Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Scheduling A Variable Maintenance and Linear Deteriorating Jobs On A Single Machine PDF
Scheduling A Variable Maintenance and Linear Deteriorating Jobs On A Single Machine PDF
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 16 October 2013
Received in revised form 19 August 2014
Accepted 19 August 2014
Available online 26 August 2014
Communicated by B. Doerr
Keywords:
Scheduling
Computational complexity
Deteriorating jobs
Maintenance
a b s t r a c t
We investigate a single machine scheduling problem in which the processing time of a
job is a linear function of its starting time and a variable maintenance on the machine
must be performed prior to a given deadline. The goals are to minimize the makespan
and the total completion time. We prove that both problems are NP-hard. Furthermore, we
show that there exists a fully polynomial time approximation scheme for the makespan
minimization problem. For the total completion time minimization problem we point out
that there exists a fully polynomial time approximation scheme for a special case.
2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
We consider the following scheduling problem: there is
a set of n linear deteriorating jobs J = { J 1 , J 2 , , J n } to
be non-preemptively processed on a single machine, all of
which are available at time 0. For each job J j , we use p j
and C j to denote the processing time and the completion
time, respectively. The actual processing time p j of job J j
is dened by p j = j + j s j , where j denotes the basic
processing time, j denotes the deteriorating rate and s j
denotes the starting time of job J j , respectively, i.e., p j is
a (general) linear function of s j . Moreover, a mandatory
maintenance must be started before a given deadline sd
on the machine and the duration of the maintenance d is
a nonnegative and nondecreasing function of its starting
time s (i.e., d = f (s) and f (s) is nonnegative and nondecreasing). Without loss of generality, we also assume that
all the data (the basic processing times, the deteriorating
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: luowenchang@163.com (W. Luo), jimkeen@163.com
(M. Ji).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipl.2014.08.011
0020-0190/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
34
C S ( ) =
1
(1 + j ) 1 =
x j 1 = B 1,
j S 1
j S1
C S ( ) = 2B
2
Since
(1 + j ) 1 = 2B
x j 1.
j S 2
j S 2
j S 2
x j = X / B, we achieve that C S ( ) = 2 X 1,
2
order of j .
35
2
n
1
the nondecreasing order of j , i.e.,
.
j
C S ( ) =
1
(1 + j ) 1 = B 1
j S 1
Obviously, the set of E 1 consists of two partial schedules, in the rst of which job J 1 is processed before s, and
in the second schedule job J 1 is placed after the maintenance. For each state [ j 1, t , C ] in E j 1 , job J j has
two possible choices in E j . Due to the nondecreasing or
and
C S ( ) = (2B )
2
(1 + j ) 1
j S 2
= (2B )
X
B
1.
n1 n
C max ( ) = C S ( ) = (2B )
2
> (2B 2)
X
B
X
B
1 = 2 X 1,
d) +
i = j +1 (1 + i ) j )) time.
j =1
Next we transform the above dynamic programming
into an FPTAS for problem 1, nr-a| p j = j + j s j |C max . The
main idea is that we iteratively remove some states generated by the dynamic programming to reduce the size
of the state space down to polynomial size, which is attributed to Woeginger [13].
Algorithm H 0 :
Step 1. Let = 1 + /(2n). Partition
the interval [0, s] into r1 = log s subintervals
[0, ], , [t1 , t1 +1 ], , [r1 1 , s] and
36
the interval [(s + d), (n + ni=1 (1 + i )(s + d) +
n1 n
i = j +1 (1 + i ) j )] into r 2 = log (n +
1 n
nj=1
(
1
+
i )(s + d) + nj=
i =1
i = j +1 (1 + i ) j )
1
log (s + d) subintervals [(s + d), (s + d)], ,
t2
t 2 +1
, [(s + d)r2 1 , (n +
[(
sn + d) , (s + d) n],
1 n
(
1
+
)(
s
+
d
)
+
i
i =1
i = j +1 (1 + i ) j )].
j =1
n(log L )
by O (
, n}.
), where L = max{s, d, (1 + j ), j , j = 1, 2,
n
i =1 (1 +
i )(s + d) + j=1 i = j +1 (1 + i ) j )), which is at most
O (n3 (log L )2 / 2 ). 2
n1 n
feasible state in GS j 1 that yields the state [ j , t, C ]. Consider two cases according to the assignment of job J j :
either [ j , t, C ] = [ j , t + j + j t , C ] or [ j , t, C ] = [ j , t ,
C + j + j C ].
Case 1. [ j , t, C ] = [ j , t + j + j t , C ].
Since [ j 1, t , C ] GS j 1 , there exists [ j 1, t , C ]
Algorithm H 1
Step 1. Let
be a given positive constant and t 1 =
mini {1,2,,n} i . Compute a series of t i such that
f (t i ) = f (t 1 )(1 +
)i , i = 2, , q with q = log1+d
f (s )
f (t )
log1+1
and split time interval [t 1 , sd ] into subinter-
vals [t 1 , t 1 (1 +
)], [t 1 (1 +
), t 1 (1 +
)2 ], , [t 1 (1 +
)r , sd ], where r = log1+
(sd /t 1 ). Let t j = t 1 (1 +
C max
(i )
n
= C max S 1i + f C max S 1i
+ [n] +
n 1
(1 + [k] )
k=| S 1i |+1
n
[k]
n
= s + f s
k=| S 1 |+1
n 1
+ [n] +
k=| S 1 |+1
(1 + [k] )
[k]
n
(1 + [ j ] ) ,
j =k+1
and
C max = si + f (si )
n
(1 + [k] )
k=| S 1 |+1
+ [n] +
n 1
k=| S 1 |+1
a[k]
n
Then we obtain
C max
(i ) C max (i ) 1 +
C max
2
1 +
C max .
Let =
+ 2
, we achieve C max ( ) C max ( (i )) (1 +
)C max ( ). Computing each si , i = 0, 1, 2 , l needs at
s
most log2d time by using binary search because the function f (s) is continuous and nondecreasing. Thus, with the
assumption that f (s) can be computed in polynomial time,
Algorithm H 1 runs in polynomial time. 2
2
3. The 1, VM| p j = j + j s j |
j
C j problem
js j|
Again the NP-hardness proof is constructed by performing a reduction from the NP-complete Subset Product
Problem.
(1 + [ j ] ) ,
C max
(1 +
) f (s ). Then we have C max ( ) (1 +
)C max ( ).
j =k+1
k=| S 1i |+1
37
(1 + [ j ] ) .
j =k+1
j
C j problem is NP-
38
(1 + j )(1 + m+1 ) 1
j S 1
= X2 A
(1 + j ) 1,
j S 1
B
C max
=
X2 A
(1 + j ) + X 3
j S 1
j S 2
= X 10 + X 9 B
(1 + j ) 1.
j S 2
Hence, we have
B
A
Z ( ) > C max
+ C max
=X
C m +1 =
j S 1
C m +2 =
j S 2
= 2 X 6 1,
C m+3 = (1 + C m+2 )(1 + m+3 ) 1 = 2 X 10 1.
Because C j < C m+2 for j = 1, 2, , m, we achieve
Z ( )
j =1
j S 2
=X
Cj +
3
10
+X
(1 + j ) + B
j S 1
X9 X
2
B
Clearly C max
sd , i.e., X 2 ( A
(1 + j )) X 3 1.
(1 + j ) X , which implies
(1 +
j S 1
j S 1
j S 1
We have A
Z ( ) > X 10 + 2 X 10 + X 9
X X
C m+k
k =1
j S 1
xj
(1 + j ) 2
j S 1
< X 3 1 + 2(m + 1) X 6 1/2 + 2 X 10 1 = G .
>X
10
+ 2X
10
+ X X9 X2 X 2
9
> 2 X 10 + X 9 + X 3 2
> G,
which achieves a contradiction. Thus
(1 + j )
(1 + j ) 2.
j S 1
j S2
(1 + j )(1 + m+1 ) + X 3
(1 + j )(1 + m+2 ) 1
(1 + j ) 1
m
+ X9 B
as =
j S 1
(1 + j )(1 + m+1 ) 1 = X 3 1,
(1 + j ) 1 + X 10
j S 1
J m+3 .
j S 1
(1 + j ) =
j S 1
it.
Consider Case 1. Let S 2 {1, 2, , n} denote the indices of jobs scheduled after the maintenance except the 3
large jobs and S 1 = {1, 2, , n}\{ S 2 }. Then the maximum
completion time of the jobs scheduled before the maintenance is
39
References
[1] S. Browne, U. Yechiali, Scheduling deteriorating jobs on a single processor, Oper. Res. 38 (3) (1990) 495498.
[2] Z.-L. Chen, Parallel machine scheduling with time dependent processing times, Discrete Appl. Math. 70 (1) (1996) 8193.
[3] B. Fan, S. Li, L. Zhou, L. Zhang, Scheduling resumable deteriorating
jobs on a single machine with non-availability constraints, Theor.
Comput. Sci. 412 (45) (2011) 275280.
[4] R.L. Graham, E.L. Lawler, J.K. Lenstra, A.H.G. Rinnooy Kan, Optimization and approximation in deterministic sequencing and scheduling:
a survey, Ann. Discrete Math. 5 (1979) 287326.
[5] S. Gawiejnowicz, Scheduling deteriorating jobs subject to job or machine availability constraints, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 180 (2007) 472478.
[6] S. Gawiejnowicz, Time-Dependent Scheduling, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 2008.
[7] S. Gawiejnowicz, A. Kononov, Complexity and approximability of
scheduling resumable proportionally deteriorating jobs, Eur. J. Oper.
Res. 200 (2010) 305308.
[8] D.S. Johnson, The NP-completeness column: an ongoing guide, J. Algorithms 2 (1983) 393405.
[9] M. Ji, Y. He, T.C.E. Cheng, Scheduling linear deteriorating jobs with
an availability constraint on a single machine, Theor. Comput. Sci.
362 (2006) 115126.
[10] M. Ji, T.C.E. Cheng, Scheduling resumable simple linear deteriorating
jobs on a single machine with an availability constraint to minimize
makespan, Comput. Ind. Eng. 59 (4) (2010) 794798.
[11] W. Luo, L. Chen, Approximation scheme for scheduling resumable
proportionally deteriorating jobs, in: Frontiers in Algorithmics and
Algorithmic Aspects in Information and Management, AAIM10, 2011,
pp. 3645.
[12] W. Luo, L. Chen, Approximation schemes for scheduling a maintenance and linear deteriorating jobs, J. Ind. Manag. Optim. 8 (2)
(2012) 271283.
[13] G.J. Woeginger, When does a dynamic programming formulation
guarantee the existence of a fully polynomial time approximation
scheme (FPTAS)?, INFORMS J. Comput. 12 (1) (2000) 5774.
[14] C.C. Wu, W.C. Lee, Scheduling linear deteriorating jobs to minimize
makespan with an availability constraint on a single machine, Inf.
Process. Lett. 87 (2003) 8993.