Shipyards have large departments or facilities. It is essential to make an effective topological layout plan since the initial investment cost of these departments is high. Topological layout is an optimization problem and Genetic Algorithm (GA) is generally used in the literature. The selection of effective genetic algorithm approaches and operators are very important to improve the performance of the optimization. This study investigates an effective solution to the shipyard topological layout using a Quadratic Assignment Problem (QAP) model with classic and elitist GA approaches. Besides, genetic operators that have significant effects on exploitation and exploration capabilities are analyzed. Therefore, 126 experiments were run with 13 different operators. The results obtained from the classic and elitist GA approach were evaluated individually and compared with each other. It was observed that the elitist GA approach has a superior performance compared to the classic GA approach. This study is the most comprehensive and practical study on the performance of the GA for topological layout of the shipyard in the literature.
JuSSungSShenH, et al. System development for establishing shipyard mid-term production plans using backward process-centric simulation. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng2020; 12: 20–37.
2.
EfeB. Analysis of operational safety risks in shipbuilding using failure mode and effect analysis approach. Ocean Eng2019; 187: 106214.
3.
GuoYWangHLiangX, et al. A quantitative evaluation method for the effect of construction process on shipbuilding quality. Ocean Eng2018; 169: 484–491.
4.
LeeG-CKimY-D. Algorithms for adjusting shapes of departments in block layouts on the grid-based plane. Omega2000; 28: 111–122.
5.
ErtayTRuanDTuzkayaU. Integrating data envelopment analysis and analytic hierarchy for the facility layout design in manufacturing systems. Inf Sci2006; 176: 237–262.
6.
DixitVVermaPRajP. Leveraging tacit knowledge for shipyard facility layout selection using fuzzy set theory. Expert Syst Appl2020; 158: 113423.
7.
LiuSZhangZGuanC, et al. An improved fireworks algorithm for the constrained single-row facility layout problem. Int J Prod Res2021; 59: 2309–2327.
8.
PrayogoDChengM-YWuYW, et al. A novel hybrid metaheuristic algorithm for optimization of construction management site layout planning. Algorithms2020; 13: 117.
9.
Pérez-GosendePMulaJDíaz-MadroñeroM. Facility layout planning. An extended literature review. Int J Prod Res2021; 59: 3777–3816.
10.
BasuSSharmaMGhoshPS. Metaheuristic applications on discrete facility location problems: a survey. OPSEARCH2015; 52: 530–561.
11.
FarahaniRZSteadieSeifiMAsgariN. Multiple criteria facility location problems: a survey. Appl Math Model2010; 34: 1689–1709.
12.
DriraAPierrevalHHajri-GaboujS. Facility layout problems: a survey. Annu Rev Control2007; 31(2): 255–267.
Hosseini-NasabHFereidouniSFatemi GhomiSMT, et al. Classification of facility layout problems: a review study. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2018; 94: 957–977.
15.
SinghSPSharmaRRK. A review of different approaches to the facility layout problems. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2006; 30: 425–433.
16.
DorrahDHMarzoukM. Integrated multi-objective optimization and agent-based building occupancy modeling for space layout planning. J Build Eng2021; 34: 101902.
17.
JoJHGeroJS. Space layout planning using an evolutionary approach. Artif Intell Eng1998; 12: 149–162.
18.
MedjdoubBYannouB. Separating topology and geometry in space planning. Comput Des2000; 32: 39–61.
19.
DeatonJDGrandhiRV. A survey of structural and multidisciplinary continuum topology optimization: post 2000. Struct Multidiscipl Optim2014; 49: 1–38.
20.
KakuBKThompsonGLBaybarsI. A heuristic method for the multi-story layout problem. Eur J Oper Res1988; 37(3): 384–397.
21.
Abdel-BassetMManogaranGEl-ShahatD, et al. Integrating the whale algorithm with tabu search for quadratic assignment problem: a new approach for locating hospital departments. Appl Soft Comput2018; 73: 530–546.
22.
DahlbeckM. A mixed-integer linear programming approach for the T-row and the multi-bay facility layout problem. Eur J Oper Res2021; 295(2): 443–462.
23.
ChaeJReganAC. A mixed integer programming model for a double row layout problem. Comput Ind Eng2020; 140: 106244.
24.
HeraguSSKusiakA. Efficient models for the facility layout problem. Eur J Oper Res1991; 53: 1–13.
25.
AmaralARS. A mixed-integer programming formulation for the double row layout of machines in manufacturing systems. Int J Prod Res2019; 57: 34–47.
26.
LoveRFWongJY. Solving quadratic assignment problems with rectangular distances and integer programming. Nav Res Logist Q1976; 23: 623–627.
27.
TsuchiyaKBharitkarSTakefujiY. A neural network approach to facility layout problems. Eur J Oper Res1996; 89: 556–563.
28.
FouldsLRRobinsonDF. Graph theoretic heuristics for the plant layout problem. Int J Prod Res1978; 16: 27–37.
29.
HassanMMHoggGL. A review of graph theory application to the facilities layout problem. Omega1987; 15: 291–300.
30.
Al-HakimLA. A modified-procedure for converting a dual graph to a block layout. Int J Prod Res1992; 30: 2467–2476.
31.
JiangSNeeAY. A novel facility layout planning and optimization methodology. CIRP Ann2013; 62: 483–486.
32.
MontreuilB. A modelling framework for integrating layout design and flow network design. In: JohnAWIraWP. (eds) Material handling’90. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 1991, pp.95–115.
33.
LiuQ. A sequence-pair and mixed integer programming based methodology for the facility layout problem. PhD thesis, VA Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, 2004.
34.
YangXChengWGuoP, et al. Mixed integer programming formulations for single row facility layout problems with asymmetric material flow and corridor width. Arab J Sci Eng2019; 44: 7261–7276.
35.
MoslemipourGLeeTSRillingD. A review of intelligent approaches for designing dynamic and robust layouts in flexible manufacturing systems. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2012; 60: 11–27.
36.
LeeYHLeeMH. A shape-based block layout approach to facility layout problems using hybrid genetic algorithm. Comput Ind Eng2002; 42: 237–248.
37.
PourvaziriHNaderiB. A hybrid multi-population genetic algorithm for the dynamic facility layout problem. Appl Soft Comput2014; 24: 457–469.
38.
PaesFGPessoaAAVidalT. A hybrid genetic algorithm with decomposition phases for the unequal area facility layout problem. Eur J Oper Res2017; 256: 742–756.
39.
TuranoğluBAkkayaG. A new hybrid heuristic algorithm based on bacterial foraging optimization for the dynamic facility layout problem. Expert Syst Appl2018; 98: 93–104.
40.
WanXZuoXLiX, et al. A hybrid multiobjective GRASP for a multi-row facility layout problem with extra clearances. Int J Prod Res2020; 58: 1–20.
41.
MirjaliliSMirjaliliSMLewisA. Grey Wolf optimizer. Adv Eng Softw2014; 69: 46–61.
42.
El-BazMA. A genetic algorithm for facility layout problems of different manufacturing environments. Comput Ind Eng2004; 47: 233–246.
SamarghandiHTaabayanPJahantighFF. A particle swarm optimization for the single row facility layout problem. Comput Ind Eng2010; 58: 529–534.
45.
Derakhshan AslAWongKY. Solving unequal-area static and dynamic facility layout problems using modified particle swarm optimization. J Intell Manuf2017; 28: 1317–1336.
46.
SmVSequeiraAHJauharSK, et al. CNC machine shop floor facility layout design using genetic algorithm. In: PantMSharmaTKAryaR, et al. (eds) Soft computing: theories and applications. Singapore: Springer, 2020, pp.223–234.
47.
ImmerJR. Materials handling. New York: McGraw-Hill, Company Inc. 1953.
48.
MatsonJOMellichamphJMSwaminathanSR. EXCITE: expert consultant for in-plant transportation equipment. Int J Prod Res1992; 30: 1969–1983.
49.
KoopmansTCBeckmannM. Assignment problems and the location of economic activities. Econometrica1957; 25: 53–76.
50.
HameedASAboobaiderBMMutarML, et al. A new hybrid approach based on discrete differential evolution algorithm to enhancement solutions of quadratic assignment problem. Int J Ind Eng Comput2020; 11: 51–72.
51.
ZhangHLiuFZhouY, et al. A hybrid method integrating an elite genetic algorithm with tabu search for the quadratic assignment problem. Inf Sci2020; 539: 347–374.
52.
MiseviciusA. An implementation of the iterated tabu search algorithm for the quadratic assignment problem. OR Spectr2012; 34: 665–690.
53.
LoiolaEMde AbreuNMMBoaventura-NettoPOet al. A survey for the quadratic assignment problem. Eur J Oper Res2007; 176: 657–690.
54.
GonçalvesJFResendeMGC. A biased random-key genetic algorithm for the unequal area facility layout problem. Eur J Oper Res2015; 246: 86–107.
55.
HollandJH. Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an introductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1975. http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=8929.
56.
WangZSobeyA. A comparative review between genetic algorithm use in composite optimisation and the state-of-the-art in evolutionary computation. Compos Struct2020; 233: 111739.
57.
GoldbergD. Genetic algorithms in optimization, search and machine learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1989.
58.
BakerJE. Adaptive selection methods for genetic algorithms. In: Proceedings of an International Conference on Genetic Algorithms and Their Applications, 24–26 July 1985, pp. 101–111. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.
59.
DavisL. Applying adaptive algorithms to epistatic domains. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 18–23 August 1985, pp. 162–164. Los Angeles, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
60.
GoldbergDELingleR. Alleles, loci and the TSP. In: GrefenstetteJJ (ed.) The First International Conference on genetic algorithms and their applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1985, pp.154–159.
61.
OliverIMSmithDHollandJRC. A study of permutation crossover operators on the traveling salesman problem. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Genetic Algorithms. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlhaum Associates, 1987, pp. 224–230.
62.
SyswerdaG. Scheduling optimization using genetic algorithms. In: DavisL (ed.) Handbook of genetic algorithms. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991; 332–349.
63.
MühlenbeinHGorges-SchleuterMKrämerO. Evolution algorithms in combinatorial optimization. Parallel Comput1988; 7: 65–85.
64.
CicirelloVA. Non-wrapping order crossover: An order preserving crossover operator that respects absolute position. In: Proceedings of the 8th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation, 2006, pp. 1125–1132. New York: ACM.
65.
EibenAESmithJE. Introduction to evolutionary computing. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2003.
BruzzoneASignorileR. Simulation and genetic algorithms for ship planning and shipyard layout. Simulation1998; 71: 74–83.
68.
ChabaneH. Design of a small shipyard facility layout optimised for production and repair. In: Proceedings of Symposium International: Qualite et Maintenance au Service de l’Entreprise, Tlemcen, Algeria, 21–22 November, 2004.
69.
ShinJGSongYJLeeDK, et al. A concept and framework for a shipyard layout design based on simulation. J Sh Prod2009; 25: 126–135.
70.
SongYJLeeDKWooJH, et al. System development and applications of a shipyard layout design framework. J Ship Prod Des2010; 26: 144–154.
71.
SongYJWooJH. New shipyard layout design for the preliminary phase & case study for the green field project. Int J Nav Archit Ocean Eng2013; 5: 132–146.
72.
ChoiMKimSHChungH. Optimal shipyard facility layout planning based on a genetic algorithm and stochastic growth algorithm. Ships Offshore Struct2017; 12: 486–494.
73.
JuniorWAAzzoliniFGP. Evolutionary algorithm for optimization regarding the planning of topological facilities in layout of a shipyard. IEEE Lat Am Trans2019; 17: 1491–1500.
GarcíaSFernándezALuengoJ, et al. Advanced nonparametric tests for multiple comparisons in the design of experiments in computational intelligence and data mining: experimental analysis of power. Inf Sci2010; 180: 2044–2064.
76.
CarrascoJGarcíaSRuedaMM, et al. Recent trends in the use of statistical tests for comparing swarm and evolutionary computing algorithms: practical guidelines and a critical review. Swarm Evol Comput2020; 54: 100665.
