Review Reports - Modeling an Optimal Environmentally Friendly Energy-Saving Flexible Workshop

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the paper, the authors describe the scheduling problem of flexible job shop with Automated Guided Vehicles for material transportation. The paper was correctly prepared and presents interesting solution of the mentioned problem based of modern optimization algorithm. The paper is properly organized and includes all important elements: introduction, related work discussion, detailed description of the proposed solution, results of the experiments, conclusions. The fact that deserves attention is that the paper was carefully prepared and the authors very-well emphasized their contribution. As a consequence, the quality of the paper is very good.

However, I have one major remark - authors said that "the Flexible Job Shop Scheduling (FJS) uses AGV". This is only one of options - it is not the rule.

Moreover, I have some minor remarks:

1. Line 182: "In the exploration stage of WOA..." should be "in the..."

2. Line 245: "a machine..." should be "A machine..."

3. The same situation is in the lines 259, 377, 404, 503. The whole paper should be checked in this regard (problem with capitals and small letters).

4. In my opinion notation "time/s" should be replaced by "time [s]".

5. "gantt chart" is a name so should be written as "Gantt chart" (lines 690 and 691).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The content of the manuscript "Integrated Scheduling Optimization Modeling and Solution of Green Flexible Job Shop Considering Energy Saving" represents a very interesting research and the manuscript is overall well prepared.

The manuscript contains some minor errors related to text editing that need to be corrected. My general remarks on the manuscript relate to the following:

- Keywords – I suggest the following keywords: green flexible job shop; multi-objective scheduling problem; improved whale optimization algorithm; makespan; shop energy consumption

- Line 552 – Missing "space" between (1) and Effectiveness

- Line 644 – Please "Bold" number 1

- Line 663 – I believe it should have been written "3) Stability of the model: "

- Line 704 – Typo "menbership". Replace with "membership".

- Line 724 – Delete this section 6. patents if you don't have any patents resulting from this research.

- Line 728 – Delete one full stop.

- Line 734 – Delete "Please add:".

- Line 736 – Delete one full stop.

Please review the entire manuscript again to avoid further editing errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is generally well written, its structure is adequate, but some improvements are necessary.

Language (English) must be improved. I recommend proof-reading.

Maybe the Paper Title could be modified to better cover the content of the paper.

Abstract should be re-written. There are some unusual combinations of expressions / words; for example in Line 14: … problem of machining machines and … Or, the unneeded repetition of words; for example in Lines 15-16: … with the makespan, shop energy consumption and processing quality as the optimization objectives considering shop energy consumption.

Keywords are appropriate.

The paper needs spelling – many mistakes are present; some of them:

- Line 49: vehicle => Vehicle

- Line 59: umber => number

- Line 219: single objectives => single objective

- Line 310: improve whale => improved whale

- Line 404: improve whale => Improved whale

- Line 713: large-scaleinstances => large-scale instances

- Line 714: menbership => membership

- Etc.

It is not possible to generalize the statement in the lines 70-71 as not all goals are in conflict with each other.

Literature review is correct. The list of references is extensive, but the authors could supplement it with some current articles (all relevant, up-to-date, within topic), e.g.:

Liu, Q. H.; Wang, C. Y.; Li, X. Y.; Gao, L. A multi-population co-evolutionary algorithm for green integrated process planning and scheduling considering logistics system. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2023, 126, C, 107030.

Gajsek, B.; Dukic, G.; Kovacic, M.; Brezocnik, M. A multi-objective genetic algorithms approach for modelling of order picking. Int. J. Simul. Model. 2021, 20(4), 719-729.

Huo, L.; Wang, J. Y. Flexible job shop scheduling based on digital twin and improved bacterial foraging. Int. J. Simul. Model. 2022, 21(3), 525-536.

Chen, J. X.; Wu, Y. X.; Huang, S.; Wang, P. Multi-objective optimization for AGV energy efficient scheduling problem with customer satisfaction. AIMS Math. 2023, 8(9), 20097-20124.

Xing, Z.; Liu, H. T.; Wang, T. S.; Chew, E. P.; Lee, L. H.; Tan, K. C. Integrated automated guided vehicle dispatching and equipment scheduling with speed optimization. Transp. Res. E: Logist. Transp. Rev. 2022, 169, 102993

Zhou, M. X.; Li, X. Low-carbon production control and resource allocation optimization. Int. J. Simul. Model. 2022, 21(2), 352-363.

In Lines 240-241 I noticed that the optimization goals were repeated several times before.

Lines 243-245: the list (1) to (2) represents the constraints (or requests), not the simplifications!

Lines 246-252: the list (3) to (5) represents the assumptions, not the simplifications; (6) is a requirement.

The missing assumption is that machines have unlimited storage space for waiting workpieces for further processing.

For the makespan we know that is measured with time value, for the energy consumption there is a value in kWh, but nothing is explained regarding processing quality (some qualified rates?).

In Table 1, I am missing the energy consumption data when the AGV is idle. For the machines it is defined.

Line 267: write n in italics (n operations).

Line 327: d dimensional => d-dimensional (d in italics, like in Line 328).

Line 330: d in italics.

In Figure 2 add the 2 missing lines / arrows (from both OS 2 to Job 2).

Line 392: write mk in italics and k as a subscript: m_k (like in Line 393).

Line 399: write AGV wv in italics and wv as a subscript (AGV_wv).

Line 446: you have 3 goals, but here it is given: to minimize the makespan, workshop energy consumption and the number of AGVs – where is processing quality now? Before it was nothing about the AGVs optimization!

Line 456: write ith with i in italics (ith or i^th).

Benchmark test with the set of Brandimarte is absolutely correct.

Write correctly APRD (everywhere in italics!) in Lines 505, 506, 525, 533, 545, 548, 563, 571 (now ARPD)! On the y-axis of Figure 6 too!

Line 512: 2 mistakes: MK002 => MK02, MK09 => MK08.

Line 555: the calculation is incorrect; it must be: -0.05 (22.71–22.76=-0.05).

Figure 7: AGVs are known to drive in one direction in a loop, but not in both directions. How can an AGV leave Mo if all connections are unidirectional to the node? Additionally, check the middle 2 vertical nodes and data on connections. Now it is 5s, but how much from the node to the left to machine M1 or to the right to the M2? The same question for the node between M2 and M3. The data is not complete.

Figure 8: poor visibility of the graphic representation (enlarge to the page margins at least the initial 3D view Z1-Z2-Z3).

Mistake in Table 5: the content is the same as in Table 4!

Discussion of the benchmark tests and example tests is generally adequate.

Write p-value with p in italics (in Line 676 and twice in the header of Table 6).

Expand Table 6 so that the header text will stay in one line. You have enough space.

Figures 12 and 13: what is the reason to select 2 AGVs for the 5x5 example and 4 AGVs for the 15x5 example?

The Conclusion is fine; the future research plans are missing.

Line 724: move the subheading 6. Patents in the new line.

Complete the References with the given suggestions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Improve the English language: spelling, style and grammar. I recommend proof-reading.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study stands out for its clarity, depth, and comprehensive approach to addressing a pressing issue in manufacturing. It serves as a valuable contribution to the field and can act as a solid foundation for future research endeavors. The paper introduces a new approach to AVG management and routing, by incorporating green energy-saving considerations and an enhanced whale optimization algorithm. Its blend of theoretical constructs and practical applications contributes to fields related to optimization and sustainable manufacturing.

Section dedicated comments

Abstract

Introduction

Chapter 2. Multi-objective optimization model of green FJSP

Chapter 3. An improve whale optimization algorithm (IWOA) for solving the green FJSP

Chapter 4. Comprehensive experiments

At the sub-section 4.3 Workshop example simulation on page 17 of the document, line 669-681, the use of Wilcoxon’s rank-sum test (Mann-Whitney U test) is not thoroughly explained. This non-parametric test is usually used as an alternative to the parametric t-test. Furthermore, it would be more helpful to the reader if the there was a more clear explanation of the null and alternative hypothesis.

References

It is suggested to add a more extended literature review. This literature can strengthen the significance of the paper in academia and industrial worlds. Focus should be given in providing an adequate review in the following topics:

[1] N. Kousi, S. Koukas, G. Michalos, S. Makris, G. Chryssolouris, "Service oriented architecture for dynamic scheduling of mobile robots for material supply", CIRPe2016 , Procedia CIRP, 5th CIRP Global Web Conference-Research and Innovation for Future Production Volume 55, pp. 18-22 (2016)

[3] F. Coelho, R. Macedo, S. Relvas, and A. Barbosa-Póvoa, “Simulation of in-house logistics operations for manufacturing,” Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf., vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 989–1009, 2022, doi: 10.1080/0951192X.2022.2027521.

[4] Siatras Vasilis, Nikolakis Nikos, Alexopoulos Kosmas, Mourtzis Dimitris, A toolbox of agents for scheduling the paint shop in bicycle industry, 55th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems, Procedia CIRP Volume 107, 2022, Pages 1156-1161, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2022.05.124

[5] K. Rashid, J. Louis, and C. Swanson, “Optimizing Labor Allocation in Modular Construction Factory Using Discrete Event Simulation and Genetic Algorithm,” Proc. - Winter Simul. Conf., vol. 2020-Decem, pp. 2569–2576, 2020, doi: 10.1109/WSC48552.2020.9383867.

[6] G. Chryssolouris, V. Subramaniam, "Dynamic scheduling of manufacturing job shops using genetic algorithms", Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Volume 12, No. 3, pp. 281-293 (2001)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Chapter 2. Multi-objective optimization model of green FJSP

At the sub-section ‘2.3 Mathematical model on’ page7 of the document, line 301, when listing “(3)Constraints between AGVs and machines.”, on constraint (2) ‘he AGV transports the job from the unprocessed job storage area to the machine 301 that processes the first operation:’, the word ‘The’ is misspelled.

Chapter 3. An improve whale optimization algorithm (IWOA) for solving the green FJSP

At the sub-section ‘3.2 Solution encoding and decoding’ on page 9 of the document, line 371, the sentence ‘Then, the operation of the job is sorted;’ should end with a full stop.

At the sub-section 3.3. improve whale optimization algorithm (IWOA) on page 10 of the document, line 404, the sub section title should start with a capital letter.

At the sub-section 3.4. Loss function construction on page 11 of the document, line 450, ‘menbership theory’ should be membership theory.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is devoted to the integrated planning optimization modeling and solution of an environmentally friendly flexible workshop taking into account energy saving

1. It is recommended to replace the title of the article with “Modeling an optimal environmentally friendly energy-saving flexible workshop”

2. The Abstract section must be rewritten to reflect the relevance of the problem being solved and the scientific novelty of the solution obtained. Abbreviations in brackets must be included in the text of the article.

3. Keywords must be adjusted, highlighting special terms that characterize the study.

4. At the end of the Introduction section, before the structure of the article, it is necessary to clearly define the purpose of the scientific research.

5. Figure 10 should be made more readable, including the inscriptions.

6. What are the benefits of improved whale optimization algorithm (IWOA) for solving green FJSP?

7. The list of cited sources should include more modern publications on economic criteria for assessing intelligent systems, for example,

https://doi.org/10.3390/en16135046

http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pr8050537

8. In the Discussion section, it is necessary to characterize the obtained models and the obtained scientific results, describe their advantages and disadvantages, and also provide the limitations of the proposed model of green flexible planning of a production workshop associated with the integration of machines and automated vehicles.

9. Conclusions must be structured, highlighting the main scientific and practical results obtained, supporting them with numerical results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As I see, the suggestions were mainly included.

The variables APRD and ARPD are still used. Everywhere (in text, in figures and tables) there must be only APRD!

The authors inserted only 3 references (out of 6 suggested references). All of these 6 are relevant, important for the investigated topic, so I think that the remaining 3 suggested references should be included too.

Then the paper will be ready for acceptance.

Author Response

Comments 1: The variables APRD and ARPD are still used. Everywhere (in text, in figures and tables) there must be only APRD!

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We apologize for the error in our previous version. We have made corrections on pages 14-16 to ensure that 'APRD' is used in the main text, Figure 6, and Table 4, instead of 'ARPD'.

Comments 2: The authors inserted only 3 references (out of 6 suggested references). All of these 6 are relevant, important for the investigated topic, so I think that the remaining 3 suggested references should be included too. Then the paper will be ready for acceptance.

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. I have incorporated the six referenced files into the main text, and their respective citation numbers are as follows:

[29] Liu, Q. H.; Wang, C. Y.; Li, X. Y.; Gao, L. A multi-population co-evolutionary algorithm for green integrated process planning and scheduling considering logistics system. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2023, 126, C, 107030.

[12] Gajsek, B.; Dukic, G.; Kovacic, M.; Brezocnik, M. A multi-objective genetic algorithms approach for modelling of order picking. Int. J. Simul. Model. 2021, 20(4), 719-729.

[4] Huo, L.; Wang, J. Y. Flexible job shop scheduling based on digital twin and improved bacterial foraging. Int. J. Simul. Model. 2022, 21(3), 525-536.

[35] Chen, J. X.; Wu, Y. X.; Huang, S.; Wang, P. Multi-objective optimization for AGV energy efficient scheduling problem with customer satisfaction. AIMS Math. 2023, 8(9), 20097-20124.

[6] Xing, Z.; Liu, H. T.; Wang, T. S.; Chew, E. P.; Lee, L. H.; Tan, K. C. Integrated automated guided vehicle dispatching and equipment scheduling with speed optimization. Transp. Res. E: Logist. Transp. Rev. 2022, 169, 102993.

[27] Zhou, M. X.; Li, X. Low-carbon production control and resource allocation optimization. Int. J. Simul. Model. 2022, 21(2), 352-363.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the article. The authors took my comments into account. The article can be published according to my opinion.

Author Response

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Reviewer's Point 1: I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper.

Response 1: Thank you for your diligent and excellent review work. We greatly appreciate it. In addressing the language issues, we have engaged English professionals from our institution for proofreading and polishing.