mathematics

Article
Improved Whale Algorithm for Solving the Flexible
Job Shop Scheduling Problem
Fei Luan 1,2, *, Zongyan Cai 1 , Shuqiang Wu 1 , Tianhua Jiang 3 , Fukang Li 1 and Jia Yang 1
1 School of Construction Machinery, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China; czyan@chd.edu.cn (Z.C.);
wushuqiangjob@163.com (S.W.); fukangli198@163.com (F.L.); yangjialearning@163.com (J.Y.)
2 College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Shaanxi University of Science & Technology,
Xi’an 710021, China
3 School of Transportation, Ludong University, Yantai 264025, China; jth1127@163.com
* Correspondence: luanfei@sust.edu.cn




Received: 6 March 2019; Accepted: 24 April 2019; Published: 28 April 2019


Abstract: In this paper, a novel improved whale optimization algorithm (IWOA), based on the
integrated approach, is presented for solving the flexible job shop scheduling problem (FJSP) with the
objective of minimizing makespan. First of all, to make the whale optimization algorithm (WOA)
adaptive to the FJSP, the conversion method between the whale individual position vector and
the scheduling solution is firstly proposed. Secondly, a resultful initialization scheme with certain
quality is obtained using chaotic reverse learning (CRL) strategies. Thirdly, a nonlinear convergence
factor (NFC) and an adaptive weight (AW) are introduced to balance the abilities of exploitation
and exploration of the algorithm. Furthermore, a variable neighborhood search (VNS) operation is
performed on the current optimal individual to enhance the accuracy and effectiveness of the local
exploration. Experimental results on various benchmark instances show that the proposed IWOA
can obtain competitive results compared to the existing algorithms in a short time.

Keywords: whale optimization algorithm; flexible job shop scheduling problem; nonlinear
convergence factor; adaptive weight; variable neighborhood search

1. Introduction
In recent years, scheduling played a crucial role in almost all manufacturing systems, as global
competition became more and more intense. The classical job shop scheduling problem (JSP) is
one of the most important scheduling forms existing in real manufacturing. It became a hotspot in
the academic circle and received a large amount of attention in the research literature with its wide
applicability and inherent complexity [1–3]. In JSP, a group of jobs need to be processed on a set of
machines, where each job consists of a set of operations with a fixed order. The processing of each
operation of the jobs must be performed on a given machine. Each machine is continuously available
at time zero and can process only one operation at a time without interruption. The decision concerns
how to sequence the operations of all the jobs on the machines, so that a given performance indicator
can be optimized. Makespan is the time in which all the jobs need to be completed and is a typical
performance indicator for the JSP.
The flexible job shop scheduling problem (FJSP) is an extension of the classical JSP, where each
operation can be processed by any machine in a given set rather than one specified machine. The FJSP
is closer to a real manufacturing environment compared with classical JSP. According to its practical
applicability, the FJSP became very crucial in both academic and application fields. However, it is more
difficult than classical JSP because it contains an additional decision problem, assigning operations to

Mathematics 2019, 7, 384; doi:10.3390/math7050384 www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics

Mathematics 2019, 7, 384 2 of 14

the appropriate machine. Therefore, the FJSP is a problem of challenging complexity and was proven
to be non-deterministic polynomial-time (NP)-hard [4].
In the initial study, Brucker and Schlie firstly proposed a polynomial algorithm for solving the
FJSP with two jobs [5]. During the past two decades, the FJSP attracted the interest of many researchers.
There were many approximation algorithms, mainly metaheuristics, presented for solving the FJSP.
Dauzere-Peres and Paulli [6] proposed a tabu search (TS) algorithm which was based on a new
neighborhood structure for the FJSP. Mastrolilli and Gambardella [7] designed two neighborhood
functions and presented an improved TS algorithm based on the original one which was proposed in
literature [6]. Mati et al. [8] proposed a genetic algorithm for solving the FJSP with blocking constraints.
Regarding the FJSP, Mousakhani. [9] developed a mixed-integer linear programming model (MILP)
and designed an iterated local search algorithm to minimize total tardiness. Yuan et al. [10] designed a
novel hybrid harmony search (HHS) algorithm based on the integrated approach for solving the FJSP
with the objective to minimize makespan. Tao and Hua [11] presented an improved bacterial foraging
algorithm (BFOA) based on cloud computing to solve the multi-objective flexible job shop scheduling
problem (MOFJSP). Gong et al. [12] proposed a double flexible job shop scheduling problem (DFJSP)
with flexible machines and workers, and then a new hybrid genetic algorithm (NHGA) was designed to
solve the proposed DFJSP. Wang et al. [13] presented a two-stage energy-saving optimization algorithm
for the FJSP. In their methods, the problem was divided into two subproblems: the machine assignment
problem and the operation sequencing problem. An improved genetic algorithm was designed to solve
the machine assignment problem and a genetic particle swarm hybrid algorithm was developed for
the operation sequencing problem. An improved particle swarm optimization (PSO) was developed
by Marzouki et al. [14]. Yuan and Xu [15] designed memetic algorithms (MAs) for solving the MOFJSP
with three objectives, makespan, total workload, and critical workload. Gao et al. [16] proposed a
discrete harmony search (DHS) to solve the MOFJSP with two objectives of makespan, the mean
of earliness and tardiness. Piroozfard et al. [17] devised a novel multi-objective genetic algorithm
(MOGA) for solving the problem with two conflicting objectives, total carbon footprint and total late
work. Jiang et al. [18] pronounced a gray wolf optimization algorithm with a double-searching mode
(DMGWO) to solve the energy-efficient job shop scheduling problem (EJSP). Singh and Mahapatra [19]
proposed an improved particle swarm optimization (PSO) for the FJSP, in which quantum behavior
and a logistic map were introduced. Wu and Sun. [20] presented a green scheduling algorithm for
solving the energy-saving flexible job shop scheduling problem (EFJSP).
According to their potential advantages, many metaheuristic algorithms were proposed and
improved to solve various problems [21–24]. The whale optimization algorithm (WOA) is a new
metaheuristic algorithm which imitates the hunting behavior of humpback whales in nature [25].
Because of its characteristics (simple principle, fewer parameter settings, and strong optimization
performance), WOA was applied to deal with various optimization problems in different fields,
i.e., neural networks [26], feature selection [27], image segmentation [28], photovoltaic cells [29],
the energy-efficient job shop scheduling problem [30], and the permutation flow shop scheduling
problem [31]. This motivates us to present an improved whale optimization algorithm (IWOA) that can
minimize the makespan of the FJSP. In our proposed IWOA, in order to make the whale optimization
algorithm (WOA) adaptive to the FJSP, the conversion between the whale individual position vector
and the scheduling solution is implemented by utilizing the converting method proposed in the
literature [10]. Then, a resultful initialization scheme with certain quality is obtained by combining
chaotic opposition-based learning strategies. To converge quickly, a nonlinear convergence factor
and an adaptive weight are introduced to balance the abilities of exploitation and exploration of the
algorithm. Furthermore, a variable neighborhood search operation is performed on the current optimal
individual to enhance the accuracy and effectiveness of the local exploration. Experimental results on
various benchmark instances show that the proposed IWOA can obtain competitive results compared
to the existing algorithms in short time.
Mathematics 2019, 7, 384 3 of 14

The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces the definition of the problem.
Section 3 illustrates the original whale optimization algorithm. In Section 4, the proposed IWOA is
described in detail. Section 5 shows the empirical results of IWOA. Conclusions and suggestions for
future works are provided in Section 6.

2. Problem Description
The FJSP is o section. There are a set of n jobs J = {J1 , J2 , . . . , Jn } and a set of q
n defined in this
machines M = M1 , M2 , . . . , Mq , where ni is the number of operations of job Ji , m is the total number
of all operations, and Oij represents the jth operation of job Ji . Each operation Oij can be processed
on one machine among a set of alternative machines of the jth operation of job Ji . The FJSP can be
decomposed into two subproblems: the routing subproblem of assigning each operation to a machine
among alternative machines Mij , which is a subset of M, and the scheduling subproblem of sequencing
the assigned operations on all alternative machines to attain a feasible schedule for optimizing a certain
objective function.
The FJSP can be classified into total FJSP (TFJSP) and partial FJSP (PFJSP). For the TFJSP, each
operation can be processed on all machines of M. For the PFJSP, each operation can only be processed
on partial machine of M.
Moreover, the following assumptions are put forward in our study: all jobs are processable at
time 0; all machines available at time 0; each machine can process at most one operation at a time; each
operation must be completed once it starts; the transfer time between operations and the set-up time of
machines are negligible.
In this study, the makespan was selected as the objective to be minimized. The mathematical
model can be described as follows:

minCmax = min(max(Ci )), (1)

ST.Sijh − Ci( j−1)k ≥ 0, Yijh = Yi( j−1)k = 1, (2)

Cijk − Sijk = Lijk , Yijk = 1, (3)

Cegk − Cijk ≥ Legk , Rijegk = 1, Yijk = Yegk = 1, (4)

m
X
Yijk = 1, i = 1, 2, . . . n; j = 1, 2, . . . ni , (5)
k =1

Yijk ∈ {0, 1}, i = 1, 2, . . . n; j = 1, 2, . . . ni ; k = 1, 2, . . . q, (6)

Rijegk ∈ {0, 1}, i, e = 1, 2, . . . n; j = 1, 2, . . . ni ; g = 1, 2, . . . ne ; k = 1, 2, . . . q, (7)

1 ≤ i, e ≤ n, 1 ≤ j, g ≤ m, 1 ≤ k, h ≤ q, Sijk , Cijk ≥ 0, (8)

where Cmax is the maximal completion time of jobs, Ci is the continuous variable for the completion
time of job Ji , Lijk denotes the processing time of operation Oij on machine Mk , Mk denotes the kth
machine of M, Cijk is the continuous variable for the completion time of operation Oij processing on
machine Mk , Sijk is the continuous variable for the start time of operation Oij processing on machine
Mk , and Yijk is a 0–1 variable; if operation Oij is processed on machine Mk , Yijk = 1; otherwise, Yijk = 0.
Rijegk is a 0–1 variable; if operation Oij is processed on machine Mk prior to operation Oeg as they both
can be processed on it, Rijegk = 1; otherwise, Rijegk = 0.
Equation (1) indicates the optimizing objective. Equation (2) ensures the operation precedence
constraint. Equation (3) states that each operation must be completed once it starts. Equation (4)
ensures that each machine can processes only one operation at each time. Equation (5) ensures the
operation can be processed only once. Equations (6) and (7) show the relevant 0–1 variables. Equation
(8) denotes the non-negative feature of relevant variables.
Mathematics 2019, 7, 384 4 of 14

3. Whale Optimization Algorithm

The whale optimization algorithm (WOA) is a new intelligent optimization algorithm that mimics
the foraging behavior of humpback whales. After discovering the prey, the humpback whales swim in a
spiral way toward the prey to surround it, at the same time emitting a bubble net for foraging. There are
three kinds of predation methods, namely “encircling prey”, “bubble-net attacking”, and “search for
prey”; among them, “bubble-net attacking” includes two kinds of approaches, namely “shrinking
encircling mechanism” and “spiral updating position”. Thus, the humpback whale’s foraging method
can be described mathematically as shown below.

3.1. Encircling Prey

Since the position of the prey (best position) is unknown in the search space, the WOA assumes
that the current optimal individual is the target prey or is the closest individual to the target prey. After
the optimal individual is discovered, other individuals will update their positions toward the optimal
individual, and this behavior can be represented as follows
→ →∗ →→
X (t + 1) = X (t) − A·D, (9)
→ → →∗ →
D = | C·X (t) − X (t)|, (10)
→ →→ →
A = 2a·r − a, (11)
→ →
C = 2r, (12)
→ → →
where t defines the current iteration, A and C denote coefficient vectors, D represents the distance
→∗ → →∗
between the current optimal individual X (t) and the current individual X (t) at t iteration, X (t)
→
represents the position vector of the optimal individual attained so far, X (t) defines the position
vector of an individual whale, || represents the absolute value, and · means an element-by-element
→
multiplication. Furthermore, r indicates a random vector in [0,1], and a is an element that linearly
decreases from 2 to 0 according to Equation (13) over the course of an iteration, where tmax defines the
maximum of the iteration.
2t
a = 2− . (13)
tmax
The position of an individual whale can be updated according to the position of the current
optimal individual. Different places around the current optimal individual can be obtained with
→ →
regard to the current position by adjusting the values of A and C. It is possible to reach any position
within a feasible solution domain by defining the random vector r. Therefore, Equation (9) allows
any individual whale to update its position in the neighborhood of the current optimal solution and
simulates encircling the prey.

3.2. Bubble-Net Attacking

In the exploitation phase, the humpback whales swim around the prey in a shrinking circle
and along a spiral path simultaneously. To model these two mechanisms, it is assumed that
there is a probability of 50% to choose between them to update the position of whales during
the optimization process.

3.2.1. Shrinking Encircling Mechanism

This behavior is obtained by decreasing the fluctuation range of A in Equation (9). According to
Equation (11), the fluctuation range of A can be decreased by a. Specifically, A is a random value in the
interval [−a, a]. Setting random values for A in [−1,1], the new position of an individual whale can be
Mathematics 2019, 7, 384 5 of 14

defined anywhere in between the original position of the individual and the position of the current
optimal individual.

3.2.2. Spiral Updating Position

To model this mechanism, the distance between the whale and the prey (current optimal individual
position) is firstly calculated, and then a spiral path is achieved between the position of whale and the
prey to simulate the helix-shaped movement of the humpback whales, which can be defined as follows:
→ →0 →∗
X (t + 1) = D ·ebl · cos(2πl) + X (t), (14)
→0 →∗ →
D = |X (t) − X (t)|, (15)
→0 →∗
where D is the absolute value for the distance between the current optimal individual X (t) and the
→
current individual whale X (t) at t iteration, b is a constant and denotes the shape of the logarithmic
spiral, l is a random number in [−1, 1], and · is an element-by-element multiplication.
Thus, the mathematical model of the bubble-net attacking behavior of humpback whales can be
defined by Equation (16), where p is a random number inside [0, 1].

→∗ →→

p < 0.5

→ 
 X (t) − A·D
X (t + 1) =  . (16)

→0 →∗
 D ·ebl · cos(2πl) + X (t)

 p ≥ 0.5

3.3. Search for Prey

In contrast to the exploitation phase, the humpback whales also search for prey randomly; the
mechanism is implemented by the variation of the vector A. When |A| < 1, the exploitation is achieved
by updating the positions toward the current optimal individual; when |A| ≥ 1, the exploration is
adopted by updating the positions toward a randomly chosen individual to search for the global
optimum, which can be denoted as follows:
→ → →→
X (t + 1) = X rand (t) − A·D, (17)
→ →→ →
D = C·X rand (t) − X (t) , (18)

→
where X rand (t) is the individual position vector randomly selected from the current population.

4. The Proposed IWOA

4.1. Scheduling Solution Denotation

As mentioned above, the FJSP contains two subproblems, i.e., machine assignment and operation
sequence. For this feature, a two-segment string with the size of 2mn is used to represent the scheduling
solution. The first segment aims to choose an appropriate machine for each operation, and the second
segment represents the processing sequence of operations on each machine. Taking a 3 × 3 (three jobs,
three machines) FJSP as an example, each job has two operations. The scheduling solution is shown
in Figure 1. For the first segment, the element j means the operation chooses the jth machine in the
alternative machine set, where all elements are stored in a fixed order. For the second segment, each
element represents the job code, where the elements with the same value i mean different operations of
the same job i, and Oik presents the kth operation of the job i.
solution is shown in Figure 1. For the first segment, the element j means the operation chooses the
3 × 3 (three jobs, three machines) FJSP as an example, each job has two operations. The scheduling
jth machine in the alternative machine set, where all elements are stored in a fixed order. For the
solution is shown in Figure 1. For the first segment, the element j means the operation chooses the
second segment, each element represents the job code, where the elements with the same value i
jth machine in the alternative machine set, where all elements are stored in a fixed order. For the
mean different operations of the same job i , and Oik presents the kth operation of the job i .
second segment, each element represents the job code, where the elements with the same value i
Mathematics 2019, 7, 384
mean different operations of the same job i , and Oik presents the kth operation of the job i . 6 of 14
O11 O12 O21 O22 O31 O32 O21 O31 O11 O12 O32 O22

O111 O212 O321 O222 O131 O232 O221 O331 O111 O112 O332 O222
Operation sequence
1 2Machine
3 assignment
2 1 2 2 3 1 1 3 2

Machine
Figureassignment
1. Scheduling Operation
solution sequence
denotation.
Figure 1. Scheduling solution denotation.
4.2. Individual Position Vector Figure 1. Scheduling solution denotation.
4.2. Individual Position Vector
In our proposed
4.2. Individual Position Vector IWOA, the individual position is still denoted as a multi-dimensional real
vector,In our whichproposed also IWOA, consiststheofindividual two segments position is string with the
still denoted as asize of mn, i.e.,
multi-dimensional
In our proposed IWOA, the individual position is still denoted as a multi-dimensional real
X = { xvector,
real (1), x (2), ...which
x ( m n ), x ( m ... x (2 m n )} of two x (segments
n + 1),consists
also , where j ) ∈ [ xmin ( j ),string j = 1, 2,...2
xmax ( j )],with themnsize of
. The firstmn,
segment i.e.,
vector, which also consists of two segments string with the size of mn, i.e.,
, x(2x )(,2. ),
. . ... . . . . . .

XX = = x{(x1)(1), x(xmn ) , x ( mn + 1 ) , x ( 2mn ) , where x ( j ) ∈ [ x ( j ) , x ( j )] , j = 1, 2, 2mn.
X 1= x (1), x (2), ... x ( m n ), x ( m n +}1), ... x (2 m n ) , where x ( j ) ∈ [ xmin ( j ), xmax ( j )], j = 1, 2,...2 mn . The first segment
(m n) denotes the information of machine assignment, and the second min max
The {first segment X1 = x(1), x(2), . . .}x(mn) denotes the information of machine assignment, and
segment X 2 = { x ( m n + 1 ) , x ( m denotes ) } presents of themachine
information of operation and ofsequencing.
X = {
the1 secondx (1),segment X2 = }x(mn + 1), x(mn + 2), . . . x(2mn) presents assignment,
x ( 2 ), ... x ( m n ) n + 2 ) , . . . x the ( 2 m ninformation
the information the second
operation
For the above 3 × 2 FJSP, the individual position vector can be represented by Figure 2, where element
sequencing.
segment X 2 For = { xthe ( m nabove
+ 1 ) , x3( m×n 2+ FJSP,
2 ) , . . . xthe
( 2 mindividual
n ) } presents position vector can beofrepresented
the information by Figure 2,
operation sequencing.
valueselement
where are listedvalues in theare given listedorder.in theIn givenaddition, order.theIn intervals
addition, [ xthe
min ( intervals
j ), x max ( j )][xare (all j ) ,set
x as( j[)]−δare
，δall],
For the above 3 × 2 FJSP, the individual position vector can be represented by Figure min 2, where max element
where
set δ presents
as [−δ, δ], where δ presents
the numberthe of the
number jobs. of the jobs.
values are listed in the given order. In addition, the intervals [ x ( j ), x ( j )] are all set as [−δ ，δ ] ,
min max

where δ presents the number of the jobs.

O11 O12 O21 O22 O31 O32 O21 O31 O11 O12 O32 O22
1.9 O
11 O12 O21
O2.7 1.2 -1.7 O 2.3 O 2.2 O
-1.2 O -1.5 O
0.2 O -1.0 O
1.3 O
2.0
22 31 32 21 31 11 12 32 22

Machine Operation sequence

2.7 1.2 -1.7 assignment
1.9 2.3 -1.2 2.2 0.2 -1.5 -1.0 1.3 2.0

MachineFigure
assignment
Figure Individual position
2.2.Individual position vector.
Operation sequence
vector.
4.3. Conversion Mechanism Figure 2. Individual position vector.
4.3. Conversion Mechanism
Since the original WOA was proposed to tackle continuous problems, but the FJSP belongs to
Since the original WOA was proposed to tackle continuous problems, but the FJSP belongs to a
a4.3. Conversion
discrete Mechanism
combinatorial problem, some measures should be implemented to construct the mapping
discrete combinatorial problem, some measures should be implemented to construct the mapping
relationship between the individual
Since the original WOA was proposed position to vector
tackle and the discrete
continuous scheduling
problems, butsolution.
the FJSPIn a previous
belongs to a
relationship between the individual position vector and the discrete scheduling solution. In a
study,
discreteYuan et al. [10] problem,
combinatorial proposedsome a method measures to implement
should bethe conversiontobetween
implemented construct thethe continuous
mapping
previous study, Yuan et al. [10] proposed a method to implement the conversion between the
individual
relationship position
between vector
the and the discrete
individual scheduling
position vectorsolution
and thefordiscrete
the FJSP.scheduling
Therefore, the conversion
solution. In a
continuous individual position vector and the discrete scheduling solution for the FJSP. Therefore,
method in the literature [10] will be used in this study.
previous study, Yuan et al. [10] proposed a method to implement the conversion between the
the conversion method in the literature [10] will be used in this study.
continuous individual position vector and the discrete scheduling solution for the FJSP. Therefore,
4.3.1. Conversion from Scheduling Solution to Individual Position Vector
the conversion
4.3.1. Conversion method in the literature
from Scheduling Solution[10] will be used inPosition
to Individual this study. Vector
For the machine assignment segment, the conversion process can be represented by Equation
4.3.1.For
(19). Here,thex(machine
Conversion fromassignment
i) denotes Scheduling segment,
the ith elementSolution
of theto the conversion
Individual
individual process
Position
position can be
Vector
vector, s(irepresented
) presents thebynumber Equation of
(19). Here,
alternative x ( i ) denotes the ith element of the individual position vector,
ith element, s ( i ) presents
n(i) means the number
For themachine
machinesetassignment
for the operation
segment, corresponding
the conversion to the
process can be andrepresented by the serial
Equation
of alternative
number of the machine
chosen set for the
machine in operation
its alternative corresponding
machine set; tosthe
if ( i ) ith1, element,
= then x ( i ) and
can n (iachieved
be ) means the by
(19). Here, x (i ) denotes the ith element of the individual position vector, s ( i ) presents the number
choosing a random
serial number value
of the in themachine
chosen interval in [−δ,itsδ]alternative
. machine set; if s (i )=1 , then x (i ) can be
of alternative machine set for the operation corresponding to the ith element, and n (i ) means the
achieved by choosing a random value in the interval [−δ ，δ ] .
i) = 2δ/(in 1 . if s (i )=1 , then x (i ) can(19)
h i
serial number of the chosenx(machine s(iits
) − alternative
1) (n(i) − 1)machine− δ, s(i) ,set; be
achieved by choosing a random value in the interval [−δ ，δ ] .
For the operation sequence segment, x(i) = 2firstly,
δ itis i) −1) −δ, sto
(n(needed ≠1 .
(i)randomly generate mn real numbers (19)in
 (s(i) −1)

the range [−δ, δ] corresponding to the scheduling solution. According to the ranked-order-value (ROV)
2δ
) = each
x(ito  (n(i) −1) −δ, s(i) ≠1 .
rule, For
a unique ROV value
the operation is assigned
sequence segment,  firstly,
i) −1)it isnumber
(s(random needed in to an increasing
randomly order, so
generate mnthat
realeach (19)
ROV
numbers
value
in the can
rangecorrespond
[-δ ， δ ] to an operation.toSecondly,
corresponding the scheduling the ROV value isAccording
solution. rearranged to according to the coding
the ranked-order-value
orderFor the operations,
of the operation sequence segment,number
and the random firstly, itcorresponding
is needed to randomly generate ROV
to the rearranged mn real valuenumbers
is the
in the range [- δ ， δ ] corresponding to the scheduling solution. According
value of the element of the individual position vector. The conversion process is shown in Figure 3. to the ranked-order-value
 (ROV)
the rule,order
coding a unique ROV
of the value is and
operations, assigned to each number
the random random corresponding
number in an increasing order, soROV
to the rearranged that
each ROV value can correspond to an operation. Secondly, the ROV value is rearranged according
value is the value of the element of the individual position vector. The conversion process is shown to
theFigure
in coding
3. order of the operations, and the random number corresponding to the rearranged ROV
value is the value of the element of the individual position vector. The conversion process is shown
in Figure 3.
Mathematics 2019, 7, 384 7 of 14

Figure 3. The conversion process from operation sequence to individual position vector.
Figure 3. The conversion process from operation sequence to individual position vector.
Figure 3. The
4.3.2. Conversion conversion
from Individual process
Position from operation
Vector sequenceSolution
to Scheduling to individual position vector.
4.3.2. Conversion from Individual Position Vector to Scheduling Solution
4.3.2.For the machine
Conversion assignment
from Individualsegment,
Position Vector according to the reverse
to Scheduling derivation of Equation (19), the
Solution
For thecan
conversion machine assignment
be achieved, whichsegment,
can be denoted according by to the reverse
Equation (20).derivation of Equation (19), the
For the
conversion machine
can assignment
be achieved, whichsegment,
can be denoted according to the reverse
by Equation (20). derivation of Equation (19), the
conversion can be achieved, which can ) + δdenoted
( x ( ibe )( s ( i ) − 1)by Equation
 (20).#
n ( i ) = round  +1 (20)
 2"δ(x(i) + δ)(s(i) − 1)
n(i) = ( i ) + δ )( s ( i ) − 1)
 ( xround  +1 (20)
n ( i ) = round  +2δ
1 (20)
For the operation sequence segment,  δ ROV value
2the  is firstly increasingly assigned to each
element of the
For the individual
operation position
sequence vector,the
segment, andROV then used
value is as the Fixed
firstly ID. Therefore,
increasingly assignedatonew
eachoperation
element
For
sequence the
can operation
be sequence
obtained by segment,
corresponding thethe ROVROV value
value is firstly
to the increasingly
operations, assigned
which is to each
shown in
of the individual position vector, and then used as the Fixed ID. Therefore, a new operation sequence
element
Figure 4. of the individual position vector, and then used as the Fixed ID. Therefore, a new operation
can be obtained by corresponding the ROV value to the operations, which is shown in Figure 4.
sequence can be obtained by corresponding the ROV value to the operations, which is shown in
Figure 4.
Fixed ID 1 2 3 4 5 6
Opration ID 1 1 2 2 3 3
Position
Fixedelement
ID -31 2.8
2 2.1
3 -1.2
4 -0.8
5 1.1
6
Opration ID 1 1 2 2 3 3
Position element -3 2.8 2.1 -1.2 -0.8 1.1
Position element -3 2.8 2.1 -1.2 -0.8 1.1
ROV value 1 6 5 2 3 4
Position element -3 2.8 2.1 -1.2 -0.8 1.1
ROV value 1 6 5 2 3 4
Opration sequence 1 3 3 1 2 2

Figure
Figure 4. The
4.Opration
The conversionfrom
sequence
conversion from individual
1 individual
3 position
3
position vector
1
vectorto to
operation 2sequence.
2 operation sequence.
4.4. Population Initialization
Figure
4.4. Population 4. The conversion from individual position vector to operation sequence.
Initialization
For a swarm intelligence optimization algorithm, the quality of the initial population is very
Forfora the
swarm
4.4. Population
crucial intelligenceperformance.
Initialization
computational optimization In algorithm, thecharacteristic
light of the quality of theofinitial population
the FJSP, is very
the population
crucial for
initialization the computational
process performance.
can be implemented In light
inalgorithm,of
two phases.the characteristic
In the machineof the FJSP,
assignmentthe population
phase, the
For a swarm
initialization process intelligence
can be optimization
implemented in two phases. the
In quality
the of the
machine initial
assignment population
phase, the isbetter
very
better
crucialinitial
for theassignment
computationalschemes can be generated by utilizing a chaoticofreverse learning method.
initial
In the assignment
operation sequence canperformance.
schemesphase, besome
generated Inbylight
operation
of the
utilizing
sequences acharacteristic
chaotic
are reverse the
randomly
FJSP,
learning
generated.
the population
method. In the
Combining
initialization
operation processphase,
sequence can be implemented
some operationin two phases. are
sequences In the machinegenerated.
randomly assignmentCombining
phase, the better
each
each operation
initial assignment sequence
schemeswith one
can beofgenerated
the initialby assignment
utilizing aschemes,
chaotic some scheduling
reverse learning solutions
method. In are
the
operation and
generated sequence
fitness with one of
function the initial
values of each assignment
scheduling schemes,
solution some
are scheduling
calculated. Then,solutions
the are
initial
operation sequence phase, some operation sequences are randomly generated. Combining each
population can be achieved
operation sequence with oneby choosing the scheduling
of the initial assignment solution with some
schemes, the best fitness value
scheduling each time.
solutions are
4.5. Nonlinear Convergence Factor
Like other swarm intelligence optimization algorithms, the coordination between the abilities of
exploitation and exploration is important for the performance of the algorithm. In the original WOA,
the abilities of exploitation and exploration mainly depend on the convergence factor a. The larger
the value of a is, the stronger the ability of exploitation is, and then the WOA can exploit the optimal
solution in a large space. The smaller the value of a is, the stronger the ability of exploration is,
Mathematics 2019, 7, 384 8 of 14

and then it can merely explore the optimal solution in a small space. Therefore, for improving the
efficiency of exploitation, the value of a can be set to be larger in the early stage of iterations, which is
beneficial to exploit the optimal solution in a larger space, and then it can be set to be smaller in the
later stage of iterations, which is beneficial to concretely explore the better solution around the current
optimal one. However, the value of a linearly decreases over the course of iterations by Equation (13),
which cannot improve the efficiency of the nonlinear search of the algorithm. Therefore, a nonlinear
improvement of a is adopted by Equation (21), where tmax and t denote the maximum iteration and
current iteration, respectively.
t3
!
2t
 
a = 2− 1− 3 (21)
tmax tmax

4.6. Adaptive Weight

The improvement of a can improve the optimization ability of the algorithm to some extent, but
it cannot achieve the purpose of effectively balancing the abilities of exploitation and exploration.
Therefore, the adaptive weight and the nonlinear convergence factor a are cooperated to coordinate
the abilities of exploitation and exploration of the algorithm. The adaptive weight proposed in the
literature [32] is used to improve the optimization performance of the algorithm, with the formula
shown by Equation (22), where tmax and t denote the maximum iteration and current iteration,
respectively. The improved iterative formulas in the WOA can be defined by Equations (23) and (24).

π·t
ω = sin( + π) + 1. (22)
2·tmax
→ →∗ →→
X (t + 1) = ω·X (t) − A·D. (23)
→ →0 →∗
X (t + 1) = D ·ebl · cos(2πl) + ωX (t). (24)

4.7. Variable Neighborhood Search

In the local exploration phase, the whale individuals update their positions toward the current
optimal individual X∗ using Equation (16). Therefore, X∗ determines the accuracy and effectiveness
of the local exploration to some extent. Taking this into account, the variable neighborhood search
strategy is used for improving the quality of the current optimal scheduling solution W ∗ , and then the
quality of the current optimal individual X∗ can be ameliorated as well. At the same time, an “iterative
counter” is set for W ∗ and assigned 0 at the initial moment. If W ∗ does not change at each iteration,
the “iterative counter” increases by 1; otherwise, it remains the same. When the “iterative counter” is
equal to stability threshold Ts (15 in this paper), as the individuals reach the steady state, the variable
neighborhood search strategy is performed on W ∗ , allowing it to escape from the local optimum. For
implementing the strategy, three neighborhood structures were designed as outlined below.
For the neighborhood structure N1 , two random positions are chosen with different jobs in the
second segment of the scheduling solution, exchanging the order of jobs from the second random
position to the first random position.
For the neighborhood structure N2 , two random positions are chosen with different jobs in the
second segment of the scheduling solution, inserting the job of the first random position in the position
behind the second random position.
For the neighborhood structure N3 , a random position is chosen in the first segment of the
scheduling solution, where the number of alternative machines is more than one, and then the current
machine is replaced by another one of the alternative machines in the position.
The new scheduling solution is evaluated after each variable neighborhood search operation.
If the new scheduling solution is better than the original one, then the new scheduling solution is set as
Mathematics 2019, 7, 384 9 of 14

the original one. The procedure of the variable neighborhood search operation can is illustrated in
Algorithm 1.

Algorithm 1. The procedure of VNS.

Step 1: Set the current optimal scheduling solution W ∗ as the initial solution W, where λ = 1, q = 1, qmax = 3,
and ηmax represents the maximum iteration, at the initial moment.
Step 2: If q = 1, set N1 (W ) as W 0 ; if q = 2, set N2 (W ) as W 0 ; if q = 3, set N3 (W ) as W 0 ; W 0 represents the new
scheduling solution, and Ni (W ) represents employing the ith neighborhood structure operation on W, where I
= 1, 2, or 3.
Step 3: Set W 0 as W, and then the local optimal scheduling solution W 00 can be obtained by executing the local
search operation.
Step 4: If W 00 is better than W, then set W 00 as W, and set q = 1; otherwise, set q + 1 as q.
Step 5: If q > qmax , then set η + 1 as η, and go to step 6; otherwise, go to step 3.
Step 6: If η > ηmax , go to step 7; otherwise, go to step 2.
Step 7: End.

In this study, the threshold acceptance method is used for the local search operation, which is
shown as Algorithm 2.

Algorithm 2. The procedure of the local search in VNS.

Step 1: Get the initial solution W 0 , and set δ > 0, γ = 1, ρ = 1, and maximum iteration γmax .
Step 2: If ρ = 1, set N1 (W 0 ) ∪ N3 (W 0 ) as W 00 ; if ρ = 0, set N2 (W 0 ) ∪ N3 (W 0 ) as W 00 .
Step 3: If Fmax (W 00 ) − Fmax (W 0 ) ≤ δ, then set W 00 as W 0 ; otherwise, set ρ − 1 as ρ.
Step 4: Set γ + 1 as γ, if γ > γmax , then set W 00 as W 0 , go to step 5; otherwise, go to step 2.
Step 5: End.

4.8. The Procedure of the Proposed IWOA

The detailed steps of the proposed IWOA can be described as Algorithm 3.

Algorithm 3. The procedure of IWOA.

Step 1: Set parameters and generate the initial population by utilizing the chaotic reverse learning strategy and
search method.
Step 2 Calculate the fitness value of each scheduling solution in the population, and then find and retain the
optimal scheduling solution W ∗ .
Step 3: Judge whether the termination conditions can be met. If not met, perform steps 4–7; otherwise, perform
step 8.
Step 4: Judge whether the value of the “iterative counter” is equal to 15. If met, go to step 5; otherwise, go to
step 6.
Step 5: Employ the variable neighborhood search operation on W ∗ , and update W ∗ .
Step 6: Execute the conversion from scheduling solution to individual position vector, and retain the optimal
individual position vector X∗ corresponding to W ∗
Step 7: Update each individual position vector using Equations (17), (23) and (24), and execute the conversion
from individual position vector to scheduling solution; set t = t + 1, and then go to step 2.
Step 8: The algorithm ends and outputs the optimal scheduling solution W ∗ .
Mathematics 2019, 7, 384 10 of 14

5. Experimental Results

5.1. Experimental Settings

To evaluate the performance of the proposed IWOA for solving the FJSP, the algorithm was coded
in MATLAB 2016a and run on a computer configured with an Intel Core i5-8250 central processing unit
(CPU) with 1.80 GHz frequency, 8 GB random-access memory (RAM), and a Windows 10 Operating
System. Fifteen famous benchmarks that included a set of 10 instances taken from Brandimarte
(BRdata) [33] and five instances taken from Kacem et al (KAdata) [34] were chosen to test the proposed
algorithm. These benchmark instances were used by many researchers to estimate their approaches.
For each benchmark instance, experimental simulations were run 20 times using different algorithms.
After several preliminary experiments, the parameters of the proposed IWOA were set as follows: a
population size of 100, maximum iterations of 1000, spiral constant b of one, and ηmax and γmax both
set to 10.

5.2. Effectiveness of the Improvement Strategies

In this paper, three strategies were employed to enhance the performance of the IWOA, i.e., CRL,
NFC and AW, and VNS. In this subsection, the effectiveness of the three strategies is firstly evaluated.
In Table 1, the first and second columns present the name and size of the problems, and computational
data are listed in the following columns. “WOA” defines the original whale optimization algorithm.
“IWOA-1” is the algorithm where the nonlinear convergence factor and adaptive weight are both
applied to the WOA. “IWOA-2” is the whale optimization algorithm with the variable neighborhood
search strategy introduced. “IWOA” is the presented algorithm in this study. In addition, “Best”
represents the best result in the 20 runs. “Avg” means the average results value of the twenty runs.
“Time” is the mean computational time (in seconds) in the 20 runs. “LB” denotes the optimal value
of makespan found so far. Boldface denotes the best mean result in the 20 runs. To enhance the
comparison, the same parameters were set for the compared algorithms; for instance, population size
was 100 and maximum iterations were 1000.
From the experimental result in Table 1, the following conclusions can be obtained: (1) in
comparisons of the “Best” value, the IWOA algorithm was better than the other three algorithms,
which obtained seven optimal values, outperforming IWOA-1 in 12 out of 15 instances, IWOA-2 in
nine out of 15 instances, and WOA in 13 out of 15 instances; (2) in comparisons of the “Time” value,
WOA spent a shorter time than the other three algorithms. Compared with IWOA-1, the increase in
computation time was mainly the result of the addition of the variable neighborhood search operation
in WOA, which led to increased time complexity of the algorithm; (3) in comparisons of the “Avg”
value, the IWOA algorithm obtained all optimal values, outperforming WOA and IWOA-1 in 15 out of
15 instances, and outperforming IWOA-2 in 13 out of 15 instances.

5.3. Effectiveness of the Proposed IWOA

To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed IWOA, the second experiment was executed
on KAdata. In Table 2, the proposed algorithm is compared with the knowledge-based ant colony
optimization (KBACO) [35], hybrid tabu search algorithm (TSPCB) [36], and the hybrid gray wolf
optimization algorithm (HGWO) [37]. The first column presents the name of the problems. “Best”
represents the best makespan. “Avg” means the average makespan. “Time” is the mean computational
time of the instance. “LB” denotes the optimal value of makespan found so far. “Avg-T“ is the mean
computational time executed on KAdata. As can be seen, the proposed IWOA obtained three optimal
values in solving KAdata, compared with five for ACO, five for HTS, and four for HGWO. However,
the average computational time for the IWOA was very low, at only 4 s (on a Lenovo Thinkpad E480
with CPU i5-8250 @1.80GHz and 8 GB RAM) compared to 4978.8 s (in Matlab on a Dell Precision 650
workstation with a Pentium IV 2.4 GHz CPU and 1 GB RAM) for KBACO, 214.8 s (in C++ on a Pentium
IV 1.6 GHz CPU and 512 MB RAM) for TSPCB, and 19 s (in Fortran on a Pentium CPU G2030@ 3.0
Mathematics 2019, 7, 384 11 of 14

GHz and 2 GB ) for HGWO. Because the computers applied for running the programs was different,
the comparison among the running times of different algorithms was difficult. However, even if there
exists some differences in the speed between the processors involved, IWOA was obviously faster than
the other three algorithms.
Another experiment was implemented on BRdata. Table 3 compares our proposed IWOA with
the following six algorithms: KBACO [35], TSPCB [36], HGWO [37], artificial immune algorithm
(AIA) [38], particle swarm optimization combined with tabu search (PSO+TS) [39], and tabu search
metaheuristic with a new neighborhood structure called “golf neighborhood” (TS3) [40]. The first
column stands for the name of the problems, and the second column represents the optimal value
found so far. “Best” represents the best makespan. “Mean” represents the average result of “RPD” in
the 20 runs. Boldface denotes the best result of “RPD” in the 20 runs. “RPD” represents the relative
percentage deviation to “LB” and is calculated as follows:

Best − LB
RPD = × 100. (25)
LB
As can be seen from Table 3, the following conclusions can be easily obtained: (1) in comparisons
of the “Best” value, the proposed IWOA showed competitive performance on BRdata, obtaining four
optimal values, outperforming KBACO in seven out of 10 instances, TS3 and PSO+TS in nine out of 10
instances, and HGWO in eight out of 10 instances, while it was equal to both AIA and TSPCB in six out
of 10 instances; (2) in comparisons of the “RPD” value, the proposed IWOA obtained five optimal
values, outperforming KBACO in seven out of 10 instances, both TS3 and PSO+TS in nine out of 10
instances, and HGWO in eight out of 10 instances, while it was inferior to both AIA and TSPCB in
three out of 10 instances; (3) in comparisons of the “Mean” value, the value for the proposed IWOA
was very low at only 4.91, outperforming the 5.65 for KBACO, 10.12 for HGWO, 23.89 for PSO+TS, and
13.34 for TS3, while it was inferior to the 2.78 for TSPCB and 2.22 for AIA. However, by comparison,
the IWOA obtained the best values in an acceptable time.

Table 1. Effectiveness analysis of improvement strategy. See Section 5.2 for column descriptions.
WOA—whale optimization algorithm.

WOA WOA-1 WOA-2 IWOA

Instance
n×m LB Best Avg Time Best Avg Time Best Avg Time Best Avg Time
Kacem01 4×5 11 11 11.7 0.2 11 11.3 0.2 11 11 1.8 11 11 1.8
Kacem02 8×8 14 22 26.3 0.4 16 17.4 0.4 14 15.4 2.9 14 14.8 2.9
Kacem03 10 × 7 11 17 19.5 0.5 14 16.1 0.6 13 14.1 3.1 13 13.6 3.3
Kacem04 10 × 10 7 13 15.8 0.9 7 7.5 1.0 7 7 3.8 7 7 4.1
Kacem05 15 × 10 11 24 28.7 1.4 19 21.5 1.6 14 14.5 7.6 14 14.2 7.9
MK01 10 × 6 39 40 42.3 1.4 40 41.9 1.4 40 40.5 7.4 40 40.2 8.2
MK02 10 × 6 26 34 36.6 1.2 34 35.2 1.2 26 29.7 7.9 26 28.1 8.8
MK03 15 × 8 204 235 2523 3.3 218 234.6 3.6 204 211.6 26.4 204 210.6 31.3
MK04 15 × 8 60 73 77.6 2.1 67 71.3 2.5 65 66.1 13.8 60 62.3 15.7
MK05 15 × 4 172 175 181.4 2.0 175 183.1 2.7 175 178.3 16.1 175 177.1 21.2
MK06 10 × 15 58 93 98.6 1.3 97 105.2 1.5 65 71.5 22.5 63 64.2 30.5
MK07 20 × 5 139 152 163.5 1.6 155 158.6 1.6 148 151.2 19.5 144 147.5 24.7
MK08 20 × 10 523 523 535.1 5.6 523 528.1 5.8 523 525.2 62.5 523 523 89.2
MK09 20 × 10 307 363 384.0 5.9 371 387.2 6.2 312 318.9 81.4 307 315.2 121.4
MK10 20 × 15 198 245 265.2 6.0 231 241.3 6.9 216 235.3 76.5 212 216.6 96.7
Mathematics 2019, 7, 384 12 of 14

Table 2. Comparison between the proposed improved WOA (IWOA) and existing algorithms on the
KAdata. See Section 5.3 for column descriptions.

KBACO TSPCB HGWO IWOA

Instance LB
Best Avg Time Best Avg Time Best Avg Time Best Avg Time
Kacem01 11 11 11 900 11 11 2.5 11 11 5.6 11 11 1.8
Kacem02 14 14 14.3 3882 14 14.2 234 14 14.3 14.8 14 14.8 2.9
Kacem03 11 11 11 3966 11 11 260.5 11 11.6 16.3 13 13.6 3.3
Kacem04 7 7 7.4 6642 7 7 86 7 7.5 17.5 7 7 4.1
Kacem05 11 11 11.3 9504 11 11.7 491 13 14.1 40.7 14 14.2 7.9
Avg-T - - - 4978.8 - - 214.8 - - 19.0 - - 4.0

Table 3. Comparison between different algorithms on the BRdata.

KBACO TSPCB HGWO AIA PSO+TS TS3 IWOA

Instancee LB
Best RPD Best RPD Best RPD Best RPD Best RPD Best RPD Best RPD
MK01 39 39 0 40 2.6 40 2.6 40 2.6 40 2.6 41 5.1 40 2.6
MK02 26 29 11.5 26 0 29 11.5 26 0 32 23.1 30 15.4 26 0
MK03 204 204 0 204 0 204 0 204 0 207 1.5 204 0 204 0
MK04 60 65 8.3 62 3.3 65 8.3 60 0 67 11.7 65 8.3 60 0
MK05 172 173 0.6 172 0 175 1.7 173 0.6 188 9.3 174 1.2 175 1.7
MK06 58 67 15.5 65 12.1 79 36.2 63 8.6 85 45.7 71 22.4 63 8.6
MK07 139 144 3.6 140 0.7 149 7.2 140 0.7 154 10.8 148 6.5 144 3.6
MK08 523 523 0 523 0 523 0 523 0 523 0 551 6.1 523 0
MK09 307 311 1.3 310 1.0 325 5.9 312 1.6 437 42.3 410 33.6 339 10.4
MK10 198 229 15.7 214 8.1 253 27.8 214 8.1 380 91.9 267 34.8 242 22.2
Mean - - 5.65 - 2.78 - 10.12 - 2.22 - 23.89 - 13.34 - 4.91

6. Conclusions
In this paper, a novel improved whale optimization algorithm (IWOA), based on the integrated
approach, was presented for solving the flexible job shop scheduling problem (FJSP) with the objective
of minimizing makespan. The conversion method between the whale individual position vector and
the scheduling solution was firstly proposed. After that, three improvement strategies were employed
in the algorithm, namely chaotic reverse learning (CRL), the nonlinear convergence factor (NFC)
and adaptive weight (AW), and the variable neighborhood search (VNS). The CRL was employed to
ensure the quality of the initial solutions. The NFC and AW were introduced to balance the abilities of
exploitation and exploration. The VNS was adopted to enhance the accuracy and effectiveness of the
local exploration.
Extensive experiments based on 15 benchmark instances were executed. The effectiveness of
improvement strategies was firstly certified by a number of experiments. Then, the proposed IWOA
was compared with six recently published algorithms. According to the comparison results, the
proposed IWOA can obtain better results in an acceptable time.
In the future, we will concentrate on a more complex FJSP, such as the energy-efficient flexible job
shop scheduling problem, the multi-objective flexible job shop scheduling problem, or the dynamic
flexible job shop scheduling problem. Meanwhile, other effective improvement strategies in WOA will
be studied to further improve the capacity of the algorithm for this FJSP.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology and writing—original manuscript, F.L. (Fei Luan);
project management, supervision and writing—review, Z.C. and T.J.; experiments and result analysis, S.W. and
F.L. (Fukang Li); investigation, formal analysis and editing, J.Y.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 11072192,
the Project of Shaanxi Province Soft Science Research Program under Grant 2018KRM090, the Project of Xi’an
Science and Technology Innovation Guidance Program under Grant 201805023YD1CG7(1), and the Shandong
Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant ZR2016GP02.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Mathematics 2019, 7, 384 13 of 14

References
1. Nowicki, E.; Smutnicki, C. A fast taboo search algorithm for the job shop problem. Manag. Sci. 1996, 42,
797–813. [CrossRef]
2. Gonc, J.F.; Magalhaes Mendes, J.J.; Resende, M.G.C. A hybrid genetic algorithm for the job shop scheduling
problem. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2005, 167, 77–95.
3. Lochtefeld, D.F.; Ciarallo, F.W. Helper-objective optimization strategies for the Job-Shop Scheduling Problem.
Appl. Soft Comput. 2011, 11, 4161–4174. [CrossRef]
4. Garey, M.R.; Johnson, D.S.; Sethi, R. The complexity of flow shop and job shop scheduling. Math. Oper. Res.
1976, 1, 117–129. [CrossRef]
5. Brucker, P.; Schlie, R. Job-shop scheduling with multi-purpose machines. Computing 1990, 45, 369–375.
[CrossRef]
6. Dauzere-Peres, S.; Paulli, J. An integrated approach for modeling and solving the general multi-processor
job-shop scheduling problem using tabu search. Ann. Oper. Res. 1997, 70, 281–306. [CrossRef]
7. Mastrolilli, M.; Gambardella, L.M. Effective neighborhood functions for the flexible job shop problem. J. Sched.
2000, 3, 3–20. [CrossRef]
8. Mati, Y.; Lahlou, C.; Dauzere-Peres, S. Modelling and solving a practical flexible job shop scheduling problem
with blocking constraints. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2011, 49, 2169–2182. [CrossRef]
9. Mousakhani, M. Sequence-dependent setup time flexible job shop scheduling problem to minimise total
tardiness. Int. J. Prod. 2013, 51, 3476–3487. [CrossRef]
10. Yuan, Y.; Xu, H.; Yang, J. A hybrid harmony search algorithm for the flexible job shop scheduling problem.
Appl. Soft Comput. 2013, 13, 3259–3272. [CrossRef]
11. Tao, N.; Hua, J. A cloud based improved method for multi-objective flexible job shop scheduling problem.
J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2018, 35, 823–829.
12. Gong, G.L.; Deng, Q.W.; Gong, X.R. A new double flexible job shop scheduling problem integrating processing
time, green production, and human factor indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 560–576. [CrossRef]
13. Wang, H.; Jiang, Z.G.; Wang, Y. A two-stage optimization method for energy-saving flexible job shop
scheduling based on energy dynamic characterization. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 188, 575–588. [CrossRef]
14. Marzouki, B.; Driss, O.B.; Ghédira, K. Multi Agent model based on Chemical Reaction Optimization with
Greedy algorithm for Flexible Job shop Scheduling Problem. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2017, 112, 81–90.
[CrossRef]
15. Yuan, Y.; Xu, H. Multiobjective flexible job shop scheduling using memetic algorithms. IEEE Trans. Autom.
Sci. Eng. 2015, 12, 336–353. [CrossRef]
16. Gao, K.Z.; Suganthan, P.N.; Pan, Q.K.; Chua, T.J.; Cai, T.X.; Chong, C.S. Discrete Harmony Search Algorithm
for Flexible Job Shop Scheduling Problem with Multiple Objectives. J. Intell. Manuf. 2016, 27, 363–374.
[CrossRef]
17. Piroozfard, H.; Wong, K.Y.; Wong, W.P. Minimizing total carbon footprint and total late work criterion in
flexible job shop scheduling by using an improved multi-objective genetic algorithm. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
2018, 128, 267–283. [CrossRef]
18. Jiang, T.H.; Zhang, C.; Zhu, H.Q.; Deng, G.L. Energy-Efficient scheduling for a job shop using grey wolf
optimization algorithm with double-searching mode. Math. Probl. Eng. 2018, 2018, 1–12. [CrossRef]
19. Singh, M.R.; Mahapatra, S. A quantum behaved particle swarm optimization for flexible job shop scheduling.
Comput. Ind. Eng. 2016, 93, 36–44. [CrossRef]
20. Wu, X.L.; Sun, Y.J. A green scheduling algorithm for flexible job shop with energy-saving measures.
J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 3249–3264. [CrossRef]
21. Jiang, T.; Zhang, C. Application of grey wolf optimization for solving combinatorial problems: job shop and
flexible job shop scheduling cases. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 26231–26240. [CrossRef]
22. Jiang, T.H.; Deng, G.L. Optimizing the low-carbon flexible job shop scheduling problem considering energy
consumption. IEEE. Access 2018, 6, 46346–46355. [CrossRef]
23. Jiang, T.H.; Zhang, C.; Sun, Q. Green job shop scheduling problem with discrete whale optimization algorithm.
IEEE Access 2019, 7, 43153–43166. [CrossRef]
24. Li, X.Y.; Gao, L. An effective hybrid genetic algorithm and tabu search for flexible job shop scheduling
problem. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016, 174, 93–110. [CrossRef]
Mathematics 2019, 7, 384 14 of 14

25. Mirjalili, S.; Lewis, A. The whale optimization algorithm. Adv. Eng. Soft. 2016, 95, 51–67. [CrossRef]
26. Aljarah, I.; Faris, H.; Mirjalili, S. Optimizing connection weights in neural networks using the whale
optimization algorithm. Soft. Comput. 2018, 22, 1–15. [CrossRef]
27. Mafarja, M.M.; Mirjalili, S. Hybrid whale optimization algorithm with simulated annealing for feature
selection. Neurocomputing 2017, 260, 302–312. [CrossRef]
28. Aziz, M.A.E.; Ewees, A.A.; Hassanien, A.E. Whale optimization algorithm and moth-flame optimization for
multilevel thresholding image segmentation. Expert Syst. Appl. 2017, 83, 242–256. [CrossRef]
29. Oliva, D.; Aziz, M.A.E.; Hassanien, A.E. Parameter estimation of photovoltaic cells using an improved
chaotic whale optimization algorithm. Appl. Energy 2017, 200, 141–154. [CrossRef]
30. Jiang, T.H.; Zhang, C.; Zhu, H.Q.; Zhu, H.Q.; Gu, J.C.; Deng, G.L. Energy-efficient scheduling for a job shop
using an improved whale optimization algorithm. Mathematics 2018, 6, 220. [CrossRef]
31. Abdel-Basset, M.; Manogaran, G.; El-Shahat, D.; Mirjalili, S.; Gunasekaran, M. A hybrid whale optimization
algorithm based on local search strategy for the permutation flow shop scheduling problem. Future Gener.
Comput. Syst. 2018, 85, 129–145. [CrossRef]
32. Guo, Z.Z.; Wang, P.; Ma, Y.F.; Wang, Q.; Gong, C.Q. Whale optimization algorithm based on adaptive weights
and cauchy variation. Micro Comput. 2017, 34, 20–22. (In Chinese)
33. Brandimarte, P. Routing and scheduling in a flexible job shop by tabu search. Ann. Oper. 1993, 41, 157–183.
[CrossRef]
34. Kacem, I.; Hammadi, S.; Borne, P. Correction to “Approach by localization and multiobjective evolutionary
optimization for flexible job-shop scheduling problems”. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C 2002, 32, 172.
[CrossRef]
35. Xing, L.N.; Chen, Y.W.; Wang, P.; Zhao, Q.S.; Xiong, J. A knowledge-based ant colony optimiztion for flexible
job shop scheduling problems. Appl. Soft Comput. 2010, 10, 888–896. [CrossRef]
36. Li, J.Q.; Pan, Q.K.; Suganthan, P.N.; Chua, T.J. A hybrid tabu search algorithm with an efficient neighborhood
structure for the flexible job shop scheduling problem. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2011, 52, 683–697.
[CrossRef]
37. Jiang, T.H. A hybrid grey wolf optimization algorithm for solving flexible job shop scheduling problem.
Control Decis. 2018, 33, 503–508. (In Chinese)
38. Bagheri, A.; Zandieh, M.; Mahdavi, I.; Yazdani, M. An artificial immune algorithm for the flexible job-shop
scheduling problem. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2010, 26, 533–541. [CrossRef]
39. Henchiri, A.; Ennigrou, M. Particle Swarm Optimization Combined with Tabu Search in a Multi-Agent Model. for
Flexible Job Shop Problem; Springer Nature: Basingstoke, UK, 2013; Volume 7929, pp. 385–394.
40. Bozejko, W.; Uchronski, M.; Wodecki, M. The New Golf Neighborhood for the Flexible Job Shop Problem; ICCS,
Elsevier Series; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 289–296.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).