Advertisement

MIP-Based Heuristics for Capacitated Lot-Sizing with Sequence-Dependent Setups and Substitutions

Chapter
  • 2.1k Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems book series (LNE, volume 636)

Abstract

In this section, we consider a single-level capacitated lot-sizing problem with substitutions and sequence-dependent setups. The model was designed to map the industrial optimization problem in windshield interlayer production planning described in Sect. 3.1. Rather than building a specific model for this application, we aimed at devising a model and appropriate solution approach for a more general model that can capture the characteristics of this application as well as those of similar production planning problems. Why should it make sense to consider substitutions and sequence-dependent changeovers in one model, rather than treating each of the two aspects in separate subproblems that decompose the overall problem? The idea is that substitutions affect the optimal production sequencing and vice versa, as it might be beneficial to save setup times by refraining from producing certain products and substituting them by others, at least in some settings. This reduces the time spent with “worthless” changeovers, and thereby increases the total capacity available for production.

Keywords

Setup Time Index Combination Variable Neighborhood Search Priority Rule Asymmetric Travel Salesman Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Gutin, G., & Punnen, A. (2002). The Traveling Salesman Problem and its variations. Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Haase, K. (1996). Capacitated lot-sizing with sequence dependent setup costs. OR Spectrum, 18(1), 51–59.Google Scholar
  3. Haase, K., & Kimms, A. (2000). Lot sizing and scheduling with sequence-dependent setup costs and times and efficient rescheduling opportunities. International Journal of Production Economics, 66(2), 159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Helsgaun, K. (2000). An effective implementation of the Lin–Kernighan traveling salesman heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 126(1), 106–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lawler, E., Lenstra, J. K., Kan, A. H. G. R., & Shmoys, D. B. (1985). The Traveling Salesman Problem: A guided tour of combinatorial optimization. Wiley Series in Discrete Mathematics & Optimization. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Reinelt, G. (1994). Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Vol. 840. The Traveling Salesman: Computational solutions for TSP applications. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Sahling, F., Buschkühl, L., Tempelmeier, H., & Helber, S. (2009). Solving a multi-level capacitated lot sizing problem with multi-period setup carry-over via a Fix-and-Optimize heuristic. Computers & Operations Research, 36(9), 2546–2553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Law, Business and Economics Chair of Operations ResearchTechnische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations