European Journal of Operational Research 215 (2011) 45–56

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

European Journal of Operational Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ejor

Discrete Optimization

Scheduling inspired models for two-dimensional packing problems

Pedro M. Castro a,⇑, José F. Oliveira b
a
Unidade de Modelação e Optimização de Sistemas Energéticos, Laboratório Nacional de Energia e Geologia, 1649-038 Lisboa, Portugal
b
Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Engenharia e INESC Porto, Instituto de Engenharia de Sistemas e Computadores do Porto, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: We propose two exact algorithms for two-dimensional orthogonal packing problems whose main com-
Received 2 August 2010 ponents are simple mixed-integer linear programming models. Based on the different forms of time rep-
Accepted 2 June 2011 resentation in scheduling formulations, we extend the concept of multiple time grids into a second
Available online 13 June 2011
dimension and propose a hybrid discrete/continuous-space formulation. By relying on events to contin-
uously locate the rectangles along the strip height, we aim to reduce the size of the resulting mathemat-
Keywords: ical problem when compared to a pure discrete-space model, with hopes of achieving a better
Optimization
computational performance. Through the solution of a set of 29 test instances from the literature, we
Integer programming
Strip packing
show that this was mostly accomplished, primarily because the associated search strategy can quickly
Resource-Task Network find good feasible solutions prior to the optimum, which may be very important in real industrial envi-
Spatial grids ronments. We also provide a comprehensive comparison to seven other conceptually different
approaches that have solved the same strip packing problems.
 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
N-dimensional allocation problems occur in a variety of indus-
tries (Westerlund, 2005). The terms scheduling, cutting, packing
and layout are frequently used to refer to specific classes of the
problem, each featuring a few variants. In scheduling, one is con-
cerned with the procedure of allocating resources to tasks over
time so as to meet a given objective such as makespan minimiza-
tion or profit maximization. It can be viewed as a 1-D problem, in
which the relevant dimension is time. One common aspect of cut-
ting and packing problems is that small items have to be packed
into, or cut from, one or more objects often called strip or bins (Ort-
mann et al., 2010). 2-D problems occur in the paper industry where
the objective is cutting jumbo reels of paper into smaller reels so as
to minimize trim losses. Another class involves the optimal layout
of industrial facilities based on the minimization of the connectiv-
ity cost between equipment units (Papageorgiou and Rotstein,
1998; Barbosa-Póvoa et al., 2001). Moving from small rectangles
inside a large rectangle to boxes inside containers of a given size
leads to 3-D problems (Tsai et al., 1993; Barbosa-Póvoa et al.,
2002), while in 4-D problems a number of items are to be allocated
in three spatial dimensions and one time dimension (Westerlund
et al., 2007).
Frequently, certain constraints are imposed on the type of pack-
ing that may occur. The most common is orthogonal packing where
the edges of the items must be parallel to the edges of the bin or
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 210924643.
E-mail address: pedro.castro@lneg.pt (P.M. Castro).
strip. The three major classes of 2-D orthogonal packing problems
are strip packing, knapsack and bin packing (Amossen and Pisinger,
2010) and are illustrated in Fig. 1 for a simple example (white areas
are waste). Strip packing problems are open dimensional (Wascher
et al., 2007) in the sense that all items need to be packed into a
strip of a given width (W) so as to minimize its height (H). In knap-
sack problems, the two dimensions of the strip are fixed and the
objective is to choose the most profitable subset of items whereas
in bin packing problems, the objective is to minimize the number
of bins required for all the items.
If one keeps differentiating based on the objective function
there are obvious similarities to simple classes of scheduling prob-
lems. The 1-D version of the strip packing problem can be associ-
ated to a single machine scheduling problem with sequence-
dependent changeovers (shown in grey) under makespan minimi-
zation. If the time horizon (H) is fixed and we can no longer exe-
cute all tasks, the best ones need to be selected by maximizing
profit, similarly to the knapsack problem. Finally, if we need to exe-
cute all tasks in such time horizon there is the possibility of adding
machines in parallel, as few as possible to minimize cost, like in bin
packing. This is often called a simultaneous design and scheduling
problem (Castro et al., 2005). The three possibilities are illustrated
in Fig. 2.
There have been remarkable advances in scheduling ap-
proaches by the Process Systems Engineering community in the
last 20 years. First, with the appearance of unified frameworks
for process representation that allow the systematic modeling
of a process flowsheet (e.g. continuous processes) and/or produc-
tion recipe (e.g. batch processes) in terms of the virtual entities

0377-2217/$ - see front matter  2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2011.06.001
46 P.M. Castro, J.F. Oliveira / European Journal of Operational Research 215 (2011) 45–56

Fig. 1. Major classes of 2-D orthogonal packing problems.

Fig. 2. Classes of 1-D scheduling problems.

that are the states, resources and tasks. In particular, the Re-
source-Task Network (Pantelides, 1994) has brought us the con-
cept of excess resource, which is particularly useful to ensure
perfect packing (zero-waste patterns), as will be seen later. The
RTN was linked to a very tight mixed integer linear programming
(MILP) discrete-time model that has been shown to be very ver-
satile and efficient in a wide variety of industrial problems from
Dow Chemical plants (Wassick, 2009). In particular, it has been
used as the basis for solving a non-classical 2-D packing problem
(Wassick and Ferrio, 2011), consisting on loading a semi-trailer
with packages of different sizes and weights so that the trailer
payload weight and also the rear axle weight are kept below
highway allowable limits.
In discrete-time models, the time horizon is divided into a finite
number of uniform slots of a given duration. It is perhaps the sim-
plest alternative with the advantage of not requiring big-M con-
straints and the disadvantage of possibly generating very large
problems. Furthermore, since the starting time of all slots is known
a priori, one needs an iterative procedure for efficiently tackling
makespan minimization (Maravelias and Grossmann 2003a; Castro
and Grossmann, 2005).
There are however alternatives to a discrete-time representa-
tion, as can be seen in Fig. 3. Indeed, there have been major devel-
opments concerning continuous-time models and essentially three
different concepts can be used. One alternative is to rely on the
concept of precedence, immediate or general, with the model fea-
turing binary sequencing variables that give the relative placement
of tasks. This is a widely used strategy for higher dimensional prob-
lems easily identifiable by the presence of (x, y, z) positioning vari-
ables (Sawaya and Grossmann, 2005; Westerlund et al., 2007; Wu
et al., 2010). The other choice is to keep track of events taking place
by referring to one or multiple time grids.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 3 4
1 13 1 5

1
2

2 3 4
1

Fig. 3. Time representation alternatives in scheduling formulations.

 P.M. Castro, J.F. Oliveira / European Journal of Operational Research 215 (2011) 45–56
Fig. 4. Continuous-space grids, one per elementary strip in the x-axis.
Time grid based continuous-time models are capable of han-
dling a wide variety of features arising in process scheduling
and can thus be viewed as state-of-the art (Ierapetritou and Flou-
das 1998; Castro and co-workers 2004, 2005, 2008; Maravelias
and Grossmann, 2003b). While with a single time grid it is much
easier to handle shared resources other than equipment, one
needs to allow tasks to span across consecutive slots, which
may compromise computational performance. With multiple time
grids, we can significantly reduce the number of time slots re-
quired to represent a schedule, a key performance indicator.
One can even use a different number of slots for each grid to im-
prove efficiency, particularly in decomposition methods (Castro
et al., 2011) since finding the optimal common number of slots
may already be non-trivial (Méndez et al., 2006). Multiple time
grid models are also referred to as unit-specific and a systematic
method for determining the required number of slots, which
strongly affects complexity and solution quality, has already been
proposed by Li and Floudas (2010) for the model by Ierapetritou
and Floudas (1998).
The major novelty of this paper concerns a new MILP model for
2-D packing problems that mixes discrete and continuous-space
representations. The strip width is uniformly discretized into slots
of size one, while the strip height is divided into a given number of
slots of size to be determined by the MILP optimization solver. The
slot boundaries are called event points and multiple grids are con-
sidered, one per elementary vertical strip, see Fig. 4. We also pro-
pose and evaluate a new RTN-based model/algorithm that can be
classified as discrete-space in both dimensions.
The structure of the paper is the following. In Section 2, we out-
line some of the existing solution approaches for 2-D strip packing
problems. The problem definition for 2-D packing problems is the
subject of Section 3. In the next two sections, we give the technical
47
details of the MILP models and associated algorithms for efficiently
finding the global optimal solution to a problem. Section 4 deals
with the full discrete-space approach, while Section 5 focuses on
the hybrid discrete/continuous-space approach. Detailed computa-
tional studies are performed in Section 6, while the conclusions are
left for Section 7.
2. Exact algorithms for the 2-D strip packing problem
A well-known alternative for mathematical programming mod-
els that is also capable of finding optimal solutions to a problem
and proving optimality are exact algorithms (Dolatabadi et al.,
2010). We next highlight the relevant features of six algorithms
that have solved the majority of the test problems considered in
this paper. N-dimensional problems can also be tackled by heuris-
tics (Miyazawa and Wakabayashi, 2009; Wei et al., 2009; Ortmann
et al., 2010; He and Huang, 2011).
Martello et al. (2003) proposed a relaxation for the 2-D strip
packing problem that involves the solution of an auxiliary one-
dimensional bin-packing problem with side constraints, tackled
by a specialized enumerative algorithm. Such relaxation is able
to produce lower bounds that were embedded into a branch-and
bound algorithm that was able to solve test instances from the lit-
erature involving up to 200 items. As for the upper bounds, the
implementation featured classical heuristic algorithms from the
literature and two new heuristics capable of finding good initial
solutions at the root node and improving the current solution at
the descendent nodes.
Bekrar et al. (2007) used three exact methods including a
branch-and bound (B&B) algorithm based on the branching
scheme of Martello et al. (2003) and a dichotomous approach (Hifi,
1998), DA. In B&B, a depth first strategy was adopted in the tree
search as well as techniques to avoid symmetrical patterns. The
upper bounds were generated from a generalization of the well-
known two-dimensional level algorithm, while the lower bounds
were computationally faster and easier to implement. The DA algo-
rithm solves a feasibility problem per iteration, until the two
bounds meet and the optimal strip length is found.
Alvarez-Valdes et al. (2009) also take the structure of the
search tree of their B&B algorithm from Martello et al. (2003)
while designing new lower bounds and dominance conditions
to considerably improve the efficiency of the algorithm. In partic-
ular, a fast lower bound is produced at the root node that is given
to their GRASP algorithm (Alvarez-Valdes et al., 2008), which
runs until finding a feasible solution matching such value or up
to a maximum number of iterations, thus producing an upper
bound.
Kenmochi et al. (2009) proposed a B&B algorithm for perfect
packing problems. A few branching operations and bounding rules
were proposed using strategies like the bottom-left point and the
staircase placement for the former, and dynamic and linear pro-
gramming cuts for the latter. The approach was then generalized
to address the general 2-D strip packing problem and two alterna-
tives were created. The first algorithm added the required number
of 1  1 rectangles to turn the continuous lower bound into the
lowest possible integer value (STAIR). In the second, G-STAIR,
branching operations based on staircase placement were used
without adding 1  1 rectangles explicitly. Both start from the low-
er bound and keep increasing the strip height until a feasible solu-
tion is found. The fact that the first feasible solution is optimal may
be a serious drawback in practice whenever obtaining a good solu-
tion with few computational resources may suffice. A successful
approach for a special class of scheduling problems that relies on
the same principle is the hybrid MILP/constraint programming ap-
proach of Jain and Grossmann (2001).
48 P.M. Castro, J.F. Oliveira / European Journal of Operational Research 215 (2011) 45–56

3. Problem definition Ni;x;y;b 2 f0; 1g 8b 2 B; x 2 X b ; y 2 Y b ; i 2 Ix;y;b ; ð3Þ

In two-dimensional packing problems we are given a set I of 0 6 Rx;y;b 6 1 8b 2 B; x 2 Xb ; y 2 Y b; ð4Þ

rectangles with known width wi and height hi and we need to place
rectangles into one (called the strip) or multiple bins without over- 0 6 R0b 6 1 8b 2 B: ð5Þ
lap. In strip packing, the objective is to minimize the height H for a
given strip width W. In knapsack problems, both H are W are given
and the objective is to maximize the total profit, where the profit of 4.1. Classes of problems
rectangle i is given by pi. In bin packing problems, there are a set B
of bins with known heights Hb and widths Wb and the objective is The constraints that need to be associated to the different types
to minimize the number of bins utilized. of problems are now explained. In all of them, perfect packing
Focus is set on the strip packing problem with integer values for (zero-waste) patterns can be obtained through Eq. (6), which en-
the rectangles widths and heights, without allowing for rotations. sures no empty squares in the grid(s). In such cases, Ri-
While this will be the only type of problem evaluated, we will be wi  hi = Wb  Hb "b 2 B
describing major steps on how to address the other two types. Rx;y;b ¼ 0 8b 2 B; x 2 Xb; y 2 Yb: ð6Þ

4. New discrete-space approach (DS)
The assumption of integer data makes it possible to accurately
model the problem with a discrete-space formulation. Let
To consider the problem with rotations, one can duplicate the
number of original rectangles (I+) by adding to set I their 90 coun-
terparts (the rotated item of rectangle i, is the sole element, i’, of set
I
i , where hi = wi and wi’ = hi). Then, one needs to ensure that at
0

Xb = {1, . . . , Wb} be the set of vertical slots in the x-axis and most one orientation is selected for every rectangle, Eq. (7)
Yb = {1, . . . , Hb} the set of horizontal slots in the y-axis for bin b.
XX X XXX X
Ni;x;y;b þ Ni0 ;x;y;b 6 18i 2 Iþ : ð7Þ
We define binary variable Ni,x,y,b to identify whether the bottom- b2B x2X b y2Y b i 0
2I b2B x2X b y2Y b
i
left corner of rectangle i is assigned to the matrix element with i2Ix;y;b i0 2Ix;y;b

coordinates (x, y) of bin b. In the example shown in Fig. 5, the rect-

angle placement in the strip corresponds to Ni,2,4,1 = 1. The individ-
ual squares that make up each bin can be viewed as spatial 4.1.1. Strip packing problem
resources. We borrow the concept of excess resource from Pante- There is a single (|B| = 1) available bin, so R01 ¼ 1 and all rectan-
lides (1994), used to keep track of resource availability over time gles need to be placed on the strip. If no 90 rotations are allowed,
in the context of scheduling problems, and define variables Rx,y,b. Eq. (8) results, otherwise one just needs to enforce the equality in
A value of one indicates that there is no item occupying the square (7)
X X
with coordinates (x, y) in bin b. In the example of Fig. 5, we thus Ni;x;y;1 ¼ 1 8i 2 I: ð8Þ
have R2,4,1 = 0 due to the item’s coordinate reference square and x2X 1 y2Y 1
R3. . .5,4,1 = R2. . .5,5. . .6,1 = 0 from the other squares that constitute i2Ix;y;1

the rectangle. Variables R0b indicate if the bin has been selected.
In order to minimize the strip height H, where the bin index has
The no-overlap constraint is given by Eq. (1). The domain of the
been dropped for simplicity, there are basically two possibilities.
binary variables can easily be reduced by realizing that the top-
The first is to consider the variable explicitly and to use another
right corner of every rectangle must also be inside the bin. Set Ix,y,b
set of constraints to ensure that H is greater than the y-coordinate
(2), is used for this purpose. The domain of the remaining variables
of the top facet of all rectangles. The second, much more efficient,
is given in Eqs. (3)–(5)
is to use an indirect procedure (Maravelias and Grossmann, 2003a).
X X X
Rx;y;b ¼ R0b  Ni;x0 ;y0 ;b 8b 2 B; x 2 X b ; y 2 Y b ; ð1Þ Starting with an obvious lower bound for the height of the packing
i2I x0 2X b y0 2Y b (Martello et al. 2003; Kenmochi et al., 2009), we can iteratively
xwi þ16x0 6x yhi þ16y0 6y
i2Ix0 ;y0 ;b
solve the problem until a feasible solution is found, which will be
a global optimal solution with respect to the strip height. While
it is sufficient to solve for feasibility, it is better to solve an optimi-
Ix;y;b ¼ i 2 I : x þ wi 6 W b þ 1 ^ y þ hi 6 Hb þ 1 8b 2 B;
zation problem featuring an objective function with a low degree
x 2 Xb; y 2 Y b; ð2Þ of degeneracy (Maravelias and Grossmann 2003a; Castro and
Grossmann, 2005). We follow the same principle and choose to
place rectangles as close as possible to the origin, see Eq. (9)
X X X
min z ¼ Ni;x;y;1 ðx þ yÞ: ð9Þ
x2X 1 y2Y 1 i2Ix;y;1

The search algorithm associated to the discrete-space model is illus-

trated in Fig. 6. The lower bound on the strip height is set as the sum
of the rectangles area divided by the strip width or the height of the
tallest item. Note that the formula is for the problem without rota-
tions. For the relative optimality tolerance, we use a value of 1 to
ensure that the mixed integer linear programming (MILP) solver
stops at the first feasible solution in terms of z. Notice also that
the elements in Y and Ix,y,1 will increase from one iteration to the
next and so these can be viewed as dynamic sets.

4.1.2. Knapsack packing problem

In the knapsack packing problem there is also a single available
Fig. 5. Two-dimensional discrete-space grid. bin (|B| = 1, R01 ¼ 1) but now the strip height H is also given. There is
 P.M. Castro, J.F. Oliveira / European Journal of Operational Research 215 (2011) 45–56 49

will be implicit from the assignment of rectangles to event points

and the placement of event points in the bin. In total, there are
Wb grids for bin b, one for each element in the x-domain.
Let Xb = {1, . . . , Wb} be the set of spatial slots in the x-axis and
Eb ¼ fe1 ; . . . ; ejEb j g the set of event points in the y-axis. Note that
the number of events gives the maximum number of rectangles
that can be placed on a given vertical slice of the strip. We are
assuming that every grid x has the same number of event points,
which is different from saying that they will have the same y-coor-
dinate value, Yx,e,b. Binary variables N i;x;e;b identify the assignment
of the left edge of rectangle i to event point e on grid x of bin b.
Five sets of spatial constraints replace the excess resource bal-
ances of the discrete-space model. If one assumes that a single slot
is enough to place any given rectangle on the y-axis, the difference
in the y-coordinate values of two consecutive event points for a gi-
ven x grid, must be greater than the rectangle height. Notice that
not only rectangles whose left edge are assigned to grid x are ac-
counted for. In fact, Eq. (15) also ensures that if the left part of rect-
angle i is assigned to slot e then there will be enough space (height)
to locate the remaining wi  1 vertical slices in adjacent grids.
Then, big-M constraints (16) and (17) guarantee that their y-coor-
dinates are the same. The y-coordinate of the first event point can
be made equal to zero without loss of generality (18). Provided that
the bin is selected, Eq. (19) translates to at most one rectangle
occupying any given slot
 X X
Hb je¼jEb j þ Y x;eþ1;b e–jE j  Y x;e;b P hi  Ni;x0 ;e;b
b
Fig. 6. Search algorithm for discrete-space model concerning the strip packing i2I x0 2X b
problem. xwi þ16x0 6x
i2Ix0 ;b

8b 2 B; x 2 X b ; e 2 Eb ; ð15Þ

insufficient space to place all the rectangles so the objective will be 0 1

to select the most profitable, Eq. (10). Naturally, a particular rect- B C
B X X C
angle can at most be selected once (11) B C
X X X Y xþ1;e;b  Y x;e;b P M  B1  Ni;x0 ;e;b C
B C
min Ni;x;y;1 pi ; ð10Þ @ i2I x0 2X b A
xwi þ26x0 6x
x2X 1 y2Y 1 i2Ix;y;1 i2Ix0 ;b

X X 8b 2 B; x 2 X b ; x – jX b j; e 2 Eb ð16Þ
N i;x;y;1 6 1 8i 2 I: ð11Þ
x2X 1 y2Y 1 0 1
i2Ix;y;1
B C
B X X C
B C
Y xþ1;e;b  Y x;e;b 6 M  B1  Ni;x0 ;e;b C
4.1.3. Bin packing problem B C
@ i2I x0 2X b A
In the bin packing problem, the objective is to minimize the xwi þ26x0 6x
i2Ix0 ;b
number of bins required to pack all the items, see Eqs. (12) and
(13). In the case of identical bins, and to reduce solution degener- 8b 2 B; x 2 X b ; x – jX b j; e 2 Eb ; ð17Þ
acy, one can force bin assignments from first to last, Eq. (14)
X Y x;e1 ;b ¼ 0 8b 2 B; x 2 Xb; ð18Þ
min R0b ; ð12Þ
b2B X X
Ni;x0 ;e;b 6 R0b 8b 2 B; x 2 X b ; e 2 Eb : ð19Þ
XX X i2I x0 2X b
Ni;x;y;b ¼ 1 8i 2 I; ð13Þ xwi þ16x0 6x
b2B x2X b y2Y b i2Ix0 ;b
i2Ix;y;b

To better understand constraint (15) consider the example shown

R0bþ1 6 R0b 8b 2 B; b – jBj
5. New hybrid discrete/continuous-space approach (DCS)
We now propose a new model that is discrete in the x-axis do-
main and continuous in the y-axis. The y-dimension is preferred for
continuous representation to avoid the iterative procedure illus-
trated in Fig. 6 for strip packing problems. The bin heights Hb can
be defined as model variables and be easily related to the other
spatial variables. While traditionally the spatial variables give the
(x, y) coordinates of the rectangle in the bin, now the coordinates
ð14Þ in Fig. 7. For rectangle I1 (hI1 = wI1 = 6), the active binary variable
is N I1;1;e1 ;1 ¼ 1, so the difference between the y-coordinates of event
points e1 and e2 must be greater than the rectangle height,
Y x;e2 ;1  Y x;e1 ;1 P 681 6 x 6 6. While the solution shows that the
equality is enforced for 1 6 x 6 5, we have Y 6;e2 ;1  Y 6;e1 ;1 ¼ 8 so that
rectangle I5 (N I5;6;e2 ;1 ¼ 1), limited by the higher height of rectangle
I3, can still fit into the strip using a total of three events. With re-
spect to Eqs. (16) and (17), notice that Y 6;e2 ;1 ¼ Y 7;e2 ;1 ¼ Y 8;e2 ;1 ¼ 8.
The domain of the model variables is given by Eqs. (5), (20),
(21), and (22)
Ix;b ¼ fi 2 I : x þ wi 6 W b þ 1g 8b 2 B; x 2 X b ; ð20Þ
50 P.M. Castro, J.F. Oliveira / European Journal of Operational Research 215 (2011) 45–56

Fig. 8. Temporary plateau in the objective function may not correspond to a global
optimum.

the main drawback is that optimality cannot be guaranteed since

the plateau in the objective function may only be temporary. This
is illustrated in the example shown in Fig. 8, which consists of a
strip packing problem involving three rectangles of width = 1 and
height = 4, for a strip width = 4. Assuming that rotations are al-
lowed, the most convenient arrangement (H = 3) corresponds to a
horizontal packing, which requires a minimum of three events.
With either 1 or 2 events, the rectangles are forced to be packed
vertically and a worse solution results (H = 4). For the problem
without rotations it is harder to come up with a similar example.
In fact, the effect was not observed in the several test problems
solved (no rotations allowed), with the returned solution being
Fig. 7. Location of event points for a simple example using multiple spatial grids in equal to the global optimum (known from alternative approaches).
the y-dimension. The search algorithm for strip packing problems will be detailed
next.

Ni;x;e;b 2 f0; 1g 8b 2 B; x 2 X b ; e 2 Eb ; i 2 Ix;b ; ð21Þ

5.3. Strip packing problem
Y x;e;b P 08b 2 B; x 2 Xb ; e 2 Eb : ð22Þ
There is a single (|B| = 1) available bin, so R01 ¼ 1 and all rectan-
gles need to be placed on the strip, Eq. (25). Then we need to min-
5.1. Perfect packing and 90 rotations imize the strip height, where the bin index has been dropped for
simplicity (26)
Perfect packing patterns can be enforced by ensuring that all XX
vertical slices of a given bin are fully occupied by slices of rectan- Ni;x;e;1 ¼ 1 8i 2 I; ð25Þ
x2X 1 e2E1
gles (23). For the problem with rotations allowed, constraint (24) is i2Ix;1
very similar to (7)
X X X
Hb ¼  i;x0 ;e;b
hi  N 8b 2 B; x 2 X b ; ð23Þ min H: ð26Þ
i2I x0 2X b e2Eb
xwi þ16x0 6x Since the model is going to be solved multiple times, it is con-
i2Ix0 ;b
venient to add an additional constraint on the strip height to im-
XX X XXX X prove computational performance, Eq. (27). Note that the
Ni;x;e;b þ Ni0 ;x;e;b 6 18i 2 Iþ : ð24Þ solution space for e + 1 events includes the feasible space for e,
0
b2B x2X b e2Eb i 2I
i
b2B x2X b e2Eb so to avoid waste computational resources, it is convenient to re-
i2Ix;b i0 2Ix;b
move the best found solution from the feasible space through the
use of a cutoff value. From that point on, we will be looking for a
5.2. Heuristic search for global optimal solution better solution. Naturally, the use of the cutoff value will make
the problem infeasible once the global optimal solution is found
The hybrid discrete/continuous-space model can find the opti-
H 6 cutoff: ð27Þ
mal solution for a given number of event points. However, it is
highly likely that the returned solution is not the real optimal solu- The proposed search algorithm is given in Fig. 9. We start with a
tion to the problem since global optimality can only be ensured minimum number of events that can be calculated by summing the
when the number of events equals the given number of rectangles. rectangles width, dividing by the total strip width and rounding up
Since the number of events has a large influence on computational to the nearest integer. Note that for the problem with 90 rotations
effort (for closely related continuous-time scheduling models one one needs to replace wi by the minimum of (wi, hi). The auxiliary
gets typically a one order of magnitude increase in computational parameter that holds the value of the objective function (Hbest) also
effort following a single increase in the number of events, Castro needs to be initialized. For simplicity, we use the same large value
and co-workers, 2004, 2008), it is not practical to solve the prob- M as in Eqs. (16) and (17). The cutoff value will be defined based on
lem for the maximum number of events and a proper search pro- Hbest and the absolute optimality tolerance e. Since we are assum-
cedure is needed. ing integer data for hi, the tolerance of the MILP solver can be set to
The standard iterative search procedure in scheduling problems a value just below 1, i.e. e = 0.999.
is to start with the minimum number of event points that ensures Once the mathematical program is solved there are two possi-
feasibility and keep solving the optimization problem until there is ble outcomes. The first is an infeasible problem. This can either
no improvement in the objective function (Méndez et al., 2006). be due to an insufficient number of events or to a plateau in the
Although it works quite well in practice (the first iterations can objective function. In the latter case, we are assuming that the
be solved almost instantaneously if the problem is infeasible), global optimal solution has been found so the algorithm can be
 P.M. Castro, J.F. Oliveira / European Journal of Operational Research 215 (2011) 45–56
Fig. 9. Search algorithm for hybrid discrete/continuous-space model.
terminated. In the former situation, the number of event points is
increased and the problem resolved until a feasible solution is
found. Upon this second outcome, one can store the solution, reset
the upper bound Hbest and define a new cutoff value.
5.3.1. Illustrative example
To better understand the model and solution algorithm, Fig. 10
provides the optimal placements for an example comprising nine
rectangles (no rotations allowed). The problem is feasible using
three events, for which an optimal solution with H = 20 can be
Fig. 10. Influence of the number of event points on the optimal solution for Ex2. On the left |E| = 3 for H = 20. On the right |E| = 4 for H = 18, which is a global optimal solution.
51
found (shown on the left). However, this is not the global optimal
solution since one can move rectangle I7 into the largest empty
area, and lower rectangles I1, I2 and I4 to achieve H = 18. A degen-
erate solution is shown on the right, where elementary strips with
x = 11. . .16 have slices of four rectangles placed on it, i.e. |E| = 4.
Following the definition of the cutoff value to 17,001, the problem
becomes infeasible for |E| = 5 and the search is stopped. It is impor-
tant to highlight that consecutive events can have the same y-coor-
dinate (e.g. Y 1...2;e1 ¼ Y 1...2;e2 ¼ Y 1...2;e3 ¼ 0; Y 3...9;e3 ¼ Y 3...9;e4 ¼ 15) and
that a given event point can be located anywhere with respect to
their counterparts on different grids if they are not occupied by
the same rectangle.
5.3.2. Knapsack packing problem
There is also a single available bin (|B| = 1, R01 ¼ 1) and the strip
height H is a given parameter instead of a variable. The profit max-
imization objective function is defined by (28), while the condition
that a particular rectangle can be selected at most once, is given in
(29)
XXX
min pi  Ni;x;e;1 ; ð28Þ
x2X 1 e2E1 i2Ix;1
XX
Ni;x;e;1 6 1 8i 2 I: ð29Þ
x2X 1 e2E1
i2Ix;1
5.3.3. Bin packing problem
We need to add Eqs. (12), (14), and (30) to the general con-
straints. In the case of dissimilar bins, one may want to adapt the
search algorithm to consider a different number of event points
per bin. The principle to follow is that taller bins will require more
events. The drawback is that the search would have to be per-
formed over |B| different settings instead of a single one (meaning
more MILPs to solve), which can potentially compromise the even-
tual benefits of considering smaller problems
XXX
Ni;x;e;1 ¼ 1 8i 2 I: ð30Þ
b2B x2X 1 e2E1
i2Ix;1
52 P.M. Castro, J.F. Oliveira / European Journal of Operational Research 215 (2011) 45–56

Table 1
Overview of computational statistics (best performer in bold, infeasible solutions in italic).

Algorithm |I| W Hopt Discrete-space Discrete/continuous-space

0
Problem H H CPU s |E|0 |E| H CPU s
Ex1 9 18 18 16 18 4.86 4 5 18 3.21
Ex2 9 18 18 16 18 3.45 3 5 18 2.99
Ex3 10 20 23 20 23 6.21 3 4 23 9578a,e
Ex4 11 20 22 20 21 7205a,b 3 4 22 10,762a,e
Ex5 21 10 24 23 24 4.61 7 8 24 2.93
SCP16 14 6 33 32 33 5.30 6 7 33 2.87
cgcut01 16 10 23 23 23 2.37 6 7 23 4.75
cgcut02 23 70 65 63 63 7463a,b 5 5 67 7201a,c
ngcut01 10 10 23 19 23 81.6 5 7 23 461
ngcut02 17 10 30 28 29 7202a,b 8 10 30 12,368a,e
ngcut03 21 10 28 28 28 12.6 7 8 28 2.87
ngcut04 7 10 20 17 20 1.22 2 3 20 5.90
ngcut05 14 10 36 36 36 3.18 4 5 36 0.62
ngcut06 15 10 31 29 30 3742b,f 7 8 31 8194a,d
ngcut07 8 20 20 20 20 0.98 2 3 20 3.37
ngcut08 13 20 33 32 33 29.5 3 4 33 7363a,e
ngcut09 18 20 50 49 49 7210a,b 6 6 53 7200a,c
ngcut10 13 30 80 58 75 8760a,b 6 6 80 7200a,d
ngcut11 15 30 52 50 50 7215a,b 5 6 52 10,028a,d
ngcut12 22 30 87 77 84 10,339a,b 12 13 87 7202a,d
ht01 16 20 20 20 20 2.08 4 5 20 2.01
ht02 17 20 20 20 20 5.28 5 5 21 7200a,c
ht03 16 20 20 20 20 2.51 5 6 20 9.34
ht04 25 40 15 15 15 91.8 5 5 16 7202a,c
ht05 25 40 15 15 15 20.4 5 5 16 7200a,c
ht06 25 40 15 15 15 18.3 5 6 15 11.5
ht07 28 60 30 30 30 3771 6 6 31 7201a,c
ht08 29 60 30 30 30 7200a,b 5 5 31 7201a,c
ht09 28 60 30 30 30 7200a,b 5 5 33 7201a,c
a
Maximum computational time termination.
b
No feasible solution.
c
Suboptimal solution.
d
Unable to check optimality (optimal solution found in last iteration).
e
Unable to prove global optimality (optimal solution found in iteration before last).
f
CPLEX error detected (optimal termination status at H = 30 without packing one rectangle).

6. Computational results Table 2

Solution from DCS approach as a function of the total computational time up to
The performance of the two algorithms is illustrated through 120 CPUs.
the solution of 29 strip packing problems taken from the literature. Problem Hopt |E| H@1s H@10s H@60s H@120s CPU s Gap (%)
The aim was to consider a balanced set of problems ranging from
Ex1 18 5 19 18   18.9 0
instances that can be solved rather rapidly to those for which the Ex2 18 5 18    0.89 0
known optimal solution cannot be found. The rectangles of Ex1– Ex3 23 4 23    120 0
Ex4 were taken from Kenmochi et al. (2009) and correspond to in- Ex4 22 4 23 22   120 0
stances 9perfect, 9nperfect, 10nperfect and 11nperfect, respec- Ex5 24 8 25 24   1.50 0
SCP16 33 7 33    2.25 0
tively. However, we are considering a different strip width W in
cgcut01 23 7 25 23   1.30 0
the first two instances to make the problem feasible (in this paper cgcut02 65 5   76 73 120 12.3
we are not allowing for 90 rotation). Ex5 is the 21-rectangle strip ngcut01 23 7 23    120 0
packing problem in Sawaya and Grossmann (2005). Instance SPC16 ngcut02 30 10 31 30   120 0
ngcut03 28 8 32 29 28 37.1 0
is taken from Bekrar et al. (2007). The remaining test problems are
ngcut04 20 3 20    9.39 0
widely known (see http://www.or.deis.unibo.it/research_pages/ ngcut05 36 5 36    0.39 0
ORinstances/ORinstances.htm), corresponding to instances ngcut06 31 8 34 31   120 0
cgcut01-02, ngcut01-12 and ht01-ht09, respectively. The latter ngcut07 20 3 20    5.29 0
are perfect packing instances, for which the lower bound calcu- ngcut08 33 4 38 34 33  120 0
ngcut09 50 6 63 56 55  120 10.0
lated by the discrete-space algorithm is equal to the optimal
ngcut10 80 6 84 81 80  120 0
solution. ngcut11 52 6 76 59 52  120 0
The algorithms and mixed-integer linear programming models ngcut12 87 13  103 87  120 0
were implemented and solved in GAMS 23.2, using CPLEX 12.1 ht01 20 5 22 20   5.09 0
with a single thread and default options except for the optimality ht02 20 5 27 23 22 21 120 5.0
ht03 20 6 26 20   3.60 0
tolerances mentioned earlier. The maximum computational time ht04 15 5   16  120 6.7
per iteration was set to 7200 CPU s. The same value was intended ht05 15 5  19 16  120 6.7
for maximum computational time but since this can only be ht06 15 6  17 16  120 6.7
checked before starting a new iteration, Table 1 shows higher val- ht07 30 6  42 36 34 120 13.3
ht08 30 5    35 120 16.7
ues. The hardware consisted of a laptop with an Intel Core2 Duo
ht09 30 5   36 35 120 16.7
T9300 2.5 Gigahertz processor with 4 Gigabytes of RAM and
 P.M. Castro, J.F. Oliveira / European Journal of Operational Research 215 (2011) 45–56
Fig. 11. Best solution found with hybrid discrete/continuous-space algorithm for cgcut02 (H = 67).
running Windows Vista Enterprise. In Eqs. (16) and (17) we have
used M = 300.
6.1. Discrete vs. hybrid discrete/continuous
We start the analysis by comparing the performance of the two
approaches presented. Besides the number of rectangles, strip
width and known optimal solution from the literature (Hopt), Ta-
ble 2 gives the starting and ending iterations of the discrete and
hybrid discrete/continuous search algorithms, the best solution
found and total computational effort.
The new hybrid discrete/continuous-space (DCS) approach
could find the optimal solution in 21 cases, proving optimality
62% of the time. In contrast, the discrete-space model (DS) was able
to solve only 19 out of the same 29 problems, and the unsolved 10
were infeasible (recall that DS works mostly in the infeasible space,
with the first feasible solution being an optimum). The optimality
gap for DCS was equal to: 1 in five test cases (ht02, 04, 05, 07 and
53
08); 3 in ngcut09 and ht09; 2 for cgcut02. The best found solution
for the latter, showing the location of the event points, can be seen
in Fig. 11.
The most significant advantage of DCS is the ability to always
find very good if not the optimal solutions. Furthermore, it finds
them fast, as can be seen in Table 2, which shows the progress in
the value of the objective function (intermediate checkpoints at
1, 10 and 60 CPUs), as well as the total computational time and
optimality gap up to 120 CPUs. In fact, the optimal solution is
found in less than 2 minutes for all but one of the 21 successful
runs. Interestingly, the failure is in ht06, which can be solved to
global optimality in just 11.5 CPUs (see Table 1) and can be ex-
plained as follows.
The search algorithm of DCS is able to find the global solution
for 5 events, and then removes it from the feasible space by means
of a cutoff value before resolving the problem for 6 events with the
purpose of proving optimality. In contrast, the results in Table 2
consider the complete feasible region corresponding to the number
54 P.M. Castro, J.F. Oliveira / European Journal of Operational Research 215 (2011) 45–56

Table 3 number of successful runs rises to 24. This behavior is shared with
Performance of discrete-space algorithm using a tighter lower bound (L4) instead of the discrete/continuous-space algorithm, which exhibits an even
H0 in the initialization.
higher increase in complexity between consecutive iterations,
Problem L4 H CPU s and is typical in multidimensional location problems, character-
ngcut01 23 23 0.96 ized by a huge number of feasible item allocations (high degree
ngcut02 30 30 2.38 of degeneracy).
ngcut04 20 20 0.48 The two main motivations for the replacement of discrete by
ngcut06 31 31 5.73
ngcut08 33 33 10.3
continuous models are: (i) increased data accuracy from consider-
ngcut10 80 80 122 ing real rather than integer values; (ii) reduced problem size that
ngcut11 52 52 661 may potentially lead to easier to solve mathematical problems.
ngcut12 87 87 1582 With respect to the former aspect, the hybrid model enables to
consider real data for the rectangles height and is thus a more
accurate approach in the y-dimension. To analyze the effect of
using event points instead of a discrete mesh of size one, Table 4
Table 4
gives the model statistics.
Statistics for last problem solved (DV = discrete variables, TV = total variables,
SE = single equations).
Cleary, we were very successful in reducing the number of dis-
crete variables, which can go down to one order of magnitude with
Problem Discrete-space Discrete/continuous-space
cgcut02, the most difficult problem of the lot. In terms of total
DV TV SE DV TV SE number of equations, the results are not as significant and the
Ex1 1342 1667 334 580 671 359 new approach can even lead to a higher value (e.g. ngcut02) due
Ex2 1323 1648 334 585 676 359 to the spatial constraints. Given the use of four-index binary vari-
Ex3 2485 2946 471 652 733 322 ables (Ni,x,y,b), the discrete-space model is not suitable for simulta-
Ex4 2428 2849 432 720 801 323
neously large values in terms of number of rectangles, bins, strip
Ex5 3729 3970 262 1336 1417 325
SCP16 1829 2028 213 441 484 168 height and width. With the increase in |I|  W  H, the discrete-
cgcut01 2409 2640 247 868 939 282 space model for strip packing (b = 1) rapidly becomes intractable,
cgcut02 63,438 67,849 4434 6425 6776 1413 and one may run out of memory just to generate the problem. This
ngcut01 1069 1300 241 420 491 276
explains why other test instances from the literature were not
ngcut02 2582 2873 308 1080 1181 397
ngcut03 3820 4101 302 1296 1377 325 included.
ngcut04 606 807 208 186 217 121 One final remark to mention that for DCS, the objective function
ngcut05 2954 3315 375 560 621 204 of the linear program resulting from the relaxation of the integral-
ngcut06 2391 2692 316 792 873 319 ity constraints is equal to the value of the continuous lower bound,
ngcut07 1603 2004 409 393 454 242
given by Eq. (31)
ngcut08 4780 5441 674 856 937 325
ngcut09 10,428 11,409 999 1578 1699 486
X
wi hi =W 1 : ð31Þ
ngcut10 12,285 14,536 2264 1512 1693 721
i2I
ngcut11 11,076 12,577 1516 1920 2101 723
ngcut12 23,813 26,334 2543 4277 4668 1556
ht01 3907 4308 417 1305 1406 406
ht02 4222 4623 418 1305 1406 407
6.2. Comparison to continuous-space models
ht03 4054 4455 417 1488 1609 484
ht04 10,691 11,292 626 4140 4341 815 The purpose of this section and the next is to discuss the perfor-
ht05 10,938 11,539 626 4230 4431 815 mance of other approaches that can tackle the 2-D strip packing
ht06 11,131 11,732 626 5010 5251 973
problem, on most of the test problems considered in this article.
ht07 35,531 37,332 1829 8394 8755 1456
ht08 37,249 39,050 1830 7400 7701 1219 We start with Ex5 that was tackled by Sawaya and Grossmann
ht09 35,415 37,216 1829 7055 7356 1218 (2005) and Westerlund et al. (2007) using identical computers and
versions of the same MILP solver. In both papers, a continuous-
space approach is used, where (xi, yi) variables define the position
of rectangle i in the strip, either the upper-left corner or the cen-
of events listed in the ninth column of Table 1, which for ht06 is troid coordinate, respectively. Note that contrary to DCS, neither
equal to 6. Together with the observed higher computational times of these approaches relies on the concept of events.
for Ex1, ngcut03, 04, 07 and ht01, it serves to show the importance The big-M reformulation of the generalized disjunctive problem
of the search algorithm in Fig. 9. formulation of Sawaya and Grossmann (2005) was able to find the
The discrete-space approach (DS) is, on the other hand, better at optimal solution unlike its convex hull counterpart and despite the
proving optimality. This is even more relevant if one recalls that slightly larger integrality gap. It then became 44 times faster with
the procedure is rigorous while the method for DCS may terminate the addition of 62 cuts, see Table 5. Westerlund et al. (2007) were
at a suboptimal solution (Fig. 8). Clearly, the success rate is greater able to do even better with a closely related big-M approach, pri-
when the lower bound (H0) is close to the optimal solution making marily due to the major reduction in integrality gap due to the
DS particularly suitable for perfect-packing problems (ht01-09). In addition of symmetry breaking constraints. In fact, the optimal va-
these problems, Eq. (6) was added to the model, while Eq. (23) for lue from the relaxed MILP (RMIP), 22.5, corresponds to the contin-
DCS was not included since it did not lead to better results. More uous lower bound (Eq. (31)), like in DCS.
specifically, since it removes all suboptimal solutions from the fea-
sible space, DCS may fail to provide a solution in a reasonable 6.3. Comparison to exact algorithms
amount of time, thus compromising one of its major strengths.
The performance of DS can be improved further if the overall Table 6 lists the results for six other methods that are heavily
lower bound (L4) from Martello et al. (2003) is used instead of based on the exact approach by Martello et al. (2003). Besides
the weaker continuous lower bound. Major increases in perfor- the original algorithm, we reproduce the results from the sources
mance can be observed whenever L4 > H0, as can be seen in Table 3. for the branch & bound (B&B) and dichotomous algorithm (DA)
In particular, the number of iterations decreases to one and the of Bekrar et al. (2007), algorithms STAIR and G-STAIR of Kenmochi
 P.M. Castro, J.F. Oliveira / European Journal of Operational Research 215 (2011) 45–56 55

Table 5
Results of continuous-space models for Ex5.

Sawaya and Grossmann (2005) Westerlund et al. (2007) This work

Hardware Pentium 4, 2.8 Gigahertz Pentium 4, 3.0 Gigahertz T9300, 2.5 Gigahertz
Software CPLEX 8.1 CPLEX 8.0 CPLEX 12.1
Approach Convex hull Big-M Big-M +62 cuts Big-M Big-M & symmetry breaking DS DCS
Solution – 24 24 24 24 24 24
RMIP 9.179 9 9.179 9 22.5 – 22.5
CPU s >10,800 4093 91.4 97.4 36.3 4.61 2.63

Table 6
Total computational time from other sources in CPUs (success in finding the optimal solution in bold).

Name Martello et al. (2003) Bekrar et al. (2007) Kenmochi et al. (2009) Alvarez-Valdes et al. (2009) This work
Hardware Pentium 3, 800 Megahertz Pentium M, 1.7 Gigahertz Pentium 4, 3.0 Gigahertz Pentium 4, 2.0 Gigahertz T9300, 2.5 Gigahertz
Approach B&B DA STAIR G-STAIR DS DCS
SCP16 – 606 217 – – – 5.30 2.87
cgcut01 11.5 521 324 0.10 0.12 0.0 2.37 4.75
cgcut02 3600a,c 3600a,c 1219c 3600a,b 3600a,b 1200a 7463a,b 7201a,c
ngcut01 0.05 1.01 23.2 2080 0.39 2.2 81.6 461
ngcut02 11.3 3600a 1053 3600a,b 3600a,b 3.1 7202a,b 12,368a
ngcut03 27.0 1621 520 0.09 0.10 0.0 12.6 2.87
ngcut04 0.00 0.01 0.02 3.63 0.14 0.0 1.22 5.90
ngcut05 0.00 0.01 120 0.11 0.07 0.0 3.18 0.62
ngcut06 727 3579 1079 3600a,b 147.3 4.6 3742b 8194a
ngcut07 0.00 0.01 0.00 3600a,b 0.10 0.0 0.98 3.37
ngcut08 53.1 55.0 178 30.5 0.50 3.5 29.5 7363a
ngcut09 3600a 3600a 1270 3600a,b 1972 58.1 7210a,b 7200a,c
ngcut10 0.18 198 1153 3600a,b 114 2.6 8760a,b 7200a
ngcut11 483 1059 733 3600a,b 7.71 13.8 7215a,b 10,028a
ngcut12 0.00 3600a 866 3600a,b 3600a,b 0.0 10339a,b 7202a
ht01 10.8 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.07 0.0 2.08 2.01
ht02 624 7593 379 0.12 0.07 0.4 5.28 7200a,c
ht03 501 25.2 198 0.08 0.10 0.1 2.51 9.34
ht04 8.26 3600a,c 874 0.08 0.11 0.1 91.8 7202a,c
ht05 20.3 3600a 572 0.09 0.06 0.1 20.4 7200a,c
ht06 16.9 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.06 1.4 18.3 11.5
ht07 3600a,c 3600a,c 2045c 0.12 0.10 1.8 3771 7201a,c
ht08 3600a,c 3600a,c 1905c 71.4 77.0 1200a,c 7200a,b 7201a,c
ht09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.13 8.7 7200a,b 7201a,c
a
Maximum computational time termination.
b
No feasible solution.
c
Suboptimal solution.

et al. (2009) and the also B&B algorithm of Alvarez-Valdes et al.
(2009).
From the results in Table 6, one can see that the original algo-
rithm is still very much competitive, particularly in the ngcut01-
12 instances, and that the B&B algorithm by Alvarez-Valdes et al.
(2009) is the best overall performer. This approach only failed to
return the optimal solution in one occasion (ht08) and failed to
prove optimality in another (cgcut02). For the latter problem, the
best found solution features H = 65, while the other methods re-
port H = 67.
With respect to the work by Bekrar et al. (2007), DA outper-
forms B&B to achieve a closer but still overall worse perfor-
mance than Martello et al. (2003), considering the significant
difference in hardware. It is also worthwhile to mention that a
normal termination status is indicated for cgcut02 and ht07-08
(DA) but the reported solutions are suboptimal (H = 67, 31 and
31, respectively).
The algorithms by Kenmochi et al. (2009) were aimed at perfect
packing problems so it is not surprising to find out that the two
algorithms excel in the perfect packing instances (ht01-09), being
able to solve all nine instances in less than 2 minutes. The algo-
rithms are also efficient in instances where the optimal values
are close to the trivial lower bounds, particularly G-STAIR.
Clearly, our new proposed algorithms are not as efficient, which
is not surprising considering that we do not go into details of
improving the search strategy through special purpose branch
and bound operations. Still, the easy to implement discrete-space
approach, when combined with a standard MILP solver like CPLEX,
can also be quite efficient in cases that do not require a large mesh
and featuring a tight lower bound. Furthermore, the hybrid dis-
crete/continuous-space model is more accurate since it can handle
instances having non-integer values for heights. With respect to
this aspect, Kenmochi et al. (2009) refer that an algorithm based
on a sequence pair representation was tried to allow for continu-
ous input data but failed to be as competitive as STAIR and G-
STAIR. Since our ultimate goal will be to use the events concept
to come up with a continuous-space algorithm for N-dimensional
problems, such remarks and the results obtained show that we
are on the right track.
7. Conclusions
This paper has presented two new mixed-integer linear pro-
gramming approaches for two-dimensional orthogonal packing
problems. Both are heavily based on existing models for scheduling
56 P.M. Castro, J.F. Oliveira / European Journal of Operational Research 215 (2011) 45–56
problems (one-dimensional) and can be distinguished in terms of
spatial representation.
The discrete-space approach borrows the concept of excess re-
source from the Resource-Task Network process representation for
the derivation of the no-overlap constraint. It essential consists in
two sets of constraints and one objective function easily adaptable
to strip, knapsack and bin packing problems. The approach has
been shown to be particularly efficient for perfect packing in-
stances, with the main drawback being that the first feasible solu-
tion, which is also optimal, is only achieved at termination. This
may render it useless in problems involving a large number of rect-
angles, wide and potentially long strips, for which prohibitive
problem sizes may result.
The main novelty has however been the development of a hy-
brid discrete/continuous-space approach that involved: (i) discret-
izing a particular bin (strip) into a set of parallel vertical strips of
width one; (ii) postulating a number of events to be optimally lo-
cated anywhere along the strip height. A key aspect is that the
location of event points can vary from one elementary vertical strip
to the next, unless a particular rectangle is shared by them. To
overcome the solution dependency on the number of events, which
is directly related to the maximum number of rectangles that can
be packed vertically, the model has been embedded in a search
algorithm that iteratively solves the problem until no improve-
ment is observed in the objective function. The main strength of
the approach is the ability to provide very good results with few
computational resources from the solution of an easy to implement
mixed integer linear programming model. These can be viewed as
tight upper bounds, so the approach also has the potential to be a
module of exact algorithms.
Future work will consist on developing a continuous-space
model using the concept of events in both dimensions, where the
main challenge will be to find an efficient set of spatial constraints
that rigorously accounts for the interaction between the different
grids.
References
Alvarez-Valdes, R., Parreño, F., Tamarit, J.M., 2008. Reactive GRASP for the strip-
packing problem. Computers and Operations Research 35, 1065–1083.
Alvarez-Valdes, R., Parreño, F., Tamarit, J.M., 2009. A branch and bound algorithm
for the strip packing problem. OR Spectrum 31, 431–459.
Amossen, R.R., Pisinger, D., 2010. Multi-dimensional bin packing problems with
guillotine constraints. Computers and Operations Research 37, 1999–2006.
Barbosa-Póvoa, A.P., Mateus, R., Novais, A.Q., 2001. Optimal two-dimensional layout
of industrial facilities. International Journal of Production Research 39 (12),
2567–2593.
Barbosa-Póvoa, A.P., Mateus, R., Novais, A.Q., 2002. Optimal three-dimensional
layout of industrial facilities. International Journal of Production Research 40
(7), 1669–1698.
Bekrar, A., Kacem, I., Chu, C., 2007. A comparative study of exact algorithms for the
two dimensional strip packing problem. Journal of Industrial and Systems
Engineering 1 (2), 151–170.
Castro, P.M., Barbosa-Póvoa, A.P., Matos, H.A., Novais, A.Q., 2004. Simple
continuous-time formulation for short-term scheduling of batch and
continuous processes. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 43, 105–
118.
Castro, P.M., Barbosa-Póvoa, A.P., Novais, A.Q., 2005. Simultaneous design and
scheduling of multipurpose plants using resource-task network based
continuous-time formulations. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
44, 343–357.
Castro, P.M., Grossmann, I.E., 2005. New continuous-time MILP model for the short-
term scheduling of multistage batch plants. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Research 44, 9175–9190.
Castro, P.M., Harjunkoski, I., Grossmann, I.E., 2011. Greedy algorithm for scheduling
batch plants with sequence-dependent changeovers. AIChE Journal 57, 373–
387.
Castro, P.M., Novais, A.Q., 2008. Short-term scheduling of multistage batch plants
with unlimited intermediate storage. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Research 47, 6126–6139.
Dolatabadi, M., Lodi, A., Monaci, M., 2010. Exact algorithms for the two-dimensional
guillotine knapsack. Computers and Operations Research. doi:10.1016/
j.cor.2010.12.018.
He, K., Huang, W., 2011. An efficient placement heuristic for the three-dimensional
rectangular packing. Computers and Operations Research 38, 227–233.
Hifi, M., 1998. Exact algorithms for the guillotine strip cutting/packing problem.
Computers and Operations Research 25, 925–940.
Ierapetritou, M.G., Floudas, C.A., 1998. Effective continuous-time formulation for
short-term scheduling. 1. Multipurpose batch processes. Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry Research 37, 4341.
Jain, V., Grossmann, I.E., 2001. Algorithms for hybrid MILP/CP models for a class of
optimization problems. INFORMS Journal on Computing 13, 258.
Kenmochi, M., Imamichi, T., Nonobe, K., Yagiura, M., Nagamochi, H., 2009. Exact
algorithms for the two-dimensional strip packing problem with and without
rotations. European Journal of Operational Research 198, 73–83.
Li, J., Floudas, C.A., 2010. Optimal event point determination for short-term
scheduling of multipurpose batch plants via unit-specific event-based
continuous-time approaches. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research
49, 7446–7469.
Maravelias, C.T., Grossmann, I.E., 2003a. Minimization of the makespan with a
discrete-time state-task network formulation. Industrial and Engineering
Chemistry Research 42, 6252.
Maravelias, C.T., Grossmann, I.E., 2003b. A new general continuous-time state task
network formulation for short term, scheduling of multipurpose batch plants.
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 42, 3056–3074.
Martello, S., Monaci, M., Vigo, D., 2003. An exact approach to the strip-packing
problem. Informs Journal on Computing 15, 310–319.
Méndez, C.A., Cerdá, J., Grossmann, I.E., Harjunkoski, I., Fahl, M., 2006. State-of-the-
art review of optimization methods for short-term scheduling of batch
processes. Computers and Chemical Engineering 30, 913–946.
Miyazawa, F.K., Wakabayashi, Y., 2009. Three-dimensional packings with rotations.
Computers and Operations Research 36, 2801–2815.
Ortmann, F.G., Ntene, N., van Vuuren, J.H., 2010. New and improved level heuristics
for the rectangular strip packing and variable-sized bin packing problems.
European Journal of Operational Research 203, 306–315.
Pantelides, C.C., 1994. Unified frameworks for the optimal process planning and
scheduling. In: Proceedings of the Second Conference on Foundations of
Computer Aided Operations; Cache Publications, New York, pp. 253.
Papageorgiou, L., Rotstein, G.E., 1998. Continuous domain mathematical models for
optimal process plant layout. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research
37, 3631–3639.
Sawaya, N.W., Grossmann, I.E., 2005. A cutting plane method for solving linear
generalized disjunctive programming problems. Computers and Chemical
Engineering 29, 1891–1913.
Tsai, R.D., Malmstrom, E.M., Kuo, W., 1993. Three dimensional palletization of
mixed sized boxes. IIE Transactions 25 (4), 64–75.
Wascher, G., Haussner, H., Schumann, H., 2007. An improved typology of cutting
and packing problems. European Journal of Operational Research 183 (3), 1109–
1130.
Wassick, J., 2009. Enterprise-wide optimization in an integrated chemical complex.
Computers and Chemical Engineering 33, 1950.
Wassick, J.M., Ferrio, J., 2011. Extending the resource task network for industrial
applications. Computers and Chemical Engineering, doi:10.1016/
j.compchemeng.2011.01.010..
Wei, L., Zhang, D., Chen, Q., 2009. A least wasted first heuristic algorithm for the
rectangular packing problem. Computers and Operations Research 36, 1608–
1614.
Westerlund, J., 2005. Aspects on N-dimensional allocation. PhD Thesis. Faculty of
Chemical Engineering, Åbo Akademi University, Finland.
Westerlund, J., Papageorgiou, L.G., Westerlund, T., 2007. A MILP model for N-
dimensional allocation. Computers and Chemical Engineering 31, 1702–1714.
Wu, Y., Li, Wenkai, Goh, M., Souza, R., 2010. Three-dimensional bin packing problem
with variable bin height. European Journal of Operational Research 202, 347–
355.