Systematic Catalogue of Properties for the Characterization of Cutting and Packing Problems

  • Harald Dyckhoff
  • Ute Finke
Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.)

Abstract

In order to achieve the goal of comparing C&P problems from the viewpoint of associated solution approaches, it is necessary to describe the numerous problems presented in the literature in a clear, systematic way. Simply giving a description of the actual phenomena would fail because of its multifarious nature. Only few forms could be studied, which would not suffice to make proper generalizations. Therefore it is necessary to develop a systematic instrument to condense the numerous actual problems to a few fundamental ones, which then allow for conclusions for any amount of practical variants.1

Keywords

Clari 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1).
    Cf. Große-Oetringhaus (1974) p. 20 and p. 338.Google Scholar
  2. 2).
    Typology is understood as the entirety of all thought processes and their outcomes, which bring order to actual phenomena in a field with respect to the pursued goals of investigation. The differentiation of attributes, which characterize the field of study, and the arrangement of properties into meaningful phenomena lead to the formation of types and eventually to type-series. The first depict the elements of order and the latter the groups of order. Cf. Große-Oetringhaus (1974) pp. 26 ff.Google Scholar
  3. 1).
    Typology should not be confused with classification, which also organizes elements and their relation to each other, but which, through its completeness and clarity, serves a different goal. The most famous example of classification is the periodical element system. From the knowledge of its totality it was possible for the discoverers Mendelejev and Meyer to determine elements not yet known, thus relating theory and reality. In typology this connection is neither possible nor desired, as exactly the opposite reasoning process is employed, in which a type is based on experience in reality. It is possible, however, to build a typology upon a classification scheme. It is not necessarily possible to form a type, however, even if the totality of a process is known. First the actual existence must be tested; cf. Große-Oetringhaus (1974) p. 40.Google Scholar
  4. 2).
    Cf. Dyckhoff (1987) p. 171.Google Scholar
  5. 2).
    Cf. Dyckhoff (1990) pp. 150 ff.Google Scholar
  6. 3).
    E.g. Lorie/ Savage (1955).Google Scholar
  7. 2).
    One-dimensional problems with continuous measurements in length are often called 1.5-dimensional problems; cf. Dyckhoff et al. (1984) pp. 915.Google Scholar
  8. 1).
    Cf. e.g. Haessler/ Talbot (1990).Google Scholar
  9. 1).
    A comprehensive discussion of relevant objectives for a particular type of cutting problems can be found in Wäscher (1989b) pp. 93 ff.Google Scholar
  10. 1).
    The classification of solution methods into object-orientated, single-pattern and multiple-pattern methods is based on Sweeney’s bibliography (1989) of C&P problems. He classifies sources according to these three categories and their dimensionality. Another contribution is by Dyckhoff (1990), in which the same terms are used, although expanded to other contexts, particularly those relating to single-pattern techniques. Since the attribute’ solution methods’ is more of a supplementary nature in this investigation and the results of this study are not dependent on its classification, Sweeney’s interpretation has been employed in order to make the results comparable.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harald Dyckhoff
    • 1
  • Ute Finke
    • 1
  1. 1.Lehrstuhl für IndustriebetriebslehreRWTH AachenAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations