Comparative Experiments with GRASP and Constraint Programming for the Oil Well Drilling Problem

  • Romulo A. Pereira
  • Arnaldo V. Moura
  • Cid C. de Souza
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3503)


Before promising locations become productive oil wells, it is often necessary to complete drilling activities at these locations. The scheduling of such activities must satisfy several conflicting constraints and attain a number of goals. Here, we describe a Greedy Randomized Adaptive Search Procedure (GRASP) for the scheduling of oil well drilling activities. The results are compared with those from a well accepted constraint programming implementation. Computational experience on real instances indicates that the GRASP implementation is competitive, outperforming the constraint programming implementation.


Constraint Programming Local Search Algorithm Construction Phase Greedy Heuristic Local Search Phase 
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.
    do Nascimento, J.M.: Hybrid computational tools for the optimization of the production of petroleum in deep waters. Master’s thesis, Institute of Computing, University of Campinas (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marriott, K., Stuckey, P.J.: Programming with Constraints: An introduction. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ILOG: ILOG Solver 4.4 Reference Manual. ILOG (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Glover, F., Laguna, M.: Tabu Search. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feo, T.A., Resende, M.G.C.: Greedy randomized adaptative search procedures. Journal of Global Optimization 6, 109–133 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Festa, P., Resende, M.G.C.: GRASP: An annotated bibliography. Technical report, AT&T Labs (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aiex, R.M., Binato, S., Resende, M.G.C.: Parallel GRASP with path-relinking for job shop scheduling. Parallel Computing 29, 393–430 (2003)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bard, J.F., Feo, T.A.: Operations sequencing in discrete parts manufacturing. Management Science 35, 249–255 (1989)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feo, T.A., Bard, J.F.: Flight scheduling and maintenance base planning. Management Science 35, 1415–1432 (1989)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feo, T.A., Bard, J., Holland, S.: Facility-wide planning and scheduling of printed wiring board assembly. Operations Research 43, 219–230 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Binato, S., Hery, W.J., Loewenstern, D., Resende, M.G.C.: A GRASP for job shop scheduling. In: Hansen, P., Ribeiro, C.C. (eds.) Essays and surveys on metaheuristics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roy, B., Sussmann, B.: Les problèmes d’ordonnancement avec contraintes disjonctives. In: Note DS No 9 bis, Paris, SEMA (1964)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yannakakis, M.: Computational complexity. In: Aarts, E.H.L., Lenstra, J.K. (eds.) Local Search in Combinatorial Optimization, 1997, pp. 19–55. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Romulo A. Pereira
    • 1
  • Arnaldo V. Moura
    • 1
  • Cid C. de Souza
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of ComputingUniversity of Campinas 

Personalised recommendations