Journal of Scheduling

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 239–252 | Cite as

Energetic reasoning revisited: application to parallel machine scheduling

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

We consider the problem of minimizing makespan on identical parallel machines subject to release dates and delivery times. We present several new feasibility tests and adjustment techniques that consistently improve the classical energetic reasoning approach. Computational results carried out on a set of hard instances provide strong evidence that the performance of a state-of-the-art exact branch-and-bound algorithm is substantially improved through embedding the proposed enhanced energetic reasoning.

Keywords

Scheduling Release dates Due dates Makespan Feasibility and adjustment procedures Energetic reasoning Branch-and-bound 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baptiste, P., & Demassey, S. (2004). Tight LP bounds for resource constrained project scheduling. OR Spektrum, 26, 251–262. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baptiste, P., Le Pape, C., & Nuijten, W. (1999). Satisfiability tests and time bound adjustments for cumulative scheduling problems. Annals of Operations Research, 92, 305–333. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brucker, P., Jurisch, B., & Kramer, A. (1994). The job-shop problem and immediate selection. Annals of Operations Research, 50, 73–114. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlier, J. (1987). Scheduling jobs with release dates and tails on identical machines to minimize the makespan. European Journal of Operational Research, 29, 298–306. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlier, J., & Pinson, E. (1989). An algorithm for solving the job-shop problem. Management Science, 35, 164–176. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlier, J., & Pinson, E. (1990). A practical use of Jackson’s Preemptive Schedule for solving job-shop problem. Annals of Operations Research, 26, 269–287. Google Scholar
  7. Carlier, J., & Pinson, E. (1994). Adjustment of heads and tails for the job-shop problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 78, 146–161. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlier, J., & Pinson, E. (1998). Jackson’s pseudo preemptive schedule for the Pm/r j, q j/C max  scheduling problem. Annals of Operations Research, 83, 41–58. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dorndorf, U., Pesch, E., & Phan-Huy, T. (2000). A branch-and-bound algorithm for the resource-constrained project scheduling problem. Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, 52, 413–439. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erschler, J., Lopez, P., & Thuriot, C. (1991). Raisonnement Temporel sous Contraintes de Ressources et Problèmes d’Ordonnancement. Revue d’Intelligence Artificielle, 5, 7–32. Google Scholar
  11. Gharbi, A., & Haouari, M. (2002). Minimizing makespan on parallel machines subject to release dates and delivery times. Journal of Scheduling, 5, 329–355. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gharbi, A., & Haouari, M. (2005). Optimal parallel machines scheduling with availability constraints. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 148, 63–87. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gharbi, A., & Haouari, M. (2007). An approximate decomposition algorithm for scheduling on parallel machines with heads and tails. Computers and Operations Research, 34, 868–883. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gusfield, D. (1984). Bounds for naive multiple machine scheduling with release times and deadlines. Journal of Algorithms, 5, 1–6. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haouari, M., & Gharbi, A. (2003). An improved max-flow based lower bound for minimizing maximum lateness on identical parallel machines. Operations Research Letters, 31, 49–52. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haouari, M., & Gharbi, A. (2004). Lower bounds for scheduling on identical parallel machines with heads and tails. Annals of Operations Research, 129, 187–204. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Horn, W. A. (1974). Some simple scheduling algorithms. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 21, 177–185. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lahrichi, A. (1982). Ordonnancements: La Notion de “Parties Obligatoires” et son Application aux Problèmes Cumulatifs. RAIRO-RO, 16, 241–262. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Néron, E., Baptiste, Ph., & Gupta, J. N. D. (2001). Solving hybrid flow shop problem using the energetic reasoning and global operations. Omega, 29, 501–511. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Orlin, J. B. (1988). A faster strongly polynomial minimum cost flow algorithm. In Proceedings 20th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1988 (pp. 377–387). Google Scholar
  21. Tercinet, F., Lenté, C., & Néron, E. (2004). Mixed satisfiability tests for multiprocessor scheduling with release dates and deadlines. Operations Research Letters, 32, 326–330. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tercinet, F., Néron, E., & Lenté, C. (2006). Energetic reasoning and bin-packing problem for bounding a parallel machine scheduling problem. 4OR, 4, 297–318. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vandevelde, A., Hoogeveen, H., Hurkens, C., & Lenstra, J. K. (2005). Lower bounds for the head-body-tail problem on parallel machines: a computational study of the multiprocessor flow shop. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 17, 305–320. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Combinatorial Optimization Research Group—ROIEcole Polytechnique de TunisieLa MarsaTunisia
  2. 2.Department of Industrial EngineeringCollege of Engineering, King Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia
  3. 3.Faculty of Economics and Administrative SciencesÖzyegin UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations