THREE STAGE FLOW SHOP SCHEDULING PROBLEM

WITH BRANCH AND BOUND TECHNIQUE IN WHICH

PROCESSING TIME ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR
RESPECTIVE PROBABILITIES INCLUDING
TRANSPORTATION TIME AND BREAKDOWN
INTERVAL
DEEPAK GUPTA
Prof. & Head, Department of Mathematics, Maharishi Markandeshwar
University, Mullana, Ambala (India) guptadeepak2003@yahoo.co.in

PAYAL SINGLA
Research Scholar, Department of Mathematics, Maharishi Markandeshwar
University, Mullana, Ambala (India) Payalsingla86@gmail.com

SHASHI BALA
Research Scholar, Department of Mathematics, Maharishi Markandeshwar
University, Mullana, Ambala (India), Shashigarg97@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
This paper is an attempt to minimize the total elapsed time for the nx3
flowshop schedule problem in which processing times are associated with their
respective probabilities and break down interval. A branch and bound technique
is applied to solve the problem. The method given in this paper is very simple
and easy to understand. The algorithm of the problem has been clarified by a
numerical example.
KEYWORDS: Flow-Shop, Branch and Bound, Optimal Sequence Scheduling,
Break Down Interval, Make Span, Total Elapsed Time.

International Journal of Industrial
Engineering & Technology (IJIET)
Vol.2, Issue 1 Mar 2012 45-57
TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.,

Deepak Gupta, Payal Singla & Shashi Bala 46
INTRODUCTION
Scheduling is the process of generating the schedule and shows a plan for
the timing of certain activities. In a scheduling process, the type and amount of
each resource should be known so that accomplishing of tasks can be feasibly
determined. Boundary of scheduling problem can be efficiently determined if
resources are specified. The research in to flow shop scheduling has drawn a
great attention in the last decade with the aim to increase the effectiveness of
industrial production. Various researchers have done a lot of work in this direction.
Johnson (1954) first of all gave a method to minimise the makespan for n-job,
two-machine scheduling problems. The scheduling problem practically depends
upon the important factors namely, Transportation time, break down effect,
Relative importance of a job over another job etc. These concepts were
separately studied by Ignall and Scharge (1965), Cambell (1970), Maggu and Dass
(1981), Heydari (2003), Temiz and Erol (2004) Yoshida and Hitomi (1979),
Lomnicki (1965), Palmer (1965), Bestwick and Hastings (1976), Nawaz et al.
(1983), Sarin and Lefoka (1993), Koulamas (1998), Dannenbring (1977), etc.
Yoshida and Hitomi (1979) considered two stage flow shop problem to
minimize the makespan whenever set up times are separated from processing time.
The basic concept of equivalent job for a job block has been introduced by Maggu
and Dass (1981). Singh T.P. and Gupta Deepak (2005)studied the optimal two
stage production schedule in which processing time and set up time both were
associated with probabilities including job block criteria. Heydari (2003)dealt with
a flow shop scheduling problem where n jobs are processed in two disjoint job
blocks in a string consists of one job block in which order of jobs is fixed and
other job block in which order of jobs is arbitrary.
Lomnicki (1965) introduced the concept of flow shop scheduling with the
help of branch and bound method. Further the work was developed by Ignall and
Scharge (1965), Chandrasekharan (1992), Brown and Lomnicki (1966), with the
Three Stage Flow Shop Scheduling Problem with Branch and Bound
Technique in Which Processing Time Associated with their Respective
Probabilities including Transportation Time And Breakdown Interval
47
branch and bound technique to the machine scheduling problem by introducing
different parameters. The break down of the machines (due to delay in material,
changes in release and tails date, tool unavailability, failure of electric current, the
shift pattern of the facility, fluctuation in processing times, some technical
interruption etc.) have significant role in the production concern. The scheduling
problem practically depends upon important factor transportation time which
includes loading time, moving time and unloading time etc. The branch and bound
algorithm of Ignall and Scharge(1965) is modified and rewritten for three stage
flow shop problem with processing time with their corresponding probabilities
including break down interval and transportation time. This paper extends the
study made by Lomnicki (1965), and Gupta Deepak and Singla Payal (2011) by
introducing the concept of break down effect and transportation time. Hence the
problem discussed here is wider and has significant use of theoretical results in
process industries.
ASSUMPTIONS
1. No passing is allowed.
2. Each operation once started must performed till completion.
3. Jobs are independent to each other.
4. A job is entity, i.e. no job may be processed by more than one machine
at a time.
NOTATIONS
We are given n jobs to be processed on three stage flowshop scheduling
problem and we have used the following notations:
A
i
: Processing time for job i on machine A
B
i
: Processing time for job i on machine B
C
i
: Processing time for job i on machine C
Deepak Gupta, Payal Singla & Shashi Bala 48
p
i1
: Expected processing time for job i on machine A
p
i2
: Expected processing time for job i on machine B
p
i3
: Expected processing time for job i on machine C
C
ij
: Completion time for job i on machines A, B and C
t
i
: Transportation time of i
th
job from machine A to machine B.
g
i
: Transportation time of i
th
job from machine B to machine C.
S
k
: Sequence using johnsons algorithm
L : Length of break down interval.
J
r
: Partial schedule of r scheduled jobs
J
r
: The set of remaining (n-r) free jobs
MATHEMATICAL DEVELOPMENT
Mathematical Development
Consider n jobs say i=1, 2, 3 n are processed on three machines A, B &
C in the order ABC. A job i (i=1,2,3n) has processing time A
i
, B
i
& C
i
on
each machine respectively, assuming their respective probabilities p
i
, q
i
& r
i

such that 0 p
i
1, p
i
= 1, 0 q
i
1, q
i
= 1, 0 r
i
1, r
i
= 1. Let t
i
and g
i

be the transportation time of machine A to machine B and machine B to machine
C respectively. The mathematical model of the problem in matrix form can be
stated as :
Three Stage Flow Shop Scheduling Problem with Branch and Bound
Technique in Which Processing Time Associated with their Respective
Probabilities including Transportation Time And Breakdown Interval
49
Table au 1

Jobs Machine A
t
i

Machine B
g
i

Machine C
i A
i
p
i
B
i
q
i
C
i
r
i

1
2
3
4
-
-
n
A
1
A
2
A
3
A
4
----
--
A
n

p
1

p
2

p
3

p
4

---
---
p
n

t
1
t
2
t
3
t
4
---
--
t
n

B
1
B
2
B
3
B
4
---
--
B
n

q
1

q
2

q
3

q
4

---
---
q
n

g
1
g
2

g
3
g
4
---
---
g
n

C
1
C
2
C
3
C
4
----
--
C
n

r
1

r
2

r
3

r
4

---
---
r
n


Our objective is to obtain the optimal schedule of all jobs which minimize
the total elapsed time whenever the effect of break down interval (a, b) is given,
using branch and bound technique.
ALGORITHM
Step1: Calculate expected processing time p
i1
, p
i2
& p
i3
on machines A, B & C
respectively as follows:
(i) p
i1
= A
i
* p
i

(ii) p
i2
= B
i
* q
i

(iii) p
i3
= C
i
* r
i

Step 2: Calculate
(i) g
1
=
1 2 3
( ,1) min( )
r
r
r i i i
i J
i J
t J p p p


+ + +

(ii) g
2
=
2 3
( , 2) min( )
r
r
r i i
i J
i j
t J p p


+ +

Deepak Gupta, Payal Singla & Shashi Bala 50
(iii) g
3=
3
( , 3)
r
r i
i j
t J p

+

Step 3: Calculate
g = max [g
1
, g
2
, g
3
]
We evaluate g first for the n classes of permutations, i.e. for these starting
with 1, 2, 3n respectively, having labelled the appropriate vertices of the
scheduling tree by these values.
Step 4: Now explore the vertex with lowest label. Evaluate g for the (n-1)
subclasses starting with this vertex and again concentrate on the lowest label
vertex. Continuing this way, until we reach at the end of the tree represented by
two single permutations, for which we evaluate the total work duration. Thus we
get the optimal schedule of the jobs.
Step 5: Prepare in-out table for the optimal sequence obtained in step 4 and
read the effect of break down interval (a, b) on different jobs.
Step 6: Form a modified problem with processing times
i1 i2 i3
p , p & p on
machines A, B & C respectively. If the break down interval (a, b) has effect on
job i then
i1
p =p
i1
+ L

,
i2
p = p
i2
+ L

and
i3
p = p
i3
+ L where L = b a, the
length of the break down interval.
If the break down interval (a, b) has no effect on job i then
i1
p =p
i1
,
i2
p =
p
i2
and
i3
p = p
i3
.
Step 7: Repeat the procedure to get the optimal sequence for the modified
scheduling problem using step2 to step 4. Compute the in-out table and get the
minimum total elapsed time.

Three Stage Flow Shop Scheduling Problem with Branch and Bound
Technique in Which Processing Time Associated with their Respective
Probabilities including Transportation Time And Breakdown Interval
51
NUMERICAL EXAMPLE
Consider 4 jobs 3 machine flow shop problem. processing time of the jobs
on each machine is given. Our objective is to find optimal sequence of jobs to
find the minimum elapsed time.
Table au 2
Job
i
Machine A Machine B Machine C
A
i
p
i
B
i
q
i
C
i
r
i

1 40 0.1 25 0.2 55 0.2
2 40 0.3 10 0.2 20 0.3
3 20 0.4 25 0.4 70 0.2
4 55 0.2 65 0.2 10 0.3

SOLUTIONS
Step1: Define expected processing time p
i1
, p
i2
& p
i3
on machine A , B & C
respectively as shown in the tableau 3
Table au 3
Node Jr LB (Jr)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(132)
43
51
52
58
51
45
51
51
Deepak Gupta, Payal Singla & Shashi Bala 52
(134) 45

Tableau 4

Job
i
Machine A
t
i

Machine B
g
i

Machine C
p
i1
p
i2
p
i3

1 4 2 5 4 11
2 12 4 2 7 6
3 8 3 10 6 14
4 11 5 13 9 3

Step 2: Calculate
(i) g
1
=
1 2 3
( ,1) min( )
r
r
r i i i
i J
i J
t J p p p


+ + +

(ii) g
2
=
2 3
( , 2) min( )
r
r
r i i
i J
i j
t J p p


+ +

(iii)g
3=
3
( , 3)
r
r i
i j
t J p

+

For J
1
= (1).Then J(1) = {2,3,4}, we get
g
1
= 43 , g
2
= 37 & g
3
= 43

g = max(g
1
, g
2
, g
3
) = 43
similarly, we have
LB(2)= 51
LB(3)= 52
LB(4)= 58

Three Stage Flow Shop Scheduling Problem with Branch and Bound
Technique in Which Processing Time Associated with their Respective
Probabilities including Transportation Time And Breakdown Interval
53
Step 3 & 4:
Now branch from J
1
= (1). Take J
2
= (12).
Then J
2
={3,4} and LB(12) = 51
Proceeding in this way, we obtain lower bound values on the completion time on
machine C as shown in the tableau- 4.
Step 5 : Therefore the sequence S
1
is 1-3-4-2 and the corresponding in-out table
and checking the effect of break down interval (20, 30) on sequence S
1
is as
follows:
Tableau- 5
Job
i
Machine A
In-out
t
i

Machine B
In-out
g
i

Machine C
In-out
1 0 4 2 6 11 4 15 26
3 4 -12 3 15 -25 6 31 45
4 12 -23 5 28 41 9 50 53
2 23 35 4 41 - 43 7 53 - 59

Step 6: The modified problem after the effect of break down interval (20,30)
with processing times
i1 i2 i3
p , p & p on machines A, B & C respectively is as
follows:
Deepak Gupta, Payal Singla & Shashi Bala 54
Tableau- 6
Job
i
Machine A
t
i

Machine B
g
i

Machine C
p
i1
P
i2
p
i3

1 4 2 5 4 21
2 22 4 2 7 6
3 8 3 20 6 14
4 21 5 23 9 3

Step 7: Now, on repeating the procedure to get the optimal sequence for the
modified scheduling problem using step 2 to step 4, we obtain lower bound
values on the completion time on machine C as shown in the tableau- 7 we have
get the sequence S
2
: 1-3-4-2. Compute the in-out table for S
2
and get the
minimum total elapsed time.
Tableau- 7
Job
i
Machine A
In-out
t
i

Machine B
In-out

g
i

Machine C
In-out
1 0 4 2 6 11 4 15 36
3 4 -12 3 15 -35 6 41 55
4 12 -33 5 38 61 9 70 73
2 33 55 4 61 - 63 7 73 - 79

Hence the total elapsed time is 79 units.
Three Stage Flow Shop Scheduling Problem with Branch and Bound
Technique in Which Processing Time Associated with their Respective
Probabilities including Transportation Time And Breakdown Interval
55
REMARKS
The study may further be extended by considering various parameters such
as equivalent job block, setup times separated from processing time,
transportation time, mean weightage time etc.
REFERENCES
1. Brown, A.P.G. and Lomnicki, Z.A. (1966), Some applications of the branch
and bound algorithm to the machine scheduling problem, Operational
Research Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp.173-182.
2. Bestwick, P.F. and Hastings, N.A.J. (1976), A new bound for machine
scheduling, Operational Research Quarterly, Vol. 27, pp.479-490.
3. Campbell, H.G., Dudek, R.A. and Smith, M.L. (1970) , A heuristic
algorithm for the n-job, m-machine sequencing problem, Management
Science, Vol. 16, pp.630-637.
4. Cormen, T.H., Leiserson, C.E. and Rivest, R.L. (1990),Introduction to
Algorithms, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Chandramouli, A.B.(2005), Heuristic approach for N job 3 machine flow
shop scheduling problem involving transportation time, break-down time
and weights of jobs, Mathematical and Computational Application, Vol.10
(No.2), pp 301-305.
6. Chander Shekharan, K, Rajendra, Deepak Chanderi (1992), An efficient
heuristic approach to the scheduling of jobs in a flow shop, European
Journal of Operation Research 61, 318-325.
7. Dannenbring, D.G. (1977) , An evaluation of flowshop sequencing
heuristics, Management Science, Vol. 23, No. 11, pp.1174-1182.
8. Gupta, J.N.D. (1971), A functional heuristic algorithm for the flow-shop
Deepak Gupta, Payal Singla & Shashi Bala 56
scheduling problem, Operational Research Quaterly, Vol. 22, No. 1.
9. Gupta Deepak, Singla Payal (2011), Application of Branch And Bound
Technique for n

3 Flow Shop Scheduling, In Which Processing Time

Associated With Their Respective Probabilities, Mathematical Modelling
and Theory, Vol. pp. .
10. Heydari (2003), On flow shop scheduling problem with processing of jobs
in a string of disjoint job blocks: fixed order jobs and arbitrary order jobs
JISSOR , Vol. XXIV , pp 1- 4.
11. Ignall, E. and Schrage, L. (1965), Application of the branch-and-bound
technique to some flowshop scheduling problems, Operations Research,
Vol. 13, pp.400-412.
12. Johnson S. M. (1954), Optimal two and three stage production schedule
with set up times included . Nay Res Log Quart Vol 1, pp 61-68
13. Kreyszig, E. (1972) ,Advanced Engineering Mathematics, NewYork: John
Wiley.
14.Koulamas, C. (1998), A new constructive heuristic for the flowshop
scheduling problem, European Journal of Operations Research, Vol. 105,
pp.66-71.
15. Lomnicki, Z.A. [1965], A branch-and-bound algorithm for the exact
solution of the three-machine scheduling problem, Operational Research
Quarterly, Vol. 16, pp.89-100.
16. Maggu & Das (1981), On n x 2 sequencing problem with transportation
time of jobs, Pure and Applied Mathematika Sciences, 12-16.
17. Nawaz M., Enscore Jr., E.E. and Ham, I. (1983) , A heuristic algorithm for
the m-machine n-job flowshop sequencing problem, OMEGA International
Journal of Management Science, Vol. 11, pp.91-95.
Three Stage Flow Shop Scheduling Problem with Branch and Bound
Technique in Which Processing Time Associated with their Respective
Probabilities including Transportation Time And Breakdown Interval
57

18. Palmer, D.S.(1965), Sequencing jobs through a multi-stage process in the
minimum total time - a quick method of obtaining a near-optimum,
Operational Research Quarterly, Vol. 16,No. 1, pp.101-107.
19. Park, Y.B. (1981), A simulation study and an analysis for evaluation of
performance-effectiveness of flowshop sequencing heuristics: a static and
dynamic flowshop model, Masters Thesis, Pennsylvania State University.
20. Singh, T.P., K, Rajindra & Gupta Deepak (2005), Optimal three stage
production schedule the processing time and set up times associated with
probabilities including job block criteria, Proceeding of National
Conference FACM- (2005), pp 463-470.
21. Sarin, S. and Lefoka, M. (1993), Scheduling heuristics for the n-job, m-
machine flowshop, OMEGA, Vol. 21, pp.229-234.
22. Turner S. and Booth D. (1987), Comparison of heuristics for flowshop
sequencing, OMEGA,Vol.15, pp.75-78.
23. Temiz Izzettin and Serpil Erol (2004), Fuzzy branch and bound algorithm
for flow shop scheduling, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol.15,
pp.449-454.
24. Yoshida and Hitomi (1979), Optimal two stage production scheduling with
set up times separated, AIIE Transactions, Vol. II, pp 261-263.