On linkage of a flow shop scheduling model including job block criteria with a parallel biserial queue network

Computer Engineering and Intelligent Systems www.iiste.org
ISSN 2222-1719 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2863 (Online)
Vol 3, No.2, 2012

On Linkage of a Flow Shop Scheduling Model Including Job
Block Criteria with a Parallel Biserial Queue Network

Sameer Sharma1* Deepak Gupta2 Seema Sharma3
3. Department of Mathematics, Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Mullana, Ambala, India
4. Department of Mathematics, Maharishi Markandeshwar University, Mullana, Ambala, India
5. Department of Mathematics, D.A.V.College, Jalandhar, Punjab, India
* E-mail of the corresponding author: samsharma31@yahoo.com

Abstract: This paper is an attempt to establish a linkage between a flowshop scheduling model having job
block criteria with a parallel biserial queue network linked with a common channel in series. The arrival
and service pattern both follows Poisson law in queue network. The generating function technique, law of
calculus and statistical tools have been used to find out the various characteristics of queue. Further the
completion time of jobs in a queue system form the set up time for the first machine in the scheduling
model. A heuristic approach to find an optimal sequence of jobs with a job block criteria with minimum
total flow time when the jobs are processed in a combined system with a queue network is discussed. The
proposed method is easy to understand and also provide an important tool for the decision makers when the
production is done in batches. A computer programme followed by a numerical illustration is given to
justify the algorithm.
Keywords: Queue Network, Mean Queue length, Waiting time, Processing time, Job-block, Makespan,
Biserial Channel

1. Introduction
In flowshop scheduling problems, the objective is to obtain a sequence of jobs which when processed on
the machines will optimize some well defined criteria. Every job will go on these machines in a fixed order
of machines. The research into flow shop problems has drawn a great attention in the last decades with the
aim to increase the effectiveness of industrial production. In queuing theory the objective is to reduce the
waiting time, completion time (Waiting Time + Service Time) and mean queue length of the customers /
jobs which when processed through a queue network. A lot of research work has already been done in the
fields of scheduling and queuing theory separately. The heuristic algorithms for two and three stage
production schedule for minimizing the make span have been developed by Johnson (1954), Ignall &
Scharge (1965) have also developed a branch & bound technique for minimizing the total flow time of jobs
in n x 2 flow shop. Research is also directed towards the development of heuristic and near exact
procedures. Some of the noteworthy heuristics approaches are due to Campbell (1970), Maggu and Das
(1985),, Nawaz et al.(1983), Rajendran (1992), Singh.T.P.(1985) etc. Jackson (1954) studied the time
dependent behavior of queuing system with phase system. O’brien (1954) analyzed the transient queue
model comprised of two queues in series where the service parameter depends upon their queue length.
Maggu (1970) studied a network of two queues in biseries and find the total waiting time of jobs /
customers. Very few efforts have been made so far to combine the study of a production scheduling model
with a queue network. Singh & Kumar (2007, 2008, 2009) made an attempt to combine a scheduling
system with a queue-network.
Kumar (2010) studied linkage of queue network with parallel biserial linked with a common channel to a
flow shop scheduling model. This paper is an attempt to extend the study made by Kumar (2010) by
introducing the idea of Job-Block criteria in scheduling model linked with a queue network having parallel
biserial queues connected with a common channel. The basic concept of equivalent job for a job – block
has been investigated by Maggu & Das (1977) and established an equivalent job-block theorem. The idea

17

Vol 3, No.2, 2012
of job-block has practical significance to create a balance between a cost of providing priority in service to
the customer and cost of giving service with non-priority. The decision maker may compare the total
production cost in both cases and may decide how much to charge extra from the priority customers. The
objective of the paper is to optimize two phases. In Phase one, the total Completion Time (Waiting time +
Service time), Mean Queue length of the customers / jobs are optimized. In second phase by considering
the completion time as setup time for the first machine, an optimal sequence of the customers / jobs in
order to minimize the makespan including job block is obtained. Thus the problem discussed here is wider
and practically more applicable and has significant results in the process industry.

2. Practical Situation
Many practical situation of the model arise in industries, administrative setup, banking system, computer
networks, office management, Hospitals and Super market etc. For example, in a meal department of mall
shop consisting two parallel biserial sections, one is for drinks and other is for food items and third section
in series common to both is for billing. The customers taking drinks may also take some food items and
vice-versa, then proceed for the billing. After billing the next two machines are for packing of the items and
for the checking the bill and various items purchased. Here the concept of the job block is significant to
give priority of one or more items with respect to others. It is because of urgency or demand of its relative
importance.
Similarly in manufacturing industry, we can consider two parallel biserial channels one for cutting and
other for turning. Some jobs after cutting may go to turning and vice-versa. Both these channels are
commonly connected to the channel for chroming / polishing. After that the jobs has to pass thought two
machine taken as inspection of quality of goods produced and second machine for the final packing. Here
the concept of job block is significant in the sense to create a balance between the cost of providing priority
in service to the customers / jobs and cost of giving services with non-priority customers / jobs. The
decision maker may decide how much to charge extra from priority customers / jobs.

3. Mathematical Model

λ1
S1 P13

P12 P21 M1 M2
S3

S2 S2 P23
λ2
λ1

Phase I
Phase II
Figure 1: Linkage Model

Considered a queue network comprised of three service channels S1, S2 and S3, where the channels S1, S2
are parallel biserial channels connected in series with a common channel S3 and which is further linked
with a flowshop scheduling system of n-jobs and 2-machines M1 and M2. The customers / jobs demanding
service arrive in Poisson streams at the channels S1 and S2 with mean arrival rate λ1 , λ2 and mean service

18

Vol 3, No.2, 2012
rate µ1 and µ2 respectively. Let µ3 be the mean service rate for the server S3. Queues Q1, Q2 and Q3 are
said to be formed in front of the channels S1, S2 and S3 respectively, if they are busy. Customers / Jobs
coming at the rate λ1 either go to the network of channels S1 → S2 → S3 or S1 → S3 with probabilities
p12 , p13 such that p12 + p13 = 1 and those coming at rate λ2 either goes to the network of the channels
S2 → S1 → S3 or S2 → S3 with probabilities p21 , p23 such that p21 + p23 = 1 .Further the completion
time( waiting time + service time) of customers / jobs through Q1, Q2 & Q3 form the setup times for
machine M1.
After coming out from the server S3 .i.e. Phase I, customers / jobs go to the machines M1 and M2(in Phase
II) for processing with processing time Ai1 and Ai2 in second Phase service. Our objective is to develop a
heuristic algorithm to find an optimal sequence of the jobs / customers with minimum makespan in this
Queue-Scheduling linkage system.

4. Assumptions
1. We assume that the arrival rate in the queue network follows Poisson distribution.
2. Each job / customer is processed on all the machines M1, M2, ------- in the same order and pre-
emission is not allowed, .i.e. once a job is started on a machine, the process on that machine can not
be stopped unless job is completed.
3. It is given to a sequence of k jobs i1, i2,--------, ik as a block or group job in the order (i1, i2,-------, ik)
showing the priority of job i1 over i2.
4. For the existence of the steady state behaviour the following conditions hold good:

(i) ρ1 =
( λ1 + λ2 p21 ) < 1
µ1 (1 − p12 p21 )

(ii) ρ 2 =
( λ2 + λ1 p12 ) < 1
µ2 (1 − p12 p21 )

p13 ( λ1 + λ2 p21 ) + p23 ( λ2 + λ1 p12 )
(iii) ρ3 = < 1.
µ2 (1 − p12 p21 )

5. Algorithm
The following algorithm provides the procedure to determine the optimal sequence of the jobs to minimize
the flow time of machines M1 and M2 when the completion time (waiting time + service time) of the jobs
coming out of Phase I is the setup times for the machine M1.
Step 1: Find the mean queue length on the lines of Singh & Kumar (2005, 2006) using the formula
ρ1 ρ2 ρ
L= + + 3
1 − ρ1 1 − ρ 2 1 − ρ3

Here ρ1 =
( λ1 + λ2 p21 ) , ρ = ( λ2 + λ1 p12 ) , ρ = p13 ( λ1 + λ2 p21 ) + p23 ( λ2 + λ1 p12 ) , λ is the mean
µ1 (1 − p12 p21 ) µ2 (1 − p12 p21 ) µ2 (1 − p12 p21 )
2 3 i

arrival rates, µi is the mean service rates, pij are the probabilities.
Step 2: Find the average waiting time of the customers on the line of Little’s (1961) using
L
relation E ( w) = , where λ = λ1 + λ2 .
λ
Step 3: Find the completion time(C) of jobs / customers coming out of Phase I, .i.e. when processed
thought the network of queues Q1, Q2 and Q3 by using the formula

19

Vol 3, No.2, 2012
1
C = E (W ) + .
µ1 p12 + µ1 p13 + µ2 p21 + µ2 p23 + µ3
Step 4: The completion time C of the customers / jobs through the network of queues Q1, Q2 and Q3 will be
the setup time for machine M1. Define the two machines M1, M2 with processing time Ai'1 = Ai1 + C and Ai2.
Step 5: Find the processing time of job block β = ( k , m) on two machines M1 and M2 using equivalent job
block theorem given by Maggu & Das (1977). Find Aβ 1 and Aβ 2 using
Aβ 1 = A'k1 + A'm1 − Min( A'm1 , Ak 2 )
Aβ 2 = Ak 2 + Am 2 − Min( A'm1 , Ak 2 )
Step 6: Define a new reduced problem for machines M1 and M2 with processing time Ai'1 and Ai2 and
replacing the job block ( k, m) by a single equivalent job β with processing time Aβ 1 and Aβ 2 .
Step 7: Apply Johnson’s (1954) procedure to find the optimal sequence(s) with minimum elapsed time.
Step 8: Prepare In-Out tables for the optimal sequence(s) obtained in step 7. The sequence Sk having
minimum total elapsed time will be the optimal sequence for the given problem.

6. Programme
#include<iostream.h>
#include<stdio.h>
#include<conio.h>
#include<process.h>
#include<math.h>

int n1[2],u[3],L[2];
int j[16],n;
float macha[16],machb[16],machc[16],maxv1[16];
float p[4];float r[3];
float g[16],h[16],a[16],b[16];float a1,b1,a2,b2,a3,b3,c1,c2,c3,P,Q,V,W,M;float q1,q2,q3,z,f,c;
void main()
{
clrscr();
int group[16];//variables to store two job blocks
float minval, minv, maxv; float gbeta=0.0,hbeta=0.0;
cout<<"Enter the number of customers and Mean Arrival Rate for Channel S1:";
cin>>n1[1]>>L[1];
cout<<"nEnter the number of customers and Mean Arrival Rate for Channel S2:";
cin>>n1[2]>>L[2]; n=n1[1]+n1[2];
if(n<1 || n>15)
{
cout<<endl<<"Wrong input, No. of jobs should be less than 15..n Exitting";
getch();
exit(0);
}

20

Vol 3, No.2, 2012
for(int d=1;d<=3;d++)
{
cout<<"nEnter the Mean Service Rate for the Channel S"<<d<<":"; cin>>u[d];
}
for(int k=1;k<=4;k++)
{
cout<<"nEnter the value of probability p"<<k<<":";cin>>p[k];
}
for(int i=1;i<=n;i++)
{
j[i]=i;
cout<<"nEnter the processing time of "<<i<<" job for machine A : ";cin>>a[i];
cout<<"nEnter the processing time of "<<i<<" job for machine B : ";cin>>b[i];
}
a1=L[1]+L[2]*p[3];b1=(1-p[1]*p[3])*u[1];
r[1]=a1/b1;a2=L[2]+L[1]*p[1];b2=(1-p[1]*p[3])*u[2];
r[2]=a2/b2;b3=(L[1]+(L[2]*p[3]))*p[2]+(L[2]+(L[1]*p[1]))*p[4];c2=u[3]*(1-(p[1]*p[3]));
c3=b3/c2;r[3]=c1+c3;M=L[1]+L[2];
cout<<"r[1]tt"<<r[1]<<"n";cout<<"r[2]tt"<<r[2]<<"n";cout<<"r[3]tt"<<r[3]<<"n";
if(r[1],r[2],r[3]>1)
{
cout<<"Steady state condition does not holds good...nExitting";
getch();exit(0);
}
Q=(r[1]/(1-r[1]))+(r[2]/(1-r[2]))+(r[3]/(1-r[3]));
cout<<"nThe mean queue length is :"<<Q<<"n";
W=Q/M;
cout<<"nAverage waiting time for the customer is:"<<W<<"n";
z=u[1]*p[1]+u[1]*p[2]+u[2]*p[3]+u[2]*p[4]+u[3];
f=1/z;c= W+f;
cout<<"nnTotal completetion time of Jobs / Customers through Queue Network in Phase 1
:"<<c;
for(i=1;i<=n;i++)
{
g[i]=a[i]+c;h[i]=b[i];
}
for(i=1;i<=n;i++)
{
cout<<"nn"<<j[i]<<"t"<<g[i]<<"t"<<h[i];cout<<endl;
}

21

Vol 3, No.2, 2012
cout<<"nEnter the two job blocks(two numbers from 1 to "<<n<<"):";
cin>>group[0]>>group[1];
//calculate G_Beta and H_Beta
if(g[group[1]]<h[group[0]])
{
minv=g[group[1]];
}
else
{
minv=h[group[0]];
}
gbeta=g[group[0]]+g[group[1]]-minv;hbeta=h[group[0]]+h[group[1]]-minv;
cout<<endl<<endl<<"G_Beta="<<gbeta;cout<<endl<<"H_Beta="<<hbeta;
int j1[16];int f=1;float g1[16],h1[16];
for(i=1;i<=n;i++)
{
if(j[i]==group[0]||j[i]==group[1])
{
f--;
}
else
{
j1[f]=j[i];
}
f++;
}
j1[n-1]=17;
for(i=1;i<=n-2;i++)
{
g1[i]=g[j1[i]];
h1[i]=h[j1[i]];
}
g1[n-1]=gbeta;
h1[n-1]=hbeta;
cout<<endl<<endl<<"displaying original scheduling table"<<endl;
for(i=1;i<=n-1;i++)
{
cout<<j1[i]<<"t"<<g1[i]<<"t"<<h1[i]<<endl;
}
float mingh[16];char ch[16];

22

Vol 3, No.2, 2012
for(i=1;i<=n-1;i++)
{
if(g1[i]<h1[i])
{
mingh[i]=g1[i];ch[i]='g';
}
else
{
mingh[i]=h1[i];ch[i]='h';
}

}
for(i=1;i<=n-1;i++)
{
for(int j=1;j<=n-1;j++)
if(mingh[i]<mingh[j])
{
float temp=mingh[i]; int temp1=j1[i];
char d=ch[i];
mingh[i]=mingh[j]; j1[i]=j1[j]; ch[i]=ch[j];
mingh[j]=temp; j1[j]=temp1; ch[j]=d;
}
}
// calculate beta scheduling
float sbeta[16];
int t=1,s=0;
for(i=1;i<=n-1;i++)
{
if(ch[i]=='h')
{
sbeta[(n-s-1)]=j1[i];
s++;
}
else if(ch[i]=='g')
{
sbeta[t]=j1[i];
t++;
}
}
int arr1[16], m=1;

23

Vol 3, No.2, 2012
cout<<endl<<endl<<"Job Scheduling:"<<"t";
for(i=1;i<=n-1;i++)
{
if(sbeta[i]==17)
{
arr1[m]=group[0];
arr1[m+1]=group[1];
cout<<group[0]<<" "<<group[1]<<" ";
m=m+2;
continue;
}
else
{
cout<<sbeta[i]<<" ";
arr1[m]=sbeta[i];
m++;
}
}
//calculating total computation sequence
float time=0.0;
macha[1]=time+g[arr1[1]];
for(i=2;i<=n;i++)
{
macha[i]=macha[i-1]+g[arr1[i]];
}
machb[1]=macha[1]+h[arr1[1]];
for(i=2;i<=n;i++)
{
if((machb[i-1])>(macha[i]))
maxv1[i]=machb[i-1];
else
maxv1[i]=macha[i];
machb[i]=maxv1[i]+h[arr1[i]];
}

//displaying solution
cout<<"nnnnnttt #####THE SOLUTION##### ";
cout<<"nnt***************************************************************";
cout<<"nnnt Optimal Sequence is : ";
for(i=1;i<=n;i++)

24

Vol 3, No.2, 2012
{
cout<<" "<<arr1[i];
}
cout<<endl<<endl<<"In-Out Table is:"<<endl<<endl;
cout<<"Jobs"<<"t"<<"Machine M1"<<"t"<<"t"<<"Machine M2" <<"t"<<endl;
cout<<arr1[1]<<"t"<<time<<"--"<<macha[1]<<" t"<<"t"<<macha[1]<<"--"<<machb[1]<<" t"<<endl;
for(i=2;i<=n;i++)
{
cout<<arr1[i]<<"t"<<macha[i-1]<<"--"<<macha[i]<<""<<"t"<<maxv1[i]<<"--"<<machb[i]<<"
"<<"t"<<endl;
}
cout<<"nnnTotal Elapsed Time (T) = "<<machb[n];
cout<<"nnt***************************************************************";
getch();
}

7. Numerical Illustration
Consider eight customers / jobs are processed through the network of three queues Q1, Q2 and Q3 with the
channels S1, S2 and S3, where S3 is commonly linked in series with each of the two parallel biserial channels
S1 and S2. Let the number of the customers, mean arrival rate, mean service rate and associated
probabilities are given as follows:
S. No No. of Customers Mean Arrival Rate Mean Service Rate Probabilities
1 n1= 5 λ1 = 5 µ1 =12 p12 = 0.4
2 n2= 3 λ2 =4 µ2 = 9 p13 = 0.6
µ3 = 10 p21 = 0.5
p23 = 0.5
Table 1
After completing the service at Phase I jobs / customers go to the machines M1 and M2 with processing
time Ai1and Ai2 respectively given as follows:
Jobs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Machine M1 (Ai1) 10 12 8 11 9 8 10 11
Machine M2 (Ai2) 13 12 10 9 8 12 7 8
Table 2
Further jobs 2 and 5 are processed as job block β = (2, 5). The objective is to find an optimal sequence of
the jobs / customers to minimize the makespan in this Queue-Scheduling linkage system by considering the
first phase service into account.
Solution: We have
λ1 + λ2 p21 5 + 4 × 0.5 7
ρ1 = = =
(1 − p12 p21 ) µ1 (1 − 0.4 × 0.5)12 9.6
λ2 + λ1 p12 4 + 5 × 0.4 6
ρ2 = = =
(1 − p12 p21 ) µ2 (1 − 0.4 × 0.5)9 7.2

25

Vol 3, No.2, 2012
 ( λ + λ p ) p + (λ2 + λ1 p12 ) p23  (5 + 4 × 0.5)0.6 + (4 + 5 × 0.4)0.5 7.2
ρ3 =  1 2 21 13 = = .

 µ3 (1 − p12 p21 ) 
 11(1 − 0.4 × 0.5) 8.8

ρ1 ρ2 ρ
Mean Queue Length = Average number of Jobs / Customers = L = + + 3 = 12.2692
1 − ρ1 1 − ρ 2 1 − ρ3
L 12.2692
Average waiting time of the jobs / customers = E ( w) = = = 1.3632 .
λ 9
The total completion time of Jobs / Customers when processed through queue network in Phase I
1
= C = E (W ) + .
µ1 p12 + µ1 p13 + µ2 p21 + µ2 p23 + µ3
1
= 1.3632 + = 1.39445 ≈ 1.39.
4.8 + 7.2 + 4.5 + 4.5 + 11
On taking the completion time C = 1.39 as the setup time, when jobs / customers came for processing with
machine M1. The new reduced two machine problem with processing times Ai'1 = Ai1 + C and Ai2 on
machine M1 and M2 is as shown in table 3.
The processing times of equivalent job block β = (2, 5) by using Maggu & Das(1977) criteria are given by
Aβ 1 = A'k1 + A'm1 − Min( A'm1 , Ak 2 ) = 13.39
Aβ 2 = Ak 2 + Am 2 − Min( A'm1 , Ak 2 ) = 9.61
The reduced two machine problem with processing times Ai'1 and Ai2 on machine M1 and M2 with jobs (2,
5) as a job-block β is as shown in table 3.
Using Johnson’s (1954) algorithm, we get the optimal sequence(s)
S1 = 3 – 6 – 1 - β - 4 – 8 – 7 = 3 – 6 – 1 – 2 – 5 - 4 – 8 – 7
S2 = 6 – 3 – 1 - β - 4 – 8 – 7 = 6 – 3 – 1 – 2 – 5 - 4 – 8 – 7.
The In-Out flow table for the sequence S1= 3 – 6 – 1 – 2 – 5 - 4 – 8 – 7 is as shown in table 4.
Therefore, the total elapsed time for sequence S1 = 97.12 units.
The In-Out flow table for the sequence S2= 6 – 3 – 1 – 2 – 5 - 4 – 8 – 7 is as shown in table 5.
Therefore the total elapsed time for sequence S2= 97.12 = the total elapsed time for sequence S1.
Therefore the optimal sequence(s) is S1= 3 – 6 – 1 – 2 – 5 - 4 – 8 – 7 or S2= 6 – 3 – 1 – 2 – 5 - 4 – 8 – 7.

8. Conclusion
The present paper is an attempt to study the queue network model combined with a two stage flowshop
scheduling including job-block criteria with a common objective of minimizing the total elapsed time. A
heuristic algorithm by considering the completion time of queuing network in Phase I as setup time for the
first machine in Phase II. The concept of job-block is introduced to create a balance between the cost of
providing priority in service to the customers / jobs and cost of giving services with non-priority customers
/ jobs. The study may further be extended by introducing various types of queuing models and different
parameters for two and three stage flowshop scheduling models under different constraints.

9. References
Bagga,P.C. & Ambika Bhambani(1977), “Bicriteria in flow shop scheduling problem”, Journal of
Combinatorics, Information and System Sciences, Vol. 22,(1997), pp 63-83.
Campell, H.A., Duder, R.A. and Smith, M.L., (1970), “A heuristic algorithm for n-jobs, m-machines
sequencing problem”, Management Science, 16, B630-B637.

26

Vol 3, No.2, 2012
Chander Shekharn, K, Rajendra, Deepak Chanderi (1992),”An efficient heuristic approach to the
scheduling of jobs in a flow shop”, European Journal of Operation Research , 61, 318-325.
Gupta Deepak, Singh T.P., Rajinder kumar (2007), “Analysis of a network queue model comprised of
biserial and parallel channel linked with a common server”, Ultra Science Vol. 19(2) M, 407-418.
Johnson, S.M.(1954), “Optimal two & three stage production schedules with set up times includes”, Nav.
Res. Log. Quart. Vol 1. , 61-68.
Kumar Vinod, Singh T.P. and K. Rajinder (2006), “Steady state behaviour of a queue model comprised of
two subsystems with biserial linked with common channel”, Reflection des ERA. 1(2), May 2006, 135-152 .
Ignall E. and Schrage L. (1965), “Application of the branch and bound technique to some flow shop
scheduling problems”, Operation Research, 13, 400-412.
Jackson, R.R.P.(1954), “Queuing system with phase type service”, O.R.Quat. 5,109-120.
Maggu, P.L.(1970),”Phase type service queue with two channels in Biserial”, J.OP. RES. Soc Japan 13(1).
Singh T.P., Kumar Vinod and K.Rajinder (2005), “On transient behaviour of a queuing network with
parallel biserial queues”, JMASS, 1(2), December , 68-75.
Maggu, Singh T.P. & Kumar Vinod (2007), “A note on serial queuing & scheduling linkage”, PAMS,
LXV(1),117-118.
Maggu P. L and Das G. (1977), “Equivalent jobs for job block in job sequencing”, Opsearch, 14(4), 277-
281.
Maggu P. L. and Das G. (1985), “Elements of advance production scheduling”, United Publishers and
Periodical Distributors, New Delhi
Nawaz, M., Enscore E. E., jr, & Ham, L. (1983), “A heuristic algorithm for the m machine, n job flow shop
sequencing problem”, OMEGA, 11(1), 91-95.
Narain, C. (2006), “Special models in flow shop sequencing problem”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Delhi.
Rajendran, C (1992), “Two machine flow shop scheduling problem with bicriteria”, Journal of Operational
Research Society, 43, 871-884.
Singh, T.P. (1986), “On some networks of queuing & scheduling system”, Ph.D., Thesis, Garhwal
University, Shrinagar, Garhwal.
Singh, T.P. & Kumar Vinod (2007), “On Linkage of queues in semi-series to a flowshop scheduling
system”, Int. Agrkult. Stat.sci., 3(2), 571-580.
Singh,T.P., Kumar Vinod & Kumar Rajinder (2008), “Linkage scheduling system with a serial queue-
network”, Lingaya’s Journal of professional studies, 2(1), 25-30.
Singh, T.P., Kumar Vinod (2009), “On linkage of a scheduling system with biserial queue network”, Arya
Bhatta Journal of Mathematics & Informatics, 1(1), 71- 76.
Smith, W.E. (1956), “Various optimizers for single stage production”, Naval Research Logistic , 3, 89-66.
Singh, T.P. (1985), “On n x 2 flow shop problem involving Job Block, Transportation time, arbitrary time
and break-down machine time”, PAMS, XXI, No. 1-2, March.

Tables
Table 3: The processing times Ai'1 and Ai2 on machine M1 and M2 is

Jobs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Machine M1 (A’i1) 11.39 13.39 9.39 12.39 10.39 9.39 11.39 12.39
Machine M2 (Ai2) 13 12 10 9 8 12 7 8
Table 4: The In-Out flow table for the sequence S1= 3 – 6 – 1 – 2 – 5 - 4 – 8 – 7 is

27

Vol 3, No.2, 2012

Jobs Machine M1 Machine M2
3 0.0 – 9.39 9.39 – 19.39
6 9.39 – 18.78 19.39 – 31.39
1 18.78 – 30.17 31.39 – 44.39
2 30.17 – 43.56 44.39 – 56.39
5 43.56 – 53.95 56.39 – 64.39
4 53.95 – 66.34 66.34 – 75.34
8 66.34 – 78.73 78.73 – 86.73
7 78.73 – 90.12 90.12 – 97.12
Table 5: The In-Out flow table for the sequence S2= 6 – 3 – 1 – 2 – 5 - 4 – 8 – 7 is

Jobs Machine M1 Machine M2
6 0.0 – 9.39 9.39 – 21.39
3 9.39 – 18.78 21.39 – 31.39
1 18.78 – 30.17 31.39 – 44.39
2 30.17 – 43.56 44.39 – 56.39
5 43.56 – 53.95 56.39 – 64.39
4 53.95 – 66.34 66.34 – 75.34
8 66.34 – 78.73 78.73 – 86.73
7 78.73 – 90.12 90.12 – 97.12

28

On linkage of a flow shop scheduling model including job block criteria with a parallel biserial queue network

More Related Content

What's hot (10)

Similar to On linkage of a flow shop scheduling model including job block criteria with a parallel biserial queue network (20)

More from Alexander Decker (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

On linkage of a flow shop scheduling model including job block criteria with a parallel biserial queue network