Energy Efficiency, Robustness, and Makespan Optimality in Job-Shop Scheduling Problems
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.
KeywordsJob-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).
- 4.BMWi. (2009). German federal ministry of economics and technology: Energy statistics.Google Scholar
- 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.Dahmus, J., & Gutowski, T. (2004). An environmental analysis of machining. In ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and RD\&D, Anaheim, California, USA.Google Scholar
- 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
- 14.IBM. (2007). Modeling with IBM ILOG CP optimizer—Practical scheduling examples.Google Scholar
- 15.IBM ILOG CPLEX Optimizer. http://www-01.ibm.com/software/integration/optimization/cplex-optimizer/.
- 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
- 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