A Student Oriented Campus Layout Planning Method

Cun-lu Zhang Department of Management Science

Xiamen University Xiamen, China zclu@sina.com

Bao-feng Ru Department of Management Science

Xiamen University Xiamen, China

rubaofeng0325@foxmail.com

Abstract—Traditionally, the campus layout planning is based on the architecture theories and pays little attention to the students’ convenience. In this paper, we improve the weighting method and the data processing process of Systematic layout planning (SLP). Aiming at providing most convenience for the students, a campus layout planning method is presented based on the improved SLP. With an example about campus extension, this method is introduced in detail.

Keywords- Campus Planing; Student oriented; SLP

I. INTRODUCTION In China, the number of universities has increased from

about 500 in 1978 to more than 2700 in 2011, while the number of students in all universities has increased from about 0.8 million in 1978 to 30 million in 2011. Chinese universities develop rapidly in recent years. New universities are being built all over the country, and most of existing universities are also building new branch campus in different places. In practice, it is significant to plan the new campus’ layout reasonably as campus layout definitely affects the daily operation of university and convenience of students. However, many new campuses have many layout deficiencies. For example, both in the Zhangzhou campus of Xiamen university and the College-station campus of Zhongshan university，the dormitory building area and teaching building area are located at the opposite side of the campus, the distance between them is so long that the students must spend much time on moving. Students have to buy bicycles for convenience. The bicycles parking disorderly make the campus in mess. Running bicycles on the paths put the pedestrians in risk.

Traditionally, university campus planning is based on architecture theories which pay more attention on relations among buildings rather than student oriented. Systematic layout planning (SLP) is widely used method for facility layout planning. It pursues the optimum efficiency through underlining the internal relations of the activities [1]. In this paper, we improve the SLP method and apply it to the layout planning of university, which provides a campus layout planning method aiming at improving students’ conveniences.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section Ⅱ briefly reviews literature about SLP method and campus layout planning. Section Ⅲ then improves the SLP method and section Ⅳ provides a case of campus layout planning to show

how the improved SLP is applied. Finally, section Ⅴconcludes this paper.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Systematic layout planning method Facility layout design refers to the most appropriate

allocation and the most effective combination of the space required by the personnel, equipment and materials from the receiving of raw materials, products manufacturing, packaging and shipping of the finished production in confirmed space in order to obtain the greatest economic [2]. The initial facility layout design is based on personal experience and feeling. But by the 1950s, the layout design has developed from traditional small systems to large and complex system design and it is not enough to depend only on experience. Thus, the concept of systems engineering and systems analysis methods are introduced to the facility layout design. SLP method which was put forward by Muther is the most representative theory [3].

SLP method has a well-organized analysis process (see figure 1 [4]). First, we need to collect information including product attributes (P)、product quantity (Q)、production process (R)、 production ancillary services（S）and production time (T). Then, we should analyze the relationship between the working units from two aspects: logistic and non-logistic according to the data collected. The comprehensive relationship between the various operation units could be obtained after the weighted sum of the strength of logistic and non-logistic relationship. Next, draw a position-relationship diagram under the principle that the stronger the synthetic relationship, the smaller the distance between any pair of operation units. Besides, consider the space available of the enterprise and the space every operation unit required, then we could draw an area-relationship diagram. Taking road, greening, construction regulations and other practical constrains into account, more than one layout alternatives could be given. Finally, we should conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the layout alternatives and choose the best one for implementation.

B. Campus layout planing theory The modern campus planning theory can be roughly

divided into three categories: Campus culture oriented campus layout——the campus layout features and architectural style should have a certain cultural connotations[5];

This research is supported by the Chinese National Nature Science Found (71072054).

978-1-4673-4843-0/13/$31.00 © 2013 IEEE

Input data: P, Q, R, S, T

Logistic Relationship Non-logistic Relationship

Synthetic Relationship

Space Relationship Diagram

Space Required Space Available

Layout Alternatives

Modifying

Constrains

Practical

Limitations

Best Choice

Figure.1 Flow chart for SLP methodEnvironment-oriented campus layout——the overall planning and design , road traffic design , landscape design should reflect the concept of low-carbon[6]; Landscape ecology oriented campus layout——The layout planning focuses on landscape planning and emphasizes the organic combination of cultural landscape and natural landscapes [7]. Although modern campus planning disciplines are conceived in sociology and economics, but they grow up in the cradle of architecture [8]. Architectural style and the coordination of architecture and environment are the focus of the campus planning. The practical campus planning and design work are still in the category of architecture. Some scholars explore the campus layout planning under the humanist philosophy. For example, Guinness proposes campus planning should consider the convenience of disabled persons [9]. Through survey, Razak et al. find that convenience is an important indicator for students to evaluate the universities’ environment and the compact layout of the campus provides students with more convenience [10]. Jiang et al. take the convenience of the students into account when they design campus layout and propose that the SLP method in industrial engineering theory should be introduced into the campus layout planning [11]. However, they just give a qualitative description of the ideological concept. Based on improved SLP, we propose a campus layout method supported by operable and quantitative analysis technology in this paper. And, this paper promotes the application of SLP method in university layout planning.

III. THE IMPROVEMENT OF SLP METHOD Traditional SLP method computes the synthetic

relationship by subjective weighting and summation. The

weights of logistic relationship and non-logistic relationship just rely on personal experience, which is irrational. Additionally, there are several mutual transformations between value and relationship grades. This not only makes the computing process very cumbersome, but also it may lead to distortion of the synthetic relationship intensity.

A. Improvement of the weighting method We should consider at least two parts when measuring the

role of an indicator on the object being evaluated: 1) The distinction degree of the indicator，that is whether the indicator could help to distinct the evaluation objects. 2) The contribution degree of the indicator， that is whether the indicator is important for the deciders[12]. Information entropy could measure the information quantity and the subjective weights could reflect the importance of the indicator, so we combine the two methods to compute the synthetic relationship. The computing process is as follows:

1) Calculate the logistic quantity ijf between i operation unit and j operation unit.

2) Determine the non-logistic relationship value ijp with multi-criteria-scoring method.

3) Normalize ijf and ijp :

1 1

12

ijij n n

iji j

fa

f= =

=∑∑

i j≠ (1)

1 1

12

ijij n n

iji j

pb

p= =

=∑∑

i j≠ (2)

4) Compute the information entropy of sequences ija and

ijb sequence:

6 6

1 11 2

1 lim ln2 ij ij

ij ijx ai j

n

x xe

C→= == −

∑∑

i j≠ (3)

6 6

1 12 2

1 lim ln2 ij ij

ij ijx bi j

n

x xe

C→= == −

∑∑

i j≠ (4)

5) Compute the objective weights of logistic factor and non-logistic factor:

111

1 2

1(1 ) (1 )

ewe e

−=− + −

(5)

111

1 2

1(1 ) (1 )

ewe e

−=− + −

(6)

6) Consult the experts and related staffs, and determine the subjective weight of logistic factor 21w and the

subjective weight of non-logistic factor 22w ( 21 22 1w w+ = ).

7) Compute the synthetic weights of logistic factors and non-logistic factors:

1 11 21(1 )w w wα α= + − (7)

2 12 22(1 )w w wα α= + − (8)

Where α is a distinguishing coefficient, often given 0.5[13].

B. Improvement of the data processing The traditional data processing involves several mutual

transformations between value and relationship level and the calculation process is relatively complex, which reduces the computational accuracy and is against the computing automation [14]. We improve the data processing process in this paper. Figure 2 and figure 3 separately show the traditional and improved data processing process of SLP.

For traditional SLP, the purpose of the logistic and

non-logistic relationship grade division is dimensionless. While improved SLP can achieve the same purpose with easier

calculation process and the results are more accurate at the same time.

IV. CAMPUS LAYOUT PLANNING BASED ON IMPROVED SLP Based on the improved SLP and the characters of the

campus layout planning, this section shows the systematic method of campus layout planning with a virtual case. Suppose university A intends to create a branch campus which would accommodate 5000 students. The building-land’s length is 500m and width is 400m. In the following, we will complete this campus layout planning with the method we proposed.

A. Divide campus functional areas Campus could be divided into 6 areas according to the

functions—administrative area, teaching area, living area, sports area, landscape area and other area. TableⅠshows the result of the areas dividing.

TABLE I. FUNCTIONAL AREAS DIVIDING FOR CAMPUS A

Code Area Name Buildings Included Area( 2m )

1 administrative area

administrative building 50 100×

2 teaching area teaching building, library, laboratory building

100 200×

3 living area dormitory building, supermarket, cafeteria

150 200×

4 sports area playground, gym 100 250×

5 landscape area artificial-river, rockery

50 150×

6 other area staff dormatory 50 200×

B. Compute students-flow relationship and non-students-flow relationship The convenience of students is an important factor of the

campus layout planning. Reasonable school layout should avoid students to walk long distances, so the greater the students-flow, the smaller the distance between any two functional areas. The relationship between any two functional areas based on students’ activities is called students-flow relationship. By the means of investigation or observation, we could get the average quantity of students flow ijf

between

the functional area i and functional area j. The result of students flow for each pair of functional areas is given in table Ⅱ.

Besides, students-flow factor，campus layout planning should also need to consider some other factors. According to the characteristics of the campus layout planning, after summarizing and thinking, the student flow factor mainly includes: 1) Ease of management. The layout of the campus must be conveniently managed. 2) Noise factors. For example, teaching and research areas should far away from the sports arena, which can avoid the influence of noise. 3) Habits. Campus layout should meet most architectural layout habit as

Logistic Quantity Non-logistic Score

Relationship Grade Relationship Grade

Score Score

Synthetic Relationship Score

Synthetic Relationship Grade

Figure.2 Data processing process for traditional SLP method

Logistic Quantity Non-logistic Score

Normalized Value Normalized Value

Synthetic Value

Synthetic Relationship Grade

Figure.3 Data processing process for improved SLP method

much as possible, so outsiders can be familiar with the whole campus soon. 4) Integrated aesthetics. The landscape area generally should be close to the core area to enhance the overall aesthetics of the campus. On the basis of the above factors, we could get the synthetic non-students-flow relationship score of functional area i and functional area j with the five-point scale(see table Ⅲ). According to the formula (1) and formula (2), we can obtain the intensity of the students-flow relationship and non-students-flow relationship(see table Ⅳ and table Ⅴ).

TABLE II. STUDENTS FLOW

Area Pair Students Flow Area Pair Students Flow

1-2 400 2-6 0

1-3 400 3-4 1500

1-4 0 3-5 2000

1-5 0 3-6 500

1-6 0 4-5 0

2-3 18800 4-6 0

2-4 0 5-6 0

2-5 1000

TABLE III. SYNTHTIC RELATIONSHIP SCORE EXCLUDE STUDENTS-FLOW FACTOR

Area Pair Non-students-flow Relationship Score Area Pair Non-students-flow

Relationship Score

1-2 4 2-6 2

1-3 2 3-4 4

1-4 1 3-5 2

1-5 4 3-6 1

1-6 2 4-5 1

2-3 2 4-6 1

2-4 0 5-6 2

2-5 3

TABLE IV. STUDENTS FLOW RELATIONSHIP

Area Pair Students-flow Relationship Area Pair Students-flow

Relationship

1-2 0.0163 2-6 0.0000

1-3 0.0163 3-4 0.0610

1-4 0.0000 3-5 0.0813

1-5 0.0000 3-6 0.0203

1-6 0.0000 4-5 0.0000

2-3 0.7642 4-6 0.0000

2-4 0.0000 5-6 0.0000

2-5 0.0407

TABLE V. NON-STUDENTS FLOW RELATIONSHIP

Area Pair Non-students-flow Relationship Area Pair Non-students-flow

relationship

1-2 0.1290 2-6 0.0645

1-3 0.0645 3-4 0.1290

1-4 0.0323 3-5 0.0645

1-5 0.1290 3-6 0.0323

1-6 0.0645 4-5 0.0323

2-3 0.0645 4-6 0.0323

2-4 0.0000 5-6 0.0645

2-5 0.0968

C. Determine synthetic relationship grade According to the combination weighting method introduced

above ， the students-flow relationship weight 1w and the

non-students-flow relationship weight 2w could be obtained. The result as follows,

1 0.906w = 2 0.094w = The synthetic relationship intensity

between functional area i

and j is 1 2ij ij ijc w a w b= +

i j≠ （9）

The results are showed in table Ⅵ . The relationships of functional areas could be divided into A、E、I、O、U、X six grades from strong to weak according to their synthetic relationship intensity. Table Ⅶ shows the results.

TABLE VI. SYTHETIC RELATIONSHIP

Area Pair Synthetic Relationship Area Pair Synthetic

Relationship

1-2 0.0269 2-6 0.0061

1-3 0.0208 3-4 0.0674

1-4 0.0030 3-5 0.0797

1-5 0.0121 3-6 0.0214

1-6 0.0061 4-5 0.0030

2-3 0.6984 4-6 0.0030

2-4 0.0000 5-6 0.0061

2-5 0.0460

D. Draw area-relationship diagram Campus layout planning principle: the stronger the

synthetic relationship, the smaller the distance between them for any pair of functional areas. With certain heuristic algorithm, we can draw a space relationship diagram which could roughly describe the relative positions of the functional areas (see figure 5). Taking space requirement and space availability into account，area-relationship diagram could be obtained（see figure 6）.

TABLE VII. RELATIONSHIP GRADE DIVIDING

Area Pair Relationship Grade Area Pair Relationship Grade

1-2 I 2-6 U

1-3 O 3-4 E

1-4 U 3-5 E

1-5 O 3-6 O

1-6 U 4-5 U

2-3 A 4-6 U

2-4 X 5-6 U

2-5 I

E. Design and evaluate layout alternatives

Based on the are-relationship diagram，taking into account of the practical factors such as road and greening，and further planning the layout of buildings in each functional area in detail，more than one campus layout alternatives would be obtained(see figure 7 and figure 8). Evaluate the alternatives from four aspects ： management convenience 、 overall coordination、space utilization and extensibility of buildings. The alternative two is better than the alternative one，so alternative two would be chosen as the final layout plan of A campus.

Figure.7 Alternative one

Figure.8 Alternative two

V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION By comparison with extant campus planning methods

which are buildings and environment oriented, this paper proposes a systematic campus layout planning method which is oriented to improve students’ convenience through underlining the internal relations of routine campus activities. This method determines the campus layout through quantitative analysis rather than subjective and qualitative assessment which is applied in and make up the traditional campus layout planning. It is assured that campus facilities with better layout will provide better service by shortening moving distances and saving time of students on everyday activities. The layout planning method discussed in this paper could be applied to other layout planning of service facility.

The limitation of this paper is the case discussed in section Ⅳ is virtual, so the planning issue is resolved in perfect conditions. Real campus layout planning issue would consider more complex factors. Even though, we are confident that the layout planning principle and procedure put up in this paper are feasible. Besides, this paper considers the layout planning issue with shared campus facilities in a big campus. Nowadays, some universities prefer the cell layout method by which every school is planned independently with limited shared facilities.

6

4

2

3

1 5

Figure.6 Area-relationship diagram

3

6

4 2

5 1

Figure.5 Space relationship diagram

Road

Road

Rockery

Road

Gate

Class room

Class room

Office

Gym

Dormitory

Dormitory Dormitory

Dormitory

Road

Laboratory

Library Play

ground

Super Market

Cafeteria

Staff dormatory

Staff dormatory

Staff dormatory

River

Road

R o a d

Rockery

Road

Road

Gate

Class room

Class room

Library

Office

Staff dormatory

Laboratory

Staff dormatory

Staff dormatory

Gym

Play ground Super

Market

Dormitory

Dormitory Dormitory

Dormitory

Cafeteria

River

Student oriented cell layout planning method is the further research topic. [1] Van Donk, Gaalman, “Food safety and hygiene systematic layout

planning of food processes,” Chemical Engineering Research and Design. vol. 82, pp. 1485-1493, 2004.

[2] Wang Jia-shan, Wu Qing-yi, Zhou Jia-ping, Facilities Planning and Design. Beijing：China Machine Press, 1995.

[3] Yang Taho, Su Chao-Ton, Hsu Yuan-Ru, “Systematic layout planning: a study on semiconductor wafer fabrication facilities,” International Journal of Operations & Production Management. vol. 20, pp.1359-1371, 2000.

[4] Yang Yu, Facilities Planning. Beijing: Science Press, 2010. [5] Liu Hua-Dong, “Highlight cultural characteristics in campus layout

planning,” Chinese High Education. vol. 24, pp. 28-29, 2009. [6] Guo Di, Wang Zheng, “Thinking about campus planning and design

under the low-carbon dimension—the inspiration of irchel campus,” Architecture & Culture. period 12, pp. 90-91, 2010.

[7] Zha Jun, “campus planning and design guided by landscape ecology,” Planners. Period 2, pp. 55-58, 2005.

[8] Jiang Lian-fu, Man Jie, “On campus planning and design in colleges & universities,” Journal of Dalian University of Technology (Social Sciences). vol 25, pp. 4-7, 2004.

[9] K McGuinness, “Redesigning your campus for disabled students,” Planning for higher Education. vol 22, pp. 23-27, 1993.

[10] MZ Abd-Razak, NKF Mustafa, AI Che-Ani, “Campus sustainability: student’s perception on campus physical development planning in Malaysia,” The 2nd International Building Control Conference. 2011.

[11] Jiang Fu-lian, Qi Er-shi, Man Jie, “Planning of campus facilities and industrial engineering,” Industrial Engineering Journal. Vol 8, pp. 49-52, 2005.

[12] Li Yuan-nian, “Research on distinguish degree & weight designing of evaluation system based on entropy theory,” Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics. pp.23-24, 2008.

[13] Guojun Ji, “Market-motivated value systems and reverse logistics: en evaluation model for third party reverse logistics providers,” International Logistics and Trade. vol 4, pp. 53-91, 2006.

[14] Hang Zhen-zhen, Tong Min, Fan Shu-hai, “Algorithm improvement of the close degree of comprehensive relationships in systematic layout planning,” Industrial Engineering and Management. vol 15, pp. 20-23, 2010.