Overhaul-Tasks Scheduling Model: A Structured Approach for Solving Combinatorial Problems on Aircraft Maintenance Events

  • Beniamino Paoletti
  • Maria Letizia Profili
  • Ivana Calí
Part of the Applied Optimization book series (APOP, volume 79)


When an aircraft maintenance event occurs, the overhaul tasks management process requires the execution of all the tasks to perform and has to guarantee the on-time aircraft delivery and the respect of the daily flight schedule. The scheduling process has to take into account several constraints (as deadlines — respect of ground time and intermediate deadlines —, resources availability — material, equipment, infrastructures and human resources —, precedence relations — among activities or groups of activities) and has to realise a set of objectives (grounding reduction and efficient resources allocation). For this purpose an optimisation model has been developed: it supports overhaul departments and their operative management in scheduling set of activities during maintenance events. The model is able to get the optimal tasks scheduling for each aircraft overhaul, building efficient sequences and assigning the best activities starting time. It takes into account the process constraints and a multi-objective function has been applied, in order to assure the minimum makespan (grounding) — for a cost decreasing policy — and to get the earliest “activities starting” — for a manpower release as soon as possible. The problem has been approached as a typical Resources-Constrained Project Scheduling Problem — the most general class of scheduling problems — and it belongs to the class of NP-complete combinatorial problems. The model has been mathematically formalised as an integer linear problem and a time-windows approach has been followed, using variables referred to activity starting time instead of to precedence relations, because of the restricted Pert. Interesting the resulting structure of the problem, obtained by applying some resolution method techniques for reducing computational complexity: phases-based scheduling, destructive improvement, stepping improvement, lower bound evaluation techniques. The Multi-Mode Case has been adopted as feature of the model, introducing flexibility in the way to perform activities. The model has been developed using CPLEX and computational results are very appreciable, considering the plethora of variables to manage: about two thousand activities are performed on heaviest events in an elapsed time of forty or fifty days, for a final total amount of one million seven hundred thousand variables.


scheduling task project management time-windows destructive improvement multi-mode case 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Baptiste P., Le Pape C. A theoretical and experimental comparison of constraint propagation techniques for disjunctive scheduling. Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on artificial Intelligence (IJ-CAI), Montreal, Canada, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Boctor F.F. A new and efficient heuristic for scheduling projects with resource restrictions and multiple execution modes. European Journal of Operational Research 90 349–361, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Boctor F. F. Some efficient multi-heuristic procedures for resource-constrained project scheduling. European Journal of Operational Research 117 591–605, 1990.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Brucker P., Drexl A., Mohring R., Neumann K., Pesch E. Resource-constrained project scheduling: Notation, classification, models and methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 112 3–41, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Brucker P., Knust S. A linear programming and constraint propagation-based lower bound for the RCPSP. European Journal of Operational Research, 127 355–362, 2000.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Brucker P., Knust S., Schoo A., Thiele 0. A branch and bound algorithm for the resource-constrained project scheduling problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 49 3–13, 1998.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Call I. Esercizio del trasporto aereo: ottimizzazione della manuten-zione di aeromobili Tesi di Laurea, Università degli Studi di Catania, Anno Accademico 2000–2001.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Christofides N., Alvarez-Valdés R., Tamarit J. M. Project scheduling with resource constraints: A branch and bound approach. European Journal of Operational Research 29 262–273, 1987.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Demeulemeester E., Herroelen W. A branch-and-bound procedure for the multiple resource-constrained project scheduling problem. Management Science 38 1803–1818, 1992.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Demeulemeester E., Herroelen W. New benchmark results for the resource-constrained project scheduling problem. Management Science 43 1485–1492, 1997.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Ecker K.H. Scheduling of resource tasks. European Journal of Operational Research 115 314–327, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    ILOG, CPLEX 6.5 Reference Manual France: ILOG, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Klein R., Scholl A. Computing lower bounds by destructive improvement: An application to resource-constrained project scheduling. European Journal of Operational Research 112 322–346, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Kolisch R. Project Scheduling under Resource Constraints — Efficient Heuristics for Several Problem Classes. Heidelberg: Physica, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Le Pape C. Implementation of resource constraints in ILOG SCHEDULE — A library for the development of constrained-based scheduling systems. Intelligent Systems Engineering, 3 55–66, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Neumann K., Zimmermann J. Resource levelling for projects with schedule-dependent time windows. European Journal of Operational Research, 117 591–605, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Oguz O., Bala H. A comparative study of computational procedures for the resource constrained project scheduling problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 72 406–416, 1994.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Papadimitriou C.H. Computational complexity. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1995.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Papadimitriou C.H., Steiglitz K. Combinatorial optimization: algorithms and complexity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1982zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Serafini P. Ottimizzazione. Bologna, Italia: Zanichelli, 2000.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Serafini P., Speranza M.G. A decomposition approach for a resource constrained scheduling problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 75 112–135, 1994.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Shewchuk J. P., Chang T. C. Resource-constrained job scheduling with recyclable resources. European Journal of Operational Research, 81 364–375, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Sprecher A., Drexl A. Multi-mode resource-constrained project scheduling problems by a simple, general and powerful sequencing algorithm. European Journal of Operational Research 107 431–450, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Sprecher A., Kolisch R., Drexl A. Semi-active, active, and non-delay schedules for the resource-constrained project scheduling problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 80 94–102, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beniamino Paoletti
    • 1
  • Maria Letizia Profili
    • 2
  • Ivana Calí
    • 3
  1. 1.Operational Research DepartmentAlitaliaRomaItaly
  2. 2.Operational Research DepartmentAlitaliaItaly
  3. 3.AlitaliaItaly

Personalised recommendations