Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2008) 39:954–964
DOI 10.1007/s00170-007-1268-5
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Multi-objective integrated optimization research
on preventive maintenance planning and production
scheduling for a single machine
Jin Yulan & Jiang Zuhua & Hou Wenrui
Received: 24 April 2007 / Accepted: 2 October 2007 / Published online: 13 November 2007
# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007
Abstract Preventive maintenance (PM) planning and prod-
uction scheduling are among the most important problems
in the manufacturing industries. Researchers have begun to
investigate the integrated optimization problem of PM and
production scheduling with a single objective. However,
many industries have trade-offs in their scheduling prob-
lems where multiple objectives must be considered in order
to optimize the overall performance of the system. In this
paper, five objectives, including minimizing maintenance
cost, makespan, total weighted completion time of jobs,
total weighted tardiness, and maximizing machine avail-
ability are simultaneously considered to optimize the
integrated problem of PM and production scheduling
introduced by Cassady and Kutanoglu. Multi-objective
genetic algorithm (MOGA) is used to solve the integrated
optimization problem. To illuminate the conflicting nature
of the objective functions, decision-makers’ preferences of
the multiple objectives are not integrated into the MOGA.
The total weighted percent deviation, which represents not
only the preferences of the objectives but also the
deviations of the solutions, is proposed to help decision-
makers select the best solution among the near-Pareto
optimal solutions obtained by the MOGA. A numerical
example reveals the necessity and significance of integrat-
ing optimization of PM and production scheduling consid-
ering multiple objectives.
Keywords Preventive maintenance planning .
Production scheduling . Multi-objective optimization .
Genetic algorithm
J. Yulan (*) : J. Zuhua : H. Wenrui
School of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiaotong University,
Shanghai 200240, People’s Republic of China
e-mail: jinyulan@sjtu.edu.cn
1 Introduction
Production scheduling and preventive maintenance (PM)
planning are among the most common and important
problems faced by the manufacturing industries [1].
Production-scheduling problems generally involve the
assignment of jobs or operations to machines, while
preventive maintenance actions are carried out to retain a
system or to restore it to an acceptable operating condition.
Consequently, there is extensive literature that deals with
production-scheduling and preventive maintenance problems.
Jain and Meeran [2] and Pinedo [3, 4] reviewed many studies
in production scheduling. The objectives of production
scheduling can deal with minimization of the completion time
of jobs, mean flow time, processing cost, etc. Comprehensive
surveys of models for preventive maintenance are available
from McCall [5], Sherif and Smith [6], Pham and Wang [7],
and Wang [8]. Various maintenance policies are studied in
order to improve system availability, prevent the occurrence of
system failures, as well as to reduce maintenance cost.
However, most relevant studies considered production
and maintenance plans as two independent problems and
solved them separately [1]. Most of the production-
planning models assume that the system will be contin-
uously available or function at its maximum performance
during the planning horizon, and most of the maintenance
planning models disregard the impact of maintenance
activities on the production capacity and do not explicitly
consider the production requirements [9]. Actually, apart
from the preventive-maintenance actions that can be
scheduled during downtimes, any unplanned maintenance
action disturbs production so it is crucial that both
production and maintenance related to a production system
are concurrently considered during the elaboration of
optimal production and maintenance plans [9].
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2008) 39:954–964
Aghezzaf et al. [9] considered an integrated production
and periodic preventive maintenance problem that satisfied
the demand for all items over the entire horizon without
backlogging, and which minimized the expected sum of
production and maintenance costs. However, the production
decision variables are production quantity and inventory of
the items rather than production scheduling. Qi et al. [10]
considered a single-machine scheduling problem with
possible multiple maintenance activities where the objective
is to minimize total completion time of jobs. Lee and Chen
[11] studied the problem of processing a set of n jobs on m
parallel machines where each machine must be maintained
once during the planning horizon. Jobs and maintenance
activities were scheduled with the weighted completion
time of jobs as objective. Chelbi and Ait-Kadi [12]
considered a mathematical model for a repairable produc-
tion unit supplying input to a subsequent assembly line
operating according to a JIT configuration. The decision
variables, the buffer stock size, and the PM period length,
were obtained by minimizing the sum of the maintenance
cost, the inventory holding cost, and the shortage cost.
Gharbi and Kenne [13] considered the production- and
preventive-maintenance control problem for a multiple-
machine manufacturing system where the objective is to
find the optimal production- and preventive-maintenance
rates by minimizing the total cost of inventory, repair, and
preventive maintenance. Kenne et al. [14] formulated an
analytical model for the joint determination of age-
dependent production planning and age-preventive mainte-
nance with the objective to minimize an overall cost
function, including inventory holdings, lost sales, preven-
tive, and corrective maintenance cost. However, the
production decisions are safety stock levels instead of
scheduling job orders. Cassady and Kutanoglu [15]
proposed an integrated model that simultaneously deter-
mines production scheduling and preventive-maintenance
planning decisions with the objective of minimizing job
tardiness. Cassady and Kutanoglu [16] also developed a
similar integrated model for minimizing the total expected
weighted completion time of jobs.
The research works mentioned above contribute to better
operations in the manufacturing industries by integrating
production and maintenance planning, but all of these works
optimize only a single objective. However, many industries
such as aircraft, electronics, semiconductor manufacturing,
etc., have trade-offs in their scheduling problems where
multiple objectives need to be considered in order to optimize
the overall performance of a system. Optimizing a single
objective generally leads to deterioration of another objective
[17]. In this paper, we study the joint determination problem
of PM planning and production scheduling introduced in
Cassady and Kutanoglu [16] with several objectives simul-
taneously considered, including the maintenance cost,
955
machine availability, makespan, total weighted completion
time of jobs, and total weighted tardiness.
This paper suggests a genetic algorithm (GA) to obtain
approximate efficient solutions for multi-objective combina-
torial optimization of preventive maintenance and production
planning. GA is widely applied to single-objective optimiza-
tion problems [1, 18]. Moreover, GA is a popular meta-
heuristic that is particularly well suited for multi-objective
problems [19]. Prasad et al. [20] used a genetic algorithmic
approach to solve the multi-objective scheduling problems in
a Kanban-controlled flowshop with intermediate buffer and
transport constraints. Perkgoz et al. [21] applied genetic
algorithms to solve the multi-objective lead-time control
problem in multi-stage assembly systems and Jones et al.
[22] listed 115 articles concerned with the theory and
application of multi-objective meta-heuristics and note that
70% of the articles use genetic algorithms as the primary
meta-heuristics. The underlying reason for such a preference
is that genetic algorithms can naturally produce multiple
solutions and therefore provide an ideal tool for generating a
representation of the many solutions that comprise the
efficient set [22].
This paper is organized as follows: the multi-objective
integrated optimization of PM planning and production
scheduling problem is described in Sect. 2. Sect. 3 proposes
the multi-objective genetic algorithm procedures for the
problem. The numerical example is presented and discussed
in Sect. 4. Finally, the conclusion is provided in the last
section of the paper.
2 Problem description
2.1 The production-scheduling problem
Let us consider a single machine in a manufacturing system
that is required to sequentially process a set of n jobs, and
suppose that preempting one job for another is not
permitted [16]. While making the production schedule,
many factors must be simultaneously considered. Let pj be
the processing time of job j, dj be the due time of job j, and
wj be the weight (or priority) of job j, j=1,2,..., n. Let x[i]j be
job sequencing decision variable, and


1 if the ith job sequentially performed is job j
x½i
j ¼
0 otherwise
i ¼ 1; 2;    ; n j ¼ 1; 2;    ; n
ð1Þ
For the ith job in the job sequence, let p[i] be the processing
time, d[i] be the due time, w[i] be the weight (or priority),
C[i] be the actual completion time and T[i] be the tardiness,
i=1,2,..., n.
956 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2008) 39:954–964

X
n The completion time for each job in the job sequence is a
p½i
¼ pj x½i
j ð2Þ random variable that depends on several factors, which
j¼1 includes the reliability of the machine before processing the
job, the PM decision and the time to complete PM activity,
the number of machine failure times during the job, the
X
n
time needed to complete after-failure maintenance, the
d½i
¼ dj x½i
j ð3Þ
j¼1 completion time for the previous jobs in the sequence and
the job’s processing time [16]. So it is necessary to make
the production schedule integrating preventive maintenance
X
n planning. Suppose jobs are not preempted for PM, and jobs
w½i
¼ wj x½i
j ð4Þ interrupted by failure can be resumed after repair without
j¼1
any additional time penalty [16].
Suppose y[i] is the PM decision prior to performing ith
  job in the job sequence, and
T½i
¼ max 0; C½i
 d½i
ð5Þ


1 if PM is performed before the ith job in the job sequence
To choose the optimal sequence for the jobs, three different y½i
¼
0 otherwise
objectives representing the general performance of the
ð9Þ
machine are considered in this work. Makespan is equiv-
alent to the completion time of the last job in the job Suppose as[i] is the age of the machine prior to processing
sequence. Total weighted completion time (TWC) gives a ith job in the job sequence; ae[i] is the age after processing
measure of total holding cost, specifically the inventory the ith job. Because we assume that PM is perfect and
costs incurred by the schedule. Total weighted tardiness repair after failure is minimal
(TWT) represents the general case of on-time delivery [17].  
  as½i
¼ ae½i1
1  y½i
i ¼ 1; 2;    ; n ð10Þ
Makespan ¼ max C½1
;    ; C½n
¼ C½n
ð6Þ

X
n ae½i
¼ as½i
þ p½i
i ¼ 1; 2;    ; n ð11Þ
TWC ¼ w½i
C½i
ð7Þ
i¼1
where p[i] is the processing time of the ith job in the job
sequence. When i=1, ae[0] is the initial age of the machine
prior to performing all the jobs. Because the hazard function
X
n X
n   
TWT ¼ w½i
T½i
¼ w½i
max 0; C½i
 d½i
ð8Þ of the underlying Weibull probability distribution, ae[0] can
i¼1 i¼1 be expressed as

ln ð ln R0 Þ
ae½0
¼ h exp ð12Þ
2.2 Preventive maintenance planning problem b
the expected number of machine failures in κ time units of
Suppose that the machine used to process the jobs is subject
the machine operating from its “as good as new” condition
to random failure, and the time to failure of the machine
is given by
follows a Weibull probability distribution having scale
parameter η and shape parameter b (b >1) [16]. When b >1, Z: Z :
β1
β
" t :
the hazard function is an increasing function and it may be N ð :Þ ¼ hðt Þdt ¼ dt ¼ ð13Þ
η η η
practical and important to take preventive maintenance for 0 0
the machine in order to reduce the increasing risk of
where h(t) is the hazard function.
machine failure. Suppose R0(R0 ∈ [0,1]) is the initial
The completion time of the ith job in the job sequence is
reliability of the machine prior to performing all the jobs.
expressed as
We assume that PM restores the machine to “as good as
new” condition, which implies the maintenance is perfect. X
i       
When the machine failure occurs, minimal repair, which C½i
¼ p½k
þ tp y½k
þ tr N ae½k
 N as½k
ð14Þ
k¼1
restores the machine to operating condition, is supposed to
perform [16]. Let tp, tr, cp and cr be mean time to complete While scheduling PM plan, maintenance cost (MC) and
PM, mean time to complete minimal repair, average cost for machine availability must be considered. Maintenance cost
performing one PM and average cost for performing one includes PM cost and minimal repair cost, the value of MC
minimal repair, respectively. during possessing all the mission jobs is given by
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2008) 39:954–964 957

X
n       X
n   
MC ¼ cp y½i
þ cr N ae½i
 N as½i
ð15Þ f3 ¼ TWT ¼ w½i
max 0; C½i
 d½i
ð22Þ
i¼1 i¼1

Normally, availability depends on both reliability and

maintainability. A concrete mathematical modeling to de- X
n       
scribe the availability is by mean up-time (MUT) and mean f4 ¼ MC ¼ cp y½i
þ cr N ae½i
 N as½i
ð23Þ
down-time (MDT). It is defined as [23] i¼1

MUT
A¼ ð16Þ Let fopt be a four-dimensional vector of the decision
MUT þ MDT
variables and fopt =(f1,..., f4). Hence, we finally obtain the
following non-linear multi-objective optimization problem:
Considering the process performing all the jobs, the MUT
can be expressed as Minimize fopt ð24Þ
Xn
MUT ¼ p
i¼1 ½i

ð17Þ
P
n
s:t: x½i
j ¼ 1 j ¼ 1; 2;    ; n
i¼1
The MDT can be expressed as P
n
Xn       x½i
j ¼ 1 i ¼ 1; 2;    ; n ð25Þ
MDT ¼ tp y½i
þ tr N ae½i
 N as½i
ð18Þ j¼1
i¼1 x½i
j ¼ 0or1 i ¼ 1; 2;    ; n j ¼ 1; 2;    ; n
Substituting Eqs. (17) and (18) into Eq. (16), the function y½i
¼ 0or1 i ¼ 1; 2;    ; n
can be rewritten as
Pn
i¼1 p½i

A ¼ Pn      
i¼1 p½i
þ tp y½i
þ tr N ae½i
 N as½i
3 Multi-objective genetic algorithm (MOGA)
Pn for scheduling preventive maintenance and production
p½i

¼ i¼1 ð19Þ
C½n

The objectives of the multi-objective optimization problem
are always in conflict, so the problem rarely converges to one
2.3 Multi-objective integrating optimization model solution that optimizes all the objectives simultaneously. A
multi-objective optimization problem usually generates a set
Our objective is to identify the most economical and efficient of Pareto-optimal solutions, each of which is non-inferior for
PM activities and job sequence. So in Sects. 2.1 and 2.2 many the decision-makers. GA is well suitable to solve multi-
objectives are proposed including minimizing Makespan, objective optimization problems because it works with a
TWC, TWT, MC and maximizing availability. Among these population of solutions and thus generates a representation of
five objectives, minimizing Makespan and maximizing many solutions that comprise the Pareto-optimal set. There
availability happen to be essentially similar in this work. are two tasks that are achieved in a multi-objective GA [24]:
Based on Eq. (6), Makespan is equivalent to C[n]. Moreover,
1. Convergence to the Pareto-optimal set, and
our availability varies inversely as C[n] according to Eq. (19).
2. Maintenance of diversity among solutions of the
Because the summation of the processing time of the given
Pareto-optimal set.
set of n jobs is fixed and constant, in order to maximize the
machine’s availability C[n] definitely ought to be minimal, Most multi-objective GAs work with the concept of
which attains the goal to minimize Makespan. Thus Make- domination. For a problem having more than one objective
span, TWC, TWT and MC are simultaneously considered as function, any two solutions x1 and x2 can have two
optimization objectives in the following sections. possibilities, one dominates the other or none dominates
Suppose fk(k=1,..., 4) indicates the objectives consid- the other [24]. A solution x1 is said to dominate the other
ered, which is given by solution x2, if both the following condition are true [24, 25].
f1 ¼ Makespan ¼ C½n
ð20Þ 1. The solution x1 is no worse than x2 in all objectives.
2. The solution x1 is strictly better than x2 in at least one
objective.
X
n
f2 ¼ TWC ¼ w½i
C½i
ð21Þ If any of the above conditions is not satisfied, the
i¼1 solution x1 does not dominate the solution x2.
958
3.1 Encoding and initial population
The real-valued encoding method is applied. Each chromo-
some is represented using a numerical string that has two
parts, PM decision sequence, and the job sequence. For
example, the chromosome {0110 2314} can be used to
represent the solution that job 2 is the first job to be
processed followed by job 3, job 1, and then job 4, in series
where PM is scheduled before job 3 and job 1. The initial
population is generated using random method. The popu-
lation size is assumed to be Npop.
3.2 Elitism strategy
Compared to single-objective optimization, the elitism
strategy in multi-objective problems is more complex.
Instead of one best solution (individual), there is a set
Eg(g=1, 2,..., Gen, where Gen is the number of generation)
of the non-dominated solutions whose size can be consid-
erable in each generation. During the execution of the
0 fkmin are the maximal and minimal value of the individuals
algorithm, a new set Eg consisting of the solutions which
belong to Eg and not belong to Ei(i=1,..., g−1) can be
0 this work are expected to be minimized, the normalized
found. Then the elite set is replenished with Eg and updated
every generation. A certain number (say, Nelite) of solutions
are randomly selected from the elite set at each generation
[24].
3.2.1 Evaluation
Calculate the values of the objective functions (Makespan,
TWC, TWT and MC) according to the formulas in
Sects. 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 for each generated individual,
which represent special integration of PM sequence and job
sequence. Generate set Eg(g=1, 2,..., Gen) with temporary
Pareto optimal solutions by classifying a population
according to non-domination.
3.2.2 Classifying a population
Consider a set of population members. The following
procedure can be used to attain the non-dominated set of
solutions [24]:
Step 0: Start from i=1.
Step 1: For all j=1, 2,..., Npop and i≠j, compare solutions
xi and x j for domination according to the above
concept of domination for all objectives.
Step 2: If for any j(i≠j), x j dominates xi, mark xi is
dominated.
Step 3: If all solutions in the population are considered, go
to Step 4, else increment i by one and go to Step 1.
Step 4: All the solutions that are not marked ‘dominated’
are non-dominated ones.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2008) 39:954–964
3.3 Selection
Selection can’t be executed without calculating the fitness of
the individuals in the population aforehand. In this work we
adopt the random-weight approach [24], a weighted sum of
multiple-objective functions that is used to combine them
into a scalar fitness function. The weights relating to the
multiple-objective functions are random for each selection
operation and therefore the search direction can vary.
We assign a random number to each weight, which is
given by [24]
randomk ð:Þ
k ¼ P4
wGA ; k ¼ 1;    ; 4 ð26Þ
k¼1 randomk ð:Þ
where randomk(.) is a non-negative random real number in
the closed interval [0,1].
Linear normalization method is adopted to reduce
variability in the properties of multiple objective functions.
As to the objective function fk (k=1,..., 4), suppose fkmax and
in the population, respectively. Because all the objectives in
objective function can be expressed as
fk  fk max
vk ð fk Þ ¼ ; k ¼ 1;    ; 4 ð27Þ
fk min  fk max
The weighted-sum objective can be written as follows:
X
4
f ð xÞ ¼ k vk ð f k Þ
wGA ð28Þ
k¼1
where f (x) is a combined fitness function, and x is a
numerical string (i.e., individual). Each pair of individuals
is selected as parents with different weight values newly
given by Eq. (26) to keep the diversity of the search
direction.
3.4 Crossover
The chromosome represented using a numerical string can be
separated into two different parts, one describing the binary
PM decisions and the other depicting the job sequence. Both
of the parts can be further divided into n genes defined by the
decision variables, where n is the number of jobs to be
processed. Therefore, there are 2n crossover (or mutation)
points in the chromosome string.
When the crossover point is in the closed interval [1, n],
the one-point crossover is implemented on the PM
decisions part of the chromosome, where the numerical
string after the crossover point is directly replaced by the
string from the other parent.
When the crossover point belongs to [n+1, 2n], the PM
decision part of the chromosome keeps no change and the
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2008) 39:954–964
C1 crossover is applied to job sequence part. The C1
crossover creates offspring with a feasible job sequence
while preserving the absolute position of the jobs before the
crossover point from one parent and the relative position of
jobs taken from the other parent, which is explained in
Reeves [26] and Sortrakul [1].
For example, we have two parents, P1, {0110 2314} and
P2, {1011 1432}. If the random crossover point is 2 (i.e.,
after the second PM decision), then we attain the offspring
O1, {0111 1432} and O2, {1010 2314}. Moreover,
assuming the crossover point is 5 (i.e., after the first job)
produces O1, {0110 2143} and O2, {1011 1234}.
3.5 Mutation
The one-point mutation, where the value of the gene at the
mutation point is changed from 0 to 1 or vice versa, is
applied for the PM decisions part of the chromosome when
the random mutation point is in the closed interval [1, n].
When the random mutation point belongs to [n+1, 2n],
the PM decision part of the chromosome keeps no change
and the shift mutation proposed in Sortrakul [1] is used for
the job sequence part. In the shift mutation for job
sequence, the gene at the randomly chosen mutation point
is moved beyond the last job in the sequence.
For example, the parent {0110 2314} is supposed to be
mutated. If the mutation point is 2, we obtain offspring,
{0010 2314}. Assuming the mutation point is 5, we have
the offspring, {0110 2142}.
3.6 Proposed algorithm
The flow diagram of the proposed algorithm is shown in
Fig. 1 and it is explained as follows:
Step 0: According to Sect. 3.1, generate an initial
population including Npop individuals.
0
Step 1: Find the non-dominated sets Eg and E g , then
update the elite set by storing the individuals
0
belonging to E g into it.
: :
: : :
:
: For the proposed algorithm, the following parameters
: –
Fig. 1 The flow diagram of the proposed algorithm
959
Step 2: Randomly select Nelite pairs of parents from the
elite set. Furthermore, repeatedly select another
(Npop −Nelite) pairs of parents from the current
population according to the following steps: (1)
calculate the random-weighted fitness value of
each individual according to Sect. 3.3; (2) using
the roulette-wheel selection scheme to select a
pair of individuals.
Step 3: For each pair selected, generate new pair of
offspring according to crossover probability pc
and crossover operation in Sect. 3.4.
Step 4: Apply mutation operation with mutation proba-
bility pm to each pair of offspring generated by
crossover operation.
Step 5: Evaluate and classify each pair of offspring generated
by mutation operation according to Sects 3.2.1 and
3.2.2. For each pair, a new individual is affirmed to
the non-dominated offspring among the pair if the
non-dominated one exists, otherwise the new
individual is randomly selected among the pair.
Npop new individuals are generated to construct the
new generation.
Step 6: If the predefined stopping condition is satisfied,
find the non-dominated individuals in the elite set
to create the approximate Pareto optimal set
according to Sect. 3.2.
Step 7: Decision-makers select the most preferred solution
in the approximate Pareto optimal set.
4 Case study
4.1 The test example and settings of MOGA
For a case study, we have implemented the above MOGA
and procedures related to integrating optimization of PM
planning and production scheduling with Visual Basic. The
following parameters with respect to the optimization
problem have been arbitrarily chosen:
– The machine’s initial reliability R0 =0.7
– Weibull distribution with shape parameter scale b =2
and parameter η=150
– tp =5, tr =15
– cp =1000, tr =300
– The machine is required to process a set of five jobs
with related parameters, as is presented in Table 1.
have been chosen:
Population size: Npop =50
– Number of pairs of parents selected from the elite set:
Nelite =4
960 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2008) 39:954–964

Table 1 Parameters of production-scheduling problem in the example Besides these common solutions, there are other particular
given
solutions of each generation. Among the 20 solutions
Job Processing time Due time Weight shown in Fig. 2, the non-dominated ones can be determined
by the method described in Sect. 3.2.2, which is shown in
1 23 110 0.05 Table 2.
2 30 75 0.25
As can be seen in Table 2, all 12 common solutions of
3 45 120 0.2
4 70 160 0.4 the five generations are non-dominated ones, as well as
5 80 250 0.1 three particular solutions, {01010 13425}, {01010 14325},
and {01000 52431}. However, these three particular
solutions can be substituted by the common solutions to a
great extent.
– Crossover probability: Pc =0.5 Comparing to solution 4 or solution 10 in Table 2,
– Mutation probability: Pm =0.3 solution {01010 13425} on the one hand has the deterio-
– The termination of MOGA is reaching the number of ration of the value TWC and TWT, on the other hand, its
maximum generation. tiny improvement of Makespan and MC is within 0.04%,
which can be neglected in practice. Therefore, solution
4.2 Numerical results {01010 13425} can be replaced by solution 4 or solution
10. For the same reason, solution {01010 14325} can be
MOGA is repeatedly executed several times with different replaced by solution 4 or solution 10, and solution {01000
generations for determining the trend of MOGA and ensuring 52431} can be substituted by solution 2.
that the optimal solutions can be obtained. The computed Thus, in practice the alternative solutions for the multi-
solutions of the combination of PM planning and production objective integrated optimization problem can be concen-
scheduling of several generations are shown in Fig. 2. trated into the common solutions, which are the first 12
As can be seen in Fig. 2, the solutions about job solutions in Table 2. Figures 3–6 are presented to compare
sequence converge to {23415} and {24315}, while the the values of the four objectives of these solutions.
solutions of PM decision sequence comparatively diverge, As Fig. 3 shows, for the same job sequence the values of
and all the five generations have 12 of the same solutions. TWC vary with different PM decision sequence, while for
the same PM sequence the values of TWC still vary with
different job sequence. As can be seen in Fig. 4, the values
of TWT also vary with different PM activities and different
00000 01000 10100 job sequence.
00100 01010 10101 Considering Figs. 3 and 4 together, job sequence
54321 gen. 100 54321 {24315} has the minimal value of TWC and job sequence
gen. 200 {23415} has the minimal value of TWT for any same PM
52431 X X gen. 300 52431
gen. 400 sequence, which is also approved by enumerating 120 (or
gen. 500 5!) job sequences to find the best value of TWC and TWT
52341 52341
without considering PM activities. To decrease the value of
51243 51243 TWC and TWT for a certain job sequence, the sufficient
Job sequence

PM activities should be performed to avoid stochastic

24315 24315 failures when the machine is in operation, which may result
X X X X X X

23415 23415 in higher maintenance costs.

X X X X X X As Fig. 5 shows, for the same job sequence the values of
14352 X 14352 Makespan alter considerably as the PM decision sequences
change. However, for the same PM decision sequence the
14325 14325
values of Makespan only slightly vary with the job
13452 13452 sequences. As the total processing time is constant for the
given jobs to be processed, it is obvious that the deviation
13425 13425 of Makespan values mainly depends on the PM activities,
00000 01000 10100 because PM activities may occupy time that can be used for
00100 01010 10101 production. Although the PM sequence is the same, job
PM decision sequence sequences also affect the value of Makespan, because the
Fig. 2 Solutions of PM planning and production scheduling of reliability of the machine to process certain sequenced job
several generations is still different, which gives rise to different probability of
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2008) 39:954–964 961

Table 2 Non-dominated solutions obtained from several generations

Solution PM decision sequence Job sequence Values of objectives

Makespan TWC TWT MC

1 00000 23415 318.6 138.7 18.2 1412.50

2 00100 23415 285.7 130.6 10.1 1653.22
3 01000 23415 288.9 129.2 9.1 1717.32
4 01010 23415 278.1 128.2 8.1 2401.45
5 10100 23415 281.7 128 7.9 2474.05
6 10101 23415 276.8 127.5 7.4 3275.65
7 00000 24315 318.6 133.4 23.0 1412.50
8 00100 24315 286.2 128.2 17.8 1664.28
9 01000 24315 288.9 124.5 16.5 1717.32
10 01010 24315 278.1 123.5 15.5 2401.45
11 10100 24315 279.3 123.5 15.4 2425.38
12 10101 24315 277.0 123.3 15.2 3280.31
13 01010 13425 278 154.2 31.7 2399.66
14 01010 14325 278 149.4 38.7 2399.66
15 01000 52431 285.6 189.9 68.2 1652.76

taking time to perform minimal repair caused by unexpect-
ed machine failures.
As Fig. 6 shows, for the same job sequence the values of
MC vary with different PM decision sequences, while for the
same PM sequence different job sequences cause inappre-
ciable fluctuation in the values of MC. The maintenance cost
is composed by PM cost and minimal repair cost, where it
has been assumed that the cost for performing one PM is
higher than performing one minimal repair. So the deviation
of the values of MC is chiefly caused by different PM
activities performed. Although under the same PM activities
the reliability of the machine to process certain sequenced job
is different between different job sequences, the minimal
repair cost may vary with job sequences.
Considering Figs. 5 and 6 together, in this work the
fluctuation of the values of Makespan and MC depend
mainly on PM activities, while job sequence also contrib-
utes to the deviation. On the hypothesis of tp <tr and Cp >Cr,
to decrease the value of the Makespan the stochastic
failures of the machine should be avoided as possible by
performing sufficient PM activities, which leads to more
maintenance cost. Conversely, it is the same dilemma.
As can be seen in Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, decreasing the value of
Makespan, TWC and TWT always results in high mainte-
nance cost. There are very complex interactions between
PM activities and jobs to be processed.
Considering the trade-off between the objectives, the
total weighted percent deviation (TWPD) can be used as an
evaluation measure to help decision-makers select an
optimal solution executed in practice. TWPD can be
calculated by the following formula,
X 4
TWPDm ¼ Preferencek  PercentDeviationm;k
k¼1
where TWPDm is the total weighted percent deviation for
solution m, Preferencek is the objective weight to the kth

Fig. 3 TWC of common solutions of several generations Fig. 4 TWT of common solutions of several generations
962 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2008) 39:954–964

Table 3 The best value for each objective

Makespan TWC TWT MC

276.8 123.3 7.4 1412.5

It must be emphasized that the objective with a larger

Fig. 5 Makespan of common solutions of several generations
objective given by decision-makers. PercentDeviationm,k is
the percent deviation for solution m from the best value of
the kth objective, which is given by
Sm;k  Sbest;k
PercentDeviationm;k ¼  100
Sbest;k
where Sm,k is the kth objective value of solution m, Sbest,k is
the best value of the kth objective.
Among the solutions shown in Table 2, solution 6 has
the minimal objective values of Makespan and TWT, while
solution 12 has the minimal value of TWC. Because no PM
activities were performed, solution 1 and solution 7 have
the minimal value of MC and the maximal Makespan value
at the same time. The best value of Makespan, TWC, TWT
and MC can be seen in Table 3. The percent deviations for
the first 12 solutions in Table 2 are calculated and shown in
Fig. 7. As can be seen in Fig. 7, the percent deviations of
Makespan and TWC for the 12 solutions are between
[0,16]. The maximum percent deviations of TWT and MC
preference is more important to decision-makers, and the
solution with the minimal TWPD is selected to be executed.
Figure 8 shows the total weighted percent deviations for the
solutions with preferences equal to 1. Obviously, with
equal-preferences solution 3 has the minimal TWPD and
can be selected by decision-makers.
To illustrate how the select solutions vary with different
preferences, a numerical experiment was designed. For
each experiment trial, 10,000 groups of preferences were
randomly generated according to the preferences require-
ment given in Table 4. The number of times that a solution
has the minimal TWPD for each trial is presented in Fig. 9.
As can be seen in Fig. 9, the results of the three trials
almost keep no change. For each trial, solution 3 ({01000
23415}) greatly exceeds all the other solutions. It is
selected to be used in practice in more than half (about
64%) of the experiment cases. Although solution 1, 6, 7,
and 12 have one or two minimal objective values of the
four objectives, the sum of the times that they can be
220
Makespan
200
TWC
180 TWT
% deviation from the best value

are about 211 and 132, respectively. MC

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Solution
Fig. 6 MC of common solutions of several generations Fig. 7 Percent deviations for the common solutions
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2008) 39:954–964 963

240 6500

220 6000 T rial 1

5500 T rial 2
200
T rial 3
TWPD with preferences equal to 1

5000

Num. of times with minimal TWPD

180
4500
160
4000
140 3500
120 3000

100 2500

2000
80
1500
60
1000
40
500
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Solution Solution
Fig. 8 TWPD with equal-preferences for the solutions Fig. 9 Experimental results of the solutions

selected by decision-makers only occupies about 10% of
the experiment cases mentioned above. Obviously, it is
necessary to integrate PM planning and production sched-
uling together to coordinate the conflicts between Make-
span, TWC, TWT and MC.
5 Conclusions
Preventive maintenance (PM) planning and production
scheduling are the most important problems in the
manufacturing industries. In order to optimize the overall
performance of the manufacturing system, it is necessary to
integrate PM planning and production scheduling together.
This paper studied the joint determination problem of
PM planning and production scheduling for a single
machine as was introduced in Cassady and Kutanoglu
Table 4 Experiment design for preferences
Trial Preferencek (k=1, ⋯, 4)
1 ∈[0,1]
2 ∈[0,5]
3 ∈[0,10]
[16] with several objectives simultaneously considered,
including minimizing the maintenance cost, makespan, total
weighted completion time of jobs, total weighted tardiness,
and maximizing machine availability.
Multi-objective genetic algorithm was used to solve the
joint optimization problem. The total weighted percent
deviation, which represents the preferences of the objec-
tives and the deviations of the solutions, was proposed to
help decision-makers select the best solution among the
near-Pareto optimal solutions obtained by the MOGA.
The non-dominated optimal solutions of the numerical
example show the complete picture of the trade-off between
the objectives. Minimizing makespan is equal to maximizing
machine availability. Except for these two objectives, the
objectives are always in conflict. Decreasing the value of
Makespan, TWC, and TWT always results in higher mainte-
nance costs. The values of TWC and TWT are affected by not
only the PM decision sequences but also the job sequences.
The values of Makespan and MC are mainly affected by the
PM decision sequence. The job sequences have a slight
influence on the fluctuation of Makespan and MC.
The results of the example also show that in most cases
P4
k¼1 Preferencek the solution having several best values of the objectives is
not the best one selected to be practically executed. The
1 whole study shows the necessity and significance of
Random
integrating optimization of PM and production scheduling
Random
considering multiple objectives.
964
References
1. Sortrakul N, Nachtmann HL, Cassady CR (2005) Genetic algo-
rithms for integrated preventive maintenance planning and produc-
tion scheduling for a single machine. Comput Ind 56(2):161–168
2. Jain AS, Meeran S (1999) Deterministic job-shop scheduling:
past, present and future. Eur J Oper Res 113(2):390–434
3. Pinedo M (1995) Scheduling theory, algorithms and systems, 1st
edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
4. Pinedo M (2002) Scheduling theory, algorithms and systems, 2nd
edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
5. McCall JJ (1965) Maintenance policies for stochastically failing
equipment: a survey. Manage Sci 11:493–524
6. Sherif YS, Smith ML (1981) Optimal maintenance models for
systems subject to failure – a review. Nav Res Logist 28(1):47–74
7. Pham H, Wang HZ (1996) Imperfect maintenance. Eur J Oper Res
94(3):425–438
8. Wang HZ (2002) A survey of maintenance policies of deteriorat-
ing systems. Eur J Oper Res 139(3):469–489
9. Aghezzaf EH, Jamali MA, Ait-Kadi D (2007) An integrated
production and preventive maintenance planning model. Eur J
Oper Res 181(2):679–685
10. Qi X, Chen T, Tu F (1999) Scheduling the maintenance on single
machine. J Oper Res Soc 50(10):1071–1078
11. Lee CY, Chen ZL (2000) Scheduling jobs and maintenance
activities on parallel machines. Nav Res Logist 47(2):145–165
12. Chelbi A, Ait-Kadi D (2004) Analysis of a production/inventory
system with randomly failing production unit submitted to regular
preventive maintenance. Eur J Oper Res 156(3):712–718
13. Gharbi A, Kenne JP (2005) Maintenance scheduling and
production control of multiple-machine manufacturing systems.
Comput Ind Eng 48(4):693–707
14. Kenne JP, Gharbi A, Beit M (2007) Age-dependent production
planning and maintenance strategies in unreliable manufacturing
systems with lost sale. Eur J Oper Res 178(2):408–420
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2008) 39:954–964
15. Cassady CR, Kutanoglu E (2003) Minimizing job tardiness using
integrated preventive maintenance planning and production
scheduling. IIE Trans 35(6):503–513
16. Cassady CR, Kutanoglu E (2005) Integrating preventive mainte-
nance planning and production scheduling for a single machine.
IEEE Trans Reliab 54(2):304–309
17. Cochran JK, Horng SM, Fowler JW (2003) A multi-population
genetic algorithm to solve multi-objective scheduling problems
for parallel machines. Comput Oper Res 30(7):1087–1102
18. Sortrakul N, Cassady CR (2007) Genetic algorithms for total
weighted expected tardiness integrated preventive maintenance
planning and production scheduling for a single machine. J Qual
Maint Eng 13(1):49–61
19. Konak A, Coit DW, Smith AE (2006) Multi-objective optimiza-
tion using genetic algorithms: a tutorial. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91
(9):992–1007
20. Prasad SD, Rajendran C, Chetty OVK (2006) A genetic
algorithmic approach to multi-objective scheduling in a Kanban-
controlled flowshop with intermediate buffer and transport
constraints. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 29(5):564–576
21. Perkgoz C, Azaron A, Kataqiri H, Kato K, Sakawa M (2007) A
multi-objective lead time control problem in multi-stage assembly
systems using genetic algorithms. Eur J Oper Res 180(1):292–308
22. Jones DF, Mirrazavi SK, Tamiz M (2002) Multi-objective meta-
heuristics: an overview of the current state-of-the-art. Eur J Oper
Res 137(1):1–9
23. Tsai YT, Wang KS, Tsai LC (2004) A study of availability-
centered preventive maintenance for multi-component systems.
Reliab Eng Syst Saf 84(3):261–270
24. Osman MS, Abo-Sinna MA, Mousa AA (2005) An effective
genetic algorithm approach to multiobjective routing problems
(MORPs). Appl Math Comput 163(2):769–781
25. Steuer RE (1986) Multiple criteria optimization: theory, compu-
tation, and application. Wiley, New York
26. Reeves CR (1994) Genetic algorithm for flowshop sequencing.
Comput Oper Res 22(1):5–13