1

Optimal allocation and processing time decisions on

non-identical parallel CNC machines:

e-constraint approachSeçil Sözüer

2

1-) Introduction2-) Problem Defn.3-) Single machine subproblem (Pm )4-) Cost lower bounds for a partial schedule (for B&B and BS)5-) Initial solution (IS) (a heuristic for finding IS for B&B)6-) B&B algorithm (exact algorithm)7-) Beam search algorithm (BS)

(if B&B: not computationally efficient)8-) Improvement search heuristic (ISH)

(improves any given feasible schedule)9-) Recovering beam search (RBS)10-) Computational results

Agenda

3

Turning (metal cutting) operation on non-identical parallel CNC machines

Controllable processing times in practice(attaining small proc. time by cutting speed or feed rate ) Decide on

◦ Processing times of the jobs◦ Machine / Job Allocation

Bicriteria Problem (Two objectives): COST and TIME Total Manuf. Cost: & Makespan Converting Bicriteria Problem to Single Criterion Problem:e-constraint Approach: min. s.t. Makespan ≤ K (Upper Limit) Decision Maker: Interactively specify and modify K and analyze the influence of the changes on solutions

1. Introduction

4

Controllable process. times: Pioneer: Vickson(1980)Problem: Total Process. Times &Total Weighted Compl. Time on a single machine Trick(1994): (Linear Process. Cost function) Nonidentical Parallel Mach. – NP-hard problemProblem: min. Total Process. Cost s.t. Makespan ≤ K (This paper considers nonlinear convex manuf. Cost Function) Kayan and Aktürk(2005): Determining upper and lower bounds for process. Times and manuf. Cost function

1. Introduction

5

Parameters

N: number of jobs, card( J )= N M: number of machines m=1..M

2. Problem DefinitonEach job is different in terms of its length and diameter, depth of cut, maximum allowable surface roughness, and its cutting tool type. Each job must be performed on a single machine without preemption

Each machine is different in terms of its maximum applicable cutting power Hm, and its unit operating cost, Cm ($/minute).

Operating Cost + Tooling Cost

is a convex fnc and minimized at

6

Decision Var.

Model Non-convex obj. Func.

2. Problem Definiton

Non-convex Feasible Region

Non-convex Mixed Integer Nonlinear Prog.

(MINLP)

Non-convexities: major difficulty for finding global opt. soln

EXPLOITING THE STRUCTURE

7

With given Xjm (mach/job allocation), we can find optimal pjm by solving Pm for each machine m:

Pm is convex. Hence local opt = global opt. Lemma 1 is sufficient for opt.

3. Single Machine Subproblem (Pm)

Non-linear convex obj. func.

Jm : set of jobs assigned to machine m.

Convex Feasible Region

is the Lagr. Dual var. for the makespan constraint (5). ≤ 0 since fjm is non-increasing on the interval (6)For the Lemma 1 proof: replace (6) and use KKT - CS Conditions

8

3. Single Machine Subproblem (Pm)Immediate extension of Lemma 1 to the non-ident. Parallel machine

9

Sp : partial schedule Jp : subset of jobs assigned to machines Jmp : subset of jobs assigned to machine m optimal pjm decisions were made by solving the Pm We assume that when we add an unscheduled job to Sp,

processing times of previously scheduled jobs may change, but the machine/job assignments in Sp stay the same.

Adding an unscheduled job j to machine m does not violate the makespan constraint (1): hence

The processing time decisions for the jobs in Jp were made previously by solving the Pm for each machine m, we have at hand the optimal dual price for each for each m.

4. Cost lower bounds for partial schedules

10

lbjm : Cost change –increase- lower bound for adding job j to mach. m

4. Cost lower bounds for partial schedules

Pjmub satisfying Lemma 1. and Pjm

* ≤ Pjmub

Additionalcost of adding job j to m ≥ fjm (Pjmub )

Compressing jobs to mach. M. Marg. Cost of decreasing makespan: -

IP: By using lbjm ,Cost increase lower bound for adding all unschedled jobs (Forming a complete sch. by starting with Sp)

sum of lbjm for the possible assignments of unscheduled jobs to the machines.

(7): makespan constr.(8): assign unsch. Jobs to machines

11

4. Cost lower bounds for partial schedules

LBIP : lower bound found by solving the IP

If an IP for Sp turns out to be infeasible, this means no complete schedule can be achieved from Sp

LBLP : Relaxing (9)

LBR : Relaxing (7):makespan const.

12

IS: will be ub soln. For B&B

5. Initial Soln (IS)

Scheduling min-cost job first !

Each iteration: Adds a new job to schedule by choosing the best machine(that will give min. cost increase)

Performance: N x M : iteration

13

The major difficulty in a B&B algorithm for a non-convex MINLP problem : computing a lb at a node of a B&B tree

Each node: partial schedule (level 0: all jobs: unscheduled)(level k: jobs (j1,... jk) : scheduled)(level N: all jobs: scheduled)

Reducing the size of tree: Pruned by Infeasiblity? If feasible, solve Pm. Find a lb LBP ; LBIP or LBLP or LBR :Prune by inf?

LBC = LBP + FP

If LBC ≥ UBC , Then Prune by Optimality

6. B&B Algorithm

For eah node, we find the opt. Cost and opt pjm by Pm

LB for complete sch. achievable from node Cost incr. lb of the node

Cost of the partial sch.

Cost upperbound: initally found by IS, (then updated if we find a feas. complete sched)

14

6. B&B Algorithm

Modified depth first search:Selects the one with minimum lb as new parent node

15

NP-hard problem and the size of the search tree for the B&B algorithm increases exponentially as N and M increase.

For higher levels of N, M and K, we use BS algorithm. BS: polynomial time algorithm. Complexity O(m.n.b) BS: Fast B&B method. Keeps the best b nodes at a level of the

tree. Eliminates the rest. Choosing the nodes to be saved: LBLP

7. Beam Search (BS) -near opt.soln-

16

Starts with an initial schedule which satisfies the optimality condition in Corollary 1 so that we assume the Pm is solved for each machine m.

(We have at hand the optimal dual price for each m.) Define two moves to describe the neighborhood of a

solution. 1-move : move a job j from its current machine m1 to another machine m2

2-swap : exchange job j1 on machine m1 with another job j2 on machine m2.

8. Improvement Search Heur. (ISH)

Cost of job j in m1 Cost change lb by expanding proc. Times of the remaining jobs

Removing job j from m1

Adding job j to m2

17

If < 0,

then it is a promosing move! (obj. Value may not improve)

8. Improvement Search Heur. (ISH)

18

RBS: BS + local search techniques (2-swap moves) IDEA in recovering step : prevent the elimination of

promising nodes (nodes that could lead to optimal or near optimal solutions) due to errors in the node evaluation step of beam search algorithms by applying local search techniques to achieve better partial solutions at each level of the beam search algorithm. RBS Complexity: O(m. n2 .b)

In Step 3 of the BS, we generate child nodes for a given level of search tree.

K child nodes generated at level l

9. Recovering BS (RBS)

19

Selecting K: makespan limit(In order to see the effect of K, solving each replication of the problem for 5 different levels of K.) To find proper K: First, solving the makespan minimization problem for each

replication for fixed processing times case where for each j and m.: NP-HARD Polyn.-Time Algorithm: finding a feasible makespan level K: KDJ K = k x KDJ k = 0.6, 0.8, 1, 1.2, 1.4 Solving each B&B : with LBIP , LBLP, LBR If B&B finds opt. soln: Solving the problem with BS and RBS (LBLP) kn

10. Computational Results

20

Critical Step in B&B: Deciding on (j1,... jk)

Reduce Tree Size of B&B by lower bounds

10. Computational Results

Schedule Higher Proc. Time Job Earlier: Catch Infeasibility of schedules earlier

Schedule Lower Cost Jobs Earlier:

Schedule Higher Cost Jobs Earlier:

We can reach opt. By traversing % of tree

21

The effect of Increasing N and M on running time of B&B

10. Computational Results

Calculating LBR is faster . As N and M increase, the CPU time required by LBR approaches to LBLP, so we may expect to see that LBLP will have shorter CPU times for larger problem sizes..If we check the CPU time ratio LBR / LBIP, we observe that as N is increased, performance of the LBR gets closer to the performance of LBIP, but as M is increased, we observe the opposite. This is due to the fact that computing LBIP is itself an NP-hard problem and requires much more time when M is increased.

Big Gap btwn «Min» and «Max» for each lower bounding method due to different K levels

22

Size of the eliminated and traversed nodes with different K

Soln. Quality Results of IS, BS, RBS: (RBS is the best quality and time) RA : : % deviation from the opt. with algo. A

RA = (cost achieved by A) – (opt cost:B&B) / (opt cost: B&B)

10. Computational ResultsAs K is increased, the size of traversed tree increases since fewer number of nodes will be eliminated due to feasibility.Hence CPU increases too.

23

ISH achieves a significant improvement for all 3 cases

RA+ISH = starting soln with algo A and improve through ISH Comparing Table 5 and 6

10. Computational Results

24

Soln quality of BS and ISH improves as K is increased

Hence, if B&B: not efficient, BS and ISH can achieve soln closer to optimum.

This is due to the shape of manuf. Cost func. When K is increased, we have higher process. Time: flatter manuf. Cost func.

10. Computational Results

25

Testing IS, RBS, ISH for 50-100 jobs and 2,3,4 machines

IRBS = % deviation of RBS from initial soln. achieved by IS We cannot solve these instances to the optimum due to the CPU

time requirements. Therefore, we compared the results achieved by the RBS

algorithm with respect to the initial results given by the IS algorithm

The required CPU times are still reasonable even for the large problem instances.

10. Computational Results

26

Our computational results show that B&B can solve the problems by just traversing the 5% of the maximal possible

(Slide 20)-Table-2

B&B tree size and the proposed lower bounding methods can eliminate up to 80% of the search tree. (Table 2)

For the cases where B&B is not computationally efficient, our BS and improvement search algorithms achieved solutions within 1% of the optimum on the average in a very short computation time.

10. Computational Results