Abstract
In this paper, we study a rescheduling problem in response to arrival of new jobs in single machine layout, where preventive maintenance should be determined. Preventive maintenance together with controllable processing time could alleviate the inherent deteriorating effect in manufacturing system. Processing sequence of original and new jobs, compression of each job, and position of maintenance should be optimized simultaneously with regards to total operational cost (job’s total completion times, maintenance cost and compression cost) and total completion time deviation. An improved elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II) has been proposed to solve the rescheduling problem. To address the key problem of balancing between exploration and exploitation, we hybridize differential evolution mutation operation with NSGA-II to enhance diversity, constitute high-quality initial solution based on assignment model for exploitation, and incorporate analytic property of non-dominated solutions for exploration. Finally computational study is designed by randomly generating various instances with regards to the problem size from given distributions. By use of existing performance indicators for convergence and diversity of Pareto fronts, we illustrate the effectiveness of the hybrid algorithm and the incorporation of domain knowledge into evolutionary optimization in rescheduling.
Access this article
Rent this article via DeepDyve
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00500-015-1615-7/MediaObjects/500_2015_1615_Fig1_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00500-015-1615-7/MediaObjects/500_2015_1615_Fig2_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00500-015-1615-7/MediaObjects/500_2015_1615_Fig3_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00500-015-1615-7/MediaObjects/500_2015_1615_Fig4_HTML.gif)
![](http://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00500-015-1615-7/MediaObjects/500_2015_1615_Fig5_HTML.gif)
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Aytug H, Lawley MA, McKay K, Mohan S, Uzsoy R (2005) Executing production schedules in the face of uncertainties: a review and some future directions. Eur J Oper Res 161:86–110
Bandyopadhyay S, Bhattacharya R (2013) Solving multi-objective parallel machine scheduling problem by a modified NSGA-II. Appl Math Model 37:6718–6729
Blum C, Roli A (2003) Metaheuristics in combinatorial optimization: overview and conceptual comparison. ACM Comput Surv 35:268–308
Boussaid I, Lepagnot J, Siarry P (2013) A survey on optimization metaheuristics. Inform Sci 237:82–117
Browne S, Yechiali U (1990) Scheduling deteriorating jobs on a single processor. Oper Res 38:495–498
Cheng TCE, Ding Q, Lin BMT (2004) A concise survey of scheduling with time-dependent processing times. Eur J Oper Res 152:1–13
Chiu YF, Shih CJ (2012) Rescheduling strategies for integrating rush orders with preventive maintenance in a two-machine flow shop. Int J Prod Res 50:5783–5794
Ćrepinšek M, Liu S, Mernik M (2013) Exploration and exploitation in evolutionary algorithms. ACM Comput Surv 45:1–33
Das S, Suganthan PN (2011) Differential evolution: a survey of the state-of-the-art. IEEE T Evolut Comput 15:4–31
Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE T Evolut Comput 6:182–197
Dong MG, Wang N (2012) A novel hybrid differential evolution approach to scheduling of large-scale zero-wait batch processes with setup times. Comput Chem Eng 45:72–83
Gogna A, Tayal A (2013) Metaheuristics: review and application. J Exp Theor Artif In 25:503–526
Gopalakrishnan M, Ahire SL, Miller DM (1997) Maximizing the effectiveness of a preventive maintenance system: an adaptive modeling approach. Manage Sci 43:827–840
Gordon VS, Potts CN, Strusevich VA, Whitehead JD (2008) Single machine scheduling models with deterioration and learning: handling precedence constraints via priority generation. J Sched 11:357–370
Gu FQ, Liu HL, Tan KC (2014) A hybrid evolutionary multiobjective optimization algorithm with adaptive multi-fitness assignment. Soft Comput (Accepted)
Gunasekaran A (1998) Agile manufacturing: enablers and an implementation framework. Int J Prod Res 36:1223–1247
Hall NG, Potts CN (2004) Rescheduling for new orders. Oper Res 52:440–453
Hall NG, Liu ZX, Potts CN (2007) Rescheduling for multiple new orders. Informs J Comput 19:633–645
Han Y, Gong D, Sun X, Pan Q (2014) An improved NSGA-II algorithm for multi-objective lot-streaming flow shop scheduling problem. Int J Prod Res 52:2211–2231
He Y, Sun L (2015) One-machine scheduling problems with deteriorating jobs and position dependent learning effects under group technology considerations. Int J Syst Sci 46:1319–1326
Helo P (2004) Managing agility and productivity in the electronics industry. Ind Manage Data Syst 104:567–577
Hoogeveen H, Lente C, T’Kindt V (2012) Rescheduling for new orders on a single machine with setup times. Eur J Oper Res 223:40–46
Jaszkiewicz A (2003) Do multiple-objective metaheuristcs deliver on their promises? A computational experiment on the set-covering problem. IEEE T Evol Comput 7(2):133–143
Jin Y, Branke J (2005) Evolutionary optimization in uncertain environments-A survey. IEEE T Evol Comput 9(3):303–317
Kubzin MA, Strusevich VA (2006) Planning machine maintenance in two-machine shop scheduling. Oper Res 54:789–800
Lee CY, Leon VJ (2001) Machine scheduling with a rate-modifying activity. Eur J Oper Res 128:119–128
Lee CY, Lin CS (2001) Single-machine scheduling with maintenance and repair rate-modifying activities. Eur J Oper Res 135:493–513
Li B, Wang L (2007) A hybrid quantum-inspired genetic algorithm for multiobjective flow shop scheduling. IEEE T Syst Man Cy B 37:576–591
Liu L, Zhou H (2014) Single-machine rescheduling with deterioration and learning effects against the maximum sequence disruption. Int J Syst Sci. doi:10.1080/00207721.2013.876519 (in press)
Liu F, Wang JJ, Yang DL (2013) Solving single machine scheduling under disruption with discounted costs by quantum-inspired hybrid heuristics. J Manuf Syst 32:715–723
Ma Y, Chu C, Zuo C (2010) A survey of scheduling with deterministic machine availability constraints. Comput Ind Eng 58:199–211
Mosheiov G (1991) V-shaped policies for scheduling deteriorating jobs. Oper Res 39:979–991
Mosheiov G, Oron D (2006) Due-date assignment and maintenance activity scheduling problem. Math Comput Model 44:1053–1057
Mosheiov G, Sarig A (2009) Scheduling a maintenance activity and due-window assignment on a single machine. Comput Oper Res 36:2541–2545
Mosheiov G, Sidney JB (2010) Scheduling a deteriorating maintenance activity on a single machine. J Oper Res Soc 61:882–887
Nguyen S, Zhang M, Johnston M, Tan KC (2014b) Automatic programming via iterated local search for dynamic job shop scheduling. IEEE T Cy, Accepted
Nguyen S, Zhang M, Johnston M, Tan KC (2014) Automatic design of scheduling policies for dynamic multi-objective job shop scheduling via cooperative coevolution genetic programming. IEEE T Evol Comput 18(2):193–208
Nguyen S, Zhang M, Johnston M, Tan KC (2014) Genetic programming for evolving reusable due-date assignment models in job shop environment. Evol Comput 22(1):105–138
Oron D (2014) Scheduling controllable processing time jobs in a deteriorating environment. J Oper Res Soc 65:49–56
Paenke I, Branke J, Jin Y (2006) Efficient search for robust solutions by means of evolutionary algorithms and fitness approximation. IEEE T Evolut Comput 10(4):405–420
Pan Q, Wang L, Gao L, Li WD (2011) An effective hybrid discrete differential evolution algorithm for the flow shop scheduling with intermediate buffers. Inform Sci 181:668–685
Rustogi K, Strusevich VA (2012) Single machine scheduling with general positional deterioration and rate-modifying maintenance. Omega 40:791–804
Shabtay D, Steiner G (2007) A survey of scheduling with controllable processing times. Discrete Appl Math 155:1643–1666
Storn R, Kenneth P (1997) Differential evolution: a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous Spaces. J Global Optim 11:341–359
Tasgetiren MF, Pan Q, Suganthan PN, Jin Chua T (2011) A differential evolution algorithm for the no-idle flowshop scheduling problem with total tardiness criterion. Int J Prod Res 49:5033–5050
Tepedino ACMA, Takahashi RHC, Carrano EG (2013) Distance based NSGA-II for earliness and tardiness minimization in parallel machine scheduling. IEEE Congr Evol Comput, pp 317–324
Ulungu EL, Teghem J, Ost C (1998) Efficiency of interactive multiobjective simulated annealing through a case study. J Oper Res Soc 49(10):1044–1050
Van Veldhuizen DA (1999) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: classifications, analyses, and new innovations, Ph.D. dissertation, Dept Elect Comput Eng, Graduate School Eng, Air Force Inst Technol, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH
Vieira GE, Herrmann JW, Lin E (2003) Rescheduling manufacturing systems: a framework of strategies, policies, and methods. J Scheduling 6:39–62
Wang J, Guo Q (2010) A due-date assignment problem with learning effect and deteriorating jobs. Appl Math Model 34:309–313
Wang Y, Cai ZX (2012) Combining multiobjective optimization with differential evolution to solve constrained optimization problems. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 16:117–134
Wang L, Pan Q, Suganthan PN, Wang W, Wang Y (2010) A novel hybrid discrete differential evolution algorithm for blocking flow shop scheduling problems. Comput Oper Res 37:509–520
Wang J, Wang C (2011) Single-machine due-window assignment problem with learning effect and deteriorating jobs. Appl Math Model 35:4017–4022
Wang JJ, Wang JB, Liu F (2011) Parallel machines scheduling with a deteriorating maintenance activity. J Oper Res Soc 62:1898–1902
Yang S, Yang D (2010) Minimizing the makespan on single-machine scheduling with aging effect and variable maintenance activities. Omega 38:528–533
Yang S, Yang D, Cheng TCE (2010) Single-machine due-window assignment and scheduling with job-dependent aging effects and deteriorating maintenance. Comput Oper Res 37:1510–1514
Yin Y, Wu W, Cheng TCE, Wu C (2014c) Due date assignment and single-machine scheduling with generalized positional deteriorating jobs and deteriorating multi-maintenance activities. Int J Prod Res 52:2311–2326
Yin Y, Cheng TCE, Wu C, Cheng S (2014d) Single-machine batch delivery scheduling and common due-date assignment with a rate-modifying activity. Int J Prod Res 52:5583–5596
Yin Y, Cheng TCE, Wu C (2014a) Scheduling with time dependent processing times. Math Probl Eng, pp 1–2
Yin Y, Wu W, Cheng TCE, Wu C (2014b) Single-machine scheduling with time-dependent and position-dependent deteriorating jobs. Int J Comput Integ M. doi:10.1080/0951192X.2014.900872 (In Press)
Zhao C, Tang H (2010) Single machine scheduling with general job-dependent aging effect and maintenance activities to minimize makespan. Appl Math Model 34:837–841
Zhao CL, Tang HY (2010) Rescheduling problems with deteriorating jobs under disruptions. Appl Math Model 34:238–243
Zhou A, Jin Y, Zhang Q (2014) A population prediction strategy for evolutionary dynamic multiobjective optimization. IEEE T Cy 44(1):40–53
Zitzler E (1999) Evolutionary algorithms for multiobjective optimization: methods and applications, Ph.D. dissertation, Swiss Fed Inst Technol (ETH), Zurich, Switzerland
Acknowledgments
We gratefully thank the Editor, Associate Editor, and anonymous referees for their helpful comments on the earlier versions of our paper. This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 71271039, 7141001024), the sub-project of National Science and Technology Supporting Program of China (Grant No. 2013BAK02B06), and the Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University under Grant No. NCET-10-0218.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by V. Loia.
Appendices
Appendix A. Proof of Lemma 1
Proof
The total operational cost \(\mathop {\sum }C_j +\mathop {\sum }c_j u_j \,+\,qM\) could be formulated as follows:
where the weight for the \(j\)th position is
(1) For the optimal resource allocation
where \(W_j =\left\{ {{\begin{array}{l} {\mathop {\sum }\limits _{i=j}^m \mathop {\sum }\limits _{k=0}^{i-j} R_{i-j+1,k+1} \alpha ^k\tilde{w}_i ,\quad 1\!\le \! j\le m} \\ \mathop {\sum }\limits _{i=j}^{n_O } \mathop {\sum }\limits _{k=0}^{i-j} R_{i-j+1,k+1} \alpha ^k\tilde{w}_i ,\quad m\!+\!1\!\le \!j\le n_O\\ \end{array} }} \right. \), and \(R\) is a matrix of size \(n_O \times n_O \). We have \( R_{1,1} =1\) and \(R_{1,j} = 0, R_{i,1} =0, R_{i,j} =R_{i-1,j-1} +R_{i-1,j} \) for \(i,j=2,3,\ldots ,n_O \).
From the above formulation, we could easily conclude that for the schedule where maintenance takes place after the completion of the \(m\)th job, if \(c_{\left[ j \right] } \ge W_j b_{\left[ j \right] } \), the optimal resource allocation is \(u_{\left[ j \right] } =0\); and if \(c_{\left[ j \right] } <W_j b_{\left[ j \right] } \), the optimal resource allocation is \(u_{\left[ j \right] } =\overline{u}_{\left[ j \right] } \).
(2) For the optimal maintenance position and jobs’ processing sequence
Let
where \(W_r \!=\!\left\{ {{\begin{array}{ll} \mathop {\sum }\limits _{i=r}^m \mathop {\sum }\limits _{k=0}^{i-r} R_{i\!-\!r\!+\!1,k\!+\!1} \alpha ^k\tilde{w}_i, &{}\quad 1\le r\le m\\ \mathop {\sum }\limits _{i\!=\!r}^{n_O } \mathop {\sum }\limits _{k=0}^{i-r} R_{i\!-\!r\!+\!1,k\!+\!1} \alpha ^k\tilde{w}_i, &{}\quad m+1\le r\le n_O\\ \end{array}}}\right. \), and the weight for position \(i\) is
\(\tilde{w}_i =\left\{ {{\begin{array}{ll} ( {n_O -i+1})\!+\!\gamma ( {n_O \!-\!m\!+\!q}),&{}\quad 1\le i\le m\\ n_O -i+1, &{}\quad m\!+\!1\le i\!\le \! n_O\\ \end{array}}} \right. \).
Here, we introduce binary variable \(x_{jr} \) to denote whether job \(J_j \) is arranged at the \(r\)th position: \(x_{jr} =1\) means ‘yes’ and \(x_{jr} =0\) means ‘no’, \(j,r=1,2,\ldots ,n_O \). Then the problem could be transferred into the following assignment problem \(A(m)\):
The time complexity of solving the above model is \(O(n_O^3 )\). Note that the obtained optimal objective value is based on fixing \(m\). Let \(m\) take the value of 1,2,...\(n_O \) and solve \(n_O \) assignment, respectively, then pick out the optimal objective value. The corresponding maintenance position, jobs’ processing sequence, and job’s compression could be integrated to form the optimal baseline schedule. The time complexity of the entire procedure would be \(O(n_O^4 )\), therefore, Lemma 1 holds. \(\square \)
Appendix B. Proof of Lemma 2
Proof
Given resources allocation, in the optimal schedule \(\sigma \) of problem (P), let \(J_{\left[ j \right] } \) denote the job with minimum position that does not satisfy the above SPT rule, and let \(J_{[i]} \) denote the job which immediately precedes \(J_{\left[ j \right] } \) in \(\sigma \). We have \(j>i\) but \(\overline{p}_{\left[ j \right] } -b_{\left[ j \right] } u_{\left[ j \right] } <\overline{p} _{\left[ i \right] } -b_{\left[ i \right] } u_{\left[ i \right] } \). Let the starting time of \(J_{[i]} \) be \(t_0 \). By exchanging the processing order of these two jobs, we could obtain a new schedule \(\tilde{\sigma }\), and we have \(C_{[j]} ( {\tilde{\sigma }})=t_0 +\overline{p}_{[j]} +\alpha t_0 -b_{[j]} u_{[j]} <C_{[i]} ( \sigma )\). We also have \(t_{[i]} ( {\tilde{\sigma }})<t_{[j]} ( \sigma )\), where \(t_{[i]} ( {\tilde{\sigma }})\) is the starting time of job \(J_{[i]} \) in \(\tilde{\sigma }\), and \(t_{[j]} ( \sigma )\) is the starting time of job \(J_{[i]} \) in \(\sigma \). Then it holds that \(t_0 +\overline{p}_{[j]} +\alpha t_0 -b_{[j]} u_{[j]} +\overline{p} _{[i]} +\alpha t_{[i]} ( {\tilde{\sigma }})-b_{[i]} u_{[i]} <t_0 +\overline{p}_{[i]} +\alpha t_0 -b_{[i]} u_{[i]} +\overline{p}_{[j]} +\alpha t_{[j]} ( \sigma )-b_{[j]} u_{[j]} \), meaning \(C_{[i]} ( {\tilde{\sigma }})<C_{[j]} ( \sigma )\). Therefore, we could conclude that after the exchanging, the two jobs’ completion times have both been reduced, and this is contradictory to the optimality of schedule \(\sigma \). Lemma 2 holds. \(\square \)
Appendix C. Proof of Theorem 1
Proof
In the Pareto optimal solution denoted by \(\sigma \) with given resource allocation and maintenance position \(m\), let \(J_{\left[ j \right] } (j<m)\) be the original job with minimum position that violates SPT rule, and let \(J_{[i]} \) be the last original job that is arranged before \(J_{\left[ j \right] } \). We have \(j>i\) and \(\overline{p}_{\left[ j \right] } -b_{\left[ j \right] } u_{\left[ j \right] } <\overline{p}_{\left[ i \right] } -b_{\left[ i \right] } u_{\left[ i \right] } \). Denote the starting time of \(J_{[i]} \) in \(\sigma \) as \(t_0 \), and \(\tilde{J}_1,\tilde{J}_2,\ldots , \tilde{J}_h\) stand for the new jobs arranged between \(J_{[i]} \) and \(J_{[j]} \) in \(\sigma \). By exchanging the positions of \(J_{[i]} \) and \(J_{[j]} \), we could obtain a new schedule \(\tilde{\sigma }\), and analyze the change of total operational cost and deviation after exchanging as follows.
(1) For the change of total operational cost.
First we have \(C_{[j]} ( {\tilde{\sigma }})=t_0 +\overline{p} _{[j]} +\alpha t_0 -b_{[j]} u_{[j]} <C_{[i]} ( \sigma )\), and jobs \(\widetilde{J_1 },\widetilde{J_2 },\ldots ,\widetilde{J_h }\) could start earlier in \(\tilde{\sigma }\), therefore, would be completed earlier compared with in \(\sigma \). Let \(t_{[i]} ( {\tilde{\sigma }})\) and \(t_{[j]} ( \sigma )\) be the starting times of job \(J_{[i]} \) in \(\tilde{\sigma }\) and job \(J_{[j]} \) in \(\sigma \), respectively, and we have \(t_{[i]} ( {\tilde{\sigma }})<t_{[j]} ( \sigma )\). Then it holds that \(t_0 \,+\,\overline{p}_{[j]} +\alpha t_0\, -\,b_{[j]} u_{[j]} +\overline{p}_{[i]} \,+\,\alpha t_{[i]} ( {\tilde{\sigma }})-b_{[i]} u_{[i]} <t_0 +\overline{p}_{[i]} +\alpha t_0 -b_{[i]} u_{[i]} +\overline{p}_{[j]} +\alpha t_{[j]} ( \sigma )-b_{[j]} u_{[j]} \). Therefore, \(C_{[i]} ( {\tilde{\sigma }})<C_{[j]} ( \sigma )\). As to the optimal maintenance position, \(C_{[m]} ( {\tilde{\sigma }})<C_{[m]} ( \sigma )\) and the duration of maintenance could be reduced, leading to lower maintenance cost. To summarize, from \(\sigma \) to \(\tilde{\sigma }\) with compression staying constant, the total operational cost could be reduced.
(2) For the change of deviation.
We have \(T_{[i]} ( {\tilde{\sigma }})=\mathrm{Max} \left\{ \! {C_{[i]} ( {\tilde{\sigma }})-\overline{C}_{[i]} ,0} \right\} ,T_{[j]} ( {\tilde{\sigma }})\!=\!\mathrm{Max} \left\{ \! {C_{[j]} ( {\tilde{\sigma }})-\overline{C} _{[j]} ,0} \right\} , T_{[i]} ( \sigma )\!=\!\mathrm{Max} \left\{ \! {C_{[i]} ( \sigma )-\overline{C}_{[i]} ,0} \right\} \), \(T_{[j]} ( \sigma )\!=\!\mathrm{Max}\left\{ {C_{[j]} ( \sigma )-\overline{C}_{[j]} ,0} \right\} \), then \(T_{[i]} ( {\tilde{\sigma }})+T_{[j]} ( {\tilde{\sigma }})-(T_{\left[ i \right] } ( \sigma )+T_{[j]} ( \sigma ))=\mathrm{Max} \left\{ {C_{[i]} ( {\tilde{\sigma }})-\overline{C}_{[i]} ,0} \right\} -\mathrm{Max} \left\{ {C_{\left[ j \right] } ( \sigma )-\overline{C} _{\left[ j \right] } ,0} \right\} +\mathrm{Max} \left\{ {C_{\left[ j \right] } ( {\tilde{\sigma }})-\overline{C}_{\left[ j \right] } ,0} \right\} -\mathrm{Max} \left\{ {C_{[i]} ( \sigma )-\overline{C}_{[i]} ,0} \right\} \). Combining \(C_{[j]} ( {\tilde{\sigma }})\!<\!C_{[i]} ( \sigma )\!<\!C_{[i]} ( {\tilde{\sigma }})<C_{[j]} ( \sigma )\) with \(\overline{C}_{[j]} <\overline{C}_{[i]} \) derived from \(\overline{p}_{\left[ j \right] } -b_{\left[ j \right] } u_{\left[ j \right] } <\overline{p} _{\left[ i \right] } -b_{\left[ i \right] } u_{\left[ i \right] } \) (Lemma 2), we could easily conclude that \(T_{[i]} ( {\tilde{\sigma }})+T_{[j]} ( {\tilde{\sigma }})-(T_{\left[ i \right] } ( \sigma )+T_{[j]} ( \sigma ))\le 0\). As to jobs between \(J_{[i]} \) and \(J_{[j]} \) and after position \(m\), since they are all completed earlier after exchanging, their virtual tardiness would not be increased.
To summarize, by repeating the above procedures, we could finally obtain a partial SPT schedule for original jobs before maintenance. The two objectives would not be increased during this procedure. By use of similar analysis, we could obtain similar conclusions for new jobs before maintenance, original and new jobs after maintenance, respectively. Therefore, Theorem 1 holds.
Appendix D. Proof of Theorem 2
Proof
Assume that in the optimal solution, the resource allocation for the job in the \(k\)th position is \(u_{\left[ k \right] } \in \left[ {0,\overline{u}_{\left[ k \right] } } \right] \). Given a small resource allocation deviation \(\delta \in \left[ {-u_{\left[ k \right] } ,\overline{u}_{\left[ k \right] } -u_{\left[ k \right] } } \right] \), we would analyze the change of two objectives from \(u_{\left[ k \right] } \) to \(u_{\left[ k \right] } +\delta \). Denote the optimal maintenance position as \(m\), and for the purpose of convenience, denote \(\overline{C}_j =+\infty \) for \(J_j \in \left\{ {J_{n_O +1} ,J_{n_O +2} ,\ldots ,J_{n_O +n_N } } \right\} \).
(1) The change of \(\mathop {\sum }\nolimits _{j=1}^{n_O +n_N } C_j +\mathop {\sum }\nolimits _{j=1}^{n_O +n_N } c_j u_j +qM\) from \(u_{\left[ k \right] } \) to \(u_{\left[ k \right] } +\delta \) contains two cases:
Case 1: \(m<k\),
Case 2: \(m\ge k\),
(2) The change of \(\mathop {\sum }\nolimits _{j=1}^{n_O } T_j \) contains 4 cases:
Case 1: \(m<k\) and \(\delta \ge 0\),
Case 2: \(m<k\) and \(\delta <0\),
Case 3: \(m\ge k\) and \(\delta \ge 0\),
Case 4: \(m\ge k\) and \(\delta <0\),
To summarize the two cases of \(\mathop {\sum }\nolimits _{j=1}^{n_O +n_N } C_j +\mathop {\sum }\nolimits _{j=1}^{n_O +n_N } c_j u_j +qM\) and four cases of \(\mathop {\sum }\nolimits _{j=1}^{n_O } T_j \), from \(u_{\left[ k \right] } \) to \(u_{\left[ k \right] } +\delta \), the change of \(( {1-a})( {\mathop {\sum }\nolimits _{j=1}^{n_O +n_N } C_j +\mathop {\sum }\nolimits _{j=1}^{n_O +n_N } c_j u_j +qM})+a( {\mathop {\sum }\nolimits _{j=1}^{n_O } T_j })\) would be a linear function of \(\delta \). The optimal objective value would be taken at two extreme points \(\delta =-u_{\left[ k \right] } \) or \(\delta =\overline{u}_{\left[ k \right] } -u_{\left[ k \right] } \). \(J_{\left[ k \right] } \) is either compressed to its upper bound or not compressed at all. Therefore, Theorem 2 holds. \(\square \)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, DJ., Liu, F., Wang, JJ. et al. Integrated rescheduling and preventive maintenance for arrival of new jobs through evolutionary multi-objective optimization. Soft Comput 20, 1635–1652 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-015-1615-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-015-1615-7