4.7 Article

Solve train stowage planning problem of steel coil using a pointer-based discrete differential evolution

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
卷 56, 期 22, 页码 6937-6955

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2017.1413260

关键词

differential evolution; discrete optimisation; iron and steel industry; pointer-based strategy; train stowage plan

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China
  2. Fund for the National Natural Science Foundation of China
  3. Fund for Innovative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
  4. Major International Joint Research Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
  5. 111 Project [2016YFB0901900, 61374203, 71621061, 71520107004, B16009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Train stowage planning problem of steel coil (TSPP) is to determine loading locations of the coils on train railcars, which is rarely studied, and an important optimisation problem in real iron and steel industry. In this paper, first, according to the actual situations of a steel products transportation department, the problem is formulated as an integer programming (IP) mathematical model in which multiple destination stations, varied stowing modes and different railcar types are considered. Then, on the basis of a general discrete optimisation algorithm framework, i.e. pointer-based discrete differential evolution (PDDE), a novel variant (T-PDDE) is proposed for effectively solving the TSPP. In particular, to deal with the issue of transformation between stowage plan and algorithm individual, a problem-based coding method is designed. To further enhance the algorithm performance, a double levels evolution strategy and an opposite-based local search are developed based on the features of problem. Finally, with the practical and simulative data, extensive comparison experiments are carried out to evaluate the proposed algorithm. The numerical results demonstrate the superiority of T-PDDE on solving TSPP.

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