View
218
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Theory and Methodology
An empirical investigation of meta-heuristic and heuristicalgorithms for a 2D packing problem
E. Hopper, B.C.H. Turton *
School of Engineering, Cardi� University, Queens Buildings, The Parade, P.O. Box 689, Cardi� CF2 3TF, UK
Received 7 January 1999; accepted 1 July 1999
Abstract
In this paper we consider the two-dimensional (2D) rectangular packing problem, where a ®xed set of items have to
be allocated on a single object. Two heuristics, which belong to the class of packing procedures that preserve bottom-
left (BL) stability, are hybridised with three meta-heuristic algorithms (genetic algorithms (GA), simulated annealing
(SA), na�õve evolution (NE)) and local search heuristic (hill-climbing). This study compares the hybrid algorithms in
terms of solution quality and computation time on a number of packing problems of di�erent size. In order to show the
e�ectiveness of the design of the di�erent algorithms, their performance is compared to random search (RS) and
heuristic packing routines. Ó 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cutting; Packing; Genetic algorithms; Simulated annealing; Optimisation
1. Introduction
Cutting and packing problems are encounteredin many industries, with di�erent industries in-corporating di�erent constraints and objectives.The wood-, glass- and paper industry are mainlyconcerned with the cutting of regular ®gures,whereas in the ship building, textile and leatherindustry irregular, arbitrary shaped items are to bepacked.
Packing problems are optimisation problemsthat are concerned with ®nding a good arrange-ment of multiple items in larger containing regions(objects). The usual objective of the allocationprocess is to maximise the material utilisation andhence to minimise the ``wasted'' area. This is ofparticular interest to industries involved withmass-production as small improvements in thelayout can result in savings of material and aconsiderable reduction in production costs.
Our work is concerned with a 2D rectangularpacking problem. The problem consists of packinga collection of items onto a rectangular objectwhile minimising the used object space. Thepacking process has to ensure that there is nooverlap between the items. The speci®c problem
European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 34±57www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1222-874425; fax: +44-
1222-874716.
E-mail address: turton@cf.ac.uk (B.C.H. Turton).
0377-2217/01/$ - see front matter Ó 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 7 - 2 2 1 7 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 3 5 7 - 4
that is addressed in this paper has the followingcharacteristics:· a set of items, which may contain identical
items;· one single object of ®xed width and in®nite
height;· all pieces are of rectangular shape;· items can be rotated by 90°;· non-guillotineable (Dyckho�, 1990).
The 2D stock cutting problem occurs as anindustrial problem where a number of rectangularitems need to be cut from a roll of material. Sincethe order (set of items) is small compared to thestock material, the height of the object can be re-garded as in®nite. Processor allocation can also betreated as a 2D packing problem (Hwang, 1997).
2. A review of meta-heuristic packing algorithms
Many heuristic packing algorithms have beensuggested in the literature. Surveys on solutionmethodologies for various types of the 2D rect-angle packing problem can be found in Hinxman(1980), Sarin (1983) and H�assler and Sweeney(1991). In comparison to the great quantity ofliterature on heuristic algorithms to the packingproblem, only a few researchers have experimentedwith meta-heuristic algorithms.
2.1. Packing and genetic algorithms
Genetic algorithms (GA) for packing problemsmainly concentrate on guillotineable layouts asfound in the wood, glass and paper industry(Kr�oger, 1995; Andr�as et al., 1996) and 1D bin-packing (Falkenauer and Delachambre, 1992). Areview of the application of genetic algorithms topacking problems is given in Hopper and Turton(1997). With respect to the speci®c packing prob-lem described in Section 1 three types of solutionapproaches involving GAs can be distinguished.
The majority of literature concentrates on hy-brid algorithms, where a GA is combined with aheuristic placement routine. In this two-stage ap-proach a GA is used to determine the sequence, inwhich the items are to be packed. A second algo-
rithm is then needed, which describes how thissequence is allocated onto the object. One of the®rst researchers who implemented GAs in thedomain of packing is Smith (1985). He experi-mented with two heuristic packing routines, one ofwhich implements backtracking and producesdenser layouts, however, is computationally moreexpensive. Comparisons between the two hybridapproaches show that the combination with themore sophisticated heuristic generates betterpacking patterns. The packing problem Smithstudied is special in that the orientation of therectangles is ®xed.
In the hybrid approach by Hwang et al. (1994)a GA is combined with a well-known heuristicfrom bin packing, the so-called First-Fit-Decreas-ing-Height algorithm (FFDH). Although thistechnique produces guillotineable layouts, this isnot treated as an additional constraint in this workand suggested for the general case of the rectanglepacking problem. Comparisons with another GAtechnique, which will be described below, and theFFDH heuristic itself show that this hybrid tech-nique performs best.
Jakobs (1996) uses a heuristic, which belongsto the class of bottom-left (BL) packing heuris-tics to hybridise an order-based GA. In order toreduce computational complexity the heuristicdoes not necessarily place an item at the lowestavailable BL position. However, it preserves BLstability in the layout (see Section 3.1). In orderto determine the in¯uence of the heuristic algo-rithm on the solution quality, Hopper and Tur-ton (1998) implement two hybrid GAs, which arecombined with di�erent placement heuristics (seeSection 5.1).
Lai and Chan (1997) use an evolutionary al-gorithm, which is combined with a heuristic rou-tine. This routine is similar to the BL-heuristic andplaces items in the position that is closest to thelower-left corner of the object. Comparisons witha mathematical programming algorithm show thatthe evolutionary approach is computationallymore e�cient, however, it generates patterns withslightly higher trim loss.
Dagli and Poshyanonda (1997) also used theGA to generate an input sequence for the place-ment algorithm, which is based on a sliding
E. Hopper, B.C.H. Turton / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 34±57 35
method combined with an arti®cial neural net-work. Every incoming item is placed next to thepartial layout and all scrap areas generated arerecorded. If there is a match between an incomingitem and one of the scrap areas, the neural net-work selects the best match.
A second category of solution approaches withGAs aims at incorporating some of the layoutinformation into the data structure of the GA.However, some additional rules are still needed to®x the position in the layout.
The GA by Kr�oger et al. (1991) is based on adirected binary tree to encode the problem. Thisrepresentation ®xes one dimension of the positionof an item in the layout. The second dimension isdetermined by the BL condition. Since its perfor-mance is compared to well-known packing heu-ristics, a relative comparison with our work ispossible.
Hwang et al. (1994) also use a directed binarytree, which combines two rectangles to a largerrectangle by either placing them horizontally orvertically next to each other. The position withinthe containing larger rectangle is left justi®ed. Asmentioned before, comparisons with a hybrid GAtechnique show that this method is less e�cient interms of packing height.
The third group of GA solution approachesattempts to solve the problem in 2D space. Her-bert and Dowsland (1996) developed a 2D codingtechnique for a pallet-loading problem of identicalrectangles. The layout is represented by 2D matrixindicating available positions for vertical andhorizontal placement, whereby the horizontal onehas priority. This technique works well for smallproblems. In order to improve the outcome formedium sized problems additional repair and en-hance operators have been introduced.
The method developed by Ratanapan and Da-gli (1997) is di�erent from the other approachesdescribed so far, since it does not make use of adata structure to represent the problem. The itemsare represented as 2D pieces with their true geo-metric dimensions. After the initialisation process,which places all items into non-overlapping posi-tions on the object, a series of genetic operators isapplied, which consist of moving, relocation andrecombination operations.
2.2. Packing and simulated annealing
Only few researchers have applied simulatedannealing (SA) to 2D rectangular packing prob-lems. K�ampke (1988) applies SA to 1D bin pack-ing. Dowsland (1993) has experimented with SAon pallet loading problems involving identical aswell as non-identical boxes. In the identical casethe number of feasible positions for the placementof one item is reduced to the co-ordinates, whichare a multiple of its length and width away fromthe container edge. The neighbourhood has beende®ned as the set of solutions, which is obtained,when each item is moved to any other positionwith some restrictions. Since these movements leadto overlapping patterns, this constraint has beendealt with in the objective function. Extending thismethod to non-identical pieces, the condition forthe feasible positions is that it has to be at a validcombination of lengths and widths of the otheritem types from the container edge.
2.3. Comparison of meta-heuristic methods
As can be seen from the literature overviewgiven above GAs and SA have been successfullyapplied to the 2D rectangle packing problem.However, none of the researchers have comparedthe performance of these meta-heuristic algorithmsusing the same packing problems. Burke andKendall (1998) have carried out the only researchin this area on the clustering of rectangles. Their®ndings indicate that tabu search and SA outper-form GAs for this speci®c problem.
In this paper our main objective is to comparethe performance of GAs, na�õve evolution (NE) andSA with each other for small to large packingproblems. For all methods a two-stage approachhas been chosen, where the meta-heuristic algo-rithm is combined with a heuristic packing policy.As far as we are aware SA has not been imple-mented in a two-stage approach for packingproblems such as GAs (see Section 2.1).
Two di�erent heuristic routines are used tohybridise the meta-heuristic algorithms. The ®rsttechnique is the BL heuristic, which has been usedby Jakobs (1996) in a hybrid GA. The second
36 E. Hopper, B.C.H. Turton / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 34±57
heuristic algorithm also creates BL justi®ed pat-terns. However, it is more sophisticated and hencecomputationally more expensive (Chazelle, 1983).The outcome of meta-heuristic algorithms iscompared with the two packing heuristics as wellas with other search techniques such as hill-climbing and random search (RS). In order toshow the e�ectiveness of the design of the GAstheir performance is compared with an NE algo-rithm. Results indicate that the performance of thehybrid algorithms is strongly dependent on thenature of the placement routine and the problemsize. In particular in industrial applications notonly the solution quality has to be considered, butalso the computational cost of the various packingmethods.
This paper is organised as follows: Section 3gives a brief introduction into the heuristic andmeta-heuristic algorithms used in our research. InSection 4 the experiments and the test problemsare outlined. Sections 5 and 6 contain an overviewand a discussion of the results and Section 7summarises the ®ndings of this research.
3. Heuristic placement algorithms
In this paper we turn our attention to the classof BL heuristics (Baker et al., 1980). These packingprocedures preserve BL stability in the layout. Anitem is allocated in a BL stable position if it cannotbe moved any further to the left or downwards.Two implementations of a BL heuristic are com-bined in our study with meta-heuristic algorithms.
3.1. BL algorithm
The BL algorithm described below has beenused by Jakobs (1996) in a hybrid GA. Startingfrom the top-right corner each item is slid as far aspossible to the bottom and then as far as possibleto the left of the object. These successive verticaland horizontal movement operations are repeateduntil the item locks in a stable position. A validposition is found when the rectangle collides withthe partial layout at its lower and left sides. Fig. 1shows the placement of a sequence of rectangles,
which is described by the permutation (2, 6, 4, 3, 0,1, 5).
The major disadvantage of this routine consistsof the creation of empty areas in the layout, whenlarger items block the movement of successiveones. On the other hand its time complexity is onlyO(N2), when N is the number of items to bepacked. Due its low complexity this heuristic isfavourable in a hybrid combination with a meta-heuristic, since the decoding routine has to be ex-ecuted every time the quality of a solution isevaluated and hence contributes to a great extentto the run time of the hybrid algorithm.
3.2. BLF-algorithm
Since the BL-routine described above tends togenerate layouts with relatively large empty areas,a second more sophisticated BL heuristic has beenconsidered for hybridisation with meta-heuristics.The strategy here consists of placing a rectangleinto the lowest available position of the object andleft-justifying it. Fig. 2 demonstrates the placement
Fig. 1. BL routine (Jakobs, 1996).
Fig. 2. Bottom-left-®ll heuristic.
E. Hopper, B.C.H. Turton / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 34±57 37
policy using the same permutation example as inFig. 1.
Since the generation of the layout is based onthe allocation of the lowest su�ciently large regionin the partial layout rather than on a series of BLmoves, it is capable of ®lling existing gaps inpacking pattern. In order to distinguish it from theBL-algorithm described in Section 3.1 it is referredto as the BL-Fill (BLF) heuristic. Compared to theBL-routine this method results in denser packingpatterns. The major disadvantage, however, lies inits time complexity, which is O(N3) (Chazelle,1983).
4. Heuristic search techniques
The quality of the layout which is constructedusing the above placement algorithms depends onthe sequence in which the rectangles are presentedto the routine. Since the number of combinationsis too large to be explored exhaustively in a rea-sonable amount of time, meta-heuristic algorithmsare used as a more e�cient search strategy. In thefollowing hybrid approaches the task of the meta-heuristic is to search for a good ordering of theitems. A placement routine is then needed to in-terpret the permutation and evaluate its quality.Heuristic search techniques will result in a good,however, not necessarily optimal solution withinreasonable computing time.
4.1. Hill-climbing
Hill-climbing is a local search technique, whichmoves from one solution to another one in theneighbourhood. If the quality of the new solutionis better than the previous one, this move is ac-cepted and the search continues from here. If theneighbouring state does not result in an improve-ment, the move is rejected and the search contin-ues from the current state. The main disadvantageof this method is that the search process might gettrapped in a local minimum, which is not equal tothe global one. A useful variation on simple hill-climbing considers a series of moves from thecurrent state and selects the best one as the next
state. This method is known as gradient search orsteepest-ascent hill-climbing.
4.2. Meta-heuristic algorithms
In order to overcome the main disadvantage oflocal search algorithms such as hill-climbing,whose weakness lies in the inability to escape fromlocal minima, more sophisticated heuristic searchstrategies are designed to avoid such a situation.This implies the temporary acceptance of a state oflower quality. Hence meta-heuristic algorithmscan be considered to some extent as local searchstrategies, however, they include a means to escapefrom local minima.
4.2.1. Genetic algorithmsGAs are search and optimisation procedures
that operate in a similar way to the evolutionaryprocesses observed in nature. The search is guidedtowards improvement using the `survival of the®ttest principle'. This is achieved by extracting themost desirable features from a generation of so-lutions and combining them to form the nextgeneration. The quality of each solution is evalu-ated and the `®tter' individuals are selected for thereproduction process. Continuation of this processthrough a number of generations will result inoptimal or near-optimal solutions. The main dif-ference between GAs and other meta-heuristicapproaches such as SA and tabu search is that theydeal with populations of solutions rather than asingle solution and therefore explore the neigh-bourhood of the whole population. Operatorssuch as selection, crossover and mutation are usedto explore the neighbourhood and generate a newgeneration. Further theoretical and practical de-tails can be found in (Davis, 1991; Goldberg,1989).
4.2.2. Na�õve evolution algorithmThe basic idea behind NE is the same as for
the GA. However, no crossover operator is ap-plied to manipulate the search space. Only themutation operator is used for the generation ofthe next population. An NE algorithm canbe used to test the e�ciency of the crossover
38 E. Hopper, B.C.H. Turton / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 34±57
operator in a GA. Falkenauer (1998) applied thistechnique in experiments on 1D bin-packingproblems.
4.2.3. Simulated annealingEglese (1990) has investigated the application of
SA as a tool for Operations Research. SA wasintroduced as an optimisation tool in the 1980swhen the concept of physical annealing ®rst wasapplied in combinatorial optimisation. Transfer-ring this model to combinatorial problems theenergy states in a system correspond to the variousfeasible solutions for a problem and the energy ofthe system to the cost function to be minimised.
SA can be seen as a variant of the hill-climbingmethod, however, it attempts to avoid gettingtrapped in a local minimum. Instead of only ac-cepting neighbouring solutions that result in animprovement, also solutions, which are worse,may be accepted randomly with a certain proba-bility. This probability depends on the increase incost and a control parameter, i.e., temperature inphysical annealing. The smaller the increase in thecost and the higher the temperature the more likelyuphill moves will be accepted. During the anneal-ing process the temperature is gradually loweredaccording to the cooling schedule. This means thealgorithm becomes more and more selective inaccepting new solutions. At the end of the processonly moves, which result in an improvement areaccepted in practice. The search process terminateswhen it arrives at a lower bound for temperatureor cost.
5. Search techniques and test data
5.1. Implementation of the search algorithms
A number of problem-speci®c and generic de-cisions have to be made for the implementation ofthe meta-heuristic search algorithms. The prob-lem-speci®c choices concern the objective function,initial solution, representation scheme as well asthe operators applied to manipulate the searchspace. Generic decisions include the probabilitiesat which the search space manipulators such as
crossover and mutation are applied, the coolingschedule in the case of SA and the population andgeneration sizes for the GA as well as stoppingcriteria for the search algorithms.
In our work the packing problem is tackledwith a two-stage approach, where the meta-heu-ristic search methods (GA and SA) and the localsearch algorithm search the solution space forgood permutations. The permutation representsthe order, in which the ®nite set of items is packed.
The heuristic placement routine is then used todecode and evaluate the quality of the permutationaccording to the ®tness function. The quality of apacking pattern is ®rst of all determined by itsheight, since the unused rectangular area can be re-used. However, this variable is not su�cient toexpress how tightly the items are packed. For the®tness function a weighted sum has been used sothe packing height is weighted at 70% and thepacking density at 30%.
The search space of this problem is extended bythe orientation of the items, which can rotate by90°. In order to allow the meta-heuristic and localsearch algorithms to explore the orientation of theitems, an operator is used which ¯ips the orienta-tion of each rectangle in the sequence with a cer-tain probability.
5.1.1. Genetic algorithmSince an order-based encoding is used for this
problem, care has to be taken that valid chromo-somes are generated during the crossover andmutation operations. Partially matched crossover(PMX) (Goldberg, 1989) and order-based muta-tion (Syswerda, 1991) are suitable for this type ofencoding and have been used in this case. Pro-portional selection and generational replacementhave been applied. The orientation of the rectan-gles is considered in the GA in the form of muta-tion. In the case of orthogonal packing only twoorientations for an item are possible. The rotationoperator is applied to every item in the chromo-some and changes the orientation with a certainprobability.
Further techniques that have been implementedinclude elitism and seeding (Goldberg, 1989). Sinceheuristic placements with pre-ordered input se-quences can yield packing patterns, whose quality
E. Hopper, B.C.H. Turton / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 34±57 39
can lie above average (Co�man et al., 1984), theinitial population has been seeded with the per-mutation, which describes the rectangles sortedaccording to decreasing height. For the seeding thebest out of 50 evaluations of the placement heu-ristic using randomly generated but height-sortedinput sequences has been taken. The initial popu-lation has been generated randomly and containsthe seeded individual. The GAs we implementeduse a population size of 50 and a generation size of1000. The probability for crossover is 60% and theone for the two types of mutations is 3%.
5.1.2. Na�õve evolution algorithmThe problem-speci®c and generic decisions for
the NE algorithm are the same as for the GA withthe di�erence that no crossover operator is used tomanipulate the solution space.
5.1.3. Simulated annealing algorithmThe packing problem is represented by a per-
mutation that is interpreted as the order in whichthe rectangles are packed. The neighbourhoodstructure of the current solution is de®ned by theset of solutions that can be reached applying thefollowing two manipulation operations. The ®rstone is analogous to the order-based mutationoperator used in the GA and swaps two ran-domly selected items in the permutation. Thesecond operator considers only the orientationand ¯ips the rotation variable of one randomlyselected item. In the translation to the next so-lution only one of the operators is applied with a50% chance. The initial solution is randomlygenerated.
The generic choices for the implementation ofan SA algorithm are summarised in the annealingor cooling schedule. The schedule presented inPress et al. (1995) is used in this study with a fewmodi®cations. The temperature function is geo-metric and decreased by 10%. The initial valuefor the temperature has been determined as 19.23applying the method described in Press et al.(1995). The number of iterations at each tem-perature has been modi®ed in order to reduce thetotal simulation time. The temperature is heldconstant for 50N total moves or 5N successful
moves at each step with N representing thenumber of items.
5.1.4. Hill-climbingThe neighbourhood structure as well as the
manipulators for the search space used in the localsearch procedure is the same as in SA. The initialsolution is generated randomly. The search processis stopped after N unsuccessful moves in the searchspace.
5.1.5. Random searchIn order to demonstrate the e�ectiveness of the
design the di�erent meta-heuristic search tech-niques are compared to RS. In RS permutationsare generated randomly. The search process is runover the same number of function evaluations asthe GA.
5.2. Test problems
Performance of the meta-heuristic and heuristicalgorithms has been tested with seven di�erentsized packing tasks ranging from 17 to 197 items.Three instances have been generated for eachproblem category. The dimensions of the rectan-gles are produced randomly with a maximumaspect ratio of 7. The problems have been con-structed such that the optimal solution is known(see Table 1). The ratio of the two dimensions ofthe object varies between 1 and 3. Three instancesof each problem have been simulated. Detailedinformation about the various item sets is given inAppendix A.
Table 1
Test problems
Problem
category
Number of
items
Optimal
height
Object
dimensions
C1 16 or 17 20 20 ´ 20
C2 25 15 40 ´ 15
C3 28 or 29 30 60 ´ 30
C4 49 60 60 ´ 60
C5 72 or 73 90 60 ´ 90
C6 97 120 80 ´ 120
C7 196 or 197 240 160 ´ 240
40 E. Hopper, B.C.H. Turton / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 34±57
5.3. Simulation
The GA and the NE algorithms have both beensimulated over 1000 generations using a populationsize of 50. The stopping criterion for the SA and thehill-climbing algorithm is based on the number ofunsuccessful moves. Hence both search processeshave been run until termination by this criterion. Inorder to establish the e�ciency of the optimisationprocesses RS has been applied over the sameamount of iterations as the GA (i.e., 50 000). Theresults presented below are the average of 10 sim-ulations. The outcome of the meta-heuristicmethods is compared on the basis of the number ofiterations. The heuristic methods have been run 50times using random input sequences as well as se-quences which have been sorted by decreasingheight (DH) or width (DW). The simulations havebeen run on a PC with a Pentium Pro 200 MHzprocessor and 65MB of RAM under WindowsNT4.0. The algorithms have been implemented inC++ using LEDA (Library of E�cient Data typesand Algorithms), version 3.7.1 (Mehlhorn et al.,1998), to generate the graphic output.
6. Results
6.1. Comparison between the heuristic algorithmsBL and BLF
The comparison of the two heuristic packingalgorithms shows that the more sophisticatedplacement routine (BLF) achieves better layouts.Table 2. summarises the relative distances betweenthe lowest packing height found and the height ofthe optimal solution. Using random input se-quences the layouts generated by the BLF algo-
rithm are between 10 and 30% better than the onesobtained with the BL rule.
Pre-ordering the input sequences according todecreasing width (DW) or height (DH) of theitems improves the outcome of both packingheuristics by 5±10% compared to the performanceon random input sequences. Comparing the bestsolutions achieved with both methods for eachproblem shows that the BLF heuristic outperformsthe BL routine by up to 25% with the performancegain being higher for the larger problems.
As already mentioned in Section 3.1 the com-putational complexity of the BLF algorithm ishigher than the one of the BL routine. The averagerun time increases exponentially with the problemsize. This di�erence is particularly noticeable forlarger packing problems (Fig. 3). The average timeneeded to place one item is higher for the BLFalgorithm (Table 3). The number of available BLstable positions, which are tested on average, be-fore a suitable position is found, is higher than thenumber of movements carried out using the slidingmethod of the BL algorithm. The number of free
Table 2
Relative distance of best solution to optimum height (%) for heuristic methods with and without pre-ordered input sequences
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
BL 25 39 33 33 31 34 41
BL±DH 17 68 27 21 18 19 31
BL±DW 18 31 24 18 22 21 29
BLF 14 20 17 15 11 12 10
BLF±DH 11 42 12 6 5 5 4
BLF±DW 11 12 12 5 5 5 5
Fig. 3. Average elapsed time per 100 iterations for heuristics.
E. Hopper, B.C.H. Turton / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 34±57 41
BL-positions in the layout increases exponentiallywith the problem size.
6.2. Comparison between the heuristic algorithmsBL and BLF
In the following the performance of the meta-heuristic algorithms is investigated. First of all,the meta-heuristics methods, which use the BLdecoder, are compared. Then the same comparisonis made for the meta-heuristic algorithms, whichare hybridised with the more sophisticated BLFroutine. Finally, the performance of the two typesof hybrid combinations is analysed. In order tostudy the e�ciency of the meta-heuristic methodsover the simple heuristics their outcomes havebeen compared to RS, which evaluates the packingroutines over the same number of iterations as theGA (i.e., 50 000) using random input sequences.
The meta-heuristic search methods using theBL decoder achieve layouts of higher quality thanthe simple packing heuristic (BL). The packingheights achieved by the hybrid are up to 24%better than the ones by the BL (Table 4). Theperformance of the RS lies between the one of themeta-heuristics and the packing heuristic. Hencesome of the performance gain achieved by themeta-heuristics is due to the higher number of it-
erations. The outcomes of the two evolutionarymethods (GA and NE) are very similar with theNE algorithm performing slightly better for someproblems (up to 2%). Hill-climbing performs bet-ter than RS for most problems or at least equallywell and outperforms the simple BL heuristic byup to 5%. For all techniques, heuristics as well asmeta-heuristics, the di�erence between the packingheights achieved and the optimal height becomeslarger with increasing problem size.
The best layouts for the hybrids with the BLdecoder have been obtained with SA in all prob-lem categories. The di�erence between SA and thetwo evolutionary techniques (GA and NE) liesbetween 1% and 8% and is higher for the largerproblems. However, the number of iterationsneeded by the SA is up to 5 times higher on av-erage. Fig. 4 shows that the SA converges veryslowly, whereas the GA reaches the ®nal packingheight earlier.
The results obtained by the methods using thesophisticated packing heuristic, i.e., BLF, show asimilar ranking of the various methods (Table 5).For problems up to category C3 RS and hill-climbing perform better than the simple heuristic.Hill-climbing, however, is outperformed by RS,especially for the smaller problems. The packingheights achieved by the evolutionary algorithms,GA and NE, are very similar and outperform RS
Table 4
Relative distance of best solution to optimal height (%) for heuristic and meta-heuristic methods combined with BL routine
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
GA + BL 6 10 8 9 11 15 21
NE + BL 6 8 8 8 11 13 19
SA + BL 4 7 7 6 6 7 13
HC + BL 9 18 11 14 14 20 25
RS + BL 6 14 14 16 18 20 28
BL 17 31 24 18 18 21 29
Table 3
Average elapsed time per placement of one item for heuristic methods (ls)
Problem C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
Size 17 25 29 49 73 97 197
BL 46 61 56 95 119 158 324
BLF 72 87 114 252 470 794 3234
42 E. Hopper, B.C.H. Turton / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 34±57
and hill-climbing. SA yields the best results in eachproblem category.
Summarising Table 5, the meta-heuristicmethods, which use the BLF decoder, achievepacking heights, which are very close to the op-timum height (between 3% and 7%). Even theBLF heuristic on its own leads to very lowpacking heights. Especially, for larger problems(C2±C7) the di�erence to the meta-heuristics ismaximally 2%. This ®nding is di�erent from theBL case, where the solution qualities obtained bythe simple heuristic and the meta-heuristic di�erparticularly for the larger problems (Table 4).Using the BLF decoder the di�erence to the op-
timal height does not increase with the problemsize as is the case with the BL decoder (see Tables4 and 5). The solution quality remains at thesame level for each problem category (up to 7%from the optimum).
The comparison of the hybrid algorithms showsthat the combinations with the BLF placementroutine produce better layouts than the combina-tions with the BL routine. The hybrids with theBLF routine generate layouts that are up to 16%better. The di�erence is especially high for thelarge problems. The same is true for the NE hy-brids. In Table 6 the results obtained with the twodi�erent decoding algorithms are compared. The
Fig. 4. GA and SA+BL for large problem.
Table 5
Relative distance of best solution to optimum height [%] for heuristic and meta-heuristic methods combined with BLF decoder
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
GA + BLF 4 7 5 3 4 4 5
NE + BLF 5 7 4 4 4 4 5
SA + BLF 4 6 5 3 3 3 4
HC + BLF 7 10 7 7 6 7 7
RS + BLF 5 8 7 7 6 7 7
BLF 11 16 12 5 5 5 5
E. Hopper, B.C.H. Turton / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 34±57 43
di�erence between the best solutions found usingthe meta-heuristic with the BL and the BLF de-coder are stated.
Fig. 5. demonstrates the performance of the twoGAs. Both algorithms achieve the highest perfor-mance gain within the ®rst 10 000 iterations, i.e.,2000 generations.
Although the meta-heuristics perform better interms of solution quality, the combinations withthe BLF decoder have longer run times (Table 7).Run times become extremely long for large prob-lems (C5±C7) due to its higher computationalcomplexity. The BL algorithm o�ers an advantagein that respect. Especially, SA, which achieves thebest layouts, has high execution times. However,
further adjustments to the annealing schedule willmost likely reduce the run time of this meta-heu-ristic.
7. Discussion
7.1. Packing heuristics
The BLF packing algorithm achieves betterpacking patterns than the BL heuristic for ourexample problems. Since the BLF routine ®rst at-tempts to ®ll the gaps in the layout, the majority ofthe small items will be `absorbed' within the ex-isting partial layout and does not contribute
Fig. 5. Comparison of the two GAs combined with BL and BLF routines.
Table 6
Di�erence between the best solutions of the hybrids with the BLF routine and the ones with the BL routine (%)
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
GA 2 3 3 6 7 11 16
NE 1 1 4 4 7 9 14
SA 0 1 2 3 3 3 9
HC 2 8 4 7 8 13 18
RS 1 6 7 9 12 13 21
Heuristic 6 15 12 13 13 16 24
44 E. Hopper, B.C.H. Turton / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 34±57
further to the packing height, which is mainly de-termined by the larger items (Fig. 6). With the BL-rule, however, unused regions in layout cannot beaccessed and smaller rectangles also contribute tothe height. The results in Section 6.1 show that thedi�erence to optimum solution gets smaller withincreasing problem size. This is due to the fact thatlarger problems contain a larger number of smallitems, which are allocated in the empty areascontained in the partial layout. In particular pre-ordered input sequences (height or width) achievedense layouts (Fig. 6). Although the executiontime for the BLF algorithm is considerably larger,the performance gain especially for large packingproblem justi®es the application of the BLF rou-
tine. In a combination with a meta-heuristic,however, the time complexity plays a more im-portant role.
7.2. Meta-heuristics and local search
Looking at the results stated in Section 6.2 itcan be seen that the meta-heuristic methods out-perform the hill-climbing algorithm due to theirability to escape from local minima. Hence meta-heuristics o�er a clear advantage over the localsearch algorithm in that respect. Since the hill-climbing algorithm terminates in a local mini-mum its run time is shorter than that of SA. The
Fig. 6. Best layouts for a large problem (C6) with BL (left) and BLF (right); height-sorted sequence.
Table 7
Average elapsed time for heuristics and meta-heuristics per run in (min); for BL and BLF in (ms)
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
GA + BL 0.5 0.8 0.9 2.4 4.0 6.7 23
NE + BL 0.4 0.6 0.7 1.6 2.6 4.1 30
SA + BL 0.4 1.4 1.8 7.5 17 31 117
GA + BLF 1.0 2.0 3.0 13 36 86 777
NE + BLF 0.7 1.3 2.1 8.3 23 55 483
SA + BLF 0.7 2.4 4.0 33 115 382 4181
BL (ms) 0.8 1.3 1.6 4.7 8.7 15.3 63.7
BLF (ms) 1.2 2.2 3.3 12 34 77.0 636
E. Hopper, B.C.H. Turton / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 34±57 45
hill-climbing technique only allows exploration ofa limited area of the search space and is outper-formed by the meta-heuristic algorithms from thebeginning of the search process (Fig. 7). Althoughthe ®nal outcome of hill-climbing is slightly betterthan the RS method, a random walk through thesearch space results in better solutions during mostof the search process. Whereas hill-climbing onlyexplores the search space locally, SA can exploitthe space more e�ectively and concentrate onpromising areas.
Due to the manipulation technique used in SA,which either only changes the rotation of one ele-ment at a time or the position of two elements inthe permutation, the search process with the SA isslow at the beginning and even RS results in betterlayouts. RS, however, is quickly outperformed,when the SA algorithm starts exploiting promisingareas in the solution space and ®nds solutionswhich would not have been found on a randombasis.
Looking at Fig. 7 the most successful searchstrategy in the beginning of the search process areGAs. Solutions found by the GA improve rapidly
over the number of evaluations and only get out-performed by the SA towards the end of the search(Fig. 4). Hence the technique which GAs use toexplore the space is more successful than the oneused by SA. One of the di�erences between thealgorithms is that a crossover operator is used inthe GA to manipulate the current best solutions.This obviously creates larger changes in the se-quences than with the mutation operator used inSA and hence could explain the rapid progress theGA makes in the beginning.
Comparisons with an NE algorithm, which isonly based on mutation and has no crossover,show, however, that both strategies are equallysuccessful (Fig. 8). Hence the crossover operatorused in this implementation is not the reason forthe better exploration of the search space in thebeginning of the search process. If crossover wasthe main contributor, then the di�erence betweenGA and NE would be higher. However, the mu-tation operator implemented is obviously su�cientfor this task. Di�erent from the SA method theevolutionary techniques work on a population ofsolutions, which they explore simultaneously.
Fig. 7. Comparison between local search and meta-heuristic methods (+BL).
46 E. Hopper, B.C.H. Turton / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 34±57
While the SA operates only on one solution at atime, the recombination method in evolutionaryalgorithms guarantees that the most successful so-lutions are utilised in the following generation.Hence, they allow exploration of the solution spacein parallel. The GA, however, is outperformed bythe SA technique towards the end of the searchprocess, when the population has converged. Onlythe SA technique, where solutions of minor qualitycan be accepted over a series of moves, can thenlead the search into promising regions.
In order to establish how well the meta-heu-ristic algorithms explore the search space, an RSprocess has been applied to the packing problems.Whereas the RS only `explores' the solutionspace, the in-built search mechanisms allow themeta-heuristic strategies to `exploit' good regions.The di�erence between the GA and RS for theBLF case is smaller, which indicates that the`exploitation' of the solution space is limited(Fig. 9).
The comparison between the meta-heuristics,hill-climbing and RS shows that the improvementover the BLF heuristic is largest for smallerpacking problems, i.e., problems with less than 50items (C1±C3). Fig. 10 indicates the improvement
the ®ve di�erent methods have achieved over thebest solution obtained with the BLF algorithm.For problems consisting of a higher number ofitems (C4±C7) only meta-heuristic methods aresuccessful and result in better layouts than theBLF heuristic. RS and hill-climbing cannotexplore the enormous search space su�ciently andare easily outperformed by the simple BLF heu-ristic. Unlike RS the simple BLF method used inthis comparison also includes pre-sorted sequenc-es, where the items are sorted according to theirheight or width. As it can be seen in Table 2sorting almost always is better than random input.Since RS only stands a theoretical chance of®nding a sorted sequence it can be outperformedby the simple BLF method as indicated in Fig. 10.All meta-heuristic methods manage to improve theheuristic solution, however, only by a few percent.The most successful method on large problems isSA.
7.3. Hybrid methods
The results summarised in Tables 4 and 5 showthat the combination between the meta-heuristics
Fig. 8. Evolutionary algorithms (GA and NE) and random search for BL for C3.
E. Hopper, B.C.H. Turton / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 34±57 47
and the BLF packing routine achieve better out-comes compared to the combinations with the BLroutine. The di�erence is higher for the largerproblems (Table 6).
Fig. 6 shows the performance of the two heu-ristics in combination with a GA. Since the pack-ing heights achieved with the BLF on its own arealready very close to the optimum height (less than
Fig. 10. Improvement of the meta-heuristics + BLF in comparison to the best of the heuristic solutions (BLF including sorted se-
quences) for each problem category.
Fig. 9. Random search and GAs for both decoders (BL and BLF).
48 E. Hopper, B.C.H. Turton / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 34±57
8% from the optimum on average), the meta-heuristic cannot improve the performance of theheuristic as much as in the BL case. In other wordsby using the `poorer' BL-decoder, the meta-heu-ristic is needed to ®nd a good input sequence,
whereas applying the better BLF-heuristic goodlayouts are achieved in a smaller number of iter-ations. Figs. 11 and 12 show initial and best lay-outs obtained by both GAs for the largestproblem.
Fig. 11. Initial and best layout for GA + BL.
Fig. 12. Initial and best layout for GA + BLF.
E. Hopper, B.C.H. Turton / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 34±57 49
This questions the use of a hybrid combina-tion between a meta-heuristic and a `poor' de-coder for this type of packing problem. In orderto achieve high quality layouts it may often besu�cient to apply the BLF routine over a smallnumber of iterations. This is especially true forlarger problems (>30 items, C4±C7), where thehybrid methods only manage to improve theheuristic solution by less than 2% (Fig. 10),however, at a very high computational cost (Ta-ble 7). For smaller problems on the other hand,where the execution times are acceptable, themeta-heuristic with the BLF rule outperforms thesimple heuristic by about 7%. In this case theapplication of a meta-heuristic algorithm o�ersadvantages.
In order to reduce the computation time the BLheuristic could be considered in connection withthe meta-heuristic. In spite of the reduction of theexecution time the solution qualities achieved withthis approach for large packing tasks are up to15% worse than those obtained with the simpleBLF heuristic (Fig. 13). For smaller problemswhere combination with the BLF routine achievesbetter layouts, the computation time is low any-way. Summarising the hybrid approach with thepoorer decoder, which is more e�cient in terms ofcomputation time, cannot be justi®ed, since it iseasily outperformed by the BLF-heuristic on largeproblems.
An implementation of the BLF algorithm,which has a lower computational complexity, is of
Fig. 13. Improvement of the meta-heuristics + BL in comparison to the best heuristic solution (BLF) for each problem category.
Table 8
Method for best results within speci®ed time limit (hybrids are with BLF decoder)
<1 min <10 min <1 h <10 h <24 h
C1 GA, SA GA, SA GA, SA GA, SA GA, SA
C2 BLF SA SA SA SA
C3 BLF NE NE NE NE
C4 BLF NE SA SA SA
C5 BLF GA, NE GA, NE SA SA
C6 BLF BLF NE SA SA
C7 BLF BLF BLF NE NE
50 E. Hopper, B.C.H. Turton / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 34±57
great bene®t for the hybrid approach using theBLF rule. Chazelle (1983) developed an imple-mentation of this algorithm that has a complexityof O(N2). Using a more time e�cient implemen-tation the execution times of both heuristic pack-ing rules become comparable, and will only di�erby a factor rather than an order of magnitude.This means the hybrid algorithms with the BL rulelose their major advantage over the ones using theBLF decoder.
Hybrid combinations between meta-heuristicsand a heuristic packing rule as investigated in thisstudy not only achieve high quality layouts. Theirmain advantage lies in simplicity of the imple-mentation. The meta-heuristic search is hybridisedwith a heuristic and acts as tuner of the packing
Table 11
Category 3: 28 or 29 items; object: 60 ´ 30
P1 P2 P3
w h w h w h
7 5 18 6 24 9
14 5 12 2 8 9
14 8 7 10 11 9
4 8 23 4 17 9
21 13 1 4 24 4
7 11 7 7 8 4
14 11 4 11 6 1
14 5 5 6 5 1
4 5 7 2 17 4
18 3 11 6 6 3
21 3 19 10 5 3
17 11 5 11 5 12
4 11 2 4 13 12
7 4 5 7 14 14
5 4 2 4 14 2
6 7 12 7 2 2
18 5 13 7 3 8
3 5 6 3 9 8
7 3 10 6 14 12
5 3 16 9 2 12
18 4 4 1 3 6
3 4 10 4 9 6
12 2 24 6 5 2
6 2 9 9 13 2
18 5 1 2 18 3
21 5 5 8 14 3
17 3 5 3 16 3
4 3 25 7 12 3
21 5
Table 10
Category 2: 25 items; object: 40 ´ 15
P1 P2 P3
w h w h w h
11 3 11 2 12 7
13 3 2 3 7 7
9 2 10 7 7 1
7 2 8 4 5 1
9 3 9 5 3 2
7 3 7 2 6 2
11 2 4 1 7 2
13 2 6 1 5 2
11 4 4 5 3 1
13 4 8 3 6 1
3 5 1 3 12 6
11 2 5 5 9 6
2 2 3 1 12 2
11 3 12 4 7 2
2 3 6 2 10 3
5 4 2 4 4 1
6 4 11 4 5 1
12 2 10 2 16 3
1 2 3 2 5 3
3 5 11 2 4 2
13 5 3 4 5 2
12 4 26 4 10 3
1 4 8 4 9 3
5 2 3 2 16 3
6 2 6 2 5 3
Table 9
Category 1: 16 or 17 items; object: 20 ´ 20
P1 P2 P3
w h w h w h
2 12 4 1 4 14
7 12 4 5 5 2
8 6 9 4 2 2
3 6 3 5 9 7
3 5 3 9 5 5
5 5 1 4 2 5
3 12 5 3 7 7
3 7 4 1 3 5
5 7 5 5 6 5
2 6 7 2 3 2
3 2 9 3 6 2
4 2 3 13 4 6
3 4 2 8 6 3
4 4 15 4 10 3
9 2 5 4 6 3
11 2 10 6 10 3
7 2
E. Hopper, B.C.H. Turton / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 34±57 51
routine. The representation as a sequencingproblem allows the use of well-known manipula-tion techniques for the search space, e.g., order-based crossover operators, rather than developingproblem-speci®c operators that only can be used inone speci®c context.
On the other side it can be argued that thegeometric information concerning the layout ishidden in the heuristic decoder. Hence it cannot beexploited by meta-heuristic search processes to thesame extent as if a representation was used thatincludes more geometric information in the de®-nition of the neighbourhood structure and chro-mosomes, respectively.
Comparisons with the approach by Ratanapanand Dagli (1997), where the items have been rep-resented as true geometric objects in an evolu-tionary search algorithm show that this does notnecessarily generate better layouts. The packingdensities achieved by Ratanapan and Dagli's
technique for two medium-sized problems (21 and31 items) are about 92%. Using the same data setsall of the hybrid meta-heuristic techniques (SA,GA and NE) in combination with either of thepacking routines were able to outperform this re-sult. The achieved packing densities range between92% and 98%, with the SA obtaining the bestoutcomes. For the smaller problem the SA evenfound the optimum solution in 3 runs out of 10.Unfortunately, Ratanapan and Dagli do not statethe computational e�ort of the rearrangements inthe layout after application of the mutation oper-ators.
Dagli and Poshyanonda (1997) developed anapproach involving a hybrid between GAs and aneural network, which achieves packing densitiesbetween 95% and 97%. Applying the meta-heu-ristics in combination with the BLF routinedensities between 95% and 96% are obtained.However, the test problem Dagli and Poshyan-
Table 12
Category 4: 49 items; object: 60 ´ 60
P1 P2 P3
w h w h w h w h w h w h
2 7 3 3 10 14 2 4 10 4 12 7
24 7 8 3 3 13 2 7 12 4 9 4
16 4 5 20 28 5 3 4 13 5 4 4
18 4 3 17 5 8 5 30 3 5 9 9
16 7 3 7 14 9 5 3 7 22 2 5
18 7 5 7 12 14 10 26 6 22 20 5
2 4 3 7 13 10 6 5 9 23 9 5
24 4 4 7 3 17 4 9 10 19 4 5
4 28 4 21 1 5 1 4 3 15 4 2
6 18 10 19 4 1 9 2 5 13 12 2
14 12 4 17 18 4 4 17 2 10 3 15
2 12 8 17 1 1 5 2 2 10 21 11
18 19 3 10 2 6 4 4 13 18 11 3
9 8 5 10 4 14 6 2 3 18 3 3
7 8 7 6 3 18 4 10 2 3 11 23
9 11 8 6 4 14 2 4 2 3 11 23
7 11 15 12 8 17 3 12 5 2 11 8
14 6 3 12 11 5 6 5 4 2 3 8
2 6 11 10 9 12 3 9 3 4 21 4
6 10 5 10 4 7 7 18 9 4 14 4
16 10 4 2 25 8 6 6 7 1 3 13
3 5 8 2 7 5 18 7 6 1 35 13
4 5 10 2 24 9 13 9 2 4 11 5
8 12 12 2 9 14 25 7 20 4 11 5
3 18 12 19 4 7
52 E. Hopper, B.C.H. Turton / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 34±57
onda use is very special in the sense that theratio between the width and the height of theobject is very large. Even simple heuristics as theheight and width sorted BLF routines achieve apacking density of 94%. Hence, the higher e�ortof the implementation in Dagli and Poshyan-onda's approach is not re¯ected in a much betteroutcome.
The 2D matrix representation Herbert andDowsland (1996) developed for a GA for thepallet loading problem of identical boxes does notachieve better outcomes as the 1D binary en-coding as the authors conclude. Applying thehybrid meta heuristics combined with BL andBLF routines to the same problems shows, thatthey ®nd optimal solutions more often thanHerbert and Dowsland's approach for the smallproblems (6 16 items). For the larger problemsonly near-optimal solutions have been found.Only with the implementation of `enhance' and
`improvement' operators Herbert and Dowslandmanage to improve the performance for largerproblems.
The GA approach developed by Kr�oger et al.(1991) is based on a graph structure, which allowsincluding some geometric information in the datastructure. Since the data sets used in the experi-ments are not published only an indirect compar-ison is possible. The packing heights achieved withthis technique are 1% and 7% better than thoseobtained by the BLF heuristic and lie in the sameregion as our ®ndings.
8. Conclusions
Two types of hybrid algorithms for the rect-angle packing problem have been implementedconsisting of a combination of a meta-heuristic
Table 13
Category 5: 72 or 73 items; object: 60 ´ 90
P1 P2 P3
w h w h w h w h w h w h w h w h w h
6 34 10 2 2 3 3 5 1 2 30 10 6 37 5 11 4 2
3 13 6 6 9 6 14 3 5 1 14 19 10 15 4 5 3 5
5 13 5 6 9 6 9 27 1 1 4 26 4 7 5 5 4 5
12 10 7 14 1 6 6 24 3 3 3 3 12 7 1 3 4 24
12 10 6 14 2 6 21 7 5 20 5 23 4 18 6 3 15 12
7 6 3 16 7 5 7 10 6 23 5 20 10 8 1 4 13 12
15 6 5 16 18 5 1 2 7 2 15 4 5 8 6 4 19 7
7 25 6 14 9 3 13 19 11 21 10 6 4 25 4 2 9 7
15 25 5 14 9 3 4 17 8 7 6 3 5 25 5 2 5 4
12 21 13 14 18 9 4 13 6 15 5 2 4 8 19 25 2 4
7 16 2 3 5 6 17 3 2 1 4 2 12 8 5 9 12 5
5 16 7 3 2 6 24 10 13 14 3 1 10 10 4 9 9 22
3 21 2 11 12 2 5 4 3 14 2 3 5 10 3 6 5 1
5 21 7 11 9 2 2 2 5 26 14 3 3 4 3 6 2 1
7 5 7 6 3 8 6 1 9 14 9 2 7 4 6 13 15 12
5 5 6 6 9 8 11 9 10 3 7 8 7 10 20 13 13 12
1 4 14 33 9 10 4 26 4 13 32 6 2 10 3 18 2 5
10 4 4 12 5 3 2 1 1 3 6 2 7 15 3 18 5 5
13 6 3 12 2 3 4 7 14 11 26 5 4 18 5 16 12 17
13 12 18 16 18 3 7 38 7 10 1 2 15 18 4 16 2 12
9 12 3 12 7 3 3 2 14 12 6 5 3 18 6 11 5 12
6 23 18 12 3 2 3 1 18 3 13 3 7 18 13 4 4 5
3 7 4 4 9 2 4 2 7 4 10 3 7 5 7 4 28 5
5 7 3 4 4 6 2 7 2 5 13 7
1 2 1 3 2 1 7 28 4 11 3 2
E. Hopper, B.C.H. Turton / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 34±57 53
Ta
ble
14
Ca
teg
ory
6:
97
item
s;o
bje
ct:
80
´1
20
P1
2P
3
wh
wh
wh
wh
wh
wh
wh
wh
wh
wh
wh
wh
30
19
11
63
74
26
73
91
03
36
55
26
35
56
94
26
20
85
93
03
14
72
68
33
11
513
44
16
92
14
25
7
13
51
08
17
73
97
64
44
14
82
66
421
52
37
15
23
10
87
72
19
53
33
16
89
11
34
13
523
425
315
94
54
57
11
31
35
44
23
93
21
07
523
625
82
34
54
37
93
13
96
36
26
85
11
23
78
66
67
2
211
41
46
66
28
11
13
16
71
67
91
715
62
64
19
97
21
44
63
19
34
64
15
26
24
30
67
85
18
10
619
37
42
24
21
88
22
62
42
52
11
10
62
10
511
24
525
81
48
14
62
38
52
15
38
45
10
81
03
35
49
48
13
11
63
14
96
11
81
15
30
30
51
15
09
21
33
37
217
47
13
26
10
22
68
31
12
11
119
510
27
22
62
79
58
11
84
20
58
10
18
26
11
10
41
25
53
11
41
56
49
53
8
28
62
05
22
64
52
65
20
422
68
17
417
58
5
12
12
27
42
96
92
62
34
13
69
24
87
26
43
5
21
21
32
52
82
12
10
29
29
815
53
36
76
22
46
8
30
10
92
42
89
12
43
26
52
67
18
24
75
86
82
8
21
10
13
56
29
39
55
91
74
26
51
54
74
420
87
12
15
69
53
20
12
28
27
31
26
91
33
07
94
742
10
7
14
61
71
12
12
09
22
44
19
93
12
10
63
46
88
14
37
7
29
71
11
03
91
27
22
736
62
36
58
17
17
81
81
46
4
22
96
18
41
39
72
928
63
21
75
10
17
46
634
24
61
64
87
13
22
620
11
816
56
59
52
28
62
25
12
07
23
15
16
48
87
52
57
52
29
15
11
23
25
64
47
7
54 E. Hopper, B.C.H. Turton / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 34±57
Ta
ble
15
Cate
go
ry7:
196
or
197
item
s;o
bje
ct:
160
´240
P1
P2
P3
wh
wh
wh
wh
wh
wh
wh
wh
wh
wh
wh
wh
Item
sN
o.
1±100
19
21
33
10
12
23
24
15
75
14
511
10
11
19
15
19
11
17
12
14
23
621
16
99
94
412
80
52
525
21
415
33
51
516
23
618
39
16
911
11
27
67
27
26
11
56
85
33
10
66
31
41
18
84
618
29
11
313
12
910
44
10
39
26
55
515
621
22
22
14
17
420
13
10
54
10
32
119
45
521
10
35
58
50
422
13
14
20
921
13
13
54
921
12
88
31
32
05
24
617
30
16
417
813
19
95
25
13
70
811
528
33
62
13
71
317
61
622
17
14
13
81
56
25
713
613
86
11
73
27
32
72
48
15
10
14
831
20
66
19
25
313
29
35
78
27
76
26
92
31
86
10
16
88
75
67
16
725
51
10
714
62
13
12
16
92
58
10
99
41
47
36
516
212
66
10
45
29
17
34
85
35
815
96
422
54
56
99
412
11
12
419
25
916
46
26
52
45
68
20
413
54
17
23
16
911
32
210
13
17
939
11
317
31
55
822
46
23
528
20
12
22
98
12
62
99
17
61
332
17
55
12
40
529
813
628
21
12
79
13
47
36
11
12
73
12
10
53
55
93
338
733
13
11
53
23
10
712
14
37
38
18
21
101
61
024
511
44
63
333
76
22
20
612
10
312
311
42
310
91
52
81
244
637
732
522
19
67
916
33
36
95
37
624
19
83
817
535
532
11
28
31
75
98
33
14
83
410
11
37
57
17
21
13
30
49
19
56
51
725
714
21
16
30
20
822
57
37
13
54
13
522
12
56
39
12
67
721
27
56
75
34
113
10
17
54
17
922
16
11
81
216
47
627
14
336
10
21
213
427
817
22
17
637
311
31
816
14
610
10
427
71
211
910
14
36
20
16
34
631
620
41
88
14
16
10
520
17
322
59
16
24
14
21
20
63
216
31
81
023
23
21
16
723
311
64
12
31
62
11
13
12
53
22
7
Item
sN
o.
101±197
10
45
29
11
49
310
711
30
84
26
32
25
73
84
10
24
74
59
26
22
14
610
815
26
76
71
511
12
12
65
47
10
25
11
210
42
69
74
24
610
16
32
13
312
533
22
55
31
18
34
410
17
35
97
521
621
71
25
29
57
33
25
16
512
11
77
16
13
12
617
421
21
39
12
25
22
28
25
56
914
72
714
612
63
419
21
14
22
20
815
611
27
10
39
12
710
29
76
44
19
17
821
10
79
55
528
99
11
10
41
93
18
210
23
10
48
17
19
17
33
13
27
842
427
515
17
35
18
510
43
81
08
11
21
17
515
65
16
427
10
11
915
13
312
10
59
19
13
13
13
25
11
915
24
13
32
38
95
30
68
910
923
14
13
62
710
56
33
85
218
45
711
13
88
949
22
15
78
10
12
20
10
13
616
516
57
17
56
230
13
17
65
73
15
33
83
12
97
19
14
912
21
28
36
30
21
13
63
72
916
34
22
16
97
414
10
11
33
211
62
717
511
26
11
47
12
28
18
16
19
20
59
63
32
12
32
55
17
16
11
48
17
12
28
72
04
20
47
10
11
25
11
318
12
46
24
62
47
84
27
30
17
16
410
97
39
811
817
10
16
36
22
10
23
71
24
19
316
26
10
53
17
113
64
75
72
15
10
22
67
12
77
10
29
19
13
819
11
21
313
36
10
93
10
14
14
32
37
12
39
59
10
10
51
68
21
11
42
28
825
85
31
26
32
810
93
922
813
51
81
03
39
217
710
619
93
98
10
14
35
43
813
25
19
10
63
42
912
15
78
12
36
18
12
33
44
21
10
818
13
22
57
619
10
311
83
351
810
21
38
827
21
24
11
37
30
85
315
84
11
99
527
15
94
71
43
81
026
74
E. Hopper, B.C.H. Turton / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 34±57 55
algorithm (GA, NE and SA) and heuristicpacking routine to allocate the items on theobject. The heuristic packing routine generatesthe layouts in a BL justi®ed manner. Whereasone of the techniques (BL) is a time-e�cientimplementation based on a sliding principle, thesecond one (BLF) is able to ®ll enclosures in thelayouts, however, at higher computational cost.The meta-heuristic hybrid algorithms have beentested on a number of packing problems andcompared with heuristic and local search meth-ods and also with approaches used by other re-searchers.
In terms of solution quality the meta-heuristicalgorithms outperform the heuristic packing rou-tines and the hill-climbing approach with SAperforming best. The combinations with the moresophisticated heuristic (BLF) achieve better lay-outs than the ones using the BL decoder. Forindustrial problems the question, which techniquein combination with the BLF routing to choose, isa trade-o� between material cost and simulationcost. In our study SA has achieved the best layoutquality over all problem categories. Its executiontime, however, becomes larger with increasingproblem size. The evolutionary algorithms, GAand NE, are better in terms of execution time andyield results, which are slightly worse than onesobtained by the SA. Hence if the time for solvinga packing task is limited, GA and NE are ap-propriate. For very small time margins, onlyheuristic packing algorithms will be able to meetthis criterion. Table 8 summarises which methodsare appropriate for di�erent sized packing tasksunder limited execution time. The information inTable 8 has to be seen in connection with thecomputational power of the simulation equipmentused. With the processing power constantly in-creasing, it will be possible to apply meta-heuris-tics e�ciently even in larger problems in thefuture.
Since the performance di�erence between thehybrid methods using the BL decoder and the oneusing the BLF decoder is only due to the improvedheuristic, the decoder has a larger e�ect on theoutcome of the hybrid technique than the meta-heuristic technique itself. This seems to suggestapproaches, where more layout speci®c knowledge
is incorporated in the meta-heuristic rather thanthe decoder. However, representation schemesstudied by other researchers that use more layoutinformation did not necessarily achieve higherpacking densities than hybrid techniques for theproblems tested.
Concerning the methodology, hybrid algo-rithms are well suited for industrial demands. Thelayouts achieved are of similar quality as othertechniques. The implementation of the hybrid al-gorithm is easier, since it is based on well-knowntechniques and does not require development ofproblem-speci®c algorithms. With heuristicsalready being applied in industry, the acceptanceof research methods such as meta-heuristics cer-tainly will be higher.
Appendix A
The packing tasks are classi®ed by the problemsize, i.e., the number of items. For each categorythree problem instances have been constructed.The dimensions of the items are given in Tables 9±15. The optimum solution for each problem isknown and is achieved by packing the rectangles inthe order they are stated in the tables using theBLF routine.
References
Andr�as, P., Andr�as, A., Zsuzsa, S., 1996. A genetic solution for
the cutting stock problem. In: Chawdry, P.K., Roy, R.,
Kant, R.K. (Eds.), Proceedings of the First On-line Work-
shop on Soft Computing. Springer, Berlin, pp. 87±92.
Baker, B.S., Co�man Jr., E.G., Rivest, R.L., 1980. Orthogonal
packing in two dimensions. SIAM Journal of Computing 9,
846±855.
Burke, E., Kendall, G., 1998. Comparison of meta-heuristic
algorithms for clustering rectangles. In: Proceedings of the
24th International Conference on Computers and Industrial
Engineering. Uxbridge, UK, to appear.
Chazelle, B., 1983. The bottom-left bin-packing heuristic: An
e�cient implementation. IEEE Transactions on Computers
c32/8, 697±707.
Co�man, E.G., Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S., 1984. Approxi-
mation algorithms for bin-packing ± an updated survey. In:
Ausiello, (Ed.), Algorithms Design for Computer Systems
Design. Springer, Vienna, pp. 49±106.
56 E. Hopper, B.C.H. Turton / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 34±57
Dagli, C.H., Poshyanonda, P., 1997. New approaches to
nesting rectangular patterns. Journal of Intelligent Manu-
facturing 8, 177±190.
Davis, L, 1991. Handbook of Genetic Algorithms. Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Dowsland, K.A., 1993. Some experiments with simulated
annealing techniques for packing problems. European
Journal of Operational Research 68, 389±399.
Dyckho�, H., 1990. Typology of cutting and packing problems.
European Journal of Operational Research 44, 145±159.
Eglese, R.W., 1990. Simulated annealing. A tool for operational
research. European Journal of Operational Research 46,
271±281.
Falkenauer, E., 1998. Genetic algorithms and grouping prob-
lems. Wiley, Chichester.
Falkenauer, E., Delchambre, A., 1992. A genetic algorithm for
bin-packing and line balancing. In: Proceedings of the 1992
IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automa-
tion, vol. 2. IEEE, Piscataway, IEEE Service Center, NJ,
USA, pp.1186±1192.
Goldberg, D.E., 1989. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimi-
sation and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading,
MA.
H�assler, R.W., Sweeney, P.E., 1991. Cutting stock problems
and solution procedures. European Journal of Operational
Research 54, 141±150.
Herbert, E.A., Dowsland, K.A., 1996. A family of genetic
algorithms for the pallet loading problem. Annals of
Operations Research 63, 415±436.
Hinxman, A.I., 1980. The trim loss and assortment problems.
European Journal of Operational Research 88 (1), 8±18.
Hopper, E., Turton, B.C.H., 1997. Application of genetic
algorithms to packing problems ± a review. In: Chawdry,
P.K., Roy, R., Kant, R.K. (Eds.), Proceedings of the
Second On-line World Conference on Soft Computing in
Engineering Design and Manufacturing. Springer, London,
pp. 279±288.
Hopper, E., Turton, B.C.H., 1998. A genetic algorithm for a 2D
industrial packing problem. In: Proceedings of the 24th
International Conference on Computers and Industrial
Engineering. Uxbridge, UK, to appear.
Hwang, I., 1997. An e�cient processor allocation algorithm
using two-dimensional packing. Journal of Parallel and
Distributed Computing 42, 75±81.
Hwang, S.M., Cheng, Y.K., Horng, J.T., 1994. On solving
rectangle bin packing problems using genetic algorithms. In:
Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE International Conference on
Systems, Man and Cybernetics. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ,
USA, pp. 1583±1590.
Jakobs, S., 1996. On genetic algorithms for the packing of
polygons. European Journal of Operational Research 88,
165±181.
K�ampke, T., 1988. Simulated annealing: Use of a new tool in
bin-packing. Annals of Operations Research 16, 327±332.
Kr�oger, B., Schwenderling, P., Vornberger, O., 1991. Parallel
genetic packing of rectangles. In: Schwefel, H.P., M�anner,
R. (Eds.), Parallel Problem Solving from Nature First
Workshop. Springer, Berlin, pp. 160±164.
Kr�oger, B, 1995. Guillontineable bin-packing: A genetic
approach. European Journal of Operational Research 84,
645±661.
Lai, K.K., Chan, W.M., 1997. An evolutionary algorithm for
the rectangular cutting stock problem. International Journal
of Industrial Engineering 4, 130±139.
Mehlhorn, K., N�aher, S., Uhrig, C., 1998. LEDA ± Library of
E�cient Data types and Algorithms. Max-Planck-Institut
f�ur Informatik, Saarbr�ucken, http://www.mpi-sb.mpg.de/
LEDA/.
Press, W.H., Teuckolsky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T., Flannery,
B.P., 1995. Numerical Recipes in C, The Art Scienti®c
Computing, second edition. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Ratanapan, K., Dagli, C.H., 1997. An object-based evolution-
ary algorithm for solving rectangular piece nesting prob-
lems. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on
Evolutionary Computation. ICEC, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ,
USA, pp. 989±994.
Sarin, S.C., 1983. Two-dimensional stock cutting problems and
solution methodologies. ASME Transactions Journal of
Engineering for Industry 104, 155±160.
Smith, D., 1985. Bin-packing with adaptive search. In: Gre-
fenstette, J. (Ed.), Proceedings of an International Confer-
ence on Genetic Algorithms and their Applications.
Lawrence Erlbaum, London, pp. 202±206.
Syswerda, D., 1991. Schedule optimisation using genetic
algorithms. In: Davis, L. (Ed.), Handbook of Genetic
Algorithms. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 332±
349.
E. Hopper, B.C.H. Turton / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 34±57 57
Recommended