Automation in Construction 84 (2017) 1–13

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Automation in Construction
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/autcon

Heuristic algorithm for ready-mixed concrete plant scheduling with multiple MARK
mixers
Zhenyuan Liua,b,⁎, Yakun Zhanga, Minghui Yua,b, Xiaolu Zhoua
a
School of Automation, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China
b
Key Laboratory of Education, Ministry for Image Processing and Intelligent Control, Wuhan 430074, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this study, the problem of integration of ready-mixed concrete (RMC) production scheduling and truck and
Ready-mixed concrete pump dispatching in an RMC plant with multiple mixers is focused upon. A time-space network model, which
Multiple mixers combines RMC production and vehicle dispatching, is proposed. A heuristic algorithm with eight sets of conjoint
Production scheduling priority rules for production scheduling, truck and pump dispatching, and mixer scheduling is developed to solve
Vehicle dispatching
the problem. Computational experiments are conducted on actual cases collected from an RMC company; these
Conjoint-rule based heuristic algorithm
cases are classified into four types based on the quantity of orders from construction sites and the discrete degree
of construction sites. The advantages and disadvantages of adopting various conjoint-rules in the various types of
cases are determined. The experimental results demonstrate that this heuristic solution is capable of enabling
managers of RMC plants to develop more suitable schedules in various types of practical cases.

1. Introduction scheduling rules for various types of practical cases. A conjoint-rule

Ready-mixed concrete (RMC) is widely used in the construction
industry. At present, RMC is generally supplied to construction sites
from offsite plants. Production and delivery of RMC are of high sig-
nificance in the daily operations of RMC plants. Production scheduling
and vehicle (trucks and pumps) dispatching are generally developed by
experts by utilizing their experience. In practice, there are few effective
methods and tools in support of these operations. A few scheduling
models and algorithms have been developed and reported in literature,
and majority of these are studies of cases of RMC plants with one mixer.
However, more than one mixer is likely in practical cases. Orders are to
be distributed among several mixers by certain pre-established rules.
Then, trucks and pumps are to be dispatched in close coordination with
the production by the mixers.
In this study, a scheduling problem in an RMC plant with multiple
mixers is discussed, and a time-space network flow model, which in-
tegrates RMC production and distribution, is presented. An integrated
model on RMC production scheduling and truck dispatching developed
by Yan et al. [1] has been characterized as NP-hard and formulated as a
mixed-integer network flow problem with side constraints. The in-
tegrated model developed in this study considers trucks and pumps
dispatching simultaneously with production scheduling; this is more
complex and also NP-hard. A heuristic algorithm will be developed to
obtain effective schedules and to determine effective conjoint
consists of rules for production scheduling and trucks and pumps dis-
patching. The variations among the cases are in terms of the quantity of
orders from construction sites and of the discrete degree of construction
sites. Therefore, it is likely to provide a realistic guideline for plant
managers to determine the most appropriate RMC production and ve-
hicle dispatching schedule in various types of practical cases.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The next section
is a literature review on the challenges in RMC production and vehicle
dispatching. Section 4 introduces practical operation and logistics
management processes in an RMC plant. Section 6 develops a heuristic
algorithm of RMC production combined with dispatching of trucks and
pumps. In Section 5, computational experiments are presented for
analyzing the scheduling results with various sets of conjoint-rules in
various types of practical cases.
2. Literature review
A few related works in RMC operation scheduling problems are
available in the following literature, which contain a variety of models
and methods:
From the perspective of scheduling models, Yan et al. [1] proposed
an integrated model, which was formulated as a mixed-integer network
flow problem with side constrains. They considered both RMC pro-
duction scheduling and truck dispatching problems. Liu et al. [2,3]

⁎
Corresponding author at: School of Automation, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430074, China.
E-mail address: zyliu@mail.hust.edu.cn (Z. Liu).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.08.013
Received 8 July 2016; Received in revised form 3 June 2017; Accepted 9 August 2017
Available online 23 August 2017
0926-5805/ © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Z. Liu et al.
proposed a mixed-integer programming model, which included an RMC
mixer, several construction sites, and a few trucks and pumps with
various specifications. Kinable et al. [4] presented a fundamental ver-
sion of concrete delivery problem incorporating a mixed-integer pro-
gramming model and solved using constraint programming. Sawhney
et al. [5] concentrated their attention on a Petri network with advanced
features, which was used as a model and analysis tool to study the
operation processes in a ready-mixed concrete plant. Wang et al. [6]
developed a simulation model based on data collected in Singapore. In
order to analyze the influence on productivity of concrete plant and
proper arrival times of trucks, they calculated charts with computers.
Feng and Wu [7] presented a model based on genetic algorithm to
obtain a near-optimal solution of a delivery problem. This solution is
capable of minimizing the total waiting time of RMC trucks at con-
struction sites and satisfying the demand from each site. In another
study, they [8] introduced a system model that adopted fmGA and
CYCLONE to ascertain the optimal scheduling solution. Considering the
process of RMC production and delivery, Matsatsinis [9] analyzed a
routing problem with time windows, multiple plants, and multiple ve-
hicles including trucks and pumps. Graham et al. [10] addressed a
delivery problem with a specialized neural network including a feed-
forward network and Elman neural network. Park et al. [11] estab-
lished a dynamic model based on the analysis of the RMC delivery
process; this model offered a scientific procedure to instruct the RMC
operation. Feng et al. [12] presented a systematic model aimed at op-
timizing the scheduling of dispatching trucks, which could minimize
the total waiting duration of trucks. Yan and Lai [13] constructed a
network flow model that employed a time-space network technique to
solve the problem of production and dispatching of ready-mixed con-
crete that took into consideration the overtime in a plant in Taiwan. Lin
et al. [14] developed a multi-objective programming model for the
dispatching operation of RMC trucks as a job shop problem with re-
circulation. In this study, intrinsic and imposed constraints that affected
truck dispatching of RMC plants were presented. Garcia and Lozano
[15] addressed the problem of selecting and scheduling RMC orders to
satisfy the demands of sites expeditiously. The objective was to max-
imize the total value of orders served under two scenarios: arbitrary and
uniform profit margins for orders. Sarker et al. [16] reviewed various
planning and design models developed for various aspects of the con-
struction industry, which incorporated mathematical models and si-
mulation based on certain actual data including those on scheduling
and dispatching of trucks at an RMC plant. For the exception in op-
erations management of an RMC plant, Yan et al. [17] considered the
adaptations for supplying ready-mixed concrete following incidents
with a time-space network flow model. In another study of theirs [18], a
systematic scheduling model was developed that would enable RMC
carriers/suppliers recalibrate schedules after temporary breakdown of
mixers. Azambuja and Chen [19] provided a systematic method to as-
sess supply chain risks, identify vulnerabilities, and measure the impact
of disruptions in an RMC supply chain.
Furthermore, there are a few related studies on production and
delivery scheduling of RMC. Ghasri et al. [20] investigated concrete
pouring duration affected by construction site features and supply chain
parameters including supply process, location of the project, and traffic
conditions. Based on the linear regression model and hazard-based
model, their study provided decision-makers with a practical tool to
enhance concrete pouring productivity. Thawongklang and Tanwa-
nichkul [21] mainly concentrated on the total tardiness of truck dis-
patching plans and optimum number of trucks. Wang et al. [22] de-
veloped an integrated model, which considered the mold
manufacturing, precast components storage, and transportation pro-
cesses. Two case studies were conducted to test the validity of the
model, and the results demonstrate that optimal scheduling is related to
the traveling time of precast components. Wu [23] studied a ready-
mixed concrete plant in Singapore and attempted to expand the clas-
sical economic order quantity (EOQ) with a price discount model to
2
Automation in Construction 84 (2017) 1–13
obtain the EOQ-JIT cost indifference point. Deligiannis and Manesis
[24] developed a hybrid model for a concrete batching and mixing
plant, which can be used to adopt a development environment and
actualize the influence of the operation parameters on RMC plant.
A variety of algorithms such as genetic algorithm, heuristic algo-
rithm, and a few hybrid algorithms are developed. Zegordi and Beheshti
[25] presented a genetic algorithm with three populations to solve the
problem of integration of production and transportation. Naso et al.
[26] proposed a genetic algorithm combined with the heuristic method
to solve delivery problems in the RMC operation. Liu et al. [2] also
applied a genetic algorithm to determine a suitable sequence for dis-
patching trucks and production for construction sites. Silva et al. [27]
presented a new meta-heuristic algorithm, a combination of the GA and
ACO algorithm, to solve the RMC dispatching problem. By analyzing a
practical case, the advantage of this method was evident. Ko and Wang
[28] introduced a multi-objective genetic algorithm to balance pro-
duction resources and optimize the buffer size between stations.
Maghrebi et al. [29] proposed a sequential meta-heuristic method,
which can solve large-scale RMC problems efficiently. They developed a
robust sequential genetic algorithm and a new formulation for mini-
mizing the number of trucks. Maghrebi et al. [30] also developed a
column generation algorithm for vehicle routing problem with time
windows (VRPTW) problem. They employed the Dantzig-Wolfe method
to reformulate the problem. In another study [31], they tested a robust
genetic algorithm and column generation with various sizes of actual
RMC problems. In order to compare the optimization models and ex-
pert-based decisions, Maghrebi et al. [32] selected four examples of
various sizes and tested them. It could be concluded that optimization
models only attempt to achieve the lowest cost, whereas the expert
prefers a more stable dispatching system with a marginally higher cost.
Cheng and Tran [33] developed a DES-COMODE algorithm, which in-
tegrated discrete event simulation and chaotic initialized opposition
multi-objective differential evolution to solve an RMC dispatching truck
problem. Low et al. [34] presented an integrated scheduling problem in
which RMC was delivered to retailers within time windows, which was
also a zero-inventory concept similar to RMC in production and de-
livery problem. Two types of genetic-algorithm-based heuristics were
designed to solve the problems. For the case of multiple plants, Schmid
et al. [35] employed an effective hybrid approach for RMC delivery,
which consisted of an integer multi-commodity flow optimization
component and a variable neighborhood search component.
With respect to the solution method, Lu et al. [36,37] developed a
computer software for simulation and used it to analyze the manage-
ment of ready-mixed concrete in Hong Kong. With respect to the study
of scheduling processes, Zayed and Halpin [38] proposed a replaceable
solution to simulate RMC delivery operations. Schmid et al. [39] de-
veloped a method to solve the concrete delivery problem involving
multiple plants, multiple construction sites, and a variety of trucks and
pumps, which aimed to minimize the overall traveling fee. In this re-
search, he proposed certain combinatorial algorithms such as the
combination of variable neighborhood search (VNS) and exact method.
Matsatsinis [9] developed a Decision Support System using a heuristic
algorithm to analyze the model. A vehicle routing problem with soft
time-windows (VRPSTW) in a fuzzy random environment was studied
by Xu et al. [40]. They proposed a GLNPSO-ep to solve this problem.
Asbach et al. [41] studied the problem involving multiple plants,
multiple construction sites, and various vehicles; however, he did not
consider specialized pumps. He developed a local search algorithm to
solve the model and obtained a perfect solution. Feng et al. [12] de-
veloped a computer program to enable managers to dispatch trucks.
Pierre et al. [42] used CPLEX to solve mixed-integer programs with a
variable neighborhood search heuristic. Maghrebi et al. [43,44] pre-
sented a machine learning based method to select techniques using
various approaches. This method had demonstrated the potential to
solve RMC dispatching problems to match experts' decisions with high
accuracy. They also used bender decomposition to solve RMC
Z. Liu et al.
dispatching problems; this procedure was referred to as “large scale
mixed-integer problemming” [45]. The Lagrangian approach was ap-
plied by Narayanan et al. [46] to achieve solutions with a marginal
optimality gap albeit within a practical time period.
So far, a number of studies have been conducted on RMC production
and delivery problems. A number of algorithms, such as genetic algo-
rithms and heuristics, are employed for solving these problems.
However, compared to the preceding research studies, this investiga-
tion is concerned more with a conjoint-rule based heuristic algorithm
for solving the integrated production and delivery problem in the RMC
plant with multiple mixers, wherein both truck and pump dispatching
are considered. In addition, unlike a majority of the research studies,
each of which investigated a single case, this study takes into con-
sideration various cases, classifies them into various types, and con-
ducts separate experiments for each case type. This could enable
managers to select a more suitable conjoint-rule to develop schedules
for various cases.
3. Problem description
3.1. Operation process
The production and delivery process of RMC is impelled by demands
from construction sites. The managers are required to collect orders
from construction sites, which are to be validated. After validation, the
valid orders are set as a guide for production and delivery. In this study,
it is assumed that all orders are to be collected at the RMC plant a day
before the work starts, and there is no temporary order. Considering the
absence of finished inventory of RMC, JIT (Just in Time) is employed
for RMC production and delivery. Certain assumptions related to the
RMC plant are made as follows:
(1) RMC plant is capable of producing all types of RMC that con-
struction sites require.
(2) RMC plant is capable of producing and loading more than one batch
of RMC simultaneously, aided by multiple mixers in the plant.
(3) Various types of RMC exhibit similar hardening duration.
The procedure for RMC production and vehicle dispatching can be
described as follows. First, according to production scheduling priority
rules, the production sequence for the various construction sites is de-
termined, and suitable mixers are selected to produce RMC. After
production, a few trucks are selected to be loaded with RMC. Following
an appropriate route, trucks deliver RMC to corresponding construction
sites. Pumps are dispatched at appropriate times to certain construction
sites that require such pumps to assist casting. After the trucks reach the
construction sites, workers on those sites begin to unload RMC from the
trucks; moreover, the process is likely to be completed with the aid of a
pump. After RMC unloading is completed, trucks are to return to the
plant instead of staying at the construction sites. On the other hand, the
pumps remain at the construction sites, and they may be dispatched to
the next site that requires a pump. All trucks and pumps are to return to
the RMC plant after completing the tasks scheduled for the workday.
Time-space network flow models constructed by Yan et al. [1,13,41]
provide references for the description of operation processes in an RMC
plant. As we can observed in Fig. 1, there are several nodes and arcs
following the timeline. Each node represents an activity at a specific
time, and an arc between nodes implies the duration of an activity or
the waiting duration between two activities. Although Fig. 1 illustrates
a marginal fraction of a workday in an RMC plant, it comprises all the
activities of the mixers, trucks, and pumps occurring in RMC production
and delivery. In the following paragraphs, the detailed operation pro-
cess in a practical RMC plant is described with the aid of the time-space
network model.
3
Automation in Construction 84 (2017) 1–13
3.1.1. Production and loading arc
In order to satisfy the demands of the construction sites, the RMC
plant organizes RMC production at appropriate times as planned. After
the specified mixer completes production, RMC is loaded on the truck
that has been selected from the set of idle trucks according to a certain
scheduling rule. This arc connects nodes of the set of idle trucks and
mixers, which indicates the beginning of the production and delivery of
a batch of RMC.
3.1.2. Delivery arc
A delivery arc connects nodes of a mixer in the RMC plant and a
construction site, and the truck selected in the production and loading
arc follows a planned route to deliver RMC. The arcs between the nodes
of the construction sites are RMC casting durations, and they are likely
to include waiting duration of trucks or pumps.
3.1.3. Return arc
After completing RMC casting, trucks return to the RMC plant ex-
peditiously. They are added to the set of idle trucks and wait for the
next delivery task. This arc connects nodes of a construction site and the
set of idle trucks.
3.1.4. Pump-transfer arc
Pumps are dispatched to construction sites that require pumps to
assist in casting according to the scheduled plan. After casting, pumps
are not required to return to the RMC plant; therefore, this arc is likely
to connect nodes of two construction sites. However, all the pumps are
required to return to the RMC plant after completing all the tasks in a
workday.
3.2. Vehicles
3.2.1. Trucks
Each truck, when it receives a delivery task, starts from the RMC
plant and delivers RMC to the corresponding construction site.
Preferably, the arrival time of each truck is to fall within the operation
time-window of this construction site; otherwise, a penalty fee is gen-
erated. After completing the unloading of RMC at the construction site,
the truck is required to return to the RMC plant, and prepares for the
next delivery batch of RMC. If two consecutive batches of RMC trans-
ported by this truck are not of similar type, the truck is required to be
cleaned between the two deliveries.
When a truck arrives at the corresponding construction site, it is
likely to be in the following situations:
(1) If the preceding truck just completes unloading and starts to return
to the plant, the truck under consideration can immediately begin
unloading without any wait.
(2) If the preceding truck is in the process of unloading RMC at the
construction site, the truck under consideration is to wait until the
preceding truck completes its work.
(3) If the truck under consideration arrives a significant time after the
preceding one, which has completed unloading a long time in time
in the past, the former is required to unload immediately. This si-
tuation generates a penalty fee as a result of the waiting by the
personnel and equipment at the construction site.
3.2.2. Pumps
When a pump receives its first task, it departs from the RMC plant to
a construction site and assists in the RMC unloading process. In prac-
tice, the arrival time of each pump is to coincide with or precede the
arrival time of the corresponding truck dispatched to this site. A pump
can depart from the construction site only after all the trucks dispatched
to the site have been unloaded. In the scheduling process, the pump
with specification that exactly satisfies the demand of the construction
site is most likely to be selected. If such a pump is not available, a pump
Z. Liu et al.
Pumps
Time Flow Set
Trucks Mixer Mixer
Set 1# 2#
Production and Loading Arc
Delivery Arc
Fig. 1. RMC plant operation process.
of higher specification can be selected owing to downward compat-
ibility. If the available pump resource is inadequate, the construction
site is required to wait for the release of other operational pumps.
In contrast to the operation mode of trucks, a pump can be sched-
uled for dispatch from a construction site directly to another site after
completion of work in the former. After all the tasks of the pumps have
been completed, they are to return to the RMC plant.
When a pump arrives at a site, three situations are likely to occur:
(1) The truck has not arrived; therefore, the pump is required to wait.
This generates a penalty fee as a result of the wait.
(2) The truck arrives simultaneously; then, the pump can begin op-
eration immediately.
(3) The truck has been at the site for a while, and the pump can begin
operation immediately. However, this generates a penalty fee as a
result of the waiting by the personnel and equipment at the site and
the truck.
As described above, the integrated RMC production scheduling and
vehicle (including trucks and pumps) dispatching problem is for-
mulated as a mixed-integer network flow problem with side constraints.
Automation in Construction 84 (2017) 1–13
Site1 Site2 Site 3
···
Other
Sites
Return Arc
Pump-Transfer Arc
Compared with the model constructed by Yan et al. [1], the model
developed in this study adds an additional “truck start delivery node”
(as there is more than one mixer in the plant) and a new type of arc
named as “Pump-Transfer Arc.” Yan set Truck start node and Garage
node as the beginning and ending of trucks in a working day; in this
study, Trucks Set and Pumps Set, which are located in the plant, are set
as the beginning and ending. The time interval between various nodes
is set as 2 min in Yan's model, while in the present model, the time
interval between various nodes is presented as durations of production,
loading, delivery, casting, etc.; therefore, it is not constant. Moreover,
the production and loading arc represents the operating duration of the
mixers.
To summarize, the highlights of the time-space network model are
more numerous mixer nodes and a new type of arcs, which imply
connections of higher complexity between the various nodes. This time-
space network model is more complicated and can be characterized as
NP-hard in terms of optimization.
4. Heuristic algorithm for the problem
Considering the NP-hardness of the time-space network model of
4
Z. Liu et al. Automation in Construction 84 (2017) 1–13

Table 1 ▪ When a truck's arrival time is later than the beginning time of work
Notations of the problem. at the site
Notation Description Unit Penalty1 = ∑ max {ArriveTij − a (Ci ), 0} × PenaltyRate1
i ∈ C,j =1 (3)
P The plant –
[a(p),b(p)] The time-window of the plant –
M The set of mixers – ▪ When a truck's arrival time is later than the ending time of work at
MBusym The state of Mixer m (1 = busy, 0 = idle) – the site
MCm The unit cost of Mixer m –
MCost Total cost of all the mixers – Penalty2 = ∑ max {ArriveTij − b (Ci ), 0} × PenaltyRate2
T The set of trucks – i ∈ C , j = CBatchi (4)
TBusyt The state of Truck t (1 = busy, 0 = idle) –
TCt The unit cost of Truck t –
TCapacityt The capacity of Truck t m3
▪ Penalty owing to discontinuity of casting at the site
TCost Total cost of all the trucks –
Pump The set of pumps –
Penalty3 = ∑ ∑ max {ArriveTij + 1 − FinishTij − timelag 0}
i ∈ C j ∈ {1 … , CBatchi}
PBusyp The state of Pump p (1 = busy, 0 = idle) –
PCp The unit cost of Pump p – × PenaltyRate3 (5)
PCost Total cost of all the pumps –
xii′ The state of pump-transfer arc from site i to site i′ –
(It is a binary variable. xii′ = 1 implies a pump transfer from ▪ When the returning time of all the vehicles is later than the plant
site i to site i′; otherwise, xii′ = 0) ending time
C The set of construction sites –
CBatchi The total batches of site i Penalty4 = ∑ max {FinishTime − b (p), 0} × PenaltyRate4
CPi The state of need for pump at site i (1 = yes, 0 = no) – i∈C (6)
CPcurrenti The state of availability of pump at site i (1 = yes, 0 = no) –
[a(Ci),b(Ci)] The time-window at site i –
▪ Penalty as a result of the waiting by the personnel and equipment at
CDi The demand quantity of RMC at site i m3
Cdemandij The RMC quantity of the jth batch at site i m3 the sites
CRestDij The demand quantity of RMC at site i after the jth batch m3
timelag The longest work break-off time at the site Min
Penalty5 = ∑ ∑ max {ArriveTij + 1 − FinishTij 0} × PenaltyRate5
Timeii′ Traveling time from site i to i′ (i = 0 represents the plant) Min i ∈ C j ∈ {1, … , CBatchi}
Penalty Total penalty costs – (7)
Penaltyk The cost of penalty k (k = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
PenaltyRatek The unit fee of penalty k (k = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) –
▪ Penalty owing of the waiting of trucks
Truckij The available time of the truck dispatching the jth batch to
site i.
ProduceTij Production time of the jth batch at site i –
Penalty6 = ∑ ∑ max {FinishTij − ArriveTij + 1 , 0} × PenaltyRate6
i ∈ C j ∈ {1, … , CBatchi}
Produceij Duration of the jth batch producing at site i Min
Loadij Duration of loading of the jth batch for site i Min (8)
SendTij Departure time of truck with the jth batch toward site i –
ArriveTij
PArrivei
Arrival time of truck with the jth batch at site i
Arrival time of the pump at site i
–
–
• The cost of mixers
BeginTij Dealing time of the jth batch at site i – Mcost = ∑ ∑ ∑ Produceij × MCm
CastTij Duration of casting of the jth batch at site i Min m ∈ M i ∈ C j ∈ {1, … , CBatchi } (9)
FinishTij Finishing dealing time of the jth batch in site i –
The finishing time of work at site i
• The cost of trucks
EndTimei
FinishTime The time when all the vehicles return to the plant –
TravelTime The total traveling time of all the trucks Min
Tcost = ∑∑ ∑ (ArriveTij − Sendij ) × 2 × TCt
t ∈ T i ∈ C j ∈ {1, … , CBatchi } (10)
RMC production and vehicle dispatching, a heuristic algorithm is de-
veloped to solve the problem. • The cost of pumps (The pump site i needed is dispatching from i)
′

Pcost = ∑ ∑ ∑ x ii′ × Timeii′ × PCp

4.1. Notations p ∈ Pump i ∈ C , CPi = 1 i′∈ C , CP i′= 1 (11)
The Traveltime of the vehicles is the total travel time of the trucks
In the following paragraphs, the heuristic algorithm for solving the
and pumps on road (The pump site i′needed is dispatching from i) as
operation scheduling of RMC plant is presented. In order to describe the
(12) illustrates.
procedure clearly, a few notations are defined in Table 1.
TravelTime = ∑ ∑ (ArriveTij − SendTij ) × 2
i ∈ C j ∈ {1, … , CBatchi }
4.2. Performance evaluation: the costs and travel time
+ ∑ ∑ x ii′ × Timeii′
In this study, performance measurements of the various conjoint- i ∈ C , CPi = 1 i′∈ C , CP i′= 1 (12)
rules are the costs (including penalty, cost of RMC production, cost of
trucks, and cost of pumps) and travel times of vehicles. 4.3. Scheduling algorithm
The gross cost is denoted as SumCost:
SumCost = Penalty + MC ost + TC ost + PCost (1) The scheduling algorithm illustrated in Fig. 2 is described as fol-
lows, where the flag finish represents the completion of all orders, Tm is
wherein the releasing time of a mixer, and Tt is a time-window in which a sui-
table truck can be selected.
• the sum of all the penalty fees is
6
Step 1 The initialization step is to set the data for the procedure; this
Penalty = ∑k =1 Penaltyk (2) data consists of time-windows of the RMC plant and information

5
Z. Liu et al. Automation in Construction 84 (2017) 1–13

Fig. 2. Process of scheduling algorithm.

Start

Initialize data, set finish=0

Yes Calculate SumCost and

finish=1 travel time, figure the Gantt
chart of RMC scheduling
No

Choose site according End

to rule

No
Yes
Site need pump? Site exist pump?

No Yes

No Yes Yes
Mixers Pumps
available? available?

Waiting for earliest Choose mixer No

releasing mixer according to rule Waiting for earliest
(releasing time Tm) (releasing time Tm) releasing pump

No Trucks available Yes

at Tm?

Choose releasing Choose truck

Choose pump,
truck in [Tm,Tm+Tt], according to rule,
calculate PArrive
calculate ArriveT calculate ArriveT

Compare ArriveT and PArrive, choose the bigger one as

the arriving time of vehicles

Yes No
The first batch of
the site

Compare ArriveT with beginning Compare ArriveT with finishing time

time of the site a(c), choose the of the former batch FinishT, choose
bigger one as the working time the bigger one as the working time

Calculate the production time and departing time of the

truck

Calculate penalty and costs

Record the results of this scheduling batch, update data

and status of vehicle, site and mixer

Check if all sites demand are satisfied, if yes, finish=1,

else finish=0

of construction sites, mixers, trucks, pumps, and penalty coef- to next step.
ficient. finish is set as 0. Step 3 Examine sites for which CRestDi ≠ 0; then, add site i into the
Step 2 Examine ending flag finish. If finish equals 1, end scheduling; service sequence with the corresponding priority rule.
then, calculate SumCost and construct Gantt chart; otherwise, go Step 4 Examine CPi and CPcurrenti.

6
Z. Liu et al. Automation in Construction 84 (2017) 1–13

Step 4.1 if CPi = 0∣∣ CPcurrenti = 1, go to step 5; Table 2

Step 4.2 if CPi = 1 and CPcurrenti = 0, select an available pump by Information of construction sites.
the corresponding priority rule; if pump is not available, determine the
smallest EndTimei′ at sites that are using pump, waiting for a pump to be No. Pump specification (m) CDemand (m3) [a(C),b(C)]
released, and ascertain arrival time of pump p C1 0 6 8:30–9:00
PArrivei = EndTimei′ + Timei′i. C2 17 63 8:40–12:00
C3 37 26 9:30–10:40
Step 5 Select an available mixer by the corresponding priority rule. If C4 0 3 10:40–11:10
C5 0 64 11:20–15:30
pump is not available, waiting for the mixer m that is released
C6 37 64 10:00–13:05
the earliest, and record release time Tm. C7 17 24 15:10–15:50
Step 6 Select an available truck t by the corresponding priority rule,
and record the time Truckij.
Step 7 Cdemand ij = min {CRestD i, TCapacityt }, calculate production Table 3
duration and loading duration. Then, calculate Information of trucks.
ArriveT ij = Truckij + Produceij + Loadij + Time 0i; compare
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
PArrivei with ArriveT ij , and select the larger one as the ar-
rival time of vehicles: ArriveT ij = max {ArriveT ij , PArrive i}. 3
Capacity (m ) 8 8 8 7 7 6 5 2
Step 8 Examine if this batch is the first batch at the site. If it is so, Cost per minute 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.8
compare arrival time ArriveTij with beginning time of site i a
(Ci); select the larger one as the actual beginning time:
BeginTij = max {ArriveTij, a(Ci)}; otherwise, compare the arrival Table 4
time with the finishing time of work of the former batch Information of pumps.
(j − 1), BeginTij = max {ArriveTij, FinishTi(j − 1)}.
No. Specification (m) Total number Cost per minute
Step 9 Calculate production time of this batch:
ProduceTij = BeginTij − CTimei − Produceij − Loadij. 1 17 1 1.0
Step 10 Examine and record penalty fees and costs of vehicles and 2 37 1 1.3
mixers.
Step 11 Record the result of this batch, update data including be-
Table 5
ginning working time of the site's next batch: Information of mixers.
FinishT ij = BeginT ij + CastT ij , the rest demand:
CRestDi = CRestD i − Cdemandij , and status of trucks, pumps, No. Mixing Rate (m3/min) Production cost per m3
and mixers: TBusyt = 0 , PBusyp = 0 , MBusym = 0.
1 2 20
Step 12 Examine if demands of all the sites are satisfied: 2 1 15
∀ i ∈ C , if CRestDi = 0, finish = 1; otherwise finish = 0; go to
step 2.
Table 6
4.4. Description of different conjoint-rule Traveling time between plant and construction sites.

One of key point of the heuristic algorithm is to set priority rules for Starting point Terminal point Distance (km) Average traveling time (min)
planning production sequence for construction sites, choosing trucks, Plant C1 6.2 15
pumps and mixers for production and delivery. The details are pre- C2 4.0 9
sented as follows. C3 5.5 12
C4 3.4 8
C5 12.0 27
4.4.1. Rules for production scheduling
C6 4.1 10
C7 6.6 16
(1) Rule S1: According to starting time of time-window [a(C), b(C)],
deliver RMC to the site with the smallest a(C) among unsatisfied
sites. Table 7
(2) Rule S2: According to ending time of time-window [a(C), b(C)], Traveling time between two construction sites with need for pumps.
deliver RMC to the site with the smallest b(C) among unsatisfied
Starting point Terminal point Distance (km) Average traveling time (min)
sites.
C2 C3 3.0 9
4.4.2. Rules for truck dispatching C3 C6 3.1 9
C6 C7 5.4 15
C7 C2 5.4 16
(1) Rule T1: Select available truck of which the TCapacity is the nearest
C6 C2 0.09 0.3
to the CRestD (in the following paragraphs, this truck is defined as C3 C7 3.7 9
Opt. truck); if all the trucks are busy, select the earliest available
truck.
(2) Rule T2: Unlike Rule T1, when all the trucks are unavailable, record higher specification can also be dispatched to the site.
the earliest available truck return time t; then, select the truck of
which the TCapacity is the nearest to the CRestD from the idle trucks 4.4.4. Rules for mixer scheduling
within [t, t + Tt].
(1) Rule M1: Select the mixer whose mix rate is the highest.
4.4.3. Rules for pump dispatching (2) Rule M2: Select the mixer whose production cost per cubic meter is
In this study, a pump whose specification just satisfies the demand the lowest.
of the construction site is selected. If there is no such pump, a pump of

7
Z. Liu et al. Automation in Construction 84 (2017) 1–13

Load
Pump2
13 • 3
Delivery
Pump1
2 • 2 40 • 7
Unload
Truck8
9 • 2 26 • 6 34 • 5
Return
Truck7
8 • 2 17 • 3 25 • 6 33 • 5

Truck6
1 • 1 10 • 2 24 • 6 32 • 5

Truck5
7 • 2 16 • 3 23 • 6 31 • 5 39 • 5

Truck4
6 • 2 15 • 3 22 • 6 30 • 5 38 • 5

Truck3
5 • 2 14 • 3 21 • 6 29 • 4 37 • 5 43 • 7

Truck2
4 • 2 12 • 2 20 • 6 28 • 6 36 • 5 42 • 7

Truck1
3 • 2 11 • 2 19 • 6 27 • 6 35 • 5 41 • 7

Mixer2

Mixer1

8:00 8:30 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 Time

Fig. 3. Gantt chart of RMC scheduling.

5. Computational experiments located at the same place. However, they are different construction
parts with different time-windows. Therefore, C2 and C6 are treated as
The problem of the RMC production scheduling and vehicle dis- different sites here.
patching with multiple mixers in RMC plants, several trucks, and pumps In this model, all the penalty rates are 2 per min. The average
with various specifications, several construction sites with varying de- loading rate is 2 m3/min, average unloading and placement rates are
mands and various geographic positions is the focus in this study. In 2 m3/min, time-window of the plant [a(p), b(p)] is 05:00–23:00, and
order to compare various conjoint priority rules for production and discontinuity duration of RMC is 90 min.
vehicle dispatching, computational experiments are conducted on a few This experiment is conducted with MATLAB R2012a on a PC with
actual cases collected from records of certain workdays of an RMC Microsoft Window 7 (CPU 2.93 GHz, 2 GB RAM).
company in Wuhan, China, whose annual production capacity of RMC Fig. 3 illustrates the operation process of RMC production and ve-
is 600,000 m3. hicle dispatching on this workday. A rectangle in the chart represents
activity duration. For example, a rectangle in the timeline of a pump
implies a transfer of the pump from the plant or a construction site to
5.1. An illustrative example another site, a rectangle of one of four colors in the timeline of a truck
represents one of four activities, and a rectangle in the timeline of a
The following case is an example of data collected on a workday. mixer represents the production duration of the mixer (In order to
There are an RMC plant, two mixers, seven construction sites, eight distinguish between two continuous productions, two colors were used
heterogeneous trucks, and two heterogeneous pumps. The seven con- to highlight the interval). From the chart, the schedules of mixers,
struction sites are labeled C1–C7, and their information is illustrated in trucks, and pumps are evident. In this example, the conjoint-rule of S1,
Table 2, which includes pump specifications that construction sites T1, and M1 is selected. Each batch includes four parts: load, delivery,
require (0 = absence of need for pump), their demands for RMC, and unload, and return. The numbers below the rectangles of vehicles re-
time-windows. The information of the eight trucks, two pumps, and two present the sequence and destination of this batch. For example, the
mixers is also presented in Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5, respectively. text ‘3 → 2’ in Fig. 3 implies that this production and delivery batch is
In addition, certain information about the traveling distances and tra- the third batch in the total sequence and that the destination of this
veling times between the RMC plant and the seven construction sites batch is site 2. In addition, the penalty fees, SumCost, and traveling
and among those construction sites that require pump to assist casting is times of vehicles can be calculated in the computational test.
presented in Tables 6 and 7. From Table 7, it can be determined that the
distance between C2 and C6 is 0.09 km. This is because C2 and C6 are

8
Z. Liu et al. Automation in Construction 84 (2017) 1–13

Fig. 4. Construction sites in various areas of Wuhan.

Table 8 Table 10
Congestion degrees in various areas. Various types of cases.

Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Type of Date Quantity of Total Number of Discrete

case orders demand of construction sites degree
Congestion degree 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 RMC (m3) served

Case 7-Mar. 26 237.6 9 38.46

Table 9 type 9-Mar. 24 248.1 8 22.52
Information of construction sites. 1
Case 3-Mar. 8 354 6 30.5
Construction Sites Area Distance to Construction sites Area Distance to type 11-Mar. 7 128.5 7 22.27
the plant the plant 2
(km) (km) Case 10-Mar. 18 334 3 21.17
type 12-Mar. 16 109 3 18.5
WHKT 6 4.0 WZG 8 10.0 3
QSCC 6 8.4 JXWJ 7 16.0 Case 25-Feb. 10 122.1 5 14.91
WGJH 6 7.3 HFL 5 10.5 type 26-Feb. 8 245 3 5.91
GYJD 6 8.3 XAHY 5 3.6 4
SHJA 6 7.1 GJJZ 7 4.8
WHSY 6 5.5 XYJ 3 3.7
HBDL 1 9.3 WHFC 2 10.0 (Case type 3), and concentration-sites and few-orders (Case type 4);
HD 2 6.9 HXZY 2 13.3 here, two standards are employed for classifying the cases. One of the
QSBX 6 4.7 SWY 4 16.3
classifying standards is the quantity of orders. In this study, the cases
RYX 3 11.9 WHZF 3 9.3
XZHG 8 17.7 BHZG 3 13.3 with more than 15 orders are classified as more-orders type. The other
WHMX 1 8.6 JDGYL 8 7.7 standard is geographic position, which indicates the traffic conditions
WHKM 4 11.6 of the construction sites. As can be observed in Fig. 4, Wuhan is divided
into eight parts on the basis of traffic conditions, and various parts
exhibit various congestion degree. The congestion degrees of the var-
5.2. Analysis of various conjoint-rules in various cases ious parts are presented in Table 8. Then, the congestion degree of each
site is multiplied by the distance (km) between the site and plant to
This section describes testing of a few other cases on eight workdays obtain the discrete degree of each construction site. The discrete degree
and compares the variations by using various conjoint-rules. Variations of a case is the sum of the discrete degrees of all the sites in the case.
among the following cases are in terms of the geographic positions of The case in which the discrete degree is higher than 22 is classified as
construction sites and demand quantity of orders from the various decentralization-sites type. The information (location distribution and
construction sites. distance to plant) of all the construction sites is presented in Table 9. In
With the aim of determining a more effective conjoint-rule for use in order to explain the classification of cases more clearly, the quantity of
various types of cases, these cases are classified into four types: de- orders, total demand of RMC, and number of construction sites served
centralization-sites and more-orders (Case type 1), decentralization- in each case are summarized in Table 10.
sites and few-orders (Case type 2), concentration-sites and more-orders There are eight sets of conjoint-rules for selecting sites, trucks, and

9
Z. Liu et al. Automation in Construction 84 (2017) 1–13

Fig. 5. Penalty in different conjoint-rule on different type of cases.

Fig. 6. SumCost under various conjoint-rules on various types of cases.

mixers: S1-T1-M1, S1-T1-M2, S1-T2-M1, S1-T2-M2, S2-T1-M1, S2-T1- experiments conducted for analyzing the performances of various
M2, S2-T2-M1, and S2-T2-M2. conjoint-rules in the various types of cases. There are an RMC plant,
The following paragraphs describe a few computational two types of mixers, several construction sites, eight types of trucks, and

10
Z. Liu et al.
Fig. 7. TravelTime under various conjoint-rules on various types of cases.
two types of pumps in these cases. The main standards of evaluation are
the penalty, gross cost, and traveling time of vehicles.
As illustrated in Figs. 5, 6, and 7:
(1) In Case type 1 (decentralization-sites and more-orders cases):-
Conjoint–rules S1-T1-M1 and S1-T2-M1 are the optimum options,
and S2-T1-M2 and S2-T2-M2 are the least suitable in terms of
penalty. In terms of sum cost, conjoint–rules that incorporates rule
M2 are more effective than those with rule M1. In terms of
TravelTime, conjoint-rules S1-T1-M2, S1-T2-M1, and S1-T2-M2 are
similar and are the optimum options on March 7. Conjoint-rules S1-
T1-M2 and S1-T2-M2 are the optimum options on March 9, and
conjoint-rule S2-T1-M1 is the least suitable on the two days.
(2) In Case type 2 (decentralization-sites and few-orders cases):- On
March 3, conjoint–rules S1-T1-M1 and S2-T1-M1 are the optimum
options, and S2-T2-M2 is the least suitable one. On March 11,
conjoint–rules S2-T1-M1 and S2-T1-M2 are the optimum options,
and S1-T2-M2 is the least suitable in terms of penalty. On March 3,
in terms of sum cost, conjoint–rules that include rule M2 are the
optimum options, and conjoint–rules that include rule M1 are the
least suitable. On March 11, conjoint–rule S2-T1-M2 is the optimum
option, and S1-T1-M1 is the least suitable. On the basis of
TravelTime, all the conjoint-rules are approximately equally effec-
tive on March 11. On March 3, conjoint-rule S1-T2-M2 is the op-
timum option, and conjoint-rules S1-T2-M1 and S2-T1-M1 are the
least suitable.
(3) In Case type 3 (concentration-sites and more-orders case):- On
March 10, conjoint–rules S1-T1-M1 and S2-T1-M1 are the optimum
options, and S1-T2-M2 is the least suitable. On March 12, in terms
of penalty, conjoint–rules S1-T1-M1 and S1-T2-M1 are the optimum
options, and conjoint-rule S2-T2-M2 is the least suitable. On March
10, from the perspective of sum cost, conjoint–rule S2-T2-M2 is the
optimum option, and conjoint-rule S1-T1-M1 is the least suitable.
On March 12, conjoint–rule S1-T1-M2 is the selection, and S2-T2-
M1 is the least suitable. On the basis of TravelTime, all the conjoint-
11
Automation in Construction 84 (2017) 1–13
rules are approximately equally effective on March 12. On March
10, conjoint-rule S2-T2-M2 is the optimum option, and conjoint-
rule S1-T1-M1 is the least suitable.
(4) In Case type 4 (concentration-sites and few-orders case):- On both
the days, in terms of penalty, conjoint–rule S1-T1-M1 is the op-
timum selection, and S2-T2-M2 is the least suitable. From the per-
spective of sum cost, conjoint–rules S1-T1-M2 and S1-T2-M2 are the
optimum options, and S2-T2-M1 is the least suitable on both the
days. On the basis of TravelTime, all the conjoint-rules are ap-
proximately equally effective on February 25. On February 26,
conjoint-rule S1-T2-M2 is the optimum option, and conjoint-rules
S2-T1-M2 and S2-T2-M2 are the least suitable.
As can be observed in all the above, these sets of conjoint-rules
exhibit varied performance in various types of cases. Therefore, man-
agers can select suitable conjoint-rules to schedule production and de-
livery of RMC according to penalty fee, sum cost, or travel time.
Decision-making depends on the practical situation and the manager's
individual preference. Certain general conclusions can be drawn as
follows:
(1) The traveling times of vehicles under various sets of conjoint-rules
are affected to a significantly higher extent by discrete degree of
construction sites than quantity of orders.
(2) Generally, selecting rule M2 can reduce sum cost; however, it is
likely to increase penalty fee.
6. Conclusion
It is necessary that managers have the capability to develop an ef-
fective schedule for RMC production and delivery with the aid of
computers, particularly in various types of practical cases. Few previous
studies have considered RMC production scheduling and vehicle (trucks
and pumps) dispatching in a plant with multiple mixers and classified
practical cases into various types of cases.
Z. Liu et al.
One contribution of this study to the literature is that it presents a
problem of operation process in an RMC plant that includes multiple
mixers with varying production rates and costs. A time-space network
model, which integrates RMC production scheduling and vehicle dis-
patching, is developed. The integrated model is characterized as NP-
hard and is aimed at optimizing operation costs, which include pro-
duction cost, trucks cost, pumps cost, and penalty. In order to effec-
tively solve the problem in practice, a heuristic algorithm is developed
in which various types of priority rules are employed, and these rules
consist of production scheduling, choosing mixers, trucks, and pumps.
To evaluate the model and algorithm, computational experiments on
actual data collected from an RMC plant in Wuhan, China are con-
ducted.
Another highlight of this study is that these practical cases are
classified into four types based on the quantity of orders from the
construction sites and discrete degree of construction sites. The ex-
perimental results demonstrated that when addressing various types of
cases, the various types of priority rules exhibit varying advantages and
disadvantages in terms of gross cost, penalty, and traveling time of
vehicles. These results could enable managers to select the most sui-
table RMC production and vehicle dispatching schedule when addres-
sing various type of cases.
In this study, higher emphasis was placed on integrating production
scheduling and vehicle dispatching in an RMC plant with multiple
mixers. The performances of various conjoint-rules in various types of
cases were compared. However, there are certain limitations in the
study. Future work could focus on problems involving multiple plants
and developing more efficient conjoint-rules in the heuristics. For ex-
ample, certain supporting rules for rules T1 and T2 could be introduced
in order to avoid delivery of uneconomically small amounts of RMC. To
obtain more efficient schedules, few meta-heuristics can be developed.
Although this paper provides certain appropriate suggestions to address
various types of cases, more complex situations exist in practice.
Experiments could be conducted on cases collected from other com-
panies with various production capacities. In addition, the discrete
degree of each construction site may vary across workday because of
traffic conditions. Managers are to consider the possibility of occur-
rence of exceptional factors in practice, such as unexpected orders,
traffic jams, and break down of vehicles. Therefore, a direction for fu-
ture research could be to model and to effectively solve the problems in
these actual cases.
Acknowledgment
This study has been supported by the Chinese National Science Fund
under grant no. 71071062, the Scientific Research Foundation for the
Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars, State Education Ministry of China,
and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under
grant no. HUST: 2017KFYXJJ178.
References
[1] S.Y. Yan, W.S. Lai, M.N. Chen, Production scheduling and truck dispatching of
ready mixed concrete, Transp. Res. E 44 (2008) 164–179 http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.tre.2006.05.001.
[2] Z.Y. Liu, Y. Zhang, M.L. Li, Integrated scheduling of ready-mixed concrete pro-
duction and delivery, Autom. Constr. 48 (2014) 31–43 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.autcon.2014.08.004.
[3] Y. Zhang, M.L. Li, Z.Y. Liu, Vehicle scheduling and dispatching of ready mixed
concrete, in: N. Zhang (Ed.), Fourth International Workshop on Advanced
Computational Intelligence (IWACI), IEEE, Wuhan, China, 2011, pp. 465–472
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IWACI.2011.6160052.
[4] J. Kinable, T. Wauters, G. Vanden Berghe, The concrete delivery problem, Comput.
Oper. Res. 48 (2014) 53–68 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2014.02.008.
[5] A. Sawhney, O. Abudayyeh, T. Chaitavatputtiporn, Modeling and analysis of con-
crete production plant using petri nets, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 13 (3) (1999) 178–186
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3801(1999)13:3(178.
[6] S.Q. Wang, C.L. Teo, G. Ofori, Scheduling the truckmixer arrival for a ready mixed
concrete pour via simulation with risk, J. Constr. Res. 2 (2001) 61–71 (Available
from: http://learn.tsinghua.edu.cn/homepage/2002990155/Paper/
12
Automation in Construction 84 (2017) 1–13
SporeRMCmodel.pdf ).
[7] C.W. Feng, H.T. Wu, Using genetic algorithms to optimize the dispatching schedule
of RMC trucks, in: H.P. Tserng (Ed.), 17th International Symposium on Automation
and Robotics in Construction, Taipei, Taiwan, 2000, pp. 927–932 (Available from:
http://www.iaarc.org/publications/fulltext/isarc2000-147_WA2.pdf ).
[8] C.W. Feng, H.T. Wu, Integrating fmGA and CYCLONE to optimize the schedule of
dispatching RMC trucks, Autom. Constr. 15 (2006) 186–199 http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.autcon.2005.04.001.
[9] N.F. Matsatsinis, Towards a decision support system for the ready concrete dis-
tribution system: a case of a Greek company, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 152 (2004) 487–499
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00039-0.
[10] L.D. Graham, D.R. Forbes, S.D. Smith, Modeling the ready mixed concrete delivery
system with neural networks, Autom. Constr. 15 (2006) 656–663 http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.autcon.2005.08.003.
[11] M. Park, W.Y. Kim, H.S. Lee, S. Han, Supply chain management model for ready
mixed concrete, Autom. Constr. 20 (2011) 44–55 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
autcon.2010.07.005.
[12] C.W. Feng, T.M. Cheng, H.T. Wu, Optimizing the schedule of dispatching RMC
trucks through genetic algorithms, Autom. Constr. 13 (2004) 327–340 http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2003.10.001.
[13] S.Y. Yan, W.S. Lai, An optimal scheduling model for ready mixed concrete supply
with overtime considerations, Autom. Constr. 16 (2007) 737–744 http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.autcon.2006.12.009.
[14] P.C. Lin, J. Wang, S.H. Huang, Y.T. Wang, Dispatching ready mixed concrete trucks
under demand postponement and weight limit regulation, Autom. Constr. 19
(2010) 798–807 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2010.05.002.
[15] J.M. Garcia, S. Lozano, Production and vehicle scheduling for ready-mix operations,
Comput. Ind. Eng. 46 (2004) 803–816 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2004.05.
011.
[16] B.R. Sarker, P.J. Egbelu, T.W. Liao, J. Yu, Planning and design models for con-
struction industry: a critical survey, Autom. Constr. 22 (2012) 123–134 http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011.09.011.
[17] S.Y. Yan, H.C. Lin, Y.C. Liu, Optimal schedule adjustments for supplying ready
mixed concrete following incidents, Autom. Constr. 20 (2011) 1041–1050 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011.04.005.
[18] S.Y. Yan, W.C. Wang, G.W. Chang, H.C. Lin, Effective ready mixed concrete supply
adjustments with inoperative mixers under stochastic travel times, Transp. Lett. 8
(2016) 286–300 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19427867.2016.1188522.
[19] M. Azambuja, X. Chen, Risk assessment of a ready-mix concrete supply chain,
Construction Research Congress, 2014, pp. 1695–1703 ISBN: 9780784413517
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/9780784413517.173.
[20] M. Ghasri, M. Maghrebi, T.H. Rashidi, S.T. Waller, Hazard-based model for concrete
pouring duration using construction site and supply chain parameters, Autom.
Constr. 71 (2016) 283–293 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.08.012.
[21] K. Thawongklang, L. Tanwanichkul, Application of production scheduling techni-
ques for dispatching ready-mixed concrete, Int. J. Technol. 7 (2016) 1163–1170
http://dx.doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v7i7.4716.
[22] Z.J. Wang, H. Hu, Improved precast production–scheduling model considering the
whole supply chain, J. Comput. Civ. Eng. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000667.
[23] M. Wu, S.P. Low, EOQ, JIT and fixed costs in the ready-mixed concrete industry, Int.
J. Prod. Econ. 102 (2006) 167–180 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2005.03.002.
[24] V. Deligiannis, S. Manesis, Concrete batching and mixing plants: a new modeling
and control approach based on global automata, Autom. Constr. 17 (2008) 368–376
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2007.06.001.
[25] S.H. Zegordi, M.A. Beheshti Nia, A multi-population genetic algorithm for trans-
portation scheduling, Transp. Res. E 45 (2009) 946–959 http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.tre.2009.05.002.
[26] D. Naso, M. Surico, B. Turchiano, U. Kaymak, Genetic algorithms for supply-chain
scheduling: a case study in the distribution of ready-mixed concrete, Eur. J. Oper.
Res. 177 (2007) 2069–2099 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.12.019.
[27] C.A. Silva, J.M. Faria, P. Abrantes, J.M.C. Sousa, M. Surico, D. Naso, Concrete de-
livery using a combination of GA and ACO, in: R. Tempo, E.F. Camacho (Eds.), 44th
IEEE European Conference on Decision and Control, ACM, Seville, Spain, 2005, pp.
7633–7638 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CDC.2005.1583394.
[28] C.H. Ko, S.F. Wang, Precast production scheduling using multi-objective genetic
algorithms, Expert Syst. Appl. 38 (2011) 8293–8302 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
eswa.2011.01.013.
[29] M. Maghrebi, S.T. Waller, C. Sammut, Sequential meta-heuristic approach for sol-
ving large-scale ready-mixed concrete-dispatching problems, J. Comput. Civ. Eng.
30 (2016) 04014117-1-11http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.
0000453.
[30] M. Maghrebi, V. Periaraj, S.T. Waller, C. Sammut, Column generation-based ap-
proach for solving large-scale ready mixed concrete delivery dispatching problems,
J. Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng. 31 (2015) 145–159 http://dx.doi.org/10.
1111/mice.12182.
[31] M. Maghrebi, V. Periaraj, S.T. Waller, C. Sammut, Solving ready mixed concrete
delivery problems: evolutionary comparison between column generation and robust
genetic algorithm, Comput. Civ. Build. Eng. 101 (2014) 1417–1424 http://dx.doi.
org/10.1061/9780784413616.176.
[32] M. Maghrebi, S.T. Waller, C. Sammut, Assessing the accuracy of expert-based de-
cisions in dispatching ready mixed concrete, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 140 (2014)
83–90 http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000853.
[33] M.Y. Cheng, D.H. Tran, Integrating chaotic initialized opposition multiple-objective
differential evolution and stochastic simulation to optimize ready-mixed concrete
truck dispatch schedule, Journal of Management in Engineering 32 (2016)
Z. Liu et al.
04015034-1-11http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000398.
[34] C. Low, R.K. Li, C.M. Chang, Integrated scheduling of production and delivery with
time windows, Int. J. Prod. Res. 51 (2013) 897–909 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00207543.2012.677071.
[35] V. Schmid, K.F. Doerner, R.F. Hartl, M.W.P. Savelsbergh, W. Stoecher, A hybrid
solution approach for ready-mixed concrete delivery, Transp. Sci. 43 (2009) 70–85
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/trsc.1080.0249.
[36] M. Lu, M. Anson, S.L. Tang, Y.C. Ying, HKCONSIM: a practical simulation solution
to planning concrete plant operations in Hong Kong, J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 129
(2003) 547–554 http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:5(547.
[37] K.C. Ying, S.L. Tang, M. Anson, M. Lu, An experiment to explore the potential of
simulation for improving ready mixed concrete delivery to construction sites, HKIE
Trans. 12 (2005) 6–13 http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1023697X.
2005.10668005.
[38] T.M. Zayed, D.W. Halpin, Simulation of concrete batch plant production, J. Constr.
Eng. Manag. 127 (2001) 132–141 http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9364(2001)127:2(132.
[39] V. Schmid, K.F. Doerner, R.F. Hartl, J.J.S. González, Hybridization of very large
neighborhood search for ready-mixed concrete delivery problems, Comput. Oper.
Res. 37 (2010) 559–574 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2008.07.010.
[40] J.P. Xu, F. Yan, S. Li, Vehicle routing optimization with soft time windows in a fuzzy
random environment, Transp. Res. E 47 (2011) 1075–1091 http://dx.doi.org/10.
13
Automation in Construction 84 (2017) 1–13
1016/j.tre.2011.04.002.
[41] L. Asbach, U. Dorndorf, E. Pesch, Analysis, modeling and solution of the concrete
delivery problem, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 193 (2009) 820–835 http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.ejor.2007.11.011.
[42] H. Pierre, N. Mladenovi'c, D. Uroševi'c, Variable neighborhood search and local
branching, Comput. Oper. Res. 33 (2006) 3034–3045 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
cor.2005.02.033.
[43] M. Maghrebi, T. Waler, C. Sammut, Matching experts' decisions in concrete delivery
dispatching centers by ensemble learning algorithms: tactical level, Autom. Constr.
68 (2016) 146–155 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.03.007.
[44] M. Maghrebi, S.T. Waller, C. Sammut, Feasibility study of automatically performing
the concrete delivery dispatching by implementing machine learning techniques,
Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 22 (2015) 573–590 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-
06-2014-0081.
[45] M. Maghrebi, V. Periaraj, S.T. Waller, C. Sammut, Using benders decomposition for
solving ready mixed concrete dispatching problems, in: A. Akbarnejad (Ed.), 31th
International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction and Mining,
IAARC, Sydney, Australia, 2014, pp. 145–154. Available from: http://www.iaarc.
org/publications/fulltext/isarc2014_submission_171.pdf.
[46] P.K. Narayanan, D. Rey, M. Maghrebi, S.T. Waller, Using Lagrangian relaxation to
solve ready mixed concrete dispatching problems, Transp. Res. Rec: J. Res. Boards
2498 (2015) 84–90 http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2498-10.