Sei sulla pagina 1di 17

Appl Intell (2018) 48:482–498

DOI 10.1007/s10489-017-0997-x

Hybrid cost and time path planning for multiple


autonomous guided vehicles
Hamed Fazlollahtabar1 · Samaneh Hassanli2

Published online: 19 July 2017


© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Abstract In this paper, simultaneous scheduling and rout- verify and validate the proposed modelling and optimiza-
ing problem for autonomous guided vehicles (AGVs) is tion. Also, comparative studies guarantee superiority of the
investigated. At the beginning of the planning horizon list proposed MCF-NSA solution approach.
of orders is processed in the manufacturing system. The
produced or semi-produced products are carried among sta- Keywords Scheduling · Routing · Autonomous guided
tions using AGVs according to the process plan and the vehicles (AGVs) · Path planning · Network simplex
earliest delivery time rule. Thus, a network of stations and algorithm (NSA)
AGV paths is configured. The guide path is bi-direction
and AGVs can only stop at the end of a node. Two kinds
of collisions exist namely: AGVs move directly to a same 1 Introduction
node and AGVs are on a same path. Delay is defined as an
order is carried after the earliest delivery time. Therefore, AGVs are used as a material handling device in flexible
the problem is defined to consider some AGVs and mate- manufacturing systems. Traditionally, AGVs were mostly
rial handling orders available and assign orders to AGVs so used at manufacturing systems, but currently other appli-
that collision free paths as cost attribute and minimal wait- cations of AGVs are extensively developed in other areas,
ing time as time attribute, are obtained. Solving this problem such as warehouses, container terminals and transportation
leads to determine: the number of required AGVs for orders systems. For better planning to fulfill purposes such as on
fulfillment assign orders to AGVs schedule delivery and time delivery, demand satisfaction and production plan flex-
material handling and route different AGVs. The problem is ibility, AGVs path planning is investigated. The problem of
formulated as a network mathematical model and optimized path planning is more significant where multiple AGVs are
using a modified network simplex algorithm. The proposed employed in the system.
mathematical formulation is first adapted to a minimum cost An automated manufacturing system (AMS) is a com-
flow (MCF) model and then optimized using a modified plex network of processing, inspecting, and buffering nodes
network simplex algorithm (NSA). Numerical illustrations connected by system of transportation mechanisms. For an
AMS, it is desirable to be capable to increase or decrease
the output products with the rise and fall of demand. Such
specifications show the essence of efficient decision making
 Hamed Fazlollahtabar in the field of AMSs and the need for concise and accu-
hfazl@alumni.iust.ac.ir rate modeling methods. Therefore, Fazlollahtabar et al. [8]
proposed a flexible jobshop automated manufacturing sys-
1 Department of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, tem to optimize the material flow. The flexibility was on
Damghan University, Damghan, Iran
the multi-shops of the same type and also multiple prod-
2 Department of Industrial Engineering, Mazandaran University ucts that can be produced. An automated guided vehicle was
of Science and Technology, Babol, Iran applied for material handling. The objective was to optimize
Hybrid cost and time path planning for multiple autonomous guided vehicles 483

the material flow regarding the demand fluctuations and Computational results reflected the sizeable solution quality
machine specifications. improvement induced by hybridization, and assessed the
The evolution of contemporary mobile robotics has given impact of each type of hybridization on the efficiency of the
thrust to a series of additional conjunct technologies. As hybrid heuristic. The difference between his work and the
an instance, the semantic mapping is to provide an abstrac- proposed model of this paper is in the following items:
tion of space and a means for human–robot communication.
Considering multiple AGV system rather than machine
The recent introduction and evolution of semantic mapping
and job scheduling;
motivated different researches, in which explicit analy-
Including collision free paths concept;
ses of the existing methods are sought. Several algorithms
Configuring minimum cost flow network;
were categorized according to their primary characteristics,
Inserting cost based path planning rather than assignment
namely scalability, inference model, temporal coherence
based scheduling;
and topological map usage [15].
Developing modified network simplex algorithm.
Nowadays, a large number of AGVs are needed to carry
out repeating transport tasks in many manufacturing and Drobouchevitch and Sidney [3] considered a problem of
warehouse industries. Their extensive application is influ- scheduling n identical nonpreemptive jobs with a common
enced by several critical factors of equipment expense, due date onm uniform parallel machines. The objective was
vehicle maneuverability, energy efficiency and configura- to determine an optimal value of the due date and an optimal
tion flexibility, especially in a large-scale AGV system. In allocation of jobs to machines so as to minimize a total cost
order to attain high dynamics and energy conservation while function, which was the function of earliness, tardiness and
retaining low cost and flexible reconfiguration, mechatron- due date values. For the problem, they established a set of
ics techniques are introduced to combine high-performance properties of an optimal solution and suggested a two-phase
microcontrollers, low-power motors and short-range sen- algorithm to tackle the problem.
sors with a light-weighted chassis, which results in a swift Gerstl and Mosheiov [11] studied scheduling problems
mechatronic tractor for automated guidance of a heavy-duty with two competing agents, sharing the same machines. All
robotic vehicle on fixed guide paths [23]. the jobs of both agents had identical processing times and
Technological innovations in warehouse automation sys- a common due date. Each agent needed to process a set of
tems, such as Autonomous Vehicle based Storage and jobs, and had its own objective function. The objective of the
Retrieval System (AVS/RS), are geared towards achiev- first agent was total weighted earliness–tardiness, whereas
ing greater operational efficiency and flexibility that would the objective of the second agent was maximum weighted
be necessary in future warehouses. AVS/RS relies on deviation from the common due date. Their goal was to min-
autonomous vehicles and lifts for horizontal and vertical imize the objective of the first agent, subject to an upper
transfer of unit-loads respectively. To implement a new tech- bound on the objective value of the second agent.
nology such as AVS/RS, the choice of a design variable Hamidinia et al. [13] tried to solve a novel complex
setting, interactions among the design variables, and the single-machine scheduling problem using two different
design trade-offs need to be well understood [22]. approaches. One approach exploited mathematical model-
Operations of transportation in cluttered environments ing, and the other was based upon genetic algorithms. The
require robust path planning algorithms especially with problem involved earliness, tardiness, and inventory costs
large and heavy vehicles under hazardous operations of and considered a batched delivery system. The same con-
maintenance in different industrial systems. Gomez et al. ditions might apply to some real supply chains, in which
[12] presented the performance analysis of a path plan- delivery of products is conducted in a batched form and with
ning algorithm to optimize trajectories in terms of clearance, some costs.
smoothness and execution time in cluttered scenarios. Fazlollahtabar and Saidi-Mehrabad [6] discussed litera-
M’Hallah [18] focused on scheduling jobs with differ- ture related to different methodologies to optimize AGV
ent processing times and distinct due dates on a single systems for the two significant problems of scheduling
machine with no inserted idle time as to minimize the sum of and routing at manufacturing, distribution, transshipment
total earliness and tardiness. The scheduling problem was a and transportation systems. They categorized the method-
very important and frequent industrial problem that is com- ologies into mathematical methods (exact and heuristics),
mon to most just-in-time production environments. This NP simulation studies, metaheuristic techniques and artificial
hard scheduling problem was solved using a hybrid heuris- intelligent based approaches.
tic combining local search heuristics (dispatching rules, Fazlollahtabar and Mahdavi-Amiri [4] proposed an
hill climbing and simulated annealing) and an evolution- approach for finding an optimal path in a flexible job-
ary algorithm based on genetic algorithms. The heuristic shop manufacturing system considering two criteria of time
involved low and high, relay and teamwork hybridization. and cost. A network was configured in which the nodes
484 H. Fazlollahtabar, S. Hassanli

were considered to be the shops with arcs representing the the due date of AGVs requiring for material handling among
paths among the shops. An AGV functioned as a material shops in a jobshop layout, their earliness and tardiness are
handling device through the manufacturing network. The significant in satisfying the expected cycle time and from an
expert system for cost estimation was based on fuzzy rule economic view point. Earliness results in AGVs waiting and
backpropagation network to configure the rules for estimat- tardiness causes temporary part storages in the shop floor.
ing the cost under uncertainty. A multiple linear regression They proposed a mathematical program to minimize the
model was applied to analyze the rules and find the effec- penalized earliness and tardiness. Since the mathematical
tive rules for cost estimation. The objective was to find a program was difficult to solve with a conventional method,
path minimizing an aggregate weighted unscaled time and an optimization method in two stages, namely searching the
cost criteria. A fuzzy dynamic programming approach was solution space and finding optimal solutions are proposed.
presented for computing a shortest path in the network. The performance of the proposed mathematical model was
Then, a comprehensive economic and reliability analysis tested in a numerical example and compared with several
was worked out on the obtained paths to find the optimal methods in the current literature. The difference between
producer’s behavior. The difference between their work and their work and the proposed model of this paper is in the
the proposed model of this paper is in the following items: following items:
Considering multiple AGV system; Including collision free paths concept;
Including collision free paths concept; Configuring minimum cost flow network;
Configuring minimum cost flow network; Developing modified network simplex algorithm.
Developing modified network simplex algorithm.
Fazlollahtabar et al. [10] solved a complicated rout-
Fazlollahtabar and Olya [5] concerned with proposing ing/scheduling problem for multiple AGVs in a manufactur-
a heuristic statistical technique to compute total stochastic ing system. The model considered a new concept of turning
material handling time in an AGV equipped jobshop manu- point for deadlock resolution. A case study in real industrial
facturing system. With respect to stochastic times of AGVs environment was conducted. The findings led the decision
material handling process, the material handling activi- makers to develop a user interface decision support as a
ties probability distributions were considered. Using the simulator to plan the AGVs’ movement through the manu-
probability distributions, they modeled the AGV material facturing network and help AGVs to prevent deadlock trap
handling problem using a heuristic statistical method when or conflicts. The proposed decision support program can
the activities’ probability distribution functions were the easily be commercialized. The benefits of such commer-
same. Also, in the case that the activities’ probability dis- cialization are: increase in the quality of material handling,
tribution functions were different, a cross-entropy approach improve the delivery time and prevent delays, decrease the
was proposed and developed to model the problem. The cost of traditional handling, enable computerized planning
effectiveness of the proposed model was illustrated in a and control, track intelligent robots and validate in simula-
numerical example and verified by a simulation study. tion environment. For more reviews and analysis readers are
In addition, Olya [21] implemented a proposed method referred to Fazlollahtabar and Saidi-Mehrabad [7].
using various combination of probability distribution as cost Autonomous navigation of a robot is a promising
of network and showed his method leads to more accurate research domain due to its extensive applications. The nav-
results. Olya [20] compared the computational efficiency igation consists of four essential requirements known as
of a developed algorithm in terms of sum and comparison perception, localization, cognition and path planning, and
operator computational effort using analytical methods such motion control in which path planning is the most important
as maximum likelihood estimation and moment generating and interesting part. The proposed path planning techniques
function and by taking into the account the result of simu- are classified into two main categories: classical methods
lation concluded the proposed method is more efficient due and heuristic methods. The classical methods consist of cell
to lower computational effort. decomposition, potential field method, subgoal network and
road map. The approaches are simple; however, they com-
The difference between their works and the proposed
monly consume expensive computation and may possibly
model of this paper is in the following items:
fail when the robot confronts uncertainty [16].
Considering multiple AGV system;
The goal of robot path planning is to find a feasible
Including collision free paths concept;
path that proceeds from a starting point to a destination
Considering cost index rather than time;
point without intersecting any obstacles in the given envi-
Developing integrated time and cost model.
ronment. Recently, genetic algorithm-based robot path plan-
Fazlollahtabar et al. [9] considered a scheduling problem ning methods have been widely considered in the intelligent
for multiple AGVs in a manufacturing system. Considering robotics community [17, 19].
Hybrid cost and time path planning for multiple autonomous guided vehicles 485

The term of path planning have different meanings the costs of the transportation system. The remainder of our
in different problem settings. In the reviewed literature, work follows here. Next the problem and its objectives, sig-
autonomous navigation are more related to the path plan- nificance and assumptions are discussed and an overview
ning problem that the traditional motion planning field deal of the problem is illustrated. In Section 3, the proposed
with, which focuses more on using geometric reasoning to modelling approach and mathematical formulations asso-
find a feasible path connecting the start and end configura- ciated with the linearization of the mathematical model is
tions. In contrast, the path planning problem in this paper worked out. In Section 4, a minimum cost flow algorithm
is more on route planning and scheduling assuming that the is developed and modified to be adapted to the proposed
routes are known inputs. model and complexity analysis of the model is performed
Multi-robots systems have been effectively employed in leading to develop a revised network simplex algorithm as
various application domains. Jose and Pratihar [14] aimed an efficient optimization framework in Section 5. Numeri-
at developing some heuristic methods for the task allocation cal experiments are presented in Section 6. We conclude in
and collision-free path planning for three robots working Section 7.
in the common workspace. In an application domain, there
were ninety fixed locations in a plant, which were to be
inspected by three robots after traveling through the min- 2 Statement of the problem
imum distance. Moreover, overall task completion time
was to be minimized as much as possible. The difference In this problem, a jobshop manufacturing system is con-
between their work and the proposed model of this paper is sidered being equipped with multiple AGVs to transfer
in the following items: products among stations. AGVs carry raw material, semi-
produced and final products in batches. Due to demand
Considering multiple AGV system in a network
variations, technology promotion and for production capac-
structure;
ity rises shops with similar functions are required. The
Configuring minimum cost flow network;
difference is in the advanced technologies employed in the
Developing modified network simplex algorithm.
new shops as machines and tools. The homogenous shops
Das et al. [1] proposed a novel approach to determine (shops doing a similar job) are varied in their properties
the optimal trajectory of the path for multi-robots in a clut- being effective on production cost. As a result, a flex-
ter environment using hybridization of improved particle ible jobshop manufacturing system is configured having
swarm optimization (IPSO) with differentially perturbed homogenous shops in each station where operations can be
velocity (DV) algorithm. The objective of the algorithm was processed in any shops. The sequence of operations is pre-
to minimize the maximum path length that corresponds to specified and the operations are independent (sequence of
minimize the arrival time of all the robots to their respective operations is not important) The structure of this problem
destination in the environment. is assumed to be a network composing of shops as nodes
Das et al. [2] proposed a new methodology to optimize and AGVs’ guide paths as arcs. The homogenous shops are
trajectory of the path for multi-robots using improved gravi- collected in a station having properties such as different
tational search algorithm (IGSA) in a dynamic environment. machines and tools and various operator proficiency. Hence,
GSA was improved based on memory information, social, an AGV’s path is attributed by two parameters of time and
cognitive factor of PSO (particle swarm optimization) and cost. The aim is to find a path plan for each AGV minimiz-
then, population for next generation is decided by the greedy ing total waiting time while the collision of AGVs, incurring
strategy. A path planning scheme has been developed using costs, is avoided. The assignment of orders to AGVs is
IGSA to optimally obtain the succeeding positions of the handled using a modified network simplex algorithm. An
robots from the existing position. overview of the problem is depicted in Fig. 1.
The difference between their work and the proposed As shown in Fig. 1, AGVs move through stations hav-
model of this paper is in the following items: ing several shops and carry the product according to process
plan. At the end, the final product is produced. The paths
Considering multiple AGV system;
among AGVs and different shops configure a network
Including collision free paths concept;
structure as depicted in Fig. 1.
Configuring minimum cost flow network;
Developing modified network simplex algorithm;
2.1 Objectives
Comparing results with several optimization methods.
In this paper, a general scheduling and routing model Nowadays, transportation planning is substantial to reach
for multiple AGVs in a manufacturing system is proposed. economic benefits in strategic level of a manufacturing
The aim of the model is to minimize the delay and thus system. Mainly, the objective of a transportation plan is
486 H. Fazlollahtabar, S. Hassanli

Fig. 1 An overview of the


problem

to minimize the transfer costs of products and materials • The number of AGVs is pre-specified;
between any two elements of a system (e.g., supplier and • The number of stations are clarified at the beginning of
consumer in supply chain). If more than two elements exist, planning;
the system is called transportation network. Vehicle rout- • The lower bound for each delivery in any pickup is
ing problem (VRP) is crucial in determining the number of equal to the earliest processing and the upper bound is
vehicles and their path plan in order to minimize the costs the cycle time;
and maximize the usability and availability. The problem is • Collision avoidance constraint for nodes and arcs is
a special case of traveling sales person which is to assign included;
the vehicles to paths to fulfill customers’ needs and cover • To pick up an order by an AGV it is possible to pass
all other constraints and minimize the transportation costs. some nodes several times;
The proposed problem of this paper is an industrial case of • Two types of precedence constraints exist for pickup
VRP in a manufacturing system focusing on both schedul- and delivery namely, (1) the priority of an essential pick
ing and routing of multiple AGVs. The hybrid decision of up to satisfy the process plan on a node rather than the
path planning is made using an efficient network optimiza- delivery on the same node and (2) the delivery is prior
tion approach. The aims are to minimize the transportation than a pick up on a same node. Before moving to the
costs of all AGVs and total waiting time based on delivery next station, its availability should be checked;
in material handling operations among stations. • Each station has a due time in which AGV serves;
• An AGV responses to a request that is closer in distance
2.2 Significance of the problem from its current position;
• If an AGV arrives earlier considering the due time it
With respect to existence of multiple AGVs in manufactur- should wait;
ing systems, collision during material handling operations • For each unit of waiting time a penalty cost is incurred.
is inevitable. The reset-up time and repair cost are incurred
to the system leading to backlog of orders and missing the
standard cycle time. Thus, it is important to consider a prob- 3 Proposed model
lem of scheduling and routing of AGVs to prevent collisions
as much as possible. As the size of the problem increases the In this problem, some stations process operations having
conventional exact optimization approaches are not efficient specified processing times. The material handling is by
anymore due to complexity and NP-hard nature of the prob- known number of multiple AGVs. An AGV is located at a
lem. Therefore, developing a network simplex algorithm to starting point and is called by a station to transfer a product
guarantee the solution quality and solution time is essential. to the next station according to process plan. As discussed
the problem is a network composing of stations as nodes
2.3 Assumptions of the problem and guide paths as arcs. In each station several shops having
machines and tools exist with various properties and differ-
The proposed problem can be considered as a routing prob- ent operators proficiencies. The aim is to find a path plan
lem aims at minimizing the deviation from the delivery (order of shops to be passed) for AGVs to minimize waiting
time lower bound. To handle the problem the following time and to avoid collisions of AGVs. AGVs are assigned to
assumptions are included: an order with closer distance so that to move in shorter time
Hybrid cost and time path planning for multiple autonomous guided vehicles 487

duration and thus to arrive faster Optimal assignments of Parameters:


AGVs to the arcs of the network are the decision variables.
dij Distance between two stations or nodes i and j
3.1 Mathematical formulations
(in meter scale)
av Average velocity of vth AGV (meter/second)
In this problem, AGVs should arrive to a station within its
gv Unit movement cost of vth AGV ($)
due time to handle the transfer action otherwise:
tiv Arrival time of vth AGV to ith station (second)
• If it arrives early, a waiting time with the dimension of Pe Penalty for one unit of earliness ($) (i.e., if the
cost is incurred so that waiting time is the deviation of AGV arrives earlier than the shop due date, it
completion time from AGV arrival time to a station; should stop and wait leading to a bottleneck)
• If it arrives late, a buffer (and bottleneck) is formed to Pl Penalty for one unit of tardiness ($) (i.e., if the
be penalized as tardiness cost. AGV arrives later than the shop due date, it
is behind the process plan and causes delay in
The mathematical notations are listed below. demand fulfillment)
Indices: [ei , li ] Interval time of each station (lower and upper
bounds of completion time in each station (sec-
N Set of nodes (stations), the central location is in i =
ond)
1 and N = {1, 2, 3, ..., n}
A Set of arcs (guide paths) A = {(i, j )/i, j ∈ Q, i  = j }
i, j, p Counter for nodes (stations) i  = j
V Set of available AGVs V = {1, 2, 3, ..., v} Decision variable:
v, v  Counter for AGVs v  = v  Assignment of vth AGV to an arc connecting ith and j th
stations


1 if vth AGV is assigned to an arc between ith and j th stations
xij v =
0 otherwise

A slack variable tiv shows the arrival time of vth AGV to ith The constraint is related to interval time for AGVs which is
station. to determine the AGV arrival time to a station.
   
Objective function: xipv = xpj v , ∀j, (3)
v i v j

Min The constraint certifies that each entering AGV to a station


  will certainly exit (note that p is a counter for stations).
Z = gv .dij .xij v
i j v 
    dij
  xoj v = 1, ∀v
+ tiv + − ej xij v ∗ Pe j  (4)
i j v av v j xj 0v = v, ∀v
    
dij
+ lj − tiv + xij v ∗ Pl . (1) The constraint expresses that AGVs are located at central
i j v av station sent to a station to process handling task and after
which is minimizing the transportation cost and earliness that return to the original position. By 0 the model shows
and tardiness penalties. The first term of the objective func- the AGVs parking station.
tion is to compute the vth AGV movement cost between ⎧
stationsith and j th. The second term is minimizing the ear- ⎪

⎪ xij v = 1, ∀ (i, j ) /(i  = j )

⎪ (J −∈)
liness and tardiness penalties of AGVs arrivals to stations. ⎨ J xij v + xij v  ≤ 1, ∀i, j, v, v ,
⎪ v1, = {2, 3} , (5)
Constraints: ⎪
⎪ ,

⎪ v2 = {1, 3}

  v3, = {1, 2}
i d(j −1),j
tiv = t(j −1),v + x(j −1)j v , t0,v = 0, ∀iv
j =1 av where J is the number of AGVs can be assigned to a path
(2) and is an extremely small value equal to 0.0001.
488 H. Fazlollahtabar, S. Hassanli

The constraint certifies the avoidance of collision associated with each node, representing its supply/demand.
between AGVs. Meanwhile, for each movement between If bi is greater (less) than zero, node i is a supply (demand)
any two stations only one AGV is assigned. node; and if bi = 0, node i is a transshipment node. The
n−{i} V decision variables in the MCF model are arc flows, which
xij v = 1, ∀i, (6) are represented by fij for arc (i, j ) ∈ A.
j =1 v=1
The standard form of the MCF model is as follows:
n−{j } V 
xij v = 1, ∀j, (7) MinCostFlow = cij fij (11)
i=1 v=1 (i,j )∈A
The two constraints certify that only one arc is entered and
exited from a station ( n is the number of stations). ⎧  
⎨ fij − fj i = bi , for all i ∈ N.
xij v ∈ {0, 1} . (8) Subject to j :(i,j )∈A j :(j,i)∈A
⎩ m ≤ f ≤ M , for all (i, j ) ∈ A.
ij ij ij
The relation shows the type of decision variable. (12)
3.2 Linearization These constraints state that flows must be feasible and con-
serve each node. For the feasible flows to exist the MCF
While some of the equations are nonlinear, we linearize model must also have bi = 0, which means that the
them as follows: i∈N
⎧ network is balanced. We now define a special graph for the

⎪ tiv ∗xij v =LN ij v MCF model as follows:

LN ij v  tiv + (1 − xij v )M
 , (9)

⎪ LN ij v ≥ tiv − 1 − xij v M Definition 2 A MCF Graph GMCF = (G, NP , AP ) con-

LN ij v  xij v M sists of a graph G with a couple of properties for the nodes
and arcs in G. The NP and AP are the Node’s and Arc’s
where LN ij v is a continuous slack variable (≥ 0) and M is
Properties, respectively. The node property function NP: N
a large value.
→ R (Real numbers; possibly negative) gives the amount
The constraint related to the decision variable certifying
of supply/demand of the nodes. This function for each node
that AGV will not be assigned to a station when moving
is defined as follows:
from it and if i = j then Xij v is 0.
 NP (i) = NP i = bi ,
xij v ε {0, 1} , ∀v, i, j
. (10)
xij v = 0, ∀v, i, j/(i = j ) where,
Since the proposed problem has a network structure, a net- bi > 0 if node i is a supply node,
work based modelling approach is needed to adapt the
bi < 0 if node i is a demand node,
proposed mathematical model. Therefore, minimum cost
flow network model is employed to adapt the formulated bi = 0 if node i is a transshipment node,
hybrid time and cost planning mathematical model.

so that NP (i) = 0.
i∈N
4 A minimum cost flow (MCF) network Each arc in A has three properties: a lower bound, an
for the AGV scheduling and routing upper bound and a cost. The arc property function AP maps
each arc to these properties, AP: A →R×R×R (Real num-
In this section, we systematically introduce a formal defini- bers; nonnegative). For each arc ∈A, we denote the mapping
tion for the MCF model: by AP(i, j), or APij for short. We denote the lower bound,
upper bound and cost by mij , Mij and cij . Based on Defini-
Definition 1 In an informal description of the MCF model, tions 1 and 2, we define the standard MCF model formally
let graph G = (N, A) be a directed network defined by a as follows:
set of nodes, N, together with a set of arcs, A. Each arc
(i, j ) ∈ A has an associated cost cij that denotes the cost per Definition 3 A MCF model is defined as MCF = (GMCF ,
unit flow on that arc. It is assumed that the flow cost varies f, D, CS, F C) where GMCF = ((N, A), NP , AP ) is a
linearly with the amount of flow. The maximum and mini- graph with nodes and arcs specific to the MCF model (Def-
mum amount of flow on each arc (i, j ) ∈ A are limited by inition 2); f is a finite set of decision variables on A (f
Mij and mij (mij ≤ Mij ), respectively. A real number bi is stands for flow), f = {fij |(i, j ) ∈ A}; D = a function
Hybrid cost and time path planning for multiple autonomous guided vehicles 489

which determines a lower and an upper bound for f ; D : 4.1 Nodes and their properties in the proposed network
f →R×R (to be pulled out from AP); we shall take Df ij as
the lower bound and the upper bound of fij (D stands for Let N be the number of nodes and M be the number of
Domain); CS is a finite set of Constraint on NP and f ; FC AGVs in the problem. The nodes of the MCF Graph for the
is an objective function for the Flow’s Cost on AP and f . AGV path planning problem are defined as follows:
The task in a MCF model is to assign a value to each fij
(a) Supply nodes: For each vehicle m, a supply node
that satisfy all constraints in CS with regard to the minimum
AGV Nm with one unit supply is considered. There-
value of FC. In the standard form of the MCF model we
fore, the set of supply nodes in the graph is SAGV N =
have:
{AGV Nm |m =1, 2,..., M; NP S(m) =1}.
(a) For each element in D and f , Dfij = [mij Mij ], for (b) Transshipment nodes: for each station j , a couple of
∀(i, j ) ∈ A;  nodes, Station-Input and Station-Output, are consid-
 ered. Hence, the sets of transshipment nodes in the
(b) The CS is fij − fj i = NPi , for all i ∈
j :(i,j )∈A j :(j,i)∈A graph are SJ I N ∪ SJ OU T where:
N;  SJ I N = {J I Ni | i =1, 2,. . . , N ; NP S(i) = 0}
(c) The FC is cij fij . where J I Ni is a node through which an AGV enters
j :(j,i)∈A
station i.
Here, we present a special case of the MCF model for the SJ OU T = {J OU Ti | i =1, 2, . . . , N; NP S(i) =
hybrid time and cost problem of AGVs in a manufacturing 0} where J OU Ti is a node from which an AGV leaves
system. The problem differs primarily in the arrangement station i.
of nodes and arcs with their properties. In this special case, (c) SINK: It stands for a Sink node or a demand node in the
the property function of nodes assigns integer values to GMCF −AGV with M units demand. This node corre-
the nodes. Additionally, the property function of arcs may sponds to the end state of the process, after all stations
assign integer values to the lower bound, the upper bound have been served. Hence, for the property of this node,
and the cost of each arc. Here, we present the special Graph NP S(SI NK) = −M.
of GMCF for the AGV path planning (GMCF −AGV ) and
Therefore, there are M+2∗N+1 nodes in GMCF −AGV :
the special case of the MCF model for the path planning
NS=SAGVN ∪SJIN ∪SJOUT ∪SINK.
problem of AGVs (MCF–AGV).
Based on Definition 2, we introduce the following def-
4.2 Arcs and their properties in the proposed network
inition for the GMCF in a special case. A MCF Graph for
AGV, GMCF −AGV = (GS, NP S, AP S), is a special case
Below we describe the four types of arcs that join the nodes
of GMCF = (G, NP , AP ) (Definition 2). The graph GS =
in GMCF −AGV , together with their properties:
(NS, AS) will be defined in the sub-sections below; the
node and arc properties of GS, NPS and APS, are also spe- (1) Intermediate arcs: These arcs are directed arcs from
cial cases of NP and AP, respectively (NP S : NS → N every Output node i to every other Input node j .
and AP S : AS → N × N × N; N is the set of Natural num- These arcs with their properties are ARCintermediate
bers). We formally describe the components of GMCF −AGV = {(i, j )|i ∈ SJ OU T , j ∈ SJ I N, j  = J I Ni AP S
in the following two sub-sections. (m, j ) = [0, 1, Cij ]},

 
w1 tj − ti + DTij + w2 ∗ DTij if tj ≥ti + DTij
where Cij =
p ti + DTij − tj otherwise

In the cost formula, w1 and w2 are the weights of j with a penalty P is considered for the cost. This
waiting and travelling times of the AGVs, respectively; penalty cost confines the model to service the station
ti and tj are the pickup and delivery times in stations with minimum delay.
i and j , respectively; DT ij is travelling time from sta- (2) Inward arcs: a set of arcs from SAGVN to SJIN. These
tion i to station j ; If an AGV can serve station j after arcs along with their properties are:
serving station i (tj ≥ ti +DT ij ), the waiting and trav-
elling times of the AGV are calculated without any ARCinward = {(m, j)|, AP S(m, j )
delay. Otherwise, only the delay time of serving station = [0, 1, cmj ]}m ∈ SAGVN, j ∈ SJIN
490 H. Fazlollahtabar, S. Hassanli

where

  
w1 tj − RT Am + T T Amj + w2 RT Am + T T Amj if tj ≥ RT Am + T T Amj
cmj =
p RT Am + T T Amj − tj otherwise

In the cost formula, w1 and w2 are the weights of The MCF–AGV model can be worked out for two AGVs
waiting and travelling times of the AGVs, respectively; and four stations as an example (see Fig. 2). The problem
tj is the delivery time in stations j ; RTAm is the ready has a huge search space and the solution should provide
time of AGV m at the start station; TTAmj is the travel the optimal paths for each AGV from every vehicle node to
time of AGV m from the start station to the station the sink node. Solving the MCF–AGV model generates M
j ; (the TTAmi should be calculated in a similar man- paths, each of which commences from a vehicle node and
ner as the calculation of DT ij ; see Intermediate arcs). terminates at the sink node. Each path determines a station
If AGV m could arrive in the due time of station j sequence of every vehicle. Suppose that for some values of
(tj ≥RTAm +TTAmj ), the waiting and travelling times arc costs, the paths given by a solution are 1 → 3 → 4 → 9
of AGV m to serve station j are calculated as the cost. → 10 → 11 and 2 → 5 → 6 → 7 → 8 → 11. This states
Otherwise, the delay time to serving station j with a that AGV 1 is assigned to serve stations 1 and 4, and AGV
penalty P is considered. 2 is assigned to serve stations 2 and 3, respectively.
(3) Outward arcs: These are directed arcs from every
Output node i and AGV node m to SINK. These 4.3 Complexity analysis
arcs along with their properties are ARCoutward ={(i,
j)|i∈SAGVN ∪SJOUT, j=SINK; APS(m, j) =[0, 1, 0]}. While the proposed model is a network one having nodes
These arcs show that an AGV can remain idle after and arc and a cost associated with each arc, we analyze
serving any number of stations or without serving any the network model based on a minimum cost flow for
station. Therefore, a cost of zero is assigned to these solution approach so that the objective function is a min-
arcs. imization one. Assume the maximum flow MF in each of
(4) Auxiliary arcs: There is a directed arc from every the m arcs, at maximum cost C, for the minimum cost
Input node i to its Output node. These arcs along flow (MCF) model. So, there is an upper bound on the
with their properties are ARCauxiliary ={(i, j)|i∈SJIN, value of the objective function. This upper bound is given
j=a unique Output node in SJOUT, correspond to the by m×C×MF. There are two different types of pivots in
Input-Node i; APS(i, j) =[1, 1, 0]}. These arcs guaran- the algorithm, non-degenerate and degenerate pivots. The
tee that every Input and Output nodes is visited once former is bounded by m×C because the number of non-
only so that each station is served. degenerate pivots in the algorithm is bounded by m×C×MF
(MF=1 in the MCF–AGV model). The number of degen-
There are M ×N +N ×(N −1)+M +2×N arcs in the graph erate pivots is determined by the sum of nodes potential
(AS = ARCinward ∪ ARCintermediate ∪ ARCoutward ∪ and maintaining the strongly feasible spanning tree. Given
ARCCauxiliary ). n as the number of nodes in the graph model, the sum of

Fig. 2 An illustrative sample


Hybrid cost and time path planning for multiple autonomous guided vehicles 491

Fig. 3 Basic spanning tree

The omitted arc


when the flow
A new flow arc in the is 0
cycle is formed

nodes potential is bounded by n2 × C. It is decreased at +1 in row ith and -1 in column j th. These equa-
each iteration when the spanning tree is strongly feasible. tions are solved for a coefficient putting desired
A series of degenerate pivots may occur between each pair values. Find an equation with only one unknown
of non-degenerate pivots, and thus a bound on the total coefficient and determine the unknown value. Rel-
number of iterations is m × n2 × C 2 . Finding the enter- ative cost coefficients for non-basic arcs are, r ij =
ing arc is the O(m) operation and sorting the packet is the cij − (λi − λj ). If all relative cost coefficients are
O(K×LogK) operation (K is size of the packet, K=225). non-negative then the solution is optimal and stop.
Finding the cycle, amount of flow change, leaving arc and Otherwise, go to Step 3.
updating the tree are O(n) operations. Hence the complexity Step 3 Choose a non-basic flow with negative relative
of each pivot is O((m+n)K×LogK). Based on the complex- cost coefficient as entering arc. Adding this arc to
ity of the number of iterations and the complexity of each the old basic spanning tree a cycle is formed (see
pivot, the total complexity of this algorithm is determined Fig. 3).
by the following equation: O((m+n)mn2 C 2 KLogK). Since
Every connected network has a spanning tree. The Net-
m = O(N 2 );n = O(N), the total complexity of NS to tackle
work Simplex Algorithm maintains a feasible spanning tree
the MC–AGV model is O(N 6 ).
at each iteration and successfully goes toward the optimal-
ity conditions until it becomes optimal. At each iteration,
the arcs in the graph are divided into three sets; the arcs
5 Network simplex algorithm (NSA)
belong to the spanning tree (T ); the arcs with flow at their
lower bound (L); the arcs with flow at their upper bound
After adapting the network based mathematical model to an
(U ). A spanning tree structure (T , L, U ) is optimal if the
MCF-AGV model, a solution approach is required to be able
reduced cost for every arc (i, j ) ∈ L is greater than zero and
to optimize the model. A revised simplex algorithm can be
at the same time the reduced cost for every arc (i, j ) ∈ U
used to solve the general form of MCF problem. The steps
is less than zero. With those conditions, the current solution
of the method are listed below:
is optimal. Otherwise, there are arcs in the graph that vio-
Step 1 Begin with a given feasible basic solution. late the optimal conditions. An arc is a violated arc if it
Step 2 Compute simplex coefficient λi for each node. This belongs to L (U ) with negative (positive) reduced cost. The
value is obtained solving cij = λi − λj For any i algorithm in Fig. 4 specifies the steps of the method.
and j a basic arc is obtained. This is resulted from To create the initial or Basic Feasible Solution (BFS) in
an arc (i, j ) corresponding to a column in A with Step 0, an artificial node 0 and artificial arcs are appended

Fig. 4 Network simplex


algorithm
492 H. Fazlollahtabar, S. Hassanli

to the graph. The node ‘0’ will be the root of the span- The distances among all stations are a 8*8 matrix:
ning tree (T ) and the artificial arcs, with sufficiently large
d = 0, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 14,
costs and capacities, connect the nodes to the root. The set
2, 0, 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 13,
L consists of the main arcs in the graph, and the set U is
empty. Selection of a pricing scheme is an important deci- 4, 1, 0, 34, 5, 10, 12,
sion in Step 1. During this step the reduced costs of the 5, 2, 3, 0, 2, 6, 11, 14,
non-basic arcs are recalculated. If there is at least one that 7, 6, 4, 2, 0, 1, 4, 7,
violates its optimality condition it is a candidate to enter the 8, 7, 5, 6, 1, 0, 3, 5,
basis. In Step 1, appending the entering arc (k, l), an arc 10, 9, 10, 11, 43, 0, 4,
with violation to the spanning tree forms a unique cycle, W ,
14, 13, 12, 14, 7, 5, 40;
with the arcs of the basis. In order to eliminate this cycle
(Step 2), one of its arcs must leave the basis. The cycle is For each station an upper bound and a lower bound for oper-
eliminated when we have augmented flow by a sufficient ation completion time is set which is a time interval [ei , li ]
amount to force the flow in one or more arcs of the cycle as given below,
to their upper or lower bounds. By augmenting the flow in e = [5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 7, 8, 9]
a negative cost augmenting cycle, the objective value of the
solution is improved. The first task in determining the leav- l = [13, 15, 14, 20, 22, 24, 18, 19]
ing arc is the identification of all arcs of the cycle. The flow AGVs should arrive to a station in the due time to handle the
change is determined by the equation, θ = min{fij for all material to the next station. If it arrives early then a waiting
(i, j ) ∈ W }. time is incurred and penalized by a cost of Pe=3. But, if it
The leaving arc is selected based on cycle W . The substi- arrives late a tardiness penalty cost of Pl=7 is assigned. The
tution of entering for the leaving arc and the reconstruction arrival time of AGVs to stations is computed by,
of new tree is called a pivot (Step 3). After pivoting to  
d
change the basis, the reduced costs for each arc (i, j ) ∈ / T is tiv = ij =1 t(j −1),v + (ja−1),j X(j −1)jv ∀ i, v
v ,
calculated. If the reduced costs for all (i, j ) ∈{L+U }satisfy t0v = 0
the optimality condition then the current basic feasible solu- If tiv ∈ [ei , li ], then the waiting time of an AGV and of
tion is optimal. Otherwise, an arc (i, j ) where there is a course the total waiting time of the system is minimized.
violation should be chosen and operations of the algorithm Using the above data, we optimized the mathematical
should be repeated. Different pricing schemes are available model in General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS)
for finding out an entering arc for the basic solution. The optimization software (http://www.gams.com/). GAMS is
performance of the algorithm is affected by the choice of a an optimization software in operations research in which we
proper pricing scheme. encode the mathematical model and insert the input data and
obtain outputs as solutions. The obtained decision variables
resulted from GAMS, are shown below:
6 Numerical study
v (i, j ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 End
Here, to verify and validate the proposed model and the
solution approach we study some experiments. In the 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
numerical instances, first the proposed mathematical model 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
is solved and then the MCF-AGV adapted model is imple- 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
mented to compare their performance. 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
A. Verification example 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
First a medium sized problem with the following specifi- 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
cations is designed: 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Number of stations: 8, 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Number of AGVs: 3, 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Average velocity of AGVs: 3m/s, 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Unit costs of traveling are 5, 9, 11, for all AGVs 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
respectively, 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hybrid cost and time path planning for multiple autonomous guided vehicles 493

3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 The objective function value from the mathematical


2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 model is obtained to be 90. The assignment of AGVs to
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 stations and the path plan are shown in Fig. 5.
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Next and to validate, the proposed MCF model and mod-
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ified network simplex algorithm are performed for the data
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 and the following computations for arc types.
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Arc type = In ward Arc type = Auxiliary Arc type = Out ward
 
APS(1, 4) = 0, 1, 53 t4 APS(4, 5) = [1, 1, 0] APS(1, 20) = [0, 1, 0]
 
APS(1, 6) = 0, 1, 53 t6 APS(6, 7) = [1, 1, 0] APS(2, 20) = [0, 1, 0]
 
APS(2, 4) = 0, 1, 93 t4 APS(8, 9) = [1, 1, 0] APS (3, 20) = [0, 1, 0]
 
APS(2, 6) = 0, 1, 93 t6 APS (10, 11) = [1, 1, 0] APS (5, 20) = [0, 1, 0]
 
APS(1, 4) = 0, 1, 11 t4 APS (12, 13) = [1, 1, 0] APS (7, 20) = [0, 1, 0]
 3 
APS(1, 6) = 0, 1, 11
3 t 6 APS (14, 15) = [1, 1, 0] APS (9, 20) = [0, 1, 0]
APS (16, 17) = [1, 1, 0] APS (11, 20) = [0, 1, 0]
APS(18, 19) = [1, 1, 0]
Arc type = Intermediate
APS(5, 6)= [0, 1, C5,6 ]  
3 ∗ (t6 − (t5 + 2)) + 53 AGV 1 + 93 AGV 2 + 11
3 AGV 3 ∗ 2 if t6 ≤ t5 + 2
C5,6 =
7 ∗ (t5 + 2 − t6 ) if t6 ≤ t5 + 2

Out ward

Station 1 4 5
Station 1
Auxiliary

Intermediate

In ward
Station 2 6 7 Station 2

Station 3 Station 3
AGV 1 1 8 9

NPS(1) = 1 Sink
Station 4 Station 4
10 11 20

AGV 2 2 NPS(20)= -3
Station 5 Station 5
12 13
NPS(2) = 1

Station 6 14 15 Station 6
AGV 3
3

For i=1:20
expect 1,2,3,20:
NPS(3) = 1
Station 7 16 17 NPS(i) = 0
Station 7

Station 8 18 19 Station 8

Fig. 5 Path plan for the verification example


494 H. Fazlollahtabar, S. Hassanli

Using the above computations, the allocations of AGVs to Note that the solution run time is negligible for this
stations are shown in Fig. 6. problem size.
The objective value by MCF-AGV model and modified
B. Efficiency example
network simples algorithm is obtained to be 89, which is
very close to the GAMS output showing the validation of Let’s study a larger sized problem to show the efficiency of
MCF algorithm. Also, the path plan for AGVs is presented the proposed MCF model and the modified network simplex
below. algorithm. Here, we consider 20 stations, 4 AGVs, the AGV
average velocity is set to 4m/s, unit cost of transportation for
different AGVs are 6, 8, 9, and 5, respectively. The lower
Path plan AGV and upper bounds of completion time in the interval [ei , li ]
AGV(1) Station(1)→ Station(2)→ Station(3)→ for each station is as shown below,
Station(4)→Sink ei = [4 2 8 5 9 11 7 3 10 12 18 15 6 14 13 20 16 17 22 25]
AGV(2) Station(7)→ Station(6)→ Station(5)→ Sink li = [6 5 10 8 15 13 9 8 15 18 22 20 9 19 22 25 21 23 26 30 ]
AGV(3) Station(7)→→Sink
The station distance 20*20 matrix is given as follows:

⎡ ⎤
0 5 3 10 6 13 1 9 4 5 2 10 11 7 15 8 16 18 20 25
⎢ 5
⎢ 0 3 5 6 7 8 11 12 10 9 21 15 14 18 22 11 19 27 28 ⎥

⎢ 3
⎢ 3 0 4 7 9 11 2 6 5 13 14 18 22 9 8 10 15 14 30 ⎥

⎢ ⎥
⎢ 10 5 4 0 2 1 5 6 7 9 8 11 15 13 12 6 2 9 8 4 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 6 6 7 2 0 4 3 17 12 5 9 8 11 10 5 7 8 24 30 19 ⎥


⎢ 13
⎢ 7 9 1 4 0 11 4 6 9 8 11 10 22 9 21 18 15 1 8 ⎥

⎢ 1
⎢ 8 11 5 3 11 0 2 3 5 6 7 9 8 11 10 7 14 22 6 ⎥

⎢ ⎥
⎢ 9 11 2 6 17 4 2 0 5 8 10 9 6 11 4 9 6 22 8 3 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 4 12 6 7 12 6 3 5 0 4 9 8 4 4 3 2 17 9 8 22 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 5
⎢ 10 5 9 5 9 5 8 4 0 9 11 6 7 12 4 9 15 4 9 ⎥⎥
⎢ 2
⎢ 9 13 8 9 8 6 10 9 9 0 13 8 5 7 3 7 5 12 3 ⎥

⎢ ⎥
⎢ 10 21 14 11 8 11 7 9 8 11 13 0 7 6 9 4 5 20 19 23 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 11 15 18 15 11 10 9 6 14 6 8 7 0 10 8 18 5 6 3 2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 7
⎢ 14 22 13 10 22 8 11 4 7 5 6 10 0 4 15 7 8 5 11 ⎥

⎢ 15
⎢ 18 9 12 5 9 11 4 3 12 7 9 8 4 0 6 26 6 8 3 ⎥

⎢ 8 ⎥
⎢ 22 8 6 7 21 10 9 2 4 3 4 18 15 6 0 13 5 8 17 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 16 11 10 2 8 18 7 6 17 9 7 5 5 7 26 13 0 4 3 7 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 18
⎢ 19 15 9 24 15 14 22 9 15 5 20 6 8 6 5 4 0 11 5 ⎥⎥
⎣ 20 27 14 8 30 1 22 8 8 4 12 19 3 5 8 8 3 11 0 8 ⎦
25 28 30 4 19 8 6 3 22 9 3 23 2 11 3 17 7 5 8 0

The MCF algorithm is performed and the AGVs paths plans


are shown below:

Path plan AGV

AGV(1) Station(12)→ Station(17)→ Station(18)→ Sink


AGV(2) Station(13)→ Station(9)→ Station(15)→ Station(14)→ Station(19)→ Sink
AGV(2) Station(4)→ Station(5)→ Station(10)→ Sink
AGV(4) Station(2)→ Station(1)→ Station(7)→ Station(8)→ Station(3)→ Station(10)→
Station(16)→ Station(11)→ Station(1)→ Sink
Hybrid cost and time path planning for multiple autonomous guided vehicles 495

Out ward

Station 1 4 5
Station 1
Auxiliary

Intermediate

In ward
Station 2 6 7 Station 2

Station 3 Station 3
AGV 1 1 8 9

NPS(1)
P =1 Sink
Station 4 Station 4
10 11 20

AGV 2 2 NPS(20)= -3
Station 5 Station 5
12 13
NPS(2) =1

Station 6 14 15 Station 6
AGV 3
3

For i=1:20
expect 1,2,3,20:
NPS(3) =1
Station 7 16 17 NPS(i) =0
Station 7

Station 8 18 19 Station 8

Fig. 6 Path plan with MCF for verification example

The obtained objective function value is 148 and the assign- be noted, the lower value is more favorable since the prob-
ments are shown in Fig. 7. Also, the solution run time is 495 lem is minimization and the less run time is also better. The
seconds. maximum available run time considered to be one hour and
the solution process interrupted after this time point. All
methods are implemented in Matlab 7.1 programming envi-
C. Comparison
ronment. The obtained objective function values and run
times are reported in Table 1. The results show better per-
In this section, MCF-AGV model is compared with some formance of the proposed MCF-NSA. Branch and bound
popular approaches for AGVs’ path planning reported in method was knocked down and determined to be inefficient
the literature. The solution methodologies were both artifi- for this problem. Only dynamic programming was capa-
cial intelligence based and exact ones. It should be noted ble to obtain a good solution as the global optimum but
that while the present study models presents a unique prob- the run time is very high. Although genetic algorithm pro-
lem in the literature of AGV path planning, we need to vides a solution in a reasonable time the optimal objective
handle the proposed mathematical model with other solu- function value is worse. Lagrangian relaxation and chance
tion approaches for comparison purposes. Therefore, all the constrained programming were both inefficient. Because,
algorithms were performed based on the proposed prob- they have very huge optimization effort and thus the solution
lem formulation and with regards to the assumptions made time increases drastically. Still, the proposed MCF-NSA for
here. In Table 1, the methods and their corresponding prob- the formulated mathematical model provides the optimal
lem sizes are shown. As stated, we adapted the solution global solution in a reasonable time in comparison to other
approaches to our mathematical model. Two points should methods.
496 H. Fazlollahtabar, S. Hassanli

Station 1 16 16 Station 1

Station 2 16 16 Station 2

Station 3 4 4 Station 3

Station 4 6 6 Station 4 Out ward

Auxiliary
Station 5 8 8 Station 5
Intermediate

Station 6 10 10 Station 6
In ward

AGV 1 1
Station 7 12 12 Station 7

NPS(1) = 1
Station 8 14 14 Station 8

Station 9 Station 9 Sink


16 16
AGV 2 2

20
Station 10 Station 10
16 16
NPS(2) = 1
NPS(20) = -4
Station 11 16 16 Station 11

AGV 3 3 Station 12 16 16
Station 12

NPS(3) = 1 Station 13 Station 13


16 16

Station14 Station14
16 16 For i=1:20
expect 1,2,3,20:
AGV 4 3
NPS(i) = 0
Station 15 16 16 Station 15

NPS(4) = 1
Station 16 16 16 Station 16

Station 17 16 16 Station 17

Station 18 16 16 Station 18

Station 19 16 16 Station 19

Station 20 16 16 Station 20

Fig. 7 Path plan with MCF for efficiency example

Table 1 A comparison
analysis Method Problem size Objective Run time
(number of station* number of AGV) function value (Second)

Genetic algorithm 20*4 190 232


Lagrangian relaxation 20*4 167 1725
Branch-and-bound 20*4 NFS 3600
Dynamic programming 20*4 153 1025
Chance constrained programming 20*4 211 2964
Proposed MCF-NSA 20*4 148 495

NFS: No feasible solution


Hybrid cost and time path planning for multiple autonomous guided vehicles 497

7 Conclusions 7. Fazlollahtabar H, Saidi-Mehrabad M (2015b) Autonomous guided


vehicles: Methods and models for optimal path planning. Springer
International Publishing, Switzerland. ISBN 978-3-319-14746-8
In this paper an earliness/tardiness and collision free math-
8. Fazlollahtabar H, Rezaie B, Kalantari H (2010) Mathematical pro-
ematical model was proposed for a manufacturing system gramming approach to optimize material flow in an AGV-based
having AGVs for material handling. The model considered flexible jobshop manufacturing system with performance analysis.
waiting time and penalty of earliness/tardiness as delay fac- Int J Adv Manuf Technol 51(9-12):1149–1158
9. Fazlollahtabar H, Saidi-Mehrabad M, Balakrishnan J (2015a)
tors. Thus, a hybrid time and cost model for path planning
Mathematical optimization for earliness/tardiness minimization in
of AGVs was presented. Due to complexity and substan- a multiple automated guided vehicle manufacturing system via
tial computational efforts, MCF method was developed integrated heuristic algorithms. Robot Auton Syst 72:131–138
and implemented for the proposed problem. For optimiza- 10. Fazlollahtabar H, Saidi-Mehrabad M, Masehian E (2015b) Math-
ematical model for deadlock resolution in multiple AGV schedul-
tion purpose, a modified network simplex algorithm was
ing and routing network: a case study. Ind Robot: Int J 42(2):252–
designed. An illustration example showed the verification 263
and validity of the mathematical model and the developed 11. Gerstl E, Mosheiov G (2013) Scheduling problems with two com-
network method. Numerical studies in two sizes help the peting agents to minimized weighted earlines–tardiness. Comput
Oper Res 40:109–116
decision makers to trust the applicability and effective- 12. Gómez JV, Vale A, Garrido S, Moreno L (2015) Performance
ness of the mathematical formulations and optimization analysis of fast marching-based motion planning for autonomous
algorithm. For future research, one can consider deadlock mobile robots in ITER scenarios. Robot Auton Syst 63(1):36–49
resolution factor in the mathematical model, capacitated 13. Hamidinia A, Khakabimamaghani S, Mahdavi Mazdeh M, Jafari
M (2012) A genetic algorithm for minimizing total tardi-
AGVs for demand and cycle time analysis, including AGV ness/earliness of weighted jobs in a batched delivery system.
breakdown in modelling, and developing other heuristic or Comput Ind Eng 62:29–38
meta-heuristic network optimization approaches as solution 14. Jose K, Pratihar DK (2016) Task allocation and collision-free path
methodologies. planning of centralized multi-robots system for industrial plant
inspection using heuristic methods. Robot Auton Syst 80:34–42
15. Kostavelis I, Gasteratos A (2015) Semantic mapping for mobile
robotics tasks: a survey. Robot Auton Syst 66:86–103
References 16. Latombe JC (1991) Robot motion planning. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht
17. Lee J, Kim DW (2016) An effective initialization method for
1. Das PK, Behera HS, Das S, Tripathy HK, Panigrahi BK, Pradhan genetic algorithm-based robot path planning using a directed
SK (2016) A hybrid improved PSO-DV algorithm for multi-robot acyclic graph. Inf Sci 332:1–18
path planning in a clutter environment. Neurocomputing 207:735– 18. M’Hallah R (2007) Minimizing total earliness and tardiness on
753 a single machine using a hybrid heuristic. Comput Oper Res
2. Das PK, Behera HS, Jena PK, Panigrahi BK (2016) Multi-robot 34:3126–3142
path planning in a dynamic environment using improved gravita- 19. Mac TT, Copot C, Tran DT, De Keyser R (2016) Heuristic
tional search algorithm. J Electr Syst Inform Technol 3(1):295– approaches in robot path planning: a survey. Robot Auton Syst
313 86:13–28
3. Drobouchevitch IG, Sidney JB (2012) Minimization of earliness, 20. Olya MH (2014a) Applying Dijkstra’s algorithm for general short-
tardiness and due date penalties on uniform parallel machines with est path problem with normal probability distribution arc length.
identical jobs. Comput Oper Res 39:1919–1926 Int J Oper Res 21(1):143–154
4. Fazlollahtabar H, Mahdavi-Amiri N (2013) Producer’s behavior 21. Olya MH (2014b) Finding shortest path in a combined
analysis in an uncertain bicriteria AGV-based flexible jobshop exponential–gamma probability distribution arc length. Int J Oper
manufacturing system with expert system. Int J Adv Manuf Res 21(1):25–37
Technol 65(9/12):1605–1618 22. Roy D, Krishnamurthy A, Heragu S, Malmborg C (2015) Queu-
5. Fazlollahtabar H, Olya MH (2013) A cross-entropy heuristic sta- ing models to analyze dwell-point and cross-aisle location in
tistical modeling for determining total stochastic material handling autonomous vehicle-based warehouse systems. Eur J Oper Res
time. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 67(5/8):1631–1641 242(1):72–87
6. Fazlollahtabar H, Saidi-Mehrabad M (2015a) Methodologies to 23. Wu X, Shen W, Lou P, Wu B, Wang L, Tang D (2016) An auto-
optimize automated guided vehicle scheduling and routing prob- mated guided mechatronic tractor for path tracking of heavy-duty
lems: a review study. J Intell Robot Syst 77:525–545 robotic vehicles. Mechatronics 35:23–31
498 H. Fazlollahtabar, S. Hassanli

Hamed Fazlollahtabar has Samaneh Hassanli has graduated in Industrial Engineering at Mazan-
been graduated in BSc and daran University of Science and Technology, Babol, Iran. She is now
MSc of Industrial Engineer- a PhD student of Industrial Engineering at Yazd University, Yazd,
ing at Mazandaran Univer- Iran. Her research interests are scheduling, manufacturing systems,
sity of Science and Tech- and maintenance engineering. She presented her works in international
nology, Babol, Iran at 2008 conferences and journals. She also authored a book in Maintenance
and 2010, respectively. He Engineering in Persian.
received PhD of Industrial
and Systems Engineering at
Iran University of Science and
Technology, Tehran, Iran at
2015. He completed his Post-
doctoral research fellowship at
Sharif University of Technol-
ogy, Tehran, Iran, in the area
of Reliability Engineering for
Complex Systems. He is in the editorial board several journals and
technical committee of conferences. His research interests are robot
path planning, manufacturing systems, and reliability engineering. He
has published over 200 research papers in international book chapters,
journals and conferences. Also he published 5 books which three of
them are internationally distributed to the academicians.

Potrebbero piacerti anche