See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228904075

Optimal Planning and Scheduling for Repetitive Construction Projects

Article  in  Journal of Management in Engineering · January 2006

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2006)22:1(11)

CITATIONS READS
141 3,518

3 authors, including:

Khaled Hesham Hyari Khaled El-Rayes

Hashemite University University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
55 PUBLICATIONS   701 CITATIONS    155 PUBLICATIONS   3,720 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Research Report No. FHWA-ICT-14-001 View project

project schedule optimization models View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Khaled El-Rayes on 04 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Optimal Planning and Scheduling for Repetitive
Construction Projects
Khalied Hyari1 and Khaled El-Rayes, M.ASCE2

Abstract: This paper presents a multiobjective optimization model for the planning and scheduling of repetitive construction projects.
The model enables construction planners to generate and evaluate optimal construction plans that minimize project duration and maximize
crew work continuity, simultaneously. The computations in the present model are organized in three major modules: scheduling, optimi-
zation, and ranking modules. First, the scheduling module uses a resource-driven scheduling algorithm to develop practical schedules for
repetitive construction projects. Second, the optimization module utilizes multiobjective genetic algorithms to search for and identify
feasible construction plans that establish optimal tradeoffs between project duration and crew work continuity. Third, the ranking module
uses multiattribute utility theory to rank the generated plans in order to facilitate the selection and execution of the best overall plan for
the project being considered. An application example is analyzed to illustrate the use of the model demonstrate its new capabilities in
optimizing the planning and scheduling of repetitive construction projects.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0742-597X共2006兲22:1共11兲
CE Database subject headings: Road construction; Highway construction; Scheduling; Resource management; Optimization;
Evolutionary computation; Computer models; Construction management.

Introduction Available planning and scheduling models that focused on

Examples of repetitive construction projects include highways,
tunnels, bridges, railways, pipeline networks, sewer mains, high-
rise buildings, and housing development projects. In this class of
projects, construction crews are often required to repeat the same
work in various locations of the project, moving from one loca-
tion to another. Due to this frequent crew movement, available
scheduling methods for repetitive construction projects focus on
maximizing crew work continuity by enabling each crew to finish
work in one location of the project and move promptly to the next
in order to minimize work interruptions. The application of work
continuity improves the overall productivity of construction crews
due to: 共1兲 minimizing their idle time during their frequent move-
ments on site; and 共2兲 maximizing their benefits from learning
curve effects 共Ashley 1980; El-Rayes 2001兲. Despite the advan-
tages of crew work continuity, its strict application can lead to a
longer overall project duration 共Selinger 1980; Russell and Casel-
ton 1988; El-Rayes and Moselhi 2001兲. This led to a number of
research studies that investigated the impact of 共Russell and Ca-
selton 1988; Senouci and Eldin 1996; crew work continuity on
the planning and scheduling of repetitive construction projects;
Harris and Ioannou 1998; El-Rayes 2001; El-Rayes and Moselhi
2001; Hegazi and Wassef兲.
1 overhead costs. As such, construction planners need to evaluate
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, The Hashemite
Univ., P.O. Box 150459, Zarqa 13115, Jordan. E-mail: hyari@hu.edu.jo
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801 共corresponding
author兲. E-mail: elrayes@uiuc.edu
Note. Discussion open until June 1, 2006. 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 possible
publication on February 2, 2005; approved on May 9, 2005. This paper is
part of the Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 1,
January 1, 2006. ©ASCE, ISSN 0742-597X/2006/1-11–19/$25.00.
minimizing the duration of repetitive construction projects can be
grouped into two main categories: 共1兲 models that provide strict
compliance with crew work continuity 共Selinger 1980兲; and 共2兲
models that allow interruptions to crew work continuity 共Russell
and Caselton 1988; El-Rayes 2001兲. All these models are capable
of generating a single optimal solution that minimizes the dura-
tion of the project being considered. For example, Fig. 1
shows the single optimal solution produced by one model from
each of the above two categories. Although both models analyzed
the same application example, the first category model 共Selinger
1980兲 that did not allow interruptions produced a project duration
of 117.9, while the second category model 共El-Rayes and Moselhi
2001兲 that allowed 15 days of interruptions generated a project
duration of 106.8 as shown in solutions A and B in Fig. 1,
respectively.
The two schedules shown in Fig. 1 illustrate two possible
tradeoffs between the two important and conflicting objectives of
minimizing the project duration and maximizing crew work con-
tinuity. As stated earlier, maximizing crew work continuity can
produce significant improvements in construction productivity
and reductions in crew utilization costs, however it can also lead
to a longer overall project duration and an increase in project
all these feasible tradeoffs in order to select a construction plan
that strikes an optimal balance between minimizing the project
duration and maximizing its crew work continuity. Available
planning and scheduling models for repetitive construction are
incapable of generating these feasible tradeoffs as they can only
produce a single optimal solution as shown in Fig. 2. There is a
pressing need for advanced models that can help construction
planners in generating and evaluating all the feasible tradeoff so-
lutions shown in Fig. 2 in order to select an optimal plan that
satisfies the specific requirements of the project being considered.

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2006 / 11

 Fig. 1. Minimum duration solution provided by existing models
Objective
The objective of this paper is to present the development of a
multiobjective optimization model for planning and scheduling of
repetitive construction projects. The model provides the capability
of: 共1兲 generating a set of feasible construction plans that estab-
lish optimal tradeoffs between project duration 共D*兲 and crew
work continuity 共R*兲, as shown in Fig. 2; 共2兲 identifying an opti-
mal level of resource utilization for each construction activity 共i兲
in the project; and 共3兲 ranking the generated optimal plans to
facilitate the selection of the best overall plan for executing the
project 共see Fig. 3兲. In order to provide this output, the present
model requires construction planners to input readily available
data including: 共1兲 project data that specifies the number of re-
petitive activities in the project 共I兲 and the job logic and interre-
lationships among them; and 共2兲 activity data that specifies the
number of repetitive sections 共J兲, the quantity of work 共Qi,j兲 of
activity 共i兲 in each unit 共j兲, available crew formations
共ni = 1 – Ni兲 that can perform each activity 共i兲 and their daily
productivity rates 共Pi,n兲, as shown in Fig. 3.
The planning and scheduling computations in the present
model are organized in three major modules: 共1兲 a scheduling
Fig. 2. Tradeoffs between project duration and crew work continuity
12 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2006
module that develops practical schedules for repetitive construc-
tion projects; 共2兲 a multiobjective optimization module that
searches for and identifies near optimal tradeoffs between project
duration and crew work continuity; and 共3兲 a ranking and selec-
tion module that ranks the generated solutions according to the
specific requirements of the project being considered 共see Fig. 3兲.
The following sections present a detailed description of these
three major modules.
Scheduling Module
The main objective of this module is to develop practical sched-
ules for repetitive construction projects. The module is designed
to provide 共1兲 flexibility in considering typical and nontypical
repetitive activities that have identical and varying durations in
different repetitive units 共Selinger 1980; Russell and Caselton
1988; Moselhi and El-Rayes 1993兲; and 共2兲 practicality in com-
plying with all scheduling constraints, including crew work con-
tinuity, crew availability, and job logic constraints 共El-Rayes and
Moselhi 1998; El-Rayes 2001兲. The module is also designed to
compute: 共1兲 the scheduled start 共Si,j兲 and finish 共Fi,j兲 dates of
 Fig. 3. Optimization model for scheduling repetitive construction

construction for each activity 共i兲 in each repetitive unit 共j兲; 共2兲 the
total project duration 共D兲; and 共3兲 the total number of crew inter-
ruption days 共R兲 at the project level. To this end, the scheduling
computations in this module are performed using the following
eight major steps 共see Fig. 4兲:
1. Calculate the construction duration 共di,j兲 of activity 共i兲 in
each repetitive unit 共j兲, using its quantity of work 共Qi,j兲 and
the daily productivity rate 共Pi,n兲 of the selected crew option
as shown in Eq. 共1兲 and the example foundation activity in
Fig. 4
Qi,j
di,j =
Pi,n
2. Calculate the earliest start 共SCrew关i,j兴兲 and finish 共FCrew关i,j兴兲
times for activity 共i兲 in unit 共j兲 that satisfy crew availability
and crew work continuity constraints, assuming that the ac-
tivity has no predecessors and accordingly its first repetitive
unit 共j = 1兲 can start at time zero as shown in Eq. 共2兲. SCrew关i,j兴
and FCrew关i,j兴 are calculated using Eqs. 共3兲 and 共4兲 that con-
sider 共1兲 the availability the crew after the completion of
work in its previously assigned repetitive unit 共FCrew关i,j−1兴兲;
and 共2兲 the specified crew interruption time applied after the
completion of the previous unit j − 1 共Interi,j−1兲, as shown in
Fig. 4. Although the computations of SCrew关i,j兴 and FCrew关i,j兴
共1兲
are formulated to satisfy crew availability and crew work

Fig. 4. Scheduling computations for foundation activity

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2006 / 13

 continuity constraints, they do not comply with the job logic plies with crew availability and work continuity 共SCrew关i,j兴兲 as
constraint. This constraint requires that activity i 共e.g., foun- shown in Eq. 共5兲. This time difference represents the required
dation兲 can start only after the completion of its predecessor delay in SCrew关i,j兴 and FCrew关i,j兴 to further satisfy the job logic
activity i − 1 共e.g., excavation兲 in each repetitive unit 共j兲. As constraint, as shown in Fig. 4
such, the following three steps are designed to shift SCrew关i,j兴
and FCrew关i,j兴 to a later date in order to further comply with ⌬i,j = SLogic关i,j兴 − SCrew关i,j兴 共5兲
the job logic constraint 共see Fig. 4兲: 5. Identify the maximum time difference from those calculated
SCrew关i,1兴 = 0 共2兲 in the previous step 共Shifti兲 using Eq. 共6兲. As shown in Fig. 4,
this time shift is then used to delay SCrew关i,j兴 and FCrew关i,j兴 in
order to identify the scheduled start 共Si,j兲 and finish 共Fi,j兲
SCrew关i,j兴 = FCrew关i,j−1兴 + Interi,j−1 共3兲
times that satisfy all scheduling constraints for activity 共i兲 in
each repetitive unit 共j兲 using Eqs. 共7兲 and 共8兲
FCrew关i,j兴 = SCrew关i,j兴 + di,j 共4兲
Shifti = MaxJj=1关⌬i,j兴 共6兲
3. Identify the earliest start time 共SLogic关i,j兴兲 that satisfies the job
logic and precedence relationships between activity 共i兲 and
Si,j = SCrew关i,j兴 + Shifti 共7兲
all its predecessors. These relationships can be either finish
to start, start to start, finish to finish or start to finish with or
without lag time. For example, if the precedence relationship Fi,j = FCrew关i,j兴 + Shifti 共8兲
between two activities is finish to start, then the successor
6. Identify the total crew interruption days in activity i 共Interi兲
activity 共i兲 in each unit 共j兲 can start only after the completion
using the following equation:
of its predecessor activity 共i − 1兲 and the lag time 共lagi,i−1兲
between the two activities 共i.e., SLogic关i,j兴 艌 Fi−1,j + lagi,i−1兲. J
4. Calculate the time difference 共⌬i,j兲 between the earliest start
time that satisfies job logic 共SLogic关i,j兴兲 and that which com-
Interi = 兺
j=1
Interi,j 共9兲

Fig. 5. Multiobjective optimization module

14 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2006

7. Compute the total project duration 共D兲 by identifying the
time difference between the scheduled finish time of the last
activity in its last repetitive unit 共FI,J兲 and the start of the first
activity in the first unit 共S1,1兲, as shown in the following
equation:
D = FI,J − S1,1 共10兲
8. Calculate the total number of interruption days 共R兲 for all
crews in the project using the following equation:
I the optimization process by randomly generating a number of
R= 兺 Interi 共11兲
i=1
Multiobjective Optimization Module
The primary purpose of this module is to search for and identify
a set of optimal construction plans that simultaneously minimize
project duration and maximize crew work continuity for repetitive
construction projects. Each of these identified optimal plans pro-
vides a unique and nondominated tradeoff between project dura-
tion and crew work continuity. An optimal plan is identified to be
nondominated if no other plan can provide a better solution in
both objectives simultaneously 共i.e., a combination of shorter
project duration and higher level of crew work continuity兲. For
example, all the generated plans in Fig. 2 are nondominated be-
cause no other plans can be found to provide a better performance
in both objectives simultaneously. Conversely, plan C is domi-
nated by all the generated plans in group D because each of these
plans provides a combination of a shorter project duration 共less
than 110.4 days兲 and a higher level of crew work continuity 共less
than 16 days of interruption兲, as shown in Fig. 2. The present
optimization module is designed to preclude all dominated solu-
tions in order to enable the generation of only the non-dominated
optimal construction plans 共see Fig. 2兲.
In this optimization module, each of the identified optimal
construction plans specifies an optimal solution for two important
resource utilization variables: 共1兲 crew formation 共ni兲 that repre-
sents the availability of alternative crew utilization options for
activity 共i兲 with varying daily productivity rates 共Pi,n兲; and 共2兲
crew interruption vector 共vi兲 that represents the interruption days
to the work continuity of crew 共ni兲 when it moves from one re-
petitive section 共j兲 to the next 共El-Rayes and Moselhi 2001兲. This
module requires construction planners to specify all feasible crew
formations 共ni兲 for each activity 共i兲 in the project, however it does
not require them to provide data for the feasible crew interruption
vectors 共vi兲 which are automatically generated and evaluated by
the module.
Table 1. Quantities of Work and Available Crew Formation Options
Repetitive activity 共i兲 Excavation 共i = 1兲 Foundation 共i = 2兲
Repetitive unit 共j兲 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Quantity of work 1,147 1,434 994 1,529 1,032 1,077 943 898 104
共Qi,j兲 共m3兲
Available crew options
Crew formation 共ni兲 1 1 2 3
Productivity 91.75 89.77 71.81 53.86
共Pi,n兲 共m3 / day兲
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2006 / 15
In order to search for nondominated construction plans that
specify the optimal values for the aforementioned two resource
utilization variables, the present multiobjective optimization
module is implemented using a multiobjective genetic algorithm
共Zitzler and Thiele 1999; Deb et al. 2000; Coello and Lechuga
2001; El-Rayes and Kandil 2005; El-Rayes and Khalafallah 2005;
Kandil and El-Rayes 2005兲. This algorithm adopts the concept of
Pareto optimality to support multiobjective optimization, and the
survival of the fittest criteria to evolve solutions over generations
in order to yield near optimal solutions. The present module starts
initial resource utilization plans 共k = 1 – K兲, where each represents
a random selection of a crew formation option 共ni兲 and a crew
interruption vector 共vi兲 for each repetitive activity 共i兲 in the
project. These randomly generated plans form the parent popula-
tion 共Pt兲 of the first generation 共t = 1兲 that evolves into a near
optimal solution after a number of predetermined generations 共T兲.
As shown in Fig. 4, this optimization process is performed using
the following four major cyclical steps:
1. Calculate the project duration 共Dk兲 and total interruption
days 共Rk兲 for each resource utilization plan 共k = 1 – K兲 in the
first generation 共t = 1兲, using the earlier described scheduling
module for repetitive construction projects. As shown in
Fig. 4, the scheduling module returns the computed values of
the project duration and total interruption days for each re-
source utilization plan after considering all the scheduling
constraints of crew availability, crew work continuity and job
logic.
2. Perform genetic operators 共i.e., selection, crossover, and mu-
tation兲 to create a new child population. These three opera-
tors adopt the survival of the fittest principle to provide an
effective evolutionary mechanism for generating improved
resource utilization plans over a number of generations. First,
the selection operator favors solutions with better fitness val-
ues to move to the reproduction phase. Second, the crossover
operator swaps a chunk of the genetic material between the
mated pairs of solution in the reproduction phase. Third, the
mutation operator is used to change the genetic materials in
the produced child population randomly to avoid conver-
gence to local optimal solutions.
3. Evaluate the fitness functions 共i.e., project duration and total
crew interruption days兲 for each solution in the newly created
child population Ct in a similar process to that described in
step 共1兲.
4. Combine child and parent populations 共Ct and Pt兲 to form
newly combined populations, and then select the best 50% of
the members of the combined population to form a new
parent population for the next generation. This process rep-
resents a strong form of elitism as it enables preserving the
Columns 共i = 3兲 Beams 共i = 4兲 Slabs 共i = 5兲
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
86 129 100 85 92 101 80 0 138 114 145
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2
5.73 6.88 8.03 9.9 8.49 7.07 5.66 28.73 7.76
Table 2. Solutions Generated by Previous Optimization Models
Russell and Caselton El-Rayes and Moselhi
Selinger model 共1980兲 model 共1988兲 model 共2001兲
Optimal crew Interruption Optimal crew Interruption Optimal crew Interruption
Activity formation days formation days formation days
共i兲 共ni쐓兲 共Interi兲 共ni쐓兲 共Interi兲 共ni쐓兲 共Interi兲
Excavation 1 0 1 0 1 0
Foundation 2 0 1 4 1 6
Columns 3 0 3 0 3 0
Beams 3 0 1 12 1 9
Slabs 1 0 1 0 1 0
Total interruptions 共R兲 0 16 15
Project duration 共D兲 117.9 110.4 106.8

best members of the parents’ population over generations
共Deb et al. 2000兲.
The above computation steps of 1–4 are repeated over a num-
ber of specified generations 共t = 1 – T兲 in order to yield a Pareto
optimal set of nondominated resource utilization plans for the
repetitive construction project. Each plan in this Pareto optimal
set provides: 共1兲 an optimal construction plan that provides the
least project duration 共D*兲 that can be achieved at a given crew
work continuity level 共R*兲, as shown in Fig. 2; and 共2兲 an optimal
level of resource utilization for each construction activity 共i兲 in
the project that specifies the selected crew formation 共ni*兲 and
crew interruption vector 共vi*兲, as shown in Fig. 3. A construction
planner can select, from this set, the best overall plan that satisfies
the specific project requirements, using the ranking and selection
module which is described in more details in the next section.
Ranking and Selection Module
mance level to the obtained minimum duration solution 共Min Dg兲,
and a planner-specified level 共e.g., 0 or 20%兲 that reflects the
degree of satisfaction with the maximum duration solution
共Max Dg兲, as shown in Fig. 5. This function can then be used to
evaluate the performance of all intermediate project durations
共Dg兲 as shown in Eq. 共12兲 and Fig. 5. The performance in crew
work continuity 共PRg兲 can also be evaluated in a similar way
using Eq. 共13兲. For example, the utility values that represent
project duration performance levels 共PDg兲 for solutions A, B, and
E 共see Fig. 2兲 are 20, 100, and 70%, respectively; while those
representing their crew work continuity performance levels 共PRg兲
are 0, 100, and 47%, respectively, as shown in Fig. 5. Both
performance levels 共PDg and PRg兲 are then combined using an
overall score 共Cg兲 that represents the combined performance of
solution 共g兲 in both objectives. This overall score 共Cg兲 can be
computed using planner-specified weights that reflect the relative
importance of project duration 共WtD兲 and crew work continuity
共WtR兲 to the decision maker as shown in Eq. 共14兲

The objective of this module is to rank all the optimal solutions

共g = 1 – G兲 obtained from the previous module to facilitate the se-
PDg = P Max Dg + 冋 Max Dg − Dg
Max Dg − Min Dg
⫻ 共100 % − P Max Dg兲 册
lection of the best overall plan for executing the project. To ac-
共12兲
complish this, the present module uses the multiattribute utility

冋 册
theory 共von Winterfeld and Edwards 1986兲 to enable construction
planners to express their degree of satisfaction about the gener- Max Rg − Rg
PRg = P Max Rg + ⫻ 共100 % − P Max Rg兲
ated project durations and crew work continuity levels. For ex- Max Rg − Min Rg
ample, a linear utility function can be used to evaluate the perfor-
共13兲
mance 共PDg兲 of each generated project duration 共Dg兲, using a
performance scale that ranges from 0 to 100% 共see Fig. 5兲. This
function can be easily developed by assigning a 100% perfor- Cg = PDg ⫻ WtD + PRg ⫻ WtR 共14兲

Fig. 6. Example utility functions for project duration and crew work continuity

16 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2006

Table 3. Optimal Solutions Generated by Present Model
Project performance Selected crew formation 共ni兲 Selected interruption vectors 共v j兲
Project Total crew Inter2,j Inter3,j Inter4,j
duration interruption
Solution in days days Excavation Foundation Columns Beams Slabs
共g兲 共D兲 共R兲 共i = 1兲 共i = 2兲 共i = 3兲 共i = 4兲 共i = 5兲 j=1 j=2 j=3 j=1 j=2 j=3 j=1 j=2 j=3
1 106.8 15 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 6 3
2 107.0 14 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 6 2
3 107.6 13 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 2
4 108.5 11 1 1 3 2 1 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 4 1
5 109.0 10 1 1 3 2 1 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 4 0
6 109.9 9 1 1 3 2 1 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 3 0
7 110.9 8 1 1 3 2 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 3 0
8 111.4 7 1 1 3 3 1 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0
9 112.3 6 1 1 3 3 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0
10 113.3 5 1 1 3 3 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0
11 114.3 4 1 1 3 3 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0
12 115.3 3 1 1 3 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0
13 116.3 2 1 1 3 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
14 116.8 1 1 2 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
15 117.9 0 1 2 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interi,j ⫽ interruption days in activity i after repetitive unit j.

Application Example
An example of a three-span concrete bridge is analyzed in order
to illustrate the use of the present model and demonstrate its
capabilities in generating and evaluating optimal tradeoffs
between project duration and crew work continuity. The project
consists of five construction activities: excavation, foundations,
columns, beams, and slabs that are repeated in four sections of the
project, as shown in Fig. 1. The precedence relationships among
these five successive activities are finish to start with no lag time.
Table 1 summarizes the quantities of work for each activity in the
four repetitive sections as well its available crew formation op-
tions and their daily productivity rates. The example was previ-
ously analyzed in the literature by Selinger 共1980兲, Russell and
Caselton 共1988兲, and El-Rayes and Moselhi 共2001兲, producing
three different solutions as shown in Fig. 1 and Table 2. The
present model was utilized to analyze the same example in order
to: 共1兲 enable a comparison between its results and those gener-
ated by available models in the literature; and 共2兲 illustrate its
capability of evaluating and ranking the obtained tradeoff solu-
tions between project duration and crew work continuity.
First, the model was used to generate a set of 15 optimal and
nondominated construction plans, where each represents an opti-
mal and unique tradeoff between project duration 共D兲 and crew
work continuity 共R兲, as shown in Fig. 2 and Table 3. The results
generated by the present model were compared to those produced
by previous models 共see Fig. 2 and Table 3兲. The results of this
comparative analysis illustrate the capabilities of the present

Table 4. Ranking of Generated Optimal Solutions

Performance in project objectives Overall score in % 共ck兲
Duration Crew Duration Work continuity Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Solution in days interruptions performance performance in WtD = 80% WtD = 20% WtD = 60%
共g兲 共Dg兲 in days 共Rg兲 in % 共PDg兲 % 共PRg兲 WtR = 20% WtR = 80% WtR = 40%
1 106.8 15 1.00 0 80.2 20.0 60.1
2 107.0 14 0.98 0.067 80.0 25.0 61.7
3 107.6 13 0.94 0.133 77.9 29.5 61.7
4 108.5 11 0.88 0.267 75.7 38.9 63.5
5 109.0 10 0.84 0.333 73.8 43.5 63.7
6 109.9 9 0.77 0.400 69.9 47.5 62.4
7 110.9 8 0.71 0.467 65.8 51.4 61.0
8 111.4 7 0.67 0.533 64.3 56.1 61.5
9 112.3 6 0.60 0.600 60.1 60.0 60.1
10 113.3 5 0.53 0.667 55.7 63.9 58.4
11 114.3 4 0.46 0.733 51.3 67.8 56.8
12 115.3 3 0.39 0.800 46.8 71.7 55.1
13 116.3 2 0.31 0.867 42.4 75.6 53.5
14 116.8 1 0.28 0.933 41.0 80.3 54.1
15 117.9 0 0.20 1.000 36.0 84.0 52.0

JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2006 / 17

model in: 共1兲 generating identical optimal solutions to those
produced by the two existing models of Selinger 共1980兲 and
El-Rayes and Moselhi 共2001兲, as shown in solutions A and B in
Fig. 2; 共2兲 producing a wide range of optimal tradeoff solutions
that cannot be developed using existing models, as shown in
Fig. 2; and 共3兲 obtaining optimal tradeoff solutions that dominate
and provide superior performance in both optimization objectives
simultaneously than that obtained by the Russell and Caselton
model 共1988兲, as highlighted by group D and solution C in Fig. 2,
respectively.
Second, the present model was used to evaluate and rank the
15 generated tradeoff solutions to facilitate the selection and ex-
ecution of the best overall plan for the project. As stated earlier,
construction planners need to specify: 共1兲 their degree of satisfac-
tion with the maximum duration solution and the maximum
interruption solution, as shown in Fig. 5; and 共2兲 the relative
importance of minimizing the project duration and maximizing
crew work continuity in the form of two relative weights
共WtD and WtR兲. In this example, it is assumed that the planner
expressed a satisfaction level of 共P Max Dg = 20% 兲 and
共P Max Rg = 0 % 兲 with the maximum duration and the maximum
interruption solutions, respectively, as shown in Fig. 5. Further-
more, three different combinations of weights are evaluated in
this example to illustrate the impact of the weighting process on
the ranking of the tradeoff solutions, as shown in Table 4.
As expected, the first 共WtD = 80% and WtR = 20%兲 and second
共WtD = 20% and WtR = 80%兲 combinations of weights that favored
the performance in project duration and crew work continuity
produced the highest overall score for the least duration solution
共g = 1兲 and the least interruption solution 共g = 15兲, respectively
共see Table 4兲. On the other hand, the third combination of weights
共WtD = 60% and WtR = 40%兲 produced an intermediate tradeoff
solution 共g = 5兲 as shown in Table 4. This illustrates the capability
of the present model in performing instant sensitivity analysis in
order to study the effects of varying the weights on the ranked
solutions, without the need to rerun the computationally demand-
ing genetic algorithms each time these weights are changed, as
shown in Table 4.
Conclusions
A robust multiobjective optimization model was developed to
support the planning and scheduling of repetitive construction
projects. The model enables construction planners to generate and
evaluate optimal construction plans that establish optimal
tradeoffs between project duration and crew work continuity.
Each of these plans identifies, from a set of feasible alternatives,
an optimal level of resource utilization for each activity in the
project. To accomplish this, the model incorporates: 共1兲 a sched-
uling module that calculates the project duration and level of crew
work continuity for repetitive construction projects; 共2兲 a multi-
objective optimization module that searches for and identifies
near optimal construction plans; and 共3兲 a ranking and selection
module that ranks the generated solutions according to the spe-
cific requirements of the project being considered. An application
example was analyzed to enable a comparison between the
present model and those available in the literature. The results of
this analysis illustrates the new capabilities of the developed
model in: 共1兲 generating all optimal tradeoff solutions between
project duration and crew work continuity in a single run, where
each provides the least project duration that can be achieved at a
given level of crew work continuity; and 共2兲 ranking these
18 / JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2006
generated tradeoff solutions to facilitate the selection of the best
overall plan for constructing the project. These new and unique
capabilities should prove useful to construction planners and is
expected to advance existing planning and scheduling practices
for repetitive construction projects.
Acknowledgment
The writers gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided
by the National Science Foundation for this research project
under NSF CAREER Award No. CMS-0238470.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Cg ⫽ overall score that represents combined
performance of solution g in both objectives;
D ⫽ project duration;
Dg ⫽ project duration of solution g;
di,j ⫽ construction duration of activity i in repetitive
unit j;
FCrew关i,j兴 ⫽ earliest finish times for activity i in unit j that
satisfy crew availability and crew work
continuity constraints;
Fi,j ⫽ scheduled finish time for activity i in
repetitive unit j;
Interij ⫽ interruption days in activity i after repetitive
unit j;
Max Dg ⫽ maximum duration solution;
Max Rg ⫽ maximum interruption solution;
Min Dg ⫽ minimum duration solution;
Min Rg ⫽ minimum interruption solution;
Pi,n ⫽ productivity rate of crew n in activity i;
PDg ⫽ project duration performance level;
PRg ⫽ crew work continuity performance level;
Qi,j ⫽ quantity of work of activity i in repetitive
unit j;
R ⫽ total number of crew interruption days;
Rg ⫽ total interruption days in solution g;
SCrew关i,j兴 ⫽ earliest start time for activity i in unit j that
satisfy crew availability and crew work
continuity constraints;
Si,j ⫽ scheduled start time for activity i in repetitive
unit j; and
SLogic关i,j兴 ⫽ earliest start time that satisfies job logic and
precedence relationships between activity i
and all its predecessors.
Subscripts and Superscripts
G ⫽ number of nondominated optimal solutions
共g = 1 – G兲;
I ⫽ number of construction activities 共i = 1 – I兲;
J ⫽ number of repetitive units 共from j = 1–J兲.
K ⫽ population size 共k = 1 – K兲; and
T ⫽ number of generations 共t = 1 – T兲.
References
Ashley, D. 共1980兲. “Simulation of repetitive-unit construction.” J. Constr.
Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 106共2兲, 185–194.
Coello, C., and Lechuga, M. 共2001兲. “MOPSO: A proposal for multiple
objective particle swarm optimization.” Technical Rep. No.
EVOCINV-01-2001.CINVESTAV, Instituto Politecnico Nacional. Col.
San Pedro, Zacatenco, Mexico.
Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agrawal, S., and Meyarivan, T. 共2000兲. “A fast elitist
nondominated sorting genetic algorithm for multiobjective optimiza-
tion: NSGA-II.” Proc., 6th Parallel Problem Solving from Nature VI
Conf., Paris, 849–858.
El-Rayes, K. 共2001兲. “Optimum planning of highway construction under
A ⫹ B bidding method.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 127共4兲, 261–269.
El-Rayes, K., and Kandil, A. 共2005兲. “Time-cost-quality trade-off analy-
sis for highway construction.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 131共4兲,
477–486.
El-Rayes, K., and Khalafallah, A. 共2005兲. “Tradeoff between safety and
cost in planning construction site layouts.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
共in press兲.
El Rayes, K., and Moselhi, O. 共1998兲. “Resource-driven scheduling of
repetitive activities.” J. Constr. Manage. Econom., 16共4兲, 433–446.
El-Rayes, K., and Moselhi, O. 共2001兲. “Optimizing resource utilization
for repetitive construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 127共1兲,
18–27.
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT IN ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2006 / 19
View publication stats
Harris, B., and Ioannou, P. 共1998兲. “Scheduling projects with repeating
activities.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 124共4兲, 269–278.
Hegazi, 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.
Kandil, A., and El-Rayes, K. 共2005兲. “Parallel computing framework for
optimizing construction planning in large-scale projects.” J. Comput.
Civ. Eng. 19共3兲, 304–312.
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.
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.
Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 106共2兲, 195–205.
Senouci, A., and Eldin, N. 共1996兲. “Dynamic programming approach to
scheduling of nonserial linear project.” J. Comput. Civ. Eng., 10共2兲,
106–114. 2, April 1996.
von Winterfeld, D., and Edwards, W. 共1986兲. Decision analysis and be-
havioral research, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Zitzler, E., and Thiele, L. 共1999兲. “Multiobjective evolutionary algo-
rithms: A comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach.”
IEEE Trans. Evolutionary Computation, 3共4兲, 257–271.