Chaudhry et al 2022a - Revision history

Rimni at 12:09, 2 June 2022

2022-06-02T12:09:05Z

Rimni at 12:08, 2 June 2022

2022-06-02T12:08:36Z

Rimni at 11:59, 2 June 2022

2022-06-02T11:59:16Z

Rimni at 11:46, 1 June 2022

2022-06-01T11:46:01Z

Rimni at 11:43, 1 June 2022

2022-06-01T11:43:59Z

Rimni at 11:33, 1 June 2022

2022-06-01T11:33:33Z

Show changes

Rimni at 11:21, 1 June 2022

2022-06-01T11:21:55Z

Rimni: /* Appendix A */

2022-06-01T11:21:03Z

‎Appendix A

Rimni at 11:20, 1 June 2022

2022-06-01T11:20:06Z

Rimni: /* Appendix A */

2022-06-01T11:18:09Z

‎Appendix A

Show changes

@@ Line 333: / Line 333: @@
 ===5.2.  Problem set 2===
-Problem set 2 is taken from Srirangacharyulu and Srinivasan [20].  Problem set 2 is also a sinlge machine scenario with jobs ranging from 15 to 25.   The data set consists of nine instances.  Data for problem set 2 is presented in <span id='cite-_Ref96715229'></span>[[#_Ref96715229|Table A.2]].
+Problem set 2 is taken from Srirangacharyulu and Srinivasan [20].  Problem set 2 is also a sinlge machine scenario with jobs ranging from 15 to 25.   The data set consists of nine instances.  Data for problem set 2 is presented in <span id='cite-_Ref96715229'></span>[[#_Ref96715229|Table A2]].
 The performance of the proposed methodology is compared with results from EC1.1 and EC1.2 (heuristic methods by Eilon and Chowdhury [2]), JJK (heuristic method by Kanet [46]), GGB (GA by Gupta et al. [7], MP (heuristic method by Prasad and Manna [47]), VS (verified spiral heuristic method by Ye et al. [48], HA (hybrid GA algorithm by Srirangacharyulu and Srinivasan [20]), SMH1 (heuristic algorithm by Rajkanth et al. [27]).  The comparative analysis with three approaches is presented in <span id='cite-_Ref96715802'></span>[[#_Ref96715802|Table 2]].

@@ Line 190: / Line 190: @@
 ===5.1.  Problem set 1===
-The first problem set is taken from Gupta et al. [7].  The data set is a single machine scenario with jobs ranging from 10 to 20.  The data set consists of 15 instances.  Data for problem set 1 is presented in <span id='cite-_Ref96715172'></span>[[#_Ref96715172|Table A.1]].
+The first problem set is taken from Gupta et al. [7].  The data set is a single machine scenario with jobs ranging from 10 to 20.  The data set consists of 15 instances.  Data for problem set 1 is presented in <span id='cite-_Ref96715172'></span>[[#_Ref96715172|Table A1]].
 The perfomance of the proposed methodology is compared with results from GGA (GA by Gupta et al. [7]), HAS (hybrid simulated annealing algorithm by Mittenthal et al. [44]) and TSA (tabu search algorith by Al-Turki et al. [45]).  The comparative analysis with three approaches is presented in <span id='cite-_Ref96710802'></span>[[#_Ref96710802|Table 1]].

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 Other assumptions used in the modeling of flowshop in this research application are as folows:
 # The number of <math display="inline"> n </math> jobs and <math display="inline"> m </math> machines are known before the planning horizon, i.e., <math display="inline">t = 0</math>.
-# All <math display="inline"> n </math> jobs follow the same routing through the machines
+# All <math display="inline"> n </math> jobs follow the same routing through the machines.
 # There is an umlimited buffer between the machines.
 # A different machine is required for the processing of each of the <math display="inline">o_{jk}</math> operations and there is only one machine of its kind in the flowshop.

@@ Line 977: / Line 977: @@
-<center><span style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;">'''Table 10'''. Comparative analysis of proposed methodology with previous studies for data Set 4 – <math>50 \times 5</math></span></center>
+<center><span style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;">'''Table 10'''. Comparative analysis of proposed methodology with previous studies for data set 4 – <math>50 \times 5</math></span></center>
 {| class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 0.1em auto;border-collapse: collapse;font-size:85%;width:auto;"
@@ Line 1,073: / Line 1,073: @@
-<center><span style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;">'''Table 11'''. Comparative analysis of proposed methodology with previous studies for data Set 4 – <math>50 \times 10</math></span></center>
+<center><span style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;">'''Table 11'''. Comparative analysis of proposed methodology with previous studies for data set 4 – <math>50 \times 10</math></span></center>
 {| class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 0.1em auto;border-collapse: collapse;font-size:85%;width:auto;"

@@ Line 182: / Line 182: @@
 where
-<math display="inline">{CTV}_{propsed}</math> = completion time variance result found by the proposed methodology,
+<math display="inline">{CTV}_{propsed}</math> = completion time variance result found by the proposed methodology, and
 <math display="inline">{CTV}_{best}</math> = best completion time variance found among all previous heuristics.

@@ Line 1,996: / Line 1,996: @@
 !  rowspan='2' |'''Prob Instance''' !!   rowspan='2' |'''No of Jobs''' !! colspan='9'  |'''Processing times'''
 |-
-|  style="border-top: 1pt solid black;border-bottom: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|<span style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;">'''1'''</span>
+! '''1'''!!'''2'''!! '''3'''!! '''4''' !! '''5''' !! '''6''' !! '''7'''!! '''8'''!! '''9'''
-|  style="border-top: 1pt solid black;border-bottom: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|<span style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;">'''2'''</span>
-|  style="border-top: 1pt solid black;border-bottom: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|<span style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;">'''3'''</span>
-|  style="border-top: 1pt solid black;border-bottom: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|<span style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;">'''4'''</span>
-|  style="border-top: 1pt solid black;border-bottom: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|<span style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;">'''5'''</span>
-|  style="border-top: 1pt solid black;border-bottom: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|<span style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;">'''6'''</span>
-|  style="border-top: 1pt solid black;border-bottom: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|<span style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;">'''7'''</span>
-|  style="border-top: 1pt solid black;border-bottom: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|<span style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;">'''8'''</span>
-|  style="border-top: 1pt solid black;border-bottom: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|<span style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;">'''9'''</span>
 |-
 |  style="border-top: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|<span style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;">1</span>

@@ Line 1,725: / Line 1,725: @@
 |  style="text-align: center;"|94
 |}
 <center><span id='_Ref96715229'>
@@ Line 1,991: / Line 1,992: @@
 <center><span style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;">'''Table A3'''. Problem set 3 data – Processing times from ''Uniform'' (1, 59)</span></center>
-{| style="width: 67%;border-collapse: collapse;"
+{| class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 0.1em auto;border-collapse: collapse;font-size:85%;width:auto;"
 |-
-|  rowspan='2' style="border-top: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|<span style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;">'''Prob Instance'''</span>
+! '''1'''!!'''2'''!! '''3'''!! '''4''' !! '''5''' !! '''6''' !! '''7'''!! '''8'''!! '''9'''
-|  rowspan='2' style="border-top: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|<span style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;">'''No of Jobs'''</span>
-|  colspan='9'  style="border-top: 1pt solid black;border-bottom: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|<span style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;">'''Processing times'''</span>
 |-
 |  style="border-top: 1pt solid black;border-bottom: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|<span style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;">'''1'''</span>