Bi-Objective Sequencing of Cutting Patterns

An applicationfor the paper industry
  • Ana Respicio
  • M. Eugénia Captivo
Part of the Operations Research/Computer Science Interfaces Series book series (ORCS, volume 32)

Abstract

Sequencing cutting pattems problems arise in several industries. Given a set of cutting patterns and a given objective, a sequencing problem consists of finding a permutation of patterns that optimises the objective. Single objective problems are NP-hard. Approaches available in the literature have only dealt with single objective problems, and consider heuristics and metaheuristics. Single objective optimisation approaches are myopic regarding other objectives and may loose Pareto optimal solutions. We propose a bi-objective sequencing problem considering the minimisation of the maximum number of open stacks and the minimisation of the average order spread. To approximate the Pareto optimal set we used multi-objective evolutionary algorithms. The bi-objective optimisation approach can provide knowledge about the solution space that would not have been achieved with a pure single objective approach.

Key words

Cutting-stock sequencing problems multi-objective evolutionary algorithms 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dyson RG, Gregory AS. 1974. The cutting stock problem in the flat glass industry. Operational Research Quarterly 25: 41–54.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Faggioli E, Bentivoglio CA. 1998. Heuristic and exact methods for the cutting sequencing problem. European Journal of Operational Research 110: 564–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fink A, Voss S. 1999. Applications of modern heuristic search methods to pattem sequencing problems. Computers and Operations Research 26: 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Foerster H, Wäischer G. 1998. Simulated annealing for order spread minimization problem in sequencing cutting pattems. European Journal of Operational Research 110: 272–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haessler RW, Talbot FB. 1983. A 0–1 model for solving the corrugator trim problem. Management Science 29: 200–209.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Linhares A, Yanasse HH. 2002. Connections between cutting-pattern sequencing, VLSI design, and flexible machines. Computers & Operations Research 29: 1759–1772.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Madsen O. 1988. An application of Travelling-Salesman routines to solve pattern-allocation problems in the glass industry. Journal of Operational Research Society 39: 249–256.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Michalewicz Z. 1994. Genetic algorithms + data structures = evolution programs (Second extended edition). Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Respicio A, Captivo ME, Rodrigues A. 2002. A DSS for production planning and scheduling in the paper industry. In Decision making and decision support in the internet age — Proceedings of the DSIAge2002: 298–308.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Szczepánski M, Wierzbicki AP. 2002. Multiple criteria evolutionary algorithms in relation to reference point approaches and nadir estimation. Opening plenary of the MCDM Winter Conference 2002 (16th MCDM world conference), Vienna, Austria; 30 pages.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yanasse H. 1997. On a pattem sequencing problem to minimize the maximum number of open stacks. European Journal of Operational Research 100: 454–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yuen BJ. 1991. Heuristics for sequencing cutting pattems. European Journal of Operational Research 55: 183–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yuen BJ. 1995. Improved heuristics for sequencing cutting pattems. European Journal of Operational Research 87: 57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yuen BJ, Richardson K. 1995. Establishing the optimality of sequencing heuristics for cutting stock problems. European Journal of Operational Research 84: 590–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zitzler E, Deb K, Thiele L. 2000. Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: empirical results. Evolutionary computation 8: 173–195.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zitzler E, Laumanns M, Thiele L. 2002. SPEA2: Improving the Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm for Multiobjective Optimization. In Evolutionary Methods for Design, Optimisation and Control, Giannakoglou K, Tsahalis D, Periaux J, Papailiou K, Fogarty T, (eds.), CIMNE, Barcelona, Spain: 95–100.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ana Respicio
    • 1
  • M. Eugénia Captivo
    • 1
  1. 1.Centro de Investigação OperacionalUniversidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de CiênciasLisboaPortugal

Personalised recommendations