SAGE Badrinath
SAGE Badrinath
SAGE Badrinath
Abstract
This article considers the problem of scheduling n jobs on m identical parallel processors where an optimal schedule is
defined as one that produces minimum makespan (the completion time of the last job) and total tardiness among the set
of schedules. Such a problem is known as identical parallel processor makespan and total tardiness problem. In order to
minimize makespan and total tardiness of identical parallel processors, improved versions of particle swarm optimization
and harmony search algorithm are proposed to enhance scheduling performance with less computational burden. The
major drawback of particle swarm optimization in terms of premature convergence at initial stage of iterations is avoided
through the use of mutation, a commonly used operator in genetic algorithm, by introducing diversity in the solution.
The proposed algorithm is termed as particle swarm optimization with mutation. The convergence rate of harmony
search algorithm is improved by fine tuning of parameters such as pitch adjusting rate and bandwidth for improving the
solution. The performance of the schedules is evaluated in terms of makespan and total tardiness. The results are ana-
lyzed in terms of percentage deviation of the solution from the lower bound on makespan. The results indicate that par-
ticle swarm optimization with mutation produces better solutions when compared with genetic algorithm and particle
swarm optimization in terms of average percentage deviation. However, harmony search algorithm outperforms genetic
algorithm, particle swarm optimization, and particle swarm optimization with mutation in terms of average percentage
deviation. In certain instances, the solution obtained by harmony search algorithm outperforms existing clonal selection
particle swarm optimization.
Keywords
Identical parallel processors, genetic algorithm, particle swarm optimization, mutation, harmony search algorithm, make-
span, total tardiness
scheduling n jobs on m IPPs where an optimal schedule problem model when the job processing times are iden-
is defined as one that gives the smallest makespan (the tical. Dogramaci3 has proposed a dynamic program-
completion time of the last job) and minimum total tar- ming algorithm to minimize total weighted tardiness.
diness among the set of schedules is known as IPP Elmaghraby and Park4 have used a branch and bound
makespan and total tardiness problems (IPPMST). (B&B) technique to minimize some penalty functions
Using the standard three field notations, makespan is of tardiness considering identical due dates and pro-
normally
P denoted as P k Cmax and total tardiness as cessing times. Later, this method is modified by Barnes
P k Tj , where P designates IPPs and the jobs that and Brennan,5 Azigzoglu and Kirca,6 and Yalaoui and
are not constrained, Cmax represents makespan, and Chu7 to reduce the computational burden. Tanaka and
STj denotes total tardiness. Such a scheduling scenario Araki8 have proposed a solution strategy based on
is treated as NP-hard problem, and the exact solution B&B algorithm with Lagrangian relaxation technique
for small size problems has been reported using tradi- to obtain a tight lower bound (LB). Most of the exact
tional operation research methods such as dynamic methods are limited to solve generalized IPPMST
programming and mixed-integer linear programming.3–8 because they consider either equal processing times or
However, the computational time and cost increase in a common due dates or both. Therefore, a number of
non-polynomial manner for a reasonable size problem. heuristic methods have been proposed to solve the
In practical situation, large-scale problems are dealt with problem. To minimize mean tardiness on a single
a view to obtain quick solutions at less computational machine, Wilkerson and Irwin22 have presented a heur-
effort. As exact models cannot address this issue, a large istic method based on neighborhood search. This
number of heuristics have been proposed for solving method has been extended to solve the parallel machine
IPPMST.9–15 Although heuristics generate good solu- case by Baker and Scudder.23 Kim et al.24 have consid-
tions, the solution quality is far away from optimal solu- ered the problem of determining the allocation and
tion. Therefore, nature-inspired algorithms like tabu sequence of jobs on parallel machines for the objective
search (TS), simulated annealing (SA), genetic algorithm of minimizing total tardiness. Kumar et al.25 have pro-
(GA), and particle swarm optimization (PSO) are pro- posed a SA-fuzzy logic approach to select the optimal
posed recently to generate approximate solutions close to weighted earliness–tardiness combinations in a non-
the optimum with considerably less computational identical parallel machine environment. Dogramaci
time.13,15–17 Among these algorithms, PSO is considered and Surkis26 have implemented a heuristic method
as a robust algorithm for its computational efficiency based on list algorithms designed for parallel machine
than other algorithms, and also it needs very few para- problem. Ho and Chang27 have proposed a new mea-
meters for tuning the algorithm. In PSO, the whole algo- surement technique called traffic congestion ratio com-
rithm rests on two equations, namely, velocity and bining processing time and due dates to obtain traffic
position updation rules. Normally, swarm-based optimi- priority index for job assignment. Simon and Andrew28
zation algorithms trap at local optima where the algo- and Patrizia et al.29 have compared various heuristics
rithm loses its diversity after few iterations. To avoid the on similar instances to study the effectiveness of heuris-
premature convergence, mutation operator has been bor- tics. With the development of evolutionary computing
rowed from GA to be embedded with PSO to avoid techniques, meta-heuristics procedures are used to solve
being trapped in local optima. Furthermore, this algo- IPPMST problems to generate approximate solutions
rithm has been compared with the latest search-based close to the optimum with considerably less computa-
algorithm known as harmony search algorithm (HSA). tional effort. GA has been applied by Bean19 to solve
In this article, smallest position value (SPV) rule IPPMST where a representation technique called ran-
proposed by Tasgetiren et al.,18 originally borrowed dom keys is proposed to maintain feasibility from par-
from the random key representation of Bean,19 is used ent to offspring in GA. With the objective of workflow
for problem representation in PSO for sequencing the balancing, Rajakumar et al.30 used GA to solve parallel
jobs in IPPMST. Moreover, a non-uniform mutation machine scheduling problem. Chaudhry and Drake31
operator is incorporated when it is observed that search have presented a GA approach to minimize total tardi-
procedure starts losing diversity and tends toward pre- ness of a set of tasks for identical parallel machines and
mature convergence.20 The results obtained from parti- worker assignment to machines. Koulamas32 has pro-
cle swarm optimization with mutation (MPSO) have posed a polynomial decomposition heuristic and a
further been validated using HSA with SPV rule prob- hybrid SA heuristic for the problem. Kim and Shin33
lem representation integrating Mahdavi et al.’s21 fine have implemented TS algorithm that schedules jobs on
tuning schemes. parallel machines when release times and due dates of
jobs are known a priori and at sequence-dependent
setup times. Bilge et al.34 have developed a TS
Literature review
approach to solve the IPPMST with sequence-
In order to solve identical parallel machine scheduling dependent setups on uniform parallel machines.
problem, Lawler2 has proposed a transportation Anghinolfi and Paolucci35 have proposed a hybrid
meta-heuristic approach that integrates several features for generalized job shop problem-solving, and the gen-
of TS, SA, and variable neighborhood search (VNS) eralization includes feeding times, sequences of setup-
for solving IPPMST. dependent operations, and jobs with different routings
For minimizing the makespan, Graham9 has used among work centers including ‘‘multi-identical’’
well-known longest processing time (LPT) rule for machines. Wang and Brunn52 have proposed an effec-
assigning the list of jobs to the least loaded machines. tive GA for job shop sequencing and scheduling where
Coffman et al.10 have proposed the MULTIFIT heuris- a simple heuristic rule is adapted and embedded into
tic and proved the close relation between the bin- the GA to avoid the production of unfeasible solutions.
packing problem and maximum completion time prob-
lem. Lee and Massey11 have proposed COMBINE
heuristic that utilizes the LPT rule for an initial solution Scheduling on IPPs
and improves the schedule by MULTIFIT algorithm. The scheduling of IPPs is regarded as one of the most-
Gupta and Ruiz Torres12 have proposed LISTFIT studied classical scheduling problems that involve the
heuristic for minimizing makespan in identical parallel assignment of multiple jobs onto the machines. Among
machines with new LB). Kurz and Askin36 have investi- the performance measures considered, makespan, total
gated a hybrid flexible flow line environment with iden- tardiness, and earliness are commonly used to test the
tical parallel machines and non-anticipatory sequence- schedules. The problem can be stated as follows: there
dependent setup times with an objective to minimize are n jobs waiting for being scheduled on m IPPs so as
the makespan. to minimize makespan and total tardiness. The basic
Min and Cheng13 have proposed GA for solving assumptions need to be considered for solving IPPMST
large-scale identical parallel machine scheduling prob- problems are as follows:
lem with too many jobs and machines to minimize
makespan. Kennedy and Eberhart37 have proposed 1. All jobs can be processed on any of the parallel
PSO algorithm having the capability of updating of machines.
position and velocity of particles and quick conver- 2. Each of the parallel machines can process at most
gence to obtain near-optimal solutions. Tasgetiren et one job at a time.
al.18 have proposed a PSO for permutation flow shop 3. Each job has to be processed without interruption
scheduling problem. Liao et al.38 and Liu et al.39 have on one of the machines.
also used PSO in flow shop scheduling problem. Niu et 4. All jobs are available to be processed at time 0.
al.40 have proposed a clonal selection algorithm to 5. No job can be processed by more than one
improve the swarm diversity and avoid premature con- machine.
vergence. Geem et al.41 have proposed HSA, a nature- 6. The processing time and the due date of the jobs,
inspired algorithm, mimicking the improvisation of the number of jobs, and the number of machines
music players. The harmony in music is analogous to are given and fixed.
the optimization solution vector, and the musician’s 7. No downtime is considered, and setup time is
improvisations are analogous to the local and global included in processing time.
search schemes in optimization techniques. It has been
successfully applied to various optimization problems A set N = {J1, J2, ..., Jn} of n jobs are to be sched-
such as sequential quadratic programming, structural uled on a set M = {M1, M2, ..., Mm} of m identical par-
optimization, and so on.21,42–44 Zhang et al.45 have allel machines. The first objective is to find the optimal
addressed the dynamic job shop scheduling problem schedule S = {S1, S2, ..., Sm} where Sj is a subset of jobs
with random job arrivals and machine breakdowns. assigned to machine Mj such that max{C1(S), C2(S), ...,
Renna46 has adopted a pheromone-based approach in Cm(S)} = Cmax(S) is minimum where
creating schedules for the job shop environment in cel-
lular manufacturing systems. Rui et al.47 have devel- X
Cj ðSÞ = pi ð1Þ
oped bidirectional convergence ant colony algorithm to pi 2Sj
solve the integrated job shop scheduling problem with
tool flow in flexible manufacturing system (FMS). Kim The following notations have been used for finding
and Lee48 have considered the scheduling problem in total tardiness: i is the index of machine, i = 1, 2, ..., m,
hybrid flow shops with parallel machines at each serial where m is the number of machines;
production stage where each job may visit each stage P = fS1 , S2 , . . . , Sj , . . . , Ski g is the sequence of jobs
several times, called the re-entrant flows. Marimuthu et which are assigned to machine i; Sj is the index of job,
al.49 have addressed the problem of making sequencing where j = 1, 2, ..., ki and ki represents the number of
and scheduling decisions for n jobs in m machine flow total jobs to be processed by machine i; pSj is the pro-
shops with a lot-sizing constraint. Pan et al.50 have pre- cessing time of job Sj; STSj is the starting time of job
sented a novel multiobjective particle swarm optimiza- Sj; cSj is the completion time of job Sj; and dSj is the
tion (MOPSO) algorithm for solving no-wait flow shop due date of job Sj.
scheduling problems with makespan and maximum tar- The IPP total tardiness can be represented mathema-
diness criteria. Rossi and Dini51 have presented a GA tically in the following manner
Dimension, j 1 2 3 4 5 6
SPV: smallest position value. The bold values shows the smallest position value.
HSA
Geem et al.41 introduced an interesting meta-heuristic
algorithm called HSA. It is population based and
mimics the musical process of searching for a better
state of harmony such as jazz improvisation. It has its
own advantages over traditional optimization tech-
niques by having great power in global search and its
simplicity in both concept and implementation. Due to
its advantages and novelty, HSA has received increas-
ing attention among the researchers and has been vigor-
ously applied to various engineering optimization
problems. One of the finest qualities of HSA is the iden-
tification of high-performance regions of the solution Figure 1. Flow chart for MPSO algorithm.
space at a reasonable time. However, while performing
the local search for numerical application, it is not able
to withstand at its best. Hence, fine tuning the HSA columns consists of the variables of each solution
characteristics becomes inevitable. In order to improve (jobs). Each solution xi is considered as a one-
such fine tuning characteristics and convergence rate, dimensional array. The size of the array can be
Mahdavi et al.21 have proposed an improved harmony designed by the maximum number of jobs considered
search which has the fine tuning feature of mathemati- in the problem instance. HM is represented as given in
cal techniques having the potential of outperforming
equation (13)
traditional HSA. This algorithm uses harmony memory
2 3
considering rate (HMCR) and pitch adjusting rate x11 x12 ... x1K1 x1K
(PAR) for finding the solution vector in the search 6 x2 x22 ... x2K1 x1K 7
6 1 7
space. The optimization procedure of HSA is given in 6 : : : : : 7
6 7
the following steps. HM = 6 6 : : : : : 7
7
6 : : : : : 7
6 7
1. Initialization of the harmony memory (HM); 4 xHMS1 xHMS1 . . . xHMS1 xHMS1 5
1 2 K1 K
2. Improvisation of a new HM; xHMS
1 xHMS
2 . . . xHMS
K1 xHMS
K
3. Updation of the HM; ð13Þ
4. Checking for the stopping criteria. Otherwise
repeat steps 2 and 3.
Improvisation of new HM
Initialization of HM The divergence and convergence of the search in HSA
A set of initial solutions of harmony memory size has been maintained during this process. HMCR and
(HMS) is generated to build the HM, which is repre- PAR are considered as the main parameters for conver-
sented by a matrix of two dimensions where rows con- gence or divergence of the search capability by
sists of a set of solutions xi (population size), while Mahdavi et al.21 Here, the new solutions are
constructed stochastically using one of the following assignment of jobs to the machines to calculate the
three operators: (1) memory consideration (based on objective function. The traditional HSA only uses fixed
the HMCR), (2) random consideration (based on values for both PAR and bw. These values have been
1 2 HMCR), and (3) pitch adjustment (based on the adjusted in the initialization step and not been changed
PAR). For the memory consideration, the value of the during new generations. This has been considered as
first decision variable (x01 ) has been taken from any of the main drawback of traditional HSA. Hence, the
the values as specified in HM range (x01 x01 HMS). need has been raised to sort out these issues. However,
The other decision variable values (x02 , x03 , . . . , x0K ) have by fine tuning the optimized solution vectors using the
also been taken in the same manner parameters such as PAR and bw, convergence rate has
been increased, and this leads to optimal solution. Still
x0 i 2 x1i , x2i , :::, xHMS with probability HMCR
x0i i there has been a probability of having a dispute by
x0 i 2 X0 i with probability (1 HMCR)
assigning small and larger values for PAR and bw or
ð14Þ vice versa. Hence, the parameter values need to be
Each and every component obtained by the memory selected judiciously. Fesanghary et al.42 have developed
consideration is analyzed to determine whether the one of such fine tuning parameters for PAR and bw for
pitch should be adjusted reducing the dispute among the values given to their
parameters. It has been reported that using equation
Pitch adjusting decision for x0i stated below for PAR and bw, these issues have been
sorted out
Yes with probabilty PAR ð15Þ
No with probabilty (1 PAR) ðPARmax PARmin Þ
PARðgnÞ = PARmin + 3 gn ð17Þ
NI
If the pitch adjustment decision for x0i is Yes, then x0i
is replaced as follows where PAR represents the pitch adjusting rate for each
generation, PARmin represents the minimum pitch
x0i x0i 6randðÞ bw ð16Þ adjusting rate, PARmax denotes the maximum pitch
adjusting rate, NI denotes the number of solution vec-
where bw represents an arbitrary distance bandwidth
tor generations, and gn represents the generation
and rand() represents random number between 0 and 1.
number.
By considering HM, pitch adjustment has been
For bandwidth, tuning has been done using the fol-
applied to each variable of the new HM vector. These
lowing equation
improvisation steps are almost similar to reproduction
in GA which uses crossover and mutation operators. bwðgnÞ = bwmax expðc:gnÞ ð18Þ
Thus, the improvisation utilizes the full HM to con-
struct the solutions, but in case of GA, new chromo- where c = Ln(bwmin =bwmax )=NI, bw(gn) denotes the
somes are generated by crossover of two parents or bandwidth for each generation, bwmax denotes the max-
mutation. While considering the operators in GA, it imum bandwidth, and bwmin represents the minimum
needs to be carefully designed for highly constrained bandwidth.
problems for reaching out its optimal solutions.
Results and discussions
Updation of HM
The computation study aims to analyze the perfor-
If the new harmony vector, (x0 = x01 , x02 , . . . , x0K ), is bet- mance of MPSO and HSA to minimize makespan and
ter than the worst in the HM, judged in terms of the total tardiness for the IPP scheduling. The algorithms
objective function value, the new harmony is included are coded in MATLAB R2010a and executed in IntelÒ
in the HM, and the existing worst harmony is removed Coreä i5 CPU M430 at 2.27 GHz with 4 GB RAM.
from the HM. The benchmark problems have been taken from
Tanaka and Araki8 and are also available at https://
sites.google.com/site/shunjitanaka/pmtt. Fisher53 has
Check for stopping criteria
proposed the standard method for generating these
If the maximum number of improvisations (stopping problems. The integer processing times pj (1 4 j 4 n) of
criterion) is satisfied, computation is terminated. these problems have been generated from the uniform
Otherwise steps 2 and 3 will be repeated. distribution between [1, 100]. The
P total processing times
have been computed by P = nj= 1 pj , the due dates dj
(1 4 j 4 n) have been generated using the uniform dis-
Proposed HSA
tribution ½P(1 t R=2)=m, P(1 t + R=2)=m,
In HM vector, each member in the population pool is where n is the number of jobs, m is the number of
converted to job schedule using SPV rule–based prob- machines, and t is the tardiness factor, and due date
lem representation discussed in section ‘‘Solution repre- range is changed by n = 20, m = {2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
sentation’’ for getting the initial sequence of jobs and 10}, t = {0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0}, and R = {0.2, 0.4, 0.6,
Best Makespan LB
PD = 3 100 ð20Þ
LB
The average percentage deviation (APD) of the pro- Figure 3. Convergence curve for makespan with HSA for the
posed MPSO has been tested with GA and PSO in problem 20_10_02_08_001.
IPPMST. The APD can be calculated as follows
P
I
The improvement rate of MPSO with respect to GA
PDðLÞ
L is 68.3% and with respect to PSO is 38.5%. The con-
APD = ð21Þ vergence curve for makespan with MPSO is presented
I
in Figure 2.
where I is the total number of problems and L stands Similarly, the improvement rate for HSA can be
for index of the problem. defined as follows
From Table 4, it is observed that the calculated
value of APD for GA is 0.2686 and PSO is 0.1385. The Improvement rate ð%Þ
APD value obtained by using MPSO is 0.0851. Based ð23Þ
ðAPDGA, PSO, MPSO APDHSA Þ
on APD comparisons, MPSO turns out to be superior =
APDGA, PSO, MPSO
to GA and PSO, whereas the performance of GA is
worst among all algorithms. The APD value for HSA The improvement performance of HSA with respect
is 0.0523. It clearly shows HSA is superior to GA, to GA is 80.5%, with respect to PSO is 62.2%, and
PSO, and MPSO. with respect to MPSO is 39.9%. The convergence curve
The improvement rate in APD using MPSO can be for makespan with HSA is presented in Figure 3. The
defined as follows results of GA, PSO, MPSO, and HSA for makespan
and their corresponding APD values are shown in
ðAPDGA, PSO APDMPSO Þ
Improvement rate ð%Þ = Table 4.
APDGA, PSO
The same benchmark problem has been tested with
ð22Þ total tardiness, and same instances of the problems
3 20 20_03_04_08_001 397 433 415 411 402 0.0907 0.0453 0.0353 0.0126
4 20 20_04_02_02_001 298 327 307 304 299 0.0973 0.0302 0.0201 0.0034
4 20 20_04_02_02_002 235 272 251 242 236 0.1574 0.0681 0.0298 0.0043
4 20 20_04_02_02_003 321 335 324 323 322 0.0436 0.0093 0.0062 0.0031
5 20 20_05_02_02_001 238 272 251 246 239 0.1429 0.0546 0.0336 0.0042
6 20 20_06_02_02_001 199 224 205 204 200 0.1256 0.0302 0.0251 0.0050
7 20 20_07_02_02_001 170 191 178 174 172 0.1235 0.0471 0.0235 0.0118
8 20 20_08_02_02_001 149 171 159 156 152 0.1477 0.0671 0.0470 0.0201
9 20 20_09_02_02_001 132 157 141 137 134 0.1894 0.0682 0.0379 0.0152
10 20 20_10_02_02_001 119 145 132 131 125 0.2185 0.1092 0.1008 0.0504
10 20 20_10_02_02_002 95 121 110 106 102 0.2737 0.1579 0.1158 0.0737
10 20 20_10_02_02_003 128 170 151 148 141 0.3281 0.1797 0.1563 0.1016
10 20 20_10_02_02_004 99 134 119 112 111 0.3535 0.2020 0.1313 0.1212
10 20 20_10_02_02_005 100 142 116 110 106 0.4200 0.1600 0.1000 0.0600
10 20 20_10_02_04_001 119 160 142 131 125 0.3445 0.1933 0.1008 0.0504
10 20 20_10_02_04_002 95 132 117 102 99 0.3895 0.2316 0.0737 0.0421
10 20 20_10_02_04_003 128 169 151 148 141 0.3203 0.1797 0.1563 0.1016
10 20 20_10_02_04_004 99 132 119 112 110 0.3333 0.2020 0.1313 0.1111
10 20 20_10_02_04_005 100 130 116 109 106 0.3000 0.1600 0.0900 0.0600
10 20 20_10_02_06_001 119 154 142 131 125 0.2941 0.1933 0.1008 0.0504
10 20 20_10_02_06_002 95 140 118 110 101 0.4737 0.2421 0.1579 0.0632
10 20 20_10_02_06_003 128 159 140 133 130 0.2422 0.0938 0.0391 0.0156
10 20 20_10_02_06_004 99 130 119 112 110 0.3131 0.2020 0.1313 0.1111
10 20 20_10_02_06_005 100 142 116 109 106 0.4200 0.1600 0.0900 0.0600
10 20 20_10_02_08_001 119 142 131 127 125 0.1933 0.1008 0.0672 0.0504
APD: average percentage deviation; LB: lower bound; GA: genetic algorithm; PSO: particle swarm optimization; MPSO: particle swarm optimization with mutation; HSA: harmony search algorithm; PD: percentage
deviation.
9
10 Proc IMechE Part B: J Engineering Manufacture
OPT: optimal solution; PSO: particle swarm optimization; CSPSO: clonal selection particle swarm optimization; GA: genetic algorithm; HSA:
harmony search algorithm; MPSO: particle swarm optimization with mutation.
11. Lee CY and Massey JD. Multiprocessor scheduling com- 29. Patrizia B, Gianpaolo G, Antonio G, et al. Rolling hori-
bining LPT and MULTIFIT. Discrete Appl Math 1988; zon and fix-and-relax heuristics for the parallel machine
20: 233–242. lot sizing and scheduling problem with sequence-
12. Gupta JND and Ruiz Torres AJ. A LISTFIT heuristic dependent set-up costs. Comput Oper Res 2008; 35(11):
for minimizing makespan on identical parallel machines. 3644–3656.
Prod Plan Control 2001; 12(1): 28–36. 30. Rajakumar S, Arunachalam VP and Selladurai V. Work-
13. Min L and Cheng W. A genetic algorithm for minimizing flow balancing in parallel machines through genetic algo-
the makespan in the case of scheduling identical parallel rithm. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 2007; 33(11–12): 1212–1221.
machines. Artif Intell Eng 1999; 13: 399–403. 31. Chaudhry IA and Drake PR. Minimizing total tardiness
14. Abdekhodaee AH and Wirth A. Scheduling parallel for the machine scheduling and worker assignment prob-
machines with a single server: some solvable cases and lems in identical parallel machines using genetic algo-
heuristics. Comput Oper Res 2002; 29: 295–315. rithms. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 2009; 42(5–6): 581–594.
15. Chang PY, Damodaran P and Melouk S. Minimizing 32. Koulamas C. Decomposition and hybrid simulated
makespan on parallel batch processing. Int J Prod Res annealing heuristics for the parallel machine total tardi-
2004; 42(19): 4211–4220. ness problem. Nav Res Log 1997; 44(1): 109–125.
16. Yeh W-C, Lai P-J, Lee W-C, et al. Parallel machine sche- 33. Kim CO and Shin HJ. Scheduling jobs on parallel
duling to minimize makespan with fuzzy processing times machines: a restricted tabu search approach. Int J Adv
and learning effects. Inform Sciences 2014; 269: 142–158. Manuf Tech 2003; 22(3–4): 278–287.
17. Bathrinath S, Saravanasankar S, Ponnambalam SG, et 34. Bilge Ü, Kiracx F, Kurtulan M, et al. A tabu search algo-
al. Bi-objective optimization in identical parallel machine rithm for parallel machine total tardiness problem. Com-
scheduling problem. In: BK Panigrahi, PN Suganthan, S put Oper Res 2004; 31(3): 397–414.
Das, et al. (eds) Swarm, evolutionary, and memetic com- 35. Anghinolfi D and Paolucci M. Parallel machine total tar-
puting: 4th international conference, SEMCCO 2013, diness scheduling with a new hybrid metaheuristic
Chennai, India, December 19–21, 2013, proceedings, part I approach. Comput Oper Res 2007; 34(11): 3471–3490.
(Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), vol. 8297). 36. Kurz ME and Askin RG. Scheduling flexible flow lines
Heidelberg: Springer, 2013, pp.377–388. with sequence-dependent setup times. Eur J Oper Res
18. Tasgetiren MF, Liang YC, Sevkli M, et al. A particle 2004; 159(1): 66–82.
swarm optimization algorithm for makespan and total 37. Kennedy J and Eberhart RC. Particle swarm optimiza-
flowtime minimization in permutation flowshop sequen- tion. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference
cing problem. Eur J Oper Res 2007; 177(3): 1930–1947. neural networks, Piscataway, NJ, 27 November-1 Decem-
19. Bean JC. Genetic algorithm and random keys for sequen- ber 1995, pp.1942–1948. New York: IEEE.
cing and optimization. ORSA J Comput 1994; 6(2): 154– 38. Liao CJ, Tseng CT and Luarn P. A discrete version of
160. particle swarm optimization for flowshop scheduling
20. Michalewicz Z. Genetic algorithms + data structures = problems. Comput Oper Res 2007; 34(10): 3099–3111.
evolution programs. 3rd ed. London: Springer-Verlag, 39. Liu B, Wang L and Jin YH. An effective hybrid PSO-
1996. based algorithm for flow shop scheduling with limited
21. Mahdavi M, Fesanghary M and Demangir E. An buffers. Comput Oper Res 2008; 35(9): 2791–2806.
improved harmony search algorithm for solving optimi- 40. Niu Q, Zhou T and Wang L. A hybrid particle swarm
zation problems. Appl Math Comput 2007; 188: 1567– optimization for parallel machine total tardiness schedul-
1579. ing. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 2010; 49: 723–739.
22. Wilkerson LJ and Irwin JD. An improved algorithm 41. Geem ZW, Kim JH and Loganathan GV. Harmony
for scheduling independent tasks. AIIE T 1971; 3: 245– search optimization: application to pipe network design.
293. Int J Model Simulat 2002; 22(2): 125–133.
23. Baker KR and Scudder GD. Sequencing with earliness 42. Fesanghary M, Mahdavi M, Minary-Jolandan M, et al.
and tardiness penalties: a review. Oper Res 1990; 38(1): Hybridizing harmony search algorithm with sequential
22–36. quadratic programming for engineering optimization
24. Kim S-I, Choi H-S and Lee D-H. Scheduling algorithms problems. Comput Method Appl M 2008; 197: 3080–3091.
for parallel machines with sequence-dependent set-up 43. Kang SL and Geem ZW. A new structural optimization
and distinct ready times: minimizing total tardiness. Proc method based on the harmony search algorithm. Comput
IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 2007; 221(6): Struct 2004; 82(9–10): 781–798.
1087–1096. 44. Sivasubramani S and Swarup KS. Environmental/eco-
25. Kumar R, Tiwari MK and Shankar R. Scheduling of nomic dispatch using multi-objective harmony search
flexible manufacturing systems: an ant colony optimiza- algorithm. Electr Pow Syst Res 2011; 81: 1778–1785.
tion approach. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Man- 45. Zhang L, Gao L and Li X. A hybrid genetic algorithm
ufacture 2003; 217(10): 1443–1453. and tabu search for a multi-objective dynamic job shop
26. Dogramaci A and Surkis I. Evaluation of a heuristic for scheduling problem. Int J Prod Res 2013; 51(12): 3516–
scheduling independent jobs on parallel identical proces- 3531.
sors. Manage Sci 1979; 25(12): 1208–1216. 46. Renna P. Job shop scheduling by pheromone approach in
27. Ho JC and Chang YL. Heuristics for minimizing mean a dynamic environment. Int J Comp Integ M 2010; 23(5):
tardiness for parallel machine. Nav Res Log 1991; 38(3): 412–424.
367–381. 47. Rui Z, Shilong W, Zheqi Z, et al. An ant colony algo-
28. Simon D and Andrew W. Heuristic methods for the iden- rithm for job shop scheduling problem with tool flow.
tical parallel machine flowtime problem with set-up times. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture 2014;
Comput Oper Res 2005; 32(9): 2479–2491. 228(8): 959–968.
48. Kim HW and Lee DH. Heuristic algorithms for re- shop scheduling problems. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engi-
entrant hybrid flow shop scheduling with unrelated neering Manufacture 2008; 222(4): 519–539.
parallel machines. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering 51. Rossi A and Dini G. An evolutionary approach to com-
Manufacture 2009; 223(4): 433–442. plex job-shop and flexible manufacturing system schedul-
49. Marimuthu S, Ponnambalam SG and Jawahar N. Tabu ing. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering Manufacture
search and simulated annealing algorithms for scheduling 2001; 215(2): 233–245.
in flow shops with lot streaming. Proc IMechE, Part B: J 52. Wang W and Brunn P. An effective genetic algorithm for
Engineering Manufacture 2007; 221(2): 317–331. job shop scheduling. Proc IMechE, Part B: J Engineering
50. Pan QK, Wang L and Qian B. A novel multi-objective Manufacture 2000; 214(4): 293–300.
particle swarm optimization algorithm for no-wait flow 53. Fisher ML. A dual algorithm for the one-machine sche-
duling problem. Math Program 1976; 11: 229–251.