1. Introduction 2. Cutting and Packing Problems 3. Optimisation Techniques 4. Automated Packing Techniques 5. Computational Geom
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1. Introduction 2. Cutting and Packing Problems 3. Optimisation Techniques 4. Automated Packing Techniques 5. Computational Geometry, Benchmarks and Algorithms for Rectangular and Irregular Packing 6. Genetic Algorithms and Rectangular Packing 7. Genetic Algorithms and Irregular Packing 8. GENETIC ALGORITHMS AND 2D BIN PACKING..............................................208 8.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................208 8.2 Comparison of the Packing Algorithms...................................................................................................208 8.3 Comparison of the Evolutionary Approaches .........................................................................................210 8.3.1 Genetic Algorithms versus Random Search........................................................................................210 8.3.2 Genetic Algorithms versus Naïve Evolution .......................................................................................211 8.3.3 Comparison of the Hybrid Combinations for the Genetic Algorithms................................................213 8.4 Comparison of the Meta-Heuristic and Heuristic Approaches..............................................................215 8.4.1 Genetic Algorithms versus Simulated Annealing................................................................................215 8.4.2 Genetic Algorithms versus Stochastic Optimisation ...........................................................................217 8.4.3 Meta-Heuristics and Local Search.......................................................................................................218 8.4.4 Comparison of the Meta-Heuristic and Heuristic Search Methods .....................................................219 8.5 Comparison with Commercial Nesting Software ....................................................................................221 8.6 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................222 9. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK...............................................................224 9.1 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................224 9.2 Future Work...............................................................................................................................................226 10. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................................228 11. GLOSSARY ......................................................................................................239 8. Genetic Algorithms and 2D Bin Packing 8. Genetic Algorithms and 2D Bin Packing 8.1 Introduction The hybrid genetic algorithms developed for the 2D rectangular strip packing problems generate layouts of higher quality than the ones obtained with simple packing algorithms. In addition to that, it has been shown that the outcome is comparable or even better than some of the approaches used in the literature. The two commercial packages investigated in section 6.7 and 7.6 for regular and irregular packing tasks do not make an attempt to find the best set of objects. The hybrid algorithms developed for the 2D rectangular strip packing problems have therefore been extended for use with multiple objects. As mentioned in the previous chapters, the performance of the genetic algorithms is compared to random search. In order to establish the contribution of the cross-over operator to the search process a naïve evolution algorithm has been implemented. Since simulated annealing usually has achieved the best layouts in the case of rectangular strip packing, it also has been applied to the 2D bin packing problem. The comparison of the various hybrid algorithms also includes a local search heuristic, i.e. hill-climbing. Due to the lack of a comprehensive set of benchmark problems in the area of 2D bin packing, a direct performance evaluation of the hybrid algorithms has only been possible in respect to commercial software. For this purpose three problem categories have been created with each of them containing five test problems. The test problems of one category have the same number of items and have been created such that the total area of the items is similar (section 5.3.3.3). 8.2 Comparison of the Packing Algorithms Before the performance of the hybrid algorithms is compared, the simple packing algorithms have been tested on their own applying them to random and pre-ordered input sequences. Since the objective of the algorithm is to find the set of objects with the least total area, the outcome of the algorithms is evaluated on the basis of the average object utilisation. Solution Quality Figure 8.1 shows the object utilisation for the three test categories using the four packing routines with random input. As in the case of the strip packing problem the BLF-algorithm achieves the best layouts. This is due to its packing principle that allows nesting into enclosed areas of the partial layout. The utilisation achieved with this routine is up to 5% higher than the results of the next best algorithm. Among the sliding techniques the BL- and the BLLT-algorithm work equally well, with the BLLT- 208 8. Genetic Algorithms and 2D Bin Packing routine working better for the larger problems (i.e. M2 and M3). The BLD-routine shows the worst performance. 94 Table 8.1: Relative difference in BL average utilisation between 92 BLLT BLF area-sorted and random 90 BLD input [%] 88 M1 M2 M3 86 BL 6.4 5.5 6.3 utilisation [%] BLLT 6.0 5.9 7.0 84 BLF 5.5 6.0 7.5 82 BLD 6.5 6.9 7.6 80 M1 M2 M3 problem category Figure 8.1: Average object utilisation for packing routines using random input The outcome of all packing routines can be improved by applying pre-ordered input sequences. Sorting the rectangles by decreasing area and perimeter works better than other sorting criteria (Appendix H, Table H.1 and Table H.2). The relative difference in the average object utilisation between the area-sorted and the random input has been between 5 and 7.6% for the problems tested (Table 8.1). Figure 8.2 shows the best layouts generated with the BLF- and the BLLT-algorithm input sequences that have been sorted by decreasing rectangle area. It should be noted that not all the unused objects are shown in Figure 8.2. Figure 8.2: Best layouts for problem M2a using BLF (left) and BL (right) with area-sorted input (not all the unused objects are shown) 209 8. Genetic Algorithms and 2D Bin Packing Time Performance The computation time of the four algorithms and consequently the relative performance are different from the one observed in the strip packing problem (Figure 6.3). Table 8.2 summarises the elapsed times of the routines for 1000 runs. Unlike in the case of the strip packing problems used in chapter 6 the BLF- algorithm does not have the longest run time. As expected, the two sliding techniques (BL and BLLT) have similar elapsed times, which are lower than the one of the BLF-algorithm. The BLF-routine operates faster than the third sliding technique, i.e. BLD-routine. Since overlap calculations are required in the BLD-routine, its time performance is poorer than that of the performance of the other two sliding techniques. Although the BLF-algorithm keeps track of the enclosed areas in the partial layout, this operation is still more efficient than the intersection checking carried out by the BLD- routine. This is mainly due to this type of 2D bin packing problem. Since the rectangle size is fairly large compared to the object size, the number of enclosed areas in the layout is usually small. In particular, since layout information is stored when a new item is positioned, intersection testing is still required but reduced to a minimum (section 5.5.4.5). A similar principle could be implemented in the BLD-routine in order to improve its time performance. Table 8.2: Average elapsed time of simple packing routines for 1000 runs [s] BL BLLT BLF BLD M1 3.7 3.5 3.9 6.0 M2 3.6 4.0 4.4 6.2 M3 14.6 14.2 15.3 16.0 8.3 Comparison of the Evolutionary Approaches In this section the performance of the evolutionary approaches is analysed. In order to investigate whether the implementation of the search process conducted by meta-heuristic methods works successfully, a comparison with random search is undertaken. Since the data structure for the bin packing problem consists of two chromosomes, which are manipulated separately by the operators of the meta-heuristic method, a series of experiments is conducted to establish the contribution of the cross-over and mutation operators to the search process. 8.3.1 Genetic Algorithms versus Random Search The representation of the 2D bin packing problem in the hybrid algorithms consists of two permutations describing the order of the items and the objects. Whereas cross-over and mutation operators manipulate both sequences, the rotation operator is only applied to the items. In order to analyse if this implementation of genetic algorithms can search the solution space successfully, a random search 210 8. Genetic Algorithms and 2D Bin Packing algorithm has been used to generate the permutations as well as the orientation of the items randomly. Both search processes have been simulated over the same number of iterations. Since the objective of this bin packing problem