Research Article
Lot-Order Assignment Applying Priority Rules for the Single-Machine Total Tardiness Scheduling with Nonnegative Time-Dependent Processing Times
Table 6
Comparison between MDD and CPLEX.
| Due date tightness | Number of orders | 50 | 100 | 200 | Number of lots | AOG† (%) | ACG‡ (%) | AOG (%) | ACG (%) | AOG (%) | ACG (%) |
| | Sufficient | 100.0 | 0.00 | 100.0 | −11.1 | 100.0 | 0.00 | Loose | Limited | 100.0 | −38.5 | 33.3 | −56.1 | N.A. | N.A. | | Short | N.A. | −40.7 | N.A. | −29.9 | N.A. | −20.11 |
| | Sufficient | 93.3 | −11.9 | 91.7 | −35.9 | 100.0 | −7.4 | Normal | Limited | N.A. | −44.0 | N.A. | −60.5 | N.A. | N.A. | | Short | N.A. | −45.6 | N.A. | −44.4 | N.A. | N.A. |
| | Sufficient | N.A | −69.3 | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | Tight | Limited | N.A | −59.5 | N.A. | −48.2 | N.A. | N.A. | | Short | N.A | −62.8 | N.A. | −56.3 | N.A. | N.A. |
|
|
Average optimality gap. Average CPLEX gap, where CPLEX gap = (total tardiness of MDD − total tardiness of CPLEX)/(total tardiness of CPLEX) × 100.
|