Computers & Industrial Engineering 135 (2019) 1036–1046

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Industrial Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/caie

Particle swarm optimization hybridized with genetic algorithm for uncertain T

integrated process planning and scheduling with interval processing time
Xinyu Li, Liang Gao , Wenwen Wang, Cuiyu Wang, Long Wen
⁎

The State Key Laboratory of Digital Manufacturing Equipment and Technology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Integrated process planning and scheduling (IPPS) is a hot research topic on providing a blueprint of efficient
Uncertain integrated process planning and manufacturing system. Most existing IPPS models and methods focus on the static machining shop status.
scheduling However, in the real-world production, the machining shop status changes dynamically because of external and
Interval processing time internal fluctuations. The uncertain IPPS can better model the practical machining shop environment but is
Interval number
rarely researched because of its complexity (including the difficulties of modelling and algorithm design). To
Particle swarm optimization
Hybrid algorithm
deal with the uncertain IPPS problem, this paper presents a new uncertain IPPS model with uncertain processing
time represented by the interval number. A new probability and preference-ratio based interval ranking method
is proposed for precise interval computation. Particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm hybridizing with
genetic algorithm (GA) is designed to achieve the good solution. To improve the search capability of the hybrid
algorithm, the special genetic operators are adopted corresponding to the characteristics of uncertain IPPS
problem. Some strategies are designed to prevent the particles from trapping into a local optimum. Six ex-
periments which are adopted from some famous IPPS benchmark problems have been used to evaluate the
performance of the proposed algorithm. The experimental results illustrate that the proposed algorithm has
achieved good improvement and is effective for uncertain IPPS problem.

1. Introduction
Process planning and scheduling are two of the most important sub-
systems in a manufacturing system (Li, Xiao, Wang, & Yi, 2019; Lu, Li,
Gao, Liao, & Yi, 2017; Qin et al., 2019; Zhang & Wong, 2018). Process
route selects the flexible process plan based on the design requirement
and the machining shop resources (Li, Gao, & Wen, 2013; Li, Tang, Li, &
Li, 2013). The shop scheduling receives the process route information
and determines the sequence for each operation (Li, Lu, Gao, Xiao, &
Wen, 2018; Li, Gao, Pan, Wan, & Chao, 2019). The traditional ap-
proaches often carried out the process planning and scheduling in a
sequential way. These have become the obstacles to improve the pro-
ductivity and responsiveness of the manufacturing systems and to cause
the following problems (Manupati, Putnik, Tiwari, Avila, & Cruz-
Cunha, 2016; Sobeyko & Monch, 2017): (1) Because process planner
often plans jobs individually in practical manufacturing, the shop floor
resources are usually assigned on each job without considering the
competition for the resources from other jobs. This may lead to the
resulting optimal process plans often become infeasible when they are
carried out in practice at the later stage; (2) Pre-defined process plans
reduce the flexibilities of scheduling and may drive scheduling plans to
end up with severely unbalanced resource load and create superfluous
bottlenecks; (3) Because of the time dealy, even though process plan-
ners consider the restriction of the current resources on the shop floor,
the constraints in the process planning phase may have already
changed. Investigations show that the 20–30% of the total production
plans in a given period have to be rescheduled to adapt to dynamic
changes in a production environment; (4) The process planning and
scheduling may have conflicting objectives. Process planning empha-
sizes to meet the technological requirements of a job, while scheduling
attaches importance to the timing aspects and resource sharing of all
jobs. If there is no appropriate coordination, it may create conflicting
problems.
Based on the above analysis, it is obvious that process planning and
scheduling are interrelated and should be solved simultaneously (Li,
Shao, Gao, & Qian, 2010; Manupati et al., 2016; Sobeyko & Monch,
2017). The integration of both functions can contribute much to the
activities of the whole production process. Both of the two functions
assign the factory machines in the production process; that is why they
should be solved collectively. The merit of IPPS is to increase the pro-
duction feasibility and optimality by combining both the process
planning and scheduling problems (Li, Gao, Pan, Wan, & Chao, 2019).

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: gaoliang@mail.hust.edu.cn (L. Gao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.04.028

Available online 18 April 2019

0360-8352/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
X. Li, et al.
Thus, IPPS can dynamically react to the production environment and
provide an optimal or near-optimal solution. There is an increasing
need for deep research and application of IPPS system (Petrovic,
Vukovic, Mitic, & Miljkovic, 2016).
In the real manufacturing process, the machining data sometimes
cannot be recorded or collected precisely under some unexpected si-
tuations (Joo, Shim, Chua, & Cai, 2018), such as machine failure in
production process, energy shortages, urgent order insertion, and tool
loading and unloading (Shahrabi, Adibi, & Mahootchi, 2017). However,
in previous studies, processing time, completion time and delivery time
were treated as fixed, which may be impossible to accurately describe
the actual production (Jamrus, Chien, Gen, & Sethanan, 2018). IPPS
considering uncertain situations needs to be addressed for better
modeling of the real production environment. Due to the complexity of
the integrated problem and the flexibility of the processing route
choices, IPPS in uncertain shop environment becomes much more
complicated. Few work have been done about uncertain IPPS. We have
reported some works about IPPS problem. But, we also did not do the
research on the uncertain IPPS problem. Comparing with our previous
works, the new model and algorithm have been proposed according to
the features of uncertain IPPS problem in this paper.
The uncertain processing time is almost represented as triangular
fuzzy numbers based on probability theory concerning randomness
(Joo et al., 2018). However, it is difficult to determine the membership
function and an accurate probability distribution in reality (Lei, 2011).
The use of interval numbers is more convenient. An interval number
can be thought of as an extension of the concept of a real number and
also as a subset of a real line (Moore, 1979). An interval number gives
an upper and lower bounds of one parameter. In this study, the pro-
cessing time is modeled as the interval number which is simple and easy
to understand. IPPS is a typical NP-hard problem. Moreover, uncertain
IPPS becomes even more complex. As a result, developing an effective
algorithm to deal with IPPS is a challenging work.
Genetic algorithm (GA) which is a very effective evolutionary al-
gorithm has been applied to solve many optimization problems (Wang,
Lai, Wu, Xing, Wang, et al., 2018; Xiang, Xing, Wang, & Zou, 2019; Yi
et al., 2018). It also has been successfully used in a wide range of
scheduling problems (Li & Gao, 2016; Shao, Li, Gao, & Zhang, 2009; Wu
& Wu, 2017). The framework of GA is very suitable for the scheduling
problem and it can efficiently obtain the competitive results in large
and complex solution spaces. Meanwhile, particle swarm optimization
(PSO) algorithm has the advantage of simplicity for implementation
and can quickly converge to a reasonably good solution. It has very
good global searching ability. However, the original PSO cannot be
used to solve the scheduling problem directly because of its update
fomulas. Therefore, this paper uses the genetic operators to re-define
the update strategy of PSO. For better development and to combine the
advantages of PSO and GA, a hybrid algorithm combining PSO with GA
(GAPSO) is used to solve the uncertain IPPS problem in this paper. The
main contributions of this work include the following aspects. First, the
mathematical model of uncertain IPPS problem is given. The interval
theory is used to represent the uncertain processing time. Interval
number is one of the simplest form of representing uncertainty in the
decision matrix and requires a minimum amount of information about
the values of attributes. So, the the interval number is adopted to model
the uncertain processing time. To improve the performance of interval
theory for uncertaint IPPS, a preference-ratio based ranking method is
used to calculate the probability of different comparing results between
two interval numbers. Second, the GAPSO algorithm with corre-
sponding operations is designed to solve the proposed model. Based on
the discreteness of uncertain IPPS problem, the learning ability of
particles is redefined by genetic operators. The proposed algorithm can
improve the computational ability of the system. Finally, six experi-
ments of uncertain IPPS problem are utilized to evaluate the perfor-
mance of proposed hybrid algorithm. The comparison results between
the proposed GAPSO and GA illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed
1037
Computers & Industrial Engineering 135 (2019) 1036–1046
method.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 pre-
sents the related work. Section 3 describes the calculation of preference
ratio and the ranking procedure of interval numbers. Section 4 shows
the definition of uncertain IPPS problem. Section 5 gives the hybridized
GAPSO algorithm for uncertain IPPS problem. Section 6 reports the
experimental results. Section 7 provides the conclusions and future
works.
2. Related work
Since the concept of IPPS was first proposed by Chryssolouris, Chan,
and Cobb (1984), IPPS has been extensively researched by many re-
searchers. Li, Gao, Zhang, and Shao (2010) conducted a detailed review
of the development of IPPS before 2010. The integration model and
approaches of IPPS were stated and summarized.
In recent years, the problems of IPPS have been researched ex-
tensively. More optimization approaches were proposed or hybridized
to achieve the better solutions. Li, Gao, and Li (2012) studied the multi-
objective IPPS considering three objectives, including makespan, the
maximal machine workload and the total workload of machines. An
active learning GA was developed by Li, Gao, and Shao (2012) to im-
prove the quality of the offspring after genetic manipulation. Zhang,
Gen, and Jo (2014) presented a hybrid sampling strategy-based multi-
objective evolutionary algorithm to deal with the IPPS problem. Zhang
and Wong (2015) proposed an object-coding GA for IPPS. Manupati
et al. (2016) described a mobile-agent based negotiation approach for
IPPS in a networked manufacturing environment. Petrovic et al. (2016)
used a chaotic PSO for IPPS. Zhang and Wong (2016) proposed an ant
colony optimization (ACO) for IPPS. Sobeyko and Monch (2017) de-
signed a variable neighbourhood search based appaorch for the IPPS in
large-scale flexible job shops. Luo, Wen, Li, Ming, and Xie (2017)
proposed an multi-objective GA based on immune principle and ex-
ternal archive for multi-objective IPPS problem. Zhang and Wong
(2018) developed an enhanced ACO to accomplish the IPPS problem in
the job-shop environment.
However, the researches of under IPPS are limited. Seker, Erol, and
Botsali (2013) trained artificial neural network to adapt to change
conditions after the scheduling plan obtained by GA. The changing
conditions included cancelation of orders, change in due dates, failure
of a machine and so on. Their work is of importance to obtain the best
performing solution after the manufacturing condition has changed.
Haddadzade, Razfar, and Zarandi (2014) used stochastic programming
to allow IPPS system making decisions under uncertainty. Processing
time was considered as stochastic parameters and one possible scenario.
One new approach was proposed to adapt real-world uncertain shop
status. Xia, Li, and Gao (2016) proposed a hybrid algorithm for the
dynamic IPPS problem.
From the above research, although the uncertain issues were con-
sidered, a general IPPS model for dealing with uncertainty is still
missing. For real-world problems, uncertain situation is unavoidable
and common. Developing an IPPS model under uncertain environment
is essential because it matches the real production situation. Among all
the uncertain issues, the processing time including set-up time and
traveling time between machines is usually uncertain (Ghrayeb, 2003).
It is reasonable to model the IPPS problem with uncertain processing
time.
Many researches have been devoted to the scheduling problems
with uncertain processing time. Both of triangular fuzzy number and
trapezoidal fuzzy number were used to represent the uncertain pro-
cessing time. Gao, Suganthan, Pan, Tasgetiren, and Sadollah (2016)
proposed an effective artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm for the
scheduling and rescheduling of fuzzy flexible job shop problem. They
also proposed an improved ABC algorithm for the flexible job shop
scheduling problem with fuzzy processing time respectively (Gao,
Suganthan, Pan, Chua, Chong, et al., 2016). Lu, Gao, Li, and Xiao
X. Li, et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 135 (2019) 1036–1046

(2017) proposed a hybrid multi-objective grey wolf optimizer for dy- the upper bound of the interval number. If AL = AR , then A is
namic scheduling in a real-world welding industry. Shahrabi et al. a real number. Or, in alternative notation, A=
(2017) used a reinforcement learning based scheduling method for (m (A), (A)) = {t|(m (A) (A)) t (m (A) + (A))} where m (A) is
dynamic job shop scheduling problem. Mou, Gao, Li, Pan, and Mu the midpoint and (A) is the half-width of the interval number A.
(2017) investigated a multi-objective inverse scheduling problem in The interval arithmetic is defined as:
single-machine shop system with uncertain due-dates and processing
[AL , AR ] for 0
parameters. Jamrus et al. (2018) proposed a hybrid PSO algorithm for A= is scalar
the FJSP with uncertain processing time for semiconductor manu- [AR , AL ] for <0 (1)
facturing. Mou, Gao, Guo, Xu, and Li (2018) investigated a single-ma-
chine inverse scheduling problem with uncertain due-dates. A + B = [AL + BL, AR + BR] (2)
Summing up, uncertain processing time was almost modeled as the
A B = [AL BR , AR B L] (3)
triangular fuzzy number. Probability distribution and membership
function need to be known in advance, which requires much historical
data. Sometimes, in an uncertain shop status, it is difficult to define an 3.2. Ranking method
accurate membership function. The use of interval number overcomes
the disadvantages of fuzzy number. Interval number only needs the Among the studies and applications of interval theory, the com-
upper and lower bounds of one interval. Decision-makers prefer using parison of two interval numbers is important for choosing the right
easy models to represent uncertain conditions (Lei, 2011). It is therefore interval number (Lei, 2011). Some comparison methods of interval
of importance to establish the uncertain IPPS model based on interval number can be found in Jiang, Han, and Liu (2008). In this study, we
number. combine the possibility degree-based ranking method proposed by
As an observation, most researchers used single algorithm to derive Jiang et al. (2008) with the preference ratio concept introduced by
the model of IPPS. Because of the complexity of this integration pro- Modarres and Sadi-Nezhad (2011). The possibility is obtained from the
blem, PSO and GA are hybridized to explore optimal solution. Particles overall distribution of interval numbers while the preference ratio is
flying in the search space are coded as chromosomes carrying process relative rather than absolute. In preference ratio method, the uncertain
plans. The learning operator of PSO is defined as a genetic operator. numbers are evaluated point by point and ranked at each point. Then,
IPPS with uncertain processing time, represented as an interval the comparison between interval numbers can be calculated by the
number, is researched in this study. To ensure the accuracy of the overall preference ratio. The combination of these two methods of
calculation process of interval number, a new interval ranking method overall and local comparison enhances the accuracy and efficiency of
based on possibility and preference-ratio is used. The optimal interval the ranking method. The possibility method used to rank two interval
makespan obtained should also have a smaller uncertain span. Finally, numbers is given in the following equation.

0 AL BR
BR AL BR AL
0.5 × × BL AL < BR AR
AR AL BR BL
BL AL BR BL
+ 0.5 × AL < BL < BR AR
AR AL AR AL
P (A B) =
BL AL AR BL BR AR AR BL AR BL
+ × + 0.5 × × AL < BL AR < BR
AR AL AR AL BR BL AR AL BR BL
BR AR AR AL
+ 0.5 × BL AL < AR < BR
BR BL BR BL
1 AR BL (4)

the uncertainty of the interval makespan is taken into consideration as where P (A B ) is the possibility of A B , which is in the range of [0,
one part of the objective. 1], and P (A B ) + P (B A) = 1. If P (A B ) = P (B A) , then
A = B . Membership function of A B is as follows:
3. Related interval operations
µA B = Z=X Y (µA (X ) µB (Y )) (5)
3.1. Interval number Therefore,

Interval number is one of the simplest form of representing un- A B = [max(AL , BL), max(AR , BR )] (6)
certainty in the decision matrix and requires a minimum amount of
information about the values of attributes. That is why choosing the The preference ratio method is used to rank the triangular fuzzy
interval number to model the uncertain processing environment. Note number (TFN) in Nezhad and Assadi (2008). The basic theory is as
that the interval numbers do not contain the information about how follows. Suppose the objective is to rank i fuzzy numbers. The related
probable it is for the value to be in the interval and which of the many coefficients are listed in Table 1.
values in the interval is the most likely to occur. An interval number can
be defined as follows (Sayadi, Heydari, & Shahanaghi, 2009): Table 1
Relevant coefficients.
(1) An extension of the concept of a real number and also a subset of a Coefficient Significance
real line,
Ni The ith fuzzy number
(2) A degenerated flat fuzzy number or fuzzy interval with zero lower
Si The domain of the ith fuzzy number, and Si R .Si is the support
and upper spreads, of Ni
(3) An a-cut of a fuzzy number. µ Ni (x ), x Si The membership function and µ Ni [0, 1], Si = {x µ Ni (x ) > 0}
I The union of the support of all fuzzy numbers to be ranked
= Si
An interval number has the following form: i=1
A = [AL , AR ] = {t |AL t AR } , where AL is the lower bound and AR is

1038
X. Li, et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 135 (2019) 1036–1046

The fuzzy numbers are evaluated by the preference function below:

U
a
µ (x ) dx
G (a ) = U
L
µ (x ) dx (7)

where L and U are the lower and upper bounds of , respectively.

p (a) = i, if Gi (a) = max{Gj (a), j I} (8)

which denotes at the point a that the ith fuzzy number is the most
preferred one because the preference function of the ith fuzzy number
at point a is the biggest one.
Let i be the set of points at which the ith number is ranked as
number one.

i ={a , p (a ) = i } (9)

The preference ratio is the percentage of that the ith fuzzy number
is the most preferred one.
| i|
R (i ) =
| | (10)

where | i| and | | are the lengths of the real sets, respectively.

Applying the preference ratio method to rank interval number and
combine with the possibility-based method, the new method to rank
interval method can be calculated as Eq. (11), which is simpler than
possibility-based method.
Fig. 1. The optimization procedure of IPPS.
0 AL BR
0 BL AL < BR AR of processing operations. The processing flexibility corresponds to the
AR B L B RAL
AL alternative operation sequence of the features of jobs.
AR AL BR + BL
AR AL
AL < BL < BR AR The mathematical model of IPPS can be found in Li, Gao, and Shao
(2010) which shows the detailed constraints. In this study, the opti-
P (A B) =
BR
AR B L B RAL mization procedure of IPPS is shown in Fig. 1.
AR AL B R + B L
BL AL < AR < BR
BR BL
4.2. Uncertain IPPS problem
1 AL < BL AR < BR
1 AR BL (11) As for the uncertain IPPS problem with interval processing time, the
set-up time, the transportation time, the tool change time, combined
For the uncertain IPPS problem in this paper, the uncertain pro- with the processing time are modeled as interval numbers. The fol-
cessing time is represented as an interval number. And the above in- lowing assumptions are made:
terval ranking method is used to gurantee the accuracy of the calcula-
tion process of interval number. Finally, the uncertainty of the interval (1) Jobs are independent. Job preemption is not allowed and each
makespan is included in the objective. The details will be introduced in machine can handle only one job at a time.
the following sections. (2) The different operations of one job cannot be processed simulta-
neously.
4. Uncertain IPPS problem formulation (3) All jobs and machines are available at time zero simultaneously.
(4) The transmission time and set-up time of one job to the next ma-
4.1. IPPS problem chine to process the next operation is contained in interval pro-
cessing time.
The IPPS problem can be defined as: “Given a set of n parts which
are to be processed on machines with operations including alternative The objective is to minimize the interval makespan:
manufacturing resources, select suitable manufacturing resources and
Min Makespan = Max{ cijlk} (12)
sequence the operations so as to determine a schedule in which the
precedence constraints among operations can be satisfied and the cor- The constraint that one machine can only process one job at a time
responding objectives can be achieved” (Li, Shao, Gao, & Qian, 2010). is:
In the manufacturing systems, the features of the parts are collected
and process plans of each part are then generated and maintained. The Ts ((i , j + 1), l, k2) Ts (i , j, l, k1) Tw (i, j, l, k1)
selection of a process plan for each job is based on the minimum ob- i [1, N ], j [1, Pil], l [1, Gi] (13)
jective. The generation of schedule is then carried out to assign op-
The equation below represents that different operations of one job
erations to corresponding machines. In this study, the scheduling is
cannot be processed simultaneously:
assumed as flexible job shop scheduling (FJSP). The objective is to
minimize the makespan which is the most popular criteria for the job Ts (i , j2 , l, k ) Ts (i, j1 , l, k1) Tw (i, j1 , l, k1)
shop scheduling problem. i [1, N ], j1 , j2 [1, Pil], l [1, Gi] (14)
Three types of flexibility, operation flexibility, sequencing flexibility
and processing flexibility, are taken into consideration. Operation In the above formulas, the processing time is modeled as interval
flexibility refers to the alternative machines for each operation. number. After the computation, the start time and the finish time of
Sequencing flexibility relates to the flexibility of changing the sequence each operation will be interval time as a result. However, there is not a

1039
X. Li, et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 135 (2019) 1036–1046

Table 2 A
xµA (x ) d (x )
An illustration of the problem. Mu (A ) =
µ (x ) d (x )
A A (15)
Job Operation Optional Interval Processing Optional Process
Machines Time Plan
2 A
x 2µA (x ) d (x )
u (A ) = Mu2 (A )
1 O1 M1, M2, M4 [4.25,6.5],[4.25,6.5], O1-O2
µ (x ) d (x )
A A (16)
[5.1,7.8]
O2 M2 , M5 [4.25,6.5],[5.1,7.8]
For the interval number, the mean value and the variance can be
2 O3 M3 , M5 [5.1,7.8],[5.1,7.8] O3-O4 simplified as:
O4 M2, M4, M5 [4.25,6.5],[4.25,6.5],
a+b
[5.1,7.8] Mu (A ) =
3 O5 M1, M3, M4 [3.4,5.2],[2.55,3.9], O5-O6-O7 2 (17)
[4.25,6.5]
O6 M1, M3, M5 [6.8,10.4],[5.95,9.1], O6-O5-O7 2 a2 + b 2 2ab
u (A ) =
[6.8,10.4] 12 (18)
O7 M2 [4.25,6.5]
4 O8 M1 , M3 [3.4,5.2],[3.4,5.2] O8-O9-O10
where the bigger the u (A ) ,
the more uncertain the makespan.
2

O9 M2 , M3 [6.8,10.4],[5.95,9.1] O8-O10-O9 Finally, the interval fitness can be defined as:

O10 M4 , M5 [4.25,6.5],[4.25,6.5]
a+b b a
5 O11 M3 , M5 [3.4,5.2],[2.55,3.9] O11-O12-O13-O14 f (A ) = Mu (A ) + u (A ) = + [0, 1]
O12 M1 , M4 [5.95,9.1],[5.95,9.1] O12-O11-O13-O14 2 12
O13 M1 , M2, M5 [6.8,10.4],[5.95,9.1], O11-O13-O12-O14 (19)
[6.8,10.4]
O14 M1 , M4 [4.25,6.5],[5.1,7.8] where is the weight of the uncertainty of makespan and can be ad-
6 O15 M1, M2, M4 [6.8,10.4],[5.95,9.1], O15-O16-O17-O18 justed based on the needs of real production.
[6.8,10.4]
O16 M3 , M4 [4.25,6.5],[4.25,6.5] O16-O15-O17-O18
5. GAPSO for uncertain IPPS with interval processing time
O17 M2 [6.8,10.4]
O18 M1, M3, M5 [5.95,9.1],[6.8,10.4],
[6.8,10.4] 5.1. Proposed hybrid GAPSO algorithm

PSO, which is a soft computing technology based on swarm in-

standard test case for the uncertain IPPS problem. The interval pro-
cessing time is therefore obtained by a determined processing time to
obtain some test instances. Based on the fuzzify method in Ghrayeb
(2003), we fuzzified some of the famous crisp benchmark problems of
IPPS. Given a determined processing time x, the interval number will be
[ 1 x , 2 x ] where 1 < 1, 2 > 1. The two given parameters refer to the
uncertainty of the manufacturing environment to complete the opera-
tion in advance or with delay. In reality it is more likely for an op-
eration to take longer time than shorter one. In this study we take
1 = 0.85, 2 = 1.3 .
The processing information of a uncertain IPPS problem is given in
Table 2. The interval processing time is obtained by fuzzifying the de-
termined process time. Such as for the processing time of job 1, the
original processing time of O1 on alternative machines M1, M2, M4 is (5,
5, 6). After fuzzified by the lower and upper parameters
1 = 0.85, 2 = 1.3 , the interval processing times are [4.25, 6.5], [4.25,
6.5] and [5.1, 7.8], respectively. The outcome of process planning is
one candidate routing and the candidate machines are chosen.
If the processing route is: O16(M3)-O6(M1)-O8(M1)-O15(M4)-O1(M2)-
O10(M5)-O11(M3)-O2(M2)-O17(M2)-O9(M3)-O3(M5)-O13(M1)-O18(M5)-
O12(M1)-O5(M4)-O7(M2)-O4(M5)-O14(M1), the operation O16 is first al-
located. Its starting time and completion time are [0, 0] and [4.25, 6.5].
Processing time of O6 is [6.8, 10.4], starting time of O8 on the same
machine is [6.8, 10.4] and ending time is [10.2, 15.6]. In the following
operations, such as O12, the comparison between the interval comple-
tion time of O13 on the same job and O8 on the same machine de-
termines the starting time of O12. The interval makespan can be ob-
tained after the shop floor scheduling. The biggest interval completion
time among all the operations is the makespan.
The objective is to minimize not only the makespan but also the
uncertainty of makespan. The constraints are not changed compared
with IPPS in certain production environment. In this study, Lee and Li’s
ranking method (Lee & Li, 1988) is used to rank the makespan while the
uncertainty of the makespan is modified to solve IPPS problem with
interval processing time. Mu (A ) is used to represent the mean of the
fuzzy number A, and u2 (A ) is used to represent the spread of A. In the
uniform distribution, they can be defined as:
telligence, is to simulate the social system of a bird flock. Since PSO
proposed in 1995 by Kennedy and Eberhart (1997), many successful
applications of PSO to different complex optimization problems have
been reported. PSO is simple in concept, convenient in computation,
fast in implementation and brief in programming. When used to figure
out nonlinear programming problems with multiple constraints, PSO
has a high convergence rate which makes it efficient and fast to find the
good results. This is why PSO is considered to be the most popular
algorithm among nature-inspired algorithms to solve complex optimi-
zation problems.
However, the standard PSO is hard to use in IPPS because of the
continuous feature of the positions of particles. A standard encoding
scheme of PSO cannot be directly adopted for the IPPS problems.
Therefore, when used for IPPS, a suitable method between the job se-
quence and the positions of particles should be applied. In this study we
use the redefined PSO hybridized with GA to match the IPPS problem.
Xit + 1 = (pbesti Xit ) + (gbest Xit ) + X¯ it (20)
Xit + 1, pbesti, Xit , gbesti, Xit , X¯ it ,
each represents one chromosome
with manufacturing information. Xit is the ith particle with gene after
tth iteration. Xit + 1 is the chromosome in the next generation after ge-
netic operations. X̄it represents mutation operator. pbesti and gbesti are
the individual history of optimal solution and global optimal solution,
respectively. The symbol “−” is not the mathematic subtraction symbol
but rather crossover operation between two individuals. The symbol
“+” means selecting the chromosome with best fitness from the three
parts to enter the next generation.
The flowchart of GAPSO is shown in Fig. 2. Application of GAPSO to
uncertain IPPS is given in Fig. 3.
The solving procedure of uncertain IPPS by GAPSO is as follows:
Step 1. Input the information of parts and workshop resources;
Step 2. Define the population and the iteration times of IPPS system,
process planning system and scheduling system;
Step 3. Initialize the process planning system and set the current
individual as pbest. Randomly choose one particle as gbest;
Step 4. For each part, randomly choose one feasible processing route
and input it to the scheduling system;

1040
X. Li, et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 135 (2019) 1036–1046

Step 4–1. Based on the process routing of each part, initialize the
scheduling population;
Step 4–2. Calculate the fitness of each particle and update pbest,
gbest;
Step 4–3. If the stop criteria is satisfied, output the best routing
and scheduling solution. If not, go to step 4–4;
Step 4–4. For each particle in the population, do mutation op-
eration, crossover operation with pbest and crossover operation
with gbest. The best one out of the three is choosen as the final
offspring. Go to Step 4–2;
Step 5. When the scheduling part is finished, update the best solu-
tion;
Step 6. If the stop criteria of the process planning system is satisfied,
output the best solution.
If not, go to the next step;
Step 7. For each particle in the process planning system, perform
mutation operation, crossover operation with pbest and crossover
operation with gbest. Randomly choose one out of three as the off-
spring. Go to step 3.

After the above redefinition, the encoding and decoding methods of

the proposed algorithm should be determined to accomplish the
abovementioned GA operations. The crossover and mutation methods
are also important to the iteration process. Not only should the superior
genes be passed to offspring but new chromosomes should also be
Fig. 2. Flowchart of GAPSO. generated by crossover and mutation operators.

Fig. 3. Flowchart of GAPSO applied to uncertain IPPS.

1041
X. Li, et al.
Table 3
The processing information of one instance.
Job Operations/Machine/Interval processing time
1 O1M3[1,3] –O2M1[2,5]
2 O1M2[4,5] –O2M1[3,6] – O3M2[2,3]
3 O1M2[5,8] –O2M3[2,3] – O3M1[3,5]
5.2. Genetic operators
The encoding and decoding process as well as the crossover and
mutation method are the key components in IPPS based on GA. In this
study an efficient representation of uncertain IPPS is used.
As for the process planning system, an integrated encoding method
composed of feature string, optional routing string and optional ma-
chine string is used. A detailed description can be found in Li, Gao, and
Wen (2013). The decoding method of particles is based on the encoding
principle.
The crossover operator is for multi-section crossover which ran-
domly chooses two crossover points. The intermediate code segment is
exchanged. For the mutation operation, two-point mutation is used in
feature string. Single-point mutation is adopted for the mutation of
optional routing string and optional machine string.
The interval operation is mainly in the scheduling part so the coding
method and genetic operator are introduced in detail in the scheduling
part. In scheduling, the encoding principle is the operation-based en-
coding method. The sequence of the number of operations represents
the scheduling sequence of each part. Such as the example in Table 3, it
is a simple instance with three jobs and three machines. A representa-
tion of scheduling solution can be [3 1 2 2 3 1 3 2]. Each job has the
repeat time which is equal to its amount of operations. At the fourth
point, the second appearance of “2” represents the second operation of
Job 2. This encoding method has the advantage that any permutation
can be decoded to a feasible solution.
Since the decoding of uncertain IPPS to obtain the interval make-
span is different from the determined situation, the decoding procedure
is given below:
(a) Determine the arithmetic and interval comparison method of in-
terval numbers.
(b) Based on the processing route of each part from the process plan-
ning system, obtain the machine of each operation and obtain the
interval processing time Tproces sin g .
(c) The set of operations on each machine
Ma (1 a Machine number ) is collected.
(d) Initialize the interval starting time and ending time of each op-
eration as [0, 0]. The current time for each job
CurrentTimei , (1 i Job number ) is set as [0, 0].
(e) Initialize the allowable interval starting time of each operation
AllowStartTime as [0, 0], which should be the interval ending time
of its previous operation of the same job.
(f) Scan the machine string for each operation and obtain the corre-
sponding machine and the current time of the job. If the machine
has processed no operation, then the completion time of this op-
eration will be AllowStartTime + Tproces sin g . If the machine has
worked, then scan the idle timespan one-by-one. The interval idle
time can be represented by (Tstart , Tend) in which Tstart , Tend are also
interval numbers, if max(AllowStartTime , Tstart ) + Tproces sin g Tend . If
not, check the next idle area. If there is no area satisfying this op-
eration, the start time of this operation will depend on the ending
time of the previous operation on this machine.
(g) The starting time, ending time and current time for the job will be
updated.
(h) If not all of the operations have been scheduled return to step f.
(i) The interval completion time of each operation and the whole
1042
Computers & Industrial Engineering 135 (2019) 1036–1046
scheduling solution is obtained.
(j) The interval makespan is obtained.
All of the related time and comparison of time is calculated by in-
terval theory based on the instance. The decoding procedure is shown
in Fig. 4. The final interval sequence is shown in Fig. 5. The interval
numbers below and above the machine line are the interval starting
time and interval ending time of the operation. When O33 is to be as-
signed, its interval processing time is [3,5]. Detect the interval idle time
slot on Machine 1. The first idle slot is [0,0] to [1,3], clearly smaller
than the ending time of the previous operation O32, [7,11]. Then, check
the next idle slot which is [3,8] to [9,13]. By applying the proposed
interval ranking method, [7,11] + [3,5] > [9,13]. This idle slot is thus
not feasible for inserting O33. O33 is assigned after the finishing time of
O22 on the same machine.
The crossover method used is POX method, as shown in Fig. 6.
Randomly separate jobs into two subsets, exchange the two subsets and
generate the offspring.
Two kinds of mutation methods are obtained: one is two-point
mutation, and the other is neighbourhood-based mutation, as shown in
Fig. 7. Choose three mutation points with different jobs. Generate all of
the different combinations of sequences. The particle with the best
fitness is chosen as the offspring.
In fact, when the interval operations are assigned, there is always
some interval overlapping. The adjustment method is obtained in Lei
(2011). When the interval starting time is AllowS tartT ime Tstart or
Tstart AllowS tartT ime , and Tstart AllowS tartT ime , then the adjust-
ment condition is satisfied, and gives AllowS tartT ime an increment.
Detailed operating procedure can be found in Lei (2011). This adjust-
ment is to ensure that the next operation must be behind the previous
operation.
6. Computational experiments and discussions
In order to evaluate the performance of proposed GAPSO for un-
certain IPPS problem, six experiments have been carried out, some of
them are adopted from some famous benchmark IPPS problems. The
comparisons between GAPSO and GA are also conducted. In here, the GA
is the simple one and the individuals selected randomly crossover with
each other. The scale of the problem varies in a big range. Both of the
populations of the process planning system and scheduling system are set
to 200. And both of the iteration times of the process planning system and
scheduling are set to 100. The applications of GAPSO and GA on un-
certain IPPS are coded by Visual C++ on a computer of Intel Core™ i3-
2120 CPU @ 3.30 GHz with 4 GB memory. To illustrate the effectiveness
of GAPSO, the fitness combines the makespan and the uncertainty.
One thing to emphasize is that the computational results of these
experiments are not stable according to different probabilities of ap-
pearances of uncertain events. In the following experiments, the data
listed is obtained by running the proposed method once and the results
show a deviation which is less than 15%. Since the uncertain method
allows a high probability of operations delay, the results of the un-
certain IPPS are always bigger than the determined IPPS problem. This
reflects that the original interval data has a broader range to tolerate
the uncertainties of production environment.
6.1. Experiment 1
The manufacturing information of this experiment is presented in
Table 2. This experiment consists of 6 jobs and 5 machines. The com-
putational results obtained by GAPSO and GA are listed in Table 4. It
can be seen that the results of GAPSO are same with GA. When = 0,
the difference between result of GAPSO and lower bound of determined
IPPS is equal to 7.5% of lower bound of determined IPPS. This illus-
trates the effectiveness of proposed GAPSO algorithm for uncertain
IPPS.
X. Li, et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 135 (2019) 1036–1046

Fig. 4. Decoding process in scheduling system.

Fig. 5. Sequence of operations with interval processing time.

Fig. 6. Crossover operation of GAPSO.

Fig. 7. Neighbourhood-based mutation of GAPSO.
6.2. Experiment 2
Table 4
This experiment contains 5 jobs and 5 machines and is adopted in Computational results of experiment 1.
Moon, Lee, Jeong, and Yun (2008). The detailed manufacturing in- Fitness Fitness Fitness Lower bound of
formation can be found in Moon et al. (2008). The computational re- ( =0) ( =0.5) ( =1) determined IPPS
sults obtained by GAPSO and GA are illustrated in Table 5. It can be
seen that the results of GAPSO are same with GA. When = 0, the GAPSO 29.025 30.7787 32.5324 27
GA 29.025 30.7787 32.5324
difference between result of GAPSO and lower bound of determined
IPPS is equal to 7.5% of lower bound of determined IPPS. This illus- The bold numbers are represent the best ones.
trates the effectiveness of proposed GAPSO algorithm for uncertain
IPPS.

1043
X. Li, et al. Computers & Industrial Engineering 135 (2019) 1036–1046

Table 5 6.3. Experiment 3

Computational results of experiment 2.
Fitness Fitness Fitness Lower bound of This experiment contains 4 jobs and 6 machines and is adopted in
( =0) ( =0.5) ( =1) determined IPPS Nabil and Elsayed (1990). The detailed manufacturing information can
be found in Nabil and Elsayed (1990). The computational results ob-
GAPSO 15.05 15.96 16.87 14
tained by GAPSO and GA are illustrated in Table 6. It can be seen that
GA 15.05 15.96 16.87
GAPSO outperforms GA. When = 0, the difference between result of
The bold numbers are represent the best ones. GAPSO and lower bound of determined IPPS is equal to 7.47% of lower
bound of determined IPPS. This illustrates the effectiveness of proposed
GAPSO algorithm for uncertain IPPS.

Table 6
Computational results of experiment 3. 6.4. Experiment 4
Fitness Fitness Fitness Lower bound of
( =0) ( =0.5) ( =1) determined IPPS This experiment contains 8 jobs and 5 machines and is adopted in
Chan, Kumar, and Tiwari (2006). The detailed manufacturing in-
GAPSO 18.27 19.38 20.48 17
formation can be found in Chan et al. (2006). The computational results
GA 19.35 20.519 21.688
obtained by GAPSO and GA are illustrated in Table 7. It can be seen that
The bold numbers are represent the best ones. GAPSO outperforms GA.

Table 7 6.5. Experiment 5

Computational results of experiment 4.
Fitness Fitness Fitness Lower bound of
This experiment contains 6 jobs and 5 machines and is adopted in
( =0) ( =0.5) ( =1) determined IPPS Li, Gao, and Shao (2010). The detailed manufacturing information can
be found in Li, Gao, and Shao (2010). The computational results ob-
GAPSO 27.95 29.639 31.328 24 tained by GAPSO and GA are illustrated in Table 8. It can be seen that
GA 30.1 31.9 33.737
GAPSO outperforms GA. When = 0, the difference between result of
The bold numbers are represent the best ones. GAPSO and lower bound of determined IPPS is equal to 9.89% of lower
bound of determined IPPS. This illustrates the effectiveness of proposed
GAPSO algorithm for uncertain IPPS.
Table 8
Computational results of experiment 5.
6.6. Experiment 6
Fitness Fitness Fitness Lower bound of
( =0) ( =0.5) ( =1) determined IPPS
This experiment is obtained from Kim, Park, and Ko (2003) and
GAPSO 98.9 104.876 110.851 90 consists of 18 jobs and 15 machines. Different combinations of these
GA 109.65 116.2751 122.9002
jobs and machines generate 24 different problems. The computational
results are given in Table 9. All of the results are computed with = 0.
The bold numbers are represent the best ones.
Among the 24 problems, GAPSO is superior over GA by 20 problems.

Table 9
Computational results of experiment 6.
Problem Number of jobs Jobs GA ( =0) GAPSO ( =0) Lower bound of determined IPPS

1 6 1-2-3-10-11-12 512.775 460.1 427

2 6 4-5-6-13-14-15 403.125 368.725 343
3 6 7-8-9-16-17-18 404.200 370.875 344
4 6 1-4-7-10-13-16 347.225 352.6 306
5 6 2-5-8-11-14-17 357.957 341.85 304
6 6 3-6-9-12-15-18 534.275 467.625 427
7 6 1-4-8-12-15-17 420.325 425.7 372
8 6 2-6-7-10-14-18 396.675 374.1 342
9 6 3-5-9-11-13-16 523.525 460.1 427
10 9 1-2-3-5-6-10-11-12-15 525.675 473 427
11 9 4-7-8-9-13-14-16-17-18 438.600 383.775 344
12 9 1-4-5-7-8-10-13-14-16 384.850 342.925 306
13 9 2-3-6-9-11-12-15-17-18 443.275 461.175 427
14 9 1-2-4-7-8-12-15-17-18 443.975 454.725 372
15 9 3-5-6-9-10-11-13-14-16 518.150 459.025 427
16 12 1-2-3-4-5-6-10-11-12-13-14-15 535.350 467.625 427
17 12 4-5-6-7-8-9-13-14-15-16-17-18 456.875 441.825 344
18 12 1-2-4-5-7-8-10-11-13-14-16-17 393.450 380.55 306
19 12 2-3-5-6-8-9-11-12-14-15-17-18 503.100 483.75 427
20 12 1-2-4-6-7-8-10-12-14-15-17-18 469.775 399.9 372
21 12 2-3-5-6-7-9-10-11-13-14-16-18 541.800 465.475 427
22 15 2-3-4-5-6-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-16-17-18 604.150 514.925 427
23 15 1-4-5-6-7-8-9-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18 494.500 485.9 372
24 18 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18 640.700 552.55 427

The bold numbers are represent the best ones.

1044
X. Li, et al.
6.7. Discussion
From the above six experiments with different scales, we can see
that the hybridized algorithm GAPSO outperforms the GA except ex-
periments 1 and 2. Because for these two experiments, the results of
GAPSO and GA are the best and reach the lower bound of determined
IPPS. So, the results of these two algorithms are same. The reason be-
hind is that in each iteration, GAPSO performs a comparison between
three offspring and chooses the best one. It then continues to explore
the problem space. The effective encoding and decoding methods in this
study ensure that the infeasible solution is seldom generated. The
crossover and mutation operators also effectively inherit the excellent
gene from the parent. On the other hand, they generate new individuals
to the population. In a way, GAPSO keeps the learning strategy and
makes the search process more effective. However, GAPSO takes more
time than GA when applied to uncertain IPPS problems. GAPSO adds
one process in computation that is set pbest and gbest particles.
On the other hand, for the uncertain processing time processed in
six experiments, the results obtained by the proposed hybrid algorithm
were closed to the lower bound of certain experiments. If the processing
time of operations varies in a certain range, the obtained results in
experiments could be used directly. However, the certain experiments
should be recalculated if the processing time changed.
To sum up, the IPPS problem with uncertain processing time was
settled effectively by the hybrid algorithm proposed in this paper. The
results of uncertain experiments could guide the real production better
than without considering the uncertainties. Meanwhile, experimental
results showed that the proposed hybrid algorithm outperformed GA.
7. Conclusions and future reseaches
There are many factors that may result in uncertain manufacturing
environment. The most common uncertain phenomenen is the proces-
sing time combined with set-up time and transportation time. Research
on IPPS problems is important for practical applications. However, the
researches on IPPS under uncertain environment were seldom studied.
Because, interval numer is one of the simplest form of representing
uncertainty in the decision matrix and requires a minimum amount of
information about the values of attributes. In this study, based on in-
terval theory, the model of uncertain IPPS is given. The interval ranking
method is improved by combining possibility-based method and pre-
ference-ratio based method. Because of its complexity, an optimization
algorithm with good performance is needed. Among various optimiza-
tion algorithms, PSO possesses the advantage of simplicity for im-
plementation and ability to quickly converge to a reasonably good so-
lution. Hybridized with GA, GAPSO keeps the framework of standard
PSO but is operated by genetic operators. The computational results
show the advantage of GAPSO.
There are also some limitations of this work. Firstly, this paper only
considers the makespan as the objective. This cannot meet all the re-
quirements of the uncertain IPPS. Secondly, this paper only considers
the uncertain production time. This is not enough. In future, uncertain
IPPS with multi-objective is a significant research topic. Some multi-
objective algorithms can be applied to try to solve this problem (Li,
Wang, Zhang, & Ishibuchi, 2018; Wang, Ishibuchi, Zhou, Liao, & Zhang,
2018). Secondly, the uncertain delivery time will be taken into con-
sideration to establish the uncertain IPPS model. And to improve the
robustness of proposed model and method in this paper is also a good
reseach work. The above research directions could make the future
uncertain IPPS problems more realistic.
Acknowledgments
This research work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (NSFC) under Grant nos. 51775216 and
51825502, the Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province under
1045
Computers & Industrial Engineering 135 (2019) 1036–1046
Grant 2018CFA078 and the Program for HUST Academic Frontier
Youth Team under Grant 2017QYTD04.
References
Chan, F., Kumar, V., & Tiwari, M. (2006). Optimizing the performance of an integrated
process planning and scheduling problem: an AIS-FLC based approach. Proceedings of
CIS (pp. 1–8). IEEE.
Chryssolouris, G., Chan, S., & Cobb, W. (1984). Decision making on the factory floor, An
integrated approach to process planning and scheduling. Robotics and Computer-
Integrated Manufacturing, 1(3–4), 315–319.
Gao, K., Suganthan, P., Pan, Q., Chua, T., Chong, C., & Cai, T. (2016). An improved
artificial bee colony algorithm for multi-objective flexible job shop scheduling pro-
blem with fuzzy processing time. Expert Systems with Applications, 65, 52–67.
Gao, K., Suganthan, P., Pan, Q., Tasgetiren, F., & Sadollah, A. (2016). Artificial bee colony
algorithm for scheduling and rescheduling fuzzy flexible job shop problem with new
job insertion. Knowledge-Based Systems, 109, 1–16.
Ghrayeb, O. (2003). A bi-criteria optimization, minimizing the integral value and spread
of the fuzzy makespan of job shop scheduling problems. Applied Soft Computing, 2(3),
197–210.
Haddadzade, M., Razfar, M., & Zarandi, M. (2014). Integration of process planning and
job shop scheduling with stochastic processing time. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 71(1–4), 241–252.
Jamrus, T., Chien, C., Gen, M., & Sethanan, K. (2018). Hybrid particle swarm optimiza-
tion combined with genetic operators for flexible job-shop scheduling under un-
certain processing time for semiconductor manufacturing. IEEE Transactions on
Semiconductor Manufacturing, 31(1), 32–41.
Jiang, C., Han, X., & Liu, G. (2008). A nonlinear interval number programming method
for uncertainty optimization problems. European Journal of Operational Research,
188(1), 1–13.
Joo, B., Shim, S., Chua, T., & Cai, T. (2018). Multi-level job scheduling under processing
time uncertainty. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 120, 480–487.
Kennedy, J., & Eberhart, R. (1997). Particle swarm optimization. Proceedings of IEEE
International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (pp. 4104–4109). .
Kim, Y., Park, K., & Ko, J. (2003). A symbiotic evolutionary algorithm for the integration
of process planning and job shop scheduling. Computers & Operations Research, 30,
1151–1171.
Lee, E., & Li, R. (1988). Comparison of fuzzy numbers based on the probability measure of
fuzzy events. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 15, 887–896.
Lei, D. (2011). Population-based neighborhood search for job shop scheduling with in-
terval processing time. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 61(4), 1200–1208.
Li, X., & Gao, L. (2016). An effective hybrid genetic algorithm and tabu search for flexible
job shop scheduling problem. International Journal of Production Economics, 174,
93–110.
Li, X., Gao, L., & Li, W. (2012). Application of game theory based hybrid algorithm for
multi-objective integrated process planning and scheduling. Expert Systems with
Applications, 39(1), 288–297.
Li, X., Gao, L., Pan, Q., Wan, L., & Chao, K. (2019). An effective hybrid genetic algorithm
and variable neighborhood search for integrated process planning and scheduling in a
packaging machine workshop. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics:
Systems. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2018.2881686.
Li, X., Gao, L., & Shao, X. (2010). Mathematical modeling and evolutionary algorithm-
based approach for integrated process planning and scheduling. Computers &
Operations Research, 37(4), 656–667.
Li, X., Gao, L., & Shao, X. (2012). An active learning genetic algorithm for integrated
process planning and scheduling. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(8), 6683–6691.
Li, X., Gao, L., & Wen, X. (2013). Application of an efficient modified particle swarm
optimization algorithm for process planning. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 67, 1355–1369.
Li, X., Gao, L., Zhang, C., & Shao, X. (2010). A review on integrated process planning and
scheduling. International Journal of Manufacturing Research, 5(2), 161–180.
Li, X., Lu, C., Gao, L., Xiao, S., & Wen, L. (2018). An effective multiobjective algorithm for
energy-efficient scheduling in a real-life welding shop. IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Informatics, 14(12), 5400–5409.
Li, X., Shao, X., Gao, L., & Qian, W. (2010). An effective hybrid algorithm for integrated
process planning and scheduling. International Journal of Production Economics, 126,
289–298.
Li, C., Tang, Y., Li, C., & Li, L. (2013). A modeling approach to analyze variability of
remanufacturing process routing. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and
Engineering, 10(1), 86–98.
Li, K., Wang, R., Zhang, T., & Ishibuchi, H. (2018). Evolutionary many-objective opti-
mization: A comparative study of the state-of-the-art. IEEE Access, 6, 26194–26214.
Li, X., Xiao, S., Wang, C., & Yi, J. (2019). Mathematical modeling and a discrete artificial
bee colony algorithm for the welding shop scheduling problem. Memetic Computing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12293-019-00283-4.
Lu, C., Gao, L., Li, X., & Xiao, S. (2017). A hybrid multi-objective grey wolf optimizer for
dynamic scheduling in a real-world welding industry. Engineering Applications of
Artificial Intelligence, 57, 61–79.
Lu, C., Li, X., Gao, L., Liao, W., & Yi, J. (2017). An effective multi-objective discrete virus
optimization algorithm for flexible job-shop scheduling problem with controllable
processing times. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 104, 156–174.
Luo, G., Wen, X., Li, H., Ming, W., & Xie, G. (2017). An effective multi-objective genetic
algorithm based on immune principle and external archive for multi-objective in-
tegrated process planning and scheduling. International Journal of Advanced
X. Li, et al.
Manufacturing Technology, 2017(91), 3145–3158.
Manupati, V., Putnik, G., Tiwari, M., Avila, P., & Cruz-Cunha, M. (2016). Integration of
process planning and scheduling using mobile-agent based approach in a networked
manufacturing environment. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 94, 63–73.
Modarres, M., & Sadi-Nezhad, S. (2011). Ranking fuzzy numbers by preference ratio.
Fuzzy Sets and System, 118, 429–436.
Moon, C., Lee, Y., Jeong, C., & Yun, S. (2008). Integrated process planning and scheduling
in a supply chain. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 54(4), 1048–1061.
Moore, R. E. (1979). Method and Application of Interval Analysis. Society for Industrial and
Applied Mathematics.
Mou, J., Gao, L., Guo, Q., Xu, R., & Li, X. (2018). Hybrid optimization algorithms by
various structures for a real-world inverse scheduling problem with uncertain due-
dates under single-machine shop systems. Neural Computing and Applications, article in
press,. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-018-3472-7.
Mou, J., Gao, L., Li, X., Pan, Q., & Mu, J. (2017). Multi-objective inverse scheduling
optimization of single-machine shop system with uncertain due-dates and processing
times. Cluster Computing, 20, 371–390.
Nabil, N., & Elsayed, E. (1990). Job shop scheduling with alternative machines.
International Journal of Production Research, 28(9), 1595–1609.
Nezhad, S., & Assadi, R. (2008). Preference ratio-based maximum operator approximation
and its application in fuzzy flow shop scheduling. Applied Soft Computing, 8(1),
759–766.
Petrovic, M., Vukovic, N., Mitic, M., & Miljkovic, Z. (2016). Integration of process
planning and scheduling using chaotic particle swarm optimization algorithm. Expert
Systems with Applications, 64, 569–588.
Qin, H., Fan, P., Tang, H., Huang, P., Fang, B., & Pan, S. (2019). An effective hybrid
discrete grey wolf optimizer for the casting production scheduling problem with
multi-objective and multi-constraint. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 128,
458–476.
Sayadi, M., Heydari, M., & Shahanaghi, K. (2009). Extension of VIKOR method for de-
cision making problem with interval numbers. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 33(5),
2257–2262.
Seker, A., Erol, S., & Botsali, R. (2013). A neuro-fuzzy model for a new hybrid integrated
Process Planning and Scheduling system. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(13),
5341–5351.
Shahrabi, J., Adibi, M., & Mahootchi, M. (2017). A reinforcement learning approach to
1046
Computers & Industrial Engineering 135 (2019) 1036–1046
parameter estimation in dynamic job shop scheduling. Computers & Industrial
Engineering, 110, 75–82.
Shao, X., Li, X., Gao, L., & Zhang, C. (2009). Integration of process planning and sche-
duling — A modified genetic algorithm-based approach. Computers & Operations
Research, 36, 2082–2096.
Sobeyko, O., & Monch, L. (2017). Integrated process planning and scheduling for large-
scale flexible job shops using metaheuristics. International Journal of Production
Research, 55(2), 392–409.
Wang, R., Ishibuchi, H., Zhou, Z., Liao, T., & Zhang, T. (2018). Localized weighted sum
method for many-objective optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary
Computation, 22, 3–18.
Wang, R., Lai, S., Wu, G., Xing, N., Wang, L., & Ishibuchi, H. (2018). Multi-clustering via
evolutionary multi-objective optimization. Information Sciences, 450, 128–140.
Wu, X., & Wu, S. (2017). An elitist quantum-inspired evolutionary algorithm for the
flexible job-shop scheduling problem. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 28(6),
1441–1457.
Xia, H., Li, X., & Gao, L. (2016). A hybrid genetic algorithm with variable neighborhood
search for dynamic integrated process planning and scheduling. Computers &
Industrial Engineering, 102, 99–112.
Xiang, S., Xing, L., Wang, L., & Zou, K. (2019). Comprehensive learning pigeon-inspired
optimization with tabu list. Science China Information Sciences. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11432-018-9728-x.
Yi, J., Xing, L., Wang, G., Dong, J., Vasilakos, A., Alavi, A., & Wang, L. (2018). Behavior of
crossover operators in NSGA-III for large-scale optimization problems. Information
Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2018.10.005.
Zhang, W., Gen, M., & Jo, J. (2014). Hybrid sampling strategy – based multiobjective
evolutionary algorithm for process planning and scheduling problem. Journal of
Intelligent Manufacturing, 25(5), 881–897.
Zhang, L., & Wong, T. (2015). An object-coding genetic algorithm for integrated process
planning and scheduling. European Journal of Operational Research, 244, 434–444.
Zhang, L., & Wong, T. (2016). Solving integrated process planning and scheduling pro-
blem with constructive meta-heuristics. Information Sciences, 340–341, 1–16.
Zhang, S., & Wong, T. (2018). Integrated process planning and scheduling: An enhanced
ant colony optimization heuristic with parameter tuning. Journal of Intelligent
Manufacturing, 29, 585–601.