In a greenfield project, you have to balance location, floor space, material flows, safety, ergonomics, and budget with each other. The decisions have long-lasting effects: once something is built, it can only be changed with effort, and delays cost time and money. The goal is therefore to open up the solution space deliberately, assess variants transparently, and then decide on solid grounds, in short loops and with results that everyone involved can see and walk through.
This article takes you from the value stream to the layout solution. It shows which early decisions set the framework and how VR layout planning helps you spot risks earlier. The examples work with clear assumptions, metrics, and criteria so that decisions are based on traceable data. Halocline serves as the tool to build 3D factory layouts quickly, experience variants at 1:1 scale, and improve them together.
Compared with a brownfield project, the solution space is much larger, because no existing buildings, utilities, or processes restrict you. That is both an opportunity and an obligation: you have to weight your goals carefully and make conflicting goals visible. Typical criteria are capacity, lead time, flexibility, operating cost per part (opex/part), investment (capex), and sustainability, down to CO₂ equivalents per part (CO₂e/part). The VDI 5200 guideline provides a structured sequence, from goal setting through concept planning to detailed planning and implementation.
Clarifying the framework conditions early pays off twice. These include:
Plan modular construction phases and defined docking edges for additional lines or logistics zones so that ramp-ups and product changes succeed without breaking the floor plan. A reserve of 15 to 25 percent of production and logistics space has often proven itself, depending on how much demand and the product lifecycle fluctuate.
Two sites are on the shortlist. Site A is close to the highway, but the grid connection has a longer lead time. Site B has a rail connection but a stricter zoning plan. You assess both in a weighted matrix with clear thresholds:
If A scores 4.1 out of 5 and B scores 3.8, the decision for A holds up, provided you mitigate the grid connection risk with interim measures. Write down assumptions and risks so that later deviations can be explained.
The starting point is the value stream analysis: process sequence per product and variant, cycle and changeover times, OEE, scrap, and fluctuations. From volume, takt, and shift model, you derive the number of lines and the staffing of the stations and determine where inventory buffers make sense without extending lead time unnecessarily.
Material flow planning becomes concrete when you place supermarkets for A and B parts close to the lines, plan milk runs with stable round-trip times, or lay out the routes of automated guided vehicles (AGV) so that paths per part and intersection points stay as low as possible.
Mini scenario: Five product variants, 60,000 units per year, two shifts at 85 percent OEE. Variant A relies on a milk run every 20 minutes and a 30-minute buffer, variant B on direct AGV supply at 1 m/s and a 10-minute buffer. Walking through the 3D layout reveals that variant B has around 40 percent fewer intersection points between pedestrians and vehicles, and paths are 15 percent shorter. In return, it needs an additional charging point. Which variant wins depends on the prioritized criteria: safety, paths, opex/part, and capex.
In the block layout, you arrange the functional areas with their floor space and the dominant material flows. You build this rough structure as a 3D factory layout and experience it at 1:1 scale. In detailed planning, you refine zones, safety distances, workstations, maintenance and changeover areas, and service corridors. Side corridors of about 1.2 m and rear corridors of 1.5 m, for example, have proven themselves, so that maintenance and cleaning are possible without stopping the equipment.
In parallel, you optimize buffer positions, handover points, and routes until there are fewer intersections and better lines of sight. With each loop, the space metrics become more precise, such as m² per line, m² for supermarkets, and paths per part. You check the bottleneck hypothesis against the real assumptions for takt and volume.
A robust plant layout strictly separates pedestrian and vehicle flows. Walkways preferably run along the edges of the hall, and crossings are concentrated at secured points with good visibility. AGVs get priority on the main axes, and passing bays as well as fixed charging and exchange points prevent congestion. Safety distances at stations, escape routes, and fire and smoke compartments follow local regulations and internal standards; VDI 5200 serves as a guide for layout principles.
For ergonomics, ISO 11228 (manual handling) and ISO 6385 (ergonomic principles) set the framework. Guide values are: frequently used parts at a height between about 0.7 and 1.2 m, reaches under 45 cm, and a working height based on the task, slightly above elbow height for precision work and below it for heavy work. If you check table heights, grab containers, and tool positions in VR, you can assess postures, lines of sight, and reaches directly.
Assembly example: The operators are between 1.60 and 1.90 m tall. Height-adjustable tables from about 93 to 105 cm and tilted grab containers reduce the number of grasps per cycle by 12 percent, with an unchanged takt of 90 seconds.
Compact arrangements shorten paths and reduce the energy needed for transport and lighting. Daylight through skylights, LEDs with zone control, and using waste heat from compressed air or furnace processes improve kWh per part; photovoltaics on the roof support the CO₂e balance. If you compare floor space, paths, kWh/part, and CO₂e/part for each variant and disclose your assumptions about the energy mix, the environmental effect becomes measurable.
Supermarket example: If the supermarket moves closer to the line, paths get 18 percent shorter, work in process (WIP) drops by 12 percent, and 250 m² of floor space is freed up. This has a noticeable effect on energy demand and CO₂e per part.
In VR, scale and distances become immediately tangible. Aisle widths, grip heights, maintenance spaces, and sight triangles at intersections can be checked at 1:1 scale. Misunderstandings from 2D plans become less frequent, and you spot weak points before they get expensive. Joint reviews create a shared picture across production, logistics, occupational safety, maintenance, and management, and the decision rests on measurements and clear criteria.
Halocline is the planning platform for production layouts and workstations. You build 3D factory layouts with library objects, import CAD data and 2D layouts as a reference, and create variants, with no training required and without lengthy modeling. In the model, you check paths, handover points, and buffers and record measurements with dimensions. If you record a workflow in VR, you analyze the paths in the spaghetti diagram, and the ergonomics analysis based on the key indicator method shows problematic object movements. Grasping area avatars show grasping areas and working planes for different body heights, calculated according to DIN 33402-2 and DIN EN ISO 14738. The collision check reveals conflicts between utilities, conveyor technology, and traffic routes early. You document results with screenshots and dimensions and record notes and decisions with labels directly on the model.
This is how Witzenmann planned the new building at its Pforzheim headquarters: a 23,700 m² factory with 745 machines, planned, validated, and optimized in Halocline, with a more compact production footprint at the same capacity.
Goods receiving: You size it based on real delivery profiles. With twelve trucks in the peak hour and 30 minutes of handling time per truck, you need six docks on paper. Five docks handle ten trucks per hour, so around two vehicles are waiting at the end of the peak hour, and the backlog clears afterwards. If that's acceptable, five docks plus a reserve are enough; otherwise, plan six. Add an internal buffer of around 150 pallets.
Route selection: In mixed operation with AGVs and forklifts, the AGVs take over the predictable main axes with fixed priority rules and charging points, while forklifts serve peripheral areas and special cases at clear handover points. A material flow simulation with 180 transports per hour, an average route of 80 m, AGVs at 1 m/s, and forklifts at 2 m/s typically shows that AGVs are more stable in terms of safety and predictability, while forklifts offer more flexibility for exceptions.
Assembly workstations: You check table heights, tool positions, and grasping paths in VR. Standard guide values, time studies, and checking in the walkable model together reduce rebuilds after procurement.
Test sensitivities explicitly: demand ±20 percent, OEE ±5 percentage points, fluctuating takt during disruptions. If the preferred variant stays within the target ranges under these fluctuations as well, it is robust. The result is a traceable decision logic that holds up in the steering committee and eases the handover to construction, CAD, and logistics, with screenshots, measurement logs, decision matrix, and interface description.
Want to check your new factory before it's built? Get started for free with Halocline Free and build your first workstation in 3D. For process analysis and the ergonomics check, get in touch and we'll show you the right scope.
