Wong, C K; Fung, I W H and Tam, C M (2010) Comparison of using mixed-integer programming and genetic algorithms for construction site facility layout planning. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(10), pp. 1116-1128. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The use of modular construction has gained wide acceptance in the industry. For a specific construction facility layout problem such as site precast standardized modular units, it requires the establishment of an on-site precast yard. Arranging the precast facilities within a construction site presents real challenge to site management. This complex task is further augmented with the involvement of several resources and different transport costs. A genetic algorithm (GA) model was developed for the search of a near-optimal layout solution. Another approach using mixed-integer programming (MIP) has been developed to generate optimal facility layout. These two approaches are applied to solve with an example in this paper to demonstrate that the solution quality of MIP outperforms that of GA. Further, another scenario with additional location constraints can also be solved readily by MIP, which, however, if modeled by GA, the solution process would be complicated. The study has highlighted that MIP can perform better than GA in site facility layout problems in which the site facilities and locations can be represented by a set of integer variables.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | facility layout; genetic algorithms; mixed-integer programming |
| Index terms: | genetic algorithm, construction site, modular construction, site management, integer programming |
| Subjects: | construction operations, work location, algorithms, building construction |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Site Management, Digital Applications |
| Descriptive scope: | 1 P |
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