MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036618906 · doi:10.1177/0954405420927578

Designing a scheduling decision support system for the skin pass line: A case study of the steel finishing line

2020· article· en· W3036618906 on OpenAlexaff
Parinaz Vaez, Armin Jabbarzadeh, Nader Azad

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B Journal of Engineering Manufacture · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChangeoverTardinessMathematical optimizationComputer scienceScheduling (production processes)Production lineComputationJob shop schedulingHeuristicAlgorithmEngineeringMathematicsSchedule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we investigate the scheduling policies in the iron and steel industry, and in particular, we formulate and propose a solution to a complicated problem called skin pass production scheduling in this industry. The solution is to generate multiple production turns for the skin pass coils and, at the same time, determine the sequence of these turns so that productivity and product quality are maximized, while the total production scheduling cost, including the costs of tardiness, flow of material, and the changeover cost between adjacent and non-adjacent coils, is minimized. This study has been prompted by a practical problem in an international steel company in Iran. In this study, we present a new mixed integer programming model and develop a heuristic algorithm, as the commercial solvers would have difficulty in solving the problem. In our heuristic algorithm, initial solutions are obtained by a greedy constraint satisfaction algorithm, and then a local search method is developed to improve the initial solution. The experimental results tested on the data collected from the steel company show the efficiency of the proposed heuristic algorithm by solving a large-sized instance in a reasonable computation time. The average deviation between the manual method and the heuristic algorithm is 30%. Also, in all the components of the objective function, the algorithm performs better compared to the manual method. The improved values are greater than 15. In addition, we develop a commercial decision support system for the implementation of the proposed algorithm in the steel company.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B Journal of Engineering ManufactureSame topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207