Intelligent Systems with Applications 18 (2023) 200206

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Intelligent Systems with Applications

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/intelligent-systems-with-applications

A hybridization of PSO and VNS to solve the machinery allocation and

scheduling problem under a machinery sharing arrangement
Kongkidakhon Worasan a, Kanchana Sethanan b, *, Rapeepan Pitakaso c, Thitipong Jamrus b,
Karn Moonsri d, Paulina Golinska-Dawson e
a
Faculty of Business Administration and Accountancy, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
b
Research Unit on System Modeling for Industry, Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
c
Metaheuristics for Logistic Optimization Laboratory, Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ubon Ratchathani University, Ubon Ratchathani,
Thailand
d
Department of Logistics Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Nakhon Phanom University, Nakhon Phanom, Thailand
e
Faculty of Engineering Management, Poznan University of Technology, 2 Jacka Rychlewskiego Str., Poznan 60-965, Poland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper presents the hybrid Particle Swarm Optimization and the Variable Neighborhood Search (PSO-VNS)
Sharing resource system to solve the machinery and equipment allocation and scheduling to help the growers expand the production level
Sugarcane to meet the increased demands and growing interest, and to increase profitability. This problem can be
Scheduling
formulated as the Machinery and Equipment Allocation and Scheduling Problem (MEASP) which is special type
Tooling constraint
Blocking constraint
of a hybrid flow shop scheduling problem (HFS) with sequence dependent setup times, machine eligibility,
Machine restriction machine grouping, blocking, tooling constraint, and time windows (HFS | SDST , rcrc, Grouping, blocking, Tool, Tw |
Cmax ). The objective of this research is to minimize the total completion time for sugarcane cultivation. A Mixed
Integer Linear Programming (MILP) model was developed to handle small-scale problems. The hybrid Particle
Swarm Optimization and the Variable Neighborhood Search (PSO-VNS) was used for large-scale problems. Two
new velocity update formulae and a position update formula were incorporated into the Particle Swarm Opti­
mization (PSO), and four types of neighborhood strategies were developed for the VNS. The experimental results
show that all the PSO-VNS methods outperform the traditional PSO due to the effectiveness of the newly pro­
posed velocity and position update formulae in finding the optimal solutions, the PSO-VNS-6 methods, on the
average, can reduce the computational time by 58.43% from the original PSO and improve the solution quality
by 11.71%.

1. Introduction
The sugarcane and sugar industry is one of the prime agricultural
processing industries in Thailand, earning more than 8000 million dol­
lars per year, representing 21 percent of agricultural GDP or up to 48
percent of GDP of the food industry (Bank of Thailand, 2018). From
1991 until 2022, Thailand’s export of sugar and related products
amounted to 11755.93 USD Million. In the present, the third-largest
export product in the agricultural sector in Thailand, following rubber
and rice, and sugar is the second most exported product in the world
(USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, 2022). Therefore, the sugar in­
dustry is the source of employment and income generation for planters,
about 400,000 households (Department Agriculture Extension, 2020).
Based on the data from 2018 to 2022, the trend for sugar con­
sumption increased every year due to the expansion of the industries
which use sugar as raw material (USDA, 2022). Hence, there was a
continuous increase of demand for sugar over the period. However, the
sugar industry in Thailand is currently experiencing higher production
costs including sugarcane cultivation and transportation costs, along its
supply chain starting from inbound to outbound logistics (Patil, 2017).
Various studies have been conducted in order to attempt to reduce these
costs (see Neungmatcha et al. 2013, Sethanan and Neungmatcha 2016,
Ahmed and Alam 2015).
Considering an analysis of the cost in the supply chains of sugarcane
cultivation, it revealed that the cost includes harvesting (35%), land
preparation (21%), planting (16%), weeding (10%), fertilizer

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: skanch@kku.ac.th (K. Sethanan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswa.2023.200206
Received 31 December 2021; Received in revised form 12 July 2022; Accepted 16 February 2023
Available online 19 February 2023
2667-3053/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
K. Worasan et al.
application (10%), and irrigation (8%) (Dharmawardene, 2006). The
cost of sugarcane soil preparation is almost 40% compared with the total
cost of sugarcane cultivation. Therefore, some researchers have studied
soil preparation by developing equipment for soil preparation (Danok &
McCarl, 1978; Birthal & Parthasarathy, 2002; Stoof & Richards, 2015).
In the research related to soil preparation for sugarcane, Monjezi et al.
(2015) studied land preparation and planting, and the operation of
sugarcane production scheduling using the graphical evaluation and
review technique.
However, tool allocation and scheduling an effective sugarcane soil
preparation can help reduce costs and can also serve farmers according
to their needs. Generally, soil preparation requires various operations
and each of which requires several equipment types in order to provide
optimum environmental conditions for plant growth. For sugarcane
field preparation, it is performed depending on the area condition. In
this study, 6 operations are considered: operation 1: loose soil and
reduce and maintain soil moisture using power harrows, operation 2:
plow in the subsoil compaction, helping the water penetrate the subsoil
well using five shank rippers, operation 3: suppress weeds and chop old
ratoons using 22/24 disc harrows, operation 4: put fertilizer in sugar­
cane grooves using fertilizer tools, operation 5: open the soil to maintain
the moisture within the soil as much as possible during sugarcane
planting using a double-disc, and operation 6: Sugarcane Planter (CP95/
100). However, to prepare sugarcane field, each operation requires a
tractor as a source of power with equipment which can be directly
mounted on or attached at the back of the tractor, depending on the
operations required. Since more than one equipment types can be
mounted on the same tractor, setup time is required in order to switch
the equipment from one type to another.
Additionally, some operations require the same type of tractors,
while the others require different types. Therefore, operations 1, 4, 5,
and 6 are considered as the machine eligibility (rcrc) scheduling. More
importantly, time to start the next operation is limited to obtain the
optimum land environment for early root penetration and proliferation.
Since tractors and equipment have high costs, sugarcane growers
have limited access to these tractors and equipment. The challenges of
field preparation are how to help the growers to expand the production
level to meet the increased demands and growing interest, and to in­
crease profitability by finding ways to improve labor efficiency through
mechanization and other alternative approaches. However, small-scale
farmers are often faced with financial and cash flow constraints. Alter­
native ways for sharing equipment among farmers are considered, since
machinery sharing gives farmers access to specialized machinery that
allows farmers to improve production efficiency and reduce labor cost.
Therefore, sharing machinery and equipment leads to cooperation be­
tween sugar mills and their farmers in the contract farming system, and
also between large-scale famers and small-scale ones. However, culti­
vation machinery and equipment are very high in cost, and not every
farm can afford them. Sharing of resources is therefore essential. In order
to catch the season, reduction in working time in sugarcane field prep­
aration is key to the success. Adoption of machinery scheduling with
added management cost must be overcome with careful and frequent
planning (Artz & Naeve, 2016) to ensure the target sugarcane fields are
complete in land preparation with the shortest completion time.
Therefore, scheduling an effective sugarcane soil preparation is required
for reducing costs and also serving farmers according to their needs.
In this research, a machinery and equipment allocation and sched­
uling problem (MEASP) is considered. This specific problem is formu­
lated as a hybrid flow shop scheduling (HFS) problem with sequence
dependent setup times (SDST), machine eligibility (rcrc), machine
grouping (Grouping), blocking, tooling constraint, and time windows
(HFS | SDST , rcrc, Grouping, blocking, Tool, Tw | Cmax ) with the objective
to minimize the makespan (i.e., completion time). Presently, many re­
searchers have studied a variety of hybrid flow shop models based on
traditional HFS problems. HFS has been extensively studied in the
literature. It concentrates on problems with consideration of both single
2
Intelligent Systems with Applications 18 (2023) 200206
and multiple constraints such as SDST (see Sethanan, 2001), tool allo­
cation (Worasan et al., 2018; Worasan et al., 2020), time window (see
Chamnanlor et al. 2015, Yan and Zhang 2015), machine eligibility (see
Xu et al. 2013, Chamnanlor et al. 2013, Bektur and Sarac 2019, Worasan
et al. 2020, Kusoncum et al. 2021, Wang et al. 2020, Valizadeh et al.
2020), blocking constraint (see Javadian et al. 2010, Ebrahimi et al.
2014), time window and SDST (see Khare and Agrawal 2019, Li et al.
2021), time window and blocking constraint (see Sangsawang et al.
2015, Shao et al. 2021, Aqil and Allali 2021b), time window and ma­
chine eligibility (see Yu et al. 2020, Zhuang et al. 2022), blocking
constraint and SDST (see Meng et al. 2020, Maciel et al. 2022, Aqil and
Allali 2021a), and time window and grouping constraint (see Li and Han
2020, Sağir & Okul, 2020).
In practical HFS environments, the previously referenced authors are
influenced by various constraints and problems with different charac­
teristics. Until now, few researches consider various constraints simul­
taneously, especially tool constraints and blocking and machine
grouping. To the best of our knowledge, only some recent studies have
been conducted in sugarcane cultivation by considering tool allocation,
SDST, time windows, and blocking constraints (see Worasan, et al.,
2018; Worasan et al., 2020).
Since an HFS with SDST, machine eligibility, machine grouping,
blocking, tooling constraint, and time windows is mostly NP-hard, it is
difficult to find an optimal solution. Therefore, heuristics and meta-
heuristic methods are potential alternatives to be considered and
developed. As can be seen, various meta-heuristic methods have been
employed to tackle the problem. For example, Chamnanlor et al. (2014)
proposed a hybrid genetic algorithm based on auto-tuning strategy for
minimizing the makespan for a re-entrant hybrid flow shop scheduling
problem with time window constraints (RHFSTW). Later, Wu et al.
(2018) used six variants of the HPSO algorithm to solve assembly flow
shop scheduling problems, with two stages and three machines. The PSO
algorithm and VNS algorithm were also addressed to solve HFS prob­
lems by de Siqueira et al. (2018), and Peng et al. (2019). Later, Mar­
ichelvam (2020) developed the hybrid variable neighbourhood search
(VNS) algorithm with the PSO algorithm to solve the multi-stage hybrid
flow shop scheduling problem with identical parallel machines at each
stage to minimize makespan. In the same year, Kong et al. (2020) pro­
posed a hybrid SFLA-VNS algorithm combining Shuffle Frog Leap Al­
gorithm (SFLA) with Variable Neighborhood Search Algorithm (VNS) to
solve the parallel-batching scheduling with nonlinear processing times
on a single and unrelated parallel machine. Recently, Li and Han (2020)
developed ABC algorithm to solve two different machine types in the
HFS problem with time window and grouping constraints. The
multi-objective functions are minimization of the maximum completion
time, maximum device workload, and total workloads of all devices.
Later, Shao et al. (2021) improved NEH heuristic to solve HFS problem
with time window, machine eligibility and blocking constraint. This
study examined three different blocking constraints as well as those
without blocking. Recently, Zhuang et al. (2022) presented adaptive
large neighborhood search to modify the HFS problem with blocking,
machine eligibility, and separable sequence-dependent setup times to
minimize the maximum completion time. In the same year, Maciel et al.
(2022) developed mixed-integer linear programming for small instances
and hybrid genetic algorithm for large instances to solve the HFS
problem with sequence-dependent setup times, and machine blocking,
where the machines in each stage were identical with the objective
function to minimize the makespan.
Further review of the literature revealed that numerous techniques
were used to handle the equipment assignment and scheduling.
Although the reviewed researches have addressed various constraints in
the hybrid flow shop scheduling problem in the literature, there was
hardly any research that considered realistic constraints simultaneously.
To the best of our knowledge, there has been no attempt to consider the
formulation with the objective to minimize makespan while sequence-
dependent setup time, machine eligibility, job batching, blocking
K. Worasan et al. Intelligent Systems with Applications 18 (2023) 200206

constraint, tooling constraint and time windows are considered. Due to (continued )
the effectiveness of the PSO and VNS, in this research, the combination Wijsmt 1 if field i is processed before field j in operation s on tractor m with
of Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) and variable neighborhood tooling t
search (PSO-VNS) was brought to develop an efficient algorithm to solve 0; otherwise.
FirstJobi0smt 1 if field i is processed first in operation s on tractor m with tooling t
the problem. Two new velocity update formulae and a position update 0; otherwise.
formula were incorporated into the Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), LastJob0ismt 1 if field i is processed last in operation s on tractor m with tooling t
and four types of neighborhood strategies were developed for the VNS. 0; otherwise.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents Yismt 1 if field i was processed by tractor m on operation s changed to tooling
type t 0; otherwise.
the mathematical model. In Section 3, the proposed methods are
described. In Section 4, computational results are discussed. Finally, in
Section 5, the conclusion and future research directions are presented.
Objective function

2. Mathematical formulation Minimize E (1)

Subject to
This research focuses on the machinery and equipment allocation
and scheduling problem (MEASP). There are m machines (i.e., tractors) Cismt = STismt + ( Pismt . Xismt ) + (Yismt .TICismt ) ∀ i, s, m, t (2)
available for land preparation. Each equipment or tooling t can be
directly mounted on or attached at the back of machine m. At each stage (3)
′ ′
Ci,(s− ′ ′
1),m ,t ≤ STismt ∀ i, s, m, m , t, t ; s > 1
(i.e., operation) s of land preparation, a tooling is required which may be
the same tooling or different one as the previous stage. At each stage s Cmax(s− 3),m ≤ STismt ∀ i, s, m, t; s = 4 (4)
using machine m and tooling t, changing from operation i to operation j
is required dependent setup times (SUTjismt ). At each stage s, not all Cmax(s− 1),m ≤ STismt ∀ i, s, m, t; s > 4 (5)
toolings are able to be mounted or attached on machine m. That means
toolings t are restricted to machine m to process operation i. The ma­ Cmaxs,m ≥ Cismt ∀ i, s, m, t (6)
chine must be allocated and scheduled in order to complete any job (i.e.,
field) with a specific time (i.e., time windows is required). Therefore, STismt − Ci,(s− 1),m,t ≤ TWJismt ∀ i, s, m, t (7)
sequence-dependent setup time, machine eligibility, job batching, ( )
blocking constraint, tooling constraint and time windows are consid­ Pismt .Xismt = Cismt − Cjsmt − SUTjismt + L 1 − Wijsmt ∀ i, j, s, m, t (8)
ered. The specific problem is formulated as a hybrid flow Shop sched­
uling problem with sequence dependent setup times, machine ∑
M ∑
T
Xismt = 1 ∀ i, s (9)
eligibility, machine grouping, blocking, tooling constraint, and time m=1 t=1
windows. The objective of the problem is to minimize the makespan
(HFS | SDST , rcrc, Grouping, blocking, Tool, Tw | Cmax ). Parameters and ∑
M ∑
T

decision variables used in the model formulation are presented as (Xismt .ELIsmti ) = 1 ∀ i, s (10)
follows.
m=1 t=1

Indices N ∑
∑ T
Xismt − LastJob0jsmt − Wijsmt = 0 ∀ j, s, m, t (11)
i, j Index of fields (i, j = 1, 2, . . ., N). i=1 t=1
s Index of operations (i.e., stage) (s = 1, 2, . . ., S).
m, m’ Index of tractors (i.e., machines) (m, m’ = 1, 2, . . ., M) N ∑
∑ T
t, t’ Index of equipment or tooling (t, t’ = 1, 2, . . ., T) Xismt − FirstJobi0smt − Wijsmt = 0 ∀ i, s, m, t (12)
j=1 t=1

Parameters ∑
T ∑
N
LastJob0jsmt ≤ 1 ∀ s, m (13)
t=1 j=1
N Number of fields
T Number of toolings
S Number of operations
∑
T ∑
N
FirstJobi0smt ≤ 1 ∀ s, m (14)
M Number of tractors
t=1 i=1
Pismt Processing time of field i in operation s on tractor m with tooling t
SUTjismt Set up time of changeover from field j to field i with tooling t on tractor
m
Yismt = FirstJobi0smt ∀i, m; s&t > 4 (15)
ELIsmti Set of tractor m and tooling t used to process field i in operation s
L Large number Cismt ≤ E ∀ i, s, m, t (16)
TICismt Setup time of the changeover to tooling t on tractor m used to process
field i in operation s Cismt ≤ LimitCrop ∀ i, m, t and s = 6 (17)
TWJismt Time window controlling to operate field i in operation s using tractor m
and tooling t
FirstJobi0smt = {0, 1} ∀ i, s, m, t (18)
Limit_Crop Limitation time of crop planting for land preparation

LastJob0jsmt = {0, 1} ∀ j, s, m, t (19)

Decision Variables
Xismt = {0, 1} ∀ i, s, m, t (20)
Cismt Completion time of field i in operation s on tractor m with tooling t
STismt The start time of field i in operation s on tractor m with tooling t Wijsmt = {0, 1} ∀ i, j, s, m, t (21)
E Makespan
Cmaxsm Completion time of the field in operation s on tractor m Yismt = {0, 1} ∀ i, s, m, t (22)
Xismt 1 if field i is processed in operation s on tractor m with tooling t
0; otherwise. Constraints (1) in this model aim to minimize makespan. Constraints
(continued on next column) (2) show how the completion time of field i at the operation s by tractor

3
K. Worasan et al.
m with tooling t was determined. Constraints (3) guarantee that the start
time of field i at operation s by tractor m’ with tooling t’ has to be greater
than or equal to its completion time in a previous operation. Constraints
(4) indicate that the completion time of the field in operation 1 by
tractor m is less than or equal to the start time of field i in operation 4 by
tractor m with tooling t. Constraints (5) propose the completion time of
the field in the current operation s by tractor m is less than or equal to the
start time of field i in operation s by tractor m with tooling t, if the stage s
is greater than 4. Constraints (6) offer the completion time of the field in
the current operation s by tractor m is greater than or equal to the start
time of field i in operation s by tractor m with tooling t. Constraints (7)
was included to ensure that the previous completion time of the field
until the start time of a field would not exceed the controlled time.
Constraints (8) relate to the sequence of the field; thus, the processing
time of field i in stage s by tractor m with tooling t equals the completion
time of the current field i minus the completion time of previous field j.
Constraints (9) guarantee the field must be performed by only one
tractor at a time and only one tooling at a time. Constraints Constraints
(10) ensure that some tractor processes the field. The tractor must be in
the machine eligibility constraint, and the tooling must be able to
perform that field. Constraints (11) ensures that, except for the last field,
a field scheduled by the tractor must be immediately followed by one
different field. Moreover, Constraints (12) ensures that, except for the
first field, a field scheduled on the tractor must be immediately followed
by one different field. Constraints (13) and Constraints (14) ensure that a
tractor can accurately have one first and last field. Constraints (15) show
the binary variables of the setup time of the changeover to tooling t.
Constraints (16) ensure that the makespan is the completion time of field
i in the final operation s on tractor m with tooling t. Constraints (17)
guarantee that the completion time of a field in the last operation on
tractor m with tooling t is less than or equal to the limit time of crop
planting. Constraints (18) to Constraints (22) are the basic restrictions
on the binary variable.
The proposed problem will be solved using hybrid particle swarm
optimization and the variable neighborhood search (PSO-VNS) which
can be explained as follows.
3. The proposed method
In this section, the PSO-VNS methods and the current practice of a
case study are presented as follows.
3.1. Combination of Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) and variable
neighborhood search (PSO-VNS)
The PSO-VNS is the combination of two excellent heuristics, namely,
Particle Swam Optimization (PSO) and Variable Neighborhood Search
(VNS). The PSO-VNS is composed of five steps including (1) generate the
initial solution or initial set of particles; (2) update the velocity of par­
ticles; (3) update the position of particles and (4) use VNS as the local
search of the PSO and (5) redo steps 2-4 until the termination condition
is met.
Fig. 1. Encoding of all algorithms.
4
Intelligent Systems with Applications 18 (2023) 200206
3.1.1. Initial population
A random real number between 0 and 1 is used to generate particles
(i = 1,…, K) and evaluate the objective function for all the particles. The
random key was first presented by Bean (1994) in representing per­
mutations. This paper used the random encoding method developed by
Norman and Bean (1997) for production problems. Encoding follows the
priority determination of selecting the fields of sugarcane to be served.
The definition of size problem is dimension D, the number of particles K,
as shown in Fig. 1. The particles shown in Fig. 1 can be decoded to get
the result of the MEASP by using the decoding procedure that follows.
The decoding procedure
Every particle is decoded by arranging the values in each dimension
of the particle, which is in ascending order. Each particle is assigned a
sequence of services of the sugarcane fields. In the first stage, the first job
for each machine was set to choose from top to bottom ({S1 ,M11 , J7 }, {S1 ,
M21 , J4 }). For the next job, the machine selection factor is selected from
the minimum completion time on the previous job in the stage ({S1 , M11 ,
J7 , J1 , J6 , J8 , J9 }, {S1 ,M21 , J4 , J5 , J2 , J3 , J10 }). In the second stage, the
medium-sized machines (M2 ) have the same job selection methods as
the small-sized machines (M1 ) in the first stage ({S2 , M12 , J7 , J1 , J6 , J8 ,
J9 }, {S2 ,M22 , J4 , J5 , J2 , J3 , J10 }). In the third step, the small machines
are used again, but must be replaced with new tooling before starting
work (Setup time of the changeover to tooling: TIC) ({S3 ,M11 , J7 , J1 , J6 ,
J8 , J9 }, {S3 ,M21 , J4 , J5 , J2 , J3 , J10 }). In this research, the time taken by
machines (tractors) traveling between field i and field j is considered set
up time (SUTjismt ) as shown in Fig. 2.
3.1.2. Velocity update
The velocity to move from the current position to the next is calcu­
lated using Eq. (23) or Eq. (24) or Eq. (25).
( ) (
vi (t + 1) = w(t)vi (t) + cp r Xpbesti − xi (t) + cg r Xgbesti − xi (t)
)
(23)
( ) ( )
vi (t + 1) = w(t)vi (t) + cp r Xpbesti − xi (t) + cg r Xgbesti − xi (t)
(24)
+Ch r(xr (t) − xi (t))
( ) ( )
vi (t + 1) = w(t)vi (t) + cp u Xpbesti − Xi (t) + cg u Xgbesti − Xi (t)
+cl u(Xlbesti − Xi (t)) + cn u(Xnbesti − Xi (t)) + )) (25)
+Ch r(xr (t) − xi (t))
while FDR is defined by Eq. (26).
( )
f (Xi ) − f Xj
FDR = ⃒⃒ ⃒ ;i ∕
=j
Xi − Xj ⃒
(26)
Xnbesti = Xi (t); Xi (t) = MAX{FDR}
X,lbesti = Xi (t); Xi (t) = MAX{f (Xi (t))}; i ∈ Plocal
where Cp , Cg , Cl and Cn are increasing and decreasing mono functions, In
this paper, the following formulae in which Cp , and Cl linearly de­
creases, whereas Cg , and Cn increases linearly were used. In Eqs. (27)–
(30), Cp min , Cg min , Cl min and Cn min are the minimum values of personal
and social learning factors, respectively, whereas Cp max , Cg max , Cl max
K. Worasan et al. Intelligent Systems with Applications 18 (2023) 200206

Fig. 2. Decoding of all algorithms from Fig. 1.

and Cn max are the maximum values, respectively in Table 1 (Chegini & the PSO, thus a better solution could be obtained. The VNS that was used
Bagheri, 2018; Ratnaweera et al., 2004). in this article was based on a systematic change of neighborhood both
( ) within the descent stage to find a local optimum and in a harried stage to
tmax − t ( )
Cp (t) = Cp min + Cp max − Cp min (27) get out of a local optimum (Mladenović & Hansen, 1997). The VNS
tmax
designates the algorithm format as d{P1P2P3P4}. Let d be the number of
( ) position iterations of the VNS algorithm for each particle. Let P1, P2, P3
tmax − t ( )
Cg (t) = Cg min + Cg min − Cg max (28) and P4 represent the kind of technical search methods. Let S be the swap
tmax
executor and I the insert executor.
(
tmax − t
) This paper used four VNS algorithms which include SSII
Cl (t) = Cl min + (Cl max − Cl min ) (29) (AptCommand0194;1 ), ISIS (AptCommand0194;2 ), SSSI
tmax
(AptCommand0194;3 ), SSIS (AptCommand0194;4 ) (Pongchairerks,
(
tmax − t
) 2016). An example of the VNS algorithm in this article is shown in Fig. 3.
Cn (t) = Cn min + (Cn min − Cn max ) (30) Finally, the proposed method, the PSO-VNS, is shown in Algorithm 1.
tmax

where tmax is a predefined maximum number of iterations. xr is a new 3.2. Current Practice (CP)
random particle and Ch is defined as in Eq. (31).
( ) Scheduling of the MEASP in this study focuses on minimizing the
tmax − t
Ch (t) = Ch min + (Ch min − Ch max ) (31) makespan. This problem is denoted as HFS | SDST , rcrc, Grouping, block,
tmax
Tool, Tw | Cmax . Farmers are affected by rising costs and insufficient
resources. The leading cause of the problem is soil preparation and
3.1.3. Position update of the particle sugarcane cultivation, especially for small and medium-sized farms
Important variables of this study are listed and denoted as follows (1) which do not own agricultural machinery (tractors and accessories),
a position (xi); (2) a velocity (vi); (3) iteration (t), (4) personal best po­ relying on sharing resources with large farms. In practice, services of soil
sition (pbesti) and (5) the global best solution (gbesti). In each iteration, preparation are provided to farmers on a first-come-first-served basis.
each particle remembers the position that gives the personal solution This research studied the problems of sugarcane cultivation to solve the
and adjusts it only when it finds a position that gives a better solution problem of limited availability of machinery, while the needs for the
See Eq. (32) machinery was high. Therefore, MEASP was deemed beneficial for
(
Xpbesti (t + 1) = Xi (t + 1) if f (Xi (t + 1)) ≤ f Xpbesti (t)
)
(32) farmers with time window constraints and limited resources. The
objective of this research was to minimize the makespan. The soil
The velocity vector is used to indicate the direction of the movement preparation process consists of 6 steps, and every step uses different
of each particle. It then adjusts the position to use in the next generation types of tooling. Besides, tractors have 3 sizes; small tractors (Mn1 ) are
according to Eq. (33). used in steps 1, 4, 5, and 6. Medium tractors (Mn2 ) are used in step 2 and
Xi (t + 1) = Xi (t) + vi (t + 1) (33) large tractors (Mn3 ) are used in step 3. A delay in the soil improvement
service could result in compaction and might lead to another field
A new position update formula based on the basic idea to let the preparation, Resulting in higher cost and wasteful time loss. The char­
particle escape from the local optimum The new position update formula acteristics of the problem are shown in Fig. 4.
is given by Eq. (34).
Xi (t + 1) = Xi (t) + r ∗ vi (t + 1) (34) 3.3. The compared algorithm

where r is a random number which is between 0 and 1. The compare algorithm to check the performance of the proposed
method. Worasan et al. (2020) proposed hybrid particle swarm opti­
3.1.4. Global best update mization and neighborhood strategy search (HPSO-NSS). The method is
The best particle provides the best objective and is selected to be the used to solve the maximum harvested area thus we have to modify
global best by Eq. (35). HPSO-NSS to solve for the minimum make span to harvest the all
( ) required area. The modified version to solve the minimum make span is
Xgbesti (t + 1) = argi minf Xpbesti (t) (35)
shown in Algorithm 2.
The neighborhood strategy which is used in HPSO-NSS is SKIS, KSIK,
3.1.5. Application of the Variable Neighborhood Search (VNS) to the PSO ISKI, and RRR while S represents Swap algorithm, K represents k-vari­
The Variable Neighborhood Search was used as the local search of able move algorithm, I represents Insert algorithm and R is randomly

5
K. Worasan et al. Intelligent Systems with Applications 18 (2023) 200206

Fig. 3. Example of operator SSII (AptCommand0194;1 ) in VNS of PSO-VNS.

proposed method was tested with 30 test instances. Details of the pro­
Algorithm 1
posed problems are shown in Table 2.
Global Local and neighboring particles Swarm Optimization with Variable
The experiments in this research were designed for testing three
Neighborhood strategies search.
factors, viz, fields, machines, and stages. All experiments were con­
Input: f(x), vi (0), pbesti (0), gbesti (0), cp , cg , cl , cn , neighborhood strategies (Swap and
ducted for three replicates. For small size problems, Lingo v.11 was
Insert), Maximum number of iterations (MaxIt), Position in the particle(U,V)
Output: Best solution
used, and it was found that the run time was less than 1440 min to find
begin the optimal solution while the large size problems used a run time of
t=0 lingo v.11 more than 1440 min to find the optimal soliton.
Step 1: initialize xi (t); evaluate xi (t); In small size test instance, the experiment was operated with 12 test
while (not terminating condition) do
instances (S-1 to S 12). Lingo V.11 used the computational time between
for each particle xi in swarm do
Step 2: update velocity using of 30.74 to 1071.81 s. The PSO and the PSO-VNS used an average of
(optional) vi (t + 1) = w(t)vi (t) + cp r(Xpbesti − xi (t)) + cg r(Xgbesti − xi (t)); 37.64 and 29.64 s, relatively to fine the optimal solution. The PSO-VNS -
(optional) vi (t + 1) = w(t)vi (t) + cp r(Xpbesti − xi (t)) + cg r(Xgbesti − xi (t)) + 1 and 2 meet the optimal solution 7 time. The PSO-VNS-3 and PSO-VNS-
Ch r(xr (t) − xi (t)) 4 meet the optimal solution 9 times. The PSO-VNS - 5 and 6 meet the
(optional) vi (t +1) = w(t)vi (t) + cp u(Xpbesti − xi (t)) + cp u(Xgbesti − xi (t)) +
optimal solution10 and12 time, relatively. The PSO - 1 to PSO - 4 meet
cl u(Xlbesti − xi (t)) + cn u(Xnbesti − xi (t))
Step 3: update particle position
the optimal solution 5 time. The PSO-5 and 6 meet the optimal solution 6
(optional) xi (t + 1) = xi (t) + vi (t + 1); // time, relatively. The HPSO - NSS meet the optimal solution10 time.
(optional) Xi (t + 1) = Xi (t) + r ∗ vi (t + 1) In large size test instance, the experiment was operated with 22 test
(used when the current solution has not changed for 200 iterations) instances (L-1 to L-22). The same computational time was used as the
Step 4: apply VNS
termination condition of all proposed algorithms. The limited compu­
if the current iteration is less than or equal to MaxIt do
Poprandi ≤ 0.25 : Types of neighborhood strategies AptCommand0194;1 tational time for the proposed methods is set to 45 min. The proposed
0.26 < Poprandi < 0.50 :Types of neighborhood strategies AptCommand0194;2 methods were used for all test instances. Details of the test instances are
0.51≤ Poprandi < 0.75 :Types of neighborhood strategies AptCommand0194;3 shown in Tables 3 and 4.
Poprandi <1 : Types of neighborhood strategies AptCommand0194;4 We present in this article the original PSO and hybrid PSO-VNS. They
End
use different velocity and position update formulae. Details of the PSO
Step 5: evaluate xk (t);
if f(xi (t + 1)) ≤ f(pbesti (t + 1)); and PSO-VNS methods are shown in Table 4.
Step 6: update pbesti (t + 1)) ≤ xi (t + 1)); To evaluate the heuristic algorithms proposed in this paper, two
end; important points are investigated: (1) the performance of the proposed
Step 7: gbesti (t + 1) = argmin{f(pbesti (t + 1)), f(pbesti (t + 1))} heuristic algorithm (Pheu ), obtained by comparing its solutions to the
t = t+ 1
end;
optimal solution, and (2) the relative improvement (RI) of the solutions
output: the best solution gbest; obtained from the current practice, recent algorithms (i.e., HPSO-NSS),
end. modified PSO (i.e., PSO-2, PSO-3, PSO-4, PSO-5, and PSO-6), or tradi­
tional PSO (i.e., PSO-1) after applying a hybridization of PSO and VNS
algorithms (i.e., PSO-VNS-1, PSO-VNS-2, PSO-VNS-3, PSO-VNS-4, PSO-
selected between K, S and I (Worasan et al., 2020).
VNS-5, and PSO-VNS-6) (see Table 4) were evaluated and presented
below:
4. The computational results Let

4.1. Test problems and performance measures Pheu =

Numheu
× 100 (36)
Numopt
The proposed solution method was coded by using MATLAB soft­ Where
ware, version R2018a and the experiment was carried out on a PC, Pheu = the performance of all proposed heuristic algorithms (i.e.,
Intel® Core (TM) i7-6700HQ CPU @ 2.80 GHz RAM (8 GB RAM). The

6
K. Worasan et al. Intelligent Systems with Applications 18 (2023) 200206

Fig. 4. Characteristics of the problem.

Algorithm 2

HPSO-NSS, PSO-1, PSO-2, PSO-3, PSO-4, PSO-5, PSO-6, PSO-VNS-1, are obtained by the mathematical model
PSO-VNS-2, PSO-VNS-3, PSO-VNS-4, PSO-VNS-5, and PSO-VNS-6) Numheu =the number of instances from which all the proposed heu­
Numopt = the number of instances from which the optimal solutions ristics yield optimal solutions

7
K. Worasan et al. Intelligent Systems with Applications 18 (2023) 200206

Table 1 solution were recorded and shown in Table 5. The stopping criterion for
The setting of PSO control parameters. the proposed methods was the CPU time of 5 min with the results shown
Parameter setting Parameter value in Table 5, while the statistical tests of the results of Table 5 are shown in
Table 6.
Number of particles 100
Maximum iterations Depends on computational time The computational results of Table 5 reveal that the efficiency of the
Stopping criteria Computational time (45 min in large size problem) methods of PSO and VNS is more than 58.33% in finding optimal so­
Cp min , Cg min , Cl min , Cn min , the minimum values of personal and social learning lutions, while the traditional PSO’s efficiency is between 41.67% to
Cn min factors (0.5) 50%. Clearly, the methods of PSO and VNS outperform the traditional
Cp max , Cg max , Cl max , Cn max , the maximum values of personal and social learning
Ch max factors (2.5)
version of the PSO.
tmax Predefined maximum number of iterations (500 Statistical tests were conducted using the paired-t test with the re­
iteration) sults shown in Table 6. It can be seen that the PSO-VNS-6 outperformed
w(t) 0.75 all the other proposed methods. Additionally, all PSO-VNS algorithms
outperformed the PSO. This means that the incorporation of the VNS can
improve the efficiency of the PSO.
Let
From Table 7 we can see that using Eq. (25) is the best among the
Solcur − Solheu velocity update formulae, since it can improve solution quality by 1.53%
RI = × 100 (37)
Solcur and 0.63% as compared with Eqs. (23) and (24), respectively. The use of
Where
RI = the relative improvement (percent) between Solcur and Solheu
Table 3
Solcur = the solution obtained from the current practice algorithm
Details of the proposed methods.
Solheu = the solution obtained from all proposed heuristic algorithms
(i.e., HPSO-NSS, PSO-1, PSO-2, PSO-3, PSO-4, PSO-5, PSO-6, PSO-VNS- Algorithm Details

1, PSO-VNS-2, PSO-VNS-3, PSO-VNS-4, PSO-VNS-5, and PSO-VNS-6) Lingo Optimal solution obtained from Lingo v.11
BS Best solution obtained from Lingo v.11 during predefined time
CP Solution of the current practice
4.2. Computational results PSO Original Particle Swarm Optimization problem (PSO-1, PSO-2, PSO-3,
PSO-4, PSO-5, PSO-6)
PSO-VNS Hybrid PSO and VNS (PSO-VNS-1, PSO-VNS-2, PSO-VNS-3, PSO-VNS-
In this study, all the methods were executed 5 times; the best solution 4, PSO-VNS-5, PSO-VNS-6)
among the five runs would be the representative solution of the method. HPSO- Algorithm proposed by Worasan et al. (2020)
The experiment was first carried out for small size problems by using NSS
Lingo v.11 until it yielded the optimal solutions. The CPU time and

Table 2
Details of the proposed problem.
Instances No. job No. stage No. MC No. tool Parameter setting (min)

Pismt SUTjismt TICismt TWJismt Limit_Crop

S-1 5 3 2 3 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920

S-2 5 3 2 3 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
S-3 5 3 2 3 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
S-4 6 4 5 4 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
S-5 6 4 5 4 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
S_6 7 3 4 3 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
S-7 7 3 4 3 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
S-8 7 3 4 3 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
S-9 10 3 4 3 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
S-10 10 3 4 3 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
S-11 10 3 4 4 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
S-12 10 3 4 4 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
L-1 12 3 6 3 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
L-2 12 3 6 3 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
L-3 12 3 6 3 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
L-4 15 4 8 4 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
L-5 20 4 8 4 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
L-6 30 4 10 4 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
L-7 45 4 13 4 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
L-8 50 4 13 4 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
L-9 60 6 20 6 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
L-10 70 6 20 6 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
L-11 80 6 25 6 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
L-12 90 6 25 6 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
L-13 100 6 30 6 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
L-14 100 6 30 6 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
L-15 120 6 35 6 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
L-16 140 6 40 6 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
L-17 160 6 50 6 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
L-18 160 6 55 6 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
L-19 160 6 60 6 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
L-20 170 6 60 6 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
L-21 170 6 65 6 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920
L-22 170 6 70 6 [150,3000] [2,160] [30,50] 7,200 133,920

8
K. Worasan et al. Intelligent Systems with Applications 18 (2023) 200206

Table 4

PSO-VNS-6
Details of the PSO and PSO-VNS.

100.00
17,920
15,607
15,843
16,195

15,960
17,480
19,015
24,050
14,840
19,940
24,840
Define Algorithm Update Update Detail

9,845
Velocity Eq. position Eq.

12
PSO PSO-1 23 33 Original PSO
PSO-2 23 34 Modified position update

PSO-VNS-5
PSO-3 24 33 Modified velocity update

14,840
19,940
24,840
17,920
15,880
16,140
16,195

15,960
17,480
19,015
24,050

83.33
9,845
PSO-4 24 34 Modified velocity and

10
position update
PSO-5 25 33 Modified velocity and
position update

PSO-VNS-4
PSO-6 25 34 Modified velocity and

19,940
24,840
18,780
15,885
16,140
16,195

15,960
17,480
19,015
24,050
14,840
position update

75.00
9,845
PSO PSO-VNS- 23 33 PSO-VNS using traditional

9
VNS 1 velocity and position
update Equation

PSO-VNS-3
PSO-VNS- 23 34 Modified position update
2

18,780
15,885
16,140
19,015
24,050
14,840
19,940
24,840
16,195

15,960
17,480

75.00
9,845
PSO-VNS- 24 33 Modified velocity update
3

9
PSO-VNS- 24 34 Modified velocity and
4 position update

PSO-VNS-2
PSO-VNS- 25 33 Modified velocity and

15,885
16,140
19,015
24,050
14,840
20,451
25,670
18,780
16,195

15,960
17,480

58.33
9,845
5 position update
PSO-VNS- 25 34 Modified velocity and

7
6 position update

PSO-VNS-1
Eq. (34) instead of Eq. (33) as the position update can improve the so­

20,451
25,670
18,780
15,885
16,591
16,195

15,960
17,480
19,015
24,050
14,840

58.33
9,845
lution quality by 0.22 %. Finally, we can see that the integration of VNS

7
with the PSO can improve the solution quality of the original version of
PSO by 2.13% in small size problems. Contribution of different velocity

25,670
18,780
15,885
16,591
16,195

15,960
17,480
19,015
24,895
14,840
20,488
PSO-6

50.00
9,845
and position update formulae of the PSO and PSO-VNS on the efficiency

6
in finding the optimal solutions is shown on the last column of the table.
For the twelve small size problems, as evidenced in Tables 5 and 8,

15,885
16,591
24,895
14,840
20,560
25,670
19,140
16,195

15,960
17,480
19,015
PSO-5

50.00
9,845
we used all the methods to determine the optimal solutions. It was found
that only five small size problems yielded optimal solutions by all the

6
methods. It was also discovered that PSO-VNS-6 used the least average

20,560
25,670
19,140
15,885
16,591
16,195

15,960
17,968
19,015
25,480
14,840
CPU time, hence the most efficient. The CPU time in Table 8 was the
PSO-4

41.67
9,845

time taken to reach the optimal solution.

5
Table 8 reveals that the hybrid version of PSO and VNS uses less CPU
time than the original version of the PSO. This mean that VNS can
25,670
19,140
15,885
16,591
16,195

15,960
17,968
19,015
25,480
14,840
21,100
PSO-3

41.67
9,845

significantly improve the solution quality of the PSO. The PSO used an

5
average of 37.64 s to find the optimal solution while PSO-VNS did 29.65
s, which means the PSO-VNS was 26.94 %. more efficient in finding the
21,044
25,670
19,140
15,885
17,318
16,195

15,960
17,968
19,015
25,591
14,840
PSO-2

41.67
9,845

optimal solution than the PSO. 5

A clearer comparison of the CPU time of all the methods is depicted
in Fig. 5. It is seen that PSO-VNS-6 is the best method among all the
21,189
25,670
19,140
15,885
17,447
16,195

15,960
18,824
19,015
26,872
14,840
PSO-1

41.67
9,845

proposed methods. It can reduce the CPU time of the PSO-6 and the
HPSO-NSS by 59.85 % and 46.25% respectively. The average CPU time
5

for using different velocity and position update formulae is shown in

HPSO-NSS

Table 9.
14,840
19,940
24,840
17,920
15,885
16,140
16,195

15,960
17,480
19,015
24,050

From Table 9, we can see than Eq. (25), which is the velocity update
83.33
9,845

formula, used the smallest CPU time when compared with others. This is
10
Computational results of the small size test instances.

because it was guided by the current best solution and the global best
Remark: Comp = computational time of Lingo v.11

solution. For the use of the position update formula, we can see that
formula (34) which includes the random position into the traditional
Number of times the optimal solution was found:
19,835
18,215
29,955
17,215
23,800
29,220
23,430
17,455
11,035
18,025
20,660
22,700

formula could find the optimal solution faster due to its mechanism to
BS

escape from the local optimum. Eq. (25) uses 55.32 % and 29.55 %
shorter time to find the optimal solutions than Eqs. (23) and (24)
1071.98

respectively, while Eq. (34) uses 11.10 % less time to find the optimal
143.89

743.93
809.33
904.01
746.95
602.19
902.31
918.86
Comp

30.74
40.23

815.6

solution than Eq. (33). On the average, the PSO-VNS used, 26.95 % less
time to find the optimal solution compared with the traditional PSO.
The proposed methods were used to solve the large size problems for
15,843
24,050
14,840
19,940
24,840
17,920
15,607
16,195

15,960
17,480
19,015
9,845
Lingo

comparison with Lingo v. 11. Lingo v.11 was executed for 48 h, and the
% Optimal solution

best solution obtained was recorded as BS, whereas the proposed

methods were run for 45 min with the result shown in Table 10.
Instances

From the computational results shown in Tables 10 and 11 it is

Table 5

evidenced that using alternative velocity (Eq. (24) and Eq. (25)) and
S-10
S-11
S-12
S-6
S-7
S-8
S-9
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
S-5

position (Eq. (34)) update formulae significantly improves the solution

9
K. Worasan et al. Intelligent Systems with Applications 18 (2023) 200206

Table 6
Statistical test of results shown in Table 5.
Method BS HPSO- PSO- PSO- PSO- PSO- PSO- PSO- PSO-VNS- PSO-VNS- PSO-VNS- PSO-VNS- PSO-VNS- PSO-VNS-
NSS 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Lingo 0.00 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.14 0.14 0.17 *
BS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
HPSO-NSS 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.18 0.02 0.14 0.14 0.14
PSO-1 0.13 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01
PSO-2 0.39 0.14 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01
PSO-3 0.34 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01
PSO-4 0.02 0.07 0.13 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01
PSO-5 0.29 0.18 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01
PSO-6 0.31 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.03
PSO-VNS- 0.34 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.03
1
PSO-VNS- 0.02 0.18 0.34 0.03
2
PSO-VNS- 0.02 0.34 0.14
3
PSO-VNS- 0.34 0.14
4
PSO-VNS- 0.17
5
*
Identical solution

Table 7
Benefit of using different velocity and position update Equation of the small size test instances.
Velocity Method Opt. = Makespan(minute) % No.
F
S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 S-9 S-10 S-11 S-12 AVG

Eq. 23 PSO-1 16,195 9,845 15,960 18,824 19,015 26,872 14,840 21,189 25,670 19,140 15,885 17,447 18,092.21 50.00
48 PSO-2 16,195 9,845 15,960 17,968 19,015 25,591 14,840 21,044 25,670 19,140 15,885 17,318
cases PSO-VNS- 16,195 9,845 15,960 17,480 19,015 24,050 14,840 20,451 25,670 18,780 15,885 16,591
1
PSO-VNS- 16,195 9,845 15,960 17,480 19,015 24,050 14,840 20,451 25,670 18,780 15,885 16,140
2
Eq. 24 PSO-3 16,195 9,845 15,960 17,968 19,015 25,480 14,840 21,100 25,670 19,140 15,885 16,591 17,932.88 58.33
48 PSO-4 16,195 9,845 15,960 17,968 19,015 25,480 14,840 20,560 25,670 19,140 15,885 16,591
cases PSO-VNS- 16,195 9,845 15,960 17,480 19,015 24,050 14,840 19,940 24,840 18,780 15,885 16,140
3
PSO-VNS- 16,195 9,845 15,960 17,480 19,015 24,050 14,840 19,940 24,840 18,780 15,885 16,140
4
Eq. 25 PSO-5 16,195 9,845 15,960 17,480 19,015 24,895 14,840 20,560 25,670 19,140 15,885 16,591 17,820.00 70.83
48 PSO-6 16,195 9,845 15,960 17,480 19,015 24,895 14,840 20,488 25,670 18,780 15,885 16,591
cases PSO-VNS- 16,195 9,845 15,960 17,480 19,015 24,050 14,840 19,940 24,840 17,920 15,880 16,140
5
PSO-VNS- 16,195 9,845 15,960 17,480 19,015 24,050 14,840 19,940 24,840 17,920 15,607 15,843
6
Position Method S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 S-9 S-10 S-11 S-12 AVG
Eq. 33 PSO-1 16,195 9,845 15,960 18,824 19,015 26,872 14,840 21,189 25,670 19,140 15,885 17,447 17,957.22 52.78
72 PSO-3 16,195 9,845 15,960 17,968 19,015 25,480 14,840 21,100 25,670 19,140 15,885 16,591
cases PSO-5 16,195 9,845 15,960 17,451 17,480 24,895 14,840 20,560 25,670 19,140 15,885 16,591
PSO-VNS- 16,195 9,845 15,960 17,480 19,015 24,050 14,840 20,451 25,670 18,780 15,885 16,591
1
PSO-VNS- 16,195 9,845 15,960 17,480 19,015 24,050 14,840 19,940 24,840 18,780 15,885 16,140
3
PSO-VNS- 16,195 9,845 15,960 17,480 19,015 24,050 14,840 19,940 24,840 17,920 15,880 16,140
5
Eq. 34 PSO-2 16,195 9,845 15,960 17,968 19,015 25,591 14,840 21,044 25,670 19,140 15,885 17,318 17,917.78 61.11
72 PSO-4 16,195 9,845 15,960 17,968 19,015 25,480 14,840 20,560 25,670 19,140 15,885 16,591
cases PSO-6 16,195 9,845 15,960 17,480 19,015 24,895 14,840 20,488 25,670 18,780 15,885 16,591
PSO-VNS- 16,195 9,845 15,960 17,480 19,015 24,050 14,840 20,451 25,670 18,780 15,885 16,140
2
PSO-VNS- 16,195 9,845 15,960 17,480 19,015 24,050 14,840 19,940 24,840 18,780 15,885 16,140
4
PSO-VNS- 16,195 9,845 15,960 17,480 19,015 24,050 14,840 19,940 24,840 17,920 15,607 15,843
6
All PSO 18,137.65 44.44
All PSO-VNS 17,759.07 75.00

* No.F (Percent of Number of times the optimal solution was found:)

quality of the original PSO. The hybrid version of PSO and VNS also formulae is shown in Table 12.
significantly improves the solution quality from the original PSO. From Table 12, it is clear that Eq. (25) can increase solution quality
Summary of the benefits of using different velocity and position update from Eqs. (23) and (24), by 4.10% and 2.06%, respectively, while using

10
K. Worasan et al. Intelligent Systems with Applications 18 (2023) 200206

Table 8
The computational time that the proposed method takes to find the optimal solution.
Instances Lingo CPU time (second)

Comp HPSO- PSO- PSO- PSO- PSO- PSO- PSO- PSO- PSO- PSO- PSO- PSO- PSO-
NSS 1 2 3 4 5 6 VNS-1 VNS-2 VNS-3 VNS-4 VNS-5 VNS-6

S-1 16,195 30.74 13.3 25 21.4 15.8 14.2 13.8 12.4 21 17.9 14.5 12.8 10.4 9.8
S-2 9,845 40.23 14.5 27.5 23.8 24.2 21.8 19.5 17.9 24.9 23.4 19.8 17.3 15.8 13.1
S-3 15,960 143.89 20.8 41.2 37.5 37.3 33.5 30.2 28.2 38.2 34.6 29.2 24.8 20.5 13.8
S-5 19,015 743.93 36.3 60.1 53.4 56.2 53.8 41.7 39.1 50.2 48.1 40.2 34.9 32.8 21.9
S-7 14,840 904.01 51.7 70.9 67.4 67.9 64.8 57.1 51.7 65.8 62.4 50.8 45.8 40.1 34.8
average 372.56 27.32 44.94 40.7 40.28 37.62 32.46 29.86 40.02 37.28 30.9 27.12 23.92 18.68
PSO PSO-VNS
37.64 29.65

Fig. 5. Average computation time of the various methods to find the optimal solution of small size of test instances.

Table 9
Average computational time for using different velocity and position update equation of results shown in Table 8.
Type Equation Equation Method CPU time (second)

S-1 S-2 S-3 S-5 S-7 AVG

Velocity Eq. (23) PSO-1 25 28 41 60 71 40.74

PSO-2 21 24 38 53 67
PSO-VNS-1 21 25 38 50 66
PSO-VNS-2 18 23 35 48 62
Eq. (24) PSO-3 16 24 37 56 68 33.98
PSO-4 14 22 34 54 65
PSO-VNS-3 15 20 29 40 51
PSO-VNS-4 13 17 25 35 46
Eq. (25) PSO-5 14 20 30 42 57 26.23
PSO-6 12 18 28 39 52
PSO-VNS-5 10 16 21 33 40
PSO-VNS-6 9.8 13.1 13.8 21.9 34.8
Position Eq. (33) PSO-1 25 28 41 60 71 35.42
PSO-3 16 24 37 56 68
PSO-5 14 20 30 42 57
PSO-VNS-1 21 25 38 50 66
PSO-VNS-3 15 20 29 40 51
PSO-VNS-5 10 16 21 33 40
Eq. (34) PSO-2 21 24 38 53 67 31.88
PSO-4 14 22 34 54 65
PSO-6 12 18 28 39 52
PSO-VNS-2 18 23 35 48 62
PSO-VNS-4 13 17 25 35 46
PSO-VNS-6 10 13 14 22 35
All PSO 37.64
All PSO-VNS 29.65

11
K. Worasan et al. Intelligent Systems with Applications 18 (2023) 200206

Table 10
Computational results of the large size of test instances.
Instances Opt. = Makespan (minute)

BS CP HPSO- PSO-1 PSO-2 PSO-3 PSO-4 PSO-5 PSO-6 PSO- PSO- PSO- PSO- PSO- PSO-
NSS VNS-1 VNS-2 VNS-3 VNS-4 VNS-5 VNS-6

L-1 39,577 40,321 36,781 39,998 38,728 37,570 37,026 36,883 36,883 36,016 36,016 35,989 35,575 35,729 35,571
L-2 40,283 41,401 39,108 40,218 40,117 40,118 40,015 39,976 39,579 39,138 39,002 38,995 38,882 38,985 38,591
L-3 43,104 43,600 40,589 42,993 42,568 42,339 42,331 42,059 41,880 41,563 41,108 41,172 40,983 40,568 39,996
L-4 27,893 28,201 25,613 27,561 27,108 27,005 27,124 26,892 26,798 26,237 26,182 25,906 25,689 25,350 24,751
L-5 25,106 25,220 23,189 24,989 24,580 24,381 24,099 24,003 23,981 23,785 23,348 23,258 23,186 23,004 22,036
L-6 34,570 35,725 29,975 34,184 34,109 33,815 32,297 32,211 32,258 31,087 30,985 30,818 29,761 29,690 28,795
L-7 38,644 39,150 35,794 38,198 37,613 37,420 36,782 36,288 36,085 35,762 35,086 34,982 34,566 34,089 32,591
L-8 38,847 39,295 34,277 37,893 37,109 36,874 36,120 36,784 35,872 35,388 34,899 34,438 34,172 33,674 32,246
L-9 38,212 39,354 33,948 37,377 37,187 37,153 37,119 36,592 35,967 34,287 34,170 33,597 33,364 33,061 32,090
L-10 39,200 40,001 34,023 38,731 38,546 38,262 37,806 37,739 37,223 35,901 35,276 33,621 33,368 33,018 32,528
L-11 34,783 35,810 31,984 34,118 34,072 33,986 33,675 33,019 32,766 32,818 31,872 30,892 30,568 30,102 29,246
L-12 36,006 36,858 32,146 35,672 35,109 35,004 34,949 34,872 34,099 33,892 32,986 32,379 32,237 31,875 30,323
L-13 33,028 33,035 28,990 32,875 32,478 32,783 31,988 31,038 30,916 29,988 29,857 29,184 28,975 28,467 27,386
L-14 39,967 40,721 35,593 38,989 38,471 38,057 37,719 37,057 37,004 36,781 36,198 35,591 35,381 35,110 34,391
L-15 39,576 40,321 35,617 39,997 38,729 37,569 37,025 36,882 36,882 36,015 36,016 35,989 35,575 35,728 35,571
L-16 40,284 41,401 39,095 40,219 40,117 40,117 40,015 39,976 39,578 39,138 39,002 38,995 38,881 38,984 38,590
L-17 43,105 43,601 41,120 42,994 42,567 42,339 42,332 42,058 41,879 41,563 41,109 41,172 40,983 40,568 39,995
L-18 49,437 51,252 43,759 48,782 48,330 48,097 47,979 45,995 45,805 45,597 45,235 43,211 42,786 41,302 40,527
L-19 49,848 50,569 43,265 48,482 48,258 48,121 47,633 47,331 47,041 43,699 43,484 42,613 41,706 40,986 40,132
L-20 52,989 53,917 47,964 50,701 50,669 50,194 49,877 49,490 49,278 48,798 48,013 47,236 47,150 47,149 46,908
L-21 50,200 53,281 47,038 49,478 48,963 48,697 48,525 47,555 47,344 47,167 47,139 46,446 46,446 45,894 45,363
L-22 51,855 54,972 46,942 50,622 50,505 50,169 49,809 49,640 49,528 47,707 47,103 46,887 45,471 45,437 45,040
Average 40,296 41,273 36,673 39,776 39,361 39,094 38,738 38,379 38,120 37,379 37,004 36,517 36,168 35,853 35,121
PSO PSO-VNS
38,911 36,340

Remark: the stopping criteria is 45 min

Table 11
Statistical tests of results shown in Table 10.
Method CP HPSO- PSO-1 PSO-2 PSO-3 PSO-4 PSO-5 PSO-6 PSO-VNS- PSO-VNS- PSO-VNS- PSO-VNS- PSO-VNS- PSO-VNS-
NSS 1 2 3 4 5 6

BS <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
CP <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
HPSO- <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 0.012 .158 <.001 <.001 <.001
NSS
PSO-1 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
PSO-2 .001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
PSO-3 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
PSO-4 .003 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
PSO-5 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
PSO-6 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
PSO-VNS- <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
1
PSO-VNS- <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001
2
PSO-VNS- <.001 <.001 <.001
3
PSO-VNS- <.001 <.001
4
PSO-VNS- <.001
5

formula (34) as the position update formula can increase the solution
quality from Eq. (33), by 1.11%, while the hybrid version of PSO and
VNS can improve the solution quality from traditional PSO by 7.08%. It
should be noted that the percentage improvements are average values.
Fig. 6 shows the average makespan obtained while using different
methods. It shows that PSO-VNS-6 is the best method among all the
methods. It can improve the solution quality of the PSO-6 and HPSO-
NSS, on the average, by 8.54% and 4.42% respectively.
In comparing the computational results of the hybrid PSO and VNS
algorithms with the mathematical model for small sized problems, the
PSO-VNS-6 algorithm yielded optimal solutions (the performance of the
heuristic (Pheu ) = 100%), while the original PSO and the PSO-NSS were
44.44 % and 83.33% efficient, respectively. For the large-size problems,
on the average, all the PSO-VNS methods had an average relative
improvement (RI) value of 11.76% over the current practice. Among the
PSO-VNS methods, the PSO-VNS-6 had the highest RI of 14.82%, while
the original PSO and the PSO-NSS yielded the RI values of 5.53 % and
10.01%, respectively (see Table 13). Using different velocity and posi­
tion update formulae proved to generate different solution quality.
Considering the RI based on the results of the large size problems, using
Eq. (25) increased the solution quality by 4.10 % from the traditional
formula, while taking 55.32% less CPU time to find the optimal solution
than that of the original PSO.
5. Conclusion
This research aims to solve the Machinery and Equipment Allocation
and Scheduling Problem (MEASP) which is special type of a hybrid flow

12
 K. Worasan et al.
Table 12
Average makespan of using different velocity and position update Equation.
Type Method Opt. = Makespan (minute) AVG
Velocity L-1 L-2 L-3 L-4 L-5 L-6 L-7 L-8 L-9 L-10 L-11 L-12 L-13 L-14 L-15 L-16 L-17 L-18 L-19 L-20 L-21 L-22

Eq. (23) PSO-1 39,997 40,218 42,993 27,560 24,988 34,184 38,197 37,893 37,377 38,731 34,118 35,671 32,874 38,989 39,997 40,218 42,993 48,782 48,482 50,701 49,478 50,622 38,379
PSO-2 38,728 40,117 42,567 27,108 24,579 34,109 37,613 37,109 37,187 38,546 34,071 35,108 32,478 38,471 38,728 40,117 42,567 48,330 48,258 50,669 48,963 50,505
PSO-VNS-1 36,015 39,138 41,563 26,236 23,784 31,087 35,761 35,387 34,287 35,901 32,817 33,891 29,988 36,781 36,015 39,138 41,563 45,597 43,699 48,798 47,167 47,707
PSO-VNS-2 36,015 39,001 41,108 26,182 23,348 30,984 35,085 34,898 34,170 35,276 31,871 32,985 29,856 36,198 36,015 39,001 41,108 45,235 43,484 48,013 47,139 47,103
Eq. (24) PSO-3 37,569 40,117 42,338 27,005 24,381 33,814 37,419 36,874 37,153 38,262 33,985 35,004 32,782 38,057 37,569 40,117 42,338 48,097 48,121 50,194 48,697 50,169 37,629
PSO-4 37,025 40,014 42,331 27,124 24,098 32,297 36,781 36,119 37,119 37,806 33,675 34,948 31,987 37,719 37,025 40,014 42,331 47,979 47,633 49,877 48,525 49,809
PSO-VNS-3 35,989 38,995 41,172 25,905 23,258 30,817 34,981 34,438 33,597 33,621 30,891 32,379 29,183 35,591 35,989 38,995 41,172 43,211 42,613 47,236 46,446 46,887
PSO-VNS-4 35,574 38,881 40,982 25,688 23,186 29,761 34,565 34,172 33,364 33,368 30,567 32,237 28,974 35,381 35,574 38,881 40,982 42,786 41,706 47,150 46,446 45,471
Eq. (25) PSO-5 36,882 39,976 42,058 26,891 24,003 32,210 36,287 36,783 36,592 37,739 33,018 34,871 31,038 37,056 36,882 39,976 42,058 45,995 47,331 49,490 47,555 49,640 36,868
PSO-6 36,882 39,578 41,879 26,798 23,981 32,258 36,084 35,871 35,967 37,223 32,766 34,098 30,916 37,004 36,882 39,578 41,879 45,805 47,041 49,278 47,344 49,528
PSO-VNS-5 35,728 38,984 40,567 25,349 23,004 29,689 34,089 33,673 33,061 33,018 30,102 31,875 28,467 35,109 35,728 38,984 40,567 41,302 40,986 47,149 45,894 45,437
13

PSO-VNS-6 35,570 38,590 39,995 24,750 22,035 28,795 32,590 32,245 32,090 32,528 29,245 30,323 27,385 34,390 35,570 38,590 39,995 40,527 40,132 46,908 45,363 45,040
Position Method L-1 L-2 L-3 L-4 L-5 L-6 L-7 L-8 L-9 L-10 L-11 L-12 L-13 L-14 L-15 L-16 L-17 L-18 L-19 L-20 L-21 L-22 AVG
Eq. (33) PSO-1 39,997 40,218 42,993 27,560 24,988 34,184 38,197 37,893 37,377 38,731 34,118 35,671 32,874 38,989 39,997 40,218 42,993 48,782 48,482 50,701 49,478 50,622 37,833
PSO-3 37,569 40,117 42,338 27,005 24,381 33,814 37,419 36,874 37,153 38,262 33,985 35,004 32,782 38,057 37,569 40,117 42,338 48,097 48,121 50,194 48,697 50,169
PSO-5 36,882 39,976 42,058 26,891 24,003 32,210 36,287 36,783 36,592 37,739 33,018 34,871 31,038 37,056 36,882 39,976 42,058 45,995 47,331 49,490 47,555 49,640
PSO-VNS-1 36,015 39,138 41,563 26,236 23,784 31,087 35,761 35,387 34,287 35,901 32,817 33,891 29,988 36,781 36,015 39,138 41,563 45,597 43,699 48,798 47,167 47,707
PSO-VNS-3 35,989 38,995 41,172 25,905 23,258 30,817 34,981 34,438 33,597 33,621 30,891 32,379 29,183 35,591 35,989 38,995 41,172 43,211 42,613 47,236 46,446 46,887
PSO-VNS-5 35,728 38,984 40,567 25,349 23,004 29,689 34,089 33,673 33,061 33,018 30,102 31,875 28,467 35,109 35,728 38,984 40,567 41,302 40,986 47,149 45,894 45,437
Eq. (34) PSO-2 38,728 40,117 42,567 27,108 24,579 34,109 37,613 37,109 37,187 38,546 34,071 35,108 32,478 38,471 38,728 40,117 42,567 48,330 48,258 50,669 48,963 50,505 37,418
PSO-4 37,025 40,014 42,331 27,124 24,098 32,297 36,781 36,119 37,119 37,806 33,675 34,948 31,987 37,719 37,025 40,014 42,331 47,979 47,633 49,877 48,525 49,809
PSO-6 36,882 39,578 41,879 26,798 23,981 32,258 36,084 35,871 35,967 37,223 32,766 34,098 30,916 37,004 36,882 39,578 41,879 45,805 47,041 49,278 47,344 49,528
PSO-VNS-2 36,015 39,001 41,108 26,182 23,348 30,984 35,085 34,898 34,170 35,276 31,871 32,985 29,856 36,198 36,015 39,001 41,108 45,235 43,484 48,013 47,139 47,103
PSO-VNS-4 35,574 38,881 40,982 25,688 23,186 29,761 34,565 34,172 33,364 33,368 30,567 32,237 28,974 35,381 35,574 38,881 40,982 42,786 41,706 47,150 46,446 45,471
PSO-VNS-6 35,570 38,590 39,995 24,750 22,035 28,795 32,590 32,245 32,090 32,528 29,245 30,323 27,385 34,390 35,570 38,590 39,995 40,527 40,132 46,908 45,363 45,040

Intelligent Systems with Applications 18 (2023) 200206

All PSO 38,911
All PSO-VNS 36,340
K. Worasan et al. Intelligent Systems with Applications 18 (2023) 200206

Fig. 6. Average makespan using the proposed methods to solve the large size of test instances.

Table 13
The relative improvement of all the proposed algorithm compares with current practice.
Instances Relative Improvement (%)

HPSO- PSO- PSO- PSO- PSO- PSO- PSO- PSO-VNS- PSO-VNS- PSO-VNS- PSO-VNS- PSO-VNS- PSO-VNS-
NSS 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

L-1 8.78 0.80 3.95 6.82 8.17 8.53 8.53 10.68 10.68 10.74 11.77 11.39 11.78
L-2 5.54 2.86 3.10 3.10 3.35 3.44 4.40 5.47 5.80 5.81 6.08 5.84 6.79
L-3 6.91 1.39 2.37 2.89 2.91 3.54 3.95 4.67 5.72 5.57 6.00 6.95 8.27
L-4 9.18 2.27 3.87 4.24 3.82 4.64 4.97 6.96 7.16 8.14 8.91 10.11 12.23
L-5 8.06 0.92 2.54 3.33 4.45 4.83 4.91 5.69 7.42 7.78 8.07 8.79 12.63
L-6 16.10 4.31 4.52 5.35 9.60 9.84 9.70 12.98 13.27 13.74 16.69 16.89 19.40
L-7 8.57 2.43 3.93 4.42 6.05 7.31 7.83 8.65 10.38 10.65 11.71 12.93 16.76
L-8 12.77 3.57 5.56 6.16 8.08 6.39 8.71 9.94 11.19 12.36 13.04 14.31 17.94
L-9 13.74 5.03 5.51 5.59 5.68 7.02 8.61 12.88 13.17 14.63 15.22 15.99 18.46
L-10 14.95 3.18 3.64 4.35 5.49 5.66 6.95 10.25 11.81 15.95 16.58 17.46 18.68
L-11 10.69 4.72 4.85 5.10 5.96 7.80 8.50 8.36 11.00 13.74 14.64 15.94 18.33
L-12 12.78 3.22 4.75 5.03 5.18 5.39 7.49 8.05 10.51 12.15 12.54 13.52 17.73
L-13 12.25 0.49 1.69 0.76 3.17 6.05 6.41 9.22 9.62 11.66 12.29 13.83 17.10
L-14 12.59 4.25 5.52 6.54 7.37 9.00 9.13 9.67 11.11 12.60 13.11 13.78 15.54
L-15 11.67 0.80 3.95 6.82 8.17 8.53 8.53 10.68 10.68 10.74 11.77 11.39 11.78
L-16 5.57 2.85 3.10 3.10 3.35 3.44 4.40 5.47 5.79 5.81 6.09 5.84 6.79
L-17 5.69 1.39 2.37 2.90 2.91 3.54 3.95 4.67 5.72 5.57 6.01 6.96 8.27
L-18 14.62 4.82 5.70 6.15 6.39 10.26 10.63 11.03 11.74 15.69 16.52 19.41 20.93
L-19 14.44 4.13 4.57 4.84 5.81 6.40 6.98 13.58 14.01 15.73 17.53 18.95 20.64
L-20 11.04 5.97 6.02 6.91 7.49 8.21 8.60 9.49 10.95 12.39 12.55 12.55 13.00
L-21 11.72 7.14 8.11 8.60 8.93 10.75 11.14 11.48 11.53 12.83 12.83 13.87 14.86
L-22 14.61 7.91 8.13 8.74 9.39 9.70 9.90 13.22 14.31 14.71 17.28 17.35 18.07
Average 11.01 3.38 4.44 5.08 5.99 6.83 7.46 9.23 10.16 11.32 12.15 12.91 14.82
PSO PSO-VNS
5.53 11.76

shop scheduling problem sequence dependent setup times, machine
eligibility, machine grouping, blocking, tooling constraint, and time
windows (HFS | SDST , rcrc, Grouping, blocking, Tool, Tw | Cmax ). The
objective of this research is to minimize the total completion time for
sugarcane cultivation. A Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP)
model was developed to handle small-scale problems. For large-scale
problems, the hybrid Particle Swarm Optimization and the Variable
Neighborhood Search (PSO-VNS) was used. PSO has been modified by
using two new velocity formulae (Eqs. (24) and (25)) and one new po­
sition update formula (Eq. (34)). The computational results show that
the hybrid PSO-VNS outperforms the original PSO and PSO-NSS.
For small-size problems, the PSO-VNS-6 is 100% efficient in finding
the optimal solution, while the original PSO and the PSO-NSS were
44.44 % and 83.33% efficient, respectively. For the large-size problems,
using different velocity and position update formulae proved to generate
different solution quality. Using a new velocity formula (Eq. (25)) and a
new position update formula (Eq. (34)) increased the solution quality by
4.10 % from the traditional formula, while taking 55.32% less CPU time
to find the optimal solution than that of the original PSO. Therefore, the
PSO-VNS-6 was the most efficient and had the highest RI of 14.82%,
while the original PSO and the PSO-NSS yielded the RI values of 5.53 %
and 10.01%, respectively.
In PSO, lack of diversity of the population, particularly during the
latter stages of the optimization, was understood as the dominant factor
for the convergence of particles to local optimum solutions prematurely.
In this paper, we developed two new velocity update formulae and a
position update formula. It was incorporated into the Particle Swarm
Optimization (PSO). The PSO-VNS algorithm was first presented to solve
the HFS problem, and it yielded an excellent solution. It was also found
that there was a good opportunity to develop more efficient neighbor­
hood strategies to use hybridization with the PSO. However, the limi­
tation of this research was that the number of soil preparation stages of
all sugarcane fields was equal for problems of the same size. In real
cases, the physical characteristics of the soil are different, so the number
of soil preparations may vary, resulting in a different number of types of
equipment used. We suggest that an extension of PSO-VNS be applied to
similar problems in other industries.

14
K. Worasan et al.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Kongkidakhon Worasan: Formal analysis, Writing – original draft,
Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Methodol­
ogy. Kanchana Sethanan: Formal analysis, Writing – original draft,
Supervision, Methodology. Rapeepan Pitakaso: Conceptualization,
Writing – original draft, Methodology, Software. Thitipong Jamrus:
Validation. Karn Moonsri: Validation. Paulina Golinska-Dawson:
Validation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Research and Graduate Studies Khon
Kaen University, Thailand (grant number RP66-1-004), Faculty of En­
gineering, Khon Kaen University and Faculty of Business Administration
and Accountancy, Khon Kaen University, Thailand. We thank Prof.
Somnuk Theerakulpisut for critical review and Ian Thomas for linguistic
corrections.
References
Ahmed, A. E., & Alam-Eldin, A. O. (2015). An assessment of mechanical vs manual
harvesting of the sugarcane in Sudan–the case of Sennar Sugar Factory. Journal of the
Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, 14(2), 160–166.
Aqil, S., & Allali, K. (2021a). On a bi-criteria flow shop scheduling problem under
constraints of blocking and sequence dependent setup time. Annals of Operations
Research, 296(1), 615–637.
Aqil, S., & Allali, K. (2021b). Two efficient nature inspired meta-heuristics solving
blocking hybrid flow shop manufacturing problem. Engineering Applications of
Artificial Intelligence, 100, Article 104196.
Artz, G. M., & Naeve, L. (2016). The benefits and challenges of machinery sharing among
small-scale fruit and vegetable growers. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and
Community Development, 6(3), 1–19.
Bank of Thailand, (2018). New S-Curve Sugarcane and Sugar Industry in Thailand.
Retrieved from https://www.bot.or.th/Thai/MonetaryPolicy/NorthEastern/Doclib_
Seminar60/41_Paper_SugarcaneIndust.pdf.
Bean, J. C. (1994). Genetic algorithms and random keys for sequencing and optimization.
ORSA journal on computing, 6(2), 154–160.
Bektur, G., & Saraç, T. (2019). A mathematical model and heuristic algorithms for an
unrelated parallel machine scheduling problem with sequence-dependent setup
times, machine eligibility restrictions and a common server. Computers & Operations
Research, 103, 46–63.
Birthal, P. S., & Parthasarathy, R. P. (2001). Technology options for sustainable livestock
production in India. In , 2002. Proceedings of the workshop on documentation, adoption,
and impact of livestock technologies in India, Hiderabad, India, 18–19 January 2001.
ICRISAT.
Chamnanlor, C., & Sethanan, K. (2015). Bi-objective optimization for re-entrant shop
scheduling problem. CMU Journal of Natural Science, 14, 447–460.
Chamnanlor, C., Sethanan, K., Chien, C. F., & Gen, M. (2013). Hybrid genetic algorithms
for solving reentrant flow-shop scheduling with time windows. Industrial Engineering
and Management Systems, 12(4), 306–316.
Chamnanlor, C., Sethanan, K., Chien, C. F., & Gen, M. (2014). Re-entrant flow shop
scheduling problem with time windows using hybrid genetic algorithm based on
auto-tuning strategy. International Journal of Production Research, 52(9), 2612–2629.
Chegini, S. N., Bagheri, A., & Najafi, F. (2018). PSOSCALF: A new hybrid PSO based on
Sine Cosine Algorithm and Levy flight for solving optimization problems. Applied Soft
Computing, 73, 697–726.
Danok, A., McCarl, B., & White, T. K. (1978). Machinery selection and crop planning on a
state farm in Iraq. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 60(3), 544–549.
de Siqueira, E. C., Souza, M. J., & de Souza, S. R. (2018). A multi-objective variable
neighborhood search algorithm for solving the hybrid flow shop problem. Electronic
Notes in Discrete Mathematics, 66, 87–94.
Department Agriculture Extension. (2020). Farmer Map. Retrieved from http://www.aiu.
doae.go.th/Farmermap/farmermapbook61-1904-watermark.pdf.
Dharmawardene, M. W. (2006). Trends in farm mechanization by sugarcane small land
holders in Sri Lanka. Sugar Tech, 8(1), 16–22.
Ebrahimi, M., Fatemi Ghomi, S. M. T., & Karimi, B. (2014). Hybrid flow shop scheduling
withsequence dependent family setup time and uncertain due dates. Applied
Mathematical Modelling, 38, 2490–2504.
Javadian, N., Amiri-Aref, M., Hadighi, A., Kazemi, M., & Moradi, A. (2010). Flexible flow
shop with sequence-dependent setup times and machine availability constraints.
International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 5, 219–226.
15
Intelligent Systems with Applications 18 (2023) 200206
Khare, A., & Agrawal, S. (2019). Scheduling hybrid flowshop with sequence-dependent
setup times and due windows to minimize total weighted earliness and tardiness.
Computers & Industrial Engineering, 135, 780–792.
Kong, M., Liu, X., Pei, J., Pardalos, P. M., & Mladenovic, N. (2020). Parallel-batching
scheduling with nonlinear processing times on a single and unrelated parallel
machines. Journal of Global Optimization, 78(4), 693–715.
Kusoncum, C., Sethanan, K., Pitakaso, R., & Hartl, R. F. (2021). Heuristics with novel
approaches for cyclical multiple parallel machine scheduling in sugarcane unloading
systems. International Journal of Production Research, 59(8), 2479–2497.
Li, J. Q., & Han, Y. Q. (2020). A hybrid multi-objective artificial bee colony algorithm for
flexible task scheduling problems in cloud computing system. Cluster Computing, 23
(4), 2483–2499.
Li, Y., Li, X., Gao, L., Zhang, B., Pan, Q. K., Tasgetiren, M. F., & Meng, L. (2021).
A discrete artificial bee colony algorithm for distributed hybrid flowshop scheduling
problem with sequence-dependent setup times. International Journal of Production
Research, 59(13), 3880–3899.
Maciel, I., Prata, B., Nagano, M., & Abreu, L. (2022). A hybrid genetic algorithm for the
hybrid flow shop scheduling problem with machine blocking and sequence-
dependent setup times. Journal of Project Management, 7(4), 201–216.
Marichelvam, M. K., Geetha, M., & Tosun, Ö. (2020). An improved particle swarm
optimization algorithm to solve hybrid flowshop scheduling problems with the effect
of human factors–A case study. Computers & Operations Research, 114, Article
104812.
Meng, L., Zhang, C., Shao, X., Zhang, B., Ren, Y., & Lin, W. (2020). More MILP models for
hybrid flow shop scheduling problem and its extended problems. International
Journal of Production Research, 58(13), 3905–3930.
Mladenović, N., & Hansen, P. (1997). Variable neighborhood search. Computers &
Operations Research, 24(11), 1097–1100.
Monjezi, N. (2015). Operations scheduling of sugarcane production using classical GERT
method (part I: land preparation, planting and preserve operations) (p. 71). Editorial
Team.
Neungmatcha, W., Sethanan, K., Gen, M., & Theerakulpisut, S. (2013). Adaptive genetic
algorithm for solving sugarcane loading stations with multi-facility services problem.
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 98, 85–99.
Norman, B. A., & Bean, J. C. (1997 Apr 13). Multiple spindle CNC machines. In
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation
(ICEC’97) (pp. 425–429). IEEE.
Patil, D. (2017). Cost reduction in sugar mill: A case study. In Proceedings of the 75th
annual convention of STAI (pp. 759–768).
Peng, K., Pan, Q. K., Gao, L., Li, X., Das, S., & Zhang, B. (2019). A multi-start variable
neighbourhood descent algorithm for hybrid flowshop rescheduling. Swarm and
Evolutionary Computation, 45, 92–112.
Pongchairerks, P. (2016). Forward VNS, reverse VNS, and multi-VNS algorithms for job-
shop scheduling problem. Modelling and Simulation in Engineering, 2016, 1–16.
Ratnaweera, A., Halgamuge, S. K., & Watson, H. C. (2004). Self-organizing hierarchical
particle swarm optimizer with time-varying acceleration coefficients. IEEE
Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 8(3), 240–255.
Sağir, M., & Okul, H. D. (2020). Restricted enumeration and machine grouping based
approach for hybrid flexible flow shop scheduling problems with sequence-
dependent setup times. Journal of Industrial Engineering (Turkish Chamber of
Mechanical Engineers), 31(3), 337–352.
Sangsawang, C., Sethanan, K., Fujimoto, T., & Gen, M. (2015). Metaheuristics
optimization approaches for two-stage re-entrant flexible flow shop with blocking
constraint. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(5), 2395–2410.
Sethanan, K., & Neungmatcha, W. (2016). Multi-objective particle swarm optimization
for mechanical harvester route planning of sugarcane field operations. European
Journal of Operational Research, 252(3), 969–984.
Sethanan, K. (2001). Scheduling flexible flowshops with sequence-dependent setup times.
West Virginia University.
Shao, Z., Shao, W., & Pi, D. (2021). Effective constructive heuristic and iterated greedy
algorithm for distributed mixed blocking permutation flow-shop scheduling
problem. Knowledge-Based Systems, 221, Article 106959.
Stoof, C. R., Richards, B. K., Woodbury, P. B., Fabio, E. S., Brumbach, A. R., Cherney, J.,
Das, S., Geohring, L., Hansen, J., Hornesky, J., & Mayton, H. (2015). Untapped
potential: Opportunities and challenges for sustainable bioenergy production from
marginal lands in the Northeast USA. BioEnergy Research, 8(2), 482–501.
USDA (2022). Sugar: World markets and trade. Retrieved from https://apps.fas.usda.
gov/psdonline/circulars/sugar.pdf.
USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (2022). Sugar annual. Retrieved from https://www.fa
s.usda.gov/data/thailand-sugar-annual-6.
Valizadeh, S., Fatahi Valilai, O., & Houshmand, M. (2020). Flexible flow line scheduling
considering machine eligibility in a digital dental laboratory. International Journal of
Production Research, 58(21), 6513–6531.
Wang, S., Wang, X., Chu, F., & Yu, J. (2020). An energy-efficient two-stage hybrid flow
shop scheduling problem in a glass production. International Journal of Production
Research, 58(8), 2283–2314.
Worasan, K., Sethanan, K., & Moonsri, K. (2018). Hybrid differential evolution and
particle swarm optimization algorithm for the sugarcane cultivation scheduling
problem. Chiang Mai University Journal of Natural Sciences, 17(3), 241–258.
Worasan, K., Sethanan, K., Pitakaso, R., Moonsri, K., & Nitisiri, K. (2020). Hybrid particle
swarm optimization and neighborhood strategy search for scheduling machines and
equipment and routing of tractors in sugarcane field preparation. Computers and
Electronics in Agriculture, 178, Article 105733.
Wu, C. C., Chen, J. Y., Lin, W. C., Lai, K., Liu, S. C., & Yu, P. W. (2018). A two-stage three-
machine assembly flow shop scheduling with learning consideration to minimize the
K. Worasan et al.
flowtime by six hybrids of particle swarm optimization. Swarm and Evolutionary
Computation, 41, 97–110.
Xu, D., Liu, M., Yin, Y., & Hao, J. (2013). Scheduling tool changes and special jobs on a
singlemachine to minimize makespan. Omega, 41, 299–304.
Yan, Q., & Zhang, Q. (2015). The optimization of transportation costs in logistics
enterprises with time-window constraints. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society,
2015, 1–11.
16
Intelligent Systems with Applications 18 (2023) 200206
Yu, C., Andreotti, P., & Semeraro, Q. (2020). Multi-objective scheduling in hybrid flow
shop: Evolutionary algorithms using multi-decoding framework. Computers &
Industrial Engineering, 147, Article 106570.
Zhuang, Z., Zhang, Z., Teng, H., Qin, W., & Fang, H. (2022). Optimization for integrated
scheduling of intelligent handling equipment with bidirectional flows and limited
buffers at automated container terminals. Computers & Operations Research, 145,
Article 105863.