TECHNICAL AR TICLE

A Multiobjective Linear Program be modeled (scheduled) using linear pro-

for Scheduling Repetitive Projects
Dr. Kamal Al-Subhi Al-Harbi, Dr. Shokri Z. Selim, and Mazen Al-Sinan
ertain construction projects,
repetitive projects. Unlike other types of
gramming (LP), which allows a decision-
maker to maintain work continuity,
increasing productivity and decreasing the
duration, thus controlling costs.
A contractor’s usual goal is to com-
plete a project in the shortest possible time
for the lowest possible cost. As illustrated
in figure 1, an individual activity’s cost
tends to increase with a decreasing activity
duration, up to a certain duration, which
is called the crashed duration. The

C such as pipelines, highways,

high-rise buildings, and bridges,
include repetitive construction
activities. We thus refer to these projects as
construction, where resources and tasks
change from stage to stage, in repetitive
projects, each stage consists of more or less
the same activities. Repetitive projects can
crashed duration is the fully-expedited or
minimal activity duration time that is tech-
nically possible. The crashed cost is
assumed to be the minimum cost required
to achieve the crashed duration.
Cost A linear programming model, named
the repetitive project model (RPM), uses a
single objective function to minimize the
direct cost for each feasible project dura-
CCi tion, while satisfying the constraints per-
ai Cost Slope taining to the production rate and conti-
nuity of work for each activity’s crew, time,
and stage buffer [9].
The activity’s flowline curve (see fig-
ure 2) represents the movement of an
activity’s crew from one stage to another,
CNi throughout the project’s stages. The slope
of each line represents the production rate
for each activity. Each activity, I, has a
Time
time buffer at each stage between the start
di Di
time of the activity and the start time of
Crashed Normal each preceding activity, H. This buffer
Duration Duration time equals the duration of the preceding
activity, plus any necessary lead time. The
Figure 1—Time Cost Curve horizontal distance between the two lines
at any stage represents the time buffer
Stage
between the two activities during the
stage.
Any two concurrent activities may
have a stage buffer of a specific number of
stages to meet practical and/or technologi-
cal purposes. This stage buffer has to be
H
identified by the planner for these activi-
Slope
(Production Rate) ties. The RPM finds, for each feasible proj-
I
ect duration, the start time of each activity
at the first and last stage, the duration of
Minimum Stage Buffer = M each activity (which is to be set equal at all
Stage X stages to maintain a constant production
Minimum Time Buffer rate for the crew working on the activity),
and finally, the project minimum direct
Time cost that can achieve this project-feasible
Start Start duration. The vertical distance between
Time Time of the lines in figure 2 represents the stage
of H I buffer between the two activities at a par-
ticular time.
Figure 2—Typical Flowline Curves of Repetitive Activities

Cost Engineering Vol. 38/No. 12 DECEMBER 1996 41

 The RPM requires that an activity has
the same duration during all stages.
However, in reality, a single activity may
have different durations during different
stages of the project, assuming constant
production rates. Selinger explicitly illus-
trated this idea in his work [11]. If the
assumption of constant activity times at
different stages is relaxed, then we should
expect that the resulting linear program
will be longer than that of the repetitive
project model. However, other features of
the RPM will remain.
The purpose of this article is to extend
the RPM to general repetitive projects,
while considering several objective func-
tions. We selected two common objec-
tives: project cost and project duration.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Approaches for scheduling repetitive
construction projects can be classified into
three categories:
• traditional network techniques such as
the critical path method (CPM) [8];
• graphical approaches, such as the line
of balance [1, 2], the vertical produc-
tion method [7], and the linear sched-
uling method [3, 6]; and
• optimization approaches like the
dynamic programming model [10] and
the linear programming model [9].
The use of the CPM for scheduling
repetitive projects has two disadvantages.
First, it requires a large number of activi-
ties to represent the project, making it dif-
ficult to visualize the project and to
process it on a computer. Second, it does
not guarantee the continuity of work need-
ed to minimize cost, since each activity is
started as soon as all of its preceding activ-
ities are finished.
The graphical approaches plot repeti-
tive activities as lines with slopes equal to
their production rates. The slopes can be
constant or variable. The axes are distance
versus time. Graphical approaches do not
guarantee the minimal direct cost for a
project, since they try to finish the project
as early as possible, under certain assump-
tions of production rates.
Handa used the optimal control theo-
ry to view the construction/production
process as a dynamic system that evolves
over time [5]. The work is based on dis-
42
cretizing the dynamics of a system of a
hypothetical cut-and-fill job on a section
of highway.
Russell and Caselton presented a two-
state variable N-stage dynamic program-
ming formulation of the linear scheduling
program [10]. Their formulation is based
on the conventional dynamic program-
ming framework, and has the goal of short-
ening a project’s duration. Their method
accounts for several of the realities of
repetitive construction, including general-
ized precedence relationships and the
ability to treat a variety of work-continuity
constraints. Their contributions were di-
rected toward the goal of having linear
scheduling become a practical, computer-
based tool for repetitive construction proj-
ects. The model tries to lessen the overall
project duration.
A MULTIOBJECTIVE LINEAR
PROGRAM MODEL (MOLP)
We are presenting a multiobjective
linear program (MOLP) for activity net-
works that satisfies the following require-
ments:
• maintains a constant production rate
for each activity’s crew;
• maintains continuity of work for each
activity’s crew, considering that an
activity may have different durations
in different stages of the project;
• allows for a time buffer between activ-
ities in the same stage; and
• allows for a stage buffer between con-
current activities.
The MOLP model is an effective
method to analyze conflicting objectives
in project scheduling. We have decided to
consider the relationship between the
time (duration) and the cost of a project’s
schedule. The MOLP model generates a
set of efficient solutions (time and cost)
that satisfy the constraints of the model.
To clarify the concept of an efficient
solution in multiobjective mathematical
programming, consider a MOLP with two
objectives, say Z1 and Z1. A solution where
Z1 = z1* and Z2 = z2* is considered to be
efficient if there is no other pair of values
z1 and z2 that satisfies z1 ≤ z1* and z2 ≤
z2*.
Cost Engineering Vol. 38/No. 12 DECEMBER 1996
MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
OF THE MOLP MODEL
We have defined the variables and the
constants used in the mathematical for-
mulation as the following:
• N = number of repetitive stages in the
project;
• P = number of activities in a stage;
• M = number of buffer stages;
• ai,s = cost slope of activity i in the sth
stage;
• CNi,s = normal cost of activity i in the
sth stage;
• TSi,s = start time of activity i in stage
s;
• Di,s = normal duration of activity i in
stage s;
• di,s = crashed duration of activity i in
stage s;
• yi,s = number of days that activity i in
the s stage can be shortened; and
• TLh,i = lead time between activity i
and preceding activity h.
The objective functions can be illus-
trated by the following equations.
N P
Minimize Z1 = ∑ ∑ai,s yi,s
s=1 i=1
N P
+∑ ∑CNi,s.
s=1 i=1
(equation 1)
Minimize Z2 = TSP,N + DP,N - yP,N.
(equation 2)
The first objective function gives the
total cost of the project. The first term in
Z1 is the cost of crashing the project activ-
ities, while the second term is the normal
cost. Since CNi,s is constant, it can be
omitted. In this case, the first objective
function (Z1) can be rewritten as
N P
Minimize Z1 = ∑ ∑ai,syi,s.
s=1 i=1 (equation 3)
The second objective function, Z2, is
the total project duration. Both of these
objectives are conflicting, since minimizing
a project’s duration requires additional cost,
and vice versa. Efficient solution points of
the objective functions will be obtained so
that the project constraints are satisfied.
These equations are subject to the fol-
lowing constraints.
Constraints 1 and 2
TSi,s - TSh,s + yh,s > Dh,s + TLh,i
for
i = 1, 2, . . . , P and activity h is a prede-
cessor of activity i.
(constraint 1)
TSi,(s + 1) - TSi,s + yi,s > Di,s
for
i = 1, 2, . . . , P and
s = 1, 2, . . . , (N - 1).
(constraint 2)
Constraint 1 maintains a specified
time buffer between the starting time of
activity i and each activity h that precedes
it, for each stage of the project. This is
achieved by constraining the time buffer
between the start of activities i and h at
stage s, (TSi,s - TSh,s), to be greater than or
equal to the time needed. This time is
equal to the normal duration of activity h
in stage s, minus the number of days activ-
ity h is shortened in stage s, plus the addi-
tional lead time, if there is any [9].
Constraint 2 maintains the order for
each activity between different stages. This
constraint is needed because each activity
might have different durations during
each stage.
Constraint 4 Constraints 5 and 6 are for each pair
yi,s < Di,s - di,s of concurrent activities i and j that need a
minimum number, M, of stages as a buffer
for between them for practical and/or techno-
i = 1, 2, . . . , P and logical purposes. They constrain the time
s = 1, 2, . . . , N. that the crew working on activity j begins
(constraint 4) at the first stage to be greater than or equal
to the time the crew working on activity i
Constraint 4 limits the number of starts working on stage M + 1. Also, they
days that an activity can be shortened in constrain the time that the crew working
stage s to be less than or equal to the dif- on activity i start at stage N to be less than
ference in the activity’s normal and or equal to the time that the crew working
crashed durations, at the same stage. on activity j starts working on stage N - M.
It should be noted that if the two activities
i and j have unequal durations, then activ-
Constraints 5 and 6 ity i should be the activity with the shorter
M M
duration, to allow the two activities to fin-
TSj,s - TSi,s + ∑yi,s > ∑Di,s ish in a shorter time.
s=1 s=1 There are a number of computer soft-
for ware programs available to help work out a
concurrent activities i,j = 1, 2, . . . , P and problem in the form of a model. These
s = 1, 2, . . . , M with a minimum stage programs are known as matrix generators
buffer of M stages between them. [13]. The solution for the above MOLP
(constraint 5) could be obtained by using a program
called ADBASF [12].
N-M-1 N-M-1
TSj,N - TSj,1 + ∑yj,s < ∑Dj,s
SAMPLE PROJECT AND ANALYSIS
s=1 s=1
for
all activities i,j with a minimum stage buffer A sample project has been adopted
of M stages between them. [4, 9] that includes modifications that take
(constraint 6) into account having different durations for

Table 1—Cost and Duration Data for the Project Example

Constraint 3 Stages 1 and 3 Stage 4 Stages 2 and 5
N -1 N -1 Activity Activity D d a D d a D d a
TSi,N - TSi,1 + ∑ yi,s = ∑Di,s Abbrev. (days) (days) ($/day) (days) (days) ($/day) (days) (days) ($/day)
s=1 s=1
Locate & clear LC 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 -
for
Excavate EX 4 1 50 6 2 100 3 1 50
i = 1, 2, . . . , P. String pipe ST 2 1 50 4 2 100 3 1 50
(constraint 3) Lay pipe LA 5 1 150 6 2 150 6 2 150
Test TE 2 2 - 2 1 100 2 2 -
This constraint maintains the conti- Backfill BF 1 1 - 4 2 100 1 1 -
nuity of crew work on each activity D = normal duration/d = crashed duration/a = cost slope
between stages. To see this, we rewrite
constraint 3 as
Excavate
N -1 (2)
TSi,N = TSi,1 + ∑(Di,s - yi,s) i = 1, 2, . . . , P.
s=1
(rewritten constraint 3) Locate and
Lay Pipe Test Backfill
Clear
(4) (5) (6)
(1)
The second term on the right side is the
sum of the actual durations of activity i in
all but the last stage. This gives the com-
pletion time of activity i in stage N - 1, String Pipe
(3)
which is the start time of the same activity
in the last stage.
Figure 3—Typical Stage Network for the Project Example

Cost Engineering Vol. 38/No. 12 DECEMBER 1996 43

some activities in different stages. The Table 2—Sample Project Duration and Additional Crashing Cost
sample project is the relocation of 5 miles
(8 km) of natural gas pipeline. The project Project Duration Additional Crashing Cost Additional Crashing Cost ($)
(Days) ($) (Without Buffer Constraints)
is divided into five stages: each stage rep-
resents 1 mile (1.6 km). Table 1 presents
the project’s activities, their abbreviations, 40 0 -
normal durations, crashed durations, and 39 50 -
cost slopes at different stages of the project. 38 100 0
Figure 3 shows an activity on node net- 37 200 50
work for a typical stage of the project. 36 300 100
The mathematical formulation of the 35 400 200
34 500 300
sample project was developed first. It con-
33 600 400
sists of two objective functions, 83 con-
32 700 500
straints, and 47 variables. They are omitted 31 800 600
here due to space considerations. The 30 950 700
ADBASF computer program was used to 29 1100 850
solve the resulting two-objective linear 28 1250 1000
program. Some of the important findings 27 1400 1150
are described below. 26 1600 1300
The output file listed in table 2 pro- 25 1800 1450
vided efficient solutions to the problem. 24 2000 1600
The feasible project duration ranges from 23 2200 1800
22 2400 2000
40 days, which is the normal duration, to
21 2600 2200
15 days, which is the project’s crashed 20 2800 2400
duration. The additional costs correspond- 19 3000 2600
ing to each duration are also shown. 18 3300 2800
Table 2 also shows feasible project 17 3650 3100
durations versus the additional cost 16 4000 3450
required to minimize the project’s dura- 15 4350 3800
tion without stage-buffer constraints (con- 14 - 4200
straints 5 and 6). The feasible project dura-
tion is 2 days longer when time-buffer con- Table 3—Starting Time of Project Activities
straints are considered for the normal Project Duration = 40 Days Project Duration = 15 Days
durations. This increase is needed to meet Stage Number Stage Number
the additional stage-buffer constraints. Activity 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
The output also provides the start LC 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
time for each activity, in each stage. EX 3 7 10 14 20 2 3 4 6 8
Considering the stage-buffer constraints, ST 1 3 6 8 12 1 3 3 4 6
table 3 shows the start time of the activity LA 7 12 18 23 29 3 4 6 8 10
TE 27 29 31 33 35 4 6 8 10 12
when the project duration is 40 days (nor-
BF 32 33 34 35 39 9 10 11 12 14
mal duration) and when the project dura-
tion is 15 days (crashed duration).
projects. The computational efficiency of 2. Carr, R.I., and W.L. Meyer. Planning
the model needs to be studied further. A Construction of Repetitive Building

T
his article presents a mathemat-
ical formulation of activity net-
works that may have repetitive
structure. The model uses mul-
tiobjective linear programming and
attempts to minimize two conflicting
objectives, namely time and cost. The
mathematical formulation of the MOLP
model has been examined using an illus-
trative sample.
The size of the MOLP model, in terms
of the number of constraints needed to rep-
resent a project, depends on the number of
activities and stages. This can be computa-
tionally inefficient for very large, repetitive
software program with a user-friendly inter-
face needs to be developed to simplify the
implementation. The repetitive project
model discussed in this article can be used
to help minimize costs on construction
projects that include repetitive actions.
REFERENCES
1. Arditi, D., and Z.M. Albulak. Line-of-
Balance Scheduling in Pavement
Construction. Journal of the Con-
struction Division/ASCE 112 (no. 3
1986): 411-424.
Units. Journal of the Construction
Division/ASCE 100 (no. 3 1974):
403-412.
3. Chrzanowski, E.N., and D.W.
Johnston. Application of Linear
Scheduling. Journal of the Con-
struction Division/ASCE 100 (no. 3
1986): 476-491.
4. Clough, R.H., and G.A. Sears.
Construction Project Management.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1979.
5. Handa, V.K. Linear Scheduling Using
Optimal Control Theory. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Man-
agement 112 (no. 3 1986): 387-393.

44 Cost Engineering Vol. 38/No. 12 DECEMBER 1996

6. Johnston, D.W. Linear Scheduling Dr. Kamal Al-Subhi are in mathematical programming,
Method for Highway Construction. Al-Harbi is an assistant sequencing and scheduling, the control of
Journal of the Construction Division/ professor of construc- transient queues, activity networks, the
ASCE 107 (no. 2 1981): 247-261. tion engineering and analysis of large data sets, and cluster
7. O’Brien, J.J. CPM Scheduling for management at King analysis. He is an associate editor of
High-Rise Buildings. Journal of the Fahd University of Pattern Recognition, published by
Construction Division/ASCE 101 Petroleum and Miner- Pergamon Press and serves on the editorial
(no. 4 1975): 895-905. als in Dhahran, Saudi board of the Arabian Journal for Science
8. O’Brien, J.J., F.C. Kreitzberg, and Arabia. He received his M.S. from the and Engineering, which is published by
W.F. Mikes. Network Scheduling University of Michigan and his Ph.D. from KFUPM.
Variations for Repetitive Work. Journal NCSU-Raleigh. He has an interdiscipli-
of the Construction Division/ASCE nary minor in industrial engineering, com- Mazen Al-Sinan is a
111 (no. 2 1985): 105-116. puter science, and business administration. graduate student in the
9. Reda, R.M. RPM: Repetitive Project He was part of the team who developed a department of construc-
Modeling. Journal of Construction statewide computerized bridge mainte- tion engineering and
Engineering and Management 116 nance management system for North management at King
(no. 2 1990): 316-330. Carolina. He has done consultations for Fahd University of
10. Russell, A.D., and W.F. Caselton. multimillion-dollar projects and has con- Petroleum and Miner-
Extensions to Linear Scheduling ducted numerous training seminars als in Dhahran, Saudi
Optimization. Journal of the Con- throughout the Arabian Gulf States. He is Arabia. He currently works as a contracting
struction Division/ASCE 114 (no. 1 a member of PMI and ASCE, and of engineer for the Saudi Arabian Oil
1988): 36-52. AACE International. Company (Saudi Aramco) in Dhahran.◆
11. Selinger, S. Construction Planning for Back to Table of Contents
Linear Projects. Journal of the Dr. Shokri Z. Selim is Index to Advertisers
Construction Division/ASCE 106 an associate professor at Reader
Response
(no. C02 1980): 195-205. the department of sys- Number Advertiser
12. Steuer, R.E. Operating Manual for tems engineering at 200 Primavera Project Planner,
the ADBASF Multiple Objective King Fahd University of Primavera Systems, Inc.,
Linear Programming Computer Petroleum and Minerals inside front cover.
Package. Athens, GA: University of (KFUPM) in Dhahran, 221 ICARUS Project Manager,
ICARUS Corp., page 39.
Georgia, 1991. Saudi Arabia. He ob- 225 Success, U.S. COST, back cover.
13. Williams, H.P. Model Building in tained his Ph.D. from the Georgia Institute 916 R.S. Means, page 17.
Mathematical Programming. New of Technology in industrial and systems 919 QuickGantt, Ballantine and
York: John Wiley and Sons, 1990. engineering. His current research interests Company, Inc., page 8.
924 CostTrack, OnTrack Engineering, Ltd.,
page 34.

1996 TRAofNSAC
TION S Now Available!
A ACE InNforTETotRN
The Associatio
AT ement
al Cost Manag
IONAL

ENGINEERS
1996 Transactions of
AACE International
A N D C OS T
C OS T M A N AG E R S

ULER S
AND SCHED
PL ANNERS

A N AG E R S
PROJECT M
If you were unable to attend the 1996 Annual Meeting in
VA L U E E N G
INEERS Vancouver, you still have a chance to take advantage of the
many technical papers that made their debut there!
S
E S T I M AT O R

Don’t miss out on this important, up-to-date reference material.

Order your copy of the 1996 Transactions today!

Proceedings of
the 40th Annual
Meeting of AAC
CANADA
E INTERNATIONAL Members Nonmembers
H COLUMBIA,
VANCOUVER, BRITIS
$7995 $9495
Call 800.858.COST or 304.296.8444
to order yours today!

Cost Engineering Vol. 38/No. 12 DECEMBER 1996 45