Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 99 (2021) 9–14
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

14th CIRP Conference on Intelligent Computation in Manufacturing Engineering, CIRP ICME ˈ20

Generative design in factory layout planning

Marian Süßea*, Matthias Putza
a
Fraunhofer Institute for Machine Tools and Forming Technology IWU, Reichenhainer Straße 88, 09126 Chemnitz, Germany

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 371 5397-1517; fax: +49 371 5397-6-1517. E-mail address: marian.suesse@iwu.fraunhofer.de

Abstract

Planning and optimization of facility layouts have been investigated for decades and manifold approaches are applied for structuring and design
of production layouts. However, results heavily depend on the experience and creativity of involved planning experts. Currently, complexity of
planning processes constantly increases, e.g. due to further requirements of energy and media supply. Generative Design, hitherto mainly
applied in component development, provides opportunities to cope with a much larger solution space and develop creative layout concepts.
Thus, based on a structured overview on established planning methods, a concept and first results of factory layout planning with Generative
Design are described.
© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 14th CIRP Conference on Intelligent Computation in Manufacturing Engineering,
15-17 July 2020.
Keywords: Generative design; Computational design; Evolutionary design; Factory planning; Layout planning; Literature search

1. Introduction solution spaces. Just as the environmental and resilience

Factory planning may be defined as a structured process
that serves for developing a target-oriented design of
production systems and their according infrastructure to
efficiently generate developed goods and services. Thus,
multidimensional decisions need to be made in
interdisciplinary teams. The applied techniques may range
from intuitive and experience-based design solutions to
sophisticated methods and optimization approaches. In
addition to that, the design of the factory’s structure or layout
plays a predominant role as it defines major boundaries for
further planning stages. As shown by Rist [1], the planning of
a factory’s structure comprises the most interfaces towards
further distinct planning topics.
Generative Design (GD) gained attention as an approach
that makes use of evolutionary principles for development
processes in manufacturing and engineering. At a first glance
these methodologies are mainly known as part of heuristics
for solving optimization problems. However, due to the
increasing computer performance and improvements in
software design and programming environments the bio-
inspired principles find further application for the design
and analysis of large
scientist Marten Scheffer [2] reflects, “[…] the best science
tends to come from a balanced mix of rationality and
adventurous association.” This enforces the assumption that
GD approaches may provide promising opportunities in
combination with the well-structured factory planning
procedures. Thus, this paper will investigate its previous and
concurrent application for factory planning tasks with focus
on layout planning.
Therefore, main phases and decisions to be made in factory
layout design will be described in the subsequent section. This
also comprises the status of available software for layout
planning in manufacturing. Based on this, a short
characterization of GD is given. In the third section, results of
a structured literature research, its limitations and results of
major relevance will be presented. Afterwards, challenges for
the application of GD in factory layout planning are derived
and a first framework for planning and decision-making with
GD techniques is shown. The final outlook explores further
research directions.

2212-8271 © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 14th CIRP Conference on Intelligent Computation in Manufacturing Engineering,
15-17 July 2020.
10.1016/j.procir.2021.03.002
10 Marian Süße et al. / Procedia CIRP 99 (2021) 9–14
2. Scope of factory layout planning & Generative Design
2.1. Processes and decisions in layout planning
The factory planning process has been formalized and
described in manifold variations and comprises several
hierarchy levels of a production site. The processes and
decisions described in this paper refer to the arrangement of
elements (i.e. areas, machines etc.) in one building.
A standardized procedure in accordance with the
established official scale of fees for services by architects and
engineers (HOAI) [3] is described in the norm VDI 5200 by
the German Society of Engineers [4]. With reference to this
basic description, several authors provide systematization of
the overall procedure and its separate steps with varying foci
[5– 8]. A consolidating overview of the phases is given by
Clauß [9], who separates them into (1) preparation, (2)
structure planning, (3) detailed planning, (4) execution
planning and (5) execution. Decisions regarding the structure
and production layout may generally be situated in the second
and third phase.
Overall target of these planning stages is a good, or even
optimized, arrangement of the factory’s facilities. Common
principle is the elaboration and assessment of different
solution alternatives in order to identify a preferred variant
which suffices quantitative and qualitative criteria. Hence,
there are manifold definitions of one ore multidimensional
targets (e.g. minimized transportation costs, maximized
flexibility). Often, they are coped with intuitive decision
making based on the planners’ experience, individual
predilection or spreadsheet- based multicriteria decision
making with scoring models or the Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP). With regard to this, a large toolset of
modelling approaches and solution techniques has been
developed in mathematical optimization and Operations
Research where these investigations are subsumed in the
facility layout planning problem (FLP) and its variations. A
structured literature overview which comprises an analysis of
layout problems, their mathematical representation and
formulation as well as resolution approaches is provided by
Drira et al. [10]. An extensive investigation with even more
focus on its optimization techniques has been conducted by
Anjos and Vieira [11].
Some heuristics like the Hungarian method [12] for solving
the FLP as an assignment problem were made accessible for
factory planners and approaches for layout generation on a
rough level. Its derivations like the solving method of
Schmigalla are partly established for manual layout
optimization in early planning phases [7].
The available software solutions for factory modeling and
visualization are steadily increasing but the transition from
theoretical progress and prototype implementation into
software is missing. In an exemplary case of Banduka et al.
[13] layout modelling is executed by manual application of
the triangle-based arrangement according to Schmigalla in the
specified software visTABLE. Different layout alternatives
are only generated based on the planner’s creativity and
experience. In a specific investigation of layout planning
solutions, combining market research and semi-structured
interviews, Lohmer et al. [14] emphasize that “[…] current
design software still uses these simple and outdated methods
in the applications.” Based on their findings several reasons
hinder the progress. On one hand, it may be the lack of
knowledge in theory and application of advanced scientific
optimization approaches among both, potential software users
but also software developers. On the other hand, low
acceptance among the involved planners occurs due to
increased automation that seemingly shifts power of decision
to IT departments. Besides that, a high number of target
criteria and boundaries, especially in the latter planning
phases, appear to be a further cause for the gap between
theory and implementation. This accounts even more in
brownfield scenarios when further restrictions flank the
planning process.
2.2. Introduction to Generative Design
Progress in hardware performance but also an increasing
number of CAD software solutions during the last years
reduce access hurdles to programming and optimization for
many disciplines like engineering or architecture. In a similar
manner GD has already been characterized by Nagy et al.
[15], who stated that “Generative Design allows designers to
tap into the power of computation to explore large design
spaces and derive design solutions which are both novel and
high- performing relative to a chosen set of goals.” However,
nature- inspired (e.g. evolutionary or swarm-based) principles
that are applied in the engineering domain are by no means
novel approaches but based on the indicated progresses they
may support planning by facilitating optimization and
variation.
Stouffs and Rafiq [16] substantiate this by stating that the
optimization techniques in GD are mainly applied to provide
insight into a large set of solutions (i.e. the solutions space)
which allows the consideration of a multiple amount of
alternatives compared to manual decision methods. Due to
that, main aspect of the investigation is not a global optimum
or the optimization technique itself but their application to
support planning and design by some type of structured
creativity. The genesis of design methodologies in different
engineering fields, and therefore the dissociation of GD has
been summarized by Wypch and Wach [17] in a presentation
at the Autodesk University 2019 in Las Vegas and is depicted
in the following Figure 1.
Due to its widespread use, a structured literature analysis of
GD use cases, the scientific domains and any relation to the
described factory layout planning processes is conducted in
the subsequent chapter.
Figure 1: Genesis of design concepts (following Wypch and Wach [17])
3. Structured literature search
3.1. Overview on search strategy and results
Since current availability of online resources and databases
leads to an enormous and steadily increasing amount of
scientific papers in many different fields, it is much more
necessary to provide a comprehensible way for the selection
of relevant previous work. Therefore, the two described
research areas in section 2 were primarily subdivided into
similar and accompanying terms which has led to the
selection in Table 1. Conducted in March 2020, the literature
search was limited by 2019 because (less) findings of the
ongoing year would distort quantitative comparisons. “Web
of Science” and “SCOPUS” were selected as two different
interdisciplinary databases. The search terms per column were
connected by the OR-operator and each topic was initially
investigated independently in order to observe the
appearance of research
related to times.
Table 1: List of search terms and accumulated results
Topic Generative Design Layout Planning
Search Terms generative design
layout planning
computational design factory planning
evolutionary design
space planning
factory layout planning
facility layout planning
facility layout problem
SCOPUS 5,645 results 3,589 results
Web of Science 4,875 results 1,665 results
Among both databases the first identified research paper in
Layout Planning dates back to 1955 and was published by
Jones [18]. Interestingly, it bears the promising question: “Is
research necessary for equipment and layout planning?” and
refers to the planning of hospitals and medical departments.
Although publications for factory layout planning
continuously arise from the mid-1960s, the number constantly
fluctuates around 30 results per year until the end of the 20 th
century. A continuous growth in “SCOPUS”-results can be
seen from 2002 onward and in “Web of Science” with a
delayed but rapid jump in 2013 (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Development of publications per year in Layout Planning and
Generative Design
Naturally, this growth rate on both databases is not only
determined by increased relevance of the topic itself, but even
more by the spread of the world wide web and digital access
to research.
Compared to that, first papers for the search terms related
to GD were constantly published from the early-1970s on
lower rate compared to layout planning. A steady rise in
“SCOPUS” starts in 1996 which continuously exceeds results
in layout planning from 1999 onwards. The results in “Web of
Science” show a parallel development with a strong leap in
2013 (see Figure 2). The strong incline of GD in both
databases may be caused by the relevance of its principles in
multiple areas. As an example, the results for GD in “Web of
Science” are spread out over 146 categories from which
“Biochemistry Molecular Biology” (15,8%), “Computer
Science Interdisciplinary Applications” (12,3%), “Chemistry
Multidisciplinary” (11,9%), “Architecture (7,6%) and
“Material Science Multidisciplinary” (6,9%) form slightly
more than the half of the results. “Engineering
Multidisciplinary” is listed with 6,2% on 7th place. On the
contrary, the results for factory layout planning comprise 118
science categories of which
“Engineering Industrial” (13,4%), “Operations Research
Management Science” (19,3%) and “Engineering
Manufacturing” (14,8%) already amount to more than the half
of the total quantity.
A further search was conducted by combining both lists
with the AND-operator, as shown in the following overall
search strategy: (“generative design” OR “evolutionary
design” OR
“computational design”) AND (“factory planning” OR
“layout planning” OR "space planning" OR “factory layout
planning” OR “facility layout planning” OR “facility layout
problem”). The combined search produces 15 results in
“SCOPUS” and 8 results in “Web of Science”. Among the
latter, only one paper was not contained in the “SCOPUS”-
results. Moreover, one of these results only reflects general
conference proceedings without a specific paper. This leads to
an overall literature fund of 15 articles.
These results were concentrated on publications that are
linked to all scientific areas tagged with “engineering”. Thus,
the work of Jo and Gero [19], Rosenman and Saunders [20,
21], Fernando [22] and Nagy et al. [23, 24] were selected for a
more detailed investigation. Based on an additional individual
assessment the articles of Flack and Ross [25], Bazalo and
Moleta [26] and Bahrehmand et al. [27] were taken into
consideration for extended investigation.
With reference to the overall search strategy it is
imperative to point out its limits. The comprised search terms
were elaborated to provide a structured overview on the topic
but may not cover the research field in an exhaustive manner.
Thus, sources were replenished with an additional, more
random, search process that mainly focusses on tracing the
literature referenced by the identified results. However, a
general trend is obvious and the lack of investigations on the
overlapping of GD and layout planning in factories is shown.
In the following section, papers that were evaluated with
higher relevance for further research directions are presented.
3.2. Presentation of selected publications
Jo and Gero [19] developed a design model with
evolutionary algorithms and focus on two aspects of major
relevance, namely the representation of the designer’s
knowledge in a manner that can be accessed and evaluated
with evolutionary principles and the evaluation of the model’s
usefulness in distinct design problems. The described model
makes use of the so-called “evolutionary design based on the
genetic evolution system (EDGE)”, developed by Jo [28] and
comprises a set rules that serve for the formalization and
interpretation of design information. In order to evaluate its
performance, the design process was tested in an office
planning case in comparison with an established space layout
planning system by Liggett [29]. Thus, specific requirements
of a manufacturing environment are not addressed. In the
analysis, Jo and Gero highlight the generality for space
planning and the efficiency, i.e. the capability of hopping over
large solution space in a short amount of time.
Rosenman and Saunders [20, 21] introduced the self-
regulatory hierarchical coevolution, an evolutionary algorithm
for the application on complex design problems and especially
for so-called nonroutine designing, i.e. design tasks where
relations between requirements and design alternatives are
hardly to determine. Basic characteristic of this algorithm is
the decomposition of complex problems into smaller problem
sets and the integration of coevolutionary principles.
Therefore, a relationship, or self-regulation, between these
subcomponents is established by iterative evaluation of the
distributed solutions regarding their contribution to an overall
target. The algorithm was tested in a space planning case for
house layouts in order to proof that the generated layout
structures satisfy previously defined requirements without
specific knowledge of the shapes and relations between the
single areas. Any relation to manufacturing-related problems
is not described.
Fernando [22] proposes an approach that aims at the
substitution of pencil sketches in early design stages. Since
the use of concurrent CAD programs in early design phases is
often assessed as inefficient and manual drawings are still
preferred by designers. Therefore, he presents a prototyped
software application using blobs, defined as “[…] closed
recursively subdivided curves […]”, as well as principles of
artificial life and genetic algorithms. Major aim is the
exploration of a multitude of design alternatives which would
not be generated in a conventional, experience-based design
process. The application was tested in a use case for spatial
planning without specific relation to any manufacturing-
environment.
Nagy et al. [23] developed a graph-based model for the
evaluation of productive congestion. More specifically, this
so- called “Buzz Metric” quantifies of the desired
accumulation of people in any architecture and may therefore
serve as a (further) target criterion in generative design
projects. As highlighted by the authors, the underlying graph-
based space syntax allows an efficient computation of results
compared to extensive crowd simulations. Hence, a rather
qualitative design factor is turned into a calculable form
which still allows the investigation of a large solution space.
The developed metric was tested in a two- dimensional office
floor plan and furthermore applied by Nagy et al. with five
additional planning targets in a project called
“Discover” [24]. Therefore, an overall workflow for GD
projects and key elements for the development of metrics as
well as a resuming data analysis are described. Due to its
focus on office layouts, specific requirements of factory
planning or manufacturing-environments were not
investigated.
The work of Flack and Ross [25] describes the adaption of
a genetic algorithm for layout planning and compares
different approaches for handling multiple criteria. As a
special feature, their approach allows the representation of
multiple floors and polygonal exteriors. Specific restrictions
of manufacturing are not investigated.
Bazalo and Moleta [26] investigate several algorithms for
the exploration of architecture design alternatives in early
planning stages. To do so, they describe general space
planning approaches and the formalized space syntax theory
(see Hillier et al. [30]) that provides the base for their
algorithmic investigation of design alternatives combined with
physics simulation. Moreover, an approach for three-
dimensional planning in early planning stages is described and
aspects of optimization and necessary adjustments of the
algorithms are shown. Since the investigations focus on an
early phase in building design, specific requirements of
manufacturing environments are not considered.
Bahrehmand et al. [27] present a layout solver which
considers several quality metrics as well as additional user
preferences in the development of design alternatives. The so-
called “Interactive Layout Recommender System (ILRS)”
generates an initial layout solution by means of an unspecified
heuristic and improves the results in an evolutionary
optimization algorithm combined with user ratings.
Furthermore, the three-dimensional visualization is seen as an
elementary part for fine tuning by human planners. The
influence of user interactions and different algorithm features
are compared and the results substantiate the assumption of
decreased planning complexity by applying this hybrid
approach for general floor planning problems. However,
distinct characteristics of manufacturing or factory planning
are not addressed. By presenting related work and underlying
concepts, Bahrehmand et al. emphasize that similar layout
planning solvers have primarily been applied to furniture
planning, residential space planning and urban design.
The literature that has been derived with the presented
search strategy reflects a lack of GD in factory layout
planning. Not least because the application of some
evolutionary principle in factory layout decisions may not
always be denoted with the selected search terms. Therefore,
the additional indicated random search led to some findings
that provide base for resuming research.
One example is an approach by Neugebauer et al. [31] who
implemented a genetic algorithm for rough layout generation
in job-shop factories. Possible layout constellations are
derived from formalized properties of the components to be
produced. However, the approach does not take boundaries of
subsequent fine planning (e.g. necessary aisles) or energy
provision into account. Regarding the latter aspect, Jabi [32,
33] developed the methodological framework as well as the
software library and implementation for coupled parametric
design and energy simulation which may serve as a starting
point for integrating energetic components into GD of factory
layouts.
4. Results for derived research concepts
4.1. Challenges of Generative Design in factory planning
Requirements for a useful implementation of GD models
are partially described in the presented articles (see section
3.2) and can additionally be derived from further
mathematical investigations. More specifically,
interdependencies between the formulated solution space, the
user input or user interaction and the applied algorithm need
to be considered. These requirements and their
interdependencies with factory planning are presented in the
following.
The solution space (also referred to as design space) should
be formulated by appropriate target criteria, parameters (i.e.
decision variables) and constraints to provide a well-balanced
solution set. Therefore, qualitative or intuitive requirements
and overall goals must be translated into quantifiable
metrics [15]. According to Nagy, there are currently neither
general rules of thumb nor theoretical investigations for the
number of goals, variables and boundaries to generate a
suitable mix between efficiency (continuity) and variety
(complexity) [24].
Due to its interdisciplinarity, layout design requires factory
planners to cope with a multitude of targets. As already
mentioned, major aim is the reduction of material flow
intensity or transport costs (see section 2.1). However, further
requirements of peripheral infrastructure will be more and
more integrated into early planning stages. A highly relevant
example is energy supply since manufacturing facilities are
increasingly required to cope with volatile energy supply
which raises the amount of decentral energy sources, batteries
and complex grid structures (see e.g. [34]). Methodologies
that consider components of energy infrastructure in different
factory planning stages were, for instance, developed by
Thiede [35] or Hopf [36], yet an integration of energy and
resource efficiency aspects into spatial optimization of
factories is still required. Additionally, various target criteria
lead to further challenges when GD models are designed. As
generally known from multi-objective optimization, there are
multiple ways for handling multiple target criteria, like
weighted sum or Pareto optimization (see e.g. Marler and
Arora [37]). The latter is often applied in GD because of
visual interpretability and sufficient solution variety that is
found along the Pareto front [16] but as soon as the number of
target criteria moves beyond three-dimensional visuality,
analysis for human planners becomes more complicated.
Referring to the mathematical formulation of target criteria
an additional aspect regarding efficiency needs to be taken
into account. Since a criterion should reflect the impact of
different parameter settings as precise as possible, simulation
methods are generally conceivable as a target function for the
GD model. The already indicated linking of parametric design
and energy simulation by Jabi [32] provides base for
automated design evaluation. However, it is not unlikely that
GD algorithms operate with a population of 50 or more
individuals and more than 1000 iterations. Since simulation is
then required for each individual in every iteration, the
process becomes excessively time consuming. Thus, precise
but
quickly calculable metrics, that reflect a desired aspect of the
factory layout, should be favored.
Besides target definition, the boundaries restricting the
overall search space have further decisive impact on the
output of a GD model and its variety [15]. In factory planning
this is particularly relevant in brownfield planning cases when
building shapes, existing pillars or prevailing supply
infrastructure vastly reduce freedom of planning alternatives.
4.2. Framework of approach to the solution
The presented challenges allude to the necessity of a
structured approach when GD is considered as a value-adding
approach in factory layout design. A framework for this
approach is described in the following and additionally
depicted in Figure 3. The typical factory planning process is
characterized by sequential, partly parallel, steps that may
include some iterative decisions (see section 2.1). However, as
soon as distinct decisions in detailed planning (phase 3) are
made, changes may have complex and costly impact on
previous specifications. Therefore, it may be a promising
approach to work towards a frontloading or early-integration
of dominant fine layout aspects into GD to observe their
impact from an early project phase onwards. As indicated,
typical and relevant examples of those aspects refer to the
energy infrastructure. For instance, thermal losses and their
effects in factories may correlate with conduit length, which
could be translated into a further optimization criterion.
This early adoption of fine layout aspects implies a well-
structured definition of overall requirements among the
project stakeholder in the preparation phase. Additionally,
data gathering and preparation gain even more relevance for
the definition of appropriate metrics. As already described,
target functions should be able to evaluate a requirement as
precise as possible but their effect on efficiency of the search
process must be considered consistently. Finally, the selection
and adaption of the appropriate algorithms and modeling tools
is relocated towards early planning phases when GD is
applied in factory layout planning.
Figure 3: Schematic representation of GD integration
5. Outlook
Based on the presented framework, several subsequent
steps become conceivable. Firstly, the mathematical
formulation and implementation of the proposed energy-
related aspects with currently available software environments
should be conducted to encounter further hurdles that cannot
be elaborated from a methodological consideration. Secondly,
developments in the available software tools and data
platforms are required to improve collaboration in a single
“tool chain” from the very first draft onward. Especially
developments in Building Information Modeling (BIM)
already incorporate the described principles and serve as a
base for ongoing research. Lastly, the implementation of
innovative layouts, apart from rectangular pillar structures,
become tangible by GD principles in factory planning.
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support
of the Kopernikus-project “SynErgie” by the Federal Ministry
of Education and Research (BMBF) and the project
supervision by the project management organization
Projektträger Jülich (PtJ).
References
[1] Rist T. Ein Verfahren zur Modellierung von Produktionsbetrieben zum
Zwecke der Anordnungsplanung. Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart; 2008.
[2] Scheffer M. The forgotten half of scientific thinking. Proc Natl Acad
Sci U S A, 2014; 111, p. 6119.
[3] Bundesamt für Justiz. Honorarordnung für Architekten und
Ingenieure: HOAI; 2013.
[4] VDI-Gesellschaft Produktion und Logistik. VDI 5200 Blatt 1
Fabrikplanung - Planungsvorgehen; 2011.
[5] Wiendahl H-P, Reichardt J, Nyhuis P. Handbook factory planning
and design. Springer, Heidelberg; 2015.
[6] Pawellek G. Ganzheitliche Fabrikplanung. Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg; 2014.
[7] Helbing KW. Handbuch Fabrikprojektierung. Springer
Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg; 2018.
[8] Schenk M, Müller E, Wirth S. Factory Planning Manual: Situation-
Driven Production Facility Planning. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,
Berlin, Heidelberg; 2010.
[9] Michael Clauß. Methode zum Einsatz von Web 2.0-Werkzeugen in der
Fabrikplanung; 2013.
[10] Drira A, Pierreval H, Hajri-Gabouj S. Facility layout problems: A
survey, 2007; 31, p. 255–267.
[11] Anjos MF, Vieira MVC. Mathematical optimization approaches for
facility layout problems: The state-of-the-art and future research
directions, 2017; 261, p. 1–16.
[12] Kuhn HW. Variants of the hungarian method for assignment
problems, 1956; 3, p. 253–258.
[13] Banduka N, Mladineo M, Eric M. Designing a Layout Using Schmigalla
Method Combined with Software Tool visTABLE, 2017; 16, p. 375–
385.
[14] Lohmer J, Klausnitzer A, Lasch R. Advanced scientific algorithms
in digital factory design applications, in Proceedings of the Hamburg
International Conference of Logistics (HICL); 2018, p. 56–57.
[15] Nagy D, Villaggi L, Benjamin D. Generative Urban Design: Integrating
Financial and Energy Goals for Automated Neighborhood Layout, in
Symposium on Simulation for Architecture and Urban Design
(SimAUD 2018); 2018: Delft, the Netherlands, 4-7, June 2018, The
Society for Modeling and Simulation International, Vista, California, p.
190–197.
[16] Stouffs R, Rafiq Y. Generative and evolutionary design exploration,
2015; 29, p. 329–331.
[17] Maciej Wypych, Matt Wash. Optioneering and Optimization Using
Generative Design and Evolutionary Solvers, Las Vegas; 2020.
[18] Jones EA. Is research necessary for equipment and layout planning?,
1955; 31, p. 903–906.
[19] Jo JH, Gero JS. Space layout planning using an evolutionary approach,
1998; 12, p. 149–162.
[20] ROSENMAN M, Saunders R. Self-regulatory hierarchical coevolution,
2003; 17, p. 273–285.
[21] Michael A. Rosenmann, Rob Saunders. Hierarchical co-evolution for
non-routine design, in Recent advances in intelligent systems and signal
processing; 2003, World Scientific and Engineering Academy and
Scociety, USA, p. 275–280.
[22] Fernando R. Space planning and preliminary design using artificial life,
in Rethinking Comprehensive Design: Speculative Counterculture -
Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computer-Aided
Architectural Design Research in Asia, CAADRIA 2014; 2014, p. 657–
666.
[23] Nagy D, Villaggi L, Stoddart J, Benjamin D. The Buzz Metric: A Graph-
based Method for Quantifying Productive Congestion in Generative
Space Planning for Architecture, 2017; 1, p. 186–195.
[24] Nagy D, Lau D, Locke J, Stoddart J et al. Project discover: An
application of generative design for architectural space planning, in
Symposium on Simulation for Architecture and Urban Design; 2017:
Toronto, Canada, 22-24 May 2017, Curran Associates, Inc, Red Hook,
NY, p. 49–56.
[25] Flack RWJ, Ross BJ. Evolution of Architectural Floor Plans, in
Applications of evolutionary computation; 2011, Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg, p. 313–322.
[26] Bazalo F, Moleta TJ. RESPONSIVE ALGORITHMS An investigation
of computational processes in early stage design, in Proceedings of the
20th International Conference of the Association for Computer-Aided
Architectural Design Research in Asia CAADRIA 2015; 2015,
Association for Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia
(CAADRIA), Hong Kong.
[27] Bahrehmand A, Batard T, Marques R, Evans A et al. Optimizing layout
using spatial quality metrics and user preferences, 2017; 93, p. 25–38.
[28] Jo JH. A Computational Design Process Model Using a Genetic
Evolution Approach; 1993.
[29] Liggett RS, Mitchell WJ. Optimal space planning in practice, 1981; 13,
p. 277–288.
[30] Hillier B, Leaman A, Stansall P, Bedford M. Space syntax, 1976; 3,
p. 147–185.
[31] Neugebauer R, Friedemann M, Riegel J, Wenzel K. Planning of job-shop
factories leveraging genetic algorithms (Manuscript received March 30,
2009; revised July 30, 2009), in Manufacturing Research 2009.
Conference proceedings; 2009, no pp.
[32] Wassim Jabi. Parametric Spatial Models for Energy Analysis in the
Early Design Stages, in 5th annual Symposium on Simulation for
Architecture and Urban Design (SimAUD); 2014, p. 384–392.
[33] Jabi W. Linking design and simulation using non-manifold topology,
2016; 59, p. 323–334.
[34] Stoldt J, Prell B, Schlegel A, Putz M. Applications for models of
renewable energy sources and energy storages in material flow
simulation, in WSC'18; 2018: Proceedings of the 2018 Winter
Simulation Conference, December 9-12, 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden,
IEEE, Piscataway, Madison, p. 3287–3298.
[35] Thiede S. Energy efficiency in manufacturing systems. Springer, Berlin;
2012.
[36] Hopf H. Methodik zur Fabriksystemmodellierung im Kontext von
Energie- und Ressourceneffizienz, Wiesbaden; 2015.
[37] Marler RT, Arora JS. Survey of multi-objective optimization methods
for engineering, 2004; 26, p. 369–395.