Work continuity constraints in repetitive project scheduling considering soft logic

Abstract

Purpose Repetitive projects play an important role in the construction industry. A crucial point in scheduling this type of project lies in enabling timely movement of crews from unit to unit so as to minimize the adverse effect of work interruptions on both time and cost. This paper aims to examine a repetitive scheduling problem with work continuity constraints, involving a tradeoff among project duration, work interruptions and total project cost (TPC). To enhance flexibility and practicability, multi-crew execution is considered and the logic relation between units is allowed to be changed arbitrarily. That is, soft logic is considered. Design/methodology/approach This paper proposes a multi-objective mixed-integer linear programming model with the capability of yielding the optimal tradeoff among three conflicting objectives. An efficient version of the e-constraint algorithm is customized to solve the model. This model is validated based on two case studies involving a small-scale and a practical-scale project, and the influence of using soft logic on project duration and total cost is analyzed via computational experiments. Findings Using soft logic provides more flexibility in minimizing project duration, work interruptions and TPC, especial for non-typical projects with a high percentage of non-typical activities. Research limitations/implications The main limitation of the proposed model fails to consider the learning-forgetting phenomenon, which provides space for future research. Practical implications This study assists practitioners in determining the “most preferred” schedule once additional information is provided. Originality/value This paper presents a new soft logic-based mathematical programming model to schedule repetitive projects with the goal of optimizing three conflicting objectives simultaneously.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 24 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.