Operational Research

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-019-00544-7

ORIGINAL PAPER

Optimizing non‑unit repetitive project resource

and scheduling by evolutionary algorithms

Duc‑Hoc Tran1   · Jui‑Sheng Chou2 · Duc‑Long Luong1

Received: 8 April 2019 / Revised: 25 November 2019 / Accepted: 20 December 2019

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Repetitive project scheduling is a frequently encountered and challenging task in
project planning. Researchers have developed numerous methods for the sched-
uling and planning of repetitive construction projects. However, almost all cur-
rent repetitive scheduling methods are based on identical production units or they
neglect the priorities of activities. This work presents a new hybrid evolutionary
approach, called the fuzzy clustering artificial bee colony approach (FABC), to opti-
mize resource assignment and scheduling for non-unit repetitive projects (NRP). In
FABC, the fuzzy c-means clustering technique applies several multi-parent cross-
over operators to utilize population information efficiently and to improve conver-
gence efficiency. The scheduling subsystem considers the following: (1) the logical
relationships among activities throughout the project; (2) the assignment of multiple
resources; and (3) the priorities of activities in groups to calculate project duration.
Two numerical case studies are analyzed to demonstrate the use of the FABC-NRP
model and its ability to optimize the scheduling of non-unit repetitive construction
projects. Experimental results indicate that the proposed method yields the short-
est project duration on average and deviation of optimal solution among benchmark
algorithms considered herein and those considered previously. The outcomes will
help project managers to prepare better schedules of repetitive projects.

Keywords  Scheduling · Management · Repetitive project · Artificial bee colony ·

Fuzzy clustering

List of symbols
NP Population size
D Number of decision variables
Gmax Maximum number of generations
LB Lower bounds
UB Upper bounds

* Duc‑Hoc Tran
tdhoc@hcmut.edu.vn
Extended author information available on the last page of the article

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 D.-H. Tran et al.

limit Predetermined number of trials for scout

Sn Crew option
Pn Priority value
USn Total shift options for each activity
S1 Scheduling system
pi Probability for solution on onlooker bee phase
FTij Finishing time of activity j in group i
ɸi,j A random number in range [− 1; 1]
fiti Fitness value of the ith solution
m Clustering period
Mod Finds the remainder after division

1 Introduction

Repetitive projects (RPs) are common in the construction industry. Repetition can
be caused by geometric buildings or the construction of multiple units (Zhang
2015). Repetitive projects can be divided into the following two groups; (1) projects
that are repetitive owing to the repetition of a unit of work throughout (such as the
building of multiple similar houses or a high-rise building); and (2) projects that are
repetitive due to their layout (such as highways, tunnels, and pipelines) (Ioannou and
Yang 2016). RPs commonly require resources (such as crews) to perform the same
task in various units (locations, segments), moving from one unit to the next (Van-
houcke 2006).
Several repetitive scheduling methods (RSMs) have been proposed for the plan-
ning and scheduling of repetitive construction projects (Huang and Sun 2005, 2009;
Jeeno et al. 2016; Khalied and Khaled 2006; Ioannou and Yang 2016). The general
consensus is that RSMs are simple and easily applied scheduling methodology that
follows naturally from the concepts and relationships found in the traditional prec-
edence diagramming method (PDM) (Harris and Ioannou 1998). RSMs address the
need for work continuity and uninterrupted resource deployment in the construc-
tion of a repetitive project. Consequently, RSMs are preferred for the scheduling and
resource planning of repetitive construction projects (Huang and Sun 2006).
Almost all current repetitive scheduling methods are based on identical produc-
tion units or they neglect the priorities of activities in each unit (Fan et al. 2012; Fan
and Tserng 2006). Huang and Sun (2006) introduced a non-unit-based algorithm for
the planning and scheduling of repetitive projects; however, they used trial and error
method to obtain its results. Huang et  al. (2016) used soft logic to optimize work
sequences among many identical production units. Work groups (production units)
may vary in repetitive projects. For example, in a pipeline laying project, the number
of pipe sections and the number of manholes typically vary, making the identifica-
tion of repetitive production units different.
In a multi-housing project, the interior designs of the houses may vary, so the
required workload, time and cost, also vary. Even a typical repetitive project with
many identical production units frequently involves some non-repetitive work
(Huang and Sun 2005, 2006). The priorities of similar activities in production units

13
Optimizing non-unit repetitive project resource and scheduling…

are frequently not constrained in the real world—and a scheduler or planner must
consider this fact. Therefore, an advanced model is required to facilitate non-unit
repetitive projects by optimizing resource assignment and the priorities of activities
in each workgroup to optimize the schedule.
The Artificial Bee Colony algorithm (ABC) is one of the swarm intelligence
algorithms that were proposed by Karaboga and Basturk (2007). With its simplic-
ity and few control parameters, ABC has already been demonstrated to more effec-
tive than other evolutionary algorithms. Karaboga and Akay (2009) have success-
fully used ABC to solve complex multi-model optimization problems. Substantial
evidence has also demonstrated the superior performance of ABC over competing
algorithms (Karaboga et al. 2014).
In ABC, the entire population of bees provides information about the location
of food. Thus, ABC is good at exploration but poor at exploitation so it is ineffec-
tive for solving problems in which information must be used to find better solutions
(Andrade and Cunha 2015). Furthermore, the ABC may have difficulty in jumping
out of local optima or it may converge slowly and prematurely (Li and Yin 2011).
These shortcoming limit the range of real world optimization problems to which
ABC can be successfully applied.
On account of the above, increasing the rate of convergence and avoiding local
optima are main issues in the development of ABC-based optimization models.
Advanced techniques that involve hybridization represent an interesting direction for
improving EAs (Cai et al. 2011). Fuzzy c-means clustering (FCM) is a soft cluster-
ing technique that divides a set of objects into clusters or groups of similar members.
The fuzzy c-means clustering technique introduces cluster centers into a population
in an evolutionary algorithm (EA) to help to track and enhance the optimization pro-
cess (Deb 2005; Kwedlo 2011; Wang et al. 2007; Zou et al. 2010).
In fuzzy clustering, each data point can belong to more than one cluster; a set
of membership levels is associated with each element. Experiments have demon-
strated that the hybridization strategy can efficiently seek the near-optimal solutions
(Cheng et al. 2014). Few researchers have studied the fusion of ABC with clustering
to improve EAs. An extensive survey reveals that fuzzy c-means clustering has not
yet been utilized to improve the performance of ABC.
This paper uses an integrated strategy to improve ABC in optimizing resource
assignment and scheduling non-unit repetitive projects. The study integrates fuzzy
c-means clustering to solve the problems of the original ABC. Fuzzy c-means clus-
tering helps to accelerate convergence by introducing multi-parent crossover opera-
tors to algorithmic mechanism. Moreover, a scheduling subsystem is developed to
enable (1) the logical relationship of the entire project to provide more flexibility in
scheduling; (2) the use of multiple crews, and (3) the priorities of activities to sat-
isfy the crew sequence constraints that are imposed by project managers to calculate
the duration of the project. The proposed algorithm is designed to converge rapidly
without becoming trapped in local optima.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents relevant
literature on repetitive projects and works related to non-unit repetitive problem as
well as variants of artificial bee colony algorithm. Section 3 describes the proposed
model for the non-unit repetitive project problems. Subsequently, Sect. 4 uses two

13
 D.-H. Tran et al.

numerical case studies to demonstrate the model performance based on the statisti-
cal results. Finally, Sect.  5 presents overall conclusions and suggestions for future
research.

2 Literature review

2.1 Relevant works on repetitive projects

Repetitive projects frequently require resources (such as crews) to perform the

same task in various units (Ipsilandis 2006; Vanhoucke 2006). Owing to the fre-
quent movement of resources, an effective schedule is important to ensure the unin-
terrupted use of resources in repetitive activities (Long and Ohsato 2009; Harris
and Ioannou 1998). The traditional network technique (the critical path method, or
CPM) has many shortcomings for use in managing repetitive projects, the greatest of
which is that it does not ensure resource work continuity. Accordingly, many meth-
ods have been proposed for scheduling repetitive projects (Ioannou and Yang 2016).
One typical repetitive scheduling method is the line-of-balance method (LOB),
which is a simple method for scheduling and controlling the progress of produc-
tion (David and Albulak 1986; Suhail and Neale 1994; Al Sarraj 1990). Alternatives
to the LOB method include the linear scheduling method (Chrzanowski and John-
ston 1986), the disturbance scheduling technique (Whiteman and Irvvig 1988), and
horizontal and vertical logic scheduling (Thabet and Beliveau 1994). The modeling
and application of the LOB variants to construction projects require the simplifica-
tion of repetitive activities to generate a single duration, the same resource usage,
and a fixed order of production (Huang and Sun 2006). However, such simplified
method somewhat limits its applicability, especially to more complicated repetitive
construction projects.
To overcome the above shortcomings, many attempts have been made to develop
repetitive construction scheduling methods without the single duration constraint for
repetitive activities (El-Rayes and Moselhi 1998; Harris and Ioannou 1998). Repeti-
tive scheduling has been extended to allow for variability in activity durations and
the determination of optimal crew mobilization times under uncertainty (Srisuwan-
rat and Ioannou 2007). Huang and Sun (2006) took into account the generalization
of the logical relationships of activity groups and considered the use of various
resource crews in group. However, they used a trial and error method to optimize
resource assignment and scheduling. Therefore, their method is suitable only for
small projects with a limited number of possible resource assignments.
In recent years, the shortcomings of the aforementioned methods have motivated
various studies of the application of optimization evolutionary algorithms (EAs) in
solving the problem of construction repetitive scheduling (Alexander and John-Paris
2011; Bakry et  al. 2014; Tran et  al. 2019; Huang et  al. 2016). EAs are stochastic
optimization methods that are inspired by phenomena seen in nature. They have
been used successfully to solve optimization problems in a wide range of fields. This
work uses EAs to facilitate resource assignment and solve the scheduling problem
for non-unit repetitive projects.

13
Optimizing non-unit repetitive project resource and scheduling…

2.2 Non‑unit repetitive project problem

Repetitive project problems have been extensively studied owing to their impor-
tance in construction management (Agrama 2014; Hsie et al. 2009; Kris and Amy
2003; Liu and Wang 2012). This investigation concerns the non-unit RP prob-
lem (Huang and Sun 2005, 2006), which is depicted in Fig. 1. A repetitive project
involves groups of activities (Fig. 1a). All activities in a group have the same pur-
pose, although their characteristics, such as duration, resource use, cost, and others,
may vary. Groups may include different numbers of activities.
The logical relationships in non-unit repetitive project are more generalized the
normal project that is closer to real world situations (Fig.  1b). In non -unit-based

Act. Group 2 Act. Group 4

Act. Group 1

Act. Group 3
(a) Activity group sequence

A2-1 A4-1

A1-1 A2-2 A4-2

A1-2 A2-3 A4-3

A1-3 A4-4
A3-1

A3-2

(b) Logical relationship

Decision Resource
variables chains
Resource Activity
Assignment priority
Activity
Activity G1R1 G1R2
Crews: R1,R2 sequence
Group 1 in group

A1-1 2 A1-3 A1-2

G1R1
A1-2 3
A1-1
G1R2
A1-3 1 Resource move
Work activity

(c) Resource chain

Fig. 1  Illustration of non-unit repetitive project

13
 D.-H. Tran et al.

repetitive scheduling, no hard logical order is assigned to the activities in a group.

Moreover, multiple working crews can be employed in an activity (Fig.  1c). The
purpose of the method that is proposed herein is to assign resources (crew) to, and
determine priorities of, all activities in all groups to minimize the duration of a non-
unit repetitive project.
Let the finishing time of activity j in group i be denoted as FTij. The objective for
a non-unit RP can be determined using Eq. (1).
min{maxFTi,j |i = 1, 2, … , N; j = 1, … , Ui } (1)
where N is the number of groups in the project and Ui is the number of activities in
each group.

2.3 Works related to variants of artificial bee colony algorithm

The original ABC algorithm has provided good results in particular applications
and numerical optimization problems owing to its memory, local search and solu-
tion improvement mechanism (Cui et  al. 2017; Karaboga and Akay 2009; Verma
and Kumar 2013). These applications involve benchmark functions (Karaboga and
Basturk 2007; Singh 2009), scheduling (Chaurasia et  al. 2017; Tran et  al. 2016),
data mining (Kang and Li 2016), and engineering (Sundar and Singh 2012). Despite
these advantages, (both the original ABC and later variants) may become stuck in
local optima and yield uncertain optimal values (Luo et al. 2013).
Some researchers have argued that these problems arise from the exploration pro-
cess, while others believe that they are caused by the exploitation process (Anuar
et  al. 2016; Bolaji et  al. 2013). Therefore, many researchers worldwide have inte-
grated many innovative techniques into the basic algorithm to improve its perfor-
mance. Exploration is the investigation of an unknown region of solution space to
find the global optimum. Exploitation is the use of knowledge of already found good
solutions to find better solutions (Anuar et al. 2016).
Lee and Cai (2011) presented a new diversity strategy to balance exploration and
exploitation in the ABC algorithm. Aderhold et al. (2010) studied the effect of popu-
lation size on optimization process and proposed two variants of ABC that involved
new methods for updating the positions of artificial bees. Kang et  al. (2011) used
the complementary advantage strategy by fusing ABC with Rosenbrock’s rotational
direction method to enhance the search ability of the former for accurate global
optimization.
Kiran and Gündüz (2012) incorporated the GA crossover operation-based neigh-
bor selection technique for the sharing of information in the hive in the ABC pro-
cess to improve local search and the exploration of the ABC. Xiang and An (2013)
employed chaotic search in the scout bee phase and a combinatorial solution search
equation to accelerate the searching process of ABC.
Although ABC has been demonstrated to be highly efficient for optimization, its
solutions repeatedly change as it approaches an optimum. Furthermore, designing
tuning parameters that accelerate its convergence is difficult. An extensive review
of investigations of ABC reveals that exploration (diversification) and exploitation

13
Optimizing non-unit repetitive project resource and scheduling…

(intensification) in ABC must be balanced to obtain high-quality solutions to optimi-

zation problems (Kıran and Gündüz 2013).
In this study, the complementary advantage strategy is applied by combining the
best features of both ABC and fuzzy clustering algorithms. This strategy balances
the local search and the global search capabilities of the proposed fuzzy c-means
clustering artificial bee colony algorithm (FABC) to obtain better solutions.

3 Proposed model for non‑unit repetitive projects

This section proposes a new framework for optimizing the scheduling of non-unit
repetitive projects (NRP). This framework includes one main procedure and one
scheduling subsystem (S1). The main procedure implements the evolutionary pro-
cess by combining innovative algorithms—including original ABC (Karaboga and
Basturk 2008) and fuzzy c-means clustering. ABC is used because of its power to
(1) solve the nonlinear programming problem; (2) track the optimization problem
using a complicated fitness function; and (3) find high-quality scheduling solutions.
The FABC is the core optimizer in the proposed framework. It initializes the
population (solutions) that will be improved in the bee phase. To identify the can-
didates that will enter onlooker bee phase, a probability vector is calculated from
the qualities of candidate solutions. These candidates (bees) consider their surround-
ing bees and identify the best one. Then, the algorithm determines solutions that no
longer improve and moves into the scout bee phase, in which are replaced by the
new solutions.
Thereafter that, the algorithm exploits the inherent characteristics of fuzzy clus-
tering to improve the overall search capabilities of ABC with respect to finding the
optimal solutions in a given search space. Finally, the bee phase in the next genera-
tion will exploit the best solutions that are selected in the previous generation. In the
scheduling subsystem (S1), the fitness function (project duration) is evaluated by
considering the logical relationship among activity groups, and ensuring work con-
tinuity to maximize the effects of learning in non-unit repetitive projects. Figure 2
displays the proposed framework in the MATLAB programming language.

3.1 Initialization and decision variables

The FABC-NRP optimization model requires relationship among activities, number

of methods for executing the activities, and crew information. The user must set the
parameters of FABC, such as the population size NP, the number of decision varia-
bles D, the “limit”, the maximum number of generations Gmax, and the lower bounds
(LB) and upper bounds (UB) of the decision variables.
FABC randomly generates the initial population using Eq. (2), where Gmax is the
maximum number of generations and g is the number of the current generation.
rand[0, 1] × (UBj − LBj ); (i = 1, … , NP; j = 1, … , D) (2)

13
 D.-H. Tran et al.

Start

Project’s Information

Initialization
Initialization of NP, D, m, limit, Gmax, LB, UB
Scheduling
Generate NP solutions and Evaluate the solutions module
g:=1
Population: X1 X2 X3 ... XNP
i:=1

Employed Bee Phase

Create a candidate solution Ui
Scheduling
Evaluate trial vector Ui
module
Yes
i:=i+1 Uj,g better than Xj,g
No
Yes
g:=g+1 i < NP Replace Xi,g by Ui,g
No
i:=1
No
Rand() ≤ Prob(i)

Onlooker Bee Phase

Yes
Create a candidate solution Ui
Scheduling
Evaluate trial vector Ui
module
Uj,g better than Xj,g Yes
No
Yes
i:=i+1 i < NP Replace Xi,g by Ui,g
No
Output Clustering Scout

Any solution’s trail exceeds limit Yes Replace the solutions

by random one
No
Mod(g,m)=0
Yes Update population by
Fuzzy c-means clustering
Yes No
g < Gmax
No
Optimal Solution Final Schedule Stop

Fig. 2  FABC-NRP model

The vector in Eq.  (3) represents a candidate solution to a non-unit repetitive

project scheduling problem. It incorporates the following decision variables; (1)
the crew for each activity and (2) the priority of each activity (N) in the work crew
sequence, as follows:
X = [xi,1 , … , xi,j , … , xi,N , xi,N+1 , … , xi,2N ]; (n = 1, … , N; i = 1, … , NP)
⏟⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏟⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏟ ⏟⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏟⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏞⏟ (3)
Crew−Option Sn Priority−value Pn

13
Optimizing non-unit repetitive project resource and scheduling…

where 2N is the total number of decision variables, and N equals the total number of
activities in all groups

(1) Crew-option (Sn): represents crews that can feasibly perform activity n. Each
option results in a different total project duration. Vector xi,n represents one crew
option for activity n. Si,n is an integer in the range [1,USn] (n = 1 to N), which
represents one of the USn shift options. A ceil function in Eq. (4) converts the
real-value variables in ABC into nearest integers to identify possible execution
modes for the activities
Si,n = Ceil(xi,n × USn ); (n = 1, … , N) (4)
where xi,n is the crew option value for activity n for individual ith. USn is the
total number possible crews in all instances for each activity.
(2) Priority value (Pn) is the priority of a sequences of activities in a group of activi-
ties which involve several units. The range these variables is given by Eq. (5).
0 ≤ Pn ≤ 1; n = N, … , 2N (5)
Along with crew information and the precedence relationships among activi-
ties, Pn values determine the priorities of activity sequence in groups of activi-
ties. The priorities of activities in a sequence thereof determine the duration of
the project using the scheduling subsystem (S1), as described below

3.2 Scheduling subsystem for NRP (S1)

When the FABC individual is generated, the scheduling subsystem (S1) determines
the duration of the project. The crew-option (Sn) values specify the mode of execu-
tion of each activity, which determines the corresponding duration and time for the
movement of crew. The values (Pn) denote the sequence of activities. FTij is the fin-
ishing time of activity j in group i as shown in Eq.  (1). Figure  3a shows how the
scheduling subsystem determines the project duration.
Figure 3b presents a sample project with two groups of activities. The difference
groups may contain different numbers of activities. The first group comprises five
activities to be executed by two crews, while the second consists of three activities
and only one crew. The assignment of resources and priorities that are obtained from
the current solution to determine the movement of the crew. The starting time for the
first two activities of groups 1 as dented as base lines (dot line and dashed line) are
set to Day 0. The staring time of remaining activities are calculated from the activity
logical relationship.

3.3 Employed bee phase

An employed bee searches its neighborhood for food sources to produce a new solu-
tion. Then, greedy selection is applied to two solutions to determine the next solution.

13
 D.-H. Tran et al.

(a) (b)
Fig. 3  Scheduling module: a project duration calculation procedure; b illustration of scheduling

A candidate solution uij may thus be generated from the old solution xi,j according to
Eq. (6).
ui,j = xi,j + 𝜙i,j (xi,j − xk,j ) (6)
where k ∈ {1, 2, … , NP} and j ∈ {1, 2, … , D} are randomly generated indices.
Although k is selected arbitrarily, it must be different from i. ɸi,j is a random number
in the range [−1, 1].

3.4 Onlooker bee phase

After updated process is completed, the employed bees share food source information
with onlooker bees when the former return to their hive. An onlooker bee randomly
selects a food source with a probability pi, as shown in Eq. (7).
NP
∑
pi = fiti ∕ fiti (7)
i=1

where fiti denotes the fitness value of the ith food source.
According to the probability value, ABC creates an onlooker bee using Eq.  (6).
After onlooker bee has evaluated the fitness, a greedy selection is used and the newly
created onlooker bee updates the position in population by either removing or retain-
ing the old solution. The best position of a food source is also updated using the same
greedy selection strategy after the onlooker bee phase ends.

13
Optimizing non-unit repetitive project resource and scheduling…

3.5 Scout bee phase

A scout phase generates a new solution randomly, as described by Eq.  (2), and
replaces the food source Xi (solution Xi) with new solution if the food source is
not further improvement through a pre-determined number of cycles.

3.6 Fuzzy clustering artificial bee colony

The fuzzy c-means clustering (FCM) technique is applied to the current popula-
tion to accelerate global convergence and avoid local optima. During the ABC
evolutionary process, the FCM tracks the population. The center of each cluster is
considered to be an individual (bee) the main population of the evolution process.
In this stage, if the clustering condition (Mod(m,g) = 0 where g is number of the
current generation and m is the clustering period) is satisfied, then fuzzy c-means
clustering will generates k offspring, which is used to update the population. k
is the centroid number (Cai √ et  al. 2011), which is an integer that is randomly
selected from the range [2, NP].
In FABC, clustering is conducted periodically to exploit the search space.
This technique is similar to a method that has been used elsewhere (Cai et  al.
2011; Cheng et al. 2014; Deb 2005). The fuzzy c-means clustering phase uses the
population-update algorithm, which has the following four mutually independ-
ent steps); (i) selection step, (ii) generation step, (iii) replacement step, and (iv)
update step.

• Selection step: Randomly select k individuals from the current population (Set
A).
• Generation step: Using fuzzy c-means clustering to generate k individuals (Set
B) from current population.
• Replacement step: From the combined set (Set A + Set B), choose the k best
solutions (Set C) for replacement.
• Update step: Update the population according to P = P − Set A + Set C.

The k best solutions are chosen from the combined Set A + Set B is to preserve
the elite members of the population.
Clustering too early will cause the false identification of clusters. Therefore,
a clustering period is set to give the ABC enough time to form complete, stable
clusters. In this study, a parameter m is used to control the clustering period. The
initial period for the clustering operator in this algorithm is set to ten.

3.7 Termination condition

When a user-determined stopping criterion, such as a maximum number of gen-

erations Gmax or a maximum number of function evaluations (NFE), is reached,
the optimization process terminates. The maximum number of generations is a

13
 D.-H. Tran et al.

stopping threshold for the proposed algorithm. The schedule with the lowest pro-
ject duration is returned as the output.

4 Case studies

Two case studies are considered to demonstrate the effectiveness and ability of the
proposed FABC solving the NRP problem. The first case study is a sewer system
project as a non-unit-based repetitive project, which was examined by Huang and
Sun (2006). This case is selected for the following reasons. (1) It is real; (2) the
project durations that have been obtained in previous research were near optimal; (3)
previous research provides a baseline.
The project duration that is obtained herein is compared with those obtained pre-
viously using the trial-and-error method and four other approaches for solving the
NRP problem, which are the Genetic Algorithm (GA), Particle Swarm Optimization
(PSO), Differential Evolution (DE), and the Artificial Bee Colony (ABC). The pro-
ject involves three groups of activities and a total of 14 activities.
Figure  4 displays the activities in the groups and their logical relationships.
Within each group of activities, the priorities of the activities and crew assignment
are decision variables that are decided by the optimizer.

Fig. 4  Activities relationship in Group A1 Group A2 Group A3

sewer system project—case 1
A1-1 A2-1 A3-1
A1-2 A2-2 A3-2
A1-3 A2-3 A3-3
A1-4 A2-4 A3-4
A1-5 A2-5 A3-5
A1-6 A2-6 A3-6
A1-7 A2-7 A3-7
A1-8 A2-8 A3-8
A1-9 A2-9 A3-9
A1-10 A2-10 A3-10
A1-11 A2-11 A3-11
A1-12 A2-12 A3-12
A1-13 A2-13 A3-13
A1-14 A3-14

13
 Table 1  Time of crews on group A1—Case 1
G1R1 To—Time (days) for Group 1—[crew1;2]
From A1-1 A1-2 A1-3 A1-4 A1-5 A1-6 A1-7 A1-8 A1-9 A1-10 A1-11 A1-12 A1-13 A1-14

A1-1 1.88;2.72 0.02;0.02 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.11 0.08;0.11 0.08;0.11 0.11;0.13 0.11;0.13 0.11;0.13 0.11;0.13 0.11;0.13
A1-2 0.02;0.02 2.44;3.00 0.02;0.03 0.04;0.05 0.02;0.03 0.05;0.06 0.08;0.11 0.08;0.11 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.11 0.08;0.11 0.08;0.11 0.08;0.11 0.08;0.11
A1-3 0.08;0.10 0.02;0.03 2.20;3.11 0.02;0.03 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.11;0.13 0.11;0.13 0.08;0.11 0.11;0.13 0.08;0.11 0.11;0.13 0.11;0.13 0.11;0.13
A1-4 0.08;0.10 0.04;0.05 0.02;0.03 2.02;2.49 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.11 0.11;0.13 0.11;0.13 0.08;0.11 0.08;0.11 0.08;0.10 0.11;0.13 0.11;0.13 0.11;0.13
A1-5 0.08;0.10 0.02;0.03 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 2.00;2.80 0.02;0.03 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.04;0.06 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.11 0.08;0.11
A1-6 0.08;0.10 0.05;0.06 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.11 0.02;0.03 1.81;2.23 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.02;0.03 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.11
A1-7 0.08;0.11 0.08;0.11 0.11;0.13 0.11;0.13 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 1.76;2.17 0.02;0.02 0.04;0.05 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.11
Optimizing non-unit repetitive project resource and scheduling…

A1-8 0.08;0.11 0.08;0.11 0.11;0.13 0.11;0.13 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.02;0.02 1.49;2.13 0.02;0.03 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10
A1-9 0.08;0.11 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.11 0.08;0.11 0.04;0.06 0.02;0.03 0.04;0.05 0.02;0.03 2.21;3.11 0.02;0.02 0.04;0.05 0.02;0.03 0.04;0.06 0.06;0.08
A1-10 0.11;0.13 0.08;0.11 0.11;0.13 0.08;0.11 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.02;0.02 2.02;2.49 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10
A1-11 0.11;0.13 0.08;0.11 0.08;0.11 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.04;0.05 0.08;0.10 2.80;3.80 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.11
A1-12 0.11;0.13 0.08;0.11 0.11;0.13 0.11;0.13 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.02;0.03 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 1.51;2.16 0.02;0.03 0.04;0.06
A1-13 0.11;0.13 0.08;0.11 0.11;0.13 0.11;0.13 0.08;0.11 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.04;0.06 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.10 0.02;0.03 1.96;2.42 0.02;0.03
A1-14 0.11;0.13 0.08;0.11 0.11;0.13 0.11;0.13 0.08;0.11 0.08;0.11 0.08;0.11 0.08;0.10 0.06;0.08 0.08;0.10 0.08;0.11 0.04;0.06 0.02;0.03 1.75;2.53

13


13
Table 2  Time of crews on group A2—Case 1
G2R1 To—Time (days) for Group 2—[crew1;2]
From A2-1 A2-2 A2-3 A2-4 A2-5 A2-6 A2-7 A2-8 A2-9 A2-10 A2-11 A2-12 A2-13

A2-1 7.71;6.75 1.06;1.55 1.06;1.55 1.06;1.55 1.06;1.55 1.11;1.59 1.11;1.59 1.11;1.59 1.13;1.61 1.16;1.64 1.11;1.59 1.17;1.64 1.17;1.64
A2-2 1.06;1.55 9.14;8.00 0.00;0.00 1.06;1.56 1.06;1.56 1.11;1.59 1.16;1.64 1.11;1.59 1.11;1.59 1.11;1.59 1.11;1.59 1.17;1.65 1.17;1.65
A2-3 1.06;1.55 0.00;0.00 7.75;6.89 1.06;1.56 1.06;1.56 1.11;1.59 1.16;1.64 1.11;1.59 1.11;1.59 1.11;1.59 1.11;1.59 1.17;1.65 1.17;1.65
A2-4 1.06;1.55 1.06;1.56 1.06;1.56 10.86;9.50 0.00;0.00 1.04;1.54 1.10;1.58 1.04;1.54 1.04;1.54 1.10;1.58 1.04;1.54 1.11;1.59 1.11;1.59
A2-5 1.06;1.55 1.06;1.56 1.06;1.56 0.00;0.00 10.29;9.00 1.04;1.54 1.10;1.58 1.04;1.54 1.04;1.54 1.10;1.58 1.04;1.54 1.11;1.59 1.11;1.59
A2-6 1.11;1.59 1.11;1.59 1.11;1.59 1.04;1.54 1.04;1.54 8.50;7.56 1.04;1.53 0.00;0.00 0.00;0.00 1.04;1.53 0.00;0.00 1.04;1.54 1.04;1.54
A2-7 1.11;1.59 1.16;1.64 1.16;1.64 1.10;1.58 1.10;1.58 1.07;1.53 6.25;5.56 1.04;1.53 1.04;1.53 1.09;1.58 1.04;1.53 1.10;1.58 1.10;1.58
A2-8 1.11;1.59 1.11;1.59 1.11;1.59 1.04;1.54 1.04;1.54 0.00;0.00 1.04;1.53 9.14;8.00 0.00;0.00 1.04;1.53 0.00;0.00 1.04;1.54 1.04;1.54
A2-9 1.13;1.61 1.11;1.59 1.11;1.59 1.04;1.54 1.04;1.54 0.00;0.00 1.04;1.53 0.00;0.00 7.71;6.75 1.04;1.53 0.00;0.00 1.04;1.54 1.04;1.54
A2-10 1.16;1.64 1.11;1.59 1.11;1.59 1.10;1.58 1.10;1.58 1.04;1.53 1.09;1.58 1.04;1.53 1.04;1.53 7.25;6.44 1.04;1.53 1.10;1.58 1.10;1.58
A2-11 1.11;1.59 1.11;1.59 1.11;1.59 1.04;1.54 1.04;1.54 0.00;0.00 1.04;1.53 0.00;0.00 0.00;0.00 1.04;1.53 8.25;7.73 1.04;1.54 1.04;1.54
A2-12 1.17;1.64 1.17;1.65 1.17;1.65 1.11;1.59 1.11;1.59 1.04;1.54 1.10;1.58 1.04;1.54 1.04;1.54 1.10;1.58 1.04;1.54 9.25;8.22 0.00;0.00
A2-13 1.17;1.64 1.17;1.65 1.17;1.65 1.11;1.59 1.11;1.59 1.04;1.54 1.10;1.58 1.04;1.54 1.04;1.54 1.10;1.58 1.04;1.54 0.00;0.00 10.00;8.57
D.-H. Tran et al.
 Table 3  Time of crews on group A3—Case 1
G3R1 To—Time (days) for Group 3—[crew1;2]
From A3-1 A3-2 A3-3 A3-4 A3-5 A3-6 A3-7 A3-8 A3-9 A3-10 A3-11 A3-12 A3-13 A3-14

A3-1 1.16;1.39 0.00;0.00 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.04;0.04 0.04;0.04 0.04;0.04 0.04;0.04 0.04;0.04
A3-2 0.00;0.00 0.90;1.20 0.00;0.00 0.00;0.00 0.00;0.00 0.00;0.00 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02
A3-3 0.02;0.02 0.00;0.00 1.15;1.38 0.00;0.00 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.04;0.04 0.04;0.04 0.02;0.02 0.04;0.04 0.02;0.02 0.04;0.04 0.04;0.04 0.04;0.04
A3-4 0.02;0.02 0.00;0.00 0.00;0.00 0.84;1.13 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.04;0.04 0.04;0.04 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.04;0.04 0.04;0.04 0.05;0.04
A3-5 0.02;0.02 0.00;0.00 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 1.00;1.20 0.00;0.00 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.00;0.00 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02
A3-6 0.02;0.02 0.00;0.00 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.00;0.00 0.72;0.95 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.00;0.00 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02
A3-7 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.04;0.04 0.04;0.04 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.68;0.91 0.00;0.00 0.00;0.00 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02
Optimizing non-unit repetitive project resource and scheduling…

A3-8 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.04;0.04 0.04;0.04 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.00;0.00 0.87;1.04 0.00;0.00 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02
A3-9 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.00;0.00 0.00;0.00 0.00;0.00 0.00;0.00 1.16;1.39 0.00;0.00 0.00;0.00 0.00;0.00 0.00;0.00 0.00;0.00
A3-10 0.04;0.04 0.02;0.02 0.04;0.04 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.00;0.00 0.85;1.13 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02
A3-11 0.04;0.04 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.00;0.00 0.02;0.02 1.10;1.32 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02
A3-12 0.04;0.04 0.02;0.02 0.04;0.04 0.04;0.04 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.00;0.00 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.88;1.06 0.00;0.00 0.00;0.00
A3-13 0.04;0.04 0.02;0.02 0.04;0.04 0.04;0.04 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.00;0.00 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.00;0.00 0.81;1.08 0.00;0.00
A3-14 0.04;0.04 0.02;0.02 0.04;0.04 0.05;0.04 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.00;0.00 0.02;0.02 0.02;0.02 0.00;0.00 0.00;0.00 1.06;1.28

13
 D.-H. Tran et al.

Tables 1, 2 and 3 present the activity times and the times for moving resources
for the sewer project. In these tables, the times from activity A to activity A are the
times for which the crews are performing activity A. For example, in Table 1, the
durations “from A1-2 to A1-2” are 2.44 and 3.00 (days), so crews 1 and 2 respec-
tively spend those times on activity A1-2.
The second case study is a non-unit repetitive piping project with activity
sequence constraints that are imposed by a project manager to comply with site con-
ditions and technical requirements. Figure 5 shows the information about the groups
of activities, including the logical relationships among activities and the constraints
on their sequences.
For instance, (group A3 (manhole) comprises six activities with constraint (4-3-
5). Accordingly, the selected crew performs a fixed activity sequence from unit 4 to
unit 3 to unit 5. Tables 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 present the durations of activities and times of
crew movements in the piping project.

4.1 Optimization result of FABC‑NRP

FABC-NRP minimizes the project duration as the objective function while con-
sidering logical relationships among activities, and constraints on the sequence of

Group A1-2crews Group A2-2crews Group A3-2crews Group A4-2crews Group A5-3crews
Excavation Timber piling Manhole Pipe laying Backfilling
A1-1 A2-1 A3-1 A4-1 A5-1
A1-2 A2-2 A3-2 A4-2 A5-2
A1-3 A2-3 A3-3 A4-3 A5-3
A1-4 A3-4 A4-4 A5-4
A1-5 A2-4 A3-5 A4-5 A5-5
A1-6 A3-6 A5-6
Constraints of
work sequences
1 4 4 3 5 1 3; 5 6

Fig. 5  Activities relationship in piping project—case 2

Table 4  Time of crews on group Time (days) for Group 1—[crew1;2]

A1—Case 2
From-To A1-1 A1-2 A1-3 A1-4 A1-5 A1-6

A1-1 7;8 1.5;1.5 1;1 1.5;1.5 1;1 0.5;0.5

A1-2 1.5;1.5 9;10 1;1 1;1 1;1 1;1
A1-3 1;1 1;1 8;9 1;1 1;1 1;1
A1-4 1.5;1.5 1;1 1;1 10;11 1;1 0.5;0.5
A1-5 1;1 1;1 1;1 1;1 10;12 1;1
A1-6 0.5;0.5 1;1 1;1 0.5;0.5 1;1 8;9

13
Optimizing non-unit repetitive project resource and scheduling…

Table 5  Time of crews on group Time (days) for Group 2—[crew1;2]

A2—Case 2
From-To A2-1 A2-2 A2-3 A2-5

A2-1 2;3 0.5;0.5 0.3;0.3 0.4;0.4

A2-2 0.5;0.5 3;4 0.3;0.3 0.5;0.5
A2-3 0.3;0.3 0.3;0.3 3;5 0.1;0.1
A2-5 0.4;0.4 0.5;0.5 0.1;0.1 3;4

activities in each group. In the preliminary researches, a trial-and-error strategy, was

used to obtain suitable parameters of the FABC optimizer in the case study as shown

Table 6  Time of crews on group Time (days) for Group 3—[crew1;2]

A3—Case 2
From-To A3-1 A3-2 A3-3 A3-4 A3-5 A3-6

A3-1 4;5 1.5;1.5 1;1 1.5;1.5 1;1 0.5;0.5

A3-2 1.5;1.5 3;3 1;1 1;1 1;1 1;1
A3-3 1;1 1;1 2;5 1;1 1;1 1;1
A3-4 1.5;1.5 1;1 1;1 5;4 1;1 0.5;0.5
A3-5 1;1 1;1 1;1 1;1 2;3 1;1
A3-6 0.5;0.5 1;1 1;1 0.5;0.5 1;1 3;4

Table 7  Time of crews on group Time (days) for Group 4—[crew1;2]

A4—Case 2
From-To A4-1 A4-2 A4-3 A4-4 A4-5

A4-1 2;3 0.5;0.5 1;1 0.4;0.4 1;1

A4-2 0.5;0.5 3;4 1;1 0.5;0.5 0.5;0.5
A4-3 1;1 1;1 5;5 1;1 1;1
A4-4 0.4;0.4 0.5;0.5 1;1 6;7 1.2;1.2
A4-5 1;1 0.5;0.5 1;1 1.2;1.2 3;4

Table 8  Time of crews on group A5—Case 2

Time (days) for Group 5—[crew1;2;3]
From-To A5-1 A5-2 A5-3 A5-4 A5-5 A5-6

A5-1 4;5;6 1;1;1 1;1;1 1.5;1.5;1.5 0.7;0.7;0.7 0.5;0.5;0.5

A5-2 1;1;1 3;4;5 0.5;0.5;0.5 0.4;0.4;0.4 0.7;0.7;0.7 0.5;0.5;0.5
A5-3 1;1;1 0.5;0.5;0.5 2;3;4 0.5;0.5;0.5 0.8;0.8;0.8 0.6;0.6;0.6
A5-4 1.5;1.5;1.5 0.4;0.4;0.4 0.5;0.5;0.5 4;4;5 1;1;1 0.5;0.5;0.5
A5-5 0.7;0.7;0.7 0.7;0.7;0.7 0.8;0.8;0.8 1;1;1 5;6;7 1;1;1
A5-6 0.5;0.5;0.5 0.5;0.5;0.5 0.6;0.6;0.6 0.5;0.5;0.5 1;1;1 3;3;5

13
 D.-H. Tran et al.

Table 9  Parameter settings for Input parameters Notation Setting

the FABC-NRP
Case 1 Case 2

Number of decision variables D 82 54

Population size NP 150 120
Limit l 20 20
Period clustering m 10 10
Maximum generation Gmax 150 150

Fig. 6  Best scheduling results found by FABC-NRP in case 1

in Table 9, based on values that have been proposed in the literature (Cai et al. 2011;
Karaboga and Basturk 2008). For optimization problems with high dimensions,
large population sizes will be advantageous and vice versa.
To avoid randomness of results, 30 independent experimental runs were per-
formed. Figure 6 shows the best scheduling result that was obtained using an FABC-
NRP-based method in optimizing the sewer project case study with a total project
duration of 60.16 days. The schedule includes not only the sequences and the start-
ing and finishing times of all activities but also the crew assignment profile.
The lines in Fig. 6 represent the resource chain times on the project site from
start to finish. The horizontal segments of each line represent the working times
of a crew that is performing the activities in a group thereof, whereas the sloping
segments represent the times taken to move resources) between activities or into
or out of the project site. The symbols in Fig. 6 indicate crew movement paths.
The text (such as G3R2) at the beginning of a path states the start time and identi-
fies it in the schedule.

13
Optimizing non-unit repetitive project resource and scheduling…

Fig. 7  Best scheduling results found by FABC-NRP in case 2

Fig. 8  Best imposed constraint scheduling results found by FABC-NRP in case 2

The results that are obtained for the sewer project reveal that the proposed
model met the research goals and objectives. The model minimized the project
duration by simultaneously optimizing the assigned crew and the sequence of
activities. The model yielded schedules that were better than the optimal sched-
ules that were provided by Huang and Sun (2006), and the project duration was
68.54 days. Therefore, the proposed FABC is an efficient algorithm for schedul-
ing a non-unit repetitive project.
Figure 7 shows the best scheduling result in the second case that was achieved
using the proposed model with a total project duration of 43 days. Figure 8 pre-
sents the best scheduling result with imposed constraints and a total project
duration of 47 days. The implication for the scheduling of a non-unit repetitive
project is that the imposition of more constraints results in a longer project dura-
tion. Project scheduling should be optimized subject to the imposed constraints
to produce a reliable schedule.

13
 D.-H. Tran et al.

Table 10  Result comparison Performance GA PSO DE ABC FABC-NRP

across various algorithms measurement (this study)

Optimal value—Case 1 (days)

Worst 65.720 65.540 66.040 63.950 63.550
Avg. 63.657 63.014 63.267 62.020 61.431
Std. 1.635 1.386 1.586 1.193 1.076
Optimal value—Case 2 (days)
Best 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 43.0
Worst 48.0 48.0 46.0 45.0 44.0
Avg. 45.17 44.90 44.20 44.00 43.60
Std. 1.578 1.449 1.033 0.816 0.516

The optimal model of FABC can integrate building information modelling

(BIM)—3D to visualize the units or locations of various groups of activities.
For example, the floor plans and the facade elevations of a high-rise building can
be divided into several units or one unit. The formwork and pouring of concrete
are repeated on the units. The painting and grass installed tasks are repeated on
the units of facade elevations. Therefore, the model optimizes the sequence of
activities, according to the units (locations) on the BIM platform.

4.2 Analysis and comparison of results

The proposed FABC-NRP model was compared with widely used algorithms,
including the Genetic Algorithm (GA) (Haupt and Ellen Haupt 2004), Parti-
cle Swarm Optimization (PSO) (Clerc 2006) DE (Price et  al. 2005), and ABC
(Karaboga and Basturk 2008). To ensure fairness of comparison, two general fac-
tors—the population size and the maximum number of generations are set the same
for all compared algorithms in both cases as shown in Table 9. The following param-
eters were used in all experiments.
In GA, the mutant constant was set to 0.5 and the crossover probability was set
to 0.9. In PSO, the inertia factor w was set in the range 0.3–0.7 and the two learn-
ing factors, c1 and c2, were both set to 2.05. In DE, mutant factor F and crossover
probability Cr were set to 0.5 and 0.8, respectively. The limit factor, which is the
ABC control parameter, was set at 20. The stability and accuracy of all algorithms
were evaluated in terms of the best result found (best), average result (avg.), standard
deviation (std.), and worst result (worst) over 30 independent runs (Table 10).
The ability of the algorithm to searching for the optimal solution is described
in terms of the best and worst results. The solution quality is specified by two
additional characteristics—average and standard deviation. Figure  9 plots the con-
vergence histories (best project duration corresponding to the number of genera-
tions) in case study 1. Figure 9 also indicates that the FABC-NRP model converges
a little faster (requires fewer iterations to find the optimal solution) than the other

13
Optimizing non-unit repetitive project resource and scheduling…

Fig. 9  Convergence histories for the algorithms in case 1

benchmark algorithms, because the fuzzy clustering technique efficiently uses popu-
lation information enhancing convergence efficiency.
The proposed model was competitive in terms of both accuracy and stability,
which pertains to the both case studies. FABC-NRP yielded the shortest project
duration with a mean of 61.431 days and a standard deviation of 1.076 days in the
first case and obtained the lowest fitness solution with a mean value of 43.6 and the
smallest mean deviation value of 0.516 in the second case (Table 10).
To examine the effect of period clustering m on the performance of FABC, a
series of experimental runs were performed. All setting parameters are fixed as
described in the Table  9. The period clustering parameter m was set as m = 5, 10,
15, 20. For each m, thirty independent runs were conducted to obtain the results.
As shown in Table  11 that too small or high period clustering can lead to trap in
local optimum. Consequently, the model gains a small success rate. According to the
experimental results in Table 11, the parameter m is suggested within the interval [5,
15] for the case study. In this work, m = 10 is adopted.

4.3 Statistical test

The superiority of FABC over the other approaches is evaluated by performing a

hypothesis test, which considered only FABC and the best of the other approaches.
A one-tailed t test with equal sample sizes was used as follows.
Hypothesis testing between the FABC and the standard ABC in terms of accu-
racy (Case 1)

• H0: The accuracy of the FABC algorithm equals that of the ABC algorithm.

13


13
Table 11  Sensitive analyses for parameter m
Tuning parameters Values Success rate (%) Best Worst Avg. Std.
Case 1 Case 2 Case 1 Case 2 Case 1 Case 2 Case 1 Case 2 Case 1 Case 2

Period clustering (m) 5 26.67 30.00 60.16 43.0 63.55 45.0 61.98 44.1 1.763 0.812
10 50.00 60.00 60.16 43.0 63.55 44.0 61.43 43.6 1.076 0.516
15 33.33 33.33 60.16 43.0 64.90 45.0 62.05 44.5 1.892 1.012
20 20.00 26.67 60.16 43.0 66.43 46.0 62.76 44.7 1.981 2.03
D.-H. Tran et al.
Optimizing non-unit repetitive project resource and scheduling…

• H1: The FABC algorithm is significantly more accurate than the ABC algo-
rithm.

FABC: s1 = 1.076; ABC: s1 = 1.193; n1 = n2 = n = 30;

(2 )2 ( )2
s1 ∕n1 + s22 ∕n2 1.0762 ∕30 + 1.1932 ∕30
v= 2 2 2
= 2 2
= 57.40 (closest to 57)
(s1 ∕n1 ) (s22 ∕n2 ) (1.0762 ∕30) (1.1932 ∕30)
n −1
+ n −1 30−1
+ 30−1
1 2

Critical value: with 𝛼 = 0.05; 𝜈 = 57; → t𝛼;𝜈 = t0.05;57 = 1.672

� �
x̄ 1 − x̄ 2 (61.431 − 62.020)
Statistical test: t = � =√
s21 ∕n1 + s22 ∕n2 1.0672 ∕30 + 1.1932 ∕30

= −2.009 < −1.672 = −t0.05;57

where n is the sample size (number of experimental runs); ν is the number of

degrees of freedom in the test, and s21 and s22 are the unbiased estimators of the vari-
ances of the results obtained using the two methods (FABC and ABC). The differ-
ence between the two means x̄ 1 and x̄ 2 (average) is the standard error.
H0 is rejected because t = −2.009 < −1.672 = −t0.05;57 , indicating that the pro-
posed FABC is statistically superior to the standard ABC with respect to accu-
racy. Therefore, FABC is one of the most effective algorithms for solving the
scheduling problem for a non-unit repetitive project.

5 Conclusions

This work presented a flexible model to optimize resource assignment and a

scheduling method for non-unit repetitive projects. It makes the following con-
tributions. (1) It provides a scheduling that automatically calculates the total
duration of non-unit repetitive projects; (2) it introduces a hybrid optimization
algorithm that integrates fuzzy c-means clustering into the original artificial bee
colony (ABC) algorithm to balance the exploration and exploitation phases of the
optimization process; and (3) it facilitates resource assignment and scheduling.
The proposed method is easy to understand and use and convenient to imple-
ment, and it quickly yields accurate results. Two construction projects were con-
sidered to validate the comparative effectiveness of the FABC-NRP model in
scheduling repetitive projects. The performance of FABC-NRP was more robust
than that of other considered algorithms.
The proposed model provided the shortest average project duration with the
lowest standard deviation within limit on the number of generations of 150 in
both case studies. Therefore, the proposed model provided stable, highly accurate
results. Subsequently, the outcomes can help project managers in making optimal
decisions concerning the execution of a repetitive construction project.

13
 D.-H. Tran et al.

The proposed method is applicable to different project delivery methods such

as design-build, design-bid-build, and construction management at risk. In the
design-build method, (some design is carried out while construction is under-
way), the sequence of activities in a group is flexible. In the design-bid-build
method, some constraints are imposed on the schedule as a result of the design
phase.
In all cases, the proposed method can be used to optimize the schedule. However,
it neglects the uncertainty that is associated with rework due to design/construction
interaction. Therefore, further research should focus on developing an optimization
model that can be deal with stochastic data in design-build delivery method of non-
unit projects.
FABC is easily modifiable to handle many cases of single-objective optimiza-
tion, as in scheduling and resource problems in the construction management field.
Furthermore, non-unit repetitive project problems in several objective contexts with
multiple objectives of total project cost minimization, work continuity, and quality
maximization, are frequently encountered. Tradeoffs must be made among these
objectives to improve overall project performance.
Further work is required to solve these problems so that FABC can be used to
solve complicated non-repetitive project problems that involve multi-objective opti-
mizations. Therefore, the scheduling module must be modified to handle multiple
objectives. Moreover, the development of a multi-objective model that is based on
the current single-objective FABC model may represent an interesting direction for
future research.

Funding  This research is funded by Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology - VNU-HCM under
Grant number T-KTXD-2019-15.

Compliance with ethical standards 

Conflict of interest  We declare that we have no any competing financial, professional, or personal interests
from other parties.

References
Aderhold A, Diwold K, Scheidler A, Middendorf M (2010) Artificial bee colony optimization: a new
selection scheme and its performance. In: González JR, Pelta DA, Cruz C, Terrazas G, Krasnogor
N (eds) Nature inspired cooperative strategies for optimization (NICSO 2010). Springer, Berlin, pp
283–294
Agrama FA (2014) Multi-objective genetic optimization for scheduling a multi-storey building. Autom
Constr 44:119–128
Al Sarraj ZM (1990) Formal development of line-of-balance technique. J Constr Eng Manag
116(4):689–704
Andrade LACG, Cunha CB (2015) An ABC heuristic for optimizing moveable ambulance station loca-
tion and vehicle repositioning for the city of São Paulo. Int Trans Oper Res 22(3):473–501
Anuar S, Selamat A, Sallehuddin R (2016) A modified scout bee for artificial bee colony algorithm and
its performance on optimization problems. J King Saud Univ Comput Inf Sci 28(4):395–406

13
Optimizing non-unit repetitive project resource and scheduling…

Bakry I, Moselhi O, Zayed T (2014) Optimized acceleration of repetitive construction projects. Autom
Constr 39:145–151
Bolaji AL, Khader AT, Al-Betar MA, Awadallah MA (2013) Artificial bee colony algorithm, its variants
and applications: a survey. J Theor Appl Inf Technol 47(2):434–459
Cai Z, Gong W, Ling CX, Zhang H (2011) A clustering-based differential evolution for global optimiza-
tion☆. Appl Soft Comput 11(1):1363–1379
Chaurasia SN, Sundar S, Singh A (2017) Hybrid metaheuristic approaches for the single machine total
stepwise tardiness problem with release dates. Oper Res Int J 17(1):275–295
Cheng M-Y, Tran D-H, Yu-Wei W (2014) Using a fuzzy clustering chaotic-based differential evolu-
tion with serial method to solve resource-constrained project scheduling problems. Autom Constr
37:88–97
Chrzanowski EN, Johnston DW (1986) Application of linear scheduling. J Constr Eng Manag
112(4):476–491
Clerc M (2006) Particle swarm optimization. ISTE Ltd, London
Cui L, Li G, Zhu Z, Lin Q, Wen Z, Lu N, Wong K-C, Chen J (2017) A novel artificial bee colony algo-
rithm with an adaptive population size for numerical function optimization. Inf Sci 414(Supplement
C):53–67
David A, Albulak MZ (1986) Line-of-balance scheduling in pavement construction. J Constr Eng Manag
112(3):411–424
Deb K (2005) A population-based algorithm-generator for real-parameter optimization. Soft Comput
9(4):236–253
El-Rayes K, Moselhi O (1998) Resource-driven scheduling of repetitive activities. Constr Manag Econ
16(4):433–446
Fan S-L, Tserng HP (2006) Object-oriented scheduling for repetitive projects with soft logics. J Constr
Eng Manag 132(1):35–48
Fan S-L, Sun K-S, Wang Y-R (2012) GA optimization model for repetitive projects with soft logic.
Autom Constr 21(Supplement C):253–261
Harris RB, Ioannou PG (1998) Scheduling projects with repeating activities. J Constr Eng Manag
124(4):269–278
Haupt RL, Ellen Haupt S (2004) Practical genetic algorithms. Wiley, Hoboken
Hsie M, Ching-Jung Chang I, Yang T, Huang C-Y (2009) Resource-constrained scheduling for continu-
ous repetitive projects with time-based production units. Autom Constr 18(7):942–949
Huang R-y, Sun K-S (2005) System development for non-unit based repetitive project scheduling. Autom
Constr 14(5):650–665
Huang R-y, Sun K-S (2006) Non-unit-based planning and scheduling of repetitive construction projects. J
Constr Eng Manag 132(6):585–597
Huang R-y, Sun K-S (2009) A GA optimization model for workgroup-based repetitive scheduling
(WoRSM). Adv Eng Softw 40(3):212–228
Huang Y, Zou X, Zhang L (2016) Genetic algorithm-based method for the deadline problem in repetitive
construction projects considering soft logic. J Manag Eng 32(4):04016002
Ioannou PG, Yang IT (2016) Repetitive scheduling method: requirements, modeling, and implementa-
tion. J Constr Eng Manag 142(5):04016002
Ipsilandis PG (2006) Multiobjective optimization in linear repetitive project scheduling. Oper Res Int J
6(3):255
Kang F, Li J (2016) Artificial bee colony algorithm optimized support vector regression for system reli-
ability analysis of slopes. J Comput Civ Eng 30(3):04015040
Kang F, Li J, Ma Z (2011) Rosenbrock artificial bee colony algorithm for accurate global optimization of
numerical functions. Inf Sci 181(16):3508–3531
Karaboga D, Akay B (2009) A comparative study of artificial bee colony algorithm. Appl Math Comput
214(1):108–132
Karaboga D, Basturk B (2007) A powerful and efficient algorithm for numerical function optimization:
artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm. J Global Optim 39(3):459–471
Karaboga D, Basturk B (2008) On the performance of artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm. Appl Soft
Comput 8(1):687–697
Karaboga D, Gorkemli B, Ozturk C, Karaboga N (2014) A comprehensive survey: artificial bee colony
(ABC) algorithm and applications. Artif Intell Rev 42(1):21–57
Khalied H, Khaled E-R (2006) Optimal planning and scheduling for repetitive construction projects. J
Manag Eng 22(1):11–19

13
 D.-H. Tran et al.

Kiran MS, Gündüz M (2012) A novel artificial bee colony-based algorithm for solving the numerical
optimization problems. Int J Innov Comput Inf Control 8(9):6107–6122
Kıran MS, Gündüz M (2013) A recombination-based hybridization of particle swarm optimization
and artificial bee colony algorithm for continuous optimization problems. Appl Soft Comput
13(4):2188–2203
Kris G Mattila, Amy P (2003) Comparison of linear scheduling model and repetitive scheduling method.
J Constr Eng Manag 129(1):56–64
Kwedlo W (2011) A clustering method combining differential evolution with the K-means algorithm.
Pattern Recogn Lett 32(12):1613–1621
Lee W-P, Cai W-T (2011) A novel artificial bee colony algorithm with diversity strategy. In: Seventh
international conference on natural computation (ICNC): IEEE, pp 1441–44
Li X, Yin M (2011) Hybrid differential evolution with biogeography-based optimization for design of a
reconfigurable antenna array with discrete phase shifters. Int J Antennas Propag 2011:12
Liu S-S, Wang C-J (2012) Optimizing linear project scheduling with multi-skilled crews. Autom Constr
24:16–23
Long LD, Ohsato A (2009) A genetic algorithm-based method for scheduling repetitive construction pro-
jects. Autom Constr 18(4):499–511
Luo J, Wang Q, Xiao X (2013) A modified artificial bee colony algorithm based on converge-onlookers
approach for global optimization. Appl Math Comput 219(20):10253–10262
Maravas A, Pantouvakis J-P (2011) Fuzzy repetitive scheduling method for projects with repeating activi-
ties. J Constr Eng Manag 137(7):561–564
Mathew J, Paul B, Dileeplal J, Tinjumol M (2016) Multi objective optimization for scheduling repetitive
projects using GA. Procedia Technol 25:1072–1079
Price KV, Storn RM, Lampinen JA (2005) Differential evolution a practical approach to global optimiza-
tion. Springer, Berlin
Singh A (2009) An artificial bee colony algorithm for the leaf-constrained minimum spanning tree prob-
lem. Appl Soft Comput 9(2):625–631
Srisuwanrat C, Ioannou PG (2007) Optimal scheduling of probabilistic repetitive projects using com-
pleted unit and genetic algorithms. In: 2007 winter simulation conference, pp 2151–58
Suhail SA, Neale RH (1994) CPM/LOB: new methodology to integrate CPM and line of balance. J Con-
str Eng Manag 120(3):667–684
Sundar S, Singh A (2012) A hybrid heuristic for the set covering problem. Oper Res Int J 12(3):345–365
Thabet WY, Beliveau YJ (1994) HVLS: horizontal and vertical logic scheduling for multistory projects. J
Constr Eng Manag 120(4):875–892
Tran D-H, Cheng M-Y, Cao M-T (2016) Solving resource-constrained project scheduling problems using
hybrid artificial bee colony with differential evolution. J Comput Civ Eng 30(4):04015065
Tran D-H, Chou J-S, Luong D-L (2019) Multi-objective symbiotic organisms optimization for making
time-cost tradeoffs in repetitive project scheduling problem. J Civ Eng Manag 25(4):322–339
Vanhoucke M (2006) Work continuity constraints in project scheduling. J Constr Eng Manag
132(1):14–25
Verma BK, Kumar D (2013) A review on artificial bee colony algorithm. Int J Eng Technol 2(3):12
Wang Y-J, Zhang J-S, Zhang G-Y (2007) A dynamic clustering based differential evolution algorithm for
global optimization. Eur J Oper Res 183(1):56–73
Whiteman WE, Irvvig HG (1988) Disturbance scheduling technique for managing renovation work. J
Constr Eng Manag 114(2):191–213
Xiang W-L, An M-Q (2013) An efficient and robust artificial bee colony algorithm for numerical optimi-
zation. Comput Oper Res 40(5):1256–1265
Zhang L-H (2015) Repetitive project scheduling: theory and methods. Elsevier, Amsterdam
Zou W, Zhu Y, Chen H, Sui X (2010) A clustering approach using cooperative artificial bee colony algo-
rithm. Discrete Dyn Nat Soc 2010:16

Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

13
Optimizing non-unit repetitive project resource and scheduling…

Affiliations

Duc‑Hoc Tran1   · Jui‑Sheng Chou2 · Duc‑Long Luong1

Jui‑Sheng Chou
jschou@mail.ntust.edu.tw
Duc‑Long Luong
luongduclong@hcmut.edu.vn
1
Department of Construction Engineering and Management, Ho Chi Minh City University
of Technology, Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh, City (VNU-HCM), 268 Ly Thuong
Kiet Street, District 10, Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam
2
Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science
and Technology, 43, Sec. 4, Keelung Rd., Taipei, Taiwan

13