Accepted Manuscript

MILP models for energy-aware flexible job shop scheduling problem

Leilei Meng, Chaoyong Zhang, Xinyu Shao, Yaping Ren

PII: S0959-6526(18)33421-8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.021
Reference: JCLP 14780

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 15 October 2017

Revised Date: 19 August 2018
Accepted Date: 3 November 2018

Please cite this article as: Meng L, Zhang C, Shao X, Ren Y, MILP models for energy-aware flexible
job shop scheduling problem, Journal of Cleaner Production (2018), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2018.11.021.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
MILP models for energy-aware flexible job shop scheduling problem
Leilei Menga,b, Chaoyong Zhanga,b*, Xinyu Shaoa,b, Yaping Rena,b**
a
State Key Lab of Digital Manufacturing Equipment & Technology, Huazhong University of Science & Technology,
Wuhan, 430074,Hubei,China
b
School of Mechanical Science and Engineering, Huazhong University of Science & Technology, Wuhan,
430074,Hubei,China
*Corresponding author. Email: zcyhust@hust.edu.cn
** Corresponding author. Email: renyp1@163.com
Abstract: With energy shortage and environmental pollution becoming increasingly severe problems,
energy-efficient scheduling is attracting much more attention than before. This paper addresses the

PT
flexible job shop scheduling problem (FJSP) with the objective of minimizing total energy
consumption. Firstly, the total energy consumption of the workshop is discussed and modelled. Then,
based on two different modeling ideas namely idle time variable and idle energy variable, six new

RI
mixed integer linear programming (MILP) models with turning Off/On strategy are proposed. The
original objective function of the model based on idle time variable is nonlinear and linearization is
needed. For the linearization, additional decision variables and constraints are added. The objective

SC
function of the model based on idle energy variable is originally linear and concise. Lastly, those six
proposed models and the existing one are detailedly compared and evaluated under both the size and
computational complexities. The correctness and effectiveness of all MILP models are verified by

U
using CPLEX SLOVER to carry out numerical experiments. The results show that the MILP models
based on different modeling ideas vary remarkably in both size and computational complexities, and
AN
all the six models proposed in this paper outperform the existing model significantly. The proposed
models will help the enterprises rationalize production so as to reduce energy consumption and costs.
Keywords: Flexible job shop scheduling; Mixed integer linear programming; Energy-efficient;
Turning Off /On strategy
M

1. Introduction
With social, economic and scientific development, the demand for energy is expanding rapidly.
D

As is known to all, oil, coal and other non-renewable fossil resources have become increasingly
depleted, making energy saving an imperative(Li et al. 2018; Zheng and Li 2018). Manufacturing
TE

industries are energy intensive, which consumes nearly a third of global energy consumption and
produces 36% CO2 of the world(Agency 2007). In China, manufacturing sector attributed more than
56% of the total energy consumption(Zhang et al. 2016). The energy consumption of mechanical
EP

processing workshop plays an important part in the total energy consumption of manufacturing
enterprises. According to statistics, China possesses more than 700 million machine tools, ranking
the first in the world. Assuming that the average power of each machine tool is 10kW, the total
power of 700 million machine tools will be 70 billion kilowatts, which is over three times of Three
C

Gorges Power Station (assembly capacity of 2250 MW)(Liu et al. 2013). This shows that energy
consumption of manufacturing shops is extremely striking. However, in actual machining processes,
AC

machine tools stay in idle state for most of the time. Statistics reveal that about 80% of the energy of
machine tools is consumed when they stay in idle state(Mouzon et al. 2007). Gutowski et al.(2009)
took a car automatic production line as an example, whose energy efficiency is only 14.8%. In a
manner of speaking, machine tools have huge potential space for energy saving(Li et al. 2016).
Energy- efficient scheduling has been proved to be effective in reducing the energy consumption
with no or little capital investment, which works by reasonably arranging the productions such as the
machine selection of the operation and the operations sequence on the machines(Yan et al. 2016; Che
et al. 2017; Zhang et al. 2017; Li et al. 2018; Meng et al. 2018). By implementing energy-efficient
scheduling, the manufacturing industries can save a lot of energy(electrical energy), which makes the
manufacturing industries more environmentally friendly and completive. The less the energy is
consumed, the less the fossil resources(e.g., oil, coal) consumption will be, and the less the exhaust
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
emission(e.g., CO2, NOx, and CH4) is emitted.
For reducing idle energy consumption, Mouzon et al.(2007) firstly designed the turning On/Off
strategy in single machine scheduling problem and he observed that almost 80% energy can be saved
if the machine was turned off and subsequently turned On when a continuous idle period of the
machine is long enough. In addition, a nonlinear mathematical model with turning On /Off strategy
was proposed but no further work was done to transform the nonlinear model into a liner one. Later,
Yildirim and Mouzon(2012) proposed a nonlinear mathematical model to minimize the energy
consumption and the total completion time of a single machine with turning On/Off strategy, and
multi-objective genetic algorithm and analytical hierarchical process were used to solve the problem.

PT
Wang et al.(2013) proposed a multi-granularity state chart energy model to simulate and control the
energy consumption process of single machine by using ARENA, and the simulation results showed
that 26% energy can be saved with the turning On/Off strategy. Che et al.(2017) firstly developed a

RI
mixed integer linear programming(MILP) model for single-machine scheduling problem with
turning On /Off strategy being considered, and the model is verified effective with CPLEX SOLVER.
This is pioneering work for MILP model of single-machine scheduling problem with turning On/Off

SC
strategy. Subsequently, the turning On and Off strategy are gradually applied to parallel machine
scheduling problem(Liang et al. 2015),flexible flow shop scheduling problem(FFSP)(Dai et al. 2013;
Meng et al. 2018) and FJSP(Zhang et al. 2017).
With regard to FJSP, in order to minimize total energy consumption with considering turning On

U
/Off strategy, Zhang et al.(2017) firstly proposed a MILP model, which is pioneering work for FJSP
with turning On/Off strategy. However, the proposed model is complicated and of low efficiency.
AN
The goal of this paper is to propose several MILP models of higher efficiency to solve this problem.
Major contributions of our paper are given as follows.
(1) This paper presents six more efficient MILP models for FJSP with the turning Off/On
M

strategy. All the six MILP models are based on two different modeling ideas, and the modeling
process of each MILP model is described detailedly.
(2) All the proposed MILP models and the existing MILP model proposed by Zhang et al.(2017)
D

are compared under both the size and computational complexities. The results show that all the
proposed models are more effective than the existing model.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, the literature review of FJSP is
TE

provided. In Section 3, the problem definition and the energy consumption composition of the
workshop are described. In Section 4, six new MILP models and the existing one that are based on
two different modeling ideas are presented. In Section 5, the proposed models and the existing model
EP

are evaluated and compared under both the size and computational complexities. Finally, a summary
and some related directions for future research are given in Section 6.
2. Literature review
C

Flexible job shop scheduling problem (FJSP) is an extension of the classical job shop scheduling
AC

problem(JSP) and of great significance in the modern manufacturing system. In FJSP, machines are
flexible and eligible to process more types of operations, and an operation is allowed to be processed
by different machines. The FJSP can be decomposed into two sub-problems: the machine choice of
operations and the operations sequencing on machines. In addition, the FJSP has proven to be an NP-
hard problem(Zhang et al. 2017).
FJSP can be solved mainly by two types of methods, e.g., exact methods and
approximation methods. Exact methods include branch-and-bound algorithm(Balas 1968), mixed-
integer programming(MIP)(Zhang et al. 2017), and lagrangian relaxation method (Hoitomt et al.
1993)among others. MILP models for FJSP with minimizing makespan have been developed by
many researchers(Fattahi et al. 2007; Özgüven et al. 2010; Demir and Kürşat İşleyen 2013;
Roshanaei et al. 2013).
With regard to MILP modeling of scheduling problems, there are mainly two modeling idea. The
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
first is Wagner's modeling idea(Wagner 1959), which divided one machine into several sections
according to time sequences. Each section can be defined as one position or slot, which can be at
most assigned to one operation. Therefore, the scheduling problem becomes the problem of deciding
the corresponding relationships between the positions and the operations. The second is Manne's
modeling idea(Manne 1960), which is based on the precedence of two different operations on the
same machine.
Based on the Wagner's modeling idea, a MILP model of two binary decision variables for FJSP
with the objective to minimize makespan was firstly established by Fattahi et al.(2007). Afterwards,
Roshanaei et al.(2013) proposed a more efficient MILP model with only one binary decision variable

PT
and less constraints. Based on Manne's modeling idea, Ozguven et al.(2010) elaborated a MILP
model for FJSP, and then MILP models of improved efficiency were proposed by Roshanaei et
al.(2013). Demir and Kürşat İşleyen(2013)compared the MILP model proposed by Ozguven et

RI
al.(2010)with four non-linear models, and the comparison results showed that the MILP model
performed better than the other four non-linear models because of the superiority of liner model to
non-linear model.

SC
MILP models are inefficient in solving the large-scale problems due to its tremendous
computational burden and memory requirement, while approximation method could obtain a better
solution in short time. Approximation method mainly includes heuristic algorithms and meta-
heuristic algorithms. Heuristic algorithms include priority dispatch rules (PDR)(MONTAZERI and

U
VAN WASSENHOVE 1990), and bottleneck based heuristic (BBH)(Adams et al. 1988)among
others. Meta-heuristic algorithms include genetic algorithm(GA)(Li and Gao 2016), tabu search
AN
algorithm(TS)(Mastrolilli and Gambardella 2000; Li and Gao 2016), artificial bee colony
algorithm(ABC)(Wang et al. 2012) and other algorithms(Gao et al. 2008). Gao et al.(2008)
developed a hybrid genetic and variable neighborhood descent algorithm for FJSP. Li and Gao (2016)
M

presented an effective hybrid algorithm (HA), which hybridized the genetic algorithm (GA) and tabu
search (TS) for FJSP with the objective to minimize the makespan. Moreover, the hybrid algorithm
was validated to outdo other algorithms in terms of both solution accuracy and computational
D

time(Li and Gao 2016).

Heuristic algorithm based on precedence rules can obtain a feasible solution in relatively short
time, while it is difficult to guarantee the quality of the solution. Meta-heuristic algorithms are
TE

usually efficient and have been widely used to solve scheduling problems(Mastrolilli and
Gambardella 2000; Gao et al. 2008; Li and Gao 2016), however, their performances are dependent
on many factors such as the method of initialization, the encoding and decoding methods, and the
EP

design of neighborhood structures among others(Duan et al. 2017; Zheng et al. 2018). The quality of
the solution of meta-heuristic algorithms sometimes may be very poor if the algorithm is not
reasonably designed (Li et al. 2018; Ren et al. 2018).
C

Although MILP models are inefficient in solving the large-scale problems, the study for MILP
models is highly significant and meaningful. This is because MILP models can find the optimal
AC

solution for small-scale problems, which are desirable to be used as the reference standard to
evaluate the quality of the approximation methods(Ren et al. 2017). Besides, MILP models are the
basis of understanding scheduling problem, which can explicitly describe all the characteristics of a
scheduling problem and is the key to exploring and mining dispatching rules for scheduling problems.
The solving efficiency of MILP models depends on computer capacity and specified software.
Owing to recent advances in computer capacity and advent of efficient software(e.g., CPLEX and
GUROBI), the MILP model catches growing attention(Naderi et al. 2014). In addition, MILP models
can be solved by many methods such as branch and bound, dynamic programming and branch and
price. Although MILP models for FJSP have been developed by a number of researchers(Fattahi et al.
2007; Özgüven et al. 2010; Roshanaei et al. 2013), the focus has always been on minimizing the
makespan instead of energy conservation.
In summary, the early researches on FJSP mainly focused on the time-based performances,
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
especially the minimization of makespan. Little attention has been paid to energy consumption of
workshop. However, with the depletion of energy, the surge in energy costs, and the strict laws and
regulations on sustainability and environmental protection, a growing number of researchers turn
their attention to energy consumption of FJSP(Zhang et al. 2012; Jiang et al. 2014; Moon and Park
2014; He et al. 2015; Piroozfard et al. 2016; Yin et al. 2017; Zhang et al. 2017).
Piroozfard et al.(2016) studied the FJSP with the multi-objectives of minimizing total carbon
footprint and total late work criterion at the same time, and proposed an improved multi-objective
genetic algorithm to solve this problem. Zhang et al.(2012) proposed a multi-objective dynamic
FJSP mathematical model which minimizes the energy consumption and the scheduling efficiency

PT
simultaneously. Besides, experiments were conducted to evaluate the proposed model and the results
indicated that the proposed model was effective in reducing the energy consumption as well as
improving the scheduling efficiency with dynamic events.

RI
In order to optimize productivity, energy efficiency and noise reduction simultaneously, a
mathematical model of the FJSP with controllable processing times was proposed by Yin et al.(2017).
Besides, a multi-objective genetic algorithm was introduced to solve the problem, and the

SC
effectiveness of the proposed model and method were validated by experiments. Jiang et al.(2014)
proposed a multi-objective FJSP optimization model with four objectives, namely, makespan,
processing cost, energy consumption and cost-weighted processing quality. To solve this problem, a
modified Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA-II) based on blood variation was

U
designed. The performances of the proposed model and algorithm were evaluated through a case
study, and the results showed that the proposed model and algorithm were feasible and effective.
AN
Moon and Park (2014) studied the FJSP with the objective of minimizing total cost by two
scenarios. Time-dependent and machine-dependent electricity costs were considered in the first
scenario. The second scenario further took distributed energy resources(DERs) and energy storage
M

systems(ESS) into consideration. Two mixed-integer programming(MIP) models were developed to

solve this problem. The first MIP model considered time-dependent and machine-dependent
electricity costs, as compared with the second one that considered electricity costs with DERs and
D

ESS. He et al.(2015) studied the FJSP with the objective of minimizing energy consumption as well
as makespan and proposed a Nested Partitions algorithm to solve the problem.
Above all, the studies of FJSP for minimizing energy consumption mainly focused on meta-
TE

heuristic algorithm such as genetic algorithm(Piroozfard et al. 2016; Yin et al. 2017) , Nested
Partitions algorithm(He et al. 2015) and NSGA-II(Jiang et al. 2014), which did not consider turning
Off /On strategy to reduce idle energy of the machine tools. Although several studies focused on the
EP

MILP modeling of FJSP have been done(Fattahi et al. 2007; Özgüven et al. 2010; Demir and Kürşat
İşleyen 2013; Roshanaei et al. 2013), the focus of which has been on minimizing the makespan
instead of considering energy consumption except for literature(Zhang et al. 2017). However, the
C

existing MILP model proposed by Zhang et al.(2017) is complicated and ineffective. In this paper,
we will propose several effective MILP models for FJSP with considering turning Off/On strategy to
AC

reduce idle energy consumption, and then compare and evaluate the models under both the size
computational complexities.
3. Problem description and notations
3.1. Notations
In this paper, parameters used are defined as follows.

i , ii the indices for the jobs.

n the number of the jobs.
I the set of the jobs where {1, 2, ⋅⋅⋅, n} .
Si the number of the operations of job i .
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Ji the set of the number of the operations that job i has where {1, 2, ⋅⋅⋅, Si } .
Oi , j the jth operation of job i.
k , kk the indices for the machines.
m the number of the machines.
mi , j the number of the alternative machines for operation Oi , j .
Ki , j the set of the alternative machines for operation Oi , j where {1, 2, ⋅⋅⋅, mi, j } , Ki, j ⊆ K .
K the set of the machines where {1, 2, ⋅⋅⋅, m} .
t , tt the indices for machine positions.

PT
xi , j ,k the parameter takes 1 if operation Oi , j can be processed on machine k and takes
0 otherwise.
n S
the maximum number of the positions of machine k where pk = ∑i=1 ∑ j=1 xi, j,k .
i
pk

RI
Lk the set of the positions of machine k where {1, 2, ⋅⋅⋅, pk } .
LLk the set of the positions of machine k where {1,2,⋅⋅⋅, pk −1} .

SC
pti , j ,k the processing time of operation Oi , j on machine k .
P0 the common power, which is consumed by auxiliary equipments and supporting
facilities.

U
Pi , j ,k the processing power of operation Oi , j on machine k.
PEi, j,k the energy consumption of processing operation Oi , j on machine k .
AN
k
Pidle the idle power of machine k.
k
t idle the total idle time of machine k .
k ,t
tidle the idle time of machine k between position t and t+1.
M

WEk the total idle energy consumption of machine k .

WEk ,t the idle energy consumption of machine k between position t and t+1.
D

M a very large positive number.

Nk the maximum times of turning Off /On strategy for machine k .
TE

EnergySk the energy consumption of machine k for one turning On/Off strategy.
Tk the time consumed by machine k for one turning On/Off strategy.
TBk the breakeven period of machine k.
EP

Cmax the makespan, which equals to the maximum completion time of all jobs.
CE the common energy consumption
C

3.2. FJSP definition

The FJSP can be described as follows. There are a set of n jobs {1,2, ⋅⋅⋅, n} to be processed on m
AC

machines {1,2,⋅⋅⋅, m}. Each job i consists of a sequence of operation {Oi,1, Oi,2 ,⋅⋅⋅, Oi,S }. Each operation Oi , j
i

can be processed by a subset Ki , j ⊆ K of eligible machines. Typically, FJSP takes the following
assumptions into consideration:

All operations of the same job must be processed according to the given sequence.

The operations of different jobs are independent.

All the jobs and the machines are available at time zero.

Each machine cannot process more than one operation and each operation cannot be processed
on more than one machine simultaneously.

All the machining data such as processing time, processing power, idle power of machines is
deterministic and known in advance.

Transportation times between different machines and the setup times between different jobs at
the same machine are negligible.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

No operation can be interrupted once an operation is started.
The aim of FJSP is to reasonably choose the machine for each operation and determine the job
sequence on each machine to make one or more scheduling objectives minimized or maximized.
Models in this paper are to minimize the total energy consumption.
3.3. Energy consumption of the workshop
This section describes the energy consumption of the workshop, which mainly includes energy
consumption of machine tools and common energy consumption. Energy consumption of machine
tools can further be divided into processing energy consumption and idle energy consumption (Lin et
al. 2015; Zhang et al. 2017; Meng et al. 2018).

PT
3.3.1. Processing energy consumption
Being the energy consumed by the machines when the operations are being processed, the
processing energy consumption can be calculated as follow,
PEi , j , k = Pi , j ,k pti , j , k

RI
(1)
3.3.2. Idle energy consumption
The idle energy consumption represents for the energy consumed by the machine when it is in

SC
idle state, which can be calculated as,
WEk = ∑ WE = ∑P k k ,t
t = ∑P k
( Sk ,t +1 − Fk ,t )
t∈LLk
k ,t
t∈LLk
idle idle
t∈LLk
idle (2)
k ,t
The idle time t can be calculated by equation (3),

U
idle
k ,t
tidle = S k ,t +1 − Fk ,t
(3)
AN
where, Sk ,t +1 denotes the starting time of the t + 1 position of machine k and Fk ,t represents for the
completion time of the t position of machine k . Sk ,t and Fk ,t will be described in detail bellow.
3.3.3. Common energy consumption
In order to keep the workshop environment(e.g., temperature and humidity), auxiliary facilities
M

such as lighting, air conditioning, ventilation and heating must be used. Energy consumption of these
auxiliary facilities stands for the common energy consumption, which can be computed by the
following equation(4),
D

CE = P0Cmax (4)
3.3.3. Total energy consumption
TE

The total energy consumption( TEC )is the sum of total processing energy consumption, total idle
energy consumption and common energy consumption, which is computed as follow,
TEC = ∑WEk + ∑∑ ∑ PE X i, j ,k + CE = ∑ ∑ Pidle
k
(Sk ,t +1 − Fk ,t ) + ∑∑ ∑P pti, j ,k X i, j ,k + PC
EP

k∈K i∈I j∈Ji k∈Ki , j

i , j ,k
k∈K t∈LLk i∈I j∈Ji k∈Ki , j
i, j ,k 0 max (5)
where, X is added and aims to ensure whether operation Oi , j chooses machine k . In other words,
i , j ,k

X is equal to 1 when operation Oi , j is assigned on machine k ; otherwise, X is equal to 0.

i , j ,k i , j ,k
C

When a long idle period Sk,t+1 − Fk,t exists between position t and t + 1 on machine k, the machine can
be turned off and then turned on to save energy. Hereon, the breakeven period TBk is defined as the
AC

minimum time for one turning Off/On strategy, which can be computed by equation(6). The
equation(6) means that only when the idle period Sk,t+1 − Fk,t is no less than Tk and its idle energy
consumption is no less than EnergySk , can machine k be turned off and then on to save
energy(Mouzon et al. 2007).
TBk = max{Tk , EnergySk / Pidle
k
} (6)
3.3.4. The total energy consumption with turning On and Off strategy
With the turning On/Off strategy implemented between position t and t+1 of machine k , WEk ,t
can be computed as follow,
WEk ,t = (1 − Z k ,t )( S k ,t +1 − Fk ,t ) Pidle
k
+ Z k ,t EnergyS k
(7)
If Z k ,t = 1, then WEk ,t = EnergyS k ;else Z k ,t = 0,WEk ,t = ( S k ,t +1 − Fk ,t ) Pidle
k

where, Z k ,t is a binary variable and takes 1 when turning On/Off strategy is implemented between
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
position t and t + 1 of machine k , and WEk ,t is equal to EnergyS k ; otherwise, Z k ,t takes 0 and
WEk ,t depends on actual idle time period and is equal to (Sk,t +1 − Fk,t )Pidle
k
.
According to the equations (5) and (7), the TEC with turning On/Off strategy can be computed as,
TEC = ∑ ∑ ((1− Zk ,t )(Sk ,t +1 − Fk ,t )Pidle
k
+ Zk ,t EnergySk ) + ∑∑ ∑P pti, j ,k Xi, j ,k + PC
k∈K t∈LLk i∈I j∈Ji k∈Ki , j
i , j ,k 0 max (8)

4. MILP Modeling of FJSP

A total of seven MILP models are described in this section. All the models are based on Wagner's
modeling idea(Wagner 1959). The seven models can further be divided into two categories. The first

PT
category is based on the modeling idea of idle time variable and includes four models in all, namely,
Model1, Model1-1, Model1-2 and Model1-3. The second category is based on the modeling idea of
idle energy variable and includes three models, namely, Model2, Model2-1 and Model2-2. For the

RI
modeling idea of idle time variable, the idle energy are computed by the product of idle time and idle
power. While for the modeling idea of idle energy variable, the idle energy is set decision variable
directly.

SC
A MILP model includes three parts, that is, the objective function, the decision variables and the
constraints. The decision variables can further be divided into binary decision variables and
continuous decision variables. Ranking in order of importance, main influential factors regarding the

U
performance of the MILP model are the number of the binary decision variables, the number of the
constraints and the number of continuous decision variables(PAN 1997). Different modeling ideas
AN
need different decision variables and constraints, and the performances of the models based on
different ideas may be very different.
4.1. Model 1
4.1.1. Decision variables
M

There are ten decision variables introduced in Model 1, which are given as follows.
X i , j ,k
binary decision variable taking value 1 if operation Oi , j is processed on machine k
and taking 0 otherwise( X ∈{0,1}). i , j ,k
D

Yi , j ,k ,t
binary decision variable taking value 1 if operation Oi , j occupies position t of machine
k and taking 0 otherwise( Y ∈{0,1}). i, j,k ,t
TE

binary decision variable taking value 1 if turning On/Off strategy is implemented

Z k ,t
between position t and t + 1 of machine k and taking 0 otherwise( Zk,t ∈{0,1}).
Bi , j continuous decision variable for the starting time of operation Oi , j .
EP

Ei , j continuous decision variable for the completion time of operation Oi , j .

Sk ,t continuous decision variable for the starting time of the position t of machine k .
Fk ,t continuous decision variable for the completion time of the position t of machine k .
C

Uk ,t ,Wk ,t
intermediate continuous decision variables for the linearization of the nonlinear
objective function.
AC

Cmax makespan.
4.1.2. Objective function
min TEC = ∑ ∑ ((1 − Z )( Sk ,t +1 − Fk ,t )Pidle
k
+ EnergySk Z k ,t ) + ∑ ∑ ∑P pti , j ,k X i , j ,k + P0Cmax
k∈K t∈LLk
k ,t
i∈I j∈Ji k∈Ki , j
i , j ,k (9)
In this objective function, the first part is total idle energy consumption, the second part is the
total processing energy consumption, and the last part is the common energy consumption.
It is noticeable that the objective function is nonlinear and non-convex, which contains the
nonlinear term of (1 − Zk ,t )(Sk ,t +1 − Fk ,t ) . Because many local optical solutions exist in the feasible region of
the non-convex models, it is NP-hard to solve these models to optimality. Therefore, we linearize the
nonlinear objective function by adding intermediate variables namely U k ,t +1 and Wk ,t ,which are used to
replace (1 − Z k ,t )Sk ,t +1 and (1 − Z k ,t ) Fk ,t respectively. Therefore, the nonlinear term (1− Zk,t )(Sk,t+1 − Fk,t ) is
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
replaced by linear term of Uk,t+1 −Wk,t . The purpose of intermediate variables of U k ,t and Wk ,t is to
linearize the objective function (9).
4.1.3. Linearized objective function
min TEC = ∑ ∑ ((U k ,t +1 − Wk ,t )Pidle
k
+ EnergySk Z k ,t ) + ∑ ∑ ∑P pti , j ,k X i , j , k +P0Cmax
k∈K t∈LLk i∈I j∈J i k∈Ki , j
i , j ,k (10)
4.1.4. Constraint sets
Constraint sets (11)-(33) are needed in Model 1 and are given below.

∑ X i , j ,k = 1, ∀i ∈ I , j ∈ J i

PT
k∈K i , j
(11)

∑Y i , j , k ,t = X i , j ,k , ∀i ∈ I , j ∈ J i , k ∈ Ki , j (12)
t∈Lk

RI
∑ ∑Y i , j , k ,t ≤ 1, ∀k ∈ K , t ∈ Lk (13)
i∈I j∈J i

∑∑ Y ≥ ∑ ∑ Yii , jj ,k ,t +1 , ∀k ∈ K , t ∈ LLk (14)

SC
i , j , k ,t
i∈I j∈Ji ii∈I jj∈Jii

Ei , j = Bi , j + ∑ ( pt X i , j ,k ), ∀i ∈ I , j ∈ Ji
k∈Ki , j
i , j ,k (15)
Fk ,t = Sk ,t + ∑ ∑ ( pti , j ,kYi , j ,k ,t ), ∀k ∈ K , t ∈ Lk

U
i∈I j∈Ji
(16)
Sk ,t ≤ Bi , j + M (1 − Yi , j ,k ,t ), ∀i ∈ I , j ∈ J i , k ∈ Ki , j , t ∈ Lk (17)
AN
Sk ,t + M (1 − Yi , j ,k ,t ) ≥ Bi , j , ∀i ∈ I , j ∈ J i , k ∈ Ki , j , t ∈ Lk (18)
Sk ,t +1 − Fk ,t ≥ TBk − M (1 − Zk ,t ), ∀k ∈ K , t ∈ LLk (19)
S k ,t +1 − Fk ,t ≤ TBk + MZ k ,t , ∀k , t ∈ LLk
M

(20)
Fk ,t ≤ S k ,t +1 , ∀k ∈ K , t ∈ LLk (21)
Ei , j ≤ Bi , j +1 , ∀i ∈ I , j ∈ {1,..., Si − 1} (22)
D

Cmax ≥ Ei , Si , ∀i ∈ I (23)
∑Z ≤ Nk , ∀k ∈ K
TE

t∈LLk
k ,t (24)
Bi , j , Sk ,t ≥ 0, ∀i ∈ I , k ∈ K , j ∈ J i , t ∈ Lk (25)
U k ,t +1 ≥ S k ,t +1 − MZ k ,t , ∀k ∈ K , t ∈ LLk (26)
EP

U k ,t +1 ≤ S k ,t +1 + MZ k ,t , ∀ k ∈ K , t ∈ LLk (27)
U k ,t +1 ≤ M (1 − Z k ,t ), ∀k ∈ K , t ∈ LLk (28)
U k ,t ≥ 0, ∀k ∈ K , t ∈ Lk (29)
C

Wk ,t ≥ Fk ,t − MZ k ,t , ∀k ∈ K , t ∈ LLk (30)
Wk ,t ≤ Fk ,t + MZ k ,t , ∀k ∈ K , t ∈ LLk
AC

(31)
Wk ,t ≤ M (1 − Z k ,t ), ∀k ∈ K , t ∈ LLk (32)
Wk ,t ≥ 0, ∀ k ∈ K , t ∈ LLk (33)

where, constraint set (11) ensures that each operation is assigned on exactly one of the alternative
machines. Constraint set (12) implies that if operation Oi , j is assigned to machine k, it will be exactly
assigned to one position of machine k, otherwise, it cannot be assigned to any position of machine k.
Constraint sets (11) and (12) together assure that each operation is assigned to one position of a
machine. Constraint set (13) states that each position of a machine can be allocated at most one
operation. Constraint set (14) ensures that positions of each machine must be assigned operations in
sequential order. Constraint set (15) links the completion time of an operation with its starting time.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Constraint set (16) ensures the completion time of a position is the sum of its starting time and the
processing time of the operation assigned at it. Constraint sets (17) and (18) jointly ensure that Bi , j
is equal to Sk ,t if operation Oi , j is assigned at position t of machine k. Constraint sets (19) and (20)
together restrict the turning Off/On strategy. In other words, if the idle time period Sk,t+1 − Fk,t is no
less than breakeven period TBk , the machine k is turned Off and then On, otherwise, the machine k
keeps idle. Constraint set (21) forces that for two adjacent operations on the same machine, the
succeeding operation can start only if the precedent operation has been completely finished.
Constraint set (22) is precedence constraint set and enforces each operation of each job can only be

PT
started after its precedent operation has been finished. Constraint set (23) determines the makespan.
Constraint set (24) restricts the maximum times of turned Off/On strategy for all machines.
Constraint set (25) is non-negativity constraints. Constraint sets (26)-(29) force Uk,t+1 = (1− Zk,t )Sk,t+1 to be
always true. In detail, if Z k ,t = 0 , constraint sets (26)-(27) enforce Uk,t+1 to be no less than and be no

RI
more than Sk ,t +1 , and this makes Uk ,t+1 is equal to Sk ,t +1 ( U k ,t +1 = Sk ,t +1 = (1 − Z k ,t )Sk ,t +1 ). If Z k ,t = 1 , constraint sets
(28)-(29) enforce Uk ,t+1 to be no less than 0 and be no more than 0, and this makes Uk ,t +1 is equal to 0

SC
(U k ,t +1 = 0 = (1 − Zk ,t )Sk ,t +1 ) . Constraint sets (30)-(33) force Wk,t = (1− Zk,t )Fk,t to be always true. To be specific,
constraint sets (30)-(31) forces Wk ,t equal to Fk ,t when Z = 0 and constraint sets (30)-(31) forces W
k ,t k ,t

equal to 0 when Z = 1. k ,t

U
4.2. Model 1-1
Compared with Model 1, variables Ei, j and Bi , j are reduced in Model 1-1, and then constraint
AN
sets (15), (17)-(18), (22)-(23) and the constraints Bi , j ≥ 0 of constraint set (25) are also reduced.
Constraint sets (34) and (35) are added. Constraint set (34) does the same as what constraint set(22)
does, which is to enforce each job to follow a specified operation sequence. Constraint set (35)
M

determines the makespan. In addition, the maximum possible number of constraints of constraint set
(34) can be estimated as n | Si − 1|max | mi , j |max | pk |max .
2 2

4.2.1. Decision variables

D

Eight decision variables namely X i, j ,k , Yi, j,k ,t , Zk ,t , Fk ,t , Sk ,t ,U k ,t ,Wk ,t and Cmax are needed in Model 1-1.
Moreover, the purpose of each parameter is the same as its counterpart in Model1.
TE

4.2.2. Objective function

The objective function of Model 1-1 is the same as that of Model 1.
4.2.3. Linearized objective function
EP

The linearized objective function of Model 1-1 is the same as that of Model 1.
4.2.4. Constraint sets
Constraint sets (11)-(14), (16), (19), (20)-(21), and (24)-(35) are needed in Model 1-1. Where,
constraint set (25) only has S k ,t ≥ 0 .
C

Fk ,t ≤ S kk ,tt + M (2 − Yi , j ,k ,t − Yi , j +1,kk ,tt )

∀i ∈ I , j ∈ {1,..., Si − 1}, k ∈ Ki , j , kk ∈ K i , j +1 , t ∈ Lk , tt ∈ Lkk (34)
AC

C max ≥ Fk , pk , ∀ k ∈ K (35)
4.3. Model 1-2
Model 1-2 is proposed by Zhang et al.(2017)
4.3.1. Decision variables
Seven variables namely Yi , j ,k ,t , Z k ,t , Ai , j ,k ,t , Sk ,t ,U k ,t ,Vk ,t and Cmax are needed in this model, among
which the purposes of Yi , j ,k ,t , Z k ,t , S k ,t ,U k ,t , Cmax are the same as their counterparts in Model1.
Ai , j ,k ,t intermediate binary variable( Ai, j ,k ,t ∈{0,1} ).
Vk ,t intermediate continuous variable and used to replace the nonlinear term (1− Zk,t )Sk,t .
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
4.3.2. Objective function
min TEC = ∑∑ ((1− Zk,t )(Sk,t+1 −(Sk,t + ∑∑( pti, j,kYi, j,k,t )))Pidle
k
+ EnergySk Zk,t ) + ∑∑ ∑ ∑Pi, j,k pti, j,kYi, j,k,t + PC
k∈K t∈LLk i∈I j∈Ji
0 max
i∈I j∈Ji k∈Ki , j t∈Lk
(36)
It can be seen that the objective function is a quadratic equation that contains the nonlinear term
(1− Zk ,t )(Sk ,t +1 − (Sk ,t + ∑∑ ( pti, j,kYi, j ,k ,t ))
i∈I j∈Ji
. Therefore, three intermediate variables are added, namely U k ,t , Vk ,t and

Ai , j , k ,t ,which are used to replace (1 − Z k ,t )Sk ,t +1 , (1 − Z k ,t ) Sk ,t and (1− Zk ,t )Yi , j ,k ,t respectively. Then, the nonlinear
(1 − Zk ,t )(Sk ,t +1 − (Sk ,t + ∑∑ ( pti, j ,kYi, j,k ,t )) Uk ,t +1 −Vk ,t − ∑∑ ( pti, j,k Ai, j ,k ,t )
term i∈I j∈J
can be replaced by the linear term
i i∈I j∈Ji
.
4.3.3. Linearized objective function

PT
min TEC = ∑ ∑ ((Uk ,t +1 −Vk ,t − ∑∑ ( pti, j ,k Ai, j ,k ,t ))Pidle
k
+ EnergySk Zk ,t ) + ∑∑ ∑ ∑P pti, j,kYi, j,k ,t + PC
k∈K t∈LLk i∈I j∈Ji i∈I j∈Ji k∈Ki , j t∈Lk
i , j ,k 0 max
(37)
4.3.4. Constraint sets

RI
Constraint sets (13)-(14), (24)-(29), and (38)-(50) are needed in Model 1-2, among which
constraint set (25) only has Sk ,t ≥ 0 .
∑ ∑Y = 1, ∀i ∈ I , j ∈ J i
i , j , k ,t
(38)

SC
k ∈K i , j t∈Lk

Cmax ≥ S k , pk + ∑ ∑ ( pti , j ,k Yi , j , k , pk ), ∀k ∈ K
i∈I j∈J i
(39)
S k ,t +1 − ( S k ,t + ∑ ∑ ( pti , j ,k Yi , j , k ,t )) ≥ TBk − M (1 − Z k ,t ), ∀k ∈ K , tt ∈ Lkk
(40)

U
i∈I j∈J i

Sk ,t +1 − Sk ,t − ∑∑ ( pti , j ,kYi, j ,k ,t ) ≤ TBk + MZk ,t , ∀k ∈ K , tt ∈ Lkk (41)

AN
i∈I j∈Ji

S k ,t +1 ≥ S k ,t + ∑ ∑ ( pti , j , k Yi , j , k ,t ), ∀k ∈ K , t ∈ LLk (42)

i∈I j∈J i

Skk ,tt + M (2 − Yi , j ,k ,t − Yi , j +1,kk ,tt ) ≥ Sk ,t + ∑∑ ( pti , j ,k Yi , j ,k ,t )

M

i∈I j∈J i (43)

∀i ∈ I , j ∈{1,..., Si − 1}, k ∈ Ki , j , kk ∈ Ki , j +1 , t ∈ Lk , tt ∈ Lkk
Vk ,t ≥ S k ,t − MZ k ,t , ∀k ∈ K , t ∈ LLk (44)
D

Vk ,t ≤ S k ,t + MZ k ,t , ∀k ∈ K , t ∈ LLk (45)
Vk ,t ≤ M (1 − Z k ,t ), ∀k ∈ K , t ∈ LLk (46)
TE

Vk ,t ≥ 0, ∀k ∈ K , t ∈ LLk (47)
Ai , j , k ,t ≤ Yi , j , k ,t , ∀i ∈ I , j ∈ J i , k ∈ K i , j , t ∈ LLk (48)
Ai , j ,k ,t ≤ 1 − Zk ,t , ∀i ∈ I , j ∈ Ji , k ∈ Ki , j , t ∈ LLk
EP

(49)
Ai , j ,k ,t ≥ Yi , j ,k ,t − Zk ,t , ∀i ∈ I , j ∈ Ji , k ∈ Ki , j , t ∈ LLk (50)
C

where, constraint set (38) do the same as what the constraint sets(11) and (12) together do. Constraint
set (39) determines the makespan. Constraint sets(40)-(43) do the same as what the constraint sets
(19)-(22) do respectively. Constraint sets (44)-(47) forces Vk,t = (1− Zk,t )Sk,t to be always true. To be
AC

more specific, constraint sets (44)-(45) forces Vk ,t equal to Fk ,t when Zk,t = 0 , and constraint sets (46)-
(47) forces Vk ,t equal to 0 when Zk,t =1 . Constraint sets (48)-(50) together force Ai, j,k,t =(1− Zk,t )Yi, j,k,t to be
always true whether Z k ,t is equal to 1 or 0.

4.4. Model 1-3

Seen from the modeling process of Model1-1, if decision variables Ei, j and Bi , j are both removed,
constraint set (34) must be added and it will at most have n | Si −1|max | mi2, j |max | pk2 |max constraints, which
will seriously affect the performance of the model. Therefore, Ei, j and Bi, j cannot be removed
simultaneously. However, we can only remove decision variable E . After the removal of E , i, j i, j

constraint sets (52) and (53) are added, whose purposes are the same as those of constraint sets (22)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
and (23) respectively.
Seen from the modeling process of Model 1-2, if decision variable Fk ,t is removed, a more
intermediate decision variable Ai, j ,k ,t and related constraint sets (48)-(50) must be added, which will
have great adverse impact on the performance of the model, making Fk ,t an indispensable element.
In addition, like Model 1-2, X i , j ,k is also omitted in Model 1-3 so as to reduce decision variables.
4.4.1. Decision variables
Above all, eight decision variables namely Yi , j ,k ,t , Z k ,t , Fk ,t , Sk ,t , Bi , j ,U k ,t ,Wk ,t and Cmax are needed in
Model 1-3, and the purpose of each parameter is the same as its counterpart in Model 1.
4.4.2. Objective function

PT
min TEC = ∑ ∑ ((1 − Z )( Sk ,t +1 − Fk ,t )Pidle
k
+ EnergySk Z k ,t ) + ∑∑ ∑ ∑P pti , j ,k Yi , j ,k ,t + P0Cmax
k∈K t∈LLk
k ,t
i∈I j∈J i k∈Ki , j t∈Lk
i, j ,k (50)
4.4.3. Linearized objective function

RI
min TEC = ∑ ∑ ((U k ,t +1 − Wk ,t ) Pidle
k
+ EnergySk Zk ,t ) + ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑P pti , j ,k Yi , j ,k ,t + P0Cmax
k ∈K t∈LLk i∈I j∈J i k ∈Ki , j t∈Lk
i, j ,k (51)
4.4.4. Constraint sets

SC
Constraint sets (13)-(14), (16)-(21), (24)-(33), (38) and (52)-(53) are needed in Model 1-3.
Bi , j + ∑ ∑ Yi , j ,k ,t pti , j ,k ≤ Bi , j +1 , ∀i ∈ I , j ∈{1,..., Si − 1}
k∈K t∈Lk
(52)
Cmax ≥ Bi ,Si + ∑ ∑ pt Y , ∀i ∈ I
(53)

U
i , Si , k i , Si , k ,t
k∈Ki ,Si t∈Lk

4.5. Model 2
AN
Compared with Models1, 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3, Models 2, 2-1 and 2-2 take the idle energy Energyk ,t as
decision variable directly. The objective functions of Models 2, 2-1 and 2-2 are originally linear.
Therefore, the linearization of the objective function and the addition of intermediate variables are
not needed.
M

Energy k ,t is used to represent WEk ,t and represents for the energy consumption of machine k
between position t and t+1. Constraint sets (56)-(57) are added to force equation (7) to be true. To be
D

specific, if the energy consumption Energyk ,t exceeds the energy EnergySk , the machine will be
turned Off and On to save energy( Z k ,t = 1 ), and the energy consumption Energyk ,t will be equal to
TE

EnergySk due to the minimization of the objective function. Otherwise, the energy consumption
Energyk ,t is based on actual idle time due to the minimization of the objective
function( Energyk ,t = (Sk ,t +1 − Fk ,t )Pidlek , Zk ,t = 0 ).
EP

Although using the big M can help to transform the model into a linear model, the constraints
containing the big number M will cause imprecise lower bounds during the resolution. Therefore,
the fewer the constraints with the big number M , the better the model.
With regard to constraint sets (19) and (21), if we replace constraint set (19) by constraint set
C

(54), constraint set (21) can be omitted. Constraint set (54) does not have the big M , while
constraint set (19) does. Therefore, if constraint set (19) is replaced by constraint set (54), the
AC

constraints and the constraints with the big number M will be reduced. Constraint set (54) plays the
same role as what constraint sets (19) and (21) do. On the one hand, if Z k ,t = 0 , constraint set (54) will
have the same effect as constraint set (21). On the other hand, if Z k ,t = 1 , constraint set (54) will play
the same role as constraint set (19).
Sk ,t +1 − Fk ,t ≥ TBk Zk ,t , ∀k ∈ K, t ∈ LLk (54)
4.5.1. Decision variables
Nine decision variables namely X i , j ,k , Yi , j ,k ,t , Z k ,t , Ei , j , Bi , j , Fk ,t , Sk ,t , Cmax and Energyk ,t are needed in
Model 2, among which X i , j ,k , Yi , j , k ,t , Z k ,t , Ei , j , Bi , j , Fk ,t , S k ,t and Cmax do the same as their counterparts in
Model 1.
Energyk ,t continuous decision variables for the energy consumption of machine k between position t
and t+1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
4.5.2 Objective function
min TEC = ∑ ∑ Energy + ∑∑ ∑P pti , j ,k X i , j ,k + P0Cmax
k∈K t∈LLk
k ,t
i∈I j∈J i k∈Ki , j
i , j ,k
(55)
In objective function (55), the first part is the total idle energy consumption, the second part and
the last part are the total processing energy consumption and the common energy respectively.
4.5.3. Constraint sets
Constraint sets (11)-(18), (22)-(25), (54), and (56)-(57) are needed in Model 2.
Energyk ,t ≥ EnergySk Zk ,t , ∀k ∈ K , t ∈ LLk (56)
Energyk ,t ≥ (Sk ,t +1 − Fk ,t )Pidle − MZk ,t , ∀k ∈ K, t ∈ LLk
k
(57)

PT
4.6. Mode 2-1
Compared with Model 2, Model 2-1 has decision variables Ei , j and Bi , j removed.
4.6.1. Decision variables

RI
Seven decision variables namely X i , j ,k , Yi , j ,k ,t , Z k ,t , Fk ,t , Sk ,t , Energy k ,t and Cmax are needed in Model 2-1,
and the purpose of each parameter is the same as its counterpart in Model 2.
4.6.2. Objective function

SC
The objective function of Model 2-1 is the same as that of Model 2.
4.6.3. Constraint sets
Constraint sets (11)-(14), (16), (24)-(25), (34)-(35), (54), and (56)-(57) are needed in Model 2-1,

U
among which constraint set (25) only has the inequation of Sk ,t ≥ 0 .
4.7. Model 2-2
AN
Compared with Model 2，decision variables Ei, j , Fk,t and X i , j ,k are omitted in Model 2-2. With
the omission of these three decision variables, constraint sets (54) and (57) are removed too.
Constraint sets (59) and (60) are added and do the same as what the constraint sets (54) and (57) do
M

respectively.
4.7.1. Decision variables
Six decision variables namely Yi , j ,k ,t , Z k ,t , Bi , j , Sk ,t , Energyk ,t and Cmax are needed in Model 2-2, which do
D

the same as their counterparts in Model 2.

4.7.2. Objective function
min TEC = ∑ ∑ Energyk ,t + ∑∑ pti, j ,kYi, j,k ,t + PC
TE

k∈K t∈LLk
∑ ∑P
i∈I j∈Ji k∈Ki , j t∈Lk
i , j ,k 0 max (58)
4.7.3. Constraint sets
Constraint sets (13)-(14), (17)-(18), (24)-(25), (38), (52)-(53), (56), and (59)-(60) are needed in
EP

Model 2-2.
Sk ,t +1 − ( Sk ,t + ∑ ∑ ( pti , j ,k Yi , j ,k ,t )) ≥ TBk Z k ,t , ∀k , t ∈ LLk
i∈I j∈J i
(59)
Energyk,t ≥ (Sk,t+1 − Sk,t −∑∑( pti, j,kYi, j,k,t ))Pidle
k
− MZk,t , ∀k ∈K,t ∈LLk
C

i∈I j∈Ji
(60)
AC

5. Computational results
This section evaluates and compares all the seven models. The MILP model is commonly be
compared under the size complexity, the computational complexity or both(Demir and Kürşat
İşleyen 2013; Naderi et al. 2014). In terms of size complexity, MILP models can be compared under
the number of binary decision variables(NCVs), the number of continuous decision variables (NCVs)
and the number of constraints(NCs). As to computational complexity, MILP models can be compared
under several aspects, such as the number of optimal solutions that the models could get within the
given timelimit, the CPU time, and the gap value among others.
There are no benchmark problems of FJSP for minimizing total energy consumption. Therefore,
test instances of this paper are transformed from benchmark problems SFJS01-10 and MFJS01-
10(Fattahi et al. 2007), among which SFJS01-10 are small-sized ones and MFJS01-10 are medium-
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
sized ones. For all instances, the common power P0 and maximum time N k are set to be 5 and 3
respectively. The processing powers are drawn from the uniform distribution[3,5]. The idle power
k
Pidle are randomly generated from the set {1, 2, 3} , and then the corresponding Tk and EnergyS k are
drawn from the sets {8,12,16} and {10, 30, 60} respectively.
All the MILP formulations are modeled using IBM ILOG CPLEX12.7.1 and OPL language. All
the 20 instances are solved on a Lenovo Y470 laptop with 2.50 GHz Intel Core i5 Duo processor and
8 GB of RAM memory. The timelimit is set as 600s. In other words, the runs are terminated after
600s. If no optimal solution is obtained within 600s, the best current solution(CS) is returned.
5.1. Comparative evaluation of the size complexity

PT
All the seven models are compared in the sense of NBVs, NCVs and NCs. Table 1 shows the
constraint sets needed in each MILP model. Tables 2-4 show the NBVs, NCVs and NCs of each
model for all instances respectively. Seen from Tables 2-4, Models 1-3 and 2-2 have the same and the

RI
least NBVs, Models 1, 1-1, 2 and 2-1 have the same NBVs, and Model 1-2 has the most NBVs. It is
because Models 1-3 and 2-2 only have two binary decision variables namely Yi, j ,k ,t and Z k ,t , Models
1, 1-1, 2 and 2-1 have three binary decision variables namely X , Y and Zk ,t , and Model 1-2 has
i , j ,k i, j,k ,t

SC
the most binary decision variables namely X i, j ,k , Y , Z k ,t and Ai, j,k ,t .
i, j ,k ,t

When it comes to NCs, Models 1-1,1-2 and 2-1 have much more constraints than other models,
and Model 1-2 has the most constraints, followed by Model 1-1 and Model 2-1. The descending

U
order of the NCs is Model 1-2, Model 1-1, Model 2-1, Model 1, Model 1-3, Model 2 and Model 2-2.
All of those can be seen from Tables 3-4. This is due to the fact that Model 1-2 has the constraint set
AN
(40) and the constraint sets (48)-(50) related with intermediate decision variable Ai , j ,k ,t . Constraint set
(40) possesses a huge number of constraints which is the same as that of constraint set (34).
Moreover, the maximum possible number of constraints of constraint sets (40) and (34) is
n | Si − 1|| mi2, j |max | pk2 |max . Models 1-1 and 2-1 all have the constraint set (34) and are without constraint sets
M

related with Ai , j ,k ,t . Therefore, Model 1-2 has more constraints than Models 1-1 and 2-1. Model 2-1 is
based on the modeling idea of idle energy variable and without the constraint sets (25)-(33) that are
related with intermediate decision variable U k ,t and Wk ,t , thus, Model 2-1 has less constraints than
D

Model 1-1.
Model 2-2 has less constraints than Model 2. This is because Model 2-2 is the refined version of
TE

Model 2 and the constraint sets (12), (15) and (16) related with Ei, j , Fk ,t and X i, j ,k are reduced in
Model 2-2. Model 1 has more constraints than Model 1-3, and it is based on the same reason that
Model 2 has more constraints than Model 2-2. Model 1-3 has more constraints than Models 2 and 2-
EP

2. This is because Model 1-3 is based on the modeling idea of idle time variable and needs constraint
sets (25)-(33) that are related with intermediate decision variable U and Wk ,t . k ,t

With regard to NCVs, as can be seen from Tables 2-4, the descending order is Model 1, Model 1-
3, Model 1-1, Model 2, Models 1-2 and 2-1, and Model 2-2. Due to the characteristic of FJSP that
C

pk > ∑Si
the operation has alternative machines, the inequality k∑ ∈K i∈I
holds.
AC

Table 1
The constraint sets needed in each MILP model
Model 1 Model 1-1 Model 1-2 Model 1-3 Model 2 Model 2-1 Model 2-2
Id Cset Id Cset Id Cset Id Cset Id Cset Id Cset Id Cset
1 (11) 1 (11) 1 (13) 1 (13) 1 (11) 1 (11) 1 (13)
2 (12) 2 (12) 2 (14) 2 (14) 2 (12) 2 (12) 2 (14)
3 (13) 3 (13) 3 (24) 3 (16) 3 (13) 3 (13) 3 (17)
4 (14) 4 (14) 4 (25) 4 (17) 4 (14) 4 (14) 4 (18)
5 (15) 5 (16) 5 (26) 5 (18) 5 (15) 5 (16) 5 (24)
6 (16) 6 (19) 6 (27) 6 (19) 6 (16) 6 (24) 6 (25)
7 (17) 7 (20) 7 (28) 7 (20) 7 (17) 7 (25) 7 (38)
8 (18) 8 (21) 8 (29) 8 (21) 8 (18) 8 (34) 8 (52)
9 (19) 9 (24) 9 (38) 9 (24) 9 (22) 9 (35) 9 (53)
10 (20) 10 (25) 10 (39) 10 (25) 10 (23) 10 (54) 10 (56)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
11 (21) 11 (26) 11 (40) 11 (26) 11 (24) 11 (56) 11 (59)
12 (22) 12 (27) 12 (41) 12 (27) 12 (25) 12 (57) 12 (60)
13 (23) 13 (28) 13 (42) 13 (28) 13 (54)
14 (24) 14 (29) 14 (43) 14 (29) 14 (56)
15 (25) 15 (30) 15 (44) 15 (30) 15 (57)
16 (26) 16 (31) 16 (45) 16 (31)
17 (27) 17 (32) 17 (46) 17 (32)
18 (28) 18 (33) 18 (47) 18 (33)
19 (29) 19 (34) 19 (48) 19 (38)

PT
20 (30) 20 (35) 20 (49) 20 (52)
21 (31) 21 (50) 21 (53)
22 (32)
23 (33)

RI
Table 2
NBVs and NCVs of all the MILP models

SC
Models Binary variable NBVs Continuous variable NCVs

Model 1 Xi, j,k ,Yi, j,k,t , Zk,t ∑( p +2p −1)

k∈K
2
k k Bi , j , Ei, j , Sk ,t , Fk ,t ,Uk ,t ,Wk ,t , Cmax 2∑Si + ∑(4pk −1) +1
i∈I k∈K

∑(p +2p −1) ∑ (4 p − 1) + 1

U
2
Model 1-1 Xi, j,k ,Yi, j,k,t , Zk,t k k S k ,t , Fk ,t , U k ,t , Wk ,t , C max k
k∈K k ∈K

Model 1-2 Yi, j,k,t , Zk,t , Ai, j,k,t ∑ (2 p 2

− 1) Sk ,t , U k ,t ,Vk ,t , Cmax ∑ (3 p − 1) + 1
AN
k k
k∈K k ∈K

Model 1-3 Yi , j ,k ,t , Z k ,t ∑( p + p −1)

k∈K
2
k k Bi , j , S k ,t , Fk ,t ,U k ,t , Wk ,t , Cmax ∑S + ∑(4p −1) +1
i∈I
i
k∈K
k

Model 2 Xi, j,k ,Yi, j,k,t , Zk,t ∑(p +2p −1)

k∈K
2
k k Bi, j , Ei , j , Sk ,t , Fk ,t , Energyk ,t , Cmax 2∑S + ∑(3p −1) +1
i∈I
i
k∈K
k
M

Model 2-1 Xi, j,k ,Yi, j,k,t , Zk,t ∑( p + 2p −1)

k∈K
2
k k Sk ,t , Fk ,t , Cmax , Energyk ,t ∑ (3 p −1) +1
k∈K
k

Model 2-2 Yi , j ,k ,t , Z k ,t ∑( p + p −1)

2
k k Bi, j , Sk ,t , Cmax , Energyk ,t ∑S + ∑(2p −1) +1
i k
D

k∈K i∈I k∈K

Xi, j ,k → ∑ pk ;Yi, j ,k ,t → ∑ pk2 ; Zk ,t → ∑ ( pk −1); Ai, j ,k ,t → ∑ pk ( pk −1)

k∈K k∈K k∈K k∈K
TE

Bi, j , Ei, j →∑Si ;Wk,t ,Vk,t , Energyk,t →∑( pk −1); Sk,t , Fk,t ,Uk,t →∑ pk ;Cmax →1
i∈I k∈K k∈K

Table 3
Model's comparison on the size complexity for all instances(Models 1,1-1 and 1-2)
EP

Size Model 1 Model 1-1 Model 1-2

Instances
n × Si × m NBVs NCVs NCs NBVs NCVs NCs NBVs NCVs NCs
SFJS01 2× 2× 2 46 188 39 46 242 31 62 298 23
2× 2× 2
C

SFJS02 28 128 31 28 118 23 34 142 17

SFJS03 3× 2× 2 68 264 51 68 348 39 98 448 29
3× 2× 2
AC

SFJS04 70 268 51 70 384 39 102 490 29

SFJS05 3× 2× 2 94 340 59 94 612 47 142 768 35
SFJS06 3× 3× 2 104 400 76 104 700 59 151 852 44
SFJS07 3× 3× 5 97 406 86 97 588 68 127 696 50
SFJS08 3× 3× 4 116 452 87 116 801 69 164 963 51
SFJS09 3× 3× 3 147 522 88 147 1245 70 225 1497 52
SFJS10 4 × 3× 5 115 478 100 115 607 76 155 747 56
MFJS01 5× 3× 6 245 898 157 245 2025 127 364 2415 94
MFJS02 5× 3× 7 302 1076 180 302 3133 150 455 3631 111
MFJS03 6 × 3 × 7 441 1474 222 441 5700 186 697 6516 138
MFJS04 7 × 3 × 7 571 1842 260 571 8352 218 925 9470 162
MFJS05 7 × 3 × 7 558 1804 256 558 7711 214 903 8801 159
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
MFJS06 8× 3× 7 697 2178 290 697 10608 242 1153 12038 180
MFJS07 8× 4× 7 1087 3182 370 1087 24381 306 1869 26805 228
MFJS08 9× 4×8 1172 3456 409 1172 25208 337 2008 27802 251
MFJS09 11 × 4 × 8 1661 4670 493 1661 42684 405 2918 46558 302
MFJS10 12 × 4 × 8 1974 5420 537 1974 56100 441 3508 60814 329

Table 4
Model's comparison on the size complexity for all instances(Models 1-3, 2, 2-1, and 2-2)
Model 1-3 Model 2 Model 2-1 Model 2-2
Instances

PT
NBVs NCVs NCs NBVs NCVs NCs NBVs NCVs NCs NBVs NCVs NCs
SFJS01 38 176 35 46 138 31 46 198 23 38 118 19
SFJS02 22 118 27 28 94 25 28 88 17 22 78 15
SFJS03 58 248 45 68 198 41 68 290 29 58 172 25

RI
SFJS04 60 252 45 70 202 41 70 326 29 60 176 25
SFJS05 82 322 53 94 258 47 94 540 35 82 228 29
SFJS06 89 376 68 104 301 61 104 609 43 89 262 37

SC
SFJS07 79 379 77 97 297 68 97 492 50 79 252 41
SFJS08 98 425 78 116 336 69 116 699 51 98 291 42
SFJS09 129 495 79 147 399 70 147 1137 52 129 354 43
SFJS10 95 446 88 115 353 80 115 497 56 95 301 48

U
MFJS01 212 850 142 245 676 124 245 1830 94 212 595 76
MFJS02 263 1022 165 302 813 141 302 2902 111 263 720 87
AN
MFJS03 393 1408 204 441 1139 174 441 5406 138 393 1025 108
MFJS04 515 1765 239 571 1443 204 571 8002 162 515 1310 127
MFJS05 503 1728 235 558 1413 201 558 7368 159 503 1330 125
MFJS06 635 2092 266 697 1731 228 697 10216 180 635 1583 142
M

MFJS07 1009 3072 338 1087 2607 292 1087 23877 228 1009 2419 182
MFJS08 1086 3334 373 1172 2824 323 1172 24654 251 1086 2616 201
MFJS09 1558 4523 449 1661 3902 390 1661 42011 302 1558 3652 243
D

MFJS10 1862 5260 489 1974 4580 425 1974 55364 329 1862 4308 265

5.2. Comparative evaluation of the computational complexity

TE

In order to compare the computational complexity of the MILP models, the total number of
instances that are solved to optimality within the required time(TotalN) is used as the main
evaluating indicator. The bigger the value of TotalN, the better the MILP model. When the TotalN of
EP

two models is the same, CPU time is another important evaluating indicator. The less the CPU time,
the better the model. Due to the objective of minimizing total energy consumption, the smaller the
solution, the better the model.
C

Tables 5-6 show the results obtained by all the models. In these tables, for each model, there are
three columns. The column "Gap" shows the average optimality gap of each model. Gap is a relative
AC

tolerance on the objective value for the solution, which defined as |CS-BS|/|CS|*%. CS is the best
current solution the model could find within the timelimit, and BS is the current lower bound the
model could find within the timelimit. Obviously, the smaller the gap value is, the better the solution
will be. Moreover, a solution with gap=0 is the optimal solution. The gap is an indicator to judge if
the optimal solution is achieved or not and evaluate the solutions of different models, or used as the
stopping criterion of CPLEX SOLVER. The column "Time" shows the CPU time. The solution with
"*" denotes the solution is feasible but not optimal. In Table 7, the column "Min" denotes the
minimum solution that all the seven models could find within the timelimit. The "Dev" denotes the
deviation of the solution of each model and is defined as |CS-Min|/|Min|*%; the smaller the Dev, the
better the model.
Seen from Tables 5-6, the CUP time of all MILP models increase exponentially as the size of the
instance increases. Models 1, 1-3, 2, and 2-1 all can solve 16 out of 20 instances to optimality within
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
the timelimit of 600s, performing much better than Models 1-1, 1-2, and 2-1. This is because Models
1, 1-3, 2, and 2-1 have much less constraints than the other models. The total CPU time of Models 1,
1-3, 2, and 2-1 are 2815.99s, 3089.89s, 2646.31s and 3150.01s respectively. Obviously, Model 2 is
the least time consuming. In addition, seen from Table 7, Model 2 outperforms the other models and
can archive the best solutions for all instances.
Model 1-2 proposed by Zhang et al.(2017) can only solve 10 out of 20 instances to optimality
within the timelimit of 600s and performs worst among all the seven models. The solved instances
are all small-sized instances (SFJS01-10). As the size of the instance becomes larger, Model 1-2
further shows its incompetence to find a small feasible solution as other models do. This is because

PT
Model 1-2 has the most NCVs and NCs, as can been seen from section 5.1, which results in severe
adverse influence on the performance of Model 1-2.
Models 1-1 and 2-1 both can solve 12 out of 20 instances to optimality within the timelimit.

RI
Nevertheless, the CPU time of Model 2-1 is less than Model 1-1, which can be seen from Tables 5-6.
Therefore, Model 2-1 is better than Model 1-1. This is because Model 2-1 is based on the modeling
idea of idle energy variable and has less NCs and NCVs than Model 1-1, which will make Model 2-1

SC
perform better than Model 1-1.
Above all, Model 2 outperforms all the other models. In actual application, Model 2 should be
given priority.

U
Table 5
Model's comparison on the computational size(Models 1, 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3)
AN
Model 1 Model 1-1 Model 1-2 Model 1-3
Instances
CS Time Gap CS Time Gap CS Time Gap CS Time Gap
SFJS01 815.2 0.27 0 815.2 0.61 0 815.2 0.06 0 815.2 0.19 0
SFJS02 1362.2 0.13 0 1362.2 0.17 0 1362.2 0.08 0 1362.2 0.14 0
M

SFJS03 2806.2 0.12 0 2806.2 0.19 0 2806.2 1.04 0 2806.2 0.22 0

SFJS04 4560.3 0.09 0 4560.3 0.14 0 4560.3 0.76 0 4560.3 0.13 0
SFJS05 1405.4 0.14 0 1405.4 0.14 0 1405.4 3.56 0 1405.4 0.17 0
SFJS06 4304.0 0.36 0 4304.0 0.64 0 4304.0 14.24 0 4304.0 0.2 0
D

SFJS07 5256.0 0.11 0 5256.0 0.81 0 5256.0 31.57 0 5256.0 0.12 0

SFJS08 3429.7 0.55 0 3429.7 2.89 0 3429.7 69.78 0 3429.7 0.44 0
TE

SFJS09 2848.0 0.59 0 2848.0 3.95 0 2848.0 184.08 0 2848.0 0.59 0

SFJS10 8877 0.34 0 8877.0 0.94 0 8877.0 21.00 0 8877.0 0.22 0
MFJS01 9380.7 3.46 0 9380.7 82.42 0 9443.4* 600 17.63 9380.7 3.43 0
MFJS02 8642.0 3.10 0 8642.0 189.60 0 8912.0* 600 26.01 8642.0 3.71 0
EP

MFJS03 10757.8 30.05 0 10770.3* 600 2.37 11287.8* 600 29.23 10757.8 34.49 0
MFJS04 13038.6 125.47 0 13160.5* 600 7.36 14288.8* 600 37.68 13038.6 270.22 0
MFJS05 12600.1 139.03 0 12786.5* 600 7.78 13344.3* 600 34.98 12600.1 89.47 0
MFJS06 14960.1 112.18 0 15081.3* 600 2.33 17049.6* 600 41.28 14960.1 286.15 0
C

MFJS07 24176.7* 600 7.72 25288.8* 600 12.97 32024.8* 600 57.38 24123.8* 600 8.59
MFJS08 24265.3* 600 9.06 24827.2* 600 11.46 31908* 600 55.09 24179.6* 600 8.66
AC

MFJS09 30906.7* 600 11.79 35129.2* 600 19.16 35199.9* 600 147.68 32280.9* 600 16.12
MFJS10 35976.9* 600 12.50 44210.7* 600 33.32 50813.2* 600 410.2 35622.1* 600 11.42
Total 2815.99 5082.50 6326.17 3089.89
TotalN 16 12 10 16

Table 6
Model's comparison on the computational size(Models 2, 2-1, and 2-2)
Model 2 Model 2-1 Model 2-2
Instances
CS Time Gap CS Time Gap CS Time Gap
SFJS01 815.2 0.16 0 815.2 0.08 0 815.2 0.03 0
SFJS02 1362.2 0.14 0 1362.2 0.06 0 1362.2 0.09 0
SFJS03 2806.2 0.08 0 2806.2 0.08 0 2806.2 0.11 0
SFJS04 4560.3 0.17 0 4560.3 0.06 0 4560.3 0.08 0
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
SFJS05 1405.4 0.17 0 1405.4 0.11 0 1405.4 0.16 0
SFJS06 4304.0 0.25 0 4304.0 0.38 0 4304.0 0.09 0
SFJS07 5256.0 0.08 0 5256.0 0.58 0 5256.0 0.06 0
SFJS08 3429.7 0.41 0 3429.7 0.92 0 3429.7 0.34 0
SFJS09 2848.0 0.59 0 2848.0 2.21 0 2848.0 0.42 0
SFJS10 8877.0 0.14 0 8877.0 0.41 0 8877.0 0.17 0
MFJS01 9380.7 1.98 0 9380.7 25.99 0 9380.7 2.92 0
MFJS02 8642.0 3.15 0 8642.0 73.10 0 8642.0 3.09 0
MFJS03 10757.8 29.05 0 10762.8* 600 1.72 10762.8 18.59 0
MFJS04 13038.6 88.47 0 13160.5* 600 6.26 13038.6 317.34 0

PT
MFJS05 12600.1 76.07 0 12694.7* 600 7.21 12600.1 173.08 0
MFJS06 14960.1 45.4 0 15124.0* 600 2.61 14960.1 233.44 0
MFJS07 20851.7* 600 5.86 21396.3* 600 8.25 20067.2* 600 3.56
MFJS08 13888.9* 600 6.11 24783.5* 600 10.72 23957.5* 600 6.71

RI
MFJS09 30503.9* 600 9.97 32828.2* 600 13.30 30285.9* 600 8.20
MFJS10 34713.9* 600 8.71 40515.3* 600 19.12 35611.6* 600 11.60
Total 2646.31 4903.98 3150.01

SC
TotalN 16 12 16

Table 7
The deviation of each MILP model for all instances

U
Instances Min Model 1 Model 1-1 Model 1-2 Model 1-3 Model 2 Model 2-1 Model 2-2
SFJS01 815.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AN
SFJS02 1362.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SFJS03 2806.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SFJS04 4560.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SFJS05 1405.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SFJS06 4304 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
M

SFJS07 5256 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SFJS08 3429.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SFJS09 2848 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
D

SFJS10 8877 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MFJS01 9380.7 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0
TE

MFJS02 8642 0 0 3.12 0 0 0 0

MFJS03 10757.8 0 0.12 4.93 0 0 0.05 0.05
MFJS04 13038.6 0 0.93 9.59 0 0 0.93 0
MFJS05 12600.1 0 1.48 5.91 0 0 0.75 0
EP

MFJS06 14960.1 0 0.81 13.97 0 0 1.10 0

MFJS07 20067.2 20.48 26.02 59.59 20.22 3.91 6.62 0
MFJS08 13888.9 74.71 78.76 129.74 74.09 0 78.44 72.49
MFJS09 30285.9 2.05 15.99 16.23 6.59 0.72 8.39 0
C

MFJS10 34713.9 3.64 27.36 46.38 2.62 0 16.71 2.59

Dev=0 16 12 10 16 18 12 17
AC

Table 8 shows the detailed data of MFJS04. In Table 8, two numbers exist in each cell. Where,
the first one and second one denote the processing time and the processing power respectively. The
detailed data of other instances are available upon the request. In addition, Fig.1 gives the Gantt chart
of MFJS04.
Table 8
Data of MFJS04
Job Operation M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7
O1,1 247,3.1 223,4.0 - - - - -
1 O1,2 - 130,4.0 - 140,4.8 - - 123,4.6
O1,3 - - - 150,4.1 160,3.1 - 200,3.2
2 O2,1 214,4.5 - 150,3.2 - - - -
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
O2,2 - 66,3.8 87,4.8 99,4.0 - - -
O2,3 - - - - 178,3.4 95,4.3 150,4.5
O3,1 87,4.4 62,3.5 - - - - -
3 O3,2 - - 180,4.7 105,5.0 - - 145,3.9
O 3,3 - - - 190,4.0 100,4.1 153,4.8 -
O4,1 87,4.8 65,4.9 - - - - -
4 O4,2 - - 250,5.0 - 173,3.3 - -
O4,3 - - - 145,3.9 - 136,4.3 -
O5,1 128,3.9 123,4.2 145,4.7 - - - -

PT
5 O5,2 - - - 65,3.4 47,4.0 - 86,4.3
O5,3 - - - - 110,3.3 85,5.0 -
O6,1 - 145,4.0 320,4.8 154,4.5 - - -

RI
6 O6,2 - - 123,4.1 150,4.1 192,3.0 - -
O6,3 - - - - 120,3.2 240,4.4 180,4.6
O7 ,1 157,4.3 210,3.6 145,3.7 - - - -

SC
7 O7,2 - - 124,4.4 168,4.1 154,5.0 - -
O7,3 - - - - 145,3.1 165,3.2 178,3.5
k
Pidle 1 2 3 1 2 3 1
Tk 8 12 16 8 12 16 8

U
TBk 10 15 20 10 15 20 10
AN
EnergyS k 10 30 60 10 30 60 10
M
D
TE
EP

Fig. 1. Gantt chart of MFJS04(TEC=13038.6).

C

6. Conclusions and future research

AC

In this work, we have investigated the MILP modeling of energy-efficient FJSP with turning Off
/On strategy to save idle energy consumption. Six novel MILP models are developed, and then the
proposed models and the existing model are compared based on both the size and computational
complexities. Experiments are conducted and the results show that all the six MILP models proposed
in this paper perform much better than the existing model proposed by Zhang et al.(2017).
Furthermore, Model 2 based on the modeling idea of idle energy variable outperforms all the other
models and it is recommended to be used in future applications.
Mathematical model is the basis of approaching scheduling problems especially new factors such
as new objective and new constraints. It can describe all the characteristics of the scheduling problem.
With the continuous improvements of computer performance and related software(e.g. CPLEX,
GUROBI, SNOPT), mathematical modeling of scheduling problems will attract more and more
attention from researchers. In future research, we will extend the proposed models to other
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
scheduling problems and take more realistic factors such as time-of-use electricity, peak power load,
setup and transportation time into consideration. Besides, due to the inefficiency of MILP models on
large-scaled problems, we will explore energy-efficient dispatching rules and energy-efficient meta-
heuristic algorithms to solve these problems in further studies.
Except for energy-efficient scheduling, energy saving can also be achieve by the optimization of
machining parameters(Li et al. 2016; Zhang et al. 2017), process planning, integrated optimization of
cutting parameters and process planning(Li et al. 2017), integrated optimization of cutting
parameters and scheduling(Lin et al. 2015), and integration of process planning and
scheduling(Zhang et al. 2016). All of these research directions are interesting and will be paid

PT
attention to in future research.
Funding

RI
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number
51575211] and [grant number 51775238], the International Cooperation and Exchange of the
National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 51561125002], the Science and

SC
Technology Development Project of Jilin Province[grant number 20180101058JC] and the 111
Project of China [grant number B16019].

U
References:
Adams, J., E. Balas and D. Zawack., 1988. The Shifting Bottleneck Procedure for Job Shop Scheduling. Manage.
AN
Sci. 34 (3), 391-401.
Agency, I. E.., 2007. Tracking Industrial Energy Efficiency and CO2 Emissions: (Complete Edition ‐ ISBN
9264030166). Sourceoecd Energy volume 2007 (5), i-324(324).
M

Balas, E.., 1968. Machine Sequencing Via Disjunctive Graphs: An Implicit Enumeration Algorithm. Oper. Res. 17
(17), 941-957.
Che, A., X. Wu, J. Peng and P. Yan., 2017. Energy-efficient bi-objective single-machine scheduling with power-
D

down mechanism. Comput. Oper. Res. 85, 172-183.

TE

Dai, M., D. Tang, A. Giret, M. A. Salido and W. D. Li., 2013. Energy-efficient scheduling for a flexible flow shop
using an improved genetic-simulated annealing algorithm. Robot. Cim-Int. Manuf. 29 (5), 418-429.
Demir, Y. and S. Kürşat İşleyen., 2013. Evaluation of mathematical models for flexible job-shop scheduling
EP

problems. Appl. Math. Model. 37 (3), 977-988.

Duan, P. Y., J. Q. Li, Y. Wang, H. Y. Sang and B. X. Jia., 2017. Solving chiller loading optimization problems
using an improved teaching‐learning‐based optimization algorithm. Optim. Contr. Appl. Met. 39 (4), 65-77.
C

Fattahi, P., M. Saidi Mehrabad and F. Jolai., 2007. Mathematical modeling and heuristic approaches to flexible job
shop scheduling problems. J. Intell. Manuf. 18 (3), 331-342.
AC

Gao, J., L. Sun and M. Gen., 2008. A hybrid genetic and variable neighborhood descent algorithm for flexible job
shop scheduling problems. Comput. Oper. Res. 35 (9), 2892-2907.
Gutowski, T. G., M. S. Branham, J. B. Dahmus, A. J. Jones, A. Thiriez and D. P. Sekulic., 2009. Thermodynamic
Analysis of Resources Used in Manufacturing Processes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (5), 1584-1590.
He, Y., Y. Li, T. Wu and J. W. Sutherland., 2015. An energy-responsive optimization method for machine tool
selection and operation sequence in flexible machining job shops. J. Clean. Prod. 87, 245-254.
Hoitomt, D. J., P. B. Luh and K. R. Pattipati., 1993. A practical approach to job-shop scheduling problems. IEEE
Transactions on Robotics & Automation 9 (1), 1-13.
Jiang, Z., L. Zuo and M. E., 2014. Study on multi-objective flexible job-shop scheduling problem considering
energy consumption. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 7 (3), 589-604.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Li, C., Q. Xiao, Y. Tang and L. Li., 2016. A method integrating Taguchi, RSM and MOPSO to CNC machining
parameters optimization for energy saving. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 263-275.
Li, J., H. Sang, Y. Han, C. Wang and K. Gao., 2018. Efficient multi-objective optimization algorithm for hybrid
flow shop scheduling problems with setup energy consumptions. J. Clean. Prod. 181, 584-598.
Li, J., P. Duan, H. Sang, S. Wang, Z. Liu and P. Duan., 2018. An efficient optimization algorithm for resource-
constrained steelmaking scheduling problems. Ieee Access 6, 33883-33894.
Li, L., C. Li, Y. Tang and L. Li., 2017. An integrated approach of process planning and cutting parameter
optimization for Energy-aware CNC Machining. J. Clean. Prod. 162, 458-473.

PT
Li, X. and L. Gao., 2016. An effective hybrid genetic algorithm and tabu search for flexible job shop scheduling
problem. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 174, 93-110.

RI
Liang, P., H. Yang, G. Liu and J. Guo., 2015. An Ant Optimization Model for Unrelated Parallel Machine
Scheduling with Energy Consumption and Total Tardiness. Math. Probl. Eng. 2015, 1-8.
Lin, W., D. Y. Yu, C. Zhang, X. Liu, S. Zhang, Y. Tian, S. Liu and Z. Xie., 2015. A multi-objective teaching−

SC
learning-based optimization algorithm to scheduling in turning processes for minimizing makespan and carbon
footprint. J. Clean. Prod. 101, 337-347.
Liu, F., Q. Wang and G. Liu., 2013. Content Architecture and Future Trends of Energy Efficiency Research on

U
Machining Systems. Journal of Mechanical Engineering 49 (19), 87.
Manne, A. S.., 1960. On the Job-Shop Scheduling Problem. Oper. Res. 8 (2), 219-223.
AN
Mastrolilli, M. and L. M. Gambardella., 2000. Effective neighbourhood functions for the flexible job shop problem.
J. Scheduling 3 (1), 3-20.
Meng, L., C. Zhang, X. Shao, Y. Ren and C. Ren., 2018. Mathematical modelling and optimisation of energy-
M

conscious hybrid flow shop scheduling problem with unrelated parallel machines. Int. J. Prod. Res., 1-27.
MONTAZERI, M. and L. N. VAN WASSENHOVE., 1990. Analysis of scheduling rules for an FMS. Int. J. Prod.
D

Res. 28 (4), 785-802.

Moon, J. Y. and J. Park., 2014. Smart production scheduling with time-dependent and machine-dependent
TE

electricity cost by considering distributed energy resources and energy storage. Int. J. Prod. Res. 52 (13), 3922-
3939.
Mouzon, G., M. B. Yildirim and J. Twomey., 2007. Operational methods for minimization of energy consumption
EP

of manufacturing equipment. Int. J. Prod. Res. 45 (18-19), 4247-4271.

Naderi, B., S. Gohari and M. Yazdani., 2014. Hybrid flexible flowshop problems: Models and solution methods.
Appl. Math. Model. 38 (24), 5767-5780.
C

Özgüven, C., L. Özbakır and Y. Yavuz., 2010. Mathematical models for job-shop scheduling problems with routing
AC

and process plan flexibility. Appl. Math. Model. 34 (6), 1539-1548.

PAN, C.., 1997. A study of integer programming formulations for scheduling problems. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 28 (1), 33-
41.
Piroozfard, H., K. Y. Wong and W. P. Wong., 2016. Minimizing total carbon footprint and total late work criterion
in flexible job shop scheduling by using an improved multi-objective genetic algorithm. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling 128, 267-283.
Ren, Y., C. Zhang, F. Zhao, H. Xiao and G. Tian., 2018. An asynchronous parallel disassembly planning based on
genetic algorithm. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 269 (2), 647-660.
Ren, Y., D. Yu, C. Zhang, G. Tian, L. Meng and X. Zhou., 2017. An improved gravitational search algorithm for
profit-oriented partial disassembly line balancing problem. Int. J. Prod. Res. 55 (24), 7302-7316.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Roshanaei, V., A. Azab and H. ElMaraghy., 2013. Mathematical modelling and a meta-heuristic for flexible job
shop scheduling. Int. J. Prod. Res. 51 (20), 6247-6274.
Wagner, H. M.., 1959. An integer linear-programming model for machine scheduling. Naval Research Logistics
Quarterly 6 (2), 131-140.
Wang, J., S. Li and J. Liu., 2013. A multi-granularity model for energy consumption simulation and control of
discrete manufacturing system. The 19th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering
Management.
Wang, L., Y. Xu, S. Wang and M. Liu., 2012. An effective artificial bee colony algorithm for the flexible job-shop

PT
scheduling problem. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech. 60 (1-4), 303-315.
Yan, J., L. Li, F. Zhao, F. Zhang and Q. Zhao., 2016. A multi-level optimization approach for energy-efficient

RI
flexible flow shop scheduling. J. Clean. Prod. 137, 1543-1552.
Yildirim, M. B. and G. Mouzon., 2012. Single-Machine Sustainable Production Planning to Minimize Total Energy
Consumption and Total Completion Time Using a Multiple Objective Genetic Algorithm. Ieee T. Eng. Manage. 59

SC
(4), 585-597.
Yin, L., X. Li, L. Gao, C. Lu and Z. Zhang., 2017. A novel mathematical model and multi-objective method for the
low-carbon flexible job shop scheduling problem. Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems 13, 15-30.

U
Zhang, H., Z. Deng, Y. Fu, L. Lv and C. Yan., 2017. A process parameters optimization method of multi-pass dry
milling for high efficiency, low energy and low carbon emissions. J. Clean. Prod. 148, 174-184.
AN
Zhang, L., Q. Tang, Z. Wu and F. Wang., 2017. Mathematical modeling and evolutionary generation of rule sets
for energy-efficient flexible job shops. Energy 138, 210-227.
Zhang, L., X. Li, L. Gao, G. Zhang and X. Wen., 2012. Dynamic scheduling model in FMS by considering energy
M

consumption and schedule efficiency. IEEE International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work
in Design.
D

Zhang, Y., Q. Liu, Y. Zhou and B. Ying., 2017. Integrated optimization of cutting parameters and scheduling for
reducing carbon emissions. J. Clean. Prod. 149, 886-895.
TE

Zhang, Z., R. Tang, T. Peng, L. Tao and S. Jia., 2016. A method for minimizing the energy consumption of
machining system: integration of process planning and scheduling. J. Clean. Prod. 137, 1647-1662.
Zheng, Z. X., J. Q. Li and P. Y. Duan., 2018. Optimal chiller loading by improved artificial fish swarm algorithm
EP

for energy saving. Mathematics & Computers in Simulation.

Zheng, Z. and J. Li., 2018. Optimal chiller loading by improved invasive weed optimization algorithm for reducing
energy consumption. Energ. Buildings 161, 80-88.
C
AC