Meta-Heuristic for No-Wait Job Shops with Makespan Minimization
Jie Zhu *, Xiaoping Li, Yi Zhang, Qian Wang
School of Computer Science &Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, P.R .China
Key Laboratory of Computer Network and Information Integration (Southeast University),
Ministry of Education
zhujie_hades@163.com; xpli@seu.edu.cn; zhangyiprivate@yahoo.com.cn;
qwang@seu.edu.cn
Abstract
In the paper, the no-wait job shop problem with
makespan minimization is considered, which is
decomposed into the sequencing problem and the
timetabling problem. Based on the non-delay
timetabling procedure and the inverse timetabling
procedure, an enhanced timetabling procedure is
constructed by shifting jobs leftwards or rightwards to
obtain better timetables. The two sub-problems are
solved independently by traditional methods. However,
a meta-heuristic algorithm MCLM (modified complete
local search with memory) is presented to solve the
sub-problems integrally in this paper. Experimental
results show that MCLM outperforms all the existing
effective algorithms for the considered problem with
little more computation time.
Keywords: No-wait, Job shop, Timetabling,
Sequencing.
1. Introduction
In this paper, no-wait job shops with makespan
minimization are considered, in which two consecutive
operations of each job must be performed continuously
without any interruption. No-wait constraints usually
arise from requirements for processing environments or
characteristics of jobs. Typical examples are iron being
immediately staunch while hot in metallurgical
processes, unstable intermediate products or absence of
intermediate storage capacity in chemical processes.
Such job shop problems widely exist in many real-life
applications, such as pharmaceutical industry [1], steel
production [2], computer systems [3], scheduling of
trains [4-6] and the flow control of packet switching
communication networks [4].
The traditional job shop problem is NP-hard in strong
sense [5]. Detailed surveys have been conducted in [6]
and [7] for the results on this problem in the past
decades. However, little attention has been paid on the
problem considered in this paper. The review given by
Hall N.J. & Sriskandarajah C. [8] showed that the
considered problem is difficult, especially for large-size
instances.
Recently, several algorithms have been presented for
_____________________________________
978 -1-4244-1651-6/08/$25.00 © 2008 IEEE

no-wait job shops with makespan minimization, among
which VNS (variable neighborhood search) [9], GASA
(hybrid simulated annealing/genetic algorithm) [9] and
CLM (complete local search with memory) [10] seem to
be the most effective or efficient ones. Among these
approaches, the problem is usually decomposed into
two sub-problems: timetabling problem and sequencing
problem. VNS depends on special structure of the
solved problem and its speed is very fast. GASA is a
non-deterministic hybrid algorithm, which is more
time-consuming but more effective than VNS. Both
VNS and GASA adopt the Non-Delay Timetabling to
tackle the first sub-problem. For the second
sub-problem, VNS searches the optima results
iteratively in a k-insertion neighborhood until no better
solution can be found. GASA integrates Genetic
Algorithm (GA) with Simulated Annealing (SA) for the
sequencing problem. CLM [10] also takes advantage of
the non-delay timetabling procedure. Furthermore, the
inverse timetabling procedure is introduced, in which
the non-delay timetabling is performed on “reversed
jobs” (the processing route of every job is reversed). For
the sequencing problem, CLM generates neighborhood
by 1-insertion and all the exploited solutions are
recorded to avoid re-calculating. It seems that CLM is
the best algorithm so far for the considered problem.
In this paper, algorithm MCLM (modified complete
local search with memory) is presented. Instead of the
two sub-problems being treated separately as in CLM,
VNS and GASA, they are solved by an integrated
method in MCLM. An enhanced timetabling procedure
is constructed according to the non-delay timetabling
and the inverse timetabling. Then the enhanced
timetabling procedure is embedded into a complete
local search to solve the sequencing problem.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The
considered problem is described in Section 2. Section 3
constructs the enhanced timetabling approach.
Combined with the enhanced timetabling approach, a
new local search approach is proposed in Section 4. In
Section 5, the experimental results are shown, followed
by conclusions in Section 6.
2. Problem Description
A no-wait job shop is a scheduling problem in which
n jobs are processed on m machines and each job
has a specific processing route. For job J i , rij
( 0 d i d n  1 , 0 d j d m  1 ) indicates the machine
which the j th operation has to be processed on, pij
( 0 d i d n  1 , 0 d j d m  1 ) states the processing time
of job J i on machine M j . Li ( i 0,  , n  1 )
indicates the aggregated processing times of J i , i.e.
m 1
Li ¦
j 0
pij . Processing sequence S
in which S [i ]  ^J k | 0 d k d n  1`
( i 1,  , n ) job in S and tS [i ] denotes the starting
time of S [i ] . Furthermore, the constraints of sequence,
synchronicity and no-wait [10] should be hold.
For the considered problem, which is NP-hard in
strong sense, effective algorithms so far usually
decompose it into two sub-problems: (1) Sequencing
problem, in which a processing sequence of an optimal
schedule is found for a given no-wait job shop problem.
(2) Timetabling problem, in which a feasible set of
starting times of the jobs is found to realize the
minimum makespan for the processing sequence
obtained from (1).
Both the sub-problems have been proved to be
NP-hard in strong sense [25]. It is commonly believed
that the sequencing problem is much more difficult than
the timetabling one.
3. Enhanced timetabling approach
3.1 Non-Delay Timetabling and Inverse
Timetabling
Schuster and Framinan [9] described the Non-Delay
Timetabling, which is easy and fast to construct a
timetable.
Definition 1 Ordinal constraint is tS[ 0 ] d ... d tS[ n 1]
for processing sequence (S [ 0] ,..., S [ n1] ) .
The non-delay timetabling procedure starts each job
as early as possible without violating ordinal constraint.
Framinan and Schuster [10] develop the inverse
timetabling to further improve the non-delay
timetabling.
Definition 2 Inverse instance is an instance identical
to the original one which is defined by n , m , pij
and rij , but each job has the inverse processing route,
i.e. rij' ri , m 1 j ( j 0,  , m  1)
>r @
'
ij num and pij' pi , m 1 j ( j
processing time matrix > @
pij' nu m . job on the makespan minimization immediately, only
Definition 3 Inverse processing sequence
(S '[ 0] ,..., S '[ n1] ) is obtained from processing sequence
(S [ 0] ,..., S [ n 1] ) by setting S '[ j ] S [ n 1 j ] .
Inverse timetabling procedure generates a new
sequence for the given sequence in terms of inverse
processing sequence and inverse instance. Then, the
new sequence and inverse instance is applied to the
non-delay timetabling procedure to obtain a timetable.
The makespan can be calculated according to the
timetable.
3.2 Enhanced Timetabling
Definition 4 Left shift tries to start a job as early as
(S [ 0] ,..., S [ n1] ) , possible without ordinal constraint.
Definition 5 Minimal interval between jobs J i
is the i th ^ `
and J j is min t j  ti in which J j is scheduled after
J i ( i.e. t j t ti ) as close as possible.
Definition 6 Safe interval between J i and job J j
^ `
is min t j  ti , where J i starts earlier than J j on
each machine (see Figure 1).
24 58
1 2
18 72
1 2
32 23
1 2
81 99
1 2
25 28
1 2
99
Safe interval
Fig. 1 Safe interval of J1 and J 2
For the considered n jobs, minimal interval and
safe interval of each pair of jobs can be predetermined
and recorded in minimal interval matrix mij nun and > @
safe interval matrix sij > @nun .
For job J j and job J i , if J i precedes to J j ,
there are three cases for the starting time distance
t j  ti . (1) t j  ti t sij , no intersection (Gantt charts
overlap on some machines) exists in the timetable of
J i and J j . (2) t j  ti  mij , intersection must exist in
the timetable. (3) t j  ti is called uncertain interval
when mij  t j  ti  sij and it is hard to determine
whether there exists intersection or not. Therefore,
uncertain interval is not taken into consideration to
avoid enormous complex cases in the paper. Actually,
minimal interval equals to safe interval in some
situations.
in routing matrix Definition 7 Right shift tries to start a job as early as
0,  , m  1) in possible with at least safe intervals to all arranged jobs.
Because it is impossible to decide the effect of every
partial jobs should be verified to help the above
selection. In this paper, a processing sequence S is
divided into k ( 2 d k d ªn / 2º ) sub-sequences. In
each sub-sequence, there are no more than ªn / k º jobs

and at least 2 jobs except the last sub-sequence. The current sequence S i is computed by
first job in each sub-sequence is called head job while
the rest are member jobs. A member job can only be left C ' m max ® max
­
¯ j p ,, p  q 1
^ `
½
tS' > j @  LS > j @ , Cmax ¾ .
¿
shifted. That whether the head job is left shifted or right
shifted depends on the effects on makespan 3.5 Re-schedule the i th sub-sequence by right
minimization. The head job is left shifted if a better shifting the head job while left shifting the
makespan can be obtained than right shifted, otherwise member jobs sequentially. Calculate starting
the head job should be right shifted. By this way, the times tS' ' > p @ ,  , tS' ' > p  q 1@ . Makespan of current
right shifted jobs are selected from the k head jobs.
For a given sequence, the proposed Enhanced sequence Si is recomputed by
Timetabling Method generates timetable of the left shift
and right shift jobs. The sequence is divided into k
'' ­
C m max ®
¯j
max
p ,, p  q 1
^t ''
S > j@  LS > j @ ` ½
, Cmax ¾ .
¿
sub-sequences. The first sub-sequence is assigned as the
3.6 If C ' ! C '' , then Cmax m C '' ,
current schedule by left shifting all of its jobs. For the
'' ''
i th ( i 2,  , k ) sub-sequence, two trials are performed. ( tS > p @ ,  , tS > p  q 1@ ) m ( tS > p @ ,  , tS > p  q 1@ );
All member jobs are left shifted with the head job left
Else, Cmax m C ' ,
shifted and right shifted respectively and two schedules
' '
are generated. If the schedule made by right shifting the ( tS > p @ ,  , tS > p  q 1@ ) m ( tS > p @ ,  , tS > p  q 1@ ).
head job of the current sub-sequence is better than that 3.7 i m i  1 .
by left shifting, the head job is chosen as a right shift
job. The better of the two schedules is reassigned as the 4. Until i ! k .
current schedule. 5. C max is the final makespan and ( tS >0 @ ,  , tS >n1@ ) is

For the current schedule S [0] ,  , S [i 1] , if an  the final timetable. Stop.
unscheduled job J S >i @ is right shifted, starting time Obviously, the time complexity of right shift for a job
S >i @ is 2(i ) and that of left shift for a job S >i @ is
^
tS >i @ can be calculated by tS [ i ] m max tS >k @  sS >k @S >i @ ` 2(mi ) .Therefore, the time complexity of this algorithm
(k 0,  , i  1 ).
is 2(n 2 m) .
Left shift is a little more complicated than right shift.
By calculating the maximum length of overlap between

S [i ] and S [0] ,  , S [i 1] , S [i ] is moved rightwards
for that length. The calculating and moving process is
repeated until the maximum overlap length is zero. S [i ]
is placed to the found idle gaps and tS >i @ is obtained.
The enhanced timetabling procedure is described as
follows.
1. tS >0 @ m 0 , k m c (constant c 2,  , ªn / 2º ),
4. Modified CLM
Ghosh and Sierksma [11] constructed CLM
(complete local search with memory) algorithm, in
which all explored solutions are recorded in a memory
with an explicit manner to avoid re-calculating.
However, the size of memory increases with the size
of the problem in CLM. For large size problems, large
memory is needed and it is very time-consuming for
checking a new sequence in the memory or not.
i m 1 , Cmax m 0 , S 0 m   . Therefore, the memory size of CLM should be limited
and a strategy should be introduced to refresh contents
2. Divide the sequence S into k sub-sequences. of the memory. In this paper, MCLM (modified
3. Repeat complete local search with memory) is presented by
3.1 p m (i  1) u ªn / k º . //* S [ p ] is the head job of modifying CLM.
the i th sub-sequence*// MCLM maintains three sets: (1) NEWGEN, a limited
3.2 If ik then q m ªn / k º , else storage for good enough solutions being employed by
the heuristic during the current iteration. (2)
q m n  (k  1) ªn / k º . //*Number of jobs in
NEIGHBOR, a limited storage for the neighbors of the
the i th sub-sequence*// solutions in NEWGEN. (3) DEAD, a limited storage for

3.3 S i m S i 1  S > p @ ,  , S > p q1@ . //* S i is the
current sequence, the sub-sequence of S
from S [ 0] to S [ p q 1] , by appending the i th
storing solutions that have been already explored, in
order to avoid re-calculating. NEWGEN and
NEIGHBOR can be neither too large (which is rather
time-consuming and space-consuming) nor too small
sub-sequence S > p @ ,  , S > p q 1@  to S i 1 *//
3.4 All jobs in the i th sub-sequence are left
shifted sequentially and their starting times
tS' > p @ ,  , tS' > p q 1@ are obtained. Makespan of

(by which the algorithm always traps in local optimal
solutions in short time). DEAD is emptied once it is full
in this paper. S NEW , S NEIGHBOR and S DEAD denote
the size of NEWGEN, NEIGHBOR and DEAD
respectively.
MCLM starts with a given sequence as the initial
solution and puts it into NEWGEN. DEAD and predefined constants I1 , I2 and V
NEIGHBOR are initially empty. The following process
is iterated:
(1) Generating neighbors for all solutions in NEWGEN
and putting them into NEIGHBOR if NEIGHBOR
is not full. Partial pair-wise exchange and
1-insertion are performed on every solution of
NEWGEN to generate its neighbors. Partial
pair-wise exchange generates neighbors by just
swapping the head job and its member jobs
respectively for every sub-sequence (see Figure 2).
The simple 1-insertion only considers k
sub-sequences, which are regarded as k units.
Each unit is picked out and inserted respectively
into every possible unit slot (except the original slot)
and k  1 neighbors are produced (see Figure 3).
The set of neighbors for solution S generated by
the above procedure is denoted as GN (S ) .
Sub1 … 3,2,4,5,6 … Subk
Partial pair-wise Sub1 … 4,3,2,5,6 … Subk
Sub1 … 2,3,4,5,6 … Subk
exchange Sub1 … 5,3,4,2,6 … Subk
Sub1 … 6,3,4,5,2 … Subk
Fig. 2 Partial pair-wise exchange
( 0  I1  I 2  N max , V  0,1 ). N max is the
predefined maximal number of iterations without
improvement, I max is the maximal number of
iterations the algorithm can perform. Certain
constant I add is added to it once improvement has
been made.
The above iterative process is repeated until I max
iterations have been performed, or no improvement has
been made for N max successive iterations, or
NEWGEN is empty. MCLM is formally described as
follows.
1. NEIGHBOR m I , DEAD m I . Generate an
initial sequence S 0 . NEWGEN m ^S 0 ` .
2. i m 0 , S best m S 0 , I temp m 0 , I max m ªn 2 / m º ,
W m W max .
3. Calculate timetable T0 and makespan C0 by
calling the Enhanced Timetabling Procedure.
Tbest m T0 , Cbest m C0 .
4. Repeat
4.1 flag m False .
4.2 For each S k  NEWGEN , if
NEIGHBOR  S NEIGHBOR ,
Sub2 Sub1 Sub3 NEIGHBOR m NEIGHBOR ‰ GN S k  .
Sub2 Sub3 Sub1 4.3 NEWGEN m I .
4.4 For each S j  NEIGHBOR
Sub2 Sub1 Sub3
1-Insertion
Sub1 Sub2 Sub3 4.4.1 If S j  DEAD , compute T j by the
Sub1 Sub3 Sub2
Enhanced Timetabling Procedure and
Sub3 Sub1 Sub2
calculate the makespan C j for S j ;
Sub1 Sub3 Sub2
else CONTINUE. //* Go to 5.4 to deal
with the next sequence in NEIGHBOR *//.
Fig. 3 1-insertion
4.4.2 If C j  Cbest , Cbest m C j ,
(2) Empting NEWGEN. Tbest m T j ,
(3) Checking solutions of NEIGHBOR belonging to
DEAD or not. Among all neighbors not in DEAD,
NEWGEN m NEWGEN ‰ S j ^ ` ,
those with makespan lower than a certain threshold S best m S j , flag m True ;
value are transplanted to NEWGEN for the next else if C j  Cbest u 1  W  ,
iteration and the others are put into DEAD.
Cbest u (W  1) is set as the threshold value in this NEWGEN m NEWGEN ‰ S j ^ `
paper ( W  0, W max @ ). Cbest is the best-so-far ;
makespan and W max is predefined. I temp records else DEAD m DEAD ‰ S j . ^ `
the number of consecutive iterations without 4.4.3 If NEWGEN ! S NEWGEN , BREAK . //*
improvement. Boolean flag is assigned True Break the loop and go to 5.5 *//
once improvement has been made in the iteration. 4.5 NEIGHBOR m I . If DEAD ! S DEAD ,
(4) Empting NEIGHBOR. DEAD m I .
(5) If no improvement has been made for Rmax
4.6 If flag False , I temp m I temp  1 ; else
successive iterations ( Rmax  I temp ), the current
I temp m 0 , I max m I max  I add .
instance is reversed.
(6) W is reset according to the value of I temp and 4.7 If I1  I temp  I 2 and W / V d W max ,


 W m W / V ; else if I temp t I 2 , W m W u V .
4.8 If I temp ! Rmax , inverse the instance.
4.9 i m i  1 .
5. Until i ! I max or I temp ! N max
NEWGEN 0.
6. ( Cbest , S best , Tbest ) is the final result. Stop.
Because NEWGEN , NEIGHBOR and I max may
change during the iterating, it is hard to decide the
complexity of the algorithm.
5. Computational experiments
To compare the proposed MCLM with the best so far
algorithms CLM [10], VNS and GASA [9], MCLM and
CLM are coded in Java and ran on a PC with Pentium 4
processor. The algorithms are tested on 10 small and 15
big well-known no-wait job shop instances from [12-16]
and every instance has been performed 20 times.
A series of preliminary experimental results show that
selection of the initial solution pays little influence on
performance of MCLM. Traditionally, there are eight
initial solution generating methods: SPT heuristic, LPT
heuristic, SMT heuristic, LMT heuristic, SOT heuristic,
LOT heuristic and RANDOM 1/RANDOM 2. For each
testing of an instance, one of the eight methods is
randomly selected to generate the initial solution of
MCLM. The corresponding parameters are initialized as
in Table 1.
The experimental results on small instances and big
instances are shown in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively.
OPT represents the optimal value of an instance in
Table 2 and the best-found makespan for the problem in
Table 3. BEST denotes the best makespan of an
instance among the 20 runs for the corresponding
algorithm. For CLM and MCLM, AVG is the average
makespan of the 20 runs. TIME is the average CPU
time in seconds over 20 runs. Only BEST and ARPD
are shown for VNS and GASA in this paper.
Table 1 Parameters of MCLM
Parameter Value Parameter
S DEAD 200000 Rmax
10000
30000
0.15
0.9
Both Table 2 and Table 3 illustrate that MCLM can
find the optimal for all instances. BESTs obtained by
MCLM are better than or equal to those by the other
three methods. Though MCLM needs more computation
time than CLM does in overall, there are 3 instances out
of 30 that MCLM requires less time than CLM does. In
other words, computation time of MCLM is not always
more than that of CLM despite that MCLM is little
more complicated than CLM.

Therefore, MCLM outperforms VNS, GASA and
CLM in effectiveness. Though the computation time
needed by MCLM is as about 4-5 times as that by CLM
and much more than that by VNS or GASA, it is
or affordable for practical applications with the respect to
the results obtained by MCLM.
6. Conclusions
In this paper, MCLM (modified complete local search
with memory) method is proposed for no-wait job shop
problems with makespan minimization. Similar to
traditional algorithms, the considered problem is
decomposed into two sub-problems: the timetabling
problem and the sequencing problem. Based on the
non-delay timetabling procedure (adopted by VNS and
GASA) and the inverse timetabling procedure (used by
CLM), an enhanced timetabling procedure is
constructed by shifting jobs leftwards or rightwards to
manage to obtain better timetables. The enhanced
timetabling procedure can solve the timetabling
problem effectively and efficiently. Different from
CLM, the sequencing problem is solved by MCLM with
limited memory to improve efficiency. MCLM
outperforms all the other three compared algorithms.
Though the computation time needed by MCLM is as
about 4-5 times as that by CLM and even much more
than that by VNS or GASA, it is affordable for practical
applications with the respect to the effectiveness. In
other words, MCLM can always find the optimal for
most of the instances efficiently and it is desirable for
practical no-wait job shop problems.
Acknowledgements This work is supported by
National Natural Science Foundation of China under
Grants No.60672092 and No.60504029.
References
[1] W. Raaymakers, J. Hoogeveen, Scheduling
multipurpose batch process industries with no-wait
restrictions by simulated annealing, Eur. J. Oper. Res.,
126 (2000): 131–51.
Value [2] D.A. Wismer, Solution of the flowshop
10 scheduling-problem with no intermediate queues.
Operations Research, 20 (1972): 689–97.
20
[3] S. Reddi, C. Ramamoorthy, A scheduling-problem.
5 Operational Research Quarterly, 24 (1973): 441–6.
10 [4] C. Arbib, G.F. Italiano, A. Panconesi, Predicting
deadlock in store-and-forward networks, Networks, 20
3 (1990): 861–881.
[5] J.K. Lenstra, A.H.G. Rinnooy Kan, Computational
complexity of discrete optimization problems, Annals of
Discrete Mathematics, 4 (1979): 121–40.
[6] J. Blazewicz, W. Domschke, E. Pesch, The
job-shop-scheduling-problem: conventional and new
solution techniques, European Journal of Operational
Research, 93 (1996): 1–33.
[7] A. Jain, S. Meeran, Deterministic job-shop- scheduling:
past, present and future, European Journal of
Operational Research, 113 (2) (1999): 390–434.
[8] N.J. Hall, C. Sriskandarajah, A survey on machine
scheduling problems with blocking and no-wait in
 process, Operations Research, 44 (3) (1996): 510–25.
[9] C. Schuster, J.M. Framinan, Approximate procedures for
no-wait job shop scheduling, Operations Research
Letters, 31 (2003): 308–18.
[10] J.M. Framinan, C. Schuster, An enhanced timetabling
procedure for the no-wait job shop problem: a complete
local search approach, Computers & Operations
Research, 331 (2006): 1200–13.
[11] D. Ghosh, G. Sierksma, Complete local search with
memory, Journal of Heuristics, 8 (2002): 571–84.
[12] H. Fisher, G.L. Thompson, Probabilistic learning
combinations of local job-shop scheduling rules, In:
Industrial scheduling. EnglewoodClif fs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall; (1963): 225–51.
[13] S. Lawrence, Resource constrained project scheduling:
an experimental investigation of heuristic scheduling
techniques, Technical report, Carnegie-Mellon
University, Pittsburgh, 1984.
[14] D. Applegate, W. Cook, A computational study of the
job-shop problem, ORSA Journal on Computing, 3(2)
(1991): 149–56.
[15] R.H. Storer, S.D. Wu, R. Vaccari, New search spaces for
sequencing instances with application to job shop
scheduling. Management Science, 38 (1992): 1495–509.
[16] C. Schuster, No-wait job shop scheduling: Komplexität
und local search. Dissertation Thesis, University of
Duisburg-Essen, Germany, 2003 [in German].

Table 2 Computational results on small-size instances

VNS GASA CLM MCLM
Instance n m OPT
BEST APRD BEST APRD BEST APRD AVG TIME(s) BEST APRD AVG TIME(s)
La01 10 5 971 1064 9.578 1037 6.797 1031 6.179 1031 8 971 0.000 972 14
La02 10 5 937 1011 7.898 990 5.656 937 0.000 937 8 937 0.000 939 33
La03 10 5 820 973 18.659 932 13.659 832 1.463 832 10 820 0.000 820 12
La04 10 5 887 1020 14.994 889 0.225 889 0.225 889 8 887 0.000 887 34
La05 10 5 777 861 10.811 817 5.148 797 2.574 801 11 777 0.000 781 8
La16 10 10 1575 1673 6.222 1637 3.937 1637 3.937 1647 22 1575 0.000 1575 41
La17 10 10 1371 1556 13.494 1430 4.303 1389 1.313 1418 15 1371 0.000 1374 53
La18 10 10 1417 1713 20.889 1555 9.739 1555 9.739 1675 1 1417 0.000 1433 51
La19 10 10 1482 1786 20.513 1610 8.637 1572 6.073 1588 20 1482 0.000 1484 16
La20 10 10 1526 1795 17.628 1693 10.944 1580 3.539 1609 20 1526 0.000 1528 6
Average 14.069 6.905 3.504 0.000

Table 3 Computational results on big-size instances

VNS GASA CLM MCLM
Instance n m OPT
BEST APRD BEST APRD BEST APRD AVG TIME(s) BEST APRD AVG TIME(s)
La11 20 5 1671 1915 14.602 1825 9.216 1714 2.573 1826 109 1671 0 1716 447
La12 20 5 1452 1694 16.667 1631 12.328 1507 3.788 1507 142 1452 0 1506 498
La13 20 5 1624 1907 17.426 1766 8.744 1668 2.709 1711 123 1624 0 1661 640
La14 20 5 1691 2313 36.783 1805 6.742 1773 4.849 1773 103 1691 0 1721 465
La15 20 5 1694 1898 12.043 1829 7.969 1771 4.545 1808 126 1694 0 1749 484
La21 15 10 2048 2496 21.875 2182 6.543 2149 4.932 2208 100 2048 0 2104 306
La22 15 10 1887 2210 17.117 1965 4.134 1979 4.875 1979 53 1887 0 1912 354
La23 15 10 2032 2397 17.963 2193 7.923 2038 0.295 2178 98 2032 0 2098 307
La24 15 10 2015 2455 21.836 2150 6.700 2133 5.856 2162 73 2015 0 2048 422
La25 15 10 1917 2344 22.274 2034 6.103 2050 6.938 2075 83 1917 0 1971 297
La26 20 10 2553 3194 25.108 2945 15.354 2868 12.338 2906 248 2553 0 2707 812
La27 20 10 2747 3286 19.621 3036 10.521 2933 6.771 2970 332 2747 0 2838 834
La28 20 10 2624 3134 19.436 2902 10.595 2789 6.288 2789 266 2624 0 2752 810
La29 20 10 2489 2838 14.022 2617 5.143 2565 3.053 2630 255 2489 0 2539 778
La30 20 10 2665 3217 20.713 2892 8.518 2835 6.379 2835 414 2665 0 2743 822
Average 19.832 8.436 5.079 0.000