Majazi Dalfard, V., & Amiri, S. (2014). A new intelligent algorithm for
(Part A), 59–74. dynamic facility layout problem in state of fuzzy constraints. Neural Computing &
Feng, J., & Che, A. (2018). Novel integer linear programming models for the facility Applications, 24(5), 1179–1190.
layout problem with fixed-size rectangular departments. Computers & Operations Kelton, W. D., & Law, A. M. (2000). Simulation modeling and analysis.
Research, 95, 163–171. Kim, J. Y., & Kim, Y. D. (1995). Graph theoretic heuristics for unequalsized facility layout
Fernando Goncalves, J., & Resende, M. G. C. (2015). A biased randomkey genetic problems. Omega, 23(4), 391–401.
algorithm for the unequal area facility layout problem. European Journal of Kim, J. G., & Kim, Y. D. (2000). Layout planning for facilities with fixed shapes and input
Operational Research, 246(1), 86–107. and output points. International Journal of Production Research, 38(18), 4635–4653.
García-Hernández, L., Pierreval, H., Salas-Morera, L., & Arauzo-Azofra, A. (2013). Komarudin, K., & Wong, Y. (2010). Applying ant system for solving unequal area facility
Handling qualitative aspects in unequal area facility layout problem: An interactive layout problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 202(3), 730–746.
genetic algorithm. Applied Soft Computing, 13(4), 1718–1727. Konak, A., Kulturel-Konak, S., Norman, B. A., & Smith, A. E. (2006). A new mixed integer
García-Hernández, L., Perez Ortiz, M., Arauzo Azofra, A., Salas Morera, L., & Hervas programming formulation for facility layout design using flexible bays. Operation
Martínez, C. (2014). An evolutionary neural system for incorporating expert Research Letters, 34(6), 660–672.
knowledge into the UA-FLP. Neurocomputing, 135, 69–78. Kothari, R., & Ghosh, D. (2013). Tabu search for the single row facility layout problem
García-Hernández, L., Salas-Morera, L., García-Hernández, J. A., Salcedo-Sanz, S., & de using exhaustive 2-opt and insertion neighborhoods. European Journal of Operational
Oliveira, J. V. (2019). Applying the coral reefs optimization algorithm for solving Research, 224(1), 93–100.
unequal area facility layout problems. Expert Systems with Applications, 138, Article Kothari, R., & Ghosh, D. (2014). A scatter search algorithm for the single row facility
112819. layout problem. Journal of Heuristics, 20(2), 125–142.
Ghassemi Tari, F., & Neghabi, H. (2015). A new linear adjacency approach for facility Kouvelis, P., Kurawarwala, A. A., & Gutierrez, G. J. (1992). Algorithms for robust single
layout problem with unequal area departments. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 37, and multiple period layout planning for manufacturing systems. European Journal of
93–103. Operational Research, 63(2), 287–303.

17
K. Bouramtane et al. Annual Reviews in Control 58 (2024) 100970

Ku, M. Y., Hu, M. H., & Wang, M. J. (2011). Simulated annealing based parallel genetic Palubeckis, G. (2015). Fast local search for single row facility layout. European Journal of
algorithm for facility layout problem. International Journal of Production Research, 49 Operational Research, 246(3), 800–814.
(6), 1801–1812. Peer, S. K., & Sharma, D. K. (2008). Human–computer interaction design with multi-goal
Kulturel Konak, S., & Konak, A. (2015). A large-scale hybrid simulated annealing facilities layout model. Computers & Mathematics with Applications (Oxford, England :
algorithm for cyclic facility layout problems. Engineering of Optimization, 47(7), 1987), 56(9), 2164–2174.
963–978. Pillai, V. M., Hunagund, I. B., & Krishnan, K. K. (2011). Design of robust layout for
Kulturel-Konak, S., & Konak, A. (2011a). A new relaxed flexible bay structure dynamic plant layout problem. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 61(3), 813–823.
representation and particle swarm optimization for the unequal area facility layout Pourvaziri, H., & Naderi, B. (2014). A hybrid multi-population genetic algorithm for the
problem. Engineering Optimization, 43(12), 1263–1287. dynamic facility layout problem. Applied Soft Computing, 24, 457–469.
Kulturel-Konak, S., & Konak, A. (2011b). Unequal area flexible bay facility layout using Pérez-Gosende, P., Mula, J., & Díaz-Madroñero, M. (2021). Facility layout planning. An
ant colony optimization. International Journal of Production Research, 49(7), extended literature review. International Journal of Production Research, 59(12),
1877–1902. 3777–3816.
Kumar, S. S., & Cheng, J. C. P. (2015). A BIM-based automated site layout planning Raman, D., Nagalingam, S. V., Gurd, B. W., & Lin, G. C. I. (2009). Quantity of material
framework for congested construction sites. Automation in Construction, 59, 24–37. handling equipment_A queuing theory based approach. Robotics and Computer-
Kumar, R. S., Asokan, P., & Kumanan, S. (2009). Artificial immune system-based Integrated Manufacturing, 25(2), 348–357.
algorithm for the unidirectional loop layout problem in a flexible manufacturing Ripon, K. S. N., Glette, K., Hovin, M., & Torresen, J. (2011). Dynamic facility layout
system. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 40(5–6), problem under uncertainty: A pareto-optimality based multi-objective evolutionary
553–565. approach. Central European Journal of Computer Science, 1(4), 375–386.
Kunlei, L., Chaoyong, Z., Liang, G., & Xinyu, S. (2011). Single row facility layout problem Ripon, K. S. N., Glette, K., Khan, K. N., Hovin, M., & Torresen, J. (2013). Adaptive
using an imperialist competitive algorithm. In Proceedings of the 41st international variable neighborhood search for solving multiobjective facility layout problems
conference on computers & industrial engineering. with unequal area facilities. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 8, 1–12.
Kusiak, A., & Heragu, S. S. (1987). The facility layout problem. European Journal of Rosenblatt, M. J., & Lee, H. L. (1987). A robustness approach to facilities design.
Operational Research, 29(3), 229–251. International Journal of Production Research, 25(4), 479–486.
Lacksonen, T. A., & Enscore, E. E. (1993). Quadratic assignment algorithms for the Rubio-Sanchez, M., Gallego, M., Gortazar, F., & Duarte, A. (2016). GRASP with path
dynamic layout problem. International Journal of Production Research, 31, 503–517. relinking for the single row facility layout problem. Knowledge-Based System, 106,
Lee, Jay, Ghaffari, M., & Elmeligy, S. (2011). Self-maintenance and engineering immune 1–13.
systems: Towards smarter machines and manufacturing systems. Annual Reviews in Ruiqi, Wang, Yufei, Wang, Truls, Gundersen, & Yan, Wu (18 May 2021). A multi-
Control, 35(1), 111–122. objective optimization method for industrial park layout design: The trade-off
Leno, I. J., Sankar, S. S., & Ponnambalam, S. G. (2015). MIP model and elitist strategy between economy and safety. Chemical Engineering Science Volume, 235, Article
hybrid GA–SA algorithm for layout design. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 1–19. 116471.
Liu, J., Zhang, H., He, K., & Jiang, S. (2018). Multi-objective particle swarm optimization Sa’udah, N., Amit, N., & Ali, M. N. (2015). Facility Layout for SME Food Industry via
algorithm based on objective space division for the unequal-area facility layout Value Stream Mapping and Simulation. Procedia Economics and Finance, 31,
problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 102, 179–192. 797–802.
Liu, J., Liu, S., Liu, Z., & Li, B. (2020a). Configuration space evolutionary algorithm for Safarzadeh, S., & Koosha, H. (2017). Solving an extended multi-row facility layout
multi-objective unequal-area facility layout problems with flexible bays. Applied Soft problem with fuzzy clearances using GA. Applied Soft Computing, 61, 819–831.
Computing, 89, Article 106052. Sahin, R., & Turkbey, O. (2009). A simulated annealing algorithm to find approximate
Liu, J., Liu, J., Yan, X., & Peng, B. (2020b). A heuristic algorithm combining Pareto Pareto optimal solutions for the multi-objective facility layout problem. The
optimization and niche technology for multi-objective unequal area facility layout International Journal, Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 41, 1003–1018.
problem. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 89, Article 103453. Sahin, R., Ertogral, K., & Turkbey, O. (2010). A simulated annealing heuristic for the
Mazinani, M., Abedzadeh, M., & Mohebali, N. (2013). Dynamic facility layout problem dynamic layout problem with budget constraint. Computers & Industrial Engineering,
based on flexible bay structure and solving by genetic algorithm. The International 59(2), 308–313.
Journal, Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 65(5), 929–943. Sahin, R., Niroomand, S., Durmaz, E. D., et al. (2020). Mathematical formulation and
McKendall, A. R., Jr, & Hakobyan, A. (2010). Heuristics for the dynamic facility layout hybrid meta-heuristic solution approaches for dynamic single row facility layout
problem with unequal-area departments. European Journal of Operational Research, problem. Annals of Operations Research, 295, 313–336. [Link]
201(1), 171–182. s10479-020-03704-7
McKendall, A. R., Jr, & Shang, J. (2006). Hybrid ant systems for the dynamic facility Sahin, R. (2011). A simulated annealing algorithm for solving the bi-objective facility
layout problem. Computers & Operations Research, 33(3), 790–803. layout problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(4), 4460–4465.
Mehdizadeh, E., & Rahimi, V. (2016). An integrated mathematical model for solving Salmani, M. H., Eshghi, K., & Neghabi, H. (2015). A bi-objective MIP model for facility
dynamic cell formation problem considering operator assignment and inter/intra layout problem in uncertain environment. The International Journal, Advanced
cell layouts. Applied Soft Computing, 42, 325–341. Manufacturing Technology, 81(9), 1563–1575.
Meller, R. D., Chen, W., & Sherali, H. D. (2007). Applying the sequence pair Samarghandi, H., & Eshghi, K. (2010). An efficient tabu algorithm for the single row
representation to optimal facility layout designs. Operation Research Letters, 35(5), facility layout problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 205(1), 98–105.
651–659. Samarghandi, H., Taabayan, P., & Jahantigh, F. F. (2010). A particle swarm optimization
Mir, M., & Imam, M. H. (2001). A hybrid optimization approach for layout design of for the single row facility layout problem. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 58(4),
unequal-area facilities. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 39(1–2), 49–63. 529–534.
Mohamadghasemi, A., & Hadi-Vencheh, A. (2012). An integrated synthetic value of fuzzy Saraswat, A., Venkatadri, U., & Castillo, I. (2015). A framework for multi-objective
judgments and nonlinear programming methodology for ranking the facility layout facility layout design. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 90, 167–176.
patterns. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 62(1), 342–348. Schenk, M., Wirth, S., & Müller, E. (2014a). Fabrikplanung und Fabrikbetrieb: Methoden
Moslemipour, G., & Lee, T. S. (2012). Intelligent design of a dynamic machine layout in Für die Wandlungsfähige, Vernetzte und Ressourceneffziente Fabrik. In VDI-Buch, 2.
uncertain environment of flexible manufacturing systems. Journal of Intelligent vollst. überarb. u. erw. Aufl., Berlin. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Manufacturing, 23(5), 1849–1860. Schenk, M., Wirth, S., & Müller, E. (2014b). Fabrikplanung und Fabrikbetrieb: Methoden
Moslemipour, G. H., Lee, T. S., & Rilling, D. (2012). A review of intelligent approaches Für die Wandlungsfähige, Vernetzte und Ressourceneffziente Fabrik. In VDI-Buch, 2.
for designing dynamic and robust layouts in flexible manufacturing systems. The vollst. überarb. u. erw. Aufl., Berlin. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
International Journal, Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 60(1), 11–27. Scholz, D., Petrick, A., & Domschke, W. (2009). STaTS: A slicing tree and tabu search
Murray, C. C., Smith, A. E., & Zhang, Z. (2013). An efficient local search heuristic for the based heuristic for the unequal area facility layout problem. European Journal of
double row layout problem with asymmetric material flow. International Journal of Operational Research, 197(1), 166–178.
Production Research, 51(20), 6129–6139. Singh, S. P., & Singh, V. K. (2010). An improved heuristic approach for multi-objective
Navidi, H. R., Bashiri, M., & Messi Bidgoli, M. (2012). A heuristic approach on the facility facility layout problem. International Journal of Production Research, 48(4),
layout problem based on game theory. International Journal of Production Research, 1171–1194.
50(6), 1512–1527. Solimanpur, M., & Jafari, A. (2008). Optimal solution for the two-dimensional facility
Neghabi, H., Eshghi, K., & Salmani, M. H. (2014). A new model for robust facility layout layout problem using a branch-and-bound algorithm. Computers & Industrial
problem. Informing Science, 278, 498–509. Engineering, 55(3), 606–619.
Nematian, J. (2014). A robust single row facility layout problem with fuzzy random Subulan, K., Varol, B., & Baykasoğlu, A. (2023). Unequal-area capability-based facility
variables. The International Journal, Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 72(1), layout design problem with a heuristic decomposition-based iterative mathematical
255–267. programming approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 214, Article 119199.
Ning, X., Lam, K. C., & Lam, M. C. K. (2010). Dynamic construction site layout planning Sule, D. R. (2008). Manufacturing facilities: Location, planning, and design. CRC press.
using max-min ant system. Automation in Construction, 19(1), 55–65. Tompkins, J. A., White, J. A., Bozer, Y. A., & Tanchoco, J. M. A. (2010). Facilities
Ning, X., Lam, K. C., & Lam, M. C. K. (2011). A decision-making system for construction planning. John Wiley & Sons.
site layout planning. Automation in Construction, 20(4), 459–473. Tarkesh, H., Atighehchian, A., & Nookabadi, A. S. (2009). Facility layout design using
Osman, I. H., Hasan, M., & Abdullah, A. (2002). Linear programming based virtual multi-agent system. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 20(4), 347–357.
metaheuristics for the weighted maximal planar graph. Journal of the Operational Tayal, A., Solanki, A., & Singh, S. P. (2020). Integrated frame work for identifying
Research Society, 1142–1149. sustainable manufacturing layouts based on big data, machine learning, meta-
Palubeckis, G. (2012). A branch and bound algorithm for the singlerow equidistant heuristic and data envelopment analysis. Sustainable Cities and Society, 62, Article
facility layout problem. OR Spectrum : Quantitative Approaches in Management, 34(1), 102383.
1–21. Teran-Somohano, A., & Smith, A. E. (2023). A sequential space syntax approach for
healthcare facility layout design. Computers & Industrial Engineering, Article 109038.

18
K. Bouramtane et al. Annual Reviews in Control 58 (2024) 100970

Tompkins, J. A., White, J. A., Bozer, Y. A., & Tanchoco, J. M. A. (2010). Facilities Welgama, P. S., & Gibson, P. R. (1995). Computer-aided facility layout— A status report.
planning. John Wiley & Sons. The International Journal, Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 10(1), 66–77.
Turanoğlu, Betül., & Akkaya, G. (2018). A new hybrid heuristic algorithm based on Wong, K. Y., & Komarudin. (2010). Solving facility layout problems using flexible bay
bacterial foraging optimization for the dynamic facility layout problem. Expert structure representation and ant system algorithm. Expert Systems with Applications,
Systems with Applications, 98, 93–104. 37(7), 5523–5527.
Ulutas, B. H., & Islier, A. A. (2009). A clonal selection algorithm for dynamic facility Xiao, Y., Seo, Y., & Seo, M. (2013). A two-step heuristic algorithm for layout design of
layout problems. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 28(4), 123–131. unequal-sized facilities with input/output points. International Journal of Production
Ulutas, B., & Islier, A. A. (2015). Dynamic facility layout problem in footwear industry. Research, 51(14), 4200–4222.
Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 36, 55–61. Xie, W., & Sahinidis, N. V. (2008). A branch and bound algorithm for the continuous
Ulutas, B. H., & Kulturel-Konak, S. (2012). An artificial immune system based algorithm facility layout problem. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 32(4–5), 1016–1028.
to solve unequal area facility layout problem. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(5), Xu, J., & Song, X. (2015). Multi-objective dynamic layout problem for temporary
5384–5395. construction facilities with unequal-area departments under fuzzy random
Utamima, A. (2021). A comparative study of hybrid estimation distribution algorithms in environment. Knowledge-Based System, 81, 30–45.
solving the facility layout problem. Egyptian Informatics Journal, 22(4), 505–513. Yang, C. L., Chuang, S. P., & Hsu, T. S. (2011). A genetic algorithm for dynamic facility
Visuwan, D., & Phruksaphanrat, B. (2014). Plant layout analysis by computer simulation planning in job shop manufacturing. The International Journal, Advanced
for electronic manufacturing service plant. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Manufacturing Technology, 52(1), 303–309.
Technology, International Journal of Mechanical, Aerospace, Industrial, Mechatronic and Ye, M., & Zhou, G. (2007). A local genetic approach to multi-objective, facility layout
Manufacturing Engineering, 8(3), 586–591. problems with fixed aisles. International journal of production research, 45(22),
Vitayasak, S., Pongcharoen, P., & Hicks, C. (2016). A tool for solving stochastic dynamic 5243–5264.
facility layout problems with stochastic demand using either a genetic algorithm or ZAVARI, Masoud, SHAHHOSSEINI, Vahid, ARDESHIR, Abdollah, et al. (2022). Multi-
modified backtracking search algorithm. International Journal of Production objective optimization of dynamic construction site layout using BIM and GIS.
Economics. in press. Journal of Building Engineering, 52, Article 104518.
Vitayasak, S., Pongcharoen, P., & Hicks, C. (2017). A tool for solving stochastic dynamic Zeng, Q., Chen, Y., Yuan, R., & He, M. (2023). Optimization method of unequal area
facility layout problems with stochastic demand using either a Genetic Algorithm or dynamic facility layout under fixed-point movement strategy.
modified Backtracking Search Algorithm. International Journal of Production Zheng, X. J. (2014). A connectivity graph generation approach for Manhattan path
Economics, 190, 146–157. calculation in detailed facility layout. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 237,
et WAN, Xing, ZUO, Xingquan, & ZHAO, Xinchao (2022). A differential evolution 238–251.
algorithm combined with linear programming for solving a closed loop facility Zhou, J. (1998). Algorithmes et outils pour l’analyse des flux de production à l’aide du
layout problem. Applied Soft Computing, 121, Article 108725. concept d’ordre. University of Strasbourg 1. Ph.D. dissertation (in French).
Wang, S., Zuo, X., Liu, X., Zhao, X., & Li, J. (2015). Solving dynamic double row layout Zuo, X. Q., Murray, C. C., & Smith, A. E. (2014). Solving an extended double row layout
problem via combining simulated annealing and mathematical programming. problem using multi objective tabu search and linear programming. IEEE
Applied Soft Computing, 37, 303–310. Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering : A Publication of the IEEE Robotics
and Automation Society, 11(4), 1122–1132.

19