Article

Preemptive multiprocessor order scheduling to minimize total weighted flowtime

European Journal of Operational Research (Impact Factor: 1.84). 10/2008; 190(1):40-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2007.05.052
Source: RePEc

ABSTRACT Consider m identical machines in parallel, each of which can produce k different product types. There is no setup cost when the machines switch from producing one product type to another. There are n orders each of which requests various quantities of the different product types. All orders are available for processing at time t = 0, and preemption is allowed. Order i has a weight wi and its completion time is the time when its last requested product type finishes. Our goal is to find a preemptive schedule such that the total weighted completion time [summation operator]wiCi is minimized. We show that this problem is NP-hard even when all jobs have identical weights and there are only two machines. Motivated by the computational complexity of the problem, we propose a simple heuristic and show that it obeys a worst-case bound of 2 - 1/m. Finally, empirical studies show that our heuristic performs very well when compared with a lower bound of the optimal cost.

0 Followers
 · 
75 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper considers a multi-objective order scheduling problem in a multi-page invoice printing system which contains four main stages. The invoices usually contain several pages in duplicate or triplicate, thus the different pages are firstly printed in separated printing lines and then assembled together to become multi-page invoices. The objectives considered are the minimization of the makespan, the average flowtime and the maximum tardiness for all the invoice orders. A multi-objective hybrid genetic algorithm is proposed for solving the problem. Numerical experiments indicate that the algorithm is efficient and effective.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper focuses on a scheduling problem in a manufacturing system composed of multiple parallel assembly lines. There are multiple orders to be processed in this system, and each order is specified by the product type, the number of products to be processed, and the due date. Each product is composed of two types of subassemblies, one unit of an external subassembly and one or more units of an internal subassembly. In the system, the parallel assembly lines are not identical, and certain lines are designated for certain product types. We present heuristic algorithms for the scheduling problem with the objective of minimizing total tardiness of orders. For an evaluation of the performance of the suggested algorithms, computational experiments are performed on a number of problem instances and results show that the suggested algorithms work better than the method used in a real manufacturing system. KeywordsScheduling-Heuristics-Uniform parallel lines-Job splitting-Tardiness
    International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 12/2010; 51(9):1225-1241. DOI:10.1007/s00170-010-2692-5 · 1.78 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper considers the order scheduling problem to minimize total tardiness. The system is composed of multiple machines, and each order consists of multiple components, with each component being manufactured on a dedicated machine (specified in advance). The completion time of each order is represented by the time at which all the components comprising the order are completed. The tardiness minimization is the performance objective of this paper. In the problem analysis, this paper first derives some dominance properties to determine the sequence of some orders, and then analyzes problem complexities for some special cases. Three heuristic algorithms are derived with a performance bound. Moreover, three lower bounds of objective are derived and tested along with the derived properties in a branch-and-bound scheme. The overall performances of the proposed property, branch-and-bound and heuristic algorithms are evaluated via numerical experiments.
    International Journal of Production Economics 07/2013; 144(1):128–134. DOI:10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.01.025 · 2.08 Impact Factor