The assembly job shop is a common shop type in make-to-order companies, which satisfies with the requirement of product assembly. Compared with deterministic scheduling, the majority of researches for dynamic assembly job shop focus on dispatching rules. However, most of researches do not consider the deterioration of machine. This study extends the assumption that machine is always available. Under the dynamic assembly job shop with breakdown and preventive maintenance (PM), researches are conducted as follows: (1) Three representative PM policies are compared; (2) The performance of classic dispatching rules for assembly job shop are compared. (3) From the view of constituent attributes of dispatching rules, we analyze the influence of machine maintenance on dispatching rules, and a new dispatching rule, MALLOPN (modified allowance per operations), is proposed. The full factorial simulation experiments are carried out with different levels of machine deterioration. The results show that the policy with optimal PM period (PM policy II) is the best one and the MALLOPN rule outperforms classic rules.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71572049, 61573109), the Pearl River S&T Nova Program of Guangzhou (201710010004), and the Special Plan Young Top-notch Talent of Guangdong (2016TQ03X364).
G.D. Silveira, D. Borenstein, F.S. Fogliatto, Mass customization: literature review and research directions. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 72(1), 1–13 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O. Holthaus, C. Rajendran, Efficient dispatching rules for scheduling in a job shop. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 48(1), 87–105 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
T. Fry et al., The effects of product structure and sequencing rule on assembly shop performance. Int. J. Prod. Res. 27(4), 671–686 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
N. Adam, J. Surkis, Priority assignment procedures in multi-level assembly job shops. AIIE Trans. 19(3), 317–328 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
E. Borgonovo, M. Marseguerra, E. Zio, A Monte Carlo methodological approach to plant availability modeling with maintenance, aging and obsolescence. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 67(1), 61–73 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
H. Seidgar et al., Simulated imperialist competitive algorithm in two-stage assembly flow shop with machine breakdowns and preventive maintenance. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J Eng. Manuf. 230(5) (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
C. Richardcassady, E. Kutanoglu, Minimizing job tardiness using integrated preventive maintenance planning and production scheduling. AIIE Trans. 35(6), 503–513 (2003)Google Scholar
R. Ruiz, J.C. García-Díaz, C. Maroto, Considering scheduling and preventive maintenance in the flowshop sequencing problem. Comput. Oper. Res. 34(11), 3314–3330 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
P. Philipoom, R. Russell, T. Fry, A preliminary investigation of multi-attribute based sequencing rules for assembly shops. Int. J. Prod. Res. 29(4), 739–753 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
K.M. Mohanasundaram et al., Scheduling rules for dynamic shops that manufacture multi-level jobs. Comput. Ind. Eng. 44(1), 119–131 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
K. Natarajan et al., Performance evaluation of priority dispatching rules in multi-level assembly job shops with jobs having weights for flowtime and tardiness. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 31(7–8), 751–761 (2007)Google Scholar
R.S. Russell, B.W.T. Iii, An evaluation of sequencing rules for an assembly shop. Decis. Sci. 16(2), 196–212 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
H.L. Lu, G.Q. Huang, H.D. Yang, Integrating order review/release and dispatching rules for assembly job shop scheduling using a simulation approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 49(3), 647–669 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
N.R. Adam et al., Due date assignment procedures with dynamically updated coefficients for multi-level assembly job shops. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 68(2), 212–227 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar