Research Article: A Variable Neighborhood Search Algorithm For The Leather Nesting Problem

Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Volume 2012, Article ID 254346, 28 pages
doi:10.1155/2012/254346
Research Article
A Variable Neighborhood Search Algorithm for
the Leather Nesting Problem
Cláudio Alves, Pedro Brás, José M. Valério de Carvalho,

and Telmo Pinto
Centro de Investigação Algoritmi da Universidade do Minho, Escola de Engenharia, Universidade do Minho,
4710-057 Braga, Portugal
Correspondence should be addressed to Cláudio Alves, claudio@dps.uminho.pt
Received 20 May 2011; Accepted 6 October 2011
Academic Editor: J. J. Judice
Copyright q 2012 Cláudio Alves et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The leather nesting problem is a cutting and packing optimization problem that consists in
finding the best layout for a set of irregular pieces within a natural leather hide with an irregular
surface and contour. In this paper, we address a real application of this problem related to the
production of car seats in the automotive industry. The high quality requirements imposed on
these products combined with the heterogeneity of the leather hides make the problem very
complex to solve in practice. Very few results are reported in the literature for the leather nesting
problem. Furthermore, the majority of the approaches impose some additional constraints to
the layouts related to the particular application that is considered. In this paper, we describe a
variable neighborhood search algorithm for the general leather nesting problem. To evaluate the
performance of our approaches, we conducted an extensive set of computational experiments on
real instances. The results of these experiments are reported at the end of the paper.
1. Introduction
The leather nesting problem LNP is a two-dimensional cutting problem whose objective
is to find the best layout for a set of irregular pieces within the boundaries of an irregular
surface, which is a natural leather hide. The hides not only are irregular in their contour, but
alsomay have holes and zones with different quality levels. On the another hand, the pieces
are subject to quality requirements that restrict their placement within the hides. They are
divided into quality zones that specify the minimum quality of the hide from which these
parts of the pieces must be cut. Here, we consider a particular application of the LNP in the
automotive industry, and in particular in the production of car seats. This application has
influence on, namely, the characteristics of the pieces. For instance, the pieces found in this
sector contrast with the pieces of other applications whose complexity tends to be low like in
2 Mathematical Problems in Engineering
the furniture industry. In this paper, our conclusions and data are supported by the real case
study of a multinational company operating in the automotive sector.
The LNP addressed in this paper shares most of the characteristics and requirements
of other nesting problems. Obviously, the pieces must be placed within the boundaries of the
hides, and they should not overlap. Except for the quality constraints mentioned above, no
other constraints apply to the layouts like, for example, constraints on the directionality of
the pieces. Since the hides have a limited area in opposition to the strips whose area may
be considered virtually unlimited, the standard optimization criterion that is considered
when building the layouts is the total raw material usage. When multiple hides are involved,
we may consider additional criteria like the percentage of remaining space that is left on
the last hide 1. The typology proposed in 2 classifies this LNP as a 2D-RCSP two-
dimensional residual cutting stock problem. Because of all these characteristics, the problem is
very challenging. At the same time, the value of the hides and the potential for savings make
this problem very relevant from an economical point of view.
A first contribution for a similar LNP can be found in 3. In this paper, Heistermann
and Lengauer describe a constructive heuristic that starts by selecting an empty region of
the hide using a multicriteria quality function. A subset of pieces is then selected according
to their geometry and to the geometry of the selected region. These pieces are placed in this
region in the positions that maximizes another multicriteria function used to evaluate how
good each piece fits in a given position. The authors report on computational results for real
instances that show the competitiveness of their approach compared to the results achieved
by human nesters.
More recently, Alves et al. 1 proposed a set of constructive heuristics for the general
LNP addressed in this paper. Their approach combines different strategies for grouping the
pieces, for selecting the next piece to place on the hide, for selecting an empty region of the
hide where the selected piece will be placed, and for evaluating the different placement
positions in this region. The authors use no-fit polygons to ensure the feasibility of the
layouts, and also to guide the different selection processes of their heuristic. They report on a
set of computational experiments on real instances that attest the performance of some of the
combinations of strategies described in their paper.
Heistermann and Lengauer 3 and Alves et al. 1 are the only authors to report on
results for the same general LNP as the one addressed in this paper. All the other con-
tributions proposed in the literature 4–7 focus on variants of this LNP. In 4, Crispin et
al. describe two genetic algorithms for a LNP with directionality constraints. They consider
an application on the shoe-making industry where the rotations that can be applied to the
pieces are restricted over the hide. In practice, these constraints reduce the complexity of the
problem.
In 7, Yuping and Caijun explore a variant of the LNP with no quality constraints.
They describe a solution approach based on genetic algorithms and simulated annealing
and report on computational results with material usage of 70% achieved in one hour of
computing time. Lee et al. 6 addressed a similar LNP with no quality zones and multiple
hides. Their algorithm consists in placing the pieces sequentially on the hide, and in adjusting
their placement through translations and rotations.
In this paper, we describe a variable neighborhood search VNS algorithm for the
general LNP described above. Our approach relies on a fast constructive heuristic used
to generate the first layout and to complete the partial layouts that might be generated
during the local search procedure. It relies also on different neighborhood structures that
are explored through the general framework proposed by Mladenović and Hansen in 8.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 3
Our neighborhood structures are based on the sequence by which the pieces are placed on
the hide and on the quality of the fitness of these pieces in the current layout. The goal
is to improve quickly the incumbent solution by exploring neighboring solutions obtained
by removing or replacing the pieces with the worst fitness in a given part of the sequence.
We explore different strategies for removing and replacing the pieces with the worst fitness,
and to generate the rest of the sequence from this piece forward. These strategies define the
moves in the corresponding neighborhoods. The VNS framework is used to systematically
explore the various neighborhoods and to escape from the regions that contain a local
optimum through randomization. In our algorithm, the local search phase is performed on
a single neighborhood space, which is the same as the one used in the shaking phase. As a
consequence, our algorithm corresponds to an implementation of the basic or standard VNS.
Extensive computational experiments are reported for real instances from our real case study.
The tests were performed with two objectives: to tune the algorithm so as to identify the best
set of parameters and evaluate the real impact of each neighborhood in the quality of the
layouts and to evaluate the performance of the best approach on a large set of real instances.
To the best of our knowledge, no results have been reported in the literature concern-
ing the application of the VNS metaheuristic to the general LNP addressed in this paper.
In fact, we are not aware of any algorithm based on VNS for cutting and packing problems
involving irregular shapes. Recent applications of VNS to cutting and packing problems can
be found in 9–11.
In 9, the authors describe a hybrid method for the strip packing problem combining
the greedy randomized adaptive search procedure GRASP with VNS. The problem consists
in finding the best packing for a set of rectangles within a 2-dimensional strip with virtually
infinite length. Their objective is to find the pattern with the minimum length. The authors
describe an approach that embeds a VNS algorithm in the postprocessing phase of GRASP.
The VNS metaheuristic is used to improve the packing of the last rectangles that were placed
in the constructive phase. Their neighborhood structures are based on the permutations of
these rectangles. They report on a set of computational experiments where their method
compares favorably with a simulated annealing algorithm proposed in the literature 12.
In 10, Parreño et al. describe a VNS algorithm for the container-loading problem. The
initial solution is generated using a constructive heuristic proposed in 13. This heuristic
builds iteratively a valid layout for the problem by choosing and placing a set of boxes
into a so-called maximal space, that is, the space where the largest parallelepiped can be
placed. The authors propose five different neighborhood structures for the problem based
on five types of movements involving the deletion of layers, the insertion of columns and
boxes, and emptying a complete region of the container. In 10, their algorithm is compared
with other state-of-the-art approaches proposed in the literature on a set of 1500 benchmark
instances. Their approach outperforms these other algorithms for the set of instances that
were considered.
In 11, the authors describe a VNS approach for different variants of the 2-dimension-
al cutting stock problem with guillotine constraints. They propose a set of greedy heuristics
for the problem, together with three neighborhood structures and their corresponding local
search procedures. These structures rely on the representation of the solutions as a sequence
of items, and on movements based on swapping items and reversing subsequences of items.
These neighborhood spaces are explored within a variable neighborhood descent procedure.
The authors report on computational experiments for real instances of the furniture industry.
The number of bins and corresponding waste decreased with their approach when compared
with the results achieved by the companies.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we describe the characteristics of the

general LNP addressed in this paper. In Section 3, we introduce the geometrical issues related
to the problem and the strategies used to overcome these issues. In Section 4, we describe
the constructive heuristic used to generate the initial solution and to complete the partial
layouts within the local search phases. In Section 5, we describe the different components
of our algorithm including the movements and the corresponding neighborhood structures,
and we describe how these components are integrated in our VNS algorithm. In Section 6, we
report on an extensive set of computational experiments conducted on real instances from our
real case study. Some final conclusions are drawn in Section 7.
2. The Leather Nesting Problem

The LNP is a two-dimensional cutting stock problem that consists in finding the best way to
cut a set of irregular pieces from a natural leather hide. The hides and the pieces have both
an irregular contour. Furthermore, they may have holes and regions with different quality
grades. For the hides, the holes as other defects, and the quality, zones are a consequence
of the nature of the product. On the contrary, a quality zone in a piece defines a minimum
quality requirement set by the client. It stipulates that the corresponding part of the piece
must be cut from a region of the hide that has at least this level of quality.
Figure 1 shows a leather hide with holes in white and different quality zones in
black, red, green, and blue. The regions in grey at the border of the hide are nonusable areas.
They are not defects in the strict sense of the word, but because their quality is too low, they
are not used to produce any piece. In our specific application, the quality zones are divided
into four groups denoted by A, B, C, and D. The zones A correspond to the best-quality
regions of the hides. The quality decreases from A to D, with D being the worst quality level.
The zones D of the hides are typically used to cut the parts of the pieces that are not visible in
the car seats. In the forthcoming figures, we will depict the zones A, B, C, and D of the hides
in black, red, green, and blue, respectively. The holes will be represented in white.
The quality zones of the pieces are defined using a similar scheme with four different
quality grades. In our case, the pieces are the parts of a car seat. The quality zone of a piece can
only be cut from a region of the hide whose quality grade is similar or higher. For example,
a zone C of a piece will be cut only from a region A, B, or C of a hide. Note that in the
real application considered in this paper the pieces may be highly irregular. They may have
different concavities, and their area may differ significantly.
A feasible layout is an arrangement of the pieces on the hide such that the pieces are
all placed within the boundaries of the hide its usable part without overlapping with each
other, and such that the quality requirements of the pieces are fulfilled. Note that while the
defects on the hides do not increase the complexity of the problem compared to other nesting
problems, the existence of quality zones really do. A defect on the hide including the holes
can be treated as a piece already placed on this region of the hide. However, the same does
not apply to the quality zones. While a quality zone of a hide cannot overlap with some parts
of the pieces, it may overlap with others as long as its corresponding quality level is the same
or better than the quality requirement of these parts of the pieces.
The most common criterion used to evaluate the quality of a layout is the total material
usage. In the automotive industry, other criteria are used to improve the efficiency of the
cutting processes 1. For instance, when a production order requires more than a single hide,
an important issue is to ensure that the total usable area that remains on the last hide after the
Figure 1: Leather hide.
final cutting operation is maximized. Indeed, the parts of the last hide that are too small are
discarded, while the others are used as an input for subsequent orders. Hence, the criterion
that applies when generating the layout for the last hide is no more the material usage, but
instead the total usable area of this hide. In this paper, we will focus on the generation of
efficient layouts on a single hide, and hence, we will use the maximization of the material
usage as the optimization criterion.
3. Geometric Issues
The hides, the pieces, and their quality zones, holes, and defects are all represented using
polygons. These polygons are generated after a scanning process for the hides, and using a
CAD system for the pieces of the car seats. To improve the efficiency of our approach, we
simplified first the representation of the hides and pieces by generating approximations of
the corresponding shapes using a procedure described in 1. The outer border of the hides
is represented using an inner approximation obtained by removing sequentially the vertices
whose distance from its immediate predecessor is smaller than a given small parameter.
A vertex is removed only if the resulting polygon is in fact an inner approximation of the
original polygon. On the contrary, the holes and the quality zones of the hides are replaced by
an outer approximation using a similar scheme. All the polygons representing the pieces are
replaced by outer approximations using again a similar scheme. This procedure ensures that
every layout that is feasible for the approximated hide will remain feasible for the original
hide. It is important to note that the number of vertices of the resulting polygons is still much
larger than the number of vertices of the polygons used in 3. The number of vertices used
to represent the hides and the pieces decreased, respectively, to 300 and 80 for the instances
used in our computational experiments. In 3, the number of vertices per hide and per piece
was, respectively, equal to 100 and 70 before their simplifications.
In our approach, we resorted to no-fit polygons NFPs to compute the relative
position between two pieces and between the pieces and the quality zones of the hide. To
ensure that a piece is placed within the boundaries of the hide, we used inner-fit polygons
IFPs. Both the no-fit and the inner-fit polygons are computed using the Minkowski sums
14, 15. In the particular case of the LNP, testing whether a piece is placed correctly on the
hide is more complex than in other nesting problems because of the quality zones. The quality
zones of a hide cannot be treated as pieces already placed on its surface just as its holes
and defects. Indeed, while some parts of the pieces will not be allowed to overlap with the
zones of the hide whose quality is lower, these parts will be allowed to overlap with other
zones that meet the corresponding quality requirements. Hence, any standard method used
to avoid that two pieces overlap must be adapted in the case of the LNP.
The no-fit and inner-fit polygons of two polygons A and B will be denoted by NFPA,B
and IFPA,B , respectively. The outer border of a no-fit polygon NFPA,B is the path followed by
a reference point of B when B slides around A without ever overlapping with A but such that
B is always in contact with A. The inner-fit polygon IFPA,B is defined in a similar way except
that the polygon B must always remain inside A. The NFPs are used to know if two polygons
overlap or not, while the IFPs are used to know if a polygon is completely contained within
another one. Indeed, if the reference point of B is inside NFPA,B , then A and B overlap. If it lies
at the boundary of A, then B touches A without overlapping with it. Finally, if the reference
point of B is outside NFPA,B , then A and B overlap. Similarly, if the reference point of B is
inside IFPA,B , then B is completely inside A. If it is at the border of IFPA,B , then B remains
inside A and it touches its border.
The NFPs between all the pairs of pieces have to be computed, together will all the IFPs
between each piece and the usable area of the hide, and all the NFPs between each quality
zone of the pieces and the regions of the hide with a lower quality grade. The IFPs of a given
piece and the hide and the NFPs of this piece and the quality zones of the hide describe the
set of feasible placement positions of the piece inside the hide. Note that there can be more
than one unconnected IFP describing the feasible placement positions inside a hide. The
constructive heuristic used in our algorithm takes advantage of the information provided by
these polygons.
4. Generating Feasible Layouts: A Constructive Heuristic

To generate feasible layouts, we use a constructive heuristic that follows the same steps as
those described in 1. The approach can be divided as follows:
a definition of groups of pieces,

b selection of the next piece to place on the hide from a given group of pieces,
c selection of a region of the hide where to place the piece,
d evaluation of the placement positions in this region and selection of one of these
positions.
The steps b to d are repeated until no more pieces can be placed on the hide, or until there
are no more pieces available. The heuristic is used many times in the course of the algorithm,
and hence it should remain fast however, without neglecting the quality of the layouts. The
strategies used in the steps b to d were chosen with this objective in mind.
Let m be the total number of different pieces, and let bi , with i 1, . . . , m, denote the
demand associated to the piece i. The step a consists in grouping the pieces according to
a given criterion. Let n be the number of groups, and let Gj denote the set of pieces that
belong to the group j. For ease of presentation, we will assume that a reindexing of the pieces
is applied after the pieces have been assigned to a group. Hence, denoting by mj the total
number of pieces in the group j, we will have Gj {1, 2, . . . , mj }. The demand of the piece i
in group j will be denoted by bji .
The pieces are assigned to the groups according to the value of their areas. A piece i is
assigned to a group j if its area Ai is such that

max − min max − min
Ai ∈ min × j − 1 ; min ×j , 4.1
n n
with min and max representing, respectively, the area of the smallest piece and the area of the
largest piece and n being the total number of groups that are allowed. Note that for j n, the
previous interval is closed on the right. Group G1 corresponds to the pieces with the smallest
areas. The areas of the pieces increase with the index of the groups, and hence, the pieces with
the largest values belong to the nth group Gn .
In the step b of the heuristic, we start by choosing the group of pieces from which
the next piece will be selected. The groups are chosen by decreasing order of their index. We
select the first group that has pieces to be placed and such that at least one of these pieces
still fits on the hide. The selection of the next piece and its rotation is based on the index of
the chosen group and on the characteristics of the IFPs of the pieces and the hide. Let j be
the index of the chosen group. If j < n/2, we choose the piece with the smallest IFP, while if
j ≥ n/2, the piece that is selected is the one that has the largest IFP. The reference point of the
selected piece is then placed within the IFP that determined the selection of the piece.
The principle is to use the information provided by the IFPs as an indicator of the
expectable quality of the fitness of the pieces in the corresponding regions of the hide. We
recall that there can be more than one IFP representing the feasible placement positions of a
given piece inside the hide. If one of the IFPs of a small piece is a polygon with a small area,
then one may expect that the fitness of this piece in the corresponding region of the hide will
be good. For the largest pieces, the objective is to place them in regions where the impact on
the placement of the next pieces is lower.
Once a piece and a placement region have been selected, we choose the final placement
position of the piece within this region. We use a simple criterion to evaluate each placement
position. The position that is selected is the point in the border of the IFP that is nearer from
the border of the hide. Here, the goal is to fill the hide preferentially from the border to the
center.
5. A Variable Neighborhood Search Algorithm

5.1. Overview
The VNS framework was introduced by Mladenović and Hansen 8 and applied successfully
to many optimization problems see 16 for a recent survey. This framework leads to a
metaheuristic that drives the search into different neighborhoods in a systematic way so
as to improve the incumbent solution. In this paper, we use this framework to explore
alternative neighborhoods for the general LNP. Our approach relies on the constructive
heuristic introduced above and on a set of neighborhoods that are briefly described below.
The details of the neighborhood structures will be given in the next section.
The initial layout is obtained by applying the constructive heuristic defined above.
This heuristic determines the sequence by which the pieces are placed and the exact position
of each piece on the hide. A layout is defined by the set of pieces that are placed on the
hide together with their rotation and position. As an alternative, we can represent a layout as
a b
Figure 2: Evaluating the quality of the fitness of a piece at a given placement position.
a sequence of pieces combined with the iterative application of the steps c and d of our
constructive heuristic. By iterative, we mean that the pieces are chosen and placed on the
hide one after the other following the order defined by the sequence and that the process
repeats until there are no more pieces in the sequence. We will use this latter representation
to describe our neighborhood structures and associated movements.
We propose four types of distinct movements defined from a sequence of pieces:
exchanging a piece p by another that is not in the sequence, removing all the pieces from
this piece forward and filling the hide using the constructive heuristic; exchanging a piece p
by another that is not in the sequence, keeping the rest of the sequence unchanged, placing
the corresponding pieces using iteratively the steps c and d of the constructive heuristic
and filling the rest of the hide by applying the complete heuristic; swapping two pieces p and
p in the sequence if p can be placed on the hide with a better fitness than p following the steps
c and d of the heuristic placing all the pieces of the sequence using the steps c and d
of the heuristic and filling the rest of the hide with the complete heuristic; removing a piece
p of the sequence, placing all the pieces of the resulting sequence by applying iteratively the
steps c and d of the heuristic, and filling the rest of the hide with the complete heuristic.
The piece p that is exchanged, swapped with another piece, or removed from the
sequence is chosen from a set of candidate pieces with the worst fitness. The quality of the
fitness of a piece is evaluated by computing the areas of the polygons resulting from the
intersection of an offset of the piece with the outer part of the hide and with the current
layout and by dividing this total area by the area of the offset. The largest will be this value,
the better will be the fitness. Ideally, when this value is equal to 1, the whole border of the
piece touches the border of the hide or the border of the current layout. Figure 2 illustrates
the process.
For ease of presentation, we will always denote in this paper the piece that is to be
exchanged, swapped with another piece, or removed from the sequence by p, and the set of
candidate pieces from which p is selected by P . Similarly, the set of pieces that are candidate
to substitute p in the sequence will be denoted by P , and the piece that is selected from P
will be denoted by p . Furthermore, we will denote by S a sequence of pieces, and we will
define it as a vector of tuples as follows:

S s1 , s2 , . . . , s|S| , 5.1
with sk j, i denoting the group Gj and the piece i ∈ Gj that is in the kth position in the
sequence. The vector containing the values of the corresponding fitness of these pieces will
be denoted by F and defined as follows:

F f1 , f2 , . . . , f|S| , 5.2
with 0 ≤ fk ≤ 1, k 1, . . . , |S|.
A key characteristic of our approach is that the neighbors of a solution L except
eventually the one defined through the fourth type of movement described above are layouts
in which the fitness of the piece p is always better than the fitness of the piece p in L.
Furthermore, the pieces p will not be chosen from any part of the sequence, but from a
restricted subpart of the sequence. These subparts will be defined based on the position of
the pieces in the sequence. However, instead of using the indexes k of the tuples sk in S to
denote these positions, we use the percentage of material usage achieved right after a piece
is placed on the hide. For example, we will choose the pieces that are in a window of 50%
to 70% of material usage meaning that only the pieces that lead to a material usage in this
interval right after being placed on the hide will be chosen. We will denote by U the vector
of values of the material usage achieved after placing each piece of the sequence S. We will
have

U u1 , u2 , . . . , u|S| , 5.3
with uk < uk 1 , k 1, . . . , |S| − 1. The vector U will represent the evolution of the material
usage as the pieces are placed on the hide. To identify a subpart of the sequence, we will
use a lower and an upper bound for the value of the material usage. We will denote these
values by umin and umax , respectively. For the example given above, we have umin 50% and
umax 70%.
Specific neighborhoods are defined from the general movements referred to above.
The neighborhoods further depend on the following set of parameters:
i the number of pieces that are candidate to be exchanged, swapped with another
piece, or removed, that is, |P | we will denote this parameter by q;
ii the number of pieces that are candidate to substitute the piece p, that is, |P | we
will denote this parameter by r;
iii the subpart of the sequence from which the pieces of P are chosen, that is, si , . . . , sj
with
i argminl∈{1,...,|S|} {ul : ul ≥ umin , ul ∈ U},

5.4
j argmaxl∈{1,...,|S|} {ul : ul ≤ umax , ul ∈ U}.
Note that when q 1, the piece that is exchanged, swapped, or removed is the piece
with the worst fitness in the given subsequence. Similarly, when r 1, the piece p
is replaced in the sequence by the piece that leads to the best fitness, either from the
sequence S or not. It is possible to define various neighborhoods by setting these
parameters to different values. The details of these neighborhoods will be given in
the next section.
To explore these neighborhoods, we use the standard VNS framework. At each

iteration, the procedure tries to improve the incumbent by looking to local optima within each
neighborhood. Driving the search to a different neighborhood may improve the solutions
obtained through the exploration of the previous neighborhoods since the local optima in
two different neighborhoods are not necessarily the same. In this paper, we propose an
approach based on VNS that explores systematically the neighborhoods obtained through
the general movements described above and by setting the above parameters to some specific
values.
5.2. Movements and Neighborhood Structures

We begin by describing in detail the procedures that define each one of the four movements
referred to above. These movements will be denoted by M1 , M2 , M3 , and M4 , respectively.
(A) Movement M1
1 Select the piece p:
Let k1 argminl∈{1,...,|S|} {ul : ul ≥ umin , ul ∈ U} and k2 argmaxl∈{1,...,|S|} {ul :

ul ≤ umax , ul ∈ U};
Let P be the set of the q pieces from the subsequence sk1 , . . . , sk2 with the
smallest fitness in F;
Choose a piece p from P ;
2 Select the piece p :
Let C be the set of pieces that are not in the sequence S;

Let P be the set of the r pieces of C with the best fitness when placed on the
hide right after sk1 −1 following the steps c and d of the heuristic;
3 Update the sequence S:
Let Gj be the group of the piece p and i the index of p in Gj , and let k3 be the
index of j, i in S corresponding to the chosen piece p;
Let Gj be the group of the piece p and i the index of p in Gj ;
Remove the subsequence sk3 , . . . , s|S| from S;
4 Place the pieces of the sequence s1 , . . . , sk3 −1 , j , i on the hide following the steps
c and d of the constructive heuristic if a piece of the sequence cannot be placed
on the hide, update S by removing this piece from the sequence;
5 Fill the hide and complete the sequence S using the constructive heuristic.
Note that if k3 1, then the subsequence s1 , . . . , sk3 −1 is an empty vector.The movement
M2 differs from M1 only on the steps 3 and 4. As happens in M1 , the piece p is
replaced in the current sequence S by another p with a better fitness and that is not
in S, while the rest of the sequence from p forward remains unchanged. The pieces of
the new sequence are placed on the hide using the steps c and d of the constructive
heuristic. When all these pieces have been placed or discarded eventually if they do not
fit on the hide, the complete heuristic is used eventually to fill the empty spaces that may
remain.
(B) Movement M2
1 Select the piece p: similar to step 1 of M1 ;
2 Select the piece p : similar to step 2 of M1 ;
Let Gj be the group of the piece p and i the index of p in Gj ;
Replace j, i in the position k3 of the sequence by j , i , that is,

S s1 , . . . , sk3 −1 , j , i , sk3 1 , . . . , s|S| ; 5.5
4 Place the pieces of the new sequence S on the hide following the steps c and d of
the constructive heuristic if a piece of the sequence cannot be placed on the hide,
update S by removing this piece from the sequence;
In the movement M3 , the piece p is selected from the subsequence of S starting from p and
up to the end of the sequence. The pieces p and p are swapped in the sequence S, and the
pieces of the resulting sequence are placed using the steps c and d of the heuristic. Again,
the constructive heuristic is used at the end of the process to fill the empty spaces.
(C) Movement M3
2 Select the piece p :
Let P be the set of the r pieces of S from the chosen piece p up to the end of
S with the best fitness when placed on the hide right after sk1 −1 following the
stepsc and d of the heuristic;
index of j , i in S corresponding to the chosen piece p ;
Swap sk3 and sk4 in S, that is,

S s1 , . . . , sk3 −1 , sk4 , sk3 1 , . . . , sk4 −1 , sk3 , sk4 1 , s|S| ; 5.6
Here, we assume that k3 < |S|, otherwise it is clear that p will not exist.The fourth movement
consists in removing the piece p from the sequence S and placing the remaining pieces from
this piece forward using the constructive heuristic.
(D) Movement M4
Remove sk3 from S, that is, S s1 , . . . , sk3 −1 , sk3 1 , . . . , s|S| ;
The objective of these movements is to explore different neighborhoods of the current

solution L that are all composed by solutions obtained from L by removing one of its pieces
with a bad fitness, and replacing it eventually by another piece with a better fitness. They
differ essentially from each other in the way the piece p is treated. Note that while in M1 , M2 ,
and M3 , the piece p is replaced by another that leads to a better fitness by definition, there
is no guarantee that the piece sk3 1 in M4 will improve the fitness of the piece p.
The movement M1 is the most computationally expensive among the four movements,
since it forces to repeat the complete heuristic right after p has been exchanged. In the other
movements, the step b of the heuristic consisting in the selection of the next piece to place is
not applied, while the pieces of the new sequence S are being placed. The heuristic is applied
in its entirety only after all these pieces have been placed on the hide. Typically, the number
of iterations at this stage is small. The movements M2 and M3 vary essentially on the source
from which p is selected, either from the sequence or not. The movement M4 is the simplest
movement. The neighborhoods of a solution L defined through M4 are composed by |P |
solutions. This movement is proposed as a fast strategy that aims at removing a piece with
a bad fitness, letting the heuristic complete the layout starting from its immediate successor
sk3 1 in S.
Each movement will be associated to a specific neighborhood. We will denote the
neighborhoods of a solution L obtained through Mi by Ni L, i 1, . . . , 4. The neighborhoods
N1 L, N2 L, and N3 L of a solution L consists in the solutions generated by taking every
piece p ∈ P , and for each one these pieces by replacing or swapping it by every piece p ∈ P ,
and then by applying the steps 3 to 5 of M1 , M2 and M3 , respectively. The neighborhood
N4 L of a solution L is composed by all the solutions obtained from L by removing each one
of the pieces of P , and by applying the steps 2 to 4 of M4 . These neighborhoods depend
on different parameters, namely, umin and umax that determine the subpart of the sequence
Input:
tmax neighborhood structures Nt , t 1, . . . , tmax ;
A stopping criterion;
1 Initialization:
x :findInitialSolution ();
2 Repeat the following steps until the stopping criterion is met:
a t : 1;
b Repeat the following steps until t tmax :
x : shaking x, t;
x : localSearch x , t;
if vx < vx then
x : x ;
t : 1;
else
t : t 1;
Algorithm 1
from which the pieces of P are selected, and the parameters q and r that determine the size
of the sets P and P , respectively. Specific neighborhoods can be obtained from these general
definitions by setting these parameters to given values. To explore in a systematic way the
neighborhoods induced by these general definitions, we developed an algorithm based on
the VNS framework described in 8. The details of this approach are given in the following
section.
5.3. Variable Neighborhood Search

The VNS metaheuristic defines a general framework for optimization based on the systematic
exploration of different neighborhoods. It is a local search metaheuristic that allows for the
escape from local optima by switching among the neighborhoods. It relies on the simple
observation that a local optimum in a given neighborhood may not remain optimal in
another neighborhood. Different variants are defined from this general framework, such as
the variable neighborhood descent algorithm and the variable neighborhood decomposition
search procedure. In 16, Hansen et al. reviewed different possible implementations of
the VNS metaheuristic. These schemes are general enough to allow for different practical
implementations. In this paper, we describe an implementation of the VNS metaheuristic
based on the basic approach. To improve the efficiency of our approach, we adapted some
components of the basic scheme, essentially in the local search phase. A computational study
was performed to tune the resulting algorithm, to identify promising sets of parameters and
to evaluate the impact of each neighborhood in the quality of the solutions. The results of this
study are provided in Section 6.
Let vx denote the value of a solution x. The general steps of the basic VNS are
described in Algorithm 1 for a minimization problem.
The output of this algorithm is the incumbent solution x. The procedure
findInitialSolution generates an initial solution for the problem which becomes also the
first incumbent solution. At each iteration, a solution is generated randomly from the tth
neighborhood of x through the shaking procedure. A local optimum is then sought in this
Input:
j j j j
For each Ni , i 1, . . . , 4, tNi sets of parameters umin,i , umax,i , qi and ri , j 1, . . . , tNi ,
4
such that tmax i1 tNi the resulting neighborhood structures will be indexed with the
index t, with t 1, . . . , tmax ;
A limit tlimit on the total computing time;
1 Initialization:
L :findInitialSolution();
2 Repeat the following steps until cpuTime() ≥ tlimit :
a t : 1;
b Repeat the following steps until t tmax :
L : shakingL, t ;
L : first Improvement L , t;
if vL < vL then
L : L ;
t : 1;
else
t : t 1;
Algorithm 2
tth neighborhood space through the local search procedure localSearch. If the value of this
local optimum is better than the value of the incumbent solution, the incumbent is updated
and the search is resumed starting from the first neighborhood structure and with this new
incumbent. If it is worse or equal than the value of the incumbent solution, the local search
procedure is then applied on the neighborhood Nt 1 . The process repeats until the stopping
criterion is finally met. Note that this general definition allows for different implementations.
For instance, the strategy used to switch between two neighborhood structures may be
different from the sequential scheme followed in the basic VNS described above. Similarly,
the criterion used to accept a local optimum and move to the corresponding solution may not
be based only on the value of this local optimum.
Our implementation of the basic VNS for the general LNP is described next. The
neighborhood structures Ni refer to the structures introduced in the previous section.
j j
Furthermore, we denote by umin,i , umax,i the jth pair of lower and upper bounds umin , umax
for the value of the material usage associated to the neighborhood Ni , which define the
j j
subpart of the sequence from which the pieces of P are selected. The parameters qi and ri will
be used to denote the general parameters q and r introduced in Section 5.1 and associated to
the jth neighborhood defined from Ni . For each Ni , i 1, . . . , 4, let tNi denote the number of
parameter sets that are considered, each one consisting on given values for the parameters
j j j j
umin,i , umax,i , qi , and ri , j 1, . . . , tNi . Each one of these parameter sets defines a specific
neighborhood structure within one of the general neighborhoods Ni , i 1, . . . , 4 whose

precise definition depends on this set of parameters. In practice, 4i1 tNi neighborhood
4
structures are effectively considered in our algorithm. Let tmax i1 tNi . For the sake of
clarity, in our description of our VNS algorithm given in Algorithm 2, we will index these
neighborhoods sequentially using an index t such that t 1, . . . , tmax .
The initial layout L is generated using the constructive heuristic described in Section 4.
The neighborhood structures used in the shaking phase and in the local search procedure are
the same. In our implementation, we used a first improvement local search procedure. To
further accelerate this procedure, we restrict the search to a subpart of the neighborhood of
the solution L . Indeed, whenever q the size of the set P of pieces to exchange, swap with
others, or remove is greater than 1, we explore only the neighbors obtained by choosing
randomly one piece p of P , and by taking all the pieces p of P in the case of N1 , N2 , and N3 .
Note that to generate a neighboring solution, we have to use the constructive heuristic. The
heuristic is computationally expensive, namely, because of the computation of the NFPs and
IFPs, even if, in practice, the heuristic is applied only on the subpart of the sequence that was
changed, since the head of the sequence that was kept unchanged produces exactly the same
partial layout. Finally, the execution of the algorithm is stopped after a given time limit has
been reached.
6. Computational Experiments
Two sets of experiments were conducted: one to compare possible strategies for our
VNS algorithm and to tune the parameters of the algorithm and another to evaluate the
performance of the best approach that emerged from the tuning experiments on a large set of
real instances. In this section, we report on the results of these experiments. The instances the
hides and the pieces came from the company that is used as a case study in this paper, and in
particular from two car models whose seats are produced by this company. We used the data
corresponding to one of the seats for each car model. The total number of different pieces of
the first car model was equal to 23, while 22 different pieces were used for the second car
model. The pieces can be rotated, but since each rotation implies the computation of a new
set of NFPs and IFPs, we restricted the rotations to multiples of 45 degrees.
The experiments were conducted on a PC with an Intel Core i3 CPU with 2.27 GHz and
4 GB of RAM. The algorithms were coded in C , and the computational geometry routines
were implemented using CGAL 3.7 Computational Geometry Algorithms Library.
6.1. Tuning the VNS Algorithm

The tuning experiments focus on the different aspects and parameters of our VNS algorithm.
The objectives of these experiments are summarized next:
a evaluating the impact of each neighborhood on the quality of the layouts that are
generated;
b comparing different strategies for setting the intervals of material usage
j j
umin,i , umax,i from which the pieces of P are selected;
j
c evaluating alternative values for the parameters qi , that is, the size of the sets P
from which the pieces that are exchanged, swapped with another, or removed are
selected;
j
d evaluating alternative values for the parameters ri , that is, the size of the set P of
pieces that will be inserted in the sequence;
e comparing the quality of the layout when the neighborhoods are explored by
different orders.
For this purpose, we used 24 instances from the two car models referred to above. From the
first car model, we generated 4 production orders with different subsets of pieces from the
global set of 23 pieces. The number m of different pieces for each order was, respectively,
equal to 8, 12, 15, and 23. The demand for each piece was set equal to 100. For each order,
we repeated the algorithm on 3 different leather hides. In practice, that led to 12 different
instances of the LNP. From the second car model, we generated 12 different orders in the same
way. The number of different pieces varied from 5 to 22 m ∈ {5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 20, 22}. Again,
the demand for each piece was equal to 100. We used the same hide for each production order.
In all the cases, the production orders were larger than the hide. The pieces of the production
orders completely filled the hide, and there were always pieces that remained to be cut. Our
goal was to evaluate the capacity of the VNS algorithm to find good quality layouts, that
is, with a high material usage on each single hide. The limit on the total computing time
was set to 600 s. In the company, the pieces of a production order are placed on the hide by
two operators. The average time used by these human nesters is typically around 600 s. In
the subsequent tables, the instances related to the first car model are identified by the index
of the corresponding production order x and the index y of the hide as follows: x; y. The
instances associated to the second car model are identified by the index of the corresponding
production order. The column Inst. in these tables identifies the problem instance.
In Table 1, we give the results obtained when different neighborhood structures are
used in the VNS algorithm. The objective is to evaluate whether the best layouts tend to
be found by exploring a particular neighborhood, or if all the neighborhoods contribute in
the same way to the quality of the final layouts. Nine strategies were explored: using all
the neighborhood structures Ni with tNi 2, qi1 1 and qi2 3, i 1, . . . , 4; using the
neighborhood structure N1 with tN1 1 and q11 1 that consists in exchanging, swapping, or
removing the piece with the worst fitness within a given interval defined by the parameters
u1min,1 and u1max,1 , and similarly using only one of the neighborhoods N1 with q11 3, N2 with
q21 1, N2 with q21 3, N3 with q31 1 or N3 with q31 3, N4 with q41 1 or N4 with q41 3.
For all the cases except the first, we assume that tNi 1, i 1, . . . , 4, that is, only one specific
neighborhood structure was used for each one of these cases. In all these configurations,
j j j
the other parameters of the neighborhoods were set as follows: ri 3 and umin,i , umax,i
10%, 0.95 × MU%, j 1, . . . , tNi , i 1, . . . , 4, with MU being the percentage of material
usage achieved in the initial layout. In the case where all the neighborhoods were used, we
explored them by increasing value of their indexes. Note that we considered explicitly the
j
neighborhood structures Ni with qi 1, i 1, . . . , 4, because we observed that the best results
were usually obtained when this neighborhood was included in the search.
The tests were repeated three times for each instance and configuration. A total of 648
runs were performed 4.5 days of total computing time. In Table 1, we indicate the number
of times each configuration provided the best layouts for the corresponding instance. These
results show that the best layouts are more often generated when all the neighborhoods are
used. Indeed, 30 of the 72 best layouts are found with this configuration, while the second-
best strategy N1 with q11 3 reaches the best layout only in 9 cases.
The best strategies identified at some step of our tuning experiments are always used
in the following tests. For instance, the strategy that consists in using all the neighborhoods
were used in the next experiments.
The second set of tuning experiments was conducted to compare some alternative
j j
strategies for setting the values of the lower and upper bounds umin,i , umax,i that are used
on the material usage to define the subsequences from which the pieces of P are selected. We
analyzed five strategies. Broadly speaking, we analyzed whether the best results are achieved
by using a single or more than one interval for each general neighborhood structure Ni ,
Table 1: Evaluating the impact of the neighborhood structures number of times the best layout is found
with the corresponding strategy.
Neighborhood
N1 N1 N2 N2 N3 N3 N4 N4
Inst. All
q11 1 q11 3 q21 1 q21 3 q31 1 q31 3 q41 1 q41 3
Car model 1
1; 1 3
1; 2 2 1
1; 3 2 1
2; 1 1 2
2; 2 1 1 1
2; 3 1 1 1
3; 1 1 1 1
3; 2 2 1
3; 3 1 1 1
4; 1 2 1
4; 2 2 1
4; 3 2 1
Total 16 2 4 3 4 1 3 0 3
Car model 2
1 3
2 3
3 2 1
4 2 1
5 1 1 1
6 1 2
7 1 2
8 1 1 1
9 1 2
10 2 1
11 2 1
12 2 1
Total 14 5 5 0 4 1 3 3 1
i 1, . . . , 4, and we tried to identify where this interval should be located. The parameters
that characterize the five approaches are given next:
1 tNi 2, i 1, . . . , 4:
qi1 1, ri1 3, u1min,i , u1max,i 50%, 0.95 × MU%;

2 tNi 2, i 1, . . . , 4:
qi1 1, ri1 3, u1min,i , u1max,i 10%, 50%;

qi2 3, ri2 3, u2min,i , u2max,i 10%, 50%;
3 tNi 2, i 1, . . . , 4:

4 tNi 4, i 1, . . . , 4:
qi1 1, ri1 3, u1min,i , u1max,i 10%, 50%;

qi3 3, ri3 3, u3min,i , u3max,i 10%, 50%;
5 tNi 4, i 1, . . . , 4:
qi1 1, ri1 3, u1min,i , u1max,i 25%, 50%;

qi3 3, ri3 3, u3min,i , u3max,i 25%, 50%;
qi4 3, ri4 3, u4min,i , u4max,i 50%, 0.95 × MU%.
The first strategy consists in using a single neighborhood for each general structure Ni ,
i 1, . . . , 4, and in selecting the pieces of the set P preferentially from the tail of the sequence,
while in the second strategy, the pieces of P are chosen from the other part of the sequence.
The third strategy encompasses both the two previous strategies. It consists in selecting the
pieces of P from almost all the sequence except its very beginning. In the fourth and fifth
strategies, we explore the use of two neighborhoods for each general neighborhood structure
j j
Ni , Ni , i 1, . . . , 4, based on different intervals umin,i , umax,i . The fourth strategy combines
the intervals used in the first and second strategy. In the fifth strategy, we try to explore
neighborhoods where the head of the sequences is kept unchanged. Indeed, the pieces that
are at the head of the sequence are placed first, and they lead usually to a good fitness when
compared to the other pieces of the sequence.
The tests were executed only once for each instance and configuration. A total of 120
runs were performed 0.83 days of total computing time. The results of these experiments
are given in Table 2. Again, we report on the number of times that a given strategy led to
the best solution for each instance. For the first car model, the results are nearly the same
for all the strategies, while for the second car model, the second strategy clearly dominates
the other. When the pieces of P are allowed to be selected from the first part of the sequence
as happens in the second strategy, the layouts that are in the neighborhood of the current
solution L may be quite different from L, since a large part of the layout may have to be rebuilt
using the constructive heuristic if the piece p that is selected is at the very beginning of the
sequence. That allows for the exploration of more diverse solutions, and thus it increases the
possibilities of finding a layout with an improved material usage.
j
The third set of tuning experiments focus on the parameters qi of the neighborhood
structures. The corresponding results are reported in Table 3. For each general neighborhood
structure, we defined two specific structures, that is, tNi 2, i 1, . . . , 4. The structures differ
j
in the value of the parameter qi . We used qi1 1 and qi2 3 in one case, and qi1 1 and
qi 5 in the other, for i 1, . . . , 4. The parameters ri1 and ri2 were set equal to 3, while the
2
j j
intervals umin,i , umax,i , j ∈ {1, 2}, were selected according to the second strategy described
j j
Table 2: Evaluating the impact of the parameters umin,i , umax,i number of times the best layout is found
with the corresponding strategy.
j j
Definition of umin,i , umax,i
Inst.
1 2 3 4 5
Car model 1
1; 1 1
1; 2 1
1; 3 1
2; 1 1
2; 2 1
2; 3 1
3; 1 1
3; 2 1
3; 3 1
4; 1 1
4; 2 1
4; 3 1
Total 2 2 3 2 3
Car model 2
1 1
2 1
3 1
4 1
5 1
6 1
7 1
8 1
9 1
10 1
11 1
12 1
Total 3 6 2 1 0
above. In summary, we used two different values for the parameter qi2 , namely, qi2 3 and
qi2 5, i 1, . . . , 4. The objective was to analyze whether an increase in the value of this
parameter could lead to better layouts. The tests were repeated three times for each instance
and configuration. A total of 144 runs were performed one day of computing time. We can
observe from Table 3 that the quality of layouts decreases as we increase the value of this
parameter for both the car models.
j
To evaluate the impact of the ri parameter, we conducted different experiments using
the neighborhood structures corresponding to the following configurations:
1 tNi 2, i 1, . . . , 4:
qi1 1, ri1 1, u1min,i , u1max,i 10%, 50%;

qi2 3, ri2 1, u2min,i , u2max,i 10%, 50%;
j
Table 3: Evaluating the impact of the parameters qi number of times the best layout is found with the
corresponding strategy.
Inst. qi2 3 qi2 5

Car model 1
1; 1 1 2
1; 2 1 2
1; 3 2 1
2; 1 0 3
2; 2 2 1
2; 3 3 0
3; 1 3 0
3; 2 1 2
3; 3 3 0
4; 1 1 2
4; 2 3 0
4; 3 2 1
Total 22 14
Car model 2
1 2 1
2 1 2
3 1 2
4 2 1
5 2 1
6 1 2
7 3 0
8 2 1
9 2 1
10 1 2
11 2 1
12 2 1
Total 21 15
2 tNi 2, i 1, . . . , 4:
qi1 1, ri1 3, u1min,i , u1max,i 10%, 50%;

qi2 3, ri2 3, u2min,i , u2max,i 10%, 50%;
3 tNi 2, i 1, . . . , 4:
qi1 1, ri1 5, u1min,i , u1max,i 10%, 50%;

qi2 3, ri2 5, u2min,i , u2max,i 10%, 50%.
j
The three configurations differ exclusively on the value of the ri parameters. Here, our
objective was to analyze the impact on the quality of the layouts when one increases or
decreases the value of this parameter. The results are reported in Table 4. A total of 216 runs
were performed 1.5 days of computing time. From these experiments, we can conclude that
j
Table 4: Evaluating the impact of the parameters ri number of times the best layout is found with the
corresponding strategy.
j j j
Inst. ri 1 ri 3 ri 5
Car model 1
1; 1 3
1; 2 1 2
1; 3 3
2; 1 3
2; 2 2 1
2; 3 3
3; 1 3
3; 2 1 2
3; 3 3
4; 1 3
4; 2 2 1
4; 3 3
Total 7 17 12
Car model 2
1 1 2
2 2 1
3 2 1
4 2 1
5 2 1
6 1 2
7 3
8 1 2
9 3
10 2 1
11 3
12 1 1 1
Total 6 22 8
j
the best layouts are achieved when ri 3. The quality of the solutions gets worse whether
we increase or decrease the value of this parameter for both the car models used in the
j
experiments. Increasing the value of the parameters ri increases the number of neighboring
solutions. However, from our experiments this larger variety of solutions does not reflect
upon the quality of the final layouts.
Our last set of tuning experiments were conducted to evaluate the impact of the order
by which the neighborhoods are explored on the quality of the final layouts. For this purpose,
we used the best set of parameters identified in the previous experiments, and we tried 12
different sequences for the search, namely,
1 N1 , N2 , N3 , and N4 ;
2 N2 , N1 , N3 , and N4 ;
3 N1 , N3 , N2 , and N4 ;
Table 5: Evaluating the impact of the order by which the neighborhoods are explored number of times
the best layout is found with the corresponding strategy.
Order of the neighborhoods

Inst.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Car model 1
1; 1 1
1; 2 1
1; 3 1
2; 1 1
2; 2 1
2; 3 1
3; 1 1
3; 2 1
3; 3 1
4; 1 1
4; 2 1
4; 3 1
Total 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 0 0 0 0
Car model 2
1 1
2 1
3 1
4 1
5 1
6 1
7 1
8 1
9 1
10 1
11 1
12 1
Total 3 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1
4 N2 , N3 , N1 , and N4 ;
5 N3 , N1 , N2 , and N4 ;
6 N3 , N2 , N1 , and N4 ;
7 N4 , N1 , N2 , and N3 ;
8 N4 , N2 , N1 , and N3 ;
9 N4 , N1 , N3 , and N2 ;
10 N4 , N2 , N3 , and N1 ;
11 N4 , N3 , N1 , and N2 ;
12 N4 , N3 , N2 , and N1 .
Table 6: Instances.
Car model Order m

1, . . . , 5 5
6, . . . , 10 8
1 11, . . . , 15 10
16, . . . , 18 12
19, . . . , 21 15
22 23
1, . . . , 10 5
11, . . . , 20 8
2 21, . . . , 30 10
31, . . . , 35 12
36, . . . , 40 15
41 22
The tests were performed only once for each instance and each configuration. A total
of 288 runs were performed 2 days of computing time. The results are reported in Table 5.
From these results, we can observe that while some sequences never led to the best layouts
configuration 9 and 11, none of the other sequences clearly dominated all the others. The
best results are obtained with the first and seventh sequences, which both generate the best
layout for four instances.
6.2. Computational Results

In this section, we report on the results obtained with our VNS algorithm on a large set of real
instances. For these experiments, we used the best strategies and parameters identified from
the previous tuning experiments. These configurations are summarized next:
i Use all the neighborhood structures Ni , i 1, . . . , 4;

ii Explore the neighborhoods in the following order: N1 , N2 , N3 , and N4 ;
iii tNi 2, i 1, . . . , 4:
a qi1 1, ri1 3, u1min,i , u1max,i 10%, 50%;

b qi2 3, ri2 3, u2min,i , u2max,i 10%, 50%.
We generated 22 production orders using the set of pieces associated to the first car
model in the same way as in the tuning experiments. The number m of different pieces varies
from 5 to 23. Each production order is cut from three different hides, and hence, we have
66 instances defined from this car model. Forty-one production orders were generated using
the pieces of the second car model. Since only one hide is used for each production order,
in this case, we have 41 different instances derived from the second car model. In Table 6,
we describe the characteristics of the production orders. In summary, our set of instances is
composed of 107 different problem instances. As in the tuning experiments, we used a time
limit of 600 s. For each instance, the tests were repeated four times. Hence, 428 runs were
performed which took almost 3 days of computing time.
Table 7: Evaluating the performance of the VNS algorithm: car model 1 part I.
Initial solution VNS

After 200 s After 400 s After 600 s
Inst.
Pieces Usage t Pieces Usage Pieces Usage Pieces Usage
1; 1 22 59,53 12,86 22,50 59,61 25,00 60,01 27,50 61,09
1; 2 23 57,93 15,04 27,50 59,31 29,75 59,93 31,00 60,14
1; 3 25 61,57 19,12 25,00 62,34 25,75 62,95 26,75 63,12
2; 1 16 56,11 13,01 16,50 57,63 18,00 57,90 20,75 58,97
2; 2 17 54,43 14,43 19,00 55,67 24,25 58,27 25,25 58,95
2; 3 20 55,77 18,25 20,50 57,18 23,00 59,04 25,00 60,24
3; 1 9 46,02 9,00 14,75 54,60 15,50 55,26 17,25 55,19
3; 2 14 51,92 11,98 15,75 52,84 18,00 54,78 18,00 54,91
3; 3 18 54,77 14,89 18,50 56,04 22,00 57,41 23,50 59,76
4; 1 12 51,68 11,01 15,75 55,31 16,00 56,10 16,00 56,10
4; 2 13 50,13 12,45 16,00 52,58 18,25 54,68 19,00 55,51
4; 3 15 51,87 16,31 15,75 52,82 18,75 56,96 21,00 58,81
5; 1 13 51,51 9,06 21,00 60,67 25,25 60,81 24,50 61,77
5; 2 18 55,38 11,87 21,25 58,00 24,25 59,24 27,25 60,30
5; 3 26 60,99 16,86 26,00 60,99 34,50 61,53 34,75 61,56
avg. 17,40 54,64 13,74 19,72 57,04 22,55 58,32 23,83 59,10
6; 1 20 59,12 16,49 20,50 59,67 23,50 61,28 25,75 62,27
6; 2 24 61,56 18,72 24,75 61,82 25,00 62,26 25,00 62,26
6; 3 23 60,36 22,39 24,50 60,99 25,50 61,75 25,75 62,53
7; 1 17 57,50 18,43 18,25 59,07 19,25 61,77 19,75 62,22
7; 2 19 57,58 20,85 20,00 59,10 22,75 59,34 24,75 60,77
7; 3 22 58,61 26,46 24,00 61,27 24,25 61,55 24,25 61,55
8; 1 20 58,92 15,53 21,00 59,90 22,75 61,66 24,25 62,46
8; 2 22 60,06 19,53 22,75 60,32 23,00 61,03 25,50 61,57
8; 3 24 60,51 23,06 24,00 60,51 25,25 60,93 27,75 63,10
9; 1 12 50,78 16,58 13,75 54,04 14,75 54,47 15,25 54,90
9; 2 13 50,13 19,33 13,00 50,13 17,25 57,01 18,50 58,05
9; 3 14 50,40 23,81 14,50 51,13 18,00 54,88 21,00 58,78
10; 1 20 58,92 15,26 21,00 60,55 22,50 61,90 27,75 62,52
10; 2 23 60,65 19,40 24,50 63,06 25,25 64,01 25,25 64,01
10; 3 25 61,37 23,48 27,25 62,41 28,75 63,47 29,00 63,69
avg. 19,87 57,76 19,95 20,92 58,93 22,52 60,49 23,97 61,38
The results for the first car model are reported in Tables 7 and 8. Those for the
second car model are given in Table 9. The column Inst. in these tables identifies the
problem instance. For the first car model, we use the same notation to identify the instances
as in the tables for the tuning experiments, namely, x; y, where x is the index of the
production order and y the index of the hide. The tables present the results obtained with
the constructive heuristic used to generate the first layout, and the results achieved by the
VNS algorithm after 200 s, 400 s, and 600 s of computing time. The column P ieces indicates
Table 8: Evaluating the performance of the VNS algorithm: car model 1 part II.

Inst.
11; 1 20 58,51 19,50 20,00 59,99 23,00 61,06 29,00 61,27
11; 2 24 60,48 23,76 24,00 60,48 24,00 60,48 24,00 60,48
11; 3 22 59,45 28,67 22,00 59,45 25,00 61,03 27,50 62,62
12; 1 19 60,18 21,63 20,25 61,61 22,00 61,79 28,50 62,54
12; 2 22 60,52 24,69 22,00 60,94 24,00 62,24 25,75 62,53
12; 3 25 61,38 31,02 25,00 61,38 25,00 61,38 30,75 64,33
13; 1 19 58,19 18,28 20,50 60,28 21,25 61,98 26,00 64,42
13; 2 21 58,27 21,64 21,00 58,27 23,75 59,61 26,75 61,56
13; 3 23 59,53 25,86 23,00 59,53 25,00 62,75 28,25 63,73
14; 1 20 60,19 20,74 20,00 60,19 25,25 63,77 25,25 63,77
14; 2 23 59,94 25,22 23,00 59,94 24,75 60,53 26,50 61,11
14; 3 23 59,62 29,89 23,00 59,62 25,50 61,53 27,75 63,07
15; 1 19 58,12 17,75 20,00 59,17 24,75 62,73 25,50 63,78
15; 2 24 61,55 22,05 24,00 61,55 26,00 62,41 26,00 62,41
15; 3 23 59,81 25,21 23,00 59,81 26,25 63,99 29,25 64,42
avg. 21,80 59,72 23,73 22,05 60,15 24,37 61,82 27,12 62,80
16; 1 19 58,19 24,57 19,75 59,44 20,50 60,71 22,25 62,76
16; 2 21 58,27 29,69 21,00 58,27 24,00 59,82 26,00 60,67
16; 3 23 59,53 37,42 23,00 59,53 24,50 59,75 27,25 63,65
17; 1 19 59,15 23,91 19,25 59,60 23,00 61,81 25,00 61,94
17; 2 21 59,09 28,67 21,00 59,09 23,50 61,76 24,75 62,55
17; 3 23 59,96 35,12 23,00 59,96 25,00 64,19 26,75 64,21
18; 1 19 58,12 22,15 20,00 59,65 21,00 60,40 24,50 62,63
18; 2 24 61,55 27,99 24,00 61,55 25,75 63,23 26,00 63,24
18; 3 23 60,33 33,58 23,00 60,33 24,50 62,97 26,25 62,17
avg. 21,33 59,35 29,23 21,56 59,71 23,53 61,63 25,42 62,65
19; 1 49 69,68 38,48 49,00 69,68 49,25 69,94 50,00 71,44
19; 2 45 67,27 41,82 45,00 67,27 46,50 67,48 46,25 67,54
19; 3 47 66,57 51,30 47,00 66,57 47,00 66,57 45,25 68,71
20; 1 76 73,17 51,42 76,00 73,17 78,00 73,55 80,50 74,21
20; 2 69 72,29 52,96 69,00 72,29 69,00 72,29 66,75 72,34
20; 3 81 72,42 64,93 81,00 72,42 81,00 72,42 95,75 72,66
21; 1 48 69,05 38,04 48,00 69,05 46,25 69,56 44,00 70,84
21; 2 43 67,57 40,68 43,00 67,57 43,00 67,57 43,00 67,57
21; 3 46 66,78 48,15 46,00 66,78 45,75 66,95 50,50 68,05
avg. 56,00 69,42 47,53 56,00 69,42 56,19 69,59 58,00 70,37
22; 1 84 73,88 99,30 84,00 73,88 84,00 73,88 84,67 74,08
22; 2 81 74,51 100,37 81,00 74,51 81,00 74,51 81,00 74,52
22; 3 90 73,78 116,76 90,00 73,78 90,00 73,78 90,00 73,86
avg. 85,00 74,06 105,48 85,00 74,06 85,00 74,06 85,22 74,15
Table 9: Evaluating the performance of the VNS algorithm: car model 2.

Inst.
1 25 54,81 21,96 26,50 56,26 28,50 57,56 29,75 58,17
2 31 53,18 32,05 33,00 55,69 34,00 57,29 35,00 58,63
3 26 55,20 22,69 27,00 56,07 29,25 57,86 31,50 58,94
4 29 55,72 24,84 30,25 56,53 30,75 57,60 33,75 59,06
5 36 55,84 34,11 35,75 55,94 35,75 55,94 36,50 56,50
6 34 61,82 33,11 37,00 63,86 37,25 64,29 37,25 64,40
7 29 60,80 23,00 29,75 61,41 31,50 62,64 30,25 63,61
8 51 58,22 58,78 51,00 58,22 53,00 60,08 54,00 60,60
9 54 57,07 65,56 54,00 57,07 55,25 59,51 57,25 60,84
10 33 61,56 29,51 34,75 62,58 34,75 63,62 34,50 64,01
avg. 34,80 57,42 34,56 35,90 58,36 37,00 59,64 37,98 60,48
11 22 54,70 24,32 24,50 57,78 24,50 58,36 24,50 58,53
12 39 54,99 52,38 39,00 54,99 40,50 55,89 40,75 57,94
13 41 54,86 52,21 41,00 54,86 41,75 55,37 43,75 57,58
14 39 60,98 53,89 39,00 60,98 41,00 62,11 41,00 62,11
15 39 52,86 58,48 39,00 53,06 39,00 53,67 39,50 53,91
16 33 63,44 34,33 33,00 63,44 33,00 63,93 33,25 63,94
17 35 62,49 33,23 35,00 63,21 35,75 64,29 38,00 65,83
18 52 58,93 56,82 52,00 58,93 54,00 60,31 54,75 60,42
19 50 55,95 76,14 50,00 55,95 50,50 57,28 51,25 58,41
20 29 60,30 31,73 30,50 60,86 32,50 61,84 36,50 63,73
avg. 37,90 57,95 47,35 38,30 58,41 39,25 59,30 40,33 60,24
21 25 57,38 33,19 25,00 57,38 28,00 60,96 27,75 61,42
22 39 54,99 60,14 39,00 54,99 39,25 55,38 41,25 56,86
23 50 59,07 69,43 50,00 59,07 50,00 59,07 50,00 59,17
24 31 64,53 37,23 31,00 64,53 31,50 64,67 31,50 64,67
25 39 52,80 70,57 39,00 52,80 38,50 55,24 39,50 56,01
26 30 62,50 35,50 32,00 63,09 36,25 64,45 37,75 64,75
27 33 64,86 39,78 33,50 65,14 35,75 66,41 36,00 66,54
28 50 56,69 74,65 50,00 56,91 50,00 57,00 51,00 57,71
29 39 61,50 63,95 39,00 61,50 39,75 61,79 41,50 62,84
30 32 62,11 41,71 32,25 62,25 33,00 62,76 39,00 65,52
avg. 36,80 59,64 52,61 37,08 59,77 38,20 60,77 39,53 61,55
31 31 61,41 43,98 31,00 61,41 35,00 63,42 36,75 63,84
32 39 54,35 73,25 39,00 54,35 39,00 54,35 39,50 55,97
33 48 59,16 77,47 48,00 59,16 49,00 59,68 50,00 60,21
34 31 65,21 45,09 31,00 65,21 31,00 65,21 31,75 65,33
35 54 60,74 91,89 54,00 60,74 54,00 60,74 54,00 60,74
avg. 40,60 60,17 66,34 40,60 60,17 41,60 60,68 42,40 61,22
36 31 61,99 53,78 31,00 61,99 35,00 64,07 38,00 64,18
37 48 59,44 91,20 48,00 59,44 48,00 59,44 49,50 60,03
38 47 56,75 105,12 47,00 56,75 48,50 57,40 53,00 58,91
39 32 64,72 51,62 32,00 64,72 32,00 64,72 38,50 67,23
40 54 60,42 106,47 54,00 60,42 54,00 60,42 54,00 60,42
avg. 42,40 60,66 81,64 42,40 60,66 43,50 61,21 46,60 62,15
41 34 64,87 73,84 34,00 64,87 34,00 64,87 39,00 66,89
the number of pieces placed on the hide. Column Usage gives the percentage of material
usage achieved by the corresponding layout. Column t is used in the part associated to the
constructive heuristic to indicate the time in seconds needed by the heuristic to generate
the initial solution. The line avg. gives the average values for the group of instances that is
above.
On average, the VNS algorithm is always able to improve the results obtained by the
constructive heuristic. In Table 7, the best improvement is achieved for the instance 5; 1 with
an increase of 10,26% in the total material usage. The VNS algorithm improves the initial
solution quickly. Indeed, after 200 s of computation, the algorithm was already able to find
a layout that is better than the initial solution. Furthermore, the solution is improved both
after 400 s and 600 s of computation. These improvements tend to be less significant for
the instances whose results are given in Table 8. On average, the results are always better
than the initial solution, but the VNS algorithm takes more time to find a solution that is
clearly better than this first solution. In this table, the best improvement is achieved for the
instance 13; 1 with an increase of 6,23%. When the variety of pieces is larger, the constructive
heuristic is usually able to find layouts that have already a high material usage. In these
cases, the space for improvements is smaller, but the VNS algorithm is still able to improve
the initial layout. For the hardest instances, those for which the constructive heuristic cannot
find a good quality layout, the VNS algorithm appears to work as an effective improvement
procedure. Not surprisingly, the time needed by the constructive heuristic to find an initial
layout increases with m, the number of different pieces in the instance. This is due in part to
the necessity of recomputing the NFPs and IFPs for each piece right after a piece has been
placed on the hide. Note that the material usage achieved in the final layouts are comparable
to the results obtained by human nesters. Furthermore, these results are achieved within the
same time limit as that needed by two human nesters. One operator would need around
1200 s twice our time limit to achieve comparable results.
Similar results are obtained for the instances derived from the second car model. The
VNS algorithm was always able to improve the initial solution except for two instances 35
and 40. In many cases, a better layout is found right after 200 s of computation. The best
improvement is obtained for the instance 2 with an increase of 5,46%. Even in the instance
with the largest variety of pieces instance 41 the VNS algorithm was able to improve by
2,02% the material usage achieved in the first layout.
7. Conclusions
In this paper, we proposed the first local search metaheuristic for the general LNP using
the real case study of a company that operates in the automotive sector. We described a
constructive heuristic to generate feasible layouts, and we introduced the details of the
different neighborhood structures that were explored. These structures rely on the sequence
by which the pieces are placed on the hide and on the quality of the fitness of each piece.
The fitness of a piece is measured by computing the intersection of an offset of the piece with
the border of the hide and the border of the layout. To explore the different neighborhood
spaces, we developed a VNS algorithm that searches for local optima in a systematic way
on each one of these spaces. Our approaches were tested on a large set of real instances.
The experiments show that the VNS algorithm improves the solutions provided by the
constructive heuristic. Furthermore, the quality of the final layouts that are generated by this
algorithm is competitive with the results achieved by human nesters.
Acknowledgments
This work was partially supported by the Algoritmi Research Center of the University of
Minho for C. Alves and J. V. de Carvalho, by the Portuguese Science and Technology Foun-
dation through the Doctoral Grant SFRH/BDE/15650/2007 for P. Brás and through the Re-
search Grant UMINHO/BII/183/2009 for T. Pinto. It was developed in the Systems Engi-
neering, Optimization and Operations Research Group.
References
1 C. Alves, P. Brás, J. Valério de Carvalho, and T. Pinto, “New constructive algorithms for leather nesting
in the automotive industry,” Computers and Operations Research, vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 1487–1505, 2012.
2 G. Wäscher, H. Haußner, and H. Schumann, “An improved typology of cutting and packing prob-
lems,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 183, no. 3, pp. 1109–1130, 2007.
3 J. Heistermann and T. Lengauer, “The nesting problem in the leather manufacturing industry,” Annals
of Operations Research, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 147–173, 1995.
4 A. Crispin, P. Clay, G. Taylor, T. Bayes, and D. Reedman, “Genetic algorithm coding methods for
leather nesting,” Applied Intelligence, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 9–20, 2005.
5 Z. Yuping, J. Shouwei, and Z. Chunli, “A very fast simulated re-annealing algorithm for the leather
nesting problem,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 25, no. 11-12, pp.
1113–1118, 2005.
6 W. C. Lee, H. Ma, and B. W. Cheng, “A heuristic for nesting problems of irregular shapes,” Computer
Aided Design, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 625–633, 2008.
7 Z. Yuping and Y. Caijun, “A generic approach for leather nesting,” in Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Natural Computation, vol. 5, pp. 303–317, August 2009.
8 N. Mladenović and P. Hansen, “Variable neighborhood search,” Computers and Operations Research,
vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 1097–1100, 1997.
9 J. Beltran, J. Calderon, R. Cabrera, J. Perez, and J. Moreno-Vega, “GRASP/VNS hybrid for the strip
packing problem,” in Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Hybrid Metaheuristics, pp. 79–90,
2004.
10 F. Parreño, R. Alvarez-Valdes, J. F. Oliveira, and J. M. Tamarit, “Neighborhood structures for the
container loading problem: a VNS implementation,” Journal of Heuristics, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 1–22, 2010.
11 F. Alvelos, T. M. Chan, P. Vilaça, T. Gomes, E. Silva, and J. M. Valério De Carvalho, “Sequence based
heuristics for two-dimensional bin packing problems,” Engineering Optimization, vol. 41, no. 8, pp.
773–791, 2009.
12 E. Hopper and B. C. H. Turton, “Empirical investigation of meta-heuristic and heuristic algorithms
for a 2D packing problem,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 128, no. 1, pp. 34–57, 2001.
13 F. Parreño, R. Alvarez-Valdes, J. M. Tamarit, and J. F. Oliveira, “A maximal-space algorithm for the
container loading problem,” INFORMS Journal on Computing, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 413–422, 2008.
14 P. K. Ghosh, “An algebra of polygons through the notion of negative shapes,” CVGIP: Image Under-
standing, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 119–144, 1991.
15 J. A. Bennell, K. A. Dowsland, and W. B. Dowsland, “The irregular cutting-stock problem—a new
procedure for deriving the no-fit polygon,” Computers and Operations Research, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 271–
287, 2000.
16 P. Hansen, N. Mladenović, and J. Pérez, “Variable neighbourhood search: methods and applications,”
Annals of Operations Research, vol. 175, no. 1, pp. 367–407, 2010.
Advances in Advances in Journal of Journal of
Operations Research
Decision Sciences
Applied Mathematics
Algebra
Probability and Statistics
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
The Scientific International Journal of

World Journal
Differential Equations
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Submit your manuscripts at

http://www.hindawi.com
International Journal of Advances in

Combinatorics
Mathematical Physics
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Journal of Journal of Mathematical Problems Abstract and Discrete Dynamics in

Complex Analysis
Mathematics
in Engineering
Applied Analysis
Nature and Society
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
International
Journal of Journal of
Mathematics and
Mathematical
Discrete Mathematics
Sciences
Journal of International Journal of Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Volume 2014

Function Spaces
Stochastic Analysis
Optimization
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Research Article: A Variable Neighborhood Search Algorithm For The Leather Nesting Problem

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Article: A Variable Neighborhood Search Algorithm For The Leather Nesting Problem

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Article: A Variable Neighborhood Search Algorithm For The Leather Nesting Problem

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Cláudio Alves, Pedro Brás, José M. Valério de Carvalho,

Correspondence should be addressed to Cláudio Alves, claudio@dps.uminho.pt

Received 20 May 2011; Accepted 6 October 2011

Academic Editor: J. J. Judice

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we describe the characteristics of the

2. The Leather Nesting Problem

Figure 1: Leather hide.

4. Generating Feasible Layouts: A Constructive Heuristic

a definition of groups of pieces,

5. A Variable Neighborhood Search Algorithm

i  argminl∈{1,...,|S|} {ul : ul ≥ umin , ul ∈ U},

To explore these neighborhoods, we use the standard VNS framework. At each

5.2. Movements and Neighborhood Structures

Let k1  argminl∈{1,...,|S|} {ul : ul ≥ umin , ul ∈ U} and k2  argmaxl∈{1,...,|S|} {ul :

2 Select the piece p :

Let C be the set of pieces that are not in the sequence S;

3 Update the sequence S:

3 Update the sequence S:

The objective of these movements is to explore diﬀerent neighborhoods of the current

5.3. Variable Neighborhood Search

6.1. Tuning the VNS Algorithm

qi1  1, ri1  3, u1min,i , u1max,i  50%, 0.95 × MU%;

qi1  1, ri1  3, u1min,i , u1max,i  10%, 50%;

qi1  1, ri1  3, u1min,i , u1max,i  10%, 0.95 × MU%;

qi1  1, ri1  3, u1min,i , u1max,i  10%, 50%;

qi1  1, ri1  3, u1min,i , u1max,i  25%, 50%;

qi1  1, ri1  1, u1min,i , u1max,i  10%, 50%;

Inst. qi2  3 qi2  5

qi1  1, ri1  3, u1min,i , u1max,i  10%, 50%;

qi1  1, ri1  5, u1min,i , u1max,i  10%, 50%;

Order of the neighborhoods

Car model Order m

6.2. Computational Results

i Use all the neighborhood structures Ni , i  1, . . . , 4;

a qi1  1, ri1  3, u1min,i , u1max,i  10%, 50%;

Initial solution VNS

Initial solution VNS

Table 9: Evaluating the performance of the VNS algorithm: car model 2.

Initial solution VNS

The Scientific International Journal of

Submit your manuscripts at

International Journal of Advances in

Journal of Journal of Mathematical Problems Abstract and Discrete Dynamics in

Journal of International Journal of Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Volume 2014

You might also like

i argminl∈{1,...,|S|} {ul : ul ≥ umin , ul ∈ U},

Let k1 argminl∈{1,...,|S|} {ul : ul ≥ umin , ul ∈ U} and k2 argmaxl∈{1,...,|S|} {ul :

qi1 1, ri1 3, u1min,i , u1max,i 50%, 0.95 × MU%;

qi1 1, ri1 3, u1min,i , u1max,i 10%, 50%;

qi1 1, ri1 3, u1min,i , u1max,i 10%, 0.95 × MU%;

qi1 1, ri1 3, u1min,i , u1max,i 10%, 50%;

qi1 1, ri1 3, u1min,i , u1max,i 25%, 50%;

qi1 1, ri1 1, u1min,i , u1max,i 10%, 50%;

Inst. qi2 3 qi2 5

qi1 1, ri1 3, u1min,i , u1max,i 10%, 50%;

qi1 1, ri1 5, u1min,i , u1max,i 10%, 50%;

i Use all the neighborhood structures Ni , i 1, . . . , 4;

a qi1 1, ri1 3, u1min,i , u1max,i 10%, 50%;