1 / 24

Manuel Mateo manel.mateo@upc Management Department , Universitat Politècnica Catalunya.

An algorithm for a Parallel Machine Problem with Eligibility and Release and Delivery times, considering setup times. Manuel Mateo manel.mateo@upc.edu Management Department , Universitat Politècnica Catalunya. Barcelona ( Spain ). HAROSA, Barcelona (10/07/13). Summary.

eavan
Télécharger la présentation

Manuel Mateo manel.mateo@upc Management Department , Universitat Politècnica Catalunya.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. An algorithm for a Parallel Machine Problem with Eligibility and Release and Delivery times, considering setup times Manuel Mateo manel.mateo@upc.edu Management Department, UniversitatPolitècnica Catalunya. Barcelona (Spain) HAROSA, Barcelona (10/07/13)

  2. Summary • Introduction: the times, the eligibility and the setup times • Notation and definition of the problem Pm/rj,qj,sj,Mj/cmax • Proposed algorithms • Initial Solution • Heuristic algorithm • Genetic Algorithm (crossover, mutation, local search) • Computational experiments and results • Conclusions Remark: this work is based on the Master Thesis in Engineering done by David Miquel.

  3. Introduction: the times • The manufacturing of products is usually divided in operations or phases of transformation. • Usually one of them becomes the bottleneck of the process. • In the presented problem, we suppose this bottleneckis an intermediate phase. • Therefore, some operations are done before (the total time to work them out leads to a release time) and some others are done after (their total time is called delivery or queue time). bottleneck

  4. Introduction: eligibility • Manufacturing plants usually have several machines or assembly lines (i.e., parallel machine). • There are several products to be manufactured. • A usual situation is a product that is assigned to a machine (line) and will be only manufactured in that machine. Line 1 INITIAL SITUATION Line 2 Line 3 A B C D Line 4

  5. Introduction: eligibility (II) High-level machines B C D • But more product-machine assignments are possible: Line 1 B C D Medium-level machines Line 2 CONSIDERED SITUATION A B C D Line 3 2 l Low-level machines 1 l C D Line 4 2 l Machines Jobs 2 l High-level High-level A Medium-level Medium-level B C Low-level D Low-level

  6. Introduction: thesetup times • There are no setup times if the jobs classified in one level are done in the machines of the same level: • If the jobs in one level are assigned in the machines of different level, setup times appear (between the schedule of jobs belonging to different levels): Machines Jobs High-level High-level Medium-level Medium-level Low-level Low-level Machines Jobs High-level High-level Medium-level Medium-level Low-level Low-level

  7. Notationof the problem The machines are distributed among p groups or levels (k=1,…,p). Particularly, we propose an algorithm for p=3 (high-level, medium-level and low-level). A set of n jobs (j=1,…,n) to be scheduled on m parallel machines (i=1,…,m). Given a job j, it is known: the processing time pjfor the operation, the release time rj(also called head times), the delivery or queue time qj(also tail times), the associated level lj. Any machine i and job jis classified into one of the levels.

  8. Notation of theproblem (II) • The n jobs to be manufactured are also divided in three groups: Ji is the subset of jobs of level i, with |Ji|=ni. n=n1+n2+n3 • Eligibility restrictions: A machine in the level k can manufacture jobs of its own level k and also of levels k+1,…,p. The processing time of a job is the same for any machine. Machines Jobs High, k=1 High-level (k=1) Medium-level (k=2) Medium, k=2 Low-level (k=3) Low, k=3

  9. The problem Pm | rj,qj,sj,Mj| cmax • The number of machines and jobs is initially known. • A schedule is feasible if the next conditions are accomplished: • Each machine processes at most one job at a time. • A job is only processed in a single machine. • Pre-emption is not allowed. • Starting time is not lower than the release time: • A job of level k is processed in a machine of level k or higher. • Setup times are required when a job classified in a level is going to be manufactured after another of a different level. • Machines are initially prepared for the jobs of their own level. • It is not necessary another setup at the end of the last job scheduled if it is from a different level.

  10. The problem Pm | rj,qj,sj,Mj| cmax (II) • The processing in all machines for each job is the same, i.e., we consider identical parallel machines. • Given tjthe starting time for any job j, the completion time of the job is obtained: • The makespan can be determined: cmax= max{cj} • For any feasible schedule, the objective is: Min {cmax}

  11. Proposed algorithms INITIAL SOLUTION METAHEURISTIC Preprocessing HEURISTIC Insertion improvement Flexible improvement Genetic Algorithm (GA)

  12. Initial solution (no setup times) Machines Jobs • At each level (3 times), it is necessary to solve a problem of a single machine (mk=1) or parallel machines (mk>1). High-level High-level Medium-level Medium-level Low-level Low-level • Gharbi & Houari • (2002)

  13. j=j+1 Description of theHeuristic Sequences of jobs: • SPT (shortest processing time) • SRT (shortest release time) • SQT (shortest queue time) • LPT (longest processing time) • LRT (longest release time) • LQT (longest queue time) • 6 random sequences NO YES

  14. Preprocess of the GA 21 21

  15. Fitness General view of theGeneticAlgorithm Initial population: • 1 (Initial solution + insertion + flexible improvements). • 6 (SPT, SRT,SQT, LPT, LRT, LQT) • 73 random sequences (generate 100 sequences + apply the heuristic) Selection: • 10% of individuals with best fitness • 90% roulette rule NO YES

  16. Genetic Algorithm: crossover Crossover • Share many of the characteristics in the parents’ solutions • Pc = 50% Reference: Vallada & Ruiz (2011)

  17. Genetic Algorithm: mutation & local search Mutation • Shift • Pm = 50% (Vallada & Ruiz, 2011) Local search (IMI, Inter-MachineInsertionneighborhood) • Two machines • Pls = 100% • (Vallada & Ruiz, 2011) • Acceptance criterion: • Makespans of both machines are reduced. • Makespan of one machine is reduced, although the other is increased.

  18. Computational experience • To check the efficiency of the algorithm, a set of instances similar to those used by Gharbi & Haouari (2002) are created: • # jobs (n = {20,50,100,200}) • 1000 instances • Jobs of high level, 10-30% of the total number; jobs of medium level, 10-50% of the total; jobs of low level, the rest. • # machines (m = {4,5,6,8,10}) • Processing time: discrete uniform distribution . • Release and delivery times: discrete distribution with K={3,5} • Setup times: 3 sets with uniform distributions of [1, 3], [1, 9] and [1, 19].

  19. Computational experience (II) • Initial study on 220 instances to determine the computing time: balance between the results and the computational cost. CPU time = n · (m/2) · (time) ms • Improvement  5%  time = 240 • Complete study on 4000 instances with different configurations of parallel machines to determine the improvement on the cmax of the initial solution.

  20. Someresults • Number of jobs: • Proportion of machines:

  21. Someresults (II) • Window for the setup times: • Influence of the parameter K ={3,5}.

  22. Conclusions from the computational experience • We have not shown the results, but the introduction of the heuristic on the initial population improves the quality of solutions. Once it is introduced: • Some proportions of machines can lead to a improvements of nearly 50%; the best ones are: mh > mm ; mh > ml ml < mh ; ml < mm On the other hand, improvements about 20% are obtained by: mb > mh ; ml > mm mh < mm ; mh < ml • The lower the parameter K is, the greater the improvement is (40% for K=3 and 25% for K=5). • Any number of jobs and any window for setup times give similar results (improvements around 30%).

  23. Conclusions • We studied the problem of parallel machines with eligibility and release and queue times. • The problem has the objective to minimize the makespan. • The setup times are introduced when a job of a different level from the one of the previous one is going to be manufactured. • We proposed a heuristic procedure, based on some initial sequences of jobs. A Genetic Algorithm is developed , which takes the advantages of the heuristic in the preprocess. • Improvement respect to initial solution varies from 20% to 50%. • About the current and future research: • We hope to tune the parameters of the Genetic Algorithms. • Another metaheuristic (for instance ILS) could be developed.

  24. An algorithm for a Parallel Machine Problem with Eligibility and Release and Delivery times, considering setup times Thank you for your attention!

More Related