11th International Conference on Modeling, Optimization and Simulation - MOSIM16

August 22-24
Montral, Qubec, Canada
Innovation in Technology for performant Systems

JOINT MAINTENANCE AND PRODUCTION PLANNING IN A

DETERIORATING SYSTEM: MODEL AND SOLUTION METHOD

H. Beheshti Fakher, M. Nourelfath M. Gendreau

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Laval
University - Quebec - Canada
and
Interuniversity Research Centre on Enterprise
Networks, Logistics and Transportation (CIRRELT)
Hossein.Beheshti-Fakher.1@ulaval.ca,
Mustapha.Nourelfath@gmc.ulaval.ca
Department of Mathematics and Industrial
Engineering, Polytechnic of Montreal Canada
and
Interuniversity Research Centre on Enterprise
Networks, Logistics and Transportation (CIRRELT)
Michel.Gendreau@cirrelt.ca

ABSTRACT: In this paper, a model for integrated planning of production, maintenance, and planning of quality
control activities is presented and a novel memetic algorithm with population management is proposed. The suggested
approach contributes in the development of efficient planning systems by incorporation of interacting decisions in a
single model. Production planning part involves a multi-machine multi-product lot-sizing problem where the system
conditions deteriorate with time and so, the nonconformity rate increases. Such deteriorations also participate in the
reduction of the system reliability. An imperfect preventive maintenance policy is considered to improve the conditions
or to stop further degradation. Despite the machine failures that cause a complete breakdown of the process, quality
degradations are not self-announcing, so process inspections are designed to detect the conditions. Several times
during the production time, samples are taken and their characteristics are measured. Then, these data are used for the
maintenance planning. By detecting a quality shift, the machine will be repaired and the items processed in the
degraded state will be checked. A memetic algorithm with population management is developed to solve the
combinatorial optimization problem that employs tabu-search algorithm as the local optimization method.

KEYWORDS: lot-sizing, imperfect maintenance, process inspection, heuristic method. memetic algorithm, population
management.

1. INTRODUCTION account. We incorporate the main decision variables

The strong interactions between production, maintenance
and quality systems are principally ignored in literature
as well as in industry. Availability and quality of jobs
processed on machines in a system is a function of
maintenance operations. On the other side, some types of
machine deteriorations mainly those that result in quality
issues are not self-announcing. Quality inspections and
statistical process control tools are conventionally used
to detect and signal process-related problems. After
detecting a quality shift in the process, the maintenance
teams may interfere and fix the machine. Effective
performance of the quality system is important in
planning the maintenance system. Joint planning is an
efficient approach in addressing such interactive
decisions. Existing studies have reported significant
savings in joint planning. In this paper, a model for joint
planning of production, maintenance, and process
inspections strategy in a deteriorating system is
proposed.
In most of the existing papers in this field, the
production system is optimized subject to the
deterioration state of the system in a reactive manner and
the fact that the process deterioration can by altered by
means of the maintenance operations is not taken into
from the three functions in an optimization model. In
contrast to the perfect maintenance, the concept of
imperfect maintenance that we have employed, is closer
to the real systems and it assumes that the system
conditions after PM are improved but not to the perfect
state. The improvement factor is related to the level of
the selected PM operations. The model also addresses
the determination of process inspection parameters in
accordance with the maintenance and production
systems. Such level of integration is new almost new in
the literature and the problem configuration with
imperfect PM, imperfect production, deteriorating
system and inspections are the originalities of the
proposed model.
Independently, each of these problems are very large and
complicated models, and when integrated, the resulted
problem is very sophisticated and difficult to solve. So,
the development of efficient solution methods will be a
critical issue. As the second novelty of this paper, we
develop a heuristic method based on memetic algorithms
to evaluate the joint model. We take into account several
state-of-the art performance enhancement strategies to
improve the quality of the proposed solution method.
 MOSIM16 August 22-24
Montral, Qubec, Canada
The remainder of this paper is as follows: In section 2, a
brief literature review is presented. Section 3 states the
problem definition, and section 4 discusses the
evaluation and the mathematical formulation of the
model. In section 5, a solution method based on heuristic
algorithms is proposed, and section 6 comprises a
sample problem and the numerical results. Finally, in
section 7 we conclude the paper.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The idea of integrating production planning and
maintenance scheduling with imperfect systems is
motivated by the need to coordinate the complex
interactions between different functions. Imperfect
maintenance advocates realistic systems in which the
system status after maintenance is neither perfect as a
new system nor very poor as an old system. Production,
maintenance and quality systems strongly interact
(Nourelfath and Ben-Daya, 2012). Existing literature on
integration highlights the significance of improvements
achieved by the joint models (Xiang, 2013; Kenn,
Gharbi, and Beit, 2007). This approach is a beneficiary
of the whole system (Ben-Daya and Duffuaa, 1995; Ben-
Daya, 2007; Lou, Cheng, and Ji, 2015; Hadidi, Al-Turki,
and Abdur-Rahim, 2012; Suliman and Jawad, 2012;
Sung and Ock, 1992; Pandey, Kulkarni, and Vrat, 2011;
and Nourelfath and Ben-Daya, 2012) and improves the
productivity (Kenn, Gharbi, and Beit 2007) or the
profitability (Chen, 2013; Beheshti, Nourelfath, and
Gendreau, 2014). The model developed by (Brandolese
et al., 1996) uses integrated production-maintenance
scheduling to minimize the total cost and plant
utilization in a system composed of flexible parallel
machines assigned to production of several products in a
single stage.
However, such joint models are generally non-linear and
difficult to be solved in a reasonable time or with
rational computational effort. Exploiting the benefits of
integrated models necessitates the development of
efficient solution methods. In the next section, some
solution approaches used in solving the joint models are
discussed.
Maravelias and Sung (2009) classified the solution
methods in solving integrated problems into: (a)
hierarchical methods, (b) iterative methods, and (c) full-
space methods. In the first two methods, the problem is
decomposed into two smaller (master and slave) sub-
problems. Full-space methods try to solve directly the
integrated problem. Examples of the solution methods
used in solving the integrated problems are genetic
algorithms (Lozano et al. 2008, tabu-search method
(Pineyro and Viera, 2010), approximation of non-linear
functions (Lee and Rosenblatt, 1989), iterative solutions
(Aghezzaf, Jamali, and Ait-Kadi, 2007; Dhouib, Gharbi,
and BenAziza, 2012; Suliman and Jawad, 2012),
approximate algorithm based on lagrangian
decomposition (Aghezzaf and Najid, 2008; Alaoui-
Selsouli, Mohafid and Najid, 2012), variable
neighborhood search (Machani and Nourelfath, 2012),
simulation based methods (Roux et al., 2013; Liao and
Chen, 2003), hybridization of genetic algorithm with
tabu-search (Gopalakrishnan, Mohan, and He, 2001),
chaotic partial swarm optimization (Leng, Ren, and Gao,
2006), memetic algorithms (Srensen and Sevaux, 2006;
Franca, Mendes, and Moscato, 2001), simulated
annealing (Loukil, Taghem, and Fortemps, 2007),
harmony search (Zammori, Braglia, and Castellano,
2014), and ant colony optimization (Berrichi et al.,
2010). Moghaddam and Usher (2011) compared the
efficiency and accuracy of exact and heuristic algorithms
and concluded that the solution time of exact methods
exponentially increases by the problem size, whereas the
solution time in heuristic methods is almost constant and
considerably low. They proposed heuristic methods for
large problems. Iravani and Duenyas (2002) formulated
the joint production inventory system in a single
machine deteriorating system using a Markov decision
structure and showed that the performance of dis-
integrated policies can be inadequate. Modeling with
Markov decision process and using integer programming
formulation is also considered in the paper of (Aramon
Bajestani et al., 2014) for joint scheduling in a multi-
machine deteriorating system. According to them, online
condition monitoring in maintenance and production
planning has reduced the costs to 21%.
As we see, evolutionary algorithms (EAs) have been
widely and successfully used in solving difficult and
large problems. Lacksonen (2001) compared genetic
algorithm, Hooke-Jeeves pattern search, Nelder-Mead
algorithm (NM), and simulated annealing in solving
different discrete optimization problems and reported
that GA was the most robust as it founds near optimal
solution of all test problems, but it requires more
replications. Among the existing evolutionary
algorithms, MAs have been increasingly employed in
solving problems in operations research and computer
sciences (Hart, Krasnogor, and Smith 2004). Memetic
algorithms exploit the benefits of integrating population-
based search and local improvement methods. Merz
(2000) showed that by such a combination, the power of
EA is considerably improved. Efficiency and robustness
of MAs in solving complex planning and scheduling
problems and their capability in balancing between
exploitation and exploration are our motivation in
adopting a memetic algorithm to solve the integrated
production-maintenance problem.
The literature review first, illuminates the value of joint
scheduling and shows that just a few papers have
addressed the integration of production planning and
maintenance scheduling in imperfect systems, and
second, underlines the gap between the theory and
application of joint models. To the best of our
knowledge, very few implementations of joint models
have been reported yet. Neglected the importance of
interactions between planning functions, the novelty of
the research resulted in multiple unaddressed issues in
real life problems, complexity of the models resulted in
 MOSIM16 August 22-24
Montral, Qubec, Canada
hardness of solving them, and the inadequacy of general
insights to help practitioners in shop-floor decisions are
the main grounds of the gap between theory and
application of joint models. As the main contribution of
this paper, we develop a solution method based on
memetic algorithms for an integrated problem from the
literature. In the meantime, we implement innovative
strategies to improve the algorithm efficiency. For the
first time in similar problem, we not only make use the
properties of good solutions (known as positive
knowledge) but also, the characteristics of poor solutions
(negative knowledge) in algorithm transitions. The
proposed method uses population management to
maintain the diversity during the solution process.
Hybridization of genetic algorithm with local search
methods is carried out in two points. First, using CPLEX
to solve a part of the model that is a linear program, and
then, we use Nelder-Mead or tabu-search algorithms to
enhance its performance.
In order to exploit the benefits of integration, it is
essential to develop efficient solution methods for joint
problems. The literature reported the good performance
of the memetic algorithm in solving complicated models.
Introduced by Moscato and Norman (1989), Memetic
algorithm (also called hybrid genetic algorithms or
genetic local search) is a population-based approach that
combines GA with problem specific heuristics or local
search methods. Some of its recent implementations are
Schemeleva et al. (2012), Cheng et al. (2011), Boudia
and Prins (2009). A literature review of memetic
algorithms can be found in Neri and Cotta (2012).
Memetic algorithms are also employed in solving
production-maintenance problems (Frana et al., 2001).
The literature shows the importance of preserving the
population diversity on efficiency and productivity of a
population-based heuristics (Laguna et al., 1999, Ferland
et al., 2001). Vidal et al. (2013, 2014) reported an
impressive increase in the algorithms efficiency in
population management. Hertz and Widmer (2003)
discussed that maintaining the population diversity is
critical in efficiency of evolutionary algorithms. This
concern is even more important in memetic algorithms,
because the local search forces the exploration to focus
on some restricted regions. The concept of a memetic
algorithm with population management (MAPM) was
first introduced by Srensen and Sevaux (2006), where
the aim was to dynamically preserve the diversity of a
small population of high-quality individuals and to avoid
slow or premature convergence. Using numerical
comparisons they showed that the MAPM outperforms
very similar hybrid genetic algorithms without
population management. Vidal et al. (2012) developed a
hybrid genetic algorithm (HGA) for the multi-depot and
periodic vehicle routing problem. They proposed a
mechanism that addresses both the objective value and
its contribution to population diversity in the evaluation
of individuals. Lozano et al. (2008) took into account a
replacement strategy to preserve the heterogeneity. On
the other hand, calculating the diversity factor has its
own significance. Nsakanda et al. (2007) showed that the
method of measuring the population diversity has an
important effect on the results and they proposed a new
approach based on computing the distance and the
similarity of chromosomes. Vidal et al. (2012) used the
Hamming distance method to a set of close neighbors. In
Lozano et al. (2008), the diversity contribution of a
chromosome is dened as the distance of an offspring to
its nearest neighbor.
In this article, a memetic algorithm with population
management for the integrated production-maintenance
problem is proposed. The algorithm employs CPLEX
optimization package to solve the linear part of the
problem, and in the meantime, it exploits Nelder-Mead
or tabu-search methods to improve the performance.
Population management strategies are used to well-
organize the solution process and both positive and
negative knowledge (information extracted from better
and worse solutions) are used in the solution process.
Intensification of good solutions, diversification of the
population, adaptive control of the algorithm parameters,
and survivor selection based on the contribution of
individuals in the population heterogeneity are the
implemented strategies. Performance indicators (the
solution time and quality, and the algorithm robustness)
are used to compare it to other heuristics or different
configurations of MAPM.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In
section 2, a brief literature review and in section 3, the
problem definition is presented. Section 4 comprises the
formulations and the joint model. In section 5, a heuristic
solution method and in section 6, the numerical results
are proposed. Finally, section 7 is dedicated to the
concluding remarks.
3. PROBLEM DEFINITION
Our first objective is to formulate the integrated planning
problem in multi-machine systems. A lot-sizing problem
with multiple machines and products in a multi-period
planning horizon is considered. The processing rate and
cost for a product type on various machines can be
different, so the machines are parallel but not identical.
Backlogging is allowed and setup cost is imposed every
time a new product type is launched. The cost of the
manufacturing system is comprised of inventory holding
cost, backorder cost, processing costs, and setup cost. At
the beginning of each period, a preventive maintenance
(PM) possibility at the beginning of each period is
considered to improve the machine conditions (if
needed). During a mission, only minimal repairs (to fix a
failed or to restore a quality degraded machine) are
available. Machine failures are self-announcing but
quality deteriorations are detected by means of quality
inspections. The length of periods is constant and during
a period, several inspections can be achieved. The
inspections divide the period into several equally-spaced
intervals. Since, the machines are in different conditions
from the health point of view, the number of quality
 MOSIM16 August 22-24
Montral, Qubec, Canada
inspections for each machine can be different. Quality
inspections, from one hand, impose the inspection cost,
and from the other hand, they are required to detect the
quality issues. When a quality shift is signaled, first the
machine is fixed to bring it in its normal state, and then
all the products processed in that interval will be
checked. We assume that the defective items can be
reworked. Minimal repairs bring are to fix a failed
machine or to bring it into a normal operational state
with negligible defective rate, and they have no effect on
the age of the machines. The preventive maintenance
performed at the beginning of the periods, improves the
system conditions by reducing the age of the machine.
Certain PM levels with different time and cost are
available for each machine. The reduction in the age of
the machine after PM depends upon the cost of the
selected PM level. The lowest PM level concerns to the
no-PM option and it has no cost or time. Selecting higher
PM levels first imposes higher costs and second,
occupies more available time of the period, but it has
greater effect on the conditions improvement. When a
mission started, the age of machine increases and the
probability of failure or shift to a deteriorated state
increases. Considering the Weibull distribution
governing the deterioration process, the hazard rate
increases with the time. The decisions to be optimized
are the lot-sizing system decisions (lot-sizes, setup
decisions, backlogging and inventory levels), the
maintenance system decisions (level of PM to be
performed on each machine and in each period), and the
quality system decisions (the number of quality
inspections for each machine in each period). The
objective function minimizes the total cost of the system
concerning the three functions.
Our second objective is to develop an efficient solution
method for this problem. To achieve this goal, a memetic
algorithm with population management (MAPM) is
proposed that is the combination of the genetic and the
Tabu-search algorithms. In order to maintain the
population diversity and to prevent premature
convergence, population management strategies are
incorporated with the memetic algorithm.
4. INTEGRATED MODEL
This section comprises the evaluation and the
mathematical formulations of the integrated lot-sizing,
imperfect preventive maintenance planning, and quality
inspections process.
4.1 Standalone lot-sizing model
Following notations are used in our production planning
model:
Unit backorder cost of product p
Processing cost of product p on machine m
Demand for product p in period t
Defective rate of machine m in period t
Production rate of product p on machine m
Inventory holding cost of product p
Inventory level of product p in period t
, Index and number of machines
, Index and number of products
Setup cost of product p on machine m
, Index and number of periods
Available production time on machine m in
period t
Decision variables are
Backorder level of product p in period t
Setup binary variable of product p on machine m
in period t
Production level of product p on machine m in
period t
Hence, the lot-sizing model is as follows:
1 = =1 =1[=1( + ) + +
] (1)
Subject to:
(2)
= 1 1 +
=1 (3)
=1 (4)
The lot-sizing cost function is the sum of processing
cost, setup cost, inventory holding cost, and backorder
cost. Constraint (2) links setup variables to production
decisions, and equation (3) is the balance link between
backorders, inventories, production levels, and demands.
Constraint (4) states that the total processing time on
machine m in period t should not exceed the available
time in the period. The available time ( ) is a
parameter that depends on the maintenance decisions.
4.2 Standalone maintenance model
The notations are:
Cost of minimal repair of machine m
() Cost of maintenance level of machine m
Fixed length of periods
Number of the preventive maintenance levels
of machine m
() Time of maintenance level of machine m
Time of minimal repair of machine m
Age of machine m after maintenance in period t
Age of machine m at the end of period t
0 Age of machine m at the beginning of the
planning horizon
, Scale and shape parameters of the Weibull -
time to failure function of machine m
Available PM budget in period t
Decision variable:
Maintenance level of machine m in period t
The probability density function (PDF) of the time-to-
failure is () = 1 , and its
cumulative distribution function (CDF) is () = 1
 MOSIM16 August 22-24
Montral, Qubec, Canada

. The hazard function is ()/(1 ()), So Age of machine m at the end of the jth interval
the expected number of failures of machine m in period t of period t
is ( ). The imperfect maintenance Decision variable:
model is as follows: Number of process inspections for machine m
in period t

2 = =1
=1{ ( ) + ( )
} (5) The cost of the quality system is the sum of process
inspection cost, product inspection cost in order to
Subject to separate defective units from conforming products, and
( )
, = (1 (1) ) 1 (6) reworking cost performed on defects. The inspection


cost of machine m in period t is simply .
= ( ) ( Considering the Weibull distribution for the time-to-shift
) (7)
function ( = 1 ), the conditional

=1 ( ) , (8) probability of a shift occurs in interval j of period t given
it was in a normal state at the beginning of that interval
The maintenance cost function (5) is the sum of ( ( ) ( )) )
preventive and corrective maintenance costs. Equations is = 1 ( ,1, ,
(1 ( ))
(6) and (7) calculate the age of machines in periods, and
constraint (8) states the budget limitation for preventive where () = 1 is the CDF of the time-to-
maintenance in each period. Considering linear link shift function. By detecting a quality shift, the machine
between the maintenance cost and the age reduction, will be restored to its normal state (without influencing
equation (6) indicates that the age at the beginning of a on its age). Hence, the expected cost of machine
( ) restorations taking into account the shift probability (for
period is 1 (1) times the age at the end of the
machine m in interval j of period t) is (1
previous period. In equation (7), the available production
time in period t ( ) is calculated by subtracting ( ,1, ) ), and the total restoration cost
the time of preventive maintenance ( ( )) and of machine m in period t (the expected sum of restoration
minimal repairs ( ( ) ) from the cost over all intervals) will be =1

(1
length of the period (L). Therefore, the available
production time on machine m in period t to be used in ( ,1, ) ). Assuming smooth
the lot-sizing model is: distribution of processing jobs over all intervals in a
period and taking into account the production level of
= (9) product p on machine m in period t ( ), the number
of items processed in an interval is / . So, the
4.3 Standalone process inspections model expected cost of quality checking for identifying
defective items (product p processed on machine m in
Process inspections are aimed to detect the state of the interval j of period t) is
machine while processing the jobs. The optimal number
of inspections of each machine in each period is to be (1 ( ,1, ) ). Finally, the

determined. During inspection, the operations are not expected cost of rework (product p processed on
stopped (inspection time is zero), and the inspections are
machine m in interval j of period t) is (1
error-free. The inspections divide the period into
( ,1, )
equally-space intervals. Given the number of ). The quality checking cost
inspections of machine m in period t, the length of each and the rework cost depend on the production levels, so
interval is ( )/ . Note that the last if = 0, these two cost components will be null. In
inspection is performed at the end of the period, so, the case of low capacity production, we expect that the
age of machine m at the end of the jth (j = 0 ) process inspections diminish. To link the inspection cost
interval of period t is = W + (Y to the production levels, we multiply it by the scheduled
W )/ (The age at the end of interval j is equal to processing time over the available production time. The
the age at the beginning of interval j -1). Following processing time for product p on machine m in period t is
notations are used in formulation of the quality system: / , and the total scheduled processing timefor
Index of intervals in periods machine m in period t is / . So, the
Unit cost of quality check of product p /
Unit reworking cost of product p modified process inspection cost is .
Y W
Defective rate of product p in out-of-control Hence, the final quality cost function will be:
state of machine m

, Parameters of Weibull distribution for time-to- /
shift function of machine m 3 = { +

Cost of process inspection of machine m =1 =1
Cost of restoring machine m to a normal state
 MOSIM16 August 22-24
Montral, Qubec, Canada
=1 ( ( + )) functions transforms to a linear function of the
)
=1
(1 ( ,1, )} (10) added to the lot-sizing cost function, and the latter model
Given the production levels and the age of machine in
the period, the numerical analysis methods can be used
to find the optimal number of process inspections in each
period.
4.4 Fully integrated lot-sizing, maintenance and
process inspections model
In the previous subsections, the independent
formulations of the three planning systems are explained.
This section provides a joint model for integrated
scheduling of the three functions. The integrated lot-
sizing, maintenance planning, and quality inspection
model incorporates all the decision variables and
constraints in the same model, where the objective
function is to minimize the total cost of the system. So,
Min Z1 + Z2 + Z3
Is the objective function and the model constraints are
(2), (3), (4), (6), (7), and (8). The proposed model is a
nonlinear complicated problem with a very large search
space. Exploiting the benefits of integrated model
necessitates the development of solution methods that
can conveniently deal with problem size and its
complications.
5. SOLUTION METHOD
This section presents a memetic algorithm with
population management (MAPM) for the integrated
model. Generally, memetic algorithms (MA) are the
combination of genetic (GA) and local search
algorithms. In this paper, we use Tabu-search (TS) as the
local optimization method.
5.1 Solution structure and definitions
The first issue in application of GA is to define the
solution encoding method. The lot-sizing part of the
model is a linear mixed integer problem, while the
maintenance and quality inspection problems are
nonlinear models, so using maintenance and quality
decision variables, we define the solution structure (the
chromosome) as a vector of 2MT integers. The first
block of MT integers indicate the PM level of each
machine in each period ( values). The second part is
the number of process inspections for each machine in
each period ( values). With such a vector, the
maintenance cost function (Z2), and the available
production time (Tmt) can be evaluated. Then, by
substitution of the age values (calculated in evaluation of
the maintenance cost) and the number of quality
inspections (included in chromosome), the quality cost
production levels (e.g. , where apmts are real-
value coefficients). Then, this function can be simply
which is a mixed integer problem, can be solved using
optimization packages. In this paper, we use Cplex to
evaluate the resulting model.
The distance between two chromosomes is calculated
using the Hamming Distance Method which is the sum
of absolute of differences between all genes in similar
positions of the two chromosomes. We say two solutions
are neighbors if the Hamming distance between them is
less than a value called as the neighborhood circle. The
diversity of a population (a set of chromosomes) is
defined as the normalized value of the average distance
between all pair-wise chromosomes in the population,
and the diversity contribution of a chromosome is the
normalized minimum distance between the chromosome
and all the other members of the population. These
definitions and factors are employed in the following
sections.
5.2 Selection and crossover operators
The parent selection procedure selects two chromosomes
for the crossover operator. Selection is based on the
fitness of chromosomes and it uses the well-known
tournament method to select two parents. The crossover
or recombination is based on the uniform method and it
introduces one new offspring. In uniform crossover, each
gene of the offspring is taken randomly from the genes
in the same positions of one out of the two parents. An
example of uniform crossover is illustrated in Figure 1.
Parent a a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6
Parent b b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6
Child a1 b2 a3 a4 b5 b6
Figure 1: Uniform crossover.
5.3 Intensification and diversification procedures
Instead of mutation, we used intensification and
diversification processes to (a) improve the power of the
algorithm in finding local optima, and (b) to force the
algorithm in an organized way to examine not-visited
sections of the solution space. To perform
intensification, we generate several random solutions and
choose the one that has the smallest average distance to
the set of good solutions in the population. Good
solutions in our implementation are the top-list
individuals based on their fitness values. In
diversification, several random solutions are generated
and the one with the maximum of min distance to the
population members is selected as the output of the
diversification process.
 MOSIM16 August 22-24
Montral, Qubec, Canada
5.4 Initialization and survivor selection
The initial population is generated randomly. At the end
of iteration, survivors are selected according to (a) their
fitness and (b) their contribution in the population
diversity. To achieve this goal, we define the biased
fitness of a chromosome p as follows:
() = () + (1 ) () (11) time). In the meantime, the minimum diversity level
In (11), () is the rank of p based on its fitness, () diversity = 1- depleted time total time). Each time the
is the rank of p based on its diversity contribution
(distance to the population), and (0 < < 1) is the
bias coefficient.
5.5 Local search algorithm
The local search algorithm takes the advantage of a
standard Tabu-search method. Given a solution (to be
improved with TS), different random neighbor solutions
are generated (all the random solutions out of the
neighborhood circle are ignored). Then, these new
chromosomes are evaluated and the solution process is
moved to the best non-tabu neighbor point. The previous
chromosome is added to the tabu-list and if necessary,
the tabu-list is updated to maintain its preferred size by
removing the oldest tabu-solutions from the list. This
process is continued until in a given number of
consecutive iterations, it fails to find a better solution.
The best solution of TS process is considered as the
improved solution (output of the learning process).
5.6 Algorithm calibration and control
The algorithm parameters are the population size, the
number of solutions that participate in the tournament
selection (the selection pressure), the number of random
solutions in intensification and diversification processes
(intensification and diversification power), the number
of consecutive unsuccessful iterations before quitting the
TS, and size of the tabu-list in TS. The best value of the
parameters is selected in the calibration process that is
based on the meta-GA method (Mercer and Sampson
1978). In this approach, the calibration problem is dealt
as an optimization problem, where the algorithm
parameters are its decision variables and the performance
of the algorithm is its objective function to be
maximized. Generally, the quality of solutions (the
average of the objective function of the original problem
in a certain number of replications) or the algorithm
speed (the average time to reach a pre-defined objective
in a certain number of replications) are the commonly
used performance criteria. In this paper, the solution
quality is considered, then starting from a random set of
parameter vectors, the meta-GA algorithm is executed
for a limited number of iterations. The best vector of
values is used as the calibrated parameters.
Moreover to the aforementioned parameters, the factor
of the bias functions (), the minimum diversity level,
and the probability of calling the genetic operators
(crossover, intensification, and diversification) are
updated according to the population diversity and the
solution time. The objective is to prevent premature
convergence, to ensure the examination of the whole
search space, and to quickly find the local optima of each
investigated section. By progressing the time of the
solution process, the priority in survivor selection is
yielded to the fittest solutions ( = depleted time total
decreases with time to allow the convergence (min
population diversity drops below the allowed level, the
diversification probability is increased ( =
1+
), and each time it is above the limit, its value is
2
decreased ( = ). The remainder is
2
equally dedicated to crossover and intensification
processes (intensification probability = crossover
probability = (1-diversification probability) / 2).
5.7 Process of MAPM
The process flow of MAPM is presented in Figure 2.
After parameter calibration and generation of the first
population, the solution process starts with the
evaluation of the population diversity. Then the
population diversity is compared to the minimum
allowed diversity level. According to this factor, the
probability of selecting one of the three operators
(crossover, intensification, or diversification processes)
for generation of an offspring is updated. Afterwards, the
offspring will be improved by the TS algorithm, and it
will be added to the population. The internal loop is
repeated until the population size is doubled. Then, the
survivor selection is initiated that removes the half of the
population. The outer loop is continued until the stop
condition (the solution time) is satisfied.
Parameter calibration
Generate the initial population
Do (Solution process)
o Evaluate the population diversity
o Update the algorithm parameters
o Do (Generation of the next population)
Generate a child by
o Crossover
o Intensification of good solutions
o Diversification of the population
Perform local search on the child
Add the child to the population
o Loop until the size of the population is
doubled
o Perform survivor selection
Loop until the stop condition is satisfied
Return the best solution
Figure 2: The MAPM process
 MOSIM16 August 22-24
Montral, Qubec, Canada

6. NUMERICAL RESULTS 6.1 Sample problem

This section presents numerical results, the value of Let us consider a sample problem with 3 machines, 2
integration, performance evaluation of the solution products, and 4 PM levels for each machine. The
method and the sensitivity analysis. problem data are presented in Table 1.

6.2 The optimal solution 6.4 Sensitivity analysis

The optimal solution of the problem is presented in
Table 2.
6.3 Value of integration
To show the improvement by the joint model, 20 random
problems are generated and solved with the proposed
joint approach and also with the non-integrated method.
In case of the non-integrated scheme of section 4.2 is
evaluated and the system conditions subject to this PM
plan are used to solve the process inspection problem
(section 4.3). We have assumed that the machine is fully
operational and the nonconformity rate subject to the PM
plan is known. Finally, the lot-sizing model is solved
subject to the maintenance and inspection systems. In
average, the average total cost of the disjoint model was
12.3% higher than the cost of the integrated approach.
The observed range of the optimality gap was from 1.8%
to 57.7%.
The value of the problem data are change one-by-one by
25% of their original values and the variations of the
terms of the objective function are illustrated in Table 2.
6.5 Performance of solution method
The proposed solution method is able to deal with
different problem sizes and it conveniently copes with
the complexity of the model. The suggested MAPM
algorithm is compared with stand-alone implementation
of TS and the results of 30 replications presented in
Figure 3 shows that MAPM outperforms the TS
algorithm. The variations of MAPM are smaller that
indicates the robustness of the algorithm. Also, the
average cost in 30 replications of MAPM is smaller,
which confirms the quality of the memetic algorithm
with population management. In Figure 4, the evolution
of the best solution and the variations of the diversity
factor indicate the expected performance of the
algorithm.

1. spm pm CPM
CRm TRm m Ym0 vm
Product 1 2 1 2 (Thousands)
1 40 - 0.6 - 800 0.02 50 1 1 2.5 2 40 3000,500,200,0
Machine

2 30 10 0.4 0.5 700 0.01 30 0.177 0.177 2.5 2 20 5000,500,200,0

3 - 35 - 0.8 900 0.015 40 0.064 0.064 2.5 2 30 4000,600,300,0

gpm cpm dpt

p hp bp p Rp
Product 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2500 - 6 - 1 2 25 1 2 3500 4000 1500 2500 1000 5000
Machine

2 1000 1500 8 9 2 3 40 2 3 2500 2000 1500 1500 3500 3500

1000
3 - 3000 - 10 PM budget 1000 100 1000 1000 1000
Table 1: Problem data.

Lmt xpmt Spmt Bpt Ipt

M m M m p p
T 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2
1 1 2 2 20 13 9 2168 983 0 0 0 2500 1 1 0 0 0 1 349 0 0 0
2 1 2 2 21 17 12 2080 974 0 0 0 2000 1 1 0 0 0 1 1295 0 0 0
3 1 1 3 22 20 16 2013 967 0 0 0 1500 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 185 0
4 1 2 2 23 23 18 1961 957 0 0 0 2238 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 603 738
5 1 1 3 23 24 21 1922 951 0 0 0 2904 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2476 142
6 1 2 2 23 26 23 1893 630 0 0 467 2891 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
Table 2: The optimal solution
 MOSIM16 August 22-24
Montral, Qubec, Canada

Total cost Maintenance cost Mfg. Cost QC. Cost

+ + + +
Unit processing cost 52% -52% 0% 0% 23% -23% 0% 0%
Restoration constants 4% -4% 4% -4% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Cost of minimal repair 11% -11% 11% -11% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Time of minimal repair 5% -6% 5% -4% 2% -1% 3% -3%
Cost of PM levels 10% -10% 10% -10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Time of PM levels 2% -2% 1% -1% 1% -1% 1% -1%
Inspection cost 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Shift parameter -48% 19% -4% 31% -14% 10% -29% 13%
Failure parameter -18% 11% -12% 21% 3% -5% 5% -10%
Table 3. Sensitivity of the objective function terms to the variations of problem data.

0.465 600 1

Entropy
580
0.460
Objective value (Millions)

560 0.8
0.455
540

Objective value (Thousands)

0.450 Entropy
520 0.6
(trendline)
0.445 500

0.440 480 0.4

460
0.435
440 Objective value 0.2
0.430 420
0.425 400 0
MAPM

0 100 200 300 400 500

TS

Time

Figure 3: Results of 30 replications in 360 seconds. Figure 4: The best solution and the diversity variations

2. CONCLUSIONS

We developed the evaluation methods and the
mathematical model for integrated planning of
production and maintenance in a quality deteriorating
system that employs process inspections to evaluate the
conditions of the system. This approach is an efficient
method to deal with the complicated interactions
between systems. However, the main limitation is the
increased difficulty of solving such a large problem. A
solution method for the joint model is suggested that
uses the state-of-the-are population management
strategies to enhance the performance of the algorithm.
A probable extension of this work can be the
incorporation of uncertainties in demands or in
processing rates and developing it for a system with
imperfect inspections.
REFERENCES
Aghezzaf, E.H., Jamali, M.A., & Ait-Kadi, D. (2007).
An integrated production and preventive
maintenance planning model. European Journal of
Operational Research, 181, 679685.
Berrichi, A., Yalaoui, F., Amodeo, L., & Mezghiche, M.
(2010). Bi-Objective Ant Colony Optimization
approach to optimize production and maintenance
scheduling. Computers & Operations Research, 37,
15841596.
Boudia, M. & Prins, C. (2009). A Memetic algorithm
with dynamic population management for an
integrated production-distribution problem.
European Journal of Operational Research, 195,
703715.
Chen, Y.C. (2013). An optimal production and
inspection strategy with preventive maintenance
error and rework. Journal of Manufacturing
Systems, 32, 99106.
Ferland, J.A., Ichoua, S., Lavoie, A., & Gagn, E.
(2001). Scheduling using tabu-search methods with
intensification and diversification. Computers and
Operations Research, 28, 10751092.
Frana, P.M., Mendes, A., & Moscato, P. (2001). A
memetic algorithm for the total tardiness single
machine scheduling problem. European Journal of
Operational Research, 132(1), 224-242.
Gendreau, M., & Potvin, J.Y. (2003). An introduction to
tabu-search. in Glover, F., and Kochenberger, G.A.
(2003), Handbook of Metaheuristics. Springer, 37-
54.
Gopalakrishnan, M., Mohan, S., & He, Z. (2001). A
tabu-search heuristic for preventive maintenance
 MOSIM16 August 22-24
Montral, Qubec, Canada
scheduling. Computers and Industrial Engineering,
40, 149-160.
Hadidi, L.A., Al-Turki, U.M., & Abdur-Rahim, M.
(2012). Joint job scheduling and preventive
maintenance on a single machine. International
Journal of Operations Research, 13 (2), 174184.
Hart, W.E., Krasnogor, N., & Smith, J.E. (2004), Recent
advances in memetic algorithms. Heidelberg, New
York: Springer.
Hertz, A., & Widmer, M. (2003). Guidelines for the use
of meta-heuristics in combinatorial optimization.
European Journal of Operational Research, 151
(2), 247252.
Kenn, J.P., Gharbi, A., & Beit, M. (2007). Age-
dependent production planning and maintenance
strategies in unreliable manufacturing systems with
lost sale. European Journal of Operational
Research, 178, 408420.
Lacksonen, T. (2001). Empirical comparison of search
algorithms for discrete event simulation. Computers
& Industrial Engineering, 40, 133148.
Laguna, M., Marti, R., & Campos, V. (1999).
Intensification and diversification with elite tabu-
search solutions for the linear ordering problem.
Computers and Operations Research, 26, 1217
1230.
Lee, H.L., & Rosenblatt, M.J. (1987). Simultaneous
determination of production cycle and inspection
schedule in a production system. Management
Sciences, 33, 11251136.
Leng, K., Ren, P., & Gao, L. (2006). A novel approach
to integrated preventive maintenance planning and
production scheduling for a single machine using
the chaotic particle swarm optimization algorithm.
Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on
Intelligent Control and Automation, June 21-23,
Dalian, China.
Liao, C.J., & Chen, W.J. (2003). Single-machine
scheduling with periodic maintenance and non-
resumable jobs. Computers & Operations
Research, 30 1335 1347.
Loukil, T., Teghem, J., & Fortemps. Ph. (2007). A multi-
objective production scheduling case study solved
by simulated annealing, European Journal of
Operational Research, 179, 709722.
Lozano, M., Herrera, F., & Cano, J.R. (2008).
Replacement strategies to preserve useful diversity
in steady-state genetic algorithms. Information
Sciences, 178, 44214433.
Maravelias, C.T., & Sung, C. (2009). Integration of
production planning and scheduling: Overview,
challenges and opportunities. Computers and
Chemical Engineering, 33, 19191930.
Mercer, R.E. & Sampson, J.R. (1978). Adaptive search
using a reproductive metaplan. Kybernetes, 7 (3),
215-228.
Merz, P. (2000). Memetic algorithms for combinatorial
optimization problems: fitness landscapes and
effective search strategies. PhD dissertation,
University of Siegen, Germany.
Moscato, P., & Norman, M. (1989). A competitive and
cooperative approach to complex combinatorial
search. Technical Report 790, Caltech Concurrent
Computation Program.
Nelder, J.A., & Mead, R. (1965). A simplex method for
function minimization, The Computer Journal,
7 (4), 308-313.
Neri, F., & Cotta, C. (2012). Memetic algorithms and
memetic computing optimization: A literature
review. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 2,
114.
Nourelfath, M., & Ben-Daya, M. (2012). An integrated
model for production, maintenance and quality. 4th
International Conference on Information Systems,
Logistics and Supply Chain, ILS 2012 Quebec
(Canada), August 2629.
Nsakanda, A.L., Price, W.L., Diaby, M., & Gravel, M.
(2007). Ensuring population diversity in genetic
algorithms: A technical note with application to the
cell formation problem. European Journal of
Operational Research, 178, 634638.
Pandey, D., Kulkarni, M.S., & Vrat, P. (2011). A
methodology for joint optimization for maintenance
planning, process quality and production
scheduling. Computers & Industrial Engineering,
61, 10981106.
Pineyro, P., & Viera, O. (2010). The economic lot-sizing
problem with remanufacturing and one-way
substitution, International Journal of Production
Economics, 124, 482488.
Reeves, C.R. (1997). Genetic algorithms for the
operations researcher. INFORMS Journal on
Computing, 9, 231250.
Reeves, C.R. (2010). Genetic Algorithms in Gendreau
M., Potvin J. Y. (2010). Handbook of
Metaheuristics. Springer, USA, 109-140.
Roux, O., Duvivier, D., Quesnel, G., & Ramat, E.
(2013). Optimization of preventive maintenance
through a combined maintenance-production
simulation model, International Journal of
Production Economics, 143, 312.
Schemeleva, K. , Delorme, X., Dolgui, A., & Grimaud,
F. (2012). Multi-product sequencing and lot-sizing
under uncertainties: A memetic algorithm.
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence,
25, 15981610.
Suliman, S.M.A., & Jawad, S.H. (2012). Optimization of
preventive maintenance schedule and production
lot size. International Journal of Production
Economics, 137, 1928.
Sung, C.S., & Ock, Y.S. (1992). Optimal production
policy for a single-product single machine problem
with intermediate machine inspection allowed.
International Journal of Production Economics, 28,
85-94.
Vidal, T., Crainic, T.G., Gendreu, M., & Prins, C.
(2014). A unified solution framework for multi-
attribute vehicle routing problems. European
Journal of Operational Research, 234, 658673.