ANÁLISE DOS RESULTADOS DO PAPER DISTRIBUTED BLOCKING FLOW SHOP
Hugo Hissashi Miyata
Prof. Dr. Marcelo Seido Nagano
1. Small instance problems
The small instance problems set
includes all instances with F = {2, 3, 4}
factories, n = {4, 6, 8, 10, 12} Jobs, m = {2,
3, 4, 5} machines, l = {1, 2, 3, 4}
maintenance levels and setup rates with
{10%, 50%, 100%, 125%} of the processing
times.
In the average relative
percentagem deviation (RPD), one can
notice that HFFO(4), HFFO(3) and HFFO(2)
outperform all remaining methods.
Conversely, in the mean success rate (SR),
MILP outpperforms all other heuristic
methods evaluated, reaching the best
solution for approximately 77,7% of the
small instance problems set. Regarding
mean relative percentagem deviation
computational times (RPT), IG_RPN
algorithms, IG_RPN(2), IG_RPN(3) and
IG_RPN(4), obtained the lowest values of
ARPT. On the other hand, IG_NM(3),
IG_NM(4) and IG_NM(2) perform closer to
MILP, with ARPD and ARPT lower than
IG_RPN and HFFO algorithms, respectively.
Regarding the number of factories
(F) parameter, one can observe that
HFFO(3) and HFFO(4) outperform all
evaluated methods regarding ARPD.
However, one can notice that regarding SR,
one can notice that MILP outperform all
methods. IG_NM algorithms obtain
reductions of RPD with the increasing of F
parameter, outperforming MILP in instance
problems with 3 and 4 factories. Regarding
efficiency, one can observe reductions of
RPT of all metaheuristics with the increase
of F.
Since the problem becomes more
complex with the increase of parameter
values, MILP tends to reach the CPU time
limit from 10 jobs on. One can observe
more difficults of MILP to solve problems
with F = 2 and 3. In problems with 12 jobs,
HFFO(2), HFFO(3), HFFO(4), IG_NM(2),
IG_NM(3) and IG_NM(4) outperform MILP
in quality of solution. In general, all
metaheuristics tends to increase the RPD
with the expansion of number of jobs,
while success rates tends to reduce. This
trend is more expressive with IG_RPN(2),
IG_RPN(3) and IG_RPN(4), although they
are the methods with the lowest average
RPT among the methods. Also, the
computational time consumed by the
referred metaheuristics seems to be stable
regarding the number of jobs. Conversely,
one can notice increase of RPT with n
varitaion, since HFFO and IG_NM are
structured with local Search and
reconstruction mechanism more complex
than IG_RPN. Regarding the number of
machines, one can observe inverse effects
between MILP and the metaheuristics.
With the increase of m, the metaheuristics
tends to obtain reductions of RPD, while
MILP tends to increase. In general, success
rates of HFFO, IG_NM and IG_RPN
algorithms tends to be stable with the
increase of m, while SR of MILP reduces.
However, MILP outperforms all evaluated
methods regarding SR. Efficiency is affected
by the number of machines, since RPT of all
methods increase with larger values of m.
Since larger number of maintenance levels
(l) becomes the problem more complex,
one can observe that RPD of all methods
tends to increase. Although all versions of
HFFO outperform MILP in average RPD,
one can observe that MILP outpeforms all
methods regarding success rates in all
values of l. In the mean, IG_NM(3) and
IG_NM(4) outperform MILP in instances
with l = 3 and l = 4. Regarding efficiency,
one can observe that RPT of all methods
tends to increase with expansion of
number of maintenance levels. Regarding
the setup duration rates, one can notice
that RPD of all methods tends to increase
with larger values of setup duration rates.
In the average RPD, IG_NM(4), HFFO(2),
HFFO(3) and HFFO(4) outperform MILP
considering all setup rate values. IG_NM(3)
outperform MILP in instances with setup
rates equals to 10%, 100% and 125% of the
processing times. Concerning success rates,
one can notice that MILP outperforms all
the remaining methods, followed by HFFO,
IG_NM and IG_RPD algorithms. The
addition of different setup rate values
seems not to alter the computational time
consumed by the heuristics. On the other
hand, an increase in RPT can be seen for
MILP with larger values of setup rates.
2. Taillard’s instance problems
In the mean, IG_NM(3), HFFO(4)
and IG_RPN(4) outperform their respective
versions. One can observe that IG_NM(3)
outperforms all evaluated methods,
improving the initial solution given by
EHPF2_B in aproximadately 9,69% of RPD.
Also, the referred method obtained the
best mean success rate (SR) among the
evaluated methods, followed by IG_NM(4)
and IG_NM(2). HFFO(4) and IG_RPN(3)
obtained the best values of mean SR
among their respective other versions
evaluated. Regarding efficiency, one can
notice that IG_RPN(2), IG_RPN(3) and
IG_RPN(4) are the fatest heuristics.
Additionally, one can observe that, in the
mean, IG_NM(3) is faster than IG_NM(4),
HFFO(4), HFFO(3) and HFFO(2). IG_NM(2)
consumes lower computational time than
IG_NM(3), but, it generates a larger RPD.
Regarding the number of factories
(F), one can observe reductions of RPD of
IG_NM(2), IG_NM(3) and IG_NM(4) with
the increase of F while RPD of HFFO(2),
HFFO(3), HFFO(4), IG_RPN(2), IG_RPN(3),
IG_RPN(4) and EHPF2_B increase. HFFO
algorithms obtain the best performance for
instances with F = 2, while IG_NM
outperform all theuristics in the remaining
F values. In all values of F, one can notice
that IG_NM(3) outperforms all other
methods in the average SR, folllowed by
IG_NM(4). Regarding SR values, among
other algorithms, HFFO(4) and IG_RPN(4)
outperform their other respective versions.
Concerning computational time, one can
observe that RPT of all methods tends to
reduce with the increase of F. HFFO(4)
presented the largest RPT followed by
HFFO(3) and HFFO(2).
Regarding the number of jobs (n),
one can observe that while RPD of
HFFO(2), HFFO(3) and HFFO(4) obtain
increasing values of RPD, while RPD of
IG_NM(2), IG_NM(3), IG_NM(4),
IG_RPN(2), IG_RPN(3) and IG_RPN(4) tend
to reduce with the increasing of n. One can
notice that HFFO(4) outperforms all other
methods for n <= 20 regarding average RPD
and average SR. For the remaining values
of n, one can see that IG_NM(3)
outperform all other heuristics evaluated.
In general, all evaluated methods tends to
obtain increasing values of RPT with larger
values of n. In the mean, IG_RPN
algorithms obtain the best values of RPT,
although they generated the largest values
of RPD. Among all versions evaluated,
IG_RPN(4) outperforms IG_RPN(3) and
IG_RPN(2) in both ARPD and ASR, while
IG_RPN(2) is the most eficient version
evaluated.
Concerning the number of
machines, one can observe that both RPD
and RPT of all methods tends to reduce
with the increase of m. Regarding RPD, one
can see that IG_NM(3) outperforms other
methods in all values of m, HFFO(3) and
HFFO(4) outperform IG_NM(2) for
instances with m = 2 and HFFO(2)
outperforms IG_RPN(4), IG_RPN(3) and
IG_RPN(2). Taking into account the success
rates, one can see that IG_NM algorithms
outperform all versions of HFFO and
IG_RPN in all values of m. Efficiency is also
affected by the number of machines, since
all algorithms consumes larger values of
computational time to return solutions.
Since each iteration of HFFO requires to
evaluate all individuals of the population,
one can observe that the referred method
is the most affected by the increasing of all
parameters.
Regarding the number of
maintenance levels, one can observe that
RPD and RPT tends to increase with larger
values of l. Different from what occurs with
F, n and m parameters, performance of
HFFO and IG_RPN are more impacted than
IG_NM with the increase of l. On the other
hand, values of SR of all methods tend to
be stable with ascending values of
maintenance levels. One can observe that
SR of IG_NM algorithms outperform HFFO
and IG_RPN in all values of l.
Computational times tends to increase
proportionally with larger values of l,
significantly impacting the efficiency of
HFFO and IG_NM algorithms, while IG_RPN
has RPT increased with slight increments.
One can observe that RPD of all
methods tends to increase with larger
values of setup rates. In general, IG_NM(3)
and IG_NM(4) present the lowest means
of RPD for each setup rate value evaluted.
HFFO(4) and IG_RPN(4) outperform their
respective other versions in terms of RPD.
Concerning success rates, one can observe
that IG_NM(4) outperforms its respective
versions IG_NM(3) and IG_NM(2) as well as
the remaining methods. HFFO(4) and
IG_RPN(3) obtained the best average SR
among their respective other versions. One
can notice that setup rates variation has a
little impact concerning the computational
time of all methods, where the values of
RPT of all methods is concentrated in the
mean.