Expert Systems with Applications 23 (2002) 299309

www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

Pipe-routing algorithm development:

case study of a ship engine room design
Jin-Hyung Park*, Richard L. Storch
Industrial Engineering, University of Washington, Box 352650, Seattle, WA 98105, USA

Abstract
This study presents an automatic pipe-routing algorithm accommodating all major detail-design facets. First, the algorithm uses patternmatch methods to provide candidate paths. A cell-generation method is developed which satisfies geometric constraints. This makes the
generation and evaluation of paths effective and efficient. Next, various non-geometric aspects, such as material costs, installation costs, and
valve operability, are assessed from a fiscal point of view. Then, from a tree of combinations, the algorithm chooses an appropriate path for
each pipeline from the candidate paths. Finally, a general approach toward detail design automation is suggested. The software
implementation was done with Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 and Access 2000, Heide Corporation Intent! for AutoCAD 2000, and AutoDesk
AutoCAD 2000. q 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Pipe-routing; Design automation; Expert system; Cell generation method

1. Introduction
Piping-system design for ships usually has five consecutive phases: preliminary design, functional design, detail
design, production engineering, and system-support information (ISO/CDC, 1996). Pipe routing is the most important
activity during the detail-design phase because it takes over
50% of the total detail-design man-hours and all other
activities of detail design depend on it. Since detail design is
characteristically less creative and more routine than the
earlier steps in the design process (Kang, Myung, & Han,
1999), a computer program that has an automatic piperouting capability might offer an attractive way to cut down
on dull and irksome work, leading to saving of time and
money. Pipe routing has traditionally been done largely by
eye (Wangdahl, Pollock, & Woodward, 1974), and developing pipe-routing programs has been constrained by various
considerations, such as:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)

obstacle avoidance
minimum equipment clearance requirements
accessibility of valves by hand or by reach-rods
maximization of support sharing with other pipelines
minimization of pipeline length and number of bends

Although pipe-routing algorithms have already been

developed, to date they have striven to accommodate mainly
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1-206-543-5348; fax: 1-206-685-3072.
E-mail address: j23346@yahoo.com (J.-H. Park).

constraint (a) (Ito, 1999; Kobayashi, Wada, & Kiguchi,

1986; Schmidt-Traub, Koster, Holtkotter, & Nipper, 1998;
Wangdahl et al., 1974; Zhu & Latombe, 1991), and have
paid little or no attention to constraints (b) (d). They have
used the constraint (e) as an optimal criterion. In addition,
even though pipelines without branches are uncommon,
only Newell (1972) was concerned with branching
pipelines.
These design constraints can be divided into two groups:
restrictive constraints (a) (c), and quantifiable constraints
(d) (e). To satisfy restrictive constrains the proposed
algorithm uses pattern-match techniques to provide some
good feasible paths for a given pipeline, generating cells
so that a series of cells can lead a pipeline from a starting
point (nozzle) to an end point (nozzle). On the other hand,
for the quantifiable constrains, the algorithm assesses them
from a fiscal point of view to find the best path among the set
of feasible paths.

2. Routing algorithms
2.1. Maze algorithm
Lee (1961) proposed a maze algorithm, also called Lees
algorithm or the grid expansion algorithm. This algorithm
posits a grid of cells. Obstacles are marked X on the cells
corresponding to them. The algorithm begins from a starting
cell S, and the cells adjoining that cell are labeled with a

0957-4174/02/$ - see front matter q 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 5 7 - 4 1 7 4 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 4 9 - 0

300

J.-H. Park, R.L. Storch / Expert Systems with Applications 23 (2002) 299309

Table 1
Earlier studies on pipe routing
Algorithm

Network optimization

Au thor
Year
Dimension
Domain
Operation/Maintenance
Installation
Safety
Branch

Newell
1972
3D
General
X
X
X
P

Wangdahl
1974
2D
Shipbuilding
X
X
X
X

Maze
Guiradello
1993
3D
Plant
X
P
X
X

Zhu
1991
2D/3D
Robotics
X
X
X
X

Rourke
1975
3D
General
X
X
X
X

Mitsuta
1986
3D
General
X
X
F
X

Escape

GA

Schmidt
19
3D
Plant
X
P
X
X

Ito
1999
2D
General
X
P
X
X

X: not considered, P: partially implemented, F: fully implemented.

one. Cells adjoining these are labeled two. This process

is continued until the target cell is reached (Rourke, 1975).
This algorithm guarantees a solution, if one exists, but it
requires a lot of memory space (Kai-jian & Hong-e, 1987).
Mitsuta, Kobayashi, Wada, and Kiguchi (1986) and Rourke
(1975) adopted this algorithm.
2.2. Escape algorithm

connectivity graphs to find an appropriate path, and an Ap

algorithm for optimality, which is:
f N gN hN:
The term g(N ) is a function of a weighted sum of a given
length and its number of turns, and h(N ) is a function of the
Manhattan distance between the center of the cell of node N
and the terminal.

Hightower (1969) proposed an escape algorithm, otherwise

called the line-search algorithm or the vector algorithm.
This method starts with two perpendicular lines through the
starting point S. It tries to find a point such that an escape line
will extend beyond one of the previous boundaries of point S. If
such an escape point is found, it becomes the new point S. This
method repeats the process until the line segment crosses the
target point G. The escape algorithm is fast and uses less
memory space, but it cannot guarantee a solution (Kai-jian &
Hong-e, 1987). Schmidt-Traub et al. (1998) utilized both the
maze and the escape methods to ascertain the optimal pipe
route for plant layout.

2.5. Genetic algorithm

2.3. Network optimization algorithm

Obstacles. Detail-design pipe designers need not only

system diagrams, but also many drawings from other
designers for such things as structural design, machinery
design, electrical system design, and HVAC system design.
All of these restrict feasible areas. As the avoidance of
obstacles is essential to routing, all research has been forced
to address this constraint.
Operability. As certain valves should be readily
accessible during normal operation or easily accessible in
an emergency, piping system designers want to locate these
valves within arms reach. This has a direct effect on
pipeline paths.
Material costs. This is obviously one of the most
important constraints. Material costs are tied to the length
and the number of turns of each pipeline. Designers place
the biggest pipelines first so as to avoid having bigger
pipelines go around smaller ones. Bending or elbows are
used to make right-angled turns, but bending is preferred
because it is less costly. Elbows are substituted when there
is not enough space for bending.
Installation cost. A pipeline is associated with a series of

Pipe-routing can be done using network optimization

algorithms. Each vertex vi denotes a junction of possible
pipe racks or pipe segments between junction i and j, and
each edge eij has a cost cij :
G V; E;
where V is the set of vertices and E is the set of edges. Then
the problem becomes one of finding the shortest path
between a node origin s and a node destination t (Guiradello,
1993). Wangdahl et al. (1974) and Guirardello (1993) used
Dijkstars algorithm (Mandl, 1979). Newell (1972) adopted
Nicholsons method (1966).
2.4. Ap algorithm
Zhu and Latombe (1991) developed an approach based
on robot-path planning techniques, regarding each pipe as
the trace of a rigid object, either a disc (2D case) or a sphere
(3D case). This method used cell decomposition and

Ito (1999) employed to a genetic algorithm (GA)

approach to find the best path. Each cell is given a potential
value, according to its situation. The potential value of cells
located next to the wall is lowest because the path is more
favorable, and the value for obstacle cells is correspondingly high. This method tests crossover between possible
paths, excluding obstacle cells.

3. Understanding constraints

J.-H. Park, R.L. Storch / Expert Systems with Applications 23 (2002) 299309

301

Fig. 2. Cost comparison.

Fig. 1. Pipe routes with directional specification.

supports. These may support other pipelines as well.

Having a support hold two or more pipelines can make it
possible to save material costs for the supports themselves, and the man-hours required for the welding of
support legs to the structure. Sometimes, the need to
provide welders with good positions or the shortening of
support legs so as to reduce vibration leads to changing or
lengthening routes.
Flow direction. Some pipelines, such as sewage
pipelines, use gravity to create flows. Loops are not
recommended for pipelines for steam or gas because of
potential drainage problems.
If a pipe-routing designer were to disregard a
constraint, an acceptable outcome would be unlikely.
Table 1, however, shows that earlier studies have ignored
some important constraints. Since maze algorithms and
network optimization algorithms have been developed to
find the shortest path, studies using them might be limited
at the outset in taking account of the whole gamut of
constraints.

4. Cell-generation method
4.1. Background
Many early studies on routing have been carried out
either by means of cell-decomposition methods or by means
of optimization network techniques. A major problem of
cell-decomposition methods is the number of cells. As the
number of cells increases, the difficulty in dealing with them
grows exponentially. And the main difficulty of optimization network techniques is to define all nodes before an

algorithm runs. Nodes are the places where pipelines are

forked, joined, or turned. Anticipating locations for these
nodes is also a demanding task. This suggests the need to
develop a cell-generation method.
A cell-generation method has been developed to satisfy
geometric constraints, including interference, valve operability, and safety. This method uniquely uses directional
specifications to choose an appropriate basic pipe pattern. It
also considers possible modified pipe patterns so as to
enable a pipeline to run together with others. To make
interference checking easier, each obstacle will be fitted
with a cubic box large enough to contain it. If an obstacle
requires a minimum clearance for safety concerns, the size
of cube would increase accordingly. Before the algorithm
proceeds to generate cells, it checks whether any obstacles
are in the way.
4.2. Directional specifications
When designers start laying out pipes, equipment
locations have already been determined. Since information
on the start/end coordinates and the directional specifications for a given pipeline is known, taking such factors into
consideration makes pipe routing more feasible. For
instance, as shown in Fig. 1(a), a pipeline should start
from a tank nozzle ( p1) heading left and end up going in the
same direction to complete a connection between a tank and
a pump.
Fig. 1(b) shows that without the specification of direction
either path A or path B would look feasible. As seen in
Fig. 1(c), however, the specification of direction at both
ends rules out paths A and B of Fig. 1(b) and suggests,
instead, a new path C. This is called a one-variable style
throughout this paper because the dimension a will be
established depending upon boundaries and other pipeline
routes after the evaluation of all other possible routes.

302

J.-H. Park, R.L. Storch / Expert Systems with Applications 23 (2002) 299309

defining that freedom. Some detour styles, according to the

nature of the obstacles are shown in Fig. 4.
All pipelines have a basic style. To avoid failure
occasioned by obstacles, pipelines can have a detour style
instead of a basic style.
When it is possible for a pipeline A to run together with a
pipeline B, the algorithm provides appropriate connectors,
like freeway access ramps, so that both ends of pipeline A,
respectively, can access the established route cell which has
been built for pipeline B. The top row of Fig. 5 shows
possible ramp styles and the bottom row shows detour ramp
styles.
4.4. Generating cells

Fig. 3. Basic routing styles.

4.3. Basic vs modified patterns

Pipeline diameter may have the largest effect on piperouting. The bigger the pipeline diameter, the higher is its
priority. Higher priority pipelines would be routed preferentially and have basic routing styles, which means
minimizing length and turns. One the other hand, lower
priority pipelines tend toward modified routing styles, with
longer lengths and more turns permitted, in order to run
together with other pipelines as much as possible and/or to
avoid obstacles. Two or more pipelines running together can
share pipe supports, leading to decreased installation costs.
For instance, Fig. 2(a) has two pipelines that have the same
basic pattern. The smaller diameter pipeline route can be
modified as shown in Fig. 2(b), which results in a significant
cost reduction.
Depending upon end point and directional specifications,
it is possible to recognize nine basic styles, as in Fig. 3. Onevariable basic styles have one degree of freedom, and branch
pipelines, pipeline length, and boundaries are factors for

Terminal cells. Based on directional specification and

pipe diameter, the algorithm makes terminal cells. Each cell
is a hexahedron and its size is dependent on pipe diameter.
The center of the originating face is located at the endpoint
of the pipeline and cells grow along the direction of the
directional specification. If two or more terminal cells
should touch each other, a new cell, big enough to hold
them, will be generated. The old cells will be eliminated.
Bridge cells for basic styles. The algorithm selects an
appropriate basic style for each pipeline, given its endpoints
and the directional specifications. Cells are generated in
descending order of pipe diameters.
Bridge cells for modified styles. Establishing one or more
connections with modified styles is like accessing freeways
from local roads. Bridge cells for basic styles serve as
freeways, and generating bridge cells for modified styles
corresponds to the construction of on/off ramps for
freeways. All bridge cells will be endowed with information
with regard to directly connected neighbor cells.
An example. Fig. 6 is an example of cell generation, with
three pipelines. First, generate six terminal cells at the
endpoints (Fig. 6(b)). After merging two cells 10 and 20
(Fig. 6(c)), generate a bridge cell 12 to connect the fourinch pipeline, which is the largest pipeline, because a

Fig. 4. Detour routing styles.

J.-H. Park, R.L. Storch / Expert Systems with Applications 23 (2002) 299309

Fig. 5. Ramp styles for modified routes.

Fig. 6. An example: cell-generation procedure.

303

304

J.-H. Park, R.L. Storch / Expert Systems with Applications 23 (2002) 299309

Fig. 7. Routing branch pipelines.

straight-line type is the basic pattern (Fig. 6(c)). Then,

generate a bridge cell 22 for the two-inch pipeline because
an L type is the basic pattern and the algorithm has already
supplied cell 12 as part of the L (Fig. 6(d)). Generate two
bridge cells 32 and 33 to form another L type connection
(Fig. 6(e)). Once basic patterns have been built for each of
the pipelines, the algorithm starts to try out modified
connections. The four-inch pipeline does not get a modified
connection because it is the largest pipeline. The two-inch
pipeline has a basic style and cannot have a modified style in
conjunction with the four-inch pipeline. But the two-inch
pipeline can have a modified style in conjunction with the
one-inch pipeline by generating 41 and 42 to access cell
33 and by generating 43 to access cell 32 (Fig. 6(f)). At the
same time, the one-inch pipeline has a modified style with a
basic style of the two-inch pipeline using cells 41, 42, and
43. Fig. 6(g) shows the final cells. The four-inch pipeline
has only one possible route, and the two-inch and the oneinch pipelines each have two possible routes.
4.5. Branches
While arranging pipelines, the main difficulty in dealing
with branches is uncertainty as to the physical location of
branch point. To make this question manageable, the
algorithm regards any branch pipeline as a compound of
two simple forms: end-forked and middle-forked.
End-forked form. This form has branches near one or
both endpoints of a pipeline. The general steps to achieve
proper routes are as follows. First, make a basic route

between forked ends of one side. Then, define an imaginary

endpoint on the route based on the system diagram and
attribute possible directional specifications to the imaginary
endpoint (Fig. 7(b)). Consider the prospective pipeline as a
normal pipeline defined by the imaginary point and the
endpoint of other side to be joined.
Middle-forked form. Since decreases in the length of
daughter pipelines and in their number of turns usually
means increases in them of the mother pipeline, the
comparison between mother pipeline losses and daughter
pipelines gains should be carried out. When the mother
pipeline losses are greater, branch pipelines should not exert
an important effect upon the routing of the mother pipeline.
Branch points are located where branch pipelines have a
minimum length orthogonally with respect to mother
pipelines.
Recursively-forked form. Sometimes a branch pipeline
has a daughter branch pipeline associated with it and the
daughter, in turn, has a daughter, and so on, which may be
called a recursively-forked form. This form might be a
combination of subsets of an end-forked form and a middleforked form. From the main pipeline, which is the largest
and longest pipeline, try out combinations of end-forked
forms and/or middle-forked forms recursively. Fig. 7(a) is a
sample system diagram, representing a schematic map of
pipelines and instrumentation. The pipeline from the
Central Coolers to the Air Conditioning Plant is obviously
the main pipeline with end-forked forms at both ends, and
the smaller diameter pipeline to the M/E Air Coolers is a
middle-forked form. Therefore, two different basic routing

J.-H. Park, R.L. Storch / Expert Systems with Applications 23 (2002) 299309

305

Fig. 9. Mounting heights for handwheel valves with stem vertical.

Fig. 8. Pipe size and bending cost comparison.

styles can be built for the main pipeline Fig. 7(b). The
pipeline to the M/E Air Coolers has an end-forked form and
can be connected either to P001 or to P002 (Fig. 7(c)). Then,
the three-inch pipeline can be treated as a main pipeline, in
turn, and the two-inch pipeline is a middle-fork form (Fig.
7(d)).

high frequency bending is used for large pipes (Fig. 8). The
bigger the pipeline diameter, the more costly the bending,
because it takes more man-hours. As for installation cost, it
is directly related to pipe-support costs, for pipelines require
a series of pipe-supports. Pipe-support cost is comprised of
the costs for raw materials, paint, transportation, welding,
and u-bolts. The distance between supports varies in
accordance with the pipe size and the particularities of the
underlying steel structure.

5. Evaluation

5.2. Operability cost

Since the main factors in the evaluation of pipelines have

to do with material cost, installation cost, and operability
(valve locations), a penalty function can be developed by
combining these factors based on cost;

The last term in the penalty function, operability cost,

can be derived from the following formula:

Ppenalty function material cost installation cost

accessibility cost
5.1. Material cost and installation cost
The raw material cost of pipe and elbows depends on
pipe size and length. The bending cost follows a step
function because cold bending is used for small pipes and
Table 2
Operability coefficientsstem vertical case
Pipe size (inch)

First choice

Second choice

Third choice

2
3
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
24

0.25
0.38
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
3.00

0.78
1.17
1.56
2.34
3.12
3.90
4.68
5.46
6.24
7.02
7.80
9.36

1.89
2.84
3.79
5.68
7.57
9.46
11.36
13.25
15.14
17.03
18.93
22.71

O Co TotalHoursOfOperation HourlyWage
Operability coefficient Co . The operability coefficient Co
reflects the difficulties and discomfort inherent in operating
the valves. Difficulty is taken as proportional to handwheel
diameter. As for discomfort, the ABS guidelines (1998)
plotted in Fig. 9 show that the first choice is better than the
second choice and much better than the third choice.
Research by Karwowski and Salvendy (1998) found a linear
relationship between gravitational load and body discomfort
as shown in Fig. 10.
The numbers in the bars are the degree of comfort. The
degree of comfort for operating in the first choice zone can
be averaged as 2.65 and that for the second choice would be
0.65. In other words, the second choice is 3.12 times more
uncomfortable than the first choice, while the third choice is
7.57 times more uncomfortable. Table 2 shows the
operability coefficients. The underlying assumption is that
the operation of the valves for an eight-in pipe is taken as a
norm and assigned a value of 1. When valves are located
within the same zone with regard to a standing body, the
coefficient varies with handwheel diameter. Coefficients for
the second choice zone are derived by multiplying the first
choice coefficients by 3.12.
Total hours of operation. This factor is given as the
TimeRequiredToOperateEachTime times TotalNumOf
Operation. The term TotalNumOfOperation means the
total number of operations through a valves lifetime and

306

J.-H. Park, R.L. Storch / Expert Systems with Applications 23 (2002) 299309

Fig. 10. Ranking of postures, based on maximum holding time (MHT).

differs widely from pipeline to pipeline. On a ship, for

instance, valves for the bilge system are operated frequently,
both when the ship is at anchor and at sea. On the other
hand, valves for the return-line system are always open and
those for the ballast system are usually automatic. So the
total number of operations for these valves is relatively low.

than the N2 costs that the difference between the best case
of the N2 descendant nodes and the worst case of N1
descendant nodes could not be made up, the node N2 and
its dependents can be deleted. In Fig. 12, as B2 is low
enough, B1, B3 and their dependents are pruned.
Similarly, the algorithm deletes C3 and D2.

5.3. Tree of combinations

The tree of combinations is to help visualize the
schematic relationship among all candidate pipelines.
From Fig. 11, (A1, B1, C1, D1) and (A1, B2, C3, D2) are
possible combinations. As (A1, B2, C1, D1) always
dominates, which means always less costly than, (A1, B2,
C2, D1), (A1, B2, C2, D1) is eliminated from the tree.
Blocking is another cause for elimination. An example is the
combination (A1, B1, C3, D1), where B1 blocks C3.
A unique characteristic of this tree is that the higher the
level the bigger the assigned value because the algorithm
starts from the largest pipeline. Consider a node N1 and its
sibling node N2. When the N1 costs are so much lower

6. Implementation
6.1. Input data
The input data, mainly from system diagrams and
equipment arrangement drawings, has to do with boundaries, equipment, preferred operation area for valves, and
pipelines to be routed. Information on pipelines consists of
the pipeline number, diameter, directional specification, the
types and coordinates of endpoints, and branch pipeline
number. Daughter pipelines are given the mother pipeline
number, instead of an endpoint type.

Fig. 11. Tree of combinations.

J.-H. Park, R.L. Storch / Expert Systems with Applications 23 (2002) 299309

307

Fig. 12. Pruning tree branches.

6.2. Data structure

Fig. 13 shows a data structure for any given pipeline. A
pipeline has a series of nodes as endpoints, branch points,
and valve points. Whenever a pipelines make a turn, a new
node will be dynamically generated and endowed with an
elbow or bending specifications. Table 3 lists all node types.
As seen in Fig. 14, any given cell knows which pipelines
go through that cell and which cells are connecting to it for
ease in pipeline route-tracking. Each cell has as many slots
as pipelines going through that cell, and slots are used for
physical pipeline routing. Touching between slots, therefore, should be avoided. Given locations of boundaries and
confirmed slots, it is possible to choose an adequate pipesupport type for slots yet to be determined.
6.3. Implementation
The algorithm and GUIs have been developed with
Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0. Microsoft Access 2000 is used
for data about pipe costs, elbow costs, and bending costs
because they are subject to change.

Fig. 13. Data structure of pipeline.

The final values from Visual Basic are transmitted to

AutoCAD 2000 for visualization through Intent! For
AutoCAD 2000. Fig. 15 is the output produced by the
algorithm, which has fifteen pipelines. A pipeline from A1
to A2 is an instance of modified style.

7. A generalization of detail-design automation method

Design can be viewed as a constraint-satisfaction process
(Yoon, 1992). If all constraints are quantifiable, optimization techniques can be introduced into the design process to
find the most appropriate alternative (Radford & Greo,
1988). Design constraints, however, especially in the detaildesign phase, lack comprehensive formulations (Yoon,
1992). To overcome this limitation, it is possible to produce
some good-feasible solutions, such as to satisfy restrictive
constraints, by pattern-match on a case-by-case basis. This
narrows down the range of possible solutions to a
Table 3
Pipe node types
Node type

Description

2
10
14
20
21
22
23
24
30
35
40
55
56
65
66
68

Start point, known

Start point with valve, known
End point, known
End point with valve, known
Branch start point, not determined
Branch start point, determined
Branch end point, not determined
Branch end point, determined
Branch end point with valve, determined
Middle point for valve, not determined
Middle point for valve, determined
Middle point for daughter pipeline, not determined
Middle point for daughter pipeline, determined
Middle point for turn, type not determined
Middle point for bending, determined
Middle point for elbow, determined

308

J.-H. Park, R.L. Storch / Expert Systems with Applications 23 (2002) 299309

Fig. 14. Data structure of cell.

manageable size. Then, quantifiable constraints are

exploited to find the most beneficial solution. Fig. 16 is a
representation of the success stages of this process.

Fig. 16. Constraints-based design automation.

8. Conclusion
In this paper, a cell-generation driven pipe-routing
method has been developed to supply candidate paths.
From a tree of combinations, the algorithm chooses an
appropriate path for each pipeline from the candidate paths
after various non-geometric aspects, such as material costs,
installation costs, and valve operability, are assessed from a
fiscal point of view.
The methodology showing how various design constraints might be accommodated by suitable algorithms can
be a cornerstone for the evolution of design automation for a
domain fraught with complications. The algorithm presented here is for pipe routing. Further research will look

into applications of this algorithm for electric harness and

HVAC ducts.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge David Evans,
Lawrence Pierce, and Randy Bird of Integration Partners,
Inc., San Diego, CA, for providing software and valuable
technical advice. They also would like to thank pipe-routing
experts, Jung-Hyun Park, Jin-Soo Youn, Young-Min Kang,
Pil-Joong Nam and Woo-Jong Kim of Samsung Heavy
Industries, Korea, for indispensable advice.

Fig. 15. Pipe-routing using the algorithm.

J.-H. Park, R.L. Storch / Expert Systems with Applications 23 (2002) 299309

References
The American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) (1998). Guidance notes on the
application of ergonomics to marine systems.
Guiradello, R. (1993). Optimization of process plant layout. PhD
Dissertation, University of Wisconsin: Madison.
Hightower, D. W. (1969). A solution to line routing problems on the
continuous plane. Proceedings of Sixth Design Automation Workshop,
IEEE (pp. 1 24).
ISO/CDC 10303-217 (1996). Product Data Representation and Exchange
Part: 217, Application Protocol: Ship Piping.
Ito, T. (1999). A genetic algorithm approach to piping route path planning.
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 10, 103 114.
Kai-jian, S., & Hong-e, Z. (1987). Efficient routing algorithm. ComputerAided Design, 19(7), 375379.
Kang, S., Myung, S., & Han, S. (1999). A design expert system for autorouting of ship pipes. Journal of Ship Production, 15(1), 19.
Karwowski, W., & Salvendy, G. (1998). Ergonomics in manufacturing.
Dearborn, MI: Society of Manufacturing Engineers.
Kobayashi, Y., Wada, Y., & Kiguchi, T. (1986). Knowledge representation
and utilization for optimal route search. IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-16(3), 454 462.
Lee, C. Y. (1961). An algorithm for path connections and its applications.
IRE Transactions on Electronic Computers, EC-10, 346 365.
Mandl, C. (1979). Applied network optimization. New York: Academic
Press.
Mitsuta, T., Kobayashi, Y., Wada, Y., & Kiguchi, T. (1986). A knowledgebased approach to routing problems in industrial plant design.
Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop Expert System and
Their Applications (pp. 237 253). France.
Newell, R. G. (1972). An interactive approach to pipe routing in process
plant. Information processing 71. Proceedings of IFIP Congress 71 (pp.
10801085). London.
Nicholson, T. A. J. (1966). Finding the shortest route between two points in
a network. The Computer Journal, 9(3), 275 280.
Radford, A. D., & Gero, J. S. (1988). Design by Optimization in

309

Architecture, Building and Construction. New York: Van Nostrand

Reinhold.
Rourke, P. W. (1975). Development of a three-dimensional pipe routing
algorithm. PhD Dissertation, Lehigh University.
Schmidt-Traub, H., Koster, M., Holtkotter, T., & Nipper, N. (1998).
Conceptual plant layout. Computers Chemical Engineering, 22(Suppl.),
s499 s504.
Wangdahl, G. E., Pollock, S. M., & Woodward, J. B. (1974). Minimumtrajectory pipe routing. Journal of Ship Research, 18(1), 4449.
Yoon, B. K. (1992). A constraint model of space planning. Boston:
Computational Mechanics Publications.
Zhu, D., & Latombe, J. (1991). Pipe routing path planning (with many
constraints). Proceedings of the 1991 IEEE International Conference
on Robotics and Automation (pp. 1940 1947). Sacramento, California.

Jin Hyung Park is a PhD candidate in Industrial Engineering at the

University of Washington of the USA. He worked in the shipbuilding
industry for five years before he received his Masters degree at KAIST
in Korea in 1997.

Richard Lee Storch is a professor of Industrial Engineering at the

University of Washington. His research has concentrated on productivity and quality improvement in ship production and large
assembly manufacturing systems. He is a member of SNAME, IFIP
WG 5.7, IIE, and ASNE. He serves on the editorial boards of the
Journal of Ship Production and the Journal of Marine Science and
Technology.