Lam, K C; Ning, X and Lam, M C K (2009) Conjoining MMAS to GA to solve construction site layout planning problem. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(10), pp. 1049-1057. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
An optimal construction site layout planning (CSLP) is vital for project management. It can reduce the transportation flows and thus the costs of a project. Genetic algorithm (GA) is the most used algorithm to solve site layout problems, but randomly generated initial population in GA will decrease solution quality. Max-min ant system (MMAS) can offer a better initial population than the randomly generated initial population at the beginning of GA. In this study, a modified GA (MMAS-GA) formed by conjoining MMAS to the step of initialization of GA is proposed to solve CSLP problems. In order to reveal the computational capability of MMAS-GA to solve CSLP problems, the results of MMAS-GA and traditional GA are compared by solving an equal-area CSLP problem. The results showed that the proposed MMAS-GA algorithm provided a better optimal solution under the objective function of minimizing the transportation flows between the site facilities. The proposed MMAS-GA algorithm could assist project managers and planners to design optimal construction site layout, and thus to reduce construction costs.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | algorithms; construction sites; optimization |
| Index terms: | genetic algorithm, project management, site layout, population, project manager, construction site, construction cost, planner |
| Subjects: | site logistics, work location, project management theory and practice, demography, algorithms, profession, financial and cost management |
| Topics: | Project Management, Roles and Professions, Site Management, Urban Studies, Digital Applications, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here