A New Multi-resource cumulatives Constraint with Negative Heights

  • Nicolas Beldiceanu
  • Mats Carlsson
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2470)


This paper presents a new cumulatives constraint, which generalizes the original cumulative constraint in different ways. The two most important aspects consist in permitting multiple cumulative resources as well as negative heights for the resource consumption of the tasks. This allows modeling in an easy way workload covering, producer-consumer, and scheduling problems. The introduction of negative heights has forced us to come up with new filtering algorithms and to revisit existing ones. The first filtering algorithm is derived from an idea called sweep, which is extensively used in computational geometry; the second algorithm is based on a combination of sweep and constructive disjunction; while the last is a generalization of task intervals to this new context. A real-life crew scheduling problem originally motivated this constraint which was implemented within the SICStus finite domain solver and evaluated against different problem patterns.


Schedule Problem Resource Consumption Project Schedule Problem Pattern Sweep Algorithm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aggoun, A., Beldiceanu, N.: Extending CHIP to solve Complex Scheduling and Packing Problems. Mathl. Comput. Modelling, 17(7), pages 57–73, (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Artigues, C, Roubellat, F.: A polynomial activity insertion algorithm in a multiresource schedule with cumulative constraints and multiple modes. In European Journal of Operational Research (EJOR), 127, pages 297–316, (2000).zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barták, R.: Dynamic Constraint Models for Planning and Scheduling Problems. In New Trends in Constraints (Papers from the Joint ERCIM/Compulog-Net Workshop, Cyprus, October 25–27, 1999), LNAI 1865, Springer Verlag, (2000).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baptiste, P., Le Pape, C, Nuijten, W.: Constraint-based Scheduling. Kluwer Academic Publishers, International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, (2001).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beck, J. C, Fox, M. S.: Constraint-directed techniques for scheduling alternative activities. In Artificial Intelligence 121, pages 211–250, (2000).MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beldiceanu, N.: Pruning for the minimum Constraint Family and for the number of distinct values Constraint Family. In Proc. of the 7 th CP, 211–224, Paphos, (2001).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beldiceanu, N., Carlsson, M.: Sweep as a Generic Pruning Technique Applied to the Non-Overlapping Rectangles Constraint. In Proc. of the 7 th CP, 377–391, Paphos, (2001).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Berg, M., van Kreveld, M., Overmars, M., Schwarzkopf, O.: Computational Geometry–Algorithms and Applications. Springer, (1997).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brucker, P., Drexl, A., Möhring, R., Neumann, K., Pesch, E.: Resource-constrained project scheduling: Notation, classification, models and methods, in EJOR 112, pages 3–41, (1999).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carlsson, M., Ottosson G., Carlson, B.: An Open-Ended Finite Domain Constraint Solver. Proc. Programming Languages: Implementations, Logics, and Programs, vol. 1292 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 191–206, Springer-Verlag, (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Caseau, Y., Laburthe, F.: Cumulative Scheduling with Task Intervals. In Proceedings of the Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, MIT Press, (1996).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Backer, B., Beringer, A.: A CLP Language Handling Disjunctions of Linear Constraints. In Proc. 10 th International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 550–563, (1993).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Erschler, J., Lopez, P.: Energy-based approach for task scheduling under time and resources constraints. In 2nd International Workshop on Project Management and Scheduling, pages 115–121, Compiègne (France), June 20–22, (1990).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Herroelen, W., Demeulemeester, E., De Reyck, B.: A Classification Scheme for Project Scheduling Problems. in: Weglarz J. (Ed.), Handbook on Recent advances in Project Scheduling, Kluwer Academic Publishers, (1998).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lahrichi, A.: Scheduling: the Notions of Hump, Compulsory Parts and their Use in Cumulative Problems. in: C. R. Acad. Se. Paris, t. 294, pages 209–211, (1982).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Poder, E., Beldiceanu, N., Sanlaville, E.: Computing the Compulsory Part of a Task with Varying Duration and Varying Resource Consumption. Submitted to European Journal of Operational Research (EJOR), (February 2001).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Preparata, F. P., Shamos, M. I.: Computational geometry. An introduction. Springer-Verlag, (1985).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Simonis, H., Cornelissens, T.: Modelling Producer/Consumer Constraints. In Proc. of the 1 st CP, 449–462, Cassis, (1995).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Hentenryck, P., Saraswat, V., Deville, Y.: Design, Implementation and Evaluation of the Constraint Language cc(FD). In A. Podelski, ed., Constraints: Basics and Trends, vol. 910 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, (1995).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Würtz, J.: Oz Scheduler: A Workbench for Scheduling Problems. In Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, Nov l6–19 1996, IEEE Computer Society Press, (1996).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolas Beldiceanu
    • 1
  • Mats Carlsson
    • 1
  1. 1.SICSUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations