4.7 Article

Network-based integer programming models for flexible process planning

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
卷 61, 期 9, 页码 3087-3101

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2022.2077671

关键词

Flexible manufacturing systems; computer-aided manufacturing; flexible process planning; combinatorial optimisation; integer programming

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article focuses on the problem of flexible process planning and presents linear integer programming models to solve it. The proposed models have lower complexity and better performance compared to the latest mathematical programming models for process planning.
Flexible process planning (FPP) involves selecting and sequencing the requisite operations according to technological requirements, and meanwhile allocating a right machine, a right tool and a right access direction to each selected operation by a given criterion. In this article, the FPP problem is exactly and concisely formulated as linear integer programming models based on the topology of the AND/OR-network under two criteria: production cost minimisation and completion time minimisation. Distinctively, more flexible manufacturing elements and process plan evaluation criteria are considered; more complicated tool and access direction changeover identifications are linearly expressed without the big-M parameter. Compared with the latest mathematical programming models for process planning, the proposed models have lower complexity and better performance. The results from numerous comparative experiments indicate that (i) the number of decision variables of the proposed models reduces approximately by 68% and the number of constraints of the proposed models dramatically reduces by 99%; (ii) within the same running time, the proposed models can exactly solve more benchmark cases than the latest models; and (iii) the solutions obtained by the proposed models are also better than the best ones founded by some state-of-the-art meta-heuristic algorithms.

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