C++

, ..: 250

:
...

, 2010


C++

, ..: 250

:
...

, 2010
1


. ,
.

. ,
.
.
,


.

2

................................................................................................6

Abstract ..................................................................................................7

...........................................................................8

............................................................................10

, .............................12

1 ....................
(Manufacturing Production Systems) ...........................................15

1.1 .................................................15
1.2 .................17
1.3 ...........................18
1.4 (flow lines)..................20
1.4.1 .................... 20
1.4.2 ... 27
1.4.3 .................... 27
1.4.4 ....................... 28
1.5 .......28

2 ................
...............................................................29

2.1 (Simulation method).........................30

2.2 .......................................................................31
2.3 (Decomposition method)....................32
2.4 (Aggregation method) .........................35

3 .............................................................37

3.1 ........................................37
3.1.1 ....................................... 38
3.2 .....................................................................39
3.3 Gradient.............................................................................41
3.4 (Simulated Annealing).......43

3
 3.5 ........................................................................45
3.6 (Tabu Search) .......................47
3.7 (Heuristic method) ...........................49
3.8 Nested Partitions ...............................................................52
3.9 Liba....................................................................................54
3.10 ............................................................................55

4 .........................56

4.1 ......................................57
4.2 ..................................................58
4.2.1 ......................................................... 58
4.2.2 .................................................... 61
4.2.3
..................................................................................... 63
4.2.4 .............. 64
4.3 ..........................................65
4.3.1 ........................ 66
4.3.2 ................................ 69
4.3.3 .................................................................................... 71
4.3.4 ..................................................................... 73
4.3.5 .................................................................................... 74

5 ..............................75

5.1 ....................................................................75
5.2 .............................................79
5.2.1
.......................... 80
5.2.2

................................................................................... 95
5.2.3
...... 97
5.2.4

............................................................ 106

4
 5.2.5
.................... 110
5.2.6

....................................................................................... 115
5.2.7
..... 119
5.2.8

....................................................... 134
5.2.9

................................................................ 142

6 ......................................147

6.1 ................................................................................147
6.2 ...........................................................................150

.....................................................................................152

5

(
C++)

.


Diamantidis, Heavey Papadopoulos (2005)
.

,
.
,
200
.
,
.

: , ,
, ,

6
Abstract
This work deals with the development and implementation (in programming
language C++) of a myopic algorithm for the resolution of the buffer allocation
problem in industrial systems with the intention to increase their output. The
proposed algorithm was created based on the central idea of myopic
algorithms and it cooperates with the estimative function proposed by
Diamantidis, Heavey and Papadopoulos (2005). The particular
implementation of the algorithm deals with industrial systems with serial
production lines, parallel machines and different rate per work station.
Numerous experiments were carried out in small, medium and big serial
production lines until 200 stations of work and the results were compared with
other algorithms from the international literature. The results were enough
satisfactory but not the best in the all cases.

Key Words: myopic algorithm, industrial systems, serial production lines,

buffer allocation problem, experimentation

7

1.1 .................................................................................................. 14
1.2 5 ..................................................................... 18
1.3 ............................................. 19
1.4 ............................................................................. 20
1.5 ....................................... 22
1.6 (1) .................................................................................. 23
1.7 (2) .................................................................................. 24
1.8 4 3 ..................... 25
1.9 .......................................... 26
1.10 ......... 27

2.1 (
) ............................................................................................... 29
2.2 7 6 .................... 33
2.3 2.2 ................................ 33
2.4 /
................................................................................ 34
2.5 .......... 35
2.6 .......... 35
2.7 4
3 ............................................................. 36

3.1 ........................................................... 40
3.2 Gradient ............................................................................ 42
3.3 gradient. .............................................................. 43
3.4 ............................................... 45
3.5 ........................................................................... 46
3.6 (Tabu Search) .......................... 48
3.7 Tabu Search ....................................................................................... 49
3.8 -1 ............. 50
3.9 .......................................................................... 51
3.10 NP .................................................................... 53
3.11 NP...................................................... 53
3.12 Liba ........................................................................................ 54

4.1 .............................................. 59
4.2 .............................................................. 59
4.3 ........................................... 62
4.4 ............................................................... 63

8
 4.5
.............................................................................. 64
4.6 GREEDY........................................................................... 65
4.7 .......................................... 68
4.8 ............................. 70

5.1
........................................................................................................ 95
5.2 ................. 96
5.3 Myopic Gradient
........................................................................................................ 97
5.4 (1) ........................... 106
5.5 (2) ........................... 107
5.6 Simulated Annealing
...................................................................................................... 108
5.7 Genetic .... 108
5.8 ............. 109
5.9 Myopic, Gradient Heuristic
........................................................................................ 109
5.10
.................................. 116
5.11 Simulated Annealing
116
5.12 Genetic
.............. 117
5.13
.............. 118
5.14 Myopic Gradient
119
5.15
..................................................... 135
5.16
................................................................ 136
5.17 Simulated Annealing
..... 136
5.18
................................................................. 137
5.19
................................... 138

9
 5.20 Simulated Annealing

............................................................................................ 139
5.21
....................................................... 140
5.22 .. 141
5.23 Genetic
.................................................................................................. 141
5.24 142

5.1 {=5, =6, ri=1 Si=1 i}.............................. 81
5.2 {=6, =7, ri=1 Si=1 i}............................... 82
5.3 {=6, B=11, ri=1 Si=1 i }............................ 83
5.4 {=6, =12, ri=1 Si=1 i }............................ 84
5.5 {=6, B=13, ri=1 Si=1 i }............................ 85
5.6 {=7, =8, ri=1 Si=1 i }.............................. 86
5.7 {=8, =9, ri=1 Si=1 i }.............................. 87
5.8 {=8, =10, ri=1 Si=1 i }............................ 88
5.9 {=8, =11, ri=1 Si=1 i }............................ 89
5.10 {=8, =15, ri=1 Si=1 i }............................ 90
5.11 {=9, B=10, ri=1 Si=1 i }............................ 91
5.12 {=10, =11, ri=1 Si=1 i }.......................... 92
5.13 {=11, B=12, ri=1 Si=1 i }.......................... 93
5.14 {=12, =13, ri=1 Si=1 i }.......................... 94
5.15 {=13, =26, ri=1 Si=1 i}........................... 98
5.16 {=14, =28, ri=1 Si=1 i }......................... 99
5.17 {=15, =30, ri=1 Si=1 i }...................... 100
5.18 {=16, =32, ri=1 Si=1 i }........................ 101
5.19 {=17, =34, ri=1 Si=1 i }........................ 102
5.20 {=18, =36, ri=1 Si=1 i }....................... 103
5.21 {=19, =38, ri=1 Si=1 i }....................... 104
5.22 {=20, =40, ri=1 Si=1 i}........................ 105
5.23 {=7, B=14
}..................................................................................... 110
5.24 {=10, B=20
}..................................................................................... 111
5.25 {=15, B=30
}..................................................................................... 112

10
 5.26 {=20, =40
}..................................................................................... 113
5.27 {=30, =60
}..................................................................................... 114
5.28 {=50, =98, ri=1, i=1,2,,50, Si=1,
i=1,2,,25 Si =2, i=26,27,,50}................................................. 120
5.29 {=50, =98, ri=1, i=1,2,,50, Si=2,
i=1,2,,25 Si=1, i=26,27,,50} ................................................... 121
5.30 {=50, =98, ri=1, i=1,2,,50 Si=2,
i=1,2,,50} .................................................................................................. 122
5.31 {=50, =100, ri=1, i=1,2,,50 Si=2,
i=1,2,,50} .................................................................................................. 123
5.32 {=60, =118, ri=1, i=1,2,,60, Si=1,
i=1,2,,30 Si=2, i=31,27,,60} ................................................... 124
5.33 {=60, =118, ri=1, i=1,2,,60, Si=2,
i=1,2,,30 Si=1, i=31,27,,60} ................................................... 125
5.34 {=60, =118, ri=1, i=1,2,,60 Si=2,
i=1,2,,60} .................................................................................................. 126
5.35 {=60, =122, ri= 1, i=1,2,,60 Si =2,
i=1,2,,60} .................................................................................................. 127
5.36 {=70, =138, ri=1, i=1,2,,70, Si=2,
i=1,2,,35 Si=1, i=36,37,,70} ................................................... 128
5.37 {=70, =138, ri=1, i=1,2,,70 Si=2,
i=1,2,,70} .................................................................................................. 129
5.38 {=80, =158, ri=1, i=1,2,,80, Si=1,
i=1,2,,40 Si=2, i=41,42,,80} ................................................... 130
5.39 {=80, =158, ri=1, i=1,2,,80 Si=2,
i=1,2,,80} .................................................................................................. 131
5.40 {=100, =110, ri= 1, i=1,2,,100 Si=1,
i=1,2,,100} ................................................................................................ 132
5.41 {=200, =210, ri= 1, i=1,2,,200 Si=1,
i=1,2,,200} ................................................................................................ 133
5.42 =5, =6 .............. 143
5.43 =7, =14 ............ 144
5.44 =10, =20 .......... 144
5.45 =20, =40 .......... 145
5.46 =30, =60 .......... 145
5.47 =50, =98 .......... 146
5.48 =60, =118 ........ 146
5.49 =70, =138 ........ 147

11
,
,
,
,
. ,
,

. ,


.



. ,

.


.


,
. ,
,
.
,
,
.


, ,

12
 .


.
,
,
.

,
. ,

.

,
.


.
( C++)



.



.

,
.
,
,

13
 .
.
,

. ,




.
,


.


. ,

.

1:
/

2:

3:

4:

5:
&

6:

1.1

14
 1
(Manufacturing Production Systems)

.


.

1.1
,
1.2
,
1.3

1.4

1.1

. manufacturing
, ,

1. (manufacturing
systems)
, , ,
(O Sullivan, 1992).
,
(manufacturing production systems),
Tan (2001), (
)
. ,

1
. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing
15

,


. ,

,
.
,

,
.

,
.
,
7 .

,

.

.

.


, ,

. Nahas et al. (2006)

.
,

16
 .

.


.

1.2
,


.

. ,
.

.

,

.
, ,
.


.
.

,
:
(Server Allocation Problem),
(Buffer Allocation Problem)
(Worker Allocation Problem).

17

.

1.3

, job shops

. ,
, ,

.
(flow production lines)
Dallery & Gerhwin (1992) Diamantidis et al. (2004)


. , 1.1
(1,..5)
(1,..,4)
.

. ,

,
.

1.2 5
(: Dallery & Gershwin (1992))

job shops


.
18



. ,
, job shops
,

.
, (flexible manufacturing
systems)
.
Dupont-Gatelmand C. (1982)
1970
.



job shops (OGrady, 1989).

job shops ,
.

1.3
(: http://www.moxa.com.tw/solutions/images/23.jpg)
19
 1.4 (flow lines)

.

- , ,

.

1.4.1


,


. .

1.4.1.1 (Serial Production Lines)

.

,

.

1.4
(:http://www.productionsystemsengineering.com/book_files/chapter1%20pse.ht
m)

-1 .

20

2.

(blocked)
. ,



(starved).

1.4.1.2 (Non-Serial Production

Lines)
, ,

. ,

,
, .
.
1. (Assembly Lines)


.


(Helbert, 1998).

2
. http://www.productionsystemsengineering.com/book_files/chapter1%20pse.htm
21
 1.5
(: Helber St. (1998))

4 13.
4 1,4
2,4,
.

,
(starved).
13
.
2. (Disassembly Lines)

,


(Helber, 1998).
1.4, 2 4
. 2,
, ()
2,4 2,5.

(blocked). 4,

22
 ,
.

,
/
, 4
.
, McGovern & Gupta (2007),
.
,
,
,
,
.
3. (Merge Lines)


(Helber, 1999).

3
1,3 2,3
1,3 ( 1,3
2,3 ).
(starved)
.

1.6 (1)
(: Helber (1999))
23


, Tan (2001), Diamantidis et al. (2004) Diamantidis &
Papadopoulos (2006)


.

1.7 (2)
(: Diamantidis & Papadopoulos (2006))

3
(1,2),3 1 2.
1 2

3 . ,

.
(1,2),3
1 2,
1 2

.
4. (Split Lines)


. ,


24
.

,

(Gopalan & Kuman, 1995
Smith & Cruz,2004).

2 .
,
2,3
3, 2,4
4.

1.8 4 3

,

.
,


(blocked).
, Diamantidis et al.

.
1.8, 4
. ,

25
 4

,
1
2 4.

1.9
: Diamantidis et al. (2004)

1.4.1.3


.
,


.
, , ,
, , ... (Quadt & Kuhn, 2007)
L
, L-1 ML
.

26
 1.10

(: Quadt & Kuhn (2007))

1.4.2


.

. , ,
, ,
, ,
.

1.4.3

.
,
,
.
,
, .

27
 1.4.4
,

. ,
,


. ,
.
.


. ,
.
.

1.5



. ,

(Hon,
2005). ,
.


,
(Golec & Taskin, 2007).
(production rate),
,

28
(work in progress) (flow time)
.

2




.

.

:
. ,


.
,

. ,
Papadopoulos et al. (1993),

.

2.1 (
)

,
.

29
 2.1 (Simulation method)



.
.

, ,
,

, .


3.

,

. , Dengiz & Akbay (2000),


,


. ,
,

.

(Li et al.,1992).

3
, . Hira D.S., Pandey P.C. (1983) A computer simulation study of manual
flow lines, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 2(2), pp. 117-125.
30


. ,

.

.


.


. ,

.

2.2
4


.


,
.


.
, k
k-1 ,

4
. :http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/Markov-analysis.html
( 27/10/2009)
31


.
, ,
Ci+1 ni=0,,Ci,
Ci i- ni
,
:
k 1
k
M =2 (Ci + 1)
i =0

, ,
20 19
10 6.41 x 1025
.

. ,

.

2.3 (Decomposition method)

Gershwin (1987)
,
. Gershwin

,

. ,
.

7 6
. 6 L(i),
i=1,..6,

32
 B(i) .
, Mu(i) Md(i)
pu(i) pd(i)
ru(i) rd(i) .


.

2.2 7 6
(: Gershwin (1987))

2.3 2.2
(: Gershwin (1987))

, Gershwin

33

. ,
,
Mu(i) Md(i)
.
Dallery et al. (1988)

Gershwin
. ,
Gershwin
,
.

. ,
Helber (1998)
Helber & Jusic (2004) .

.
,

Gershwin .

2.4 /

(: Helber (1998))

34
 2.5

(: Helber & Jusic (2004))

2.6

(: Helber & Jusic (2004))

2.4 (Aggregation method)

.
, ,

. ,

.

35
 De Koster (1987),
Buzacott
(1967), Murphy (1978) Suri & Diehl (1986).

4 3 .

2.7
4 3
(: Belmansour & Nourelfath (2008))

Belmansour & Nourelfath (2008)

.

,
(12,123,1234).

. ,
.
Lim et al. (1990)
.

36
.
. ,
.

3


(buffer allocation
problem), (server allocation
problem) -
(worker allocation problem).

(BAP),
,


.

,
.



.
,
.

.

3.1

.
,

37
 ,

(Gershwin & Schor, 2000).




.

.
,


(Papadopoulos & Vidalis, 2001).

.
Gershwin & Schor (2000)
, .


,

.

3.1.1
-1
.
N i
i , [1,2,,-
1] P(1,2,,-1).
, Gershwin & Schor (2000)

i>=4,

38

i>=4 i<4.


:

P(N) >= P,
N min(N)

N
[1,2,,-1] .. max(P(1,2,,-1))

.

.


.
,
.

.

3.2

.
,

.

39
 Mirzapour & Aryanezhad (2009)
.

3.1
(: Mirzapour .. & Aryanezhad .. (2009))

.
, ,
,
. ,
.


( ). ,
-1

N, :
(-1+ N)! / N! *(-1)

=5 N=10
1001 , =10
N=20
10.015.005 =20 N= 40
1.39x1015 .

.


40

.


.

3.3 Gradient
Gradient

.
[1, 2, , k-1],
g=[g1, g2, , gk-1], gi= dP/dNi (1, 2, , k-
1),
.
g,
p
.

,

. ,

, .

(Seong,
Chang & Hong, 1994; Gershwin & Goldis, 1995; Gershwin & Schor, 2000)
.
, . (2009)
gradient
.

41
 1%.
.

1.
2. g
3. p
4. max
5. p
.
6.

7. .
9.
8. = 2.
9. P()
. .

3.2 Gradient
(: . (2009))

42
 3.3 gradient.
(: Gershwin S. B. & Schor J. E. (2000))

3.4 (Simulated
Annealing)
& (2008)


.
,

43
5
.

6
(Spinellis D. & Papadopoulos
Ch.,2000). ,
,

7.

VLSI
1980

(Russell St. & Norvig P., 2006, .:154-155). Fabian (1997)

Kirpatrick, Gelatt, & Vecchi (1982, 1983), Cerny (1982, 1985) Geman
(1984).
, Spinellis, Papadopoulos & Smith (2000)


.

.
,
.
(uphill) ,
,
.

5

(
). .: & (2008), .: 373.
6
. (2005), :28-31.
7
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_annealing
44
 ,
,

.

Boltzmann = .


.
.

1. C0 T0
2.


Cn


Cn
Cn C

3.4

3.5


( & ,2008, .:445).

( )
.
,

, ,
8.
Holland (1975)9

8
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm
9
. . (2005), :22.
45

.

( 0 1)

. (fitness value)

-.

- ,
( )
- -
. ,
.
,
10.
Spinellis & Papadopoulos
(2000b)
:

1.
2.
3.

a.

b.
c.

d.
3.
3.5

, Spinellis & Papadopoulos (2000a)

10
Spinellis & Papadopoulos (2000b), Bulgak, Diwan &
Inozu (1995), Wellman & Gemmill (1995) (2005), :22-25.
46
 ,
.

3.6 (Tabu Search)

1986 Glover

11. ,

(Glover, 1990)
.
( )
,
12.

(. 3.4),

.


( &
, 2008, .: 387-391).
,
(tabu list) ,
.


.

(tabu move),
. ,
.

11
. (2005), : 31-32.
12
. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabu_search
47
 , (tabu list)
- (cycling).

.

Glover (1990).

1. , xinitial
xbest=xinitial=xcurrent.
2.
.
3.

. ,
xbest = xtrial.
4. Tabu xtrial.
Tabu, xcurrent = xtrial
7. xtrial ,
5.
5. .
tabu , ,
xcurrent= xtrial 7.
6.
6. 4.

7.
7. . ,
2 .
3.6 (Tabu Search)

48
 3.7 Tabu Search
(: Glover F. (1990))

3.7 (Heuristic method)

Russell & Norvig (2005, .:107),

49
 ,
.
Papadopoulos & Vidalis (2001)


.
1,2,,,
-1
2,3,,, .

3.8 -1

.

. , 373
97%
.

50
 1.
->
( ) (1, ,
j, , )
2. .
:

j,
2(+1-j)

j,
2(+1-j)-1


/2 .
3.
2.
a. -1

.

.
b.

.
3.9

Papadopoulos & Vidalis (2001)

.

Heavey et
al. (1993),
.

Sabunsuoglou, Erel &
Gocgun (2006)

.

51
 ,
. . (2009)
Sabunsuoglou, Erel &
Gocgun (2006)
.

3.8 Nested Partitions

Nested Partitions metaheuristic
Shi &
Olafsson (2000).


. ,


.

(Olafsson, 2006).
Shi, Olafsson & Chen (1999)

, .
: (1)
,
(2)
, (3)
(4)

,
.
(2009)

. ,
Nested Partitions

52

.

:

1. Promising_Region = , i = 0, Buffer_Size_Left = .
2. Promising_Region Buffer_Size_Left + 1 .
3.
.
4. Bi=j, j
, 3 Promising_Region
k = k, k = 0,,i.
5. Buffer_Size_Left j i 1. i
-1, 6, 2.
6. Bi = Buffer_Size_Left. Buffer Size
Buffers Bi, i = 0,,-1
3.10 NP
(: . (2009))

3.11 NP
(: . (2009))

53
 3.9 Liba
Selvi (2002) Liba

.


.
.


.
,

.
,
.
,


.


.
.

1.

1.a

-
.
-
1.b

3.12 Liba

54
 Selvi (2002)
K
ri ,

. Selvi :

cri = 1/(i+i+1) i=1,2,,K-1

i,
i,=RCi* .
i,
i,
. i,
,

.

,

.

, .

,

Liba.
4.3.3.

3.10

.
,


55
 . ,
,
(.. , ).

Nested Partitions
Shi, Olafsson & Chen (1999). ,
Nested Partitions


.
,
Shi & Men (2003)
Nested Partitions Tabu
Search . ,
Nested Partitions
Tabu Search
.

4


(BAP)
. 4.1

4.2

.
4.3
,


. ,

56

.

4.1

( )
13
.

( &
, 2008, .: 286). ,
,

.



(Ruppert, 2003).

,

.


.

.

.

, .

13
: http://www.mathresources.com/products/mathresource/maa/myopic_algorithm.html
57





.

4.2

. ,
,
,

.

4.2.1


.
.


.
( & , 2008,
.:286).


( & , 2008,
.:293).
(nearest insertion),
(
)
.
Laporte (1992)
58

14:

1:
2:
( ),

.
2
.

4.1

( )
.
Arad Bucharest (
4.2).

4.2

(
)

14
Laporte Gilbert, The travelling salesman problem. An overview of exact and approximate
algorithms, European Journal Of Operational Research, 1992, Vol. 59, pp.231-247.
59
 (
)
,
Arad-> Zerid(75km) -> Oradea(71km) -> Sibiu(151km) ->
Rimnicu Vilcea(80km) -> Pitesti(97km) -> Bucharest(101km).

575km.
15
.
,
(
),

, .
,

. ,
Zerid (374km), Sibiu (253km) Timisoara (329km) Sibiu
(253km) Fagaras(176km).
, Arad-> Sibiu->
Fagaras-> Bucharest.
16

4.2 450km.
4.1



Arad 366km Mehadia 241km
Bucharest 0km Neamt 234km

15
. Russell St., Norvig P. (2006), . ,
, .: 151-152 .:681.
16
. Russell St., Norvig P. (2006), . ,
, .: 132-134 .:681.
60
 Craiova 160km Oradea 380km
Dobreta 242km Pitesti 100km
Rimniscu
Eforie 161km 193km
Vilc.
Fagaras 176km Sibiu 253km
Giurgiu 77km Timisoara 329km
Hirsova 151km Urziceni 80km
Iasi 226km Vaslui 199km
Lugoj 244km Zerind 374km
*: Russell St., Norvig P. (2006)

(575km) (450km),

4.2 Arad-> Sibiu-> Rimnicu Vilcea-> Pitesti->
Bucharest 418km.

(
)
. ,


,
.

4.2.2
Wieczorek, Prodan & Fahringer (2005)
Grid
/ 17

17
Grid
. Grid

, ( ., 2005).
61
Heft .
:

T
NT = T
( NT { } )
t NT earliest_starting_time(t)
min;
r R finish_time(t; r) min;
r t;
r finish_time(t; r);
NT = NT \ {t}
_
4.3

.
t
,

,
t
.


.


,
,
. , Heft ,

.

.: http://artemis.cslab.ntua.gr/Dienst/UI/1.0/Display/artemis.ntua.ece/DT2005-
0030?abstract=grids, http://nes.aueb.gr/~sroutz/grid-project/economics-1.htm
http://www.it.uom.gr/mpiweb/
62
 4.2.3


,
.



.



Ramamritham, Stankovic & Shiah (1990)18.

4.4
(: Ramamritham, Stankovic & Shiah (1990))

18
. Manimaran G., Murthy C. (1998), An new study for fault-tolerant real-time
dynamic scheduling algorithms, Journal of Systems Architecture, Vol. 45, pp.1-13.
63
 1: (task queue)
().
2:
3:

.
4:
a. ()

b. ( )

5:
a.
b.
()
6: 3 5
.
4.5

,

.


( 5a)
().

( )
.

(
)
.

4.2.4


.
Erlebach & Spieksma (2003)
64
 GREEDYa, a
[0,1].
,
.
:

S =; { }
i
i =
Ci = S
(Ci ) <= *(i)
S = (S \ Ci ) {i};
_;
_;
S;

4.6 GREEDY

,
. , S
i
Ci
S (CiS)

.
, i
S
a
.
.

4.3


. ,
,
,
65
 . ,

,
.
,
.
,

-

,
Diamantidis, Heavey & Papadopoulos (2005).
, ,
,
.
,

,
,



.
,
,
.

4.3.1



.

,
66

. ,

,
.
,

. ,

. ,


,
.

.

67
 1: ,
(PR1)
.
2:

( PR2>PR1).
2.1:
:
2a.

2b.

2c.

2d. (max=min)
/*


.

,
.*/
2.2:
.
.
2.
/*

.*/
2- :

.
4.7

68

.
,

. ,

2 ( 2.2) .
, 2.1

. , ,
,
- .


- .


,
.
,


.

4.3.2

. ,
,

. ,
.

69
 4.8
70
 4.3.3


. ,

, .

.


. , 5
[1,2,3,4,5] =10 ,
i 2
=[2,2,2,2,2]. =13
,

=[2,3,3,3,2].
, ,
.
,
,
/
.
Selvi (2002)
3.9. Selvi
(2002)

.
Selvi (2002),

cri=1/(i+i+1) i=1,2,,k-1,

i,
71
i,=RCi* . i,

i, .
i,
,

.
, 5 =14
r=[1,1,1,1,0.35]

S=[1,2,1,1,1].
RC=[0.174717, 0.174717, 0.262136, 0.388350]
RCi* =[2.4466, 2.4466,
3.6699, 5.43689]. =[2,2,3,5]
3 1
(0,6699) 2
(0,4466)
1 . ,
=[2,3,4,5].

,
. 7
=8 =[1,1,2,2,1,1],
=[2,1,1,1,1,2], =[1,1,1,1,1,3] =[3,1,1,1,1,1].
,

(=[1,1,2,2,1,1] )
Selvi (2002).
,
,

.

72

Selvi (2002).
,
Selvi (2002) .
5
Selvi (2002)

.

4.3.4

2
,
. ,
Diamantidis, Heavey Papadopoulos (2005)

.



,

. ,
,
. ,

.

,

.
,
r
S
73
 ,

.

4.3.5
1: [5,3,0,1]
MAX , MIN

1
[5,3,0,1] PR1=0,585581

[4,3,1,1] PR2=0,638966 (1 )
PR2>PR1, [4,3,1,1]

2
[4,3,1,1]
[3,3,2,1] 0,665721 (2 )

[3,3,1,2] 0,660105 (3 )

3
[3,3,2,1]
[2,3,2,2] 0,681167 (4 )

[3,2,2,2] 0,674243 (5 )

4 ,
[2,3,2,2]
[3,2,2,2] 0,674243 <0,681167 (6 )

[2,2,3,2] 0,681164 <0,681167 (7 )

[2,2,2,3] 0,674242 <0,681167 (8 )
STOP
, [2,3,2,2] 0,681167
8 1,609s.

2: [1,2,2,1]
[1,2,2,1] 0,631371
1
[1,2,2,1]
[2,1,2,1] 0,622844 <0,631371 (1 )
74

[1,1,2,2] 0,61893 <0,631371 (2 )

[2,2,1,1] 0,618929 <0,631371 (3 )

[1,2,1,2] 0,622849 <0,631371 (4 )
, 0,631371
4 0,04s.

5

C++

.


.
,

. ,
19 ,
Gradient, Heuristic, Simulated Annealing, Genetic, Nested Partitions
Gradient/Heuristic NP/Gradient.

Simulated Annealing
Genetic
.

5.1

.
:
1. 5 12
,

19
Simulated Annealing, Genetic
.
75
 (. 5.2.1).

.
2.
13 20 ,
(. 5.2.3).

,
.
3.
7 30
(. 5.2.5). ,

.
4.
50 200
(. 5.2.7).
.


,
.
,
, ri
Si .
,
:
Station, ,
Servers,
.
.
Si 1 2,
Servers ,

76
 Service Rate,
. , rates=1,
Service Rates
,
Bi,
,
Complete Enumeration, Genetic, Simulated Annealing, Gradient,
Heuristic, Gradient/Heuristic, NP NP/Gradient,

.

, ,
,
, -
Selvi (2002),
,
,
,

,
Popt, .
Time (sec),
,
(%), Simulated Annealing (%)
Genetic (%)
:

[Popt ( ) Popt ( )]
Popt ( ) *100

:
[Popt()-Popt()]/Popt()*100.

77


.
(..Simulated Annealing),
,

.
Gradient(%) (%)
gradient :

[Popt() - Popt(gradient)] / Popt(gradient) *100

gradient : [Popt()-
Popt(gradient)]/Popt(gradient)*100.
gradient.
Heuristic ( Gradient/Heuristic)(%)
(%) heurisrtic
( Gradient/Heuristic) :

[Popt( ) - Popt(Heuristic Gradient/Heuristic)]

Popt(Heuristic Gradient/Heuristic) *100

heuristic : [Popt()-
Popt(heuristic)]/Popt(heuristic)*100. ,

heuristic.
NP ( P/Gradient) (%)
(%) NP ( P/Gradient)
:

[Popt ( ) Popt (NP P/Gradient)]

Popt(NP P/Gradient) *100

78

NP : [Popt()-
Popt(NP)]/Popt(NP)*100. ,

NP.
(%) (%)
:

[Popt( ) - Popt( )]
Popt( )*100

: [Popt()-
Popt( )]/Popt( )*100.

.
(%), Simulated Annealing (%)
Genetic (%)

:

[t ( ) - t( )]
t( )*100

genetic : [t() -
t(genetic)] / t(genetic)*100.
,
. ,
.

5.2


. Intel(R)
Core(TM)2 DUO CPU E4400 2GB RAM. -
79
 ,
MS Excel
.

5.2.1




.

.

80
 5.1 {=5, =6, ri=1 Si=1 i}

, (. ) ,
, , , ,
. , , 4
.

81
 5.2 {=6, =7, ri=1 Si=1 i}

. , (0,0016%)
.
8 - .

82
 5.3 {=6, B=11, ri=1 Si=1 i }

, .
, NP NP/Gradient, .
, 0,0009s
4 - .

83
 5.4 {=6, =12, ri=1 Si=1 i }

.
, Gradient
. 6 .

84
 5.5 {=6, B=13, ri=1 Si=1 i }

, ,
, .
6 .

85
 5.6 {=7, =8, ri=1 Si=1 i }

, ,
1 .
- Gradient 8 .

86
 5.7 {=8, =9, ri=1 Si=1 i }

. Gradient, NP NP/Gradient
, . ,
20 14 6
, .

87
 5.8 {=8, =10, ri=1 Si=1 i }

,
.
gradient , NP . ,
12 .

88
 5.9 {=8, =11, ri=1 Si=1 i }

. NP
,
gradient 12 .

89
 5.10 {=8, =15, ri=1 Si=1 i }

Gradient
.
6 .
.

90
 5.11 {=9, B=10, ri=1 Si=1 i }

NP NP/Gradient ,
. ,
gradient ( 5.9).

91
 5.12 {=10, =11, ri=1 Si=1 i }

, Gradient, 0,22% .
NP NP/Gradient
. ,
28 20
, 8 , .

92
 5.13 {=11, B=12, ri=1 Si=1 i }

. , NP
NP/Gradient, gradient ( 5.9 5.11).
, 16 .

93
 5.14 {=12, =13, ri=1 Si=1 i }

gradient
0,22% NP NP/Gradient . ,
. , 36
, 26 10
.

94
 5.2.2



(Complete
Enumeration), .
,
:
,
.
, 5.10
=8 =15, ,
, . ,

, NP NP/Gradient

.

.

0,2

0,15
%

Gradient
Heuristic

0,1 NP
Myopic

0,05

0
=6

=7

=8

=9
1

3
=1

=1

=1

=1

=1

=1

=1

=1

=1

=1

,B

,B

,B

,B

B
,B

,B

,B

,B

,B

,B

,B
=5

=6

=7

=8

0,

1,

2,
=6

=6

=6

=8

=8

=8

=9

=1

=1

=1

5.1

95
 ,
.
, Gradient
.
,
xx.

(sec)
80

70

60

50
(sec)

Gradient
Heuristic
40
NP
30 Myopic

20

10

0
6

=7

9
1

12

13

10

3
=

=
=1

=1

=1

=1

=1

=1

=1

=
B

,B

B
,B

,B

,B

,B

,B

,B

,B
5,

7,

8,
=6

6,

6,

9,
=

=
=6

=8

=8

=8

10

11

12

5.2

, Gradient.

, o Gradient
.

96

Myopic vs Gradient

0,2

0,15
(sec)

Gradient
Myopic
0,1

0,05

0
6

=7

9
1

12

13

10

3
=

=
=1

=1

=1

=1

=1

=1

=1

=
B

,B

B
,B

,B

,B

,B

,B

,B

,B
5,

7,

8,
=6

6,

6,

9,
=

=
=6

=8

=8

=8

10

11

12

5.3 Myopic Gradient

5.2.3



13
20
.


.

97
 5.15 {=13, =26, ri=1 Si=1 i}

, , Simulated
Annealing 148 .
0,398% Simulated Annealing 0,386% Genetic .
5 Gradient 0,035%
. 60
39, , .

98
 5.16 {=14, =28, ri=1 Si=1 i }

, Simulated Annealing Heuristic Genetic .

4
(0,250 secs). Simulated Annealing 0,475% Genetic 0,327%,
Gradient 0,106% NP 2,9%. 44
32, ,
.

99
 5.17 {=15, =30, ri=1 Si=1 i }

, Simulated Annealing Heuristic Genetic

. 4
(0,405 secs). Simulated Annealing
0,503%, Genetic 0,197%. Gradient
0,078% NP 2,99%. 72
47, ,
.

100
 5.18 {=16, =32, ri=1 Si=1 i }

, Simulated Annealing Heuristic Genetic .

4
(0,405 secs) Simulated Annealing -99,83%.
Simulated Annealing 0,545%, Genetic
0,094%. Gradient 0,01% NP
5,66%. , 52, 38
, .

101
 5.19 {=17, =34, ri=1 Si=1 i }

3
(0,097%) Simulated Annealing 0,53% . ,
Gradient (0,097%) Genetic (0,339%) NP (5,64%).
(0,686s). , 84
55, ,
.

102
 5.20 {=18, =36, ri=1 Si=1 i }

, 3 Genetic
(0,211%), Gradient (0,119%) NP (6,918%). 0,119% 0,796s,
Simulated Annealing Heuristic (0,544% 0,464% ).
, 90 ,
59, ,
.

103
 5.21 {=19, =38, ri=1 Si=1 i }

, (0,102%),
Simulated Annealing (0,572%), Genetic (0,531%) Heuristic (0,393%). ,
Gradient (0,248%) (1,734s).
, 96 ,
63, .

104
 5.22 {=20, =40, ri=1 Si=1 i}

, Simulated
Annealing Heuristic (0,556% 0,423% ), Genetic,
Gradient NP. 3 (1,217s)
102 67 .

105
 5.2.4


,
,
Simulated Annealing Genetic,
.


ri=1 Si=1 :
4 Simulated
Annealing, Heuristic Genetic
.

2500

2000 Genetic

Simulated
(sec)

1500 Annealing
Gradient

Heuristic
1000
NP

500 Myopic

0
26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40
=

=
B

B
3,

4,

5,

6,

7,

8,

9,

0,
=1

=1

=1

=1

=1

=1

=1

=2

5.4 (1)

106
 3
Genetic,
.

0,640

0,630
Genetic
0,620
Simulated
0,610 Annealing
Gradient
Popt

0,600
Heuristic
0,590
NP
0,580
Myopic
0,570

0,560
26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40
=

=
B

B
3,

4,

5,

6,

7,

8,

9,

0,
=1

=1

=1

=1

=1

=1

=1

=2

5.5 (2)

,

Gradient .
Simulated Annealing
Genetic, ,
Heuristic
Gradient. , NP
.

107
 Simulated Annealing
10

6
%

Gradient
5 Heuristic
NP
4
Myopic
3

0
=13, =14, =15, =16, =17, =18, =19, =20,
B=26 B=28 B=30 B=32 B=34 B=36 B=38 B=40

5.6 Simulated Annealing

Genetic, (
) Heuristic, Gradient
,
Genetic.

xx .

Genetic
10

6
%

Gradient
4 Heuristic
NP
2 Myopic

0
=13,B=26

=14,B=28

=15,B=30

=16,B=32

=17,B=34

=18,B=36

=19,B=38

=20,B=40

-2

5.7 Genetic

108
 ,
. ,
, ,
Gradient
. ,
Gradient.

2500

2000 Genetic

Simulated
(sec)

1500 Annealing
Gradient

Heuristic
1000
NP

500 Myopic

0
26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40
=

=
B

B
3,

4,

5,

6,

7,

8,

9,

0,
=1

=1

=1

=1

=1

=1

=1

=2

5.8

Gradient vs Heuristic vs Myopic
7

5
(sec)

4 Gradient
Heuristic
3
Myopic
2

0
=13, =14, =15, =16, =17, =18, =19, =20,
B=26 B=28 B=30 B=32 B=34 B=36 B=38 B=40

5.9 Myopic, Gradient Heuristic

109
 5.2.5


.
.
5.23 {=7, B=14 }

, ,
. , 8 -

110
 . ,
7%.
5.24 {=10, B=20 }

(0,009%),
.
0,29%. ,
53 -
37 .

111
 5.25 {=15, B=30 }

,
(0,005%), .
0,118%. ,
Simulated Annealing (139s),
.
26 - .

112
 5.26 {=20, =40 }

(0,005%)
0,119%,
NP (6,257%). , Simulated Annealing
Genetic, Gradient Heuristic. ,
26 .

113
 5.27 {=30, =60 }

, (0,0013%),
10% .
9,168% Gradient+Heuristic.

114
 5.2.6


,
,
, ,
. ,

.
,
, ,

Simulated Annealing Genetic,
.

( ri Si)
:

, ri
Si,
.
,
5.27,
.
.
, 30 , NP

5.27 .


.

115


0,85

0,8
Genetic
0,75
Gradient
0,7 Heuristic
Popt

0,65 Myopic

Simulated
0,6 Annealing
NP
0,55

0,5

0,45
=7, B=14 =10, B=20 =15, B=30 =20, B=40

5.10

,
,
Simulated Annealing Genetic
=7, =14.

Simulated Annealing
8

5
%

Gradient
4
Heuristic
3 NP
Myopic
2

0
=7, B=14 =10, B=20 =15, B=30 =20, B=40
-1

5.11 Simulated Annealing

116
 Genetic,
,
Heuristic, Gradient
NP ,
.

Genetic
7

4
Gradient
%

3
Heuristic
2 NP
Myopic
1

0
=7, B=14 =10, B=20 =15, B=30 =20, B=40
-1

-2

5.12 Genetic

,
.
, Simulated Annealing Genetic.

117


1000

800
Genetic
(sec)

600 Simulated
Annealing
Gradient

400 Heuristic

NP

200 Myopic

0
=7, B=14 =10, B=20 =15, B=30 =20, B=40

5.13

,
,
Gradient.
Gradient
.

118

Myopic vs Gradient
0,35

0,3

0,25
(sec)

0,2
Gradient
0,15 Myopic

0,1

0,05

0
=7, B=14 =10, B=20 =15, B=30 =20, B=40

5.14 Myopic Gradient

5.2.7



,
.


.

119
 5.28 {=50, =98, ri=1, i=1,2,,50, Si=1, i=1,2,,25 Si =2, i=26,27,,50}

,
,
7,2% Simulated Annealing Gradient+Heuristic.

120
 5.29 {=50, =98, ri=1, i=1,2,,50, Si=2, i=1,2,,25 Si=1, i=26,27,,50}

,
7,22% Simulated
Annealing Gradient+Heuristic.

121
 5.30 {=50, =98, ri=1, i=1,2,,50 Si=2, i=1,2,,50}

, 0,172%
0,01% Gradient. , Simulated Annealing
Heuristic 0,162%, 97,754%
Simulated Annealing. ,
.

122
 5.31 {=50, =100, ri=1, i=1,2,,50 Si=2, i=1,2,,50}

, 0,082% Gradient. ,
Simulated Annealing Heuristic (0,279% 0,244% ).
(81,12
secs). ,
. ,
376 - 234,
, .

123
 5.32 {=60, =118, ri=1, i=1,2,,60, Si=1, i=1,2,,30 Si=2, i=31,27,,60}

, 5.28 5.29,
,
7% . Simulated Annealing
(7,73%), Heuristic
0,40%. , 841 -
.

124
 5.33 {=60, =118, ri=1, i=1,2,,60, Si=2, i=1,2,,30 Si=1, i=31,27,,60}

,

7%. Heuristic (0,76%)
. , 841 -
.

125
 5.34 {=60, =118, ri=1, i=1,2,,60 Si=2, i=1,2,,60}

, 5.30,
0,139% 0,004% Gradient.
Simulated Annealing Heuristic 0,14%,
97,429% Simulated Annealing. ,

.

126
 5.35 {=60, =122, ri= 1, i=1,2,,60 Si =2, i=1,2,,60}

5.31,
, 0,293%
gradient. Simulated Annealing Heuristic (0,216% 0,102%
), 97,543%
Simulated Annealing. , ,
. ,
, 2200 -
1686 , .

127
 5.36 {=70, =138, ri=1, i=1,2,,70, Si=2, i=1,2,,35 Si=1, i=36,37,,70}

,
,
7,138%. Heuristic
0,342%. 1156
- , .

128
 5.37 {=70, =138, ri=1, i=1,2,,70 Si=2, i=1,2,,70}

,
, 0,114%
0,002% Gradient. Simulated Annealing
Heuristic (0,13% 0,122% ),
96,432% Simulated Annealing. ,

. ,
4762 - 4761
, .

129
 5.38 {=80, =158, ri=1, i=1,2,,80, Si=1, i=1,2,,40 Si=2, i=41,42,,80}

,
. Simulated Annealing 7,64%,
1,38%, .
1521 -
.

130
 5.39 {=80, =158, ri=1, i=1,2,,80 Si=2, i=1,2,,80}

,
0,096% 0,0007% Gradient.
Simulated Annealing Heuristic (0,118% 0,113% ),
94,984% Simulated Annealing. ,

, . ,
6242 - 6241
.

131
 5.40 {=100, =110, ri= 1, i=1,2,,100 Si=1, i=1,2,,100}

,
, ( 24.484 ). ,
2,031%, 500%
Heuristic 2 0,932%.

132
 5.41 {=200, =210, ri= 1, i=1,2,,200 Si=1, i=1,2,,200}

,
( 5.40),
82.520 . , 0,957%
.

133
 5.2.8



,
,

. ,

, ,
.
,
,
Simulated Annealing Genetic,
. ,
50 80
Simulated Annealing, (100
200 ) Genetic. ,
:

,
. ,
Gradient
.
,
.
,
,


.

134
 ,
Gradient .

. ,


,
.

1,35

1,25

1,15 Simulated
annealing
1,05 Gradient
Popt

Heuristic
0,95
Myopic
0,85

0,75

0,65
0

2
8)

9)

0)

2)

3)

4)

6)

7)

8)

9)
10

12
.2

.2

.3

.3

.3

.3

.3

.3

.3

.3
=

=
(5

(5

(5

(5

(5

(5

(5

(5

(5

(5
B

B
98

98

98

8
11

11

11

13

13

15

15
=

0,

0,
=

=
=5

=6
B

0,

0,

0,

0,

0,

0,

0,

0,

0,

0,
=5

=5

=5

=6

=6

=6

=7

=7

=8

=8

5.15

Simulated Annealing

. ,
,
0,5%.

135


1,35

1,345

Simulated
annealing
P opt

1,34 Gradient

Heuristic

Myopic
1,335

1,33
=50, =50, =60, =60, =70, =80,
B=98 B=100 B=118 B=122 B=138 B=158
(5.30) (5.34) (5.37) (5.39)

5.16

Simulated Annealing
( )
0,6

0,5

0,4
%

0,3
Gradient
0,2 Heuristic
Myopic
0,1

0
=50, =50, =60, =60, =70, =80,
-0,1 B=98 B=100 B=118 B=122 B=138 B=158
(5.30) (5.34) (5.37) (5.39)

5.17 Simulated Annealing

136
 ,

, ,
Simulated Annealing .
Gradient -
Simulated Annealing

0,3%.

100.000

80.000
Simulated
(sec)

annealing
Gradient
60.000
Heuristic

40.000 Myopic

20.000

0
=50, =50, =60, =60, =70, =80,
B=98 B=100 B=118 B=122 B=138 B=158
(5.30) (5.34) (5.37) (5.39)

5.18

,

7%.


,
,
137
 , .
,

Bi>3. ,
Liba
, Bi > 1,
.


Simulated Annealing,
, ( 7%).
Heuristic.

0,73

0,72

0,71 Simulated
annealing
Gradient
0,70
Popt

Heuristic
0,69
Myopic
0,68

0,67

0,66
=50, =50, =60, =60, =70, =80,
B=98 B=98 B=118 B=118 B=138 B=158
(5.28) (5.29) (5.32) (5.33) (5.36) (5.38)

5.19

138
 Simulated Annealing

8

7
6

5 Gradient
%

4 Heuristic
3 Myopic
2
1

0
=50, =50, =60, =60, =70, =80,
B=98 B=98 B=118 B=118 B=138 B=158
(5.28) (5.29) (5.32) (5.33) (5.36) (5.38)

5.20 Simulated Annealing

,

, .

,
.
.

139


30000

25000

20000 Simulated
(sec)

annealing
Gradient
15000
Heuristic

10000 Myopic

5000

0
=50, =50, =60, =60, =70, =80,
B=98 B=98 B=118 B=118 B=138 B=158
(5.28) (5.29) (5.32) (5.33) (5.36) (5.38)

5.21

, 4,


. ,
,
.
5.40 5.41
(=100
200 ),
2,031%
Genetic
.
.


,

140

( 0,3%). ,
.

0,52

0,51

0,5

Genetic
0,49
Popt

Gradient
Heuristic
0,48
Myopic

0,47

0,46

0,45
=100, B=110 =200, B=210

5.22

Genetic

0
=100, B=110 =200, B=210
-2

-4
%

-6 Gradient
Heuristic
-8 Myopic

-10

-12

-14

5.23 Genetic

141

,
.



. ,

.

600000

500000

400000
Genetic
(sec)

Gradient
300000 Heuristic
Myopic
200000

100000

0
=100, B=110 =200, B=210

5.24

5.2.9



,
. ,

142
 ,
.
,

.
Liba (. 3.9
4.3.3) .

, .
, , 5.42
_1 Liba =5, =6
[1,2,2,1],
[2,1,1,2], [3,1,1,1] [1,1,1,3].
,
_1 Liba .

5.42 =5, =6

, 5.43 5.44
=7, =14 =10, =20
. ,
_1 Liba [2,2,2,2,3,3],
_2 [2,2,3,3,2,2],
_1 Liba [2,1,1,2,2,3,3,3,3]
[2,2,2,3,3,2,2,2,2]
[3,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,3].
143
 ,
_1 Liba .

5.43 =7, =14

5.44 =10, =20

.
, _1 Liba
Popt
(. 5.46).
_1
Liba Selvi .

144
 5.45 =20, =40

5.46 =30, =60

(. 5.47 5.49).
, _1
Liba ,

.

145
 5.47 =50, =98

5.48 =60, =118

146
 5.49 =70, =138

,
,
(, )
Liba. , Liba
Selvi (2002)
.

6.1




.

.
,
.
,
C++,
,

.

147
 ,
,

. ,
,


.
, ,


.
Liba Selvi (2002)
Diamantidis, Heavey
Papadopoulos (2005)
.
,


, , Simulated
Annealing, ...

, ,


Simulated Annealing Heuristic
0,55%. ,

.

,
,
.

148


.
Gradient ,

Gradient.

,

,
.

,

7%.
,
, 100 ,
,

.
.

. ,

.
,



. ,

,
.

149
 6.2

200
. ,

. ,

.
,
Liba Selvi (2002),
(. 5.2.9)
.
,
(
, . 4.3) . ,


,
.
,

. ,
.
,
.
,
,

.



,

150

2
.
,
.

Diamantidis, Heavey & Papadopoulos (2005)20.

,

.
,
.
.


.

20

,

(. 4.3.4).
151


1. ., (2009), Gradient
.
, ,
.

2. ., (2004),
,
, .

3. . ., (2005), .
, ,
.

4. .., (2005), Grid,

, .

5. ., ., (2008),
, , .

6. ., (2009), Nested
Partitions .
, ,
.

7. ., (2009),
.
, , .

8. Glover F., (1990), Artificial Intelligence, Heuristic Frameworks and Tabu

Search, Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 11, pp. 365-375.

9. Glover F., Maguna M., (1997), Tabu Search, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

10. Holland J.H., (1975), Adaption in natural and artificial systems, The
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

11. Ruppert D., Wand M.P., Carroll R.J., (2003), Semiparametric Regression,
Cambridge University Press, pp. 127-128, :
http://books.google.gr/books?id=Xru4JZSsQkwC&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&
dq=myopic+algorithm&source=bl&ots=-
p30XIJ03t&sig=jYTpKgLfyjqekeR2HWwuFcQa-
Bc&hl=el&ei=uQzDSpagN9G14QbbqOnTDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=re
sult&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=myopic%20algorithm&f=false
( 30/09/2009).

152
 12. Russell St., Norvig P., (2006), .
, .

1. Belmansour, A.T., Nourelfath, M. (2008), "An Aggregation Method for

Performance Evaluation of a Tandem Homogenous Production Line with
Machines Having Multiple Failure Modes", Inderuniversity Research Centre
on Enterprise Networks, Logistics and Transportation (CIRRELT).

2. Bulgak, A.A., Diwan, P.D., Inozu, B. (1995) Buffer size optimization in

asynchronous assembly systems using genetic algorithms, Computers
ind, Engng., Vol. 28(2), pp. 309-322.

3. Buzacott, J.A. (1967) Automatic transfer lines with buffer stocks,

International Journal Of Production Research, Vol. 5, pp. 183-200.

4. Cerny, V. (1985) A thermodynamical approach to the travelling salesman

problem: An efficient simulation algorithm, J. Opt. Theory and Applications
Vol. 45, pp. 41-51.

5. Dallery, Y., Gershwin, St. (1992) Manufacturing flow line systems: a

review of models and analytical results, Queueing Systems, Vol. 12 , pp.
3-94.

6. Dallery, Y., David, R. and Xie, X. (1988), "An efficient algorithm for the
analysis of transfer lines with unreliable machines and finite buffers", IIE
Transactions, 20(3), pp. 280283.

7. Dengiz, B., Akbay, K.S. (2000) Computer simulation of a PCB production

line: metamodeling approach, Int. J. Production Economics, Vol. 63,
pp.195-205.

8. De Koster, M.B.M., (1987) Estimation of line efficiency by aggregation",

Int. J. Production Economics, Vol. 25(4), pp. 615-626.

9. Diamantidis, A.C., Papadopoulos, C.T. (2006) Markovian analysis of a

discrete material manufacturing system with merge operations, operation-
dependent and idleness failures, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol.
50, pp. 466487.

10. Diamantidis, A.C., Papadopoulos, C.T., and Vidalis, M.I., (2004) "Exact
analysis of a discrete material three station one buffer merge system with
unreliable machines", International Journal of Production Research,42(4),
pp. 651675.

11. Diamantidis, A.C., Papadopoulos, C.T., and Heavey, C., (2005)

"Approximate analysis of serial flow lines with multiple parallel machine
stations", IIE Transactions.
153
12. Dupont-Gatelmand, C. (1982) A survey of flexible manufacturing
systems, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 1(1), pp. 1-16.

13. Erlebach, Th., Spieksma, Fr.C.R. (2003) Interval selection. Applications,

algorithms and lower bounds, Journal of Algorithms, Vol. 46, pp.27-53.
14. Fabian, V. (1997) Simulated annealing simulated, Computers Math.
Applic., Vol. 33(1/2), pp.81-94.
15. Ghost, D., Boris, G., Gutin, G., Jager, G., Tolerance-based greedy
algorithms for the traveling salesman problem, :
http://eprints.pascal-network.org/archive/00002351/01/jaegerg-
30014new.pdf
16. Gershwin, S. B. (1987) An Efficient Decomposition Method for the
Approximate Evaluation of Tandem Queues with Finite Storage Space and
Blocking, Operations Research, Vol. 35(2), pp. 291-305.

17. Gershwin, S. B., Goldis, Y., (1995), "Efficient algorithms for transfer line
design", MIT Laboratory for Manufacturing and Productivity Report LMP-
95-005.

18. Gershwin, S.B., Burman M.H. (2000) A decomposition method for

analyzing inhomogeneous assembly/disassembly systems, Annals of
Operations Research, Vol. 93, pp. 91115.

19. Gershwin, S.B., Schor, J.E. (2000) Efficient Algorithms for buffer space
allocation, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 93, pp.117-144.

20. Geman, S., Geman, D. (1984) Stochastic relaxation, Gibbs distributions,

and the Bayesian restoration of images, IEEE Proceedings Pattern
Analysis and Machine Intelligence PAMI-6, pp. 721-741.

21. Golec, A., Taskin, H. (2007) Novel methodologies and a comparative

study for manufacturing systems performance evaluations, Information
Sciences, Vol. 177, pp. 52535274.

22. Gopalan, M.N., Kumar, U.D. (1995) On the utilization of a split production
system with inter-stage inspection, Int. J. Production Economics, Vol. 38,
pp. 107-116.

23. Heavy, C., Papadopoulos, H.T., Browne, J. (1993) The throughput rate of
multistation unreliable production lines, European Journal Of Operational
Research, Vol. 68, pp. 69-89.

24. Helber, S. (1998) Decomposition of unreliable assembly/disassembly

networks with limited buffer capacity and random processing times,
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 109, pp. 24-42.

154
25. Helber, S. (1999) "Performance Analysis of Flow-Lines with Nonlinear
Flow of Material", Vol. 473 of Lecture Notes in Economics and
Mathematical Systems, Springer-Verlag.

26. Helber, S., Jusic, H. (2004) A New Decomposition Approach for Non-
Cyclic Continuous Material Flow Lines with a Merging Flow of Material,
Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 125, pp. 117-139.

27. Hira, D.S., Pandey, P.C. (1983) A computer simulation study of manual
flow lines, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 2(2), pp. 117-125.

28. Hon, K.K.B. (2005) Performance and Evaluation of Manufacturing

Systems, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 54(2), pp. 139-
154.

29. Kirpatrick, S., Gelatt, C.D., Vecchi, M.P. (1983) Optimization by simulated
annealing, Science, Vol. 220, pp. 671-680.

30. Laporte, G. (1992), The travelling salesman problem. An overview of

exact and approximate algorithms, European Journal Of Operational
Research, Vol. 59, pp.231-247.

31. Li, Z., Tang, H., Tu, H. (1992) An expert simulation system for the master
production schedule, Computers in Industry, Vol. 19, pp.127-133.

32. Lim, J.T., Meerkov, S.M., Top, F. (1990) "Homogeneous, asymptotically

reliable serial production lines: Theory and a case study", IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, Vol. 35(5), pp. 525-533.

33. Manimaran, G., Murthy C. (1998), An new study for fault-tolerant real-time
dynamic scheduling algorithms, Journal of Systems Architecture, Vol. 45,
pp.1-13.

34. McGovern, S.M., Gupta, S.M. (2007) A balancing method and genetic
algorithm for disassembly line balancing, European Journal of Operational
Research, Vol. 179, pp. 692708.

35. Mirzapour, A.H., Aryanezhad, M.B. (2009) An Efficient Method to Solve a

Mixed-model Assembly Line Sequencing Problem Considering a Sub-line,
World Applied Sciences Journal, Vol. 6(2), pp. 168-181.

36. Murphy, R.A. (1978) Estimating the output of a series production system,
A.I.I.E. Transactions, Vol. 10, pp.139-148.

37. Nahas, ., Ait-Kadi, D., Nourelfath, M. (2006) A new approach for buffer
allocation in unreliable production lines, Int. J. Production Economics, Vol.
103, pp. 873881.

155
38. Olafsson, S. (2006) Metahuristics. Chapter 21. Handbooks in Operations
Research and Management Science, Vol. 13, pp. 633-654.

39. O Grady, P. (1989) Flexible Manufacturing Systems: Present

Development and Trends, Computers in Industry, Vol. 12, pp. 241-251.

40. OSullivan, D. (1992) Development of integrated manufacturing systems,

Computer-Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 5 (1), pp. 39-53.

41. Papadopoulos, H. T., Heavey, C., Browne, J. (1993), "Queuing Theory in

Manufacturing Systems Analysis and Design", (Chapman & Hall, London).

42. Papadopoulos, H. T., Vidalis, M.I., (2001) "A Heuristic Algorithm for the
Buffer Allocation in Unreliable Unbalanced Production Lines", Computers &
Industrial Engineering, Vol. 41, pp. 261277.

43. Quadt, D., Kuhn, H. (2007) A taxonomy of flexible flow line scheduling
procedures, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 178, pp.
686698.

44. Ramamritham, K., Stankovic, J.A., Shiah, P.-F. (1990) Efficient

scheduling algorithms for real-time multiprocessor systems, IEEE Trans.
Parallel Distr. Systems, Vol. 1(2), pp. 184-194.

45. Ruppert, D., Wand, M.P., Carroll, R.J. (2003) Semiparametric

Regression, Cambridge University Press, pp. 127-128.

46. Sabuncuoglu, I., Erel, E., Gocgun, Y., (2006), "Analysis of serial
production lines: characterisation study and a new heuristic procedure for
optimal buffer allocation", International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 44 (13), pp. 24992523.

47. Selvi, O. (2002) The line balancing algorithm for optimal buffer allocation
in production lines, MS thesis, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey.

48. Seong, D., Chang, S.Y., Hong, Y. (1994) "Heuristic algorithms for buffer
allocation in a production line with unreliable machines", Department of
Industrial Engineering, POSTECH, Korea; International Journal of
Production Research.

49. Seong, D., Chang, S.Y., Hong, Y. (1994) "An algorithm for buffer allocation
with linear resource constraints in a continuous flow production line",
Technical Report IE-TR-94-05, Department of Industrial Engineering,
POSTECH, Korea.

50. Shi, L., Men, Sh. (2003) Optimal Buffer Allocation in production lines, IIE
Transactions, Vol. 35, pp. 110.

51. Shi, L., lafsson, S. (2000a). Nested partitions method for global
optimization. Operations Research, Vol. 48, pp. 390407.
156
 52. Shi, L., lafsson, S., Chen, Q. (1999) A new hybrid optimization
algorithm, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 36, pp. 409-426.

53. Smith, J.M., Cruz, F.R.B. (2004) The Buer Allocation Problem for
General Finite Buer Queueing Networks,
ftp://est.ufmg.br/pub/fcruz/publics/iie.pdf

54. (a) Spinellis, D., Papadopoulos, Ch. (2000), "A simulated annealing
approach for buffer allocation in reliable production lines", Mathematical
Problems in Engineering, Vol. 5, pp. 441- 458.

55. (b) Spinellis, D., Papadopoulos, Ch. (2000) Stochastic Algorithms for
Buffer Allocation in Reliable Production Lines, Mathematical Problems in
Engineering, Vol. 5, pp. 441-458.

56. Spinellis, D., Papadopoulos Ch., Smith M.J. (2000) "Large production line
optimization using simulated annealing", International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 38(3), pp. 509541.

57. Suri, R., Diehl, G.W. (1986) A variable buffer size model and its use in
analyzing queueing networks with blocking, Management Science, Vol.
32, pp. 206-224.

58. Tan, B. (2001) A Three-Station Merge System with Unreliable Stations

and a Shared Buffer, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Vol. 33, pp.
1011-1026.

59. Wellman, M.A., Gemmill, D.D. (1995) A genetic algorithm approach to

optimization of asynchronous automatic assembly systems, The
International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 7, pp. 27-46.

60. Wieczorek, M., Prodan, R., Fahringer, Th. (2005), Scheduling of Scientific
Workflows in the ASKALON Grid Enviroment, Sigmod Record, Vol. 34 (3),
pp.56-63.

1. http://www.mathresources.com/products/mathresource/maa/myopic_algorit
hm.html ( 23/09/2009).

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_annealing (
5/10/2009).

3. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/Markov-analysis.html
( 27/10/2009).

157