Formalizing Construction Sequencing Constraints for Rapid Generation of Schedule Alternatives

Construction planners today use CPM-based schedules to represent the planned logical sequence of activities to perform a project. A construction schedule typically represents the sequence of multiple trades that perform individual work while sharing common workspaces or resources. The logic or “rationale” behind activity sequences of these schedules can include physical relationships between components (e.g., supported by), trade interactions (e.g., workspace competition) or safety and code regulations (e.g., testing). Due to changing project demands, planners frequently need to modify activity sequences during the course of a project. More than one alternative can exist, and hence planners need to develop and evaluate alternative sequences correctly and rapidly to make well-informed decisions. When developing sequencing alternatives, planners need to understand the physical or technical “role” an activity plays on following activities. They also need to distinguish between activities that may or may not be delayed. Planners infer the role and “status” (i.e., whether an activity may be delayed) of activities based on the initial rationale and flexibility of the constraints between activities. However, the current CPM framework only distinguishes the temporal aspects of constraints (e.g., FS precedence relationship) and only distinguishes the time-criticality of activities. Consequently, determining the role and status of activities can only be performed in the planner’s minds. Hence, identifying and developing sequencing alternatives using CPM-based schedules is today an error-prone and time-consuming process. In this paper, we introduce research to determine how sequencing constraints can be represented to enable planners to describe rationale accurately. We also introduce an activity classification mechanism that can be used by a computer system to automatically determine the role and status of activities. We describe a formalized process that utilizes the representation and classification mechanism to assist planners in developing sequencing alternatives correctly and accurately. Finally, we discuss the necessary research to validate the generality and power of the proposed approach more fully.

[1]  James M. Antill,et al.  Critical path methods in construction practice , 1970 .

[2]  George S. Birrell Construction Planning—Beyond the Critical Path , 1980 .

[3]  Heng Li,et al.  Using machine learning and GA to solve time-cost trade-off problems , 1999 .

[4]  C. William Ibbs,et al.  Sequencing Knowledge for Construction Scheduling , 1991 .

[5]  Tarek Hegazy,et al.  Optimization of Resource Allocation and Leveling Using Genetic Algorithms , 1999 .

[6]  Raymond E. Levitt,et al.  OARPLAN: Generating project plans by reasoning about objects, actions and resources , 1988, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[7]  Chris Hendrickson,et al.  Hierarchical Rule‐Based Activity Duration Estimation , 1987 .

[8]  John W. Fondahl The Development of the Construction Engineer: Past Progress and Future Problems , 1991 .

[9]  Kalle Kähkönen Modelling activity dependencies for building construction project scheduling , 1993 .

[10]  Gregory A. Howell,et al.  WHAT IS LEAN CONSTRUCTION - 1999 , 1999 .

[11]  Gregory A. Howell,et al.  SHIELDING PRODUCTION: ESSENTIAL STEP IN PRODUCTION CONTROL , 1998 .

[12]  Florian Aalami,et al.  Construction Method Models: The Glue Between Design and Construction , 1998 .

[13]  Chung-Wei Feng,et al.  Using genetic algorithms to solve construction time-cost trade-off problems , 1997 .

[14]  Boyd C. Paulson,et al.  Value-added assessment of construction plans , 1999 .

[15]  Herbert Schildt,et al.  Java 2: The Complete Reference , 1997 .

[16]  Yvan J. Beliveau,et al.  SCaRC: Space-Constrained Resource-Constrained Scheduling System , 1997 .

[17]  Iris D. Tommelein,et al.  Space Schedule Construction , 1993 .

[18]  Chung-Wei Feng,et al.  The LP/IP hybrid method for construction time-cost trade-off analysis , 1996 .

[19]  David R. Riley,et al.  Patterns of Construction-Space Use in Multistory Buildings , 1995 .

[20]  Florian Aalami,et al.  JOINT PRODUCT AND PROCESS MODEL ELABORATION BASED ON CONSTRUCTION METHOD MODELS , 1998 .

[21]  R. Faure,et al.  Introduction to operations research , 1968 .

[22]  Daniel W. Halpin,et al.  Planning and analysis of construction operations , 1992 .

[23]  Osama Moselhi,et al.  Least impact algorithm for resource allocation , 1993 .

[24]  Keith C. Crandall Resource Allocation with Project Manager Control , 1985 .

[25]  Mark Clayton,et al.  THE CHARRETTE TEST METHOD , 2004 .

[26]  Robert D. Logcher,et al.  GHOST: Project Network Generator , 1988 .

[27]  Chris Hendrickson,et al.  Knowledge-Based Construction Project Planning , 1989 .

[28]  C. William Ibbs,et al.  Network Resource Allocation with Support of a Fuzzy Expert System , 1990 .

[29]  Sou-Sen Leu,et al.  Fuzzy Optimal Model for Resource-Constrained Construction Scheduling , 1999 .

[30]  Edward W. Davis,et al.  Project Scheduling under Resource Constraints—Historical Review and Categorization of Procedures , 1973 .

[31]  Burcu Akinci,et al.  4-D Workplanner: A Prototype System for Automated Generation of Construction Spaces and Analysis of Time-Space Conflicts , 2000 .