Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
End-of-life offshore oil and gas structures are dismantled and processed at specialized onshore yards, where facility locations, access points, transport aisles, hazardous-flow segregation, and land use are closely linked. Most existing layout models address safety mainly through separation distances between facilities; route-level segregation and the joint treatment of layout and routing receive less attention. This paper formulates the yard layout as six coupled mixed-integer modules: block placement, boundary entrance/exit placement, facility I/O assignment, rectilinear flow paths and aisle envelopes, hazardous/non-hazardous path segregation, and functional clustering with safety distances. Four objectives are handled lexicographically: inter-zone flow distance and Type 1 cluster compactness, frequency-weighted active-segment measure, intra-zone facility-to-I/O distance, and yard-dimension compactness. After spatial discretization, the model is solved with Google OR-Tools CP-SAT, so optimality claims apply to the chosen discrete feasible domain. For the Yard X case, comprising 36 facilities and three yard-level I/O interfaces, the distance-priority sequence cuts the complete 39-flow Stage-Z1 inter-zone distance by 62.6% and the derived yard area by 41.4%; the HAZMAT distance falls by 77.6%. Placing area first produces a smaller footprint but longer HAZMAT routes. Removing the flow hierarchy leaves nonzero solver optimality gaps within the time limit.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leow et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: