Russell, A D and Caselton, W F (1988) Extensions to linear scheduling optimization. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 114(1), pp. 36-52. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
A two-state-variable, N-stage dynamic programming formulation of the linear scheduling problem is presented. The state variables are vectors. For any one activity, the first state variable represents a set of possible durations required to complete work at each of the locations. Likewise, for any one activity, the second state variable represents a set of possible interrupt durations between work performed at adjacent locations. Choices of activity duration and interrupt duration vectors are considered for each of the activities involved in a project. The problem is formulated within a conventional dynamic programming framework with the objective of minimizing the overall project duration. The methodology accounts for several of the realities of repetitive construction, including generalized precedence relationships and the ability to treat a variety of work continuity constraints. In addition, a sensitivity analysis procedure is described which permits the identification of near-optimal solutions, providing the user with schedule alternatives that might suit additional non-quantifiable criteria better. The Selinger bridge construction example is used to illustrate application of the two-state-variable formulation and sensitivity analysis procedure.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | duration, dynamic programming, repetitive construction, sensitivity analysis, precedence relationship, bridge construction, linear scheduling, methodology |
| Subjects: | operations research, project controls, building construction, environmental hazards, research methods, algorithms, infrastructure engineering |
| Topics: | Time Control, Digital Applications, Construction Technology, Sustainability, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here