488 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ROBOTICS AND AUTOMATION, VOL. 15, NO.
3, JUNE 1999
Heuristics for a Tool Provisioning
Problem in a Flexible Manufacturing
System with an Automatic Tool Transporter
Hong-Bae Jun, Yeong-Dae Kim, Member, IEEE, and Hyo-Won Suh
Abstract—This paper considers a tool provisioning problem in
a flexible manufacturing system (FMS) with an automatic tool
transporter. The problem considered here is that of determining
the number of copies of each tool type for a limited budget with
the objective of minimizing makespan. This problem should be
solved to decide the (additional) purchase of required tools when
the FMS should be reconfigured due to change of part mix. To
solve the problem, two heuristic algorithms are proposed. One
is a composite search algorithm based on two greedy search
methods, and the other is a search algorithm in which numbers
of tool copies are determined based on tool groupings. In both
algorithms, simulation results are used to find search directions.
Computational experiments show that the latter search algorithm
gives better results.
Index Terms—Flexible manufacturing systems, tool delay time,
tool movement systems, tool provisioning problem.
I. INTRODUCTION
I N this paper, we consider the tool provisioning problem in
a flexible manufacturing system (FMS), i.e., the problem
of determining the number of copies of each tool type with
the objective of minimizing makespan for a given set of part
types. An FMS typically consists of numerically controlled
machines, a material handling system and an on-line computer
system to manage and control all operations. Each machine is
equipped with a tool magazine and an automatic tool changing
device that can switch tools in seconds. Some more advanced
material handling systems include one or more automatic
tool transporters as well as part transporters. Automatic tool
transporters can transfer a tool from the tool magazine of one
machine to that of another, or between a tool magazine of
a machine and a tool storage area while the system is in
operation.
FMS’s can be classified into two groups according to the
material handling system: part movement systems and tool
movement systems. In part movement systems, parts are moved
between the machines according to the process plans of the
parts. Once a tool is loaded onto a machine, the tool is not
removed until the next tool loading time, as long as it is not
broken or worn out. On the other hand, in tool movement
Manuscript received October 1, 1997; revised August 10, 1998. This paper
was recommended for publication by Associate Editor R. Uzsoy and Editor
P. B. Luh upon evaluation of the reviewers’ comments.
The authors are with the Department of Industrial Engineering, Korea
Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Taejon 305-701, Korea.
Publisher Item Identifier S 1042-296X(99)03916-6.
1042–296X/99$10.00  1999 IEEE
systems, once a part is loaded on a machine, the part stays there
until all operations of the part to be processed in the system
are completed. That is, each part visits only one machine for
its entire processing, and tools which are not loaded on the
machine but required to produce the part are borrowed from
other machines or the tool storage area by an automatic tool
transporter at the time of requirement.
In tool movement systems, the part scheduling problem
is simpler than in part movement systems. However, tool
flow control becomes more difficult since tools are moved
frequently. Frequent tool movements cause tool delay time,
which is composed of tool transportation time and tool waiting
time. Tool transportation time is the time during which a
machine waits until a tool transporter brings a necessary tool
from another machine or the tool storage area. Tool waiting
time is the delay time during which a machine waits until
required tools that are currently being used by other machines
become available. There will be positive tool waiting time
when tool conflict occurs, that is, when more machines require
the same tool at the same time than there are copies of this
tool type in the system.
In general, performance of a system is significantly affected
by tool delay times since approximately 16% of scheduled
production time is lost due to such delay [1]. Of the two
types of tool delay times, tool waiting times affect the system
performance more significantly since tool transportation times
are often negligible compared to operation processing times
in most systems. Therefore, it is necessary to minimize tool
waiting time to improve the performance of a tool movement
system. In general, the length of tool waiting time depends
on the tool availability, i.e., tool copy configuration, which is
defined by the number of tool copies for each tool type. The
problem of determining the tool copy configuration is referred
to as the tool provisioning problem, which will be considered
in this paper.
To reduce tool waiting time, one can duplicate critical
tools which cause tool conflicts. However, Gray et al. [2]
and Tomek [3] report that tooling comprises 20–30% of the
cost of installing a new manufacturing system. As the budget
for tool purchases is limited in general, it is necessary to
determine a tool copy configuration that can give the best
system performance for a given limited tool budget.
There have been a number of studies of the tool provisioning
problem. Wang et al. [4] consider a tool provisioning problem
JUN et al.: HEURISTICS FOR A TOOL PROVISIONING PROBLEM IN A FLEXIBLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEM
Fig. 1. Schematic view of the FMS in this research.
in stochastic job shops, and Koo et al. [5] solve a tool
provisioning problem in a single-stage multi-machine system
by analyzing tradeoffs between the number of tool copies and
tool waiting time with an open queueing network model in
which tool life and tool transportation time are considered. For
part movement FMS’s, Graver and McGinnis [6] introduce
a tool provisioning problem and present a static estimation
model and a simulation approach for decisions regarding the
number of tool copies for a particular application. Chung [7]
proposes mathematical models to solve a tool provisioning
problem, and Atan and Pandit [8] give solution approaches to
minimize the total number of tools, or to reduce unnecessary
tool duplications.
In tool movement systems, however, research on the tool
provisioning problem is very rare, if any, although there
are a few research results on operational problems [9]–[14].
This paper focuses on a tool provisioning problem in a tool
movement system with an automatic tool transporter. The tool
provisioning problem considered here is that of determining
a tool copy configuration that minimizes the makespan of a
given set of part types under a tool budget constraint. The
makespan is used as the performance measure in this study
since it is closely related to production rate, throughput, and
production capacity, which are common long-term or steady-
state performance measures for many manufacturing systems.
In the next section, the problem considered is described
in more detail. Section III presents heuristic algorithms for
the tool provisioning problem. Performance of the proposed
algorithms is evaluated through computational experiments
and results are given in Section IV. Section V concludes the
paper with recommendations for further research.
II. PROBLEM STATEMENT
In this paper, we consider a class of tool movement FMS’s
that consist of several identical machines, each of which has
a tool magazine of a limited capacity, a tool storage area that
stores tools, and a tool transporter (tool transport robot) that
transports tools between machines or between a machine and
the tool storage area. An example of such an FMS is depicted
in Fig. 1. Each machine can process any operation of any part
type to be processed if the required tools are provided. A
workpiece loaded on a pallet at a load/unload station stays at
a pallet stocker until it can be transported to a machine by a
stacker crane. Once a part is loaded on a machine, it stays there
until processing of the part is completed. If a machine does
not have all the tools needed for processing a part on its tool
489
magazine, it can borrow them from other machines and/or the
tool storage area. A machine can start processing a part only
after all tools required for the part are loaded on the machine.
If the tool magazine of a machine cannot accommodate all
required tools for parts assigned to the machine, only a subset
of the tools is loaded on the tool magazine and the rest are
stored at the tool storage area.
Each part requires a set of operations whose sequence is
known in advance, and each operation requires a set of tools.
We assume that each tool type has a tool life that can be
estimated (considering tool regrinding), and a tool is replaced
before the time duration the tool has been used exceeds its
tool life. For example, if the estimated tool life of a tool is
1000 min, it is not usable after it has been used for 1000 min.
Therefore, at least a certain number of tool copies are needed
for each tool type for processing a set of parts. If there is a
worn-out tool in the tool magazine of a machine, a usable tool
of the same tool type is transported to the machine from the
tool storage area or another machine and is exchanged with
the worn-out tool.
In this paper, it is assumed that
1) machines do not fail;
2) each tool has a deterministic tool life;
3) no more than one copy of a tool type can be assigned
to a machine;
4) each tool occupies only one tool slot in the tool mag-
azine; and
5) each machine does not start processing a part until all
tools required for all operations of the part are loaded
on the machine.
To describe the problem more clearly, a mathematical
formulation is given below using the following notation:
Indexes
index for part types
index for operations
index for machines
index for tool types
Parameters
budget for tools;
purchase cost of one copy of tool type ;
demand of part type ;
set of operations that are needed for part type ;
tool magazine capacity of machine ;
processing time for operation of part type ;
if tool type is used for operation of part type
and 0 otherwise;
lower bound on the number of tool copies of tool
type ;
upper bound on the number of tool copies of tool
type ;
(estimated) tool delay time for which machine
waits for a type- tool that is not loaded on
machine under given tool copy configuration
.
490
Decision variables
number of tool copies of tool type ;
if tool type is assigned to machine and 0
otherwise;
if part type is assigned to machine and 0
otherwise.
Using the above notation, the tool provisioning problem can
be formulated as the following nonlinear integer program:
subject to
for all
for all
for all
for all
and integer for all
Constraint (1) defines the makespan, i.e., the maximum
completion time at the machines. The first term on the left
hand side of (1) denotes the workloads of the machines that
are affected by assignments of parts to machines, while the
second term denotes tool delay times that are affected by
not only and but also the tool copy configuration
and scheduling rules or control policies
of parts and tools. Constraints (2) and (3) ensure that each
part type is processed by only one machine and that tool slots
needed for tool types assigned to a machine do not exceed
the tool magazine capacity of the machine, respectively. Con-
straint (4) models the restriction that the total number of tool
copies assigned to machines should not exceed the number of
purchased tool copies for each tool type, while (5) denotes the
restriction on the budget for tool purchasing.
To solve the problem, and the scheduling rules
and control policies of parts and tools should be determined.
Since scheduling rules and control policies are not our major
concern in this paper, it is assumed that these decisions are
made by a certain method such as those suggested in the
literature [15], [16]. Also, we do not consider tool waiting
time incurred by replacing worn-out tools, which depends on
tool control policies. This study focuses on the determination
of values of decision variable i.e., a tool copy configuration
to minimize the second term of the left hand side of constraint
(1).
III. HEURISTIC ALGORITHMS
In this paper, two simulation based heuristic algorithms
are presented to solve the tool provisioning problem. One
is a composite search algorithm based on two greedy search
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ROBOTICS AND AUTOMATION, VOL. 15, NO. 3, JUNE 1999
methods and the other is a search algorithm using the results
of tool grouping. In both these algorithms, an initial tool copy
configuration is improved by modifying the configuration.
Results from simulation of the FMS under a given tool
copy configuration are used to generate a new tool copy
configuration. This process is repeated until the solution cannot
be improved further under a given tool budget.
In the search procedures of both algorithms, tool waiting
time of each tool type (obtained from simulation) is used
for a search direction. Tool waiting times for individual tool
types, which reflect the impacts of the tool types on the system
performance, are used as a criterion for selecting a tool type
whose number of copies should be increased or decreased. The
number of tool copies of a tool type with a longer tool waiting
(1) time is increased ahead of others, since system performance
(2) can be more easily improved by reducing the tool waiting
time when it is larger. Similarly, the number of tool copies
(3) of a tool type with a shorter tool waiting time is decreased
ahead of others.
To reduce the search space in the algorithms, bounds on
(4)
the number of tool copies of each tool type are used. Since
it is assumed that the tool life of each tool type is known
(5) and constant, one can calculate a lower bound and an upper
bound on the number of tool copies for each tool type. A
(6)
lower bound for tool type can be calculated simply as
(7) where is the workload of tool type i.e.,
is the tool life of tool type and
denotes the smallest integer not less than Similarly, an
upper bound for tool type can be calculated as the sum
of upper bounds (for tool type over the machines. Since
is an upper bound for tool type
at machine the number of tool copies of tool type does
not have to be greater than
Since
we let in this research. Note that if the number
of tool copies for a tool type is equal to its upper bound,
tool waiting time due to lack of tool copies becomes zero
theoretically. In other words, tool conflicts which cause tool
waiting time do not occur because there are enough tool copies
of the tool type for each machine to have a copy of its own
installed on its magazine.
A. Composite Search Algorithm (CSA)
In this algorithm, the final solution is obtained by selecting
a better solution between those from two simulation based
greedy search methods, namely, CSA-L and CSA-U, which
start from different initial tool copy configurations. CSA-L
and CSA-U start from lower bounds and upper bounds on the
numbers of tool copies of the tool types, respectively.
In CSA-L, the lower bound tool copy configuration, i.e., the
tool copy configuration in which the number of tool copies is
equal to be lower bound for all tool types, is used for an initial
tool copy configuration. Then, the numbers of tool copies of
JUN et al.: HEURISTICS FOR A TOOL PROVISIONING PROBLEM IN A FLEXIBLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEM 491

(more critical) tool types with longer tool waiting times are The basic idea of the above two algorithms is similar to
increased to improve the system performance until the tool those of heuristics for integer programming problems proposed
budget constraint is violated or the performance cannot be by Senju and Toyoda [17] and Kochenberger et al. [18]
improved any further. Note that this initial solution may be
quite poor since tool waiting occurs most frequently under the
lower bound tool copy configuration. However, this solution B. Tool Group Based Search Algorithm (TGSA)
does not violate the tool budget constraint. In this algorithm, tool types are classified into three groups
The procedure of CSA-L is given below, where denotes (A, B, C) based on the impact on the system performance.
the tool waiting time of tool type (estimated by a simulation In general, a tool type with a longer tool waiting time
experiment) and denotes the number of elements in set has a greater (negative) impact on the system performance.
Algorithm CSA-L: Therefore, for the classification of tools, tool waiting time that
Step 1) Let for all is estimated through a simulation experiment with a lower
Step 2) Perform a simulation experiment using the current bound tool copy configuration is used as a measure of the
tool copy configuration, to obtain impact. In the algorithm, tool types are classified into three
an estimate for the makespan, and calculate for equal sized (in terms of the number of tool types in a group)
all groups, A, B, and C, in a nonincreasing order of tool waiting
Step 3) Sort the tool types in in a nonin- time. Tool types with greater impacts are included in group
creasing order of to make a sequence of the tool A. We classified the tool types into three groups (somewhat
type in i.e., where denotes arbitrarily) as in the ABC classification scheme for inventory
the index of the tool type with the th longest tool management, in which items are classified into three unequal-
waiting time. sized classes according to their importance.
In TGSA, lower bounds on the number of tool copies
Step 4) For to do: if there is enough tool budget
are used for an initial tool copy configuration as in CSA-
left and let
L. The initial solution is improved by increasing the number
Step 5) Perform a simulation experiment using to obtain
of tool copies of tool types in groups A, B, and C, in this
an estimate for the makespan. If the makespan does
order, without considering the tool budget constraint until the
not decrease any further or if there is not enough
solution cannot be improved any further. At each time, the
tool budget left, stop. Otherwise, go to Step 3.
same number of tool copies are increased for all tool types
In CSA-U, on the other hand, upper bounds on the number in a group. Then, if the resulting tool copy configuration
of tool copies for the tool types are used for an initial tool does not satisfy the budget constraint, the numbers of tool
copy configuration. Therefore, an initial solution gives the best copies of tool types included in groups C, B, and A, in this
system performance since the tool waiting time does not occur order, are decreased until a feasible solution is found. At this
(theoretically) under such tool copy configuration. However, time, the numbers of copies of tool types are decreased one
the tool budget constraint may not be satisfied. Hence, in the tool type after another in the order of (negative) impact on
algorithm, to make infeasible solutions feasible without having the system performance, which is estimated by a simulation
much (negative) impact on the system performance, the initial experiment as in the other algorithms, until the solution
solution is modified by decreasing the number of copies of becomes feasible.
less critical tool types with a smaller workload until the tool As the number of tool copies in a group is decreased, its
budget constraint becomes satisfied. The procedure of CSA-U (negative) impact on system performance increases, which
is summarized below. may cause rapid deterioration of the solution quality. There-
Algorithm CSA-U: fore, it may be better to reduce the numbers of tool copies
Step 1) Let for all of tool types in less significant groups. To determine when
Step 2) Perform a simulation experiment using the current the number of tool copies of tool types in less significant
tool copy configuration, and groups are reduced, we consider the difference, called the gap,
calculate for all between makespan of the current solution (with reduced tool
Step 3) Sort tool types in in a nondecreas- copies in the current group) and that of the best solution found
ing order of to make a sequence of tool types so far. When finding a feasible solution by decreasing the
in i.e., where denotes the number of tool copies in a group, if the gap is greater than
index of the tool type with the th lowest workload. a predetermined limit, gap the numbers of tool copies in the
Step 4) For to do: if the tool budget constraint current group are not reduced any further. Instead, the next less
is still violated and let significant group (C, B, and A, in this order) is considered for
Step 5) Perform a simulation experiment using and cal- decrease in the numbers of tool copies of tools in the group.
culate If a feasible solution cannot still be found after reduction of
Step 6) For to do: if let tool copies in group A, group C is considered again with an
Step 7) If the tool budget constraint is satisfied or if the increased value for gap A detailed description of TGSA is
number of tool copies for none of the tool types given below.
in was decreased during Step 6, stop. Otherwise, Algorithm TGSA:
let and go to Step 2. Step 1) Let for all and gap
492 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ROBOTICS AND AUTOMATION, VOL. 15, NO. 3, JUNE 1999

Step 2) Perform a simulation experiment using the current handled by a parameterization of the simulation model. A
tool copy configuration, and single replication of simulation is done for each tool copy
calculate s, tool waiting time, and classify tool configuration since there is no variability involved in the
types into three equal sized groups using the values model. What needs to be clarified more are how the parts and
of s. tools are assigned to the machines, and scheduling and control
Step 3) Without considering the tool budget constraint, polices of parts and tools. Assignments of parts and tools must
Step 3-1) Repeat letting for all tools in be done as a setup process before production begins, while part
group A until performance (estimated by a scheduling and tool control are done in real time.
simulation experiment) is not improved any In the simulation model, parts are assigned to machines
further. with the objective of balancing the machine workloads, which
Step 3-2) Repeat letting for all tools in is known to be closely related to minimizing makespan (if
group B until performance is not improved tool waiting time is not considered). To balance machine
any further. workloads, the LPT (longest processing time) rule is used for
Step 3-3) Repeat letting for all tools in part assignment. In this algorithm, part types are first sorted
group C until performance is not improved in nonincreasing order of workloads and then, in this order,
any further. each part type is assigned to the machine with the minimum
Step 4) If the tool budget constraint is satisfied, stop. Other- workload allocated to it so far.
wise, calculate and estimate system performance For tool assignments, a tool of a tool type that is most
through a simulation experiment using frequently used among those that are not yet assigned is
Step 5) Classify tool types into three equal sized groups assigned to the machine which will use the tool for the longest
using the values of s and sort the tool types time and has enough tool slots available in its tool magazine.
included in each tool group in a nondecreasing This rule is repeatedly applied until there are no more tool
order of to make a sequence. Let copies to be assigned. This rule is based on the presumption
and be the indices of the tool types in the that a more frequently used tool is more likely to cause
th position in the sequence for groups A, B, and tool conflicts. Therefore, when selecting a tool to assign to
C, respectively. a machine, it is reasonable to give a higher priority to a tool
Step 6) For 1 to do: that is more frequently used. Also, it is reasonable to assign
If let per- the selected tool to a machine that will use the tool for the
form a simulation experiment using and calculate longest time since tool movements may occur less frequently
gap. If a feasible solution is found, stop. If gap by doing so. (See Amoako-Gyampah and Meredith [19] for
gap , let and go to Step 7. tool assignment procedures in part movement systems.)
Otherwise, proceed for the next Since it is difficult to obtain an optimal schedule for parts
Step 7) For to do: processing (and it is not a major concern in this paper), the
If let per- following dispatching rules are tested and a rule that gives the
form a simulation experiment using and calculate best results is selected and implemented for part scheduling
gap. If a feasible solution is found, stop. If gap in the simulation model.
gap let and go to Step 8. SPT Select a part with the shortest processing time.
Otherwise, proceed. LPT Select a part with the longest processing time.
Step 8) For to do: MTM Select a part that incurs tool movements least
If let per- frequently.
form a simulation experiment using and calculate The tool control policy defines how and when to borrow
gap. If a feasible solution is found, stop. If gap required tools from another machine or the tool storage area
gap let and go to Step 9.
and how and when to return the borrowed tools. Han et al. [11]
Otherwise, proceed.
analyze through a simulation study two tool return policies,
Step 9) Increase gap by 5 percent of makespan of the best
immediate tool return (ITR) policy and no tool return (NTR)
solution found so far and go to Step 5.
policy. Recently, Park and Kim [16] propose another policy,
called the partial tool return (PTR) policy, which gives better
C. Simulation performance than the other two in certain circumstances. They
In this subsection, the simulation model used in the al- report that the PTR policy does not work well when the tool
gorithm is briefly described. The simulation model is deter- magazine capacity constraint is tight, which is a characteristic
ministic, in that nondeterministic factors, such as machine of the FMS considered here. Therefore, in this research, the
breakdowns, tool breakages, and the variability of processing NTR and ITR policies are included in preliminary tests and
times are not considered. Parameters or data needed for the the better will be used in the simulation model.
model, such as the numbers of machines and parts, and In the NTR policy, tools that are borrowed from other
processing times of the operations, are obtained from the data machines are not returned to the machines from which the tools
of the tool provisioning problem. In the suggested algorithms, were borrowed until these machines require them. However, in
changes of these parameters from one problem to another are the ITR, the tools are returned to these machines immediately
JUN et al.: HEURISTICS FOR A TOOL PROVISIONING PROBLEM IN A FLEXIBLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEM
TABLE I
COMPARISON OF PART DISPATCHING RULES
after they are used. If a machine needs to borrow a tool from
another machine which is using the tool, it must wait until
after the tool is used at this machine. In the simulation model,
when a machine needs to borrow a tool of which multiple
copies are loaded on other machines and/or the tool storage
area, the machine selects and borrows a tool in such a way
that the waiting time can be minimized. If the machine cannot
accommodate a borrowed tool because of the space limit in the
tool magazine, it temporarily sends tools that are not required
for the part to be immediately processed to the tool storage
area.
IV. COMPUTATIONAL EXPERIMENTS
To compare performance of the proposed heuristic algo-
rithms, computational experiments were done on a number of
test problems. All data used for experiments were generated
based on real data in an FMS of a manufacturing company
in Korea. For the experiments, ten problems were generated
randomly for each set of all (36) combinations of two levels
for the number of part types (20 and 25), two levels for
the number of operations (15 and 18), three levels for the
number of machines (4, 6, and 8), and three levels for the
number of tool types (140, 160, and 180). Other data used for
the problems were generated from probability distributions as
follows. DU(a, b) denotes the discrete uniform distribution
with a range from a to b.
1) The demand quantity (requirement) for each part type
was generated from DU(15, 40);
2) The number of operations for each part type was gen-
erated from DU(1, 6);
3) Processing time for each operation was generated from
DU(20, 420);
4) The number of tool types needed for each operation was
generated from DU(25, 40);
5) Tool life of each tool type was generated from DU(3000,
8000);
6) Cost of a tool was generated from DU(1, 10);
7) The budget for purchasing additional tools (besides those
for the lower bound tool copy configuration) was set to
be one tenth of the sum of unit costs needed to purchase
one copy for each of all tool types;
8) The tool magazine capacity was set to 80 for each
machine;
493
AND TOOL CONTROL POLICIES
9) The tool transportation time from one machine to an
adjacent machine was set to 0.2 time unit and that from
the tool storage area to the nearest machine was set to
0.6 time unit.
All the algorithms were coded in C, and computational
experiments were done on a personal computer with a Pentium
processor operating at 200 MHz clock speed. Since there
does not exist any efficient optimal solution algorithm for the
problem considered here and it is impossible to find an optimal
solution with a full enumeration method in a reasonable
amount of time, the suggested algorithms were compared with
each other. For the comparison, we use a relative performance
measure called the relative performance ratio (RPR), which is
defined as for algorithm for each problem,
where is the solution value (makespan) obtained from
algorithm is the best solution value obtained by the
tested algorithms for the problem. This index reflects how well
a particular heuristic algorithm performs relative to others.
As mentioned earlier, the best combination of part dis-
patching rules and tool control policies are to be used for
the comparison of the algorithms for the tool provisioning
problem. To select the best combination, all combinations of
the three dispatching rules (SPT, LPT, MTM) and the two
policies (NTR, ITR) were tested on a set of 36 problems
generated randomly as described above. All the suggested
algorithms were used in this series of tests. Results of the
tests are shown in Table I, which gives the mean and standard
deviation of RPR’s. The combination of MTM and ITR gave
the best results for all the tool provisioning algorithms. The
effects of the tool provisioning algorithms on the system per-
formance were more significant than those of part dispatching
rules and tool control policies, as depicted in Fig. 2. Note
that the differences of RPR’s of the best and the second best
rules/policies/algorithms were larger for the tool provisioning
algorithms than for the part dispatching rules and tool control
policies.
Since the combination of MTR and ITR worked better
than others, they were selected for a main experiment to
compare the tool provisioning algorithms. Table II shows the
mean and standard deviation of the RPR, the number of
problems for which each algorithm found the best solutions,
and computation time. Overall, TGSA outperformed CSA
in terms of all the measures, RPR, the number of best
solutions and computation time. Although CSA selects the
494
PERFORMANCE OF THE HEURISTICS (RESULTS FROM PROBLEMS
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2. Comparison of the heuristics (practical sizes). (a) Overall av-
erage RPR’s. (b) Average RPR’s given the best combination for each
rule/policy/algorithm.
better solution from the two greedy search methods (there was
no significant difference in performance of the two greedy
search methods), it did not perform an well as TGSA. This
shows the effectiveness of tool grouping in TGSA, which
classifies tool types according to the impact on the system
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ROBOTICS AND AUTOMATION, VOL. 15, NO. 3, JUNE 1999
TABLE II
OF PRACTICAL SIZES)
Fig. 3. RPR’s for different numbers of machines.
performance. Both algorithms require CPU times of less than
an hour on a personal computer for solution of a problem. (A
simulation run required less than 8 s.) From a computational
perspective, these CPU times seem reasonable since the tool
provisioning problem would not be solved very often.
As the number of machines increases, the superiority of
TGSA over CSA becomes clearer (see Fig. 3). This may be
explained as follows. As the number of machines increases, the
solution space becomes larger due to the increase in the upper
bounds on the numbers of tool copies. Also, tool conflicts
occur more often since it is more likely that more than one
machine requires the same tool at the same time when there
are more machines in the FMS. The better algorithm (TGSA)
can search large solution space more efficiently and resolve
tool conflicts more effectively and the performance difference
becomes clearer in such cases.
To see the absolute (not relative) quality of solutions from
the suggested algorithms, heuristic solutions were compared
with optimal solutions. For the purpose, small sized test
JUN et al.: HEURISTICS FOR A TOOL PROVISIONING PROBLEM IN A FLEXIBLE MANUFACTURING SYSTEM
TABLE III
PERFORMANCE OF THE HEURISTICS (RESULTS FROM SMALL SIZED PROBLEMS)
problems were generated and optimal solutions were obtained
by a full enumeration method, in which all tool copy con-
figurations were considered. MTM and ITR were used for
part scheduling and tool control, respectively. For this test, 80
problems were randomly generated, 10 problems for each of 8
sets (see Table III for a description of these sets). The results
are shown in Table III, which gives the number of optimal
solutions each algorithm found, average and standard deviation
of percentage errors. For each problem, the percentage error
of algorithm is defined as where is
the solution value obtained using algorithm and is the
optimal solution value. In this case too, TGSA works better
than CSA in terms of the solution quality. Both algorithms
found optimal solutions in many cases (in about 70% of the
problems). Even when they did not find optimal solutions, they
gave good solutions which are close to optimal.
V. CONCLUSION
We considered a tool provisioning problem to find a tool
copy configuration which minimizes the makespan for a given
set of part types under a tool budget constraint in a class of
FMS’s. The FMS’s considered in this paper are tool movement
systems, in which each part visits only one of the machines
for its entire processing and tools which are not loaded on the
machine but required to produce the parts are borrowed from
other machines or the tool storage area by a tool transporter.
To solve the problem, we suggested two heuristic algorithms
in which a good tool copy configuration is found by using
tool waiting time for each tool type that is estimated by a
simulation experiment. Test results showed that the tool group
based search algorithm (TGSA), which finds the best tool
copy configuration after grouping tool types according to their
impacts on the system performance, gave the better results
than the composite search algorithm (CSA), which consists of
two algorithms that determine directly the number of copies
for each tool type. The approach used in this study can be
applied to most tool movement FMS’s if the heuristics are
495
customized through a slight modification to deal with special
characteristics of the systems.
This research can be extended in several directions. For
example, one may develop a procedure which simultaneously
determines a tool copy configuration, assignment of parts
and tools, and scheduling or control policies of parts and
tools to maximize the overall system performance under a
given budget constraint. Also, other statistics (rather than tool
waiting time) can be used to estimate the impact of tools on the
system performance such as frequency of tool movements for
each tool type and the frequency of tool conflicts. Of course,
a more improved and efficient search method may be devised
and used in the suggested algorithms. On the other hand, other
objectives such as those related to flow time or due dates may
be considered. For such objectives, one may use the approach
suggested in this paper if the measure used for simulation in
the suggested algorithms is changed to the one related to the
objective of the problem.
REFERENCES
[1] D. Veeramani, D. M. Upton, and M. M. Barash, “Cutting-tool manage-
ment in computer-integrated manufacturing,” Int. J. Flexible Manufact.
Syst., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 237–265, 1992.
[2] A. E. Gray, A. Seidmann, and K. E. Stecke, “A synthesis of decision
models for tool management in automated manufacturing,” Manag. Sci.,
vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 549–567, 1993.
[3] P. Tomek, “Tooling strategies related to FMS management,” FMS Mag.,
vol. 4, pp. 102–107, 1986.
[4] J. Wang, J. Yang, and V. B. Gargeya, “Tool requirement planning in
stochastic job shops: A simulated annealing approach,” Comput. Indust.
Eng., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 249–265, 1993.
[5] P.-H. Koo, J. M. A. Tanchoco, and J. J. Talavage, “Tool requirements in
manufacturing systems under dynamic tool sharing,” in Proc. 20th Int.
Conf. Comput. Industr. Eng., 1996, pp. 1271–1274.
[6] T. W. Graver and L. F. McGinnis, “A tool provisioning problem in an
FMS,” Int. J. Flexible Manufact. Syst., vol. 1, pp. 239–254, 1989.
[7] C. H. Chung, “Planning tool requirements for flexible manufacturing
systems,” J. Manufact. Syst., vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 476–483, 1991.
[8] T. S. Atan and R. Pandit, “Auxiliary tool allocation in FMS,” Euro. J.
Oper. Res., vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 642–659, 1996.
[9] A. Agnetis, M. Dror, A. J. Vakharia, and F. Rossi, “Tool handling and
scheduling in a two-machine flexible manufacturing cell,” IIE Trans.,
vol. 28, pp. 425–437, 1996.
496 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ROBOTICS AND AUTOMATION, VOL. 15, NO. 3, JUNE 1999

[10] H. S. Hahn and J. L. Sanders, “Performance analysis of a LIM-
based high-speed tool delivery system for machining,” Int. J. Flexible
Manufact. Syst., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 179–207, 1994.
[11] M.-H. Han, Y. K. Na, and G. L. Hogg, “Real-time tool control and job
dispatching in flexible manufacturing systems,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol.
27, no. 8, pp. 1257–1267, 1989.
[12] H.-K. Roh and Y.-D. Kim, “Due-date based loading and scheduling
methods for a flexible Manufacturing system with an automatic tool
transporter,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 2989–3003, 1997.
[13] C.-Y. Song, H. Hwang, and Y.-D. Kim, “Heuristic algorithm for the
tool movement policy in flexible manufacturing systems,” J. Manufact.
Syst., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 160–168, 1995.
[14] O. S. Susan and C. Jeya, “Evaluation of alternative tool combinations
in a flexible manufacturing system,” Comput. Indust. Eng., vol. 26, no.
4, pp. 633–645, 1994.
[15] Y.-D. Kim and C. A. Yano, “Heuristic approaches for loading problems
in flexible manufacturing systems,” IIE Trans., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 26–39,
1993.
[16] S. S. Park and Y.-D. Kim, “A heuristic algorithm for tool loading and
scheduling in a flexible manufacturing system with an automatic tool
transporter,” J. Korean Inst. Indust. Eng., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 119–135,
1995.
[17] S. Senju and Y. Toyoda, “An approach to linear programming with 0–1
variables,” Manag. Sci., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 196–207, 1968.
[18] G. A. Kochenberger, B. A. McCarl, and F. P. Wyman, “A heuristic for
general integer programming,” Decision Sci., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 36–44,
1974.
[19] K. Amoako-Gyampah and J. R. Meredith, “A simulation study of FMS
tool allocation procedures,” J. Manufact. Syst., vol. 15, no. 6, pp.
419–431, 1996.
[20] G. L. Nemhauser and L. A. Wolsey, Integer and Combinatorial Opti-
mization. New York: Wiley, 1988.
[21] R. Macchiaroli and S. Riemma, “Design of a tool management system
in a flexible cell,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 767–784, 1996.
Yeong-Dae Kim (M’98) received the B.S. degree in
industrial engineering from Seoul National Univer-
sity, Korea, the M.S. degree in industrial engineer-
ing from the Korea Advanced Institute of Science
and Technology (KAIST), Taejon, and the Ph.D.
degree in industrial and operations engineering from
the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
He is a Professor in the Department of Industrial
Engineering, KAIST. His research areas include
design and operation of manufacturing systems,
operations scheduling, and production and inventory
management.
Dr. Kim is a senior member of IIE, a member of INFORMS, and the
Operational Research Society.
Hyo-won Suh received the M.S. degree in mechan-
ical engineering from the Korea Advanced Institute
of Science and Technology (KAIST), Taejon, and
the Ph.D. degree in industrial engineering from West
Virginia University, Morgantown.
He is an Assistant Professor at the Department
of Industrial Engineering, KAIST. His research ar-
eas include concurrent engineering and computer
integrated manufacturing system.

Hong-Bae Jun received the B.A. degree in eco-

nomics from Yonsei University, Korea, and the M.S.
degree in industrial engineering from the Korea Ad-
vanced Institute of Science and Technology, Taejon,
where he is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree.
His research areas include production planning
and operations scheduling in flexible manufactur-
ing systems, concurrent engineering, and computer
integrated manufacturing system.