| Literature DB >> 36045981 |
Abstract
In order to improve the efficiency of cloth laying and cutting integrated production process, this article proposes a method of optimal scheduling of cloth laying and cutting garment production system process based on big data and genetic algorithm. The chromosomes in the algorithm are expressed by real strings. The method of bit string crossover and mutation is used to solve the premature problem of the algorithm. The experimental results show that the actual cutting time of the plan is 736 min, and the total idle time is 113 min. The idle time occurs in processes 25, 28, 34, 35, and 31, respectively. The cutting time of the plan arranged by the genetic algorithm is 627 min, and there is no idle time. Conclusion. This method can effectively solve the optimal scheduling problem of the cloth laying and cutting production process.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36045981 PMCID: PMC9420574 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2293473
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Clothing intelligent manufacturing system.
Laying and cutting sequences of the process.
| Working procedure | Laying sequence | Laying time/min | Clipping order | Cutting time/min |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5 | 10 | 4 | 6 |
| 2 | 4 | 9 | 5 | 6 |
| 3 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 6 |
| 4 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 9 |
| 5 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 6 |
| 6 | 8 | 46 | 10 | 15 |
| 7 | 10 | 18 | 9 | 10 |
| 8 | 3 | 17 | 2 | 10 |
| 9 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 7 |
| 10 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 |
Figure 2Time of each process.
Production data sheet (min).
| Working procedure | Laying time | Cutting time |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10 | 6 |
| 2 | 9 | 6 |
| 3 | 7 | 6 |
| 4 | 6 | 9 |
| 5 | 4 | 6 |
| 6 | 46 | 15 |
| 7 | 18 | 10 |
| 8 | 17 | 10 |
| 9 | 7 | 7 |
| 10 | 6 | 7 |
| 11 | 37 | 10 |
| 12 | 29 | 15 |
| 13 | 31 | 10 |
| 14 | 28 | 10 |
| 15 | 12 | 10 |
| 16 | 12 | 10 |
| 17 | 22 | 10 |
| 18 | 9 | 10 |
| 19 | 10 | 10 |
| 20 | 8 | 10 |
| 21 | 41 | 10 |
| 22 | 45 | 10 |
| 23 | 33 | 10 |
| 24 | 21 | 10 |
| 25 | 71 | 19 |
| 26 | 79 | 19 |
| 27 | 80 | 19 |
| 28 | 80 | 19 |
| 29 | 79 | 19 |
| 30 | 71 | 19 |
| 31 | 79 | 19 |
| 32 | 22 | 9 |
| 33 | 91 | 18 |
| 34 | 18 | 9 |
| 35 | 10 | 9 |
| 36 | 28 | 9 |
| 37 | 6 | 15 |
| 38 | 5 | 15 |
| 39 | 5 | 9 |
| 40 | 4 | 6 |
| 41 | 6 | 9 |
| 42 | 71 | 19 |
| 43 | 4 | 6 |
| 44 | 71 | 19 |
| 45 | 26 | 15 |
| 46 | 3 | 9 |
| 47 | 6 | 15 |
| 48 | 3 | 9 |
| 49 | 17 | 10 |
| 50 | 10 | 10 |
| 51 | 43 | 15 |
| 52 | 28 | 9 |
| 53 | 63 | 19 |
Cutting sequence and idle time of actual arrangement plan (min).
| Clipping order | Cutting time | Free time |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6 | 0 |
| 2 | 6 | 0 |
| 3 | 6 | 0 |
| 4 | 9 | 0 |
| 5 | 6 | 0 |
| 7 | 10 | 0 |
| 8 | 10 | 0 |
| 9 | 10 | 0 |
| 6 | 7 | 0 |
| 10 | 7 | 0 |
| 12 | 15 | 0 |
| 11 | 10 | 0 |
| 13 | 10 | 0 |
| 14 | 10 | 0 |
| 15 | 10 | 0 |
| 16 | 10 | 0 |
| 17 | 10 | 0 |
| 18 | 10 | 0 |
| 19 | 10 | 0 |
| 20 | 10 | 0 |
| 21 | 10 | 0 |
| 22 | 10 | 0 |
| 23 | 10 | 0 |
| 24 | 10 | 0 |
| 25 | 19 | 47 |
| 26 | 19 | 0 |
| 27 | 19 | 0 |
| 28 | 19 | 47 |
| 29 | 19 | 0 |
| 30 | 19 | 0 |
| 32 | 9 | 0 |
| 34 | 9 | 3 |
| 35 | 9 | 4 |
| 31 | 19 | 12 |
| 36 | 9 | 0 |
| 37 | 15 | 0 |
| 33 | 18 | 0 |
| 38 | 15 | 0 |
| 39 | 9 | 0 |
| 40 | 6 | 0 |
| 41 | 9 | 0 |
| 43 | 6 | 0 |
| 45 | 15 | 0 |
| 42 | 19 | 0 |
| 44 | 19 | 0 |
| 46 | 9 | 0 |
| 47 | 15 | 0 |
| 48 | 9 | 0 |
| 49 | 10 | 0 |
| 51 | 15 | 0 |
| 50 | 10 | 0 |
| 53 | 19 | 0 |
| 52 | 9 | 0 |
Cutting order and idle time of the plan using genetic algorithm (min).
| Clipping order | Cutting time | Free time |
|---|---|---|
| 40 | 6 | 0 |
| 16 | 10 | 0 |
| 42 | 19 | 0 |
| 5 | 6 | 0 |
| 4 | 9 | 0 |
| 14 | 10 | 0 |
| 24 | 10 | 0 |
| 37 | 15 | 0 |
| 21 | 10 | 0 |
| 11 | 10 | 0 |
| 46 | 9 | 0 |
| 31 | 19 | 0 |
| 28 | 19 | 0 |
| 7 | 10 | 0 |
| 13 | 10 | 0 |
| 25 | 19 | 0 |
| 50 | 10 | 0 |
| 3 | 6 | 0 |
| 53 | 19 | 0 |
| 8 | 10 | 0 |
| 22 | 10 | 0 |
| 23 | 10 | 0 |
| 44 | 19 | 0 |
| 10 | 7 | 0 |
| 20 | 10 | 0 |
| 47 | 15 | 0 |
| 32 | 9 | 0 |
| 17 | 10 | 0 |
| 34 | 9 | 0 |
| 49 | 10 | 0 |
| 33 | 18 | 0 |
| 30 | 19 | 0 |
| 35 | 9 | 0 |
| 27 | 19 | 0 |
| 36 | 9 | 0 |
| 2 | 6 | 0 |
| 45 | 15 | 0 |
| 6 | 15 | 0 |
| 39 | 9 | 0 |
| 41 | 9 | 0 |
| 29 | 19 | 0 |
| 48 | 9 | 0 |
| 43 | 6 | 0 |
| 19 | 10 | 0 |
| 12 | 15 | 0 |
| 9 | 7 | 0 |
| 52 | 9 | 0 |
| 38 | 15 | 0 |
| 26 | 19 | 0 |
| 51 | 15 | 0 |
| 18 | 10 | 0 |
| 15 | 10 | 0 |
| 1 | 6 | 0 |
Comparison between manual scheduling and genetic algorithm scheduling (unit: h).
| Batch | Schedule completion time | Manual scheduling of the completion time | Genetic algorithm scheduling of the completion time | Manual scheduling of the delay time | Genetic algorithm scheduling delay times |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 144 | 94 | 136 | ||
| 2 | 144 | 91 | 126 | ||
| 3 | 144 | 120 | 151 | 7 | |
| 4 | 180 | 187 | 98 | 7 | |
| 5 | 180 | 207 | 178 | 27 | |
| 6 | 168 | 143 | 105 | ||
| 7 | 168 | 178 | 144 | 10 | |
| 8 | 168 | 161 | 162 | ||
| 9 | 168 | 164 | 179 | 11 | |
| 10 | 156 | 127 | 116 | ||
| 11 | 156 | 140 | 108 | ||
| 12 | 156 | 110 | 57 | ||
| Subtotal | 7122 | 1565 | 44 | 18 |