5.1.1. Instance 1. Uncertainties via a Poisson distribution during the processing time
[
72] initially designed an instance process utilized as a motivating instance in
Section 1 of the article [
10] on finite uncertainties. Therefore, 2 products have been generated through 3 feeds following the State-Task Network (
Figure 1). Then, STN
22 utilized 3 various kinds of tasks that could be done in 4 diverse units.
Table 1 reports the corresponding data for this instance, including suitability, capacity, processing time, and storage limitation. It aimed at maximizing the profit from selling the products fabricated in the timetable equal to twelve hours.
Suppose that uncertainties during the processing time would have a Poisson distribution with the value equal to 5, the level of uncertainty (
) equal to 5%, in0feasibility tolerance (
δ) equal to 20%, and the reliability level (
κ) equal to 24% (relative to
λ-value equal to 6). When
RC [
, δ, κ] problem has been solved, a
“robust” schedule has been achieved (
Figure 3) that investigated uncertainty in the processing time.
Figure 2 depicts the nominal schedule.
Compared with the nominal solution (NS) achieved at the NVs of the processing duration, a correct situation exhibited many distinct scheduling approaches. For instance, even the sequence of tasks in the 2 reactors in
Figure 3 experienced a significant deviation from
Figure 1.
Moreover, compared with the NS attained at the NVs of the processing time, a correct situation was exhibited, so various scheduling approaches were used. For instance, even the task sequences in the 2 reactors in
Figure 3 considerably deviated.
Sequences in NS in
Figure 2. As seen, the correct solutions ensured the feasibility of a correct schedule with a given level of uncertainty, reliability, and infeasibility tolerance. Nonetheless, a reduction of the resultant profit from 3638.75 to 2887.19 has been reported, representing the effects of uncertainty on the overall production.
Table 2 compares the pattern and solution statistics for robust and NSs.
Figure 4 is a summary of the outputs of the RC problem with numerous diverse mixes of infeasibility and uncertainty levels at enhancing values of the level of reliability. As shown, at a certain level of reliability, maximal profit, which could be gained, decreased by increasing the level of uncertainty, reflecting further conservative scheduling decisions due to uncertainty. Moreover, at the specific level of reliability, maximal profit increased by enhancing the tolerance level of infeasibility. It is possible to incorporate a more aggressive scheduling arrangement if violations of the pertinent timing constraints could be further tolerated. Additionally, at the specific level of uncertainty and infeasibility tolerance, profit increased by enhancing the level of reliability, reflecting that probable violation of uncertain constraints allowed for more aggressive scheduling. Therefore, the obtained outputs would be compatible with intuition and other approaches. Nevertheless, considering the powerful optimisation protocol, the impacts of uncertainties and the trade-off between the opposed goals would be effectively and rigorously quantified.
5.1.2. Instance 2. Uncertainty via a smooth distribution in the demand of the goods
According to instance 2, uncertainties have been considered with a smooth dispersion in demand for the goods for a similar procedure provided in instance 1. Nonetheless, the objective function has been to minimize the make-span for a certain demand equal to 70 for good 1 and 80 for good 2. The level of uncertainties
equaled 10%, and in-feasibility tolerance (δ) equaled 5%. Moreover, the level of reliability (κ) has been 0%.
Figure 5 demonstrates a nominal schedule with a make-span equal to 8.007. According to
Figure 6, a robust schedule was achieved by solving the robust counter-part problem so that the corresponding make-span equaled 8.174. In the case of the execution of the obtained schedule, the make-span would be ensured to be at most 8.174 with a 100% probability in the exitance of 10% uncertainty in the product demand.
Table 3 compares the pattern and solution statistics for a robust and NS.
Figure 7 represents a summary of the outputs of the RC problem with multiple diverse combinations of infeasibility as well as uncertainty levels at the enhancing values of the level of reliability. As observed, at a certain level of reliability, the Min make-span increased by enhancing the level of uncertainty, indicating more conservative scheduling decisions, which further lasted due to uncertainties in demand. Moreover, at the constant levels of reliability, the Min make-span decreased by increasing the level of infeasibility tolerance, meaning that scheduling arrangements with higher aggression could be included if a violation of the relevant demand limitations.
It could be further allowed. Put differently, at a certain level of uncertainty and infeasibility tolerance, make-span decreased by increasing reliability, reflecting that probable violations of uncertain constraints allowed for more aggressive scheduling. Hence, it is possible to quantify the effects of uncertainty on schedule using a robust optimisation protocol.
5.1.3. Instance 3. Uncertainty via normal distribution in the market price
For this instance, the level of uncertainty has been investigated via a normalized distribution in the market price for a similar procedure in instances 1 and 2. Nonetheless, the objective function has been to maximise profits in eight hours. The level of uncertainty (
), infeasibility tolerance (δ), and level of reliability (κ) equaled 5, 5, and 5%.
Figure 8 shows a nominal schedule with a profit equal to 1088.75. Moreover, the robust schedule has been achieved via solving the robust counter-part issue (
Figure 9), and the corresponding advantage equaled 966.97. Upon the implementation of the schedule, the profit has been ensured to be not less than 966.97 with a 95% probability in the exitance of 5% uncertainty in the raw materials and product prices.
Table 4 compares the pattern and solution statistics for a robust and NS.
Figure 10 represents a summary of RC problem outputs at multiple diverse levels of uncertainties and 0% in-feasibility tolerances at the enhancing amounts of level of reliability. As seen in the figure, at a certain level of reliability, maximal profit, which could be gained, decreased by enhancing the level of uncertainty, indicating more conservative scheduling decisions due to uncertainty. Moreover, at a certain level of uncertainty and infeasibility tolerance, profit increased by enhancing the level of reliability, demonstrating that with the increase of probable violation of uncertain constraint or κ, λ decreased, and the profit took on a greater value based on Equation (18):
So that is the reverse distribution functions of the random variables with the standard normalized distribution.
Notably, the above instance considered uncertainties during the procedure time of missions for the industrial empirical report initially provided in the [
73] study. Therefore, actual plant data has been utilized for determining the kinds and levels of uncertainty in the processing time. The industrial plant has been a multi-product chemical plant, which manufactured tens of various goods following a major 3-phase recipe and its changes with ten pieces of instrumentation. Therefore, the first sub-horizon in [
73] study contained 5 days and 8 products. Hence, the objective function has been to maximise the general production described as the weighted sum of the substances aggregated after the sub-horizon minus a penalty term for the lack of satisfaction of the demands with mid-term deadlines. Finally, a processing recipe demonstrated in
Figure 11 has been utilized for each product.
This plant consisted of 3 kinds of units, each corresponding to 1 of 3 major processing operations. Therefore, 4 types of 1 unit (units 1 to 4) have been utilized for operation 1, 3 types of 2 units (units 5 to 7) have been employed for operation 2, and 3 types 3 units (units 8 to 10) have been utilized for operation 3. Then, type 1 and type 3 units were applied in the batch mode, whereas type 2 units acted in a continual mode. Moreover,
Table 5 presents the nominal processing duration or the processing rates of all tasks in the relative proper units.
Therefore, to determine the forms of uncertainties in the processing duration or rate, we addressed the analysis of the actual plant data. Hence, 2 various kinds of uncertainty have been selected based on the data: uncertainties via a normal distribution and finite uncertainties. For bounded uncertainty, ranges for unknown variables have been provided, and mean and standard deviation (SD) for uncertain parameters have been determined for normal uncertainty. Moreover, a total number of 23 uncertain parameters has been recognized, including 8 in units 1 to 4, 5 in units 5 to 7, and 10 in units 8 to 10.
Table 6 summarizes all uncertain parameters’ characteristic NVs, mean, range, and SDs.
Strategy 2 for uncertainties in the processing duration or the rate in
Section 3.2 would be utilized for the mentioned case study. Besides major sequencing constraints, the processing times appeared in 2 further constraints associated with timing operation 1 mission:
So that
Ir represents a series of operation 1 tasks.
Jr refers to a collection of type 1 units appropriate for operation 1 tasks. When
Tf (i, j, n) variables are substituted, further constraints have been proposed below for parameters via the bounded uncertainty for obtaining the robust counter-part issue:
Here
represent a varied and correlate as followed with factor δ, which participated in further limitations relative to major sequencing limitations:
Accordingly, further limitations would be proposed for variables with normal uncertainties:
So that δ2 would be described as:
As seen, the objective function for the above issue would be to maximise the production of the relative values of each state minus a penalty term for the lack of contentment of the demand at the intermediate due date:
So that
valds represent the corresponding values of the relative product reflecting the respective significance for fulfilling the future demands. In addition,
valps refers to the relative value of the corresponding products representing the respective priority, and
valms stands for the relative values of the state (s) in the materials sequences for the corresponding products. Moreover, STF(s) indicates the amounts of state (s) at the end of the horizon, and
prisn refers to the demand priority
25 [
74] for the state (s) at the event point (n). Furthermore, SL (s, n) represents a slack variable for the number of states (s) which has not met the demand at the event point (n), and γ stands for a fixed coefficient applied for balancing the relative value of 2 terms in the
Obj function.
It should be noted that this problem required additional sequencing constraints (19) to (21) for accurate scheduling of the operation 1 task. However, using such constraints to account for problem uncertainty led to a (MILP) problem because they only had one uncertain parameter, which produced linear deterministic types for typical unknown and constrained restrictions.