MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240874259 · doi:10.1080/07408170108936848

Scheduling of the optimal tool replacement times in a flexible manufacturing system

2001· article· en· W4240874259 on OpenAlexaff
PATRICK H. LIU, Viliam Makiš, Andrew Jardine

Bibliographic record

VenueIIE Transactions · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSupply Chain and Inventory Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexible manufacturing systemFlexibility (engineering)Scheduling (production processes)MachiningTime horizonScheduleReliability (semiconductor)Job shop schedulingMathematical optimizationComputer scienceDynamic programmingFailure rateReliability engineeringEngineeringAlgorithmMechanical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Flexible Manufacturing Systems (FMSs). a cutting tool is frequently used for different operations and on different part types to minimize tool change-overs and the number of tools required, and to increase part-routing flexibility. In such situations, the tools become shared resources and work in job-dependent, changeable and nonhomogeneous conditions. It is well known that the tool failure rate depends on both age and machining conditions and that tool reliability is a function of the duration, machining conditions, and the sequence of the operations in FMS. The objective of this paper is to obtain a schedule of the optimal preventive replacement times for the cutting tools over a finite time horizon in a flexible manufacturing system. We assume that the tool will be replaced either upon failure during an operation or preventively after the completion of each operation, incurring different replacement costs. A standard stochastic dynamic programming approach is taken to obtain the optimal tool replacement times. The optimal schedule is obtained by minimizing the total expected cost over a finite time horizon for a given sequence of operations. A computational algorithm is developed and a numerical example is given to demonstrate the procedure.

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)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations30
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIIE TransactionsSame topicSupply Chain and Inventory ManagementFrench-language works237,207