Foray 230 / essai 01 / resource feasibility
Can the work
still fit?
A bridge between two peaks. Six supplied jobs. Each needs a whole crew bundle for its whole duration. Move the priorities, retain an extra specialist, or reduce the crew. Which allocations still fit?
One fictional construction method, before its supplied work begins. Fixed prerequisites and constant crew capacities. Every displayed schedule is checked. Changes stay in this page and its link; nothing is uploaded.
Compare an extra installer, an extra rigger, then both. Capacity only helps when the other constraints allow it.
Explore the crew choices ↓03 / Read the pile
Time rises. People are columns.
Select a coloured block to inspect the whole task. Empty cells are spare capacity. Scroll sideways to see every column.
Selected task
Span frame assembly
Why this result is credible
CheckingThese are distinct results of all legal priority orders. Schedules with deliberate extra waiting are not listed.
The logic under the blocks
Haul the bridge kit → prepare the peak anchors → assemble the span frame → fit deck panels and the guardrails/utility line. The recovery kit needs the haul, but sits in a separate prepared staging ledge at the west peak; it can be fitted independently of the span. Completion means all six jobs have finished.
| Task | Days | Whole crew needed | Must wait for |
|---|
No task is interrupted. Resources renew when a task finishes. Whole-day durations and the construction rules are fictional assumptions. Weather, fatigue, material shortages, structural design and access windows are outside this small model. A different crew setting applies throughout the schedule; it does not remove people halfway through a job.
Keep an inspectable result
The link restores your inputs and priority. The JSON export includes those inputs, the schedule, named resource assignments and verification results. A visible copy remains available if your browser cannot save a file.
This is a snapshot of the exported schedule. Changing the model clears it; export again for a fresh result.
Method, scope and lineage
A checked ingredient for a larger question.
This essai tests whether a supplied package of bridge work fits its crew. It does not decide which work remains possible after irreversible construction. A lower crew capacity can make these jobs impossible without showing whether a different method could recover the project. Essai 02 asks about changing method from a committed state →
Scheduling first
This is the single-mode resource-constrained project scheduling problem: fixed task durations, renewable capacities and finish-to-start prerequisites. Each legal priority order is turned into an earliest feasible schedule. With just six tasks, we can try every such order and report a minimum finish for this model.
The method follows Karapetyan & Vernitski’s serial schedule generation scheme. A separate checker replays coverage, timing, prerequisites and resource use. Named crew columns are assigned afterwards in chronological order; priority order can place a later-selected job into an earlier gap.
Geometry with a precise meaning
The display keeps the original Tetris-like idea. Every rectangle occupies one named resource unit over a verified interval; the pieces belonging to one task stay together in time. Physical prerequisites and chosen resource orders are different constraints.
The drawing is inspired by Gaubert & Mairesse’s task-resource heaps. This pooled-resource scheduler does not claim to implement their max-plus heap product, or a Petri-to-SMC translation.
Lineage: Gimmer 27, Resource Heaps. Its scheduling engine, resource geometry, alternatives and inspectable witnesses continue here in a bridge setting. Original question. A Tetris for project resourcing decisions supplies the early geometric intuition. This implementation checks schedules for its six-task model; it does not claim to implement a max-plus heap product.