Bicriteria scheduling of a two-machine flowshop with sequence-dependent setup times

  • S. Afshin Mansouri
  • S. Hamed Hendizadeh
  • Nasser Salmasi
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

A two-machine flowshop scheduling problem is addressed to minimize setups and makespan where each job is characterized by a pair of attributes that entail setups on each machine. The setup times are sequence-dependent on both machines. It is shown that these objectives conflict, so the Pareto optimization approach is considered. The scheduling problems considering either of these objectives are \( \mathcal{N}{\wp } - {\text{hard}} \), so exact optimization techniques are impractical for large-sized problems. We propose two multi-objective metaheurisctics based on genetic algorithms (MOGA) and simulated annealing (MOSA) to find approximations of Pareto-optimal sets. The performances of these approaches are compared with lower bounds for small problems. In larger problems, performance of the proposed algorithms are compared with each other. Experimentations revealed that both algorithms perform very similar on small problems. Moreover, it was observed that MOGA outperforms MOSA in terms of the quality of solutions on larger problems.

Keywords

Multicriteria scheduling Sequence-dependent setups Flowshop Pareto-optimal frontier Genetic algorithms Simulated annealing 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Agnetis A, Detti P, Meloni C, Pacciarelli D (2001) Set-up coordination between two stages of a supply chain. Ann Oper Res 107(1–4):15–32CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chou FD, Lee CE (1999) Two-machine flowshop scheduling with bicriteria problem. Comput Ind Eng 36(3):549–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coello CA, Van Veldhuizen DA, Lamont GB (2002) Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems. Kluwer, DordrechtMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Collette Y, Siarry P (2004) Multiobjective optimization: principles and case studies. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Czyzak P, Jaszkiewicz A (1998) Pareto simulated annealing-a metaheuristic technique for multiple-objective combinatorial optimization. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 7:34–47MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deb K (2001) Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Wiley, ChichesterMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eglese RW (1990) Simulated annealing: a tool for operational research. Eur J Oper Res EJOR 46:271–281MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gajpal Y, Rajendran C, Ziegler H (2006) An ant colony algorithm for scheduling in flowshops with sequence-dependent setup times of jobs. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 30(5–6):416–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gupta JND, Darrow WP (1986) The two-machine sequence-dependent flowshop scheduling problem. Eur J Oper Res 24(3):439–446MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hyun CJ, Kim Y, Kim YK (1998) A genetic algorithm for multiple objective sequencing problems in mixed model assembly lines. Comput Oper Res 25(7/8):675–690MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD Jr, Vecchi MP (1983) Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220(4598):671–680CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee YH, Jung JW (2005) New heuristics for no-wait flowshop scheduling with precedence constraints and sequence-dependent setup time. In: Gervasi O, Gavrilova ML, Kumar V, Laganà A, Lee HP, Mun Y, Taniar D, Tan CJK (eds) ICCSA (4), volume 3483 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 467–476Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin S-W, Ying K-C (2007) Solving single-machine total weighted tardiness problems with sequence-dependent setup times by meta-heuristics. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 34(11–12):1183–1190Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Logendran R, Salmasi N, Sriskandarajah C (2006) Two-machine group scheduling problems in discrete parts manufacturing with sequence-dependent setups. Comput Oper Res 33:158–180MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Loukil T, Teghem J, Fortemps P (2007) A multi-objective production scheduling case study solved by simulated annealing. Eur J Oper Res 179(3):709–722MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Low C, Wu T-H, Hsu C-M (2005) Mathematical modelling of multi-objective job shop scheduling with dependent setups and re-entrant operations. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 27(1–2):181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mansouri SA (2005) Coordination of setups between two stages of a supply chain using multi-objective genetic algorithms. Int J Prod Res 43(15):3163–3180CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Michalewicz Z (1996) Genetic algorithms + data structures = evolution programs. Artificial intelligence, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nam D, Park CH (2000) Multiobjective simulated annealing: a comparative study to evolutionary algorithms. Int J Fuzzy Syst 2(2):87–97Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pasupathy T, Rajendran C, Suresh RK (2006) A multi-objective genetic algorithm for scheduling in flow shops to minimize the makespan and total flow time of jobs. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 27(7–8):804–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ponnambalam SG, Jagannathan H, Kataria M, Gadicherla A (2004) A TSP-GA multi-objective algorithm for flow-shop scheduling. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 23(11–12):909–915Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Prasad SD, Chetty OK, Rajendran C (2006) A genetic algorithmic approach to multi-objective scheduling in a kanban-controlled flowshop with intermediate buffer and transport constraints. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 29(5):564–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pugazhendhi S, Thiagarajan S, Rajendran C, Anantharaman N (2004) Generating non-permutation schedules in flowline-based manufacturing systems with sequence-dependent setup times of jobs: a heuristic approach. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 23(1–2):64–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Salmasi N (2005) Multi-stage group scheduling problems with sequence-dependent setups. PhD Thesis, Oregon State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Srinivas N, Deb K (1994) Multiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms. Evol Comput 2(3):221–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Suman B, Kumar P (2006) Multiobjective simulated annealing: a comparative study to evolutionary algorithms. J Oper Res Soc 57:1143–1160MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Suresh RK, Mohanasundaram KM (2006) Pareto archived simulated annealing for job shop scheduling with multiple objectives. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 29(1–2):184–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Szidarovsky F, Gershon ME, Dukstein L (1986) Techniques for multiobjective decision making in systems management. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    T’kindt V, Billaut J-C (2006) Multicriteria scheduling. Theory, models and algorithms. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    T’kindt V, Monmarché N, Tercinet F, Laügt D (2002) An ant colony optimization algorithm to solve a 2-machine bicriteria flowshop scheduling problem. Eur J Oper Res 142(2):250–257CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang X, Cheng TCE (2007) Heuristics for two-machine flowshop scheduling with setup times and an availability constraint. Comput Oper Res 34(1):152–162MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhu X, Wilhelm WE (2006) Scheduling and lot sizing with sequence-dependent setups: a literature review. IIE Trans 38:987–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Afshin Mansouri
    • 1
  • S. Hamed Hendizadeh
    • 2
  • Nasser Salmasi
    • 3
  1. 1.Brunel Business SchoolBrunel UniversityMiddlesexUK
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  3. 3.Department of Industrial EngineeringSharif University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations