European Journal of Operational Research 123 (2000) 504±518

www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw

Theory and Methodology

A branch and bound algorithm for a production scheduling

problem in an assembly system under due date constraints
Moon-Won Park a, Yeong-Dae Kim b,*

a
Department of Industrial Engineering, Chonbuk National University, Dukjin-gu, Chonju 561-756, South Korea
b
Department of Industrial Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Yusong-Gu, Daejon 305-701, South Korea
Received 1 September 1998; accepted 1 February 1999

Abstract

This paper focuses on a production scheduling problem in a tree-structured assembly system operating on a make-to-
order basis. Due dates are considered as constraints in the problem, that is, tardiness is not allowed. The objective of the
problem is to minimize holding costs of ®nal product inventory as well as work-in-process inventory. A mixed integer
linear programming model is given and a branch and bound (B&B) algorithm based on a Lagrangian relaxation
method is developed. In the algorithm, a subgradient method is used for obtaining good lower bounds of subproblems
(or partial solutions) while a Lagrangian heuristic is used for upper bounds. Results of computational experiments on
randomly generated test problems showed that the B&B algorithm found optimal solutions of problems of moderate
sizes in a reasonable amount of computation time. Ó 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Integer programming; Optimisation; Scheduling; Assembly system

1. Introduction products completed at the assembly system. Ma-

This paper presents a branch and bound algo-
rithm for a production scheduling problem in an
assembly system in which machines perform as-
sembly operations in order to produce ®nal prod-
ucts for customers. These customers may be
independent outside customers or downstream
processes of the assembly system that use the
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 42 869 3120; fax: +82 42
869 3110.
E-mail address: ydkim@convex.kaist.ac.kr (Y.-D. Kim).
terials ¯ow in one direction from upstream ma-
chines to downstream machines in the system. An
assembly operation is one by which one or more
component parts or subassemblies completed at
upstream machines are assembled together to form
a new item, i.e., a part, a subassembly or a ®nal
product. If the new item is not a ®nal product, it
is sent to the bu€er in front of the downstream
machine.
Such assembly systems are common in many
manufacturing companies, such as electronics and
automobile manufacturing companies. A real
example is a plant (an assembly system) for

0377-2217/00/$ - see front matter Ó 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 7 - 2 2 1 7 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 1 0 8 - 3
 M.-W. Park, Y.-D. Kim / European Journal of Operational Research 123 (2000) 504±518
packaging knocked-down parts or subassemblies
of automobiles. Since knocked-down parts are
shipped to other automobile assembly plants
usually in foreign countries and assembled there,
they are packed in containers, of which the ship-
ping dates (due dates) are predetermined. In the
system, parts are ®rst packed in plastic bags, then
wooden or cardboard boxes and/or packing cases,
and ®nally packed in containers. There are four
types of workstations, workstations at which parts
are packed in bags, in boxes, in cases and in con-
tainers. In this study, each workstation is consid-
ered as a machine. Note that packed bags, packed
boxes and packed cases are parts or subassemblies,
and packed containers are ®nal products in this
case.
The assembly system considered in this study
is operated on a make-to-order basis. Due dates
(or delivery dates) of ®nal products of the as-
sembly system are known in advance and con-
sidered as constraints. That is, tardiness is not
allowed in the problem, since due dates are sup-
posed to be met strictly (once shipping schedules
of products or production schedules of down-
stream processes are set) in the assembly system
considered in this study. If due dates of all orders
cannot be met under the current production ca-
pacity of the system, the shipping schedules or the
schedules at the downstream processes should be
modi®ed.
The scheduling problem under consideration is
to determine starting and completion times of
items including ®nal products as well as the as-
sembly sequence of items on each machine under
the constraints of due dates and precedence rela-
tionships among items (the term ``items'' denotes
parts, subassemblies and/or ®nal products hereaf-
ter, unless otherwise speci®ed). The objective of
the scheduling problem is to minimize inventory
holding costs of all items. In this study, an item is
considered as an inventory from the moment it
is released onto a machine on which the item is
processed until it is released onto a downstream
machine or until it leaves the system (when it is a
®nal product).
There have been a few studies on production
scheduling problems in assembly systems. Lee
et al. (1993) prove that the makespan scheduling
505
problem in a two-stage three-machine assembly
system is NP-complete, and propose a branch and
bound algorithm for the problem. They also sug-
gest heuristic algorithms for the problem and an-
alyze worst-case error bounds of the algorithms.
Potts et al. (1995) extend the problem to a case of
two-stage multi-machine assembly systems in
which there are m machines and one machine at
the ®rst and second stages, respectively. They
suggest a heuristic with a worst-case ratio bound
of 2 ÿ 1/m. For the same problem, Hariri and
Potts (1997) develop a branch and bound algo-
rithm that can give optimal solutions of large in-
stances containing up to 8000 jobs. On the other
hand, Kim (1987) suggests and tests a backward
approach for multi-machine makespan scheduling
problems with in-tree (assembly) like precedence
constraints. Later, Kim (1995) extends his previ-
ous research to problems with objectives related to
due dates. Lalsare and Sen (1995) also suggest a
backward approach in which sequencing decisions
are made based on priority rules. As noted by
Hastings and Yeh (1990), the backward scheduling
approach is often preferred to the forward ap-
proach for scheduling problems involving due
dates, since the backward approach aims at com-
pleting orders on or close to their due dates. Note
that in the backward approach, commitment of
resources and materials is delayed until it becomes
essential. Recently, Park and Kim (1999) consider
a production planning problem for an assembly
system in which there are multiple workstations
each of which consists of one or more machines or
workers and give a heuristic algorithm based on
the backward approach.
In this paper, an optimal solution algorithm is
suggested for the scheduling problem in assembly
systems in which there is one machine in each
workstation. The scheduling problem is formulat-
ed as a mixed integer linear program and a branch
and bound (B&B) algorithm is developed for the
problem. To obtain lower bounds of subproblems
in the B&B algorithm, a Lagrangian relaxation
method is used in which a subgradient method is
employed to ®nd good Lagrangian multipliers.
Also, a Lagrangian heuristic algorithm is proposed
to obtain good feasible solutions (upper bounds)
for the scheduling problem.
506 M.-W. Park, Y.-D. Kim / European Journal of Operational Research 123 (2000) 504±518

This paper is organized as follows. The sched- Mk set of items to be processed on machine k
uling problem considered in this study is described F set of ®nal products
in more detail and a mathematical formulation for pi processing time (or workload) required to
the problem is given in the next section. A La- produce item i
grangian relaxation method and a Lagrangian di due date of item i (de®ned only if the item is
heuristic for the problem are given in Sections 3 a ®nal product)
and 4, respectively. Section 5 presents a B&B al- hi inventory holding cost of item i per unit per
gorithm, and performance of the algorithm is unit time
tested on a number of randomly generated test L a large positive number
problems and the test results are given in Sec-
tion 6. Decision variables
si starting time of item i
yij 0±1 variable that is equal to 1 if item i
2. Problem description and formulation precedes item j, and 0, otherwise

The assembly system considered in this study Now, a mathematical formulation for the
consists of machines in which assembly operations scheduling problem is presented.
are performed. For each machine, there may be one X
or more immediate upstream machines, but there …P† minimize z ˆ hi …s/…i† ÿ si †
i62F
exists at most one immediate downstream machine X
in the system. Machines are indexed in such a way ‡ hi …di ÿ si † …1†
that a machine does not have a larger index than its i2F

upstream machine(s). When a machine performs

an assembly operation, one or more items com- subject to
pleted at its upstream machine(s) are assembled si ‡ pi ÿ sj 6 L
…1 ÿ yij †
together into a new item. Items completed at a
for i; j 2 Mk …i < j† and for all k; …2†
machine are sent to its downstream machine if they
are not ®nal products. Completed ®nal products
stay in a storage place until their due dates. Each sj ‡ pj ÿ si 6 L
yij for i; j 2 Mk …i < j†
item has exactly one immediate successor if the and for all k; …3†
item is not a ®nal product. In other words, items
for a product form a tree-like structure. si ‡ pi 6 di for i 2 F ; …4†
It is assumed that an item can be assembled by
only one machine which is predetermined for each si ‡ pi 6 s/…i† for i 62 F ; …5†
item, and that due dates of ®nal products are
known in advance and they may be di€erent for si P 0 for all i; …6†
di€erent products. In the following, the problem
under consideration is formulated as a mixed inte- yij ˆ f0; 1g for i; j 62 Mk …i < j† and for all k: …7†
ger linear program using the notation listed below.
In Eq. (1), the total cost is given as the sum of
inventory holding costs of all items. The inventory
Indices
holding cost for an item on a machine is obtained
i, j indices for items …i; j ˆ 1; 2; . . . ; I†
by multiplying the per-unit-time holding cost of
k index for machines …k ˆ 1; 2; . . . ; K†
the item by the time duration the item stays at the
/(i) index of the immediate successor of item i
machine (being processed and waiting to be re-
u(i) index of the ®nal product of item i
leased onto the next machine or shipped out after
Sets and parameters completed). Inequalities (2) and (3) are disjunctive
K…i† set of immediate predecessors of item i constraints that ensure that no more than one item
 M.-W. Park, Y.-D. Kim / European Journal of Operational Research 123 (2000) 504±518 507
!
can be processed simultaneously on the same ma- X X
chine, while Eqs. (4) and (5) represent constraints …LRk † minimize ki ÿ e i ÿ kj s i
8i j2K…i†
resulting from due dates and precedence relation- Xÿ
X
ships among items, respectively. ‡ ei du…i† ‡ ki pi ÿ ki di …9†
It is assumed that the inventory holding cost of 8i i2F

an item is greater than the sum of the inventory

subject to Eqs. (2), (3), (6) and (7), and
holding costsPof its immediate predecessors, that
is, ei  hi ÿ j2K…i† hj > 0 for all i. Here, ei is ki P 0 for all i:
called the echelon inventory holding cost. See Clark
and Scarf (1960) for the concept of the echelon Note that the optimal solution value L(k) of
inventory holding cost and echelon stock for problem (LRk ) for any given k, a vector of La-
multi-stage inventory systems. Echelon inventory, grangian multipliers, is a lower bound on the op-
or echelon stock, of an item is de®ned as the sum timal solution value of (P). In general, the quality
of inventories of the item and its successors that of a lower bound depends on Lagrangian multi-
are still in the system. By use of this new de®ni- pliers. The following Lagrangian dual problem,
tion for inventory and cost, Eq. (1) can be re- (PL), is solved to obtain the best lower bound. In
written as this study, a subgradient method is used to solve
X (PL), i.e., to ®nd good multipliers ki s.
minimize ei …du…i† ÿ si †: …8†
i …PL† maximize L…k†
Equivalence of Eqs. (1) and (8) is proved in Park
subject to k P 0:
and Kim (1999). Hereafter, Eq. (8) is used instead
of Eq. (1) as the objective function of problem (P). We ®rst present an optimal solution procedure
for (LRk ) to obtain L(k) for given k. (The sub-
gradient method to ®nd good ki values is described
3. The Lagrangian relaxation method later.) Since Eqs. (4) and (5) are relaxed, (LRk ) can
be decomposed into K independent problems,
To obtain good lower bounds in the B&B al- (DPk ) for k ˆ 1, 2,. . ., K, as follows.
gorithm developed here for problem (P), a La- !
grangian relaxation method is used. Lagrangian X X
…DPk † minimize k i ÿ ei ÿ kj s i
relaxation methods are commonly used to convert
i2Mk j2K…i†
a hard integer programming problem into a rela-
tively easy problem by dualizing (relaxing) set(s) of …10†
constraints. The relaxed problem yields a lower
bound (for minimization problems) on the optimal subject to
solution value of the original problem. Founda- si ‡ pi ÿ sj 6 L
…1 ÿ yij †
tions of the Lagrangian relaxation method and 0
for all i; j 2 Mk …i < j†; …2 †
some early successful applications are summarized
in Fisher (1981, 1985) and Geo€rion (1974). Re- 0

sults of recent applications of the Lagrangian re- sj ‡ pj ÿ si 6 L
yij for all i; j 2 Mk …i < j†; …3 †
laxation method to various scheduling problems 0
can be found in Chen and Hsia (1997), Czerwinski yij ˆ f0; 1g for all i; j 2 Mk …i < j†; …7 †
and Luh (1994), Hoogeveen and van de Velde
(1995, 1998), and Luh (1993) among others. ki P 0 for all i 2 Mk ; …11†
In this study, problem (P) is relaxed by dual-
izing constraints (4) and (5) with Lagrangian si P lk for all i 2 Mk ; …12†
multipliers ki P 0, i ˆ 1; . . . ; I. The resulting re-
laxed problem is si ‡ pi 6 uk for all i 2 Mk : …13†
508 M.-W. Park, Y.-D. Kim / European Journal of Operational Research 123 (2000) 504±518
The second and third terms of the objective
function in (LRk ) are omitted in the decomposed
problems, since these are constants when k is
given. If the optimal solution value of (DPk ) is
denoted
PK by LP k (k), then L(k) is P de®ned as L(k) ˆ
L
kˆ1 k …k† ‡ …e d
i i u…i† ‡k p
i i †ÿ i2F ki di . In (DPk ),
constraints (12) and (13) are newly introduced to
consider the lower and upper bounds on starting
times of items to be produced on machine k. Here,
lk and uk denote a lower bound on the starting time
and an upper bound on the completion time of the
items, respectively. Since each item should be
completed before its item due date that is obtained
by subtracting the sum of the processing times of
its successor items from the due date of its ®nal
product, uk is set as uk ˆ maxi2Mk fdu…i† ÿ
P the single machine
j2U…i† pj g in this study, where U…i† is the set of all
successors of item i including itself. Similarly, since
the processing of each item can be started after all
its predecessors are
P completed, lk is set as lk ˆ
mini2Mk f minj2W…i† … l2H…i;j† pl ÿ pi †g, where H…i; j†
is the set of all items on the path connecting items i
and j in the product structure, and W…i† is the set of
predecessor items of item i that do not have any
predecessor. Instead of Eqs. (12) and P (13), tighter
constraints can be used, such as si P l2H…i;j† P pl ÿ
pi for all j 2 W…i† and si ‡ pi 6 du…i† ÿ j2U…i† pj .
Although tighter constraints may make solutions
of (DPk ) be feasible for (P) more often, it is much
more dicult to obtain an optimal solution of
(DPk ) with such tighter constraints. Therefore, in
this study, loose but easier-to-deal-with con-
straints are used to save computation time for the
overall solution procedure.
Note that (DPk ) can be considered as a single
machine scheduling problem in which items to be
produced on machine k should be scheduled in the
time interval ‰lk ; uk Š. The following proposition can
be used to obtain Lk …k† for given k, ifP(DPk ) is
feasible. Note that (DPk ) is feasible if i2Mk pi 6
uk ÿ lk . Let wi denote the cost P coecient of item i
in (DPk ), i.e., wi ˆ ki ÿ ei ÿ j2K…i† kj , and let
Mk‡ ˆ fi: wi > 0 and i 2 Mk g;
Mk0 ˆ fi: wi ˆ 0 and i 2 Mk g; and
Mkÿ ˆ fi: wi < 0 and i 2 Mk g:
Since (DPk ) is solved for given ki values, wi s can be
given and these three sets are ®xed as well in (DPk ).
Recall that it is assumed that (DPk ) is feasible in
the following proposition.
Proposition 1. Item i precedes item j (yij ˆ 1 and
yji ˆ 0) in an optimal solution of (DPk ), if
wi =pi P wj =pj .
Proof. The scheduling problem, (DPk ), can be
transformed to a single machine scheduling prob-
lem with the objective of minimizing the weighted
sum of completion times of the jobs, if si is
replaced with ci ÿ pi + lk for all i. Here, ci
corresponds to the completion time of job i in
P problem with the objective of
minimizing
P {wi c i + wi (lk ÿ pi )}. Here, the term
wi (lk ÿ pi ) can be removed from the objective
function, since it is a constant. We consider the
following four cases: (i) i; j 2 Mk‡ ; (ii) i; j 2 Mkÿ ;
(iii) i; j 2 Mk0 ; and (iv) i 2 Mk‡ [ Mk0 and j 2 Mkÿ , or
i 2 Mk‡ and j 2 Mkÿ [ Mk0 .
Case I (i; j 2 Mk‡ ): Since the weighted sum of
completion times is minimized by a weighted
shortest processing time (WSPT) sequence (Smith,
1956), in which job i precedes job j if pi =wi 6 pj =wj
(or equivalently wi =pi P wj =pj ), the proposition
follows.
Case II (i; j 2 Mkÿ ): Since wi is negative, the
objective
P 0 function can be replaced with ``maximize
w i ci '', where w0i ˆ ÿ wi . Since the weighted sum
of completion times is maximized by a weighted
longest processing time (WLPT) sequence, in
which job i precedes job j if pi =w0i P pj =w0j or
equivalently ÿwi =pi 6 ÿ wj =pj . Therefore, in an
optimal sequence, i precedes j if wi =pi P wj =pj .
Case III (i; j 2 Mk0 ): The solution value is not
a€ected by the sequence of the items if wi ˆ wj ˆ 0.
Case IV (i 2 Mk‡ [ Mk0 , j 2 Mkÿ or i 2 Mk‡ ,
j 2 Mk0 [ Mkÿ ): In this case, either wi is positive and
wj is not positive, or wi is nonnegative and wj is
negative. In both cases, the objective function
value is smaller when item i precedes item j. 
In this study, a sequence in which item i pre-
cedes item j if wi =pi P wj =pj for all pairs of two
items i and j is referred to as a generalized
weighted shortest processing time (GWSPT) se-
 M.-W. Park, Y.-D. Kim / European Journal of Operational Research 123 (2000) 504±518
quence, since it is similar to WSPT sequence but
can be applied to a general case with a non-posi-
tive weights. The above proposition leads us to the
following property that can be used to ®nd an
optimal solution of (DPk ), or an optimal sequence
of items in the scheduling problem (DPk ). Once an
optimal solution of (DPk ) is obtained by the fol-
lowing corollary, the optimal solution value of
(LRk ) for given k can be computed easily.
Corollary 1. The scheduling problem (DPk ) is
optimized Pif items in Mk‡ are scheduled between lk
and lk ‡ i2M Mk0 are scheduled
Pk‡ pi , items in P
between lk ‡ i2M ‡ pi and uk ÿ i2M ÿ pi , and
P items
k k
in Mkÿ are scheduled between uk and uk ÿ i2M ÿ pi ,
k
all according to a GWSPT sequence.
Proof. It is obvious that it is better to schedule
items in Mk‡ earlier, since their cost coecients are
positive. Similarly, items in Mkÿ should be sched-
uled as late as possible, since their cost coecients
are negative. On the other hand, since cost
coecients of items in Mk0 are zero, the solution
value is not a€ected by the sequence of these items.
This, with Proposition 1, proves the optimality of
the schedule constructed as speci®ed. 
As mentioned earlier, to solve (PL) or to ®nd
best k, a subgradient method is used in this study.
In the subgradient method, a sequence of La-
grangian multiplier vectors {kn } is generated as
follows: starting from given initial values k0i , let
kin‡1
(
maxf0; kni ‡ tn …sni ‡ pi ÿ di †g
ˆ 8
maxf0; kni ‡ tn …sni ‡ pi ÿ sn/…i† †g
where …sn1 ; sn2 ; . . . ; snI † is an optimal solution to
…LRkn † and tn is a positive scalar step size de®ned as
ln …z ÿ L…kn ††
tn ˆ P 2 P
n
i2F …si ‡ pi ÿ di † ‡
n n
i62F …si ‡ pi ÿ s/…i† †
Here, ln is a scalar satisfying 0 < ln 6 2 and z is
an upper bound on the optimal solution value of
(PL).
509
Initially, the value for ln is set to be equal to 2
(i.e., l0 ˆ 2), and ln is halved when the solution of
(LRk ) has not increased for a given number of
iterations, f. It is reported by Fisher (1981) that
this rule performs well empirically, even though
convergence to the optimal solution is not guar-
anteed. The initial multipliers, k0i s are set to zero
in this study. The subgradient method is termi-
nated if the iteration count reaches a predeter-
mined maximum count, x, or if a relative error,
…z ÿ LB†=LB, becomes smaller than a predeter-
mined error limit, e, where LB is the best lower
bound obtained so far. In this study, the three
parameters, e, f and x were set to 0.0001, 10 and
1000, respectively, after a series of preliminary
tests.
Once yij values are obtained from the nth iter-
ation of the subgradient method, starting times of
the items can be computed easily from constraints
(2)±(6) of the original problem, (P). However,
since {yij }n is a solution of the relaxed problem
(LRk ) for given kn , it may be infeasible to (P). In
other words, for certain Lagrangian vectors gen-
erated during the subgradient optimization rou-
tine, resulting {yij }n values do not satisfy
constraints of (P). In the suggested B&B algo-
rithm, feasible solutions are not sought for all
Lagrangian vectors kn . Such infeasible Lagrangian
vectors are disregarded since it is possible to ®nd
feasible solutions from various other Lagrangian
vectors during the subgradient optimization
routine.
In the suggested algorithm, the starting times of
the items for given {yij }n values are determined as
for all i 2 F ; follows:
 
for all i 62 F ;
>
>
> min s/…i† ; min sj ÿ pi if i 62 F ;
<
…14† j2C…i†
si ˆ   …16†
>
>
>
: min di ; min sj ÿ pi if i 2 F ;
j2C…i†
where C…i†  fj: yij ˆ 1g is the set of items that
2
:
are scheduled after item i on the (same) machine
for the item. Since the objective function, (8), of
…15†
problem (P) is a non-increasing function of start-
ing times of items, larger values for si give a better
or at least an equal solution value. Note that the
starting times of items satisfying Eq. (16) are the
510 M.-W. Park, Y.-D. Kim / European Journal of Operational Research 123 (2000) 504±518
largest values that the items can have without
violating due dates and precedence constraints,
although si < 0 for some i.
4. Lagrangian heuristic
It is well known that solutions obtained from
Lagrangian problems, such as (PL), are rarely
feasible for the original problem, i.e., (P). Al-
though these solutions can be used as lower
bounds in the B&B algorithm suggested in this
paper, the algorithm needs a good upper bound
(feasible solution) as well. To make solutions of
such relaxed problems feasible, a heuristic called
the Lagrangian heuristic is often used (Fisher,
1981).
The Lagrangian heuristic suggested in this re-
search tries to make infeasible solutions obtained
by the subgradient method feasible by reschedul-
ing items in the solutions. That is, using yij values
obtained by the subgradient method, the Lagran-
gian heuristic ®rst generates an initial schedule,
i.e., starting times of items, and then improves the
schedule if possible. As discussed earlier, yij values
obtained from (DPk ) may be infeasible. Therefore,
in the Lagrangian heuristic, the initial schedule is
improved by changing the assembly sequence.
Also, the starting time of each item is delayed as
much as possible without making any item tardy
or violating precedence constraints since the solu-
tion value decreases as starting times are increased.
The procedure for the heuristic is summarized in
the following.
Procedure (The Lagrangian heuristic)
Step 0. Find a sequence qk of items on machine
k from given yij values for all k. Let k ˆ 1
Step 1. If k > K, stop. Otherwise, let C…i† be the
set of items to be scheduled after item i, i.e.,
C…i† ˆ fj: yij ˆ 1 or yji ˆ 0g, for all i 2 Mk . Let
di ˆ s/…i† for all i 2 Mk n F , si ˆ minfdi ;
minj2C…i† sj g ÿ pi for all i 2 Mk , and let l ˆ |Mk |
ÿ 1, where || is the number of elements in set .
Step 2. If l 6 0, let k ˆ k + 1, and go to step 1.
Otherwise, go to step 3.
Step 3. If d‰lŠ < d‰jMkjŠ ‡ p‰lŠ , where ‰lŠ is the index
of the lth item in qk , go to step 4. Otherwise, obtain
a new sequence by moving item ‰lŠ to the last po-
sition in qk , modify values of yij s according to the
new qk , and obtain C(i) and si using yij . Let
l ˆ l ÿ 1 and go to step 2.
Step 4. For h ˆ |Mk | ÿ 1 down to 1 do:
If s‰hŠ ÿ …s‰hÿ1Š ‡ p‰hÿ1Š † P p‰lŠ and …s‰hÿ1Š ‡
p‰hÿ1Š † ‡ p‰lŠ 6 d‰lŠ , where ‰lŠ is the index of the
lth item in qk , obtain a new sequence by moving
item ‰lŠ to the hth position in qk . Modify values
of yij s according to the new qk , and obtain C(i)
and si using new yij values.
Let l ˆ l ÿ 1. Go to step 2.
In step 1, an initial schedule is generated ac-
cording to Eq. (16). This initial schedule is de-
composed into K schedules for K machines, and
they are improved sequentially from the schedule
for machine 1 to the schedule for machine K in
steps 3 and 4. In step 3, an item is moved to the last
position of the current sequence qk if such a move
does not make the item tardy. On the other hand,
in step 4, an item is moved to a later position (not
to the last position) if it can be moved into an idle-
time slot that is inserted between items to be pro-
cessed later in qk .
5. B&B algorithm
In this section, the B&B algorithm suggested in
this study is described. In the scheduling problem
under consideration, a sequence of items should
be determined for each machine. Let qk be a full
sequence on machine k and rk be a partial se-
quence on machine k (if the current sequence is
not a full sequence), which is a sequence of a
subset of items included in Mk that are to be
placed at the end in qk . Each node in the B&B tree
corresponds to a subproblem, which is de®ned by
…q1 ; . . . ; qkÿ1 ; rk †, i.e., a set of full sequences on
machines 1; 2; . . . ; k ÿ 1, and a partial sequence on
machine k.
Branching: When a node branches, one or more
nodes are de®ned by adding one more item in front
of the partial sequence on machine k associated
with the node branching now. If the current node
corresponds to a full sequence, that is, if all items
to be processed on machine k are scheduled, a new
 M.-W. Park, Y.-D. Kim / European Journal of Operational Research 123 (2000) 504±518
partial sequence is formed for machine k ‡ 1 in the
new node. To select a node to branch, the depth-
®rst (newest active node) rule is employed in the
algorithm. In this rule, a node with the most items
in the corresponding partial and full sequences is
selected for branching. In case of ties, a node with
the minimum lower bound is selected.
Computing bounds and fathoming: For each of
the nodes generated in the algorithm, a new sub-
problem, denoted by (P0 ), is constructed. Set S of
items included in q1 ; . . . ; qkÿ1 , and rk , are excluded
from (P0 ), since the sequence of these items are ®xed
and their optimal starting times can be calculated
with Eq. (16). Lower and upper bounds corre-
sponding to a node are obtained by solving (P0 )
using the Lagrangian relaxation method and the
Lagrangian heuristic. The Lagrangian heuristic
given in the previous section is used to ®nd a good
initial upper bound at the root node. At the other
nodes, the heuristic is applied once for each node
using the ®nal yij values resulting from the subgra-
dient method in order to save the computation time.
Let the set of items considered in (P0 ) be U, i.e.,
U ˆ f1; . . . ; Ig n S. Then, the set F 0 of ®nal prod-
ucts considered in (P0 ) is de®ned as a collection of
items in U which are elements of F or of which the
immediate successors are elements of S, i.e.,
Fig. 1. System con®gurations used in the test problems (squares denote machines).
511
F 0 ˆ …F [ fij/…i† 2 Sg† \ U . For items i 2 F 0 , due
dates (di 0 ) in (P0 ) are de®ned as

minfsmin ; s/…i† ; di g if i 2 Mk ;
di0 ˆ …17†
minfs/…i† ; di g if i 62 Mk ;
where smin denotes the minimum starting time of
items included in rk . Therefore, u(i), the index of
the ®nal product of item i is accordingly changed
to u0 (i) for all i 2 U in (P0 ), i.e.,

u…i† if u…i† 2 U ;
u0 …i† ˆ …18†
j if u…i† 62 U ;
where j denotes the index of the item in F 0 which is
on the path from i to u(i) in the product structure
and of which the immediate successor is included
in S. Also, in (P0 ), the set Mk0 of items to be pro-
cessed on machine k0 is set to Mk0 \S, for
k 0 ˆ k; k ‡ 1; . . . ; K.
Therefore, the lower bound (LB) and upper
bound (UB) for the node can be calculated as
LB ˆ LB0 + Q and UB ˆ UB0 + Q, where LB0 and
UB0 are the lower bound obtained from the sub-
gradient method and the upper bound from the
Lagrangian to (P0 ), respectively,
P heuristic appliedP
and Q ˆ i2A ei …du…i† ÿ si † ‡ i2U ei …du…i† ÿ du…i† †:
A dangling node is deleted from further con-
sideration (fathomed) if the lower bound for the
512 M.-W. Park, Y.-D. Kim / European Journal of Operational Research 123 (2000) 504±518

Fig. 2. Product structures used in the test problems (numbers denote machines in which the corresponding items are processed, not
item indices).
 M.-W. Park, Y.-D. Kim / European Journal of Operational Research 123 (2000) 504±518 513

P
node is greater than or equal to the incumbent times of the items, i.e., i2Mk pi > uk ÿ lk for
solution, i.e., the smallest upper bound of all some k.
nodes generated so far, or if the subproblem (P0 )
associated with the node is found to be infeasi-
ble. Note that a subproblem cannot be feasible if 6. Computational experiments
the sum of processing times of items to be pro-
cessed on any one machine is greater than the To test the performance of the B&B algorithm,
di€erence of upper and lower bounds on starting computational experiments were done on ran-

Table 1
Test results for three-machine problems
System Number of r Number Lagrangian heuristic B&B algorithm
orders of items PE CPU nN CPU
3 0.0 13 0.00 0.66 10 1.81
0.1 13 0.00 0.72 7 1.32
0.2 13 0.00 0.71 8 1.48
0.3 13 0.00 0.60 4 0.60
0.4 13 2.57 0.71 11 2.08
0.5 13 0.00 0.71 7 1.26

1 5 0.0 22 0.00 1.49 71 18.85

0.1 22 5.17 1.48 69 20.27
0.2 21 0.00 1.42 31 7.73
0.3 22 4.49 1.53 53 13.44
0.4 22 0.00 1.54 32 8.63
0.5 21 0.00 1.43 17 3.74

7 0.0 30 0.93 2.36 1480 577.38

0.1 30 3.48 2.42 1938 767.20
0.2 31 3.52 2.58 931 359.16
0.3 30 8.12 2.47 2219 902.48
0.4 30 11.60 2.53 121 38.01
0.5 31 0.00 2.48 327 116.23

3 0.0 18 0.00 0.93 12 2.36

0.1 18 0.77 1.05 8 1.32
0.2 18 4.02 1.20 12 3.62
0.3 19 0.00 1.04 10 1.70
0.4 17 0.70 1.10 8 2.20
0.5 18 0.00 1.21 7 2.03
2 5 0.0 32 3.43 2.31 159 74.54
0.1 30 3.14 2.64 60 27.52
0.2 32 1.83 2.97 83 40.82
0.3 30 3.17 2.64 80 36.26
0.4 28 1.52 2.42 74 31.42
0.5 27 0.00 2.20 25 8.18
7 0.0 40 0.60 4.01 1964 1304.10
0.1 38 0.62 3.85 2119 1289.77
0.2 39 3.80 3.96 3012 1916.64
0.3 41 3.34 4.28 1900 1272.24
0.4 40 3.13 4.23 861 532.61
0.5 41 2.83 4.56 237 143.24
514 M.-W. Park, Y.-D. Kim / European Journal of Operational Research 123 (2000) 504±518

domly generated problem instances. For the test,
144 problems were generated, one for each of all
combinations of three levels for the number of
orders or products (3, 5 and 7), eight cases of
system con®gurations, and six levels for the rela-
tive range of due dates (0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 and
0.5). Con®gurations of assembly systems used in
the test problems are illustrated in Fig. 1. Product
structure of each product was randomly selected
from the product structures illustrated in Fig. 2.
In the problems, processing time for each item
was randomly generated from DU‰1; 100Š, the
discrete uniform distribution with the range of
1±100. Due dates of orders were generated using a

Table 2
Test results for four-machine problems
System Number of r Number Lagrangian heuristic B&B algorithm
orders of items PE CPU nN CPU
3 0.0 19 0.00 1.32 16 5.28
0.1 18 0.36 1.27 10 2.97
0.2 19 0.00 1.37 8 2.69
0.3 16 0.00 1.05 7 1.76
0.4 19 1.40 1.38 7 2.31
0.5 17 0.00 1.21 8 2.36

3 5 0.0 32 1.34 2.86 108 54.00

0.1 32 2.80 2.97 114 57.19
0.2 30 2.96 2.75 63 28.89
0.3 32 2.20 3.02 33 13.24
0.4 30 4.10 2.75 50 20.76
0.5 31 1.75 2.91 23 10.22
7 0.0 43 1.15 4.62 3166 2301.16
0.1 44 7.76 4.83 1156 852.44
0.2 43 3.57 4.73 571 392.78
0.3 43 1.70 4.83 585 421.50
0.4 41 5.19 4.45 640 409.19
0.5 39 2.39 4.11 698 431.92

3 0.0 17 2.74 1.21 8 2.42

0.1 18 1.32 1.21 15 4.51
0.2 17 0.00 1.15 8 2.30
0.3 18 0.00 1.21 8 2.47
0.4 17 0.00 1.15 8 2.35
0.5 18 0.00 1.21 7 2.04

4 5 0.0 27 3.71 2.20 92 35.15

0.1 25 2.67 2.03 137 48.94
0.2 28 1.70 2.42 70 29.94
0.3 27 4.46 2.25 31 11.26
0.4 27 0.00 2.20 21 7.36
0.5 27 1.08 2.25 35 13.12
7 0 38 0.98 3.85 6083 3607.63
0.1 38 1.60 3.85 543 296.17
0.2 39 3.89 3.90 760 457.47
0.3 40 3.01 4.18 1628 1064.02
0.4 39 1.30 4.06 285 162.47
0.5 41 4.25 4.39 237 150.87
 M.-W. Park, Y.-D. Kim / European Journal of Operational Research 123 (2000) 504±518 515

Table 3
Test results for ®ve-machine problems
System Number of r Number Lagrangian heuristic B&B algorithm
orders of items PE CPU nN CPU
3 0.0 24 0.00 1.93 8 3.75
0.1 25 2.40 2.09 8 4.18
0.2 26 0.00 2.20 7 3.57
0.3 25 0.37 2.03 8 3.95
0.4 26 0.00 2.20 7 3.57
0.5 26 2.71 2.20 8 4.18
5 5 0.0 46 0.00 5.11 79 68.77
0.1 41 0.00 4.45 119 89.53
0.2 43 3.70 4.72 148 117.48
0.3 43 8.13 4.78 74 50.37
0.4 45 0.71 5.11 31 20.82
0.5 47 3.57 5.44 28 23.02
7 0.0 64 2.97 7.20 5472 7713.46
0.1 64 3.03 7.36 6532 9192.77
0.2 64 0.00 7.36 283 352.02
0.3 61 6.14 6.86 1477 1824.24
0.4 64 4.41 7.36 196 240.73
0.5 64 4.39 7.19 556 665.36

3 0.0 23 1.21 1.38 8 3.08

0.1 23 0.00 1.43 8 3.13
0.2 23 0.39 1.43 8 3.19
0.3 23 0.67 1.38 7 2.53
0.4 23 3.21 1.38 11 4.23
0.5 23 0.37 1.42 7 2.57
6 5 0.0 39 2.81 3.08 69 46.69
0.1 38 4.81 3.02 154 94.8
0.2 38 2.26 3.08 62 35.82
0.3 39 8.26 3.13 59 38.11
0.4 38 0.29 3.02 20 9.66
0.5 38 7.05 3.08 49 30.71
7 0.0 53 5.54 5.27 2808 2826.41
0.1 54 3.03 5.38 4743 5037.82
0.2 54 3.75 5.33 1753 1852.69
0.3 53 15.21 5.22 365 321.87
0.4 54 0 5.44 508 512.67
0.5 54 3.1 5.38 210 170.21

parameter called the relative range of due dates, r. immediate predecessors of item i and u a random
The due dates were randomly generated from number generated from the uniform distribution
DU‰P …1 ÿ r=2†; P …1 ‡ r=2†Š, where P is the sum of with the range of 1±2.
processing times of all items. The inventory hold- Tables 1±4 show results of the test. In the ta-
ing cost of an item was set in such a way that it was bles, PE denotes the percentage error which is
greater than the sum of the inventory holding costs calculated as 100 ´ (UB0 ÿ z )/z , where z is the
of its immediate predecessors. Here, hi was set to
P optimal solution value and UB0 is the upper
j2K…i† hj ‡ u, for all i, where K…i† is the set of bound obtained by the Lagrangian heuristic at
516 M.-W. Park, Y.-D. Kim / European Journal of Operational Research 123 (2000) 504±518

Table 4
Test results for six-machine problems
System Number of r Number Lagrangian heuristic B&B algorithm
orders of items PE CPU nN CPU
3 0.0 26 0.00 1.64 8 3.67
0.1 26 2.44 1.76 8 3.80
0.2 26 0.00 1.65 7 3.03
0.3 26 0.00 1.75 7 3.17
0.4 26 0.00 1.70 8 3.73
0.5 26 0.00 1.76 7 3.08
7 5 0.0 44 1.81 3.79 150 120.19
0.1 43 2.08 3.79 68 54.16
0.2 43 2.73 3.73 70 56.18
0.3 44 0.46 3.84 39 24.11
0.4 43 1.66 3.73 78 51.79
0.5 43 2.49 3.79 19 11.98
7 0.0 60 2.75 6.42 2582 3266.90
0.1 61 2.58 8.35 1602 2082.51
0.2 61 4.37 8.40 246 296.59
0.3 60 3.55 8.13 187 217.12
0.4 61 3.72 8.41 224 205.87
0.5 61 2.12 8.35 273 234.70

3 0.0 28 0.28 2.42 10 5.45

0.1 28 0.02 2.47 16 9.17
0.2 28 2.28 2.47 8 4.72
0.3 28 0.26 2.42 8 4.67
0.4 28 1.62 2.48 12 6.93
0.5 28 0.17 2.48 7 3.96
8 5 0.0 47 0.92 5.33 69 63.44
0.1 47 3.89 5.38 189 174.66
0.2 46 5.59 5.33 21 16.92
0.3 47 0.00 5.38 60 45.91
0.4 47 0.18 5.55 17 13.35
0.5 46 6.47 5.21 52 43.82
7 0.0 65 2.88 9.45 4260 5924.92
0.1 65 4.28 9.28 3041 4227.54
0.2 66 0.67 9.51 1876 2651.76
0.3 65 7.21 9.50 731 1016.89
0.4 65 3.28 9.40 668 844.87
0.5 66 3.76 9.66 355 428.14

the root node, i.e., the solution of Lagrangian
heuristic applied to (P). Also, nN denotes the
number of nodes generated in the B&B algorithm,
and CPU denotes computation time (in seconds)
required for each test problem. The suggested
algorithms were coded in Pascal and run on a
personal computer with a Pentium processor (150
MHz).
It can be seen from the tables that the number
of orders has more impact on the diculty (in
terms of nN and CPU time) of the problem than
the number of machines. This may be because the
diculty is a€ected by the number of items to be
scheduled. Note that the number of items to be
produced on each machine increases quickly as the
number of orders increases. Although it was ob-
 M.-W. Park, Y.-D. Kim / European Journal of Operational Research 123 (2000) 504±518
served that the Lagrangian relaxation method gave
better lower bounds when larger values for f and x
were selected for the subgradient method, the
values are set as they were (f ˆ 10 and x ˆ 1000) to
reduce computation time for the whole branch and
bound algorithm. With larger value for f and x,
less nodes were generated but it took much longer
time to compute a lower bound for each node.
Also, it can be seen from the tables that CPU
times for the B&B algorithm increase as the range
of due dates (r) decreases. This may be because it is
harder to solve a problem with a smaller r since
di€erences among lower bounds on nodes in the
B&B tree are smaller, and hence the B&B algo-
rithm cannot fathom many nodes at an earlier
stage of the algorithm. The most dicult problem
among the tested was solved within 2.6 hours.
Therefore, it can be argued that the suggested
B&B algorithm can be used to ®nd optimal solu-
tions for problems of moderate or practical sizes.
The Lagrangian heuristic also seems to work well
since heuristic solutions obtained at the root nodes
were not far from optima. The overall average
percentage error was 2.9%, although performance
of the heuristic seems to deteriorate as the number
of orders increases.
7. Concluding remarks
In this paper, we considered a production
scheduling problem in a tree-structured assembly
system operating on a make-to-order basis. The
objective of the problem is to minimize holding
costs of items under the due date and precedence
constraints. A B&B algorithm was developed to
®nd an optimal solution of the problem. In the
B&B algorithm, Lagrangian relaxation methods
are used to obtain lower and upper bounds. Re-
sults of tests on the performance show that the
suggested algorithm can ®nd optimal solutions of
problems of moderate sizes in a reasonable
amount of time. In this study, it is assumed that
tardiness is not allowed. In many real circum-
stances, however, it is impossible to meet given due
dates. Therefore, it may be necessary to study a
production scheduling problem in which meeting
due dates is not considered as a constraint but as
517
an objective, such as a problem to minimize the
sum of tardiness penalties of ®nal products and
inventory holding costs.
References
Chen, T.R., Hsia, T.C., 1997. Scheduling for IC sort and test
facilities with precedence constraints via Lagrangian
relaxation. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 16,
117±128.
Clark, A.J., Scarf, H., 1960. Optimal policies for a multi-
echelon inventory problem. Management Science 6, 475±
490.
Czerwinski, C.S., Luh, P.B., 1994. Scheduling products with bill
of materials using an improved Lagrangian relaxation
technique. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation
10, 99±111.
Fisher, M.L., 1981. The Lagrangian relaxation method for
solving integer programming problem. Management Science
27, 1±18.
Fisher, M.L., 1985. An applications oriented guide to Lagran-
gian relaxation. Interfaces 15, 10±21.
Geo€rion, A.M., 1974. Lagrangian relaxation for integer
programming. Mathematical Programming Study 2, 82±
114.
Hastings, N.A.J., Yeh, C.-H., 1990. Job oriented production
scheduling. European Journal of Operational Research 47,
35±48.
Hariri, A.M.A., Potts, C.N., 1997. A branch and bound
algorithm for the two-stage assembly scheduling problem.
European Journal of Operational Research 103, 547±556.
Hoogeveen, J.A., van de Velde, S.L., 1995. Stronger Lagran-
gian bounds by use of slack variables: Applications to
machine scheduling problems. Mathematical Programming
70, 173±190.
Hoogeveen, H., van de Velde, S., 1998. Scheduling by
positional completion times: Analysis of a two-stage ¯ow
shop problem with batching machine. Mathematical Pro-
gramming 82, 273±289.
Kim, Y.-D., 1987. On the superiority of a backward approach
in list scheduling algorithms for multi-machine makespan
problems. International Journal of Production Research 25,
1751±1759.
Kim, Y.-D., 1995. A backward approach in list scheduling
algorithms for multi-machine tardiness problems. Comput-
ers and Operations Research 22, 307±319.
Lalsare, P., Sen, S., 1995. Evaluating backward scheduling and
sequencing rules for an assembly shop environment. Pro-
duction and Inventory Management Journal 36, 71±78.
Lee, C.Y., Cheng, T.C.E., Lin, B.M.T., 1993. Minimizing the
makespan in the 3-machine assembly type ¯owshop sched-
uling problem. Management Science 39, 616±625.
Luh, P.B., 1993. Scheduling of manufacturing systems using the
Lagrangian relaxation technique. IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control 38, 1066±1079.
518 M.-W. Park, Y.-D. Kim / European Journal of Operational Research 123 (2000) 504±518

Park, M.-W., Kim, Y.-D., 1999. A heuristic algorithm for a
production scheduling problem in an assembly system,
Journal of the Operational Research Society 50, 138±147.
Potts, C.N., Sevast'janov, S.V., Strusevich, V.A., Van Was-
senhove, L.N., Zwaneveld, C.M., 1995. The two-stage
assembly scheduling problem: Complexity and approxima-
tion. Operations Research 43, 346±355.
Smith, W.L., 1956. Various optimizers for single stage produc-
tion. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 3, 59±66.