See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305429630

A HYBRID GENETIC ALGORITHM FOR JOB SHOP SCHEDULING PROBLEMS

Article · January 2016

CITATIONS READS

3 2,014

1 author:

M. A. El-Shorbagy
Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University
122 PUBLICATIONS   1,992 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dynamic Systems and Applications View project

Cluster analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by M. A. El-Shorbagy on 19 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN 2394–7799 IJAETCS (2016) Vol.3, No.1, 6-17
Research Article
International Journal of Advancement in Engineering, Technology and
Computer Sciences

A HYBRID GENETIC ALGORITHM FOR JOB SHOP

SCHEDULING PROBLEMS
I. M. El-Desoky I, M. A. El-ShorbagyI, S. M. NasrI, Z. M. HendawyI, A. A. MousaI,II
I
Department of Basic Engineering Science, Faculty of Engineering, Shebin El-Kom,Menoufia University, Egypt([email protected]).
II
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Sciences, Taif University, Saudi Arabia.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABSTRACT: Job Shop Scheduling Problem (JSSP) is an optimization problem in which ideal jobs are assigned
to resources at particular times. In recent years many attempts have been made at the solution of this problem
using a various range of tools and techniques. This paper presents hybrid genetic algorithm (HGA) for JSSP.
The hybrid algorithm is a combination between genetic algorithm (GA) and local search. Firstly, a new
initialization method is proposed. A modified crossover and mutation operators are used. Secondly, local
search based on the neighborhood structure is applied in the GA result. Finally, the approach is tested on a set
of standard instances taken from the literature. The computation results have validated the effectiveness of the
proposed algorithm.

KEYWORDS: Genetic algorithm, Job shop scheduling problem, Local search.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. INTRODUCTION: Scheduling has become a critical factor in many job shops especially for real-world industrial
applications [(1)-(3)]. Finding scheduling to achieve the work in a minimum time and more efficiently is called JSSP.
The JSSP can be described in the following way: we are given a set of jobs and a set of machines. Each machine
handles, at most, one job at a time. Each job consists of a chain of operations, each of which needs to be processed
during an uninterrupted time period of a given length on a given machine. The purpose is to find a schedule, that is, an
allocation of the operations to time intervals on the machines, that has a minimum duration required to complete[(4)].
The JSSP is among the hardest combinatorial problems. Not only is it complicated, but it is one of the worst NP-
complete class members. In general, scheduling problems are NP; NP stands for non-deterministic polynomial, which
means that it is not possible to solve an arbitrary instance in polynomial time. So, the JSSP has garnered attention due
to both its practical importance and its solution complexity [(5), (6)].
At present, the method for the JSSP mainly includes two kinds, one of which is exact methods and the other
approximation methods. Exact methods, such as branch and bound, linear programming and decomposition methods,
guarantee global convergence and have been successful in solving small instances[(7)]. In manufacturing systems,
most scheduling problems are very complex in nature and very complicated to be solved by exact methods it becomes
increasingly important to explore ways of obtaining better schedules that include priority dispatch, shifting bottleneck
approach, local search, and heuristic methods. Recently, number of high-level strategies is used to guide other
heuristics, known as meta-heuristics led to better and more appreciated results [(8) -(16)]. Therefore, a number of
meta-heuristics were proposed in literature for JSSP such as GA [(17) -(18)], simulated annealing (SA) [(19), (20)],ant
colony optimization (ACO) [(21)-(23)],tabu search (TS) [(24),(25)], particle swarm optimization (PSO) [(26),(27)],
and Consultant Guided Search algorithm (CGS) [(28)].
One of meta-heuristics methods is the GA. GA inspired by the process of Darwinian evolution, has been
recognized as a general search strategy and an optimization method which is often useful for attacking combinational
problems. In contrast to other meta-heuristics methods the GA utilizes a population of solutions in its search that is not
easy to fall into local minima. GA has been used with increasing frequency to address scheduling problems. In [(29)]
Lazár introduced a review of frequent approaches and methods for JSSP which most commonly are used in solving
this problem. From this review we can say that GA is an effective metaheuristic to solve combinatorial optimization
problems, and has been successfully adopted to solve the JSSP. How to adapt GAs to the JSSPs is very challenging
but frustrating. Many efforts have been made in order to give an efficient implementation of GAs to the problem. In
[(30)], a new GA is presented to solve the JSSP, while in [(4)] the impact of random initialization on solving the JSSP
is addressed and using GA as an optimization technique.
Due to the NP-hard nature of the JSSP, using simple GA to solve the difficult problem may not be more
efficient in practice. Much effort in the literature has focused on hybrid methods [(31)-(36)]. Ren and Yupingin [(31)]
design some GA operators (mixed selection operator, new crossover operator and mutation operator based on the
critical path) and solve JSSP more effectively. In [(32)] Athanasios and Stavros proposed a new hybrid parallel GA
Desoky, et.al./International Journal of Advancement in Engineering, Technology and Computer Sciences, Vol.3, No. 1 7

with specialized crossover and mutation operators utilizing path-relinking concepts from combinatorial optimization
approaches. Some researchers focused their attention on combining the GA with local search schemes to develop
some hybrid optimization strategies for JSSP [(35), (36)].
In this paper, we propose an effective hybrid algorithm for JSSP based on GA and local search. Firstly, we
design a GA model for JSSP. We propose new initialization technique, modified crossover and mutation operators to
improve the solution quality. Then local search based on the neighborhood structure is applied in the GA
result[(7),(35)]. The proposed approach is tested by a set of standard instances taken from the literature drawn from
the OR-library [(37), (38)]. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Detailed description of JSSP is
presented in Section 2. In sections 3, GA is briefly introduced. In Section 4, the proposed algorithm is presented.
Section 5 discusses the numerical results. Finally, we summarize the paper and present our future work in Section 6.

2. JOB SHOP SCHEDULING PROBLEM: The JSSP can be formulated as follows: For "n" jobs, each one is
composed of several operations that must be executed on "m" machines. For each operation uses only one machine for
a fixed duration. Each machine can process at most one operation at a time and once an operation starts processing on
a given machine, it must complete processing on that same machine without any interruption. The operations of a
given job have to be processed in a given set of order [(4)]. The problem’s main aim is to schedule the activities or
operations of the jobs on the machines such that the total time to finish all jobs, that is the makespan( Cmax ), is
minimized. The term makespan refers to the cumulative time to complete all the operations of all jobs on all machines.
It is a measure of the time period from the starting time of the first operation to the ending time of the last operation.
Sometimes there may be multiple solutions that have the minimum makespan, but the goal is to find out any one of
them: it is not necessary to find all possible optimum solutions.
Let J 0,..., n , n 1 denote the set of operations to be scheduled and M 1,..., m the set of machines. The
operations 0 and n 1 are dummy, have no duration and represent the initial and final operations. The operations are
interrelated by two kinds of constraints. First, the precedence constraints, which force each operation to be scheduled
after all predecessor operations, P j are completed. Second, operation can only be scheduled if the machine it requires
is idle. Further, let d j denote the (fixed) duration (processing time) of operation j. Let Fj represent the finish time of
operation j. A schedule can be represented by a vector of finish time (F1 , F2 ,..., Fn 1 ) . Let A (t) be the set of operations
being processed at time t, and let if r j , m 1 operation j requires machine m to be processed and r j , m 0 otherwise
[(7)].The conceptual model of the JSSP can be described the following way:

Minimize Fn 1 (C max ) (1)

subject to :
Fk Fj dj j 1,..., n 1; k Pj (2)

rj ,m 1 m M; t 0 (3)
j A t

Fj 0, j 1,..., n 1 (4)

The objective function (1) minimizes the finish time of operation n+1 (the last operation), and therefore
minimizes the makespan. Constraints (2) impose the precedence relations between operations and constraints (3) state
that one machine can only process one operation at a time. Finally, (4) forces the finish times to be nonnegative.
The JSSP can be formally described by a disjunctive graph G V ;C D , where V is a set of nodes representing
operations of the jobs together with two special nodes, a source (0) and a sink (*), representing the beginning and end
of the schedule, respectively. C is a set of conjunctive arcs representing technological sequences of the operations. D
is a set of disjunctive arcs representing pairs of operations that must be performed on the same machines. As example,
Tables I, II present the data for JSSP with three jobs and three machines. Table I includes the routing of each job
through each machine while Table II includes the processing time for each operation. Figure I: presents the disjunctive
graph of this example [(39), (40)].
Desoky, et.al./International Journal of Advancement in Engineering, Technology and Computer Sciences, Vol.3, No. 1 8

Jobs Machines Jobs Time

J1 M1 M2 M3 J1 3 3 3
J2 M1 M3 M2 J2 2 3 4
J3 M2 M1 M3 J3 3 2 1
Table I: Machine Sequence Table II: Processing Time

Fig I: The disjunctive graph of a 3 x 3 example

3. GENETIC ALGORITHM: GA is a powerful search technique based on natural biological evolution which is used
for finding an optimal or near-optimal solution. The idea of GA was first proposed by Holland [(41)] in the early
1970s and since then has been widely used in solving optimization problem. GA has been implemented successfully in
many scheduling problems. GA starts with a set of potential solutions (chromosomes). Next, genetic search operators
such as selection, mutation and crossover are then applied one after another to obtain a new generation of
chromosomes in which the expected quality over all the chromosomes is better than that of the initial generation
[(42)]. This process is repeated until the termination criterion is met, and the best chromosome of the last generation is
reported as the final solution. Then the genetic search steps can be described as shown in figure II [(43)]:

Generate an initial population

Check chromosome in constrains and repair out constrain values
Evaluate chromosome in the objective function
Do:
New population [Select parents from population and recombine parents (Crossover and mutation operators)]
Evaluate New population in the objective function
Construct new generation from best of old population and New population
While satisfactory solution has been found
Fig II: The pseudo code of the general GA

4. THE PROPOSED ALGORITHM (HGA): The proposed algorithm is a combination between GA and local
search. A new way of initializing the population of solutions is designed. A modified crossover and mutation operators
are used to improve the solution quality. Then local search based on the neighborhood structure proposed by Nowicki
and Smutnicki is applied in GA result [(44)]. Finally, the approach is tested on a set of standard instances taken from
the literature. The computation results have validated the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm. The basic idea of
the proposed algorithm can be described as follows:

4.1. GENETIC ALGORITHM

4.1.1. INTIAL POPULATION: For JSSP, the initial solution plays a critical role in determining the quality of final
solution. However, the initial population has been produced randomly, it is not efficient. It will require longer search
time to obtain an optimal solution and also decreases the search possibility for an optimal solution giving infeasible
solutions [(45)]. In this paper, a new way of initializing first population of solutions is designed. This new method
gives feasible solutions and is very useful in large problem. We generate the initial population (job sequence in
Desoky, et.al./International Journal of Advancement in Engineering, Technology and Computer Sciences, Vol.3, No. 1 9

machines) by depending on machine sequence for jobs. Arrange the jobs in machines that have earlier sequence in this
machine. For example, problem in table I, for machine1 there are two jobs (1, 2) should start in it according to their
machine sequence. In our approach we take this in account. Make the start in machine1with one of these jobs. Then
complete jobs sequence in machine 1 with the same manner. Figure III illustrates initialization method with
disjunctive graph. As shown in figure III, we order jobs in machine with the nearest jobs from start point (O). For
example, the nearest jobs on machine 1 from start point (O) are job 1 and job 2 (yellow circles). So the job sequence in
machine 1 will be (1,2,3),or (2,1,3). The same manner is used for the other machines.

Fig III: Initialization technique with disjunctive graph for the 3 x 3example

4.1.2. EVALUATION: In JSSP, makespan represents a good performance measure. Makespan of the jobs (Cmax) is
the completion time of all the jobs where, the schedule with the minimal makespan often implies a high utilization of
machines. The makespan objective is selected for comparison and assessing the performance of the generated
solutions by GA.

4.1.3.CREAT NEW POPULATION: Creating a new population from the current population by ranking the
solutions according to fitness function(makespan). Then we applied the three operators (selection, crossover, and
mutation).

4.1.3.1. RANKING: Ranking individuals according to their fitness value, and returns a column vector containing the
corresponding individual fitness value, in order to establish later the probabilities of survival that are necessary for the
selection process.

4.1.3.2. SELECTION: For JSSP as any optimization problem there are several techniques of selection. The
commonly used techniques for selection of individuals are roulette wheel selection, rank selection, steady state
selection, stochastic universal sampling, etc. Here we used roulette wheel selection[(46)].

Fig IV: Roulette wheel selection method

Desoky, et.al./International Journal of Advancement in Engineering, Technology and Computer Sciences, Vol.3, No. 1 10

In this method the parents are selected according to their fitness. Better chromosomes, are having more
chances to be selected as parents. Each individual is assigned a slice of circular Roulette wheel, and the size of slice is
proportional to the individual fitness of chromosomes, that is, bigger the value, larger the size of slice is. The Roulette
wheel algorithm is started by finding the sum of all chromosomes fitness in the population. Then generate random
number from the given population interval. Finally, go through the entire population and sum the fitness. When this
sum is more than a fitness criteria value, stop and return this chromosome. Figure IV shows Roulette wheel for six
individuals having different fitness values. The sixth individual has a higher fitness than any other, it is expected that
the Roulette wheel selection will choose the sixth individual more than any other individual [(42)].

4.1.3.3. CROSSOVER: The crossover operates on two chromosomes at a time and generates offspring by combining
features of both chromosomes. In general, the performance of the GAs depends, to a great extent, on the performance
of the crossover operator used. During the past two decades, various crossover operators have been proposed for literal
permutation encodings for JSSP, such as partial-mapped crossover (PMX), order crossover (OX), cycle crossover
(CX), position-based crossover, order-based crossover, etc.[(47)]. In this paper, we use a modified OX that proposed
by Gao and et al. [(48)], where they used OX in operation sequence; here we used it in job sequence for every
machine. The modified OX can be described as follows:
Step 1: Select a subsection of job sequence for a machine from one parent at random.
Step 2: Produce offspring by copying the substring of job sequence for a machine into the corresponding positions.
Step 3: Delete the jobs that are already in the substring from the second parent. The resulted sequence of jobs contains
jobs that the offspring needs.
Step 4: Place the jobs into the unfixed positions of the offspring from left to right according to the order of the
sequence in the second parent. The modified OX for one machine is illustrated in Figure V.

1 5 6 4 10 2 8 3 9 7

Parent1

7 6 5 4 10 2 8 3 1 9

Offspring

3 10 8 7 6 5 1 4 9 2

Parent 2
Fig V: The modified OX for one machine.

4.1.3.4. MUTATION: Mutation is just used to produce small perturbations on chromosomes in order to maintain the
diversity of population. During the last decade, there are several mutation operators have been proposed such as
inversion, insertion, displacement, reciprocal exchange mutation, and shift mutation [(48)]. Inversion mutation selects
two positions within a chromosome at random and then inverts the substring between these two positions. In this paper
we advanced inversion mutation, by choosing two or more positions in the jobs sequence for one machine and invert
them as showed in Figure VI. These steps are applied to other machines, to get a new Offspring.

Parent
1 5 6 4 10 2 8 3 9 7

New Offspring
1 8 6 9 10 2 5 3 4 7

Fig VI: Inversion mutation on job sequence for one machine.

4.1.4. NEW GENERATION: In this step, the new generation composed by migration initial population with and
offspring population. Then we take the best individuals of initial population with generation gap percentage and
offspring population.

4.1.5. TERMINATION TEST: The algorithm is terminated either the maximum number of generations is achieved,
or when the individuals of the population converge, convergence occurs when all individual positions in the
population are identical. In this case, crossover will have no further effect. Otherwise, return to step 4.3.
Desoky, et.al./International Journal of Advancement in Engineering, Technology and Computer Sciences, Vol.3, No. 1 11

4.2. LOCAL SEARCH PROCEDURE: Using GAs for the JSSP are usually with a slow convergence speed and
easy to trap into local optimal solutions. In order to enhance the convergence speed, we combine the GA with local
search schemes to develop some hybrid optimization strategies for JSSP improving the solution quality. We use the
approach of Nowicki and Smutnicki [(37), (38)].The local search procedure starts by finding the critical path for the
solution obtained by GA. Critical path can be determined in the Gantt-Chart representation for the solution. The
critical path decomposes by a number of blocks where a block is a maximal sequence of adjacent operations that
require the same machine. Any operation on the critical path is called a critical operation. Secondly, a neighborhood is
defined as interchanges of any two sequential operations. Interchanging the last two or the first two critical operations
gives better solution. The local search procedure is shown in Figure VII, while Figure VIII shows the flow chart of the
proposed algorithm (HGA).

possible swap
active possible swap

M1

M2

M3 Critical Path

M4

Fig VII: the local search procedure

Create initial feasible population depending

in jobs sequences

Evaluate population with their makespan

(Cmax) Finding the critical path for the best
solutions obtained by GA

Stopping Interchanges every two sequential

iterations GA result operations in the critical path to generate
new solutions

Next generation Evaluate new solutions with their

Create new population (selection, crossover, makespan (Cmax)
mutation)

Compare GA results with the best

Construct best population of initial and solution obtained by local search
new population

HGA result

FigVIII:The flow chart of the proposed algorithm (HGA)

5. NUMERICAL STUDIES: To illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm, it is tested on a set of standard
instances (JSSP test problems) taken from the literature [(37), (38)].As any non-traditional optimization algorithms,
the proposed algorithm, involves a number of parameters that affect the performance of algorithm. The parameters are
Desoky, et.al./International Journal of Advancement in Engineering, Technology and Computer Sciences, Vol.3, No. 1 12

summarized in Table III. The algorithm is coded in MATLAB 7.8 and the simulations have been executed on an Intel
core (TM) i7-4510u cpu, 2.00GHZ -2.60 GHz processor.

Generation gap 0.9

Crossover rate 0.9
Mutation rate 0.7
Selection operator roulette wheel selection Single point
Crossover operator order crossover
Mutation operator Inversion mutation
GA generation 50-1000
Table III: Summary of the parameters used in the proposed algorithm

Table IV shows the problem name and size(number of jobs ×number of operations), the best known solution
(BKS), results obtained by applying GA only, the results obtained by HGA and the improvement percentage in the
obtained results due to hybrid local search with GA. In addition, Figure IX showed the improvement percentage for
each problem. The Gantt charts of some obtained results by our approach for the problems (FT06-LA01-LA05) are
illustrated in Figure X-XII. From the table and figures, we can say that hybridizing the local search with GA improves
the solutions quality; where the mean improvement percentage is about 5.36%. Furthermore, we can see that the
solutions obtained by HGA are better and converge to the BKS than solutions obtained by GA only.

Problem (size) Best Known Solution (BKS) Results of GA Results of HGA Improvement Percent.
Ft06 (6×6) 55 55 55 0.000%
LA01 (10×5) 666 666 666 0.000%
LA02 (10×5) 655 790 714 11.603%
LA03 (10×5) 597 683 617 11.055%
LA04 (10×5) 590 672 632 6.779%
LA05 (10×5) 593 593 593 0.000%
LA06 (15×5) 926 926 926 0.000%
LA07 (15×5) 890 916 899 1.91%
LA08 (15×5) 863 863 863 0.000%
LA09 (15×5) 951 951 951 0.000%
LA10 (15×5) 958 958 958 0.000%
LA11 (20×5) 1222 1222 1222 0.000%
LA12 (20×5) 1039 1039 1039 0.000%
LA13 (20×5) 1150 1150 1150 0.000%
LA14 (20×5) 1292 1292 1292 0.000%
LA15 (20×5) 1207 1324 1311 1.077%
LA16 (10×10) 945 1140 1077 6.667%
LA17 (10×10) 784 848 843 0.638%
LA18 (10×10) 848 948 894 6.368%
LA19 (10×10) 842 961 896 7.719%
LA20 (10×10) 902 956 949 0.776%

Table IV: Comparison between BKS, and the proposed algorithm results (GA only and HGA) with Improvement Percent.
Desoky, et.al./International Journal of Advancement in Engineering, Technology and Computer Sciences, Vol.3, No. 1 13

12.00%

10.00%

8.00%

6.00%

4.00%

2.00%

0.00%

Fig IX: The improvement percentage due to hybrid of local search with GA.

Fig X: Gantt chart of the obtained solution for the problem FT06.
Desoky, et.al./International Journal of Advancement in Engineering, Technology and Computer Sciences, Vol.3, No. 1 14

Fig XI: Gantt chart of the obtained solution for the problem LA01.

Figure XII: Gantt chart of the obtained solution for the problem LA05

The non-deterministic nature of our algorithm makes it necessary to carry out multiple runs on the same
problem instance in order to obtain meaningful results. We ran our algorithm 15times for each test problem. Worst,
best, mean and standard deviation (Std.) of results are illustrated in Table V. The standard deviation is a very
important problem in practical production area. In order to ensure our scheduling plan performs effectively, the
standard deviation should be as small as possible. Through simulation, we find the standard deviation is small which
indicates that HGA possesses excellent robustness.
Desoky, et.al./International Journal of Advancement in Engineering, Technology and Computer Sciences, Vol.3, No. 1 15

Problem Worst Best Mean Std.

Ft06 55 55 55 0
LA01 680 666 674.3000 5.0210
LA02 758 714 729 18.7457
LA03 671 617 653.1000 11.5884
LA04 672 632 630.7000 3.9000
LA05 593 593 593 0
LA06 593 926 593 0
LA07 973 899 934.5714 22.7564
LA08 863 863 863 0
LA09 951 951 951 0
LA10 958 958 958 0
LA11 1222 1222 1222 0
LA12 1039 1039 1039 0
LA13 1150 1150 1150 0
LA14 1292 1292 1292 0
LA15 1379 1311 1349.4 22.9371
LA16 1107 1077 1088.6 11.2427
LA17 877 843 851.929 3.9362
LA18 954 894 930.0714 12.8072
LA19 1015 896 961 42.0077
LA20 1056 949 991 18.3011
Table V: Mean, worst, best and standard deviation for the test instances.

For comparison purposes, Table VI shows the results and the percentage relative error with respect to BKS
obtained by proposed algorithm as compared to CGS [(28)]. In addition, Figure XIII proposed the percentage relative
error for the two algorithms CGS and HGA. It is quite evident that our algorithm more converges to the BKS and
gives comparable minimum relative error or better than those obtained by CGS; where HGA reached to the BKS for
52.4% of its solved test problems while the CGS reached to the BKS for 26.3% and in the major remained problems
HGA reached near to BKS than CGS.

Percentage relative Percentage relative

PROBLEM CGS HGA
error(CGS) error(CGA)
FT06 - 55 - 0.000%
LA01 713 666 7.057% 0.000%
LA02 757 714 15.572% 9.008%
LA03 682 617 14.238% 3.350%
LA04 669 632 13.389% 7.119%
LA05 593 593 0.000% 0.000%
LA06 926 926 0.000% 0.000%
LA07 - 877 - 1.685%
LA08 897 863 3.939% 0.000%
LA09 956 951 0.526% 0.000%
LA10 958 958 0.000% 0.000%
LA11 1222 1222 0.000% 0.000%
LA12 1058 1039 1.829% 0.000%
LA13 1152 1150 0.174% 0.000%
LA14 1292 1292 0.000% 0.000%
LA15 1310 1311 8.536% 8.616%
LA16 1010 1077 6.878% 13.968%
LA17 - 843 - 7.526%
LA18 914 894 7.783% 5.425%
LA19 944 896 12.114% 6.413%
LA20 949 972 5.211% 7.761%
Table VI:Results and the percentage relative error for the two algorithms CGS and HGA
Desoky, et.al./International Journal of Advancement in Engineering, Technology and Computer Sciences, Vol.3, No. 1 16

20
HGA

CGS

Percentage realitive error

15

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Instance number (LA01-LA20)
Fig XIII: The comparison between the percentage relative error for the two algorithms CGS and HGA

Overall, we applied the proposed algorithm in various test instances with different size. In general, the results
have shown the correctness, feasibility and the usability of the proposed algorithm. Noting also that increasing the
problem size doesn’t guarantee that the proposed algorithm reach to the BKS due to using 2.00GHZ 2.60 GHz
processor. But, HGA integrates the powerful global searching of GA with the powerful local searching of local search.
In addition, Integrating GA with local search accelerates the optimum seeking operation and speeds the convergence
to the BKS. Finally, due to simplicity of HGA procedures, it can be used to handle engineering applications.

6. CONCLUSION: In this paper we present a combination between GA and local search for solving the Job-shop
scheduling problem. Firstly, a new initialization method is proposed. A modified crossover and mutation operators are
used. Secondly, local search based on the neighborhood structure is applied in the GA result. Finally, the approach is
tested on a set of standard instances taken from the literature. The results obtained by HGA are better and converge to
the BKS than solutions obtained by GA only, which mean that hybridizing local search with GA improves the
solutions quality. In addition, the proposed algorithm is more converges to the BKS and gives comparable minimum
relative error or better than those obtained by other approach. In general, the results have shown the correctness,
feasibility and the usability of the proposed algorithm.
In our future works, the following will be researched:
a) Solving larger scale examples to demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed algorithm.
b) Hybridizing more optimization techniques with the proposed algorithm to accelerate the convergence property and
improve the solution quality.
c) Updating the proposed algorithm to solve the JSSP as multi-objective optimization problem.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: We would like to express or sincere gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their
efforts and comments, which helped us considerably in improving the quality of this paper.

REFERENCES:

1. Kolharkar S., ZanwarD.R., 2013, Scheduling in Job Shop Process Industry, Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, 5,
2278-1684.
2. PinedoM.L., 2009, Planning and scheduling in manufacturing and services, Springer, second edition, 207-339.
3. Chryssolouris G., Subramaniam V., 2001, Dynamic scheduling of manufacturing job shops using genetic algorithms, Journal of
Intelligent Manufacturing , 12,281-293.
4. Tamilarasi A., Jayasankari S., 2012, Evaluation on GA based Model for solving JSSP, International Journal of Computer
Applications, 43(7), 975 – 8887.
5. Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S. and Sethi R., 1976, The Complexity of Flow-shop and Job-shop Scheduling, Mathematics of
Operations Research,1, 117-129.
6. Garey M.R., Johnson D.S., 1979, Computers and intractability: A guide to the theory of NP-completeness, first edition, W. H.
Freeman & Co. New York, NY, USA, 359-376.
7. Goncalves J.F., Mendes J.J.M., Resende M.G.C., 2005, A hybrid genetic algorithm for the job shops scheduling problem,
European Journal of Operational Research, 167, 77–95.
8. El-Shorbagy M.A., Mousa A.A., Nasr S.M., 2016, A Chaos-Based Evolutionary Algorithm for General Nonlinear Programming
Problems, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 85, 8–21.
9. Farag M.A., El-Shorbagy M.A., El-Desoky I.M., El-Sawy A.A. and Mousa A.A.,2015, Binary-Real Coded Genetic Algorithm
Based K-Means Clustering for Unit Commitment Problem, Applied Mathematics, 6, 1873-1890.
10. Mousa A.A., El_Desoky I.M., 2013, Stability of Pareto Optimal Allocation of Land Reclamation by Multistage Decision-Based
Multipheromone Ant Colony Optimization, Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 13, 13–21.
11. Mousa A.A., El-Shorbagy M.A., Abd El-WahedW.F., 2012, Local Search Based Hybrid Particle Swarm Optimization for
Multiobjective Optimization, International journal of Swarm and evolutionary computation, 3, 1-14.
Desoky, et.al./International Journal of Advancement in Engineering, Technology and Computer Sciences, Vol.3, No. 1 17

12. Mousa A.A., El-Shorbagy M.A., 2012, Enhanced Particle Swarm Optimization Based Local Search for Reactive Power
Compensation Problem, Applied Mathematics 3, 1276-1284.
13. El-Sawy A.A., Hendawy Z.M., El-Shorbagy M.A.,2012, Trust-Region Algorithm Based Local Search for Multi-Objective
Optimization. Proceedings of the first International Conference on Innovative Engineering Systems (ICIES), Egypt, 207-212.
14. Abd El-Wahed W.F., Mousa A.A., El-Shorbagy M.A., 2011, IntegratingParticle Swarm Optimization with Genetic Algorithms for
Solving Nonlinear Optimization Problems, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 235, 1446–1453.
15. El-Shorbagy M.A., Mousa A.A., Abd-El-Wahed W.F., 2011, Hybrid Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm for Multi-Objective
Optimization, Lambert academic publishing GmbH &Co.kG, Berlin.
16. Osman M.S., Abo-Sinna M.A., Mousa A.A., 2006, IT-CEMOP: An Iterative Co-Evolutionary Algorithm for Multiobjective
Optimization Problem with Nonlinear Constraints, Journal of Applied Mathematics & Computation (AMC), 183, 373-389.
17. Zhang C., Rao Y., Li P., 2008, An effective hybrid genetic algorithm for the job shop scheduling problem, The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 39, 965–974.
18. Yan-Fang Y., Yue Y., 2015, An improved genetic algorithm to the job shop scheduling problem, Journal of Chemical and
Pharmaceutical Research, 7(4), 322-325.
19. Song S.-Z., Ren J.-J., Fan J.-X., 2012, Improved simulated annealing algorithm used for job shop scheduling problems,
in Advances in Electrical Engineering and Automation, Springer, 17–25.
20. Thamilselvan R., Balasubramanie P., 2012, Integrating Genetic Algorithm, Tabu Search and Simulated Annealing for Job
ShopScheduling Problem, International Journal of Computer Applications, 48(5), 975 – 888.
21. Mehmood N., Umer M., Ahmad R., Rafique A.F., 2013,Optimization of Makespan and Mean Flow Time for Job Shop
Scheduling Problem FT06 Using ACO, Life Science Journal,10(4), 477-484.
22. Nazif H., 2015, Solving job shop scheduling problem using an ant colony algorithm, Journal of Asian Scientific Research, 5(5),
261-268.
23. FlórezE., Gómez W.,Bautista L., 2013,Anant colony optimization algorithm for job shop scheduling problem, International
Journal of Artificial Intelligence & Applications,4(4), 53-66.
24. Jaziri W., 2008, Some New Results on Tabu Search Algorithm Applied to the Job-Shop Scheduling Problem, Tabu Search, I-
Tech Education and Publishing.
25. Zhang C., Li P., Guan Z., Rao Y.,2007, A tabu search algorithm with a new neighborhood structure for the job shop scheduling
problem, Computers & Operations Research, 34(11), 3229–3242.
26. Sha D.Y., Hsu C.-Y., 2006,A hybrid particle swarm optimization for job shop scheduling problem, Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 51,4791–808.
27. Zhang G., Shao X., Li P.,Gao L., 2009,An effective hybrid particle swarm optimization algorithm for multi-objective flexible job-
shop scheduling problem, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 56, 1309–1318.
28. Deepanandhini D., Amudha T.,2013,Solving job-shop scheduling problem with consultant guided search metaheuristics,
International Journal of Software and Web Sciences, 3 (1), 1-6.
29. Lazár I., 2012, review on solving the job shop scheduling problem techniques: recent development and trends, Transfer
inovácií, 23, 55-60.
30. LI Y., CHEN Y., 2010, A Genetic Algorithm for Job-Shop Scheduling, journal of software, 5, 269-247.
31. Qing-dao-er-jiR., Wang Y., 2012, A new hybrid genetic algorithm for job shop scheduling problem, Computers & Operations
Research 39, 2291–2299.
32. Spanos A.C., Ponis S.T., TatsiopoulosI. P., Christoul.T., Rokou E., 2014, A new hybrid parallel genetic algorithm for the job-
shop scheduling problem, International transactions in operational research, 21, 479–499.
33. Abu-Srhahn A., Al-Hasan M., 2015, Hybrid Algorithm using Genetic Algorithm and Cuckoo Search Algorithm for Job Shop
Scheduling Problem, Internationl Journal of Computer Science Issues,12, 288-292.
34. Moin N.H., Sin O.C., Omar M.,2015, Hybrid Genetic Algorithm with Multiparents Crossover for Job Shop Scheduling Problems,
Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Volume 2015.
35. OmbukiB.M., Ventresca M., 2004, Local Search Genetic Algorithms for the Job Shop Scheduling Problem, Applied
Intelligence, 21, 99-109.
36. Camino R.V., Varela R. , González M.A., 2010, Local search and genetic algorithm for the job shop scheduling problem with
sequence dependent setup times, Journal of Heuristics,16, 139-165.
37. Wang X., Duan H., 2014, A hybrid biogeography-based optimization algorithm for job shop scheduling problem, Computers &
Industrial Engineering, 73, 96–114.
38. Beasley E.J., 1990, OR-library: distributing test problems by electronic mail, Journal of the Operational Research Society 41
(11), http://mscmga.ms.ic.ac.uk.
39. Gen M., Cheng R., 1997, Genetic algorithms and engineering design, Wiley, 1-90.
40. Balas E., 1969, Machine sequencing via disjunctive graphs: an implicit enumeration algorithm, Operations Research, 17, 941–
57.
41. Rao S.S., 2009, Engineering Optimization: Theory and Practice, Wiley, 3rd edition, 693-702.
42. Malhotra R., Singh N., Singh Y., 2011, Genetic algorithms: Concepts, design for optimization of process controllers, Computer
and Information Science, 4(2), 39-54.
43. Nasr S.M., El-Shorbagy M.A., El-Desoky I.M., HendawyZ.M., Mousa A.A., 2015, Hybrid genetic algorithm for constrained
nonlinear optimization problems, British journal of mathematics & computer science, 7(6), 466-480.
44. Starkweather T., Whitley D., Mathias K., McDaniel S., 1992, Sequence scheduling with genetic algorithms, Proceedings of the
US/German Conference on New Directions for OR in Manufacturing, 130-148.
45. Park B. J., Choi H.R., Kim H.S., 2003, A hybrid genetic algorithm for the job shop scheduling problem, Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 45, 597–613.
46. Baker J.E., 1987, Reducing bias and inefficiency in the selection algorithm, proceedings of the second international conference
on genetic algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 14-21.
47. Cheng R., Gen M., Tsujimura Y., 1999, A tutorial survey of job-shop scheduling problems using genetic algorithms, Computers
& Industrial Engineering, 36, 343-364.
48. Gao J., Sun L., Gen M., 2008, A hybrid genetic and variable neighborhood descent algorithm for flexible job shop scheduling
problems, Computers & Operations Research, 35, 2892 – 2907.

View publication stats