A Parallel Branch and Bound Algorithm for the Resource Leveling Problem with Minimal Lags

[EN] The efficient use of resources is a key factor to minimize the cost while meeting time deadlines and quality requirements; this is especially important in construction projects where field operations take fluctuations of resources unproductive and costly. Resource Leveling Problems (RLP) aim to sequence the construction activities that maximize the resource consumption efficiency over time, minimizing the variability. Exact algorithms for the RLP have been proposed throughout the years to offer optimal solutions; however, these problems require a vast computational capability ( combinatorial explosion ) that makes them unpractical. Therefore, alternative heuristic and metaheuristic algorithms have been suggested in the literature to find local optimal solutions, using different libraries to benchmark optimal values; for example, the Project Scheduling Problem LIBrary for minimal lags is still open to be solved to optimality for RLP. To partially fill this gap, the authors propose a Parallel Branch and Bound algorithm for the RLP with minimal lags to solve the RLP with an acceptable computational effort. This way, this research contributes to the body of knowledge of construction project scheduling providing the optimums of 50 problems for the RLP with minimal lags for the first time, allowing future contributors to benchmark their heuristics meth-ods against exact results by obtaining the distance of their solution to the optimal values. Furthermore, for practitioners,the time required to solve this kind of problem is reasonable and practical, considering that unbalanced resources can risk the goals of the construction project.This research was supported by the FAPA program of the Universidad de Los Andes (Colombia). The authors would like to thank the research group of Construction Engineering and Management (INgeco), especially J. S. Rojas-Quintero, and the Department of Systems Engineering at the Universidad de Los Andes. The authors are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable and constructive suggestions.Ponz Tienda, JL.; Salcedo-Bernal, A.; Pellicer Armiñana, E. (2017). A Parallel Branch and Bound Algorithm for the Resource Leveling Problem with Minimal Lags. COMPUTER-AIDED CIVIL AND INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING. 32:474-498. doi:10.1111/mice.12233S47449832Adeli, H. (2000). High-Performance Computing for Large-Scale Analysis, Optimization, and Control. Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 13(1), 1-10. doi:10.1061/(asce)0893-1321(2000)13:1(1)ADELI, H., & KAMAL, O. (2008). Parallel Structural Analysis Using Threads. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 4(2), 133-147. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8667.1989.tb00015.xAdeli, H., & Kamal, O. (1992). Concurrent analysis of large structures—II. applications. Computers & Structures, 42(3), 425-432. doi:10.1016/0045-7949(92)90038-2Adeli, H., Kamat, M. P., Kulkarni, G., & Vanluchene, R. D. (1993). High‐Performance Computing in Structural Mechanics and Engineering. Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 6(3), 249-267. doi:10.1061/(asce)0893-1321(1993)6:3(249)Adeli, H., & Karim, A. (1997). Scheduling/Cost Optimization and Neural Dynamics Model for Construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 123(4), 450-458. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(1997)123:4(450)Adeli, H., & Kumar, S. (1995). Concurrent Structural Optimization on Massively Parallel Supercomputer. Journal of Structural Engineering, 121(11), 1588-1597. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(1995)121:11(1588)ADELI, H., & VISHNUBHOTLA, P. (2008). Parallel Processing. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 2(3), 257-269. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8667.1987.tb00150.xAdeli, H., & Wu, M. (1998). Regularization Neural Network for Construction Cost Estimation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124(1), 18-24. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(1998)124:1(18)Alsayegh, H., & Hariga, M. (2012). Hybrid meta-heuristic methods for the multi-resource leveling problem with activity splitting. Automation in Construction, 27, 89-98. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2012.04.017Anagnostopoulos, K., & Koulinas, G. (2012). Resource-Constrained Critical Path Scheduling by a GRASP-Based Hyperheuristic. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 26(2), 204-213. doi:10.1061/(asce)cp.1943-5487.0000116Anagnostopoulos, K. P., & Koulinas, G. K. (2010). A simulated annealing hyperheuristic for construction resource levelling. Construction Management and Economics, 28(2), 163-175. doi:10.1080/01446190903369907Arditi, D., & Bentotage, S. N. (1996). System for Scheduling Highway Construction Projects. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 11(2), 123-139. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8667.1996.tb00316.xBandelloni, M., Tucci, M., & Rinaldi, R. (1994). Optimal resource leveling using non-serial dyanamic programming. European Journal of Operational Research, 78(2), 162-177. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(94)90380-8Benjaoran, V., Tabyang, W., & Sooksil, N. (2015). Precedence relationship options for the resource levelling problem using a genetic algorithm. Construction Management and Economics, 33(9), 711-723. doi:10.1080/01446193.2015.1100317Bianco, L., Caramia, M., & Giordani, S. (2016). Resource levelling in project scheduling with generalized precedence relationships and variable execution intensities. OR Spectrum, 38(2), 405-425. doi:10.1007/s00291-016-0435-1Chakroun, I., & Melab, N. (2015). Towards a heterogeneous and adaptive parallel Branch-and-Bound algorithm. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 81(1), 72-84. doi:10.1016/j.jcss.2014.06.012Christodoulou, S. E., Ellinas, G., & Michaelidou-Kamenou, A. (2010). Minimum Moment Method for Resource Leveling Using Entropy Maximization. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(5), 518-527. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000149Clausen, J., & Perregaard, M. (1999). Annals of Operations Research, 90, 1-17. doi:10.1023/a:1018952429396Coughlan, E. T., Lübbecke, M. E., & Schulz, J. (2010). A Branch-and-Price Algorithm for Multi-mode Resource Leveling. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 226-238. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13193-6_20Coughlan, E. T., Lübbecke, M. E., & Schulz, J. (2015). A branch-price-and-cut algorithm for multi-mode resource leveling. European Journal of Operational Research, 245(1), 70-80. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.02.043Crainic, T. G., Le Cun, B., & Roucairol, C. (s. f.). Parallel Branch-and-Bound Algorithms. Parallel Combinatorial Optimization, 1-28. doi:10.1002/9780470053928.ch1Damci, A., Arditi, D., & Polat, G. (2013). Resource Leveling in Line-of-Balance Scheduling. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 28(9), 679-692. doi:10.1111/mice.12038Damci, A., Arditi, D., & Polat, G. (2013). Multiresource Leveling in Line-of-Balance Scheduling. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(9), 1108-1116. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000716Damci, A., Arditi, D., & Polat, G. (2015). Impacts of different objective functions on resource leveling in Line-of-Balance scheduling. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 20(1), 58-67. doi:10.1007/s12205-015-0578-7De Reyck, B., & Herroelen, W. (1996). On the use of the complexity index as a measure of complexity in activity networks. European Journal of Operational Research, 91(2), 347-366. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(94)00344-0Hossein Hashemi Doulabi, S., Seifi, A., & Shariat, S. Y. (2011). Efficient Hybrid Genetic Algorithm for Resource Leveling via Activity Splitting. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(2), 137-146. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000261Drexl, A., & Kimms, A. (2001). Optimization guided lower and upper bounds for the resource investment problem. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 52(3), 340-351. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601099Easa, S. M. (1989). Resource Leveling in Construction by Optimization. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 115(2), 302-316. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(1989)115:2(302)El-Rayes, K., & Jun, D. H. (2009). Optimizing Resource Leveling in Construction Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(11), 1172-1180. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000097Florez, L., Castro-Lacouture, D., & Medaglia, A. L. (2013). Sustainable workforce scheduling in construction program management. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 64(8), 1169-1181. doi:10.1057/jors.2012.164Gaitanidis, A., Vassiliadis, V., Kyriklidis, C., & Dounias, G. (2016). Hybrid Evolutionary Algorithms in Resource Leveling Optimization. Proceedings of the 9th Hellenic Conference on Artificial Intelligence - SETN ’16. doi:10.1145/2903220.2903227Gather, T., Zimmermann, J., & Bartels, J.-H. (2010). Exact methods for the resource levelling problem. Journal of Scheduling, 14(6), 557-569. doi:10.1007/s10951-010-0207-8Georgy, M. E. (2008). Evolutionary resource scheduler for linear projects. Automation in Construction, 17(5), 573-583. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2007.10.005Hariga, M., & El-Sayegh, S. M. (2011). Cost Optimization Model for the Multiresource Leveling Problem with Allowed Activity Splitting. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(1), 56-64. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000251Harris, R. B. (1990). Packing Method for Resource Leveling (Pack). Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 116(2), 331-350. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(1990)116:2(331)Hegazy, T. (1999). Optimization of Resource Allocation and Leveling Using Genetic Algorithms. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 125(3), 167-175. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(1999)125:3(167)Heon Jun, D., & El-Rayes, K. (2011). Multiobjective Optimization of Resource Leveling and Allocation during Construction Scheduling. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(12), 1080-1088. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000368Hiyassat, M. A. S. (2000). Modification of Minimum Moment Approach in Resource Leveling. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 126(4), 278-284. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2000)126:4(278)Hiyassat, M. A. S. (2001). Applying Modified Minimum Moment Method to Multiple Resource Leveling. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(3), 192-198. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2001)127:3(192)Ismail, M. M., el-raoof, O. abd, & Abd EL-Wahed, W. F. (2014). A Parallel Branch and Bound Algorithm for Solving Large Scale Integer Programming Problems. Applied Mathematics & Information Sciences, 8(4), 1691-1698. doi:10.12785/amis/080425Kolisch, R., & Sprecher, A. (1997). PSPLIB - A project scheduling problem library. European Journal of Operational Research, 96(1), 205-216. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(96)00170-1Koulinas, G. K., & Anagnostopoulos, K. P. (2013). A new tabu search-based hyper-heuristic algorithm for solving construction leveling problems with limited resource availabilities. Automation in Construction, 31, 169-175. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2012.11.002Lai, T.-H., & Sahni, S. (1984). Anomalies in parallel branch-and-bound algorithms. Communications of the ACM, 27(6), 594-602. doi:10.1145/358080.358103Leu, S.-S., Yang, C.-H., & Huang, J.-C. (2000). Resource leveling in construction by genetic algorithm-based optimization and its decision support system application. Automation in Construction, 10(1), 27-41. doi:10.1016/s0926-5805(99)00011-4Li, H., Xu, Z., & Demeulemeester, E. (2015). Scheduling Policies for the Stochastic Resource Leveling Problem. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 141(2), 04014072. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000936Lim, T.-K., Yi, C.-Y., Lee, D.-E., & Arditi, D. (2014). Concurrent Construction Scheduling Simulation Algorithm. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 29(6), 449-463. doi:10.1111/mice.12073Menesi, W., & Hegazy, T. (2015). Multimode Resource-Constrained Scheduling and Leveling for Practical-Size Projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 31(6), 04014092. doi:10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000338Neumann, K., Schwindt, C., & Zimmermann, J. (2003). Project Scheduling with Time Windows and Scarce Resources. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24800-2Neumann, K., & Zimmermann, J. (1999). Methods for Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling with Regular and Nonregular Objective Functions and Schedule-Dependent Time Windows. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, 261-287. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-5533-9_12Neumann, K., & Zimmermann, J. (2000). Procedures for resource leveling and net present value problems in project scheduling with general temporal and resource constraints. European Journal of Operational Research, 127(2), 425-443. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(99)00498-1Nübel, H. (2001). The resource renting problem subject to temporal constraints. OR-Spektrum, 23(3), 359-381. doi:10.1007/pl00013357Perregaard, M., & Clausen, J. (1998). Annals of Operations Research, 83, 137-160. doi:10.1023/a:1018903912673Ponz-Tienda, J. L., Pellicer, E., Benlloch-Marco, J., & Andrés-Romano, C. (2015). The Fuzzy Project Scheduling Problem with Minimal Generalized Precedence Relations. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 30(11), 872-891. doi:10.1111/mice.12166Ponz-Tienda, J. L., Yepes, V., Pellicer, E., & Moreno-Flores, J. (2013). The Resource Leveling Problem with multiple resources using an adaptive genetic algorithm. Automation in Construction, 29, 161-172. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2012.10.003Pritsker, A. A. B., Waiters, L. J., & Wolfe, P. M. (1969). Multiproject Scheduling with Limited Resources: A Zero-One Programming Approach. Management Science, 16(1), 93-108. doi:10.1287/mnsc.16.1.93Ranjbar, M. (2013). A path-relinking metaheuristic for the resource levelling problem. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 64(7), 1071-1078. doi:10.1057/jors.2012.119Rieck, J., & Zimmermann, J. (2014). Exact Methods for Resource Leveling Problems. Handbook on Project Management and Scheduling Vol.1, 361-387. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05443-8_17Rieck, J., Zimmermann, J., & Gather, T. (2012). Mixed-integer linear programming for resource leveling problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 221(1), 27-37. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2012.03.003Saleh, A., & Adeli, H. (1994). Microtasking, Macrotasking, and Autotasking for Structural Optimization. Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 7(2), 156-174. doi:10.1061/(asce)0893-1321(1994)7:2(156)Saleh, A., & Adeli, H. (1994). Parallel Algorithms for Integrated Structural/Control Optimization. Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 7(3), 297-314. doi:10.1061/(asce)0893-1321(1994)7:3(297)Son, J., & Mattila, K. G. (2004). Binary Resource Leveling Model: Activity Splitting Allowed. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 130(6), 887-894. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(2004)130:6(887)Son, J., & Skibniewski, M. J. (1999). Multiheuristic Approach for Resource Leveling Problem in Construction Engineering: Hybrid Approach. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 125(1), 23-31. doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(1999)125:1(23)Tang, Y., Liu, R., & Sun, Q. (2014). Two-Stage Scheduling Model for Resource Leveling of Linear Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(7), 04014022. doi:10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000862Wah, Guo-jie Li, & Chee Fen Yu. (1985). Multiprocessing of Combinatorial Search Problems. Computer, 18(6), 93-108. doi:10.1109/mc.1985.1662926Yeniocak , H. 2013 An efficient branch and bound algorithm for the resource leveling problem Ph.D. dissertation, Middle East Technical University, School of Natural and Applied SciencesYounis, M. A., & Saad, B. (1996). Optimal resource leveling of multi-resource projects. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 31(1-2), 1-4. doi:10.1016/0360-8352(96)00116-

Simultaneous structuring and scheduling of multiple projects with flexible project structures

We study the problem to simultaneously decide on the structures and the schedules for an entire portfolio of flexible projects. The projects are flexible as alternative technologies and procedures can be used to achieve the respective project task. The choice between different technologies and procedures affects the activities to be implemented and thus the precedence relations, i.e., the structure of the project. The different projects have given due dates with specific delay payments and compete for scarce resources. In this situation, project structure decisions and scheduling decisions are highly intertwined and have to be made simultaneously in order to achieve the assumed objective of minimizing the delay payments for the entire project portfolio. The problem is formally stated and solved via novel and problem-specific genetic algorithms. The performance of the new algorithms is evaluated with respect to speed and accuracy in a systematic and comprehensive numerical study. © 2020, The Author(s)

Resource constrained routing and scheduling: Review and research prospects

In the service industry, it is crucial to efficiently allocate scarce resources to perform tasks and meet particular service requirements. What considerably complicates matters is when these resources, for example skilled technicians, nurses, and home carers have to visit different customer locations. This paper provides a comprehensive survey on resource constrained routing and scheduling that unveils the problem characteristics with respect to resource qualifications, service requirements and problem objectives. It also identifies the most effective exact and heuristic algorithms for this class of problems. The paper closes with several research prospects

Scheduling with Alternative Process Plans

Katedra řídicí technik

A new neighborhood and tabu search for the blocking job shop

The Blocking Job Shop is a version of the job shop scheduling problem with no intermediate buffers, where a job has to wait on a machine until being processed on the next machine. We study a generalization of this problem which takes into account transfer operations between machines and sequence-dependent setup times. After formulating the problem in a generalized disjunctive graph, we develop a neighborhood for local search. In contrast to the classical job shop, there is no easy mechanism for generating feasible neighbor solutions. We establish two structural properties of the underlying disjunctive graph, the concept of closures and a key result on short cycles, which enable us to construct feasible neighbors by exchanging critical arcs together with some other arcs. Based on this neighborhood, we devise a tabu search algorithm and report on extensive computational experience, showing that our solutions improve most of the benchmark results found in the literature

ASALBP: the Alternative Subgraphs Assembly Line Balancing Problem. Formalization and Resolution Procedures

Hoy en día, los problemas de equilibrado de líneas de montaje se encuentran comúnmente en la mayoría de sistemas industriales y de manufactura. Básicamente, estos problemas consisten en asignar un conjunto de tareas a una secuencia ordenada de estaciones de trabajo, de manera que se respeten las restricciones de precedencia y se optimice una medida de eficiencia dada (como, por ejemplo, el número de estaciones de trabajo o el tiempo ciclo). Dada la complejidad de los problemas de equilibrado de líneas, en los trabajos de investigación tradicionalmente se consideraban numerosas simplificaciones en las que, por ejemplo, una sola línea serial procesaba un único modelo de un solo producto. Además, los problemas estaban principalmente restringidos por las relaciones de precedencia y el tiempo ciclo. Sin embargo, la disponibilidad de recursos computacionales de hoy en día, así como la necesidad de las empresas a adaptarse a los rápidos cambios en los procesos de producción, han motivado tanto a investigadores como a gerentes a tratar problemas más realistas. Algunos ejemplos incluyen problemas que procesan modelos mixtos, estaciones de trabajo y líneas en paralelo, consideran múltiples objetivos y restricciones adicionales, como la capacidad de proceso de las estaciones de trabajo y la ubicación de los recursos en la línea de montaje.Esta tesis doctoral trata un nuevo problema de equilibrado de líneas, que ha sido titulado ASALBP: the Alternative Subgraphs Assembly Line Balancing Problem, en el que se consideran variantes alternativas para diferentes partes de un proceso de montaje o de manufactura. Cada alternativa puede ser representada por un subgrafo de precedencias, que determina las tareas requeridas para procesar un producto particular, las restricciones de precedencia y los tiempos de proceso. Para resolver eficientemente el ASALBP, se deben resolver dos problemas simultáneamente: (1) el problema de decisión para seleccionar un subgrafo de montaje para cada parte que admite alternativas y (2) el problema de equilibrado para asignar las tareas a las estaciones de trabajo. El análisis del estado del arte revela que este problema no ha sido estudiado previamente en la literatura, lo que ha conducido a la caracterización y a la definición de un nuevo problema. Por otra parte, dado que no es posible representar las variantes de montaje en un diagrama de precedencias estándar, se propone el S-grafo como una herramienta de diagramación, para representar en un único grafo todas las alternativas de montaje.Habitualmente, los problemas de equilibrado de líneas que consideran alternativas de montaje se resuelven en dos etapas. En la etapa inicial, el diseñador de sistema selecciona una de las variantes posibles utilizando cierto criterio de decisión como por ejemplo tiempo total de proceso. Una vez que se han seleccionado las alternativas de montaje, y se dispone de un diagrama de precedencias (es decir, el problema de planificación ha sido resuelto), la línea de montaje es equilibrada en una segunda etapa. Sin embargo, utilizando dicho procedimiento de dos etapas no se puede garantizar que una solución óptima del problema global se pueda obtener, porque las decisiones tomadas por el diseñador de sistema restringen el problema y causan perdida de información; es decir, cuando se selecciona una alternativa priori los efectos de las posibilidades restantes quedan sin explorar. Por ejemplo, si el diseñador de sistema utiliza tiempo total de proceso como criterio de decisión, la alternativa con el tiempo total de proceso más grande será descartada a pesar de que pueda ser la que proporcione la mejor solución del problema (es decir, requiere el mínimo número de estaciones de trabajo o el mínimo tiempo ciclo). Por lo tanto, pareciera razonable considerar que para solucionar eficientemente un ALBP que implica alternativas de proceso, todas las alternativas de montaje deben ser tomadas en cuenta en el proceso de equilibrado. Para este propósito, en esta tesis el problema de selección de una variante de montaje y el problema de equilibrado de la línea se consideran conjuntamente en lugar de independientemente.Para resolver el Problema de Equilibrado de Líneas con Alternativas de Montaje (ASALBP) se usan varios enfoques. El problema se formaliza y se resuelve de manera óptima a través de dos modelos de programación matemática. Un enfoque aproximativo es usado para resolver problemas de tamaño industrial. Además, se proponen procedimientos de optimización local con el objetivo de mejorar la calidad de las soluciones obtenidas por los métodos heurísticos desarrollados en este trabajo.Nowadays assembly line balancing problems are commonly found in most industrial and manufacturing systems. Basically, these problems seek to assign a set of assembly tasks to an ordered sequence of workstations in such a way that precedence constraints are maintained and a given efficiency measure (e.g. the number of workstations or the cycle time) is optimized.Because of the computational complexity of balancing problems, research works traditionally considered numerous simplifying assumptions in which, for example, a single model of a unique product were processed in a single line; moreover, problems were mainly restricted by precedence and cycle time constrains. Nevertheless, the current availability of computing resources and the enterprises need to adapt to rapid changes in production and manufacturing processes have encouraged researchers and decision-makers to address more realistic problems. Some examples include problems that involve mixed models, parallel workstations and parallel lines, multiple objectives and also further restrictions such as workstation processing capacity and resource allocation constraints. This doctoral thesis addresses a novel assembly line balancing problem, entitled here ASALBP: the Alternative Subgraphs Assembly Line Balancing Problem, which considers alternative variants for different parts of an assembly or manufacturing process. Each variant can be represented by a precedence subgraph that establishes the tasks required to process a particular product, their precedence requirements and their processing times. Therefore, to efficiently solve the Alternative Subgraphs Assembly Line Balancing Problem two subproblems need to be solved simultaneously: (1) the decision problem that selects one assembly variant for each part that admit alternatives and (2) the balancing problem that assigns the tasks to the workstations. The analysis of the state-of-the-art carried out revealed that the Alternative Subgraphs Assembly Line Balancing Problem has not been addressed before in literature studies, which leaded to the characterization and definition of this new problem. Moreover, due to the impossibility of representing assembly variants in a standard precedence graph, the S-Graph is proposed here as a diagramming tool to represent all available assembly alternatives in a unique diagram. Habitually, problems involving assembly alternatives are solved by using a two-stage based approach. In the initial stage, the system designer selects one of the possible variants according to criteria such as total processing time. Once the assembly alternatives have been selected, and a precedence graph is available (i.e. the assembly planning problem has been already solved), the line is then balanced in the second stage. However, by following this two-stage procedure it cannot be guaranteed that an optimal solution of the global problem can be obtained, because the decisions taken by the system designer restrict the problem and cause information loss; i.e., a priori selection of an alternative leaves the effects of the other possibilities unexplored. For instance, if the system designer uses total processing time as decision criterion, the alternative with largest total processing time will be discarded notwithstanding it may provide the best solution of the problem (i.e., it requires the minimum number of workstations or minimum cycle time). Therefore, it seems reasonable to consider that to solve efficiently an ALBP that involves processing alternatives all possibilities must be considered within the balancing process. For this purpose, in this thesis both the variant selection problem and the balancing problem are jointly considered instead of independently.Different approaches are used here to address the Alternative Subgraphs Assembly Line Balancing Problem (ASALBP). The problem is formalize and optimally solved by means of two mathematical programming models. An approximate approach is used to address industrial-scale problems. Furthermore, local optimization procedures are proposed aiming at improving the quality of the solutions provided by all heuristic methods developed here

Solving the accessibility windows assembly line problem level 1 and variant 1 (AWALBP-L1-1) with precedence constraints

Assembly line balancing problems (ALBPs) are among the most studied combinatorial optimization problems due to their relevance in many production systems. In particular, the accessibility windows ALBP (AWALBP) may arise when the workpieces are larger than the workstations, which implies that at a given instant the workstations have access to only a portion of the workpieces. Thus, the cycle is split into forward steps and stationary stages. The workpieces advance during the forward steps and the tasks are processed during the stationary stages. Several studies have dealt with the AWALBP assuming that there are no precedence relationships between tasks. However, this assumption is not always appropriate. In this work we solve the first level of AWALBP (AWALBP-L1) considering the existence of precedence relationships. Specifically, this work deals with variant 1 (AWALBP-L1-1), in which each task can be performed at only one workstation and, therefore, only the stationary stages and the starting instants in which the tasks are performed have to be decided. We design a solution procedure that includes pre-processing procedures, a matheuristic and a mixed integer linear programming model. An extensive computational experiment is carried out to evaluate its performance.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Proceedings of the 8th Cologne-Twente Workshop on Graphs and Combinatorial Optimization

International audienceThe Cologne-Twente Workshop (CTW) on Graphs and Combinatorial Optimization started off as a series of workshops organized bi-annually by either Köln University or Twente University. As its importance grew over time, it re-centered its geographical focus by including northern Italy (CTW04 in Menaggio, on the lake Como and CTW08 in Gargnano, on the Garda lake). This year, CTW (in its eighth edition) will be staged in France for the first time: more precisely in the heart of Paris, at the Conservatoire National d’Arts et Métiers (CNAM), between 2nd and 4th June 2009, by a mixed organizing committee with members from LIX, Ecole Polytechnique and CEDRIC, CNAM

Heuristic procedures for solving the General Assembly Line Balancing Problem with Setups (GALBPS)

The General Assembly Line Balancing Problem with Setups (GALBPS) was recently defined in the literature. It adds sequence-dependent setup time considerations to the classical Simple Assembly Line Balancing Problem (SALBP) as follows: whenever a task is assigned next to another at the same workstation, a setup time must be added to compute the global workstation time, thereby providing the task sequence inside each workstation. This paper proposes over 50 priority-rule-based heuristic procedures to solve GALBPS, many of which are an improvement upon heuristic procedures published to date