A survey of scheduling problems with setup times or costs

Author name used in this publication: C. T. NgAuthor name used in this publication: T. C. E. Cheng2007-2008 > Academic research: refereed > Publication in refereed journalAccepted ManuscriptPublishe

Heuristic Algorithm to Minimize Total Weighted Tardiness on the Unrelated Parallel Machine with Sequence Dependent Setup and Future Ready Time

This study presents a heuristic algorithm to minimize total weighted tardiness on unrelated parallel machines with sequence-dependent setup time and future ready time. We propose a new rule based on Apparent Tardiness Cost (ATC). The performance of the rule is evaluated on unrelated parallel machines. In order to solve a problem, we use a look-ahead method and a job-swap method. When a machine becomes idle, the heuristic compares the jobs on the machine and selects the one with the smallest total tardiness value to carry out a process. The propose heuristic is divided into three stages: The first stage employs the newly introduced dispatching rule, ATC with continuous setup and ready time for unrelated parallel machines (ATCSR_UP), along with a look-ahead heuristic to select the initial job for each machine. The second stage, consisting of several iterations, schedules the rest of the job on the machine. Each iteration starts by finding the job with the smallest tardiness. The ATCSR_Rm rule proposed by Lin and Hsieh (2013) concerns the unrelated-parallel-machine scheduling which this study examines, so we compare our ATC-based rule with their proposed rule. Although they study a separable setup time in their research, no other paper than Lin and Hsieh (2003) focus on unrelated parallel machine with future ready times. In their WSPT term, they consider the processing time for each job; our own rule considers processing time, setup time, job ready time, and machine time. We consider the setup time, job ready time, and machine time because — according to the continuous sequence-dependent setup rule — setup time should be included in processing time (Yue and Jang 2013). In addition, job ready time and machine time should also be included in the processing time. Adding setup time 〖(s〗_(i,j)), job ready time (r_j), and machine time (t_m) to the formula thus makes the formula more accurate. Lin and Hsieh (2013) use max(r_j,t_i+s_(i,j) ) for the slack term, and they compare the ready time with the sum of the machine available time 〖(t〗_i) and the setup time 〖(s〗_(i,j)). However, in our formula, we consider ready time, machine time, and current time. Current time (t) is used when a job might come at a future time when the machine in question is idle or has finished the job. The last term of the propose heuristic is the ready term, which uses both ready time (r_j) and machine time (t_m), because it needs to specify whether ready time (r_j) or machine time (t_m) goes first. If a job is ready to be processed but the machine is not ready, the job has to wait. We use ready time (r_j) and machine time (t_m) because this makes the formula more suitable for practical, real-world us

A particle swarm optimisation for the no-wait flow shop problem with due date constraints.

Peer ReviewedThis paper considers the no-wait flow shop scheduling problem with due date constraints. In the no-wait flow shop problem, waiting time is not allowed between successive operations of jobs. Moreover, a due date is associated with the completion of each job. The considered objective function is makespan. This problem is proved to be strongly NP-Hard. In this paper, a particle swarm optimisation (PSO) is developed to deal with the problem. Moreover, the effect of some dispatching rules for generating initial solutions are studied. A Taguchi-based design of experience approach has been followed to determine the effect of the different values of the parameters on the performance of the algorithm. To evaluate the performance of the proposed PSO, a large number of benchmark problems are selected from the literature and solved with different due date and penalty settings. Computational results confirm that the proposed PSO is efficient and competitive; the developed framework is able to improve many of the best-known solutions of the test problems available in the literature

Native metaheuristics for non-permutation flowshop scheduling

The most general flowshop scheduling problem is also addressed in the literature as non-permutation flowshop (NPFS). Current processors are able to cope with the combinatorial complexity of (n!)exp m. NPFS scheduling by metaheuristics. After briefly discussing the requirements for a manufacturing layout to be designed and modeled as non-permutation flowshop, a disjunctive graph (digraph) approach is used to build native solutions. The implementation of an Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) algorithm has been described in detail; it has been shown how the biologically inspired mechanisms produce eligible schedules, as opposed to most metaheuristics approaches, which improve permutation solutions. ACO algorithms are an example of native non-permutation (NNP) solutions of the flowshop scheduling problem, opening a new perspective on building purely native approaches. The proposed NNP-ACO has been assessed over existing native approaches improving most makespan upper bounds of the benchmark problems from Demirkol et al. (1998)