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

net/publication/299441821

Resource leveling in construction projects using simulated annealing with

activity splitting allowed and limited resource availabilities

Conference Paper · May 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 875

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

Optimization in Construction and Infrastructure Management View project

Policy Making in Infrastructure Asset Management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Madeh Piryonesi on 27 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 8th National Congress on Civil Engineering, 7-8 May 2014
Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, Babol, Iran

Resource leveling in construction projects using simulated

annealing with activity splitting allowed and limited resource
availabilities

Abstract
It is obvious that the most of the stakeholders in a construction project would like to complete the project
without any delay and excessive cost. It is possible to meet these objectives by using resource management
techniques in a project. One of these techniques is resource leveling that assures the contractors that the
project can be completed on time and at cost. Due to the limitations of the availability of the resources and
their different types in construction projects, it is more significant to use resource leveling in such projects.
As a result, many researchers have applied different optimization algorithms to this problem. In this paper
a meta-heuristic simulated annealing resource leveling model is presented. The novelty of this model lies
in its assumptions, consisting of the simultaneous allowing the splitting of the activities and considering
the limited resource availabilities.

Keywords: Resource leveling, Simulated annealing, Meta-heuristic, Splitting

1. Introduction

A project is defined as a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unit product, service or result [1]. Based
upon a more elaborated definition, it is a unique and temporary endeavor that can be subdivided into various
activities that require time and renewable resources, such as machines, equipment, or manpower, for their
execution. A project often involves general temporal constraints among activities resulting from technological
or organizational restrictions. Project scheduling consists of determining start times for all activities such that
temporal and/or resource constraints are satisfied and some objective is optimized [2].
To avoid the undesirable fluctuations of the resources in a construction project and their consecutive
extra costs the contractors usually use resource leveling. Resource leveling is defined as any form of schedule
network analysis in which the scheduling decisions, such as the start and the finish dates, are driven by resource
constraints (e.g., limited resource availability or difficult-to-manage changes in resource availability levels)
[1].
As a particular type of the project, the construction projects are vitally dependent on the resource
leveling [3]. The construction schedules generated by network scheduling techniques often need to be modified
in order to reduce significant fluctuations in resource utilization levels over the project duration [4]. These
fluctuations impose negative effects on the stakeholders in a project. Some of these effects are the cost of hiring
and releasing of workers in a short interval, the disruption in the learning curve effects and maintaining an
unproductive level of workforce on site that keeps some workers idle during low demand periods [5].
Consequently, since the past decades some researchers ([6], [7], [8]) have tackled the resource leveling
problems (RLPs) in the construction projects.
A bunch of methods have been applied to the RLPs. These methods almost can be categorized in three
main groups, analytical methods, heuristic methods and meta-heuristic methods [7]. Easa [6] used an integer
programming to solve the RLP in the construction projects. Rieck et al. [9] applied a mixed integer linear
programming to the problem. Although the analytical methods are exact to find the optimal solution, but they
need an extensive computational effort for the large problems [6],[10].
To refrain confronting the ‘‘combinatorial explosion’’ of the RLPs, the heuristic methods has been used
as a simple and efficient tool [6]. A couple of the famous heuristic methods are the PACK [10] and the
NASTRAT [11]. Some other heuristic rules have been developed by other researchers such as Wiest and Levy
[12], Antill and Woodhead [13], Moder et al [14] to solve the RLPs. But, the drawback of the heuristic models
is that they are problem-dependent so that they cannot be equally applied to all construction cases.
The weaknesses of the mathematical and heuristic methods prompted the researchers to use the more
innovative methods such as the meta-heuristic methods. Some researchers, for instance Leu et al. [7], El-Rayes
and Jun [5], tried to solve the RLPs using Genetic Algorithms (GAs). Hashemi Doulabi et al. [15] used a Hybrid
GA to solve the RLP via activity splitting. Damci et al. [16] used a GA to solve the multi-resource leveling
problem in a Line of Balance scheduling. Geng et al. [17] applied an Ant Colony optimization algorithm to the

1
 8th National Congress on Civil Engineering, 7-8 May 2014
Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, Babol, Iran

RLPs. Alsayegh and Hariga [18] used a combination of Simulated Annealing (SA) and Particle Swarm
Optimization (PSO) to solve the multi-resource leveling problem, while Ponz-Tienda et al. [19] used an
adaptive GA to solve the problem. A new tabu search-based hyper-heuristic algorithm was presented by
Koulinas and Anagnostopoulos [20] for solving construction leveling problems with limited resource
availabilities.
In the real construction projects sometimes it is common not to complete an activity in a continuous
time due to the resource limitations. Although this activity splitting causes extra costs, but will result in a
smoother resource profile during the time of the project [15]. Based on the aforementioned review and the
strengths and the weaknesses of the previous models, a meta-heuristic Simulated Annealing resource leveling
model is applied to the RLPs in the construction projects. The novelty of this model lies in its optimization
model and its assumptions, consisting of the simultaneous allowing the splitting of the activities and
considering the limited resource availabilities.

2. Simulated Annealing

Simulated annealing (SA) is a probabilistic meta-heuristic method proposed by Kirkpatrick et al. [21] and
Cerny [22]. Its name is because of its analogy to the process of physical annealing of a solid, in which a
crystalline solid is heated and then allowed to cool gradually until it achieves its most regular possible crystal
configuration (i.e. lowest amount of energy) [23]. Some features such as ease of implementation, convergence
properties and its use of hill-climbing moves to escape local optima have made it a popular technique over the
past decades. It is typically used to address discrete, and to a lesser extent, continuous optimization problems
[24].
The generic algorithm of SA can be describe as follows [25]:

Select an initial solution (current solution)

Select a temperature change counter
Select a cooling schedule
Select an initial temperature
Select a repetition schedule that defines the number of iterations executed at each temperature
Repeat
Generate a solution (candidate solution)
If candidate solution was better than current solution:
Replace the current with the candidate
Otherwise replace it with a probability
Until stopping criterion is met

3. Problem formulation

Based on the former explanations a new model is presented for the resource leveling problem. The common
mathematical formulation of the resource leveling problem is used to define the objective function [26].
Accordingly, the formulation of the problem may be stated as follows:

𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑍 = ∑𝑇𝑡=1(𝑟𝑡 − 𝑟𝑡−1 )2 (1a)

S.T.

∑𝑇𝑡=1 𝑥𝑖𝑡 = 𝑑𝑖 ∀ 𝑖 = 1, 2, 3, … , 𝑛 (1b)

∑𝑡𝑘=1 𝑥𝑖𝑘 + 𝑠𝑖𝑡 = 𝑑𝑖 ∀ 𝑡 = 1, 2, 3, … , 𝑇 (1c)

𝑠𝑖𝑡 ≤ 𝑀(1 − 𝑧𝑖𝑡 ) ∀ 𝑖 = 1, 2, 3, … , 𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡 = 1, 2, 3, … , 𝑇 (1d)

𝑥𝑗𝑡 ≤ 𝑧𝑖𝑡 ∀ 𝑖, 𝑗 = 1, 2, 3, … , 𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ∀ 𝑡 = 1, 2, 3, … , 𝑇 (1e)

𝑥𝑖𝑡 + 𝑥𝑗𝑡 ≤ 1 ∀ 𝑖, 𝑗 = 1, 2, 3, … , 𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ∀ 𝑡 = 1, 2, 3, … , 𝑇 (1f)

2
 8th National Congress on Civil Engineering, 7-8 May 2014
Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, Babol, Iran

𝑟𝑡 = ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑥𝑖𝑡 𝑟𝑖𝑡 ≤ 𝑅𝑡 ∀ 𝑡 = 1, 2, 3, … , 𝑇 (1g)

where n = the number of the activities, T = the feasible time of the project that is usually the output of a CPM
analysis, rt = the required resource of the project in time t, xit = a binary variable that takes a value 1 if activity
i is done at time t and otherwise a value 0, di = the duration of activity i, sit = an integer number that is calculated
by subtracting ∑tk=1 xik from di and varies from di (as activity i is not started yet) to 0 (as activity i is completed),
M= a very large number, zit = a binary variable to oblige the precedency of every activity i to every activity j,
rit= resources that are available at time t for activity i and Rt = the total number of available resources at time t
in the project.
The objective is to minimize the difference between the resources needed for every activity in the project
(i.e. rt and rt-1). Equation (1b) is used to set the duration of the activities. The constraints (1c) to (1f) handle the
precedency of the activities. To incorporate the splitting of the activities, sit is defined that is only defined for
convenience. It should be noted that sit cannot be negative due to Equation (1b). The activity j will not start
until zit would take a value 1 that means the activity i is completed (sit becomes 0). Another constraint that is
tackled in this model is the limitation of the availability of the resources. Dropping the last constraint will result
in an RLP with unlimited resources.
This model is a mixed integer non-linear programming (MINP) model with 2nT variables and 4n+5T
constraints. Obtaining an optimal solution to this model is difficult, and currently only problems with a very
limited number of activities can be solved by software such as GAMS and Lingo. Motivated by this situation
a meta-heuristic procedure is developed in this article which uses a simulated annealing to tackle the problem.

4. Resource leveling using SA

As it was explained earlier in section 2, solving a problem using SA needs some initial solutions. These initial
solutions are taken as current solution and then new solutions are generated. The new solutions and the current
ones are compared and the better ones are selected. Generating mere random solutions may be an approach for
generating new solutions, but it may not be effective enough. The answer of the CPM analysis is taken as an
initial solution, since undoubtedly it satisfies the precedence relations and will be a feasible solution. To
increase the effectiveness of the model, new solutions are generated by selecting two points randomly between
the earliest start (ES) and the latest finish (LF) of an activity and then swapping them (Figure 1). If these new
solutions violate the constraints of the model, a very large value is assigned to their objective function amounts.
On the other hand, the feasible solutions are evaluated and will be selected certainly, if they are better than the
current answer and otherwise with a probability. The flowchart shown in Figure 2 illustrates the operation of
the algorithm.

ES(i) LF(i)

Activity(i) ... 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 ...

Swapping

ES(i) LF(i)

Activity(i) ... 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 ...

Figure 1. Generating new solutions

3
 8th National Congress on Civil Engineering, 7-8 May 2014
Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, Babol, Iran

Initialize s0, T, s*=s0

Select Max, α(T)

IT=0

IT=IT+1

Generate s ϵ N (s0)
Let δ = f(s) – f(s0)

No
Is δ < 0 ?

Randomly generate
Yes
x ϵ U[0, 1]
s0 s
If f(s0) < f(s)
Let s* s0
Yes

Is x < e-δ/T ?
Yes No
Is IT< Max ?

Reduce T No
Stopping criterion?
T α(T)

Yes

Terminate as s* as the answer

Figure 2. Simulated annealing used to solve RLP [27]

5. Application example

In this section an example is solved to show the effectiveness of the model. An 11-activity CPM network is
presented from Harris [10] to show the superiority of the model in comparison to a couple of the former models.
This is a single resource leveling problem and the precedency of the activities, their resource demands and their
durations are shown in Figure 1. First, the network is analyzed by CPM and the result is presented in Table 1.
This analysis gives the time of the project without considering the resource limitation.

4
 8th National Congress on Civil Engineering, 7-8 May 2014
Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, Babol, Iran

4
D
4
2 1
A H
Duration 2 0
3
E
2
0 4 4 1
ST B J L
0 1 2 2
6
F
4
Resource 1 5
C K
4 1
6
G
6

Figure 1. The precedency and resource demand of activities

Table 1. Start/finish time of activities and their total float

Number Activity Duration ES EF LS LF TF

1 A 2 0 2 6 8 6
2 B 4 0 4 0 4 0
3 C 1 0 1 3 4 3
4 D 4 2 6 10 14 8
5 E 3 4 7 8 11 4
6 F 6 4 10 4 10 0
7 G 6 1 7 4 10 3
8 H 1 7 8 14 15 7
9 J 4 7 11 11 15 4
10 K 5 10 15 10 15 0
11 L 1 15 16 15 16 0

This example is identically solved by Harris [10] and Leu et al. [7]. To be able to compare the results
with the former researches, the objective function is reformulated in the following way:

(𝑟𝑖 𝑑𝑖 )
𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑍 = ∑𝑇𝑡=1[|∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑟𝑖 𝑥𝑖𝑡 − ∑𝑛𝑖=1 |] (2)
𝑇

This formulation was first used by Easa [6], in which the deviation of the required resources from a
uniform desired resource usage is minimized. The minimum Z found by GARLS [7] (genetic algorithm-
based resource leveling) and PACK [10] (the heuristic method) are 25 while before leveling the value of Z
was 69.
The problem was solved based on the model presented in Equation (1) and using the proposed simulated
annealing algorithm described in section 4. The algorithm was implemented by MATLAB 2012b run on a
personal computer with a 2.66 GHz Intel® and 4 GB physical memory. The parameters of the SA are shown in
Table 2. The minimum Z found by the model is 22.125 which is clearly better than the answers of the GARLS
and PACK [7]. The superiority of this model was predictable as it has the splitting capability that results in
more flexibility in the problem and obtaining better answers.

Table 2. The parameters of the SA

Population Number of Maximum Initial Final
size neighborhood number of temperature Temperature
iteration
200 40 100 100 0

5
 8th National Congress on Civil Engineering, 7-8 May 2014
Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, Babol, Iran

The improvement of the objective function with more iterations and the convergence of the algorithm
is shown in Figure 2. The optimal answer is also shown in a bar chart in Figure 3. As illustrated in Figure 3,
when an activity i is done at time t, the binary variable xit takes a value 1 and otherwise 0. So, the activities that
are split have 0 digits between 1 digits.

70
Resource Leveling Index

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 100
Iteration

Figure 2. The convergence history of the algorithm

Time
Act Dur Res 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
A 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B 4 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
D 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
E 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
F 6 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
G 6 6 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
H 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
J 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0
K 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0
L 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Daily resource usage 7 7 7 7 6 6 10 10 6 10 7 7 7 7 3 2

Figure 3. Bar chart of the project after leveling

6. Conclusion

In this paper a new MINP model was developed to formulate the single RLP. To overcome the imperfections
of the analytical and the heuristic methods a meta-heuristic simulated annealing was presented. Since in the
real construction projects the activities are sometimes split due to resource limitation, splitting is comprised in
the model. Considering splitting in the activities resulted in a more flexible problem and better answers in
comparison to GARLS and PACK methods that do not allow splitting. Although
In real construction projects splitting may not be allowable in some particular activities. So, in the course
of future research, a new model will be proposed to allow splitting only in some of the activities not all of them.
In addition a new approach will be used to generate the neighborhoods.

References

1. Project Management Institute. (2007), “Practice Standard for Scheduling,” Project Management Institute
Inc. Pennsylvania, USA.
2. Józefowska, J. and Weglarz, J. (2006), “Perspectives in Modern Project Scheduling,” Springer, New York,
USA.

6
 8th National Congress on Civil Engineering, 7-8 May 2014
Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, Babol, Iran

3. Hendrickson, C. (2003), “Project Management for Construction,” Prentice Hall, Pittsburgh, USA.
4. Harris, R. B. (1978), “Precedence and Arrow Networking Techniques for Construction,” Wiley, New York,
USA.
5. El-Rayes, K. and Jun, D. (2009). ”Optimizing Resource Leveling in Construction Projects.” Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 135 (11), pp. 1172–1180.
6. Easa, S.M. (1989). “Resource leveling in construction by optimization,” Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, ASCE, 115 (2). pp. 302- 316.
7. Leu, S. S., Yang, C. H. and Huang, J. C. (2000). “Resource Leveling in Construction by Genetic Algorithm-
Based Optimization and its Decision Support System Application.” Journal of Automation in Construction,
10 (1). pp. 27–41.
8. Koulinas, G. and Anagnostopoulos, K. (2012). “Construction Resource Allocation and Leveling Using a
Threshold Accepting–Based Hyper-heuristic Algorithm.” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, ASCE, 138 (7). pp. 854–863.
9. Rieck, J. Zimmermann, J. and Gather, T. (2012). “Mixed-Integer Linear Programming for Resource
Leveling Problems,” European Journal of Operational Research, 221 (1). pp. 27-37.
10. Harris R.B. (1990). “Packing Method for Resource Leveling (PACK),” Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, ASCE, 116 (2). pp. 331–350.
11. Padilla, E. and Carr, R. (1991). “Resource Strategies for Dynamic Project Management.” Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 117 (2). pp. 279–293.
12. Wiest J.D. and Levy, F.K. (1977). “A Management Guide to PERT/CPM,” Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, USA.
13. Antill, J. M. and Woodhead, R.W. (1982). “Critical Path Methods in Construction Practice,” 3rd ed., Wiley,
New York, USA.
14. Moder, J.J., Philips, C.R. and Davis E.W.(1983). “Project Management with CPM, PERT and Precedence
Diagramming,” 3rd ed., Van Nostrand-Reinhold, New York, USA.
15. Hossein Hashemi Doulabi, S., Seifi, A., and Shariat, S. (2011). “Efficient Hybrid Genetic Algorithm for
Resource Leveling via Activity Splitting.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 137
(2). pp. 137–146.
16. Damci, A. Arditi, D. and Polat, G. (2013). “Multi-resource Leveling in Line-of-Balance Scheduling,”
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 139 (9). pp. 1108–1116.
17. Geng, J. Weng, L. and Liu, S. (2011). “An Improved Ant Colony Optimization Algorithm for Nonlinear
Resource Leveling Problems,” Journal of Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 61 (8). pp. 2300–
2305.
18. Alsayegh, H. and Hariga, M. (2012). “Hybrid Meta-heuristic Methods for the Multi-resource Leveling
Problem with Activity Splitting,” Journal of Automation in Construction, 27 (11). pp. 89–98.
19. Ponz-Tienda, J. L. Yepes, V. Pellicer, E. and Moreno-Flores, J. (2013). “The Resource Leveling Problem
with Multiple Resources Using an Adaptive Genetic Algorithm,” Journal of Automation in Construction, 29
(1). pp. 161–172.
20. Koulinas, G.K. and Anagnostopoulos, K.P. (2013). “A New Tabu Search-based Hyper-heuristic Algorithm
for Solving Construction Leveling Problems with Limited Resource Availabilities,” Journal of Automation in
Construction, 31 (3). pp. 169–175.
21. Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt, Jr., C.D. and Vecchi, M.P. (1983). “Optimization by Simulated Annealing,” Journal
of Science, 220, pp. 671–680.
22. Cerny, V. (1985). “A Thermodynamic Approach to the Traveling Salesman Problem: an Efficient
Simulation,” Journal of Optimization Theory and Application, 45, pp. 41–51.
23. Bertismas, D. and Tsitsklis, J. (1993). “Simulated Annealing,” Journal of Statistical Science, 8 (1). pp. 10–
15.

7
 8th National Congress on Civil Engineering, 7-8 May 2014
Babol Noshirvani University of Technology, Babol, Iran

24. Henderson, D. Jacobson, S. H. Johnson, A. W. (2003). “Handbook of Metaheuristics, The Theory and
Practice of Simulated Annealing,” International Series in Operations Research & Management Science,
Springer, 57, pp 287–319.
25. Eglese, R.W. (1990). “Simulated Annealing: A Tool for Operational Research,” European Journal of
Operational Research, 46 (3). pp. 271–281.
26. Hegazy, T. (1999). “Optimization of Resource Allocation and Leveling using Genetic Algorithms,” Journal
of Construction Engineering Management, 125 (3). pp 167–175.
27. Nascimento, V. B. and Carvalho, V. E. (1999). “The Simulated Annealing Global Search Algorithm
Applied to the Crystallography of Surface by LEED,” Surface Review and Letters, 6 (5). pp. 651–661

View publication stats