4.7 Article

Mathematical modeling and heuristic approaches to flexible job shop scheduling problems

期刊

JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT MANUFACTURING
卷 18, 期 3, 页码 331-342

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10845-007-0026-8

关键词

flexible job shop; scheduling; tabu search; simulated annealing; hierarchical approach

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Scheduling for the flexible job shop is very important in both fields of production management and combinatorial optimization. However, it is quite difficult to achieve an optimal solution to this problem in medium and actual size problem with traditional optimization approaches owing to the high computational complexity. For solving the realistic case with more than two jobs, two types of approaches have been used: hierarchical approaches and integrated approaches. In hierarchical approaches assignment of operations to machines and the sequencing of operations on the resources or machines are treated separately, i.e., assignment and sequencing are considered independently, where in integrated approaches, assignment and sequencing are not differentiated. In this paper, a mathematical model and heuristic approaches for flexible job shop scheduling problems (FJSP) are considered. Mathematical model is used to achieve optimal solution for small size problems. Since FJSP is NP-hard problem, two heuristics approaches involve of integrated and hierarchical approaches are developed to solve the real size problems. Six different hybrid searching structures depending on used searching approach and heuristics are presented in this paper. Numerical experiments are used to evaluate the performance of the developed algorithms. It is concluded that, the hierarchical algorithms have better performance than integrated algorithms and the algorithm which use tabu search and simulated annealing heuristics for assignment and sequencing problems consecutively is more suitable than the other algorithms. Also the numerical experiments validate the quality of the proposed 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