4.6 Article

Lot-Sizing and Scheduling for the Plastic Injection Molding Industry-A Hybrid Optimization Approach

期刊

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app11031202

关键词

heuristic; metaheuristics; scheduling; injection molding

资金

  1. FEDER Hauts de France
  2. CEA Tech

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, a scheduling algorithm that combines a metaheuristic and a list algorithm is proposed and tested. Experimental results show that this algorithm outperforms the scheduling policy conducted in a case-study company. The method is not only able to solve large real-world problems efficiently, but also has a flexible structure that can be easily adapted to various planning and scheduling problems.
The management of industrial systems is done through different levels, ranging from strategic (designing the system), to tactical (planning the activities and assigning the resources) and operational (scheduling the activities). In this paper, we focus on the latter level by considering a real-world scheduling problem from a plastic injection company, where the production process combines parallel machines and a set of resources. We present a scheduling algorithm that combines a metaheuristic and a list algorithm. Two metaheuristics are tested and compared when used in the proposed scheduling approach: the stochastic descent and the simulated annealing. The method's performances are analyzed through an experimental study and the obtained results show that its outcomes outperform those of the scheduling policy conducted in a case-study company. Moreover, besides being able to solve large real-world problems in a reasonable amount of time, the proposed approach has a structure that makes it flexible and easily adaptable to several different planning and scheduling problems. Indeed, since it is composed by a reusable generic part, the metaheuristic, it is only required to develop a list algorithm adapted to the objective function and constraints of the new problem to be solved.

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

4.6
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