Energy Efficiency, Robustness, and Makespan Optimality in Job-Shop Scheduling Problems

  • M. A. Salido
  • J. Escamilla
  • F. Barber
  • A. GiretEmail author
  • D. B. Tang
  • M. Dai


Many real-world problems are known as planning and scheduling problems, where resources must be allocated so as to optimize overall performance objectives. The traditional scheduling models consider performance indicators such as processing time, cost, and quality as optimization objectives. However, most of them do not take into account energy consumption and robustness. We focus our attention in a job-shop scheduling problem where machines can work at different speeds. It represents an extension of the classical job-shop scheduling problem, where each operation has to be executed by one machine, and this machine can work at different speeds. The main goal of the paper is focused on the analysis of three important objectives: energy efficiency, robustness, and makespan, and the relationship among them. We present some analytical formulas to estimate the ratio/relationship between these parameters. It can be observed that there exist a clear relationship between robustness and energy efficiency and a clear trade-off between robustness/energy efficiency and makespan. It represents an advance in the state of the art of production scheduling, so obtaining energy-efficient solutions also supposes obtaining robust solutions, and vice versa.


Job-shop scheduling Energy efficiency Robustness Makespan 



This research has been supported by the Spanish Government under research projects TIN2015-65515-C4-1-R and TIN2016-80856-R. This research was also supported by National Science Foundation of China (No. 51175262) and Jiangsu Province Industry-Academy-Research Grant (No. BY201220116).


  1. 1.
    Agnetis, A., Flamini, M., Nicosia, G., & Pacifici, A. (2011). A job-shop problem with one additional resource type. Journal of Scheduling, 14(3), 225–237.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Billaut, J. C., Moukrim, A., & Sanlaville, E. (2008). Flexibility and robustness in scheduling. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blazewicz, J., Cellary, W., Slowinski, R., & Weglarz, J. (1986). Scheduling under resource constraints-deterministic models. Annals of Operations Research, 7, 1–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    BMWi. (2009). German federal ministry of economics and technology: Energy statistics.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruzzone, A. A. G., Anghinolfi, D., Paolucci, M., & Tonelli, F. (2012). Energy-aware scheduling for improving manufacturing process sustainability: A mathematical model for flexible flow shops. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 61(1), 459–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Caplinskas, A., Dzemyda, G., Kiss, F., & Lupeikiene, A. (2012). Processing of undesirable business events in advanced production systems. Informatica: International Journal., 23(4), 563–579.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dahmus, J., & Gutowski, T. (2004). An environmental analysis of machining. In ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and RD\&D, Anaheim, California, USA.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dai, M., Tang, D. B., Giret, A., Salido, M. A., & Li, W. D. (2013). Energy-efficient scheduling for a flexible flow shop using an improved genetic-simulated annealing algorithm. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing., 29(5), 418–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duflou, J. R., Sutherland, J. W., Dornfeld, D., Herrmann, C., Jeswiet, J., Kara, S., et al. (2012). Towards energy and resource efficient manufacturing: A processes and systems approach. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 61(2), 587–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fang, K., Uhan, N., Zhao, F., & Sutherland, J. W. (2011). A new approach to scheduling in manufacturing for power consumption and carbon footprint reduction. Journal of Manufacturing Systems., 30(4), 234–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garrido, A., Salido, M. A., Barbe, F., & López, M. A. (2000). Heuristic methods for solving job-shop scheduling problems. In ECAI-2000 Workshop on New Results in Planning, Scheduling and Design, Berlin, pp. 36–43.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gutowski, T., Murphy, C., Allen, D., Bauer, D., Bras, B., Piwonka, T., et al. (2005). Environmentally benign manufacturing: observations from Japan, Europe and the United States. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huang, K. L., & Liao, C. J. (2008). Ant colony optimization combined with taboo search for the job shop scheduling problem. Computers & Operations Research, 35(4), 1030–1046.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    IBM. (2007). Modeling with IBM ILOG CP optimizer—Practical scheduling examples.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Kramer, L., Barbulescu, L., & Smith, S. (2007). Understanding performance tradeoffs in algorithms for solving oversubscribed scheduling. In Proceedings 22nd Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-07).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Laborie, P. (2009). IBM ILOG CP Optimizer for detailed scheduling illustrated on three problems. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Integration of AI and OR Techniques in Constraint Programming for Combinatorial Optimization Problems (CPAIOR09), pp. 148–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li, W., Zein, A., Kara, S., & Herrmann, C. (2011). An investigation into fixed energy consumption of machine tools. In Glocalized solutions for sustainability in manufacturing, pp. 268–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mouzon, G., & Yildirim, M. B. (2008). A framework to minimise total energy consumption and total tardiness on a single machine. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering., 1(2), 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mouzon, G., Yildirim, M. B., & Twomey, J. (2007). Operational methods for minimization of energy consumption of manufacturing equipment. International Journal of Production Research, 45(18–19), 4247–4271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Neugebauer, R., Wabner, M., Rentzsch, H., & Ihlenfeldt, S. (2011). Structure principles of energy efficient machine tools. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 4(2), 136–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nowicki, E., & Smutnicki, C. (2011). An advanced tabu search algorithm for the job shop problem. Journal of Scheduling, 8(145–159), 2005.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Seow, Y., & Rahimifard, S. (2011). A framework for modelling energy consumption within manufacturing systems. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 4(3), 258–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Szathmary, E. (2006). A robust approach. Nature, 439, 19–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Verfaillie, G., & Schiex T. (1994). Solution reuse in dynamic constraint satisfaction problems. In Proceedings of the 12th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-94), pp. 307–312.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Weinert, N., Chiotellis, S., & Seliger, G. (2011). Methodology for planning and operating energy-efficient production systems. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 60(1), 41–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. A. Salido
    • 1
  • J. Escamilla
    • 1
  • F. Barber
    • 1
  • A. Giret
    • 2
    Email author
  • D. B. Tang
    • 3
  • M. Dai
    • 3
  1. 1.Instituto de Atuomática e Informática IndustrialUniversitat Politècnica de ValenciaValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Departamento de Sistemas Informáticos, ComputaciónUniversitat Politècnica de ValenciaValenciaSpain
  3. 3.College of Mechanical and Electrical EngineeringNanjing University of Aeronautics and AstronauticsNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations