10 views

Uploaded by Mohsen.sadri

this is an issue about parallel machines scheduling

- ZIMPL Phd Thesis
- The Complexity of Songs
- Sample Midterm
- Lecture 1 (notes).ppt
- WJMSvol2no3paper04
- lec2
- Red Brand Sol
- 12 Linear Programming
- CT-4-BCA-601.doc
- Case Study on Profit Planning of Textile Industry Using Linear Programming Approach
- 1e22e596-bef7-4617-a7d2-db8a8fcb142a
- NR 410101 Computer Adided Analysis
- LINEAR PROGRAMMING_GRAPHICAL METHOD.ppt
- Programare liniara
- Investigación de Operaciones Ejercicio.pdf
- optimisation thngy
- Linear Programming
- .. TenthClass Content EM Mathematics 04 LinearProgramming
- math1010project2linearprogramming
- modB-Linear Programming.ppt

You are on page 1of 11

Wenxun Xing

a;

, Jiawei Zhang

b

a

Department of Applied Mathematics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, Peoples Republic of China

b

Department of Management Sciences, University of Iowa, IOWA City, IA 52245, USA

Received 23 February 1998; revised received in revised form 30 August 1999; accepted 13 December 1999

Abstract

To schedule n jobs on m parallel machines with the minimum total cost is the parallel machine

scheduling (PMS) problem. Generally, there is a hypothesis: a job cannot be processed on two

machines simultaneously if preemption is allowed. When the processing requirement of a job

is considered as the demand of a product, jobs can be split arbitrarily to continuous sublots

and processed independently on m machines. So, we can discuss PMS under a hypothesis: any

part of a job can be processed on two dierent machines at the same time, and we call it

PMS with splitting jobs. In this paper, we rst present some simple cases which are polynomial

solvable. Furthermore, a heuristic ML and its worst-case analysis are shown for P=split=C

max

with

independent job setup times. The worst-case performance ratio of ML is within

7

4

1=m (m2).

? 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Parallel machine scheduling; Setup times; Worst case analysis

1. Introduction

Parallel machine scheduling (PMS) is to schedule jobs processed on a series of

same function machines with the optimized objective. Suppose that m machines M

i

(i =

1; : : : ; m) process n jobs J

j

(j =1; : : : ; n). The following data may be specied for each

job J

j

,

processing requirement p

j

,

the processing time of job J

j

on M

i

is p

ij

,

due date d

j

,

completion time C

j

,

lateness L

j

= C

j

d

j

,

tardiness T

j

= max{0; C

j

d

j

},

the unit penalty U

j

= 0, if C

j

d

j

60; U

j

= 1 otherwise,

Corresponding author.

E-mail address: wxing@math.tsinghua.edu.cn (W. Xing)

0166-218X/00/$ - see front matter ? 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII: S0166- 218X( 00) 00176- 1

260 W. Xing, J. Zhang / Discrete Applied Mathematics 103 (2000) 259269

the maximum completion time, or makespan C

max

= max

16j6n

C

j

,

the maximum lateness L

max

= max

16j6n

L

j

,

the weight !

j

.

Lawler et al. [10] gave a three-eld classication ==.

describes machine environment, {P; Q; R}.

= P: identical parallel machines: p

ij

= p

j

for all M

i

,

= Q: uniform parallel machines: p

ij

= p

j

=r

i

for a given speed r

i

of M

i

,

=R: unrelated parallel machines: p

ij

=p

j

=r

ij

for given job-dependent speeds r

ij

of M

i

.

describes job characteristics, {; pmtn}.

= pmtn: preemption is allowed, the processing of any operation may be inter-

rupted and resumed at a later time,

= : no preemption is allowed.

describes optimality criteria. In general, {C

max

; L

max

;

C

j

;

U

j

;

T

j

;

!

j

C

j

;

!

j

U

j

}.

Almost all researchers studied PMS problems under the hypothesis that each job

can be processed on at most one machine at a time although preemption is allowed.

Lawler et al. [10] gave a comprehensive review about PMS in a classication of regu-

lar performance, like minimizing sum criteria, minimizing maximum criteria and prece-

dence constraints. In 1990, Cheng and Sin [2] also gave a comprehensive review on

PMS problems according to the viewpoints: completion-time-based, due-date-based and

ow-time-based performance measures. Lam and Xing [7] gave a short review of new

developments of PMS associated with the problems of just-in-time (JIT) productions,

preemption with setup and capacitated machine scheduling.

When the processing requirement is considered as a total demand of a product in

production planning, we can split it arbitrarily on the machines so as to nish the

processing of all demands as soon as possible. Potts and Van Wassenhove [14] referred

to this process as lotstreaming or lotsizing and the split parts as continuous sublots.

Throughout this paper, we refer to sublots as the split parts. This splitting problem

also takes place in parallel computation of the multiprocessor computer system. These

motivate us to study the problems and algorithms for it. In this case the hypothesis

that each job cannot be processed on two dierent machines at the same time is

circumvented [7,14] and we denote the job characteristic as = split to distinguish it

from = pmtn.

Serani [15] has studied a scheduling problem that arises in the production of dier-

ent types of fabric in a textile industry. The problem he studied also has the peculiar

feature that each job can be split arbitrarily and processed independently on the ma-

chines and the objective is to minimize the maximum tardiness and the maximum

weighted tardiness in case the jobs have been assigned dierent weights. Serani gave

some polynomials for this problem in the cases of uniform machines and unrelated

machines.

In this paper, we present some simple cases of splitting PMS which are polynomial

solvable in Section 2. In Section 3, we provide a heuristic ML for P=split=C

max

in the

W. Xing, J. Zhang / Discrete Applied Mathematics 103 (2000) 259269 261

case where the setup times of jobs are independent, which has a worst-case performance

ratio within

7

4

1=m (m2).

2. Polynomial solvable cases

In this section, we study the splitting PMS without setup times, and the optimality

criteria studied are {C

max

; L

max

;

C

j

;

U

j

;

T

j

;

!

j

C

j

;

!

j

U

j

}. The polyno-

mial solvable cases and the algorithms are based on the following lemmas.

Lemma 1. For any optimality criterion of {C

max

; L

max

;

C

j

;

U

j

;

T

j

;

!

j

C

j

;

!

j

U

j

}; there exists an optimal schedule such that m machines complete simulta-

neously whenever = P; Q; R.

Proof. We suppose that there exists an optimal schedule such that m machines do

not complete simultaneously, and J is the job which has the maximum completion

time. So, we can split job J and assign the sublots of job J to other machines. By

this procedure, the completion time of any job is not increasing. Hence, any value of

would not increase. Repeating this procedure, we get another optimal schedule in

which m machines complete simultaneously.

2.1. = P; Q

By Lemma 1, we get the following results. For P=split=C

max

, the maximum com-

pletion time of any schedule is at least (1=m)

n

j=1

p

j

. McNaughtons algorithm [11]

meets this bound in O(n) time. For Q=split=C

max

, the maximum completion time of

any schedule is at least

n

j=1

p

j

=

m

i=1

r

i

. McNaughtons algorithm [11] also meets this

bound in O(n) time.

Now, we present an important Lemma 2. By this lemma, the splitting PMS can be

converted to the single-machine scheduling whenever = P; Q.

Lemma 2. For any optimality criterion of {C

max

; L

max

;

C

j

;

U

j

;

T

j

;

!

j

C

j

;

!

j

U

j

}; and whenever {P; Q}; there exists an optimal schedule; such that each

job is split into m sublots and these m sublots are assigned to m machines; respectively;

with the same start time and completion time on the m machines.

Proof. We prove Lemma 2 by changing any optimal schedule to a new optimal sched-

ule based on which any value of never increases, if C

j

does not increase for any job

j in the new schedule.

If a job J on machine M is split by a sublot set A and the sublots of J are P

1

and

P

2

(suppose that P

1

is assigned before P

2

), we can interchange A and P

1

such that J

is not split on this machine. After this interchange, no completion time C

j

is increased.

So, we suppose that each job is processed on a machine without interruption.

262 W. Xing, J. Zhang / Discrete Applied Mathematics 103 (2000) 259269

Suppose that P

1

is a sublot set on machine M

1

and P

2

is another sublot set on

machine M

2

, and the processing requirement of P

1

on machine M

1

is equal to the

processing requirement of P

2

on machine M

2

. Because the speed of any machine does

not depend on the jobs whenever = P; Q, we can interchange P

1

and P

2

, such that

P

1

is assigned to machine M

2

and P

2

is assigned to machine M

1

, without changing the

completion time of any machine.

Denote the machine with makespan as M and let job J be scheduled last on M.

For other machines, we can move the sublots of job J (if existing) to the last without

increasing the completion time of any job. By a simple interchange of jobs, we can

split job J into m sublots and each machine, respectively, processes a sublot of job J

with the same processing time. So, job J is assigned to m machines and the m sublots

of J are started and nished simultaneously on m machines. Also, the interchange does

not increase the completion time of any job.

For the other n1 jobs, we can repeat the discussion of job J and get the conclusion

of Lemma 2.

By Lemma 2, P=split=L

max

and Q=split=L

max

can be converted to 1= =L

max

, any

sequence is optimal that puts the jobs in the order of nondecreasing due dates [5].

P=split=

!

j

C

j

and Q=split=

!

j

C

j

can be converted to 1= =

!

j

C

j

, the optimal

schedule is to put the jobs in order of nondecreasing ratios p

j

=!

j

[16]. P=split=

U

j

and Q=split=

U

j

can be converted to 1= =

U

j

, we get the optimal solution by

the following algorithm: jobs are added to the set of on-time jobs in order of non-

decreasing due dates, and if the addition of J

j

results in this job being completed

after d

j

, the scheduled job with the largest processing time is marked to be late and

removed [13].

We can easily prove that 1=split=

!

j

U

j

and 1=split=

T

j

are both NP-hard, since

1=pmtn=

!

j

U

j

and 1=pmtn=

T

j

are NP-hard [8,10].

We get the following theorem by the discussion above.

Theorem 1. There exist polynomial algorithms for the problems of splitting PMS

without job setup times when {C

max

; L

max

;

C

j

;

U

j

;

!

j

C

j

} and {P; Q}.

P=split=

!

j

U

j

; Q=split=

!

j

U

j

; P=split=

T

j

and Q=split=

T

j

are NP-hard.

2.2. = R

R=split=C

max

and R=split=L

max

can be formulated as linear programming problems

similar to those in [9]. As linear programming can be polynomially solved [6], R=split=

C

max

and R=split=L

max

are both polynomial solvable.

We present the linear programming problem of R=split=C

max

as follows:

minC

max

W. Xing, J. Zhang / Discrete Applied Mathematics 103 (2000) 259269 263

s:t:

m

i=1

t

ij

p

ij

= 1; j = 1; 2; : : : ; n;

n

j=1

t

ij

= C

max

; i = 1; 2; : : : ; m;

t

ij

0:

In this formulation, t

ij

represents the total time spent by J

j

on M

i

.

Suppose that d

1

6d

2

6 6d

n

; t

(1)

ij

represents the total time spent by J

j

on M

i

in

the interval [0; d

1

+L

max

]; t

(k)

ij

represents the total time spent by J

j

on M

i

in the interval

[d

k1

+ L

max

; d

k

+ L

max

]. The linear programming problem of R=split=L

max

is

min L

max

s:t:

m

i=1

j

k=1

t

(k)

ij

p

ij

= 1; j = 1; 2; : : : ; n;

n

j=1

t

(1)

ij

= d

1

+ L

max

; i = 1; 2; : : : ; m;

n

j=k

t

(k)

ij

= d

k

d

k1

; i = 1; 2; : : : ; m; k = 2; 3; : : : ; n;

t

(k)

ij

0:

3. Heuristics of P=split=C

max

with setups

The problem of splitting scheduling with independent setup times on identical parallel

machines to minimize the makespan (P=split=C

max

) is stated as follows. n jobs are to

be scheduled on m (2) identical parallel machines. For any j (16j6n), job J

j

is

available for processing at time zero and has a positive processing requirement p

j

.

Splitting is permitted and a setup time s

j

is incurred when J

j

is processed rst on a

machine or when the machine switches from processing another job to J

j

. Our objective

is to nd a schedule which minimizes the maximum completion time or makespan

under the hypothesis: any part of a job can be processed on two dierent machines

simultaneously when the job is split. Xing and Zhang [17] showed that this problem

is NP-hard.

P=split=C

max

with job setup times is a variant of P=pmtn=C

max

with batch setup times

[12]. We also use the notations C

H

max

as the makespan when the jobs are scheduled

using a heuristic H and C

max

as the makespan of an optimal schedule. If, whatever the

problem data, C

H

max

6RC

max

for a specied constant R, where R is as small as possible,

the R is called the worst-case performance ratio of heuristic H. The eectiveness

of dierent heuristics for a problem may be assessed by comparing their worst-case

performance ratios [3,4].

For P=pmtn=C

max

with batch setup times, any part of a job cannot be processed on

dierent machines at the same time although preemption is allowed. In this case, we

264 W. Xing, J. Zhang / Discrete Applied Mathematics 103 (2000) 259269

have s

b

+ p

jb

6C

max

for any job J

j

of batch b (where p

jb

is the processing time of

job J

j

belonging to batch b). Clearly, for each batch b

s

b

+ p

b

6C

max

(1)

is satised when each batch contains only a single job, where p

b

is the total processing

time of batch b. When (1) holds, Monma and Potts [12] proposed a largest-setup-time

list scheduling and splitting heuristic (LSU) which has the worst-case performance

ratio max{

3

2

1=(4m 4);

5

3

1=m}, Chen [1] also proposed a largest-batch-time list

scheduling and splitting heuristic (LBT) which has the worst-case performance ratio

max{3m=(2m+1); (3m4)=(2m2)}. When (1) does not hold for some batch b, a large

batch splitting heuristic (LBS) has the worst-case performance ratio 2 1=([m=2] + 1)

[12].

For P=split=C

max

with job setup times, a batch b is considered as a job j, therefore (1)

may not hold for some job j. Basically, we can modify heuristic LBS of P=pmtn=C

max

with batch setup times to P=split=C

max

with job setup times, but the modied heuristic

has the same worst-case performance ratio as the original ones [17]. Xing and Zhang

[17] also proposed a heuristic L which has the worst-case performance ratio 22=(m+

1). In this section, we propose a better heuristic using the maximum completion time

estimation procedure and set-up-time list scheduling (ML) for P=split=C

max

with setup

times which has the worst-case performance ratio not greater than

7

4

1=m (m2).

3.1. Heuristic ML

The basic idea of heuristic ML is: to convert the original problem to a new problem

by using the maximum completion time estimation (MCTE [12]) procedure, such that

(1) is satised for the new problem; then, to use the modied heuristic LSU [12,17]

on the new problem. We start by presenting the modied heuristic LSU (we still call

it LSU in this paper).

Step 1: List the jobs in nonincreasing order of setup times. Set L

i

=0 for 16i6m.

Step 2: Select a machine i for which L

i

is as small as possible. Choose the rst

unscheduled job j of the list, and assign it to machine i. Set L

i

=L

i

+s

j

+p

j

. Repeat

Step 2 until all jobs are scheduled.

Step 3: Relabel the machines so that L

i1

6L

i

for 26i6m. Set i = 1; i

= m, and

C

LSU

max

= 0.

Step 4: Consider the last job j that is assigned to machine i

. If L

i

+s

j

L

i

, then set

C

LSU

max

=L

i

and stop. Otherwise, assign to machine i any processing that occurs after time

(L

i

+s

j

+L

i

)=2 on machine i

. Set T

i

=T

i

=(L

i

+s

j

+L

i

)=2; C

LSU

max

=max{C

LSU

max

; T

i

}.

If i

i = 2, set C

LSU

max

= max{C

LSU

max

; L

i1

}; If i

i = 1 or L

i

1

6C

LSU

max

, then stop.

Otherwise set i = i + 1; i

= i

1 and go to Step 4.

Details of our heuristic ML are given now. The idea of ML is from Monma and

Pottss procedure MCTE [12].

Step 1: Set TML =

n

j=1

(s

j

+ p

j

); q

(1)

j

= 1 (16j6n); C

ML

max

= ; t = 1; T

0

= 1.

W. Xing, J. Zhang / Discrete Applied Mathematics 103 (2000) 259269 265

Step 2: Split each job j into q

(t)

j

equal sublots. So, there are

n

j=1

q

(t)

j

sublots. For

a sublot k (16k6

n

j=1

q

(t)

j

), if it comes from original job j, then it has setup time

s

k

=s

j

and processing time p

k

=p

j

=q

(t)

j

. For the

n

j=1

q

(t)

j

sublots, we get C

(t)

max

=C

LSU

max

by using LSU. If C

ML

max

C

(t)

max

, then set T

0

= t and memory q

(T

0

)

j

(16j6n) and the

corresponding LSU schedule. Set C

ML

max

= min{C

ML

max

; C

(t)

max

}.

Step 3: Select the job j for which s

j

+p

j

=q

(t)

j

is the largest. If s

j

+p

j

=q

(t)

j

TML=m,

let q

(t+1)

j

= q

(t)

j

+ 1; q

(t+1)

l

= q

(t)

l

(l = j); TML = TML + s

j

; t = t + 1, and go to Step 2.

Otherwise denote T =t, output C

(T

0

)

max

, the memorized schedule at iteration T

0

and then

stop.

Remark. In the heuristic ML, the nal output is the memorized schedule at iteration

T

0

and it is easy to show T6m.

3.2. Worst-case analysis of ML

Our main result is

C

ML

max

C

max

6

7

4

1

m

(m2):

Lemma 3. There exists an iteration (166T) in ML; such that s

j

+p

j

=q

()

j

6C

max

;

q

()

j

6q

j

; for each original job j (16j6n); and

n

j=1

(q

()

j

s

j

+ p

j

)=m6C

max

;

where q

j

is the number of setups in the optimal schedule for each original job j.

Proof. A lower bound from the average machine load is

n

j=1

(q

j

s

j

+ p

j

)=m6C

max

: (2)

By considering the minimum time required to process any original job j, for 16j6n,

we have

s

j

+ p

j

=q

j

6C

max

: (3)

Case 1: q

(T)

j

6q

j

holds for any original job j when ML terminates. By the stop

criterion of ML, we have

s

j

+ p

j

=q

(T)

j

6TML=m =

n

j=1

(q

(T)

j

s

j

+ p

j

)=m: (4)

We obtain from (2) and q

(T)

j

6q

j

that

n

j=1

(q

(T)

j

s

j

+ p

j

)=m6C

max

: (5)

266 W. Xing, J. Zhang / Discrete Applied Mathematics 103 (2000) 259269

So, from (4) and (5) we have

s

j

+ p

j

=q

(T)

j

6C

max

: (6)

The inequations (5), (6) and q

(T)

j

6q

j

give the required results.

Case 2: There exists an iteration + 1 such that q

(+1)

j

q

j

for an original job j.

We assume that j

0

is corresponding to the rst iteration which satises q

(+1)

j

0

q

j

0

and q

()

j

0

= q

j

0

. Since q

j

1, we have 1.

Considering the iteration , we have

q

()

j

6q

j

(7)

for any original job j, and q

()

j

0

= q

j

0

. Hence, we obtain from (3) that

s

j

0

+ p

j

0

=q

()

j

0

= s

j

0

+ p

j

0

=q

j

0

6C

max

: (8)

Since we select job j

0

for which s

j

+ p

j

=q

()

j

is the largest in Step 3 of ML, for any

original job j, we have

s

j

+ p

j

=q

()

j

6s

j

0

+ p

j

0

=q

()

j

0

: (9)

Combining (8) and (9), we then have

s

j

+ p

j

=q

()

j

6C

max

(10)

for any original job j. We obtained from (2) and q

()

j

6q

j

for all j (16j6n) such

that

n

j=1

(q

()

j

s

j

+ p

j

)=m6

n

j=1

(q

j

s

j

+ p

j

)=m6C

max

: (11)

Therefore, (7), (10) and (11) give the required results.

From now on, we consider the iteration which satises Lemma 3. Suppose that

C

()

max

can be attained on machine r

, where r

the sublot k

0

be scheduled last on machine r

n

j=1

q

()

j

new jobs as 1; 2; : : : ; N; where N =

n

j=1

q

()

j

). For 16k6N, if a sublot k comes from

an original job j, then s

k

=s

j

; p

k

=p

j

=q

()

j

. Let L

=L

r

s

k

0

p

k

0

, and let =L

r

L

,

where L

i

is dened in Step 3 of LSU for all i (16i6m). Clearly, 0.

From Lemma 3, we know that s

k

0

+p

k

0

6C

max

. Hence we have the following result:

Corollary 1. If k

0

is the only job processed on machine r

; then C

()

max

= C

max

.

Lemma 4. If machine r

k

0

6C

max

=2.

Proof. If s

k

0

C

max

=2, then there are at least m + 1 original jobs which have setup

times strictly greater than C

max

=2. By Lemma 3, q

()

j

6q

j

for any original job j, we

get that there are at least m + 1 setups each of which requires a time that exceeds

C

max

=2 in the optimal schedule. It is impossible. So s

k

0

6C

max

=2.

W. Xing, J. Zhang / Discrete Applied Mathematics 103 (2000) 259269 267

Lemma 5. For any m2 we have

(i) if r = r

or if r r

and p

k

0

; then

C

()

max

C

max

6

m r

m

s

k

0

+

r 1

m

p

k

0

; (12)

(ii) if r r

and p

k

0

; then

C

()

max

C

max

6

m r

m

s

k

0

+

m 2r

2m

p

k

0

+

4r 2 m

2m

: (13)

Proof. Similar to Lemma 3:1 in [1].

Theorem 2. C

ML

max

=C

max

6

7

4

1=m (m2).

Proof. We only need to prove that

C

()

max

C

max

6

7

4

1

m

since C

()

max

C

ML

max

= C

(T

0

)

max

. By Corollary 1, we only consider the case where there are

at least two sublots on machine r

.

Case 1: If r = r

or if r r

and p

k

0

, noticing that s

k

0

6C

max

=2 and p

k

0

6C

max

s

k

0

,we obtain from (12) that

C

()

max

C

max

6

m r

m

s

k

0

+

r 1

m

(C

max

s

k

0

)

=

m 2r + 1

m

s

k

0

+

r 1

m

C

max

6

m 2r + 1

2m

C

max

+

r 1

m

C

max

=

m 1

2m

C

max

:

Hence

C

()

max

C

max

6

3m 1

2m

6

7

4

1

m

(m2): (14)

We consider the case where r r

and p

k

0

in the remaining part of the proof.

Case 2: 4r 2 m0. Combining (13) and p

k

0

, we have

C

()

max

C

max

6

m r

m

s

k

0

+

m 2r

2m

p

k

0

+

4r m 2

2m

p

k

0

=

m r

m

s

k

0

+

r 1

m

p

k

0

:

This case is similar to Case 1.

Case 3: 4r 2 m0. Noticing that 0 and (13), we have

C

()

max

C

max

6

m r

m

s

k

0

+

m 2r

2m

p

k

0

: (15)

268 W. Xing, J. Zhang / Discrete Applied Mathematics 103 (2000) 259269

Substituting p

k

0

6C

max

s

k

0

into (15) and noticing that s

k

0

6C

max

=2, we obtain

C

()

max

C

max

6

m r

m

s

k

0

+

m 2r

2m

(C

max

s

k

0

)

=

m

2m

s

k

0

+

m 2r

2m

C

max

6

1

4

C

max

+

1

2

C

max

r

m

C

max

: (16)

From (16) and r1, we have

C

()

max

C

max

6

7

4

1

m

(m2): (17)

Now, we complete our proof of Theorem 2 by (14) and (17).

4. Concluding remarks

This paper extends preemptive parallel machine scheduling to splitting parallel ma-

chine scheduling. We circumvent the hypothesis for preemptive PMS: each job cannot

be processed on two machines at the same time. Alternatively, we regard the problem

as a lotsizing problem in production planning, then the hypothesis is considered: any

part of a job can be processed on two dierent machines at the same time.

We give some polynomial algorithms for the problems of splitting PMS prob-

lems with various optimality criteria in the case where setup times are not consid-

ered. We also analyze the heuristic ML for the problem of splitting scheduling with

setup times on m identical parallel machines to minimize the maximum completion

time (P=split=C

max

with setup times), which has a worst-case ratio not greater than

7

4

1=m(m2). The tight bound of ML provides an interesting open question.

References

[1] B. Chen, A better heuristic for preemptive parallel machine scheduling with setup times, SIAM J.

Comput. 22 (6) (1993) 13031318.

[2] T.C.E. Cheng, C.C.S. Sin, A state-of-the-art review of parallel-machine scheduling research, European

J. Oper. Res. 47 (1990) 271292.

[3] M.L. Fisher, Worst-case analysis of heuristic algorithms, Magt. Sci. 26 (1980) 117.

[4] M.R. Garey, R.L. Graham, D.S. Johnson, Performance guarantees for scheduling algorithms, Oper. Res.

26 (1978) 321.

[5] J.R. Jackson, Scheduling a production line to minimize maximum tardiness, Research Report 43,

Management Science Research Project, University for California, Los Angeles, 1955.

[6] N. Karmarkar, A new polynomial time algorithm for linear programming, Combinatorica 4 (1984)

375395.

[7] K. Lam, W. Xing, New trends in parallel machine scheduling, Internat. J. Oper. Production Management

17 (1997) 326338.

[8] E.L. Lawler, Recent results in the theory of machine scheduling, Mathematical Programming the State

of the Art Bonn 1982, Springer, Berlin, 1983, pp. 202234.

[9] E.L. Lawler, J. Labetoulle, On preemptive scheduling of unrelated parallel processors by linear

programming, J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 25 (1978) 612619.

W. Xing, J. Zhang / Discrete Applied Mathematics 103 (2000) 259269 269

[10] E.L. Lawler, J.K. Lenstra, A.H.G. Rinnooy Kan, D.B. Shmoys, Sequencing and scheduling: algorithms

and complexity, in: S. Grave, A.H.G. Rinnooy Kan, P. Zipkin (Eds.), Logistics of Production and

Inventory, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1993, pp. 445522.

[11] R. McNaughton, Scheduling with Deadlines and Loss Functions, Management Sci. 6 (1959) 112.

[12] C.L. Monma, C.N. Potts, Analysis of heuristics for preemptive parallel machine scheduling with job

setup times, Oper. Res. 41 (5) (1993) 981993.

[13] J.M. Moore, An n job, one machine sequencing algorithm for minimizing the number of late jobs,

Management Sci. 15 (1968) 102109.

[14] C.N. Potts, L.N. Van Wassenhove, Integrating scheduling with batching and lotsizing: a review of

algorithms and complexity, J. Oper. Res. Soc. 43 (5) (1992) 395406.

[15] P. Serani, Scheduling jobs on several machines with the job splitting property, Oper. Res. 44 (4)

(1996) 617628.

[16] W.E. Smith, Various optimizers for single stage production, Naval Res. Logist. Quart. 3 (1956) 5966.

[17] W. Xing, J. Zhang, Splitting parallel machine scheduling (in Chinese), Oper. Res. Trans. 2 (1998)

3041.

- ZIMPL Phd ThesisUploaded byBhagirat Das
- The Complexity of SongsUploaded byscrewperman
- Sample MidtermUploaded byaskar_cba
- Lecture 1 (notes).pptUploaded byChung Gyeum Lee
- WJMSvol2no3paper04Uploaded byjaved shaikh chaand
- lec2Uploaded bynotnull991
- Red Brand SolUploaded bymahnath
- 12 Linear ProgrammingUploaded byHarsh Ravi
- CT-4-BCA-601.docUploaded byalok gogoi
- Case Study on Profit Planning of Textile Industry Using Linear Programming ApproachUploaded byVamshee Krishna
- 1e22e596-bef7-4617-a7d2-db8a8fcb142aUploaded bypunjan63
- NR 410101 Computer Adided AnalysisUploaded bySrinivasa Rao G
- LINEAR PROGRAMMING_GRAPHICAL METHOD.pptUploaded byJouhara San Juan
- Programare liniaraUploaded byAna Dinica
- Investigación de Operaciones Ejercicio.pdfUploaded byUbaldo MP
- optimisation thngyUploaded byimtyas
- Linear ProgrammingUploaded bySaeful Aziz
- .. TenthClass Content EM Mathematics 04 LinearProgrammingUploaded byRaja Ramachandran
- math1010project2linearprogrammingUploaded byapi-241823876
- modB-Linear Programming.pptUploaded byJasher Dariagan
- Computational Finance – Portfolio Optimization and Capital AllocationUploaded bybboyvn
- Here is a Pascal Program to Solve Small Problems Using the Simplex AlgorithmUploaded byRodolfo Sergio Cruz Fuentes
- optmizacionde un sitema bioquimico por progamacion linealUploaded bynannija
- GP TwoMinesConvertedUploaded byipsita mishra
- Case 2( New Lua)Uploaded byLeeroy Lua
- Op Tim is at IonUploaded byshakil_07
- Math programmingUploaded byPadmaja Ch
- 04562140Uploaded bychuchomat
- Lesson05SpecialCasesOfLPPUploaded bypoonamc1982
- course file.docxUploaded bybara_sachin

- Parallel Machine Scheduling With a Common ServerUploaded byMohsen.sadri
- Heuristic solutions to multi-depot location-routing problems.pdfUploaded byMohsen.sadri
- Parallel-machine Scheduling With Time Dependent Processing TimesUploaded byMohsen.sadri
- Parallel Machines Scheduling to Minimize Job TardinessUploaded byMohsen.sadri

- Copy of 12-inch SteelSMF.xlsUploaded byAnonymous r4EQgc
- GTAG 8 Application Control TestingUploaded byBryan Paul Inocencio
- SAP S4HANA Demo.pdfUploaded byVasanth
- SAE JA1011Uploaded byJulio V Perez
- Introduction to Manufacturing Processes and Materials (Robert C.creese, 1999) - BookUploaded byNagendra Kumar
- Oracle financial f.pptxUploaded byhiranajam1993
- 02. Sample Material Approval - Concrete BlockUploaded byErwin Sambas
- ISO 9001:2015 QMS implementation programUploaded byCentauri Business Group Inc.
- Router Lathe Duplicator Attachment PlansUploaded byedvcachoeira
- Work Flow Integration GuideUploaded byMariangel Nava
- Gea17335c Pems for Ge Lm2500 Sac Gas Turbines r1Uploaded byKURNIAWAN
- GRI DA1 Data SheetUploaded byJMAC Supply
- Axxess 8_1 Admin Guide.pdfUploaded byRich
- 18-11-08 Intel Public Interest StatementUploaded byFlorian Mueller
- Pp3090 Causal AnalysisUploaded byNitinchandan Kumar
- CNC--eBookUploaded bylibrojames
- Risk Management NotesUploaded byVishnuu Kumar Singh
- 13_astan.pdfUploaded byCarl Espino Balita
- fanfest presentation for webUploaded byapi-76345244
- IT Asset Management Spreadsheet Free PDF TemplateUploaded byGreg Kenfield
- Kelompok 1 - Turbo Inc. (1)Uploaded byIai Menteng
- GATE VALVE NewCon Wastewater 2015.pdfUploaded bytali011971
- Administer's Guide RightfaxUploaded byBalaji
- Director Product Marketing Management in Boston MA Resume James GeronaitisUploaded byJamesGeronaitis
- Sourcing DecisionUploaded byPrashant Dwivedi
- 5-planning-1.pdfUploaded byChanaka Perera
- ICKH_m Oct - Dec 2012Uploaded bymrf236
- SDFTPROUploaded byMarwan Al-Tawansy
- Industies New Generation 4.0Uploaded byValentino
- FCAW_EBG INOXIDABLEUploaded bymsalinasaguilar