GA-based adaptive setup planning toward process planning and scheduling integration.

*(English)*Zbl 1163.90481Summary: Setup planning of a part for more than one available machine is a typical combinatorial optimisation problem under certain constraints. It has significant impact not only on the whole process planning but also on scheduling, as well as on the integration of process planning and scheduling. Targeting the potential adaptability of process plans associated with setups, a cross-machine setup planning approach using genetic algorithms (GA) for machines with different configurations is presented in this paper. First, based on tool accessibility analysis of different machine configurations, partially sequenced machining features can be grouped into certain setups; then by responding to the requirements from a scheduling system, optimal or near-optimal setup plans are selected for certain criteria, such as cost, makespan and/or machine utilisation. GA is adopted for the combinatorial optimisation, which includes gene pool generation based on tool accessibility examination, setup plan encoding and fitness evaluation, and optimal setup plan selection through GA operations. The proposed approach is implemented in a GA toolbox, and tested using a sample part. The results demonstrate that the proposed approach is applicable to machines with varying configurations, and adaptive to different setup requirements from a scheduling system due to machine availability changes. It is expected that this approach can contribute to process planning and scheduling integration when a process plan is combined with setups for alternative machines during adaptive setup planning.

##### MSC:

90B35 | Deterministic scheduling theory in operations research |

90C59 | Approximation methods and heuristics in mathematical programming |

##### Keywords:

setup planning; genetic algorithms; tool accessibility; process planning and scheduling integration
PDF
BibTeX
XML
Cite

\textit{N. Cai} et al., Int. J. Prod. Res. 47, No. 10, 2745--2766 (2009; Zbl 1163.90481)

Full Text:
DOI

**OpenURL**

##### References:

[1] | DOI: 10.1007/s00170-005-0269-5 |

[2] | Bauer A, Shop floor control systems – from design to implementation (1994) |

[3] | DOI: 10.1080/00207549508930142 · Zbl 0914.90156 |

[4] | DOI: 10.1080/00207540600849125 · Zbl 1128.90351 |

[5] | DOI: 10.1080/08839510252906471 · Zbl 05386700 |

[6] | DOI: 10.1080/002075498193480 · Zbl 0947.90554 |

[7] | DOI: 10.1007/BF01572636 |

[8] | DOI: 10.1080/09537289308919455 |

[9] | Detand J, IPDES (Espirit project 2590) workshop (1992) |

[10] | DOI: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2004.01.043 |

[11] | DOI: 10.1080/0020754031000153351 |

[12] | DOI: 10.1080/07408179508936762 |

[13] | DOI: 10.1007/s00170-005-0142-6 |

[14] | DOI: 10.1080/00207540210155864 · Zbl 1064.90553 |

[15] | DOI: 10.1007/s001700050066 |

[16] | DOI: 10.1109/TSMCC.2006.874022 |

[17] | DOI: 10.1080/00207540500032160 |

[18] | DOI: 10.1023/A:1008952024606 |

[19] | DOI: 10.1080/00207540500354119 · Zbl 1128.90468 |

[20] | DOI: 10.1016/S0278-6125(03)90008-2 |

[21] | DOI: 10.1080/09511920500399060 |

[22] | DOI: 10.1080/00207540600675801 · Zbl 1160.90463 |

[23] | DOI: 10.1007/s00170-005-0328-y |

[24] | DOI: 10.1080/00207540600690735 · Zbl 1128.90482 |

[25] | DOI: 10.1016/S0736-5845(98)00031-3 |

[26] | DOI: 10.1080/00207540110056171 · Zbl 1060.68650 |

[27] | DOI: 10.1080/0020754021000037874 · Zbl 1064.90539 |

This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.