1997
DOI: 10.1016/s1474-6670(17)42304-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Flowshop and Extensions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…where m is the number of machines, even if the buffer storage is limited (Röck, 1980). Moreover, if the no-wait constraint is restricted to a sub-set of jobs then, the problem remains NP-hard in the strong sense (Finke et al 1997). The m-machine no-wait flowshop scheduling problem with the aim of minimizing the makespan and the total completion time was studied in Allahverdi and Aldowaisan (2002).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…where m is the number of machines, even if the buffer storage is limited (Röck, 1980). Moreover, if the no-wait constraint is restricted to a sub-set of jobs then, the problem remains NP-hard in the strong sense (Finke et al 1997). The m-machine no-wait flowshop scheduling problem with the aim of minimizing the makespan and the total completion time was studied in Allahverdi and Aldowaisan (2002).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the two machines problem, the Johnson Rule provides the optimum solution in polynomial time. However, the problem becomes NP-hard in strong sense when limited bu er is considered between machines (Papadimitriou and Kannelakis [13]), or some of jobs are no-wait type (Finke et al [14]). Similarly, Gupta [15] proves that the problem of minimizing makespan for two-stage owshop is NP-complete when there is one machine in the ÿrst stage and two (or more) parallel identical machines in the second stage.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%