4.7 Article

A new unrelated parallel machine scheduling problem with tool changes to minimise the total energy consumption

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
卷 58, 期 22, 页码 6826-6845

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2019.1685708

关键词

unrelated parallel machine; tool changes; tool wear; evolutionary algorithm; first fit decreasing algorithm

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFB1701400]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71473077]
  3. National Key Technology R&D Program of China [2015BAF01B00]
  4. Project of State Key Laboratory of Advanced Design and Manufacturing for Vehicle Body, Hunan University [71775004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The previous studies on scheduling problem with tool changes take processing time as the only reason for the tool wear, which is not accurate in the real manufacturing system. This paper takes processing speed and processing time into consideration simultaneously and proposes a new unrelated parallel machine scheduling problem (UPMSP) with tool changes caused by the tool wear, in which the energy consumption rate of the parallel machines is influenced by two factors: tool changes and corresponding processing speed. A new effective heuristic evolutionary algorithm (NHEA) is presented to solve the proposed UPMSP with objectives of optimising total energy consumption and makespan. For the NHEA, some effective operators such as target-searching operators are designed to accelerate the search efficiency and further exploit the solution space. A first fit decreasing algorithm is presented and incorporated into the NHEA to reduce the number of tool changes. The Taguchi method of Design of Experiments is used to obtain the best combination of key parameters of the NHEA. Extensive computational experiments are carried out to compare the NHEA with some well-known algorithms. The results validate that the proposed NHEA is able to obtain better Pareto solutions for UPMSP with tool changes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据