Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering

ISSN 2095-0233

ISSN 2095-0241(Online)

CN 11-5984/TH

Postal Subscription Code 80-975

2018 Impact Factor: 0.989

Front. Mech. Eng.    2014, Vol. 9 Issue (3) : 257-264    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11465-014-0294-x
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Pareto lexicographic α-robust approach and its application in robust multi objective assembly line balancing problem
Ullah SAIF1,2,Zailin GUAN1,*(),Baoxi WANG1,Jahanzeb MIRZA2
1. HUST–SANY Joint Laboratory of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
2. Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila, Pakistan
 Download: PDF(132 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Robustness in most of the literature is associated with min-max or min-max regret criteria. However, these criteria of robustness are conservative and therefore recently new criteria called, lexicographic α-robust method has been introduced in literature which defines the robust solution as a set of solutions whose quality or jth largest cost is not worse than the best possible jth largest cost in all scenarios. These criteria might be significant for robust optimization of single objective optimization problems. However, in real optimization problems, two or more than two conflicting objectives are desired to optimize concurrently and solution of multi objective optimization problems exists in the form of a set of solutions called Pareto solutions and from these solutions it might be difficult to decide which Pareto solution can satisfy min-max, min-max regret or lexicographic α-robust criteria by considering multiple objectives simultaneously. Therefore, lexicographic α-robust method which is a recently introduced method in literature is extended in the current research for Pareto solutions. The proposed method called Pareto lexicographic α-robust approach can define Pareto lexicographic α-robust solutions from different scenarios by considering multiple objectives simultaneously. A simple example and an application of the proposed method on a simple problem of multi objective optimization of simple assembly line balancing problem with task time uncertainty is presented to get their robust solutions. The presented method can be significant to implement on different multi objective robust optimization problems containing uncertainty.

Keywords Pareto      lexicographic α-robust      assembly line balancing     
Corresponding Author(s): Zailin GUAN   
Issue Date: 10 October 2014
 Cite this article:   
Ullah SAIF,Zailin GUAN,Baoxi WANG, et al. Pareto lexicographic α-robust approach and its application in robust multi objective assembly line balancing problem[J]. Front. Mech. Eng., 2014, 9(3): 257-264.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fme/EN/10.1007/s11465-014-0294-x
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fme/EN/Y2014/V9/I3/257
Fig.1  Decreasing order of Pareto solution quality and non-increasing order of Pareto cost in cost vector
Candidate solutionsPareto cost solution for scenarios Cj(xi,yi)Sorting of Pareto cost solution vector of each candidate solutionRe-ordered Pareto cost vector by reversing the sorted order of Pareto cost vector of each candidate solution C~j(xi,yi)Sum of distance between the re-ordered cost pareto solution and ideal solution component of the respective scenarios (x*,y*)d~j(i,*)
Scenario 1Scenario 2Scenario 1Scenario 2Scenario 1Scenario 2
1(6, 3)(3, 2)(3, 2)(6, 3)(6, 3)(3, 2)0+ 2= 2
2(4, 2)(7, 3)(4, 2)(7, 3)(7, 3)(4, 2)1+ 3= 4
3(3, 5)(10, 6)(3, 5)(10, 6)(10, 6)(3, 5)5+ 3.6= 8.6
4(1, 2)(11, 7)(1, 2)(11, 7)(11, 7)(1, 2)6.4+ 0= 6.4
Ideal solution C~j(x*,y*)(6, 3)(1, 2)
Set of Pareto lexicographic α-robust solutions containing solutions withd~j(i,*)=j=1qCj~(yi-y*)2+Cj~(xi-x*)2αα = 2Solution {1}
α = 5Solution {1, 2}
α = 6Solution {1, 2}
α = 7Solution {1, 2, 4}
Tab.1  Lexicographic α-robust solution for simple example
Fig.2  Precedence relation in tasks in an assembly line
ScenarioTask 1Task 2Task 3Task 4Task 5Task 6Task 7Task 8Task 9
1664545429
2553654637
3455546329
Tab.2  Task time data for three scenarios
Solution candidateStation 1Station 2Station 3Station 4Station 5
11, 32, 45, 67, 89
23, 41, 52, 76, 89
331, 42, 56, 78, 9
41, 23, 45, 76, 89
51, 34, 52, 67, 89
Tab.3  Solution candidates for the current assembly line balancing problem
Solution candidateObjective values
Scenario 1(Z1,Z2)Scenario 2(Z1,Z2)Scenario 3(Z1,Z2)
1(11, 18.81)(11, 18.734)(10, 17.03)
2(10, 16.52)(11, 18.41)(10, 16.64)
3(11, 18.46)(11, 17.97)(11, 19.21)
4(12, 21.7)(11, 18.73)(10, 16.64)
5(11, 18.81)(11, 18.74)(11, 18.87)
Tab.4  Pareto solutions for each candidate solution in each scenario
CandidatesolutionsPareto cost solution for scenarios Cj(xi,yi)Re-ordered Pareto cost vector by reversing the sorted order of pareto cost vector of each candidate solution C~j(xi,yi)Sum of distance between the re-ordered cost Pareto solution and ideal solution component of the respective scenarios (x*,y*)d~j(i,*)
ScenarioScenario
123123
1(11, 18.81)(11, 18.734)(10, 17.03)(11, 18.81)(11, 18.734)(10, 17.03)0.4+2.32+0.51=3.23
2(10, 16.52)(11, 18.41)(10, 16.64)(11, 18.41)(10, 16.64)(10, 16.52)0
3(11, 18.46)(11, 17.97)(11, 19.21)(11, 19.21)(11, 18.46)(11,17.97)0.8+2.07+1.76=6.4
4(12, 21.7)(11, 18.73)(10, 16.64)(12, 21.7)(11, 18.73)(10, 16.64)3.43+2.31+0.12=5.86
5(11, 18.81)(11, 18.74)(11, 18.87)(11, 18.87)(11, 18.81)(11, 18.74)0.46+2.39+0.12=2.97
Ideal solution C~j(x*,y*)(11, 18.41)(10, 16.64)(10, 16.52)
Set of Pareto lexicographic α-robust solutions containing solutions withd~j(i,*)=j=1qCj~(yi-y*)2+Cj~(xi-x*)2αα = 0{2}
α = 1{2}
α = 3{2, 5}
α = 5{2, 5, 1}
Tab.5  Lexicographic α-robust solution for simple assembly line balancing example problem
1 Chica M, Cordón ó, Damas S. An advanced multi objective genetic algorithm design for the time and space assembly line balancing problem. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2011, 61(1): 103-117
2 Hamta N, Fatemi Ghomi S M T, Jolai F, Akbarpour Shirazi M. A hybrid PSO algorithm for a multi-objective assembly line balancing problem with flexible operation times, sequence-dependent setup times and learning effect. International Journal of Production Economics, 2013, 141(1): 99-111
3 Ponnambalam S G, Aravindan P, Mogileeswar Naidu G. A multi-objective genetic algorithm for solving assembly line balancing problem. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2000, 16(5): 341-352
4 Wei N C, Chao I M. A solution procedure for type E-simple assembly line balancing problem. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2011, 61(3): 824-830
5 Shin D. An efficient heuristic for solving stochastic assembly line balancing problems. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 1990, 18(3): 285-295
6 Cakir B, Altiparmak F, Dengiz B. Multi-objective optimization of a stochastic assembly line balancing: a hybrid simulated annealing algorithm. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2011, 60(3): 376-384
7 McMullen P R, Tarasewich P. Multi-objective assembly line balancing via a modi?ed ant colony optimization technique. International Journal of Production Research, 2006, 44(1): 27-42
8 Aydemir-Karadag A, Turkbey O. Multi-objective optimization of stochastic disassembly line balancing with station paralleling. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2013, 65(3): 413-425
9 Hop N V. A heuristic solution for fuzzy mixed-model line balancing problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 2006, 168(3): 798-810
10 Xu W, Xiao T. Mixed model assembly line balancing problem with fuzzy<?Pub Caret?> operation times and drifting operations. In: Proceeding of Winter Simulation Conference, Miami, FL, USA, 2008, 1752-1760
11 Gen M, Tsujimura Y, Li Y. Fuzzy assembly line balancing using genetic algorithms. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 1996, 31(3-4): 631-634
12 Kara Y, Paksoy T, Chang C T. Binary fuzzy goal programming approach to single model straight and U-shaped assembly line balancing. European Journal of Operational Research, 2009, 195(2): 335-347
13 Kouvelis P, Yu G. Robust Discrete Optimization and Its Applications. Boston, MA, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997
14 Xu W, Xiao T. Strategic robust mixed model assembly line balancing based on scenario planning. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 2011, 16(3): 308-314
15 Assavapokee T, Realff M J, Ammons J C, Hong I H. Scenario relaxation algorithm for finite scenario-based min-max regret and min-max relative regret robust optimization. Computers & Operations Research, 2008, 35(6): 2093-2102
16 Roy B. Robustness in operational research and decision aiding: a multi-faceted issue. European Journal of Operational Research, 2010, 200(3): 629-638
17 Blanquero R, Carrizosa E, Hendrix E M T. Locating a competitive facility in the plane with a robustness criterion. European Journal of Operational Research, 2011, 215(1): 21-24
18 Dolgui A, Kovalev S. Scenario based robust line balancing: Computational complexity. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 2012, 160(13-14): 1955-1963
19 Hazir ?, Dolgui A. Assembly line balancing under uncertainty: Robust optimization models and exact solution method. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 2013, 65(2): 261-267
20 Daniels R L, Carrillo J E. β-Robust scheduling for single-machine systems with uncertain processing times. IIE Transactions, 1997, 29(11): 977-985
21 Ullah S, Liu Q, Zhang C Y, Yasser R. Scheduling with uncertain processing times: applying β-robust schedule on two-machine flow-shop with constraints. Proceedings of IEEM, 2009, 1946-1951
22 Liu Q, Ullah S, Zhang C Y. An improved genetic algorithm for robust permutation flowshop scheduling. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2011, 56(1-4): 345-354
23 Snyder L. Facility location under uncertainty: a review. IIE Transactions, 2006, 38(7): 547-554
24 Kalai R, Lamboray C, Vanderpooten D. Lexicographic α-robustness: An alternative to min-max criteria. European Journal of Operational Research, 2012, 220(3): 722-728
25 Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T. A fast and elitist multi objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 2002, 6(2): 182-197
26 Boysen N, Fliedner M, Scholl A. Assembly line balancing: Which model to use when? International Journal of Production Economics, 2008, 111(2): 509-528
[1] Xiaokun DUAN, Bo WU, Youmin HU, Jie LIU, Jing XIONG. An improved artificial bee colony algorithm with MaxTF heuristic rule for two-sided assembly line balancing problem[J]. Front. Mech. Eng., 2019, 14(2): 241-253.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed