Journal of Scheduling

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 183–197 | Cite as

Scheduling jobs and maintenance activities subject to job-dependent machine deteriorations

Article
  • 312 Downloads

Abstract

This paper considers machine scheduling that integrates machine deterioration caused by jobs and, consequently, maintenance activities. The maintenance state of the machine is represented by a maintenance level which drops by a certain, possibly job-dependent amount while jobs are processed. A maintenance level of less than zero is associated with the machine’s breakdown and is therefore forbidden. Hence, maintenance activities that raise the maintenance level may become necessary and have to be scheduled additionally. We consider the objective to minimize the makespan throughout the paper. For the single machine case, we provide a linear-time approximation algorithm with worst-case a bound of 5/4, and comment on how an FPTAS from previous literature can be employed to apply to our problem. Due to problem similarity, these results also apply to the minimum subset sum problem, and the 5/4 linear-time approximation algorithm is an improvement over the 5/4 quadratic-time approximation algorithm of Güntzer and Jungnickel. For the general problem with multiple machines, we provide approximability results, two fast heuristics, an approximation algorithm with an instance-dependent approximation factor and a computational study evaluating the heuristics.

Keywords

Parallel machines Maintenance Makespan Approximation algorithms Heuristics Minimum subset sum 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers and the associate editor for their constructive comments and suggestions, according to which this paper was significantly improved.

References

  1. Bock, S., Briskorn, D., & Horbach, A. (2012). Scheduling flexible maintenance activities subject to job-dependent machine deterioration. Journal of Scheduling, 15(5), 565–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brucker, P. (2004). Scheduling Algorithms. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen, B. (1991). Tighter bound for MULTIFIT scheduling on uniform processors. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 31, 227–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, J.-S. (2008). Scheduling of nonresumable jobs and flexible maintenance activities on a single machine to minimize makespan. European Journal of Operational Research, 190, 90–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coffman, E. G., Garey, M. R., & Johnson, D. S. (1978). An application of bin-packing to multiprocessor scheduling. SIAM Journal on Computing, 7, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Friesen, D., & Langston, M. (1983). Bounds for multifit scheduling on uniform processors. SIAM Journal on Computing, 12, 60–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Garey, M. R., & Johnson, D. S. (1979). Computers and Intractability - A guide to the theory of NP-completeness. New York: W.H Freemand and Company.Google Scholar
  8. Gens, G., & Levner, E. (1981). Fast approximation algorithm for job sequencing with deadlines. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 3, 313–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Graham, R. L., Lawler, E. L., Lenstra, J. K., & Kan, A. G. H. R. (1979). Optimisation and approximation in deterministic sequencing and scheduling: A survey. Annals of Discrete Mathematics, 5, 236–287.Google Scholar
  10. Grigoriu, L., & Friesen, D. K. (2010). Scheduling on same-speed processors with at most one downtime on each machine. Discrete Optimization, 7, 212–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Güntzer, M., & Jungnickel, D. (2000). Approximate minimization algorithms for the 0/1 knapsack and subset-sum problem. Operations Research Letters, 26, 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hochbaum, D. S., & Shmoys, D. B. (1987). Using dual approximation algorithms for scheduling problems theoretical and practical results. Journal of the ACM, 34(1), 144–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Janiak, A., & Kovalyov, M. (1996). Single machine scheduling subject to deadlines and resource dependent processing times. European Journal of Operational Research, 94, 284–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kellerer, H., Mansini, R., & Speranza, M. (2000). Two linear approximation algorithms for the subset-sum problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 120, 289–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kellerer, H., Pferschy, U., & Pisinger, D. (2004). Knapsack Problems. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kovalyov, M. (1996). A rounding technique to construct approximation algorithms for knapsack and partition type problems. Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, 6, 101–113.Google Scholar
  17. Lee, C.-Y. (2004). Machine scheduling with availability constraints. In: J. Y.-T. Leung (Eds.), Handbook of scheduling: Algorithms, models and performance analysis (pp. 22-1–22-13). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
  18. Lodree, E. J, Jr., & Geiger, C. D. (2010). A note on the optimal sequence position for a rate-modifying activity under simple linear deterioration. European Journal of Operational Research, 201, 644–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mor, B., & Mosheiov, G. (2012). Scheduling a maintenance activity and due-window assignment based on common flow allowance. International Journal of Production Economics, 135, 222–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mosheiov, G., & Sarig, A. (2009). Scheduling a maintenance activity and due-window assignment on a single machine. Computers & Operations Research, 36, 2541–2545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pinedo, M. (2012). Scheduling: Theory, Algorithms, and Systems. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rustogi, K., & Strusevich, V. A. (2012a). Single machine scheduling with general positional deterioration and rate-modifying maintenance. Omega, 40, 791–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rustogi, K., & Strusevich, V. A. (2012b). Simple matching vs linear assignment in scheduling models with positional effects: A critical review. European Journal of Operational Research, 222, 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rustogi, K., & Strusevich, V. A. (2014). Combining time and position dependent effects on a single machine subject to rate-modifying activities. Omega, 42, 166–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shabtay, D., & Steiner, G. (2007). A survey of scheduling with controllable processing times. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 155, 1643–1666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sun, K., & Li, H. (2010). Scheduling problems with multiple maintenance activities and non-preemptive jobs on two identical parallel machines. International Journal of Production Economics, 124, 151–158.Google Scholar
  27. Yang, D.-L., & Yang, S.-J. (2013). Unrelated parallel-machine scheduling problems with multiple rate-modifying activities. Information Sciences, 235, 280–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yang, D.-L., Cheng, T. C. E., & Yang, S.-J. (2014). Parallel-machine scheduling with controllable processing times and rate-modifying activities to minimise total cost involving total completion time and job compressions. International Journal of Production Research, 52, 1133–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yang, S.-J. (2010). Single-machine scheduling problems with both start-time dependent learning and position dependent aging effects under deteriorating maintenance consideration. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 217, 3321–3329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yang, S.-J., & Yang, D.-L. (2010a). Minimizing the makespan on single-machine scheduling with aging effect and variable maintenance activities. Omega, 38, 528–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yang, S.-J., & Yang, D.-L. (2010b). Minimizing the total completion time in single-machine scheduling with aging/deteriorating effects and deteriorating maintenance activities. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 60, 2161–2169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yue, M. (1990). On the exact upper bound of the multifit processor scheduling algorithm. Annals of Operations Research, 24, 233–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhao, C.-L., & Tang, H.-Y. (2010). Single machine scheduling with general job-dependent aging effect and maintenance activities to minimize makespan. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 34, 837–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Wirtschaftsinformatik und WirtschaftsrechtUniversität SiegenSiegenGermany
  2. 2.Lehrstuhl für Produktion und LogistikBergische Universität WuppertalWuppertalGermany

Personalised recommendations