Efficiently using site space to accommodate resources throughout the duration of a construction project is a critical problem. It is termed the ''dynamic layout planning'' problem. Solving it involves creating a sequence of layouts that span the entire project duration, given resources, the timing of their presence on site, their changing demand for space over time, constraints on their location, and costs for their relocation. A dynamic layout construction procedure is presented here. Construction resources, represented as rectangles, are subjected to two-dimensional geometric constraints on relative locations. The objective is to allow site space to all resources so that no spatial conflicts arise, while keeping distance-based adjacency and relocation costs minimal. The solution is constructed stepwise for consecutive time frames. For each resource, selected heuristically one at a time, constraint satisfaction is used to compute sets of feasible positions. Subsequently, a linear program is solved to find the optimal position for each resource so as to minimize all costs. The resulting sequence of layouts is suboptimal in terms of the stated global objective, but the algorithm helps the layout planner explore better alternative solutions.

No abstract

This paper presents an investigation of the applicability of a genetic approach for solving the construction site layout problem. This problem involves coordinating the use of limited site space to accommodate temporary facilities so that transportation cost of materials is minimized. The layout problem considered in this paper is characterized by affinity weights used to model transportation costs between facilities and by geometric constraints that limit their relative positions on site. The proposed genetic algorithm generates an initial population of layouts through a sequence of mutation operations and evolves the layouts of this population through a sequence of genetic operations aiming at finding an optimal layout. The paper concludes with examples illustrating the strength and limitations of the proposed algorithm in the cases of ͑1͒ loosely versus tightly constrained layouts with equal levels of interaction between facilities; ͑2͒ loosely versus tightly packed layouts with variable levels of interactions between facilities; and ͑3͒ loosely versus tightly constrained layouts. In most problems considered where the total-objects-to-site-area ratio did not exceed 60%, the algorithm returned close to optimal solutions in a reasonable time.