Journal of Scheduling

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 225–241 | Cite as

Energetic reasoning for energy-constrained scheduling with a continuous resource

  • Christian ArtiguesEmail author
  • Pierre Lopez


This paper addresses a scheduling problem with continuous resources and energy constraints. Given a set of non-preemptive activities, each activity requires a continuously divisible resource whose instantaneous usage is limited in maximum and minimum, its processing satisfying a time window and a total energy (time \(\times \) resource-usage) requirement. The goal consists of getting a schedule satisfying all the constraints. The problem, which we refer to as the Energy-Constrained Scheduling Problem with Continuous Resources (CECSP), is a generalization of the well-known cumulative scheduling problem for which the “energetic reasoning” or “left-shift/right-shift” necessary feasibility condition yielded a popular polynomially computable satisfiability test. The paper presents a generalization of the energetic reasoning for the CECSP, defining precisely the activity minimum consumptions and exhibiting a polynomial number of relevant time intervals on which it is sufficient to apply the satisfiability tests. A strongly polynomial energetic reasoning satisfiability test can be derived for the considered generalization, which also yields a short proof for the complexity of the original algorithm. Some limits of the approach, as well as an approximation framework for more general resource consumption functions, are also addressed.


Scheduling with continuous resources  Energy requirement Energetic reasoning satisfiability test Complexity 



This research was part of OCrE project supported by CNRS/INSIS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique/Institut des Sciences de l’Ingénierie et des Systèmes). The authors are indebted to David Rivreau for enlightening discussions. A preliminary version of this work was presented as a “Late breaking abstract” at CPAIOR 2011, Berlin, and we thank an anonymous referee for pointing out to us the interest of studying the fixed start time case. Finally, the authors warmly thank Margaux Nattaf for her help on improving the revised version of the paper.


  1. Artigues, C., Lopez, P., & Haït, A. (2013). The energy scheduling problem: Industrial case study and constraint propagation techniques. International Journal of Production Economics, 143(1), 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baptiste, P., Le Pape, C., & Nuijten, W. (1999). Satisfiability tests and time-bound adjustments for cumulative scheduling problems. Annals of Operations research, 92, 305–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baptiste, P., Le Pape, C., & Nuijten, W. (2001). Constraint-based scheduling. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barketau, M. S., Kovalyov, M. Y., Machowiak, M., & Wȩglarz, J. (2014). Scheduling arbitrary number of malleable tasks on multiprocessor systems. Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences: Technical Sciences, 62(2), 255–261.Google Scholar
  5. Beldiceanu, N., & Poder, E. (2007). A continuous multi-resources cumulative constraint with positive-negative resource consumption-production. In P. Van Hentenryck & L. Wolsey (Eds.), CPAIOR 2007 LNCS (Vol. 4510, pp. 214–228). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Berthold, T., Heinz, S., & Schulz, J. (2011). An approximative criterion for the potential of energetic reasoning. In A. Marchetti-Spaccamela & M. Segal (Eds.), TAPAS 2011 LNCS (Vol. 6595, pp. 229–239). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Błażewicz, J., Ecker, K. H., Pesch, E., Schmidt, G., & Wȩglarz, J. (1996). Scheduling computer and manufacturing processes. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Błażewicz, J., Kovalyov, M. Y., Machowiak, M., Trystram, D., & Wȩglarz, J. (2006). Preemptable malleable task scheduling problem. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 55(4), 486–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coelho, J., & Vanhoucke, M. (2011). Multi-mode resource-constrained project scheduling using RCPSP and SAT solvers. European Journal of Operational Research, 213(1), 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Erschler, J., Lopez, P. (1990). Energy-based approach for task scheduling under time and resources constraints. In 2nd International Workshop on Project Management and Scheduling (pp. 115–121). France: Compiègne.Google Scholar
  11. Fündeling, C.-U., & Trautmann, N. (2010). A priority-rule method for project scheduling with work-content constraints. European Journal of Operational Research, 203(3), 568–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gaoua, Y., Caux, S., Lopez, P. (2013). Energy management for an electric vehicle based on combinatorial modeling. In 5th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Systems Management (IESM 2013). Morocco: Rabat.Google Scholar
  13. Horbach, A. (2010). A Boolean satisfiability approach to the resource-constrained project scheduling problem. Annals of Operations Research, 181, 89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Irani, S., & Pruhs, K. (2005). Algorithmic problems in power management. SIGACT News, 36(2), 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jacomino, M., & Le, M.-H. (2012). Robust energy planning in buildings with energy and comfort costs. 4OR, 10(1), 81–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lizarralde, I., Esquirol, P., & Rivière, A. (2011). A decision support system to schedule design activities with interdependency and resource constraints. Projectics / Proyéctica / Projectique, 1(7), 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lopez, P., Esquirol, P. (1996). Consistency enforcing in scheduling: A general formulation based on energetic reasoning. In 5th International Workshop on Project Management and Scheduling (pp. 155–158). Poland: Poznań.Google Scholar
  18. Mercier, L., & Van Hentenryck, P. (2007). Strong polynomiality of resource constraint propagation. Discrete Optimization, 4, 288–314.Google Scholar
  19. Nolde, K., & Morari, M. (2010). Electrical load tracking scheduling of a steel plant. Computers and Operations Research, 34(11), 1899–1903.Google Scholar
  20. Ranjbar, M., De Reyck, B., & Kianfar, F. (2009). A hybrid scatter search for the discrete time/resource trade-off problem in project scheduling. European Journal of Operational Research, 193(1), 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schutt, A., Feydy, T., Stuckey, P. J., & Wallace, M. (2011). Explaining the cumulative propagator. Constraints, 16(3), 173–194.Google Scholar
  22. Schutt, A., Feydy, T., Stuckey, P. J., & Wallace, M. (2013). Solving RCPSP/max by lazy clause generation. Journal of Scheduling, 16(3), 273–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. van den Akker, J. M., Diepen, G., & Hoogeveen, J. A. (2007). A column generation based destructive lower bound for resource constrained project scheduling problems. In P. Van Hentenryck & L. Wolsey (Eds.), CPAIOR 2007 LNCS (Vol. 4510, pp. 376–390). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Vilím, P. (2009). Max energy filtering algorithm for discrete cumulative resources. In W.-J. Van Hoeve & J. N. Hooker (Eds.), CPAIOR 2009 LNCS (Vol. 5547, pp. 294–308). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Waligóra, G. (2011). Heuristic approaches to discrete-continuous project scheduling problems to minimize the makespan. Computational Optimization and Applications, 48(2), 399–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wȩglarz, J. (1981). Project scheduling with continuously-divisible, doubly constrained resources. Management Science, 27(9), 1040–1053.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNRS, LAASToulouseFrance
  2. 2.Univ de Toulouse, LAASToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations