Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
We consider a paper reel layout problem where di!erent classes of paper reels need to be placed in the cells of
a warehouse. Each paper reel class contains di!erent types of reels and each type has its own demand and inventory
requirement. The problem is how to layout the paper reel types into the cell space so the total transportation cost is
minimized. In this paper, we model the problem and point out its NP-hardness. A natural decomposition of the problem
enables a simple optimal solution method and a simulated annealing method to be used iteratively to solve the problem.
Our computational results seem to indicate that the proposed solution method is extremely e!ective in "nding high
quality solutions, and e$cient in solving such large size problems. 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Heuristics; Layout; Paper reel; Simulated annealing; Warehouse
1. Introduction
This work is inspired by a project for a leading
manufacturer of stationery, photo albums and paper gift items in China. As part of its recent expansion, a new warehouse is being constructed. Once
the construction is "nished, the manufacturer will
transfer its high gram per square meter (GSM)
* Corresponding author. Tel.: #852-2788-8563; fax: #8522788-8560.
E-mail addresses: mskklai@cityu.edu.hk (K.K. Lai),
gzhang@memail.cis.mcmaster.ca (G. Zhang).
Present address: Department of Computing and Software,
McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ont.,
Canada L85 4L7. Tel.: #1-905-525-9140; fax: #1-905-5240340.
0925-5273/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 5 - 5 2 7 3 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 9 5 - 0
232
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
233
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
234
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
S x )y C ,
H HI
GI G
HZ0G
for i"1,2, I, k"1,2, K,
'
y )1,
GI
G
(1)
(2)
(3)
for k"1,2, K,
x , y "0, 1,
HI GI
i, j, k.
(4)
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
QD x ,
H I HI
HZ0G IZ&G
x "1, for j3R .
HI
G
IZ&G
(5)
(6)
S x )C ,
H HI
G
HZ0G
for k3H , x "0, 1, j, k,
(7)
G
HI
where H "k y "1, i.e., the cells for class i
G
GI
paper reels.
The NP-hardness of PRLP can be derived by
transferring an arbitrary instance of the Bin-packing problem into an instance of (SP ) whose optiG
mal solution gives an optimal solution to the Binpacking problem. A statement of a Bin-packing
problem is as follows:
(SP )
G
235
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
236
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
k "max
G
GS
HZ0 H K 1 .
S
Let (g ,2, g
) be an arbitrary permutation of
I>
(1,2, k, k#1) with g "k#1 and g
"u
Q
I>
(s, u)k#1). Then we have the following two cases:
Case 1: u"k#1, hence, s"k#1 and
I>
I
A D P " A D P #A
D
P E
P E
I> I>
P
P
I
* A D #A
D
P P
I> I>
P
I>
" AD
P P
P
where the inequality follows from induction hypothesis.
Case 2: u)k, hence s)k and we have
I>
ADP
P E
P
Q\
I
" A D P # A D P #A D Q #A D I>
P E
P E
Q E
I> E
P
PQ>
Q\
I
" A D P #A D # A D P
P E
Q S
P E
P
PQ>
#A
D
#A (D Q !D )
I> I>
Q E
S
#A
(D I> !D
)
I> E
I>
Q\
" A D P #A D
P E
Q S
P
I
D
# A D P #A
I> I>
P E
PQ>
# (A !A
)(D
!D )
Q
I> I>
S
Q\
* A D P #A D
P E
Q S
P
I
D
# A D P #A
P E
I> I>
PQ>
I
* A D #A
D
P P
I> I>
P
I>
" AD.
P P
P
The inequalities hold since:
E A and D are ordered, and
P
P
E (g , g ,2, g , u, g ,2, g ) is a permutation
Q\
Q>
I
of (1, 2,2, k).
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
237
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
238
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
in#uenced by the parameters it uses. In our implementation, we have used the following parameters:
Initial temperature. Our initial temperature is
based on the acceptance rate. "200 is chosen,
which corresponds to an acceptance rate of around
50% at .
Cooling schedule. Our cooling process follows an
geometric schedule with "0.95, that is: "
.
Final temperature. The "nal temperature
is set to 10\/(R ;H ) for (SP ). It depends
G
G
G
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
5. Computational test
We have used the above algorithms to solve the
manufacturer's paper reel layout problem with satisfactory results. To further assess the quality of our
heuristic solutions, we have generated classes of test
problems and applied our heuristics to solve them.
The heuristic solutions are compared with the corresponding optimal solutions, a lower bound, and
the solutions from COI.
5.1. Test problems
The complexity of PRLP is in#uenced by the
following factors: the number of paper reel classes
(I); the number of paper reel types (J); and the
distribution of the paper reel types into the classes.
For each pair of (I, J), the distribution of paper reel
types (into the classes) are: generated (with a parameter ) as follows:
1. Set i"I.
2. If i"0, stop. Else set r"W
J/I
X.
3. Randomly assign R "min;r, J!I#1
G
remaining paper reel types to class i.
4. Set I"I!1, J"J!R , i"i!1. Go back
G
to 2.
The parameter allows us to control the number of
paper reel types assigned to di!erent classes. For
example, when we choose "1, the J paper reel
types are distributed `evenlya among the I classes.
On the other hand, if we choose "I/2, over half
of the paper reel types will belong to the same class.
We have used "1, 1.5 and 2 to generate our test
problems.
The structure of PRLP solutions are in#uenced
by the distributions of the demand, of the inventory, of the cell distances, of the cell capacity for
each paper reel class, and of the inventory requirement for the paper reel types. In generating our test
problems, we have chosen the above distributions
to approximate the characteristics of the real problem. Namely,
E the cell capacity for class i (paper reel) is set to
C "(i#1);(i#1). For example, a cell can
G
hold 3;3 columns of class 2 paper reels, and
5;5 columns of class 4 paper reels.
239
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
240
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Table 1
Relative gap among S, O, and L for small size problems
Table 2
Relative gap (S, ) and CPU time for large size problems
(O, )
(S, )
(S, O)
(O, )
(S, )
(S, O)
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
4.97
4.49
3.74
3.54
2.82
2.60
2.89
3.14
4.97
4.62
3.74
3.54
3.03
2.60
2.89
3.14
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.35
2.59
5.36
4.37
3.47
4.37
3.20
1.49
5.67
2.82
5.36
4.73
3.49
4.41
3.29
1.77
0.30
0.22
0.00
0.34
0.02
0.04
0.09
0.27
16
16.72
16.74
0.02
28.40
28.40
0.00
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
8.62
14.10
8.07
2.97
4.64
9.88
5.77
8.62
14.10
8.07
2.97
4.64
10.37
5.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.45
0.00
8.83
9.61
6.84
7.82
4.86
6.07
3.95
8.84
9.61
6.84
7.82
4.89
6.07
3.96
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.02
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
29.27
28.10
17.02
13.27
8.74
10.78
11.47
29.44
28.10
17.02
13.27
8.74
10.78
11.69
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.19
26.37
14.47
17.85
16.78
12.22
10.91
23.30
13.56
26.87
14.47
17.85
16.95
12.22
10.91
23.40
13.56
0.39
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
36.17
14.66
15.53
15.88
17.78
24.22
14.26
36.20
14.66
15.53
15.88
17.78
24.22
14.26
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
30.56
20.10
15.53
21.14
21.11
16.32
30.56
20.10
15.53
21.14
21.20
16.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
11.87
11.91
0.04
12.23
12.30
0.07
Average
in the following presentation of computational results, only the results from GRSA are given.
To assess the solution quality, we compare the
solution values from our method, from the IP solver, and (the lower bound) from the linear programming relaxation problem of (P). We denote the
above three solution values by S, O, and , respectively. Let us de"ne the relative gap between two
values A and B by (A, B)"100*(A!B)/B%. Then,
1.5
(S, )
CPU
(S, )
CPU
50
100
150
200
3.60
3.12
1.36
1.62
9.0
44.6
95.8
296.2
2.89
1.37
0.88
0.98
11.0
66.6
145.4
367.8
50
100
150
200
5.33
4.26
3.74
2.65
5.6
37.4
120.6
301.6
8.84
3.91
3.26
2.69
10.2
40.8
122.6
271.0
50
100
150
200
11.94
3.49
3.50
2.91
5.8
34.8
123.8
292.2
7.52
4.87
4.07
4.24
5.2
40.8
86.4
230.8
50
100
150
200
13.05
6.58
5.27
4.62
5.0
23.6
141.0
274.6
14.75
7.13
7.43
4.06
5.0
33.6
101.4
298.8
Average
4.82
4.93
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
241
The e!ects of di!erent I values on problem complexity are presented in Fig. 9. In Fig. 9 part (a), the
problem di$culty increases for the IP solver as the
value of I increases. In Fig. 9 part (b), we observe
that the problem di$culty decreases as value I increases for our method. For a "xed value I, the
change in J value seems change the problem di$culty linearly.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, we present a e!ective and e$cient
method for a paper reel layout problem. An interesting future research topic would be to study the
paper reel layout problem with more practical constraints imposed on the locations of certain paper
reel types. In a subsequent work, we will de"ne an
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
242
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
adjacency relationship among the cells of a warehouse. A paper reel layout problem with adjacency
requirement imposed on some paper reel types will
be studied.
References
[1] J.A. Tompkins, J.A. White, Y.A. Bozer, E.H. Frazelle,
J.M.A. Tanchoco, J. Trvino, Facilities Planning, Wiley,
New York, 1996.
[2] R.L. Francis, L.F. McGinnis Jr., J.A. While, Facility
Layout and Location: An Analytical Approach, PrenticeHall, Englewood Cli!s, NJ, 1992.
[3] J.L. Heskett, Cube-per-order } a key to warehouse stock
location, Transportation and Distribution Management
3 (1963) 27}31.
[4] D.J. Harmatuck, A comparison of two approaches to
stock location, The Logistics and Transportation Review
12 (1976) 282}284.
243
[5] C.J. Malmborg, B. Krishnakumar, Optimal storage assignment policies for multi-address warehousing systems,
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 19
(1989) 197}204.
[6] T.N. Larson, H. March, A. Kusiak, A heuristic approach
to warehouse layout with class-based storage, IIE Transactions 29 (1997) 337}348.
[7] A. Eynan, M.J. Rosenblatt, Establishing zones in singlecommand class-based rectangular AS/RS, IIE Transactions 26 (1994) 38}46.
[8] D.L. Van Oudheusden, D. Sharma, Y.J. Tzen, An
evaluation of storage policies for the assignment of
facilities to location, Operations Research 16 (1968)
150}173.
[9] W.L. Maxwell, Solving material handling design problems
with OR, Industrial Engineering 13 (4) (1981) 58}69.
[10] S.H. Chang, P.J. Egbelu, Relative pre-positioning of storage/retrieval machines in automated storage/retrieval systems to minimize maximum system response time, IIE
Transactions 29 (1997) 303}312.
[11] V.J. Rayward-Smith, I.H. Osman, C.R. Reeves, G.D.
Smith, Modern Heuristic Search Methods, Wiley, New
York, 1996.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59