Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Efficient Repetitive Scheduling for

High-Rise Construction
Tarek Hegazy

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Dist ribut ed Scheduling Model for Infrast ruct ure Net works
Ahmed Elhakeem

EXPECT ED LEAN EFFECT S OF ADVANCED HIGH-RISE FORMWORK SYST EMS

Farook Hamzeh

Opt imizing Resource Ut ilizat ion during t he Recovery of Civil Infrast ruct ure Syst ems
Ahmed Senouci, Khaled El-rayes, Hassan Al-derham
 Efficient Repetitive Scheduling for High-Rise Construction
Tarek Hegazy, M.ASCE1; and Ehab Kamarah2

Abstract: A new scheduling and cost optimization model for high-rise construction is presented in this paper. The model has been
formulated with a unique representation of the activities that form the building’s structural core, which need to be dealt with carefully to
avoid scheduling errors. In addition, the model has been formulated incorporating: 共1兲 the logical relationships within each floor and
among floors of varying sizes; 共2兲 work continuity and crew synchronization; 共3兲 optional estimates and seasonal productivity factors; 共4兲
prespecified deadline, work interruptions, and resource constraints; and 共5兲 a genetic algorithms-based cost optimization that determines
the combination of construction methods, number of crews, and work interruptions that meet schedule constraints. A computer prototype
was then developed to demonstrate the model’s usefulness on a case study high-rise project. The model is useful to both researchers and
practitioners as it better suits the environment of high-rise construction, avoids scheduling errors, optimizes cost, and provides a legible
presentation of resource assignments and progress data.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9364共2008兲134:4共253兲
CE Database subject headings: Scheduling; Buildings, high-rise; Construction management; Computer applications.

Introduction balance 共LOB兲 method that allows the balancing of operations

While high-rise buildings have a large degree of repetition, their
scheduling needs are different from either linear projects such as
highways and pipelines, or nonlinear projects such as multiple
similar houses. This is because high-rise buildings involve repeti-
tive activities that advance within the building not in one direc-
tion but in two directions: A horizontal direction through the floor,
and a vertical direction from one floor to the next. The sequencing
of activities is, therefore, controlled by horizontal and vertical
constraints 共Thabet and Beliveau 1994兲.
Network-based methods for project scheduling, such as critical
path method 共CPM兲, exhibit major drawbacks when applied to
scheduling of repetitive projects, as widely reported in the litera-
ture 共Reda 1990; Suhail and Neal 1994; Hegazy and Wassef 2001;
Arditi et al. 2002兲. Network methods do not provide an efficient
structure for the representation of repetitive tasks. All tasks are
represented similarly, and there is no consideration of the location
of work in the schedule. Moreover, CPM methods are not suitable
for representing and/or balancing the production rates of repeti-
tive activities. As such, production rate imbalance can negatively
impact project performance.
In recognition of the CPM shortfalls for repetitive projects, a
number of methods have been developed since the early 1970s.
These techniques are known under the generic term, “linear
scheduling methods.” One common variation is the line-of-
1
Professor, Civil Engineering Dept., Univ. of Waterloo, Waterloo,
Ontario, N2L 3G1 Canada. E-mail: tarek@uwaterloo.ca
2
Ph.D. Student, Civil Engineering Dept., Univ. of Waterloo, Waterloo,
Ontario, N2L 3G1 Canada. E-mail: engគkamarah@hotmail.com
Note. Discussion open until September 1, 2008. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on May 17, 2007; approved on October 2, 2007. This
paper is part of the Journal of Construction Engineering and Manage-
ment, Vol. 134, No. 4, April 1, 2008. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9364/2008/4-
253–264/$25.00.
such that each activity is continuously performed from one unit to
the other 共Hegazy 2002兲. The major benefit of the LOB method-
ology is that it shows production rate and duration information in
an easily interpreted graphical format 共Yang and Ioannou 2004兲.
The LOB plot can show at a glance the progress speed of activi-
ties and allows the possibility to adjust the rates to meet produc-
tion targets, while maintaining the work continuity of resources.
Because repetitive scheduling techniques, such as LOB, as-
sume purely sequential activities, various efforts have attempted
to combine the benefits of the CPM and the LOB techniques.
Laramee 共1983兲 presented an algorithm combining the prece-
dence diagram method 共PDM兲 with linear planning for the sched-
uling of high-rise projects. One notable effort to combine CPM
and LOB was that of Suhail and Neale 共1994兲. Their procedure is
the first approach to put a formulation for determining the amount
of crews needed to meet a given deadline. Their formulation uses
the activities’ total float values to relax noncritical activities with-
out impacting the project completion date.
Thabet and Beliveau 共1997兲 proposed a knowledge-based sys-
tem for horizontal and vertical logic scheduling 共HVLS兲. They
described a structured procedure to incorporate horizontal and
vertical constraints to schedule repetitive work in high-rise build-
ing projects. In 1997, Thabet and Beliveau incorporated HVLS
into SCaRC, Thabet and Beliveau 共1997兲 a space-constrained
resource-constrained scheduling system for high-rise projects.
The system incorporates space-based scheduling techniques to
consider the problem of limited space availability during the gen-
eration of the schedules. The system also incorporates scheduling
procedures to account for resource constraints, as well as any
defined horizontal and vertical logic constraints, associated with
scheduling of high-rise buildings. Arditi et al. 共2002兲 developed a
computerized high-rise integrated scheduling system 共Chriss兲. It
integrates databases of the resource productivities with a
knowledge-based expert system to generate schedules for high-
rise building projects.
Several efforts attempted to optimize the construction cost of
repetitive projects 共Selinger 1980; Russell and Caselton 1988;

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2008 / 253

 Fig. 1. Sample portion of a manual high-rise schedule
Reda 1990; Moselhi and El-Rayes 1993; Senouci and Eldin
1996兲. None of the cost optimization models mentioned earlier,
except for the one developed by Senouci and Eldin 共1996兲, could
handle nonrepetitive activities. Additionally, the models did not
consider project deadline, crew synchronization, and resource
constraints, simultaneously. Moreover, the mathematical optimi-
zation techniques they used, such as linear and dynamic program-
ming, do not guarantee an optimum solution and may be trapped
in local optima 共Hegazy 2002兲.
With recent developments in artificial intelligence and com-
puter technology, a nontraditional optimization technique, genetic
algorithms 共GAs兲, emerged as an efficient method for searching
complex solution spaces for the global optimum. GAs work by
emulating the natural evolution in living organisms through a
process of crossover and mutation among a group of random
parent solutions and cycles of generating and testing offspring
solutions until the optimum solution is found. Although GAs have
already been applied successfully to numerous areas in civil en-
gineering and construction including time-cost trade-off analysis,
resource leveling, and resource allocation of nonrepetitive
projects, they have not been applied extensively to repetitive
projects, with the exception of Hegazy and Wassef 共2001兲. Their
254 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2008
model, however, did not address the unique characteristic of high-
rise buildings.
The proposed model in this paper combines the benefits of
CPM/LOB methodology, accounts for the unique characteristic of
high-rise construction, and utilizes GAs to determine the near
optimum construction cost for high-rise projects. The resulting
schedule defines the number of crews, method of construction,
and work interruption to use in each repetitive activity so that
work continuity is maintained, resource limitations are observed,
a prespecified deadline is met, and total cost 共direct and indirect兲
is minimized. Details of the model formulation and its implemen-
tation are presented, and an example application is used to dem-
onstrate its usefulness.
Current High-Rise Scheduling Practice
An effort was made to investigate existing scheduling practice
for high-rise scheduling to identify practical requirements and
specifications for the proposed model. Two large general contract-
ing firms specialized in high-rise construction in the Toronto
 Fig. 2. Simple approach to activity progress follow up
area were contacted and information was collected about their
scheduling practice through interviews with project managers.
This was combined with three months of regular site visits to
a high-rise construction site to investigate how the job was
progressing.
Each of the two investigated companies provided a copy of a
master schedule of one past project. The approach used by the
two general contractors to schedule their high-rise projects is
similar. They use an Excel spreadsheet as a media to represent the
building shape using cells 共example in Fig. 1兲. The vertical cells
represent the number of floors and the horizontal cells represent
the activities. Each activity is assigned six cells, three for the
planned start, finish, and duration, in addition to three for actual
start, finish, and duration. This enables the project managers to
update the schedule based on feedback from the site. For project
control purposes on site, one company uses a simple approach
where the building shape is drawn on one sheet per activity and a
color code is used to indicate if an activity on a certain floor is
completed on time or suffering a delay 共Fig. 2兲.
The activity times shown in Fig. 1 are manually determined,
assuming that each activity follows a specific cycle time to com-
plete the work in each floor. For example, the framing activity for
a floor has to be completed in a 4-day cycle. Similarly, the dry-
wall activity for each floor has to be completed in a 5-day cycle
and so on. By following this approach, the scheduler assumes that
each crew will move from one floor to the other without idle time,
given that the predecessor activities have followed their cycle
times.
While the schedule is simple and easy to read, it does not show
the interrelations among the activities, since it only uses numeri-
cal values, nor does it show the movement and the speed of
crews. Moreover, it is almost impossible to anticipate any delay
before its occurrence, and if the delay occurs, it is very difficult to
detect the reasons, the implications, or the appropriate corrective
action to rectify the problem. Additionally, the scheduling process
does not consider construction cost or the resource optimization.
Discussing these issues with the interviewed project managers
from the two companies, they expressed interest in using the
linear scheduling technique, provided that it hides its internal cal-
culations and produce simple legible reports similar to the ones
they use.
Proposed High-Rise Scheduling Model
The proposed high-rise scheduling model 共HRSM兲 is primarily a
scheduling tool, specifically designed for the environment of
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2008 / 255
Fig. 3. Case study project
high-rise buildings. HRSM calculates the number of crews
needed to meet a given deadline, under the following constraints:
共a兲 logical relationships within each floor 共horizontal constraints兲;
共b兲 logical relationships among floors 共vertical constraints兲; and
共c兲 work continuity constraints. For practicality, the model intro-
duces a unique representation of the activities that form the build-
ing’s structural core, which need to be dealt with carefully to
avoid scheduling errors. In addition, the model’s formulation al-
lows the decision maker to add additional work constraints that
reflect resource and/or work flow requirements. To facilitate the
automation of HRSM functions, a prototype program has been
developed using the VBA language of Microsoft Project software.
The scheduling formulation of HRSM involves five main as-
pects: 共1兲 CPM calculations for a single floor; 共2兲 defining the
building’s structural-core activities; 共3兲 crew synchronization to
meet project deadline; 共4兲 consideration of vertical constraints;
and 共5兲 introducing work interruption. These five aspects are de-
scribed in the following subsections in a case study project.
Case Study
A case study project of a 13-story building, including a basement
floor 共Fig. 3兲, is used for demonstration purposes. The data of the
24 activities of the project are listed in Table 1. The activities’
descriptions in Table 1 indicate the floors in which each activity
takes place 共in brackets兲. During the planning stage, several chal-
lenges and constraints are facing the general contractor. The fol-
lowing describe the constraints 共encountered in most high-rise
buildings兲 that need to be considered in the schedule:
共a兲 Project needs to be completed within 11 months 共220 work-
ing days兲 with total construction budget of $17 million. The
indirect cost is $5,000 per day. Liquidated damage is
$100,000 per day and early completion incentive is $10,000
per day.
共b兲 The productivity of working crews in outdoor activities 共ex-
cavation, foundations, structural framing, precast panels,
and windows installation兲 drops significantly in winter
months due to severe weather conditions. Assumed seasonal
Table 1. Case Study Data
Construction Construction Construction
Method 1 Method 2 Method 3
Activity description and Depends Cost Duration Cost Duration Cost Duration Maximum
No. applicable floors 共in brackets兲 on 共$ ⫻ 1,000兲 共days兲 共$ ⫻ 1,000兲 共days兲 共$ ⫻ 1,000兲 共days兲 crews
1 Mobilization 共1–1兲 — $30 5 — — — — 1
2 Excavation 共1–1兲 1 $450 20 $540 15 $600 12 1
3 Foundation 共1–1兲 2 $1,000 30 $1,100 27 $1,200 25 1
4 Columns and walls 共1–13兲 3 $100 3 $110 2 $120 2 1
5 Slab共1–13兲 4 $150 4 $175 3 $200 2 1
6 Shoring removal 共1–13兲 5 0 1 — — — — 1
7 Precast 共2–13兲 6 $75 5 $85 4 $95 3 1
8 Elevator mechanical room 共13兲 6 $210 5 $240 4 $270 3 1
9 Elevator shaft work 共1–13兲 8 $12 3 $15 2 $18 2 2
10 Windows 共2–13兲 7 $90 6 $100 4 $115 3 2
11 Stud 共2–13兲 10 $50 5 $60 4 $70 3 2
12 Rough plm and HVAC 共1–13兲 11 $90 6 $100 5 $115 4 3
13 Rough elect 共1–13兲 11 $75 4 $85 3 $95 3 3
14 Spray ceil 共1–13兲 12,13 $40 3 $45 2 $50 2 3
15 Board/tape 共2–13兲 14 $110 8 $120 7 $140 5 3
16 Tiling and flooring 共2–13兲 15 $75 5 $85 4 $100 3 3
17 Millwork/counter work 共2–13兲 16 $80 8 $90 7 $105 5 3
18 Carpet and hardwood 共2–13兲 15 $75 5 $90 4 $100 3 3
19 Plm and HVAC finishes 共2–13兲 17,18 $80 5 $95 4 $105 3 3
20 Elect finishes 共2–13兲 17,18 $80 5 $90 4 $100 3 3
21 Suite doors and frames 共2–13兲 9,19,20 $30 4 $40 3 $50 2 3
22 Painting 共2–13兲 21 $70 6 $80 5 $90 4 3
23 Const clean 共2–13兲 22 $5 3 $7 — — — —
24 Demobilization 共1–1兲 23 $5 — — — — — —

productivity factors are: Winter 共70%兲, fall 共90%兲, and
spring 共100%兲.
共c兲 The building’s shape changes from the 8th floor. The total
area is reduced to almost 50% of the lower floors’ area.
Therefore, the duration and cost to complete each activity
on the upper floors differs from the same activities on the
lower floors.
共d兲 The general contractor identified up to three alternative con-
struction methods for each activity with corresponding
duration and cost, as shown in Table 1. The first method
共columns 4 and 5兲 is to employ a subcontractor who offers a
cheap estimate but is slow 共duration is long兲. The second
method 共columns 6 and 7兲 can be a different subcontractor
or to pay the first subcontractor a premium to work overtime
to speed the activities. The third method is also much faster
and more expensive than the first two. In Table 1, the maxi-
mum number of subcontractor crews are also defined. While
the crews are the same for the three estimates, they can be
different.
共e兲 While it is possible to use a combination of fast and slow
subcontractors for different activities, the construction
method selected for one activity, however, might restrict the
selection of a construction method for another activity 共e.g.,
the subcontractor who is selected for electrical roughing
needs to be the same for electrical finishing兲. The list of
conditional methods related to the case study at hand is in
Table 2.
共f兲 Vertical constraints, where the execution of some activities
on some floors controls the execution of other activities on
different floors. The following three vertical constraints are
encountered in this project:
• The erection of precast panels cannot start on the 2nd floor
until the shoring removal is completed on the 7th floor to
allow the tower crane that carries the panels adequate space
to move without interfering with framing activities;
• The installation of windows cannot start on the 2nd floor
until the erection of precast panels is completed on the 7th
floor to avoid any interfering with precast panels’ erection
activity and prevent any damage to windows; and
• The drywalls installation on the 2nd floor cannot start until
the erection of windows is completed on the 4th floor to
allow the drywall installers to align studs with installed
windows’ frames.
共g兲 The installation of elevator rails, doors, and frames must
follow the installation of motors and equipment in the eleva-
tor mechanical rooms on the 13th floor. The installation of
motors and control equipment in the elevator mechanical
room on 13th floor cannot start before the slabs and shoring
removal are completed on that floor.
Schedule Development
The HRSM step-by-step procedure for schedule development is
explained as follows:
Step 1—CPM for a single repetitive floor: The CPM calcula-
tions use the activity’s duration estimates that correspond to the

256 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2008

Table 2. Conditional Construction Methods
IF THEN
1. If Method 1 is selected for columns Use Method 1 for slab and shoring removal
2. If Method 3 is selected for columns Use Method 3 for slab and shoring removal
3. If Method 1 is selected for slab Use Method 1 or 2 for columns and shoring removal
4. If Method 3 is selected for slab Use Method 3 for columns and shoring removal
5. If Method 1 is selected for shoring removal Use Method 1 or 2 for columns and slab
6. If Method 3 is selected for shoring removal Use Method 3 for columns and slab
7. If Method 1 is selected for elevator room Use Method 1 or 2 for elevator shaft
8. If Method 3 is selected for elevator room Use Method 3 for elevator shaft
9. If Method 1 is selected for studs Use Method 1 or 2 for board/tape
10. If Method 3 is selected for studs Use Method 3 for board/tape
11. If Method 3 is selected for plm and HVAC roughing Use Method 3 for plm and HVAC finishes
12. If Method 1 is selected for plm and HVAC roughing Use Method 1 or 2 for plm and HVAC finishes
13. If Method 1 is selected for electric roughing Use Method 1 or 2 for electric finishes
14. If Method 3 is selected for electric roughing Use Method 3 for elect finishes

method of construction being used for the activities. While the
cheapest option 共1兲 is used to calculate the initial CPM for a
typical floor, the other estimates are used in the cost optimization
model to crash project duration and/or to meet other constraints.
Step 2—Scheduling the structural-core activities: Among all
the activities that have to be executed in a high-rise building, the
erection of the structure sets the rhythm for the remaining trades.
Physically, the structural work has to be completed at any floor
before any other trade can start its own operation. As such, the
proposed model differentiates between two types of activities:
• Structural-core activities that form the physical high-rise struc-
ture; and
• Other activities that are not part of the structural-core, such as
electrical, plumbing, drywall, painting, etc.
In general, structural-core activities are the columns, beams,
and slabs. They have a specific relationship and have to proceed
in a specific manner to avoid scheduling errors. Fig. 4, for ex-
ample, shows an example repetitive schedule for structural core
activities along a five-story building. While the figure looks typi-
cal, it has a fatal problem with respect to a high-rise building. In
the figure, the columns of the 2nd floor are scheduled to start at
time Sc2 before the slab of the first floor is completed at time Fs1.
This violates the basic logical relationship that columns at the
upper floors require the slabs underneath to be completed.
To avoid this scheduling problem, in the present model,
structural-core activities are assigned one rate of production 共i.e.,
run in parallel兲. They are also considered as one group whose
duration is the sum of their individual durations, as follows:
n
dSCK = 兺
i=1
dijk 共1兲
where dSCk = duration for the structural core group at floor k,
n = number of structural core activities; and dijk = individual dura-
tions of the core activity i at floor k using construction method j.
Using this approach, the corrected schedule is shown in Fig. 5. As
shown, the structural-core group is dealt with as one activity that
uses one crew. The structural-core activity in an upper floor starts
only after the completion of the whole group at the lower floor. In
addition, as shown, the production rate RSCk of the structural-core
group can be calculated as follows:
1
Rsck = 共2兲
dsck
Dealing with the structural core activities in this manner prevents
scheduling errors that are specific to high-rise buildings.
Step 3—Crew synchronization to meet project deadline: After
the duration of a typical repetitive floor T1 is calculated using the
CPM method, the progress rate Ri, of each repetitive activity i,
that is required to meet the project deadline TL can be determined
as follows 共Hegazy 2002兲:

Fig. 4. Improper scheduling of structural-core activities Fig. 5. Corrected schedule for structural-core activities

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2008 / 257

 Fig. 6. Example vertical constraint
F−1
activity desired progress rate Ri = 共3兲
共TL − T1兲 + TFi
where TL = deadline duration of the project; T1 = CPM duration
of a typical repetitive floor, F = number of floors, and TFi = total
float of activity i. Using Eq. 共3兲, noncritical activities that have
floats are relaxed, proportional to their total float values 共Suhail
and Neale 1994兲. As explained, Eq. 共3兲 is a general formula that
considers CPM-based float calculations in the repetitive schedule
development and can be applied to both critical and noncritical
activities.
Once the required progress rates for all repetitive activities
have been calculated, the number of crews Cri, to be used in any
activity i to achieve its desired progress rate Ri, can be calculated,
taking into consideration work continuity and crew synchroniza-
tion, as follows 共Hegazy 2002兲:
number of crews Cri = round up 共Ri ⫻ dij兲
Cri 艋 maximum available crews 共4兲
where dijk = duration of activity i that a crew takes to finish
one floor without interruption 共depending on the method of con-
struction j used兲. Based on this calculation, the number of crews
calculated using Eq. 共4兲 is rounded to an integer value. In addi-
tion, the actual number of crews to be used must be limited to the
maximum available. Once the number of crews is determined, the
start and finish times of the crews working at different floors for
each activity can be calculated.
Step 4—Vertical constraints among floors: In this type of con-
straint, the execution of some activities on some floors controls
the execution of other activities on different floors. As a result, the
start of an activity on a particular floor may become dependent on
the controlling activity and its floor. An example of a vertical
constraint is the removal of formwork, which cannot be started on
any floor unless several slabs are completed on top. This gives the
concrete enough time to cure and reach its designed strength be-
fore the formwork to be removed, to avoid any damage to the
structural integrity of the building. HRSM is flexible enough to
accommodate any logical vertical constraints. It allows the sched-
uler to specify the constraints and the number of floors that should
be maintained as a vertical lag between the two activities, as
shown in Fig. 6.
Step 5—Designed work interruption: HRSM calculates the
start and finish times for each activity in all floors. The start and
finish times of each activity are functions of its duration, progress
258 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2008
Fig. 7. Effect of designed activity interruption
rate, crews, and interruption times. An interruption in HRSM is
defined as the delay of the start of an activity from its calculated
start based on its progress rate 共Rai兲. A typical situation in which
an interruption is beneficial is when one or more fast activities are
trapped between slower ones, as illustrated in Fig. 7. In this fig-
ure, an interruption 共Iik兲 is introduced to activity B at floor k. This
strategy makes it possible to start the first part of activity B earlier
than its original schedule. Accordingly, the following activity C is
possible to start earlier. The reduction of project duration
achieved through this strategy, however, comes at the expense of
work continuity. However, this loss in continuity may become
negligible when the number of floors is large and the interruptions
are not excessively applied.
Step 6—Cost optimization using genetic algorithms: The pre-
sented scheduling model is capable of generating schedules by
manually changing the options for construction methods, number
of crews, and the amount of interruptions at various floors. How-
ever, with the large number of possibilities, a cost optimization
model becomes necessary to identify the optimum combination of
construction methods, number of crews, and interruptions, to
meet schedule constraints. The optimization model is basically an
improvement of the model by Hegazy and Wassef 共2001兲 to con-
sider high-rise requirements. It involves the following setup:
Objective Function: minimize total cost, encompassing: 共1兲
direct cost; 共2兲 indirect cost; 共3兲 liquidated damages; and 共4兲 in-
centive for early completion.
Variables: The independent variables are activities’
construction-method indices, activities’ number of crews, and
work interruptions at the floors.
Constraints: Along with proper variable ranges, the following
constraints are observed:
 Fig. 8. General project information

1. Project duration should be less than or equal to the deadline
duration.
2. The number of crews is less than or equal to the number of
floors.
3. Structural core activities are properly scheduled.
4. Conditional construction methods are respected.
5. Vertical constraints are met.
HRSM Prototype
A computer prototype has been developed using the VBA lan-
guage of Microsoft Project software. The program incorporates a
user-friendly interface to facilitate the automation of HRSM func-
tions. Once development was complete, the case study data were
entered into the program’s main interface 共Fig. 8兲, which has six
subscreens to allow the user specifying data related to the:
Project, activities, conditional methods, structural core, vertical
constraints, and other constraints. In the general project data, the
program allows the user to specify monthly productivity factor, as
per the case study constraints to account for any factors that
hinder crews’ productivity, particularly weather conditions. The
values shown in Fig. 8 relate to the case study at hand.
Under the “activities” screen 共Fig. 9兲, the data in Table 1 re-
lated to the optional duration and cost estimates, as well as the
maximum number of crews that were entered. Details related to
nonstandard units 共all activities in floors 8 to 13 are 50% of a
standard floor兲 were also shown in the figure. Afterwards, the
conditional methods data in Table 2 were entered, as shown in
Fig. 10.
Among the 24 activities of the project, the concrete structural
core is represented by the following activities: 共1兲 columns and
walls; 共2兲 slabs; and 共3兲 shoring removal. These activities set the
rhythm for the other activities. The program recognizes the physi-
cal necessity of completing all structural activities on one floor
before starting any other activities on this floor or upper floors. It,

Fig. 9. Activities’ data

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2008 / 259

 Fig. 10. Conditional methods

Fig. 11. Structural-core activities

Fig. 12. Vertical constraints

260 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2008

 Fig. 13. Initial schedule

therefore, allows the user to specify the structural core activities, sults, is presented in Table 3. The solution quality index 共SQI兲 for
as shown in Fig. 11. In the next step, all the vertical constraints any number of cycles n is calculated as follows:
previously identified during the planning stage, part 共f兲 of the case
study constraints, were entered. As shown in Fig. 12, windows least cost of all processing cycles
SQIn = 共5兲
installation starts five floors after its predecessor activity 共i.e., least cost using n cycles
precast panels兲 is completed.
It is noted that the program was able to meet the deadline of
Once the data entry was completed and all the vertical and
220 days and budget of $17 million starting from experiment
other constraints were specified, the initial schedule and associ-
number 3 within a reasonable processing time. The least-cost so-
ated total cost were presented in a linear chart, as shown in Fig.
13. To make the diagram easy to read and interpret, the program
displays the LOB diagram of each individual path, one path at a
time, and uses color filled lines to show the movement of crews.
The structural core activities are scheduled as one group of ac-
tivities that has one productivity rate. This rate changes starting
from the 8th floor due to the reduction in the amount of work, as
explained previously. Since the project does not meet the deadline
or the budget limit, cost optimization becomes necessary. Activat-
ing this option, the user is prompted to specify the optimization
setup, as shown in Fig. 14, including the options to use and the
number of evolutionary cycles.

Results and Discussion

Once the optimization setup was entered, the GA evolutionary

algorithm proceeded to search for an optimum schedule that sat-
isfies all the project constraints and conditions. In the present case
study, several experiments were conducted to reach best result by
changing the number of processing cycles. The results of optimi-
zation experiments, along with the time taken to reach best re- Fig. 14. Optimization parameters

JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2008 / 261

Table 3. Optimization Results
Solution
Experiment Number Time Duration Cost quality index
No. of cycles 共sec兲 共days兲 共$兲 共SQI兲
1 100 19 214 17,262,200 0.933
2 200 31 213 17,163,550 0.939
3 300 43 212 16,942,450 0.951
4 400 55 215 16,817,170 0.958
5 500 66 220 16,573,980 0.972
6 1,000 126 219 16,292,670 0.989
7 2,000 241 220 16,109,480 1
8 3,000 352 220 16,109,480 1
9 4,000 471 220 16,109,480 1
10 5,000 481 220 16,109,480 1

lution is achieved in the 7th experiment using 2,000 cycles. This
solution has all the vertical constraints being satisfied: 共1兲 the
erection of precast panels started on the 2nd floor after the shoring
removal is completed on the 7th floor; and 共2兲 the installation of
windows started on the 2nd floor after the erection of precast
panels is completed on the 7th floor, as shown in Fig. 15.
Once a satisfactory schedule is obtained, a spreadsheet report
similar to the one used by the surveyed companies is produced.
The report not only shows the planned activity times but also
facilitates the recording of actual versus planned progress during
execution. The report takes the shape of the building with the
floor’s number on the vertical axis and the activity on the hori-
zontal axis 共Fig. 16兲. The report identifies many details about each
activity at all floors: Planned start and finish times, method of
construction, color-coded crew to the activity, and the actual start
and finish times to be filled during the construction. Such a report
is beneficial for construction companies since it shows the move-
ment of crews within the overall plan. It is very simple to under-
stand and use and enables the project manager to monitor the
project.
Based on its features and performance on the case study, the
HRSM has been demonstrated to have several interesting capa-
bilities, including:
• It considers the physical necessity of scheduling the structural-
core activities as one group of activities that has one rate of
production to avoid scheduling errors;
• It is flexible enough to accommodate any vertical constraints

Fig. 15. Best solution

262 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2008

 Fig. 16. High-rise schedule report
between floors, which are dictated by the work sequence
among the activities;
• It considers the impact of both weather conditions and learning
curve phenomena;
• It considers the variation of work amount among floors due to
architectural or regulatory requirements;
• It uses the GAs technique that proved capable of finding the
near-global solution within a reasonable time. Further research
is currently experimenting with other evolutionary techniques
to speed the solution for larger size problems; and
• It presents the schedule in a new easy-to-read graphical repre-
sentation. The degree of detail in the schedule was carefully
evaluated to avoid having a jungle of lines that are difficult to
understand. It displays the repetitive schedule of each indi-
vidual path, one path at a time, and uses colors to show the
movement of crews. In addition, it integrates with commercial
software 共Microsoft Project兲 to export the schedules in the
software’s customary bar chart format.
It should be noted that the model and the prototype are still far
from ideal, and research is still needed to address several practical
issues. Among the ongoing research areas are: Scheduling consid-
ering stochastic project aspects, dynamic reoptimization for
corrective action and project control during execution, impact
analysis of changed project requirements and delays, and the
planning of multiple repetitive projects.
JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2008 / 263
Conclusion
A practical model for scheduling and cost optimization of high-
rise construction is presented in this paper. The model’s objective
is to minimize total construction cost, while respecting the time
and resource constraints of a project. For flexibility, the model
allows each activity to have three alternative construction meth-
ods, from cheap and slow to fast and expensive. At the core of the
model is a scheduling algorithm for resource assignment along
the high-rise floors so that work continuity is maintained while
respecting the building’s vertical constraints and the specific na-
ture of the structural core activities. For cost optimization, the
model uses a nontraditional optimization technique, genetic algo-
rithms, which suits large-scale problems. Detailed model formu-
lation is presented in this paper along with its implementation in
a simple-to-use computer system. A realistic case study of a high-
rise building is used to show the system’s features, powerful
optimization capability, and the model’s new presentation of de-
tailed resource assignments and activities’ progress data.
References
Arditi, D., Sikangwan, P., and Tokdemir, O. 共2002兲. “Scheduling system
for high-rise building construction.” Constr. Manage. Econom., 20共4兲,
 353–364.
Hegazy, T. 共2002兲. “Computer-based construction project management.”
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Hegazy, T., and Wassef, N. 共2001兲. “Cost optimization in projects with
repetitive nonserial activities.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 127共3兲, 183–
191.
Laramee, J. 共1983兲. “A planning and scheduling system for high-rise
building construction.” MS thesis, Center for Building Studies, Con-
cordia Univ., Montreal, Canada.
Moselhi, O., and El-Rayes, K. 共1993兲. “Scheduling of repetitive projects
with cost optimization.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 119共4兲, 681–697.
Reda, R. 共1990兲. “RPM: Repetitive project modeling.” J. Constr. Eng.
Manage., 116共2兲, 316–330.
Russell, A., and Caselton, W. 共1988兲. “Extensions to linear scheduling
optimization.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 114共1兲, 36–52.
Selinger, S. 共1980兲. “Construction planning for linear projects.” J. Constr.
264 / JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT © ASCE / APRIL 2008
Div., 106共2兲, 195–205.
Senouci, A., and Eldin, N. 共1996兲. “A time-cost trade-off algorithm for
non-serial linear projects.” Can. J. Civ. Eng., 23, 134–149.
Suhail, S., and Neale, R. 共1994兲. “CPM/LOB: New methodology to inte-
grate CPM and line of balance.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 120共3兲,
667–684.
Thabet, W., and Beliveau, Y. 共1994兲. “HVLS: Horizontal and vertical
logic scheduling for multistory projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
120共4兲, 875–892.
Thabet, W., and Beliveau, Y. 共1997兲. “SCaRC: Space-constrained
resource-constrained scheduling system.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 11共1兲,
48–59.
Yang, T., and Ioannou, P. 共2004兲. “Scheduling system with focus on prac-
tical concerns in repetitive projects.” Constr. Manage. Econom., 22,
619–630.