Scheduling Methods for Efficient Stamping Operations at an Automotive Company
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider scheduling issues at Beyçelik, a Turkish automotive stamping company that uses presses to give shape to metal sheets in order to produce auto parts. The problem concerns the minimization of the total completion time of job orders (i.e., makespan) during a planning horizon. This problem may be classified as a combined generalized flowshop and flexible flowshop problem with special characteristics. We show that the Stamping Scheduling Problem is NP‐Hard. We develop an integer programming‐based method to build realistic and usable schedules. Our results show that the proposed method is able to find higher quality schedules (i.e., shorter makespan values) than both the company's current process and a model from the literature. However, the proposed method has a relatively long run time, which is not practical for the company in situations when a (new) schedule is needed quickly (e.g., when there is a machine breakdown or a rush order). To improve the solution time, we develop a second method that is inspired by decomposition. We show that the second method provides higher‐quality solutions—and in most cases optimal solutions—in a shorter time. We compare the performance of all three methods with the company's schedules. The second method finds a solution in minutes compared to Beyçelik's current process, which takes 28 hours. Further, the makespan values of the second method are about 6.1% shorter than the company's schedules. We estimate that the company can save over €187,000 annually by using the second method. We believe that the models and methods developed in this study can be used in similar companies and industries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".