Construction Management and Economics

ISSN: 0144-6193 (Print) 1466-433X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcme20

Resource optimisation in line of balance

scheduling

Mohammad A. Ammar

To cite this article: Mohammad A. Ammar (2019): Resource optimisation in line of balance
scheduling, Construction Management and Economics, DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2019.1606924

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2019.1606924

Published online: 21 May 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 25

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcme20
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2019.1606924

Resource optimisation in line of balance scheduling

Mohammad A. Ammar
Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The Critical Path Method (CPM) has failed practically for scheduling repetitive projects and Line Received 17 September 2018
Of Balance (LOB) has emerged as an alternative for scheduling such projects. Because of the Accepted 8 April 2019
size of most repetitive projects, efficient resource management plays a vital role in their success-
KEYWORDS
ful implementation. However, resource levelling and allocation have not been formally investi-
Repetitive projects; resource
gated in repetitive projects. Heuristic methods and optimization techniques have been scheduling; line of balance;
traditionally used to solve resource scheduling problems like the latter. Although heuristic meth- optimization; nonlinear
ods can handle large-size projects, they do not guarantee optimal solutions. In this paper, mathematical programming
resource levelling and allocation problems under LOB scheme are modelled as an optimization
problem that guarantees optimal solutions. Resource continuity and logical dependency
between activities are maintained where constant activity progress rate is assumed. An example
project is used to demonstrate the details of model formulation. A complete solution for the
range of feasible project durations is obtained as a Time-Resource Trade-Off curve. A pipeline
project is used to validate the developed model revealing that the developed model is superior.
The proposed model provides contractors with a complete picture for resource usage along
with the range of feasible project durations from which the optimal alternative can be selected.

Introduction Network-based techniques (e.g. Critical Path

Construction management may be defined as the pro-
cess of planning, scheduling and controlling a project
in a given time, at a given cost, according to the
desired quality, and in accordance with available
resources. Construction is the transfer of resources or
the four Ms of construction (Materials, Manpower,
Machines, and Money) into a constructed facility
(Halpin and Woodhead 1980). Repetitive projects rep-
resent a considerable portion of the construction
industry and, therefore, the efficient management of
project resources is the cornerstone of construc-
tion management.
The construction of repetitive projects may be
described as the continuous processing of many simi-
lar units. A unit could be a floor in a high-rise build-
ing, a house in a housing project, or a section in a
pipeline or a highway project (Carr and Meyer 1974).
Repetitive activities can be classified, generally, into
two basic categories: “typical” and “atypical” (El-Rayes
and Moselhi 1998). In the typical category, activities
along all units are assumed having identical durations.
On the other hand, repetitive activities do not always
have identical durations in the atypical category.
Method; CPM) have been used traditionally for plan-
ning, scheduling, and monitoring of construction proj-
ects since the late 1950s. Despite the wide
applications of CPM (Jaafari 1984), it fails practically to
schedule repetitive projects (Reda 1990, Russel and
Wong 1993, Suhail and Neale 1994). In repetitive proj-
ects, the same activities and information are repeated,
and the resultant CPM schedule is cluttered with repe-
tition of the same information. Moreover, the CPM
schedule does not ensure resource continuity if used
to schedule repetitive projects.
Linear Scheduling Methods (LSMs) have been used
alternatively to model repetitive projects (El-Rayes and
Moselhi 1998, Arditi et al. 2002). LSMs are classified as
resource-driven techniques such that a project dead-
line is met using predefined resource availability limits.
The most frequently used LSM is Line of Balance
(LOB). Being a resource-driven technique, the main
objective of the LOB is to determine a balanced mix
of crews and synchronize their work so that they are
fully employed (Ammar 2013). Zhang et al. (2017) con-
cluded that LOB is the best method for repetitive pro-
ject resource management because it provides

CONTACT Mohammad A. Ammar mamammar@yahoo.com Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta
31521, Egypt
ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M. A. AMMAR
continuous and uninterrupted use of resources.
Different forms of LOB have been proposed to suit
various characteristics of repetitive projects; however,
all are graphically similar (Arditi and Albulak 1986).
Resource management is as important as selecting
the appropriate scheduling technique. Allocation of
different resources to project activities is a difficult
managerial problem. Inadequate allocation of resour-
ces can lead to resource idleness and consequently
higher costs. Two resource scheduling problems are
generally encountered: unconstrained (unlimited)
resource optimization and constrained (limited)
resource optimization (Akpan 1997). Optimization
techniques have been used very early to solve
resource scheduling problem (Easa 1989). However,
heuristic methods provide practical solutions for
resource scheduling problem (Harris 1990,
Akpan 1997).
In this paper, the resource scheduling problem in
repetitive projects is modelled as a general resource
optimization problem in which both resource schedul-
ing problems are considered. LOB is used as a plat-
form to schedule typical repetitive projects. The
problem is formulated in the standard form of nonlin-
ear mathematical programming. The rest of the paper
is organized as follows. Resource scheduling problem
has been outlined and reviewed, specifically for repeti-
tive projects. Basic characteristics and calculations of
LOB have been briefly reviewed. The developed model
is then formulated in which decision variables, object-
ive function, as well as problem constraints, are dis-
cussed in detail. An example project is used to
illustrate model formulation and the obtained results
are then discussed. The developed model is then vali-
dated by a case study, after which summary and
drawn conclusions are presented.
Resource scheduling
In the planning stage, it is assumed that the require-
ments of each individual activity from different types
of resources can be met when required. At the project
level, activities are usually competing for common
resources and the demand may either exceed planned
resource availability or produce fluctuating patterns in
their use. In classical CPM, two approaches are com-
monly used to solve resource scheduling problems;
unconstrained resource scheduling and constrained
resource scheduling, which are named differently in
the literature.
The unconstrained resource scheduling problem is
usually referred to as resource levelling (Easa 1989,
Mattila and Abraham 1998, Georgy 2008, Damci et al.
2013). The only exception is the Project Management
Institute which referred to this problem as resource
smoothing (PMBOKV Guide 2013). On the other hand,
R
various terminologies are used to denote constrained
resource scheduling problem: resource allocation
problem (Chan et al. 1996, Mattila and Abraham 1998,
Georgy 2008, Hariga and El-Sayegh 2010, Damci et al.
2013), fixed-limits resource scheduling (Easa 1989),
resource-constrained scheduling (Senouci and Eldin
2004) and limited-resource allocation (Hegazy 1999).
Again, the Project Management Institute named this
problem reversely as resource levelling (PMBOKV
R
Guide 2013). In the present analysis, resource alloca-
tion will be adopted to denote the constrained
resource scheduling problem.
In traditional resource levelling, there is sufficient
amount of resources available. The objective is, there-
fore, to smooth-out peaks and troughs that usually
occur in the pattern of resource usage while keeping
initial project duration unchanged (Son and
Skibniewski 1999, Hariga and El-Sayegh 2010). In CPM
resource levelling, floats available for non-critical activ-
ities are utilized to adjust timings of activities requir-
ing a common resource so that the best usage
pattern is achieved. The objective function that mini-
mizes the sum of the absolute deviations between
daily resource requirements and the average resource
requirement is common.
Damci et al. (2015) investigated the impact of using
10 different objective functions (that usually used in
network-based and linear scheduling methods) for lev-
elling resources in LOB schedules. The objective func-
tion that minimizes the sum of the square of the
deviations in daily resource usage provides the best
average improvement percentage in CPM networks
(Damci and Polat 2014). However, all the objective
functions generated the same LOB schedule and the
same resource histogram (Damci et al. 2015). This is
because the problem starts with allocating randomly
the number of crews for each activity and trying to
level resources by shifting some activities to improve
resource histogram. Because the number of crews
remains constant in each iteration and there is no
guarantee that the selected number of crews is opti-
mal, the resulting schedule is nonoptimal as expected.
Zhang et al. (2017) developed a resource levelling
algorithm based on the backward controlling activity
in LOB scheduling, which gives better results by
reducing the number of crews. The backward control-
ling is such an activity that if its duration is prolonged
the project duration could be reduced. The number of

crews of backward controlling activities is reduced
until the terminal situation is reached, where the back-
ward controlling activities do not exist or the number
of crews cannot be reduced. It is, therefore, more
practical to minimize the number of crews per activity
which will be adopted in the present study.
In the resource allocation problem, on the other
hand, there are limitations on resource availability. The
objective is, therefore, to minimize project duration
ensuring that resource availability limits and prece-
dence constraints are not violated. Project delay may
be encountered if project resources are constrained;
however, the delay should be minimal.
Resource scheduling techniques fall broadly into
three categories: heuristic methods, analytical methods
and meta-heuristic methods (Rieck et al. 2012).
Resource scheduling has been typically linked to crit-
ical path method. In heuristic methods, the basic idea
is to shift selected activities (competing for resources)
in a systematic order according to some priority rules.
It is not possible to know if an optimal solution has
been obtained (Hegazy 1999). Heuristic methods
require less computational effort than optimization
ones and provide good solutions; however, they do
not guarantee optimality.
Using optimization techniques, on the other hand,
the problem is converted into standard mathematical
programming models. Linear, integer, non-linear or
dynamic programming are then used to obtain the
optimal solution. However, the formulation of the
problem (objective function and required constraints)
is time-consuming. Meta-heuristic methods and
Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) have greater capabilities
in optimizing complex problems (Tavakolan 2011),
which can be applied as multi-objective optimization
tools to obtain the most appropriate rather than opti-
mal solutions. Genetic Algorithm (GA), Particle Swarm
(PS), and Ant Colony (AC) have been used extensively
in construction management applications.
As will be discussed in the following section, LOB -
by nature - considers both resource allocation and lev-
elling problems at the activity level. However, few
studies have attempted to find an optimal solution for
resource levelling problem in the repetitive project at
the project level. Georgy (2008) presented a genetic
algorithm for resource levelling using a linear schedul-
ing method. An integer linear programming formula-
tion was developed by Mattila and Abraham (1998) to
level resources in repetitive projects. Damci et al.
(2013) developed a genetic algorithm-based resource
levelling model for LOB schedules, the objective of
which is to minimize the sum of absolute deviations
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 3
of daily resource requirements. On the other hand, the
resource allocation problem in a repetitive project is
not addressed in the literature at the project level yet.
In this paper, both resource levelling and resource
allocation problems in the repetitive project are con-
sidered at the project level using LOB as a schedul-
ing platform.
The line of balance (lob) technique
LOB technique originated in the Goodyear Company
in the early 1940s. In the early 1950s, it was developed
by the U.S. Navy for programming and control of
repetitive projects. The basic concepts of LOB have
been applied to the construction industry as a plan-
ning and scheduling method. Several attempts either
to modify the basic LOB or to develop variations
named differently have also been made such as vel-
ocity diagrams, vertical production method, linear
scheduling model, time–space scheduling method,
repetitive project model (Arditi et al. 2002, Tokdemir
et al. 2006, Ammar 2013).
LOB is used, basically, to schedule typical repetitive
activities. A single crew is assumed working in a
repetitive unit and spends (d) time on the unit before
moving to the next similar unit (Hegazy 2002). The
activity duration is assumed constant across all repeti-
tive units (i.e. almost identical quantity of work per
unit). The main objective of the LOB is to determine
how many crews should be employed by each activity
and how to arrange these crews among repetitive
units. The basic data required to set-up an LOB sched-
ule include man-hour estimate for a typical unit, opti-
mum crew size, and daily working hours. Accordingly,
a typical unit duration of each activity is calculated.
Figure 1 shows the LOB of a typical activity in
which activities are represented by a sloping bar
whose width is activity duration (d). The left side of
the sloping bar represents start times at different
units, while the right side represents finish times. The
Unit d
Crew 3
6
Crew 2
5
Crew 1
4
No. of Crews; C
2/R Crew 3
3
1/R Crew 2
2
1 Crew 1 R
Time
Figure 1. Synchronization and work continuity of crews
in LOB.
4 M. A. AMMAR

Unit Unit
Act. A Act. B Crew 3
5 n
(6-2) (9-7) Activity
LOB Crew 2
4 C #1 C #2 .
Crew 1
(5-1)

.
C #1 C #1 Activity Resource
3 . Histogram
2 C #1 C #2 .
4
1 C #1 RA C #1 RB Time
Crew 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3
Crew 2
Figure 2. Natural rhythm in LOB scheduling. 2
Crew 1 Time
1
slope (R) of the sloping bar denotes activity progress Figure 3. Typical resource histogram in LOB (activity level).
or production rate.
Different crew configurations can be assumed to Unit
represent crew movement along the repetitive units in TP = Desired Project Duration
a typical activity. In Figure 1, three crews are used to n
demonstrate crews’ movement. Crew #2 starts work
after the start of crew #1 by 1/R, while Crew #3 starts Ending

work after the start of crew #2 by 1/R and after the
start of crew #1 by 2/R, and so on. Shifting start times
of subsequent crews by 1/R enables representing each
repetitive activity by a single sloping bar, which
greatly facilitates graphical representation of LOB. In
addition, this representation ensures synchronization
and work continuity of multiple crews’ usage
per activity.
In LOB, the principle of natural rhythm ensures
optimum use of crews at the activity level. The num-
ber of crews has to be doubled (or tripled, etc.) to
increase the progress rate of an activity and, accord-
ingly, the activity progress rate will be doubled (or
tripled, etc.). LOB ensures that multiple crews utilized
by a repetitive activity are moving between repetitive
units continuously with no idle time (Damci
et al. 2015).
Referring to Figure 2 and considering activity A (for
example), a single crew is moving from one repetitive
unit to the next and the progress rate is calculated as:
RA ¼ (5  1)/(6  2) ¼ 1 unit/day. When two crews are
utilized (activity B in Figure 2), the progress rate is
doubled (RB ¼ (5  1)/(9  7) ¼ 2 units/day) compared
to activity A. In both cases, crews seamlessly continue
their work from unit to the other with no idle times.
The principle of natural rhythm implies that the pro-
gress rate should be a multiple of RA ¼ 1 unit/day,
depending on the number of crews available. For
more details on LOB, optimum crew size and natural
rhythm, refer to Arditi and Albulak (1986) and Arditi
et al. (2002).
The objective of the LOB schedule is to determine
the resource needs of each activity to meet pre-speci-
fied project deadline and maintaining resource
n-1
Activity
T1 = Duration of Unit #1
RT
1 Time
Figure 4. Desired project rate of delivery.
continuity (Mahdi 2004). Therefore, LOB can be consid-
ered a resource levelling tool at the activity level.
Usually, project managers prefer resource profile in
which resource usage starts with low values and then
build up till its maximum values and starts decreasing
as the project approaches its end. By nature, LOB
ensures optimum resource histogram at the activity
level, as shown in Figure 3. However, resource needs
at the project level usually fluctuate which require fur-
ther analysis and modelling.
It is possible to formulate a strategy for meeting
the desired project deadline (TP in Figure 4) by calcu-
lating a project target rate of delivery (RT), as shown
in Equation (1), where n is the number of typical
repetitive units, TP is the desired project duration and
T1 is the duration of the first unit. Assuming the ideal
case of parallel activities’ LOB, target progress rate of
project activities (RTi) can be calculated using
Equation (1).
The number of crews required to maintain an activ-
ity progress rate can be calculated (with reference to
Figure 1) using Equation (2), where Cti is the theoret-
ical number of crews employed by activity i and di is
its unit duration. Because fractions of crews are not
allowed, practicality and availability of crews are con-
sidered by Equation (3), in which Cai is the actual
number of crews used by activity i. Consequently, the

actual progress rate (Rai) for activities are recalculated
using Equation (4).
RT ¼ ðn  1Þ=ðTP  T1 Þ
Cti ¼ di  RTi
Cai ¼RoundUp ðCti Þ; Cai  Maximum
number of crews available for activity i
Rai ¼ Cai =di
Although LOB has been used extensively in the
planning and scheduling of repetitive projects, only
the resource levelling problem is addressed. Resource
allocation problem is not considered at the project
level yet. In this paper, both resource scheduling prob-
lems (levelling and allocation) are modelled in a
straightforward manner for typical repetitive projects
using LOB as a scheduling platform.
Model formulation
As it was discussed before, the primary objective of
LOB technique is to ensure that typical repetitive
activities stay “in balance” such that they are produc-
ing at a rate allowing an even flow of resources and
at a speed compatible with goals set forth. The pri-
mary information obtained from traditional LOB sched-
uling includes: (1) scheduled project duration, (2)
number of crews per activity to achieve this project
duration and (3) activities’ timings at each repeti-
tive unit.
Traditional LOB calculations can be formulated in a
mathematical programming form such that an opti-
mum solution can be met. To formulate a problem in
a mathematical programming form, three basic issues
have to be clearly defined: decision variables, object-
ive function, and problem constraints.
For the problem on hand, many objective functions
can be set to fulfil the target. The most appropriate
ones are to: (1) minimize the level of resource usage
for a pre-specified project duration (resource levelling)
and (2) minimize project duration under resource
availability limits (resource allocation). In the present
formulation, both resource scheduling problems (level-
ling and allocation) are considered for LOB scheduling
at the project level.
Consider a project having N typical activities each
has n repetitive units and precedence relationships
between activities are specified. For each activity,
quantity of work, optimum crew size, and crews’ avail-
ability are specified.
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 5
Decision variables
Several decision variables can be used to formulate
(1) the problem on hand. The challenge is to decide the
minimum number of variables that accurately describe
(2)
the problem. Having basic variables determined, other
related or dependent variables can be calculated. The
(3)
main parameters that influence resource profile in LOB
scheduling are a number of crews per activity and
(4)
scheduled timings (start and finish) of activities. If
these parameters are considered as decision variables,
the optimal solution is guaranteed.
In this formulation, two basic sets of decision varia-
bles are used: (1) the number of crews used per activ-
ity, and (2) start times of activities at first and last
units only. The number of crews for activity i will be
denoted as Ci, while start times of activity i at first and
last units are denoted by STi1 and STin, respectively.
Therefore, the minimum number of decision variables
required to completely describe the problem is 3N,
where N is the number of project activities in a typical
repetitive unit.
Problem constraints
Three types of constraints are needed to completely
describe the problem on hand including logical
dependency, crew synchronization and project com-
pletion. How each of these constraints is formulated
will be discussed in the following sections.
Logical dependency constraints
Logical dependency constraints ensure maintaining
precedence relationships between activities at each
repetitive unit. The logical relationship between any
two consecutive activities is expressed mathematically
by Equation (5), in which STi is the start time of
activity i, STp is the start time of its immediate prede-
cessor p, dp is the unit duration of its immediate
predecessor p, and NPi is the number of its preceding
activities.
STi  STp þ dp ; p ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; NPi (5)
To ensure that logical dependency is fulfilled for
activity i at each repetitive unit, this constraint has to
be formulated at the first and last units as given by
Equation (6) and Equation (7).
STi1  STp1  dp ; p ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; NPi (6)
STin  STpn  dp ; p ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; NPi (7)
6 M. A. AMMAR

Unit At the project level, resource allocation in LOB sched-

STin-STi1 uling is achieved by minimizing project duration
n expressed by the objective function given by Equation
(13), while satisfying the imposed constraints on
crews’ availability (Equation (11)).

n-1
Act. i
Min: Z ¼ PD (13)

1 Ri Time As discussed before, the objective function for

Figure 5. Crew synchronization in LOB.
Crew synchronization constraints
To maintain work continuity of crews in a typical
repetitive activity, crews’ movement should be
synchronised between repetitive units within the activ-
ity. With reference to Figure 5, the mathematical con-
dition that link start time of the last unit with that of
the first unit to ensure crew synchronization can be
expressed by Equation (8). Substituting Ri by Ci/di
(Equation (4)) and rearranging, Equation (8) is reformu-
lated by Equation (9) as follows:
Ri ¼ ðn  1Þ=ðSTin  STi1 Þ (8)
resource levelling in LOB scheduling is somewhat dif-
ferent from that in CPM. LOB ensures optimum
resource usage (levelling) at the activity level as
shown in Figure (3). Zhang et al. (2017) proved that
optimal project resource levelling is insured if the
number of crews is reduced. Therefore, resource level-
ling in LOB scheduling can be achieved by minimizing
the overall number of crews used by project activities
to maintain a desired project duration (PD) con-
strained by Equation (12). The objective function in
this case is expressed mathematically by Equation (14).
X
N
Min: Z ¼ Ci (14)
i¼1

STin  Ci  STi1  Ci ¼ ðn  1Þ  di (9) The proposed model for resource scheduling prob-
lems in LOB scheduling at the project level is summar-
Logically, the number of crews used by an activity
ised by the two mathematical models as follows:
should not exceed the number of repetitive units.
Therefore, the number of crews per activity should be
Resource allocation model
constrained by two limits, i.e. the number of repetitive
units and crew availability. In addition, fractions of Minimize : Z ¼ PD
crews are not allowed and, consequently, the number
Subject to:
of crews can assume only integer values. These con-
straints on the number of crews used by an activity i a. STi1  STp1  dp, p ¼ 1, 2, … , NPi, i ¼ 1, 2, … , N
are considered by Equations (10) and (11). STin  STpn  dp, p ¼ 1, 2, … , NPi, i ¼ 1, 2, … , N
Ci  n; Integer (10) b. STin  Ci  STi1 
Ci  Maximum number of crews available Ci ¼ (n  1)  di, i ¼ 1, 2, … , N
(11) c. STin  PD  di, i ¼ 1, 2, … , NE
for activity i
d. Ci  n; Integer, i ¼ 1, 2, … , N
e. Ci  Maximum crews available for activity i,
Project completion constraint(s) i ¼ 1, 2, … , N
The project duration is controlled by the latest com-
pletion of ending activities at the last unit. If the num- Resource levelling model
ber of ending activities is NE, the project completion
constraint(s) is given by Equation (12), where PD is the X
N
Minimize : Z ¼ Ci
desired project duration.
i¼1
STin  PD  di ; i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; NE (12)
Subject to:

a. STi1  STp1  dp, p ¼ 1, 2, … , NPi, i ¼ 1, 2, … , N

Objective function
STin  STpn  dp, p ¼ 1, 2, … , NPi, i ¼ 1, 2, … , N
The developed formulation is a general resource opti- b. STin  Ci  STi1  Ci ¼ (n  1) 
mization model, in which both resource scheduling di, i ¼ 1, 2, … , N
problems (levelling and allocation) are addressed. c. STin  PD  di, i ¼ 1, 2, … , NE
 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 7

D H Table 1. LOB calculations of the example project.

8 4 Activity d Ct¼dRT Ca Ra¼Ca/d ST5ST1¼(5  1)/Ra
A
A 4 0.57 1 0.25 16
4 B 6 0.86 1 0.17 24
E J L
10 8 6 C 2 0.29 1 0.50 8
B D 8 1.14 2 0.25 16
6 E 10 1.43 2 0.20 20
F K F 16 2.29 3 0.19 21.3
16 10 G 6 0.86 1 0.17 24
C H 4 0.57 1 0.25 16
2 J 8 1.14 2 0.25 16
G Act.
K 10 1.43 2 0.20 20
6 Unit Dur.
L 6 0.86 1 0.17 24
Sum 17 – –
Figure 6. Precedence network of a single typical unit.

The detailed LOB calculations of the example pro-

d. Ci  n; Integer, i ¼ 1, 2, … , N
As some terms in the problem constraints are the
product of two decision variables, the developed
model takes the standard form of non-linear mathem-
atical programming. The model requires as input activ-
ity data, project data and resource data. Activity data
of a typical repetitive unit includes: activities, prede-
cessors, and unit durations. Project data includes:
number of typical repetitive activities (N), number of
repetitive units (n) and desired project duration (PD).
Resource data includes availability limits on crews
per activity.
Example project
To illustrate the previously discussed formulations,
consider an example project selected from the litera-
ture (Hegazy 2002). The project consists of five repeti-
tive units (n ¼ 5). The precedence network of a typical
unit is shown in Figure 6 indicating the unit duration
of activities. Note that duration is measured in days
and the number of typical project activities (N) is 11. It
is required to complete the project in 60 work-
ing days.
The example project on hand will be solved manu-
ally, first, to illustrate the steps of LOB calculations and
to prove that LOB does not always provide an opti-
mum solution at the project level. Time analysis for
the first unit is performed using the unit duration of
activities, and the resulting duration (T1) is 32 days. A
target rate of output can be calculated for each activ-
ity using Equation (1) as (5  1)/(60  32) ¼ 0.143.
Accordingly, a theoretical number of crews is
calculated to achieve this target rate of output
(Equation (2)). The actual number of crews can then
be decided either based on crews’ availability or
rounding-up theoretical number of crews (Equation
(3)). Finally, the actual rate of output can be calculated
(Equation (4)).
ject are given in Table 1. The resulting project dur-
ation is 62 days (controlled by path B-E-J-L), which
exceeds the desired one (60 days). It is obvious that
manual LOB calculations do not always satisfy project
constraints (project duration in this case). At the pro-
ject level, the corresponding number of crews is 17.
Due to space limitations, only the non-linear math-
ematical resource levelling model for the example pro-
ject on hand is given in Appendix A. The
corresponding number of variables is 33 (3N) while
the number of constraints is 44. The computer pack-
age LINGO (2000) is used to solve the mathematical
model of the example project. LINGO is a commercial
package that utilizes the powers of linear and nonlin-
ear optimization to formulate large problems con-
cisely, solve them, and analyze the solution. The non-
linear mathematical model of the example project on
hand takes less than a second using LINGO to obtain
the optimal solutions under different conditions.
The example project can be solved under a variety
of conditions. First, the minimum feasible project dur-
ation is obtained by constraining the number of crews
per activity as five (number of units) using the
resource allocation model. The corresponding project
duration is 45 days. The model is then solved for a
project duration spanning from 45 to 62 days, and the
results are summarised in Table 2. The optimum num-
ber of crews corresponding to the desired project dur-
ation of 60 days is 17.
The results given in Table 2 reveal that optimum
number of crews is constant over intervals of project
duration rather than each feasible project duration.
For example, the number of crews corresponding to a
project duration range of 56 to 61 days is constant (17
crews). All these solutions satisfy the project comple-
tion constraints: STK5  PD  10, STL5  PD  6. To
reduce the project duration from 62 days to 61 days,
an additional crew should be added to activity L,
which increases the total number of crews from 16 to
8 M. A. AMMAR

Table 2. Optimum number of crews for the example project. Table 3. Optimum solutions for project durations 54
Project duration (days) and 55 days.
Activity 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 Case 1 Case 2
A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project duration ¼ 54 days Project duration ¼ 55 days
B 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Activity No. of crews ST1 ST5 No. of crews ST1 ST5
D 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 1 0.0 16.0 1 0.0 16.0
E 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 B 2 0.0 12.0 2 0.0 12.0
F 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 C 1 10.0 18.0 1 10.0 18.0
G 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 D 1 4.0 36.0 1 4.0 36.0
H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E 2 6.0 26.0 2 6.0 26.0
J 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 F 3 6.0 27.3 3 6.0 27.3
K 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 G 1 12.0 36.0 1 12.0 36.0
L 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 H 1 28.0 44.0 1 28.0 44.0
Sum 25 23 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 18 18 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 J 2 20.0 36.0 2 20.0 36.0
K 2 23.3 43.3 2 23.3 43.3
L 2 36.0 48.0 2 36.0 48.0
Sum 18 – – 18 – –

26
25
24
durations (54 and 55 days) being identical, both solu-
Optimum No. of Crews

tions satisfy all project constraints. The LOB schedule

23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63
Project Duration
Figure 7. Time-resource
example project.
17. If the set of 17 crews is used, the project can be
finished exactly in 56 days. If the contractor decides a
project duration in this range (56–61 days), the differ-
ence can then be used as a time contingency. In con-
clusion, the optimum number of crews for the
example project on hand are 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23
and 25 which correspond to project durations 62, 56,
54, 52, 50, 48, 46 and 45 days, respectively. It is
depicted graphically in Figure 7 by the horizon-
tal lines.
To clarify this phenomenon in LOB scheduling, the
complete sets of results corresponding to project
durations 54 and 55 days are given in Table 3. For the
first case (Project Duration ¼ 54 days), the project
completion constraints are STK5  44 (54  10) and
STL5  48 (54  6). In the second case (Project
Duration ¼ 55 days), the project completion con-
straints are STK5  45 (55  10) and STL5  49 (55  6).
Despite the results corresponding to the two project
of the controlling path (A-D-H-L) corresponding to
these two cases is shown in Figure 8.
The number of crews obtained at each iteration (i.e.
for each feasible project duration) depends on a var-
iety of parameters. These include the typical unit dur-
ation of activities, the number of repetitive units, and
logical dependency between consecutive activities.
The results obtained for the example project on hand
are depicted graphically by Figure 7. The figure reveals
that resource optimization problem in LOB scheduling
can be represented by a Time-Resource Trade-Off
trade-off curve of the curve, which resembles the well-known Time-Cost
Trade-Off problem. The proposed model, thus,
provides the contractor with a complete picture
for resource usage against feasible project durations.
The contractor can select the optimum alternative
that satisfies both project resource and time
constraints.
Model validation
A pipeline project presented by Damci et al. (2013)
will be used to test the proposed resource optimiza-
tion model in LOB scheduling. The project consists of
seven consecutive typical repetitive activities (N ¼ 7)
that repeat from one unit (kilometer) to the other
throughout the project. The pipeline length is 26 km
(n ¼ 26) and the project stipulated duration is 65 days.
The CPM modelling of this simple project requires 182
activities (7 typical units  26 repetitive units). The
planning data for a repetitive unit of the pipeline pro-
ject (interdependencies, man-hour estimates and opti-
mum crew size) and crews’ availability limits per
activity are given in Table 4.
 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 9

Unit

16

20

36

44

48

54
5

Case 2: Proj. Dur. = 55

Case 1: Proj. Dur. = 54
4

3
A D H L
2

1
4

12

28

32

36

42
Time
0 10 20 30 40 50 55
Figure 8. LOB schedule for project durations 55 and 54 days.

Table 4. Planning data for a typical unit of the pipeline project (Damci et al. 2013).
Man-hour Optimum crew Max. no. Unit Duration
Activity Discerption per unit size (men) of crews (days)
A Locating and clearing 96 6 2 2.0
B Excavating 64 8 2 1.0
C Laying aggregate 80 10 3 1.0
D Laying pipes 84 7 2 1.5
E Testing 80 10 4 1.0
F Backfilling 96 6 5 2.0
G Compacting 144 9 2 2.0

Unit Table 5. Comparison of the pipeline project results.

41.5

Damci et al. Proposed Improvement

25
27
28
29

43
44

46

48

26
. Parameter (2013) model (%)
.
. B Project duration (days) 65 48 35.4
. No. of crews 17 10 70.0
. A C D E F G Total no. of workers 2093 2093 –
.
. Avg. no. of workers 33 43 –
. Max. no. of workers 89 77 15.6
.
. Min. no. of workers 6 6 –
. Total deviation from avg. 1037 592 75.2
.
1
Time
0
2
3
4

18
19

21

23
5.5

Figure 9. LOB schedule for project duration 48 days. 42 to 47 days. The LOB schedule for a project duration
of 48 days is shown in Figure 9.
Comparative analysis of the results obtained by the
developed model with that given by Damci et al.
Assuming working hours per day is eight, the unit (2013) is summarised in Table 5. It is obvious that the
duration of activities is calculated and are given also proposed model is superior. For a project duration of
in Table 4. Even though other resources are necessary 48 days, only 10 crews are required. Because the
for completing this pipeline project, only workers were adopted project duration is 48 days, the average num-
considered. The number of crews obtained by Damci ber of workers is 43. The maximum number of workers
et al. (2013) is 17 and the corresponding project dur- is 77 in comparison with 89 obtained by Damci et al.
ation is 65 days. (2013). The corresponding resource histogram is
The mathematical model of the project on hand depicted in Figure 10, which reveals that the proposed
was solved under the resource limits given in Table 4 model gives an ideal case for project resource usage.
for the feasible project duration range (42–65 days).
The objective is to find the optimum number of crews
for project activities to satisfy project time constraints.
Conclusions
The optimum number of crews is 10 for a range of It is usually claimed that linear scheduling methods
project durations from 48 to 65 days, while optimum such as LOB are more appropriate than CPM for
number of crews is 11 for a project duration range of scheduling repetitive construction projects. Resource
10 M. A. AMMAR
90
80
70
No. of Workers
60
50 Avg. No. of Workers
40
30
20
10
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
Days
Figure 10. Optimum resource histogram for project dur-
ation 48 days.
management is a crucial managerial problem since
the inadequate allocation of resources can lead to
resource idleness and consequently higher costs.
Resource levelling and resource allocation are the two
basic resource scheduling problems. Few studies
addressed the resource levelling problem in linear
scheduling; however, resource allocation in repetitive
projects is not addressed in the literature. As a
resource-driven technique, LOB considers resource
constraints at the activity level; however, the resource
allocation problem in repetitive projects is not
addressed in LOB at the project level. In this paper,
both resource levelling and resource allocation prob-
lems in repetitive projects are considered. LOB tech-
nique is used as a scheduling platform for typical
repetitive projects. Both resource scheduling problems
are formulated in the standard form of non-linear
mathematical programming in a straightforward man-
ner. The developed model guarantees optimal solu-
tions, in addition to getting a complete feasible
solution set for the whole project duration range. The
Time-Resource Trade-Off curve is obtained which
resembles well-known Time-Cost Trade-Off problem.
An example project from the literature was used to
demonstrate the application steps of the proposed
model. A pipeline project was used to validate the
proposed model and the obtained results show how
the model is superior. The developed model extends
the traditional CPM resource scheduling problem to
repetitive projects under the LOB scheme. Using the
proposed model, both academics and practitioners
can get optimal solutions for resource scheduling
problems in repetitive projects in order to efficiently
allocate resources. Although the developed model
handles only typical repetitive activities, it can also be
extended to include atypical repetitive activities where
activity duration may vary from one cycle to the other.
In addition, several crew configurations can be
potentially tested. These issues will be handled in sub-
sequent research works.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Data availability statement
The author confirms that the data supporting the findings of
this study are available within the article.
References
Akpan, E., 1997. Optimum resource determination for project
scheduling. Production planning and control, 8 (5),
462–468.
Ammar, M.A., 2013. LOB and CPM integrated method for
scheduling repetitive projects. Journal of construction
engineering and management, 139 (1), 44–50.
Arditi, D., and Albulak, M., 1986. Line-of-balance in pavement
construction. Construction engineering and management,
112 (3), 411–424.
Arditi, D., Tokdemir, O., and Suh, K., 2002. Challenges in line-
of-balance scheduling. Construction engineering and man-
agement, ASCE, 128 (6), 545–556.
Carr, R., and Meyer, W., 1974. Planning construction of
repetitive building units. Journal of the construction div-
ision, ASCE, 100 (3), 403–412.
Chan, W., Chua, D., and Kannan, G., 1996. Construction
resource scheduling with genetic algorithms. Construction
engineering and management, 122 (2), 125–132.
Damci, A., Arditi, D., and Polat, G., 2013. Resource levelling in
line-of-balance scheduling. Computer-aided civil and infra-
structure engineering, 28 (9), 679–692.
Damci, A., Arditi, D., and Polat, G., 2015. Impacts of different
objective functions on resource levelling in line-of-balance
scheduling. KSCE journal of civil engineering, 20 (1), 58–67.
Damci, A., and Polat, G., 2014. Impacts of different objective
functions on resource levelling in construction projects: a
case study. Journal of civil engineering and management,
20, 1–11.
Easa, S., 1989. Resource levelling in construction by opti-
mization. Construction engineering and management, 115
(2), 302–316.
El-Rayes, K., and Moselhi, O., 1998. Resource-driven schedul-
ing of repetitive projects. Construction management and
economics, 16 (4), 33–446.
Georgy, M., 2008. Evolutionary resource scheduler for linear
scheduling. Automation in Construction, 17 (5), 573–583.
Halpin, D., and Woodhead, R., 1980. Construction manage-
ment. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Hariga, M., and El-Sayegh, S., 2010. Cost optimization model
for the multiresource levelling problem with allowed
activity splitting. Journal of construction engineering and
management, 137 (1), 56–64.
Harris, R., 1990. Packing method for resource levelling (pack).
Construction engineering and management, 116 (2),
331–350.
 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS 11

Hegazy, T., 1999. Optimization of resource allocation and lev- Appendix A.

elling using genetic algorithms. Construction engineering
and management, 125 (3), 167–175. Non-linear programming model of the example
Hegazy, T., 2002. Computer-based construction project man- problem (resource levelling case).
agement. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Jaafari, A., 1984. Criticism of CPM for project planning ana- Objective function
lysis. Construction engineering and management, 110 (2), Min: Z ¼ CA þ CB þ CC þ CD þ CE þ CF þ CG
222–233.
þ CH þ CJ þ CK þ CL
LINGO. 2000. LINGO user’s manual. Chicago, USA: LINDO
Systems, Inc. Precedence constraints
Mahdi, I., 2004. A new LSM approach for planning repetitive
housing projects. International journal of project manage-
ment, 22, 339–346.
Mattila, K., and Abraham, D., 1998. Resource levelling of lin- STD5STA54; STD1STA14;
STE5STB56; STE1STB16;
ear schedules using integer programming. Construction STF5STB56; STF1STB16;
engineering and management, 124 (3), 234–244. STG5STC52; STG1STC12;
PMBOKV Guide. 2013. A guide to the project management STH5STD58; STH1STD18;
R

body of knowledge. PA, USA: Project Management STJ5STE510; STJ1STE110;

STK5STF516; STK1STF116;
Institute, Inc. STK5STG56; STK1STG16;
Reda, R., 1990. RPM: repetitive project modeling. STL5STH54; STL1STH14;
Construction engineering and management, 116 (2), STL5STJ58; STL1STJ18;
316–330.
Rieck, J., Zimmermann, J., and Gather, T., 2012. Mixed-integer
linear programming for resource levelling problems.
European journal of operational research, 221 (1), 27–37.
Crew synchronisation constraints
Russel, A., and Wong, W., 1993. New generation of planning
structures. Construction engineering and management, 119
STA5CASTA1CA¼16; CA5; CA Integer;
(2), 196–214. STB5CBSTB1CB¼24; CB5; CB Integer;
Senouci, A., and Eldin, N., 2004. Use of genetic algorithm in STC5CCSTC1CC¼8; CC5; CC Integer;
resource scheduling of construction projects. Construction STD5CDSTD1CD¼32; CD5; CD Integer;
engineering and management, 130 (6), 869–977. STE5CESTE1CE¼40; CE5; CE Integer;
Son, J., and Skibniewski, M., 1999. Multiheuristic approach STF5CFSTF1CF¼64; CF5; CF Integer;
STG5CGSTG1CG¼24; CG5; CG Integer;
for resource levelling problem in construction engineer- STH5CHSTH1CH¼16; CH5; CH Integer;
ing: hybrid approach. Construction engineering and man- STJ5CJSTJ1CJ¼32; CJ5; CJ Integer;
agement, 125 (1), 23–31. STK5CKSTK1CK¼40; CK5; CK Integer;
Suhail, S., and Neale, R., 1994. CPM/LOB: new methodology STL5CLSTL1CL¼24; CL5; CL Integer;
to integrate CPM and line of balance. Construction engin-
eering and management, 120 (3), 667–684.
Tavakolan, M. (2011) Development of construction projects
Project completion constraints
scheduling with evolutionary algorithms. Thesis (PhD).
Columbia University.
STK5  ðPD  10Þ;
Tokdemir, O., Arditi, D., and Balcik, C., 2006. ALISS: advanced
linear scheduling system. Construction management and STL5  ðPD  6Þ
economics, 24, 1253–1267.
Zhang, L., Tang, Y., and Qi, J., 2017. Resource levelling based
on backward controlling activity in line of balance.
Mathematical problems in engineering, 2017, 1–9.