4.7 Article

A distributed heterogeneous permutation flowshop scheduling problem with lot-streaming and carryover sequence-dependent setup time

期刊

SWARM AND EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION
卷 60, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.swevo.2020.100804

关键词

Distributed flowshop scheduling; Non-identical factories; Makespan; Lot-streaming; Carryover setup time; Artificial bee colony

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61973203]
  2. Shanghai Key Laboratory of Power Station Automation Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study tackles a distributed permutation flowshop scheduling problem with non-identical factories, introducing novel elements and proposing solutions that are validated through comprehensive experiments.
We solve a distributed permutation flowshop scheduling problem (DPFSP) with non-identical factories, which is also referred to as the distributed heterogeneous permutation flowshop scheduling problem (DHPFSP). Stemming from the practical demands, we introduce the lot-streaming and carryover sequence-dependent setup time into our problem, both of which have not been previously studied under the DPFSP environment. The objective is to minimize the makespan among factories. To address this problem, we first present a mixed integer linear model. Next, we develop five constructive heuristics to find high-quality solutions in a timely manner. Moreover, we propose an enhanced artificial bee colony algorithm (NEABC). In the NEABC, an initialization method with strong intensification is proposed to generate promising swarm. Then, a collaboration mechanism among individuals is presented in the onlooker bee stage to improve the search capability. Besides, a restart strategy is designed in the scout bee stage with the consideration of the special onlooker bee stage of the algorithm. Comprehensive experiments based on instances with a wide range of scales are carried out and the results prove the validity of presented algorithms for the problem under study.

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