“…Note that the wellknown flowshop scheduling problem is a special case of the above problem, when splitting is not allowed (a single sublot of each lot). Cetinkaya [5] and Vickson [28] show that optimal sequencing of the products and splitting of each product into optimal sublots under a specified number of sublots with no intermingling could be performed separately. The optimal sequence is obtained using Johnson's rule.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Total number of items -{8, 16, 24, 32, 40}. Major setup - (2,5). The ratio of the setup time and the process time.…”
Section: Problem Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Constraint set (3) ensures that exactly one item type is located in each place t. Constraint set (4) assures that the sequence variable, s jj t , is equal to one if an item of lot j and an item of lot j are located in place t-1 and t, respectively. Constraint sets (5) and (6) determine the values of the allocation variables, a jt , in accordance with the sequence variables, s jj t . Constraint set (7) prevents a minor setup in case of successive items of different lots.…”
Section: N the Number Of Lots (Products)mentioning
Lot splitting is a new approach for improving productivity by dividing production lots into sublots. This approach enables accelerating production flow, reducing lead-time and increasing the utilization of organization resources. Most of the lot splitting models in the literature have addressed a single objective problem, usually the makespan or flowtime objectives. Simultaneous minimization of these two objectives has rarely been addressed in the literature despite of its high relevancy to most industrial environments. This work aims at solving a multiobjective lot splitting problem for multiple products in a flowshop environment. Tight mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) formulations for minimizing the makespan and flowtime are presented. Then, the MinMax solution, which takes both objectives into consideration, is defined and suggested as an alternative objective. By solving the MILP model, it was found that minimizing one objective results in an average loss of about 15% in the other objective. The MinMax solution, on the other hand, results in an average loss of 4.6% from the furthest objective and 2.5% from the closest objective.
“…Note that the wellknown flowshop scheduling problem is a special case of the above problem, when splitting is not allowed (a single sublot of each lot). Cetinkaya [5] and Vickson [28] show that optimal sequencing of the products and splitting of each product into optimal sublots under a specified number of sublots with no intermingling could be performed separately. The optimal sequence is obtained using Johnson's rule.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Total number of items -{8, 16, 24, 32, 40}. Major setup - (2,5). The ratio of the setup time and the process time.…”
Section: Problem Factorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Constraint set (3) ensures that exactly one item type is located in each place t. Constraint set (4) assures that the sequence variable, s jj t , is equal to one if an item of lot j and an item of lot j are located in place t-1 and t, respectively. Constraint sets (5) and (6) determine the values of the allocation variables, a jt , in accordance with the sequence variables, s jj t . Constraint set (7) prevents a minor setup in case of successive items of different lots.…”
Section: N the Number Of Lots (Products)mentioning
Lot splitting is a new approach for improving productivity by dividing production lots into sublots. This approach enables accelerating production flow, reducing lead-time and increasing the utilization of organization resources. Most of the lot splitting models in the literature have addressed a single objective problem, usually the makespan or flowtime objectives. Simultaneous minimization of these two objectives has rarely been addressed in the literature despite of its high relevancy to most industrial environments. This work aims at solving a multiobjective lot splitting problem for multiple products in a flowshop environment. Tight mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) formulations for minimizing the makespan and flowtime are presented. Then, the MinMax solution, which takes both objectives into consideration, is defined and suggested as an alternative objective. By solving the MILP model, it was found that minimizing one objective results in an average loss of about 15% in the other objective. The MinMax solution, on the other hand, results in an average loss of 4.6% from the furthest objective and 2.5% from the closest objective.
“…It was showed that it is not possible to solve the n-job problem simply by applying lot streaming individually to the single-job problem (Potts & Baker, 1989). Several papers independently show that this problem it is decomposed into an easily identifiable sequence of single job problems, using continuous values, even with setup times (Vickson, 1995) and transfer times (Cetinkaya, 1994). Other authors have widely tackled the same problem using discrete values (2/N/C/II/DV) considering setup times (Ganapathy, Marimuthu & Ponnambalam, 2004;Marimuthu & Ponnambalam, 2005;Marimuthu, Ponnambalam & Suresh, 2004).…”
Section: Problemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It was -763-Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management -http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jiem.553 presented some closed form solutions for continuous sublots and a fast polynominally bounded search algorithm for discrete sublots. Other papers proposed the use of removal times (Cetinkaya, 1994), of no-wait condition (Sriskandarajah & Wagneur, 1999) or even allowing interleaving (Cetinkaya, 2006).…”
Abstract:Purpose: This paper reviews current literature and contributes a set of findings that capture the current state-of-the-art of the topic of lot streaming in a flow-shop.Design/methodology/approach: A literature review to capture, classify and summarize the main body of knowledge on lot streaming in a flow-shop with makespan criteria and, translate this into a form that is readily accessible to researchers and practitioners in the more mainstream production scheduling community.
Findings:The existing knowledge base is somewhat fragmented. This is a relatively unexplored topic within mainstream operations management research and one which could provide rich opportunities for further exploration.Originality/value: This paper sets out to review current literature, from an advanced production scheduling perspective, and contributes a set of findings that capture the current state-of-the-art of this topic.
The traditional flowshop scheduling problem can be generalised to a matricial optimisation problem in Max-Plus algebra. A family of lower bounds is developped for this new problem and proof is given that these bounds are a generalisation of the lower bounds of Lageweg et al.
Résumé.Le traditionnel problème d'ordonnancement de type flowshop se généralise en un problème d'optimisation matricielle dans l'algèbre Max-Plus. Une famille de bornes inférieures est présentée pour ce nouveau problème et la preuve est apportée que ces bornes généralisent les bornes de Lageweg et al.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.