Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 60 (2021) 100764

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Swarm and Evolutionary Computation

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

An efficient scheduling approach for an iron-steel plant equipped with

self-generation equipment under time-of-use electricity tariffs
Jianhua Cao a, Ruilin Pan a,b,∗, Xue Xia a, Xuemei Shao c, Xuemin Wang a
a
School of Management Science and Engineering, Anhui University of Technology, Ma’anshan 243032, PR China
b
Key Laboratory of Multidisciplinary Management and Control of Complex Systems of Anhui Higher Education Institutes, Anhui University of Technology, Ma’anshan
243002, PR China
c
PHIMA Intelligence Technology CO., Ltd, Ma’anshan 243032, PR China

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

Keywords: Production scheduling under time-of-use electricity tariffs has become an efficient way for energy-intensive indus-
Scheduling tries to decrease energy costs. However, when production tasks are over-concentrated in one scheduling cycle,
Self-generation the effectiveness of time-of-use electricity tariffs is no longer significant. This makes the introduction of self-
Time-of-use electricity tariffs
generation power plant appealing for energy-intensive industries. This paper addresses an integrated scheduling
Multi-objective mathematical model
problem from an iron-steel plant equipped with self-generation equipment under time-of-use electricity tariffs. In
Relationship propagation chain
The improved SPEA2 this problem, time-of-use electricity tariffs, the self-generation cost, and the on-grid electrovalence influence the
total electricity cost simultaneously. A multi-objective mathematical model with energy-awareness is developed
to optimize the production schedules and electricity cost jointly. An improved SPEA2 based on the relationship
propagation chain is tailored for the problem, including scheduling solution encoding, crossover and mutation. A
real-life case study from a Chinese iron-steel plant equipped with self-generation equipment demonstrates that the
proposed methods can provide a high-quality scheduling scheme and the total electricity cost can be significantly
reduced.

1. Introduction
Under the pressures of climate change, rising energy costs, and grow-
ing energy security concerns, researches on production scheduling have
increasingly been conducted from the points of view of energy-saving
and environmental protection. Electricity is one of the main energy
sources used in industrial production [1]. Therefore, the rising prices
of electricity have prompted many industrial enterprises to focus on
the issue of reducing electricity cost. Until recently, most efforts aim-
ing at reducing the total electricity cost have focused on developing
more energy-efficient machines and equipment [2]. Experimentations
and practices show that replacement of new and more advanced equip-
ment requires substantial capital investment. Alternatively, some re-
searchers have demonstrated that electricity cost can be significantly
reduced through employing operational strategies (such as lean process
control) and optimizing production schedules [3–5].
Many production tasks and complex technological conditions lead to
the uneven demands for electricity in manufacturing industries through-
out a day. According to the load variation of the power grid, a day can
be divided into several periods, such as on-peak, mid-peak, and off-peak
periods. Although the duration of on-peak periods is often short relative
to other periods, electricity providers have to start their backup power
facilities to meet customer demands, which results in prohibitive costs
[6]. A viable alternative to peak generation capacity is to involve con-
sumers in power balancing and use their flexibility to avoid the peaks.
Techniques involving such practices are referred as Demand-Side Man-
agement (DSM) [7]. As one of the most commonly used strategies in
DSM, time-dependent electricity pricing has been widely implemented
in many countries. At the core of this strategy are the so-called time-of-
use (TOU) electricity tariffs, under which electricity price varies from
hour to hour throughout a day, depending on consumer demand. To
encourage consumers to consume more energy during non-peak peri-
ods, electricity prices in these periods are set below those in other pe-
riods. Exploring scheduling problems under this kind of pricing scheme
provides a massive opportunity to reduce cost for electricity-intensive
consumers by shifting electricity consumption from on-peak periods to
off-peak or mid-peak periods.
The effectiveness of TOU electricity tariffs is, however, no longer
significant when production tasks are over-concentrated in one sched-
ule cycle [8]. This makes the introduction of self-generation power
plant appealing for energy-intensive consumers because it can be a
better strategy to reduce energy cost, except for price-based schemes.

∗
Corresponding author at: School of Management Science and Engineering, Anhui University of Technology, Ma’anshan, PR China.
E-mail address: alltimefight@gmail.com (R. Pan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.swevo.2020.100764
Received 2 October 2018; Received in revised form 25 December 2019; Accepted 18 August 2020
Available online 27 August 2020
2210-6502/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
J. Cao, R. Pan, X. Xia et al.
At present, most manufacturing enterprises are equipped with self-
generation equipment. Self-generation cost arises from the use of gener-
ation equipment to meet the in-plant demand for electricity. When the
amount of self-generation exceeds the in-plant demand, the plant can
sell the surplus electricity to the electricity providers at a certain price
called the on-grid electrovalence, thus obtaining a certain profit. Other-
wise, the plant will purchase power from the electricity providers and
the price of outsourcing electricity is consistent with the TOU electric-
ity tariffs. It is possible that three types of electricity prices (i.e., TOU
electricity tariffs, self-generation cost, and on-grid electrovalence) can
sometimes exist simultaneously. Consequently, this complicates the cal-
culation of the total electricity cost, which sums the arithmetic product
of electric power consumption and the corresponding price in each time
interval. This presents an interesting challenge in terms of minimizing
the total electricity cost of manufacturing industries equipped with self-
generation equipment under TOU electricity tariffs.
In this work, we explore the production scheduling problem of an
iron-steel plant equipped with self-generation equipment under TOU
electricity tariffs. The goal of this work is to find an optimal produc-
tion schedule for an energy-intensive process plant to realize its demand
side response potential at the production scheduling level. The key of
the problem is to assign a set of jobs to available machines and time pe-
riods with varying electricity prices, and then to determine the amount
of self-generation. Based on the process constraints, the generator con-
straints and three types of electricity prices, a multi-objective mathemat-
ical model is proposed to minimize the makespan and total electricity
cost at the same time. To enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of
SPEA2, we also propose the improvement strategies for SPEA2 based
on the relationship propagation chain. To investigate and measure the
performance of the proposed algorithms, a real-life case is studied from
an iron-steel plant in China.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents
the background and previous work on energy-aware scheduling prob-
lems. Section 3 is devoted to the problem description and a multi-
objective mathematical model of the scheduling problem is proposed. In
Section 4, an efficient improved SPEA2 based on the relationship propa-
gation chain is developed. In Section 5, the performance of the improved
SPEA2 is tested through a real-life instance from the iron-steel industry
in China. Finally, conclusions and future research directions are given
in Section 6.
2. Literature review
Several avenues have been pursued when scheduling to reduce to-
tal energy consumption. In [9], an energy-efficient hybrid flow shop
scheduling problem with total tardiness, makespan and total energy con-
sumption was addressed. A new Pareto dominance was defined to deal
with objectives relative importance and a two-level imperialist competi-
tive algorithm was presented. Aghelinejad et al. [10] investigated a non-
preemptive single-machine manufacturing environment to reduce total
energy costs. New mathematical models with the production scheduling
at machine level as well as job level are presented. Lu et al. [11] inves-
tigated an energy-efficient permutation flow shop scheduling problem
with sequence-dependent setup and controllable transportation time,
and proposed a hybrid multi-objective backtracking search algorithm
to solve it. Liu et al. [12] introduced a model for the bi-objective op-
timization problem that minimizes the total non-processing electricity
consumption and total weighted tardiness in a job shop. A novel multi-
objective genetic algorithm based on NSGA-II was developed. Mansouri
and Aktas [13] developed a multi-objective genetic algorithm for a two-
machine sequence-dependent permutation flowshop scheduling prob-
lem to address the trade-off between sustainability and service level.
The above literatures focused on reducing electricity consumption, but
not considered electricity pricing policies.
To achieve the goal of sustainable manufacturing, scheduling prob-
lems under the TOU electricity tariffs have been studied by many schol-
2
Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 60 (2021) 100764
ars [14–16]. Generally, scheduling problems without considering TOU
electricity tariffs in manufacturing tend to assume that the electricity
prices at different periods are the same. Consequently, decision objec-
tives usually focus on time-related criteria, such as the minimization of
makespan, total completion time, cost of tardiness, and earliness penal-
ties for jobs. In contrast to the former problem, the decision objectives
of scheduling problems under TOU electricity tariffs focus on reducing
electricity cost, except for time-related criteria.
Recently, many researchers have investigated single machine and
parallel machine scheduling problems under TOU electricity tariffs. For
single-machine scheduling problems, Rubaiee and Yildirim [17] studied
a preemptive scheduling problem to minimize the total completion time
and total energy cost under TOU electricity tariffs. Several new holis-
tic ant colony optimization algorithms were developed to solve it. Bi-
objective single-machine batch scheduling under TOU electricity prices
was addressed by Zhang et al. [18] to minimize the total energy cost
and makespan. Wang et al. [19] investigated a single-machine batch
scheduling problem to minimize the makespan and total energy cost
simultaneously. They also developed two heuristic methods to obtain
approximate Pareto fronts based on decomposition ideas. Fang et al.
[20] examined a single machine scheduling problem to minimize the
total electricity cost of processing jobs under TOU electricity tariffs. For
both the uniform-speed and speed-scaling cases, they showed how to
compute optimal schedules for the preemptive version of the problem in
polynomial time. Cheng et al. [21] investigated a single-machine batch
scheduling problem under TOU electricity tariffs and they formulated a
bi-objective MILP model to minimize the makespan and total electric-
ity cost. An exact 𝜀-constraint method was adapted to obtain its Pareto
front.
The parallel machine scheduling problem is of great significance be-
cause it is not only a generalization of the single-machine scheduling
problem but it is also a special case of the flexible flow shop scheduling
problem [22]. For parallel machine scheduling under the TOU electricity
tariffs, Cheng et al. [23] provided an improved MILP model by signifi-
cantly reducing the number of decision variables. Moon et al. [24] inves-
tigated an unrelated parallel machine scheduling problem to minimize
the weighted sum of makespan and electricity cost. They proposed a
hybrid genetic algorithm with a blank job insertion algorithm to solve
the problem. Che et al. [25] investigated an energy-conscious unrelated
parallel machine scheduling problem under TOU electricity tariffs. They
first built an improved continuous-time MILP model for the problem and
they then proposed a two-stage heuristic algorithm. An unrelated par-
allel machine scheduling problem under TOU electricity tariffs to mini-
mize the total electricity cost while ensuring that the overall completion
time does not exceed a predetermined production deadline was stud-
ied by Ding et al. [26]. They modeled a new time-interval-based MILP
formulation and then reformulated the problem using a Dantzig–Wolfe
decomposition.
On the basis of researches on single-machine and parallel-machine
energy-aware scheduling, some other researchers have explored the
shop scheduling problem under TOU electricity tariffs. Wang et al.
[27] investigated a bi-criteria energy-efficient two-stage hybrid flow
shop scheduling problem with consideration of makespan and total en-
ergy consumption. TOU electricity tariffs and different states of ma-
chines (working, idle and turnoff) were integrated. Zheng et al. [28] pre-
sented a multi-objective hybrid ant colony optimization algorithm for a
real-world two-stage blocking permutation flow shop scheduling prob-
lem to address the trade-off between total energy costs and makespan
as measures of the service level with TOU electricity price.
A few studies have focused on the production scheduling problem
for the iron-steel manufacturing under TOU electricity tariffs. Yang et al.
[29] integrally studied the problems of scrap steel charge optimization
considering metal elements concentrations uncertainty and scrap steel
melt shop production scheduling optimization using robust optimiza-
tion approaches. Hadera et al. [30] developed a MILP formulation to
extend a continuous-time model with energy-awareness to optimize the
J. Cao, R. Pan, X. Xia et al.
Fig. 1. Flow diagram of the steelmaking process.
daily production schedules and the amount of outsourcing electricity,
including the load commitment for an iron-steel plant. A steelmaking–
refining–continuous casting scheduling problem considering TOU elec-
tricity tariffs was studied by Tan and Liu [31]. They proposed a decom-
position approach for the scheduling problem, and a heuristic algorithm
combined with the constraint propagation was developed to solve it.
The above literatures show that the scheduling problems under TOU
electricity tariffs have mainly been investigated under some specific set-
tings, such as the preemptive version in Zhang et al. [16] while the
overall completion time does not exceed a predetermined production
deadline in Ding et al. [26]. The decision objectives of all of these
studies have focused on minimizing the electricity cost, and some of
them have simultaneously minimized the makespan. In addition, most
of the formulations that have been developed in those literatures for
various scheduling problems under TOU electricity tariffs are based on
the continuous-time MILP model. To the best of our knowledge, most of
the previous studies have not considered the question of self-generation.
However, the efforts mentioned above provide a starting point for the
exploration of the production scheduling problem for an iron-steel plant
with self-generation equipment under TOU electricity tariffs.
3. Problem description and formulation
3.1. Problem description
The iron-steel plant under consideration is known as a mini-mill.
The steelmaking process usually has three important production stages,
including steelmaking, refining, and continuous casting (as shown in
Fig. 1). In the steelmaking stage, scrap metal is poured in an electric arc
furnace (EAF) for oxidizing reaction to reduce the undesired impurities.
A full ladle load of grade-specific molten steel is called a charge, which
is defined as a ‘job’. In the refining stage, the molten steel is transferred
into a ladle furnace (LF) by a crane to further eliminate impurities and
add the required alloy ingredients. If the preceding charge is not finished
in the LF when the current charge arrives, then the current charge must
wait until the LF is idle which will cause the waiting time of the charge to
appear. A charge is a basic production unit of the melting and refining.
In the continuous casting stage, a set of charges consecutively processed
in the same tundish of a continuous caster machine (CCM) is called a
‘cast’, which is defined as a ‘job group’ in steelmaking scheduling. A
cast is a basic production unit of the continuous casting. In this work,
we study the scheduling problem of multi-casts with concurrently taking
account of the self-generation and TOU electricity tariffs. Given that the
sequence of casts on the CCMs have been defined at the planning level
by considering the orders of the rolling stage, constraints of the casting
stage, and product delivery dates, the multi-casts scheduling problem
3
Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 60 (2021) 100764
can be transformed to the resource constrained scheduling problem with
precedence. Due to the multi-casts are made up of several single casts
and a single cast contains some charges, the essence of the scheduling
problem is to study the scheduling of charges. Once the scheduling of
charges is obtained, the scheduling of all casts is obtained accordingly.
We assume that there are parallel machines at each production stage
and the following main technological constraints of steelmaking should
be considered:
(1) All of the charges are grouped into several casts according to steel
grade, the properties of the blanks, the customers’ orders, and the
life of tundish (which is a critical component of the CCM). Given
that the cast planning problem has been studied in depth, we as-
sume that the cast sequences on the casters and charge sequences
in each cast are predetermined.
(2) All of the charges in the same cast must be processed consecu-
tively on a same CCM.
(3) The set-up time must be considered for the first charge in each
cast at the continuous casting stage.
Besides these process constraints, the additional technological con-
straints need to be satisfied in the scheduling problem. For example,
the output of the generator is larger than the minimum allowable value
but not greater than the maximum value and the ramp-up or rate-down
rate of the generator satisfies the given limit. Different from Tan and
Liu [31], we solve the scheduling problems of single cast and all casts at
the same time and propose a multi-objective programming model which
minimizes the makespan and total electricity cost concurrently.
The aim of this study is to make a daily schedule for an iron-steel
plant. The task of the problem consists of determining on which ma-
chine each charge should be processed and the processing sequence at
each production stage. In addition, we have to decide the starting time
and optimal processing time of each charge at each production stage.
In particular, we also need to assert the amount of self-generation, out-
sourcing, and selling power in each time interval.
3.2. The multi-objective mathematical model
In our problem, the total electricity cost of all casts consists of the
self-generation cost, earnings of selling electric power to electricity
providers, and outsourcing electricity cost. This is different from the
total electricity cost in Ding et al. [26], Gajic et al. [32] and Zhang et al.
[33], who only consider the outsourcing electricity cost. Since selling
electric power to electricity providers and outsourcing electric power
from electricity providers cannot co-exist, we define Bk to represent the
earnings of selling electricity or outsourcing electricity cost in time in-
terval k, which is the equal division of the scheduling cycle (e.g., one
hour). When the amount of self-generation exceeds the in-plant demand,
Bk is equal to the earnings of selling electricity; otherwise, Bk is equal
to the outsourcing electricity cost. Further details of Bk can be seen in
Eq. (17). The following notations are adopted in this paper:
Indices and parameters:
l: index of production stages, l=1,..., lmax ;
i: index of casts, i=1,…, G;
Ni : the number of charges in cast i, i=1,…, N;
j: index of charges in cast i, j=1,…, Ni ;
Lij : the charge j of cast i;
Ωi : the set of charges of cast i, Ωi ={Lij , j=1, 2,…, Ni };
D: the set of precedence relationship of charges, (j1 , j2 )∈D, it means
that charge j1 is the direct predecessor of charge j2 ;
wt: the maximum waiting time of charges;
𝑤𝑙𝐿𝑖𝑗 : the waiting time of charge j in cast i between the production
stage l to l+1;
tl :the transportation time of charge from the production stage l to
l+1;
𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝑙,𝐿
: the minimum processing time of charge j in cast i at stage l;
𝑖𝑗
J. Cao, R. Pan, X. Xia et al. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 60 (2021) 100764

𝑝𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑙,𝐿
: the maximum processing time of charge j in cast i at stage l; 𝐿𝑘 = 𝑒𝑘∕(𝑡 − 𝑡 ), 𝑘 = 1, ..., 𝐾 (15)
𝑖𝑗 𝑘 𝑘−1
E: the set of the precedence relationship of casts, (i1 , i2 )∈E, implying
that casts i1 and i2 are processed on the same CCM and i1 is the 𝑄𝑘 = 𝐿𝑘 − 𝑃𝑘 , 𝑘 = 1, … , 𝐾, (16)
directly predecessor of i2 ;
{
S: the set-up time of CCM between two adjacent casts; (𝑇𝑘 − 𝑇𝑘−1 )𝑝𝑜𝑢𝑡
𝑘
𝑄𝑘 , 𝑄𝑘 > 0
esti : the earliest starting time of cast i; 𝐵𝑘 = , 𝑘 = 1, … , 𝐾, (17)
lsti : the latest starting time of cast i; (𝑇𝑘 − 𝑇𝑘−1 )𝑝𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑙
𝑘
𝑄𝑘 , 𝑄𝑘 ≤ 0
ml : the total number of machines at production stage l;
𝑃 min ≤ 𝑃𝑘 ≤ 𝑃 max , 𝑘 = 1, … , 𝐾, (18)
dl : the unit energy consumption of machine at production stage l;
UB: the upper bound of the scheduling cycle, 1440 min;
|𝑃 − 𝑃 | ≤ Δ𝑃 , 𝑘 = 1, … , 𝐾, (19)
k: index of time intervals, k =1,..., K, where K is the total number of | 𝑘 𝑘−1 |
time intervals in the involved scheduling cycle;
Tk -1 : the starting time in time interval k, where TK = UB; 𝑝𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑙,𝐿 ≤ 𝑝𝑙,𝐿𝑖𝑗 ≤ 𝑝𝑙,𝐿 , 𝑙 = 1, ..., 𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝑖 = 1, ..., 𝐺, 𝑗 ∈ Ω𝑖 , (20)
𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑗
Pk gen : the self-generation cost in time interval k;
Pk out : the outsourcing electricity price in time interval k (i.e., TOU 0 ≤ 𝑠𝑙,𝐿𝑖𝑗 ≤ 𝑈 𝐵, 𝑙 = 1, ..., 𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝑖 = 1, ..., 𝐺, 𝑗 ∈ Ω𝑖 , (21)
electricity tariffs);
Pk sell : the on-grid electrovalence in time interval k;
𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖 ≤ 𝑠𝑖 ≤ 𝑙𝑠𝑡𝑖 , 𝑖 = 1, ..., 𝐺, (22)
Pmax : the maximum power output of the generator;
Pmin : the minimum power output of the generator; The objective function given in Eq. (1) minimizes the sum of the
∆P: the ramp-up or ramp-down rate of the generator; makespan of all casts. The objective function given in Eq. (2) mini-
Decision variables: mizes the total electricity cost of processing all casts. Eq. (3) guaran-
𝑝𝑙,𝐿𝑖𝑗 : the processing time of charge j in cast i at stage l; tees that the waiting time of two adjacent production stage of a same
𝑠𝑙,𝐿𝑖𝑗 : the relative starting time of charge j in cast i at stage l; charge is larger than the transportation time but not exceeding the
si : the starting time of cast i; maximum allowable limit. Eq. (4) ensures the continuous casting con-
Pk : the amount of self-generation in time interval k. straint. Eq. (5) specifies the precedence relationship of adjacent charges.
Eq. (6) defines the waiting time. Eq. (7) defines the relative starting time
The following programming model of the multi-casts scheduling
of cast i at production stage l. Eq. (8) defines the relative ending time of
problem with consideration of self-generation under TOU electricity tar-
cast i at production stage. Eq. (9) ensures the precedence relationship for
iffs is established as follows.
casts processed on a same CCM. Eq. (10) defines the constraint of ma-
𝑁
∑ ( ) chines number. At any time, the required machine’s number should not
𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑠𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥 ,𝐿𝑖𝑗 + 𝑝𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥 ,𝐿𝑖𝑗 (1)
exceed the maximum availability provided by each production stage.
𝑖=1
∑ ∑ Eqs. (11)–(14) are used to calculate the total energy consumption of all
𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝐵𝑘 + (𝑇𝑘 − 𝑇𝑘−1 )𝑝𝑔𝑒𝑛
𝑘
𝑃𝑘 (2) casts. Eq. (11) calculates the total energy consumption for each cast in
𝑘=1 𝑘=1

s.t. time interval k. Eq. (12) computes the energy consumption for each op-
eration in time interval k. The overlap of processing time of a cast in
𝑡𝑟𝑙 ≤ 𝑤𝑙,𝐿𝑖𝑗 ≤ 𝑤𝑡, 𝑙 = 1, ..., 𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝑖 = 1, ..., 𝐺, 𝑗 ∈ Ω𝑖 , (3) time interval k is calculated based on the method used in Nolde and
( ) ( ) Morari [34]. Eq. (13) defines the processing time of a cast in time inter-
𝑠𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥 ,𝐿𝑖𝑗 − 𝑠𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥 ,𝐿𝑖𝑗 + 𝑝𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥 ,𝐿𝑖𝑗 = 0, 𝑖 = 1, ..., 𝐺, 𝐿𝑖𝑗1 , 𝐿𝑖𝑗2 ∈ 𝐷, (4) val k, when the completion time is prior to Tk . The duration for a cast at
2 1 1
each production stage can be calculated based on the schedule plan for
( ) ( ) charges. Eq. (14) defines the processing time of a cast in time interval
𝑠𝑙,𝐿𝑖𝑗 − 𝑠𝑙,𝐿𝑖𝑗 + 𝑝𝑙,𝐿𝑖𝑗 ≥ 0, 𝑙 = 1, ..., 𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥−1 , 𝑖 = 1, ..., 𝐺, 𝐿𝑖𝑗1 , 𝐿𝑖𝑗2 ∈ 𝐷, k, when the starting time is later than Tk -1 . In particular, Eqs. (15)–(19)
2 1 1
(5) are the extra constraints to be considered when an iron-steel plant is
equipped with self-generation equipment. Eq. (15) calculates the total
( ) electric demands in time interval k. Eq. (16) computes the difference
𝑤𝑙,𝐿𝑖𝑗 = 𝑠𝑙+1,𝐿𝑖𝑗 − 𝑠𝑙,𝐿𝑖𝑗 + 𝑝𝑙,𝐿𝑖𝑗 , 𝑙 = 1, ..., 𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝑖 = 1, ..., 𝐺, 𝑗 ∈ Ω𝑖 , (6)
between the amount of self-generation and the total electric demands
in time interval k. Eq. (17) calculates the earnings of selling electricity
𝑡𝑙 ,𝑖 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑙,𝐿𝑖𝑗 , 𝑖 = 1, ..., 𝐺, 𝑗 ∈ Ω𝑖 , (7) to electricity providers or outsourcing electricity cost in time interval k.
( ) Eq. (18) defines the range of output of the generator and Eq. (19) defines
𝑡𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥+𝑙 ,𝑖 = 𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑠𝑙,𝐿𝑖𝑗 + 𝑝𝑙,𝐿𝑖𝑗 , 𝑖 = 1, ..., 𝐺, 𝑗 ∈ Ω𝑖 , (8) the ramp-up or rate-down rate of the generator. Finally, Eqs. (20)–(22)
define the range of decision variables.
( ) ( )
𝑠𝑖2 + 𝑡𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝑖2 − 𝑠𝑖1 + 𝑡𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥 ×2,𝑖1 ≥ 𝑆, (𝑖1, 𝑖2) ∈ 𝐸, 𝑖1, 𝑖2 = 1, … , 𝐺, (9)

∑𝑁 ( ( ) ( )) 4. Solution algorithm: the tailored SPEA2

𝑖=1 𝑚𝑖𝑛
1, 𝑚𝑎𝑥 0, 𝑡 − (𝑠𝑖 + 𝑡𝑙,𝑖 ) , 𝑚𝑎𝑥 0, (𝑠𝑖 + 𝑡𝑙,𝑖 ) − 𝑡 ≤ 𝑚𝑙 ,
(10)
𝑙 = 1, … 𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝑖 = 1, ..., 𝐺, SPEA2 is an improved version of the Strength Pareto Evolutionary Al-
𝑁 𝑙∑ gorithm proposed by Zitzler et al. [35], which is regarded as one of the
∑ 𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑒𝑘 = 𝑒𝑔𝑙𝑘 , 𝑙 = 1, … 𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝑖 = 1, ..., 𝐺, 𝑘 = 1, … , 𝐾, (11) better efficient elitist multi-objective evolutionary algorithms in engi-
𝑖=1 𝑙=1 neering optimization [36–38]. The algorithm includes important search
( (( )) ) mechanisms, such as archiving of individuals with good fitness, den-
𝑒𝑖𝑙𝑘 = 𝑑𝑙 × 𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑇𝑘 − 𝑇𝑘−1 , 𝑃𝑙𝑖 𝑇𝑘 , 𝑃𝑙𝑖− 𝑇𝑘−1 ,
+
(12) sity estimation, and fitness assignment. Due to SPEA2 is a general al-
𝑙 = 1, … 𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝑖 = 1, ..., 𝐺, 𝑘 = 1, … , 𝐾
( gorithm, the major operators in SPEA2 need to be designed for the
( ) ( ))
𝑃𝑙𝑖+ 𝑇𝑘−1 = 𝑚𝑎𝑥 0, 𝑡𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥 +𝑙, 𝑖 − 𝑡𝑙,𝑖 − 𝑚𝑎𝑥 0, 𝑇𝑘−1 − 𝑠𝑖 − 𝑡𝑙,𝑖 , specific problem to enhance the applicability of the algorithm. There-
(13)
𝑙 = 1, … 𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝑖 = 1, ..., 𝐺, 𝑘 = 1, … , 𝐾, fore, the improvement strategies for SPEA2 are proposed based on the
( ( )) characteristics of the scheduling problem. Those mainly concentrated on
𝑃𝑙𝑖− (𝑇𝑘 ) = 𝑚𝑎𝑥 0, 𝑡𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥 +𝑙,𝑖 − 𝑡𝑙,𝑖 − 𝑚𝑎𝑥 0, 𝑠𝑖 + 𝑡𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥 +𝑙,𝑖 − 𝑇𝑘 , three aspects: (i) initial population; (ii) crossover operator; (iii) mutation
(14)
𝑙 = 1, … 𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝑖 = 1, ..., 𝐺, 𝑘 = 1, … , 𝐾 operator.

4
J. Cao, R. Pan, X. Xia et al.
4.1. Initial population
It is important to find the proper representation of a chromosome
for a solution because it has a significant influence on the efficiency of
SPEA2. To demonstrate the relationship of multi-charges, multi-stages
and time intervals intuitively, we have designed a novel matrix coding.
In this problem, we need to determine the processing sequence of all
casts and on which machine each cast should be processed at each pro-
duction stage. At the same time, we decide the starting time and the
ending time of each cast at each production stage. We also need to as-
sert the amount of self-generation in each time interval. Therefore, a
chromosome is made up of nine parts, which are the processing time of
all of charges (T), waiting time of all of charges (W), relative starting
time of each cast at each production stage (RST), relative ending time
of each cast at each production stage (RET), processing sequence of all
casts (R), processing machine number (M), starting time of each cast at
each production stage (ST), ending time of each cast at each production
stage (ET), and amount of self-generation in each time interval.
The processing time and waiting time of all charges in a same cast
can determine the relative starting time and ending time of the cast at
each production stage. The processing sequence and precedence rela-
tions of all casts influence the assignment of machines. The assignment
plan of machines, the relative starting time of each cast in each produc-
tion stage and precedence relations of all casts affect the starting time
of each cast in each production stage. The starting time of each cast
at each production stage and relative ending time of each cast at each
production stage determine the ending time of each cast at a same pro-
duction stage. The starting time and ending time of each cast, capacity
constraints of a generator, and three types of electricity prices influence
the amount of self-generation.
In view of the above-mentioned relationship of the nine parts of chro-
mosome, we propose the concept of the relationship propagation chain.
The nine parts of a chromosome spread forward and form a relationship
propagation chain. T and P are the head node and end node of the re-
lationship propagation chain respectively. W, RST, RET, M, R, ST and
ET are the inner nodes. The nine nodes of one relationship propagation
chain generated step by step to form a chromosome.
4.1.1. The generating procedure of nodes T and W
T is the head node of one relationship propagation chain and W is
the subsequent node of T. Both of them determine the relative starting
time and relative ending time of each cast at each production stage,
and then influence the remaining nodes of the relationship propagation
chain. Therefore, we first generate T and W for all casts.
(1) Randomly generating T and W for all casts
Suppose there are G casts that need to be scheduled and ml machines
at l production stage, then all casts follow the same processing sequence
from the first stage to the last stage and the precedence relations are
known. To obtain the relative starting time and relative ending time of
each cast at each production stage, we generate matrixes T and W of
single cast firstly. Suppose that there are Ni charges in single cast i that
must be processed from the first production stage to lmax production
stage. The row dimensions of matrixes T and W are equal to Ni , and the
column dimensions of them are lmax and lmax -1, respectively. To clearly
understand the coding structure, we will give an example below.
Example 1. Each row in Table 1 defines the minimum and maximum
processing time of each charge at each production stage. Table 2 de-
fines the transportation time and maximum waiting time between the
adjacent production stages of one charge. Matrixes T and W for a cast
contained 3 charges are randomly generated based on Eqs. (3) and (20),
as shown in Fig. 2.
(2) Adjusting T and W based on two-step adjustment strategy
Since many production constraints are contained in this problem,
the corresponding scheduling solution of T and W for a cast is often
infeasible. Therefore, we first verify its feasibility. Fig. 3 shows the
5
Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 60 (2021) 100764
Table 1
The range of processing time of charges.
Production stage(l)
Charge
1 2 3
j1 38-53 20-57 37-57
j2 38-59 24-56 39-55
j3 39-59 27-58 35-59
Table 2
Transportation time and maximum waiting time of
charges.
Adjacent production stages
Time
1-2 2-3
Transportation time 3 7
Maximum waiting time 20 20
Fig. 2. T and W for the cast contained 3 charges.
scheduling solution of T and W in Fig. 2. The value 47(1, 1) in the
first box represents 𝑝1,𝑗1 is 47 min. The value 16 between 51(2, 2) and
47(2, 3) represents 𝑤2,𝑗2 is 46 min. We can see that 𝑠2,𝑗3 is lower than
𝑠2,𝑗2 + 𝑝2,𝑗2 . Similarly, 𝑠3,𝑗3 is lower than 𝑠3,𝑗2 + 𝑝3,𝑗2 . In addition, 𝑠3,𝑗2 is
larger than 𝑠3,𝑗1 + 𝑝3,𝑗1 . Therefore, this is an infeasible chromosome that
violates the constraint of the precedence relationship of two consecutive
charges processed at a same machine and no set-up time between the
adjacent charges on the CCM is required; that is, Eqs. (4) and (5). 𝛿1, 𝛿2
and 𝛿3 are conflict positions.
To resolve conflicts, a two-step adjustment strategy is proposed. The
core of the adjustment strategy is to first lessen the process time of
the preceding charge at a same production stage (the waiting time be-
tween the current and preceding production stage) and then enlarge
the waiting time (process time), if necessary. According to the prece-
dence relationship of production stages and charges, the principle of
the adjustment strategy is to adjust the conflict position at the produc-
tion stage with the smallest index and then adjust the conflict position
of the charge with the smallest index if one production stage has several
conflict positions. For the infeasible T and W in Fig. 2, we first adjust 𝛿1
at the second production stage, and we then adjust 𝛿3 because charge
j2 is the direct predecessor of charge j3 . Finally, we adjust 𝛿2.
When adjusting 𝛿1, we need to decrease 𝑝2,𝑗2 at the first step; that
is, the value 51(2, 2) in Fig. 3. The maximum allowable adjustment
value 𝜎1(27) is the difference between 𝑝2,𝑗2 (51) and 𝑝min 2,𝑗2
(24) in Table 1.
Since 𝜎1 is larger than the minimum adjusted value 22 in 𝛿1, the con-
flict position 𝛿1 is eliminated. We then end the adjustment and update
𝑝2,𝑗2 (29=51-22), which is marked in red, and the corresponding schedul-
ing solution of T and W after adjusting 𝛿1, as shown in Fig. 4.
Although the minimum adjusted value in 𝛿2 and 𝛿3 is smaller after
adjusting 𝛿1, T and W is still infeasible. Next, we will adjust 𝛿3. When
adjusting 𝛿3, we need to decrease 𝑤2,𝑗2 at the first step; that is, the value
16 between 29(2, 2) and 47(2, 3) in Fig. 4. The maximum allowable ad-
justment value 𝜎2(9) is the difference between 𝑤2,𝑗2 (16) and tr2 (7) in
Table 2. Since 𝜎2 is smaller than the minimum adjusted value 10 in 𝛿3,
the conflict position 𝛿3 still exists. We update 𝑤2,𝑗2 (7=16-9) and the min-
imum adjusted value in 𝛿3(1=10-9), and we then further increase 𝑝3,𝑗1 .
The maximum allowable adjustment 𝜎1(20) is the difference between
𝑝max
1,𝑗
(57) in Table 1 and 𝑝3,𝑗1 (37). Since 𝜎1(20) is larger than 𝛿3(1), the
3
J. Cao, R. Pan, X. Xia et al.
Fig. 3. Scheduling solution for the cast contained 3 charges.
Fig. 4. Scheduling solution after adjusting 𝛿1.
conflict position of 𝛿3 is eliminated. We then end the adjustment, and
update 𝑝3,𝑗1 (38=37+1) and the corresponding scheduling solution of T
and W after adjusting 𝛿3, as shown in Fig. 5. The values after adjusting
𝑝3,𝑗1 and 𝑤2,𝑗2 are marked in red.
We can see from Fig. 5 that 𝑠3,𝑗3 is larger than 𝑠3,𝑗2 + 𝑝3,𝑗2 , which is
similar to the case of conflict position 𝛿3, while 𝛿2 is still in the conflict
position. Similarly, we adjust 𝛿2 according the adjusting method of 𝛿3.
We decrease 𝑤2,𝑗3 at the first step; that is, the value 19 between 43(3, 2)
and 51(3, 3) in Fig. 5. The maximum allowable adjustment value 𝜎2(11)
is the difference between 𝑤2,𝑗3 (19) and tr2 (7) in Table 1. Since 𝜎2 is
larger than the minimum adjusted value 8 in 𝛿3, the conflict position 𝛿3
is eliminated. We end the adjustment and we then update 𝑤2,𝑗3 , which
is marked in red (11=19-8), and the corresponding scheduling solution
of T and W after adjusting 𝛿2, as shown in Fig. 6.
After individually adjusting 𝛿1, 𝛿3, and 𝛿2, all of the conflict posi-
tions are eliminated, and the scheduling solution of T and W becomes
feasible. Matrixes T and W are shown in Fig. 7, in which the adjusted
values are marked with an ∗ .
We propose a general two-step adjustment strategy according to the
adjustment procedure for conflict positions in the infeasible T and W of
a cast. We divide the conflict positions into two cases, which adopt dif-
6
Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 60 (2021) 100764
ferent adjustment strategies according to the relationship between the
starting time of the current charge and the ending time of the preced-
ing charge at a same production stage. Suppose that the conflict posi-
tion is charge j at production stage l, for the case of sl, j is lower than
𝑠𝑙,𝑗−1 + 𝑝𝑙,𝑗−1 , we first lessen 𝑝𝑙,𝑗−1 and we then enlarge 𝑤𝑙−1,𝑗 , if neces-
sary. Where sl, j is larger than 𝑠𝑙,𝑗−1 + 𝑝𝑙,𝑗−1 , we first lessen 𝑤𝑙−1,𝑗 and we
then enlarge 𝑝𝑙,𝑗−1 , if necessary.
For the first case, Fig. 8 shows our adjustment strategy in detail. Sup-
pose the conflict position 𝛿 is charge j at production stage l, and charge
j-1 is the preceding charge of charge j. The minimum value that needs to
be adjusted in 𝛿 is𝑉𝛿 (𝑠𝑙,𝑗−1 + 𝑝𝑙,𝑗−1 − 𝑠𝑙,𝑗 ). The process time of charge j-1
at l production stage is equal to the element T(j-1,l) in matrix T, where
𝑝min is the minimum process time of charge j-1 at the production stage l.
𝑙,𝑗−1
The waiting time of the current charge between the production stage l-1
and l is equal to the element W(j,l-1) in matrix W, and wt is the maximum
waiting time between production stage l-1 and l. In the first step, we de-
crease T(j-1,l) based on Eqs. (4), (5) and (20). If the maximum allowable
adjustment value 𝜎1 of T(j-1,l) is larger than V𝛿 , then 𝛿 is eliminated.
We end the adjustment and update T(j-1, l) and V𝛿 ; otherwise, we need
to further increase W(j,l-1) based on Eq. (3). If the maximum allowable
adjustment value 𝜎2 of W(j,l-1) is larger than V𝛿 , then 𝛿 is eliminated
J. Cao, R. Pan, X. Xia et al.
Fig. 5. Scheduling solution after adjusting 𝛿3.
Fig. 6. Scheduling solution after adjusting 𝛿2.
Fig. 7. T and W for the cast contained 3 charges after adjustment.
and we end the adjustment and update W(j,l-1); otherwise, we quit the
adjustment.
For the second case, we adopt the two-step adjustment strategy in
Fig. 9. V𝛿 , T(j-1, l), W(j, l-1) are same as in the previous case. 𝑝max is
𝑙,𝑗−1
the maximum process time of charge j-1 at production stage l, and trl
is the minimum waiting time between the production stage l-1 and l.
We first decrease W(j, l-1) based on Eq. (3). If the maximum allowable
adjustment value 𝜎2 of W(j, l-1) is larger than V𝛿 , then 𝛿 is eliminated.
We then end the adjustment and update W(j, l-1) and V𝛿 ; otherwise, we
need to further increase T(j-1, l) based on Eqs. (4), (5) and (20). If the
maximum allowable adjustment value 𝜎1 of T(j-1, l) is larger than V𝛿 ,
7
Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 60 (2021) 100764
then 𝛿 is eliminated, and we end the adjustment and update T(j-1, l);
otherwise, we quit the adjustment.
For randomly generated T and W at each cast, we evaluate their
feasibility by the scheduling solution. If the scheduling solution is infea-
sible, we first find out the conflict positions, then judge which conflict
case it belongs to, and select corresponding adjustment strategy. Since
the allowable adjustment of process time is large for all of charges, the
proposed approach can usually transform the infeasible T and W into
the feasible ones within two steps.
4.1.2. The generating procedure of the remaining nodes of relationship
propagation chain
After T and W of all casts are generated, the nodes RST and RET can
be obtained accordingly. And then, we generate the remaining codes of
the relationship propagation chain. The coding procedures are described
in detail through the following steps in Algorithm 1 and an example is
given in Example 2 to clearly understand the structure of a chromosome.
Example 2. There are four casts {1 2 3 4} and the number of charges in
each cast are 12, 11, 10 and 13 respectively. The number of machines
at each production stage is ml = (2 2 2). The set of the precedence re-
lationship of casts are E1 = {1, 2}, E2 = {3, 4}. The nodes T, W, RST,
J. Cao, R. Pan, X. Xia et al.
Fig. 8. The two-step adjustment strategy for case of 𝛿1.
Fig. 9. The two-step adjustment strategy for case of 𝛿3.
RET, R, M, ST, ET, and P of the relationship propagation chain are gen-
erated randomly one after another to form a chromosome, as shown in
Fig. 10. T1, T2, T3 and T4 are the processing time matrixes of Casts 1-
4 respectively. W1, W2, W3 and W4 are the waiting time matrixes of
Casts 1-4 respectively. RST and RET obtained according to T1, T2, T3,
T4, W1, W2, W3, and W4.We marked Cast1, Cast2 with red and Cast3,
Cast4 with green in the inner nodes to more clearly show the precedence
relationship. The node R= [1 3 2 4]’ represents the processing sequence
of four casts. M is generated randomly according to the head node R,
E1 and E2. EAF1, EFA2, LF1, and LF2 are assigned randomly at the first
two production stages. At the third production stage, Cast1, Cast2 are
assigned to CCM1 and Cast3, Cast4 are assigned to CCM2, which en-
sures the precedence relationship of casts. CCM1 and CCM2 are shown
in bold in M. ST is generated randomly according to node M, RST, E1
and E2. We first generate the starting time of Cast1 and Cast3 because
they are the first casts waiting to be processed at the machine assigned
at the first production stage. We then generate the starting time of Cast2
and Cast4, which are restricted by the ending time of Cast1 and Cast3,
respectively, to meet the precedence relationship of casts. According to
ST and RET, ET can be obtained. We first calculate the electric power
consumption in each time interval according to ST and ET, the capac-
ity constraints of the generator and three types of electricity prices, and
we then generate the end node P randomly while staying within the
self-generator constraints.
8
Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 60 (2021) 100764
Algorithm 1 The coding procedure of a chromosome.
Input: The population size, NP; range of processing time at stage l, tjl ;
transportation time of cast j at stage l, tr slj ; The machine set at stage l, ml
Output: The initial population, P0 ={𝑋10 , 𝑋20 , ...𝑋𝑖0 ..., 𝑋𝑁𝑃
0
}
1. initialize P0
2. set feasibilityTest = 0
3. generate an initial head node T and node W for all casts // Eqs. (3) and
(20)
4. for i =1 to NP do
5. while feasibilityTest == 0 do
6. Xi .RST← Xi .(T,W)
7. Xi .RET←Xi .(T,W) // Eqs. (6)–(8)
8. Randomly generate the inner node R.
9. Xi .M←Xi .(R,ml )
10. Xi .ST←Xi .(R,M,RST) // Eqs. (22)
11. Xi .ET←Xi .ST + Xi .RET
12. feasibilityTest () // Eqs. (4)and(5)
13. end while
14. X.P←Cost(X.ST, X.ET)// Eqs. (18) and (19)
15. i ← i+1
16. end for
17. return P0 {T, W, R, M, RST, RET, ST, ET, P}
Based on the algorithm above mentioned, a chromosome can be gen-
erated. And then, we generate an initial population with N chromo-
somes.
4.2. Hybrid crossover operator based on the concentration-diffusion
mechanism
The traditional crossover methods, such as one-point or multi-point
crossover, are no longer applicable when a chromosome is coded as ma-
trix form. These crossover methods are easily result in the process time
or/and waiting time in the matrix exceeding or falling below the allow-
able limit. A novel crossover mechanism is proposed for the particularity
of our problem. The head node influences the remaining nodes by the
relationship propagation chain. If the head nodes of the two selected
chromosomes are the crossover locations, then the remaining nodes of
the chains are all changed because of the propagation relationship and
two new chromosomes are obtained. Therefore, the offspring obtained
would be irrelevant to the parents, which violates the main function of
crossover operator, i.e., the offspring are supposed to inherit excellent
genes from the parents. If the end nodes of the two chosen chromosomes
are the crossover locations, then the offspring after crossover would be
highly similar to the parents. To achieve a better crossover result, we
only change the head nodes T and W for one cast which is selected ran-
domly from all casts considering the previous two cases. We propose two
crossover approaches based on the concentration-diffusion mechanism
to expand the search space and to ensure the feasibility of offspring. We
describe the hybrid crossover operator in detail through the following
steps in Algorithm 2 and we give an example in Example 3.
Example 3. The predetermined selection probability for the previous
two crossover approaches pc1 is 0.5 to ensure uniformity of the offspring.
When the random value rc1 is smaller than 0.5, the chosen T1, W1, T2,
W2 will be executed the first crossover approach. Next, we take the first
element 52 in T1 and the first element 43 in T2 as an example to indicate
the crossover operation. The bigger value 52 is assigned to T1 and the
smaller value 43 is assigned to T2. Similarly, we do the same conversion
for all of elements in matrixes T1, T2, W1 and W2. The crossover results
are shown in Fig. 11, where the changed values are marked in red.
When the random value rc1 is larger than 0.5, the chosen T1, W1,
T2, W2 will be executed the second crossover approach. Next, we take
the first element 52 in T1 and the first element 43 in T2 as an example
to indicate the crossover operation. We calculate the difference Δt(4)
between 52 and 43, and randomly generate a value (rc2 =2) between 0
and 9(52-43=9). We select a larger value 52 minus rc2 (52-2=50), and a
J. Cao, R. Pan, X. Xia et al. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 60 (2021) 100764

Algorithm 2 Hybrid crossover operator based on the concentration-diffusion Algorithm 3 Mutation operator.
mechanism.
Input: The population 𝑃 = {𝑋1 , 𝑋2 , ⋯ 𝑋𝑖 ⋯ , 𝑋𝑁𝑃 }; mutation probability, pm
Input: The population 𝑃 = {𝑋1 , 𝑋2 , ⋯ 𝑋𝑖 ⋯ , 𝑋𝑁𝑃 }; crossover probability, pc 1 ; Output: The mutated population P’
Output: The crossed population P’ set P’= P
set P’ = P set feasibilityTest = 0
for i =1 to NP do for i =1 to NP do
Calculate Xi .rank and Xi .dist while feasibilityTest == 0 do
end for Randomly choose two positions, j1 and j2
set y = 1 𝛾= random(0, Δt)
set feasibilityTest = 0 if rand ≤ pm
for i =1 to NP/2 do max(T(j1 , l), T (j2 , l))←max(max(T(j1 , l), T(j2 , l)) - 𝛾, min(T(j1 , l), T (j2, l))+ 𝛾)
while feasibilityTest == 0 do min(T(j1 , l), T(j2 , l))←min(max(T(j1 , l), T(j2 , l)) - 𝛾, min(T(j1 , l), T(j2 , l))+ 𝛾)
Randomly choose two chromosomes1 and 2 RST ← (T′, W′)
Δt= |T1- T2| RET ← (T′, W′)
rc2 = random(0, Δt) Randomly generate the inner node R.
if rand <pc 1 M ← (R, ml )
T1←max(T1, T2) ST ← (R, M, RST)
T2←min(T1, T2) ET ← ST+RET
W1←max(W1, W2) end if
W2←min(W1, W2) feasibilityTest ()
else end while
max(T1, T2)←max(max(T1, T2)- rc2 , min(T1, T2) + rc2 ) P←Cost(ST, ET)
min(T1, T2)←min(max(T1, T2)- rc2 , min(T1, T2) + rc2 ) i ← i+1
(RST1 , RST2 )←(T1 , W1 , T2 , W2 ) end for
(RET1 , RET2 )←(T1 , W1 , T2 , W2 ) return P’{T, W, R, M, RST, RET, ST, ET, P}
Randomly generate the inner node R1 , R2 .
( M 1 , M 2 )← ( R 1 , m l 1 , R 2 , m l 2 )
(ST1 , ST2 )← (R1 , M1 , RST1 , R2 , M2 , RST2 ) Table 3
(ET1 , ET2 )← (ST1 +RET1 , ST2 +RET2 ) The ranges of the minimum and maximum processing time in
end if each stage.
feasibilityTest () // Eq. (30)-(32)
end while l=1 l=2 l=3
P1←Cost (ST1, ET1) min max min max
pl pl pl pl pl min pl max
P2←Cost (ST2, ET2)
[35,40] [50,55] [15,20] [55,60] [35,40] [50,55]
i ← i+1
end for
return P’{T, W, R, M, RST, RET, ST, ET, P}
worst case. Therefore, the whole complexity of the improved algorithm
is O((GK+max{Ni })lmax ).
smaller value 43 plus rc2 (43+2=45). We then assign 50 to T1 and 45 to
T2. Similarly, we do the same conversion for all of elements in matrixes 5. Computational experiments and results
T1, T2, W1 and W2. The crossover results are shown in Fig. 12, where
the changed values are marked in red. Our algorithm was implemented in MATLAB 2015b on an Intel Core
i7-4940 3.6-GHz using the Linux operating system. To evaluate the per-
4.3. Mutation operator formance of the proposed heuristic algorithm, we used the same test
instances to make a fair comparison. The parameter settings that we
In SPEA2, the mutation operator helps to impose variety and diver- used are as follows. The transportation time between the steelmaking
sity in the population. Since there are many constraints of the scheduling and refining stage is randomly generated from a uniform distribution
problem, the traditional mutation operator is impracticable because it (2, 5) minutes, while the transportation time between the refining and
easily falls into the local optimum. Therefore, we propose a powerful casting stage is randomly generated in (6, 10) minutes. The unit energy
mutation operator, which is accomplished through the following steps consumption of EAFs is d1=1000 KWH, for LFs d2=150 KWH and CCMs
in Algorithm 3, and we give an example in Example 4. d3=50 KWH. The ranges of the minimum and maximum processing time
for charges in each stage are illustrated in Table 3. The maximum wait-
Example 4. We randomly choose one chromosome from the cur- ing time is W = 20 min and the set-up time is S = 5 min. The output of
rent population. According to Algorithm 3, two positions (j1 =1 and the generator ranges from 95 to 150 MW, and the ramp-up/down rate
j2 =2) are randomly generated. Next, we take the elements T(1,1)(43) of the generator is 40 MW/h. We use three types of electricity prices of
and T(2,1)(42) as an example, and we then calculate the difference TOU electricity tariffs, self-generation cost, and on-grid electrovalence,
Δt(Δt=|43- 42|=1) and randomly generate a value (𝛾=1) between 0 and which are implemented in Shaanxi Province, China, for general industry
Δt. We select the bigger value 43 minus 1 (43-1=42), the smaller value (under 10 KV), as given in Table 4. It is assumed that 0 a.m. of one day
42 plus 1 (42+1=43). Since T(1,1) is bigger than T(2,1), 43 and 42 are is the start point of the scheduling horizon.
assigned to T(1,1) and T(2,1), respectively. Similarly, we do the same
conversion for all of elements in matrixes T and W. The mutation result 5.1. Performance analysis of the model and heuristic algorithm
is shown in Fig. 13, where the changed values are marked in red.
In this section, we apply the improved SPEA2 to solve the scheduling
4.4. Complexity of the improved SPEA2 based on the hybrid adjustment problem of multi-casts. Fig. 14 shows the Pareto fronts of four casts’ case.
strategy of the single cast stage To evaluate the performance of the improved algorithm, we first com-
pare the makespan with CPLEX, which was used to solve the scheduling
Given that there are G casts, lmax production stages, K periods of problem of single cast in Tan and Liu [31]. The makespan of four single
time, and Ni charges in single cast i, the complexity of the above- casts obtained by CPLEX are 2028 min, while the minimum makespan
mentioned encoding, crossover, and mutation operator for SPEA2 are obtained by our approach with consideration of multi-casts simultane-
O((GK+max{Ni })lmax ), O((GK+max{Ni })lmax ), and O(GKlmax ) in the ously can reach 2010 min.

9
J. Cao, R. Pan, X. Xia et al.
Fig. 10. Chromosome representation.
Second, we compare the total electricity cost between the iron-steel
plant under TOU electricity tariffs and the iron-steel plant equipped with
self-generation equipment under TOU electricity tariffs. The total elec-
tricity cost under TOU electricity tariffs is 1 054 376 yuan. However, the
total electricity cost reduced observably in our results. We can see from
the Fig. 14, the maximum total electricity cost is 825 385 yuan, and the
minimum total electricity cost can be down to 768 785 yuan. The results
10
Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 60 (2021) 100764
Fig. 11. The crossover results for T1, W1, T2, W2 for
the chosen cast.
reveal that the total electricity cost can be reduced by 27.11% at most
when the iron-steel plant is equipped with self-generation equipment.
Each solution in the Pareto fronts corresponds to a scheduling
scheme. We show the scheduling scheme of the first solution in the
Pareto fronts in Figs. 15 and 16. The box with the same color in
Fig. 15 represents a cast. The value in the box represents the index of
cast and the production stage it lies. For example, (1, 1) represents Cast1
J. Cao, R. Pan, X. Xia et al. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 60 (2021) 100764

Fig. 12. The crossover results for T1, W1, T2, W2 for the chosen cast.

Fig. 13. An example for the mutation op-

erator.

Table 4
Three types of electricity prices.

Period type TOU electricity tariffs (CNY/KWH) Self-generation cost (CNY/ KWH) On-grid electrovalence (CNY/ KWH) Time periods

On- 0.95 0.2 0.3 8:00~11:00

peak 18:00~21:00
Mid- 0.6 0.5 0.3 6:00~8:00
peak 11:00~18:00
21:00~22:00
Off- 0.4 0.6 0.3 0:00~6:00
peak 22:00~24:00

Fig. 14. The optimizing curves for the four casts.

11
J. Cao, R. Pan, X. Xia et al. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 60 (2021) 100764

Fig. 15. The scheduling solution for the four casts.

Fig. 16. The scheduling solution for all charges included in the same cast.

at the first stage. We can see that the scheduling solution meets the con-
straints of the number of machines and precedence relationship for casts
processed on the same CCM. Cast1 and Cast2 are at the same CCM, and
Cast1 is prior to Cast2. Cast3 and Cast4 are at the same CCM, and Cast3
is prior to Cast4.
The four casts in Fig. 15 have different number of charges and
the scheduling solutions for all charges included in same cast are
shown in Fig. 16. Each box represents a charge with its production
stage. The value in a box represents the process time of a charge at
the current production stage. We can see that the scheduling solu-
tion meets the process constraints of the waiting time, transportation
time of two adjacent production stages, and continuous casting con-
straint. The results of the experiment have confirmed that the proposed
approach is effective to produce the daily schedule for an iron-steel

12
J. Cao, R. Pan, X. Xia et al. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 60 (2021) 100764

Table 5
Performance of the improved algorithm and CPLEX.

Cast the improved SPEA2 CPLEX

Case m1∗ m2∗ m3n Size
obj1 (min) obj2 (yuan) CPU (s) obj1 (min) obj2 (yuan) CPU (s)

1 2∗ 2∗ 2 46 [12,11, 10,13] 2010 825385 1.21 2006 755958 423.42

2 2∗ 2∗ 2 59 [11,9,9, 8,12,10] 2662 1144520 0.96 2635 1109470 292.45
3 3∗ 3∗ 3 70 [13,11, 12,9, 12,13] 3062 1143680 2.89 3077 1149740 600.36
4 3∗ 3∗ 3 86 [8,9,10, 10,9,10, 9,12,9] 3855 1598330 2.32 3878 1602760 600.79
5 3∗ 4∗ 3 81 [9,12,8, 9,10,8, 8,9,8] 3649 1478680 5.17 3665 1487100 602.01
6 4∗ 4∗ 4 107 [11,9,10, 11,10,8, 10,14, 7,9,8] 4810 194608 5.22 4788 1953740 601.33
7 5∗ 5∗ 5 116 [7,10,8, 11,12, 9,10,8, 12,10, 12,11] 5345 2019510 7.29 5356 2040120 600.17
8 5∗ 6∗ 5 125 [9,10,8, 11,12, 8,10,8, 12,14, 12,11] 5562 2150130 12.41 5595 2163630 602.11
9 6∗ 6∗ 5 129 [9,10,8, 11,12, 8,10,8, 9,10,8, 14,12] 5778 2293640 17.85 5781 2307150 601.37
10 6∗ 6∗ 6 141 [14,12, 13,11, 10,12, 12,11, 13,12, 10,11] 6154 2296820 16.2 6186 2306190 603.49

plant equipped with self-generation equipment under TOU electricity

tariffs.
The number of equipment and the scale of casts in each production
stage have a great impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of the algo-
rithm, especially in the production stage with large casts and equipment
bottlenecks. Therefore, we use 10 test cases to analyze the performance
of the improved SPEA2 and CPLEX, respectively. The termination condi-
tion of CPLEX is to obtain the optimal solution or reach the CPU running
time of 600s. The experimental results are shown in Table 5.
According to Table 5, we can draw the following conclusions: CPLEX
only obtains the optimal solution for small-scale test cases. With the
increase of problem scale, the gap between the solution of CPLEX and the
near optimal solution obtained by our algorithm increases. Therefore,
based on the results of large-scale test cases, our algorithm has better
optimization effect and time efficiency than CPLEX.

5.2. Performance measures of Pareto fronts

To further verify the performance of our algorithm, we compare it

with the well-known NSGA-II algorithm [12] and the recently popular
multi-objective algorithms HMOBSA [11], MOACO [17,27,28], NSGA-
III [39], and MODE [40]. The reasons for selecting the above five al- Fig. 17. Pareto Fronts of six algorithms for 4 casts.
gorithms are as follows: (1) NSGA-II is a very famous algorithm for
multi-objective optimization and has been extensively applied to solve
scheduling problems; (2) HMOBSA is one of the recently published algo- the average closest distance of sample points on the Pareto front to the
rithms for solving the energy-saving hybrid flow shop scheduling prob- obtained solutions. Let Q be the obtained solution set and P∗ be a set of
lems, which have similar features with the considered problems in this non-dominated solutions on the Pareto front. Then,
paper; (3) MOACO is widely used in solving combinatorial optimization ∑
problems because of its unique pheromone feedback mechanism and has
( ) 𝑣∈𝑃 ∗ 𝑑 (𝑣, 𝑄)
𝐼𝐺𝐷 𝑃 ∗ , 𝑄 = , (24)
been verified to be efficient for solving multi-stage hybrid flow shop |𝑃 ∗ |
scheduling problems; (4) NSGA-III is an upgraded version of NSGA2, where |Q| is the number of solutions in Q, and d(v, Q) is the closest
which is applied to solve the multi-objective scheduling problem with Euclidean distance from point v to a point in Q.
remarkable effect; (5) MODE is a new multi-objective optimization al-
gorithm developed in recent years, which can effectively solve many
5.2.1. The superiority of the improved SPEA2 in Pareto Front
continuous and discrete multi-objective optimization problems.
We take the datasets provided by Section 5.1 for the experiments.
To evaluate the quality of Pareto fronts, we adopt two metrics:
The improved SPEA2, NSGA-II, HMOBSA, MOACO, NSGA-III, and
Spread [41] and Inverted Generational Distance (IGD) [42]. The smaller
MODE randomly run 10 times for Case 1, respectively. Fig. 17 gives the
Spread and IGD are, the better the diversity and convergence of solu-
distributions of non-dominated solutions generated by six algorithms.
tions are. Their specific definitions are as follows.
In Fig. 17, the non-dominated solutions of the improved SPEA2 dom-
The extent of spread achieved among the obtained solutions can be
inate all solutions of the remaining five algorithms. It is obviously that
measured by ∆ usually. We calculate the Euclidean distance di between
the solution generation mechanism based on relation propagation chain
consecutive solutions in the obtained non-dominated set. 𝑑̄ is the aver-
can help the algorithm obtain the preeminent population, and the hy-
age of all distances di (i=1, 2, …, N-1). Then,
brid crossover operator based on the concentration-diffusion mechanism
∑ ( )
𝑑𝑓 + 𝑑𝑙 + 𝑁−1
𝑖=1 𝑑𝑖 − 𝑑̄ can improve the global search ability and remain population diversity.
Δ= , (23) Besides, the improved hybrid mutation operator can avoid plunging
𝑑𝑓 + 𝑑𝑙 + (𝑁 − 1)𝑑̄
into local optimum and make the algorithm converge quickly. NSGA-II
where df and dl are the Euclidean distances between the extreme solu- and NSGA-III also perform well in the approximation of the real Pareto
tions and boundary solutions of the obtained non-dominated set. fronts, but are slightly inferior to our algorithm.
IGD is an improved version of Generational Distance (GD) that takes Although the HMOBSA is inferior to the three algorithms mentioned
both diversity and convergence of solutions into account. It calculates above, it is obviously better than MOACO and MODE in convergence.

13
J. Cao, R. Pan, X. Xia et al. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 60 (2021) 100764

Table 6
Mean and standard deviation of ∆ and IGD with iterations of 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40.

iterations
metric
20 25 30 35 40

Δ(mean) 0.8113 0.7950 0.7868 0.6984 0.6741

Δ(var) 0.0043 0.0077 0.0026 0.0169 0.0181
IGD(mean) 0.0238 0.0224 0.0244 0.0262 0.0261
IGD(var) 1.024e-05 1.8414e-05 1.8049e-05 8.804e-05 1.2555e-04

Table 7
Results of six algorithms on IGD (Case 1).

Iterations the improved SPEA2 NSGA-II NSGA-III MOACO MODE HMOBSA

mean mean mean mean mean mean

20 0.024 0.046 0.039 0.561 0.564 0.114
25 0.023 0.044 0.038 0.553 0.540 0.103
30 0.024 0.041 0.038 0.547 0.528 0.108
35 0.026 0.041 0.035 0.538 0.523 0.096
40 0.026 0.037 0.035 0.519 0.513 0.098

Table 8
Results of six algorithms on Spread (Case 1).

the improved SPEA2 NSGA-II NSGA-III MOACO MODE HMOBSA

Iterations
mean var mean var mean var mean var mean var mean var

20 0.811 0.004 0.873 0.018 0.847 0.008 0.9774 0.008 1.0804 0.0119 1.1629 0.0147
25 0.795 0.008 1.035 0.023 1.006 0.007 0.9405 0.007 1.0431 0.0134 1.1524 0.0177
30 0.787 0.003 1.300 0.022 1.160 0.002 0.9095 0.019 1.0259 0.0122 1.1338 0.0128
35 0.700 0.017 1.159 0.028 1.115 0.003 0.8653 0.013 1.0494 0.0178 1.1438 0.0103
40 0.674 0.026 1.102 0.021 1.122 0.003 0.9719 0.014 1.0623 0.0105 1.1538 0.0175

Due to the historical information guiding the evolution of population,
HMOBSA can produce populations with significant differences in the
early evolution stage, which has strong global exploration ability; how-
ever, in the later evolution stage, the difference between the new popu-
lation and historical population is small, which is not conducive to the
further exploration of the algorithm in the solution space; therefore, it
is prone to premature. In solving our problem, MOACO and MODE are
prone to local optimization and present poor convergence, because the
performance of them is highly dependent on control parameters which
need to determine by numerous experiments.
5.2.2. The superiority of the improved SPEA2 in evaluation metrics
Ten independent simulation runs are conducted using six algorithms
respectively with different iterations of 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40. Tables 6–
8 take Case 1 as an example to record the change process of evaluation
metrics as the number of iterations increases. Tables 9 and 10 report the
computational results and running time of them in different cases.
Table 6 shows the mean and standard deviation values of ∆ and
IGD about the improved SPEA2. We can see that, ∆ becomes smaller as
iteration increases while IGD remains stable relatively under different
iterations. Since both of them are relatively small in mean and standard
deviation, it reveals that the Pareto front obtained by our algorithm has
a good spread and converges to the true Pareto-optimal front.
The IGD and Spread values among six algorithms under itera-
tions = 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 are reported in Tables 7 and 8, respectively.
It can be seen from Table 7 that the IGD value of our algorithm has been
in a stable state, because the algorithm has been approximately con-
verged in about 20 generations. The IGD values of NSGA-II and NSGA-III
gradually stabilized around 30 generations. But their values are bigger
than those of the improved SPEA2, which means Pareto Fronts of them
are dominated by the improved SPEA2. The values of MOACO are the
worst and are constantly changing, which indicates that the convergence
and diverse of the algorithm is poor. The Spread values among six al-
gorithms are shown in Table 8. Clearly, NSGA-III is better than NSGA-II
with great stability of diversity (the values of var are much smaller),
but still less diverse than the improved SPEA2 (the values of mean are a
bit larger). The mean and var of the improved SPEA2 are much smaller
than those of NSGA-II and NSGA-III, which indicates that the diversity
of the improved SPEA2 is better and its performance is more stable.
MOACO and MODE show better population diversity and stability than
HMOBSA. The above results can also be verified from Fig. 17.
Tables 9 and 10 describe the IGD values and running time for dif-
ferent cases under iterations = 40, respectively. We can observe that:
(1) considering the IGD values, the proposed algorithm obtains optimal
values for all of cases except Case 2, which indicates our algorithm is
superior to other comparison algorithms in convergence and diversity;
(2) comparing running times, our algorithm is faster than the others in
most cases. Although it is not optimal in a few cases, it has a small dif-
ference with the optimal time, which verifies the time efficiency of the
algorithm.
5.3. Energy consumption curve
We have shown the feasibility of the scheduling solution by ana-
lyzing the process constraints from the previous section, and we then
show the superiority of the scheduling solution by analyzing the energy
consumption curve. The energy consumption curve clearly reflects the
electric power consumption distribution in one schedule cycle. It also
provides an effective way to analyze the performance of different opti-
mal algorithms.
The electric power consumption curve and amount of self-generation
of four casts are shown in Fig. 18. EPC represents the electric power
consumption in each time interval while ASG represents the amount of
self-generation in each time interval, and the blue histogram graph de-
notes the TOU electricity tariffs. Although ASG is in accordance with the
change of EPC, they are different in some time intervals. In time interval
A, ASG is 0 KW because the self-generation cost is higher than the TOU
electricity tariffs and EPC can be met by the electricity providers. In
time interval B, ASG is larger than EPC because the self-generation cost
is lower than the TOU electricity tariffs and the surplus power is sold to

14
J. Cao, R. Pan, X. Xia et al. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 60 (2021) 100764

Table 9
Results of six algorithms on IGD (iterations 40).

Case the improved SPEA2 NSGA-II NSGA-III MOACO MODE HMOBSA

mean mean mean mean mean mean

1 0.026 0.037 0.035 0.519 0.513 0.098

2 0.017 0.029 0.013 0.306 0.274 0.079
3 0.025 0.045 0.035 0.500 0.443 0.115
4 0.029 0.044 0.046 0.406 0.336 0.089
5 0.034 0.078 0.047 0.952 0.502 0.123
6 0.027 0.065 0.061 0. 864 0.692 0.128
0.026 0.068 0.059 0.843 0.710 0.104
7
0.029 0.089 0.067 1.024 0.872 0.162
8 0.043 0.122 0.094 1.774 1.602 0.304
9 0.041 0.118 0.104 1.871 1.668 0.476
10

Table 10
Computational times of six algorithms (iterations 40).

Running Time(s)
Case
the improved SPEA2 NSGA-III NSGA-II MOACO MODE HMOBSA

1 1.06 1.35 1.23 2.11 1.57 1.45

2 1.21 1.23 1.37 2.47 1.60 2.19
3 2.89 2.96 3.13 5.83 4.80 4.47
4 2.32 3.47 3.88 5.47 5.55 4.85
5 5.17 5.78 5.93 8.34 7.37 6.05
6 5.22 6.13 6.79 9.27 8.18 5.38
7 7.29 7.54 8.81 10.02 9.11 6.33
8 12.41 14.27 15.13 16.11 11.54 12.99
9 17.85 18.42 18.50 21.36 18.37 17.34
10 16.20 17.83 19.17 20.45 19.25 15.66

Fig. 18. The curves of electric power consumption and the amount of self-generation.

15
J. Cao, R. Pan, X. Xia et al.
Fig. 19. TOU electricity tariffs and the new price.
electricity providers. In time interval C, ASG is equal to EPC. It can be
seen that the EPC of our scheduling solution is higher in on-peak and
mid-peak periods for the iron-steel plant equipped with self-generation
under TOU electricity tariffs. This is different from the traditional sched-
ule solutions under TOU electricity tariffs, which decrease the energy
consumption in on-peak periods and increase the energy consumption
in off-peak periods. Since EPC can mainly be met by the self-generation
in on-peak and mid-peak periods and the self-generation cost is lower
than the TOU electricity tariffs in two different periods, the electricity
cost is lower in these periods.
The blue line in Fig. 19 represents the TOU electricity tariffs, and
the red line represents the new electricity price that is generated by
TOU electricity tariffs, self-generation cost, and on-grid electrovalence
combined. We can see that the new electricity price is always lower or
equal to the TOU electricity tariffs. Therefore, the total electricity cost is
reduced, even though the total power consumption is higher in on-peak
periods.
6. Conclusions
This paper addresses a daily schedule of an iron-steel plant equipped
with self-generation equipment under TOU electricity tariffs. The prob-
lem that we have considered is different from the traditional scheduling
problem under TOU electricity tariffs because the electricity price is si-
multaneously influenced by TOU electricity tariffs, self-generation cost,
and on-grid electrovalence. The goal of the scheduling problem is to re-
duce the makespan and total electricity cost by determining the optimal
amount of self-generation and the optimal starting time of all of charges
at each production stage. Based on the characteristics of the problem, a
multi-objective mathematical model is proposed. We conduct a relation-
ship propagation chain which is according to the propagation relation-
ship of nine parts in a chromosome. Furthermore, to enhance the global
and local search ability of SPEA2, a hybrid crossover operator based on
16
Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 60 (2021) 100764
the concentration-diffusion mechanism and a new mutation approach
are proposed.
Experimental results have revealed that the improved algorithm is
effective in finding high-quality solutions in reasonable time, meeting
the complicated and changeable cases of production scheduling, and
the total electricity cost can decrease drastically with less total com-
pletion time of jobs. In addition, we have two new findings. On the one
hand, the energy consumption of our scheduling solution is higher in on-
peak and mid-peak periods when the iron-steel plant is equipped with
self-generation equipment under TOU electricity tariffs. This is differ-
ent from the traditional schedule solution under TOU electricity tariffs,
which shift electricity usage from on-peak periods to off-peak or mid-
peak periods. On the other hand, a new electricity price arises from TOU
electricity price, self-generation cost, and on-grid electrovalence. There-
fore, the total electricity cost can be formulated as the sum of the arith-
metic product of electric power consumption and new electricity price
in each time interval. In our scheduling solutions, the new electricity
price is always lower or equal to the TOU electricity tariffs, which low-
ers the total electricity cost, even though the total power consumption
is higher in on-peak periods.
In our future research, the machine restart mechanism of the steel-
making process under a new electricity price will be studied to decrease
the electricity cost because idle machines consume a large amount of
energy. In addition, the self-generation amount of iron-steel plant also
comes from the utilization of residual heat and energy in EAFs and heat-
ing furnaces, which are related to production loads. Therefore, to make
a more accurate scheme, it is recommended that the response approach
should be used to study the amount of self-generation, outsourcing, and
selling power in light of self-generation by EAFs and heating furnaces.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None
J. Cao, R. Pan, X. Xia et al.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China (Grant Nos. 71772002 and 61702006) and the
Open Fund of Key Laboratory of Anhui Higher Education Institutes
(CS2019-ZD01).
Author Statement
Manuscript title: An efficient scheduling approach for an iron-steel
plant equipped with self-generation equipment under time-of-use elec-
tricity tariffs
Ruilin Pan contributed to the overall idea, algorithm, and wrote the
manuscript; Jianhua Cao, Xue Xia, and Xuemin Wang coded algorithms
and contributed to the detailed writing as well as the revision, prepara-
tion, and publishing of this paper; Xue Xia and Xuemei Shao contributed
to data analyses and discussions on the scheduling model considering
energy consumption; Xue Xia analyzed the characteristics of the prob-
lem. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.swevo.2020.100764.
References
[1] C.W. Park, K.S. Kwon, W.B. Kim, et al., Energy consumption reduction technology
in manufacturing - A selective review of policies, standards, and research, Int. J.
Precis. Eng. Man. 10 (5) (2009) 151–173.
[2] R. Blundell, R. Griffith, J. Van Reenen, Market share, market value and innovation
in a panel of British manufacturing firms, Rev. Econ. Stud. 66 (3) (2010) 529–554.
[3] H. Luo, B. Du, G.Q. Huang, et al., Hybrid flow shop scheduling considering machine
electricity consumption cost, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 146 (2) (2013) 423–439.
[4] S. Knopp, S. Dauzère-Pérès, C. Yugma, A Batch-oblivious approach for complex
job-shop scheduling problems, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 263 (1) (2017) 50–61.
[5] V. Fernandezviagas, R. Ruiz, J.M. Framinan, et al., A new vision of approximate
methods for the permutation flowshop to minimise makespan: state-of-the-art and
computational evaluation, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 257 (3) (2017) 707–721.
[6] L. Merkert, I. Harjunkoski, A. Isaksson, et al., Scheduling and energy – Industrial
challenges and opportunities, Comput. Chem. Eng. 72 (2015) 183–198.
[7] W. Saad, Z. Han, H.V. Poor, et al., Game-theoretic methods for the smart grid: an
overview of microgrid systems, demand-side management, and smart grid commu-
nications, IEEE Signal Proc. Mag. 29 (5) (2012) 86–105.
[8] J.M. Godoy-Alcantar, J.A. Cruz-Maya, Optimal scheduling and self-generation for
load management in the Mexican power sector, Electr. Pow. Syst. Res. 81 (7) (2011)
1357–1362.
[9] M. Li, D.M. Lei, J.C. Cai, Two-level imperialist competitive algorithm for energy-ef-
ficient hybrid flow shop scheduling problem with relative importance of objectives,
Swarm Evol. Comput. 49 (2019) 34–43.
[10] M. Aghelinejad, Y. Ouazene, A. Yalaoui, Production scheduling optimisation with
machine state and time-dependent energy costs, Int. J. Prod. Res. 56 (16) (2018)
5558–5575.
[11] C. Lu, L. Gao, X.Y. Li, et al., Energy-efficient permutation flow shop scheduling prob-
lem using a hybrid multi-objective backtracking search algorithm, J. Clean. Prod.
144 (2017) 228–238.
[12] Y. Liu, H.B. Dong, N. Lohse, et al., A multi-objective genetic algorithm for optimi-
sation of energy consumption and shop floor production performance, Int. J. Prod.
Econ. 179 (2016) 259–272.
[13] S.A. Mansouri, E. Aktas, Minimizing energy consumption and makespan in a two–
machine flowshop scheduling problem, J. Oper. Res. Soc. 67 (11) (2016) 1382–1394.
[14] J. Cheng, F. Chu, M. Liu, et al., Bi-criteria single-machine batch scheduling with
machine on/off switching under time-of-use tariffs, Comput. Ind. Eng. 112 (2017)
721–734.
[15] A. Sharma, F. Zhao, J.W. Sutherland, Econological scheduling of a manufacturing
enterprise operating under a time-of-use electricity tariff, J. Clean. Prod. 108 (2015)
256–270.
17
Swarm and Evolutionary Computation 60 (2021) 100764
[16] H. Zhang, F. Zhao, K. Fang, et al., Energy-conscious flow shop scheduling under
time-of-use electricity tariffs, CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol. 63 (1) (2014) 37–40.
[17] S. Rubaiee, M.B. Yildirim, An energy-aware multiobjective ant colony algorithm to
minimize total completion time and energy cost on a single-machine preemptive
scheduling, Comput. Ind. Eng. 127 (2019) 240–252.
[18] S. Zhang, A. Che, X. Wu, et al., Improved mixed-integer linear programming model
and heuristics for bi-objective single-machine batch scheduling with energy cost
consideration, Eng. Optim. 50 (8) (2018) 1380–1394.
[19] S. Wang, M. Liu, F. Chu, et al., Bi-objective optimization of a single machine batch
scheduling problem with energy cost consideration, J. Clean. Prod. 137 (2016)
1205–1215.
[20] K. Fang, N.A. Uhan, F. Zhao, et al., Scheduling on a single machine under time-of-use
electricity tariffs, Ann. Oper. Res. 238 (1-2) (2016) 199–227.
[21] J. Cheng, F. Chu, C. Chu, et al., Bi-objective optimization of single-machine batch
scheduling under time-of-use electricity prices, RAIRO – Oper. Res. 50 (4-5) (2016)
715–732.
[22] G. Weiss, in: Scheduling: Theory, Algorithms, and Systems by Michael Pinedo,
Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2016, pp. 35–42.
[23] J.H. Cheng, F. Chu, M.C. Zhou, An improved model for parallel machine schedul-
ing under time-of-use electricity price, IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 15 (2) (2018)
896–899.
[24] J.Y. Moon, K. Shin, J. Park, Optimization of production scheduling with time-depen-
dent and machine-dependent electricity cost for industrial energy efficiency, Int. J.
Adv. Manuf. Tech. 68 (1-4) (2013) 523–535.
[25] A. Che, S. Zhang, X. Wu, Energy-conscious unrelated parallel machine scheduling
under time-of-use electricity tariffs, J. Clean. Prod. 156 (2017) 688–697.
[26] J.Y. Ding, S. Song, R. Zhang, et al., Parallel machine scheduling under time-of-use
electricity prices: new models and optimization approaches, IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci.
Eng. 13 (2) (2016) 1138–1154.
[27] S.J. Wang, X.D. Wang, F. Chu, et al., An energy-efficient two-stage hybrid flow shop
scheduling problem in a glass production, Int. J. Prod. Res. 1 (2019) 32.
[28] X. Zheng, S.C. Zhou, R. Xu, et al., Energy-efficient scheduling for multi-objective
two-stage flow shop using a hybrid ant colony optimisation algorithm, Int. J. Prod.
Res. 12 (2019) 1–18.
[29] Y. Yang, W.D. Chen, L. Wei, et al., Robust optimization for integrated scrap
steel charge considering uncertain metal elements concentrations and production
scheduling under time-of-use electricity tariff, J. Cleaner Prod. 176 (2018) 800–812.
[30] H. Hadera, I. Harjunkoski, G. Sand, et al., Optimization of steel production schedul-
ing with complex time-sensitive electricity cost, Comput. Chem. Eng. 76 (2015)
117–136.
[31] Y. Tan, S. Liu, Models and optimisation approaches for scheduling steelmaking–re-
fining–continuous casting production under variable electricity price, Int. J. Prod.
Res. 52 (4) (2014) 1032–1049.
[32] D. Gajic, H. Hadera, L. Onofri, et al., Implementation of an integrated production
and electricity optimization system in melt shop, J. Cleaner Prod. 155 (1) (2016)
39–46.
[33] H. Zhang, F. Zhao, J.W. Sutherland, Scheduling of a single flow shop for minimal en-
ergy cost under real-time electricity pricing, J. Manuf. Sci. E. 139 (1) (2017) 014502.
[34] K. Nolde, M. Morari, Electrical load tracking scheduling of a steel plant, Comput.
Chem. Eng. 34 (11) (2010) 1899–1903.
[35] E. Zitzler, M. Laumanns, L. Thiele, SPEA2: improving the strength pareto evolu-
tionary algorithm for multiobjective optimization, Evolutionary Methods for Design,
Optimization and Control with Applications To Industrial Problems, 2001.
[36] F. He, K. Shen, L. Guan, et al., Research on energy-saving scheduling of a forging
stock charging furnace based on an improved SPEA2 algorithm, Sustainability 9 (12)
(2017) 2154.
[37] B. Wang, Z. Guan, S. Ullah, et al., Simultaneous order scheduling and mixed-model
sequencing in assemble-to-order production environment: a multi-objective hybrid
artificial bee colony algorithm, J. Intell. Manuf. 28 (2) (2017) 1–18.
[38] K. Michalak, Evolutionary algorithm with a directional local search for multiob-
jective optimization in combinatorial problems, in: Proceedings of the Genetic and
Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion, 2017, pp. 7–8.
[39] K. Deb, H. Jain, An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm using ref-
erence-point-based nondominated sorting approach, Part I: solving problems with
box constraints, IEEE Trans. Evolut. Comput. 18 (4) (2014) 577–601.
[40] M. Liu, X.N. Yang, F. Chu, et al., Energy-oriented bi-objective optimization for the
tempered glass scheduling, Omega-Int. J. Manag. Sci. 90 (2020) 21.
[41] K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, et al., A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algo-
rithm: NSGA-II, IEEE Trans. Evolut. Comput. 6 (2) (2002) 182–197.
[42] Q. Zhang, H. Li., in: MOEA/D: A Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm Based on
Decomposition, IEEE Press, 2007, pp. 712–731.